Influence of Transnational Leisure on Diaspora Tourism among Contemporary Migrants

Abstract

Leisure and tourism constitute important means for migrants to keep in touch with their homeland. This study is the first to investigate the relationship between the leisure and tourism activities of contemporary migrants in a transnational social field. Overseas Chinese residing in North America were surveyed to compare transnational leisure participation and travel behavior across five migrant generations, and examine the effects of transnational leisure on travel behavior and intention. A U-shaped pattern was found in respondents’ media-based and event-based transnational leisure, frequency of travel, and intention to visit China, with the second generation being the lowest. Media-based leisure influenced the first and 1.5-generations’ number of homeland trips whereas event-based leisure influenced that of the second, third, and fourth-plus generations. Overall, there is a positive relationship between transnational leisure and diaspora tourism, and different types of transnational leisure have varying effects on the travel behavior and intention of different generations.

Keywords

transnational leisure diaspora tourism leisure–tourism relationship travel behavior travel intention

Introduction

The relationship between leisure and tourism has been a subject of scholarly discussion (Carr 2002b; Moore, Cushman, and Simmons 1995). On one hand, taking place in holiday versus home environments, tourism and leisure activities are often conceptualized as separate domains (Chang and Gibson 2011; Cohen 2010). As such, people’s attitudes and behaviors have been found to change when they are on holiday, especially with regard to hedonic or deviant behaviors (e.g., Andriotis 2010; Briggs 2013; Hesse and Tutenges 2011). On the other hand, tourism is also perceived as a special form of “leisure away from home.” As leisure and tourism share similar motivations and benefits (Mannell and Iso-Ahola 1987), they can be interrelated, overlapping, and sometimes indistinguishable (Carr 2002b). While there is yet to be a consensus on the relationship between leisure and tourism, recent studies focused more on their connections and similarities, such as how leisure motivation and involvement may spill over into tourism activities (Brey and Lehto 2007; Chang and Chung 2018; Chang and Gibson 2011; Sthapit and Björk 2017), and behavioral consistencies across leisure and tourism (Chang and Gibson 2015; Marinkovic, Dimitrovski, and Senic 2017; Smith, Pitts, and Litvin 2012; Sthapit, Kozak, and Coudounaris 2019).

Previous studies have examined leisure–tourism connections among specific populations, including students (Chang and Chung 2018), paddlers (Chang and Gibson 2011), gold panners (Marinkovic, Dimitrovski, and Senic 2017), and family vacationers (Sthapit and Björk 2017). Interestingly, such a relationship has not been explored in the context of international migration, where leisure and tourism constitute important means for migrants to keep in touch with their country of origin (Stodolska 2015). Moreover, emerging technologies enable contemporary migrants to connect with their homeland as never before, which may also change the relationship between their leisure and tourism pursuits. In the past, given the difficulties in maintaining homeland ties, migrants needed to either assimilate into the mainstream society or form ethnic enclaves (e.g., Chinatown, Little Italy) where they can uphold the traditions of “home” (Alba and Nee 2003; Portes and Manning 1986). Contemporary migrants, however, live in a transnational social field (Levitt and Glick-Schiller 2004). They can easily communicate with folks back home via mobile technologies. They can shop online for groceries, books, fashion, and household products from halfway across the world. They can listen to hit songs in their native language, keep up with major news events, follow the newest TV series, cheer for their favorite sports teams, watch live election results, and more—almost as if they have never left.

Among all types of transnational practices, traveling allows migrants to maintain actual contact with their home country (Haller and Landolt 2005). Such trips are commonly known as diaspora tourism (Coles and Timothy 2004). Migrants may visit the homeland for various reasons, including leisure, business, local food, culture and heritage, personal identity, medical treatment, retain ancestral ties, roots-seeking, connection with place, and family obligation (Alexander, Bryce, and Murdy 2017; Li and McKercher 2016; Mathijsen 2019; Ray and McCain 2012). Given that contemporary migrants can engage in many homeland-related leisure activities after migration, the question is, Do they still travel back to the homeland? Or since everything is easily available in the host country, perhaps they do not need to visit the homeland as often as before. On one hand, participating in homeland-related leisure activities may strengthen their attachment and increase their longing to return. On the other hand, the accessibility of homeland goods, services, culture, and relationships through global networks may decrease the desire and frequency of traveling back to the homeland. Does transnational leisure influence migrants’ travel behavior and intention?

Transnational leisure can be defined as “leisure that is maintained by transnational migrants to foster their ties with their countries and communities of origin” (Stodolska and Santos 2006, p. 162). Previous research on leisure–tourism relations generally focused on one type of leisure activity, and used leisure involvement to predict whether tourists will continue to take part in that same activity when they travel (Chang and Gibson 2011, 2015; Smith, Pitts, and Litvin 2012; Sthapit and Björk 2017). Given that transnational leisure includes a wide range of activities, ranging from celebrating traditional holidays to watching YouTube videos (Huang et al. 2015), it is necessary to also examine the effects of different types of transnational leisure on migrants’ tourism behavior. Moreover, the relationship between leisure and tourism may vary among different migrant generations. Recent migrants with friends and relatives back home may still prefer face-to-face reunions over video chats. But for later generations who have no personal connections to the homeland (Kaftanoglu and Timothy 2013), perhaps they can learn of their ancestry through transnational leisure, without having to travel.

Based on the issues identified above, this study aims to investigate the relationship between leisure and tourism in the context of transnational migration. Specifically, Chinese migrants in North America were surveyed to (1) compare the transnational leisure participation, travel behavior, and travel intention of different migrant generations, (2) test the effects of transnational leisure on migrants’ travel behavior and intention, and (3) examine whether the effects of transnational leisure on diaspora tourism vary across migrant generations.

Literature Review

Relationship between Leisure and Tourism

Earlier research posits that leisure and tourism exist in two distinct and separate realms (Fedler 1987). A study by Moore, Cushman, and Simmons (1995) concluded that tourism and leisure may have a relationship but may be classified as a special type of connection where tourism is a type of leisure. Nevertheless, more recent research by Carr (2002b) used the term leisure–tourism continuum to illustrate that leisure activities at home often spill over to people’s behavior when they travel. This entails that tourism is not necessarily a type of leisure, but the activities performed in one situation (leisure) will motivate engagement in the same activity in another context (tourism). However, this study was limited to pleasure-oriented leisure and tourism activities. As leisure and tourism activities are multi-faceted and not always hedonistic and pleasure-seeking (Havitz and Dimanche 1997), the leisure–tourism relationship may vary with other types of activities (e.g., knowledge seeking, risk seeking, physically demanding).

To understand this relationship, researchers over the years have focused on the activities undertaken in leisure and tourism scenarios. Many studies utilize the concept of leisure involvement as it describes how people partake in leisure or recreational activities irrespective of where they are (Sthapit and Björk 2017). Other terms such as commitment, loyalty and habit have been used interchangeably with involvement (Sthapit and Björk 2017), but Chang and Gibson (2015) argued that each of these concepts has its own distinct meaning and influences the leisure tourism relationship differently. Studies by Moore, Cushman, and Simmons (1995) and Sthapit, Kozak, and Coudounaris (2019) found that habits are the most influencing behavior that explains this relationship. Such habits may include physically demanding activities such as golfing, hunting, biking, skiing, paddling (Brey and Lehto 2007; Chang and Gibson 2011), or socially engaging activities such as shopping and visiting museums (Sthapit, Kozak, and Coudounaris 2019). Despite this assumption that leisure habits at home are likely to be continued during tourism visits, researchers have found that differences in these participations may exist as a result of some external factors (Carr 2002a).

Prominent among these factors are sociodemographic factors (Chang and Chung 2018), cultural influence, and personality differences (Carr 2002a). Deep-rooted habits may explain why people who engage in one leisure activity at home may choose the same during vacation (Carr 2002b). However, in research conducted by Chang and Gibson (2011) on habitual paddlers, a high percentage of survey participants indicated that they will prefer other leisure activities when on vacation. This could be explained by different personality preferences (Heung, Qu, and Chu 2001). Additional factors such as gender and age (Heung et al. 2001), a person’s cultural values (Carr 2002a, 2002b) or the presence of family members during vacation (Sthapit and Björk 2017) have also been found to influence whether leisure habits continue during travel.

Transnational Leisure

The relationship between leisure and tourism has not been examined in the context of migration. Migrants are the people who have left their place of origin and now reside in a new society where they seek to call home (Portes 1997). In many cases, they are characterized as minorities, which implies that they constitute relatively small racial or ethnic groups within the population (Stodolska and Floyd 2015). Irrespective of this existence in different societies, researchers have noted that migrants typically underparticipate in the leisure activities of their host community (Kloek et al. 2015; Koshoedo et al. 2015; Krymkowski, Manning, and Valliere 2014), which, otherwise, would have aided their assimilation or acculturation in the new society (Stodolska 2015; Kim, Heo, and Lee 2016). On this note, the trends in documenting the leisure activities of migrants have shifted from the difference between the majority and minority groups to more complex inter-/intragroup analyses (Kloek et al. 2017). A typical example is a study by Kloek et al. (2015), which demonstrated that Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands had high participation in recreational activities, but their Chinese counterparts had low participation. In the same vein, Kim, Heo, and Lee (2016) examined Korean immigrants in the United States and found they had low participation in physical activities, which was negatively associated with their acculturation.

While the effects of acculturation on leisure have been well established, transnationalism provides a new paradigm to examine the leisure activities of migrants. Transnationalism refers to the interconnected lifestyle and social experience of immigrants, which allows them to maintain multiple connections with their home country and host society (Levitt and Glick-Schiller 2004). Transnational practices can be economic, political, civil, sociocultural, familial, and religious. Although leisure has not been a focus of transnationalism research, some cultural transnational practices, such as listening to ethnic music, overlap with leisure activities (Kasinitz et al. 2008). For instance, Rumbaut et al. (2008) found that 8.1% of second-generation immigrants participated in ethnic organizations associated with their parents’ homeland, and 48.7% listened to the radio or watched television in their parents’ language.

Stodolska and Santos (2006) were the first to propose the concept of “transnational leisure.” Huang et al. (2015) further identified four types of transnational leisure activities by second-generation Chinese Americans, which include ethnic events and festivals, ethnic social clubs and organizations, ethnic media and pop culture, and Internet-based activities. Other studies have examined migrant’s leisure activities in relation to their homeland engagement. Bilgili (2014) found that Moroccan and Ethiopian migrants in the Netherlands had more engagement with their home country; thus, they participated in sociocultural activities oriented toward their home country. On the other hand, Afghans and Burundians who had less contact with their home country accumulated more sociocultural traits of the host community. These differences may exist because of their cultural or religious backgrounds (Özgüner 2011). In other situations, migration histories, experiences, health beliefs (Koshoedo et al. 2015), individual characteristics such as age (Kloek et al. 2017) and being a first- or second-generation migrant (Huang et al. 2015), and the uneven distribution of ethnic minorities across settlement types in the host community (Kamenik, Tammaru, and Toomet 2015) may constitute the reason for the differences among migrant groups.

Diaspora Tourism

Compared to transnational leisure, the tourism activities of migrants have received considerably more attention. Migrants leave their country of origin for various reasons (e.g., work, education, religious freedom, and escaping from political persecution), which would, in turn, influence their relationship to the homeland and their reasons for visiting the homeland after the relocation. Shuval (2000) developed a framework to categorize the key attributes of different diaspora migration, which includes characteristics of the homeland, host country, and diaspora group. As these attributes vary, certain destinations are better known for particular forms of diaspora tourism. For example, being the religious and spiritual center for the Jewish diaspora, diaspora tourism to Israel tends to overlap with pilgrimage and educational tours (Cohen 2016; Kelner 2010). Diaspora tourism can also be associated with dark tourism and battlefield tourism. Numerous studies have examined the case of African diasporas visiting slavery-related sites in Ghana (e.g., slave castles, slave markets) as a form of dark tourism (Mowatt and Chancellor 2011; Lelo and Jamal 2013). Lockstone-Binney, Hall, and Atay (2013) linked diaspora tourism to battlefield tourism as they explored the experience of Australian tourists visiting Gallipoli, a World War I battlefield in Turkey, to reconnect with their history and national identity. Diaspora tourism also intersects with VFR tourism (Uriely 2010). First-generation immigrants, in particular, keep in touch with friends and relatives through journeys back to the homeland. Kaftanoglu and Timothy (2013) found that first-generation Turkish Americans differ from later generations in their length of stay and choice of accommodation when traveling back to Turkey, which allows them to have closer contact with their families back home.

While there are various forms of migrant-related travel due to complex migration origins and histories, the same national-ethnic group of migrants may still have different reasons for visiting the homeland. Li and McKercher (2016) developed a typology of Chinese diaspora tourists, including reaffirmative, quest, reconnected, distanced, and detached. Each type has different migration backgrounds and cultural identities, which in turn influence their travel motives, experiences, and place attachments. For example, new migrants go back to the homeland to retain ties, while those of long migration histories embark on a quest to search for their roots. Huang, Hung, and Chen (2018) also identified two dimensions in the motivations of Chinese diaspora tourists: (1) to experience Chinese culture and attractions, and (2) to learn about their family history and heritage. They found Chinese culture to be a better predictor of travel intention than family history and heritage. Specifically, enjoying Chinese cuisine, learning Chinese culture, and visiting interesting attractions were perceived to be the most important by diaspora tourists. Another study by Otoo, Kim, and Choi (2020) generated a five-factor scale of diaspora tourism motivation, with a focus on older African diaspora tourists. The five domains include escaping, connectedness, memorable experience, diaspora events, and spirituality, and a sense of pride and learning. “Seeking memorable experience” received the highest mean score, and was found to have significant effects on diaspora tourists’ destination image, attachment, satisfaction, and future intention.

Previous studies on diaspora tourism focused on international trips. Nevertheless, diaspora tourism can be domestic, in which case the line between transnational leisure and diaspora tourism is blurred. Coles and Timothy (2004) identified six distinctive patterns of tourism associated with diasporas, three of which can occur in the domestic context. The first type involves the consumption of homeland-related events and festivals in the host country. Second, migrant descents may also desire to visit the previous transit spaces in their ancestors’ migration journeys, such as Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty. Third, there are resorts, retreats, and vacation spaces designed for specific diaspora groups within their country of settlement, such as the Catskill Mountains resorts in New York for American Jews. A similar case was examined in Etemaddar, Tucker, and Duncan’s (2015) study on Iranian immigrants in New Zealand, who were unable or unwilling to travel back to Iran. Instead, they joined a domestic tour to get together with other Iranians in New Zealand, and the sense of being together was a way for them to maintain their Iranian-ness.

Although previous literature has not considered leisure–tourism relations in the context of migration, some of the domestic travel activities of migrants may fall under both leisure and tourism. Kaftanoglu and Timothy’s (2013) study was one of the few tourism studies that explored the cultural activities of Turkish Americans (i.e., watching Turkish television, listening to Turkish radio, and reading Turkish literature) and their return travel to Turkey. While the term “leisure” was not used, these activities, taking place in Arizona, USA, can be considered transnational leisure. Kaftanoglu and Timothy (2013) found no relationship between these cultural practices and respondents’ frequency of visits to Turkey, length of stay, and accommodation type used. One limitation of the study was its relatively low sample size (n=105) and that 87% of the respondents were first-generation migrants. Hence, there is a need for more comprehensive research on the relationship between transnational leisure and diaspora tourism across different migrant generations.

Methods

Study Population

To investigate the relationship between transnational leisure and travel behavior of contemporary migrants, an online survey was conducted to gather the opinions of Chinese migrants residing in North America. As the United States is by far the country hosting the largest number of migrants in the world, and Canada is also consistently ranked in the top 10 in terms of permanent migration inflows (United Nations 2017), international migrants in North America were selected as the study population. Among the top 10 diaspora groups in the United States¹ (Migration Policy Institute 2017), overseas Chinese were selected. Geographic and cultural distances have been known to influence migration decisions (Crockett 2013; Niedomysl 2011; Wang, De Graaff, and Nijkamp 2016). After migration, the distance between home and host societies also affects the frequency of homeland trips, and cultural differences result in the assimilation and transnational practices of migrants (Soehl and Waldinger 2012; Van Oudenhoven, Ward, and Masgoret 2006). Hence, rather than studying migrants moving between neighboring or culturally similar countries, this study focused on migrants who experienced long-distance migration and cultural changes.

A survey company, Survey Sampling International (SSI), was used to recruit potential respondents in the United States and Canada. To target respondents who were permanent “migrants” rather than temporary workers or international students, age and nationality (i.e., American or Canadian) were used as screening questions. Eligible respondents were 18 years of age or older, of Chinese ethnicity, and citizens of the United States or Canada. Emails were sent out to people of Chinese ethnicity in the survey company’s nationwide databases with incentives paid by SSI provided to encourage participation. The data collection period ran between December 2016 and January 2017, and a total of 808 valid responses were gathered.²

Questionnaire Development

The survey was developed based on existing literature and included questions on migrants’ transnational leisure participation, diaspora tourism behavior, and intention. First, a list of transnational leisure activities with 19 items was compiled based on the work of Huang et al. (2015). To avoid using the term transnational leisure, respondents were asked to indicate how often they participate in “China-related” leisure activities in their everyday life in the United States/Canada, and to rate each activity on a five-point scale of frequency (1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=always/every day).

For respondents’ diaspora tourism behavior, frequency of travel and length of stay were included as the most common measures of travel behavior (Kaftanoglu and Timothy 2013). In addition to the number of homeland trips, respondents were asked to specify the number of times they visited their “ancestral hometown” within China, to capture the scope of their visit. Moreover, previous studies on place attachment and involvement have conceptualized “past experience” as not only the number of trips but also the age of one’s first visit and the number of years since they have visited the destination (Backlund and Williams 2003; Budruk et al. 2008; Lee and Allen 1999). Thus, respondents’ age when they first visited China and the year of their most recent trip to China were also included in the questionnaire. To measure respondents’ intention to travel to China, a four-item measurement of travel intention was developed based on Hung and Petrick (2011), using a five-point scale of agreement (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree).

The last section of the survey consisted of demographics and family ancestry questions. Besides the common demographic variables, such as age, gender, and education, respondents were asked whether they were foreign or native-born, and whether their parents and grandparents were foreign-born or not. These questions were used to determine whether respondents should be classified as first-, second-, third-, or fourth-plus-generation migrants. If the respondent was foreign-born (i.e., not born in the USA or Canada), she or he would be a first-generation migrant. Native-born respondents would be second-generation migrants. Native-born respondents with native-born parents would be the third generation, and native-born respondents with native-born grandparents would be considered the fourth-plus generation.

Findings

Respondents’ Profile

The profile of the respondents was illustrated in Table 1. In terms of migrant generation, respondents were categorized into five generation groups (i.e., 1-gen, 1.5-gen, 2-gen, 3-gen, and 4-gen+). About 30% of the respondents were born in China and then migrated to the U.S. or Canada. These individuals were further divided into first-generation (those who move to the new country as adults) and 1.5-generation migrants (those who migrated before the age of 18). These two groups were separated because each group has distinct attitudes and behaviors (Kasinitz 2012). Thirty-eight percent of the respondents were second-generation migrants, who were native-born in North America with at least one of their parents as a first-generation migrant. It was also found that 13.1% of the respondents were third-generation migrants, which meant they were born in the United States or Canada with at least one foreign-born grandparent, and 18.6% of the respondents were fourth-generation or more. Moreover, nearly 80% of the respondents had visited China and nearly 48% had visited China three times or more. It was also found that more than 70% of the respondents had visited China after 2010.

Table 1.

Respondents’ Profile.

Variables	Frequency (Percentage)
Gender
Male	399 (49.4)
Female	409 (50.6)
Age, years
18–25	166 (20.5)
26–35	272 (33.7)
36–45	178 (22.0)
46–55	89 (11.0)
56–65	73 (9.0)
66 or more	30 (3.7)
Nationality
American	568 (70.3)
Canadian	240 (29.7)
Education
High school or below	75 (9.3)
Some college	135 (16.7)
Two-year college degree	68 (8.4)
Four-year college degree	356 (44.1)
Graduate or professional degree	174 (21.5)
Immigrant generation
1-generation	119 (14.7)
1.5-generation	126 (15.6)
2-generation	307 (38.0)
3-generation	106 (13.1)
4+-generation	150 (18.6)
Annual household income (USD) (median=$60,000- $79,999)
Less than $20,000	53 (6.6)
$20,000–$39,999	87 (10.8)
$40,000–$59,999	121 (15.0)
$60,000–$79,999	144 (17.8)
$80,000–$99,999	124 (15.3)
$100,000–$149,999	147 (18.2)
$150,000 or more	132 (16.3)
Number of Trips to China (Mean=4.5; Median=2)
0	164 (20.3)
1	139 (17.2)
2	119 (14.7)
3–4	125 (15.5)
5–6	108 (13.4)
7–10	89 (11.0)
11 or more	64 (7.9)
Age at first trip to China (n=644)
0–5	240 (37.3)
6–11	111 (17.2)
12–17	105 (16.3)
18–29	113 (17.5)
30–39	38 (5.9)
40 or more	37 (5.7)
Year of most recent trip to China (n=644)
1989 or before	24 (3.7)
1990–1999	43 (6.7)
2000–2009	122 (18.9)
2010–2014	231 (35.9)
2015–2016	224 (34.8)

Exploratory Factor Analysis

The first step of the data analysis was to identify the underlying structure of transnational leisure. Since the factors associated with each construct should be correlated with one another, principal axis factoring with PROMAX rotation was used (Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003). Moreover, the latent root criterion of 1.0 and the factor loading of 0.50 for item inclusion and exclusion were used for factor extraction, based on Hair et al.’s (1998) recommendations. The results of EFA yielded a three-factor structure with 74.9% of the variance explained for transnational leisure, while three items were excluded because of high cross-loading values (“visit websites related to Chinese culture,” “watch YouTube videos related to Chinese culture,” and “read/watch the news related to China”). As shown in Table 2, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value was higher than the threshold of 0.80 (KMO = 0.958) and the Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p<.001), meeting the assumptions of EFA. The first factor included nine items associated with a variety of Chinese-related events or group activities and was thus labeled as event-based leisure. The second factor was named as media-based leisure because this factor consisted of four items associated with Chinese popular culture. The other three items were basic common activities in migrant life and were labeled as basic transnational leisure. The results of the reliability analysis showed high internal consistency for event-based (α = 0.95), media-based (α = 0.94), and basic transnational leisure (α = 0.76).

Table 2.

Results of EFA: Transnational Leisure.

Factors and Items	Mean^a	Loadings	Communalities
Factor I: Event-based (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95)
Participate in Chinese cultural activities	2.60	.95	.76
Join Chinese ethnic clubs/organizations	2.55	.91	.76
Attend events hosted by Chinese ethnic organizations	3.04	.74	.67
Play Chinese board or card games	2.72	.72	.61
Attend Chinese concerts/performances	2.38	.81	.77
Follow Chinese (-American) sports players or teams	2.46	.74	.66
Sing Chinese songs in the karaoke	2.36	.66	.76
Online shopping for Chinese/Asian items	2.71	.64	.66
Connect with friends and relatives in China through social media	2.68	.54	.60
Factor II: Media-based (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94)
Watch Chinese/Asian movies	3.01	.86	.80
Watch Chinese/Asian drama	2.88	.86	.84
Watch Chinese/Asian TV shows	2.86	.82	.82
Listen to Chinese/Asian songs and music	2.89	.70	.72
Factor III: Basic (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.76)
Eat Chinese food	4.03	.72	.51
Shop for Chinese/Asian groceries	3.69	.71	.59
Celebrate Chinese holidays	3.73	.62	.50
% variance explained: 74.9
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling: 0.958
Bartlett’s test of sphericity: 10,974.7; significance <.001

Note: EFA = exploratory factor analysis.

Items measured on a five-point scale of frequency (from 1 = never to 5 = always/every day).

Scale Reliability and Validity

The reliability and validity of the measures were assessed using CFA, which involved establishing a measurement model with the three dimensions of transnational leisure (Table 3). The result of CFA revealed that the initial model had unsatisfactory fit indices (χ²=647.3; df=101; χ²/df=6.41; standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = 0.044; normed fit index [NFI] = 0.94; comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.95; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.082) as the χ²/df ratio and RMSEA value were higher than the suggested thresholds of 3 and 0.080, respectively (Byrne 1998). Hence, the model was refined by excluding items associated with the highest modification indices. After deleting one item of event-based leisure (“attend events/festivals hosted by Chinese ethnic organizations”), the resulting measurement model had good fit indices (χ²=259.7; df=87; χ²/df=2.99; SRMR =0.034; NFI=0.98; CFI=0.98; RMSEA=0.051).

Table 3.

Results of CFA.

Factors	Items	β	Errors
Event-based leisure AVE = 0.67CR = 0.94	Participate in Chinese cultural activities	0.82	0.33
	Join Chinese ethnic clubs/organizations	0.80	0.36
	Play Chinese board or card games	0.76	0.42
	Attend Chinese concerts/performances	0.87	0.25
	Follow Chinese (-American) sports players or teams	0.86	0.27
	Sing Chinese songs in the karaoke	0.82	0.33
	Online shopping for Chinese/Asian items	0.83	0.32
	Connect with friends and relatives in China through social media	0.79	0.38
Media-based leisure AVE = 0.80CR = 0.94	Watch Chinese/Asian movies	0.85	0.29
	Watch Chinese/Asian drama	0.89	0.21
	Watch Chinese/Asian TV shows	0.92	0.15
	Listen to Chinese/Asian songs and music	0.91	0.16
Basic Leisure AVE = 0.57CR = 0.80	Eat Chinese food	0.72	0.48
	Shop for Chinese/Asian groceries	0.81	0.34
	Celebrate Chinese holidays	0.72	0.48

Note: CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliability.

The factor loadings of all 15 items in the scale were significant (p<.001). As the composite reliability (CR) values for all three factors were higher than the suggested value of .80 (Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003), the measures had high reliability. The average variance extracted (AVE) estimate was used to assess convergent validity. With AVE values higher than the threshold of 0.50 (Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003), the measures had high convergent validity. Discriminant validity was examined by comparing the square of each pair of factors and the AVEs of the two factors. Results showed that all three correlation coefficients were significant at the .001 level, with values ranging from .54 to .80. Media- and event-based leisure had the highest correlation coefficient of 0.80, while the square of the correlation coefficient (0.64) was lower than the AVEs for media- (0.80) and event-based leisure (0.67). Similarly, the other two correlation coefficients were lower than the AVEs for each pair of factors, so the discriminant validity of the scale was deemed high.

Differences across Migrant Generations

The mean values for each factor across migrant generations were further examined (Table 4). Overall, basic leisure received the highest mean score (M=3.8) across migrant groups, followed by media-based leisure (M=2.9) and event-based leisure (M=2.6). This pattern was found to be consistent in each migrant group. The results of within-subject analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that the differences among three types of leisure were significant across the migrant groups (F=651.1; p<.001; η_P-square=0.62) as well as in each migrant group (p<.001). The results of post hoc analyses further revealed that the mean score for each type of transnational leisure varied significantly across migrant groups (p<.05) and in each migrant group (p<.05). Table 4 also reveals that respondents had visited China significantly more times (M=4.5) than their hometowns in China (M=3.4), which means that they did not always visit the hometown when they traveled to China. Significant differences between the numbers of homeland trips and hometown trips were observed within each generation group (p<.01) and across migrant generations as well (t=8.8; p<.001).

Table 4.

Within- and Between-Subject Comparisons.

	1-Gen(n=119)	1.5-Gen(n=126)	2-Gen(n=307)	3-Gen(n=106)	4+-Gen(n=150)	Total	Between-Subject F Value	p
Transnational leisure^a
Event-based	2.69	2.46	2.26	2.74	3.02	2.6	15.0	<.001
Media-based	3.44	2.98	2.63	2.84	3.05	2.9	12.0	<.001
Basic	4.06	3.85	3.79	3.79	3.68	3.8	4.7	<.01
Within-subject F value	154.2	277.8	403.7	69.4	33.2	651.1
p	<.001	<.001	<.001	<.001	<.001	<.001
Travel behavior
Number of trips to China	7.25	4.66	2.99	5.63	4.67	4.5	8.3	<.001
Number of trips to hometown in China	5.86	3.80	2.09	3.98	3.24	3.4	10.7	<.001
Within-subject t value	3.4	5.9	5.6	4.1	3.3	8.8
p	<.01	<.001	<.001	<.001	<.01	<.001
Travel intention^b	3.86	3.72	3.55	3.67	3.79	3.68	3.8	<.01

Items measured on a five-point scale of frequency (from 1 = never to 5 = always/every day).

Items measured on a five-point scale of agreement (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

In the next step, a series of between-subjects ANOVAs were conducted to examine the differences among migrant groups (Table 4; Figure 1). It was found that the mean scores in event-based (F=15.0, p<.001, R² = 0.07), media-based (F=12.0, p<.001, R² = 0.06), and basic transnational leisure (F=4.7, p<.01, R² = 0.02) differed significantly among migrant groups. Overall, the 1-generation and 4+-generation had higher scores across all types of transnational leisure, while the scores for the 2-generation and 3-generation were lower. Regarding travel behavior and intention, the differences were found in the frequency of visiting China (F=8.3, p<.001, R² = 0.04), the frequency of visiting hometown in China (F=10.7, p<.001, R² = 0.05), and travel intention (F=3.8, p<.01, R² = 0.02). Similarly, the mean scores of travel behavior and intention followed a U-shaped pattern across migrant groups—higher scores on both ends (1-generation and 4+-generation) and lower scores in the middle (Figure 2).

Figure 1.

Transnational leisure participation across generations.

Figure 2.

Travel behavior and intention across generations.

Predictors of Travel Behavior and Intention

The final step of analysis involved a series of multiple regression analyses with leisure participation as the independent variable, and the number of trips to China (models 1 and 2) and travel intention to China (models 3 and 4) were specified as dependent variables. All three types of leisure participation were entered in models 1 and 3, while the stepwise method was used in models 2 and 4. Moreover, as some respondents had visited China many times, log transformation of the dependent variable was used. The results of model 1 (Table 5) showed that basic transnational leisure did not have a significant effect on the number of homeland trips (p>.05). The effects of the event- and media-based leisure were both significant in general (p<.001); however, media-based leisure was the only significant dimension among the 1- and 1.5-generation migrants (p<.05), and event-based leisure was the only significant dimensions for other generations (p<.05). Model 2 provided “cleaner” results as only significant factors (p<.05) were included in the model. Similarly, media-based leisure was specified as the sole significant predictor (p<.01) among the 1- and 1.5-generations, while only event-based leisure was found to be a significant predictor among other generations (p<.001). It is worth noting that the magnitude of association was found to be greater among the 3-generation (r²=0.42) and 4+-generation (r²=0.35).

Table 5.

Results of Regression Analyses.

	Total	1-Gen	1.5-Gen	2-Gen	3-Gen	4+-Gen
Model 1: No. of trips
Event-based	0.24***	0.01	0.12	0.37***	0.72***	0.34*
Media-based	0.21***	0.25*	0.33*	−0.05	−0.03	0.21*
Basic	0.03	0.03	−0.13	0.04	−0.12	0.03
R²	0.20	0.07	0.14	0.12	0.40	0.36
Model 2: No. of Trips
Event-based	0.24***	–	–	0.35***	0.65***	0.59***
Media-based	0.24***	0.27**	0.34**	–	–	–
Basic	–	–	–	–	–	–
R²	0.20	0.07	0.12	0.12	0.42	0.35
Model 3: Travel Intention
Event-based	0.38***	0.33**	0.34***	0.51***	0.50**	0.01
Media-based	0.03	0.13	0.11	−0.09	−0.06	0.25*
Basic	0.29***	0.21*	0.12	0.27***	0.27**	0.56***
R²	0.36	0.29	0.22	0.34	0.41	0.52
Model 4: Travel Intention
Event-based	0.41***	0.39***	0.47***	0.45***	0.46***	–
Media-based	–	–	–	–	—	0.24**
Basic	0.29***	0.24**	–	0.24***	0.25**	0.55***
R²	0.36	0.30	0.22	0.34	0.42	0.53

Regression methods: Models 1 and 3 = Enter; Models 2 and 4 = Step-wise.

Models 3 and 4 were further examined with the inclusion of travel intention as the dependent variable. The results from model 3 showed that the effects of event-based and basic leisure on travel intention were found to be significant (p<.001) across migrant groups, while the effect of media-based effect was significant only among the 4+-generation migrants (p<.05). In addition, the R² values were lower among the first and 1.5 generations, while it climbed up through later generations. Similarly, the results of model 4 revealed that event-based and basic were significant across migrant groups (p<.001), which was also consistent among the 1-, 2-, and 3-generation migrants; however, event-based leisure was the only significant factor for the 1.5 generation (p<.001), and for the 4+ generation, both basic and media-based leisure were found to be significant (p<.01).

Discussion

This study examined transnational leisure, diaspora tourism behavior, and travel intention of contemporary overseas Chinese in North America. First, within three types of transnational leisure, basic leisure had the highest mean scores across all migrant generations. Although the mean scores of event-based leisure and media-based leisure were not as high, it should be noted that the nature of these activities is different. While it is possible for respondents to “eat Chinese food” every day, activities such as “watching Chinese movies” and “attending Chinese concerts/performances” cannot take place with such frequency. Compared to the four types of transnational leisure by Huang et al. (2015), ethnic social clubs and Internet-based activities were combined into one factor (i.e., event-based leisure). Otherwise, the result of the factor analysis was fairly consistent with Huang et al.’s (2015) qualitative study.

Among the five migrant groups, participation in basic transnational leisure decreased from the first generation to the fourth-plus generation. But for media-based and event-based leisure, the pattern of participation was U-shaped, decreasing from the first generation to the 1.5 and then the second generation, and increasing from the second generation to the third and then the fourth-plus generation. A similar U-shaped pattern was also found in respondents’ number of trips to China and the intention to visit China, with the second generation being the lowest and the first generation being the highest. A key question of interest in migration and transnationalism literature is as follows: Is transnationalism a “one-generation phenomenon” (Somerville 2008)? Previous studies have found second-generation migrants to be more English dominant, less likely to be bilingual, less likely to return, less likely to send remittances, and more likely to marry outside of their original nationality group compared to their parents (Jones-Correa 2002; Perlmann 2002). This current study identified a similar pattern in migrants’ transnational leisure and diaspora tourism activities, in that participation in all types of transnational leisure, as well as travel behavior and intention, dropped from the first generation to the 1.5 generation, and then the second generation.

For the third and fourth-plus generations, however, the situation was different. While the frequency of their basic transnational leisure activities was lower than previous generations, they participated in more media-based and event-based leisure. Their travel frequency and intention were also higher than the second generation. The surge in transnationalism in the third and fourth-plus generations corresponded to Herberg’s (1960) “third-generation hypothesis.” Herberg argued that second-generation migrants tended to reject their parents’ religion, but the third generation might choose to return to the religion of their grandparents. In this study, third- and fourth-generation migrants’ connection to the homeland also appeared to be more internal and symbolic. They didn’t necessarily need to eat Chinese food and their frequency of travel was not the highest, but they expressed a strong intention to visit China. In Wohlfart’s (2016) study on three generations of German-speaking immigrants in New Zealand, she also pointed out that “the third generation appreciates their ethnic roots exactly because these aspects have become symbolic tokens weak enough not to be cultural restraints in any way” (24). While previous research stopped at the third generation, this study further explored the transition from the third to later generations. From the third generation to the fourth-plus, the number of trips to China and hometown in China dropped, but participation in event-based and media-based leisure increased. The pattern suggests that from the third generation onwards, while migrants might be less likely to take trips to the homeland, they may participate in transnational leisure activities more frequently in the host society.

Does transnational leisure influence migrants’ decision to visit the homeland? Among the three types of transnational leisure, media-based leisure influenced the first and 1.5 generations’ frequency of visiting the homeland. Event-based leisure, however, had significant effects on the second, third, and fourth generations. Most event-based activities are social in nature and require more people to participate, whereas media-based activities generally take place at home, alone, or with family/close friends. Findings suggest that transnational leisure and diaspora tourism may be more of an individual activity for first- and 1.5-generation migrants. Given that first-generation migrants are typically fluent in their native/heritage language, they can listen to music and watch TV in Chinese on their own. Moreover, as they are likely to have personal ties back home, they can also travel by themselves and meet up with friends and relatives once they arrive. For later generations, however, the social aspects of transnational leisure seem more important. As they may not have personal connections in the homeland, they can meet other members of the Chinese diaspora through event-based transnational leisure. The social influence of these activities can inspire them to visit the homeland.

Another interesting finding was that basic transnational leisure did not have a significant effect on the number of homeland trips, despite the fact that basic activities had the highest level of participation. According to Levitt and Glick-Schiller (2004), transnationalism can be divided into “ways of being” and “ways of belonging.” Some practices allow migrants to be transnational, without necessarily feeling a sense of belonging. It is possible that some basic activities (e.g., eating Chinese food, celebrating Chinese holidays) take place because of habit or family tradition, rather than signifying an emotional connection to China. This may explain why basic leisure did not have a significant impact on diaspora tourism behavior across all generations.

As for the predictors of travel intention, event-based leisure was found to be the strongest predictor overall and for most generations (other than the fourth-plus generation), and basic leisure was a significant predictor for most generations (other than the 1.5 generation). The effects of media-based leisure, however, were not significant overall and only significant for the fourth-plus generation. The case of the fourth-plus generation was an interesting exception, where event-based leisure influenced their travel frequency, and basic and media-based leisure had a positive effect on their intention to visit China. Considering migrant families, the first generation had personal experience with the homeland. The second generation could learn about China from their parents. For the fourth-plus generation, however, even their grandparents were native-born in North America. Therefore, they were less likely to hear personal stories about China from their family. Compared to earlier generations, the media might become increasingly important to later generations, as a source of knowledge to learn about the homeland. This could explain why media-based leisure influenced the travel intention of fourth-plus-generation migrants but not the earlier generations. On one hand, media-based leisure may have increased their interest in the homeland. On the other hand, event-based leisure, such as activities hosted by ethnic organizations, may provide more opportunities to travel to the homeland.

Lastly, from model 1 to model 4, R² values were generally lower among the first and second generations and higher for later generations. This consistent pattern revealed that the effect of transnational leisure on diaspora tourism frequency and intention grew stronger with later generations. First- and second-generation migrants may need to return to the homeland because of family obligations (Li and McKercher 2016). For the third, fourth, and later generations, trips to the homeland could be more leisurely and spontaneous, as seen from the significant role that transnational leisure plays on their travel behavior.

Conclusion

Given the interdisciplinary nature of tourism, this study is the first to investigate the relationship between the leisure and tourism activities of migrants in a transnational social field. Overall, the relationship was found to be positive. Participating in transnational leisure increases migrants’ frequency and intention to visit the homeland. Among different types of transnational leisure, basic, event-based, and media-based activities have varying effects on different migrant generations. Previous studies on leisure–tourism connections were conducted in the context of one type of leisure (e.g., paddling, gold panning, recreational running) and examined whether people would participate in the same activity when traveling (e.g., Chang and Gibson 2011; Marinkovic, Dimitrovski, and Senic 2017; McGehee, Yoon, and Cardenas 2003). Compared to a specific recreational activity, transnational leisure is a broader concept that incorporates a wide range of activities related to one’s ethnic origin. While existing research has also examined multiple activities across leisure and tourism, the general focus was on comparison and consistency, such as the likelihood of tourists engaging in their favorite leisure activities when they are away from home (e.g., Brey and Lehto 2007; Chang and Gibson 2015; Smith, Pitts, and Litvin 2012; Sthapit and Björk 2017). Rather than looking at behavioral consistency across leisure and tourism, this study is unique in establishing a relationship between leisure and tourism. Participating in transnational leisure in the host society is positively related to migrants’ frequency of visiting the homeland and future travel intention.

The findings of this study can be widely utilized by the tourism industry. As the number of international migrants worldwide has reached 258 million (United Nations 2017), this research demonstrated that the market size of diaspora tourism is substantial. Specifically, respondents across migrant generations frequently visited their home country. More than 80% of them had visited China and nearly 50% visited China more than three times. While leisure travel has been traditionally conceptualized as novelty-seeking behavior (Chen and Yoon 2019), diaspora tourism as motivated by cultural connection and family heritage (Huang, Hung, and Chen 2018) has the potential to attract repeat visitations. Another key finding of the study is that the third- and fourth-plus generation migrants tended to reconnect with their ethnic origin, resulting in more frequent trips to the home country. This demonstrates that diaspora tourism is not limited to new migrants. Thus, many countries should be aware of the diaspora tourism market and, understanding the market, should develop tourism products to attract returning migrants (Frost, Laing, and Reeves 2013).

Moreover, the connection between transnational leisure and diaspora tourism identified in this research is useful for the tourism industry (such as travel agencies, airline companies, and destination marketing organizations) to develop advertising campaigns targeting different generations of migrants. Transnational leisure provides an alternative way for homeland destinations to increase migrants’ engagement and travel intention. In the case of the Chinese diaspora, findings showed that different generations are inspired by different forms of transnational leisure. Media-based leisure was found to be more attractive to the first and 1.5 generations, who speak the heritage language and can enjoy these activities by themselves. Among different types of media-based leisure, movies were the most popular. Therefore, airline companies and travel agencies can place their advertising information on selected media that are preferable among early-generation migrants. On the other hand, event-based leisure, such as Chinese games and cultural activities organized by ethnic clubs, seems more appealing to later generations. Social activities in a group setting can enhance their emotional bond to the homeland and motivate them to travel, and thus can be used by home country governments, destination marketing organizations, or other tourism-related businesses. Although second-generation migrants pose the biggest challenge, migrants’ ties to the homeland do not end with the second generation. There is hope in the later generations, as transnational leisure provides good opportunities for homeland destinations to connect with the overseas population.

The findings presented here are based on data collected from the overseas Chinese diaspora in North America. As nationality was used as a sampling criterion, findings are limited to permanent migrants who have become citizens in the host country, whereas those who have relocated recently and have yet to obtain citizenship were excluded. Moreover, migrants bring with them the cultures and traditions of “home.” The effect of leisure activities on diaspora tourism may vary among diaspora groups. In the case of overseas Chinese, the role of sports as a type of transnational leisure has not been explored. Future research can investigate the leisure–tourism relations of other migrant populations, specifically the role of sports. Many countries are associated with a national sport, such as American football and Canadian hockey. After relocating to a new country, to what extent do migrants follow their heritage sports or pick up new hobbies? It would be interesting to examine the sporting activities of transnational migrants and the intersection of sports tourism and diaspora tourism.

In addition, this study has revealed the effects of event-based and media-based leisure on travel behavior and intention. The next step is to explore how these activities shape migrants’ image of the homeland and in turn influence their on-site activities. Diaspora tourism studies tend to focus on the past, as diaspora tourists are known to be searching for their roots and heritage. Compared to past memories and family stories, transnational leisure may offer migrants a more contemporary view of their ancestral homeland. How do these different information sources come together as migrants navigate between home and host societies? Lastly, the spillover hypothesis explains how everyday leisure activities may spill over into tourism. On this note, this study only examined how transnational leisure influenced tourism. However, does diaspora tourism influence migrants’ transnational leisure behavior afterward? Future studies can investigate leisure–tourism relations from the opposite perspective, and shed light on the symbiotic relationship between leisure and tourism in the era of global migration.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by The Hong Kong Polytechnic University under Grant Ref. No. G-YBER.

ORCID iDs

Wei-Jue Huang

Chun-Chu Chen

Notes

Author Biographies

Wei-Jue Huang is an Associate Professor in the School of Hotel and Tourism Management at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Her research interests include diaspora tourism, tourist experience, and destination image.

Chun-Chu Chen is an Assistant Professor in the School of Hospitality Business Management at Washington State University. His research interests focus on the consumption of tourism and hospitality experiences and well-being.

References

Alba

Nee

2003. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Alexander

Bryce

Murdy

2017. “Delivering the Past: Providing Personalized Ancestral Tourism Experiences.” Journal of Travel Research 56 (4): 543–55.

Andriotis

2010. “Heterotopic Erotic Oases: The Public Nude Beach Experience.” Annals of Tourism Research 37:1076–96.

Backlund

E. A.

Williams

D. R.

2003. “A Quantitative Synthesis of Place Attachment Research: Investigating Past Experience and Place Attachment.” Proceedings of the 2003 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, Newtown Square, USA.

Bilgili

. 2014. “Migrants’ Multi-sited Social Lives: Interactions between Sociocultural Integration and Homeland Engagement.” Comparative Migration Studies 2 (3): 283–304.

Brey

E. T.

Lehto

X. Y.

2007. “The Relationship between Daily and Vacation Activities.” Annals of Tourism Research 34 (1): 160–80.

Briggs

2013. Deviance and Risk on Holiday: An Ethnography of British Tourists in Ibiza. New York: Macmillan.

Budruk

Wilhem-Stanis

S. A.

Schneider

I. E.

Heisey

J. J.

2008. “Crowding and Experience-Use History: A Study of the Moderating Effect of Place Attachment among Water-based Recreationists.” Environmental Management 41 (4): 528–37.

Byrne

B. M.

1998. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

10.

Carr

2002a. “Going with the Flow: An Assessment of the Relationship between Young People’s Leisure and Holiday Behaviour.” Tourism Geographies 4 (2): 115–34.

11.

Carr

2002b. “The Tourism–Leisure Behavioural Continuum.” Annals of Tourism Research 29 (4): 972–86.

12.

Chang

Chung

G. E.

2018. “Leisure–tourism Connection Behaviors by Life Stage and Gender.” International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 12 (3): 292–309.

13.

Chang

Gibson

H. J.

2011. “Physically Active Leisure and Tourism Connection: Leisure Involvement and Choice of Tourism Activities among Paddlers.” Leisure Sciences 33 (2): 162–81.

14.

Chang

Gibson

H. J.

2015. “The Relationships between Four Concepts and Consistency in Behaviour across Leisure and Tourism.” Tourism Management Perspectives 13:41–50.

15.

Chen

C.-C.

Yoon

2019. “Tourism as a Pathway to the Good Life: Comparing the Top-Down and Bottom-Up Effects.” Journal of Travel Research 58 (5): 866–76.

16.

Cohen

2010. “Tourism, Leisure and Authenticity.” Tourism Recreation Research 35 (1): 67–73.

17.

Cohen

E. H.

2016. “Self-Assessing the Benefits of Educational Tours.” Journal of Travel Research 55 (3): 353–61.

18.

Coles

Timothy

D. J.

2004. “‘My Field is the World’: Conceptualizing Diasporas, Travel and Tourism.” In Tourism, Diasporas and Space, edited by Coles

Timothy

D. J.

, 1–29. London: Routledge.

19.

Crockett

D. R.

2013. “Immigrant Entrepreneurs’ Selectivity: Host Market Distance and Opportunity.” Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy 7 (3): 196–212.

20.

Etemaddar

Tucker

Duncan

2015. “Anchoring to Identity through Exploring Another Land: The Iranian Diaspora in New Zealand.” Tourism, Culture & Communication 15 (3): 195–204.

21.

Fedler

1987. “Introduction: Are Leisure, Recreation and Tourism Interrelated.” Annals of Tourism Research 14:311–14.

22.

Frost

Laing

Reeves

2013. “Tourism and the Heritage of Diasporas.” Tourism Analysis 18 (3): 225–26.

23.

Hair

J. F.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

Black

W. C.

1998. Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

24.

Haller

Landolt

2005. “The Transnational Dimensions of Identity Formation: Adult Children of Immigrants in Miami.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 28 (6): 1182–214.

25.

Havitz

M. E.

Dimanche

1997. “Leisure Involvement Revisited: Conceptual Conundrums and Measurement Advances.” Journal of Leisure Research 29 (3): 245–78.

26.

Herberg

1960. Protestant, Catholic, Jew: An Essay in American Religious Sociology. Garden City: Doubleday.

27.

Hesse

Tutenges

2011. “Young Tourists Visiting Strip Clubs and Paying for Sex.” Tourism Management 32 (4): 869–74.

28.

Heung

V. C. S.

Chu

2001. “The Relationship between Vacation Factors and Socio-demographic and Travelling Characteristics.” Tourism Management 22 (3): 259–269.

29.

Huang

W.-J.

Hung

Chen

C.-C.

2018. “Attachment to the Home Country or Hometown? Examining Diaspora Tourism across Migrant Generations.” Tourism Management 68: 52–65.

30.

Huang

W.-J.

Norman

W. C.

Ramshaw

G. P.

Haller

W. J.

2015. “Transnational Leisure Experience of Second-Generation Immigrants: The Case of Chinese-Americans.” Journal of Leisure Research 47 (1): 102–24.

31.

Hung

Petrick

J. F.

2011. “The Role of Self- and Functional Congruity in Cruising Intentions.” Journal of Travel Research 50 (1): 100–12.

32.

Jones-Correa

2002. “The Study of Transnationalism among the Children of Immigrants.” In The Changing Face of Home: The Transnational Lives of the Second Generation, edited by Levitt

Waters

M. C.

, 221–41. New York: Russell Sage.

33.

Kaftanoglu

Timothy

D. J.

2013. “Return Travel, Assimilation, and Cultural Maintenance: An Example of Turkish-Americans in Arizona.” Tourism Analysis 18 (3): 273–84.

34.

Kamenik

Tammaru

Toomet

2015. “Ethnic Segmentation in Leisure Time Activities in Estonia.” Leisure Studies 34 (5): 566–87.

35.

Kasinitz

2012. “The Sociology of International Migration: Where We Have Been, Where Do We Go from Here?” Sociological Forum 27 (3): 579–90.

36.

Kasinitz

Mollenkopf

J. H.

Waters

M. C.

Holdaway

2008. Inheriting the City: The Children of Immigrants Come of Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

37.

Kelner

2010. Tours that Bind: Diaspora, Pilgrimage, and Israeli Birthright Tourism. New York: New York University Press.

38.

Kim

Heo

Lee

2016. “Exploring the Relationship between Types of Leisure Activities and Acculturation among Korean Immigrants.” Leisure Studies 35 (1): 113–27.

39.

Kloek

M. E.

Buijs

A. E.

Boersema

J. J.

Schouten

M. G. C.

2015. “‘Nature Lovers,’ ‘Social Animals,’ ‘Quiet Seekers’ and ‘Activity Lovers’: Participation of Young Adult Immigrants and Non-immigrants in Outdoor Recreation in the Netherlands.” Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 12:47–58.

40.

Kloek

M. E.

Buijs

A. E.

Boersema

J. J.

Schouten

M. G. C.

2017. “Beyond Ethnic Stereotypes—Identities and Outdoor Recreation among Immigrants and Non-immigrants in the Netherlands.” Leisure Sciences 39 (1): 59–78.

41.

Koshoedo

S. A.

Paul-Ebhohimhen

V. A.

Jepson

R. G.

Watson

M. C.

2015. “Understanding the Complex Interplay of Barriers to Physical Activity amongst Black and Minority Ethnic Groups in the United Kingdom.” BMC Public Health 15 (1): 643–58.

42.

Krymkowski

D. H.

Manning

Valliere

W. A.

2014. “Race, Ethnicity, and Visitation to National Parks in the United States.” Journal for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 7/8:35–43.

43.

Lee

C. C.

Allen

1999. “Understanding Individuals’ Attachment to Selected Destinations: An Application of Place Attachment.” Tourism Analysis 4 (3/4): 173–85.

44.

Lelo

Jamal

2013. “African Americans at Sites of Darkness: Roots-Seeking, Diasporic Identities and Place Making.” In Dark Tourism and Place Identity: Managing and Interpreting Dark Place, edited by White

Frew

, 28–45. London: Routledge.

45.

Levitt

Glick-Schiller

2004. “Conceptualizing Simultaneity: A Transnational Social Field Perspective on Society.” International Migration Review 38 (3): 1002–39.

46.

T. L.

McKercher

2016. “Developing a Typology of Diaspora Tourists: Return Travel by Chinese Immigrants in North America.” Tourism Management 56:106–13.

47.

Lockstone-Binney

Hall

Atay

2013. “Exploring the Conceptual Boundaries of Diaspora and Battlefield Tourism: Australians’ Travel to the Gallipoli Battlefield, Turkey, as a Case Study.” Tourism Analysis 18 (3): 297–311.

48.

Mannell

Iso-Ahola

1987. “Psychological Nature of Leisure and Tourism Experience.” Annals of Tourism Research 14:314–31.

49.

Marinkovic

Dimitrovski

Senic

2017. “Going for Gold as a Leisure Tourism Continuum: Clustering Motivations for Gold Panning Revisit Intention.” Leisure Studies 36 (6): 764–77.

50.

Mathijsen

. 2019. “Home, Sweet Home? Understanding Diasporic Medical Tourism Behaviour. Exploratory Research of Polish Immigrants in Belgium.” Tourism Management 72:373–85.

51.

McGehee

N. G.

Yoon

Cardenas

2003. “Involvement and Travel for Recreational Runners in North Carolina.” Journal of Sport Management 17:305–24.

52.

Migration Policy Institute. 2017. “Estimates of the Top 20 Diaspora Groups in the United States.” https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/datahub/MPI-Data-Hub_Diasporas-in-US_2017.xlsx (accessed December 12, 2018).

53.

Moore

Cushman

Simmons

1995. “Behavioural Conceptualization of Tourism and Leisure.” Annals of Tourism Research 22 (1): 67–85.

54.

Mowatt

R. A.

Chancellor

C. H.

2011. “Visiting Death and Life: Dark Tourism and Slave Castles.” Annals of Tourism Research 38 (4): 1410–34.

55.

Netemeyer

R. G.

Bearden

W. O.

Sharma

2003. Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

56.

Niedomysl

2011. “How Migration Motives Change over Migration Distance: Evidence on Variation across Socio-economic and Demographic Groups.” Regional Studies 45 (6): 843–55.

57.

Otoo

F. E.

Kim

S. S.

Choi

2020. “Developing a Multidimensional Measurement Scale for Diaspora Tourists’ Motivation.” Journal of Travel Research. Published online January 24. doi: 10.1177/0047287519899990

58.

Özgüner

2011. “Cultural Differences in Attitudes towards Urban Parks and Greenspaces.” Landscape Research 36 (5): 599–620.

59.

Perlmann

2002. Second-generation Transnationalism. In The Changing Face of Home: The Transnational Lives of the Second Generation, edited by Levitt

Waters

M. C.

, 216–20. New York: Russell Sage.

60.

Portes

1997. “Immigration Theory for a New Century: Some Problems and Opportunities.” International Migration Review 31 (4): 799–825.

61.

Portes

Manning

1986. “The Immigrant Enclave: Theory and Empirical Examples.” In Competitive Ethnic Relations, edited by Olzak

Nagel

, 47–68. New York: Academic.

62.

Ray

N. M.

McCain

2012. “Personal Identity and Nostalgia for the Distant Land of Past: Legacy Tourism.” The International Business & Economics Research Journal 11 (9): 977–90.

63.

Rumbaut

R. G.

Bean

F. D.

Chávez

L. R.

Lee

Brown

S. K.

DeSipio

Zhou

2008. Immigration and Intergenerational Mobility in Metropolitan Los Angeles (IIMMLA), 2004. ICPSR22627-v1. Ann Arbor: ICPSR.

64.

Shuval

J. T.

2000. “Diaspora Migration: Definitional Ambiguities and a Theoretical Paradigm.” International migration 38 (5): 41–57.

65.

Smith

Pitts

Litvin

2012. “Travel and Leisure: Activity Participation.” Annals of Tourism Research 39: 2203–19.

66.

Soehl

Waldinger

2012. “Inheriting the Homeland? Intergenerational Transmission of Cross-Border Ties in Migrant Families.” American Journal of Sociology 118 (3): 778–813.

67.

Somerville

2008. “Transnational Belonging among Second Generation Youth: Identity in a Globalized World.” Journal of Social Sciences 10:23–33.

68.

Sthapit

Björk

2017. “Activity Participation Home and Away—Examining the Spill over Theory among Families on Holiday.” Anatolia 28 (2): 209–23.

69.

Sthapit

Kozak

Coudounaris

2019. “What am I Going to Do Now? Examining Choice Overload in Vacation Activities Using the Familiarity Concept.” Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 19 (3): 232–58.

70.

Stodolska

. 2015. “Recreation for All: Providing Leisure and Recreation Services in Multi-ethnic Communities.” World Leisure Journal 57 (2): 89–103.

71.

Stodolska

Santos

C. A.

2006. “Transnationalism and Leisure: Mexican Temporary Migrants in the U.S.” Journal of Leisure Research 38 (2): 143–67.

72.

Stodolska

Floyd

M. F.

2015. “Leisure, Race, Ethnicity, and Immigration.” In Leisure Matters: The State and Future of Leisure Studies. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

73.

United Nations, Population Division. 2017. International Migration Report 2017: Highlights. New York: United Nations.

74.

Uriely

2010. “‘Home’ and ‘Away’ in VFR Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 37 (3): 854–857.

75.

Van Oudenhoven

J. P.

Ward

Masgoret

A.-M.

2006. “Patterns of Relations between Immigrants and Host Societies.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (6): 637–51.

76.

Wang

De Graaff

Nijkamp

2016. “Cultural Diversity and Cultural Distance as Choice Determinants of Migration Destination.” Spatial Economic Analysis 11 (2): 176–200.

77.

Wohlfart

I. K.

2016. Intergenerational Consequences of Lifestyle Migration: German-speaking Immigrants in New Zealand. Singapore: Springer.