Submitted:
22 November 2025
Posted:
27 November 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Sustainable tourism is increasingly important for local sustainable livelihoods; however, its development is often hindered by financial limitations. Hence, a better understanding of the constraints on sustainable tourism and the strategies to tap into untapped funds to improve its financial situation is paramount. This study uses a novel CPBM approach to answer the question: Is there a strong relationship between customer satisfaction and their willingness to pay (WTP) for improving Community-Based Tourism (CBT) service? If so, how can satisfaction be improved? We employ a Culture Tower-based approach that integrates PLS-SEM and BMF method to analyze a dataset collected from 275 young people in December 2024. We found that alongside respondents’ financial status, environmental quality concerns, and environmental assessment, customer satisfaction is a strong predictor of WTP, showing a positive association with WTP for CBT service improvement. Furthermore, we also found that food, service quality, and infrastructure factors are strong determinants of customer satisfaction with CBT services. This finding suggests that improving customer satisfaction is the key to enhancing the financial sustainability of CBT, which in turn necessitates greater attention and investment from the local government and private sector. Our study offers significant policy implications regarding financial management, service quality, investment strategies, and the coordination of actor participation for facilitating sustainable tourism at the local level in Lac village and beyond.
Keywords:
“First come the ideas, then comes an action plan. Never mind the planning required, he excels at this - if a plan is incomplete or not assuring enough, he would correct it. Perfection naturally calls for dedication and diligence”(Vuong, 2025)
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis
- Hypothesis 1: Interactions and communication with local residents positively affects tourists’s WTP more for improving CBT-CP
- Hypothesis 2: Satisfaction with the quality of CBT services positively affects tourists’s WTP more for improving CBT-CP
- Hypothesis 3: Financial status positively affects tourists’ WTP more for improving CBT-CP.
- Hypothesis 4: Environmental awareness and concern positively affects tourists’ WTP more for improving CBT-CP
- Hypothesis 5: Food-related experiences positively affect tourists’ satisfaction with tourists’ satisfaction with CBT.
- Hypothesis 6: Experiences related to tourism and accommodation infrastructure positively affect tourists’ satisfaction with CBT.
- Hypothesis 7: Service experiences positively affect tourists’ satisfaction with CBT.
3. Conceptual Framework of Sustainable Tourism Associated with Financial
4. Methodology
4.1. Culture Tower-Based Approach Integrating PLS-SEM with Bayesian Mindsponge Framework Analysis (CPBM)
4.2. Data Collection
4.3. Empirical Models
4.3.1. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM)
4.3.2. BMF Model
5. Results
5.1. Descriptions of CBT Service, Its Quality, Satisfactions and Contributions
5.2. Results of PLS-SEM (Model 1)
5.2.1. Measurement Model
5.2.2. Structural Model
5.3. Results of BMF (Model 2)


6. Discussions
7. Conclusion and Policy Implications
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| CBT | Community-based tourism |
| CBT-CP | Community-based tourism linked to cultural heritage preservation |
| PLS-SEM | Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling |
| BMF | Bayesian Mindsponge Framework |
| WTP | Willingness-to-pay |
Appendix A
Appendix A.1


| Variable | Meaning | Outer loadings | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Food evaluation | |||
| FOOD1 | Delicious food | 0.925 | |
| FOOD2 | Clean food | 0.941 | |
| FOOD3 | Diverse food | 0.920 | |
| Infrastructure evaluation | |||
| INFRA1 | Nice and wide road to the village | 0.897 | |
| INFRA2 | Beautiful and spacious house on stilts | 0.935 | |
| INFRA3 | Fully equipped with electricity and water | 0.894 | |
| INFRA4 | Good internet | 0.855 | |
| Service evaluation | |||
| SRVC1 | Diverse tourist entertainment services | 0.831 | |
| SRVC2 | Interesting and rewarding local cultural experiences | 0.857 | |
| SRVC3 | Good electric car service | 0.854 | |
| SRVC4 | Good photography service | 0.852 | |
| SRVC5 | Professional service people | 0.901 | |
| SRVC6 | Reasonable and affordable service price | 0.908 | |
| SRVC7 | Scenery/landscape | 0.826 | |
| Tourist Satisfaction | |||
| SAT1 | Satisfied with the food | 0.819 | |
| SAT2 | Satisfied with the photography service | 0.871 | |
| SAT3 | Satisfied with the tram service | 0.845 | |
| SAT4 | Satisfied with the tour guide | 0.905 | |
| SAT5 | Satisfied with the unique local culture | 0.902 | |
| SAT6 | Satisfied with the singing and campfire service | 0.880 | |
| SAT7 | Satisfied with the quality of accommodation | 0.894 | |
| Original sample (O) | Sample mean (M) | 2.5% | 97.5% | |
| INFRA <-> FOOD | 0.668 | 0.668 | 0.547 | 0.777 |
| SAT <-> FOOD | 0.767 | 0.767 | 0.684 | 0.841 |
| SAT <-> INFRA | 0.887 | 0.887 | 0.834 | 0.932 |
| SRVC <-> FOOD | 0.682 | 0.681 | 0.570 | 0.778 |
| SRVC <-> INFRA | 0.854 | 0.854 | 0.779 | 0.916 |
| SRVC <-> SAT | 0.900 | 0.899 | 0.843 | 0.943 |
References
- Abdou, A. H., Mohamed, S. A. K., Khalil, A. A. F., Albakhit, A. I., & Alarjani, A. J. N. (2022). Modeling the relationship between perceived service quality, tourist satisfaction, and tourists’ behavioral intentions amid COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence of yoga tourists’ perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1003650. [CrossRef]
- Achmad, F., Prambudia, Y., & Rumanti, A. A. (2023). Sustainable Tourism Industry Development: A Collaborative Model of Open Innovation, Stakeholders, and Support System Facilities. IEEE Access, 11(3), 83343–83363. [CrossRef]
- Ali, A., & Shedayi, A. A. (2023). Willingness to pay as an economic instrument for managing nature-based tourism in Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 27, 1–20. [CrossRef]
- Ali, M., Puah, C.-H., Ayob, N., & Raza, S. A. (2020). Factors influencing tourist’s satisfaction, loyalty and word of mouth in selection of local foods in Pakistan. British Food Journal, 122(6), 2021–2043. [CrossRef]
- Bajrami, D. D., Radosavac, A., Cimbaljević, M., Tretiakova, T. N., & Syromiatnikova, Y. A. (2020). Determinants of residents’ support for sustainable tourism development: Implications for rural communities. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(22), 1–16. [CrossRef]
- Baldwin, S. A., & Fellingham, G. W. (2013). Bayesian methods for the analysis of small sample multilevel data with a complex variance structure. Psychological Methods, 18(2), 151–164. [CrossRef]
- Basak, D., Bose, A., Roy, S., Chowdhury, I. R., & Sarkar, B. C. (2021). Understanding sustainable homestay tourism as a driving factor of tourist’s satisfaction through structural equation modelling: A case of Darjeeling Himalayan region, India. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 3, 100098. [CrossRef]
- Batool, N., Wani, M. D., Shah, S. A., & Dada, Z. A. (2025). Tourists’ attitude and willingness to pay on conservation efforts: evidence from the west Himalayan eco-tourism sites. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 27, 18933–18951. [CrossRef]
- Blamey, R. (1998). Contingent valuation and the activation of environmental norms. Ecological Economics, 24(1), 47–722. [CrossRef]
- Burbano, D. V., Valdivieso, J. C., Izurieta, J. C., Meredith, T. C., & Ferri, D. Q. (2022). “Rethink and reset” tourism in the Galapagos Islands: Stakeholders’ views on the sustainability of tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights, 3(2), 100057. [CrossRef]
- Butler, R. W. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review. An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, 1(1), 7–25. [CrossRef]
- Campbell, D. (2007). Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random-Effects Models. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58(3), 467–483. [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.-F., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions? Tourism Management, 28(4), 1115–1122. [CrossRef]
- Colling, L. J., & Szűcs, D. (2021). Statistical Inference and the Replication Crisis. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 12, 121–147. [CrossRef]
- Dai, S., Zhang, P., Li, S., & Xu, H. (2025). Environmental communication in wildlife tourism: narrative framing and emotion effect on the willingness to pay for a destination. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 33(7), 1476–1492. [CrossRef]
- Dias, Á., Viana, J., & Pereira, L. (2024). Barriers and policies affecting the implementation of sustainable tourism: the Portuguese experience. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1–19. [CrossRef]
- Doan, C. M. (2019). Phát triển du lịch cộng đồng theo hướng bền vững (Phần 1) [Developing Community-Based Tourism toward Sustainability (Part 1)]. Cục Du Lịch Quốc Gia Việt Nam [Vietnam National Authority of Tourism]. http://vietnamtourism.gov.vn/post/29392.
- Durán-Román, J. L., Cárdenas-García, P. J., & Pulido-Fernández, J. I. (2021a). Tourists’ willingness to pay to improve sustainability and experience at destination. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 19, 100540. [CrossRef]
- Durán-Román, J. L., Cárdenas-García, P. J., & Pulido-Fernández, J. I. (2021b). Tourists’ willingness to pay to improve sustainability and experience at destination. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 19, 100540. [CrossRef]
- Erol, I., Neuhofer, I. O., True), T. D. (Dr., Oztel, A., Searcy, C., & Yorulmaz, A. (2022). Improving sustainability in the tourism industry through blockchain technology: Challenges and opportunities. Tourism Management, 92, 104628. [CrossRef]
- Estrada, M., Moliner, M. Á., Monferrer, D., & Vidal, L. (2024). Sustainability and local food at tourist destinations: a study from the transformative perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 32(5), 1008–1026. [CrossRef]
- Gelman, A. (2015). The Connection Between Varying Treatment Effects and the Crisis of Unreplicable Research: A Bayesian Perspective. Journal of Management, 41(2), 632–643. [CrossRef]
- Gupta, S., & Mishra, O. N. (2022). Tourist participation, well-being and satisfaction: the mediating roles of service experience and tourist empowerment. Current Issues in Tourism, 26(16), 2613–2628. [CrossRef]
- Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
- Han, H., & Hyun, S. S. (2015). Customer retention in the medical tourism industry: Impact of quality, satisfaction, trust, and price reasonableness. Tourism Management, 46, 20–29. [CrossRef]
- Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20. [CrossRef]
- Herranz, J., Jackson, M. R., Kabwasa-Green, F., & Swenson, D. (2004). Community based cultural tourism: Findings from the US. Sustainable Tourism, 191–198.
- Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2018). Sustainable tourism: Sustaining tourism or something more? Tourism Management Perspectives, 25, 157–160. [CrossRef]
- Homburg, C., Koschate, N., & Hoyer, W. D. (2005). Do Satisfied Customers Really Pay More? A Study of the Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and Willingness to Pay. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 84–96. [CrossRef]
- Huang, T.-Y. (Tim), Chen, J. S., & Ramos, W. D. (2023). Slow tourism: the relationship between tourists’ slow food experiences and their quality of life. Tourism Review, 78(1), 159–176. [CrossRef]
- Hussain, A., Li, M., Kanwel, S., Asif, M., Jameel, A., & Hwang, J. (2023). Impact of Tourism Satisfaction and Service Quality on Destination Loyalty: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach concerning China Resort Hotels. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(9). [CrossRef]
- Jamal, Salamiah A, Othman, Nor’Ain, & Nik Maheran Nik Muhammad, . (2011). Tourist perceived value in a community-based homestay visit: An investigation into the functional and experiential aspect of value. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 17(1), 5–15. [CrossRef]
- Kanwal, S., Rasheed, M. I., Pitafi, A. H., Pitafi, A., & Ren, M. (2020). Road and transport infrastructure development and community support for tourism: The role of perceived benefits, and community satisfaction. Tourism Management, 77, 104014. [CrossRef]
- Khan, M. R., Khan, H. U. R., Lim, C. K., Tan, K. L., & Ahmed, M. F. (2021). Sustainable Tourism Policy, Destination Management and Sustainable Tourism Development: A Moderated-Mediation Model. Sustainability, 13(21), 12156. [CrossRef]
- Khuc, V. Q. (2023). Culture Tower. SSRN. [CrossRef]
- Khuc, V. Q., Doan, D. N., Nguyen, A. T., Hoang, K. L., Le, K. C., Tran, T. T., Le, D. H., Nguyen, T. H., Tran, T. Q. T., & Doan, P. T. (2025). Exploring Youth Tourists’ Perceptions and Willingness to Pay for Improving Community-Based Tourism Associated with Cultural Preservation in Vietnam. Tourism and Hospitality, 6(4), 219. [CrossRef]
- Kruschke, J. K. (2021). Bayesian Analysis Reporting Guidelines. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 1282–1291. [CrossRef]
- Liang, A. R.-D., Tung, W., Wang, T.-S., & Hui, V. W. (2023). The use of co-creation within the community-based tourism experiences. Tourism Management Perspectives, 48, 101157. [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.-H., & Nguyen, H. T. N. (2025). The impact of a friendly tourism environment on tourists’ willingness to pay more: a comparative study. Tourism Review. [CrossRef]
- Müllera, S., Hucka, L., & Markovab, J. (2020). Sustainable community-based tourism in cambodia and tourists’ willingness to pay. Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 13(1), 81–101. [CrossRef]
- Ngo, T. H., & Creutz, S. (2021). Assessing the sustainability of community-based tourism: a case study in rural areas of Hoi An, Vietnam. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1). [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, Q. N., Mai, V. N., & Hoang, T. H. L. (2024). Explaining Tourist Satisfaction With Community-Based Tourism in the Mekong Delta Region, Vietnam. Geojournal of Tourism and Geosites, 56(4), 1661–1670. [CrossRef]
- Okazaki, E. (2008). A Community-Based Tourism Model: Its Conception and Use. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), 511–529. [CrossRef]
- Oliver, R. L. (2010). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer (2nd Editio). Routledge. [CrossRef]
- Pang, Q., Wu, H., Qiu, R. T. R., Long, Q., & Bao, J. (2025). Tourists’ willingness to pay for pro-poor tourism income distribution: Evidence from revealed and stated preference experiments. Tourism Management, 111, 105222. [CrossRef]
- Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. In Journal of Retailing (Vol. 64, Issue 1, pp. 12–40). Elsevier Science.
- Perić, G., Dramićanin, S., & Gašić, M. (2020). Impact of service quality on satisfaction and loyalty of tourists in rural tourism of Šumadija and Western Serbia. Ekonomika Poljoprivrede, 67(4), 1071–1086. [CrossRef]
- Quyết Định Số 1719/QĐ-TTg [Decision No. 1719/QĐ–TTg] (2021). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.07.010%0Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2014.07.001%0Ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2018.08.006%0Ahttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24582474%0Ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.12.007%0Ahttps:.
- Quyết Định Số 3222/QĐ-BVHTTDL [Decision No. 3222/QĐ/BVHTTDL], Government of Vietnam (2024). https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/40021859078/.
- Rousta, A., & Jamshidi, D. (2019). Food tourism value: Investigating the factors that influence tourists to revisit. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 26(1), 73–95. [CrossRef]
- Scott, D. (2021). Sustainable tourism and the grand challenge of climate change. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(4), 1–17. [CrossRef]
- Streimikien, D., Svagzdiene, B., Jasinskas, E., & Simanavicius, A. (2020). Sustainable tourism development and competitiveness: The systematic literature review. Sustainable Development, 29(1), 259–271. [CrossRef]
- Thanh, N. H. N., & Lee, L. (2025). The role of public–private partnerships in the development of agritourism: the case of Vinh Long, Vietnam. Cogent Social Sciences, 11(1), 2505123. [CrossRef]
- Tosun, C. (2001). Challenges of sustainable tourism development in the developing world: the case of Turkey. Tourism Management, 22(3), 289–303. [CrossRef]
- Vuong, Q. H. (2025). Wild Wise Weird. AISDL.
- Vuong, Q. H., La, V.-P., Nguyen, M. H., Ho, M. T., Tran, T., & Ho, M. T. (2020). Bayesian analysis for social data: A step-by-step protocol and interpretation. MethodsX, 7, 100924. [CrossRef]
- Vuong, Q. H., Le, T. T., La, V. P., Nguyen, H. T. T., Ho, M. T., Van Khuc, Q., & Nguyen, M. H. (2022). Covid-19 vaccines production and societal immunization under the serendipity-mindsponge-3D knowledge management theory and conceptual framework. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), 1–12. [CrossRef]
- Vuong, Q. H., & Napier, N. K. (2014). Making creativity: the value of multiple filters in the innovation process. International Journal of Transitions and Innovation Systems (IJTIS), 3(4). [CrossRef]
- Weaver, D. B. (1999). Magnitude of ecotourism in Costa Rica and Kenya. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 792–816. [CrossRef]
- Yanes, A., Zielinski, S., Cano, M. D., & Kim, S. Il. (2019). Community-based tourism in developing countries: A framework for policy evaluation. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(9), 1–23. [CrossRef]
- Yayla, Ö., Koç, B., & Dimanche, F. (2023). Residents’ support for tourism development: Investigating quality-of-life, community commitment, and communication. European Journal of Tourism Research. [CrossRef]





| Variables | Type | Meaning | Level | Code | Proportion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WTP | Binary | Respondent’s willingness to make a financial contribution to CBT-CP. | No | 0 | 51.62% |
| Yes | 1 | 48.38% | |||
| LocalCommunication (LC) |
Binary | The extent of interaction and communication between the respondent and local residents during their stay in Lac Village | No | 0 | 9.03% |
| Yes | 1 | 90.97% | |||
| EnviQualityConcern (EQC) |
Categorical | The respondent’s level of interest and concern for environmental and landscape quality when traveling | Very uninterested | 1 | 3.97% |
| Uninterested | 2 | 0.36% | |||
| Neutral | 3 | 14.80% | |||
| Interested | 4 | 47.29% | |||
| Very interested | 5 | 33.57% | |||
| FinanceStatus (FS) |
Categorical | The respondent’s self-assessed personal financial condition and perceived economic well-being | Very poor | 1 | 2.17% |
| Poor | 2 | 13.00% | |||
| Average | 3 | 74.01% | |||
| Good | 4 | 7.58% | |||
| Very good | 5 | 3.25% | |||
| EnviAssessment (EA) |
Categorical | The respondent’s evaluation of local environmental quality, particularly regarding cleanliness and the absence of general and plastic waste | Strongly disagree | 1 | 0.36% |
| Disagree | 2 | 3.61% | |||
| Neutral | 3 | 20.94% | |||
| Agree | 4 | 45.13% | |||
| Strongly agree | 5 | 29.96% | |||
| Satisfaction (SAT) |
Numeric | Latent variable scores explored from PLS SEM model | - | ||
| Original sample (O) | Sample mean (M) | Standard deviation (STDEV) | T statistics (|O/STDEV|) | P values | 2.5% | 97.5% | |
| FOOD -> SAT | 0.233 | 0.232 | 0.049 | 4.755 | 0.000 | 0.138 | 0.331 |
| INFRA -> SAT | 0.346 | 0.342 | 0.064 | 5.438 | 0.000 | 0.218 | 0.468 |
| SRVC -> SAT | 0.428 | 0.432 | 0.063 | 6.745 | 0.000 | 0.308 | 0.559 |
| Cronbach's alpha | Composite reliability (rho_a) | Composite reliability (rho_c) | Average variance extracted (AVE) | |
| FOOD | 0.921 | 0.922 | 0.950 | 0.863 |
| INFRA | 0.918 | 0.921 | 0.942 | 0.803 |
| SAT | 0.948 | 0.949 | 0.958 | 0.764 |
| SRVC | 0.942 | 0.944 | 0.953 | 0.743 |
| FOOD | INFRA | SAT | SRVC | |
| FOOD | ||||
| INFRA | 0.668 | |||
| SAT | 0.767 | 0.887 | ||
| SRVC | 0.682 | 0.854 | 0.900 |
| Percentile | ||||||||||
| Variables | Mean | Se_Mean | Sd | 2.5% | 25% | 50% | 75% | 97.5% | n_eff | Rhat |
| a_WTP | -0.58 | 0.02 | 1.23 | -2.97 | -1.42 | -0.57 | 0.23 | 1.86 | 5694 | 1 |
| b_LocalCommunication_WTP | 0.13 | 0.01 | 0.47 | -0.80 | -0.19 | 0.13 | 0.45 | 1.06 | 8114 | 1 |
| b_EnviQualityConcern_WTP | 0.31 | 0.00 | 0.15 | 0.01 | 0.21 | 0.31 | 0.41 | 0.62 | 8212 | 1 |
| b_FinanceStatus_WTP | 0.41 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.02 | 0.27 | 0.40 | 0.54 | 0.81 | 8070 | 1 |
| b_EnviAssessment_WTP | -0.52 | 0.00 | 0.22 | -0.96 | -0.67 | -0.52 | -0.37 | -0.10 | 6707 | 1 |
| b_Satisfaction_WTP | 0.50 | 0.00 | 0.18 | 0.15 | 0.38 | 0.50 | 0.62 | 0.86 | 6412 | 1 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).