Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.

390–412, 2009
0160-7383/$ - see front matter  2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2009.03.005

RESIDENTS’ PERSPECTIVES
OF A WORLD HERITAGE SITE
The Pitons Management Area, St. Lucia
Lorraine Nadia Nicholas
Brijesh Thapa
Yong Jae Ko
University of Florida, USA

Abstract: This study examined the factors that influence local community residents’ support
for the Pitons Management Area (PMA) as a World Heritage Site and their support for Sustain-
able Tourism Development. Community Attachment, Environmental Attitudes and Involve-
ment in PMA were hypothesized as independent variables. Results of a structural equation
modeling analysis using 319 resident samples suggested that Community Attachment positively
influences their support behaviors, and Environmental Attitudes indirectly influence the sup-
port behaviors through Perceptions about PMA. Level of Involvement in the PMA was not
found to have any significant relationships. The notable lack of involvement of residents pre-
sented critical implications for the sustainability of the site. Keywords: pitons management area,
sustainable tourism, stakeholder theory, world heritage site.  2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.

INTRODUCTION
The Pitons Management Area (PMA) was awarded World Heritage
Status at the 28th session of the World Heritage Committee meeting
on June 30, 2004. The PMA is a multiple use protected area and ex-
tends over 2,909 hectares. It is located near Soufriere, a small town
on the southwestern coast of the island of St. Lucia in the Caribbean.
A prime component of the PMA is the Pitons that comprise two volca-
nic spires, rising from the sea, alongside each other, linked by the Piton
Mitan ridge. Another component of the PMA is the Sulphur Springs,
categorized as the Caribbean’s only drive-in volcano. The PMA is argu-
ably St. Lucia’s most visited attraction with 200,000 visitors annually.
The site constitutes a marine and terrestrial component and accommo-
dates a wide variety of plant and animal species, some of which have
been deemed endemic. Almost 60% of the marine area is covered by

Lorraine Nicholas currently works as an independent contractor to the Ministry of

Economic Affairs in St. Lucia (La-Fargue, Choiseul, St. Lucia, West Indies. Email:
<tourismphd@hotmail.com>). As a Fulbright scholar she received her doctorate in Tourism
at the University of Florida. She received her bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Tourism
from the University of the West Indies. Her research interests center on the concept of
sustainable tourism development. She has conducted extensive research on the Pitons
Management Area World Heritage Site in St. Lucia. Brijesh Thapa and Yong Jae Ko are both
currently at University of Florida.

390
 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412 391

coral reefs. Also, over 200 plant species, including 5 rare tree species
have been recorded at the Pitons (UNESCO 2006).
The designation of the PMA as a World Heritage Site is indeed a ma-
jor feat for St. Lucia, as a small island developing state. This inscription
recognizes that the PMA has outstanding universal cultural and natural
value that should be preserved. Against this backdrop, the need to pro-
mote a sustainable development approach to site management is indis-
putable. Developments in the PMA have to date been undertaken in a
rather piecemeal, disjointed manner with little involvement of the local
communities in the vicinity of the site. It is essential that an integrated
holistic approach to sustainable development and management that
incorporates the views and involvement of principal stakeholders such
as local residents be adopted. Ensuring local residents’ support for a
World Heritage Site is increasingly viewed as fundamental to the sus-
tainability and integrity of the site (Thapa 2007; Wager 1995). Yet, there
is a paucity of empirical research on residents’ involvement and support
of World Heritage Sites, especially in the Caribbean region.
Most studies in tourism (Bramwell and Lane 1999; Byrd 2007; Hall
1999; Jamal and Getz 1995; Ladkin and Bertramini 2002) that discuss
stakeholder involvement and collaboration tend to focus on planning
for tourism in general. Very few studies (Aas, Ladkin and Fletcher
2005; Yuksel, Bramwell and Yuksel 1999) examine stakeholder percep-
tions and involvement in the context of a World Heritage Site. In addi-
tion, Milne (1998) notes that research linking tourism to the concept
of sustainable development have been highly descriptive and warrant
more empirical research. This study offers an examination with respect
to the relationship of stakeholders and sustainable tourism develop-
ment in the context of a World Heritage Site.
Based on the tenets of stakeholder theory, the purpose of this study
was to explore the perspectives of local community residents in order
to gain a better understanding of the factors that influence their sup-
port for the PMA as a World Heritage Site as a well as their support for
Sustainable Tourism Development in the PMA. The factors include
Community Attachment, Environmental Attitudes, Level of Involve-
ment, and Perception of the PMA. These factors were chosen based
on the literature as well as its applicability to the study site. A research
model with hypothesized relationships among the research variables
developed (see Figure 1).

STAKEHOLDER THEORY
This theoretical framework was originally developed in the field of
business management, in an attempt to identify the key stakeholders
in a corporation who deserve management attention. Freeman
(1984), an early proponent of stakeholder theory, posits that mangers
should consider the relationship with diverse constituents, in order to
effectively manage their business. Thus, the underlying independent
and dependent constructs in stakeholder theory are stakeholder inter-
ests and business success respectively. Freeman defined a stakeholder
392 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412

Figure 1. Proposed Research Model

as any individual or group who can affect or is affected by the attain-

ment of an organization’s objectives. Stakeholder theory recognizes
that there are multiple parties involved in the management process
such as governmental bodies, political groups, local communities
and associated business enterprises (Friedman and Miles 2002). Stake-
holder theory argues that every legitimate person or group partaking
in the activities of an enterprise does so to obtain benefits and that
the priority of the interests of all legitimate stakeholders is not self-evi-
dent (Donaldson and Preston 1995).
A synthesis of the wider literature on stakeholder theory reveals that
the notion of stakeholder identification and the relative importance of
stakeholders are of paramount importance. Based on Freeman’s afore-
mentioned definition of a stakeholder, Mitchell, Agle and Wood
(1997) contend that stakeholders can be identified based on the pos-
session of one or all of the following attributes: their power to influ-
ence decisions; the legitimacy of their relationship with the business;
and the urgency of their claim on the business.
Stakeholder theory has been successfully applied in a number of con-
texts such as: improving the effectiveness of organizations (Heugens,
Van Den Bosch and Van Riel 2002); increasing the participation of
minority groups in community programs (Bryson, Cunningham and
Lokkesmoe 2002); project management (McManus 2002), and enhanc-
ing citizen participation in community projects (Burby 2003). In tour-
ism, the application of stakeholder theory has been fairly recent and
relatively limited. For the most part, the focus has been on identifica-
tion of stakeholders, and increasing collaboration in the tourism plan-
ning and development process (Byrd 2007; Easterling 2005; Manwa
2003; Sautter and Leisen 1999).
Sautter and Leisen (1999) applied stakeholder theory as a framework
to discuss the management of multiple stakeholder interests in the
 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412 393

tourism development and planning process. Easterling (2005) exam-

ined residents’ perceptions of the stakes involved in living in a popular
tourist destination. Findings indicated the existence of four resident
stakeholder groups based on types of residency, with members within
each group holding at least three types of stakes: equity, economic
and influence. Also, Manwa (2003) applied stakeholder theory in a crit-
ical analysis of wildlife-based tourism in Zimbabwe. Findings disputed
the view that community based tourism benefits the local community;
but rather, only the power brokers within the communities were the
beneficiaries at the expense of hidden stakeholders, such as the poor
and women who were considered to be traditional users of resources.
The utility of stakeholder theory emanates from its underlying pre-
mise that the success and sustainability of any undertaking, hinges
greatly upon the involvement of various groups and individuals who
are affected by and have the power to affect its activities (Gray 1985).
Gunn (1994) notes that the success of the stakeholder involvement
process is not dependent on the final outcome of the process, but
rather that the interests, perspectives and values of stakeholders are
represented in decisions. Jamal and Getz (1995) denotes that a destina-
tion community’s assets (e.g., World Heritage Sites) can be shared by
local residents, visitors, and private and public sector interests. They
further state that tourism development then takes on the characteris-
tics of a public and social good whose benefit may be shared by a num-
ber of stakeholders in the local destination. Additionally, they
conclude that sustainable tourism development at the local level re-
quires much more collaboration than practiced today. To this end,
an inextricable link has been established between stakeholder theory
and sustainable tourism development (Byrd 2007). Byrd argues that
stakeholder involvement must be included in any sustainable tourism
plan in order to reduce conflict. Selin and Chavez (1995) also advocate
the need for a stakeholder approach to tourism development, whether
the objective is economic development, conservation, social justice or
protected area management.
The initial process of engagement is stakeholder identification.
Many stakeholders with varying interests have been identified in tour-
ism. However, the most commonly cited stakeholders include: Local
Communities, Tourists, Government/Public Sector, and Industry/Pri-
vate Sector. In the context of the PMA, three key stakeholder groups
(i.e., those who may influence or are likely to be influenced by policies,
decisions and actions) were identified as part of a larger study (Nicho-
las 2007). These include: (1) Local Community Residents; (2) Govern-
ment/Public Sector; and (3) Visitors. Given the objectives of this
paper, results of only one primary stakeholder segment (community
residents) are reported. This segment is a vital component as the sus-
tainability of the PMA designation is largely contingent on the support
of local residents who reside within and adjacent to the site. As such,
the implications from this study can be instrumental in engendering
local participation in planning and management, which is fundamen-
tal to the successful conservation of the site. Accordingly, the first
two research hypotheses are:
394 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412

H1: Perception of PMA positively impacts on Support for Sustainable

Tourism Development in the PMA.
H2: Perception of PMA positively impacts on Support for the PMA as a
World Heritage Site.

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

Over the past two decades, the concept of sustainable tourism
development has gained increasing momentum amongst tourism aca-
demics and practitioners alike. Generically, the concept has achieved
extensive acceptance as a desirable tourism development tool but re-
mains largely a hotly debated subject. However, there has been more
consensus on the notion that sustainable tourism development
should be firmly grounded in the tenets of its parental paradigm—
sustainable development (Sharpley 2000). Sustainable development
is defined as ‘‘development that meets the needs of the present with-
out compromising the ability for future generations to meet their
own needs’’ (WCED 1987:43). The application of sustainable develop-
ment to tourism has been rapid and widespread (Milne 1998). The
World Tourism Organization (1993) defines sustainable tourism as
tourism that meets the needs of current tourists and host popula-
tions, while enhancing opportunities for the future. It is envisaged
as leading to the management of resources in such a way that eco-
nomic, social and aesthetic needs can be met while maintaining
essential ecological processes, biological diversity, cultural integrity
and life support systems.
The concept of sustainable tourism development has been largely
summarized to encompass three components—economic, environ-
mental, and social (Butler 1999; Swarbrooke 1999). Sustainability
from an economic perspective involves a number of principles. They
include: maximizing and optimizing the benefits from tourism, while
minimizing costs; ensuring that tourism benefits are equitably dis-
tributed in the local host community, especially amongst the most
disadvantaged groups in the community; minimizing leakages from
the local economy, thereby enhancing the multiplier effect; and
stimulating local enterprises in the local community. Environmental
sustainability essentially promotes the protection of the environment,
which is not only necessary for the sustainability of the tourism
industry, but also valuable for life support. The social component
has been afforded less attention in the sustainable tourism debate.
Socio-cultural impacts are for the most part intangible and tend to
occur at a slower pace and in a rather subtle manner (Swarbrooke
1999). Social sustainability primarily involves impacts on the socio-
cultural fabric of the community—the host community. An amal-
gam of these three dimensions of sustainability suggests that sustain-
able tourism development should be ecologically sensitive,
economically viable and socially equitable. The key objective should
be to strike a balance between them, in order to produce a synergis-
tic effect.
 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412 395

Community Attachment
Community attachment is a complex, integrating, multi-faceted
concept that incorporates the relationship between people and their
communities. Community attachment encompasses several interre-
lated and mutually defining components. The underlying properties
that permeate the literature as core elements are emotion, affect,
meaning, feeling, bonding, and value. This implies that in order
for one to be attached to a community, he/she must appreciate, va-
lue, be loyal to as well as identify with the place. To this end, commu-
nity attachment can play a key role in influencing the perceptions
and attitudes of residents towards changes or developments in their
community.
A number of studies have examined the relationship between com-
munity attachment and attitudes towards tourism development
(Jurowski 1994; McCool and Martin 1994; Pennington-Gray 2005;
Um and Crompton 1987). The underlying basis for this relationship
is that the extent and nature of one’s attachment to a community
and its surrounding landscapes may influence residents’ perceptions
of tourism development. Notwithstanding, there has been much
diversity in the literature, both in terms of the operationalization
of community attachment and the relationship towards tourism
development. For example, Um and Crompton (1987) use birthplace
and heritage and identify that the more attached residents were to
their community, the less positive were their perceptions of tourism.
Jurowski (1994) indicates that whilst residents who were more at-
tached evaluated economic and social impacts positively, they tended
to evaluate environmental impacts negatively. However, McCool and
Martin’s results also appear to reject the hypothesis that an inverse
relationship exists between community attachment and the percep-
tions of the costs of tourism, as respondents who were strongly at-
tached to their community rated the positive dimensions of
tourism higher than those who were unattached. Generally, McCool
and Martin do not find a clear relationship between community
attachment and perceptions of impacts. This suggests that there
may be other factors mediating the effects of community attachment.
Gursoy, Jurowski and Uysal (2002) denote the hypotheses that a di-
rect relationship exists between the level of community attachment
and perceived benefits of tourism and a negative relationship exists
between the level of community attachment and the perceived costs
of tourism are rejected. Consequently, research hypotheses were
developed as follows:

H3: Community Attachment positively impacts on Perception of PMA.

H4: Community Attachment positively impacts on Support for Sustain-
able Tourism Development in the PMA.
H5: Community Attachment positively impacts on Support for the PMA as
a World Heritage Site.
396 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412

Environmental Attitudes
Most of the tourism-related literature on residents’ attitudes to envi-
ronmental issues have centered on residents’ perceptions on the im-
pact of tourism on the environment. A synthesis of studies reveals
that residents may hold either positive or negative perceptions of tour-
ism’s impact on the environment. Sethna and Richmond (1978) found
that Virgin Islanders agreed that the beaches were spoiled by tourism.
The existence of clusters of residents with major environmental con-
cerns and strong negative perceptions of tourism are also manifested
in several studies (Ap and Crompton 1993; Williams and Lawson
2001). Other studies indicate mixed sentiments on the environmental
impacts of tourism and highlight a number of intervening factors such
as, the degree and nature of tourism development and the level of con-
trol. Gursoy et al (2002) found that strong ecocentric values in a com-
munity will not necessarily result in opposition to tourism development
but the type of tourism may be the critical factor. Smith and Krannich
(1998) found that a direct relationship exists between tourism develop-
ment and negative attitudes towards tourism held by community resi-
dents. Further, residents in North Wales conceded that tourism
contributes to ecological degradation. However, they felt that long-
term planning could control the ecological impacts of tourism (Liu,
Sheldon and Var 1987). Residents have also supported the notion that
tourism improves the appearance of their town or surroundings (Per-
due, Long and Allen 1987).
Information about residents’ attitudes towards the environment is of
particular importance for the sustainability of protected areas, given
the dual responsibility of the PMA in its management that involves
both the conservation of natural resources and the provision of recre-
ational opportunities. These rather conflicting responsibilities require
managers of protected areas to recognize ecological sensitivities as
finding an acceptable compromise between the development of land
for recreation and its preservation for ecological, cultural, historical,
and aesthetic reasons is usually contentious (Jurowski 1994). Manage-
rial decisions will require a clear understanding of public values and
perceptions and the integration of these attitudes into decision mak-
ing. Therefore, it is expected that:

H6: Environmental Attitudes positively impact on Perception of PMA.

H7: Environmental Attitudes positively impact on Support for Sustainable
Tourism Development in the PMA.
H8: Environmental Attitudes positively impact on Support for the PMA as
a World Heritage Site.

Community Involvement
Community involvement is considered to be the cornerstone of sus-
tainable tourism development. The concept of community participa-
tion in decision-making has been utilized in town and country
 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412 397

planning decades before its advent in tourism (Swarbrooke 1999).

Murphy (1985) delineates tourism as essentially a sociocultural activity
involving both local residents and tourists. He argues that more tradi-
tionally emphasis was placed on tourist desires and behavior, much to
the exclusion of local residents’ concerns about tourism. Murphy
underscores the community as the nucleus for decision making and
support in tourism, so that tourism planning and development would
be integrated in the social fabric of a destination (Murphy 1985).
Since Murphy’s work, the advocacy to foster local resident involve-
ment in tourism has only intensified. Initial works in that regard fo-
cused on exploring ways of involving local residents in the planning
process (Gunn 1994; Inskeep 1991). Thereafter, research emphasis
has shifted to the notion that local residents should actively partake
in the decision-making making process, to determine and pursue their
goals and aspirations in the tourism industry (Joppe 1996; Mitchell and
Reid 2001; Timothy 1999). Recently, the research focus has taken a dif-
ferent turn as the tourism literature is rife with an extensive body of re-
search on residents’ attitudes towards tourism, conducted in
communities across the globe.
Local residents’ perceptions and attitudes towards tourism are piv-
otal, since they indirectly affect the behavior of residents towards tour-
ists. Early studies on resident attitudes were based on the assumption
that residents were relatively homogenous in their attitudes toward
tourism. However, communities are heterogeneous and as such resi-
dents hold diverse perceptions and attitudes toward tourism (Andriotis
and Vaughn 2003; Mason and Cheyne 2000). Resident attitudes re-
search has been conducted with a focus on various factors. These in-
clude: residents’ level of involvement in tourism (Akis, Peristianis
and Warner 1996; Smith and Krannich 1998); type of tourism develop-
ment (Gursoy et al 2002); socio-demographic characteristics (Williams
and Lawson 2001); and distance residents live from tourism areas
(Jurowski and Gursoy 2004; Long, Perdue and Allen 1990).
In the context of protected areas, a community is defined as ‘‘a het-
erogeneous group who share residence in the same geographic area
and access a set of local natural resources’’ (Drumm and Moore
2005:41). They assert that while communities have been the traditional
stewards of protected areas, they have been largely marginalized and
excluded from the development of such areas. However, protected
area managers are increasingly recognizing and appreciating the vital
role played by local communities in sustaining protected areas and
have thus established strategies to include local communities in the
management and development of protected areas (Nyaupane and
Thapa 2004, 2006). Concurrently, increasing interest by tourists in
learning about and experiencing different cultures has also served as
leverage for the involvement of local communities in protected area
management. In an effort to develop a strategy promoting sustainable
development of natural and cultural resources for the Angkor World
Heritage Site, in northern Cambodia, Wager (1995) recognizes that
the involvement of local community residents in the management of
the World Heritage Site can foster respect and understanding of the
398 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412

need to protect the natural landscape, as well as the need to integrate

tourism into the local economy. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

H9: Level of Involvement positively impacts on Perception of PMA.

H10: Level of Involvement positively impacts on Support for Sustainable
Tourism Development in the PMA.
H11: Level of Involvement positively impacts on Support for the PMA as a
World Heritage Site.

Study Methods
Five communities were selected for this study: Fond Gens Libre, Sul-
phur Springs, Malgretoute, Baron’s Drive and the town of Soufriere.
The first three communities are located within the PMA, while Baron’s
Drive and Soufriere are gateway communities to the PMA. The marine
zone and terrestrial conservation area within the PMA have few perma-
nent inhabitants. The terrestrial multiple use zone has a residential
population of about 1,500 persons in 400 private households.
A systematic sampling method was used to select participants in the
three communities located within the PMA. Given that these are pock-
ets of communities with no central assembly points, the sampling pro-
cedure was conducted on the basis of households rather than
individuals. Due to the small size of the communities, every other
household was selected. Any member of the household who was 18
years or older was asked to participate. In the absence of an eligible
member, the next house was selected. Given the high illiteracy rates
in these communities, and since local residents were generally not
familiar with survey procedures, questions were asked directly to
respondents and recorded by the interviewer.
In addition, residents in the communities of Baron’s Drive and Souf-
riere were also sampled. The PMA is located in the constituency of
Soufriere, which serves as a gateway community. Given the sporadic
spatial dispersion of households, simple random sampling was used
to select participants, whereby every respondent had an equal chance
of being selected. In Baron’s Drive where residents tend to congregate
in the street, participants were randomly selected as the interviewer
walked from one end of the street to the other, selecting the first per-
son in sight for the first interview and thereafter the next person. In
Soufriere, the interviewer alternated starting points on different days
with focus on the following central locations: bus stops, community
park, the market and Bridge Street.
Prior to data collection, a pilot study was conducted with seven local
residents to assess face and content validity. Based on the feedback,
minor adjustments were made to the questionnaire. Data were col-
lected during June 2006–September 2006. Out of a population of
8,539 residents, a total of 319 residents were interviewed with a 98% re-
sponse rate. The sample was stratified based on the population of the
respective communities (see Table 1).
 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412 399

Table 1. Sampling Frame for Local Community Residents Based on Population

Communities Population (N) Sample (N) Sample (%)

Fond Gens Libre 102 18 6

Sulphur Springs 56 7 2
Malgretoute 111 15 5
Baron’s Drive 335 41 12
Town of Soufriere 7935 238 75
TOTAL 8539 319 100%

The questionnaire measured the following constructs: Perceptions of

PMA, Community Attachment, Environmental Attitudes, Level of
Involvement; Support for PMA as World Heritage Site; Support for Sus-
tainable Tourism Development in the PMA. Perceptions of PMA were
measured based on twelve items on a five point Likert scale ranging
from 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly disagree; 3 = Neutral; 5 = Strongly
agree. Some of the items were adapted from Alexander (2000). Com-
munity Attachment assessed residents’ perceptions of how attached
they were to their respective community and were measured on a five
point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly disagree;
3 = Neutral; 5 = Strongly agree. The seven items were adapted from
the literature (Jurowski 1994; McCool and Martin 1994; Pennington-
Gray 2005; Um and Crompton 1987).
Environmental Attitudes examined residents’ general attitudes to-
wards the environment. The five items were measured on a five point
Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly disagree; 3 = Neu-
tral; 5 = Strongly agree. The questions were adapted from the literature
(Choi and Sirakaya 2005; Swarbrooke 1999; Thapa 2000). Level of
Involvement among residents in the PMA were measured based on
three items on five point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, where
1 = Not at all involved; 3 = Not sure; 5 = Very involved.
Residents’ level of support for the PMA as a World Heritage Site was
assessed by three items measured on a five point Likert scale ranging
from 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly oppose; 3 = Neutral; 5 = Strongly sup-
port. Finally, residents’ Support for Sustainable Tourism Development
in the PMA was assessed by eight items measured on a five point scale
ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly oppose; 3 = Neutral;
5 = Strongly support. The indicators were adapted from the literature
(Choi and Sirakaya 2005; Sharpley 2000; Swarbrooke 1999; WTO
1993). Demographic information (age, gender, income, education,
occupation, residence, and length of residence) were also included.
In addition, open-ended comment sections were provided for supple-
mentary input.

Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographics and six re-
search variables: Perception of PMA, Community Attachment, Environ-
400 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412

mental Attitudes, Level of Involvement, Support for PMA as World

Heritage Site, and Support for Sustainable Tourism Development in
the PMA. Following the descriptive analysis, a two-step data analysis ap-
proach was employed to test the hypothesized relationships among re-
search constructs as recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988).
First, a measurement model using AMOS 7.0 (2006) was estimated to
determine how well the indicators captured their specified constructs
and to examine that the constructs were distinct from each other
(Bollen 1989; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black 1998). For each sub-
scale, construct reliability and validity measures (factor loadings) were
also computed. Construct reliability values greater than .70 are consid-
ered adequate (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). Second, a structural
equation modeling (SEM) analysis was employed to examine the pro-
posed research model by testing the hypothesized relationships among
the research variables. SEM was conducted using AMOS with maxi-
mum likelihood (ML) method of estimation.
The fit of the measurement model and structural model were tested
using multiple indices. First, the v-square values divided by the degrees
of freedom was used as a frame of reference. Recommended v2/df val-
ues range from 1.0 to 2.0 for small samples and from 1.0 to 3.0 for lar-
ger samples (Kline 2005). Following Hu and Bentler (1999), the
comparative fit index (CFI) was used. CFI values equal to or greater
than. 95 is indicative of a good-fit model. Additionally, the root mean
square error of estimation (RMSEA) was used due to its ability to ac-
count for sample size (Browne and Cudeck 1992). The RMSEA ranges
from 0 to 1, with values of .08 or less considered acceptable (Hu and
Bentler 1999).

Results
Most of the residents sampled resided in the town of Soufriere
(75%), followed by Baron’s Drive (13%), Fond Gens Libre (6%), Mal-
gretoute (5%) and Sulphur Springs (2%). The average length of resi-
dency was 35 years. Forty nine percent were males and 51% were
females. The average age was 38.5 years with the distribution skewed
towards 26–35 years. Respondents who were above 55 years were the
least represented (14%) group. Almost half (48%) indicated secondary
(high) school as the highest level of education attained. Less than 1%
had a bachelor’s or higher degree, while 3% had undergone no formal
education. Respondents (46%) reported a monthly household income
for 2005 of Eastern Caribbean (EC) $1,000-2,000 (about US $375-
$750), followed by 26% of respondents who indicated an annual in-
come for 2005 of under $1,000 (about US$375). Seventy percent of res-
idents were employed with 75% directly employed and 25% indirectly
employed in the tourism industry.
Individual items were examined using Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(CFA). The measurement model for each of the constructs suggested
good fit to the data. The fit indices for a total measurement model re-
vealed to be acceptable. The v-square/df ratio (2.36: v2 = 612.840,
 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412 401

Table 2. Fit Indices for Measurement Model

Construct x2 df x2/df RMSEA CFI

Measurement Model 612.840 260 2.357 .065 .940

SEM Model 684.310 261 2.622 .071 .928

df = 260, p < .001) was lower than the suggested threshold (i.e., <3.0;
Kline 2005). CFI (.94) and RMSEA (.065) satisfied the recommended
cutoff (Hair et al. 1998; Hu and Bentler 1999). Collectively, the esti-
mated model yielded a reasonable model fit to the data given the sam-
ple size and number of indicators (see Table 2).
As a result of initial CFA tests, several items in various factors were
dropped due to their low factor loadings. The results of final CFA tests
yield that all item (indicator)-loadings for each factor were significant
(p < .01) and ranged from .49 to .99 that provides strong evidence of
convergent validity. The factor loadings were all above .60 (p < .05) ex-
cept for three cases (see Table 3). Some of the respective items were
reverse coded to maintain consistent directionality.
In examining the internal consistency, coefficient alpha (Cronbach
1951) was assessed for construct reliability for each of the constructs.
Evidence of internal consistency is provided by cronbach’s alpha above
Nunnally’s (1978) recommended level of .70, ranging from .71 (Envi-
ronmental Attitudes) to .97 (Support for Sustainable Tourism Develop-
ment in the PMA) and construct reliability above Bagozzi’s (1993)
recommended level of .70, ranging from .74 (Environment Attitudes)
to .97 (Support for Sustainable Tourism Development in the PMA)
(see Table 4). Also included in Table 4 are the average variance ex-
tracted (AVE) estimates, which assess the amount of variance captured
by a construct’s measure relative to measurement error, and the corre-
lations among the latent constructs in the model. Average variance ex-
tracted estimates of .50 or higher indicate convergent validity for a
construct’s measure (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Perception of PMA
(.49) and Environment Attitudes (.41) were slightly below suggested
threshold and all other values exceeded the recommended level of
.50 ranging from .62 (Community Attachment) to .85 (Support for Sus-
tainable Tourism Development in the PMA).
To test discriminant validity, intercorrelations among latent con-
structs were examined. Evidence of the discriminant validity comes
from the fact that all the intercorrelations were less than the suggested
threshold of .85 (Kline 1998), ranging from .03 to .68. In addition, if
the square of the parameter estimate between two constructs is less
than the average variance extracted estimates of the two constructs,
then discriminant validity is supported (Fornell and Larcker 1981).
This criterion was met across all possible pairs of constructs. These
findings demonstrate that the proposed measurement model satisfied
all the psychometric requirements, thus the measures were adequate
for further analysis.
402 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412

Table 3. Summary Results for Measurement Model

Factors and Items Indicator Mean SD

Loading

Community Attachment1
It is important to continue the traditions of this .74 4.01 .729
community
This community has meaning to me .89 4.01 .665
I have no emotional attachment to this community* .74 3.97 .775
What happen in this community is important to me .76 4.08 .622
Environmental Attitudes1
The diversity of nature must be valued and protected .74 4.12 .506
Community environment must be protected now and in .83 4.13 .524
the future
Less public lands should be under protected areas .49 3.58 .741
Level of Involvement2
My involvement in the management of the PMA .57 1.15 .594
My involvement in the decision-making about the PMA .99 1.13 .475
Perception of PMA1
It would be better not to have the PMA here* .72 4.21 .756
The PMA should be protected for the benefit of our .60 4.25 .708
future generation
The PMA does not provide jobs for people in our .51 3.70 .786
community*
The PMA has created problems in my life* .64 2.14 .728
The cutting of trees should be discouraged in the PMA .69 4.05 .774
The PMA is too large and takes up too much land space* .65 3.77 .668
It is important to keep the PMA for the survival of various .66 4.02 .665
plant and animal species
Support for Sustainable Tourism Development3
Development of community based tourism initiatives .97 4.13 .642
Local participation in tourism planning and .95 4.17 .662
development
Cultural exchanges between local residents and visitors .94 4.13 .614
Cooperation and unity in tourism planning and .92 4.08 .629
development
Regulatory environmental standards to reduce the .83 3.98 .689
negative impacts of tourism
Promotion of environmental education and conservation .92 4.12 .663
Support for PMA as World Heritage Site3
The designation of the PMA as a UNESCO World .87 3.95 .766
Heritage Site
Regulations and guidelines to maintain PMA as a .96 3.94 .707
UNESCO World Heritage Site
The promotion of the PMA as a UNESCO World .93 4.00 .684
Heritage Site

*
Variables reverse coded for consistency directionality of items.; 1 Measured on a 5-point
scale where 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree.;
2
Measured on a 5-point scale where 1 = Not at all involved; 2 = Not very involved; 3 = Not
sure; 4 = Somewhat involved; 5 = Very involved.; 3 Measured on a 5-point scale where
1 = Strongly oppose; 2 = Oppose; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Support; 5 = Strongly support.
 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412 403

Table 4. Construct Reliabilities (CR), Correlations, and AVE

Construct Reliabilities 1 2 3 4 5 6

Community Attachment .85a/.86b .62c

Level of Involvement .75a/.78b .04 .65c
Environmental Attitudes .71a/.74b .56* .08 .49c
Identification
Perception of PMA Identification .83a/.83b .57* .15 .57* .41c
Support of Sustainable Tourism .97a/.97b .53** .03 .45* .59* .85c
Development Identification
Support for PMA as World .94a/.94b .49* .03 .42* .53* .68* .85c
Heritage Site

a
Cronbach’s Alpha; b Construct Reliability; c Average Variance Extracted; *
Correlation
Significant p < .01; ** Correlation Significant p < .001.

SEM analysis was performed to examine the overall model as well as

individual tests of the hypothesized relationships among the latent con-
structs. Fitting the hypothesized model to the data resulted in accept-
able goodness-of-fit indices: RMSEA = .071, CFI = .928, v2/df = 684.3/
261 = 2.622 (p < .001). These indicate reasonable fit of the model but
not necessarily support for all the hypotheses. Support for the hypoth-
eses was examined via the significance of the individual path coeffi-
cients. Hypothesis testing was accomplished by examining the
completely standardized parameter estimates and their Critical Ratio
values.
As hypothesized, Perception of PMA had direct and positive impacts
on both Support for Sustainable Tourism Development in the PMA
(H1: standardized coefficient of .467; CR value 5.996) and Support
for PMA as World Heritage Site (H2: standardized coefficient of
.433; CR value 5.281). Respondents’ Community Attachment on Per-
ception of PMA (H3: standardized coefficient of .354; CR value
4.669), Support for Sustainable Tourism Development in the PMA
(H4: standardized coefficient of .251; CR value 3.681) and Support
for PMA as World Heritage Site (H5: standardized coefficient of
.236; CR value 3.270) exhibited positive direct effects. Although Envi-
ronment Attitudes had positive impacts on Perception of PMA (H6:
standardized coefficient of .380; CR value 4.723), it did not directly
influence Support for Sustainable Tourism Development in the PMA
(H7) and Support PMA as World Heritage Site (H8). Examination of
indirect effect suggested that Environment Attitudes indirectly influ-
enced Support for Sustainable Tourism Development in the PMA
(standardized coefficient of .178) and Support for PMA as World Her-
itage Site (standardized coefficient of .165) through Perception of
PMA. Level of Involvement did not have significant impacts on Percep-
tion of PMA (H9) and the other two dependent variables (Support for
Sustainable Tourism Development in the PMA—H10 and Support for
PMA as World Heritage Site—H11; see Table 5 and Figure 2).
404 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412

Table 5. Standardized Coefficient (b) of Structural Parameters and Critical

Ratio (CR)

Hypothesis b CR SE

H1: Perception of PMA fi Support for Sustainable Tourism .467* 5.996 .091
Development
H2: Perception of PMA fi Support for PMA as World .433* 5.281 .103
Heritage Site
H3: Community Attachment fi Perception of PMA .354* 4.669 .074
H4: Community Attachment fi Support for Sustainable .251* 3.681 .077
Tourism Development
H5: Community Attachment fi Support for PMA as World .236* 3.270 .089
Heritage Site
H6: Environmental Attitudes fi Perception of PMA .380* 4.723 .115
H7: Environment Attitudes fi Support for Sustainable .048 0.634 .121
Tourism Development
H8: Environment Attitudes fi Support for PMA as World .043 0.538 .138
Heritage Site
H9: Level of Involvement fi Perception of PMA .113 1.667 .074
H10: Level of Involvement fi Support for Sustainable .055 1.110 .063
Tourism Development
H11: Level of Involvement fi Support for PMA as World .106 1.653 .088
Heritage Site
Indirect Effect
Environment Attitudes fi Perception of PMA fi Support for .178*
Sustainable Tourism Development
Environment Attitudes fi Perception of PMA fi Support for .165*
PMA as World Heritage Site

*
Significant at p < .01 level.

Figure 2. A Structural Equation Model Test

 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412 405

Discussion
The findings of this study highlight the interplay of variables that af-
fect residents’ perspectives about the PMA and their ultimate support
for designation and sustainable tourism development. Community
Attachment was found to have a significant direct impact on Percep-
tion of PMA and both dependent variables (i.e., Support for the
PMA as a World Heritage Site and Sustainable Tourism Development).
It is unsurprising that the more attached residents are to their commu-
nity, the more supportive they will be of the PMA as a World Heritage
Site and Sustainable Tourism Development in the PMA. For the most
part, residents were born and raised in their respective communities
and they indicated significant levels of attachment. Harrill (2004) re-
ports that the more attached residents are to their community, the
more negative they are about tourism development in general, given
that the tourism industry has the potential to undermine the quality
of life in their community. This sentiment is in sync with the findings
of this study which suggest that the more attached residents are to their
community the more supportive they will be of developing tourism in a
sustainable manner in the PMA. These findings bode well for the sus-
tainable development of the PMA and indicate that managers and pol-
icy makers should adopt a sustainable approach to tourism
development in the PMA.
Environmental Attitudes was also found to have a significant direct
relationship with Perception of PMA. Since an overwhelming majority
of residents expressed positive attitudes about the environment in gen-
eral, it was expected they would likely support the PMA, irrespective of
financial gain through tourism (Walpole and Goodwin 2001). Interest-
ingly, Environmental Attitudes was not found to have significant im-
pacts on both Support for the PMA as a World Heritage Site and
Sustainable Tourism Development. Significant indirect effect suggests
that the relationships were mediated by residents’ Perceptions about
the PMA. They are likely to support sustainable tourism development
and the PMA as a World Heritage Site only when they develop positive
perceptions about PMA. Prior research finds that community support
is influenced by ecocentric values. Basically, strong ecocentric values
within communities will not necessarily result in opposition to tourism
development, but rather, the type of development may be critical (Gur-
soy et al 2002). However, in this study, it is important to note that res-
idents’ support of the PMA and the type of development is largely
influenced by their perceptions of the PMA.
Level of Involvement in the PMA was not found to have any signifi-
cant direct relationships with either Perception of PMA, Support for
the PMA as a World Heritage Site or Support for Sustainable Tourism
Development. Based on descriptive analysis, an overwhelming majority
of residents (92%) were not involved in the management or the deci-
sion-making process in the PMA. Also, about 73% were not at all in-
volved in tourism associated with the PMA. However, they still
expressed strong support for the PMA as a World Heritage Site and
for Sustainable Tourism Development in the PMA. A primary reason
406 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412

for these findings may be the result of the PMA being relatively new. As
such, residents’ support levels were high despite their lack of involve-
ment. Also, residents’ support may be superseded by their perceptions
and expectations about the PMA than their actual involvement. Resi-
dent support is important as Byrd (2007) contends that current tour-
ism development in the community will also influence residents’
support for future endeavors.
Although this study found that Level of Involvement did not influ-
ence significant relationships, this does not negate the need for in-
creased involvement of local residents in the activities of the PMA.
Local community residents in the vicinity of World Heritage Sites are
increasingly being afforded the opportunity to make decisions ‘‘over
their own resources and livelihood infrastructure’’ (Cochrane and Tap-
per 2006:101). Wager (1995) notes that the involvement of local com-
munity residents in the management of Angkor World Heritage Site
can foster respect and understanding of the need for protection of
the environment and the integration of tourism into the local commu-
nity. Similarly, Aas et al (2005) conclude that a key issue raised in their
study relates to involving the local community in decision-making; and
discovered the willingness of local residents to be involved in decision-
making. However, the right to participate is not commensurate with
the capacity to participate (Aas et al 2005; Jamal and Getz 1999; Thapa
2007).
Furthermore, community residents’ lack of faith in their ability to be
actively involved has also been reported (Lepp 2006), which indicates
the need to enhance their capacity as fostering capabilities will empow-
er stakeholders to participate and negotiate in collaboration (Aas et al
2005; Thapa 2007). Approaches that empower residents to make
decisions are considered more meaningful forms of stakeholder
involvement (Carmin et al 2003). Therefore, the need exists for man-
agement policies that incorporate public involvement in protected
area management in order to achieve long-term sustainability (Fiallo
and Jacobson 1995).
Residents were also asked to provide their overall perceptions about
the PMA and tourism via open-ended general comments. While most
respondents indicated that the designation of the PMA was indeed a
major feat for both Soufriere in particular and St. Lucia in general,
there was a strong sentiment that not enough was being done to make
the presence of the PMA felt. Residents believed the designation to be
quite dormant. With regards to tourism in the PMA, responses were po-
sitive; and respondents generally focused on the economic benefits of
tourism. Such responses mirror those of Medeiros de Araujo and Bram-
well (1999) who found that residents emphasize the economic impacts
of tourism and its efficient use to create employment and infrastruc-
ture benefits for the region and communities. However, whilst generi-
cally respondents expressed positive thoughts on tourism, it should be
noted however, that residents’ acknowledgment of the benefits of tour-
ism refer largely to the potential for such benefits, in lieu of actual ben-
efits. For the most part, they stated that tourism is good as it can
provide jobs. These findings are unsurprising in light of the dire unem-
 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412 407

ployment (30% of residents sampled were unemployed) problem con-

fronting the Soufriere region.
Many residents also noted that they had not seen any notable differ-
ence in tourism after the designation. These findings suggest the need
for initiatives geared towards sustainable tourism development in the
PMA that involves residents and allow them to realize the potential
benefits of the PMA as a World Heritage Site. Such an outcome is evi-
denced in the Luang Prabang World Heritage Site whereby, the year
following the designation as many as two thirds had been offered a
new job or business opportunity at the site. Also, three quarters of
the respondents were involved in tourism, both formally and infor-
mally. These figures were linked directly to the rapid increase in tourist
arrivals at the site and that most tourism employment opportunities
had emerged after the designation of the World Heritage Site (Aas
et al 2005). In addition, similar to the results of Easterling (2005:59)
residents’ responses suggest ‘‘concerns related to their equity, eco-
nomic and influencer stakes.’’ In this study, a number of residents also
asserted that tourism is for the ‘‘big shots’’ who primarily stand to ben-
efit from the industry at the expense of the grassroots people. These
results support Walpole and Goodwin (2001:160) who contend that
whilst residents expressed positive attitudes towards tourism and indi-
cated high levels of support for conservation, they also revealed ‘‘distri-
butional inequalities’’ in tourism benefits.

CONCLUSION
This study sought to explore the perspectives of local community res-
idents in order to understand the factors that influence their support
for the PMA as a World Heritage Site as a well as their support for Sus-
tainable Tourism Development in the PMA. Although one stakeholder
cluster was represented, there may be further in-group segmentation
that reflects the interests of diverse groups such as business persons
and residents employed in the tourism industry. However, it is still a
subjective value judgment with respect to the number of stakeholder
groups to include and how many to sample from each group (Yuksel
et al 1999). Whilst stakeholder theory underscores the need to involve
all impacted groups and individuals, it also presents a challenge as
involvement of large numbers of stakeholders can complicate the deci-
sion-making process given the degree of diverse and conflicting goals
(Medeiros de Araujo and Bramwell 1999). Simpson (2001:15) also ar-
gues that ‘‘multiple perspectives may result in low opinion unanimity
within and between stakeholder groups.’’ However, if legitimate stake-
holders are overlooked and excluded, then the level of acceptance and
support for the project is likely to be adversely affected. Although it is
essential that key stakeholders are acknowledged and included, a re-
lated challenge is stakeholder representation. It is very difficult to
ascertain that stakeholders involved in the planning process are repre-
sentative of the stakeholders affected by a project (Medeiros de Araujo
and Bramwell 1999).
408 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412

Sustainability is a taxing social phenomenon, particularly in the con-

text of small island developing states, given the slew of economic, envi-
ronmental and social challenges they face (Timothy 1999). There are
numerous issues in the developing world that serve as impediments
to sustainable development and management of tourism at World Her-
itage Sites. Thapa (2007) emphasizes lack of political will with respect
to government priority and financial assistance as major constraints in
the management of World Heritage Sites. Timothy and Boyd (2006)
identify issues to include: the role of the local communities in decision
making, the sharing of benefits, empowerment and power, the lack of
funding and forced displacement to accommodate tourism.
Such issues are also at play in the context of St. Lucia, and present
challenges to maintain the natural and cultural integrity of the PMA
as a World Heritage Site. Given the challenges between economic
development and environmental conservation, the future of the PMA
will largely be reliant on sustainable development of tourism in the
area. It is vital that individual as well as institutional perspectives be
solicited in order to foster patterns of behavior that promote sustain-
able tourism development. However, a critical element of sustainable
tourism development is stakeholder involvement. Hence, it is highly
recommended that there should be greater involvement of local com-
munity residents in the activities of the PMA. Since tourism relies con-
siderably on the goodwill of the local residents (Jurowski 1994), their
support and involvement is critical for its sustainability. Local commu-
nity residents should also be sensitized about the meaning and value of
World Heritage Status as well as on environmental and conservation is-
sues (Thapa 2007).
This study ameliorates the dearth of empirical research on stake-
holder perspectives in the context of a World Heritage Site, especially
in the Caribbean region. This study can be further expanded by use of
additional variables with respect to stakeholder involvement and sus-
tainable tourism development, in general, as well as in the context of
the PMA. Finally, although this study did not reveal many negative per-
ceptions, it was undertaken at a relatively early stage in the life cycle of
the PMA as a World Heritage Site. Patterns of attitudes towards both
tourism and conservation may change with additional growth of tour-
ism development and visitor arrivals. It is therefore important that lon-
gitudinal research examining residents’ perspectives be undertaken to
assess potential changes.

REFERENCES
Aas, C., A. Ladkin, and J. Fletcher
2005 Stakeholder Collaboration and Heritage Management. Annals of Tourism
Research 32:28–48.
Akis, S., N. Peristianis, and J. Warner
1996 Residents’ Attitudes to Tourism Development: The Case of Cyprus.
Tourism Management 17:481–494.
 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412 409

Alexander, S. E.
2000 Resident Attitudes Towards Conservation and Black Howler Monkeys in
Belize: The Community Baboon Sanctuary. Environmental Conservation
27(4):341–350.
Anderson, D., and D. Gerbing
1988 Structural Equation Modeling in Practice. A Review and Recommended
Two-step Approach. Psychological Bulletin 103:411–423.
Andriotis, K., and R. Vaughn
2003 Urban Residents’ Attitudes Toward Tourism Development: The case of
Crete. Journal of Travel Research 42(2):172–185.
Ap, J., and J. Crompton
1993 Residents’ Strategies for Responding to Tourism Impacts. Journal of
Travel Research 2(1):47–50.
Bagozzi, R. E.
1993 Assessing Construct Validity in Personality Research: Applications to
Measures of Self-Esteem. Journal of Research in Personality 27(1):49–87.
Bollen, K.
1989 Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bramwell, B., and B. Lane
1999 Collaboration and Planning for Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustain-
able Tourism 7:179–181.
Browne, M., and R. Cudeck
1992 Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. Sociological Methods and
Research 21:230–258.
Bryson, J., G. Cunningham, and K. Lokkesmoe
2002 What to do when Stakeholders Matter: The Case of Policy Formulation for
the African American Men project of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Public
Administration Review 62:568–584.
Burby, R.
2003 Making Plans that Matter: Citizen Involvement and Government Action.
Journal of the American Planning Association 69:33–49.
Butler, R.
1999 Sustainable Tourism: A State-of- the-Art Review. Tourism Geographies
1:7–25.
Byrd, E.
2007 Stakeholder in Sustainable Tourism Development and their Roles:
Applying Stakeholder Theory to Sustainable Tourism Development. Tourism
Review 62(2):6–13.
Carmin, J., N. Darnall, and J. Mil-Homens
2003 Stakeholder Involvement in the Design of U.S. Voluntary Environmental
Programs: Does Sponsorship Matter? The Policy Studies Journal 31:527–543.
Choi, H. S., and E. Sirakaya
2005 Measuring Resident Attirudes toward Sustainable Tourism: Development
of a Sustainable Tourism Attitude Scale. Journal of Travel Research
43(4):380–394.
Cochrane, J., and R. Tapper
2006 Tourism’s Contribution to World Heritage Site Management. In Managing
World Heritage Sites, A. Leask and A. Fyall, eds., pp. 97–109. Burlington:
Elsevier Ltd.
Cronbach, L. J.
1951 Coefficient Alpha and the Internal structure of Tests. Psychometrika
16:297–334.
Donaldson, T., and L. Preston
1995 The Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation: Concepts, Evidence
and Implications. Academy of Management Review 20:65–91.
Drumm, A., and A. Moore
2005 Ecotourism Development: A Manual for Conservation Planners and
Managers. Arlington: The Nature Conservation Agency.
Easterling, D.
2005 Residents and Tourism: What is Really at Stake?. Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing 18(4):49–64.
410 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412

Fiallo, E., and S. Jacobson

1995 Local Communities and Protected Areas: Attitudes of Rural Residents
towards Conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environmental
Conservation 22:241–249.
Fornell, C., and D. Larcker
1981 Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1):39–50.
Freeman, R.
1984 Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman
Publishing.
Friedman, A., and S. Miles
2002 Developing Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Management Studies 39:1–21.
Gray, B.
1985 Conditions Facilitating Interorganizational Collaboration. Human Rela-
tions 38:911–936.
Gunn, C.
1994 Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases. Washington: Taylor & Francis.
Gursoy, D., C. Jurowski, and M. Uysal
2002 Resident Attitudes: A Structural Modeling Approach. Annals of Tourism
Research 29:79–105.
Hair, J., R. Anderson, R. Tatham, and W. Black
1998 Multivariate Data Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Hall, C.
1999 Rethinking Collaboration and Partnership: A Public Policy Perspective.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 7:274–289.
Harrill, R.
2004 Residents’ Attitudes towards Tourism Development: A Literature Review
with Implications for Tourism Planning. Journal of Planning Literature
18:251–266.
Heugens, P., F. van den Bosch, and C. van Riel
2002 Stakeholder Integration. Business & Society 41:36–60.
Hu, L., and P. Bentler
1999 Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling: Sensitivity Under Parame-
terized Model Misspecification. Psychological Methods 3:424–453.
Inskeep, E.
1991 Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development
Approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Jamal, T., and D. Getz
1995 Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism Planning. Annals of
Tourism Research 22:183–202.
1999 Community Roundtable for Tourism Related Conflicts: The Dialectics of
Consensus and Progress Structures. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 7:290–
313.
Joppe, M.
1996 Sustainable Community Tourism Development Revisited. Tourism Man-
agement 17:475–479.
Jurowski, C. 1994 The Interplay of Elements Affecting Host Community Resident
Attitudes toward Tourism: A Path Analytic Approach. PhD dissertation in
tourism, Virginia Tech University, United States.
Jurowski, C., and D. Gursoy
2004 Distance Effects on Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research 31:296–312.
Kline, R. B.
1998 Principles & Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York:
Guilford.
2005 Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.). New
York: Guilford.
Ladkin, A., and A. Bertramini
2002 Collaborative Tourism Planning: A Case Study of Cusco, Peru. Current
Issues in Tourism 5:71–93.
 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412 411

Lepp, A.
2006 Residents’ Attitudes towards Tourism in Bigodi Village, Uganda. Tourism
Management 28:876–885.
Long, P., P. Perdue, and L. Allen
1990 Rural Resident Tourism Perceptions and Attitudes by Community Level of
Tourism. Journal of Travel Research 28(3):3–9.
Liu, J., P. Sheldon, and T. Var
1987 Resident Perceptions of the Environmental Impacts of Tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research 14:17–37.
Manwa, H.
2003 Wildlife-based Tourism, Ecology and Sustainability: A Tug-of-war among
Competing Interests in Zimbabwe. Journal of Tourism Studies 14(2):45–55.
Mason, P., and J. Cheyne
2000 Residents’ Attitudes to Proposed Development. Annals of Tourism
Research 27:391–411.
McCool, S., and S. Martin
1994 Community Attachment and Attitudes towards Tourism Development.
Journal of Travel Research 32(3):29–34.
McManus, J.
2002 The Influence of Stakeholder Values on Project Management. Manage-
ment Services 46(6):8–15.
Medeiros de Araujo, L., and B. Bramwell
1999 Stakeholder Assessment and Collaborative Tourism Planning: The Case of
Brazil’s Costa Dourada Project. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 7:356–378.
Milne, S.
1998 Tourism and Sustainable Development: The Global-local Nexus. In
Sustainable Tourism: A Global Perspective, M. Hall and A. Lew, eds., pp.
35–48. New York: Longman.
Mitchell, R., B. Agle, and D. Wood
1997 Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience. Defining the
Principle of Who and What Really Counts. Academy of Management Review
22:853–886.
Mitchell, R., and D. Reid
2001 Community Integration: Island Tourism in Peru. Annals of Tourism
Research 28:113–139.
Murphy, P.
1985 Tourism: A Community Approach. London: Routledge.
Nicholas, N. L.
2007 Stakeholder Perspectives on the Pitons Management Area in St. Lucia:
Potential for Sustainable Tourism Development. PhD dissertation in Recre-
ation, Parks and Tourism. University of Florida, United States.
Nunnally, J.
1978 Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J., and I. H. Bernstein
1994 Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nyaupane, G., and B. Thapa
2004 Evaluation of Ecotourism: A Comparative Assessment in the Annapurna
Conservation Area Project, Nepal. Journal of Ecotourism 3:20–45.
2006 Perceptions of Environmental Impacts of Tourism: A Case of Annapurna
Conservation Area Project, Nepal. International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology 13:51–61.
Pennington-Gray, L.
2005 Resident Attitudes towards Tourism in a Destination in the Stagnation
Stage of the Tourism Life Cycle. Sustainable Development and Planning
2:1411–1418.
Perdue, R., P. Long, and L. Allen
1987 Rural Resident Tourism Perceptions and Attitudes. Annals of Tourism
Research 14:420–429.
Sautter, S., and B. Leisen
1999 Managing Stakeholders: A Tourism Planning Model. Annals of Tourism
Research 6:312–328.
412 L.N. Nicholas et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 390–412

Selin, S., and D. Chavez

1995 Developing a Collaborative Model for Environmental Planning and
Management. Environmental Management 9:189–195.
Sethna, R., and B. Richmond
1978 U.S. Virgin Islanders’ Perceptions of Tourism. Journal of Travel Research
17:30–31.
Sharpley, R.
2000 Tourism and Sustainable Development: Exploring the Theoretical Divide.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8:1–19.
Simpson, K.
2001 Strategic Planning and Community Involvement as Contributors to
Sustainable Tourism Development. Current Issues in Tourism 4(1):3–41.
Smith, M., and R. Krannich
1998 Tourism Dependence and Resident Attitudes. Annals of Tourism Research
25:783–801.
Swarbrooke, J.
1999 Sustainable Tourism Management. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
Thapa, B.
2000 The Association of Outdoor Recreation Activities and Environmental
Attitudes and Behaviors among Forest Recreationists. PhD dissertation in
Leisure Studies. The Pennsylvania State University, United States.
2007 Issues and Challenges of World Heritage Sites in Nepal. In World Heritage:
Global Challenges and Local Solutions, R. White and J. Carman, eds., pp.
23–27. Oxford, UK: Archaeopress.
Timothy, D.
1999 Participatory Planning: A View of Tourism in Indonesia. Annals of
Tourism Research 26:371–379.
Timothy, D., and S. Boyd
2006 Heritage Tourism in the 21st century: Valued Traditions and New
Perspectives. Journal of Heritage Tourism 1(1):1–16.
Um, S., and J. Crompton
1987 Measuring Residents’ Attachment Levels in a Host Community. Journal of
Travel Research 26(1):27–29.
UNESCO
2006 World Heritage List. Retrieved March 10, 2006 from the official website of
UNESCO: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list.
Wager, J.
1995 Developing a Strategy for the Angkor World Heritage Site. Tourism
Management 16:515–523.
Walpole, M., and H. Goodwin
2001 Local Attitudes towards Conservation and Tourism around Komodo
National Park, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation 28:160–166.
Williams, J., and R. Lawson
2001 Community Issues and Resident Opinions of Tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research 28:269–290.
WCED
1987 Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WTO
1993 Sustainable Tourism Development: A Guide for Local Planners. Madrid:
WTO.
Yuksel, F., B. Bramwell, and A. Yuksel
1999 Stakeholder Interviews and Tourism Planning at Pamukkale, Turkey.
Tourism Management 20:351–360.

Submitted 18 November 2007. Resubmitted 30 August 2008. Final Version 24 March 2009.
Accepted 31 March 2009. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Dogan Gursoy

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com