Local Revitalization: Support from Local Residents

Abstract

When featured destinations are used to revitalize cities, organizers must learn about the support of local residents. Therefore, the study used the Taiping Suspension Bridge in Meishan Township, Chiayi County, Taiwan as an example to explore the positive and negative impacts of tourism (i.e., its positive impact on the economy and negative impact on the environment) on resident support for the featured destination. The study used a structured questionnaire to collect local residents’ perceptions toward the aforementioned impacts and support attitude toward tourism. A total of 600 questionnaires were distributed to the local residents with a valid return rate of 88.2%. The relationships among aforementioned variables were tested using structural equation modeling. The results revealed that the negative sociocultural and environmental impact of tourism negatively affected resident support for featured destinations. However, the positive economic impact of tourism weakened the perceived negative sociocultural and environmental impact of tourism and enhanced resident support for featured destinations. Therefore, in developing featured destinations, the positive economic impact of tourism is a crucial influencing factor in obtaining resident support. These results may serve as a reference to agencies intending to increase local revitalization through tourism development.

1. Introduction

Although the global population is increasing, population in developed or developing countries is decreasing. People in these countries mostly live in metropolitan areas, which lead to a serious problem: the decreasing and aging population in rural areas. Eventually, these areas may end up with desolation. Many governments have acknowledged the problem and initiated regulations and policies to revitalize the rural communities so to attract young generations or retired people to stay in the country sides. For example, the Taiwanese government declared 2019 to be Regional Revitalization Year, with the aim of mitigating the negative impact of the super-aging population on the local society as well as solve the problem of urban–rural disparities due to the consistent migration of rural young people into metropolitan areas. The government sought to draw rural young people back to their home areas through regional revitalization, which establishes new conditions for economic development [1]. Chen et al. [2] reported that creating an industry around local resources and turning the resources into area-specific products or services can revitalize local economies, create job opportunities, and expand the labor market, which has increasingly become a key approach to local economic development in many countries. In their article [2], the authors used Naoshima in Kagawa Prefecture, Japan, as an example, to illustrate the success of the restoration of the small village. Naoshima was initially a small-scale industrial island. However, external art resources were introduced to launch a series of art-based development projects. Art installations, museums, campsites, and public baths were created with the intention of creating a cultural village. The area has since become a renowned art hub, indicating that local revitalization can be achieved through featured destination development. Nevertheless, whether local residents support such development is a crucial factor influencing the success of relevant development plans. Therefore, the intention of this study was to understand the tourism-related impacts on resident support for featured destinations to find the success factors which may contribute to the sustainability of communities in rural areas.

Developing a featured destination can increase local economic revenue and provide job opportunities for local residents, who can earn a living by selling goods and services [3,4]. However, the inflow of tourists visiting featured destinations can have both positive and negative impacts. Several studies have categorized the impact of tourism into three aspects, namely, social, environmental, and economic impact [5,6,7], toward which local residents may hold different opinions. For example, residents working in the tourism industry may tolerate tourist behaviors, such as littering, traffic jams, and trapping preserved areas. However, such behaviors may not be acceptable to residents not working in this industry and may cause the residents to protest against them. Therefore, understanding local residents’ agreement with and support for developing featured destinations is crucial in investigating the sustainable development of tourist attractions [6,8].

Yen [9] reported that in some cities, monuments and public spaces are used to entice people to visit the city. For example, the Taiping Suspension Bridge in Chiayi County, Taiwan was built at an altitude of 1000 m (length: 281 m; width: 2.1 m) as a natural scenic viewpoint, offering scenic views of twilight, the sunset, and clouds. The Taiping Suspension Bridge is the highest and longest landscape suspension bridge in Taiwan, and it immediately became a tourist hotspot right after its opening in 2017 [10]. In this study, the authors sought to understand whether local residents’ support for such featured destinations was affected by the perceived negative impact of tourism on sociocultural and the environment.

Kuščer and Mihalič [11] indicated that social and cultural damage due to growing over tourism has been reported in numerous studies. The sociocultural impacts from tourism are influenced by the social structure of an area, which involves social custom, behavioral norms, habits, lifestyles, inherent cultural traditions, and geographic location elements. The negative impact of tourism on society involves the negative impact of tourism development, including increased local crime rates, extinction of native languages, improper local customs, changes in consumption patterns and values, over-commercialization of traditional culture, assimilation of local culture, and a decrease in resident friendliness [6,12].

Tourist activities have significant impacts on local environment and ecology. For general tourism destinations to provide high-quality services and greater comfort and convenience for residents and tourists, numerous projects related to public utilities must be provided, such as building tourist centers, increasing the number of public bathrooms, creating product display centers, widening roads to improve traffic flow, and adding water and electricity pipelines [5,13]. However, these changes have several negative impacts, such as noise, air pollution, damage to natural landscapes or resources, more traffic accidents, and garbage, which are negative environmental impacts from tourism [5,14,15]. In order to compensate for residents’ loss, for example, the United States government pays over USD 100 million to preserve damaged resources in national parks [16].

On the other hand, developing featured destinations can also help overall community restoration and increase business opportunities [6]. For example, a questionnaire survey was distributed in the city of Porto, Portugal, a European city with significant growth in tourism development. The city hosted nearly 3 million tourists in 2017, an increase of 11% compared with the previous year. Porto was elected as Best European Destination by the European Best Destinations Awards. The questionnaire survey was distributed to 140 residents. According to the results, most Porto residents believed that tourism brought significant economic benefits [17]. Cannonier and Burke [3] collected panel data from a sample of 15 Caribbean countries from 1980 to 2015 to investigate the relationship between tourism and economic growth. Their analysis results revealed that tourism has a positive and statistically significant effect on real gross domestic product growth. Furthermore, a 10% increase in tourism spending increased economic growth from 0.3% to 1%. Another study surveyed 392 residents in Urlaubsregion Murau-Murtal, Austria with respect to their support for and opinions on tourism development. The findings showed that 57% of the residents were passive supporters of tourism development, far outnumbering active supporters 26% [12]. These studies demonstrate that although featured destinations may lead to economic benefits, resident support is a concern meriting attention.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that the social exchange theory (SET) in sociology can be effectively applied to explain local residents’ attitudes and supportive behaviors toward tourism development [18,19,20]. The SET involves an exchange of resources through individual–group interactions; individuals’ actively engagement in exchanging processes if they estimate that the processes will result in the most benefits [19]. Peters, Chan, and Legerer [12] proposed that residents were willing to accept the negative sociocultural and environmental impacts of tourism in exchange for the economic benefits from tourist activities. Chang [8] discovered that the Taiwanese government’s policy of opening up sightseeing tours was influenced by the tours’ positive economic impact, which also led to support from local residents for the policy. Although developing featured destinations generally has positive economic impacts on featured areas, it also creates negative impacts on society and the environment. Thus, understanding whether local residents opt for economic benefits, tolerate the negative impact of tourism, and continue to support development of featured destinations warrants attention. Therefore, in this study, the authors collected data on a featured destination case (the Taiping Suspension Bridge) and analyzed the impacts of the negative sociocultural and environmental impact of tourism on support for the featured destination and whether positive economic impacts of tourism moderated the relationships between the impact of tourism on residents and their support for the featured destination. The research hypotheses are derived and explained as follows.

1.1. The Relationships between Sociocultural Change of Tourism Impacts and Featured Destination Support from Local Residents

Lankford [21] reported that new tourism development policies may change the original, local industry patterns and may even conflict with the original, traditional perception of tourism in the region. Consequently, residents may resist the development. Moreover, developing featured destinations draws an inflow of tourists, which can affect local residents’ lifestyles such as a growing sex industry, nighttime noise from crowds, and street racing. Being disrupted by these negative events, local residents may feel dissatisfied with the impacts from tourism and unsupportive of developed tourism through featured destinations [22]. Whether local residents can adapt the sociocultural changes from tourism may affect their support toward the featured destination. Hence, this study sought to understand whether support for the Taiping Suspension Bridge featured destination was negatively affected by the negative sociocultural impacts of the tourism related to the bridge. Accordingly, the following hypothesis was formulated:

H1. 

The socioculturalchanges of tourismhad a negative impact on resident support for developed featured destinations.

1.2. The Relationships between Environmental Devastation from Tourism and Featured Destination Support from Local Residents

Excessive tourism development can cause considerable damage to the environment. Residents with a higher education level and environmental awareness generally join with other residents to protest against tourism development, seeking to lessen the negative impacts of tourism by entering into a discussion on tourism development [23]. For example, the findings from a survey of residents in Penghu, Taiwan on their perception of the impact of tourism indicated that the residents perceived the negative impacts of tourism to be greater than the positive, and that perceived negative impacts were mainly associated with frequent traffic congestion, marine pollution, and dirty beaches [22]. Research indicates that local residents commonly consider that tourists lack a sense of public morality who cause harm of local environment by littering, noise and traffic jams. Therefore, managers of local tourism department need to regulate the traffic and remind the tourists to behave (i.e., put on signs to remind tourists of “no littering”, “lower your voice”, etc.) [24]. Hence, local residents’ perceptions related to environmental devastation may negatively affect their support for tourism development. Accordingly, this study determined whether the negative environmental impact of tourism after the Taiping Suspension Bridge was built in Taiwan negatively affected residents’ support for this featured destination, and the following hypothesis was formulated.

H2. 

The environmental impact of tourism would negatively affect residents’ support of featured destinations.

1.3. Moderating Effect of Positive Economic Benefits

According to SET, in tourism development, local residents are considered participants in a process of exchange in which they seek value. If residents believe the expected positive impact to be greater than the expected losses or negative impact, they are more likely to participate in the exchange and support local tourism development [18]. Qi, So, Cárdenas, and Hudson [25] suggested that the SET is a form of resource exchange, and residents’ tolerance of the negative impacts from tourism is a crucial factor in the exchange; residents tolerated the negative impact of tourism when the perceived obtainable benefits were greater. Some studies revealed that residents were willing to accept the negative sociocultural and environmental impacts from tourism in exchange for the economic benefits of tourist activities [12]. Several studies have proposed that the aim of tourist activity development and organization of tourism and sports events in a country or city was to increase economic income [26,27,28]. Therefore, this study investigated whether the positive local economic impacts of the Taiping Suspension Bridge being built led to residents tolerating the negative impacts of tourism and supporting the development of the featured destination. The following hypotheses were formulated.

H3. 

The positive economic impact of tourism would weaken the effects of residents’ perception of the negative sociocultural impact of tourism on support for developing featured destinations.

H4. 

The positive economic impact of tourism would weaken the effects of residents’ perception of the negative environmental impact of tourism on support for developing featured destinations.

The aforementioned hypotheses were combined together and are illustrated in Figure 1.

2. Method

The study distributed a structured questionnaire according to research hypotheses and collected local residents’ perceptions accordingly. The collected data were then analyzed to test proposed hypotheses. The following sections will describe the research methods in detail.

2.1. Participants

The research participants were local residents of Meishan Township, Chiayi County, Taiwan (with population density of 161 person/km², which is classified as a rural area according to the U.S. Census Bureau) who were aged 18 years and older. This study used the convenience sampling to distribute 600 questionnaires to local residents. A total of 529 valid questionnaires were retrieved with a valid return rate of 88.2%. The participants read and signed an informed consent form before completing the questionnaire. The participants comprised 312 men (59.0%) and 217 women (41.0%), with 50 residents aged 18–25 years (9.5%), 113 aged 26–45 years (21.4%), 298 aged 46–60 (56.3%), and 68 aged 61 and older (12.9%). Regarding marital status, 424 participants were married (80.2%) and 105 were not married (19.8%). With respect to education level, 108 participants had a junior high school level or below (20.4%), 187 had a senior (or vocational) high school diploma (35.3%), 175 had a bachelor’s degree (33.1%), and 59 had a master’s degree or higher (11.2%). In addition, only 144 participants were working in the tourism industry (27.2%), and 385 were not (72.8%), which indicated that most participants’ perceptions toward the tourism were not biased since they were not personally involved in the tourism working industry. The data are presented in

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents (N = 549).

Variables	Frequency	%	Variables	Frequency	%
Gender			Tourism Industry Workers
Male	312	59.0	Yes	144	27.2
Female	217	41.0	No	385	72.8
Age			Education
18–25	50	9.5	Junior High School Graduate	108	20.4
26–45	113	21.4	Senior High School Graduate	187	35.3
46–60	298	56.3	Bacher’s Degree	175	33.1
60+	68	12.9	Graduate Degree	59	11.2
Married
Yes	424	80.2
No	105	19.8

.

2.2. Measurement

The measurement of the study is a questionnaire consists of demographic variables (which were introduced in Section 3.1) and hypotheses related constructs which were developed according to related studies and are described in the following sections.

2.2.1. Control Variables

Before analysis, the study performed correlation analysis among demographic variables and the dependent variable (support for featured destination). Variables with significant correlations with the dependent variables were treated as control variables in the research framework, which include sex, age, marital status, education level, and whether they worked in the tourism service industry.

2.2.2. Negative Social and Cultural Impact of Tourism Scale

In the study, the Negative Social and Cultural Impact of Tourism Scale (NSCITS) was developed referring to the related scales developed by Ho [5], Chen et al. [6], and Chen [29]. The NSCITS comprises four items: “There are conflicts between residents and tourists increased after the Taiping Suspension Bridge was built in Meishan”, “I think the traditional culture of Meishan was over-commercialized after the Taiping Suspension Bridge was built”, “I think public safety in Meishan became worse after the Taiping Suspension Bridge was built”, and “I think the local sex industry in Meishan grew after the Taiping Suspension Bridge was built”. The scale was scored using a 5-point Likert scale; respondents gave a score from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”) for each item. A higher score indicated higher perceived negative sociocultural impact of tourism.

2.2.3. Negative Social and Cultural Impact of Tourism Scale

The Negative Environmental Impact of Tourism Scale (NEITS) was created by referring to Ho [5], Chen et al. [6], and Chen [29]. The NEITS comprises five items: “I think building the Taiping Suspension Bridge in Meishan led to problems such as parking and traffic jams”, “I think after the Taiping Suspension Bridge was built in Meishan, tourist noise levels increased in the area”, “I think after the Taiping Suspension Bridge was built in Meishan, tourist litter amount increased in the area”, “I think after the Taiping Suspension Bridge was built in Meishan, tourists damaged the natural landscape”, “I think after the Taiping Suspension Bridge was built in Meishan, tourists disrupted the peacefulness of the area”. The scale was rated using a 5-point Likert scale, with answers ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). A higher score indicated higher perceived negative environmental impacts of tourism.

2.2.4. Positive Economic Impact Scale

The Positive Economic Impact Scale (PEIS) was developed referring to Wu [30]; Huang, Huang, Yeh, and Huan [31] and Chen [29]. The PEIS comprises five items: “I think building the Taiping Suspension Bridge in Meishan increased personal income in the area”, “I think building the Taiping Suspension Bridge in Meishan enabled local economic development”, “I think building the Taiping Suspension Bridge in Meishan increased the number of job opportunities in the area”, “I think building the Taiping Suspension Bridge in Meishan increased quality of life in the area”, and “I think the government offered incentives for residents to create businesses when they built the Taiping Suspension Bridge in Meishan”. The scale was rated using a 5-point Likert scale, with answers ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). A higher score indicated higher perceived positive economic impact of tourism.

2.2.5. Support for Featured Destinations Scale

The Support for Featured Destinations Scale (SFDS) was developed referring to Chen, Lin, and Hung [32] and Yen [33]. The SFDS comprises four items: “I think building the Taiping Suspension Bridge in Meishan was consequential”, “I would still support building the Taiping Suspension Bridge in Meishan if I were to vote again”, “I would actively engage in activities related to the Taiping Suspension Bridge in Meishan”, “I would support further improvements or additions to the Taiping Suspension Bridge in Meishan”. The scale was rated using a 5-point Likert scale, with answers ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). A higher score indicated a more favorable perception of featured destinations.

2.2.6. Data Analysis

Four hypotheses were developed by this study and data analysis using partial least squares (PLS). PLS is similar to structural equation modeling (SEM), as PLS measures the correlation of constructs [34]. There are many statistical software packages that enable users to do PLS. Warp PLS 8.0 developed by Kock [35] was chosen for the present study.

3. Results

The analyses and tests of the proposed hypotheses were processed using PLS–SEM. PLS–SEM analysis involves two analyses: (1) confirmatory analysis (measurement model) to test the whether the measurements fit reliability and validity criteria for the structural modeling analysis and (2) path analysis (structural model) to test the significance of each hypothetical path model and calculate the value of each path coefficient. The following sections will present those results.

3.1. Measurement Model

The reliability and validity of the scales used in this study were tested using partial least squares (PLS) statistical models using the WarpPLS 8.0 statistical software developed by Kock [35]. Hulland [36] suggested that in structural equation modeling, scale reliability and validity should be analyzed first. The item reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the four scales used in this study are as follows.

3.1.1. Reliability

According to Fornell and Larcker [37], reliability can be determined by composite reliability and Cronbach’s α coefficient values greater than or equal to 0.70. As listed in

Table 2. Scale reliability.

Latent Variables	Composite Reliability	Cronbach’s α Alpha
negative social and cultural tourism impact scale	0.81	0.77
negative environmental tourism impact scale	0.85	0.78
positive economic benefits scale	0.92	0.89
featured destination support scale	0.88	0.82

, the composite reliability and Cronbach’s α were 0.81 and 0.77 for the NSCITS, 0.85 and 0.78 for the NEITS, 0.92 and 0.89 for the PEIS, and 0.88 and 0.82 for the SFDS, respectively. The composite reliability and Cronbach’s α values for the scales were above 0.70, indicating acceptable scale reliability.

3.1.2. Convergent Validity

Convergent validity can be determined by understanding whether the factor loading value of a measurement variable is sufficiently large, compared with those of its latent variables. According to Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson [38], factor loadings should be greater than 0.50, and items with factor loadings lower than 0.50 should be removed. The factor loadings for the NSCITS, NEITS, PEIS, and the support for featured destinations measurement variable respectively ranged from 0.54 to 0.80, 0.50 to 0.86, 0.76 to 0.91, and 0.65 to 0.89. All coefficient values were greater than 0.50, thereby meeting the standard suggested by Hair et al. [38] and indicating that the latent variables had favorable convergent validity.

3.1.3. Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was determined according to the suggestion of Chin [34] that the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) of each latent variable should be greater than the covariance of the variable with the latent variable of another dimension in the model. Studies reported that the square root of the AVE should be greater than 0.50 [39,40]. As indicated in

Table 3. Correlation coefficients of latent variables.

	1	2	3	4
1. negative social and cultural tourism impact scale	0.72
2. negative environmental tourism impact scale	0.51	0.73
3. positive economic benefits scale	−0.43	−0.44	0.84
4. featured destination support scale	−0.47	−0.57	0.38	0.81

Note: Diagonals represent the average variance extracted (the square root of the average variance extracted in the parentheses) while the other entries represent the correlations.

, the square roots of the AVE of the four latent variables in the model ranged from 0.72 to 0.84; all square roots were greater than 0.70, and the AVE of each latent variable was greater than the values of all correlation coefficients in the same column and row. The testing standard was met, indicating favorable discriminant validity for the four latent variables.

The aforementioned analyses indicated that the four latent variables of the study’s measurement model met the basic reliability and validity requirements and could be used in subsequent structural modeling analyses.

3.2. The Structural Model and Hypothesis Testing

Regarding the control variables, the sex variable reached a level of significance (path coefficient β₁ = −0.08, p < 0.05), indicating that female residents’ support for developing featured destinations was higher than that of male residents. The age variable also reached a level of significance (path coefficient β₂ = −0.16, p < 0.05), demonstrating that support for developing featured destinations decreased as age increased. The marital status variable did not reach a level of significance (path coefficient β₃ = 0.05, p > 0.05), indicating that it did not affect resident support for developing featured destinations. The education level variable also did not reach a level of significance (path coefficient β₄ = −0.04, p > 0.05), indicating that it did not affect resident support for developing featured destinations. Moreover, the working in the tourism service industry variable did not reach a level of significance (path coefficient β₅ = −0.04, p > 0.05), indicating that it did not affect resident support for developing featured destinations.

H1. 

The negative sociocultural impact of tourism negatively affected resident support for featured destinations, with findings reaching a level of significance (path coefficient β₆ = −0.25, p < 0.05), indicating that resident support for featured destinations decreased as perceived negative sociocultural impact increased.

H2. 

The perceived negative environmental impact of tourism negatively affected resident support for featured destinations, with findings reaching a level of significance (path coefficient β₇ = −0.35, p < 0.05), indicating that resident support for featured destinations decreased as perceived negative environmental impact of tourism increased.

H3. 

The positive economic impact of tourism enhanced the negative effect of resident-perceived negative sociocultural impact of tourism on support for featured destinations. The findings reached a level of significance (path coefficient β₈ = 0.12, p < 0.05), indicating that the positive economic impact of tourism had a moderating role, weakening the impact of negative sociocultural impact of tourism on support for featured destinations.

H4. 

The positive economic impact of tourism weakened the negative impact of resident-perceived negative environmental impact of tourism on support for featured destinations. The findings reached a level of significance (path coefficient β₉ = 0.13, p < 0.05), indicating that the positive economic impact of tourism had a moderating role, weakening the impact of negative environmental impact of tourism on support for featured destinations.

3.3. Coefficient of Determination (R²)

R² measures a model’s predictivity, which represents the explained variance and its influence on the structural model. A higher value indicates the model has stronger predictive power. The results of this study are presented in Figure 2; the control variables as well as the negative sociocultural impact of tourism and negative environmental impact of tourism variables could explain 44% of the variation in resident support for featured destinations. According to Cohen [41], R² values of 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 respectively represent small, medium, and large effect sizes. Therefore, this research model had a medium effect size.

4. Discussion

Naoshima in Kagawa Prefecture showing that residents’ support decreases as perceived negative impact increases. After the Taiping Suspension Bridge was built in Meishan, residents perceived the negative sociocultural impact of tourism to be stronger when the conflicts between the residents and tourists were more frequent and traditional culture was perceived to be over-commercialized, which is consistent with the results of other studies [22,24,42]. Furthermore, the results of this study indicated that after the bridge was built, the residents perceived the project to more negatively affect them when they observed traffic congestion problems, the over-commercialization of traditional culture, less favorable public safety, and growth in the local sex industry. Therefore, such an impact must be lessened through effective planning. For example, alternative routes can be developed in areas that frequently experience traffic jams to diffuse the traffic load, and slogans and advertisements can encourage tourists to travel to the target area outside of peak traffic hours. For the over-commercialization of traditional culture, the relevant authorities should review plans for cultural events and advertisements for the events to prevent misrepresentation of local traditional culture. Regarding lower public safety, local tourism officials should analyze local crime data and cooperate with police stations and residents to improve crime prevention for incidents that occur in higher frequencies and that are easily preventable. Regarding increased growth in the local sex industry, officials should designate areas for related services and contain the services within that area. This would prevent sex workers from soliciting in all areas of a city and subsequent negative impact.

This study revealed that the negative environmental impact of tourism negatively affected resident support for featured destinations, indicating that resident support decreased as perceive negative environmental impact increased. This indicated that after the Taiping Suspension Bridge was built in Meishan, the residents became less supportive of the project as their perception of parking and traffic jams, noise and litter from tourists, damage to the landscape and resources, and the negative impact on the area’s peacefulness increased. This finding is consistent with those of other studies [22,23,24]. Problems related to parking and traffic jams in the area near the Taiping Suspension Bridge can be improved by reserving shuttle buses for tourists that take alternative routes to the bridge. Regarding noise and garbage pollution, first, the areas with serious noise and garbage pollution must be identified. Second, wall advertisement campaigns in the form of marquees can be used to remind them to behave. Furthermore, on holidays, increasing the number of trash cans and garbage collection times may be used to accommodate the higher garbage load at such times. Regarding damaged landscapes and resources, signs warning tourists that they will be fined for damaging the natural areas should be placed at the entrances of featured destinations.

This study showed a moderating role of the positive economic impact of tourism, which supports the SET. After the Taiping Suspension Bridge was built in Meishan, the residents perceived the resulting tourism to have both negative (sociocultural and environmental) and positive (economic) impact. Therefore, the residents evaluated the positive and negative impact and determined whether the presence or absence of the resulting tourism had more advantages than disadvantages, which guided whether they supported tourism development [18,19,20]. This study demonstrated that when residents perceived the positive economic impact of tourism of the featured destination to be greater, the perceived negative impact of tourism (sociocultural and environmental impact) decreased, and the tourists supported the development of the featured destination. Meishan is a large urban settlement with approximately 20,000 inhabitants. Most residents are farmers, and the main agricultural products are tea, citrus fruits, bamboo shoots, and plums. Building the Taiping Suspension Bridge in Meishan brought tourists to the area, which increased opportunities for sale of local agricultural products. Analyses of the control variables of this study revealed that younger residents were more supportive of the featured destination and that female residents were more supportive than male residents were. This was probably because the influx of tourists led to more local stores opening and an increase in employment opportunities, providing more opportunities for young people and women to remain in the area to work.

Residents valued the positive economic impact of tourism. Regarding increased economic benefits after a featured destination is built and tourists being attracted to such regions, the One Town One Product (OTOP) project launched in Taiwan involves promoting products with local features that generally have cultural and historical characteristics as well as features unique to the region they are produced in [43]. Through this project, a local agricultural specialty market can be established near the Taiping Suspension Bridge in Meishan at which products, such as Alishan tea, candied fruit, bamboo shoots, and other souvenirs, can be sold. In addition, local residents should be encouraged to create cultural and artistic products with local features, such as pottery; handicrafts made of wood, stone, and bamboo; and paper art, which can be sold as collectables or products with daily uses. Moreover, experience-based classes on making various local products should be provided to tourists, such as making candied fruits or some parts of the tea-making process. These suggestions may provide local residents with opportunities for employment and increase tourist consumption, thereby enhancing the economic benefits of tourism.

5. Conclusions, Limitations and Recommendations and Suggestions for Future Research

5.1. Conclusions

Local revitalization through featured destinations requires an understanding of the contributors to resident support and that tourism development both positively and negatively affects local residents. Through the example of the Taiping Suspension Bridge in Meishan, Chiayi, Taiwan, this study investigated the effects of the negative impact of tourism (sociocultural and environmental impact) on support for featured destinations; it also investigated the moderating role of the positive economic impact of tourism. The findings revealed that the negative sociocultural and environmental impact of tourism negatively affected resident support for featured destinations. In addition, the findings revealed that higher positive economic impact of tourism weakened the effects of the negative impact of tourism, increasing support for featured destinations. Therefore, the positive economic impact of tourism is a crucial influencing factor for featured destinations. In cities intending to implement local revitalization through the development of tourism destinations, the degree of the positive economic impact of tourism, which influences resident support, should be estimated first.

5.2. Limitations

This study adapted related scales based on past studies to investigate local residents’ perceptions and may cause self-generated validity. Self-generated validity often arises especially when the proposed models comprise belief, attitude, intention and behavior which involve latent variables and are tested by SEM [44,45]. In our proposed model, we investigate the local residents’ perceptions of the negative impacts of sociocultural and tourism-related environment damages to support the featured destination, and the data sets collected might have self-generated validity issues since the respondents might have retrieved previous memory of the related questions and might already have had an existing attitude toward the outcome variables. However, there are several schemes to minimize the problems [46]. One of them was to shorten the respondents’ survey duration during the investigation so they might have no sufficient time to retrieve their memory and the researchers may be able to collect their truthful responses without contaminating responses, and which was applied during investigation. Second, we also tried not to specify the real purpose of the study in the questions so that the participants’ responses would not be affected by the precedent independent variables. Third, but not the last, we also put the outcome variable’ questions before the independent variables so that the respondents’ answers might not be affected by the predicting variables.

5.3. Recommendation and Suggestions for Future Research

According to the conclusions and discussion of this study, the following recommendations are proposed.

5.3.1. Explanatory Recommendations for Improving the Current Situations and Problems

Developing featured destinations can bring negative sociocultural and environmental impact related to tourism. Therefore, local tourism authorities should actively seek to understand problems regarding conflict between residents and tourists, over-commercialization of traditional culture, parking problems and traffic jams, noise and garbage pollution caused by tourists, tourists damaging landscapes or resources, and the impact on the peacefulness of the local area. The impact of these factors can be reduced through planning.

5.3.2. Recommendations for Increasing Economic Benefits

Planning shuttle buses may be required to resolve problems related to parking and traffic jams and to enable many tourists to enter an area. Bus route planning is also a crucial aspect of increasing tourist consumption. Routes can take tourists to scenic spots, experiential classes, locations selling cultural and artistic products, locations where they can purchase local agricultural specialty products, and locations selling specialty foods. The routes should be convenient for tourists and lead them to purchase products, which requires marketing planning with respect to product stories and packaging and price promotions, which affect tourist purchase intention.

5.3.3. Recommendations for Future Studies

Based on the findings of the present study, future studies are recommended to investigate the local economic benefits of tourism after featured destinations are developed and to collect consumption data with respect to local accommodations and purchases of local products. This would enable understanding of the extent of the economic benefits obtainable through developing featured destinations. In addition, research on marketing strategies for products related to featured destinations would enable such destinations to increase the economic benefits obtainable through product purchases. Moreover, research on methods for resolving and attenuating the negative sociocultural and environmental impact of tourism on an area may enable organizers to increase local residents’ support for sustainable tourism development.