Linking Regenerative Travel and Residents’ Support for Tourism Development in Kaua’i Island (Hawaii): Moderating-Mediating Effects of Travel-Shaming and Foreign Tourist Attractiveness

Regenerative Travel

The notion of “regenerative travel” was discussed firstly by Arfwedson (1994), who proposed that protected areas and heritage sites can be used to assist local economies in their transition toward sustainable development models. In scholarly definition, regenerative tourism addresses the inherent inadequacies of the concept of sustainability as the former proposes inherently self-renewing systems to accelerate the revitalization of cultural and natural environments through tourism (Arfwedson 1994; Dowling 2000; Lyle 1996). To that end, regenerative tourism diverges from the traditional sense of sustainable tourism as it focuses on actively enhancing the positive impact of tourism rather than minimizing the negative impacts (Town and Owen 2005). Therefore, in regenerative travel, the focus is not on the sustainability of tourism per se but on how tourism can be utilized to enhance local well-being, and promote sustainability and revitalization of destinations (Duxbury et al. 2020). Despite the early efforts decades ago, the literature on regenerative travel has remained largely silent until very recently, when attention has started to be paid again to warrant foreseeable tourism development in the post-pandemic era (Brouder et al. 2020; Cave and Dredge 2020; Duxbury et al. 2020; Sheller 2021). Parallel with this trend, the creation of new regenerative travel approaches and models was also proposed by international organizations to warrant resilient and sustainable tourism development while also involving global challenges such as climate change (UNESCO 2020; UNWTO 2020a). Based on the diverse economies framework (Gibson-Graham 2008), Cave and Dredge (2020) illustrated the plausibility of regenerative travel to withstand unforeseen crises, proposing co-existence of alternative practices (through a merger of capitalist, non-capitalist, and innovative practices) for resilient tourism development. Taking advantage of the various applications of post-mechanistic economic framework (i.e., freedom of choice, cognitive relativity, creativity, social interconnectedness, and communication), regenerative motives can overcome the incapabilities of contemporary economic science while ensuring responsible use of tourism resources (Fuchs and Baggio 2017; Fuchs et al. 2021). Therefore, regenerative travel extends the boundaries of traditional tourism by proposing a more inclusive framework, which calls for diverse stakeholders’ collaboration for sustainable tourism development. In this regard, apart from the positive environmental and monetary benefits, regenerative travel is expected to provide social gains such as mutual learning, knowledge, and experience exchange between residents, tourists, and other relevant stakeholders (Matunga, Matunga, and Urlich 2020).

Kaua’i island (Hawaii) is one of the groundbreaking destinations that is embracing regenerative tourism through a strategically envisioned direction in its three-year destination management action plan (Laird 2021). Kaua’i, also well-known as the “Garden Island” is the oldest and fourth-largest in the Hawaiian Islands chain. Besides being famed for its filming in most popular movies (e.g., Jurassic Park, Pirates of the Caribbean, Indiana Jones, and Fantasy Island), Kaua’i also offers historical landmarks (e.g., the monument of Captain James Cook at Waimea beach that marks his landing site on January 19, 1778). Kaua’i also has the most accessible beaches (e.g., the coastline stretching 111 miles), hiking tracks, and rivers amongst all Hawaiian Islands (HTA 2021; Yee 2018; Adam 2021). The annual number of tourists reached an all-time high figure of 10 million in 2019, hence attracting approx. USD 18 billion of tourism revenues (Adam 2021; HTA 2021). The influx of tourists in Kauai (around 101,425 visitors) during December 2021 outpaced its small population of approximately 72,000 inhabitants (HTA 2021). Importantly, there remains huge skepticism about resident’s readiness to welcome foreign tourists and reestablishing their support for tourism development, especially after experiencing an extensive year of solitude (e.g., empty beaches, restaurants, shopping malls, and reduced traffic, etc.) (Fotiadis, Polyzos, and Huan 2021; Qin et al. 2021; Sharma, Thomas, and Paul 2021). Hence, regenerative tourism with a closely aligned residents’ support for tourism development is fundamental to safeguard Kauai’s natural resources (e.g., largest coffee plantation within the United States), also preserve its native ecosystem (e.g., endangered species, unique wildlife, and tropical rainforests, etc.) (Duxbury et al. 2020).

Foreign Tourist Attractiveness

A foreign tourist has been defined as “an individual visiting a place other xzsthan their home country for the purpose of holidays, recreation, or medical treatment, etc.” (OECD 2021). According to UNWTO (2020a, 2020b), the growth of international tourism has outpaced the worldwide economies, which has necessitated the need for more sustainable growth policies. In particular, popular destinations such as Barcelona and Venice are becoming notorious due to overtourism, which has induced mounting anti-tourism movements and hostile feelings toward foreign tourists (Kim et al. 2020; Zaman and Aktan 2021). Therefore, once viewed as a significant driver of economic, social development, foreign tourists are blamed for having ruined the authenticity of destinations (Erul and Woosnam 2021; Hateftabar and Chapuis 2020). As interpreted through the lens of social exchange theory, individuals seek to maximize their benefits while minimizing costs when they decide to start and maintain social and business relationships. Thus, the reciprocal relationship is continued only when the perceived benefits surpass the costs (Lambe et al. 2016; Zaman and Aktan 2021). Kim et al. (2020) used the social exchange theory as a benchmark to develop the tourist attractiveness concept, where the authors defined tourist attractiveness as the ability of tourists to attract, praise and seek attention of the host community at resident’s destination (Zaman and Aktan 2021). In their study focusing on Jeju (a resort island in South Korea) residents’ assessment of Chinese tourists, the tourist attractiveness was conceptualized as a multi-dimensional construct, where tourist compatibility was deemed as the major component of tourist attractiveness. In essence, intimacy and sentimental compatibility are often referred to as a precondition for tourist-resident interaction, thus accounting for the core of perceived tourist attractiveness (Woosnam and Norman 2010; Zaman and Aktan 2021). To that end, the present study adopts a unidimensional operationalization of tourist attractiveness, where only the residents’ perceived tourist compatibility was highlighted.

Travel Shaming

Laros and Steenkamp (2005) in their seminal work proposed a hierarchical model of consumer emotions, that specified the feeling of shame as a major component of consumers’ negative affect dimension. In particular, when a consumption behavior is not viewed as acceptable within the lens of social norms, values, etc., a person might start to feel shame, which could lead to the rise of other negative sentiments such as fear and anger (Koshkaki and Solhi 2016). As the major constituent of other negative emotions, shame has been utilized by many marketers to unveil the patterns of various consumer behaviors, including unhealthy diet, heavy drinking, hedonic product consumption, mobile phone choice, etc. (Chun, California, and Patrick 2005; Han, Duhachek, and Agrawal 2014; Koshkaki and Solhi 2016; Laros and Steenkamp 2005). Besides the literature investigating shame under different contexts, the Swedish teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg has led the rise of a new trend named the “flight shame movement,” which aimed to generate social pressure to reduce gas emissions released by the airline industry (Lew 2020; Mkono, Hughes, and Echentille 2020). It also did not take much time after her sail from the U.K to the U.S to reach a tipping point where more people become aware of the harms of flying (Lew 2020), and traveling by plane has begun to be associated with feelings of shame and guilt (Flaherty and Holmes 2020; Mkono, Hughes, and Echentille 2020). Most recently, such a tipping point seems to be occurring in traveling again, but this time due to health risks associated with the COVID-19. During the pandemic, individuals have been empowered with the responsibility and knowledge that they not only have to protect their health but also the health of others around them. Because traveling is considered dangerous for the risk of disseminating the virus, people are even legally enforced to stay at home and not travel, neither visit family and friends unless it is inevitably necessary (Budd and Ison 2020). On the other hand, those who travel are fiercely stigmatized for being negligent, ignorant, and selfish, which spurs a broad spectrum of moral and emotional conflict for travelers during the pandemic (Compton 2020; Jackson 2021). As a newly recognized phenomenon despite its roots in the consumer behavior literature (Koshkaki and Solhi 2016; Laros and Steenkamp 2005), travel shaming can be defined as expressed criticism and negative social assessment of others who travel during the pandemic. Thus, once receiving positive responses for sharing vacation pictures, people who travel during the pandemic become the victims of travel shaming and being openly criticized by their social network for not paying necessary attention to the public health (Grant 2021).

Residents’ Support for Tourism Development

As explained by social disruption theory, when local communities experience rapid tourism growth, the destination’s authenticity (e.g., local customs and traditions) will be eventually eroded, hence leading to a gradual depreciation in residents’ support for tourism development (Park and Stokowski 2009). Also, in the most popular model of Doxey, residents are claimed to go through different cycles, that is, initially reflecting enthusiasm toward tourism, and subsequently leading to anti-tourism sentiments, depending on the perceived tourism benefits and expected costs (Doxey 1975). The widely dominant social exchange theory (SET) in the tourism literature provides a theoretical explanation for this phenomenon within the context of residents’ supportive behavior toward tourism development (Erul and Woosnam 2021; Eslami et al. 2019; Qin et al. 2021; Sharpley 2014). SET manifests that residents’ perspective of tourism development is a function of the degree of exchange during host-resident interaction. In particular, in case the economic, social, and environmental benefits surpass the costs of tourism, residents will have a heightened positive evaluation of tourism development. In contrast, residents are likely to stand against tourism development when their perceived losses are substantially higher than the benefits (Stylidis 2018; Zaman and Aktan 2021).

Residents’ support for tourism development has become more crucial, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. A very recent study illustrated that regardless of the economic benefits of tourism, due to heightened risk perceptions, residents perceived tourism as dangerous, which led to resistance against tourism development (Joo et al. 2021). In addition, as the key stakeholders of tourism, despite suffering from the decrease of tourism revenues, residents can also be deemed as partially responsible for the non-flattening curve of new infections (Qiu et al. 2020). Therefore, during the pandemic, residents need to take more active roles than before in promoting social, environmental, health, and financial sustainability in their destinations (Ramkissoon 2020). Besides, tourism policymakers must also be aware of the risk of discrimination since tourists with particular origins could be discriminated against by the residents, which could devastate sustainable tourism development (Tse and Tung 2020).

Regenerative Travel and Residents’ Support for Tourism Development

Regenerative travel offers destinations (especially those suffering from over-tourism) to achieve a net positive impact on local communities by swiftly moving away from the traditional consumption model toward regeneration (Ateljevic 2020; Cave and Dredge 2020; Duxbury et al. 2020). Residents’ supportive behavior has been central for tourism development at any destination, especially tourism capitals (e.g., Barcelona, Amsterdam, and Prague) that have recently experienced anti-tourism protests and backlash prompted by locals’ mounting concerns about overtourism (Henley 2020). Numerous studies have highlighted the resident’s behavioral response (either supportive or forming resistance) to tourism developments based on residents’ perception of tourist’s motives and behaviors (e.g., value co-creation and emotional solidarity versus violating local laws, causing irreparable damage to ancient structures, disrespecting local culture, landmarks, and attractions) (Kim and Kang 2020; Lan et al. 2021; Shen, Luo, and Zhao 2017; Tsaur, Yen, and Teng 2018; Wan, Hui, and Qiu 2021; Woosnam 2012; Zaman and Aktan 2021). As argued by the stakeholder theory, residents’ views about tourism have to be systematically integrated with key tourism stakeholders (i.e., tourism planners and tourists) to ensure healthy tourism development (Erul, Woosnam, and McIntosh 2020; Zaman and Aktan 2021). Prior literature on residents’ support for tourism development has highlighted that once residents appreciate tourists’ contribution to their host destination economy and quality of life, they tend to develop stronger emotional bonds with visitors (Erul, Woosnam, and McIntosh 2020; Woosnam 2012; Zaman and Aktan 2021). Besides, sharing similar beliefs and behaviors such as respecting nature, enjoying similar recreation and beach activities, etc. offered by the destination will create an emotional link between locals and visitors, which will ultimately trigger greater support for various tourism developments (Garau-Vadell, Gutierrez-Taño, and Diaz-Armas 2018; Woo, Uysal, and Sirgy 2018; Woosnam and Norman 2010).

Regenerative travel is related to the extent to which tourists participate in activities that preserve and flourish the natural, social and economic standards of a destination, thereby increasing the local’s quality of life (Cave and Dredge 2020; Duxbury et al. 2020). Therefore, drawing upon the theory of emotional solidarity, one can argue that regenerative travel behavior bolsters residents’ sense of emotional closeness toward tourists, which can lead to extended support by residents for tourism development (Erul, Woosnam, and McIntosh 2020). Besides, prior studies have provided ample evidence that support for tourism development was shaped to a great extent by the residents’ perceived social, economic, and environmental impacts of tourism (Hateftabar and Chapuis 2020; Tournois and Djeric 2019). In line with these theoretical insights, the first hypothesis is framed as follows:

Regenerative Travel and Foreign Tourist Attractiveness

Applying Durkheim’s theory of emotional solidarity to tourism, Woosnam et al. (2009) proposed that the degree of shared behavior, beliefs, and positive interactions between tourists and locals positively influences the resident-tourist sense of emotional solidarity (Qin et al. 2021). Therefore, when residents and tourists are believed to share the same norm (i.e., local lifestyles and nature have to be respected and preserved), residents tend to build emotional solidarity with tourists (Woosnam 2011a), which in return enhances residents’ perceptions of tourism (Woosnam 2012). Within this perspective, in a study investigating residents’ views of tourists in Bangkok, environmental and socio-cultural behaviors exhibited by tourists were found to significantly affect residents’ overall evaluation of foreign tourists. In particular, residents viewed tourists very positively if they opted for local foods and used public transportation while having a negative assessment when tourists recklessly used natural resources or violated on-site hygiene regulations (Gong, Detchkhajornjaroensri, and Knight 2019). Thus, residents’ perception of tourists is largely dependent on tourists’ behavior at the destination as well as residents’ perceived economic, social and environmental benefits from tourism (Erul and Woosnam 2021; Hateftabar and Chapuis 2020).

The prominent theories of emotional solidarity and social exchange are deemed relevant to deliberate on the underlying relationship between tourists’ regenerative behavior and residents’ perceived tourist attractiveness. According to the theory of emotional solidarity, if tourists are engaged in regenerative behavior with no stake in the outcome (i.e., enhancing the environment, local quality of life, etc.), residents will potentially develop emotional solidarity with the tourists, which can in return positively contribute to residents’ tourist perceptions (Woosnam 2011b, 2012). Also, regenerative travel substantially augments the residents’ perceived benefits because it aims to generate and maximize positive impacts rather than narrowly minimizing the negative consequences of tourism (Town and Owen 2005). Based on the theoretical lens of SET, regenerative travel behavior can showcase holistic and positive developments in social, economic, and cultural environments at host destinations that can ultimately enhance residents’ perception toward tourism as well as the tourist (Erul and Woosnam 2021). Martín, de Los Salmones Sánchez, and Herrero (2018) analyzed perceptions of residents in Cantabria (i.e., a region in northern Spain), and highlighted varying impacts of tourism-related benefits on the residents’ attitude toward tourists. These were operationalized by the extent to which residents view their interaction with tourists as pleasant, enjoyable, positive, and funny. The findings highlighted significant relationships between the residents’ attitudes toward tourists and their perceived economic and socio-cultural benefits, whereas the negative environmental consequences associated with tourism were found to weaken residents’ tourist image perceptions. Based on these stated theoretical explanations, the second hypothesis is framed as:

Foreign Tourist Attractiveness and Residents’ Support for Tourism Development

By utilizing social exchange theory, the dominant literature has depicted residents’ supportive behaviors toward tourism development as largely dependent on their positive and/or negative perceptions about tourism (Hateftabar and Chapuis 2020; Tosun et al. 2021). In this respect, while negative consequences of tourism such as increases in rents or erosion of local culture can disrupt residents’ supportive behaviors toward tourism development (Erul and Woosnam 2021; Hateftabar and Chapuis 2020), improvements in locals’ quality of life bolster positive attitudes toward tourism (Erul and Woosnam 2021; Tournois and Djeric 2019). Despite the vast amount of studies empirically validating the impact of residents’ tourism perceptions, the literature largely lacks research that definitively addresses the vital role of residents’ perceptions on an individual tourist level within the context of support for tourism development (Kim et al. 2020; Sharpley 2014; Zaman and Aktan 2021). However, in a most recent study conducted on the residents of Cappadocia in Turkey (i.e., designated World Heritage UNESCO site), Zaman and Aktan (2021) found positive and mediating effects of foreign tourist attractiveness on the residents’ supportive behaviors toward tourism development. Zaman and Aktan (2021) empirically established that when the residents perceive foreign tourists as friendly and/or attractive, as well as hosting them is a pleasant experience, it consequently translated into residents’ supportive behaviors toward tourism development. Moreover, their findings also highlighted the influential role of residents’ place image that can undermine the significant relationship between residents’ perceived foreign tourist attractiveness (Zaman and Aktan 2021) and expressed intentions to support tourism development (Erul and Woosnam 2021). Thus, residents’ strong positive perceptions of their place image (e.g., in Cappadocia) diminished the positive effects of foreign tourist attractiveness on residents’ supportive behavior toward tourism development. Based on these theoretical justifications and directions taken from prominent studies, the third hypothesis is framed as:

Moderating Effects of Travel Shaming

Parallel with the growing health concerns associated with the emerging variants of COVID-19 (e.g., omicron and delta), traveling (once seen as a symbol of social status) has spurred large criticism, and those who travel during the pandemic are condemned for supposedly being irresponsible and ignorant (Compton 2020; Grant 2021; Jackson 2021). Therefore, people who were thought not to fully comply with the new norms and traveling restrictions were demonized and drew negative emotional reactions such as anger. Emotions have always lied at the core of consumer behavior studies (Bagozzi, Gopinath, and Nyer 1999; Laros and Steenkamp 2005), whereas it is surprisingly little to no information about the role of emotions in the context of residents’ tourism perceptions and expressed support for tourism development (Erul and Woosnam 2021; Hateftabar and Chapuis 2020; Qin et al. 2021). Recent tourism literature has extended the traditional cost-benefit framework of SET by involving the role of emotions in predicting residents’ tourism perceptions (Zheng, Liang, and Ritchie 2020; Zheng, Ritchie, and Benckendorff 2021).

Travel and tourism behavior has been stigmatized during the pandemic, and not tolerated by a considerable portion of the local communities (Qin et al. 2021; Zaman et al. 2021). In a recent study conducted on the residents of Qingyan (China), Qin et al. (2021) illustrated that resident’s tolerance toward tourism significantly moderates the relationship between residents’ personal benefits from tourism and perceived tourism impact. This implies that in case the residents are not tolerant and have negative sentiments toward tourism, they tend to negatively evaluate tourists and tourism impact on the destination, although tourism makes them better off. In a similar vein, it is expected that although regenerative travel enhances residents’ perceived benefits, travel shaming might decrease their tolerance, which consequently deteriorates their perception of tourism as well as tourists (Qin et al. 2021; Zaman et al. 2021; Zheng, Ritchie, and Benckendorff 2021).

Zheng et al. (2019) analyzed residents in Yangshuo (a city in southern China) and found that their emotions (such as worry and anger) negatively mediated the relationship between perceived desirability of tourism outcomes and residents’ perception toward tourism. In other words, even if tourism is considered beneficial, residents’ negative emotions toward tourism could thwart tourists’ perception and intention to support tourism development (Zheng, Liang, and Ritchie 2020; Zheng et al. 2019; Zheng, Ritchie, and Benckendorff 2021). This is not surprising as tourism could provoke diverse emotions from sadness to gratefulness, based on the degree to which tourism impacts are perceived as pleasant and relevant to personal goals (Zheng, Ritchie, and Benckendorff 2021). Based on the social disruption theory, it can be speculated that residents’ negative emotions (toward those who travel during the pandemic) can negatively influence their perceptions of tourists (Compton 2020; Skinner 2021; Zaman et al. 2021; Zheng et al. 2019). Generally, traveling during the pandemic (especially unvaccinated travelers) is not acceptable and deemed shameful by some local residents (Zaman et al. 2021). Hence, travel shaming can alter and/or diminish the positive impact of regenerative travel (as perceived by residents) on foreign tourist attractiveness (Grant 2021; Martín, de Los Salmones Sánchez, and Herrero 2018; Zaman et al. 2021). Based on these justifications, the fourth hypothesis is stated below:

Mediating Effects of Foreign Tourist Attractiveness

Based on the theory of emotional solidarity, it can be speculated that tourists engagement in regenerative behavior (i.e., enhancing the environment, local quality of life, etc.) while on vacation can lead residents to develop emotional solidarity with the tourists (Woosnam 2011a, 2011b, 2012). As a consequence, residents can potentially perceive foreign tourists as more positive and pleasant to spend time together with (Gong, Detchkhajornjaroensri, and Knight 2019; Martín, de Los Salmones Sánchez, and Herrero 2018). Furthermore, the fact that tourists are perceived as attractive can also enhance residents’ supportive behavior toward tourism development. Most recently, Zaman and Aktan (2021) highlighted that when foreign tourists are perceived as friendly and pleasant to have them around, residents have a heightened level of motivation to support tourism development. Seminal research by Kim et al. (2020) depicted that whenever locals considered tourists being respectful and responsible to local life, the residents mirrored positive emotions toward tourists. In particular, the influential role of tourism stakeholders (as explained by the stakeholder theory), the residents develop favorable impressions of tourists if they are engaged in value co-creation (e.g., sustain and protect local life, environment, and culture) during the social exchange process (Zaman and Aktan 2021). Since RT inherently adopts green and socially responsible practices, regenerative tourist behaviors are more likely to be perceived as responsible, which could increase the resident’s perception of foreign tourist attractiveness (Ateljevic 2020; Cave and Dredge 2020; Kim et al. 2020). Consequently, residents’ support for tourism development will also be triggered owing to positive perceptions about foreign tourists (Zaman and Aktan 2021).

Since foreign tourist attractiveness is significantly related to both regenerative travel and residents’ support for tourism development (Ateljevic 2020; Cave and Dredge 2020; Zaman and Aktan 2021), one can assume (based on emotional solidarity and SET theory) that foreign tourist attractiveness mediates the effects of regenerative travel on residents’ support for tourism development. Prior marketing literature has also validated the mediating role of attractiveness, where perceived attractiveness mediated the relationship between behavioral outcomes (i.e., brand loyalty and resilience to negative information) and consumers’ perceived functional and social benefits (Elbedweihy et al. 2016; So et al. 2017). Since regenerative travel also generates inherent social and economic benefits, it is hypothesized that the influence of regenerative travel on the residents’ support for tourism development is mediated by perceived foreign tourist attractiveness. Based on these critical arguments, the fifth hypothesis is framed as:

Based on the examination of the fragmented literature and potential research gap (e.g., limited scholarly focus, lack of empirical evidence, and non-existent measurement for regenerative travel), the conceptualized model of RSTD in Kauai (Hawaii) involving RT, FTA, and TS has been developed and graphically presented as Figure 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Conceptual model of RSTD.

Sampling and Procedure

The present study’s target population consisted Kauai residents who were at least 18-year of age and/or older; also, they were residing in Kauai for a minimum period of one complete year. A growing majority of tourism scholars have employed non-probabilistic sampling in recent studies (Darvishmotevali and Altinay 2022; Rather, Hollebeek, and Rasoolimanesh 2021; Tse and Tung 2020; Zaman and Aktan 2021). Considering the unprecedented challenges of profiling and contacting Kauai residents during the ongoing global pandemic of COVID-19 (Zaman et al. 2021), a non-probabilistic sampling procedure (as opposed to predetermined probability) was considered appropriate, as it specifically aligned with the present study’s research objectives, including resident’s availability, motivation to participate, subjective judgment, and other desirable non-statistical criteria (e.g., high representation, speed, cost-effectiveness, accessibility, and early response time) (Nugroho and Numata 2020; Tse and Tung 2021; Uprichard 2013; Zaman et al. 2021). The sampling frame was selected based on the purposive sampling that facilitated the participation of Kauai residents who may be most affected by the specific issues investigated through the current research (Etikan, Musa, and Alkassim 2016; Nugroho and Numata 2020). In addition, the purposive sampling technique was considered more useful for testing the theoretical framework and identifying the phenomena in a broader population context (Etikan, Musa, and Alkassim 2016). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic induced restrictions and public health emergency in the United States, the study data from Kauai residents were collected during March and April 2021 using an online survey (via Google form) by means of direct communications through emails and social media platforms (LinkedIn and Facebook) (Zaman et al. 2021).

In particular, the administrators of the Facebook (FB) groups of Kauai Community (9.7 k members) and Kauai Life (42.9 k members) allowed sharing of the survey invitation on their respective FB group, which significantly increased the number of our surveyed participants. The survey also clearly mentioned its invitation to the Kauai residents, to ensure the non-participation of those FB members who were tourists, rather Kauai residents. Moreover, the survey description, questions, and the required demographic information also discouraged the participation of non-Kauai residents. The contact addresses of the principal researcher(s) were also made available to the respondents, who were motivated to contact the researcher(s) if they had any questions and/or confusion regarding the survey. Importantly, various procedural remedies during the data collection procedure (including shorter scales, language simplicity, confidentiality of responses, respondents’ anonymity, no right or wrong answers, and respondent’s lacking awareness of the conceptual model) provided adequate assurances for overcoming any possible issue of common method bias (Podsakoff et al. 2003; Zaman and Aktan 2021). Lastly, the present study calculated the adequate sample size required for SEM based on the recommended yardstick, including Cochran’s equation (382 respondents), also Krejcie and Morgan’s formula (382 respondents), respectively (Nugroho and Numata 2020; Slabbert, du Plessis, and Digun-Aweto 2021). None of the survey forms were discarded as all survey questions were labeled as mandatory, and the participants had to answer all questions in order to complete the survey. The participants also had the opportunity to quit the survey at any time, hence, it was ensured that the survey responses of only the interested participants (N = 463) who had accessed the survey link and finished the online survey within the stipulated timeframe (5–10 minutes) were carefully recorded (Zaman et al. 2021). Eventually, verified survey responses of 463 islanders in Kauai were considered best suited (Nugroho and Numata 2020; Slabbert, du Plessis, and Digun-Aweto 2021) to empirically examine the hypothesized relationships between RT, FTA, TS, and RSTD, respectively.

Measures

The present study examined the fragmented literature on the latent constructs that facilitated the adaptation of measurement scales for foreign tourist attractiveness (comprising six-items) and residents’ support for tourism development (comprising four-items) (Kim et al. 2020; Stylidis, Sit, and Biran 2016; Stylidis et al. 2014; Zaman and Aktan 2021). Travel shaming (comprising nine-items) was designed based on theoretical insights from recent research (Cresswell 2021; Skinner 2021). In contrast, the measure for regenerative travel (comprising seven-items) was developed based on guidance from seminal research (Ateljevic 2020; Cave and Dredge 2020; Duxbury et al. 2020). Expert-level assessments on the presentation of scales by 11 judges, including six members of the tourism faculty (to judge content validity), and five practitioners in the tourism industry (to judge face validity) (Adam, Taale, and Adongo 2020). Necessary restructuring to ensure scale alignment was carefully performed based on the examiner’s detailed feedback. These procedures facilitated adequate assurances for the psychometric properties of the developed and adapted scales (Adam, Taale, and Adongo 2020; Bashir et al. 2021), also to proceed with the next step of the assessments, that is, data normality estimations, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), multicollinearity and discriminant validity verifications, and finally covariance based structural equation modeling (SEM) for the hypotheses testing (Anderson and Gerbing 1988; Khwaja and Zaman 2020). Lastly, all latent constructs were measured through a five-point Likert scale (i.e., ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

Data Analysis

Structural equation modeling (SEM) based applications have expanded substantially in recent years (Khwaja and Zaman 2020; Wang and Wang 2019). The present study used MPlus, a fully integrated “state-of-the-art” latent variable modeling program (version 7) to run the factor analysis (both exploratory and confirmatory), also the step-wise assessments of the measurement model and structural model, respectively (Narayanan 2012; Wang and Wang 2019). In contrast to some of the most popular statistical programs (e.g., AMOS, SmartPLS, and LISREL, etc.), Mplus provides more robust estimations (e.g., integrated modeling framework to handle latent, categorical, continuous, observed, and auxiliary variables) for covariance-based structural equation modeling (as known as CB-SEM), especially for testing hypotheses in complex models (e.g., moderated-mediation, mediated-moderation, and multi-level models) (Javadizadeh 2020; Narayanan 2012; Wang and Wang 2019; Zaman et al. 2021). Narayanan (2012) compared eight popular softwares for CB-SEM using multi-criteria (including documentation to parameter estimation). Mplus was identified as a superior software due to its unique and unified modeling features (e.g., conventional SEM, multilevel, growth curve, latent class analysis with and/or without covariates, growth, and finite mixture). In addition, Narayanan (2012) reported that Mplus is the only software for SEM that handles multiple imputation estimates in three-phases (i.e., imputation, analysis, and pooling). The initial stage data analysis for the present study included descriptive statistics on the socio-demographic profiles of the Kauai residents (as shown in Table 1) who had volunteered to fully complete the survey.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Demographics Characteristics (N = 463).

Description	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender
Male	163	35.2
Female	269	58.1
Prefer not to say	29	6.3
Other	2	0.4
Age (years)
18–24	66	14.3
25–34	81	17.5
35–44	127	27.4
45–54	122	26.3
55 and over	67	14.5
Education
High School or below	96	20.7
Bachelor’s Degree (or equivalent)	260	56.2
Master’s Degree (or equivalent)	93	20.1
Doctoral Degree (or equivalent)	14	3.0
Length of residence (years)
1–5	88	19.0
6–10	61	13.2
Over 10	314	67.8

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

The widely known Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin’s test (also known as KMO test; representing minimum threshold value > 0.6) and Bartlett’s sphericity test (representing maximum threshold value < 0.05) provided the pre-requisite measure (i.e., data suitability) for the factor analysis estimations of RT, FTA, TS, and RSTD respectively (Pett, Lackey, and Sullivan 2003). As represented in Table 3, the results established that the KMO and Bartlett’s test values remained within the acceptable criteria for all latent constructs. Taking into account two newly developed scales (i.e., regenerative travel and travel shaming), it was deemed mandatory to conduct exploratory factor analysis (EFA). In this step, the maximum likelihood estimation based on EFA examined the shared variance among the studied constructs. The EFA outcomes reflected the non-existence of commonalities and/or cross-loadings, thereby confirming that each item loaded properly on their respective factors (Bashir et al. 2021; Pett, Lackey, and Sullivan 2003).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Pattern Matrix-Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA).

Constructs	Items	TS	RT	FTA	RSTD
Travel shaming	TS1	0.799
	TS2	0.402
	TS3	0.456
	TS4	0.856
	TS5	0.916
	TS6	0.657
	TS7	0.854
	TS8	0.406
	TS9	0.859
Regenerative travel	RT1		0.774
	RT2		0.836
	RT3		0.794
	RT4		0.724
	RT5		0.583
	RT6		0.716
	RT7		0.558
Foreign tourist attractiveness	FTA1			0.792
	FTA2			0.630
	FTA3			0.868
	FTA4			0.833
	FTA5			0.940
	FTA6			0.760
Resident’s support for tourism development	RSTD1				0.836
	RSTD2				0.919
	RSTD3				0.803
	RSTD4				0.846
KMO and Bartlett’s test		0.769	0.863	0.902	0.889

Measurement Model

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) has been widely applauded as the prestige of covariance-based structural equation modeling (SEM). As graphically illustrated in Figure 2 and represented in Table 4, the CFA outcomes (denoted by λ) revealed item loadings much higher than the minimum threshold (i.e., loadings > 0.30) (Khwaja and Zaman 2020; Lowry and Gaskin 2014). Likewise, the corresponding values for exploratory factor analysis (denoted by ρ) were also found to be way above the cut-off point (i.e., ρ > 0.40) (Lowry and Gaskin 2014). Various estimations representing the goodness of fit indices for CFA, including absolute fit indices (χ² = 610.118, df = 289, χ²/df = 2.111, P = .000, GFI = 0.907, AGFI = 0.887, RMSEA = 0.049, SRMR = 0.044) and incremental fit indices (CFI = 0.954, NFI = 0.916, and TLI = 0.948), adequately met their acceptable range (Bashir et al. 2021; Khwaja and Zaman 2020). The construct validity, as well as the scale reliabilities, were also significantly established based on CFA estimates falling within the acceptable range (i.e., λ > 0.30), also Cronbach’s alpha values greater than 0.70 across all scales (Hair et al. 2016; Khwaja and Zaman 2020; Lowry and Gaskin 2014). Alongside EFA and CFA, the measurement model assessments revealed average variance extracted (AVE) values of RT, FTA, RSTD, and TS as 0.507, 0.582, 0.570, and 0.505 respectively, which were higher than the recommended range (AVE > 0.50). Moreover, the composite reliability (C.R) values of RT (0.875), FTA (0.832), RSTD (0.873), and TS (0.894) were also higher than the recommended threshold (CR > 0.70). Hence, the convergent validity of all scales (RT, FTA, TS, and RSTD) (shown in Table 4) was statistically established. Furthermore, Table 5 provides the statistical confirmation for the discriminant validity (and absence of multicollinearity issue) across the developed and adapted scales (Khwaja and Zaman 2020; Lowry and Gaskin 2014), as the AVE square root values (presented diagonally in bold) were higher than the inter-correlations among the studied constructs (Khwaja and Zaman 2020). Lastly, discriminant validity was also well established through variance inflation factor (VIF) values of FTA (1.305), TS (1.068), and RT (1.266) that were estimated within the permissible range (VIF < 3) (Khwaja and Zaman 2020; Lowry and Gaskin 2014).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Measurement model (N = 463).

Constructs and Items	Label	ρ	λ
Regenerative Travel (CR = 0.875; AVE = 0.507; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.868)
Foreign tourists visiting Kauai should participate more actively in. . ..
Improving our social, economic and environmental conditions	RT1	0.774	0.704
Enhancing our natural and cultural environment	RT2	0.836	0.852
Enriching our local communities	RT3	0.794	0.730
Enhancing the quality of life for local people and communities	RT4	0.724	0.788
Activities that help in reversing the climate change	RT5	0.583	0.651
Making our place better for both current and future generations	RT6	0.716	0.724
Leaving our place “better” than it was before	RT7	0.558	0.473
Foreign tourist attractiveness (CR = 0.832; AVE = 0.582; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.839)
I could be friends with a foreign tourist	FTA1	0.792	0.764
I would like spending time with foreign tourists	FTA2	0.630	0.709
Foreign tourists are pleasant to be around	FTA3	0.868	0.914
Foreign tourists are very friendly	FTA4	0.833	0.785
I enjoy friendly chats with foreign tourists	FTA5	0.940	0.932
In contrast to local tourists, I feel more attracted toward foreign tourists	FTA6	0.760	0.775
Residents’ support for tourism development (CR = 0.873; AVE = 0.570; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.801)
I support the current tourism developments in Kauai	RSTD1	0.836	0.880
Tourism should be further developed in Kauai	RSTD2	0.919	0.870
Local government should provide more funding to promote tourism in Kauai	RSTD3	0.803	0.847
The volume of foreign tourists visiting Kauai should be increased	RSTD4	0.846	0.872
Travel-shaming (CR = 0.894; AVE = 0.505; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.856)
I would make direct criticism of foreign tourists if they. . ..,
Ignore local cultures and dress codes	TS1	0.799	0.798
Violate local guidelines on health and safety	TS2	0.402	0.403
Put other’s safety at risk	TS3	0.456	0.443
Behave irresponsibly during travel	TS4	0.856	0.843
Do not adhere to our communal norms	TS5	0.916	0.904
Violate entry restrictions at specific places	TS6	0.657	0.621
Ignore restrictions on non-essential travel	TS7	0.854	0.864
Practice nudity at public places	TS8	0.406	0.388
Share photos of their travel on social media (e.g., Instagram, Facebook, etc.) during the COVID-19 pandemic	TS9	0.859	0.862

Note: ρ = factor loadings at ≥0.40 using EFA; CB-SEM threshold based on sample size (N = 463); λ > 0.30 and ρ > 0.40; λ = standardized factors loadings using CFA. CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

Multicollinearity and Discriminant Validity (N = 463).

	TS	RT	FTA	RSTD
TS	0.711
RT	0.195	0.712
FTA	0.242	0.532	0.755
RSTD	0.250	0.376	0.498	0.763

Note: Diagonal values (in bold) represent the square root of the estimated AVE values. RT = regenerative travel; FTA = foreign tourist attractiveness; TS = travel shaming; RSTD = residents’ support for tourism development.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Confirmatory factor analysis.

Structural Model

Before proceeding to hypotheses testing (with CB-SEM), the estimations representing the goodness of fit indices for SEM, including absolute fit indices (χ² = 631.900, df = 291, χ²/df = 2.171, p = .000, GFI = 0.904, AGFI = 0.884, RMSEA = 0.050, SRMR = 0.056) and incremental fit indices (CFI = 0.951, NFI = 0.913, and TLI = 0.945) were well-established as all estimates were within their acceptable range (Khwaja and Zaman 2020; Lowry and Gaskin 2014). As graphically presented in Figure 3, the present study examined the structural path relationships amongst the latent constructs (i.e., RT, FTA, TS, and RSTD) by using bootstrapping technique with 1,000 resampling iterations (Hair et al. 2016; Ullman and Bentler 2003). The structural path coefficients, as well as their corresponding level of significance (determined by p-values and t-statistics), revealed that RT has a positive (β = 0.177) and significant effect (t = 3.528; p < .05) on RSTD, hence hypothesis one was statistically supported (Hair et al. 2016; Zaman and Aktan 2021). This implies that the residents’ supportive behavior toward tourism development can be significantly enhanced in response to the foreign tourist’s regenerative travel behavior. Similarly, the results provided statistical support for accepting the second hypothesis, as RT also showed a positive (β = 0.644) and significant effect (t = 5.548; p < .05) on FTA (Zaman and Aktan 2021). This finding suggests that residents would feel higher levels of FTA, if and when the foreign tourists are more engaged in regenerative travel activities. As a consequence of resident’s higher level of FTA, it may subsequently translate into resident’s greater support for tourism development. The study results also establish this link through the acceptance of the third hypothesis that statistically confirmed a positive (β = 0.443) and significant effect (t = 7.497; p < .05) of FTA on RSTD. In addition, the fourth hypothesis, which stated that TS significantly moderates RT and FTA, was also statistically supported. The results revealed that TS negatively (β = −0.112) and significantly (t = −2.555; p < .05) moderates RT and FTA. This implies that the effects of RT on FTA may weaken in the presence of TS, especially when the foreign tourists are greatly exposed to TS incidents by the residents (Skinner 2021; Zaman and Aktan 2021). The SEM based hypotheses testing results have been tabulated, and presented in Table 6.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 6.

Results of Hypotheses (N = 463).

Hypotheses	Relationships	Path (β) Coefficients	t-Statistics	p	Outcomes
H1	RT → RSTD	0.177 **	3.528	<.01	Accepted
H2	RT → FTA	0.644 **	5.548	<.01	Accepted
H3	FTA → RSTD	0.443 **	7.497	<.01	Accepted
H4	RT × TS → FTA	−0.112 **	−2.555	<.01	Accepted
H5	RT → FTA → RSTD	0.265**	4.344	<.01	Accepted

Note: RT = regenerative travel; FTA = foreign tourist attractiveness; TS = travel shaming; RSTD = residents’ support for tourism development.

**

p < .01.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Structural path model.

Moreover, the results also provided statistical support for accepting the fifth hypothesis as FTA significantly mediated (β = 0.265; t = 4.344; p < .05) RT and RSTD (Zaman and Aktan 2021). This implies that RT has a direct as well as an indirect effect (through FTA) on RSTD. The direct effects of RT on RSTD remained statistically significant, while its indirect effect (through FTA) was also found to be significant. Hence, the results established that FTA “significantly and partially” mediated RT and RSTD (Hair et al. 2016). SEM-based overall study results on the five hypotheses have been tabulated and presented in Table 6. Lastly, as shown in Figure 3, the calculated coefficient of determination (represented by R²) values for FTA (R² = 0.24) and RSTD (R² = 0.20) confirmed adequate explanations for the variance and predictive power of the study model (Hair et al. 2016; Khwaja and Zaman 2020). This implies that both RT and TS collectively explained 24% of the variance in FTA. Likewise, RT and FTA collectively explained 20% of the variance in RSTD (Hair et al. 2016; Zaman and Aktan 2021). Eminent scholars have presented a mixed interpretation of the recommended range for the coefficient of determination, for example, R² ≥ 0.10 is deemed adequate (Breiman and Friedman 1985; Falk and Miller 1992), R² ≥ 0.26 is substantial (Cohen 1992; 2013), R² between 0.13 and 0.25 is moderate (Cohen 1992; 2013), R² = 0.33 is moderate (Chin 1998) and R² = 0.25 is weak (Hair et al. 2016). Importantly, a bare minimum 10% coefficient of determination (R² ≥ 0.10) has been recommended as adequate for social sciences research setting, as human behavior cannot be predicted accurately (Breiman and Friedman 1985; Cohen 1992; 2013; Falk and Miller 1992; Li et al. 2021; Yu, Sirgy, and Bosnjak 2021). Leading tourism scholars have also recently reported a coefficient of determination (R²) in the range of 12.6%–16.7% (Zheng, Luo, and Ritchie 2022), 16.14%–24.74% (Li et al. 2021), 16%–23% (Erul and Woosnam, 2021), and 11.9%–12.5% (Chark, King, and Tang 2022) to establish the legitimacy of their empirical findings, also supported by various “goodness of fit” indices for CFA and SEM (Li et al. 2021; Zheng, Luo, and Ritchie 2022).

Theoretical and Practical Implications

Despite the growing literature on various underlying factors for residents’ support for tourism development, there is still a lack of empirical evidence on the widely-debated attributions of regenerative travel, especially under constraints of emerging tourism challenges (i.e., travel shaming and foreign tourist attractiveness) (Duxbury et al. 2020; Skinner 2021; Zaman and Aktan 2021). As asserted by numerous tourism scholars and experts, regenerative travel may be the divine cure for global tourism destinations, also keeping into account the high-stake involvement of host residents in supporting tourism developments (Ateljevic 2020). The present study provides the first empirical evidence on the significant effects of regenerative travel on the residents’ support for tourism development, allowing future studies to quantify, extend or replicate this finding in a multi-destination context (Erul and Woosnam 2021; Zaman and Aktan 2021). The present study findings provide interesting insights and extensions to the underlying theories, for example, social exchange theory (i.e., foreign tourist attractiveness emerging from resident-tourist interaction and social exchange), stakeholder theory (i.e., resident’s evaluation of regenerative travel behavior), emotional solidarity theory (i.e., resident’s positive assessment of foreign tourist attractiveness based on regenerative travel behavior), and social disruption theory (i.e., new knowledge on travel shaming based travelers ignorance of local culture, health, and safety protocols) (Cave and Dredge 2020; Skinner 2021; Zaman and Aktan 2021; Zaman et al. 2021).

The current study also accumulates tourism literature on regenerative travel and residents’ supportive behavior toward tourism development by highlighting the significant influence of foreign tourist attractiveness (through its mediating effect) and travel shaming (through its moderating effect) (Erul and Woosnam 2021). Hence, the crucial role of foreign tourist attractiveness and travel shaming may redefine the effects of regenerative travel and residents’ support for tourism development at various destinations (Cave and Dredge 2020; Skinner 2021; Stylidis, Sit, and Biran 2016; Zaman and Aktan 2021). Notably, the moderating influence of travel shaming may decay the effect of regenerative travel on residents’ support for tourism development, as foreign tourist attractiveness continues to fade away (Woosnam and Norman 2010; Zaman and Aktan 2021). Although residents’ supportive behaviors toward tourism development is a long-standing issue gaining utmost importance with recent studies, the present study significantly contributes to the scholarly dialog by highlighting the role of regenerative travel and the occurrence of travel shaming that may undermine foreign tourist attractiveness (Sheller 2021; Skinner 2021; Zaman and Aktan 2021). While limited efforts have been made to empirically examine foreign tourist attractiveness and its effects on residents’ support for tourism development (Zaman and Aktan 2021), the information on the influential role of regenerative travel and travel shaming remains largely ignored (Duxbury et al. 2020; Skinner 2021; Zaman and Aktan 2021). Hence, the present study clarifies the discrepant evidence on foreign tourist attractiveness by uncovering theoretical explanations on regenerative travel and travel shaming that may make foreign tourists more or less attractive (Cave and Dredge 2020; Koren and Pető 2020; Zaman and Aktan 2021).

Keeping guard of the residents’ support for tourism development is highly critical for practitioners today while they develop and implement policies to manage tourism destinations (Qin et al. 2021). Contrary to the closed-doors policy during the heartbreaking COVID-19 tourism, the post-pandemic global tourism needs to welcome destination-healing mechanisms (i.e., regenerative travel) inclusive of major stakeholders’ involvement (i.e., foreign tourists and residents) to gradually restore and develop destinations (Ateljevic 2020; Brouder et al. 2020). From the tourism planning and marketing standpoint, destinations can greatly benefit by implementing and promoting regenerative tourism policies that can evoke foreign tourist attractiveness among residents, also generate their support for tourism development. Not to be confused with sustainable tourism, regenerative travel can be the catalyst to explore the hidden gems of destinations while leaving the place behind, better than before (Ateljevic 2020). Furthermore, destination marketers need to focus on residents’ travel shaming intentions, as it can significantly undermine the quality of resident-tourist interaction especially the foreign tourist attractiveness (Skinner 2021; Zaman and Aktan 2021; Zheng, Luo, and Ritchie 2022). One possible way to reduce travel shaming incidents can be creating greater awareness and subsequent enforcement of the travel requirements and guidelines that align with the interest of both residents and tourists (Aleshinloye et al. 2022; Zaman et al. 2021). When foreign tourists have no fear of being travel shamed, then they are more likely to create a positive impact on residents and local communities by supporting various means of development (i.e., environmental, cultural, economic, and social developments) at tourism destinations (Sheller 2021; Skinner 2021; Zaman et al. 2021). Lastly, regenerative travel cannot singlehandedly build on the residents’ support for tourism development unless substantial behavioral interventions are introduced to discourage travel shaming and subsequently promote foreign tourist attractiveness (Cave and Dredge 2020; Kim et al. 2020; Skinner 2021). Hence, taking advantage of these novel findings, tourism destinations expecting a massive tourism rebound (e.g., Hawaii, Spain, Italy, and Turkey) and an influx of fully vaccinated travelers, can leverage regenerative tourism policies to ensure greener, smarter, and less crowded destinations (Cave and Dredge 2020; Duxbury et al. 2020; Zaman et al. 2021). Consequently, regenerative travel can restore resident’s trust and support, as tourism will no longer be considered as a curse (e.g., adverse impact on social, economic, and cultural environment), instead, a blessing for flourishing destinations through regeneration (Duxbury et al. 2020).

Limitations and Future Research

Taking advantage of a potential research gap, the present study makes significant contributions by developing and validating a holistic (i.e., moderated-mediation) model of residents’ support for tourism development, in addition to presenting two new scales (i.e., regenerative travel and travel shaming) (Duxbury et al. 2020; Qin et al. 2021; Skinner 2021; Zaman and Aktan 2021). However, the present study also expresses some noteworthy limitations due to its specific scope and resource constraints. In view of the recent groundbreaking policies on regenerative tourism launched by the Kauai Tourism Authority, the present study considered Kauai residents as the most appropriate population and sampling frame to analyze the conceptual model. Hence, the reflections on these latent constructs (i.e., RT, FTA, TS, and RSTD) by the Kauai residents, may generally differ from the non-Kauai residents (Zaman and Aktan 2021). Future studies may take advantage of multi-group assessments by involving residents in a cross-county context (especially in Hawaii) and/or cross-country perspective. Moreover, future studies may also analyze residents’ support for tourism development through the lens of social psychology theories (e.g., Elaboration Likelihood Model, and Heuristic-Systematic Model), benefiting from a socio-demographic focus (e.g., language, religion, ethnicity, occupation, and extent of urbanization), also taking into account other underlying factors (e.g., community or place attachment, residents’ quality of life, personality, tolerance, and cultural values, etc.) (Duxbury et al. 2020; Qin et al. 2021; Zaman and Aktan 2021). Lastly, it would be interesting to explore the increasing awareness of regenerative travel behavior across tourism stakeholders (i.e., tourists, residents, and tourism planners) to better assess their implicit and explicit wisdom (e.g., balanced application of cognitive, reflective, and affective characteristics) for selecting tourism destination brands (Aktan, Zaman, and Nawaz 2021), as well as responsible consumption pattern of touristic products and services (Ardelt, Ferrari, and Shi 2020; Giesler and Veresiu 2014; Zaman et al. 2021).

Conclusion

Regenerative travel is shaping critical conversations in global tourism to embrace new and transformative solutions (e.g., net benefit model inclusive of all tourism stakeholders) to address some of the intensifying threats to humankind (e.g., climate change, depleting planetary resources, alarming scale of global warming, and greenhouse gas emissions) (Ateljevic 2020; Cave and Dredge 2020; Gretzel et al. 2020). While destinations aggressively compete in attracting more foreign tourists as their major source of revenue, regenerative travel is being branded as the savior of global tourism in the post-pandemic world (Ateljevic 2020; Kim et al. 2020; Zaman and Aktan 2021). Experiencing a new wave of anti-tourist sentiments (i.e., travel shaming) emerging globally across destinations, the residents’ support in tourism developments has become highly critical than ever before (Qin et al. 2021; Skinner 2021). Addressing the lack of empirical evidence, the present study explored the effects of regenerative travel on the residents’ support for tourism development under moderating-mediating effects of travel shaming and foreign tourist attractiveness. Taking advantage of the adapted scales (i.e., FTA and RSTD), the study also developed and validated two new scales (i.e., RT and TS) to empirically confirm significant associations among the latent constructs (i.e., direct effects of RT on RSTD, mediating effects of FTA, and moderating effects of TS) (Ateljevic 2020; Skinner 2021; Zaman and Aktan 2021). The study findings offer initial evidence to guide academics, researchers, and tourism practitioners in rendering their response to the emerging challenges, potential solutions, and underlying relationships that significantly affect residents’ support for tourism development in the post-pandemic world (Fotiadis, Polyzos, and Huan 2021; Qin et al. 2021).