Topic Restoration and conservation of heritage brings to many values: Culture, aesthetics, education, environment, society, history as well as many other values. one of the most mentioned values in recent year is the economic value. when we talk about the

Nội dung text: Topic Restoration and conservation of heritage brings to many values: Culture, aesthetics, education, environment, society, history as well as many other values. one of the most mentioned values in recent year is the economic value. when we talk about the

1. employment opportunities and improved public infrastructure (Ko & Stewart, 2002; Lee, 2013; Ribeiro et al., 2013; Sinclair-Maragh, 2016; Stylidis & Terzidou, 2014). Therefore, tourism development is encouraged to stimulate the economy, particularly in developing countries. However, tourism development also causes friction and has a range of negative impacts on the environment, local socio-culture, society and local economy (Sharpley, 2014). Consequently, sustainable tourism has become one of the most popular topics in tourism literature (Tubb, 2003). A local community that plans and uses tourism as an alternative means of strengthening its economic development must develop sustainable tourism to meet the needs and demands of its residents (Puczko, & Ratz, 2000). The development of sustainable tourism is difficult without the support and participation of community residents (Fallon & Kriwoken, 2003; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Nicholas et al., 2009). Thus, the support of residents is a critical factor for ongoing community development. Understanding the factors impact on local residents’ support for sustainable tourism development can help to promote sustainable tourism because communities can assess these factors to predict the level of support by their residents. Therefore, factors that influence local community support for sustainable tourism development have been extensively studied by tourism scholars. These factors, such as attitudes (Lai & Nepal, 2006; Lepp, 2008), perceived effects (Dyer et al., 2007; Yoon et al., 2001), community attachment (Nicholas et al., 2009), and perceived benefits (Gursoy et al., 2002; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011), may affect residents’ support for sustainable tourism development. However, relatively few studies have been examined the relationship between support for sustainable tourism development and the local resident’ well-being and involvement in the context of heritage tourism (Smith & Diekmann, 2017). To fill these research gaps, this study aims to identify aspects of residents' WB in the heritage tourism context. Second, the findings of this study deepen the understanding of residents' WB by demonstrating the impact of the material and non- material domains of WB on residents' support for sustainable tourism development. Furthermore, the effects of residents’ socio-demographic characteristics of community support are also discussed. Literature review Well-being Well-being is one of the common words of the decade and is present in most speeches related to people's daily life and activities (Smith & Diekmann, 2017). Well- being has been a philosophical and sociological concern since the beginning of time, especially for key thinkers and academics. Philosophers throughout history have 448
2. Grand-Baie, a tourist resort situated in the north-west coastline of Mauritius - traditionally a fishing and farming village, the site has become the island's main tourist hub. Besides, due to motivating to the researches, Woo et al. (2015) said that well-being had a positive and significant effect on support for tourism development through quantitative research on 407 respondents. The sustained success of tourism development is only likely to be achieved when residents have high WB and are willing to support tourism. Similarly, the study of Nunkoo & So (2016) reported that well-being led to resident′s support for tourism in the Niagara Region, Canada with a usable sample of 391 respondents. Recently, the connection between well-being and support for tourism has been emphasized by Kay & Diekman (2017). To sum up, in the research papers on the relationship between well-being and support for tourism, resident′s support for tourism development is considered as the final dependent variable of the study. However, the gap in the previous research, there is no research on the connection between well-being and support of sustainable tourism development in the World Heritage Site. Thus, the relationship between well-being and support for sustainable tourism development was more examined by researchers. Proposed model The model as proffered by Woo et al. (2015) explained the impact of residents’ life satisfaction with support for further tourism development. We used Woo et al.’s model (2015) adjusted as our original model for our study. In addition to proposing the direct impact of local residents’ WB, we considered the material and non-material WB domain as important processes which in turn contribute to support for sustainable tourism development (Figure 1). Fig. 1. General conceptual model of the study Material well-being domain H2 Control Variables H1 Gender Support Well-being Age Educational level Years of residence Non-material well- H3 being domain 450
3. Fig.2. Diagram of tourist routes of Trang An landscape complex Trang an Landscape Complex (UNESCO,2014) Sample and Data Collection Trang An’s central area for protection is 6172 ha, which is situated mainly in three communes namely Truong Yen, Ninh Hai which are in the Hoa Lu district and Gia Sinh in the Gia Vien district. (UNESCO, 2014). And thus, the representatives of this sample are 350 people from 3 these communes. People who involved in this survey have generated the main income in their family or have already been over 18 years old, all of them are living in the examined areas. The sample is distributed as follows: 97 homes in Gia Sinh commune, 161 homes in the Truong Yen commune and 92 in Ninh Hai commune. The test sample they selected was based on stratified sampling and convenient random sampling that contributed to the representativeness of the sample. In this case, the categories of selecting samples which given by the group increase the representation and efficiency of the researching samples and avoid the non-representative sample that has an impact on the results. 452
4. Table 1. Correlation between construct Non- Material Education Years of material Support Gender Age WB Level residence WB domain domain Support 1.000 Gender .072 1.000 Education Level .292 -.128 1.000 Years of residence .378 -.101 .261 1.000 Age -.206 -.013 -.456 -.221 1.000 Material WB domain .585 .189 .168 .251 -.187 1.000 Non-material WB .517 .031 .320 .272 -.190 .652 1.000 domain Table 1 shows the correlation coefficient between those constructs. The results clearly indicate a positive relationship between perceived value of tourism development, satisfaction with material life domain, non-material life domain, overall quality of life, and support for further tourism development 3. Results Statistics describe the sample Of the 304 respondents, 67.1% were female and 12.5% were between 18 and 25 years old, with 77% between 26 and 55 years old, and 6.6% over age 56 years. In terms of monthly household income, 16.1% of the sample earned under 3 million Vietnam dongs, 73% earned between 3 million Vietnam dongs and 10 million Vietnam dongs and 10.9% earned more than 10 million Vietnam dongs. On educational level, 24.7% of the respondents had university degrees, 6.6% had attended college, and 38.2% of citizens graduated from high school. The proportion of citizens living more than 10 years registered the largest share, at 81,6%. (Table 2) 454
5. Table 3. Model 1 - Regression between residents’ well-being and support for sustainable tourism development Relationship B SE R2 F Well-being Support for sustainable tourism 1.019 .408 .472 23.384 development Note: *P<.1; P<.05; P<.01. Consequently, the "Well-being" factor has a positive impact on "Support for sustainable tourism development". The regression model is rewritten as follows: SFSTD = 1.019 + 0.603*WB + 0.075*Gen + 0.063*Edu + 0.020*Y + 0.156*Time + 0.031*Job – 0.013*Age Model 1 indicates that the factor "Support for sustainable tourism development" increases by 0.603 unit, "Well-being" factor also increases by 1 unit. Thus, it can be concluded that the more the local residents’ well-being, the more their support for sustainable tourism development well-being. Material/ non-material well-being domain engagement influencing the local residents’ support for sustainable tourism development According to the table 4, the regression analysis demonstrated that the “Material well-being domain” and “Non-material well-being domain” factor had a non-normalized β factor of 5%, which would have a positive direction impact on support for sustainable tourism development. Specifically, the R2 (R Square) coefficient is 0.442- the independent variables explain 44.2% variation of the dependent variable. Sig value testing of the "Well-being" variable is also 0.000 - this variable is statistically significant at 5%. Table 4. Model 2 - Regression material/ non-material well-being domain engagement influencing the local residents’ support for sustainable tourism development Relationship B SE R2 F Material well- Support for sustainable tourism .487 .083 being development .442 21.667 Non-material Support for sustainable tourism .170 .069 well-being development Note: *P<.1; P<.05; P<.01. Consequently, the "Material/ non-material well-being domain" factor has a positive impact on "Support for sustainable tourism development". The regression model is rewritten as follows: 456
6. 4. Discussion and Conclusion Studies on sustainable tourism development programs are gaining attention in the recent period, particularly in the context of developing countries and world heritage sites. Therefore, the study was conducted with the aim of assessing the relationship between well-being and the local community's support for sustainable tourism development in Trang An Landscape Complex. The theoretical model was based on Woo et al. (2015). Our research shows that well-being has a positive relationship to support for sustainable tourism development. Our results are the same as the previous researches (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011; Woo et al.,2015; Nunkoo & So, 2016; Kay & Diekman, 2017). In addition, we recommend accepting material well-being and non-material well-being that impact support for sustainable tourism development. In particular, the degree of influence of material well-being is greater. The study also distinguishes support differences from socio-demographic factors. Results of research show that there is a difference in support between men and women. The youngest residents (18-25) have the worst support for sustainable tourism development, whereas those between 36 and 45 show better support. The age group graduating from high school also has the best support. Perhaps this age group is heavily involved in local tourism activities. Those who have a long residence time in the locality often have better support. In short, the well-being of the community has a direct impact on their tourism development support. In particular, the local community will be more concerned about the material well- being domain than non-material well-being domain. Furthermore, socio- demographic factors are also a factor affecting the local community's support for sustainable tourism development. In conclusion, well-being has a positive effect on support for sustainable tourism development. It means that the high well-being is, the more support for sustainable tourism development is. Moreover, the finding of research has two new points: firstly, well-being - including material well-being and non-material well-being domain affects support for sustainable tourism development but the strongest effect is material well-being domain. Secondly, effects of socio- demographic factors on the local residents’ support for sustainable tourism development are different. The new point of this paper is also the gap in the previous research. Thus, the finding importantly contributes to the planning of policymakers in tourism development in particular and social development in general. If the current level of satisfaction in both non-material and material life domains go down, the local residents may not support further sustainable tourism development in their community. 458
7. 8. Kim, H., Schimmack, U., & Oishi, S. (2012). Cultural differences in self-and other-evaluations and well-being: A study of European and Asian Canadians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 856. 9. Kim, K., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2013). How does tourism in a community impact the quality of life of community residents? Tourism management, 36, 527-540. 10. Kim, S. (2016). World Heritage Site Designation Impacts on a Historic Village: A Case Study on Residents’ Perceptions of Hahoe Village (Korea). Sustainability, 8(3), 258. 11. Ko, D. W., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of residents’ attitudes for tourism development. Tourism management, 23(5), 521-530. 12. Kokko, K., Korkalainen, A., Lyyra, A. L., & Feldt, T. (2013). Structure and continuity of well-being in mid-adulthood: A longitudinal study. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(1), 99-114. 13. Lai, P. H., & Nepal, S. K. (2006). Local perspectives of ecotourism development in Tawushan Nature Reserve, Taiwan. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1117-1129. 14. Lee, T. H. (2013). Influence analysis of community resident support for sustainable tourism development. Tourism management, 34, 37-46. 15. Lepp, A. (2008). Attitudes towards initial tourism development in a community with no prior tourism experience: The case of Bigodi, Uganda. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(1), 5-22. 16. Nguyen, Đ. T. (2011). Methods of scientific research in business: Design and implementation. 17. Nicholas, L. N., Thapa, B., & Ko, Y. J. (2009). Residents’ perspectives of a world heritage site e the Pitons Management Area, St. Lucia. Annals of tourism research, 36(3), 390-412. 18. Nunkoo, R., & So, K. K. F. (2016). Residents’ support for tourism: Testing alternative structural models. Journal of Travel Research, 55(7), 847-861. 19. Nunkoo, R., & Gursoy, D. (2012). Residents’ support for tourism: An identity perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 243-268. 20. Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2011). Developing a community support model for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 964–988. 460
8. 34. Woo, E., Kim, H., & Uysal, M. (2015). Life satisfaction and support for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 50, 84-97. 35. World Heritage Committee (2014), Decisions adopted bt the world heritage committee at its 38th, Doha, Qatar 15 - 25 June 2014 36. Yoon, Y., Gursoy, D., & Chen, J. S. (2001). Validating a tourism development theory with structural equation modeling. Tourism management, 22(4), 363-372. 462