The Impact of Empowerment on Residents’ Willingness to Participate: The Mediating Effects of Place Attachment and Residents’ Support

Globally, tourism is one of the fastest growing service sectors. It can generate foreign exchange earnings, improve living standards, create direct and indirect jobs, and stimulate local economies [1]. Boley et al. [2] pointed out that even if the local residents are not engaged in tourism, the residents will be greatly impacted by the economic advantages of tourism. Therefore, tourism is helpful to local development. Currently, tourism is the main driver in encouraging regional development [3].

Residents' involvement is crucial to the growth of tourism [4], and it determines whether it succeeds or fails [5]. Communities are frequently referred to hosts, locals, inhabitants and indigenous peoples [6]. Residents in this study refer to a collection of individuals living within a certain boundary of a tourist area. Before implementing tourism development, it is vital to address local perspectives about tourism development, assess the will of locals and investigate how participation can be achieved [7]. In addition to this, there is a need for local participation capacity and industries where residents can be employed [8]. Residents' participation (RP) in tourism decision-making helps residents to play an active role in shaping the direction of tourism development together with other stakeholders [2, 9]. As Jones [10] and Lepp [11] argue, a necessity for the development of sustainable tourism (STD) is the participation of locals in tourism planning and development (TPAD). Tourist destinations without residents' participation and support struggle to attract tourists [12] and will intensify residents' opposition to tourism and unfriendly emotions and behaviors toward tourists [13]. This study supports the view that residents are the primary stakeholders in tourism destinations and play a crucial role. Residents' willingness to participate (RPW) has been widely concerned by the academic community. Many studies have examined the significance of RPW in tourism. In some areas, tourism development fails because residents' participation is not paid attention to. Therefore, it is very important to study residents' willingness to participate.

Kwon and Vogt [13] demonstrate that the empowerment of individuals to participate can lead to residents’ participation in tourism development. By empowering residents, residents can participate in and understand tourism affairs [14] to achieve STD [15, 16]. Furthermore, this relationship between place attachment and RP can be maintained [17]. Many places realize the importance of residents' empowerment, so in some developing countries or regions, empowerment as an important means of residents' participation has achieved good results. There are also some studies through the perspective of studying place attachment, obtaining the study of residents' behavior in the face of failure in tourism development, but still willing to pay participation. Other studies obtain participation intention by studying residents' support (RS) or taking residents' support as a dependent variable. In addition, residents' support for TPAD has been widely acknowledged as another factor that has been considered for residents' participation [18].

According to Boley and McGehee [9], the empowerment of residents is instrumental in the pursuit of STD objectives, and residents' participation helps to make better decisions. In contrast to the developed world, residents empowerment in tourism is less studied in developing countries [19]. Existing studies have verified the effects of empowerment or PA and RS separately, without considering the effects of PA and RS as mediating variables on RP. The objectives of this study are to take empowerment as an important prerequisite for RP in tourism planning and development (TPAD) and to consider the influence of place attachment and residents' supportive attitude on residents' participation [20].

3.1 Empowerment and place attachment

According to Strzelecka et al. [47], tourism development allows community members to unite and strengthen common social relationships. Tourism development projects help to increase the social interaction between residents and communities while adding to the place attachment [9]. Based on this, proposed hypotheses include the following:

H1a. Social empowerment is positively affecting place identity.

H1b. Economic empowerment is positively affecting place identity.

H2a. Social empowerment is positively affecting place dependence.

H2b. Economic empowerment is positively affecting place dependence.

3.2 Empowerment and residents’ support

Residents’ support for TPAD is strongly predicted by residents’ empowerment [58]. People are more inclined to support tourism growth when they think it helps with environmental preservation and community service [59]. Scheyvens [42] and Strzelecka et al. [47] highlighted how economic empowerment is a key indicator of RS for tourism. When residents are aware that tourism can improve household income, improve living standards and ensure the income of such economies, they are more inclined to encourage the growth of the travel industry [17, 60]. If economic returns are unequal, and in accordance with the SET, residents will feel unfair, and they will not support tourism [17]. Consequently, the subsequent hypotheses are put forth:

H3a. Social empowerment is positively affecting residents’ support.

H3b. Economic empowerment is positively affecting residents’ support.

3.3 Empowerment and residents’ willingness to participate

Cole [45] points out that in the context of determining how travel is developed, power precedes residents' active participation. It is noted that the people who have been empowered are more involved in tourism development [61]. Tukamushaba and Okech [62] demonstrated that the social empowerment of residents in tourism-related training and education is the most powerful predictor of their participation in TPAD [12]. According to Butler and Hinch [63], one of the motivations for locals to participate in tourism is economic benefits, like being a tour guide, manufacturer and service, providing accommodation and job opportunities. This further supports the necessity of residents to participate in the TPAD [64]. Based on this foundation, the subsequent hypothesis is put forward:

H4a. Social empowerment is positively affecting residents’ willingness to participate.

H4b. Economic empowerment is positively affecting residents’ willingness to participate.

3.4 Place attachment and residents’ willingness to participate

In rural areas, residents have different levels of attachment. Residents’ attachment has been linked to participation in tourism promotion [47]. In the resident study of tourism, place attachment and empowerment are 2 significant factors which are not related to economy. They are employed to elucidate the reasons why residents either support or oppose TPAD [2, 65]. Place attachment and residents’ willingness to participate have a strong relationship [66]. On this basis, the study proposes the following hypotheses:

H5a. Place identity is positively affecting residents' willingness to participate.

H5b. Place dependence is positively affecting residents' willingness to participate.

3.5 Residents’ support and residents’ willingness to participate

Participation is the result of the residents' support attitude, as well as the predictor of participation [67]. By participating, residents can clearly understand how tourism development affects their lives. With this in mind, the study proposes the following hypothesis:

H6. Residents’ support is positively affecting residents’ willingness to participate.

3.6 Mediating role of place attachment and residents’ support

As Joo et al. [68] advance, more variables are needed to connect residents' empowerment and residents to achieve STD. Place attachment is the important one [2, 65]. The mediating effect of resident support has been proved by several literature. The following hypothesis is proposed in light of the empirical findings and theoretical frameworks:

H7a. Place identity mediates the social empowerment and residents’ willingness to participate.

H7b. Place identity mediates the economic empowerment and residents’ willingness to participate (RPW).

H8a. Place identity mediates the social empowerment and RPW.

H8b. Place dependence mediates the economic empowerment and RPW.

H9a. Residents’ support mediates the social empowerment and RPW.

H9b. Residents’ support mediates the economic empowerment and RPW.

5.1 Demographic profile of the participants

After the data was organized, it was determined that 48.93% of the respondents were male and 51.07% were female, indicating a relatively balanced gender distribution, with slightly more females than males. The majority of respondents were concentrated in the 18–30 years old (38.19%) and 31–44 years old (31.55%) age groups, accounting for a total of 69.74%, suggesting that the study sample was primarily composed of young and middle-aged adults. The proportions of respondents aged 45–59 years (16.95%) and 60 years and above (6.92%) were relatively low, indicating that middle-aged and elderly groups were underrepresented. The under-18 group had the lowest proportion (6.44%), possibly due to lower participation from this demographic or the limited coverage of minors in the survey. 

Regarding residency, 98.81% of respondents were from Ganzhou, while a small percentage (1.19%) came from other areas of Jiangxi Province, with none from outside the province. This suggests that the sample mainly covered local residents of Ganzhou. Among them, 33.41% had lived in Ganzhou for 6–10 years, and 32.70% had lived in Ganzhou for more than 10 years, indicating that most respondents were long-term residents. 27.68% had lived in Ganzhou for 1–5 years, and 6.21% had lived there for less than one year, suggesting the presence of a certain proportion of new migrants. 

Regarding educational attainment, 30.07% of respondents held a bachelor’s degree, and 26.73% had junior college education, making up a combined 56.80%, demonstrating that most responders had a comparatively high degree of education. 19.57% had completed high school, while 12.17% had only junior high school or below, meaning that the group with lower education levels was relatively small. Additionally, 11.46% (n=48) held a master’s degree or higher, showing that highly educated individuals were a minority in the sample. 

Regarding occupation, 26.27% of respondents were enterprise and institution employees, making this the largest professional group. 15.99% were teaching and research personnel, suggesting that the study may involve a certain number of educators. 8.83% worked in government agencies, party organizations, or state-owned enterprises, indicating some participation from government-related individuals. Meanwhile, 9.55% were farmers, 17.9% were self-employed, 12.17% were freelancers, and 9.31% were students. 

In terms of income level, 5001–9999 yuan (31.03%) and 10,000-50,000 yuan (29.12%) were the dominant income groups, accounting for 60.15% in total, which suggests that most respondents belonged to the middle-to-upper income class. 2001-5000 yuan (22.2%) and below 2000 yuan (15.27%) together comprised 37.47%, indicating that a considerable proportion of respondents had lower income levels. Only 2.39% earned more than 50,000 yuan, making them a minority, which suggests that high-income individuals were underrepresented in the sample. Table 1 displays the demographic statistics in detail.

Table 1. Demographic profile (N=419)

5.2 Measurement model assessment

This study is considered reliable as the standardized factor loading is higher than 0.7. The AVE is greater than 0.5, and the variable converges is valid; both the α and CR values of each dimension are greater than 0.7. This means the internal consistency is better. The structure of this institute is consistent with internal consistency (see Table 2).

Table 2. Measure model

5.3 Discriminant validity

Fornell and Larcker [70] stipulate that the square root of the AVE must exceed the correlation within the structure, but the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT) should not surpass 0.85 [71, 72]. The findings indicated the data fulfilled two criteria (see Table 3).

Table 3. Criteria for discriminant validity

Note: The shade boxes are standard approach for reporting the heterotrait-monotrait ratio. The square root of AVE is presented in bolded font on the diagonal and the correlations between variables are given off the diagonal.

5.4 Results of hypotheses testing

After the validity and reliability of the measurement model are guaranteed, the next study will assess the significance level of the path coefficient [73]. The results concerning the hypotheses are presented in Table 4. Hypothesis 1(ab) posits that social empowerment (β=0.175; t=3.240; p=0.001) and economic empowerment (β=0.224; t=4.117; p=0.000) are positively affecting place identity, the results fully support this hypothesis. Hypothesis 2(ab) states that social empowerment (β=0.148; t=2.598; p=0.009) and economic empowerment (β=0.258; t= 4.974; p=0.000) positively correlates with place dependence, the results also support this hypothesis. Hypothesis 3(ab) states that social empowerment (β=0.208; t=4.667; p=0.000) and economic empowerment (β=0.404; t=8.705; p=0.000) are positively affecting residents’ support, this hypothesis also receives empirical support. The direct effect of social empowerment (β=-0.033; t=0.746; p=0.456) on residents' willingness and economic empowerment (β=0.052; t=1.163; p=0.245) on residents' willingness were found to be insignificant, rejecting H4a, H4b. the path coefficient from place identify Place dependence to residents' willingness to participate is positive and significant. Similarly, the effect of identity (β=0.010; t=0.20; p=0.836) on residents’ willingness to participate was not confirmed by the data, rejecting H5a. Hypothesis 5b posits that dependence is positively affecting residents’ support to participate, the results support this hypothesis (β=0.560; t=10.962; p=0.000). Hypothesis 6 states that residents’ support to residents’ willingness to participate is positive and significant (β=0.217; t=4.470; p=0.000).

The results (refer to Table 4) underscore the mediating influence of place attachment and the support of inhabitants. For an indirect effect (IE) to be deemed significant, the confidence interval (CI) must exclude zero [74]. Hypothesis 7(ab) proposes that place identity mediate the empowerment and residents’ willingness to participation, but the results include zero (indirect effect). The results were social empowerment (IE=0.002, LLCI =-0.017, and ULCI =0.020, p =0.844) and economic empowerment (IE= 0.002, LLCI = -0.020, and ULCI = 0.028, p =0.843). Thus, place identity does not mediate the relationship as proposed, and hypothesis 7ab is rejected. In contrast, Hypothesis 8(ab), which argues that place dependence mediate the empowerment and residents’ willingness to participation is supported, as the results do not include zero. The results were social empowerment (IE= 0.083, LLCI = 0.020, and ULCI = 0.150, p =0.013) and economic empowerment (IE= 0.144, LLCI = 0.084, and ULCI = 0.210, p =0.000). So Hypothesis 8(ab) is supported. Hypothesis 9(ab), which argues that residents’ support mediate the empowerment and residents’ willingness to participation is rejected, but the results include zero (IE = 0.045, LLCI = 0.047, and ULCI = 0.134, p =0.001) for social empowerment and (IE = 0.044, LLCI = 0.000, and ULCI = 0.089, p =0.000) for economic empowerment. Thus, residents’ support is not found to mediate this relationship.

Table 4. Path coefficients and significance

Notes: ***P<0.001 **P<0.01 *P<0.05

Furthermore, the PLS evaluation of the coefficient of determination for assessing model fit indicated R² = 0.113 for dependence, R² = 0.106 for identify, R² = 0.260 for support and R² = 0.487 for willingness. This means that 11.3% of place dependence can be explained by resident empowerment, 10.6% of place identity can be explained by resident empowerment; 26% of support can be explained by empowerment and 48.7% of willingness can be explained by empowerment, place attachment and residents’ support. The R² values demonstrated sufficient explanatory power [75] for the PLS measurement model regarding support for tourism development, as illustrated in Figure 2 [76]. The research model has some validity in explaining residents' support and participation intention, but its explanatory power for local dependence and identity is relatively low.

2.png

Figure 2. Conceptual framework and results

As reported in Table 4, the effect sizes of 0.031 and 0.050 for place identity, 0.022 and0.067 for place dependence, 0.052 for resident’s support represent a weak effect, the effect sizes of residents’ economic empowerment for resident’s support and resident’s support for willingness represent a large effect. In accordance with the Cohen convention for assessing the intensity of effects, 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 are the critical thresholds for mild, moderate, and strong effects, respectively, according to the convention. Although the results suggest a weak effect, this does not negate the importance of the interaction, as scholars have contended that weak effects are not equivalent to inconsequential effects [73]. Table 5 presents the findings about the model's predictive relevance. Scholars in hospitality literature advocate for the utilization of PLS-Predict as a reliable assessment of a suggested model's predictive capacity. This work incorporates a construct-level PLS-Predict analysis utilizing a 10-fold approach in accordance with this guideline. In this procedure, a model with strong predictive relevance will have Q² values greater than zero and the item-level error of the partial-least squares (PLS) model will be lower than that of the LM model. Since the Q2 value of latent variable (willingness= 0.097>0) and the indicators error in the LM model is greater than in PLS model, it is concluded that the model has strong predictive relevance [48].

Table 5. PLS predict

This study deepens further exploration in the area of TPAD in intangible cultural heritage sites. Specifically, this paper explores the mechanisms by which resident empowerment influences residents' willingness to participate through place attachment and resident support, where the research hypotheses are supported from empowerment theory and social exchange theory.

7.1 Theoretical implications

This study verified the relationship between social and economic empowerment and RPW under the influence of resident support and place attachment. Rarely have these two factors been studied in a model as mediating variables at the same time in the past. This study further reveals how empowerment affects residents' willingness to participate through place attachment and resident support, deepening the application of empowerment theory within the domain of tourism planning. The finding contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of how empowerment indirectly shapes residents' participatory behavior and enriches the application of SET. Residents' willingness to participate appeared to be unaffected by social empowerment and economic empowerment. The study found that does not have a substantial direct impact on, but works through the mediating variable of resident support. This further supports the SET, which suggests that after perceiving empowerment, locals will give back to society by supporting tourism development, which will eventually translate into actual participation behavior.

7.2 Managerial implications

The findings of the study offer the following practical recommendations for TPAD in intangible cultural heritage sites:

The study shows that social empowerment and economic empowerment can significantly enhance residents' sense of place attachment and supportive attitude towards TPAD. Therefore, the government can encourage residents to involve in tourism decision-making, enabling them to feel empowered, improve fairness in the distribution of tourism benefits, and enhance residents' social recognition in order to increase their sense of belonging and support and build up the cohesion of the residents [48].

The study found that there was no evidence that empowerment has an influence on RPW, and it suggests that empowerment alone does not automatically motivate residents to participate in tourism development. There is another possibility that residents are reluctant to spend extra leisure time on TPAD activities. Therefore, managers need to further explore how to enhance the actual impact of empowerment. For example, empowerment can be combined with incentives, such as the formulating incentive policies and the providing training on participation in tourism management, to ensure that empowerment can be translated into active participation by residents. Our findings reflect those of previous studies [86]. The government's failure to attract residents' participation through effective empowerment may also lead to residents' rejection of TPAD. As a result, the protection of intangible cultural heritage cannot be effectively achieved. As Joo et al. [68] point out, our work does not consider how empowerment plays a role in residents' participation in tourism. And residents who perceive inequality and see themselves as powerless over tourism development may not feel empowered or interested in participating. Therefore, making residents perceive being empowered as a prerequisite for participating in tourism is a further research direction [12, 18, 24].

It is found that place dependence promotes residents' willingness to participate more than place identity. Therefore, in tourism planning, managers should focus on enhancing residents' economic and life dependence on the tourism, for example, through tourism-driven employment, upgrading local infrastructure, and strengthening community cultural identity, to enhance residents' emotional and economic dependence on the area in order to further promote their participation in tourism development.

Resident support plays a fully intermediary role between empowerment and willingness to participate, which suggests that empowerment alone is not enough to directly promote residents' participation, and that managers need to establish a reasonable communication mechanism to ensure that residents receive stable benefits and eliminate potential dissatisfaction in the process of TPAD. For example, through the transparent distribution of tourism revenue, the establishment of feedback channels for residents' demands, and the promotion of RS for TPAD can be further increased through the enhancement of mutual trust between the government and residents.

These findings are consistent with that of previous study [12]. The government can consider giving voice as a good form of empowerment to better promote greater participation of local residents [12]. Therefore, governments must create an enabling platform for residents' opinions to be respected, as these decisions directly or indirectly affect local people [12]. Once residents perceive that they have been endowed with social and economic power, they will consider that their social well-being has been enhanced and community attachment has developed, thereby supporting tourism development. When residents realize the power they can obtain, they will participate more actively in TPAD to improve their lives [48].

7.3 Limitations and future study

Although this study explored the mechanism of residents' empowerment on RPW under the framework of empowerment theory and social exchange theory, and revealed the mediating roles of place attachment and residents' support, the following limitations still exist, which provide a direction of improvement for future research:

This study was only collected in the old town of Ganzhou City, and the sample is slightly under-representative and has some geographical limitations. In some regions with higher economic development levels and stronger residents' social capital, psychological empowerment or political empowerment may be more capable of stimulating residents' participation intentions than economic empowerment. Future research can further explore the relationship between empowerment and participation intentions in different socio-economic contexts to verify the external validity of this study. The data of this research are sourced from Ganzhou City, Jiangxi Province, which has a unique Hakka cultural background. The relationship between residents' empowerment and tourism participation in this area may be influenced by the local culture and socio-economic environment. It may affect the external applicability of the research conclusions. Therefore, the applicability of the conclusions of this study in other intangible cultural heritage tourism destinations still needs to be further verified. Especially in regions with a higher level of social economic development or more mature tourism industries, residents' perception of empowerment and participation behaviors may vary. Moreover, the Ganzhou Municipal Government has played a strong leading role in the development of intangible cultural heritage tourism. In community-led or market-driven tourism development models, the mechanism of empowerment may be different.

Tourism research on gender is still lacking representation, although it is relevant to tourism sustainability [87]. Boley et al. [88] confirmed women’s participate in tourism is critical for ICH. In the long run, tourism and preservation of ICH will face great challenges if women are not empowered and fully participate in TPAD [84]. There is evidence that place attachment is influenced by the duration of residence [89, 90], long-term residents will show stronger place attachment than short-term residents, and the positive or negative impact of tourism will have a stronger impact on them [47]. The effects of female empowerment on willingness will be explored in the future, as well as the effects of age and length of time. Both place attachment and residents’ support alone can explain residents' attitudes toward tourism, but their simultaneous use as mediating variables is not yet well studied. Future will see a more in-depth exploration of their relationship.

This study verified the discriminant validity of the measurement model through HTMT and Fornell-Larcker criteria, indicating that the constructs are mutually independent. However, the study did not compare different theoretical models, such as the direct effect model or the partial mediation model. Therefore, future research can further verify how empowerment affects residents' willingness to participate through alternative model comparison to enhance the robustness of the research conclusion.