Residents' Perceptions of Impacts

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp.
1056–1076, 2005
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
0160-7383/$30.00
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2005.03.001
RESIDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF
COMMUNITY TOURISM IMPACTS
Kathleen L. Andereck
Arizona State University, USA
Karin M. Valentine
Moses Anshell, Arizona, USA
Richard C. Knopf
Arizona State University, USA
Christine A. Vogt
Michigan State University, USA
Abstract: This study investigated residents’ perceptions of tourism’s impact on communi-

ties. Data were collected via a statewide survey, using social exchange theory; results suggest
residents recognize many positive and negative consequences. Those who feel tourism is
important for economic development, benefit from it, and are knowledgeable about the
greater positive impacts, but do not differ from others with respect to perceptions of tour-
ism’s negative consequences. It is becoming clear that broad-based education and awareness
campaigns may be a step toward increased understanding of the industry and, ultimately,
greater support of the benefits to a community. Keywords: residents, attitudes, perceptions,
impacts, communities, social exchange theory. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Résumé: Perceptions des habitants des impacts du tourisme sur la communauté. Cette
étude a examiné les perceptions des habitants sur l’impact du tourisme sur des commun-
autés. On a recueilli des données par moyen d’un sondage à l’échelle étatique en utilisant
la théorie de l’échange social; les résultats suggèrent que les habitants reconnaissent beau-
coup de conséquences positives et négatives. Ceux qui croient que le tourisme est important
pour le développement économique sont ceux qui sont avantagés par le tourisme et qui con-
naissent les impacts positifs les plus importants, mais ils ne diffèrent pas des autres quant aux
perceptions des conséquences négatives du tourisme. Il devient clair que des campagnes
d’éducation et de conscience réunissant des thèmes très variés pourraient être un pas vers
une meilleure compréhension de l’industrie et, en fin de compte, un plus grand soutien
des bénéfices à la communauté. Mots-clés: habitants, attitudes, perceptions, impacts, com-
munautés, théorie de l’échange social. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION
Tourism is widely perceived as a potential economic base, provid-
ing elements that may improve quality of life such as employment
Kathleen Andereck is with the Department of Recreation and Tourism Management at

Arizona State University (PO Box 37100 Phoenix AZ 85069-7100, USA. Email <kande-
reck@asu.edu>). Karin Valentine is with Moses Anshell Advertising. Richard Knopf is with
the Department of Recreation and Tourism Management, Christine Vogt with the Depart-
ment of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies at their respective
universities. The authors study tourism experiences from the perspective of hosts and guests.
1056
ANDERECK, VALENTINE, KNOPF AND VOGT 1057
opportunities, tax revenues, economic diversity, festivals, restaurants,

natural and cultural attractions, and outdoor recreation opportunities.
There are concerns, however, that tourism can have negative impacts
on quality of life. These can be in the form of crowding, traffic and
parking problems, increased crime, increased cost of living, friction be-
tween tourists and residents, and changes in hosts’ way of life (Ap and
Crompton 1993; McCool and Martin 1994).
The general theme emerging from research is that the industry has
great potential to affect the lives of community residents. Over the past
several years, a number of studies have focused on their attitudes to-
ward tourism (Andereck and Vogt 2000; Jurowski, Uysal and Williams
1997; Lankford 1994; Perdue, Long and Allen 1987). The purpose of
this investigation was to investigate residents’ perceptions of its impacts
and test the relationship between these perceptions and several predic-
tor variables, including perceptions of the role of tourism in the local
economy, personal benefit from it, engagement with it, and commu-
nity attachment. Earlier studies have considered various predictors of
impact perceptions, but rarely have they tested more than one or
two of these independent variables for a more comprehensive view
of the subject; and the purpose here is to provide such a broadened
perspective. This study differentiates itself from most research in
recent years because it is anchored in a US statewide population sam-
ple, thus providing broader representation of the general population
than is typical of most past investigations. Of particular note is the
inclusion of a large number of urban residents (including the Phoenix,
Arizona, metropolitan area of over three million) and a large propor-
tion of an ethnic minority (Latino), a situation different from past
research conducted in rural areas with largely Anglo populations. In
this regard, the most significant contribution of this study is to deter-
mine whether its results with its unique sample are consistent with
those found in prior research.
ATTITUDES TOWARD TOURISM IMPACTS

Community consequences emerging from tourism development are
often divided into three categories. First, economic, including
elements such as tax revenue, increased jobs, additional income, tax
burdens, inflation, and local government debt. Second, sociocultural,
including elements such as resurgence of traditional crafts and cere-
monies, increased intercultural communication and understanding,
increased crime rates, and changes in traditional cultures. Third, envi-
ronmental, including elements such as protection of parks and wildlife,
crowding, air, water and noise pollution, wildlife destruction, vandal-
ism, and litter (Andereck 1995).
Economic Effects of Tourism

While many studies over the past several years have demonstrated the
positive economic impacts of tourism on host communities, several
1058 TOURISM IMPACTS
deal with negative consequences. As to economic effects, Liu and Var

(1986) observed a strong perception among residents of increased
employment, investments, and profitable local businesses. They also
indicated the existence of negative effects such as an increase in the
cost of living. Haralambopoulos and Pizam (1996) found strong sup-
port for the economic benefits of tourism. These included improved
tax revenue and personal income, increased standard of living, and
an improved attitude toward work. Conversely, the study found resi-
dents perceived an increase in the prices of goods and services.
Other resident attitude studies have generally reported positive atti-
tudes, such as improved economic quality of life (McCool and Martin
1994; Perdue, Long and Allen 1990), more employment opportunities,
and improved standard of living (Gilbert and Clark 1997; Johnson,
Snepenger and Akis 1994). Alternatively, there have been reports of
no perceived benefits on some of the items in several studies, especially
those items related to more jobs or related quality (Brunt and Court-
ney 1999; Johnson et al 1994; Lankford 1994; McCool and Martin
1994), increased quality of life or standard of living (Lankford 1994;
McCool and Martin 1994; Perdue et al 1990; Tosun 2002), and higher
prices (Brunt and Courtney 1999).
Sociocultural Effects of Tourism

Although economic benefits are often assumed to largely improve
the quality of life of residents, sociocultural factors may not always be
as positive (Liu, Sheldon and Var 1987). Dogan (1989) found that tour-
ism development has an effect on the sociocultural characteristics of
residents such as habits, daily routines, social lives, beliefs, and values.
These factors may, in turn, lead to psychological tension. Moreover, in
areas with high levels of tourism there is often an increase in popula-
tion as a result of new residents relocating from outside areas (Perdue,
Long and Gustke 1991). If high growth rate is accompanied by poor
planning and management, there is often a loss of resident identity
and local culture (Rosenow and Pulsipher 1979). Dogan suggests there
are a variety of negative consequences such as a decline in traditions,
materialism, increase in crime rates, social conflicts, and crowding.
On the positive side, tourism can result in improved community ser-
vices; additional park, recreation and cultural facilities, and encourage-
ment of cultural activities (Brunt and Courtney 1999).
Liu and Var (1986) found strong resident support for the positive
cultural benefits of tourism in their study population. These included
entertainment, historical, and cultural exhibits, with tourism as a
means towards cultural exchange, events, and identity. The majority
of residents in the Liu and Var study did not attribute social costs to
tourism, and agreed that the industry does not affect the crime rate.
Others have also found residents feel tourism encourages cultural
activities, improved cultural heritage (Gilbert and Clark 1997), devel-
opment of natural parks (McCool and Martin 1994), and more recre-
ation opportunities (Perdue et al 1990).
From the negative perspective, studies have identified concern with

effects on traditional family values (Kousis 1989), cultural commercial-
ization (Cohen 1988), crime (Brunt and Courtney 1999; Tosun 2002),
drugs (Haralambopoulos and Pizam 1996; Mok, Slater and Cheung
1991; Tosun 2002), degradation of morality (Mok et al 1991), alcohol,
openness of sex (King, Pizam and Milman 1991), increased prostitu-
tion (Cohen 1988; Lankford 1994; Lindberg and Johnson 1997; Mok
et al 1991), gambling (Pizam and Pokela 1985), crowding of public
facilities and resources (Brunt and Courtney 1999; Lindberg and John-
son 1997; McCool and Martin 1994), and declining resident hospitality
(Lui and Var 1986).
Environmental Effects of Tourism

Though tourism is often considered a clean industry, in reality this is
not always the case. It can cause significant environmental damage be-
cause it is often developed in attractive but fragile environments. In
addition, there is the possibility that local development policy becomes
focused on meeting the needs of tourists, often without regard for the
environment. This can be detrimental to fragile areas where tourism
often abounds. Ultimately, the industry has the potential to unwittingly
undermine itself by being insensitive to the environmental impacts it is
causing (Doggart and Doggart 1996).
The potential environmental consequences noted by Andereck
(1995) are air pollution such as emissions from vehicles and airplanes;
water pollution such as waste water discharge, fertilizer leakage, road
oil; wildlife destruction such as a result of hunting, trapping and fish-
ing, and disruption of natural habitat; plant destruction and deforesta-
tion; over collection of specimens, and forest fires, trampling of
vegetation; and destruction of wetlands, soil and beaches. Andereck
(1995) also cites the environmental consequences that disturb hu-
mans. These include large buildings which destroy views, clashing
and unfitting architectural styles, noise pollution from planes, cars
and tourists; damage to geological formations such as erosion and van-
dalism; fishing line and tackle left by anglers; and graffiti.
Although much of the literature reveals positive views by residents on
the economic and sociocultural aspects of tourism, it reveals some con-
tradictory findings with respect to opinions regarding environmental
impacts. A study by Liu and Var (1986) revealed roughly half of the
respondents agreed tourism provides more parks and recreation areas,
improves the quality of the roads and public facilities, and has not con-
tributed to ecological decline. In addition, the majority of respondents
disagreed that tourism is the cause of traffic problems, overcrowded
outdoor recreation, or the disruption of peace and tranquility of parks.
Other studies have also found positive attitudes toward the environ-
mental impacts such as improved community appearance (Perdue
et al 1990), and more recreation and park opportunities (McCool
and Martin 1994; Perdue et al 1990).
On the negative side, the one factor which emerged in many stud-
ies as a resident concern is the impact of tourism on traffic (Brunt
and Courtney 1999; Johnson et al 1994; King et al 1991; Liu et al
1987; McCool and Martin 1994; Perdue et al 1990; Reid and Boyd
1991). Other perceived problems include litter (Brunt and Courtney
1999; Gilbert and Clark 1997; Lankford 1994), vandalism (Liu et al
1987), overcrowding at outdoor recreation facilities (Johnson et al
1994), pedestrian congestion (Brunt and Courtney 1999; Reid and
Boyd 1991); and parking problems (Lindberg and Johnson 1997).
Hammit, Bixler and Noe (1996) suggested tourists are most aware
of direct impacts of other people, such as litter, but are becoming
increasingly sensitive to other types of impacts, a conclusion that
is generally supported by Hillery, Nancarrow, Griffin, and Syme
(2001).
In summary, impact perceptions have been measured using a
number of items with a numerical scale of responses. These items
have typically been combined into scales using confirmatory factor
analysis in order to identify specific domains (Andereck and Vogt
2000; Lankford 1994; Liu et al 1987; Long, Perdue and Allen
1990; McCool and Martin 1994). Although the factors that emerged
from each study were slightly different, a few commonalities exist.
They all have discovered one or more positive or negative impacts
or dimension(s). The remaining factors are partly dependent on
the questions asked. Some studies have found a community develop-
ment or related factor (Andereck and Vogt 2000; Liu et al 1987;
Long et al 1990; McCool and Martin 1994), a tax levy factor
(McCool and Martin 1994; Perdue et al 1990), a social interaction
factor (Sirakaya, Teye and Sönmez 2002), and/or a quality of life
factor (Andereck and Vogt 2000; Liu et al 1987).
In all but one case, these studies reveal residents overall had
positive attitudes toward tourism. Further, the community generally
felt that the negative aspects were not problematic with a few
exceptions such as traffic (King et al 1991; Lindberg and Johnson
1997; Liu et al 1987; McCool and Martin 1994; Perdue et al 1990);
crime (King et al 1991; Lankford 1994; Lindberg and Johnson
1997; Mok et al 1991); and litter (Lankford 1994). The one excep-
tion to the generally positive attitudes toward tourism was the study
conducted by Johnson et al (1994) that found residents in three
communities were negatively disposed toward tourism. They dis-
agreed that it had positive impacts, and agreed that it had negative
impacts.
The general conclusion that can be made thus far is that residents in
a great diversity of communities seem to be positively disposed toward
tourism. This does not imply that they do not have concerns about its
impacts in their communities, but the specific concerns vary from place
to place. There are certainly exceptions to the overall positive attitudes
of residents as the study by Johnson et al (1994) demonstrates.
However, ordinarily tourism is a well accepted and well thought of
industry.
Social Exchange Theory

Implicitly or explicitly, the predominant theoretical base for many
studies has been social exchange theory. As described by Ap, this is
‘‘a general sociological theory concerned with understanding the ex-
change of resources between individuals and groups in an interaction
situation’’ (1992:668). People engage in an interaction process where
they seek something of value, be it material, social, or psychological.
Individuals choose to engage in an exchange once they have judged
the rewards and the costs of such an exchange. Perceptions of the
exchange can be differential in that an individual who perceives a po-
sitive outcome will evaluate the exchange in a different way than an
individual who perceives it negatively (Gursoy, Jurowski and Uysal
2002).
From a tourism perspective, social exchange theory postulates that
an individual’s attitudes toward this industry, and subsequent level of
support for its development, will be influenced by his or her evaluation
of resulting outcomes in the community. Exchanges must occur to
have tourism in a community. Residents must develop and promote
it, and then serve the needs of the tourists. Some community residents
reap the benefits, while others may be negatively impacted. Social ex-
change theory suggests people evaluate an exchange based on the costs
and benefits incurred as a result of that exchange. An individual that
perceives benefits from an exchange is likely to evaluate it positively;
one that perceives costs is likely to evaluate it negatively. Thus,
residents perceiving themselves benefiting from tourism are likely to
view it positively, while those not, negatively. In sum, there has been
mixed support for social exchange theory in the tourism literature.
Some studies have found support for it while others have not been
conclusive (Ap 1992; Gursoy et al 2002; Jurowski et al 1997; Lindberg
and Johnson 1997; McGehee and Andereck 2004).
Predictors of Tourism Attitudes

The perceived personal benefit of tourism to an individual, or
dependence on it, and its relationship to attitudes has been previously
explored (Jurowski et al 1997; Lankford and Howard 1994; Liu and Var
1986; McGehee and Andereck 2004; Perdue et al 1990). In support of
social exchange theory, the majority of studies have shown residents
who are dependent on the industry, or perceive a greater level of eco-
nomic gain or personal benefit, tend to have more positive perceptions
of impact than others (Brunt and Courtney 1999; Haralambopoulos
and Pizam 1996; Jurowski et al 1997; Lankford and Howard 1994;
McGehee and Andereck 2004; Sirakaya et al 2002). Most studies have
considered employment as a measure of dependency. In a study con-
ducted by Haralambopoulos and Pizam (1996), residents were catego-
rized into those who were directly dependent on tourism and those
who were not. The former were found to perceive the industry in a
more positive light in terms of employment opportunities, personal
income, tax revenues, and standard of living. Importantly, there is also

evidence that those who feel they receive benefits are aware of some of
negative impacts (King et al 1991; McGehee and Andereck 2004; Snep-
enger, O’Connell and Snepenger 2001). A related relationship was re-
ported by Lindberg and Johnson (1997) who found that people
placing a greater amount of importance on economic development
in general had more positive attitudes toward tourism. Whether indi-
viduals who feel the industry should play a major role within the eco-
nomic development mix of their communities have more positive
attitudes toward it is a question still to be answered.
To guide inquiry, the following research questions related to tourism
benefits were posed: whether residents who rank the industry as a pri-
ority form of economic development perceive higher levels of positive
community impacts than those who do not; whether those who feel it
should play a dominant role in their community’s economic mix rela-
tive to other industries perceive higher levels of positive impacts than
others; whether those who receive income from tourism perceive high-
er levels of positive impacts than those who do not; whether those res-
idents who perceive more personal benefit in their communities
perceive higher levels of positive community impacts than those who
perceive otherwise.
Residents’ level of engagement with the industry and tourists has
shown some relationship to attitudes. Variables such as distance of a
tourism center from the respondent’s home (Sheldon and Var
1984), involvement in making decisions, level of knowledge about
the industry, and level of contact with tourists (Brougham and Butler
1981; Lankford and Howard 1994) have all been examined as predic-
tor variables. The findings to date suggest residents who are more en-
gaged with this business and tourists are more positively inclined
toward it and express more positive attitudes. This can be consistent
with social exchange theory if residents have positive experiences with
tourists. Further, it is likely that individuals who are more knowledge-
able about tourism recognize the benefits as well as costs that can
accrue to a community. Thus, two additional research questions were
posed: whether residents who perceive higher levels of personal knowl-
edge about tourism perceive higher levels of positive impacts than
those who do otherwise; and, whether residents who perceive higher
levels of contact with tourists perceive higher levels of positive impacts
than others.
Another variable that has been investigated is community attach-
ment, generally measured as length of time living and/or having been
born and/or grown up there (Davis, Allen and Cosenza 1988; Jurowski
et al 1997; Lankford and Howard 1994; McCool and Martin 1994;
McGehee and Andereck 2004; Sheldon and Var 1984). Some have
found evidence that attachment is negatively related to tourism atti-
tudes (Lankford and Howard 1994), but this relationship is not yet
conclusive given that others have found the opposite or no definitive
evidence (Davis et al 1988; Gursoy et al 2002; McCool and Martin
1994; McGehee and Andereck 2004). From a theoretical standpoint,
the assumption is long-time residents are either more or less likely to
be the recipients of positive/negative outcomes. This context gener-

ated two additional questions to guide the investigation: whether those
who have lived in a community for a longer period perceive lower levels
of positive impacts than those with shorter residency; and whether
those who lived in a community as children perceive lower levels of
positive community impacts than those who did not.
Generally, no consistent relationships have emerged when testing the
connection between demographic variables and attitudes (Johnson et al
1994; King et al 1991; Lankford 1994; Lui and Var 1986; McCool and
Martin 1994; McGehee and Andereck 2004; Mok et al 1991; Perdue
et al 1990; Sirakaya et al 2002; Tosun 2002). Thus far, the demographic
characteristic that appears consistent across studies indicates business
owners are more positive toward tourism than other groups (Lankford
1994). This result would be expected in that operators receive direct
benefits. These findings provided the context for the final question
for this study: whether there are differences among various demo-
graphic groups with respect to perceptions of community impacts.
Study Methods
Data were collected from full-time residents of Arizona (a southwest
US state), proportionally stratified by county and at least 18 years old.
To identify respondents for the mail survey, telephone contacts were
made to elicit participation, gather names and addresses, ensure that
the sample to which the mail surveys were sent was proportionate to
the size of each Arizona county to gain representative urban/rural
resident proportions, and to gain a representative proportion of Latino
respondents to adequately incorporate an often under-served and
under-represented ethnic minority. This initial survey was conducted
by a company that used a computer-generated random sample from
a statewide voter registration list. The person who answered the tele-
phone was randomly selected as the interviewee, provided the respon-
dent met the age and ethnicity requirements. In all, 8,385 telephone
calls were made, out of which 1,085 were wrong numbers and 4,374
unsuccessful due to no one home or not meeting the survey criteria.
One concern with respect to the survey was non-English speaking
households; however only 92 such households were encountered.
The final number of successful telephone contacts was 2,844, and of
those 1,003 (35%) agreed to participate in a follow-up mail survey.
Subjects were mailed a questionnaire, a cover letter, a stamped pre-
addressed return envelope, and a map of recreation and tourism sites
in Arizona as incentive to return the survey. Respondents were also en-
tered in a drawing for a gift set from the clothing line ArizonaGearTM.
One week after the initial mailing, reminder postcards were sent to
all potential respondents. Two weeks later, a second packet was mailed
to nonrespondents. Ultimately, a 69.4% response rate was achieved
for the mail survey when undeliverable packets were removed from
the original, for a final sample of 695, representing 25% of those con-
tacted by phone.
A series of 38 items was developed to measure perceptions of tourism

impacts following an indepth review of literature (McCool and Martin
1994; Perdue et al 1990). The development of items was also informed
by seven focus groups conducted with professionals throughout Ari-
zona. Impacts have most often been measured using five-point agree-
ment scales (Maddox 1985), but others have provided respondents
with a series of neutral statements asking for their own perceptions
of directionality. For example, rather than asking a respondent to
agree or disagree with a statement, such as tourism development in-
creases the traffic problems of an area, they are asked to indicate
whether traffic conditions are worsened or improved as a result of tour-
ism (King et al 1991; Tosun 2002). For this study, responses were solic-
ited on five-point scales where one equaled tourism greatly decreases
and five greatly increases with a central neutral point, thereby allowing
directionality to be established by respondents. Because the measures
were of respondent perceptions rather than factual knowledge, a
‘‘do not know’’ category was not included.
The questionnaire also included measures designed as potential pre-
dictor variables of attitudes. Demographic characteristics included age
(measured as a continuous variable), gender, education, race/ethnic-
ity, and income; all measured as categorical variables. Four additional
predictor constructs were assessed using two variables as measurement
points for each construct. Perceived importance of tourism as an eco-
nomic development activity was measured in two ways. First, respon-
dents were asked to select their top two choices out of a list of ten
general types of economic development opportunities. Second, they
were invited to indicate the role they felt tourism should play in the
local economy measured on a four-point scale where one was ‘‘no
role’’ and four was ‘‘dominant role’’. Personal benefit from the indus-
try was also measured using two variables: whether the respondents re-
ceived their incomes from tourism directly, indirectly, or not at all;
and, whether they self-reported personal benefit from tourism (on a
five point scale where one was not at all and five was a lot). Engage-
ment with the industry was measured by two variables: self-reported
knowledge measured on a four point scale (from not at all to very)
and self-reported amount of contact with tourists (on a four point scale
from none to a large amount). Finally, community attachment was
measured by two variables: whether the respondent lived in Arizona
as a child (yes or no) and the length of time living in Arizona (number
of years).
Study Results
Of the respondents, 55% were female; mean age was 54 years old;
and 79% were white, 19% were Hispanic/Latino, and 4% represented
other ethnic or racial backgrounds. Most reported household incomes
from $20,000 to $59,999 (54%) and education levels beyond a high
school diploma (80%). A comparison of respondents with Arizona’s
general population revealed that the rural to urban proportion
mirrored the population. As is often the case with survey research, how-
ever, the sample had a higher average age, education, and income than
state residents in general. The Latino proportion was representative;
however, other ethnic or racial minorities were underrepresented,
especially Native Americans. Non-English speaking respondents were
not surveyed due to resource limitations. As well, the sample was lim-
ited to registered voters who could be reached by phone and had
a mailing address. These potential biases should be kept in mind with
respect to study results.
Residents tended to agree that tourism increases both positive and
negative community impacts. They felt this industry increases the num-
ber of shops, restaurants, festivals, fairs, and museums in a community.
Traffic, crowding, and congestion emerged as the major negative im-
pacts of concern. To reduce the data and develop dependent variables
(Diekhoff 1992), a principal components factor analysis with varimax
rotation of the 38 impact items was conducted. The final result was
six factors that loaded well, made conceptual sense, and had reason-
ably high alpha coefficients. Two of the alpha coefficients were slightly
below .70, which is considered the lowest acceptable alpha by some
researchers. However, the items all are conceptually related, which is
an important consideration with factor analysis, so these were deemed
appropriate (Diekhoff 1992; Nunnaly 1978). Furthermore, each of the
items loaded reasonable strongly on one of the six factors.
The six factors were used to create multi-item scales: community
environment (variance explained = 12%, mean = 3.5, alpha = .87);
community problems (variance explained = 12%, mean = 3.4, alpha =
.87); community life (variance explained = 10%, mean = 3.3, alpha =
.82); community image (variance explained = 7%, mean = 3.9,
alpha = .66); community services (variance explained = 7%, mean =
3.5, alpha = .79); and community economy (variance explained = 7%,
mean = 3.7, alpha = .66) (Table 1). Arizona residents felt tourism can
help improve the local environment which included items such as pres-
ervation of natural and cultural resources, and quiet and beauty. They
also felt it helps enhance community life with items such as community
belonging and pride as part of the scale. Residents felt strongly about
the impact tourism can have on their image, with an increase in ame-
nities such as events and awareness of heritage. They felt tourism has a
positive influence on community services offered, including items such
as public transportation and city services. Residents also thought the
industry has a positive influence on the community economy by result-
ing in effects such as economic diversity, jobs, and tax revenue. In addi-
tion to these, Arizona residents felt tourism exacerbates some
community problems including items such as litter, traffic, congestion,
and crime.
MANOVA models with post-hoc Bonferroni t-tests were used to
determine relationships between predictor variables and the six impact
factors. MANOVA is used when there are several theoretically-related
dependent variables. This reduces the likelihood of a Type I
error and controls for correlations among the dependent variables
(Biskin 1983). One set of analyses tested whether those who perceived
Table 1. Factor Analysis of Community Tourism Impact Items
Variables Factor Loadings
Community Environment
The preservation of wildlife habitats .833
The preservation of natural areas .821
The preservation of cultural/historical sites .661
Clean air and water .595
Peace and quite .587
The beauty of my community .534
Quality recreation opportunities .594
Variance explained = 11.6%; mean = 3.50; alpha = .87
Community Problems
Litter .815
Traffic .774
Crowding and congestion .762
Drug and alcohol abuse .734
Crime and vandalism .720
Urban sprawl and population growth .707
Conflicts over zoning/land use .698
Community Life
A feeling of belonging in my community .722
The preservation of my way of life .671
Having tourists who respect my way of life .600
Resident participation in local government .554
My personal life quality .546
Community pride .535
Participation in local culture .493
An understanding of different cultures .423
Community Image
Festivals, fairs, and museums .685
The image of my community to others .506
Awareness of natural and cultural heritage .495
Having live sports to watch in my community .412
Community Services
Fair prices for goods and services .559
City services like police and fire protection .553
Good public transportation .552
Feeling safe .513
A stable political environment .483
Quality roads, bridges, utility services .371
Community Economy
The strength and diversity of the local economy .672
Enough good jobs for residents .592
Stores and restaurants owned by local residents .540
The availability of retail shops and restaurants .540
The value of my house and/or land .479
Tax revenue (sales tax/bed tax) .449
Scale: from 1 = tourism greatly decreases to 5 = tourism greatly increases.

importance of tourism as an economic development activity expressed

more positive attitudes toward it than others. The first difference
found was related to residents’ rating of tourism/recreation as one
of the two best opportunities for economic development in their com-
munity (respondents selected the two best development types out of a
list of ten). People who selected tourism/recreation as one of their two
priority choices perceived greater positive effects of tourism but did
not differ with respect to community problems (V = 0.07, F = 7.25,
p < .001) (Table 2). A related variable measured people’s opinions
about the role tourism should play in the local economy. Those that
felt it should play a role equal to other industries or a dominant role
perceived greater positive impacts but, again, did not differ with re-
spect to community problems from those who felt tourism should play
a minor or no role in the local economy (V = 0.12, F = 6.87, p < .001)
(Table 3).
Individuals who perceived greater personal benefit from tourism
than others also perceived greater positive effects. Those who received
their income from the tourism industry either directly or indirectly felt
that it results in greater positive impacts for most dimensions, but dif-
ferences did not emerge for the community services or problems
dimensions (V = 0.04; F = 2.36; p < .005) (Table 4). Similarly, those
who reported more personal benefit from it perceived greater positive
effects but did not differ with respect to community problems from
people who benefit less (V = 0.19; F = 5.13; p < .001) (Table 5).
Other significant differences were found with respect to those
respondents who reported a higher degree of engagement with the
industry as measured by greater knowledge of it and greater contact
with tourists. Respondents who reported having greater knowledge,
as well as those who reported a moderate or large amount of contact
with tourists, tended to perceive greater positive influences on impact
dimensions with respect to community life, image, and economy; and
they showed no differences in perception with respect to community
problems, environment, and services (knowledge model: V = 0.05,
F = 1.62, p < .05; contact model: V = 0.07; F = 2.62; p < .001) (Tables 6
and 7). Tests showed no significant differences or very weak ones
Table 2. Differences in Impact Perceptions based on a Priority Option
Tourism Impact Factors Means Univariates
Not a priority Is a priority F P
Community Environment 3.40 3.56 7.89 .01

Community Problems 3.46 3.42 0.41 .52
Community Life 3.19 3.36 21.08 .00
Community Image 3.81 3.93 9.77 .00
Community Services 3.40 3.56 11.09 .00
Community Economy 3.58 3.79 37.25 .00
MANOVA Model: V = 0.07, F = 7.25, p < .001.

between groups on impact perceptions for several variables, including

gender, age, and the community attachment variables.
CONCLUSION
Many of the results of this study reinforce previous findings on atti-
tudes of residents toward tourism, while others differ. It is clear that
they appreciate the way the industry enriches the community fabric,
but without discounting increased negative attributes such as crowd-
ing, congestion, traffic, litter, and crime. Economically, tourism is re-
garded as positive, in accord with existing research. It is encouraging
to see residents are cognizant of the many ways it can socially, cultur-
ally, and environmentally benefit communities. This is consistent with
Liu and Var (1986) and other studies that have found residents recog-
nize the benefits of tourism. There are significant concerns, however,
with respect to traffic, crowding and congestion, and urban sprawl.
Brunt and Courtney (1999) and Reid and Boyd (1991) noted the same
findings in their studies. Due to the statewide sample for this study,
about three-quarters of respondents were from the urban Phoenix
and Tucson metropolitan areas, cities experiencing unprecedented
growth with the associated problems. These kinds of issues are espe-
cially salient to people living in urban areas and may come out more
strongly in this study than in those that have focused on rural
communities.
The development of dependent variables using factor analysis re-
sulted in domains similar to those discovered elsewhere. As with other
studies, a negative impacts dimension, two positive impacts dimensions
(one environmental and one economic), a quality of life oriented
dimension, and two community development dimensions were found.
The first two research questions suggested that individuals who feel
tourism should play a major role in the economic development mix of
their communities perceive higher levels of positive community
Table 3. Differences in Perceptions based on Opinions of Tourism’s Role
Tourism Impact Factors Meansa Univariates
No/minor role Equal role Dominant role F p
Community Environment 3.23A 3.51B 3.66B 11.91 .00

Community Problems 3.5 3.42 3.37 1.85 .16
Community Life 3.05A 3.31B 3.41B 22.05 .00
Community Image 3.69A 3.87B 4.03C 16.25 .00
Community Services 3.30A 3.50B 3.63B 9.79 .00
Community Economy 3.44A 3.71B 3.85C 28.81 .00
MANOVA Model: V = 0.12, F = 6.87, p < .001.

a
Means with the same superscript are not significantly different at the .05 level.
impacts than do others. These questions were supported. Although

other studies have not looked at these specific variables, many have
noted a positive relationship between positive attitudes for tourism
development, though support for it is usually the dependent variable
(Andereck and Vogt 2000; Gursoy et al 2002; Jurowski et al 1997;
McGehee and Andereck 2004; Perdue et al 1990; Sirakaya et al 2002;
Snepenger et al 2001). There seems to be enough related evidence
at this point to conclude there is a positive association between support
for tourism as economic development and perceptions of its positive
impacts on the community. These findings tend to be consistent with
social exchange theory in that those who view this industry as a devel-
opment priority also perceive greater benefits from it in their commu-
nities than do others, and so are more likely to have positive attitudes
regarding tourism. However, theory suggests those who perceive bene-
fits also perceive lower levels of negative impacts, but this is not the
case in this study.
The second two research questions suggested residents who receive
more personal benefits from tourism perceive higher levels of positive
impacts, and this was generally supported. This finding is consistent
with existing research which has found that people who are employed
by the industry, or express a higher level of dependence on or benefit
from it, have more positive attitudes toward tourism (Brunt and Court-
ney 1999; Haralambopoulos and Pizam 1996; Jurowski et al 1997; Lank-
ford and Howard 1994; McGehee and Andereck 2004; Sirakaya et al
2002). For example, Lankford and Howard (1994) found that people
employed in tourism had more positive attitudes, as did Jurowski
et al (1997), while McGehee and Andereck (2004) found a positive
relationship between perceptions of benefits and positive attitudes to-
ward the industry. The findings suggest there are differences in percep-
tions of tourism’s positive impacts both with respect to receipt of
income from it and perceived personal benefit. It is of note that this
relationship holds true for the community economy variable and for
the variables that are measures of other community attributes. Even
the one nonsignificant relationship (community services for the
Table 4. Differences in Impact Perceptions based on Income from Tourism
None Indirect Direct F p
Community Environment 3.46A 3.67AB 3.87AB 4.67 .01

Community Problems 3.44 3.40 3.52 0.14 .87
Community Life 3.25A 3.44B 3.71B 11.65 .00
Community Image 3.85A 4.00B 4.45B 5.45 .00
Community Services 3.47 3.60 3.71 2.62 .07
Community Economy 3.68A 3.74AB 4.07B 5.02 .01
MANOVA Model: V = 0.04, F = 2.36, p < .005.

a
Means with the same superscript are not significantly different at the 0.5 level.
income variable) follows the positive direction of the other relation-

ships and verges on significance. As with the previous tests, lack of
group differences for the community problems variable is not consis-
tent with social exchange theory.
The idea that those who are more engaged with tourism are more
positively disposed to it was suggested by two research questions, and
this is largely supported, though not as strongly as the preceding
research questions. People who are more knowledgeable and those
who have more contact with tourists have more positive perceptions
of tourism’s impact on community life, image, and economy, but not
on community environment, services, or problems. All respondents
seem equally aware that the industry positively influences many aspects
of a community and negatively influences others, but the more knowl-
edgeable seem aware of the ways it can improve local economies as well
as some of the less apparent aspects of community life and image.
These findings tend to be consistent with other studies, though these
have either used one dependent variable or have considered the group
of impact factors as individual dependent variables rather than collec-
tively. Lankford and Howard (1994) and Davis et al (1988) both found
that level of knowledge about tourism and the local economy influ-
ences attitudes toward it with those who are more knowledgeable being
more positive, as did this study. Lankford and Howard (1994), how-
ever, did not find a significant association between amount of contact
with tourists, though other researchers have found evidence of such an
association (Brougham and Butler 1981).
With respect to social exchange theory, the disparity in results
among studies and the more ambiguous findings in this study for
the engagement variables may be related to the nature of resident-tour-
ist exchanges. Social exchange theory predicates that those who are
Table 5. Differences in Perceptions based on Amount of Personal Benefit
Tourism Meansa Univariates

Impact
Factors None Very little Some Quite a bit A lot F p
Community 3.26AB 3.42AB 3.52B 3.65B 3.83B 5.80 .00

Environment
Community 3.48 3.50 3.47 3.30 3.17 2.02 .10
Problems
Community 3.05A 3.15A 3.35B 3.48B 3.60B 20.97 .00
Life
Community 3.71A 3.75A 3.93B 4.03B 4.09B 10.62 .00
Image
Community 3.43ABC 3.37ABC 3.50ABCD 3.64ACD 3.81CD 5.85 .00
Services
Community 3.54A 3.56A 3.74B 3.86B 3.95B 14.92 .00
Economy
MANOVA Model: V = 0.19, F = 5.13, p < .001.

a
greater beneficiaries of tourism will perceive higher levels of positive

impacts. In the context of this theory, it is assumed that more engage-
ment with tourists leads to more benefits from the industry. Perhaps
this depends on the nature of residents’ interactions with tourists.
Those who have had objectionable encounters with tourists may actu-
ally perceive greater costs than those who have had no, or affirmative,
encounters with tourists. Thus, social exchange theory may not be the
best framework in which to examine this particular association.
The final research question, suggesting that community attachment
is negatively associated with perceptions of tourism’s impacts, was not
supported. This is contrary to other findings (Broughham and Butler
1981; Lankford and Howard 1994). Lankford and Howard (1994), sug-
gested that residents who were born in their study area, and those who
had lived there for a long time, were somewhat less favorable toward
tourism. Others, however, have also found either no or a positive rela-
tionship between similar variables (Davis et al 1988; Gursoy et al 2002;
McCool and Martin 1994). This may be an operationalization issue.
Few studies have measured community attachment as thoroughly as
those in other fields of inquiry. Generally, tourism studies have used
length of residency and/or birthplace to measure attachment
(Sheldon and Var 1984), though at least two also used sorrow to leave
and preference for the community over all others (Gursoy et al 2002;
McCool and Martin 1994). Non-tourism studies, however, have used
the previously mentioned variables as well as other types of measures,
such as local friendships and network ties, social position, local bonds,
life cycle stage, local community context, and community sentiments
(Beggs, Hurlbert and Haines 1996). An alternative explanation for
the lack of support for this hypothesis is that residents who are strongly
attached to their community are more concerned with their future;
they want to see it flourishing and strong and feel tourism can play a
role. Several of the more positive impact item measures (such as tour-
ism’s contribution to economic diversity, tax revenue, and enough
good jobs) seem to suggest this might be the case.
Table 6. Differences in Impact Perceptions based on Level of Knowledge
Not at all Slightly Moderately Very F p
Community Environment 3.40 3.47 3.54 3.45 0.89 .45

Community Problems 3.42 3.46 3.41 3.48 0.22 .88
Community Life 3.12AB 3.25AB 3.34B 3.30AB 3.72 .01
Community Image 3.62A 3.86B 3.92B 3.89B 6.27 .00
Community Services 3.43 3.47 3.54 3.42 1.12 .34
Community Economy 3.52A 3.70B 3.71B 3.72B 2.97 .03
MANOVA Model: V = 0.05, F = 1.62, p < .05.

a
Theoretically, perhaps there is no reason to believe that length of

time in a community or having lived there as a child predisposes an
individual to accruing more or less benefits or costs from tourism that
any other resident. The ambiguity of findings to date may suggest that,
like the engagement variables, social exchange theory is not the best
option to aid in understanding this particular association.
An important contribution of this study is the revelation that those
who hold some sort of personal ‘‘stake’’ in local tourism activities have
greater perception of the positive impacts, but exhibit no differences
from others with respect to the negative impacts of tourism. In fact,
for all variables, there were no significant differences among groups
with respect to the community problems factor. This finding merits fur-
ther research because it does contradict some previous studies (Shel-
don and Var 1984), but is consistent with others (Gursoy et al 2002),
and seems to contradict social exchange theory. Researchers have
suggested that the lack of a relationship could be due to low levels
of tourism development and/or viewing the industry as a means of
improvement during economic downturns, so that residents feel the
benefits outweigh the costs (Gursoy et al 2002). While this may be true
in certain cases, Arizona was undergoing tremendous economic growth
in most areas at the time of this study, and many areas were fairly well
developed for tourism, especially the urban areas from which many
respondents originate. Although there were no differences among
the groups with respect to community problems, the means are still
fairly high. This suggests residents are all equally aware of costs but
not of benefits. One possible explanation is that the negative impacts
of tourism on communities are more direct and obvious to all resi-
dents. This may be particularly true in a state like Arizona with marked
growth rates where this industry can exacerbate growth-related prob-
lems, while the positive influences are more noticeable to those in-
volved in, and informed about, it.
The results of this study are somewhat ambiguous with respect to
support of social exchange theory. To be fully consistent with it, differ-
Table 7. Differences in Perceptions based on Amount of Contact with

Tourists
None A little Moderate amount Large amount F p
Community Environment 3.44 3.46 3.53 3.73 2.54 .06

Community Problems 3.40 3.45 3.44 3.43 0.10 .97
Community Life 3.16A 3.27A 3.35B 3.47B 6.54 .00
Community Image 3.73A 3.86A 3.95B 4.05B 7.17 .00
Community Services 3.49 3.45 3.56 3.55 1.38 .25
Community Economy 3.60A 3.66A 3.75B 3.89B 6.10 .00
MANOVA Model: V = 0.07, F = 2.62, p < .001.

a
ences among the groups with respect to community problems should

have been evident. This adds to the growing collection of studies that
suggest while social exchange theory may be a potentially useful frame-
work, alternatively it may be an incomplete structure for understanding
response to tourism phenomena by community residents. It might
prove useful to look to other frameworks such as Max Weber’s theory
of substantive and formal rationality as suggested by McGehee and
Meares (1998). This theory includes market and economic-based ele-
ments, as does social exchange theory, but also allows for less quantifi-
able elements of making decisions such as values and beliefs (McGehee
and Meares 1998). It is based on Weber’s arguments for the motivation
behind individual and collective action. Rationality, which may be for-
mal or substantive, is the reason for creating some kind of economic
activity. Formal rationality involves providing for the needs of the com-
munity that can be expressed in calculable terms, a requirement of
every rational economy. Substantive rationality goes beyond choices
made based on strictly economic needs and includes choices motivated
by philosophy, morality, or even a vision for social change (McGehee
and Meares 1998; Roth and Wittich 1978). From a tourism develop-
ment perspective, the economic gains are motivated by formal and
the social gains by substantive rationality.
Another contribution of this study resides in the nature of the sam-
ple: a statewide sample of largely urban residents. Most similar studies
have been conducted in one or several rural communities. What is
encouraging about the results here is that, while the sample was more
diverse than most, and the study embraced an impact measurement
method somewhat different from like studies, the results tend to rein-
force some of the theoretical and empirical revelations in the field of
tourism impact assessment. With respect to some variables, however,
it adds more uncertainty and suggests that added research is required.
Taken with other research that has looked at the role of tourism in
impacting community life, it is becoming clear that broad-based educa-
tion and awareness campaigns are an important step toward increased
understanding of the industry and, ultimately, of fueling greater sup-
port and more positive views of what it can do for a community. While
there is evidence that individuals are cognizant of certain negative im-
pacts, it is clear that most are equally, if not more, cognizant of positive
impacts. Keeping citizens informed about the latter sharpens their
awareness of the flow of benefits and increases their feelings of engage-
ment with the industry. This goal could also be enhanced by good-faith
efforts to include citizens in the tourism decision making process.
Through a two way interaction process of citizen education and
involvement, managers could increase knowledge and feelings of
engagement, which could in turn increase support for the industry,
perhaps even extending into activism and welcoming behaviors toward
tourists. Armed with information about the psychological and sociolog-
ical forces underlying the formation of differing attitudes toward tour-
ism among residents, community development practitioners would be
more effective in dissipating conflict and building consensus within
communities about desired futures.
REFERENCES
Andereck, K. L.
1995 Environmental Consequences of Tourism: A Review of Recent Research.
In Linking Tourism, the Environment, and Sustainability. Annual Meeting of
the National Recreation and Park Association, pp. 77–81, General Technical
Report No. INT-GTR-323.
Andereck, K., and C. Vogt
2000 The Relationship between Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism and
Tourism Development Options. Journal of Travel Research 39(1):27–36.
Ap, J.
1992 Residents’ Perceptions of Tourism Impacts. Annals of Tourism Research
19:665–690.
Ap, J., and J. Crompton
1993 Residents’ Strategies for Responding to Tourism Impacts. Journal of
Travel Research 32(1):47–50.
Beggs, J., J. Hurlbert, and V. Haines
1996 Community Attachment in a Rural Setting: Refinement and Empirical
Test of the Systemic Model. Rural Sociology 61:407–426.
Biskin, B.
1983 Multivariate Analysis in Experimental Leisure Research. Journal of
Leisure Research 15:344–358.
Brougham, J., and R. Butler
1981 A Segmentation Analysis of Resident Attitudes to the Social Impact of
Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 8:569–589.
Brunt, P., and P. Courtney
1999 Host Perceptions of Sociocultural Impacts. Annals of Tourism Research
26:493–515.
Cohen, E.
1988 Tourism and Aids in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research 15:467–486.
Davis, D., J. Allen, and R. Cosenza
1988 Segmenting Local Residents by their Attitudes, Interests, and Opinions.
Journal of Travel Research 27(2):2–8.
Diekhoff, G.
1992 Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Science Sciences: Univariate,
Bivariate, Multivariate. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown.
Dogan, H.
1989 Forms of Adjustment: Sociocultural Impacts of Tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research 16:216–236.
Doggart, C., and N. Doggart
1996 Occasional Studies: Environmental Impacts of Tourism in Developing
Countries. Travel and Tourism Analyst 2:71–86.
Gilbert, D., and M. Clark
1997 An Exploratory Examination of Urban Tourism Impact, with Reference
to Residents Attitudes in the Cities of Canterbury and Guildford. Cities
14:343–352.
Gursoy, D., C. Jurowski, and M. Uysal
2002 Resident Attitudes: A Structural Modeling Approach. Annals of Tourism
Research 29:79–105.
Hammitt, W., R. Bixler, and F. Noe
1996 Going Beyond Importance-Performance Analysis to Analyze the Obser-
vance: Influence of Park Impacts. Journal of Park and Recreation Adminis-
tration 14:45–62.
Haralambopoulos, N., and A. Pizam
1996 Perceived Impacts of Tourism: The Case of Samos. Annals of Tourism
Hillery, M., B. Nancarrow, G. Griffin, and G. Syme
2001 Tourist Perceptions of Environmental Impact. Annals of Tourism
Johnson, J., D. Snepenger, and S. Akis

1994 Residents’ Perceptions of Tourism Development. Annals of Tourism
Jurowski, C., M. Uysal, and D. Williams
1997 A Theoretical Analysis of Host Community Resident Reactions to
Tourism. Journal of Travel Research 36(2):3–11.
King, B., A. Pizam, and A. Milman
1991 Social Impacts of Tourism: Host Perceptions. Annals of Tourism
Kousis, M.
1989 Tourism and the Family in a Rural Cretan Community. Annals of
Lankford, S.
1994 Attitudes and Perceptions toward Tourism and Rural Regional Develop-
ment. Journal of Travel Research 32(3):35–43.
Lankford, S., and D. Howard
1994 Developing a Tourism Impact Attitude Scale. Annals of Tourism
Lindberg, K., and R. Johnson
1997 Modeling Resident Attitudes toward Tourism. Annals of Tourism
Liu, J., P. Sheldon, and T. Var
1987 Resident Perception of the Environmental Impacts of Tourism. Annals of
Liu, J., and T. Var
1986 Resident Attitudes Towards Tourism Impacts in Hawaii. Annals of
Long, P., R. Perdue, and L. Allen
1990 Rural Resident Tourism Perceptions and Attitudes by Community Level
of Tourism. Journal of Travel Research 28(3):3–9.
McCool, S., and S. Martin
1994 Community Attachment and Attitudes Towards Tourism Development.
Journal of Travel Research 32(3):29–34.
McGehee, N., and K. Andereck
2004 Factors Predicting Rural Residents’ Support of Tourism. Journal of
Travel Research 43:131–140.
McGehee, N., and A. Meares
1998 A Case Study of Three Tourism-Related Craft Marketing Cooperatives in
Appalachia: Contributions to Community. Journal of Sustainable Tourism
6:4–25.
Maddox, R.
1985 Measuring Satisfaction with Tourism. Journal of Travel Research
23(3):2–5.
Mok, C., B. Slater, and V. Cheung
1991 Residents’ Attitudes towards Tourism in Hong Kong. Journal of
Hospitality Management 10:289–293.
Nunnaly, J.
1978 Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Perdue, R., P. Long, and L. Allen
1987 Rural Resident Tourism Perceptions and Attitudes. Annals of Tourism
1990 Resident Support for Tourism Development. Annals of Tourism Research
17:586–599.
Perdue, R., P. Long, and L. Gustke
1991 The Effects of Tourism Development on Objective Indicators of Local
Quality of Life. In Travel and Tourism Association 22nd Annual Proceedings,
pp. 191–201. Salt Lake City: TTRA.
Pizam, A., and J. Pokela
1985 The Perceived Impacts of Casino Gambling on a Community. Annals of
Reid, L., and A. Boyd

1991 The Social Impacts of Tourism and their Effects on Attitudes toward a
Major Cultural Attraction. In Travel and Tourism Association 22nd Annual
Proceedings, pp. 123–133. Salt Lake City: TTRA.
Rosenow, J., and G. Pulsipher
1979 Tourism: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Kansas City: Media
Publishing.
Roth, G., and C. Wittich
1978 Max Weber, Economy and Society. Los Angeles: University of California
Press.
Sheldon, P., and T. Var
1984 Resident Attitudes to Tourism in North Wales. Tourism Management
5:40–47.
Sirakaya, E., V. Teye, and S. Sönmez
2002 Understanding Residents’ Support for Tourism Development in the
Central Region of Ghana. Journal of Travel Research 41:57–67.
Snepenger, D., R. O’Connell, and M. Snepenger
2001 The Embrace-Withdraw Continuum Scale: Operationalizing Residents’
Responses toward Tourism Development. Journal of Travel Research
40:151–155.
Tosun, C.
2002 Host Perceptions of Impacts: A Comparative Tourism Study. Annals of
Submitted 25 March 2003. Accepted 26 December 2004. Final version 4 March 2005.
Coordinating Editor: Abraham Pizam

Residents' Perceptions of Impacts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Residents' Perceptions of Impacts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp.

Abstract: This study investigated residents’ perceptions of tourism’s impact on communi-

Kathleen Andereck is with the Department of Recreation and Tourism Management at

opportunities, tax revenues, economic diversity, festivals, restaurants,

ATTITUDES TOWARD TOURISM IMPACTS

Economic Effects of Tourism

deal with negative consequences. As to economic effects, Liu and Var

Sociocultural Effects of Tourism

From the negative perspective, studies have identified concern with

Environmental Effects of Tourism

Social Exchange Theory

Predictors of Tourism Attitudes

income, tax revenues, and standard of living. Importantly, there is also

be the recipients of positive/negative outcomes. This context gener-

A series of 38 items was developed to measure perceptions of tourism

Table 1. Factor Analysis of Community Tourism Impact Items

Variables Factor Loadings

Scale: from 1 = tourism greatly decreases to 5 = tourism greatly increases.

importance of tourism as an economic development activity expressed

Table 2. Differences in Impact Perceptions based on a Priority Option

Tourism Impact Factors Means Univariates

Not a priority Is a priority F P

Community Environment 3.40 3.56 7.89 .01

MANOVA Model: V = 0.07, F = 7.25, p < .001.

between groups on impact perceptions for several variables, including

Table 3. Differences in Perceptions based on Opinions of Tourism’s Role

Tourism Impact Factors Meansa Univariates

No/minor role Equal role Dominant role F p

Community Environment 3.23A 3.51B 3.66B 11.91 .00

MANOVA Model: V = 0.12, F = 6.87, p < .001.

impacts than do others. These questions were supported. Although

Table 4. Differences in Impact Perceptions based on Income from Tourism

Tourism Impact Factors Meansa Univariates

None Indirect Direct F p

Community Environment 3.46A 3.67AB 3.87AB 4.67 .01

MANOVA Model: V = 0.04, F = 2.36, p < .005.

income variable) follows the positive direction of the other relation-

Table 5. Differences in Perceptions based on Amount of Personal Benefit

Tourism Meansa Univariates

Community 3.26AB 3.42AB 3.52B 3.65B 3.83B 5.80 .00

MANOVA Model: V = 0.19, F = 5.13, p < .001.

greater beneficiaries of tourism will perceive higher levels of positive

Table 6. Differences in Impact Perceptions based on Level of Knowledge

Tourism Impact Factors Meansa Univariates

Not at all Slightly Moderately Very F p

Community Environment 3.40 3.47 3.54 3.45 0.89 .45

MANOVA Model: V = 0.05, F = 1.62, p < .05.

Theoretically, perhaps there is no reason to believe that length of

Table 7. Differences in Perceptions based on Amount of Contact with

Tourism Impact Factors Meansa Univariates

None A little Moderate amount Large amount F p

Community Environment 3.44 3.46 3.53 3.73 2.54 .06

MANOVA Model: V = 0.07, F = 2.62, p < .001.

ences among the groups with respect to community problems should

Johnson, J., D. Snepenger, and S. Akis

Reid, L., and A. Boyd

You might also like