How does destination governance build local residents’ behavioural support towards destination branding: An empirical study of the tourism sector in Tanzania

Abstract The present study is among the few scholarly attempts that respond to scholarly calls to examine destination branding from the perspective of local residents. The current study extends knowledge on branding by examining the contribution of destination governance on behavioural support for destination branding in the tourism sector in Tanzania. The study used a cross-sectional survey research design with 302 respondents who were chosen to participate in the study. Data was collected through structured questionnaires that were self-administered and analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM). The findings show that destination governance influences positive behavioural support towards destination branding when mediated by destination identification. Therefore, destination management organizations (DMOs) should engage local residents through institutional arrangements, i.e. destination governance, to promote behavioural support towards destination branding.


Introduction
Research in the domain of destination branding suggests that local resident support is of paramount importance in achieving success in inclusive destination branding (Amani, 2022b). However, drivers that can enhance local residents' support for inclusive destination branding have not been well documented in academic literature (Wassler et al., 2019). The importance of local residents' support for destination branding is due to the fact that ever-growing competition in the tourism sector has influenced tourist destinations to turn to inclusive branding efforts in order to survive (Amani & Chao, 2021b;Wassler et al., 2019). Wassler et al. (2021) argue that destination branding can influence tourists to consider a certain tourist destination as good places to visit, investors can consider the tourist destination as good places to invest, and local residents can consider the tourist destination as good places to live. Zhang & Xu (2019a) argue that success goes to tourist destinations that ensure all stakeholders, i.e., visitors, investors, and local residents, offer support in destination branding. The later group of stakeholders has not been given sufficient attention by scholars, and their role in destination branding is not well understood (Piehler et al., 2021;Wassler et al., 2019). Extant literature focused on the role of visitors and investors in destination branding, which enhanced the image of the tourist destination (Wassler & Hung, 2017). Literally, the emphasis on visitors' role in building destination image has been considered an effort to import destination identity (Amani, 2022a). Local residents embody the unique socio-political values of the tourist destination (Wassler et al., 2019). Thus, poor involvement of local residents may fuel other counter-branding campaigns against destination marketing organizations' (DMOs) marketing efforts (Zhang & Xu, 2019).
Recent reports on tourism and sustainable development goals-journey to 2030 by the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) emphasized the need for more inclusive and sustainable business models to promote product differentiation among tourist destinations (UNWTO, 2018). In addition, through the Chengdu Declaration on Tourism and the Sustainable Development Goals, UNWTO emphasized that governments and DMOs should promote novel business practices and behaviors for inclusive development (UNWTO, 2018). In declaration numbers 9 and 10, DMOs and stakeholders are encouraged to develop business practices and behaviors that can enhance participation of all stakeholders in inclusive development (UNWTO, 2017). Despite such an important emphasis, local residents who are involved in and support these business models, including destination branding, are very few (Amani & Chao, 2021b;UNWTO, 2018). Wassler et al. (2019) and Zhang & Xu (2019b) argue that, regarding the support of local residents, there are still theoretical and practical issues that have not been well resolved in the destination branding domain. Wassler et al. (2019) add that a strategic area that has not been well documented in the literature is the dimensions that can enhance support for destination branding. UNWTO efforts towards promoting inclusive and sustainable business models intend to encourage local residents to assume roles and responsibilities in tourist destinations, which can lead to destination identification (i.e., the feeling that the success of the tourist destination indicates the local residents' own success) (UNWTO, 2017). Amani and Chao (2021a) argue that destination branding should be treated as a socio-political process that embodies the socio-political values of the tourist destination to develop local residents' support. Scholars such as Amani (2022b); Wassler and Hung (2017); Zhang and Xu (2019) noted that by incorporating socio-political values into tourist destination branding, it can influence local residents to develop destination identification as an important driver of local residents' support for destination branding. Thus, strong institutional arrangements that consider the sociopolitical values of tourist destinations are an important factor for allowing an inclusive approach to destination branding (Wassler et al., 2021). Amani (2022) and Amani and Chao (2021a) argue that institutional arrangements include destination governance, which enhances the management of tourist destinations by involving local residents. Destination governance is the management of tourist destinations, which adopts some managerial techniques used in managing corporations (Zenker et al., 2017). In this view, destination branding should follow corporate branding theories, which adopt internal branding to build destination identity (Wassler et al., 2021). In the context of corporate branding, participation of local residents in the management of tourist destinations may strengthen destination identification (Zenker & Erfgen, 2014;Zenker et al., 2017). Destination identification can enhance ambassadorship behavior because destination branding consists of socio-political values (Amani, 2022). Amani (2022a) argue that roles and responsibilities assumed by local residents through destination governance can promote identification, which is described as emotional behavior expressed through role-based identity.
Research streams in destination branding indicate that little has been done on examining the mechanisms for including local residents in building inclusive destination branding through investing in institutional arrangements such as destination governance (Amani, 2022). Furthermore, very little is known about the key dimensions in the socio-political context that build destination identification and eventually behavioural support towards destination branding (Amani & Chao, 2021a). Theoretically, the study is grounded in relational exchange theory and identity theory, which support the idea that it is impossible to have consistent brand messages unless branding is perceived and supported as an exchange process defined and constructed by each stakeholder's role-based identity (Wang & Chen, 2015). The study extends knowledge in the domain of destination branding by investigating enabling environments in the form of institutional arrangements, i.e., destination governance, to promote behavioural support towards destination branding via destination identification.

Relational exchange and identity theory
The current study builds its theoretical foundation on relational exchange and identity theory. The study examines destination branding as an exchange relationship between stakeholders who perform different roles in the process (Amani & Chao, 2021b). However, behavioral support for destination branding can be obtained by recognizing local residents based on their roles and responsibilities in the process. Generally, relational exchange explains how local residents exchange resources in the branding process as part of an exchange relationship to boost behavioural support towards destination branding (Amani, 2022a). However, the theory does not explain what specific outcomes local residents developed based on their roles and responsibilities in destination branding as an exchange relationship. Thus, identity theory was adopted to supplement the weaknesses of relational exchange theory, which fails to explain how local residents use their roles and responsibilities in destination branding as an exchange process to build destination identification en route to behavioural support towards destination branding.
The relational exchange theory by Macneil (1974) proposed that in building exchange behaviors, three important norms should exist: solidarity, role integrity, and mutuality. Furthermore, the theory proposes that when a distinct group of people encounters a common problem, they have to collaborate by sharing resources to address the problem. Thus, a common solution is realized through collaboration, which creates mutual benefits between parties who work together to solve the problem. Theoretically, when people work together to solve a problem, it gives them a sense of belonging and makes them more likely to act in ways that show commitment, attachment, and a willingness to share resources among parties in the relationship. The study by Davari and Jang (2021) used relational exchange theory to deepen the understanding of the ways in which nonvisitors' visit intentions are associated with perceived destination image, relational trust, and experienced hospitability in the context of long-term relations with natives of tourist destinations. In addition, Ledesma González et al. (2021) adopted relational exchange theory to explain the relationship between relational dynamics and the development of tourist destinations. The authors of the study argue that when tourist destinations evolve, changes in relational structure occur that affect the contributions of various actors with high centrality and the development of tourist destinations.
This study hypothesized, using identity theory, that local residents who participate in the destination branding process develop a role identity and are expected to respond by focusing on completing the process's anticipations, negotiating, and coordinating collaboration with close role partners by manipulating the circumstances to control the resources while reflecting the responsibilities of the role (Stets and Burke, 2000). Various scholars used identity theory to deepen their understanding of the contributions of local residents and tourists in the development of tourist destinations. For instance, Palmer et al. (2013) applied identity theory to the theoretical and empirical understanding of the role of host communities in supporting incoming tourism. Burke and Stets (1999) suggested that negotiation and role behaviour are different but interrelated and produce self-verification (role identity verification), which is essential in building a strong attachment to the group. According to Stryker (1980); Stryker and Serpe (1982), a person puts more effort into endorsing an identity when he has a very strong commitment to the identity. In the context of inclusive destination branding, identity theory proposes that local residents who participate in destination branding prefer to be recognized as members of a specific group of actors due to their unique roles in accomplishing the destination branding process. In the same light, Rodrigues (2019) used identity theory to support the argument that a continuous co-creation process involving local and external stakeholders allows destination brand managers to mirror and reinforce the destination's authenticity.

Mediation Role of Destination Identification(DEI)
Theoretically, identification is emotional behaviour demonstrated by a person due to the close relationship that person has with a particular thing (Amani, 2022a). In the context of this study, "destination identification" should be viewed as emotional behaviour demonstrated by stakeholders who have a strong connection with a tourist destination. Local residents' emotional feelings are revealed after spotting emotional congruence between the tourist destination operations and their expectations (Amani & Chao, 2021a). In the light of identity theory, destination identification is typically a role-based behaviour demonstrated by local residents who reciprocate the benefits accrued from the destination operations. It is an outcome of local residents' emotional states, backed by the idea that DMOs appreciate the role local residents play as co-partners in the destination's growth and development (Amani & Chao, 2021b). In destination governance, DMOs are expected to ensure local residents assume roles and responsibilities as key actors in inclusive destination branding (Amani & Chao, 2021b). Ideally, the moment stakeholders cultivate destination identification, they are expected to demonstrate a solid commitment to the tourist destination. It is a strong commitment to the tourist destination that motivates local residents to support different programs for the growth and development of the destination (Amani, 2022b).
For that reason, destination identification is developed when a person is engaged in either decision-making or management of the tourist destination (Amani, 2022b). Various literature in the destination branding domain suggests that participation in decision-making or in managing tourist destinations influences local residents to assume responsibilities and roles as actors in the development of the tourist destination (Rodrigues, 2019). By using identity theory, this study theorized that responsibilities and roles build role-based identities, which are crucial in building various positive brand-related behaviors, including behavioural support towards destination branding. When local residents are engaged in making decisions regarding the tourist destination, they are expected to stay physically active through participating in and supporting various tourist destination programs, including destination branding (Hultman et al., 2015). The term behavioural support towards destination branding is an outcome of strong self-identification, which stakeholders cultivate with the tourist destination (Zouganeli et al., 2012). Zenker and Erfgen (2014) argue that destination branding follows corporate branding in the context of the internal branding process; therefore, behavioural support towards destination branding can be achieved if the process allows for the strategic exchange of resources. Destination governance provides an avenue or enabling environment for local residents to participate in inclusive destination branding. Through destination governance, local residents are assigned roles and responsibilities to actively participate in inclusive destination branding. When local residents assume their roles and responsibilities, they allow a beneficial exchange of resources, which eventually can promote behavioral support towards destination branding (Zenker et al., 2017).  argues that destination governance is a form of institutional arrangement in management that combines both the socio-political and economic dimensions of the tourist destination. Literature indicates that, given the nature of the tourism sector and tourist destinations, the joint management structure is inevitable. Chiappa and Bregoli (2012) add that destination governance provides an inclusive form of tourist destination management that combines vision, policies, stakeholders, and governments to manage the destination purposefully for the realization of common destination strategic goals. In the context of tourism, destination governance is a complex or multidimensional system that needs a coordinated and collaborative approach focusing on integrating the efforts and interests of stakeholders who operate within the destination . Volgger and Pechlaner (2014) suggest that destination governance is becoming more popular because managing a destination requires different approaches that try to balance the power, influence, authority, and interests of different stakeholders. Therefore, destination governance forms an important part of corporate branding, which facilitates inclusive successful destination branding as it integrates political, cultural, and managerial issues in managing the tourist destination (Beritelli et al., 2007). Literature suggests that destination governance is a powerful management system that creates an enabling environment for DMOs to adopt an internal branding process. It ensures local residents and other potential stakeholders join efforts through exchange relationships to build a successful destination brand while adopting an inclusive approach (Cerda-Bertomeu & Sarabia-Sanchez, 2016). It provides room for each actor in the tourism sector and entire tourist destination to be identified by his or her role in building inclusive successful destination branding. In other words, destination governance plays an essential role in building destination identification, which is a role-based identity. It offers a joint approach that involves multiple stakeholders who have a stake in the tourist destination through shared vision and policies, coordination, and collaboration . Thus, destination governance is a socio-political, social management system made up of an integrated system whose goal is to coordinate and work with the efforts, interests, and resources of different key stakeholders in destination management.

A Shared Destination Vision (SDV)
A shared destination vision is a mechanism in destination governance that ensures all key actors in the tourism sector are working together to ensure the tourist destination is heading in the right direction (Beritelli et al., 2007). Therefore, a shared destination vision creates commonalities and a certain sense of identification towards the tourist destination (Amani, 2022a). When local residents support their tourist destination's proper direction, they play a specific role as copartners in managing tourist destinations. It is agreed that a shared destination can drive local residents to develop the intention to support the tourist destination as they become knowledgeable about the strategic direction of the tourist destination (Amani & Chao, 2021a). Therefore, it is hypothesized that: H 1 : A shared destination vision is positively related to destination identification.

Collaborative Destination Policies (CDP)
Empirical evidence indicates that various tourist destination strategies, including destination branding, should be the outcome of specific destination policies (Amani, 2022a). Therefore, collaborative policies imply policies that have been developed while engaging key stakeholders, including local residents (Klijn et al., 2012). It is widely accepted that collaborative policies create a foundation for having an inclusive approach to destination branding that engages all key actors, particularly local residents (Amani & Chao, 2021a). Therefore, any strategy developed through collaborative policies can develop feelings of ownership among local residents. This study theorizes that collaborative destination policies may give birth to strategies that attract a sense of destination identification as the basis for building behavioural support towards destination branding. Therefore, it is hypothesized that: H 2 : Collaborative destination policies are positively related to destination identification.

Stakeholders' Coordination (SCD)
Stakeholders' coordination creates supportive and enabling environments for local residents as key stakeholders to share what they have in terms of resources to address complex problems . It is a form of exchange-based relationship that creates networks of stakeholders who operate in the tourism sector and throughout the entire tourist destination. In tourism, inclusive successful destination branding can be achieved when stakeholders are well coordinated. Theoretically, stakeholders' coordination as a dimension of destination governance ensures local residents develop a shared understanding of various tourist destination programs . Evidence indicates that shared understanding is crucial in influencing stakeholders' intent to develop a sense of identification towards tourist destinations and support various programs, including destination branding (Wassler et al., 2019(Wassler et al., , 2021. It should be noted that stakeholders' coordination ensures each stakeholder or actor contributes towards inclusive destination branding as co-creators of a unique destination identity (Amani, 2022a). In view of identity theory and exchange theory, these specific roles are crucial in building role-based identities within exchange relationships. With these explanations, it is hypothesized that: H 3 : Stakeholders' coordination is positively related to destination identification.

Stakeholders' Collaboration (SCL)
Stakeholder collaboration is a dimension of destination governance that promotes the need for group efforts to address complex shared concerns or problems . Unlike stakeholders' coordination, which seeks to achieve a form of networking between stakeholders, stakeholder collaboration involves creating alliances between stakeholders to form a more powerful tourist destination management system . It is widely accepted that an inclusive approach to destination branding can be facilitated by strong stakeholder collaboration (Wassler et al., 2021). Furthermore, stakeholders' collaboration is very important in building a unified identity that reflects all stakeholders' interests (Amani & Chao, 2021a). In this view, stakeholders' collaboration can help stakeholders build very strong destination identification based on the different roles and responsibilities that each stakeholder plays in achieving the common goals of the tourist destination. Therefore, it is hypothesized that: H 4 : Stakeholders' Collaboration is positively related to Destination Identification.

Behavioural Support towards Destination Branding (BSDB)
As an internal branding process, destination branding should use corporate branding approaches to create a unified identity by involving various stakeholders, including local residents (Amani & Chao, 2021a). Research streams in destination branding suggest that, local residents support towards destination can be achieved when each local resident participate in the process as destination brand value co-creators (Amani, 2022b;Rodrigues, 2019). participation in the destination brand value co-creation process should influence local residents to assume roles and responsibilities as value co-creators. Amani (2022b) argues that roles and responsibilities build identification, which is described as emotional behavior expressed through role-based identity.
In this view, behavioural support towards destination branding refers to the commitment that local residents invest in ensuring the tourist destination achieves an inclusive successful destination branding (Wassler et al., 2019). Seminal work in inclusive destination branding suggests that the local residents' perspective offers a theoretical basis for branding destinations as opposed to the demand-side perspective used in branding products (Zhang & Xu, 2019). Thus, inclusive destination branding is an internal branding process combining the efforts of all potential actors, including stakeholders or local residents (Wassler et al., 2021). Thus, behavioural support for destination branding cannot be achieved unless stakeholders, including local residents, are fully involved in program planning, design, and implementation (Wassler et al., 2019). Chao (2021b, 2021a) consider that behavioural support towards destination branding emphasizes potential stakeholders' role in building a unified identity from the local residents' perspective. As stated earlier, the inclusive approach to destination branding emphasizes the local residents' perspective as the basis for building inclusive successful destination branding that can be supported in the marketplace. Wassler et al. (2019) argue that inclusive destination branding follows an inside-outside approach in which the destination branding is required to get internal support before entering the marketplace. As a result, behavioral support for destination branding is defined as local residents' commitment to destination brand identity (Amani & Chao, 2021a). In the context of inclusive destination branding, local residents' commitment is the outcome of strategic decisions made by destination marketing organizations (DMOs) to engage local residents in the management of tourist destinations. Local residents' commitment indicates that local residents have assumed a potential position as key actors in the development of the tourist destination. (Amani & Chao, 2021b) argue that the position that local residents assume influences their feeling of identification (i.e., the feeling that the success of the tourist destination indicates the residents' own success). Thus, through the use of identity theory, this study theorized that identification plays a crucial role in motivating local residents to support destination branding. In other words, given the fact that behavioural support towards destination branding is cultivated through emphasizing role-based processes, it is suggested that local residents, as potential stakeholders, should build self-identification with the tourist destination to build support towards destination branding (Amani, 2022a). Hence, it is hypothesized that: H 5 : Destination identification is positively related to behavioural support towards destination branding.
H 6a : Destination identification mediates the relationship between a shared destination vision and behaviorual support towards destination branding.
H 6b : Destination identification mediates the relationship between collaborative destination policies and behaviorual support towards destination branding.
H 6c : Destination identification mediates the relationship between stakeholders coordination and behavioural support towards destination branding.
H 6d : Destination identification mediates the relationship between stakeholders collaboration and behavioural support towards destination branding

Conceptual model
The study hypothesized a six-factor model as presented in Figure 1. The model consists of dimensions of "destination governance" (DG): a shared destination vision (SDV), collaborative destination policies (CDP), stakeholders' coordination (SCD), and stakeholders' collaboration (SCL), which are independent variables. Further, the model consists of destination identification (DEI) as a mediator variable and behavioural support towards destination branding (BSDB) as the dependent variable. Besides, two theories, i.e., relational exchange theory and identity theory, were used to provide the theoretical grounding of the proposed conceptual model. In explaining the proposed conceptual model, the two theories complement each other, meaning that, while relational exchange theory emphasizes the exchange process, which offers mutual benefits for building destination identification, identity theory accentuates that, in the course of the exchange process, actors tend to develop identification given the particular roles and responsibilities that they play in the exchange process. Therefore, actors expect to be recognized for what they do in the process and not for who they are in the process.

The study setting
he study was carried out in three Tanzanian mainland regions, namely Arusha, Kilimanjaro, Dar es Salaam, and Tanzania-Zanzibar. Specifically, these are potential areas for the tourism business in Tanzania. Evidence shows that most of Tanzania's potential tourist attractions are in Arusha, Kilimanjaro, Dar es Salaam, and Zanzibar Island. According to Anderson and Sanga (2019), Arusha, Kilimanjaro, and Dar es Salaam account for more than 75% of tourism activities in Tanzania. According to statistics by United Republic of Tanzania, 66% of tourists entering Tanzania enter through Arusha and Kilimanjaro (United Republic of Tanzania (URT), 2016). Additionally, Dar es Salaam is the business hub of Tanzania, as most business firms that operate in the tourism sector have a base in the Dar es Salaam region. Also, 10% of tourists who visit Tanzania enter the country through Mwalimu Nyerere International Airport in Dar es Salaam (URT,2016). Lastly, Zanzibar was selected because it has inimitable attractions for beach tourism, and 24% of tourists enter Tanzania through Zanzibar (URT, 2016). Besides, the majority of past studies on tourism have been conducted in these areas. Given this, the areas were selected by considering preceding evidence and experience on data accessibility and suitability (Saunders et al., 2000) and much more based on learning opportunities (Stake, 1998

Research design
A cross-sectional survey research design was adopted. This approach was deemed appropriate because the intention was not to trace changes after the intervention (Casley and Kumari, 1987). Furthermore, data was collected in a wide geographical area and from various business firms in different sub-sectors of the tourism sector (Saunders et al., 2009). Also, the quantitative research method was chosen because the main goal of the study was to find out if there was a cause-andeffect link between the variables (Yin, 2009).

Target population and sample size
This study's target population was all business firms operating in various sub-sectors in Tanzania's tourism sector. This study used structural equation modeling (SEM) to analyze the data. The rule of thumb is that when a multivariate analysis technique similar to SEM has to be used, the sample size should not be less than 200 (Hair et al., 2006). The study's population was accessed via the Tourism Confederation of Tanzania (TCT) official website. TCT is the umbrella organization consisting of various private business organizations (sub-sector associations) operating in Tanzania's travel and tourism sector. According to the TCT official website, a total of 702 private business organizations are members of the confederation. Therefore, the study sample was drawn from 702 private business organizations. To achieve the minimum sample size requirements, 336 questionnaires were distributed, and 302 (a response rate of 89.88%) were filled out properly and collected from respondents.

Data collection instruments and procedures
A structured questionnaire was used to collect data. The questionnaire was self-administered to supervisors, managers, owners, and owner-managers of the chosen business organization, as well as representatives from various sub-sectors of Tanzania's tourism and travel industry. Furthermore, pilot testing was conducted to test the validity of the proposed instruments. To increase the level of validity, necessary improvements were made to the instruments. Before the data collection exercise, informal and formal meetings were conducted with selected respondents to establish rapport and familiarize themselves with the sector. The researcher recruits research assistants knowledgeable and experienced in Tanzania's tourism and travel sectors for the data collection exercise. Overall, the research assistants got feedback from the field often to make sure the data they collected was correct and to get a good response rate.

Questionnaire development and measures
The questionnaire was developed by adopting and modifying measurement scales from past studies related to tourism and branding. However, minor modifications were made to ensure the scales fit the context and methodological issues surrounding the current study. All variables were captured by using 5-point Likert scales from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) (Likert et al., 1934;Likert et al., 1993). The measurement items for a shared destination vision (SDV) were adopted from Oswald et al., (1994); Sinkula et al., (1997); Kantabutra and Avery (2009). Besides, collaborative destination policies (CDP) were adopted by Balakrishna (2008), and Marsh and McConnell (2010). Also, items from Bregoli (2013) were used to measure stakeholders' coordination (SCD), and items from Marzano and Scott (2009) and Jamal and Stronza (2009) were used to measure stakeholders' collaboration (SCL). On the other hand, destination identification (DEI) was measured by scales adapted from Zouganeli et al. (2012) and Zenker et al. (2017). Behavioural support towards destination branding (BSDB) measurement items were adopted from Zouganeli et al. (2012) and Zenker et al. (2017).

The Use of Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)
The analysis of the data was done by structural equation modeling (SEM). It is agreed that SEM is among the multivariate data analysis techniques that are very powerful for testing a series of relationships between constructs by modeling a regression structure for latent variables (Hair et al., 2005). It can accommodate unobserved or latent variables in causal models. The technique was appropriate for this because the study has latent constructs, which were therefore measured indirectly by employing observed scores or indicators (Kline, 2011).

Common method bias
To avoid the presence of common method bias, a variety of approaches were used. Furthermore, statistical measures and remedies suggested by (Podasakoff et al., 2003) were adopted to reduce the probability of the existence of common method bias in the study. (Podsakoff et al., 2003) suggested the use of Harman's single-factor technique, where all items, i.e., latent variables being measured, are put into a single common factor. In general, CMB has no effect on data if the overall variance for a single factor is less than 50%. According to the study's findings, the first unrotated component accounted for only 47.4 percent of the total variance. Based on these results, the common technique bias was not a concern in the current study.

Assessing psychometric properties of the measurement model
The  (Kline, 2005;Hooper et al., 2008). Therefore, given these findings, measurement items were confirmed to be a good measure of the Destination Governance (DG) construct. Also, as presented in table 1, factor loadings were>0.3, indicating good convergent validity, and the value of the Cronbach Alpha Coefficient (α) for all variables of the DG construct was>0.7, which implies good internal reliability and consistency of the construct (Kline, 2005;Tabachnick and Fibell, 2007;Pallant, 2000). The composite reliability (CR) is>0.6 for all variables, and hence the instruments were reliable (Reynaldo and Santos, 1999;Tavakol and Dennick, 2011). The average variance extracted (AVE) is>0.5 for all variables, indicating convergent validity in the data (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Similarly, as presented in table 2, the value of the square root of AVE was greater than the correlations between the factor and other factors, and therefore discriminant validity was achieved. Overall, this means that each variable is much more related to its own measures than other variables (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Assessment of structural model and testing of hypotheses
Before estimating parameters and testing proposed hypotheses, the structural model's goodness of fit was evaluated. Overall, goodness-of-fit statistics suggested an acceptable fit of the model to the data as presented in Table 3. Following a perfect fit of the model to the data, the study tested five hypotheses presented in the conceptual model. In H1, the study hypothesized that a shared destination vision can influence destination identification. The findings revealed a positive relationship between a shared destination vision (SDV) and destination identification (DEI) (ß = 0.300; t > 1.96; p < 0.001), supporting hypothesis 1. In H2, the study predicts that collaborative destination policies as a dimension of destination governance could influence destination identification. Table 3 shows that this hypothesis was supported because collaborative destination policies (CDP) positively influence destination identification (DEI) (ß = 0.541; t > 1.96; p < 0.001).
In addition, in H3, the study proposed that stakeholders' coordination is an important predictor of destination identification. Table 3 shows that stakeholders' coordination (SCD) has a positive influence on destination identification (DEI) (ß = 0.207; t > 1.96; p < 0.001), supporting hypothesis 3. H4 of the study hypothesized that stakeholders' collaboration could influence destination identification. This hypothesis was rejected because the findings show that stakeholder collaboration (SCL) has no effect on destination identification (DEI) (ß = 0.009; t > 1.96; p > 0.05). Based on the above findings, all variables of the destination governance (DG) construct except stakeholders' collaboration (SCL) are the drivers of destination identification (DEI). Finally, H5 predicts that destination identification has an impact on behavioural support towards destination branding.

Discussion of findings
The present study proposed and tested a model that suggests destination governance as a predictor of behavioural support towards destination branding via destination identification.  Through this model, the study hopes to learn more about the role of institutional frameworks like destination governance in getting people to act in ways that support destination branding. Overall, the results show that an inclusive approach to a tourist destination needs a strong institutional framework that lets local people help run tourist destinations as equal partners. Because of this, the results show that destination branding is a process that needs an inclusive approach that involves many different people with different goals. The findings revealed that all variables of destination governance except stakeholders' collaboration influence destination identification. The study also confirms the mediating role of destination identification in the hypothesized relationship between destination governance and behavioral support towards destination branding. This means empirical evidence has confirmed all hypotheses except for hypothesis one, which proposed that stakeholders' collaboration influences positively behavioural support towards destination branding when mediated by destination identification.
Given these findings, it has been confirmed that stakeholders develop identification towards the destination if they have developed a sense of purpose through a shared destination vision. Therefore, a shared destination vision should be developed while engaging stakeholders to facilitate the destination's smooth operations in realizing the vision. A shared vision is crucial in the destination's management because the tourism sector is dominated by private organizations that each have their own vision. Thus, a shared destination vision is a mechanism to ensure all stakeholders' visions are harmonized, which is crucial in realizing behavioral support towards destination branding. Besides, a shared destination vision highlights key roles that each stakeholder should play in realizing the destination's vision. In view of identity theory, each stakeholder's role-based identity is the basis for building destination identification. Also, collaborative policies were discovered to be very crucial in building destination identification. Usually, collaborative policies imply the readiness of DMOs to achieve mutual benefits with other stakeholders. Therefore, stakeholders are ready to connect with a tourist destination if they are involved in making and enforcing the policies for daily operations at that destination.
Furthermore, stakeholders' coordination was revealed to be vital in building destination identification. Because the tourism industry is comprised of numerous products, services, and actors, coordination is unavoidable. Literature in destination branding suggests that stakeholders' coordination is crucial, as the intention of an inclusive approach to destination branding is to build a unified identity that accommodates the interests of key stakeholders who have a stake in the tourism sector and destination. In the same line of agreement, stakeholders' coordination in inclusive destination branding ensures that each stakeholder contributes its efforts by playing a specific role in the tourist destination. Thus, from the local residents' perspective, inclusive destination branding emphasizes stakeholders' coordination to ensure that each stakeholder is recognized for his or her role in achieving behavioural support towards destination branding. Overall, the findings suggest that behavior support towards a destination creates a sense of realizing mutual benefits between actors and, more importantly, creates a role-based identity, which prompts a sense of close connection between the destination and stakeholders.
Additionally, the findings have revealed that stakeholders' collaboration does not influence identification with the destination and behavioural support towards destination branding. Although stakeholders' collaboration seems to be an important engine in realizing mutual benefits in multifaceted sectors similar to tourism, it may imply losing power to actors. This seems to be the reason for the findings of the study. It is widely accepted that the tourism sector is dominated by private investors struggling to achieve different objectives, including maximizing profits. The tourism sector is one of the most competitive sectors, constituted by several sub-sectors that involve many business firms competing to acquire enough market share. Thus, as collaboration implies losing power or putting aside some personal interests to achieve group interests, it cannot be easily achieved in competitive business environments in the tourism sector. Since this is the case, most stakeholders choose coordination because it lets them maintain their independence while working as a team. Similar findings can be observed from Choo et al. (2011) that when DMOs impart the vision to stakeholders, it may elicit behavior that supports realizing destination strategic goals. On top of that, Cox and Wray (2011); Abd Aziz et al. (2012) revealed that a shared vision is an intangible resource that builds an unrivaled destination's identity. Also, Pasquinelli (2010) and Cleave et al. (2016) pointed out that destination branding is a policy-based process. Therefore, DMOs should ensure each policy's purposes are visible and shared among diverse local actors. They further emphasize that optimal outcomes can be achieved from destination programs such as destination branding if policies are considered strategic tools that define the quality of programs, plans, and strategies to be used by destinations. On the other hand,  uncovered that coordination is the most important factor in achieving a unified destination brand identity. Finally, Marzano and Scott (2009) revealed that although plenty of evidence indicates that destination branding is a collaborative process, stakeholders only exercise power that matters. They argue that destination branding can yield expected outcomes through collaboration between stakeholders, which is missing.

Theoretical contribution
This study adds to the current theoretical understanding or knowledge about inclusive approaches in destination branding through the adoption of relational exchange theory and identity theory. An inclusive approach has been advocated in various research streams on destination branding. However, only a scant theoretical understanding exists about its dimensions or components. The study proposed a theoretical model that could predict the outcome of inclusive destination branding, i.e., behavioural support towards destination branding through investing in destination governance. The study has also established a theoretical understanding of the mediation role of destination identification in the relationship between destination governance and behavioural support towards destination branding. Theoretically, the study advanced theoretical understanding and the application of combined theories, i.e., relational exchange theory and identity theory, in conceptualizing the behavioural support towards destination branding as a consequence of destination governance. In this vein, destination governance is woven into relational exchange and identity-based processes, implying that behavioral support for destination branding should be viewed as the culmination of a role-based and reciprocal relationship between local residents and tourist destinations.
As a result, in the context of relational exchange and identity theory, tourist destinations should create enabling environments to increase behavioral support for destination branding through exchange relationships in which local residents actively participate. Theoretically, behavioural support towards a destination is reciprocated due to the institutional framework that allows for the participation of local residents via destination identification. Therefore, in the lens of relational exchange and identity theory, behavioural support towards destination branding is an outcome of inclusive destination branding, which represents local residents' responses to feelings of joint management structure. Zhang and Xu (2019) proposed that theorizing the different outcomes of supportive behavior toward tourist destinations requires more scholarly attention.

Managerial recommendations
With support from the findings and its related discussion, the study offers the following recommendations to managers and practitioners in tourist destinations. The study recommends the importance of establishing a strong institutional framework, which may create the basis for a joint management structure between stakeholders, such as local residents, and DMOs. The study recommended collective management of tourist destinations to ensure stakeholders or local residents are connected with their respective tourist destinations and their programs. DMOs should ensure that the destination's vision is communicated to stakeholders, and stakeholders should be encouraged to align their vision with the tourist destination's vision. However, this cannot be possible if stakeholders do not see the benefits that can accrue when they align their vision with the tourist destination vision. Therefore, it is very important to create an enabling environment for mutual benefits between the tourist destination and stakeholders, so that they feel that they have to align their vision with the tourist destination's vision. Also, DMOs should ensure a mechanism that encourages stakeholders who operate in the sector to establish an umbrella organization to ensure stakeholders' coordination. In the context of Africa, notably Tanzania, the majority of umbrella organizations in the tourism sector are voluntary, which therefore presents some challenges in achieving an inclusive approach to destination branding. It has been confirmed that it is very difficult to engage each stakeholder in inclusive destination branding except if there is effective stakeholder coordination. It is widely accepted that an inclusive approach to destination branding can be well executed when there is strong coordination among stakeholders in the tourism sector. As a result, it is critical to take deliberate steps to create environments in which these stakeholders can recognize the value of joining various umbrella organizations of various stakeholders in a tourist destination. Overall, the review of policies and legal frameworks could be of great importance to ensure enabling environments are created in the sector to support local resident coordination. It should be noted that, as part of the inclusive approach to destination branding, stakeholders' coordination creates an atmosphere for the DMOs to formulate policies, regulations, and laws for collective management of the tourist destination.

Limitation and future studies
The study adopted a quantitative approach, which has the limitation of being unable to capture a naturalistic picture of the topic under study. Thus, in further studies, a qualitative approach or mixed approach is recommended to capture the naturalistic perspective of the subject matter. Additionally, the study population in future studies should include other stakeholders who contribute to destination branding, as the current study involves only stakeholders who operate directly in the tourism sector. But because the tourism sector is made up of many different services or products offered by different actors, more research could include other stakeholders who have indirect contact with tourists.