Next Article in Journal
Technology of Dyeing beyond Text
Previous Article in Journal
Seventeenth-Century Barniz de Pasto Objects from the Collection of the Hispanic Society Museum & Library: Materiality and Technology
Previous Article in Special Issue
Conservation and In Situ Enhancement of Earthen Architecture in Archaeological Sites: Social and Anthropic Risks in the Case Studies of the Iberian Peninsula
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Heritage
Volume 7
Issue 6
10.3390/heritage7060126
heritage-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Community Attachment to AlUla Heritage Site and Tourists’ Green Consumption: The Role of Support for Green Tourism Development

by
Ibrahim A. Elshaer
1,2,*,
Mansour Alyahya
2,
Alaa M. S. Azazz
3,4 and
Sameh Fayyad
2,5
1
Department of Management, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsaa 380, Saudi Arabia
2
Hotel Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
3
Department of Social Studies, Arts College, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsaa 380, Saudi Arabia
4
Tourism Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
5
Hotel Management Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, October 6 University, Giza 12573, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Heritage 2024, 7(6), 2651-2667; https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7060126
Submission received: 2 May 2024 / Revised: 18 May 2024 / Accepted: 21 May 2024 / Published: 23 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Heritage Tourism and Sustainable City Dynamics)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study explores the interrelationship between community attachment in AlUla Heritage City (located in Saudi Arabia) and tourists’ green consumption practices, testing support for green tourism development as a mediator. The old historical city of AlUla, a significant city experiencing ongoing preservation and tourism development, represents an adequate context for exploring the link between community attachment and green tourism practices. This study employs a quantitative approach, including surveys with 328 local residents of AlUla. A structural equation modeling partial least square (PLS-SEM) analysis is conducted to explore the indirect influence of community attachment on tourists’ green consumption through the mediating role of support for green tourism development. The findings indicated a positive path from community attachment in AlUla to tourists’ tendencies toward green consumption behavior. Moreover, the mediating effects of support for green tourism development suggested that a deep sense of community attachment improves tourists’ support for green practices in the tourism sector. This study adds to the extended body of the literature on place attachment and green tourism by emphasizing the significance of community place attachment in stimulating tourists’ green consumption practices. Several practical implications for policymakers seeking to promote green tourism practices in heritage cities like AlUla are explored from the study results.

1. Introduction

The Saudi city of AlUla has emerged as a popular tourist destination because of its stunning natural features, unique examples of wildlife, diverse history, and thousands of years old antiquities [1]. AlUla has consequently grown to be one of the most significant ecotourism destinations, which prioritizes environmental preservation and provides tourists with distinctive experiences by promoting sustainable economic growth, preserving natural resources, and supporting residents [2]. Therefore, the responsible authorities in AlUla resorted to adopting strategies to develop green tourism in the city to conserve the ecosystem and preserve the well-being of local residents [3]. According to Dodds and Joppe [4], the concept of green tourism has four components including (1) environmental commitment: preserving and improving nature and the physical environment to guarantee the long-term health of the ecosystems that support life; (2) local economic vitality: to maintain economic sustainability, local economies, enterprises, and communities are supported; (3) cultural diversity: respecting and valuing cultural variety is essential to ensure the long-term survival of the host or local cultures; and (4) experiential richness: offering fulfilling and pleasurable experiences via direct and meaningful engagement with people, places, animals, and cultures. In this context, The Royal Commission for AlUla, to conserve archaeological and heritage sites and involve residents in enhancing the values of the local culture and fostering green tourism, has launched numerous campaigns and initiatives in international educational exchanges and encouraging local engagement with resident communities. For example, The Royal Commission for AlUla’s Hammayah program strives to involve residents in managing their natural and cultural heritage to engage and advocate for their community. The Commission has also enlisted the help of numerous local investors to reuse historic buildings, provide residential units that meet local criteria, and provide examples of best restoration practices [5]. Additionally, in 2020, the UNWTO and the G20 Tourism Working Group created a “Framework AlUla for Inclusive Community Development through Tourism” to assist the sector in achieving its potential to donate to and fulfill the development of inclusive communities and the Sustainable Development Goals [6]. There are more initiatives that have established green tourism practices in AlUla, and the goal of these efforts is the complete belief that this environmental framework is the ideal solution to preserve AlUla’s special nature (many other initiatives can be viewed on the website of The Royal Commission for AlUla [7]). Accordingly, the present study seeks not to evaluate the green tourism practices that have become established in AlUla as a result of these efforts and initiatives but rather to examine the impact of the community’s attachment to AlUla in its support for these efforts and initiatives and its reflection in the behaviors of green AlUla tourists from the residents’ perspectives.
The tourism industry has three main parts including visitors, communities, and destinations (attractions and facilities). Additionally, intermediary companies may play a key role between visitors and the destination such as providing transportation and information [8]. From the host community’s perspective, tourism success depends on how local residents are attached to their environment and how they perceive and support tourism development [9]. Furthermore, community perception of the advantages generated by tourism can shape their behavior toward its development [10,11]. Hence, community support should be considered to improve green tourist consumption since residents are crucial players in offering tourist quality involvement [12,13]. When the local community experiences a positive impact from tourism, a strong desire will emerge for place attachment and development [14,15,16]. Place attachment is one of the most dominant non-financial factors that can illustrate why local communities resist or support destination development [17,18,19,20]. Place attachment can be conceptualized as the positive psychological and emotional connections built among residents and their environment [21,22,23]. These ties are essential in planning and tourism development [24] because tourism affects not only the look of local heritages but also the values of heritages and the ties the local community have with others [18,25].
The style of living among the community’s citizens may affect the intended changes within the tourism destination taking place as a consequence of the continuing development, such as adjustments in local finances (e.g., [26,27]), social and cultural changes (e.g., [26,28,29,30]), and environmental changes (e.g., [26,29,31,32]). The efforts to foster green tourist consumption are challenging without the advocacy and involvement of the local residents [33,34,35].
Research on community attachment has been established in the literature within several domains, including environmental studies, education, green behavior, psychology, management, and tourism (e.g., [36,37,38]), and significant methodological and theoretical progress has been made by scholars in this area [36]. Several scholars have found a significant link between place attachment and pro-environmental green behaviors (e.g., [37,39,40]). Green behavior can be defined as practices by people that foster or engender the sustainable consumption of destination resources [41,42].
Although the current research paper introduces place attachment as a potentially useful tool to stimulate green behaviors (i.e., tourists’ green consumption), outcomes on the link between the two constructs are inconsistent and far from convincing [43]. This can be explained by the various dimensions of place attachment and their interrelationship with green behaviors, which have been investigated in numerous contexts using methodologies with different data analysis techniques (e.g., [44,45,46]). The conclusion is that few studies (e.g., [47,48]) operationalize community attachment as a multi-dimensional factor, containing three sub-dimensions named (place dependence, place identity, and affective attachment) in a single study. This study aims to fill this gap and employ community attachment as a multidimensional construct and for the first time investigates its impact on tourists’ green consumption support through the mediating role of residents’ support of green tourism development in one context AlUla Heritage City, Saudi Arabia.

2. The Context of AlUla Heritage City, Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is the main leader in implementing creative practices for a sustainable and environmental post-oil era. The country has undergone substantial economic extension and enlarged its targets to include building new sectors, global investments in the tourism industry, and protecting national heritage [49]. Recently, the government of Saudi Arabia developed strategies that encouraged urbanization by emphasizing the transfer from traditional patterns to modern design and green responsibility. As an example, recent practices were developed to foster tourism effects on environmental destinations for the city of AlUla. Located 1100 km west of Riyadh, AlUla is an archaeological site. After excavating the ancient site consisting of a necropolis, quarries, and settlements (Figure 1), one can now tour the world heritage sites in a rock-cut landscape, which has been sculpted for a million years. AlUla is known for its archaeological ruins and heritage sites, some of which are more than 2000 years old. Previously, this city was famous as the entrance gateway for the merchandise troops traveling from south to north in the Arabic Peninsula [50,51]. Geologically, the city has an oasis and a huge valley, allocated between sandstone highlands (mountains) with exceptional arithmetic shapes [52]. AlUla has fifty-five heritage sites from various eras; Mada’in Salih was one of the UNESCO World Heritage sites, registered in 2008. Furthermore, AlUla’s Hegra Heritage Site (Al-Hijr/Mada’in Salih) was the first World Heritage place to be listed in Saudi Arabia, it represents the same outlook as UNESCO’s “Memory of the World” (MoW) Program [53] (see Figure 1).
In AlUla, government strategies are ongoing to preserve its heritage landscape and plan for a substantial transformation to foster heritage tourism in Saudi Arabia. The “Royal Commission for AlUla” (RCU), developed in 2017, has the mission of sustaining and developing AlUla’s cultural heritage for both current and future generations [55]. Corresponding with Vision 2030 of Saudi Arabia, RCU’s initiatives in AlUla spread beyond archaeology and education to include arts and tourism. RCU aims to reinforce AlUla heritage sites as a friendly hub for international visitors. RCU’s main goal is to foster cultural exchanges and deliver a glance into the heritage printed in stone, all while being thoughtful of sustainability toward the local community [53].

3. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

3.1. Community Attachment and Tourists’ Green Consumption (TGC)

The literature defines community attachment as the ties residents have with their community founded on affect, meaningfulness, emotion, value, and closeness to the place [33,47]. The community attachment concept stemmed from attachment theory [56]. The construction operationalizations of the place attachment concept vary wildly across multiple disciplines, causing challenges for investigators [47]. However, several studies have conceptualized community attachment through place dependence, place identity, and affective attachment [46,57,58]. These three subdimensions demonstrate that community attachment is characterized as having functional, cognitive, and affective aspects, respectively [46,59].
Regarding place dependence, there are two elements that people and groups use to define place dependency, which is inherent in the place’s physical characteristics. The first is the quality of the existing place, and the other is the comparable options’ relative qualities [60,61]. That is, a place turned into a resource for achieving objectives, creating, in turn, a dependent relationship [62,63]. This dependence leads to vast interaction with the place, creating a resident–place attachment [64] that boosts their pro-environment behaviors [65]. Meanwhile, residents’ eco-friendly behaviors may knock on visitors’ attitudes and behaviors about environmental preservation at the destination [66,67]. Nevertheless, prior studies have primarily examined tourists’ responsibilities and behaviors, with little attention given to the residents’ roles in supporting the destination’s sustainability [66,68]. Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1a (H1a). 
Place dependence positively affects tourists’ green consumption (TGC).
Place identity pertains to an individual’s self-concept shaped by their place of belonging, incorporating aspects associated with the public image of that destination [69,70]. Identity theory asserts that identity encourages and shapes actions [71]. In heritage and natural destinations, an intimate connection with the heritage and nature forms meaningful attachments to and boosts positive values toward these places [72]. This intense contact may shape a resident’s environmental identity, leading to favorable environmental attitudes [59]. As such, the more intimate the association between the residents’ self-identities and the destination’s environment, the greater the likelihood that the locals will stimulate pro-eco-friendly behaviors to safeguard the environment [66]. As a reflection of this identity, several investigations claim that destination residents’ identity may motivate tourists to engage in green behaviors [73,74]. Hence, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1b (H1b). 
Place identity positively affects tourists’ green consumption (TGC).
Affective attachment was conceptualized as an emotional connection to a specific environment [57,75]. Studies indicate that affective attachment to a place significantly inspires nature-protective and pro-eco-friendly behaviors [48]. More precisely, affective attachment to nature and heritage destinations improves a resident’s empathy toward and sense of connection to it, encouraging green behaviors [40]. However, studies have rarely integrated affective attachment with other attachment dimensions to explore its effect on residents’ pro-environmental green behaviors. In general, since residents live in the destination, their affective attachment to it pushes them to protect it and simultaneously stimulates them to encourage visitors to behave in an environmentally sustainable manner [76]. Hence, the below hypothesis is set:
Hypothesis 1c (H1c). 
Affective attachment positively affects tourists’ green consumption (TGC).

3.2. Community Attachment and Support for Green Tourism Development (GTD)

Community attachment includes individuals’ strong positive emotions, rootedness, and feelings of belonging toward the community [77]. In the tourism and hospitality literature, community attachment has often been used to investigate its influences on residents’ perceptions of tourism effects and perspectives concerning support for tourism development [78,79]. The studies’ results varied. Some found that the locals who were highly attached to their community saw fewer benefits from tourism development [80]. In contrast, other studies revealed that these residents perceived positive results [10]. However, in the context of green tourism development, there is almost agreement in the literature that a high level of community attachment guides locals toward supporting sustainable tourism development, especially in heritage and nature destinations [33,78,81]. As such, recommendations were made to highlight the role of place identity in apprehending residents’ perspectives toward STD [82]. The nature and power of local place identity and the surrounding environment (ecological or heritage) may significantly determine how well they interact with tourism development [83]. Similarly, highly tourism-dependent residents (place dependence) are expected to give more support for sustainable tourism development [84]. Additionally, residents with a high level of affective attachment often strive to support green tourism practices to protect their destination’s nature or heritage resources [67]. In sum, with its three sub-dimensions, community attachment may be positively associated with support for GTD. This means that locals who have a more robust community attachment endorse supporting tourism development in ecological and heritage destinations [78]. Hence, the next three hypotheses were developed:
Hypothesis 2a (H2a). 
Place dependence positively affects support for GTD.
Hypothesis 2b (H2b). 
Place identity positively affects support for GTD.
Hypothesis 2c (H2c). 
Affective attachment positively affects support GTD.

3.3. Support for GTD and TGC

Enhancing and preserving the ecological and heritage environment is valuable for protecting the attractiveness of tourism destinations and fulfilling sustainable development. This process must depend on the collaborative endeavors of both local residents and tourists. Therefore, several studies have been conducted to determine how to stimulate residents to display eco-responsible behaviors and encourage tourists’ green consumption [13]. In this context, an increasing body of studies confirms that residents can affect tourists’ behaviors [85,86]. Accordingly, tourists’ green consumption behaviors can potentially be impacted by dealings with residents who support green tourism development. However, empirical research has yet to explore the connections between locals’ eco-responsible behaviors and tourists’ green consumption thoroughly [13]. Within this framework, we further examine this association between support for green tourism development (GTD) and tourists’ green consumption (TGC) as follows:
Hypothesis 3 (H3). 
Support for GTD positively affects tourists’ green consumption (TGC).

3.4. The Mediating Role of Support for GTD

Based on previous studies and the above-stated arguments that illustrate the direct connections among the three sub-dimensions of community attachment and tourists’ green consumption (TGC) and residents’ support for green tourism development (GTD), and GTD and TGC, and in light of attachment theory and social identity theory, the next three hypotheses of mediating impact are presented:
Hypothesis 4a (H4a). 
Support for GTD mediates the linkage between place dependence and tourists’ green consumption (TGC).
Hypothesis 4b (H4b). 
Support for GTD mediates the linkage between place identity and tourists’ green consumption (TGC).
Hypothesis 4c (H4c). 
Support GTD mediates the linkage between affective attachment and tourists’ green consumption (TGC).
Based on the previously mentioned literature and theories, Figure 2 graphically depicts this study’s conceptual model.

4. Methods

4.1. Measures

The scale items of all study variables were adapted based on the previous literature. Ten items from [57,79,87] were used to evaluate the three sub-dimensions of the community attachment construct including place dependence (three variables), place identity (three variables), and affective attachment (four variables). The tourists’ green consumption variable was gauged by the 7-item scale suggested by [13]. Finally, five items from Lee’s [79] study were adopted to measure the support for the GTD construct (see Appendix A). Seventeen academic experts and executives in sustainable tourism reviewed the survey’s validity, and tiny changes were made. Furthermore, Harman’s single-factor test was employed to avoid potential bias issues. The findings display that the value of this test is 46.5%, implying no bias in the current study because Harman’s single factor score should not exceed 50% [88].

4.2. Collection of Study Data

Local residents in AlUla City, Saudi Arabia, were enrolled in this study, utilizing convenient samples and drop-off and pick-up procedures. AlUla city is situated in the Medina region, northwest of the kingdom, along the historic route used for incense trading. As a case study, AlUla is a popular tourist destination with a remarkable historical and archaeological heritage that led to its designation as Saudi Arabia’s first UNESCO site [89]. The landscape, sandstone mountains along an oasis accompanying the ancient trade routes, and carved tombs in the mountains by the ancient Nabataean civilization make AlUla a unique heritage site [52].
The data were collected through an online questionnaire published on the city of AlUla’s social media pages. AlUla’s city has a population of 40,670 [53]. Residents willingly completed the survey, and their responses remained confidential. The data were gathered from January to April 2024. Around 600 questionnaires were returned, and 328 were found valid after excluding incomplete responses (251) and questionnaires with missing data (21 replies). The sample size of 328 participants is enough to satisfy the needs for the application of PLS-SEM models and it is considered sufficient. The PLS-SEM method entails determining the minimum sample size as a crucial factor. According to the “10 times rule” method suggested by Hair et al. [88], the minimum sample size should be at least 10 times the number of indicators for the most complex construct in the model. Our model consists of 5 latent constructs with 22 reflective indicators.
Consequently, following the rule of 10 times, the least required sample size was 220. Our sample of 349 participants was much more than this minimum recommendation. Furthermore, the sample of 328 exceeded the widely known suggestion that the sample size for SEM should be between 100 and 150 cases to obtain accurate results [88,89,90]. The sample comprised 212 males (64.6%) and 116 females (35.4%). Ages varied from 26 to 65. Also, most residents had a college degree 272 (82.9%).
The questionnaire structure is classified into four main sections. The first concentrates on demographic facts such as age and gender. Subsequently, the second part gathers data on three sub-dimensions of community attachment, i.e., place dependence, place identity, and affective attachment. The third section handles inquiries about the tourists’ green consumption behaviors variable. Finally, the last section includes items regarding mediating variables, explicitly measuring support for the sustainable tourism development variable. All survey items were assessed using five-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

4.3. Data Analysis

The hypothesized study model was tested by PLS-SEM using Smart PLS 3 for several reasons. First, this technique facilitates the researcher’s evaluation of links between constructs in the structural model and their linked latent dimensions in the measurement model. Second, PLS-SEM works well with sophisticated models with moderation and mediation effects. Third, PLS’s graphical user interface is easier to use than those of other path modeling programs, such as AMOS. Previous research has used this approach extensively [89,90]. Using the PLS approach to test the suggested hypotheses of the proposed models requires investigating the validity and reliability of the outer model, also called the measurement, at the first stage and the inner or “structural” model at the second [91].

5. Results

5.1. Measurement Model Outcomes

In this step, the measurement outer model was assessed. Specifically, convergent validity (CV) and discriminant validity (DV) were calculated [92]. This study employed several indices, containing “factor loadings” (λ) (should exceed 0.70), “Cronbach’s alpha” (a) (0.70 or greater is preferred), “composite reliability” (CR) (0.70 or greater is preferred), and “Average Variance Extracted” (AVE) (0.50 or greater is acceptable) [93]. Additionally, the AVE of each factor should exceed the squared inter-factor correlations [94], and the “Heterotrait–Monotriat” value (HTMT) should not exceed a value of 0.90 to attain the DV. As shown in Table 1, all the indices provide evidence of a satisfactory CV. Further, Table 2 portrays that an item loading within its variable is greater than any of its cross-loadings with another variable, Table 3 displays that all AVEs are higher than their corresponding squared inter-construction correlations, and Table 4 demonstrates that all HTMTs are <0.90, guaranteeing the DV of the model.

5.2. Hypothesis Assessment Results

VIF, R2, Q2, and Beta coefficient (β) values were used to validate this study’s inner model [93]. VIFs should be <5.0 to avoid multi-collinearity issues among model constructs, R2 in social sciences should be >0.10, β must be significant, and Q2 should be >0.0 [93]. As demonstrated in Table 5, all VIF values were less than 0.5, R2 for TGC was 0.663, R2 for SSTD was 0.672, the Q2 values for the TGC and SSTD variables were more than 0.0, and the β values were significant at p = 0.01 (Table 6), proving the fit of this study’s structural model.
Further, the below equation can also be used to confirm the PLS-SEM model’s Goodness of Fit (GoF). The presented model’s GoF is 0.667, meaning a high GoF for the model [95].
GoF = A V E a v y × R 2 a v y
Finally, after confirming the reliability and validity of the outer and inner models, a bootstrapping process with 5000 iterations using Smart PLS 3 was carried out to test this study’s hypotheses (see Table 6).
Table 6 and Figure 3 indicate that place dependence positively impacts TGC at β = 0.219 and p = 0.000 and SSTD at β = 0.272 and p = 0.000, supporting H1a and H2a. H1b and H2b are also supported because place identity positively influences TGC and SSTD at β = 0.171 and p = 0.007 and at β = 0.267 and p = 0.000, respectively. Similarly, H1c and H2c are confirmed, as affective attachment positively impacts TGC and SSTD at β = 0.151 and p = 0.039 and at β = 0.407 and p = 0.000, respectively. As for H3, the positive effect of SSTD on TGC (β = 0.389, t = 6.126, p = 0.000) is confirmed. In addition, place dependence, place identity, and affective attachment mediate the linkage between SSTD and TGC, all at p = 0.000 and at β = 0.106, β = 0.104, and β = 0.158, respectively, thus proving H4a, H4b, and H4c.

6. Discussion and Implications

Green consumption, which has the power to undermine the destination, place, or community environment that tourists target, visit, and stay in, is becoming more interesting as it brings to prominence the link between community attachment and green consumption behavior. Community attachment is a multidimensional construct with various sub-dimensions that might have an effect on different expected outcomes such as individuals’ attachments and commitments to their environment and surrounding place. In the current study, community attachment is defined as a multifaceted factor comprising three second-order dimensions including place dependence, place identity, and affective attachment [96]. These factors can independently or collectively shape or change tourists’ attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors toward a place, (i.e., green consumption behaviors).
The findings of our study showed a positive significant path from the three dimensions of community attachment to green consumption behaviors of tourists visiting AlUla heritage sites. Each sub-dimension plays a unique role in shaping tourists’ environmental behaviors. Place dependence was found to have a significant positive and direct impact on tourists’ green consumption behaviors. Tourists who perceive AlUla as a destination that offers eco-friendly facilities, and sustainable green heritage sites are more likely to participate in green consumption behaviors. This result is consistent with Williams and Vaske [97] and Choi and Kim [98], who argued that place-dependent visitors prefer eco-friendly hotels, nature-based attractions, and local services/products that foster environmental sustainability. Likewise, the results of PLS-SEM showed a positive, direct, significant impact of place identity on tourists’ green consumption. This finding suggested that visitors to AlUla heritage sites with high place identity had a feeling of attachment, dignity, and physiological connection to the destination with its distinguishing heritage and environmental resources. This result is consistent with Buonincontri et al. [99] and Hernández et al. [100], who found that visitors are motivated to implement green consumption activities as a way to sustain a place’s cultural and environmental heritage. Additionally, the PLS-SEM output showed a positive direct path coefficient between affective place attachment and green consumption activities. Tourists who develop emotional connections and constructive feelings toward AlUla heritage sites tend to prefer sustainable practices to ensure the destination’s well-being. This argument is consistent with Lewicka [101] and Buckley [102], who stated that affective attachment encourages a feeling of trust and obligation among visitors toward preserving the environment and promoting sustainable practices. In sum, according to our study survey, the community attachment of AlUla was able to motivate tourists to participate in sustainable environmental conservation endeavors, utilize green products, be willing to participate in natural environment conservation, plan to pay extra costs for environmental conservation, utilize public transportation, and stay in green hotels. Community attachment can also prompt tourists to make their colleagues environmentally aware and invite them to visit AlUla through positive word of mouth. Moreover, tourists can play a key role in the achievement and success of green tourism in AlUla city by constructing conscious selections that back sustainability, value local traditions, environments, and cultures, and support responsible travel activities that preserve the local environment. By actively engaging in and fostering green tourism practices, tourists can help safeguard future generations’ environmental and cultural sources.
The current study explored the mediating impacts of locals’ support for green tourism development in the link from community attachment to tourists’ green consumption practices. Residents who dynamically support and contribute to green tourism practices, preservation strategies, and sustainable initiatives are considered good examples and role models for visitors. This is consistent with the view of Leslie [103], who argued that resident support and sponsorship of environmental practices generate a backing environment that fosters visitors to be involved in green consumption activities.
This study has several implications for green consumption behavior and sustainable tourism management in AlUla heritage sites. Involving local citizens as defenders of sustainability and engaging them in the decision-making processes can promote a feeling of proprietorship and empowerment toward fostering green tourism strategies. Additionally, the partnership among residents, AlUla authorities, and private businesses is vital for applying effective sustainability practices that address the diverse factors of community attachment and foster green consumption activities. Educating residents and visitors about the eco-friendly advantages of green consumption can motivate environmental behaviors that can create a culture of sustainability. Finally, implementing regulations and policies that advocate green tourism development, prioritize sustainable programs, and foster eco-certification initiatives can create a supportive environment for sustainable tourism strategies.

7. Conclusions

The results of analyzing the data collected from 328 local residents of AlUla by PLS-SEM demonstrate that the three sub-dimensions of community attachment, i.e., place dependence, place identity, and affective attachment, significantly and positively affect tourists’ green consumption. The findings also indicated that support for the green tourism development variables successfully mediates the connection between the three sub-dimensions of community attachment and tourists’ green consumption. These results emphasize the significance of community place attachment in stimulating tourists’ green consumption practices and its role in improving community support for green tourism.

8. Limitations and Future Avenues

This study, similar to other studies, has a number of limitations and can be addressed in further research and generate research prospects. One limitation is a generalizability issue, which can be expected in our study since the findings are derived from the context of AlUla only. Community attachment and local advocacy for green tourism development could differ radically in other diverse geographical and cultural settings. Future studies should use this study’s model in different heritage sites to evaluate and compare the robustness of the tested inter-relationships. This study used a cross-sectional approach, which lacks the ability to develop causal inferences among the examined relationships. A longitudinal research design or experimental approach could offer a solid perception of the tested paths’ causal interactions and dynamics. Comparative research papers on different heritage sites can better explain the tested model’s variations. Finally, other mediating factors such as environmental awareness, social norms, and peer effects can be employed in future studies to examine the relationship between community attachment and tourist green consumption behavior.

Author Contributions

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

Funding

This work was supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia [Grant A259].

Data Availability Statement

Data is available upon request from researchers who meet the eligibility criteria. Kindly contact the first author privately through e-mail.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

The study questionnaire
  • Community attachment
  • Place dependence.
“The settings and facilities of AlUla are the best.”
“Prefer living in AlUla to other communities.”
“Enjoy living in AlUla more than other communities.”
  • Place identity.
“I identify the living in AlUla.”
“I feel that AlUla is a part of me.”
“Living in AlUla says a lot about who I am.”
  • Affective attachment.
“Living in AlUla means a lot to me.”
“I am very attached to AlUla.”
“I feel a strong sense of belonging to AlUla.”
“Many of my friends/family prefer living in AlUla to other communities.”
  • Support for sustainable tourism development.
“I support the development of community-based sustainable tourism initiatives.”
“I participate in sustainable tourism-related plans and development.”
“I participate in cultural exchanges between local residents and visitors.”
“I cooperate with tourism planning and development initiatives.”
“I participate in the promotion of environmental education and conservation.”
  • Tourists’ green consumption.
“Tourists use public transport when possible.”
“Tourists walk and/or cycle when possible.”
“Tourists buy local eco-products.”
“Tourists stay at green hotels when travelling.”
“Tourists consider saving energy at hotels.”
“Tourists try to dispose of garbage properly.”
“Tourists pick up the rubbish that they see during their trip.”

References

  1. Alsahafi, R.; Alzahrani, A.; Mehmood, R. Smarter Sustainable Tourism: Data-Driven Multi-Perspective Parameter Discovery for Autonomous Design and Operations. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Waheeb, S.A.; Zerouali, B.; Elbeltagi, A.; Alwetaishi, M.; Wong, Y.J.; Bailek, N.; AlSaggaf, A.A.; Abd Elrahman, S.I.M.; Santos, C.A.G.; Majrashi, A.A. Enhancing Sustainable Urban Planning through GIS and Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis: A Case Study of Green Space Infrastructure in Taif Province, Saudi Arabia. Water 2023, 15, 3031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Al Fahmawee, E.A.; Jawabreh, O. Sustainability of green tourism by international tourists and its impact on green environmental achievement: Petra heritage, Jordan. Geo J. Tour. Geosites 2023, 46, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dodds, R.; Joppe, M. Promoting Urban Green Tourism: The Development of the Other Map of Toronto. J. Vacat. Mark. 2001, 7, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mazzetto, S. Heritage Conservation and Reuses to Promote Sustainable Growth. Mater. Today Proc. 2023, 85, 100–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Erianda, A.; Alanda, A.; Hidayat, R. Systematic Literature Review: Digitalization of Rural Tourism Towards Sustainable Tourism. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Comput. Eng. 2023, 5, 247–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. RCU. Initiatives. Available online: https://www.rcu.gov.sa/en/initiatives/ (accessed on 18 May 2024).
  8. Goeldner, C.R.; Ritchie, J.R.B. Tourism Principles, Practices, Philosophies; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007; ISBN 8126513438. [Google Scholar]
  9. Kim, G.; Duffy, L.N.; Moore, D. Importance of Residents’ Perception of Tourists in Establishing a Reciprocal Resident-Tourist Relationship: An Application of Tourist Attractiveness. Tour. Manag. 2023, 94, 104632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Choi, H.C.; Murray, I. Resident Attitudes toward Sustainable Community Tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 575–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Šegota, T.; Mihalič, T.; Perdue, R.R. Resident Perceptions and Responses to Tourism: Individual vs Community Level Impacts. J. Sustain. Tour. 2024, 32, 340–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Woo, E.; Kim, H.; Uysal, M. Life Satisfaction and Support for Tourism Development. Ann. Tour. Res. 2015, 50, 84–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hu, J.; Xiong, L.; Lv, X.; Pu, B. Sustainable Rural Tourism: Linking Residents’ Environmentally Responsible Behaviour to Tourists’ Green Consumption. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2021, 26, 879–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sheldon, P.J.; Var, T.; Var, T. Resident Attitudes to Tourism in North Wales. Tour. Manag. 1984, 5, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, Y.; Pfister, R.E. Residents’ Attitudes Toward Tourism and Perceived Personal Benefits in a Rural Community. J. Travel. Res. 2008, 47, 84–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pai, C.K.; Chen, H.; Lee, T.J.; Hyun, S.S.; Liu, Y.; Zheng, Y. The Impacts of Under-Tourism and Place Attachment on Residents’ Life Satisfaction. J. Vacat. Mark. 2023, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Strzelecka, M.; Boley, B.B.; Strzelecka, C. Empowerment and Resident Support for Tourism in Rural Central and Eastern Europe (CEE): The Case of Pomerania, Poland. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 25, 554–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kaján, E. Community Perceptions to Place Attachment and Tourism Development in Finnish Lapland. Tour. Geogr. 2014, 16, 490–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Boley, B.B.; McGehee, N.G.; Perdue, R.R.; Long, P. Empowerment and Resident Attitudes toward Tourism: Strengthening the Theoretical Foundation through a Weberian Lens. Ann. Tour. Res. 2014, 49, 33–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Stylidis, D. Place Attachment, Perception of Place and Residents’ Support for Tourism Development. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2018, 15, 188–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Stedman, R.C. Toward a Social Psychology of Place. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 561–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gustafson, P. Meanings of place: Everyday experience and theoretical conceptualizations. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Aleshinloye, K.D.; Woosnam, K.M.; Joo, D. The Influence of Place Attachment and Emotional Solidarity on Residents’ Involvement in Tourism: Perspectives from Orlando, Florida. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2024, 7, 914–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. 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]
  25. Manzo, L.C.; Perkins, D.D. Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning. J. Plan. Lit. 2006, 20, 335–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Simpson, M.C. Community Benefit Tourism Initiatives—A Conceptual Oxymoron? Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Manyara, G.; Jones, E. Community-Based Tourism Enterprises Development in Kenya: An Exploration of Their Potential as Avenues of Poverty Reduction. J. Sustain. Tour. 2007, 15, 628–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nyaupane, G.P.; Morais, D.B.; Dowler, L. The Role of Community Involvement and Number/Type of Visitors on Tourism Impacts: A Controlled Comparison of Annapurna, Nepal and Northwest Yunnan, China. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 1373–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lee, C.-K.; Kang, S.K.; Long, P.; Reisinger, Y. Residents’ Perceptions of Casino Impacts: A Comparative Study. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 189–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bull, C.; Lovell, J. The Impact of Hosting Major Sporting Events on Local Residents: An Analysis of the Views and Perceptions of Canterbury Residents in Relation to the Tour de France 2007. J. Sport Tour. 2007, 12, 229–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yoon, Y.; Gursoy, D.; Chen, J.S. Validating a Tourism Development Theory with Structural Equation Modeling. Tour. Manag. 2001, 22, 363–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dyer, P.; Gursoy, D.; Sharma, B.; Carter, J. Structural Modeling of Resident Perceptions of Tourism and Associated Development on the Sunshine Coast, Australia. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 409–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nicholas, L.N.; Thapa, B.; Ko, Y.J. Residents’ perspectives of a world heritage site. Ann. Tour. Res. 2009, 36, 390–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gursoy, D.; Rutherford, D.G. Host Attitudes toward Tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 495–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tang, C.; Han, Y.; Ng, P. Green Consumption Intention and Behavior of Tourists in Urban and Rural Destinations. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2023, 66, 2126–2150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kyle, G.T.; Mowen, A.J.; Tarrant, M. Linking Place Preferences with Place Meaning: An Examination of the Relationship between Place Motivation and Place Attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 439–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Raymond, C.M.; Brown, G.; Robinson, G.M. The Influence of Place Attachment, and Moral and Normative Concerns on the Conservation of Native Vegetation: A Test of Two Behavioural Models. J. Environ. Psychol. 2011, 31, 323–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nasr, E.; Emeagwali, O.L.; Aljuhmani, H.Y.; Al-Geitany, S. Destination Social Responsibility and Residents’ Environmentally Responsible Behavior: Assessing the Mediating Role of Community Attachment and Involvement. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Devine-Wright, P.; Howes, Y. Disruption to Place Attachment and the Protection of Restorative Environments: A Wind Energy Case Study. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Son, J.Y.; Yang, J.-J.; Choi, S.; Lee, Y.-K. Impacts of Residential Environment on Residents’ Place Attachment, Satisfaction, WOM, and pro-Environmental Behavior: Evidence from the Korean Housing Industry. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1217877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sivek, D.J.; Hungerford, H. Predictors of Responsible Behavior in Members of Three Wisconsin Conservation Organizations. J. Environ. Educ. 1990, 21, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sharma, T.; Chen, J.S.; Ramos, W.D.; Sharma, A. Visitors’ Eco-Innovation Adoption and Green Consumption Behavior: The Case of Green Hotels. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2024, 36, 1005–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. The Relations between Natural and Civic Place Attachment and Pro-Environmental Behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Vaske, J.J.; Kobrin, K.C. Place Attachment and Environmentally Responsible Behavior. J. Environ. Educ. 2001, 32, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Elshaer, I.A.; Augustyn, M.M. Testing the Dimensionality of the Quality Management Construct. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2016, 27, 353–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Halpenny, E.A. Pro-Environmental Behaviours and Park Visitors: The Effect of Place Attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 409–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ramkissoon, H.; Graham Smith, L.D.; Weiler, B. Testing the Dimensionality of Place Attachment and Its Relationships with Place Satisfaction and Pro-Environmental Behaviours: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach. Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 552–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ramkissoon, H.; Smith, L.D.G.; Weiler, B. Relationships between Place Attachment, Place Satisfaction and pro-Environmental Behaviour in an Australian National Park. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 434–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Al-Tokhais, A.; Thapa, B. Management Issues and Challenges of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Saudi Arabia. J. Herit. Tour. 2020, 15, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bay, M.A.; Koziol, C. Adobe Fabric and the Future of Heritage Tourism: A Case Study Analysis of the Old Historical City of Alula, Saudi Arabia; University of Colorado at Denver: Denver, CO, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  51. Pavan, A. A Conceptual Investigation of the Transformation of AlUla into a Global Tourism Destination: Saudi Arabia Rediscovers Its Pre-Islamic Heritage and Bets on Cultural Diplomacy. J. Tour. Manag. Res. 2023, 8, 1152–1168. [Google Scholar]
  52. Filippi, L.D.; Mazzetto, S. Comparing AlUla and The Red Sea Saudi Arabia’s Giga Projects on Tourism towards a Sustainable Change in Destination Development. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. RCU Is Saudi Arabia the Next Big Heritage Tourism Destination? Available online: https://www.rcu.gov.sa/en/media-gallery/articles/is-saudi-arabia-the-next-big-heritage-tourism-destination/ (accessed on 1 May 2024).
  54. Gallego, J.I.; Margottini, C.; Perissé Valero, I.; Spizzichino, D.; Beni, T.; Boldini, D.; Bonometti, F.; Casagli, N.; Castellanza, R.; Crosta, G.B.; et al. Rock Slope Instabilities Affecting the AlUla Archaeological Sites (KSA). In Progress in Landslide Research and Technology; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 413–429. [Google Scholar]
  55. Saudi Vision, 2030 Discover the Extraordinary Heritage of AlUla—A Living Museum of Sandstone Outcrops, Historic Developments, and Preserved Tombs. Available online: https://www.vision2030.gov.sa/en/projects/alula (accessed on 1 May 2024).
  56. Bowlby, J. Attachment Theory, Separation Anxiety, and Mourning. Am. Handb. Psychiatry 1975, 6, 292–309. [Google Scholar]
  57. Yuksel, A.; Yuksel, F.; Bilim, Y. Destination Attachment: Effects on Customer Satisfaction and Cognitive, Affective and Conative Loyalty. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lee, T.H.; Shen, Y.L. The Influence of Leisure Involvement and Place Attachment on Destination Loyalty: Evidence from Recreationists Walking Their Dogs in Urban Parks. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 33, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hinds, J.; Sparks, P. Engaging with the Natural Environment: The Role of Affective Connection and Identity. J. Environ. Psychol. 2008, 28, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. White, D.D.; Virden, R.J.; van Riper, C.J. Effects of Place Identity, Place Dependence, and Experience-Use History on Perceptions of Recreation Impacts in a Natural Setting. Environ. Manag. 2008, 42, 647–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Stokols, D. People in Places: A Transactional View of Settings. 1981. Available online: https://escholarship.org/content/qt48v387g7/qt48v387g7.pdf (accessed on 25 April 2024).
  62. Strzelecka, M.; Boley, B.B.; Woosnam, K.M. Place Attachment and Empowerment: Do Residents Need to Be Attached to Be Empowered? Ann. Tour. Res. 2017, 66, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Williams, D.R.; Patterson, M.E.; Roggenbuck, J.W.; Watson, A.E. Beyond the Commodity Metaphor: Examining Emotional and Symbolic Attachment to Place. Leis. Sci. 1992, 14, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Moore, R.L.; Graefe, A.R. Attachments to Recreation Settings: The Case of Rail-trail Users. Leis. Sci. 1994, 16, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chen, N.; Dwyer, L. Residents’ Place Satisfaction and Place Attachment on Destination Brand-Building Behaviors: Conceptual and Empirical Differentiation. J. Travel. Res. 2018, 57, 1026–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wang, S.; Wang, J.; Li, J.; Yang, F. Do Motivations Contribute to Local Residents’ Engagement in pro-Environmental Behaviors? Resident-Destination Relationship and pro-Environmental Climate Perspective. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 834–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Elshaer, I.A.; Azazz, A.M.S.; Fayyad, S. Residents’ Environmentally Responsible Behavior and Tourists’ Sustainable Use of Cultural Heritage: Mediation of Destination Identification and Self-Congruity as a Moderator. Heritage 2024, 7, 1174–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Han, H.; Hyun, S.S. College Youth Travelers’ Eco-Purchase Behavior and Recycling Activity While Traveling: An Examination of Gender Difference. J. Travel. Tour. Mark. 2018, 35, 740–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hernández, B.; Martín, A.M.; Ruiz, C.; Hidalgo, M. del C. The Role of Place Identity and Place Attachment in Breaking Environmental Protection Laws. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Uzzell, D.; Pol, E.; Badenas, D. Place Identification, Social Cohesion, and Enviornmental Sustainability. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 26–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Nunkoo, R.; Gursoy, D.; Juwaheer, T.D. Island Residents’ Identities and Their Support for Tourism: An Integration of Two Theories. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 675–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kellert, S.R. Experiencing Nature: Affective, Cognitive, and Evaluative Development in Children. In Children and Nature: PSYCHOLOGICAL, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002; Volume 117151. [Google Scholar]
  73. Su, L.; Swanson, S.R. The Effect of Destination Social Responsibility on Tourist Environmentally Responsible Behavior: Compared Analysis of First-Time and Repeat Tourists. Tour. Manag. 2017, 60, 308–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Su, L.; Swanson, S.R.; Chen, X. Reputation, Subjective Well-Being, and Environmental Responsibility: The Role of Satisfaction and Identification. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 1344–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Jorgensen, B.S.; Stedman, R.C. Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 233–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Confente, I.; Scarpi, D. Achieving Environmentally Responsible Behavior for Tourists and Residents: A Norm Activation Theory Perspective. J. Travel. Res. 2021, 60, 1196–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Matarrita-Cascante, D.; Stedman, R.; Luloff, A.E. Permanent and Seasonal Residents’ Community Attachment in Natural Amenity-Rich Areas. Environ. Behav. 2010, 42, 197–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Adongo, R.; Choe, J.Y.; Han, H. Tourism in Hoi An, Vietnam: Impacts, Perceived Benefits, Community Attachment and Support for Tourism Development. Int. J. Tour. Sci. 2017, 17, 86–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Lee, T.H. Influence Analysis of Community Resident Support for Sustainable Tourism Development. Tour. Manag. 2013, 34, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Gursoy, D.; Chi, C.G.; Dyer, P. Locals’ Attitudes toward Mass and Alternative Tourism: The Case of Sunshine Coast, Australia. J. Travel. Res. 2010, 49, 381–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Huong, P.M.; Lee, J.-H. Finding Important Factors Affecting Local Residents’ Support for Tourism Development in Ba Be National Park, Vietnam. For. Sci. Technol. 2017, 13, 126–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wang, S.; Xu, H. Influence of Place-Based Senses of Distinctiveness, Continuity, Self-Esteem and Self-Efficacy on Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism. Tour. Manag. 2015, 47, 241–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kitnuntaviwat, V.; Tang, J.C.S. Residents’ Attitudes, Perception and Support for Sustainable Tourism Development. Tour. Hosp. Plan. Dev. 2008, 5, 45–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Chang, M.-X.; Choong, Y.-O.; Ng, L.-P. Local Residents’ Support for Sport Tourism Development: The Moderating Effect of Tourism Dependency. J. Sport Tour. 2020, 24, 215–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Wang, W.; Wu, J.; Wu, M.-Y.; Pearce, P.L. Shaping Tourists’ Green Behavior: The Hosts’ Efforts at Rural Chinese B&Bs. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 9, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wang, C.; Zhang, J.; Cao, J.; Duan, X.; Hu, Q. The Impact of Behavioral Reference on Tourists’ Responsible Environmental Behaviors. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 694, 133698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. López, M.F.B.; Virto, N.R.; Manzano, J.A.; Miranda, J.G.-M. Residents’ Attitude as Determinant of Tourism Sustainability: The Case of Trujillo. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2018, 35, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D.W. Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects. J. Manag. 1986, 12, 531–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Bendakir, M. At-Turaif District in Ad-Dir’iyah (Saudi Arabia) No 1329; ICOMOS: Charenton-le-Pont, France, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  90. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  91. Leguina, A. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 2015, 38, 220–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016; ISBN 1483377431. [Google Scholar]
  93. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to Use and How to Report the Results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. 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]
  95. Tenenhaus, M.; Vinzi, V.E.; Chatelin, Y.-M.; Lauro, C. PLS Path Modeling. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2005, 48, 159–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Kim, D.J.; Salvacion, M.; Salehan, M.; Kim, D.W. An Empirical Study of Community Cohesiveness, Community Attachment, and Their Roles in Virtual Community Participation. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2023, 32, 573–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Williams, D.R.; Vaske, J.J. The Measurement of Place Attachment: Validity and Generalizability of a Psychometric Approach. For. Sci. 2003, 49, 830–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Choi, S.; Kim, I. Sustainability of Nature Walking Trails: Predicting Walking Tourists’ Engagement in pro-Environmental Behaviors. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2021, 26, 748–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Buonincontri, P.; Marasco, A.; Ramkissoon, H. Visitors’ Experience, Place Attachment and Sustainable Behaviour at Cultural Heritage Sites: A Conceptual Framework. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Hernández, B.; Carmen Hidalgo, M.; Salazar-Laplace, M.E.; Hess, S. Place Attachment and Place Identity in Natives and Non-Natives. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 310–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Lewicka, M. Place Attachment: How Far Have We Come in the Last 40 Years? J. Environ. Psychol. 2011, 31, 207–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Buckley, R. Understanding and Managing Tourism Impacts: An Integrated Approach. J. Ecotourism 2011, 10, 177–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Leslie, D. Responsible Tourism: Concepts, Theory and Practice; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2012; ISBN 1845939883. [Google Scholar]
Heritage 07 00126 g001
Figure 1. Map of the AlUla oasis and investigated archaeological and natural sites. From: Rock Slope Instabilities Affecting the AlUla Archaeological Sites (KSA) [54].
Figure 1. Map of the AlUla oasis and investigated archaeological and natural sites. From: Rock Slope Instabilities Affecting the AlUla Archaeological Sites (KSA) [54].
Heritage 07 00126 g001
Heritage 07 00126 g002
Figure 2. Conceptual model.
Figure 2. Conceptual model.
Heritage 07 00126 g002
Heritage 07 00126 g003
Figure 3. Estimation of the model structure.
Figure 3. Estimation of the model structure.
Heritage 07 00126 g003
Table 1. Outer model findings.
Table 1. Outer model findings.
λ (a) (C.R)(AVE)
Place dependence 0.8160.8900.731
CT10.887
CT20.858
CT30.818
Place identity 0.8110.8890.727
CT_40.822
CT_50.894
CT_60.840
Affective attachment 0.8400.8930.675
CT_70.828
CT_80.809
CT_90.829
CT_100.820
Tourists’ green consumption (TGC)) 0.8980.9190.619
TGC_10.779
TGC_20.765
TGC_30.782
TGC_40.788
TGC_50.773
TGC_60.816
TGC_70.804
Support for STD 0.8190.8730.580
SSTD_10.769
SSTD_20.772
SSTD_30.763
SSTD_40.755
SSTD_50.748
Note: CT1, CT2, and CT3 are measure items for the place dependence variable; CT_4, CT_5, and CT_6 are for the place identity variable; CT_7, CT_8, CT_8, and CT_10 are for the affective attachment variable; TGC_1 to TGC_7 are for the tourists’ green consumption variable; and SSTD_1 to SSTD_5 are for the support for green tourism development variable.
Table 2. Factor cross-loadings.
Table 2. Factor cross-loadings.
Place DependencePlace IdentityAffective AttachmentSSTDTGC
CT_10.8870.5170.6460.6370.661
CT_20.8580.4170.6280.6000.625
CT_30.8180.4380.5260.5630.466
CT_40.5100.8220.5320.5430.550
CT_50.4430.8940.4900.5880.556
CT_60.4180.8400.4560.5250.500
CT_70.5660.4650.8280.5970.596
CT_80.5130.4130.8090.5280.510
CT_90.5950.4770.8290.6450.584
CT_100.6340.5340.8200.6910.594
SSTD_10.5750.5380.6270.7690.502
SSTD_20.5260.5780.6530.7720.638
SSTD_30.4700.4430.5630.7630.532
SSTD_40.5660.4530.5820.7550.636
SSTD_50.5360.4470.4320.7480.603
TGC_10.5350.5280.5480.6370.779
TGC_20.5510.5190.5850.6310.765
TGC_30.5330.4780.4740.5500.782
TGC_40.5280.4500.5020.5070.788
TGC_50.5010.4080.5010.5810.773
TGC_60.5920.4550.6190.6530.816
TGC_70.5590.6040.5940.6490.804
Table 3. “Fornell–Larcker criterion matrix”.
Table 3. “Fornell–Larcker criterion matrix”.
AAPDPISGTDTGC
AA0.822
PD0.7060.855
PI0.5780.5360.853
SGTD0.7540.7030.6490.761
TGC0.6980.6910.6280.7680.787
Note: “Values off the diagonal line are squared inter-construction correlations, while values on the diagonal line are AVEs”.
Table 4. HTMT outcomes.
Table 4. HTMT outcomes.
AAPDPISGTDTGC
AA
PD0.843
PI0.6950.657
SGTD0.8970.8570.791
TGC0.7950.7960.7310.887
Note: “For an appropriate DV, all HTMT values need to be <0.90”.
Table 5. VIF, R2, and Q2 findings.
Table 5. VIF, R2, and Q2 findings.
Element VIFElement VIFElement VIFElement VIFElement VIF
CT_11.990CT_61.874SSTD_11.898TGC11.976TGC_62.296
CT_21.796CT_71.899SSTD_21.798TGC21.915TGC_72.087
CT_31.708CT_81.889SSTD_31.725TGC32.014
CT_41.598CT_91.852SSTD_41.720TGC42.132
CT_52.193CT_101.739SSTD_51.637TGC52.039
Tourists’ green consumptionR20.663Q20.380
Support for sustainable tourism developmentR20.672Q20.362
Table 6. Hypothesis results.
Table 6. Hypothesis results.
Pathsβ tpResult
Direct Paths
H1a—Place dependence → TGC0.2193.7140.000✔
H1c—Place identity → TGC0.1712.7230.007✔
H1b—Affective attachment → TGC0.1512.0650.039✔
H2a—Place dependence → SSTD0.2724.8100.000✔
H2b—Place identity → SSTD0.2677.3520.000✔
H2c—Affective attachment → SSTD0.4078.1460.000✔
H3—SSTD → SSTD0.3896.1260.000✔
Indirect Mediating Paths
H4a—Place dependence → SSTD → TGC0.1064.2040.000✔
H4b—Place identity → SSTD → TGC0.1044.6100.000✔
H4c—Affective attachment → SSTD → TGC0.1584.5850.000✔
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

Elshaer, I.A.; Alyahya, M.; Azazz, A.M.S.; Fayyad, S. Community Attachment to AlUla Heritage Site and Tourists’ Green Consumption: The Role of Support for Green Tourism Development. Heritage 2024, 7, 2651-2667. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7060126

AMA Style

Elshaer IA, Alyahya M, Azazz AMS, Fayyad S. Community Attachment to AlUla Heritage Site and Tourists’ Green Consumption: The Role of Support for Green Tourism Development. Heritage. 2024; 7(6):2651-2667. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7060126

Chicago/Turabian Style

Elshaer, Ibrahim A., Mansour Alyahya, Alaa M. S. Azazz, and Sameh Fayyad. 2024. "Community Attachment to AlUla Heritage Site and Tourists’ Green Consumption: The Role of Support for Green Tourism Development" Heritage 7, no. 6: 2651-2667. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7060126

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop