Page 98 - Journal of Library Science in China 2020 Vol.46
P. 98

FU Caiwu & WANG Wende / “Weak participation” in rural cultural benefiting project   097
                                       and its reform strategy: A survey from 282 administrative villages in 21 provinces across the country


               information dissemination purpose. The less anticipated numbers maybe because performance
               and entertainment programs function as social platforms and thus have a more significant
               social relationship dissemination effect. From the perspective of participation rate, the numbers
               (58.72±9.44%) are relatively low even for the public awareness of CBP. The RRTC (71.5%)
               represented the highest participation rate; This data includes receiving services like paid cable TV
               and satellite television and Internet TV with a coverage rate of 28.5% percent, which indicates
               that new forms of media are gradually replacing traditional radio and TV. 2) Responsibility,
               interest and benefit (S. H. LI & ZHAO, 2019) heavily affect the weak participation action logic
               concerning motivation. For example, 23.6% and 27.0% of the respondents participated in the RFP
               and the DRA accompanying others; More than half of the respondents who participated in the
               NCIRSP were chatting online, watching TV and movies or browsing the web pages and so forth.
               Furthermore, 11.7% of the respondents participated in both the RFP and the DRA because of the
               village committee. Therefore, public participation in rural cultural projects shows the trait of weak
               participation in terms of awareness rate, participation rate and participation motivation.

               Table 3. Description of awareness rate, participation rate and participation of residents in rural CBP
                                  Awareness Participation
                    Project name                                Participation description
                                    rate    rate
                Rural Radio and Television   69.4%  71.5%  Average daily radio duration:0.46hr
                Coverage (RRTC)                   Average daily TV duration:2.47hr

                National Cultural                 chatting online:16.2%;Browse Web pages, news:28.2%;
                Information Resources   32.8%  63.2%  Watch TV or movies:25.5%;Online learning and training:
                                                  31.3%;Searching and downloading information:26.8%;reading
                Sharing Project (NCIRS)
                                                  e-books:17.1%;others:12.0%
                                                  Watching movies:26.1%;Passing time:37.9%;Accompanying
                Rural Film Projection   68.8%  52.6%  others:23.6%;Recreation and relaxation:45.8%;Art
                (RFP)
                                                  appreciation:10.2%;Village Council Organization:11.7%
                                                  1-3 times:56.6%;4-10 times:30.7%;11-30 times:10.0%;
                The Farmer’s Book House  47.8%  47.1%
                                                  >30 times:2.7%;Participants to total response:16.6%
                                                  Watching a play:41.5%;Passing time:37.2%;Accompanying
                Dramas in the Rural   54.6%  59.2%
                Areas (DRA)                       others:27.0%;Curiosity:15.7%;Improving art appreciation:
                                                  15.0%;Village Council Organization:11.7%
               Note: Participation rate describes the proportion of effective participation among respondents who know about the project,
               where the participation mode of radio and TV village access is the proportion of those who have TV (not network TV).



               2  Research hypothesis, model construction and variable selection


               2.1 Research hypothesis


               Other studies have shown that the quality of public service provision has an enormous impact on
               residents’ quality of life (Pacione, 2001). Erickson, Call, and Brown surveyed adults from 24 rural
   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103