Residents` attitude to tourism development

Transcription

1 Residents` attitude to tourism development and their QOL Andrzej Tucki, Alfonso Vargas-Snachez (Huelva University) Department of Regional Geography and Tourism Faculty of Earth Sciences and Spatial Management University of Maria Curie-Skłodowska

2 Agenda literature background study area methodology results

3 Host-guests relationships THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Attitudes are defined as a state of mind of the individual toward a value (Allport 1966, p. 24) and as an enduring predisposition towards a particular aspect of one s environment (McDougall & Munro 1988). They are built upon the perceptions and beliefs of reality, but are closely related to deeply held values and to personality. Community consequences/tourism impact: 1. First, economic, including elements such as tax revenue, increased jobs, additional income, tax burdens, inflation, and local government debt. 2. Second, sociocultural, including elements such as resurgence of traditional crafts and ceremonies, increased intercultural communication and understanding, increased crime rates, and changes in traditional cultures. 3. environmental, including elements such as protection of parks and wildlife, crowding, air, water and noise pollution, wildlife destruction, vandalism, and litter (Andereck 1995).

4 Host-guests relationships THEORETICAL BACKGROUND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES - Empirical studies using statistical technics involving no theoryuwzgledniania teorii (they are more common). - studies, which in spite of residents attitude study do test and develop theories. ThEORIEs - Butler s (1980) TALC, - Doxey s (1975) Irridex model;

5 Intern. N L

6

7 Host-guests relationships THEORETICAL BACKGROUND TYPES OF RESIDENTS UK -Ryan and Montgomery (1994), based on that of Davis et al (1988) items being used; Sample size was 101. Three clusters were identified enthusiast (22%) supported tourism but not excessively so. Second, the somewhat irritated (23.5%) had negative opinions regarding the impact of tourism and were sceptical of the benefits. Three, the middle-of-the-roaders (54.3%) were named because their scores generally fell between those of the other two clusters.

8 Host-guests relationships THEORETICAL BACKGROUND TYPES OF RESIDENTS New Zealand - analysis of data gathered by the Ministry of Tourism from 1,485 telephone interviews, Evans (1993) identified four clusters. Four clusters were labeled in this study. - One, lovers (20%) agreed strongly with pro-tourism statements and disagreed with statements which are not in favor of tourism. - Two, haters (11%) expressed the agreement with the largest number of anti-tourism statements. - Three, controlled (32%) people, similar in many respects to lovers, recognize both the costs and benefits of tourism, but agree with statements to a lesser degree than either lovers or haters. -Four, selfish (37%) people agree with both positive and negative statements, but to a lesser degree than the haters or controlled. They agree with statements regarding the desirability of more nightlife, casinos, and foreign investment.

9 Theoretical frameworks resident attitude - tourism impact Social exchange theory (Ap, 1992; Nash, 1989; Perdue e.a., 1990) Dependency theory Community attachment Social representations theory (Moscovic, 1981, Pearce e.a., 1996) - D Amore (1983) social carrying capacity.

10 Social exchange theory (SET) (Ap 1990; 1992; Gursoy, Jurowski, and Uysal 2002; Jurowski, Uysal, and Williams 1997; Madrigal 1993; Perdue, Long, and Allen 1990)...is concerned with understanding the exchange of resources between individual and groups in an interaction of situation where actors supply one another with valued resources (Ap 1992, p. 668). SET specifies the exchange of tangible or intangible resources that residents and tourists may give and receive in the host-resident tourism context. Residents who found the exchange beneficial for their well-being are keen to support tourism development and have positive reactions to tourists. Residents who view the exchange as problematic will oppose tourism development.

11 (Akis, Peristianis, & Warner.1996; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Brayley, Var, & Sheldon, 1992; Caneday & Zeiger, 1991; Gartner. 1996; Haralambopoulos & Pizam. 1996; Jurowski, 1994; Johnson, Snepenger, & Akis, 1994; Jurowski, Uysal, & Williams, 1997; Liu et al., 1986; Martin, 1994; McCool & Martin, 1994; Murphy, 1985; Nelson, 1996; Perdue, et al., 1987; Ross, 1992; Stanfield, 1985).

12 Independent factors (with various empirical evidence) Gender, age Birthplace Distance form attraction Community attachment Ethnicity Education level Length of residence & learning to live with tourism Type of tourist-resident contact Proximity to resorts Tourism Related Jobs Economic and tourism development Level of knowledge about tourism Involvement of residents in tourism decision making Tourism penetration

13 Dominant methodologies Tourism impacts Perception Attitude Behaviour statistical techniques commonly used are: - regression analysis (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Perdue, Long, & Allen, 1990; Sirakaya, Teye, & Sonmez, 2002; Teye, Sirakaya, & So nmez, 2002); - logit and probit models (Bujosa-Bestard & Rosello -Nadal, 2007), - ANOVA, MANOVA (Smith & Krannich, 1998); - cluster analysis (Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003); - and, especially, structural equation models.

14 Zwierzyniec as a holiday destination of Roztocze region - Grabula (1998) 6000 beds, 3900 in 1988; - fieldwork (2012) (commercial and private sector). - national statistical office (2011) - 5 accomodation facilities with 231 beds tourists, of which only 50 international tourists. - Municipality of Zwierzyńiec (2012) - 99 tourist facilities ( 2500 beds) m.n. [tys]

15

16 Study Methods This study was carried out in tourism destinations in Lublin region, Poland. It uses questionnaire survey to examine the effect of tourism on quality of life through 234 residents in the communities. The questionnaire was structured around a Likert scale. Each statement was situated on a five scales with 1 representing a response of strongly disagree and 5 representing strongly agree. A face to face onsite selfadministered survey was conducted using the convenience sampling method. The variables in majority used by Ko and Stewart (2002)were taken.

17 Study Results - N 234; - most respondents completed primary and high school education (58.2%), earned more than 700 USD (59.18%), male (45,3%) and female (54,3%) with an average age of years; - the top seven occupations of the survey respondents were as follows: self employed (21,4%), private comp. (14,5%) retired (17,9%) students (11,9%).

18 42 There are problems of coexistence between residents and tourists. 1,93 43 The tranquillity of the area has been lost The overcrowding and congestion of spaces for public use and enjoyment (beaches, countryside, town squares and streets,.) is annoying 2,06 49 Public health and transport services are overloaded P41 There have been changes and losses in the traditional way of life and culture. 2,03 P45 There has been unregulated growth of urban and residential development. 2,05 P46 The traditional architecture has been destroyed. 2,04 P44 The natural surroundings and countryside have been damaged. 2,18 P50 The quality of local services has deteriorated (long queues and delays in restaurants, shops, tourist attractions,...) P47 Environmental pollution (rubbish, waste waters, air pollution and noise) has increased. FACTORS ,963,910,795,818 2,06 2,38 P40 The local labour force is exploited 1,91 P38 Alcoholism has increased. 1,89 P37 Thefts and vandalism have increased 1,94 P39 Prostitution and sexual permissiveness have increased 1,58 P36 Traffic and parking problems have increased. 2,72

19 FACTORS ,963,910,795,818 P32 House prices have increased. 3,76 P23 The opportunities for purchasing are greater in my locality, thanks to tourism. 3,65 P33 The cost of living (prices of products and services) has increased. 3,76 P31 The quality of public services for residents is improved. 3,45 P22 Improvement of the quality of service in restaurants, hotels and shops of the area 3,48 P17 Improvement of the quality of life. 3,33 P26 Improvement in the level of police protection and fire-fighting services 3,25 P14 Increased opportunities for employment 3,19 P13 Improvement of investment and more economic development 3,15 P27 Improvement of infrastructures (water supply, electricity, telephone, etc.) 3,36 P35 The benefits generated by the tourism activity end up with companies and persons from outside the locality 3,17 P18 Greater availability of services, and of recreational and cultural activities 3,80

20 FACTOR III -- SOCIAL QOL FACTOR IV NATURAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION FACTORS ,963,910,795,818 P21 The inhabitants of the locality feel more proud to belong to it (as a consequence of tourism). 3,82 P19 Tourism is making this locality a more attractive and interesting place to live 3,85 P16 The money invested to attract more tourists to the locality is a good investment 3,50 P15 Contribution to improving local people's incomes and living standards 3,52 P24 The aspect of the locality is improved, thanks to tourism 3,87 P20 Tourism is promoting more knowledge of other cultures and communities 3,67 P34 Tourism provides benefits for only a few residents 3,83 P29 Tourism provides an incentive for the conservation of the natural resources 3,93 P28 Tourism provides an incentive for the preservation of the local culture 3,85 P30 Tourism provides an incentive for the maintenance and restoration of historic buildings. 3,88 P25 There are more parks and places for leisure 3,96

21 - a factor analysis was performed on the 33 benefit variables ; -The purpose of the factor analysis was to reduce the large number of variables to a smaller set of uncorrelated variables; - Using factor loading values, with 0.4 as cut-off, -To establish the reliability of the perceived tourism impact measurement used in the survey instrument, a reliability coefficient (Cronbach alpha) based on an internal consistency of test, was performed; alpha scores ranging from 0.75 to 0.91 were deemed reliable for further analysis (Hairet al., 1998).

22 FACTOR I -- SOCIAL IMPACT FACTORS ,963,910,795, There are problems of coexistence between residents and tourists., The tranquillity of the area has been lost., The overcrowding and congestion of spaces for public use and enjoyment (beaches, countryside, town squares and streets,.) is annoying, Public health and transport services are overloaded.,874 P41 There have been changes and losses in the traditional way of life and culture.,867 P45 There has been unregulated growth of urban and residential development.,866 P46 The traditional architecture has been destroyed.,865 P44 The natural surroundings and countryside have been damaged.,851 P50 The quality of local services has deteriorated (long queues and delays in restaurants, shops, tourist attractions,...) P47 Environmental pollution (rubbish, waste waters, air pollution and noise) has increased.,831,821 P40 The local labour force is exploited,803 P38 Alcoholism has increased.,730 P37 Thefts and vandalism have increased,695 P39 Prostitution and sexual permissiveness have increased,614 P36 Traffic and parking problems have increased.,605

23 FACTOR II --? FACTORS ,963,910,795,818 P32House prices have increased.,791 P23The opportunities for purchasing are greater in my locality, thanks to tourism.,786 P33The cost of living (prices of products and services) has increased.,771 P31The quality of public services for residents is improved.,726 P22Improvement of the quality of service in restaurants, hotels and shops of the area,717 P17Improvement of the quality of life.,692 P26Improvement in the level of police protection and fire-fighting services,649 P14Increased opportunities for employment,625 P13Improvement of investment and more economic development,620 P27Improvement of infrastructures (water supply, electricity, telephone, etc.),610 P35The benefits generated by the tourism activity end up with companies and persons from outside the locality,579 P18Greater availability of services, and of recreational and cultural activities,488

24 FACTOR III -- SOCIAL QOL FACTOR IV NATURAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION FACTORS ,963,910,795,818 P21The inhabitants of the locality feel more proud to belong to it (as a consequence of tourism).,777 P19 Tourism is making this locality a more attractive and interesting place to live,690 P16 The money invested to attract more tourists to the locality is a good investment,669 P15 Contribution to improving local people's incomes and living standards,624 P24 The aspect of the locality is improved, thanks to tourism,559 P20 Tourism is promoting more knowledge of other cultures and communities,539 P34Tourism provides benefits for only a few residents -,508 P29Tourism provides an incentive for the conservation of the natural resources,798 P28Tourism provides an incentive for the preservation of the local culture,775 P30Tourism provides an incentive for the maintenance and restoration of historic buildings.,723 P25There are more parks and places for leisure,611

25 total agreement total disagreement I disagree 26,5% 31,2% I agree neutral P 51. IN GENERAL, THE BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THE DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM OUTWEIGH THE ADVERSE EFFECTS THAT THIS MAY CAUSE

26 Study Results P9. Has your work, past or present, been associated with the tourism sector (hotels, restaurants, tourist attractions, etc.)? 1. Yes 31,2 2. No 68,8 P10. Has any other member of your close family worked in the tourist sector, in the present or past? 1. Yes 33,3 2. No 66,7

27 COMMUNITY SATISFACTION (CS) Satisfaction with the public services. Satisfaction with the health-care system. very unsatisfied satisfied neutral satisfied very satisfied very unsatisfied satisfied neutral satisfied very satisfied P65. Satisfaction with the natural environment very unsatisfied satisfied neutral satisfied very satisfied P66. Satisfaction with the opportunities for entertainment very unsatisfied satisfied neutral satisfied very satisfied

28 COMMUNITY SATISFACTION (CS) P67. Satisfaction with the economy very unsatisfied satisfied neutral satisfied very satisfied P68. Citizen involvement and social opportunities very unsatisfied satisfied neutral satisfied very satisfied

29

30 990; 1992; Gursoy, Jurowski, and Uysal 2002; Jurowski, Uysal, and Williams ; Perdue, Long, and Allen 1990). Social exchange theory is concerned with exchange of resources between individual and groups in an interaction of tors supply one another with valued resources (Ap 1992, p. 668). Social cifies the exchange of tangible or intangible resources that residents and d receive in the host-resident tourism context. As a result, the starting point omes from the need to reciprocate for benefits received in order to em (Moore and Cunningham 1999, p. 106). Residents are willing to enter ourists if they receive more benefits than costs (Blau 1964; Jurowski, Uysal, Residents who found the exchange beneficial for their well-being are keen evelopment and have positive Thank reactions You to for tourists. your Residents attention! who view the atic will oppose tourism development. s of the exchange process can be identified: economic, environmental and the economic point of view social exchange theory may be associated with ory which suggests that residents who can profit economically from local land Andrzej owners and Tucki, investors, PhD are more favourably disposed towards tourism Department growth (for of example, Regional Madrigal Geography 1995; and Martin Tourism 1996). Faculty of Earth Sciences and Spatial Management University of Maria Curie-Skłodowska andrzej.tucki@umcs.pl

31

32 Amy Diedrich, Esther Garcıa-Buades, 2009: Local perceptions of tourism as indicators of destination decline. Tourism Management 30 (2009)

33