Tourism Management 34 (2013) 37e46

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Influence analysis of community resident support for sustainable tourism

development
Tsung Hung Lee*
Graduate School of Leisure and Exercise Studies, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, 123, Section 3, University Road, Touliu, Yunlin 640, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study aims to assess the support of community residents for sustainable tourism development using
Received 1 September 2011 the latent variables of community attachment, community involvement, perceived benefits, perceived
Accepted 12 March 2012 costs, and support for sustainable tourism development and elemental data of the residents of the Cigu
wetland, which is located in southwest Taiwan. The analytical results suggest that community attach-
Keywords: ment and community involvement are critical factors that affect the level of support for sustainable
Community attachment
tourism development. The benefits perceived by host residents affect the relationship between
Community involvement
community attachment and support for sustainable tourism development and between community
Sustainable tourism
involvement and support for sustainable tourism development. Several managerial implications of this
study are introduced, and recommendations for future research are presented.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction behavior of nature-based tourists visiting the Cigu wetland (e.g.,

Recently, with the decline of traditional industries (such as rural
village industries, fishing village industries, and aboriginal tribe
industries), some rural communities must explore alternative
means through which they can strengthen their economic resources
for community development (Lepp, 2007; Teh & Cabanban, 2007;
Wang, Yang, Chen, Yang, & Li, 2010). Community-based tourism has
become a viable option for developing traditional rural industries
because tourism can provide economic benefits to local residents
(e.g., Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Mehmetoglu, 2001), promote host
destinations (e.g., Boo & Busser, 2006; Mehmetoglu & Ellingsen,
2005), and provide visitors with high-quality experiences and
greater environmental awareness (e.g., Lee, 2009a, 2011; Lepp,
2007; Shrestha, Stein, & Clark, 2007).
In Taiwan, community-based tourism is linked to both sustain-
able development and environmental conservation. Moreover, the
development of community-based tourism, especially in rural
villages, fishing villages, and aboriginal communities, is a national
policy of Taiwan’s current government (Taiwan Tourism Bureau,
2011). The Cigu wetland is famous for its rich and diverse birdlife
and its lagoons and sandbars, has been the focus of the develop-
ment of sustainable tourism in the area. This region, located in the
Southwest Coast National Scenic Area, has recently been developed
into a nature-based tourism site. Recent studies have assessed the
* Fax: þ886 5 531 2183.
E-mail address: thlee@yuntech.edu.tw.
Kerstetter, Hou, & Lin, 2004; Lee, 2009b, 2011).
The lifestyle of the community’s residents may influence the
structural changes within the tourism industry occurring as a result
of the ongoing development of tourism, such as changes in the local
economics (e.g., Manyara & Jones, 2007; Simpson, 2008), social
changes (e.g., Bull & Lovell, 2007; Simpson, 2008), cultural changes
(e.g., Lee, Kang, Long, & Reisinger, 2010; Nyaupane, Morais, & Dowler,
2006; Simpson, 2008), and environmental changes (e.g., Dyer,
Gursoy, Sharma, & Carter, 2007; Lee et al., 2010; Simpson, 2008;
Yoon, Gursoy, & Chen, 2001). A community that plans and uses
tourism as an alternative means of strengthening its economic
development must develop sustainable tourism to meet the needs
and demands of its residents (Puczkó & Rátz, 2000). The development
of sustainable tourism is difficult without the support and partici-
pation of the community residents (Fallon & Kriwoken, 2003; Gursoy
& Rutherford, 2004; Nicholas, Thapa, & Ko, 2009). Thus, the support of
residents is a critical factor for ongoing community development.
Understanding the precedents of support by local residents for
sustainable tourism development can help to promote sustainable
tourism because communities can assess these precedents to
predict the level of support by their residents. Factors that influence
local community support for sustainable tourism development
have been extensively studied by tourism scholars. These factors,
such as attitudes (Lai & Nepal, 2006; Lepp, 2008), perceived effects
(Dyer et al., 2007; Yoon et al., 2001), community attachment
(Nicholas et al., 2009), and perceived benefits (Gursoy, Jurowski, &
Uysal, 2002; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011), may affect residents’

0261-5177/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2012.03.007
38 T.H. Lee / Tourism Management 34 (2013) 37e46
support for sustainable tourism development. Moreover, prior
research has systematically examined the relationship between
support for sustainable tourism development and its perceived
effects. However, relatively few studies have been conducted on
community involvement and attachment among residents in
Eastern nations.
To fill these research gaps, this study aims to develop a theo-
retical model to examine the structural relationships between
residents’ support for sustainable tourism development and the
precedent variables of community attachment, community
involvement, perceived benefits, and perceived costs. Practical
implications and further research are also discussed.
2. Literature review
In this section, I develop a theoretical model that discusses how
community attachment, community involvement, perceived
benefits, and perceived costs correlate with residents’ support for
sustainable tourism development.
2.1. Residents’ support for sustainable tourism development
Sustainable development has been extensively discussed in
tourism sectors because such development can meet the needs of
tourists, provide opportunities to enhance economic growth,
protect physical locations, and improve the quality of life of resi-
dents while enhancing opportunities for the future through the
coexistence of tourism development and environmental quality
(Eagles, McCool, & Haynes, 2002). Thus, community-based tourism
development has become an important tool for sustainable
management (Sebele, 2010; Taylor, 1995).
Social exchange theory has been used to assess the support of
residents for tourism development. The residents of a community
decide whether to become dependent on the benefits and costs of
tourism by weighting economic, social, cultural, and environmental
concerns (Ap, 1992; Gursoy, Chi, & Dyer, 2010; Gursoy & Rutherford,
2004; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011; Yoon et al., 2001). Based on this
theory, if the host residents perceive that they are likely to benefit
from such exchanges without incurring intolerable costs, then
these residents are likely to support and participate in exchanges
with visitors and to support additional community-based tourism
development. However, if the host residents perceive that
community-based tourism development would incur more costs
than benefits, they are likely to oppose this development (Ap, 1992;
Gursoy et al., 2002; Jurowski, Uysal, & Williams, 1997).
Recently, many empirical studies have used structural equation
modeling (SEM) to examine the precedents of support for tourism
development, such as the perceived economic, cultural, social, and
environmental effects (Choi & Murray, 2010; Dyer et al., 2007; Ko &
Stewart, 2002; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011; Oviedo-García,
Castellano-Verdugo, & Martín-Ruiz, 2008; Yoon et al., 2001) and
the perceived benefits and costs (Dyer et al., 2007; Gursoy, Chi, &
Dyer, 2009; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon,
2011; Vargas-Sánchez, Plaza-Mejía, & Porras-Bueno, 2009). Based
on social exchange theory, studies have found that the perceived
benefits significantly and positively affect support for tourism
development (Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Gursoy
& Rutherford, 2004; Kaltenborn, Andersen, Nellemann, Bjerke, &
Thrane, 2008; Nicholas et al., 2009), whereas the perceived costs
significantly and negatively influence support for tourism devel-
opment (Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Gursoy &
Rutherford, 2004; Nicholas et al., 2009; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon,
2011). Clearly, the perceived benefits and costs are the precedent
variables of residents’ support for tourism development.
Understanding the host residents’ support for sustainable
tourism development is a critical factor in the successful manage-
ment and marketing of community-based tourism. Support for
sustainable tourism development related to nature-based tourism,
ecotourism, rural tourism, and heritage sites has been examined in
Western nations but remains an intensely debated subject in Eastern
nations (Gursoy et al., 2002, 2009; Lai & Nepal, 2006; Nicholas et al.,
2009; Tosun, 2006; Yoon et al., 2001). To fill these research gaps, this
study presents the following research hypotheses:
H1. The perceived benefits of sustainable tourism directly and posi-
tively affect residents’ support for sustainable tourism development.
H2. The perceived costs of sustainable tourism directly and nega-
tively affect residents’ support for sustainable tourism development.
2.2. Community attachment
Attachment reflects a psychological connection between people
and meaningful or specific objects (Funk & James, 2006; Thomson,
MacInnis, & Park, 2005). Attachment-related concepts have been
developed and used to provide a general understanding of human
behavior. Such concepts include attachments to parents (e.g., Seskin
et al., 2010), religion (e.g., Peiner, Anderson, Hall, & Hall, 2010), pets
(e.g., Williams, Muldoon, & Lawrence, 2010), jobs (Stevens, Oddou,
Furuya, Bird, & Mendenhall, 2006), places (e.g., Smith, Siderelis, &
Moore, 2010), brands (e.g., Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich, &
Iacobucci, 2010), and communities (e.g., Nicholas et al., 2009). We can
better understand human behavior by evaluating these attachments.
Community attachment can be regarded as an individual’s social
participation and integration into community life and reflects an
affective bond or emotional link between an individual and
a specific community (McCool & Martin, 1994). Thus, community
attachment reflects an individual’s rootedness and sense of
belonging to a community (Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974).
The literature indicates that community attachment is a multi-
faceted psychological process that reflects the affective, cognitive,
and conative (i.e., behavioral) domains of a person’s attitude (Kyle,
Mowen, & Tarrant, 2004). Community attachment is a complex
construct for assessing the attitudes of the host residents toward
their communities. Based on research by Kyle et al. (2004), this
study indicates that residents’ attachment to their community is
demonstrated through the concepts of community identity,
community dependence, social bonding within a community, and
affective responses to feelings regarding a community.
The literature has provided diverse perspectives on the relation-
ship between the community attachment of host residents and their
support for tourism development (McCool & Martin, 1994;
Pennington-Gray, 2005). For example, some authors have indicated
that community attachment directly and significantly affects support
for tourism development (Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Nicholas et al.,
2009), whereas other authors have not found a significant link
between community attachment and support for tourism develop-
ment (Choi & Murray, 2010; Gursoy et al., 2002). Thus, previous
studies lack consensus regarding the specific ways in which resi-
dents’ community influences their support for tourism development.
Recently, many scholars have used perceived benefits and
perceived costs as the mediating variables in examining the role of
community attachment in the accurate forecasting of support for
tourism development (Choi & Murray, 2010; Gursoy et al., 2002,
2010; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Nicholas
et al., 2009). Some scholars have reported that community
attachment positively, directly, and significantly affects perceived
benefits and therefore indirectly affects the support of the host
residents for tourism development (Gursoy & Kendall, 2006;
Nicholas et al., 2009). Inversely, other scholars have reported that
 T.H. Lee / Tourism Management 34 (2013) 37e46
community attachment significantly affects perceived economic
benefits and social benefits but insignificantly affects perceived
social costs, perceived cultural benefits, and cultural costs (Gursoy
& Rutherford, 2004). Moreover, several scholars have indicated that
community attachment does not significantly affect the support of
the host residents for tourism development (Gursoy et al., 2002).
Consequently, the notion that community attachment affects
perceived benefits and costs remains an intensely debated subject.
To compensate for this research gap, this study presents the
following research hypotheses:
H3. Community attachment directly and positively affects perceived
benefits and indirectly and positively affects the support of the host
residents for sustainable tourism development.
H4. Community attachment directly and negatively affects perceived
costs and indirectly and positively affects the support of the host
residents for sustainable tourism development.
2.3. Community involvement
Community involvement describes the extent to which resi-
dents are involved in sharing issues about their lives with their
communities. Several studies have assessed the support of the host
residents for tourism development with a focus on the extent to
which these residents are involved in tourism (Gursoy et al., 2002;
Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Kaltenborn et
al., 2008; Nicholas et al., 2009). Community involvement can be
regarded as a critical factor in the development of community-
based tourism (Jones, 2005; Lepp, 2007).
Community participation plays a significant role in the
sustainable development of community-based tourism because
community participation can increase the value of a community by
enhancing the positive effects of tourism and reducing its negative
effects (Jamal & Getz, 1995). Based on the notion that citizen
participation must be accompanied by power redistribution,
Arnstein (1969) developed a ladder of citizen participation as
a model to explain the inherent evolutionary steps of this process.
According to this model, three levels of gradual evolution, con-
sisting of non-participation, degrees of tokenism, and degrees of
citizen power, are used to assess various levels of community
involvement and participation in community-based tourism
(Okazaki, 2008; Selin & Chavez, 1995).
Tourism studies indicate that engaging the local community in
management and decision-making can convince the community of
the need to integrate tourism into the local economy (Aas, Ladkin, &
Fletcher, 2005; Simmons, 1994; Wager, 1995). Sebele (2010) indi-
cated that the involvement of the community in tourism provides
more opportunities for the host residents to benefit from tourism
development.
Several tourism scholars have used perceived benefits and costs
as the mediating variables between the support for tourism
development and community attachment (Nicholas et al., 2009)
and environmental attitude (Gursoy et al., 2002; Nicholas et al.,
2009) and as a means of assessing their theoretical models.
Unfortunately, the mediating effects of perceived benefits and costs
on community involvement and support for tourism development
have rarely been observed. Therefore, it is worthwhile to examine
this linear relationship.
Although the extent to which the host residents are involved in
their communities has been repeatedly addressed as a means of
assessing support for tourism development (Simmons, 1994; Tosun,
1998), few studies have examined the linear relationship between
community involvement and support for sustainable tourism
development. Nicholas et al. (2009) used two concepts (management
and decision-making processes) to examine the precedent of support
39
for tourism development. However, these authors reported that
community involvement did not have significant effect on the level of
support for sustainable tourism development. Based on their
descriptive analysis, Nicholas et al. found that most of the host resi-
dents were not involved in the decision-making or management
processes of tourism development.
Few studies have applied the construct of the three levels of
community involvement to examine the relationships among
perceived benefits, perceived costs, and support for tourism
development. To compensate for this research gap, this study
presents the following two research hypotheses:
H5. Community involvement directly and positively affects perceived
benefits and indirectly and positively affects residents’ support for
sustainable tourism development.
H6. Community involvement directly and negatively affects
perceived costs and indirectly and positively affects residents’ support
for sustainable tourism development.
3. Research methodology
3.1. Research instrument
On the basis of a review of the literature pertaining to
community-based tourism, a survey instrument was developed for
this study. This questionnaire included items that measured
community attachment, community involvement, perceived
benefits of sustainable tourism, perceived costs of sustainable
tourism, and support for sustainable tourism development. Key
background information from the respondents was also included.
Four doctoral students who had completed a course titled Seminar
in Sustainable Management of Leisure Industry were invited to
discuss and assess this survey instrument.
Prior to the data collection, a pilot study was conducted on April
7 and April 11, 2010. In total, 98 usable questionnaires were
collected. The questionnaire items and Likert scales were assessed
by examining the Cronbach’s alpha, percentage of missing data,
mean, standard deviation, item discrimination, skewness, kurtosis,
correlation coefficients, and factor loadings. The questionnaires
were further assessed for content validity based on feedback from
a scholar who specializes in nature-based tourism and eight local
host residents, who offered comments concerning item compre-
hensibility. Four items were deleted in response to the expert’s
comments. The remaining items on the questionnaire were used
because they met the criteria for the item analysis. However, I made
minor changes to the wording of some of the items to improve
comprehensibility. The final questionnaire consisted of five
sections, described as follows.
An 11-item scale was developed to measure the community
attachment of the host residents. The items included in this scale
were based on the findings of Kyle et al. (2004) and Yüksel, Yüksel,
and Bilim (2010). Community attachment was composed of place
dependence (measured by three items), place identity (three
items), affection attachment (three items), and social bonding (two
items). The responses for the community attachment variables
were scored on a seven-point Likert scale.
The community involvement items were based on the findings of
Nicholas et al. (2009) and Tosun (2006). Three items, which were
designed to measure the means and planning of involving local
community, were adapted from the research of Tosun (2006). The
level of community involvement pertaining to participation in the
management and decision-making processes was modified from
the study of Nicholas et al. (2009), and two items were used to
measure this level of community involvement. Thus, community
40 T.H. Lee / Tourism Management 34 (2013) 37e46

involvement was measured by including the participating stages of assistants and collect the survey data. One local resident in each
means, planning, management processes, and decision-making selected community was hired to act as a guide to search and
processes. The responses were scored on a seven-point Likert identify the target residents and conduct the questionnaire survey.
scale ranging from 1 for “strongly disagree” to 7 for “strongly The questionnaire was administered at nine study sites on April 17,
agree.” Thus, a 4-item scale was developed to measure the 18, 24, and 25, 2010; May 1, 2, 15, 16, and 30, 2010; and June 4 and 6,
community involvement of the host residents. 2010. The questionnaires were administered using a direct face-to-
For the perceived benefits of sustainable tourism, the findings face survey methodology because of the strength of this method in
presented by Yoon et al. (2001), Gursoy and Rutherford (2004), and achieving high response rates. In total, 856 usable questionnaires
Simpson (2008) were modified. The perceived benefits of sustainable were collected.
tourism consisted of perceived economic benefits (four items),
social benefits (two items), and cultural benefits (four items). As 3.3. Quality of the research instrument
described previously, the responses were scored on a seven-point
Likert scale. Thus, a 10-item scale was developed to measure the Based on the sample size (N ¼ 856), this study’s survey results
benefits perceived by the host residents. have a 3.3% sampling error with a 95% confidence level. This sample
For the perceived costs of sustainable tourism, this study modified size seems to be adequate for performing the SEM analysis, based
the findings obtained by Yoon et al. (2001), Gursoy and Rutherford on studies by Marsh, Hau, Balla, and Grayson (1998) and Westland
(2004), and Simpson (2008). The perceived costs of sustainable (2010). The Cronbach’s alpha scores for the latent variables of
tourism consisted of perceived social costs (two items) and cultural community attachment, community involvement, perceived
costs (two items). The responses were scored on a seven-point benefits of sustainable tourism, perceived costs of sustainable
Likert scale. Thus, a 4-item scale was developed to measure the tourism, and support for sustainable tourism development were
perceived costs incurred by the host residents. 0.93, 0.90, 0.94, 0.80, and 0.91, respectively. All of the scores
A 6-item scale for support for sustainable tourism development exceeded the benchmark of 0.70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
was constructed to assess the extent of a resident’s intention to Thus, these scores indicate that the instrument had an acceptable
support sustainable tourism development, based on the findings of level of internal consistency for items measuring the same
Nicholas et al. (2009). As described previously, the responses were construct. The final questionnaires were revised using an item
scored on a seven-point Likert scale. analysis method and by considering the comments of an academic
The demographic variables included gender, age, marital status, scholar and the chairman of one of the community associations in
education level, occupation, income, and membership in the Cigu wetland, who indicated that the research instrument had
a community development association. These questions were used an acceptable level of content validity.
to create profiles of the respondents.
3.4. Data analysis
3.2. Sampling and surveying
The descriptive statistics and the profiles of the host residents
The first stage involved a stratified random-sampling method to were evaluated using SPSS 17.0 for Windows. The confirmatory
collect the field data. The stratified random-sampling procedure factor analysis (CFA) and SEM were analyzed by using LISREL 8.70
adequately ensured the representation of the diverse geographical for Windows. First, the proposed theoretical model was examined
distribution of the residential areas of the community (Graziano & using CFA to assess the effectiveness of the measurement model. To
Raulin, 2004). In the next stage, based on recommendations from closely examine the measurement model and ensure the quality of
some of the chairmen of the community development associations, the assessment measurement model, the model fits, composite
nine communities that were located within the Cigu wetland and reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of
that were involved in wetland tourism development were selected community attachment, community involvement, perceived
for this study: Dujia, Shihfen, Sinan, Sangu, Yancheng, Dacheng, benefits, perceived costs, and support for sustainable tourism
Longshan, Cigu, and Jhongliao. The sample size for each community development were assessed. Second, SEM analysis was used to
was determined by the proportional population of each community estimate all of the SEM parameters using the maximum likelihood
relative to the total population of the research area (see Table 1). method. The direction and significance of the relationships were
Third, eight graduate students majoring in leisure sciences were determined by simultaneously testing all of the hypotheses.
hired and trained in research data collection techniques (such as
face-to-face questionnaire administration, randomized sampling, 4. Findings
and techniques for reducing refusal rates) to act as research
4.1. Profiles of the respondents
Table 1
Sampling frame for local community residents based on population. Briefly, 54.1% of the respondents were female; 70.6% were
married; 23.9% were aged between 41 and 50 years, and 21.4% were
Community Population (N)a Usable sample (N) Usable sample (%)
aged between 31 and 40 years; 35.6% had completed a high school
Dujia 1081 83 7.68 education, and 33.3% had achieved only a junior high school or
Shihfen 1661 117 7.04
Sinan 431 28 6.50
elementary school education; 17.5% were laborers; 20.2% had lived in
Sangu 1740 126 7.24 the community for 11e20 years; and 53.8% had a monthly income of
Yancheng 535 38 7.10 less than NT $ 20,000, and 31.6% had a monthly income between NT $
Dacheng 2181 159 7.29 20,001 and NT 40,000 (1 US$ ¼ 29.02 NT $ as of August 26, 2011).
Longshan 2119 153 7.22
Cigu 1184 88 7.43
Jhongliao 892 64 7.17 4.2. Measurement model
Total 11,824 856 7.24
a
Data from Cigu Township Household Registration Office (2010) in February
A measurement model specifies how latent variables or hypo-
2010. Based on Chi-square test (Chi-square ¼ 0.78, df ¼ 8), the usable sample of each thetical constructs are assessed in terms of observed variables and
site was equal percentage of the survey. represent the validity and reliability of the observed variables
 T.H. Lee / Tourism Management 34 (2013) 37e46 41

responses for the latent variables (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Hair, Black, Table 2
Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). Because the initial CFA model Factor loadings, average variance extracted and composite reliability of the
measurement model.
failed to provide an acceptable fit, four items (“My friends/family
would be disappointed if I were to live in another community”, “I Variables Factor AVEa CRb
encourage the residents of this community to invest in the devel- loadings

opment of sustainable tourism”, “Increase the crime rate”, and “I Community attachment 0.56 0.93
The settings and facilities provided by this 0.65
obey regulatory environmental standards to reduce the negative
community are the best
effects of tourism”) were eliminated to obtain an acceptable model I prefer living in this community over 0.78
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). In a further attempt to obtain a better- other communities
fitting measurement model, modification indices provided by LIS- I enjoy living in this community more 0.78
REL were used for the model modification (Jöreskog & Sörbom, than other communities
I identify the living in this community 0.78
1996). The results of the revised CFA indicated that the chi-square I feel that this community is a part of me 0.79
(c2) value of the model was 1249.10, with 437 degrees of freedom Living in this community says a lot 0.80
(p < 0.05), which implies that the measurement did not fit the data about who I am
well. A large sample size may have rendered this test an inadequate Living in this community means a lot to me 0.78
I am very attached to this community 0.66
measure of the model’s fitness because sample size can affect the
I feel a strong sense of belonging to 0.73
value of c2 (McDonald & Ho, 2002). The other model fit indices used this community
for this study were the c2/df (1249.10/437 ¼ 2.86; threshold less 3 Many of my friends/family prefer this 0.72
for a serious viewpoint or less 5 for acceptable criteria), the good- community over other communities
ness-of-fit index (GFI) of 0.92, the adjusted goodness-of-fit index Community involvement 0.68 0.90
I participate in sustainable tourism-related 0.84
(AGFI) of 0.90, the normed fit index (NFI) of 0.98, the non-normed activities
fit index of 0.98, the comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.99, the root I support research for the sustainability 0.84
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of 0.047, the critical N of this community
of 359, and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) of I am involved in the planning and 0.82
management of sustainable tourism
0.040. Based on these fit indices, the measurement model appeared
in this community
to fit the sample data well (Hair et al., 2006). I am involved in the decision-making for 0.80
Table 2 lists the factor loadings, t-values, average variance the sustainable tourism of this community
extracted (AVE), and composite reliability for the variables. All of Perceived benefits 0.60 0.94
the composite reliability values exceeded 0.60, demonstrating Increase employment opportunities 0.72
Increase shopping opportunities 0.73
a high level of internal consistency for the latent variables. The Increase the revenues from visitors for 0.71
measurement reached convergent validity at the item level because local governments
all of the factor loadings exceeded 0.50. Furthermore, all of the Increase business for local people and 0.83
indicators of the t-values that were associated with each of the small businesses
Increase opportunities for leisure and 0.86
completely standardized loadings exceeded 1.96, thus reaching
tourism
statistical significance (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). All of the factor Improve the conditions of roads and 0.78
loadings exceeded 0.50 and were significant (t > 1.96, p < 0.05); other public facilities
thus, these values constitute evidence of convergent validity. All of Provide an incentive for the preservation 0.73
the intercorrelations between pairs of constructs were less than the of local culture
Develop cultural activities by local residents 0.79
square root of the AVE estimates of the two constructs, providing Increase cultural exchanges between 0.79
discriminant validity (Table 3; Hair et al., 2006). Additionally, the visitors and residents
convergent and discriminant validity were evaluated using the AVE. Increase positive effects on cultural identity 0.76
The test’s criterion requires that each value of AVE should exceed Perceived costs 0.55 0.79
Increase the prices of goods and services 0.73
0.50 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). All of the AVE for community attachment,
Increase environmental pollution 0.79
community involvement, perceived benefits, perceived costs, and Increase conflicts between visitors and 0.70
support for sustainable tourism development exceeded the residents
threshold of 0.50, indicating that this study had adequate levels of Support for sustainable tourism development 0.65 0.91
convergent and discriminant validity. I support the development of 0.80
community-based sustainable
tourism initiatives
4.3. Structural model I participate in sustainable 0.84
tourism-related plans and development
The goodness-of-fit level of the structural model can be assessed I participate in cultural exchanges 0.84
between local residents and visitors
using many of the statistics within the SEM analysis (McDonald &
I cooperate with tourism planning and 0.86
Ho, 2002). Previous studies have applied the c2 test in addition to development initiatives
other measures, such as c2/df, the NFI, the CFI, the RMSEA, and the I participate in the promotion of 0.71
SRMR, to assess model fitness (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996; McDonald environmental education and conservation
& Ho, 2002). In this study, the c2 test (c2 ¼ 1434.76, df ¼ 441, a
AVE: Average variance extracted ¼ (Sl2)/[Sl2 þ S(q)].
p < 0.05) was unable to determine the goodness-of-fit level of the b
CR: Composite reliability ¼ (Sl)2/[(Sl)2 þ S(q)] (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996).
model, possibly because of the study’s large sample size. However,
a c2/df (1434.76/441 ¼ 3.25) ratio of less than 5 is generally
considered to be indicative of a reasonable fit between the Fig. 1 shows the path diagram for these structural relationships.
proposed model and the data on which the model is constructed The SEM analysis revealed that the perceived benefits of sustain-
(Kline, 2005). The other goodness-of-fit statistics that I obtained able tourism directly, positively, and significantly affected support
included the NFI (0.98), CFI (0.98), critical N (314), RMSEA (0.051), for sustainable tourism development (b31 ¼ 0.69, t ¼ 17.15,
and SRMR (0.061), all of which indicated an acceptable level of p < 0.001); thus, H1 was accepted. The perceived costs of sustain-
model fitness for the structural modeling of the data. able tourism directly, negatively, and significantly affected support
42 T.H. Lee / Tourism Management 34 (2013) 37e46
Table 3
Correlation matrix of the latent variables.
Latent variable Community attachment Community involvement
Community attachment 0.75
Community involvement 0.27 0.82
Perceived benefits 0.45 0.32
Perceived costs 0.04 0.03
Support for sustainable 0.40 0.53
tourism development
Diagonal values indicated the square root of average variance extracted of each construct.
for sustainable tourism development (b32 ¼ 0.24, t ¼ 7.38,
p < 0.001); thus, H2 was accepted.
Community attachment directly, positively, and significantly
affected the perceived benefits of sustainable tourism (g11 ¼ 0.40,
t ¼ 9.83, p < 0.001) and indirectly, positively, and significantly
affected support for sustainable tourism development
(0.40  0.69 ¼ 0.28, p < 0.001); thus, H3 was accepted. Community
attachment directly, negatively, and insignificantly affected the
perceived benefits of sustainable tourism (g21 ¼ 0.06, t ¼ 1.43,
p > 0.05) and indirectly and insignificantly affected support for
sustainable tourism development (0.06  (0.24) ¼ 0.01,
p > 0.05); thus, H4 was rejected.
Community involvement directly, positively, and significantly
affected the perceived benefits of sustainable tourism (g12 ¼ 0.25,
t ¼ 6.78, p < 0.001) and indirectly and significantly affected support
for sustainable tourism development (0.25  0.69 ¼ 0.17,
p < 0.001); thus H5 was accepted. Community involvement directly,
negatively, and insignificantly affected the perceived costs of
sustainable tourism (g22 ¼ 0.07, t ¼ 1.63, p > 0.05) and indirectly
and insignificantly affected support for sustainable tourism devel-
opment ((0.07)  (0.24) ¼ 0.02, p > 0.05); thus, H6 was rejected.
Moreover, the competing models (CMs) were further assessed to
determine the best model in comparison with the proposed theo-
retical model (TM). Table 4 lists the statistical indices of the TM and
the CMs. An insignificant change in the c2 statistics between the
nested models was used as a test of invariance (Byrne, 1993). The
differences in the c2 values were used to determine whether the
two competing nested models differed significantly in their ability
to explain the estimated construct covariance in the SEM analysis
(Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996). To assess the fits of the models, I
determined the best-fitting model (i.e., CM3) by comparing the four
competing models with the TM. Consequently, CM3 was chosen as
an alternative model for this study (Fig. 2).
Based on the SEM analysis of this model, the perceived benefits
of sustainable tourism have a partial mediating role between
community attachment and support for sustainable tourism
Fig. 1. Final model of the proposed theoretical model.
Perceived benefits Perceived costs Support for sustainable
tourism development
0.77
0.18 0.74
0.66 0.13 0.81
development and between community involvement and support
for sustainable tourism development. Community attachment
directly and significantly affected support for sustainable tourism,
but the indirect effect via the perceived costs of sustainable tourism
was insignificant; thus, perceived costs do not have a mediating
role between community attachment and support for sustainable
tourism development. Similarly, community involvement directly
and significantly affected support for sustainable tourism, but the
indirect effect via the perceived costs of sustainable tourism was
insignificant; therefore, perceived costs do not have a mediating
effect between community involvement and support for sustain-
able tourism development.
5. Discussion
The means by which perceived benefits and costs affect the
support of the host residents for sustainable tourism development
has rarely been studied within the populations of Eastern nations. In
this study, the perceived benefits variable is a positive precedent
variable of support for sustainable tourism development. This
finding corresponds with the results from previous studies that have
been conducted in Western nations (Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy &
Kendall, 2006; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Kaltenborn et al.,
2008; Nicholas et al., 2009; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011). Simi-
larly, the perceived costs variable is a negative precedent variable of
support for sustainable tourism development. This finding also
corresponds with the results from previous studies in Western
nations (Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Gursoy &
Rutherford, 2004; Nicholas et al., 2009; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon,
2011). Based on the social exchange theory, perceived benefits and
costs are effective predictors of the support for sustainable tourism
development. Thus, this study suggests that the perceived benefits
and costs of sustainable tourism affects support for sustainable
tourism development, and the behavioral model of the host resi-
dents reflects international and multicultural perspectives on
community-based sustainable tourism development.
 T.H. Lee / Tourism Management 34 (2013) 37e46 43

Table 4
Fit indices for the theoretical model and competing models.

Competing models TM CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4 CM5

Chi-square 1434.76 1434.09 1299.72 1295.52 1672.32 1462.15
df ¼ 441, p < 0.05 df ¼ 440, p < 0.05 df ¼ 440, p < 0.05 df ¼ 439, p < 0.05 df ¼ 445, p < 0.05 df ¼ 440, p < 0.05
Chi-square/df 3.25 3.26 2.95 2.95 3.76 3.32
GFI 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.89 0.90
AGFI 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.87 0.88
NFI 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.97
NNFI 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.98
CFI 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98
IFI 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98
ECVI 1.88 1.88 1.73 1.72 2.15 1.92
RMSEA 0.051 0.051 0.048 0.048 0.057 0.052
SRMR 0.061 0.058 0.047 0.046 0.19 0.061
Critical N 314 316 346 347 253 309

TM ¼ Theoretical model. CM1 ¼ TM with community attachment / support for sustainable tourism development path added. CM2 ¼ TM with community
involvement / support for sustainable tourism development path added. CM3 ¼ TM with both community attachment / support for sustainable tourism development and
community attachment / support for sustainable tourism development paths added. CM4 ¼ Only paths with community attachment / support for sustainable tourism
development and community involvement / support for sustainable tourism development remained. CM5 ¼ TM with community attachment / community involvement
path added.

This study employed a multi-dimensional approach (i.e.,
community identity, community dependence, community affec-
tion, and social bonding) to assess whether community attachment
may be more rigorous than has been reported in previous studies
(e.g., Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Gursoy &
Rutherford, 2004; Nicholas et al., 2009) that employed a single-
dimensional approach to studying and discussing community
attachment. My results indicate that community attachment
directly and positively correlates with perceived benefits and
indirectly and positively correlates with support for sustainable
tourism development. Therefore, community attachment can be
used to effectively assess support for sustainable tourism devel-
opment. A resident who has greater community attachment will be
more likely to support sustainable tourism development. Although
my finding that community attachment affects the perceived
benefits of the host residents conflicts with the results of previous
studies, this variance may be explained by differences pertaining to
the studied community development stages and the attitudes of
the host residents (Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006;
Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Nicholas et al., 2009). This finding is
consistent with the findings of previous studies regarding the
support behavior of the host residents (Gursoy & Kendall, 2006;
Nicholas et al., 2009). Moreover, my results indicate that the
perceived benefits have a mediating effect between community
attachment and support for sustainable tourism development. This
result diverges from the conclusions drawn by previous studies
(Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Nicholas et al., 2009).
A significant relationship was not found between community
attachment and perceived costs. Therefore, community attachment
is not an effective predictor of the perceived costs of sustainable
tourism. This finding is consistent with some previous studies
(Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Jurowski et al.,
1997) but conflicts with the results of other studies (Gursoy et al.,
2002; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004;
Nicholas et al., 2009).
Gursoy et al. (2002) reported the significant relationship of
community attachment leading to perceived benefits and
perceived benefits, in turn leading to support for tourism devel-
opment. However, the relationship between community attach-
ment and support for tourism development remains
undetermined. Nicholas et al. (2009) attempted to examine the
effect of community involvement on the perception of the Pitons
Management Area (PMA) as a heritage site and on the level of
support for sustainable tourism development. Unfortunately, these

Fig. 2. Structural model of CM3.

44 T.H. Lee / Tourism Management 34 (2013) 37e46
authors did not examine community involvement as a precedent
variable of perceptions regarding the PMA and the level of support
for sustainable tourism development. Nicholas et al. indicated that
most respondents in their study were not actively involved in their
community, nor were they involved in the management or the
decision-making processes of the PMA. This lack of involvement
may explain the absence of a relationship between community
involvement and perceived benefits. In this study, the five items
that were included in the three stages of host residents’ community
participation and that were used to assess community involvement
reflect the various levels of community participation. Consequently,
the positive and significant relationship of community
involvement / perceived benefits / support for sustainable
tourism development was examined. This paper has contributed to
the literature in this area of study by examining the linear rela-
tionship among these variables. Moreover, on the basis of the
competing model in this study (Table 4), perceived benefits play
a partial mediating role between community attachment and
support for tourism development. This finding filled the research
gap regarding community-based tourism and indicated that,
similar to the findings of previous studies, support for sustainable
tourism development relies more on perceived benefits than on
perceived costs (Dyer et al., 2007; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006).
Few studies have examined the relationship between commu-
nity involvement and perceived costs. In this study, a significant
relationship between these two latent variables was not found.
Therefore, the degree to which community involvement affects the
perceived costs of sustainable tourism remains undetermined.
However, in the analytical results of the comparisons between the
proposed theoretical model and competing models, this study
found that community involvement, rather than perceived costs,
directly affects the host residents’ support for sustainable tourism
development. Thus, a mediating effect of the perceived costs
between community attachment and the host residents’ support
for sustainable tourism development was not found. Thus, this
study indicates that as the host residents’ level of community
involvement increases, the residents’ support for sustainable
tourism development also increases.
Finally, I conclude that this study examined how community
attachment significantly and directly correlates with perceived
benefits and indirectly correlates with support for sustainable
tourism development. Similarly, community involvement signifi-
cantly and directly correlates with perceived benefits and indirectly
affects support for sustainable tourism development for the host
residents living in a community-based tourism area. The findings of
these linear relationships are the original findings in this study of
Eastern nations and wetlands-related community-based tourism.
Thus, this study contributes to the literature on behavioral models
of community-based tourism.
6. Implications
6.1. Management implications
Community-based tourism produces economic benefits that
result from the conservation of natural and cultural resources and
directly assists both local communities and nations in achieving
sustainable environmental development (Lewis, 2001). Conse-
quently, the development of community-sustainable tourism is
worthwhile. According to my analytical results, community
attachment is a precedent variable of perceived benefits and of
support for sustainable tourism development. Moreover, four
dimensions were used to effectively measure the level of commu-
nity attachment. Therefore, I suggest that the managers or
marketers of community development associations can develop
programs to foster community attachment among host residents.
First, the promotion of a community-based festival or event, for
example, could lead to an increase in the level of community
attachment exhibited by host residents. Increased levels of
community attachment will cause increases in the perceived
benefits and support for sustainable tourism development among
host residents (Filo, Funk, & O’Brien, 2008). Second, programs
designed to protect a community’s environment and maintain its
standard of living will increase the community dependence of its
host residents. If host residents have a high level of community
dependence on natural and living resources, then they will also
exhibit a high level of perceived benefits and will thus support
sustainable tourism development. Third, the results of this study
encourage the implementation of community-based programs or
activities that can foster emotional connections among community
residents.
Simultaneously, these promotional programs should emphasize
community involvement. Such programs should be designed to
increase the level of activity involvement for host residents. For
example, local governments should provide opportunities for host
residents to participate in tourism-related activities and to invest in
the development of community-based tourism. Moreover, the
managers of these communities should provide opportunities for
residents to become involved in the planning and management of
sustainable tourism development within their communities. The
increased involvement of host residents in sustainable tourism
decision-making processes is critical for the support of sustainable
tourism development. Thus, the findings of this study offer
important insights for managers of community initiatives in
developing sustainable tourism.
The perceived benefits have a mediating effect between
community attachment and support for sustainable tourism
development and between community involvement and support
for sustainable tourism development. Therefore, community
managers should focus on activities that can increase the perceived
benefits of sustainable tourism among host residents, such as
developing cultural activities, increasing cultural exchanges
between visitors and residents, and increasing opportunities for
leisure and tourism. Moreover, tourism industries in local
communities should give priority for employment to host residents
to generate local employment opportunities and realize the
perceived benefits from tourism development (Lepp, 2007). By
increasing the perceived benefits, managers could ensure that host
residents would be more likely to lend their support for sustainable
tourism development.
6.2. Recommendations for future studies
Despite its contributions, this study has several limitations that
should be addressed in future research. First, this study focused
only on a wetland community. Different types of communities, such
as aboriginal communities, agricultural communities, and fishing
communities, may hold differing opinions regarding sustainable
tourism development. To overcome this limitation, future studies
should conduct similar surveys across a wide spectrum of
community types. Given the need to assess the effects of
“community attachment” and “community involvement” on
support for sustainable tourism development, future research
should thoroughly examine this behavioral model in relationship to
the host residents. Thus, it would be useful to assess whether this
model can be applied to other forms of community-based tourism.
Next, the respondents in this study were sampled randomly over
a period of one year. Although this sampling approach allowed us to
assess the suitability of the current behavioral model for the host
residents, only cross-sectional data were assessed. I could not
 T.H. Lee / Tourism Management 34 (2013) 37e46
examine longer periods of time. Thus, my method may be associ-
ated with a common method variance created by the methodology
itself (Sekaran, 1992). Moreover, only communities involved in
tourism development were sampled. It would be interesting to
survey the attitudes of communities that are not involved in
tourism. To overcome this limitation, future research should
examine communities that are involved and others that are not
involved in tourism development. These populations should be
compared by testing the moderating effect of community
involvement in tourism. Additionally, perceived benefits and costs
may change as the effects of sustainable tourism development are
realized. Further research is necessary to investigate data pertain-
ing to host residents over the course of multiple years to better
understand this model of support for sustainable tourism devel-
opment; it would be useful to perform a longitudinal study of the
support of residents for sustainable tourism development.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary material related to this article can be found
online at doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2012.03.007.
References
Aas, C., Ladkin, A., & Fletcher, J. (2005). Stakeholder collaboration and heritage
management. Annals of Tourism Research, 32, 28e48.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice:
a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
411e423.
Ap, J. (1992). Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research,
19, 665e690.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216e224.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structure equations models.
Journal of the Academic of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74e94.
Boo, S., & Busser, J. A. (2006). Impact analysis of a tourism festival on tourists’
destination images. Event Management, 9(4), 223e237.
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (1993). Sustainable tourism: an evolving global approach.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1(1), 1e5.
Bull, C., & Lovell, J. (2007). The impact of hosting major sporting events on local
residents: an analysis of the views and perceptions of Canterbury residents in
relation to the tour de France 2007. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12, 229e248.
Byrne, B. M. (1993). The Maslach burnout inventory: testing for factorial validity
and invariance across elementary, intermediate and secondary teachers. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 197e212.
Choi, H. C., & Murray, I. (2010). Resident attitudes toward sustainable community
tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(4), 575e594.
Dyer, P., Gursoy, D., Sharma, B., & Carter, J. (2007). Structural modeling of resident
perceptions of tourism and associated development on the Sunshine Coast,
Australia. Tourism Management, 28, 409e422.
Eagles, P. F. J., McCool, S. F., & Haynes, C. F. (2002). Sustainable tourism in protected
areas: Guidelines for planning and management. Gland, Switzerland: Interna-
tional Union for the Conservation of Nature.
Fallon, L. D., & Kriwoken, L. K. (2003). Community involvement in tourism infra-
structure: the case of the Strahan Visitor Centre, Tasmania. Tourism Manage-
ment, 24, 289e308.
Filo, K. R., Funk, D. C., & O’Brien, D. (2008). It’s really not about the bike: exploring
attraction and attachment to the events of the Lance Armstrong Foundation.
Journal of Sport Management, 22, 501e525.
Funk, D. C., & James, J. D. (2006). Consumer loyalty: the meaning of attachment in
the development of sport team allegiance. Journal of Sport Management, 20,
189e217.
Graziano, A. M., & Raulin, M. L. (2004). Research methods: A process of inquiry (5th
ed.). New York: Pearson Education Group.
Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G., & Dyer, P. (2009). An examination of locals’ attitudes. Annals of
Tourism Research, 36, 723e726.
Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G., & Dyer, P. (2010). Local’s attitudes toward mass and alternative
tourism: the case of Sunshine Coast, Australia. Journal of Travel Research, 49,
381e394.
Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident attitudes e a structural
modeling approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 79e105.
Gursoy, D., & Kendall, K. W. (2006). Hosting mega events e modeling locals support.
Annals of Tourism Research, 33(3), 603e623.
Gursoy, D., & Rutherford, D. G. (2004). Host attitudes toward tourism e an improved
structural model. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 495e516.
Hair, J. J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate
data analysis (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
45
Jamal, T., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning.
Annals of Tourism Research, 22, 183e202.
Jones, S. (2005). Community-based ecotourism: the significance of social capital.
Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 303e324.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago:
Scientific Software International.
Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Williams, R. (1997). A theoretical analysis of host
community resident reactions to tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 36(2), 3e11.
Kaltenborn, B. P., Andersen, O., Nellemann, C., Bjerke, T., & Thrane, C. (2008).
Resident attitudes towards mountain second-home tourism development in
Norway: the effects of environmental attitudes. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
16(6), 664e680.
Kasarda, J. D., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society.
American Sociological Review, 39(3), 328e339.
Kerstetter, D. L., Hou, J. S., & Lin, C. H. (2004). Profiling Taiwanese ecotourists using
a behavioral approach. Tourism Management, 25, 491e498.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principle and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.).
New York: Guilford.
Ko, D. W., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of residents’ atti-
tudes for tourism development. Tourism Management, 23(5), 521e530.
Kyle, G., Mowen, A. J., & Tarrant, M. (2004). Linking place preferences with place
meaning: an examination of the relationship between place motivation and
place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 439e454.
Lai, P. H., & Nepal, S. K. (2006). Local perspectives of ecotourism development in
Tawushan Nature Reserve, Taiwan. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1117e1129.
Lee, T. H. (2009a). A structural model for examining how destination image and
interpretation service affect future behavior: a case study of Taiwan’s Taomi
eco-village. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(6), 727e745.
Lee, T. H. (2009b). A structural model to examine how destination image, attitude,
and motivation affect the future behavior of tourists. Leisure Sciences, 31(3),
215e236.
Lee, T. H. (2011). How recreation involvement, place attachment and conservation
commitment affect environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 19(7), 895e915.
Lee, C. K., Kang, S. K., Long, P., & Reisinger, Y. (2010). Residents’ perceptions of casino
impacts: a comparative study. Tourism Management, 31(2), 189e201.
Lepp, A. (2007). Residents’ attitudes towards tourism in Bigodi village, Uganda.
Tourism Management, 28, 876e885.
Lepp, A. (2008). Attitudes towards initial tourism development in a community
with no prior tourism experience: the case of Bigodi, Uganda. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 16(1), 5e22.
Lewis, W. M., Jr. (2001). Wetlands explained-wetland science, policy, and politics in
America. New York: Oxford Press.
Manyara, G., & Jones, E. (2007). Community-based tourism enterprises develop-
ment in Kenya: an exploration of their potential as avenues of poverty reduc-
tion. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15, 628e644.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much? The
number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 33(2), 181e220.
McCool, S. F., & Martin, S. R. (1994). Community attachment and attitudes toward
tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), 29e34.
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural
equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64e82.
Mehmetoglu, M. (2001). Economic scale of community-run festivals: a case study.
Event Management, 7(2), 93e102.
Mehmetoglu, M., & Ellingsen, K. A. (2005). Do small-scale festivals adopt “market
orientation” as a management philosophy? Event Management, 9(3), 119e132.
Nicholas, L., Thapa, B., & Ko, Y. (2009). Residents’ perspectives of a world heritage
site e the Pitons Management Area, St. Lucia. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3),
390e412.
Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2011). Developing a community support model for
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 964e988.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Nyaupane, G. P., Morais, D. B., & Dowler, L. (2006). The role of community
involvement and number/type of visitors on tourism impacts: a controlled
comparison of Annapurna, Nepal and Northwest Yunnan, China. Tourism
Management, 27(6), 1373e1385.
Okazaki, E. (2008). A community-based tourism model: its conception and use.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), 511e529.
Oviedo-García, M. A., Castellano-Verdugo, M., & Martín-Ruiz, D. (2008). Gaining
residents’ support for tourism and planning. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 10(2), 95e109.
Park, C. W., MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand
attachment and brand attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differenti-
ation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74, 1e17.
Peiner, S. R., Anderson, T. L., Hall, M. E. L., & Hall, T. W. (2010). Adult attachment, God
attachment and gender in relation to perceived stress. Journal of Psychology and
Theology, 38(3), 175e185.
Pennington-Gray, L. (2005). Resident attitudes towards tourism in a destination in
the stagnation stage of the tourism life cycle. Sustainable Development and
Planning, 2, 1411e1418.
Puczkó, L., & Rátz, T. (2000). Tourist and resident perceptions of the physical
impacts of tourism at Lake Balaton, Hungary: issues for sustainable tourism
management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(6), 458e478.
46 T.H. Lee / Tourism Management 34 (2013) 37e46
Sebele, L. S. (2010). Community-based tourism ventures, benefits and challenges:
Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust, Central District, Botswana. Tourism Management,
31, 136e146.
Sekaran, U. (1992). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Selin, S., & Chavez, D. (1995). Developing a collaborative model for environmental
planning and management. Environmental Management, 9, 189e195.
Seskin, L., Feliciano, E., Tippy, G., Yedloutschnig, R., Sossin, K. M., & Yasik, A. (2010).
Attachment and autism: parental attachment representations and relational
behaviors in the parent-child dyad. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(7),
949e960.
Shrestha, R. K., Stein, T. V., & Clark, J. (2007). Valuing nature-based recreation in
public natural areas of the Apalachicola River region, Florida. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Management, 85(4), 977e985.
Simmons, D. G. (1994). Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism
Management, 15, 98e108.
Simpson, M. C. (2008). Community benefit tourism initiatives: a conceptual
oxymoron? Tourism Management, 29, 1e18.
Smith, J. W., Siderelis, C., & Moore, R. L. (2010). The effects of place attachment,
hypothetical site modifications and use levels on recreation behavior. Journal of
Leisure Research, 42(4), 621e640.
Stevens, M. J., Oddou, G., Furuya, N., Bird, A., & Mendenhall, M. (2006). HR factors
affecting repatriate job satisfaction and job attachment for Japanese managers.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(5), 831e841.
Taiwan Tourism Bureau. (2011). Travel suggestions. Available at http://eng.taiwan.
net.tw/m1.aspx?sNo¼0002038 Accessed 28.08.11.
Taylor, G. (1995). The community approach: does it really work? Tourism Manage-
ment, 16(7), 487e489.
Teh, L., & Cabanban, A. S. (2007). Planning for sustainable tourism in southern Pulau
Banggi: an assessment of biophysical conditions and their implications for future
tourism development. Journal of Environmental Management, 85(4), 999e1008.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., & Park, C. W. (2005). The ties that bind: measuring the
strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 15(1), 77e91.
Tosun, C. (1998). Roots of unsustainable tourism development at the local level: the
case of Ürgüp in Turkey. Tourism Management, 19, 595e610.
Tosun, C. (2006). Expected nature of community participation in tourism devel-
opment. Tourism Management, 27, 493e504.
Vargas-Sánchez, A., Plaza-Mejía, M.Á., & Porras-Bueno, N. (2009). Understanding
residents’ attitudes toward the development of industrial tourism in a former
mining community. Journal of Travel Research, 47(3), 373e387.
Wager, J. (1995). Developing a strategy for the Angkor World Heritage Site. Tourism
Management, 16, 515e523.
Wang, H., Yang, Z., Chen, L., Yang, J., & Li, R. (2010). Minority community partici-
pation in tourism: a case of Kanas Tuva villages in Xinjiang, China. Tourism
Management, 31(6), 759e764.
Westland, J. C. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation
modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(6), 476e487.
Williams, J. M., Muldoon, J., & Lawrence, A. (2010). Children and their pets:
exploring the relationships between pet ownership, pet attitudes, attachment
to pets and empathy. Education and Health, 28(1), 12e15.
Yoon, Y., Gursoy, D., & Chen, J. S. (2001). Validating a tourism development theory
with structural equation modeling. Tourism Management, 22(4), 363e372.
Yüksel, A., Yüksel, F., & Bilim, Y. (2010). Destination attachment: effects on customer
satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty. Tourism Management,
31(2), 274e284.