Next Article in Journal
The Relationship between the Restorative Perception of the Environment and the Physiological and Psychological Effects of Different Types of Forests on University Students
Previous Article in Journal
Mental Health Provision in UK Secondary Schools
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 22
10.3390/ijerph182212223
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Influence Analysis of Sustainability Perceptions on Sense of Community and Support for Sustainable Community Development in Relocated Communities

by
Yi-Hsien Lin
1,
Tsung-Hung Lee
2,* and
Chiu-Kuang Wang
3
1
Department of Tourism, Ming Chuan University, Taoyuan 333023, Taiwan
2
Graduate School of Leisure and Exercise Studies, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Yunlin 640301, Taiwan
3
Department of Accounting, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Yunlin 640301, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(22), 12223; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212223
Submission received: 18 September 2021 / Revised: 12 November 2021 / Accepted: 17 November 2021 / Published: 21 November 2021
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aims to examine a theoretical model using sustainability perceptions, including environmental; sociocultural; economic; and life satisfaction, sense of community, and support for sustainable community development among the indigenous people of two relocated communities in Taiwan. A total of 747 usable questionnaires were collected and analyzed using structural equation modeling. The analytical results indicated that sense of community is an antecedent of support for sustainable community development in both relocated communities. Life satisfaction perceptions can influence the sense of community in Rinari. Additionally, environmental and economic perceptions are antecedents of the sense of community in New Laiyi. Finally, this study provides theoretical implications to fill the gaps in previous research, and offers valuable insights for promoting residents’ support for sustainable community development in aboriginal communities; thus, this study has significant contributions, theoretically and practically.

1. Introduction

Since the mid-twentieth century, there have been numerous droughts, floods, and heat waves in many regions of the world, causing damage to human livelihoods and residential environments [1]. Over the past few decades, a mounting number of studies have indicated that extreme weather and climate events have become more intense and frequent [2,3].
A high frequency of extreme weather increases an individual’s level of concern over climate change [4], especially in regard to an adaptation to climate change for industry, land planning, and the livelihoods of residents [5]. Adaptation refers to actions taken by individuals, groups, and governments in different societies in response to past climate changes and in consideration of possible future climate threats. Adaptation can be motivated by the desire to protect economic well-being or to improve the level of safety [6]. Currently, climate variability influences governmental local natural resource management strategies to promote adaptive capacity and sustainable development [7].
In recent years, increasing research has focused on climate change adaptation in remote indigenous communities, examining issues such as improvements in the mental health of relocated residents [8]; the factors that influence residents’ relocation intentions [9]; residents’ perspectives on climate change and adaptation [10]; climate change vulnerability assessments [11]; and climate change adaptation planning [12]. However, discussions of relocated residents’ sustainability perceptions have been neglected, and the causal relationship between residents’ sustainability perceptions and support for sustainable community development remains unclear.
Relocated permanent housing and resettlement are common strategies employed for post-disaster development and reconstruction [13]. Previous studies have indicated that relocation has a negative impact on the society, culture, economy, and traditional concepts of indigenous communities [14]. Furthermore, relocation results in environmental, social, and psychological stress [15]. In environmental psychology, an individual’s perception reflects his or her evaluation or understanding of the environment based on personal experiences, beliefs, or cultural attitudes [16]. Scholars have suggested that an individual’s perception is a key element in supporting sustainable development [17,18]. However, no assessment of residents’ sustainability perceptions has yet been conducted, and the relationship between perceptions of sustainability and support for the sustainable development of a relocated community in an indigenous resettlement area is still undetermined.
The concept of sense of community is derived from the concept of sense of place [19]. Sense of community can be defined as the identification or emotional bond with certain people, groups, or areas by individuals who live in the same geographically defined areas, or by groups of people identified by common interests, values, and culture [20]. Past studies have suggested that sense of community is an important antecedent to an individual’s behavioral intentions in different research contexts [17,21]. Unfortunately, knowledge of the structural relationships among residents’ sustainability perceptions, sense of community, and support for sustainable community development in relocated indigenous communities is lacking.
This study aims to assess the structural relationships among perceptions and sustainable development in relocated indigenous communities using two different relocated indigenous settlements in southern Taiwan. In terms of theoretical and managerial contributions, this study proposes a theoretical model to fill the research gaps and provide managerial implications based on the analytical findings. In the sections that follow, we first present critical and recent studies on residents’ perceptions, sense of place, and community development, and then propose five hypotheses. Then, we apply the structural equation modeling (SEM) technique to build and examine the theoretical model. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and managerial implications of the model for the sustainable development of relocated indigenous communities.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Theoretical Background

Attachment theory is frequently applied to understand person–place relationships and the identity of certain places [22]. It regards an individual’s innermost emotional bond with particular individuals or places as a basic component of human nature [23]. Attachment theory is not only seen as a comprehensive theory of affective development, but is also used to explain an individual’s behavior in certain environments [24].
In attachment theory, an individual’s emotional bond and attitude are influenced by his or her experiences of certain places, such as his or her home, workplace, church, neighborhood, or city [24]. In this study, sense of community is considered a particularly exhaustive measure of the people–place relationship, including people’s social and emotional bonds with their community [25].
In the community research context, the concept of attachment theory has been widely applied to examine community residents’ emotional bonding with places as well as their behavioral intentions. For example, Lee [17] applied the concept of community attachment to examine residents’ support for sustainability, and the results suggested that community attachment was the critical factor affecting the level of support for sustainable tourism development. Stedman et al. [26] compared the residents of ten temperate-latitude lake district sites and elucidated the differences in attachment to the lakes at each site. The results indicated that every study of place attachment is a study of a single place and should remain tied to the site-specific environment, history, institutional structure, and culture. Scannell and Gifford [27] investigated the psychological benefits of place attachment and revealed thirteen categories of benefits derived from place attachment.
Previous studies have indicated that climate change might influence indigenous people’s livelihoods and perspectives on climate change and adaptation [10]. Based on attachment theory, residents’ emotions create a bond to a place based on their previous experiences of certain places [24], which means that sudden events or disasters associated with a place can influence their sense of place. In addition, individuals’ perceptions reflect the evaluations of the environment based on personal experiences [8]. Scholars have also indicated that individuals’ perceptions are a crucial factor influencing sustainable development [17,18]. Therefore, attachment theory seems to be an appropriate theoretical foundation for integrating the concepts of perceptions, sense of community, and support for sustainable community development, and constructing the theoretical model.

2.2. Sustainability Perceptions

Sustainable perception refers to an individual’s judgment or evaluation of environmental issues, or of an event based on personal experiences and attitudes toward certain environmental conditions [28]. In different research contexts, several studies have applied the concept of perception to explain individuals’ risk perceptions [29], environmental perceptions [30], and sustainability perceptions [18].
Past studies have indicated that the perception of sustainability is a crucial element in promoting support for sustainable development [31] and future behavior [32]. Recently, an increasing number of studies have applied different constructs to examine individuals’ sustainability perceptions. Several scholars have considered environmental perceptions, sociocultural perceptions, economic perceptions, and life satisfaction perceptions as important components of residents’ sustainability perceptions [18,31,33]. Environmental perceptions refer to the awareness of individuals of their surrounding environment and are one of the major research topics in environmental management [34]. Sociocultural perceptions are grounded in individuals’ own social and cultural experiences of everyday life, which reflect their emotional bond with their religion, traditions, and customs [35]. Economic perceptions involve individuals’ evaluation of the economic benefits of local industry and business [33]. Life satisfaction perceptions concern residents’ well-being, including health care, residential security, and daily life satisfaction [18].
The residents of indigenous communities have strong social networks, a close relationship with their land, and considerable family and kinship responsibilities [36]. Previous studies have indicated that traditional ecological knowledge practices and cultural and social relationships should also be seen as critical components to the relocation and adaption of indigenous people’s [37]. Moreover, some studies have found that perceptions can influence an individual’s attachment [19] and behavior [38]. However, some studies have also indicated that an individual’s attachment can affect his or her perceptions [17]; thus, the linear structural relationship among residents’ sustainability perceptions, sense of community, and support for sustainable community development remains undetermined.

2.3. Sense of Community

Sense of community refers to individuals’ feelings of belonging and the interaction between people and their environment based on daily experiences [39]. Several scholars have indicated that a sense of place or community is a key issue in person–place relationships, human behaviors, and psychological research [19]. Thus, sense of community is regarded as the key theoretical construct in the research context of community psychology [39].
Sense of community is an important topic in community research and applied social psychology [40]. Several scholars have applied community indices in different research disciplines, such as social behavior [41]; business [42]; adolescent education [43]; tourism [21]; and environmental, recreational, and festival management [44]. To date, assessments of the relationship between sense of community and support for sustainable community development in relocated indigenous communities have been limited; thus, further studies are warranted.

2.4. Support for Sustainable Community Development

In recent years, sustainable development has been a critical issue in different research areas, such as festival management [45], tourism development [17], national park governance [46], and climate change adaptation [47]. Past studies have indicated that when individuals experience greater benefits than costs, including economic, social, cultural, and environmental concerns [18], they are more willing to support sustainable development [17]. Moreover, numerous studies have indicated that people’s emotional and psychological attachment to a certain place can result in a positive attitude toward environmentally friendly behavior and support for sustainable development [48]. Therefore, understanding residents’ emotional attachment to relocated communities has become an important issue for the administrators or developers of relocated indigenous settlements [49].
Over the past few decades, relocation after natural disasters has been a critical issue in post-disaster reconstruction in developing countries [50]. Relocated residents not only want to rebuild their houses or facilities but also yearn to maintain their livelihood, community, environment, and social connections in the relocated communities in which they now live [51]. Moreover, several studies have indicated that financial and social support should be considered as important factors for relocated residents [15]. Therefore, well-planned relocation can produce positive long-term developmental outcomes [13].

2.5. Hypothesized Model

In the psychological and behavioral research context, sense of community has become increasingly popular in the literature as a way to explain human social engagement [52]. Previous studies have investigated individuals’ perceptions as antecedents to their personal behavior and attitude [29]. Moreover, some studies have identified causal relationships between different perceptions and attachment/sense of community. For example, Bonaiuto et al. [53] indicated that sociodemographic and residential variables can influence residents’ attachment, and length of residence in the place and economic perceptions are the most relevant residential and sociodemographic variables. Rollero and De Piccoli [19] studied 328 residents from a city in northern Italy, and the results indicated that the individuals’ cultural level and social relationships were associated with place attachment. Mesch and Manor [16] argued that the local attachment of residents can result from a positive environmental perception. Stedman et al. [26] indicated that attachment to lakes is based, in part, on the perceived quality of life and perceptions of social conflict.
Although previous studies have indicated that social, environmental, physical, and emotional features can affect an individual’s sense of community or attachment to a place of residence [27], several theoretical models have been established to examine the predictors of the place attachment of residents in different places [19]. However, no studies have constructed a theoretical model to examine how individuals’ perceptions influence the sense of community in relocated indigenous communities.
Current studies have found that an individual’s perceptions of the natural and communal environment can influence the support for sustainable development [54]. The development of an indigenous community is based on its cultural heritage, environmental conditions, and residents’ well-being [55]. Several studies have indicated that positive perceptions of their community can improve residents’ intentions or behavior with regard to health care, environmental protection, and cultural inheritance [56,57]. Moreover, some studies have indicated that different perception variables (e.g., economic, sociocultural, environmental, and life satisfaction perceptions) can influence place attachment or sense of place [16,19,26,53].
Climate change adaptation, with regard to the issues of remote indigenous communities, has been considered an important topic in the sustainable development research context; however, the influence of residents’ sustainability perceptions through sense of community on support for sustainable community development in relocated indigenous communities has been neglected. To fill this research gap, we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Economic perceptions positively and significantly affect sense of community.
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Sociocultural perceptions positively and significantly affect sense of community.
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Environmental perceptions positively and significantly affect sense of community.
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Life satisfaction perceptions positively and significantly affect sense of community.
In recent years, numerous studies in different research disciplines, such as tourism development [31], protected area management [46], and community development [58], have addressed residents’ support for sustainable development. Several studies have also indicated that an individual’s emotion, attitude, and attachment can influence his or her support for sustainable development [31].
A strong sense of community can improve residents’ well-being and increase their feelings of safety and security, their participation and involvement in community affairs, and their sense of civic responsibility [44]. Previous studies have indicated that for indigenous people, emotional bonds with the community and an attachment to the land in which they live play important roles in constructing the identity and coherence of their communities [59]. However, a relocation from the original place of residence to a resettlement can influence the emotional and social relationships of residents with the environment and neighbors of the new community [28]. To address this issue, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Sense of community positively and significantly affects the support for sustainable community development.
Integrating all the hypotheses specified above, we propose the theoretical model illustrated in Figure 1.

3. Methodology

3.1. Study Sites

In 2009, Typhoon Morakot struck Taiwan. It dropped 3000 mm of rain, leading to devastating mudslides and the worst flooding in Taiwan in 50 years [60]. Ultimately, more than 700 people died, and direct property losses amounted to over 3 billion USD [61]. Several indigenous communities in southern Taiwan, such as the Kucapungane, Makazayazaya, Paridrayan, and Tjalja’avus indigenous communities, were destroyed or seriously damaged by landslides caused by Typhoon Morakot [62].
Most indigenous communities in Taiwan are located in remote and mountainous areas [63,64] (for the indigenous peoples distribution map, also see Lee’s and Jan’s [63] map), which face natural disasters more often than urban areas. After Typhoon Morakot, the Taiwanese government passed the Morakot Post-disaster Reconstruction Special Act (MPDR Special Act). Based on the MPDR Special Act, several relocated communities were established for those who were displaced, including Rinari, Changchi Baihe, Ulaljuc, New Laiyi, Kuskus, and Central Road. By December 2014, nearly 5000 indigenous people had been moved to 6 relocated communities in Pingtung County. Of the six relocated communities, Rinari and New Laiyi are the two largest in terms of residential scale [65]; thus, we selected them as our study areas.
Rinari is located in Masiljid village, Makazayazaya Township, Pingtung County (22°49′70″ N, 120°86′65″ E), near the Ailiao River. It has 483 houses and more than 1400 residents [66]. Rinari includes three different indigenous communities for two different tribes: the Kucapungane community (Rukai tribe), the Tavalan community (Paiwan tribe), and the Makazayazaya community (Paiwan tribe). These communities and tribes have different ethnic backgrounds, historical rivalries, and customs. Currently, Rinari is considered one of the most famous indigenous tourism destinations [67,68].
New Laiyi is located in Wanlong village, Xinpi Township, Pingtung County (22°11′51″ N, 120°57′58″ E), near the Linbian River. It has 307 houses and nearly 1000 residents [69]. New Laiyi consists of the Tjana’asiya, Calasiv, and Tjalja’avus communities. In contrast to Rinari, all three communities belong to the same administrative area and the Paiwan tribe.

3.2. Research Instrument

Based on the literature review, this study applied environmental perceptions, sociocultural perceptions, economic perceptions, life satisfaction perceptions, sense of community, and support for sustainable community development as latent variables. A pilot survey was conducted in August 2019 in Rinari and New Laiyi. In total, 100 usable questionnaires were collected. Item analyses were applied to assess the quality of the questionnaire. Moreover, three scholars specializing in sustainable development in indigenous communities were invited to assess the content validity of the questionnaire. Based on the item analysis and the comments made by the three scholars, one item was deleted, and the wording of six items was slightly modified to improve comprehensibility. The formal questionnaire is described below.
This study applied environmental perceptions, sociocultural perceptions, economic perceptions, and life satisfaction perceptions as latent variables. In accordance with Lee and Jan [18], environmental perceptions were measured by 3 items, sociocultural perceptions by 5 items, economic perceptions by 4 items, and life satisfaction perceptions by 12 items.
Sense of community was measured by 12 items borrowed from Chavis et al. [70]. Sense of community included needs fulfillment (three items), membership (three items), influence (three items), and emotional connection (three items).
Support for sustainable community development was measured by three items borrowed from Lee [17]. It included supporting the relocated community’s sustainable development initiatives, participating in the relocated community’s sustainable development-related plans, and participating in the promotion of the relocated community’s environmental education and conservation.
All items were scored on a seven-point Likert scale, where one represented “strongly disagree” and seven represented “strongly agree”. Demographic variables, including gender, marital status, age, educational level, occupation, residential community before relocation, and ethnic group, were also recorded.

3.3. Data Collection

The questionnaire survey was conducted from August 2019 to March 2020 with residents of Rinari and New Laiyi. Four research assistants who were trained in the sampling technique were recruited to conduct the questionnaire survey. Before the questionnaire survey, we first visited the leader of each community (e.g., the tribal chieftain, chief of the village, and medium of the community), explained the purpose and the perspective of the study, and requested ethical clearance for the research. Finally, we received permission to conduct the study in the two communities and obtained ethical approval from the community leaders. Four residents in each community were hired to help the research assistants search for and identify community residents, ensure that the survey did not interfere with residents’ regular lives, and conduct the questionnaire survey. All respondents provided consent, were informed that their anonymity would be protected, and that data storage and usage limitations would be observed before they completed the questionnaire. Overall, 451 and 296 usable questionnaires were obtained from Rinari and New Laiyi, respectively.

3.4. Quality of the Research Instrument

The 451 and 296 responses from Rinari and New Laiyi were sufficient for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and SEM [71]. The Cronbach’s α values of all latent variables in the samples from Rinari (environmental perceptions = 0.89, sociocultural perceptions = 0.93, economic perceptions = 0.93, life satisfaction perceptions = 0.97, sense of community = 0.93, and support for sustainable community development = 0.86) and New Laiyi (environmental perceptions = 0.96, sociocultural perceptions = 0.92, economic perceptions = 0.99, life satisfaction perceptions = 0.97, sense of community = 0.95, and support for sustainable community development = 0.96) were above the basic criterion of 0.7 [72], indicating that the survey data had acceptable reliability.

3.5. Data Analysis

This study applied a multigroup invariance method to evaluate the significant differences between Rinari and New Laiyi. The results of the multigroup analysis (Table 1) indicated that the responses of the participants from the two study communities had significant differences [73]. Therefore, this study considered the responses from the two study communities as different groups and analyzed them separately.
In accordance with Anderson and Gerbing [74], this study applied two-stage analysis to assess the theoretical framework. In the first stage, CFA was applied to assess the measurement mode in terms of reliability, validity, and several model fit indices. In the second stage, SEM was applied to validate the research hypotheses, and all the parameters were analyzed by the maximum likelihood method.

4. Results

4.1. Reliability, Validity, and Common Method Variance Test

This study applied several methods to determine the reliability and validity of the measurement model. The multivariate normality assumption was evaluated using Mardia’s index test [75]. In this study, Mardia’s indices were below p (p + 2) in both study areas; therefore, the normality assumption was supported.
To evaluate the measurement model, several model fit indices were assessed, as shown in Table 2. All measurement model fit indices exceeded the suggested criteria; therefore, the measurement model fit the data in both study areas well [71,76,77].
Table 3 lists the factor loadings, t values, average variance extracted (AVE) values, and composite reliability (CR) values of the measurement model. All of the factor loadings were above 0.5 and were significant (t > 1.96, p < 0.001), and all AVE values and CR values exceeded the suggested thresholds (0.5 and 0.7, respectively), indicating that the measurement model had internal consistency and adequate convergent validity [71].
To test the discriminant validity of the measurement model, Table 4 lists the correlations between each latent variable and the square root of the AVE values. The correlation coefficients between the latent variables in New Laiyi are all below the square root of the AVE. However, some of the correlation coefficients between the latent variables in Rinari are greater than the square root of the AVE. Therefore, this study applied the confidence interval method to reconfirm the discriminant validity of the measurement model. As shown in Table 5, none of the indices in the 95% confidence interval of the correlation coefficient include 1.0, indicating that the measurement model has adequate discriminant validity without multicollinearity problems [78].

4.2. Structural Model

This study applied SEM analyses to assess the causal relationships among economic perceptions, sociocultural perceptions, environmental perceptions, life satisfaction perceptions, sense of community, and support for sustainable community development. The model fit indices of the structural model for both study areas are presented in Table 2. All model fit indices indicate an acceptable fit for the structural model in both study areas [71].
Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate the structural model for the residents of Rinari and New Laiyi, respectively. For the residents of Rinari, life satisfaction perceptions positively and significantly affected sense of community, and sense of community positively and significantly affected the support for sustainable community development. Thus, H4 and H5 were supported. However, the effects of economic perceptions, sociocultural perceptions, and environmental perceptions on sense of community were not significant; therefore, H1, H2, and H3 were rejected.
For the residents of New Laiyi, economic perceptions and environmental perceptions positively and significantly affected sense of community, and sense of community positively and significantly affected the support for sustainable community development. Thus, H1, H3, and H5 were supported. The effects of sociocultural perceptions and life satisfaction perceptions on sense of community were negatively significant; thus, H2 and H4 were rejected.

5. Discussion

5.1. Theoretical Implications

The formation of residents’ sense of community or place attachment has been a critical research topic in community management and place development [40,48]. Indigenous people have stronger connections and emotional bonds with their place of residence and community than non-indigenous people [79]. In this study, sense of community is found to be an antecedent of support for sustainable community development in both relocated communities, which is similar to the results of previous studies [17]. In the place and community research context, sense of community, sense of place, and place attachment are important factors influencing residents’ activities and behaviors. However, only a few studies have assessed the place attachment or sense of community of residents of indigenous communities [60,80], and no study has examined the causal relationships between sense of community and different variables in a relocated indigenous community. Therefore, this study not only finds that sense of community plays an important role in constructing an individual’s support for sustainable community development in a relocated indigenous community, but also provides a valuable reference for relocated community development and climate change adaptation among indigenous people, potentially contributing to the literature.
In Rinari, life satisfaction perceptions were an antecedent to sense of community, which is a finding similar to that in previous studies [26]. However, economic perceptions, sociocultural perceptions, and environmental perceptions did not directly influence the sense of community of residents in Rinari. According to attachment theory [22], the attachment of individuals is influenced by their feelings about, bond with, and childhood experiences of a certain place. Accordingly, the analytical results for Rinari may have been due to its sufficient infrastructures, beautiful views, good reputation, and community school. When residents have more place satisfaction and attachment, they are more willing to participate in place affairs and sustainable community development [81]. Therefore, the results for Rinari obtained by this study support the view that place satisfaction can influence residents’ attachment, which, in turn, enhances their sustainable behavior.
In New Laiyi, economic perceptions and environmental perceptions were antecedents to sense of community, which is in agreement with the results of several previous studies [53,80]. However, sociocultural perceptions and life satisfaction perceptions did not directly influence residents’ sense of community in New Laiyi. These analytical results might be explained by the location of the resettlement site. New Laiyi is located near the Chaozhou township, the second largest township in Pingtung County, with more than 53000 residents [82]. A large city can provide more working opportunities, which, in turn, improve the financial status and spending power of families. Several facilities that were considered iconic features in the indigenous community, such as farms, flagstone houses, thatched granaries, and taro kilns, were reconstructed in New Laiyi [83]. These facilities may have not only maintained the community’s traditional customs, but also improved residents’ connection with the place [84,85].
In this study, sociocultural perceptions did not affect the sense of community of residents in the two relocated communities. This finding is different from those of previous studies [19]. Indigenous cultures have an inseparable tie to traditional tribal territory [86], including ritual land, ancestral holy land, and community, hunting and farming areas [87]. In an indigenous community, land is an important component for establishing an attachment to the community and for developing traditional culture [88]. When indigenous people relocate from the original community to a resettlement area, they are disconnected from their traditional lands and territory. Therefore, in this early stage, they cannot establish their sense of community through sociocultural perceptions.
There were several differences in the analytical results between the two communities. New Laiyi is located near the Chaozhou township, which provides more working opportunities; however, without the community’s economic activities and community school, life satisfaction perceptions cannot be improved. In Rinari, the tourism industry is more developed because of the excellent surrounding views and featured buildings. Indigenous handicrafts drive the development of the cultural and creative industry, and tourists can experience indigenous cuisine. However, not all residents are involved in the tourism industry or share in the benefits from it. Thus, economic perceptions cannot be established in Rinari.
According to attachment theory, different life experiences can influence individuals’ sense of community and influence their behavioral intention [24]. In this study, we found that different locations, psychological and physical benefits, and established schools in the two indigenous communities can influence the daily life experiences and perceptions of residents, leading to different effects on the sense of community in the two different study sites. This study thus fills research gaps by extending the application of attachment theory in the community research context.

5.2. Managerial Implications

The analytical findings indicate that in the two study areas, sense of community is an antecedent of support for sustainable community development. Sense of community reflects the feeling of belonging and emotional bonds with a certain place and is seen as an important component of the person–land relationship [39]. Therefore, this study suggests that administrators or managers in both communities should consider enhancing the psychological benefits provided by the communities, constructing more public open spaces, and improving neighborhood ties [27,44]. For example, administrators can establish more community care centers for elderly individuals or playgrounds for children. Additionally, they can provide more courses, such as flower arrangement, cooking, and athletic courses, which not only enhance psychological benefits but also provide more opportunities to interact with neighbors. Furthermore, administrators can consider establishing police stations to improve community security [27], which can also enhance the residents’ sense of community.
This study suggests that administrators or developers can consider establishing shuttle bus routes to connect the communities to railway stations or cities (e.g., the Chaozhou Township or Pintung City). Shuttle buses not only provide convenient transportation to large cities, but also extend the opportunities for tourists to visit Rinari and enhance tourism industry development [89]. Moreover, administrators or developers should provide more environmental education courses for residents, as such courses can improve residents’ knowledge of the environment of their community, which, in turn, can generate positive environmental perceptions [90]. Additionally, Rinari contains three different communities within two different tribes, and each community or tribe has its own customs and cultural background. Thus, we suggest that in Rinari, each community and tribe should develop its own ritual celebrations and its own customs and culture, as such developments can improve residents’ cultural identity and the preservation of the community.
Our suggestions for the administrators or developers of New Laiyi are as follows. First, as shown in previous research, schools play an important role in improving residents’ interpersonal relationships and coherence with the community [91]. Community schools can serve as public open spaces and provide residents with more activities for leisure or social interaction, which, in turn, can enhance their life satisfaction perceptions [92]. It is thus suggested that administrators or developers should establish a community school in New Laiyi. Second, administrators or developers should organize more cultural activities for residents, such as courses on sculpture, hunting, tribal language, or ritual celebrations, as such courses can enhance the cultural knowledge of residents [93].

5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

Although our findings potentially make several contributions, there are several limitations that should be addressed in future research. First, this study applied four variables to measure the sustainability perceptions of residents. However, several studies have proposed other components of individuals’ sustainability perceptions. For example, Gattig and Hendrickx [94] argued that the residents’ risk perceptions, including environmental, financial, and health risks, are important components of sustainability perceptions. Holladay and Powell [95] proposed social–ecological resilience, including trust, networks, local control, flexible governance, leakage prevention, and controlled infrastructure development, to assess sustainability perceptions. Further research using these variables to more precisely assess the sustainability perceptions of residents is recommended.
Second, although this study provides several theoretical and managerial implications for two relocated communities, these suggestions might not be applicable to other relocated communities in Taiwan and other countries. To overcome this limitation, future research should assess the same theoretical model in relocated communities in different countries to verify its generalizability and to provide multicultural and/or international perspectives [96].
Finally, this study applied a self-reported survey to test a theoretical model. However, individuals’ perceptions can be influenced by their personal experiences [28], and some psychological or emotional attitudes toward community development may not actually be reflected in quantitative research methods [18]. To overcome this shortcoming, we recommend that future research uses qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews, focus groups, and participatory observations, to better capture the details of sustainable community development and the personal experiences that influence residents’ sustainability perceptions [18].

6. Conclusions

Although climate change adaptation in remote indigenous communities has become a critical issue in the context of research on indigenous people, there has been no assessment of a structural model of residents’ sustainability perceptions, sense of community, and support for sustainable community development among residents in relocated indigenous communities. This study develops a theoretical model of economic perceptions, sociocultural perceptions, environmental perceptions, life satisfaction perceptions, sense of community, and support for sustainable community development among resettled indigenous people in Taiwan. The analytical results indicate that life satisfaction perceptions have a direct effect on the sense of community in Rinari and that economic perceptions and environmental perceptions have a direct effect on the sense of community in New Laiyi. Moreover, sense of community has a direct effect on support for sustainable community development in both relocated communities. Therefore, this study suggests that administrators and developers should consider the different demands of each relocated community to improve the positive sustainability perceptions of residents, which, in turn, will increase their sense of community.
This study potentially makes contributions with both theoretical and practical implications and expands our knowledge in the research context of sustainability perceptions and the applicability of attachment theory in the community research context. The original theoretical framework proposed in this study sheds light on behavioral models for promoting support for sustainable community development in relocated indigenous communities.

Author Contributions

Research conceptualization and methodology was developed by Y.-H.L. and T.-H.L.; data collection was carried out by C.-K.W.; data analysis was conducted by Y.-H.L. and T.-H.L.; Y.-H.L. wrote the first draft with contributions by T.-H.L. and C.-K.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lesk, C.; Rowhani, P.; Ramankutty, N. Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production. Nature 2016, 529, 84–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sisco, M.R.; Bosetti, V.; Weber, E.U. When do extreme weather events generate attention to climate change? Clim. Chang. 2017, 143, 227–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zanocco, C.; Boudet, H.; Nilson, R.; Satein, H.; Whitley, H.; Flora, J. Place, proximity, and perceived harm: Extreme weather events and views about climate change. Clim. Chang. 2018, 149, 349–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Konisky, D.; Hughes, L.; Kaylor, C. Extreme weather events and climate change concern. Clim. Chang. 2016, 134, 533–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Moser, S.; Ekstrom, J. A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 22026–22031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Adger, N.; Arnell, N.; Tompkins, E. Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global. Environ. Chang. 2005, 15, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Adger, N.; Huq, S.; Brown, K.; Conway, D.; Hulme, M. Adaptation to climate change in the developing world. Prog. Dev. Stud. 2003, 3, 179–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Berry, H.L.; Butler, J.R.; Burgess, C.P.; King, U.G.; Tsey, K.; Cadet-James, Y.L.; Raphael, B. Mind, body, spirit: Co-benefits for mental health from climate change adaptation and caring for country in remote Aboriginal Australian communities. NSW Public Health Bull. 2010, 21, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Zander, K.K.; Petheram, L.; Garnett, S.T. Stay or leave? Potential climate change adaptation strategies among Aboriginal people in coastal communities in northern Australia. Nat. Hazards 2013, 67, 591–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Petheram, L.; Zander, K.K.; Campbell, B.M.; High, C.; Stacey, N. ‘Strange changes’: Indigenous perspectives of climate change and adaptation in NE Arnhem Land (Australia). Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010, 20, 681–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Green, D.; Niall, S.; Morrison, J. Bridging the gap between theory and practice in climate change vulnerability assessments for remote Indigenous communities in northern Australia. Local Environ. 2012, 17, 295–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Reid, M.G.; Hamilton, C.; Reid, S.K.; Trousdale, W.; Hill, C.; Turner, N.; Matthews, H.D. Indigenous climate change adaptation planning using a values-focused approach: A case study with the Gitga’at nation. J. Ethnobiol. 2014, 34, 401–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Badri, A.; Asgary, A.; Eftekhari, A.R.; Levy, J. Post-disaster resettlement, development and change: A case study of the 1990 Manjil earthquake in Iran. Disasters 2006, 30, 451–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Taiban, S. From Rekai to Labelabe: Disaster and relocation on the example of Kucapungane, Taiwan. Anthropol. Noteb. 2013, 19, 59–76. [Google Scholar]
  15. Riad, J.; Norris, F. The influence of relocation on the environmental, social, and psychological stress experienced by disaster victims. Environ. Behav. 1996, 28, f163–f182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mesch, G.; Manor, O. Social ties, environmental perception, and local attachment. Environ. Behav. 1998, 30, 504–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lee, T.H. Influence analysis of community resident support for sustainable tourism development. Tourism. Manag. 2013, 34, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lee, T.H.; Jan, F.H. Can community-based tourism contribute to sustainable development? Evidence from residents’ perceptions of the sustainability. Tourism. Manag. 2019, 70, 368–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rollero, C.; De Piccoli, N. Place attachment, identification and environment perception: An empirical study. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 198–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pretty, G.; Chipuer, H.; Bramston, P. Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: The discriminating features of place attachment, sense of community and place dependence in relation to place identity. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 273–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Hahm, J.; Breiter, D.; Severt, K.; Wang, Y.; Fjelstul, J. The relationship between sense of community and satisfaction on future intentions to attend an association’s annual meeting. Tourism. Manag. 2016, 52, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Morgan, P. Towards a developmental theory of place attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bowlby, J. A Secure Base; Routledge: London, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  24. Giuliani, M.V. Theory of attachment and place attachment. In Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues; Bonnes, M., Lee, T., Bonaiuto, M., Eds.; Ashgate: Aldershot, UK, 2003; pp. 137–170. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mannarini, T.; Tartaglia, S.; Fedi, A.; Greganti, K. Image of neighborhood, self-image and sense of community. J. Environ. Psychol. 2006, 26, 202–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Stedman, R.; Lathrop, R.; Clark, B.; Ejsmont-Karabin, J.; Kasprzak, P.; Nielsen, K.; Osgood, D.; Powell, M.; Ventelä, A.M.; Webster, K.; et al. Perceived environmental quality and place attachment in North American and European temperate lake districts. Lake Reservoir. Manag. 2007, 23, 330–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. The experienced psychological benefits of place attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 51, 256–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bell, P.; Green, T.; Fisher, J.; Baum, A. Environmental Psychology, 5th ed.; Wadsworth/Thomson Learning: Belmont, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  29. de Dominicis, S.; Fornara, F.; Cancellieri, U.G.; Twigger-Ross, C.; Bonaiuto, M. We are at risk, and so what? Place attachment, environmental risk perceptions and preventive coping behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 43, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, P.; Liu, Q.; Qi, Y. Factors influencing sustainable consumption behaviors: A survey of the rural residents in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 63, 152–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. AlWaer, H.; Sibley, M.; Lewis, J. Different stakeholder perceptions of sustainability assessment. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2008, 51, 48–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Elias, W.; Shiftan, Y. The influence of individual’s risk perception and attitudes on travel behavior. Transp. Res. Part A 2012, 46, 1241–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ololade, O.; Annegarn, H. Contrasting community and corporate perceptions of sustainability: A case study within the platinum mining region of South Africa. Resour. Policy 2013, 38, 568–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Turvey, M. Perception: The ecological approach. In Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science; Nadel, L., Ed.; Wiley InterScience: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/0470018860.s00525 (accessed on 8 March 2020).
  35. Bickerstaff, K. Risk perception research: Socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience of air pollution. Environ. Int. 2004, 30, 827–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Race, D.; Mathew, S.; Campbell, M.; Hampton, K. Are Australian Aboriginal communities adapting to a warmer climate? A study of communities living in semi-arid Australia. J. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 9, 208–223. [Google Scholar]
  37. Whitney, C.; Ban, N. Barriers and opportunities for social-ecological adaptation to climate change in coastal British Columbia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019, 179, 104808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dijksterhuis, A.; van Knippenberg, A. The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of trivial pursuit. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 74, 865–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Coulombe, S.; Krzesni, D. Associations between sense of community and wellbeing: A comprehensive variable and person-centered exploration. J. Community. Psychol. 2019, 47, 1246–1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Zhang, H.; Lin, S.H. Sense of community in Taiwan and its relationships with the residential environment. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 35, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Tang, F.; Chi, I.; Dong, X. The relationship of social engagement and social support with sense of community. J. Gerontol. A. Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2017, 72 (Suppl. 1), S102–S107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Swimberghe, K.; Mahmoud, D.; Beal, B.; Astakhova, M. Examining a psychological sense of brand community in elderly consumers. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 82, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Albanesi, C.; Cicognani, E.; Zani, B. Sense of community, civic engagement and social well-being in Italian adolescents. J. Community Appl. Soc. 2007, 17, 387–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Francis, J.; Giles-Corti, B.; Wood, L.; Knuiman, M. Creating sense of community: The role of public space. J. Environ. Psychol. 2012, 32, 401–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lee, T.H.; Jan, F.H.; Lin, Y.H. How authentic experience affects traditional religious tourism development: Evidence from the Dajia Mazu Pilgrimage, Taiwan. J. Travel. Res. 2021, 60, 1140–1157. [Google Scholar]
  46. Badola, R.; Hussain, A.; Dobriyal, P.; Manral, U.; Barthwal, S.; Rastogi, A.; Gill, K. Institutional arrangements for managing tourism in the Indian Himalayan protected areas. Tourism. Manag. 2018, 66, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Smit, B.; Wandel, J. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2006, 16, 282–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. The relations between natural and civic place attachment and pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Walker, A.; Ryan, R. Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural New England: A Maine case study. Landsc. Urban. Plan. 2008, 86, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Iverson, J. Funding Alaska village relocation caused by climate change and preserving cultural values during relocation. Seattle. J. Soc. Justice. 2013, 12, 561–602. [Google Scholar]
  51. Jha, A. Safer Homes, Stronger Communities: A Handbook for Reconstructing after Natural Disasters; The World Bank: Washington DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ross, A.; Searle, M. A conceptual model of leisure time physical activity, neighborhood environment, and sense of community. Environ. Behav. 2019, 51, 749–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bonaiuto, M.; Aiello, A.; Perugini, M.; Bonnes, M.; Ercolani, A.P. Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19, 331–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Patzelt, H.; Shepherd, D. Recognizing opportunities for sustainable development. Entrep. Theory. Pract. 2011, 35, 631–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Watene, K.; Yap, M. Culture and sustainable development: Indigenous contributions. J. Glob. Ethics 2015, 11, 51–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kingsley, J.; Munro-Harrison, E.; Jenkins, A.; Thorpe, A. Here we are part of a living culture: Understanding the cultural determinants of health in Aboriginal gathering places in Victoria, Australia. Health Place 2018, 54, 210–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lines, L.A.; Jardine, C. Connection to the land as a youth-identified social determinant of Indigenous Peoples’ health. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Stedman, R. Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2003, 16, 671–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Brener, L.; Wilson, H.; Jackson, C.; Johnson, P.; Saunders, V.; Treloar, C. The role of Aboriginal community attachment in promoting lifestyle changes after hepatitis C diagnosis. Health Psychol. Open 2015, 2, 2055102915601581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Tao, W.K.; Shi, J.J.; Lin, P.L.; Chen, J.; Lang, S.; Chang, M.Y.; Yang, M.J.; Wu, C.C.; Peters-Lidard, C.; Sui, C.H.; et al. High-resolution numerical simulation of the extreme rainfall associated with typhoon Morakot. Part I: Comparing the impact of microphysics and pbl parameterizations with observations. Terr. Atmospheric. Ocean. Sci. 2011, 22, 673–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Li, H.C.; Hsieh, L.S.; Chen, L.C.; Lin, L.Y.; Li, W.S. Disaster investigation and analysis of Typhoon Morakot. J. Chin. Inst. Eng. 2014, 37, 558–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Huang, S.M. Understanding disaster (in) justice: Spatializing the production of vulnerabilities of indigenous people in Taiwan. Environ. Plan. E 2018, 1, 382–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lee, T.H.; Jan, F.H. How does involvement affect attendees’ aboriginal tourism image? Evidence from aboriginal festivals in Taiwan. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 24, 2421–2444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lee, T.H.; Lin, Y.H.; Wang, C.K. Can aboriginal images contribute to aboriginal cultural identity? Evidence from the perspective of tourists’ image. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, in press. [Google Scholar]
  65. Huang, S.M. Heritage and postdisaster recovery: Indigenous community resilience. Nat. Hazards. Rev. 2018, 19, 05018008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Neipu Household Registration Office. Demographic Data for Vudai, Timur, and Makazayazaya Townships. 2019. Available online: https://www.pthg.gov.tw/neipu-house/Content_List.aspx?n=AACDB6F744489566 (accessed on 10 February 2020).
  67. Rinari Community. Rinari. 2020. Available online: http://rinari.pgo.tw/index.php (accessed on 3 January 2020).
  68. Taiwan Tourism Bureau. Rinari Tribe. 2020. Available online: https://eng.taiwan.net.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0002122&id=A12-00295 (accessed on 3 January 2020).
  69. Chaozhou Household Registration Office. Demographic Data for Laiyi Township. 2019. Available online: https://www.pthg.gov.tw/chaujou-house/Content_List.aspx?n=B8E0D00523CEF081 (accessed on 10 February 2020).
  70. Chavis, D.; Hogge, J.; McMillan, D.; Wandersman, A. Sense of community through Brunswik’s lens: A first look. J. Community Psychol. 1986, 14, 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hair, J.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  72. Nunnally, J.; Bernstein, I. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  73. Byrne, B. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, 2nd ed.; Routledge Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  74. Anderson, J.; Gerbing, D. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Raykov, T.; Marcoulides, G. An Introduction to Applied Multivariate Analysis; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  76. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. McDonald, R.; Ho, M.H.R. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analysis. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7, 64–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Torkzadeh, G.; Xenophon, K.; Pflughoeft, K. Confirmatory analysis of computer self-efficacy. Struct. Equ. Model 2003, 10, 263–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Simpson, L.B. Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation. Decolonization Indig. Educ. Soc. 2014, 3, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  80. Pandey, D.K.; De, H.K.; Dubey, S.K.; Kumar, B.; Dobhal, S.; Adhiguru, P. Indigenous people’s attachment to shifting cultivation in the Eastern Himalayas, India: A cross-sectional evidence. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 111, 102046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Chen, N.; Dwyer, L. Residents’ place satisfaction and place attachment on destination brand-building behaviors: Conceptual and empirical differentiation. J. Travel Res. 2018, 57, 1026–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Chaozhou Household Registration Office. Demographic Data for Chaozhou Township. 2019. Available online: https://www.pthg.gov.tw/chaujou-house/News_Content.aspx?n=6F3881B7BC8DDB04&sms=BA27F5829D1A7875&s=52F8C92EDA269A57 (accessed on 10 February 2020).
  83. New Laiyi Community. About New Laiyi. 2017. Available online: http://newlaiyi.apc.atipd.tw/introduction (accessed on 3 January 2020).
  84. Félonneau, M.L. Love and loathing of the city: Urbanophilia and urbanophobia, topological identity and perceived incivilities. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kajan, E. Community perceptions to place attachment and tourism development in Finnish Lapland. Tour. Geogr. 2014, 16, 490–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Hay, R. Sense of place in developmental context. J. Environ. Psychol. 1998, 18, 5–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Council of Indigenous People. Regulations on Land or Tribal Land Allocation for Indigenous. 2017. Available online: https://law.apc.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL000327 (accessed on 3 January 2020).
  88. Jackson, S.; Storrs, M.; Morrison, J. Recognition of Aboriginal rights, interests and values in river research and management: Perspectives from northern Australia. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 2005, 6, 105–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Prideaux, B. The role of the transport system in destination development. Tourism. Manag. 2000, 21, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Boca, G.D.; Saraçlı, S. Environmental education and student’s perception, for sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Colman-Dimon, H. Relationships with the school: Listening to the voices of a remote Aboriginal community. Aust. J. Indig. Educ. 2000, 28, 34–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Oberle, E.; Schonert-Reichl, K.; Zumbo, B. Life satisfaction in early adolescence: Personal, neighborhood, school, family, and peer influences. J. Youth Adolesc. 2011, 40, 889–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Bals, M.; Turi, A.L.; Skre, I.; Kvernmo, S. The relationship between internalizing and externalizing symptoms and cultural resilience factors in Indigenous Sami youth from Arctic Norway. Int. J. Circumpolar. Health 2011, 70, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Gattig, A.; Hendrickx, L. Judgmental discounting and environmental risk perception: Dimensional similarities, domain differences, and implications for sustainability. J. Soc. Issues 2007, 63, 21–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Holladay, P.J.; Powell, R.B. Resident perceptions of social–ecological resilience and the sustainability of community-based tourism development in the Commonwealth of Dominica. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 1188–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Bechtel, R.B.; Corral-Verdugo, V.; Asai, M.; Riesle, A.G. A cross-cultural study of environmental belief structures in USA, Japan, Mexico, and Peru. Int. J. Psychol. 2006, 41, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 18 12223 g001 550
Figure 1. Theoretical model.
Figure 1. Theoretical model.
Ijerph 18 12223 g001
Ijerph 18 12223 g002 550
Figure 2. Structural model for Rinari.
Figure 2. Structural model for Rinari.
Ijerph 18 12223 g002
Ijerph 18 12223 g003 550
Figure 3. Structural model for New Laiyi.
Figure 3. Structural model for New Laiyi.
Ijerph 18 12223 g003
Table
Table 1. Multigroup invariance.
Table 1. Multigroup invariance.
ModeldfΔdfχ2Δχ2p
Unconstrained1372 6096.144 0.000
Measurement weights1405336184.14588.0010.000
Measurement intercepts1444727330.6421234.4970.000
Structural covariances1465937797.391701.2460.000
Measurement residuals150513310,839.0114742.8670.000
Table
Table 2. Goodness of fit.
Table 2. Goodness of fit.
IndicesCriteriaMeasurement Model FitStructural Model FitReferences
RinariNew LaiyiRinariNew Laiyi
χ2/df<32.551.8252.3261.733Hair et al. (2010)
GFI>0.800.8710.8810.8840.884McDonald and Ho (2002)
AGFI>0.800.840.8280.8560.837McDonald and Ho (2002)
RMSEA<0.080.0590.0530.0540.05McDonald and Ho (2002)
SRMR<0.080.0470.630.0440.076Hu and Bentler (1999)
NFI>0.900.9320.9620.9380.963Hu and Bentler (1999)
CFI>0.950.9570.9820.9640.984Hu and Bentler (1999)
GFI = Goodness of Fit Index, AGFI = Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual, NFI = Normed-Fit Index, CFI = Comparative Fit Index.
Table
Table 3. Outcomes of confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 3. Outcomes of confirmatory factor analysis.
Factor LoadingT -ValueAVECR
RinariNew LaiyiRinariNewLaiyiRinariNew LaiyiRinariNewLaiyi
Economic perceptions 0.760.960.930.99
Increase employment opportunities0.890.9923.9724.20
Increase shopping opportunities0.940.9926.4424.50
Increase local government tax revenues0.780.9719.4523.51
Promote local business opportunities0.860.9622.7722.86
Socio-cultural perceptions 0.740.850.930.97
Participate in cultural activities0.850.9222.2521.36
Develop cultural activities0.860.9522.7422.80
Preserve the local culture0.840.9621.9523.29
Cultural exchanges0.880.9323.3921.85
Positive effects on cultural identity0.850.8422.4518.44
Environmental perceptions 0.730.900.890.96
Protect the natural environment0.860.9522.4622.42
Protect the human/cultural resources0.850.9721.8423.46
Increase environmental awareness0.850.9222.1621.57
Life satisfaction perceptions 0.720.780.970.98
Health well-being0.880.9023.6822.72
Safety well-being0.860.9322.6423.62
Family satisfaction0.850.9422.3423.98
Satisfaction with leisure0.790.9219.9122.85
Satisfaction with spiritual life0.850.9522.1124.67
Satisfaction with cultural life0.850.9622.3124.90
Satisfaction with social life0.870.9423.3824.54
Satisfaction with neighbors0.840.8421.7019.67
Satisfaction with housing0.850.6822.0914.81
Standard of living0.860.7922.7212.61
Life is excellent0.850.8722.0921.38
Overall life satisfaction0.810.8620.9020.88
Sense of community 0.540.700.930.96
This relocated community is a good place to live0.720.5916.879.79
Neighbors and I have the same ideas about the relocated community0.760.7318.5214.76
People in this relocated community share the same values0.630.7914.6116.85
I belong to this relocated community0.790.9619.5522.05
I can recognize most of the people who live in the relocated community0.740.8617.8119.16
Most of my neighbors know me0.710.8416.8818.34
I have a say about what goes on in the relocated community0.780.8819.2319.75
If there is a problem in this relocated community, people who live here can get it solved0.740.8718.2119.15
I care about what my neighbors think of my actions0.720.8317.3117.94
I have a good bond with others in this relocated community0.830.9220.9021.22
It is very important to me to live in this relocated community0.750.9318.4721.57
I expect to live in this relocated community for a long time0.620.7514.2115.12
Support for community sustainable development 0.700.900.870.96
Support the relocated community sustainable development initiatives0.880.9723.3123.25
Participate in relocated community sustainable plans and development0.940.9925.6624.65
Participate in the promotion of environmental education and conservation0.670.8815.6219.85
Mardia’s coefficient514.15300.88
p (p + 2)1599.00
p = number of items.
Table
Table 4. Correlation coefficients and AVE matrix.
Table 4. Correlation coefficients and AVE matrix.
ECPsSCPsENPsLSPsSOCSSCD
RinariNew LaiyiRinariNew LaiyiRinariNew LaiyiRinariNew LaiyiRinariNew LaiyiRinariNew Laiyi
ECPs0.8710.979
SCPs0.8090.7900.8580.921
ENPs0.7500.5170.8790.4740.8540.949
LSPs0.6990.4400.8590.6370.8890.4760.8460.885
SOC0.6430.6010.7050.3470.7350.5250.7480.1660.7340.832
SSCD0.4600.6150.5180.5170.5120.6060.6010.4750.6400.7690.8370.948
ECPs = Economic Perceptions; SCPs = Sociocultural Perceptions; ENPs = Environmental Perceptions; LSPs = Life Satisfaction Perceptions; SOC = Sense of Community; and SSCD = Support for Sustainable Community Development. Square root of AVE is shown on the diagonal of the matrix.
Table
Table 5. Discriminant validity of confidence interval.
Table 5. Discriminant validity of confidence interval.
ParametersPoint EstimateSEPoint Estimate ± 2SEBias-CorrectedPercentile Method
LowerUpperLowerUpperLowerUpper
RinariNew LaiyiRinariNew LaiyiRinariNew LaiyiRinariNew LaiyiRinariNew LaiyiRinariNew LaiyiRinariNew LaiyiRinariNew Laiyi
ECPs–SCPs0.810.800.030.020.760.760.860.850.760.750.860.840.760.750.860.84
ECPs–ENPs0.750.470.030.040.680.390.810.560.680.390.800.550.680.390.800.55
ECPs–LSPs0.690.580.030.040.630.500.750.660.630.500.740.650.630.500.750.65
ECPs–SSCD0.430.680.050.030.330.620.530.740.320.620.520.730.320.620.520.73
ECPs–SOC0.620.560.040.040.540.480.690.640.540.480.690.640.540.480.690.64
SCPs–ENPs0.900.390.020.060.860.280.940.510.850.280.930.500.860.270.930.50
SCPs–LSPs0.860.760.020.030.830.700.900.820.830.700.890.820.830.690.890.81
SCPs–SOC0.670.290.040.060.590.170.750.420.580.170.740.420.580.160.740.42
SCPs–SSCD0.510.550.050.040.410.460.610.640.410.460.600.630.410.460.600.63
ENPs–LSPs0.880.420.020.060.850.300.910.550.850.290.910.530.850.290.910.54
ENPs–SOC0.700.500.040.060.620.390.780.620.620.380.770.610.620.390.770.61
ENPs–SSCD0.500.550.050.040.410.460.600.630.410.460.600.630.410.460.600.62
LSPs–SOC0.680.110.040.070.60−0.030.750.250.60−0.020.750.250.60−0.030.750.24
LSPs–SSCD0.590.480.040.050.500.380.680.580.510.380.680.580.500.380.680.58
SOC–SSCD0.590.780.050.030.500.720.680.840.500.710.680.840.500.710.670.84
ECPs = Economic Perceptions; SCPs = Sociocultural Perceptions; ENPs = Environmental Perceptions; LSPs = Life Satisfaction Perceptions; SOC = Sense of Community; and SSCD = Support for Sustainable Community Development.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lin, Y.-H.; Lee, T.-H.; Wang, C.-K. Influence Analysis of Sustainability Perceptions on Sense of Community and Support for Sustainable Community Development in Relocated Communities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 12223. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212223

AMA Style

Lin Y-H, Lee T-H, Wang C-K. Influence Analysis of Sustainability Perceptions on Sense of Community and Support for Sustainable Community Development in Relocated Communities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(22):12223. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212223

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lin, Yi-Hsien, Tsung-Hung Lee, and Chiu-Kuang Wang. 2021. "Influence Analysis of Sustainability Perceptions on Sense of Community and Support for Sustainable Community Development in Relocated Communities" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 22: 12223. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212223

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop