Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study aims to identify the main drivers of Chinese students’ motivations to pursue a higher education degree in Australia after the Covid-19 pandemic. Using a survey sample of N = 437 Chinese students seeking to study a postgraduate degree, our results show that both conventional factors (i.e., culture ties with families and friends, recommendations from education agents, the reputation of international universities, and the destination degree’s potential to enhance job prospects in desired field) and PESTLE (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, and Legal) factors are important determinants. Specifically, we find a positive association between conventional factors and Chinese students’ choice to study abroad in Australia, and this association is amplified when students receive more information on PESTLE factors. Our results provide implications for government and University policy and practice. Future research areas are suggested that are crucial for attracting Chinese international students in the post-pandemic era.

Keywords

Australia Chinese Students higher education conventional factors PESTLE

Introduction

Amid the third wave of international student mobility, Australia has emerged as one of the largest host countries for international students (Zayim-Kurtay et al., 2025; Zhai et al., 2019).¹ However, the financial landscape of Australian universities has changed significantly since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (Universities Australia, 2024). The pandemic further exacerbated financial pressures, forcing universities to make rapid adjustments to their operations and budgets. Inflation and flat domestic demand also left Australian universities more vulnerable than before COVID-19 (Ross, 2024). One notable impact was the decline in international student enrolments, particularly Chinese students, the largest cohort of international students in Australia. The number of Chinese students in Australia fell from 211,986 in 2019 to 166,163 in 2023 (Department of Education, 2025c). Given that Australian universities heavily rely on international student enrolments as a significant source of revenue, there is a need to understand the key factors that motivate students to select Australia as their study destination.

Today, Chinese students, even with a university degree, face difficulties in securing employment. According to the National Bureau of Statistics of China, the youth unemployment rate in China reached a record high of 21.3% for individuals aged 16 to 24 (Textor, 2025). To remain competitive in the job market, many Chinese students continue to pursue higher academic qualifications, leading to increased difficulty in gaining entry to elite local universities (Chen et al., 2024). This intense competition has driven an increasing number of students to seek further educational opportunities abroad. Gaining a deeper understanding of the factors that drive Chinese students to choose Australia for postgraduate studies, therefore is crucial and timely.

In this study, we examine (1) how conventional factors, such as familial ties and peer networks, recommendations from education agents, the reputation of international universities, and career opportunities influence Chinese students’ choice to study postgraduate education abroad in Australia; and (2) how the PESTLE (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, and Legal) framework moderates the relationship between conventional factors and Chinese students’ choice to study abroad. We are motivated to investigate these two research questions for several reasons.

Firstly, while prior studies have explored how the attitudes of Chinese students are shaped after they arrive at their study destinations (e.g., Arkoudis et al., 2019; Leonov, 2024), we know little about the factors that motivate students to study abroad while still residing in China. This is surprising because Chinese students often select their destination country before choosing a higher education institution.

In addition, limited scholarly research provides a comprehensive understanding of the key factors driving Chinese students to choose Australia as their study destination over other popular countries. Australia faces increasing competition in the international student market, particularly from the US, UK, and Canada. A recent report by the Parliament of Australia (2024) indicates these countries as key competitors in the global educational sector, with each actively positioning itself as an attractive destination for Chinese students. This competition could be shaped by a combination of factors, such as the perceived quality of education, career opportunities, and favorable immigration policies. In light of this, it is timely to assess the factors influencing the mobility of Chinese international students in the post-pandemic era. Gaining insight into what drives Chinese students to choose Australia is crucial, as it impacts Australia’s ability to remain competitive in attracting international students compared to its global rivals.

Moreover, the issue of Chinese students’ choice to study abroad has recently become a source of much concern and research interest. A growing body of literature explores the factors influencing Chinese student mobility, with many studies relying primarily on the push-pull framework to distinguish between positive (pull) factors in the host country and negative (push) factors in the home country. According to this model, students are encouraged to move by favorable factors abroad and discouraged by unfavorable factors at home. Our study aims to move beyond the push-pull framework by integrating the theory of planned behavior to develop a more targeted understanding of conventional factors influencing Chinese students’ choice to study in Australia. Specifically, we focus on four key factors that align with stakeholders’ concerns: culture ties (students/families), education agents (recruitment industry), university reputation (institutions), and career prospects (students/employers/governments). By limiting the scope to these four factors, our study provides greater depth in each rather than covering many factors.

Furthermore, according to Zayim-Kurtay et al., (2025), push-pull factors (i.e., conventional factors) are typically applied at the micro level to explain individual decision-making. However, international student mobility has attracted increasing attention from governments at the macro-level, suggesting that international student mobility cannot be explained solely through individual push-pull factors. To better capture this complexity, we expand the push-pull model by incorporating the PESTLE framework, shaped by political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental factors. This allows for a more systematic and multidimensional analysis.

The PESTLE framework has attracted growing interest within the education sector, while prior research has primarily offered a theoretical overview of PESTLE analysis (e.g., Walsh et al., 2019). To our best knowledge, Paynter et al. (2023) is the first study to empirically examine the presence of PESTLE. However, they did not explore how this association is influenced by conventional factors. Accordingly, we extend their study by examining whether the impact of conventional factors on Chinese students’ destination choices is moderated by the PESTLE framework.

Our study opens new avenues for research by examining how conventional factors and PESTLE factors influence Chinese students’ destination choices in the post-pandemic era. Our results contribute to the literature by addressing the limited empirical examples of the PESTLE framework being applied to educational studies. Building on the recent work by Paynter et al. (2023), we provide a more comprehensive explanation of the moderating role of PESTLE factors and how they interact with conventional factors to shape Chinese students’ decisions. Our findings also offer valuable insights for key stakeholders – including Australian universities, Chinese students, education agents, and policymakers – by highlighting the nuanced interplay between individual-level (conventional) and structural (PESTLE) influences. Understanding this interaction is essential for designing more effective recruitment strategies and informed policy responses.

Literature and Hypothesis Development

Conventional Factors and Chinese Students’ Choice to Study in Australia

We first investigate whether conventional (or traditional) factors play an important role in Chinese students’ decision-making regarding the country to study. The conventional factors in our study originate from the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) developed by Ajzen (1991), which aims to understand and predict a student’s intention to study abroad. The theory posits that attitude towards behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control affect an individual’s behavioral intention (Asare, 2015; Conner, 2020). The first two constructs of the theory are behavioral attention (i.e., the motivational factors that influence behavior) and attitude towards the behavior (i.e., the extent to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable appraisal of a given behavior) (Asare, 2015). The stronger the intention and attitude to engage in a behavior, the more likely the behavior is to be performed. Specifically, mobility factors such as university reputation (Bano & Vasantha, 2019; Liu et al., 2024) and career prospects (ICEF, 2025) are significant motivational influences on students’ decisions to study abroad. Subjective norms, such as advice from family, friends, or agents, also play a key role in the theory, referring to the social pressure to perform or not perform a specific behavior. Perceived behavior control is the fourth construct, which refers to an individual’s perception of the ease or difficulty of performing the behavior of interest (Asare, 2015).

In addition, the literature has predominantly focused on the push-pull model in examining the drivers of Chinese international student mobility (e.g., Feng & Horta, 2021; Leonov, 2024; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002; Mok et al., 2021; Nikou et al., 2023). Generally, push factors are associated with unfavorable conditions in the home country (e.g., low wages, limited job opportunities, and poor education) that may drive students to leave their home country. In contrast, pull factors are related to attractive conditions in the host country (e.g., high education quality, friendly immigration opportunities, promising job prospects) (Leonov, 2024; Mok et al., 2021). The push and pull factors motivate students to study abroad, which explains the determinants that are relevant to the TPB. While several factors influence Chinese international students’ mobility to Australia, the two most cited conventional factors in the literature are the awareness of the host country (e.g., academic reputation and career prospects) and the influence of referrals such as family, peer networks, and agent recommendations (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002). In addition to these factors, Mazzarol & Soutar (2002) and Mok et al. (2021) further suggest other important pull factors, such as cost-related issues (e.g., living expenses), environmental factors, and geographic proximity. We refer to these additional pull factors collectively as PESTLE factors and will discuss them in the section on the moderating role of PESTLE factors.

The first conventional factor, familial ties and peer networks , is one of the common pull factors influencing Chinese students’ decision to study abroad (Leonov, 2024). Particularly, family influence plays a crucial role in the final decision-making process regarding educational migration (Meng & Johnston, 2023; Mok et al., 2021). This is because Chinese students largely grow up in a culture rich in Confucian ideals, a culture that highly values education, respects family traditions and authority, and is steeped in the concept of filial piety (Bodycott & Lai, 2012).² In Chinese culture, parents play a central role in decision-making, especially in significant life choices like studying abroad. Parents perceive overseas education as having several advantages for their children, such as direct exposure to foreign language and culture, better education, and building skills for future competition in the job market after graduation (Leonov, 2024). Accordingly, they often have a strong influence on their children’s academic and career paths, including the choice of country for higher education. Chinese families often view education as a high-stakes investment. Graduating from a prestigious university not only improves a student’s future career prospects but also enhances the family’s social standing (Chen et al., 2024). Many Chinese families favor the US, the UK, or Australia for their top-tier universities and well-regarded academic programs. Unsurprisingly, Australia is one of the best recommendations from many Chinese students’ parents and friends (Ha et al., 2023; Velliaris, 2016).

Families continue to play a significant role in influencing students’ decisions even in the post-COVID-19 era. Health concerns, potential discrimination, visa requirements, and strict border policies may have led some families to discourage overseas study. For example, the Australia-China relationship has declined dramatically within the past decade (Maunsell, 2024). This strained diplomatic relationship may have impacted family trust in Australia as a safe and welcoming study destination for Chinese students.

Friends and peers also have a strong influence on the study abroad choices of Chinese students (Cao & Tran, 2015; Leonov, 2024; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002). If friends have studied or are planning to study in a particular destination, it can create a network of support and shared experiences that encourage others to follow the same path (Azmat et al., 2013). Positive feedback from friends who have studied abroad about the destination’s academic programs, job prospects, and ease of cultural adaptation has been shown to create a sense of trust and validation that the destination is a good fit, encouraging others to follow (Cao & Tran, 2015). In addition, for Chinese students, knowing that friends are already studying in a particular country or university can provide comfort and confidence, reducing the anxiety of adapting to a new culture (Maringe & Carter, 2007). This suggests that the prospect of joining a familiar community in a foreign environment can make the destination feel more accessible. Furthermore, the formation of peer groups and networks among students from similar regions or the same schools can create trends. For example, students may be more inclined to follow the trend to maintain social connections or be part of a wider community, making certain destinations more popular over time, leading to a ‘Bandwagon effect’ (Bindra et al., 2022).

For the post-COVID-19 shifts, peer recommendations continue to influence students’ decisions to study in Australia. For instance, students currently studying in Australia often use social media platforms like Xiaohongshu and TikTok to stay informed about real-time updates on issues such as the cost-of-living crisis, which shape their perception of affordability. In addition, shared experience of post-lockdown trauma has heightened students’ concerns about Australian institutions’ social readiness (Gannon et al., 2024), including mental health services and multicultural inclusivity.

The second conventional factor is recommendations from education agents . Following the Department of Education (2024b) and the 2023 survey from the UK-based Boarding Schools Association (Boarding Schools Association, 2023), more than 80% of Chinese parents responded that education agents were their primary source of information when planning their children’s study abroad. Despite their widespread use, studies specifically examining the role of education agents in the process of students’ destination choices remain under-explored (Feng & Horta, 2021). To complement such research, we examine this factor.

Education agents present as cultural and informational intermediaries in guiding Chinese students in their destination choices for studying abroad, such as assisting foreign universities in recruiting international students and helping students enroll in universities abroad (Yang, 2025). They have extensive knowledge of different destinations, including details on universities, programs, and scholarship opportunities. Their expert guidance helps Chinese students identify the best-fit destination based on their academic interests, career goals, personal preferences, language proficiency, and financial capabilities, ensuring that students are well-prepared to study abroad. For instance, education agents might suggest countries like the US or the UK for students seeking top-tier research opportunities, Australia or Canada for those looking for a more affordable and culturally welcoming environment, and South Korea or Malaysia for those interested in emerging educational systems or easier visa pathways. More specifically, education agents often provide targeted guidance in students’ fields of study.³ This is supported by Su & Harrison (2016), who find that many international students rely on the recommendations from education agents to decide on not only city destinations but also university and field of study.

Education agents also help students through the visa application and immigration process. Countries like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, which offer post-study work visas or pathways to permanent residency, are often recommended (Study Australia, 2024). This is particularly important because the availability of post-study work visas or pathways attracts Chinese students seeking residency (Li, 2024). Furthermore, education agents often have established relationships with universities. Agents tend to steer students toward universities with strong global reputations, such as those in Australia. These institutions are seen as providing excellent student satisfaction, job placement rates, and career opportunities.

Agents have continued to exert considerable influence on students’ decisions in the post-pandemic landscape. For example, in response to Australia’s strict student visa application and visa delays (The Guardian, 2024), many agents adapted by promoting hybrid or fully online programs, or by directing students toward alternative destinations that offered more flexible and accessible entry requirements. These shifts in agent behavior have had a significant impact on student destination preferences.

The third conventional factor, university reputation and rankings , is one of the most significant pull factors for students and their families (Cebolla-Boado et al., 2018; Leonov, 2024). Many Chinese families are highly conscious of prestigious host institutions, as gaining admission to a top-ranking university is viewed as an attainment of symbolic capital (Zhai et al., 2019). Due to the massification of higher education in China since the 1990s, degrees from different universities no longer confer the same level of symbolic capital or guarantee employment in China’s competitive labor market. As a result, pursuing the symbolic capital associated with globally recognized university rankings and reputations has become a smart choice (Cebolla-Boado et al., 2018; Zhai et al., 2019).

Motivated by this symbolic capital, Chinese students and their families are highly sensitive to such international standing of overseas universities, believing that these institutions offer superior education and enhanced career opportunities (Cheah & Shimul, 2023). The Australian higher education system has a good academic reputation in the world (McCrohon & Nyland, 2018). Many Australian universities (e.g., University of Melbourne, University of Sydney, etc.) rank highly in global rankings such as QS World University rankings, Times Higher Education, and Academic Ranking of World Universities, which significantly influences students’ decisions.⁴ Their degrees, internationally recognized and accredited by relevant industry bodies, are often viewed more favorably by employers both in Australia and internationally. Because of its perceived academic reputation, Australia is a popular study destination for Chinese students (Calderon, 2025; Zhai et al., 2019).

It is plausible that negative media coverage of China-Australia tensions may overshadow the reputation of Australian Institutions, particularly those involved in the relationship (Sun, 2024). In the post-COVID-19 era, Australian universities have increasingly offered financial aid, mental health resources, scholarships, and career support, which are now seen as tangible indicators of institutional commitment to student well-being. These measures not only address immediate student needs but also serve to enhance the attractiveness of Australian institutions to prospective Chinese students in the competitive international student market.

The fourth conventional factor is employment and future career prospects , which receive significant attention when students consider Australian higher education options (Jiang et al., 2025; Zhai et al., 2019). From the perspective of consumer value, the functional and pragmatic benefits of a degree, such as improved job opportunities and career advancement, have emerged as one of the major drivers influencing Chinese students’ decisions to pursue education abroad. As suggested by Leonov (2024), China’s gaokao education system and domestic post-graduation job markets are intensively competitive, with many young people competing for better career prospects. This competitive environment encourages Chinese students and their families to consider studying overseas as an alternative path to avoid the intense employment competition in China. Students often choose destinations where their degrees will enhance their opportunities of securing employment in their desired fields. Australia’s strong economy, particularly in industry sectors such as healthcare, engineering, and business, makes it an attractive job market for students seeking job opportunities. Students are especially drawn to universities with high graduate employment rates.

According to the recent survey from the Australian Minister of Education (2023), graduate employment rates have reached their highest level in more than a decade. The undergraduate employment rate reached 79%, and the overall employment rate increased to 88.9% in 2023 (Ministers’ Media Centre, 2024). In addition, many Chinese students enrolling in occupational therapy courses aim to pursue migration pathways and build careers in their destination country after graduation (Dos Santos, 2021). Australian universities maintain close ties with industry partners through work-integrated learning (WIL) initiatives, offering students opportunities for internships and work placements that directly enhance students’ employability after graduation (Jackson, 2024). Australia’s post-pandemic recovery faces challenges such as economic downturns, which may reduce work opportunities for international students. In addition, rising inflation and currency fluctuations could diminish the financial appeal of studying in Australia, motivating students to compare costs with alternative destinations.

In summary, we expect that these conventional factors will positively impact Chinese students’ choice to study abroad in Australia. Our first hypothesis is presented as follows:

H1: There is a positive relationship between the strength of conventional factors and Chinese students’ choice to study a higher education degree in Australia.

PESTLE Factors and Chinese Students’ Choice to Study in Australia

At the micro level, traditional push-pull factors, commonly used in human geography and migration studies, explain why student mobility occurs through a binary lens: motivations to leave (push) versus incentives to arrive (pull). However, at the macro-level, international student mobility has attracted increasing attention from governments, as it serves as a tool for exerting soft power (Zayim-Kurtay et al., 2025). Given this broader context, student mobility cannot be reduced to students’ cost-benefit calculations alone. Rather, it represents a complex phenomenon shaped by political, economic, and social factors, in addition to the rational choices of individuals. To better capture this complexity, we expand the push-pull model by incorporating the PESTLE model to enable a more systematic approach. While both frameworks may consider overlapping factors, such as economic conditions and environmental challenges, the push-pull model focuses on migration-centric motivations, whereas the PESTLE model provides a more holistic and structured analysis of the external environment.

The PESTLE framework is a set of group macro-environmental factors, including six categories (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, and Legal) to identify the general opportunities and risks that can impact the future strategic planning outcomes in competitive markets (Paynter et al., 2023; Walsh et al., 2019).⁵ PESTLE is a structured, more overarching form of analysis for identifying the external opportunities and threats to an organization (Christodoulou & Cullinane, 2019).

We begin with Political (P) factors, which involve the political relationships between China and other countries, including Australia. These relationships have undergone a series of changes since the Chinese government opened its economy to trade in the late 1970s (Drezner, 2020). Political factors include government visa policies (e.g., student visa policies, pathways to permanent residency) and diplomatic relations between countries, and these factors can either encourage or discourage Chinese students from choosing a particular study destination (Maude, 2023). Australia’s student visa policies are relatively straightforward compared to other popular destinations like the US, making Australia an attractive choice for Chinese international students seeking quality education (Leonov, 2024). In addition, the availability of post-study work visas and Australia’s policies that allow international students to transition to permanent residency after graduation provide Chinese students with long-term career prospects, which are highly valued (Arkoudis et al., 2019; Department of Education, 2025b).

However, political relations (visa approvals, ease of travel) could impact students’ decision-making. Tensions such as trade disputes and visa policies between China and Australia have worsened in the post-COVID-19 period (Edmonstone, 2024), and this continues to affect student mobility. In response to growing security concerns over China’s increasing military activities (Shi, 2025; Taimoor et al., 2025), host governments have become more cautious about the transfer of knowledge from host countries back to China (Ketchell, 2025). These concerns have led to restrictions on Chinese students’ access to certain research areas, such as robotics, aeronautics, and material sciences. Thus, the ongoing political tensions can cause Chinese students to hesitate to apply to various countries.

In terms of E conomic (E1) factors, numerous studies have shown that Chinese students choose their destination country based on personal costs of studying abroad (e.g., tuition fees, cost of living) and the potential for finding employment in that country after their graduation (Cheah & Shimul, 2023; Freeman et al., 2022; Leonov, 2024). Bendrups et al., (2020) and Liu et al., (2023) suggest that, in addition to the quality of education, Australian education is perceived as high-quality but relatively cost-effective compared to the US and UK, with lower average tuition fees. Generally, the cost of living in Australian cities like Melbourne is considered more affordable than in major international cities such as New York or London (Relocations WA, 2025; Tümtürk et al., 2024). Further, post-study visa and work policies in Australia were adjusted during the pandemic. International students are permitted to work up to 48 hours per fortnight during academic terms (Department of Education, 2025d), which can help manage living costs. Despite interruptions from trade conflicts and the pandemic, China continues to face economic downturns. As a result, increased cost sensitivity has made more affordable options, such as studying in Australia, more appealing (Tyers & Zhou, 2024).

Social (S) factors, such as the desire for personal growth, language and career development, opportunities for cultural exchanges, the chance to visit a foreign country, and the wide range of support for international students are identified to shape students’ decisions to study abroad, particularly in Australia (Australian Government, 2024; Eder et al., 2010). Australia is well-known for its multicultural society, and is often described as a “beautiful, welcoming, and comfortable” destination (Bendrups et al., 2020; Dos Santos, 2021). Unsurprisingly, the support systems available at Australian universities, along with active student communities, provide extensive services to help international students integrate both socially and academically. These services include orientation programs, campus culture initiatives, career advice, and cultural exchange activities, which facilitate the integration of Chinese international students to live and study in Australia and help them feel more comfortable. The presence of large Chinese student communities further provides a familiar social setting to help them feel connected and supported. These factors make Australia an appealing choice for Chinese students.

However, the significant social differences between China and Australia have been shown to pose challenges (Paynter et al., 2023). These stem from differing cultural values, academic systems, and social norms. For example, the more individualistic nature of Australian society contrasts with collectivistic values often emphasized in China, leading to a potential feeling of isolation or difficulty in navigating social interactions (Sun et al., 2024). This is confirmed by Mekonen & Adarkwah (2023), who noted many Chinese international students have reported experiencing social isolation and homesickness, as well as difficulties in forming friendships with students from other nations. Some students have struggled with adjusting to the different educational learning styles, as the teacher-centric approach common in China contrasts with the student-centered learning experience in Western countries, including Australia.⁶

Technological (T) factors refer to the use of technology in various aspects of education, communication, and overall student experience, primarily through online platforms that provide information, support, and facilitate international education experiences (Wang & Crawford, 2021; Yencken et al., 2021). Online search engines and social media groups allow students to access a vast amount of information about different universities, programs, enabling them to compare options based on cost, quality of education, and career prospects. In addition, the shift to online education during COVID-19 has permanently altered expectations about flexibility in learning (e.g., blended degrees). Technology can enhance online learning experiences by offering interactive tools, multimedia presentations, and access to a wealth of online resources⁷ (Saleem et al., 2024). The COVID-19 accelerated hybrid learning models, making technology a lifeline for students stranded due to travel restrictions (Paynter et al., 2023; Yang, 2025). Platforms like Moodle and Canvas became hubs for academic collaboration. Post-pandemic research suggests that students are increasingly prioritizing universities with robust digital infrastructures, reflecting a tech-driven approach to mobility decision-making (Woodman et al., 2023).

In addition to online learning quality, technology factors also influence students’ ability to maintain connections with family and friends back home. Social media platforms such as WeChat, TikTok, and QQ are widely used by overseas Chinese students to communicate with their social networks in China. These tools not only enable students to navigate “digital homophily” whereby shared cultural content reinforces with peers in China (Zhu et al., 2024) but also help them feel more connected during their studies abroad, which alleviates feelings of homesickness. Post-pandemic studies show that social media platforms help reduce isolation by simulating the ambient copresence effect, particularly important for students residing in restrictive time zones (Wu & Yu, 2023). In summary, technological factors are becoming increasingly important for Chinese students, as they offer greater flexibility in adapting to the study environment abroad.

Legal (L) factors that affect students’ destination choices include the ease of entry into the country, visa applications, and work rights (Eder et al., 2010; Paynter et al., 2023). One of the most critical legal factors for international students is the process of obtaining a student visa, including genuine student requirements, financial capacity, health, and character requirements (Department of Home Affairs, 2024; PD Law, 2024). Australia provides various flexible student visa options, including a student visa with work rights and a post-study work visa that allows students who wish to gain international work experience and potentially apply for permanent residency. International students in Australia are allowed to work part-time (up to 48 hr per fortnight during the term time) while studying (Department of Education, 2025d). This flexibility makes it an attractive option for students from countries like China, India, and others, who want to support themselves financially while gaining work experience. Australia has robust laws to protect the rights of international students. For instance, the legislation framework of the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act ensures that they receive a high standard of education and are protected from unscrupulous practices by educational institutions (Department of Education, 2024a). Australia is consistently ranked among the safest study destinations (Sidhu et al., 2021), and the country’s legal system ensures students’ safety both on and off campus. Australian universities are required by law to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety and well-being of their students, including providing counseling services, safety awareness, and legal support (TEQSA, 2024). However, there are negative sides to legal factors. For example, international students are required by law to maintain Overseas Student Health Cover (OSHC) for the duration of their stay in Australia (Pang et al., 2021). Due to a decreased number of immigration quotas, this creates a less attractive environment for international students.

Lastly, E nvironmental (E2) factors refer to the natural, geographic, and ecological aspects that impact a student’s decision to study abroad, particularly during the pandemic. These factors include objective environmental considerations such as eating habits, climate conditions (e.g., pollution, temperature, humidity, reducing carbon emissions; waste management and recycling) (EFSA, 2024), and other natural environment-related factors, including the availability of medical, police, and transportation services (Zhong et al., 2020). Australia is an attractive destination for Chinese students because of its pleasant weather, outdoor lifestyle, natural beauty and landscape, and its reputation for having clean air and food (Leonov, 2024; Zhai et al., 2019). For Chinese students who value a clean and safe environment, Australia provides an attractive combination of convenient time zones, urban convenience, and access to nature. However, the environmental challenges in Australia, such as climate change and the increased frequency of droughts and bushfires (Xu et al., 2023), may contribute to a negative perception of the country as a study destination. Students may also face challenges in adapting to Australian medical and transportation services over the longterm. The quality of public services in China is often perceived as higher than in Australia, which can lead Chinese students to experience a greater gap when dealing with the inefficiencies in public transport services and difficulties in booking family doctors (Men et al., 2024). The uncertainty and perceived risks may make Chinese students feel that studying abroad in Australia is less safe compared before the pandemic.

Based on the above discussion, PESTLE factors are expected to impact Chinese students’ choice to study abroad in Australia.

The Moderating Role of PESTLE Factors

We hypothesize that PESTLE factors will amplify the influence of conventional factors on students’ destination decisions. For example, students and their families may evaluate pandemic-related PESTLE factors when accessing a study destination. Chinese parents are likely to prioritize political stability and the likelihood of future lockdowns (P, L), safety (E2), the quality of food (E2), racism concerns (S), social/culture friendliness (S), online learning platforms (T), infrastructure (T), and visa requirements (L). Furthermore, economic challenges brought on by COVID-19, such as household income loss or reduced international student scholarship availability (E1), continue to influence perceptions of affordability and suitability. Family influence, therefore, increasingly incorporates geopolitical and safety considerations alongside traditional prestige-related metrics. Countries that offer these features, such as political stability, public safety, low crime rates, and strong support systems for international students, may be viewed more favorably. In turn, they would encourage their children to study in countries like Australia that are perceived as providing these advantages, further amplifying the student’s choice to study abroad in Australia.

Education agents increasingly use social media platforms such as WeChat, Weibo, and TikTok to share peer testimonials and provide updates on Australia’s post-COVID-19 policies. For example, agents now emphasize Australia’s extended post-study work visas and skilled migration pathways (L) to retain talent, remaining a priority. These features are particularly attractive to students seeking career opportunities and long-term residency prospects. In addition, the shift to online education during the pandemic (T) has led to a permanent transformation in learning delivery. Agents now recommend flexible learning options (e.g., short-term programs and hybrid options) to students and their families who prefer to maintain closer contact or minimize extended time abroad. To rebuild trust and support informed decision-making post-COVID-19, agents strategically balance promoting Australia’s strengths (e.g., welcoming social environment (S); clean and safe environment (E2)) with transparently addressing its challenges (e.g., cost of living (E1); ongoing political tensions between Australia and China (P)).

University reputation and career outcomes have become more important than ever as students and families seek to justify post-pandemic tuition investments (Callaghan et al., 2025). While students may initially be drawn to Australia due to its strong academic reputation and career opportunities, some ultimately choose alternative destinations (e.g., UK, Germany) due to factors like faster visa processing times (P, L). In addition, the Australian education sector, which reportedly lost more than $10 billion during the pandemic (Universities Australia, 2024), now places greater post-pandemic research (e.g., public health and climate science) to attract students seeking cutting-edge experience. Therefore, we present our second hypothesis as follows:

H2: The relationship between the strength of conventional factors and Chinese students’ choice to study a higher education degree in Australia is moderated by PESTLE factors, such that the hypothesized relationship will be stronger when PESTLE factors are strong.

Data and Method

Questionnaire and Sample

To test our hypotheses, we conducted an online survey of Chinese undergraduate students who were considering pursuing a postgraduate degree abroad. Our survey was conducted in September 2022. As discussed previously, although the pandemic is no longer classified as a global emergency, its aftershocks continue to reshape international student mobility. Australia’s ability to attract international students now depends on effectively addressing post-pandemic anxieties, rebuilding trust in its institutions, and enhancing the social networks that influence international students’ decision-making (e.g., Gannon et al., 2024; TEQSA, 2021). Ignoring these factors risks losing the international student market share to its main competitors, such as the US, the UK, and Canada, which are also adapting to post-COVID-19 realities.

Since Chinese students were non-native English speakers, we employed translation-reverse translation procedures to ensure the accurate conveyance of meaning and responses to each question (Bodycott & Lai, 2012). We translated the English questionnaire into Mandarin Chinese, and participants were given the option to complete the survey in either language. Questionnaires completed in Chinese were translated into English before analysis. Both English and Chinese versions of the questionnaire were approved by the university’s Human Research Ethics Committees (HREC). To ensure the clarity and relevance of our survey questions, a small group of Chinese international students was invited to participate in a pilot test. Participants were then recruited through our HREC-approved advertisement (reference number A21-111), which was distributed via two popular social media platforms used by Chinese students, QQ and WeChat.

Specifically, participants were recruited from three reputable Chinese universities located in Chongqing and Shenzhen, based on accessibility. These two cities were chosen because Australia is a common destination for many students from these two cities, given their large populations, high GDP per capita, and established education pathways (see Statista, 2023).⁸ In addition, ICEF’s (2024) report shows that Chongqing and Guangdong province (home to Shenzhen) are among the top sources of Chinese student visa applicants. IDP Education and Austrade have identified Chongqing and Shenzhen as priority cities for student recruitment (Australian Education International, 2018). The names of universities are kept anonymous to protect confidentiality.

Participants were then invited to complete an approximately 10-minute online survey through the SurveyMonkey platform (https://surveymonkey.com) on a voluntary and anonymous basis. At the beginning of the survey, a screening question confirmed that all respondents met the following three criteria: (i) being a Chinese resident, (ii) being aged 18 or older, and (iii) planning to complete their postgraduate degree in another country. The questionnaire was written in both English and Chinese versions, which were completed voluntarily and anonymously online (see Appendix A for the English version of the survey questionnaire). The survey remained open for two weeks, and a total of 571 responses were received. After excluding responses with missing data, our final sample consisted of 437 respondents.

Variable Measurement

Dependent Variable

Our dependent variable is Chinese students’ choice of Australia as their destination for higher education. Students were invited to answer the following question “If you were to study abroad, how likely are you to choose to study in each of the following countries?”.⁹ The listed countries include Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, France, Japan, and South Korea, which are commonly cited in UNESCO (2022) and followed by IAS Services (2025). The questionnaire used a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from “Not at all likely” to “Extremely likely” with Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87. The alpha value is consistent with the threshold reported by Taber (2018, p. 1278), suggesting that our exploration of students’ choice to study abroad was conducted with an acceptable measurement reliability.

Independent Variable

Conventional factors (CF) was measured using a 7-point Likert scale (ranging from “Not at all important” to “Extremely important”) with 4 common items dervied from prior literature (Leonov, 2024; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002; Nikou et al., 2023): (1) employment and future career prospects: “You feel that graduating with a degree from that country would enhance your chances of getting a job in your desired field” (CF1), (2) university reputation: “The international reputation of their universities” (CF2), (3) recommendations from education agents: “It was recommended by an education agent” (CF3), and (4) familial ties and peer networks: “It was recommended by a close friend or family member” (CF4). Reliability analysis shows strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81). Following prior survey-based studies (Astleitner & Schlick, 2025; Benner et al., 2017), we averaged the four items to compute an index score and create a composite variable, with higher scores indicating higher levels of conventional factors.

Moderator Variable

As suggested by previous studies (Graham, 2007; Paynter et al., 2023; Walsh et al., 2019), in a PESTLE analysis, political considerations may overlap with other factors, particularly legal factors, when governments introduce legislation and policies that affect businesses’ operations and strategic plans.¹⁰ Following these studies, we combined both political and legal factors (PL). The PL variable was measured using a 4-item questionnaire from Paynter et al. (2023). Items such as “There is a good political relationship between the Chinese government and that country” were answered on a 7-point Likert scale (ranging from “Not at all important” to “Extremely important”; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81). An index score was created based on the average of the four items, with higher scores representing greater levels of political and legal factors.

Following Paynter et al. (2023), we applied the same method for the remaining Economic factors (E1) using 4-item questionnaire (e.g., “It is generally less expensive to study in that country relative to other countries”); Social factors (S) using the 4-item questionnaire (e.g., “The culture of that country is similar to Chinese culture”); Technological factors (T) using the 4-item questionnaire (e.g., “The IT of that country makes communicating with China easier by supporting social media such as TikTok, WeChat, and QQ”), and Environmental factors (E2) using the 6-item questionnaire (e.g., “It is relatively free of pollution (e.g., clean air, safe drinking water etc)”). For each factor, items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale (ranging from “Not at all important” to “Extremely important”; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.78, 0.83, 0.88, and 0.87, for E1, S, T, and E2, respectively) and averaged to create an index score for each factor. In summary, our overall PESTLE variable was calculated by averaging these six component variables to form an index score, with higher scores indicating greater levels of PESTLE factors.

Control Variables

Consistent with Paynter et al. (2023), we controlled participants’ demographic characteristics, including gender, age, and educational background. Gender was an ordinal variable that was coded as 1 for male participants, 2 for female participants, and 3 for others. Age was an ordinal variable that took a value of 1 for participants aged between 18 and 24; 2 for participants aged between 25 and 30; 3 for participants aged between 31 and 40; and 4 for participants aged above 41. Education is an ordinal variable that equals 1 for participants holding a High School degree; 2 for participants holding a TAFE or College degree; 3 for current undergraduate students; 4 for current postgraduate students, and 5 for others.

We also control the majors that students would like to study. The variable, Majors, was presented as an open-ended question variable where Chinese students indicated their intended field of study abroad. Following common university majors and programs categories, responses were coded as 1 for participants that would like to choose majors in Architecture, planning, and design; 2 for majors in Arts, humanities, and social sciences; 3 for majors in Business; 4 for majors in Education; 5 for majors in Engineering, information technology, and computer science; 6 for majors in Law; 7 for participants majors in Medicine, and 8 for majors in Science, following Benner et al. (2017).

Validity and Reliability of Measures

Table 1, Panel A, presents the descriptive statistics and correlation matrix for the main variables used in our study. Pairwise correlations show that both conventional factors and PESTLE variables are positively and significantly correlated with our dependent variable, the choice to study a higher education degree in Australia. To test for multicollinearity, the variance inflation factor (VIF) is calculated, and the individual VIF for a given covariate ranges from 1.01 to 1.73 with an average of 1.29, which is well below the accepted threshold level of 10 (Cohen et al., 2002). Our coefficients suggest that multicollinearity is not an issue.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics

	Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Panel A. Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliability of variables
1.	Choice to study abroad in Australia	4.224	1.947	1 (0.87)
2.	Conventional factors (CF)	5.334	1.118	0.203***	1 (0.81)
3.	PESTLE	5.461	0.898	0.201***	0.640***	1 (0.84)
4.	Gender	1.854	0.576	0.079	0.199***	0.193***	1
5.	Age	1.190	0.477	0.122**	0.170***	0.182***	0.060	1
6.	Qualification	2.794	0.696	−0.096**	−0.024	−0.007	0.050	0.284***	1
7.	Majors	5.048	1.835	−0.049	0.055	0.070	0.050	0.063	0.038	1

	Factor			Factor
Iterated PCA of conventional factors items	Eigenvalue 2.367	Uniqueness	Iterated PCA of PESTLE factors items	Eigenvalue 3.131	Uniqueness
Panel B. Principal-component factor analysis (PCA)
CF1	0.728	0.469	PL	0.780	0.392
CF2	0.787	0.381	E1	0.767	0.412
CF3	0.774	0.401	S	0.753	0.433
CF4	0.787	0.382	T	0.822	0.325
			E2	0.832	0.307

Note. N = 437. *** significant at the 0.01 level, ** significant at the 0.05 level, * significant at the 0.1 level. Values reported in the diagonal parentheses are Cronbach alphas.

CF = conventional factors; CF1 = destination degree’s potential to enhance job prospects; CF2 = the destination university’s reputation; CF3 = recommendations from education agents; CF4 = advice from family and close friends; PL = Political & Legal factors; E1 = Economic factors; S = Social factors; T = Technological factors; E2 = Environmental factors.

In addition to reporting Cronbach’s alpha, we conducted two additional tests to further assess the validity and reliability of our variables. First, we used principal-component factor analysis (PCA) to test the validity of our variables of interest. Panel B of Table 1 presents the results of an iterated PCA on the mean judgement of four items operationalizing conventional factors, and the mean judgement of five items operationalizing PESTLE factors, respectively. Consistent with prior studies (Meijers & Zaslove, 2021), the PCA confirms our expectation that these items constitute a latent construct of convention factors and PESTLE factors. Each of the individual items covers unique variance in that latent construct, suggesting that our variables of interest are well explained by the retained factors. Second, we estimated a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine the discriminant validity of our main variables of interest (Brown & Moore, 2012). The results showed that our model fitted well to our data (χ2(437) = 1596.78, p = .000; RMSEA = 0.071; CFI = 0.983; TLI = 0.965), where both CFI and TLI values are greater than 0.9, indicating a good model fit (Whittaker & Schumacker, 2022). The CFA confirms the discriminant validity of our measures. We summarize that our results are reliable in performing multiple regression analysis.

Estimation Models

Since our dependent variable is a discrete ordered outcome, we followed prior studies that suggest an ordered-response method, such as an ordered logit, is appropriate for the discrete ordered outcome (Xing, 2014). We estimated the following ordinal logit regression models to test our hypotheses.

Y_{i} = β_{0} + β_{1} {CF}_{i} + β_{n} {Controls}_{i} + ε_{i}

(1)

Y_{i} = β_{0} + β_{1} {CF}_{i} + β_{2} {PESTLE}_{i} + β_{3} {CF}_{i} * {PESTLE}_{i} + β_{n} {Controls}_{i} + ε_{i}

(2)

where for the individual respondent

i

Y

is our dependent variable, the likelihood of choosing Australia for study abroad;

C F

is our independent variable, conventional factors; PESTLE is our moderator variable;

C o n t r o l s

represents a set of participant control variables, and ℇ is the error term. In support of H1, the coefficient,

β_{1}

, in Equation (1), is expected to be positive and significant. In support of H2, the interactive coefficient,

β_{3}

, in Equation (2), is expected to be positive and significant. Stata 16 software was employed to test the significance of our regression models.

Empirical Results

Baseline Analysis

Table 2 reports the regression results from Equation (1), testing the influence of conventional factors on Chinese students’ choice to study abroad in Australia. In our first hypothesis (H1), we theorize that there is a positive association between conventional factors and students’ choice to study abroad in Australia. Model 1 contains only control variables. Among these controls, students’ choice to study abroad in Australia is positively related to their age and gender, while is negatively related to their educational background. Model 2 includes the main effect of overall conventional factors (CF). Our results show that CF is positively and significantly associated with students’ destination choice to study abroad in Australia (b = 0.317, p < .001). Thus, H1 is supported.

Table 2.

Ordinal Logistic Regression Results (Main Effect)

	Y = Choice to study abroad in Australia
Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
CF		0.317***
CF		(0.000)
CF1			0.139**
CF1			(0.032)
CF2				0.176**
CF2				(0.010)
CF3					0.218***
CF3					(0.000)
CF4						0.161***
CF4						(0.006)
Gender	0.289*	0.187	0.251*	0.237	0.192	0.245
Gender	(0.055)	(0.220)	(0.097)	(0.120)	(0.206)	(0.105)
Age	0.627***	0.547***	0.613***	0.615***	0.557***	0.547***
Age	(0.001)	(0.005)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.004)	(0.006)
Qualification	−0.389***	−0.356***	−0.376***	−0.381***	−0.360***	−0.368***
Qualification	(0.002)	(0.005)	(0.003)	(0.002)	(0.004)	(0.003)
Majors	−0.058	−0.067	−0.065	−0.066	−0.055	−0.063
Majors	(0.194)	(0.138)	(0.152)	(0.141)	(0.220)	(0.161)
Log likelihood	−837.22	−829.40	−834.93	−833.90	−828.69	−833.34
Observations	437	437	437	437	437	437

Note. p-value in parentheses. ***, **, * represent significant at the 0.01 level, 0.05 level, and 0.1 level, respectively.

For further robustness analysis, we investigate whether individual conventional factors have equal or different impacts on Chinese students’ choice to study abroad in Australia. We re-estimate Equation (1) by replacing CF with each conventional factor as the main variable of interest and report the results in Models 3 to 6.¹¹ We find that all conventional factors, such as the career opportunities (CF1), the destination university’s reputation (CF2), recommendations from education agents (CF3), and advice from family and close friends (CF4) are positively and significantly associated with students’ destination choice to study abroad in Australia (Model 3: b = 0.139, p < .05; Model 4: b = 0.176, p = .01; Model 5: b = 0.218, p < .001; and Model 6: b = 0.161, p < .01). Our results suggest that students considered each conventional factor as an important determinant in their decision to choose Australia as a destination to study abroad. Among all four conventional factors, recommendations from education agents have had the most significant impact on determining Chinese students’ choice to study abroad in Australia. Our results suggest that education agents play a critical intermediary role in communicating Australia’s evolving visa regulations, scholarship opportunities, and university-specific requirements. They also contribute to rebuilding trust by addressing post-pandemic concerns and countering perceptions of Australia as ‘unreliable’ during the pandemic period of border closures. Students and their families rely heavily on agents to interpret and navigate the best destination to study abroad.

Moderation Analysis

We next explore the moderating effect of PESTLE factors on the relationship between conventional factors and Chinese students’ choices to study abroad in Australia. Table 3 reports the regression results from Equation (2), testing our second hypothesis (H2). In this hypothesis, we theorize that the positive effect of conventional factors on Chinese students’ choice to study abroad in Australia would be stronger when PESTLE factors are taken into account. We first use the overall PESTLE score and present its effect in Models 1 and 2 of Table 3. In Model 1, we find that the independent effect of overall conventional factors (CF) and PESTLE is positively associated with students’ choice to study abroad in Australia. In Model 2, when the interaction term between CF and PESTLE is included,¹² we find a positive and significant interaction coefficient on CF*PESTLE (b = 0.306, p = .001), provide preliminary support for H2.

Table 3.

Ordinal Logistic Regression Results (Moderating Effect)

	Y = Choice to study abroad in Australia
Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6	Model 7	Model 8	Model 9	Model 10	Model 11	Model 12
CF	0.195*	−1.451***	0.289***	−0.729*	0.193**	−0.563	0.284***	−0.080	0.255***	−1.042***	0.306***	−1.361***
CF	(0.062)	(0.003)	(0.004)	(0.091)	(0.038)	(0.114)	(0.001)	(0.801)	(0.007)	(0.005)	(0.001)	(0.003)
PESTLE	0.262**	−1.367***
PESTLE	(0.044)	(0.006)
CF*PESTLE		0.306***
CF*PESTLE		(0.001)
PL			0.059	−0.765**
PL			(0.546)	(0.032)
CF*PL				0.171**
CF*PL				(0.015)
E1					0.262***	−0.566
E1					(0.002)	(0.144)
CF*E1						0.151**
CF*E1						(0.028)
S							0.093	−0.309
S							(0.234)	(0.372)
CF*S								0.073
CF*S								(0.232)
T									0.140	−1.066***
T									(0.128)	(0.002)
CF*T										0.234***
CF*T										(0.000)
E2											0.041	−1.366***
E2											(0.682)	(0.001)
CF*E2												0.286***
CF*E2												(0.000)
Gender	0.161	0.207	0.178	0.217	0.181	0.189	0.179	0.190	0.183	0.199	0.173	0.186
Gender	(0.307)	(0.191)	(0.258)	(0.169)	(0.249)	(0.232)	(0.255)	(0.228)	(0.242)	(0.204)	(0.278)	(0.244)
Age	0.540***	0.493**	0.571***	0.566***	0.560***	0.520***	0.552***	0.552***	0.543***	0.473**	0.564***	0.480**
Age	(0.006)	(0.012)	(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.009)	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.017)	(0.005)	(0.016)
Qualification	−0.324**	−0.292**	−0.325**	−0.317**	−0.319**	−0.300**	−0.315**	−0.308**	−0.331***	−0.297**	−0.325**	−0.300**
Qualification	(0.011)	(0.023)	(0.011)	(0.013)	(0.012)	(0.019)	(0.014)	(0.016)	(0.009)	(0.021)	(0.011)	(0.020)
Majors	−0.064	−0.068	−0.064	−0.063	−0.065	−0.068	−0.061	−0.063	−0.061	−0.068	−0.062	−0.069
Majors	(0.164)	(0.144)	(0.168)	(0.171)	(0.159)	(0.140)	(0.182)	(0.170)	(0.184)	(0.141)	(0.176)	(0.135)
Log likelihood	−800.60	−794.61	−802.45	−799.21	−797.99	−795.56	−801.92	−801.20	−801.47	−795.05	−802.55	−795.57
Observations	437	437	437	437	437	437	437	437	437	437	437	437

Note. p-value in parentheses. ***, **, * represent significant at the 0.01 level, 0.05 level, and 0.1 level, respectively.

CF = conventional factors; PL = Political & Legal factors; E1 = Economic factors; S = Social factors; T = Technological factors; E2 = Environmental factors.

To further interpret the moderating role of PESTLE factors, we use a simple slope analysis. Figure 1 demonstrates a plot of the effect of CF on the choice to study abroad in Australia at high and low levels of PESLTE factors, represented by one standard deviation above the mean (+1 SD) and one standard deviation below the mean (−1 SD). In support of H2, Figure 1 shows that when the level of PESTLE factors is high, conventional factors increase the likelihood of choosing Australia. Conversely, when the level of PESTLE factors is low, conventional factors reduce the likelihood of choosing Australia.

Figure 1.

The Moderating Role of PESLTE Factor

To provide complementary evidence, we also test the moderating role of individual PESTLE factors and report the results using Equation (2) in Models 3 to 12 of Table 3. Interestingly, without considering the interaction term, we find that only economic factors had a significant impact on our dependent variable. This suggests that students are most concerned with economic issues, such as tuition fees, cost of living expenses, a favorable exchange rate between the Chinese Yuan and Australian dollar, scholarships offered by Australian universities, and post-graduation job opportunities in Australia.

When including the interaction term between conventional factors and each PESTLE element, we find that the positive and significant association between overall conventional factors and Chinese students’ choice to study abroad is stronger when political/legal factors (Model 4: b = 0.171, p < .05), economic factors (Model 6: b = 0.151, p < .05), technological factors (Model 10: b = 0.234, p < .001), and environmental factors (Model 12: b = 0.286, p < .001) are considered. One exception is the interaction effect of conventional factors with social factors, which has no significant influence on students’ destination choice, regardless of the level of social factors (Model 8: b = 0.073, p = n.s.). This finding might suggest that even if Chinese students receive feedback from social networks, they may still prioritize their choice of destination, like academic reputation or job prospects, which may not change much based on social influence. Taken together, our findings suggest that, in addition to our main effect analysis, environmental factors have the most moderating influence, followed by technological factors, political and legal factors, and economic factors.

Conclusion and Discussion

Drawing on the perceptions of students, our study uses a questionnaire approach to examine the influence of conventional factors on Chinese students’ choice to study abroad in Australia. Our results show there is a positive association between overall conventional factors and students’ destination choice. To corroborate our findings, we extend the work of Paynter et al. (2023) by investigating the moderating role of the PESTLE framework on this association, and find that the positive association is stronger when students receive more information on PESTLE factors. Our results suggest that both conventional and PESTLE factors are important determinants in Chinese students’ decision-making process when choosing a country to study abroad.

Implications

Our study contributes to the current literature by examining how the combined influence of conventional and PESTLE factors shapes Chinese students’ decision-making on study abroad in the post-pandemic era. Our results offer several important implications to multiple stakeholders. In addition to traditional push-pull analyses (conventional factors) that focus on micro-environmental factors, our inclusion of PESTLE factors provides a more comprehensive framework for understanding the impact of macro-environmental factors. Our findings help universities in Australia and other potential host countries by suggesting that the complex interplay between conventional factors and PESTLE factors can serve as opportunities. By incorporating these considerations into their marketing and recruitment strategies, institutions can more effectively align their offerings with the evolving priorities and concerns of international students.

Second, due to the intense competition in the international student market, Australia strives to position itself as a desirable study destination for Chinese students intending to study abroad (Parliament of Australia, 2024). Our results can assist policy makers in Australia and other host countries in recognizing the significance of both conventional and PESTLE factors when developing polices that impact international students. For instance, strengthening post-study work rights and maintaining stable diplomatic relations with China may help alleviate the concerns of prospective students and their families, thereby enhancing a country’s attractiveness as a study destination.

Third, our results highlight the complexity of the decision-making process for Chinese students, indicating that their decisions are influenced not only by conventional factors but also by the interaction of these with broader PESTLE considerations. Our results suggest that Chinese students may evaluate a wide range of interconnected factors when choosing their study abroad destination.

Furthermore, education agents can also benefit significantly from our study, as our results help them to offer more comprehensive and tailored guidance. By understanding the interplay between conventional and PESTLE determinants, agents can better support Chinese students and their families in identifying a study destination that is safe, affordable, and aligns with students’ long-term academic and professional goals.

Limitations and Future Research

We acknowledge there are some limitations in our study. First, due to the limited sample size, the findings of our study are not representative of all Chinese students seeking to study abroad and cannot be generalized. Future research may overcome this limitation by expanding the study population to include participants from more cities in China. Second, we test our hypotheses only on Chinese students who are pursuing a postgraduate education abroad. This may raise concerns about whether our findings apply to students from different nations or those in different study programs. We encourage future research to investigate how conventional and PESTLE factors vary in other national or cultural contexts. Future research could also explore how these factors change over time, particularly in response to global events such as political changes (e.g., new elections in the US) or geopolitical impact (e.g., the Russia-Ukraine War), to further understand the dynamics of international students’ decision-making.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - How to Go Above and Beyond to Attract Chinese International Students to Australia

Supplemental Material for How to Go Above and Beyond to Attract Chinese International Students to Australia by Wen Hua Sharpe, Abdel K. Halabi, Tianmin Cheng, Merryn Paynter, and Tak Yan Leung in International Journal of Chinese Education

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Abdel K. Halabi

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t

Arkoudis

Dollinger

Baik

Patience

(2019). International students’ experience in Australian higher education: Can we do better? Higher Education, 77(5), 799–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0302-x

Asare

(2015). Using the theory of planned behavior to determine the condom use behavior among college students. American Journal of Health Studies, 30(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.47779/ajhs.2015.168

Astleitner

Schlick

(2025). The social media use of college students: Exploring identity development, learning support, and parallel use. Active Learning in Higher Education, 26(1), 231–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874241233605

Australian Government . (2024). Why Australia. https://www.studyaustralia.gov.au/en/why-australia

Australian Consulate-General . (2017). Chongqing: A booming mega city in the interior. https://chengdu.china.embassy.gov.au/cxdu/blogchongqingcity.html

Australian Education International (2018). Raising the profile in China of Australia’s excellence in the delivery of English language training.

Azmat

Osborne

Le Rossignol

Jogulu

Rentschler

Robottom

Malathy

(2013). Understanding aspirations and expectations of international students in Australian higher education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33(1), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2012.751897

Bamford

(2006). The wow factor: Global research compendium on the impact of the arts in education. Waxmann Verlag.

10.

Bano

Vasantha

(2019). Influence of university reputation on employability. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 8(11), 2061–2064.

11.

Bendrups

Diaz-Gasca

Ortiz

G. C. M.

Sanchez

P. G.

Mena-Maldonado

(2020). Australia as a destination for Latin American doctoral candidates: Four personal reflections. Transitions: Journal of Transient Migration, 4(1), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1386/tjtm_00013_1

12.

Benner

A. D.

Boyle

A. E.

Bakhtiari

(2017). Understanding students’ transition to high school: Demographic variation and the role of supportive relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(10), 2129–2142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0716-2

13.

Bindra

Sharma

Parameswar

Dhir

Paul

(2022). Bandwagon effect revisited: A systematic review to develop future research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 143, 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.085

14.

Boarding Schools Association . (2023). BSA report: Chinese agents more important for independent school recruitment. https://www.boarding.org.uk/2023/10/10/bsa-report-chinese-agents-more-important-for-independent-school-recruitment/

15.

Bodycott

Lai

(2012). The influence and implications of Chinese culture in the decision to undertake cross-border higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(3), 252–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315311418517

16.

Brown

T. A.

Moore

M. T.

(2012). Confirmatory factor analysis. In Hoyle

R. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling (pp. 361–379). New York: The Guilford Press.

17.

Cadle

Paul

Turner

(2014). Business analysis techniques. In business analysis techniques (2nd ed.). BCS Learning & Development Limited.

18.

Calderon

(2025). Australia still shines in QS subject rankings. Future Campus. https://futurecampus.com.au/2025/03/13/australia-still-shines-in-qs-subject-rankings

19.

Callaghan

S. A.

Drysdale

M. T.

Riley

R. K.

Berisha

Beavers

A. J.

(2025). Student perceptions of post-pandemic university learning: Challenges and benefits. Mental Health and Social Inclusion, 29(2), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/mhsi-07-2024-0106

20.

Cao

Tran

L. T.

(2015). Pathway from vocational education and associate degree to higher education: Chinese international students in Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(2), 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2014.881318

21.

CEBA . (2025). Overseas partners (in Chinese). https://ceba.cqu.edu.cn/jlhz/gjjl/hzhb.htm

22.

Cebolla-Boado

Soysal

Y. N.

(2018). Why study abroad? Sorting of Chinese students across British universities. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(3), 365–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2017.1349649

23.

Cheah

Shimul

A. S.

(2023). Choosing higher education institution and study abroad destination: What mainland Chinese parents and students rate important in the post-pandemic world? In Sultan

(Ed.), Innovation, leadership and governance in higher education: Perspectives on the Covid-19 recovery strategies (pp. 101–117). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

24.

Chen

B. H. Y.

Zhou

Yang

(2024). The role of involution on Chinese youth pursuit of postgraduate education abroad: examine through the lens of normative social behaviour. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2024.2408394

25.

Cheng

Chen

Tang

(2023). Shenzhen–A typical benchmark of Chinese rapid urbanization miracle. Cities, 140(2), 104421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104421

26.

Christodoulou

Cullinane

(2019). Identifying the main opportunities and challenges from the implementation of a port energy management system: A SWOT/PESTLE analysis. Sustainability, 11(21), 6046. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216046

27.

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2002). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Erlbaum Inc.

28.

Conner

(2020). Theory of planned behavior . In Tenenbaum

Eklund

R. C.

(Eds.), Handbook of Sport Psychology (pp. 1–18).

29.

Department of Education . (2019). The Australia-China education relationship: Diversity, complexity, and maturity. https://www.education.gov.au/council-international-education/resources/australia-china-education-relationship-diversity-complexity-and-maturity

30.

Department of Education . (2024a). Education services for overseas students (ESOS) framework. https://www.education.gov.au/esos-framework

31.

Department of Education . (2024b). Improving integrity in the international education sector. https://oia.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/posts/2024/05/ImpactAnalysis_4.pdf

32.

Department of Education . (2025a). Education export income-financial year. https://www.education.gov.au/international-education-data-and-research/education-export-income-financial-year

33.

Department of Education . (2025b). End of the two-year extension of post-study work rights. https://www.education.gov.au/international-education/support-international-students/end-extended-poststudy-work-rights-international-graduates

34.

Department of Education . (2025c). International students: Monthly summary. https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyjrijoinmnjogmyyzytodmwzs00ntkzltg1nwitngrlztbimgzintbkiiwidci6imrkmgnmzde1ltq1ntgtngixmi04ymfklwvhmjy5odrmyzqxnyj9

35.

Department of Education . (2025d). The rights of international students at work. https://www.education.gov.au/international-education/support-international-students/rights-international-students-work

36.

Department of Home Affairs . (2024). Genuine student requirement. https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/student-500/genuine-student-requirement

37.

Dos Santos

L. M.

(2021). Motivations and career decisions in occupational therapy course: A qualitative inquiry of Asia-pacific international students in Australia. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 12, 825–834. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S288885

38.

Drezner

D. W.

(2020). The song remains the same: International relations after COVID-19. International Organization, 74(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818320000351

39.

Eder

Smith

W. W.

Pitts

R. E.

(2010). Exploring factors influencing student study abroad destination choice. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 10(3), 232–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2010.503534

40.

Edmonstone

(2024). China’s trade restrictions on Australian exports. United States Studies Centre. https://www.ussc.edu.au/chinas-trade-restrictions-on-australian-exports

41.

EFSA . (2024). Climate change and food safety. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/climate-change-and-food-safety

42.

Fang

Clarke

Wei

(2016). Empty success or brilliant failure: An analysis of Chinese students’ study abroad experience in a collaborative Master of education program. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(2), 140–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315315587106

43.

Feng

Horta

(2021). Brokers of international student mobility: The roles and processes of education agents in China. European Journal of Education, 56(2), 248–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12442

44.

Freeman

Teo

Leihy

Kim

D. K.

(2022). Review of Australia’s response to international student needs during the covid-19 pandemic. Australian Universities Review, 64(1), 6–16.

45.

Gannon

D’warte

Naidoo

Dove

(2024). Learning from Lockdown: The Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Australian students, families, and teachers. Western Sydney University.

46.

Global Admissions . (2024). Top 10 countries to study a STEM degree. https://www.globaladmissions.com/blog/top-10-countries-to-study-a-stem-degree/

47.

Graham

(2007). PESTE factors in developing a framework for E-learning. E-Learning and Digital Media, 4(2), 194–201. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2007.4.2.194

48.

(2024). Prospect of China’s Urbanization. In Gu

(Ed.), China’s Urbanization (pp. 341–395). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

49.

N. T. N.

Hoang

C. H.

Knight

Hurley

(2023). What drives international students to choose Australia as their tertiary education destination? A synthesis of empirical evidence. Journal of International Students, 14(4), 146–168. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v14i4.5983

50.

IAS Services . (2025). What are the 20 best countries to study abroad? (Comparison). https://iasservices.org.uk/best-countries-to-study-abroad-international-student-comparison/

51.

ICEF . (2024). Market snapshot: International student recruitment in China today. https://monitor.icef.com/2024/07/market-snapshot-international-student-recruitment-in-china-today/

52.

ICEF . (2025). Global survey says graduate outcomes the most important factor in students’ choice of institution abroad. https://monitor.icef.com/2025/04/global-survey-says-graduate-outcomes-the-most-important-factor-in-students-choice-of-institution-abroad/

53.

Jackson

(2024). Work-integrated learning: Opportunities and challenges in Australia. Higher Education Research and Development, 43(3), 767–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2307929

54.

Jiang

Riggs

D. W.

Wang

Chapman

Mate

(2025). Beyond generic support: Contextual influences on careers of gender and sexuality diverse groups in higher education. Applied Psychology, 74(1), Article e12564. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12564

55.

Ketchell

(2025). Can science be both open and secure? Nations grapple with tightening research security as China’s dominance grows. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/can-science-be-both-open-and-secure-nations-grapple-with-tightening-research-security-as-chinas-dominance-grows-244112

56.

Leonov

(2024). Factors influencing Chinese international students’ preference for Australia as a study destination: A qualitative analysis. International Journal of Chinese Education, 13(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2212585X241253915

57.

(2024). Perceived benefits and realised opportunities of studying in China: Insights from post-graduation mobility of international students who studied in China. Education and Lifelong Development Research, 1(2), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.46690/elder.2024.02.05

58.

Liu

Banda

L. O. L.

Lyu

Shuang

M. S.

Chen

(2024). Assessing the relation between academic talent mobility and academic output. Heliyon, 10(20), Article e39343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39437

59.

Liu

Sato

Breaden

(2023). Factors influencing international students’ trajectories: A comparative study of Chinese students in Japan and Australia. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 25(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijced-08-2022-0060

60.

Maringe

Carter

(2007). International students’ motivations for studying in UK HE: Insights into the choice and decision making of African students. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(6), 459–475. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540710780000

61.

Maude

(2023). How Australia’s relationship with China went down, and then up again, and what comes next. Asia Society Australia. https://asiasociety.org/australia/how-australias-relationship-china-went-down-and-then-again-and-what-comes-next

62.

Maunsell

(2024). Australian students return to China’s top universities. https://asiasociety.org/australia/australian-students-return-chinas-top-universities

63.

Mazzarol

Soutar

G. N.

(2002). “Push‐pull” factors influencing international student destination choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(2), 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540210418403

64.

McCrohon

Nyland

(2018). The perceptions of commoditisation and internationalisation of higher education in Australia: An interview study of Chinese international students and their lecturers. Asia Pacific Education Review, 19(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9515-z

65.

Meijers

M. J.

Zaslove

(2021). Measuring populism in political parties: Appraisal of a new approach. Comparative Political Studies, 54(2), 372–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414020938081

66.

Mekonen

Y. K.

Adarkwah

M. A.

(2023). Exploring homesickness among international students in China during border closure. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 94, 101800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2023.101800

67.

Men

Khan

Gillies

R. M.

(2024). Challenges and strategies for navigating Australian healthcare access: Experience from Chinese international students. International Journal for Equity in Health, 23(189), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-024-02273-6

68.

Meng

Johnston

(2023). Study abroad departures: A case study of the influence of Chinese families in location decision making of study abroad. Studia Periegetica, 44(4), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.58683/sp.610

69.

Minister of Education . (2023). Graduate employment rates hit highest level in more than a decade. https://ministers.education.gov.au/clare/graduate-employment-rates-hit-highest-level-more-decade

70.

Ministers’ Media Centre . (2024). New survey highlights benefits of getting a degree. https://ministers.education.gov.au/clare/new-survey-highlights-benefits-getting-degree

71.

Mok

K. H.

Xiong

Cheung

J. O. W.

(2021). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on international higher education and student mobility: Student perspectives from mainland China and Hong Kong. International Journal of Educational Research, 105, 101718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101718

72.

Nikou

Kadel

Gutema

D. M.

(2023). Study destination preference and post-graduation intentions: A push-pull factor theory perspective. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 17(7), 76–96. https://doi.org/10.1108/jarhe-04-2023-0149

73.

Pang

Perrone

Wong

(2021). Health and employment experiences of Chinese international students in Australia. Chinese Education and Society, 54(3–4), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611932.2021.1958293

74.

Parliament of Australia . (2024). Discussion paper – international education. https://www.aph.gov.au/-/media/02_parliamentary_business/24_committees/244_joint_committees/jfadt/foreign_affairs_defence_and_trade/australian_tourism/discussion_paper_international_education.pdf

75.

Paynter

Sharpe

W. H.

Halabi

A. K.

Reimers

Johnstone

(2023). Chinese students’ decisions to study in Australia after the COVID pandemic-based on the PESTLE factor analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 96, 101867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2023.101867

76.

PD Law . (2024). Student visa requirements in Australia. https://pdlaw.com.au/student-visa-requirements-in-australia/

77.

QS Top Universities . (2024). Top universities in Australia by subject. https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings-articles/university-subject-rankings/top-universities-australia-subject

78.

Relocations

W. A.

(2025). Exploring the average cost of living in Australia: An in-depth analysis. https://relocationswa.com/blog/average-cost-of-living-in-australia/

79.

Ross

(2024). Australian university finances ‘at weakest point’ as shocks loom. Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/australian-university-finances-weakest-point-shocks-loom

80.

Saleem

Chikhaoui

Malik

M. I.

(2024). Technostress in students and quality of online learning: Role of instructor and university support. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1309642. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1309642

81.

Shi

(2025). An analysis of the relations between ten ASEAN countries and China in the context of Indo-Pacific Strategy. International Relations and Diplomacy, 13(1), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.17265/2328-2134/2025.01.003

82.

Sidhu

Cheng

Y. E.

Collins

K. C.

Yeoh

(2021). International student mobilities in a contagion: (Im) mobilising higher education? Geographical Research, 59(3), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12471

83.

Statista . (2023). Number of students in educational institutions in Shenzhen, China from 2014 to 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1025957/china-student-numbers-in-education-institutes-in-shenzhen

84.

Study Australia . (2024). How to choose the right education agent for you. https://www.studyaustralia.gov.au/en/tools-and-resources/tips-and-advice-for-students/how-to-choose-the-right-education-agent-for-you

85.

Harrison

L. M.

(2016). Being wholesaled: An investigation of Chinese international students’ higher education experiences. Journal of International Students, 6(4), 905–919. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v6i4.325

86.

Sun

(2024). Chinese-Australian and Chinese-American views on news: A comparative study. https://www.uts.edu.au/news/2024/12/chinese-australian-and-chinese-american-views-news-comparative-study

87.

Sun

Kinsella

E. L.

Igou

E. R.

(2024). On cultural differences of heroes: Evidence from individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 50(6), 841–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221150238

88.

Taber

K. S.

(2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

89.

Taimoor

Wakil

Akram

M. R.

Anwar

M. W.

(2025). US-India relations under the Joe Biden administration in the Indo-Pacific: Implications for China. Contemporary Journal of Social Science Review, 3(1), 272–288.

90.

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) . (2021). Forward impact of COVID-19 on Australian higher education. https://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/forward-impact-of-covid-19-on-australian-higher-education-report.pdf

91.

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) . (2024). Compliance in focus: Student wellbeing and safety. https://www.teqsa.gov.au/guides-resources/compliance-focus/compliance-focus-student-wellbeing-and-safety

92.

Textor

(2025). Monthly surveyed urban youth unemployment rate in China 2022-2025. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1244339/surveyed-monthly-youth-unemployment-rate-in-china/

93.

The Guardian . (2024). ‘It’s very unfair’: Australia’s visa crackdown is disrupting international students and hitting university finances (by Cassidy, C.). https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/05/australia-international-students-visa-university

94.

Tümtürk

Karakiewicz

de Haan

F. J.

(2024). Measuring the impact of plot types on physical change: A diachronic analysis of urban form evolution in New York, Melbourne and Barcelona. Cities, 154, 105380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105380

95.

Tyers

Zhou

(2024). China slowdown shocks, the West and Australia. Economic Papers: A Journal of Applied Economics and Policy, 43(3), 205–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-3441.12424

96.

UNESCO . (2022). Higher education global data report. https://www.right-to-education.org/sites/right-to-education.org/files/resource-attachments/UNESCO_HigherEducationGlobalDataReport_Workingdocument_May2022_EN_0.pdf

97.

Universities Australia . (2024). Critical challenges in Australia’s university sector: Securing a sustainable future. https://universitiesaustralia.edu.au/publication/critical-challenges-in-australias-university-sector-securing-a-sustainable-future/

98.

Velliaris

D. M.

(2016). Choosing the right pathway: A matrix of influences related to selection of higher education destination abroad. In Bista

Foster

(Eds.), Global perspectives and local challenges surrounding international student mobility (pp. 179–200). IGI Global.

99.

Walsh

Bhagavatheeswaran

Roma

(2019). E-learning in healthcare professional education: An analysis of political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental (PESTLE) factors. MedEdPublish, 8(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2019.000097.1

100.

Wang

Crawford

(2021). Factors motivating destination decisions of Chinese study abroad students. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(2), 408–425. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-08-2020-0388

101.

Whittaker

T. A.

Schumacker

R. E.

(2022). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Routledge.

102.

Woodman

T. C.

Whatley

Glass

C. R.

(Eds.), (2023). Digital internationalization in higher education: Beyond virtual exchange. Taylor & Francis.

103.

(2023). The influence of social isolation, technostress, and personality on the acceptance of online meeting platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 39(17), 3388–3405. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2097779

104.

Xing

(2014). Fitting stereotype logistic regression models for ordinal response variables in educational research (Stata). Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 13(2), Article 31. https://doi.org/10.56801/10.56801/v13.i.748

105.

Liu

Chen

Yang

Zhang

Guo

Beggs

P. J.

Boocock

Hanigan

Jay

Vargas

Leder

Green

Quail

Huxley

(2023). Climate change, environmental extremes, and human health in Australia: Challenges, adaptation strategies, and policy gaps. The Lancet Regional Health. Western Pacific, 40, 100936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanwpc.2023.100936

106.

Yang

(2025). Taken-for-granted understandings in access to international higher education: A study of Chinese agent-user students’ university application experiences. Educational Review, Onlinefirst. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2025.2462636

107.

Yencken

Croucher

Elliott

Locke

(2021). Transnational education provision in a time of disruption: Perspectives from Australia. International Journal of Chinese Education, 10(3), Article 22125868211069174. https://doi.org/10.1177/22125868211069174

108.

Zayim-Kurtay

Kaya-Kasikci

Kondakci

Bulut-Sahin

Kéri

Qushem

U. B.

(2025). Im/mobility in a disruptive time: The impact of Covid-19 on the size and directional flow of international student mobility. Comparative Migration Studies, 13(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-025-00431-5

109.

Zhai

Gao

Wang

(2019). Factors for Chinese students choosing Australian higher education and motivation for returning: A systematic review. Sage Open, 9(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019850263

110.

Zhong

R. S.

Wang

Xiao

Liu

X. J.

(2020). Study on the academic situation and environmental factors among the influencing factors of international students’ cross-cultural adaptation. Advances in Applied Sociology, 10(11), 465–482. https://doi.org/10.4236/aasoci.2020.1011027

111.

Zhu

Feng

Chen

(2024). In Chen

(Ed.), Introduction: Approaching social identities and discourses in Chinese digital communication (pp. 1–21). Routledge.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.55 MB