For more than two decades, Pro-poor tourism studies continuously managed in various places by many researchers like Africa and Asia (Truong, 2014; Truong, Slabbert & Nguyen, 2016; Drosos & Skordoulis, 2018; Knight, 2017) Some studies that investigated deeply on Propoor tourism and infrastructure can be found in Mahadevan, Amir & Nugroho (2017); Gascon (2015); Ashley, Boyd & Goodwin (2000). However, they only focus more on the pro- poor concept and less discussed on how to achieve the benefits. Some scholars in tourism management studies are having disagreement on what factors that truly affected the competitiveness of a pro-poor tourism benefits. Cattarinich (2001) explained that pro-poor benefits strongly supported by tourism attractions in particular location. Furthermore, Cattarinich (2001) also clarified that tourism attractions itself comprises effective tourism management, healthy natural environment and appealing location. Similarly, Drosos & Skordoulis (2018) stated that tourism development is deeply connected with the environmental conditions. Still, they only focus more on the environmental aspects and less on the tourist attractions. Some scholars have addressed the importance of community capacity building to support pro-poor tourism agenda (Saito, 2017; Rogerson, 2018). Unfortunately their studies have not mentioned the relationship between pro-poor tourism agenda and its antecedents. Meanwhile, other scholars like Christofle & Massiera (2009) explained that pro-poor tourism is highly affected by some factors like planning experience and on-site experience. Nevertheless, specific information about pro-poor benefits in marine-based tourism is unclear. Dissimilarity of finding on pro-poor benefits studies also found in Das & Ghosh (2014); Rogerson (2014) who stated that micro and macroeconomics play important role in creating tourism benefits within a location. However, they only explained about general aspect of tourism and its contribution on local economy.
Study of Faulkner & Walmsley (1998) also revealed that tourism benefits is strongly influenced by situational conditions and resources including climate, geographical condition and local culture (inherited resources) and created resources such as buildings and facilities. Nonetheless, specific thing related to pro-poor benefits was not being discussed. Interesting studies have been done related to the role of information technology and service quality in the tourism industry (Drosos, Chalikias, Skordoulis, Kalantonis & Papagrigoriou, 2017). They have confirmed that information technology is "the lifeblood of travel" and service quality in tourism industry is positioned as strategic part of this industry. Nonetheless, they have not mentioned the real factors that contribute to the pro-poor tourism agenda. Some studies approved that pro-poor tourism benefits strongly affected by destination competitiveness. Famous tourist destinations can have more opportunities to give many benefits for local people and their community (Christofle & Massiera, 2009; Das & Ghosh 2014; Durydiwka & Duda-Gromada, 2014). Even so, detailed explanation about what factor that largely contributes to pro-poor benefits is still uncertain.
Different from previous studies, this study specifically introduced created resources, supporting facilities, investment, destination management and destination competitiveness as new pro-poor tourism benefits model. Based on previous details, the need to understand profoundly about pro-poor benefit and its antecedents motivated this study. The present study is focus to expose the extent of beach competitiveness in Bangka Island and what factor that primarily affected the accomplishment of pro-poor benefits in Bangka Island. The novelty in this study is the comprehensive model of pro-poor tourism benefits which will further contribute to tourism management and strategic management studies. In order to answer research questions, this paper is structured as follows. First, literature review and conceptual framework are detailed. Then, the method used to manage empirical testing is explained. Next, the results of hypothesis testing and overall significant of research model are presented. The paper closes with the discussion of findings together with interpretation of result, conclusion, implications for beach stakeholders and advices of future research.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
Destination Competitiveness and Pro-poor Tourism Agenda
Competitiveness refers to "a force" or "a power" to compete among rivals where in several strategic management writings it was categorized into nation-level and firm-level competitiveness (Kaharuddin, Handaru, Sardan & Mohammed, 2017; Meutia & Ismail, 2015). In order to create competitiveness, a firm must undergo several crucial processes such as strategic management process, human resources management process, operation management process and technology innovation process (Khavi & Enu, 2013). Presently, some experts in competitiveness studies associated the competitiveness with the tourism sector and fostering the destination competitiveness concept (Kirovska, 2011; Ashley, Boyd & Goodwin, 2000). Destination competitiveness also explained by Kumar, Loganathan, Patel & Kumar (2015) who clarified that competitiveness of a destination is the capability of a specific location to achieve high financial performance. Some expert mentioned that measurement of destination competitiveness particularly in tourism management should lead to poverty reduction (Levine, 2003; Kirovska, 2011; Ashley, Boyd & Goodwin, 2000). Rios-Morales, Gamberger, Jenkins & Smuc (2011) explained that study of destination competitiveness are including analysis of tourism management effectiveness, the role of infrastructures and marketing program.
Ashley, Boyd & Goodwin (2000) mentioned that main agenda of tourism management is poverty alleviation. Similar to them, Ashley et al. (2000) also explained that tourist attraction is important aspect that inseparable within tourism management. Cattarinich (2001) argued that tourism is the backbone of economy in developing countries. Besides, Yunis (2004) that propoor tourism is a set of policy and program to strengthen local economy and residents awareness of tourism management. Likewise, Mowforth & Munt (2003) explained that pro-poor tourism is strongly related to benefits for poverty mitigation as well as increasing the extent of natural environment quality. Meanwhile, Hovinen (2002) argued that pro-poor tourism policy is fostering economy resilience of local residents and refining the quality of tourism destination. In conclusion, we promote that the extent of destination competitiveness is positively affected propoor benefits agenda.
Created Resources as Essential Support in Beach Management
Description of created resources can be found in Li...