Life satisfaction and support for tourism development

Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 84–97 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Annals of Tourism Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures Life satisfaction and support for tourism development Eunju Woo, Hyelin Kim ⇑, Muzaffer Uysal Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, United States a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 11 November 2013 Revised 13 August 2014 Accepted 3 November 2014 Coordinating Editor: Huimin Gu Keywords: Perceived value of tourism development Non-material/material life domain satisfaction Overall quality of life Support for further tourism development a b s t r a c t The purpose of this study is to better understand local residents’ support for tourism development by exploring residents’ perceived value of tourism development, life domain satisfaction (material/ non-material), and overall quality of life in their community. The study provides the theoretical and empirical evidence of the relationships among those constructs. Using a sample of residents from five different tourism destinations, the results of a structural equation modeling approach indicated that residents’ perceived value of tourism development positively affects non-material and material life domain satisfaction; thereby, it contributes to overall quality of life. Finally, overall quality of life is an effective predictor of support for further tourism development. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction Tourism development and its connection to the improvement of residents’ Quality of Life (QoL) has been gaining a great amount of attention over the past few years. It is also accepted that the long-term success of tourism development is likely to be achieved when the local residents’ views are considered and taken into account in the development process (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011). Therefore, tourism development and management are being integrated with community planning and development. Understanding tourism development from the local resident standpoint will deepen our understanding of both the long-term success and sustainability of tourist destinations. ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 540 8385274. E-mail addresses: eunjuw3@vt.edu (E. Woo), linakim@vt.edu (H. Kim), samil@vt.edu (M. Uysal). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.11.001 0160-7383/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. E. Woo et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 84–97 85 Social exchange theory from the perspective of tourism development suggests that residents’ evaluation of the outcomes of tourism development in their community affects their sense of well-being and support for tourism development (e.g., Andereck, Valentine, Knopf, & Vogt, 2005; Ap, 1992; Perdue, Long, & Allen, 1990). Residents appear to consider the personal benefits and cost when evaluating an exchange (Ap, 1992). A number of studies found that residents are more likely to support tourism and participate in tourism activities when they perceived a positive benefit-cost ratio (e.g., Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004). Residents’ attitudes towards tourism, their level of support for tourism development, and their perceived QoL can vary depending on the nature of evaluation. Accordingly, the scholarly tourism development literature is filled with studies that have examined predictors of tourism attitudes, community attachment, community life satisfaction, and quality of life by using such indicators as economic gain, personal growth (e.g., employment), and length of stay in tourism destinations (e.g., Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Jurowski, Uysal, & Williams, 1997; McGehee & Andereck, 2004). While such economic benefit domains are widely discussed in previous studies, there is limited, if any, research on residents’ perceived value of tourism development as a predictor of community life satisfaction, quality of life, and support for further tourism development. Since the value of tourism has changed over the years, moving away from the economic value of tourism toward a more of abstract value of tourism, it is also important to look at the perceived value of tourism development within the context of improving the quality of life, or well-being, of community residents. In recent years, perceived value has become a topic of broad discussion, and it has been acknowledged, particularly in marketing research, as a key construct that facilitates the understanding of customer behavior (e.g., Nilson, 1992; Prebensen, Woo, Chen, & Uysal, 2013). According to Prebensen et al. (2013), perceived value can be defined as ‘‘the process, by which a tourist receives, selects, organizes, and interprets information based on the various experiences at the destination, to create a meaningful picture of the value of destination experience’’ (p. 254). A theoretical framework of perceived value developed by Sheth, Newman, and Gross (1991) suggests that emotional, social, economic value, and quality need to be examined to determine the perceived value of the service/ product experience; because in combination, they perform better compared to a single value item, such as economic benefit (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). This study expands upon social exchange theory through its application of the perceived value concept to assess tourism development from the resident perspective. This study applies the perceived value concept to assess tourism development from the resident perspective, thereby expanding upon social exchange theory. Emerson (1976) made the case that an exchange approach can be seen from the perspective of noneconomic social situation and intangible values. In addition, a number of studies supported that residents consider intangible value derived, for example, from community well-being, place attachment, and personal benefit as an important aspect of tourism development (Lee, 2013). However, only a few studies exist that deal with noneconomic value domains when evaluating the benefit of tourism development (e.g. Allen, Long, & Perdue, 1991; Andrews & McKennell, 1980). Therefore, this study is designed to investigate the effects of residents’ perceived value of tourism development and its influence on both their quality of life and their support for further tourism development. While existing studies measured residents’ quality of life in terms of overall community life satisfaction, satisfaction with service, and overall life satisfaction (e.g. Ko and Stewart (2002), Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011), residents’ satisfaction with specific life domains such as material, emotional, and health/safety has not received much attention. Kim, Uysal, and Sirgy (2012) argued that life domain satisfaction—including community well-being, material well-being, health and safety wellbeing, and emotional well-being—is the important life domain for enhancing local residents’ overall quality of life. Therefore, this study examines the perceived value of tourism development and its relation to satisfaction with specific life domains and overall quality of life. Furthermore, this line of research attempts to connect support for tourism and perceived value of development to the quality of life of stakeholders in a given destination. Specifically, we expect that the perceived value of tourism development affects material and non-material life domain satisfaction which in turn contributes to overall quality of life and support for further tourism development (Fig. 1). This paper departs from the existing line of work in three significant ways. First, to date, the issue of the perceived value from residents’ perspectives has not been explicitly examined in the relevant literature. In response to that shortcoming, this study focuses on the residents’ perceived value of 86 E. Woo et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 84–97 Fig. 1. General Conceptual Model of the Study. tourism development and its influences. Second, this study investigates residents’ quality of life from the perspective of satisfaction with specific life domains including material and non-material life (community, emotional, and health/safety life) as a determinant of overall quality of life and support for further tourism development. Finally, residents’ quality of life is usually measured as a final outcome in existing tourism literature (e.g., Kim et al., 2012; Perdue, Long, & Kang, 1999); however, this study considers the construct of quality of life as an antecedent of support for further tourism development. Literature review Perceived value of tourism development Perceived value has often been used to interpret and understand customer behavior, but in recent years has become an issue discussed in various academic circles (e.g., Nilson, 1992; Ostrom & Iacobucci, 1995). Perceived value can be viewed as a ‘‘consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product based on perception of what is received and what is given’’ (Zeithaml, 1988, p. 4). Bolton and Drew (1991) argue that perceived value is regarded as customers’ overall evaluation of a service representing the association among the cognitive elements of perceived quality, perceived monetary sacrifice, and behavioral attitudes. Perceived value is useful in countering the weaknesses of traditional methods of measuring value, in particular the excessive focus on economic benefit (Zeithaml, 1988). To measure perceived value, recent studies utilized an overall assessment and multidimensional construct of the conception of perceived value (e.g., de Ruyter, Wetzels, Lemmink, & Mattson, 1997; Gallarza & Gil Saura, 2006; Rust, Zeithaml, & Lemmon, 2001; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001; Woodruff, 1997). For instance, Duman and Mattila (2005) found that affective factors—including social value, sense of well-being value, and functional value—were related to cruise vacationers’ value perception. Petrick (2003) showed that quality, emotional value, monetary price, behavioral price, and reputation are significantly related to perceived value. In the tourism literature, the importance of perceived value can be examined from two different perspectives: (1) tourists’ perceived value of their trip experience (2) residents’ perceived value of tourism development. A number of studies have examined how tourists’ perceived trip experience affects positive outcome variables such as satisfaction and behavior intention (e.g., Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000; Parasuraman & Grewal, 2000; Woodruff, 1997). In particular, Chen and Chen (2010) analyzed the effects of experience quality and value perception on satisfaction and behavioral intention. The study discussed how the consumer decision-making process for service products is best modeled as a complex system in which consumer value perception affects satisfaction and intention through satisfaction. Moreover, a number of studies found that tourists’ perceived value of trip experience plays a significant role in understanding the tourist behavior. Prebensen et al. (2013) found that tourist motivation and involvement are closely related to perceived value of destination experience. Regarding resident perspective, most of the previous tourism development studies have examined residents’ attitudes and perceptions because these are likely to be an important planning and policy consideration for the successful development, marketing, and operations of existing and future tourism programs (Haywood, 1975). In order to measure residents’ perception and attitudes, many studies E. Woo et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 84–97 87 have considered objective indicators including economic benefits indicated by employment opportunity, personal income, and standard of living (e.g., Ko & Stewart, 2002; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Snepenger, O’Connell, & Snepenger, 2001). According to the tenets of social exchange theory, residents who perceive higher economic gains or personal benefits in their community compared to the costs are more likely to have a positive attitude about tourism activities (e.g., Jurowski et al., 1997; Lankford & Howard, 1994). For example, Lindberg and Johnson (1997) indicated that residents who consider economic development important held more positive attitudes towards tourism development. In a different study by Ko and Stewart (2002), personal benefits, including personal and family job opportunity were closely linked to satisfaction with community. Along with those economic benefits, Wang and Pfister (2008) made the case that noneconomic value domains are also significant and influence attitudes towards tourism. The exchange approach can be viewed in terms of social interaction and intangible benefits (Emerson, 1976; Homans, 1961). Wang and Pfister (2008) argued that noneconomic value domains cannot be overlooked even in exchange that is strictly based on economic activity. For instance, social aspects, aesthetic components, community pride, and other intangible components need to be included when exchange processes are evaluated. In different studies by Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2011) and Yu, Chancellor, and Cole (2011), the researchers argued for the importance of understanding noneconomic value domains of tourism development. Since the conceptualization of perceived value captures multidimensional measures—including economic value, as well as noneconomic value such as functional, social, and epistemic value—understanding residents’ perceived value of tourism development helps better predict their behavior towards tourism development and their level of support for the development. Moreover, perceived value demonstrates residents’ overall assessment of tourism development based on the perception of what is received and what is given. However, empirical research on understanding residents’ perceived value of tourism development is limited. Therefore, the present study addresses the residents’ perceived value of tourism development as a predictor of satisfaction with various life domains, overall life satisfaction, and support for further tourism development. Quality of Life (QoL) Many researchers have debated the meaning of QoL since the 1960s. Defining QoL is difficult because it is clearly problematic to differentiate between such terms as ‘‘well-being,’’ ‘‘welfare,’’ and ‘‘happiness’’ (Puczkó & Smith, 2011). Andereck and Nyaupane (2011) also highlighted that there are more than 100 definitions for QoL. QoL is defined using either a uni-dimensional perspective or a multidimensional perspective. A unidimensional perspective uses a single-item survey question to define QoL. Andrews and Withey (1976), for instance, defined QoL using a single question such as, ‘‘how do you feel about your life as a whole?’’ From a multidimensional perspective, overall life satisfaction is functionally related to satisfaction within a number of an individual’s life domains (Lee & Sirgy, 1995). In other words, QoL is an umbrella concept that refers to all aspects of a person’s life including physical health, psychological well-being, and social well-being (Dolnicar, Lazarevski, & Yanamandram, 2012). For instance, Meeberg (1993, p. 37) defined QoL as ‘‘a feeling of overall life satisfaction, as determined by the mentally alert individual whose life is being evaluated.’’ Different methods that utilize different levels of units, different levels of space (global or specific domains), and different indicators (subjective, objective/ reflective, or formative) can be used to measure the quality of life construct (Sirgy, 2001). Sirgy (2001) posited that many QoL measures are domain-specific even though they tend to measure global QoL. Bottom-up spillover theory can explain this domain specific concept of QoL (e.g., Diener, 2009; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985; Sirgy & Lee, 2006). The fundamental concept of this theory is that satisfaction with all of life’s subdomains— such as social life, material well-being, leisure life, work life, and the like—influence life satisfaction (Sirgy & Lee, 2006). This implies that quality of life can be placed at the top of a satisfaction hierarchy that is influenced by a number of life domains’ satisfaction. In order to measure residents’ quality of life, various life domains have been used (e.g., Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Kruger, 2012). For example, Andereck and Nyaupane (2011) used eight different life domains to measure residents’ quality of life: community well-being, way of life, community pride and awareness, urban issues, economic 88 E. Woo et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 84–97 strength, natural/cultural preservation, crime and substance abuse, and recreation amenities. Similarly, in order to measure local residents’ quality of life, Kim et al. (2012) developed four different life domains, including community well-being, material well-being, health and safety well-being, and emotional well-being. Their study found that four life domains positively influence overall QoL. Based on previous research, this study selected four essential life domains: material, community, emotional, and health/safety life domains (Kim et al., 2012; Puczkó & Smith, 2011). Moreover, these four life domains are categorized into two main domain dimensions: material life and non-material life. Material life domain is related to financial, economic, and consumer well-being (Cummins, 1996; Sirgy, 2002). Cummins (1996) stated that material life is viewed as one’s economic situation, living situation, income, standard of living, housing, and socio-economic status. Flanagan (1978) stressed that 83% of the respondents in his study regarded the material well-being domains as important. In this study, non-material life domain includes community, emotional, and health/safety life domains. Community life domain is closely associated with people in the community, life, public space, facilities, and services (Puczkó & Smith, 2011). According to national surveys in European Union countries, satisfaction with community is a substantial predictor of life satisfaction (Davis & FineDavis, 1991). Policy makers are increasingly interested in the effects of regional, community, and neighborhood development through both objective and subjective indicators of community QoL. Emotional life domain can be seen in terms of spiritual well-being and free time (Puczkó & Smith, 2011). Spiritual well-being is conceived of as devotion to a deity or particular life philosophy (Sirgy, 2002). It incorporates the fulfillment of spiritual needs as well as those activities related to their fulfillment. The association between spiritual well-being and overall subjective well-being (Sirgy, 2002) is supported by a noteworthy number of studies. Lastly, the health life domain is one of the more important issues related to quality of life. A number of studies have shown that emotional states regarding one’s health condition spill over to overall life satisfaction, because of the importance of personal health in one’s evaluation of life (e.g., Andrews & Withey, 1976). Rahtz, Sirgy, and Meadow (1989) studied how personal health impacts the relationship between community healthcare satisfaction and life satisfaction. The researchers found a positive correlation between community healthcare satisfaction and life satisfaction when personal health is perceived as poor. Consistent with the bottom-up spill-over theory, the study assumes that the satisfaction with nonmaterial and material life domain will affect overall quality of life. Perceived value of development and its relation to the QoL and support for further tourism development Previous QoL studies have investigated how tourism development influences residents’ QoL (e.g., Allen, Hafer, Long, & Perdue, 1993; Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Kim et al., 2012; Perdue et al., 1999). Perdue et al. (1999), for instance, explored the impact of gaming tourism on residents’ quality of life in different host communities. The results showed that residents’ QoL is expected to initially decline and then improve with community and resident adaptation to the new situation. Kim (2002) conducted one of the first studies that investigated the relationship between tourism impacts and quality of life. The results showed that residents’ perception of tourism impacts influences their well-being in various life domains (material, emotional, community and health and safety well-being) which in turn affects overall QoL. The interest in the relationship between tourism development and its contribution to overall satisfaction with community life has been growing (e.g., Allen, Long, Perdue, & Kieselbach, 1988; Ko & Stewart, 2002). Ko and Stewart (2002) found that personal benefits from tourism development relate to community life domain satisfaction. Similarly, Andereck and Nyaupane (2011) showed that higher levels of quality of life can result from the development of tourism products. For example, residents have more opportunities to enjoy festivals, restaurants, and attractions due to tourism development. In order to measure QoL, this study measured satisfaction with 8 life domains: community well-being, 57 urban issues, way of life, community pride and awareness, natural/cultural preservation, economic strength, recreation amenities, and crime and substance abuse. The results showed that satisfaction with life domains influences overall life satisfaction. Extending this logic to our context, the perceived value of tourism development is expected to influence the residents’ satisfaction with material/non-material life domains and overall QoL. E. Woo et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 84–97 89 The previous studies measured residents’ quality of life in terms of overall community life satisfaction (Ko & Stewart, 2002), such as satisfaction with community service, condition, and commitment (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011) as well as satisfaction with community characteristics (Perdue et al., 1999). However, the satisfaction with specific life domains including material, health/safety, community, and emotional domains has seldom been addressed in the existing literature. Thus, one of the purposes of this study is to address this gap in our understanding of both the perceived value of tourism development and satisfaction with specific life domains (material, health/safety, community, emotional domains) and their association with overall quality of life. A review of previous research suggests strong interrelationships among perceived value of tourism development, life domain satisfaction, and overall quality of life. Therefore, the study states the following hypotheses: H1. The perceived value of tourism development is likely to have a predictable effect on non-material life domain satisfaction. H2. The perceived value of tourism development is likely to have a predictable effect on material life domain satisfaction. H3. Non-material life domain satisfaction is likely to have a predictable effect on overall quality of life. H4. Material life domain satisfaction is likely to have a predictable effect on overall quality of life. Most of the previous studies have considered QoL as the primary outcome variable; however, residents’ overall quality of life also can affect their attitude regarding further tourism development. A number of studies suggested the possible impact of QoL on tourism development, but there is no empirically tested result (e.g., Ap, 1992; King, Pizam, & Milman, 1993; Andereck, Valentine, Vogt, & Knopf, 2007; Croes, 2012, Uysal, Perdue, & Sirgy, 2012a). Croes (2012) discussed the potential bilateral relation between tourism development and quality of life focusing on Nicaragua and Costa Rica. The study found a stable mutual relation between tourism development and quality of life for Nicaragua. Uysal et al. (2012a) suggested an integrated model reflective of the current and future research in the effect of tourism development on the QoL of residents. The model postulates that host community residents perceive that their community living conditions, as impacted by tourism development, would affect satisfaction in various life domains, which cumulatively would affect residents’ overall community well-being. Moreover, they also mentioned that if the development of tourism results in a lower QoL, residents may be reluctant to support further tourism development in their community. Therefore, the second purpose of this study is to examine the effect of QoL on residents’ support for further tourism development. Therefore, the study states the following hypothesis: H5. Overall quality of life affects support for further tourism development. Methodology Study sites and sample A number of previous studies have found that depending on the level of tourism development, residents have different perceptions and attitudes regarding tourism impacts (e.g., Allen et al., 1993; Butler, 1980; Kim et al., 2012; Uysal, Woo, & Singal, 2012b). Such models as the Irridex Model, Tourism Area Lifecycle Model, Attitudinal Model, and Adjustment Model (e.g., Douglas, 1997; Doxey, 1976; Gartner, 1996; Uysal et al., 2012) are all used as responses to structural changes to destinations. Although we assume that depending on the level of destination development phases, responses from residents or different stakeholders would show variation, not many studies have empirically controlled development levels with the exception of a few limited studies to date (e.g., Kim et al., 2012; Toh, Khan, & Koh, 2001). In most cases, studies have attempted to generate data from places 90 E. Woo et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 84–97 and then, based on the characteristics of tourism development stage (e.g., Haywood, 1986; Kim et al., 2012; Plog, 2001; Toh et al., 2001), the researchers assessed the level of tourism development stages such as infancy phase, introductory phase, growth phase, maturity or decline phase. The destinations were selected based on its level of tourism development (the number of visitors, economic significance in destinations, and status as established destinations for a given market). Thus, the study has ascertained the nature of tourism development and controlled for it. The study selected communities and destinations with a large number of tourists, signaling that these communities are in the mature stage of tourism development. The following statistics show these points. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 86 million visitors came to New York in 2010—the greatest number in the United States, followed by Florida (58 million), Nevada (25 million), and Hawaii (21 million). Even within the same state, each city or county has a different level of tourism development and attracts a different number of tourists. For instance, 97% of New York tourists visited New York City, and 96% of Nevada visitors came to Las Vegas. Thus, specific cities (i.e., New York City, Las Vegas, and Orlando) were selected as study sites. However, for Hawaii and Virginia, the entire states were considered as study sites because, compared to other study sites, Hawaii has a small number of residents and all of the Hawaiian islands are considered to be a popular tourism destination. Virginia is a historical tourism destination, and most tourism attractions are located in many different places. Therefore, the entire state of Virginia was considered as a study site. For the pre-test, data was collected among these selected five sites from residents who live in NYC, and for the main test data was collected from the remaining four sites (Orlando, Hawaii, Las Vegas, and Virginia). A pre-test was conducted to test the validity of scale items that were modified from previous studies. The results of exploratory factor analyses and reliability coefficients showed that all of the dimensions presented uni-dimension and a satisfactory score of .7 and higher. Therefore, all items used to measure the main constructs were considered to be reliable and valid. Data collection The current study used a commercial online market research company (www.surveymonkey.com) to distribute the questionnaire to potential respondents. The company has a panel membership of more than two million members in the United States and other countries (e.g., Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and Australia). The company’s panel consists of a diverse group of people that is reflective of the American population. After the researchers created the survey, the Survey Monkey sent emails to targeted demographic groups. Potential panels participated in the online survey through the company’s website. The survey was administered in the winter of 2012, and 407 usable questionnaires of which were subjected to data analysis. Of the 407 respondents, 227 (55.8%) were female while 180 (44.2%) were male (Table 1). Among the 407 respondents, 92 respondents live in Virginia, 79 in Hawaii, 109 in Las Vegas, and 127 in Orlando. In terms of ethnicity, the majority of the survey participants were Caucasian (71.3%), followed by Hispanic (5.7%), African-American (6.1%), Asian (10.6%), and others (6.4%). Survey respondents additionally were asked their age in an open-ended question format. Most of the respondents were 45 years or older (63.3%) while around 18% of the respondents were between the ages of 35– 44. The average age of the respondents was 49 years old. Measurement scales The five main constructs in this study were operationalized using scales found in existing literature. In order to measure the perceived value of tourism development, this study developed 6 items from a review of the related literature for the current study (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001; Williams & Soutar, 2009). Three indicators (overall material life, financial situation, and standard of living) were used to measure material life satisfaction (Kim, 2002) with a scale ranging from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ (1) to ‘‘strongly agree’’ (5). Examples of inquiry items include: ‘‘I am satisfied with my material life,’’ and ‘‘I am satisfied with my standard of living.’’ 91 E. Woo et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 84–97 Table 1 Description of the Respondents (N = 407). Variables Frequency Percentage (%) Gender Male Female 227 180 55.8 44.2 Residency (n = 407) Virginia Hawaii Las-Vegas, Nevada Orlando, Florida 92 79 109 127 22.6 19.4 26.8 31.2 Ethnicity (n = 407) Caucasian Hispanic African-American Asian Other 290 23 25 43 26 71.3 5.7 6.1 10.6 6.4 Age 18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65 or more 22 55 72 92 103 63 5.4 13.5 17.7 22.6 25.3 15.5 In order to measure non-material life satisfaction, three different sub-domains (community life, emotional life, and health/safety life) were used, and each sub-domain was measured with specific indicators (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Cummins, 1996; Kim, 2002). All of the indicators were measured on a 5-point Likert scale with classification of ‘‘strongly disagree’’ and ‘‘strongly agree.’’ Three items were applied to investigate the community life domains of overall community life; community amenities, services, and conditions; and neighborhood in the community. Emotional life domain can be explained by leisure well-being and spiritual well-being; thus, the emotional life domain was measured by three leisure life indicators and three spiritual life indicators (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Cummins, 1996; Kim, 2002; Sirgy, 2001, 2002). The health and safety life domain consists of both health and safety states of well-being. Three items were used to measure health well-being, and additionally three safety life domain indicators were used. The sub-domain of safety is intended to be inclusive of such indicators as security, privacy, and residence stability (Cummins, 1996). Table 2 Correlation between construct. Perceived value of tourism development Perceived value of tourism development Material well-being domain Non-Material wellbeing domain Overall QoL Support for further tourism development Note: ⁄⁄ p < .001. Material wellbeing domain Non-Material well-being domain Overall QoL Support for further tourism development 1 .160⁄⁄ 1 1 .241⁄⁄ 1 .378 ⁄⁄ .739⁄⁄ 1 .248⁄⁄ .865⁄⁄ .704⁄⁄ .169⁄⁄ .758⁄⁄ .265⁄⁄ 92 E. Woo et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 84–97 Overall quality of life was measured with 6 items (Diener et al., 1985; Sirgy, 2002) adjusted to the empirical study, i.e.: ‘‘I am satisfied with my life as a whole,’’ ‘‘The conditions of my life are excellent,’’ ‘‘In most ways my life is close to ideal,’’ ‘‘So far I have gotten the important things I want in life,’’ ‘‘If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing,’’ and ‘‘In general, I am a happy person.’’ Three questions were asked to measure residents’ support for further tourism development. Residents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statements related to their support for further tourism development (Allen et al., 1993; Carmichael, Peppard, & Boudreau, 1996). Table 2 shows the correlation coefficient between those five constructs. The results clearly indicate a positive relationship between perceived value of tourism development, satisfaction with material life domain, non-material life domain, overall quality of life, and support for further tourism development. Results The Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) procedure was performed to test the relationships between the five constructs in the proposed model. One exogenous variable (perceived value of tourism development) and 4 endogenous variables (non-material life satisfaction, material life satisfaction, overall life satisfaction, and support for further tourism development) were tested to determine how well the proposed model fitted the data. AMOS structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed with the Maximum Likelihood (ML) method of parameter estimation. The assumptions of the analysis Table 3 Overall CFA for the measurement model (N = 407). Construct and indicators Completely standardized loading Perceived value of TD Overall, tourism development is of importance to economic well-being in your community Tourism development is a good cause Tourism is worthy of strategic importance in tourism planning Tourism helps increase cohesion in your community Tourism development generates a sense of pride in your community Non-material life domain Satisfaction Health life Emotional life Community life Material life domain Satisfaction Material life Financial situation Standard of living Overall QOL The conditions of my life are excellent So far I have gotten the important things I want in life I am satisfied with my life as a whole Support for further TD Do you perceive the overall impact of tourism development in your community positively? Would you support tourism development in your community Further tourism development would positively affect my community’s quality of life Note: ⁄Composite reliability, ⁄⁄ .76 t-value _ R2 Error variance .91⁄ .58 .69⁄⁄ .42 .90 .91 19.49 19.70 .81 .83 .19 .17 .87 18.75 .76 .24 .66 13.62 .44 .86 .84 .77 _ 21.02 18.27 .81 .85 .87 _ 19.29 19.68 .90 .79 _ 19.32 .71 16.41 .67 _ .56 ⁄ .86 .73 .71 .60 .88⁄ .66 .73 .76 .84⁄ .81 .62 .68⁄⁄ .27 .29 .40 .72⁄⁄ .34 .27 .24 .64⁄⁄ .19 .38 .50 .81⁄ .45 .50 .60⁄⁄ .55 .87 13.50 .76 .24 .76 12.86 .58 .42 Average variance extracted (AVE) estimate. 93 E. Woo et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 84–97 were thoroughly checked before running the main analyses. First, the collected usable sample was quite large (n = 407), the scales of observed indicators were continuous variables, no significant outlier and missing values were detected, and the normal distribution of the observed variables was met according to the results of skewness and kurtosis analyses. Measurement model Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of the measurement model was tested before examining relationships between constructs in an a priori specified model. First, a separate confirmatory factor analysis was performed for each construct with indicators to confirm the unidimensionality of each contract. Then, the overall measurement model fit with the total of 5 constructs and 21 indicators (6 perceived value of TD; 3 material life domain satisfaction; 3 non-material life domain satisfaction; 6 overall quality of life; and 3 support for further TD) was examined. The indicators of the subdimension were summated and used as individually observed variables to test the construct of the non-material life satisfaction. In this sense, non-material life satisfaction was measured with three indicators: community life, emotional life, and health/safety life satisfaction. Among the 21 observed indicators, 4 variables were deleted based on the modification indices, standardized loadings, and error variance. The variables with low contributions to the model fit were eliminated. Specifically, 1 of the perceived value of tourism development variables and 3 overall quality of life variables were deleted. The re-specified overall measurement model with five constructs and 17 indicators was estimated by CFA. The results showed that the measurement model of this study demonstrated, overall, a high degree of goodness of fit to the data: v2 = 281.45, df = 108, RMSEA = .063, GFI = .96, NNFI = .94 and CFI = .96. The convergent validity was assessed separately through examining the completely standardized loadings, error variance, Cronbach’s alpha, construct reliability, and average variance extracted. The results showed that all measurement indicators significantly loaded on their corresponding construct, ranging from .66 to .91 at the alpha level of .001 (Table 3). The average extracted variance for the five constructs exceeded the recommended level of .50. In addition, internal consistency was measured in terms of Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability. Composite reliability of each measurement scale ranged from .81 to .91, which exceeded the recommended threshold level of .70 (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2010). Therefore, the five main constructs in this model are distinct constructs. Because of this, the structural model was tested in another step. Findings of the SEM and construct relationships The main purpose of the study is to examine the interrelationship between residents’ perceived value of tourism development, satisfaction with specific life domains, overall quality of life, and support for further tourism development. Therefore, a structural equation model with the maximum likelihood method was carried out to investigate relationships among the five constructs in this model. The results of maximum likelihood estimation provided an adequate fit to the data, v2 = 357.99, df. = 105, GFI = .92, RMSEA = .077, NNFI = .93 and CFI = .95. Thus, the proposed model was not refined in the structural model. Table 4 Results of the proposed model. Hypothesized path Standardized Coefficient t-value P H1: H2: H3: H4: H5: .379 .256 .561 .371 .177 4.680 6.941 7.981 5.328 3.081 ⁄⁄ Note: Perceived value of tourism development ? Non-material life domain satisfaction Perceived value of tourism development ? Material life domain satisfaction Non-material life domain satisfaction ? Overall quality of life Material life domain satisfaction ? Overall quality of life Overall quality of life ? Support for further tourism development ⁄⁄ p < .001, p < .05. ⁄ ⁄⁄ ⁄⁄ ⁄⁄ .002⁄ 94 E. Woo et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 84–97 The hypothesis test results showed that all five hypotheses were supported. Specifically, H1 was supported by showing that the higher the level of perceived value, the higher satisfaction with nonmaterial life domain (t = 4.68, p < .001). H2 predicted that the higher the perceived value, the higher the level of satisfaction with material life domain. H2 is also supported (t = 6.94, p < .001). The study also confirmed that satisfaction with non-material and material life domain did affect overall quality of life, supporting H3 and H4. Lastly, our findings indicated that overall quality of life has a significantly positive influence on support for further tourism development (t = 3.08, p < .05). Overall, the study confirmed that perceived value of tourism development positively affects residents’ quality of life, which in turn affects support for further tourism development (Table 4). Conclusion The primary purpose of this research was to examine residents’ perceived value of tourism development, its relation to residents’ quality of life, and their support for further tourism development in their community. The results of this study provide a significant contribution to the literature, clarifying residents’ perceived value of tourism development and generating precise applications. Moreover, this study provides supportive evidence for the relationship between the perceived value of tourism development, satisfaction with material/non-material life domain, overall quality of life, and support for further tourism development. Specifically, this study contributes to the existing literature by examining residents’ perceived value of tourism development. Despite the importance of perceived value, there has been limited research examining the role of perceived value in tourism development on residents’ quality of life. Previous studies used economic gain, personal growth (such as employment), and length of stay in tourism destination as predictors of residents’ attitude toward tourism development (e.g., Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Jurowski et al., 1997; McGehee & Andereck, 2004). This study attempted to use perceived value indicators, including economic, social, and emotional value (pride in community) to evaluate tourism development. Therefore, it is important to note that, from the perspective of residents, both economic and non-economic value, are important factors in evaluating tourism development. Second, our study confirmed a significant direct relationship between perceived value of tourism development and material/non-material life domain satisfaction. In other words, the value of tourism development is an important antecedent to residents’ non-material and material life domain satisfaction. Greater perceived value of tourism development is associated with higher levels of non-material/ material life domain satisfaction. The results provide empirical support for Ko and Stewart (2002) and Andereck and Nyaupane (2011), who reported a positive relationship between tourism development and satisfaction with quality of life. The findings also provide practical implications for the tourism industry. The study suggests that tourism managers and developers should understand residents’ multidimensional values in order to increase their satisfaction with specific life domains (material/nonmaterial life; community, health/safety, and emotional life domains) through tourism development. Third, the results from the present study support the bilateral relationship between tourism development and quality of life (QoL). Most of the existing impact studies have examined how tourism development affects residents’ QoL (e.g., Allen et al., 1993; Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Kim et al., 2012; Perdue et al., 1999). This study provides empirical support for the previous research by examining effects of tourism development on QoL; moreover, the study results also reveal a new relationship, namely that quality of life has a positive impact on residents’ perception regarding further tourism development. If the current level of tourism development influences residents’ quality of life negatively, they may not support further tourism development in their community. Therefore to make the destination more sustainable and competitive, tourism marketers and developers should strive to increase community residents’ quality of life. In sum, the general findings of this study is grounded in the theory of bottom-up spillover which states that life satisfaction is functionally related to satisfaction with life domains (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Kim et al., 2012). That is, residents’ support for further tourism development is indirectly influenced by evaluations of the perceived value of tourism development in both non-material and material life domains. In turn, changes in these life domains contribute to changes in life satisfaction. The E. Woo et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 84–97 95 concept of bottom-up spillover theory postulates that effects within a specific life domain accumulate and vertically spill over to super-ordinate domains. This study clearly and empirically makes the link that further support for tourism activities and development may be established by assessing the degree to which residents and different stakeholders may value tourism as a function of influencing different life domains, namely, non-material and material life domains in this particular study. Given the nature of the selected destinations as being more on the mature phase in tourism development with established market shares and images, destination planners and promoters need to monitor stakeholders’ perception of the value of tourism over time and how positive or negative changes may influence residents’ well-being (satisfaction). The findings revealed in this type of research would certainly help sway the opinion of stakeholders who may think that they have little to gain from further development of tourism. If some residents that live in a highly developed tourism destination think the value of tourism development is high, then they are likely to consider they have a high quality of life/ On the other hand, if some residents have a poor quality of life they may be expected to think tourism development is worthwhile. Additionally, the study divided the respondents into two groups based on their score on support for tourism and found that there is a significant difference between the two (p = .034)—those that scored low on the Qol question and those that scored high on Qol question, indicating that it may not be always the case that if a person has a poor quality of life he / she may not be always be expected to think tourism development is worthwhile. However, this point needs further testing and empirical verification. Limitation and future research The present study has a number of limitations. First, the study collected data from community residents who live in New York City, Hawaii, Orlando, Las-Vegas, and Virginia. If the study collected data from different destinations, the strength of the relationship between the five constructs may show some variations. Therefore, future research may consider collecting data from destinations that may display a differing level of tourism development. This sort of examination can help identify and empirically substantiate how overall quality of life may be different depending on the level of tourism development. Residents’ perceptions regarding perceived value of tourism development, life domain satisfaction, overall quality of life, and further tourism development might be different depending on the residents’ personality and demographic information as well as the type of destination. For instance, if residents work in the hospitality and tourism industry, they are more likely to positively perceive the value of tourism development and more likely to support tourism development compared to community residents who are not associated with the hospitality and tourism industry. Therefore, in future research, residents’ characteristics should be considered. Regarding the measurement of perceived value, the research should explore perceived value of tourism development on a grander scale, a scale larger than one with six indicators. For example, future studies should involve functional, social, epistemic, emotional, and economic value when measuring the perceived value of tourism development. References Allen, L. R., Hafer, H. R., Long, P. T., & Perdue, R. R. (1993). Rural residents’ attitudes toward recreation and tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 31(4), 27–33. Allen, L. R., Long, P. T., & Perdue, R. R. (1991). Relational patterns between community dimensions and global measures of community satisfaction. Journal of Rural Studies, 7, 331–338. Allen, L. R., Long, P. T., Perdue, R. R., & Kieselbach, S. (1988). The impact of tourism development on residents’ perceptions of community life. Journal of Travel Research, 27(1), 16–21. Andereck, K. L., & Nyaupane, G. P. (2011). Exploring the nature of tourism and quality of life perceptions among residents. Journal of Travel Research, 50(3), 248–260. Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C., & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 1056–1076. Andereck, K., Valentine, K., Vogt, C., & Knopf, R. (2007). A cross-cultural analysis of tourism and quality of life perceptions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5), 483–502. Andereck, K. L., & Vogt, C. A. (2000). The relationship between residents’ attitudes toward tourism and tourism development options. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 27–36. 96 E. Woo et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 84–97 Andrews, F. M., & McKennell, A. C. (1980). Measures of self-reported well being: Their affective, cognitive and other components. Social Indicators Research, 8, 127–155. Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: Americans’ perceptions of life quality. New York: Plenum Press. Ap, J. (1992). Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(4), 665–690. Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A Multistage model of customers’ assessments of Service quality and value. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 375–384. Brunt, P., & Courtney, P. (1999). Host perceptions of sociocultural impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3), 493–515. Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourism areas cycle of evaluation: Implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24(1), 5–12. Carmichael, B. A., Peppard, D. M., Jr, & Boudreau, F. A. (1996). Megaresort on my doorstep: Local resident attitudes toward Foxwoods Casino and casino gambling on nearby Indian reservation land. Journal of Travel Research, 34(3), 9–16. Chen, C. F., & Chen, F. S. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31(1), 29–35. Croes, R. (2012). Assessing tourism development from Sen’s capability approach. Journal of Travel Research, 51(5), 542–554. Cronin, J., Brady, M., & Hult, T. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193–218. Cummins, R. A. (1996). Assessing quality of life. Quality of life for people with disabilities: Model, research and practice, 116–150. Davis, E. E., & Fine-Davis, M. (1991). Social indicators of living conditions in Ireland with European comparisons. Social Indicators Research, 25(2–4), 103–365. de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., Lemmink, J., & Mattson, J. (1997). The dynamics of the service delivery process: A value-based approach. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14(3), 231–243. Diener, E. (2009). Subjective well-being. In E. Diener (Ed.), The science of well-being (Vol. 37, pp. 11–58): Springer, Netherlands. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. Dolnicar, S., Lazarevski, K., & Yanamandram, V. (2012). Quality-of-life and travel motivations: Integrating the two concepts in the grevillea model. Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research, 293–308. Douglas, N. (1997). Applying the lifecycle model to Melanesia. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(1), 1–22. Doxey, G. V. (1976). When enough’s enough: The natives are restless in old Niagara. Heritage Canada, 2(2), 26–27. Duman, T., & Mattila, A. S. (2005). The role of affective factors on perceived cruise vacation value. Tourism Management, 26(3), 311–323. Emerson, R. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362. Flanagan, J. C. (1978). A research approach to improving our quality of life. American Psychologist, 33(2), 138. Gallarza, M. G., & Gil Saura, I. (2006). Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: An investigation of university students’ travel behaviour. Tourism Management, 27(3), 437–452. Gartner, W. (1996). Tourism development principles, processes and policies. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold/Wiley. Gursoy, D., & Rutherford, D. G. (2004). Host attitude toward tourism: An improved structural model. Annals of Tourism Research, 31, 495–516. Hair, J., Jr, Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey: Pearson Education. Haywood, K. (1975). Criteria for evaluating the social performance of tourism development projects. In Tourism as a Factor in National and Regional Development, Occasional Paper, 4, 94–97. Haywood, K. M. (1986). Can tourist life cycle be made operational? Tourism Management, 7, 154–167. Homans, G. (1961). Social behavior New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World. Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Williams, D. R. (1997). A theoretical analysis of host community resident reactions to tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 36(2), 3–11. Kim, K. (2002). The effects of tourism impacts upon quality of life of residents in the community. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Kim, K., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2012). How does tourism in a community impact the quality of life of community residents? Tourism Management, 36, 527–540. King, B., Pizam, A., & Milman, A. (1993). Social impacts of tourism, host perceptions Annals of Tourism Research, 20(4), 650–665. Ko, D.-W., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of residents’ attitudes for tourism development. Tourism Management, 23(5), 521–530. Kruger, P. S. (2012). Perceptions of tourism impacts and satisfaction with particular life domains. In M. Uysal, R. R. Perdu, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research (pp. 279–292). Lankford, S. V., & Howard, D. R. (1994). Developing a tourism impact attitude scale. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(1), 121–139. Lee, T. H. (2013). Influence analysis of community resident support for sustainable tourism development. Tourism Management, 34, 37–46. Lee, D. J., & Sirgy, M. J. (1995). Determinants of involvement in the consumer/marketing life domain in relation to quality of life: A theoretical model and research agenda. Development in quality of life studies in marketing, 13–18. Lindberg, K., & Johnson, R. L. (1997). Modeling resident attitudes toward tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 402–424. McGehee, N. G., & Andereck, K. L. (2004). Factors predicting rural residents’ support of tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 43(2), 131–140. Meeberg, G. A. (1993). Quality of life: A concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18(1), 32–38. Nilson, T. H. (1992). Value-added marketing: Marketing management for superior results. Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill. Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2011). Residents’ satisfaction with community attributes and support for tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 35(2), 171–190. Ostrom, A., & Iacobucci, D. (1995). Consumer trade-offs and the evaluation of services. Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 17–28. Parasuraman, A., & Grewal, D. (2000). The impact of technology on the quality–value–loyalty chain: A research agenda. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 168–174. E. Woo et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 84–97 97 Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Allen, L. (1990). Resident support for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(4), 586–599. Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Kang, Y. S. (1999). Boomtown tourism and resident quality of life: The marketing of gaming to host community residents. Journal of Business Research, 44(3), 165–177. Petrick, J. F. (2003). Measuring cruise passengers’ perceived value. Tourism Analysis, 7(3/4), 251–258. Plog, S. (2001). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity: an update of a Cornell Quarterly Classic. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(3), 13–24. Prebensen, N. K., Woo, E., Chen, J. S., & Uysal, M. (2013). Motivation and involvement as antecedents of the perceived value of the destination experience. Journal of Travel Research, 52(2), 253–264. Puczkó, L., & Smith, M. (2011). Tourism-specific quality-of-life index: The Budapest model Budapest model. In M. Budruk & R. Phillips (Eds.). Quality-of-life community indicators for parks, recreation and tourism management (Vol. 43, pp. 163–183). Netherlands: Springer. Rahtz, D. R., Sirgy, M. J., & Meadow, H. L. (1989). The elderly audience: Correlates of television orientation. Journal of Advertising, 18(3), 9–20. Rust, T., Zeithaml, V., & Lemmon, K. (2001). Driving customer equity: How customer lifetime value is reshaping corporate strategy. New York: The Free Press. Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Consumption values and market choice. Cincinnati, OH: South Western Publishing. Sirgy, M. J. (2001). Handbook of quality-of-life research: An ethical marketing perspective (Vol. 8). Springer. Sirgy, M. J. (2002). The psychology of quality of life (Vol. 12). Dordechet, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Pub. Sirgy, M. J., & Lee, D. J. (2006). Macro measures of consumer well-being (CWB): A critical analysis and a research agenda. Journal of Macromarketing, 26(1), 27–44. Snepenger, D., O’Connell, R., & Snepenger, M. (2001). The embrace-withdraw continuum scale: Operationalizing residents’ responses toward tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 40(2), 155–161. Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203–220. Toh, R. S., Khan, H., & Koh, A. J. (2001). A travel balance approach for examining tourism area life cycles: The case of Singapore. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 426–432. Uysal, M., Perdue, R., & Sirgy, M. J. (2012). Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research: enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host communities (Vol. 1): Springer Verlag. Uysal, M., Woo, E., & Singal, M. (2012b). The tourist area life cycle (TALC) and its effect on the quality-of-life (QOL) of destination community. Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research, 423–443. Wang, Y., & Pfister, R. E. (2008). Residents’ attitudes toward tourism and perceived personal benefits in a rural community. Journal of Travel Research, 47, 84–93. Williams, P., & Soutar, G. N. (2009). Value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in an adventure tourism context. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 413–438. Woodruff, R. (1997). Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 139–153. Yu, C., Chancellor, H. C., & Cole, S. T. (2011). Examining the effects of tourism impacts on resident quality of life: Evidence from rural midwestern communities in USA. International Journal of Tourism Sciences, 11(2), 161–186. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.