ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tourism Management 26 (2005) 691–706

www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Residents’ attitudes toward general and forest-related impacts of

tourism: the case of Belek, Antalya
Yalc- ın Kuvana, Perran Akanb,
a
Department of Forest Policy and Administration, The Faculty of Forestry, Istanbul University, Istanbul,Turkey
Tourism Administration Department, Bogazic- i University,Turizm I˙-sletmeciliği Bölümü 80815, Bebek, Istanbul, Turkey
b

Received 9 April 2003; accepted 26 February 2004

Abstract

This study investigates residents’ attitudes to tourism impacts on forests within the larger framework of economic, social and
general environmental impacts. The study site is Belek, a resort town on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey, with a high
concentration of tourists. The results of the survey indicate that residents have favorable attitudes towards tourism development in
the area, but they also show widely held concern for the negative effects of tourism, mainly the impacts on the forests in the area.
Moreover, these forest-related negative impacts are not attributed to the tourism activity or the tourist themselves, but to the quality
of decision-making by the public authority, which is perceived as failing to exercise sound management and fair judgment in the
allocation and use of land. The responses show uniformity related to perceived negative general environmental impacts.
r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Residents’ attitudes; Tourism impacts; Antalya-Belek; Deforestation; Forest and tourism

1. Introduction physical environment are regarded as ‘‘firmly linked’’;

Residents’ attitudes toward tourism impacts is an
extensively researched topic. While tourism is regarded
as a revenue generating activity both on a local and
national scale, there is a consensus in the literature that
the support of the host communities is essential for the
successful development of tourism in a community. The
continuity of this support is also needed after the initial
stages of development. For the smooth functioning of
the tourism system, and mutually beneficial encounters
between residents and tourists, hosts must be ‘‘willing
partners’’ (Long, Perdue, & Allen, 1990). It is contended
that a ‘‘happy host’’ is essential to elicit a positive image
of the destination and to generate positive word of
mouth (Snaith & Haley, 1999). Tourism and the
Corresponding author. Tel.: +902123581540;
fax: +902122652119.
E-mail addresses: ykuvan@e-kolay.net, ykuvan@istanbul.edu.tr
(Y. Kuvan), aperran@boun.edu.tr (P. Akan).
making a sustainable system ‘‘one which is ecologically
sound, economically viable, socially just, culturally
appropriate and humane’’ (Farrel & McLellan, 1987,
p. 8). However, experience shows that economic benefits
delivered by tourism do not always translate into
socioeconomic benefits and environmental sustainability
(Loon & Polakow, 2001). Consequently, international
tourism and the environmental movement that have
shown parallel developments have been in conflict at
times due to environmental damage, loss of local
people’s resource base (Kousis, 2000) and a divergence
in interests of various stakeholders. This brings to the
foreground the importance of environmental conscious-
ness and sensitivity on the part of local people. The
greatest risk to a natural resource base has been defined
as the ‘‘failure of residents to realize the need for tourism
planning’’ (Farrel & McLellan, 1987). Community
attitudes toward tourism and its impact on the natural
environment have particular importance at a time
when privatization of the natural resources, ecological

0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2004.02.019
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
692 Y. Kuvan, P. Akan / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 691–706
problems and an increasing trend towards governance
all converge.
As tourism is an activity that has a wide array of
interfaces with the environment in which it exists,
tourism impacts extend to many different areas. Studies
on community attitudes toward tourism have mainly
focused on broad issues related to economic, socio-
cultural and environmental impacts. However, not all of
these areas have been given equal coverage. While the
economic and social impacts of tourism have received
heavy emphasis, the environmental effects have been
confined to general issues. It is maintained (Sun &
Walsh, 1998) that studies on environmental impacts of
tourism generally focus on the physical and biological
effects of tourism activity and recreation, such as effects
on soil and vegetation. In some studies analyzing
resident attitudes to tourism impacts, statements prob-
ing into the attitudes on environmental impacts have
been included, along with the statements concerning
economic and socio-cultural effects. However, such
statements are limited in number and scope to reveal
attitudes to all environmental impacts of tourism. A
more comprehensive coverage of environmental issues is
needed at a time of pollution, depletion of natural
resources, deforestation and rising environmental con-
sciousness. As environmental problems are many and
varied, particular attention on specific environmental
problems is required. Such an approach will make
possible a holistic view of the attitudes of host
communities toward tourism development. Although
studies have covered many different areas of resident
attitudes, this particular focus on the attitudes toward
the environmental problems facing the community
under study has not been evidenced in the academic
literature.
The following study aims to investigate, within the
larger framework of overall impacts of tourism,
residents’ attitudes toward tourism impacts on the
natural environment in general, and to forests in
particular. The study setting is Belek, a resort town
located in the southern part of Turkey. This town was
particularly chosen because it has the highest concentra-
tion of the forest land among all resort towns on the
Mediterranean coast of Turkey.
2. Review of literature
Studies on resident attitudes toward tourism impacts
date back to the 70s, and they have shown an increase in
scope as well as number within the course of the years.
This growth has been accompanied by an increasing
sophistication of the research tools available to inves-
tigate the subject in depth and revealing new relation-
ships. A comprehensive account of tourism impact
studies is provided by Haralambopoulas and Pizam
(1996) who classified the impacts covered in literature
into the groups ‘‘population structure’’, ‘‘employment
and occupational structure’’, ‘‘social structure and
consumption patterns’’, ‘‘crime, prostitution and gam-
bling, and ‘‘cultural expressions of host communities’’.
Likewise, Ap and Crompton (1998) present a broad
coverage of literature on resident attitudes.
An overview of the factors related to resident
attitudes indicates two broad areas, which can be
summarized as intrinsic and extrinsic factors (Weaver
& Lawton, 2001). A review of literature shows that,
among the intrinsic factors, economic dependency on
tourism emerges as a significant variable underlying
residents’ positive perceptions of the impacts and
favorable attitudes toward tourism development in a
vast majority of the studies (Pizam, 1978; Thompson,
Crompton, & Kamp, 1978; Haralambopoulas & Pizam,
1996; Korc- a, 1998; Snaith & Haley, 1999). Some study
results also suggest that other demographic character-
istics also can be predictors of the disposition of
residents to tourism. According to these results,
residents supportive of tourism development in an area
are generally young (Haralambopoulas & Pizam, 1996;
Weaver & Lawton, 2001), affluent (Pizam, 1978;
Haralambopoulas & Pizam, 1996), and educated
(Korc- a, 1998; Teye, Sönmez, & Sirakaya, 2002).
Similarly, there is evidence that male residents are more
supportive of tourism compared to their female counter-
parts (Pizam, 1978; Mason & Cheyne, 2000). Further-
more, Andereck and Vogt (2000) maintain that even
when both sexes express support for the development of
tourism in an area, they give different reasons for their
support, which again suggests differences in perceptions
and stance based on gender differences. Ethnicity is
another demographic factor that has been found to
influence resident attitudes in some studies (Liu & Var,
1986; Besculides, Lee, & McCormick, 2002), particularly
about issues related to cultural impacts of tourism.
However, while some researchers have reported sig-
nificant differences between respondent characteristics
associated with positive or negative opinions of tourism
in an area, others (King, Pizam, & Milman, 1993; Ryan
& Montgomery, 1994) have concluded that socio-
demographic variables have no, or negligible contribu-
tion in identifying the underlying factors in respondent
attitudes. This discrepancy in research results can be
attributed to the unique characteristics of the population
at the sites where each study is conducted, as tourism
impacts are shaped by site specific conditions under
which tourists and hosts interact (Tosun, 2002). Degree
of contact with tourists (King et al., 1993; Weaver &
Lawton, 2001), and proximity to the tourism zone
(Weaver & Lawton, 2001), community concern an-
dcommunity attachment (Gürsoy, Jurowski, & Uysal,
2001), community satisfaction (Ko & Stewart, 2002) and
ecocentric attitude (Gürsoy et al., 2001) are other factors
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Kuvan, P. Akan / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 691–706
that have been found to have tourism-related attitudes
in host communities. Extrinsic dimensions comprise the
characteristics of the destination itself such as geo-
graphic setting namely the urban-rural, and island-
continental location (Liu, Sheldon, & Var, 1987),
position within the resort cycle (Johnson, Snepenger,
& Akis, 1994), seasonality, ratio of hosts to guests and
the proportion of the international tourists (Pizam,
1987; Liu et al., 1987).
The diversity of factors shaping resident attitudes has
made it necessary to have a theoretical framework that
would integrate research findings, and lead to a full
understanding to explain why residents develop positive
or negative attitudes toward tourism. The use of the
social exchange paradigm for predicting residents’
attitudes offered by Ap (1998) is an attempt towards a
theoretical orientation. According to this framework,
the perceived value of the outcome is the single most
important determinant underlying the residents’ percep-
tion of, and attitudes towards tourism. Doxey’s Irridex
describing the resident reactions in a unidirectional
continuum from welcoming to antagonistic, and Butler’s
lifecycle model depicting progress of tourism through
stages of exploration, consolidation, stagnation and
decline also provide conceptual frameworks that have
received much acknowledgement in literature (Ryan &
Montgomery, 1994; Haralambopoulas & Pizam, 1996;
Carmichael, 1999; Snaith & Haley, 1999; Mason &
Cheyne, 2000; and Upchurch & Teivane, 2000). These
models offered by Doxey and Butler have been
challenged, however, based on empirical evidence that
shows that there exists clusters of residents in any
community with differing viewpoints on and attitudes to
tourism (Weaver & Lawton, 2000). Thus it can be
concluded what characterizes resident attitudes any time
along the development cycle within a community is the
prevailing perceptions and attitudes of the majority.
The wealth of findings accumulated as a result of
extensive studies covering many different variables,
discovering new relationships between these variables,
extending to remote regions that were not previously
covered within the realm of tourism destinations, and
making comparisons between the results obtained in
different locations (Liu et al., 1987; Andereck & Vogt,
2000; Williams & Lawson, 2001; Teye et al., 2002;
Tosun, 2002) has culminated in the construction of
models (Carmichael, 1999; Gürsoy et al., 2001; Weaver
& Lawton, 2001) for explaining these relationships with
universal validity and predictability.
The model building approach calls for identification
of all relevant attributes and interplays among them for
an integration of the cognitive and affective elements
leading to the overall attitude. Residents’ attitudes
toward environmental impacts of tourism have been
recognized as a dimension of the overall attitude as
evidenced by the number and variety of the statements
693
related to environmental issues in many resident attitude
studies. In some of these studies, statements related to
environmental issues have been categorized under a
specific heading giving them particular attention, while
in some others, these statements are included in a
general list along with all other statements.
Although the perception of the positive or negative
impact of tourism on the environment has been
recognized as an antecedent of the resident attitudes
toward tourism, the coverage given to the statements
related to the natural environment comprises only a
small part of these statements, in spite of the fact
that concern about the environment is increasing on
the global scale. It has been indicated in literature that
(Liu et al., 1987), research shows landscape is the key
contributor to attraction. Unspoiled natural environ-
ment is an asset that many, but particularly third world
countries, can capitalize upon as a factor creating
competitive advantage (Cater, 1993). The rapid growth
of tourism in many regions that conflicted with the
natural environment has caused concern because of loss
of this competitive advantage and an important resource
base for mankind, and because of loss for the environ-
ment per se. This concern has led to controlling
measures for the geographic regions, for the ecosystem
and the various forms of wildlife (Prunier, Sweeny, &
Geen, 1993; Enzenbacher, 1993).
While the very idea of ecotourism is being challenged
on the grounds that no common understanding exists
among planners, authorities and community members
to unite around common goals and to take effective
measures (Burns & Sancho, 2003), balancing economic
and ecological outcomes, and ensuring the sustainability
of the ‘‘pull factors’’ into the area is an essential goal
benefiting all. There is need for a distinction to be made
between environmentally sensitive tourism and envir-
onmentally dependent tourism (Tisdell, 1996). Commu-
nity attitudes to the degradation of the natural
environment range from insensitivity for the sake of
economic gain, to environmental activism (Kousis,
2000; McFarlane & Boxall, 2003). While the antecedents
of environmental activism yet remain to be uncovered
(Ap, 1990), the attitudes toward the preservation of the
natural environment is regarded as a factor among
others such as economic gain and community attach-
ment, underlying residents’ perception of economic,
social and environmental effects of tourism (Jurowski,
Uysal, & Williams, 1997).
It has been stated that tourism research has changed
its focus from positive aspects of tourism in the 1960s, to
the negative aspects in the 1970s, and to more balanced
systematic view in the 1980s, arriving at what is called a
‘‘micro approach’’ in 1990s, that is defined as commu-
nity level research (Andereck & Vogt, 2000). A more
focused approach is also needed for a better under-
standing of the specific factors that have impacts on
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
694 Y. Kuvan, P. Akan / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 691–706
resident attitudes toward tourism. Liu et al. (1987) pay
particular attention to the natural environment but
argue that these cannot be separated from other
impacts. They maintain that, because of the interplays
and dependencies among all factors such as economic,
socio-cultural and other, a holistic approach is needed.
Such a holistic approach is crucial for the development
of solutions and also for implementation of the
measures. However, because of the diversity and the
magnitude of the environmental problems, and because
of the unique nature of each, particular focus on each
component of the environment, and measuring commu-
nity attitude to tourism impacts on each of these specific
components should be regarded as a basic starting step.
3. Method
The purpose of the study is to analyze residents’
attitudes toward tourism development, and the percep-
tion of its impacts on the economic, socio-cultural life of
the community and on the environment in general, with
particular attention to the forests in a forested tourism
center. It is also the aim of the study to analyze the
possible links between these attitudes and the socio-
demographic characteristics of the residents.
3.1. Study site
Belek is a town located on the Mediterranean Sea,
35 km from Antalya, which is one of the largest cities in
southeastern Turkey with a population of 1,726,025
according to the 2000 national census. The region is a
main domestic tourist attraction center on the Medi-
terranean coast of Turkey. The number of foreign
tourists visiting the county in the year 2000 was
10,428,153, while this number increased to 11,569,950
in 2001. The percentage of foreign tourists visiting
Antalya during these years were 31.7%, and 36.0% of
the total, respectively.
Belek has a population of 10,994 according to the
2000 census. The development of tourism in this area
started in 1989, the year when the major tourism
establishments started their operations. Presently the
town has 24 tourism facilities that are in operation with
a total bed capacity of 19,873, corresponding to 16.83%
of the beds in all accommodation units in Antalya.
Upon the completion of the new tourism facilities under
construction, the number of total beds in the area will go
over 25,000 units, surpassing the 20,000 units previously
planned by the government.
The most important impact of the allocation of forest
lands to tourism facilities is undoubtedly the reduction
in forest area and number of trees. This effect can be
defined as deforestation, since it leads to the change in
land use from forests to other uses such as the use of
land for touristic purposes as seen in this study area. By
the end of 2001, the total forest area allocated for 39
tourism facilities was 8,625,352 m2 . The total allocated
area constitutes 39.02% of the forested land under the
forest regime within the jurisdiction of the Belek
Tourism Center.
For the purpose of protecting Belek, and the
neighboring villages stretching over a coastline of 20
km long, The Ministry of Forestry undertook an
afforestation project in 1961. Upon the completion of
this project in 1987, a total area of 22:70 km2 was
afforested and the objective of protecting the villages
was accomplished. Owing to the ecological diversity in
the region, and the crucial role played by the forests in
inhibiting dune movement on the coastline, the govern-
ment has taken preventive measures to protect the
forested land in and around Belek by granting it the
status of a conservation forest. The Serik Forest
Enterprise, a public organization, is in charge of the
management of this forest, which covers an area of
22:11 km2 . In the establishment of conservation forests,
the main consideration is nature protection for the sake
of soil and water resources and the plant cover, with
human uses such as recreation and tourism coming
second in importance. The development of tourism in a
destination presents challenges to central planning
agencies, domestic authorities and the local people in
the way of striking a balance between ecology and the
interests of all stakeholders. The burden of the extra
capacity in Belek has put this balance in a more
precarious position.
3.2. Procedures
It is contended in the literature that every tourism
impact study is unique involving ‘‘idiosyncratic peculia-
rities’’ related to its case, making it difficult to derive
‘‘worldwide validity’’ (Tosun, 2002). Therefore, it
behooves the researcher to make necessary adjustments
to previously used methods and questions, and be able
to devise questions not covered in existing literature, as
called for by the specific case studied. Along this line,
Liu et al. (1987) have applied different questionnaires to
different groups of respondents based on the character-
istics of their area of residence. Based on this premise, a
list of questions were developed in this study to measure
the respondents’ attitudes toward tourism in general,
and their perception of, and attitude toward the impacts
of tourism activity on the forests in this particular area.
The questions were developed based on a review of
literature (Lankford & Howard, 1994; Ryan & Mon-
tgomery, 1994; Korc- a, 1998; Yoon, Chen, & Gürsoy,
1999; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Weaver & Lawton, 2001;
Williams & Lawson, 2001; Teye et al., 2002) and
through unstructured personal interviews with the local
authorities, the residents, and the public and private
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Kuvan, P. Akan / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 691–706
organizations representing the tourism industry and
forest conservation. All of the questions on the impact
of tourism on the forests, and most of the questions on
the negative general environmental impact were origin-
ally developed for this study. Colleagues reviewed the
questionnaire, and some of the questions were dropped
or modified as a result of discussions. The resulting
questionnaire composed two parts. In the first part,
respondents’ attitudes were sought on the seven tourism
impact dimensions identified through a priori concep-
tualization (latent constructs) as: (1) economic benefits
(four items) (2) economic problems (two items) (3)
positive socio-cultural impacts (four items) (4) negative
socio-cultural impacts (five items) (5) negative general
environmental impacts (seven items) (6) benefits to
forests (three items) and (7) problems related to forests
(nine items). The last question on this part of the
questionnaire was ‘‘Tourism, in general, is beneficial to
the region.’’ This question was not included under any
of the dimensions, but was asked as a separate question
in order to measure the respondent’s overall attitude
toward tourism development in the area. The second
part of the questionnaire included questions on respon-
dent characteristics such as age, gender, marital status,
education level, monthly household income, whether the
respondent had always lived in the area or moved in
after the development of tourism, length of residence, if
the major source of income of the family was a tourism
related job or not, and the birthplace of the respondent.
The questionnaire was pilot tested and further refined
before the collection of the data.
The data were collected in Belek during the summer
of 2001 through face-to-face interviews by the first
researcher. In selecting the sample, the electorate list of
community members eligible to vote in national and
municipal elections was used as the sample frame. Thus,
the sample frame contained all community members
who were 18 years of age or older, and who had been
residing in the area at for the past six months or longer.
A sample of 250 residents, corresponding to the 5% of
the people included in the electorate list, was drawn
randomly. Electorate lists contain the addresses and the
phone numbers of the residents if they have one, making
it possible to contact each respondent in his or her place
of residence. During the contact, each member of the
sample was informed about the purpose of the study,
that the results were going to be used for academic
purposes only, and the respondent was assured of
anonymity. If the respondent could not be contacted
during the first visit, a second and a third visit were paid.
In some cases, the individual was reached outside of his
place of residence by following the instructions of a
family member describing his location. In spite of the
repeated visits, 48 of the members in the original sample
could not be reached; and an additional 35 declined to
participate in the interviews. Through this procedure,
695
167 usable questionnaires, corresponding to a response
rate of 66.8%, were collected that constitute the
database of this study.
The responses to the questions were analyzed through
the use of SPSS Version 10.0. Descriptive statistics was
used to profile the respondents. The statements dealing
with respondent attitudes were subjected to a two-stage
analysis. In the first stage, the reliability of the scales
related to each of the seven attitude dimensions were
tested. Reliability analysis was performed by evaluating
the stability and consistency of the statements compris-
ing each of the seven attitude dimensions. Adopting the
procedure used by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry
(1988), only the statements that passed the criterion of
item-total correlation of 0.30 or above were kept for
further analysis and discussion. An additional criterion
used in testing scale reliability was seeing if the
Cronbach Alfa Coefficient was within the recommended
level of 0.60 to 0.70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). In the
second stage of the analysis, any possible links between
respondent attitudes and respondent characteristics
were searched. Analysis of variance (MANOVA) was
used for examining the relationship between the
respondents’ characteristics and attitudes toward tour-
ism’s overall and forest-related impacts for each of the
seven attitude dimensions. For further analysis,
one-way ANOVA and t-tests were conducted for the
individual statements in order to see the differences of
opinion based on respondent characteristics that may
be observed for each individual statement, as well as
the relationships which may not be revealed by the
MANOVA results.
4. Findings and discussion
4.1. Respondent profile
The majority of the respondents (62.2%) were
younger than 34 years of age, and most were married
(62.9%). In terms of the education level, there was a
concentration at the high school level (56.9%), while
university graduates constituted 18.6% of the sample,
and 24.6% had completed only elementary school level
education. A large part of the sample (71.9%) was in the
lowest of the three income categories, denoted by less
than 600 million Turkish Liras per month. More than
half of the respondents (56.3%) were born and raised in
Belek. The people who had always lived in the area are
referred to as the local people (57.7%) in the study, and
those who had settled in after the development of
tourism are called the residents (42.5%). Of the
respondents 37.2% had been living in the area for 10
years or less. A majority of the respondents (58.1%) had
their major source of family income from a tourism
related job. The tourism related job category included
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
696 Y. Kuvan, P. Akan / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 691–706
all those who worked for tourism facilities such as
hotels, motels and restaurants, as well as the people who
gave supplementary services related to tourism, such as
the taxi drivers. There is a bias however, with respect to
the gender representation in the sample, as it is
predominantly (65.9%) composed of males. This is
explained by the reluctance of women to talk to
strangers and to receive them within the domains of
their homes in regions where traditional norms and
customs prevail. This problem is endemic to traditional
societies around the Mediterranean region, and it has
been mentioned by other researchers in an earlier study
(Haralambopoulas & Pizam, 1996). The skewness in the
gender distribution of the respondents will be a
limitation of the study. Another limitation is that the
study area is bounded to one locality and the responses
will be reflective of the specific opinions and attitudes
related to the situation of this particular town as
expressed by the respondents.
4.2. Respondent attitudes
The item-total correlation values of the items com-
prising the scales and the Cronbach Alfa Coefficients of
each dimension, obtained as a result of the reliability
test, are presented in Table 1. Table 1 also depicts the
frequency distributions of the responses to each of the
attitude statements and their means and standard
deviations. By using the criteria used for the reliability
analysis, two of the items were deleted. These items are
‘‘Tourism has limited the use of the recreation facilities
like entertainment centers, beaches by the local people’’
in the negative socio-cultural impacts dimension, and
‘‘The use of forests for sports and recreational activities
has harmful effects on the forests’’ in the problems
related to forests dimension. With the elimination of
these items that had item-total correlation values of
0.25, and
0.10 respectively, Cronbach Alpha Coeffi-
cients increased from 0.64 to 0.66 in the first, and from
0.77 to 0.81 for the second of the constructs. After the
elimination of the two items as described above, thirty-
two items remained in the study.
A ranking of the mean responses for each attitude
dimension presented in Table 1 reveals that the respon-
dents had the highest level of agreement with the
statements comprising the dimensions named as the
economic benefits, positive socio-cultural impacts of
tourism, and problems related to forests. The mean
responses for these dimensions are 4.29, 3.86, and 3.76,
respectively. There is also a general agreement that tourism
has brought with it negative outcomes among which
problems related to the forests ranks first ðm ¼ 3:76Þ,
followed by economic problems ðm ¼ 3:74Þ, and negative
general environmental impacts ðm ¼ 3:18Þ. The respon-
dents were ambivalent, however, about the benefits of
tourism on the forests ðm ¼ 2:82Þ, and on the negative
socio-cultural impacts of tourism ðm ¼ 2:53Þ.
An absolute majority of the respondents agreed with the
statement ‘‘Tourism, in general, is beneficial to the region’’
ðm ¼ 4:44Þ. The same favorable disposition to tourism is
also manifest in majority of the responses dealing with
particular effects of tourism in the area. However, results
also show that respondents are critical of some tourism
impacts to varying degrees, depending upon their indivi-
dual demographic and social characteristics.
The dimensions with the highest mean scores also
have the lowest standard deviations among the seven
dimensions in the study (Table 1). The three groups with
the highest mean scores, namely the economic benefits,
positive socio-cultural impacts, and the problems related
to forests have standard deviations of 0.67, 0.73, and
0.67, respectively, showing a uniformity of opinion on
these matters among the residents. That is, the
respondents concurred on the economic and socio-
cultural benefits of tourism, and its negative effects on
the forests in the area. The results also reveal that there
is a divergence of opinion between the respondents on
the issues related to economic problems and benefits of
the tourism to the forests, reflected by the standard
deviations of these dimensions which have respective
values of 1.15, and 1.04.
MANOVA was utilized to examine if differences
existed between the mean scores of the attitude
dimensions related to the socio-demographic character-
istics of the respondents. An analysis of the MANOVA
results presented in Table 2 shows that the most
important single variable impacting upon the respon-
dents’ attitudes for all dimensions, with the exception of
negative socio-cultural impacts dimension, is having or
not having a tourism related job as a source of the
family income. The negative socio-cultural impacts
dimension, on the other hand, has no association with
any variable other than the education level, where the
results show that respondents who had received only
elementary school level education had significantly
higher levels of agreement with the statements on the
negative socio-cultural impacts of tourism. The respon-
dents having major source of income from a tourism
related job had a more positive disposition towards
tourism, as reflected by higher degrees of agreement with
statements related to the economic benefits
ðP ¼ 0:000; F ¼ 6:819Þ, and the positive socio-cultural
impacts ðP ¼ 0:001; F ¼ 5:247Þ of tourism. They also
agreed more with the statements that the development
of tourism has been beneficial to the forest in the area
ðP ¼ 0:043; F ¼ 2:786Þ. Those who did not have tour-
ism related job agreed more that tourism had caused
economic problems ðP ¼ 0:044; F ¼ 3:194Þ, and that
tourism had brought negative impacts on the environ-
mental in general ðP ¼ 0:000; F ¼ 6:863Þ, and on the
forests in particular ðP ¼ 0:000; F ¼ 4:616Þ.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Kuvan, P. Akan / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 691–706
The results of the MANOVA test also indicate that
income is another variable that has significant associa-
tion with the statements related to the economic and
forest related problems caused by tourism. The respon-
dents in the lower income categories agreed significantly
more with the statements that tourism creates economic
ðP ¼ 0:006; F ¼ 3:726Þ, and forest-related problems
ðP ¼ 0:031; F ¼ 1:795Þ. Further analysis of the data
through posthoc Bonferroni test confirmed that among
the three income categories, significant differences
existed between the top and the low income groups in
their opinion about the economic problems caused by
tourism, with the high income group showing more
agreement on the negative economic impacts of
tourism in the area ðm ¼ 3:90Þ, while the high income
group is ambivalent on this issue ðm ¼ 2:72Þ ðP ¼ 0:006;
F ¼ 3:726Þ.
An analysis of the results of MANOVA reveals that, on
the whole the respondents who had been born outside
of, and later moved into the area have more positive
opinions concerning the economic benefits of tourism
ðP ¼ 0:008; F ¼ 3:583Þ. Interestingly, this group also
agreed more with the statements that tourism causes
problems related to the economy ðP ¼ 0:003; F ¼ 6:001Þ
and the forests ðP ¼ 0:004; F ¼ 2:992Þ. Although these
results may seem to be contradictory, the higher education
level of the people who moved into the area, compared to
those who were born and raised there can explain this
pattern. This finding may point to the fact that, while
economic gain is the main motive for the people from
outside to move into a tourism center, these people can
also be more cognizant of the problems caused by tourism
if they have a higher level of education.
Among all seven dimensions, economic problems and
problems related to forests are the dimensions that had
correlations with resident profiles with reference parti-
cularly to education level, employment and income
otherwise. MANOVA results indicate that age, marital
status and gender do not have any significant associa-
tions with the attitudinal dimensions.
While the analysis of responses through MANOVA
revealed significant associations between attitudinal
dimensions and respondent characteristics, t-tests and
ANOVA were also used for a finer analysis. The
purpose of this further analysis was to identify the
specific issues on which there is divergence of opinion
based on respondent characteristics. Also, when the
individual statements are taken separately, any signifi-
cant association that may have been concealed by
grouping of the statements would become evident. A
separate treatment of each issue expressed by each
individual statement is deemed necessary for a thorough
understanding of residents’ perceptions of and attitudes
toward each particular issue related to tourism impacts,
for anticipating problems that may evolve, and for
formulating policies to deal with specific issues.
697
A series of t-tests were performed in order to assess if
responses to individual statements were influenced by
the socio-demographic characteristic of the respondents
that can be measured along dichotomous scales. These
characteristics included gender (1=male, 2=female),
marital status (1=married, 2=unmarried), if the major
source of income of the family came from tourism
related job (1=yes, 2=no), and the birthplace of the
respondent (1=Belek, 2=other). For other respondent
characteristic such as age, education level, monthly
household income that were measured along interval
scales, the relationship between respondent character-
istics and the individual responses were sought through
tests of one-way ANOVA.
‘‘Tourism income is benefiting only a few people’’ is
the statement on which there was the most divergence of
opinion based on respondent characteristics (Table 4).
While there is a general agreement on this statement,
significantly more respondents in the lower ðm ¼ 3:73Þ
and the middle-income ðm ¼ 3:47Þ categories agreed
with it, compared to the respondents in the top income
category ðm ¼ 2:33Þ ðP ¼ 0:007; F ¼ 5:12Þ. Also, there is
a high difference of opinion on the statement of
‘‘Tourism has negative impacts on natural resources’’
and the job type. Although MANOVA results presented
in Table 2 do not indicate any significant association
between opinions on the general negative environmental
impacts and respondent characteristics, the t-test results
show that respondents who had non-tourism related
jobs agreed more that tourism has negative impacts on
natural resources. The mean responses for those having
tourism and non-tourism-related jobs are 2.30 and 3.53,
respectively ðP ¼ 0:000; t ¼
6:664Þ.
Within the negative environmental impacts dimen-
sion, wide differences are observed in the opinions of the
respondents as to whether harmony existed between the
natural environment and the tourism facilities built in
the area. Those with non-tourism related jobs strongly
agreed with the statements of ‘‘The hotels and motels
built in the area have spoiled the natural beauty of the
coastline.’’ ðm ¼ 3:56Þ, and ‘‘Tourism facilities built in
and around Belek are not in harmony with the natural
environment and traditional architecture.’’ ðm ¼ 3:47Þ,
while the respondents employed in a tourism-related job
did not exhibit a strong positive or negative opinion on
these two statements (Table 3, P ¼ 0:000; t ¼
3:910;
P ¼ 0:004; t ¼
2:939Þ. Mean responses for this later
group on these statements are 2.76 and 2.87, respec-
tively. In spite of these wide differences of opinion on
the issues related to the negative environmental impacts
based on the respondent characteristics, the respondents
regardless of their characteristics agreed with the
statement ‘‘I sometimes feel that the population increase
and over construction in the area is overwhelming.’’
MANOVA results in Table 2 show that while there is
a very strong level of agreement among all respondents
 698
Table 1
Types of dimensions and related items with their means and standard deviations and reliability analysis of the scale items

Types of dimensions and related items Items total correlation Mean SD %

5:Strongly Agree, 4:Agree, 3:Neutral, 2:Disagree, 1:Strongly Disagree

5 4 3 2 1

I. Economic benefits (Cronbach alpha coefficient: 0.79) 4.29 0.67

1. Tourism has improved employment opportunities in my town. 0.67 4.43 0.76 53.9 38.9 4.2 1.8 1.2

Y. Kuvan, P. Akan / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 691–706

2. Tourism has caused an increase in the standard of living in the area. 0.53 4.23 0.94 48.5 35.3 8.4 6.6 1.2
3. The quality of public services in town is now better due to tourism 0.52 4.16 1.00 43.7 40.1 9.0 3.0 4.2
investments.
4. Tourism is one of the most important industries supporting the local 0.60 4.32 0.75 44.9 46.1 6.0 2.4 0.6
economy.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
II. Economic problems (Cronbach alpha coefficient: 0.78) 3.74 1.15
5. Tourism income generated in the area goes out to outside 0.64 3.89 1.22 39.5 33.5 9.0 12.0 6.0
organizations and individuals.
6. Income from tourism benefits only a few people in this town. 0.64 3.60 1.33 29.9 35.3 9.6 15.0 10.2

III. Positive socio-cultural impacts (Cronbach alpha coefficient: 0.73) 3.86 0.73
7. Tourism has improved the quality of service in restaurants, shops, 0.44 4.22 0.77 37.1 52.7 6.6 2.4 1.2
and hotels in the area.
8. Tourism encourages a wide variety of cultural activities like crafts, 0.56 3.54 1.06 19.2 36.5 26.9 13.8 3.6
art, and music in a community.
9. Tourism promotes better understanding between cultures. 0.56 4.17 0.81 37.1 46.7 13.2 1.8 1.2
10. Owing to tourism development, local people now have more 0.59 3.52 1.20 21.0 40.1 16.8 14.4 7.8
recreation opportunities.

IV. Negative socio-cultural impacts (Cronbach alpha coefficient: 0.66) 2.53 0.76
11. I am not happy about living in the same area with tourists and 0.37 1.89 1.08 6.0 3.0 8.4 39.5 43.1
associating with them.
12. Tourism is damaging to the local culture. 0.50 2.72 1.29 12.0 17.4 20.4 31.1 19.2
13. The increase in tourist numbers has led to alienation between 0.44 2.43 1.13 4.8 15.6 19.2 38.9 21.6
tourists and the residents.
14. It is getting tobe increasingly difficult to find a quiet place for 0.43 3.10 1.18 12.0 29.3 24.6 24.6 9.6
recreation around here because of tourists.
15. Tourism has limited the use of the recreational facilities like 0.25 3.93 1.27 43.7 32.3 4.2 13.2 6.6
entertainment centers, and beaches by the local people.

V. Negative general environmental impacts (Cronbach alpha coefficient: 3.18 0.86

0.81)
16. I sometimes feel that the population increase and over construction 0.48 0.86 41.9 48.5 4.2 3.0 2.4
in the area is overwhelming.
17. Tourism has serious negative increase environmental impacts. 0.58 1.32 12.6 22.8 12.0 34.7 18.0
18. Tourism has created significant air, water, and soil pollution. 0.51 1.25 6.0 25.1 13.2 32.9 22.8
19. Because of tourism, there is now less agricultural land in the area. 0.60 1.29 28.1 38.3 9.6 14.4 9.6
20. Tourism facilities built in and around Belek are not in harmony 0.71 13.4 19.8 24.0 18.0 25.1 13.2
with the natural environment and traditional architecture.
21. Tourism has negative impacts on the natural resources. 0.60 1.32 11.4 26.9 12.0 31.1 18.6
22. The hotels and motels built in the area have spoiled the natural 0.32 1.35 16.8 30.5 13.2 24.6 15.0
beauty of the coastline.

VI. Benefits to forests (Cronbach alpha coefficient: 0.62) 2.82 1.04

23. Benefits of tourism to forests in Belek outweigh its costs. 0.31 2.81 1.34 13.2 21.6 18.0 27.5 19.8
24. Because of the increased awareness generated by tourism, more 0.44 3.01 1.33 14.4 28.1 19.2 21.0 17.4
measures are now being taken to protect the forests in the area.
25. Better measures taken to control the use of forests for recreation 0.55 2.66 1.32 9.6 20.4 22.2 22.2 25.7
have eliminated the negative impacts on the forests to a great

Y. Kuvan, P. Akan / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 691–706

extent.

VII. Problems related to forests (Cronbach alpha coefficient: 0.81) 3.76 0.67
26. Forests in and around Belek have been seriously damaged by 0.60 3.90 1.20 41.3 28.7 13.8 11.4 4.8
tourism.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
27. The construction of tourism facilities in Belek has created serious 0.48 4.00 1.03 35.9 41.3 13.2 6.0 3.6
damage to the forests in Belek.
28. The pollution caused by increased traffic and the waste from 0.36 3.76 1.13 28.1 39.5 18.6 7.8 6.0
tourism facilities has caused considerable damage to the
forests in Belek.
29. The use of forests for recreational activities by tourists has harmful
0.10 1.73 0.87 2.4 1.8 8.4 41.3 46.1
effects on the forests.
30. The construction of second homes has damaged the forests in the 0.46 3.12 1.29 17.4 25.7 19.8 25.7 11.4
area.
31. In the allocation of the forest areas to tourism, political gain 0.55 4.07 1.19 49.7 25.7 13.2 4.8 6.6
usually overrides objective criteria.
32. Tourism investors do not spend sufficient efforts to protect the 0.55 3.79 1.21 34.1 34.7 13.2 12.0 6.0
forests.
33. The lack of coordination and cooperation between the public and 0.63 3.78 1.05 25.1 45.5 16.2 9.0 4.2
private organizations related to forestry and tourism
hasbeen negatively affecting the forests in the area.
34. The failure of public authorities to effectively manage and 0.55 3.63 1.08 23.4 35.3 27.5 9.0 4.8
coordinate the use of the forests in tourism has caused
major damage to the forests.
35. Attitude toward the statement ‘‘Tourism, in general, is beneficial to 44.4 0.80 56.3 35.9 4.8 1.21 1.8
the region.’’

N ¼ 167.

699
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
700 Y. Kuvan, P. Akan / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 691–706

Table 2
Means of dimensions by socio-demographic characteristics: results of one-way MANOVA

Means

Economic Economic Positive socio- Negative Negative general Benefits to Problems

benefits problems cultural socio-cultural environmental forests related to
impacts impacts impacts forests

Local people or resident 4.23 3.71 3.85 2.64 3.33 2.77 3.74
(a) Local people 4.37 3.79 3.88 2.39 2.98 2.91 3.78
(b) Residents P 0.008*
F 2.693

Age
(a) o25 4.31 3.54 3.84 2.60 3.19 2.94 3.71
(b) 25–34 4.28 3.13 3.79 2.51 3.18 2.86 3.83
(c) 35–44 4.26 3.74 4.01 2.43 3.08 2.82 3.76
(d) 45–54 4.24 3.84 3.79 2.76 3.25 2.70 3.70
(e) 55 + 4.42 3.55 4.00 2.22 3.33 2.26 3.72

Marital status
(a) Married 4.29 3.73 3.88 2.50 3.19 2.78 3.78
(b) Single 4.28 3.76 3.83 2.59 3.16 2.91 3.73

Gender
(a) Male 4.23 3.82 3.84 2.56 3.23 2.73 3.75
(b) Female 4.39 3.59 3.91 2.49 3.08 3.01 3.78

Education level
(a) Primary school 4.26 3.66 3.95 2.70 3.23 2.80 3.66
(b) High school 4.31 3.78 3.82 2.48 3.13 2.79 3.77
(c) University 4.27 3.73 3.87 2.49 3.26 2.97 3.85
P 0.005*
F 2.794

Income level
(a) Less than 600 million 4.26 3:90 3.90 2.57 3.18 2.83 3.82
T.L.
(b) 600–1.499 million T.L. 4.30 3.50 3.71 2.53 3.24 2.72 3.67
(c) Over 1.5 million T.L. 4.56 2:72 4.06 2.11 3.94 3.22 3.31
P 0.006* P0.031*
F 3.726 F 1.795
Job category
(a) Tourism related 4.48 3.57 4.05 2.42 2.95 2.98 3.66
(b) Non-tourism related 4.32 3.99 3.61 2.69 3.49 2.61 3.89
P 0.000* P 0.044* P 0.001* P 0.000* P 0.043* P 0.008*
F 6.819* F 3.194* F 5.247* F 6.863* F 2.786* F 4.616*
Your place of birth:
(a) Belek 4.19 3.71 3.79 2.63 3.29 2.74 3.71
(b) Other 4.40 3.78 3.96 2.41 3.03 2.94 3.82
P 0.008* P 0.003* P 0.004*
F 3.583 F 6.001 F 2.992*

Group means 4.29 3.74 3.86 2.53 3.18 2.82 3.76

N ¼ 167.
*
Statistically significant at pp0:05. Means that are underlined show that the differences are statistically significantly at pp0:05 according to
posthoc Bonferroni test.

about the positive economic impacts of tourism, on the
individual statements, the respondents showed signifi-
cant variances in strengths of their attitudes based on
their job category. The respondents having tourism
related jobs had a higher level of agreement particularly
on the statements that ‘‘Tourism is one of the most
important industries supporting the local economy’’
ðP ¼ 0:000; t ¼ 4:842Þ and ‘‘Tourism has improved the
employment opportunities in my town.’’ ðP ¼ 0:000;
t ¼ 4:504Þ. On the issues related to the improvement
Table 3
Statements that are significantly different by respondent characteristics: t-test results

Impact statements Job type Place of birth Local or resident

Tourism Non-tourism t-value and level of Belek Other t-value and level Local Resident t-value and level
related related significance of significance of significance

Improved employment opportunities. 4.64 4.13 4.504*** 4.26 4.64
3.556*** 4.31 4.58
2.243*
Increase in the standard of living. 4.38 4.03 2.342*
The quality of public services. 4.34 3.91 2.764**

Y. Kuvan, P. Akan / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 691–706

Supporting the local economy. 4.55 4.01 4.842*** 4.19 4.49
2.636**
Tourism income benefiting only a few people. 3.38 3.90
2.633**
Improved quality of service in restaurants, shops, 4.42 3.94 4.156***
and hotels.
A wide variety of cultural activities. 3.70 3.31 2.352*
3.332**

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Better understanding between cultures. 4.34 3.93
More recreation opportunities for local people. 3.72 3.24 2.595**
Living and associating with tourist. 1.73 2.11
2.283* 2.04 1.70 2.059* 2.05 1.68 2.296*
Difficulty of finding a quiet place for recreation. 3.25 2.89 1.975*
Less agricultural land because of tourism. 3.37 3.94
2.951** 3.85 3.30 2.728** 3.85 3.28 2.817**
Facilities not being in harmony with natural 2.87 3.47
2.939**
environment and traditional architecture.
Negative impacts on natural resources. 2.30 3.53
6.644*** 3.01 2.55 2.251*
Hotels and motels built spoiling natural beauty of 2.76 3.56
3.910*** 3.30 2.82 2.327*
the coastline.
Benefits to forests outweighing its costs. 3.01 2.53 2.331*
More measures are being taken to protect the 2.86 2.39 2.306*
forests in the area.
Elimination of the negative impacts on forests 3.57 4.37
4.842***
owing to the better measures.
Construction of tourism facilities creating serious 2.82 3.52
3.714***
damage to the forests.
The construction of second homes damaging the 2.78 3.56
4.205***
forests.
Political gain overriding objective criteria. 3.85 4.39
3.183**
The lack ofcoordination and cooperation between 3.65 3.97
2.091*
the public and private organizations.
*
Significant at the 0.05 level.
**
Significant at the 0.01 level.
***
Significant at the 0.001 level.

701
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
702 Y. Kuvan, P. Akan / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 691–706

caused by tourism in the quality of service in restau-

600 million–1.499 1.500 million T.L. F-value and level

rants, cafes, and shops in the area, the respondents

of significance
having a tourism related job had a higher level of

8.581***
agreement ðP ¼ 0:000; t ¼ 4:156Þ, On the responses

4.846**
5.124**
related to the increase on the standard of living, and
the quality of public services brought about by tourism,
there is more uniformity of opinion based on the job
type, indicating that these benefits are perceived to be
distributed more evenly by those having, or not having a

or above
tourism-related job.

3.11
2:33

2:78
Place of birth and being a local (an inhabitant who
had always lived in the area), or resident (an inhabitant
who moved into the area after the development of

million T.L.
tourism) are other variables that have been found to
have significant influence on the residents’ level of
support for tourism. The respondents who were not

3.53
3.47

3.79
born in Belek showed more support for the statements
‘‘tourism has improved the employment opportunities in

University F-value and level Less than 600

the area’’ ðP ¼ 0:000; t ¼
3:556Þ, ‘‘Tourism is one of

Means that are underlined show that the differences are statistically significantly at pp0:05 according to posthoc Bonferroni test.
Income level

million T.L.
the most important industries supporting the local
economy’’ ðP ¼ 0:009; t ¼
2:636Þ, and that the con-

4.06
3:73

4:26
struction of second homes had damaged the forest in the
area ðP ¼ 0:000; t ¼
4:205Þ. This pattern can be
attributed to the fact that for people who were born

of significance
outside of Belek, the main ‘‘pull’’ factor into the area

F 3.908 *
was the business or job opportunities related to tourism,

F 3.889*
but they are also more aware of the negative impacts.
The results also reveal that local people agreed more
with the statements ‘‘because of tourism, there is now
less agricultural land’’ ðP ¼ 0:006; t ¼ 2:817Þ, ‘‘tourism
1.71
3:42
has negative impacts on natural resources’’
Statements that are significantly different by respondent characteristics: ANOVA results

ðP ¼ 0:026; t ¼ 2:251Þ, ‘‘tourism facilities built in the

area have spoiled the natural beauty of the coastline’’
school
High

3.22
1:78

ðP ¼ 0:021; t ¼ 2:327Þ. These associations imply that

Education level

local people feel they are trading off their peace and
quiet, the scenic beauty and the natural resources in
Elementary

their environment, in return for the economic and social

school

benefits which tourism developments has brought in to

2:29
2:66

the area.
The results of one-way ANOVA (Table 4) indicate
The construction of second homes damaging the forests.

that age is the only variable that has no significant

relationship with any of the responses. Table 4
shows the education level is significantly associated
Tourism income benefiting only a few people.

with two of the items. While ‘‘I am not happy about

Political gain overriding objective criteria.

living in the same area with tourists and associating

with them’’ is the statement that stands out as one
Living and associating with tourist.

to which a vast majority of the respondents showed a

Significant at 0.001 level.

strong opposition, this opposition is more pronounced

Significant at 0.01 level.
Tourism income going out.

Significant at 0.05 level.

in the higher education categories ðP ¼ 0:022;

F ¼ 3:908Þ. Regarding the influence of the education
level on the responses, the results also indicate that
Impact statements

people get more critical of the effect of second homes on

the forests. As the education level rises, people agree
more with the statement that ‘‘the construction of
Table 4

second homes has damaged the forests in the area

***
**
*

ðP ¼ 0:022; F ¼ 3:889Þ.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Kuvan, P. Akan / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 691–706
The respondents in the lower income categories, like
those who did not have a tourism related job, were
significantly more supportive of the viewpoint that in
the allocation of the forest lands to tourism, political
gain usually overrides objective criteria ðP ¼ 0:000;
F ¼ 8:581Þ. Likewise, the agreement among the respon-
dents at the lowest income category was significantly
higher on the statements regarding tourism income is
benefiting only a few people ðP ¼ 0:007; F ¼ 5:124Þ and
tourism income is going out of the area ðP ¼ 0:009;
F ¼ 4:846Þ.
5. Conclusion
This study has shown that resident attitudes toward
tourism impacts can be grouped under the economic,
social, and environmental dimensions. The results
illustrate that residents are aware of the benefits, as
well as the problems caused by tourism in these main
areas. Positive and negative impacts of tourism on
forests were treated in the study as dimensions separate
from general environmental effects. The results reveal
that residents show more sensitivity to forest-related
impacts of tourism compared to more negative general
environmental effects. Furthermore, ranking of the
mean responses for each dimension in the study shows
that, respondents expressed the highest level of agree-
ment with the statements that tourism activity in the
area has brought with it economic benefits, and positive
socio-cultural changes, followed by problems related to
the forests. This is attributable to the interface of
tourism development with the forests in this area. An
absolute majority of the respondents agreed with the
statement that the forests in and around Belek have been
seriously damaged by tourism. Undoubtedly, this
damage has been caused by the construction of tourism
facilities in the forested lands. Residents, being in a
position to have a closer look on the changes in their
immediate surroundings, may have developed more
sensitivity to, and particular concern for the problems
related to the forests, compared to the other negative
impacts of tourism. Previous studies (Liu & Var, 1986;
Liu et al., 1987) have also shown that residents’
perception of the environmental impacts of tourism
has a high ranking among all impacts. This study
supports the findings of Liu et al. (1987) that concern for
environmental impacts of tourism is common, although
the rank this item commands among other tourism-
related impacts may show variances in different
geographical areas. They explain this variance by the
difference in the perception of tourism by the host
communities. The results of this study suggests that
environmental impacts of tourism is varied in character
and in scope, and the residents’ perceptions of the
importance of the environmental impacts may show
703
variances between different geographical areas depend-
ing on the type and the severity of the problem in
the area.
Another finding of the study is that residents in
general welcome tourism development in the area,
mainly because of its economic contributions. This
positive attitude is reflected by the widely shared
agreement with the statement ‘‘Tourism, in general is
beneficial to the region’’, although the respondents also
expressed concern about the economic and environ-
mental problems caused by tourism. In this respect, the
findings of this study is congruent with the results of
similar studies (King et al., 1993; Haralambopoulas &
Pizam, 1996; Korc- a, 1998; Andereck & Vogt, 2000;
Tosun, 2000) pointing to the fact that general support
for tourism does not necessarily go with positive
attitudes on all related issues. Communities dependent
on tourism, rather than having a total disregard of the
negative effects caused by it, may be well aware of its
shortcomings, but also be supportive of the tourism
activity and further tourism development. It is the main
contention of the social exchange theory (Ap, 1990) that
the positive perception of the benefits as opposed to
costs is the main factor underlying favorable disposition
to tourism. That is, if the perceived cost involved can be
offset by the expected gain, the exchange will transpire
and continue as long as such a balance can be sustained.
Moreover, Ap (1990) posits that this theory offers,
‘‘....explanations of both positive and negative percep-
tions, and can examine relationships at the individual
and collective level’’.
The analysis of the responses indicate that residents’
evaluations of the economic, socio-cultural and environ-
mental impacts are significantly diverse depending on their
socio-demographic characteristics, among which the major
source of the family income is the single most important
variable related to the perception of tourism impacts. The
results show that residents who have their major source of
income from a tourism related job are more welcoming of
the positive changes, and less disapproving of the negative
effects, compared to their counterparts who do not have a
pecuniary interest in tourism. Conversely, residents who
do not share the economic benefits of tourism, as in the
case of the respondents in the lower income categories, and
those who do not have tourism related job, are more
critical of the negative effects of tourism. This critical
outlook is even more pronounced in the perception of the
negative effects of tourism on the forests. These results
corroborate the findings of other studies, which concluded
that a tourism-related job is a major antecedent of a
positive disposition to tourism, and thus are consistent
with the main proposition of the social exchange theory on
the individual level.
The study results also identified significant relations
between some of the attitude statements, and some other
respondent characteristics. The education level, family
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
704 Y. Kuvan, P. Akan / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 691–706
income, as well as the birthplace, and if the respondent
has always lived in or moved into the area after the
development of tourism are factors that have been
found to have significant effects on attitudes. Although
the number of these significant associations is far from
being complete for offering a complete profile of an
individual supportive or not supportive of tourism, the
results indicate that when the statements are taken
singularly, these associations offer important clues
about the reasons why individuals welcome or are
unfavorable toward tourism. The respondents in the
lower income categories seem to have a more critical
outlook on the negative economic impacts of tourism,
primarily because they feel tourism income is benefiting
only a few, and because they believe misallocation of
land in expectation of political gain is the main reason
for the loss of forests in the area. Similarly, a lower
education level is associated with a more critical
outlook. The respondents in the lower income categories
seem to be less receptive of the socio-cultural changes
brought about by tourism, mainly because they are not
happy about living in the same area with tourists and
associating with them. Although these findings offer
partial support for the relationship between resident
attitudes and socio-demographic characteristics, the
relationships must be taken with care, because of the
unique characteristics of the host community, the site
and the environmental problems it has been facing. It is
noted in the literature that residents’ perceptions of the
impacts appear to be affected by how benefits are
distributed in the community, the phase of development
of tourism and the degree of participation of the host
community in the decisions (Tosun, 2002). Another
point is that, for a comprehensive understanding of the
relationship between attitudes and socio-demographic
variables, an understanding of the interplay of socio-
demographic factors, rather than the influence of factors
taken in isolation is needed (Liu et al., 1987).
Development of tourism in an area may be beneficial
for the environment because of an increased awareness
about the value of the environmental resources in
establishing demand into the area, depending on the
extent to which better protection measures are taken
and the degree to which an approach of ecotourism-
based development is adopted. However, the respon-
dents, for the most part, did not agree that tourism at
the study site, which can be characterized as mass-
tourism, had positive consequences for the forests in the
area. Also, although some of the socio-demographic
characteristics have been found to have a significant role
in influencing the direction and strength of attitudes
regarding the economic and socio-cultural issues, the
results indicate that the respondents, to a great extent,
share strong and uniform opinions that tourism in the
area has brought negative impacts on the general
environment, and particularly on the forests.
This study has implications for public policy makers
and tourism investors. Respondents tend to hold
primarily the public policy makers responsible for their
failure to exercise objective criteria, but rather seeking
individual gain regarding the decisions on the appro-
priation of land to tourism. The respondents also shared
a strong consensus that the private sector has not
exhibited a responsible attitude in taking effective
measures to protect the environment. It is imperative
to establish two-way communication with residents for
explaining policies and measures taken, and for seeking
public sentiments through public opinion surveys,
panels and through informal communication. Such
communication will be helpful in clarifying the policies,
thus alleviating grievances, and identifying problems
that need attention. It is also important to identify how
information about tourism development and policies are
transmitted in the community. In small communities
such as the site of this study, often one or a few trusted
members of the community with wide sources of
information, act as opinion leaders by gathering,
interpreting and disseminating information through
informal channels to other members of the society.
These members must get full and accurate information
about the policies and reasons for public and private
actions related to tourism development in the area, if
these developments are to be well received by other
members of the community. The results indicate that
respondents show support for, or have reservations or
objections to tourism for the reasons related to their
specific conditions. Integrating community members
representing a cross-section of the people into the
decisions concerning the community and the surround-
ing environment will diffuse the responsibility, enhance
the political process, and increase the acceptability of
the decisions taken. Above all, effective measures should
be taken for the protection of the environment and the
sustainability of the pull factors into the area. Also, to
prevent the probable damage that new developments
can cause to the forests, and for taking the most effective
and environmentally responsible protection measures, it
is crucial to consult expert opinion. In the case of the
forests, the academic community and the organizations
and public bodies related to forestry are the best sources
of information and expert knowledge. Integrating their
opinion and advice on the tourism-forestry issues will
ensure a better balance between tourism development
and forest conservation, and will lead to better land use.
Furthermore, it is evident in the responses that the
community sees a lack of coordination and cooperation
between the public and private bodies. If plans and
policies related to tourism planning and forest con-
servation are made as joint efforts between related
public organizations and private sector representatives,
a balance can be attained between nature conservation
and tourism. It is suggested that further studies focus on
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Kuvan, P. Akan / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 691–706
examining the attitudes of managers in public and
private organizations. Such information will be useful to
pinpoint any potential areas of conflict and in taking
measures to resolve them.
This study has offered insights on the resident
attitudes toward one particular environmental impact
caused by tourism—namely the negative impacts on
forests. The result of this study cannot be universalized
because of the unique characteristics of the area, and the
problems it has been facing. For a better insight of the
resident attitudes toward environmental impacts of
tourism, further studies in other geographical areas, in
different settings are needed. Environmental impacts
may also show variances according to the different types
of tourism activity. Various tourism development
options based on mass tourism or ecotourism, alter-
native tourism and such may create different effects on
the natural environment. Additional analysis of these
effects and the related attitudes in host communities will
provide valuable contributions to resident attitudes
literature.
Environmental problems are increasing in number
and in scope, calling for more focused attention to each
specific problem and its particular site. It is yet to be
seen how resident attitudes toward specific environ-
mental problems will translate into action, and whether
such attitude will have social or political ramifications.
This can be the subject of longitudinal studies.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Research Fund of
The University of I˙stanbul. Project number: 1523/
16012001.
References
Andereck, K., & Vogt, C. A. (2000). The relationship between
residents’ attitudes toward tourism development options. Journal
of Travel Research, 39, 27–36.
Ap, J. (1990). Residents’ perceptions: Research on the social impacts of
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 17, 610–616.
Ap, J., & Crompton, J. (1998). Developing and testing tourism impacts
scale. Journal of Travel Research, 37(2), 120–130.
Besculides, A., Lee, M. E., & McCormick, P. J. (2002). Residents’
perceptions of the cultural benefits of tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 29(2), 303–319.
Burns, P. M., & Sancho, M. M. (2003). Local perceptions of tourism
planning: The case of Cuellar, Spain. Tourism Management, 24,
331–339.
Carmichael, B. A. (1999). A matrix model for resident attitudes and
behaviours in a rapidly changing tourist area. Tourism Manage-
ment, 21, 601–611.
Cater, E. (1993). Ecotourism in the third world: Problems for
sustainable tourism development. Tourism Management, 14(2),
85–90.
Enzenbacher, D. J. (1993). Tourists in Antartica: Numbers and trends.
Tourism Management, 14(2), 142–146.
705
Farrel, B. H., & McLellan, R. W. (1987). Tourism and physical
environment research. Annals of Tourism Research, 14, 1–16.
Gürsoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2001). Resident attitudes: A
structural modeling approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1),
79–105.
Haralambopoulas, N., & Pizam, A. (1996). Perceived impacts of
tourism: The case of Samos. Annals of Tourism Research, 23,
503–526.
Johnson, J. D., Snepenger, D. J., & Akis, S. (1994). Residents’
perceptions of tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research,
24(3), 629–642.
Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Williams, R. D. (1997). A theoretical
analysis of host community resident reactions to tourism. Journal
of Travel Research, 36(2), 3–11.
King, B., Pizam, A., & Milman, M. (1993). Social impacts of tourism:
Host perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research, 20, 650–663.
Ko, D. W., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of
residents’ attitudes for tourism development. Tourism Manage-
ment, 23, 521–530.
Korc- a, P. (1998). Resident Perceptions of Tourism in a Resort Town.
Leisure Sciences, 20, 193–212.
Kousis, M. (2000). Tourism and the environment. Annals of Tourism
Research, 27(2), 468–489.
Lankford, S. V., & Howard, D. R. (1994). Developing a Tourism
Impact Attitude Scale. Annals of Tourism Research, 21, 121–139.
Liu, J. C., Sheldon, P., & Var, T. R. D. (1987). A cross-national
approach to determining resident perceptions to the impacts of
tourism on the environment. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(1),
17–37.
Liu, J. C., & Var, T. (1986). Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts
in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research, 13, 193–214.
Long, P. T., Perdue, R. R., & Allen, L. (1990). Rural resident tourism
perceptions and attitudes by community level of tourism. Journal of
Travel Research, 28(3), 3–9.
Loon, R. M., & Polakow, D. (2001). Ecotourism ventures: Rags or
riches. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(4), 892–907.
Mason, P., & Cheyne, J. (2000). Resident attitudes to proposed
tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2),
391–411.
McFarlane, B. L., & Boxall, P. C. (2003). The role of social
psychological and social structural variables in environmental
activism: An example of the forest sector. Environmental Psychol-
ogy, 23, 79–87.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. L. (1988). Servqual: A
multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of services
quality. Journal of Retailing, 64, 12–40.
Pizam, A. (1978). Tourism impacts: The social costs to the destination
community as perceived by the residents. Journal of Travel
Research, 16, 8–12.
Prunier, E. K., Sweeny, A. E., & Geen, A. G. (1993). Tourism and the
environment: The case of Zakynthos. Tourism Management, 14(2),
137–141.
Ryan, C., & Montgomery, D. (1994). The attitudes of Bakewell
residents to tourism and issues in community responsive tourism.
Tourism Management, 15, 358–369.
Snaith, T., & Haley, A. (1999). Residents’ opinions of tourism
development in the historical city of York, England. Tourism
Management, 20, 595–603.
Sun, D., & Walsh, D. (1998). Review of studies on environmental
impacts of recreation and tourism in Australia. Journal of
Environmental Management, 53, 323–338.
Teye, M., Sönmez, S. F., & Sirakaya, E. (2002). Residents’ attitudes
toward tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 29,
668–688.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
706 Y. Kuvan, P. Akan / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 691–706

Thompson, P., Crompton, J. L., & Kamp, B. D. (1978). A Study of the
attitudes impacted groups within a host community toward
prolonged stay tourist visitors. Journal of Travel Research, 17, 2–6.
Tisdell, C. (1996). Ecotourism, economics, and the environment:
Observations from China. Journal of Travel Research, 35,
11–19.
Tosun, C. (2002). Challenges of sustainable tourism development in
the developing world: The case of Turkey. Tourism Management,
22, 289–303.
Upchurch, R. S., & Teivane, U. (2000). Resident perceptions tourism
development in Riga, Latvia. Tourism Management, 21, 499–507.
Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. J. (2001). Resident perceptions in the
urban-rural fringe. Annals of Tourism Research, 28, 439–458.
Williams, J., & Lawson, R. (2001). Community issues and resident
opinions of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 28, 269–290.
Yoon, Y., Chen, J., & Gürsoy, D. (1999). An investigation of the
relationship between tourism impacts and host communities’
characteristics. Anatolia, 10, 29–44.