Residents’ Attitude toward Tourism Development: A Sociocultural Perspective

Abstract

Host population support for tourism development has attracted the attention of researchers in tourism studies. Given the importance of understanding local community support for tourism development, limitations in understanding their priority and lack of a socio-cultural model of support for tourism, this study attempted to model locals’ support for tourism development based on socio-cultural factors in Malaysian Homestay program. Using extensive literature review, a tourism support model was proposed including several hypothesized paths. The proposed socio-cultural research framework predicted the impact of Islamic religiosity, locals’ knowledge about tourism, intrinsic motivation factors and community attachment on locals support for tourism development through mediating variables of perceived socio-cultural benefits and costs in Malaysian Homestays. , the model and paths were tested using structural equation modelling and partial least square algorithm (PLS-SEM) with the aid of SmartPLS software. Findings reveal that locals’ support for tourism development in Homestay program is a function of perceived socio-cultural benefits and costs perceived by local community and four independent variables of Islamic religiosity, knowledge about tourism, intrinsic motivations, and community attachment.

1. Introduction

Tourism is growing rapidly and is one of the most important industries in many developing countries. The subject of tourism development and destination residents, specifically host residents’ support for tourism development, has generated extensive literature in recent years by many authors [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. In addition, a considerable number of studies have modeled and tested the impact of tourism development on a host population’s perceived impacts and attitude toward support for tourism development [4,5,8,9,10,11,12,13,14].

According to Lankford [15], identifying and assessing negative and positive impacts are the main reasons for a growing interest in this field of study. However, the literature is replete with studies investigating support for tourism development from an economic point of view [10,16,17,18], and some believe that considering economic benefits of tourism for the host population have caused neglect of other impacts, such as social and cultural impacts [19,20,21,22,23,24]. Davis et al. [24] investigated the role of locals’ knowledge about tourism on their support for tourism development. Choi & Murray [22], concentrated on sustainability and support for tourism development, while Farahani & Musa [23], concentrated on the effect of religiosity on perceived impacts. Long [20] investigated both socio-cultural and economic factors in a combined model. Finally, Mbaiwa [19] explored the negative socio-cultural impacts of tourism and local support for tourism development. He used enclave tourism, racism, relocation of traditional communities, breaking up of the traditional family structure, increase in crime, and prostitution as the main affecting factors on support for tourism development. Besides, Sood et al. [13] discussed the importance of community participation and support for tourism development. They also discussed major socio-cultural effects of tourism development in indigenous communities in India [13].

In many communities, different forms of community-based tourism, such as the Homestay program, are considered as a sustainable tool for community development [14]. In Malaysia, tourism has become Malaysia’s third largest source of foreign exchange income. Over the last decade, Malaysian government has tried to decentralize tourism money from urban to rural regions through Homestay program. Currently there are 117 official Homestays that are located in 230 villages.

According to the Malaysian Rural Tourism Master Plan 2001 and also the 9th and 10th Malaysia Plan, community development has been considered as one of the most important government plans for the future of Malaysia [25]. In this plan, rural tourism and specifically the Homestay program was engaged as an effective tool in developing rural communities. The Ministry of Tourism and Culture Malaysia (MOTAC) in 1995 defined the Homestay program as: “Where tourists stay with the host’s family and experience the everyday way of life of the family in both a direct and indirect manner”. Local community support for tourism plays the most vital role in their hospitality and local attitude should be taken into consideration as they are directly in touch with tourists. However, a review of current studies about the Homestay program reveals that the majority of these studies concentrated on locals’ community participation, and capacity-building and tourists’ experience with Homestay and their attitude toward tourism development have been neglected [25,26,27]. Additionally, although the majority of Malaysia’s populations are Malay Muslims with over 60% of the whole population, local Muslim perceptions toward tourism development in Malaysia remain relatively unknown due to a lack of research in this specific field. In this sense, understanding locals requires an understanding of their perception of both positive and negative impacts [28,29]. Accordingly, this study aims to assess the host resident perceptions towards tourism development in the context of community-based tourism and the Homestay program. Therefore, two main questions were addressed:

(1)

What are the determinants of perceived impacts of tourism development?

(2)

What are the determinants of support for tourism development?

1.1. Literature Review

Generally, studies in the area of residents’ support for tourism development relies on anthropological and psychological perspectives, and assumed communities are not homogeneous groups which may or may not support the tourism industry [9]. In addition, debates around relationships among community and tourism development have been discussed within socio-cultural impact studies [30,31,32].

There are a considerable number of current studies that demonstrate negative and positive perceptions of tourism development by host population. However, different scholars concluded in different ways that sometimes have caused contradictory results. For example Dyer et al. [16] revealed tourism development with five major negative and positive perceived impacts. Their results showed that positive cultural influences of tourism development play a vital role in a host community to support tourism development. On the other hand, Andereck et al. [33] have discussed positive impacts of tourism on the economy and environment of host community and negative impacts on their social and cultural interactions. In addition, Yoon et al. [8] demonstrated the perception of negative environmental and social impacts and positive impacts on the culture and economy of host population. The literature also shows the dependency of community support to the current state of the host community economy. Theoretically, it is believed that lower development in the economy of the host community will cause better acceptance of tourism by locals [10].

The results of studies in the field of host residents’ support for tourism development have suggested concerns about locals’ attitude toward tourism development and the way that tourism impacts affect their behavior. In addition, there have been a considerable number of studies that found a link between perceived impacts of tourism development and their level of support for the industry. These include economic gains [1,10,19,22], community attachment [10,30,34], community concerns [5,8,9,10], eccentric attitudes [3,5,10], personal benefits [12,35], utilization of tourism resources [3,9,10,12], locals’ level of knowledge [5,24,36] and political views [37].

Determinants of Perceived Impacts

Social exchange theory suggests that residents are likely to support development as long as they believe that the expected benefits exceed the costs. Two variables of perceived socio-cultural benefits and perceived socio-cultural costs serve as predictors of support for tourism development. While it is expected that perceived socio-cultural benefits improve support for tourism development, perceived socio-cultural costs are expected to affect support for tourism development negatively [16,30,38,39].

From a positive perspective, previous literature extensively discusses that tourism increases demands on local arts [10], improves cultural identity and pride and cohesion of villagers, and increases locals’ knowledge about their culture [38]. Tourism also is believed to bring opportunities for cultural exchange and preservation of local traditions and culture [25], improves community image [40] and increases quality of life [38]. However, the existing literature also discusses negative cultural impacts brought by tourism. Among them, negative impacts on traditional family values [38], commercialization of cultural activities [41], and creating social conflicts due to economic welfare and sense of jealousy [42].

These negative and positive impacts may be perceived differently by locals in a host community [7,16,23,38,39]. Therefore, in an exchange atmosphere, those who find tourism more beneficial will support it, and those who find it harmful will not support tourism development [4,9,17,43,44]. Therefore, the first two hypotheses were developed as:

Hypothesis 1a (H1a).

A direct relationship exists between the perceived socio-cultural benefits and residents’ support for tourism development.

Hypothesis 1b (H1b).

A direct relationship exists between the perceived socio-cultural costs and residents’ support for tourism development.

Islamic religiosity: The literature supports the central role of social concerns of host populations in their support for tourism development [10,12]. Generally, it is believed that social, economic and environmental concerns may affect the manner in which locals view the costs and benefits of tourism [2]. Farahani & Musa [23] tested the effect of Islamic religious concerns on the perceived impacts of tourism by host populations in Iran. However, although Muslim nations have similar religious beliefs, the interpretation of Islam, host culture and the roles of the local community as well as the levels of governmental intervention vary and may cause different perceived costs and benefits from a social perspective [23]. In addition, while Farahani & Musa [23] measured the effect of Islamic religiosity on locals’ perceived socio-cultural benefits and costs, they did not measure the effect of religiosity on support for tourism development. Therefore, this study aims also to investigate the role of locals’ Islamic religiosity on perceived impacts of tourism development as well as their support for tourism development.

There is evidence that reveals greater concern for moral standards, possessing more traditional attitudes and being conservative among religious people [45]. Existence of religious sensitivities about non-Muslim tourists in different Muslim nations may cause negative attitudes toward development of this industry [23]. Farahani & Musa [23] believe that different nations interpret Islam according to their culture, roles of local community and the way governments intervene in religious issues. In the same way, current literature is replete with studies that have revealed intolerance of religious people to others with different religions [46,47,48]. On the other hand, those with Islamic beliefs are against consumption of alcohol for instance. Therefore, it is believed that tourism can be perceived negatively by those residents who show more commitment to Islamic values [23]. Accordingly, another two hypotheses were developed as the following:

Hypothesis 2a (H2a).

A direct relationship exists between Islamic religiosity and perceived socio-cultural benefits.

Hypothesis 2b (H2b).

A direct relationship exists between Islamic religiosity and perceived socio-cultural costs.

Knowledge about tourism: Another socio-cultural factor that has been investigated mostly in western societies is community members’ knowledge about tourism and its effect on locals’ perception of costs and benefits. However, locals’ knowledge about tourism requires further investigation, especially in developing countries where the level of knowledge is different than in developed countries, and locals may receive different perceptions of tourism development. Therefore, another important limitation of the current study is the lack of study about locals’ knowledge about tourism in developing countries and rural tourism’s perception of benefits and costs.

Generally, social representation theory in this specific field of study discusses communities’ ideas, their perceptions and the way they think about tourism development [49]. As one of the first studies, Davis et al. [24] showed that knowledge of residents regarding tourism and local economy can predict their attitudes toward tourism development. Later, Howard & Lankford [50] indicates that residents’ knowledge of the local industrial and economic base seems to influence attitudes toward tourism. Specifically, if the resident is more knowledgeable about the local economy, they are more supportive of tourism. Additionally, Andereck et al. [33] observes that knowledgeable locals have more positive perceptions of tourism’s impact on community life, image, and economy, but not on community environment.

Theoretically, it is concluded that knowledgeable members of a community show more concerns about both costs and benefits of tourism in the community and there should be a correlation between residents support for tourism development and perceived impacts of tourism socio-cultural benefits and costs [33]. Accordingly, there will be two hypotheses in regard to knowledge about tourism.

Hypothesis 3a (H3a).

A direct relationship exists between community members’ knowledge about tourism and perceived socio-cultural benefits.

Hypothesis 3b (H3b).

A direct relationship exists between community members’ knowledge about tourism and perceived socio-cultural costs.

Intrinsic motivation: Some authors such as Kayat [26] highlighted the role of social benefits and intrinsic motivation factors in support for tourism development, but these factors have not been tested in the model of Jurowski et al. [44]. A considerable number of studies have discussed intrinsic motivation factors from tourists’ points of view, such as intrinsic motivation to know, accomplishment, self-satisfaction and adventure [51,52,53]. However, a few studies investigated these factors from locals’ perspectives, and the way intrinsic motivation factors motivate them to support tourism development. In this context, Yoon et al. [8] and Zhang et al. [54] suggested a deeper investigation of intrinsic motivation factors for future studies. Within a social context, community members’ intrinsic motivation factors may motivate or dissuade them to support tourism development [26]. In this sense, Kayat mentioned some main aspects of intrinsic motivation factors for support of tourism development, such as opportunities to be a host to guests, an opportunity to create a relationship, to play a role, the feeling of being needed, to work together as a community and gain self-respect. However, Kayat only mentioned the possibility of these factors in a qualitative approach, and further statistical methods are required to expand our understanding of intrinsic motivation factors. Additionally, intrinsic motivation factors have not been tested in the context of a model of support for tourism development, and it can be said that the current literature lacks the understanding of how intrinsic motivation affects locals’ perceived impacts of tourism development, and in what extend it affects support for tourism development. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the relationship between intrinsic motivation factors and support for tourism development by considering locals’ perception of social benefits and costs.

Motivation is a theoretical construct which has been used in many behavioral studies [55]. It represents the reasons for people’s actions, desires, and needs. Motivation can also be defined as one’s direction to behavior or what causes a person to want to repeat a behavior. In addition, social exchange theory explains the exchange nature of residents’ attitude toward tourism development in assessing benefits and costs of tourism development. Intrinsic motivation factors, in much the same way as other determinants of support for tourism development also affect the way that locals perceive tourism impacts [26]. As an important intrinsic psychological factor associated with an individual resident, non-monetary gains may play an important role in forming a resident’s attitudes towards tourism development. Psychologically, by developing tourism projects in rural areas, local people seek non-monetary gains when they evaluate the exchange to support the industry [26].

However, as suggested by Jurowski et al. [44], perceived impacts by locals mediate support for tourism development, where residents evaluate the benefits and costs, and support tourism when the benefits exceed the costs. From a socio-cultural perspective and in line with the Jurowski et al. [44] model of support for tourism development, intrinsic motivation affects support for tourism development through mediating variables of perceived socio-cultural benefits and perceived socio-cultural costs. In the same way, those locals who find tourism development feeding their intrinsic needs may show a higher level of desire toward support for tourism development. Therefore, the following hypotheses are formulated:

Hypothesis 4a (H4a).

A direct relationship exists between locals’ intrinsic motivation factors and perceived socio-cultural benefits.

Hypothesis 4b (H4b).

A direct relationship exists between locals’ intrinsic motivation factors and perceived socio-cultural costs.

Community attachment: From a socio-cultural perspective, community attachment is assumed to be another significant factor that affects locals’ support for tourism development, especially in rural areas. Some studies show that residents who were living in the community for a longer period of time are more negative regarding tourism development and more attached to the community [38]. In contrast, some authors such as McCool & Martin [34] could not find any clear link between community attachment and locals’ support for tourism development. In addition, Mason & Cheyne [30] believe that host populations in rural areas may have a different perception of tourism development which may cause different levels of attachment to their community that finally affect their support for tourism development. However, due to the contradictory results from previous studies, some authors such as Gursoy et al. [9] suggested further investigation of community attachment and support for tourism development for a deeper understanding of the correlation between support for tourism and community attachment. In addition, previous studies measured community attachment by length of residency, where those residents with a longer length of residency were considered as more attached to their community. However, in many Malaysian rural areas, there are few newcomers to the rural regions as these regions are experiencing rural-urban migration. Therefore, another limitation in the current literature is lack of a clear understanding of the relationship between community attachment and support for tourism development in which this study will address in the context of the Jurowski model of support for tourism development. Several studies have suggested that attachment to the community is one of the factors that affect people’s perception of tourism’s impact and their support for tourism development [6,10,34,44,56]. Although there are some contradictory results in the role of community attachment on perceived impact of tourism development, the majority of them suggested greater attachment to the community will cause a more positive perception toward tourism [9,36,57].

In line with previous variables affecting support for tourism development, perceived socio-cultural benefits and costs of tourism development mediate the effect of community attachment on support for tourism development [2,5,6,9,10,12,33,34]. According to the findings from these studies, the following hypotheses were developed to assess the role of community attachment on the perceived impact of tourism development.

Hypothesis 5a (H5a).

A direct relationship exists between the level of attachment to the community and the perceived socio-cultural benefits.

Hypothesis 5b (H5b).

A direct relationship exists between the level of attachment to the community and the perceived socio-cultural costs.

1.2. Research Framework

This study develops the conceptual framework of socio-cultural impacts of tourism perceived by local residents of host destinations in Homestay Malaysia. The framework is developed based on concepts, theories and existing models of support for tourism development mentioned in the previous section and proposed by Gursoy et al. [9], Gursoy & Rutherford [10] and Jurowski et al. [44].

According to this model, host population support for tourism development is a function of their perceived socio-cultural benefits and costs of tourism development. The perception of these socio-cultural impacts may affect their general evaluation of tourism benefits and costs, which finally impacts their support for tourism development.

The literature supports the role of independent variables of Islamic religiosity, knowledge about tourism, intrinsic motivation and community attachment on two mediating variables of perceived socio-cultural benefits and costs. In addition, the literature supports the correlation between perceived socio-cultural benefits and costs, and support for tourism development. Finally, the research framework was developed based on previous studies and the correlation between independent variables and dependent variable of “support for tourism” through mediating variables of “perceived benefits of socio-cultural impacts” and “perceived costs of socio-cultural impacts”. Figure 1 represents the research framework based on discussed determinants.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Residents’ support for tourism development was evaluated across three primarily rural areas located in Peninsular Malaysia. Homestay villages were the initial geographic unit of analysis for studying residents. The three villages selected randomly and are primarily rural regions. Individuals within Homestay villages in Peninsular Malaysia are distributed in a relatively large geographical area in 117 Homestays and 230 villages. Therefore, this study employs geographical cluster sampling as an effective method of data sampling for large geographical areas [58]. Initially a list of all Homestays in Peninsular Malaysia was provided. Next, all the Homestays were divided into three geographical locations in North, South and Central Peninsular Malaysia. A number was given to each Homestay and, later, sample Homestays were selected randomly from each cluster with the aid of the randomizer.org website that generates random numbers. The Homestays of Parit Bugis, Pachitan and Teluk Ketapang were subsequently selected by random number generator and a total number of 384 questionnaires were required based on Krejcie & Morgan [59]. Figure 2 represents the geographical location of randomly selected homestays.

2.2. Questionnaire Design

Although this study used standardized questions from previous studies, still some changes were required to assure that the questions are applicable to villagers with lower levels of knowledge. Adopting and revaluating the questionnaire took more than six months until the pilot study was carried out. Existence of bias in this part of research may cause unreliable results, which can affect the reliability of the whole research.

Since this study was carried out in Malaysia, where the Malay people typically make use of the Malay language, it was essential for the questionnaire to be translated into Malay. To translate an instrument, McGorry [59] proposes four methods of translation: (1) one-way translation; (2) double translation; (3) translation in a committee; and (4) decentring. Decentring refers to the development of an instrument in such a way to be suitable in cultural terms in cases where a cross-cultural study is carried out [60]. Among them, double translation was found to be the most suitable for the purpose of the present research. This was because this process was defined as one of the most appropriate [61] as even issues such as missing information and literal translation may occur.

Additionally, the pre-test was conducted by distributing 20 Malay language questionnaires (after double translation) to individual local PhD students in the Faculty of Management and Faculty of Built Environment in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia to determine any possible problem in the questionnaire.

In terms of content validity, the questionnaires were tested. Three social science experts were requested to review the questionnaire. Based on their suggestions, the questionnaire was subjected to revisions.

Scales were borrowed from well-established studies in literature such as [16,37,41,62]. Respondents were asked to answer the questions in a five-point Likert scale system, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The questions were worded both positively and negatively. The questionnaire consists of eight sections. Each section includes questions about support for tourism, socio-cultural benefits and costs, Islamic religiosity, community attachment, intrinsic motivations, knowledge about tourism and one section consists of questions about socio-cultural profile and general information of the respondents.

Questionnaires were self-administered by the researcher within a month between July and August 2015. A total number of N = 430 questionnaires were distributed in the given villages, and a total number of N = 388 usable questionnaires were collected.

Table 1. Profile of respondents.

		Frequency	Percent
Gender	Female	179	46.1
	Male	209	53.9
Age	18 and under	28	7.2
	19–28	95	24.5
	29–38	66	17.0
	39–48	85	21.9
	Above 49	114	29.4
Marital	Married	290	74.7
	Single	98	25.3
Education	Primary School	52	13.4
	Secondary school	174	44.8
	Certificate/Diploma	88	22.7
	Bachelor Degree	67	17.3
	Master Degree	7	1.8
Occupation	Non-Governmental	73	18.8
	Governmental	75	19.3
	Student	86	22.2
	Self-Employed	108	27.8
	Unemployed	46	11.9

represents the profile of respondents.

2.3. Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics, such as maximum, minimum, mean, standard deviation, and variance were obtained for the interval-scaled items of the questionnaire data. Appropriate actions were taken to correct the illegal entries. Inferential statistics have been used in this study since this study is explanatory in nature and its research objectives are explanatory. Therefore, using descriptive analysis would describe the data while inferential statistics have been used to explain the phenomenon of interest, which is “Support for tourism development”.

Further inspection of the missing data revealed that every participant answered either all or the vast majority of the questions. Therefore, no questionnaires were eliminated. From here, the researcher can proceed with further detailed analyses to test the goodness of the data. Goodness of data, including composite reliability and factor validity was established and further descriptive analysis was carried out as the elementary transformation of data to describe the basic characteristics, such as central tendency, distribution, and variability.

2.4. Measurements

This section explains items and scales that were engaged to measure study constructs in more detail. All of the items are derived from previous studies in the same field and are mostly published in impact factor journals to assure the usage of standardized questionnaires from qualified studies. Respondents were asked to answer the questions in a five-point Likert scale system, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The questions were worded both positively and negatively. The questionnaire consists of eight sections. Each section includes questions about one construct, and one section consists of questions about socio-cultural profile and general information of the respondents. Measurement of each variable is explained in more detail in the second chapter after reviewing the same variables in current literature.

2.5. Support for Tourism Development

This section of the questionnaire contained questions about residents’ general ideas regarding tourism development characteristics, which could lead us in understanding how they support tourism development in their region [12]. As mentioned earlier, the majority of previous studies were done in the predevelopment stage of product development, while this study concentrates on destinations where tourism is already developed and residents’ perception toward tourism development is shaped according to their real experience with tourists. Therefore, the questions for measuring support for tourism development could not be engaged from previous studies directly. Residents’ general opinions about tourism development and locals’ degree of involvement were used as the main dimensions for measuring locals’ support for tourism development. The questions finally adopted from Hanafiah et al. [62].

Table 2. Measurement of support for tourism adopted from Hanafiah et al. [62].

	Items
Support for Tourism Development	Tourism development should be actively continued in my village.
	I support tourism and would like to see it become an important part of my village.
	I support new tourism facilities that will attract more tourists to my village.
	My village should become more of a tourist destination.
	I believe the tourism sector will continue to play a major role in the economy of my village.
	The future of my village will be more sustainable with tourism.
	I fully support future development of tourism in my region.
	Many people in my village are in favor of tourism development.

represents the questions used for measuring support for tourism development.

2.6. Perceived Socio-Cultural Benefits and Costs

In this part, local residents were asked to answer some questions about positive and negative impacts of tourism development in their region. Among the perceived benefits are preserving locals’ culture, cultural exchange opportunities, improvement in standards and life quality and more job opportunities [10,12,16].

Reviewing previous studies reveals that a wide range of dimensions have been engaged for measuring perceived impacts of tourism development [6,8,9,10,11,12,16,23,28,36,38,63]. However, some of the introduced dimensions in previous studies are not applicable in this study. For example, the variable of “better recreational opportunity” has been used by many authors for measuring perceived impact of tourism development by locals. As this study explores locals’ attitudes in community-based tourism and specifically in rural areas, the development objective does not include providing recreational opportunities. Therefore, this variable cannot be engaged in this study.

As mentioned in

Table 3. Measurements of perceived sociocultural benefits.

Dimensions	Items
Social Benefits	Tourism has led to improvement in infrastructure such as electricity and telecommunication in my village
	Tourism increases the quality of life in my village
	Tourism has increased the pride of villagers
	Tourism has improved transportation services
	Overall, for me personally, the social benefits of tourism outweigh the costs of tourism
	Tourism has led to improvement in infrastructure such as electricity and telecommunication in my village
Cultural Benefits	Tourism helps to preserve and improve the village culture and tradition
	Tourism has created many job opportunities
	Government spend more money in our village due to tourism
	Tourism encourages a variety of cultural activities in the village, for example cultural performance and making handicrafts
	Cultural exchange programs helps my village to learn about new cultures and introduce our culture to foreign tourists

and

Table 4. Measurements of perceived sociocultural costs.

Dimensions	Items
Social Costs	Tourism increases crime rate in my village
	Tourism increases vandalism in my village
	Tourism increases drug abuse in my village
	Tourism increases alcoholism in my village
	Tourism benefits only a few people
	Tourism increases crime rate in my village
Cultural Costs	Tourism causes changes in our traditional clothing
	Tourism cause changes in our traditional cultures in a negative way
	Tourism causes negative effects on our religion
	Because of job opportunities resulting from tourism, young adults make decisions themselves without consulting their parents
	Tourists cause village to be crowded with outsiders which affect our privacy and tranquillity

, respondents were asked to reveal whether these items would worsen or improve their community as the result of increasing tourism activity in their area of living. The items were adopted from previous efforts in this field of study [4,6,9,28,64,65].

2.7. Islamic Religiosity

Different scholars have used a different number of dimensions to measure religiosity ranging from two to seven dimensions. Matsuoka [66] measured the religiosity of individuals by using two dimensions of belief and practice. Morgan & Farsides [67] expressed that belief is the most important predictor as it is the main framework in forming individuals’ sense of life. However, some of the studies in this field have used Allport’s [68] Religion Orientation Scale, which introduced intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions as the main measurements of religiosity. The following table shows different dimensions that have been used by different scholars for measuring religiosity.

Islamic religiosity is measureable according to Islamic text, such as the Quran and Hadith [47]. Moslem Attitude towards Religiosity Scale (MARS), developed by Wilde & Joseph [69], is known as a comprehensive Islamic religiosity measurement scale. The scale includes 14 main items that measure Islamic belief and practice based on Islam’s main religious texts, Hadith and the Quran. According to this scale, four main domains are derived from a total of 60 Islamic items: Religious Belief, Practice, Altruism (doing good to others), and Enrichment (long life learning). However, some authors believe that Religious Altruism and Religious Enrichment are subdivisions of Religious Practice [47]. Finally, using two to three dimensions is the most common way of measuring religiosity. This study adopts the dimensions introduced by Farahani & Musa [23] which are presented based on Quran and Hadith texts (see

Table 5. Measurement of Religiosity Adopted from Farahani & Musa [23].

Dimensions	Items
Religious Belief	In my personal life, religion is very important
	Islam helps me to lead a better life
	The supplication (doa’) helps me a lot
	Muhammad (peace be upon him) instructs me to be in good conduct
	I believe in God strongly
	I believe that Allah helps me
Religious Practice	I believe hijab is obligatory for all women
	I’m a religious person
	In my personal life, religion is very important
	Performing hajj will be my priority the moment I’ve fulfilled all the necessary conditions
	I fast in the month of Ramadan (If applicable)
	I offer/make my prayer always on time
	I perform the obligation of zakat maal (asset/income) annually
	I read the Quran regularly

). In this sense, two main dimensions of Islamic practice and Islamic belief are engaged to measure the religiosity of the individuals.

2.8. Locals’ Knowledge about Tourism

A considerable number of studies discussed the importance of locals’ knowledge about tourism in their attitude toward tourism [9,10,15,23,37,54,70,71], and the majority of these studies used Davis et al. [24] units of measurement to measure the level knowledge about tourism. Davis et al. [24] measured locals’ knowledge about tourism by residents’ responses to the questions about “tourism generated revenue”, “tourism and employment”, “tourism related associations in national and international level and taxes”. However, using these criteria for this study requires further adoption with information about tourism in Malaysia and the Homestay program. In addition, previous studies were held in urban areas, while this study will be conducted in rural regions and using the exact items may result in the collection of unreliable data. Therefore, questions were adopted and standardized to the Malaysian rural setting by the aid of previous studies such as Moscardo [37] and expert panels as fully mentioned in third chapter.

Moscardo [37] measured locals’ knowledge about tourism through examining “why host population think people engage in international travel (what tourist motivations might be or new trends of travel)”, “what they think tourists would find attractive about their region” and “what major changes tourism may have on their region and lifestyle”. The literature also includes several studies such as Feighery [49], Lindberg & Johnson [64], Gursoy & Rutherford [10], Fredline & Faulkner [72] and Gupta et al. [73], all of which used Davis et al. [24] units of measurements.

This study used Moscardo [37] units of measurements by using two main dimensions of “issues of tourism generated costs and benefits” and “facts of tourism industry”. However, the Moscardo [37] study was conducted in Africa and the items were not applicable to measure locals’ knowledge about tourism in Malaysia. As a result, the measurements from Moscardo [37] were adapted for the Malaysian Homestay program. Questions about Malaysia and Homestay program were introduced (see

Table 6. Measurement of knowledge about tourism adopted from Moscardo [37].

Dimensions	Items
Tourism Generated Benefits and Costs	Expanding tourism in our village will prevent from migrating to cities.
	Increasing the number of tourists visiting an area improves the local economy.
	Tourism will cause changes in our traditional life style.
	Tourism provides incentives for protection of natural resources and preservation of local cultures and tradition.
Facts of tourism industry	Experiencing rural culture and traditional life style is the most important reason why tourists go to Homestay.
	The money spent on promotion of tourism by Malaysian government is a good investment.
	I believe Homestay program is the most important tourist attraction in Malaysia.
	Recent crises on Malaysian Airline System (missing planes), has affected tourism industry in Malaysia in a negative way.
	Cheap accommodation is the main reason that people go to Homestay.

), replacing the original items that were measuring locals’ knowledge in the African context.

2.9. Intrinsic Motivation Factors

In the literature, there are multiple traditions for the measurement of the intrinsic motivation factors of local people. In a few studies, intrinsic motivation factors have been considered in terms of supporting tourism development, although numerous social and anthropological researchers have measured this factor with regard to other research areas [74,75,76].

Generally, intrinsic motivation is referred to as the engagement in an activity that is performed purely for satisfaction and pleasure that can be derived from performing that activity [77]. An intrinsically-motivated person performs a behavior voluntarily regardless of material rewards or external constraints [77]. Many researchers, as mentioned earlier, have confirmed the generality of the IM constructs. In the same way, many researchers in a variety of fields have employed three main items of intrinsic motivation [78]. The following section shows the dimensions of intrinsic motivational factors represented by Pelletier et al. [78].

2.9.1. Intrinsic Motivation to Know

This type of intrinsic motivation is connected to a number of constructs, including curiosity, exploration, learning goals, intrinsic motivation to learn, and the epistemic need for knowing and understanding [78]. As a result, it can be described as the performance of an activity for the purpose of deriving pleasure and satisfaction and, at the same time, exploring, learning, or making an attempt to understand something new. In terms of support for tourism development and intrinsic motivation to know, this study measured to what extent local people are interested to learn about other cultures through tourism or does contact with tourists help them to improve their English proficiency.

2.9.2. Intrinsic Motivation toward Accomplishments

The second type of intrinsic motivation has been investigated in fields of education, sport studies, and developmental psychology under terms such as efficacy motivation, task orientation, and mastery motivation [52,79]. Furthermore, other researchers have asserted that individuals have interaction with their environment to feel competent and to aspire to unique accomplishments [78]. In the same way, the intrinsic motivation factor towards accomplishments can be described as the engagement in an activity to get satisfaction and pleasure while he or she is accomplishing or creating something. Making an attempt to learn particularly difficult training techniques to achieve personal satisfaction can be considered as an example for intrinsic motivation of individuals for accomplishing goals in the sports domain. In terms of this study, locals’ might be intrinsically motivated to feed their feeling of accomplishment by playing a role in their community, finding opportunities to be an entrepreneur in the community and expanding their pride through increasing their cultural identity.

2.9.3. Intrinsic Motivation to Experience Stimulation

Finally, intrinsic motivation to Experience Stimulation refers to engagement in an activity for the purpose of experiencing stimulating sensations, such as sensory pleasure that can be derived from that activity. In the context of this study, experience stimulation refers to those intrinsically motivating activities that a host can experience with tourism related activities. This form of intrinsic motivation is represented by research on dynamic sensations such as interacting with new people from other countries and the feeling of excitement that may come from being an entrepreneur in the community.

In this study, intrinsic motivation was measured through items from Kayat [70] and Ebrahimi [65]. Although Kayat [70] didn’t conduct her study in a statistical basis, she provide a list of intrinsic motivators which might affect local support for tourism development. Later these items applied in intrinsic motivation dimensions by Pelletier et al. [78] and validated for measurement of intrinsic motivation factors in this study.

Table 7. Measurement of Intrinsic motivation.

Dimensions	Items
Intrinsic Motivation to Know	It is joyful to be in contact with people from other countries
	Tourism in my village provides an opportunity for me to improve my knowledge about other countries and cultures
	Tourism can help me to improve my English proficiency.
Intrinsic Motivation to Accomplishments	Tourism has opened a new door to our village and I can make new relations with others
	Tourism gives opportunities for me to be an entrepreneur in my village
	Tourism can significantly improve our cultural identity
	I felt like I could really trust a tourist
Intrinsic Motivation to Experience Stimulation	I enjoy talking with tourists in my village very much
	I really doubt that a tourist and I would ever be friends
	I’d like a chance to interact with tourists more often
	From my opinion, tourism activities in my village as very interesting

shows the final items for measuring intrinsic motivation factors.

2.10. Community Attachment

Operationalizing both “community” and “attachment” is difficult as both of them are ambiguous terms [80]. However, both of them have real salient meaning in individuals’ lives. In addition, there have been difficulties associated with distinguishing borders between determinants, indicators and measures of community attachment. For instance, some studies investigated length of residency as a determinant of attachment while other studies considered length of residency as an indicator of community attachment. However, discussing determinants of community attachment are not objectives of this study, and this part only demonstrates measurements of community attachment.

Different researchers defined different dimensions for attachment. Bolan [81] for instance, categorized attachment into two main groups of attitudinal attachment and behavioral attachment. Attitudinal attachment comprises evaluation of individuals’ sentiments regarding their community while behavioral attachment discusses informal interactions and formal participation in communities. In addition, James [80] defined three main dimensions for measuring community attachment according to previous studies: involvement, sentiment (satisfaction), amity (local friendships). Although there are differences in the number of proposed dimensions of community attachment, the sequence of the majority of introduced methods is the same (Figure 3).

This part of the questionnaire includes a total of 12 questions to measure level of local attachment to their community. Amity (local friendships), satisfaction with community, involvement and emotional bonds [80,82] have used for measuring locals’ level of attachment to their community in this study. The

Table 8. Measurements of community attachment.

Dimensions	Items
Friendship	I have a lot of fond memories of past experiences with family and friends in my community
	I have a close relationship with my neighbors
	I have no or few friends outside this community
	I could count on people in my neighborhood for help in an emergency
Satisfaction	I prefer living in this community over other communities
	Overall, I am satisfied with my community
	The facilities provided by this community are the best
	My community is a good place to live in
Involvement	I feel a strong sense of belonging to this community
	I do participate in local programs, celebrations and festivals which are organized by community
	If I had to move from my village, I would be very sad to leave
	I help out by volunteering in my community
Emotional bond	I have a strong emotional bond to my community
	I feel my community is a part of me
	Living in this community says a lot about who I am
	I am very attached to my community

shows the items that were used to measure level of community attachment in this study.

3. Results

Structural equation modeling (SEM), including a series of tests such as measurement model, convergent validity, discriminant validity and common method bias were done before evaluating the structural model. Using the Smart PLS M2 Version 2.0 M3 [83], R squares were calculated in order to evaluate the structural models’ predictive power. R2 indicates the amount of variance explained by the exogenous variables in endogenous variables (see Table 2) [84]. Because the goal of the prediction-oriented PLS-SEM approach is to explain the endogenous latent variables’ variance, the key target constructs level of R² should be high [85]. Deciding whether an R² level is high depends on the research field of study. For instance, in disciplines such as consumer behavior, R² results of 0.20 are perceived as high, while in success driver studies an R² value of 0.75 would be considered as high [85]. Constructs of socio-cultural costs and benefits as exogenous variables together explained 43.7% of the variance in support for tourism. Tourism studies fall under social and behavioral studies and as such, in marketing research studies, R² values of 0.75, 0.50, or 0.25 for endogenous latent variables in the structural model can, as a rule of thumb, be described as substantial, moderate, or weak, respectively [85]. Therefore, as represented in

Table 9. Predictive relevance, R², and communality of endogenous variables.

Endogenous Latent Variable	R2	Q2 (CV Red)
Support for tourism development	0.437	0.274
Socio-cultural Benefits	0.553	0.313
Socio-cultural Costs	0.114	0.074

, the R square in this model is at a medium level and is moderate.

In terms of the items’ loadings, absolute standardized loading for each indicator should be higher than 0.70 [85,86,87]. However, indicators with loadings between 0.40 and 0.70 could be deleted from the scale if their removal improves the composite reliability above the given threshold value. However, one should keep in mind that in case of dealing with unacceptable items, another consideration is the extent to which deleting an indicator affects content validity. Items with low loading (between 0.4 and 0.7) are retained delete indicators. In other words, the priority is given to theory and that is based on the logic that if one is not confident that the measures represent the constructs of interest, there is little reason to use them to examine the structural relationships [85,87]. Items with lower loading (less than 0.4) should always be removed from any reflective scale.

As indicated in Figure 1, all exogenous latent variables in the model except “support for tourism”, which is the endogenous latent variable, are conceptualized as second-order variables/constructs and in a higher-order model or hierarchical component model (HCM). Therefore, a repeated indicator approach to model the second order factors, set forth in the PLS-SEM literature, has been used for the analysis procedure [86,87]. In this approach, all indicators related to all the first-order constructs were repeated on the second order constructs.

Table 10. Convergent validity, Item Loadings, AVE and CR.

Constructs	Items	Loadings	AVE a	CR b	Number of Deleted Items
Attachment A	Attachment A.1	0.886	0.820	0.901	2
	Attachment A.2	0.925
Attachment B	Attachment B.1	0.836	0.843	0.955	0
	Attachment B.2	0.949
	Attachment B.3	0.928
	Attachment B.4	0.954
Attachment C	Attachment C.1	0.956	0.708	0.826	2
	Attachment C.3	0.709
Attachment D	Attachment D.1	0.859	0.791	0.938	0
	Attachment D.2	0.915
	Attachment D.3	0.875
	Attachment D.4	0.907
Benefit A	Benefit A.2	0.774	0.618	0.866	1
	Benefit A.3	0.771
	Benefit A.4	0.843
	Benefit A.5	0.755
Benefit B	Benefit B.1	0.854	0.689	0.899	1
	Benefit B.2	0.856
	Benefit B.4	0.809
	Benefit B.5	0.801
Costs A	Costs A.1	0.734	0.629	0.893	0
	Costs A.2	0.757
	Costs A.3	0.912
	Costs A.4	0.894
	Costs A.5	0.635
Costs B	Costs B.1	0.892	0.782	0.947	0
	Costs B.2	0.938
	Costs B.3	0.915
	Costs B.4	0.867
	Costs B.5	0.804
Intrinsic A	Intrinsic A.1	0.726	0.751	0.899	0
	Intrinsic A.2	0.949
	Intrinsic A.3	0.909
Intrinsic B	Intrinsic B.1	0.762	0.685	0.866	1
	Intrinsic B.2	0.912
	Intrinsic B.3	0.801
Intrinsic C	Intrinsic C.1	0.845	0.723	0.839	2
	Intrinsic C.4	0.855
Knowledge A	Knowledge A.1	0.664	0.642	0.841	1
	Knowledge A.2	0.891
	Knowledge A.4	0.831
Knowledge B	Knowledge B.1	0.730	0.569	0.840	2
	Knowledge B.2	0.771
	Knowledge B.3	0.807
	Knowledge B.4	0.705
Religiosity A	Religiosity A.1	0.820	0.780	0.955	0
	Religiosity A.2	0.868
	Religiosity A.3	0.830
	Religiosity A.4	0.891
	Religiosity A.5	0.941
	Religiosity A.6	0.941
Religiosity B	Religiosity B.2	0.662	0.753	0.947	2
	Religiosity B.3	0.873
	Religiosity B.4	0.978
	Religiosity B.5	0.978
	Religiosity B.6	0.853
	Religiosity B.7	0.823
Support	Support 1	0.843	0.664	0.939	0
	Support 2	0.912
	Support 3	0.833
	Support 4	0.849
	Support 5	0.899
	Support 6	0.517
	Support 7	0.794
	Support 8	0.805
Attachment	Attachment A	0.843	0.705	0.905	0
	Attachment B	0.859
	Attachment C	0.745
	Attachment D	0.904
Benefit	Benefit A	0.928	0.879	0.935	0
	Benefit B	0.947
Costs	Costs A	0.960	0.936	0.967	0
	Costs B	0.975
Intrinsic	Intrinsic A	0.927	0.836	0.939	0
	Intrinsic B	0.899
	Intrinsic C	0.918
Knowledge	Knowledge A	0.889	0.832	0.908	0
	Knowledge B	0.935
Religiosity	Religiosity A	0.886	0.775	0.873	0
	Religiosity B	0.875

^a Average variance extracted (AVE) = (summation of the square of the factor loadings)/[(summation of the square of the factor loadings) + (summation of the error variances)]; ^b Composite reliability (CR) = (square of the summation of the factor loadings)/[(square of the summation of the factor loadings) + (square of the summation of the error variances)]; Please take note that the AVE and CR for second-order (higher order) constructs are calculated manually since the ones indicated in the software are not correct due to forcing several items into one single higher order construct.

indicates that the results of the measurement model exceeded the recommended values, thus indicating sufficient convergence validity. However, in order to reach the given thresholds, some items were removed and deleted. Therefore, for further analysis only these items were retained.

Table 11. Path Coefficients (Mean, STDEV, t-Values).

Hypotheses		Beta	SE	t-Value	Decision
H1a	Benefits → Support	0.63 **	0.031	20.023	Supported
H1b	Costs → Support	−0.18 **	0.036	5.014	Supported
H2a	Religiosity → Benefits	−0.04	0.030	1.322	Not-Supported
H2b	Religiosity → Costs	0.08 *	0.033	2.333	Supported
H3a	Knowledge → Benefits	0.30 **	0.043	6.981	Supported
H3b	Knowledge → Costs	−0.29 **	0.065	4.480	Supported
H4a	Intrinsic motivation → Benefits	0.42 **	0.036	11.714	Supported
H4b	Intrinsic motivation → Costs	0.18 **	0.065	2.725	Supported
H5a	Attachment → Benefits	0.11 **	0.031	3.471	Supported
H5b	Attachment → Costs	−0.17 **	0.055	3.077	Supported

For 2-tailed Hypotheses: * = p < 0.05 (t > 1.96); ** = p < 0.01 (t > 2.58).

shows the structural model analysis. According to the analysis, it was found that perceived socio-cultural benefits (β = 0.63, p < 0.01) were positively related to (had a positive impact/influence) support for tourism development. The perceived socio-cultural costs (β = −0.18, p < 0.01) were negatively related to (had a negative impact/influence) support for tourism development. Next, the effect of antecedents of perceived socio-cultural benefits and costs on both of these constructs were tested. According to the following table, positive effects of “community members’ knowledge about tourism” (β = 0.30, p < 0.01), “locals’ intrinsic motivation factors” (β = 0.42, p < 0.01), and “the level of attachment to the community” (β = 0.11, p < 0.01) on “perceived socio-cultural benefits” was found. On the other hand, “community members’ knowledge about tourism” (β = −0.29, p < 0.01) and “the level of attachment to the community” (β = −0.17, p < 0.01) had a negative effect on the “perceived socio-cultural costs”. Such effect for “Islamic religiosity” (β = 0.08, p < 0.01) and “local’s intrinsic motivation factors” (β = 0.18, p < 0.01) on the “perceived socio-cultural costs” was found in a positive direction, while such an effect for “Islamic religiosity” (β = −0.04, p > 0.05) on “perceived socio-cultural benefit” was not significant.

4. Discussion

4.1. Perceived Socio-Cultural Benefits

This construct was conceptualized as a second-order construct with its dimensions perceived social and cultural benefits. Social benefits and cultural benefits had high loadings on second-order construct of perceived socio-cultural benefits with loadings of 0.928 and 0.947 respectively. Descriptive statistics indicated that the perception of respondents on social and cultural benefits of tourism was rather higher than “neutral” and leaning towards a positive response to the fact that tourism provides them social and cultural benefits. This second-order construct had a significant impact on support for tourism development. The effect of perceived socio-cultural benefits on support for tourism development had a coefficient of β = 0.63 indicating that for each unit increase in perceived socio-cultural benefits, with other construct (perceived socio-cultural costs) remaining constant, perceived socio-cultural benefits is estimated to determine 0.62 increase in support for tourism development. Comparing the effect of perceived socio-cultural benefits and perceived socio-cultural costs as the only two determinants of support for tourism in this model, perceived socio-cultural benefit has a greater impact on support for tourism development.

However, the reason that perceived socio-cultural benefit is the most influential determinant of the support for tourism development, with a large coefficient, could be traced back to the notion that believes individuals perceive tourism as beneficial because increasing tourism activity in a region will generally improve their community [4,6,9,28,64,65]. In other words, local people tend to sacrifice socio-cultural and environmental concerns due to economic reasons. This phenomenon is more prevalent in less developed societies as economy plays the most prominent role in their exchange where communities sacrifice their cultural and social values in exchange for economic benefits [28,88,89].

Both perceived socio-cultural benefits and costs were identified as the significant determinants of support for tourism development. Perceived socio-cultural benefits positively and perceived socio-cultural costs negatively determine support for tourism development [44]. This is in line with the notion of social exchange theory that deems that regardless the type of destination, locals in a host community will decide whether to support tourism development by weighting and assessing benefits and costs of economic, socio-cultural and environmental concerns [3,6,9,28,44]. Furthermore, a positive effect of perceived socio-cultural benefits and a negative effect of perceived socio-cultural costs on support for tourism found in current study is in line with past studies over the past few years [6,8,9,10,11,12,16,23,28,36,38,63].

4.2. Perceived Socio-Cultural Costs

Perceived social costs and cultural costs had high loadings on second-order construct of perceived socio-cultural costs with loadings of 0.960 and 0.975 respectively (Figure 4). Descriptive statistics indicated that the majority of respondents “strongly disagree” and “disagree” with socio-cultural costs of tourism in their area of living. Social and cultural aspects related to costs were perceived differently from benefits of tourism. The answers have been directed in two opposite (positive and negative) directions and this was confirmed by the results of model testing. This second-order construct had a significant impact on support for tourism development. However, compared to perceived socio-cultural benefits, its effect on support for tourism development was a negative and smaller impact with coefficient β = −0.181. This coefficient shows that for each unit increase in perceived socio-cultural costs with the other construct (perceived socio-cultural benefits) remaining constant, perceived socio-cultural costs is estimated to determine table footer −0.18 increase (or +0.18 decrease) in support for tourism development.

However, this study reveals that host populations still perceive socio-cultural costs as a possible threat to their cultural value (β = −0.18) which is in line with the findings of Raybeck & De Munck [90], where they discussed that the Malay rural population continue to hold conservative attitudes toward their cultural values. They confessed that Malay residents of rural areas are sensitive about their cultural values and they monitor any threats against it. On the other hand, higher coefficient of perceived socio-cultural benefits (β = 63) compared to perceived socio-cultural costs (β = −0.18) might be due to the fact that this study was conducted in the context of community-based tourism, where it is expected to minimize the social and cultural threats. In other words, people might be aware about careful planning in the Homestay program, where one of the main missions is preserving locals’ culture and values [25].

4.3. Islamic Religiosity

This construct was conceptualized as a second-order construct with two dimensions of religious practice and religious belief, both having high loadings on religiosity of 0.886 and 0.875 respectively (Figure 4). Descriptive statistics indicated that the majority of locals considered themselves religious both practically and theoretically. The subjective response of respondents showed a high level of religiosity and perception of practicing religion at individual level. The construct of religiosity had a significant, though small, impact on perceived socio-cultural costs and did not demonstrate a significant impact on perceived socio-cultural benefits. A positive significant effect of religiosity on perceived socio-cultural costs was a β = 0.078. This means for each unit increase in being religious with other constructs (community attachment, intrinsic motivation and knowledge about tourism) remaining constant, religiosity is estimated to determine a 0.08 increase in perceived socio-cultural costs.

Religiosity was initially hypothesized to have a simultaneous impact on both perceived socio-cultural benefits and perceived socio-cultural costs, but only a small negative effect of religiosity on perceived socio-cultural costs was identified. A reason for not finding a significant effect of religiosity on perceived socio-cultural benefits could be based on the following.

Although Farahani & Musa [23] found a significant negative relationship between Islamic religiosity and perceived socio-cultural benefits in case of Iran, no significant relationship was found between Islamic religiosity and negative perception of socio-cultural benefits in this study. This shows that religiosity does not affect perceived socio-cultural benefits in a negative direction. Looking for the reasons for this result, recalling intensive distance theory conceptualizes intensity and frequency of interactions between individuals and groups. Based on this approach, when members of two substantially different groups interact more in terms of frequency, they become socially closer [91]. Malaysia is already a multi-ethnic country comprising other races (Indians and Chinese) and religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism) and Malaysians interact with other races in their daily routine activities. According to intensive distance theory, interacting with non-Muslim tourists is not a new phenomenon for respondents to be considered as correlated with their perceived benefits of tourism. Therefore, respondents’ mindset did not reflect any correlation between being religious and being negative toward tourism development.

From a comparative point of view, Hassan [92] drew the patterns of Islamic religiosity in countries with a Muslim majority. Hassan [92] categorized Islamic countries according to their commitment to the Islamic religion by using the same measurement as this study (belief and practice dimensions). The results of his study revealed that Malaysians and Indonesians have “very strong” commitment to Islam among Islamic countries. In comparison with results from Farahani & Musa [23], although Malaysians have higher commitment to Islam compared to Iranians, they do not perceive tourism development as harmful as perceived by Iranians. Further investigation of such studies in other Muslim countries may challenge those ideas that profess that Islam is against tourism.

4.4. Knowledge About Tourism

Knowledge was measured on a five-point Likert scale. The reflective first-order dimensions of this variable had substantial loading on knowledge about tourism with loadings of 0.889 and 0.935 (Figure 4). Descriptive statistics indicated that knowledge about tourism was rather higher than “neutral” and leaning towards being “knowledgeable” about tourism, but not “very knowledgeable”. In fact, the subjective response of respondents showed a considerably high, but not maximum, level of knowledge about tourism among respondents at individual level. In terms of the effect of knowledge about tourism on perceived socio-cultural benefits, significantly positive effect with a β = 0.30 was found. This means for each unit increase in “knowledge about tourism”, while other constructs (community attachment, intrinsic motivation, and religiosity) remained constant, “knowledge about tourism” is estimated to determine 0.30 increase in perceived socio-cultural benefits of tourism. In other words, keeping other determinants constant, knowledge could explain 30% of variation in perceived socio-cultural benefits. Knowledge about tourism had the second-largest effect on perceived socio-cultural benefits after intrinsic motivation. This is important since the benefit itself has a large effect on support for tourism and it acts as a mediator between knowledge and support for tourism.

In much the same way, knowledge had a large and negative effect on perceived socio-cultural costs with a β = −0.29. This coefficient indicates that for each unit increase in knowledge with other constructs remaining constant, knowledge will cause a 0.29 decrease in perceived socio-cultural costs. In other words, a negative effect of knowledge of perceived socio-cultural costs indicates that knowledge and perceived socio-cultural costs are moving in different directions: as knowledge about tourism increases, the perception on socio-cultural costs will be substantially decreased/pacified.

Knowledge about Tourism was one of the most influential constructs in this study, explaining 30% of variation in both perceived socio-cultural benefits and costs. Findings indicate that knowledge about tourism had a positive and relatively large impact on perceived socio-cultural benefits and a relatively large negative impact on perceived socio-cultural costs. Theoretically, the findings were consistent with previous studies that argued knowledgeable members of a community show more concerns about cost and benefits of tourism in the community [33]. They concluded that people who were more knowledgeable show a significant relationship with positive perceptions of the benefits of the tourism in community life, image, and economy.

In fact, this study revealed that knowledgeable respondents see tourism development socially and culturally as positive in their area of living. In contrast to mass tourism destinations in which knowledgeable hosts hold strong negative perceptions toward socio-cultural impacts of tourism in their area of living [93], the significance of relationship between knowledge about tourism and perceived socio-cultural benefits and costs was relatively small. It might be due to the fact that knowledgeable respondents of this study were aware of the characteristics of community-based tourism and the Homestay program, where local communities’ cultural values are under protection. The findings are also in line with what has been attested by Davis et al. [24]. They concluded that the more residents know about the tourism industry, the less negative they seem towards it. In agreement with Davis et al. [24], respondents in this study seem to be equally aware about positive and negative influences of the industry on their community, but the more knowledgeable seem to be aware of the ways tourism can improve their culture.

4.5. Intrinsic Motivation

In order to capture different aspects of intrinsic motivation, this construct was also conceptualized as second-order construct with its dimensions, namely “intrinsic motivation to know”, “intrinsic motivation toward accomplishment” and “intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation”. The reflective first-order constructs of this variable had substantial loading on intrinsic motivation with loadings of 0.927, 0.899, and 0.918, respectively (Figure 4). Descriptive statistics demonstrated that more than half of the answers were similar or very close to mean and the majority of respondents “agree” to being intrinsically motivated by tourism. In fact, the subjective response of respondents showed a considerably high, but not maximum, level of intrinsic motivation (or locals are intrinsically motivated) at individual level. Intrinsic motivation was the most influential determinant of perceived socio-cultural benefits. This is an important finding since perceived socio-cultural benefits itself has a large effect on support for tourism and it acts as a mediator between its determinants and support for tourism. The significant effect of this construct on perceived socio-cultural benefit was positive with a β = 0.42. Therefore, for each unit increase in intrinsic motivation while “knowledge about tourism”, “community attachment”, and “religiosity” remaining constant, intrinsic motivation is estimated to determine 0.42 unit increase in perceived socio-cultural benefits. In other words, other determinants being constant, intrinsic motivation determines 42% of variation in perceived socio-cultural benefits.

In contrast the effect of intrinsic motivation on perceived socio-cultural costs was found with smaller effect, but still significant (β = 0.18), meaning a small significant impact of intrinsic motivation on perceived socio-cultural costs exists. Compared to perceived socio-cultural benefits, intrinsic motivation has less effect on perceived socio-cultural costs.

Intrinsic motivation was the most influential determinant of perceived socio-cultural benefits in the proposed model of this study. Almost 42% of variation in perceived socio-cultural benefits was determined by intrinsic motivation (considering other determinants constant). The findings indicate that locals’ requirements are not limited only to economic motives such as job opportunities and higher income rate, but also the importance of non-monetary motives of tourism development [25,26,40]. The reason to find such a large and significant positive effect of intrinsic motivation could be found in the notion of self-determination theory [94]. In other words, intrinsic motivation as an important psychological factor associated with non-monetary gains plays an important role in forming residents’ attitudes towards tourism. The findings of this study support previous claims that non-economic gains also are important for support of the Homestay program in Malaysia [26]. However, Kayat [70] did not mention to what extent intrinsic motivation affect perceived socio-cultural impacts of tourism development. In addition, although intrinsic motivation showed a relatively large variation on perceived impact of tourism development in this study, this variables was not reflected in the Jurowski et al. [44] model of support for tourism development. Consequently, the results of this study cover these limitations.

4.6. Attachment to the Community

In order to capture different aspects of attachment to the community, this construct was conceptualized as second-order construct with its dimensions being “sentiment (satisfaction)”, “amity (local friendships)”, and “involvement and bonding”. The reflective first-order constructs of this variable had substantial loading on second-order constrict of community attachment with loadings of 0.843, 0.859, 0.745, and 0.904, respectively (Figure 4). Descriptive statistics demonstrate that more than half and the majority of respondents perceived themselves as attached to their community. The subjective response of respondents showed a considerably high, but not maximum, level of attachment to the community at individual level.

In terms of the effect of community attachment on perceived socio-cultural benefits, significantly positive effect with a β = 0.11 was found. This means that for each unit increase in attachment, while “knowledge about tourism”, “intrinsic motivation”, and “religiosity” remained constant, community is estimated to increase by 0.11. On the other hand, the effect of community attachment on perceived socio-cultural costs was negative with a β = −0.17. This indicates that for each unit increase in attachment with other constructs (“knowledge about tourism”, “intrinsic motivation”, and “religiosity”) remaining constant; community attachment will cause 0.17 decrease in perceived socio-cultural costs. In other words, other determinants being constant, community attachment determines 17% of variation in in perceived socio-cultural benefits in a negative direction.

Attachment to community, or a sense of people’s feeling connected to their area of living and bonding to their community, was found to have a negative and significant effect on perceived socio-cultural costs while such effect on perceived socio-cultural benefits was both positive and significant. These findings are also in line with Lee [6] and Al-Masroori [18] results that concluded that those members with stronger attachment feelings are more sensitive regarding both positive and negative impacts of tourism compared to those who were less attached. In addition, the findings were supported by the notion of Bolan [81], who argued attachment is related to evaluation of individuals’ sentiments regarding their community’s benefits and costs.

However, there are also contradictory results in current literature. For example McCool & Martin [34] concluded that there was no clear connection between perceptions of the impacts and attachment to the community. Similarly, Gursoy et al. [9] couldn’t find any significant relationship between community attachment and perceived impacts of tourism development. In the same way, lack of a relationship between the level of community attachment and perceived impacts of tourism may be due to the way that community attachment was measured. Early studies measured community attachment directly and through measuring their length of residency, while later studies measured community attachment through latent dimensions of “sentiment (satisfaction)”, “amity (local friendships)”, and “involvement”. In some cases, such as this study, length of residency cannot be engaged as a reliable measurement of community attachment as almost all the residents had the same length of residency. In addition, Al-Masroori [18] believes that such changes in more recent studies might be due to the revolution in availability of information and public awareness about the positive impact of tourism.

5. Conclusions

This study offers an insight into residents’ support for tourism development in the Malaysian Homestay program, where almost all residents are Malay Muslims. The main theoretical contribution of this research stands on the investigation of perceived socio-cultural impacts on support for tourism development, especially intrinsic motivation factors and religiosity. Overall, local residents of Homestay villages in this study perceived socio-cultural impacts of tourism positively and greatly support future tourism development in their area of living. Among socio-cultural factors, intrinsic motivation as non-monetary aspect of tourism development leads to the high acceptance of tourism by local residents of the Homestay program in this study.

In terms of intrinsic motivation, this study is the first to explore the effect of intrinsic motivation on perceived socio-cultural impacts of tourism. Intrinsic motivation was the most influential determinant of perceived socio-cultural benefits in the proposed model of this study. Almost 42% of variation in perceived socio-cultural benefits was determined by intrinsic motivation. The findings indicate that locals’ requirements are not limited only to economic motives, but the importance of non-monetary gains of tourism development was also proved. The reason to find such a large and significant positive effect of intrinsic motivation could be found in the notion of self-determination theory [94].

Locals within the Homestay program are Malay Muslims and the results were in line with Hassan [92] in terms of level of religiosity among Malaysians, with “very strong” commitment to Islam. Descriptive statistics indicated that the majority of locals considered themselves religious both practically and theoretically. However, the results show a non-significant correlation between their strong commitment to Islamic values and perceived socio-cultural impacts of tourism development. In the same way, the results are in contrast to Delener [95] who concluded more-religious individuals hold more conservative and dogmatic attitude than less-religious individuals. Therefore, educating host community residents and training them with the required knowledge, skills, and information will prepare them to be actively involved in tourism and support the industry spontaneously [40].

Knowledge about tourism could explain almost one third of variation in perceived socio-cultural benefits and costs. Theoretically, the findings were consistent with previous studies that argued knowledgeable members of a community show more concern about cost and benefits of tourism in the community [33]. The results indicate that knowledgeable respondents realize tourism development socially and culturally are positive in their area of living, while the same respondents with the same level of knowledge show negative perceptions toward socio-cultural costs.

Considering the empirical and theoretical limitations in the area of support for tourism development, this study has expanded theories in support for tourism development from socio-cultural perspective and has made managerial implications and theoretical contributions to the body of knowledge and related theories. Furthermore, this study has expanded the knowledge about the importance of perceived impacts of tourism development by local residents. This study’s results may be of considerable interest to tourism policy-makers and developers to develop more sustainable strategies in line with locals’ preferences.

6. Implication

The findings of this study refine the theoretical basis for explaining the interplay of socio-cultural elements that affect a host community’s reaction to and support for tourism development. In addition, this study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by developing, testing, and refining a tourism support model that explains 44% of the variance in the host community support for tourism development.

Overall, this study tries to contribute to the existing body of knowledge in the field of residents’ support for tourism development from socio-cultural point of view. The proposed model, construct and measurement techniques might be applicable in other destinations, especially other Islamic countries and community-based tourism projects. This study was undertaken with underpinning theories of social exchange theory, social representation theory, self-determination theory, attachment theory and social distance theory. Consequently, results of this study could contribute to each of these theories by means of supporting and extending the theories. The examined model of this study revealed that intrinsic motivations as well as community attachment and locals’ knowledge about tourism affect locals’ support for tourism development. In this context, practitioners can estimate a level of local support for tourism development in the Homestay program before any investment in pre-development stage.

The implications of the key findings provide significant benefits not only for academicians and researchers, but also for service practitioners such as tourism planners and managers. Planning a sustainable destination requires a deep understanding of all stakeholders’ preferences, including the host population [9]. The support of the host population is necessary as a hospitable friendly host plays a central role in tourists’ satisfaction and success of the tourism projects [18]. In the same way, the findings reveal that local support for tourism development has a parallel relationship with perceived socio-cultural impacts. The higher positive perception of socio-cultural impacts of tourism, the more residents support tourism development in their area of living. Consequently, in addition to previously discovered economic and environmental factors, identified socio-cultural factors (religiosity, knowledge about tourism, intrinsic motivation and community attachment) in this study may assist practitioners to predict host population attitude toward tourism development in Homestay villages. In fact, this study shows that there were specific concerns pertaining to tourism development, which residents believed have had both a positive and negative impact on their lives. It is, therefore, imperative for tourism developers and policy makers to have knowledge and an understanding of the dynamics of these impact factors and how they are perceived by the residents before they embark on new tourism developments. Having knowledge of the specific priorities and the demographic profile of the destination population is extremely useful for future planning, especially in locations that are new to tourism development [2].

As with any empirical research, particularly cross-sectional studies, this study is not without limitations. The entire tourism industry, and particularly community-based tourism, is a complex issue and needs to be studied from several perspectives. This study tried to shed the light on support for tourism development by emphasizing on the mediating role of perceived socio-cultural benefits and costs facilitating the effect of religiosity, knowledge, intrinsic motivation, and community attachment on support for tourism. Although variables in this study could explain almost 44% of variance in support for tourism and the amount of variance is considerably high, the effect of other variables such as political view of residents [96] and life satisfaction [1] could be added to this framework. In fact, a predicted power or R squared of 44% indicated that another 56% of variation in support for tourism remains unexplained and other variables could contribute to the variation as well as the understanding of support for tourism development.