Factors influence residents’ perceptions and attitude toward tourism Socio-demographic variables

Figure 2.2 Stages in tourist area life cycle Butler (1980, p. 7)

2.3.4.2 Factors influence residents’ perceptions and attitude toward tourism Socio-demographic variables

A significant literature has attempted to identify the factors which could influence residents’

attitudes toward tourism development. It is said that the socio-demographic variables were commonly used to explain why residents’ perceptions to tourism differ, such as age, gender, income, education, length of residency and ethnicity. Early research employed those variables and for example Sheldon and Var (1984) undertook an attitude study in Welsh and found that the lifelong and native Welsh speakers appear to be more sensitive to social-cultural impacts than others. Liu and Var (1986) conducted a similar study in Hawaii and discovered that

“ethnicity” and “length of residency” were the only variables that had any effect on residents’

different attitudes. Later, researchers such as Girard and Gartner (1993), and Brunt and Courtney (1999) found that the longer residents lived in the community, the more negative was the perception of tourism they held and the less they were supportive of further tourism

- 46 -

development. Tomljenovic and Faulkner’s (2000) study of Australia‘s Gold Coast found that older residents were more tolerant of international tourists and less concerned about tourism‘s adverse environmental impacts. Mason and Cheyne (2000) found that gender was a determinant of perceptions of tourism impact. Females were more concerned about negative tourism impacts, such as drunk driving, traffic problems, noise and crime. Despite those findings, some researchers argued that the socio-economic factors only play a relatively small role in explaining the variation in residents’ attitudes toward tourism development (Perdue et al., 1990). Besides socio-demographic variables, researchers also focus on other factors as independent variables when analysing residents’ attitudes.

Economic reliance on the tourism industry

Generally the literature has acknowledged that residents who are highly dependent on tourism industry employment had more positive attitude to tourism; in other words, locals’ support for tourism development is somewhat directly related to the degree which they economically benefit from tourism (Murphy, 1980; Liu & Var, 1986; Lankford, 1994; Pizam, 1978;

Easterling, 2004), while most local residents who do not receive direct economic benefits from tourism are often less willing to support further tourism development (Martin et al, 1998). For instance, Haralambopoulos and Pizam (1996) investigated a tourism destination on the Greek Island of Samos and found that local residents who were economically dependent on tourism had more favourable attitudes towards the tourism industry. Madrigal (1993) also pointed out that the residents who are economically depending on tourism are more likely to recognize the benefits of the industry. On the other hand, Ritchie and Inkari (2006), as well as McDowall and Choi (2010), noted that if a resident perceived an unfair distribution of benefits, it might lead to less support for further tourism development.

Distance of residence from the central tourism zone

With reference to the distance, some studies reveal that the distance residents live from tourism centres could explain to some degree the variation in attitude (Belisle & Hoy, 1980;

Sheldon & Var, 1984; Pearce, 1980, Korça, 1996). Both Ap (1995) and Mansfeld (1992) stated that the stronger negative attitudes were expressed by those residents who lived closer to the tourism core. Thus one common finding is that residents, who live close to attractions, have more negative attitudes towards tourism because of the pressure of increasing numbers

- 47 -

of local infrastructure, traffic congestion, crime and noise (Williams & Lawson ,2001;

Lankford , Williams & Lankford, 1997).

Level of knowledge about tourism

Different levels of knowledge about tourism were also considered main determinant variable explaining differences in attitudes. Davis et al., (1988) in a study undertaken in Florida showed that local residents who had low levels of knowledge about tourism in the local area had the most negative attitudes towards tourism development. Lankford (1994) also stated that residents’ degree of familiarity with tourism and the local economy have an effect on diversity in attitudes being voiced.

Level of contact with tourist

The level of contact with tourist has somewhat influence in local residents’ attitude toward tourism. In the early study, Brougham and Butler (1981) found that the majority of local resident who with frequent contact with tourist perceive tourism to have significant impacts.

Aki, Peristianis and Warner (1996) conducted an attitude study in Cyprus, discovered that there was a significant relationship between a positive attitude towards tourism and tourists and how often the respondents meet tourists.

Resident involvement in tourism decision making

When investigating residents’ attitudes toward tourism development, some authors stress the need to consider the degree of resident involvement in tourism decision making. As early in the late 1980s, Ayers and Potter (1989) pointed out that when local government policy makers become more concerned about residents’ suggestion, residents’ attitudes toward tourism will be more positive. Indeed, as evidenced by Lankford and Howard (1994), and Bachleitner and Zins (1999), if residents were involved with various staged in decision-making, they appeared to be more favourable toward tourism development. Liu (2000, p.29) in a Chinese setting, also stated that “when the local residents realise they can exercise influence; they tend to support tourism development”.

- 48 -

Religious and culture promoted for tourism

Finally it has been suggested that where it is residents’ heritage that is being positively promoted for tourism, then they are more likely to support its development than those whose religious or cultural heritage is ignored (Uriely et al., 2003; Uriely et al., 2003 )