Next Article in Journal
The Barriers to Millennials Visiting Rouge Urban National Park
Next Article in Special Issue
Study Informing Policy on Chinese Ancient Town Tourism Based on a Tourist Satisfaction Survey: A Case Study in the City of Chengdu
Previous Article in Journal
Towards Massive Data and Sparse Data in Adaptive Micro Open Educational Resource Recommendation: A Study on Semantic Knowledge Base Construction and Cold Start Problem
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 9
Issue 6
10.3390/su9060903
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Residents’ Attitude toward Aboriginal Cultural Tourism Development: An Integration of Two Theories

by
Chi-Ming Hsieh
1,
Bi-Kun Tsai
2 and
Han-Shen Chen
3,4,*
1
International Bachelor Program of Agribusiness, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung City 40227, Taiwan
2
Graduate Institute of Bio-Industry Management, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung City 40227, Taiwan
3
Department of Health Diet and Industry Management, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung City 40201, Taiwan
4
Department of Medical Management, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung City 40201, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2017, 9(6), 903; https://doi.org/10.3390/su9060903
Submission received: 5 May 2017 / Revised: 22 May 2017 / Accepted: 23 May 2017 / Published: 27 May 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cultural Tourism and Sustainability)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Understanding residents’ attitudes is critical for successfully developing cultural tourism in aboriginal protected areas. This study developed an integration model combining two theories to identify the key determinants of indigenous residents’ attitudes toward cultural tourism development. Social exchange theory stresses the impact of the benefits derived from tourism on indigenous residents’ attitudes toward tourism development. Social capital theory embeds clear rationales for strengthening the internalization process of the formation of residents’ shared values and understanding, enabling them to trust each other and thus support tourism development. The present study was conducted within two indigenous communities in Eastern Taiwan. The results revealed that cultural tourism benefits and structural and relational capital effectively predict indigenous residents’ attitudes toward tourism development; structural capital plays a critical mediating role in the relationship between tourism benefits and residents’ attitudes. The managerial implications provide recommendations for aboriginal community developers or practical sectors to avoid problems or costs caused by tourism development when promoting cultural tourism activities within indigenous communities.

1. Introduction

Cultural tourism now accounts for nearly 40% of global outbound travel and market share [1]. Aboriginal cultural tourism is a type of tourism and travel that is motivated or enriched by experiencing aboriginal culture, history, and native people’s lifestyles [2] or regional tourism based on local cultural values [3]. From an industrial perspective, aboriginal tourism refers to the facet of tourism activities or industry involving indigenous people [4]; tourism should support indigenous cultures by respecting indigenous knowledge and encouraging residents to value their own traditions and cultural heritage [5]. Although aboriginal cultural tourism has received much attention because of its unique cultural heritage and living traditions that have attracted tourists in recent years, increasing concern has been expressed about tourism’s negative impacts on the fragile environment and its indigenous population [6].
Residents’ attitudes are key in the process of developing sustainable tourism in aboriginal villages [7]. A community is comprised of different residents and individuals who not only live in close geographical proximity but who also have common goals and interests [8]. A community should prioritize the overall interests of local residents and consider both individual consciousness, collective participation, and cohesion establishment [9,10] to achieve community sustainability [11]. Indigenous people develop patterns of natural resource use and practices of human resource management that reflect their detailed knowledge of local geography and their ecosystem to preserve their environment and culture through their living practices [12]. By participating in tourism activities with dignity and self-respect [5], indigenous residents can involve themselves in and control the industry’s operation by having their culture serve as the essence that attracts tourists [13,14]. Moreover, residents may exhibit the uniqueness of their indigenous cultural identity to an international audience and profit from the internationalization and locally controlled commercialization of local cultural values. Additionally, by commercializing cultural values, local communities can ensure proper funding for cultural projects and preservation [3]. The role of social capital in determining residents’ attitudes and behaviors for supporting cultural tourism development has become increasingly vital [15,16], particularly in indigenous communities. Providing a thorough understanding of this critical topic is necessary to improve the sustainability of aboriginal cultural tourism by researchers, practitioners, and marketers. Thus, this study developed and tested integrated models based on both social exchange theory (SET) and social capital theory (SCT) to investigate the determinants of residents’ attitudes toward aboriginal cultural tourism development.
The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows. In Section 2, we review the literature on SET and SCT and develop hypotheses for the relationships between them. Section 3 describes our research methodology, including data collection, construction, and measurement. Our data analysis procedures, using structural equation modeling, are provided in Section 4. Section 5 presents discussions and the managerial implications of the findings, and we conclude with limitations and suggestions for future research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Social Exchange Theory

SET is a general sociological theory focusing on understanding the exchange of resources and patterns of interaction between individuals and groups [17,18]. SET claims that people evaluate or exchange on the basis of the costs and benefits incurred as a result of the exchange [19,20,21]. From the standpoint of tourism development, stakeholders’ attitudes toward and support for tourism development in their community is influenced by their evaluations of the actual and perceived outcomes tourism provides in their community [19,20]. For instance, the sociocultural influence of aboriginal tourism, which integrates cultural revitalization, ecological conservation, and social development, was viewed as a major factor associated with local people’s attitudes toward tourism development in Taiwan’s aboriginal communities [12]. Several studies have determined that the economic, social, cultural, and environmental impact generated from the host-tourism exchange process influences residents’ attitudes toward tourism development, demonstrating that the exchange value that local residents perceive determines the level of community acceptance of tourism development [20,22,23,24,25]. Previous studies conducted in Taiwan have revealed that indigenous people’s perceived tourism benefits or costs influenced their attitudes toward aboriginal cultural tourism development [26,27,28,29]. For instance, Shih (2005) [29] identified that community intimacy positively affected residents’ perceived cultural and economic impact from indigenous tourism in the Kele tribal community, which in turn influenced their support for tourism development. Liou (2013) [26] determined that ecotourism operations could assist in preserving and bequeathing local cultural activities and traditional crafts of the indigenous communities in the Tsou tribal community, thus enhancing their cultural self-identification and tribal cohesion.

2.2. Social Capital Theory

The core concept of SCT is that social networks feature value, connections, and interactions between individuals; SCT also emphasizes norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness for facilitating coordination and cooperation to achieve goals [30,31]. SCT is defined as “the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit”; SCT can be divided into three dimensions, namely cognitive, structural, and relational capital [32,33]. Specifically, cognitive capital concerns a shared vision and shared beliefs [33,34,35]; structural capital refers to the overall connections within a network of social relationships (i.e., social interaction ties); and relational capital indicates the quality or strength of social ties consisting of trust, identification, and reciprocity.
SET can be applied to assess the impact of tourism benefits on local residents’ support for tourism development. Within the social capital empowerment process, residents can establish trust in their local government through social connections, social networks, and civic engagement and therefore further support community-based tourism development [36]. This study adopted SET to estimate the impact of tourism benefits on aboriginal residents’ attitudes toward their cultural tourism development, whereas SCT was integrated to embed clear rationales for strengthening the internalization process of the formation of residents’ shared community values and understanding, thus enabling residents to trust each other and support tourism development. Park et al. (2012) [37] and Chang (2011) [15] have determined that tourism benefits could directly affect social capital in the context of community-based tourism. Moreover, Chang (2011) [15] argued that cognitive capital affected both structural and relational capital; structural capital influenced relational capital. Several studies have indicated that social capital is an accurate predictor of residents’ attitudes toward tourism development [32,37,38,39]. On this basis, the following 10 hypotheses were proposed:
H1-1:
Cultural tourism benefits have a positive impact on cognitive capital.
H1-2:
Cultural tourism benefits have a positive impact on structural capital.
H1-3:
Cultural tourism benefits have a positive impact on relational capital.
H1-4:
Cultural tourism benefits have a positive impact on residents’ attitudes toward aboriginal cultural tourism development.
H2-1:
Cognitive capital positively influences structural capital.
H2-2:
Structural capital positively influences relational capital.
H2-3:
Cognitive capital positively influences relational capital.
H3-1:
Cognitive capital positively influences residents’ attitudes toward aboriginal cultural tourism development.
H3-2:
Structural capital positively influences residents’ attitudes toward aboriginal cultural tourism development.
H3-3:
Relational capital positively influences residents’ attitudes toward aboriginal cultural tourism development.
These 10 hypothesized relationships and our five constructs are illustrated in Figure 1.

3. Methods

3.1. Measurement Instrument and Data Collection

A questionnaire was established on the basis of previous research, resulting in five constructs and 27 corresponding statements, measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The questionnaire consisted of sociodemographic characteristics, a 5-item scale of cultural tourism benefits modified from prior studies [19,22,26,40,41,42], a 6-item scale of cognitive capital, a 6-item scale of structural capital, a 6-item scale of relational capital based on social capital literature [15,16,34,43,44,45], and a 4-item scale of attitudes toward aboriginal cultural tourism [15,19,22,44]. A pilot test with 50 questionnaires was conducted in the study area to evaluate the reliability and validity of the measurement scales. Adult Amis (also known as Pangcah) residents who lived in the Jian and Guangfu tourism-dependent communities were selected as the target participants of this study. A total of 1000 questionnaires were delivered, and 517 usable questionnaires were collected, yielding a 51.7% overall response rate.

3.2. Data Analysis

SPSS 23 (IBM Corp, New York, NY, USA, 2013) and Amos 22 (IBM Corp, New York, NY, USA, 2013) were used to analyze the collected data. The sociodemographic characteristics of the participants revealed more males (54.8%) than females (45.2%). A greater percentage of respondents were aged 51–60 (31.5%) than 31–40 (23.8%) or 41–50 (21.6%). The majority (72.4%) were married, and most (86.2%) had a senior high school degree or higher. Nearly half (49.8%) of participants made their living from tourism, and one third were members of local community organizations.

4. Results and Discussion

The outcomes of measurement reliability testing showed that the Cronbach’s alphas of the five constructs are higher than 0.7 [46]: (1) cultural tourism benefits scale, α = 0.82; (2) cognitive capital scale, α = 0.89; (3) structural capital scale, α = 0.85; (4) relational capital scale, α = 0.88; and (5) attitudes toward aboriginal cultural tourism scale, α = 0.91; thus, these five constructs are reliable. The proposed 10 hypotheses were tested through the measurement and structural models using Amos 22. Confirmatory factor analysis was first executed to assess the measurement model with five constructs. As shown in Table 1, all standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.71 to 0.86, which were all higher than the 0.7 threshold, and all t-values were significant (p < 0.01), providing further evidence of the convergent validity [47]. The composite reliability values ranged from 0.86 to 0.91, which were all higher than 0.70, demonstrating acceptable internal consistency reliability [47]. The average variance extracted (AVE) values ranged from 0.57 to 0.66, which were all over 0.50, implying that the 27 observed variables have a high accuracy in determining the five latent variables [47]. The discriminant validity was evaluated by comparing the square root of the AVE for a given construct with the correlation coefficients between the construct and the other four constructs (Table 2). The results of these assessments of convergence validity and discriminant validity support the construct validity and reliability.
The model fit indices for the structural model reached an acceptable standard, with x2/df = 2.89, AGFI = 0.92, NNFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.91, SRMR = 0.06, and RMSEA = 0.06. A summary of the model fit indices comprising both the measurement and structural model is presented in Table 3. Finally, the testing results of the 10 hypotheses, which are summarized in Table 4, indicated that most hypotheses were supported with a positive relationship, except for H2-3 and H3-1.

5. Conclusions

Growing visitor numbers for aboriginal cultural tourism have resulted in greater concerns about local residents’ living environment and cultural preservation. Understanding local people’s attitudes toward their future on the basis of social capital, therefore, is critical to sustainable tourism development. This study develops insights into how to evaluate indigenous cultural tourism development on the basis of the primary stakeholders’ attitudes. First, this study investigated the effect of resident-perceived cultural tourism benefits, cognitive capital, structural capital, and relational capital on residents’ attitudes toward aboriginal cultural tourism development. The testing results indicated that both cultural tourism benefits and social capital (structural and relational capital) were positively associated with residents’ attitudes, except for cognitive capital. Residents’ perceived cultural tourism benefits positively affects social capital, which in turn, establishes and strengthens residents’ attitudes toward their future tourism development. This paper contributes to the literature by combining SET and SCT to investigate the determinants (i.e., tourism benefits and social capital) of aboriginal residents’ attitude formation toward cultural tourism development. The findings also bridge the gap on whether social capital (i.e., cognitive, structural, and rational capital) plays a substantial mediating role between perceived benefit and attitudes, and this is partially consistent with prior studies [15,32,39].
Structural capital affected relational capital, implying that community empowerment could facilitate establishing trust, identification, and reciprocity between residents and community organizations. In other words, more social interaction among indigenous residents should be encouraged to establish a stable and harmonious relationship in order to achieve common goals. Furthermore, the findings reveal that relational capital is a critical factor in predicting residents’ attitudes as well as a mediator affecting the relationship between cognitive and structural capital, and residents’ attitudes. In particular, relational capital had the strongest direct impact, and structural capital had the strongest indirect impact (through relational capital), indicating that the two were accurate predictors of residents’ attitudes. This study provided empirical evidence to support the influence of social capital on residents’ attitudes. Specifically, shared visions and beliefs facilitate building residents’ social interaction which, in turn, strengthens residents’ trust, identification, and reciprocity in supporting future development. On the basis of these results, one contribution of this study was to identify the process through which tourism benefits and social capital form the basis of residents’ attitudes intergraded by two theories in the context of indigenous cultural tourism. The research results could provide indigenous community planners and developers with guidance for understanding residents’ perceived tourism benefits and cost, social capital, and residents’ attitudes toward cultural tourism development.
In contrast, cognitive capital was not associated with relational capital in this study, indicating that the shared vision and beliefs of cognitive capital had no direct impact on relational capital but still had an indirect impact on relational capital mediated by structural capital. This finding indicates that enhancing structural capital is critical for reducing the weakened social ties among residents. Therefore, a properly established social network platform between residents and their community is crucial for community planners seeking a consensus and for reaching cultural tourism development and growth goals. Additionally, cognitive capital was also determined not to influence residents’ attitudes toward their cultural tourism development. Thus, community developers should integrate residents’ shared vision and beliefs to reduce differences among residents and to increase their level of attachment to their community and thus their support for future tourism development.
This study has certain limitations in terms of the survey sites, study participation, and mediator and corresponding hypothesized link selection. First, the survey participants and communities were limited to Amis residents who lived in the Jian and Guangfu communities in Hualien, which restricts the generalizability of the results. Future researchers could consider a wider sample in different types of regions, as well as participants from different indigenous tribes with cross-cultural backgrounds to generalize the findings. Second, other antecedents and mediators or moderators that affect the consequences of the model context could be included to replicate these findings in other communities and population segments. Future researchers should apply a multidimensional tourism benefits or a social capital model to gain richer insights into how these antecedents influence indigenous people’s attitudes and perceptions of cultural tourism development. A profound understanding of the determinant variables that affect residents’ attitudes toward tourism development could help community developers and practitioners build a suitably considerate and comprehensive program for future tourism development.

Author Contributions

Three authors contributed to this research: Chi-Ming Hsieh acted as the first author throughout the data analysis and manuscript drafting; Bi-Kun Tsai contributed to reviewing and revising the results and conclusions; and Han-Shen Chen improved the English and revised the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Richards, G. ATLAS Special Interest Group–Cultural Tourism Research Group. Available online: http://www.atlas-euro.org/sig_cultural.aspx#2016 (accessed on 25 January 2017).
  2. Destination British Columbia. Aboriginal Cultural Tourism. Available online: http://www.destinationbc.ca/getattachment/Research/Research-by-Activity/All-Sector-Profiles/Aboriginal-Cultural-Tourism-Sector-Profile,-May-20/Tourism-Sector-Profile_AboriginalCulturalTourism_May2014.pdf.aspx (accessed on 19 April 2017).
  3. Kesar, O.; Ferjanić, D. Development of cultural tourism in continental Croatia through reinforcing indigenous cultural identity. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference “An Enterprise Odyssey: Tourism-Governance and Entrepreneurship”, Cavtat, Hrvatska, 11–14 June 2008. [Google Scholar]
  4. Nielsen, N.; Wilson, E. From invisible to indigenous-driven: A critical typology of research in indigenous tourism. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2012, 19, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Smith, L.; Morgan, A.; van der Meer, A. Community-driven research in cultural heritage management: The Waanyi women’s history project. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2003, 9, 65–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Robinson, D.W.; Twynam, D. Alternative tourism, indigenous peoples, and environment: The case of Sagarmatha (Everest) National Park, Nepal. Environments 1996, 23, 13–35. [Google Scholar]
  7. Fan, L.; Li, Q. Influence of social capital, sense of place on the residents’ attitudes toward ethnic village tourism development. J. Zhejiang Univ. (Sci. Ed.) 2016, 43, 337–344. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cope, S.; Bailey, M.; Atkinson, R. Restructuring local government in Hampshire: A case of mistaken community identity? Public Adm. 1997, 75, 49–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Li, W. Community decision making participation in development. Ann. Tour. Res. 2006, 33, 132–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mbaiwa, J.E. Enclave tourism and its socio-economic impacts in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 157–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. MacGillivray, A.; Walker, P. Local Social Capital: Making It Work on the Ground. In Social Capital: Critical Perspectives; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2000; pp. 197–211. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen, Y.F. The indigenous ecotourism and social development in Taroko National Park area and San-Chan tribe, Taiwan. GeoJournal 2012, 77, 805–815. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chu, J.J. The changing status and subjectivity of the aborigines in Taiwan’s labor markets. Int. J. Arts Sci. 2014, 7, 145–152. [Google Scholar]
  14. Butler, R.; Hinch, T. Tourism and Indigenous Peoples: Issues and Implications; Routledge: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chang, K.C. Building the Model of Effecting Residents’ Attitudes for Community Tourism Development: Based on the Social Exchange Theory and Communitarianism. Ph.D. Thesis, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien County, Taiwan, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  16. Liu, J.; Qu, H.; Huang, D.; Chen, G.; Yue, X.; Zhao, X.; Liang, Z. The role of social capital in encouraging residents’ pro-environmental behaviors in community-based ecotourism. Tour. Manag. 2014, 41, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Látková, P.; Vogt, C.A. Residents’ attitudes toward existing and future tourism development in rural communities. J. Travel Res. 2012, 51, 50–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ap, J. Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 1992, 19, 665–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Andereck, K.L.; Valentine, K.M.; Knopf, R.C.; Vogt, C.A. Resident perceptions of community tourism impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 2005, 32, 1056–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nunkoo, R. Toward a more comprehensive use of social exchange theory to study residents’ attitudes to tourism. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2016, 39, 588–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Jaafar, M.; Kock, N.; Ramayah, T. A revised framework of social exchange theory to investigate the factors influencing residents’ perceptions. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2015, 16, 335–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gursoy, D.; Rutherford, D.G. Host attitudes toward tourism an improved structural model. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 495–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Andriotis, K.; Vaughan, R.D. Urban residents’ attitudes toward tourism development: The case of Crete. J. Travel Res. 2003, 42, 172–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yoon, Y.; Gursoy, D.; Chen, J.S. Validating a tourism development theory with structural equation modeling. Tour. Manag. 2001, 22, 363–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ko, D.W.; Stewart, W.P. A structural equation model of residents’ attitudes for tourism development. Tour. Manag. 2002, 23, 521–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Liou, G.B. Ecotourism Cultural Impact Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  27. Liu, T.M.; Lu, D.J. The cultural and ecological impacts of aboriginal tourism: A case study on Taiwan’s Tao tribe. SpringerPlus 2014, 3, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Chen, P.T. A Study of Impacts on Aboriginal Residents Perception from Developing Tourism—A Case Study of Nan-Sun Village. Master’s Thesis, Providence University, Taichung City, Taiwan, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  29. Shih, P.C. A Study of the Relationship between Community Intimacy and Residents’ Perception of Tourism Impact in Kele Tribal Community. Master’s Thesis, Shih Hsin University, Taipei City, Taiwan, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  30. Putnam, R. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  31. Ecclestone, K.; Field, J. Promoting social capital in a risk society: A new approach to emancipatory learning or a new moral authoritarianism? Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 2003, 24, 267–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhao, W.; Ritchie, J.B.; Echtner, C.M. Social capital and tourism entrepreneurship. Ann. Tour. Res. 2011, 38, 1570–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nahapiet, J.; Ghoshal, S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 242–266. [Google Scholar]
  34. Stewart, K.J.; Gosain, S. The moderating role of development stage in free/open source software project performance. Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 2006, 11, 177–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tsai, W.; Ghoshal, S. Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Acad. Manag. J. 1998, 41, 464–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Nunkoo, R.; Ramkissoon, H. Power, trust, social exchange and community support. Ann. Tour. Res. 2012, 39, 997–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Park, D.B.; Lee, K.W.; Choi, H.S.; Yoon, Y. Factors influencing social capital in rural tourism communities in South Korea. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 1511–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Macbeth, J.; Carson, D.; Northcote, J. Social capital, tourism and regional development: SPCC as a basis for innovation and sustainability. Curr. Issues Tour. 2004, 7, 502–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yoon, Y.S. A study on tourism development attitudes and supports based on social capital in agricultural tourism area. J. Rural Tour. 2009, 16, 41–61. [Google Scholar]
  40. Besculides, A.; Lee, M.E.; McCormick, P.J. Resident’s perceptions of the cultural benefits of tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002, 29, 303–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Clifton, J.; Benson, A. Planning for sustainable ecotourism: The case for research ecotourism in developing country destinations. J. Sustain. Tour. 2006, 14, 238–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Fotiou, S.; Buhalis, D.; Vereczi, G. Sustainable development of ecotourism in small islands developing states (SIDS) and other small island. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2002, 4, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Adler, P.S.; Kwon, S.W. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 17–40. [Google Scholar]
  44. Gilchrist, A. The Well-Connected Community: A Networking Approach to Community Development; Policy Press: Bistrol, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kankanhalli, A.; Tan, B.C.; Wei, K.K. Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Q. 2005, 29, 113–143. [Google Scholar]
  46. Nunnally, J. Sychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  47. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  49. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with Lisrel, Prelis, and Simplis: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 09 00903 g001 550
Figure 1. Proposed hypothetical model.
Figure 1. Proposed hypothetical model.
Sustainability 09 00903 g001
Table
Table 1. Measurement Model (N = 517).
Table 1. Measurement Model (N = 517).
Construct & IndicatorsSFLt-ValueCRAVE
Cultural Tourism Benefits (CTB) 0.910.66
1. Preserve Amis cultural heritage0.7512.70
2. Preserve and inherit local cultural activities0.847.93
3. Preserve and inherit traditional handicrafts0.838.77
4. Enhance the community cohesion and collaboration0.847.17
5. Make local people learn more about Amis tribe’s culture and tradition0.817.40
Cognitive Capital (CC) 0.900.60
1. Reach community goals through mutual learning and cooperation0.7713.48
2. Help each other and share common values0.8116.48
3. Solve community’s problems to achieve a common vision0.7417.58
4. Communicate with each other to avoid any conflicts0.7515.63
5. Collaborate and deepen residents’ relationships0.7714.61
6. Act together to pursue common goals0.7916.49
Structural Capital (SC) 0.900.59
1. I know many local people0.7518.13
2. I have good relationships with residents0.7317.25
3. The operation of the community is smooth0.7916.33
4. Our community development is well designed and planned0.8618.36
5. Residents could participate in the decision-making process of common affairs0.8117.32
6. Residents take an active part in the community development0.8115.16
Relational Capital (RC) 0.890.57
1. I trust the mechanism of the community organization0.7416.84
2. The relationship between residents is cordial0.7116.49
3. Residents often receive a positive feedback from the community0.7115.39
4. Residents will help me solve problem encountered0.7716.99
5. I am proud to be part of this community0.8216.07
6. I have a stronger attachment to this community0.7814.62
Attitudes toward Aboriginal Cultural Tourism (AAC) 0.860.60
1. I welcome tourists to visit our community0.7512.05
2. I support the development of aboriginal cultural tourism in our community0.8111.31
3. I am willing to introduce our community to visitors with my enthusiasm0.7816.31
4. I am willing to help strengthen the future development of our community0.7518.16
Note: SFL = Standardized Factor Loading (λ), CR = Composite Reliability, and AVE = Average Variance Extracted.
Table
Table 2. Results of Discriminant Validities and Correlations.
Table 2. Results of Discriminant Validities and Correlations.
Construct12345
1. CTB0.81 1
2. CC0.47 ***0.78
3. SC0.52 ***0.51 ***0.78
4. RC0.38 ***0.43 ***0.54 ***0.76
5. AAC0.46 ***0.52 ***0.55 ***0.49 ***0.78
1 The bold values of the diagonal indicate the square root of Average Variance Extracted (AVE); Correlations are the values off the diagonal; *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 3. Goodness-of Fit Indices of Measurement and Structural Models.
Table 3. Goodness-of Fit Indices of Measurement and Structural Models.
Modelx²/dfAGFINNFICFISRMRRMSEA
Measurement model2.820.940.930.940.050.06
Structural model2.890.920.910.910.060.06
Recommended level<3.00≥0.90≥0.90≥0.90<0.08<0.07
Note: Recommended level: x2/df < 3 [48]; the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) ≥ 0.90 [49]; the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) ≥ 0.90 [49]; the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥ 0.90 [50]; the Standardized Root Mean Residual (SRMR) < 0.080 [49]; and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < 0.07 [50].
Table
Table 4. Results of Tested Hypotheses H1-1~H3-3.
Table 4. Results of Tested Hypotheses H1-1~H3-3.
Research HypothesisHypothesized PathPath Coefficientt-ValueResults
H1-1Cultural tourism benefits
→ Cognitive capital		0.244.58 ***Supported
H1-2Cultural tourism benefits
→ Structural capital		0.394.19 ***Supported
H1-3Cultural tourism benefits
→ Relational capital		0.585.78 ***Supported
H1-4Cultural tourism benefits
→ Attitudes toward aboriginal cultural tourism		0.416.07 ***Supported
H2-1Cognitive capital
→ Structural capital		0.618.16 ***Supported
H2-2Structural capital
→ Relational capital		0.293.25 ***Supported
H2-3Cognitive capital
→ Relational capital		0.070.51Not supported
H3-1Cognitive capital
→ Attitudes toward aboriginal cultural tourism		0.120.28Not supported
H3-2Structural capital
→ Attitudes toward aboriginal cultural tourism		0.212.39 *Supported
H3-3Relational capital
→ Attitudes toward aboriginal cultural tourism		0.666.38 ***Supported
* p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hsieh, C.-M.; Tsai, B.-K.; Chen, H.-S. Residents’ Attitude toward Aboriginal Cultural Tourism Development: An Integration of Two Theories. Sustainability 2017, 9, 903. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9060903

AMA Style

Hsieh C-M, Tsai B-K, Chen H-S. Residents’ Attitude toward Aboriginal Cultural Tourism Development: An Integration of Two Theories. Sustainability. 2017; 9(6):903. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9060903

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hsieh, Chi-Ming, Bi-Kun Tsai, and Han-Shen Chen. 2017. "Residents’ Attitude toward Aboriginal Cultural Tourism Development: An Integration of Two Theories" Sustainability 9, no. 6: 903. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9060903

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop