In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, can the development of coastal ecological resources create a safe leisure and tourism environment, maintain ecology, and promote economic development in villages?

Keywords: coastal ecology, coastal natural environment, COVID-19, leisure, marine water resources, sustainability.

The tourism industry encourages people to visit destinations and spend money by using existing resources such as the natural environment and local culture (Holden 2016). The COVID-19 pandemic reduced people’s willingness to travel and negatively affected the tourism industry. However, with the pandemic gradually easing and governments attempting to combat the global economic slump, the promotion of leisure and tourism has become a major economic development strategy (Sigala 2020).

China’s topography is a combination of land and sea, and its coastline of ~18 000 km is rich in ecological diversity and marine resources (Qi and Liu 2021). Coastal village governments use marine resources to spur local economic development (Bai 2019), to create business opportunities in coastal villages, and to effectively improve the living standards of local people. The scenic area of Maluan Bay is located on the south-eastern coast of Dongshan County, Fujian Province (Lin YQ et al. 2021). Its prime location is characterised by a natural beach 2500 m long and 60 m wide with a gentle slope, no reef, clear water and no pollution (Dongshan County People’s Government 2021a; Lin YQ et al. 2021). In addition, it has more than 1352 species of aquatic organisms and a rich cultural history (Dongshan County People’s Government 2021b). Kangmei Town in Maluan Bay, for example, is an attractive leisure destination because of its history and culture, aquaculture (Li 2014) and marine activities (Dongshan County People’s Government 2021a, 2021b; Lin YQ et al. 2021), and has developed related features such as religious folk culture, leisure farms and leisure sports tourism activities along its seashore, as illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.  Distribution of tourism resources in the surrounding villages and the seashore environment of Maluan Bay.

According to statistics, a holiday weekend can attract up to 432 510 visitors and generate US$122 million in local business (Lin YL et al. 2020); the annual output is estimated to be at least US$2.151 billion. Consequently, it generates US$855 800 in local government revenue and has raised per capita income to US$5350 (Dongshan County People’s Government 2021c). Its stable economic development has resulted in a high quality of life and has increased people’s desire to live in the area, contributing to a 26.79-fold increase in the population, which has now reached 20.37 million (China County Statistical Yearbook 2019). The development of the area has not only provided tourists with a diversified tourist environment and rich commercial opportunities but has also enabled residents to obtain economic benefits and a stable and high-quality life.

Although the development of the environmental resources of the Maluan Bay seashore can expand opportunities for local culture, leisure, sports and tourism activities, and promote economic development (Li 2014; Dongshan County People’s Government 2021b; Qi and Liu 2021), related decisions may be ineffective because the effects of local community, tourism and industry factors (Lin H-H et al. 2021a) on current economic, social and environmental development (Ap and Crompton 1998). The development of seashore environments can change the local economy in terms of prices, employment, consumption, industrial and commodity development, public decision-making, and public facilities and services (Ngan et al. 2019; Shen et al. 2020), which can affect the culture, safety and visibility of neighbouring villages (Farahani and Bayazidi 2018; Hsu et al. 2020a). Such development can also affect the community and the surrounding environment in terms of transportation, sanitation, development scale, natural resources and local ecology (Wu et al. 2020; Lin H-H et al. 2021b; Wu 2021). These factors may indirectly affect tourists’ willingness to visit and reduce residents’ support and trust in local government development, which may lead to development being pursued outside the region (Ap and Crompton 1998; Farahani and Bayazidi 2018; Ngan et al. 2019; Hsu et al. 2020a; Shen et al. 2020; Wu et al. 2020; Kadagi et al. 2021; Lin H-H et al. 2021b; Wu 2021). In this manner, the actual and expected results of environmental development strategies in seashore areas may not match.

The use of environmental resources in seashore areas to improve local development has been a trend in island nations or offshore areas (Ap and Crompton 1998; Farahani and Bayazidi 2018; Ngan et al. 2019; Hsu et al. 2020a; Shen et al. 2020; Wu et al. 2020; Kadagi et al. 2021; Lin H-H et al. 2021b; Wu 2021). The main goal of related policy formulation is to mitigate difficulties in local development, generate economic opportunities, and improve the living environment and residents’ quality of life (Ap and Crompton 1998; Farahani and Bayazidi 2018; Ngan et al. 2019; Hsu et al. 2020a; Schröder et al. 2020; Shen et al. 2020; Wu et al. 2020; Kadagi et al. 2021; Lin H-H et al. 2021b; Wu 2021). These changes can often be realised only over time (Lin H-H et al. 2020, 2021a, 2021b; Wu 2021) and must be measured by including the viewpoints of affected individuals (Tan et al. 2021) and the perceptions of long-term local residents (Yu et al. 2021a).

Although tourists travelling to coastal villages or scenic areas may be worried about the inadequacy of tourism facilities, industrial construction, transportation, route planning and sanitation (Wu 2021), they also expect to gain new knowledge, be exposed to different cultural features and products, and enjoy safe and positive experiences through the leisure and tourism facilities and activities provided by development (Hsu et al. 2020a). Tourists can judge the effectiveness of local development on the basis of comparison with their previous tourism experiences (Sheldon 2020). Therefore, we proposed that the effectiveness of the environmental development of the seashores of coastal villages can be analysed and explored from the tourist perspective.

Despite the richness of marine ecological resources, coastal villages have long been dependent on fishing and pastoralism. Local residents often have abundant fishing and hunting skills but lack the skills and knowledge to utilise the environmental resources of the seashore to promote recreational tourism activities and, in turn, residents’ quality of life (Wu 2021). Through the formulation of clear environmental development goals, development-related decisions can be guided and clarified to promote the development of surrounding areas (Lin H-H et al. 2021a). Although development may result in a chaotic environment and increased prices, development decisions lead to increased industrial diversification, business opportunities, entrepreneurial and employment opportunities for residents, and improved living conditions and quality of life (Shen et al. 2020). These trajectories of change in the village environment must be verified using the experiences of residents (Östberg et al. 2018). Therefore, analysing the impact of environmental development in coastal villages from the perspective of residents is warranted.

Although development can provide convenient facilities and environments for recreation, recreational sports and tourism activities, residents primarily want development to increase employment opportunities and income and to improve their living environments and standards (Xue et al. 2017; Cooper and Buckley 2021). Tourists primarily want safe and enjoyable recreational tourism environments and activities to benefit their physical and mental health (Liang et al. 2019; Akhoundogli and Buckley 2021). Individuals with different needs have different expectations and goals for their living and recreational environment and physical satisfaction (Lin H-H et al. 2018; Muntifering et al. 2020; Wu 2021). Therefore, evaluating and analysing the effectiveness of developmental decisions by combining the perceptions of residents and visitors enabled us to identify the shortcomings of current development decisions related to seashore areas. We also propose suggestions for improvements.

Although many studies have explored the state of the development of coastal areas and surrounding villages, most have focused on the effects of development on the local economy, society and the environment (Xue et al. 2017; Östberg et al. 2018; Liang et al. 2019; Muntifering et al. 2020; Akhoundogli and Buckley 2021). Although some studies have examined the perceptions of residents towards such development (Xue et al. 2017; Alrwajfah et al. 2019; Berhe et al. 2020; Qing et al. 2022), most have remained focused on understanding tourists’ perceptions of the effects of tourism-related development (Adongoi et al. 2019; Rhoden and Kaaristo 2020; Tan et al. 2021). For a study to employ a coastal context and to align the views of residents and visitors by first exploring their perceptions separately and then comparing the differences in their perceptions is novel (Hsu et al. 2020a; Muntifering et al. 2020; Wu 2021; Yu et al. 2021a). In addition, most studies of Maluan Bay have focused on water quality, sediment and pollutants (Chen et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2019; Ma et al. 2020), whereas studies of the impact of seashore development in Maluan Bay coastal villages are rare. Therefore, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the detrimental effect it has had on tourism, discussing the impact of the development of coastal ecological resources on the maintenance of village environments and economic development is imperative. To effectively analyse the impact of the development of coastal areas in Maluan Bay on village environments and the surrounding natural ecosystem, we must obtain the perspectives of different stakeholders.

This study used Maluan Bay as the study area and local residents and tourists as the target population, with the main objective being to analyse the impact of the sustainable development of coastal waters. By comparing differences between the experiences of residents and the perceptions of tourists, we identified the effectiveness and shortcomings of coastal water-development decisions on the current village development and thus derived a balanced strategy for future development. The study results can be used to effectively shape sustainable development decisions for coastal areas. This study fills a gap in the literature and provides appropriate recommendations for local development initiatives and further studies.

Willingness is generated in reaction to people’s interest in a commodity or destination and manifests as a behavioural decision when people plan to visit to a sight, participate in an activity or consume a commodity (White et al. 2019). Willingness to travel is the expected or continued cognitive behavioural decision about consumption that people make by comparing the difference between their actual experience and their expectation after visiting a certain scenic spot (Yi et al. 2010).

From the perspective of willingness to revisit, willingness to recommend, active participation and cooperation, we can obtain people’s attitudes towards the consumption of tourism activities or goods (Yi et al. 2010). Studies have reported that evaluating willingness to travel can verify the effectiveness of local development, show people’s willingness to engage in tourism on the basis of current tourism development in the area (Shen et al. 2019), and indirectly assess the possibility of sustainable tourism development in coastal villages (Wu 2021; Yu et al. 2021b). Willingness to travel is affected by the development of the tourist site and surrounding villages (Tseng et al. 2021), and the higher the development effectiveness is, the higher the levels of willingness to travel (Wu 2021; Yu et al. 2021b), and of the tourism promotion of coastal villages are (Rasethuntsa 2021; Tien et al. 2021).

We used the concept of willingness to travel to understand people’s perceptions of the effectiveness of the current development of tourism activities in coastal villages and to evaluate the impact of utilising coastal resources to develop tourism activities on such villages and their surrounding natural environment in the context of the pandemic.

Tourism development relies on the use of local and surrounding resources to attract tourists to visit the area, so as to generate benefits for local economy (Lin H-H et al. 2021a; Wu 2021). Studies have indicated that the impact of tourism development on rural economic development can be examined according to consumer prices, industrial construction and community development (Östberg et al. 2018). The 13 factors of local employment, wages, consumption, construction, industry, facilities, prices, incentives, health, culture and creativity, leisure activities, community feedback and policy coordination have been identified as factors influencing development effectiveness (Tseng et al. 2021; Wu 2021). We applied the concepts of economic impact theory to explore these 13 factors to assess the impact of using coastal resources to develop tourism activities on the economic development of villages in the context of the pandemic.

Coastal villages benefit from their proximity to marine resources, which has also affected the development of their local culture and coastal customs, resulting in the generation of a unique maritime cultural identity (Lin H-H et al. 2021b). However, foreign cultures introduced through tourism development fundamentally differ from the established culture and its norms, and this has led to a degree of change in the culture of coastal communities (Yu et al. 2021a).

Studies have reported that although tourism promotion introduces different cultural elements that can strengthen local cultural identity, it can also create conflict with the established culture (Ap and Crompton 1998). Such conflict can influence the following 14 development factors: quality of tourism services and activities, commercialisation of community buildings, participation in community development, tourism indicators, recreational facilities, community environment, indigenous culture, vocational training opportunities, living environment, youth development, citizen interaction, preservation of traditional culture, community policing and security, and investment in cultural industries (Xu and Sun 2020). We applied the concepts of social-impact theory to explore these 14 factors to assess the impact of tourism activities based on coastal resources on the social development of villages in the context of the pandemic.

In addition to the natural environment, the buildings and community settings of the coastal villages are potential resources for tourism development (Ap and Crompton 1998; Wu 2021). However, the established rural communities and surrounding marine environment must be altered to some extent following implementation of rural tourism-development policy decision (Ap and Crompton 1998). Inevitably, the village environment is affected by tourism development.

Studies have indicated that the impact of tourism development on the environment not only improves village transportation facilities, living space, tourist waste management, tourist floor space, and parking and rest facilities (Popova et al. 2020; Lin H-H et al. 2021b), but also affects the natural ecosystem in terms of water quality, vegetation and woodlands (Popova et al. 2020; Xu and Sun 2020).

To understand the impact of tourism development on the natural environment of villages and coastal areas, we assessed 10 aspects relating to villages, such as transportation facilities and living space, and six aspects related to the surrounding ecological environment, such as water quality, vegetation and woodlands.

The purpose of this study was to analyse the impact of the development of the seashore environment of Maluan Bay on coastal village development. First, we reviewed the relevant literature to explore the current development of and research on Maluan Bay (Li 2014; Bai 2019; Lin YL et al. 2020; Dongshan County People’s Government 2021a, 2021b, 2021c; Lin YQ et al. 2021; Qi and Liu 2021) and coastal tourism development (Hsu et al. 2020a; Shen et al. 2020; Wu 2021), so as to identify the main research streams. According to tourism impact theory (Ap and Crompton 1998; Xue et al. 2017; Farahani and Bayazidi 2018; Lin H-H et al. 2018, 2020, 2021a, 2021b; Östberg et al. 2018; Adongoi et al. 2019; Alrwajfah et al. 2019; Chen et al. 2019; China County Statistical Yearbook 2019; Liang et al. 2019; Ngan et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2019; Berhe et al. 2020; Hsu et al. 2020a; Ma et al. 2020; Muntifering et al. 2020; Rhoden and Kaaristo 2020; Schröder et al. 2020; Sheldon 2020; Shen et al. 2020; Wu et al. 2020; Akhoundogli and Buckley 2021; Cooper and Buckley 2021; Kadagi et al. 2021; Tan et al. 2021; Wu 2021; Yu et al. 2021a; Qing et al. 2022), we then analysed the current development of the seashore environment of Maluan Bay and its effect on coastal villages from the perspectives of residents, tourists, and other stakeholders (Shen et al. 2020; Hsu et al. 2020a; Lin H-H et al. 2020, 2021b; Wu 2021; Yu et al. 2021a). The study research framework is depicted in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.  Study framework.

On the basis of the literature and research framework, the following three hypotheses were proposed in this study:

• Hypothesis 1 (H1): coastal village residents have the same perceptions of the coastal villages in terms of economic, social, environmental and ecological aspects and willingness to purchase property.

• Hypothesis 2 (H2): tourists have the same perceptions of the coastal villages in terms of economic, social, environmental and ecological aspects and willingness to revisit and purchase property.

• Hypothesis 3 (H3): cifferent stakeholders have the same perceptions of the coastal villages in terms of economic, social, environmental and ecological aspects, and willingness to revisit and purchase property.

First, literature related to Maluan Bay was consulted (Li 2014; Bai 2019; Lin YL et al. 2020; Dongshan County People’s Government 2021a, 2021b, 2021c; Lin YQ et al. 2021; Ping and Liu 2021) to determine the research questions and directions, and then literature related to waterfront tourism development (Hsu et al. 2020a; Shen et al. 2020; Wu 2021) was explored to identify appropriate research methods and strategies. We developed a questionnaire tool with reference to the literature, after which three experts and scholars were invited to validate its content, eliminate inappropriate items and finalise the official questionnaire.

The questionnaire was divided into five sections. Except for questions relating to respondents’ background information, all questions used a 5-point Likert-type scale, in which 1 indicated ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 indicated ‘strongly agree.’ The background-information section included questions on identity, gender and age, and the questions on coastal village development, coastal ecological environment and willingness to revisit were divided into economic (10 questions), social (seven questions), environmental (six questions), coastal ecological environment (six questions), and willingness to revisit and purchase property (three questions) dimensions, with reference to the relevant literature (Ap and Crompton 1998; Xue et al. 2017; Farahani and Bayazidi 2018; Lin H-H et al. 2018, 2020, 2021a, 2021b; Östberg et al. 2018; Adongoi et al. 2019; Alrwajfah et al. 2019; Chen et al. 2019; China County Statistical Yearbook 2019; Liang et al. 2019; Ngan et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2019; Berhe et al. 2020; Hsu et al. 2020a; Ma et al. 2020; Muntifering et al. 2020; Rhoden and Kaaristo 2020; Schröder et al. 2020; Sheldon 2020; Shen et al. 2020; Wu et al. 2020; Akhoundogli and Buckley 2021; Cooper and Buckley 2021; Kadagi et al. 2021; Tan et al. 2021; Wu 2021; Yu et al. 2021a; Qing et al. 2022), for a total of 35 questions.

In accordance with the approach of Tinsley and Tinsley (1987), after we calculated the number of pretest items required for each subscale, the number of presample samples required for a representative analysis was 3–10 times the number of questionnaires. Therefore, we collected 100 samples from local villages in May 2021 and used SPSS (ver. 26.0, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) for statistical analysis. A Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value greater than 0.06 and a P-value in Bartlett’s test of <0.01 (P < 0.01) indicated that the scale was suitable for factor analysis of continuous variables (Wang et al. 2019). The scale was retained for continuous-variable analysis because the α coefficient was greater than 0.60, indicating that the questionnaire has strong reliability (Devellis 1991). The results of the correlation analysis are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.  Questionnaire analysis.

The economic construct had a KMO value of >0.906, Bartlett’s approximate χ²-value of 1697.474, degrees of freedom (d.f.) of 45, and significance of 0.000 (P < 0.001), indicating its suitability for factor analysis. The explained variance of the scale was 22.29, 20.922 and 15.578%, with a total explained variance of 58.791%. After factor analysis, the factors of consumer prices (three questions), industrial construction (four questions), and community development (three questions) were retained and used to determine the state of economic development; in total, ten questions were included for this construct, and the three subscales had values of 0.729, 0.838, and 0.928 respectively. Therefore, the scale is reliable and could be used for further analysis.

The social construct had a KMO value of >0.889, Bartlett’s approximate χ²-value of 1150.256, d.f. of 21, and significance of 0.000 (P < 0.001), indicating its suitability for factor analysis. The explained variance of the scale was 31.615 and 28.067%, and the total explained variance was 59.682%. After factor analysis, the factors of village building (four questions) and cultural security (three questions) were retained and used to assess the state of social development; in total, seven questions were included for this construct, and the two subscales had values of 0.930 and 0.929 respectively. Therefore, the scale is reliable and could be used for further analysis.

The environmental construct had a KMO value of >0.836, Bartlett’s approximate χ²-value of 861.983, d.f. of 15, and significance of 0.000 (P < 0.001), indicating its suitability for factor analysis. The explained variance of the scale was 57.251 and 37.259%, and the total explained variance was 94.51%. The factors of village environment (three questions) and public health (three questions) were retained after factor analysis and were used to examine the state of economic development; in total, six questions were included for this construct, and the two subscales had values of 0.929 and 0.93 respectively. Therefore, the scale is reliable and could be used for further analysis.

The ecological environment construct had a KMO value of >0.853, Bartlett’s approximate χ²-value of 1231.304, d.f. of 15, and significance of 0.000 (P < 0.001), indicating its suitability for factor analysis. The explained variance of the scale was 35.825 and 33.188%, and the total explained variance was 69.013%. After factor analysis, the factors of marine environment (three questions) and coastal beaches (three questions) were retained to assess the state of economic development; in total, six questions were included for this construct, and the two subscales had values of 0.931 and 0.932 respectively. Therefore, the scale is reliable and could be used for further analysis.

The willingness to revisit and purchase property construct had a KMO value of >0.940, Bartlett’s approximate χ²-value of 2386.692, d.f. of 105, and significance of 0.000 (P < 0.001), indicating its suitability for factor analysis. The total explained variance of the scale was 61.047%; in total, three questions were included for this construct, and the scale value was 0.930. Therefore, the scale is reliable and could be used for further analysis.

After gathering data by using the questionnaire, we conducted a field survey in June and July 2021, but because of the current risk of COVID-19 infection, members of the public did not want to be interviewed. Therefore, the snowball sampling method was used, and the initial respondents were asked to encourage people’s participation in the survey by sending them a link to an online questionnaire platform. In total, 620 questionnaires were obtained for analysis, which was performed using SPSS (ver. 26.0) and consisted of basic statistical tests, Student’s t-test, and one-way ANOVA. Next, interviews were used to supplement missing information, with a semi-structured design and an open-ended interview method being employed. After obtaining the consent of the respondents, we interviewed seven individuals, including scholars and professionals with expertise in tourism policy analysis, environmental management and development of leisure and recreation industry, as well as local residents and tourists. The interviewees were asked to express their opinions on the questionnaire results.

Finally, mixed research methods, including survey, interview and observation methods, were used to collect research data (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Accurate and reasonable information was obtained by comparing and examining the data (Janesick 2000; Gursoy et al. 2002) and by applying induction, organisation and analysis (Hsu et al. 2020b). By analysing the impact of the environmental development of the Maluan Bay seashore on the sustainable development of coastal villages in the area, we could make appropriate recommendations on how to revise environmental development decisions relating to Maluan Bay, so as to promote sustainable development.

This study used a mixed-methods research approach. The Maluan Bay seashore was the study site, with the focal point being Kangmei Town; local residents and visitors to the area constituted the target population.

The human, material and financial limitations of the research team, the risk of COVID-19 infection, the low willingness of the respondents to participate, and the lack of digital literacy of the older adult respondents may have led to inadequate sample size and data. The study limitations present opportunities for correction in future studies.

This study investigated the impact of the environmental development of Maluan Bay seashore on the sustainable development of the coastal villages by using a questionnaire that was rigorously analysed and validated. We verbally obtained the respondents’ consent prior to the anonymous survey and data collection. Thus, the study process was conducted under strict, meticulous and impartial conditions, and the investigation procedures met the ethical requirements. Therefore, no additional ethical approval was requested in this study.

Among the 620 samples, 224 (36.1%) were local residents and 396 (63.9%) were tourists; 247 (39.5%) were men and 373 (60.2%) were women; and 92 (14.8%) were aged 20 years or younger, 364 (58.8%) were 21–30 years, 79 (12.8%) were 31–40 years, 38 (6.1%) were 41–50 years, 38 (6.1%) were 51–60 years and 9 (1.4%) were over 61 years.

Among the resident respondents, 117 (52.1%) were men and 107 (47.9%) were women; 33 (14.6%) were aged 20 years or younger, 13 (0.6%) were 21–30 years, 37 (16.7%) were 31–40 years, 21 (9.4%) were 41–50 years, 35 (15.6%) were 51–60 years and 7 (3.1%) were over 61 years. Among the tourist respondents, 123 (32.9%) were men and 250 (67.1%) were women; 53 (14.1%) were aged 20 years or younger, 252 (67.5%) were 21–30 years, 37 (9.8%) were 31–40 years, 28 (7.5%) were 41–50 years, 3 (0.8%) were 51–60 years and 2 (0.4%) were over 61 years.

With respect to the economy, the residents had the highest perception scores for public facilities (3.7), industrial construction (3.7), seafood (4.07), and restaurants and accommodations (4.09), and the lowest perception scores for facility maintenance (3.67), entrepreneurship and employment (3.69), and improved transportation (3.86). In terms of social awareness, the residents’ perception scores were highest for the number of tourist signs (3.85) and friendly interactions (4.04) and lowest for environmental awareness (3.47) and security personnel (3.86). Regarding the environment, the residents’ perceptions of accessibility (3.73) and parking (3.96) had the highest scores, and their perceptions of the village environment (3.43) and the number of public toilets (3.77) had the lowest scores. Regarding the ecological environment, the residents’ perception scores were highest for the increase of marine waste and oil pollution (3.72) and beach waste (3.69), and lowest for the decrease in local ecological organisms (3.54) and coastal green areas (3.52). In terms of their willingness to purchase property, the residents had the highest perception scores for experience sharing (4) and the lowest perception score for purchasing property (3.69).

The differences in perceptions among the residents were then analysed. When the residents were stratified by gender, we observed significant (P < 0.01) differences in the perceptions of public-facility maintenance, entrepreneurship and employment, salary and income, tourist signage, vehicle exhaust emissions and noise pollution, public garbage-can installation, the effect of tourists on the village environment, willingness to purchase property and sharing experiences. Specifically, men felt more strongly about increased industrial construction, decision-making measures and vehicle exhaust emissions and noise pollution and expressed higher willingness to recommend the village as a destination to visit than did women, whereas women felt more strongly about improving facility maintenance, entrepreneurship and employment, salary and income, restaurant and accommodation industries, tourist signage, number of security guards, convenient transportation, public garbage-can installation, marine waste and oil pollution, and beach waste and expressed lower willingness to recommend the village to friends and relatives than did men.

Significant differences were also observed among age groups in perceptions of regular facility maintenance, entrepreneurship and employment, salary and income, land and housing prices, village popularity, promoting young adults’ willingness to return to their hometowns, friendly interactions, leisure opportunities, the number of security guards, transportation accessibility, vehicle exhaust emissions and noise pollution, the number of public toilets, the effect of tourists on the village environment, garbage-can installation, local ecological organisms, coastal beach waste and reduction of coastal green areas (P < 0.01). Specifically, 31–40-year-olds felt strongly about the reduction of beach areas, 41–50-year-olds had strong feelings about villages’ environmental impact, traffic and transportation, vehicle exhaust emissions and noise pollution, and the number of public toilets, and 51–60-year-olds felt strongly about parking, garbage-can installation, and marine waste and oil pollution. The results are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2.  Analysis of residents’ perceptions of the village economy, society, environment and ecological environment, and their willingness to purchase property.

The analysis indicated that, in relation to the local economy, the tourists’ perception scores were highest for increased public facilities (3.93), seafood (4.06), and restaurants and accommodation (4.13), and lowest for increased industrial construction (3.80) and salary and income (3.76). With regards to society, the tourists’ perception scores were highest for tourist signage (3.83) and leisure opportunities (4.03) and lowest for environmental awareness (3.63) and the number of security guards (3.83). For the environment, the tourists’ perception scores were highest for convenient transportation (3.9) and public garbage-can installation (3.73), and lowest for the effect of tourists on the village environment (3.66) and the number of public toilets (3.63). With respect to the ecological environment, the tourists’ perception scores were highest for increased marine waste and oil pollution (3.51) and increased beach waste (3.68) and lowest for the decrease in local ecological organisms (3.37) and the reduction of beach areas (3.31). Regarding willingness to revisit and purchase property, the tourists’ perceptions of experience sharing (3.92) had the highest score, whereas their perceptions of willingness to revisit and purchase property (3.46) had the lowest scores.

The differences in the tourists’ perceptions were then analysed. When the tourists were stratified by gender, we observed significant (P < 0.01) differences in the perceptions of industrial construction, public facilities, facility maintenance, entrepreneurship and employment, increased rent, land and housing prices, increased leisure opportunities, transportation, improved parking, and a decrease in local ecological organisms and differences in willingness to revisit and purchase property, willingness to recommend the village to friends and relatives and sharing experiences. Specifically, men felt most strongly about increased entrepreneurial opportunities, improved transportation and decrease in local ecological organisms. Women felt most strongly about increased industrial construction, public facilities, facility maintenance, land and housing prices, seafood, restaurants and accommodations, tourist signage, increased leisure opportunities, transportation convenience, garbage-can installation, parking, increased marine waste and oil pollution and beach waste, and expressed high willingness to recommend the village to friends and relatives and share experiences.

Significant (P < 0.01) differences were also observed among age groups in perceptions of increased industrial construction, public facilities, facility maintenance, entrepreneurship and employment, salary and income, rent and price, village popularity, environmental awareness, tourist signage, leisure opportunities, transportation accessibility, the number of security guards, friendly interactions, environmental impact, vehicle exhaust emissions and noise pollution, public garbage-can installation, the number of public toilets, parking, marine waste and oil pollution, seawater turbidity, decrease in local ecological organisms and reduction of beach area as well as in willingness to participate in decision-making, willingness to revisit and purchase property, willingness to recommend the village to friends and relatives, and willingness to share experiences. Specifically, the tourists aged 51–60 years felt most strongly about increased public facilities, those aged 61 and over felt most strongly about facility maintenance, entrepreneurship and employment, environmental awareness, signage, friendly interactions, leisure opportunities, the number of security guards, transportation accessibility, the number of public toilets, decision-making participation, impacts on the village environment, and promoting young adults’ willingness to return to their hometowns. The results are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.  Analysis of tourists’ perceptions of the village economy, society, environment and ecological environment, and their willingness to revisit and purchase property.

The analysis indicated that, in regards to the economic construct, the different stakeholders’ perception scores were the highest for increased public facilities (3.85), seafood (4.07) and restaurants and accommodations (4.12), and the lowest for industrial construction (3.77), salary and income (3.7) and transportation (3.9). For the social construct, signage (3.84) and leisure opportunities (3.98) had the highest perception scores, whereas environmental awareness (3.58) and the number of security guards (3.85) had the lowest perception scores. Regarding environmental perceptions, convenient transportation (3.85) and parking (3.79) scored the highest, whereas the number of villages affected (3.58) and public toilets (3.68) scored the lowest. With respect to the ecological environment, increased marine waste and oil pollution (3.59) and beach waste (3.69) had the highest perceptions scores, and a decrease in local ecological organisms (3.43) and reduction of beach areas (3.39) had the lowest. Regarding willingness to revisit and purchase property, the perception of sharing experience (4) scored the highest and willingness to revisit and purchase property (3.55) scored the lowest.

We then analysed differences in the perceptions between different stakeholders, including those of property and construction, public facilities, facility maintenance, entrepreneurship and employment, salary and income, rent and housing prices, leisure opportunities, transportation, the number of security guards, accessibility, vehicle exhaust emissions and noise pollution, garbage-can installation, the number of public toilets, marine waster and oil pollution, decrease in local ecological organisms and beach waste. Significant (P < 0.01) differences were observed for promoting young adults’ willingness to return to their hometowns, the effect of tourists on the village environment, willingness to revisit and purchase property, and willingness to recommend the village to relatives and friends. Specifically, the residents felt more strongly about increased industrial construction, salary and income, transportation, environmental awareness, the number of security guards, the effect of tourists on the village environment, the number of public toilets, decrease in local ecological organisms, and reduction of beach areas than did the tourists, and the tourists felt more strongly about increased public facilities, seafood, restaurants and accommodations, tourist signage, leisure opportunities, convenient transportation, parking, marine waste and oil pollution, beach waste, and sharing experiences than did the residents. The results are reported in Table 4.

Table 4.  Analysis of different stakeholders’ perceptions of the village economy, society, environment and ecological environment, and their willingness to revisit and purchase property.

The biodiversity of marine resources means that Maluan Bay is highly suitable for tourism-related development. Therefore, the local government has vigorously promoted the development of leisure tourism, marketing local fishing and animal-husbandry industries and products, improving transportation routes, attracting foreign investment, and effectively enhancing coastal village development and living standards. Consequently, public facilities, tourist signage, industrial construction, seafood sales, and restaurant and accommodation offerings have improved substantially. The residents recognise the benefits thereof and maintain a positive attitude toward such changes and are willing to share their experiences of the changes generated through development.

Although the development of the seashore environment has improved the development of the coastal villages and local residents’ quality of life, the space available for development is restricted by the government to protect the marine ecosystem. Furthermore, the influx of tourists has created a demand for parking and public restrooms that exceeds the supply and has resulted in increased motorcycle and boat exhaust emissions. Local residents lack the capital and expertise to effectively manage the growing number of tourists. Problems with waste management and noise pollution have not yet been addressed, and marine waste and oil pollution are increasing. In addition, green land along the coast is gradually being reduced, and the ecological environment is being negatively affected to the distress of the residents.

The development of the marine ecological environment has led to the construction of numerous leisure- and tourism-related businesses in surrounding villages, increasing employment opportunities and village infrastructure and changing the working environment of the individuals involved in fishing and animal husbandry. The male residents expected development and interaction to improve their living environment and quality of life, and female residents expected the development of local tourism to lead to increased employment, higher wages, and improved village transportation and public infrastructure. However, because of the lack of public facilities for leisure and tourism in the local villages, the number of security personnel available is insufficient to meet the demand of the large number of tourists visiting these areas in a short period of time. In addition, tourism-related development, although conducive to promoting village development, can negatively affect the natural environment around the villages and shoreline. The residents aged 31–40 years commented on the loss of beach space, and those aged 41–50 years were concerned that their living environment, air quality, transportation, and the number of public toilets could not be guaranteed. The residents aged 51–60 expressed concern that the village and marine environments would become filled with parked vehicles and strewn with refuse because of the low number of parking lots and considerable amount of waste generated by tourists.

We suggest that upgrading village public infrastructure and toilet facilities, assisting residents in increasing their entrepreneurial and employment skills, raising environmental awareness, emphasising the maintenance of village and coastal ecosystems, hiring additional security personnel, and paying attention to the needs of residents of different gender and age would alleviate the residents’ concerns about current development and increase the willingness to purchase property.

Tourism-related development has improved access to village transportation and intermodal routes, improved tourist signage and waste management, diversified recreational opportunities, extended marketing channels for fresh seafood, and expanded other industries, thus increasing employment and business opportunities. Consequently, the tourists hold favourable attitudes towards the planning and current development of the villages, including the leisure opportunities and restaurants and accommodations.

Although the local marine resources are rich and have generated leisure and tourism opportunities, this has contributed to an increase in local consumer prices, which has led to an imbalance between the residents’ income and expenses. In addition, residents have access to coastal ecological resources but lack the capital, technology, and other resources to start their own businesses, resulting in little variation in the commodities of local businesses. In addition, the influx of large numbers of visitors has resulted in a lack of tourism resources such as public toilets, waste-disposal facilities and beach space. Consequently, the tourists’ perceived a lack of industrial construction, adequate income, environmental awareness, public toilets and security as well a reductions in beach activity areas and aquatic life and an increase in vehicle exhaust emissions and noise pollution, village waste, beach waste, and marine waste and oil pollution, all of which negatively affected their willingness to revisit and purchase property. We also observed that tourists of different gender have different perceptions of the economic, social, environmental and ecological development of the local villages, which can differentially affect their willingness to revisit and purchase property.

Although people of all ages can engage in a diverse range of recreational and tourism activities, the local villages are insufficiently developed in terms of waste management, public facilities and environmental maintenance, which has led to a decline in aquatic species and a reduction in recreational space on beaches. The tourists over 51 years of age stated that the current development of leisure facilities is beneficial to increasing entrepreneurship and employment, to encouraging investment, and to promoting young adults’ willingness to return to their hometowns. Therefore, the tourists aged over 51 years expressed strong feelings about public facilities and maintenance, entrepreneurship and employment, environmental awareness, tourist signage, friendly interactions, leisure opportunities, the number of security guards, accessibility to transportation, the number of public toilets, willingness to participate in decision-making, the effect of tourists on the village environment, and promoting young people’s willingness to return to their hometowns.

To support future leisure-related and tourism-related development, the local government must construct more public toilets and related facilities, regulate local consumption level, improve environmental awareness, hire more security personnel, actively maintain the beach environment, implement ecological protection, reduce vehicle exhaust emissions and noise pollution, install more public garbage cans in rural scenic spots and recreational marine areas, and be attentive to the needs of tourists of different gender and age to increase their willingness to revisit and purchase property.

Because of the coastal villages’ rich natural resources, diversity of tourism activities and extent of development, most stakeholders believed that improvements had been made to these villages in terms of various aspects. However, the current economy is highly homogeneous and competitive. The small village areas lack sufficient transportation routes to handle large influxes of tourists at the same time. In addition, the large exodus of residents has led to a lack of human resources across various industries. The increased the number of tourists has resulted in a high volume of vehicle and boat traffic and an insufficient amount of public restrooms and garbage cans in the surrounding areas. Moreover, marine waste and noise pollution have increased, the village environment and beaches have less space available for leisure and recreation, and the natural ecosystem has been damaged. Thus, the stakeholders perceived the industrial construction planning, income, transportation, environmental awareness, security personnel and public toilets to be lacking. The aforementioned factors have reduced their willingness to revisit and purchase property.

The residents had an optimistic attribute to future development decisions that may promote local construction, improve transportation facilities and improve the living environment of the coastal villages, and the tourists were positive about future opportunities to enjoy the rich environmental resources along the coast and to appreciate the diverse features of coastal recreation and tourism environments. However, because current development cannot meet the expectations and needs of the residents and tourists, different stakeholders had varying perceptions of the economic, social, environmental and ecological development of the local villages and expressed varying willingness to revisit and purchase property.

We suggest that upgrading public facilities, creating business opportunities, improving transportation planning, promoting the public’s environmental awareness, increasing the number of security guards, removing marine waste, installing garbage cans and incorporating the needs of different stakeholders into future development decisions would effectively enhance the positive attitudes of different stakeholders and increase their willingness to revisit and purchase property.

Development around Maluan Bay can effectively enhance the public’s positive feelings toward the development of the economy, society, environment and ecological environment in local villages, and increase their willingness to revisit and purchase property. However, the lack of public facilities, industrial construction, public toilets, entrepreneurship and employment opportunities, environmental protection awareness, security guards, and transportation, a low level of income, reduced beach areas and aquatic species, and waste, noise pollution, and vehicle exhaust emission problems have affected different stakeholders’ perceptions and expectations.

We recommend improving industrial construction and increasing entrepreneurial opportunities to mitigate local residents’ concerns and provide tourism employment opportunities. Increasing the number of security personnel can reduce public security problems, and promoting the public’s environmental awareness can improve the cleanliness and appearance of village environments and scenic spots. Improving tourist facilities, transportation and restaurant and accommodation management can be incorporated into strategies to meet tourist needs.

We suggest that the government should actively invest in the construction of parking lots and the installation of garbage cans, provide skills training courses for residents and support residents wanting to start businesses. The government must also expand the labour force to maintain the sanitation and cleanliness of the villages and scenic spots.

We recommend that village authorities raise public awareness of environmental protection, improve village transportation routes, develop diverse tourism products, increase tourism business opportunities, improve the effectiveness of village and coastal ecological maintenance, and establish various water-sports facilities.

We suggest that researchers explore the viewpoints of stakeholders of different age groups, adopt other analysis methods and investigate different tourism development-related topics to extend the relevant literature.

Data sharing is not applicable because no new data were generated or analysed in this study.

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

This research did not receive any specific funding.

H.-H. Lin provided the validation, resources, visualisation, supervision and project administration. Y. Ling contributed the methodology, formal analysis and investigation. C.-C. Shen provided software and data curation. C.-H. Huang contributed the conceptualisation, validation and funding acquisition. Z.-F. Liang provided the conceptualisation, data curation and writing of the original draft. T.-Y. Lin contributed project administration.