Applying a Loyalty Mechanism to Residents and Tourists in Depopulating Areas : Satisfaction Surveys and Interviews

Ⅰ. Introduction

Human preferences for specific areas are often expressed through direct actions like residing in or frequently visiting those areas, reflecting what marketing studies identify as ‘loyalty.’ In business administration, the concept of loyalty arose as market competition grew fiercer. A loyal customer continuously chooses a specific product or service, even when alternative options exist, because of their attachment to it. Managing loyal customers is advantageous over attracting new ones: they not only spend more on the brand but also generate positive word of mouth, enhancing brand reputation (Ganesh et al., 2000; Zeithaml et al., 1996). Consequently, nurturing loyal customers is crucial for sustained business success (Kato, 2019).

Intensified market competition parallels the challenges encountered by various cities striving to retain their populations amid demographic declines. In South Korea, marked shifts such as decreasing birth rates and rapid aging have escalated into pressing national issues, particularly affecting rural areas. These demographic changes are now seen as a crisis, prompting local governments to implement diverse strategies to mitigate the impact and stabilize their communities. In this context, it is crucial to prioritize policies that secure populations with high loyalty to the areas (product) to prevent shrinkage in addition to inducing the influx of population and increasing the birth rate. Additionally, since the issue of population decline is closely related to supporting the regional economy, it is necessary to also consider continuously attracting visitors, such as tourists, to the area. Indeed, attracting tourists consistently appears as one of the solutions for addressing rural population decline in South Korea.

At the local level, the duration of stay can be categorized as long-term or short-term, with long-term referring to residents and short-term to visitors. From this perspective, the goal should be to encourage long-term residents to remain and short-term visitors to return, addressing critical issues such as population decline and rural extinction. When applying the satisfaction-loyalty mechanism to behaviors associated with ‘residing’ and ‘visiting’ a specific ‘place,’ most studies have concentrated on tourist destinations. For example, (Yoon and Uysal, 2005) examined the causal link between tourist motivations, satisfaction, and destination loyalty, emphasizing that managing satisfaction is vital for encouraging behaviors like recommendations and revisits, which are key to destination competitiveness. In contrast, research on place loyalty from residents’ perspectives remains limited. Studies such as (Shaykh-Baygloo, 2020), which investigated place attachment and loyalty, and (Gilboa and Herstein, 2012), which analyzed differences in place loyalty based on area status, reveal this gap while pointing to significant opportunities for further exploration.

Thus, this study extends the satisfaction-loyalty mechanism, traditionally utilized in business and tourism, to residential contexts. It categorizes loyalty into attitudinal and behavioral loyalty, aiming to explore and compare the structures from the perspectives of both residents and tourists. Yeoncheon-gun in Gyeonggi Province, South Korea, an area facing population decline, is selected as the case study site. Researchers plan to conduct direct surveys with residents and tourists in key locations. Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modeling (CB-SEM) will be employed to analyze the data and determine the causal relationships between variables. Follow-up interviews with residents of Yeoncheon-gun are intended to further interpret the findings and suggest strategic and policy directions to combat population decline.

In the field of regional planning, investigations that simultaneously assess the perspectives of both residents and tourists within specific areas, especially concerning local sustainability, are limited. This approach bridges the gap between the extensive evidence in tourism research and the comparatively limited exploration in residential research, integrating these fields comprehensively.

Ⅱ. Literature Review

Ⅲ. Methodology

2. Conceptual Models

In this study, loyalty, which has often been used as a single variable in previous research, was categorized into attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty. For the sustainability of the area, it is essential to promote the continuous residence and visitation of people. Hence, ‘attitudinal loyalty,’ measured by the intention to recommend the area to others, and ‘behavioral loyalty,’ measured by the intention to continue living or visiting, were used to explore the relationship with satisfaction towards the area of residence/visit. Model 1, based on previous studies, was specified to examine the impact of residential/visit satisfaction on both attitudinal and behavioral loyalty. Model 2 was designed such that while satisfaction influences both types of loyalty, attitudinal loyalty also impacts behavioral loyalty (See <Figure 1>).

Figure 1.

Conceptual model

3. Survey

The survey was conducted in Baekhak-myeon and Jangnam-myeon, located in the southwest of Yeoncheon-gun (See <Figure 2>). With assistance from a resident, this study employed on-site survey methods and administered surveys between September and November 2022 at Baekhak-myeon and Jangnam-myeon. The survey targeting residents was conducted at community hubs, including administrative welfare centers, village events venues, and local shopping districts. Concurrently, the survey focusing on tourists was conducted at a local festival venue that attracts many visitors. Questionnaires were distributed to individuals who demonstrated a willingness to participate in the study. To enhance response rates and the sincerity of responses, respondents were incentivized with gifts, such as umbrellas or gift cards worth KRW 5,000. The expenses associated with the survey were supported by funding from (Name of Institution-to be added later).

Figure 2.

Research site

The survey consisted of approximately two pages of questions, developed in Korean, based on prior research in both tourism (Lee et al., 2007; Ramkissoon et al., 2013; Tasci et al., 2022; Yuksel et al., 2010) and urban studies (Gilboa and Herstein, 2012; Shaykh-Baygloo, 2020). These questions targeted aspects of satisfaction and loyalty from the perspectives of both residents and tourists. To ensure responses were contextually relevant, the survey was tailored to distinguish between residents and tourists—residents answered questions based on the area of residence, and tourists based on the area of visit. Attitudinal loyalty was assessed through the intention to recommend their residential or visitation site. Behavioral loyalty was measured by the intention of residents to continue living in their current area and the intention of tourists to revisit the area. Responses were captured on a 7-point scale, and demographic information such as gender, age, years of residence (for residents), and number of visits (for tourists) was also collected.

Ⅳ. Results

1. Survey

1) Survey Respondent Characteristics

A total of 424 participants, comprising 189 residents and 235 tourists, took part in the survey. In the residents’ survey, 172 out of the 189 collected responses were utilized for analysis, after discarding incomplete responses. Similarly, for the tourist survey, 231 out of the 235 survey responses were included in the analysis, after excluding 4 cases with incomplete answers that failed to measure a specific concept. Upon examining the composition of survey respondents in both the resident and tourist groups, it was found that there was sufficient variation, confirming its appropriateness for use in inferential statistical analysis.

2) Measurement Models

<Table 1> presents the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) results. In the residents’ model, the ratio of chi-square to its degrees of freedom was 2.036, indicating a good fit. Additional fit statistics were as follows: CFI = 0.983, SRMR = 0.038, and RMSEA = 0.078. In the tourists’ model, the ratio of chi-square to its degrees of freedom was 2.308, indicating a good fit. Additional fit statistics were as follows: CFI = 0.983, SRMR = 0.023, RMSEA = 0.075.

Table 1.

Factor items, internal consistency, and convergent validity

All the scales satisfied the internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (above 0.7), Composite Reliability (CR) tests (above 0.7, Fornell and Larcker, 1981), and the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values (close to or above 0.5, Bagozzi, 1994), showing that all scales had high reliability and validity. Therefore, the internal validity of the measurement model was adequate in both groups.

The intercorrelations between construct pairs were further examined to assess discriminant validity (see <Table 2>). All construct pairs were less than the square root of each construct’s AVE estimates, providing discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2009). Therefore, based on the model fit indices and consistency with prior research, the measurement model was considered acceptable.

Table 2.

Latent variables correlation matrix (Fornell-Larcker criterion) discriminant validity

3) Structural Models

Model 1 (Figures 3 and 4) examines the effects of satisfaction on each loyalty dimension. In the model for residents, the impact of residential satisfaction on both attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty was significant (0.616 and 0.758, respectively). However, the model did not meet the fit indices required (χ²/df = 3.094, RMSEA = 0.110, SRMR = 0.104, CFI = 0.964, NFI = 0.948, TLI = 0.951). Similarly, in the model for tourists, the paths from visit satisfaction to both attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty were significantly demonstrated (0.854 and 0.750, respectively). However, the model did not satisfy the required fit indices (χ²/df = 4.567, RMSEA = 0.124, SRMR = 0.115, CFI = 0.953, NFI = 0.941, TLI = 0.941).

Figure 3.

Structural model 1 (residents)

Figure 4.

Structural model 1 (tourists)

Model 2 (Figures 5 and 6) incorporates the causal relationship between attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty, adding a path where attitudinal loyalty influences behavioral loyalty into the model. In the resident model, all paths were significant (p<0.01), and all model fit indices met the required standards (χ²/df= 2.036, RMSEA= 0.078, SRMR=0.038, CFI = 0.983, NFI = 0.967, TLI = 0.976). The tourist model also met all the required model fit criteria (χ²/df = 2.308, RMSEA = 0.075, SRMR = 0.023, CFI = 0.983, NFI= 0.971, TLI= 0.978). While visit satisfaction had a direct and significant impact on attitudinal loyalty (p<0.01), it did not directly affect behavioral loyalty, instead influencing it indirectly through attitudinal loyalty.

Figure 5.

Structural model 2 (residents)

Figure 6.

Structural model 2 (tourists)

As indicated by the path coefficients in <Table 3>, the impact of residential satisfaction on behavioral loyalty was greater than its impact on attitudinal loyalty, with the direct effect (0.463) being more substantial than the indirect effect (0.276). However, in the tourist model, the impact of visit satisfaction on behavioral loyalty was not significant, indicating that the indirect effect (0.646) was more substantial.

Table 3.

Estimates for the structural model

2. Interview

1) Interview Participants’ Characteristics

Among the total of 12 participants interviewed, 7 had resided in Yeoncheon-gun for about 10 years after relocating, and 5 had lived there for over 20 years. The respondents consisted of 6 males and 6 females, with 7 in their 50s, 5 in their 60s, and 1 in their 70s (see <Table 4>). All participants were actively engaged as Geopark guides or travel guides in Yeoncheon-gun, interacting directly with tourists.

Table 4.

Interview participants

2) Residents’ Loyalty

In responses to questions about the duration of residence and reasons for relocation, residents who had lived in Yeoncheon for approximately ten years reported that their reasons for moving included: acquaintances living in the area (3 respondents), returning to their hometown in Yeoncheon (2 respondents), moving for farming purposes (1 respondent), and other reasons for relocating to a rural area (1 respondent). These responses indicate that recommendations from others have indeed had a positive influence on their decisions to move. The experience of recommending Yeoncheon to others was relatively common among interviewees who have relocated there. Residents who have lived in Yeoncheon for over 20 years mentioned that while they consider it a good place for retirees, they generally do not recommend it to others.

G (10 years residence): “While giving tours and learning more about Yeoncheon, I realized there are so many wonderful and historic places here. As I introduced the area to friends who visited, they found it amazing. It’s so close to Seoul, and because of that, I even started recommending it as a good place to live.”

J (11 years residence): “I actually recommend Yeoncheon to younger families with kids, especially for raising children up to high school. I take part in forest activities with my kids, and it’s so different from Seoul. There’s no fierce competition, and each child is valued, making one-on-one education truly possible ...”

C (60 years residence): “No, I don’t. Before turning 60, I actually used to tell people to live elsewhere.”

E (45 years residence): “I don’t think I’ve really recommended living here. I don’t recall ever encouraging my relatives or anyone else to move here.”

Most residents interviewed expressed no intention of leaving their current place of residence. Deciding where to live is influenced by various personal, social, and economic factors, making it a more cautious and challenging decision compared to simply purchasing a general product. Participants explained that their decision to relocate or stay is not only influenced by their own desires but also by considerations involving their spouses, children, and financial circumstances, which sometimes lead them to hesitate despite a desire to move.

E (45 years residence): “Personally, my dream is to live in an apartment at least once. But I can’t make a move because my husband won’t budge ... So, I think I’ll just keep living here ...”

B (10 years residence): “When I first moved here, I planned to leave because farming didn’t go well. But I ended up settling down because of the kids.”

3) Tourists’ Loyalty

Residents who serve as UNESCO Geopark or tourism guides reported encountering tourists primarily from areas near Seoul City. They noted that recommendations come not only from personal connections but also through indirect channels like online platforms and broadcast media. Older visitors, those over 60, often discover local festivals and attractions through television and other promotional outlets. In contrast, younger visitors tend to find Yeoncheon through social media or are drawn by opportunities such as camping. The respondents observed a significant number of repeat visitors, with the revisit rate estimated between 30% and 40%. This estimate closely matches the findings of prior surveys conducted by the researchers, which reported a revisit rate of 40.7%.

D: “There are a lot of repeat visitors. When we ask, “How many times have you been here?” or “Is this your first visit?” there are, of course, some first-timers. But in terms of tours, there are a significant number of repeat visitors. Even on city tours, most participants are repeat visitors.”

H: There are people who say, “I visited Jaein Waterfall about 10 years ago,” or “I came here 5 years ago.” Some mention coming here previously with friends for a gathering and now returning for another visit.”

I: “These days, repeat visits seem to be more common. Visitors come back, sometimes bringing others with them to places like Jaein Waterfall. They enjoy tea, breathe the fresh air, and leave feeling refreshed. There are also events held at various historical sites, which align with specific seasons or periods, drawing people back…”

J: “As for repeat visits, I think they only account for about 30% to 40%, based on my impression.”

However, while efforts to attract tourists through recommendations and encourage repeat visits are essential, the respondents also discussed the area’s limitations and aspects needing improvement. Concerns were expressed that visitors who come based on recommendations might be disappointed, which could hinder the creation of loyal customers. Specifically, in the case of Yeoncheon, the site of this study, it was noted that the scale and development of tourism infrastructure are inadequate compared to other areas. Therefore, there is a need to create elements that can compensate for these regional limitations.

F: “One of the biggest weaknesses is that it’s very one-off. People visit once, but there’s no follow-up or connection after that. For example, this area doesn’t have the stunning landscapes of places like Gapyeong or Yangpyeong, nor the impressive mountain ranges of Pocheon or Cheorwon. It also lacks the well-organized features that make other areas stand out.”

L: “Some visitors who came to places like Jaein Waterfall or Horogoru said they enjoyed it and shared their experiences with their acquaintances. However, among those acquaintances, about 5 out of 10 would question, “Why would you recommend a place like this?” Many visitors expressed that while they had high expectations coming here, their experience didn’t quite live up to those expectations.”

They argued that to enhance tourist satisfaction and loyalty, it is crucial to move beyond passive touristic offerings that merely involve seeing, eating, and stopping. Instead, there should be an active development of programs that integrate experiences, education, and relaxation.

C: “It’s important to focus on transforming this area from simply a place for eating, sightseeing, and leisure into a haven where urban people can experience something new and take on challenges while also finding a place to relax.”

E: “I’ve realized that many campers and young visitors are coming to Yeoncheon because it’s close to Seoul. I think it would be great to focus more on this aspect. These visitors are mostly younger people, so I feel there should be more efforts to promote other activities happening in nearby villages to them.”

Ⅴ. Conclusion

Customer loyalty toward general consumer goods has been extensively studied due to the availability of large purchasing datasets (Kato, 2019). However, loyalty formation varies across products, prompting research on diverse product categories and customer segments. In this study, to measure loyalty towards ‘areas’, attitudinal loyalty (based on the intention to recommend to others) and behavioral loyalty (intention to continue residing or revisiting) were considered essential to manage, as they contribute to population growth and revitalization. By examining the connections and disconnections between residential/visit satisfaction and these loyalty dimensions, the findings of this study are significant in that they move beyond satisfaction-based approaches and demonstrate how the concept of loyalty can help identify specific behaviors through which residents and tourists may contribute to mitigating population decline and revitalizing the local economy.

While satisfaction-loyalty research focused on specific ‘areas’ has predominantly been conducted in the tourism sector, studies examining how residents’ satisfaction with their place of residence leads to loyalty have been limited. Moreover, this study goes beyond the satisfaction-loyalty mechanism identified in prior studies by differentiating loyalty into attitudinal and behavioral components, and it examines the precursor relationship between these two forms of loyalty in both residents and tourists. The findings, revealed through structural equation modeling, are as follows.

First, structural equation modeling revealed that attitudinal loyalty precedes behavioral loyalty among both residents and tourists. This supports Oliver’s (1999) conceptual framework on loyalty formation and is consistent with findings in business and tourism research (Lee et al., 2007; Russell-Bennett et al., 2007). Notably, this study extends those findings by confirming this sequential relationship specifically in the context of residents—a perspective rarely examined in loyalty research.

In the resident model, satisfaction exerted a direct effect on both attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty. Importantly, the direct effect of satisfaction on behavioral loyalty was observed only among residents. This suggests that some residents may be satisfied with their living environment and intend to remain there, even if they do not necessarily intend to recommend the area to others.

Secondly, interviews with residents provided insights supporting both identified paths in the model. Specifically, long-term residents who have not lived in other cities showed a direct path from satisfaction to behavioral loyalty. These residents, primarily aged 50–60 and above, expressed satisfaction with their living area and intentions to continue residing there, yet they were not active in recommending it to others. These individuals can be considered loyal residents content with their situation, but passive in influencing new residents to move in.

In contrast, residents who had moved to the area reported recommending it to others and expressed intentions to continue residing there. This suggests that migrants, who can compare their experiences with other areas, may be more proactive in encouraging new residents to move in. Leveraging their strong sense of loyalty could therefore support community-based strategies for attracting and retaining new populations, for example by involving them in promoting rural migration programs or connecting them with prospective newcomers.

However, as indicated in interviews with residents, the decision to move is influenced by a complex array of factors beyond satisfaction with the living area or recommendations from others. These factors include employment, age, family circumstances, and other personal, social, and economic considerations. Therefore, merely relying on recommendations is insufficient to drive relocations.

Policy efforts should go beyond improving satisfaction with the living environment to intentionally cultivate attitudinal loyalty—for instance, by reinforcing place identity, fostering community cohesion, and building a strong sense of belonging. This attitudinal loyalty can then be translated into behavioral loyalty, such as sustained residence or advocacy, through concrete incentives including housing support, employment opportunities, and settlement assistance. Moreover, understanding the primary age groups, family configurations, and motivations of these migrants is essential for designing targeted and effective support measures.

Third, in the tourist group, visit satisfaction significantly influenced recommendation intention (attitudinal loyalty) but did not have a direct effect on behavioral loyalty. This finding supports the staged nature of loyalty formation identified in previous tourism studies, indicating that high satisfaction with a destination does not automatically lead to revisits. For example, Lee et al. (2007) found that satisfaction influenced attitudinal loyalty among forest recreationists but did not directly affect behavioral loyalty. Similarly, Chang et al. (2014) observed that while satisfied residents tended to show higher revisit intentions, this was not necessarily true for tourists. The tendency of tourists to seek new experiences (variety-seeking) can negatively impact revisit intentions, underscoring the need to account for this factor in policy design.

However, because decisions about short-term visits are relatively easier to make than decisions about residency, recommendations from others (e.g., “someone visited and said it was great”) can be highly effective in attracting new tourists. Therefore, activities aimed at enhancing visitor satisfaction, coupled with targeted efforts to increase recommendation intentions—such as incentives for tourists who share experiences on social media—are expected to be effective in attracting more visitors. Beyond simply improving satisfaction, strategies should aim to build attitudinal loyalty through unique, place-based experiences and compelling storytelling that strengthen emotional connections. To promote behavioral loyalty in the form of repeat visitation, targeted marketing, loyalty programs, and personalized incentives can be employed to encourage tourists to return.

Tourists’ continuous visits, which boost local spending, contribute to economic vitality (Zhang et al., 2014). Therefore, in depopulating areas, tourism is expected to have positive effects on job creation, economic revitalization, and the maintenance of local infrastructure (Canavan, 2013; Deng et al., 2022). Although an increase in tourist numbers may not directly lead to population growth in such areas, it can help sustain the local economy by compensating for the reduced spending of a shrinking population. Accordingly, managing loyal visitors becomes important, as their word-of-mouth effects can be leveraged, and the development of content that encourages repeat visitation is crucial.

Interviews highlighted the need to move beyond simple sightseeing and dining tourism to activities that encourage repeat visits, such as hands-on experiences, educational programs, and positioning the area as a retreat for urban residents. Instead of relying on visitors returning to see the same attractions, the areas must actively provide new experiences for repeat tourists. From a policy perspective, the focus should shift from developing landmarks or mass tourism attractions to creating diverse narratives and experiential programs unique to the area. Additionally, efforts should be made to establish recreational and leisure spaces that are easily accessible for populations in nearby metropolitan areas.

Lastly, in contrast to the tourist group, the resident group showed a stronger direct relationship between satisfaction with their place of residence and the intention to continue living there, rather than satisfaction leading to improved recommendation intentions. This indicates that when residents are satisfied with their living environment, they are more likely to make a personal decision to remain rather than actively recommending it to others. As Gilboa and Herstein (2012) highlight, place loyalty is closely tied to a resident’s subjective choice to continue living in a place rather than being influenced solely by external factors. Furthermore, loyal residents can play a significant role in reinforcing the image of their community, contributing to its branding efforts and overall appeal to both internal and external audiences. Therefore, it is essential to prioritize measures that enhance satisfaction among current residents to prevent outmigration and maintain the vitality of the community.

Previous research on the satisfaction–loyalty relationship (Kato, 2019; Rosenberg and Czepiel, 1984) has demonstrated that strengthening the loyalty of existing customers is more efficient than attracting new ones. Building on this understanding, a key finding of the study is that, beyond a satisfaction-centered model, policies should prioritize highly satisfied and loyal residents and tourists.

This implies that efforts should not only focus on attracting new residents but also emphasize improving the living conditions of current residents and encouraging satisfied tourists to revisit. In depopulating rural area like the research site, where essential infrastructure may be lacking but the natural and cultural environment is a major asset, both residents and tourists reported high satisfaction with the tranquil and nature-oriented setting. Therefore, it is important to identify the factors contributing to satisfaction for both groups and to manage the area in a way that balances development and conservation. In doing so, satisfied residents and tourists can serve as catalysts for attracting new residents and visitors.

Policy approaches should move beyond simply enhancing satisfaction to address the full satisfaction–attitudinal loyalty–behavioral loyalty pathway identified in this study. Specifically, policymakers should develop strategies to convert satisfaction into attitudinal loyalty, and then further into sustained behavioral outcomes.

However, because residents and tourists stay in the same place with different purposes and durations—residents on a long-term basis and tourists on a short-term basis—the factors that influence their satisfaction are inevitably different. Tourists often prioritize novelty and stimulation, whereas residents tend to value stability and everyday convenience. The increase in tourist numbers and associated development can lead to overcrowding, which may undermine the quality of life for residents, particularly in rural areas where tranquility is highly valued. Chang et al. (2014), in their study on local festivals, also noted that residents tend to prefer the preservation of identity, community values, and tradition, while tourists are more drawn to novelty and excitement—highlighting the need to reconcile such needs conflicts.

Therefore, models that seek to address both residents and tourists in depopulating areas must be grounded in a nuanced understanding of each group’s distinct priorities, alongside strategies for effectively managing potential conflicts (Xiong et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2023). To this end, it is crucial to foster an environment where residents are encouraged and empowered to actively engage with tourists. Tourism policies and destination branding strategies should meaningfully incorporate the roles and cultural values of residents, while preserving the area’s unique identity and heritage. Furthermore, local guidelines and codes of conduct that promote mutual social responsibility should be clearly communicated and actively implemented.

This study’s limitation is that the model did not fully incorporate the wide range of factors that may influence loyalty. However, many previous studies in tourism and marketing have also concentrated on the satisfaction–loyalty link, often restricting the scope of variables considered (Russell-Bennett et al., 2007; Moore et al., 2015; Saini and Singh, 2020). This study extends such frameworks by including the resident perspective and by differentiating between attitudinal and behavioral loyalty to explore their respective impacts.

Although satisfaction was the only antecedent variable in the model, which narrows the scope of interpretation, the study attempted to compensate for this through supplementary in-depth interviews. Even so, the issue remains a constraint of the current approach, and future studies should build on the exploratory findings from the interviews to develop a more comprehensive model.

This study’s findings are particularly relevant for Korean cities facing population decline and seeking to revitalize their areas by attracting numerous tourists. Accordingly, it is vital to segment various demographic groups interacting with the area, managing their satisfaction and loyalty to sustain and cultivate loyal residents and tourists. In academia, Japan, experiencing demographic decline early in East Asia, has begun to classify visitors who develop lasting relationships with areas as ‘relationship population (kankei jinko)’ (Inoue et al., 2022), highlighting the need for future studies to expand models that consider multiple demographic groups simultaneously, thereby deepening our understanding of spatial sustainability and demographic challenges.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Institute for Peace and Unification Studies at Seoul National University under the project titled ‘Laying the Groundwork for Unification and Peace’ and the Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) grant funded by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Grant RS-2023-00242291).

References

• Aaker, J., 1991. “The Negative Attraction Effect? A Study of the Attraction Effect Under Judgment and Choice”, Advances in Consumer Research, 18: 462-469.
• Back, K.J. and Parks, S.C., 2003. “A Brand Loyalty Model Involving Cognitive, Affective, and Conative Brand Loyalty and Customer Satisfaction”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 27(4): 419-435. [https://doi.org/10.1177/10963480030274003]
• Bagozzi, R. (Ed.), 1994. Advanced Marketing Research, John Wiley & Sons.
• Baker, D.A. and Crompton, J.L., 2000. “Quality, Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions”, Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3): 785-804. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00108-5]
• Bollen, K.A., 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables, John Wiley & Sons. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118619179]
• Canavan, B., 2013. “The Extent and Role of Domestic Tourism in a Small Island: The Case of the Isle of Man”, Journal of Travel Research, 52(3): 340-352. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287512467700]
• Chang, S., Gibson, H., and Sisson, L., 2014. “The Loyalty Process of Residents and Tourists in the Festival Context”, Current Issues in Tourism, 17(9): 783-799. [https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.768214]
• Chi, C.G.Q. and Qu, H., 2008. “Examining the Structural Relationships of Destination Image, Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty: An Integrated Approach”, Tourism Management, 29(4): 624-636. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.06.007]
• Deng, T., Liu, S., and Hu, Y., 2022. “Can Tourism Help to Revive Shrinking Cities? An Examination of Chinese Case”, Tourism Economics, 28(6): 1683-1691. [https://doi.org/10.1177/13548166211002295]
• Dick, A.S. and Basu, K., 1994. “Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual Framework”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2): 99-113. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070394222001]
• Eggert, A. and Ulaga, W., 2002. “Customer Perceived Value: A Substitute for Satisfaction in Business Markets?”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 17(2/3): 107-118. [https://doi.org/10.1108/08858620210419754]
• Ehrenberg, A., Barnard, N., and Scriven, J., 1997. “Differentiation or Salience”, Journal of Advertising Research, 37(6): 7-15. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00218499.1997.12466670]
• Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F., 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error”, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1): 39-50. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104]
• Ganesh, J., Arnold, M.J., and Reynolds, K.E., 2000. “Understanding the Customer Base of Service Providers: An Examination of the Differences between Switchers and Stayers”, Journal of Marketing, 64(3): 65-87. [https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.3.65.18028]
• Gilboa, S. and Herstein, R., 2012. “Place Status, Place Loyalty and Well-being: An Exploratory Investigation of Israeli Residents”, Journal of Place Management and Development, 5(2): 141-157. [https://doi.org/10.1108/17538331211250035]
• Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., and Anderson, R.E., 2009. Multivariate Data Analysis (7th edition) , Pearson.
• Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M., 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1): 1-55. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118]
• Iacobucci, D., 2010. “Structural Equations Modeling: Fit Indices, Sample Size, and Advanced Topic”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1): 90-98. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.003]
• Inoue, T., Koike, S., Yamauchi, M., and Ishikawa, Y., 2022. “Exploring the Impact of Depopulation on A Country’s Population Geography: Lessons Learned from Japan”, Population, Space and Place, 28(5): e2543. [https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2543]
• Jacoby, J. and Kyner, D.B., 1973. “Brand Loyalty vs. Repeat Purchasing Behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research, 10(1): 1-9. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377301000101]
• Jaiswal, A.K. and Niraj, R., 2011. “Examining Mediating Role of Attitudinal Loyalty and Nonlinear Effects in Satisfaction‐ Behavioral Intentions Relationship”, Journal of Services Marketing, 25(3): 165-175. [https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041111129155]
• Kato, T., 2019. “Loyalty Management in Durable Consumer Goods: Trends in the Influence of Recommendation Intention on Repurchase Intention by Time after Purchase”, Journal of Marketing Analytics, 7: 76-83. [https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-019-00050-x]
• Kaur, H. and Soch, H., 2018. “Satisfaction, Trust and Loyalty: Investigating the Mediating Effects of Commitment, Switching Costs and Corporate Image”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, 12(4): 361-380. [https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-08-2015-0119]
• Kim, M.H., Lee, J., and Gim, T.H.T., 2021. “How Did Travel Mode Choices Change According to Coronavirus Disease 2019? Lessons from Seoul, South Korea”, International Journal of Urban Sciences, 25(3): 437-454. [https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2021.1951823]
• Kim, G., Duffy, L.N., and Moore, D., 2023. “Importance of Residents’ Perception of Tourists in Establishing A Reciprocal Resident-Tourist Relationship: An Application of Tourist Attractiveness”, Tourism Management, 94: 104632. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104632]
• Kline, R.B., 1998. “Software Review: Software Programs for Structural Equation Modeling: Amos, EQS, and LISREL”, Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 16(4): 343-364. [https://doi.org/10.1177/073428299801600407]
• Kline, T.J.B., 2005. Psychological Testing: A Practical Approach to Design and Evaluation, SAGE Publications. [https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483385693]
• Kozak, M., 2002. “Measuring Tourist Satisfaction with Multiple Destination Attributes”, Tourism Analysis, 7(3-4): 229-240. [https://doi.org/10.3727/108354203108750076]
• Lee, J., Graefe, A.R., and Burns, R.C., 2007. “Examining the Antecedents of Destination Loyalty in a Forest Setting”, Leisure Sciences, 29(5): 463-481. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400701544634]
• Lee, T.H. and Shen, Y.L., 2013. “The Influence of Leisure Involvement and Place Attachment on Destination Loyalty: Evidence from Recreationists Walking Their Dogs in Urban Parks”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 33: 76-85. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.11.002]
• Lewicka, M., 2011. “Place Attachment: How Far Have We Come in the Last 40 Years?”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(3): 207-230. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001]
• López-Mosquera, N. and Sánchez, M., 2013. “Direct and Indirect Effects of Received Benefits and Place Attachment in Willingness to Pay and Loyalty in Suburban Natural Areas”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34: 27-35. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.11.004]
• McDonald, R.P. and Ho, M.H.R., 2002. “Principles and Practice in Reporting Structural Equation Analyses”, Psychological Methods, 7(1): 64-82. [https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.7.1.64]
• Moore, S.A., Rodger, K., and Taplin, R., 2015. “Moving beyond Visitor Satisfaction to Loyalty in Nature-Based Tourism: A Review and Research Agenda”, Current Issues in Tourism, 18(7): 667-683. [https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.790346]
• Newman, E.I., 1966. “A Method of Estimating the Total Length of Root in a Sample”, Journal of Applied Ecology, 3(1): 139-145. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2401670]
• Oh, M., 2025. “An Empirical Study on the Effectiveness of the Local Extinction Response Fund on Tourism Activation in Depopulation Regions: Using the Propensity Score Matching Difference-in-Differences Method”, Journal of Tourism Sciences, 49(1): 121-136. (In Korean) [https://doi.org/10.17086/JTS.2025.49.1.121.136]
• Oliver, R.L., 1980. “A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions”, Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4): 460-469. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378001700405]
• Oliver, R.L., 1999. “Whence Consumer Loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, 63(4_suppl1): 33-44. [https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429990634s105]
• Oppermann, M., 2000. “Tourism Destination Loyalty”, Journal of Travel Research, 39(1): 78-84. [https://doi.org/10.1177/004728750003900110]
• Prayag, G. and Ryan, C., 2012. “Antecedents of Tourists’ Loyalty to Mauritius: The Role and Influence of Destination Image, Place Attachment, Personal Involvement, and Satisfaction”, Journal of Travel Research, 51(3): 342-356. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287511410321]
• Pritchard, M.P., Havitz, M.E., and Howard, D.R., 1999. “Analyzing the Commitment-Loyalty Link in Service Contexts”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(3): 333-348. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070399273004]
• Rabotić, B., 2010. “Tourist Guides in Contemporary Tourism”, Paper presented at the International Conference on Tourism and Environment, Sarajevo: Philip Noel-Baker University.
• Ramkissoon, H., Graham Smith, L.D., and Weiler, B., 2013. “Testing the Dimensionality of Place Attachment and Its Relationships with Place Satisfaction and Pro-environmental Behaviours: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach”, Tourism Management, 36: 552-566. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.003]
• Rivera, M.A. and Croes, R., 2010. “Ecotourists’ Loyalty: Will They Tell about the Destination or Will They Return?”, Journal of Ecotourism, 9(2): 85-103. [https://doi.org/10.1080/14724040902795964]
• Rosenberg, L.J. and Czepiel, J.A., 1984. “A Marketing Approach for Customer Retention,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 1(2): 45-51. [https://doi.org/10.1108/eb008094]
• Rubinson, J. and Baldinger, A.L., 1996. “Brand Loyalty: The Link between Attitude and Behavior,” Journal of Advertising Research, 36(6): 22-34. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00218499.1996.12466634]
• Russell-Bennett, R., McColl-Kennedy, J.R., and Coote, L.V., 2007. “Involvement, Satisfaction, and Brand Loyalty in a Small Business Services Setting”, Journal of Business Research, 60(12): 1253-1260. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.05.001]
• Saini, S. and Singh, J., 2020. “A Link Between Attitudinal and Behavioral Loyalty of Service Customers”, Business Perspectives and Research, 8(2): 205-215. [https://doi.org/10.1177/2278533719887452]
• Shaykh-Baygloo, R., 2020. “A Multifaceted Study of Place Attachment and Its Influences on Civic Involvement and Place Loyalty in Baharestan New Town, Iran”, Cities, 96: 102473. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102473]
• Stylidis, D., Woosnam, K.M., and Tasci, A.D.A., 2022. “The Effect of Resident-Tourist Interaction Quality on Destination Image and Loyalty”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30(6): 1219-1239. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1918133]
• Tasci, A.D.A., Uslu, A., Stylidis, D., and Woosnam, K.M., 2022. “Place-Oriented or People-Oriented Concepts for Destination Loyalty: Destination Image and Place Attachment versus Perceived Distances and Emotional Solidarity”, Journal of Travel Research, 61(2): 430-453. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287520982377]
• Wang, Y.C., Liu, C.R., Huang, W.S., and Chen, S.P., 2020. “Destination Fascination and Destination Loyalty: Subjective Well-Being and Destination Attachment as Mediators”, Journal of Travel Research, 59(3): 496-511. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287519839777]
• Xiong, L., Wang, H., Yang, Y., and He, W., 2021. “Promoting Resident-Tourist Interaction Quality When Residents Are Expected to Be Hospitable Hosts at Destinations”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 46: 183-192. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.12.008]
• Xu, Y. and Yang, E., 2025. “Can Tourism Expenditure Mitigate Regional Depopulation Crises?”, Tourism Economics, 1-9. [https://doi.org/10.1177/13548166241313412]
• Yoon, Y. and Uysal, M., 2005. “An Examination of The Effects of Motivation and Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty: A Structural Model”, Tourism Management, 26(1): 45-56. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.08.016]
• Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., and Bilim, Y., 2010. “Destination Attachment: Effects on Customer Satisfaction and Cognitive, Affective and Conative Loyalty”, Tourism Management, 31(2): 274-284. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.03.007]
• Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., and Parasuraman, A., 1996. “The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality”, Journal of Marketing, 60(2): 31-46. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299606000203]
• Zenker, S. and Rütter, N., 2014. “Is Satisfaction the Key? The Role of Citizen Satisfaction, Place Attachment and Place Brand Attitude on Positive Citizenship Behavior”, Cities, 38: 11-17. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.12.009]
• Zhang, H., Fu, X., Cai, L.A., and Lu, L., 2014. “Destination Image and Tourist Loyalty: A Meta-analysis”, Tourism Management, 40: 213-223. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.06.006]