Exploring Students’ Push and Pull Motivations to Visit Rural Educational Tourism Sites in China

Abstract

Educational tourism in rural areas promotes local employment, economic development, and poverty alleviation. Given that there is a lack of research on emerging and developing nations, this study adopted the viewpoint of an emerging country and empirically demonstrates the relationships of consumer behavior with education tourism in rural areas. In particular, the study focused on push-pull motivation factors and loyalty. The mediating role of overall satisfaction on the relationship between push-pull motivation and loyalty was also investigated. The study extracted questions from a sample of 234 students in China and quantitatively analyzed the data using a structural equation model (SEM). The results show that pull motivation factors contribute directly to loyalty, and push motivation was the strongest construct influencing loyalty through overall satisfaction. The results show that in this field, managers need to pay more attention to push and pull motivation at different marketing stages.

1. Introduction

The push-pull theory is an effective motivation research theory that focuses on the needs of tourists, combines intrinsic motivation with the attributes of destinations, and realizes the link between demand and supply. For the educational tourism (ET) industry, it is very important to understand consumer needs and apply them to the supply side because this can provide guidance for destination operators [1,2,3,4]. Researchers and industry professionals are assured that educational tourism will continue to play a big role in the tourism industry despite the fact that COVID-19 has had a substantial impact on it. ET has more room for ongoing development and improvement, which can help China’s economy expand and thrive [5]. Ref. [6] used the perspective of anthropology to classify the individuals involved in research travel. It contains adult studies, educational tourism for college and university students, school tourism, ecotourism, and cultural tourism.

Educational tourism (ET) is a form of tourism in which people travel to gain new knowledge, skills, or insights related to a particular subject or area of interest. The primary motivation behind educational tourism is the desire to learn, which sets it apart from other forms of tourism that focus on relaxation, entertainment, or adventure. Learning can be both a primary and secondary motivation for educational tourism. For some participants, the primary motivation may be to acquire new knowledge or skills in a specific area, while for others, learning may be a secondary benefit that enhances their travel experience. Regardless of the level of motivation, the pursuit of knowledge is a key aspect of educational tourism. There are many ways to achieve this learning goal, including not only formal learning with expert guidance but also independent informal learning [6]. Figure 1 is the conceptual model of the definition of educational tourism. Later, researchers developed “Edu-tourism” as the participants travel away from their place of origin with the primary purpose of exploring educational resources that translate to the learning experience [7]. In China, education tourism is an educational activity combining both research learning and travel experience. It is an innovative educational form that connects school education with after-school education, an important content form of education and teaching, and an effective way to cultivate students through comprehensive practice. Following ref. [6]’s definition, educational tourism participants in China specifically refer to students only.

Educational tourism has a significant positive impact on economic growth [8], and it is also a strategy to achieve the sustainable development of tourism [9,10]. Especially in rural areas, tourism activities are considered a “smart opportunity” for the sustainable development of the rural environment and have a multiplier effect on the economic and social life of the community [11,12]. Rural educational travel has become an ally of agriculture, promoting agricultural diversification, narrowing the income gap between urban and rural areas [13], and adjusting the phenomenon of rural population loss [10]. It helps promote the development of relationships between different business entities [4] and attracts young people [11]. In addition to the benefits to society, it also brings tangible benefits to tour operators, increasing the operators’ income and competitive advantage [14,15], and therefore recovery of the rural operators, i.e., the farmers’ and landowners’ self-esteem [16]. In addition, the researcher also explained from the perspective of economics that educational tourism activities make operations more efficient, reduce marginal costs, broaden operators’ horizons, provide them with business opportunities, and promote the effective allocation of resources [15].

Educational tourism is a niche market of tourism that has been ignored by many tourism scholars [6]. Educational tourism in rural areas can bring economic and social benefits. However, a problem lies in the fact that destination tour operators and managers are constantly being confronted with the pressing challenge of how they can know better about their customers and how to make profits so that the business can be sustainable. Operators need a certain level of culture and education to meet the needs of consumers [3]. Moreover, operators need to have a wider perspective and brand operation knowledge and skills [3] and more extensive human networks from social learning opportunities [17]. For developing countries with many poor people and economically underdeveloped areas, it is of great practical significance to study education tourism in rural areas that can bring so many benefits. According to 2020 figures from China’s National Bureau of Statistics alone, there are approximately 156 million students in need of educational tourism. However, unfortunately, in developing countries, this kind of research is still inadequate [18]. This neglect results in a lack of experts in this area due to insufficient policy support [19].

The study was conducted in Sichuan Province, a region in southwest China with a relatively developed rural tourism industry but a high poverty rate [20]. The aim was to gain a comprehensive understanding of students’ motivations and behavioral intentions when participating in educational tourism in rural areas. Specifically, the study addressed the following questions:

• What motivates students to participate in educational tourism in rural areas?
• How do these motivations influence their behavioral intentions?

By answering these questions, the study aimed to fill the gap in research on educational tourism in rural areas and contribute to the sustainable development of rural tourism.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Push-Pull Motivation Theory

Many studies have attempted to identify push and pull motivational factors in different settings, such as nationalities, destinations, and events [21]. Motivation drives people to start and continue an activity [22]. In the tourism industry, due to tourists’ unwillingness to express or their inability to express their real motivations [23], it is difficult to understand why and where tourists would want to travel. Several theories or models have been developed to guide empirical research on travel motivation, for example, the push-pull theory [24], social psychology model, travel career ladder theory, and travel career patterns theory [23,25,26,27].

The push-pull theory is an effective and widely used theory to study tourism motivation [25,28]. This theory explains why people move from one place to another and states that the driving force of population migration consists of a combination of push and pull motivations. The push-pull theoretical framework is a popular theory to explain the reason why tourists decide to visit a destination rather than other places, the kind of experience they want to gain, and the type of activity they want to do [29]. When we discuss tourism behavior, approaches with a framework are easy to use and very effective [30]. Push motivational factors are generated by internal social–psychological factors, while pull motivational factors are produced by external factors, which are normally the attributes of the destination. This theory truly combines tourism motivation with the attributes and characteristics of tourism destinations [25,28,31,32] and builds a bridge between product demand and product supply so that all activities of tourism destinations can be carried out around the needs of tourists. From the perspective of the demand side, it is of great significance to study the importance of various motivation factors in the development of tourism destinations to improve product quality, business performance, and tourist satisfaction. Based on this theory, internal and external motivations are investigated.

In the niche market of educational tourism, ref. [6] conducted a systematic study that provided a holistic structure for consumer needs, including demographics, travel behavior, motivations, and perceptions. In contrast, the present study aims to identify the core elements of educational travel within the framework of push-pull theory, which provides a better reference for stakeholders. Push motivational factors are socio-psychological factors that motivate individuals to participate in educational tourism activities, while pull motivational factors are elements of destinations that attract students to choose a particular location [33]. By examining both push and pull factors, the study aims to answer the question of “why and where do they go?” and provide insight into students’ motivations and decision-making processes in educational tourism.

2.1.1. Push Motivations in Rural Education Tourism

In ref. [6]’s study on push motivational factors in educational tourism, he identified various internal motivations of educational tourists, including social, escape, exploration, intellectual, fantasy, physiological, and education [6]. However, the study did not differentiate the motivations of specific demographic groups, such as students and the elderly. It is important to note that these groups are likely to have different motivations and cannot be generalized equally. Therefore, further research is required to understand the unique motivations of different demographic groups in educational tourism.

In the travel industry in general, children enjoy being physically active, having the freedom and safety to play, and making new friends independently [34,35]. For college students, traveling sometimes also means doing nothing at all [36]; especially in edu-tourism, relaxation [37] is found to be a motivational factor for them. Traveling is also a great opportunity to explore novelty, for example, learning about different history and customs, discovering something new, sightseeing variety, and becoming closer to nature [38,39]. Ref. [40] also agreed that “to discover something new” is considered an important motivation to travel for both UK and Chinese students. Ref. [41] studied young people aged 18–26 years old and identified knowledge and adventure as their important motivation factors. Other research also showed that push factors (such as the desire to experience a different culture and something new) are also prevalent in mobility between Western countries [38].

Since educational tourism is a combination of learning and tourism, the motivation of learning is also important. Educational tourism is an important part of the Chinese education system. It is seen as a way to enrich students’ learning experience, promote cultural understanding, and foster international cooperation. In China, educational tourism is not obligatory, but it is encouraged by the government. Unlike travel, motivation to learn is an inner process action or a will that forces individuals toward actions that satisfy their needs; therefore, learning tends to be goal-oriented [42]. Ref. [43] studied the motivation of those who go abroad for educational tourism; consequently, two more factors were added: personal development and professional and career opportunity. Participants in educational trips tend to go to a destination to learn knowledge or to a place that will contribute to their future careers [36,38,44,45]. In a study of Malaysian students, achieving career goals was observed as an important motivation for them [46]. Individual growth and development were also important motivational factors. A study of participants in the European ERASMUS educational travel program indicated that students wanted to develop their personal abilities through the program, such as improving their language skills, enhancing their employment opportunities, and promoting personal growth [42].

Push motivational factors were found to be different for different age groups. Compared to certain extreme sports experiences that older people dislike, younger travelers under 26 years old preferred social contact [41]. Moreover, students who participate in educational tourism activities often do not travel alone but are accompanied by their classmates. Students often wish to improve their interaction with friends and family while enhancing their relations [6,27,39,47,48] or social circle [48]; therefore, socialization is also a motivational factor.

2.1.2. Pull Motivations in Rural Education Tourism

Understanding the pull motivational factors that drive people’s selection of travel destinations is crucial for consumers to make informed decisions about where to go [49]. In educational tourism, pull motivation factors can be categorized into tangible and intangible aspects of an attraction. Tangible factors include availability of services, destination performance, staff friendliness, facilities and price, tourism infrastructure, convenience, value, and natural scenery [50]. Intangible factors include tourist perceptions, expectations, and interpretation of the destination, including factors like culture, food variety, and atmosphere [51,52]. Destination climate and culture also play an important role in destination choice [53].

Unique destination characteristics, such as natural beauty, cultural and traditional arts, sports events, and festivals, also attract educational tourists [36,54]. For instance, in China, rural study trips often incorporate natural and environmental education content due to the high demand for nature-based activities in urban areas. Environmental product awareness positively influences repurchase decisions [55]. Thus, the availability of natural scenery may be one of the reasons why students choose rural study trips.

Administrative and financial conditions, such as funding and reasonable tuition fees, are important factors that affect students’ participation in educational tourism [44,56,57]. However, the relationship between fees and applications is non-linear [58]. The nationality, origin, and cultural background of participants also influence destination choices, with Asian students often prioritizing safe and secure environments, cost of living, and geographical proximity [56].

Destination accessibility is another important factor, with educational travelers often choosing destinations that are easily accessible by convenient transportation [59]. Quality is also a key factor, including the quality of professional activities, courses or programs, trainers, and destination staff kindness [44,47]. Finally, policy factors such as government regulations on the number of education trips per year, recognized educational tourism bases, and incorporation of educational tourism into study plans could also motivate participants in rural educational trips [60].

For elementary and middle school students, quality of education, qualified and friendly academic staff, natural and environmental factors, lack of availability of the program in the home country, closeness to home country, and safety are suitable motivational factors [44,47]. Different segment groups, nationalities, origins, cultural backgrounds, and economic environments of participants can also lead to different motivations and priorities [57].

2.2. Research Hypotheses

2.2.1. The Relationship between Motivation and Satisfaction

Ref. [61] introduced that satisfaction is the judgment of customers on the degree to which products and services meet their needs, which can be described as the satisfaction tourists feel after consuming products or services. Customer satisfaction is a psychological state, an emotional response to products or services [62]. In the tourism industry, tourists compare their expectations with on-site experience [63], e.g., whether the cost is reasonable according to the comparison results of the gain and cost. This means it is determined by gap factors, such as customer psychology and external environmental factors [62]. When destination attributes meet the needs and desires of tourists, tourists will have a pleasant experience [64].

Understanding these two motivation factors and the relationship between satisfaction and behavior intention is essential for marketing a destination effectively and boosting the satisfaction of destinations [65]. Previous literature has discussed the effect of motivation on satisfaction [39,52,66,67,68]. Ref. [67] research approved two motivations: both push and pull motivational factors can affect a visitor’s satisfaction. Additionally, based on [54]’s research, the result turned out to be the same: both push and pull motivations have positive relationships to overall satisfaction [54]. This was also supported in youth tourism in Ghana [39]. Early studies established a link between tourist satisfaction and destination attributes, which is related to pull motivational factors [68]; further, researcher [69] findings are also consistent with the results. Tourism managers provide external factors to attract potential tourists, which can satisfy tourists’ motivation and lead to their satisfaction [66]. Moreover, a study on travelers’ push motivation in a coastal destination showed that push motivation has a positive effect on satisfaction, even though the influence is weak [70].

While previous studies on push and pull motivational factors have not specifically targeted certain consumer groups, this paper focuses on rural education tourism, providing insights into factors that may have been overlooked in previous research. However, [68] empirical result on educational tourists found that the motivation factor that directly affects satisfaction is the pull motivation factor rather than the push motivation factor. However, their findings are inconsistent with those of many predecessors, and there are some controversies. Suni found that only pull motivational factors are important to satisfaction in his study of hunters as travelers [52]. In the study of agritourists, using a group similar to the research object in this paper, the positive and direct effects of push factors and pull factors on satisfaction were reinforced [71]. This study focuses on the rural educational tourism market segment of students. Based on previous theoretical studies, the following assumptions were generated:

H1. 

Push motivational factors have a positive relationship with educational tourists’ overall satisfaction in rural areas.

H2. 

Pull motivational factors have a positive relationship with educational tourists’ overall satisfaction in rural areas.

2.2.2. The Relationship between Motivation and Behavior Intention (Revisit Intention and Loyalty)

Tourist motivation factors based on push-pull theory are the advanced condition of tourist destination loyalty, which can predict tourist behavior [68]. Two representative behavioral intentions revisit intention and loyalty [54], with some researchers calling them “loyalty” [66,68]. Several scholars believe that both push and pull motivation factors are strongly positively correlated with revisit intention [59]. There are also many scholars who question this view.

Ref. [66] research on Indonesian tourists reveals that push motivation has a direct impact on loyalty, but pull motivation factors have no significant impact on willingness to revisit and recommend. The push of travel motivation to destination loyalty also shows a significant result in [68] research. So, ref. [66] acknowledged that push motivation is an important factor affecting behavior intentions. Based on their findings, tourist destinations need to understand the needs of tourists, precise positioning, meet the expectations of tourists, and make a good impression on tourists to ensure tourists intend to revisit [66].

However, in ref. [54]’s study, the relationship between push and pull motivation factors and revisit intention and loyalty was only partially proved. In particular, the influence of push motivation factors on the two elements was not supported, indicating that push motivation factors have no significant relationship with tourists’ revisiting intention and recommendation tendency [54]. Ref. [72] also approved that customers’ further behavior will be influenced by the characteristics of the tourist destination, which refers to pull motivation factors. This view is also confirmed in [73] research, which is only partially consistent with the findings of [59]. This was reinforced by [74] in her Agribusiness Study Program, suggesting that the pull factor has a significant effect on revisit intention, but push factors do not.

Thus, both push and pull motivations have been shown to have an impact on behavioral tendencies, although in different literature, many times, only one motivation is confirmed. To this, [73]‘s explanation is, perhaps in different types of tourism industry, push and pull motivation factors may have different influences on customers’ behavioral intentions. In the field of rural tourism or educational tourism, not much research on the relationship between the two elements can be found. However, based on these research contradictions and research gaps in the related tourism industry, the following assumptions were generated:

H3. 

Push motivational factors have a positive relationship with educational tourists’ intention to revisit rural areas.

H4. 

Push motivational factors have a positive relationship with educational tourists’ loyalty to rural areas.

H5. 

Pull motivational factors have a positive relationship with educational tourists’ intention to revisit rural areas.

H6. 

Pull motivational factors have a positive relationship with educational tourists’ loyalty to rural areas.

2.2.3. The Relationship between Overall Satisfaction and Behavior Intention (Revisit Intention and Loyalty)

Satisfaction is an important index to collect feedback from educational tourists, destination tour operators, managers, and researchers who can obtain useful data. [75] believed that satisfied customers can provide customer loyalty and sustainable profitability; therefore, customer satisfaction is crucial to marketing. It even determined the success and continued the existence of tourism [76].

The overall satisfaction of travel experience has been identified by researchers as a key factor in the intention to revisit [73]. Satisfaction is also considered an important determinant of return visits [77] and has a positive impact on tourist loyalty [62]. However, in a competitive market, even satisfied customers may turn to competitors offering better results, leading some researchers to suggest that satisfaction does not necessarily determine the intention to revisit and recommend [78]. Ref. [54]’s study also supports this idea, finding that satisfaction can lead to a willingness to revisit and recommend but is not a determining factor. Based on these findings, the following hypotheses were proposed.

H7. 

Educational tourists’ overall satisfaction is positively related to their intention to revisit rural areas.

H8. 

Educational tourists’ overall satisfaction is positively associated with their loyalty to rural areas.

2.2.4. Satisfaction as a Mediator between Motivation and Behavior Intention (Revisit Intention and Loyalty)

Previous studies have supported that tourist satisfaction is a mediating variable in tourism behavior models [79]. Satisfaction is a prerequisite for loyalty to a tourism destination [80]. After the study of festival participants, it was also established that satisfaction plays a mediating role between motivation and loyalty [81]. Several studies have shown that pull motivation factors are associated with destination loyalty mediated by visitor satisfaction. Ref. [69] established a good model in his study of Muslim tourists’ behavior in Malaysia, which provided evidence of the mediating influence of overall tourist satisfaction on travel motivation and loyalty. Through the study of attendees at aboriginal festivals, ref. [81] also confirmed that motivation can affect loyalty through satisfaction.

Many scholars believe that satisfaction has a significant mediating relationship between pull motivation and loyalty or acts as a full mediating factor [80]. It was suggested that a positive destination image influences the loyal behavioral tendency of tourists through satisfaction, which can promote both tourists and businesses to obtain a favorable and lasting relationship. Satisfaction can mediate the relationship between push/pull factors and loyalty, represented by a willingness to revisit [74]. Likewise, ref. [66] believed that the relationship between destination image (pull motivation) and destination loyalty is mediated by visitor satisfaction, whereas the mediating effect of satisfaction between push motivation and loyalty is not significant. Meanwhile, ref. [82] made an interesting comparison analysis between those who decide to participate in adventure tourism and those who do not. Additionally, it was found that, amongst non-deciders, destination loyalty increased when customers were satisfied with tour services. Satisfaction plays a mediating role between pull motivation factors and destination loyalty. Whereas, for deciders, pull motivational factors directly affect loyalty but not through satisfaction. He speculated that this might be because the decider had previously formed a loyalty to the destination [82].

Ref. [54] partially share the view of the above-mentioned scholars. They argued that both push and pull motivation factors affected revisit intentions through satisfaction. However, neither of these motives affected loyalty through satisfaction. Some scholars only analyzed the willingness to revisit and whether it was influenced by push and pull through satisfaction. The results show that both push and pull motivation indirectly affect the revisit intention of international leisure tourists through destination satisfaction [67]. However, Ref. [71] argued that the above indirect relationships are both significant when he investigated them from an agritourist perspective. Because there is a lot of debate regarding satisfaction as a mediator of motivation and behavioral tendencies, based on previous studies, the following hypotheses were proposed. Additionally, the research framework is shown in Figure 2.

H9 

.Push motivational factors positively influence revisit intention through overall satisfaction.

H10. 

Push motivational factors positively influence loyalty through overall satisfaction.

H11. 

Pull motivational factors positively influence loyalty through overall satisfaction.

H12. 

Pull motivational factors positively influence revisit intention through overall satisfaction.

3. Research Methodology

The purpose of the study was to investigate education tourists’ motivations in rural areas and whether these motivations influenced their behavioral intention. For empirical analysis, this study used an online questionnaire to collect first-hand information during COVID-19. The research area is Sichuan Province. Compared with other regions in China, Sichuan Province is a region with more developed rural education, tourism, and natural education, and also a region with a large scale of poverty [20]. Sichuan Province is a major agricultural region in China. This means that there are many rural areas in Sichuan that offer educational tourism opportunities, such as farm stays, traditional handicraft workshops, and nature study tours. Responses were collected from school students over 11 years old who had taken at least one educational tourism trip to a rural area in this province. During the sampling period, parents were present with their children to provide guidance and support for online questionnaire participation. A random selection method was adopted to collect the data as it ensures that the sample is representative of the population and minimizes bias in the sample. The sampling method followed the procedures recommended by the research of utilizing SmartPLS [83]. Additionally, to reach 5% significance, a minimum sample size of 157 for SmartPLS software was required [84]. This research aimed to reach 220 respondents to meet the sample requirement. A quantitative method was used to examine whether those relationships’ hypotheses between variables are supported by the proposed conceptual framework.

Measurement of Variables

In the design of the questionnaire, the content, language, order, and scale type were carefully considered. Firstly, due to the limited research on educational tourism in rural areas based on the push and pull theory framework, the scales of measurement were generated and deductive from previous literature of similar or related fields such as tourism, rural tourism, educational tourism, and agritourism. Then, the initial measurement items measuring the five dimensions (education, novelty, personal growth, relaxation, and social) of the push factor and the six dimensions (destination specialty, cost, policies, quality factors, accessibility, and safety) of the pull factor were extracted and selected. Their sources are shown in

Table 1. Result of exploratory factor analysis.

Constructs	Items Measuring Push Motivational Factors	Cronbach’s α	CR	AVE	Standardized Factor Loadings	Source(s)
Education and career (Push1)	Learn new knowledge.	0.842	0.894	0.680	0.772	[6,36,44]
	It’s good for my study grades.				0.871
	It improves my practical ability.				0.804
	It will help my future career.				0.846
Relaxation (Push2)	Relieve study pressure.	0.890	0.920	0.696	0.786	[34,35,36]
	Doing nothing at all.				0.820
	Leisure and recreation.				0.866
	Exercise and sports.				0.839
	Get together with family, friends and classmates.				0.858
Novelty (Push3)	Explore the rural areas.	0.842	0.905	0.760	0.871	[6]
	Get to know the local history, culture, and customs.				0.849
	Field trips or social surveys.				0.895
Social (Push4)	Participate in activities organized by the school.	0.842	0.905	0.760	0.870	[6,47]
	Integrated into the group.				0.881
	Build friendships and make new friends.				0.863
Individual growth and development (Push5)	Cultivate self-care ability.	0.893	0.918	0.651	0.771	[42]
	Develop a healthy personality.				0.785
	Increase experience and improve myself.				0.825
	Enhance innovation capability.				0.808
	Learn to work together.				0.849
	Experience social reality.				0.800
Destination Characteristics (Pull1)	Natural scenery.	0.907	0.931	0.728	0.865	[36,54]
	Traditional and cultural arts.				0.858
	Festivals events.				0.817
	Outdoor sports activities.				0.857
	Wild animals and plants.				0.870
Safety (Pull2)	There are no obvious perceived safety risks at the destination.	0.861	0.916	0.783	0.912	[56]
	The destination has a lower level of crime.				0.895
	The destination has a lower level of discrimination.				0.848
Cost (Pull3)	Low fees were my motivation to go.	0.861	0.915	0.783	0.908	[44,56]
	Low travel costs were my motivation to go.				0.892
	The low cost of living was my motivation to go.				0.855
Policy (Pull4)	Affected by the policy, I will choose to go to the destinations recommended by the school.	0.902	0.939	0.836	0.906	[60]
	According to the policy, I should reach the required number of annual educational trips in rural areas.				0.892
	Due to the policy, I will include rural educational travel in my study plan.				0.945
Quality factors (Pull5)	The destination has high-quality courses.	0.849	0.893	0.627	0.859	[42]
	The destination has a high level of educational tourism instructors.				0.846
	The destination has professional staff.				0.823
	The staff at the destination are very friendly.				0.706
	The destination can provide good, professional service.				0.713
Accessibility of destination (Pull6)	The geographical proximity was my motivation to go.	0.915	0.946	0.855	0.921	[59]
	The convenient transportation was my motivation to go.				0.905
	The convenient parking lots were my motivation to go.				0.947
Overall satisfaction (OST)	My overall evaluation of the past experience of educational tourism in rural areas is positive.	0.869	0.911	0.718	0.871	[34,85]
	My overall evaluation of the past experience of educational tourism in rural areas is favorable.				0.850
	I am satisfied with my past experience of educational tourism in rural areas.				0.811
	The experience of educational tourism in rural areas exceeded my expectations.				0.858
Willingness to recommend (WR)	I will say positive things about this site to others.	0.834	0.900	0.751	0.881	[54,85]
	I will recommend this site to others.				0.835
	I will release positive information on social media.				0.882
Revisit intention (RI)	I desire to revisit this destination.	0.870	0.911	0.720	0.860	[34,54]
	I plan to revisit this site.				0.806
	I intend to revisit this destination.				0.873
	I probably will revisit this place.				0.853

. Secondly, these questions were translated into the Chinese language and were provided to some Chinese students for pilot testing. Incomprehension problems caused by direct translation were amended to be more in line with the original meaning. Thirdly, self-administered questionnaires were completed by students or guided by parents for those who felt it was difficult to understand or read questions. To make sure the sample met the selection criteria, 2 additional questions were asked to filter out students who had not participated in such activities. Survey questions were distributed to students via online links, which adopted a 5-point Likert scale. Lastly, three additional questions were asked to investigate the organizer, duration, and factors that hinder students from participating in rural educational tourism.

Because of the complexity of the model, this study used SmartPLS 3.0 to test the data collected using partial least squares. Partial least squares is a multivariate statistical data analysis method that determines the best functional match for a set of data by minimizing the square of the error and is able to model the regression of multiple dependent variables on multiple independent variables. The systematic process of data analysis includes demographic information analysis, measurement model evaluation, and structural model evaluation.

4. Results

4.1. Profile of Respondents

The total number of valid samples after data screening was 234. The demographic profile of the participants, as shown in

Table 2. Demographic Analysis 1.

	Category	Frequency	Percent
Gender	Male	125	53.4
	Female	109	46.6
Age	11–15	71	30.3
	16–20	65	27.8
	21–25	78	33.3
	26–30	14	6
	>30	6	2.6
Edu	Primary school	0	0
	Junior high school	71	30.3
	High school	35	15.0
	Undergraduate	69	29.5
	Master	53	22.6
	PhD.	6	2.6
Subject	Liberal arts students	71	30.3
	Science students	72	30.8
	Engineering students	25	10.7
	Art students	29	12.4
	Student athletes/students with special physical skills	8	3.4
	I have not reached the age of subject division yet	7	3
	I do not know	22	9.4
Family	the only kid	40	17.1
	One sibling	124	53
	Two siblings	65	27.8
	Three or more than three siblings	5	2.1
Income	EUR ≤ 605	36	15.4
(/month)	EUR 606–1008	10	4.3
	EUR 1009–1411	32	13.7
	EUR 1412–1815	32	13.7
	EUR 1816–2218	56	23.9
	EUR > 2218	68	29.1
ETR frequency	Less than once a year	83	35.5
	Once a year	85	36.3
	Twice a year	15	6.4
	Three times a year	14	6
	Four or more than four times a year	37	15.8

, describes the gender, age, education level, subjects of study, family (single child or not), and household income. Amongst the 254 valid samples, male respondents were more common than female respondents, of which 53.4% were male and 46.6% were female. As the qualified research participants were required to be students, their age range starts from 11 years old, from junior high school to doctorate degrees. Amongst them, junior high school students and undergraduate students were the largest population, accounting for 30.3% and 29.5%, respectively. In terms of their subjects, excluding students who had not yet reached the stage of subject separation or those who did not know their subject classification, arts and science students were the most numerous (30.3% and 30.8%, respectively), followed by art students and engineering students (12.4% and 10.7%, respectively). Sports students were the least represented at 3.4%. This indicates that educational trips in rural areas involve a wide range of ages, disciplines, and stages of learning.

Getting to know these students further, it was found that most of them were not the only child in their family, accounting for 82.9%. Additionally, that corresponds to only 17.1% of students having only one child in their family. This indicates that those with more than one child in the family are more likely to participate in this type of rural educational trip. This may be related to their family’s economic strength because it was also found that the majority of the respondents belonged to the top two groups with the highest income level classification, i.e., those with a monthly household income of EUR 1816–2218 and those with a monthly income of more than EUR 2218, accounting for 23.9% and 29.1%, respectively, which together accounted for more than half of the total respondents. Among the lowest income (EUR 606–1008) households, 15.7% of students also participated in study trips to rural areas. [86] found that age, income, and education were the sociodemographic factors influencing travel motivation. Their study showed that travelers with a higher education level and higher income were more likely to travel farther from home. These data suggest that participation in study tours in rural areas requires a certain level of financial support. However, no matter how low the income is, there will still be a demand for students to participate in this activity.

For the frequency of participation in rural study trips, the data show a divergent trend. The two options with the largest proportions were “less than once a year” and “once a year”, at 35.5% and 36.3%, respectively. Those who attended four times or more than four times a year accounted for 15.8%. This indicates that the majority of participants (71.8%) only participated in rural educational tourism activities a very small number of times a year. This may be due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that schools and governments do not encourage group travel to avoid group infections among students. However, there are still groups that are particularly fond of this type of educational travel activity; therefore, their frequency is higher.

Three additional multiple-choice questions were provided: (1) Who usually organizes educational tourism in rural areas? (2) In Sichuan, how long does each educational trip in rural areas last? (3) What would make you NOT want to go for an educational trip in Sichuan rural areas? The responses are shown in

Table 3. Demographic Analysis 2.

Multiple Options
Organizer	School	202	32.4%
	Educational Tourism Organization	194	31.1%
	Parents	121	19.4%
	Travel Agency	62	10.0%
	Myself	44	7.1%
Duration	Half-day	180	28.4%
	One day	147	23.2%
	Two days	136	21.5%
	Three days	95	15.0%
	Four to seven days	38	6.0%
	More than seven days	38	6.0%
Hinder	Heavy study burden	140	22.5%
factors	Cost/price factor	113	18.1%
	Inconvenient transportation	92	14.8%
	Too many people, I do not like to travel in groups	82	13.2%
	I am not interested in educational tourism in rural areas	68	10.9%
	The activities are similar everywhere	80	12.8%
	I have not heard of any marketing activities on this	25	4.0%
	Marketing does not live up to the reality; I was disappointed to go	23	3.7%

. The results indicate that schools and educational tourism organizations are the main organizers, accounting for 32.4% and 31.1%, respectively. Parents also play an important part, accounting for 19.4% of the responses. Travel agencies and students themselves accounted for only 10% and 7.1%, respectively. This is in line with the policy that schools are the organizers of study tour activities. However, there were still schools that delegated the organization of this activity to educational travel agencies. For the duration of the trip, the most popular option was “half a day” (28.4%), and the second was “one day” (23.2%). Two days and three days accounted for 21.5% and 15%, respectively. The smallest categories were “4–7 days” and “more than 7 days”, both of which accounted for only 6%. From the results, it is clear that the majority of study trips in rural areas were three days or less, with more than half of them lasting only half a day or one day. Additionally, it can be assumed that the tight timeframe places significant demands on distance and transportation. Regarding the third question on hindering factors, the top three were heavy study burden (22.5%), price factor (18.1%), and inconvenient transportation (14.8%). The homogeneity in the activity design was also an important factor, accounting for 12.8%. Therefore, it is necessary to further solve those concerns for students.

4.2. Measurement Model Evaluation

The model has five first-order variables (push motivation, pull motivation, overall satisfaction, loyalty, and revisit intention) and second-order factors for push and pull motivation (five sub-dimension and six sub-dimension constructs, respectively), which were formed by 54 measurement items and were tested. According to the evaluation criteria of the reflective measurement model set in Table 1, including reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity, the results were obtained. Firstly, Cronbach’s Alpha values of all variables were greater than 0.7, indicating that all variables have good reliability. Secondly, the convergent validity was assessed by CR values (all dimensions were greater than 0.7) and AVE values (greater than 0.5), indicating that all dimensions have high convergence validity. Thirdly, the Fomell–Larcker criterion tests discriminant validity by looking at the magnitude of the square root of the average extracted variance (AVE) in relation to the correlation coefficient between the latent variables. If the square root of the AVE is greater than the correlation coefficient between the latent variables, then there is good discriminant validity between the latent variables in the measurement model, as can be seen from

Table 4. Fornell–Larcker Criterion of the factor model.

	OST	Pull1	Pull2	Pull3	Pull4	Pull5	Pull6	Push1	Push2	Push3	Push4	Push5	RI	WR
OST	0.847
Pull1	0.427	0.854
Pull2	0.258	0.505	0.885
Pull3	0.223	0.512	0.550	0.885
Pull4	0.440	0.488	0.505	0.477	0.915
Pull5	0.334	0.551	0.456	0.622	0.542	0.792
Pull6	0.278	0.550	0.434	0.587	0.529	0.675	0.924
Push1	0.510	0.401	0.224	0.201	0.279	0.223	0.200	0.824
Push2	0.543	0.407	0.299	0.300	0.399	0.311	0.272	0.603	0.834
Push3	0.570	0.427	0.243	0.225	0.423	0.271	0.223	0.540	0.601	0.872
Push4	0.523	0.454	0.319	0.305	0.419	0.306	0.336	0.516	0.529	0.519	0.872
Push5	0.563	0.359	0.109	0.126	0.354	0.282	0.215	0.506	0.467	0.539	0.492	0.807
RI	0.620	0.490	0.394	0.416	0.560	0.515	0.422	0.424	0.509	0.532	0.504	0.476	0.848
WR	0.688	0.424	0.279	0.357	0.384	0.394	0.448	0.435	0.454	0.413	0.463	0.403	0.479	0.866

and

Table 5. HTMT values.

	OST	Pull1	Pull2	Pull3	Pull4	Pull5	Pull6	Push1	Push2	Push3	Push4	Push5	RI	WR
OST
Pull1	0.479
Pull2	0.294	0.571
Pull3	0.256	0.578	0.636
Pull4	0.496	0.538	0.570	0.541
Pull5	0.384	0.624	0.538	0.731	0.617
Pull6	0.308	0.601	0.487	0.661	0.582	0.766
Push1	0.596	0.458	0.261	0.235	0.321	0.262	0.227
Push2	0.615	0.454	0.340	0.341	0.445	0.359	0.301	0.697
Push3	0.666	0.490	0.283	0.265	0.487	0.323	0.254	0.641	0.695
Push4	0.611	0.520	0.377	0.358	0.480	0.364	0.383	0.609	0.603	0.615
Push5	0.635	0.397	0.132	0.151	0.394	0.323	0.234	0.578	0.522	0.618	0.560
RI	0.710	0.551	0.452	0.481	0.632	0.603	0.471	0.495	0.579	0.622	0.586	0.535
WR	0.806	0.485	0.326	0.420	0.440	0.466	0.510	0.518	0.525	0.492	0.555	0.467	0.559

, and the square root AVE value of each variable is greater than the correlation coefficient of each variable. In summary, all reliability evaluation criteria, convergence validity, and discriminant validity satisfy and support all measurement models in this study.

4.3. Structural Model Evaluation

In SmartPLS analysis, the testing of the structural model includes path coefficient estimation and R square values. Path coefficients reflect the direction and degree of influence between potential variables. The R square value reflects the extent to which endogenous latent variables can be explained by exogenous latent variables in the structural model and also reflects the explanatory ability of the model. In the theoretical model constructed in this chapter, in order to verify the model and test the hypothesis proposed in this study, visual SmartPLS 3.0 software was adopted to perform analysis, and the bootstrapping sampling method was used to calculate the significance of path coefficients in the constructed model. The structural model and factor loading are shown in Figure 3. The R square of the overall satisfaction value was 0.483, indicating that the variation in overall satisfaction could be explained was 48.3%. The revisit intention’s R square value was 0.548, which suggests that revisit intention could be interpreted with a variation of 54.8%. The R square of loyalty value was 0.524, indicating that the variation that can be explained is 52.4%.

4.3.1. Direct Relationships

The research hypothesis designed in this study was validated based on SmartPLS analysis of path coefficient (β estimation), path significance (p-value), and dependent variable variance (R square). The variation in overall satisfaction that could be explained was 48.3%; revisit intention could be interpreted with a variation of 54.8%; the variation that can be explained was 52.4%. Other results, including path coefficients, t-values, and p-values, are illustrated in

Table 6. Results of 8 direct relationships.

Path Relation		β (Path Coefficient)	T	p-Values	Result
H1	Push motivation factors -> Overall satisfaction	0.626	12.438	0.000	Supported
H2	Pull motivation factors -> Overall satisfaction	0.124	1.886	0.059	Rejected
H3	Push motivation factors -> Revisit intention	0.231	3.928	0.000	Supported
H4	Push motivation factors -> Loyalty	0.055	0.725	0.468	Rejected
H5	Pull motivation factors -> Revisit intention	0.358	6.991	0.000	Supported
H6	Pull motivation factors -> Loyalty	0.231	3.815	0.000	Supported
H7	Overall satisfaction -> Revisit intention	0.308	5.475	0.000	Supported
H8	Overall satisfaction -> Loyalty	0.551	6.823	0.000	Supported

. The results showed that six out of eight direct relationships were supported, and two were rejected. Push motivation factors had a significant positive (β = 0.626, p < 0.05) influence on overall satisfaction, and H1 was supported. Push motivation factors had a positive and significant relationship with revisit intention (β = 0.231, p < 0.05); therefore, hypothesis 3 was supported. Pull motivation factors had a positive and significant relationship with revisit intention (β = 0.358, p < 0.05); therefore, hypothesis 5 was supported. Pull motivation factors had a positive and significant relationship with loyalty (β = 0.231, p < 0.05); therefore, hypothesis 6 was supported. Overall satisfaction had a positive and significant relationship with both revisit intention (β = 0.308, p < 0.05) and loyalty (β = 0.551, p < 0.05), so H7 and H8 were supported.

However, the relationships between pull motivation factors and overall satisfaction (β = 0.124, p > 0.05), as well as push motivation factors and loyalty (β = 0.055, p > 0.05), were not significant; therefore, hypotheses 2 and 4 were rejected.

4.3.2. Indirect Relationships

The mediating effect value can be obtained by multiplying the path coefficient (β estimate) of the independent variable (IV) by another path coefficient (β estimate) of the dependent variable (DV) that bypasses the mediating variable (overall satisfaction). Then, this can be assessed by the p-value to test if the indirect relationship is significant. The results are shown in Table 2 and

Table 7. Results of 4 indirect relationships.

Path Relation		Path Coefficient	STDEV	T	p-Values	Result
H9	PUSH -> OST -> RI	0.193	0.035	5.580	0.000	Supported
H10	PUSH -> OST -> WR	0.345	0.055	6.287	0.000	Supported
H11	PULL -> OST -> WR	0.068	0.039	1.763	0.078	Rejected
H12	PULL -> OST -> RI	0.038	0.023	1.669	0.095	Rejected

mediating effects were supported, and 2 were rejected. Push motivation factors -> Overall satisfaction -> Revisit intention: A mediating effect value is 0.193, p < 0.05, indicating hypothesis 9 was supported. Push motivation factors -> Overall satisfaction -> loyalty: A mediating effect value is 0.345, p < 0.05, and hypothesis 10 was supported. Pull motivation factors -> Overall satisfaction -> loyalty: A mediating effect value is 0.068, p > 0.05, indicating that a mediating effect is not significant. It means hypothesis 11 was rejected. Pull motivation factors -> Overall satisfaction -> Revisit intention: A mediating effect value is 0.038, p > 0.05, indicating that a mediating effect is not significant. So, hypothesis 12 was rejected.

4.4. Discussion

A major finding of this study was the amount of variance of the dependent latent variables explained by the independent variables, which are the push and pull motivational factors. They were extracted from different kinds of literature and grouped into five push motivational factors constructs and six pull motivational factors constructs. The variation in overall satisfaction, revisit intention, and loyalty that could be explained was 48.3%, 54.8%, and 52.4%, respectively, which was much higher than some previous research, such as [54].

The results showed that the overall satisfaction of educational travel in rural areas is determined by the push motivational factors but not pull motivational factors. The results suggested that internal psychosocial factors are the leading factors, and they have a significant impact on the overall satisfaction of educational tourists in rural areas. These results are consistent with previous research on the impact of intrinsic motivation on tourist overall satisfaction [39,52,54]. The relationship between push motivational factors and overall satisfaction was confirmed once again. However, regarding the influence of external motivational factors on overall satisfaction, the findings were consistent with [52] but inconsistent with [39,54,66]. This finding strengthens past investigations conducted by [52]. However, it also approves that the attractiveness of the destination is able to meet the motivation of educational visitors but will not create significant overall satisfaction for them.

The second finding was that pull motivational factors or external motivational factors, which are normally related to destination characteristics, have positive relationships with the two behavioral intentions represented by revisit intention and loyalty. Again, the characteristics of the destination are approved to be essential for the loyalty of educational tourists in rural areas. Through good quality, reasonable prices, easy access, and excellent location conditions, good policy support and unique destination features can not only attract people to come but also drive good word of mouth and high revisit intentions. However, in this study, the internal factors do not lead to people’s loyalty. This means the social–phycological factors do not promote word-of-mouth marketing. This finding only partially aligned with the viewpoint of [59]. They believed both internal and external motivation factors are strongly positively correlated with revisit intention. In ref. [54]’s study, the influence of push factors on behavioral intentions was not supported, indicating that push motivation has no significant relationship with tourists’ revisiting intention and loyalty [54]. This is inconsistent with the research results of this paper. In this research, push motivational factors have a positive relationship with educational tourists’ intention to revisit rural areas. This proves that inner motivation will lead to the revisit of the participants to educational destinations in rural areas.

As a mediating variable, overall satisfaction was only partially confirmed in this study. Satisfaction is a mediating variable of motivation and behavioral motivation, which is the premise of loyalty to a destination [80]. Many previous scholars believed that overall satisfaction plays a mediating role in destination-related pull motivation factors, such as destination image and characteristics [66,79,81]. However, the hypotheses of satisfaction as pull factors and loyalty (revisit intention and loyalty) are rejected in this paper. It is not consistent with either of them. However, it is partially consistent with [54]’s view. Pull motivation factors do not affect recommendation willingness through overall satisfaction [54]. Unlike [54]’s finding, amongst participants of educational travel, pull motivation factors also did not affect returning intentions through overall satisfaction but rather had a direct effect on loyalty. This was confirmed in [82]’s study on destination decision-makers. He guessed that destination loyalty was already formed and was not reflected through the intermediary of satisfaction [82]. Both hypotheses that motivation factors influence loyalty through overall satisfaction were confirmed. Intrinsic motivation factors influence word-of-mouth transmission and return intention through the intermediary of satisfaction.

5. Contribution and Conclusions

5.1. Contribution

5.1.1. Theoretical Contributions

First, this paper established a research framework for the internal and external motivation and follow-up behavior or loyalty of rural education travelers. Moreover, this study enriched the behavioral connotation of education tourists in rural areas. This paper adopted the method of second-order analysis to comprehensively analyze the internal five motivation factors and the external six motivation factors and how they affect consumer behavior intention. Lastly, it offered another lance of emerging and developing countries. This paper analyzed a valid sample of 234 students from Sichuan Province, China, to look at the industry of research travel in rural areas from an emerging country perspective. Moreover, this study fills a gap in research on educational tourism in rural areas, especially in emerging and developing countries.

5.1.2. Practical Contributions

For researchers, there is still big room for them to research. Additionally, this can be encouraged by enhancing communication and calling for attention. For example, academic exchange meetings on educational travel and rural economy in rural areas should be held frequently to attract more scholars’ attention. The achievements of research travel in rural areas can be summarized and developed so that all sectors of society, including academia, can recognize the benefits of this industry. Moreover, school teachers are witnesses of students’ growth and rural development. Therefore, the teacher’s academic publications can be funded to encourage them to become new researchers in this area.

For managers, they can act accordingly in different business stages. In the marketing stage, the fastest way is branding and promoting the destination attributes, avoiding similarity and enhancing innovation. This could be achieved by utilizing the distinctive features of rural areas. In order to achieve rapid word-of-mouth transmission, social–phycological factors have no direct effect, whereas the characteristics of rural areas (external factors) are the most important, such as the attraction of courses, the professional degree of research teachers, reasonable price, safe environment, etc. Among them, it is urgent to strengthen the pertinence and professionalism of research curriculum development to improve “quality factors”. The development of education tourism courses or activities in rural areas should be adapted to local conditions, and educational tour courses in rural areas can be an effective supplement to school courses. In this way, only with favorable external conditions can rural education tourism go further, attract more repeat visitors, and enhance its reputation. In the stage of retaining customers, for the sustainable development of research travel in rural areas, the most important thing is seizing internal motivation. This may be because inner longing is the main reason students go to these destinations. In this research, these longings are represented by education and career, relaxation, novelty, social, personal growth, and development. Destinations should create their own identity, enhance the attractions of rural educational tourism, and effectively and efficiently deliver the quality of education and service. Only rural educational tourism that highlights the distinctive features of the countryside will stand out. Managers should also strengthen their own knowledge, share experiences with each other, and learn to profile consumers. Safety awareness should also be improved because it was a neglected factor by many respondents during the research.

Other practitioners should enhance communication, improve external conditions, and better understand the real motivation of students. Communication with students and relevant parties should also be improved so that they have a scientific understanding of rural education travel. All practitioners should know the goal, the method, and the final result of the study tour in rural areas. The diverse needs of different practitioners should also be correctly viewed. At present, homogenization and a low degree of innovation are serious issues. This makes educational tourism in rural areas less attractive, and many people have no strong motivation for it.

5.1.3. Policy Implications

Educational tourism in rural areas presents significant opportunities for economic development, poverty alleviation, and cultural preservation in emerging countries like China. To harness these opportunities and ensure the long-term sustainability of rural educational tourism, policymakers must adopt a comprehensive approach that addresses key areas of concern. The following policy implications are vital for promoting sustainable rural educational tourism: firstly, human resource development and capacity building: to elevate the quality of educational tourism experiences, the government must focus on improving the training mechanism for rural education tourism operators, including instructors, managers, and service staff. Tailored training programs should be designed to enhance their skills in hospitality, cultural exchange, and sustainable tourism practices. Secondly, environmental and cultural conservation: sustainable development must be at the core of rural educational tourism. Policymakers should promote ecotourism and conservation initiatives to protect the natural environment and local biodiversity. Implementation of sustainable tourism practices in natural areas, along with setting tourism carrying capacity limits, will prevent over-tourism and environmental degradation. Lastly, community empowerment and inclusivity: local communities are key stakeholders in the success of rural educational tourism. Policymakers must ensure that communities are actively engaged in the decision-making process and benefit equitably from tourism activities. By striking a delicate balance between tourism development and environmental and social concerns, policymakers can ensure that rural educational tourism becomes a transformative force for positive change in local communities while offering meaningful and enriching experiences to educational tourists not only in China but also in other emerging economies.

5.2. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study’s empirical investigation of educational tourism in rural areas from an emerging country’s perspective makes important contributions to the literature on tourism research. By shedding light on the motivations behind tourist behavior, the study informs destination managers and policymakers about the factors that drive loyalty and repeat visitation. The study’s findings offer practical implications for the development of sustainable educational tourism in rural areas, thereby contributing to the economic growth and poverty alleviation of emerging countries. Overall, this research advances the understanding of educational tourism and provides a solid foundation for further exploration and development of this niche within the broader tourism industry.

5.2.1. Limitation

The first limitation of this study is the sample size. The valid sample data for this study were 234. It is feasible that SmartPLS can be used to analyze these data. However, due to the large population base in the Sichuan region, this sample of 234 represents only a very small portion of the group that travels to rural areas for educational tours. In addition, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all surveys were taken online and not from the entire Sichuan region, both online and offline, thus limiting the generality of the student population represented by the sample. Thirdly, because this study used a self-reported questionnaire, it is difficult to assess whether they completed it carefully or reflected their true thoughts. Fourthly, the limitations of the online survey meant that younger groups of students were less represented in the sample because they had less access to phones.

5.2.2. Future Research

Of the push and pull motivational factors selected, only 11 motivational factors were included in the study. Approximately 50% of the variation in satisfaction and behavioral intentions could be explained by them. Therefore, future researchers could include more motivational factors in their studies. Four hypotheses were rejected when it came to the effect of the pull motivation factor on overall satisfaction and whether it affects behavioral intentions through overall satisfaction. Additionally, this is not consistent with many researchers’ views. Future researchers may try to re-explore their relationship in different contexts. Alternatively, a qualitative research approach could be used to investigate how external motivational factors act on consumer behavioral intentions.