Place Attachment, Cultural Involvement, and Residents’ Attitudes towards Tourism Development: The Case of Novi Sad, the European Capital of Culture 2022

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine how residents in Novi Sad (The European Capital of Culture 2022) perceive the influence of cultural involvement and place attachment on their attitude toward tourism, and how this affects their support for tourism development. In order to investigate the relationships between these factors, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used. The proposed model was tested, and the findings show significant relationships between residents’ cultural involvement, place attachment, perceived positive and negative impacts of tourism (economic, socio-cultural, environmental), and support for tourism development. The findings of the study could assist tourism planners not only in Novi Sad but also in other urban destinations.

1. Introduction

Numerous studies have been conducted in recent years to assess inhabitants’ attitudes and perceptions of the influence of tourism development in their local communities [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. Tourism development, in particular, has a multitude of economic, sociological, and environmental consequences for the host destination and its inhabitants [15]. Because the local community is a vital stakeholder in the tourism sector, it is difficult to establish sustainable tourism development without their cooperation [9]. Regarding the theories used to describe this concept, the social exchange theory (SET) has been one of the most commonly employed [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. Ap (1992) was the first to use SET in the tourism literature to describe the interactions between locals and the effects of tourism. Residents, according to the previous findings, are more likely to support tourism growth if they feel the advantages will exceed the risks [6,22,25].

The success of tourist expansion at a location is dependent on how local inhabitants view and support tourism’s advantages from the host community’s perspective. It is important to prioritize the comprehension of the expectations and goals of communities before planning and growing tourism [26]. While urban destinations increasingly see tourism as an essential instrument for restoring and rejuvenating economic growth, tourism planners must pay special attention to place-based attitudes and local population expectations [21,27]. The attitude of inhabitants toward tourism development is critical because a harmonious relationship between visitors and residents has a substantial impact on visitors’ satisfaction with the location [28]. Moreover, pleasant and kind hospitality may increase the destination’s attractiveness and promote a memorable and satisfying journey for guests. Understanding how communities perceive the consequences of tourism can shed light on how to maximize benefits while avoiding costs [24].

As mentioned above, scholars have observed that communities favor tourism development when they expect more positive tourist-related advantages, yet most research has ignored the influence of cultural features on inhabitants’ sentiments [11].

This study intends to address the current research gap in previous studies by investigating citizens’ opinions of tourism development from the standpoint of cultural involvement.

Besides this, place attachment has also been studied in the tourism context as a factor influencing inhabitants’ attitudes toward tourism development. There is a little research on how place attachment affects citizens’ perspectives of the benefits of tourism development, as well as their support of it [6,9,24,27,29,30].

Based on current evidence, this study established a model to analyze the effect of citizens’ place attachment and cultural involvement on their attitude toward tourism, which ultimately influences their support for tourist growth. The primary goal of this study is to determine whether people’s cultural involvement influences their sense of place and willingness to support tourism-related development. The second objective is to find out if residents’ opinions of the tourism impacts and their supportive behavior are influenced by place attachment. Last but not least, this study tries to find out if locals’ opinions on the tourism impacts influence their support for tourism growth (Figure 1).

2. Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

2.1. The Impact of Cultural Involvement on Place Attachment and Attitudes toward Tourism Development

A range of scholars is interested in learning more about how people establish relationships with locations. For example, anthropology aims to comprehend the cultural significance of places in everyday life [31]. Cultural participation is based on the distinctive culture of the residents’ living environment, and adds to the spiritual world of the inhabitants. Cultural participation, in this sense, encapsulates a certain cultural community life area that might impact a resident’s spiritual wellbeing and so promote a better connection with the place of living [11]. According to Rapacciuolo et al. [32], cultural involvement, for instance, is the second-best predictor of psychological wellbeing after (the presence or absence of) serious disorders, and it has a far higher influence than characteristics like income, age, gender, or career. Individuals’ emotional, social, or mental participation with culture-related activities, events, or performances, through which residents are exposed to traditional cultures and festivals, is referred to as ‘cultural involvement’ in this study. Residents who are more familiar with the local culture and local cultural activities are more likely to identify with their destination. Furthermore, according to Spennemann [33], cultural heritage has an important role in shaping community identity and the perception of place attachment, which can also positively impact personal and community mental health. On the other hand, according to self-confidence theory, greater knowledge may boost residents’ pride and confidence in their own culture, encouraging them to welcome visitors as a way of sharing their local cultural activities and events with others [34].

An effective relationship or link between people and certain locations is defined as ‘place attachment’ [35]. Some researchers define place attachment as any connection a person has—positive or negative—with a certain location [35,36]. Place attachment is a term used by environmental psychologists to describe the bond that exists between people and their surroundings [37]. Backlund and Williams [38] found that the concept of place attachment consists of two dimensions: place identity, which relates to a psychological or subjective connection to a place, and place dependence, which denotes a functional engagement with a place [39]. This dimensionality is well acknowledged in both tourism management studies [7,11,39,40] and environmental psychology [41,42,43,44]. Despite the fact that place identity and place dependence are two the most-often-explored dimensions of place attachment, the scales and items used to assess them differ greatly. Williams and Vaske’s [44] final scale, for example, has five items to assess place identity and five items to assess place dependence. White et al. [45] use five items for place identity and four items for place dependence, whereas Ispas et al. [46] employs nine items to measure place identity and five to measure place dependence. The scales used in this research were derived by Boley et al. [47], based on original studies [42,44,48,49] conducted on seven samples in four countries (United States, Cape Verde, Nigeria, and Poland). Boley et al. [47] presented a final scale that is reliable in different cultures. The aforementioned scale is appropriate for the analysis of residents’ attitudes in Novi Sad because it is a multicultural city with around twenty different nations and national or ethnic groups living in it, each with their own distinct culture [50].

As reported by Besculides et al. [51] residents can prosper from tourism in one of two ways. To begin with, tourism exposes the host to various cultures, which can lead to positive outcomes such as tolerance and understanding. Second, expressing local culture to tourists increases one’s understanding of what it means to live in a community, resulting in increased identification, pride, togetherness, and support. On the basis of this, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1a (H1a).

Cultural involvement has a positive effect on place attachment (place identity).

Hypothesis 1b (H1b).

Cultural involvement has a positive effect on place attachment (place dependence).

Hypothesis 2.

Cultural involvement has a positive effect on residents’ attitudes toward tourism development.

2.2. The Effect of Place Attachment on Perceived Tourism Impacts and Support for Tourism Development

For this study, place identification theories served as the conceptual framework for the place attachment construct. Therefore, place dependency and place identity are masured as dimensions of place attachment [52]. Self-identification has a significant impact on how people behave in the context of a tourism destination. Place identity influences local attitudes toward tourism and support for tourism, and self-identification has an important role in this relationship [22]. According to Wang and Chen [21], the sense of place at the tourism site was crucial in shaping inhabitants’ attitudes toward tourism. According to some researchers, the better the feeling of a place of a tourist location, the more likely inhabitants are to have a favorable attitude toward tourism [20,29,53]. Eusébio et al. [7] performed a study on Boa Vista Island, Cape Verde, and discovered that locals’ place attachment positively influenced how they perceived the tourist growth. Gursoy, Jurowski and Uysal [18] discovered that when residents perceive a greater need for larger investments in local economy, they prefer to highlight the positive effects of tourism while neglecting the negative effects. Residents’ attachment to a community is regarded as being connected to their willingness to support tourism development in their community [54]. According to Mason and Cheyne [55], inhabitants are more inclined to support tourism if they believe the tourist sector is compatible with their place identities, and a location is more likely to be addressed by people who have a high level of participation in the tourism industry. People are more likely to support the growth of their community if they care about it [56]. Based on very scarce literature regarding the link between place attachment, residents’ perceptions of tourist impacts, and attitudes toward tourism development, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 3a (H3a).

Place attachment (place identity) has a positive effect on residents’ perceptions of positive economic impacts;

Hypothesis 3b (H3b).

Place attachment (place identity) has a positive effect on residents’ perceptions of positive socio-cultural impacts;

Hypothesis 3c (H3c).

Place attachment (place identity) has a positive effect on residents’ perceptions of positive environmental impacts;

Hypothesis 4a (H4a).

Place attachment (place identity) has a negative effect on residents’ perceptions of negative economic impacts;

Hypothesis 4b (H4b).

Place attachment (place identity) has a negative effect on residents’ perceptions of negative socio-cultural impacts;

Hypothesis 4c (H4c).

Place attachment (place identity) has a negative effect on residents’ perceptions of negative environmental impacts;

Hypothesis 5a (H5a).

Place attachment (place dependence) has a positive effect on residents’ perceptions of positive economic impacts;

Hypothesis 5b (H5b).

Place attachment (place dependence) has a positive effect on residents’ perceptions of positive socio-cultural impacts;

Hypothesis 5c (H5c).

Place attachment (place dependence) has a positive effect on residents’ perceptions of positive environmental impacts;

Hypothesis 6a (H6a).

Place attachment (place dependence) has a negative effect on residents’ perceptions of negative economic impacts;

Hypothesis 6b (H6b).

Place attachment (place dependence) has a negative effect on residents’ perceptions of negative socio-cultural impacts;

Hypothesis 6c (H6c).

Place attachment (place dependence) has a negative effect on residents’ perceptions of negative environmental impacts;

Hypothesis 7a (H7a).

Place attachment (place identity) has a positive effect on residents’ support for tourism development;

Hypothesis 7b (H7b).

Place attachment (place dependence) has a positive effect on residents’ support for tourism development.

2.3. Perceived Tourism Impacts and Their Effect on Support for Tourism Development

Tourism may have both beneficial and harmful consequences. Residents consider these effects while forming opinions on tourism [8]. Their attitudes will decide whether or not they favor tourism growth [57]. According to the relevant research, tourism has generally recognized economic, socio-cultural, and environmental implications [16,18,57,58].

The economic impacts, as identified by several researchers, include common and personal interests that contribute to the following: increased employment opportunities [55,59,60,61,62,63,64,65], income, and standard of living [5,58,59,60,62,63,64,65,66]; increased investment and development opportunities [58,59,60,61,63,64,65,66]; the creation of the possibility of new local businesses [67]; and the enhancement of the local and regional economies [59,60,62]. In addition to the positive ones, the researchers also identified negative economic impacts such as: increases in the price of goods and services, increases in tax revenues [58,60,66,67,68], and increases in real estate prices [69,70]. Previous research indicates the existence of both positive and negative socio-cultural implications of tourism on local communities. It identifies that tourism development contributes to the improvement of cultural connections between the local population and tourists [66], provides residents a chance to meet new people [15], increases the availability of recreational facilities [66], affects cultural identity [2], encourages various educational activities for children [5], and urges residents to be proud of their heritage [2,5]. On the other hand, increased tourism may cause overcrowded tourism facilities [15] and traffic jams on the roads [55,58,60,61], as well as a rise in the availability of narcotics, crime, prostitution, public alcohol drinking [5,58,63], stereotypes [71], and discrimination against tourists by residents [72]. In addition, from an ecological point of view, the development of tourism can contribute to negative phenomena such as increasing litter [58,59,60], noise pollution [58,59,60], and the overcrowding of recreational areas in the open [5,58], etc.

On the other hand, the environmental benefits of tourism development are the following: the conservation of natural areas and parks [59,60,63]; the restoration of historical buildings, roads, and public facilities [66]; and an increasing number of parks and other places for community recreation [64].

The empirical studies in the last 40 years show that citizens’ opinions of tourist impacts have been thoroughly examined, but with very different findings [56]. In general, locals acknowledge that all of the effects—economic, sociocultural, and environmental—have an impact on how they feel about tourism development, both favorable and unfavorable [65]. According to SET, locals’ attitudes toward tourism development are influenced by the appraisal of the perceived benefits and costs of travel, which affects both favorable and unfavorable attitudes towards travel. Many researchers have found that communities’ support for tourism development was significantly influenced by both positive and negative sentiments about tourism [20,22]. Furthermore, SET implies that good perceptions of effects lead to positive attitudes, but negative perceptions are likely to have a detrimental impact on attitudes [15]. The following hypotheses can be developed as a result:

Hypothesis 8a (H8a).

Residents’ perceptions of positive economic impacts have a positive effect on residents’ support for tourism development.

Hypothesis 8b (H8b).

Residents’ perceptions of positive socio-cultural impacts have a positive effect on residents’ support for tourism development.

Hypothesis 8c (H8c).

Residents’ perceptions of positive environmental have a positive effect on residents’ support for tourism development.

Hypothesis 9a (H9a).

Residents’ perceptions of negative economic impacts have a negative effect on residents’ support for tourism development.

Hypothesis 9b (H9b).

Residents’ perceptions of negative socio-cultural impacts have a negative effect on residents’ support for tourism development.

Hypothesis 9c (H9c).

Residents’ perceptions of negative environmental have a negative effect on residents’ support for tourism development.

3. Methodology

3.1. Location of the Study Area

A survey was carried out in Novi Sad, the second largest city in Serbia and the capital of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. Novi Sad, the Autonomous Province (AP) of Vojvodina’s political, administrative, academic, and cultural hub, is home to numerous esteemed regional cultural and artistic institutions, both urban and rural. Novi Sad submitted its candidacy for European Capital of Culture as a tolerant, international, multi-religious, and multicultural society [73]. Novi Sad has 9 city zones and 15 suburban areas with around 400,000 inhabitants. Many projects focus on bringing people of various national communities together and improving their status through art and culture. The goal in this sector is to promote the city’s variety, as well as intercultural cooperation and culture as a tool for addressing societal disputes.

Novi Sad won the most prestigious title in the sphere of culture in the European Union in 2016, the title of European Capital of Culture in 2022, with the slogan “For New Bridges”. Shortly afterwards, the Government of the Republic of Serbia deemed this project to be of national importance. The programme narrative of Novi Sad 2022 stems from the 4 New Bridges slogan: The Love Bridge, the Freedom Bridge, the Hope Bridge, and the Rainbow Bridge, which represent the establishment of a balance between available resources and the city’s attractions. Each bridge has two program arcs that answer critical concerns about the city’s current social context, legacy, and modern innovation in light of current European and global events [73]. Numerous spatial capacities have been expanded, new spaces have been built or new ones have been renovated—over 40,000 square meters of space for culture. The suburbs of the Petrovaradin fortress from the 17th century were renovated after 300 years. In the Almaški region, which is associated with modern development from the 18th century, the former silk factory was renovated into a new Svilara Cultural Station. This influenced this part of the city to be included as a protected cultural and historical entity in the “Faro Network” of the Council of Europe for Heritage Preservation.

The space and the square around the oldest professional theater in Serbia were renovated. Then, not far from the Danube, the industrial zone was transformed into the Creative District, which is a unique center of youth and contemporary creativity. Moreover, a network of cultural stations was developed, as a new and unique model in culture. Eight new and renovated buildings were converted into cultural stations (Svilara, Barka, Mlin, Eđšeg, Bukovac Cultural Station, Rumenka Cultural Station, Cultural Caravan (mobile cultural station), and Liman–Chinatown Cultural Station—Figure 2). Finally, fellow citizens were engaged through the project “New Places” by proposing new locations and spaces that should be intended for socializing and culture, and which would then be arranged for that purpose [73].

3.2. Questionnaire Development

The questionnaire used in this study consisted of two parts. The first part measured the main sociodemographic characteristics of the participants, including age, gender, educational level, employment status, family status, residents’ period of living in Novi Sad and its suburban settlements, and the part of the city in which they live. The second part consisted of ten rating scales that present the key components of the study model: cultural involvement, place attachment as measured with two scales (place identity and place dependence), perceived tourism positive impacts (economic, socio-cultural and environmental), perceived tourism negative impacts (economic, socio-cultural and environmental), and residents’ support for tourism. For perceived positive and negative socio-cultural impacts, the researchers used ten statements developed from the existing literature [5,57,58,60,61,63,64,66,74]. Perceived positive and negative economic impacts were measured using ten items [5,56,57,58,60,64,65,66,67,70]. Six statements represented perceived positive and negative environmental impacts [5,57,58,59,61,63,64,66,67,74,75]. In order to assess cultural involvement, five items were selected from previous studies [11,76]. Place identity and place dependence were measured by the Abbreviated Place Attachment Scale (APAS) adjusted by Boley et al. [47] based on previous studies [42,44,48,49]. The authors used six items for each construct. Support for tourism was measured using a six-item scale derived from Nukoo and Ramkissoon [23] and Nukoo and So [77]. All of the items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), (Supplementary Materials).

3.3. Data Collection

A self-administered survey was distributed to find out how residents perceive tourism effects: economic, sociocultural, and environmental. Using a convenience sampling technique, the data were gathered from January to May 2022. Residents of Novi Sad over the age of 18 were the target population. For the data collection, the online survey and standard paper and pen survey were combined. The online questionnaire was distributed through individual emails, mailing lists, and social media platforms, and posted on the website of the Foundation “Novi Sad—European Capital of Culture”. A total of 579 residents answered the questionnaire. Due to numerous missing values, a total of 42 questionnaires were excluded from the analysis. Finally, 537 valid questionnaires were processed using R and RStudio (lavaan, semPlot, and semTools packages), which were used for the CFA (Confirmatory Factorial Analysis) and SEM analyses.

4. Results

4.1. Study Sample

The sample consisted of 537 residents of Novi Sad. There was a higher number of males in the sample (54.4%), while the average age of the sample was 33.41 years (age range 18–72). There was also the highest number of those who have finished faculty or college (41.9%). Married residents were predominant in the sample (37.4%), followed by those who are in a relationship (27.7%). Most of the respondents have incomes in the range 45,001–70,000 RSD (47.3%) (

Table 1. The sample characteristics (N = 537).

Gender (%)		Education (%)
Male	54.4	Secondary school	31.1
Female	45.6	Faculty/College	41.9
		MSc/PhD degree	27.0
Age		Marital status (%)
Average: 33.41, Std. 16.50		Single	24.9
		In a relationship	27.7
		Married	37.4
		Divorced	10.2
Monthly income (in Serbian dinars—RSD) (%)		Work status %
Below 45,000	16.0	employed	46.4
45,001–70,000	47.3	unemployed	4.3
70,001–100,000	19.5	pupil/student	7.4
100,001–150,000	9.9	retired	11.9
Above 150,000	7.3

).

From the total number of respondents, 61.6% live in Novi Sad and its suburban areas, while (38.4%) live in suburban settlements. It is important to mention that 33.89% had lived in Novi Sad from the birth, 15.83% had lived in Novi Sad for up to 30 years, 14.15% had lived in Novi Sad for up to 20 years, 23.09% had lived in Novi Sad for up to 10 years, and 13.04% had lived in Novi Sad for up to 5 years.

Based on the t-test of the independent samples, it was determined that statistically significant differences in the attitudes of the respondents in relation to the part of the city in which the respondents live (two groups: suburban settlements and the city of Novi Sad) exist only in the negative environmental impacts factor, in that the respondents from NS gave a significantly higher score compared to the respondents from suburban settlements (t = 3.536; p = 0.000; Novi Sad M = 2.726; Suburban M = 2.356). This means that the respondents from Novi Sad are more affected, that is, they perceive the negative impacts of tourism (environmental) more strongly than those who live in the suburbs, which is logical because they face problems such as traffic jams, noise, pollution, an increased amount of garbage, and crowding in parks and recreation areas.

4.2. Measurement Model Validity—Confirmatory Factorial Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factorial analysis (CFA) was used to estimate the latent components measurement model and test it for construct validity and reliability. The initial model fit indices showed satisfactory results, except RMSEA and SRMR, which were above the limit value of 0.08 (CFI = 0.958, TLI = 0.953, RMSEA = 0.107, SRMR = 0.099); consequently, possible model flaws were revealed. Consequently, the modification indices were consulted. Beaujean [78] states that a “troublingly large” residual is “>0.1”; thus, five items in total with high residuals were excluded (

Table 2. CFA results.

Factors	Items	β	t Value	α	AVE	CR
Positive Economic Impacts (PECI)	If tourism develops, it provides more employment for my province district.	0.823	*	0.932	0.674	0.771
	If tourism develops, our standard of living rises significantly due to tourism.	0.774	27.642
	Tourism has attracted more investment to my community.	0.798	31.589
	Tourism creates new business opportunities for local residents.	0.825	30.275
	Tourism improves transport infrastructure.	0.802	31.275
	The ECOC will improve Novi Sad’s image worldwide.	0.889	30.175
	The ECOC will promote Novi Sad as a tourist destination.	0.778	30.486
Negative Economic Impacts (NECI)	Tourism increases the cost of living.	0.885	*	0.881	0.842	0.921
	Real estate prices in the community have increased due to the amount of tourism undertaken in my community.	0.874	24.789
	Tourism increases price of goods and services.	0.869	21.123
Positive Socio-cultural Impacts (PSCI)	Tourism has increased residents’ pride in the local culture of the community.	0.847	*	0.899	0.521	0.726
	Tourism has resulted in more cultural exchange between tourists and residents.	0.624	2.974
	Tourism has improved the quality of products (hotels, restaurants, shops).	0.708	28.386
	Tourism helps keep the local culture alive, and maintain the ethnic identity of the local residents in my community.	0.677	27.224
	Tourism encourages a wide variety of cultural activities such as crafts, art, and music in the community.	0.786	29.225
	Educational environment for children has been enhanced.	0.698	4.102
Negative Socio-cultural Impacts (NSCI)	If tourism develops, tourists negatively affect our lifestyle.	0.821	*	0.900	0.574	0.820
	If tourism develops, the crime rate increases in our city.	0.745	17.168
	Tourism has limited the use of recreational facilities such as entertainment and recreational centers, and sport complexes for the local people.	0.803	13.974
	Tourism has changed our precious traditional culture.	0.796	11.806
Positive Environmental Impacts (PENI)	Tourism provides an incentive for the restoration of heritage within the community.	0.827	*	0.949	0.698	0.887
	If tourism develops, more parks and recreation areas are opened up for local people.	0.888	28.129
	Tourism has improved the area’s appearance (visual and aesthetic).	0.814	24.112
Negative Environmental Impacts (NENI)	Tourism has resulted in traffic congestion, noise and pollution.	0.779	*	0.821	0.692	0.896
	Tourism has resulted in unpleasantly overcrowded parks and other outdoor places in our city.	0.812	16.103
	Tourism increases littering.	0.878	19.003
Cultural Involvement (CINV)	Participating in cultural related activities pleases me.	0.875	*	0.957	0.822	0.930
	Most of my friends and family members are in some way connected with cultural related activities	0.853	20.499
	Participating in cultural related activities plays a vital role in my life.	0.826	19.111
	When participating in cultural related activities, I could demonstrate my ability, personality and high-quality taste.	0.789	15.001
	Local cultural activities in my city interest me.	0.870	31.532
Place Identity (PIDN)	I am very attached to this community.	0.815	*	0.850	0.632	0.721
	This community is very special to me.	0.819	28.317
	I identify strongly with this community. **	0.785	17.295
	I feel this community is a part of me.	0.786	18.998
	This community means a lot to me.	0.754	16.917
	Living in this community says a lot about who I am. **	0.815	16.444
Place Dependence (PDEP)	This community is the best place for what I like to do.	0.847	*	0.692	0.571	0.840
	No other place can compare to this community. **	0.829	22.237
	I wouldn’t substitute any other community for doing the types of things I do at this community.	0.814	23.901
	I get more satisfaction living in this community than any other. **	0.812	31.002
	Doing what I do at this community is more important to me than doing it in any other community.	0.801	30.123
	The things I do at this community I would enjoy doing just as much as a similar community. **	0.785	29.815
Support for Tourism Development (SUPPT)	Tourism is one of the most important industries for my community.	0.900	*	0.869	0.678	0.867
	Tourism helps my community grow in the right direction.	0.827	30.677
	I am proud that tourists are coming to my community.	0.881	23.445
	Tourism continues to play an important economic role in my community.	0.849	29.358
	I support the development of tourism as it is vital to my community.	0.867	30.789
	My community should attract more tourists.	0.788	29.978

Notes: * Items fixed to 1 in the CFA; ** item removed from the CFA; β-Std. regression weights; α—Cronbach’s alpha; CR—composite reliability; AVE—average variance expected.

). Therefore, a model with a satisfactory fit was established (CFI = 0.989, TLI = 0.976, RMSEA = 0.078, SRMR = 0.052).

The average variance extracted (AVE), composite reliability (CR), and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were used to assess the scale’s reliability. Furthermore, AVE was used to access convergent validity. Convergent validity is achieved when all item-to-factor loadings are significant and the AVE score is higher than 0.50 within each dimension [79]. The composite reliability values for the latent factors exceeded the recommended minimum value of 0.7 [80,81]. According to the data shown in Table 2, all of the dimensions had AVE values greater than 0.50 and CR values greater than 0.70, which shows good convergent validity. The findings revealed that each factor’s Cronbach’s alpha values were higher than 0.70, with a radius spanning from 0.809 to 0.902 [82].

The discriminant validity was determined by comparing the square root of each AVE to the correlation coefficients for each construct. The square roots of the AVE values were greater than the correlation values in the case of each construct, which demonstrated discriminant validity [79] (

Table 3. Discriminant validity assessment.

	PECI	NECI	PSCI	NSCI	PENI	NENI	CINV	PIDN	PDEP	SUPPT
PECI	0.821
NECI	−0.189 **	0.917
PSCI	0.452 **	−0.235 **	0.722
NSCI	−0.302 **	0.147 **	−0.214 **	0.758
PENI	0.389 **	−0.256 **	0.211 **	0.258 **	0.835
NENI	−0.323 **	0.325 **	0.199 **	0.178 **	−0.465 **	0.832
CINV	0.258 **	0.156 **	0.562 **	−0.231 **	0.317 **	−0.108 **	0.906
PIDN	0.456 **	−0.212 **	0.422 **	−0.192 **	0.418 **	−0.458 **	0.714 **	0.795
PDEP	0.459 **	−0.516 **	0.421 **	−0.178 **	0.208 **	−0.222 **	0.578 **	0.641 **	0.755
SUPPT	0.531 **	−0.158 **	0.711 **	−0.274 **	0.509 **	−0.569 **	0.512 **	0.622 **	0.696 **	0.823

** p < 0.001.

).

Moreover, we tested our study for the common method bias (CMB) issue. CMB happens when variations in responses are caused by the instrument rather than the actual predispositions of the respondents that the instrument attempts to uncover. One of the ways to test if CMB is of concern is Harman’s single factor score, in which all of the items (measuring latent variables) are loaded into one common factor. If the total variance for a single factor is less than 50%, it suggests that CMB does not affect the data [83]. In this study, we tested CMB with Harman’s single factor score, and revealed that the items of latent variables load into a single factor and explain 41.13% of the total variance, meaning that CMB is not of concern for this study.

4.3. Results of the Path Model

Firstly, the model’s validity was examined, and it showed satisfactory fit indexes (CFI = 0.951; TLI = 0.946; RMSEA = 0.053; SRMR = 0.074). The fit indices were adequate for addressing each latent factor’s postulated interrelationships in the proposed model (

Table 4. The results of model (standardized regression weights).

Hypothesized Paths	β	S.E.	z-Value	p-Value	Hypothesis
H1a: CINV⟶PIDN (+)	0.589	0.029	21.011	0.000	Supported
H1b: CINV⟶PDEP (+)	0.311	0.054	9.356	0.000	Supported
H2: CINV⟶SUPPT (+)	0.217	0.047	5.902	0.000	Supported
H3a: PIDN⟶PECI (+)	0.228	0.082	6.852	0.000	Supported
H3b: PIDN⟶PSCI (+)	0.222	0.059	5.001	0.000	Supported
H3c: PIDN⟶PENI (+)	0.189	0.056	3.702	0.000	Supported
H4a: PIDN⟶NECI (−)	−0.061	0.050	−1.375	0.137	Not supported
H4b: PIDN⟶NSCI (−)	−0.055	0.046	−1.309	0.129	Not supported
H4c: PIDN⟶NENI (−)	−0.302	0.051	−8.785	0.000	Supported
H5a: PDEP⟶PECI (+)	0.214	0.071	6.570	0.000	Supported
H5b: PDEP⟶PSCI (+)	0.184	0.069	5.123	0.000	Supported
H5c: PDEP⟶PENI (+)	0.016	0.038	−1.123	0.178	Not supported
H6a: PDEP⟶NECI (−)	−0.352	0.076	−8.986	0.000	Supported
H6b: PDEP⟶NSCI (−)	−0.029	0.047	−1.312	0.165	Not supported
H6c: PDEP⟶NENI (−)	−0.031	0.060	−1.442	0.149	Not supported
H7a: PIDN⟶SUPPT (+)	0.224	0.075	6.601	0.000	Supported
H7b: PDEP⟶SUPPT (+)	0.181	0.068	4.071	0.000	Supported
H8a: PECI⟶SUPPT (+)	0.207	0.050	2.980	0.001	Supported
H8b: PSCI⟶SUPPT (+)	0.289	0.063	5.999	0.000	Supported
H8c: PENI⟶SUPPT (+)	0.177	0.055	6.090	0.000	Supported
H9a: NECI⟶SUPPT (−)	−0.031	0.041	−1.465	0.152	Not supported
H9b: NSCI⟶SUPPT (−)	−0.057	0.038	−1.562	0.128	Not supported
H9c: NENI⟶SUPPT (−)	−0.162	0.058	−3.494	0.000	Supported

). Cultural involvement regading Place identity (β = 0.589, p < 0.000), Place dependence (β = 0.311, p < 0.000) and Support for tourism development (β = 0.217, p < 0.000) indicated significant and positive impact, thus supporting H1a, H1b, and H2. Place identity had a significant positive effect on perceived positive economic (β = 0.228, p < 0.000) and socio-cultural impacts (β = 0.222, p < 0.000), environmental impacts (β = 0.189, p < 0.000) and support for tourism development (β = 0.224, p < 0.000), so H3a, H3b, H3c and H7a can be confirmed. Place identity did not have a significant negative effect on negative economic (β = −0.061, p = 0.137) or negative socio-cultural impacts (β = −0.055, p = 0.129), which didn’t confirm H4a and H4b. H4c was supported, indicating that place identity had a significant negative effect on negative environmental impacts (β = −0.302, p < 0.000). Further, place dependence indicated a significant positive impact on perceived positive economic (β = 0.214, p < 0.000) and socio-cultural impacts (β = 0.184, p < 0.000), and support for tourism (β = 0.224, p < 0.000), and a significant negative impact on negative environmental impacts (β = −0.352, p < 0.000), which confirmed hypotheses H5a, H5b, H7a and H6a. Place dependence was not found to positively affect positive environmental impacts (H5c) (β = 0.016, p = 0.178), and was not found to negatively affect perceived negative socio-cultural (β = −0.029, p = 0.165) or environmental impacts (β = −0.031, p = 0.149), so H5c, H6b and H6c cannot be confirmed. The perceived positive economic (β = 0.207, p < 0.001), socio-cultural (β = 0.289, p < 0.000) and environmental (β = 0.177, p < 0.000) impacts of tourism had a significant positive effect on support for tourism, thus supporting H8a, H8b and H8c. Perceived negative environmental impacts (β = −0.162, p < 0.000) had a significant negative effect on support for tourism development. These results supported H9c. Negative economic (β = −0.031, p = 0.152) and socio-cultural (β = −0.057, p = 0.128) impacts were not found to negatively affect support for tourism; thus, we rejected H9a and H9b. The results of the path model are shown in Table 4 and Figure 3.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The following are the key conclusions and debates based on empirical studies of data from Novi Sad’s inhabitants. As hypothesized, the findings indicate a positive relationship between cultural involvement, place attachment (place identity and place dependence), and support for tourism. Because the host culture is an important component in the tourist setting, and because cultural participation is a more long-lasting and internal motivating factor, it was crucial to investigate whether residents’ level of involvement in cultural activities impacts their place attachment and their attitude towards tourism development. Cultural involvement is one strategy to encourage residents to connect with their culture and traditions. It is supposed that residents will therefore have a stronger feeling of belonging and identity, which will inspire them to support sustainable tourism growth in their town [11].

Consistent with previous research, the relationships between the place attachment dimensions and perceived positive impacts of tourism were found to be mostly significant, except for place dependence and environmental impacts. While place identity was found to have a significant impact on all three dimensions of positive impacts (economic, socio-cultural, and environmental), place dependence was found to have a significant impact on two dimensions (economic and socio-cultural). Residents who believe their town has a higher level of positive economic impact are more likely to appreciate it [5]. According to some scholars, citizens’ views of economic impacts affect their community connection [5,56,84]. People who are concerned about their town are more likely to see tourism as providing economic and cultural advantages to their community [56]. The type and strength of inhabitants’ place identification, as well as their attachment to the environment and surrounding landscape, may be crucial factors in effective cohabitation between residents and the tourist sector [84,85]. Positive impacts were also obtained between place attachment dimensions and support for tourism. As Ganji et al. [9] state, higher levels of community attachment among inhabitants resulted in a more favorable attitude toward tourism development. This shows that residents who are more devoted to the community are more inclined to support tourism development in places with intense tourism growth [69]. In addition to the above, this research confirmed two of the six assumed connections between place attachment dimensions and perceived negative influences of tourism. Such results are in line with other studies that state that residents have a stronger perception of tourism’s positive impacts compared to negative impacts [21,56]. Place dependence has a negative effect on negative economic impacts, while place identity has a negative effect on negative environmental impacts. People who care more about negative environmental effects are less likely to feel dedicated to or proud of their town. Residents may be concerned about the direct effects on their lives and communities, as tourist destinations are places where future generations will continue to dwell [86].

The findings, in particular, demonstrated favorable significant connections between all three dimensions of perceived positive impacts and support for tourism.

According to the findings, a more favorable perception of economic impacts leads to stronger support for future growth. This reflects the widespread perception of tourism as a tool for local economic development [15,18,24,87]. Similarly, the more positively citizens see its socio-cultural benefits, the more inclined they are to support tourism growth, which is in line with other studies [17,24,33]. Hypotheses H8_C and H9_C were also confirmed, which shows that the more (or less) the more favorable the population estimates the ecological consequences of tourism to be, the more (or less) they support development [24]. The findings show that when people believe that the beneficial effects of tourism are likely to outweigh the negative aspects, they are more likely to accept exchanges and, as a result, support tourism growth in their city, as confirmed by other research [21,56,70]. As is evident for Novi Sad, perceived socio-cultural impacts have the strongest effect, followed by economic and environmental impacts. This is not completely unexpected considering that, since 2018, great events have been held in Novi Sad—“Doček” (Welcome), two New Year’s Eve celebrations, and the Kaleidoscope of Culture, which should remain as the cultural legacy of the city and continue to be held after 2022. It is estimated that starting from 2017 until the end of 2022, over 5400 artists will participate in the programs. Thanks to these legacy projects for which the capital became famous, even before the title year in November 2021, Novi Sad received the award for the best European trend brand, which is awarded in Dresden. Thus, Novi Sad joined European metropolises such as Paris, Amsterdam, London, Oslo and Munich [88].

Finally, during the preparations for the European Capital of Culture, the first concert hall in the city’s history was built, which after almost 100 years became home to the Music and Ballet School, thus creating a unique model of synergy between the two institutions.

The major novelty of this study resides in the analysis of the effects of cultural involvement and place attachment on residents’ perceptions of tourism’s positive and negative impacts, and on the residents’ attitudes of support for tourism development. This study contributes to the current literature mainly as the first study to test such a complex model, encompassing mentioned relationships in one single model and a new study context. The study proposes a research instrument to ascertain these aspects, which other researchers may use to examine local inhabitants’ impressions of tourism in other geographical locations, particularly in urban areas. Furthermore, this is also the first study to test and confirm the influence of residents’ cultural involvement on place attachment. Moreover, this study, apart from confirming some relationships which have already been tested in the previous literature, also reveals some new results, especially regarding place attachment’s negative effect on negative economic and environmental impacts.

Further, this study provides tourism planners with useful information about residents’ opinions, assessments of the effects of tourism, and encouragement for the growth of tourism. These insights may be used by urban planners and developers to create communication strategies that address specific challenges presented by each group of respondents. This may assist them in acquiring more support, and may raise the likelihood of tourism development. These communication strategies may refer to communications with residents through various types of promotion of cultural events, and through highlighting the cultural investments and new projects in the city (especially due to receiving the EPK title). Moreover, as the perception of negative environmental impacts was the only factor to negatively affect support for tourism development, the communication should be directed towards the authorities (communal enterprises, the city council, the department for urbanism, etc.) on reducing/overcoming these causes in order to increase the residents’ tourism support. Foundation Novi Sad European Capital of Culture 2022 should communicate the importance of tourism for the development of the local community through various forms of promotion and advertising through various media—social networks, radio, and TV shows, etc. Communication strategies should also include certain educational programmes in order to familiarize residents with the importance of tourism for the development of the local community, and to strengthen their support for the city’s tourism development.

6. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies

There are a few limitations of the study that should be pointed out. Firstly, the generalizability of the results is limited, as the data were collected through a convenient method. Some more precise findings could be obtained by using a stratified sample. Secondly, we only considered the effect of cultural involvement on place attachment, perceived tourism impacts, and support for tourism development. Some variables, such as cultural attitudes [12], can be considered as potential predictors. Furthermore, this study considered two dimensions of place attachment—place identity and place dependence. There are also other moderator factors to consider, such as socio-demographic data. Citizens working in the tourist sector, for example, may view the value of tourism more favorably and have a stronger tendency to support it than people who do not work in the sector. Another interesting topic the future research should address is the analysis of the changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic on place attachment, cultural involvement, and residents’ attitudes towards tourism development. Finally, the future research should put more emphasis on implicit measures of residents’ attitudes and impacts, as this could provide more accurate and sincere data.