Performance Evaluation, Satisfaction, and Loss Aversion as Determinants of Local Commitment to Sustainability Programs in West Java and North Sulawesi

Performance Evaluation, Satisfaction, and Loss Aversion as Determinants of Local Commitment to Sustainability Programs in West Java and North Sulawesi | 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 Performance Evaluation, Satisfaction, and Loss Aversion as Determinants of Local Commitment to Sustainability Programs in West Java and North Sulawesi Indrayani Indrayani, Heri Hermanto, Nia Mardiana This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8419241/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 Sustainability programs at the local level often face difficulties in building long-term community commitment, despite being central to Indonesia’s development agenda. Existing studies primarily focus on technical and governance aspects. At the same time, psychological mechanisms such as performance evaluation, satisfaction, and loss aversion remain underexplored and are rarely integrated in a single model, especially in comparative settings across regions. This study examines how program performance evaluation, citizen satisfaction, and loss aversion collectively influence local commitment to sustainability programs in Indonesia. A mixed-methods design was employed in West Java and North Sulawesi, involving a survey of 300 local actors, as well as semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. Quantitative data were analysed using PLS-SEM; qualitative data were examined through thematic analysis. The structural model explains 27% of the variance in satisfaction, 22% in loss aversion, and 48% in local commitment (Q² = 0.182; 0.157; 0.311). Performance evaluation has no significant direct effect on commitment (β = 0.180; p = 0.062), but significantly increases satisfaction (β = 0.520; p < 0.001) and reduces loss aversion (β = −0.410; p < 0.001). Satisfaction positively affects commitment (β = 0.390; p = 0.008), while loss aversion has an adverse effect (β = −0.280; p = 0.041). Indirect effects through satisfaction (β = 0.200; p = 0.004) and loss aversion (β = 0.110; p = 0.032) are significant, indicating dual mediation. Qualitative findings corroborate these mechanisms, highlighting the centrality of perceived benefits, procedural fairness, and managed risks in sustaining community commitment. performance evaluation citizen satisfaction loss aversion local commitment sustainability programs Indonesia Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1. Introduction Sustainable development has evolved from a normative discussion to a prevailing global policy framework, as articulated in international documents, including the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, which integrate environmental protection, poverty alleviation, and socio-economic equity into a cohesive agenda[ 1 ], [ 2 ], [ 3 ]. This paradigm necessitates that states and local governments reformulate planning, budgeting, and regulatory frameworks, rather than merely incorporating "green" elements into current development models, to ensure that economic growth, resource extraction, and spatial development are consistently aligned with long-term ecological constraints and intergenerational well-being[ 4 ], [ 5 ]. In practice, translating these global commitments into practical programs often results in tensions and trade-offs: economic interests clash with conservation goals, short political cycles restrict long-term investments, and limited administrative capacity hinders consistent monitoring of program outcomes[ 6 ], [ 7 ]. These structural constraints are especially evident at the local level, where sustainability policies directly impact daily livelihoods, access to natural resources, and local power dynamics. In Indonesia, these global imperatives are officially integrated into national development planning frameworks, such as the 2025–2029 National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN), which prioritizes natural resource down-streaming, local value generation, and enhancement of environmental quality. The efficacy of strategic commitments is contingent upon the implementation of sustainability programs in specific locales and the degree to which communities regard them as legitimate, advantageous, and congruent with their socio-economic requirements, rendering local commitment a crucial yet frequently under-examined element of the overarching sustainability agenda[ 8 ], [ 9 ][ 10 ]. This paper examines sustainability programs in West Java and North Sulawesi to analyze these issues within a specific context, given their distinct socio-economic characteristics. West Java faces significant challenges from urbanization and industrialization, whereas North Sulawesi prioritizes the conservation of coastal habitats and the advancement of ecotourism. Descriptive research suggests that people of West Java report marginally elevated levels of perceived program performance and satisfaction, while simultaneously demonstrating heightened loss aversion. Conversely, communities in North Sulawesi exhibit somewhat inferior performance and satisfaction ratings, alongside less loss aversion, indicating heightened social acceptance and collective values that bolster the initiatives, especially in more communally focused regions. These contrasts indicate that perceptions of program performance, satisfaction, and prospective losses may collectively influence the patterns of local commitment to sustainability programs. Multiple studies affirm that a program's efficacy is influenced not only by its policy design but also by the community's evaluation of its performance, satisfaction with the outcomes, and perceptions of potential losses that may arise[ 11 ]. Performance evaluation functions as a metric of technical achievement, satisfaction levels signify social legitimacy, and loss aversion elucidates the community's heightened sensitivity to the risk of loss compared to long-term advantages . This study examines examples in West Java and North Sulawesi, two locations with distinct socioeconomic features. West Java experiences significant pressure from urbanization and industry, whereas North Sulawesi prioritizes the conservation of coastal ecosystems and the growth of ecotourism. These contextual distinctions are expected to reveal disparities in the determinants influencing community commitment to sustainability initiatives. We analyzed the Key Sustainability Indicators (KSI) for current sustainability initiatives in West Java and North Sulawesi in relation to the accomplishments presented in Table 1 . Table 1 Evaluation of Sustainability Initiatives, KSI West Java and North Sulawesi Province Sustainability Program IKU Explanation West Java Waste Management and Emission Reduction 60% (2020), 50% (2022) Decreased satisfaction due to economic impacts, especially in urban areas (Bandung). Green Infrastructure Development 65% (2021) This program covers urban greening and the improvement of green open spaces in large cities. North Sulawesi Natural Resource Conservation Program 70% (2022) Focus on forest conservation and natural resource management in rural areas. Marine Conservation and Mangrove Management 75% (2021), 65% (2022) Increased satisfaction with marine management, low participation in coastal areas. Natural Resource Management 60% (2020) Mining and marine resource management program with an environmentally friendly approach. Sustainable Nature Tourism Development 70% (2022) Focus on developing ecotourism and empowering the local nature-based economy. Table 1 indicates that the residents of West Java exhibit marginally elevated performance and satisfaction ratings, alongside a heightened aversion to loss. Conversely, North Sulawesi has somewhat reduced ratings and satisfaction, although it demonstrates a diminished sensitivity to loss; this suggests that social endorsement or communal values may be bolstering the program, particularly in regions with a pronounced communal focus. This condition highlights the need for a comprehensive understanding of the various factors that influence local commitment to sustainability initiatives, including performance perceptions, satisfaction levels, and resistance to potential losses. Neglecting these factors may hinder the long-term efficacy of sustainability projects. Therefore, examining the impact of perceptions of program effectiveness, community happiness, and loss aversion is crucial for understanding how these factors influence community participation in sustainability initiatives. This study employs a theoretical framework to examine performance evaluation, community satisfaction, loss aversion, and local commitment to sustainability initiatives. Performance Evaluation Theory assesses program efficacy using explicit performance indicators, accompanied by systematic evaluations of economic and environmental outcomes [ 12 ], [ 13 ]. The Satisfaction Theory assesses community satisfaction and engagement in planning, identifying opportunities for improvement through enhanced surveys and communication. The Loss Aversion Theory elucidates the influence of perceived losses on involvement and aids in developing mitigation techniques and long-term communication plans regarding benefits [ 9 ]. Community Commitment Theory assesses the level of community support for the program, emphasizing the promotion of active participation and the provision of incentives that foster sustainable engagement. The literature review reveals a research gap. Most prior research has concentrated primarily on the technical dimensions of the program, policy governance, or environmental indicators. Research explicitly incorporating psychological factors, such as loss aversion, into assessments of program success and community satisfaction to elucidate local commitment remains scarce, particularly in Indonesia. Moreover, comparison studies across locations with varying socio-cultural attributes are infrequently undertaken, resulting in an incomplete understanding of local commitment dynamics. Models integrating performance assessment, satisfaction, and loss aversion are infrequently examined in relation to local commitment to sustainability initiatives. Many studies emphasize technical or policy dimensions, neglecting the influence of public perceptions and emotions on long-term program responses. Prior research underscores the significance of performance evaluation in assessing the efficacy of sustainability programs; such evaluations typically depend on quantifiable outcomes and their societal and environmental impacts, highlighting efficiency and transparency as catalysts for public engagement[ 12 ], [ 14 ], [ 15 ]. The Satisfaction Theory posits that community participation in the decision-making process enhances satisfaction and endorsement of programs. Loss Aversion Theory elucidates the propensity of societies to prioritize potential losses over long-term advantages. The Community Commitment Theory posits that local engagement can be enhanced through active involvement and incentive measures. Moreover, the application of a mixed methodologies approach that integrates quantitative analysis via Structural Equation Modelling (SEM-PLS) and qualitative research through theme coding (NVivo 12+) remains infrequently utilized cohesively in comparable contexts in Indonesia. Comparative analyses in West Java and North Sulawesi are anticipated to obtain novel insights into the impact of socio-economic circumstances on local commitment. This research aims to produce evidence-based policy briefs that facilitate the development of more inclusive and adaptable sustainability policies at the local level. This project aims to enhance multidisciplinary academic literature and offer evidence-based policy suggestions for local and national decision-makers. The research theoretically utilizes Performance Evaluation Theory, Satisfaction Theory, Loss Aversion Theory, and Community Commitment Theory to elucidate the interconnections among perceived program performance, citizen satisfaction, loss aversion, and local commitment in sustainability initiatives. Performance evaluation provides a foundation for evaluating program efficacy via explicit indicators and systematic assessment of economic and environmental results. Satisfaction Theory assesses citizens' satisfaction and engagement in planning processes, while also identifying areas for improvement through surveys and communication. The Loss Aversion Theory explains how perceptions of prospective losses influence involvement and informs strategies to mitigate perceived risks while conveying long-term benefits. Community Commitment Theory is employed to evaluate the level of community support by emphasizing active participation and incentive structures that foster sustained engagement. Current research on sustainability programs has primarily focused on technical elements, policy governance, or environmental indicators. In contrast, studies that explicitly incorporate psychological dimensions to elucidate local commitment are scarce, especially in the Indonesian context. Comparative research across locations with varying socio-cultural attributes is infrequent, resulting in a limited understanding of local commitment dynamics. Furthermore, models that concurrently integrate performance assessment, satisfaction, and loss aversion in the analysis of local commitment to sustainability initiatives remain underexplored. Methodologically, the integrated application of mixed methods, which combines quantitative analysis through Structural Equation Modelling (SEM-PLS) with qualitative thematic coding (NVivo 12+), remains infrequently utilized in analogous contexts in Indonesia, particularly in comparative designs across regions such as West Java and North Sulawesi. This research tackles empirical, theoretical, and methodological deficiencies using a mixed-methods comparative approach across the two provinces. This research aims to address the subsequent inquiries: (RQ1) How does program performance evaluation impact local commitment? (RQ2) To what degree does citizen satisfaction influence local commitment? (RQ3) In what manner does loss aversion affect local commitment? (RQ4) How do these three factors collectively impact local commitment to sustainability programs? The study aims to produce an evidence-based policy brief that facilitates the development of more inclusive and flexible sustainability policies at the local level. It aims to foster interdisciplinary academic discourse on sustainability governance and provide evidence-based recommendations for decision-makers at local and national levels. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Programme performance evaluation and local commitment Programme performance evaluation provides a systematic basis for judging whether public programmes achieve their intended outputs and outcomes and whether they do so efficiently and responsively[ 1 ], [ 11 ]. In the context of sustainability initiatives, performance evaluation typically encompasses indicators related to environmental improvement, economic benefits, social inclusion, as well as the quality of program management and stakeholder engagement. When communities perceive that performance is high—measured through clear indicators, transparent reporting, and visible improvements in local conditions—they are more likely to view programmes as credible and worthy of support. Perceived under-performance, by contrast, tends to weaken trust, reduce willingness to cooperate, and trigger disengagement from programme activities[ 16 ], [ 17 ]. Within this logic, perceived programme performance is expected to function as a direct driver of local commitment, which is understood as the willingness of community members to continuously support, comply with, and participate in sustainability initiatives[ 18 ]. On this theoretical basis, the following hypothesis is proposed: H1: Programme performance evaluation has a positive effect on local community commitment. 2.2 Programme performance evaluation and citizen satisfaction Citizen satisfaction captures subjective evaluations of how far public programmes meet expectations, solve salient problems, and distribute benefits in a way that is considered fair[ 19 ]. In sustainability programmes, satisfaction is shaped not only by technical results (improved environmental quality or livelihood opportunities), but also by the perceived inclusiveness of planning processes, clarity of communication, and responsiveness to local complaints or proposals [ 9 ], [ 20 ], [ 21 ]. Performance evaluation and satisfaction are analytically distinct but closely related: performance indicators provide “objective” signals about programme achievements, while satisfaction reflects how those signals are interpreted and internalised by citizens. When performance is perceived as high, citizens generally tend to report higher satisfaction, because programmes are seen as delivering on their promises and aligning with local needs. Low or ambiguous performance, conversely, often manifests as dissatisfaction, even when formal programme reports emphasise success. In this study, perceived programme performance is therefore expected to exert a positive influence on citizen satisfaction with sustainability programmes. This expectation is expressed in the following hypothesis: H4: Programme performance evaluation has a positive effect on citizen satisfaction. 2.3 Programme performance evaluation and loss aversion Loss aversion, as discussed in behavioural economics, refers to the tendency of individuals to weigh potential losses more heavily than equivalent gains [ 22 ], [ 23 ]. In local sustainability programmes, communities often face potential restrictions on resource use, changes to livelihood practices, or reallocation of access rights [ 9 ], [ 24 ]. These changes can be interpreted as losses, particularly when the benefits of programmes are uncertain, delayed, or unevenly distributed. Programme performance evaluation influences how such risks and trade-offs are perceived. When performance is judged positively and concrete benefits are visible, perceived risks of loss can be mitigated. Communities may believe that credible gains, such as improved income stability, reduced disaster risk, or long-term resource security, compensate potential sacrifices [ 14 ], [ 15 ]. Conversely, when performance is evaluated negatively or viewed as merely symbolic, communities may focus more strongly on anticipated losses, fuelling resistance and defensive attitudes. From this perspective, better programme performance is expected to reduce loss-averse perceptions among community members. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is formulated: H5: Programme performance evaluation has a negative effect on community loss aversion. 2.4 Citizen satisfaction, loss aversion and local commitment Local commitment to sustainability programmes is closely related to how citizens evaluate both the benefits they receive and the risks they perceive[ 5 ]. Higher levels of satisfaction, arising from experiences of fair treatment, meaningful participation, and tangible improvements in welfare, tend to strengthen attachment to programmes, increase tolerance toward implementation problems, and encourage voluntary compliance with programme rules. In contrast, persistent dissatisfaction can reduce willingness to contribute time and resources and can motivate opposition to programme continuation or expansion. Loss aversion interacts with satisfaction by shaping how citizens interpret the balance between benefits and sacrifices [ 9 ], [ 22 ]. When the fear of losing access to land, resources, or established livelihood practices is high, communities may resist programs even if some benefits are recognized. Strong loss-averse perceptions thus work against the formation of local commitment, particularly when programmes require behavioural change or the acceptance of new regulations [ 14 ]. In combination, higher satisfaction is expected to enhance local commitment, while stronger loss aversion is expected to weaken it. These expectations are captured in the following hypotheses: H2: Citizen satisfaction has a positive effect on local community commitment. H3: Loss aversion has a negative effect on local community commitment. 2.5 Mediating roles of citizen satisfaction and loss aversion The relationships outlined above suggest that perceived programme performance not only influences local commitment directly, but also operates indirectly through citizen satisfaction and loss aversion. When performance is evaluated positively, citizens are more likely to feel satisfied because programmes appear effective, responsive, and beneficial. That satisfaction, in turn, encourages citizens to maintain or increase their commitment to programme goals and activities. In this pathway, satisfaction functions as a mediator that translates performance evaluations into concrete supportive behaviours. At the same time, good performance can reduce perceived risks and potential losses by demonstrating that programmes are capable of delivering compensating benefits or mitigating negative impacts. Lower levels of perceived loss can reduce defensive attitudes and resistance, thereby creating more favourable conditions for the emergence of local commitment. In this second pathway, loss aversion mediates the relationship between performance evaluation and commitment by capturing how performance information reshapes perceptions of risk and sacrifice. In line with this integrated conceptual framework, the study formulates the following mediation hypotheses: H6: Citizen satisfaction mediates the relationship between programme performance evaluation and local community commitment. H7: Loss aversion mediates the relationship between programme performance evaluation and local community commitment. Studies on sustainability programs are generally dominated by technical dimensions such as environmental indicators, economic achievements, and policy outputs. However, the social dimension, particularly performance assessment, community satisfaction, and psychological tendencies such as aversion to loss, remains relatively unexplored. In fact, the success of sustainability programs is highly dependent on the support of local communities, which is determined by their assessment of the perceived benefits and risks. This study contributes by integrating the perspectives of public management, community behavior, and behavioral economics into a single conceptual framework. Local commitment is positioned as the primary mechanism for ensuring the sustainability of development programs. This effort emphasizes the importance of evaluating several key factors, including performance assessment, satisfaction, and loss aversion, which collectively form the foundation for community participation and acceptance of the program. The research framework is complemented by directional signs and hypotheses evaluated through a quantitative-exploratory approach using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM-PLS). This study aims to investigate the relationship between social variables that influence local commitment to the implementation of sustainability programs in West Java and North Sulawesi. Four latent variables are linked, namely the exogenous variable (performance assessment), two mediating variables (satisfaction and loss aversion), and the endogenous variable (local commitment). This is an important new approach that requires further elaboration to address the challenges of sustainable development programs in Indonesia. Integration of concepts and relevance to this study Current literature demonstrates that program efficacy, citizen contentment, and loss aversion collectively impact community reactions to public interventions, such as sustainability efforts. Nevertheless, numerous studies investigate these factors in isolation, such as correlating performance with trust and satisfaction, or analyzing resistance and conflict primarily through the perspective of perceived losses, without explicitly synthesizing the three dimensions within a unified explanatory framework for local commitment. The mechanisms by which performance evaluation leads to enduring community support are only imperfectly comprehended. This study fills this vacuum by defining local commitment to sustainability projects as a result influenced by perceived program efficacy, public satisfaction, and loss aversion. Within this framework, performance evaluation is expected to affect commitment both directly and indirectly by influencing satisfaction and loss aversion. Improved performance perception is likely to elevate satisfaction and diminish perceived losses, thereby fostering community willingness to remain engaged with and supportive of sustainability initiatives. This comprehensive viewpoint establishes the theoretical foundation for the hypotheses and empirical model examined in the following sections. Sumber. Adopsi [ 1 ], [ 2 ], [ 10 ] 3. Research Method 3.1. Research Design This study used a mixed-method approach, incorporating both qualitative and quantitative analyses, to elucidate the interplay between performance appraisal, satisfaction, and loss aversion in influencing local commitment to sustainability initiatives in West Java and North Sulawesi. This amalgamation of techniques obtained more reliable and contextually relevant results. It is essential to understand the social realities surrounding the implementation of sustainability policies, public perceptions of the effects of programs, and the frameworks for community engagement in supporting long-term initiatives aimed at environmental, social, and economic sustainability[ 2 ], [ 3 ]. The association pertains to how perceptions of program efficacy, direct community experiences, and apprehensions over adverse effects influence support for or opposition to the sustainability of these initiatives. A qualitative case study methodology was employed to investigate experiences, perspectives, and local socio-political dynamics using in-depth interviews, field observations, and document analysis. This methodology seeks to comprehend how the community and local stakeholders (including community leaders, village authorities, and business representatives) perceive the program's success, react to change, and foster commitment to the sustainability agenda. A quantitative methodology was employed to assess and evaluate the correlation between variables by disseminating questionnaires to the community in the two research locations. The analysis included descriptive and inferential statistical methods[ 25 ]. The objective was to determine the degree of each factor's impact on local commitment and to evaluate the suggested model empirically. This study elucidates social realities and provides evidence-based recommendations to support inclusive and adaptive sustainability strategies at the local level. 3.2 Study area The research empirically examines sustainability programs executed in West Java and North Sulawesi. West Java is a province marked by rapid urbanisation and industrialisation, where sustainability efforts are intricately linked to addressing environmental challenges, enhancing urban services, and promoting local economic growth. In contrast, North Sulawesi boasts coastal and marine environments where sustainability initiatives prioritize conservation, disaster risk mitigation, and the development of ecotourism. The two provinces were deliberately chosen to reflect differences in socio-economic frameworks, environmental issues, and policy approaches, facilitating a comparative analysis of the configuration of program performance, satisfaction, loss aversion, and local commitment across diverse local contexts. 3.3 Population, sample and sampling technique The target population comprises local community members and stakeholders directly engaged in or impacted by sustainability programs in West Java and North Sulawesi. The individual serves as the unit of analysis. A non-probability purposive sampling method was employed to ensure that participants had adequate information and experience regarding the programs being examined[ 26 ]. The primary inclusion criteria were: (1) residency in regions where sustainability programs are executed; and (2) active engagement as participants, beneficiaries, local facilitators, community leaders, or program partners in pertinent activities. The poll included 300 respondents, comprising 150 individuals from West Java and 150 from North Sulawesi. This sample size meets the established guidelines for SEM-PLS, which require a minimal number of observations in relation to the structural model's complexity and the number of indicators per construct, as indicated in the methodological literature. 2. Data Source Quantitative Data The study's population consisted of local communities and stakeholders involved in sustainability initiatives in the provinces of West Java and North Sulawesi. Purposive sampling was employed, taking into account direct participation in the program. The sample size employed a minimal statistical methodology, with 150 respondents per location. Data were gathered with Google Forms disseminated across social media employing random sampling methods. The measure employed a closed-ended Likert scale questionnaire to assess program performance, community satisfaction, aversion to loss, and local commitment to sustainability initiatives [ 27 ]. The data were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistical methods. Inferential analysis was conducted using multiple linear regression or Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Qualitative data primary data were sourced directly from key informants (community leaders, program participants, and local government officials) to ensure the accuracy and contextual relevance of the data (Table 2 ). Secondary data was acquired from policy documents, official reports, and digital media sources—data collection methods comprised interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs). Qualitative data were examined using thematic coding, utilizing NVivo 12 + to discern patterns, themes, and interconnections among narratives about local dedication to sustainability initiatives [ 28 ]. Table 2 Research Data No. Data Source / Location Number of Informants Information Focus Method 1 Provincial Environmental Agency of West Java 5 Program governance, performance indicators, strategies to enhance local participation Interviews: examining policy orientation, success indicators, and community involvement in program implementation 2 Provincial Development Planning Agency (Bappeda) of North Sulawesi 5 Strategic planning, cross-sector program integration, sustainable development policies Interviews: exploring strategic planning perspectives and the social impacts of sustainability programs 3 Tourism and Marine Affairs Office of North Sulawesi 5 Marine conservation implementation, sustainable tourism management, coastal community participation Interviews: obtaining information on field practices, barriers to community participation, and program outcomes 4 District/City Governments (West Java & North Sulawesi) 5 Support and constraints in program implementation at the local level, community engagement strategies Interviews: identifying socio-political dynamics, community engagement strategies, and the role of local governments in maintaining commitment 5 Environmental and local development NGOs (West Java & North Sulawesi) 5 Community advocacy, perceptions of program impacts, and levels of community engagement Interviews: capturing advocacy experiences, community empowerment processes, and perceived risks or losses related to the programs 6 Local communities and business actors (West Java & North Sulawesi) 150 Perceptions of program performance, satisfaction levels, perceived disadvantages, and commitment to sustainability Survey: measuring perceptions of research variables and capturing local narratives regarding program implementation 3.5 Measures and variables The quantitative study employs four primary latent constructs: program performance evaluation, citizen satisfaction, loss aversion, and local community commitment. Table 3 of the article summarizes the operational definitions and indicators of each concept. The evaluation of programme performance assesses respondents' views on the degree to which sustainability programmes fulfill their declared goals, are executed efficiently, and address local requirements. Citizen satisfaction refers to the extent to which respondents perceive the programs as advantageous, equitable, and in line with their expectations. Loss aversion refers to respondents' concerns about potential or actual losses associated with programme implementation, including reduced access to natural resources, economic instability, or limitations on existing habits. Local community commitment refers to the respondents' readiness to endorse, engage in, and sustain program activities over an extended period. Table 3 Variables and Indicators No. Variable Indicator 1 Performance Expectancy (PE) PE1. Effectiveness of the program in achieving development objectives PE2. Efficiency in the use and implementation of resources PE3. Transparency and clarity of program-related information 2 Satisfaction S1. Perceived benefits of the program for the community S2. Community involvement in program activities S3. Satisfaction with program outcomes 3 Loss Aversion LA1. Concerns regarding social disruptions LA2. Fear of economic loss or reduced income LA3. Anxiety about environmental degradation or damage to local ecosystems 4 Local Commitment CC1. Active support for the program CC2. Participation in decision-making processes CC3. Readiness to maintain program sustainability All indicators were measured using a Likert-type scale, with response categories ranging from strong disagreement to strong agreement. Indicator selection was based on prior empirical studies and adjusted to the specific context of local sustainability programmes, followed by a pre-test to ensure clarity and relevance of the items. 3.6 Data analysis Quantitative data were analyzed via SEM-PLS through the SmartPLS program. The analysis adhered to conventional two-step protocols[ 29 ]. The evaluation of indicator reliability, internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and the examination of discriminant validity among the assessed constructs evaluated the measurement (outer) model. The structural model was evaluated by computing path coefficients, the coefficient of determination (R²) for endogenous constructs, and metrics of predictive relevance [ 30 ], [ 31 ]. The importance of path coefficients related to hypotheses H1–H7 was assessed using the resampling method within the SEM-PLS framework, and both direct and mediating effects were analyzed in line with the conceptual model. Qualitative data were analyzed by theme analysis utilizing NVivo 12+. The analysis entailed repeated coding of interview and focus group discussion transcripts to discern recurring patterns concerning perceptions of program performance, satisfaction, perceived losses, and statements of commitment[ 32 ]. Codes were systematically categorized into overarching themes and categories that represent essential mechanisms and contextual elements influencing local dedication to sustainability initiatives[ 33 ]. To enhance the credibility of the qualitative findings, triangulation was conducted across multiple data sources (interviews, focus group discussions, and relevant documents), and a meticulous audit trail of coding decisions and theme development was maintained throughout the research[ 34 ]. Quantitative and qualitative results were later evaluated and synthesized during the interpretation phase. Special emphasis was placed on employing qualitative themes to elucidate the strength, direction, and relevance of the linkages discovered in the SEM-PLS model, particularly the mediating roles of citizen satisfaction and loss aversion. 4. Results 4.1 Quantitative Results This study examines the empirical effects of performance appraisal, satisfaction, and loss aversion on local commitment to sustainability initiatives in West Java and North Sulawesi. Prior research has predominantly emphasized the technical features of programs or policy outcomes, but psychological dimensions, including pleasure and loss aversion, have garnered comparatively minimal focus. This study expands the framework by including socio-psychological characteristics into a quantitative model to elucidate local community commitment. This research employed Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) with SmartPLS 4.0 as the analytical instrument. Table 1 Characteristics of Respondents Characteristic Category n % Province West Java 150 50.0 North Sulawesi 150 50.0 Gender Male 160 53.3 Female 138 46.0 Other / Not stated 2 0.7 Age group 18–25 years 60 20.0 26–35 years 110 36.7 36–45 years 80 26.7 > 45 years 50 16.7 Education Primary/Junior high 40 13.3 Senior high school 110 36.7 Diploma/Bachelor 120 40.0 Postgraduate 30 10.0 Occupation Farmer/Fisher 90 30.0 Private employee 80 26.7 Civil servant 45 15.0 Entrepreneur 55 18.3 Other 30 10.0 Length of residence 10 years 170 56.7 Table 1 shows that the sample was evenly divided between West Java and North Sulawesi (50% each), with a slight predominance of male respondents, and most participants were in the productive age range of 26–45 years. The level of education was generally moderate to high, with the majority having completed high school or holding a diploma/bachelor's degree. Farmers and fishermen constitute the largest occupational groups, followed by private employees and entrepreneurs, indicating a strong representation of livelihoods directly or indirectly related to local natural resources and the regional economy. Most respondents have lived in the current area for more than ten years, indicating that the majority are long-term residents who likely have significant experience and exposure to local sustainability programs. In principle, program performance assessment is considered a crucial factor in establishing community legitimacy and trust in policies. However, performance alone does not automatically increase local commitment unless it is accompanied by satisfaction and a reduction in concerns about losses. Thus, this study emphasizes the importance of reactivating the values of transparency, satisfaction, and risk mitigation in encouraging community commitment. Table 3 Descriptive Statistics of Research Variables Variable Mean Std. Deviation Min Max Performance Expectancy (PE) 3.920 0.620 2.5 5.0 Satisfaction (S) 3.780 0.590 2.7 5.0 Loss Aversion (LA) 3.410 0.640 2.3 4.8 Local Commitment (CC) 3.850 0.570 2.8 5.0 A survey of 300 participants yielded average values for each research variable, reflecting the community's perception of the sustainability effort. The Performance Assessment (PE) variable had a mean of 3.920, a standard deviation of 0.620, a minimum value of 2.5, and a maximum value of 5.0. The findings indicate that the public predominantly views the program's performance positively, although there are variations in individual responses. The Satisfaction (S) variable demonstrated a mean of 3.780, a standard deviation of 0.590, a minimum of 2.7, and a maximum of 5.0, suggesting that public satisfaction is classified as "fair." However, there is an opportunity for improvement, especially in terms of economic benefits. The Loss Aversion (LA) variable obtained an average of 3.410, a standard deviation of 0.640, a minimum value of 2.30, and a maximum value of 4.80. This number indicates that public anxiety about potential losses is significantly heightened, particularly in the socio-economic sphere. The Local Commitment (CC) variable had a mean of 3.850, a standard deviation of 0.570, a minimum value of 2.8, and a maximum of 5.0, reflecting a generally positive level of community commitment to the program, though unevenly distributed among categories. Measurement Model Evaluation The quality of the outer measurement model was examined through standard reliability and validity procedures, as summarised in Table 4 . At the indicator level, all reflective items loaded strongly on their respective constructs, with outer loadings ranging from 0.79 to 0.84 for all variables (PE, S, LA, and CC), thus exceeding the recommended minimum of 0.70 for indicator reliability (Hair et al., 2019). Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability; alpha values vary between 0.791 and 0.837, while composite reliability coefficients range from 0.854 to 0.889, all above the conventional threshold of 0.70. These results indicate satisfactory internal consistency for the four latent constructs. Table 4 Convergent validity, reliability, and HTMT discriminant validity Variable / Construct Outer Loading AVE CR CA Remark HTMT PE S LA CC PE 0.80–0.82 0.652 0.879 0.823 Valid & Reliable – 0.781 0.608 0.745 S 0.81–0.84 0.681 0.872 0.812 Valid & Reliable 0.783 – 0.657 0.825 LA 0.79–0.80 0.634 0.854 0.791 Valid & Reliable 0.607 0.653 – 0.584 CC 0.80–0.83 0.664 0.889 0.837 Valid & Reliable 0.743 0.825 0.587 – Convergent validity was evaluated using the Average Variance Extracted (AVE). All constructs exhibit AVE values greater than 0.50, with 0.652 for PE, 0.681 for S, 0.634 for LA, and 0.664 for CC, confirming that each latent variable explains more than half of the variance in its indicators. Discriminant validity was then assessed using the heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT; Henseler et al., 2015). The HTMT coefficients between constructs range from 0.584 (LA–CC) to 0.825 (S–CC), remaining below the conservative cut-off of 0.85 and well under the 0.90 criterion. Taken together, the outer loadings, reliability coefficients, AVE values, and HTMT ratios demonstrate that the measurement model meets the required standards of indicator reliability, internal consistency, convergent validity, and discriminant validity and can be used for subsequent structural model analysis. Structural Model Evaluation The structural (inner) model’s explanatory power and predictive relevance were assessed using the R² and Stone–Geisser Q² statistics for each endogenous construct, as summarised in Table 5 . Following standard PLS-SEM guidelines, these indices indicate how well the exogenous variables account for variation in the mediating and outcome variables and whether the model has acceptable predictive capability Table 5 Inner Model Test Results (R² and Q²) Endogenous Variable R² Description Q² Description Satisfaction (S) 0.270 Moderate 0.182 Predictively Relevant Loss Aversion (LA) 0.220 Weak–Moderate 0.157 Predictively Relevant Local Commitment (CC) 0.480 Moderate–Strong 0.311 Predictively Relevant Table 5 shows that citizen satisfaction (S) is explained by the predictors, which account for 27% of the variance (R² = 0.270), indicating a moderate level of in-sample explanatory power. Loss aversion (LA) records an R² value of 0.220, indicating a low-to-moderate proportion of explained variance. Local community commitment (CC) has the highest R² value at 0.480, suggesting a moderate-to-substantial explanatory capability of the model for this key outcome variable. Collectively, these findings indicate that the model explains a significant portion of the variance in all three endogenous dimensions, with the most robust explanation provided for local community commitment. The predictive relevance was assessed by the Q² values derived from the blindfolding technique. All Q² statistics are positive—0.182 for satisfaction, 0.157 for loss aversion, and 0.311 for local commitment—indicating that the structural model has predictive relevance for each endogenous construct and performs better than a naïve benchmark that relies solely on the mean values. In line with the qualitative labels in Table 5 (“Predictively Relevant”), these Q² values suggest that the model provides meaningful out-of-sample prediction for satisfaction, perceived losses, and especially local commitment, where the highest Q² value is observed. Overall, the combination of moderate R² values and positive Q² statistics supports the conclusion that the structural model exhibits acceptable explanatory power and predictive relevance for the dynamics of local commitment to sustainability programmes. Table 6 Research Hypothesis Test Results Hypothesis Relationship Between Variables Path Coefficient (β) p-value Conclusion H1 Performance Evaluation → Local Commitment 0.180 0.062 Not Significant H2 Satisfaction → Local Commitment 0.390 0.008 Significant (+) H3 Loss Aversion → Local Commitment –0.280 0.041 Significant (–) H4 Performance Evaluation → Satisfaction 0.520 0.000 Significant (+) H5 Performance Evaluation → Loss Aversion –0.410 0.000 Significant (–) H6 Performance Evaluation → Satisfaction → Local Commitment 0.200 0.004 Significant Mediation H7 Performance Evaluation → Loss Aversion → Local Commitment 0.110 0.032 Significant Mediation Table 6 provides the route coefficients and corresponding p-values for hypotheses H1 through H7. The relationship between programme performance assessment (PE) and local community commitment (CC) is positive but not statistically significant at the 5% level (β = 0.180, p = 0.062). This suggests that, ceteris paribus, elevated performance evaluations do not lead to a sufficiently substantial direct enhancement in local commitment, indicating that performance alone is not a potent independent catalyst for commitment in this model. In contrast, both mediating variables have substantial direct effects on commitment. Citizen satisfaction (S) exerts a positive and statistically significant effect on local commitment (H2: β = 0.390, p = 0.008), indicating that increased satisfaction with program benefits and processes correlates with a greater willingness to endorse and maintain sustainability programs. Aversi kerugian (LA) demonstrates a substantial adverse impact on commitment (H3: β = −0.280, p = 0.041), suggesting that heightened apprehensions regarding possible social, economic, or environmental losses correlate with diminished levels of local commitment. The results validate that satisfaction acts as a positive motivator, while loss aversion serves as a limiting factor for community participation in sustainability programs. The findings for H4 and H5 elucidate the influence of performance evaluation on these two mediators. The appraisal of programme achievement significantly enhances citizen happiness (H4: β = 0.520, p < 0.001) and has an adverse impact on loss aversion (H5: β = −0.410, p < 0.001). Enhanced perceived performance correlates with increased satisfaction and concurrently with diminished perceived risks and apprehensions of loss among community members. Collectively, these data support the perspective that performance evaluation primarily functions by enhancing perceived benefits and reducing perceived costs of involvement. The mediation hypotheses (H6–H7) delineate the indirect pathways from performance evaluation to local commitment. The indirect effect of performance evaluation on commitment, mediated by satisfaction, is positive and statistically significant (H6: β = 0.200, p = 0.004), indicating that satisfaction plays a significant role in the relationship between performance and commitment. Similarly, the indirect effect via loss aversion is statistically significant (H7: β = 0.110, p = 0.032), indicating that diminished loss aversion serves as a secondary mediating pathway connecting performance to commitment. Collectively, these findings indicate that H2–H7 are substantiated, whereas H1 is not. Programme performance evaluation has a significant indirect impact on local commitment; rather than directly influencing commitment, it primarily affects commitment by enhancing citizen satisfaction and reducing loss aversion. Performance reports and program results enhance local commitment only when accompanied by authentic satisfaction with program benefits and effective alleviation of perceived risks and potential losses. Qualitative Results Qualitative data were further evaluated to elucidate the contributions of each actor to the establishment of performance, satisfaction, loss aversion, and local commitment, based on the principal themes that arose from the interviews and focus group discussions. This research employed NVivo 12 + to delineate the themes of the participants' contributions. The occurrence rate of each theme was delineated based on informant categories—West Java Provincial DLH, North Sulawesi Bappeda, Tourism–Maritime Affairs Agency, regency/city governments, NGOs, and community FGD groups—and shown in bar charts. This graphic facilitates the identification of key issues for each stakeholder and reveals patterns of resemblance across the perspectives of the bureaucracy, NGOs, and the community in evaluating sustainability programs. Figure. Frequency of Qualitative Themes by Actor Group The figure illustrates fluctuations in theme emphasis among actor groups. The issue of "governance and performance" was most prevalent in DLH-JBR and PEMDA-LOK, indicating the predominance of governance viewpoints and performance metrics among bureaucrats. The concept of "strategic planning and integration" is distinctly focused on BAPPEDA-SU, aligning with its function as a planning and intersectoral program integration agency. The issue of "marine conservation and sustainable tourism" is predominantly represented by DISPAR-KEL and is notably emphasized in the FGD, aligning with the agency's mandate and the coastal backdrop of North Sulawesi. Conversely, the subject of "local government support and community strategies" was notably significant in PEMDA-LOK and FGD, suggesting that the matter of community approach strategies was more pronounced at the local government and community tiers. The theme of "NGO advocacy & risk/loss" was predominantly identified in NGOs and focus group discussions, signifying that the expression of risks, losses, and community advocacy primarily originated from NGOs and the community. The theme of "community perceptions, satisfaction, and commitment" was prominently featured in focus group discussions and significantly represented in NGOs, suggesting that the primary sources of information regarding satisfaction, concerns, and local commitment to sustainability programs were the direct voices of the community and their facilitators. Table 7 Research findings on local sustainability programme governance, community perceptions, and local commitment Theme Sub-theme Informant (n/25 + FGD) Data source Programme governance and performance evaluation Formal governance structure and performance indicators for sustainability programmes DLH-JBR–01, DLH-JBR–02, DLH-JBR–03 (3/25) INT Strategies to increase local participation in programme implementation DLH-JBR–02, DLH-JBR–04, DLH-JBR–05 (3/25) INT, FGD Strategic planning and cross-sectoral integration Integration of sustainability programmes into provincial development plans and sectoral policies BAPPEDA-SU–01, BAPPEDA-SU–02, BAPPEDA-SU–03 (3/25) INT Perceived social and economic impacts of sustainability programmes BAPPEDA-SU–03, BAPPEDA-SU–04, BAPPEDA-SU–05 (3/25) INT, FGD Marine conservation and sustainable tourism implementation Field practices of marine conservation and sustainable tourism management DISPAR-KEL–01, DISPAR-KEL–02, DISPAR-KEL–03 (3/25) INT Community participation and resistance in coastal areas DISPAR-KEL–03, DISPAR-KEL–04, DISPAR-KEL–05 (3/25) INT, FGD Local government support and community-based commitment strategies District/municipal strategies for community outreach and mobilisation of local groups PEMDA-LOK–01, PEMDA-LOK–02, PEMDA-LOK–03 (3/25) INT Institutional constraints: budget limitations, bureaucracy and political cycles PEMDA-LOK–03, PEMDA-LOK–04, PEMDA-LOK–05 (3/25) INT, FGD NGO advocacy, community empowerment and perceptions of risk/loss Community advocacy, capacity building and leadership strengthening by environmental/development NGOs NGO–01, NGO–02, NGO–03 (3/25) INT Perceptions of programme benefits, risks and potential losses (access to resources, livelihoods, social–environmental) NGO–03, NGO–04, NGO–05 (3/25) INT, FGD Community perceptions of programme performance and satisfaction (FGD) Perceived fairness, transparency and responsiveness of sustainability programmes Community FGD groups in West Java and North Sulawesi FGD Community perceptions of risk, loss and compensation (FGD) Concerns about potential loss of access to natural resources and livelihoods; expectations of compensation arrangements Community FGD groups in West Java and North Sulawesi FGD Community expressions of local commitment to sustainability programmes (FGD) Forms of local commitment (rule compliance, collective action, support for local initiatives, symbolic endorsement) Community FGD groups in West Java and North Sulawesi FGD (INT = Interview; FGD = Focus Group Discussion; DLH-JBR = West Java Provincial Environment Agency; BAPPEDA-SU = North Sulawesi Provincial Development Planning Agency; DISPAR-KEL = North Sulawesi Tourism & Maritime Affairs Agency; PEMDA-LOK = Local governments in West Java & North Sulawesi; NGO = Environmental and local development NGOs.) Qualitative research results confirm that program performance assessments at the institutional level are relatively positive; however, they are overshadowed by several implementation limitations that directly affect satisfaction, aversion to loss, and local commitment. Informants from the West Java Environment Agency described a well-organized governance structure and performance indicators, as well as an awareness that community participation needs to be strengthened. One DLH official stated: “On paper, our performance indicators are quite clear—the number of activities, the extent of rehabilitation, and so on. However, when asked to what extent the community is truly involved, this is not fully reflected in the existing indicators.” (DLH-JBR-02, interview) The efforts to increase participation that they described—for example, through socialization and the involvement of local groups—show that performance assessments in the bureaucracy are not solely based on output, but are beginning to include the process dimension. However, the continued strong emphasis on formal indicators suggests a gap between administrative performance and the direct experiences of the community in the field. Another informant emphasized: “In the report, the program is complete, and the targets have been achieved. However, in the field, we still have to provide incentives and continuous assistance so that residents are willing to stay in the program.” (DLH-JBR-04, interview) In North Sulawesi, an informant from Bappeda emphasized that sustainability programs have been integrated into planning and cross-sectoral documents, while also highlighting the socio-economic impacts that are beginning to be felt. “We have integrated all environmental and coastal programs into the RPJMD and sectoral plans. There are effects in the field—for example, job opportunities in tourism—but they are not yet evenly distributed across all regions.” (BAPPEDA-SU-02, interview) This perspective suggests that, from a planning standpoint, program performance is quite good and well-focused. However, information from the Tourism and Marine Affairs Office shows that at the level of implementation of marine conservation and sustainable tourism, the participation of coastal communities is not uniform: " In some villages, residents are very enthusiastic because they feel they can earn additional income from tourism. However, in other places, fishermen still reject conservation zones because they fear their fishing areas will be reduced." (DISPAR-KEL-03, interview) This pattern suggests that community satisfaction is contingent upon the extent to which economic and social benefits are actually perceived as such. At the same time, resistance reflects aversion to potential losses of existing access and livelihoods. Interviews with district/city governments added that fiscal capacity, bureaucratic burdens, and local political dynamics influence institutional support for the program. " We support this program, but the fiscal space and budgetary bureaucracy are quite burdensome. Once there is a change in regional leadership, priorities can change, and the continuity of the program is at stake." (PEMDA-LOK-02, interview) The strategy of community engagement, which involves strengthening farmer-fisher groups and local leaders, is seen as crucial for building commitment; however, its success is unstable when political or budgetary support declines. Meanwhile, CSOs/NGOs in both provinces act as liaison agents, advocating for community rights, strengthening community capacity, and articulating concerns about risks and losses—including loss of access to resources and unclear compensation schemes. "Many communities agree with conservation goals, but they are concerned about losing access to forests or the sea without clear compensation. That is where we come in to strengthen their bargaining position in policy dialogues." (NGO-03, interview) In some cases, NGOs also highlight the gap between the government's and citizens' perceptions of the program's benefits: "The government feels the program is successful, but citizens say the economic benefits are not commensurate with the restrictions they experience." (NGO-04, interview) Community FGD data deepens this picture. FGD participants assessed programs more positively when information and decisions were considered transparent, responsive, and fair. "If it is explained clearly from the start, we are invited to participate in discussions, and there are examples of tangible benefits, we do not mind following the rules." (FGD-JBR-01, community) Conversely, when new rules were perceived as restricting access to resources without clear benefits or compensation, there was obvious concern and resistance: "We were asked to reduce our fishing area, but there was no certainty of replacement income. That made us hesitant to support this program." (FGD-SU-02, coastal community) The forms of local commitment that emerge vary from compliance with regulations, involvement in collective activities, to symbolic support for environmental initiatives; however, all are conditional on a combination of three things: program performance that is considered credible, satisfaction with the perceived benefits, and assurance that risks and potential losses are adequately addressed. Thus, the qualitative findings consistently support the quantitative results, which indicate that local commitment is shaped by the interaction of performance assessment, satisfaction, and loss aversion, rather than by any one dimension in isolation. 5. Discussion 5.1 Program performance assessment and limitations of direct influence on local commitment SEM-PLS results show that performance assessment has a significant effect on satisfaction (β = 0.520; p < 0.001) and reduces loss aversion (β = −0.410; p < 0.001), but does not have a direct effect on local commitment (β = 0.180; p = 0.062). These findings indicate that performance information and program indicator achievements do not automatically translate into long-term community support, so that performance assessment functions more as a structural prerequisite than a direct driver of commitment. This pattern modifies the argument of previous studies that emphasized the direct relationship between measurable performance and public support for development and sustainability programs. Qualitative data clarify the mechanisms behind these findings. In West Java, officials from the Environment Agency stated that performance indicators were well structured at the document level. However, they did not fully capture the quality of citizen participation: “our performance indicators are quite clear... but the extent to which citizens are truly involved is not fully reflected in the existing indicators.” Other statements confirmed that the achievements in the reports often required additional incentives and assistance to keep citizens involved. In North Sulawesi, the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda) has emphasized that the program has been integrated into the Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMD) and sectoral plans; however, the positive impact in the field has not been evenly distributed. Overall, these results reveal a gap between administrative performance, as reflected in formal indicators, and the community's concrete experiences. Performance assessment is important as a basis for governance, but local commitment is only formed when the assessment is linked to perceived benefits and risk management at the community level. These findings align with the literature, which posits that performance serves as an initial input in a causal chain that psychological and social factors must mediate before generating public support. 5.2 Satisfaction and perceived benefits as key drivers of local commitment The path coefficient shows that satisfaction has a significant positive effect on local commitment (β = 0.390; p < 0.01). This result is consistent with the cognitive model of satisfaction, which posits that the comparison between expectations and actual outcomes is the primary determinant of citizens' evaluations of public programs. In the context of this study, satisfaction reflects not only assessments of technical performance but also concerns about the fairness of benefit distribution, transparency of information, and the extent to which the community feels involved in the decision-making process. FGD data show that citizens tend to evaluate programs positively when the process is considered transparent, responsive, and provides tangible benefits. One FGD participant stated that if the program explanation had been clear from the outset, the community would have been invited to participate in discussions and would have had concrete examples of benefits. Compliance with the rules would not be a problem. Conversely, when restrictions on access to resources were not accompanied by certainty of benefits or compensation, support declined. These findings reinforce the literature that places satisfaction as an indicator of social legitimacy for development policies and programs. Within the framework of community commitment theory, satisfaction can be understood as a form of confirmation that the program aligns with local needs and preferences, thereby encouraging citizens to continue participating and supporting it. In this study, satisfaction also serves as a key mediator that bridges performance assessment with local commitment, as evidenced by the significant indirect effect of performance assessment on satisfaction. 5.3 Loss aversion, risk perception, and resistance to sustainability programs Loss aversion was found to have a significant negative effect on local commitment (β = −0.280; p < 0.05). This finding aligns with Loss Aversion Theory, which posits that individuals are more sensitive to potential losses than to gains of equal value, thereby weakening support for policies even when they offer long-term benefits. Interviews and FGDs confirmed that concerns about losing access to resources and livelihoods are important factors shaping resistance. Officials from the North Sulawesi Tourism and Maritime Affairs Office described a situation where some villages showed enthusiasm because they gained additional income from tourism. In contrast, fishermen in other villages rejected conservation zones due to concerns about reduced fishing areas. NGOs also noted that many communities accepted conservation goals but were concerned about losing access to forests or seas without clear compensation mechanisms in place. Coastal FGD participants emphasized that reducing fishing areas without guaranteed income replacements made them hesitant to support the program. Quantitatively, better performance assessments correlate with a decrease in loss aversion (β = −0.410; p < 0.001), indicating that when programs are perceived as consistent, transparent, and effective, some of the community's concerns about losses can be mitigated. However, descriptive data across regions show that West Java residents tend to exhibit higher loss aversion than those in North Sulawesi, despite their slightly higher performance assessments and satisfaction levels. This indicates that the socioeconomic context and local livelihood structures influence the extent to which the perception of loss hinders commitment to sustainability programs. 5.4 Mediation mechanisms, integration of quantitative–qualitative findings, and cross- regional implications Structurally, the results indicate that H2–H7 are supported, while H1 is not. Performance ratings do not directly affect local commitment; rather, they work through increased satisfaction and decreased loss aversion. These findings confirm that local commitment is shaped by the interaction of three dimensions—performance, satisfaction, and perception of loss—rather than by any single factor in isolation. Qualitative data provide insight into the mechanisms underlying this structure. At the institutional level, program performance was assessed as fairly good in terms of regulation, integration into planning documents, and achievement of key outputs. However, implementation in the field shows variations in participation, fiscal capacity constraints, and the influence of political cycles that affect program continuity. On the community side, local commitment manifests in the form of rule compliance, collective action, and symbolic support. However, it is contingent upon three key factors: the credibility of program performance, satisfaction with perceived benefits, and assurances that risks and potential losses are adequately addressed. A comparison between West Java and North Sulawesi reveals that the combination of these three factors is configured differently within each regional context. West Java exemplifies a situation where the pressures of urbanization and industrialization lead to relatively high performance ratings and satisfaction, but also increase sensitivity to losses, particularly those related to short-term economic impacts. In contrast, North Sulawesi exhibits a lower level of loss aversion and a stronger social acceptance of conservation and ecotourism programs, despite slightly lower performance assessments and satisfaction levels. In terms of scientific contribution, these results reinforce the relevance of integrating Performance Evaluation Theory, Satisfaction Theory, Loss Aversion Theory, and Community Commitment Theory in explaining local commitment to sustainability programs. This study fills a gap in previous studies, which have tended to separate the analysis of performance, satisfaction, and loss aversion. It demonstrates that performance assessment is only effective in increasing commitment when it is converted into satisfaction and when the perception of loss is managed through appropriate policy design, compensation schemes, and communication strategies. Methodologically, the combination of SEM-PLS and NVivo 12 + thematic analysis in a comparative design across two provinces yielded a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of local commitment, revealing how variations in socioeconomic context influence the configuration of relationships between performance, satisfaction, loss aversion, and commitment. These findings provide an empirical basis for the development of sustainability policy models that emphasize the simultaneity of performance improvement, increased citizen satisfaction, and mitigation of perceived losses at the local level. Conclusion and Recommendation This study reveals that program performance assessments do not directly influence local commitment to sustainability programs in West Java and North Sulawesi; rather, they are primarily shaped by community satisfaction and the management of loss aversion. Quantitatively, performance assessments were found to increase satisfaction and simultaneously reduce aversion to loss. Satisfaction had a positive effect, while loss aversion had a negative effect on local commitment. This pattern confirms that administrative performance and program indicator achievements will only be meaningful for commitment when they are translated into tangible benefits and assurances that the socioeconomic risks perceived by the community can be minimized. Qualitative findings reinforce these results: provincial and district/city government actors assess the governance and integration of programs in planning documents as quite good; however, the community assesses programs through the lens of concrete benefits, the fairness of implementation, and the extent to which new regulations do not threaten their livelihoods. A comparison of the two provinces reveals different configurations. In West Java, the program operates within the context of urbanization and industrialization pressures, resulting in high performance assessments and satisfaction. However, loss aversion is also strong, as the community is more sensitive to short-term economic risks and the uncertainty of compensation. In North Sulawesi, conservation and ecotourism programs are implemented in a more communal social environment, where loss aversion is relatively lower and social acceptance of conservation goals is stronger. However, performance assessments and satisfaction levels are slightly lower. These conditions suggest that strategies to strengthen local commitment cannot be uniform but must be tailored to the local economic structure, forms of dependence on natural resources, and traditions of collectively in each region. Theoretically, this study enriches the understanding of local commitment by integrating Performance Evaluation Theory, Satisfaction Theory, Loss Aversion Theory, and Community Commitment Theory into a single empirical model. The main contribution lies in explaining that performance evaluation acts as a governance capability that works through two psychological mechanisms—satisfaction and loss aversion—rather than as a single determinant of commitment. The mixed-methods approach, which combines SEM-PLS and thematic analysis, also provides a more comprehensive understanding of how these mechanisms operate in various social contexts. Several recommendations can be proposed. First, local governments need to reformulate program performance evaluation systems so that they emphasize not only output indicators, but also indicators that capture the quality of participation, perceptions of fairness, and community satisfaction. Citizen involvement in planning, monitoring, and evaluation—through participatory forums and regular feedback—needs to be positioned as part of performance, not merely as a supporting activity. Second, strategies to increase commitment must explicitly manage loss aversion by designing clear transition and compensation schemes for groups affected by restrictions on access to resources, including alternative livelihood support, new skills training, and targeted social protection. Third, collaboration with NGOs and community organizations needs to be strengthened to bridge communication between the government and the community, especially in clarifying long-term benefits and negotiating perceived risks. Fourth, for regions with characteristics such as West Java, policies should place greater emphasis on economic guarantees and credible compensation mechanisms. In contrast, for regions like North Sulawesi, the emphasis can be directed towards strengthening collective values and community institutions that support conservation and ecotourism. Beyond policy recommendations, this study also suggests an agenda for further research. Testing the model in other regions with different socioeconomic characteristics will allow for broader comparisons of the relationship between performance, satisfaction, loss aversion, and local commitment. Developing more sensitive qualitative and quantitative indicators of perceived loss dynamics and designing longitudinal studies to monitor changes in commitment over time will deepen our understanding of program sustainability at the local level. Limitations The quantitative component relies on cross-sectional survey data, which limits causal inference between performance evaluation, satisfaction, loss aversion, and local commitment. The sample was obtained through purposive non-probability sampling; therefore, findings cannot be generalized to all communities involved in sustainability programs in Indonesia. Data collection used self-reported perceptions, which are subject to social desirability bias and individual interpretation of program performance and impacts. The study focuses only on two provinces (West Java and North Sulawesi); regional institutional, cultural, and economic differences may limit transferability to other contexts. Performance indicators were measured at the perception level and not fully matched with objective administrative or environmental outcome data. Qualitative findings are based on a limited number of interviews and FGDs, which capture depth but may not represent the full diversity of stakeholder perspectives. Abbreviations PE Performance Evaluation S Satisfaction LA Loss Aversion CC Community Commitment SEM-PLS Structural Equation Modeling–Partial Least Squares FGD Focus Group Discussion RPJMD Regional Medium-Term Development Plan DLH Provincial Environmental Agency BAPPEDA Regional Development Planning Agency Declarations Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the support of local government institutions, community leaders, non-governmental organizations, and community members in West Java and North Sulawesi who participated in surveys, interviews, and focus group discussions. Funding This research received no external funding. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Ethics Approval and Accordance This study involved human participants. The research protocol was reviewed by the Research Ethics Committee (Institutional Review Board) of Universitas Riau Indonesia, Indonesia, and ethical approval was waived because the study involved an anonymous questionnaire-based survey, posed minimal risk to participants, and did not collect any personally identifiable information. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines and regulations of the Research Ethics Committee (IRB) listed above and the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Author contributions Indrayani: conceptualization, research design, data collection, quantitative and qualitative analysis, manuscript drafting, and final approval. Heri Hermanto: methodology development, data analysis support, critical review, and manuscript revision. Nia Mardiana: data collection, qualitative analysis, literature review, and manuscript editing. Consent to participate Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study. Consent to publish All participants provided consent for the anonymized data to be published. Data availability The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and are not publicly deposited due to ethical and confidentiality considerations. See Table 1 and references for contextual program information. Code availability Not applicable. Clinical trial number Not applicable. References Deslatte A, Feiock RC, Wassel K. Urban Pressures and Innovations: Sustainability Commitment in the Face of Fragmentation and Inequality, Rev. Policy Res. , vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 700–724, Sep. 2017, 10.1111/ropr.12242 Cavanagh J-AE, Frame B, Lennox J. The Sustainability Assessment Model (SAM): Measuring Sustainable Development Performance, Australas. J. Environ. Manag. , vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 142–145, Sep. 2006, 10.1080/14486563.2006.9725127 Deslatte A, Stokan E. Sustainability Synergies or Silos? The Opportunity Costs of Local Government Organizational Capabilities, Public Adm. Rev. , vol. 80, no. 6, pp. 1024–1034, Nov. 2020, 10.1111/puar.13237 Aguilera RV, Aragón-Correa JA, Marano V, Tashman PA. The Corporate Governance of Environmental Sustainability: A Review and Proposal for More Integrated Research, J. Manage. , vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 1468–1497, Jul. 2021, 10.1177/0149206321991212 Cho W, Kim D, Park AYS. Local Government’s Resource Commitment to Environmental Sustainability: Capacity, Conservatism, and Contractual Dynamics. Urban Aff Rev. 2023;59(2):447–75. 10.1177/10780874211064976 . Ji H, Darnall N. How do external conditions affect the design of local governments’ sustainability strategies? Regul. Gov. , vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 910–929, Jul. 2022, 10.1111/rego.12334 Farmer JL. State-Level Influences on Community-Level Municipal Sustainable Energy Policies. Urban Aff Rev. 2022;58(4):1065–95. 10.1177/1078087421995262 . Megawati S, Alfarizi M, Key Advantages of the Green Government Initiative in Achieving Local Public Service Performance and Sustainable Development. and …., … J. Sustain. … , 2024, [Online]. Available: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=17437601&AN=181864693&h= VyNNtqXx9%2Bt1QI1PWl7Zp7JLThbjCTgQgBTwzcHMay0Zfeslnp69edoKy5Zk80LlRUiOmsxPb4Yx1aZ4B8xRyg%3D%3D&crl=c Deslatte A, Swann WL, Feiock RC. Performance, Satisfaction, or Loss Aversion? A Meso–Micro Assessment of Local Commitments to Sustainability Programs, J. Public Adm. Res. Theory , vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 201–217, Feb. 2021, 10.1093/jopart/muaa021 Indrayani I, Nurhatisyah N, Damsar D, Wibisono C. How does millennial employee job satisfaction affect performance? High Educ Ski Work Learn. 2024;14(1):22–40. 10.1108/HESWBL-01-2023-0004 . Deslatte A. Motivated Localism: Polarization and Public Support for Intergovernmental Carbon Reduction Efforts, Urban Aff. Rev. , vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 1665–1699, Sep. 2023, 10.1177/10780874221109462 Huang X, Chau KY, Tang YM, Iqbal W. RETRACTED: Business Ethics and Irrationality in SME During COVID-19: Does It Impact on Sustainable Business Resilience? 2022, frontiersin.org . 10.3389/fenvs.2022.870476 N. P. Dewi, I. Indrayani, C. Wibisono, and … Government Employee Assessment to Support Public Performance Organization Learned from Riau Island Province, Cogent Bus. … , 2024, [Online]. Available: https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/326356. Rulli PS. Impacts of Information Provision on Preferences for Infrastructures and Public Services Improvements: Randomized Conjoint Field Experiments in Indonesia . hiroshima.repo.nii.ac.jp , 2019. [Online]. Available: https://hiroshima.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/2003184/files/k8033_1.pdf D. F. Hakam, N. A. Nuzula, A. Aprianingsih, and … Youth perspectives on induction stoves: advancing sustainable energy transitions in Indonesian cities, Front. Sustain. … , 2025, doi: 10.3389/frsc.2025.1554457. N. Nurfadila, Enhancing public financial management through performance evaluation and cost systems, Adv. Manag. &Financial … , 2024, [Online]. Available: http://advancesinresearch.id/index.php/AMFR/article/view/264. B. Wardiyanto, E. Setijaningrum, S. Samad, and … Mending the mismatch of minds and mandates: reimagining competency-centric public service delivery in Bojonegoro Regency,Indonesia, Cogent Bus. … , 2025, doi: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2442538. S. Salahudin, M. Syahri, T. D. Cahyani, and … Green Budgeting Review at Local Government:Case Study of Batu Government, Indonesia, J. Gov. … , 2025, [Online]. Available: https://jurnal.umt.ac.id/index.php/jgs/article/view/13331. Chen L, Ng E, Huang S-C, Fang W-T. A self-evaluation system of quality planning for tourist attractions in Taiwan: An integrated AHP-Delphi approach from career professionals. Sustain. 2017;9(10). 10.3390/su9101751 . Indrayani I, Nurhatisyah N, Damsar D, Wibisono C. How does millennial employee job satisfaction affect performance? High Educ Ski Work Learn. 2024;14(1):22–40. Yuritanto Y, Rumengan J, Indrayani I, DETERMINATION OF COMMUNICATION CLIMATE COMPETENCE, DISCIPLINE OF EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE THROUGH WORK SATISFACTION AS AN INTERVENING VARIABLE. Zo Manajerial Progr Stud Manaj Univ Batam. 2019;9(1):53–63. Sohu JM, et al. Leveraging Loss Aversion and Self-Efficacy: The Role of Water Pricing and Risk in Driving Individual Innovation for Sustainable Water Consumption. Water. 2024;16(23):3510. He R, Dai Y, Sun G. How risk perception and loss aversion affect farmers’ willingness to withdraw from rural homesteads: Mediating role of policy identity. Heliyon. 2023;9(10):e20918–20918. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20918 . Chang K-C, Cheng Y-S, Kuo N-T, Cheng Y-H. Impacts of Tourists’ Shopping Destination Trust on Post-Visit Behaviors: A Loss Aversion Perspective. Int J Hosp Tour Adm. 2025;26(1):28–67. Brayer A, Marcinowicz L. Job satisfaction of nurses with master of nursing degrees in Poland: quantitative and qualitative analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. Dec. 2018;18(1):239. 10.1186/s12913-018-3053-6 . Carnevale JB, Huang L, Credé M, Harms P, Uhl-Bien M. Leading to Stimulate Employees’ Ideas: A Quantitative Review of Leader–Member Exchange, Employee Voice, Creativity, and Innovative Behavior. Appl Psychol. 2017;66:517. 10.1111/apps.12102 . Rahman MS. The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in language ‘testing and assessment’ research: A literature review. J Educ Learn, 6, 1, 2016. Edwards-Jones A. Qualitative data analysis with NVIVO. Taylor & Francis; 2014. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publications Ltd\; 2017. Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Hair JF. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling, Handb. Mark. Res. , no. July, pp. 587–632, 2021, 10.1007/978-3-319-57413-4_15 Hair J, Alamer A. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) in second language and education research: Guidelines using an applied example. Res Methods Appl Linguist. 2022;1(3):100027. Bazeley P, Jackson K. Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. 3rd ed. Sage; 2019. Pan H, Tang L. Qualitative data analysis in Chinese social science studies——the case of NVivo. Data Anal Knowl Discov. 2020;4(1):51–62. Welsh E. Dealing with data: Using NVivo in the qualitative data analysis process, in Forum qualitative sozialforschung/Forum: qualitative social research , 2002. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. 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-8419241","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":577186942,"identity":"95b02293-442e-44fb-aa53-2837b87ffa43","order_by":0,"name":"Indrayani Indrayani","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Riau Indonesia","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Indrayani","middleName":"","lastName":"Indrayani","suffix":""},{"id":577186943,"identity":"ead0ecd0-dc7f-406c-a8a4-0a4ce1c4a8b1","order_by":1,"name":"Heri Hermanto","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Riau Indonesia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Heri","middleName":"","lastName":"Hermanto","suffix":""},{"id":577186944,"identity":"fe51d37c-8414-42bd-9c58-40ed03c73dad","order_by":2,"name":"Nia Mardiana","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Riau Indonesia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nia","middleName":"","lastName":"Mardiana","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-21 19:38:15","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8419241/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8419241/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":100819964,"identity":"a081e891-a1e6-4ceb-952e-6d71c75fc8f9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 17:37:58","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":825631,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"RV080126ManuscriptDiscoverSustainabilityIndrayani2REVISEDethicsv2.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8419241/v1/79eae941094a94f8dc07d4af.docx"},{"id":100819961,"identity":"f9466d98-d5ff-4134-b975-0a8a8f7d1ecb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 17:37:58","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5848,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"95886b52d89547df9bd923f4185b9168.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8419241/v1/ef16b80835959c335b8962d4.json"},{"id":100819966,"identity":"041b2972-4efb-494a-97a8-ccb7960e0433","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 17:37:58","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":163752,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"95886b52d89547df9bd923f4185b91681enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8419241/v1/e32511e5d347c3e548f881a4.xml"},{"id":100819963,"identity":"9ea8538a-2818-4e89-90a9-7258ddb103db","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 17:37:58","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":246752,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8419241/v1/eb525bbfd91d8d6f4a90c9fe.png"},{"id":100858464,"identity":"be889fd2-d65f-4a07-944f-93e625666b13","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-22 07:24:19","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":37408,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8419241/v1/ccd8f7df52d7dc4c1800c6a2.png"},{"id":100819969,"identity":"edb05329-eff4-4823-ad3c-de39a58a4e32","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 17:37:58","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":167811,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8419241/v1/482b9471d1053c9bd3de87b8.png"},{"id":100819965,"identity":"bf7c064a-0117-4359-aae7-4e0b263076d3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 17:37:58","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":59952,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8419241/v1/7e16edda8ca4d597b22999f0.png"},{"id":100858077,"identity":"ff4ef55a-1767-47f0-9910-3e36d870ce56","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-22 07:23:50","extension":"xml","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":162055,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"95886b52d89547df9bd923f4185b91681structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8419241/v1/aeb765dfca8dee9cedcace32.xml"},{"id":100819968,"identity":"2263448e-8a6b-458d-bb3f-79b28eb0abfc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 17:37:58","extension":"html","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":173656,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8419241/v1/21b38af371b6dbb035f0d106.html"},{"id":100819960,"identity":"7c05b971-101c-4aa6-ad06-ada77f2db01a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 17:37:58","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":141810,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResearch Hypothesis Model\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8419241/v1/81b57e78ea5ebe682d59d6f4.png"},{"id":100819959,"identity":"7321144f-fe3a-4a68-9054-463f94f84445","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 17:37:58","extension":"jpeg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":721031,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResearch Design and Analysis Approach\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSumber. Adopsi \u003c/strong\u003e[1], [2], [10]\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8419241/v1/12896d6a4f5049d8761994a8.jpeg"},{"id":108602621,"identity":"ba4536de-d802-42e9-8e62-a63d9d9f3ef3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-06 11:43:10","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1356983,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8419241/v1/68de5600-3279-4e96-8083-a841d623742c.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Performance Evaluation, Satisfaction, and Loss Aversion as Determinants of Local Commitment to Sustainability Programs in West Java and North Sulawesi","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSustainable development has evolved from a normative discussion to a prevailing global policy framework, as articulated in international documents, including the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, which integrate environmental protection, poverty alleviation, and socio-economic equity into a cohesive agenda[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. This paradigm necessitates that states and local governments reformulate planning, budgeting, and regulatory frameworks, rather than merely incorporating \"green\" elements into current development models, to ensure that economic growth, resource extraction, and spatial development are consistently aligned with long-term ecological constraints and intergenerational well-being[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. In practice, translating these global commitments into practical programs often results in tensions and trade-offs: economic interests clash with conservation goals, short political cycles restrict long-term investments, and limited administrative capacity hinders consistent monitoring of program outcomes[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. These structural constraints are especially evident at the local level, where sustainability policies directly impact daily livelihoods, access to natural resources, and local power dynamics. In Indonesia, these global imperatives are officially integrated into national development planning frameworks, such as the 2025\u0026ndash;2029 National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN), which prioritizes natural resource down-streaming, local value generation, and enhancement of environmental quality. The efficacy of strategic commitments is contingent upon the implementation of sustainability programs in specific locales and the degree to which communities regard them as legitimate, advantageous, and congruent with their socio-economic requirements, rendering local commitment a crucial yet frequently under-examined element of the overarching sustainability agenda[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e][\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper examines sustainability programs in West Java and North Sulawesi to analyze these issues within a specific context, given their distinct socio-economic characteristics. West Java faces significant challenges from urbanization and industrialization, whereas North Sulawesi prioritizes the conservation of coastal habitats and the advancement of ecotourism. Descriptive research suggests that people of West Java report marginally elevated levels of perceived program performance and satisfaction, while simultaneously demonstrating heightened loss aversion. Conversely, communities in North Sulawesi exhibit somewhat inferior performance and satisfaction ratings, alongside less loss aversion, indicating heightened social acceptance and collective values that bolster the initiatives, especially in more communally focused regions. These contrasts indicate that perceptions of program performance, satisfaction, and prospective losses may collectively influence the patterns of local commitment to sustainability programs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultiple studies affirm that a program's efficacy is influenced not only by its policy design but also by the community's evaluation of its performance, satisfaction with the outcomes, and perceptions of potential losses that may arise[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Performance evaluation functions as a metric of technical achievement, satisfaction levels signify social legitimacy, and loss aversion elucidates the community's heightened sensitivity to the risk of loss compared to long-term advantages .\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study examines examples in West Java and North Sulawesi, two locations with distinct socioeconomic features. West Java experiences significant pressure from urbanization and industry, whereas North Sulawesi prioritizes the conservation of coastal ecosystems and the growth of ecotourism. These contextual distinctions are expected to reveal disparities in the determinants influencing community commitment to sustainability initiatives. We analyzed the Key Sustainability Indicators (KSI) for current sustainability initiatives in West Java and North Sulawesi in relation to the accomplishments presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvaluation of Sustainability Initiatives, KSI West Java and North Sulawesi\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProvince\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSustainability Program\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIKU\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExplanation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWest Java\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWaste Management and Emission Reduction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60% (2020), 50% (2022)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDecreased satisfaction due to economic impacts, especially in urban areas (Bandung).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGreen Infrastructure Development\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e65% (2021)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis program covers urban greening and the improvement of green open spaces in large cities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNorth Sulawesi\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNatural Resource Conservation Program\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70% (2022)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFocus on forest conservation and natural resource management in rural areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarine Conservation and Mangrove Management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75% (2021), 65% (2022)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncreased satisfaction with marine management, low participation in coastal areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNatural Resource Management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60% (2020)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMining and marine resource management program with an environmentally friendly approach.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSustainable Nature Tourism Development\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70% (2022)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFocus on developing ecotourism and empowering the local nature-based economy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e indicates that the residents of West Java exhibit marginally elevated performance and satisfaction ratings, alongside a heightened aversion to loss. Conversely, North Sulawesi has somewhat reduced ratings and satisfaction, although it demonstrates a diminished sensitivity to loss; this suggests that social endorsement or communal values may be bolstering the program, particularly in regions with a pronounced communal focus. This condition highlights the need for a comprehensive understanding of the various factors that influence local commitment to sustainability initiatives, including performance perceptions, satisfaction levels, and resistance to potential losses. Neglecting these factors may hinder the long-term efficacy of sustainability projects. Therefore, examining the impact of perceptions of program effectiveness, community happiness, and loss aversion is crucial for understanding how these factors influence community participation in sustainability initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study employs a theoretical framework to examine performance evaluation, community satisfaction, loss aversion, and local commitment to sustainability initiatives. Performance Evaluation Theory assesses program efficacy using explicit performance indicators, accompanied by systematic evaluations of economic and environmental outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. The Satisfaction Theory assesses community satisfaction and engagement in planning, identifying opportunities for improvement through enhanced surveys and communication. The Loss Aversion Theory elucidates the influence of perceived losses on involvement and aids in developing mitigation techniques and long-term communication plans regarding benefits [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Community Commitment Theory assesses the level of community support for the program, emphasizing the promotion of active participation and the provision of incentives that foster sustainable engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe literature review reveals a research gap. Most prior research has concentrated primarily on the technical dimensions of the program, policy governance, or environmental indicators. Research explicitly incorporating psychological factors, such as loss aversion, into assessments of program success and community satisfaction to elucidate local commitment remains scarce, particularly in Indonesia. Moreover, comparison studies across locations with varying socio-cultural attributes are infrequently undertaken, resulting in an incomplete understanding of local commitment dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eModels integrating performance assessment, satisfaction, and loss aversion are infrequently examined in relation to local commitment to sustainability initiatives. Many studies emphasize technical or policy dimensions, neglecting the influence of public perceptions and emotions on long-term program responses. Prior research underscores the significance of performance evaluation in assessing the efficacy of sustainability programs; such evaluations typically depend on quantifiable outcomes and their societal and environmental impacts, highlighting efficiency and transparency as catalysts for public engagement[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. The Satisfaction Theory posits that community participation in the decision-making process enhances satisfaction and endorsement of programs. Loss Aversion Theory elucidates the propensity of societies to prioritize potential losses over long-term advantages. The Community Commitment Theory posits that local engagement can be enhanced through active involvement and incentive measures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the application of a mixed methodologies approach that integrates quantitative analysis via Structural Equation Modelling (SEM-PLS) and qualitative research through theme coding (NVivo 12+) remains infrequently utilized cohesively in comparable contexts in Indonesia. Comparative analyses in West Java and North Sulawesi are anticipated to obtain novel insights into the impact of socio-economic circumstances on local commitment. This research aims to produce evidence-based policy briefs that facilitate the development of more inclusive and adaptable sustainability policies at the local level. This project aims to enhance multidisciplinary academic literature and offer evidence-based policy suggestions for local and national decision-makers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research theoretically utilizes Performance Evaluation Theory, Satisfaction Theory, Loss Aversion Theory, and Community Commitment Theory to elucidate the interconnections among perceived program performance, citizen satisfaction, loss aversion, and local commitment in sustainability initiatives. Performance evaluation provides a foundation for evaluating program efficacy via explicit indicators and systematic assessment of economic and environmental results. Satisfaction Theory assesses citizens' satisfaction and engagement in planning processes, while also identifying areas for improvement through surveys and communication. The Loss Aversion Theory explains how perceptions of prospective losses influence involvement and informs strategies to mitigate perceived risks while conveying long-term benefits. Community Commitment Theory is employed to evaluate the level of community support by emphasizing active participation and incentive structures that foster sustained engagement. Current research on sustainability programs has primarily focused on technical elements, policy governance, or environmental indicators.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, studies that explicitly incorporate psychological dimensions to elucidate local commitment are scarce, especially in the Indonesian context. Comparative research across locations with varying socio-cultural attributes is infrequent, resulting in a limited understanding of local commitment dynamics. Furthermore, models that concurrently integrate performance assessment, satisfaction, and loss aversion in the analysis of local commitment to sustainability initiatives remain underexplored.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethodologically, the integrated application of mixed methods, which combines quantitative analysis through Structural Equation Modelling (SEM-PLS) with qualitative thematic coding (NVivo 12+), remains infrequently utilized in analogous contexts in Indonesia, particularly in comparative designs across regions such as West Java and North Sulawesi. This research tackles empirical, theoretical, and methodological deficiencies using a mixed-methods comparative approach across the two provinces. This research aims to address the subsequent inquiries: (RQ1) How does program performance evaluation impact local commitment? (RQ2) To what degree does citizen satisfaction influence local commitment? (RQ3) In what manner does loss aversion affect local commitment? (RQ4) How do these three factors collectively impact local commitment to sustainability programs? The study aims to produce an evidence-based policy brief that facilitates the development of more inclusive and flexible sustainability policies at the local level. It aims to foster interdisciplinary academic discourse on sustainability governance and provide evidence-based recommendations for decision-makers at local and national levels.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Programme performance evaluation and local commitment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eProgramme performance evaluation provides a systematic basis for judging whether public programmes achieve their intended outputs and outcomes and whether they do so efficiently and responsively[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. In the context of sustainability initiatives, performance evaluation typically encompasses indicators related to environmental improvement, economic benefits, social inclusion, as well as the quality of program management and stakeholder engagement. When communities perceive that performance is high\u0026mdash;measured through clear indicators, transparent reporting, and visible improvements in local conditions\u0026mdash;they are more likely to view programmes as credible and worthy of support. Perceived under-performance, by contrast, tends to weaken trust, reduce willingness to cooperate, and trigger disengagement from programme activities[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. Within this logic, perceived programme performance is expected to function as a direct driver of local commitment, which is understood as the willingness of community members to continuously support, comply with, and participate in sustainability initiatives[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. On this theoretical basis, the following hypothesis is proposed:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH1: Programme performance evaluation has a positive effect on local community commitment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Programme performance evaluation and citizen satisfaction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCitizen satisfaction captures subjective evaluations of how far public programmes meet expectations, solve salient problems, and distribute benefits in a way that is considered fair[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. In sustainability programmes, satisfaction is shaped not only by technical results (improved environmental quality or livelihood opportunities), but also by the perceived inclusiveness of planning processes, clarity of communication, and responsiveness to local complaints or proposals [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. Performance evaluation and satisfaction are analytically distinct but closely related: performance indicators provide \u0026ldquo;objective\u0026rdquo; signals about programme achievements, while satisfaction reflects how those signals are interpreted and internalised by citizens. When performance is perceived as high, citizens generally tend to report higher satisfaction, because programmes are seen as delivering on their promises and aligning with local needs. Low or ambiguous performance, conversely, often manifests as dissatisfaction, even when formal programme reports emphasise success. In this study, perceived programme performance is therefore expected to exert a positive influence on citizen satisfaction with sustainability programmes. This expectation is expressed in the following hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH4: Programme performance evaluation has a positive effect on citizen satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Programme performance evaluation and loss aversion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eLoss aversion, as discussed in behavioural economics, refers to the tendency of individuals to weigh potential losses more heavily than equivalent gains [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. In local sustainability programmes, communities often face potential restrictions on resource use, changes to livelihood practices, or reallocation of access rights [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. These changes can be interpreted as losses, particularly when the benefits of programmes are uncertain, delayed, or unevenly distributed. Programme performance evaluation influences how such risks and trade-offs are perceived. When performance is judged positively and concrete benefits are visible, perceived risks of loss can be mitigated. Communities may believe that credible gains, such as improved income stability, reduced disaster risk, or long-term resource security, compensate potential sacrifices [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. Conversely, when performance is evaluated negatively or viewed as merely symbolic, communities may focus more strongly on anticipated losses, fuelling resistance and defensive attitudes. From this perspective, better programme performance is expected to reduce loss-averse perceptions among community members. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is formulated:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH5: Programme performance evaluation has a negative effect on community loss aversion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Citizen satisfaction, loss aversion and local commitment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal commitment to sustainability programmes is closely related to how citizens evaluate both the benefits they receive and the risks they perceive[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Higher levels of satisfaction, arising from experiences of fair treatment, meaningful participation, and tangible improvements in welfare, tend to strengthen attachment to programmes, increase tolerance toward implementation problems, and encourage voluntary compliance with programme rules. In contrast, persistent dissatisfaction can reduce willingness to contribute time and resources and can motivate opposition to programme continuation or expansion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLoss aversion interacts with satisfaction by shaping how citizens interpret the balance between benefits and sacrifices [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. When the fear of losing access to land, resources, or established livelihood practices is high, communities may resist programs even if some benefits are recognized. Strong loss-averse perceptions thus work against the formation of local commitment, particularly when programmes require behavioural change or the acceptance of new regulations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. In combination, higher satisfaction is expected to enhance local commitment, while stronger loss aversion is expected to weaken it. These expectations are captured in the following hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH2: Citizen satisfaction has a positive effect on local community commitment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH3: Loss aversion has a negative effect on local community commitment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Mediating roles of citizen satisfaction and loss aversion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relationships outlined above suggest that perceived programme performance not only influences local commitment directly, but also operates indirectly through citizen satisfaction and loss aversion. When performance is evaluated positively, citizens are more likely to feel satisfied because programmes appear effective, responsive, and beneficial. That satisfaction, in turn, encourages citizens to maintain or increase their commitment to programme goals and activities. In this pathway, satisfaction functions as a mediator that translates performance evaluations into concrete supportive behaviours.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the same time, good performance can reduce perceived risks and potential losses by demonstrating that programmes are capable of delivering compensating benefits or mitigating negative impacts. Lower levels of perceived loss can reduce defensive attitudes and resistance, thereby creating more favourable conditions for the emergence of local commitment. In this second pathway, loss aversion mediates the relationship between performance evaluation and commitment by capturing how performance information reshapes perceptions of risk and sacrifice. In line with this integrated conceptual framework, the study formulates the following mediation hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH6: Citizen satisfaction mediates the relationship between programme performance evaluation and local community commitment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH7: Loss aversion mediates the relationship between programme performance evaluation and local community commitment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudies on sustainability programs are generally dominated by technical dimensions such as environmental indicators, economic achievements, and policy outputs. However, the social dimension, particularly performance assessment, community satisfaction, and psychological tendencies such as aversion to loss, remains relatively unexplored. In fact, the success of sustainability programs is highly dependent on the support of local communities, which is determined by their assessment of the perceived benefits and risks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study contributes by integrating the perspectives of public management, community behavior, and behavioral economics into a single conceptual framework. Local commitment is positioned as the primary mechanism for ensuring the sustainability of development programs. This effort emphasizes the importance of evaluating several key factors, including performance assessment, satisfaction, and loss aversion, which collectively form the foundation for community participation and acceptance of the program.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research framework is complemented by directional signs and hypotheses evaluated through a quantitative-exploratory approach using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM-PLS). This study aims to investigate the relationship between social variables that influence local commitment to the implementation of sustainability programs in West Java and North Sulawesi. Four latent variables are linked, namely the exogenous variable (performance assessment), two mediating variables (satisfaction and loss aversion), and the endogenous variable (local commitment). This is an important new approach that requires further elaboration to address the challenges of sustainable development programs in Indonesia.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eIntegration of concepts and relevance to this study\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent literature demonstrates that program efficacy, citizen contentment, and loss aversion collectively impact community reactions to public interventions, such as sustainability efforts. Nevertheless, numerous studies investigate these factors in isolation, such as correlating performance with trust and satisfaction, or analyzing resistance and conflict primarily through the perspective of perceived losses, without explicitly synthesizing the three dimensions within a unified explanatory framework for local commitment. The mechanisms by which performance evaluation leads to enduring community support are only imperfectly comprehended. This study fills this vacuum by defining local commitment to sustainability projects as a result influenced by perceived program efficacy, public satisfaction, and loss aversion. Within this framework, performance evaluation is expected to affect commitment both directly and indirectly by influencing satisfaction and loss aversion. Improved performance perception is likely to elevate satisfaction and diminish perceived losses, thereby fostering community willingness to remain engaged with and supportive of sustainability initiatives. This comprehensive viewpoint establishes the theoretical foundation for the hypotheses and empirical model examined in the following sections.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSumber. Adopsi\u003c/b\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Research Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Research Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study used a mixed-method approach, incorporating both qualitative and quantitative analyses, to elucidate the interplay between performance appraisal, satisfaction, and loss aversion in influencing local commitment to sustainability initiatives in West Java and North Sulawesi. This amalgamation of techniques obtained more reliable and contextually relevant results. It is essential to understand the social realities surrounding the implementation of sustainability policies, public perceptions of the effects of programs, and the frameworks for community engagement in supporting long-term initiatives aimed at environmental, social, and economic sustainability[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. The association pertains to how perceptions of program efficacy, direct community experiences, and apprehensions over adverse effects influence support for or opposition to the sustainability of these initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA qualitative case study methodology was employed to investigate experiences, perspectives, and local socio-political dynamics using in-depth interviews, field observations, and document analysis. This methodology seeks to comprehend how the community and local stakeholders (including community leaders, village authorities, and business representatives) perceive the program's success, react to change, and foster commitment to the sustainability agenda.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA quantitative methodology was employed to assess and evaluate the correlation between variables by disseminating questionnaires to the community in the two research locations. The analysis included descriptive and inferential statistical methods[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. The objective was to determine the degree of each factor's impact on local commitment and to evaluate the suggested model empirically. This study elucidates social realities and provides evidence-based recommendations to support inclusive and adaptive sustainability strategies at the local level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Study area\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research empirically examines sustainability programs executed in West Java and North Sulawesi. West Java is a province marked by rapid urbanisation and industrialisation, where sustainability efforts are intricately linked to addressing environmental challenges, enhancing urban services, and promoting local economic growth. In contrast, North Sulawesi boasts coastal and marine environments where sustainability initiatives prioritize conservation, disaster risk mitigation, and the development of ecotourism. The two provinces were deliberately chosen to reflect differences in socio-economic frameworks, environmental issues, and policy approaches, facilitating a comparative analysis of the configuration of program performance, satisfaction, loss aversion, and local commitment across diverse local contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Population, sample and sampling technique\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe target population comprises local community members and stakeholders directly engaged in or impacted by sustainability programs in West Java and North Sulawesi. The individual serves as the unit of analysis. A non-probability purposive sampling method was employed to ensure that participants had adequate information and experience regarding the programs being examined[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. The primary inclusion criteria were: (1) residency in regions where sustainability programs are executed; and (2) active engagement as participants, beneficiaries, local facilitators, community leaders, or program partners in pertinent activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe poll included 300 respondents, comprising 150 individuals from West Java and 150 from North Sulawesi. This sample size meets the established guidelines for SEM-PLS, which require a minimal number of observations in relation to the structural model's complexity and the number of indicators per construct, as indicated in the methodological literature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2. Data Source\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eQuantitative Data\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study's population consisted of local communities and stakeholders involved in sustainability initiatives in the provinces of West Java and North Sulawesi. Purposive sampling was employed, taking into account direct participation in the program. The sample size employed a minimal statistical methodology, with 150 respondents per location. Data were gathered with Google Forms disseminated across social media employing random sampling methods. The measure employed a closed-ended Likert scale questionnaire to assess program performance, community satisfaction, aversion to loss, and local commitment to sustainability initiatives [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. The data were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistical methods. Inferential analysis was conducted using multiple linear regression or Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eQualitative data\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eprimary data were sourced directly from key informants (community leaders, program participants, and local government officials) to ensure the accuracy and contextual relevance of the data (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Secondary data was acquired from policy documents, official reports, and digital media sources\u0026mdash;data collection methods comprised interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs). Qualitative data were examined using thematic coding, utilizing NVivo 12\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;to discern patterns, themes, and interconnections among narratives about local dedication to sustainability initiatives [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch Data\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eData Source / Location\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of Informants\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformation Focus\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethod\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProvincial Environmental Agency of West Java\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProgram governance, performance indicators, strategies to enhance local participation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterviews: examining policy orientation, success indicators, and community involvement in program implementation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProvincial Development Planning Agency (Bappeda) of North Sulawesi\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategic planning, cross-sector program integration, sustainable development policies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterviews: exploring strategic planning perspectives and the social impacts of sustainability programs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTourism and Marine Affairs Office of North Sulawesi\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarine conservation implementation, sustainable tourism management, coastal community participation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterviews: obtaining information on field practices, barriers to community participation, and program outcomes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDistrict/City Governments (West Java \u0026amp; North Sulawesi)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupport and constraints in program implementation at the local level, community engagement strategies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterviews: identifying socio-political dynamics, community engagement strategies, and the role of local governments in maintaining commitment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental and local development NGOs (West Java \u0026amp; North Sulawesi)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity advocacy, perceptions of program impacts, and levels of community engagement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterviews: capturing advocacy experiences, community empowerment processes, and perceived risks or losses related to the programs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal communities and business actors (West Java \u0026amp; North Sulawesi)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e150\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceptions of program performance, satisfaction levels, perceived disadvantages, and commitment to sustainability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurvey: measuring perceptions of research variables and capturing local narratives regarding program implementation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5 Measures and variables\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe quantitative study employs four primary latent constructs: program performance evaluation, citizen satisfaction, loss aversion, and local community commitment. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e of the article summarizes the operational definitions and indicators of each concept. The evaluation of programme performance assesses respondents' views on the degree to which sustainability programmes fulfill their declared goals, are executed efficiently, and address local requirements. Citizen satisfaction refers to the extent to which respondents perceive the programs as advantageous, equitable, and in line with their expectations. Loss aversion refers to respondents' concerns about potential or actual losses associated with programme implementation, including reduced access to natural resources, economic instability, or limitations on existing habits. Local community commitment refers to the respondents' readiness to endorse, engage in, and sustain program activities over an extended period.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariables and Indicators\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndicator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerformance Expectancy (PE)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePE1. Effectiveness of the program in achieving development objectives\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePE2. Efficiency in the use and implementation of resources\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePE3. Transparency and clarity of program-related information\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSatisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS1. Perceived benefits of the program for the community\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS2. Community involvement in program activities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS3. Satisfaction with program outcomes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLoss Aversion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLA1. Concerns regarding social disruptions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLA2. Fear of economic loss or reduced income\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLA3. Anxiety about environmental degradation or damage to local ecosystems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal Commitment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCC1. Active support for the program\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCC2. Participation in decision-making processes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCC3. Readiness to maintain program sustainability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll indicators were measured using a Likert-type scale, with response categories ranging from strong disagreement to strong agreement. Indicator selection was based on prior empirical studies and adjusted to the specific context of local sustainability programmes, followed by a pre-test to ensure clarity and relevance of the items.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.6 Data analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitative data were analyzed via SEM-PLS through the SmartPLS program. The analysis adhered to conventional two-step protocols[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. The evaluation of indicator reliability, internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and the examination of discriminant validity among the assessed constructs evaluated the measurement (outer) model. The structural model was evaluated by computing path coefficients, the coefficient of determination (R\u0026sup2;) for endogenous constructs, and metrics of predictive relevance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. The importance of path coefficients related to hypotheses H1\u0026ndash;H7 was assessed using the resampling method within the SEM-PLS framework, and both direct and mediating effects were analyzed in line with the conceptual model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative data were analyzed by theme analysis utilizing NVivo 12+. The analysis entailed repeated coding of interview and focus group discussion transcripts to discern recurring patterns concerning perceptions of program performance, satisfaction, perceived losses, and statements of commitment[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Codes were systematically categorized into overarching themes and categories that represent essential mechanisms and contextual elements influencing local dedication to sustainability initiatives[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. To enhance the credibility of the qualitative findings, triangulation was conducted across multiple data sources (interviews, focus group discussions, and relevant documents), and a meticulous audit trail of coding decisions and theme development was maintained throughout the research[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]. Quantitative and qualitative results were later evaluated and synthesized during the interpretation phase. Special emphasis was placed on employing qualitative themes to elucidate the strength, direction, and relevance of the linkages discovered in the SEM-PLS model, particularly the mediating roles of citizen satisfaction and loss aversion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Quantitative Results\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study examines the empirical effects of performance appraisal, satisfaction, and loss aversion on local commitment to sustainability initiatives in West Java and North Sulawesi. Prior research has predominantly emphasized the technical features of programs or policy outcomes, but psychological dimensions, including pleasure and loss aversion, have garnered comparatively minimal focus. This study expands the framework by including socio-psychological characteristics into a quantitative model to elucidate local community commitment. This research employed Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) with SmartPLS 4.0 as the analytical instrument.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCharacteristics of Respondents\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCharacteristic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProvince\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWest Java\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e150\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNorth Sulawesi\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e150\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e160\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e53.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e138\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOther / Not stated\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u0026ndash;25 years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26\u0026ndash;35 years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e110\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36\u0026ndash;45 years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;45 years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrimary/Junior high\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSenior high school\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e110\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiploma/Bachelor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e120\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePostgraduate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOccupation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFarmer/Fisher\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrivate employee\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCivil servant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEntrepreneur\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLength of residence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;5 years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u0026ndash;10 years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;10 years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e170\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e56.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e shows that the sample was evenly divided between West Java and North Sulawesi (50% each), with a slight predominance of male respondents, and most participants were in the productive age range of 26\u0026ndash;45 years. The level of education was generally moderate to high, with the majority having completed high school or holding a diploma/bachelor's degree. Farmers and fishermen constitute the largest occupational groups, followed by private employees and entrepreneurs, indicating a strong representation of livelihoods directly or indirectly related to local natural resources and the regional economy. Most respondents have lived in the current area for more than ten years, indicating that the majority are long-term residents who likely have significant experience and exposure to local sustainability programs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn principle, program performance assessment is considered a crucial factor in establishing community legitimacy and trust in policies. However, performance alone does not automatically increase local commitment unless it is accompanied by satisfaction and a reduction in concerns about losses. Thus, this study emphasizes the importance of reactivating the values of transparency, satisfaction, and risk mitigation in encouraging community commitment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive Statistics of Research Variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMin\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMax\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerformance Expectancy (PE)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.920\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.620\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSatisfaction (S)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.780\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.590\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLoss Aversion (LA)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.410\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.640\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal Commitment (CC)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.850\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.570\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA survey of 300 participants yielded average values for each research variable, reflecting the community's perception of the sustainability effort. The Performance Assessment (PE) variable had a mean of 3.920, a standard deviation of 0.620, a minimum value of 2.5, and a maximum value of 5.0. The findings indicate that the public predominantly views the program's performance positively, although there are variations in individual responses. The Satisfaction (S) variable demonstrated a mean of 3.780, a standard deviation of 0.590, a minimum of 2.7, and a maximum of 5.0, suggesting that public satisfaction is classified as \"fair.\" However, there is an opportunity for improvement, especially in terms of economic benefits. The Loss Aversion (LA) variable obtained an average of 3.410, a standard deviation of 0.640, a minimum value of 2.30, and a maximum value of 4.80. This number indicates that public anxiety about potential losses is significantly heightened, particularly in the socio-economic sphere. The Local Commitment (CC) variable had a mean of 3.850, a standard deviation of 0.570, a minimum value of 2.8, and a maximum of 5.0, reflecting a generally positive level of community commitment to the program, though unevenly distributed among categories.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eMeasurement Model Evaluation\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe quality of the outer measurement model was examined through standard reliability and validity procedures, as summarised in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e. At the indicator level, all reflective items loaded strongly on their respective constructs, with outer loadings ranging from 0.79 to 0.84 for all variables (PE, S, LA, and CC), thus exceeding the recommended minimum of 0.70 for indicator reliability (Hair et al., 2019). Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha and composite reliability; alpha values vary between 0.791 and 0.837, while composite reliability coefficients range from 0.854 to 0.889, all above the conventional threshold of 0.70. These results indicate satisfactory internal consistency for the four latent constructs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConvergent validity, reliability, and HTMT discriminant validity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable / Construct\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOuter Loading\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAVE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRemark\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHTMT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.80\u0026ndash;0.82\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.652\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.879\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.823\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValid \u0026amp; Reliable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.781\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.608\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.745\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.81\u0026ndash;0.84\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.681\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.872\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.812\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValid \u0026amp; Reliable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.783\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.657\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.825\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.79\u0026ndash;0.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.634\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.854\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.791\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValid \u0026amp; Reliable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.607\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.653\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.584\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.80\u0026ndash;0.83\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.664\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.889\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.837\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValid \u0026amp; Reliable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.743\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.825\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.587\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConvergent validity was evaluated using the Average Variance Extracted (AVE). All constructs exhibit AVE values greater than 0.50, with 0.652 for PE, 0.681 for S, 0.634 for LA, and 0.664 for CC, confirming that each latent variable explains more than half of the variance in its indicators. Discriminant validity was then assessed using the heterotrait\u0026ndash;monotrait ratio (HTMT; Henseler et al., 2015). The HTMT coefficients between constructs range from 0.584 (LA\u0026ndash;CC) to 0.825 (S\u0026ndash;CC), remaining below the conservative cut-off of 0.85 and well under the 0.90 criterion. Taken together, the outer loadings, reliability coefficients, AVE values, and HTMT ratios demonstrate that the measurement model meets the required standards of indicator reliability, internal consistency, convergent validity, and discriminant validity and can be used for subsequent structural model analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eStructural Model Evaluation\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe structural (inner) model\u0026rsquo;s explanatory power and predictive relevance were assessed using the R\u0026sup2; and Stone\u0026ndash;Geisser Q\u0026sup2; statistics for each endogenous construct, as summarised in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e. Following standard PLS-SEM guidelines, these indices indicate how well the exogenous variables account for variation in the mediating and outcome variables and whether the model has acceptable predictive capability\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInner Model Test Results (R\u0026sup2; and Q\u0026sup2;)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndogenous Variable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSatisfaction (S)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.270\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.182\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictively Relevant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLoss Aversion (LA)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.220\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeak\u0026ndash;Moderate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.157\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictively Relevant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal Commitment (CC)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.480\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate\u0026ndash;Strong\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.311\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictively Relevant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e shows that citizen satisfaction (S) is explained by the predictors, which account for 27% of the variance (R\u0026sup2; = 0.270), indicating a moderate level of in-sample explanatory power. Loss aversion (LA) records an R\u0026sup2; value of 0.220, indicating a low-to-moderate proportion of explained variance. Local community commitment (CC) has the highest R\u0026sup2; value at 0.480, suggesting a moderate-to-substantial explanatory capability of the model for this key outcome variable. Collectively, these findings indicate that the model explains a significant portion of the variance in all three endogenous dimensions, with the most robust explanation provided for local community commitment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe predictive relevance was assessed by the Q\u0026sup2; values derived from the blindfolding technique. All Q\u0026sup2; statistics are positive\u0026mdash;0.182 for satisfaction, 0.157 for loss aversion, and 0.311 for local commitment\u0026mdash;indicating that the structural model has predictive relevance for each endogenous construct and performs better than a na\u0026iuml;ve benchmark that relies solely on the mean values. In line with the qualitative labels in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e (\u0026ldquo;Predictively Relevant\u0026rdquo;), these Q\u0026sup2; values suggest that the model provides meaningful out-of-sample prediction for satisfaction, perceived losses, and especially local commitment, where the highest Q\u0026sup2; value is observed. Overall, the combination of moderate R\u0026sup2; values and positive Q\u0026sup2; statistics supports the conclusion that the structural model exhibits acceptable explanatory power and predictive relevance for the dynamics of local commitment to sustainability programmes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab8\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch Hypothesis Test Results\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHypothesis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelationship Between Variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePath Coefficient (β)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerformance Evaluation \u0026rarr; Local Commitment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.180\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.062\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot Significant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSatisfaction \u0026rarr; Local Commitment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.390\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSignificant (+)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLoss Aversion \u0026rarr; Local Commitment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.280\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.041\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSignificant (\u0026ndash;)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerformance Evaluation \u0026rarr; Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.520\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSignificant (+)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerformance Evaluation \u0026rarr; Loss Aversion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.410\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSignificant (\u0026ndash;)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerformance Evaluation \u0026rarr; Satisfaction \u0026rarr; Local Commitment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.200\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSignificant Mediation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerformance Evaluation \u0026rarr; Loss Aversion \u0026rarr; Local Commitment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.110\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.032\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSignificant Mediation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e provides the route coefficients and corresponding p-values for hypotheses H1 through H7. The relationship between programme performance assessment (PE) and local community commitment (CC) is positive but not statistically significant at the 5% level (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.180, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.062). This suggests that, ceteris paribus, elevated performance evaluations do not lead to a sufficiently substantial direct enhancement in local commitment, indicating that performance alone is not a potent independent catalyst for commitment in this model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, both mediating variables have substantial direct effects on commitment. Citizen satisfaction (S) exerts a positive and statistically significant effect on local commitment (H2: β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.390, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.008), indicating that increased satisfaction with program benefits and processes correlates with a greater willingness to endorse and maintain sustainability programs. Aversi kerugian (LA) demonstrates a substantial adverse impact on commitment (H3: β = \u0026minus;0.280, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.041), suggesting that heightened apprehensions regarding possible social, economic, or environmental losses correlate with diminished levels of local commitment. The results validate that satisfaction acts as a positive motivator, while loss aversion serves as a limiting factor for community participation in sustainability programs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings for H4 and H5 elucidate the influence of performance evaluation on these two mediators. The appraisal of programme achievement significantly enhances citizen happiness (H4: β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.520, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) and has an adverse impact on loss aversion (H5: β = \u0026minus;0.410, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). Enhanced perceived performance correlates with increased satisfaction and concurrently with diminished perceived risks and apprehensions of loss among community members. Collectively, these data support the perspective that performance evaluation primarily functions by enhancing perceived benefits and reducing perceived costs of involvement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe mediation hypotheses (H6\u0026ndash;H7) delineate the indirect pathways from performance evaluation to local commitment. The indirect effect of performance evaluation on commitment, mediated by satisfaction, is positive and statistically significant (H6: β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.200, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.004), indicating that satisfaction plays a significant role in the relationship between performance and commitment. Similarly, the indirect effect via loss aversion is statistically significant (H7: β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.110, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.032), indicating that diminished loss aversion serves as a secondary mediating pathway connecting performance to commitment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollectively, these findings indicate that H2\u0026ndash;H7 are substantiated, whereas H1 is not. Programme performance evaluation has a significant indirect impact on local commitment; rather than directly influencing commitment, it primarily affects commitment by enhancing citizen satisfaction and reducing loss aversion. Performance reports and program results enhance local commitment only when accompanied by authentic satisfaction with program benefits and effective alleviation of perceived risks and potential losses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eQualitative Results\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative data were further evaluated to elucidate the contributions of each actor to the establishment of performance, satisfaction, loss aversion, and local commitment, based on the principal themes that arose from the interviews and focus group discussions. This research employed NVivo 12\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;to delineate the themes of the participants' contributions. The occurrence rate of each theme was delineated based on informant categories\u0026mdash;West Java Provincial DLH, North Sulawesi Bappeda, Tourism\u0026ndash;Maritime Affairs Agency, regency/city governments, NGOs, and community FGD groups\u0026mdash;and shown in bar charts. This graphic facilitates the identification of key issues for each stakeholder and reveals patterns of resemblance across the perspectives of the bureaucracy, NGOs, and the community in evaluating sustainability programs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure. Frequency of Qualitative Themes by Actor Group\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe figure illustrates fluctuations in theme emphasis among actor groups. The issue of \"governance and performance\" was most prevalent in DLH-JBR and PEMDA-LOK, indicating the predominance of governance viewpoints and performance metrics among bureaucrats. The concept of \"strategic planning and integration\" is distinctly focused on BAPPEDA-SU, aligning with its function as a planning and intersectoral program integration agency. The issue of \"marine conservation and sustainable tourism\" is predominantly represented by DISPAR-KEL and is notably emphasized in the FGD, aligning with the agency's mandate and the coastal backdrop of North Sulawesi.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConversely, the subject of \"local government support and community strategies\" was notably significant in PEMDA-LOK and FGD, suggesting that the matter of community approach strategies was more pronounced at the local government and community tiers. The theme of \"NGO advocacy \u0026amp; risk/loss\" was predominantly identified in NGOs and focus group discussions, signifying that the expression of risks, losses, and community advocacy primarily originated from NGOs and the community. The theme of \"community perceptions, satisfaction, and commitment\" was prominently featured in focus group discussions and significantly represented in NGOs, suggesting that the primary sources of information regarding satisfaction, concerns, and local commitment to sustainability programs were the direct voices of the community and their facilitators.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab9\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 7\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch findings on local sustainability programme governance, community perceptions, and local commitment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheme\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSub-theme\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformant (n/25\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;FGD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eData source\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProgramme governance and performance evaluation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFormal governance structure and performance indicators for sustainability programmes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDLH-JBR\u0026ndash;01, DLH-JBR\u0026ndash;02, DLH-JBR\u0026ndash;03 (3/25)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eINT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategies to increase local participation in programme implementation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDLH-JBR\u0026ndash;02, DLH-JBR\u0026ndash;04, DLH-JBR\u0026ndash;05 (3/25)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eINT, FGD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategic planning and cross-sectoral integration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntegration of sustainability programmes into provincial development plans and sectoral policies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBAPPEDA-SU\u0026ndash;01, BAPPEDA-SU\u0026ndash;02, BAPPEDA-SU\u0026ndash;03 (3/25)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eINT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived social and economic impacts of sustainability programmes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBAPPEDA-SU\u0026ndash;03, BAPPEDA-SU\u0026ndash;04, BAPPEDA-SU\u0026ndash;05 (3/25)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eINT, FGD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarine conservation and sustainable tourism implementation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eField practices of marine conservation and sustainable tourism management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDISPAR-KEL\u0026ndash;01, DISPAR-KEL\u0026ndash;02, DISPAR-KEL\u0026ndash;03 (3/25)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eINT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity participation and resistance in coastal areas\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDISPAR-KEL\u0026ndash;03, DISPAR-KEL\u0026ndash;04, DISPAR-KEL\u0026ndash;05 (3/25)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eINT, FGD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal government support and community-based commitment strategies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDistrict/municipal strategies for community outreach and mobilisation of local groups\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePEMDA-LOK\u0026ndash;01, PEMDA-LOK\u0026ndash;02, PEMDA-LOK\u0026ndash;03 (3/25)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eINT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional constraints: budget limitations, bureaucracy and political cycles\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePEMDA-LOK\u0026ndash;03, PEMDA-LOK\u0026ndash;04, PEMDA-LOK\u0026ndash;05 (3/25)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eINT, FGD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNGO advocacy, community empowerment and perceptions of risk/loss\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity advocacy, capacity building and leadership strengthening by environmental/development NGOs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNGO\u0026ndash;01, NGO\u0026ndash;02, NGO\u0026ndash;03 (3/25)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eINT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceptions of programme benefits, risks and potential losses (access to resources, livelihoods, social\u0026ndash;environmental)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNGO\u0026ndash;03, NGO\u0026ndash;04, NGO\u0026ndash;05 (3/25)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eINT, FGD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity perceptions of programme performance and satisfaction (FGD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived fairness, transparency and responsiveness of sustainability programmes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity FGD groups in West Java and North Sulawesi\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFGD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity perceptions of risk, loss and compensation (FGD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcerns about potential loss of access to natural resources and livelihoods; expectations of compensation arrangements\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity FGD groups in West Java and North Sulawesi\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFGD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity expressions of local commitment to sustainability programmes (FGD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForms of local commitment (rule compliance, collective action, support for local initiatives, symbolic endorsement)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity FGD groups in West Java and North Sulawesi\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFGD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e(INT\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Interview; FGD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Focus Group Discussion; DLH-JBR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;West Java Provincial Environment Agency; BAPPEDA-SU\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;North Sulawesi Provincial Development Planning Agency; DISPAR-KEL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;North Sulawesi Tourism \u0026amp; Maritime Affairs Agency; PEMDA-LOK\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Local governments in West Java \u0026amp; North Sulawesi; NGO\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Environmental and local development NGOs.)\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative research results confirm that program performance assessments at the institutional level are relatively positive; however, they are overshadowed by several implementation limitations that directly affect satisfaction, aversion to loss, and local commitment. Informants from the West Java Environment Agency described a well-organized governance structure and performance indicators, as well as an awareness that community participation needs to be strengthened. One DLH official stated:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;On paper, our performance indicators are quite clear\u0026mdash;the number of activities, the extent of rehabilitation, and so on. However, when asked to what extent the community is truly involved, this is not fully reflected in the existing indicators.\u0026rdquo; (DLH-JBR-02, interview)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe efforts to increase participation that they described\u0026mdash;for example, through socialization and the involvement of local groups\u0026mdash;show that performance assessments in the bureaucracy are not solely based on output, but are beginning to include the process dimension. However, the continued strong emphasis on formal indicators suggests a gap between administrative performance and the direct experiences of the community in the field. Another informant emphasized:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;In the report, the program is complete, and the targets have been achieved. However, in the field, we still have to provide incentives and continuous assistance so that residents are willing to stay in the program.\u0026rdquo; (DLH-JBR-04, interview)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn North Sulawesi, an informant from Bappeda emphasized that sustainability programs have been integrated into planning and cross-sectoral documents, while also highlighting the socio-economic impacts that are beginning to be felt.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;We have integrated all environmental and coastal programs into the RPJMD and sectoral plans. There are effects in the field\u0026mdash;for example, job opportunities in tourism\u0026mdash;but they are not yet evenly distributed across all regions.\u0026rdquo; (BAPPEDA-SU-02, interview)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis perspective suggests that, from a planning standpoint, program performance is quite good and well-focused. However, information from the Tourism and Marine Affairs Office shows that at the level of implementation of marine conservation and sustainable tourism, the participation of coastal communities is not uniform:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"\u003cem\u003eIn some villages, residents are very enthusiastic because they feel they can earn additional income from tourism. However, in other places, fishermen still reject conservation zones because they fear their fishing areas will be reduced.\" (DISPAR-KEL-03, interview)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis pattern suggests that community satisfaction is contingent upon the extent to which economic and social benefits are actually perceived as such. At the same time, resistance reflects aversion to potential losses of existing access and livelihoods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterviews with district/city governments added that fiscal capacity, bureaucratic burdens, and local political dynamics influence institutional support for the program.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"\u003cem\u003eWe support this program, but the fiscal space and budgetary bureaucracy are quite burdensome. Once there is a change in regional leadership, priorities can change, and the continuity of the program is at stake.\" (PEMDA-LOK-02, interview)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe strategy of community engagement, which involves strengthening farmer-fisher groups and local leaders, is seen as crucial for building commitment; however, its success is unstable when political or budgetary support declines.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeanwhile, CSOs/NGOs in both provinces act as liaison agents, advocating for community rights, strengthening community capacity, and articulating concerns about risks and losses\u0026mdash;including loss of access to resources and unclear compensation schemes.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"Many communities agree with conservation goals, but they are concerned about losing access to forests or the sea without clear compensation. That is where we come in to strengthen their bargaining position in policy dialogues.\" (NGO-03, interview)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn some cases, NGOs also highlight the gap between the government's and citizens' perceptions of the program's benefits:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"The government feels the program is successful, but citizens say the economic benefits are not commensurate with the restrictions they experience.\" (NGO-04, interview)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity FGD data deepens this picture. FGD participants assessed programs more positively when information and decisions were considered transparent, responsive, and fair.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"If it is explained clearly from the start, we are invited to participate in discussions, and there are examples of tangible benefits, we do not mind following the rules.\" (FGD-JBR-01, community)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConversely, when new rules were perceived as restricting access to resources without clear benefits or compensation, there was obvious concern and resistance:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"We were asked to reduce our fishing area, but there was no certainty of replacement income. That made us hesitant to support this program.\" (FGD-SU-02, coastal community)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe forms of local commitment that emerge vary from compliance with regulations, involvement in collective activities, to symbolic support for environmental initiatives; however, all are conditional on a combination of three things: program performance that is considered credible, satisfaction with the perceived benefits, and assurance that risks and potential losses are adequately addressed. Thus, the qualitative findings consistently support the quantitative results, which indicate that local commitment is shaped by the interaction of performance assessment, satisfaction, and loss aversion, rather than by any one dimension in isolation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Program performance assessment and limitations of direct influence on local commitment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSEM-PLS results show that performance assessment has a significant effect on satisfaction (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.520; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) and reduces loss aversion (β = \u0026minus;0.410; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), but does not have a direct effect on local commitment (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.180; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.062). These findings indicate that performance information and program indicator achievements do not automatically translate into long-term community support, so that performance assessment functions more as a structural prerequisite than a direct driver of commitment. This pattern modifies the argument of previous studies that emphasized the direct relationship between measurable performance and public support for development and sustainability programs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative data clarify the mechanisms behind these findings. In West Java, officials from the Environment Agency stated that performance indicators were well structured at the document level. However, they did not fully capture the quality of citizen participation: \u0026ldquo;our performance indicators are quite clear... but the extent to which citizens are truly involved is not fully reflected in the existing indicators.\u0026rdquo; Other statements confirmed that the achievements in the reports often required additional incentives and assistance to keep citizens involved. In North Sulawesi, the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda) has emphasized that the program has been integrated into the Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMD) and sectoral plans; however, the positive impact in the field has not been evenly distributed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, these results reveal a gap between administrative performance, as reflected in formal indicators, and the community's concrete experiences. Performance assessment is important as a basis for governance, but local commitment is only formed when the assessment is linked to perceived benefits and risk management at the community level. These findings align with the literature, which posits that performance serves as an initial input in a causal chain that psychological and social factors must mediate before generating public support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 Satisfaction and perceived benefits as key drivers of local commitment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe path coefficient shows that satisfaction has a significant positive effect on local commitment (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.390; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). This result is consistent with the cognitive model of satisfaction, which posits that the comparison between expectations and actual outcomes is the primary determinant of citizens' evaluations of public programs. In the context of this study, satisfaction reflects not only assessments of technical performance but also concerns about the fairness of benefit distribution, transparency of information, and the extent to which the community feels involved in the decision-making process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFGD data show that citizens tend to evaluate programs positively when the process is considered transparent, responsive, and provides tangible benefits. One FGD participant stated that if the program explanation had been clear from the outset, the community would have been invited to participate in discussions and would have had concrete examples of benefits. Compliance with the rules would not be a problem. Conversely, when restrictions on access to resources were not accompanied by certainty of benefits or compensation, support declined.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings reinforce the literature that places satisfaction as an indicator of social legitimacy for development policies and programs. Within the framework of community commitment theory, satisfaction can be understood as a form of confirmation that the program aligns with local needs and preferences, thereby encouraging citizens to continue participating and supporting it. In this study, satisfaction also serves as a key mediator that bridges performance assessment with local commitment, as evidenced by the significant indirect effect of performance assessment on satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3 Loss aversion, risk perception, and resistance to sustainability programs\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eLoss aversion was found to have a significant negative effect on local commitment (β = \u0026minus;0.280; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). This finding aligns with Loss Aversion Theory, which posits that individuals are more sensitive to potential losses than to gains of equal value, thereby weakening support for policies even when they offer long-term benefits.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterviews and FGDs confirmed that concerns about losing access to resources and livelihoods are important factors shaping resistance. Officials from the North Sulawesi Tourism and Maritime Affairs Office described a situation where some villages showed enthusiasm because they gained additional income from tourism. In contrast, fishermen in other villages rejected conservation zones due to concerns about reduced fishing areas. NGOs also noted that many communities accepted conservation goals but were concerned about losing access to forests or seas without clear compensation mechanisms in place. Coastal FGD participants emphasized that reducing fishing areas without guaranteed income replacements made them hesitant to support the program.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitatively, better performance assessments correlate with a decrease in loss aversion (β = \u0026minus;0.410; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), indicating that when programs are perceived as consistent, transparent, and effective, some of the community's concerns about losses can be mitigated. However, descriptive data across regions show that West Java residents tend to exhibit higher loss aversion than those in North Sulawesi, despite their slightly higher performance assessments and satisfaction levels. This indicates that the socioeconomic context and local livelihood structures influence the extent to which the perception of loss hinders commitment to sustainability programs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cb\u003e5.4 Mediation mechanisms, integration of quantitative\u0026ndash;qualitative findings, and cross-\u003c/b\u003eregional implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStructurally, the results indicate that H2\u0026ndash;H7 are supported, while H1 is not. Performance ratings do not directly affect local commitment; rather, they work through increased satisfaction and decreased loss aversion. These findings confirm that local commitment is shaped by the interaction of three dimensions\u0026mdash;performance, satisfaction, and perception of loss\u0026mdash;rather than by any single factor in isolation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative data provide insight into the mechanisms underlying this structure. At the institutional level, program performance was assessed as fairly good in terms of regulation, integration into planning documents, and achievement of key outputs. However, implementation in the field shows variations in participation, fiscal capacity constraints, and the influence of political cycles that affect program continuity. On the community side, local commitment manifests in the form of rule compliance, collective action, and symbolic support. However, it is contingent upon three key factors: the credibility of program performance, satisfaction with perceived benefits, and assurances that risks and potential losses are adequately addressed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA comparison between West Java and North Sulawesi reveals that the combination of these three factors is configured differently within each regional context. West Java exemplifies a situation where the pressures of urbanization and industrialization lead to relatively high performance ratings and satisfaction, but also increase sensitivity to losses, particularly those related to short-term economic impacts. In contrast, North Sulawesi exhibits a lower level of loss aversion and a stronger social acceptance of conservation and ecotourism programs, despite slightly lower performance assessments and satisfaction levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of scientific contribution, these results reinforce the relevance of integrating Performance Evaluation Theory, Satisfaction Theory, Loss Aversion Theory, and Community Commitment Theory in explaining local commitment to sustainability programs. This study fills a gap in previous studies, which have tended to separate the analysis of performance, satisfaction, and loss aversion. It demonstrates that performance assessment is only effective in increasing commitment when it is converted into satisfaction and when the perception of loss is managed through appropriate policy design, compensation schemes, and communication strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethodologically, the combination of SEM-PLS and NVivo 12\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;thematic analysis in a comparative design across two provinces yielded a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of local commitment, revealing how variations in socioeconomic context influence the configuration of relationships between performance, satisfaction, loss aversion, and commitment. These findings provide an empirical basis for the development of sustainability policy models that emphasize the simultaneity of performance improvement, increased citizen satisfaction, and mitigation of perceived losses at the local level.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Conclusion and Recommendation","content":" \u003cp\u003eThis study reveals that program performance assessments do not directly influence local commitment to sustainability programs in West Java and North Sulawesi; rather, they are primarily shaped by community satisfaction and the management of loss aversion. Quantitatively, performance assessments were found to increase satisfaction and simultaneously reduce aversion to loss. Satisfaction had a positive effect, while loss aversion had a negative effect on local commitment. This pattern confirms that administrative performance and program indicator achievements will only be meaningful for commitment when they are translated into tangible benefits and assurances that the socioeconomic risks perceived by the community can be minimized. Qualitative findings reinforce these results: provincial and district/city government actors assess the governance and integration of programs in planning documents as quite good; however, the community assesses programs through the lens of concrete benefits, the fairness of implementation, and the extent to which new regulations do not threaten their livelihoods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA comparison of the two provinces reveals different configurations. In West Java, the program operates within the context of urbanization and industrialization pressures, resulting in high performance assessments and satisfaction. However, loss aversion is also strong, as the community is more sensitive to short-term economic risks and the uncertainty of compensation. In North Sulawesi, conservation and ecotourism programs are implemented in a more communal social environment, where loss aversion is relatively lower and social acceptance of conservation goals is stronger. However, performance assessments and satisfaction levels are slightly lower. These conditions suggest that strategies to strengthen local commitment cannot be uniform but must be tailored to the local economic structure, forms of dependence on natural resources, and traditions of collectively in each region.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretically, this study enriches the understanding of local commitment by integrating Performance Evaluation Theory, Satisfaction Theory, Loss Aversion Theory, and Community Commitment Theory into a single empirical model. The main contribution lies in explaining that performance evaluation acts as a governance capability that works through two psychological mechanisms\u0026mdash;satisfaction and loss aversion\u0026mdash;rather than as a single determinant of commitment. The mixed-methods approach, which combines SEM-PLS and thematic analysis, also provides a more comprehensive understanding of how these mechanisms operate in various social contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral recommendations can be proposed. First, local governments need to reformulate program performance evaluation systems so that they emphasize not only output indicators, but also indicators that capture the quality of participation, perceptions of fairness, and community satisfaction. Citizen involvement in planning, monitoring, and evaluation\u0026mdash;through participatory forums and regular feedback\u0026mdash;needs to be positioned as part of performance, not merely as a supporting activity. Second, strategies to increase commitment must explicitly manage loss aversion by designing clear transition and compensation schemes for groups affected by restrictions on access to resources, including alternative livelihood support, new skills training, and targeted social protection. Third, collaboration with NGOs and community organizations needs to be strengthened to bridge communication between the government and the community, especially in clarifying long-term benefits and negotiating perceived risks. Fourth, for regions with characteristics such as West Java, policies should place greater emphasis on economic guarantees and credible compensation mechanisms. In contrast, for regions like North Sulawesi, the emphasis can be directed towards strengthening collective values and community institutions that support conservation and ecotourism.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeyond policy recommendations, this study also suggests an agenda for further research. Testing the model in other regions with different socioeconomic characteristics will allow for broader comparisons of the relationship between performance, satisfaction, loss aversion, and local commitment. Developing more sensitive qualitative and quantitative indicators of perceived loss dynamics and designing longitudinal studies to monitor changes in commitment over time will deepen our understanding of program sustainability at the local level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eLimitations\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe quantitative component relies on cross-sectional survey data, which limits causal inference between performance evaluation, satisfaction, loss aversion, and local commitment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sample was obtained through purposive non-probability sampling; therefore, findings cannot be generalized to all communities involved in sustainability programs in Indonesia.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eData collection used self-reported perceptions, which are subject to social desirability bias and individual interpretation of program performance and impacts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study focuses only on two provinces (West Java and North Sulawesi); regional institutional, cultural, and economic differences may limit transferability to other contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerformance indicators were measured at the perception level and not fully matched with objective administrative or environmental outcome data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative findings are based on a limited number of interviews and FGDs, which capture depth but may not represent the full diversity of stakeholder perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionList\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003ePE\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerformance Evaluation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eS\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSatisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eLA\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLoss Aversion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eCC\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity Commitment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eSEM-PLS\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStructural Equation Modeling\u0026ndash;Partial Least Squares\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eFGD\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFocus Group Discussion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eRPJMD\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegional Medium-Term Development Plan\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eDLH\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProvincial Environmental Agency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eBAPPEDA\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegional Development Planning Agency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors acknowledge the support of local government institutions, community leaders, non-governmental organizations, and community members in West Java and North Sulawesi who participated in surveys, interviews, and focus group discussions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research received no external funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthics Approval and Accordance\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study involved human participants. The research protocol was reviewed by the Research Ethics Committee (Institutional Review Board) of Universitas Riau Indonesia, Indonesia, and ethical approval was waived because the study involved an anonymous questionnaire-based survey, posed minimal risk to participants, and did not collect any personally identifiable information. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines and regulations of the Research Ethics Committee (IRB) listed above and the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndrayani: conceptualization, research design, data collection, quantitative and qualitative analysis, manuscript drafting, and final approval.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHeri Hermanto: methodology development, data analysis support, critical review, and manuscript revision.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNia Mardiana: data collection, qualitative analysis, literature review, and manuscript editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent to participate\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent to publish\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants provided consent for the anonymized data to be published.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData availability \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and are not publicly deposited due to ethical and confidentiality considerations. See Table 1 and references for contextual program information.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCode availability\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClinical trial number\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeslatte A, Feiock RC, Wassel K. Urban Pressures and Innovations: Sustainability Commitment in the Face of Fragmentation and Inequality, \u003cem\u003eRev. Policy Res.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 700\u0026ndash;724, Sep. 2017, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/ropr.12242\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCavanagh J-AE, Frame B, Lennox J. The Sustainability Assessment Model (SAM): Measuring Sustainable Development Performance, \u003cem\u003eAustralas. J. Environ. Manag.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 142\u0026ndash;145, Sep. 2006, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/14486563.2006.9725127\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeslatte A, Stokan E. Sustainability Synergies or Silos? The Opportunity Costs of Local Government Organizational Capabilities, \u003cem\u003ePublic Adm. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 80, no. 6, pp. 1024\u0026ndash;1034, Nov. 2020, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/puar.13237\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAguilera RV, Arag\u0026oacute;n-Correa JA, Marano V, Tashman PA. The Corporate Governance of Environmental Sustainability: A Review and Proposal for More Integrated Research, \u003cem\u003eJ. Manage.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 1468\u0026ndash;1497, Jul. 2021, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/0149206321991212\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCho W, Kim D, Park AYS. Local Government\u0026rsquo;s Resource Commitment to Environmental Sustainability: Capacity, Conservatism, and Contractual Dynamics. Urban Aff Rev. 2023;59(2):447\u0026ndash;75. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/10780874211064976\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJi H, Darnall N. How do external conditions affect the design of local governments\u0026rsquo; sustainability strategies? \u003cem\u003eRegul. Gov.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 910\u0026ndash;929, Jul. 2022, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/rego.12334\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFarmer JL. State-Level Influences on Community-Level Municipal Sustainable Energy Policies. Urban Aff Rev. 2022;58(4):1065\u0026ndash;95. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/1078087421995262\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMegawati S, Alfarizi M, Key Advantages of the Green Government Initiative in Achieving Local Public Service Performance and Sustainable Development. and \u0026hellip;., \u003cem\u003e\u0026hellip; J. Sustain. \u0026hellip;\u003c/em\u003e, 2024, [Online]. Available: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true\u0026amp;profile=ehost\u0026amp;scope=site\u0026amp;authtype=crawler\u0026amp;jrnl=17437601\u0026amp;AN=181864693\u0026amp;h=\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003eVyNNtqXx9%2Bt1QI1PWl7Zp7JLThbjCTgQgBTwzcHMay0Zfeslnp69edoKy5Zk80LlRUiOmsxPb4Yx1aZ4B8xRyg%3D%3D\u0026amp;crl=c\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeslatte A, Swann WL, Feiock RC. Performance, Satisfaction, or Loss Aversion? A Meso\u0026ndash;Micro Assessment of Local Commitments to Sustainability Programs, \u003cem\u003eJ. Public Adm. Res. Theory\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 201\u0026ndash;217, Feb. 2021, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1093/jopart/muaa021\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIndrayani I, Nurhatisyah N, Damsar D, Wibisono C. How does millennial employee job satisfaction affect performance? High Educ Ski Work Learn. 2024;14(1):22\u0026ndash;40. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1108/HESWBL-01-2023-0004\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeslatte A. Motivated Localism: Polarization and Public Support for Intergovernmental Carbon Reduction Efforts, \u003cem\u003eUrban Aff. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 1665\u0026ndash;1699, Sep. 2023, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/10780874221109462\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuang X, Chau KY, Tang YM, Iqbal W. RETRACTED: Business Ethics and Irrationality in SME During COVID-19: Does It Impact on Sustainable Business Resilience? 2022, \u003cem\u003efrontiersin.org\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3389/fenvs.2022.870476\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eN. P. Dewi, I. Indrayani, C. Wibisono, and \u0026hellip; Government Employee Assessment to Support Public Performance Organization Learned from Riau Island Province, \u003cem\u003eCogent Bus. \u0026hellip;\u003c/em\u003e, 2024, [Online]. Available: https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/326356.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRulli PS. \u003cem\u003eImpacts of Information Provision on Preferences for Infrastructures and Public Services Improvements: Randomized Conjoint Field Experiments in Indonesia\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehiroshima.repo.nii.ac.jp\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://hiroshima.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/2003184/files/k8033_1.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eD. F. Hakam, N. A. Nuzula, A. Aprianingsih, and \u0026hellip; Youth perspectives on induction stoves: advancing sustainable energy transitions in Indonesian cities, \u003cem\u003eFront. Sustain. \u0026hellip;\u003c/em\u003e, 2025, doi: 10.3389/frsc.2025.1554457.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eN. Nurfadila, Enhancing public financial management through performance evaluation and cost systems, \u003cem\u003eAdv. Manag. \u0026amp;Financial \u0026hellip;\u003c/em\u003e, 2024, [Online]. Available: http://advancesinresearch.id/index.php/AMFR/article/view/264.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eB. Wardiyanto, E. Setijaningrum, S. Samad, and \u0026hellip; Mending the mismatch of minds and mandates: reimagining competency-centric public service delivery in Bojonegoro Regency,Indonesia, \u003cem\u003eCogent Bus. \u0026hellip;\u003c/em\u003e, 2025, doi: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2442538.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eS. Salahudin, M. Syahri, T. D. Cahyani, and \u0026hellip; Green Budgeting Review at Local Government:Case Study of Batu Government, Indonesia, \u003cem\u003eJ. Gov. \u0026hellip;\u003c/em\u003e, 2025, [Online]. Available: https://jurnal.umt.ac.id/index.php/jgs/article/view/13331.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen L, Ng E, Huang S-C, Fang W-T. A self-evaluation system of quality planning for tourist attractions in Taiwan: An integrated AHP-Delphi approach from career professionals. Sustain. 2017;9(10). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3390/su9101751\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIndrayani I, Nurhatisyah N, Damsar D, Wibisono C. How does millennial employee job satisfaction affect performance? High Educ Ski Work Learn. 2024;14(1):22\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYuritanto Y, Rumengan J, Indrayani I, DETERMINATION OF COMMUNICATION CLIMATE COMPETENCE, DISCIPLINE OF EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE THROUGH WORK SATISFACTION AS AN INTERVENING VARIABLE. Zo Manajerial Progr Stud Manaj Univ Batam. 2019;9(1):53\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSohu JM, et al. Leveraging Loss Aversion and Self-Efficacy: The Role of Water Pricing and Risk in Driving Individual Innovation for Sustainable Water Consumption. Water. 2024;16(23):3510.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHe R, Dai Y, Sun G. How risk perception and loss aversion affect farmers\u0026rsquo; willingness to withdraw from rural homesteads: Mediating role of policy identity. Heliyon. 2023;9(10):e20918\u0026ndash;20918. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20918\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChang K-C, Cheng Y-S, Kuo N-T, Cheng Y-H. Impacts of Tourists\u0026rsquo; Shopping Destination Trust on Post-Visit Behaviors: A Loss Aversion Perspective. Int J Hosp Tour Adm. 2025;26(1):28\u0026ndash;67.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrayer A, Marcinowicz L. Job satisfaction of nurses with master of nursing degrees in Poland: quantitative and qualitative analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. Dec. 2018;18(1):239. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s12913-018-3053-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarnevale JB, Huang L, Cred\u0026eacute; M, Harms P, Uhl-Bien M. Leading to Stimulate Employees\u0026rsquo; Ideas: A Quantitative Review of Leader\u0026ndash;Member Exchange, Employee Voice, Creativity, and Innovative Behavior. Appl Psychol. 2017;66:517. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/apps.12102\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRahman MS. The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in language \u0026lsquo;testing and assessment\u0026rsquo; research: A literature review. J Educ Learn, 6, 1, 2016.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEdwards-Jones A. Qualitative data analysis with NVIVO. Taylor \u0026amp; Francis; 2014.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publications Ltd\\; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSarstedt M, Ringle CM, Hair JF. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling, \u003cem\u003eHandb. Mark. Res.\u003c/em\u003e, no. July, pp. 587\u0026ndash;632, 2021, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/978-3-319-57413-4_15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair J, Alamer A. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) in second language and education research: Guidelines using an applied example. Res Methods Appl Linguist. 2022;1(3):100027.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBazeley P, Jackson K. Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. 3rd ed. Sage; 2019.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePan H, Tang L. Qualitative data analysis in Chinese social science studies\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;the case of NVivo. Data Anal Knowl Discov. 2020;4(1):51\u0026ndash;62.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWelsh E. Dealing with data: Using NVivo in the qualitative data analysis process, in \u003cem\u003eForum qualitative sozialforschung/Forum: qualitative social research\u003c/em\u003e, 2002.\u003c/span\u003e\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":"performance evaluation, citizen satisfaction, loss aversion, local commitment, sustainability programs, Indonesia","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8419241/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8419241/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eSustainability programs at the local level often face difficulties in building long-term community commitment, despite being central to Indonesia\u0026rsquo;s development agenda. Existing studies primarily focus on technical and governance aspects. At the same time, psychological mechanisms such as performance evaluation, satisfaction, and loss aversion remain underexplored and are rarely integrated in a single model, especially in comparative settings across regions. This study examines how program performance evaluation, citizen satisfaction, and loss aversion collectively influence local commitment to sustainability programs in Indonesia. A mixed-methods design was employed in West Java and North Sulawesi, involving a survey of 300 local actors, as well as semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. Quantitative data were analysed using PLS-SEM; qualitative data were examined through thematic analysis. The structural model explains 27% of the variance in satisfaction, 22% in loss aversion, and 48% in local commitment (Q\u0026sup2; = 0.182; 0.157; 0.311). Performance evaluation has no significant direct effect on commitment (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.180; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.062), but significantly increases satisfaction (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.520; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) and reduces loss aversion (β = \u0026minus;0.410; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). Satisfaction positively affects commitment (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.390; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.008), while loss aversion has an adverse effect (β = \u0026minus;0.280; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.041). Indirect effects through satisfaction (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.200; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.004) and loss aversion (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.110; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.032) are significant, indicating dual mediation. Qualitative findings corroborate these mechanisms, highlighting the centrality of perceived benefits, procedural fairness, and managed risks in sustaining community commitment.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Performance Evaluation, Satisfaction, and Loss Aversion as Determinants of Local Commitment to Sustainability Programs in West Java and North Sulawesi","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-21 17:37:53","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8419241/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":"61e496f7-2a11-4bd9-94d6-c902838c72bb","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 21st, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"decision","content":"Withdrawn","date":"2026-05-06T11:31:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-06T11:42:02+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-21 17:37:53","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8419241","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8419241","identity":"rs-8419241","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}