Journal of Travel Research http://jtr.sagepub.

com/

Residents' Attitudes Toward Tourism and Perceived Personal Benefits in a Rural Community
Yasong (Alex) Wang and Robert E. Pfister
Journal of Travel Research 2008 47: 84 originally published online 14 January 2008
DOI: 10.1177/0047287507312402

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/47/1/84

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Travel Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/47/1/84.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jul 15, 2008

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jan 14, 2008

What is This?

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 17, 2014
 Residents’ Attitudes Toward Tourism
and Perceived Personal Benefits
in a Rural Community
YASONG (ALEX) WANG AND ROBERT E. PFISTER
This research focuses on residents’ perceptions of per-
sonal benefits from tourism, identifying not only the rela-
tionships between personal benefits from tourism and
residents’ attitudes toward tourism but also the nature of
benefits associated with tourism. The study was conducted
in a small rural community where tourism is still at its
emerging stage. It was found that residents’ perceptions of
personal benefits from tourism were closely associated with
their attitudes toward tourism in a positive direction. The
significant contribution of this study falls on the recognition
of noneconomic perspective of tourism benefits for residents
in a community where tourism has not yet explicitly
emerged. In particular, the data lend support for social
exchange theory and improve its understanding in tourism
investigations.
Keywords: rural community; tourism planning; resi-
dents’ attitudes; social exchange theory;
perceived personal benefits
Rural Communities-in-Transition
and Resident Involvement
In recent times, rural communities in North America
have been subjected to noteworthy social and economic
changes as they respond to the pressures of a global econ-
omy. Disappearing from the rural landscape are the tradi-
tional resource-based employment opportunities. In the
southeast region, there are fewer jobs associated with family
farms growing tobacco, textiles, or cotton; and in rural west-
ern communities, the traditional employment that is associ-
ated with forestry, mining, or ranching is diminishing. For
many community leaders, these changes force them to
reassess their cultural and natural resource assets and deter-
mine whether they possess the assets to create tourism-
related products. The cultural heritage theme has long been
the strength of the east and south due to early settlement
history, nation-building, and battlefields. Restoring heritage
resources and historic districts presents opportunities to host
visitors and to organize festival and reenactment of histori-
cal events. In the Midwest and West, the tourism products
are more likely to favor agri-tourism, dude ranches, outdoor
adventure, and nature-based experiences associated with the
public lands and frontier assets of the region.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 17, 2014
Regardless of the quality of tourism-oriented features,
attractions, products, and services, tourism can bring sub-
stantial social, economic, and environmental impacts to
rural communities and the surrounding areas. The nature
and magnitude of these impacts have been a significant con-
cern for planners, community leaders, and social scientists
for several decades. Research targeting tourism impacts on
host communities has passed through several evolutionary
stages from unrestrained advocacy of tourism development
to scientific examination of the benefits and costs of tourism
industry in various settings (Jafari 2001). A number of
researchers and planners suggest that effective tourism plan-
ning requires resident involvement to mitigate the negative
impacts and to clarify the benefits associated with the
tourism industry (Arnstein 1969; Chambers 2002; Sewell
and Coppock 1977; Rohe and Gates 1985; Wates 2000).
In return for mitigating impacts and clarifying benefits,
tourism planners can earn residents’ support for specific
tourism initiatives and create a favorable attitude toward
tourism among residents. In the past three decades, research
on residents’ attitudes toward tourism has become a major
focus. The rationale for understanding residents’ attitudes
appears founded on several perspectives. Most recently, the
reasons related to an examination of residents’ attitudes
include (a) the degree to which types of tourism initiatives
are acceptable to residents (McGehee and Meares 1998); (b)
nature of residents’ positive and negative concerns with
development options (Andereck and Vogt 2000); and (c) sig-
nificance of spatial, economic investment, and relational
network factors among the community stakeholders (Harrill,
2004; Harrill and Potts 2003).
Yasong (Alex) Wang is a PhD student in the College of Health
and Human Development, Department of Recreation, Park, and
Tourism Management, at Penn State University, University Park.
His research interests include tourism planning, sociocultural
impacts of travel and tourism on the host community, and commu-
nity tourism development. Robert E. Pfister is a professor of
tourism management in the Department of Recreation and Tourism
Management at Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, British
Columbia. His research interests include impact assessment,
tourism planning and development, diffusion of innovations, and
entrepreneurship.
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 47, August 2008, 84-93
DOI: 10.1177/0047287507312402
© 2008 Sage Publications

Social Exchange Theory
Attitudes are defined as “a state of mind of the individual
toward a value” (Allport 1966, p. 24) and as “an enduring pre-
disposition towards a particular aspect of one’s environment”
(McDougall and Munro 1987, p. 87). Attitudes are “reinforced
by perceptions and beliefs of reality but are closely related to
deeply held values and even to personality—unlike opinions,
they do not change quickly” (Getz 1994, p. 247). In the exami-
nation of attitudes, researchers recognized that residents’ atti-
tudes toward tourism are not simply the reflections of residents’
knowledge about tourism impacts but also influenced by resi-
dents’ values and personality. To support this assertion, social
exchange theory has been frequently adopted in tourism studies
as a theoretical framework for developing an understanding of
residents’ attitudes toward tourism (Andereck et al. 2005; Ap
1992; Jurowski, Uysal, and Williams 1997; Perdue, Long, and
Allen 1990; Sirakaya, Teye, and Sonmez 2002).
Social exchange theory is used in several disciplines
such as sociology, economics, and social psychology to
interpret aspects of social relations along with the exchanges
that occur within them. It offers a framework for examining
the position an individual actor may take contingent upon a
rewarding action from others (Emerson 1976). Under-
standing the relationship between an attitudinal position
expressed by an actor (e.g., resident) and a range of poten-
tial benefits (e.g., reinforcements) associated with an atti-
tude has been suggested to be a productive area of inquiry in
tourism, even though some investigations have not yielded
conclusive results (Andereck et al. 2005).
Benefits are essentially value domains, and in tourism, eco-
nomic and noneconomic values domains may influence an
attitude toward tourism. If you or a family member is
employed in the tourism industry, the economic value domains
are often clear and identifiable. Value domains created by the
conditioning process and operant psychology serve to offer
various examples of how conditioning can occur. Actors are
motivated by relative values in an exchange and make deci-
sions based on the concept of “subjective expected utility”
(Emerson 1987). Emerson (1976) also states:
Reinforcement psychology and economic decision
theory differ markedly. It is generally understood or
assumed in economic theory that an intelligent and
well-informed actor formulates probabilities and
estimates utilities for alternative actions prior to
deciding and acting . . . By contrast, any reader who
feels that people, in their social relations with each
other, act more on sentiment and habit than upon
such reasoned decision-making should find Homans
and operant psychology much more palatable . . . . In
place of calculation and reason in human affairs, it
relies upon value as the result of prior conditioning in
longitudinal exchange relationships. (p. 341)
Investigations seeking to explore the noneconomic value
domains need to focus on the nature of conditioning factors in
the creation of value domains in which tourism is an emergent
economic activity. Of particular interest would be the value
domains for the segment of the resident population not enjoy-
ing direct economic benefits from the tourism activity.
Tourism researchers have a choice in the interpretation of
research findings between the tradition of economics and
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 17, 2014
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 85
the tradition of social psychology or sociology in regards to
using social exchange as an organizing framework.
Actors residing in an emergent tourism destination can be
viewed as potential hosts and considered in a social relation
whereby their attitude toward tourism is based on an exchange
for something of value attributed by tourism. Understanding the
assumptions and constructs governing the exchange may be
examined in term of an economic or sociological approach, and
this will influence interpretation of findings. Commonly,
researchers on personal benefits have focused attention on the
economic indicators of the potential exchange (personal
income, tax revenue, employment, consumer spending, level of
economic dependency, etc.), whereas the value domains may
alternatively be anchored in social, aesthetic, community pride
and less tangible variables in specific circumstances. As
Emerson (1987) points out:
In the fields of sociology, anthropology, and social psy-
chology, social exchange theory is developing in a way
that is radically different from the traditional study of
exchange in economics. The major difference is this: At
its core, neoclassical economic theory views the actor
(a person or a firm) as dealing not with other actors but
with a market. In economic theory, decisions are made
by actors not in response to the decision of another
party but in response to environmental parameters such
as market price.” (p. 11)
Whereas sociology accepts interpersonal value domains and a
concept of subjective utility, the economic approach to social
exchanges will impose the constructs of rationality, maximiza-
tion of self-interest, and perfect competition within the mar-
ketplace to interpret the findings.
Even when the practice of exchange engaged by residents
is regarded as a pure economic activity, the noneconomic value
domains or benefits in the exchange process cannot be
ignored. Adopting Weber’s notion of rationality, which is a
theoretical framework for understanding the motivation of
people’s economic activity, McGehee and Meares (1998) find
that tourism-related cooperatives managed by residents are
more than the manifestation of residents’ economic needs. In
particular, their study results indicate that the more diversified
the leadership of cooperatives is, the greater the importance of
the noneconomic needs for residents. Furthermore, in their
study of two Ghana communities where tourism was at its
inception stage, Sirakaya, Teye, and Sonmez (2002) reported
that the community noneconomic improvements perceived by
residents are directly related to support for tourism develop-
ment. Such results indicate that the noneconomic tourism ben-
efits are a critical factor involved with social exchange and
associated with residents’ positive attitude toward tourism.
Although a number of researchers have adopted social
exchange theory to explain the identified significant relationship
between benefits and residents’ attitudes toward tourism, the
application of social exchange theory in understanding resi-
dents’ attitudes toward tourism appears oriented to shedding
light on the economic value domains (Andereck et al. 2005;
Jurowski, Uysal, and Williams 1997; McGehee and Andereck
2004; Perdue, Long, and Allen 1990; Sirakaya, Teye, and
Sonmez 2002). In those studies, it is noted that the measurement
of the personal benefits variable tend to be captured in a single
Likert-type scale statement without an elaboration of the
value domains that comprise it.
86 AUGUST 2008
In a study of how residents weigh factors in relation to
their tourism attitudes, Jurowski, Uysal, and Williams
(1997) used a path model to explore social exchange. The
frame of reference applied in the study had a distinctive eco-
nomic orientation in that residents’ attitudes toward tourism
were a rational exchange in which benefits would exceed the
costs to hold a favorable attitude. Their data supported the
premise that direct economic gains were associated with res-
idents’ support for tourism. The authors postulated that
respondents who use the same resource as tourists do would
view tourism positively in those circumstances where
tourism improves the resource. The tourism resource in the
investigation was the Mt. Rogers National Recreation Area
within the vicinity. Their investigation did not specify the
nature of the improvements that might occur in the case of
the national recreation area, and their data revealed that
respondents held a relatively neutral attitude toward tourism.
In their literature review of the research to date,
McGehee and Andereck (2004) stated that personal benefits
have not been “defined within the questionnaire and is a
somewhat obscure concept that may be interpreted differ-
ently by each respondent. If the goal is to be in keeping with
social exchange theory, benefits should imply an economic
or at least quantifiable variable” (p. 139). Given the findings
to date, the questions deserving of attention are the follow-
ing: How do community residents perceive themselves as
benefiting from tourism development? What are the vari-
ables that comprise personal benefits?
Purpose of Research
This investigation seeks to closely examine the premise
of value domains suggested by social exchange theory in a
community with an emergent tourism economy. To what
degree are the development initiatives taken to improve the
capacity of the community to host tourism valued by resi-
dents? Is it possible that community revitalization serves as
part of a longitudinal conditioning process in which value
domains are created and influence a favorable attitude
toward tourism? This research focuses on a sociological tra-
dition of social exchange and is guided by the premise that
individual sentiment and social conditioning may be impor-
tant elements in understanding the value residents place on
changes in the community attributed to tourism.
This investigation targeted at a small rural community
(population of less than 10,000) that had not yet become
dependent on tourism as an economic activity and a region
that has been economically distressed. The research seeks to
investigate the following three questions:
1. To what degree are specific types of values attributed to
tourism identified as a personal benefit by respondents?
2. Are personal benefits a significant variable for
explaining attitudes toward tourism?
3. To what degree does the perception of personal benefits
vary among respondents given sociodemographic and
community attachment variables?
STUDY AREA
The study was conducted in Washington, a small com-
munity with a 2000 population of 9,583 located in eastern
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 17, 2014
coastal area of North Carolina. With its strategic location at
the junction of coastal and inland rivers, Washington used to
serve as a regional shipping center, and its economy was
strongly influenced by resource-based industries such as
farming and manufacturing. Due to the decline of manufac-
turing and agriculture industries in the past decades,
Washington has been economically distressed. According to
the statistics from U.S. census bureau report in 2000, the
median household income in Washington was USD 22,057,
which was far less than the U.S. median household income
level (USD 41,994). Nearly one-quarter (23.3%) of families
in Washington were below poverty level compared to 9.2%
nationally. In recent years, service sector industries have
emerged as an important dimension of local economy. In
particular, tourism is increasingly perceived as a potential
source providing local employment opportunities, tax rev-
enues, and economic diversity.
Currently, Washington is undergoing revitalization to
bring business and tourists into the local area to help give the
local economy a boost. Victorian era homes in the down-
town district are refurbished as an important tourist asset for
the community, the waterfront is renovated to attract more
visitors, and many historic buildings along the Main Street
are well preserved. The community also has a wide variety
of attractions ranging from historical sites, shopping, dining,
to special events such as Music in the Streets and the
Summer Festival. In addition, an office dedicated to the full-
time development of tourism and to helping Washington
capitalize on its waterfront and historical district was estab-
lished in 2002. Moreover, the city’s Tourism Development
Authority hired its first director in 2001, after 10 years of
operating with a volunteer staff.
However, tourism in Washington today is at an emergent
level of development. According to the data from the survey
in this research, nearly all respondents (98.5%) did not think
that they or their family members were employed in the
tourism industry and nearly two-thirds of respondents
(65.4%) reported that they did not visit the local visitor
center over the past 12 months. In particular, the data from
U.S. census report in 2000 indicate that only about 10% of
employed residents 16 years and over work in tourism-
related jobs, such as entertainment, recreation, accommoda-
tion, food services, and arts. With such attributes in the level
of tourism development, Washington provides a unique
opportunity to study residents’ attitudes toward tourism
from the standpoint of the planning and development
process.
METHOD
To examine residents’ attitudes toward tourism in
Washington, North Carolina, the authors adopted 20 state-
ments from the Tourism Impact Attitude Scale (TIAS) and
built a 20-item, 5-point Likert-type response format based
on this scale (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neu-
tral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree). Respondents were
requested to demonstrate their attitudes toward the role
tourism played in their community by using the 5-point
Likert-type scale for each statement. To assess the dimen-
sionality of 20 TIAS items, factor analysis was used. Factor
analysis is a statistical technique used to reduce a set of
observable variables to a small number of factors (Gorsuch
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 87

TABLE 1 TABLE 2
PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS AND RELIABILITY CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS
COEFFICIENTS FOR PERSONAL BENEFITS
Variables %
Dimension and Factored Items Factor Factor Loading
Gender (n = 130)
Personal benefitsa (factor mean = 2.92, Female 50.8
alpha coefficient = .90) Male 49.2
Contributions to the economy .822 Age (M = 54.34; Mdn = 55; SD = 16.0)
Downtown revitalization .817 20-29 8.1
Special events and programs .800 30-39 11.3
Arts and cultural features .796 40-49 15.3
Shopping and dining choices .748 50-59 24.2
Recreation opportunity .741 60-69 21.0
Historic homes .738 70-79 16.1
Community services .676 Older than 80 4.0
Education
a. eigenvalue: 4.73; variance explained: 59.1%. High school or less 26.6
Associate’s degree 23.4
1983). To reduce the number of variables, the loading values College degree 25.8
that indicate the correlations between variables and factors are Graduate degree 24.2
used to identify whether the group of variables can be repre- Length of residence (M = 30.42; Mdn = 25; SD = 22.9)
1-10 years 23.8
sented by the factor. Factor analysis has been developed pri- 11-20 years 19.4
marily for analyzing relationships among a number of 21-30 years 17.9
measurable entities, such as attitudinal items. The value of 31-40 years 10.4
factor analysis lies in its ability to reduce the 20 attitudinal 41-50 years 6.0
items on the Likert-type scale to a few core factors. A factor 51-60 years 9.0
makes it possible to measure a particular perception more 61-70 years 7.5
broadly, reducing any possibilities of chance (Churchill 71-80 years 6.0
1979). Furthermore, as done in previous research (e.g., Harrill Membership of local civic organizations
and Potts 2003; Lankford, Chen, and Chen 1994), the mean Yes 35.3
value of each factor was examined in this study to examine No 64.7
the overall residents’ attitudes toward tourism.
The TIAS was developed by Lankford and Howard (1994)
and is described as a “standardized measurement of resident
attitude towards tourism development” (p. 121). Its reliability The other variables included in the questionnaire are age,
and validity have been tested by using it in various tourism set- gender, level of formal education, and community attach-
tings over the past decades (i.e., Lankford and Howard 1994, in ment. In this research, community attachment was measured
Oregon and Washington States; Lankford, Chen, and Chen in two ways: (a) the respondents’ length of residence and (b)
1994 in Taiwan; Rollins 1997, in British Columbia; Vesey and active membership in civic organizations in Washington.
Dimanche 2001, in New Orleans, Louisiana; and Harrill and Length of residence has been highly used in previous
Potts 2003, in Charleston, South Carolina. However, it is not research as one of variables to measure community attach-
known whether the scale can be used to test residents’ attitudes ment (Sheldon and Var 1984; Um and Crompton 1987).
toward tourism in a small community where tourism is still in Membership in civic organizations as another critical vari-
its emerging stage. able measuring community attachment was identified to be
A range of benefits or value domains identified fre- significantly correlated with attitudes toward tourism (Vesey
quently in the tourism literature (Smith 2001; Fridgen 1996; and Dimanche 2001).
Pearce, Moscardo, and Ross 1996) were derived in this The data collection was conducted in February, 2005. A
study from Washington’s public documents (Gray 2001), 10% sample of all households was randomly selected from
public brochures, and the local newspapers. Eventually, a list of all household appearing on the billing list provided
eight items (see table 1) were identified and included in the by the local utility company. The structure and administra-
survey instrument. Respondents were requested to indicate tion of the survey were based on the Dillman’s (2000) mail-
“the degree to which they felt personally benefited from in survey methodology. A cover letter informing participants
tourism activities in their community” by using a 4-point of their selection for the survey together with a copy of the
scale (1 = not at all; 2 = very little; 3 = somewhat; 4 = a lot). questionnaire and a stamped return envelop was mailed to
The psychometric properties of the eight benefits items were participants. Subsequently, a second mailing was initiated to
tested by using reliability analysis and factor analysis, those participants that did not return the questionnaire at the
respectively. The overall reliability of the eight items was end of 2 weeks. The final step was a postcard to those who
0.90, and principal component analysis with varimax rota- did not respond.
tion produced a one-factor solution. Such results indicated
that the personal benefits can be measured by one construct
composed of the eight benefits items. To test the association RESULTS
of the personal benefits variable with the stated attitude
toward tourism, the variable was recoded by adding the Of the 436 participants who were drawn in the sample, it
scores of eight items together. was found that the mailing list contained 26 incorrect
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 17, 2014
88 AUGUST 2008

TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF SAMPLE WITH CENSUS ENUMERATION FOR EACH AGE CATEGORY

Categories Percentage (Sample) Percentage (Census) Margin of Error Confidence Interval Discrepancy

20-24 4.8% 8.3% 0.038 1.0%-8.6%

25-34 8.9% 15.5% 0.050 3.9%-13.9% –1.6%
35-44 14.5% 18.2% 0.062 8.3%-20.7%
45-54 20.2% 18.8% 0.071 13.1%-27.3%
55-59 10.5% 6.3% 0.054 5.1%-15.9%
60-64 12.9% 6.0% 0.059 7.0%-18.8% 1.0%
65-74 17.7% 12.6% 0.067 11.0%-24.4%
75 years and over 10.5% 14.3% 0.054 5.1%-15.9%
Total 100.0% 100.0%
Median 55.0 39.0
SD 16.0

TABLE 4
COMPARISON OF SAMPLE WITH CENSUS ENUMERATION FOR GENDER (PERCENTAGE)

Gender Percentage (Sample) Percentage (Census) Margin of Error Confidence Interval Discrepancy

Male 49.2% 43.6% 0.087 40.5%-57.9%

Female 50.8% 56.4% 0.087 42.1%-59.5%
Total 100.0% 100.0%

TABLE 5
COMPARISON OF SAMPLE WITH CENSUS ENUMATION FOR FORMAL EDUCATION

Education Level Percentage (Sample) Percentage (Census) Margin of Error Confidence Interval Discrepancy

High school or less 26.6% 69.3% 0.077 18.9%-34.3% –35.0%

Associate’s degree 23.4% 5.9% 0.073 16.1%-30.7% 10.2%
College degree 25.8% 17.2% 0.076 18.2%-33.4% 1.0%
Graduate degree 24.2% 7.6% 0.074 16.8%-31.6% 9.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0%

addresses and the letters were returned by the post office as
undeliverable. In total, 130 usable questionnaires were
returned for a response rate of 32%. The mean age of study
subjects was 54.3 years old, and there was a roughly even
distribution of men and women with 49.2% for men and
50.8% for women, respectively. There was also a roughly
even distribution of educational levels, with 26.6% possess-
ing a high school diploma or less, 23.4% having an associ-
ate’s degree, 25.8% holding a college degree, and 24.2%
holding a graduate degree. Respondents’ length of residence
ranges from 1 year to 80 years, with a mean of 30.4 years.
The majority of respondents did not have membership in
local civic organizations (64.7%; see table 2).
Furthermore, the degree to which the sample was repre-
sentative of the resident population was examined by using
the census age categories of the population. As shown in
table 3, the sample was representative of the census parame-
ter, with the exception of the 25-34 age group, which was
underrepresented, and the 60-64 age category, which was
overrepresented. The median age of the participants is 55
years old, higher than that in the census, which shows a
median age of 39 years old.
As indicated in table 4, gender representation in the sam-
ple reflects the distribution of the overall resident population.
Table 5 presents the distribution of respondents’ formal educa-
tion levels, and the sample data do not reflect the level of for-
mal education that is reported in the census. A discrepancy in
level of education between the sample and the census exists
for (a) high school or less (i.e., the sample underrepresents
the percentage of the people with a high school degree or
less), (b) associate’s degree (i.e., the sample overrepresents
the percentage of the people with an associate’s degree in
the census), (c) college degree (i.e., the sample overrepre-
sents the percentage of the people with a college degree),
and (d) category of graduate degree (i.e., the sample over-
represents the percentage of the people with a graduate
degree).
As demonstrated in the tables, the sample had a higher
average age and education level than Washington’s popula-
tion in general. As well, the sample size was affected by the
mail-in survey, which is known for the modest response rate,
and the sample was limited to utility customers. This limita-
tion should be kept in mind in regard to the results.
Generally speaking, study participants recognized that
they personally valued changes attributed to becoming a
host community for tourism activities. As shown in table 6,
for each benefit item, more than 50% of participants
reported obtaining at least some benefits from tourism. In
particular, downtown revitalization (M = 3.17), special
events and programs (M = 3.12), and shopping and dining
choices (M = 3.10) were identified as the three major per-
spectives of personal benefits from tourism. This result is
consistent with the present tourism-related development
programs implemented in Washington. For example, the

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 17, 2014
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 89

TABLE 6
PERCENTAGES OF PERSONAL BENEFITS PERCEIVED BY RESIDENTS FROM TOURISM

Items 1 = Not at All 2 = Very Little 3 = Somewhat 4 = A Lot Meana

Downtown revitalization 3.2 16.8 40.0 40.0 3.17

Special events and programs 3.3 17.1 43.9 35.8 3.12
Shopping and dining choices 3.9 18.9 40.2 37.0 3.10
Arts and cultural features 4.8 21.4 50.8 23.0 2.92
Contributions to the economy 2.4 26.4 50.4 20.8 2.90
Recreation opportunity 4.0 28.0 48.8 19.2 2.83
Historic homes 7.2 32.0 36.0 24.8 2.78
Community services 7.4 38.5 43.4 10.7 2.57
a. n = 122.

TABLE 7
DIMENSIONS OF ATTITUDES TOWARD TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
Dimensions and Factored Items Factor Loading
Support for tourism developmenta (factor mean = 3.91*; alpha coefficient = .917)
I believe that tourism should be actively encouraged in my community. .862
I support tourism and would like to see it become an important part of my community. .802
I am against new tourism facilities that will attract more tourists to my community. .781
I believe tourism should be actively encouraged in the State of North Carolina. .759
The city government was correct in supporting the promotion of tourism. .753
Generally, the positive benefits of tourism outweigh the negative impacts. .731
My community should become more of a tourist destination. .706
Long-term planning by city officials can control the negative impacts of tourism on the environment. .636
Tourism has reduced the quality of outdoor recreation opportunities in my community. .596
It is important to develop plans to manage the growth of tourism. .578
The tourism sector will continue to play a major role in the economy of the community. .548
One of the most important benefits of tourism is how it can improve the local standard of living. .468
Contributions to communityb (factor mean = 3.00*; alpha coefficient = .813)
Our household standard of living is higher because of money tourists spend here. .770
Local recreation programs have expanded due to the influx of tourist in my community. .752
The quality of public services has improved due to more tourism in my community. .718
Since tourists have arrived I have more recreational opportunities available to me. .681
Quality of life in my community has improved because of tourism facilities in this community. .643
Tourism sector provides many desirable employment opportunities for residents. .593
My community has better roads due to tourism. .467
Shopping opportunities are better in my community as a result of tourism. .430
Reliability of total 20 items 0.904
a. eigenvalue: 7.4; variance explained: 37.0%
b. eigenvalue: 2.8; variance explained: 14.0%
*significant at the p < .001 level.

local authority implemented Urban Stormwater Manage-
ment and Riverside Renaissance Plan since 1996 to renovate
and improve waterfront where residents and visitors can
stroll and view the pleasure boats. Washington’s downtown
historic district, with its shopping and dining areas, was also
revitalized to host residents and visitors. Music in the Street,
which is a weekend event twice a month throughout the
summer, is organized by the local tourism development
authority to attract visitors and enrich residents’ lives.
Factor analysis was conducted to assess the dimension-
ality of the 20 TIAS items. Kaiser’s (1974) overall measure
of sampling adequacy is 0.85, indicating that the data are
appropriate for the principal components model. Values of
0.6 and above are required for a good factor analysis
(Tabachnick and Fidell 1989). The principal component
analysis (with varimax rotation) of 20 TIAS items resulted a
two-factor solution that explained 51% of the total variation.
Although this percentage is a little less than the 58% found
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 17, 2014
by Lankford, Chen, and Chen (1994), the dimensionality
that emerged from this analysis is the same as their two-
factor solution (concern for local tourism development and
personal and community benefits). As indicated in table 7,
factor 1 included 12 TIAS items and had factor loadings that
ranged from .86 to .47. Factor 2 included 8 TIAS items. The
factor loadings for the 8 items ranged from .77 to .43. The
Cronbach’s alphas for the two factors are .92 and .81,
respectively, indicating a high degree of reliability. Factor 1
was annotated as “support for tourism development,” and
factor 2 was referred to as “contributions to community.”
This annotation reflects the dominant attitudinal items that
comprise each of the factors. The overall reliability of the
TIAS in the Washington study was 0.904, which is similar
to Lankford and Howard’s (1994) alpha value of 0.964
obtained with their sample from Oregon.
The first factor explained 37% of the variance in atti-
tudes toward tourism. Factor 1 consists of items that reflect
90 AUGUST 2008

TABLE 8
REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIODEMOGRAPHICS ON ATTITUDES
TOWARD TOURISM CONTROLLING FOR PERSONAL BENEFITS FROM TOURISM

Independent Variables Beta t-Statistic p

Model 1: Support for tourism development
Model statistics (adjusted R-square = .407, F = 7.185, p = .00)
Perceived personal benefits .634 5.705 .000
Age –.246 –1.746 .087
Education –.163 –1.453 .153
Gendera .124 1.117 .270
Civic club membershipb .037 .310 .758
Length of residence –.004 –.029 .977
Model 2: Contributions to community
Model statistics (adjusted R-square = .498, F = 9.752, p = .00)
Perceived personal benefits .715 6.917 .000
Education –.287 –2.765 .008
Civic club membershipb .147 –1.342 .186
Gendera .093 .899 .373
Length of residence .051 .381 .705
Age –.025 –.193 .848
a. Dummy coded: 0 = female, 1 = male.
b. Dummy coded: 0 = no membership, 1 = having membership.

residents’ support for tourism development in their local
community. The items included their support for tourism
development, their positive perception about the role played
by local authority, and their support for tourism planning.
The second factor explained 14% of the variance in attitudes
toward tourism. Factor 2 contains attitudinal items that
focus on the contributions tourism could make to the com-
munity. These items refer to increasing recreational oppor-
tunities, improving the quality of public services, and
attributing to an improved quality of life in the community. As
indicated in table 7, the mean value of factor 1 is 3.91 (SD =
0.60), and the mean value of factor 2 is 3.00 (SD = 0.62). The
results indicate that overall residents are generally favorable to
tourism and demonstrate substantial support for tourism
development in their community.
To test the influence of personal benefits on attitudes
toward tourism, ordinary least squares regression analysis
was used. As indicated in models 1 and 2 (see table 8), the
variable “personal benefits” have statistically significant
relationships in a positive direction with both factor 1 and
factor 2. In other words, the more benefits respondents per-
ceived obtaining from tourism personally, the more likely
they are to increase the support for tourism development and
the more likely they are to attribute the improvement of their
community to tourism development. Additionally, the vari-
able “education” also has a small but negative significant
relationship with factor 2 in model 2. It indicates that the
higher level of formal education the respondents have, the
less likely they are to attribute the improvement of their
community to tourism development. Model 1 explains
40.7% of the variance in the dependent variable, and model
2 explains 49.8% of the variance. Taken together, models 1
and 2 suggest that the personal benefits variable is a predic-
tor of residents’ attitudes toward tourism. Education also
helps predict the perceptions of tourism contribution to
community improvement. In addition, personal benefits are
more closely related to factor 1 than to factor 2.
Because personal benefits had been identified as a signif-
icant factor associated with attitudes toward tourism,
further analysis was implemented to explore the nature of per-
sonal benefits and their influence on attitudes toward tourism.
Models 1 and 2 in table 9 indicate the test results for the rela-
tionships of specific benefit items with factor 1 and factor 2.
In model 1, the item “special events and programs” and the
item “downtown revitalization” are two personal benefits
items that have statistically significant relationships both in a
positive direction with factor 1. Thus, when respondents per-
ceived obtaining benefits from such tourism initiatives as spe-
cial events and downtown revitalization, the more likely they
were to support tourism development. In model 2, the item
“shopping and dining choices” and the item “arts and cultural
features” have statistically significant relationships both in a
positive direction with factor 2. The results indicate that when
the residents perceive an increase in shopping and dining
choices along with more tourism activities associated with
arts and cultural features, the more likely the residents are to
observe tourism positively.
Besides testing the relationships between personal bene-
fits from tourism and residents’ attitudes toward tourism, the
research also aimed at examining the difference in the percep-
tions of personal benefits among residents based on their
demographic characteristics. First, the means for the personal
benefits items were calculated and compared for all demo-
graphic variables. Shapiro-Wilk’s and K-S Lilliefors Tests are
significant, indicating that normal distribution assumption
required for analysis of variance had been violated. Therefore,
the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U Test and Kruskal-Wallis
Test were used. The Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis
statistical tests allow for comparison of two and three or more
groups, respectively, and when the sample sizes are uneven
and not normally distributed with equal variance as is
assumed in independent t-test and ANOVA.
The examination of demographic variables included age,
gender, education level, length of residence, and member-
ship in civic organizations. To test the variances of residents’
perceptions of personal benefits according to their age and
length of residence, the data of respondent’s ages were
recoded with 0 representing between 20 and 64 years old

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 17, 2014
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 91

TABLE 9
REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ATTITUDES
TOWARD TOURISM AND PERSONAL BENEFITS ITEMS

Personal Benefits Items Beta t-Statistic p

Model 1: Support for tourism development
Model statistics (Adjusted R-square = .456, F = 12.93, p = .00)
Special events and programs .409 3.975 .000
Downtown revitalization .223 2.015 .046
Community services .146 1.611 .110
Arts and cultural features .123 1.071 .286
Shopping and dining choices –.118 –1.154 .251
Recreation opportunities –.117 –1.189 .237
Historic homes .092 0.910 .365
Contributions to the economy .045 0.401 .689
Model 2: Contributions to community
Model statistics (adjusted R-square = .402, F = 10.667, p = .00)
Arts and cultural features .273 2.283 .024
Shopping and dining choices .214 2.017 .046
Community services .159 1.683 .095
Recreation opportunities .137 1.333 .185
Special events and programs .095 0.881 .380
Downtown revitalization –.029 –0.249 .803
Historic homes –.011 –0.104 .917
Contributions to the economy .007 –0.062 .951

TABLE 10
MEAN SCORES AND MANN-WHITNEY U VALUES BETWEEN GROUPS FOR PERSONAL BENEFITS ITEMS

Age Gender Membership

Personal Benefits Items 20-64 65-90 U Female Male U Yes No U

Community services 2.62 2.46 1,373 2.61 2.56 1,750 2.77 2.41 348
Special events and programs 3.22* 2.89* 1,243* 3.17 3.11 1,722 3.26 3.00 368
Historic homes 2.82 2.70 1,489 2.90 2.70 1,667 2.96 2.56 374
Contributions to the economy 2.97 2.74 1,395 3.03 2.80 1,579 3.04 2.74 370
Downtown revitalization 3.25 2.97 1,341 3.31* 2.06* 1,514* 3.17 3.02 445
Recreation opportunities 2.92* 2.63* 1,296* 2.93 2.77 1,715 3.04* 2.67* 356*
Shopping and dining choices 3.13 3.03 1,582 3.25 3.00 1,653 3.21 2.95 413
Arts and cultural features 2.92 2.92 1,634 3.08* 2.80* 1,525* 3.04 2.88 437
*significant at the p < .05 level.

and 1 representing between 65 and 90 years old. The data of
respondent’s length of residence were recoded with 1 repre-
senting between 1 and 15 years, 2 representing between 16
and 35 years, and 3 representing between 36 and 80 years.
Kruskal-Wallis was used to test the different perceptions of
benefits according to respondents’ educational levels and
length of residence. However, no significant difference was
found. Mann-Whitney U Test was used to examine the vari-
ances of benefits perceptions among dichotomous variables,
which include age, gender, and civic membership.
As shown in table 10, the analysis results indicate that
female respondents are more likely to perceive obtaining
benefits from downtown revitalization and tourism activities
with arts and cultural features than male respondents are. In
downtown Washington, revitalization has increased food
services and the number of retail outlets with arts, crafts,
and household items. It could be inferred that the improve-
ments in the central business district are viewed as a benefit
more by female than by male respondents. In addition,
respondents between ages 20 and 64 perceive more benefits
obtained from tourism activities such as special events or
programs as well as spending in increasing recreation
opportunities than do those aged 65-90. Finally, respondents
who are active in community organizations perceive more
benefits from increasing recreation opportunities than those
who are not.
CONCLUSIONS
Social exchange in this investigation uses the constructs
inherent in sociology and social psychology. Previous appli-
cations of social exchange theory in tourism research appear
to favor an economic approach in which it is assumed that
the actor’s attitude toward tourism arises from a single con-
scious decision to maximize self-interest after weighing all
options. Benefits and costs are assumed to be carefully eval-
uated, and when benefits exceed costs, the actor will hold a
positive attitude toward tourism. If the reverse is true and
costs exceed benefits, then a negative attitude toward

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 17, 2014
92 AUGUST 2008
tourism will be evident. This perspective fulfills the rational-
ity principle, which is at the core of the economic approach
to the examination of exchange.
A sociological approach considers the attitude in the
context of a theory of value domains that evolve over time
in a longitudinal process and the role the values may play in
conditioning the actor’s attitudinal position on tourism. The
principle of rationality is less about maximization of wealth
or self-interests but rather on sentiments, value domains, and
social conditioning, which serve as reinforcement for the
position an actor may take. The challenge for investigators
in this situation is to formulate a concept of values present
in a host community and which are likely to be associated
with a positive or negative position toward tourism.
In this investigation, respondents were asked whether or
not they personally valued one or more changes or initiatives
in the community attributed to becoming a host community
for tourism activities. The theoretical contribution of this
research relates to its examination of the values comprising
the benefits variable in the context of social exchange. In
this investigation, tourism development initiatives associ-
ated with infrastructure improvements are shared by resi-
dents and tourists alike. In a previous investigation that
considered tourism resources shared between host and
guests, the actual resource was a national recreation area
well outside the boundaries of the community (Jurowski,
Uysal, and Williams 1997). In the case of Washington,
North Carolina, a set of values associated with recent down-
town improvements that could influence residents’ attitudes
were identified and presented to those participating in the
survey. The question was not simply whether they enjoyed
personal benefits from tourism but the degree to which each
of the potential values contributed to a personal benefit in
their judgment. As demonstrated in the study results,
tourism benefits are value domains associated with increasing
choices for residents and improving waterfront amenities that
may be a component of the quality of life in a community.
Such results reveal the importance of community-building
values for residents and perhaps community pride when
tourism is still in its emergent stage.
Furthermore, the findings of this investigation verify the
significant role played by personal benefits, particularly the
indirect social values, in the process of exchange for residents’
favorable attitude toward tourism. Jurowski, Uysal, and
Williams (1997) examined respondents that did not enjoy a
direct economic benefit from tourism and found those resi-
dents to be neutral in their attitude toward tourism. However
the findings in that study indicated those respondents still
believed there “will be economic and social benefits from an
increase in tourism” (p. 7). As reported in the case of
Washington, 99% of the respondents stated that they did not
have a direct economic benefit from tourism; however, they
expressed a distinctively positive attitude toward tourism and
identified a variety of shared social benefits they associated
with tourism development. In this investigation, the resources
shared with tourists in the community were not located outside
the community but represented infrastructure improvements
evident during the past several years. The downtown resources
shared with tourists were reported frequently in the print
media, and these messages may have served as a positive rein-
forcement, contributing to a favorable view of tourism.
In addition, this investigation lends support to observations
made in two previous projects that examined the relationship
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 17, 2014
between social benefits and residents’ attitudes toward tourism.
The research on tourism-related cooperatives conducted by
McGehee and Meares (1998) reported that the more diversi-
fied the leadership in the tourism-related development cooper-
atives is, the more significant the noneconomic needs appear
for residents. In other words, the participation of residents
from all ranks in tourism development may contribute to the
significant role played by noneconomic values in residents’
support for tourism development. Furthermore, as noted in
their examination of two emerging tourism areas in Ghana,
Sirakaya, Teye, and Sonmez (2002) recognized the relevance
of the noneconomic values, such as the improvements in the
community infrastructure for residents, when reporting the
significance of a social welfare factor in relation to residents’
support for tourism development. However, their explanation
of this finding is treated in the context of an economic perspec-
tive of social exchange.
In regards to the influence of sociodemographic
variables on personal benefits, two results deserve
comment. First, respondents between 65 and 90 years old
perceived obtaining fewer benefits from improvement of
recreation opportunities and organization of special events
than those younger respondents. Such results may reflect the
argument that the people who are 65 and older have differ-
ent expectations in term of social life; it is a period when
some people experience major changes in their lives, such as
widowhood, modified income, and deteriorating health
(Tomljenovic and Faulkner 2000). Thus, the result suggests
that the local tourism authority should consider the special
requirements of older residents to obtain their support for
tourism programs.
Second, male respondents perceived less benefits asso-
ciated with downtown revitalization and activities related
to arts and cultural features than did female respondents.
This result suggests a difference between men and women
in their use of the downtown core and/or their disposition
toward new retail outlets. If this is the case, then the local
tourism authority may wish to take into account gender
difference in the value placed on the retail diversity bene-
fit. Last, one of the measures of community attachment
used in this study was membership in local civic organiza-
tions. Respondents who were active in civic organizations
reported an improvement of recreation opportunities as a
benefit of tourism. It may suggest that such respondents
engaged in civic associations are also active participants
with access to the special events and festivals that repre-
sent the most visible aspect of attracting visitors to the
study area, a rural community.
IMPLICATIONS
The findings of this investigation can assist community
leaders in the design and implementation of tourism develop-
ment strategies aimed at building residents’ support for tourism
development in the rural communities that are undertaking
tourism planning. The results indicate the degree to which a
range of values are deemed important by residents and com-
prise part of the personal benefits that significantly contribute to
residents’ favorable attitude toward tourism. Thus, local author-
ities may not only emphasize the potential economic contribu-
tion of tourism to community but also enhance residents’
perception of indirect social values obtained from tourism

development. Such efforts are more important for those com-
munities where direct economic benefits from tourism are not
yet noticeable for residents. A sociological approach to under-
standing tourism attitudes shows promise for interpreting
some of the values underlying personal benefits and the role
they may play in an emergent tourism economy. The study
does not attempt to directly examine the influence of condi-
tioning factors in creating value domains but suggests one
explanation for the types of values identified in this study.
A sociological approach to social exchange can be strength-
ened in at least two ways. First is the need for a reliable vari-
able pertaining to resident involvement in tourism planning,
and the second pertains to the stages of tourism development.
A need exists to measure the level of active involvement of
respondents in the community-planning process associated
with tourism (e.g., either where they live now or have lived in
the past). Since the conditioning process is a longitudinal one,
the understanding of participation in planning as one of the
antecedents to the formation of the attitudes toward tourism
would be relevant in future investigations. Second, there still
remains the need to refine a set of economic indicators that can
be used when we assess stages of tourism development in com-
munities. A typology for grouping communities according to
its stage of tourism development has been undertaken based on
economic standards reflecting tourism spending (Perdue, Long,
and Allen 1990); however, more work in this area would be
welcome. The level of tourism development plays a notable
role in the formation of value domains for residents, so it would
be helpful to know more about reliable measures for stages of
tourism development.
REFERENCES
Allport, Gordon W. (1966). “Attitudes in the History of Social Psychology.”
In Attitudes, edited by Neil Warren and Marie Jahoda. Middlesex,
UK: Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp. 15−21.
Andereck, Kathleen L., Karin M. Valentine, Richard C. Knopf, and
Christine A. Vogt (2005). “Residents’ Perceptions of Community
Tourism Impacts.” Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (4): 1056−76.
Andereck, Kathleen L., and Christine A. Vogt (2000). “The Relationship
between Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism and Tourism
Development Options.” Journal of Travel Research, 39 (1): 27−36.
Ap, John (1992). “Residents’ Perception on Tourism Impacts.” Annals of
Tourism Research, 19 (4): 665−90.
Arnstein, Sherry R. (1969). “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of
American Institute of Planners, 35: 216−24.
Chambers, Robert. (2002). Participatory Workshops. London: Earthscan.
Churchill, Gilbert A. (1979). “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures
of Marketing Constructs.” Journal of Marketing Research, 16: 64−73.
Dillman, Don A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design
Method. 2d ed. New York: John Wiley.
Emerson, Richard M. (1976). “Social Exchange Theory.” Annual Review of
Sociology, 2: 335−62.
Emerson, Richard M. (1987) “Toward a Theory of Value in Social
Exchange” In Social Exchange Theory, edited by Richard M.
Emerson. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 1−19.
Fridgen, Joseph (1996). Dimensions of Tourism. East Lansing, MI: The
Educational Institute of the American Hotel and Motel Association.
Getz, Donald (1994). “Residents’ Attitudes towards Tourism: A
Longitudinal Study of Spey Valley, Scotland.” Tourism Management,
15 (4): 247−58.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 17, 2014
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 93
Gorsuch, Richard L. (1983). Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Gray, Barbara. M. (2001). “Washington and Beaufort County Cultural
Heritage Tourism Initiative.” Final report submitted to Washington
Tourism Development Authority, Washington, North Carolina.
Harrill, Rich (2004). “Residents’Attitudes toward Tourism Development: A
Literature Review with Implication for Tourism Planning.” Journal of
Planning Literature, 18 (3): 251−66.
Harrill, Rich, and Thomas D. Potts (2003). “Tourism Planning in Historic
Districts.” Journal of American Planning Association, 69 (3): 233−44.
Jafari, Jafar (2001). “The scientification of tourism.” In Hosts and Guests
Revisited: Tourism Issues of the 21st Century, edited by Valene L.
Smith and Maryann Brent. New York: Cognizant Communication
Corporation, pp. 28−41.
Jurowski, Claudia, Muzapper Uysal, and Daniel R. Williams (1997). “A
Theoretical Analysis of Host Community Resident Reactions to
Tourism.” Journal of Travel Research, 36 (2): 3−11.
Kaiser, Henry F. (1974). “An index of Factorial Simplicity.” Psychometrika,
39 (1): 31−36.
Lankford, Samuel V. (1994). “Attitudes and Perceptions toward Tourism
and Rural Regional Development.” Journal of Travel Research, 32
(3): 35−43.
Lankford, Samuel V., John S. Y. Chen, and Welin Chen (1994). “Tourism’s
Impacts in the Penghu National Scenic Area, Taiwan.” Tourism
Management, 15 (3): 222−27.
Lankford, Samuel V., and Dennis R. Howard (1994). “Developing a
Tourism Impact Attitude Scale.” Annals of Tourism Research, 21 (1):
121−39.
McDougall, Gordon H. G., and Hugh Munro (1987). “Scaling and Attitude
Measurement in Tourism and Travel Research.” In Travel, Tourism
and Hospitality Research: A Handbook for Managers and
Researchers, edited by J. R. Brent Ritchie, and Charles R. Goeldner.
New York: John Wiley, pp. 87−100.
McGehee, Nancy G., and Kathleen L. Andereck (2004). “Factors
Predicting Rural Residents’ Support of Tourism.” Journal of Travel
Research, 43 (2): 131−40.
McGehee, Nancy G., and Alison C. Meares (1998). “A Case Study of Three
Tourism-related Craft Marketing Cooperatives in Appalachia:
Contributions to Community.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 6 (1):
4−25.
Pearce, Philip L., Gianna Moscardo, and Glenn F. Ross (1996). Tourism
Community Relationships. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Perdue, Richard R., Patrick T. Long, and Lawrence Allen (1990). “Resident
Support for Tourism Development.” Annals of Tourism Research, 17
(4): 586−99.
Rohe, William M., and Lauren B. Gates. (1985). Planning with
Neighborhoods. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Rollins, Rick (1997). “Validation of the TIAS as a Tourism Tool.” Annals
of Tourism Research, 24 (3): 740−56.
Sewell, Derrick W. R., and John T. Coppock (1977). Public Participation in
Planning. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Sheldon, Pauline J., and Turgut Var (1984). “Resident Attitudes to Tourism
in North Wales.” Tourism Management, 5 (1): 40−47.
Sirakaya, Ercan, Victor Teye, and Sevil Sonmez (2002). “Understanding
Residents’ Support for Tourism Development in the Central Region of
Ghana.” Journal of Travel Research, 41 (1): 57−67.
Smith, Valene L. (2001). “Tourism Change and Impacts.” In Hosts and
Guests Revisited: Tourism Issues in the 21st Century, edited by Valene
L. Smith and Maryann Brent. New York: Cognizant Communications,
pp. 107−21.
Tabachnick, Barbara G, and Linda S. Fidell (1989). Using Multivariate
Statistics. New York: Harper & Row.
Tomljenovic, Renata, and Bill Faulkner (2000). “Tourism and Older
Residents in a Sunbelt Resort.” Annals of Tourism Research, 27 (1):
93−114.
Um, Seoho, and John L. Crompton (1987). “Measuring Residents’
Attachment Levels in a Host Community.” Journal of Travel
Research, 26 (1): 27−29.
Vesey, Catherine, and Frédéric Dimanche (2001). “Urban Residents’
Perceptions of Tourism and Its Impacts: An Application of the TIAS
Scale.” Proceedings of the 2001 Travel and Tourism Research
Association Annual Conference, pp. 151−58.
Wates, Nick (2000). The Community Planning Handbook. London:
Earthscan.