Quantitative analysis shows urban leisure, accessibility, and resident engagement positively impact tourism value.
This study aims to explore the interrelationships between urban leisure opportunities, accessibility of cultural resources, residents' active engagement in urban tourism and their perceptions of tourism value. By examining these dynamics, the study seeks to provide insights into fostering sustainable urban tourism that benefits both residents and visitors. A quantitative research design was employed, utilizing a structured survey distributed to urban residents. Partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used to analyze the relationships among variables, supported by reliability and validity tests. Bootstrapping techniques further assessed the robustness of the hypotheses. The results indicate significant positive relationships among the studied variables. Urban leisure opportunities and the accessibility of cultural resources positively influence residents' active engagement in urban tourism. Additionally, residents' active engagement and the accessibility of cultural resources substantially enhance residents' perceptions of tourism value. These findings highlight the crucial role of inclusive leisure spaces and cultural resources in promoting community engagement and fostering positive tourism perceptions. The study's limitations include the reliance on cross-sectional data, self-reported responses, and a focus on specific urban contexts, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the study primarily examines residents' perspectives, with less emphasis on other stakeholders in urban tourism. Urban planners and policymakers should prioritize the development and maintenance of accessible, inclusive leisure spaces and cultural resources to enhance resident engagement and tourism value. Proactive measures to address accessibility barriers and involve residents in tourism planning can lead to more sustainable urban tourism practices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Juliana et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: