Next Article in Journal
Putting Emotion on the Map: Comparing Methods at Fort Tourism Events
Next Article in Special Issue
Community-Based Sustainability Perceptions in Rural Destinations: The “Pueblos con Encanto” Program in Cruz Pampa–Yapatera, Peru
Previous Article in Journal
Determining Factors of Tourism Resilience in the Face of Global Crises: Adaptability and Competitiveness
Previous Article in Special Issue
Insights from Football Stadiums as Tourist Destinations Using Online User Reviews
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Tourism and Hospitality
Volume 7
Issue 4
10.3390/tourhosp7040097
tourismhosp-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 Impact of Sustainable Tourism Policies and Destination Management on Residents’ Empowerment and Sustainable Tourism Support: A Moderated Model of Destination Attachment

by
Vasviye Özlem Akgun
1,
Gözde Seval Ergun
2,*,
Ahmet Ozturhan
3,
Tekin Idem
3,
Mikail Kolutek
4 and
Ozgur Yayla
5
1
Department of Logistics, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Selcuk University, Konya 42000, Türkiye
2
Department of Tourism Management, Manavgat Tourism Faculty, Akdeniz University, Antalya 07600, Türkiye
3
Department of History, Arts of Faculty, Batman University, Batman 72000, Türkiye
4
Department of History, Faculty of Science and Arts, Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Hatay 31000, Türkiye
5
Department of Recreation Management, Manavgat Tourism Faculty, Akdeniz University, Antalya 07600, Türkiye
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Tour. Hosp. 2026, 7(4), 97; https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp7040097
Submission received: 25 February 2026 / Revised: 25 March 2026 / Accepted: 30 March 2026 / Published: 2 April 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability of Tourism Destinations)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study was conducted to examine the influence of residents’ perceptions of sustainable tourism policies and destination management (STP&DM) on residents’ empowerment and their support for sustainable tourism development (SUPSTD). Unlike previous studies, this study examines the moderating role of destination attachment (DA) in the relationship between STP&DM and SUPSTD. The empirical findings reveal that STP&DM exert a positive and significant impact on the sub-dimensions of residents’ empowerment, namely psychological (PSYEM), social (SOCEM), and political (POLEM) empowerment. In particular, psychological empowerment and political empowerment were found to enhance residents’ SUPSTD. Moreover, the results confirm that DA functions as a moderator in the relationship between STP&DM and SUPSTD. Based on these outcomes, the study provides both theoretical and practical insights for industry practitioners, destination management organizations (DMOs), and scholars in the field of tourism and sustainability research.

1. Introduction

The development of tourism has been accepted in the literature for a long time as an important driving force in terms of increasing employment possibilities, improving infrastructure opportunities, and supporting regional economic growth (Dyer et al., 2007; Terzidou et al., 2008; Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Castilho & Fuinhas, 2025). Although it cannot be denied that increased tourism brings economic benefits to destinations, local communities suffer various negative consequences (Gautam, 2023), so much so that environmental degradation (Dyer et al., 2007), socio-cultural tensions, the unjust distribution of benefits to host communities, and the perception that cultural identities and social realities are threatened (García et al., 2015) can be counted among these. As most tourists interact with local people during their travels, people become defenseless against the negative effects of increasing tourist traffic in the region (Gautam, 2023). In this context, the long-term sustainability of tourism destinations increasingly depends on the attitudes and support of local people. When local communities develop a positive attitude toward tourism development and are provided with opportunities to participate in decision-making processes, their likelihood of supporting tourism activities and participating in sustainable tourism efforts is higher. Conversely, when communities feel tourism development is imposed from the outside and/or perceive it as poorly managed, resistance and opposition can emerge (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2010; Vargas-Sánchez et al., 2009; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2015; Stylidis, 2018; Martín et al., 2018). The negative effects of tourism have increasingly been seen as a burden for local people at the destination level (Joppe, 2018). Bound to this, understanding the factors shaping local people’s support for sustainable tourism development has become a central topic in tourism research (Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012; Stylidis et al., 2014). Support from local people is a widely accepted precondition for the sustainable development of tourism destinations (Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012).
Tourism academicians increasingly adopted governance-focused perspectives to examine the effects of institutional regulations on tourism development and its results. Tourism governance refers to the structures, processes, and interactions through which the public, private, and local communities manage tourism development in destinations together (Bramwell & Lane, 2011). In this context, sustainable tourism policies and destination management applications play a vital role in coordinating tourism activities (Bichler & Lösch, 2019; Bichler, 2021).
From a governance perspective, the success of tourism policies does not depend solely on regulations created by institutions. At the same time, it is related to how local communities perceive and experience these policies. On the other hand, according to institutional legitimacy, public policies receive greater support when they are perceived as just, transparent, and comprehensive by local people (Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012). Institutions enter into a search for harmony among social values and acceptable behavior within norms as part of a broader social system. When there is a fit between these two value systems, institutional legitimacy can be discussed (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975). According to this, there is support in the social meaning within the institutional legitimacy argument. Institutions reflect their continuity as accepted and supported by society and seek to legitimize their actions in the eyes of society (Dacin, 1997). Moving forward, as the number of participant planning applications in tourism destinations increases, the participation of local people in decision-making mechanisms will be ensured, thereby strengthening institutional legitimacy.
Only including local communities in the tourism development process is not enough to reach the target. Additionally, the empowerment of local people is very important for the sustainability and development of the tourism industry (Scheyvens, 1999). In this context, empowerment is a vital element that connects management and local communities in the tourism development process. Empowerment is accepted as the “topmost step” of the community participation ladder (Cole, 2006). According to the theory, when individuals within the community believe they are effective in decision-making processes, their probability of supporting tourism projects and participating in cooperatives will be higher (Ahn & Bessiere, 2022; Megawati et al., 2025). In the literature, empowerment is examined within a three-dimensional framework: psychological, social, and political (Boley & McGehee, 2014).
In addition to management structures and empowerment processes, residents’ emotional ties to their place of residence can also affect their attitudes towards tourism development. Individuals with strong place attachment tend to feel greater concern about the long-term sustainability of their communities and environments (Eslami et al., 2019). For this reason, place attachment can shape residents’ attitudes towards tourism policies and their reactions to destination management initiatives (Yuan et al., 2019).
Sustainable tourism policy, destination management, and the empowerment of local people are concepts that appear across us as structures distinct from one another but related. While sustainable tourism policies express the strategies and policies developed by public institutions (Schönherr et al., 2023), the destination management concept explains how to put these policies into practice at the local level. The empowerment of local people, on the other hand, reflects residents’ perceived level of influence and participation in tourism development (Boley & McGehee, 2014).
Researchers conduct studies to determine which theory or factor has the greatest effect size among different theories and factors in evaluating local people’s support for tourism development. Together with this, it is seen that research in this area is mostly based on social exchange theory (SET) among the mentioned theories (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2010; Stylidis & Terzidou, 2014; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2015; García et al., 2015; Eslami et al., 2019; Megawati et al., 2025). According to SET, residents who see the benefits rather than the costs of the tourism sector are more supportive of tourism development and participate in exchange processes to obtain value (Martín et al., 2018; Eslami et al., 2019). The theoretical basis of this study is primarily built upon SET and supported by governance and empowerment perspectives.
Despite the large number of studies examining local people’s support for tourism development, most studies have focused on perceived tourism effects or economic benefits (Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012; Stylidis et al., 2014; García et al., 2015; Martín et al., 2018). The number of studies examining how governance-focused systems, such as sustainable tourism policies and destination management applications, translate into support for tourism from local people through empowerment mechanisms is limited. In addition, the moderator role of destination attachment in the relationship among governance, empowerment, and local people’s support for tourism is also underexplored in the literature. For this reason, eliminating the mentioned gap is seen as important. As a matter of fact, the attachment local people feel to the place they live in can significantly affect how they perceive tourism policies and the support they provide for them.
It is expected that this study presents three basic contributions to the sustainable tourism literature. Firstly, it expands the SET by integrating the sustainable tourism policies and destination management concepts, which are governance-focused variables, with the empowerment of the local people approach. Secondly, it presents a multidimensional evaluation by integrating the concept of local people’s empowerment into its psychological, social, and political dimensions. And thirdly, the study examines the regulating (moderator) role of destination attachment in the relationship between governance structures and the support given by the local people to sustainable tourism development.
This research presents a holistic perspective in support of local people towards sustainable tourism by relating governance structures to community perceptions. In addition to this, the study not only presents empirical findings but also makes a theoretical contribution to the related literature by proposing a comprehensive model to explain local people’s support for sustainable tourism.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses

2.1. The Relationship Between STP&DM and Empowering Local Communities

Sustainable tourism policies refer to strategic planning frameworks that integrate environmental, economic, and socio-cultural dimensions to ensure the balanced and long-term development of tourism activities (Harris et al., 2012). Such policies adopt a holistic sustainability perspective, seeking to protect ecological integrity while simultaneously strengthening social well-being (Dodds & Butler, 2009). While sustainable tourism policy provides guidelines and directives for the long-term development of a tourism destination, destination management addresses its components in the short term and is closely linked to the creation of tourism products. For this reason, evaluating these two concepts together is important for enhancing the destination’s competitiveness, and they should be evaluated together (Goffi & Cucculelli, 2019). In the literature, sustainable tourism policies, governance, management quality, and stakeholder participation are recognized as distinct yet interrelated conceptual frameworks (Waligo et al., 2013; Farsari, 2023; Melenez-Roman et al., 2025). However, these structures, being highly intertwined with each other, especially in the application context, and mostly perceived as a holistic management and policy system by local people, necessitated treating the mentioned dimensions as a single implicit variable (STP&DM) in this study. Also, the study using perceptual data shows that participants tend to perceive these structures holistically rather than evaluating them separately. Sustainable tourism literature highlights the determining role of empowerment in shaping local communities’ support or opposition to tourism development (Boley & McGehee, 2014). A variety of research has shown that sustainability can be achieved when supported by the empowerment of local communities; otherwise, sustainability goals are undermined (Shafieisabet & Haratifard, 2020). Empowerment refers to destination management practices that incorporate the needs and wishes of the local community into decision-making processes, thereby enabling a higher level of engagement (Boley & McGehee, 2014). It is seen that the empowerment concept is handled as both a result variable and a component of participant governance processes (Aghazamani & Hunt, 2017). In this study, empowerment is positioned as a result of sustainable tourism policies and destination management initiatives for local people. In this context, factors such as participation in decision-making processes and stakeholder interaction are evaluated as premises that increase the empowerment level. Empowerment is examined in three sub-dimensions. First, from a multidimensional perspective, psychological empowerment equips residents with the cognitive and emotional readiness to assume active roles and responsibilities in inclusive tourism governance (Li et al., 2023; Wassler et al., 2021). Second, empowering local communities also includes the capacity to collaborate with community representatives in determining tourism development (Ahn & Bessiere, 2022; Boley & McGehee, 2014). It is expected that all communities share responsibility for environmental issues and demonstrate their skills in working together (Strzelecka et al., 2017). In terms of social empowerment, the local community is also expected to enhance community harmony and encourage the sharing of benefits and values among community members (Adebayo & Butcher, 2023). Finally, there is political empowerment. Political empowerment describes the ability of local people to exhibit confidence in decision-making that influences their own concerns or issues (Joo et al., 2020). It aims to promote the participation of key stakeholders as independent decision-makers in matters affecting the tourism sector (Amani, 2023).
By equipping individuals with the tools to steer their own lives and communities, this process empowers them to develop a stronger sense of control over their surroundings and futures (Boley & McGehee, 2014; Joo et al., 2020). Effective destination management can complement sustainable tourism policies by coordinating the various tourism components within a region and ensuring that the interests of local communities, the economy and the environment are harmonized (Hajmásy, 2024). This strategic perspective requires active stakeholder participation, which allows the local community to have a voice in decision-making processes. Through encouraging social participation and ownership, destination management is considered to strengthen social cohesion and contribute to a fairer distribution of tourism benefits. Therefore, our research has developed the hypotheses below:
H1a. 
STP&DM positively influences the PSYEM of local communities.
H1b. 
STP&DM positively influences the SOCEM of local communities.
H1c. 
STP&DM positively influences the POLEM of local communities.

2.2. The Relationship Between Empowering Local Communities and SUPSTD

Destination residents constitute one of the key stakeholders in sustainable tourism management (Amerta & Made, 2017). In this process, public participation, engagement and empowerment are crucial to achieving sustainability goals (Campón-Cerro et al., 2017; Liu, 2019). In the literature, there are various studies analyzing the effects of empowering local communities in sustainable tourism development (dos Santos et al., 2024; Gautam & Bhalla, 2024; Khalid et al., 2019). These include tourism participation and economic returns (Aleshinloye et al., 2022), participatory leadership approaches (Ahn & Bessiere, 2022), social perceptions of women’s labor and women’s entrepreneurship (Abou-Shouk et al., 2021), destination social responsibility activities (Su et al., 2023), various social supports offered by intermediary organizations (emotional, instrumental, informational, and evaluative) (S. Lee & Joo, 2024), and connection with nature (Strzelecka et al., 2023). In the existing literature, research on empowering local communities focuses largely on limited factors such as economic benefits, leadership, or social responsibility. Our research, on the other hand, aims to provide a holistic perspective on the multidimensional empowerment of local communities in sustainable tourism by addressing psychological, social and political dimensions collectively. It is considered that strengthening them psychologically, socially and politically will increase their participation in sustainable tourism practices and enable them to take on a more effective role in decision-making processes. In the study, sustainable tourism development is not handled as a directly measured output variable. The study examines the perceptions of local people towards sustainable tourism development and the support they provide for it. In this regard, it is assumed that empowerment dimensions do not directly increase sustainable tourism development but rather affect the level of support from local people for this development. Therefore, the study’s findings offer insights into not the realization of sustainable tourism development but rather how social support for this development takes shape. Empowering local communities psychologically, socially and politically can be achieved in a more sustainable and inclusive approach in terms of sustainability goals.
Thus, our research has formulated the following hypotheses.
H2a. 
PSYEM of the local community positively influences SUPSTD.
H2b. 
SOCEM of the local community positively influences SUPSTD.
H2c. 
POLEM of the local community positively influences SUPSTD.

2.3. The Relationship Between STP&DM and SUPSTD

Sustainable tourism is defined as a constructive manner that aims to reduce the tensions arising from the complex interactions between visitors, the environment and hosting communities (Harris et al., 2012). Effective destination management and policies promote responsible resource exchange among stakeholders, thereby contributing to sustainable tourism development (Khan et al., 2021). Previous studies have also suggested that de-signing and implementing policies to manage and control destination activities is critical for minimizing negative environmental and socio-cultural impacts and achieving the objectives of sustainable tourism (Cucculelli & Goffi, 2016). Another study argued that STP&DM are critical factors in promoting community well-being, preventing the misuse of natural resources, and delivering a superior tourism experience (Goffi & Cucculelli, 2019). Sustainable tourism development is handled through perceptions of local people towards development and their support levels. In this context, the effect of sustainable tourism policies and destination management is evaluated in terms of their power to shape local people’s support behavior for this development.
Khan et al. (2021) stated that once local communities perceive the risks of sustainable tourism to outweigh its benefits, they may be inclined to abandon sustainable change. It was highlighted that this situation could also negatively impact the host communities’ SUPSTD. In this sense, it reveals the significance of destination policy and management planning being carefully identified by local community leaders and activities that will benefit the communities being realized. Based on this, our research has advanced the following hypothesis.
H3. 
STP&DM positively influences SUPSTD.

2.4. The Moderating Role of DA

Tourism studies related to the SET have revealed that people tend to support tourism activities when the benefits they perceive exceed the costs (Blau, 2017). In this theoretical framework, the perceptions of local people regarding sustainable tourism policies and destination management are seen as a fundamental determinant in evaluating the benefits and costs that tourism will provide (Qin et al., 2025). The extent to which individuals perceive policy and management practices as fair, inclusive, effective, and sustainable directly influences their ability to translate these assessments into behaviors that support sustainable tourism development. For this reason, SET is used as the theoretical foundation for explaining the direct relationship between STP&DM and support for sustainable tourism in the study. However, it has been reported in numerous studies that the sense of attachment enhances this situation (Baumeister & Leary, 2017). While individuals with a strong sense of attachment to their destination provide stronger support for policies and management practices if they perceive them to be consistent with their own identity and values, they can quickly withdraw their support once they perceive potential threats or inconsistencies (Zou et al., 2024). In another study, it was reported that DA moderates the relationship between tourism’s environmental effects and attitudes towards supporting tourism (Chen, 2015). According to a different study conducted on tourists, Nam et al. (2022) showed the moderating effect of DA on the relationship between destination image and revisit intention. Zou et al. (2024) found that the relationship between trust and support for entrance fees in national parks is significantly moderated by DA. In another study, destination belonging is conceptualized as a psychological factor that shapes how local people interpret policy and management applications (Aytekin et al., 2023). Because individuals with high destinations internalize the value, identity, and belonging elements of the region they live in more strongly, they tend to respond more strongly to positive or negative perceptions of sustainable tourism policies and destination management (Uslu et al., 2023). This situation can lead to the same policy or management application producing support at different levels for individuals with different levels of belonging. These findings provide evidence that destination identity not only has a direct effect but also acts as a conditional predictor that either strengthens or weakens policy support. Therefore, the moderating role of DA should be evaluated as a critical factor in understanding the success of sustainable tourism policies. For this reason, the moderator role of destination belonging in the current study is theoretically grounded not in all structural paths but only in the direct relationship between sustainable tourism policies and destination management and support for sustainable tourism.
From this point, our research has established the following hypothesis.
H4. 
In the relationship between STP&DM and SUPSTD, DA plays a moderating role.
The model created according to the research hypotheses is shown in Figure 1.

3. Methodology

3.1. Construction of Scales

The questionnaire of the research has five parts. The first part includes questions aimed at determining the demographic characteristics of the participants. In the second part of the study, a scale designed by Goffi and Cucculelli (2019) was utilized to evaluate perceptions of STP&DM, which consists of 17 statements. The 12 statements in the third part regarding residents’ empowerment were modified from the research of Boley and McGehee (2014). In the fourth part, the 6-statement instrument developed by Nicholas et al. (2009) was preferred for the scale measuring SUPSTD. As a result, the 4-item scale developed by Hallak et al. (2015) and used in the literature to assess the DA of local residents (Uslu et al., 2023) was used. Since the scales were originally in English, they were first translated into Turkish by a language expert and then back into English by a different language expert to ensure double-checking. As a result of this evaluation, it was determined that all statements preserved their meaning, and research data were collected using a five-point Likert scale.

3.2. Research Area

The population of the research consists of the locals living in Alanya, a tourist region in Türkiye. Alanya was selected as the study area because it is one of Antalya’s largest tourist destinations. In fact, by 2025, Alanya had hosted more than four million tourists. Considering that 17 million tourists visited Antalya that same year, approximately one in every four tourists chooses Alanya (Alanya Association of Tourist Operators, 2026). Similarly, there are 372 ministry-licensed hotel establishments in Alanya (Culture and Tourism Ministry, 2026). In Butler’s (2025) destination life cycle model, Alanya is considered to be in the stagnation phase. The consolidation stage represents destinations that maintain their popularity and continue to be supported by local residents due to the economic benefits of tourism (T. H. Lee & Jan, 2019). Because of the wide expanse of the population, the study has been conducted by sampling from the population. As of 2026, there are 370,000 residents in Alanya. Before collecting the research data, a pilot study was conducted. As part of the pilot study, survey forms were collected from 42 participants between 17 and 21 March 2025. The results indicated that all statements were found to be sufficiently clear. Also, reliability levels for the scales were examined, and it was determined that Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from 0.79. Given these results, it was decided to collect the main data.
In this context, data was collected using convenience sampling. Data were collected face-to-face by the researchers personally. With the aim of better representing the research universe, people over 18 years of age, and in a way, one person from each family, participated in the questionnaire. The sample size was determined to be 372 using the Yamane (2001, p. 116) sample calculation formula, and the conclusion was reached that this sample size represents the universe. In this scope, 460 questionnaires were obtained between 1 April 2025 and 25 June 2025. Missing data were removed from the questionnaires, and as a result, the data analysis phase was proceeded with 439 questionnaires.

3.3. Common Method Bias

It is claimed that the common method bias risk is high in research in the social sciences (Podsakoff et al., 2003). To minimize this risk, within the scope of techniques aimed at increasing the response rate, the cover page for each questionnaire form included statements such as “Participation relies voluntarily” and “There is no right or wrong answer in this questionnaire” (Cooper et al., 2020). Also, from a statistical perspective, Harman’s single-factor test was applied, and it was determined that the largest factor explained 39.6% of the variance. This result is acceptable when evaluated against the limits reported in the literature (Fuller et al., 2016).

3.4. Data Reporting

Before proceeding with the research analyses, a three-stage data screening process was conducted. Firstly, to determine whether the data are normally distributed, kurtosis and skewness were examined, and it was determined that all values fall within the ±2 range. This result indicates that the data follows a normal distribution (Kline, 2011). Secondly, outliers were identified in the 439 questionnaires obtained from the research, and 28 questionnaires containing outliers were eliminated from the analysis (Mahalanobis’ D (39) > 0.001). The analysis was continued with the 411 remaining data sets. Lastly, VIF and Tolerance values were examined to determine whether there is multicollinearity, and it was determined that the VIF value is below 5 and the Tolerance value is above 0.10. As a result, it was decided that there is no multicollinearity problem (Kline, 2011). Structural Equation Modeling was used for data analysis, and the model created was tested in two stages using confirmatory factor analysis and path analysis. Finally, using the bootstrap method to estimate confidence intervals, which is understandable and useful for moderator effect analysis, the Process Macro (Model 1), an add-on to SPSS 23.0, was used to assess the moderator effect (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).

4. Findings

4.1. Demographic Profile

The participants in the study were 52.6% male and 25.1% were aged 18–30. These rates are consistent with Alanya’s general demographic profile. Generally, 51% of the local people living in Alanya are men and 49% are women. At the same time, the young population constitutes three-quarters of the total population (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2026). It was also identified that more than half of the participants (56.4%) were married. An examination of the table values reveals that 70.1% of the locals had an associate’s/bachelor’s degree level of education. This result is above the Turkish average. Given that 45% of the Turkish population is university graduates (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2026), the 70% of the sample group who are university graduates can be explained by the presence of two universities in the Alanya destination. Finally, the tourism-related income levels of the locals were investigated, and it was found that 56.4% of them had income derived from tourism. Given that people living in tourist destinations generally work in tourism-related jobs, this result aligns with the literature (Yayla et al., 2023).
This data can be seen in Table 1.

4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

In order to confirm how well the model fits the data, confirmatory factor analysis was first performed. In the results, two statements in the SUPSTD dimension (I support local participation in tourism planning and development; Tourism planning should support the promotion and sale of local products) were removed from the analysis due to their factor loadings being below 0.50 (Hair et al., 2006). It was determined that the factor loadings of all statements remaining were higher than 0.50. In addition, the model’s goodness-of-fit value pointed to the model’s good fit (χ2/df = 2.119, NFI = 0.920, RFI = 0.911, IFI = 0.954, TLI = 0.943, RMR = 0.067, RMSEA = 0.057, and CFI = 0.953).
For reliability, Cronbach’s alpha values were calculated, and it was decided that the scale was reliable due to each structure being above 0.70. AVE and CR values were checked for validity, and the minimum AVE value across all structures was calculated as 0.662, while the minimum CR value was reported as 0.838. These results showed that the scales provided validity (Nunnally, 1978). All values stated above are presented in Table 2.
In Table 3, Fornell–Lacker values are examined regarding discriminant validity. When the table results are evaluated, the values in each column are lower than the values at the end of the row. According to these results, Fornell–Lacker criteria have been met.

4.3. Hypothesis Tests

When the path analysis results of the study were reviewed, similar goodness-of-fit values were determined as in the confirmatory factor analysis results (χ2/df = 2.230, NFI = 0.924, RFI = 0.916, IFI = 0.951, TLI = 0.948, RMR= 0.064, RMSEA = 0.061, and CFI = 0.952). The findings suggest that STP&DM have a meaningful relationship with all sub-dimensions of RE (p < 0.001). In other phrases, STP&DM positively influence PSYEM by 19% (β = 0.19), SOCEM by 34% (β = 0.34), and POLEM by 22% (β = 0.22). Furthermore, PSYEM (β = 0.23, p < 0.001) and POLEM (β = 0.17, p < 0.05) have positive influences on SUPSTD. However, it has been found that SOCEM has no statistically significant relationship with SUPSTD (p > 0.05). It has been identified that STP&DM have a strong and significant effect on supporting SUPSTD (β = 0.57, p < 0.001). As a result, H1a, H1b, H1c, H2a, H2c, and H3 were accepted, while H2b was rejected.

4.4. Moderator Effect Results

For the purpose of determining the moderator role of the DA variable in the relationship between STP&DM and SUPSTD, Process Macro (Model 1) was used, and the results are reported in Table 4. According to the findings of the above table, it is observed that DA has moderated the relationship between STP&DM and SUPSTD. When we analyzed the moderating effect, we found that the effect of STP&DM on SUPSTD was lower among individuals with lower DA (β = 0.35, 95% CI [0.192, 0.522], p < 0.001), and this effect is higher among individuals with high DA (β = 0.62, 95% CI [0.477, 0.780], p < 0.001). More details on the moderating effect can be found in Figure 2. Based on this result, H4 was accepted.

5. Discussion

This study revealed that STP&DM can significantly enhance all sub-dimensions of local community empowerment: psychological, social and political. PSYEM and POLEM strengthened the intention to SUPSTD, whereas SOCEM had no significant impact in this context. In addition, it was found that STP&DM have a significant and positive influence on the intention to SUPSTD; this relationship was found to be markedly stronger among individuals with high DA. While this pattern empirically confirms the “empowerment-governance-support” chain discussed in the recent literature (Han et al., 2023; Neuts et al., 2021; Wani et al., 2024), it also offers a theoretical perspective by associating the conditioning role of DA with managerial mechanisms. Based on Scheyvens’ (1999) empowerment framework, which includes psychological, social, economic, and political components, and its recent updates, the findings suggest that especially non-economic (psychological/political/social) benefits play a role in driving the intention to SUPSTD (Gautam & Bhalla, 2024). Together with this, while handling the empowerment concept in this study, the economic dimension, which is not being measured, should be recognized as an important limitation. This situation makes it difficult to generalize the obtained findings in a way that covers all dimensions of empowerment. Therefore, especially interpretations of psychological, social, and political empowerment need to be handled within the current measurement scope and with greater caution.
First, STP&DM have a positive effect on the sub-dimensions of empowerment, which is in line with research that shows that participation, accountability, and openness in destination management foster community empowerment (Ahn & Bessiere, 2022; Forje & Tchamba, 2022). According to Bichler (2021) and Gajdosik et al. (2018), the implementation of governance processes can improve local satisfaction and encourage supportive behaviors. They also argued that organizational trust and stakeholder participation strengthen supportive attitudes via the perceived benefits channel (Gajdosik et al., 2018). Likewise, there is some evidence that trust in public organizations and quality governance directly and indirectly boost support for tourism policies (Ribeiro & Almeida, 2021; Wong & Lai, 2022). In this regard, the strong direct effect (β = 0.57) observed in our study aligns with the findings of the corporate trust literature and integrated models of the governance–support relationship (Han et al., 2023; Neuts et al., 2021; Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2017; Perren et al., 2025; Wani et al., 2024).
Secondly, the relationship between empowerment and support seems to vary significantly across dimensions. Our findings confirm that PSYEM (β = 0.23) and POLEM (β = 0.17) increase SUPSTD, whereas SOCEM does not contribute significantly. This finding is consistent with previous studies that have reported PSYEM and POLEM as consistent determinants of supportive behavior (Boley et al., 2018; Gautam & Bhalla, 2024). Indeed, the RETS scale developed by Boley and McGehee (2014) and subsequent studies have consistently emphasized the impact of psychological and political factors on attitudes and behaviors (Boley et al., 2018; Gautam & Bhalla, 2024; Strzelecka et al., 2017). Conversely, there is also some evidence in the literature suggesting that the “direct” effect of empowering local communities on their SUPSTD may be weak or insignificant (Perren et al., 2025). dos Santos et al. (2024), in their comprehensive SEM study, reported that the relationship between SOCEM and direct support was insignificant; in some contexts, POLEM might also have a weak effect on direct support (dos Santos et al., 2024). The social empowerment dimension not showing a meaningful effect may stem from dynamics specific to the context in which the research is conducted, from the measurement tool not adequately separating the social dimension, or from effects overlapping with other empowerment dimensions. Also, social empowerment may be effective through indirect means rather than through direct effects on support behavior. For this reason, the mentioned finding can be considered an important area that needs to be explained for future studies.
Thirdly, the strong direct effect of STP&DM on the intention to SUPSTD is also consistent with contemporary models (Hsu et al., 2019; Su et al., 2018). A recent integrative model developed in nature-based destinations has shown that well-designed sustainability policies and corporate arrangements increase local community SUPSTD substantially (Han et al., 2023). The findings of Huber et al. (2023) are consistent with the high coefficient observed in our model, suggesting that governance quality can trigger support intentions via normative or institutional channels.
Finally, the positive moderator effect of DA on the relationship between STP&DM and SUPSTD is consistent with studies suggesting that attachment is a bonding source that conditions tourism attitudes and behaviors (Ge et al., 2022). Studies have shown that place attachment and image shape public support attitudes (Stylidis et al., 2014), while others have found that perceived effects of attachment play mediating/conditioning roles in the support chain (Yuan et al., 2019). Importantly, moderating evidence that positive beliefs and policies related to place attachment act as “enhancers” is also reported in visitor and resident samples. Nam et al. (2022) have indicated that DA moderates the relationship between image and revisit. Zou et al. (2024) have shown that DA and trust are jointly determinants in the acceptance of public policies such as park fees. Research in the literature overlaps with the findings of our study, indicating that when DA is high, the marginal effect of governance/policy responses on supporting sustainable tourism increases. Separating the findings of this study from the managerial deductions that can be derived from them is important. At the same time, findings identify the relationships between variables, and managerial deductions propose how these relationships can be evaluated in the application context. For this reason, it should be noted that the obtained results do not yield direct policy outcomes but rather provide an interpretable framework for decision-makers.

6. Implications

6.1. Theoretical Implications

When evaluating the theoretical contributions of this study, it can be said that the findings largely align with existing models in the literature and expand upon them in the context of specific variables, rather than completely transforming them. From this perspective, the study contributes to the literature not by proposing a new theoretical framework but by testing existing approaches in a different context and reinterpreting certain relationships.
This study goes beyond the frequently debated “empowerment–support” relationship by empirically demonstrating how this relationship is conditioned by governance quality and DA. The expansion of Scheyvens’ (1999) model shows that non-economic forms of empowerment (PSYEM and POLEM) are central determinants of sustainable attitudes. Therefore, this work provides an empirical basis for alternative theoretical models explaining complex mechanisms of resident SUPSTD.
These findings demonstrate that the psychological bonds individuals form with a destination play a significant role in the relationship between sustainable tourism policies, destination management, and the supportive attitudes of local residents. This perspective contributes to a more holistic and people-centered approach to the “perception-attitude-behavior relationship” in the sustainable tourism literature.
Moreover, the moderating role of DA highlights a frequently overlooked “spatial dimension” in explaining tourist attitudes. This provides a theoretical contribution to the development of “attachment-oriented governance” approaches in community tourism (Ge et al., 2022). Likewise, the study contributes to the debate on “interdimensional differentiation” in empowerment literature by offering contextual explanations for why SOCEM may have weaker effects on support behavior.

6.2. Practical Implications

The practical implications presented in this study are not definitive results from directly tested interventions; the findings need to be evaluated as potential applications. For this reason, rather than guaranteeing a specific result, proposals are presented as alternative approaches that can guide decision-makers. The findings of the research offer three practical implications. First, programs that provide for visible gains and acknowledgement (local heritage ownership and transparent feedback loops) that foster PSYEM will increase SUPSTD. Secondly, it is thought that institutionalizing POLEM channels, such as participatory planning, advisory boards and neighborhood forums, will make the effects of STP&DM practices more visible, particularly among groups with a strong sense of DA. Thirdly, it is considered that including targeted participation strategies for groups with low attachment (orientation for new residents, micro-grants, and neighborhood-based co-production projects) in sustainable tourism policies will improve the likelihood of support. In addition, future studies testing these proposals across different destinations and socio-cultural contexts will provide results that will inform stronger deductions.

6.3. Conclusions

While evaluating the results of this study, it should be kept in mind that the findings rely on a cross-sectional research design and, for this reason, do not allow for the establishment of direct causal relationships. This study has demonstrated that STP&DM have significant effects on the three main dimensions of empowerment—PSYEM (19%), SOCEM (34%), and POLEM (22%). SUPSTD is primarily strengthened through psychological (self-confidence, pride, and belonging) and political (participation, representation, and access to decision-making processes) empowerment, while SOCEM does not exert a significant direct effect. Generally, these findings indicate that the relationship between sustainable tourism policies and destination management, and the support attitudes of local people, can take different forms across different empowerment dimensions. In particular, the psychological and political empowerment dimensions, which are taking on a more apparent role, are closely related to individuals’ perceptual and participative experiences.
The results obtained show that PSYEM and POLEM directly enhance the local community’s supportive attitudes toward SUPSTD, demonstrating that this situation indicates an integrated structure of the “empowerment-governance-support” chain. Furthermore, it was found that DA plays a moderating role in this relationship (62%). Among individuals with high levels of attachment, the effect of STP&DM on the intention to support is significantly increased. This finding highlights that DA is not only an emotional bond but also a psychological resource that enhances participation in political and administrative processes.

6.4. Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

This research was conducted with residents of the city of Alanya in Antalya, one of Turkey’s main tourist centers. Therefore, the results have a spatial limitation. In other regions with different socio-cultural contexts, different results might be obtained. Moreover, as this is a cross-sectional study, future longitudinal research could increase the explanatory power of the model.
Since the model is based on destinations with predominantly summer tourism, studies in regions with other forms of tourism (e.g., winter or cultural) could provide new in-sights. Future research should also analyze the indirect effects of social empowerment (e.g., place identity and perception of justice) and differences between destinations at different stages of development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.Ö.A.; methodology, G.S.E.; validation, G.S.E. and O.Y.; formal analysis, O.Y.; investigation, T.I.; resources, M.K.; data curation, O.Y. and V.Ö.A.; writing—original draft preparation, V.Ö.A., M.K. and A.O.; writing—review and editing, G.S.E. and T.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Akdeniz University (protocol code 05/135 and date of approval: 5 March 2026).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the research.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Abou-Shouk, M. A., Mannaa, M. T., & Elbaz, A. M. (2021). Women’s empowerment and tourism development: A cross-country study. Tourism Management Perspectives, 37, 100782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Adebayo, A. D., & Butcher, J. (2023). Community empowerment in Nigeria’s tourism industry: An analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions. Tourism Planning & Development, 20(4), 583–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Aghazamani, Y., & Hunt, C. A. (2017). Empowerment in tourism: A review of peer-reviewed literature. Tourism Review International, 21(4), 333–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Ahn, Y., & Bessiere, J. (2022). The relationships between tourism destination competitiveness, empowerment, and supportive actions for tourism. Sustainability, 15(1), 626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Alanya Association of Tourist Operators. (2026). Alanya accommodat.on occupancy rates. Available online: https://www.altid.org.tr/bilgi-hizmetleri/alanya-tesis-doluluk-oranlari-2025/ (accessed on 21 March 2026).
  6. Aleshinloye, K. D., Woosnam, K. M., Tasci, A. D. A., & Ramkissoon, H. (2022). Antecedents and outcomes of resident empowerment through tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 61(3), 656–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Amani, D. (2023). The role of destination brand-oriented leadership in shaping tourism destination brand ambassadorship behavior among local residents in Tanzania. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(2), 2266634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Amerta, S., & Made, I. (2017). The role of tourism stakeholders at Jasri tourism village development, Karangasem regency. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 1(2), 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Andereck, K. L., & Nyaupane, G. P. (2011). Exploring the nature of tourism and quality of life perceptions among residents. Journal of Travel Research, 50(3), 248–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Aytekin, A., Keles, H., Uslu, F., Keles, A., Yayla, O., Tarinc, A., & Ergun, G. S. (2023). The effect of responsible tourism perception on place attachment and support for sustainable tourism development: The moderator role of environmental awareness. Sustainability, 15(7), 5865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (2017). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. In Interpersonal development (pp. 57–89). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bichler, B. F. (2021). Designing tourism governance: The role of local residents. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 19, 100389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Bichler, B. F., & Lösch, M. (2019). Collaborative governance in tourism: Empirical insights into a community-oriented destination. Sustainability, 11(23), 6673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Blau, P. (2017). Exchange and power in social life. Routledge. Available online: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780203792643/exchange-power-social-life-peter-blau (accessed on 5 January 2026).
  15. Boley, B. B., & McGehee, N. G. (2014). Measuring empowerment: Developing and validating the resident empowerment through tourism scale (RETS). Tourism Management, 45, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Boley, B. B., Strzelecka, M., & Watson, A. (2018). Place distinctiveness, psychological empowerment, and support for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 70(2), 137–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2011). Critical research on the governance of tourism and sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4–5), 411–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Butler, R. (2025). Tourism destination development: The tourism area life cycle model. Tourism Geographies, 27(3–4), 599–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Campón-Cerro, A. M., Folgado-Fernández, J. A., & Hernández-Mogollón, J. M. (2017). Rural destination development based on olive oil tourism: The impact of residents’ community attachment and quality of life on their support for tourism development. Sustainability, 9(9), 1624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Castilho, D., & Fuinhas, J. A. (2025). How do tourism investments affect each pillar of decent work? Evidence from European Union countries. Safety Science, 189, 106896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Chen, J. S. (2015). Tourism stakeholders attitudes toward sustainable development: A case in the Arctic. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 22, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Cole, S. (2006). Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 629–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Cooper, B., Eva, N., Fazlelahi, F. Z., Newman, A., Lee, A., & Obschonka, M. (2020). Addressing common method variance and endogeneity in vocational behavior research: A Review of the literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 121, 103472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Cucculelli, M., & Goffi, G. (2016). Does sustainability enhance tourism destination competitiveness? Evidence from Italian destinations of excellence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 111, 370–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Culture and Tourism Ministry. (2026). Ministry-certified facilities. Available online: https://www.ktb.gov.tr/genel/searchhotelgenel.aspx?lang=tr (accessed on 23 March 2026).
  26. Dacin, M. T. (1997). Isomorphism in context: The power and prescription of ınstitutional norms. Academy of Managememt Journal, 40(1), 48–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Dodds, R., & Butler, R. (2009). Barriers to implementing sustainable tourism policy in mass tourism destinations. Available online: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/25162 (accessed on 5 January 2026).
  28. dos Santos, E. R. M., Pereira, L. N., Pinto, P., Boley, B. B., & Ribeiro, M. A. (2024). Imperialism, empowerment, and support for sustainable tourism: Can residents become empowered through an imperialistic tourism development model? Tourism Management Perspectives, 53, 101270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behaviour. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Dyer, P., Gursoy, D., Sharma, B., & Carter, J. (2007). Structural modelling of resident perceptions of tourism and associated development on the Sunshine Coast, Australia. Tourism Management, 28(2), 409–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Eslami, S., Khalifah, Z., Mardani, A., Streimikiene, D., & Han, H. (2019). Community attachment, tourism impacts, quality of life and residents’ support for sustainable tourism development. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36(9), 1061–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Farsari, I. (2023). Exploring the nexus between sustainable tourism governance, resilience and complexity research. Tourism Recreation Research, 48(3), 352–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Forje, G. W., & Tchamba, M. N. (2022). Ecotourism governance and protected areas sustainability in Cameroon: The case of campo Ma’an national park. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 4, 100172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atınc, G., Atınc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192–3198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Gajdosik, T., Gajdosikova, Z., & Strazanova, R. (2018). Residents’ perception of sustainable tourism destination development: A destination governance issue. Global Business & Finance Review (GBFR), 23(1), 24–35. [Google Scholar]
  36. García, F. A., Vázquez, A. B., & Macías, R. C. (2015). Resident’s attitudes towards the impacts of tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 13, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Gautam, V. (2023). Why local residents support sustainable tourism development? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 31(3), 877–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Gautam, V., & Bhalla, S. (2024). Exploring the relationships among tourism involvement, residents’ empowerment, quality of life and their support for sustainable tourism development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 434, 139770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Ge, Q., Yang, J., Tang, F., Wang, Y., He, Q., Chen, H., Ji, Q., Ding, F., Jiang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2022). The effects of place attachment and emotional solidarity on community residents’ attitudes toward glacier tourism. Land, 11(11), 2065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Goffi, G., & Cucculelli, M. (2019). Explaining tourism competitiveness in small and medium destinations: The Italian case. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(17), 2109–2139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6). Pearson Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  42. Hajmásy, G. S. (2024). “On the way to becoming one of the most sustainable tourism destinations in the world”—The Austrian way. Journal of Sustainability Research, 6(3), e240062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Hallak, R., Assaker, G., & Lee, C. (2015). Tourism entrepreneurship performance: The effects of place identity, self-efficacy, and gender. Journal of Travel Research, 54(1), 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Han, S., Ramkissoon, H., You, E., & Kim, M. J. (2023). Support of residents for sustainable tourism development in nature-based destinations: Applying theories of social exchange and bottom-up spillover. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 43, 100643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Harris, R., Williams, P., & Griffin, T. (2012). Sustainable tourism. Routledge. Available online: https://www.google.com/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=McAJBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=(2012).+Sustainable+tourism.+Routledge.&ots=Tg_ERMit6q&sig=QBBI_S0GWkf1c2AJXMSiysnyoF8 (accessed on 5 January 2026).
  46. Hsu, C.-Y., Chen, M.-Y., & Yang, S.-C. (2019). Residents’ attitudes toward support for island sustainable tourism. Sustainability, 11(18), 5051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Huber, J. M., Newig, J., & Loos, J. (2023). Participation in protected area governance: A systematic case survey of the evidence on ecological and social outcomes. Journal of Environmental Management, 336, 117593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Joo, D., Woosnam, K. M., Strzelecka, M., & Boley, B. B. (2020). Knowledge, empowerment, and action: Testing the empowerment theory in a tourism context. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(1), 69–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  49. Joppe, M. (2018). Tourism policy and governance: Quo vadis? Tourism Management Perspectives, 25, 201–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  50. Khalid, S., Ahmad, M. S., Ramayah, T., Hwang, J., & Kim, I. (2019). Community empowerment and sustainable tourism development: The mediating role of community support for tourism. Sustainability, 11(22), 6248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. Khan, M. R., Khan, H. U. R., Lim, C. K., Tan, K. L., & Ahmed, M. F. (2021). Sustainable tourism policy, destination management and sustainable tourism development: A moderated-mediation model. Sustainability, 13(21), 12156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  53. Lee, S., & Joo, D. (2024). Intermediary organizations as supporters of residents’ innovativeness and empowerment in community-based tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 32(8), 1534–1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H. (2019). Can community-based tourism contribute to sustainable development? Evidence from residents’ perceptions of the sustainability. Tourism Management, 70, 368–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Li, X., Boley, B. B., & Yang, F. X. (2023). Resident empowerment and support for gaming tourism: Comparisons of resident attitudes pre- and amid-COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 47(8), 1503–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  56. Liu, Y.-D. (2019). Event and sustainable culture-led regeneration: Lessons from the 2008 European capital of culture, Liverpool. Sustainability, 11(7), 1869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  57. Martín, H. S., de los Salmones Sánchez, M. M. G., & Herrero, Á. (2018). Residents’ attitudes and behavioral support for tourism in host communities. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 35(2), 231–243. [Google Scholar]
  58. Megawati, V., Otok, B. W., & Purnomo, J. D. T. (2025). Moderating technology acceptance model on resident empowerment in support for sustainable tourism. Sustainability, 17(9), 4217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  59. Melenez-Roman, J., Font, X., Torres-Delgado, A., & Rodriguez-Sanchez, I. (2025). Co-creating sustainability innovations in a tourism destination: A participatory research design from Barcelona. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  60. Nam, S., Oh, Y., Hong, S., Lee, S., & Kim, W.-H. (2022). The moderating roles of destination regeneration and place attachment in how destination image affects revisit intention: A case study of Incheon metropolitan city. Sustainability, 14(7), 3839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  61. Neuts, B., Kimps, S., & Van Der Borg, J. (2021). Resident support for tourism development: Application of a simplified resident empowerment through tourism scale on developing destinations in Flanders. Sustainability, 13(12), 6934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  62. Nicholas, L. N., Thapa, B., & Ko, Y. J. (2009). Residents’ perspectives of a world heritage site: The pitons management area, St. Lucia. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 390–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  63. Nunkoo, R., & Gursoy, D. (2012). Residents’ support for tourism: An identity perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 243–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  64. Nunkoo, R., & Gursoy, D. (2017). Political trust and residents’ support for alternative and mass tourism: An improved structural model. Tourism Geographies, 19(3), 318–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  65. Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2010). Modeling community support for a proposed integrated resort project. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(2), 257–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  66. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). McGraw. [Google Scholar]
  67. Perren, C., Boley, B. B., White, E. M., Green, G. T., & Woosnam, K. M. (2025). Protected area influence over resident attitudes towards tourism in gateway communities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 33(3), 436–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  68. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  69. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  70. Qin, X., Ye, S., Xiang, F., & Wang, C. (2025). Examining the formation of resident support for tourism: An integration of social exchange theory and tolerance zone theory. Sustainability, 17(11), 4921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  71. Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jaafar, M., Kock, N., & Ramayah, T. (2015). A revised framework of social exchange theory to investigate the factors influencing residents’ perceptions. Tourism Management Perspectives, 16, 335–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  72. Ribeiro, T., & Almeida, V. (2021). Does the Olympic legacy perceived in the host city influence the resident support after the games? International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 13(3), 393–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  73. Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Management, 20(2), 245–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  74. Schönherr, S., Peters, M., & Kuščer, K. (2023). Sustainable tourism policies: From crisis-related awareness to agendas towards measures. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 27, 100762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  75. Shafieisabet, N., & Haratifard, S. (2020). The empowerment of local tourism stakeholders and their perceived environmental effects for participation in sustainable development of tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 45, 486–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  76. Strzelecka, M., Boley, B. B., & Strzelecka, C. (2017). Empowerment and resident support for tourism in rural central and eastern Europe (CEE): The case of Pomerania, Poland. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(4), 554–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  77. Strzelecka, M., Prince, S., & Boley, B. B. (2023). Resident connection to nature and attitudes towards tourism: Findings from three different rural nature tourism destinations in Poland. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 31(3), 664–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  78. Stylidis, D. (2018). Place attachment, perception of place and residents’ support for tourism development. Tourism Planning & Development, 15(2), 188–210. [Google Scholar]
  79. Stylidis, D., Biran, A., Sit, J., & Szivas, E. M. (2014). Residents’ support for tourism development: The role of residents’ place image and perceived tourism impacts. Tourism Management, 45, 260–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  80. Stylidis, D., & Terzidou, M. (2014). Tourism and the economic crisis in Kavala, Greece. Annals of Tourism Research, 44, 210–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  81. Su, L., Huang, S., & Huang, J. (2018). Effects of destination social responsibility and tourism impacts on residents’ support for tourism and perceived quality of life. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(7), 1039–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  82. Su, L., Yang, X., & Swanson, S. R. (2023). The influence of motive attributions for destination social responsibility on residents’ empowerment and quality of life. Journal of Travel Research, 62(8), 1737–1754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  83. Terzidou, M., Stylidis, D., & Szivas, E. (2008). Residents’ perceptions of religious tourism and its socioeconomic impacts on the island of Tinos. Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Development, 5(2), 113–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  84. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2026). Population data statistic. Available online: https://www.tuik.gov.tr/ (accessed on 23 March 2026).
  85. Uslu, F., Yayla, O., Guven, Y., Ergun, G. S., Demir, E., Erol, S., Yıldırım, M. N. O., Keles, H., & Gozen, E. (2023). The perception of cultural authenticity, destination attachment, and support for cultural heritage tourism development by local people: The moderator role of cultural sustainability. Sustainability, 15(22), 15794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  86. Vargas-Sánchez, A., Plaza-Mejia, M. A., & Porras-Bueno, N. (2009). Understanding residents’ attitudes toward the development of industrial tourism in a former mining community. Journal of Travel Research, 47(3), 373–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  87. Waligo, V. M., Clarke, J., & Hawkins, R. (2013). Implementing sustainable tourism: A multi-stakeholder involvement management framework. Tourism Management, 36, 342–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  88. Wani, M. D., Dada, Z. A., & Shah, S. A. (2024). The impact of community empowerment on sustainable tourism development and the mediation effect of local support: A structural equation modeling approach. Community Development, 55(1), 50–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Wassler, P., Wang, L., & Hung, K. (2021). Residents’ power and trust: A road to brand ambassadorship? Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 19, 100550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  90. Wong, J. W. C., & Lai, I. K. W. (2022). The mechanism influencing the residents’ support of the government policy for accelerating tourism recovery under COVID-19. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 52, 219–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  91. Yamane, T. (2001). Temel örnekleme yöntemleri (A. Esin, A. M. Bakır, C. Aydın, & E. ve Gürbüzsel, Trans.; 1st ed.). Literatür Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  92. Yayla, Ö., Koç, B., & Dimanche, F. (2023). Residents’ support for tourism development: Investigating quality-of-life, community commitment, and communication. European Journal of Tourism Research, 33, 3311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  93. Yuan, Q., Song, H., Chen, N., & Shang, W. (2019). Roles of tourism involvement and place attachment in determining residents’ attitudes toward industrial heritage tourism in a resource-exhausted city in China. Sustainability, 11(19), 5151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  94. Zou, S. (Sharon), Pitas, N. A., Cho, S. J., & Yoon, H. (Violet). (2024). The moderating effect of place attachment on visitors’ trust and support for recreational fees in national parks. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 98, 102412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Tourismhosp 07 00097 g001
Figure 1. Hypothetical research model.
Figure 1. Hypothetical research model.
Tourismhosp 07 00097 g001
Tourismhosp 07 00097 g002
Figure 2. DA as a moderator of STP&DM and SUPSTD.
Figure 2. DA as a moderator of STP&DM and SUPSTD.
Tourismhosp 07 00097 g002
Table 1. Description of the participants (n = 411).
Table 1. Description of the participants (n = 411).
Variablesf%
Gender
Male21652.6
Female19547.4
Age
18–3010325.1
31–408520.7
41–508620.9
51–607317.8
61 or more6415.6
Marial Status
Married23256.4
Single17943.6
Educational background
Primary education4410.7
Secondary education6515.8
Associate’s/Bachelor’s28870.1
Postgraduate143.4
Tourism-related income
Exist23256.4
None17943.6
Table 2. Structural model factor analysis results.
Table 2. Structural model factor analysis results.
Factors/ItemsFactor Loadingst-Value R 2 CRAVECA
Sustainable Tourism Policy & Destination Management 0.9900.8880.982
STP&DM10.83223.18 *0.58
STP&DM20.86725.28 *0.72
STP&DM30.88726.36 *0.76
STP&DM40.90327.13 *0.80
STP&DM50.87225.49 *0.74
STP&DM60.84523.55 *0.69
STP&DM70.86925.34 *0.73
STP&DM80.89126.52 *0.77
STP&DM90.85624.18 *0.71
STP&DM100.88926.12 *0.76
STP&DM110.89727.14 *0.76
STP&DM120.87725.81 *0.74
STP&DM130.84123.46 *0.68
STP&DM140.86925.43 *0.72
STP&DM150.86525.06 *0.69
STP&DM160.89426.74 *0.79
STP&DM170.877 0.74
Residents’ Empowerment
Psychological empowerment 0.8810.7200.911
PSYEM 10.81319.71 *0.62
PSYEM 20.86621.83 *0.71
PSYEM 30.87922.77 *0.73
PSYEM 40.836 0.67
Social empowerment 0.8380.6620.896
SOCEM10.807 0.63
SOCEM20.72519.30 *0.51
SOCEM30.85118.54 *0.70
SOCEM40.86519.16 *0.74
Political empowerment 0.9420.8300.946
POLEM10.910 0.79
POLEM20.91629.86 *0.80
POLEM30.93630.72 *0.82
POLEM40.88326.11 *0.73
Support for Sustainable Tourism Development 0.9630.8810.958
SUPSTD 10.938 0.79
SUPSTD 20.95233.17 *0.81
SUPSTD 30.96335.14 *0.85
SUPSTD 40.90128.81 *0.74
Destination Attachment 0.9100.7670.940
DA10.814 0.70
DA20.91024.34 *0.84
DA30.90624.13 *0.82
DA40.87122.01 *0.77
* p < 0.001.
Table 3. Discriminant validity results (Fornell–Lacker values).
Table 3. Discriminant validity results (Fornell–Lacker values).
Factor123456
1. STD&DM0.942
2. PSYEM0.0640.848
3. SOCEM0.0730.6170.813
4. POLEM0.0600.5090.4450.911
5. SUPSTD0.4310.2230.1350.1190.938
6. DA0.3130.2970.1250.1320.2160.875
Table 4. Bootstrap regression analysis result.
Table 4. Bootstrap regression analysis result.
H4: SUPSTD
βConfidence Interval
Lower LimitUpper Limit
STP&DM (X) 0.26 *0.0430.490
DA (W) 0.45 **0.1490.757
X.W (Interaction) 0.10 **0.1770.163
R2 0.21
DAβS.E.tLLCIULCI
Low0.35 *0.084.250.1920.522
Middle0.42 *0.066.360.2930.556
High0.62 *0.078.130.4770.780
* p < 0.001 ** p < 0.05.
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

Akgun, V.Ö.; Ergun, G.S.; Ozturhan, A.; Idem, T.; Kolutek, M.; Yayla, O. The Impact of Sustainable Tourism Policies and Destination Management on Residents’ Empowerment and Sustainable Tourism Support: A Moderated Model of Destination Attachment. Tour. Hosp. 2026, 7, 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp7040097

AMA Style

Akgun VÖ, Ergun GS, Ozturhan A, Idem T, Kolutek M, Yayla O. The Impact of Sustainable Tourism Policies and Destination Management on Residents’ Empowerment and Sustainable Tourism Support: A Moderated Model of Destination Attachment. Tourism and Hospitality. 2026; 7(4):97. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp7040097

Chicago/Turabian Style

Akgun, Vasviye Özlem, Gözde Seval Ergun, Ahmet Ozturhan, Tekin Idem, Mikail Kolutek, and Ozgur Yayla. 2026. "The Impact of Sustainable Tourism Policies and Destination Management on Residents’ Empowerment and Sustainable Tourism Support: A Moderated Model of Destination Attachment" Tourism and Hospitality 7, no. 4: 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp7040097

APA Style

Akgun, V. Ö., Ergun, G. S., Ozturhan, A., Idem, T., Kolutek, M., & Yayla, O. (2026). The Impact of Sustainable Tourism Policies and Destination Management on Residents’ Empowerment and Sustainable Tourism Support: A Moderated Model of Destination Attachment. Tourism and Hospitality, 7(4), 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp7040097

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop