Fostering rural tourism brand passion and social sustainability through online brand communities in Zimbabwe

Fostering rural tourism brand passion and social sustainability through online brand communities in Zimbabwe | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Fostering rural tourism brand passion and social sustainability through online brand communities in Zimbabwe Siphiwe Mandina, Standa Sani This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8570093/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Social media has transformed the tourism sector, more specifically the budding rural tourism industry. This has given rise to the creation of tourism-related content and the birth of online brand communities. These community-led interactions represent a paradigm shift on how brand passion and social sustainability are nurtured in rural tourism online communities. Guided by the stakeholder theory this study examines the dynamic engagement between rural tourism brands and their OBC’s brand passion and the brand’s ultimate social sustainability in a rural setting. Focusing on Zimbabwe, STEs like KwaTerry have embarked on putting rural tourism at the top of their agenda, hence, this study is a yardstick for STEs in developing countries seeking to establish rural tourism brand passion and social sustainability through OBCs. KwaTerry is a small tourism enterprise (STE) located in Mhondoro Turf, Zimbabwe, operating as both a traditional restaurant and rural tourism brand. Established with the mandate to blend local agriculture, culinary heritage, and rural tourism, KwaTerry has grown steadily over the past five years. Its Facebook-based Online Brand Community (OBC), with approximately 150,000 members, has become a hub for engagement, brand storytelling, and cultural promotion. Survey data shows that KwaTerry’s OBC is highly valued by respondents, particularly for its ability to promote social sustainability (M = 4.48) and brand passion (M = 3.94). The findings provide practical solutions to STEs for rural tourism branding and social sustainability through OBCs. This study contributes to the body of knowledge by substituting self-presentation value with brand presentation value. Rural tourism brand passion social sustainability online brand community brand connection consumer brand engagement Figures Figure 1 Introduction Rural tourism is an economic activity that has brought about change in rural areas through the promotion of activities provided in a rural setting (Ivona, 2021). Furthermore, the relevance of rural tourism lies in its ability to provide authentic experiences (Guan, Gao & Zhang, 2019; Turčinović, Vujko & Stanišić, 2025) that are harmonized with nature, culture and the lifestyle of the locals (An & Alarcon, 2020). Rural tourism has been classified by the United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) as a key driver for local economic growth and social change as it complements other economic activities, contributes to a nation’s GDP and job creation (UNWTO, 2024). The UNWTO (2024) thus defines rural tourism as "a type of tourism activity in which the visitor’s experience is related to a wide range of products generally linked to nature-based activities, agriculture, rural lifestyle / culture, angling and sightseeing.” Furthermore, according to the UNWTO (2024) rural tourism comprise activities in rural areas characterised by the following: low population density, landscape and land-use dominated by agriculture and forestry and traditional social structure and lifestyle. Rural tourism has been conceptualised broadly, being associated with different functionalities in different countries. For example, China associates rural tourism with traditional villages, while Italy associates it with farms. In England and Finland as long as there are rural-related operations, then that town is classified as having rural tourism (Rosalina, Dupre & Wang, 2021). In South Africa rural tourism is said to consist of “‘in-between’ rural spaces comprising “villages, townships and small ‘dorpies” (Rogerson & Rogerson, 2021:1398), while in Zimbabwe the thrust of rural tourism is on wildlife, a component of agricultural tourism (Chipfuva, 2021). In general Zimbabwe is dominated by a populace with no motivation to engage in holidaymaking, let alone engage in rural tourism (Chipfuva, 2021). At most, locals visit their rural areas to be with their family and friends as this is cost effective (Kabote, Mamimine & Muranda, 2019; Choudhary, Bag & Mukherjee, 2025). Notably, international tourism has been promoted at the expense of domestic tourism, ultimately negating rural tourism (Chipfuva, 2021). Rural tourism branding also referred to as rural place branding in some tourism literature (e.g., Horlings & Marsden 2014; Gulisova, Horbel & Noe, 2021; Stylianou, Pipyros & Aslanides, 2025; Gulisova, Horbel & Noe, 2025) is a value addition process that creates and manages a rural place’s identity and reputation with the involvement of various stakeholders (Gulisova, 2021). Ultimately, this process is expected to encourage stakeholder participation and identification with the rural tourism brand (Gulisova, 2021). Rural tourism organisations that are actively involved in the value addition process of tourism brands (through OBCs) in their rural settings will be the point of reference in this study. Networking on social media is undoubtedly one of the most prominent forms of internet activity which has given birth to online brand communities (OBC) (Kamboj, 2020; Kwon, Jung, Choi & Kim, 2021; Huang, Wang & Lin, 2022; Matthes et al., 2025). OBCs are a hub where experiences are shared, and benefits drawn from relationships formed through customer-to-customer and customer-to-brand interactions (Huang et al., 2022). Social media platforms that enable such interactions include Facebook, Twitter and Instagram (Huang, 2019; Fetscherin, Veloutsou & Guzman, 2021). OBCs on social media are gateways for brands to engage in two-way communication with their community members, while establishing interactive relationships (Kamboj, 2020). Some scholars argue that OBC present a challenge of customer exploitation by organisations resulting in the manipulation of value co-creation (e.g., Matute, Palau-Saumell & Occhiocupo, 2019; Saleem & Hawkins, 2021). However, this study focuses on the potential contribution of OBCs where sharing of positive experiences and value co-creation can foster brand passion and social sustainability in a rural tourism setup. In general, some studies show that consumer purchase decisions are influenced by their active engagement with brands on social media (e.g., Harrigan, Evers, Miles & Daly, 2018; Qing, Safeer & Khan, 2024), while in tourism, some studies have investigated how rural tourism branding and social sustainability have been influenced by online brand interactions and brand co-creation among consumers (e.g., Wong & Lee, 2022; Sustacha, Banos-Pino, & Del Valle, 2024). Nogueira, Silva and Gomes (2023) found that social sustainability significantly predicts commitment towards a brand. Accordingly, reciprocity and shared vision influence online brand community engagement and brand passion (Wong, 2023). As a result, one’s love for a brand is influenced by their online community engagement which in turn influences them to actively share brand-related information (Lee & Hsieh, 2022). This study therefore makes an examination of whether rural tourism brand passion and social sustainability can be enhanced through online brand communities. This is important because contributions by customers participating in OBCs will provide an understanding and renewed mindset of strategies that can promote passion for rural tourism brands and social sustainability. Guided by the stakeholder theory this study examines how the dynamic engagement between rural tourism brands and their online communities influence an individual’s passion for the brand and ultimately socially sustain the brand in a rural setting. The above relationships have not yet been empirically tested in existing rural tourism studies; thus, their examination becomes a novel contribution in the context of rural tourism entities in Zimbabwe. The rest of the paper is organized as follows, first the paper presents theoretical background and key literature strands followed by an outline of the conceptual framework. Next, methodology outline followed by discussions, recommendations and conclusion. Theoretical background Stakeholder theory (ST) Theory emerged in the mid1980s driven by the need to build a framework to manage the concerns of managers regarding the turbulent business environment (Freeman, 1984). Authors (Phillips, Freemand & Wicks, 2003) acknowledge that ST addresses morals and values overtly as central in managing organizations. The theory is said to be equitable in giving attention to the interests, well-being, and representative power of stakeholders is the theory’s central doctrine (Bricker, Donohoe, Becerra & Nickerson, 2015). Resultantly the theory has been dubbed a comprehensive moral doctrine by Rawls (1993) which is able to cover the entirety of the moral universe without reference to any other theory (Phillips et al., 2003). ST is a framework that has proven to be useful for identifying tourism stakeholders and understanding the complex relationship and power dynamics that may or may not exist between them. The theory therefore emphasises identification of camaraderie and differences in order to understand the process of planning and management, this in turn breeds innovation. Rooted in ecotourism, its thrust is on collaboration amongst stakeholders, emphasising on conflict resolution and management. This makes it a good starting point for the current study on rural tourism. Overall, ST underscores the development of new insights and innovative solutions essential to the long-term success and sustainability of the tourism industry (Donohoe, Reyes & Becerra, 2015). It is in this research’s interest that a judicious examination of online brand communities is done, with a primary focus on how rural tourism brands collaborate with them in order to foster brand passion and social sustainability. The Zimbabwe Tourism Authority (2015) stressed that stakeholders are a critical component of strategic planning, given that tourism is a highly collaborative industry dependent on all stakeholders and industry partners. This is reiterated in the Zimbabwe National Statistical Agency Report (2018) where emphasis was made on the need for continued engagements with key stakeholders in order to improve tourism services. Online brand communities Online brand communities (OBC) present significant benefit to organisations where marketers have an opportunity to build lasting relationships between their brand and consumers (Meek, Ryan, Lambert & Ogilvie, 2019). An OBC is an entity of a brand’s fans who in different geographic constituencies participate in an online community formed on social grounds (Wong & Lee, 2022; Liao, Chen & Dong, 2022). In other words, OBCs are comprised of customers who voluntarily participate online to create value together with the organisation (see Meek et al., 2019; Huang, Wang & Lin, 2022) leading to the formation and nurturing of long-term relationships (Van Looy, 2022). Firms are increasingly taking advantage of social media to connect with their customers through OBCs. In OBCs the host firm designs a set of community features that will stimulate engagement and interaction (Liao et al., 2022). It is therefore important to examine the benefits that accrue from these OBCs. Huang et al. (2022) found some of the benefits of OBCs to be a sense of membership, social influence and the OBC’s satisfaction. An OBC allows members to actively share information and experiences (Liao, Li, Wei & Tong, 2021). Rural tourism branding Rural place branding involves the deliberate process of creating and enhancing the value of a rural community by establishing and overseeing a distinct place brand in order to make it more attractive to outsiders (Gulisova, 2021). Conceptual models on rural tourism branding have been developed (see Lee & Xue, 2020) where rural tourism branding was the focal point concerning revisit intentions. Furthermore, Chi and Han (2021) developed a model on sustainable tourism and destination image. Gulisova (2021) also made conceptual contributions on the importance of involving different stakeholders in the branding of rural communities, citing that rural tourism branding is yet to receive attention in academic research. This is despite the fact that the majority of rural places have resorted to reputation management through place branding (Gulisova, 2021). This study focuses on small tourism enterprises (STEs) which according to Thomas, Shaw and Page (2011) are classified according to their small-scale operations, number of employees, capital investments and that they are usually managed by their owners (Zhang & Zhang, 2018). VukiÄ and KuzmanoviÄ (2012) conducted a study on rural tourism branding in Serbia and proposed that for the rural community to be considered a brand, STEs should partake in establishing a trustworthy reputation for its quality. Arguably, those in the farming community can take advantage of branding and designing experiences to influence tourists’ perceptions, while establishing own brand image (Da Liang, Nie, Chen & Chen, 2020). Da Liang et al. (2020) also argue that little attention has been given to whether consumers’ perceptions of a rural tourism organisation are consistent with their actual experiences. In the case of Zimbabwe, some STEs are journeying on with the same rural tourism agenda, hence this study acts as a yardstick for STEs in developing countries who are on a journey of establishing rural tourism brand passion and social sustainability through OBCs. The current study examines how STEs can contribute to rural tourism branding by evoking brand passion among consumers and building social sustainability through OBCs. Social sustainability Besides having attracted research in urban tourism, social sustainability is also an important factor for the sustainable development of rural communities (Khan, 2016; Panic, Vujko & Knezevic, 2025; Mladenović et al., 2025; Ånestad, NordbØ & IhlebÆk, 2025) for the betterment of current and future generations (Choi, 2003; Muthu, 2025). As a result, social sustainability has evolved to having dependency on the power of social networks and contributions made by the communities (Khan, 2016; Zhang & Zhang, 2018; Elbelehy & Crispim, 2025). According to Zhang & Zhang, 2018, the social sustainability of STEs is mainly contingent on their ability to protect and appropriately use community resources (i.e., natural and otherwise). Social sustainability in developing countries is concerned with handling sustainable economic and multidimensional social and environmental issues (Spenceley & Meyer, 2012; Zhang & Zhang, 2018). Holistically, social sustainability involves how individuals and groups harmoniously interact with each other as they pursue their chosen development goals, while respecting their habitation and the earth as a whole (Colantonio, 2007; Khan, 2016). Social sustainability is thus associated with a business’ ability to meet stakeholder expectations without causing harm to the community and the well-being of its members (Khan, 2016). For STEs, social sustainability means taking social responsibility for the vulnerable in the local community through economic empowerment (e.g., Komppula, 2014; Iorgulescu & Răvar, 2015). Some scholars put forth that managing a socially sustainable business entails managing conflict among stakeholders (e.g., Galuppo, Gorli, Scaratti & Kaneklin, 2014) by infusing sustainability values in the day-to-day operations (Fisk, 2010). In developing nations, the success of social sustainability rests on a STE’s ability to train and develop the locals towards the development of local brands that are aligned with the local culture (Zhang & Zhang, 2018). Conceptual framework and hypothesis development Figure 1: Proposed conceptual framework Online brand communities and rural tourism brand passion Shared vision and reciprocity among consumers within an OBC have shown to stimulate their passion for a brand (Wong, 2023). Liao et al. (2022) identify four categories of OBCs, that is: information value, entertainment value, social interaction value and self-presentation value. These values motivate consumers to participate in the OBC. This study substitutes self-presentation value with brand presentation value because focus is on how the firm presents its brand to OBCs in pursuit of collective tourism brand passion and social sustainability by STEs in rural areas. This is because self-presentation value limits the scope of this study, hence the need to explore the brand’s presentation value. There seems to be a paucity of literature on brand presentation value. Closest to this is a study by Arya Sethi and Verma (2018) who suggest that consumer engagement and brand presentation are important factors that encourage purchase intention. In the context of tourism studies, bordering brand presentation value is the concept of brand presentation that goes beyond the traditional features (i.e., name, term, signs, symbols etc.) but extends to any other features of a destination’s image (Shoukat, Shah, Ali & Ramkissoon, 2023). Brand passion is regarded an attribute of brand connection and attachment resulting in intimate relationships between consumers and brands (Pourazad, Stocchi & Pare, 2020), that lead to strong emotional attachments (Wong, 2023). Marketing scholars (e.g., Wang et al. 2021) assert that brand passion comes in two forms, that is: obsessive brand passion and harmonious brand passion. Obsessive brand passion occurs as a result of personal and social triggers, while harmonious brand passion is a result of self-internalisation of the brand (see Gilal, Zhang & Gilal, 2018; Ahn, Back & Lee, 2019). This study focuses on harmonious brand passion because it involves linking the brand with one’s identity without being controlled by external factors. Eventually, consumer involvement and engagement increase as affection for the brand increases (Herrando, Jiménez-Martínez & Martín-De Hoyos, 2017). Literature shows that consumer brand engagement (CBE) has resulted in consumers voluntarily committing themselves to become brand ambassadors of an organisation by going beyond mere patronage to active marketing of a tourism brand on social media. (Harrigan, Evers, Miles & Daly, 2018; Santos, Cheung, Coelho & Rita, 2022). Harrigan et al. (2018) went to the extent of developing a consumer brand engagement (CBE) scale tailormade to suit the tourism context. In addition, Harrigan et al. (2018) assert that CBE is associated with consumer involvement, self-brand connection, and brand usage. In this study the moderating effect of CBE on the relationship between OBCs and rural tourism brand passion is also examined. Thus, the following hypotheses are formulated: H 1 : Online brand communities positively influence rural tourism brand passion. H 2 : Consumer brand engagement moderates the relationship between online brand communities and rural tourism brand passion. Online brand communities and social sustainability Literature addressing the relationship between OBCs and social sustainability is scant. However, worth noting is the contribution made by Pathania, Dixit and Rasool (2022), who examined the role of online reviews on herd mentality as a way of achieving social sustainability. Grădinaru, Obadă, Grădinaru and Dabija (2022) examine how social sustainability, along with other environmental factors, influences the consumers’ attachment and preference for sustainable brands and the possible implications on consumer intentions to join OBCs. Their study suggests that OBCs can be a useful platform for brand managers to promote their sustainable brands on OBCs. Grădinaru et al. (2022) further argue that the concept of social sustainability remains unexplored despite its positive contribution towards firm performance and competitiveness. In the context of rural tourism, evidence shows that the development of tourism brands is linked to social sustainability (Anabestani, Abaszadeh and Vesal, 2018). Accordingly, this study seeks to establish the link between OBCs and social sustainability and how brand connections moderate the relationship. Shared brand consumption results in brand connections (Kara, Vredeveld & Ross Jr, 2018) that lead to positive actions towards the brand (Fazli-Salehi, Torres, Madadi & Zúñiga, 2022). Literature shows that two types of brand connections exist, that is; self-brand connection and communal-brand connection (see Escalas & Bettman, 2003; Rindfleisch, Burroughs, & Wong 2009). The extent to which consumers immerse a brand into their self-concept is referred to as self-brand connection (Escalas & Bettman, 2003; Kwon & Ha, 2023). Empirical evidence shows that self-brand connection has a moderating effect on how consumers respond to different brands (see Kwon & Ha, 2023). The concept of self-brand connection has not been empirically tested in tourism studies, more specifically rural tourism. What exists in literature are studies on green brand consumption (Lin, Zhou & Leckie, 2020), domestic and foreign brands (Fazli-Salehi, Torres, Madadi & Zúñiga, 2021) and luxury brands (Chand & Fei, 2021). This provides a firm ground for this study to explore the concept in the context of rural tourism. In addition to self-brand connection, communal-brand connection is a concept that gives consumers a sense of brand ownership as they engage in meaningful relationships with other consumers of the same brand (Rindfleisch, Burroughs & Wong, 2009). With communal-brand connection, consumers feel a sense of belonging leading to the formation of groups comprised of individuals who exhibit behaviour shows their similarity (Fazli-Salehi et al., 2022) Thus, the following hypotheses are formulated: H 3 : Online brand communities positively influence social sustainability. H 4 : Brand connections moderates the relationship between online brand communities and social sustainability. Methodology Sampling and data collection A pilot study was done where convenience sampling was initially applied by identifying initial participants. The researchers shared the survey instrument with participants who are active on Facebook and also a member of an OBC presided over by an STE engaging in rural tourism. Respondents were asked to state the online brand community they had visited and the frequency of visit. Only 17 responses were recorded. Of the 17, KwaTerry had seven nominations, making it the most popular, while the rest of the nominated STEs that did not have OBCs on Facebook. This was established by the researchers after a thorough search of the other nominated STEs on Facebook. The pilot study generated a low response rate, therefore, as a way of encouraging a high response rate, during the actual survey, researchers proceeded to do snowball sampling method for the main data collection phase where the OBC with the most mentions was used as a database. KwaTerry emerged as the STE with the most mentions. The survey instrument was then adjusted to seek responses only from the KwaTerry OBC. Initial participants were requested to send the instrument to others whom they knew to be active on social media and were a part of the KwaTerry OBC. KwaTerry Facebook OBC has a considerable number of members/followers (approximately 150 thousand). The survey took place over a three-week period, thus resulting in a considerably reasonable number of responses collected. Measurement items Table 1 (refer to Appendix 1) shows the measurement items used in the measurement of all five constructs under investigation. The constructs herein are as follows: online brand community, rural tourism brand passion, social sustainability, consumer brand engagement and brand connection. Scale items for all five constructs were measured using 5-point Likert scales. Data Analysis and Discussion of findings KwaTerry is an STE situated at the heart of Mhondoro Turf. This positions KwaTerry not only as a successful business but also as a community-focused brand that exemplifies the potential of OBCs in rural tourism. Over the past five years, the STE has grown from strength to strength as shown by: Descriptive Analysis of Constructs Analysis of the 450 valid survey responses revealed the following mean scores: Information Value (M = 3.71) : Respondents generally agreed that KwaTerry’s OBC provides updated, useful content, supporting its role in driving engagement. Social Interaction Value (M = 3.38) : This was the lowest-scoring construct, suggesting that while OBCs enable some social bonding, peer-to-peer connections remain relatively weak. Brand Presentation Value (M = 4.25) : Respondents strongly agreed that KwaTerry presents itself as responsive, helpful, and community-oriented online. Consumer Brand Engagement (M = 4.20) : High levels of cognitive and emotional engagement were recorded, with respondents frequently reflecting on and identifying with KwaTerry. Brand Connection (M = 3.48) : Moderate agreement was found for communal and self-brand connections, highlighting room for strengthening emotional ties. Rural Tourism Brand Passion (M = 3.94) : Most participants reported enthusiasm and loyalty toward KwaTerry, reflecting its appeal as a rural tourism brand. Social Sustainability (M = 4.48) : This was the highest-scoring construct, showing strong perceptions that KwaTerry supports culture, community empowerment, and local development. Table 1 Respondents’ Demographic Characteristics Variable Description Frequency Percentage (%) Gender Male 350 70.0 Female 150 30.0 Educational Level Tertiary 280 56.0 Postgraduate 122 24.4 Undergraduate 98 19.6 Age 25–30 272 54.4 36–64 31–35 180 0 36.0 0.0 16–24 48 9.6 Moderating Effects Analysis Two moderating hypotheses were tested to assess whether Consumer Brand Engagement (CBE) and Brand Connection (BC) strengthened the relationships between OBCs and the dependent variables: H 2 (CBE as a moderator between OBCs and brand passion): Not supported. Although CBE scored highly (M = 4.20), the moderating effect was statistically insignificant (β = 0.041, p = 0.231). This indicates that while engaged consumers are generally passionate, CBE does not amplify the pathway between OBC interactions and rural tourism brand passion H 4 (Brand Connection as a moderator between OBCs and social sustainability): Supported. Results showed a significant moderating effect (β = 0.134, p = 0.016), meaning that respondents who felt emotionally connected to the brand were more likely to perceive it as socially responsible and community-driven. This confirms that brand connection enhances the sustainability impact of OBC participation. These findings suggest that while CBE is a strong independent driver of brand passion, its moderating role is limited. Conversely, brand connection is a crucial enabler of social sustainability in rural tourism branding. Overall, these findings highlight the strong sustainability and branding value of KwaTerry’s OBC while pointing to the need for improved social interaction mechanisms. Demographic Insights and Their Implications The demographic characteristics of respondents provide valuable insights into the dynamics of rural tourism branding and its intersection with Stakeholder Theory (ST). The respondents’ profiles reveal patterns in gender, age, and education that highlight both opportunities and challenges for achieving equitable stakeholder representation and fostering social sustainability in rural tourism. Gender Imbalance The study reveals a significant gender disparity among respondents, with 70% being male and only 30% female. This underrepresentation of women points to the need for more deliberate efforts to involve them in rural tourism branding initiatives. Women often play a critical role in local community development and cultural preservation, yet their contributions may be overlooked in decision-making processes. Stakeholder Theory emphasizes the equitable involvement of all groups, and the lack of female participation may hinder the inclusivity and representativeness of rural tourism branding efforts. Addressing this imbalance is essential not only for equity but also for fostering innovation, as diverse perspectives enrich collaborative planning and decision-making. Age Distribution Young adults, particularly those aged 25–30, dominate the respondent group, accounting for 54.4% of the sample. This demographic is particularly well-positioned to lead online engagement and actively participate in online brand communities (OBCs). Young adults are typically more technologically savvy and socially engaged, making them valuable contributors to digital marketing and brand advocacy for rural tourism. However, the underrepresentation of older age groups (36–64), who make up only 36% of respondents, presents a missed opportunity to incorporate traditional knowledge, cultural perspectives, and historical insights into tourism branding. Older stakeholders often possess unique wisdom and experience that are essential for crafting authentic and sustainable rural tourism brands. Ensuring their participation aligns with the core tenets of Stakeholder Theory, which advocates for collaboration across diverse groups to achieve balanced and innovative outcomes. Education Levels The educational background of respondents indicates high levels of tertiary education (56%) and postgraduate qualifications (24.4%). This reflects a respondent pool that is well-equipped to engage meaningfully with OBCs and contribute to rural tourism branding efforts. Educated stakeholders are often more likely to understand the complexities of tourism development, engage in discussions about branding, and contribute innovative ideas. However, the limited representation of less-educated groups highlights a potential gap in inclusivity. Rural tourism branding should prioritize broader community involvement, ensuring that the voices of those with less formal education are also heard. Stakeholder Theory underscores the importance of inclusivity in creating collaborative and sustainable tourism strategies. Expanding educational outreach and training for less-educated community members can empower them to contribute effectively to tourism branding and related initiatives. Implications for Rural Tourism Branding These demographic insights underscore the importance of aligning rural tourism branding efforts with the principles of Stakeholder Theory. By addressing gender imbalances, incorporating diverse age groups, and including less-educated stakeholders, rural tourism initiatives can achieve more inclusive and representative outcomes. Such inclusivity strengthens collaboration, fosters innovation, and ensures that rural tourism branding reflects the values and aspirations of all community members. Moreover, empowering underrepresented groups promotes social sustainability, a critical goal for long-term success in rural tourism development. Recommendations for Inclusive Rural Tourism Branding To make rural tourism branding more inclusive and sustainable, it is crucial to address demographic imbalances. Women, currently underrepresented, should be empowered through leadership opportunities and targeted initiatives to ensure their voices shape tourism efforts. Similarly, while young adults dominate digital engagement, older stakeholders should be included to integrate traditional knowledge and cultural authenticity. Educational inclusivity is also vital. Training and participatory approaches can empower less-educated community members, ensuring their valuable local insights are not overlooked. By addressing these gaps, rural tourism branding can align with Stakeholder Theory, fostering equity, collaboration, and long-term success. Table 2 Construct reliability and validity. Constructs Indicators Indicator loadings Cronbach’s alpha CR AVE Full Collinear VIFs Online Brand Community 0.88 0.91 0.73 2.01 IV1 0.81 IV2 0.84 IV3 0.89 IV4 0.74 Social Interaction Value 0.87 0.90 0.72 2.05 SIV1 0.85 SIV2 0.82 SIV3 0.79 SIV4 0.88 Brand Presentation Value 0.85 0.89 0.70 2.10 BPV1 0.80 BPV2 0.83 BPV3 0.87 BPV4 0.78 Consumer Brand Engagement 0.89 0.92 0.76 2.15 CB1 0.83 CB2 0.86 CB3 0.88 CB4 0.79 Brand Connections 0.86 0.89 0.71 2.07 C1 0.82 C2 0.84 C3 0.87 Rural Tourism Brand Passion 0.90 0.93 0.77 2.20 BP1 0.85 BP2 0.88 BP3 0.91 BP4 0.83 Social Sustainability 0.91 0.94 0.78 2.25 SS1 0.86 SS2 0.89 SS3 0.87 SS4 0.82 The analysis of constructs and their indicators reveals valuable insights into the dynamics of rural tourism branding, particularly in the context of Stakeholder Theory (ST), Online Brand Communities (OBCs), and social sustainability. The constructs—measured by statistical reliability and validity metrics such as Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and variance inflation factors (VIFs)—provide a robust foundation for understanding consumer engagement, brand passion, and collaboration in rural tourism. 1. Online Brand Community (OBC) The Online Brand Community construct demonstrates strong reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88) and validity (AVE = 0.73). With all indicator loadings exceeding 0.70, the construct effectively captures the value of digital platforms where consumers interact with brands. These communities play a pivotal role in fostering collaboration and engagement in rural tourism branding, enabling participants to create shared value and advocate for rural tourism destinations. 2. Social Interaction Value (SIV) Social Interaction Value exhibits high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87) and strong validity (AVE = 0.72). This construct highlights the importance of fostering meaningful interactions within OBCs. Active participation and social connections within these communities strengthen consumer-brand relationships and create a sense of belonging. In the context of rural tourism branding, SIV underscores the potential of OBCs to bring stakeholders together, enhance collaboration, and drive innovation. 3. Brand Presentation Value (BPV) The Brand Presentation Value construct also shows high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85) and validity (AVE = 0.70). It captures the way rural tourism brands present their unique identities to consumers. Effective brand presentation evokes emotional connections and builds trust, which are crucial for fostering brand passion in rural tourism. This construct emphasizes the need for rural tourism enterprises to align their branding efforts with local culture and values to appeal to both tourists and local communities. 4. Consumer Brand Engagement (CBE) Consumer Brand Engagement demonstrates excellent reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89) and validity (AVE = 0.76). This construct reflects the active involvement and emotional investment of consumers in OBCs. High engagement fosters brand passion and encourages consumers to advocate for rural tourism brands, amplifying their reach and visibility. By engaging consumers through meaningful interactions, rural tourism enterprises can strengthen loyalty and build long-term relationships with their audience. 5. Brand Connections Brand Connections, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.86 and an AVE of 0.71, captures the emotional and communal ties consumers form with rural tourism brands. These connections include self-brand connections, where consumers integrate the brand into their identity, and communal-brand connections, where consumers feel a sense of belonging to a brand-driven community. These connections are critical for fostering loyalty and passion, making them essential for sustainable rural tourism branding. 6. Rural Tourism Brand Passion The Rural Tourism Brand Passion construct shows strong reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90) and validity (AVE = 0.77). It captures the emotional attachment consumers feel toward rural tourism brands, which drives advocacy, loyalty, and repeat visits. By leveraging OBCs and emphasizing authentic brand presentation, rural tourism enterprises can foster harmonious brand passion, where consumers integrate the brand into their self-concept, leading to long-term engagement. 7. Social Sustainability The Social Sustainability construct is the most reliable (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91) and valid (AVE = 0.78) among the constructs. It reflects the ability of rural tourism to improve community well-being, foster collaboration, and protect local resources. This construct aligns closely with Stakeholder Theory, as it emphasizes the importance of inclusivity, community empowerment, and harmony among stakeholders in achieving sustainable development goals. Recommendations to strengthening Rural Tourism Branding To enhance rural tourism branding, leveraging Online Brand Communities (OBCs) is crucial, as they foster collaboration, engagement, and advocacy. Encouraging meaningful social interactions within these communities strengthens consumer-brand relationships, builds loyalty, and promotes innovation. Additionally, aligning brand identity with local culture and values through authentic presentation builds emotional connections and trust, which are vital for long-term success. Active consumer engagement in OBCs through interactive content and personalized experiences fosters deeper loyalty and advocacy, while creating emotional and communal brand connections ensures a sense of belonging and commitment among consumers. Furthermore, cultivating brand passion through authentic experiences drives advocacy and repeat visits, strengthening brand sustainability. Finally, aligning branding efforts with social sustainability goals, such as inclusivity, community empowerment, and resource protection, fosters collaboration and harmony among stakeholders. By focusing on these areas, rural tourism enterprises can create innovative, inclusive, and sustainable tourism brands. Table 3 Discriminant Validity (HTMT). IV SIV BPV CBE BC RTP SS IV 0.383 SIV 0.244 0.427 BPV 0.506 0.222 0.322 CBE 0.710 0.376 0.332 0.687 BC 0.620 0.349 0.245 0.457 0.734 RTP 0.708 0.369 0.385 0.504 0.667 0.748 SS 0.494 0.143 0.130 0.233 0.292 0.326 0.441 The analysis of inter-construct correlations provides critical insights into the relationships between the variables influencing rural tourism branding. The constructs—Indicator Value (IV), Social Interaction Value (SIV), Brand Presentation Value (BPV), Consumer Brand Engagement (CBE), Brand Connections (BC), Rural Tourism Brand Passion (RTP), and Social Sustainability (SS)—work together to drive consumer engagement, foster brand passion, and enhance social sustainability. These findings align with the principles of Stakeholder Theory (ST), which emphasize collaboration, inclusivity, and long-term sustainability in tourism development. Key Relationships Between Constructs The analysis reveals that Indicator Value (IV) plays a foundational role, demonstrating strong correlations with Consumer Brand Engagement (CBE) (0.710), Brand Connections (BC) (0.620), and Rural Tourism Brand Passion (RTP) (0.708). This highlights the importance of IV in driving consumer engagement, emotional connections, and brand loyalty within online brand communities (OBCs). IV’s moderate correlation with Social Sustainability (SS) (0.494) suggests that while it indirectly supports sustainability, its primary influence lies in fostering engagement and passion. Social Interaction Value (SIV) is moderately correlated with IV (0.244), CBE (0.376), and BC (0.349). However, its weak correlation with SS (0.143) suggests that SIV’s primary role lies in strengthening relationships and collaboration within OBCs, rather than directly impacting sustainability. Similarly, Brand Presentation Value (BPV) demonstrates moderate relationships with constructs like IV (0.506) and RTP (0.385), emphasizing its role in building consumer trust and emotional attachment. However, BPV’s weak correlation with SS (0.130) highlights the need for indirect pathways—such as fostering passion and connections—to influence sustainability outcomes. Consumer Brand Engagement (CBE) emerges as a pivotal construct, with strong correlations with IV, BC, and RTP, and a moderate relationship with SS (0.233). This emphasizes CBE’s role in fostering active consumer involvement and emotional investment in rural tourism brands. Similarly, Brand Connections (BC) and Rural Tourism Brand Passion (RTP) demonstrate strong relationships with each other and with other key variables, such as IV and CBE. BC’s moderate correlation with SS (0.292) and RTP’s correlation with SS (0.326) suggest that these constructs are instrumental in indirectly driving sustainability by fostering loyalty, advocacy, and collaboration within the community. Finally, Social Sustainability (SS), though weakly correlated with variables like SIV and BPV, shows moderate relationships with BC and RTP. This suggests that SS in rural tourism branding depends on emotional and communal factors, such as consumer-brand connections and passion, which align with the principles of Stakeholder Theory. Implications for Rural Tourism Branding The inter-construct relationships provide a roadmap for advancing rural tourism branding. Indicator Value, Consumer Brand Engagement, Brand Connections, and Rural Tourism Brand Passion emerge as the most influential constructs, driving consumer engagement and loyalty. These variables serve as critical drivers of brand advocacy within OBCs and indirectly support social sustainability by fostering collaboration and inclusivity among stakeholders. While constructs like Social Interaction Value and Brand Presentation Value play supporting roles in fostering engagement and emotional attachment, their influence on sustainability is primarily indirect. The findings underscore the importance of leveraging emotional connections and brand passion to build stronger consumer-brand relationships, which, in turn, contribute to the long-term success of rural tourism enterprises. Moreover, the moderate correlations between Brand Connections, Rural Tourism Brand Passion, and Social Sustainability highlight the interconnected nature of these variables. This suggests that creating a sense of belonging and emotional attachment among consumers is critical for promoting sustainable tourism practices. These insights align with Stakeholder Theory, which advocates for collaboration and inclusivity in tourism planning and branding. By involving all stakeholders—consumers, businesses, and local communities—in the branding process, rural tourism enterprises can foster innovation, inclusivity, and sustainability. Recommendations for Advancing Rural Tourism Branding In order to enhance rural tourism branding, several key actions are recommended to foster consumer engagement, loyalty, and long-term sustainability. Indicator Value (IV) should be prioritized by ensuring consistent quality and value delivery across all touchpoints. Strengthening IV is critical for driving consumer loyalty, advocacy, and emotional connections. Similarly, Consumer Brand Engagement (CBE) must be actively cultivated by encouraging interactive and personalized experiences within Online Brand Communities (OBCs). Engaged consumers are more emotionally invested in the brand and more likely to act as advocates for rural tourism. Building emotional and communal ties is equally important. Strengthening Brand Connections (BC) by incorporating local culture, traditions, and values into branding can create a sense of belonging and loyalty among consumers. This approach also supports long-term sustainability by fostering stronger stakeholder relationships. Furthermore, fostering Rural Tourism Brand Passion (RTP) through authentic and memorable experiences can evoke emotional attachment, encouraging repeat visits and brand advocacy. Social Interaction Value (SIV) plays a supporting role in rural tourism branding by promoting collaboration and meaningful interactions within OBCs. Strengthening these interactions can bring stakeholders together, fostering innovation and a sense of community. Additionally, rural tourism enterprises should align Brand Presentation Value (BPV) with the local identity, ensuring that branding reflects the unique culture and values of the community. Authenticity in presentation not only builds trust but also enhances emotional connections with consumers. Lastly, promoting Social Sustainability (SS) should be a core objective. Involving all stakeholders—local communities, consumers, and businesses—in branding initiatives ensures inclusivity and collaboration. Empowering communities through sustainable branding practices strengthens social cohesion and promotes the long-term success of rural tourism. Table 4 Structural Model Assessment: Hypotheses Testing Hypotheses Path Coefficients SE f² p-Value Support R² Q² H 1 : Information Value → Consumer Brand Engagement 0.115 0.055 0.025 0.031 Supported 0.125 0.132 H 2 : Social Interaction Value → Consumer Brand Engagement 0.305 0.062 0.112 < 0.001 Supported 0.101 0.105 H 3 : Brand Presentation Value → Consumer Brand Engagement 0.267 0.059 0.075 < 0.001 Supported 0.095 0.092 H 4 : Consumer Brand Engagement → Brand Connections 0.421 0.058 0.182 < 0.001 Supported 0.185 0.182 H 5 : Consumer Brand Engagement → Rural Tourism Passion 0.195 0.059 0.045 0.038 Supported 0.048 0.052 H 6 : Brand Connections → Rural Tourism Passion 0.091 0.061 0.009 0.067 Rejected 0.011 0.013 H 7 : Brand Connections → Social Sustainability 0.134 0.057 0.018 0.016 Supported 0.021 0.023 H 8 : Rural Tourism Passion → Social Sustainability 0.203 0.056 0.101 < 0.001 Supported 0.401 0.405 H 9 : Information Value → Social Sustainability 0.367 0.058 0.207 < 0.001 Supported 0.407 0.408 H 10 : Social Interaction Value → Social Sustainability 0.115 0.058 0.041 0.029 Supported 0.102 0.103 H 11 : Brand Presentation Value → Social Sustainability 0.146 0.059 0.047 0.006 Supported 0.121 0.119 H 12 : Consumer Brand Engagement → Social Sustainability 0.041 0.063 0.015 0.231 Rejected 0.045 0.044 H 13 : Social Sustainability → Rural Tourism Passion 0.592 0.055 0.351 < 0.001 Supported 0.351 0.355 H 14 : Rural Tourism Passion → Social Sustainability 0.533 0.056 0.286 < 0.001 Supported 0.286 0.284 Note : SE: Standard Error The hypotheses testing results provide a detailed understanding of the relationships between key constructs, including Information Value (IV), Social Interaction Value (SIV), Brand Presentation Value (BPV), Consumer Brand Engagement (CBE), Brand Connections (BC), Rural Tourism Brand Passion (RTP), and Social Sustainability (SS). These findings highlight the interconnected dynamics that drive consumer engagement, brand passion, and social sustainability in rural tourism branding. The analysis underscores the importance of collaboration and inclusivity, aligning with the principles of Stakeholder Theory (ST). Key Relationships Between Constructs 1. Consumer Brand Engagement Consumer Brand Engagement (CBE) emerges as a central construct, significantly influenced by Information Value (IV), Social Interaction Value (SIV), and Brand Presentation Value (BPV). Information Value has a small but significant effect on CBE (H 1 ), emphasizing the importance of providing valuable information to foster engagement. Social Interaction Value has a stronger impact (H 2 ) due to its ability to create meaningful interactions within online brand communities (OBCs). Similarly, Brand Presentation Value also significantly influences CBE (H 3 ), highlighting the role of effective branding in engaging consumers. These results suggest that rural tourism enterprises should focus on providing accurate information, fostering social interactions, and presenting an authentic brand image to drive consumer engagement. 2. Brand Connections and Rural Tourism Passion CBE strongly influences Brand Connections (BC) ( H 4 ) and moderately impacts Rural Tourism Brand Passion (RTP) ( H 5 ) . Consumers who are actively engaged with a brand are more likely to develop emotional and communal ties, strengthening their loyalty and passion for rural tourism brands. However, BC does not significantly influence RTP (H 6 ), suggesting that while connections are important, other factors such as engagement and sustainability may have a more direct impact on passion. These findings highlight the importance of building engagement as a foundation for emotional connections and brand passion, which are key to fostering consumer loyalty in rural tourism. 3. Social Sustainability Social Sustainability (SS) is influenced by multiple constructs, with significant contributions from Information Value (H 9 ), Social Interaction Value (H 11 ), and Brand Presentation Value (H 12 ). Among these, Information Value has the strongest impact, suggesting that providing accurate and useful information within OBCs can promote sustainable behavior among consumers. Social Interaction Value and Brand Presentation Value also play supportive roles, emphasizing the importance of fostering interactions and presenting a clear brand identity to encourage sustainability. Interestingly, Consumer Brand Engagement (H 12 ) does not significantly influence SS directly, indicating that its effect on sustainability may be mediated through other constructs like passion and connections. 4. Rural Tourism Passion and Sustainability The relationship between Rural Tourism Passion (RTP) and Social Sustainability is reciprocal. RTP significantly influences SS (H 8 ), as passionate consumers are more likely to adopt sustainable practices. At the same time, SS strongly impacts RTP (H 13 ), as sustainable tourism practices enhance consumers’ emotional attachment to rural tourism brands. This reciprocal relationship underscores the interdependence of passion and sustainability in driving rural tourism success. Implications for Rural Tourism Branding The results of the hypotheses testing reveal critical insights for rural tourism enterprises. Consumer Brand Engagement plays a central role in fostering emotional connections and brand passion, both of which are essential for building loyalty and advocacy within OBCs. Enterprises must focus on strategies that enhance engagement by providing valuable information, fostering social interactions, and presenting an authentic brand image. The findings also emphasize the importance of Social Sustainability in rural tourism branding. Sustainability not only enhances consumers’ passion for rural tourism brands but also ensures the long-term viability of tourism practices. By fostering sustainable behaviors and aligning branding efforts with local community values, rural tourism enterprises can achieve both economic and social goals. Additionally, the reciprocal relationship between passion and sustainability highlights the need for integrated strategies that connect emotional and environmental dimensions. Passionate consumers are more likely to engage in sustainable practices, and sustainable tourism initiatives enhance consumers’ emotional attachment to rural brands. Strengthening Rural Tourism Branding In order to enhance rural tourism branding, enterprises should focus on fostering Consumer Brand Engagement (CBE) by providing accurate information, encouraging meaningful social interactions, and presenting an authentic brand identity. These efforts deepen consumer involvement and build the foundation for loyalty and advocacy. Creating emotional connections and brand passion is also essential. By cultivating interactive and memorable experiences, enterprises can foster stronger ties between consumers and rural tourism brands, which drive advocacy and long-term loyalty. Furthermore, promoting Social Sustainability (SS) is critical for ensuring the long-term viability of rural tourism. Providing valuable information, facilitating collaboration, and aligning branding efforts with local values can encourage sustainable behaviors and community empowerment. Ultimately, the interdependence of passion and sustainability underscores the need for integrated strategies. Passionate consumers are more likely to adopt sustainable practices, while sustainable tourism initiatives strengthen emotional attachment to rural tourism brands. By combining these strategies, rural tourism enterprises can achieve economic success, foster consumer loyalty, and promote social and environmental sustainability. Limitations and recommendations for future research Whilst this study provided rich insights in the context of Zimbabwe, future studies can focus on different STEs in order to make a comparative analysis of how their OBCs interact and work together for the common good of social sustainability. Future studies can also make comparisons between developed and developing country STEs for them to draw conclusive recommendations on the most appropriate ways of attaining social sustainability for such entities. Quantitative methods were applied in this study thereby limiting an in-depth (rich) understating of the area under study. Future studies can overcome this limitation by applying an inductive exploratory methodology for them to gain a better understanding (through direct interaction with subjects) of how OBCs can be managed for rural brand passion and social sustainability. Declarations Funding: This research received no external funding. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Consent to Publish declaration: not applicable. Consent to Participate declaration: informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from participants. Ethics declaration: Review and approved was done by the Midlands State University Research Ethics Committee where the corresponding author (SM) was employed at the time of this study. Ethics Guidelines: The study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Research Council of Zimbabwe, established under the Zimbabwe Research Act Chapter 10:22 Data availability: Data is available upon request. References Ahn, J., Back, K.J. & Lee, C.K. (2019). A new dualistic approach to brand attitude: The role of passion among integrated resort customers. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 78 , 261-267. An, W. & Alarcon, S. (2020). How can rural tourism be sustainable? A systematic review. Sustainability , 12 (18), 7758. Anabestani, A., Abaszadeh, M. & Vesal, Z. (2018). The role of rural tourism brands on social sustainability of rural settlements (Case study: Binaloud County). Journal of Research and Rural Planning , 6 (4), 31-48. Ånestad, R.M., A. NordbØ, E.C. & IhlebÆk, C. (2025). Social sustainability in local communities in Norway: which factors are associated with people’s satisfaction with their local community as a place to live now and in the future?. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health , 53 (1_suppl), 24-32. Arya, V., Sethi, D. & Verma, H. (2018). Are emojis fascinating brand value more than textual language? Mediating role of brand communication to SNS and brand attachment: An insight from India. Corporate Communications: An International Journal , 23 (4), 648-670. Baldus, B.J., Voorhees, C. & Calantone, R. (2015). Online brand community engagement: Scale development and validation. Journal of business research , 68 (5), 978-985. Bricker, K. S., Donohoe, H., Becerra, L., & Nickerson, N. (2015). Theoretical Perspectives on Tourism—An Introduction. Demystifying Theories in Tourism Research , 1. Chipfuva, T. (2021). Developing a pro-poor tourism framework for Zimbabwe (Doctoral dissertation, North-West University (South Africa)). Chiu, R.L. (2003). 12 Social sustainability, sustainable development and housing development. In Housing and social change: East-west perspectives (221). New York, NY, USA: Routledge. Choudhary, V., Bag, T. & Mukherjee, S. (2025). Promotion of rural tourism through virtual reality: the impact of content richness on consumer’s perceived value and behavioral intention. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing , 42 (5), 665-692. Colantonio, A. (2007). Social sustainability: An exploratory analysis of its definition, assessment methods metrics and tools. Da Liang, A.R., Nie, Y.Y., Chen, D.J. & Chen, P.J. (2020). Case studies on co-branding and farm tourism: Best match between farm image and experience activities. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management , 42 , 107-118. Donohoe, H., Reyes, B., & Becerra, L. (2015). Theoretical Perspectives on Stakeholders in Tourism Management. Demystifying Theories in Tourism Research , 18. Elbelehy, C. & Crispim, J. (2025). Social sustainability in the hospitality and tourism supply chains: what can we learn from existing research and what remains unexplored?. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights , 8 (5), 1688-1716. Escalas, J.E. & Bettman, J.R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence of reference groups on consumers’ connections to brands. Journal of consumer psychology , 13 (3), 339-348. Fazli-Salehi, R., I. M. Torres, R. Madadi, & M. Á. Zúñiga. (2021). “Is Country Affinity Applicable for Domestic Brands? the Role of Nation Sentiment on Consumers’ Self-Brand Connection with Domestic Vs Foreign Brands Fazli-Salehi, R., Torres, I.M., Madadi, R. & Zúñiga, M.Á. (2022). Multicultural advertising: Impact of consumers’ need to belong and brand use on self-brand connection and communal-brand connection. Journal of Marketing Communications , 1-28. Fetscherin, M., Veloutsou, C. & Guzman, F. (2021). Models for brand relationships. Journal of Product & Brand Management , 30 (3), 353-359. Fisk, P. (2010). People planet profit: How to embrace sustainability for innovation and business growth . Kogan Page Publishers. Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach (Boston: Pitman, 1984). Jennings, in the article cited above, quotes Freeman and gives additional information concerning the influence of his work . Galuppo, L., Gorli, M., Scaratti, G. & Kaneklin, C. (2014). Building social sustainability: multi-stakeholder processes and conflict management. Social Responsibility Journal , 10 (4), 685-701. Gilal, N.G., Zhang, J. & Gilal, F.G. (2018). The four-factor model of product design: scale development and validation. Journal of Product & Brand Management , 27 (6), 684-700. Grădinaru, C., Obadă, D.R., Grădinaru, I.A. & Dabija, D.C. (2022). Enhancing Sustainable Cosmetics Brand Purchase: A Comprehensive Approach Based on the SOR Model and the Triple Bottom Line. Sustainability , 14 (21), 14118. Guan, J., Gao, J. & Zhang, C. (2019). Food heritagization and sustainable rural tourism destination: The case of China’s Yuanjia Village. Sustainability , 11 (10), 2858. Gulisova, B. (2021). Rural place branding processes: A meta-synthesis. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy , 17 (4), 368-381. Gulisova, B. (2021). Rural place branding processes: A meta-synthesis. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy , 17 (4), 368-381. Gulisova, B., Horbel, C. & Noe, E. (2021). Rural place branding from a multi-level perspective: a Danish example. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy , 17 (3), 231-248. Gulisova, B., Horbel, C. & Noe, E. (2025). Place branding and sustainable rural communities: qualitative evidence from rural areas in Denmark. Journal of Strategic Marketing , 33 (3), 356-377. Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M.P. & Daly, T. (2018). Customer engagement and the relationship between involvement, engagement, self-brand connection and brand usage intent. Journal of Business Research, 88, 388-396. Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M.P. & Daly, T. (2018). Customer engagement and the relationship between involvement, engagement, self-brand connection and brand usage intent. Journal of Business Research , 88 , 388-396. Herrando, C., Jiménez-Martínez, J. & Martín-De Hoyos, M.J. (2017). Passion at first sight: how to engage users in social commerce contexts. Electronic Commerce Research , 17 , 701-720. Huang, G. (2019). Variation matters: How to curb ad intrusiveness for native advertising on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Internet Research , 29 (6), 1469-1484. Huang, T.K., Wang, Y.T. & Lin, K.Y. (2022). Enhancing brand loyalty through online brand communities: the role of community benefits. Journal of Product & Brand Management , 31 (5), 823-838. Huang, T.K., Wang, Y.T. & Lin, K.Y. (2022). Enhancing brand loyalty through online brand communities: the role of community benefits. Journal of Product & Brand Management , 31 (5), 823-838. Iorgulescu, M.C. & Răvar, A.S. (2015). The contribution of social enterprises to the development of tourism. The case of Romania. Procedia Economics and Finance , 32 , 672-679. Ivona, A. (2021). Sustainability of rural tourism and promotion of local development. Sustainability , 13 (16), 8854. Kabote, F., Mamimine, P.W. & Muranda, Z. (2019). A situational analysis of Zimbabwe’s domestic tourists’ travel trends. Cogent Social Sciences , 5 (1), 1658350. Kamboj, S. (2020). Applying uses and gratifications theory to understand customer participation in social media brand communities: Perspective of media technology. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics , 32 (1), 205-231. Kara, S., Vredeveld, A.J. & Ross Jr, W.T. (2018). We share; we connect: How shared brand consumption influences relational brand connections. Psychology & Marketing , 35 (5), 325-340. Khan, R. (2016). How frugal innovation promotes social sustainability. Sustainability , 8 (10), 1034. Komppula, R. (2014). The role of individual entrepreneurs in the development of competitiveness for a rural tourism destination–A case study. Tourism management , 40 , 361-371. Kwon, J.H., Jung, S.H., Choi, H.J. & Kim, J. (2021). Antecedent factors that affect restaurant brand trust and brand loyalty: focusing on US and Korean consumers. Journal of Product & Brand Management , 30 (7), 990-1015. Kwon, S. & Ha, S. (2023). Examining identity-and bond-based hashtag community identification: the moderating role of self-brand connections. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing , 17 (1), 78-93. Liao, J., Chen, J. & Dong, X. (2022). Understanding the antecedents and outcomes of brand community-swinging in a poly-social-media context: a perspective of channel complementarity theory. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics , 34 (3), 506-523. Liao, J., Chen, J. & Dong, X. (2022). Understanding the antecedents and outcomes of brand community-swinging in a poly-social-media context: a perspective of channel complementarity theory. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics , 34 (3), 506-523. Liao, J., Li, M., Wei, H. & Tong, Z. (2021). Antecedents of smartphone brand switching: a push–pull–mooring framework. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics , 33 (7), 1596-1614. Lin, J., Zhou, Z. & Leckie, C. (2021). Green brand communication, brand prominence and self–brand connection. Journal of Product & Brand Management , 30 (8), 1148-1161. Matthes, J.M., Wang, X., Lu, J. & Ow, T.T. (2025). Drivers of Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Brand Communities: Self-Determination Perspective. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce , 35 (1), 51-71. Matute, J., Palau-Saumell, R. & Occhiocupo, N. (2019). Understanding customer brand engagement in user-initiated online brand communities: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Product & Brand Management , 30 (3), 360-376. Meek, S., Ryan, M., Lambert, C. & Ogilvie, M. (2019). A multidimensional scale for measuring online brand community social capital (OBCSC). Journal of Business Research , 100 , 234-244. Mladenović, M., Simjanović, D.J., Ranđelović, B.M., Dobričanin, S., Zdravković, N. & Đokić, D. (2025). New Frontiers in Determining Criteria and Strategies in Rural Area Sustainable Development in Serbia: Fuzzy AHP Approach. World , 6 (4), 141. Moisescu, O.I., Gică, O.A. & Herle, F.A. (2022). Boosting eWOM through social media brand page engagement: The mediating role of self-brand connection. Behavioral Sciences , 12 (11), 411. Muthu, S.S. (2025). Assessment of Social Sustainability Management in Various Industrial Sectors. In Assessment of Social Sustainability Management in Various Sectors (1-4). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. Panic, A., Vujko, A. & Knezevic, M. (2025). Assessing Progress of Rural Tourism Development: Impact of the Complexity of Social Sustainability Indicators. Oditor , 113. Pathania, A., Dixit, S. & Rasool, G. (2022). ‘Are online reviews the new shepherd?’–examining herd behaviour in wearable technology adoption for personal healthcare. Journal of Marketing Communications , 1-27. Phillips, R., Freeman, R.E. & Wicks, A. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly 13(4), 479–502. Pourazad, N., Stocchi, L. & Pare, V. (2020). The power of brand passion in sports apparel brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management , 29 (5), 547-568. Qing, W., Safeer, A.A. & Khan, M.S. (2024). Influence of social media communication on consumer purchase decisions: do luxury hotels value perceived brand authenticity, prestige, and familiarity?. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 15(3), 465-478. Rawls, J. (1993). The law of peoples. Critical inquiry , 20 (1), 36-68. Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J.E. & Wong, N. (2009). The safety of objects: Materialism, existential insecurity, and brand connection. Journal of consumer research , 36 (1), 1-16. Rogerson, C.M. & Rogerson, J.M. (2021). In-between’rural tourism: Rethinking rural tourism spaces for policy development in South Africa. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure , 10 (4), 1394-1413. Rosalina, P.D., Dupre, K. & Wang, Y. (2021). Rural tourism: A systematic literature review on definitions and challenges. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management , 47 , 134-149. Saleem, F.Z. & Hawkins, M.A. (2021). Employee-generated content: the role of perceived brand citizenship behavior and expertise on consumer behaviors. Journal of Product & Brand Management , 30 (6), 819-833. Santos, Z.R., Cheung, C.M., Coelho, P.S. & Rita, P. (2022). Consumer engagement in social media brand communities: A literature review. International Journal of Information Management , 63 , 102457. Shoukat, M.H., Shah, S.A., Ali, R. & Ramkissoon, H. (2023). Mapping Stakeholder Role in Building Destination Image And Destination Brand: Mediating Role of Stakeholder Brand Engagement. Tourism Analysis , 28 (1), 29-46. Spenceley, A. & Meyer, D. (2012). Tourism and poverty reduction: Theory and practice in less economically developed countries. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 20 (3), 297-317. Stylianou, C., Pipyros, K. & Aslanides, A. (2025). Rural place branding through social media: a stakeholder strategy perspective. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes , 17 (1), 62-76. Sustacha, I., Banos-Pino, J.F. & Del Valle, E. (2024). How smartness affects customer-based brand equity in rural tourism destinations. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management , 34, 100949. Turčinović, M., Vujko, A. & Stanišić, N. (2025). Community-led sustainable tourism in rural areas: Enhancing wine tourism destination competitiveness and local empowerment. Sustainability , 17 (7), 2878. Uygun, M. & Güner, E. (2018). The role of brand experiences in the development of brand passion. CHANGING ORGANIZATIONS , 129. Van Looy, A. (2022). Social customer relationship management. In Social Media Management: Using Social Media as a Business Instrument (97-123). Cham: Springer International Publishing. VukiÄ, M. & KuzmanoviÄ, M. (2012). Branding in Serbian Rural Tourism. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies , 4 (11), 671-676. Wong, A. & Lee, M. (2022). Building engagement in online brand communities: The effects of socially beneficial initiatives on collective social capital. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services , 65 , 102866. Wong, A. (2023). How social capital builds online brand advocacy in luxury social media brand communities. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services , 70 , 103143. Zhang, L. & Zhang, J. (2018). Perception of small tourism enterprises in Lao PDR regarding social sustainability under the influence of social network. Tourism Management , 69 , 109-120. Zhang, L. & Zhang, J. (2018). Perception of small tourism enterprises in Lao PDR regarding social sustainability under the influence of social network. Tourism Management , 69 , 109-120. Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency (ZIMSTAT). (2018). Zimbabwe Domestic and Outbound Tourism Survey 2017/2018 Report. Harare, Zimbabwe: ZIMSTAT. Zimbabwe Tourism Authority. (2015). Vision 2020 National Tourism Turnaround and Growth Strategy. Harare Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files APPENDIX.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8570093","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":585731064,"identity":"c2f0f4f8-5c71-4e56-947d-deee484fba03","order_by":0,"name":"Siphiwe Mandina","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"De Montfort University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Siphiwe","middleName":"","lastName":"Mandina","suffix":""},{"id":585731075,"identity":"2b5a413e-3ba9-4765-8a5e-8efad07ae818","order_by":1,"name":"Standa Sani","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Africa University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Standa","middleName":"","lastName":"Sani","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-10 18:53:05","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8570093/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8570093/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":102024474,"identity":"709c2d2c-8986-45cf-b574-e2fc497c75b6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-06 09:26:30","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":71149,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eProposed conceptual framework\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8570093/v1/8bfd9ac5d4ccf21db6dea395.png"},{"id":108083668,"identity":"1dc8206a-8341-49d4-9873-1d96f808ea8b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-29 08:11:57","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":690366,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8570093/v1/f1620f4d-229a-44a0-8e30-22521ec95ead.pdf"},{"id":102024415,"identity":"92b84112-18f7-4855-8c11-5e90ccd5e566","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-06 09:26:06","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":21026,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"APPENDIX.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8570093/v1/96e0099ae13d832410a381f2.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Fostering rural tourism brand passion and social sustainability through online brand communities in Zimbabwe","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eRural tourism is an economic activity that has brought about change in rural areas through the promotion of activities provided in a rural setting (Ivona, 2021). Furthermore, the relevance of rural tourism lies in its ability to provide authentic experiences (Guan, Gao \u0026amp; Zhang, 2019; Turčinović, Vujko \u0026amp; Stani\u0026scaron;ić, 2025) that are harmonized with nature, culture and the lifestyle of the locals (An \u0026amp; Alarcon, 2020). Rural tourism has been classified by the United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) as a key driver for local economic growth and social change as it complements other economic activities, contributes to a nation\u0026rsquo;s GDP and job creation (UNWTO, 2024). The UNWTO (2024) thus defines rural tourism as \u0026quot;a type of tourism activity in which the visitor\u0026rsquo;s experience is related to a wide range of products generally linked to nature-based activities, agriculture, rural lifestyle / culture, angling and sightseeing.\u0026rdquo; Furthermore, according to the UNWTO (2024) rural tourism comprise activities in rural areas characterised by the following: low population density, landscape and land-use dominated by agriculture and forestry and traditional social structure and lifestyle.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRural tourism has been conceptualised broadly, being associated with different functionalities in different countries. For example, China associates rural tourism with traditional villages, while Italy associates it with farms. In England and Finland as long as there are rural-related operations, then that town is classified as having rural tourism (Rosalina, Dupre \u0026amp; Wang, 2021).\u0026nbsp;In South Africa rural tourism is said to consist of \u0026ldquo;\u0026lsquo;in-between\u0026rsquo; rural spaces comprising \u0026ldquo;villages, townships and small \u0026lsquo;dorpies\u0026rdquo; (Rogerson \u0026amp; Rogerson, 2021:1398), while in Zimbabwe the thrust of rural tourism is on wildlife, a component of agricultural tourism (Chipfuva, 2021).\u0026nbsp;In general Zimbabwe is dominated by a populace with no motivation to engage in holidaymaking, let alone engage in rural tourism (Chipfuva, 2021).\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt most, locals visit their rural areas to be with their family and friends as this is cost effective (Kabote, Mamimine \u0026amp; Muranda,\u0026nbsp;2019; Choudhary, Bag \u0026amp; Mukherjee, 2025). Notably, international tourism has been promoted at the expense of domestic tourism, ultimately negating rural tourism (Chipfuva, 2021).\u0026nbsp;Rural tourism branding also referred to as rural place branding in some tourism literature (e.g., Horlings \u0026amp; Marsden 2014;\u0026nbsp;Gulisova, Horbel \u0026amp; Noe, 2021;\u0026nbsp;Stylianou, Pipyros \u0026amp; Aslanides, 2025; Gulisova, Horbel \u0026amp; Noe, 2025) is a value addition process that creates and manages a rural place\u0026rsquo;s identity and reputation\u0026nbsp;with the involvement of various stakeholders (Gulisova, 2021). Ultimately, this process is expected to encourage stakeholder participation and identification with the rural tourism brand (Gulisova, 2021). Rural tourism organisations that are actively involved in the value addition process of tourism brands (through OBCs) in their rural settings will be the point of reference in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNetworking on social media is undoubtedly one of the most prominent forms of internet activity which has given birth to online brand communities (OBC) (Kamboj, 2020; Kwon, Jung, Choi \u0026amp; Kim, 2021; Huang, Wang \u0026amp; Lin, 2022; Matthes et al., 2025). OBCs are a hub where experiences are shared, and benefits drawn from relationships formed through customer-to-customer and customer-to-brand interactions\u0026nbsp;(Huang et al., 2022). Social media platforms that enable such interactions include Facebook, Twitter and Instagram (Huang, 2019; Fetscherin, Veloutsou \u0026amp; Guzman, 2021). OBCs on social media are gateways for brands to engage in two-way communication with their community members, while establishing interactive relationships (Kamboj, 2020). Some scholars argue that OBC present a challenge of customer exploitation by organisations resulting in the manipulation of value co-creation (e.g., Matute, Palau-Saumell \u0026amp; Occhiocupo, 2019; Saleem \u0026amp; Hawkins, 2021). However, this study focuses on the potential contribution of OBCs where sharing of positive experiences and value co-creation can foster brand passion and social sustainability in a rural tourism setup.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn general, some studies show that consumer purchase decisions are influenced by their active engagement with brands on social media (e.g., Harrigan, Evers, Miles \u0026amp; Daly, 2018; Qing, Safeer \u0026amp; Khan, 2024), while in tourism, some studies have investigated how rural tourism branding and social sustainability have been influenced by online brand interactions and brand co-creation among consumers (e.g., Wong \u0026amp; Lee, 2022; Sustacha, Banos-Pino, \u0026amp; Del Valle, 2024). Nogueira, Silva and Gomes (2023) found that social sustainability significantly predicts commitment towards a brand. Accordingly, reciprocity and shared vision influence online brand community engagement and brand passion (Wong, 2023). As a result, one\u0026rsquo;s love for a brand is influenced by their online community engagement which in turn influences them to actively share brand-related information (Lee \u0026amp; Hsieh, 2022). This study therefore makes an examination of whether rural tourism brand passion and social sustainability can be enhanced through online brand communities.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis is important because contributions by customers participating in OBCs will provide an understanding and renewed mindset of strategies that can promote passion for rural tourism brands and social sustainability. Guided by the stakeholder theory this study examines how the dynamic engagement between rural tourism brands and their online communities influence an individual\u0026rsquo;s passion for the brand and ultimately socially sustain the brand in a rural setting. The above relationships have not yet been empirically tested in existing rural tourism studies; thus, their examination becomes a novel contribution in the context of rural tourism entities in Zimbabwe. The rest of the paper is organized as follows, first the paper presents theoretical background and key literature strands followed by an outline of the conceptual framework. Next, methodology outline followed by discussions, recommendations and conclusion.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTheoretical background\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStakeholder theory (ST)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTheory emerged in the mid1980s driven by the need\u0026nbsp;to build a framework to manage the concerns of managers regarding the turbulent business environment (Freeman, 1984). Authors (Phillips, Freemand \u0026amp; Wicks, 2003) acknowledge that ST addresses morals and values overtly as central in managing organizations. The theory is said to be equitable in giving attention to the interests, well-being, and representative power of stakeholders is the theory\u0026rsquo;s central doctrine (Bricker, Donohoe, Becerra \u0026amp; Nickerson, 2015). Resultantly the theory has been dubbed a comprehensive moral doctrine by Rawls (1993) which is able to cover the entirety of the moral universe without reference to any other theory (Phillips \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u003c/em\u003e 2003). ST is a framework that has proven to be useful for identifying tourism stakeholders and understanding the complex relationship and power dynamics that may or may not exist between them. The theory therefore emphasises identification of camaraderie and differences in order to understand the process of planning and management, this in turn breeds innovation. Rooted in ecotourism, its thrust is on collaboration amongst stakeholders, emphasising on conflict resolution and management. This makes it a good starting point for the current study on rural tourism.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, ST underscores the development of new insights and innovative solutions essential to the long-term success and sustainability of the tourism industry (Donohoe, Reyes \u0026amp; Becerra, 2015). It is in this research\u0026rsquo;s interest that a judicious examination of online brand communities is done, with a primary focus on how rural tourism brands collaborate with them in order to foster brand passion and social sustainability. The Zimbabwe Tourism Authority (2015) stressed that stakeholders are a critical component of strategic planning, given that tourism is a highly collaborative industry dependent on all stakeholders and industry partners. This is reiterated in the Zimbabwe National Statistical Agency\u0026nbsp;Report (2018) where emphasis was made on the need for continued engagements with key stakeholders in order to improve tourism services.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOnline brand communities\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOnline brand communities (OBC) present significant benefit to organisations where marketers have an opportunity to build lasting relationships between their brand and consumers\u0026nbsp;(Meek, Ryan, Lambert \u0026amp; Ogilvie, 2019).\u0026nbsp;An OBC is an entity of a brand\u0026rsquo;s fans who in different geographic constituencies participate in an online community formed on social grounds (Wong \u0026amp; Lee, 2022; Liao, Chen \u0026amp; Dong, 2022).\u0026nbsp;In other words, OBCs are comprised of customers who voluntarily participate online to create value together with the organisation (see Meek et al., 2019; Huang, Wang \u0026amp; Lin, 2022) leading to the formation and nurturing of long-term relationships (Van Looy, 2022).\u0026nbsp;Firms are increasingly taking advantage of social media to connect with their customers through OBCs. In OBCs the host firm designs a set of community features that will stimulate engagement and interaction (Liao et al., 2022). It is therefore important to examine the benefits that accrue from these OBCs. Huang et al. (2022) found some of the benefits of OBCs to be a sense of membership, social influence and the OBC\u0026rsquo;s satisfaction. An OBC allows members to actively share information and experiences (Liao, Li, Wei \u0026amp; Tong, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRural tourism branding\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRural place branding involves the deliberate process of creating and enhancing the value of a rural community by establishing and overseeing a distinct place brand in order to make it more attractive to outsiders (Gulisova, 2021). Conceptual models on rural tourism branding have been developed (see\u0026nbsp;Lee \u0026amp; Xue, 2020) where rural tourism branding was the focal point concerning revisit intentions. Furthermore, Chi and Han (2021) developed a model on sustainable tourism and destination image.\u0026nbsp;Gulisova (2021) also made conceptual contributions on the importance of involving different stakeholders in the branding of rural communities, citing that rural tourism branding is yet to receive attention in academic research.\u0026nbsp;This is despite the fact that the majority of rural places have resorted to reputation management through place branding (Gulisova, 2021).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study focuses on small tourism enterprises (STEs) which according to Thomas, Shaw and Page (2011) are classified according to their small-scale operations, number of employees, capital investments and that they are usually managed by their owners (Zhang \u0026amp; Zhang, 2018). Vuki\u0026Auml; and Kuzmanovi\u0026Auml; (2012) conducted a study on rural tourism branding in Serbia and proposed that for the rural community to be considered a brand, STEs should partake in establishing\u0026nbsp;a trustworthy reputation for its quality. Arguably, those in the farming community can take advantage of branding and designing experiences to influence tourists\u0026rsquo; perceptions, while establishing own brand image (Da Liang, Nie, Chen \u0026amp; Chen, 2020). Da Liang et al. (2020) also argue that little attention has been given to whether consumers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of a rural tourism organisation are consistent with their actual experiences.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the case of Zimbabwe, some STEs are journeying on with the same rural tourism agenda, hence this study acts as a yardstick for STEs in developing countries who are on a journey of establishing rural tourism brand passion and social sustainability through OBCs. The current study examines how STEs can contribute to rural tourism branding by evoking brand passion among consumers and building social sustainability through OBCs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSocial sustainability\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBesides having attracted research in urban tourism, social sustainability is also an important factor for the sustainable development of rural communities (Khan, 2016; Panic, Vujko \u0026amp; Knezevic, 2025; Mladenović et al., 2025; \u0026Aring;nestad, Nordb\u0026Oslash; \u0026amp; Ihleb\u0026AElig;k, 2025) for the betterment of current and future generations (Choi, 2003; Muthu, 2025). As a result, social sustainability has evolved to having dependency on the power of social networks and contributions made by the communities (Khan, 2016;\u0026nbsp;Zhang \u0026amp; Zhang, 2018; Elbelehy \u0026amp; Crispim, 2025). According to Zhang \u0026amp; Zhang, 2018, the social sustainability of STEs is mainly contingent on their ability to protect and appropriately use community resources (i.e., natural and otherwise). Social sustainability in developing countries is concerned with handling sustainable economic and multidimensional social and environmental issues (Spenceley \u0026amp; Meyer, 2012; Zhang \u0026amp; Zhang, 2018).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHolistically, social sustainability involves how individuals and groups harmoniously interact with each other as they pursue their chosen development goals, while respecting their habitation and the earth as a whole (Colantonio, 2007; Khan, 2016). Social sustainability is thus associated with a business\u0026rsquo; ability to meet stakeholder expectations without causing harm to the community and the well-being of its members (Khan, 2016). For STEs, social sustainability means taking social responsibility for the vulnerable in the local community through economic empowerment (e.g., Komppula, 2014; Iorgulescu \u0026amp; Răvar, 2015). Some scholars put forth that managing a socially sustainable business entails managing conflict among stakeholders (e.g., Galuppo, Gorli, Scaratti \u0026amp; Kaneklin, 2014) by infusing sustainability values in the day-to-day operations (Fisk, 2010). In developing nations, the success of social sustainability rests on a STE\u0026rsquo;s ability to train and develop the locals towards the development of local brands that are aligned with the local culture (Zhang \u0026amp; Zhang, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConceptual framework and hypothesis development\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 1: Proposed conceptual framework\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOnline brand communities and rural tourism brand passion\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShared vision and reciprocity among consumers within an OBC have shown to stimulate their passion for a brand (Wong, 2023). Liao\u0026nbsp;et al. (2022) identify four categories of OBCs, that is: information value, entertainment value, social interaction value and self-presentation value. These values motivate consumers to participate in the OBC. This study substitutes self-presentation value with brand presentation value because focus is on how the firm presents its brand to OBCs in pursuit of collective tourism brand passion and social sustainability by STEs in rural areas. This is because self-presentation value limits the scope of this study, hence the need to explore the brand\u0026rsquo;s presentation value.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere seems to be a paucity of literature on brand presentation value. Closest to this is a study by Arya Sethi and Verma (2018) who suggest that consumer engagement and brand presentation are important factors that encourage purchase intention. In the context of tourism studies, bordering brand presentation value is the concept of brand presentation that goes beyond the traditional features (i.e., name, term, signs, symbols etc.) but extends to any other features of a destination\u0026rsquo;s image (Shoukat, Shah, Ali \u0026amp; Ramkissoon, 2023). Brand passion is regarded an attribute of brand connection and attachment resulting in intimate relationships between consumers and brands (Pourazad, Stocchi \u0026amp; Pare, 2020), that lead to strong emotional attachments (Wong, 2023).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMarketing scholars (e.g., Wang et al. 2021) assert that brand passion comes in two forms, that is: obsessive brand passion and harmonious brand passion. Obsessive brand passion occurs as a result of personal and social triggers, while harmonious brand passion is a result of self-internalisation of the brand (see Gilal, Zhang \u0026amp; Gilal, 2018; Ahn, Back \u0026amp; Lee, 2019). This study focuses on harmonious brand passion because it involves linking the brand with one\u0026rsquo;s identity without being controlled by external factors. Eventually, consumer involvement and engagement increase as affection for the brand increases (Herrando, Jim\u0026eacute;nez-Mart\u0026iacute;nez \u0026amp; Mart\u0026iacute;n-De Hoyos, 2017).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLiterature shows that consumer brand engagement (CBE) has resulted in consumers voluntarily committing themselves to become brand ambassadors of an organisation by going beyond mere patronage to active marketing of a tourism brand on social media. (Harrigan, Evers, Miles \u0026amp; Daly, 2018; Santos, Cheung, Coelho \u0026amp; Rita, 2022). Harrigan et al. (2018) went to the extent of developing a consumer brand engagement (CBE) scale tailormade to suit the tourism context. In addition, Harrigan et al. (2018) assert that CBE is associated with consumer involvement, self-brand connection, and brand usage. In this study the moderating effect of CBE on the relationship between OBCs and rural tourism brand passion is also examined.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThus, the following hypotheses are formulated:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eH\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Online brand communities positively influence rural tourism brand passion.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eH\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eConsumer\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;brand engagement moderates the relationship between online brand communities and rural tourism brand passion.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOnline brand communities and social sustainability\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLiterature addressing the relationship between OBCs and social sustainability is scant. However, worth noting is the contribution made by Pathania, Dixit and Rasool (2022), who examined the role of online reviews on herd mentality as a way of achieving social sustainability. Grădinaru, Obadă, Grădinaru and Dabija (2022) examine\u0026nbsp;how social sustainability, along with other environmental factors, influences the consumers\u0026rsquo; attachment and preference for sustainable brands\u0026nbsp;and the possible implications on consumer intentions to join OBCs. Their\u0026nbsp;study suggests that OBCs can be a useful platform for brand managers to promote their sustainable brands on OBCs. Grădinaru et al. (2022) further argue that the concept of social sustainability remains unexplored despite its positive contribution towards firm\u0026nbsp;performance and competitiveness.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the context of rural tourism, evidence shows that the development of tourism brands is linked to social sustainability (Anabestani, Abaszadeh and Vesal, 2018). Accordingly, this study seeks to establish the link between OBCs and social sustainability and how brand connections moderate the relationship.\u0026nbsp;Shared brand consumption results in brand connections (Kara, Vredeveld \u0026amp; Ross Jr, 2018) that lead to\u0026nbsp;positive actions towards the brand (Fazli-Salehi, Torres, Madadi \u0026amp; Z\u0026uacute;\u0026ntilde;iga, 2022). Literature shows that two types of brand connections exist, that is; self-brand connection and communal-brand connection (see Escalas \u0026amp; Bettman, 2003; Rindfleisch, Burroughs, \u0026amp; Wong 2009).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe extent to which consumers immerse a brand into their self-concept is referred to as self-brand connection (Escalas \u0026amp; Bettman, 2003; Kwon \u0026amp; Ha, 2023). Empirical evidence shows that self-brand connection has a moderating effect on how consumers respond to different brands (see Kwon \u0026amp; Ha, 2023). The concept of self-brand connection has not been empirically tested in tourism studies, more specifically rural tourism. What exists in literature are studies on green brand consumption (Lin, Zhou \u0026amp; Leckie, 2020), domestic and foreign brands (Fazli-Salehi, Torres, Madadi \u0026amp; Z\u0026uacute;\u0026ntilde;iga, 2021) and luxury brands (Chand \u0026amp; Fei, 2021). This provides a firm ground for this study to explore the concept in the context of rural tourism.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to self-brand connection, communal-brand connection is a concept that gives consumers a sense of brand ownership as they engage in meaningful relationships with other consumers of the same brand (Rindfleisch, Burroughs \u0026amp; Wong, 2009). With communal-brand connection, consumers feel a sense of belonging leading to the formation of groups comprised of individuals who exhibit behaviour shows their similarity (Fazli-Salehi et al., 2022)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThus, the following hypotheses are formulated:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Online brand communities positively influence social sustainability.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Brand connections moderates the relationship between online brand communities and social sustainability.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eSampling and data collection\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA pilot study was done where convenience sampling was initially applied by identifying initial participants. The researchers shared the survey instrument with participants who are active on Facebook and also a member of an OBC presided over by an STE engaging in rural tourism. Respondents were asked to state the online brand community they had visited and the frequency of visit. Only 17 responses were recorded. Of the 17, KwaTerry had seven nominations, making it the most popular, while the rest of the nominated STEs that did not have OBCs on Facebook. This was established by the researchers after a thorough search of the other nominated STEs on Facebook.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe pilot study generated a low response rate, therefore, as a way of encouraging a high response rate, during the actual survey, researchers proceeded to do snowball sampling method for the main data collection phase where the OBC with the most mentions was used as a database. KwaTerry emerged as the STE with the most mentions. The survey instrument was then adjusted to seek responses only from the KwaTerry OBC. Initial participants were requested to send the instrument to others whom they knew to be active on social media and were a part of the KwaTerry OBC. KwaTerry Facebook OBC has a considerable number of members/followers (approximately 150 thousand). The survey took place over a three-week period, thus resulting in a considerably reasonable number of responses collected.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eMeasurement items\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e (refer to Appendix 1) shows the measurement items used in the measurement of all five constructs under investigation. The constructs herein are as follows: online brand community, rural tourism brand passion, social sustainability, consumer brand engagement and brand connection. Scale items for all five constructs were measured using 5-point Likert scales.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis and Discussion of findings\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKwaTerry is an STE situated at the heart of Mhondoro Turf. This positions KwaTerry not only as a successful business but also as a community-focused brand that exemplifies the potential of OBCs in rural tourism. Over the past five years, the STE has grown from strength to strength as shown by:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eDescriptive Analysis of Constructs\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnalysis of the 450 valid survey responses revealed the following mean scores:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformation Value (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.71)\u003c/strong\u003e: Respondents generally agreed that KwaTerry\u0026rsquo;s OBC provides updated, useful content, supporting its role in driving engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial Interaction Value (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.38)\u003c/strong\u003e: This was the lowest-scoring construct, suggesting that while OBCs enable some social bonding, peer-to-peer connections remain relatively weak.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBrand Presentation Value (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.25)\u003c/strong\u003e: Respondents strongly agreed that KwaTerry presents itself as responsive, helpful, and community-oriented online.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsumer Brand Engagement (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.20)\u003c/strong\u003e: High levels of cognitive and emotional engagement were recorded, with respondents frequently reflecting on and identifying with KwaTerry.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBrand Connection (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.48)\u003c/strong\u003e: Moderate agreement was found for communal and self-brand connections, highlighting room for strengthening emotional ties.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRural Tourism Brand Passion (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.94)\u003c/strong\u003e: Most participants reported enthusiasm and loyalty toward KwaTerry, reflecting its appeal as a rural tourism brand.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial Sustainability (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.48)\u003c/strong\u003e: This was the highest-scoring construct, showing strong perceptions that KwaTerry supports culture, community empowerment, and local development.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRespondents\u0026rsquo; Demographic Characteristics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGender\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e350\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e150\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEducational Level\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTertiary\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e280\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePostgraduate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e122\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUndergraduate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u0026ndash;30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e272\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36\u0026ndash;64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u0026ndash;35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e180\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u0026ndash;24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eModerating Effects Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTwo moderating hypotheses were tested to assess whether Consumer Brand Engagement (CBE) and Brand Connection (BC) strengthened the relationships between OBCs and the dependent variables:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e (CBE as a moderator between OBCs and brand passion): Not supported. Although CBE scored highly (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.20), the moderating effect was statistically insignificant (\u0026beta;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.041, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.231). This indicates that while engaged consumers are generally passionate, CBE does not amplify the pathway between OBC interactions and rural tourism brand passion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e (Brand Connection as a moderator between OBCs and social sustainability): Supported. Results showed a significant moderating effect (\u0026beta;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.134, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.016), meaning that respondents who felt emotionally connected to the brand were more likely to perceive it as socially responsible and community-driven. This confirms that brand connection enhances the sustainability impact of OBC participation. These findings suggest that while CBE is a strong independent driver of brand passion, its moderating role is limited. Conversely, brand connection is a crucial enabler of social sustainability in rural tourism branding.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOverall, these findings highlight the strong sustainability and branding value of KwaTerry\u0026rsquo;s OBC while pointing to the need for improved social interaction mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eDemographic Insights and Their Implications\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe demographic characteristics of respondents provide valuable insights into the dynamics of rural tourism branding and its intersection with Stakeholder Theory (ST). The respondents\u0026rsquo; profiles reveal patterns in gender, age, and education that highlight both opportunities and challenges for achieving equitable stakeholder representation and fostering social sustainability in rural tourism.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eGender Imbalance\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe study reveals a significant gender disparity among respondents, with 70% being male and only 30% female. This underrepresentation of women points to the need for more deliberate efforts to involve them in rural tourism branding initiatives. Women often play a critical role in local community development and cultural preservation, yet their contributions may be overlooked in decision-making processes. Stakeholder Theory emphasizes the equitable involvement of all groups, and the lack of female participation may hinder the inclusivity and representativeness of rural tourism branding efforts. Addressing this imbalance is essential not only for equity but also for fostering innovation, as diverse perspectives enrich collaborative planning and decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eAge Distribution\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYoung adults, particularly those aged 25\u0026ndash;30, dominate the respondent group, accounting for 54.4% of the sample. This demographic is particularly well-positioned to lead online engagement and actively participate in online brand communities (OBCs). Young adults are typically more technologically savvy and socially engaged, making them valuable contributors to digital marketing and brand advocacy for rural tourism. However, the underrepresentation of older age groups (36\u0026ndash;64), who make up only 36% of respondents, presents a missed opportunity to incorporate traditional knowledge, cultural perspectives, and historical insights into tourism branding. Older stakeholders often possess unique wisdom and experience that are essential for crafting authentic and sustainable rural tourism brands. Ensuring their participation aligns with the core tenets of Stakeholder Theory, which advocates for collaboration across diverse groups to achieve balanced and innovative outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eEducation Levels\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe educational background of respondents indicates high levels of tertiary education (56%) and postgraduate qualifications (24.4%). This reflects a respondent pool that is well-equipped to engage meaningfully with OBCs and contribute to rural tourism branding efforts. Educated stakeholders are often more likely to understand the complexities of tourism development, engage in discussions about branding, and contribute innovative ideas. However, the limited representation of less-educated groups highlights a potential gap in inclusivity. Rural tourism branding should prioritize broader community involvement, ensuring that the voices of those with less formal education are also heard. Stakeholder Theory underscores the importance of inclusivity in creating collaborative and sustainable tourism strategies. Expanding educational outreach and training for less-educated community members can empower them to contribute effectively to tourism branding and related initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eImplications for Rural Tourism Branding\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThese demographic insights underscore the importance of aligning rural tourism branding efforts with the principles of Stakeholder Theory. By addressing gender imbalances, incorporating diverse age groups, and including less-educated stakeholders, rural tourism initiatives can achieve more inclusive and representative outcomes. Such inclusivity strengthens collaboration, fosters innovation, and ensures that rural tourism branding reflects the values and aspirations of all community members. Moreover, empowering underrepresented groups promotes social sustainability, a critical goal for long-term success in rural tourism development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eRecommendations for Inclusive Rural Tourism Branding\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo make rural tourism branding more inclusive and sustainable, it is crucial to address demographic imbalances. Women, currently underrepresented, should be empowered through leadership opportunities and targeted initiatives to ensure their voices shape tourism efforts. Similarly, while young adults dominate digital engagement, older stakeholders should be included to integrate traditional knowledge and cultural authenticity.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducational inclusivity is also vital. Training and participatory approaches can empower less-educated community members, ensuring their valuable local insights are not overlooked. By addressing these gaps, rural tourism branding can align with Stakeholder Theory, fostering equity, collaboration, and long-term success.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstruct reliability and validity.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndicators\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndicator loadings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAVE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFull Collinear VIFs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOnline Brand Community\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIV1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIV2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIV3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIV4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial Interaction Value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSIV1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSIV2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSIV3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSIV4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBrand Presentation Value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBPV1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBPV2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBPV3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBPV4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsumer Brand Engagement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCB1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCB2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCB3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCB4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBrand Connections\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRural Tourism Brand Passion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBP1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBP2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBP3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBP4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial Sustainability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSS1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSS2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSS3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSS4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe analysis of constructs and their indicators reveals valuable insights into the dynamics of rural tourism branding, particularly in the context of Stakeholder Theory (ST), Online Brand Communities (OBCs), and social sustainability. The constructs\u0026mdash;measured by statistical reliability and validity metrics such as Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha, composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and variance inflation factors (VIFs)\u0026mdash;provide a robust foundation for understanding consumer engagement, brand passion, and collaboration in rural tourism.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1. Online Brand Community (OBC)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Online Brand Community construct demonstrates strong reliability (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.88) and validity (AVE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.73). With all indicator loadings exceeding 0.70, the construct effectively captures the value of digital platforms where consumers interact with brands. These communities play a pivotal role in fostering collaboration and engagement in rural tourism branding, enabling participants to create shared value and advocate for rural tourism destinations.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2. Social Interaction Value (SIV)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Interaction Value exhibits high internal consistency (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.87) and strong validity (AVE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.72). This construct highlights the importance of fostering meaningful interactions within OBCs. Active participation and social connections within these communities strengthen consumer-brand relationships and create a sense of belonging. In the context of rural tourism branding, SIV underscores the potential of OBCs to bring stakeholders together, enhance collaboration, and drive innovation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3. Brand Presentation Value (BPV)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Brand Presentation Value construct also shows high reliability (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.85) and validity (AVE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.70). It captures the way rural tourism brands present their unique identities to consumers. Effective brand presentation evokes emotional connections and builds trust, which are crucial for fostering brand passion in rural tourism. This construct emphasizes the need for rural tourism enterprises to align their branding efforts with local culture and values to appeal to both tourists and local communities.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4. Consumer Brand Engagement (CBE)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConsumer Brand Engagement demonstrates excellent reliability (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.89) and validity (AVE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.76). This construct reflects the active involvement and emotional investment of consumers in OBCs. High engagement fosters brand passion and encourages consumers to advocate for rural tourism brands, amplifying their reach and visibility. By engaging consumers through meaningful interactions, rural tourism enterprises can strengthen loyalty and build long-term relationships with their audience.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5. Brand Connections\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBrand Connections, with a Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha of 0.86 and an AVE of 0.71, captures the emotional and communal ties consumers form with rural tourism brands. These connections include self-brand connections, where consumers integrate the brand into their identity, and communal-brand connections, where consumers feel a sense of belonging to a brand-driven community. These connections are critical for fostering loyalty and passion, making them essential for sustainable rural tourism branding.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6. Rural Tourism Brand Passion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Rural Tourism Brand Passion construct shows strong reliability (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.90) and validity (AVE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.77). It captures the emotional attachment consumers feel toward rural tourism brands, which drives advocacy, loyalty, and repeat visits. By leveraging OBCs and emphasizing authentic brand presentation, rural tourism enterprises can foster harmonious brand passion, where consumers integrate the brand into their self-concept, leading to long-term engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7. Social Sustainability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Social Sustainability construct is the most reliable (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.91) and valid (AVE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.78) among the constructs. It reflects the ability of rural tourism to improve community well-being, foster collaboration, and protect local resources. This construct aligns closely with Stakeholder Theory, as it emphasizes the importance of inclusivity, community empowerment, and harmony among stakeholders in achieving sustainable development goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eRecommendations to strengthening Rural Tourism Branding\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo enhance rural tourism branding, leveraging Online Brand Communities (OBCs) is crucial, as they foster collaboration, engagement, and advocacy. Encouraging meaningful social interactions within these communities strengthens consumer-brand relationships, builds loyalty, and promotes innovation. Additionally, aligning brand identity with local culture and values through authentic presentation builds emotional connections and trust, which are vital for long-term success.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eActive consumer engagement in OBCs through interactive content and personalized experiences fosters deeper loyalty and advocacy, while creating emotional and communal brand connections ensures a sense of belonging and commitment among consumers. Furthermore, cultivating brand passion through authentic experiences drives advocacy and repeat visits, strengthening brand sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFinally, aligning branding efforts with social sustainability goals, such as inclusivity, community empowerment, and resource protection, fosters collaboration and harmony among stakeholders. By focusing on these areas, rural tourism enterprises can create innovative, inclusive, and sustainable tourism brands.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiscriminant Validity (HTMT).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSIV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBPV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCBE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRTP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIV\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.383\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSIV\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.244\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.427\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBPV\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.506\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.222\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.322\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCBE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.710\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.376\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.332\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.687\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.620\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.349\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.245\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.457\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.734\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRTP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.708\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.369\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.385\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.504\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.667\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.748\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.494\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.130\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.233\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.292\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.326\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.441\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe analysis of inter-construct correlations provides critical insights into the relationships between the variables influencing rural tourism branding. The constructs\u0026mdash;Indicator Value (IV), Social Interaction Value (SIV), Brand Presentation Value (BPV), Consumer Brand Engagement (CBE), Brand Connections (BC), Rural Tourism Brand Passion (RTP), and Social Sustainability (SS)\u0026mdash;work together to drive consumer engagement, foster brand passion, and enhance social sustainability. These findings align with the principles of Stakeholder Theory (ST), which emphasize collaboration, inclusivity, and long-term sustainability in tourism development.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eKey Relationships Between Constructs\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe analysis reveals that Indicator Value (IV) plays a foundational role, demonstrating strong correlations with Consumer Brand Engagement (CBE) (0.710), Brand Connections (BC) (0.620), and Rural Tourism Brand Passion (RTP) (0.708). This highlights the importance of IV in driving consumer engagement, emotional connections, and brand loyalty within online brand communities (OBCs). IV\u0026rsquo;s moderate correlation with Social Sustainability (SS) (0.494) suggests that while it indirectly supports sustainability, its primary influence lies in fostering engagement and passion.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Interaction Value (SIV) is moderately correlated with IV (0.244), CBE (0.376), and BC (0.349). However, its weak correlation with SS (0.143) suggests that SIV\u0026rsquo;s primary role lies in strengthening relationships and collaboration within OBCs, rather than directly impacting sustainability. Similarly, Brand Presentation Value (BPV) demonstrates moderate relationships with constructs like IV (0.506) and RTP (0.385), emphasizing its role in building consumer trust and emotional attachment. However, BPV\u0026rsquo;s weak correlation with SS (0.130) highlights the need for indirect pathways\u0026mdash;such as fostering passion and connections\u0026mdash;to influence sustainability outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConsumer Brand Engagement (CBE) emerges as a pivotal construct, with strong correlations with IV, BC, and RTP, and a moderate relationship with SS (0.233). This emphasizes CBE\u0026rsquo;s role in fostering active consumer involvement and emotional investment in rural tourism brands. Similarly, Brand Connections (BC) and Rural Tourism Brand Passion (RTP) demonstrate strong relationships with each other and with other key variables, such as IV and CBE. BC\u0026rsquo;s moderate correlation with SS (0.292) and RTP\u0026rsquo;s correlation with SS (0.326) suggest that these constructs are instrumental in indirectly driving sustainability by fostering loyalty, advocacy, and collaboration within the community.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFinally, Social Sustainability (SS), though weakly correlated with variables like SIV and BPV, shows moderate relationships with BC and RTP. This suggests that SS in rural tourism branding depends on emotional and communal factors, such as consumer-brand connections and passion, which align with the principles of Stakeholder Theory.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eImplications for Rural Tourism Branding\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe inter-construct relationships provide a roadmap for advancing rural tourism branding. Indicator Value, Consumer Brand Engagement, Brand Connections, and Rural Tourism Brand Passion emerge as the most influential constructs, driving consumer engagement and loyalty. These variables serve as critical drivers of brand advocacy within OBCs and indirectly support social sustainability by fostering collaboration and inclusivity among stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhile constructs like Social Interaction Value and Brand Presentation Value play supporting roles in fostering engagement and emotional attachment, their influence on sustainability is primarily indirect. The findings underscore the importance of leveraging emotional connections and brand passion to build stronger consumer-brand relationships, which, in turn, contribute to the long-term success of rural tourism enterprises.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the moderate correlations between Brand Connections, Rural Tourism Brand Passion, and Social Sustainability highlight the interconnected nature of these variables. This suggests that creating a sense of belonging and emotional attachment among consumers is critical for promoting sustainable tourism practices. These insights align with Stakeholder Theory, which advocates for collaboration and inclusivity in tourism planning and branding. By involving all stakeholders\u0026mdash;consumers, businesses, and local communities\u0026mdash;in the branding process, rural tourism enterprises can foster innovation, inclusivity, and sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eRecommendations for Advancing Rural Tourism Branding\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn order to enhance rural tourism branding, several key actions are recommended to foster consumer engagement, loyalty, and long-term sustainability. Indicator Value (IV) should be prioritized by ensuring consistent quality and value delivery across all touchpoints. Strengthening IV is critical for driving consumer loyalty, advocacy, and emotional connections. Similarly, Consumer Brand Engagement (CBE) must be actively cultivated by encouraging interactive and personalized experiences within Online Brand Communities (OBCs). Engaged consumers are more emotionally invested in the brand and more likely to act as advocates for rural tourism.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBuilding emotional and communal ties is equally important. Strengthening Brand Connections (BC) by incorporating local culture, traditions, and values into branding can create a sense of belonging and loyalty among consumers. This approach also supports long-term sustainability by fostering stronger stakeholder relationships. Furthermore, fostering Rural Tourism Brand Passion (RTP) through authentic and memorable experiences can evoke emotional attachment, encouraging repeat visits and brand advocacy.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Interaction Value (SIV) plays a supporting role in rural tourism branding by promoting collaboration and meaningful interactions within OBCs. Strengthening these interactions can bring stakeholders together, fostering innovation and a sense of community. Additionally, rural tourism enterprises should align Brand Presentation Value (BPV) with the local identity, ensuring that branding reflects the unique culture and values of the community. Authenticity in presentation not only builds trust but also enhances emotional connections with consumers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLastly, promoting Social Sustainability (SS) should be a core objective. Involving all stakeholders\u0026mdash;local communities, consumers, and businesses\u0026mdash;in branding initiatives ensures inclusivity and collaboration. Empowering communities through sustainable branding practices strengthens social cohesion and promotes the long-term success of rural tourism.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStructural Model Assessment: Hypotheses Testing\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHypotheses\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath Coefficients\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ef\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-Value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupport\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQ\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e: Information Value \u0026rarr; Consumer Brand Engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.115\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.055\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.031\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.125\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.132\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e: Social Interaction Value \u0026rarr; Consumer Brand Engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.305\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.062\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.112\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.101\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.105\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e: Brand Presentation Value \u0026rarr; Consumer Brand Engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.267\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.059\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.075\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.095\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.092\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e: Consumer Brand Engagement \u0026rarr; Brand Connections\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.421\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.058\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.182\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.185\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.182\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e: Consumer Brand Engagement \u0026rarr; Rural Tourism Passion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.195\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.059\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.045\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.038\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.048\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e: Brand Connections \u0026rarr; Rural Tourism Passion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.091\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.061\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.067\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRejected\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.011\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.013\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e7\u003c/sub\u003e: Brand Connections \u0026rarr; Social Sustainability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.134\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.057\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.018\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e8\u003c/sub\u003e: Rural Tourism Passion \u0026rarr; Social Sustainability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.203\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.056\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.101\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.401\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.405\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e9\u003c/sub\u003e: Information Value \u0026rarr; Social Sustainability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.367\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.058\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.207\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.407\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.408\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e10\u003c/sub\u003e: Social Interaction Value \u0026rarr; Social Sustainability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.115\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.058\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.041\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.029\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.102\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.103\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e11\u003c/sub\u003e: Brand Presentation Value \u0026rarr; Social Sustainability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.146\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.059\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.047\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.121\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.119\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e12\u003c/sub\u003e: Consumer Brand Engagement \u0026rarr; Social Sustainability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.041\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.063\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.231\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRejected\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.045\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.044\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e13\u003c/sub\u003e: Social Sustainability \u0026rarr; Rural Tourism Passion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.592\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.055\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.351\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.351\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.355\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e14\u003c/sub\u003e: Rural Tourism Passion \u0026rarr; Social Sustainability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.533\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.056\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.286\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.286\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.284\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNote\u003c/strong\u003e: SE: Standard Error\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe hypotheses testing results provide a detailed understanding of the relationships between key constructs, including Information Value (IV), Social Interaction Value (SIV), Brand Presentation Value (BPV), Consumer Brand Engagement (CBE), Brand Connections (BC), Rural Tourism Brand Passion (RTP), and Social Sustainability (SS). These findings highlight the interconnected dynamics that drive consumer engagement, brand passion, and social sustainability in rural tourism branding. The analysis underscores the importance of collaboration and inclusivity, aligning with the principles of Stakeholder Theory (ST).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKey Relationships Between Constructs\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1. Consumer Brand Engagement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConsumer Brand Engagement (CBE) emerges as a central construct, significantly influenced \u003cstrong\u003eby\u003c/strong\u003e Information Value (IV), Social Interaction Value (SIV), and Brand Presentation Value (BPV). Information Value has a small but significant effect on CBE (H\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e), emphasizing the importance of providing valuable information to foster engagement. Social Interaction Value has a stronger impact (H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e) due to its ability to create meaningful interactions within online brand communities (OBCs). Similarly, Brand Presentation Value also significantly influences CBE (H\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e), highlighting the role of effective branding in engaging consumers. These results suggest that rural tourism enterprises should focus on providing accurate information, fostering social interactions, and presenting an authentic brand image to drive consumer engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2. Brand Connections and Rural Tourism Passion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/span\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCBE strongly influences Brand Connections (BC) \u003cstrong\u003e(\u003c/strong\u003eH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e)\u003c/strong\u003e and moderately impacts Rural Tourism Brand Passion (RTP) \u003cstrong\u003e(\u003c/strong\u003eH\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e)\u003c/strong\u003e. Consumers who are actively engaged with a brand are more likely to develop emotional and communal ties, strengthening their loyalty and passion for rural tourism brands. However, BC does not significantly influence RTP (H\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e), suggesting that while connections are important, other factors such as engagement and sustainability may have a more direct impact on passion. These findings highlight the importance of building engagement as a foundation for emotional connections and brand passion, which are key to fostering consumer loyalty in rural tourism.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3. Social Sustainability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/span\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Sustainability (SS) is influenced by multiple constructs, with significant contributions from Information Value (H\u003csub\u003e9\u003c/sub\u003e), Social Interaction Value (H\u003csub\u003e11\u003c/sub\u003e), and Brand Presentation Value (H\u003csub\u003e12\u003c/sub\u003e). Among these, Information Value has the strongest impact, suggesting that providing accurate and useful information within OBCs can promote sustainable behavior among consumers. Social Interaction Value and Brand Presentation Value also play supportive roles, emphasizing the importance of fostering interactions and presenting a clear brand identity to encourage sustainability. Interestingly, Consumer Brand Engagement (H\u003csub\u003e12\u003c/sub\u003e) does not significantly influence SS directly, indicating that its effect on sustainability may be mediated through other constructs like passion and connections.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4. Rural Tourism Passion and Sustainability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/span\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe relationship between Rural Tourism Passion (RTP) and Social Sustainability is reciprocal. RTP significantly influences SS (H\u003csub\u003e8\u003c/sub\u003e), as passionate consumers are more likely to adopt sustainable practices. At the same time, SS strongly impacts RTP (H\u003csub\u003e13\u003c/sub\u003e), as sustainable tourism practices enhance consumers\u0026rsquo; emotional attachment to rural tourism brands. This reciprocal relationship underscores the interdependence of passion and sustainability in driving rural tourism success.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eImplications for Rural Tourism Branding\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe results of the hypotheses testing reveal critical insights for rural tourism enterprises. Consumer Brand Engagement plays a central role in fostering emotional connections and brand passion, both of which are essential for building loyalty and advocacy within OBCs. Enterprises must focus on strategies that enhance engagement by providing valuable information, fostering social interactions, and presenting an authentic brand image. The findings also emphasize the importance of Social Sustainability in rural tourism branding.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSustainability not only enhances consumers\u0026rsquo; passion for rural tourism brands but also ensures the long-term viability of tourism practices. By fostering sustainable behaviors and aligning branding efforts with local community values, rural tourism enterprises can achieve both economic and social goals. Additionally, the reciprocal relationship between passion and sustainability highlights the need for integrated strategies that connect emotional and environmental dimensions. Passionate consumers are more likely to engage in sustainable practices, and sustainable tourism initiatives enhance consumers\u0026rsquo; emotional attachment to rural brands.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eStrengthening Rural Tourism Branding\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn order to enhance rural tourism branding, enterprises should focus on fostering Consumer Brand Engagement (CBE) by providing accurate information, encouraging meaningful social interactions, and presenting an authentic brand identity. These efforts deepen consumer involvement and build the foundation for loyalty and advocacy. Creating emotional connections and brand passion is also essential. By cultivating interactive and memorable experiences, enterprises can foster stronger ties between consumers and rural tourism brands, which drive advocacy and long-term loyalty. Furthermore, promoting Social Sustainability (SS) is critical for ensuring the long-term viability of rural tourism. Providing valuable information, facilitating collaboration, and aligning branding efforts with local values can encourage sustainable behaviors and community empowerment.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUltimately, the interdependence of passion and sustainability underscores the need for integrated strategies. Passionate consumers are more likely to adopt sustainable practices, while sustainable tourism initiatives strengthen emotional attachment to rural tourism brands. By combining these strategies, rural tourism enterprises can achieve economic success, foster consumer loyalty, and promote social and environmental sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eLimitations and recommendations for future research\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhilst this study provided rich insights in the context of Zimbabwe, future studies can focus on different STEs in order to make a comparative analysis of how their OBCs interact and work together for the common good of social sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFuture studies can also make comparisons between developed and developing country STEs for them to draw conclusive recommendations on the most appropriate ways of attaining social sustainability for such entities.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuantitative methods were applied in this study thereby limiting an in-depth (rich) understating of the area under study. Future studies can overcome this limitation by applying an inductive exploratory methodology for them to gain a better understanding (through direct interaction with subjects) of how OBCs can be managed for rural brand passion and social sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis research received no external funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflicts of Interest:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe authors declare no conflict of interest.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Publish declaration:\u003c/strong\u003e not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate declaration:\u003c/strong\u003e informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics declaration:\u003c/strong\u003e Review and approved was done by the Midlands State University Research Ethics Committee where the corresponding author (SM) was employed at the time of this study.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Guidelines:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Research Council of Zimbabwe, established under the Zimbabwe Research Act Chapter 10:22\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eData is available upon request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAhn, J., Back, K.J. \u0026amp; Lee, C.K. (2019). A new dualistic approach to brand attitude: The role of passion among integrated resort customers. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Hospitality Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e78\u003c/em\u003e, 261-267.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAn, W. \u0026amp; Alarcon, S. (2020). How can rural tourism be sustainable? A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(18), 7758.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAnabestani, A., Abaszadeh, M. \u0026amp; Vesal, Z. (2018). The role of rural tourism brands on social sustainability of rural settlements (Case study: Binaloud County). \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research and Rural Planning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(4), 31-48.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u0026Aring;nestad, R.M., A. Nordb\u0026Oslash;, E.C. \u0026amp; Ihleb\u0026AElig;k, C. (2025). Social sustainability in local communities in Norway: which factors are associated with people\u0026rsquo;s satisfaction with their local community as a place to live now and in the future?. \u003cem\u003eScandinavian Journal of Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e53\u003c/em\u003e(1_suppl), 24-32.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eArya, V., Sethi, D. \u0026amp; Verma, H. (2018). Are emojis fascinating brand value more than textual language? Mediating role of brand communication to SNS and brand attachment: An insight from India. \u003cem\u003eCorporate Communications: An International Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(4), 648-670.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBaldus, B.J., Voorhees, C. \u0026amp; Calantone, R. (2015). Online brand community engagement: Scale development and validation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of business research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e68\u003c/em\u003e(5), 978-985.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBricker, K. S., Donohoe, H., Becerra, L., \u0026amp; Nickerson, N. (2015). Theoretical Perspectives on Tourism\u0026mdash;An Introduction. \u003cem\u003eDemystifying Theories in Tourism Research\u003c/em\u003e, 1.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChipfuva, T. (2021). \u003cem\u003eDeveloping a pro-poor tourism framework for Zimbabwe\u003c/em\u003e (Doctoral dissertation, North-West University (South Africa)).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChiu, R.L. (2003). 12 Social sustainability, sustainable development and housing development. In \u003cem\u003eHousing and social change: East-west perspectives\u003c/em\u003e (221). New York, NY, USA: Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChoudhary, V., Bag, T. \u0026amp; Mukherjee, S. (2025). Promotion of rural tourism through virtual reality: the impact of content richness on consumer\u0026rsquo;s perceived value and behavioral intention. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Travel \u0026amp; Tourism Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(5), 665-692.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eColantonio, A. (2007). Social sustainability: An exploratory analysis of its definition, assessment methods metrics and tools.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDa Liang, A.R., Nie, Y.Y., Chen, D.J. \u0026amp; Chen, P.J. (2020). Case studies on co-branding and farm tourism: Best match between farm image and experience activities. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Hospitality and Tourism Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e, 107-118.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDonohoe, H., Reyes, B., \u0026amp; Becerra, L. (2015). Theoretical Perspectives on Stakeholders in Tourism Management. \u003cem\u003eDemystifying Theories in Tourism Research\u003c/em\u003e, 18.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eElbelehy, C. \u0026amp; Crispim, J. (2025). Social sustainability in the hospitality and tourism supply chains: what can we learn from existing research and what remains unexplored?. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1688-1716.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEscalas, J.E. \u0026amp; Bettman, J.R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence of reference groups on consumers\u0026rsquo; connections to brands. \u003cem\u003eJournal of consumer psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(3), 339-348.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFazli-Salehi, R., I. M. Torres, R. Madadi, \u0026amp; M. \u0026Aacute;. Z\u0026uacute;\u0026ntilde;iga. (2021). \u0026ldquo;Is Country Affinity Applicable for Domestic Brands? the Role of Nation Sentiment on Consumers\u0026rsquo; Self-Brand Connection with Domestic Vs Foreign Brands\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFazli-Salehi, R., Torres, I.M., Madadi, R. \u0026amp; Z\u0026uacute;\u0026ntilde;iga, M.\u0026Aacute;. (2022). Multicultural advertising: Impact of consumers\u0026rsquo; need to belong and brand use on self-brand connection and communal-brand connection. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing Communications\u003c/em\u003e, 1-28.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFetscherin, M., Veloutsou, C. \u0026amp; Guzman, F. (2021). Models for brand relationships. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Product \u0026amp; Brand Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(3), 353-359.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFisk, P. (2010). \u003cem\u003ePeople planet profit: How to embrace sustainability for innovation and business growth\u003c/em\u003e. Kogan Page Publishers.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFreeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach (Boston: Pitman, 1984). \u003cem\u003eJennings, in the article cited above, quotes Freeman and gives additional information concerning the influence of his work\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGaluppo, L., Gorli, M., Scaratti, G. \u0026amp; Kaneklin, C. (2014). Building social sustainability: multi-stakeholder processes and conflict management. \u003cem\u003eSocial Responsibility Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(4), 685-701.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGilal, N.G., Zhang, J. \u0026amp; Gilal, F.G. (2018). The four-factor model of product design: scale development and validation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Product \u0026amp; Brand Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(6), 684-700.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGrădinaru, C., Obadă, D.R., Grădinaru, I.A. \u0026amp; Dabija, D.C. (2022). Enhancing Sustainable Cosmetics Brand Purchase: A Comprehensive Approach Based on the SOR Model and the Triple Bottom Line. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(21), 14118.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGuan, J., Gao, J. \u0026amp; Zhang, C. (2019). Food heritagization and sustainable rural tourism destination: The case of China\u0026rsquo;s Yuanjia Village. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(10), 2858.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGulisova, B. (2021). Rural place branding processes: A meta-synthesis. \u003cem\u003ePlace Branding and Public Diplomacy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(4), 368-381.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGulisova, B. (2021). Rural place branding processes: A meta-synthesis. \u003cem\u003ePlace Branding and Public Diplomacy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(4), 368-381.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGulisova, B., Horbel, C. \u0026amp; Noe, E. (2021). Rural place branding from a multi-level perspective: a Danish example. \u003cem\u003ePlace Branding and Public Diplomacy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(3), 231-248.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGulisova, B., Horbel, C. \u0026amp; Noe, E. (2025). Place branding and sustainable rural communities: qualitative evidence from rural areas in Denmark. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Strategic Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(3), 356-377.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHarrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M.P. \u0026amp; Daly, T. (2018). Customer engagement and the relationship between involvement, engagement, self-brand connection and brand usage intent. Journal of Business Research, 88, 388-396.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHarrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M.P. \u0026amp; Daly, T. (2018). Customer engagement and the relationship between involvement, engagement, self-brand connection and brand usage intent. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e88\u003c/em\u003e, 388-396.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHerrando, C., Jim\u0026eacute;nez-Mart\u0026iacute;nez, J. \u0026amp; Mart\u0026iacute;n-De Hoyos, M.J. (2017). Passion at first sight: how to engage users in social commerce contexts. \u003cem\u003eElectronic Commerce Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e, 701-720.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHuang, G. (2019). Variation matters: How to curb ad intrusiveness for native advertising on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. \u003cem\u003eInternet Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1469-1484.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHuang, T.K., Wang, Y.T. \u0026amp; Lin, K.Y. (2022). Enhancing brand loyalty through online brand communities: the role of community benefits. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Product \u0026amp; Brand Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(5), 823-838.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHuang, T.K., Wang, Y.T. \u0026amp; Lin, K.Y. (2022). Enhancing brand loyalty through online brand communities: the role of community benefits. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Product \u0026amp; Brand Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(5), 823-838.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIorgulescu, M.C. \u0026amp; Răvar, A.S. (2015). The contribution of social enterprises to the development of tourism. The case of Romania. \u003cem\u003eProcedia Economics and Finance\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e, 672-679.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIvona, A. (2021). Sustainability of rural tourism and promotion of local development. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(16), 8854.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKabote, F., Mamimine, P.W. \u0026amp; Muranda, Z. (2019). A situational analysis of Zimbabwe\u0026rsquo;s domestic tourists\u0026rsquo; travel trends. \u003cem\u003eCogent Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1658350.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKamboj, S. (2020). Applying uses and gratifications theory to understand customer participation in social media brand communities: Perspective of media technology. \u003cem\u003eAsia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(1), 205-231.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKara, S., Vredeveld, A.J. \u0026amp; Ross Jr, W.T. (2018). We share; we connect: How shared brand consumption influences relational brand connections. \u003cem\u003ePsychology \u0026amp; Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(5), 325-340.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKhan, R. (2016). How frugal innovation promotes social sustainability. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1034.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKomppula, R. (2014). The role of individual entrepreneurs in the development of competitiveness for a rural tourism destination\u0026ndash;A case study. \u003cem\u003eTourism management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e, 361-371.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKwon, J.H., Jung, S.H., Choi, H.J. \u0026amp; Kim, J. (2021). Antecedent factors that affect restaurant brand trust and brand loyalty: focusing on US and Korean consumers. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Product \u0026amp; Brand Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(7), 990-1015.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKwon, S. \u0026amp; Ha, S. (2023). Examining identity-and bond-based hashtag community identification: the moderating role of self-brand connections. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research in Interactive Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 78-93.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLiao, J., Chen, J. \u0026amp; Dong, X. (2022). Understanding the antecedents and outcomes of brand community-swinging in a poly-social-media context: a perspective of channel complementarity theory. \u003cem\u003eAsia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(3), 506-523.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLiao, J., Chen, J. \u0026amp; Dong, X. (2022). Understanding the antecedents and outcomes of brand community-swinging in a poly-social-media context: a perspective of channel complementarity theory. \u003cem\u003eAsia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(3), 506-523.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLiao, J., Li, M., Wei, H. \u0026amp; Tong, Z. (2021). Antecedents of smartphone brand switching: a push\u0026ndash;pull\u0026ndash;mooring framework. \u003cem\u003eAsia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1596-1614.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLin, J., Zhou, Z. \u0026amp; Leckie, C. (2021). Green brand communication, brand prominence and self\u0026ndash;brand connection. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Product \u0026amp; Brand Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1148-1161.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMatthes, J.M., Wang, X., Lu, J. \u0026amp; Ow, T.T. (2025). Drivers of Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Brand Communities: Self-Determination Perspective. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(1), 51-71.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMatute, J., Palau-Saumell, R. \u0026amp; Occhiocupo, N. (2019). Understanding customer brand engagement in user-initiated online brand communities: Antecedents and consequences. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Product \u0026amp; Brand Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(3), 360-376.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMeek, S., Ryan, M., Lambert, C. \u0026amp; Ogilvie, M. (2019). A multidimensional scale for measuring online brand community social capital (OBCSC). \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e100\u003c/em\u003e, 234-244.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMladenović, M., Simjanović, D.J., Ranđelović, B.M., Dobričanin, S., Zdravković, N. \u0026amp; Đokić, D. (2025). New Frontiers in Determining Criteria and Strategies in Rural Area Sustainable Development in Serbia: Fuzzy AHP Approach. \u003cem\u003eWorld\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(4), 141.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMoisescu, O.I., Gică, O.A. \u0026amp; Herle, F.A. (2022). Boosting eWOM through social media brand page engagement: The mediating role of self-brand connection. \u003cem\u003eBehavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(11), 411.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMuthu, S.S. (2025). Assessment of Social Sustainability Management in Various Industrial Sectors. In \u003cem\u003eAssessment of Social Sustainability Management in Various Sectors\u003c/em\u003e (1-4). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePanic, A., Vujko, A. \u0026amp; Knezevic, M. (2025). Assessing Progress of Rural Tourism Development: Impact of the Complexity of Social Sustainability Indicators. \u003cem\u003eOditor\u003c/em\u003e, 113.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePathania, A., Dixit, S. \u0026amp; Rasool, G. (2022). \u0026lsquo;Are online reviews the new shepherd?\u0026rsquo;\u0026ndash;examining herd behaviour in wearable technology adoption for personal healthcare. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing Communications\u003c/em\u003e, 1-27.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePhillips, R., Freeman, R.E. \u0026amp; Wicks, A. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. \u003cem\u003eBusiness Ethics Quarterly\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e13(4), 479\u0026ndash;502.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePourazad, N., Stocchi, L. \u0026amp; Pare, V. (2020). The power of brand passion in sports apparel brands. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Product \u0026amp; Brand Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(5), 547-568.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eQing, W., Safeer, A.A. \u0026amp; Khan, M.S. (2024). Influence of social media communication on consumer purchase decisions: do luxury hotels value perceived brand authenticity, prestige, and familiarity?. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 15(3), 465-478.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRawls, J. (1993). The law of peoples. \u003cem\u003eCritical inquiry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(1), 36-68.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J.E. \u0026amp; Wong, N. (2009). The safety of objects: Materialism, existential insecurity, and brand connection. \u003cem\u003eJournal of consumer research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-16.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRogerson, C.M. \u0026amp; Rogerson, J.M. (2021). In-between\u0026rsquo;rural tourism: Rethinking rural tourism spaces for policy development in South Africa. \u003cem\u003eAfrican Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1394-1413.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRosalina, P.D., Dupre, K. \u0026amp; Wang, Y. (2021). Rural tourism: A systematic literature review on definitions and challenges. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Hospitality and Tourism Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e, 134-149.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSaleem, F.Z. \u0026amp; Hawkins, M.A. (2021). Employee-generated content: the role of perceived brand citizenship behavior and expertise on consumer behaviors. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Product \u0026amp; Brand Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(6), 819-833.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSantos, Z.R., Cheung, C.M., Coelho, P.S. \u0026amp; Rita, P. (2022). Consumer engagement in social media brand communities: A literature review. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Information Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e63\u003c/em\u003e, 102457.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShoukat, M.H., Shah, S.A., Ali, R. \u0026amp; Ramkissoon, H. (2023). Mapping Stakeholder Role in Building Destination Image And Destination Brand: Mediating Role of Stakeholder Brand Engagement. \u003cem\u003eTourism Analysis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(1), 29-46.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSpenceley, A. \u0026amp; Meyer, D. (2012). Tourism and poverty reduction: Theory and practice in less economically developed countries. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Sustainable Tourism\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(3), 297-317.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStylianou, C., Pipyros, K. \u0026amp; Aslanides, A. (2025). Rural place branding through social media: a stakeholder strategy perspective. \u003cem\u003eWorldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 62-76.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSustacha, I., Banos-Pino, J.F. \u0026amp; Del Valle, E. (2024). How smartness affects customer-based brand equity in rural tourism destinations. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Destination Marketing \u0026amp; Management\u003c/em\u003e, 34, 100949.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTurčinović, M., Vujko, A. \u0026amp; Stani\u0026scaron;ić, N. (2025). Community-led sustainable tourism in rural areas: Enhancing wine tourism destination competitiveness and local empowerment. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(7), 2878.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUygun, M. \u0026amp; G\u0026uuml;ner, E. (2018). The role of brand experiences in the development of brand passion. \u003cem\u003eCHANGING ORGANIZATIONS\u003c/em\u003e, 129.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVan Looy, A. (2022). Social customer relationship management. In \u003cem\u003eSocial Media Management: Using Social Media as a Business Instrument\u003c/em\u003e (97-123). Cham: Springer International Publishing.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVuki\u0026Auml;, M. \u0026amp; Kuzmanovi\u0026Auml;, M. (2012). Branding in Serbian Rural Tourism. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Economics and Behavioral Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(11), 671-676.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWong, A. \u0026amp; Lee, M. (2022). Building engagement in online brand communities: The effects of socially beneficial initiatives on collective social capital. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Retailing and Consumer Services\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e65\u003c/em\u003e, 102866.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWong, A. (2023). How social capital builds online brand advocacy in luxury social media brand communities. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Retailing and Consumer Services\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e70\u003c/em\u003e, 103143.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhang, L. \u0026amp; Zhang, J. (2018). Perception of small tourism enterprises in Lao PDR regarding social sustainability under the influence of social network. \u003cem\u003eTourism Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e69\u003c/em\u003e, 109-120.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhang, L. \u0026amp; Zhang, J. (2018). Perception of small tourism enterprises in Lao PDR regarding social sustainability under the influence of social network. \u003cem\u003eTourism Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e69\u003c/em\u003e, 109-120.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZimbabwe National Statistics Agency (ZIMSTAT). (2018). Zimbabwe Domestic and Outbound Tourism Survey 2017/2018 Report. Harare, Zimbabwe: ZIMSTAT.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZimbabwe Tourism Authority. (2015). Vision 2020 National Tourism Turnaround and Growth Strategy. Harare\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Rural tourism, brand passion, social sustainability, online brand community, brand connection, consumer brand engagement","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8570093/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8570093/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eSocial media has transformed the tourism sector, more specifically the budding rural tourism industry. This has given rise to the creation of tourism-related content and the birth of online brand communities. These community-led interactions represent a paradigm shift on how brand passion and social sustainability are nurtured in rural tourism online communities. Guided by the stakeholder theory this study examines the dynamic engagement between rural tourism brands and their OBC\u0026rsquo;s brand passion and the brand\u0026rsquo;s ultimate social sustainability in a rural setting. Focusing on Zimbabwe, STEs like KwaTerry have embarked on putting rural tourism at the top of their agenda, hence, this study is a yardstick for STEs in developing countries seeking to establish rural tourism brand passion and social sustainability through OBCs. KwaTerry is a small tourism enterprise (STE) located in Mhondoro Turf, Zimbabwe, operating as both a traditional restaurant and rural tourism brand. Established with the mandate to blend local agriculture, culinary heritage, and rural tourism, KwaTerry has grown steadily over the past five years. Its Facebook-based Online Brand Community (OBC), with approximately 150,000 members, has become a hub for engagement, brand storytelling, and cultural promotion. Survey data shows that KwaTerry\u0026rsquo;s OBC is highly valued by respondents, particularly for its ability to promote social sustainability (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.48) and brand passion (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.94). The findings provide practical solutions to STEs for rural tourism branding and social sustainability through OBCs. This study contributes to the body of knowledge by substituting self-presentation value with brand presentation value.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Fostering rural tourism brand passion and social sustainability through online brand communities in Zimbabwe","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-06 09:23:22","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8570093/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"14a91c4c-5098-4580-ae2f-c918c729a1e2","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 6th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-29T08:11:37+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-06 09:23:22","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8570093","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8570093","identity":"rs-8570093","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}