You are on page 1of 14

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tourism Management 28 (2007) 409–422


www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Research article

Structural modeling of resident perceptions of tourism and


associated development on the Sunshine Coast, Australia
Pam Dyera,, Dogan Gursoyb, Bishnu Sharmaa, Jennifer Cartera
a
University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore DC, Queensland 4558, Australia
b
School of Hospitality Business Management, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4742, USA
Received 11 October 2005; accepted 2 April 2006

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to apply items on a measurement scale to develop a structural model to describe the tourism impact
perceptions of the residents of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia, and how these perceptions affect their support for tourism
development. The proposed structural model was deduced using the data collected through a self-administered questionnaire that was
delivered to a stratified random sample of residents of three Sunshine Coast local government areas. Results suggested a five-factor
perceived impact measurement scale: negative socio-economic impact; positive social impact; negative social impact; positive economic
impact; and positive cultural impact. Findings further indicated that the perceived positive economic impact factor has the largest
influence on residents’ support for further tourism development.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Tourism development; Impact; Structural modeling; Resident perceptions

1. Introduction Much of the tourism research pertaining to communities


in Australia focuses on minority or peripheral groups (e.g.
Tourism is prominent in Australia’s economic restruc- Clark, 2001; Dogan, 1989; Hohl & Tisdell, 1995; Ryan &
turing, particularly in regional and coastal areas (Murphy Huyton, 2002; Simons, 2000). Regarding more mainstream
& Watson, 1995). A ‘‘community mandate’’ is necessary tourism research, on the Gold Coast, Australia, Weaver &
for sustaining the tourism industry and managing the Lawton (2001) noted that negative perceptions of tourism
‘‘more critical aspects that appear as a tourism destination development were geographically concentrated and related
reaches maturity’’ (Lawson, Williams, Young, & Cossens, to duration of residence, but Tomljenovic & Faulkner
1998, pp. 255–256). However, even mature tourism (2000) found little difference according to residents’ age. It
destinations that are self-sustaining, such as the Gold is common for Sunshine Coast residents to comment that
Coast of Australia, when exposed to unexpected dynamics each of the two Southeast Queensland coastal tourist areas
in their target markets, can be adversely affected by has their distinct social and environmental characteristics.
fluctuations in visitation levels (Leiper, 1999). Butler’s Development on the Sunshine Coast is inevitable and, just
(1980) cycle of evolution conceptualizes diminished resi- as residents of the lakes area in North East Oklahoma say
dent support for tourism development in tourist locations they do not want to become ‘‘another Branson’’, and like
as associated negative impacts become evident. Although a those at Tamborine Mountain (Weaver & Lawton, 2001)
post-mature phase may be evident in the tourism develop- many Sunshine Coast locals express concerns about
ment cycle, Prideaux (2000, p. 225) suggests an additional ‘‘becoming another Gold Coast’’.
phase of ‘‘decline, stagnation, or rejuvenation’’. However, there are mass tourism pre-lodgment propo-
sals being submitted to local government authorities on the
Sunshine Coast regardless of residents’ concerns. As
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 7 5430 1242; fax: +61 7 5430 2880. suggested by Choi and Sirakaya (2005), these proposals
E-mail address: dyer@usc.edu.au (P. Dyer). marginalize residents’ participation in the planning and

0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2006.04.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
410 P. Dyer et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 409–422

development process even though previous studies suggest about socio-cultural impacts of tourism in the developed
that good will and cooperation of host communities are world (Brunt & Courtney, 1999), comparative studies of
essential parts of tourism development (Murphy, 1985). different communities could further contribute to theore-
Residents’ participation in planning and development tical development (Fredline & Faulkner, 2000) about
stages is also a fundamental necessity for sustainability of relationships between tourism impacts and community
the development. A Weaver and Lawton (2001) study support for tourism development.
suggests that residents are not likely to support mass Therefore, the purpose of this exploratory study is to
tourism development on the Sunshine Coast, yet, their examine local residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts
responses indicate that they are likely to be more and how those perceptions influence their support/opposi-
supportive of alternative forms of tourism development. tion for tourism development. The measurement scale that
Akis, Peristianis, and Warner, (1996, p. 482) recognize that was used to assess local residents’ perceptions of tourism
‘‘y growth in alternative tourism has been accompanied impacts was adopted from Gursoy and Rutherford’s (2004)
by the recognition of the need for tourism planners to take study. To ensure that the adopted scale was valid and
more account of the desires and aspirations of the local reliable in the current study setting, a measurement scale
residents’’. As there are both positive and negative impacts development approach was utilized. Specifically, this study
of tourism for host communities, ‘‘development should be has the following three objectives: to determine whether
through local initiatives and consistent with local values’’ tourism impact scales developed in North America are
(Duffield & Long, 1981, p. 403). Even so, communities may valid for the Australian context; to identify constructs that
need to temper single-minded economic aspirations to provide elements of tourism development that are region-
ensure the balanced standpoint of sustainability. ally relevant for the Sunshine Coast; and to provide
In order to sustain any form of tourism development, baseline information regarding tourism in a rapidly
residents should be the focal point in the development changing environment that has recently lost its sugar
(Choi & Sirakaya, 2005). However, hosts, particularly in industry, has a small business based economy, and an
developing countries, are frequently excluded from ‘‘deci- emerging focus on the knowledge and health economies.
sion-making and management of projects’’ (Teye, Sonmez, The latter accompanies the development of a University in
& Sirakaya, 2002, p. 670). Nash (2003, 2006), based on 1996 and proposed neighboring hospital, constituting a
community power relations case studies regarding com- knowledge/health precinct.
munity input into environmental decisions on the Sunshine
Coast, argues that this lack of capacity for participation 2. Location
may also be common in developed regions, thus question-
ing the general assumption that genuine participation is There are two main coastal beach tourism areas
achievable. So, while community participation is ideal, its approximately 1 h drive south and north of Brisbane, the
practicality is not assured. Sirakaya, Teye, & Sonmez, capital city of Queensland, Australia (Fig. 1). The Sunshine
(2002, p. 57) note that ‘‘y studying attitudes in various
communities around the worldy could further increase
the explanatory power of behavioral models’’. Whilst much
of the research pertaining to residents’ attitudes in America
focuses on rural regions (Sirakaya et al., 2002), the
Sunshine Coast represents a mix of urban development
along the coastline, with railway villages and rural
development in the hinterland. It is this mix that is
characteristic across the local government areas of the
Sunshine Coast, thus justifying the attention ascribed in
this paper.
The cyclic nature of tourism, especially rejuvenation and
emerging identity change, is crucial when considering the
sustainability of the tourism sector in a region. Traditional
economic assessment tools are limited in supporting the
various types of tourism available (Theuns, 2002) and
impact assessments are limited in scope and application,
resulting in a gap between theoretical and applied research
(Wall, 1997). As the range of types of tourism increases,
consideration of socio-cultural influences in addition to
economic and environmental impacts on and of tourism, is
imperative (Akis et al., 1996; Jamison, 1999; Kayat, 2002;
Ko & Stewart, 2002; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Ryan & Fig. 1. Sketch map showing the location of the Gold Coast, Brisbane and
Montgomery, 1994). Considering a lack of understanding the Sunshine Coast and data collection sites.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Dyer et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 409–422 411

Coast, though slower than the Gold Coast in developing as from hinterland and coastal residents in light of residents’
a tourist site, is undergoing rapid change and is currently proximity to high levels of tourism activity. Although the
one of the growth areas of Australia. Like the Gold Coast, authors recognize that there may be non-response bias in
the Sunshine Coast is a sub-tropical coastal area with the data, the purposive stratification in the sampling
short rivers emanating from the hinterland. The focus of design, chosen to be representative of the target popula-
economic development on the Sunshine Coast, formerly an tion (Levin, 1983; Selvanathan, Selvanathan, Keller,
agricultural area based on dairy, sugarcane, and cropping Warrack, & Bartel, 1994) supports the authors’ claims
activities, has shifted towards tourism and other light for cautious generalization from the results. Chosen
service industries. locations are identified in Table 1 and Fig. 1. From the
The Sunshine Coast Regional Organisation of Councils 5 000 questionnaires distributed, 732 responses were
(SUNROC) describes the region as inclusive of three received, that is, the response rate was 14.64%. The low
central local government areas: Caloundra, Maroochy, and response rate is one of the limitations of the study, even
Noosa (http://www.sunroc.com.au/aboutUs.asp) whereas though responses from 732 residents were obtained. From
Tourism Queensland includes a fourth local government a pure statistical point of view, the response rate should be
area, Cooloola, in its description of the Sunshine Coast. around 75%; but very few social science researchers can
The Sunshine Coast, in comparison with the Gold come close to this when they conduct survey research
Coast, attracts more intrastate visitors whereas the Gold (Babbie, 2004). The low response rate is likely to introduce
Coast attracts more international and interstate visitor bias to the study, which may alter the findings of the study.
nights (Tourism Queensland, 2004). Low response rate also minimizes the generalizability of
In 2003, the Sunshine Coast (including Cooloola) the findings even though the findings of this study are
accounted for 16% (12,523,000) of all Queensland’s consistent with previous studies. Therefore, authors would
domestic visitor nights. In addition 12% (217,997) of like to warn readers to evaluate the findings of the study
Queensland’s international tourists visited the Sun- cautiously.
shine Coast (Tourism Queensland, 2004). The Sunshine
Coast tourism market has been mainly beach holidays
with visitors attracted to relatively pristine beaches, 3.2. Analyses
national parks, hinterland hideaways, appealing weather,
and a range of entertainment including a zoo and marine A four-step procedure was used in this study to assess
attractions. Emerging tourism markets include golf, Sunshine Coast residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts:
nature-based tourism, hinterland B&Bs, food and
wine, and events and festivals (Tourism Queensland,  underlying constructs measuring Sunshine Coast resi-
2004). dents’ perceptions of tourism impacts were identified by
using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA);
3. Methods  Sunshine Coast residents’ perceptions of tourism impact
attributes were examined by using Cronbach reliability
3.1. Data collection (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955);
 underlying constructs measuring the Sunshine Coast
Data were collected via a stratified random sample with residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts were validated
self-administered questionnaires being delivered to all by using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); and
houses in streets chosen according to randomly selected  a theoretical model was proposed and tested to examine
street map coordinates, in strategically chosen locations. the relationships between perceived tourism impacts and
These locations were selected to ensure a range of views residents’ support for tourism.

Table 1
Details of data collected from Sunshine Coast residents

Suburban location Caloundra City Council N Distributed Maroochy Shire (% of N Distributed Noosa Shire (% of total N Distributed
classification (% of total response) (%) total response) (tourism (%) response) (tourism (%)
(tourism attraction) attraction) attraction)

Hinterland: Maleny (4.4) 300 (6) Nambour (6.9) 450 (9) Cooroy (4.8) 200 (4)
residential
Hinterland: high Beerwah/Landsborough 300 (6) Montville/Flaxton (12.1) 450 (9) Cooran/Pomona/Kin Kin 200 (4)
tourist activity (5.9) (Australia Zoo) (Montville Township) (4.8) (Tourist Drive)
Coastal: residential Golden Beach/Pelican 450 (9) Mountain Creek/Glenfield 800 (16) Tewantin (6.3) 300 (6)
Waters (9.0) (12.4)
Coastal: high Kings Beach (7.9) (Beach) 450 (9) Mooloolaba (18.6) 800 (16) Noosa (6.8) (Beach) 300 (6)
tourist activity (Beach)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
412 P. Dyer et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 409–422

For the purpose of this study and confirmation of 4. Results


results, the sample was divided into two sub-samples,
selected randomly by the software. The sample size for the 4.1. Construct identification and validation
EFA was 332 and the sample size for CFA was 400. Both
sub-samples were examined for outliers. No outlier was The Sunshine Coast residents’ perceptions of tourism
found. impact scale includes 28 items that were adopted from the
To detect scale dimensionality, an EFA with a principal Gursoy and Rutherford (2004) study. Their scale was
component method with varimax rotation was conducted adopted for two reasons: to use the scale as the starting
for Sunshine Coast residents’ perceptions of tourism point to develop a scale that is applicable to the current
impacts using the first sub-sample. The appropriateness study site; and to test the validity and reliability of the scale
of factor analysis was determined by examining the in a cross-cultural setting. As suggested by Sirakaya, Teye
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy and and Sommez (2002), studying attitudes in various commu-
Bartlett’s test of sphericity. A value of 0.60 or above from nities around the world using similar scales is likely to
the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy further increase the explanatory power of behavioral
test indicates that the data were adequate for EFA models. Appropriateness of factor analysis is determined
(Tabachnick & Fidel, 1989). A significant Bartlett’s test by examining the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sam-
of sphericity was also required. In order to ensure that each pling adequacy and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity. Both
factor identified by EFA had only one dimension and each tests indicate that it was appropriate to perform a factor
attribute loaded only on one factor, attributes that had analysis.
factor loadings of lower than 0.40 and attributes loading The result of the principle component factor analysis
on more than one factor with a loading score of equal to or indicated that there were five underlying dimensions
greater than 0.40 on each factor were eliminated from the (factors). The procedure, to ensure that each factor
analysis (Hattie, 1985). After identifying the dimensions, a identified by EFA had only one dimension and that each
Cronbach’s Alpha reliability test was conducted to attribute loaded only on one factor, resulted in elimination
evaluate the reliability of each measurement scale using of two items: improving public facilities for tourists’ use is
the first sub-sample (Zaichkowsky, 1985). Finally, a CFA a waste of taxpayers’ money; and the prices of real estate
was performed using the second sub-sample (N ¼ 400). (e.g. house, land, etc.) are likely to increase because of
The fit of the measurement model was determined by tourism. Table 2 shows the items and the five factors that
examining chi-square (w2) statistics and associated p-values. remained after the elimination of those two items. Results
The w2 test is seen as the most objective method of testing of the EFA were consistent with the previous perceived
the fit of a confirmatory model (Jöreskog, 1971). However, tourism impact research that was conducted in other
several researchers also utilize other fit indices in addition countries (Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004). All of the
to a w2 test because of the problems associated with the w2 Cronbach’s Alpha reliability scores were higher than the
test (Hu & Bentler, 1995). As noted by Jöreskog (1993, p. suggested 0.70 threshold (Table 2). The acceptable level of
309) ‘‘since w2 is N1 times the minimum value of the fit Cronbach’s alpha depends on the number of items in the
function, the w2 test tends to be large in large samples’’. construct.
Utilization of those fit indices is recommended by several
researchers from different disciplines to measure the fit of 4.2. Confirmatory factor analysis
the tested models when the analyses produce an unaccep-
table w2 value (Bentler, 1990; Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Next, a confirmatory measurement model was tested.
Gursoy, Jurowski, & Uysal, 2002; Hu & Bentler, 1995; The use of CFA was to ensure the unidimensionality of the
Jöreskog & Sorbom, 1989). These fit indices are the scales measuring each construct in the model. Items
goodness-of-fit index (GFI; Jöreskog & Sorbom, 1989), identified through the EFA procedure were utilized in the
the non-normed-fit index (NNFI; see Hu & Bentler, 1995), CFA. However, before testing the overall model, unidi-
the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), the mensionality of each construct was assessed individually
incremental Fit Index (IFI; Mulaik et al., 1989) and the (Sethi & King, 1994). Assessing each construct individually
critical N statistic (Hoelter, 1983). Values of GFI, IFI, CFI and deleting unacceptable items resulted in elimination of
and NNFI range from 0 to 1.00 with a value close to 1.00 one item from the ‘‘Negative Socio-Economic Impact’’
indicating good fit (e.g. Byrne, 1989; Mulaik et al., 1989). construct.
Two indices that are proposed to measure the parsimony of The items that remained after this step are presented in
the model are also reported: parsimony goodness of fit Table 3. All of the composite reliabilities were above 0.7.
index (PGFI) and parsimony normed fit index (PNFI). The overall fit of this final CFA model was w2 (264) ¼ 345.57
Values of PGFI and PNFI range from 0 to 1.00 with a (p ¼ 0.00); GFI ¼ 0.93; AGFI ¼ 0.92; NFI ¼ 0.92;
value above 0.70 indicating a good fit (a parsimonious NNFI ¼ 0.98; CFI ¼ 0.98; IFI ¼ 0.98; and PGFI ¼ 0.76;
model) (Jöreskog & Sorbom, 1989). A cut-off of 200 or PNFI ¼ 0.81; with critical N ¼ 370.92. Further, the
greater is suggested as an indication of an adequate model indicators of residuals root mean square (RMR), standar-
fit for the critical N statistic (Bollen, 1989; Hoelter, 1983). dized RMR, and root mean square error of approximation
ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Dyer et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 409–422 413

Table 2
Results of the EFA (N ¼ 231)

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

High spending tourists are likely to negatively affect our way of .739
living.
Tourism is likely to change our precious traditional culture. .787
Local residents are likely to suffer from living in a tourism .772
destination.
Tourism is likely to result in unpleasantly overcrowded beaches, .771
hiking trails, parks and other outdoor places in your community.
Tourism is likely to put more pressure on local services such as .469
police and fire protection, utilities, and roads.
The cost of developing tourist facilities is too much. .428
The prices of goods and services are likely to increase because of .437
tourism.
Construction of hotels and other tourist facilities are likely to .637
destroy the natural environment.
Tourism development is likely to provide more parks and other .549
recreational areas for local residents.
Tourism development is likely to provide an incentive for the .782
restoration historical buildings.
Tourism development is likely to provide an incentive for the .764
conservation natural resources.
Tourism development is likely to provide an incentive for the .735
preservation of the local culture.
Our roads and other public facilities are likely to be kept at a high .568
standard because of tourism.
Tourism is likely to increase crime rate. .806
Tourism is likely to result in traffic congestion. .492
Tourism is likely to lead more vandalism in your community. .831
Tourism is likely to result in noise and pollution. .684
Tourism is likely to lead to prostitution in your community. .645
Tourism is likely to create more jobs for your community .863
Tourism is likely to attract more investment to your community. .847
Tourism is likely to provide more business for local people and .842
small businesses.
Tourism is likely to create additional tax revenue from tourists for .544
local governments.
Tourism is likely to encourage development of a variety of cultural .680
activities by the local residents.
Tourism is likely to result in more cultural exchange between .679
tourists and residents.
Tourism development is likely to create positive impact on the .609
cultural identity of your community.
Meeting people from other regions of the world is a valuable .605
experience to better understand their culture and society.

Eigenvalue 8.504 2.835 1.855 1.383 1.121


% of Total Variance 32.708 10.905 7.135 5.327 4.310
Cronbach’s Alpha .87 .81 .81 .82 .75
The Bartlett’s test of sphericity (significance level) .911
The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy .000

Note: Items with a factor loading of higher than .40 are shown.Extraction method: principal component analysis.Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser
normalization.

(RMSEA) were 0.043, 0.047 and 0.031, respectively. was established. The five perceived impact dimensions
Additionally, convergent validity was established for all were negative socio-economic impact, positive social
indicators of each construct. Details on the properties of impacts, negative social impacts, positive economic im-
the measurements are provided in Table 3. As shown in pacts, and positive cultural impacts. Each of the five
Table 3, a five-factor measurement scale of the Sunshine perceived impact constructs was measured by multiple
Coast residents’ perceptions of a tourism impact scale attributes/indicators.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
414 P. Dyer et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 409–422

Table 3
Results of CFA

Constructs and Indicators Completely Indicator Error


standardized reliability variance
loadings

Negative socio-economic impact .69a .86b .14c


High spending tourists are likely to negatively affect our way of living. .74 .55 .45
Tourism is likely to change our precious traditional culture. .76 .58 .42
Local residents are likely to suffer from living in a tourism destination. .84 .71 .29
Tourism is likely to result in unpleasantly overcrowded beaches, hiking trails, parks and other .78 .61 .39
outdoor places in your community.
Tourism is likely to put more pressure on local services such as police and fire protection, utilities, .52 .27 0.73
and roads.
The prices of goods and services are likely to increase because of tourism. .58 .34 .66
Construction of hotels and other tourist facilities are likely to destroy the natural environment. .58 .34 0.66
Positive social impact .69a .82b .18c
Tourism development is likely to provide more parks and other recreational areas for local residents. .56 .31 .69
Tourism development is likely to provide an incentive for the restoration historical buildings. .69 .48 .52
Tourism development is likely to provide an incentive for the conservation natural resources. .82 .67 .33
Tourism development is likely to provide an incentive for the preservation of the local culture. .85 .72 .28
Our roads and other public facilities are likely to be kept at a high standard because of tourism. .51 .26 .74
Negative social impact .66a .80b .20c
Tourism is likely to increase crime rate. .68 0.46 .54
Tourism is likely to result in traffic congestion. .59 .35 0.65
Tourism is likely to lead more vandalism in your community. .66 .44 .56
Tourism is likely to result in noise and pollution. .80 .64 .36
Tourism is likely to lead to prostitution in your community. .59 .35 .65

Positive economic impact .75a .84b .16c


Tourism is likely to create more jobs for your community .88 .77 .23
Tourism is likely to attract more investment to your community. .83 .69 .31
Tourism is likely to provide more business for local people and small businesses. .81 .66 .34
Tourism is likely to create additional tax revenue from tourists for local governments. .46 .21 .79
Positive cultural impact .66a .76b .24c
Tourism is likely to encourage development of a variety of cultural activities by the local residents. .66 .44 .56
Tourism is likely to result in more cultural exchange between tourists and residents. .80 .64 .36
Tourism development is likely to create positive impact on the cultural identity of your community. .75 .56 .44
Meeting people from other regions of the world is a valuable experience to better understand their .44 .19 .81
culture and society.
a
Variance extracted estimate of.
b
Composite reliability of each construct.
c
Error variance of each construct.

4.3. Structural model: perceived tourism impacts and 1993; Ap, 1992; Getz, 1994; Gursoy et al., 2002; Jurowski,
residents’ support/opposition Uysal, & Williams, 1997; Madrigal, 1993; Pizam, 1978).
The relationship between residents’ attitudes toward
After identifying the resident’s perceptions of tourism tourism impacts and their support/opposition for tourism
impacts, influence of those perceptions on their support/ development is further supported by the Theory of
opposition for tourism development was assessed. Gen- Reasoned Action (TRA) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein
erally, there is strong support for the relationship between & Ajzen, 1975). When assessing the relationship between
local residents’ perceptions of tourism impact and their attitudes and intentions, past researchers have been able to
support for tourism development (Gursoy & Rutherford, successfully incorporate the theoretical underpinnings
2004). According to the social exchange theory (SET), local exerted in TRA. The TRA, as its name implies, indicates
residents are likely to participate in an exchange with that individuals are rational, they make use of all available
tourists if they believe that they are likely to gain benefits information, and they evaluate the possible implications of
without incurring unacceptable costs. If residents perceive their action before they decide to engage or not engage in a
that the positive impacts of tourism is greater than the particular decision (Ajzen, 1985). According to TRA the
negative impacts, they are inclined to be involved in the critical component to predicting behaviors is an indivi-
exchange and, therefore, endorse future tourism develop- dual’s intentions, which in turn is an antecedent of actual
ment in their community (Allen, Hafer, Long & Perdue, behavior. Behavioral intentions have been defined as the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Dyer et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 409–422 415

Positive
communities had negative attitudes toward tourism be-
Economic cause they believed that tourism generates more negative
Negative Impact impacts than positive ones. A few other studies reported
Socio/Economic negative attitudes toward tourism because communities
Impact - + studied wanted to avoid negative social impacts being felt
by the neighboring towns (Cheng, 1980), had conflict with
Positive the US forest service (Knopp, 1980) or with resource
+
Social Support management (O’Leary, 1976).
Impact

4.3.2. Perceived tourism impacts


- Perceived Economic Impact: Previous studies suggest that
Negative +
Social a majority of residents view tourism as a tool for economic
Impact development and, therefore, support it as an economic
Positive
Cultural development strategy (Gursoy et al., 2002; Walpole &
Impact Goodwin, 2000). Studies suggest that residents are likely to
view tourism as a tool that reduces unemployment by
Fig. 2. Structural model tested. creating new employment opportunities, brings in new
businesses and creates new investment opportunities,
generates additional business for locals and small business
subjective probability that the individual will engage in the and generates revenue for local communities and govern-
specified behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Intentions are ments (Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004). Almost all studies
comprised of all of the motivation factors that affect a that examined the relationship between perceived economic
behavior and are an indicator of how much effort an benefits and attitudes toward tourism reported a positive
individual will exert to perform a behavior. The theory relationship (Allen, Long, Perdue, & Kieselbach, 1988;
posits that if an individual perceives the behavior as Davis, Allen, & Cosenza, 1988; Jurowski et al., 1997;
favorable (attitude toward behavior), he or she is more Perdue, Long, & Allen, 1990; Pizam, 1978).
likely to intend to perform the behavior as suggested by the Social and Cultural Impacts of Tourism: Residents
SET. perceptions of social and cultural impacts of tourism
Based on the above thesis, a structural model was development have been studied extensively. However, the
constructed to further test the construct validity of the five- findings of those studies have produced contradictory
factor measurement scale representing Sunshine Coast results. While, several studies reported that residents tend
residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts. In the structural to perceive the social and cultural impacts of tourism
model, five dimensions of perceived tourism impacts were development negatively (Johnson et al., 1994; Jurowski
examined as exogenous variables and the support for et al., 1997; Perdue, Long, & Allen, 1987; Tosun, 2002),
tourism development was examined as the endogenous others argue that host residents view tourism as providing
variable (Fig. 2). The next section presents support for the various social and cultural benefits to the community
inclusion of each of the variables in the model. The (Besculides, Lee, & McCormick, 2002; Gursoy & Ruther-
narrative works backward through the model beginning ford, 2004; Sirakaya et al., 2002).
with the dependent variable and ending with the exogenous Studies suggest that tourism development is likely to
variables. The hypotheses being tested are presented. bring social benefits and costs to the host community
(Gursoy et al., 2002; Teye et al., 2002; Tosun, 2002). For
4.3.1. Tourism support example, Brunt and Courtney (1999) argue that local
Both the SET and TRA theories suggest that residents residents may welcome some of the changes caused by
are likely to support tourism development as long as they tourism such as employment opportunities, improving
believe that the expected benefits of development exceed income and so forth. However, other effects may be less
the cost of the development. Since the majority of local welcomed, such as changes in social and family structure,
residents see tourism as an economic development tool and cultural practices adapted to suit the needs of tourists.
(Gursoy et al., 2002), it is not surprising that the findings of Harrison (1992) suggests that tourism provides new
most of the studies on resident attitudes toward tourism opportunities and instigates social change. Crompton and
development suggest that, overall, residents have positive Sanderson (1990) suggest that because of the flexible
attitudes toward tourism (Andereck & Vogt, 2000). Only a working patterns and new opportunities for females,
few studies reported negative attitude toward tourism. For tourism erodes gender segregation. Other researchers
example, Pizam (1978) found that the portion of the suggest that tourism creates new opportunities for residents
residents sampled that felt an overall negative effect from such as new shopping and recreation opportunities (Brunt
the impacts of tourism was larger than the segment that & Courtney, 1999; Gursoy et al., 2002; Jurowski et al.,
assessed the overall impact positively. Johnson, Snepenger 1997). Sethna and Richmond (1978), and Pizam (1978)
and Akis (1994) reported that residents in three Idaho suggest that local residents perceive tourism as having a
ARTICLE IN PRESS
416 P. Dyer et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 409–422

positive impact on local services by improving the Hypothesis 1b. A direct negative relationship exists be-
standards of roads and other public facilities. However, tween the perceived social costs of tourism and local
researchers who examined the link between the perception residents’ support for tourism development.
of negative social impacts and the support for tourism
development reported a negative relationship between
negative social impacts and resident perceptions of tourism Hypothesis 1c. A direct positive relationship exists between
development (Gursoy et al., 2002; Milman & Pizam, 1988; the perceived social benefits of tourism and local residents’
Sirakaya et al., 2002; Tosun, 2002). support for tourism development.
Like perceived social impacts, residents believe that
tourism creates both positive and negative cultural impacts.
Previous studies demonstrate that tourism creates a Hypothesis 1d. A direct positive relationship exists between
demand for local arts, increased pride and cultural identity, the perceived cultural benefits of tourism and local
cohesion, exchange of ideas, and increased knowledge residents’ support for tourism development.
about the culture of the area (Besculides et al., 2002;
Esman, 1984). Tourism also creates opportunities for
cultural exchange, revitalization of local traditions, in- Hypothesis 1e. A direct negative relationship exists be-
creases the quality of life, and improves the image of the tween the perceived cultural costs of tourism and local
community (Besculides et al., 2002). However, literature residents’ support for tourism development.
also suggests that tourism creates negative cultural impacts
(Tosun, 2002). As a factor of change, tourism can To determine the causal relationship between perceived
negatively influence traditional family values (Kousis, tourism impacts and support for tourism, five path
1989); cause cultural commercialization (Cohen, 1988); coefficients were estimated. Fit indices provided by
and may create social and cultural conflicts at the LISREL indicated that the model has an acceptable fit.
destination community due to sociocultural differences, The overall fit of this structural model was w2 (362) ¼ 514.96
economic welfare, and purchasing power gaps between the (p ¼ 0.00); GFI ¼ 0.91; AGFI ¼ 0.90; NFI ¼ 0.90;
host community and tourists (Tosun, 2002). In the long NNFI ¼ 0.96; CFI ¼ 0.97; IFI ¼ 0.97; and PGFI ¼ 0.76;
term, the host community may start adopting visitors’ PNFI ¼ 0.80; with critical N ¼ 332.25. Further, the
norms and values and may become culturally dependent on indicators of residuals RMR, standardized RMR, and
the tourist generating country (Sharpley, 1994). For RMSEA, were 0.053, 0.048 and 0.036, respectively.
example, Dogan (1989) argues that tourists from developed An analysis of the estimated standardized path coeffi-
countries have negative sociocultural impacts on host cients in the proposed structural model reveals the
communities in developing countries such as decline in significance, strength, and direction of each hypothesized
traditions, materialization, increase in crime rates, social relationship. Two of the five hypothesized paths in the
conflicts, crowding, environmental deterioration, and proposed theoretical model are statistically significant in
dependency on tourist generation countries. the direction predicted at the 0.05 probability level. Three
In sum, the tourism literature suggests that the local of the proposed hypotheses are rejected. The results from
residents’ perception of tourism impacts is varied. Some the structural modeling revealed that perceived economic
residents are apt to view tourism as having both positive benefits and perceived cultural benefits have significant
and negative impacts; some are likely to perceive tourism positive direct impact on local residents’ support for
as having negative social and cultural impacts; and some tourism development. This finding is consistent with
are inclined to view tourism as having positive economic, previous studies (Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Yoon,
social and cultural impacts. As suggested by the social Gursoy & Chen, 2001). Consistent with the tourism
exchange theory, if residents believe that tourism creates support and perceived impact literature, results of the
more benefits than costs for the community, they tend to structural equation modeling revealed that all five dimen-
have a favorable view of tourism and as a result support sions of impacts have nomological validity.
tourism development. On the other hand, if they believe
that tourism brings more costs than benefits, they are not 4.4. Distribution of responses for construct indicators
likely to endorse tourism development.
Based on the conceptual and empirical perspectives from While the tourism support model provides crucial
the literature, five hypotheses are proposed to examine the information for evaluating/guiding tourism development
relationships between residents’ perceptions of tourism decisions, it is clear that details of the distribution of
impacts and their support for tourism development. These residents’ self-reported perceptions pertaining to the
hypotheses are: individual indicators are also informative (see Figs. 3–7).
For instance, the only construct that has a clear majority of
Hypothesis 1a. A direct positive relationship exists between supportive opinion across all indicators is the positive
the perceived economic benefits of tourism and local economic impacts construct with a strong consensus in
residents’ support for tourism development. agreement of the economic benefits to the community: the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Dyer et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 409–422 417

60 high spending tourists


impact on lifestyle

50 change of local culture.

40 suffer from living in a


tourism destination
30
overcrowded beaches,
hiking trails, parks etc
20
pressure on local
services
10
increased prices of goods
0 and services
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
destruction of natural
disagree agree
environment

Fig. 3. Resident perceptions of negative socio-economic impacts of tourism (percentage).

60
more parks and other
50 recreational areas for
local residents
40 incentive for the
conservation natural
resources
30
preservation of the local
culture.
20

10 highstandards of public
facilities because of
tourism
0
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

Fig. 4. Resident perceptions of positive social impacts of tourism (percentage).

50
45
increase in crime rate
40
35 increase in traffic
30 congestion.
increase in vandalism
25
20
increase in noise and
15 pollution

10 increase in prostitution in
your community
5
0
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

Fig. 5. Resident perceptions of negative social impacts of tourism (percentage).

provision of jobs; increased investment; increased business The remaining four constructs have a wider spread of
activity for local people and small businesses; and opinions with less certainty and more variability between
additional benefits from tax revenue streams (Fig. 6). the constituent indicators. For instance most indicators in
ARTICLE IN PRESS
418 P. Dyer et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 409–422

60

50 more jobs for your


community

40 more investment in
community
30
more business for local
people and small
20 businesses
additional tax revenue
10 from tourists for local
governments
0
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

Fig. 6. Residents’ perceptions of positive economic impacts from tourism (percentage).

70

60
encourage development
of cultural activities by
50 the local residents.
more tourist/residents
cultural exchanges
40
positive impacton the
30 cultural identity of
community

20 via meeting people from


other regions a better
understand their culture
10 and society

0
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

Fig. 7. Resident perceptions of positive cultural impacts of tourism.

all constructs generally resulted in a positive skew with (Fig. 4). Only 43% agreed that tourism would contribute
most residents agreeing to the indicator statements whether to the preservation of local culture, whereas 58% of
expressed in the positive or negative. This, however, was respondents agreed that tourism development is likely to
not so regarding the impact of high-spending tourists. provide more parks and other recreational areas for local
Almost 40% of respondents disagreed that high-spending residents. Further, 55% and 54%, respectively, agreed that
tourists would have a negative impact on residents’ tourism development would provide an incentive for the
lifestyles (Fig. 3). The highest source of agreement in the conservation of natural resources, and for upkeep of public
negative socio-economic construct indicators appeared to facilities (Fig. 4).
be a concern for the increased pressure on local services There was strong agreement that tourism development
such as police and fire protection, utilities, and roads. Two would increase traffic congestion; only 4% of respondents
thirds of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that disagreed whereas 92% agreed with this statement (Fig. 5).
tourism was likely to change the local Sunshine Coast Almost 70% (69.2%) of respondents agreed that tourism
culture, and 60% of respondents recognized overcrowding development would increase noise pollution but the
as an issue. Interestingly, while there was some evidence of distributions of responses for the other indicators in
concern for the impact of development, only 50% agreed the construct pertaining to negative social impacts were
that construction of hotels and other tourist facilities were relatively normal (Fig. 5).
likely to destroy the natural environment (Fig. 3). Fig. 6 demonstrates a positive skew for all indicators
Residents were relatively ambivalent about positive regarding likely economic impact with 71.9% of respon-
social impacts as an outcome of tourism development dents agreeing that tourism is likely to create additional tax
ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Dyer et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 409–422 419

revenue for local governments; 88.6% agreement that the Sunshine Coast. Thus environmental issues were
tourism would attract more investment in the community; downplayed in relation to the perceived economic and
90.9% agreement that tourism would create more jobs; and cultural benefits. Generally environmental ‘benefits’ are
91.7% agreement with the statement that tourism would considered, but there seems to be less awareness or
support more business for local people and small busi- understanding within the region of the possible negative
nesses. Thus there is clear recognition of the economic implications to the natural capital of the region. Although
benefits that can accrue from tourism and tourism-related many studies have recognized the ‘‘paradoxical character’’
development but this needs to be considered in conjunction of ecotourism (Hillery, Nancarrow, Griffin & Syme, 2001,
with the other constructs. p. 854) the findings here reflect conclusions found in other
While 70% of respondents perceived that tourism fosters regions where residents’ facing ecotourism development
a better inter-cultural understanding, they were not as were unaware of the conflicts within ecotourism (see
confident (62%) that tourism would result in the develop- Weaver & Lawton, 2001; Gardner, Sinclair, Berkes, &
ment of cultural activities by local people, and only 50.6% Singh, 2002). Residents participation is recognized as vital
of respondents agreed that tourism is likely to result in to, but a challenge for, sustainable tourism growth (see
more cultural exchange between tourists and residents. Godfrey, 1998, Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Nash, 2003).
They were even less convinced that tourism would be likely Findings of this study contradict Butler’s (1980) cycle of
to have a positive impact on their community with only evolution, which conceptualizes diminished resident sup-
40.7% of respondents agreeing with this statement (Fig. 7). port for tourism development in tourist locations as
associated negative impacts become evident. The cycle of
5. Discussion and conclusions evolution model suggests that as the destination goes
through the development cycle, residents become more
One of the purposes of this study was to determine the aware of the negative impacts and therefore place a higher
validity of a North American tourism impact scale in an importance on negative impacts. Even though the Sunshine
Australian region as most impact scales to date have been Coast is a well-developed tourist destination, findings
developed using data collected in North America and indicated that residents still place importance on perceived
Europe (Besculides et al., 2002; Brunt & Courtney, 1999; economic and cultural benefits. Findings suggest that locals
Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Davis et al., 1988; Gee, Mackens & are likely to support future development mainly because of
Choy, 1989; Getz, 1986; Gunn, 1988; Haralambopoulos & these two benefits. However, it should be remembered that
Pizam, 1996; McIntosh & Goeldner, 1990; Murphy, 1985; this study was directed at only the residents of the Sunshine
Perdue et al., 1987, 1990; Tosun, 2002; Yoon et al., 2001; Coast. It is possible that if the study was conducted on the
Walpole & Goodwin, 2000). Following a four-step scale residents of other regions and countries, the magnitude and
development process, a perceived impact scale for Aus- direction of the relationship in the model may be different.
tralia was developed. Findings indicated that the Austra- Therefore, other geographic regions should be explored
lian perceived impact scale has the following dimensions: and additional studies should be conducted. In addition,
negative socio-economic impact, positive social impacts, residents were not asked how much tourism development
negative social impacts, positive economic impacts, and they perceived to be acceptable. In addition, they were not
positive cultural impacts. This finding is consistent with the asked any questions regarding the sustainability of devel-
impact scales reported by other researchers. For example, opment. They were only asked to indicate whether they
Gursoy and Rutherford (2004) examined the residents’ would oppose or support nature based, cultural or historic-
perceptions in Idaho and Washington states in the United based tourism and nature programs. It is possible that the
States. They reported similar impact dimensions, which specification of the level of tourism development and
further validates the outcome of this study. Furthermore, questions related to sustainability may alter the magnitude
testing of the proposed model suggested that only and direction of the relationship.
perceived economic benefits and perceived cultural benefits The identification of constructs is helpful to planners,
have significant positive direct impact on local residents’ managers and developers alike. ‘‘y if efforts are made to
support for tourism development, which is also consistent promote its [tourism’s] benefits to cynics, their values must
with previous studies (Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Yoon be taken into account’’ (Williams & Lawson, 2001). By
et al., 2001). identifying and differentiating between resident perceptions
Findings of this study also offer useful insight for that support or are likely to hinder tourism development,
Sunshine Coast’s tourism authorities and developers. The planners and managers can address concerns through
literature reviewed how tourism often brings a trade off strategically targeted community consultation or provision
between economics and natural capital issues. However, in of information. However, it is as well to accommodate the
this study the perceived economic and cultural benefits findings of Nash (2003, 2006) who warns that genuine
were paramount and constituted a factor, subsuming participation may not be as achievable as previously
environmental benefits within the factor. In other words assumed, and Godfrey (1998, p. 213) who warns that not
there was no separate ‘environmental’ factor, which would all officers responsible for tourism development planning,
surprise many residents and planners who live and work on policy and implementation, are ‘‘keen to embrace the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
420 P. Dyer et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 409–422

community beyond the rather ‘passive role’ of public ences should be considered in applying the constructs
relations and participation in the local development plan identified here. Furthermore, the structural model mea-
system’’. Recognition of the types of support for, or surement scales as applied on the Sunshine Coast need to
opposition to, development related to tourism on the be tested in other Australian tourism areas to ascertain
Sunshine Coast, can assist developers in planning appro- whether or not the model can be generalized in the
priate development applications, and planners in approv- Australian context. Such cumulative case study research
ing development applications. that considers context will be ‘‘y more relevant to
However, it is important to consider the ‘‘nature of practitioners because it would be more likely to direct
relationships’’ between host and visitor (Teye et al., 2002, them toward variables which may be under their control
p. 685) when interpreting the influence of residents on and which can be manipulated to influence the outcomes of
tourism development and its success. Teye et al. (2002) tourism’’ (Wall, 1997, p. 57).
applied this concept in a developing nation, but is also
relevant in other situations. By considering both the Acknowledgements
negative socio-economic impact together with the positive
social impact and the positive economic impact constructs, The University of the Sunshine Coast funded the project.
it is evident that residents are quite discerning about the The project team appreciates the support of research
range of economic and social costs and benefits of tourism assistants, Deborah Davis and Marian Jenkins.
development. By using such models, planners and devel-
opers alike, could be aware of potential conflict regarding References
development such as the current opposition to the Wool-
worth’s multinational retail chain development, in Maleny Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to action: A theory of planned behavior.
(within the study region) that locals fear will destroy In J. Kuhl, & J. Beckmenn (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to
platypus habitat, disrupt local small businesses, and behavior (pp. 11–39). New York: Springer.
adversely affect Maleny’s tourist/rural village identity. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting
social behavior. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Given the degree and rate of expected growth on the Akis, S., Peristianis, N., & Warner, J. (1996). Residents’ attitudes to
Sunshine Coast, understanding resident attitudes and tourism development: The case of Cyprus. Tourism Management,
values is imperative if the Coast is to retain that which 17(7), 481–494.
attracts people in the first place. To retain the elements that Allen, L. R., Long, P. T., Perdue, R. R., & Kieselbach, S. (1988). The
appeal, decision makers must recognize that a compromise impact of tourism development on residents: perception of community
life. Journal of Travel Research, 27(1), 16–21.
between economic, social and cultural benefits and the Allen, L. R., Hafer, H. R., Long, R., & Perdue, R. R. (1993). Rural
negative social and socio-economic constructs must be residents’ attitudes toward recreation and tourism development.
realized. Consideration of the distribution of responses to Journal of Travel Research, 31(4), 27–33.
construct indicators can assist in community consultation Andereck, K. L., & Vogt, C. A. (2000). The relationship between residents’
attitudes toward tourism and tourism development options. Journal of
processes by clarifying misinformation, communicating
Travel Research, 39(August), 27–36.
future plans for infrastructure and services, and by Ap, J. (1992). Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of
planning activities and approvals that are aligned with Tourism Research, 19(4), 665–690.
identified community values. Babbie, E. (2004). The practice of social research (10th Ed.). Belmont, CA:
This research holds the potential for helping destination Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
managers, tourism planners, political authorities and other Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative indexes in structural models.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
groups better understand residents perceptions of tourism Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance test and goodness of
and how those perceptions influence their support/opposi- fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88,
tion for tourism development. It also provides some 591–606.
necessary background information for applied projects. Besculides, A., Lee, M. E., & McCormick, P. J. (2002). Residents’
perceptions of the cultural benefits of tourism. Annals of Tourism
In addition, the results of the study will, hopefully, serve as
Research, 29(2), 303–319.
a basis for more comprehensive research in the area. It Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York:
identified constructs that represent community attitudes Wiley.
toward tourism development in an Australian context, the Brunt, P., & Courtney, P. (1999). Host perceptions of sociocultural
Sunshine Coast. Although the construct indicators can be impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3), 493–515.
examined more closely to provide detail about residents’ Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution:
Implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer,
concerns about or support for tourism development, the 24(1), 5–12.
heterogeneous nature of the three local government areas Byrne, N. M. (1989). A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and
that make up the region and the dual nature of the coast/ programming for confirmatory factor analytic models. New York:
hinterland divide, require more in-depth interrogation of Springer.
the data. The constructs provide a good overview of the Cheng, J. R. (1980). Tourism: How much is too much? Lessons for
Canmore from Banff. Canadian Geographer, 23(1), 72–80.
region, but decision makers in a heterogeneous region in Choi, H.-S., & Sirakaya, E. (2005). Measuring residents’ attitude toward
terms of socio-economic precincts and geography, need to sustainable tourism: Development of sustainable tourism attitude
decide whether any intra-regional or demographic influ- scale. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 380–394.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Dyer et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 409–422 421

Clark, I. D. (2001). Rock art sites in Victoria, Australia: A management Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Williams, R. D. (1997). A theoretical analysis
history framework. Tourism Management, 23, 455–464. of host community resident reactions to tourism. Journal of Travel
Cohen, E. (1988). Tourism and Aids in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(2), 3–11.
Research, 15, 467–486. Kayat, K. (2002). Power, social exchanges and tourism in Langkawi:
Crompton, R., & Sanderson, K. (1990). Gendered jobs and social change. Rethinking resident perceptions. International Journal of Tourism
London: Unwin Hyman. Research, 4, 171–191.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological Knopp, T. B. (1980). Tourism: The local interest and the function of
tests. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 281–302. public lands. In D. E. Hawkins, E. L. Shafer, & J. M. Rovelstad (Eds.),
Davis, D., Allen, J., & Cosenza, R. M. (1988). Segmenting local residents Tourism Planning and Development Issues (pp. 225–238). Washington,
by their attitudes, interests, and opinions toward tourism. Journal of DC: George Washington University.
Travel Research, 27(3), 2–8. Ko, D.-W., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of
Dogan, H. Z. (1989). Forms of adjustment: Sociocultural impacts of residents’ attitudes for tourism development. Tourism Management,
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(2), 216–236. 23, 521–530.
Duffield, B. S., & Long, J. (1981). Tourism in the highlands and islands of Kousis, M. (1989). Tourism and the family in a rural Cretan community.
Scotland rewards and conflicts. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(3), Annals of Tourism Research, 16, 318–332.
403–431. Lawson, R. W., Williams, J., Young, T., & Cossens, J. (1998). A
Esman, M. (1984). Tourism as ethnic preservation: The Cajuns of comparison of residents’ attitudes towards tourism in 10 New Zealand
Louisiana. Annals of Tourism Research, 11, 451–467. destinations. Tourism Management, 19, 247–256.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: Leiper, N. (1999). A conceptual analysis of tourism-supported employ-
An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. ment which reduces the incidence of exaggerated, misleading statistics
Fredline, E., & Faulkner, B. (2000). Host community reactions: A cluster about jobs. Tourism Management, 20, 605–613.
analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 763–784. Levin, J. (1983). Elementary statistics in social research (3rd Ed.).
Gardner, J., Sinclair, J., Berkes, F., & Singh, R. B. (2002). Accelerated New York: Harper & Row.
tourism development and its impacts in Kullu-Manali, H.P., India. Madrigal, R. (1993). A tale of tourism in two cities. Annals of Tourism
Tourism Recreation Research, 27(3), 9–20. Research, 20(2), 336–353.
Gee, C. Y., Mackens, J. C., & Choy, D. J. (1989). The travel industry. McIntosh, R. W., & Goeldner, C. R. (1990). Tourism principles, practices,
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. philosophies. New York: Wiley.
Getz, D. (1986). Models in tourism planning toward integration of theory Milman, A., & Pizam, A. (1988). Social impacts of tourism on central
and practice. Tourism Management, 7, 21–32. Florida. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(2), 191–204.
Getz, D. (1994). Residents’ attitudes toward tourism: A longitudinal study Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Alstine, J. V., Bennett, N., Lind, S., &
in Spey Valley, Scotland. Tourism Management, 15(4), 247–258. Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for
Gunn, C. A. (1988). Tourism planning. New York: Taylor and Francis. structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 10, 430–445.
Godfrey, K. B. (1998). Attitudes towards ‘sustainable tourism’ in the UK: Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. New York:
A view from local government. Tourism Management, 10(3), 213–224. Routledge.
Gursoy, D., & Rutherford, D. G. (2004). Host attitudes toward tourism: Murphy, P. A., & Watson, W. (1995). Winner, losers and curate’s eggs:
An improved structural model. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), Urban and regional outcomes of Australian economic restructuring
495–516. 1971–1991. Geoforum, 26(4), 337–349.
Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident attitudes: A Nash, R. D. (2003). Participative democracy: community participation or
structural modeling approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), technocratic elitism. Australasian political studies association confer-
79–105. ence, University of Tasmania, Australia. http://www.utas.edu.au/
Haralambopoulos, N., & Pizam, A. (1996). Perceived impacts of tourism: government/APSA/RNashfinal.pdf
The case of Samos. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3), 503–526. Nash, R. D. (2006). Community participation and collaboration in
Harrison, D. (1992). Tourism to less developed countries: The social catchment management: A multi-disciplinary approach to citizen
consequences in tourism and less developed countries. London: Bell- involvement in decision-making processes. Unpublished Phd thesis,
haven. University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Hattie, J. (1985). Methodology review: Assessing unidimensionality of O’Leary, J. T. (1976). Land use redefinition and the rural community:
tests and terms. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9(2), 139–164. Disruption of community leisure space. Journal of Leisure Research, 8,
Hillery, M., Nancarrow, B., Griffin, G., & Syme, G. (2001). Tourist 263–274.
perception of environmental impact. Annals of Tourism Research, Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Allen, L. (1987). Rural resident tourism
28(4), 853–867. perceptions and attitudes. Annals of Tourism Research, 14, 420–429.
Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of- Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Allen, L. (1990). Resident support for
fit indices. Sociological Methods and Research, 11, 325–344. tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 17, 586–599.
Hohl, A. E., & Tisdell, C. A. (1995). Peripheral tourism: Development and Pizam, A. (1978). Tourism’s impacts: The social costs to the destination
management. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(3), 517–534. community as perceived by its residents. Journal of Travel Research,
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle 16(4), 8–12.
(Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications Prideaux, B. (2000). The resort development spectrum—a new approach
(pp. 76–99). Thousand Oak, CA: SAGE Publications. to modeling resort development. Tourism Management, 21, 225–240.
Jamison, D. (1999). Tourism and ethnicity. Annals of Tourism Research, Ryan, C., & Montgomery, D. (1994). The attitudes of Bakewell residents
26(4), 944–967. to tourism and issues in community responsive tourism. Tourism
Johnson, J., Snepenger, D., & Akis, S. (1994). Residents’ perceptions of Management, 15(5), 358–369.
tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 21, 629–642. Ryan, C., & Huyton, J. (2002). Tourists and Aboriginal people. Annals of
Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several popula- Tourism Research, 29(3), 631–647.
tions. Psychometrika, 36, 409–426. Selvanathan, A., Selvanathan, S., Keller, G., Warrack, B., & Bartel,
Jöreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. H. (1994). Australian Business Statistics. Melbourne: Nelson ITP.
Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models Sethna, R. J., & Richmond, B. O. (1978). US Virgin Islanders’ perceptions
(pp. 294–316). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications. of tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 17, 30–37.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: User’s reference guide Sethi, V., & King, W. (1994). Development of measures to assess the
(1st ed.). Chicago: Scientific Software. extent to which an information technology application provides
ARTICLE IN PRESS
422 P. Dyer et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 409–422

competitive advantage. Management Science, 40(December), Tosun, C. (2002). Host perceptions of impacts: A comparative tourism
1601–1624. study. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 231–245.
Sharpley, R. (1994). Tourism, Tourists and Society. Huntingdon: ELM. Tourism Queensland (2004). Sunshine Coast regional summary: Abstract,
Simons, M. S. (2000). Aboriginal heritage art and moral rights. Annals of Tourism Queensland Research Department, Brisbane.
Tourism Research, 27(2), 412–431. Wall, G. (1997). Impacts of tourism: Theory and practice. Tourism
Sirakaya, E., Teye, V., & Sonmez, S. (2002). Understanding residents’ Recreation Research, 22(2), 57–58.
support for tourism development in the central region of Ghana. Walpole, M. J., & Goodwin, H. J. (2000). Local economic impacts of dragon
Journal of Travel Research, 41, 57–67. tourism in Indonesia. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 559–576.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidel, F. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. J. (2001). Resident perceptions in the urban-
ed.). New York: Harper Collins Publishers. rural fringe. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 439–458.
Teye, V., Sonmez, S. F., & Sirakaya, E. (2002). Residents’ attitudes Williams, J., & Lawson, R. (2001). Community issues and resident
towards tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), opinions of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 269–290.
668–688. Yoon, Y., Gursoy, D., & Chen, J. S. (2001). Validating a tourism
Theuns, H. L. (2002). Tourism and development: Economic dimensions. development theory with structural equation modeling. Tourism
Tourism Recreation Research, 27(1), 69–81. Management, 22(4), 363–372.
Tomljenovic, R., & Faulkner, B. (2000). Tourism and older residents in a Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement concept. Journal of
sunbelt resort. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(1), 93–114. Consumer Research, 12(December), 341–352.

You might also like