Next Article in Journal
Modular Construction of Industrial Buildings and Lean Thinking—Identifying the Role of Daylight through a Case Study
Next Article in Special Issue
A Way to Attract Digital Nomads to Tourist Destinations in the New Normal Era
Previous Article in Journal
The Technology Acceptance on AR Memorable Tourism Experience—The Empirical Evidence from China
Previous Article in Special Issue
COVID-19 Perceived Risk, Travel Risk Perceptions and Hotel Staying Intention: Hotel Hygiene and Safety Practices as a Moderator
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 18
10.3390/su151813352
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Effects of Residents’ Empowerment on Citizenship Behavior and Support for Convention Development: Moderation of Innovativeness

by
Sooyoung Choi
1,
Alisa Kazakova
1,
Kijung Choi
2,
Yong-Seok Choi
3 and
Insin Kim
1,*
1
Department of Tourism and Convention, Pusan National University, Busan 46241, Republic of Korea
2
Resort and Hotel Management, William Angliss Institute, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
3
Department of Statistics, Pusan National University, Busan 46241, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(18), 13352; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813352
Submission received: 14 August 2023 / Revised: 4 September 2023 / Accepted: 5 September 2023 / Published: 6 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Meeting the Challenges and New Opportunities: Sustainable Development of Tourism and Hospitality Industry Following the COVID-19 Pandemic)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study investigated how residents’ empowerment influences their engagement in the sustainability of the convention industry in their community, specifically, their citizenship behavior (CB) toward convention visitors and support for convention development in their community. Additionally, the current study examined the moderator of a convention center’s innovativeness. The sample used for data analysis was 415 residents from Seoul and Busan, South Korea. The results of structural equation modeling revealed that residents’ empowerment enhances their participation in CB toward visitors and support. The multi-group comparison analysis suggested that a convention center’s innovativeness moderates the effect of residents’ empowerment on their CB toward visitors but not on convention development support. These results highlight the important role of empowering residents in convention host communities in psychological, sociological, and political ways in promoting community engagement and support for convention development. Local authorities and convention center management should ensure that residents have sufficient knowledge about the benefits of convention development and involve them in decision-making processes.

1. Introduction

The convention industry is a fast-growing component of the tourism sector [1,2] and its use has emerged as a prominent strategy for economically driving growth and community development in host cities and regions [3,4,5]. Hosting such events attracts a considerable number of convention visitors from outside the area, which stimulates the local economy and generates revenue through visitor spending, job creation, and increased business activity [4,6,7]. This influx of visitor spending injects funds into the local economy, supporting local businesses and generating tax revenues for a host city [3,8,9]. The economic impact of the convention industry is substantial [4,6,7] and has a multiplier effect, extending beyond the immediate economic impact, often leading to long-term benefits, such as increased tourism, enhanced destination branding, and the attraction of new businesses and investments [10,11,12].
Hosting successful conventions can position a city or region as an attractive destination for future events, bolstering its international reputation [4,13]. However, events hosted in a specific host city reflect its current socioeconomic and cultural factors, and thus, specific stakeholders must be considered to obtain ongoing support [14]. The sustainability of convention events as permanent institutions in a host city is significantly impacted by the relationship quality between stakeholders [15].
Given the significant socioeconomic impacts of a sustainable local convention industry on the lives of local community residents, it is important to involve them in the convention development process. The support of residents is an important element in the success and sustainability of local tourism development, given their status as critical stakeholders [16,17,18]. Thus, residents’ active participation in shaping the convention experience and support for convention development initiatives can contribute to the overall success and sustainability of the industry within their community. This collaborative approach not only maximizes the economic benefits derived from hosting conventions but also fosters social cohesion, community development, and a positive experience for residents and visitors. It is essential to understand the factors influencing residents’ engagement behavior and their support for community management to ensure the success and sustainability of the convention industry in a community.
The concept of residents’ empowerment has gained significant attention as a means of enhancing community involvement and addressing local issues [19,20]. Empowerment refers to a range of initiatives and processes aimed at enhancing residents’ self-efficacy or self-confidence and equipping them with the skills, resources, and opportunities to take an active role in problem-solving [21,22]. Empowerment enables residents to gain a sense of agency, take control of their daily lives, and contribute to positive change within their communities [22,23]. Previous studies on residents’ empowerment mainly highlight its importance in trusting in a local government’s tourism decisions [24,25], achieving residents’ quality of life [26,27], and supporting for tourism development within their community [24,28,29]. Accordingly, empowering residents is a prerequisite for gaining the support of community leaders and convention authorities for convention development and promoting their active participation in convention initiatives. While the literature has assumed the importance of residents’ empowerment for sustainable convention development, the role of residents’ empowerment in a convention host community setting has not been empirically tested. This gap should be filled.
The level of innovation exhibited by a local convention center holds significant sway over the effect of residents’ empowerment on citizenship behavior (CB) and support. The innovativeness involves adopting and implementing novel approaches, technologies, and practices that enhance overall performance [30,31]. Convention centers assimilate the economic, cultural, and social development of a city and its surrounding areas as purpose-built facilities for convention and exhibition events [32]. An innovative convention center is distinguishable from its competitors by offering more captivating and trendy events and often attracting a substantial influx of visitors, businesses, and investments to the host community. Therefore, convention centers that prioritize innovation can amplify the positive effects of residents’ empowerment through local convention development led by the convention centers.
This study attempts to address the gap in research on residents’ empowerment in convention host communities. The primary objective is to investigate the relationships between residents’ empowerment, CB towards visitors, and support for convention development within their community. Additionally, it explores the moderating effects of a convention center’s innovativeness on these relationships. By establishing the connection between residents’ empowerment, their CB, and their support for convention development, this research contributes significantly to expanding the literature. Furthermore, it offers valuable insights into the mechanisms through which residents’ empowerment influences their engagement with the community in the context of conventions. The findings emphasize the significance of empowering residents in convention host communities, which can lead to increased community engagement and support for convention development. Policymakers, local authorities, and convention center management must prioritize initiatives to enhance residents’ sense of agency and involvement in the convention decision-making process. Additionally, convention center managers should foster an innovative environment that aligns with residents’ expectations, empowering residents and fostering positive interactions between residents and convention visitors. These insights can help create a more inclusive and thriving convention destination that benefits both the community and visitors.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Residents’ Empowerment

Empowerment lacks a clear definition because of its context and issue-specific nature [33,34]. At its core, empowerment reflects the capacity of individuals to attain mastery and control over their affairs, which allows them to act toward enhancing their situations [18,35,36]. Empowerment includes participatory-developmental processes and outcomes [22,37]. The process of residents’ empowerment involves creating opportunities to improve the conditions within a community by developing residents’ personal sense of power, deepening understanding of their environments, and acquiring greater individual and collective resources [22,23]. Empowerment can also result from processes such as political, economic, and psychological empowerment for active and sustained community participation (i.e., enhanced control, influence, awareness, social coalitions, and participatory behaviors) [22,38].
Empowerment encompasses various dimensions that collectively shape its conceptualization [19,36,39]. Zimmerman [22,37] emphasizes the social-psychological approach to empowerment in an analysis of the effects of community-level empowerment, and suggests three facets of resident empowerment: intrapersonal, interactional, and behavioral. The intrapersonal facet includes individuals’ belief in their self-efficacy, motivation, and control to influence a given context. The interactional facet entails cognitive awareness and comprehension of the context, while the behavioral facet includes engagement in actions to establish a sense of control within the given context. Building on Scheyvens’ [18] conceptual model, Boley and McGehee [33] develop the Resident Empowerment through Tourism Scale (RETS), a 12-item scale comprising psychological, social, and political empowerment. Psychological empowerment indicates individuals’ consolidated self-esteem and pride within a community. It is derived from external recognition of distinctiveness and value placed on the community’s unique attributes [18,33,34]. When psychologically empowered, residents are confident in and proud of their community. Social empowerment deals with how residents develop stronger bonds with one another, thereby increasing their overall connection to the community [18]. Social empowerment also leads to residents making collaborative efforts to achieve a common goal for a more cohesive and empowered community [33,40,41]. Political empowerment refers to residents’ ability to participate in community-level decision-making processes. It entails voting, having a voice, and taking collective action about community matters [18]. Tourism researchers assert that this empowerment dimension is the most closely related to the overarching notion of residents’ power and attitudes toward tourism development within their community [20,21]. Overall, empowerment is critical for enhancing community well-being and fostering active community participation.

2.2. Effects of Residents’ Empowerment on CB toward Visitors and Support for Convention Development

Residents are a key stakeholder group in local tourism development and have significant power to shape its outcomes [17,42]. From a social exchange perspective, empowering residents through community development yields benefits such as heightened pride and self-esteem, stronger connections to the community, and opportunities for participation in community-level decision processes. These benefits ultimately increase community contributions and support for future tourism development [24,28,43,44]. Empowered residents are more likely to engage actively in community affairs, including local governance, community organizations, and public initiatives to protect their resources. By contrast, imbalanced power dynamics lead to residents developing negative perceptions toward tourism in their community [16]. Maton and Salem [39] note that empowerment increases civic engagement and participation in community activities. Civic engagement allows individuals to exert influence in their community by committing to society, becoming involved in the community, establishing connections in the neighborhood, and participating in civic activities [45,46]. For instance, Joo et al. [34] demonstrate that residents’ empowerment, augmented by their knowledge of the local tourism industry, results in their political involvement in tourism development.
Residents’ perception of gaining control within and a sense of ownership of their community instills psychological ownership, stimulating their engagement in community CB [47,48]. Residents’ CB refers to voluntary actions and attitudes of residents that contribute to the overall welfare and functioning of a community [49]. These actions range from simple acts of kindness, cooperation, helpfulness, and respect to more involved engagement, such as volunteering for convention-related activities and participating in community events organized for visitors [50,51,52,53]. Furthermore, tourism research suggests that empowerment strongly predicts residents’ support in tourism research [20,29,40,54,55]. Eluwole et al. [43] find that cultivating residents’ empowerment in psychological, social, political, and environmental aspects is essential for securing festival support among residents. Li et al. [24] demonstrate that increased psychological and social empowerment among residents has been positively associated with not only their trust in the government but also support for tourism development during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that empowering residents through community-driven convention development led by an international convention center within their community would lead to greater residents’ support for future convention-related activities and development. Therefore, residents’ empowerment functions as a precursor to their civic engagement, such as CB toward visitors and supportive behavior for convention development. We posit the following hypotheses:
H1: 
Residents’ empowerment enhances their CB toward visitors.
H2: 
Residents’ empowerment enhances their support for convention development.

2.3. Moderating Effects of Innovativeness of a Convention Center

The ability of a firm to remain competitive and stay ahead of its rivals heavily relies on its level of innovation. Innovation involves the firm’s ability and capability to embrace new technologies and ideas, allowing for the introduction of innovative products and solutions faster than others [30,56,57]. From a consumer-centric perspective, a firm’s innovativeness is based on consumers’ perception of its novelty, uniqueness, and differentiation, which is informed by their own knowledge and experience of the firm [30,31,58]. Kunz et al. [31] argue that consistent and stable firm characteristics and behaviors, such as “surprising market offers, new product attributes, new design elements, new marketing approaches, … the overall creativity of the firm, and its dynamic market behavior” (p. 817), can help maintain an organizational image of innovativeness. Kim et al. [59], developing a scale for the perceived innovativeness of a restaurant, suggest that a service business’s innovativeness encompasses “[its] broad activities that show capability and willingness to consider and institute unique and meaningfully different ideas, services, and promotions” (p. 86).
A firm’s perceived innovativeness is crucial for developing advanced marketing strategies [60]. Perceived innovativeness helps the firm distinguish itself from its competitors [61,62,63], improve its financial situation [64,65], and enhance its reputation [66]. A firm’s reputation is determined by the collective evaluations of observers who assess its innovative capabilities [67]. A convention center’s innovativeness in its business activities can be particularly important for community-wide sought benefits achieved through sustainable convention development in the city. An innovative convention center can have a competitive advantage in attracting visitors, businesses, and investments to the local area, contributing to the overall perception and reputation of the local convention industry and community as progressive, forward-thinking, and capable of hosting innovative events. This perception can empower residents by instilling in them a sense of optimism and confidence in the local economy, fostering a sense of pride, self-esteem, and belonging within the community, and leading them to advocate for their interests, voice concerns, and participate in political processes [18].
A firm’s innovativeness viewed from a customer perspective is a critical factor in fostering positive attitudes and behaviors toward service providers in various hospitality and tourism settings involving food service, e.g., [60,68,69,70], the bread, bakery, and pastry industry, e.g., [71], and air travel service, e.g., [72]. For example, Kim et al. [59] demonstrate that a restaurant’s innovativeness stimulates consumer value co-creation behavior toward the restaurant, such as CB and participation. Lee and Kim [73] provide empirical evidence on the effects of visitors’ perception of a food exhibition’s innovation capabilities regarding product, service, experience, and promotion of their loyalty to the exhibition. It has yet to be explored how innovativeness can moderate the impact of residents’ empowerment on their participatory and supportive behaviors in the context of convention communities. However, it is reasonable to assume that residents are more likely to be empowered when they perceive local convention centers as innovative, given the substantial benefits that innovative convention centers bring to the community. Therefore, this study posits the following hypotheses:
H3a: 
A convention center’s innovativeness moderates the impact of residents’ empowerment on their CB toward visitors, such that the impact is stronger when a convention center’s innovativeness is greater.
H3b: 
A convention center’s innovativeness moderates the effect of residents’ empowerment on support for convention development, such that the impact is stronger when a convention center’s innovativeness is greater.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Data Collection

The study sample comprised adult residents (aged over 20 years) living in either Seoul or Busan, South Korea’s first- and second-largest Meeting, Incentive, Convention, and Exhibition (MICE) cities. According to the Union of International Associations [74,75], in 2021, Seoul and Busan ranked 2nd and 12th in the world and 1st and 4th in the Asia-Pacific region, respectively, regarding the number of international conferences hosted. COEX and BEXCO are the largest convention centers in Seoul and Busan, respectively, having hosted big-sized international conferences as well as exhibitions [e.g., the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in 2005 (BEXCO), the G20 Seoul Summit in 2010 (COEX), the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit in 2012 (COEX), and the ASEAN-Republic of Korea Commemorative Summit in 2019 (BEXCO)]. In 2019, 98,476 MICE events were held in these two cities within South Korea, comprising 40% of all events hosted in the country during that year [76].
All respondents completed a self-administered online questionnaire. The survey was distributed via an online link to survey panels during 24–26 September 2022, by a South Korea-based research company. Participants were first requested to respond to three screening questions about which city they currently lived in, whether they knew of the convention center located in their city of residence, and whether they had visited the convention center in the last 3 years. Only those who selected Seoul or Busan as their response to the first question and answered “yes” to the second and third questions were eligible for inclusion in the main survey. In total, 415 responses were utilized for the research analysis.

3.2. Measurements

This study utilized multiple measures for each construct, as per Churchill’s [77] suggestion. The estimation of the constructs was conducted by utilizing scale items, which were borrowed from existing studies and adjusted to the current context. Empowerment incorporating three sub-dimensions were measured with five, three, and four items, respectively, drawn from Joo et al. [34]. To measure CB toward visitors, the three items employed in Yi et al. were measured. [52]. Convention development support was gauged by three items adapted from Lee [78]. Five items for measuring innovativeness were taken from Kunz et al. [31]. A five-point Likert-type scale was utilized in order to evaluate each item (one-point indicates “strongly disagree”; and five-points indicates “strongly agree”).

3.3. Analysis Tool

The statistical software for social science, IBM SPSS 24.0 [79] and Amos were utilized to analyze the data. Initially, we carried out a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in order to estimate validity and reliability of measurements and variables in the current model. Subsequently, to explore the structural relationships in the proposed model, a structural equation modeling approach was taken [80]. For determining the moderation effect, a multi-group comparison analysis was performed.

4. Results

4.1. Characteristics of the Sample

Table 1 illustrates the survey respondents’ characteristics.

4.2. Validity and Reliability Test

CFA was run to estimate our measurement model. The CFA result exhibits that the measurement model well fit to the current data (χ2 = 414.427, degree of freedom (df) = 243, p < 0.001; χ2/df = 1.705). Specifically, incremental fit index (IFI) was 0.97; Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) was 0.97; comparative fit index (CFI) was 0.97; and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.04 [81]. The internal consistency reliability of all constructs was satisfactory, with Cronbach’s alpha values surpassing the 0.70 threshold [82] (Table 2). Additionally, all measurement items demonstrated adequate convergent validity, as evidenced by factor loadings exceeding 0.50, and were found to be significantly loaded with their respective constructs [81] (Table 2).
The constructs’ correlations, average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) are presented in Table 3. Internal consistency for all constructs was acceptable, as the CR values for each of them exceeded 0.70 [83]. Additionally, the values of AVE surpassed 0.50, suggesting that convergent validity has been established [81]. The AVE values for each individual variable were higher than all squared correlation values of the variable pairs, with the exception of the pair of CB towards visitors and convention development support. To ensure the discriminant validity of all constructs, the χ2 difference (Δχ2) test was conducted by merging both constructs into one in a merged model, and the resulting χ2 value of the merged model was then compared to that of the free model [83]. The results of the chi-square difference (Δχ2) test revealed that the merged model (χ2 = 522.916, df = 246) significantly differs from the free model (Δχ2 = 108.489 > χ20.05(3) = 7.815; p < 0.05). This indicates that both measures and constructs achieved discriminant validity.

4.3. Causal Relationships Test

A structural model was established to verify the hypothesized relationships. The model fit was found to be adequate, indicating that the model accurately reflects the data (χ2 = 310.022, df = 130, p < 0.001; χ2/df = 2.385; IFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.95; CFI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.06, p < 0.001). Residents’ empowerment was positively related to CB toward visitors, supporting H1. Furthermore, residents’ empowerment was positively related to convention development support, supporting H2. Table 4 displays the comprehensive results.

4.4. Moderation Test

In order to investigate the moderating effects of innovativeness of a convention center, a multi-group comparison analysis was performed as recommended by Byrne [84]. The path coefficients of the hypothesized paths for the high and low innovativeness groups were compared. To ensure consistency in the model estimates across both groups, a chi-square difference (Δχ2) test was utilized. The analysis results can be found in Table 5.
First, the effect of residents’ empowerment on CB towards visitors varied significantly between the groups (Δχ2 = 18.277 > χ20.05(1) = 3.841). For the high innovativeness group, the effect of residents’ empowerment on CB towards visitors was stronger than for the low innovativeness group, supporting H3a.
Second, although residents’ empowerment positively influences convention development support for both groups, the difference in the magnitude of the effect of residents’ empowerment on convention development support was not significant (Δχ2 = 1.08 < χ20.05(1) = 3.841). Therefore, H3b was rejected.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

5.1. Theoretical Implications

Sustainable convention development focuses on a convention center and serves as a catalyst for the local economy. In-depth understanding of the level of residents’ support and engagement in a convention host community is of paramount importance for sustainable convention development. Enhancing residents’ empowerment has been identified as a critical non-economic component of sustainable tourism [19,20,40]. However, further exploration is required to understand its integration into a comprehensive study of residents’ participatory behaviors in convention development. This study adapted RETS [33] and tested a conceptual model to examine how residents’ empowerment through the development of the local convention industry, centered on a convention center, promotes community involvement and support from residents. The findings highlight the significance of residents’ empowerment in convention host communities.
First, the statistical analysis revealed that residents’ empowerment has a significant relationship with their CB toward visitors, corroborating the results of previous studies [47,48]. When residents feel psychologically, socially, and politically empowered through convention development in their community, they are more likely to voluntarily share information with, help, and make recommendations toward convention visitors. Residents’ CB is a manifestation of resident engagement behavior exhibited for the economic and sociopolitical benefits that residents perceive from tourism [47,85]. Empowered residents, who perceive enhanced power and capacity followed by a sense of pride, community bonding, self-efficacy, and control, are likely to interact with and accommodate visitors, which can promote positive experiences and enhance a community’s reputation. Furthermore, the study revealed that residents’ empowerment furthers their support for additional convention development within the community, in line with the findings of prior studies [29,34,43]. Power is a key factor to social exchange, since it determines a resident’s ability to obtain advantages from convention development within their community, actively participate in actions conducive to effective community functioning, and support a community’s focal industry development [16]. This finding suggests that residents’ empowerment affords significant grounds and opportunities for rationally considering the offerings and benefits of the local convention industry and, in turn, support for additional convention development within their community.
Empowerment connects an individual’s competence and control with social participation [22,23]. Boosting the level of residents’ empowerment from psychological, social, and political perspectives can effectively induce community engagement and support. Thus, relevant community and convention authorities should direct their approaches toward empowering residents to achieve the objective of sustainable convention development in a host community. Theoretically, the findings deepen knowledge on the important role of empowerment in understanding social engagement for collective benefit and its relationship with CB and community support, and further provide insight into the effectiveness of non-economic multidimensional constructs of empowerment in measuring residents’ perception of the level of power and control gained within their community.
Second, this study investigated whether the effect of residents’ empowerment on CB toward visitors heightens by a convention center’s innovativeness. The findings suggest that residents’ perception of a convention center’s innovativeness plays a facilitator in amplifying the effect of empowerment on CB toward visitors. Residents who perceive a convention center as innovative exhibit stronger discretionary supportive actions toward convention visitors than those who do not. Innovative convention centers are regarded as capable and willing to attract more visitors through hosting and marketing differentiated, more innovative events, which raises residents’ positive perceptions of the convention center and its socioeconomic contributions to the community. Consequently, residents become more psychologically, socially, and politically empowered as they regard a convention center as more innovative in its overall business activities and adopt more civic actions to exert their influence in the community.
Conversely, perceived innovativeness did not moderate the effect of residents’ empowerment on support for additional convention development. Residents who perceive stronger empowerment are more likely to support additional convention development regardless of the level of a convention center’s innovativeness. This suggests that residents may consider future convention development as an opportunity for the addition of convention-related infrastructure and investment in advancing the improvement of relevant industries within the community when making support decisions rather than the innovative advancement of existing convention centers.
Overall, the research findings demonstrate the crucial role of residents’ power perception in shaping community involvement decisions in the context of an internationally top-ranked convention host community. Additionally, this study uncovered the moderating role of residents’ perception of a local convention center’s innovativeness in stimulating their engagement in contributive actions. Although convention host communities may have different dynamics and unique challenges compared to traditional tourism destinations, the fundamental principles of empowerment remain relevant. By building on the existing research, this study adapted and applied the framework of residents’ empowerment to the distinctive context of convention host communities. This approach enhances our understanding of how individual-level empowerment can facilitate residents’ community engagement in convention planning and development.

5.2. Managerial Implications

The current study findings hold implications for local authorities, policymakers in local government as well as convention center management. First, the observed relationships of residents’ empowerment with their engagement in CB and support for convention development highlight the importance of understanding the capabilities of empowered residents in contributing to local industry development. Given these findings, local authorities and convention center management can benefit from focusing on community engagement initiatives that empower residents and foster a sense of ownership and pride in their community and the local convention industry. For instance, empowerment programs aimed at enhancing residents’ psychological, social, and political empowerment can be implemented through community workshops, training sessions, and community outreach programs. Such educational opportunities can provide residents with the necessary skills and knowledge about the local convention industry to engage effectively with community affairs.
Second, to foster positive relationships with residents and garner their support for convention initiatives, convention authorities should actively engage them in collaborative discussions and decision-making processes. This approach empowers residents to have a say in shaping the community’s convention environment and promotes a sense of ownership and pride among them. To achieve this, local authorities can implement measures such as establishing resident advisory boards or community forums, where residents can actively participate in shaping the convention development plans and policies.
Third, clear and transparent communication is crucial to maintaining positive resident relationships and building trust. It is important that residents have access to accurate and up-to-date information about convention center activities, economic impacts, and future convention development plans. Communication platforms, such as public meetings, community forums, social media platforms, newsletters, and dedicated websites, can keep residents informed and engaged.
Fourth, the moderating effect of a convention center’s innovativeness highlights the importance of innovation and differentiation in its management to empower residents and promote their active participation in local convention events. Convention center managers should cultivate an innovative environment that aligns with residents’ expectations. This can be achieved by adopting and implementing novel approaches in the overall business activities of convention centers, such as engaging residents in innovation initiatives and showcasing innovative events that align with residents’ interests and preferences.

6. Limitations and Future Research

The limitations of this study need to be noted. First, it focused only on a sample of residents from South Korea, which means that differences in social, cultural, and political perspectives from other countries were not considered. Future research needs to be performed to expand the model to include different cultural contexts to evaluate the external validity of the findings. Second, the impacts of a set of characteristics of participants (e.g., age, gender, occupation, and years of residency) were not considered in examining the relationships suggested by this study. Older residents, those with higher-paid jobs, and those with longer residency may have better perceptions of the community they have lived in, have greater life satisfaction, and be more concerned and critical about local governments’ and firms’ performances than their counterparts. Future research could control these factors when replicating this study’s conceptual relationships. Third, participants were selected for an online survey using convenience sampling, which is extensively employed in social science research [86]. However, this survey method may lead to selection bias. Therefore, for the developing convention industry, it is necessary to investigate whether and how local residents’ empowerment could influence the success of events that take place in their destination by interviewing local residents. Additionally, in order to predict the economic effect of a convention center, it is essential to analyze the community economy depending on residential area-convention center proximity by employing a longitudinal method.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.C., A.K., K.C., Y.-S.C. and I.K.; methodology, Y.-S.C.; software, Y.-S.C. and I.K.; validation, S.C., A.K. and K.C.; investigation, Y.-S.C. and I.K.; data curation, S.C., A.K. and K.C.; writing—original draft preparation, S.C.; writing—review and editing, K.C. and I.K.; visualization, A.K.; supervision, I.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by 2022 BK21 FOUR Program of Pusan National University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lee, H.; Lee, J.-S. An exploratory study of factors that exhibition organizers look for when selecting convention and exhibition centers. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2017, 34, 1001–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Han, H.; Lee, S.; Al-Ansi, A.; Kim, H.-C.; Ryu, H.B.; Kim, J.J.; Kim, W. Convention tourism and sustainability: Exploring influencing factors on delegate green behavior that reduce environmental impacts. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lu, S.; Zhu, W.; Wei, J. Assessing the impacts of tourism events on city development in China: A perspective of event system. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 1528–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Getz, D.; Page, S.J. Progress and prospects for event tourism research. Tour. Manag. 2016, 52, 593–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kim, I.; Choi, S.; Kim, D.; Choi, N. How long do regional MICE events survive? The case of Busan, Korea. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2022, 27, 807–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dwyer, L.; Forsyth, P.; Spurr, R. Estimating the impacts of special events on an economy. J. Travel Res. 2005, 43, 351–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kim, K.; Ko, D. How to build a sustainable MICE environment based on social identity theory. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lee, C.-K.; Lee, M.; Yoon, S.-H. Estimating the economic impact of convention and exhibition businesses, using a regional input–output model: A case study of the Daejeon Convention Center in South Korea. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2013, 18, 330–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kim, I.; Kim, S.; Choi, S.; Kim, D.; Choi, Y.; Kim, D.; Ni, Y.; Yin, J. Identifying key elements for establishing sustainable conventions and exhibitions: Use of the Delphi and AHP approaches. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gursoy, D.; Kim, K.; Uysal, M. Perceived impacts of festivals and special events by organizers: An extension and validation. Tour. Manag. 2004, 25, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Choi, S.; Kim, I. Sustainability of nature walking trails: Predicting walking tourists’ engagement in pro-environmental behaviors. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2021, 26, 748–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bi, Y.H.; Yin, J.; Kim, I. Fostering a young audience’s media-induced travel intentions: The role of parasocial interactions. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 47, 398–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Xing, X.; Chalip, L. Effects of hosting a sport event on destination brand: A test of co-branding and match-up models. Sport Manag. Rev. 2006, 9, 49–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dolasinski, M.J.; Roberts, C.; Reynolds, J.; Johanson, M. Defining the field of events. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2021, 45, 553–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jucu, I.S. Rebranding the cultural legacy of communism: The Golden Stag Festival (Braşov, Romania) and local placemaking. J. Balk. Near East Stud. 2020, 22, 478–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Nunkoo, R.; Ramkissoon, H. Developing a community support model for tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2011, 38, 964–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Choi, H.-S.C.; Sirakaya, E. Measuring residents’ attitude toward sustainable tourism: Development of sustainable tourism attitude scale. J. Travel Res. 2005, 43, 380–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Scheyvens, R. Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tour. Manag. 1999, 20, 245–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cole, S. Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2006, 14, 629–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Boley, B.B.; McGehee, N.G.; Perdue, R.R.; Long, P. Empowerment and resident attitudes toward tourism: Strengthening the theoretical foundation through a Weberian lens. Ann. Tour. Res. 2014, 49, 33–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rappaport, J. Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 1987, 15, 121–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Zimmerman, M.A. Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational and community levels of analysis. In Handbook of Community Psychology; Rappaport, J., Seidman, E., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2000; pp. 43–63. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kieffer, C.H. Citizen empowerment: A developmental perspective. Prev. Hum. Serv. 1984, 3, 9–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Li, X.; Boley, B.B.; Yang, F.X. Resident empowerment and support for gaming tourism: Comparisons of resident attitudes pre- and amid-COVID-19 pandemic. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Nunkoo, R. Tourism development and trust in local government. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 623–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Aleshinloye, K.D.; Woosnam, K.M.; Tasci, A.D.A.; Ramkissoon, H. Antecedents and outcomes of resident empowerment through tourism. J. Travel Res. 2022, 61, 656–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Su, L.; Yang, X.; Swanson, S.R. The influence of motive attributions for destination social responsibility on residents’ empowerment and quality of life. J. Travel Res. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Khalid, S.; Ahmad, M.S.; Ramayah, T.; Hwang, J.; Kim, I. Community empowerment and sustainable tourism development: The mediating role of community support for tourism. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nunkoo, R.; So, K.K.F. Residents’ support for tourism: Testing alternative structural models. J. Travel Res. 2016, 55, 847–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Khin, S.; Ho, T.C.F. Digital technology, digital capability and organizational performance: A mediating role of digital innovation. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 2018, 11, 177–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kunz, W.; Schmitt, B.; Meyer, A. How does perceived firm innovativeness affect the consumer? J. Bus. Res. 2011, 64, 816–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Faulk, D. The process and practice of downtown revitalization. Rev. Policy Res. 2006, 23, 625–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Boley, B.B.; McGehee, N.G. Measuring empowerment: Developing and validating the Resident Empowerment through Tourism Scale (RETS). Tour. Manag. 2014, 45, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Joo, D.; Woosnam, K.M.; Strzelecka, M.; Boley, B.B. Knowledge, empowerment, and action: Testing the empowerment theory in a tourism context. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 69–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Israel, B.A.; Checkoway, B.; Schulz, A.; Zimmerman, M. Health education and community empowerment: Conceptualizing and measuring perceptions of individual, organizational, and community control. Health Educ. Behav. 1994, 21, 149–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Spreitzer, G.M. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Acad. Manag. J. 1995, 38, 1442–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zimmerman, M.A. Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 1995, 23, 581–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Maton, K.I. Empowering community settings: Agents of individual development, community betterment, and positive social change. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 2008, 41, 4–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Maton, K.I.; Salem, D.A. Organizational characteristics of empowering community settings: A multiple case study approach. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 1995, 23, 631–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Strzelecka, M.; Boley, B.B.; Strzelecka, C. Empowerment and resident support for tourism in rural Central and Eastern Europe (CEE): The case of Pomerania, Poland. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 25, 554–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Aiyer, S.M.; Zimmerman, M.A.; Morrel-Samuels, S.; Reischl, T.M. From broken windows to busy streets: A community empowerment perspective. Health Educ. Behav. 2015, 42, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Su, L.; Huang, S.; Huang, J. Effects of destination social responsibility and tourism impacts on residents’ support for tourism and perceived quality of life. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2018, 42, 1039–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Eluwole, K.K.; Banga, C.; Lasisi, T.T.; Ozturen, A.; Kiliç, H. Understanding residents’ empowerment and community attachment in festival tourism: The case of Victoria Falls. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2022, 23, 100674–100684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kang, S.K.; Lee, J. Support of marijuana tourism in Coloraod: A residents’ perspective using social exchange theory. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 9, 310–319. [Google Scholar]
  45. Bobek, D.; Zaff, J.; Li, Y.; Lerner, R.M. Cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components of civic action: Towards an integrated measure of civic engagement. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 2009, 30, 615–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zaff, J.; Boyd, M.; Li, Y.; Lerner, J.V.; Lerner, R.M. Active and engaged citizenship: Multi-group and longitudinal factorial analysis of an integrated construct of civic engagement. J. Youth Adolesc. 2010, 39, 736–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhang, H.; Xu, H. Impact of destination psychological ownership on residents’ “place citizenship behavior”. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2019, 14, 100391–100404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chan, R.C.H.; Mak, W.W.S. Empowerment for civic engagement and well-being in emerging adulthood: Evidence from cross-regional and cross-lagged analyses. Soc. Sci. Med. 2020, 244, 112703–112712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Gruen, T.W. The outcome set of relationship marketing in consumer markets. Int. Bus. Rev. 1995, 4, 447–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sun, L.-Y.; Aryee, S.; Law, K.S. High-performance human resource performance practices, citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 2006, 50, 558–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bettencourt, L. Customer voluntary performance: Customers as partners in service delivery. J. Retail. 1997, 73, 383–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yi, Y.; Gong, T.; Lee, H. The impact of other customers on customer citizenship behavior. Psychol. Mark. 2013, 30, 341–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Balaji, M.S. Managing customer citizenship behavior: A relationship perspective. J. Strateg. Mark. 2014, 22, 222–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Panyik, E. Rural tourism governance: Determinants of policy-makers’ support for tourism development. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2014, 12, 48–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Strzelecka, M.; Wicks, B.E. Community participation and empowerment in rural post-communist societies: Lessons from the leader approach in Pomerania, Poland. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2015, 12, 381–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Choe, J.Y.; Kim, J.J.; Hwang, J. Innovative marketing strategies for the successful construction of drone food delivery services: Merging TAM with TPB. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2021, 38, 16–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ferreira, J.J.M.; Fernandes, C.I.; Ferreira, F.A.F. To be or not to be digital, that is the question: Firm innovation and performance. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 101, 583–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Yeh, Y.-P. Market orientation and service innovation on customer perceived value. Manag. Res. Rev. 2016, 39, 449–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kim, E.; Tang, L.; Bosselman, R. Measuring customer perceptions of restaurant innovativeness: Developing and validating a scale. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 74, 85–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hwang, J.; Lee, J.-S.; Kim, H. Perceived innovativeness of drone food delivery services and its impacts on attitude and behavioral intentions: The moderating role of gender and age. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 81, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Seebode, D.; Jeanrenaud, S.; Bessant, J. Managing innovation for sustainability. R&D Manag. 2012, 42, 195–206. [Google Scholar]
  62. Hwang, J.; Lee, K.-W.; Kim, D.; Kim, I. Robotic restaurant marketing strategies in the era of the fourth industrial revolution: Focusing on perceived innovativeness. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hwang, J.; Kim, H.M.; Kim, I. The antecedent and consequences of brand competence: Focusing on the moderating role of the type of server in the restaurant industry. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2022, 50, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Keiningham, T.L.; He, Z.; Hillebrand, B.; Jang, J.; Suess, C.; Wu, L. Creating innovation that drives authenticity. J. Serv. Manag. 2019, 30, 369–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jalilvand, M.R. The effect of innovativeness and customer-oriented systems on performance in the hotel industry of Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag. 2017, 8, 43–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Gupta, S.; Malhotra, N.; Malhotra, N. Marketing innovation: A resource-based view of international and local firms. Mark. Intell. Plann. 2013, 31, 111–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Foroudi, P.; Jin, Z.; Gupta, S.; Melewar, T.C.; Foroudi, M.M. Influence of innovation capability and customer experience on reputation and loyalty. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 4882–4889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Teng, H.-Y.; Chen, C.-Y. Restaurant innovativeness and brand attachment: The role of memorable brand experience. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2021, 47, 827–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Jin, N.; Goh, B.; Huffman, L.; Yuan, J.J. Predictors and outcomes of perceived image of restaurant innovativeness in fine-dining restaurants. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2015, 24, 457–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Esposito, B.; Sessa, M.R.; Sica, D.; Malandrino, O. Service innovation in the restaurant sector during COVID-19: Digital technologies to reduce customers’ risk perception. TQM J. 2022, 34, 134–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dettori, A.; Floris, M.; Dessì, C. Customer-perceived quality, innovation and tradition: Some empirical evidence. TQM J. 2020, 32, 1467–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Chen, J.K.C.; Batchuluun, A.; Batnasan, J. Services innovation impact to customer satisfaction and customer value enhancement in airport. Technol. Soc. 2015, 43, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lee, Y.; Kim, I. Investigating key innovation capabilities fostering visitors’ mindfulness and its consequences in the food exposition environment. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2018, 35, 803–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Union of International Associations. MICE City Busan, Taking Action to Bring in Major Events: WADA 2025 World Conference and 2022 Busan Maritime MICE Workshop. Available online: https://uia.org/other-news/48730 (accessed on 23 May 2023).
  75. Seoul Convention Bureau. Seoul, “World’s Second Most Prolific Host” of International Conferences in 2021 UIA’s “International Meeting Statistics Report” … Brussels Ranked First and Tokyo Third. Available online: https://www.miceseoul.com/scb-news/view?newsSn=1129&c (accessed on 4 August 2023).
  76. Korea Tourism DATA Lab. MICE Statistics. Available online: https://datalab.visitkorea.or.kr/datalab/portal/ts/getMiceScleExmnDetail.do (accessed on 7 August 2023).
  77. Churchill, G.A. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J. Mark. Res. 1979, 16, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Lee, T.H. Influence analysis of community resident support for sustainable tourism development. Tour. Manag. 2013, 34, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, 24.0; IBM Corp: Armonk, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  80. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 6th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  82. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  83. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, 1st ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  85. Zhao, Y.; Cui, X.; Guo, Y. Residents’ engagement behavior in destination branding. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wright, K.B. Researching internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and Web survey services. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 2005, 10, JCMC1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Profile of the sample (N = 415).
Table 1. Profile of the sample (N = 415).
VariableCategoryn%
GenderMale21150.8
Female20449.2
Age20 years–29 years6716.1
30 years–39 years12730.6
40 years–49 years12931.1
50 years–59 years6515.7
60 years and over276.5
Education levelHigh school or less5713.8
2-year college5012.0
Bachelor’s degree25962.4
Graduate degree or more4911.8
OccupationOffice worker21551.9
Professional7417.8
Self-employed378.9
Homemaker378.9
Student174.1
Other358.4
City of residenceSeoul20549.4
Busan21050.6
Mean age = 40.91 years; mean years of residency in Seoul = 27.26 years; and mean years of residency in Busan = 30.97 years.
Table 2. Constructs and measurement items.
Table 2. Constructs and measurement items.
Construct and MeasurementsFactor LoadingsCronbach’s Alpha
Residents’ empowerment0.920
Psychological empowerment
Psychological empowerment 10.750
Psychological empowerment 20.784
Psychological empowerment 30.796
Psychological empowerment 40.761
Psychological empowerment 50.756
Social empowerment
Social empowerment 10.775
Social empowerment 20.817
Social empowerment 30.785
Political empowerment
Political empowerment 10.823
Political empowerment 20.851
Political empowerment 30.755
Political empowerment 40.711
CB toward visitors 0.780
CB toward visitors 10.702
CB toward visitors 20.740
CB toward visitors 30.769
Convention development support 0.827
Convention development support 10.768
Convention development support 20.852
Convention development support 30.741
p < 0.001.
Table 3. Result of measurement model.
Table 3. Result of measurement model.
ConstructMean
(Standard Deviation)		AVE123
1Residents’ empowerment3.391
(0.970)		0.6100.952
2CB toward visitors 3.554
(0.834)		0.5440.5430.838
3Convention development support3.863
(0.815)		0.6220.3520.6050.881
AVE = average variance extracted; composite reliability is shown in bold numbers; squared correlations are indicated below composite reliability.
Table 4. Results for hypotheses.
Table 4. Results for hypotheses.
Hypothesisβt-ValueResult
H1Residents’ empowerment→CB toward visitors0.77711.272 ***Supported
H2Residents’ empowerment→Convention
development support		0.63910.156 ***Supported
*** p < 0.001; → indicates causal relationship between independent variable and dependent variable.
Table 5. Moderation test results.
Table 5. Moderation test results.
PathHigh Innovativeness Group (n = 218)Low Innovativeness Group (n = 197)Baseline ModelRestricted Model
βt-Valueβt-Value
Residents’ empowerment →
CB toward visitors		0.8717.951 ***0.5074.498 ***χ2(260) = 480.168χ2(261) = 498.445
Residents’ empowerment →
Convention development support		0.6675.906 ***0.3724.064 ***χ2(260) = 480.168χ2(259) = 481.248
Chi-square difference test:
H3a. Δχ2(1) = 18.277, p < 0.05 (statistically significant in the difference; supported)
H3b. Δχ2(1) = 1.08, p > 0.05 (statistically insignificant in the difference; not supported)
*** p < 0.001; → indicates causal relationship between independent variable and dependent variable.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Choi, S.; Kazakova, A.; Choi, K.; Choi, Y.-S.; Kim, I. Effects of Residents’ Empowerment on Citizenship Behavior and Support for Convention Development: Moderation of Innovativeness. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13352. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813352

AMA Style

Choi S, Kazakova A, Choi K, Choi Y-S, Kim I. Effects of Residents’ Empowerment on Citizenship Behavior and Support for Convention Development: Moderation of Innovativeness. Sustainability. 2023; 15(18):13352. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813352

Chicago/Turabian Style

Choi, Sooyoung, Alisa Kazakova, Kijung Choi, Yong-Seok Choi, and Insin Kim. 2023. "Effects of Residents’ Empowerment on Citizenship Behavior and Support for Convention Development: Moderation of Innovativeness" Sustainability 15, no. 18: 13352. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813352

APA Style

Choi, S., Kazakova, A., Choi, K., Choi, Y. -S., & Kim, I. (2023). Effects of Residents’ Empowerment on Citizenship Behavior and Support for Convention Development: Moderation of Innovativeness. Sustainability, 15(18), 13352. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813352

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop