Next Article in Journal
Assessing the Environmental Impact of PV Emissions and Sustainability Challenges
Previous Article in Journal
Research on the Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Marginal Abatement Costs of Carbon Emissions in the Logistics Industry and Its Influencing Factors
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 7
10.3390/su17072841
sustainability-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Role of Tourists, Infrastructure and Institutions in Sustainable Tourism: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach

by
Shahid Munir
1,
Ihtisham ul Haq
1,*,
Ammara Nawaz Cheema
2,
Ibrahim M. Almanjahie
3 and
Dilawar Khan
1
1
Department of Economics, Kohat University of Science and Technology, Kohat 26000, Pakistan
2
Department of Mathematics, Air University, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
3
Department of Mathematics, College of Science, King Khalid University, Abha 62223, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(7), 2841; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072841
Submission received: 21 January 2025 / Revised: 19 March 2025 / Accepted: 20 March 2025 / Published: 22 March 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Tourists play a vital role in the development of sustainable tourism by boosting the local economy, preserving culture, and reducing environmental degradation. However, tourists’ decisions to visit destinations and promote sustainable tourism are influenced by reliable infrastructure, safety, security, and trust in institutions. A well-developed infrastructure, a peaceful environment, and efficient tourism management encourage tourism and sustainability. Therefore, this research examines the effect of tourism, infrastructure, institutions, and place attachment on sustainable tourism. Additionally, the study examines the role of infrastructure, institutions, and place attachment on tourists’ satisfaction in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Primary data were collected through surveys and Google forms from five tourist districts, Swat, Abbottabad, Mansehra, Upper Dir, and Lower Dir of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. A total of 250 responses were collected from tourists using a proportionate random sampling technique. The data were analyzed using the partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) technique. The results show that place attachment and tourist satisfaction positively affect sustainable tourism, while infrastructure, place attachment, and trust in institutions positively affect tourist satisfaction. Furthermore, sustainable tourism was more influenced by tourist satisfaction, and tourist satisfaction was more influenced by trust in institutions and infrastructure. The study also confirmed that infrastructure mediates the relationship between trust in institutions and sustainable tourism and between trust in institutions and tourist satisfaction. The study provides valuable insight to policymakers in assessing tourists’ behavior and sustainable tourism.

1. Introduction

Tourists play a significant role in the development of sustainable tourism by influencing the economic, cultural, and environmental aspects of sustainable tourism [1]. Repeat visits reduce the number of programs employed to attract new tourists, thereby allowing destinations to focus on the development and improvement in infrastructure and services. Satisfied tourists are likely to share their positive experiences on social media with friends and relatives, thus building a destination image. These positive experiences and destination image attract more visitors, thus increasing the demand for destinations [2]. Likewise, satisfied tourists are likely to spend money on local products, such as food, accommodation, and transportation. Additionally, tourist satisfaction contributes to cultural preservation [3]. Satisfied tourists are more likely to respect the local culture, which helps preserve local traditions and culture [4]. Often, satisfied tourists are likely to participate in educational and cultural heritage programs, thus establishing the cultural sustainability of the destination [5]. Tourist satisfaction also helps reduce the environmental degradation of destinations as satisfied tourists are likely to exhibit sustainable behavior at destinations by conserving resources such as water and energy consumption and by preserving natural resources [6].
Infrastructure is the most pivotal factor in sustainable tourism and affects tourist satisfaction [7]. Infrastructure facilities affect tourist satisfaction in many ways. Infrastructure, such as airports, trains, buses, and cabs, are necessary to reach and navigate the destination. Efficient and reliable transportation facilities reduce travel time and stress, thus enhancing the overall experience of tourists during travel. During a stay at a destination, well-maintained and well-managed accommodations and communication facilities such as hotels, restaurants, electricity, and internet connectivity increase tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty. A better infrastructure for emergency healthcare and emergency services, along with security services, enhances the safety and security of tourists [8]. Furthermore, proper waste management, clean drinking water, and sanitation services at destinations improve the destination’s image and tourist satisfaction [9,10]. A developed infrastructure not only ensures the safe journey of tourists but also reduces the costs of traveling to the destination [11].
Institutions are another crucial factor alongside infrastructure that affects tourist satisfaction and sustainable tourism. Institutions are bodies that formulate rules and regulations for the development and protection of sustainable development of tourist destinations. Institutions substantially affect tourist satisfaction through policy regulations, infrastructure development, safety regulations, education, community engagement, and economic incentives [12]. Institutions help in the development and maintenance of infrastructure facilities at destinations, which helps in tourist satisfaction and the length of stay [13]. Institutions also keep a check on prices at tourist destinations, making them affordable for tourists, thus reducing the cost of trips and making tourism less expensive. Henceforth, tourists revisit and stay longer [14]. Another important aspect of institutions is the environmental protection of tourism destinations. The institutions preserve natural resources and maintain the natural scenery of the destination. Thus, it encourages sustainable tourism development of the destination [12,15,16]. Another factor that affects tourist satisfaction and sustainable tourism is place attachment. Place attachment is a tourist connection with a destination. Once a place attachment develops with a destination, the tourist visits the destination more often [17]. The place attachment of tourists to a particular destination is affected by the natural environment, infrastructure facilities, and security conditions [18]. A pleasant environment, efficient and reliable infrastructure facilities, and safe and secure conditions increase tourist attachment to destinations. Place attachment to destinations promotes sustainable tourist behavior at destinations and affects tourist satisfaction and sustainable tourism. Moreover, tourist satisfaction acts as a mediator between place attachment and sustainable tourism [17].
This research examines the effect of influencing factors such as tourist satisfaction, infrastructure, trust in institutions, and place attachment to sustainable tourism. Additionally, the study examines the role of three influencing factors, i.e., infrastructure, institution, and place attachment, in tourist satisfaction. This research provides a few notable contributions to the literature. First, the literature investigating the influence of tourists on sustainable tourism is often scarce in general and particularly in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Therefore, this is a novel contribution to the literature and sustainable tourism development in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Second, the research assesses the role of tourists, as tourists are the most reliable and authentic source of judging sustainable tourism development at the destination. Third, there are very few studies examining the influence of infrastructure, institutions, and place attachment on sustainable tourism since infrastructure and institutions are the essential factors of sustainable tourism development and tourist satisfaction. Fourth, the study has a methodological gap as Dalimunthe et al. [7] classified infrastructure into community and tourist infrastructure. However, the indicators of tourist infrastructure are used for the first time in this research. Fifth, the study investigates the mediating effect of infrastructure and tourist satisfaction on sustainable tourism, as many scholars associate infrastructure with sustainable tourism and tourist satisfaction, but they have not investigated the mediating role of infrastructure and tourist satisfaction on sustainable tourism. Sixth, the study employed a partial least square structural equation modeling method, which is a second-generation technique to examine the role of infrastructure, place attachment, and trust in institutions on sustainable tourism and tourist satisfaction. Owing to these contributions, this study is considered novel to scholars, policymakers, and the literature regarding the determinants of tourist satisfaction and sustainable tourism.

2. Literature Review

In terms of tourism development, infrastructure is the basic facility that is built for the economic and social integration of tourists while considering the needs of the community [19]. In a broader sense, infrastructure comprises physical, mental, legal, and environmental facilities that make tourism more enjoyable and sustainable [20]. It consists of accommodation, communication, food and beverages, and accompanying facilities. Similarly, tourism infrastructure consists of physical elements that are designed and built to cater to tourists [21]. Singh et al. [22] emphasized that tourist infrastructure consists of transportation, accommodation, communication, tourist information, sports and leisure facilities. Several researchers have theoretically established a connection between infrastructure and sustainable tourism development. Zhang [23] reported that the tourist infrastructure is a factor of growth in the tourism industry. Navarro [9] argues that infrastructure is critical to sustainable tourism development, and among other factors, tourist arrivals are affected by infrastructure facilities. Most researchers agree that a comfortable and reliable tourism infrastructure increases destination attractiveness, which forms a base for tourist attractions and visits [10]. Mamirkulova et al. [24] examine that tourism infrastructure facilities affect sustainable tourism positively and the lives of residents indirectly. Likewise, Sugiama et al. [25] reported a positive relationship between tourist infrastructure and sustainable tourism development. On the other hand, infrastructure facilities also play a key role in tourist satisfaction. For example, Sangpikul [26] reported that the quality of infrastructure strongly affects tourist satisfaction, and tourist satisfaction is enhanced by amenities, accommodation, and accessibility. Sunandar et al. [27] emphasized the greater role of accessibility and amenities as the study revealed a significant positive correlation with accessibility, amenities, facilities and tourist satisfaction. Similarly, Liu and Wang [28] examined the role of the public services in tourist satisfaction and reported that tourist satisfaction is related to convenient transportation system, safety and security situation at destination. Thus, from the above literature, the following hypotheses are developed:
Hypothesis H1a:
Infrastructure affects sustainable tourism.
Hypothesis H1b:
Infrastructure directly affects tourist satisfaction.
For tourists, the choice of destination is affected by many factors, such as infrastructure facilities, environmental conditions, and safety and security conditions at the destination, because they travel to unknown destinations or those that are less known to them [29]. Therefore, it is important that destinations have efficient and reliable infrastructure facilities, sound environments, and better safety and security conditions [30]. However, the private sector is reluctant to invest in sustainable tourism products. Therefore, the role of institutions is important in the development of sustainable tourism destinations. The role of institutions encompasses the provision of public goods and encouraging the private sector to provide better and sustainable infrastructure facilities at destinations. The other and most important role of institutions is the management and provision of tourism products at destinations. The development and maintenance of infrastructure facilities at destinations help increase tourist satisfaction and overall experience during travel. Institutions also help with safety and security at the destination, which helps to increase tourist satisfaction and increases the length of stay during traveling [13]. Additionally, institutions control the prices of tourism products at destinations, making tourism products affordable for tourists at reasonable prices at destinations. Thus, the cost of trips for tourists decreases, which makes tourism less expensive and increases tourist revisits and the length of stay [14]. Another important aspect of institutions at destinations is the environmental protection of tourism resources at the destination [15]. The preservation of natural resources not only helps control environmental degradation but also helps maintain the natural scenery of the destination [12,15]. Thus, institutions encourage sustainable development of the destination [16].
Hypothesis H2a:
Trust in institutions directly affects sustainable tourism.
Hypothesis H2b:
Trust in institutions directly affects tourist satisfaction.
Place attachment is a psychological concept that expresses emotional bonds between a person and a place [31]. Place attachment is classified by scholars into place identity and place dependence [32]. The place identity is the person’s emotional and symbolic bond with the place, which aligns with social identity theory. Social identity theory suggests how a person describes his sense of belonging or attachment to a particular place or group [33]. Place dependence, on the other hand, is a concept drawn from environmental psychology and behavioral geography, and it explains how a person’s functional dependence on a place fulfills their needs and goals compared with other places [34]. From a sociological perspective, the social capital theory explains how trust, social networks, and community engagement strengthen place attachment. Social capital, such as relationships with family, friends, and neighbors, connections with diverse groups and associations, and relationships with institutions and governance, creates a sense of belonging to place. Furthermore, Relph [35] explains how experiences with place shape emotional connection with places [36]. Thus, from a psychological and sociological perspective, this study provides how people are functionally and emotionally connected to the place. From a tourist perspective, the connection of tourist attachments with the destination has been studied by various scholars. Previous empirical investigations have shown that place attachment significantly affects tourist satisfaction. The strong bond between places and tourists enhances the tourist experience and destination loyalty [37]. Cheng et al. [18] reported that the attachment of tourists to destinations is affected by several factors, including the natural environment, infrastructure facilities, and safety and security situation at the destination. The availability of these essential factors at destinations enhances tourist attachment to destinations. Dang and Maurer [38] reported that place attachment enhances tourists’ pro-environmental behavior at destinations. The literature on place attachment and sustainable tourism shows that place attachment is positively correlated with sustainable tourism [39]. Once tourists’ attachment to a destination develops, they are more likely to participate in environmental sustainability. This includes supporting local businesses and participating in activities that promote conservation activities and policies that promote sustainable tourism projects [37]. Stylidis et al. [40] examine that place attachment enhances tourists visiting experience, encourages tourists pro environmental behavior, builds destination loyalty and repeats visits, preserves cultural identity and supports local community. The literature discussion here leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis H3a:
Place attachment affects tourist satisfaction.
Hypothesis H3b:
Place attachment directly affects sustainable tourism.
Scholars used various theories to explain the role of tourists in sustainable tourism. For instance, Han [41] suggests that the theory of environmentally significant behavior is suitable in this regard. The theory of environmentally significant behavior postulates that sustainable tourist behavior is affected by personal norms. Personal norms are people’s sense of obligation to protect the environment [42]. Accordingly, if tourists are aware of the consequences of environmental pollution, they will behave sustainably to reduce pollution [43]. A study by Dolnicar and Leisch [44] explains how tourists’ environmental behavior is linked with their sustainable behavior. This includes tourists’ actions during traveling, such as switching off lights in hotel or air conditions, saving water, and not littering around. Thus, the theory of environmentally significant behavior provides a basis for assessing the role of infrastructure, place attachment, trust in institutions, and tourist satisfaction in sustainable tourism [45]. Environmentally friendly infrastructure, such as recycling bins, efficient energy facilities, and sustainable accommodations, makes it easier for tourists to adopt sustainable practices [46]. Tourists’ personal attachment to the environment makes them responsible for protecting the natural environment of the destination. Similarly, when tourists know that tourism organizations manage a destination and provide accurate information, they adopt more sustainable practices at the destination. Furthermore, when tourists are satisfied with their visit, they exhibit more eco-friendly behavior, which promotes sustainable tourism [47].
An extensive literature review revealed that tourist satisfaction affects sustainable tourism. The sustainable behavior of tourists positively affects sustainable tourism, whereas unsustainable practices negatively affect sustainable tourism [48]. On the other hand, infrastructure is the most pivotal factor in determining tourist satisfaction and sustainable tourism at destinations. Thus, infrastructure facilities positively affect tourist satisfaction and sustainable tourism [49]. Another crucial factor that significantly affects tourist satisfaction and sustainable tourism is institutions. Institutions that manage tourism resources are vital in promoting tourist satisfaction and sustainable tourism [50]. Institutions provide infrastructure facilities at destinations to provide safety and security conditions and maintain peaceful environments. Thus, the availability of basic tourism infrastructure and a peaceful environment attract tourists and enhance their experience. Institutions are also significantly related to infrastructure. Institutions formulate policies that encourage private investors to invest in tourism infrastructure. Moreover, institutions also build basic infrastructure facilities at destinations, such as the construction of roads, hospitals, and recreation facilities, and control pollution at destinations [51]. Thus, institutions are directly related to tourist satisfaction, infrastructure development, and sustainable tourism. Another factor influencing tourist satisfaction and sustainable tourism is place attachment. The literature reveals that tourist attachment to destinations enhances tourist satisfaction directly and sustainable tourism indirectly [2]. A positive nexus exists between place attachment and tourist satisfaction and between place attachment and sustainable tourism [52]. The links between place attachment, tourist satisfaction, infrastructure trust in institutions, and sustainable tourism are shown in Figure 1. From Figure 1, we conclude that place attachment, infrastructure, tourist satisfaction, and trust in institutions directly affect sustainable tourism. Similarly, place attachment, infrastructure, and trust in institutions directly affect tourist satisfaction. Furthermore, infrastructure serves as a mediating role between trust in institutions and sustainable tourism, between trust in institutions and tourist satisfaction. Tourist satisfaction serves as a mediating role between infrastructure and sustainable tourism, between place attachment and sustainable tourism and institutional trust and sustainable tourism. Based on the literature discussed, the study developed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis H4:
Tourist satisfaction has a direct impact on sustainable tourism.
Hypothesis H5a:
Infrastructure serves as a mediator in the relationship between institutional trust and sustainable tourism.
Hypothesis H5b:
Infrastructure serves as a mediator in the relationship between institutional trust and tourist satisfaction.
Hypothesis H5c:
Tourist satisfaction serves as a mediator in the relationship between infrastructure and sustainable tourism.
Hypothesis H5d:
Tourist satisfaction serves as a mediator in the relationship between place attachment and sustainable tourism.
Hypothesis H5e:
Tourist satisfaction serves as a mediator in the relationship between institutional trust and sustainable tourism.

3. Methods

Empirical studies frequently employ the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) technique, particularly in exploratory research, to develop robust theoretical frameworks [53]. PLS-SEM includes a variety of methodologies, including confirmatory factor analysis, path analysis, regression models, factor analysis, covariance structure models, and correlation structure models [54]. Furthermore, SEM assesses linear connections between both observed and latent variables. PLS-SEM is a sophisticated statistical technique that facilitates simultaneous estimation of the measurement model alongside structural equation modeling, which assesses the relationships between and observed variables. The analysis provides the coefficients of parameters, indicating the extent of correlation between constructs and items. Generally, PLS-SEM enables the assessment of multiple connections within the model rather than computing them one by one. The hypothesized conceptual model illustrated in Figure 1 has been examined using smart PLS. The PLS-SEM technique offers considerable advantages compared to traditional regression methods for assessing various observed and unobserved variables [55]. The PLS-SEM approach is acknowledged as a robust, flexible, and effective instrument for constructing an appropriate statistical framework, as the distinctive features of the PLS-SEM significantly contribute to achieving specific research objectives [56,57]. Astrachan et al. [58] highlighted that achieving reliable and valid confirmatory factor analysis is most effectively conducted using PLS-SEM path modeling, thereby emphasizing its essential role in empirical studies. Hair et al. [59] argued that PLS-SEM is a sophisticated statistical technique in social sciences, particularly emphasizing business research. Moreover, Lowry and Gaskin [56] argue that PLS-SEM is specifically designed to improve the evaluation and validation of complex models that incorporate multilevel effects, analysis of mediating roles and the exploration of intricate relationships among various variables. In connection with this distinctive study, smart PLS was applied to measure factor loading such as path coefficients, and weights through PLS algorithm. Furthermore, the bootstrapping method is applied to measure the direct and indirect path coefficient and significance of the parameters of the model [60].
The study was used to assess the tourists’ perceptions regarding sustainable tourism in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan (Figure 2). Nature blessed Khyber Pakhtunkhwa with enormous tourism potential as it has three-fourths of the country’s tourism assets encompassing cultural, natural, and scenic beauty [19]. Moreover, according to the Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation (PTDC) report, the districts Swat, Abbottabad, Mansehra, Upper and Lower Dir have been the most commonly visited destinations of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa during the last ten years in terms of tourist arrivals [61]. These five districts are famous for their natural beauty, green mountains, meadows, and rivers. These areas are covered in snow, while the plains and the southern part of the country do not have snow. Hence, visitors come in the winter to enjoy the snow, while in the summer, the cold weather, along with the scenery, attracts tourists not just from Pakistan but also from foreign countries. Therefore, the data were collected from tourists at these tourist destinations (indicated in Figure 2b) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The data were gathered on a structured questionnaire through surveys and online Google forms from tourists during the second quarter of the year 2024. Due to a lack of data on the exact number of tourist arrivals, this study used the local population of these districts as a base for determining the sample size, while for sample size determination, Cohen [62] and Hair et al. [57] procedures are adopted. Cohen [62] uses statistical power for regression, and Hair et al. [57] uses minimum R2 for sample size determination. According to the list provided by Jhantasana [63], a study containing a maximum number of arrows pointing to construct (8), minimum R2 (0.10) with a 5% level of significance, a total of 238 samples is enough. Furthermore, to ensure representative sampling from each district, this study used proportionate random sampling technique. Therefore, to fulfill the requirement of optimal sample size, this study collected data from 250 respondents.
The study consists of five constructs: sustainable tourism (ST), tourist satisfaction (TS), place attachment (PA), trust in institutions (TI), and infrastructure (INF). The ST was measured via 10 items, all of which were selected from the study of Nicholas and Thapa [64]. The role of tourists in sustainable tourism is measured by tourist satisfaction. The TS contains seven items and was adopted from Kozak [65]. The role of institutions was measured by trust in institutions. TI has four items, and all the items were adopted from Nguyen and Su [66]. The infrastructure that provides tourists access to the tourist destination is measured by nine items. Dalimunthe et al. [7] and Ivanov et al. [67] classified infrastructure into tourist and community infrastructure. However, the infrastructure indicators are used in this study for the first time. Similarly, place attachment contains seven items, which are taken from Cheng et al. [68] and Xu and Zhang [4]. All the items are measured on a five-point Likert scale. The descriptions of the construct and items are depicted in Table 1.
The model illustrated in Figure 1 is estimated via Smart PLS software version 3.2.9 and is divided into three PLS-SEMs. The first model takes INF, PA, TS, and TI as exogenous latent and ST as endogenous latent. In the second model, INF, PA, and TI are taken as exogenous latent, and TS is taken as endogenous latent. The third model considers INF and TS as mediators, whereas TI and PA are exogenous latent. The PLS-SEM is composed of two models: the measurement model (PLS algorithm) and the structural model (bootstrapping analysis) [59]. The structural model is used to assess the quality of the model (reliability and validity analysis), and the structural model is composed of path coefficient, t-values, standard deviation, and p-values [69]. The reliability was assessed via Cronbach alpha (CA) and composite reliability (CR). Hair et al. [59] indicate that the CA and CR values must exceed 0.70. The evaluation of convergent validity involves analyzing the average variance extracted (AVE) alongside CR. The AVE value must surpass 0.5, and the CR value should be above 0.70 [63]. Likewise, the discriminant validity (DV) was evaluated using the Fornell and Larcker criteria [69]. For DV, the square of AVE must be 0.70, and the correlation with other latent must be lower than the square of AVE. Additionally, the relationships between the constructs are assessed using the PLS-SEM bootstrapping technique.

4. Results and Discussion

The respondents of this study consisted of all the local and foreign male and female tourists who visited the tourist destinations of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The data reveal that 79% of the respondents are male tourists, whereas 21% are female tourists. This shows that male tourists are more likely to visit destinations than females. The high ratio of male tourists is due to the fact that male tourists are more likely to visit the tourist destination than females. It is because of several influential factors, such as the low literacy rate of females and sociocultural factors. In Pakistan, the male literacy rate is about 69%, and the female literacy rate is about 46% [70]. Similarly, the socioeconomic and sociocultural barriers greatly affect female participation in tourism activities. Therefore, male respondents contribute more than females in our study. The data show that 64% and 36% of the tourists were single and married, respectively. This shows that a single person is more involved in tourism activities by visiting a tourist destination than a married person. According to the PTDC [61], during the last ten years, Swat, known as “The Switzerland of Pakistan”, has been the most visited destination of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Most of the tourist respondents visited district Swat (34%), followed by Mansehra (19%), Dir Lower (18%), Abbottabad (17%) and Dir Upper (12%). The age data show that most tourists are aged 20–29 years. Furthermore, the data show that education is a significant factor in encouraging tourists to visit destinations. The data reveal that 49% of the respondents were M. Phil degree holders, whereas 41% were master’s degree holders. Table 2 depicts the demographic statistics of the respondents.
The result of the reliability and validity of the first model is displayed in Table 3. The result shows that the model validates the reliability threshold, as the CA and CR values are greater than 0.70. The lower part of Table 3 reflects the model DV, which shows that the square of the AVE is greater than 0.70 and its correlation with other factor loadings. These results provide the ground for the use of the PLS-SEM technique. A graphical representation of the first model is depicted in Figure 3a. The reliability and validity of the second model are depicted in Table 4. The graphical representation of the second model is depicted in Figure 3b. Results in Table 4 indicate that the CA and CR values are greater than the recommended threshold set by [60]. Similarly, the model validates the DV, as the AVE value is above 0.5 and the CR value is greater than the recommended level. The lower part of Table 4 indicates that the model establishes DV, as the coefficient of the square of the AVE suppresses the recommended threshold of 0.70 and its correlation with other factor loadings.
The reliability and validity of the third model, which examines the mediating effect of infrastructure and tourist satisfaction on sustainable tourism, are reflected in Table 5. The results show that the model establishes reliability and convergent analysis, as the CA value and CR value suppress the minimum threshold. Furthermore, the AVE value exceeds 0.5, which shows that the model establishes convergent validity. The discriminant validity of the model is indicated in the lower part of Table 5. The estimates show that the model establishes DV. The graphical representation of the third model is depicted in Figure 3c. It can be concluded from the reliability and validity results that all the models of the study fulfill the criteria for the PLS-SEM technique.
The path coefficients of three PLS-SEMs are depicted in Table 6. The first model examines infrastructure, place attachment, tourist satisfaction, and trust in institutions as exogenous latent factors of sustainable tourism. Beta measures the degree of association between the exogenous latent and the endogenous latent. The path coefficient shows that infrastructure positively affects sustainable tourism with insignificant probability values, thus allowing the rejection of the H1a hypothesis, which postulates that infrastructure directly affects sustainable tourism. This indicates that infrastructure alone cannot directly contribute to sustainable tourism. The results are consistent with the study of Oliver [71], which states that infrastructure, such as accommodation and transportation, cannot contribute to sustainable practices but rather through enhanced tourist satisfaction. The coefficient of correlation between place attachment and sustainable tourism is positive and significant, which allows us to accept H3b. H3b hypothesizes that place attachment positively affects sustainable tourism. The results are also similar to Wang et al. [72], who found that place attachment positively affects tourist satisfaction and sustainable tourism practices. The estimates show that trust in institutions is not a significant factor in sustainable tourism, which leads to the rejection of H2a. The H2a hypothesis postulates that trust in institutions directly affects sustainable tourism. Furthermore, the path coefficient of tourist satisfaction is positive and significant. The estimates show that tourist satisfaction positively affects sustainable tourism, leading to the acceptance of H4. The H4 hypothesis postulates that tourist satisfaction directly affects sustainable tourism. Kusumah [2] also found that tourist satisfaction positively affects sustainable tourism. Additionally, Table 6 includes the value of the coefficient of determination (R2). R2 measures the variation in the endogenous latent caused by the exogenous latent; in other words, R2 shows how much variation in the model is explained by the exogenous latent. In PLS-SEM, R2 measures the predictive accuracy of the model. According to Cohen [73], the predictive accuracy of the model is set substantial at 0.26, moderate at 0.13, and weak at 0.02. The estimates of the first model show that the value of R2 is 0.27, which indicates that the model explains a substantial level of variation in the dependent variable. The graphical representation of the path coefficient of the first model is depicted in Figure 4a.
The second model examines the effects of infrastructure, place attachment, and trust in institutions on tourist satisfaction, as depicted in Table 6. The path coefficient of the PLS-SEM shows that infrastructure positively affects tourist satisfaction in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, leading to acceptance of H1b. The H1b hypothesis shows that infrastructure directly affects tourist satisfaction. The factor loading of infrastructure is 0.32, which is positive and significant, indicating that infrastructure availability at destinations fosters sustainable tourism. This is because infrastructure facilities not only enhance smooth journeys to tourist destinations but also reduce the cost of travel to destinations [27]. The coefficient of place attachment is positive and significant, leading to acceptance of H3a. The H3a hypothesis shows that place attachment affects tourist satisfaction. This means that place attachment leads to increased tourist satisfaction. The positive relationship between place attachment and tourist satisfaction is due to the natural environment, infrastructure facilities, and the peaceful environment at destinations. Therefore, most tourists who have developed attachments to destinations frequently visit them. Furthermore, they behave sustainably at the destination [74]. The other factor included in the model in this study is trust in institutions. The role of institutions in tourist satisfaction, which is measured by trust in institutions, is positive and significant at the 1% level. The estimates of the second model show that trust in institutions has a strong role in increasing tourist satisfaction, leading to the acceptance of H2b. H2b postulates that trust in institutions affects tourist satisfaction. This is because institutions not only play a crucial role in the development of tourist destinations but also maintain a peaceful environment at destinations. Furthermore, institutions control environmental degradation at destinations [16]. The coefficient of determination (R2) is 0.63, which shows that the model explains 63% of the variation in the endogenous latent, which is sufficient to determine the predictive accuracy of the model [73]. The graphical representation of the path coefficient of the second model is depicted in Figure 4b.
The third model assesses the mediating effect of infrastructure and tourist satisfaction on sustainable tourism. The path coefficient of the third model shows that including the mediating effect of infrastructure and tourist satisfaction strengthens the relationship among constructs. The result indicates that trust in institutions is positively correlated with infrastructure, tourist satisfaction, and sustainable tourism. It indicates that institutions have a strong positive effect on infrastructure development, tourist satisfaction, and sustainable tourism. Ndiershey [75] also found that institutions have a positive role in infrastructure development. As stated by Wani [76], institutions play a pivotal role in infrastructure development. The study confirms the positive association between infrastructure and tourist satisfaction and the negative correlation with sustainable tourism. Yu and Lu [77] also reported that trust in institutions positively affects tourist satisfaction. The positive result of infrastructure with tourist satisfaction indicates that infrastructure availability fosters tourist satisfaction. This is because infrastructure facilities not only enhance smooth journeys to tourist destinations but also reduce the cost of travel to destinations [78]. Consequently, Wani [76], addressing the complex relationship between infrastructure and sustainable tourism, expressed that poorly managed infrastructure negatively affects sustainable tourism. The role of place attachment was found to be positively related to tourist satisfaction and sustainable tourism. This finding shows that place attachment leads to increased tourist satisfaction and sustainable tourism. These results are like those of Wang et al. [72], who reported that place attachment is positively associated with tourist satisfaction. Similarly, Aytekin et al. [79] examine the positive role of place attachment in sustainable tourism. However, the study did not find a significant positive effect of tourist satisfaction on sustainable tourism. Moreover, the R2, which measures the variation in the model explained by exogenous variables, indicates that infrastructure explains 9% of the variation in place attachment and that trust in institutions explains 39% of the variation in infrastructure, while place attachment, infrastructure and trust in institutions explain 62% of the variation in tourist satisfaction. Similarly, infrastructure, place attachment, trust in institutions and tourist satisfaction explained 18% of the variation in sustainable tourism. The graphical representation of path coefficient of third model is depicted in Figure 4c.
Table 7 shows the mediating effect of tourist satisfaction and infrastructure on sustainable tourism. The study found a significant positive mediating effect of infrastructure on trust in institutions and sustainable tourism. It shows that infrastructure significantly mediates the relationship between trust in institutions and sustainable tourism. This allows us to accept the H5a hypothesis, which states that infrastructure mediates the relationship between trust in institutions and sustainable tourism. The study also confirms the mediating effect of infrastructure on trust in institutions and tourist satisfaction. This allows us to accept the H5b hypothesis, which states that infrastructure mediates the relationship between trust in the institution and tourist satisfaction. However, the study did not find sufficient evidence to find the mediating effect of tourist satisfaction on infrastructure and sustainable tourism, place attachment and sustainable tourism, and trust in institutions and sustainable tourism, leading to the rejection of H5c, H5d, and H5e. Hypotheses H5c postulates that tourist satisfaction mediates the relationship between infrastructure and sustainable tourism. Hypothesis H5d shows that tourist satisfaction mediates the relationship between place attachment and sustainable tourism. Hypothesis H5e states that tourist satisfaction mediates the relationship between trust in institutions and sustainable tourism. Two notable reasons offer explanations for insignificant mediating effects of tourist satisfaction. First, the less concerns of tourists about the infrastructure quality. Second, cultural differences may be attributed to this insignificant mediating of tourist satisfaction as foreign tourists may prioritize environmental sustainability while local tourists may like the economic and cultural aspects of sustainability.

5. Conclusions and Policy Implications

Tourists play a vital role in the development of sustainable tourism by boosting the local economy, preserving culture, and reducing environmental degradation. However, tourists’ decision to visit destinations and promote sustainable tourism is influenced by the availability of infrastructure facilities, security, and trust in institutions. Therefore, this study analyzed the effect of infrastructure, trust in institutions, place attachment, and tourist satisfaction on sustainable tourism in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa from the perspective of tourists. Likewise, this study also examined the effect of infrastructure, trust in institutions, and place attachment on tourist satisfaction. This study analyzed the tourist’s perspective measured on a five-point Likert scale for the constructs by using the PLS-SEM approach. This study also gauged the association between all the constructs of the study. Besides, this study determined the mediating effect of infrastructure between trust in institutions and sustainable development and between trust in institutions and tourist satisfaction. Additionally, this study also tested the mediating effect of tourist satisfaction. Results indicated the positive effect of place attachment, infrastructure, tourist satisfaction, and trust in institutions on sustainable tourism. Likewise, the study revealed strong positive effects of place attachment, infrastructure, and trust in institutions on tourist satisfaction. The study also revealed a strong positive association of trust in institutions with infrastructure, tourist satisfaction, and sustainable tourism. The results confirmed the mediating role of infrastructure in the relationship between trust in institutions and sustainable tourism and between trust in institutions and tourist satisfaction. However, the study failed to find sufficient evidence of the mediating effect of tourist satisfaction.
The study recommends policy measures based on the findings. The stakeholders, especially tour operators, hotels, local businesses, and government tourism and environmental institutions, should devise appealing motives to enhance tourist satisfaction and encourage sustainability. Tourist satisfaction could be enhanced by the provision of infrastructure facilities, including mobile and internet services, as this will ensure tourists’ smooth communication and navigation. The government must work on road accessibility for some destinations in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, as some roads are too risky. Likewise, some destinations lack basic health facilities, electricity, and gasoline, which may hurt tourist satisfaction. Moreover, the initiatives of mobile health facilities will enhance tourist satisfaction. The maintenance of safety and security at the destination could also enhance tourist satisfaction. To ensure sustainable tourism, the government, in collaboration with the private sector, should initiate green infrastructure initiatives. Such as the development of high-speed electric trains to tourist destinations to limit the carbon emissions from cars, flights, and self-own vehicles. The initiatives of hybrid and electric bus services for tourists could also limit the environmental degradation of tourist destinations. Similarly, the launch of a green building and certification policy could reduce carbon footprints. Hotels and resorts must use renewable energy, energy-efficient technologies, and local products to promote sustainable tourism. Strong and efficient tourism institutions are key to implementing sustainable practices at the destination. This could be awareness among tourists, businesses, and the local community must be initiated. The use of plastic bags and high-carbon emitting vehicles should be banned at tourist destinations. Using plastic bins and strict policy measures for recycling waste can also promote sustainable practices. Furthermore, the provision of homestays for tourists could promote sustainable tourism. The provision of basic infrastructure facilities, efficient institutions, and interaction with locals could enhance the place attachment of tourists to a particular place. This study limits tourist respondents to some selected destinations of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa; thus, future studies should expand their studies to other destinations and cover community aspects as well.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.M., I.u.H. and D.K.; methodology, S.M. and I.u.H.; software, S.M., A.N.C. and I.M.A.; validation, S.M., I.u.H., A.N.C., I.M.A. and D.K.; formal analysis, S.M.; investigation, S.M. and I.u.H.; resources, S.M., I.u.H., A.N.C. and I.M.A.; data curation, S.M.; writing—original draft preparation, S.M.; writing—review and editing, S.M., I.u.H., A.N.C., I.M.A. and D.K.; visualization, S.M., A.N.C. and A.I; supervision, I.u.H. and D.K.; project administration, S.M., A.N.C. and A.I; funding acquisition, A.N.C. and I.M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors thank and extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Research and Graduate Studies at King Khalid University for funding this work through the Large Research Project under grant number RGP2/338/45.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the KUST Ethical Committee, Kohat University of Science and Technology, No. KUST/Ethical Committee/2019 (23 January 2025).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtain from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

This article corresponds to the author’s (Shahid Munir) PhD thesis title, “The Role of Community and Tourists in Sustainable Tourism in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa”.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Mai, A.; Thi, K.; Thi, T.; Le, T. Factors influencing on tourism sustainable development in Vietnam. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2020, 10, 1737–1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kusumah, E.P. Sustainable tourism concept: Tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty. Int. J. Tour. Cities 2024, 10, 166–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tian, D.; Wang, Q.; Law, R.; Zhang, M. Influence of cultural identity on tourists’ authenticity perception, tourist satisfaction, and traveler loyalty. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Xu, Z.; Zhang, J. Antecedents and consequences of place attachment: A comparison of Chinese and Western urban tourists in Hangzhou, China. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2016, 5, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Vong, F. Relationships among perception of heritage management, satisfaction and destination cultural image. J. Tour. Cult. Chang. 2013, 11, 287–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ibnou-Laaroussi, S.; Rjoub, H.; Wong, W.-K. Sustainability of green tourism among international tourists and its influence on the achievement of green environment: Evidence from North Cyprus. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dalimunthe, D.Y.; Valeriani, D.; Hartini, F.; Wardhani, R.S. The Readiness of Supporting Infrastructure for Tourism Destination in Achieving Sustainable Tourism Development: Kesiapan Infrastruktur Pendukung pada Destinasi Wisata dalam Mewujudkan Sustainable Tourism Development. Society 2020, 8, 217–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Saleh, H.A.; Mahmood, R.H. Safety and security measures as Key Dimensions of Tourism Satisfaction in the city of Erbil. Qalaai Zanist J. 2024, 9, 1537–1565. [Google Scholar]
  9. Navarro, D. Tourist Resources and Tourist Attractions: Conceptualization, Classification and Assessment; Cuadernos de Turismo; Universidad de Murcia: Murcia, Spain, 2015; pp. 481–484. [Google Scholar]
  10. James, E.E.; Essien, A.U. Infrastructure and sustainable tourism development in Nigeria. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2019, 24, 70–81. [Google Scholar]
  11. Mandić, A.; Mrnjavac, Ž.; Kordić, L. Tourism infrastructure, recreational facilities and tourism development. Tour. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 24, 41–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Farsari, I. Exploring the nexus between sustainable tourism governance, resilience and complexity research. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2023, 48, 352–367. [Google Scholar]
  13. Choi, Y.; Ashurova, Z.; Lee, H. Sustainable governance on the intention of medical tourism in Uzbekistan. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Neupane, P.C. Tourism governance in the aftermath of COVID-19: A case study of Nepal. Gaze J. Tour. Hosp. 2021, 12, 44–69. [Google Scholar]
  15. García-Buades, M.E.; García-Sastre, M.A.; Alemany-Hormaeche, M. Effects of overtourism, local government, and tourist behavior on residents’ perceptions in Alcúdia (Majorca, Spain). J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2022, 39, 100499. [Google Scholar]
  16. Brokaj, R. Local Governments role in the sustainable tourism development of a destination. Eur. Sci. J. 2014, 10, 103–117. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chow, A.S.; Ma, A.T.; Wong, G.K.; Lam, T.W.; Cheung, L.T. The impacts of place attachment on environmentally responsible behavioral intention and satisfaction of Chinese nature-based tourists. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Man Cheng, E.N.; So, S.I.; Nang Fong, L.H. Place perception and support for sustainable tourism development: The mediating role of place attachment and moderating role of length of residency. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2022, 19, 279–295. [Google Scholar]
  19. Astami, R.A.G.; Erli, K.D.M. Penentuan Prioritas Pengembangan Infrastruktur Kawasan Wisata Bahari Di Desa Sumberejo, Desa Lojejer, Dan Desa Puger Kulon, Kabupaten Jember Berdasarkan Preferensi Pengunjung Dan Masyarakat. J. Tek. ITS 2015, 4, C45–C50. [Google Scholar]
  20. Khan, S.A.R.; Qianli, D.; SongBo, W.; Zaman, K.; Zhang, Y. Travel and tourism competitiveness index: The impact of air transportation, railways transportation, travel and transport services on international inbound and outbound tourism. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2017, 58, 125–134. [Google Scholar]
  21. Adebayo, A.K.; Iweka, A.C. Optimizing the sustainability of tourism infrastructure in Nigeria through design for deconstruction framework. Am. J. Tour. Manag. 2014, 3, 13–19. [Google Scholar]
  22. Singh, A.; Saini, G.K.; Majumdar, S. Application of social marketing in social entrepreneurship: Evidence from India. Soc. Mark. Q. 2015, 21, 152–172. [Google Scholar]
  23. Zhang, W.-B. Tourism, trade and wealth accumulation with endogenous income and wealth distribution among countries. EcoForum J. 2015, 1, 7–13. [Google Scholar]
  24. Mamirkulova, G.; Mi, J.; Abbas, J.; Mahmood, S.; Mubeen, R.; Ziapour, A. New Silk Road infrastructure opportunities in developing tourism environment for residents better quality of life. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 24, e01194. [Google Scholar]
  25. Sugiama, A.G.; Oktavia, H.C.; Karlina, M. The effect of tourism infrastructure asset quality on tourist satisfaction: A case on forest tourism in Tasikmalaya Regency. Int. J. Appl. Sci. Tour. Events 2022, 6, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sangpikul, A. The effects of travel experience dimensions on tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: The case of an island destination. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2018, 12, 106–123. [Google Scholar]
  27. Sunandar, A.; Pratama, A.; Handayani, A.; Fertilia, N.C. Analysis of Tourism Village development infrastructure in five super priority destinations on tourist satisfaction. ADRI Int. J. Civ. Eng. 2022, 7, 118–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, C.; Wang, D. Satisfaction of foreign visitors with public service system of Chinese urban tourism in Suzhou. Urban Dev. Stud. 2015, 12, 311–319. [Google Scholar]
  29. Garg, A. Travel risks vs tourist decision making: A tourist perspective. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Syst. 2015, 8, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  30. Jensen, S.; Svendsen, G.T. Social trust, safety and the choice of tourist destination. Bus. Manag. Horiz. 2016, 4, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  31. Vong, L.T.-N.; Lai, K.; Li, Y. Influence of casino impact perception on sense of place: A study on Casino-Liberalized Macao, China. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2015, 20, 920–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Woosnam, K.M.; Aleshinloye, K.D.; Strzelecka, M.; Erul, E. The role of place attachment in developing emotional solidarity with residents. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2018, 42, 1058–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hauge, Å.L. Identity and place: A critical comparison of three identity theories. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2007, 50, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dallago, L.; Perkins, D.D.; Santinello, M.; Boyce, W.; Molcho, M.; Morgan, A. Adolescent place attachment, social capital, and perceived safety: A comparison of 13 countries. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2009, 44, 148–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Relph, E. Concept of Insideness and Outsideness. In Place and Placelessness; Pion: London, UK, 1976; p. 45. Available online: https://slunik.slu.se/kursfiler/LK0189/40081.1314/Relph_by_Joahansson_sem_7.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2024).
  36. Soini, K. Between insideness and outsideness—Studying locals’ perceptions of landscape. In European Rural Landscapes: Persistence and Change in a Globalising Environment; Springer: Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2004; pp. 83–97. [Google Scholar]
  37. Köse, B.Ç. Antecedents of domestic tourists’ loyalty: The Role of place attachment and satisfaction. OPUS J. Soc. Res. 2022, 19, 276–288. [Google Scholar]
  38. Dang, N.; Maurer, O. Place-Related Concepts and Pro-Environmental Behavior in Tourism Research: A Conceptual Framework. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Casali, G.L.; Liu, Y.; Presenza, A.; Moyle, C.-L. How does familiarity shape destination image and loyalty for visitors and residents? J. Vacat. Mark. 2021, 27, 151–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Stylidis, D.; Woosnam, K.M.; Ivkov, M.; Kim, S.S. Destination loyalty explained through place attachment, destination familiarity and destination image. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2020, 22, 604–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Han, H. Consumer behavior and environmental sustainability in tourism and hospitality: A review of theories, concepts, and latest research. Sustain. Consum. Behav. Environ. 2021, 29, 1021–1042. [Google Scholar]
  42. Elbaz, A.M.; Abou Kamar, M.S.; Onjewu, A.-K.E.; Soliman, M. Evaluating the antecedents of health destination loyalty: The moderating role of destination trust and tourists’ emotions. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2023, 24, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Stern, P.C. New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dolnicar, S.; Leisch, F. Selective marketing for environmentally sustainable tourism. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 672–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Shaykh-Baygloo, R. Foreign tourists’ experience: The tri-partite relationships among sense of place toward destination city, tourism attractions and tourists’ overall satisfaction-Evidence from Shiraz, Iran. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2021, 19, 100518. [Google Scholar]
  46. Daneshwar, D.; Revaty, D. A Paradigm Shift towards Environmental Responsibility in Sustainable Green Tourism and Hospitality. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Hum. Res. 2024, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mehmetoglu, M. Factors influencing the willingness to behave environmentally friendly at home and holiday settings. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2010, 10, 430–447. [Google Scholar]
  48. Sailesh, B.; Reddy, K. Navigating Environmental Behaviour: Unveiling the Path to Regenerative Tourism. In Dimensions of Regenerative Practices in Tourism and Hospitality; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2024; pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  49. Sufa, S.A.; Setiawati, D.; Afiat, M.N.; Rijal, S. The Influence of Tourism Infrastructure and Online Promotion Of Tourist Visit Intention: Study on the Island of Bali with Tourist Satisfaction as an Intervening Variable. Int. J. Bus. Law Educ. 2024, 5, 1567–1576. [Google Scholar]
  50. Trišić, I.; Štetić, S.; Candrea, A.N.; Nechita, F.; Apetrei, M.; Pavlović, M.; Stojanović, T.; Perić, M. The impact of sustainable tourism on resident and visitor satisfaction—The case of the Special Nature Reserve “Titelski Breg”, Vojvodina. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Yue, G.; Zubair, A.; Usman, M.; Abro, M.A. Institutional environment and tourism: Moderating role of host countries’ health system. J. Knowl. Econ. 2024, 15, 7358–7374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jeong, Y.; Kim, S.-K.; Yu, J.-G. Determinants of behavioral intentions in the context of sport tourism with the aim of sustaining sporting destinations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Fursova, J. The ‘business of community development’and the right to the city: Reflections on the neoliberalization processes in urban community development. Community Dev. J. 2018, 53, 119–135. [Google Scholar]
  54. Hall, C.M.; Müller, D.K.; Saarinen, J. Nordic Tourism: Issues and Cases; Channel View Publications: Cardiff, UK, 2008; Volume 36. [Google Scholar]
  55. Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Hair, J.F. Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In Handbook of Market Research; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 587–632. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lowry, P.B.; Gaskin, J. Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 2014, 57, 123–146. [Google Scholar]
  57. Hair Jr, J.F.; Matthews, L.M.; Matthews, R.L.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal. 2017, 1, 107–123. [Google Scholar]
  58. Astrachan, C.B.; Patel, V.K.; Wanzenried, G. A comparative study of CB-SEM and PLS-SEM for theory development in family firm research. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 2014, 5, 116–128. [Google Scholar]
  59. Hair Jr, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Danks, N.P.; Ray, S. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook; Springer Nature: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Plan. 2013, 46, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  61. Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation. Pakistan Tourism Berometer; Tourism, Ed.; Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2024. Available online: https://tourism.gov.pk/advertisements/Pakistan%20Tourism%20Barometer%20-%20Edition%202022.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2024).
  62. Cohen, J. A Power Primer. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 112, 155–159. [Google Scholar]
  63. Jhantasana, C. Should a rule of thumb be used to calculate PLS-SEM sample size. Asia Soc. Issues 2023, 16, e254658. [Google Scholar]
  64. Nicholas, L.; Thapa, B. Visitor perspectives on sustainable tourism development in the pitons management area world heritage site, St. Lucia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2010, 12, 839–857. [Google Scholar]
  65. Kozak, M. Comparative assessment of tourist satisfaction with destinations across two nationalities. Tour. Manag. 2001, 22, 391–401. [Google Scholar]
  66. Nguyen, C.P.; Su, T.D. Tourism, institutional quality, and environmental sustainability. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 28, 786–801. [Google Scholar]
  67. Ivanov, S.H.; Ivanova, M.G.; Iankova, K. Sustainable tourism practices of accommodation establishments in Bulgaria: An exploratory study. Tourismos 2014, 9, 175–205. [Google Scholar]
  68. Cheng, T.-M.C.; Wu, H.; Huang, L.-M. The influence of place attachment on the relationship between destination attractiveness and environmentally responsible behavior for island tourism in Penghu, Taiwan. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 1166–1187. [Google Scholar]
  69. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. World Bank Group. World Development Indicators; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2025; Available online: https://data.worldbank.org (accessed on 11 January 2025).
  71. Oliver, R.L. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J. Mark. Res. 1980, 17, 460–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Wang, G.; Huang, L.; Xu, C.; He, K.; Shen, K.; Liang, P. Analysis of the mediating role of place attachment in the link between tourists’ authentic experiences of, involvement in, and loyalty to rural tourism. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  74. Io, M.-U. The relationships between positive emotions, place attachment, and place satisfaction in casino hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2018, 19, 167–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ndiershey, F.P. Institutions and Infrastructure; KDI School: Sejong-si, Republic of Korea, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  76. Wani, G.A. An Appraisal of Conceptual Replica of Interlinkages between Infrastructure, Services and Sustainable Tourism at Destinations. Asean J. Hosp. Tour. 2022, 20, 128–142. [Google Scholar]
  77. Yu, F.; Lu, L. A study review about the impact of institution on tourism development and its enlightenment. Tour. Trib. 2008, 9, 90–96. [Google Scholar]
  78. Mwankunda, J.M. Investigating tourists’ satisfaction with infrastructures located proximal to attractions. Huria J. Open Univ. Tanzan. 2023, 30, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Aytekin, A.; Keles, H.; Uslu, F.; Keles, A.; Yayla, O.; Tarinc, A.; Ergun, G.S. The effect of responsible tourism perception on place attachment and support for sustainable tourism development: The moderator role of environmental awareness. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 02841 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual Model of Proposed Study.
Figure 1. Conceptual Model of Proposed Study.
Sustainability 17 02841 g001
Sustainability 17 02841 g002
Figure 2. In part (a), the light green area shows the studied province. In part (b), the light green area shows the studied districts.
Figure 2. In part (a), the light green area shows the studied province. In part (b), the light green area shows the studied districts.
Sustainability 17 02841 g002
Sustainability 17 02841 g003
Figure 3. Graphical Output of Measurement Models.
Figure 3. Graphical Output of Measurement Models.
Sustainability 17 02841 g003
Sustainability 17 02841 g004
Figure 4. PLS SEM Path Coefficients.
Figure 4. PLS SEM Path Coefficients.
Sustainability 17 02841 g004
Table 1. Description of the constructs.
Table 1. Description of the constructs.
ConstructAbbreviationsItemsAbb.
Place AttachmentPAThe tourist destination has beautiful landscapes and scenery.PA1
The tourist destination has good food and accommodation facilities.PA2
The tourist destination has reasonable prices for food and accommodation.PA3
I am very attached to this tourist destination.PA4
No other tourist destination can be compared with this destination.PA5
I get more satisfaction by visiting this destination than others.PA6
I am very connected to the natural environment of the destination.PA7
Tourist SatisfactionTSI am satisfied with the interesting natural resources in the tourist destination.TS1
I am happy with the friendly people at the tourist destination.TS2
I am satisfied with the non-pollution, waste, and wastewater in the tourist destination.TS3
I am satisfied with the clear tourist zones in that tourist destination.TS4
I am satisfied with the places of rest in the tourist destination.TS5
I am satisfied with the transportation facilities at the destination.TS6
I am satisfied with the security situation at the destination.TS7
Trust in InstitutionTII am satisfied with the law and order situation at the destination.TI1
I am satisfied with the district management at the destination.TI2
I am satisfied with the KP tourism departmentTI3
I am satisfied with Pak. Tourism Development Corp. (PTDC)TI4
InfrastructureINFI am satisfied with the transport facilities at the destination.INF1
I am satisfied with the communication/cellular/internet facilities at the destination.INF2
I am satisfied with the accommodation facilities at the destination.INF3
I am satisfied with the sanitation facilities at the destination.INF4
I am satisfied with the banking facilities at the destination.INF5
I am satisfied with the health facilities at the destination.INF6
I am satisfied with the fueling station facilities at the destination.INF7
I am satisfied with the recreation facilities at the destination.INF8
I am satisfied with the tourist information facilities at the destination.INF9
Sustainable TourismSTTourism increases the purchase of local productsST1
Tourism increases the purchase of local servicesST2
Tourism increases business opportunities at the destination.ST3
Tourists should respect the values and culture of the residents.ST4
I feel safe when interacting with localsST5
Tourism increases environmental degradation at the DestinationST6
Tourism increases noise pollution at the destination.ST7
Tourism affects the social-cultural values of the communityST8
I try to protect the environment here while visiting this place.ST9
I do not litter while touring this placeST10
Table 2. Demographic Statistics.
Table 2. Demographic Statistics.
Demographic Analysis
GenderNo. of RespondentsPercentage
Male19779%
Female5321%
Marital Status
Single16064%
Married9036%
Tourist Destinations
Abbottabad4217%
Mansehra4919%
Swat8434%
Lower Dir4518%
Upper Dir3012%
Age
20–247931.5%
25–297931.6%
30–343313.2%
35–393815.3%
40–44155.9%
45–4962.5%
Education
Intermediate92%
Bachelor156%
Master10241%
MPhil12249%
PhD21%
Table 3. Reliability and Validity Results of First Model.
Table 3. Reliability and Validity Results of First Model.
ConstructCACRAVE
INF0.730.740.51
PA0.750.780.55
ST0.870.900.61
TI0.810.850.59
TS0.760.790.56
DV
ConstructINFPASTTITS
INF0.71
PA0.040.74
ST0.220.340.78
TI0.380.150.320.77
TS0.240.370.480.500.75
Table 4. Reliability and Validity Results of Second Model.
Table 4. Reliability and Validity Results of Second Model.
CACRAVE
INF0.760.840.52
PA0.770.760.53
TI0.810.870.63
TS0.740.830.50
DV
INFPATITS
INF0.72
PA0.290.73
TI0.620.130.79
TS0.680.410.680.70
Table 5. Reliability and Validity Results of Third Model.
Table 5. Reliability and Validity Results of Third Model.
CACRAVE
INF0.770.840.51
PA0.730.770.54
TI0.810.870.63
TS0.740.830.50
ST0.870.900.60
DV
INFSTPATITS
INF0.72
ST0.0040.77
PA0.290.210.73
TI0.620.260.120.80
TS0.680.200.410.680.70
Table 6. PLS-SEM Path Coefficients.
Table 6. PLS-SEM Path Coefficients.
First Model
ConstructsBetaStandard Deviation (SD)t Statisticsp ValuesR2
INF → ST0.100.101.030.300.27
PA → ST0.190.063.390.00
TI → ST0.070.071.020.31
TS → ST0.350.084.260.00
Second model
INF → TS0.320.083.960.000.63
PA → TS0.260.064.480.00
TI → TS0.450.067.490.00
Third model
TI → INF0.630.0414.950.000.39
INF → TS0.330.083.990.000.62
PA →TS0.260.064.260.00
TI → TS0.440.067.160.00
INF → ST−0.370.113.460.000.18
PA → ST0.240.112.210.03
TI → ST0.420.085.250.00
TS → ST0.070.150.470.64
Table 7. PLS-SEM Mediating Effect.
Table 7. PLS-SEM Mediating Effect.
ConstructBetaSDt Statisticsp Values
TI →INF → ST−0.230.073.380.00
INF → TS → ST0.020.050.430.67
TI → INF → TS → ST0.010.030.420.67
PA → TS → ST0.020.040.460.64
TI → TS → ST0.030.060.490.62
TI → INF → TS0.210.063.590.00
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Munir, S.; Haq, I.u.; Cheema, A.N.; Almanjahie, I.M.; Khan, D. The Role of Tourists, Infrastructure and Institutions in Sustainable Tourism: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2841. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072841

AMA Style

Munir S, Haq Iu, Cheema AN, Almanjahie IM, Khan D. The Role of Tourists, Infrastructure and Institutions in Sustainable Tourism: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Sustainability. 2025; 17(7):2841. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072841

Chicago/Turabian Style

Munir, Shahid, Ihtisham ul Haq, Ammara Nawaz Cheema, Ibrahim M. Almanjahie, and Dilawar Khan. 2025. "The Role of Tourists, Infrastructure and Institutions in Sustainable Tourism: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach" Sustainability 17, no. 7: 2841. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072841

APA Style

Munir, S., Haq, I. u., Cheema, A. N., Almanjahie, I. M., & Khan, D. (2025). The Role of Tourists, Infrastructure and Institutions in Sustainable Tourism: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Sustainability, 17(7), 2841. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072841

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