Determinants of Residents’ Word-of-Mouth Behaviour and Support for Tourism

Abstract

This research explores residents’ support for tourism by introducing—for the first time—the variable of residents’ word-of-mouth intention. The tested model proposes that residents’ support for tourism is influenced by residents’ word-of-mouth and tourism benefits; the model also examines the impacts of community attachment and community involvement on the benefits of tourism. The relationship between tourism benefits and residents’ word-of-mouth is the most significant indication of the tested model, followed by the linkage between tourism benefits and support for tourism. Besides this, the positive and significant effect of residents’ word-of-mouth on their support for tourism has been proven. The results stress the need for increased focus on the benefits of tourism by increasing community attachment, as they reveal that more attached residents lead to more positive perceptions of the benefits of tourism, consequently having a higher effect on their word-of-mouth intention and support for tourism.

1. Introduction

Residents’ influence on visitors’ experiences has been confirmed in several studies (Gursoy et al. 2009; Kim et al. 2013; Tolkach and King 2015; Wang and Xu 2015), which directly affects sustainable tourism (Blasco López et al. 2018). Due to the influence of host communities’ attitudes on visitor satisfaction, residents’ concerns have been considered in order to maintain a socially sustainable development (Nunkoo and So 2015; Wang and Xu 2015). Therefore, the need to assess the supportive attitudes of host communities has been made clear, as their active support is crucial for successful tourism development (Wang et al. 2017).

It has been indicated that residents’ perceptions of the benefits of tourism define their predisposition to support tourism (Choi and Murray 2010). In this regard, it has been suggested that local empowerment initiatives should be implemented considering the problems and needs of locals, enhancing community attachment and involving locals in tourism decision-making processes to encourage positive attitudes to tourism (Lee 2013; Boley and Strzelecka 2016; Nicholas et al. 2009; Nunkoo and So 2015). The different socio-economic and environmental benefits offered by the tourism industry have been widely studied by many scholars, such as preservation, increased local employment and businesses, and the improvement of the standard of living, among others (Adong et al. 2017; Garrod 2003; Nunkoo and So 2015; Sinclair-Maragh and Gursoy 2015; Tokarchuk et al. 2016). These benefits have an effect on daily lives; consequently, these influences shape residents’ attitudes (Jaafar et al. 2015a; Nicholas et al. 2009). Precisely, the residents’ behavioural outcomes that are significant for policymakers are mainly their support for tourism development and their word-of-mouth (WOM) behaviour.

Thus, this research proposes that the following four hypotheses should be tested: (1) the impact of residents’ WOM intention on their support for tourism; (2) the effect of the benefits of tourism on (a) their support for tourism and (b) on their WOM intention; (3) the linkage between community attachment and tourism benefits; and (4) the relationship between community involvement and residents’ support for tourism. The proposed model was analysed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM). The study setting was Conimbriga archaeological complex (Portugal), which provides very useful and interesting insights as the attitudes of residents’ in an archaeological site setting represent an understudied area of research (Blasco López et al. 2018; Jaafar et al. 2015a).

2. Literature Review 2.1. Support for Tourism and Residents’ WOM Intention

Local support for tourism development has mainly been reviewed in connection to community-driven—also called community-based—tourism, as this type of tourism activity is based on fostering community participation by emphasizing social equity (Blasco López et al. 2018; Lee 2013; Sebele 2010; Tolkach and King 2015). Scholars have considered this support as a favourable attitude toward tourism or as behavioural intention (Wang et al. 2017; Wang and Xu 2015). Nevertheless, it has been pointed out that those residents who experience perceived benefits from tourism activity have positive attitudes towards this sector, and consequently tend to support tourism development more than those that do not experience these benefits (Moghavvemi et al. 2017).

WOM—an informal communication regarding a product, service or an organization—has been identified to have critical significance in the tourism sector (Chen et al. 2014; Jeuring and Haartsen 2016; Simpson and Siguaw 2008). In this respect, it has been stated that consumers have more confidence in the opinions of friends and relatives than in an advertising or corporate message (Andersson and Ekman 2009). Therefore, the tertiary communication that emanates from residents’ perceptions regarding their place is considered to be a credible and trustworthy source of information that can reduce the risk of purchasing a service and increase awareness of a place to those that are unfamiliar to it (Confente 2015; Phillips et al. 2013).

Due to the nature of tourism products and the increasingly competitive tourism marketplace, the use of residents’ WOM may provide meaningful competitive advantages (Chen et al. 2014). Although the relationship between residents’ WOM intention and their support for tourism has not yet been analysed, many scholars have concluded that residents’ impressions create favourable and positive outcomes (Deery et al. 2012; Song et al. 2017). Therefore, it is quite reasonable to think that those residents that tend to enhance WOM communication will likely be more predisposed to support tourism. Thus, the following hypothesis is postulated:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).Residents’ WOM intentions have a significant and positive effect on their support for tourism.

2.2. Tourism Benefits

Residents, in relation to their expectations of visitor arrivals, clearly perceive tourism benefits (Nunkoo and So 2015). The benefits of tourism have been mainly categorized into two dimensions: socio-economic and environmental benefits. Socio-economic benefits refer to employment opportunities for local people, income generation and entrepreneurial and investment opportunities, and environmental benefits entail the preservation of natural resources, local awareness, an improved quality of life and the revival of traditions and culture (Adong et al. 2017; Garrod 2003; Sinclair-Maragh and Gursoy 2015; Tokarchuk et al. 2016). It has been ascertained that tourism generates numerous economic profits, while the degrees of environmental benefits have been questioned (Gursoy et al. 2009). In this regard, one of the most noticeable benefits used to promote tourism is the economic outcome (Gursoy et al. 2002). However, all of these perceptions evolve within time, depending on the development of tourism in a place, as the residents’ awareness of a mature destination are not the same as those that live in an emerging tourist area (Rasoolimanesh et al. 2017).

Residents who benefit most from the socio-economic and environmental gains approve of the development of tourism to a higher extent than those who receive no or limited revenues (Almeida-García et al. 2015; Jurowski and Gursoy 2004). In this respect, it has been proven that residents’ perceived benefits have a significant effect on their support for tourism; thus, positive perceptions of tourism activity increase their support for more tourism (Blasco López et al. 2018; Garau-Vadell et al. 2018; Lee 2013; Nunkoo and Ramkissoon 2011; Nunkoo and So 2015; Park et al. 2015). Precisely, it has been suggested that residents that support tourism probably feel that the positive benefits they perceive exceed the costs related to the benefits of tourism (Almeida-García et al. 2016; Hammad et al. 2017). Thus, residents that perceive tourism positively will likely support tourism more than those that do not positively perceive tourism positively.

Besides, as has been pointed out, the benefits of tourism are issues that affect residents’ attitudes (Gursoy et al. 2009); consequently, these impacts will likely have an effect on their WOM intention. Although the relationship between tourism benefits and residents’ WOM intention has not been previously assessed, it is reasonable to consider that residents will discuss their perceptions regarding the benefits of tourism with their family and relatives. Based on the above discussion, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 2 (H2).The benefits of tourism have a significant and positive effect on (a) residents’ support for tourism and (b) their WOM intention.

2.3. Community Attachment

Community attachment has been explained as the value and feelings that emerge among residents’ regarding their locality (Blasco López et al. 2018; Lee 2013). Different studies have described community attachment in relation to affective bonds, identity meanings and place dependence (Lee and Shen 2013; Yuksel et al. 2010). This sociological concept describes residents’ emotional connections with their places, which are related to their attitudes, behaviour, and social interactions (Pradhananga and Davenport 2017).

Interestingly, it has been indicated that those residents that have a strong sense of community attachment tend to have a negative attitude towards tourism development (Lee et al. 2014). In contrast, several researchers have proven that those residents that have a higher sense of community attachment perceive more positive tourism benefits than those that do not feel as attached to their communities (Blasco López et al. 2018; Gursoy and Rutherford 2004; Jurowski et al. 1997; Lee 2013). Other studies have not confirmed the relationship between community attachment and positive tourism benefits (Lankford and Howard 1994; Um and Crompton 1987). However, it is realistic to think that those residents that feel attached to their communities perceive positive tourism benefits. Thus, the next hypothesis is established:

Hypothesis 3 (H3).Community attachment has a significant and positive effect on tourism benefits.

2.4. Community Involvement

Community involvement refers to the participation of the residents in the development of tourism in a place (Jaafar et al. 2015b; Nicholas et al. 2009). The importance of community involvement has been highlighted as it permits local members to have control over the issues that affect their lives; it also allows residents to increase their awareness concerning the benefits they will receive from tourism activities (Rasoolimanesh et al. 2015; Rasoolimanesh et al. 2017). In certain places, such as heritage areas, community members take care of safeguarding and conserving cultural assets (Mustafa and Tayeh 2011; Wager 1995).

Many researchers have examined residents’ community involvement (e.g., Blasco López et al. 2018; Nicholas et al. 2009; Lee 2013; Rasoolimanesh et al. 2015). Opposing results have been found in relation to the impact of community involvement on positive tourism benefits. Nicholas et al. (2009) stated that this linkage is insignificant, whereas Lee (2013) concluded there was a positive and significant effect. Some other scholars have examined more precise relationships. For instance, the effect of community involvement on positive perceived tourism benefits was concluded as positive and significant (Liu et al. 2014; Sebele 2010). Moreover, it has been suggested that community involvement in the archaeological site of Angkor Wat could increase locals’ willingness to integrate tourism activities in the economy sector (Wager 1995). Besides this, other scholars have indicated that many residents are very cooperative and want to be involved in decision-making processes (Aas et al. 2005; Li and Hunter 2015; Lundberg 2017). Thus, we present the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4 (H4).Community involvement has a significant and positive effect on the perception of the benefits of tourism.

3. Methodology 3.1. Research Context and Data Collection

This research was based on residents that live in the villages around a small village called Condeixa-a-Velha (Portugal), surrounding the Conimbriga site, in the centre of Portugal, very close to the city of Coimbra. In 2015, the archaeological site received 87,659 visitors (52,655 were national and 35,004 were international), and in 2016, it received 91,797 visitors (DGPC 2018).

The percentage of national tourists is higher than international visitors, which has raised the awareness of tourism planners regarding the importance of consolidating the archaeological complex around Coimbra as an international tourism destination. In this context, it is particularly interesting to evaluate locals’ impressions of the expansion of tourism in the region around Coimbra.

The target population of this study was residents who lived near the archaeological site of Conimbriga, since these local residents are the most affected by tourism development. The museum of the archaeological site opened in 1962 and was remodelled in 1984. This improvement brought an average of 130,000 visitors a year for the next 30 years (Gonçalves et al. 2017).

There is archaeological evidence of the existence of Conimbriga long before the arrival of the Romans to Lusitania (modern-day Portugal) (Gomes et al. 2016). After the political and administrative crisis of the Roman Empire, Conimbriga was invaded by the barbarians; after that, the city was abandoned by part of its population. The ruins of the old, prosperous town were untouched for centuries, until the end of the 19th century. Excavations have shown the magnificent infrastructure of an old Roman city, which is far from having been completely discovered, with the visible part representing just 15–20% of the total site (Gonçalves et al. 2013).

The target population was residents of all villages around the archaeological site of Conimbriga, since these are the most affected residents and those that can also benefit from the development of tourism. It was not possible to find an extensive sampling frame for the residents who live near to the Conimbriga site—specifically, in the small village of Condeixa-a-Velha. Therefore, it was very difficult to achieve a probabilistic sample method.

As Malhotra (2010, p. 349) emphasized, “Quota sampling obtains results close to those for conventional probability sampling”. We first used the quota-sampling method, supported in the demographic dimension of each village around Conimbriga. The convenience sampling method was then used since it was undertaken in a context similar to other studies (Kim et al. 2006; Yuksel et al. 2010). We considered a minimum sample size of 200 respondents to be sufficient, as (Yuksel et al. 2010) suggested in their study that also used the convenience sampling method.

Data were collected by means of personal survey from 2 March to 21 May 2016. A total of 404 questionnaires were collected, and 382 were usable. The rate of response was 382/404, and no statistically significant differences for the profile of interest between those that answered the questionnaire and those who decline to answer it was found. Thus, it was shown that sample selection bias was not a concern (Fowler 1984; Yuksel et al. 2010). As Table 1 indicates, respondents were mainly employees aged between 20 and 59 who had visited the archaeological complex at least twice.

G*Power 3 was used to complete the power analysis (Faul et al. 2007) and the sample size guaranteed a power for the R² deviation from the zero test, as the outcome was above 95% for the model, as shown in Figure 1 (Cohen 1988). In addition, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted to check CMV (Podsakoff et al. 2003) using principal components without rotation in SPSS, and the analysis showed that only one factor explained 37.3% of the variance, which implies a low level of common method bias in the research design.

3.2. Measures

The scale items were adapted from prior studies, and we employed a seven-point Likert-type scale. Although Table 2 shows the measurement model in English, the questionnaire was administered in Portuguese. The translation from English to Portuguese was undertaken by two native Portuguese speakers so that all the possible nuances and connotations could be taken into account, following the specifications of several scholars (Sicei et al. 2006).

Items regarding support for tourism and residents’ WOM intention were adapted from (Wang and Xu 2015; Palmer et al. 2013), respectively. First-order dimensions for benefits (socio-economic and environmental benefits) were operationalized using Rivera et al. (2015). The scales for community attachment and involvement were adapted from (Choi and Murray 2010; Lee 2013), respectively.

3.3. Data Analysis

The technique of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) was especially adequate for the current research for various reasons. Firstly, the proposed model included a combination of first and second-order constructs that required a significantly higher sample size if using covariance-base structural equation modelling. As PLS-SEM is grounded on ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions, the sample size requirement was minimal (Hair et al. 2012). Secondly, the preliminary tests accomplished on the sample of the current research indicated the presence of non-normal data, and PLS-SEM is less strict when used with these types of bias (Hair et al. 2014).

4. Results 4.1. Model Assessment The evaluation of the model using PLS-SEM required a two-step approach to be followed. The first stage was the evaluation of the outer (measurement) model and entailed the analysis of the constructs and scale items that represented this model. The second stage comprised the evaluation of the inner model and the relationships between the constructs specified in the proposed model.

4.1.1. Outer (Measurement) Model

The reliability and validity of the measurement model in Figure 1 was assessed. Table 3 and Table 4 present the results of the model’s reliability and convergent validity tests. As indicated in Table 3, all the Cronbach’s alphas exceeded the recommendation of 0.70 (Cronbach 1951; Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). The composite reliability values indicated the mutual variance of a group of observed variables by measuring a specific construct (Fornell and Larcker 1981), where a composite reliability of at least 0.60 was considered appropriate (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). All these values of the proposed model reached this requirement. The average variance extracted (AVE) was calculated for every construct, thus confirming AVEs above 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker 1981).

The results for convergent validity regarding all items were significantly (p < 0.01) related to their hypothesized variables. Besides this, the size for all standardized loadings exceeded 0.60 (Bagozzi and Yi 1988).

Table 4 shows the assessment of discriminant validity. The common variance between pairs of constructs was lower than the linked AVE (Fornell and Larcker 1981). The HTMT ratio method suggested by (Henseler et al. 2015) was implemented for discriminant validity, and all ratios were lower than 0.85 (Clark and Watson 1995). Consequently, the model showed evidence of reliability, as well as convergent and discriminant validity. Finally, the reliability and convergent validity were established at the first and second-order level.

4.1.2. Inner (Structural Model)

A bootstrapping procedure was performed with 5000 iterations of re-sampling to acquire the path coefficients and t-statistics of the hypothesized relationships. Table 5 presents the testing results of the hypotheses.

The results indicate that residents’ WOM intention positively and significantly influences support for tourism (H1; β = 0.40; p < 0.01). Besides this, benefits (as a second-order construct that comprises socio-economic and environmental benefits) have a positive and significant effect on support for tourism (H2a; β = 0.39; p < 0.01) and residents’ WOM intention (H2b; β = 0.54; p < 0.01). Community attachment positively and significantly influences tourism benefits (H3; β = 0.34; p < 0.01); furthermore, community involvement has a positive and significant effect on tourism benefits (H4; β = 0.17; p < 0.01). 5. Conclusions

This research focused on the analysis of the drivers of residents’ support for tourism. In this regard, this research offers three main contributions. First, to date, no prior study has been found that analyses the impact of residents’ WOM intention on their support for tourism. Although it is quite reasonable that this relationship has a significant and positive impact, it is interesting to point out that the impact of tourism benefits on support for tourism presents a t value (i.e., 8469) higher than the effect of residents’ WOM intention on support for tourism (i.e., 7999) (see Table 5). These findings are rather obvious, as it can be expected that tourism benefits have a stronger effect on support for tourism than residents’ WOM intention on support for tourism. However, WOM has been concluded to be a determinant factor affecting residents’ behaviour (Simpson and Siguaw 2008; Jeuring and Haartsen 2016), which raised the question of which was the most influential factor.

Second, this research revealed that the t value of the relationship between tourism benefits and residents’ WOM intention is higher than the t value of the linkage between tourism benefits and support for tourism. Logically, tourism benefits increase WOM intention to a greater extent than support for tourism; in other words, tourism benefits have a greater effect on residents’ discussions with their friends and relatives than the effect of tourism benefits on residents’ attitudes toward supporting tourism development. Besides, the findings are consistent with other studies that showed that tourism benefits have a positive effect on locals’ support for tourism (Blasco López et al. 2018; Lee 2013; Nunkoo and Ramkissoon 2011; Stydilis et al. 2014). It is important to determine the role of destination governance as a vehicle for channelling and institutionalising residents’ WOM and community involvement (Dos Anjos and Kennell 2019) as well as the differing priorities of destination development in competitive and less competitive destinations (Paunovic et al. 2020). This points to the importance of WOM not only in terms of level of support but also in terms of the content, values and priorities transmitted through WOM.

Third—and in the same vein—the t value regarding the impact of community attachment on the benefits of tourism is higher than the t value concerning the effect of community involvement on the benefits of tourism. These findings are interesting and in contrast to those of other studies (e.g., Blasco López et al. 2018; Lee et al. 2014), as they offer the insight that the more a host community feels attached to their place, the more positive tourism benefits they will perceive. However, this corroborates Lee’s findings (Lee 2013), as it confirms that community attachment has a higher influence on perceived benefits compared to the linkage between community involvement and perceived benefits. Besides, the results confirm prior findings proving a positive and significant impact of community attachment on positive tourism benefits (Blasco López et al. 2018; Gursoy and Rutherford 2004; Jurowski et al. 1997; Lee 2013). Furthermore, in similar settings, it was also proven that community involvement leads to positive perceptions of the benefits of tourism (Blasco López et al. 2018; Knight and Cottrell 2016; Mitchell and Reid 2001; Steel 2012).

5.1. Practical Implications

Tourism policymakers are currently trying to gain support for tourism among residents, as the influence of residents’ perceptions on tourism sustainability has been acknowledged (Blasco López et al. 2018). Therefore, our findings are important for tourism policymakers and archaeological site staff members. It has been proven that residents’ WOM intention has an effect on support for tourism, and that the greatest effect found by the proposed model is between tourism benefits and residents’ WOM intention. These results reveal the importance of tourism benefits on residents’ perceptions, which finally affect their support for tourism. Moreover, community attachment has a greater effect on tourism benefits than community involvement on tourism benefits. Therefore, we suggest that policymakers should promote marketing campaigns aimed at raising the identity values, meanings and feelings of the community.

Despite the fact that the need for recognizing residents’ demands to improve visitors’ experiences has been suggested (Mustafa and Tayeh 2011), this study confirms the influence of residents’ perceptions on their support for tourism (Blasco López et al. 2018). Thus, as other scholars have proposed, we propose that consultation meetings should be planned periodically in order to examine residents’ attachment and involve them in decision-making processes (Blasco López et al. 2018; Gursoy and Rutherford 2004). Precisely, policymakers should boost measures that promote a dialog between residents and managers so the tourism industry can receive information regarding residents’ problems and interests (Aas et al. 2005; Lee 2013). Regarding community attachment, tourism policymakers could boost tourism activities based on local dances and traditions, as these will not only promote the local culture among tourists and improve their tourist experience but also will be a way for locals to feel a greater sense of identity and feel more attached to their place and the benefits of tourism. However, such use of local culture and traditions threatens a change in the staging of this culture and traditions. Additionally, it is recommended to encourage all kind of initiatives to improve residents’ perceptions regarding the benefits of tourism, such as supporting tourism entrepreneurs, giving priority to locals for employment opportunities, and enhancing environmental protection programmes.

5.2. Limitations and Research Directions Respondents were chosen in relation to their proximity to the Conimbriga archaeological complex. As it was not possible to find a sampling frame, all villages around the archaeological site were considered, and the quota-sampling method was initially adopted; however, finally, convenience sampling method was used. Therefore, scholars are encouraged to conduct similar studies using a probabilistic sampling method over a wide-ranging spectrum of residents. Besides, tourism benefits were examined as a second-order construct that comprised socio-economic and environmental benefits, and therefore it would be interesting for future studies to analyse the separate effects of these two dimensions of the proposed model.

Following the suggestions made by (Pulina et al. 2013), residents’ attitudes varied depending on the type of tourism development. Thus, scholars are prompted to continue the analysis of this line of research by examining the proposed model in this study and including some classification variables such as years of age, gender, residency, education level, or annual income (Jaafar et al. 2015a; Sinclair-Maragh 2017; Stydilis et al. 2014). Besides this, as suggested by Wang and Xu (2015), future research should focus on analysing residents’ support for inward tourism development, which could be examined in a multi-group PLS comparison that compares residents’ impressions regarding inbound and outward tourism. Finally, it would be revealing to analyse the impact of residents’ WOM intention on tourism sustainability, in order to prove the influence of informal communication on the sustainable development of tourism activities and compare it with the linkage between support for tourism and tourism sustainability (Blasco López et al. 2018).

Figure 1. Proposed model and hypotheses.

	N = 382	%		n	%
Gender			Occupation
Female	227	59.4	Employee	181	47.4
Male	155	40.6	Housewife	22	5.8
			Retired	50	13
Age			Student	69	18.1
15–19	17	4.5	Unemployed	33	8.6
20–29	88	23.0	Others	27	7.1
30–39	54	14.1
40–49	76	19.9	Nº of times visited
50–59	77	20.2	Never	17	4
60–69	42	11.0	Once	74	19.3
70–79	25	6.5	2–8 times	204	53.9
More than 80 years old	3	0.8	More than 9 times	87	22.8
Education
Postgraduate	38	9.9
Undergraduate/Graduate	141	36.9
Secondary	144	37.7
Primary	56	14.7
None	3	0.8

Construct/Associated Items		Mean	Standard Deviation
Community attachment (CA)
1.	I like the community where I live.	6079	1162
2.	I feel safe here.	6021	1125
3.	This is a beautiful community.	6212	1066
Community involvement (CI)
1.	I participate in sustainable tourism-related activities.	2898	2055
2.	I support research for the sustainability of this community.	4105	2266
3.	I am involved in the planning and management of sustainable tourism in this community.	2607	1948
4.	I am involved in the decision-making for the sustainable tourism of this community.	2474	1901
Socio-economic impact (SE)
1.	Tourism holds great promise for Coimbra’s economic future.	5817	1225
2.	Tourism provides many worthwhile employment opportunities for residents.	5254	1435
3.	Tourism has already improved the economy of Coimbra.	5327	1399
4.	By creating jobs and generating income, tourism promotes an increase in the social well-being of residents.	5260	1434
Environmental impact (EN)
1.	The development of tourism has generally improved the standard of living of Coimbra.	5162	1493
2.	Residents are satisfied with the manner in which tourism development and planning is currently taking place.	4450	1485
3.	Tourism development protects the environment in Conimbriga.	4635	1620
Support for tourism (ST)
1.	I’d like Conimbriga to attract more tourists.	6289	3973
2.	I’d like Conimbriga to add more culture-based attractions.	6259	3994
3.	Conimbriga should invest more in developing tourism.	6196	3351
4.	Local taxes should be used to support Conimbriga’s tourism development between others.	5916	1757
5.	Coimbra should think of all types of tourism development.	6197	3381
Residents’ WOM intention (RW)
1.	I will tell more people about the tourist attractions in my home area than in other regions.	5704	1408
2.	When I tell others about the tourist attractions in my home area, I tend to talk about them in great detail.	5641	1447
3.	I only have good things to say about the tourist attractions in my home area.	5230	1605

Factor	Indicator	Standardized Loading	t-Value (Bootstrap)	CA	rhoA	CR	AVE
Community attachment	CA1	0.913	79.266	0.837	0.852	0.902	0.754
	CA2	0.838	31.322
	CA3	0.853	28.208
Community involvement	CI1	0.790	8.419	0.843	1148	0.874	0.635
	CI2	0.887	12.619
	CI3	0.781	6.057
	CI4	0.721	5.163
Socio-economic impact	SE1	0.856	59.611	0.880	0.890	0.917	0.733
	SE2	0.843	35.882
	SE3	0.870	47.216
	SE4	0.856	47.338
Environmental impact	EN1	0.884	73.222	0.785	0.827	0.873	0.697
	EN2	0.862	47.857
	EN3	0.752	19.430
Support for tourism	ST1	0.898	54.842	0.915	0.917	0.937	0.749
	ST2	0.918	67.906
	ST3	0.923	81.302
	ST4	0.761	22.888
	ST5	0.816	24.160
Residents’ WOM intention	RW1	0.884	60.555	0.803	0.814	0.884	0.719
	RW2	0.884	53.245
	RW3	0.770	26.383
Tourism benefits	Socio-economic benefits	0.927	120.794	0.808	0.817	0.912	0.838
	Environmental benefits	0.905	70.107

Note: All loadings are significant at the p < 0.01 level. CA = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

Factor		1	2	3	4	5
1	Community attachment	0.868	0.111	0.430	0.456	0.472
2	Community involvement	0.109	0.795	0.181	0.173	0.099
3	Tourism benefits	0.360	0.195	0.916	0.664	0.706
4	Residents’ WOM intention	0.379	0.129	0.538	0.848	0.711
5	Support for tourism	0.416	0.112	0.610	0.612	0.865

Note: On the diagonal square root of AVE. Below the diagonal correlations between latent variables. WOM: word-of-mouth.

Hypothesis	Path	Standardized Path Coefficients	t-Value (Bootstrap)
H1	Residents’ WOM intention -> Support for tourism	0.401	7999
H2a	Tourism benefits -> Support for tourism	0.392	8469
H2b	Tourism benefits -> Residents’ WOM intention	0.538	12,178
H3	Community attachment -> Tourism impacts	0.342	6271
H4	Community involvement -> Tourism impacts	0.166	3859
R2(benefits) = 0.155; R2(residents’ WOM intention) = 0.286; R2(support for tourism) = 0.486
Q2(benefits) = 0.116; Q2(residents’ WOM intention) = 0193; Q2(support for tourism) = 0.337

Note: All loadings are significant at the p < 0.01 level.

Author Contributions

M.F.B.L. co-conceived the idea for the study, contributed to the conceptual and overall development of the project and survey, provided a contextual framework for the work, and supervised all the different stages of the research and manuscript elaboration. N.R.V. co-developed the model used in this study, analysed the data, developed the findings, wrote the paper, and coordinated the efforts of the other authors. J.F. contributed to the conceptual and overall development of the project and survey, and supervised all the different stages of the research and the manuscript elaboration. She has extensive knowledge of the topic and links with extant literature. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Director Virgilio Hipolito Correia and all the staff members of the Monographic Museum and Archaeological Complex of Conimbriga for their support with this project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Aas, Christina, Adele Ladkin, and John Fletcher. 2005. Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management. Annals of Tourism Research 32: 28-48.

2. Adongo, Raymond, Ja Young Choe, and Hagchin Han. 2017. Tourism in Hoi An, Vietnam: impacts, perceived benefits, community attachment and support for tourism development. International Journal of Tourism Sciences 17: 86-106.

3. Almeida-García, Fernando, Antonia Balbuena Vázquez, and Rafael Cortés Macías. 2015. Resident's attitudes towards the impacts of tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives 13: 33-40.

4. Almeida-García, Fernando, María Ángeles Peláez-Fernández, Antonia Balbuena-Vázquez, and Rafael Cortés-Macias. 2016. Residents' perceptions of tourism development in Benalmádena (Spain). Tourism Management 54: 259-74.

5. Andersson, Marcus, and Per Ekman. 2009. Ambassador networks and place branding. Journal of Place Management and Development 2: 41-51.

6. Bagozzi, Richard P., and Youjae Yi. 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16: 74-94.

7. Blasco López, María Francisca, Nuria Recuero Virto, Joaquín Aldas Manzano, and Jesús García-Madariaga Miranda. 2018. Residents' attitude as determinant of tourism sustainability: The case of Trujillo. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 35: 35-45.

8. Boley, B. Bynum, and Marianna Strzelecka. 2016. Towards a universal measure of "Support for Tourism". Annals of Tourism Research 61: 238-41.

9. Chen, Ning, Larry Dwyer, and Tracey Firth. 2014. Effect of dimensions of place attachment on residents' word-of-mouth behavior. Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment 16: 826-43.

10. Choi, Hwansuk Chris, and Iain Murray. 2010. Resident attitudes toward sustainable community tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18: 575-94.

11. Clark, Lee Anna, and David Watson. 1995. Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment 7: 309-19.

12. Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

13. Confente, Ilenia. 2015. Twenty-five years of word-of-mouth studies: A critical review of tourism research. International Journal of Tourism Research 17: 613-24.

14. Cronbach, Lee J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16: 297-34.

15. Deery, Margaret, Leo Jago, and Liz Fredline. 2012. Rethinking social impacts of tourism research: A new research agenda. Tourism Management 33: 64-73.

16. DGPC. 2018. Available online: http://www.patrimoniocultural.gov.pt/pt/museus-e-monumentos/dgpc/estatisticas-dgpc/ (accessed on 5 August 2020).

17. Dos Anjos, Francisco Antonio, and James Kennell. 2019. Tourism, Governance and Sustainable Development. Sustainability 11: 4257.

18. Faul, Franz, Edgar Erdfelder, Albert-Georg Lang, and Axel Buchner. 2007. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioural, and biomedical sciences. Behaviour Research Methods 39: 175-91.

19. Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39-50.

20. Fowler, Floyd J., Jr. 1984. Survey Research Methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.

21. Garau-Vadell, Joan B., Desiderio Gutierrez-Taño, and Ricardo Diaz-Armas. 2018. Economic crisis and residents' perception of the impacts of tourism in mass tourism destinations. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 7: 68-75.

22. Garrod, Brian. 2003. Local participation in the planning and management of ecotourism: A revised model approach. Journal of Ecotourism 2: 33-53.

23. Gomes, Susana Sousa, Pedro Valério, L. C. Alves, M. F. Araujo, AM Monge Soares, and Virgílio Hipólito Correia. 2016. Tin determination in fistula seals from Conimbriga and Augusta Emerita. Microchemical Journal 124: 540-46.

24. Gonçalves, Alexandrino, João Paulo Moura, Luís Magalhães, and Alan Chalmers. 2013. Perceptual images of Conimbriga using High Dynamic Range. Journal of Archealogical Science 40: 116-28.

25. Gonçalves, Alexandrino, Nuno Rodrigues, and Virgílio Hipólito-Correia. 2017. Conimbriga as Paradigm of Cultural Heritage (Virtual) Recreation. Paper presented at 12th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), Lisbon, Portugal, June 21-24.

26. Gursoy, Dogan, and Denney G. Rutherford. 2004. Host attitudes toward tourism. An improved structural model. Annals of Tourism Research 31: 495-16.

27. Gursoy, Dogan, Christina G. Chi, and Pam Dyer. 2009. Locals' attitudes toward mass and alternative tourism: The case of Sunshine Coast, Australia. Journal of Travel Research 49: 381-94.

28. Gursoy, Dogan, Claudia Jurowski, and Muzaffer Uysal. 2002. Resident attitudes: a structural modelling approach. Annals of Tourism Research 29: 79-105.

29. Hair, Joe F., Jr., Marko Sarstedt, Lucas Hopkins, and Volker G. Kuppelwieser. 2014. Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review 26: 106-21.

30. Hair, Joe F., Marko Sarstedt, Christian M. Ringle, and Jeannette A. Mena. 2012. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modelling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40: 414-33.

31. Hammad, Nada, Syed Zamberi Ahmad, and Avraam Papastathopoulos. 2017. Residents' perceptions of the impact of tourism in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 11: 551-72.

33. Henseler, Jörg, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modelling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43: 115-35.

32. Jeuring, Jelmer Hendrik Gerard, and Tialda Haartsen. 2016. Destination branding by residents: The role of perceived responsibility in positive and negative word-of mouth. Tourism Planning and Development 14: 240-59.

34. Jaafar, Mastura, Shuhaida Md Noor, and S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh. 2015a. Perception of young local residents toward sustainable conservation programmes: A case study of the Lenggong World Cultural Heritage Site. Tourism Management 48: 154-63.

35. Jaafar, Mastura, S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh, and Safura Ismail. 2015b. Perceived sociocultural impacts of tourismand community participation: A case study of Langkawi Island. Tourism and Hospitality Research 17: 123-34.

36. Jurowski, Claudia, and Dogan Gursoy. 2004. Distance effects on residents' attitudes toward tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 31: 296-12.

37. Jurowski, Claudia, Muzaffer Uysal, and Daniel R. Williams. 1997. A theoretical analysis of host community resident reactions to tourism. Journal of Travel Research 36: 3-11.

38. Kim, Hyun Jeong, Dogan Gursoy, and Soo-Bum Lee. 2006. The impact of the 2002 World Cup on South Korea: comparisons of pre- and post-games. Tourism Management 27: 86-96.

39. Kim, Kyungmi, Muzaffer Uysal, and M. Joseph Sirgy. 2013. How does tourism in a community impact the quality of life of community residents? Tourism Management 36: 527-40.

40. Knight, David W., and Stuart P. Cottrell. 2016. Evaluating tourism-linked empowerment in Cuzco, Peru. Annals of Tourism Research 56: 32-47.

41. Lankford, Samuel V., and Dennis R. Howard. 1994. Developing a tourism attitude impact scale. Annals of Tourism Research 21: 121-39.

42. Lee, Insun Sunny, Timothy Jeonglyeol Lee, and Charles Arcodia. 2014. The effect of community attachment on cultural festival visitors' satisfaction and future intentions. Current Issues in Tourism 17: 800-12.

43. Lee, Tsung Hung. 2013. Influence analysis of community resident support for sustainable tourism development. Tourism Management 34: 37-46.

44. Lee, Tsung Hung, and Yen Ling Shen. 2013. The influence of leisure involvement and place attachment on destination loyalty: Evidence from recreationists walking their dogs in urban parks. Journal of Environmental Psychology 33: 76-85.

45. Li, Yulong, and Caroline Hunter. 2015. Community involvement for sustainable heritage tourism: A conceptual model. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 5: 248-62.

46. Liu, Jingyan, Hailin Qu, Danyu Huang, Gezhi Chen, Xiao Yue, Xinyuan Zhao, and Zhuida Liang. 2014. The role of social capital in encouraging residents' pro-environmental behaviours in community-based ecotourism. Tourism Management 41: 190-201.

47. Lundberg, Erik. 2017. The importance of tourism impacts for different local resident groups: A case study of a Swedish seaside destination. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 6: 46-55.

48. Malhotra, Naresh K. 2010. Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation. Boston: Pearson.

49. Mitchell, Ross E., and Donald G. Reid. 2001. Community integration, Island Tourism in Peru. Annals of Tourism Research 28: 113-39.

50. Moghavvemi, Sedigheh, Kyle M. Woosnam, Tanuosha Paramanathan, Ghazali Musa, and Amran Hamzah. 2017. The effect of residents' personality, emotional solidarity, and community commitment on support for tourism development. Tourism Management 63: 242-54.

51. Mustafa, Mairna Hussein, and Sultan N. Abu Tayeh. 2011. The impacts of tourism development on the archaeological site of Petra and local communities in surrounding villages. Asian Social Science 7: 88-96.

52. Nicholas, Lorraine Nadia, Brijesh Thapa, and Yong Jae Ko. 2009. Residents' perspectives of a World Heritage Site. The Pitons Management Area, St. Lucia. Annals of Tourism Research 36: 390-412.

53. Nunkoo, Robin, and Haywantee Ramkissoon. 2011. Developing a community support model for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 38: 964-88.

54. Nunkoo, Robin, and Kevin Kam Fung So. 2015. Residents' support for tourism: testing alternative structural models. Journal of Travel Research 5: 1-15.

55. Nunnally, Jum C., and I. H. Bernstein. 1994. Pychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

56. Palmer, Adrian, Nicole Koenig-Lewis, and Lisa Elinor Medi Jones. 2013. The effects of residents' social identity and involvement on their advocacy of incoming tourism. Tourism Management 38: 142-51.

57. Park, Duk-Byeong, Robin Nunkoo, and Yoo-Shik Yoon. 2015. Rural residents' attitudes to tourism and the moderating effects of social capital. Tourism Geographies 17: 112-33.

58. Paunović, Ivan, Marc Dressler, Tatjana Mamula Nikolić, and Sanja Popović Pantić. 2020. Developing a Competitive and Sustainable Destination of the Future: Clusters and Predictors of Successful National-Level Destination Governance across Destination Life-Cycle. Sustainability 12: 4066.

59. Phillips, WooMi Jo, Kara Wolfe, Nancy Hodur, and F. Larry Leistritz. 2013. Tourist word of mouth and revisit intentions to rural tourism destinations: A case of North Dakota, USA. International Journal of Tourism Research 15: 93-104.

60. Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879-903.

61. Pradhananga, Amit K., and Mae A. Davenport. 2017. Community attachment, beliefs and residents' civic engagement in stormwater management. Landscape and Urban Planning 168: 1-8.

62. Pulina, Manuela, Marta Meleddu, and Giacomo Del Chiappa. 2013. Residents' choice probability and tourism development. Tourism Management Perspectives 5: 57-65.

63. Rasoolimanesh, S. Mostafa, Mastura Jaafar, Ned Kock, and Thurasamy Ramayah. 2015. A revised framework of social exchange theory to investigate the factors influencing residents' perceptions. Tourism Management Perspectives 16: 335-45.

64. Rasoolimanesh, S. Mostafa, Christian M. Ringle, Mastura Jaafar, and Thurasamy Ramayah. 2017. Urban vs. rural destinations: Residents' perceptions, community participation and support for tourism development. Tourism Management 60: 147-58.

65. Rivera, Manuel, Robertico Croes, and Seung Hyun Lee. 2015. Tourism development and happiness: A residents' perspective. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 5: 5-15.

66. Sebele, Lesego S. 2010. Community-based tourism ventures, benefits and challenges: Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust, Central District, Botswana. Tourism Management 31: 134-46.

67. Sireci, Stephen G., Yongwei Yang, James Harter, and Eldin J. Ehrlich. 2006. Evaluating guidelines for test adaptations: A methodological analysis of transalation quality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 37: 557-67.

68. Simpson, Penny M., and Judy A. Siguaw. 2008. Destination word of mouth: The role of traveller type, residents, and identity salience. Journal of Travel Research 47: 167-82.

69. Sinclair-Maragh, Gaunette. 2017. Demographic analysis of residents' support for tourism development in Jamaica. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 6: 5-12.

70. Sinclair-Maragh, Gaunette, and Dogan Gursoy. 2015. A conceptual model of residents' support for tourism development in developing countries. Tourism Planning and Development 13: 1-22.

71. Song, Zibin, Stephen Pratt, and Yutian Wang. 2017. Core self-evaluations and residents' support for tourism: Perceived tourism impacts as mediators. International Journal of Tourism Research 19: 1-11.

72. Steel, Griet. 2012. Local encounters with globetrotters. Tourism's potential for street vendors in Cusco, Peru. Annals of Tourism Research 39: 601-19.

73. Stylidis, Dimitrios, Avital Biran, Jason Sit, and Edith M. Szivas. 2014. Residents' support for tourism development: The role of residents' place image and perceived tourism impacts. Tourism Management 45: 260-274.

74. Tokarchuk, Oksana, Roberto Gabriele, and Oswin Maurer. 2016. Tourism intensity impact on satisfaction with life of German residents. Tourism Economics 22: 1315-31.

75. Tolkach, Denis, and Brian King. 2015. Strengthening community-based tourism in a new resource-based island nation: Why and how? Tourism Management 48: 386-98.

76. Um, Seoho, and John L. Crompton. 1987. Measuring resident's attachment levels in a host community. Journal of Travel Research 26: 27-29.

77. Wager, Jonathan. 1995. Developing a strategy for the Angkor World Heritage Site. Tourism Management 16: 515-23.

78. Wang, Suosheng, and Honggang Xu. 2015. Influence of place-based senses of distinctiveness, continuity, self-esteem and self-efficacy on residents' attitudes toward tourism. Tourism Management 47: 241-50.

79. Wang, Suosheng, Shengrong Chen, and Honggang Xu. 2017. Resident attitudes towards dark tourism, a perspective of place-based identity motives. Current Issues in Tourism 22: 1601-16.

80. Yuksel, Atila, Fisun Yuksel, and Yasin Bilim. 2010. Destination attachment: effects on customer satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty. Tourism Management 31: 274-84.