Host Perceptions of Impacts

8/13/2019 Host Perceptions of Impacts

1/23

Annals of Tourism Research,Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 231253, 2002 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain0160-7383/01/$22.00

www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

PII: S0160-7383(01)00039-1

HOST PERCEPTIONS OF IMPACTSA Comparative Tourism Study

Cevat TosunMustafa Kemal University, Turkey

Abstract: This study investigates resident perceptions of tourism impacts on a Turkish townin absolute and relative terms and draws implications for marketing and destination manage-ment from the results. Personal interviews were conducted with household heads and resultscompared with Fijian and American case studies. Comparative figures suggest that the Turk-ish residents were generally less supportive of the tourism industry and had fewer positiveperceptions of its impacts when compared to the other two cases. It is suggested that aparticipatory model be implemented to integrate tourism into the local development in theTurkish town. Keywords: tourism impacts, host perceptions, comparative analysis, Turkey,Florida, Fiji. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Resume: Perceptions des impacts par la communautedaccueil: une etude comparative detourisme. Cette etude examine les perceptions relatives et absolues de la part des habitantsau sujet des impacts du tourisme dans une ville turque et trouve dans les resultats quelques

implications pour le marketing et la gestion des destinations. On a fait une enquete aupresdes chefs de famille, et on a compareles resultats avec des etudes de cas aFidji et en Floride.Des chiffres comparatifs suggerent que les habitants turcs etaient moins favorables a lindus-trie de tourisme et quils avaient moins de perceptions positives des impacts du tourisme encomparaison aux deux autres cas. On suggere la mise en uvre dun modele participatifafin dintegrer le tourisme au developpement local dans la ville turque. Mots-cles: impactsdu tourisme, perceptions de la communautedaccueil, analyse comparative, Turquie, Flor-ide, Fidji. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

Perceptions of various impacts of tourism have been extensively rese-

arched since the 70s. Most studies have concentrated on how varioussegments of host communities react differently to tourism impacts. Themajority of this research has focused on a single host community orsmall numbers of neighboring areas. This study extends previous stud-iesthrough its comparative analysis of three case studies of residentsperceptions of tourism. Results of the research conducted in Urgup,Turkey, were compared with those from two previous and similar stud-ies that investigated residents perceptions of the impact of tourism inNadi, Fiji, and Central Florida (Milman and Pizam 1988; King, Pizamand Milman 1993).

Cevat Tosun is Associate Professor and Director of School of Tourism and Hotel Manage-ment, Mustafa Kemal University (31200 Antakya, Turkey. Email ).He served as Fulbright Scholar and Visiting Professor at the University of Northern Iowaduring the 20012002 academic year. His research interests include participatory develop-ment, sustainable development, and social and economic impacts of tourism.

231


2/23

232 IMPACT PERCEPTIONS

Scholars suggest that although the social impact of tourism has beenextensively studied, it should be further investigated in other geo-graphical locations in order to form the foundation of some newhypotheses in the development of a theory of the social impacts of

tourism (King, Pizam and Milman 1993:663). However, Dann, Nashand Pearce (1988) and Van Doorn (1989) have argued that it is noteasy to derive theory from individual tourism impact case studies, sinceeach individual case brings with it so many idiosyncratic peculiarities.Moreover, existing impact studies are seen as quasi-intellectual find-ings pretending worldwide validity, but which in fact do not go beyondsmall-talk at a social gathering(Van Doorn 1989:89). This study aimsto be more thansmall-talkand endeavors at contributing to the bodyof knowledge concerning the perceptions of host communities towardsthe presence of tourists and tourism.

Stages or step models remain popular in determining tourismimpacts and community responses. In 1978, Smith evaluated develop-ment in terms of waves of tourist types and presented his seven-stagemodel to expand the understanding of community impacts. Doxey(1975) explained hostguest interactions and relationship via the irri-tation index that includes four stages: euphoria, apathy, irritation, andantagonism. Butler (1980) also developed a stage-related model butfocused on the more general issue of the evolution of tourism areas;however, the model considered the attitudes of residents and com-munity support for the industry as part of wider issues of development.Butler argued that destinations evolve via the stages of exploration,involvement, development, consolidation, and stagnation, followed byeither decline or rejuvenation. This model claims that social impactsemerge in the stages of consolidation and stagnation.The large num-bers of visitors and the facilities provided for them can be expectedto arouse some opposition and discontent among permanent resi-dents, since at the stagnation stagecapacity levels for many variableswill have been reached or exceeded with attendant environmental,social, and economic problems(1980:8). Evidence suggests, however,

that this is not always the case. For example, it was reported with specialreference to Nadi, Fiji, that in spite of very high levels of developmentand contact with tourists, residents perceived social impacts to be posi-tive (King, Pizam and Milman 1993). Dowlings (1993) study agreedwith the above conclusion and noted that although tourist ratiosincreased dramatically (from 1:10 to 1:150) in six years, along with theemergence of considerable environmental impact problems, residentsof Shark Bay in Western Australia are still very positive about the indus-try and strongly support its expansion. Nevertheless, several authorsargued that it is very difficult to operationalize stage or step based

models in terms of perceptions of social impacts (Johnson, Snepengerand Akis 1994; Pearce, Moscardo and Ross 1996). Perhaps, because ofthese difficulties, several authors have adopted social survey methodsto generate data on how host communities perceive tourism develop-ment and tourists. For the same reasons this research has also utilizedsocial survey methods.

Although some of the social impacts are known and can be observed,


3/23

233CEVAT TOSUN

it is often difficult to measure the known impact. However, currentresearch indicates that tourism as a factor of change can affect tra-ditional family values (Kousis 1989), cause cultural commercialization(Cohen 1988), increase the crime rate (Nicholls 1976), and lead to

negative elements such as prostitution (Cohen 1988) and gambling(Pizam and Pokela 1985). Further, tourism development may createsocial conflicts at the destination community due to the socioculturaldifferences, economic welfare, and purchasing power gaps between thehost community and tourists. In brief, it was found that host communi-ties attitudes and perceptions toward development and tourists fluc-tuate continuously between the negative and the positive (King, Pizamand Milman 1993; Pizam 1978). In this regard, most conclusions onthe impacts of tourism development are that economic impacts areperceived as mostly positive while sociocultural, legal, and environmen-

tal impacts, in many cases, are viewed as negative and in some casesneutral.

Several studies found that residents benefiting from tourism have ahigher level of support for it and thus report more positive impacts(Husbands 1989; Madrigal 1993; Lankford and Howard 1994). How-ever, King, Pizam and Milman (1993) pointed out that those peoplewith personal benefits from tourism are also more likely than othersto report negative impacts. In other words, perceptions of positivebenefits are significantly related to personal benefits from tourism, butthey themselves do not explain very much the perceived negativeimpacts (Pearce, Moscardo and Ross 1996). Dogan (1989) emphasizedthat tourism from developed countries has negative socioculturalimpacts such as the decline in traditions, materialization, increase incrime rates, social conflicts, crowding, environmental deterioration,and dependency on the industrial countries on the part of the mem-bers of the developing world. Moreover, Dogan claimed that tourismdevelopment and presence of tourists has changed the socioculturalstructure and diversified previously homogenous host communities.

Mansfeld (1992) found that people living further from tourism areas

were more negative about the impacts, but Sheldon and Var (1984)reported that residents in higher tourist density areas were more posi-tive about the industry. Although Pizam (1978) found that residentswith more contact felt negatively about tourism, Rothman (1978)reported that residents with high contact had positive perception. Thisdifference may be explained by the site-specific conditions underwhich tourists and hosts interact. To Varley (1978), some of the socialproblems emerged in Fiji because of the relatively wealthy inter-national tourists in a developing society characterized by relativelylower standards of living. Reising (1994) has argued that the conse-

quences of social contact between tourists and hosts largely dependupon their cultural backgrounds, and the conditions under which theyinteract. Social contact between individuals from different culturalbackgrounds might result in negative attitudes, perceptions, andexperiences. On the other hand, while Davis, Allen and Cosenza(1988) found that residents who were natives were more positive abouttourism than newcomers to the community, Lankford and Howard


4/23


(1994) reported no significant relationship between community attach-ment and perceptions of tourism. However, according to McCool andMartin (1994), a greater sense of belonging to a country was correlatedwith higher ratings of both positive and negative impacts of tourism.

The Tourism Development Case in Turkey

Urgup is one of the major centers in the Cappadocia region that islocated in the heart of Asia Minor or Anatolia. It has a permanentpopulation of around 12,000 people. Its territory encompasses an areaof 574 square km that constitutes 10% of the total area of the Cappado-cia region (Figure 1). A vast majority of the local population (70%)works in agriculture, 15% deal with trades, 10% have independentbusinesses, and 5% have jobs in other areas. Viniculture and

stockbreeding are dominant in the agricultural sector (Ulku 1996).The local community has all the peculiarities of typical Anatolian cul-ture. Extended family structures are frequent, which strengthenscommunal relations.

Foreign independent tourists started visiting Urgup for cultural andreligious reasons in the mid-50s. Between the 50s and 70s, local peoplebuilt and operated small-scale establishments such as a range of accom-modation facilities, restaurants, and souvenir shops. Because the localsdid not have large amounts of capital and because only a small numberof foreign tourists were visiting the region for cultural and religiousreasons, development remained small scale until the end of 1982(Tosun 1998a). With the 1982 Tourism Incentives Act No. 2634, the

Figure 1. Cappadocia 1/25,000 Scale Master Plan (Ministry of Tourism 1986)


5/23

235CEVAT TOSUN

Cappadocia region, including Urgup, was determined as one of severaltourism regions. These have the highest priority in terms of tourismdevelopment, and construction is supposed to be kept strictly undercontrol. The main criteria for establishing these regions is their poten-

tial to attract maximum numbers of tourists who are expected to bringmaximum foreign currency earnings. The central government sup-ported large-scale development via generous fiscal, monetary, andother incentives. In the absence of large-scale local capital, outsidershave invested in the industry in Urgup.

Generally speaking, the foundation of this development in Turkeywas established during sociopolitical unrest and serious economiccrises, via enacting the aforementioned 1982 tourism act and TurkishTravel Agencies Association Act No. 1618 in 1970 by the military-ledgovernments. These legislations appear myopic and have ignored

many fundamental sociocultural, developmental, and economic con-cerns, particularly at local and regional levels. For example, Cappado-cia in general and Urgup in particular have historically been visitedby foreigners for cultural and religious pilgrimage. Turkey, however,has been promoted by international tour operators and the Ministryof Tourism to satisfy the traditional needs of mass tourists for sun, sea,and sand. Although Urgup does not have sea and sand, tourists visitingcoastal destinations in Turkey for all three have also visited Urgup forbrief (2-nights and 3-days) periods (Tosun 1998b). Local culturalvalues have been used as a commodity and marketing tool and havebeen over-commercialized as a result of using them at the wrong place,at the wrong time, and with the wrong standards. Consequently, a falseand dubious image has emerged, deliberately or not, about the localcommunity.

Research Methodology

This study employed the research instrument that was developed forsimilar studies involving central Florida (Milman and Pizam 1988) and

Nadi (King, Pizam and Milman 1993). By bearing in mind the distinctTurkish sociocultural settings in central Anatolia and site-specific limi-tations in the field study area, the questionnaire was revised and con-ducted through personal interviews to determine perceptions held byUrgups residents. For example, using place of birth and length ofresidency may be poor measures to indicate the association betweenattachment to place or community and residentsperceptions towardsthe industry and its customers. Thus, this study added a variable rep-resenting the respondents sense of belonging to Urgup. Moreover,a limited list of occupations given to the respondents, included one

category of work clearly identified as being within tourism and wasworded according to societal perceptions of occupations in Turkey.Systematic random sampling was utilized for sample selection (and

a sampling fraction was used by dividing the population size by thedesired sample size of 280). In this study, the population size was thenumber of households in Urgup. For the population of 3,500 and sam-ple of 280, the sampling fraction was found to be 1/13. In turn, 280


6/23


7/23

237CEVAT TOSUN

to be noted as having possible unspecified effects on the results andthus the comparison.

It was not a problem to identify variables to compare, since the ques-tionnaire content used by the three studies were identical to a large

extent. In sum, the nine sets of variables identified for the purpose ofcomparison were feelings about the presence of tourists, perceptionsabout the impacts of the presence of tourism on the destinationsimage, 16 tourism impact variables (Table 1), the appeal of certainoccupations, perceived degree of similarity between tourists and locals,differences between international and domestic tourists, socialrelationships with tourists, overall opinions of the industry, and opi-nions on the volume of tourists visiting the community. Additionally,

Table 1. Comparison of Perceived Tourism Impactsa

Impact Variables Urgup Urgup Nadib Nadi SD C. C.Mean SD Mean Floridac Florida

Mean SD

Legal Factor Grand Mean 1.84 2.22 2.54 Individual crime 1.9 .9 2.1 1.0 2.3 .7Morality 1.8 .7 2.9 1.2 2.9 .8

Drug addiction 1.6 .9 2.1 1.0 2.5 .7Organized crime 1.3 1.4 2.1 1.0 2.4 .7Alcoholism 1.3 .6 1.9 .9 2.6 .6Social Factor Grand Mean 2.2 3.4 2.98

Attitude toward working 2.8 1.4 3.9 .9 3.1 .6Courtesy and hospitality 2.6 1.2 3.7 .5 3.3 .9toward strangersPoliteness and good 2.6 1.3 3.1 .9 2.9 .8mannersMutual confidence among 2 1 3.6 .5 3.0 .6people

People honesty 2 .9 2.8 1.2 2.9 .6Openness to sexual 1.3 .7 2.3 1.2 2.7 .7behaviorEconomic Factor Grand Mean 3.3 3.7 3.3Employment opportunities 4 1.1 4.4 .7 4.0 .9Towns overall tax revenue 3.9 1.4 4.2 .8 3.6 1.1Traffic conditions 3.1 1.4 2.4 1.0 1.6 .8Income and standard of 2.9 1.3 4.1 .9 3.8 .9livingQuality of life in general 2.6 1.4 3.7 .6 3.4 .9Grand Mean of Sixteen Impact 2.4 3.1 2.9

Variables

a What impact do you think the current level of tourism would have on the followingissues?Scale: 1=Significantly worsen; 2=Worsen somewhat; 3=Not make any difference;4=Impro somewhat; 5=Significantly improve.b King, Pizam and Milman (1993).c Milman and Pizam 1988.


8/23


variables related to the general profile of the respondents were alsoconsidered in relative terms.

Generally speaking, the cases also used a very similar set of dataanalysis techniques. They employed frequency and mean (central

tendencies) as tools of descriptive data analysis, t-test, ANOVA, andcorrelation as instruments of bivariate analysis, and R-type factor analy-sis and step-wise multiple regressions as means of multivariate dataanalysis techniques. Altogether the three cases have more similaritiesthan differences in terms of research methods, sampling, data collec-tion instruments, administration offield study, variables employed, anddata analysis techniques. These commonalities have provided sufficientbases to make a meaningful comparison.

Respondents and their Attitude toward TourismAn examination of the general profile of respondents in the three

cases indicates similarities as well as differences. Although respondentslength of residency, marital status, and employment status are veryclose in all cases, their levels of education and annual median incomediffer. While a majority of the respondents in Central Florida had acollege degree, most of the respondents had a secondary school cer-tificate in Nadi and a primary school certificate in Urgup. Interestingly,though, only 4% of the respondents had no children under 18 livingwith them in Urgup, while the corresponding figures for Central Flor-ida and Nadi were 65% and 21%, respectively. Moreover, the annualmedian income of the respondents in Central Florida was much higherthan of respondents in Urgup and Nadi. On the other hand, while avast majority of the respondents (94%) from Nadi declared themselvesas being employed by or associated with tourism, these figures wereonly 10% in Urgup and 11% in Central Florida. Although differencesand similarities among general profiles of the respondents in thesecase studies may have unknown effects on residents perceptions oftourism impacts in relative terms, this cannot be explained by the

present study due to its scope and limitations.In general, respondents in all three cases expressed positive attitudestowards tourism. However, a closer look into comparativefigures sug-gests that respondents in Central Florida and Nadi had a more positiveattitude than those in Urgup. While the mean value of the intervalvariable feeling about the presence of tourists was 4.3 for Nadi and4.2 for Central Florida, it was 3.5 for Urgup. However, a majority ofthe respondents in Central Florida (63.2%) and Urguo (67.7%) statedthat the industry improved somewhat or significantly the image of Cen-tral Florida and Urgup, while the corresponding figure for Nadi

(90.7%) was much higher.The impact of tourism on various social and economic activities andconcerns was also investigated. Sixteen variables were considered inrelative terms with regard to its impacts (1=significantly worsenedas a result of tourisms presence and 5=significantly improved); thevariablesmean values between 1 and 2.4 showed negative perceptions,2.5 and 3.4 neutral, and 3.5 and 5 positive (Table 1). When it is gen-


9/23

239CEVAT TOSUN

eralized for the purpose of comparison, it can be said that the respon-dents in the three cases perceived the impact of tourism on employ-ment opportunities and overall tax revenue as positive. Respondentsin all three cases believed that tourism had no impacts on politeness

and manners, but had negative impacts on drug addiction, individualcrime, and organized crime. Although six out of 16 were the only vari-ables perceived by the three communities in a similar direction, thevariables perceived as negative, neutral, and positive by the three com-munities were generally different. For example, the respondents inUrgup perceived that the current level of tourism had no significantimpacts on traffic conditions, income and standard of living, attitudestoward work, courtesy and hospitality toward strangers, quality of lifein general, and politeness and manners; for Nadi, the correspondingvariables were morality, politeness, and good manners, and peoples

honesty; and for Central Florida these were morality, politeness andmanners, sexual permissiveness, peoples honesty, attitudes towardswork, and mutual confidence. In brief, as Table 1 shows, the variablesperceived as negative, neutral, and/or positive by each communitywere not identical.

The central tendencies of the respondents, however, indicate thatthe host community in Urgup had a more negative perception of theindustry than those in Nadi and Central Florida. For example, thegrand mean of the 16 impact variables was only 2.4 for Urgup, but 3.1and 2.9 for Nadi and Central Florida, respectively. For a better andmore comprehensive comparison it may be useful to classify these 16impact variables under the legal, social, and economic factors. As illus-trated in Table 1, the grand mean of legal factor variables is lowest forUrgup and highest for Central Florida. Evidently, Central Floridiansperceived the legal impacts of tourism more favorably than did theother two populations, being between negative and neutral, whileUrgup and Nadi had a negative perception.

Interestingly, for social impacts, residents of Nadi had positive per-ceptions, residents of Urgup had negative ones, and residents of Cen-

tral Florida neutral perceptions. Not surprisingly, the three communi-ties in question perceived positively the economic impacts of tourism.The difference among these three perceptions of all impacts may notbe explained in detail based upon the current available data. Forexample, one may argue, with special references to Turkey, as Mor-rison and Selman do, that there exists the danger of wide gaps inculture and ethics between host and tourist communities(1991:118).But the perceived degree of similarity between tourists and locals bythe respondents in the three cases did not support this argument. Asindicated, mean values of the variables representing differences

between the host and guest groups do not vary much (1.3 for Urgup,1.7 for Nadi, and 1.1 for Central Florida). Thus, further interpretationwithout additional research in this regard seems speculative ratherthan scientific.

As to local residents willingness to take jobs in the tourism andhospitality industry, personal willingness of the respondents to acceptjobs was similar to their willingness to suggest to their friends or rela-


10/23


tives to work in the industry. In Urgup, 59% of the respondents statedthat local people would willingly take jobs in the industry (CentralFlorida 63%, and Nadi 97%). Similarly, a majority of respondents inall the cases were willing to suggest their friends and relativesemploy-

ment in the industry (68%, 90%, and 75% for Urgup, Nadi, and Cen-tral Florida, respectively). Interestingly, more respondents in CentralFlorida and Urgup would recommend in taking tourism jobs thanwould do the same themselves; but, the corresponding figures werereversed in Nadi. This may be partly explained by the employmentfigures: as noted, while 94% of respondents in Nadi stated that theywere employed in tourism, the figures were much lower in Urgup(10%) and Central Florida (11%).

The survey also set out to investigate attitudes towards tourismemployment in relative terms. Respondents were asked to choose their

preferred occupations from a limited list that included one categoryof work clearly identified as being within the industry (that is, hotelworker in the case of Nadi; hotel receptionist in the case of CentralFlorida and Urgup). The most preferred job in Urgup (48.5%) andCentral Florida (31.9%) was schoolteacher, while for Nadi, it was hotelworker (67.4%). The first preference was followed by officer in thearmed forces in Urgup (14.5%), hotel receptionist in Central Florida(18.1%), and shop owner in Nadi (11.3%). When job preferences werearranged from the most wanted category to the least preferred one,the most unwanted category was hotel receptionist in Urgup (2.5%)and foreman in a factory in Nadi and Central Florida, though it shouldbe acknowledged that the range of occupations offered to respondentswas limited.

Several questions were asked to gauge general and current percep-tions of residents towards tourists. The results were again comparedwith the previous cases of Nadi and Central Florida. While a majorityof the respondents described tourists in general and international tour-ists in particular as being very different from local people in Urgup(78.4%) and Nadi (75.9%), only a few did so in Central Florida (6%).

These results are not surprising since a vast majority of tourists visitingdeveloping countries such as Turkey and Fiji come from developedcountries, whereas tourists visiting destinations in developed countriescome from other developed countries. Naturally, there appear to beconsiderable socioeconomic gaps between tourists and locals indeveloping countries, which may influence respondents perceptions.On the other hand, although respondents in Nadi (73.8%) stated thatinternational tourists were very different from the domestic ones; thisfigure was much lower for Urgup (22.1%) and Central Florida(19.7%).

When asked about social relationships, a majority of respondents inUrgup (62.6%) stated that they had no contact with tourists, whilethose in Nadi (64.5%) had constant contacts and in Central Florida(56.7%) some contacts. In other words, relatively few respondents(37.4%) in Urgup had contact with tourists, but many in Nadi (88%)and Central Florida (69.5%) did. This frequent contact in Nadi mayrelate to respondents high levels of employment in the industry; and


11/23

241CEVAT TOSUN

the rare contact in Urgup may result from residentslow levels of edu-cation, lack of a foreign language, and perceptions of internationaltourists as very different from themselves. Moreover, although about85% of the Urgup respondents claimed that they or their families did

not maintain correspondence with tourists, more than half of therespondents in Nadi (58%) stated that they did.

Given that overwhelming proportions of tourists to Nadi are residentsof foreign countries, this is a remarkably high figure. Several alterna-tive explanations can be given. The issue of social desirability,namely a tendency to answer questions in aproperor socially desir-able manner is one possible explanation. The much-publicizedfriendliness of the people of Fiji and the consequent interest that theyshare in people from other places is a second possibility. Finally, athird possibility might be correspondence with tourists who are friends

or relatives and reside in foreign countries, such as India (King, Pizamand Milman 1993:6589).

Respondentsoverall attitudes towards tourism activity in Urgup, Nadi,and Central Florida were also considered in relative terms. Thereported mean values of the variable (3.4, 4.2, and 4.0 for Urgup, Nadi,and Central Florida, respectively) suggest that the central tendency ofthe respondents in Urgup was to neither oppose nor favor tourism,whereas that in Nadi and Central Florida was to favor it. Similarly,though a majority of respondents supported or strongly supportedexpansion of tourism in Nadi (82.3%) and Central Florida (58.2%),less than half (42.5%) favored or strongly favored expansion in Urgup.Interestingly, in all three cases only a small proportion of the respon-dents strongly or somewhat opposed the expansion of tourists num-bers visiting their communities.

Bivariate and Multivariate Relationships

Both bivariate and multivariate statistical analyses were employed toexplain the relationship between the sociodemographic variables and

respondents support and to predict the level of influence of the for-mer and tourism impact variables on support of the respondents forthe industry. In all three cases, a series of one-way analysis of variance,t-tests, and Pearson correlation as bivariate statistical techniques wereused to examine the relationship between the sociodemographics vari-ables and respondentssupport. This in all cases was measured by threedifferent variables: feelings toward the presence of tourists (DV1),feelings about controlling tourist numbers (DV2), and overall opi-nion about the industry in Urgup (DV3). In the cases of Urgup andCentral Florida (Milman and Pizam 1988), it was found that the DV1,

DV2, and DV3 variables were correlated with each other at statisticallysignificant and moderate levels; thus a new variable (DV4) was createdby an index of the sum of these variables (DV1+DV2+DV3). However,in the case of Nadi it was found that the variables were not highlycorrelated with each other and thusoverall opinion about the tourismindustry in Nadiwas used as the sole dependent variable without com-bining the three into an index.


12/23


The correlation analysisbetween number of children in the house-hold under 18, level of education, household income, sense of belong-ing to Urgup, number of years living in the area, and age, on the onehand, and the level of support for the industry which was measured

by DV1, DV2, DV3, and DV4, on the otherillustrated positive butweak associations at a statistically significant level between the variablesused as indicators of level of support for tourism (DV1, DV2, DV3, andDV4), and some of those sociodemographic variables such as age, senseof belonging to Urgup, and length of residency. The associationsbetween these variables representing residents support for the indus-try in Urgup and number of children under 18 in the household, levelof education, and household income were statistically insignificant.

In the case of Central Florida, Pearson product-moment correlationsbetween age, number of children, and years living in the area, on the

one hand, and the level of support for tourism, on the other, resultedin low and insignificant correlations (.13; .04; .13, respectively)(Milman and Pizam 1988). However, in the case of Nadi, the higherthe number of children under 18 living in the household, the lesssupport was found for tourism (r= .42). One-way analysis of varianceamong level of education, household income, marital status, and thelevel of support for tourism found that this does not vary significantlybased on education and income levels and marital status. The onlydifference was found among those who had monthly householdincomes of $502 to $750 (mean = .00, p .05). Those had a lowerlevel of support for the industry than respondents in the $377 to $500(mean = 3.3, p .05), less than $172.5 (mean = 3.5, p .05), $145$250 (mean = 3.6, p .05), and $252$375 (mean = 3.7, p .05)according to a Duncan Test with a significance level of .05. It should benoted that differences were found between variable DV1 representingfeelings toward the presence of tourists in Urgupand income groups,but no two income groups were significantly different at the .05 levelwhen the level of support variables were represented by DV2, DV3,and DV4.

Results of a one-way ANOVA in the case of Nadi indicated that resi-dents in the 5161 age group had a more positive opinion about tour-ism in the Nadi area (mean =4.6) than respondents in the 2939 agegroup (mean = 4.1). The bivariate analysis in question in the case ofCentral Florida showed that the respondents who had an annualhousehold income of $40,000 to $50,000 had higher levels of supportfor the industry than those in the $20,000 to $30,000 category (mean= 12.8 vs. 11.3; F=2.6; p = .01). The other income categories did notdiffer significantly from each other in levels of support (Milman andPizam 1988); although while a higher income group ($502 to $750)

had lower levels of support for tourism than lower income groups inUrgup, the relationship in the case of Central Florida was reversed.A series oft-tests conducted with the variables of gender, presence of

children under 18 in the household, tourism employment, and familyemployed in the industry illustrated no significant differences betweenthese groups with regard to level of support for tourism in Urgupaccording to Levenes test for equality of variance. In the case of Nadi,


13/23

243CEVAT TOSUN

t-test results showed that respondents who had children under 18 livingin their households were more favorably disposed to tourism (mean =4.3) than those without children under the age of 18 in the household(mean = 3.6) (King, Pizam and Milman 1992). In relation to Central

Florida, the notable t-test results were as follows: male respondentsmore than female expressed a higher level of support for the industry(mean = 12.1 vs. 11.4; t = 1.96; p= .05); those who were employed intourism had a higher level of support for it than respondents who werenot so employed (mean =13.3 vs. 11.6;t= 4.85;p=.0001); and thosewhose family members were employed in the industry had higher levelsof support for it than those with no family members direct employedin tourism (mean = 12.8 vs. 11.6; t = 2.76; p = .009) (Milman andPizam 1988).

Generally speaking, based upon the results of bivariate statistical

analysis such as correlation analysis, one-way ANOVA, and t-tests, it maybe said that most demographic variables do not influence respondentslevel of support for tourism, although there were some notable excep-tions in all three cases. For example, in Urgup, there was a weak butpositive correlation between age, sense of belonging to Urgup, andlength of residency, and the level of support for the industry. In thecase of Central Florida, the only notable exceptions were gender,respondents family employed in tourism, and respondents ownemployment in the industry, and in the case of Nadi it was childrenunder 18 living with the respondents.

Predictors of the Level of Support

Stepwise multiple regressions and R-type factor analysis were usedin the multivariate data analyses. In the case of Nadi, one stepwisemultiple regression was performed. For Urgup and Central Floridainitially four step-wise multiple-regressions were conducted to explainwhat factors affect respondentsoverall perceptions of tourism. For thisstudy these multiple regression equations were formulated as follows:

Y1 =b1X1+b2X2++ b36X36+e1 Y2 =b1X1+b2X2+ +b36X36+e2

Y3 =b1X1+b2X2++ b36X36+e3 Y4 =b1X1+b2X2+ +b36X36+e4

whereY1through Y4represent four independent variables. Y1denotesfeelings about the presence of tourists(DV1), Y2through Y4denotefeelings about controlling the number of tourists(DV2),overall opi-nion about the industry in Urgup(DV3), and the new variable (DV4)created by an index of the sum of these three variables

(DV1+

DV2+

DV3). X1through X36correspond to 36 independent vari-ables: 16 impact variables; eight sociodemographic variables; 12 vari-ables describing perceptions and social relations with tourists and will-ingness to work in the industry. It was found that several independentvariables significantly predicted the respondents level of support fortourism in Urgup. However, the amount of variance explained in eachof the four regressions was not high. Total variances explained (R2)


14/23


for these dependent variables were .30 for Y1, .27 for Y2, .35 for Y3,and .45 for Y4 in the case of Urgup, while these figures for CentralFlorida were .44 for Y1, Y2, and Y3, and .50 forY4. The correspondingfigure for Nadi was .69 for Y1.

Seven out of the 36 variables in the multiple regression equationexplained 45% of the variance in residents attitudes towards tourismfor the dependent variable Y4. Urgup residents whose overall opinionwas positive were found to have a number of personal characteristicsand perceptions. They believed that tourism was improving Urgupsimage; that they would not suggest a job in the industry to any of theirfriends; that they had family members employed in tourism; that theyhad lower levels of education; that this business did not have a negativeimpact on morality; that it improved their quality of life; and that itimproved mutual confidence among people.

In the case of Central Florida, eight out of the 34 variables explained50% of the variance in residents attitudes towards tourism. Moreexplicitly, the supporting Floridan respondents have the following per-ceptions and personal peculiarities (Milman and Pizam 1988)theystated that tourism was improving their quality of life and the imageof their community; that the industry did not have any impacts on drugaddiction; that their incomes and standard of living were improved bythe industry; that they would suggest a tourism job to a friend; thatthey were employed in the industry themselves; and that tourism didnot have any effect on the introduction of organized crime.

In the case of Urgup, a factor analysis was conducted using the 16independent variables (Table 1). The R-type factor analysis approachwas used with a Varimax rotation technique on the variables rep-resenting current levels of tourism impacts. Five factors emerged fromthe analysis, explaining 55.6% of the variation. As a rule of thumb,factor loadings greater than .30 are considered significant, loadings of.40 or greater are considered more important and .50 or greater asvery significant (Hair, Anderson, Thatan and Black 1995). In this study,factor loadings over 50% (Table 2) were utilized. A new regression

analysis was conducted by including those five factors representing 16independent impact variables against the combined dependent vari-able (DV1+DV2+DV3) denoted by Y5. The multiple regression equ-ation was formulated as follows:

Y5 =b1X1+b2X2+ +b25X25+e5

It was found that five of the 25 independent variables (X1 throughX25) significantly predicted respondents level of support for tourismin Urgup (Table 3). Residents in favor of the industry were found to

have the following individual peculiarities and perceptionstheybelieved that it was improving the image of their community; theywould not suggest a tourism job; they had members of their familyworking in this industry; and they had lower levels of education. Theregression model contained five factors as a new set of independentvariables explaining 42.4% of the variance (Table 3). To test multicol-linearity and collinearity, tolerance values and variance inflation factor


15/23

245CEVAT TOSUN

Table 2. Factors Representing Current Level of Tourism Impacts in Urgupa

Impact Variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Morality .41298 .37162 .00763 .33498 .28379Income and standard .00607 .06195 .05550 .17599 .75707of livingEmployment .53551 .17568 .01838 .05113 .58073opportunitiesTraffic conditions .59614 .09244 .12628 .18743 .34449Crime .34966 .02903 .20495 .64152 .10212Organized crime .01318 .12075 .00645 .83484 .10182

Alcoholism .12887 .17024 .77823 .20364 .11001Drug addiction .54047 .13515 .41984 .15948 .20437

Politeness and good .47368 .27969 .16388 .22033 .10125mannersOpenness to sexual .08462 .09409 .80007 .05088 .08325behaviorOverall tax revenue .67730 .02888 .08460 .13721 .01782People honesty .28012 .61170 .15547 .02698 .04733

Attitude toward work .60323 .33073 .05379 .14293 .03143Courtesy and .13835 .70366 .01902 .12217 .02426hospitality towardstrangersQuality of life in .28332 .47698 .04702 .04694 .34832

generalMutual confidence .00686 .69850 .12491 .10644 .16499among peopleEigen value 3.6 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.0% variance 22.7 10.8 8.6 6.9 6.6Cumulative variance 22.7 33.5 42.1 49.0 55.6

a KaiserMeyerOlkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy=.75. Bartlett test of Sphericity=661.14090; significance=.0000.

were analyzed. As can be seen from Table 3, the multiple regressionequation does not suffer from collinearity or multicollinearity. Accord-ing to Hair et al (1995), tolerance value should be above .19 and vari-ance inflation factor should be below 5.3 since very small tolerancevalues and very large variance inflation factor denote high collinearityor multicollinearity.

In the case of Central Florida, the 16 variables representing the cur-rent level of tourism impacts were loaded on three factors (legal, social,

and economic). In a new multiple regression equation, these replacedthe 16 impacts as the other 18 independent variables used in the pre-vious runs were again included. It was found that six out of the 21variables significantly predicted respondentslevel of support for tour-ism in Central Florida. Residents who supported it were found to havethe following perceptions and personal characteristics (Milman andPizam 1988:201)they believed that the industry was improving the


16/23


Table 3. Multiple Regression of Level of Support for Tourism in Urgup

Standardized Zero Order VarianceIndependent F Cumulative Tolerance

Regression Correlation Inflation

Variable pa

RSquare ValueCoefficient Coef ficient Factor

Impact of tourism .57 108.75 .54 .32 1.00 1.00on image of .0000UrgupSuggestion of job .21 65.85 .30 .37 1.03 .96in tourism .0000Employment of .15 48.00 .06 .39 1.06 .94members of .0000family in the

tourismFactor 4 .14 38.73 .20 .41 1.02 .97.0000

Level of .12 32.65 .06 .42 1.01 .98education .0000

a p.0001. N=228. Rsquare =.42.

image of their community; they would suggest a tourism job to a friend;they did not believe that the industry had negative impacts on legalfactors; they were employed in it themselves; they assumed that it wasimproving the areas economy; and they believed that tourists weresimilar to locals.

In the case of Nadi, results of the multiple regression revealed thatnine out of the 23 independent variables predicted 69% of the variancein respondent attitudes towards tourism. Nadis residents whose overallopinion was positive were found to have a number of personal charac-

teristics and perceptionsthey believed that tourism had a negativeimpact on morality; that it created negative impacts on work attitudes;that local residents were willing to take jobs in this industry; that itimproved the image of their community; that tourists were differentfrom themselves; that the industry negatively impacted their quality oflife; that they had more children under the age of 18 living in theirhouseholds; that tourism was having a negative impact on legal/environmental factors; and that they did not have family membersemployed in it (King, Pizam and Milman 1993:661662).

In the case of Urgup, the multiple regression results suggest that

around 55% of variation in the dependent variables were notexplained by the independent variables. The corresponding figureswere between 50% and 67% for Central Florida, and 31% for Nadi(King, Pizam and Milman 1993). However, what constitutes an accept-able value forR2 is a difficult question to answer and what is acceptabledepends on the scientificfield from which the data are taken (Hair etal 1995).


17/23

247CEVAT TOSUN

In both multiple regression equations, .32 out of .45 and .32 out ofa 0.42 total variance explained by the variable impact of tourism onthe image of Urgup, and .05 out of .45 and .42 total varianceexplained by the variable suggestion of job in the tourism industry.

Standard regression coefficients of these two independent variableswere also the highest ones in the equations. This may suggest thatthose in the equations have not contributed much to the predictionof the level of support for tourism, although theirpvalues were smallerthan .05. In other words, as illustrated in Table 3, the variables impactof tourism on the image of Urgupandsuggestion of job in the tour-ism industry appear to be the most important independent variablessince their standardized regression coefficients are the highest ones(.49 and .26, respectively) among the independent variables. In theKing, Pizam and Milman study, the highest beta weight (.57) belonged

to the independent variable tourisms impact on moralitywhich wasfollowed by the variable difference between tourists and residents(.34) and respondents who had children under 18 at home (.34).In the Milman and Pizam study, the highest beta weight of the multipleregression equation belonged to the impact of tourism on the imageof community(.36), which was followed by the legal factor (.24). Thatis to say, this research confirms, to some extent, Milman and Pizams(1988) results as the multiple regression equations in both studies sug-gest that the most important independent variable is the impact oftourism on community image. The main suggestion of the multipleregression equation in this study may be that these significant inde-pendent variables, which explained the dependent variable to someextent, should be taken into account in order to increase the level ofsupport for tourism in Urgup.

CONCLUSION

Several conclusions can be derived from the research results in

relative and absolute terms and overall discussion in this study. First,in general the comparative figures regarding level of support fortourism suggests that although there is strong support for it amongresidents in Nadi and Central Florida, residents of Urgup have notdeveloped strong support for the local industry. In the three cases,the residents were not opposed to tourism at its current level. Inbrief, residents of Urgup were found to be less supportive of it andhad less positive perceptions of its impacts in relative terms whencompared to those in Nadi and Central Florida. Results in the caseof Urgup may be explained by the distribution of tourism benefits

among the members of the host community and policies of Turkeyspolitical economy. For example, with special reference to Urgup, itis claimed that the governments generous incentives for tourism andbiased economic development policies, which accelerated the phaseof mass development, planted unsustainable roots. The governmentsupported large scale investments through monetary and fiscalincentives, but


18/23


the local people do not have enough capital to establish properhotels and shops to serve tourists. The capital must come from non-local sources. Thus, it is very difficult for the local people to play aleading role as entrepreneurs in tourism qualified employees have

been brought from outside Urgup to work for the hotels since thereare not qualified local people to work in certain positions in hotels.Not surprisingly, local people are employed for these jobs, which donot require any skills and qualifications (Tosun 1998b:601).

The above discussion may reveal that socioeconomic alienation of localpeople from the tourism development process may have caused thehost community to develop less than positive attitudes toward theindustry in Urgup. Although strong support for tourism among Nadisresidents may be attributed to the employment of a vast majority ofthe respondents, what made the residents develop strong support in

Central Florida may not be explained without knowing much aboutprocesses and policies of tourism development and other relevant site-specific conditions.

Second, although the residents of Urgup and Nadi regarded inter-national tourists as being very different from themselves, and theresidents of Central Florida viewed them as in some ways differentand in other ways similar, the residents of the three host communi-ties expressed no negative feelings towards them. However, theseseparate residents were able to point out some specific negativeimpacts that they supposed the industry had on their community. Inthe case of Urgup, these negative impacts were mutual confidenceamong people and their honesty, individual and organized crime,morality, drug addiction, alcoholism, and openness to sexualbehavior. The perceived negative impacts tend to be mostly relatedto social and legal factors. The perceived positive impacts wereemployment opportunities and the towns overall revenue earnings.It should be noted that job opportunities in the other sectors of thelocal economy appear to be very limited. For example, viniculture,stockbreeding, and potato planting are major areas for employment;

however, the government has stopped giving incentives tostockbreeding and agriculture in general. This encouraged somelocal people to sell their land to hoteliers and other investors in theindustry. Consequently, it emerged as the most important employ-ment generator under the current socioeconomic conditions. Localpeople appeared to welcome any job opportunities to earn sufficientincome in order to satisfy their basic needs. In this regard, the exist-ence of a limited number of job opportunities in other sectors ofthe local economy may have contributed to a positive perception oftourism regarding improvement of employment opportunities.

This may suggest that local and central government with collabor-ation of nongovernmental organizations may have taken social andlegal measures to turn these negative perceptions of the host com-munity into more favorable attitudes. However, as Tosun (1998b)argued, rapid growth, patronclient relationship and governmentsbiased policies have planted the roots of unsustainable tourism devel-opment. This may support the adage that cities are conceived as growth


19/23

249CEVAT TOSUN

machines designed to maximize the interests of a small, powerful eliteand that the purpose of local government is to assist in achievinggreater growth than competing cities (Madrigal 1993). Using tourismas a tool for this growth machine has led its development to benefit

only a small portion of local residents and has negatively affected plan-ning decisions. Naturally, under such conditions tourism developmentmay adversely affect host communities welfare and cost residentsmoney since it may take place at the expense of other, more profitabledevelopment alternatives that provide better sources of income andopportunities to local people. Based upon this discussion, it may befurther argued that the emergence of residents negative perceptionstoward tourism impacts may have been accelerated by the politicaleconomic policies of central and local governments and the ignoranceof social and legal measures that should have been taken to minimize

negative and maximize positive impacts of tourism development.Clearly, these issues require further investigation for more detailed dis-cussion.

Third, this study has found that residents of Urgup tend to havenegative perceptions of tourism jobs in absolute and relative terms.The most preferred job category in the cases of Urgup and CentralFlorida was schoolteacher, while the most notable was hotel worker inNadi. However, the least preferred job category was hotel receptionistin Urgup and factory foreman in Central Florida and Nadi. A previousstudy with special references to Urgup also reported thatyouth in thetown of Urgup did not recognize tourism as a potential career choiceand a job in tourism did not have much respect in the eyes of thelocal people (Tosun 1998a:221). There may be wider socioeconomicand cultural reasons, and sector-specific factors behind this low levelof respect towards a tourism occupation. For example, it may beargued that given the lack of services of a welfare state such as child-benefits, unemployment benefits, and national health insurance,fathers or husbands are completely responsible for meeting the basicneeds of members of their families in many developing countries with

traditional societies. Thus, a seasonal job with a relatively low wage isnot attractive enough for people who are in charge of meeting theirfamilies needs in the developing world. In this regard, it is reportedthat hotels employ some of the local people for only three to fivemonths during the high season, and then lay them off. Thus, localshave not wanted to work in tourism and have not viewed these jobs asreliable (Tosun 1998b). On the other hand, intense emotional debatehas emerged about the nature of jobs in this industry. It is argued thatwhile it may create employment, the jobs it produces are of an inferiornature especially in developing countries. Development does not

come from a nation of waiters, bell hops and chambermaids, and farless from prostitutes and pimps. Although such assertions clearly gobeyond economic criteria, they are at the heart of many criticisms oftourism development (Harrison 1992:18).

In brief, the nature of jobs in this industry such as seasonality, lowproductivity at correspondingly low wages and heavy working con-ditions, and their poor image in the presence of Urgups problematic


20/23


socioeconomic structure may have helped the host communitiesdevelop negative perceptions of tourism jobs. Whatever the reasonsare, this may be viewed as an emergence of a backlash against theindustrywhich may take several forms such as reduced support for

the politicians and advocates, a decreased willingness to work in tour-ism, and less welcoming attitudes toward tourists, among other demon-strations of these views.

Fourth, this study suggests that resident perceptions of impacts oftourism were not subjective, inconsistent, and affected by some fac-tors more than others, for this study has shown that the support canbe related to a belief that it induces negative as well as positiveimpacts. Comparison of the three cases revealed that three differenthost communitiesperceptions of tourism impacts were not identicalor very similar. This suggests that tourism impacts are not universal.

Naturally, host communities that have that differ in developmentexperiences, developmental level, carrying capacity, and sociocultu-ral, political, and economic problems, should have different percep-tions of tourism.

Fifth, in many developing countries, including Turkey, tourismpolicymakers still tend to hide the negative impacts of tourismfrom host communities and attempt to develop the industry at allcosts to solve chronic macro-economic problems and maximizeinterests for a small number of local people. That is to say,although many scholars have mentioned the undesirable sociocul-tural impacts of tourism, public authorities seem to be unaware ofthese facts or simply ignore them for the sake of increasing badlyneeded foreign currency earnings for the industrialization pro-gram. Ozkan (1992 cited in Tosun 1996) reported that one of themain persons responsible at the Ministry of Tourism stated thatthe industry has positive impacts on Turkish society, which is tra-ditionally known to be tolerant and hospitablehence they canhandle the situation fairly well.

This unrealistic or biased approach to policy stems from the belief

that, if the negative impacts were known, residents would not supportthe industry. But previous studies have shown that even its best fri-ends are aware of its negative impacts. Thus, it would be logical fordecision-makers and private sector representatives to accept thattourism can bring about both negative and positive impacts on hostcommunities. In the light of this admission, they should collaboratewith each other and local communities to establish participatorydevelopment measures to minimize negative and maximize positiveimpacts. In other words, deliberate measures must be carefully intro-duced to enable indigenous people to take advantage of the opport-

unities brought by tourism if the objectives are to achieve sustainabledevelopment. Without such admission and implementation of neces-sary measures, the industry might lose host communitiessupport ina gradual manner, that may in turn threaten the sustainability ofdevelopment in future.

Finally, based upon the results of this study, the authors personalobservations, and overall results of impact studies, host perceptions of


21/23

251CEVAT TOSUN

tourism impacts are shaped by various site-specific conditions underwhich tourists and hosts interact. In this context, residentsperceptionsof impacts appear to be affected by a welfare gap between hosts andguests; the distribution of the benefits of tourism among locals and

between locals and non-locals; sociocultural similarities or differencesbetween residents and tourists; type, phase, and scale of development;level of local community participation in the process of development;and leisure policies of local and central governments. For a betterunderstanding of host perceptions of impacts, more comparative cross-national studies and analyses are recommended. Then, the results ofthese studies may provide a better set of policy recommendations formore sustainable tourism development.

AcknowledgementsThe author gratefully acknowledges Mustafa Kemal University for pro-

viding funding and support for this study; Bilkent University for funding the presen-tation of an earlier version of this paper in the Western Social Science Associations42nd Annual Conference, San Diego, USA. The author also thanks Professor AbrahamPizam at the University of Central Florida for permitting the use of his survey instrumentfor this study.

REFERENCES

Butler, R. W.1980 The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Man-

agement of Resources. Canadian Geographer 24(1):512.

Cohen, E.1988 Tourism and Aids in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research 15:467486.

Dann, G., D. Nash, and P. L. Pearce1988 Methodology in Tourism Research. Annals of Tourism Research 15:128.

Davis, D., J. Allen, and R. M. Cosenza1988 Segmenting Local Residents by Their Attitudes, Interests, and Opinions

Toward Tourism. Journal of Travel Research 27(2):28.Dogan, H. Z.

1989 Forms of Adjustment, Sociocultural Impacts of Tourism. Annals of Tour-ism Research 16:216236.

Dowling, R. K.1993 Tourism Planning, People and the Environment in Western Australia.

Journal of Travel Research 3(4):5258.Doxey, G. V.

1975 A Causation Theory of VisitorResident Irritants, Methodology andResearch Inferences. The Impact of Tourism. Sixth annual conference pro-ceedings of the Travel Research Association, San Diego, pp. 195198.

Hair, J. F. Jr., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black1995 Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Harrison, D.1992 International Tourism and the Less Developed Countries: The Back-

ground. InInternational Tourism and the Less Developed Countries, D. Har-rison, ed., pp. 119. London: Belhaven.

Husbands, W.

1989 Social Status and Perception of Tourism in Zambia. Annals of TourismResearch 16:237253.

Johnson, J. D., D. J. Snepenger, and S. Akis1994 Residents Perception of Tourism Development. Annals of Tourism

Research 21:629642.King, B., A. Pizam, and A. Milman

1993 Social Impacts of Tourism: Host Perceptions. Annals of TourismResearch 20:650665.


22/23


Kousis, M.1989 Tourism and the Family in a Rural Cretan Community. Annals of Tour-

ism Research 16:318332.Lankford, S. V., and D. R. Howard

1994 Developing a Tourism Impact Attitude Scale. Annals of Tourism

Research 21:121139.Madrigal, R.1993 A Tale of Tourism in Two Cities. Annals of Tourism Research 20:336

353.Mansfeld, Y.

1992 Group-Differentiated Perceptions of Social Impacts Related to TourismDevelopment. Professional Geographer 44:377392.

McCool, S. F., and S. R. Martin1994 Community Attachment and Attitudes Toward Tourism Development.

Journal of Travel Research 32(3):2934.Milman, A., and A. Pizam

1988 Social Impacts of Tourism on Central Florida. Annals of Tourism

Research 15:191204.Ministry of Tourism1986 Cappadocia Touristic Development Areas. Ankara: Ministry of Tourism.

Morrison, P., and P. Selman1991 Tourism and the Environment: A Case Study from Turkey. Environmen-

talist 11(2):113129.Nicholls, L. L.

1976 Crime Detection and Law Stabilization in Tourist-recreation Regions.Journal of Travel Research 15(1):1820.

Pearce, P. L., G. Moscardo, and G. F. Ross1996 Tourism Community Relationships. Oxford: Elsevier.

Pizam, A.

1978 Tourism Impacts: The Social Costs to the Destination Community as Per-ceived by its Residents. Journal of Travel Research 16(3):812.Pizam, A., and J. Pokela

1985 The Perceived Impact of Casino Gambling on a Community. Annals ofTourism Research 12:147165.

Reising, Y.1994 Social Contact between Tourists and Hosts of Different Cultural Back-

grounds. In Tourism the State of the Art, A. V. Seaton, ed., pp. 743753.Chichester: Wiley.

Rothman, R. A.1978 Residents and Transients: Community Reactions to Seasonal Visitors.

Journal of Travel Research 16(1):813.

Sheldon, P. J., and T. Var1984 Residents Attitudes to Tourism in North Wales. Tourism Management5:4047.

Smith, V.1978 Eskimo Tourism: Micro Models and Marginal Men.InHost and Guests,

V. Smith, ed., pp. 5170. Oxford: Blackwell.Tosun, C.

1996 Approaches to Tourism Development Planning at Sub-National Level: ACase Study of Cappadocia in Turkey. MPhil dissertation in Tourism Manage-ment, Strathclyde University.

1998a Community Participation in the Tourism Development Process at theLocal Level: The Case of Urgup in Turkey. PhD dissertation in Tourism Devel-

opment, Strathclyde University.1998b Roots of Unsustainable Tourism Development at the Local Level: TheCase of Urgup in Turkey. Tourism Management 19:595610.

Ulku, A.1996 Urgupun Demografik Yapisi: Urgup Kaymakamligi Ozel Raporu

(Demographic Features of Urgup). Turkey: Urgup Kaymakamligi.Van Doorn, J. W. M.

1989 A Critical Assessment of Socio-Cultural Impact Studies of Tourism in the


23/23

253CEVAT TOSUN

Third World. In Towards Appropriate Tourism: The Case of DevelopingCountries, T. V. Singh, L. Theuns and F. Go, eds., pp. 7191. Frankfurt amMain: Lang.

Varley, R.1978 Tourism in Fiji: Some Economic and Social Problems. Cardiff: University

of Wales Press.

Submitted 14 January 2000. Resubmitted 5 July 2000. Resubmitted 10 December 2000.Accepted 20 December 2000. Final version 30 April 2001. Refereed anonymously. Coordinat-ing Editor: Honggen Xiao

Host Perceptions of Impacts

Documents

Transcript of Host Perceptions of Impacts