You are on page 1of 10

Tourism Management 22 (2001) 363} 372

Validating a tourism development theory with structural equation modeling
Yooshik Yoon , Dogan Gursoy , Joseph S. Chen *
Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 362 Wallace Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0429, USA Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 351 Wallace Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0429, USA Received 9 May 1999; accepted 13 June 2000

Abstract This study attempts to examine the structural e!ects of four tourism-impact factors on total impact and on local residents' support for tourism development. To achieve the above goal, "ve research hypotheses are proposed. Three hundred and four questionnaires from a mail survey of randomly selected residents from the Norfolk/Virginia Beach/Newport News area were analyzed. A con"rmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling procedure were performed, respectively, by utilizing the LISREL procedure. Four exogenous constructs dealing with economic, social, cultural, and the environmental impacts and two endogenous constructs, including the variable of total impacts and support for tourism development were analyzed with structural equation modeling procedures. In the resulting structural equation model, "ve hypotheses are supported. The implications for tourism practitioners and academicians are discussed. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Tourism impacts; Support of tourism; Structural equation model

1. Introduction Understanding local residents' reactions towards tourism development and the factors that may in#uence their reactions is essential in achieving a host community's support for tourism development. Therefore, residents' reactions towards tourism have been studied extensively by tourism researchers (Akis, Peristianis, & Warner, 1996; Ap, 1992; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Chen, 2000; Getz, 1994; Hernandez, Cohen, & Garcia, 1996; Jurowski, Uysal, & Williams, 1997; King, Pizam, & Milman, 1993; Lankford, 1994; Lankford & Howard, 1994; Liu & Var, 1986; Long, Perdue, & Allen, 1990; McCool & Martin, 1994). These resident attitude studies frequently suggest that local residents' support for community tourism business a!ects their perception of tourism impacts including economic (Davis, Allen,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: #1-540-231-9181. E-mail addresses: yoyoon1@vt.edu (Y. Yoon), dgursoy@vt.edu (D. Gursoy), joechen@vt.edu (J.S. Chen).

& Consenza, 1988; Getz, 1986; Perdue, Long, & Allen, 1990), environmental, social, and cultural elements (Fesenmaier, O'Leary, & Uysal, 1996; Gee, Mackens, & Choy, 1989; Gunn, 1988; McIntosh & Goeldner, 1990; Murphy, 1985). Although tourism researchers agree that residents' support is tied to economic, social, cultural, and environmental consequences, the structural e!ects of tourism impacts on local residents' support for tourism business have not been rigorously investigated. This research uses an integrated approach mirrored from disciplines (e.g., marketing and education) other than tourism management to pro"le the structural e!ects of tourism impact on local residents' support for tourism development. The tenet stipulated in this study is that perceived total tourism impact has four impact factors, and each impact factor in#uences the perception of other impact factors and the perceived total impact in varying degrees and di!erent directions. Therefore, each impact factor has varying e!ects on local residents' support for tourism development and these e!ects are mediated by perceived total impact. In order to examine the structural relationship between the perceived total impact of tourism and

0261-5177/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 6 1 - 5 1 7 7 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 6 2 - 5

Past research discloses that residents' support for future tourism is in#uenced by their perceived impacts of tourism. The theoretical proposed model. In the tourism context. therefore. . 3. In summary. 1. Perdue et al. and sustainability of tourism. The theoretical underpinning is social exchange theory. Lindberg & Johnson. therefore. the results of several studies suggest that the host community's perception of the total impact is a!ected by perceived impact of several 2. 3. successful operation. 1994) in their community. cultural. The above causal relationships between residents' support and tourism impacts are referred to as tourism development theory. In the following sections. cultural. Each component of the model is selected based on the literature review. / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 363 } 372 Fig. Several researchers have examined the factors being exchanged by local residents including economic. endorse future tourism development (Getz. Hypothetically. or mistrust will ultimately be conveyed to the tourists..1. 1986) by examining how residents assess the expected cost and bene"ts of tourism (Ap. the local residents' support for tourism development. a hypothetical model is proposed by using data collected from residents of the Norfolk/Virginia Beach/Newport News area in 1998. In this study. 1997. apathy. 1990. 1 displays the hypothetical model. Support for tourism development Because tourism relies heavily upon the goodwill of the local residents. 3. Yoon. total impacts. social. social exchange theory suggests that local residents are likely to participate in exchange (support tourism development) as long as the perceived bene"ts of tourism exceed the perceived costs of tourism. If residents perceive that the positive impacts of tourism development will be greater than the negative impacts. However. several elements of exchange that are found to a!ect the way tourism is perceived and the manner in which residents react to tourism are examined in detail. 1998). they will render support for additional tourism development and. Since tourism has multi-faceted phenomena involving di!erent impact factors and resulting from a complex process of social exchange between tourists and host communities. social.2. and environmental factors are likely to a!ect residents' perceptions of tourism and their willingness to participate in an exchange (support for or opposition to tourism development). the residents' perception of tourism may have both negative and positive aspects. each tourism impact dimension in#uences total tourism impact. they will be willing to participate in an exchange with visitors. For the most part. Anger. The hypothetical model Fig. Therefore. Residents' perceptions of total tourism impact may be in#uenced by the level of tourism development or/and di!erent tourism sites. if they believe that tourism development would have more costs than bene"ts they are likely to oppose tourism development. The general conclusion is that the host community residents are likely to participate in an exchange with tourists if they perceive the exchange is likely to result in a gain. social. and environmental impacts.364 Y. 1992. which a!ects the support for tourism development. However. Yoon et al. 1990. the hypothetical model breaks down the perceived impact of tourism development into four areas: economic. Tourism impact studies Several researchers have investigated the host community's reactions towards tourism development in the context of social exchange theory (Turner. and environmental factors. Perceived total impacts Several researchers have examined the overall perceived impacts of tourism development by local residents. tourists tend to be reluctant to visit places where they feel unwelcome. their support is necessary for the development. which proclaims that residents are likely to participate in an exchange with tourists if they believe that they are likely to gain bene"ts without incurring unacceptable costs. they are inclined to be involved in the exchange and. The success of any tourism development project is threatened to the extent that the development is planned and constructed without the knowledge and support of the local residents. and support for tourism development. it is important to know how residents perceive total impact and the factors that in#uence perceived total impact of tourism development. The model examines the structural relationship among the dimensions of perceived tourism impacts. If residents have a positive perception of tourism. the tourism literature suggests that the economic.

the perceived economic impacts are often assessed. if the residents believe that tourism brings more costs than bene"ts and deteriorates community quality of life. environmental. These hypotheses focus on whether relationships exist between the four dimensions of tourism impacts and the total impact of tourism. Ritchie. & Allen. Study sites and population The Norfolk/Virginia Beach/Newport News area is the research site based on its o!ering of "ne multi-faceted tourism attractions. Norfolk. 1987). Husband. In sum. 1988. Yoon et al. 1986.. and environmental impacts of tourism development negatively (Jurowski et al. 1993). Sheldon & Var. Conversely..3. 1984). H2: There is an indirect relationship between residents' perceived economic impacts and residents' support for tourism development. Hampton. Tourism researchers suggest that host community residents may view tourism as having both positive and negative physical and environmental impacts (Liu & Var. 1996. 1988. and this indirect relationship is mediated by total impacts H5: There is an indirect relationship between residents' perceived environmental impacts and residents' support for tourism development. they are not likely to endorse tourism development. The majority of these economic impact studies have focused on employment opportunities (Belisle & Hoy. Perceived negative physical and environmental impacts of tourism include destruction of natural resources. Murphy. and Williamsburg Cities in Virginia. 1988) and the revenues derived from tourism activities (Davis et al.2. 1987. Speci"cally. Davis et al. Murphy. 1997. and some are inclined to regard tourism as having positive impacts on the local economy. Liu et al.. Long. On the other hand. Mathieson & Wall. Accordingly. the tourism literature suggests that the local residents' perception of tourism is varied. Liu & Var. the "ndings of those studies have contradictory results.. Poquoson. and this indirect relationship is mediated by total impacts H3: There is an indirect relationship between residents' perceived social impacts and residents' support for tourism development. 1990. 1983). the conservation and preservation of natural areas. and beaches. 1980. and social bene"ts and costs (Gee et al. community. 1978. As for the support for tourism development. or/and environment. such as historical and cultural sites. some researchers conclude that host community residents view tourism as providing various social. 3. Perdue. 1985). Newport News. The existing tourism literature also discloses mixed results for host community residents' perception of the physical and environmental impacts of tourism. and this indirect relationship is mediated by total impacts 4. / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 363 } 372 365 costs and bene"t factors on the host community such as economic. 4. Gunn. Virginia Beach. York.Y. 1982). the following hypothesis is proposed: H1: There is a direct relationship between residents' perceived total impacts and support of tourism development. Perceived positive physical and environmental impacts of tourism include preservation of historic and cultural resources.. McIntosh & Goeldner. and deterioration of cultural or historical resources. Dimensions of perceived tourism impacts Economic bene"ts are the most important elements sought by local residents from tourism development (Akis et al. 1987. cultural. pollution. Some scholars have demonstrated that residents tend to perceive the economic impacts of tourism positively and the social. and historic monuments (McCool & Martin. Pizam. 1989. if residents believe that tourism creates more bene"ts than costs for the community. cultural. 1989. Sampling procedure The data for this study were collected by a strati"ed random sampling method based on population size.. tourism creates opportunities for cultural exchange. and this indirect relationship is mediated by total impacts H4: There is an indirect relationship between residents' perceived cultural impacts and residents' support for tourism development. Four hypotheses are proposed according to the above literature review. cultural or environmental impacts. The host community's perception of social and cultural impacts of tourism development has been extensively examined by several tourism researchers. and better roads and public facilities. archaeological sites. Sheldon. With the above review. whenever scholars examine residents' perception of the e!ect of tourism.1. this target population consists of residents who are over 18 years old in the communities of Gloucester. cultural and environmental bene"ts to the community. However. 1988. For example. 1986. A strati"ed random sample was used to re#ect the diverse geographical distribution of the residential area of the . Some residents are apt to view tourism as having both positive and negative impacts. recreation opportunities for visitors and residents. 1994. The study population is the household members of Norfolk/Virginia Beach/Newport News MSA (metropolitan statistical area). they tend to have a favorable view of tourism. & Var. some are likely to perceive tourism as having negative social. theme parks. Liu. Research design 4. Prentice.

These impact items mirrored the works by Liu et al. Supporting service development (e. one of the dependent Perceived tourism impacts A. Total tourism impact. Tourism has encouraged a variety of cultural activities by the local residents 2. 1997).) 4. An expert panel consisting of three tourism professors reviewed and revised the questionnaire. Meeting tourists from other regions is a valuable experience to better understand their culture and society 4. etc. Event/outdoor programs (e. etc. Total impacts 1. exhibition. palace. etc.366 Y. Tourism has resulted in unpleasantly overcrowded beaches. hotel. The prices of goods and services have increased because of tourism 6.g. Nature-based development (e.recreation facilities. Our standard of living has increased considerably because of tourism 5.. Cultural impacts 1.. (1986) and Akis et al.4. High-spending tourists have negatively a!ected our way of life 2.g. etc.) 2. Tourism has resulted in more cultural exchange between tourists and residents 3. park. resort complex. historic site. Tourism has led to more spending in your community 4. Survey instrument A self-instructed questionnaire was developed for the purpose of this study.. entertainment. Economic impacts 1. etc. folk village. travel agency. Environmental impacts 1. Do you agree or disagree that the bene"ts of tourism are greater than the costs to the people in your community? Supports for tourism developments 1. parks and other outdoor places in your community 4.. A "ve-point Likert scale was used measure with the word `strongly opposea at the low end of the scale and the word `strongly supporta at the high end. Cultural or historic-based attractions (e. How do you perceive the overall impacts of tourism development in your community? 2. climbing.) 5. A "ve-point Likert scale was used measure with the word `very negativea at the low end of the scale and the word `very positivea at the high end.g. Attractions designed for large number of tourists (e. noise and pollution 2. Construction of hotels and other tourist facilities have destroyed the natural environment 3.3. Tourism has created more jobs for your community 2. 4. ..g. performance. The questionnaire was then pilot tested with a series of on-site interviews (n"30).) 3. The costs of developing public tourist facilities are too much B. (1996). Tourism revenues are more important than revenues from the other industries for local government 8. then the sample size for each city/town was determined by the proportional population of each city/town over the total population of the research area. Tourism has led to more vandalism in your community 6. camping area. souvenir center. these areas were divided into eight district regions. Local residents have su!ered from living in a tourism destination area 4. Disney World. A "ve-point Likert scale was used as the response format for these 24 impact items with assigned values ranging from 1"strongly disagree to 5"strongly agree. Tourism has increased the crime rate C. sport event.theme park. A Cronbach Table 1 Statements of tourism development impacts reliability test was performed to further stabilize the questionnaire. Yoon et al. Tourism has resulted in positive impacts on the cultural identity of our community D. Research variables As shown in Table 1. Social impacts 1. Tourism has resulted in tra$c congestion. Improving public tourist facilities is a waste of tax-payer money 5. 4. restaurant. Tourism provides more parks and other recreational areas for local residents E. Tourism has attracted more investment to your community 3. the perceived impacts of tourism by local residents were measured by 24 impact items embodying both the bene"ts and costs of tourism. museum.) A "ve-point Likert scale was used measure with the word `strongly disagreea at the low end of the scale and the word `strongly agreea at the high end. / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 363 } 372 community (Zikmund. First. Tourism has changed our precious traditional culture 3. Tourism has given economic bene"ts to local people and small businesses 7. ski. business/public event.g. hiking trails.

1993). resort complex.76) exceeds the recommended level of 0.99. Finally. a con"rmatory analysis of the measurement model specifying the posited relations of the observed variables to the underlying constructs. hotel. the ultimate dependent variable. each of the constructs is evaluated separately by examining the completely standardized loading. 1995).047. All reported results were based on completely standardized solution. ski.89.83. The revised model explains 63 per cent of the variance in total impacts. The t-value associated with each of the completely standardized loading exceeds the critical value (2.58) at p(0.94. . sport event.88.g. Measurement model First. a total of 11 indicators for exogenous variables and two indicators for the last endogenous variable (support for tourism development) were deleted. and RFI"0. 0.82. and missing observations were managed by a listwise procedure. Results Out of 2400 questionnaires mailed. As shown in Table 4.96. the revised model's chi-square value is not signi"cant at 0. Yoon et al. incremental "t index (IFI)"0.01 signi"cance level and the construct reliability of all six constructs (0. 0.83. 5.g. IFI "0. yielding a 13. 5"very positive) (Table 1). historic cities). which was not hypothesized. Zero-order Pearson correlations were calculated. 1993). 5. root-mean-square residual (RMSR)"0. (2) attraction designed for large numbers of tourists (e. goodness-of-"t index (GFI)" 0..039.71.99.05 signi"cance level ( (89)"105. Accordingly. However.99. and variance extracted as shown in Table 2. 321 questionnaires were returned. adjusted goodness-of-"t (AGFI)"0. The resulting measurement model (Table 2) with six constructs and 16 indicators was derived by the con"rmatory factor analysis (CFA). 5.1. each.87. museum. and 0. is measured by "ve indicators adapted from Jurowski (1994): (1) nature-based tourism development (e. comparative "t index (CFI)"0. Structural equation model The review of the initial theoretical structural model reveals that the t-value of all completely standardized coe$cients are statistically signi"cant.96.94. and thus should be deleted from the further analysis (Joreskog. and three items for support of tourism development were identi"ed. Support for tourism development. Since the item having a coe$cient below 0. as shown in Table 2. see Anderson & Gerbing. with 43 per cent of the variance in support for tourism development.73. exhibition).11) and all other "t indices indicate that the revised model is acceptable: GFI"0. recreational facilities.021. see Hu & Bentler.94.. the overall measurement model exhibits a good level of "t on all three types of model "ts:  (92)"104. the construct reliability. The properties of the six research variables (four exogenous and two endogenous) in the proposed model were tested with a LISREL procedure (Joreskog & Sorbom. an incremental "t index measures the proportionate in "t by comparing a target model with a more restricted. An absolute "t index directly assesses how well a priori model reproduces the sample data. with all constructs allowed to be inter-correlated freely. The "t of the indicators to the construct and construct reliability and validity were tested. nested baseline model (for a more detailed discussion of "t indices. souvenir center) (Table 1). the new path is added to the revised model. PNFI"0. theme park. construct in the model was analyzed separately.g.99. and the maximum likelihood (ML) method of estimation (for recommendations for ML. 1983) and the twostage testing process recommended by Sethi and King (1994) and Anderson and Gerbing (1988) were also adopted. Correlation matrices and standard deviations were utilized to conduct structural equation modeling tests. nonnormed "t index (NNFI)"0.99. palace. performance. temple.3 is unacceptable. climbing). distribution of all measured variables was investigated by the review of the skewness and kurtosis of data.99. contained two indicators: (1) the bene"ts of tourism are greater than the costs (1"strongly disagree.73. (2) overall impact of tourism impact (1"very negative.g. was tested. Three types of overall model "t measures were utilized in this study: absolute "t measures. CFI"0. NNFI"0. rootmean-square error of approximation (RMSEA)"0.Y. After assessing the overall model. (3) cultural/historic-based attraction (e..025. and (5) supporting service development (e. entertainment. incremental "t measures. from the environmental impacts to support for tourism development. 11 indicators of exogenous variables for tourism impacts. and parsimonious "t measures.. travel agency.94. / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 363 } 372 367 variables. On the other hand. relative "t index (RFI)"0. camping area. AGFI "0. RMSR"0. RMSEA"0. Bentler. p"0. Examination of the modi"cation indices reveals a direct path. 5"strongly agree). error variance. Disney World). The addition of a new path improved the model "t. 1988. 0. 0. restaurant. Before testing the overall measurement model. Five questionnaires were excluded due to a large percentage of missing values. parsimonious normed "t index (PNFI)"0. the revised model was estimated with six latent variables.70. Prior to LISREL analyses.. p"0.17. and six paths. park. the chisquare value of the theoretical model is not signi"cant which indicates that the proposed theoretical model might be underidenti"ed and could be improved.g. folk village.2. (4) event/outdoor programs (e.4 per cent response rate. Thus. As Table 3 shows. two items for total impacts.

49 0. 1988).  (3)"0. 2 presents the accepted revised model. / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 363 } 372 Table 2 Overall CFA for the modi"ed measurement model (N"304) Construct and indicators Completely standardized loading Construct and indicator reliability 0.73 0.72 0.65 0. AGFI. adjusted goodness-of-"t.94 0.45 0.53 0. RMSEA.83 0. Therefore.74 0.88 p"0.27 Economic impacts (EX) Creating jobs (E1) Attracting investments (E2) Economic bene"ts for local business (E3) Social impacts (EX) Negative a!ection by tourist's high spending (S1) Changing culture (S2) Residents' su!ering (S3) Cultural impacts (EX) Cultural identity and activity (C1) Cultural exchange (C2) Valuable meeting experiences (C3) Environmental impacts (EX) Congestion.89 Table 3 Goodness-of-"t measures for the modi"ed measurement model (N"304) Absolute "t measures 2 (92) 104.61 0.99 RFI 0.89 0.83 0. goodness-of-"t index. parsimonious normed "t index. There is no signi"cant di!erence at 0.92 0. 0. incremental "t index.76 0.46 0. PNFI.67 0.78 0.96 RMSR 0.73 0. GFI. ED. nonnormed "t index.12 0. root-mean-square residual.64 0. endogenous variable. exogenous variable.82 0.75 Variance extracted and error variance 0.28 0.89 0.83 0. relative "t index. noise.74 0. CFI. Composite reliability of each construct.85 1.01 0.69 0.64 0.65 0. Table 5 indicates that there is a signi"cant di!erence in chi-square value between the theoretical model and the measurement model which has the smallest possible chi-square value for any structural model at 0.81 0.83 0.45 0.75 0.41 0.99).33 0.16 0.73 CFI 0.94 NNFI 0. a post hoc test titled sequential chi-square di!erence tests (SCDTs) were conducted to provide successive "t information (Anderson & Gerbing.38 120 df AGFI 0.368 Y.70 0.52 1. RFI.86 0. pollution. After assessing the revised structural model.99 IFI 0.99 Parsimonious "t measures PNFI 0.31 0.57 0.05 signi"cance level.17 GFI 0. comparative "t index.80 0.60 0. Variance extracted.05. . NNFI.18 0.36 0.021 Incremental "t measures NULL  2237. root-mean-square error of approximation.67 0. Yoon et al.61 0.39 0. Chi-square. the revised model that is a parsimonious model of the measurement model is accepted as the best model and adapted to test the hypotheses for this study.65 0.05 signi"cance level between the measurement model and the revised model (p'0.94 .42 0. This indicates that the theoretical model is ill-"tted compared to the measurement model. Fig.53 0.09 0.60 0. RMSR. IFI.047 RMSEA 0.51 0.66 0. and crowding (EN1) Destroying environment (EN2) Total impacts (ED) Overall impacts Bene"ts and costs Support for development (ED) Large designed attraction Event/outdoor program Supporting service development EX.38 0.

42.92 0.71 0. RFI. / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 363 } 372 Table 4 Goodness-of-"t measures for the structural equation model (N"304) Absolute "t measures  Theoretical model Revised model (90) 128. nonnormed "t index. goodness-of-"t index. revised model Revised model vs. 2.Y.55). theoretical model Theoretical model vs. Results of structural equation model. PNFI.38 AGFI 0. RMSR. root-mean-square error of approximation.18). CFI. 6.048 0. Based on current impact literature.94 NNFI 0.71 CFI 0. t-value"7. Yoon et al. root-mean-square residual.11 GFI 0. incremental "t index.70 p"0. t-value"30. a tourism Fig.95 0. and H5 (completely standardized b"!0.05 signi"cance level. H2 (completely standardized b"0. Results of hypotheses testing All of the proposed hypotheses are supported at 0. H3 (completely standardized b"!0.72).92 0. IFI. AGFI.99 P Measurement model vs.98 0. Discussion and implications 5.22. NNFI. Chi-square. The new proposed path from the environmental impacts to support tourism development is also found to be signi"cant at 0. parsimonious normed "t index.025 Incremental "t measures NULL  (120) 2237. GFI. comparative "t index.05 signi"cance level (completely standardized b"!0. relative "t index Table 5 Sequential Chi-square testing of model comparison Comparison model d.99 RFI 0.82 22.38 (120) 2237.38.038 0. adjusted goodness-of-"t.87 p"0.20. . t-value "!3. RMSEA.3. t-value"!4.01). The completely standardized coe$cient and t-value of each hypothesis are as follows: H1 The objective of this research is to model the local residents' support for future tourism development according to critical factors that are proven to in#uence the host community's reaction towards tourism development. t-value"5.f.94 369 .83 0.98 0.25).05 (0.0047 (89) 105.15).96 SRMR 0.50.05 '0. measurement model '0.039 RMSEA 0.05 (completely standardized b"0. t-value"!3.99 IFI 0.99 Parsimonious "t measures PNFI 0.28. di!erence 2 1 3  di!erence 23. H4 (completely standardized b"0.98 0.

This new signi"cant structural path indicates that local residents placed more importance on the environmental impacts of tourism and perceived tourism as having more negative impact on the environment. Even though residents perceived that tourism development created negative environmental and social impacts. the structural path from total impact to support for tourism development is positive and signi"cant at 0. noise. This new structural path is found to be signi"cant at 0. Destinations attempting to win a community support's for tourism development might "nd the information provided by this research useful. the signi"cant structural path from environmental impacts to support for tourism development suggests that the environmental impacts were negatively associated with support for tourism development. while the social and environmental impacts negatively a!ected the total tourism impacts. The "ndings reveal that local residents perceived tourism as a development that provides cultural identity and activity. local residents were likely to support additional tourism development. the con#ict between tourism planners and developers should be minimal. The above "ndings are consistent with the research "ndings reported by Chen (2000). resort complexes. The "fth hypothesis that an indirect relationship exists between residents' perceived environmental impacts and this indirect relationship is mediated by total impacts is supported.05 signi"cance level (H1).05 signi"cance level. The direct negative e!ect of environmental impact on tourism support indicates that local residents are highly concerned with the negative e!ects of tourism development on the environment. H5 suggests that local residents believed that tourism development created congestion. In addition. Perceived negative impacts of tourism on the environment. / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 363 } 372 support model with six paths was proposed. Once the social and environmental concerns are addressed. social. The application of conservation and preservation programs might help alleviate these concerns. However. cultural exchange. were likely to decrease the level of local residents' support for tourism development. the proposed theoretical model is rejected and the revised model is accepted as the best model. tourism practitioners should ensure that the residents with greater environmental and social concerns are involved in the planning process that assist practitioners to better understand these residents' concerns. Tourism services and businesses should be sensitive to these issues. All of the six hypothesized paths are retained and a new signi"cant path is added into the "nal model. The fourth hypothesis * that there is an indirect relationship between cultural impacts and local residents support for tourism development. It implies that residents believed that tourism created more jobs. attracted more investment in their community. Using data obtained from the Norfolk/Virginia Beach/Newport News area. Thus. promising a sustainable tourism business in the host community. cultural. sporting events. hotels. Therefore. For an e!ective planning strategy. and this indirect relationship is mediated by total impacts * is supported. Promotion of positive economic and cultural bene"ts of tourism may alter the opinion of residents who perceive that they have little to gain economically and culturally from the tourism industry. perceived environmental impact is found to a!ect local residents' support for tourism development. the more support they have for tourism development. the hypothetical model specifying the interrelation among impact constructs was investigated. recreation facilities. . successful operation. This suggests that internal marketing techniques designed to inform residents of the economic and cultural bene"ts they receive from tourism may be helpful in gaining the host community's support that is necessary for the development. Yoon et al. the hypothesized paths were tested with a two-stage structural equation modeling approach. which creates social problems. a direct structural path from environmental impacts to support for tourism development was added to the model. The proposed path from social impact to total impact is also supported (H3). The result of this research shows that community opposition against tourism will be based on perceived negative environmental and social impacts of tourism development. The "ndings of the study con"rm the existence of four tourism-impact constructs pertaining to economic. The results of the analysis suggest that the revised model is better than the proposed theoretical model. After the measurement model was derived. such as theme parks. and valuable meeting experiences with tourists. and the environmental impacts. and sustainability of tourism. Therefore. residents perceived tourism as a development. who found that urban residents were concerned about social and environmental costs due to tourism development. and destruction of the natural environment. and entertainment. This result suggests that regardless of the perceived bene"ts of tourism development. the less environmental impacts residents perceive. Accordingly. crowding. and generated economic bene"ts to local people and businesses. pollution. This research demonstrates that the perception of economic and cultural bene"ts were important determinants of support for tourism. In addition to the indirect e!ect of environmental impacts on the support for tourism development. This positive and signi"cant path indicates that residents' perception of overall impacts of tourism development was positive and residents perceived that the bene"ts of tourism were greater than the costs of the tourism. The economic and cultural impacts are positively associated with the total tourism impacts.370 Y. restaurants. A positive signi"cant relationship is found between residents' perceived economic impacts and total impacts (H2). such as deterioration and destruction of environment.

practices. 481}494. F. (1988). Revising TIAS. Testing structural equation models (pp. C. & Sorbom. L. Models in tourism planing toward integration of theory and practice. (1994). Chen. 247}258. Local residents of highly developed tourism sites were likely to value the negative impacts of tourism more than the positive impacts of tourism because they were the ones who had to live with the problems created by the tourism development such as crowding. Jurowski. & Var. C. Mathieson. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. researchers should further identify and examine other factors that may in#uence host community support for tourism development. Testing structural equation models. Murphy. 14. (1988). Community attachment and attitudes toward tourism development. 610}616. In addition. A. R. R. physical. Liu. S. & Garcia. Journal of Travel Research.. J. (1989). W. 21(3). An investigation of urban residents' loyalty to tourism.. Gee. Evaluating model "t. Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes. 14. (1996). Therefore. Husband.Y. & Goeldner. Annals of Tourism Research. Mackens. (1990).. T. Recommendations for future research One of the purposes of this study is to develop a re"ned model of host community's support for tourism development. Perdue.. Lankford. J. 28(3). & Bentler. & Hoy. Structural equation modeling: Concepts. (Eds. L. (1990).. 237}255. K. Pizam. 294}316). The interplay of elements awecting host community residents attitudes toward tourism: A path analytic approach. VA. P. Psychometrika. (1995). & Milman. Yoon et al. (1987). 17. (1993). Residents' perceptions research on the social impacts of tourism. M. Journal of Travel Research. Long (Eds. (1985). residents might be more concerned about the negative environmental impacts of tourism development. Sheldon. interests and opinions toward tourism... Tourism: Economic. Tourism principles. 420}429. . Jurowski. & Gerbing. D. P. J. J. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.. Hernandez. Residents' perceptions on tourism impacts. Some contributions to e$cient statistics in structural models: Speci"cation and estimation of moment structures. F. Annals of Tourism Research. Newbury Park. 829}831. 21. S. (1994). 24(1). (1993). G. Uysal. / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 363 } 372 371 In addition. Social statue and perception of tourism in Zambia. Tourism planning. Psychological Bulletin. Ap. Long.. 21}32. In R. S. J. 665}690.). CA: Sage Publications. D. C.. D. Perdue. Long. (1994). Blacksburg. and destruction of their environments. 21}35. C. D. Joreskog. 48. Residents' attitudes to tourism development: The case of Cyprus. T. 7. & Williams. J. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. & Consenza.. 13. Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes by community level of tourism. A. (1988). (1994). McCool. noise. Tourism Management. Residents attitudes towards an instant resort enclave. D... Long. In K. R. B. Inc. CA: Sage Publications. Annals of Tourism Research.. (1996). R. Lindberg. Annals of Tourism Research. C. New York: Longman House. such as community involvement. A.. Annals of Tourism Research. 193}214. 7. J. O'Leary. T. 586}599. J. W. 29}34. & Choy. perception of local economy. Perdue. M. (1986). New York: Routledge.. R. J. Davis. P. P. Modeling resident attitudes toward tourism. and social impacts. Hoyle (Ed. & Martin. Segmenting local residents by their attitudes. Bollen. Advances in tourism marketing methodologies. Y. R. S. & Wall. McIntosh. & Warner.). New York: Haworth Press. R. 103. (1983).. Liu. (1982).. J. M. Fesenmaier. Journal of Travel Research. philosophies. Residents' attitudes toward tourism: A longitudinal study in Spey Valley. Perceptions and attitudes of decision-making groups in tourism centers. Getz. Inc. Mooresville. & Allen. Findings of this study indicate that the developed tourism supports model "t was acceptable and the model explained an acceptable percentage of variance in host community support for tourism development. N. (1980). 3}9. J. 17}37.. C. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research. Resident support for tourism development. Muza!er Uysal for initial knowledge and research direction as well as anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.. (1994). 19(4). A. G. 20. Hu. A. Allen. & Var. 16. (1996). 17(7). Belisle. issues and applications (pp. Bentler.. community attachment. & Allen. 493}517. & Howard. 27(2). L. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. T. Annals of Tourism Research.. Integration of these constructs into the model might help researchers and practitioners further grasp the factors that in#uence local residents support for tourism development. Tourism Management. (1986). D. C. NY: Wiley.). Attitudes and perceptions toward tourism and rural regional development. (2000). D. S. 650}655. R.. J. P. Cohen. Annals of Tourism Research. 35}43. 402}424. (1990). 31(3). Joreskog. K. J. Journal of Travel Research. (1997).. 754}779. Thousand Oak. Anderson. Lankford. Ap. D. since the research site possessed a comparatively high level of tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research. New York. Annals of Tourism Research. E. C. Annals of Tourism Research. G. 411}423. V. Murphy. 7. A theoretical analysis of host community resident reactions to tourism. S. Resident perceptions of the environmental impact of tourism.. Tourism: A community approach. & Uysal. 36(2). Peristianis. L. S. & J. (1983). Annals of Tourism Research. The perceived impact of tourism by residents.. Tourism Management. (1997). T.. R. 83}101. 3}11. S. 15(4). Social impacts of tourism: Host perceptions. & Allen. Journal of Travel Research. E.. J. (1989). V.. However. (1992).. R. T. R. more rigorous testing of the model is required with di!erent samples. R. D. IN: Scienti"c Software. and utilization of tourism resources by residents. The travel industry.. Annals of Tourism Research. W. H. A. R. 76}99). congestion. M. References Akis. 8}12. L. tourism planners and policy makers need to ensure that proposed tourism development will create more bene"ts than costs for the community and the environment. Journal of Travel Research. 17(4). & Johnson. Scotland. P.. C. D. Gunn.. P. M. LISREL VIII manual. King. K. (1990). 23(4). Residents attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii. 32(3). (1987). New York: Taylor & Francis. (1993). 2}8. 24(2). Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Dr. Getz. P.

A. (1978). Sethi. Yoon. H. V. & King. Y. (1997). 14. 8}12. W. IL: The Dorsey Press. 40. (1993).372 Y. Blacksburg. G. Zikmund. (1984). P. Orlando. 16(4). (1994). Journal of Travel Research. The structure of sociological theory. R. W. Yoon et al. Determinants of urban residents+ perceived tourism impacts: A study of the Williamsburg and Virginia Beach Areas. / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 363 } 372 Sheldon.). Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Development of measures to assess the extent to which an information technology application provides competitive advantage.. Ritchie. Turner. Consensus policy formulation in tourism. Prentice. Tourism Management. J. Resident attitudes to tourism in North Wales. 1601}1624. Unpublished master theses. 9(3). (1988). Tourism's impacts: The social costs to the destination community as perceived by its residents. 199}216. J. 40}47. Management Science. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. VA. (1998). & Var. Pizam. Tourism Management.. B. FL: The Dryden Press. Community-driven tourism planning and residents' preferences. T. Tourism Management. Chicago. 5. 218}227. Business research method (5th ed. (1986). R. J. .