Research Framework
The framework above is about the support for rural tourism development which acts as the dependent variable. There are 3 independent variables in this research which are positive socio-economic impacts, positive environmental impacts, and negative environmental impacts. According to D.B.Park et al.,(2014) factors of residents perceptions of the economic, socio-cultural, and environmental impacts of tourism and community satisfaction influence their attitudes to tourism were adopted from the previous studies (e.g., Gursoy, Chi and Dyer, 2010; Gursoy and Rutherford, 2004; Ko and Stewart, 2002; Nunkoo and Gursoy, 2012; Nunkoo and Ramkissoon, 2010c, 2011a; Zhang et al., in press).
This research has a mediating variable which is community satisfaction while social capital is the moderating variable. The principal of this study concerns the incorporation of social capital in the theoretical model. As stated by D.B.Park et al.,(2014) this research is based on literature that sees social capital as a precondition for sustainable tourism and community development (Bowles and Gintis, 2002; Macbeth et al., 2004; Park et al., 2012). According to Ko and Stewarts' (2002) and Nunkoo and Ramkissoons' (2010) (as cited in D.B.Park et al., 2014) the study also contributes to the few studies that view community satisfaction as part and parcel for sustainable tourism. Thus, the objective of this research is to measure the residents' attitudes towards the growth of tourism and analyzing the moderating impact of social capital on these studies.
Table of Items
The table above is a table for the measurement of items. Table 1 is the table of items for the perceived impact of tourism and was labeled as positive socio-economic impacts (Factor 1), positive environmental impacts (Factor 2), and negative environmental impacts (Factor 3). Table 2 is the items for social capital the moderating variable that was labeled as co-operation (Factor 1), norm (Factor 2), trust (Factor 3), and network (Factor 4). In table 3, it was stated that the model has achieved both reliability and validity. According to Bagozzi & Yi (as cited in D.B.Park et al., 2014) the composite reliability of all five constructs demonstrates the reliability of the scale which is greater than 0.6. In addition, validity is achieved based on the loading factor that was substantial and greater than 0.50 and the average variance extracted for each factor is greater than 0.50 (Hair et al., 2006; Nunkoo et al., 2013).
From the result of the hypothesis testing, it can be seen that positive and negative environmental impacts have a foresee meaningful community satisfaction. This has confirmed the previous studies where the development of tourism has environmental implications that play important aspects that influence the satisfaction of residents with their community (Ko and Stewart, 2002; Vargas-Sanchez et al., 2009; Vemuri et al., 2011). Directly opposed to the researchers' assumptions, the view of residents on the positive socio-economic impacts of tourism development did not effectively predict community satisfaction. This was then supported by
Vemuri et al., (2011) (as cited in D.B.Park et al., 2014) where higher wages may not always enhance social
enjoyment buy a clean environment are the one that contributes to higher
satisfaction.
Strong positive influence from the support of the community members could be seen toward its socio-economic impact of tourism. Based on this result, it supports SET's predicates and implies the economic advantages of rural tourism including employment growth, business opportunities, and improved income level are crucial factors in promoting the development of tourism as previous studies show (Andereck, Valentine, Knopf, & Vogt,2005; Vargas-Sanchez et al., 2009). According to D.B.Park et al., (2014) tourism support has a positive significance by community satisfaction, suggesting that the more people are happy with their neighborhood, the more prone they will be to support tourism growth. A significant connection between neighborhood satisfaction and tourism aid for the residents was supported by established studies (Nunkoo and Ramkissoon 2011a, 2011b; Vargas-Sanchez et al., 2009).
Moving on to the next table is the result of measurement for the moderating effects of social capital on a proposed route in the model. From the result above, it shows that social capital positively influenced certain of the model's path relationship. It was revealed that the correlation between perceived socioeconomic impacts of tourism and community support was positively influenced by the degree of social capital. A similar claim may account for the better relationship between attitude socio-economic impacts of tourism and levels of satisfaction for the low social capital group. The relation between perceived negative environmental impacts and community satisfaction was partially mediated by social capital. The high social capital group is higher with 0.22 compared to the low social capital group. Positive environmental impact is significant to the level of satisfaction for both groups.
Theory Review
Social Exchange Theory
In this journal, a theory that has been used is the social exchange theory. SET is a social exchange theory that was published in the year of 1958 by the American sociologist George Homans. This theory was used to explore the support of the residents towards rural tourism development. According to D.B.Park et al.,(2014) SET indicates that the expression of an individual's support for tourism growth can be interpreted as an indicator of his or her willingness to share ideas. According to Ap (as cited in D.B.Park et al., 2014) a person will support tourism development only if the value derived outweigh the costs. From the Nunkoo and Ramkissoon's (as cited in D.B.Park et al., 2014) report, it was proven that community satisfaction is a strong predictor for residents to support tourism development. From the framework, we can see the significant effect between community attachment and community involvement with perceived benefits and perceived costs towards the support for sustainable tourism development.
For more understanding on Social Exchange Theory, click on the link below to watch the video:
Social Capital Theory
Second, a theory that has been used in this journal is the social capital theory. It was introduced by Bourdieu and Coleman in the 18th to 19th centuries. According to Putnam (as cited in D.B.Park et al.,2014) social capital can be defined as components that support coordination and integration among people in the community for collective gain. Other viewpoints after being spread by other scholars, social capital enhances ties between governmental institutions and the informal network connections and traditions in favor of socio-economic growth. Also, it helps to develop pro-social behaviors and mentalities among people in the community as well as further organizational goals. Thus, such findings and debates suggest that social capital can change the way in which local communities react to tourism development, despite its consequences (D.B.Park et al.,2014).
For more understanding on Social Capital Theory, click on the link below to watch the video: