CC BY
2Economics, Management and Sustainability
journal home page: https://jems.sciview.net
Choirisa, S. F., Purnomo, E., & Harianto, E. (2021). Stakeholder perceptions to support Jurassic Park project as a future wildlife tourism. Economics, Management and Sustainability, 6(2), 87-101. doi:10.14254/jems.2021.6-2.7.
ISSN 2520-6303
Stakeholder perceptions to support Jurassic Park project as a future wildlife tourism
Septi Fahmi Choirisa , Edi Purnomo , Anton Harianto
Faculty of Business, Universitas Multimedia Nusantara, Tangerang, Indonesia
septi.choirisa@umn.ac.id; edi.purnomo@lecturer.umn.ac.id; anton.harianto@umn.ac.id
OPEN ^^ ACCESS
Article history:
Received: August 29, 2021 1st Revision: October 12, 2021
Accepted: November 25, 2021
JEL classification:
L83 Z32
DOI:
10.14254/jems.2021.6-2.7
Abstract: Tourism in protected areas contributes to the financial sustainability of its sites. It has a positive impact on a stakeholder within and beyond the destinations through effective and efficient benefit-sharing. This study examine the environmental attitudes, community attachment, economic gain, and community involvement that will impact to the stakeholder perceptions to revitalization project in Komodo National Park, Indonesia. In the context of protected areas of World Heritage Sites by UNESCO, this project related to the extensive tourism infrastructure development from nature-based tourism to a new project of Jurassic Park. The concerns regarding the stakeholders' support may have on expectations for tourism development. This research use the Social Exchange Theory (SET) and Weber's Theory of Substantive and Formal Rationality (WTSFR) with a quantitative approach. A total of 182 questionnaires with Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) were applied. Finding provides that stakeholder perceptions play a significant role as a mediator in shaping the relationship between each of variables to support tourism development. Ultimately, this study paves the way for improving normative practices toward Sustainability and offers practical solutions to the challenges the government and nongovernment organizations face to protect the endangered species, society, and the environment.
Keywords: wildlife tourism, Jurassic Park project, stakeholder perceptions, Komodo National Park.
Corresponding author: Septi Fahmi Choirisa E-mail: septi.choirisa@umn.ac.id
This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
1. Introduction
Komodo National Park, Indonesia, was awarded as the World Heritage Sites in 1991 by UNESCO. The park has been selected as one of the New Seven Wonders of Nature. The Komodo National Park includes the three larger islands: Komodo, Padar, and Rinca Islands and 26 smaller islands with 1,733 km2 (603 km2 of its land). Moreover, the link between protected area conservation and local community wellbeing in Indonesia is receiving more attention in park development plans than previously (Walpole, 2001). Komodo National Park is a flagship for protected area tourism in Indonesia, and surrounding tourism development is expedite to the point where it is now a significant local economic sector (Walpole, 2000). If this is to be used as a national and regional example of sustainable tourism, then, among other things, local support and goodwill for conservation must be nurtured. Without such consent, the natural resource that tourism relies on may be jeopardized.
According to the World Tourism Organization (WTO), tourism operations in protected regions must be appropriately planned, managed, and monitored to ensure long-term viability (WTO, 2005). The relationship between tourism and protected areas is frequently complicated due to tourism's distinct economic objective and protected areas' contrasting conservation purpose (Wilson, et al., 2009). Such operations will have negative implications, and tourism would damage the situations surrounding them. While the adverse effects of tourism are a significant concern, many protected areas have encouraged tourism development to improve their economic conditions in terms of generating revenue to fund other social, economic development activities and providing direct financial and employment chances for local people (e.g. Nepal, 2002; WTO, 2005). In addition, visitors have demanded improved facilities and services due to increased and changing tourist activities within protected areas. (e.g. Karanth & DeFries, 2010; Wang et al., 2012). The significant visit to the established protected sites was recently found in developing countries instead of developed countries (Karanth & DeFries, 2010). it's an increasingly popular destination for wildlife tourists, and tourism has the potential to generate sustainable local benefits 'sufficient for stakeholders to value, and therefore protect, their wildlife heritage as a source of income (Goodwin, 1998). Although several studies have examined the economic performance of tourism in protected areas (e.g. Lindberg & Enriquez, 1994; Walpole, 2000; Walpole & Harold, 2001), few have assessed stakeholder perceptions towards the new concept of Jurassic Park Tourism. In one of the study's results, the attitudes towards protected area tourism were more favourable among those receiving economic benefits from tourism not economically benefiting (Mehta & Kellert, 1998).
Some articles shared that there is controversy surrounding the project. The government claimed the rumour has spread to perceived the tourism development as a Jurassic Park. It came when Indonesia Coordinating Maritime Affairs and Investment Minister refer the destination development would look like "dinosaur" tourism. This project runs to establish a well-manner
Figure 1: Location map of Komodo National Park
Source: Walpole and Harold (2001)
infrastructure for the visitor. Some facilities will be upgraded to the premium level to elevate the Komodo Dragon viewing (Fachriansyah, 2020). According to The Southeast Asian country's environment ministry explained that UNESCO has expressed concern that the project will hostile the environment. It can cause a possible threat not only to the local economy but also for the habitat of the Komodo dragons itself. UNESCO officially stated that Jurassic Park Project needed a new assessment to account the potential environmental impact at the World Heritage Committee meeting. However, the Indonesian government still proceed the project and explained that it will not pose any danger to the endangered species since its only worked on structures that has been existed on the island. Conversely, the environmental group of Indonesian Forum for the Environment (WALHI) against the project due to there will be a definite effect to the natural habitat and local community.
It refer to commodification which can elevates the benefit for human from the services offered above the fundamental value of nature (Gomez & Ruiz-Perez, 2011). The monetization of nature raises questions about social justice since it may impose constraints on socio-economic classes with less access to natural resources. According to opponents, market environmentalist ideology favors those who can afford to buy access to highly valued ecosystems due to its economic and commodity-based conceptions of nature (e.g. Borner et al., 2010; Kosoy & Corbera, 2010; Pascual et al., 2010; Vatn, 2010). The current study has investigated the influence of community attachment (e.g Gursoy et al., 2002; Latkova & Vogt, 2012), community involvement (e.g. Nicholas et al., 2009; Rassomalinesh et al., 2017), environmental attitudes (e.g. Nicholas et al., 2009; Gursoy et al., 2002,), and economic gain (e.g Ko & Stewart, 2002; Rasoomalinesh et al., 2015) on the point of view of stakeholders to the tourism development and their subsequent support for it. It explored the stakeholder strategic planning as a contributor to the ultimate sustainability of tourism development. In terms of framing this research problem, previous literature recommends overcoming epistemological differences between disciplines to determine sustainable tourism scenarios for regions and meet stakeholders' economic, sociocultural, and environmental needs (Wearing & McGehee, 2013).
According to that, this study examines and understand the function of stakeholder's perceptions in mediating and intervening between influencing factors to support tourism development. However, empirical studies for comprehensive stakeholder perceptions toward sustainable tourism development have not been conducted in the Komodo National Park context. Given this research gap in stakeholder perceptions and support tourism development, the specific objective of this study is to develop an integrated Social Exchange Theory Model to examine the proposed variable. The finding provides new and comprehensive results for Komodo National Park development planning and crucial social, economic, environmental, and participation. It can also be useful for local government and other supporting chains to project and manage tourism destinations.
2. Literature review
The Social Exchange Theory (SET) is most commonly used in studying the relationship between residents' attitudes and levels of tourism funding (e.g. Andereck et al., 2005; Teye et al., 2002). It has been adopted modelling studies of stakeholder perceptions toward tourism development. The following studies used Social Exchange Theory as a basis for exploring the relationship between stakeholder attitudes towards tourism and the dimension of sustainability (e.g. Gursoy et al., 2002; Latkova & Vogt, 2012). Two theories support this research: SET (Emerson, R. M.,1976) and WTSFR (Weber, M.,1978) SET is a sociological concept that has been used to study and investigate the meanings and machinations of interactions between different groups (Boley, et al., 2014). . Moreover, SET was applied to capture how people perceive local tourism development (e.g. Rasoomalinesh et al., 2015; Haobin et al.,, 2014, Robin et.al, 2013, Purdue et al., 1990). On the other hand, several study have criticized SET's ability to justify the impacts of influencing factors on residents' perceptions, implying that SET alone cannot adequately explain the complex interactions that shape residents' beliefs (e.g. Rasoomalinesh et al., 2015; Ward & Berno, 2011; Woosnam, 2011). As a result, in light of the recent focus on SET's limitations, this study used WTSFR to rationalize and conceptualize the direct and indirect effects of influencing factors on locals' opinions and support for tourism development (Gannon et al., 2020).
According to the WTSFR, "matter-of-fact calculations" enable people to achieve their goals efficiently (e.g. McGehee,2007; Weber, M., 1978). This is supported by the view that rationality manifests itself in two ways. ways: (1) formally and (2) substantively (Kalberg, S.,1980). Formal rationality is linear, with direct connections between "means" and "goals" influencing economic decisions, but substantive rationality is value-laden and can impact human behaviour. (e.g. Boley, et al., 2014; Zuo et al., 2017). Recognizing the duality expressed in rationality, "Weber provides a format that allows for the formal or market and economic-based elements as well as the less quantifiable substantive or value and belief oriented aspects of risk assessment or decision-making" (McGehee & Andereck, 2004).
Sustainable tourism development
According to UNEP, UNWTO (2005), to meet visitors' needs, industry, the environment, and local communities, sustainable tourism is described as considering the current and future impacts of economic, social, and environmental conditions.
The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) issued the first sustainability report, entitled ''Our Common Future" supported by several international organizations (e.g. WTTC)/UNCED, 1992; World Conservation Strategy., 1980; WTTC/WTO/Earth Council., 1995: WTTC/WTO/Earth Council., 1995, World Commission on Environment & Development (WCED), 1987). The WCED defined sustainable development as development that ''meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'' (World Commission on Environment & Development (WCED), 1987). Following this report, ''sustainable development'' became an internationally known term and the subject of thousands of books and papers. Although not supported by international agreements and strategies and with much uncertainty about its underlying theories and processes, this concept of sustainable development became everyone's idea of a universal solution (Redcrift, M., 1999). It has turned into a ''catch-all'' term, equally embraced by those whose economic and environmental views are otherwise contradictory (e.g. Gowdy, J., 1999; AA Lew & Mc Hall., 1998).
Stakeholder perceptions and support for tourism development
Stakeholder engagement and management in developing sustainable policies are critical elements within sustainable tourism (Timur, S & Getz, 2008). Eligh et al. (2002) argued that sustainable tourism needs to emphasize local action involving several stakeholders. The impact tourism development can have on local communities is not solely economic. Tourism development is often underpinned by an improvement in the volume and quality of leisure and entertainment amenities available to residents, and from a sociocultural perspective, can pre- serve traditional arts and culture by showcasing cultural identity to a wider, often unfamiliar, audience (e.g. Jaafar et al., 2017; Rasoolimanesh, 2017) Nonetheless, tourism development has a sociocultural influence that is not necessarily favorable since increased tourist numbers can lead to overcrowding, traffic, crime, and litter, all while commoditizing local culture. (e.g. Akama & Kieti, 2007; Jaafar et al., 2017).
The Stakeholder Theory (S.T.) may explain the different elements of tourism on the island, the history of island tourism growth, and the processes and policies relevant to the island's tourism development and management. In tourism study, S.T. has recently been implemented, emphasizing identifying stakeholders and growing cooperation in tourism planning and growth. (e.g. Byrd, 2007; Debbie S, 2004; Manwa, 2003; Sautter &Leisen, 1999). Based on S.T., island residents are listed as a prominent stakeholder. Community involvement plays an important role, and they must be active in the planning management of sustainable tourism to minimize the conflict (Byrd, 2007). Nelson, Butler, and Wall (1993) reveal that stakeholder participation is an essential indicator of successful sustainable tourism (Nelson et.al, 1993).
The study has shown that stakeholders with a higher involvement or higher participation will have higher levels of sustainable tourism support. They will display more significant economic benefits perceived by sustainable tourism and reveal lower social costs perceived by sustainable tourism (Jamal, 1995). Decision-making and development processes require multi-stakeholder involvement at all levels of planning and policy-making. Bringing together governments, NGOs, residents, industry, and professionals in sustainability determines the amount and kind of tourism a community wants. Community managers and planners need to provide educational information and programs (e.g., workshops) to residents, visitors, industry, and other stakeholders to raise public and sustainability of the planning and conservation of community tourism resources (Sirakaya et al., 2001). Stakeholders must develop systems that can monitor and adjust planning and destination management.
Factors influencing residents' perceptions and support for tourism development
Given the above explanation, as mentioned earlier comes as no surprise that a recent study has found that citizens' support for tourism development is influenced by several diverse but interconnected factors (e.g. Latkova & Vogt, 2012; Rasoolimanesh, 2015). To this end, existing research recognizes the critical role that residents' sense of community attachment and involvement and their desire for economic gain brought on by increased visitor numbers play in influencing their support for tourism development, with each factor often combining to influence their support (e.g.
Duran & Ozkul, E., 2012;, Nicholas et al., 2009; Latkova & Vogt, 2012, Olya & Gavilyan, 2017). In addition, consistent with WTSFR's notion of substantive rationality, residents' sense of community attachment, community involvement, and environmental and cultural attitudes may prove critical determinants of their support for tourism development, as values and beliefs typically influence individuals' perceptions.
Furthermore, the potential economic benefit of tourism growth suggests that WTSFR's formal logic may be justified as well (Gannon et al., 2020). Community attachment is a multi-faceted, multidimensional notion that encompasses people's relationships with their communities. Community attachment contains several interrelated and mutually defining components. The underlying properties that permeate the literature as core elements are emotion, affect, meaning, feeling, bonding, and value. This means that to feel connected to a community, one must appreciate, matter, be loyal to, and identify with it. To this aim, citizens' views and attitudes about changes or developments in their community might be influenced by community attachment (Nicholas, et al., 2009). Furthermore, as defined in psychological terms, community attachment has never been linked to perceived advantages (e.g. Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004 ; Jurowski C, Uysal, 1997; Tsung Hung Lee, 2013; Vargas-Sánchez, 2015).
Hypothesis 1: Community attachment has a positive direct effect on Stakeholder Perceptions
Hypothesis 2: Community attachment has a positive direct effect on Support for Tourism Development
Residents who expect a higher economic benefit from increased tourism may be more optimistic about the industry's growth and more likely to support programs targeted at expanding incoming tourism [63]. While the prospect of economic gain from tourism can entice residents to support tourism development, The interplay between the elements impacting tourism growth becomes obvious once more, as long-term economic development may be achievable only if both inhabitants' and visitors' requirements are addressed. (e.g. Thompson, et al., 2018; MacKenzie & Gannon, 2019). Thus,
Hypothesis 3: Environmental gain has a positive direct effect on Stakeholder Perceptions.
Hypothesis 4: Environmental gain has a positive direct effect on Support for Tourism Development.
As a result, residents' underlying values and attitudes may impact their willingness to support tourism development (Moghavvemi et al., 2017). Research recognizes the importance of residents' values, emphasizing how these influence their perceptions more generally (e.g. Woosnam et al., 2018; Zuo et al., 2017). Residents' environmental and cultural attitudes, on the other hand, may have the largest influence on tourism development [69]. Residents may feel ownership over their community and its cultural assets in this context, with concerns about the environmental impact of growing visitor numbers and the consequent erosion of local culture (Martínez et al., ,2018) This conjures up ideas of substantive rationality, implying that inhabitants seeking to preserve long-standing traditions, beliefs, and values may not see the economic benefits of greater tourism as a top priority.
Hypothesis 5: Environmental Attitude has a positive direct effect on Stakeholder Perceptions
Hypothesis 6: Environmental Attitude has a positive direct effect on Support for Tourism Development
Community involvement explains the broaden local people who involved in sharing issues about their lives for their communities. Some of studies has examined the support from local residents for development of tourism to looking to study the people who engage in tourism (e.g. Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Bj0rn et.al, 2008, Nicholas et.al, 2009). It can be a crucial factor for tourism development from community-based tourism (e.g. Jones, S., 2005; Lepp, 2007). Moreover, the community Involvement has been considered as a critical part which depicts local perceptions of benefits due to their contribution in management planning to allow them create activities that have a direct impact on their daily lives (e.g. Jafaar et al., 2015; Nicholas et al., 2009).
Hypothesis 7: Community Involvement has a positive direct effect on Stakeholder Perceptions.
Hypothesis 8: Community Involvement has a positive direct effect on Support for Tourism Development
The stakeholder theory emphasizes the importance of involving all impacted groups and individuals. Still, it also presents a barrier due to large numbers of stakeholder groups involved, which can cause a complicated decision-making process. (e.g. Nicholas et al., 2009; Medeiros & Bramwell, 1999). Moreover, although relevant stakeholders must be recognized and included, stakeholder representation is also a challenge. It is extremely difficult to determine whether or not
stakeholders included in the planning process are representative of those who will be impacted by a project (Medeiros & Bramwell, 1999). Thus,
Hypothesis 9: Stakeholder Perceptions has a positive direct effect on Support for Tourism Development.
Figure 2: Conceptual framework Social Exchange Theory (SET) and Weber's theory of
substantive and formal rationality
3. Research methods
The data results were collected by online survey with 182 respondents as a stakeholder in Komodo National Park. The methodology used to achieve the purposes with quantitative research for purposive sampling. The data was distributed through the representative of the local to explained the objective of the study. It was sent by the English language then revised to Bahasa since some local people only speak in local or Indonesia (Bahasa) language. The questionnaire was prepared using the Likert Scales with a 5 (five points) range: 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree), which consists of 33 questions: 5 (five) are about demographic factors, and 28 points relates to the research variables. The data analysis used Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique with statistical application support, Smart PLS 3. The measure of this study's variables and indicator described in Table 1.
Table 1: Measurement and Outer Loadings
Outer Loadings
Variable Code Indicator
CA1 I have a positive feelings for Komodo National Park 0,767
Community Attachment CA2 I feel a sense of belonging to this place 0,810
CA3 I have an emotional attachment to this place—it has meaning to me 0,765
I am willing to invest my talent or time to make this an even better
CA4 place Increasing the number of visitors in Komodo National Park will 0,732
EG1 increase my current household income 0,867
Economic Gain A high percentage of my current income comes from the money
EG2 spent by visitors Most of the income of the company I work for (or business you own) 0,928
EG3 comes from the tourist trade 0,860
EA1 The diversity of heritage must be valued and protected 0,853
Environmental The community environment must be protected now and in the
Attitude EA2 future 0,929
The development of infrastructure and public facilities and the
EA3 private sector should not damage heritage areas. 0,755
Involvement The residents of Komodo National Park have been involved in the
IN1 management of heritage 0,872
The residents of Komodo National Park have been involved in the
IN2 process of tourism development and planning Most of the time, my opinions have been asked regarding the 0,847
IN3 planning and development of tourism 0,765
ECP1 Tourism development creates more jobs for my community. 0,749
ECP2 Tourism development attracts more investment to my community. Our standard of living has increased considerably because of 0,65
ECP3 tourism Tourism development provides more infrastructure and public 0,723
ECP4 facilities like, roads, shopping malls, etc. 0,746
Stakeholder ENP1 Tourism development helps to preserve the natural environment 0,743
Perceptions ENP2 Tourism development helps to preserve the historical buildings 0,723
ENP3 Tourism development improves the area's appearance Tourism development preserves the cultural identity of host 0,831
SCP1 residents. 0,835
SCP2 Tourism development promotes cultural exchange. Tourism development increases recreation facilities and 0,629
SCP3 opportunities. The residents should participate in tourism development 0,838
ST1 conservation programmes of heritage sites I believe that tourism should be actively encouraged in my 0,755
ST2 community. 0,859
Support for I support tourism and would like to see it become an important part
Tourism ST3 of my community. The local authorities and state government should support the 0,836
ST4 promotion of tourism It is essential to develop plans to manage the conservation of 0,849
ST5 historical sites and growth of tourism. 0,787
4. Findings and results
The respondents comprise 66% male and female accounted for 33%. The respondents primarily Z generations and Y generations, 45% and 42% respectively. Moreover, the majority respondent was employee for 48%, followed by students made up for 25%. According to the education level, most were university level (49%) and senior high school level (44%). The respondents detail profile demonstrates in the Table 2 of Demographic Profile information.
Table 2: Demographic profile
Variable Frequency Percentage
Gender
Male 120 66%
Female 61 33%
Prefer not to say 1 1%
Age Group
18 - 24 years old 81 45%
25 - 34 years old 77 42%
35 - 44 years old 18 10%
45 - 54 years old 6 3%
Occupation
Employee 87 48%
Entrepreneur 32 17%
Others 12 7%
Student 46 25%
Unemployed 5 3%
Education
Elementary and Junior High School 5 3%
High School 80 44%
University 90 49%
Master / Doctoral Degree 4 2%
Others 3 2%
This research employed a variance-based method Partial Least Square with Smart PLS 3.0 as a tool to have two-stage analytical procedures (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). This two-stage systematic procedure consists of measurement model analysis and structural model analysis. This study would assess the reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity.
Table 3 : Convergent Validity and Reliability
Variables No. of Indicators Cronbach's Alpha Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Community Attachment Economic Gain 3 3 0,770 0,862 0,852 0,916 0,591 0,784
Environmental Attitude 3 0,804 0,885 0,720
Involvement 3 0,772 0,868 0,688
Stakeholder Perceptions 10 0,912 0,927 0,562
Support for Tourism 5 0,876 0,910 0,669
The examination of convergent validity is the first step in the measurement model evaluation process. The outer loadings of each indicator and Average Variance Extracted were used to test convergent validity in this study (AVE). The value of outer loadings for each indication in Table 1 exceeds the minimal criterion of 0.07. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) number is likewise higher than the 0.50 criterion. (See Table 3), this means that the measurement model has sufficient convergent validity.
The Composite Reliability (C.R.) and Cronbach's Alpha are used in this study to assess the variables' reliability. If the score surpasses the minimum requirements of 0.7 for C.R. and 0.7 for Cronbach's Alpha, the questions measuring research variables will be considered reliable. As depicted in Table 3, All of the items are trustworthy because their scores are higher than the study's cutoff. Furthermore, for all variables, the variance inflation factor (VIF) values are less than 5 (Hair et al., 2013). This finding implies that the independent variables employed in this investigation are not multicollinear.
Table 4:Discriminant validity fornell-larcker criterion
Community Attachment Economic Gain Environmental Attitude Involvement Stakeholder Perceptions Support for Tourism
Community Attachment 0,769
Economic Gain 0,410 0,886
Environmental Attitude 0,494 0,118 0,849
Involvement 0,323 0,569 0,190 0,829
Stakeholder Perceptions 0,597 0,583 0,408 0,625 0,750
Support for Tourism 0,577 0,352 0,688 0,377 0,650 0,818
After that, the Fornell-Larcker criterion was used to determine discriminant validity, which stated that each construct's AVE should be greater than the squared correlation with another construct (Hair et al., 2013). As shown in Table 4, this condition is met by all variables. Moreover, the loadings of each item are also compared to the total cross-loadings in this study. As informed in the Table 5 each item's loadings are higher than cross-loadings with items from other constructs, indicating discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2013).
Table 5: Cross loading
Indicators Community Attachment Economic Gain Environmental Attitude Involvement Stakeholder Perceptions Support for Tourism
CA1 0,767 0,259 0,381 0,251 0,511 0,406
CA2 0,810 0,254 0,400 0,161 0,433 0,424
CA3 0,765 0,334 0,320 0,270 0,386 0,383
CA4 0,732 0,401 0,404 0,300 0,484 0,534
EG1 0,338 0,867 0,079 0,447 0,526 0,271
EG2 0,403 0,928 0,149 0,576 0,546 0,353
EG3 0,346 0,860 0,080 0,482 0,473 0,308
EA1 0,397 0,134 0,853 0,105 0,320 0,521
EA2 0,495 0,088 0,929 0,205 0,444 0,694
EA3 0,347 0,085 0,755 0,165 0,242 0,510
IN1 0,225 0,510 0,156 0,872 0,516 0,313
IN2 0,149 0,445 0,142 0,847 0,478 0,250
IN3 0,402 0,452 0,170 0,765 0,546 0,360
ECP1 0,434 0,550 0,192 0,462 0,749 0,448
ECP2 0,382 0,620 0,100 0,454 0,650 0,309
ECP3 0,464 0,563 0,261 0,546 0,723 0,486
ECP4 0,460 0,324 0,322 0,492 0,746 0,516
ENP1 0,395 0,398 0,273 0,530 0,743 0,383
ENP2 0,347 0,378 0,294 0,437 0,723 0,418
ENP3 0,589 0,394 0,451 0,447 0,831 0,613
SCP1 0,510 0,413 0,344 0,524 0,835 0,506
SCP2 0,315 0,414 0,286 0,393 0,629 0,456
SCP3 0,515 0,369 0,456 0,415 0,838 0,659
ST1 0,393 0,218 0,581 0,333 0,397 0,755
ST2 0,604 0,424 0,514 0,382 0,679 0,859
ST3 0,542 0,350 0,503 0,306 0,644 0,836
ST4 0,430 0,211 0,665 0,263 0,468 0,849
ST5 0,363 0,212 0,562 0,253 0,438 0,787
Figure 2: Structural Model (Bootstrap)
Table 6: Path Coefficient
Beta
T-Value P Values
Result
Community Attachment -> Stakeholder Perceptions 0,305 3,067 0,002 Accepted
Community Attachment -> Support for Tourism 0,102 1,297 0,195 Rejected
Economic Gain -> Stakeholder Perceptions 0,232 2,984 0,003 Accepted
Economic Gain -> Support for Tourism 0,037 0,492 0,623 Rejected
Environmental Attitude -> Stakeholder Perceptions 0,161 1,560 0,119 Rejected
Environmental Attitude -> Support for Tourism 0,482 3,710 0,000 Accepted
Stakeholder Involvement -> Stakeholder Perceptions 0,364 4,615 0,000 Accepted
Stakeholder Involvement -> Support for Tourism -0,001 0,011 0,991 Rejected
Stakeholder Perceptions -> Support for Tourism_0,372_3,344_0,001 Accepted
This examination would survey basic model to test research hypotheses. Utilized the bootstrapping method with 5000 resamples to examine each of path coefficients value. (Hair et al., 2016). Based on table 6 and figure 2, out of 9 proposed hypothesis, 5 (five) were proved to be significant. The first hypothesis functional value (Beta = 0.305; T-Value = 3.067; P-Value < 0.05). Next, third hypothesis value (Beta = 0.232; T-Value = 2.984; P-Value < 0.05), following the sixth hypothesis value (Beta = 0.482; T-Value = 3.710; P-Value < 0.05) and the seventh hypothesis value (Beta = 0.364; T-Value= 4.615; P-Value < 0.05) and the nineth hypothesis (Beta = 0.372; T-Value = 3.344; P-Value < 0.05) is not significant. Meanwhile, 4 (four) hypothesis were rejected. Second hypothesis value (Beta = 0.102; T-Value = 1.297; P-Value > 0.05), fourth hypothesis value (Beta = 0.037; T-Value = 0.492; P-Value > 0.05), fifth hypothesis value (Beta = 0.161; T-Value = 1.560; P-Value > 0.05), and eighth hypothesis value (Beta = -0.001; T-Value = 0.011; P-Value > 0.05).
This finding provides the answer to the research question. Based on the beta value, community attachment, economic gain, environmental attitude, and community involvement have the most significant role in shaping the stakeholders' perception. This research also calculates the R2 of the proposed model. The R2 adjusted of this stakeholder perceptions and support tourism development are 0.601 and 0.634, respectively. Meanwhile, the remaining amount of variations is attributed to
external variables that were not included in the model. The results indicate that the proposed research theory can be used to explain the stakeholder perceptions to support tourism development.
5. Discussion
The main objective of this research is to measure the community attachment, economic gain, environmental attitude, community involvement, and their perceptions towards support for tourism developments in Komodo National Park, Indonesia. The findings showed a significant relationship between community attachment, environmental attitude, economic gain, community involvement towards stakeholder perceptions. In addition, stakeholder perceptions result in significant relationships to support tourism development. It showed the similar finding on previous studies which confirmed the positive effects of community attachment (e.g. Duran & Ozkul, 2012; Nicholas et al., 2009, Latkova & Vogt, 2012, Moghavvemi et al., 2017), environmental attitude, economic gain (e.g. Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017; Woosnam et al., 2018) and economic gain (e.g. Boley et al., 2014; Zuo et al., 2017) on stakeholder' perceptions. Hence, the findings contribute toward a comprehensive understanding of the exchange process identified by Social Exchange Theory as acknowledgment of tourism development discourse.
However, community attachment, economic gain, environmental attitude, community involvement is not significant to support tourism development. It found in former study where some of variables namely community attachment and community involvement have no positive effects to support tourism development (e.g. Gannon et al., 2020; Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon,2011; Woosnam et al., 2018). Therefore, it indicates that stakeholder perceptions hold the significant mediating roles which support for tourism development. Stakeholders who perceive more favorable tourism benefits are more likely to support tourism development. On the other side, stakeholders who perceive less positive tourism impacts are less likely to support tourism growth (e.g. Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011, Rasoolimanesh et al., 2015).
6. Conclusion
This research sought to examine the stakeholder' perspective as a mediating roles to support tourism development and grasp the factors that influences future development for Jurassic Park project. According to the theoretical implications, the study adopted an integrated approached to the Social Exchange Theory (SET) and Weber's Theory of Substantive and Formal Rationality (WTSFR). Stakeholder theory highlights the importance of community involvement in sustainable tourism development (Tsung Hung Lee, 2013). and factors of stakeholder perception should be prioritized in a small island state's sustainable tourism planning process. By enhancing the different sides of the study object, this research could enrich the study framework in the context of the World's Seven Wonders and World Heritage Sites.
This study have a contribution to Tourism Development Studies, especially in Indonesia's Super Priority Destination. Subsequently, this study also suggests managerial implications. Besides, it provides the opportunity to be involved direct or indirect planning or decision making since government or non-governmental organizations should set their investment to develop the island based on sustainable tourism development (Nunkoo et al., 2010).
In addition, conservation regulations and environmental norms should be applied to protect endangered species with their natural habitats. In terms of social wellbeing and economic impact, tourism development needs to increase the level of stakeholders' support by benefiting them to explore their willingness to contribute in local business or culture exposure. This research could be one of the sources that could help the policymaker gather the appropriate strategy to support tourism development. The other support organization such as NGOs, local community organizations, and investor could see the holistic perceptions to support tourism development.
This study has several limitations. Initially, the research was examined with a quantitative approach which captures the general indicator to support the variables. Thus, future research could assess with the qualitative approach to get a comprehensive insight from the stakeholders' perceptions. Then, this study only focused on Komodo National Park stakeholders, which could be rich if future study holds the other regions residents to contribute on analysis to find out outsiders' opinions to support tourism development. Eventually, the study of sustainable tourism in Indonesia could have a longitudinal approach to observe the citizen perceptions for tourism development.
Aknowlegment
This work was fully funded by the Research and Innovation Centre of Universitas Multimedia Nusantara, Indonesia. Moreover, the authors wish to thank the stakeholders of Komodo National Park for their participations to this study.
Funding
The author (s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Citation information
Choirisa, S. F., Purnomo, E., & Harianto, E. (2021). Stakeholder perceptions to support Jurassic Park project as a future wildlife tourism. Economics, Management and Sustainability, 6(2), 87-101. doi:10.14254/jems.2021.6-2.7.
Reference
Akama, J. S., & Kieti, D. (2007). Tourism and socio-economic development in developing countries: A case study of Mombasa Resort in Kenya. Journal of sustainable tourism, 15(6), 735-748.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287510362918
Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C., & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents' perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of tourism research, 32(4), 1056-1076.
Araujo, L. M. D., & Bramwell, B. (1999). Stakeholder assessment and collaborative tourism planning: The case of Brazil's Costa Dourada project. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(3-4), 356-378.
Boley, B. B., McGehee, N. G., Perdue, R. R., & Long, P. (2014). Empowerment and resident attitudes toward tourism: Strengthening the theoretical foundation through a Weberian lens. Annals of Tourism research, 49, 33-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.08.0
Börner, J., Wunder, S., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., Tito, M. R., Pereira, L., & Nascimento, N. (2010). Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: Scope and equity implications. Ecological economics, 69(6), 1272-1282.
Byrd, E. T. (2007). Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development and their roles: applying stakeholder theory to sustainable tourism development. Tourism review, 62(2), 6-13.
Cisneros-Martínez, J. D., McCabe, S., & Fernández-Morales, A. (2018). The contribution of social tourism to sustainable tourism: A case study of seasonally adjusted programmes in Spain. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(1), 85-107.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1319844
Deccio, C., & Baloglu, S. (2002). Nonhost community resident reactions to the 2002 Winter Olympics: The spillover impacts. Journal of travel research, 41(1), 46-56.
Duran, E., & Özkul, E. (2012). Residents' attitudes toward tourism development: A structural model via Akcakoca sample. Journal of Human Sciences, 9(2), 500-520. Retrieved from https://www.j-humansciences.com/ojs/index.php/IJHS/article/view/2293
Easterling, D. S. (2005). The residents' perspective in tourism research: A review and synthesis. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 17(4), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v17n04_05
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. In A. Inkeles, J. Coleman, & N. Smelser (Eds.), Annual Review of Sociology (vol. 2, pp. 335-362). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Fachriansyah, Rizki. (2020). Govt denies "Jurassic Park" claims amid controversy surrounding Rinca Island Project. The Jakarta Post. Retrieved from
https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/10/28/govt-denies-jurassic-park-claims-amid-controversy-surrounding-rinca-island-project.html
Gannon, M., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., & Taheri, B. (2021). Assessing the mediating role of residents' perceptions toward tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 60(1), 149-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287519890926
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of marketing research, 25(2), 186192. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378802500207
Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Ruiz-Pérez, M. (2011). Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography, 35(5), 613-628.
Goodwin, H. J. (1998). Tourism, conservation, and sustainable development: case studies from Asia and Africa (No. 12). IIED.
Gowdy, J. (1999). Economic concepts of sustainability: relocating economic activity within society and environment. Sustainability and the social sciences: a cross-disciplinary approach to integrating environmental considerations into theoretical reorientation, Londres, Zed Books, 162-181.
Gursoy, D., & Kendall, K. W. (2006). Hosting mega events: Modeling locals' support. Annals of tourism research, 33(3), 603-623. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.annals.2006.01.005
Gursoy, D., & Rutherford, D. G. (2004). Host attitudes toward tourism: An improved structural model. Annals of tourism Research, 31(3), 495-516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2003.08.0
Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident attitudes: A structural modeling approach. Annals of tourism research, 29(1), 79-105.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long range planning, 46(1-2), 112.
Jaafar, M., Noor, S. M., & Rasoolimanesh, S. M. (2015). Perception of young local residents toward sustainable conservation programmes: A case study of the Lenggong World Cultural Heritage Site. Tourism Management, 48, 154-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.018
Jaafar, M., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., & Ismail, S. (2017). Perceived sociocultural impacts of tourism and community participation: A case study of Langkawi Island. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 17(2), 123-134.
Jamal, T. B., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of tourism research, 22(1), 186-204.
Jones, S. (2005). Community-based ecotourism: The significance of social capital. Annals of tourism research, 32(2), 303-324.
Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Williams, D. R. (1997). A theoretical analysis of host community resident reactions to tourism. Journal of travel research, 36(2), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759703600202
Kalberg, S. (2017). Max Weber's Types of Rationality: Cornerstones for the Analysis of Rationalization Processes in History. In Max Weber's Comparative-Historical Sociology Today (pp. 25-54). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1086/227128
Kaltenborn, B. R. P., Andersen, O., Nellemann, C., Bjerke, T., & Thrane, C. (2008). Resident attitudes towards mountain second-home tourism development in Norway: The effects of environmental attitudes. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(6), 664-680. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802159685
Karanth, K. K., & DeFries, R. (2011). Nature-based tourism in Indian protected areas: New challenges for park management. Conservation Letters, 4(2), 137-149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263x.2010.00154.x
Ko, D. W., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of residents' attitudes for tourism development. Tourism management, 23(5), 521-530. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0261-5177(02)00006-7
Látková, P., & Vogt, C. A. (2012). Residents' attitudes toward existing and future tourism development in rural communities. Journal of Travel Research, 51 (1), 50-67.
Lee, T. H. (2013). Influence analysis of community resident support for sustainable tourism development. Tourism management, 34, 37-46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.03.007
Lepp, A. (2007). Residents' attitudes towards tourism in Bigodi village, Uganda. Tourism management, 28(3), 876-885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.03
Lew, A. A., & Hall, M. C. (1998). The geography of sustainable tourism: lessons and prospects. The geography of sustainable tourism: lessons and prospects., 199-203.
Lindberg, K., & Enriquez, J. (1994). An analysis of ecotourism's economic contribution to conservation and development in Belize (No. 338.4791 L742a). Sl: World Wildlife Fund.
MacKenzie, N., & Gannon, M. J. (2018). Exploring the antecedents of sustainable tourism development. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-05-2018-0384
Manwa, H. (2003). Wildlife-based tourism, ecology and sustainability: a tug-of-war among competing interests in Zimbabwe. Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(2), 45-54.
McGehee, N. G., & Andereck, K. L. (2004). Factors predicting rural residents' support of tourism. Journal of travel research, 43(2), 131-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287504268234
McGehee, N. G., Kim, K., & Jennings, G. R. (2007). Gender and motivation for agri-tourism entrepreneurship. Tourism Management, 28(1), 280-289.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.12
Mehta, J. N., & Kellert, S. R. (1998). Local attitudes toward community-based conservation policy and programmes in Nepal: a case study in the Makalu-Barun Conservation Area. Environmental conservation, 25(4), 320-333.
Moghavvemi, S., Woosnam, K. M., Paramanathan, T., Musa, G., & Hamzah, A. (2017). The effect of residents' personality, emotional solidarity, and community commitment on support for tourism development. Tourism Management, 63, 242-254.
https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.tourman.2017.06.021
Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., & May, P. H. (2010). Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological economics, 69(6), 1202-1208.
Nelson, J. G., Butler, R., Butler, R., & Wall, G. (Eds.). (1993). Tourism and sustainable development: monitoring, planning, managing (No. 37). University of Waterloo, Heritage Resource Centre: Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Nepal, S. (2005). Tourism and remote mountain settlements: Spatial and temporal development of tourist infrastructure in the Mt Everest region, Nepal. Tourism Geographies, 7(2), 205-227.
Nepal, S. K. (2002). Mountain ecotourism and sustainable development. Mountain research and development, 22(2), 104-109.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.03.005
Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2011). Developing a community support model for tourism. Annals of tourism research, 38(3), 964-988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.01.017
Nunkoo, R., Gursoy, D., & Juwaheer, T. D. (2010). Island residents' identities and their support for tourism: an integration of two theories. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(5), 675-693.
Nunkoo, R., Smith, S. L., & Ramkissoon, H. (2013). Residents' attitudes to tourism: A longitudinal study of 140 articles from 1984 to 2010. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,21(1), 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.673621
Olya, H. G., & Gavilyan, Y. (2017). Configurational models to predict residents' support for tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 56(7), 893-912. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287516667850
Pascual, U., Muradian, R., Rodríguez, L. C., & Duraiappah, A. (2010). Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: A conceptual approach. Ecological economics, 69(6), 1237-1244.
Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Allen, L. (1990). Resident support for tourism development. Annals of tourism Research, 17(4), 586-599. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(90)90029-q
Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jaafar, M., Kock, N., & Ahmad, A. G. (2017). The effects of community factors on residents' perceptions toward World Heritage Site inscription and sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(2), 198-216.
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.
Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Roldán, J. L., Jaafar, M., & Ramayah, T. (2017). Factors influencing residents' perceptions toward tourism development: Differences across rural and urban world heritage sites. Journal of Travel Research, 56(6), 760-775.
Redclift, M. (1999). Sustainability and sociology: Northern preoccupations. Sustainability & the social sciences, 59-73.
Sautter, E. T., & Leisen, B. (1999). Managing stakeholders a tourism planning model. Annals of tourism research, 26(2), 312-328.
Sirakaya, E., Jamal, T. B., & Choi, H. S. (2001). Developing indicators for destination sustainability. The encyclopedia of ecotourism, 411-432.
Teye, V., Sirakaya, E., & Sonmez, S. F. (2002). Residents' attitudes toward tourism development. Annals of tourism research, 29(3), 668-688.
Thompson, J., Baxter, I. W., Curran, R., Gannon, M. J., Lochrie, S., Taheri, B., & Yalinay, O. (2018). Negotiation, bargaining, and discounts: Generating WoM and local tourism development at the Tabriz bazaar, Iran. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(11), 1207-1214. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1396294
Timur, S., & Getz, D. (2009). Sustainable tourism development: How do destination stakeholders perceive sustainable urban tourism?. Sustainable Development, 17(4), 220-232.
Vargas-Sánchez, A., do Valle, P. O., da Costa Mendes, J., & Silva, J. A. (2015). Residents' attitude and level of destination development: An international comparison. Tourism Management, 48, 199-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.11.005
Vatn, A. (2010). An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological economics, 69(6), 1245-1252.
Walpole, M. J., & Goodwin, H. J. (2000). Local economic impacts of dragon tourism in Indonesia. Annals of tourism research, 27(3), 559-576.
Walpole, M. J., & Goodwin, H. J. (2001). Local attitudes towards conservation and tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environmental conservation, 28(2), 160-166.
Walpole, M. J., & Goodwin, H. J. (2001). Local attitudes towards conservation and tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environmental conservation, 28(2), 160-166. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0376892901000169
Wang, G., Innes, J. L., Wu, S. W., Krzyzanowski, J., Yin, Y., Dai, S., ... & Liu, S. (2012). National park development in China: conservation or commercialization?. Ambio, 41(3), 247-261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0194-9
Ward, C., & Berno, T. (2011). Beyond social exchange theory: Attitudes toward tourists. Annals of tourism research, 38(4), 1556-1569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.02.0
Wearing, S., & McGehee, N. G. (2013). Volunteer tourism: A review. Tourism management, 38, 120130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.03
Weber, M. (1978). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: The Free Press.
< 1GG >
Wilson, L. J., McSorley, C. A., Gray, C. M., Dean, B. J., Dunn, T. E., Webb, A., & Reid, J. B. (2009). Radio-telemetry as a tool to define protected areas for seabirds in the marine environment. Biological Conservation, 142(8), 1808-1817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.03.0
Woosnam, K. M. (2011). Testing a model of Durkheim's theory of emotional solidarity among residents of a tourism community. Journal of Travel Research, 50(5), 546-558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287510379163
Woosnam, K. M., Aleshinloye, K. D., Ribeiro, M. A., Stylidis, D., Jiang, J., & Erul, E. (2018). Social determinants of place attachment at a World Heritage Site. Tourism management, 67, 139-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.01
World Commission on Environment & Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
World Conservation Strategy. (1980). Secretariat/focal point. Cambridge: World Conservation Union (IUCN)/ United Nation Economic Program (UNEP)/ World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC)/UNCED. (1992). Agenda 21: Adoption of agreements on environment & development. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: UNCED.
WTO [World Tourism Organization]. (2005). Tourism's Potential as a Sustainable Development Strategy. World Tourism Organization, Madrid, Spain.
WTTC/WTO/Earth Council. (1995). Towards environmentally sustainable development. Madrid, Spain: World Tourism Organization.
Ye, B. H., Zhang, H. Q., Shen, J. H., & Goh, C. (2014). Does social identity affect residents' attitude toward tourism development?: An evidence from the relaxation of the individual visit scheme. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(6), 907929. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-01-2013-0041
Zuo, B., Gursoy, D., & Wall, G. (2017). Residents' support for red tourism in China: The moderating effect of central government. Annals of Tourism Research, 64, 51-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2017.03.0
© 2016-2021, Economics, Management and Sustainability. All rights reserved.
This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
Attribution - You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Economics, Management and Sustainability (ISSN: 2520-6303) is published by Scientific Publishing House "CSR", Poland, EU and Scientific Publishing House "SciView", Poland
Publishing with JEMS ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the JEMS website
• Rapid publication
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a JEMS at http://jems.sciview.net or submit.jems@sciview.net
