| Literature DB >> 35664140 |
Abstract
Local development enhances the economic capacity and quality of life of the residents and, in particular, attracts tourism to the area. The co-creative value of the residents and the tourists can improve the consensus of the residents on the sustainable development of the place. This study focuses on the factors influencing the co-creation of value between residents and visitors in the Tamsui area near Taipei. The research hypothesis is based on the components of local attachment, economic benefits brought by tourists, environmental costs, social and cultural welfare of the place, life satisfaction of the residents, and the value of co-creation between residents and tourists. A total of 430 questionnaires were collected through a questionnaire survey and statistical data were analyzed using a structural equation model, including descriptive statistical analysis, measurement reliability and validity verification, model fit, and structural model analysis to validate the research hypotheses. The study found that place attachment positively and significantly affects the economic benefits, environmental costs, and socio-cultural welfare of residents about tourists. Resident satisfaction is positively and significantly affected by the environmental costs from visitors and by socio-cultural welfare, but there is no significant impact from economic benefits. Finally, based on the findings of the study, practical recommendations were made for enhancing co-creation value between Tamsui residents and visitors, including enhancing residents' feelings of place attachment and construction of local social culture and welfare. For the residents of Tamsui, unlike the local government and enterprises, need to be able to create value with tourists in order to have a friendly relationship with them and develop regional tourism in a sustainable manner.Entities:
Keywords: co-creation; economic benefits; environment costs; place attachment; social–cultural welfare
Year: 2022 PMID: 35664140 PMCID: PMC9159473 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.877365
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1Operational definitions of research variables.
| Research variables | Operational definitions | References |
|---|---|---|
| Place identity | I want to live in a safe, memorable, cultural, friendly, special and unique place. | |
| Place dependency | This place feels like my home, it feels like I belong, it suits me very well, and it feels intimate. | |
| Economic benefits | Visits from tourists can improve my standard of living, increase job opportunities, improve infrastructure, and increase income. | |
| Environment costs | Tourists will bring noise, environmental pollution, and traffic congestion. | |
| Social–cultural welfare | The community has developed into a multicultural one, with more public spaces for people to interact with each other while preserving traditional culture. |
|
| Life satisfaction | My life is in line with my ideal state and I live in a great state. |
|
| Resident–tourist value co-creation | I have a high respect for visitors and will provide them with useful information about our way of life, traditions, culture and history. |
|
Figure 2Research model.
Questionnaire items and sources.
| Variable | Items | References |
|---|---|---|
| Place identity |
I have found the life I want to live in Tamsui It makes me feel safe in Tamsui and is the best place for my life. In Tamsui is full of memories, I agree that Tamsui is more important than other places For me, living in Tamsui has a special meaning that cannot be replaced by other places I understand the local cultural background of Tamsui If Tamsui needs my help, I will try to help. I am willing to take on local public affairs duties | |
| Place dependency |
Tamsui makes me feel “home,” and I feel sad if I leave. Tamsui makes me feel like I belong, I feel like I’m part of this place. I cannot think of any other place I’d rather be than where I live now. There are many activities in my life that are closely related to Tamsui The experience of living in Tamsui makes me not want to leave here | |
| Economic benefits |
The development of tourism in Tamsui will improve the standard of living Tourism development in Tamsui can create job opportunities Tourism development in Tamsui can improve infrastructure Tourism development in Tamsui can increase economic income | |
| Environment costs |
Tourism development will create crowdedness Tourism development will cause traffic congestion Tourism development will increase noise Tourism development will increase environmental pollution | |
| Social–cultural welfare |
Tourism development will provide more parks and recreational facilities The development of tourism will promote local cultural activities Tourism can enhance cultural exchange Tourism can contribute to the preservation of local culture |
|
| Life satisfaction |
My life is mostly close to my ideal My living condition is quite good I am very satisfied with my life now I have gotten the important things I want in my life (health, money, etc.) If I could start my life over, I would hardly change anything |
|
| Resident–tourist value co-creation |
I treated tourists with high esteem I provided tourists with useful information, such as transport, attractions, restaurants, hotel, and others I provided tourists with information on our way of life, traditional culture, and history |
|
Demographic variables.
| Category | Label | Frequency | Percent | Category | Label | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 199 | 46.3 | Marital status | Married | 293 | 68.1 |
| Male | 231 | 53.7 | Unmarried | 137 | 31.9 | ||
| Age (year) | Under 20 years old | 6 | 1.4 | How long live in the community (year) | Under 3 years | 66 | 15.3 |
| 21–30 years old | 45 | 10.5 | 3–5 years | 65 | 15.1 | ||
| 31–50 years old | 199 | 46.3 | 6–10 years | 71 | 16.5 | ||
| 51–60 years old | 98 | 22.8 | 11–20 years | 91 | 21.2 | ||
| Over 61 years old | 82 | 19.0 | Over 21 years | 137 | 31.9 | ||
| Education level | Junior high school | 9 | 2.1 | Disposable monthly income (NT $) | Under 20,000 | 50 | 11.6 |
| High school | 61 | 14.2 | 20,000–50,000 | 180 | 41.9 | ||
| college/university educated | 242 | 56.3 | 50,000–100,000 | 128 | 29.8 | ||
| Graduate school | 118 | 27.4 | Over 100,000 | 72 | 16.7 | ||
| Own/leasing house | Own house | 350 | 81.4 | ||||
| Leasing house | 80 | 18.6 |
Descriptive statistics.
| Item |
| Mean | Std. deviation | Skewness | Std. error of skewness | Kurtosis | Std. error of kurtosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PI1 | 430 | 4.867 | 1.313 | −0.238 | 0.118 | −0.065 | 0.235 |
| PI2 | 430 | 4.914 | 1.319 | −0.276 | 0.118 | −0.159 | 0.235 |
| PI3 | 430 | 4.774 | 1.387 | −0.291 | 0.118 | −0.233 | 0.235 |
| PI4 | 430 | 4.658 | 1.428 | −0.261 | 0.118 | −0.302 | 0.235 |
| PI5 | 430 | 4.635 | 1.386 | −0.234 | 0.118 | −0.316 | 0.235 |
| PI6 | 430 | 4.891 | 1.347 | −0.076 | 0.118 | −0.591 | 0.235 |
| PI7 | 430 | 4.584 | 1.323 | 0.222 | 0.118 | −0.648 | 0.235 |
| PD1 | 430 | 4.802 | 1.432 | −0.290 | 0.118 | −0.262 | 0.235 |
| PD2 | 430 | 4.888 | 1.364 | −0.317 | 0.118 | −0.196 | 0.235 |
| PD3 | 430 | 4.326 | 1.544 | −0.224 | 0.118 | −0.426 | 0.235 |
| PD4 | 430 | 4.742 | 1.361 | −0.328 | 0.118 | 0.021 | 0.235 |
| PD5 | 430 | 4.623 | 1.475 | −0.256 | 0.118 | −0.449 | 0.235 |
| EB1 | 430 | 4.677 | 1.460 | −0.389 | 0.118 | −0.015 | 0.235 |
| EB2 | 430 | 4.879 | 1.377 | −0.464 | 0.118 | 0.279 | 0.235 |
| EB3 | 430 | 4.912 | 1.397 | −0.440 | 0.118 | 0.064 | 0.235 |
| EB4 | 430 | 4.953 | 1.412 | −0.397 | 0.118 | −0.015 | 0.235 |
| SCW1 | 430 | 4.958 | 1.454 | −0.343 | 0.118 | −0.436 | 0.235 |
| SCW2 | 430 | 5.142 | 1.328 | −0.280 | 0.118 | −0.353 | 0.235 |
| SCW3 | 430 | 5.235 | 1.302 | −0.264 | 0.118 | −0.515 | 0.235 |
| SCW4 | 430 | 5.016 | 1.431 | −0.364 | 0.118 | −0.334 | 0.235 |
| EC1 | 430 | 5.216 | 1.201 | −0.180 | 0.118 | −0.346 | 0.235 |
| EC2 | 430 | 5.272 | 1.207 | −0.288 | 0.118 | −0.109 | 0.235 |
| EC3 | 430 | 5.193 | 1.278 | −0.332 | 0.118 | −0.315 | 0.235 |
| EC4 | 430 | 5.195 | 1.341 | −0.465 | 0.118 | −0.091 | 0.235 |
| RV1 | 430 | 5.200 | 1.284 | −0.391 | 0.118 | −0.161 | 0.235 |
| RV2 | 430 | 5.219 | 1.339 | −0.533 | 0.118 | 0.129 | 0.235 |
| RV3 | 430 | 5.205 | 1.288 | −0.347 | 0.118 | −0.287 | 0.235 |
| LS1 | 430 | 4.616 | 1.318 | −0.291 | 0.118 | −0.276 | 0.235 |
| LS2 | 430 | 4.721 | 1.330 | −0.302 | 0.118 | −0.226 | 0.235 |
| LS3 | 430 | 4.714 | 1.353 | −0.388 | 0.118 | −0.038 | 0.235 |
| LS4 | 430 | 4.451 | 1.434 | −0.202 | 0.118 | −0.536 | 0.235 |
| LS5 | 430 | 4.095 | 1.645 | −0.071 | 0.118 | −0.844 | 0.235 |
Convergent validity.
| Construct | Item | Std. | CR | Cronbach’s alpha | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Place dependence | PD1 | 0.904 | 0.936 | 0.935 | 0.745 |
| PD2 | 0.911 | ||||
| PD3 | 0.829 | ||||
| PD4 | 0.798 | ||||
| PD5 | 0.867 | ||||
| Place identity | PI1 | 0.847 | 0.917 | 0.917 | 0.613 |
| PI2 | 0.864 | ||||
| PI3 | 0.797 | ||||
| PI4 | 0.805 | ||||
| PI5 | 0.749 | ||||
| PI6 | 0.759 | ||||
| PI7 | 0.638 | ||||
| Economic benefits | EB1 | 0.827 | 0.944 | 0.943 | 0.809 |
| EB2 | 0.928 | ||||
| EB3 | 0.923 | ||||
| EB4 | 0.916 | ||||
| Social–cultural welfare | SCW1 | 0.878 | 0.942 | 0.941 | 0.804 |
| SCW2 | 0.916 | ||||
| SCW3 | 0.910 | ||||
| SCW4 | 0.881 | ||||
| Environment cost | EC1 | 0.878 | 0.939 | 0.938 | 0.795 |
| EC2 | 0.913 | ||||
| EC3 | 0.915 | ||||
| EC4 | 0.859 | ||||
| Resident–tourist value co-creation | RV1 | 0.895 | 0.936 | 0.936 | 0.830 |
| RV2 | 0.927 | ||||
| RV3 | 0.911 | ||||
| Life satisfaction | LS1 | 0.900 | 0.950 | 0.946 | 0.791 |
| LS2 | 0.929 | ||||
| LS3 | 0.920 | ||||
| LS4 | 0.891 | ||||
| LS5 | 0.800 | ||||
| Place attachment | Place identity | 0.792 | 0.772 | 0.804 | 0.628 |
| Place dependence | 0.793 |
Std, standardized factor loadings; CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.
Discriminant validity.
| AVE | EB | SCW | EC | RVC | LS | PLA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EB | 0.809 | 0.899 | |||||
| SCW | 0.804 | 0.730 | 0.897 | ||||
| EC | 0.795 | 0.367 | 0.485 | 0.892 | |||
| RVC | 0.830 | 0.668 | 0.756 | 0.558 | 0.911 | ||
| LS | 0.791 | 0.374 | 0.487 | 0.371 | 0.532 | 0.889 | |
| PLA | 0.628 | 0.544 | 0.565 | 0.541 | 0.594 | 0.756 | 0.792 |
EB, Economic benefits; SCW, Social-cultural welfare; EC, Environment cost; RVC, Resident-tourist value co-creation; LS, life Satisfaction; PLA, Place attachment.
Model fit.
| Model fit | Criteria | Model fit of the research model |
|---|---|---|
|
| The small the better | 649.334 |
| DF | The large the better | 455 |
| Normed Chi-sqr ( | 1 < | 1.427 |
| RMSEA | <0.08 | 0.032 |
| TLI (NNFI) | >0.9 | 0.985 |
| NFI | >0.9 | 0.956 |
| CFI | >0.9 | 0.986 |
| GFI | >0.9 | 0.956 |
| AGFI | >0.9 | 0.947 |
RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; NNFI, Non-Normed Fit Index; NFI, Normed Fit Index; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; GFI, Goodness of Fit; AGFI, Adjust Goodness of Fit.
Regression coefficient.
| Hypothesis | DV | IV | Unstd. | SE | Unstd./SE | Std. |
| Result | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | EB | PLA | 0.964 | 0.085 | 11.310 | 0.000 | 0.691 | 0.477 | Supported |
| H2 | EC | PLA | 0.732 | 0.071 | 10.321 | 0.000 | 0.602 | 0.362 | Supported |
| H3 | SCW | PLA | 1.084 | 0.089 | 12.176 | 0.000 | 0.742 | 0.551 | Supported |
| H4 | LS | EB | 0.054 | 0.052 | 1.046 | 0.295 | 0.056 | 0.293 | Not supported |
| H5 | EC | 0.206 | 0.057 | 3.607 | 0.000 | 0.185 | Supported | ||
| H6 | SCW | 0.370 | 0.052 | 7.122 | 0.000 | 0.398 | Supported | ||
| H7 | RVC | LS | 0.531 | 0.045 | 11.679 | 0.000 | 0.548 | 0.300 | Supported |
DV, Dependent Variable; IV, Independent Variable; Unstd., Unstandardized Regression Coefficient; SE, Standard Error; Std., Standardized Regression Coefficient; EB, Economic benefits; SCW, Social–cultural welfare; EC, Environment cost; RVC, Resident–tourist value co-creation; LS, Life Satisfaction; PLA, Place attachment.
Figure 3Statistical model analysis.
The analysis of indirect effects.
| Effect | Point estimate | Product of coefficients | Bootstrap 1,000 times | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bias-corrected 95% | ||||||
| SE | Lower bound | Upper bound | ||||
|
| ||||||
| PLA → EC | 0.732 | 0.113 | 6.478 | 0.002 | 0.534 | 0.968 |
|
| ||||||
| EC → LS | 0.206 | 0.072 | 2.901 | 0.002 | 0.077 | 0.355 |
| Indirect effects | ||||||
| PLA → EC → LS | 0.151 | 0.055 | 2.745 | 0.002 | 0.052 | 0.278 |
|
| ||||||
| PLA → SCW | 1.084 | 0.283 | 3.830 | 0.001 | 0.753 | 1.835 |
|
| ||||||
| SCW → LS | 0.370 | 0.092 | 4.022 | 0.002 | 0.534 | 0.968 |
|
| ||||||
| PLA → SCW → LS | 0.401 | 0.171 | 2.345 | 0.002 | 0.192 | 0.870 |
IV, Independent Variable; DV, Dependent Variable; EB, Economic benefits of tourism; SCW, Social–cultural benefits of tourism; EC, Perceived costs of tourism; RVC, Resident-tourist value co-creation; LS, life Satisfaction; PLA, Place attachment.