Exploring Community Self-efficacy to Light Pollution Mitigation in A Tourism Destination

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview of studies integrating the Motivation-Opportunity- Ability (MOA) Model with self-efficacy.

Purpose	Context	Integration of self-efficacy on the MOA model	Source
To explore the role of self-congruity, functional congruity, perceived travel constraints, constraint negotiation, and self-efficacy on travel intentions.	Consumer behavior of tourists in cruise tourism	Ability is measured by self-efficacy	(Hung & Petrick, 2012)
To explore how the Motivation-Opportunity-Ability (MOA) model would benefit from integrating self and group efficacy theory.	Consumer behavior of tourists in a street music festival	Group Efficacy and Self-efficacy as mediators between motivation, Ability, Opportunity, and participation levels	(Jepson et al., 2014)
To explore the Motivation-Opportunity- Ability (MOA) model to assess the predictors of aesthetic experience, moderated by distrust of technology and social influence.	Tourists who used AR in cultural heritage tourism	Ability measured by self-efficacy	(Lee et al., 2015)
To explore how motivation, opportunity, ability (MOA) model and the self-efficacy (S-E) component of the social cognitive theory (SCT), to access how students engage with their program of study.	Engagement of students with their program of study in the area of Event Management.	Group Efficacy and Self-efficacy as mediators between motivation, Ability, Opportunity, and Student participation and student engagement.	(Jepson & Ryan, 2018)
To explore how motivation, opportunity, ability (MOA) model and the self-efficacy (S-E) component of the social cognitive theory (SCT), to access how community can be involved in light pollution mitigation in a tourism destination that implemented actions to protect the night sky.	Community involvement in light pollution mitigation in a tourism destination	Motivation to light pollution mitigation, opportunity and ability as antecedents of self-efficacy and participation and support of tourism as outcomes	Current study

Figure 1. Proposed conceptual framework.

Framework with antecedents and outcomes of self-efficacy grounded on social cognitive theory considering gender and profession related to tourism as control variables.

Figure 2. Map of the Starlight Tourism Destination Dark Sky Alqueva.

Map with all Portuguese and Spanish municipalities that are part of the territory of Starlight Tourism Destination Dark Sky Alqueva.

Table 2. Profile of the focus group participants.

Gender	Age	Profession	Number
Female	56	Teacher	R1
Female	50	Tourism Professional	R2
Male	60	Owner of a local business establishment	R3
Male	45	Artist	R4
Female	32	Owner of a local business establishment	R5
Female	50	Owner of a local business establishment	R6
Female	34	Tourism Professional	R7
Male	44	Owner of a local business establishment	R8
Male	39	Public worker	R9

Table 3. Socio demographic characteristics.

Characteristics	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Female	180	51.1
Male	172	48.9
Age
18–35	120	34.1
36–55	148	42.0
>55	84	23.9
Education
Elementary School	12	3.4
High School	204	58.0
College-University	136	38.6
Employment status
Full-time employee	226	64.2
Freelance Professional/businessman	16	4.5
Student	97	27.6
Pensioner	7	2.0
Unemployed	6	1.7
Profession related to tourism
Yes	121	34.3
No	231	65.6

Table 4. Measurement model.

Construct	FL	M	SD
Motivation (Light Pollution Mitigation) (Based on the review of the literature and focus group) CA = 0.832, CR (rho_a) = 0.842, CR (rho_c)= 0.887, AVE = 0.664
Ending light pollution saves resources (electricity)	0.801	5.6	1.52
Ending light pollution has positive health effects (e.g. prevents insomnia)	0.809	5.3	1.64
Ending light pollution allows nature to be preserved (plants and animals in the region)	0.860	5.4	1.60
Ending light pollution enables tourism development (dark sky observation. astrotourism)	0.786	5.3	1.74
Opportunity (Latip et al., 2018; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017) CA = 0.898, CR (rho_a) = 0.902, CR (rho_c)= 0.924, AVE = 0.710
The local authorities are in touch with the local community	0.808	4.3	1.64
The local community is consulted or informed of new management decisions	0.857	3.8	1.75
Community interest in natural resource use is incorporated in reviewing management plans	0.867	4.0	1.72
Local people are involved in protecting the night sky	0.826	3.7	1.79
Local people are involved in the planning of training and capacity building program	0.854	3.7	1.77
Ability (Latip et al., 2018) CA = 0.839, CR (rho_a) = 0.843, CR (rho_c)= 0.893, AVE = 0.676
Tourism should be integrated with light pollution mitigation (protection of the night sky)	0.865	5.2	1.60
Economic gains of tourism are as important as the protection of the night sky	0.769	5.0	1.71
The night sky together with the landscape needs greater protection	0.835	5.7	1.42
Increasing tourism will not harm the night sky protection	a
There should be more light pollution policies for conservation and tourism development	0.817	5.4	1.56
Self-efficacy (Wang & Xu, 2015) CA = 0.880, CR (rho_a) = 0.882, CR (rho_c)= 0.926, AVE = 0.806
More tourism development in Alentejo makes me feel more confident in changing occupations if I'm not satisfied with my current one	0.898	4.8	1.79
More tourism development in Alentejo makes me feel more confident in finding my ideal job in Alentejo	0.921	4.8	1.82
Tourism development in Alentejo makes me feel more confident in enjoying the lifestyle of my own	0.874	5.1	1.74
Participation (Latip et al., 2018) CA = 0.782, CR (rho_a) = 0.783, CR (rho_c)= 0.873, AVE = 0.696
Direct involvement of local people will improve the conservation of the night sky	0.836	5.2	1.57
Local people involved in tourism management will improve the experiences of tourists	0.804	5.9	1.22
Local residents can better protect the night sky	0.862	5.1	1.58
Support of Tourism (Wang & Xu, 2015) CA = 0.852, CR (rho_a) = 0.858, CR (rho_c)= 0.894, AVE = 0.629
I’d like Alentejo to attract more tourists	0.817	5.8	1.45
I’d like Alentejo to add more nature-based attractions	0.805	6.4	1.08
Alentejo should invest more in developing tourism	0.829	6.1	1.26
Local taxes should be used to support Alentejo tourism development	0.764	5.6	1.61
The region should think of all types of sustainable tourism development	0.746	6.3	1.12

Note: FL = Factor Loading; M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; CA = Cronbach’s Alpha; CR = Composite Reliability; a = deleted; AVE-Average Variance Extracted.

Table 5. Discriminant validity.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
1.Ability	0.822	0.435	0.790	0.487	0.518	0.703
2.Opportunity	0.377	0.843	0.381	0.487	0.257	0.229
3.Participation	0.639	0.322	0.835	0.445	0.419	0.771
4.Self-efficacy	0.421	0.436	0.370	0.898	0.488	0.335
5.Support	0.437	0.233	0.338	0.427	0.793	0.304
6.Motivation	0.592	0.201	0.623	0.290	0.253	0.815

Note: Bottom-left Fornell Lacker criterion; top-right in bold Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) criterion.

Table 6. Structural results.

Direct Effect	Beta	STDEV	t-value	p values	Confidence Interval		f^2	VIF	Hypothesis
					2.5%	97.5%
Motivation→Self-efficacy	0.075	0.064	1.167 ns	0.243	−0.038	0.214	0.005	1.540	H1:not supported
Opportunity→Self-efficacy	0.325	0.054	6.005***	0.000	0.218	0.433	0.124	1.167	H2:supported
Ability→Self-efficacy	0.254	0.072	3.532***	0.000	0.110	0.390	0.051	1.723	H3:supported
Self-efficacy→Participation	0.370	0.056	6.594***	0.000	0.259	0.482	0.158	1.000	H4:supported
Self-efficacy→Support	0.427	0.048	8.979***	0.000	0.336	0.523	0.223	1.000	H5:supported
Specific Indirect effect	Beta	STDEV	t-value	p values	2.5%	97.5%
Ability→Self-efficacy→Support	0.109	0.036	2.987	0.003	0.044	0.184
Opportunity→Self-efficacy→Support	0.139	0.028	4.893	0.000	0.088	0.201
Motivation→Self-efficacy→Support	0.032	0.027	1.165	0.244	−0.017	0.091
Motivation → Self-efficacy →Participation	0.028	0.026	1.076	0.282	−0.014	0.089
Opportunity→Self-efficacy→ Participation	0.120	0.025	4.885	0.000	0.076	0.173
Ability→Self-efficacy→Participation	0.094	0.034	2.742	0.006	0.036	0.167
R^2 Self-efficacy	0.271	Q^2 Self-efficacy		0.216
R^2 Participation	0.137	Q^2 Participation		0.117
R^2 Support	0.182	Q^2 Support		0.163

Note: STDEV- Standard deviation; ***p < 0.001; ns Not Significant; VIF-Variance Inflation Factor; f²-effect size.

Table 7. MGA results for moderation.

Moderating effect	MGA β Difference (Female - Male)	2-tailed (Female vs Male) p value	MGA β Difference (yes – no)	2-tailed (yes vs no) p value
Ability→Self-efficacy	0.240	0.087	0.168	0.230
Opportunity→Self-efficacy	−0.118	0.269	−0.162	0.123
Self-efficacy→Participation	0.205	0.054	0.171	0.100
Self-efficacy→Support	0.000	0.999	0.081	0.368
Motivation→Self-efficacy	−0.051	0.679	0.152	0.247

Hung, K., & Petrick, J. F. (2012). Testing the effects of congruity, travel constraints, and self-efficacy on travel intentions: An alternative decision-making model. Tourism Management, 33(4), 855–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.09.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jepson, A., Clarke, A., & Ragsdell, G. (2014). Investigating the application of the motivation–opportunity–ability model to reveal factors which facilitate or inhibit inclusive engagement within local community festivals. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 14(3), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2014.946230

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lee, H., Chung, N., & Koo, C. (2015). Moderating effects of distrust and social influence on aesthetic experience of augmented reality: Motivation–opportunity–abil- ity model perspective. Paper Presented at the Proceed- Ings of the 17th International Conference on Electronic Commerce 2015.

 Google Scholar

Jepson, A., & Ryan, G. W. (2018). Applying the motivation, opportunity, ability (MOA) model, and Self-Efficacy (S-E) to better understand student engagement on undergraduate event management programs’. Event Management, 22(2), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.3727/152599518X15173356116718

 Google Scholar

Latip, N. A., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jafaar, M., Marzuki, A., & Umar, M. U. (2018). Indigenous participation in conservation and tourism development: A case of native people of Sabah, Malaysia. International Journal of Tourism Research, 20(3), 400–409. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2191

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jafaar, M., Ahmad, A. G., & Barghi, R. (2017). Community participation in World Heritage Site conservation and tourism development. Tourism Management, 58, 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.016

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wang, S., & Xu, H. (2015). Influence of place-based senses of distinctiveness, continuity, self-esteem and self-efficacy on residents’ attitudes toward tourism. Tourism Management, 47, 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar