Tourism Management xxx (2015) 1e18

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Progress in Tourism Management

Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism

Muzaffer Uysal a, *, M.Joseph Sirgy b, Eunju Woo c, Hyelin (Lina) Kim d
a
Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA
b
Department of Marketing, Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA
c
Department of Tourism Administration, College of Business Administration, Kangwon National University, Republic of Korea
d
William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89154-6021, United States

h i g h l i g h t s

 Quality of life (qol) and well-being research in tourism.

 A short history of qol and tourism.
 Tourism and qol from the perspective of community residents.
 Tourism and qol from the perspective of community tourists.
 Future research direction and areas.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Given the recent proliferation of the research on quality of life and wellbeing in tourism, we review this
Received 22 February 2015 literature and provide guidance to spur future research. The review focuses on two major constituencies:
Received in revised form residents of host communities and tourists. Specifically, the goals of this paper are (1) describe study
30 June 2015
findings, (2) highlight sampling and data collection methods, and (3) discuss issues of construct mea-
Accepted 24 July 2015
Available online xxx
surement. The vast majority of the studies related to these two constituencies show that tourism ex-
periences and activities have a significant effect on both tourists' overall life satisfaction and wellbeing of
residents. That is, tourists' experiences and tourism activities tend to contribute to positive affect in a
Keywords:
Quality of life
variety of life domains such as family life, social life, leisure life, cultural life, among others. Future
Well-being research is discussed in relation to these two constituencies.
Tourism © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Tourists' quality-of-life
Quality of life of community residents

1. Introduction tourism. There are evident ramifications of these challenges to the

Tourism as an industry has become a major socioeconomic
force in both developing and developed markets. Its potency as a
source of economic development has made it essential to the
strategic planning efforts in nearly every country in the world.
There are few industries that transverse the entire globe bringing
together many cultures. Today, the tourism industry is also faced
with a plethora of challenges such as economic instability, reces-
sion and stagnation, social instability, war/terrorism, information
technology and social media, environmental and sustainability
issues, distribution of tourism benefits, and non-economic value of
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: samil@vt.edu (M. Uysal), sirgy@vt.edu (M.Joseph Sirgy),
eunjuw3@vt.edu (E. Woo), hyelin.kim@unlv.edu (H. Kim).
tourism industry, and we have seen a rich stream of research
examining some aspects of these challenges. One of the research
areas gaining momentum and increased attention is the link be-
tween tourism activities, its consequences, and the quality of life
(QOL) of those involved in the production or consumption of
tourism goods and services.
The link between tourism activities and their consequences
is uniquely imbedded in the fully functioning tourism system.
The nature of tourism research for both practical and theoretical
reasons embody the interplay between such constructs as
sustainability (Weaver, 2012), destination competiveness and
attractiveness (Boley & Perdue 2012; Crouch & Ritchie, 2012), and
quality of life of stakeholders as they are affected by tourism
(Chase, Amsde, & Phillips, 2012; Weiremair & Peters, 2012).
Although both the explicit and implicit assumption of tourism has
been that tourism as an industry provides significant benefits to

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
0261-5177/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Uysal, M., et al., Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism, Tourism Management (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
2 M. Uysal et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2015) 1e18
its stakeholders, there has been sporadic research that closely
examines these assumed benefits and costs (e.g., Chase et al.,
2012; Weiermair & Peters, 2012). This QOL research stream in
tourism is gaining momentum and is likely to receive more
attention in the years to come. For a long time, our scholarly
research activities have attempted to shed light on how to attract
more visitors and how to get more people to stay at our hotels and
dine at our restaurants. In doing so, we have delved much into the
study of consumer behavior to provide tangible answers to the
practitioners. Still, the critical research question that needs to be
fully examined from both demand and supply sides of tourism is
how tourism experiences relate to one's quality of life. To address
this issue, we make an attempt in this paper to develop an inte-
grated theoretical framework to link tourists (who are consumers
of different tourism and hospitality goods and services at a
destination) and the community (with its different providers and
stakeholders serving as a host to tourists). The paper ends with
future research implications.
2. A short history of research on QOL and tourism
QOL research is an emerging field of study in the social,
behavioral, environmental, and policy sciences over the last few
decades. It is considered an offshoot of the social indicators
movement first originated in economics and sociology. The impetus
behind the social indicators movement is based on the premise that
the traditional economic measures of societal development (e.g.,
GNP) cannot be equated with the more important indicators of
development that capture subjective well-being (i.e., need satis-
faction, life satisfaction, perceived QOL, happiness, or life fulfill-
ment) (Sirgy, 2002). With the proliferation of social indicators
research, a social science journal, Social Indicators Research, was
established to fill this niche (now 35 years old and is multidisci-
plinary in its orientation). In the past two decades we have seen
several major journals appearing in the field of quality of life
studies: Journal of Happiness Studies, Applied Research in Quality of
Life, Quality of Life Research, the Journal of Positive Psychology, and
most recently, Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, Health and
QOL Outcomes, Psychology of Well-Being, and the Journal of Happi-
ness & Well-Being. The foundation of the International Society for
Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS; www.isqols.org), the International
Society for Quality-of-Life Research (ISOQOL; www.isoqol.org), and
the International Positive Psychology Association (IPPA; www.
ippanetwork.org) were the propelling force for the introduction
and success of these recent journals. Furthermore, Springer Pub-
lishers has developed an impressive array of book series related to
QOL research. These include Social Indicators Research, Community
Quality-of-Life Indicators, Handbooks of QOL Research, Best Prac-
tices in QOL, and Springer Briefs in QOL and Well-Being Research. In
the area of leisure, recreation, and therapeutic recreation we have
seen a number of studies that have explored some aspects of leisure
life on well-being and life satisfaction (e.g. Driver, Brown, &
Peterson, 1991; Eriksson, Rice, & Goodin, 2007; Ibrahim, 2008;
Kaplan, 1979; Kleiber, 1999; Manning, 2010; Neulinger, 1981;
Wang & Wong, 2014).
It should be noted that scholars working in this area use “QOL”
and “well-being” interchangeably. There are objective and sub-
jective dimensions of QOL or well-being. When scholars make
reference to either QOL or well-being, they tend to allude to some
objective dimension. For example, a community QOL or well-
being is typically captured by objective measures of economic
well-being (e.g., household income), leisure well-being (e.g.,
number of parks and recreational facilities per thousand in-
habitants), environmental well-being (e.g., CO2 emissions), and
health well-being (e.g., average life expectancy). However, when
Please cite this article in press as: Uysal, M., et al., Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism, Tourism Management (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
researchers make specific reference to subjective aspects of QOL
or well-being, they use specific psychological constructs such as
subjective well-being, happiness, life satisfaction, perceived QOL,
domain satisfaction, hedonic well-being, positive and negative
affect, to name a few.
However, the first concerted effort related to QOL in tourism
was the special issue of Journal of Business Research (vol. 44, issue
3, 1999) which was guest edited by Professor Kaye Chon covering
a variety of topics on both tourists- and community-QOL issues.
Since then we have seen a tremendous growth in QOL research
in tourism journals, and some books, dissertations and theses
that also addressed QOL issues in tourism and hospitality
management.
One of the first books that exclusively dealt with wellness and
QOL issues in tourism (hospitality) is the book, Health and Wellness
Tourism, authored by Smith & Puczko  (2009). The same authors
released their second edition in 2014 with an expanded version of
the book titled Health, Tourism and Hospitality: Spas, Wellness and
Medical Travel. The most comprehensive book on QOL and tourism
to date, edited by Uysal, Perdue, and Sirgy, is Handbook of Tourism
and Quality-of-Life Research: Enhancing the Lives of Tourists and
Residents of Host Communities, published by Springer in 2012.
There are some other books that also touch on some aspects of QOL
issues and tourism experiences. Examples include the book by
Budruk & Phillips (2011), Quality of Life Community Indicators for
Parks Recreation and Tourism Management; Bushell & Sheldon
(2009), Wellness and Tourism: Mind, Body, Spirit, Place; Jennings &
Nickerson (2006), Quality Tourism Experiences; Payne, Ainsworth,
& Godbey (2010), Leisure, Health, and Wellness: Making the Con-
nections; Pearce, Filep, & Ross (2010), Tourists, Tourism and the Good
Life; and Prebensen, Chen, and Uysal (2014), Creating Experience
Value in Tourism. The recent appearances of these works signal and
support the notion that QOL research has made significant inroads
in the scholarly tourism literature and is gaining increasing
momentum.
2.1. Setting the stage
If we trace the product concept from the early 1950s to the
service concept in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and the experi-
ence economy in the 1990s, it seems that there is a natural pro-
gression from the experience economy to extraordinary,
meaningful, and co-creation of experiences. How that progression
affects both the conception of tourism and individual well-being
and overall life satisfaction is an important, but relatively under
researched, research question (Uysal, Perdue, & Sirgy, 2012, Uysal,
Sirgy, & Perdue, 2012, Uysal, Woo, & Singal, 2012). Furthermore,
there is an increasing focus on the value of tourism as a tool for
social and economic policy. Perdue, Tyrrell and Uysal (2010) argue
that the value of tourism has transitioned to focus more on non-
economic measures such as QOL and satisfaction, and that there
has recently been an increased focus on abstract forms of value
such as perceived QOL, wellness, sense of well-being, and sus-
tainability. The effectiveness of tourism to facilitate and support
QOL policy imperatives such as poverty reduction in host com-
munities, revitalization of community heritage and culture, pres-
ervation and protection of cultural and natural resources, and
sustainability is an increasingly important research agenda. The
long-term objective is to both provide for quality touristic experi-
ences, avoid excessive exploitation of resources, and promote
preservation for future generations. This implies that QOL research
must focus on the QOL of both current and future generations. It is
clear that we are at the juncture of tourism research that requires
innovation and creation in the way we examine issues, provide
experiences, and develop policy implications.
 M. Uysal et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2015) 1e18
2.2. Major issues and an organizing scheme
As Uysal, Perdue et al. (2012), Uysal, Sirgy et al. (2012), Uysal,
Woo et al. (2012) in their seminal edited work, Handbook of
Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research: Enhancing the Lives of
Tourists and Residents of Host Communities, proposed that within
the fully functioning of tourism system we have two models that
should be considered in examining tourism activities and their
consequences from a systems point of view. This examination of
tourism activities and their consequences from a systems point of
view implies that there is an interaction between demand and
supply sides of tourism. The degree to which visitors and residents
are impacted by tourism activities may also result in different types
of impacts (cultural, physical, economic, and environmental) over
time which in turn could affect the well-being of both tourists and
residents and the quality of the vacation experience and perceived
quality of life in the destination where tourism occurs. Although
several tourism models exist based on supply and demand in-
teractions (e.g., Gunn, 1994; Lieper, 1979; Mill & Morrison, 1985;
Uysal, Harrill, & Woo, 2011), the model in this paper simply refers
to aspects of key stakeholders of tourism, namely, tourists and
residents and how both tourists and residents are impacted by
tourism activities. In a broader sense, residents of a destination may
also include other stakeholders such government entities, DMO's,
and employees and owners of goods and service providers.
The first model focuses on the impact of tourist-related variables
on the well-being of tourists. Specifically, the key focus in this
model is how tourists' experiences contribute to QOLehow a
tourist's QOL can be predicted through tourist characteristics, trip
characteristics, satisfaction with life domains, satisfaction with life
overall, and the consumption life cycle (Uysal, Perdue et al., 2012,
Uysal, Sirgy et al., 2012, Uysal, Woo et al., 2012). Tourism charac-
teristics refer to factors directly affecting tourists. Research in this
area tries to uncover individual differences in the way tourism af-
fects QOL. Trip characteristics are factors directly related to trips
and can affect QOL either direct or indirectly. Both characteristics
interact and help link tourist satisfaction with particular life do-
mains or satisfaction with life in general (Dan, 2012; Kruger, 2012;
Puczko & Smith, 2012). Satisfaction with life domains and life
overall deals with overall well-being in different aspects of an in-
dividual's life. In most research, these factors appear to be the
outcome or dependent variable (Sirgy, 2010). In some cases
moderator effects are included in a model. These moderators are
designed to address conditions under which the overall sense of
well-being in life domains (as well as overall life satisfaction) can be
enhanced. For example, recent research shows that co-creation of
experience and engagement can serve as a mediating variable be-
tween satisfaction with experience and outcome variables such
loyalty, intention to visit or repurchase, and or satisfaction with life
overall (Prebensen, Kim, & Uysal, 2015).
The second model focuses on the impact of tourism-related
variables on the well-being of residents of the host community
and other stakeholders. This model describes how residents see
their living conditions (as a destination attraction) and how these
conditions impact the sense of well-being in various life domains
and life overall (Uysal, Perdue et al., 2012, Uysal, Sirgy et al., 2012,
Uysal, Woo et al., 2012). The nature of existing resources in the
community also impacts residents and their QOL, given the fact that
resources affect economic conditions, infrastructure, and destina-
tion competiveness (Crouch & Ritchie, 2012; Jensen, 2014; Pirnar &
Gunlu, 2012). Community resources and infrastructure are essential
elements in which tourism depends on to survive and prosper. The
first aspect of this research is how to utilize and develop the re-
sources needed for tourism. After resources are developed, research
has to address how to manage them over time. Moderators in
Please cite this article in press as: Uysal, M., et al., Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism, Tourism Management (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
3
community tourism typically involve types of stakeholders.
Different stakeholder groups are affected in different ways by
tourists; therefore, a challenge is to find the right combination of
stakeholder goals and match them with planning and development
of tourism projects (Shani & Pizam, 2012). The model too assumes
that there is a reciprocal interaction between perceived living
conditions and perceived impacts of tourism.
Tourism impact has a much greater focus today on sustainability
than it has in the past. The key concept behind this is intergener-
ational which shifts the view from how we utilize resources today
to one where we are more conservative by using resources carefully
and sustainably. In relation to host community research, this means
that residents' support of tourism should be a primary concern and
the dependent variable of study. Research today though focuses
more on support for tourism, rather than just aspects of planning
and development. The tenets and principles of these two nested
models are well grounded in behavioral, sociological, and devel-
opmental theories.
In the tourism systems model, tourists as consumers, service
providers, and stakeholders are the central parts of the system,
where interaction between supply and demand is reciprocal. This
interaction has an effect on the total vacation experience, as
simultaneous production and consumption of goods and services
take place. These models are helpful in understanding how the
tourism system works, what benefits it has, and how resources are
allocated to develop a successful management plan. The following
section covers the existing research that establishes the link be-
tween tourism and quality of life both from the perspectives of
tourists and residents. These sections are structured to provide the
reader with general study findings, information about sampling
and data collection, as well as information on measurement-related
issues. The final section of the paper ends with concluding com-
ments and future research directions.
3. Tourism and QOL from the perspective of community
residents
Once a community becomes a tourist destination, the lives of
residents in that community are affected by tourisme economic,
sociocultural, and environmental impact (Andereck et al., 2005;
Harrill, 2004; Moscardo, 2009; Nunkoo & Smith, 2013; Sharpley,
2014; Sirakaya, Teye, & Sonmez, 2001; Uysal, Woo et al., 2012).
Therefore, a number of systematic approaches have been proposed
to understand tourism impact on the host community; as a result,
the impact of tourism has been historically the most researched
area of tourism (Ap, 1992; Mason, 2008; Mason & Cheyne, 2000;
Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012; Perdue, Long, & Allen, 1987; Sharpley,
2014). Even though there are several types of tourism impact, the
vast majority of the studies tends to fall into three domains: (1)
economic (2) socio-cultural (3) physical and environmental
(Andereck et al., 2005; Sharpley, 2014; Tosun, 2004; Uysal, Perdue
et al., 2012, Uysal, Sirgy et al., 2012, Uysal, Woo et al., 2012). These
three impact sets of studies have both positive and negative fea-
tures; however, generally, residents recognize the positive eco-
nomic impact of tourism development, but tend to be concerned
with potentially negative social and environmental impact (Perdue,
Long & Allen, 1990; Perdue, Long, & Kang, 1995).
Among tourism impact studies, the development of tourism
impact measurement tools has also received much attention (Chen,
2000). Several studies successfully developed tools to measure
resident attitudes toward tourism and its impact (Ap & Crompton,
1998; Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Delamere, 2001; Lankford & Howard,
1994; Liu, Sheldon, & Var, 1987; Madrigal, 1993; Sirakaya-Turk,
Ingram, & Harrill, 2008).
Residents' attitudes toward tourism development have been
4 M. Uysal et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2015) 1e18
studied extensively (Gursoy et al., 2002). The reason is that per-
ceptions and attitude of residents toward tourism development are
important in planning and policymaking in relation to the suc-
cessful development, marketing, and operation of existing and
future tourism programs (Haywood, 1975; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon,
2011). For tourism to thrive in a particular destination, any
adverse impact has to be identified and measured in an effort to
take corrective action (Ap, 1992). As such, many studies have
investigated links between the tourism impact and attitudes to-
ward tourism development by.
 comparing residents across demographics (e.g., Brougham &
Butler, 1981; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Liu & Var, 1986;
Mason & Cheyne, 2000; McCool & Martin, 1994; Milman &
Pizam, 1988; Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon,
2011; Nunkoo, Smith, & Ramkissoon, 2013; Pizam, 1978);
 investigating the effect of distance from the tourism area of the
community (e.g., Liu & Var, 1986; Sheldon & Var, 1984; Um &
Crompton, 1987);
 studying the effect of the level of economic dependency on
tourism (e.g., Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; King, Pizam, &
Milman, 1993; Liu & Var, 1986; Pizam, 1978; Zhou & Ap, 2009);
 assessing the effects of residents' knowledge about the industry
(e.g., Davis, Allen, & Cosenza, 1988);
 identifying the effects of types and forms of tourism (e.g.,
Murphy, 1985; Ritchie, 1988); and
 gauging the effects of trust, power, and the political economy of
tourism (e.g., Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2012; Nunkoo & Smith,
2013)
However, the tourism does not only affect residents' attitudes
toward tourism development but also their overall QOL (e.g.,Li-
burd, Benckendorff, & Carlsen, 2012; Uysal, Perdue et al., 2012,
Uysal, Sirgy et al., 2012, Uysal, Woo et al., 2012). The reason is
that once a community becomes a destination, the QOL of local
residents is also affected by tourism development. As such, the
QOL of residents in a community is a major concern for commu-
nity leaders (e.g., Aref, 2011; Lipovcan, Brajsa-Zganec, & Poljanec-
Boric, 2014; Manap, Aman & Rahmiati, 2011; Moscardo, 2012;
Uysal, Perdue et al., 2012, Uysal, Sirgy et al., 2012, Uysal, Woo et al.,
2012), and the overall purpose of tourism development becomes a
goal to enhance the quality of residents' lives by addressing the
economic, social, cultural, recreation, and other benefits of
tourism (e.g., Kerstetter & Bricker, 2012; McCool & Martin, 1994;
McIntosh & Goeldner, 1984; Peters & Schuckert, 2014). In that
vein, government planners and community developers have
increasingly taken into account residents' QOL in tourism plan-
ning and development.
Based on the preceding analysis, one can argue that QOL has
become a major topic of discussion in recent years (Andereck &
Nyaupane, 2011; Andereck et al., 2007; Bjork, 2014; Kim, 2002;
Ko & Stewart, 2002; Meng, Li, & Uysal, 2010; Nawijn & Mitas,
2012; Uysal, Perdue et al., 2012, Uysal, Sirgy et al., 2012, Uysal,
Woo et al., 2012). Tables 1 and 2 provide a list of studies investi-
gating the relationship between tourism impact and residents' QOL
before 2001 and from 2001 to present, respectively. The inclusion of
the studies was a function of our review of the extant literature in
tourism-related journals as well as QOL-related journals. It is clear
from this review that almost 72% of the cited studies took place
since 2001, suggesting a certain degree of inertia in this line of
research.
3.1. General findings
The studies reviewed (as shown in Tables 1 and 2) can be
Please cite this article in press as: Uysal, M., et al., Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism, Tourism Management (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
grouped into three categories: (1) identifying the mediators be-
tween the impact of tourism and QOL; (2) comparing different
types of community residents; and (3) investigating residents' QOL
depending upon the level of tourism development over time.
Identifying the Mediators between the Impact of Tourism and QOL:
The majority of studies reviewed in this paper found significant
association between tourism impact and resident's QOL (e.g., Allen,
Hafer, Long & Perdue, 1993; Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Andereck
& Vogt, 2000; Aref, 2011; Chanceller, Yu & Cole, 2011; Gjerald,
2005; Khizindar, 2012; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Manap, Aman &
Rahmiati, 2011; Matarrita-Cascante, 2010; Milman & Pizam, 1988;
Nawijn & Mitas, 2012; Nichols, Stitt & Giacopassi, 2002; Perdue,
Long & Gustke, 1991; Urtasun & Gutierrez, 2006; Vargas-Sanchez,
Plaza-Mejia & Porras-Bueno, 2009; Stokowsky & Park, 2012;
Wheeler & Laing, 2008; Woo, Kim, & Uysal, 2015; Yamada, Heo,
King & Fu, 2009; Yu, Chancellor & Cole, 2011). For instance, Roehl
(1999) examined the relationship between residents' characteris-
tics, perception of the impact of gaming, and perceived quality of
life. The results showed that residents with less education and ur-
ban residents perceived more social costs from legalized gaming.
Perceived social costs were found to be negatively correlated with
QOL, whereas perceived job growth was positively correlated with
QOL. Another study conducted by Yamada et al. (2009) investigated
how cultural tourism influences residents' life satisfaction. They
found that cultural tourism, health, wealth, safety, and community
pride (dimensions of cultural tourism) are positively related to
residents' overall life satisfaction.
Comparing Different Types of Community Residents: Depending
upon the residents' background characteristics (such as occupation,
nationality, and involvement), their perceptions regarding tourism
impact and QOL seem to be different (Andereck et al., 2007;
Jurowski & Brown, 2001; Lankford, 1994; Woo, 2013). Two
studies compared different types of stakeholders' perceptions of
tourism impact and their overall QOL (Lankford, 1994; Woo, 2013).
Lankford (1994) examined the impact of tourism development of
business owners, paid government officials, elected, appointed of-
ficials, and residents. The results showed that community residents
were more negative about tourism impact, or rather more cautious
about the benefits of tourism compared to government employees,
elected/appointed leaders or business owners. Additionally, Woo
(2013) tested the relationship between perceptions of tourism
impact and the QOL of different community stakeholders. The
study found that satisfaction with material and non-material life
domain (community, emotional, and health and safety) positively
affects stakeholders' QOL in that that the more positive perceptions
of tourism impact the greater their satisfaction with the commu-
nity, emotional life, and health and safety. The study also found a
moderation effect of community stakeholder groups, it is suggested
that the influence of community residents' perception of tourism
impact and their life satisfaction is dependent on whether the
residents are affiliated or not affiliated with the tourism sector. The
findings support the notion that those affiliated with the tourism
sector are likely to perceive tourism impact on community eco-
nomic well-being positively, which spills over to their own sense of
material well-being. Furthermore, two studies by Inbakaran &
Jackson (2006) and Sharma & Dyer (2009) found that people
with higher income perceived a significantly higher positive eco-
nomic impact from tourism than people with lower income.
Investigating Residents' QOL Depending upon the Level of Tourism
Development over time. Uysal, Woo et al., (2012) have argued that,
depending upon the level of destination development, residents'
attitudes toward economic, sociocultural, and environmental fac-
tors might change from positive to negative. Moreover, different
levels of tourism development may affect residents' QOL differ-
ently. Some research has been conducted examining this
 Table 1
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
Please cite this article in press as: Uysal, M., et al., Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism, Tourism Management (2015), http://
QOL from resident perspective before 2001.
Author/Date
Allen et al. (1988)
Milman & Pizam (1988)
Perdue, Long &
Gustke (1991)
Allen, Hafer, Long &
Perdue (1993)
Lankford (1994)
Carmichael, Peppard &
Boudreau (1996)
Bachleitner & Zins (1999)
Perdue et al. (1995)
Roehl (1999)
Andereck & Vogt (2000)
Note: This table includes studies that examine residents' Quality of Life (QoL). Thus, it is not intended to be exhaustive in its coverage.
Purpose
To investigate whether residents'
perceptions of community life
satisfaction vary depending on the
levels of tourism development.
To understand residents' attitudes
toward tourism development.
To examine the relationship between
tourism development and several
objective indicators of QOL.
To investigate residents' attitudes
toward recreation and tourism
development.
To compare attitudes toward tourism
development and planning at the local
and regional level among the key actors
(residents, government employees,
decision makers, and local business
owners)
To investigate resident perceptions of
the effects of casino and related
development on themselves, their
towns and the region and to examine
changing local resident attitudes.
To see differences in tourism demand
toward cultural benefits between
urban, multifunctional, and rural region
for two years.
To analyze the impact of gaming
tourism on resident quality of life in
host communities.
To test the relationship between
resident characteristics, perception of
the impact of gaming, and perceived
quality of life.
To explore the relationship between
resident attitudes toward tourism and
support for specific tourism
development options.
Sample/Data collection
721 respondents living in 20 rural
Colorado communities that varied with
respect to the amount of tourism
development are asked to complete the
survey.
203 residents living in Central Florida
answer the telephone survey.
The North Carolina Center for Rural
Economic Development data is used
and 100 counties are the units of
analysis.
642 residents from 10 rural Colorado
towns participate in the survey.
1436 residents of the Columbia River
Gorge region of Oregon and
Washington complete the mail survey.
Survey data for three years (1992, 1993,
and 1995) are used to look at how
perceptions of the casino's impact have
changed.
1758 residents living in urban
multifunctional and rural regions
participate in the survey for 2 years
(1994 and 1995).
776 adult resident surveys are
conducted in five different
communities: one nongaming
community, three early stage gaming
communities, and one late-stage
gaming community.
151 Nevada residents participate in the
mail survey.
1249 residents living in 7 communities
(GlobeeMiami, Williams, Hualapai
Indian reservation, Douglas, Peoria,
Parker, or Holbrook) participate in the
survey.
QOL measurement used
Community life scales which groups 33
community life indicators into seven
community life dimensions are
developed based on previous research
and used for study.
One question is asked to measure
overall quality of life.
Several objective indicators of QOL are
used namely, population, economic,
education, health, welfare, and crime.
8 recreation attitude and 18 tourism
development attitude scales are used.
9 items are developed based on scale
development procedure and used to
measure personal and community
benefits.
To measure QOL, four subjective
questions regarding crime, traffic, less-
desirable, and historic are used.
Based on the previous research the
standardized tourism impacts and
attitudes scale (TIAS) are used as
measurement instrument.
4 subjective indicators are developed
based on the previous literature and
focus group interviews to measure QOL.
Subjective indicator is used to measure
quality of life.
10 subjective indicators are used to
measure quality of life.
Notes on results
Tourism development does benefit the
host communities, but community life
is perceived to decline as the tourism
development continued.
Most residents consider that tourism
development improve employment
opportunities, income, and standard of
living, overall tax revenue, and quality
of life.
Economic benefits of tourism
development, per capita income, per
student education expenditures and the
quality of available health care facilities
all increase with increasing levels of
tourism development.
Residents are significantly more
positive toward the effects of recreation
M. Uysal et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2015) 1e18
on their quality of life than the effects of
tourism development on quality of life.
Resident groups differ significantly
from the other three groups regarding
the quality of life issues such as noise,
crime, litter, and environmental
impacts.
Residents perceive significantly
reduced QOL in their towns for three
years.
A high degree of regional identification
with the space, history, and cultural
heritage of the destination improves
the QOL of residents for 2 years.
Residents' QOL is expected to initially
decline and then improve with
community and resident adaption to
the new situation.
Perceived social costs are negatively
correlated with QOL; whereas,
perceived job growth is positively
correlated with QOL. Resident
demographic characteristics are
unrelated to resident perceived QOL.
Community development, quality of
life, and negative impacts variables
positively affect tourism development
in general.
5
 Table 2
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
Please cite this article in press as: Uysal, M., et al., Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism, Tourism Management (2015), http://
QOL from resident perspective from 2001 to present.
Jurowski & Brown To examine the relationship between citizens'
(2001) community involvement and their perception
of tourism-related QOL.
Nichols, Stitt & To seek how does the introduction of casino
Giacopassi (2002) gambling affect resident quality of life.
Ko & Stewart (2002) To develop a model that explains the
relationships between the residents'
perception of tourism impacts ad attitudes
toward host community.
Gjerald (2005) To examine residents' perception of
sociocultural impacts
rrez
Urtasun & Gutie To explore the impact of tourism on several
(2006) objective dimensions of the host community's
quality of life.
Andereck, Valentine, To investigate the differences between
Vogt & Knopf (2007) Hispanic and Anglo residents with their
perceptions of tourism and quality of life.
Wheeler & Laing (2008) To see the concept of liveability and its
relationship to tourism and community
development.
Cecil, Fu, Wang & To evaluate non-economic QOL measures
Avgoustis (2008) before full implementation of the initiative in
2004 and two years later in 2006.
Yamada, Heo, King & To examine how cultural tourism along with
Fu (2009) four life domains (health, wealth, safety, and
community pride) influences life satisfaction.
Vargas-Sanchez, To understand the relationship between
Plaza-Mejia & attitudes (negative or positive), satisfaction
Porras-Bueno (2009) and further tourism development.
Meng et al. (2010) To identify whether significant differences
exist among the three groups of provinces
with varying levels of tourism development in
relation to QOL.
Matarrita-Cascante To investigate the relationship between
(2010) community's services and conditions,
satisfaction, and overall quality of life.
Cecil, Fu, Wang & To measure QOL dimension, to examine value
Avgoustis (2010) of cultural tourism, and to evaluate the
relationship between value of cultural
tourism and resident's overall QOL.
400 phone Interviews are conducted in
Lexington, Kentucky.
2768 survey are conducted in eight US
communities that recently adopted casino
gambling: Sioux City, Iowa; St. Joseph, St.
Louis City, and St. Louis County, Missouri;
Alton, Peoria, and East Peoria, Illinois; and
Biloxi, Mississippi.
732 residents living in Cheju Island, Korea
participate in the mail survey.
Permanent residents in a host community
participate in Depth interview
Online editions of two yearbooks are used for
the main sources of data.
695 Hispanic and Anglo residents residing in
Arizona participate in the mail survey.
Stakeholders interview data and secondary
data are used.
760 in 2004 and 960 surveys in 2006 are
collected in Indianapolis.
364 urban residents living in Midwestern city
participate in the survey.
359 residents living in Minas De Riotinto
which is a destination in the early stages of
tourism development participate in the
survey.
31 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous
regions of China are considered and National
Bureau of Statistics of China and all provincial
bureaus of statistics from 1990 to 2006 are
used.
67 KI interviews are conducted in two
different communities (Liberia and La
Fortune, Costa Rica) which have changed
dramatic changes after shifting from an
agricultural-based to a tourism-led economy.
Indianapolis resident participate in a series of
surveys from 2004 to 2008.
13 subjective Indicators adopted from the
previous research are asked to measure
overall quality of life
Respondents are asked 5 questions related to
how casinos affect quality of life (amount of
crime, fear of crime, standard of living,
community as a place to live and quality of
family life).
Community satisfaction items are derived
from studies to Allen et al. (1988).
19 interviews are conducted.
12 objective partial indicators and an overall
indicator that integrate them all are used to
measure community QOL.
38 tourism-related QOL items are adopted
from previous QOL and tourism attitude
studies.
Interview data has been combined with an
analysis of published sources of secondary
data such as promotional brochures, historical
literature, and Websites.
Three-dimensional model developed by
Raphael et al. (1999) is used to measure
quality of life.
The SWLS scale (Diener, 1984) is used to
measure life satisfaction.
6 subjective indicators are used to measure
overall community satisfaction.
10 objective indicators of QOL are used.
The interview includes open-ended questions
about the community's past and present
characterization, concerns about the
community, quality of life, future
expectations, tourism development and
impacts of tourism.
QOL is measured using 5 subjective indicators
(overall health, frequency of physical activity,
stress level, sense of community) and overall
QOL also is measured by an item.
6
Involved residents evaluate their quality of
life higher than do the noninvolved residents
Depending on different characteristics such as
demographic, proximity and relationships
with the casino, and moral attitudes toward
the casino, residents' attitudes toward quality
of life are different.
Residents' community satisfaction is
positively related to perceived positive
impacts and negatively related to negative
tourism impacts.
Local residents do not view tourism as a
detractor of QOL in the local community (at
least at this stage of destination
development).
Tourism impacts on the residents' QOL vary
depending on which dimension of QOL is
M. Uysal et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2015) 1e18
considered.
In terms of the effect of tourism on QOL
variables, the results show no significant
variation between the means for economic
variables while Hispanic residents perceive
greater effect of tourism on positive
environmental and social cultural QOL
variables.
“Liveability” may moderate the relationship
between tourism and economic and social
well-being
Resident's understanding of the importance
of cultural tourism development positively
affects their perception of quality of life for
two years.
Five life domains (cultural tourism, health,
wealth, safety, and community pride) are
positively related to life satisfaction.
The positive tourism impacts influence on the
overall community satisfaction but not of the
perception of negative tourism impacts nor
personal benefits from tourism development.
The residents of provinces with the highest
level of tourism development lead a
significantly “better life” than those who are
in the regions on medium or low level of
tourism development.
In Liberia shifting living conditions result in
decreased perceived community satisfaction
and quality of life, while La Fortuna presents
contrasting results.
Cultural tourism positively affects QOL;
however, the impact is random over the years
and there is no consistent pattern either
positive or negative.
 Andereck & Nyaupane To see the relationship between resident
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
Please cite this article in press as: Uysal, M., et al., Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism, Tourism Management (2015), http://
(2011) perception of the role of tourism and quality
of life.
Chancellor, Yu & Cole To examine the relationship between tourism
(2011) development and residents' quality of life
using the CP model as a conceptual
framework.
Renda, Mendes & Valle To test resident's perception of tourism
(2011) impacts on their quality of life and to verify if
the level of tourism development influences
this relationship.
Yu, Chancellor & Cole To explore tourism impacts on resident
(2011) perceived quality of life.
Aref (2011) To investigate the effect of tourism upon
quality of life.
Manap, Aman & To seek the level of awareness and determine
Rahmiati (2011) tourism innovation impact to the QOL of
residents.
Kim, Uysal and Sirgy To see the relationship between tourism
(2012) impacts and the satisfaction with particular
life domains vary at different tourism
development stages.
Nawijn & Mitas (2012) To examine the relationship between
perceived tourism impacts and residents'
well-being.
Khizindar (2012) To analyze the direct effects of tourism on the
perceptions of residents' quality of life and to
investigate relationship between tourism
impacts and demographic information.
Woo (2013) To determine the relationship between
perception of tourism impacts and
community stakeholders' quality of life.
Jeon, Kang, & To investigate influences of seasonal
Desmarais (2014) attributes on residents' perceptions of
tourism impacts and, residents' perceived
quality life in a cultural-heritage tourism
destination.
Lipovcan, To examine the relationship between the

Brajsa-Zganec, & quality of tourist destinations and the
Poljanec-Bori
c (2014) subjective well-being of people living in the
destination
Woo et al. (2015) To understand local residents ’support for
tourism development by exploring residents'
perceived value of tourism development, life
domain satisfaction (material/non-material),
and overall quality of life in their community.
Note: This table includes studies that examine residents' Quality of Life (QoL). Thus, it is not intended to be exhaustive in its coverage.
696 Arizona residents participate in the mail
survey.
649 households in Orange county, Indiana
complete the survey.
1050 residents of the municipality of Loule
are surveyed.
649 residents living in Orange county,
Indiana, USA are participated in the mail
survey.
200 residents in tourism destinations in
Shiraz participate in the survey.
282 residents residing in Melaka River are
surveyed.
321 residents from communities varying in
their level of tourism development
participate in the survey.
373 residents of Palma de Mallorca which is a
mass tourism destination participate in the
survey.
775 local residents living in Makkah region
which is famous for Muslim pilgrims
participate in the survey.
407 stakeholders living in tourism
destinations (Hawaii; Nevada; Florida;
Virginia) are participated in the online survey.
347 residents living in of the city of Salem and
its four adjacent towns for the sample
population were included in this study.
2171 residents (aged 15e64) from 41
destinations with varying touristic quality.
407 residents from five different tourism
destinations.
To measure QOL, 38 subjective indicators are
developed and used based on the previous
QOL related research and focus groups.
Subjective dimensions are used to measure
resident's life satisfaction, happiness, feelings
of well-being, and beliefs about their standard
of living.
No information
Sustainable tourism attitudes scale (SUS-TAS)
is used to examine economic, social, and
environmental impacts on residents'
perceived quality of life.
Subjective items are used from Sirgy (2001)
and Kim (2002).
35 tourism impacts scales adopted from Ap
and Crompton (1998) are used.
4 life domains and overall life satisfaction are
measured by several subjective indicators.
10 specific life domains are adopted from
Gilbert and Abdullan (2004) to measure life
satisfaction.
3 subjective indicators are adopted from Kim
(2002) to measure overall QOL.
6 subjective items are adopted from previous
research in order to measure overall quality of
life.
4 subjective items are used for the resident
quality of life construct.
As measures of subjective well-being the
survey included: happiness (1 item), life
satisfaction (1 item), and satisfaction with
several life domains (measured by the
Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI))
6 subjective indicators are adopted from
previous research.
Perceived personal benefit derived from
tourism mediate the effect of the economic
aspects of QOL.
Tourism development may be contributing to
the difference in quality of life scores for the
respondents and that the CP context might
help explain these differences.
Tourism positively influences on their quality
of life however it also negatively affects their
emotional and community well-being.
Social cost dimension has no significant effect
on resident quality of life; however both
environmental sustainability and perceived
economic benefits affect resident quality of
life.
Tourism has the positive effect on quality of
life of residents.
Resident's QOL effect to tourism innovation
with particular life domains significantly, and
their satisfaction with particular life domains
M. Uysal et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2015) 1e18
influences their overall life satisfaction.
Residents perceive tourism impacts and these
impacts influence their sense of well-being in
various life domains which in turn affect
overall QOL
Tourism impacts are associated with the
cognitive component of subjective well-
being, life satisfaction rather than the
affective component.
Social, cultural, and environmental impacts
affect resident's quality of life and
demographic characteristics affect their
perception of tourism domains.
Satisfaction with material and non-material
life positively affect their overall quality of life
moreover, the type of community stakeholder
group moderate this relationship.
Perceived economic benefits, environment
sustainability, and perceived social costs
positively affected residents' perceived
quality of life
The quality of tourist destination was related
to residents' life satisfaction and happiness, as
well as the satisfaction with personal life
domain
Residents' perceived value of tourism
development positively affects non-material
and material life domain satisfaction; thereby,
it contributes to overall quality of life. Finally,
overall quality of life is an effective predictor
of support for further tourism development.
7
8 M. Uysal et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2015) 1e18
proposition (Allen, Long, Perdue, & Kieselbach, 1988; Kim, Uysal &
Sirgy, 2012; Kerstetter & Bricker, 2012; Meng et al., 2010; Perdue
et al., 1995; Renda, Mendes & Valle, 2011). For example, a study
conducted by Allen et al. (1988) found that tourism development
does benefit the host communities in the early stages of the tourism
development life cycle with decreasing benefits in the later stages.
According to the Butler's Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC), residents'
attitude toward tourism development and impact change
depending upon the stage of tourism development in the host
community. At the beginning stage of tourism development, resi-
dent perception regarding tourism development is positive (they
also seem satisfied with community life). However, when the level
of development continues, resident attitude and overall QOL may
change from positive to negative.
Several studies have examined changing residents' attitude to-
ward tourism over time (Bachleitner & Zins, 1999; Carmichael,
Peppard & Boudreau, 1996; Cecil, Fu, Wang, & Avgoustis, 2008;
Cecil, Fu, Wang & Avgoustis, 2010). For example, Carmichael,
Peppard & Boudreau (1996) investigated changing local residents'
attitude toward casino gambling, their Native American neighbors,
and future development in the context of a three-year’ longitudinal
study. The study found that community residents' perceived QOL
was significantly reduced overtime (in three years). Recently, Cecil,
Fu, Wang & Avgoustis (2010) examined the relationship between
the value of cultural tourism and residents' overall QOL from 2004
to 2008 and found that there is no significant increase in QOL with
increased cultural tourism development.
Conclusion: Based on the preceding analysis, three conclusions
are deduced. First, the impact of tourism development does play a
significant role in community residents' QOL. In general, the
research indicates that tourism impact has both positive and
negative dimensions. Those positive dimensions contribute posi-
tively to the enhancement of residents' QOL, while the negative
dimensions reduce QOL. Second, not all residents perceive tourism
impact similarly. Those who directly benefit from tourism through
employment are more likely to support it and report higher levels
of QOL compared to other residents not affiliated with tourism.
Furthermore, some research indicates that residents' perceptions of
tourism impact and their QOL may differ along various de-
mographic variables such as type of residency (suburban vs rural or
urban areas) and income levels. Third, residents' perceptions and
attitude toward tourism (and their level of QOL) tend to differ
depending on the level of tourism development with most of the
benefits accruing in the early than later stages of development.
These key observations all point to the fact that there is still ample
opportunity to conduct research examining the role of select de-
mographics and levels of tourism development on the perceived
impact of tourism and QOL. Naturally, such research would need to
consider the uniqueness of each place as a destination and its
structural change. Specifically, future research should also take into
account the level of tourism development since structural changes
to places as destinations evoke different types of behavioral re-
actions and responses.
3.2. Sampling/data collection/research design
QOL can be assessed at different levels: individual level, the
family level, the community level, and the country level (Sirgy,
2001). Individual-level measurement of QOL focuses on individ-
ual residents residing in a given community (e.g., “How satisfied are
you with your community?”). Family-level measurement focuses
on the family as the unit of analysis (e.g., a survey directed to
households designed to gauge quality of sanitation in the home).
Community-level measurements tend to focus on the community
at large. For example, QOL of life of a community can be assessed by
Please cite this article in press as: Uysal, M., et al., Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism, Tourism Management (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
a set of educational indicators (percentage of residents in the
community who have completed high school), economic indicators
(median household income), health indicators (number of doctors
per 1000 inhabitants), etc. Country-level measurement of QOL fo-
cuses on the country at large (e.g., GDP is a QOL measure of eco-
nomic well-being of a country at large).
To measure residents' QOL, most of the research studies re-
ported in this review focus on individual level measurement except
for two studies, namely Perdue, Long & Gustke (1991) and Meng
et al. (2010). Perdue et al., (1991) examined the relationship be-
tween the level of tourism development and objective indicators of
QOL using 100 counties as the unit of analysis. Meng et al. (2010)
explored whether significant differences exist among the three
provinces with varying levels of tourism development in relation to
QOL in China.
Resident's QOL has been captured using primary and secondary
data. The majority of the studies used primary data using surveys or
qualitative data collection methods (e.g., focus group). Specifically,
27 studies out of 35 used online, mail, phone or face-to-face survey;
while, 4 studies (Gjerald, 2005; Jurowski & Brown, 2001; Matarrita-
Cascante; 2010; Wheeler & Laing, 2008) used interviews with
residents. The remaining studies (4 studies) used secondary data
(i.e., objective indicators) to capture residents' QOL (Meng et al.,
2010; Perdue et al., 1991; Urtasun & Gutie rrez, 2006; Wheeler &
Laing, 2008).
Conclusion: Given the fact that the majority of the studies re-
ported here have employed primary data using surveys, it may be a
good idea to replicate or augment the primary-data studies with
secondary data. Naturally, this would be a function of availability
and the quality of secondary data as proxy. Ideally, when and if
possible, a combination of the two or augmenting one with infor-
mation from other sources could certainly enhance the richness of
the data. Doing so should further reinforce the study findings that
employed primary data with the new studies employing secondary
data. Such replication should also add to the generalizability of the
study findings. Conversely, studies that have employed secondary
data should be replicated with studies employing primary data.
Again, doing so adds another dimension of credibility to the study
findings. Finally, most of the reviewed studies have examined the
effects of tourism development on residents' QOL at one point in
time. It is also important to conduct multi-level and longitudinal
studies where data could also be generated at different points in
time. Such research should also be augmented with qualitative
studies depending on the goal, context, and unit of analysis.
3.3. Constructs and measures
Measuring QOL overall or in relation to a particular life domain
(e.g., social life, family life, and work life) is customarily done using
objective and subjective indicators (Sirgy, Meadow, & Samli, 1995).
Examples of objective indicators include income, physical health,
standard of living, and crime. In contrast, subjective indicators
focus on satisfaction (e.g., satisfaction with family, work, social,
community, or life overall) (e.g., Andereck & Jurowski, 2006; Diener
& Suh, 1997).
The majority of studies reviewed here have adopted subjective
indicators to measure resident's QOL. Only limited studies (Meng
et al., 2010; Perdue, Long & Gustke, 1991; Urtasun & Gutie rrez,
2006) have employed objective indicators. For instance, Perdue
et al., (1991) used six objective indicators: population character-
istic, economic, education, health, welfare, and crime. Meng et al.
(2010) used 10 objective indicators: income, consumption
composition, residence quality, transportation, education, social
security, health care, life expectancy, public security, and employ-
ment. Lastly, Urtasun & Gutierres (2006) used 12 objective
 M. Uysal et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2015) 1e18
indicators: income, health, health service, education attainment,
culture and leisure option and employment attainment.
Conclusion: Capturing tourism impact and QOL using objective
or subjective indicators may be somewhat misleading. This may be
due to the fact that subjective and objective indicators may not be
consistent. In other words, one study using objective indicators
may document a statistical finding suggesting that communities
that have higher levels of tourism development register higher
QOL. However, the subjective reality of residents of these com-
munities may be divorced from the objective reality. Alex Michalos,
the dean of the social indicators movement, once described the
alignment/misalignment between the objective and subjective in-
dicators of QOL in terms of four conditions: (1) “real paradise,” (2)
“fool's paradise,” (3) “real hell,” and (4) “fool's hell” (Michalos,
2003). Real paradise is a state of affairs in which people reside in
communities that are objectively rated as high in QOL while they
perceive the living conditions in those communities in a positive
light. Real hell is a similar state in which objective and subjective
indicators of QOL are well-aligned; however, in this instance, QOL is
negative. In other words, residents live in communities that are
objectively rated as low in QOL while they too (the residents)
perceive the living conditions in these communities to be poor. The
misalignment between subjective and objective indicators
generate the remaining conditions, namely fool's paradise and
fool's hell. Fool's paradise reflect a state of affairs in which residents
live in communities that are objectively rated as poor but para-
doxically they perceive that the living conditions of their commu-
nities as good. Conversely, Fool's hell reflect a situation in which
residents live in communities rate objectively as high in QOL but
the fact remains that they perceive the living conditions in their
communities as poor.
4. Tourism and QOL from the perspective of tourists
In the context of subjective indicators of QOL, the construct of
QOL is customarily captured by focusing on overall life satisfaction
or domain satisfaction. Overall life satisfaction typically is
measured using a single-item survey question such as “How do you
rate your life overall? Very Poor, Poor, Not-So-Poor, Good, and Very
Good.” In contrast, domain satisfaction focuses on capturing satis-
faction with specific life domains such as social life, family life, work
life, community life, leisure life, etc. (e.g., Lee & Sirgy, 1995; Genc,
2012a). QOL researchers employing domain satisfaction measures
of well-being assume that QOL can be captured through a sum-
mative or average satisfaction score of pertinent life domains (Sirgy,
2001). For instance, perceived QOL can be captured through a
summative or average score of satisfaction with the following life
domains: material life, emotional life, environmental life, family
life, community life, and leisure life.
It is important to note that the selection of a measurement scale
for overall life satisfaction or domain satisfaction is customarily
contextualized to reflect the goal, target, and the research setting
to adequately capture the outcome variable. Also, it should be
noted that different life domains are used depending on perspec-
tive and context. Moreover, all life domains are not equally
important, and the importance of life domain varies across people
and context.
A number of QOL scholars have tried to identify a list of common
life domains that may capture subjective QOL (e.g., Cummins, 1996,
1997; Cummins, Mccabe, Romeo, & Gullone, 1994). Cummins
(1996), for instance, reviewed 27 definitions of life quality that
attempted to identify QOL domains. The research found five major
domains: emotional, health, social, material, and work. Cummins
(1997) tried to group 173 different domains fewer than seven
headings reflected in the Comprehensive Quality of Life Scale
Please cite this article in press as: Uysal, M., et al., Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism, Tourism Management (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
9
(ComQol): material well-being, health, productivity, intimacy,
safety, community, and emotional well-being. Recently, Dolnicar,
Yanamandram, and Cliff (2012) reviewed many of published mea-
sures of subjective QOL and found 15 common life domains: work
and material well-being; health; family and love; leisure and rec-
reational experiences; social life; education/learning; neighbor-
hood/community; spiritual life; vacation; goals/hopes for the
future; self-esteem/acceptance; safety; stress; transport; standard
of living.
Among these life domains, satisfaction with leisure life domain
and its perceived importance to life satisfaction have weighed
heavily in leisure and visitor studies (Dolnicar et al., 2012; Filep,
2008; Nawijn & Vincent, 2014; Pearce, 2012; Sirgy, Kruger, Lee, &
Yu, 2011). A number of studies have found a significant effect of
satisfaction with leisure life on subjective reports of QOL such as
overall life satisfaction (e.g., Andrew & Withey, 1976; Balatsky &
Diener, 1993; Campbell, Converse & Rodgers, 1976; Chen et al.,
2010; Eusebio & Carneiro, 2014; Haggard, Granzin & Painter,
1995; Jeffres & Dobos, 1993; Liang, Yamashita, & Brown, 2013; Lu
& Argyle, 1994; Neal et al., 1999; Reich & Zautra, 1981; Spiers &
Walker, 2009). For instance, Andrew and Withey (1976) identified
leisure satisfaction as a significant predictor of life satisfaction
based on a large-scale nationally representative survey in the USA.
Campbell et al. (1976) also found that satisfaction with non-
working activities (i.e., leisure) accounts for 29 percent of the
variance in life satisfaction. Recently, Liang et al. (2013) examined
the effect of leisure satisfaction on overall quality of life in China,
Japan, and South Korea. The study showed that satisfaction with
leisure does play a significant role in life satisfaction.
Even though a significant number of QOL studies have identified
leisure life as important life domain which affects overall subjective
QOL, vacation activities are considered as only one element of lei-
sure life and rarely stand alone as a life domain in its own right
(Dolnicar, Lazarevski, & Yanamandram, 2013; Eusebio and Carneiro,
2014; Richards, 1999). However, leisure and vacations differ sub-
stantially in nature with leisure referring to regular home-based
activities and vacation being infrequent leisure activities away
from home (Neal et al., 1999).
The contribution of vacations to life satisfaction has recently
attracted substantial research (Dolnicar et al., 2012; Genc, 2012b;
Filep, 2012; Filep, 2014; Filep & Deery, 2010; Nawijn, 2011a,
2011b; Pearce, 2012; Sirgy, Kruger, Lee, & Yu, 2011; Uner &
Armutlu, 2012). Richards (1999) has long argued that “vacations
can provide physical and mental rest and relaxation, they can
provide the space for personal development and the pursuit of
personal and social interests and they can also be used as a form of
symbolic consumption, enhancing status” (1999, p.189).
Oppermann & Cooper (1999) also argued that engaging in memo-
rable and meaningful experiences such as vacations, rather than
consuming material goods, can contribute significantly to subjec-
tive well-being. However, only a handful of studies have investi-
gated the contribution of travel experience to tourist's QOL. Tables 3
and 4 provide a list of these studies that examined the effects of
travel experience on QOL before 2001 and from 2001 to present
time. As shown from the tables that almost 80% of these studies
were published since 2001, further revealing evidence for a
heightened interest in this line of research.
4.1. General findings
All of the 35 reviewed studies examined the effects of trip
experience or activities on tourists' QOL directly or indirectly. To try
to make sense of this literature, we grouped these studies into three
major categories: (1) studies demonstrating an effect of travel and
tourism on the QOL of individual tourists, (2) the mediating
10 M. Uysal et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2015) 1e18

Table 3
QOL from tourist perspective before 2001.

Author and date Purpose Sample/Data collection QOL measurement used Notes on results

London, Crandall & To investigate the influence of job
Seals (1977) and leisure satisfaction on life
satisfaction.
Lounsbury & Hoopes To examine a vacation in relation
(1986) to job satisfaction, job
involvement, organizational
commitment, turnover intention,
and life satisfaction.
Hoopes & Lounsbury To understand the relationship of
(1989) a vacation to global and domain-
specific life satisfaction.
Coyle, Lesnik-Emas & To measure life satisfaction
Kinney (1994) among adults with spinal cord
injury.
Milman (1998) To explore the impact of travel
and tourism experience on
traveler's psychological well-
being or overall happiness.
Neal et al. (1999) To analyze a measure of
satisfaction with leisure travel/
tourism services that is related to
life satisfaction
Strauss-Blasche To examine the short and long
et al. (2000) term effects of vacation on well-
being and to document factors
moderating these effects.
1297 American adults 18 years of
age or older living in non-
institutional dwelling units in the
48 conterminous states
participate in the survey.
128 employees answer in the two
(pre-trip and post-trip) self-
report questionnaires.
129 working adults participate in
two (pre-trip and post-trip) self-
report questionnaires.
91 adults with spinal cord injury
are interviewed.
124 senior tourists on an escorted
tour are asked to answer two
questionnaires at the start and
the end of the tour.
373 faculty and graduate students
at a large university in the
Southeast answer the survey.
Fifty three employees are asked to
answer two surveys (10 days
before and 3 days after vacation).
13 subjective indicators
measuring feelings about aspects
of leisure, work, and life as a
whole are used.
Life satisfaction is measured both
pre-and post-vacation with 9
subjective indicators.
31 subjective life satisfaction
items are used to measure life
domain satisfaction and one item
measures overall life satisfaction.
2 subjective life satisfaction
indicators and 35 related life
domain items are used.
24 Memorial University of
Newfoundland Scale of Happiness
(MUNSH) is used to measure
psychosocial well-being.
3 subjective items are used to
measure overall life satisfaction.
Well-being is measured by using
scales from four different
questionnaires: life satisfaction,
quality of life, physical
complaints, and recuperation and
stress.
Job and leisure satisfaction both
contribute to individual's
assessments of their QOL but
leisure items are better predictors
of quality of life than job-related
items.
Vacation satisfaction increase job
satisfaction and life satisfaction.
Pre and post vacation measure
indicate an increase in global life
satisfaction and slight increase in
satisfaction within the domain of
money.
Leisure satisfaction is the most
significant predictor of life
satisfaction.
Psychological well-being is not
improved as a result of the travel
and tourism activity.
Satisfaction with tourism services
contributes to satisfaction in
leisure life, which in turn
contributes to life satisfaction.
Vacation improved well-being on
a short term basis and the
vacation effect was dependent on
the extent of recuperation
experienced during vacation.

Note: This table includes studies that examine tourists' Quality of Life (QoL). Thus, it is not intended to be exhaustive in its coverage.

mechanism between travel/tourism experience and QOL of indi-
vidual tourists, and (3) personal, situational, and cultural charac-
teristics that help further explain the link between travel/tourism
experience and QOL.
Demonstrating an Effect of Travel/tourism on the QOL of Individual
Tourists: The first examination of the significance of vacation
experience to QOL was investigated by Neal et al. (1999). The study
revealed that satisfaction with tourism service affects tourists'
overall life satisfaction. However, research has shown that the
impact of tourists' perceptions of the positive impact of tourism
experience on their life satisfaction varies considerably (de Bloom
et al., 2011; Dolnicar et al., 2012, 2013). Three of the studies
(Michalko, Kiss, Kovacs, & Sulyok, 2009; Milman, 1998; Wei &
Milman, 2002) did not find a positive relationship between
tourism experience and overall QOL. Specifically, Milman (1998)
investigated the impact of tourism experience on senior tourists'
psychological well-being. The results revealed that seniors' psy-
chological well-being was not improved as a result of travel.
Similarly, Michalko, Kiss, Kovacs, & Sulyok (2009) surveyed 11,500
Hungarian tourists and found that vacation experience did not
affect their overall life satisfaction.
Mediating Mechanism between Travel/Tourism Experience and
QOL of Individual Tourists: Neal et al. (1999) were able to demon-
strate that the effect of travel/tourism experience on life satis-
faction occurs through a series of mediation effects. Specifically,
they were able to demonstrate the following mediations effects:
 satisfaction with pretrip services, enroute services, destination
services, and return services influence satisfaction with travel/
tourism services in general;
 satisfaction with travel/tourism services in general (in addition
to trip reflections related to perceived freedom, involvement,
arousal, mastery, and spontaneity) influences satisfaction with
travel/tourism experiences in general;
 satisfaction with travel/tourism experiences in general (in
addition to satisfaction with leisure experiences at home) in-
fluences satisfaction with leisure life in general; and
 satisfaction with leisure life in general (in addition to satisfac-
tion in non-leisure life domains such as family, job, health, etc.)
influences satisfaction with life in general.
Sirgy et al. (2011) were able to demonstrate that tourists' posi-
tive and negative memories generated from the most recent trip
affect satisfaction in 13 life domains (e.g., social life, leisure life,
family life, cultural life, health and safety, love life, work life, spir-
itual life, travel life, arts and culture, culinary life, and financial life),
which in turn influence their overall life satisfaction.
Personal, Situational, and Cultural Characteristics that Help
Further Explain the Link between Travel/Tourism Experience and QOL:
Most of the reviewed studies have focused on one population group
to examine the effect of tourism experience on their overall life
satisfaction, with the exception of two studies namely Gilbert and
Abdullah (2004) and Nawijn, Marchand, Veenhoven, and
Vingerhoets (2010). Gilbert & Abdullah (2004) compared two
groups: holiday-taking group and non-holiday-taking group. The
results indicated that the holiday-taking group had an increased
sense of well-being prior to and after their trip experience
compared to the non-holiday-taking group. Similarly, Nawijn et al.
(2010) compared vacationers and non-vacationers’ overall life
satisfaction. Consistent with the findings of Gilbert and Abdullah
(2004), they also found that vacationers had a higher degree of
pre-trip happiness compared to non-vacationers. Two studies
examined moderating effects of the relationship between tourism
experience and tourists' QOL (Neal, Uysal & Sirgy, 2007; Strauss-

Please cite this article in press as: Uysal, M., et al., Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism, Tourism Management (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
 Table 4
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
Please cite this article in press as: Uysal, M., et al., Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism, Tourism Management (2015), http://
QOL from tourist perspective from 2001 to present.
Wei & Milman (2002) To see the interrelationship between senior
travelers' participation in activities, overall
satisfaction with travel experiences, and their
psychological well-being.
Hunter-Jones (2003) To explore the perceived effects of holiday-
taking upon the health and well-being of
patients.
Gilbert & Abdullah To investigate whether the activity of holiday-
(2004) taking has any impact on the life satisfaction
of those taking vacations.
Lee & Tideswell (2005) To understand the specific travel behavior of
senior Koreans.
Fritz & Sonnentag To examine the effects of vacation on well-
(2006) being and performance related variables.
Mactavish et al. (2007) To evaluate the role of vacations in the quality
of life.
Neal et al. (2007) To develop a model explaining the effect of
tourist services on the quality of life of
travelers with a possible moderation effect of
length of stay.
Pols & Kroon (2007) To investigate whether the trip experience for
people with chronic mental health problems
affects their life.
Michalko et al. (2009) To see the relationship between tourism
experience and quality of life.
Nawijn et al. (2010) To examine whether vacationers differ in
happiness, compared to those not going on
holiday and if a holiday trip boosts post-trip
happiness.
Nawijn & Peeters To understand whether tourist's happiness is
(2010) affected by ‘involuntary green travel’ by
government regulations.
McCabe et al. (2010) To explore the relationship between well-
being, quality of life, and holiday participation
among low-income families.
de Bloom, Geurts, To know whether the health and well-being of
Taris, Sonnentag, working individuals improve during a winter
de Weerth & vacation and how long does it last after
Kompier (2010) resumption of work
de Bloom, Geurts, To examine whether every worker
Sonnentag, Taris, experiences a positive effect of vacation on
de Weerth & health and well-being and explain changes in
Kompier (2011) health and well-being during vacation.
Nawijn (2011a, b) To see whether tourists are happy during a
day of their holiday and what makes them
happy.
Senior travelers participate in the survey on
the last day of their escorted trip.
16 patients who were being or who had been
treated for cancer participate in depth
interview.
604 UK residents complete a pre-trip
questionnaire and a post-trip questionnaire.
Self-completion survey of 200 Korean
residents over the age of 60 years is
conducted.
221 university employees complete the
survey 1 week before ad 2 days and 2 weeks
after vacation.
10 families represented by 15 family
caregivers participate in the focus group.
826 adult consumers of travel/tourism
services residing in Southwest Virginia
participate in the survey.
Participation observation on two trips and in-
depth interviews of 11 travelers and four
psychiatric nurses who accompanied the
travelers are conducted.
The survey is conducted with 11,500
Hungarian population.
1530 members of the CentERdata Databank
answer the questionnaire.
599 Dutch citizens participate in the survey.
A random sample of 300 drawn from a wide
range of welfare agencies across over a
hundred local authority areas in the UK
participate in the survey.
96 Dutch workers report their health and
well-being levels two weeks before a vacation,
during vacation, and one week, two weeks
and four weeks after vacation.
96 Dutch workers report their health and
well-being levels two weeks before a vacation,
during vacation, and one week, two weeks
and four weeks after vacation.
466 international leisure travelers participate
in the survey.
24 affect and experience items are used to
measure psychological well-being.
The interview schedule developed by
Mathieson and Stam (1995) is adopted.
Life satisfaction measures on two levels:
global (7 items) and specific life domains (12
items).
Four subjective indicators are used to measure
whether travel affect their quality of life.
Well-being is measured by 12 health
complaints items and 16 burnout items.
Focus groups are designed.
Life satisfaction is measured by three
subjective indicators.
Qualitative research design is conducted.
Life satisfaction is measured by a subjective
indicator.
Three subjective items are used to measure
happiness.
The subjective happiness scale (SHS) is used to
measure happiness.
Several subjective indicators are used to
measure emotional quality of life.
7 indicators are used to measure and well-
being.
6 indicators are used to measure and well-
being.
Subjective indicator is used to measure overall
life satisfaction.
Senior tourists' activity levels are significantly
related to their psychological well-being but
their satisfaction with the trip is not.
Holiday-taking affects their personal health,
social effectiveness, personal identity and
regaining independence.
The holiday-taking group has an increased
sense of well-being prior to and after their
travels compared to the non-holiday-taking
group.
Vacation travel improves QOL for senior
citizens and creates new interests in their
lives.
Vacation affects well-being (reduced health
complaints and exhaustion) but not
disengagement.
Leisure satisfaction plays a significant role in
life satisfaction.
M. Uysal et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2015) 1e18
Satisfaction with tourism services contributes
to satisfaction in leisure life moreover overall
life satisfaction is more evident for tourists
who have extended stays compared to tourists
with shorter stays.
Vacation experience increases subjective
well-being.
Traveling does not play a determining role in
the life of the Hungarian.
Vacationers have higher degree of pre-trip
happiness, compared to non-vacationers
while, only relaxed holiday trip boosts
vacationers' happiness further after return.
Holiday trip has an effect on happiness and
‘involuntary green travel’ may affect 6% of
tourist’ happiness.
After the holiday participation respondent's
rating of their QOL is relatively good overall.
Winter sports vacation improves working
individual's self-reported health and well-
being.
Vacation has a positive effect, longer effect for
many, it is not invariably positive for all
employees.
Tourists feel generally better on holiday
compared to everyday life and holiday stress
and attitude toward the travel party are the
most important determinants of tourist's
feelings during a day of their trip.
(continued on next page)
11
 Table 4 (continued )
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
Please cite this article in press as: Uysal, M., et al., Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism, Tourism Management (2015), http://
Sirgy et al. (2011) To develop a model describing how positive
and negative affect associated with specific
experience of a travel trip influence tourist’
overall sense of well-being.
Nawijn & Veenhoven To examine the effect of leisure activities on
(2011) happiness and to know whether holiday trips
have a bigger impact than other leisure
activities.
Dolnicar et al. (2012) To investigate evidence for the contribution of
vacation to people's QOL and see the variation
in the extent to which vacations contribute to
the QOL of different people.
Heo, Lee, Kim, & To identify distinct groups based upon
Stebbins (2012) patterns of serious leisure involvement and
examine relations among life satisfaction,
health, and membership
Dolnicar To develop a model of the importance of
et al. 2013) vacations to QOL and introduce a novel
segmentation base.
Chen & Petrick To provide a comprehensive review of the
(2013) literature on the health and wellness benefits
of travel.
Durko & Petrick To review the existent research on the
(2013) benefits of travel to working adults, couples,
families, and extended family members.
Woo, Kim, & To examine elderly tourist motivation,
Uysal (2014) constraints, and their relation to leisure-life
domain satisfaction, and overall life
satisfaction
Peters & Schuckert (2014) To analyzes entrepreneurs' perception of their
quality of life (QOL) as well as their
entrepreneurial activities.
bio & Carneiro
Euse To implement a segmentation approach based
(2014) on the impact of tourism on features related to
several domains of youth tourists' QOL
Nawijn & Damen (2014) To investigate whether work during vacation
affects vacationers' quality of life in terms of
intensity of felt emotions and needs
fulfillment.
Kim, Woo, and To investigate the relationship between the
Uysal (2015) travel behavior of elderly tourists and overall
quality of life.
bio & Carneiro (2011)
Euse To investigate the impact of tourism on
several dimensions of tourists' quality of life.
Note: This table includes studies that examine tourists' Quality of Life (QoL). Thus, it is not intended to be exhaustive in its coverage.
Qualitative research and survey with 264
adults in the North West Province of South
Africa are conducted.
Data of the German Socio-Economic Panel
Study (SOEP) is sued.
Qualitative study and online survey with 1000
panel members lived in Australia are
conducted.
454 older adults from two annual events: the
2008 Indiana Senior Olympic Games and 2008
Colorado Senior Olympic Games were
included.
1000 members of a permission-based internet
panel answer the questionnaire.
Primary and secondary literature search are
used.
Primary and secondary literature search are
used
208 elderly (aged over 65) were participated
in this study
The interviews were conducted among 14
entrepreneurs in the Tyrolean resort town of
Seefeld, Austria
412 university student were participated in
this study.
374 international tourists in the Netherlands
were participated in this study.
208 elderly (aged over 65) were participated
in this study
377 residents of a Portuguese urban area
(Aveiro) who had done at least a tourism trip
in the last three year were participated in this
study.
Life domain satisfaction and overall quality of
life are measured by subjective indicators.
Life satisfaction is measured using a self-
report on a single question.
8 life domains (vacations, health, money,
family, leisure, people, work, and spiritual life)
are selected to measure overall quality of life.
Life satisfaction is measured by subjective
indicators
Importance of eight life domains (vacation,
family, work, people, leisure, money, health,
and spiritual) is measured and subjective
indicators are used in order to measure
subjective QOL.
Not available
Not available
In order to measurer elderly’ quality of life,
leisure life domain (by 3 indicators) and
overall life satisfaction (by 6 indicators)
Not available
A set of 25 items of the WHOQOL-BREF scale
on a combination of extant literature was used
to measure the level of agreement of youth
regarding the impact of tourism on their QOL
Quality of life is measured by fulfillment of
needs and intensity of felt emotions from the
modified Differential Emotions Scale (mDES)
In order to measurer elderly’ quality of life,
leisure life domain (by 3 indicators) and
overall life satisfaction (by 6 indicators)
In order to measurer tourist's quality of life,
life domains (Physical health, psychological
features. social relationships, environment),
and overall QOL were used.
12
Positive and negative memories generated
from the most recent trip do not contribute
only to overall satisfaction in leisure life but
also satisfaction in other 13 life domains.
To examine the effect of leisure activities on
happiness and to know whether holiday trips
have a bigger impact than other leisure
activities.
Vacations contribute to the QOL of the
majority of people and that QOL means
different things to different people at different
points in their life.
The results also suggest that there are positive
relationships between level of involvement in
serious leisure and life satisfaction and health
Vacations are not important to all people and
the segments differ significantly regarding
background variables.
M. Uysal et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2015) 1e18
Based on the literature review 8 hypotheses
are developed and examined.
Based on the literature review 3 hypotheses
are developed and examined.
Travel motivation positively influences
satisfaction with leisure-life domain.
Satisfaction. Also, leisure-life domain is linked
to overall life satisfaction among the elderly
Entrepreneurs perceive the need for a balance
between enterprise growth and a good work
elife relationship (QOL), and they tend to put
a stronger emphasis on QOL.
Tourism has an impact on the QOL of youth
tourists and that this market is heterogeneous
regarding the perceptions of this impact.
Workers' and non-workers’ emotional
experience is not statistically different during
vacation. Ninety-seven percent of workers are
satisfied with the balance between work and
leisure time during vacation.
Involvement in travel experience plays an
important role affecting leisure life
satisfaction and overall quality of life.
The results showed evidence of a positive
influence of the psychological features and
environmental domains of the QOL on overall
life satisfaction of tourists.
 M. Uysal et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2015) 1e18
Blasche, Ekmekcioglu, & Marktl, 2000). Neal et al. (2007) built on
their previous research (Neal et al., 1999) investigated the moder-
ation effect of length of stay. The study found that satisfaction with
trip services affect satisfaction in leisure life domain and this
relationship is more evident for tourists who have extended their
stays compared to tourists with shorter stays. Dolniar et al. (2012,
2013) argued that vacation experience is not important to
everyone. The impact of vacation experience on QOL may depend
on different stages in life and other background variables that may
influence the degree of importance of travel. A recent study by
Peters & Schuckert (2014) attempted to establish a relationship
between lifestyle in tourism and QOL perceptions. It appears that
those who would like to engage in certain activities in tourism
entrepreneurship as a matter of personal choice believe that
entrepreneurship growth would also enhance their well-being and
thus enhance their life satisfaction. As such, the study emphasizes
that the need for a balance between enterprise growth and work-
elife balance does exist, implying that this is an area ripe for further
research where there is a high degree of reliance on small, inde-
pendent enterprises.
Conclusion: Based on the reviewed studies, we can draw two key
conclusions. First, tourism experiences and activities affect tourists'
overall QOL. In general, vacation experience appears to have the
potential to lead to hedonic and enduring consumption experi-
ences influencing tourists' QOL. Hedonic consumptions may have
short term effects on tourists' QOL, whereas enduring life changing
consumption experiences could have long term effects on QOL.
Second, the impact of vacation experience on QOL may depend
on different stages in life and other background variables that may
influence the degree of importance of travel. However, we can say
with a certain degree of certainty that it is evident from the
reviewed studies that tourist trips do contribute to the quality of
life of tourists. Tourist trips contribute to positive affect in many life
domains such as leisure life, social life, family life, work life, spiri-
tual life, culinary life, marital life, cultural life, to name a few. Such
tourist experiences contributing to satisfaction in various life do-
mains also contribute to overall life satisfaction. What is most
interesting is the finding that the sense of well-being is significantly
increased in planning and anticipating the trip, perhaps equally so
to the actual experiences during the trip. Extended stays seem to
further accentuate the positive affect and sense of well-being than
short stays. Future research may investigate the moderation effects
of other institutional-type variables such as trips where the tourist
have to travel short versus long distance to reach destination, trips
of different types (cruise trips versus beach trips), trips designed for
different population groups (families versus couples), among
others. Research may also focus on cultural moderators such as
trips in which the tourist destination is culturally proximal or distal
to the tourists. Also, climatic conditions such as trips to the tropics
versus more temperate climates may be used as moderators
affecting quality of trip experience. Other moderators may include
demographics such as differences in gender, age, income level,
marital status, etc. One can also investigate the moderation effects
of personality factors such as novelty-seeking, allocentrism, open-
ness to experience, etc.
4.2. Sampling/data collection/research design
A majority of studies reported here have used a probabilistic
random sampling technique to generate representative samples of
target population groups. The general unit of analysis is the indi-
vidual but shows definitional variations depending on the study
context. Specifically, the majority of the reviewed studies used a
general adult population; however, a number of studies focused on
different market groups such as employees (de Bloom, Geurts, Taris,
Please cite this article in press as: Uysal, M., et al., Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism, Tourism Management (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
13
Sonnentag, de Weerth & Kompier, 2010; de Bloom, Geurts,
Sonnentag, Taris, de Weerth & Kompier, 2011; Hoopes &
Lounsbury, 1989; Lounsbury & Hoopes, 1986; Strauss-Blasche
et al., 2000), patients (Coyle, Lesnik-Emas & Kinney, 1994; Hunter-
Jones, 2003; Mactavish, Mackay, Iwasaki & Betteridge, 2007; Pols
& Kroon, 2007), seniors (Lee & Tideswell, 2005; Milman, 1998; Wei
& Milman, 2002), the youth market (Eusebio & Carneiro, 2014) and
low-income tourists (McCabe, Joldersma & Li, 2010). For example,
Lounsbury & Hoopes (1986) targeted 128 employees to complete a
survey questionnaire capturing the interrelationships among
vacation satisfaction, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction. Hunter
and Jones (2003) interviewed 16 patients and found that holiday-
taking affects patient's personal health, social effectiveness, per-
sonal identity, and regaining independence. Lee and Tideswell
(2005) examined travel behavior of senior Koreans documenting
the fact that tourism experiences serve to increase well-being.
The majority of the reviewed papers used a survey method such
as mail or online survey. However, some of these studies employed
either qualitative methods (e.g., Coyle, Lesnik-Emas & Kinney, 1994;
Dolnicar et al., 2012; Hunter-Jones, 2003; Mactavish, Mackay,
Iwasaki & Betteridge, 2007; Pols & Kroon, 2007; Sirgy, Kruger, Lee
& Yu, 2011) or secondary data with mixed methods for data
collection (Nawijn & Veenhoven, 2011). For example, although in a
different context of health and travel, Poles and Kroon (2007)
collected observations on two trips along with in-depth in-
terviews with 11 travelers and 4 psychiatric nurses to investigate
the effect of vacation experience on subjective well-being. In
contrast, Nawijn and Veenhoven (2011) used data from German
Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP)da large national consumer
paneldto investigate the effect of leisure activities on happiness.
Several studies have employed longitudinal research design.
That is, tourists' perceived QOL was measured before the trip,
during the trip, and after the trip (de Bloom, Geurts et al., 2010; de
Bloom et al., 2011) and compared their level of QOL before, during,
and after. However, the majority of the studies investigated tourists'
QOL after their trip experience. Seven studies measured tourist's
QOL before and after the trip (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2006; Gilbert &
Abdullah, 2004; Hoopes & Lounsbury, 1989; Lounsbury & Hoopes,
1986; McCabe, Joldersma & Li, 2010; Milman, 1998; Strauss-
Blasche et al., 2000) and only one study measured QOL during
and after the trip experience (Pols & Kroon, 2007).
Conclusion: Ideal studies capturing tourists QOL are those
employing longitudinal research designs (better than cross-
sectional designs). Longitudinal studies are better equipped to
capture the full range of tourist experiencedbefore, during, and
after the trip. Furthermore, longitudinal studies also make it
possible to infer causality whereas cross-sectional studies may be
limiting in making causality inferences. With respect to sampling
techniques, probabilistic sampling techniques are more effective
(compared to non-probabilistic techniques) to ensure sample
representativeness of the population at large. As such, future
research in this area should be encouraged to use more longitudinal
designs with probabilistic sampling techniques.
4.3. Constructs and measures
All of 35 studies reviewed here used subjective indicators to
measure tourists' QOL. However, most of these studies employed
different constructs and measures of QOL. For instance, Fritz and
Sonnentag (2006) used 12 health complaint items and 16 burn-
outs items to measure tourists' overall well-being. Wei & Milman
(2002) used 24 affect and experience items to capture seniors'
overall well-being.
Conclusion: Ideally, researchers in this area should use well-
established constructs and measures of well-being. The measures
14 M. Uysal et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2015) 1e18
should have demonstrated construct validity. For example, one can
argue that the QOL measures used by Fritz & Sonnentag (2006) and
Wei & Milman (2002) are not constructs and measures of well-
being well-accepted by the larger QOL research community.
5. Discussion and future research
In this section of the paper, we would like to focus on two key
points. First, we provide general observations as revealed by our
review and second, suggest some future research directions. It is
important to mention that well-being and QOL concepts are
imbedded in the very definition of tourism. That is, tourism does
affect the well-being of all in destination communities, not only
those who are part of the production and consumption of tourism
goods and services. With this in mind, one could also argue that
through tourism, for example, we may have more green space for
locals to enjoy; the improved infrastructure may not only benefit
tourists but the locals too; happy employees provide better quality
services. In this sense, as researchers, we are in a position to test
and empirically demonstrate that tourism can indeed improve
QOL of tourism participants and non-tourism alike. Tourism re-
searchers should bring this line of research to the forefront of our
research agenda. By doing so tourism can also contribute to social
sciences.
QOL is traditionally measured using objective and/or subjective
indicators. Subjective indicators capture experiences that are
important to the individual tapping into affect and satisfaction in
various life domains and life at large. Most of the reviewed studies
used subjective indicators to capture QOL of tourists and residents
of host communities. In contrast, objective indicators focus on so-
cial indicators such as income, physical health, standard of living,
etc. These indicators are defined and quantified without relying on
individual perceptions or judgment. The number of studies repre-
senting this type of research is actually limited in tourism research–
less than 6% of the studies captured in our study. Yet, from a
practical point of view, studies relying on objective indicators could
help better monitor and measure structural and physical changes
overtime and how visitors and providers may respond to such
changes. Given that each approach has its strength and weakness
there seems to be a need to conjoin objective and subjective in-
dicators in future tourism studies to better capture QOL of both
community residents and tourists.
To define and measure QOL of community residents and
tourists, various studies have articulated different life domains
varying by population group and context. In identifying pertinent
life domains in tourism studies, there has to be a mechanism to
capture the relative importance of these life domains. Life do-
mains are not all equally important for tourists and community
residents, and the importance of each life domain varies across
people and contexts. Future research should focus on articulating
pertinent life domains by population group and setting. For
example, the pertinent life domains of tourists experiencing
wildlife tourism may be different from tourists going on a cruise.
The salient life domains of the former group may involve spiritual
and cultural life; whereas, the latter group may involve social,
leisure, and culinary life. When medical tourists decide to travel
they might consider their health life domain as most important
which affects their overall QOL (Cohen, 2012); whereas, adventure
tourists may consider leisure life as most important. It would be
useful for researchers to develop conceptualizations and mea-
sures of QOL for tourists and community residents that can
address these nuances of complexity. Doing so should enhance
the predictiveness of the QOL measures in empirical research.
These assertions imply that research in this area should be
contextualized to reflect the uniqueness of the setting in which
Please cite this article in press as: Uysal, M., et al., Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism, Tourism Management (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
tourism activities take place. The selections of life domains should
reflect the current and growth needs of destinations and their
strategic goals and targets.
We note that community residents' perception of tourism
impact on their QOL is a topic that has been researched since 1980.
However, the findings of the studies are not expectedly straight-
forward (Allen et al., 1988; Sharpley, 2014), most of these studies
focused on the delineation of impact types of tourism (cultural,
social, economic and environmental and ecological) and support
for tourism development. The relationship between tourism impact
and QOL of community residents needs further research and
empirical substantiation. QOL constructs should be explored
further in terms of both as outcome and moderating variables,
along with support for tourism development as a dependent
variable.
Additionally, to further the research agenda, QOL can be
assessed at different levels of analysis: individual, family, commu-
nity, and country level (Mancini, George, & Jorgensen, 2012; Sirgy,
2001). The vast majority of the reviewed studies here captured QOL
at the individual level. Future research, whether directed to com-
munity residents or tourists may add more substance to the extant
literature if the individual-level findings are corroborated with
studies capturing QOL at the family, community, regional, and
country levels.
In general, in order to fully appreciate and understand the
assumed links between tourism and QOL, we need to focus both on
basic and growth needs of consumers, providers, including em-
ployees of the industry. Although there is a plethora of studies that
have investigated the effects of different management constructs
such as leadership types, level of organizational commitment, and
burnt-out on working quality of life and employee satisfaction (e.g.,
Abbott and Cieri, 2008; Bass, 1999; Humborstad, Humborstad, &
Whitfield, 2007; Lok & Crawford, 1999; Lowe, & Northcott, 1988)
this type of research has just started gaining some recognition in
the tourism and hospitality industry. There is still limited research
on QOL of employees in the tourism industry (Kara, Uysal, & Sirgy,
2013). Thus, we need to do a better job identifying both tangible
and intangible benefits of tourism, and investigate these effects
from the perspectives of tourists, community residents, as well as
employees of tourism establishments.
Surely, in the next decade we will see more challenges that will
necessitate new research streams in the area of community resi-
dents and stakeholder satisfaction, capturing both demand and
supply sides of tourism activities (Uysal, 2012). Moscardo (2009)
points out the importance of social representations in impact
studies and argues that a more explicit consideration of QOL with
respect to well-being of different stakeholders can help in the
development of a better framework for critically analyzing tourism
impact on the well-being of individuals as tourists and providers
alike. As tourism grows, an important goal should not only be to
improve upon sustainability and development, but to also try to
enhance the QOL of both tourists and community residents. A key
challenge will be to create a comprehensive tool to measure and
monitor of activities and their QOL effects (Budruk and Phillips,
2011). The long term success and sustainability and competitive-
ness of tourism will certainly depend on tourism's ability to
contribute to the improvement of QOL of all stakeholders. This will
be good business for all. As part of the fully functioning tourism
system it is imperative to know that tourism enterprises contribute
to improving the QOL not only of tourists but also residents in host
communities and employees of tourism services.
It is commonly accepted that sustainability, tourism activities,
and quality of life are all interrelated. The provision of quality
tourism experiences should meet the needs of the present gener-
ation as well as future generations.
 M. Uysal et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2015) 1e18 15

References Chen, L. H., Ye, Y.-C., Chen, M.-Y., & Tung, I.-W. (2010). Alegria! Flow in leisure and
life satisfaction: the mediating role of event satisfaction using data from ac-
robatics show. Social Indicators Research, 99, 301e313.
Abbott, J., & De Cieri, H. (2008). Influences on the provision of work-life benefits:
Choi, H. S. C., & Sirakaya, E. (2005). Measuring residents' attitude toward sustainable
management and employee perspectives. Journal of Management & Organiza-
tourism: development of sustainable tourism attitude scale. Journal of Travel
tion, 14, 303e322.
Research, 43(4), 380e394.
Allen, L. R., Hafer, H. R., Long, P. T., & Perdue, R. R. (1993). Rural residents' attitudes
Cohen, E. (2012). Medical travel and the quality of life. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, &
toward recreation and tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 31(4),
M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research: Enhancing the
27e33.
lives of tourists and residents of host communities (pp. 169e192). Dordrecht,
Allen, L. R., Long, P. T., Perdue, R. R., & Kieselbach, S. (1988). The impact of tourism
Netherlands: Springer.
development on residents' perceptions of community life. Journal of Travel
Coyle, C. P., Lesnik-Emas, S., & Kinney, W. B. (1994). Predicting life satisfaction
Research, 27(1), 16e21.
among adults with spinal cord injuries. Rehabilitation Psychology, 39(2), 95e112.
Andereck, K. L., & Jurowski, C. (2006). Tourism and quality of life. Quality Tourism
Crouch, I. G., & Ritchie, B. J. R. (2012). Destination competitiveness and its impli-
Experiences, 136e154.
cations for host-community QOL. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.),
Andereck, K. L., & Nyaupane, G. P. (2011). Exploring the nature of tourism and
Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists
quality of life perceptions among residents. Journal of Travel Research, 50(3),
and residents of host communities (pp. 491e514). Dordrecht, Netherlands:
248e260.
Springer.
Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C., & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents' per-
Cummins, R. A. (1996). The domains of life satisfaction: an attempt to order chaos.
ceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32,
Social Indicators Research, 38(3), 303e328.
1056e1076.
Cummins, R. A. (1997). Self-rated quality of life scales for people with an intellectual
Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Vogt, C. A., & Knopf, R. C. (2007). A cross-cultural
disability: a review. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 10(3),
analysis of tourism and quality of life perceptions. Journal of Sustainable
199e216.
Tourism, 15(5), 483e502.
Cummins, R. A., Mccabe, M. P., Romeo, Y., & Gullone, E. (1994). Validity studies the
Andereck, K. L., & Vogt, C. A. (2000). The relationship between residents' attitudes
comprehensive quality of life scale (Comqol): Instrument development and
toward tourism and tourism development options. Journal of Travel Research,
psychometric evaluation on college staff and students. Educational and Psy-
39(1), 27e36.
chological Measurement, 54(2), 372e382.
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: America's
Dan, M. S. G. (2012). Tourist motivation and quality of life: in search of the missing
perception of life quality. New York: Plenum Press.
link. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-
Ap, J. (1992). Residents' perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research,
of-life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host communities
19(4), 665e690.
(pp. 233e250). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Ap, J., & Crompton, J. L. (1998). Developing and testing a tourism impact scale.
Davis, D., Allen, J., & Cosenza, R. M. (1988). Segmenting local residents by their
Journal of Travel Research, 37(2), 120e130.
attitudes, interests, and opinions toward tourism. Journal of Travel Research,
Aref, F. (2011). The effects of tourism on quality of life: a case study of Shiraz, Iran.
27(2), 2e8.
Life Science Journal, 8(2), 26e30.
Delamere, T. A. (2001). Development of a scale to measure resident attitudes toward
Bachleitner, R., & Zins, A. H. (1999). Cultural tourism in rural communities: the
the social impacts of community festivals, part II: verification of the scale. Event
residents' perspective. Journal of Business Research, 44(3), 199e209.
Management, 7(1), 25e38.
Balatasky, G., & Diener, E. (1993). Subjective well-being among Russian students.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542e575.
Social Indicators Research, 28, 225e243.
Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: economic, social, and sub-
Bass, B. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational
jective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40(1), 189e216.
leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9e32.
Dolnicar, S., Lazarevski, K., & Yanamandram, V. (2013). Quality of life and tourism: a
Bjork, P. (2014). Tourist experience value: tourist experience and life satisfaction. In
conceptual framework and novel segmentation base. Journal of Business
N. Prepensen, J. Chen, & M. Uysal (Eds.), Creating experience value in tourism (pp.
Research, 66, 724e729.
22e32). Oxfordshire, U.K: CABI.
Dolnicar, S., Yanamandram, V., & Cliff, K. (2012). The contribution of vacations to
de Bloom, J., Geurts, S. A. E., Sonnentag, S., Taris, T. W., de Weerth, C., &
quality of life. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 59e83.
Kompier, M. A. J. (2011). How does a vacation from work affect employee health
Driver, B. L., Brown, P. J., & Peterson, G. L. (1991). Benefits of leisure. State College, PA,
and well-being? Psychology and Health, 26(12), 1606e0622.
US: Venture Publishing.
de Bloom, J., Geurts, S. A. E., Taris, T. W., Sonnentag, S., de Weerth, C., &
Durko, A. M., & Petrick, J. F. (2013). Family and relationship benefits of travel ex-
Kompier, M. A. J. (2010). Effects of vacation from work on health and well-
periences: a literature review. Journal of Travel Research, 52(6), 720e730.
being: lots of fun, quickly gone. Work & Stress: An International Journal of
Eriksson, L., Rice, J. M., & Goodin, R. (2007). Temporal aspects of life satisfaction.
Work, Health & Organizations, 24(2), 196e216.
Social Indicators Research, 80(3), 511e533.
Boley, B., & Perdue, R. (2012). Destination management, competitiveness, and
Eusebio, & Carneiro. (2011). Determinants of tourism impact on tourists' quality of
quality of life: a review of literature and research agenda. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue,
life. International Journal of Leisure and Tourism Marketing, 2(4), 313e323.
& M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research: Enhancing
Eusebio, C., & Carerio, M. J. (2014). The impact of tourism on quality of life: a seg-
the lives of tourists and residents of host communities (pp. 515e528). Dordrecht,
mentation analysis of the youth market. Tourism Analysis, 19(6), 741e758.
Netherlands: Springer.
Filep, S. (2008). Applying the dimensions of flow to explore visitor engagement and
Brougham, J., & Butler, R. W. (1981). A segmentation analysis of resident attitudes to
satisfaction. Visitor Studies, 11(1), 90e108.
the social impact of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(4), 569e590.
Filep, S. (2012). The positive psychology and tourism. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, &
Budruk, M., & Phillips, R. (2011). Quality of life community indicators for parks rec-
M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research: Enhancing the
reation and tourism management. Amsterdam, Holland: Springer.
lives of tourists and residents of host communities (pp. 31e50). Dordrecht,
Bushell, R., & Sheldon, P. (2009). Wellness and tourism: Mind, body, spirit, place. NY:
Netherlands: Springer.
Cognizant Communication Books.
Filep, S. (2014). Moving beyond subjective well-being: a tourism critique. Journal of
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life:
Hospitality & Tourism Research, 38(2), 266e274.
Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage.
Filep, S., & Deery, P. (2010). Towards a picture of tourists' happiness. Tourism
Carmichael, B. A., Peppard, D. M., Jr., & Boudreau, F. A. (1996). Megaresort on my
Analysis, 15(4), 399e410.
doorstep: local resident attitudes toward Foxwoods Casino and casino gambling
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery, well-being, and performance-related
on nearby Indian reservation land. Journal of Travel Research, 34(3), 9e16.
outcomes: the role of workload and vacation experiences. Journal of Applied
Cecil, A. K., Fu, Y., Wang, S., & Avgoustis, S. H. (2008). Exploring resident awareness
Psychology, 91(4), 936e945.
of cultural tourism and its impact on quality of life. European Journal of Tourism
Genc, R. (2012a). Tourist consumption behavior of quality of lie. In M. Uysal,
Research, 1(1), 39e52.
R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research:
Cecil, A. K., Fu, Y., Wang, S., & Avgoustis, S. H. (2010). Cultural tourism and quality of
Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host communities (pp. 135e148).
life: results of a longitudinal study. European Journal of Tourism Research, 3(1),
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
54e66.
Genc, R. (2012b). Subjective aspects of tourists' quality of life. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue,
Chancellor, C., Yu, C. S., & Cole, S. T. (2011). Exploring quality of life perceptions in
& M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research: Enhancing
rural Midwestern (USA) communities: an application of the coreeperiphery
the lives of tourists and residents of host communities (pp. 149e167). Dordrecht,
concept in a tourism development context. International Journal of Tourism
Netherlands: Springer.
Research, 13, 496e507.
Gilbert, D., & Abdullah, J. (2004). Holiday taking and the sense of well-being. Annals
Chase, C. L., Amsden, B., & Phillips, R. (2012). Stakeholder engagement in tourism
of Tourism Research, 13(1), 103e121.
planning and development. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.),
Gjerald, O. (2005). Sociocultural impacts of tourism: a case study of Norway. Journal
Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists
of Tourism and Cultural Change, 3(1), 36e58.
and residents of host communities (pp. 475e490). Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Gunn, C. (1994). Tourism planning (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Springer.
Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident attitudes: a structural
Chen, J. S. (2000). An investigation of urban residents' loyalty to tourism. Journal of
modeling approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 79e105.
Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24(1), 5e19.
Haggard, L. M., Granzin, K. L., & Painter, J. J. (1995). Quality of life and the leisure-life
Chen, C., & Petrick, J. F. (2013). Health and wellness benefits of travel experiences: a
experience: development and test of a structural model. In H. L. Meadow,
literature review. Journal of Travel Research, 52(6), 709e719.
M. J. Sirgy, & D. R. Rahtz (Eds.), Developments in quality-of-life studies in

Please cite this article in press as: Uysal, M., et al., Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism, Tourism Management (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
16 M. Uysal et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2015) 1e18
marketing (Vol. 5, p. 144). DeKalb, IL: Academy of Marketing Science and the
International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies.
Haralambopoulos, N., & Pizam, A. (1996). Perceived impacts of tourism: the case of
Samos. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3), 503e526.
Harrill, R. (2004). Residents' attitudes toward tourism development: a literature
review with implications for tourism planning. Journal of Planning Literature,
18(3), 251e266.
Haywood, K. M. (1975). Criteria for evaluating the social performance of tourism
development projects: tourism as a factor in national and regional develop-
ment. In Trent university, department of geography peterborough, occasional pa-
per, 4 (pp. 94e97).
Heo, J., Lee, I., Kim, J., & Stebbins, R. (2012). Understanding the relationships among
central characteristics of serious leisure: an empirical study of older adults in
competitive sports. Journal of Leisure Research, 44(4), 450e462.
Hoopes, L. L., & Lounsbury, J. W. (1989). An investigation of life satisfaction
following a vacation: a domain-specific approach. Journal of Community Psy-
chology, 17, 129e140.
Humborstad, S., Humborstad, B., & Whitfield, R. (2007). Burnout and service em-
ployees' willingness to deliver quality service. Journal of Human Resources in
Hospitality & Tourism, 7, 45e64.
Hunter-Jones, P. (2003). The perceived effects of holiday-taking upon the health and
wellbeing of patients treated for cancer. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 5, 183e196.
Ibrahim, H. (2008). Outdoor recreation: Enrichment for lifespan (3rd ed.). Urbana-
Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.
Inbakaran, R., & Jackson, M. (2006). Resident attitudes inside victories' product
regions: a cluster analysis. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 13(1),
59e74.
Jeffres, L. W., & Doboa, J. (1993). Perceptions of leisure opportunities and the quality
of life in a metropolitan area. Journal of Leisure Research, 25(2), 203e217.
Jennings, G., & Nickerson, P. N. (2006). Quality tourism experiences. London, U.K:
Elsevier.
Jensen, O. (2014). Approaches for the evaluation of visitors experiences in tourist
attractions. In N. Prepensen, J. Chen, & M. Uysal (Eds.), Creating experience value
in tourism (pp. 139e156). Oxfordshire, U.K: CABI.
Jeon, M., Kang, M., & Desmarais, E. (2014). Residents' perceived quality of life in a
cultural-heritage tourism destination. Applied Research in Quality of Life. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11482-014-9357-8.
Jurowski, C., & Brown, D. O. (2001). A comparison of the views of involved versus
noninvolved citizens on quality of life and tourism development issues. Journal
of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 25(4), 355e370.
Kaplan, M. (1979). Leisure: Lifestyle and lifespan. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Kara, D., Uysal, M., Sirgy, J., & Kim, G. (2013). Effects of leadership styles on quality of
work life (QWL), burnout, organizational commitment, and quality of life (QOL).
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 9e18.
Kerstetter, D. L., & Bricker, S. K. (2012). Relationship between carrying capacity of
small island tourism destinations and quality of life. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, &
M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research: Enhancing the
lives of tourists and residents of host communities (pp. 445e462). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer.
Khizindar, T. M. (2012). Effects of tourism on residents' quality of life in Saudi
Arabia: an empirical study. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management,
21(6), 617e637.
Kim, K. (2002). The effects of tourism impacts upon quality of life of residents in the
community. Unpublished Dissertation. Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University.
Kim, K., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2012). How does tourism in a community impact
the quality of life of community residents? Tourism Management, 36,
527e540.
Kim, H., Woo, E., & Uysal, M. (2015). Tourism experience and quality of life among
elderly tourists. Tourism Management, 26, 465e476.
King, B., Pizam, A., & Milman, A. (1993). Social impacts of tourism: host perceptions.
Annals of Tourism Research, 20(4), 650e665.
Kleiber, D. (1999). A dialectical interpretation: Leisure experience and human devel-
opment. New York: Basic Books.
Ko, D., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of residents' attitudes
for tourism development. Tourism Management, 23, 521e530.
Kruger, P. S. (2012). Perceptions of tourism impacts and satisfaction with
particular life domains. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook
of tourism and quality-of-life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and
residents of host communities (pp. 279e292). Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Springer.
Lankford, S. V. (1994). Attitudes and perceptions toward tourism and rural regional
development. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), 35e43.
Lankford, S. V., & Howard, D. R. (1994). Developing a tourism impact attitude scale.
Annals of Tourism Research, 21(1), 121e139.
Lee, D. J., & Sirgy, M. J. (1995). Determinants of involvement in the consumer/
marketing life domain in relation to quality of life: A theoretical model and
research agenda. In Development in quality of life studies in marketing (pp.
13e18).
Lee, S. H., & Tideswell, C. (2005). Understanding attitudes towards leisure travel and
the constraints faced by senior Koreans. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11(3),
249e253.
Liang, J., Yamashita, T., & Brown, J. S. (2013). Leisure satisfaction and quality of life in
China, Japan, and South Korea: a comparative study using Asia Barometer 2006.
Please cite this article in press as: Uysal, M., et al., Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism, Tourism Management (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(3), 753e769.
Liburd, J. J., Benckendorff, P., & Carlsen, J. (2012). Tourism and quality of life: how
does tourism measure up? In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.),
Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists
and residents of host communities (pp. 105e134) Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Springer.
Lieper, N. (1979). The framework of tourism: toward a definition of tourism, tourist,
and tourist industry. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 390e407.
Lipovcan, L., Brajsa-Zganec, N., & Poljanec-Boric, S. (2014). What is good for tourists
should be good for residents too: the relationship between the quality of the
touristic offer and subjective well-being of residents. Tourism Analysis, 19(6),
719e790.
Liu, J. C., Sheldon, P. J., & Var, T. (1987). Resident perception of the environmental
impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(1), 17e37.
Liu, J. C., & Var, T. (1986). Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii.
Annals of Tourism Research, 13(2), 193e214.
Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (1999). The relationship between commitment and organi-
zational culture, subculture leadership style and job satisfaction in organiza-
tional change and development. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
20, 365e374.
London, M., Crandall, R., & Seals, G. W. (1997). The contribution of job and leisure
satisfaction to quality of life. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(3), 328e334.
Lounsbury, J. W., & Hoopes, L. L. (1986). A vacation from work: changes in work and
nonwork outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 392e401.
Lowe, G. S., & Northcott, H. C. (1988). The impact of working conditions, social roles
and personal characteristics on gender differences in distress. Work and Occu-
pations, 15, 55e77.
Lu, L., & Argyle, M. (1994). Leisure satisfaction and happiness as a function of leisure
activity. The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 10, 89e96.
Mactavish, J. B., Mackay, K. J., Iwasaki, Y., & Betteridge, D. (2007). Family caregivers
of individuals with intellectual disability: perspectives on life quality and the
role of vacations. Journal of Leisure Research, 39(1), 127e155.
Madrigal, R. (1993). A tale of tourism in two cities. Annals of Tourism Research, 20(2),
336e353.
Manap, A. A., Aman, O., & Rahmiati, F. (2011). The impact of tourism innovation on
quality of life residents in the community: a case study of Sungai Melaka. In
International conference on management (ICM 2011) proceeding, 334e342. June
13e14, June 2011: Penang, Malaysia.
Mancini, J., George, D. V., & Jorgensen, B. (2012). Relational tourism: observations on
families and travel. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of
tourism and quality-of-life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of
host communities (pp. 309e320). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Manning, E. R. (2010). Studies in outdoor recreation. Eugene, OR: Oregon State
University Press.
Mason, P. (2008). Tourism impacts, planning and management. London, U.K: But-
terworth-Heinemann.
Mason, P., & Cheyne, J. (2000). Residents' attitudes to proposed tourism develop-
ment. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 391e411.
Matarrita-Cascante, D. (2010). Changing communities, community satisfaction, and
quality of life: a view of multiple perceived indicators. Social Indicators Research,
98(1), 105e127.
Mathieson, C. M., & Stam. (1995). Reneotiating identity: cancer narratives. Sociology
of Health & Illness, 17(3), 283e306.
McCabe, S., Joldersma, T., & Li, C. (2010). Understanding the benefits of social
tourism: linking participation to subjective well-being and quality of life. In-
ternational Journal of Tourism Research, 12, 761e773.
McCool, S. F., & Martin, S. R. (1994). Community attachment and attitudes toward
tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), 29e34.
McIntosh, R. W., & Goeldner, C. R. (1984). Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies.
New York: Wiley.
Meng, F., Li, X., & Uysal, M. (2010). Tourism development and regional quality of life:
the case of China. Journal of China Tourism Research, 6(2), 164e182.
Michalko, G., Kiss, K., Kovacs, B., & Sulyok, J. (2009). The impact of tourism on
subjective quality of life among Hungarian population. Hungarian Geographical
Bulletin, 58(2), 121e136.
Michalos, A. C. (2003). Essay on the quality of life. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Mill, R. C., & Morrison, A. M. (1985). The tourism system: An introductory text. Eng-
lewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Milman, A. (1998). The impact of tourism and travel experience on senior travelers'
psychological well-being. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 166e170.
Milman, A., & Pizam, A. (1988). Social impacts of tourism on central Florida. Annals
of Tourism Research, 15(2), 191e204.
Moscardo, G. (2009). Tourism and quality of life: towards a more critical approach.
Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9(2), 159e170.
Moscardo, G. (2012). Building social capital to enhance the quality I life of desti-
nation residents. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism
and quality-of-life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host
communities (pp. 403e421). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism. A community approach. New York, N.Y: Methuen & Co.
Ltd.
Nawijn, J. (2011a). Determinants of daily happiness on vacation. Journal of Travel
Research, 50(5), 559e566.
Nawijn, J. (2011b). Happiness through vacationing: just a temporary boost or long-
term benefits? Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(4), 651e665.
 M. Uysal et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2015) 1e18
Nawijn, J., & Damen, Y. (2014). Work during vacation: not so bad after all. Tourism
Analysis, 19(6), 759e767.
Nawijn, J., Marchand, M., Veenhoven, R., & Vingerhoets, A. (2010). Vacationers
happier, but most not happier after a holiday. Applied Research in Quality of Life,
5(1), 35e47.
Nawijn, J., & Mitas, O. (2012). Resident attitudes to tourism and their effect on
subjective well-being: the case of Palma de Mallorca. Journal of Travel Research,
51(1), 531e541.
Nawijn, J., & Peeters, P. M. (2010). Travelling ‘green’: is tourists' happiness at stake?
Current Issues in Tourism, 13(4), 381e392.
Nawijn, J., & Veenhoven, R. (2011). The effect of leisure activities on life satisfaction:
the importance of holiday trip. In I. Brdar (Ed.), The human pursuit of well-being:
A cultural approach (pp. 39e53). Springer Science.
Nawijn & Vincent, 2014.
Neal, J., Sirgy, M. J., & Uysal, M. (1999). The role of satisfaction with leisure travel/
tourism services and experience in satisfaction with leisure life and overall life.
Journal of Business Research, 44, 153e163.
Neal, J., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2007). The effect of tourism services on travelers'
quality of life. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 154e163.
Neulinger, J. (1981). To leisureean introduction: A psychological approach to leisure
and its relationships to the quality of life. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Nichols, M., Stitt, B. G., & Giacopassi, D. (2002). Community assessment of the ef-
fects of casinos on quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 57(3), 229e262.
Nunkoo, R., & Gursoy, D. (2012). Residents' support for tourism: an identity
perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 243e268.
Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2011). Developing a community support model for
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 964e988.
Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2012). Power, trust, social exchange and community
support. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 997e1023.
Nunkoo, R., & Smith, S. L. (2013). Political economy of tourism: trust in government
actors, political support, and their determinants. Tourism Management, 36,
120e132.
Nunkoo, R., Smith, S. L., & Ramkissoon, H. (2013). Residents' attitudes to tourism: a
longitudinal study of 140 articles from 1984 to 2010. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 21(1), 5e25.
Oppermann, M., & Cooper, M. (1999). Outbound travel and quality of life: the effect
of airline price wars. Journal of Business Research, 44(3), 179e188.
Payne, L., Ainsworth, B., & Godbey, G. (2010). Leisure, health, and wellness: Making
the connections. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Pearce, P. (2012). Relationships and the tourism experience: challenges for quality
of assessments. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism
and quality-of-life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host
communities (pp. 9e29). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Pearce, P., Filep, S., & Ross, G. (2010). Tourists, tourism and the good life. London:
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Allen, L. (1987). Rural resident tourism perceptions and
attitudes. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3), 420e429.
Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Allen, L. (1990). Resident support for tourism develop-
ment. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(4), 586e599.
Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Gustke, L. (1991). The effects of tourism development on
objective indicators of local quality of life. Tourism: building credibility for a
credible industry. In Proceedings of the travel and tourism research association
twenty-second annual conference, Hyatt Regency hotel, Long Beach, California,
June 9e13, 1991 (pp. 191e201).
Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Kang, Y. S. (1995). Resident support for gambling as a
tourism development strategy. Journal of Travel Research, 34(2), 3e11.
Perdue, R. R., Tyrrell, T., & Uysal, M. (2010). Understanding the value of tourism:
conceptual divergence. In D. Pearce, & R. Butler (Eds.), Tourism research: A 20:20
vision (pp. 123e134). Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers.
Peters, M., & Schuckert, S. (2014). Tourism entrepreneurs' perception of quality of
life: an explorative study. Tourism Analysis, 19(6), 731e740.
Pirnar, I., & Gunlu, E. (2012). Destination management and quality of life. In
M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life
research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host communities (pp.
529e546). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Pizam, A. (1978). Tourism's impacts: the social costs to the destination community
as perceived by its residents. Journal of Travel Research, 16(4), 8e12.
Pols, J., & Kroon, H. (2007). The importance of holiday trips for people with chronic
mental health problems. Psychiatric Services, 58(2), 262e265.
Prebensen, N., Chen, J., & Uysal, M. (Eds.). (2014). Creating experience value in
tourism. London: CABI.
Prebensen, N., Kim, H., & Uysal, M. (2015). Co-creation as moderator between the
experience value and satisfaction relationship. Journal of Travel Research,
10.11770047287515583359.
Puczko, L., & Smith, M. (2012). An analysis of QOL domains from the demand side. In
M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life
research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host communities (pp.
263e278). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Raphael, D., Steinmetz, B., Renwick, R., Rootman, I., Brown, I., Sehdev, H., et al.
(1999). The community quality of life project: a health promotion approach to
understanding communities. Health Promotion International, 14(3), 197e210.
Reich, J. W., & Zautra, A. (1981). Life events and personal causation: some re-
lationships with satisfaction and distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 41, 1002e1012.
Renda, A. I., Mendes, J. C., & Valle, P. O. (2011). A structural model approach of
Please cite this article in press as: Uysal, M., et al., Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism, Tourism Management (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
17
residents' perception of tourism impacts in their own quality of life: the mu-
nicipality of Loule , Algarve. In , International conference on tourism & manage-
ment studies e Algarve, October 26e29, 2011, Faro, Algarve, Portugal: Vol. II. Book
of proceedings.
Richards, G. (1999). Vacations and the quality of life: patterns and structures.
Journal of Business Research, 44, 189e198.
Ritchie, J. (1988). Consensus policy formulation in tourism: measuring resident
views via survey research. Tourism Management, 9(3), 199e212.
Roehl, W. S. (1999). Quality of life issues in a casino destination. Journal of Business
Research, 44(3), 223e229.
Shan, A., & Pizam, A. (2012). Community participation in tourism planning and
development. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism
and quality-of-life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host
communities (pp. 547e564). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Sharma, B., & Dyer, P. (2009). An investigation of differences in residents' percep-
tions on the Sunshine Coast: tourism impacts and demographic variables.
Tourism Geographies, 11(2), 187e213.
Sharpley, R. (2014). Host perceptions of tourism: a review of the research. Tourism
Management, 42, 37e49.
Sheldon, P. J., & Var, T. (1984). Resident attitudes to tourism in North Wales. Tourism
Management, 5(1), 40e47.
Sirakaya-Turk, E., Ingram, L., & Harrill, R. (2008). Resident typologies within the
integrative paradigm of sustaincentric tourism development. Tourism Analysis,
13(5e6), 531e544.
Sirakaya, E., Teye, V., & Sonmez, S. F. (2001). Examining sources of differential support
for tourism industry in two Ghanaian cities. Tourism Analysis, 6(1), 29e40.
Sirgy, M. J. (2001). Handbook of quality-of-life research: An ethical marketing
perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.
Sirgy, M. J. (2002). The psychology of quality of life. Dordrecht, the Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic.
Sirgy, M. J. (2010). Toward a quality-of-life theory of leisure travel satisfaction.
Journal of Travel Research, 49(2), 246e260.
Sirgy, M. J., Kruger, S., Lee, D., & Yu, G. B. (2011). How does a travel trip affect
tourists' life satisfaction? Journal of Travel Research, 50(3), 261e275.
Sirgy, M. J., Meadow, H. L., & Samli, A. C. (1995). Past, present, and future: an
overview of quality of life research in marketing. New Dimensions in Marketing/
Quality-of-Life Research, 335e369.
Smith, M., & Puczko  , L. (2009). Health and wellness tourism. Oxford, U.K:
Butterworth.
Spiers, A., & Walker, G. J. (2009). The effects of ethnicity and leisure satisfaction on
happiness, peacefulness, and quality of life. Leisure Sciences, 31, 84e99.
Stokowski, P., & Park, M. (2012). Resident quality of life in gaming communities. In
M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life
research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host communities (pp.
653e668). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Strauss-Blasche, G., Ekmekcioglu, C., & Marktl, W. (2000). Does vacation enable
recuperation? Changes in well-being associated with time away from work.
Occupational Medicine, 50(3), 167e172.
Tosun, C. (2004). Host perceptions of impacts: a comparative tourism study. Annals
of Tourism Research, 29(1), 231e253.
Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1987). Measuring resident's attachment levels in a host
community. Journal of Travel Research, 26(1), 27e29.
Uner, M., & Armutlu, C. (2012). Understanding the antecedents of destination
identification, linkage between perceived quality of life, self-congruity, and
destination identification. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook
of tourism and quality-of-life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents
of host communities (pp. 251e277). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Urtasun, A., & Gutie rrez, I. (2006). Tourism agglomeration and its impact on social
welfare: an empirical approach to the Spanish case. Tourism Management, 27,
901e912.
Uysal, M. (2012). Tourism and quality of life (QOL): research for 2020: the hospi-
tality and tourism industry by 2020. HOSTEUR, 21(1), 36e38.
Uysal, M., Harrill, R., & Woo, E. (2011). Destination marketing research: issues and
challenges. In Y. Wang, & A. Pizam (Eds.), Tourism destination marketing and
Management: Foundations and applications (pp. 99e112). U.K.: CABI (Chapter 7).
Uysal, M., Perdue, R., & Sirgy, R. (2012). Handbook of tourism and quality of life
research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host communities. Dor-
drecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Uysal, M., Sirgy, J., & Perdue, R. (2012). The missing links and future research di-
rections. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and
quality-of-life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host
communities (pp. 669e684). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Uysal, M., Woo, E., & Signal, M. (2012). The Tourist Area Life Cycle (TALC) and its
effect on the quality of life (QOL) of destination community. In M. Uysal,
R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research:
Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host communities (pp. 423e444).
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Vargas-Sanchez, A., Plaza-Mejia, M. d. l. A., & Porras-Bueno, N. (2009). Under-
standing residents' attitudes toward the development of industrial tourism in a
former mining community. Journal of Travel Research, 47(3), 373e387.
Wang, M., & Wong, M. C. (2014). Leisure and happiness: evidence from interna-
tional survey data. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(1), 85e118.
Weaver, D. (2012). Alternative tourism as a contestable quality of life facilitator. In
M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life
research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host communities (pp.
18 M. Uysal et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2015) 1e18

389e402). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. M. Joseph Sirgy is a Professor of Marketing at Virginia

Weiermair, K., & Peters, M. (2012). Quality of life values: among stakeholders in Polytechnic Institute and State University, (USA).
tourism destinations: a tale of converging and diverging interests and conflicts.
In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-
life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host communities (pp.
463e474). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Wei, S., & Milman, A. (2002). The impact of participation in activities while on
vacation on seniors' psychological well-being: a path model application. Journal
of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 26(2), 175e185.
Wheeler, F., & Laing, J. (2008). Tourism as a vehicle for livable communities: case
studies from regional Victoria, Australia. Annals of Leisure Research, 11(1e2),
242e263.
Woo, E. (2013). The impacts of tourism development on stakeholders' quality of life
(QOL): A comparison between community residents and employed residents in the
hospitality and tourism industry. Unpublished Dissertation. Blacksburg, Virginia:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Eunju Woo is an Assistant professor of Tourism at Kang-
Woo, E., Kim, H., & Uysal, M. (2014). A measure of quality of life in elderly tourists. won National University, Republic of Korea.
Applied Research in Quality of Life. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11482-014-9355-x.
Woo, E., Kim, H., & Uysal, M. (2015). Life satisfaction and support for tourism
development. Annals of Tourism Research, 50, 84e97.
Yamada, N., Heo, J., King, C., & Fu, Y. (2009). Life satisfaction of urban residents: do
health perception, wealth, safety, community pride and, and cultural tourism
matter?. In International CHRIE conference-refereed track. Paper 24.
Yu, C., Chancellor, H. C., & Cole, S. T. (2011). Examining the effects of tourism impacts
on resident quality of life: evidence from rural Midwestern communities in
USA. International Journal of Tourism Sciences, 11(2), 161e186.
Zhou, Y., & Ap, J. (2009). Residents' perceptions towards the impacts of the Beijing
2008 Olympic Games. Journal of Travel Research, 48(1), 78e91.

Hyelin (Lina) Kim is an Assistant professor in William F.

Muzaffer Uysal, is a Professor of Tourism, Virginia Poly-
Harrah College of Hotel Administration, University of
technic Institute and State University (USA) and extraor-
NevadaeLas Vegas (USA).
dinary Professor at the North West University, South
Africa.

Please cite this article in press as: Uysal, M., et al., Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism, Tourism Management (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
View publication stats