Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
3.residents' perception
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

3.residents' perception

1,167
views

Published on


0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,167
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
27
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm Residents’ Residents’ perception attitudes and attitudes towards towards tourism tourism impacts 359 A case study of the small rural community of Folgaria (Trentino – Italy) Juan Gabriel Brida, Linda Osti and Michela Faccioli School of Economics and Management, Competence Centre in Tourism Management and Tourism Economics, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Bolzano, ItalyAbstractPurpose – The aim of this paper is to analyse how the impacts of tourism are perceived by a localpopulation and which factors affect the relationship between impacts and perceptions’ formation, withspecific consideration of the framework in a mountain resort. For this purpose, the paper explores theexisting literature on issues related to host perceptions and attitudes and involves a primary datacollection in the mountain community of Folgaria in Northern Italy.Design/methodology/approach – The number and quality of the questionnaires collected alloweda quantitative analysis of the hosts’ perceptions and attitudes to be performed, and a cluster analysishas demonstrated the existence of different groups within which members have common features andsimilar perceptions and attitudes.Findings – In general, this research work has revealed a recognition by the residents of the positiveeconomic impacts of tourism. Also, the social and cultural impacts are recognized to be positive, but ata lower degree. In terms of the future tourism polices, the different groups identified in the clusteranalysis exert different positions.Originality/value – The paper presents the first study of residents’ perceptions and attitudesapplied to a small mountain community.Keywords Italy, Tourism, Rural areas, Attitude surveys, Individual perceptionPaper type Research paper1. IntroductionTourism, as a dynamic and exchange process, involves a direct and reciprocalrelationship between users and producers of the tourism product. This interactioncomponent, is usually the essential element which characterizes a tourism experience.This can have both positive and negative consequences and therefore should becarefully monitored in order to minimize the costs implied with the tourism process(Sheldon and Abenoja, 2001). Positive and negative elements (referred in tourismliterature as impacts) can be transferred both to the tourists and the resident population,since the tourism product can only be consumed in the destination. Benchmarking: An International Journal Vol. 18 No. 3, 2011The authors’ research was supported by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, project: pp. 359-385 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited“Tourism, growth, development and sustainability. The case of the South Tyrolean region”. 1463-5771The authors have all contributed equally to the paper. DOI 10.1108/14635771111137769
  • 2. BIJ The aim of this paper is to analyse: how tourism impacts are perceived by the18,3 local population, which factors affect the relationship between impacts, and how perceptions are formed, with specific consideration of the framework in a mountain resort. The settings of this research in a mountain area are particularly interesting, as tourism in mountain areas is often considered as a means of stimulating the local360 economy at a time when the local people are leaving the mountain regions in favor of the urban environment and more employment opportunities. However, because of specific aspects characterizing the mountain context, the development of tourism should be carefully promoted; in many cases, tourism on the mountains leads to the establishment of a unique dynamic, but also vulnerable economic activity, which very often also generates an intense pressure on the environment. The increase in importance of winter tourism, has also led to a series of both positive and negative consequences for many Alpine destinations. The increase in skiing facilities is nowadays held responsible for landscape deterioration and erosion (with a high risk of avalanches), deforestation, inappropriate and uncontrolled development of ski-centres, loss of habitats and disturbance of endangered species, high air and land pollution due to exhaustion from car and coach traffic and unsustainable use of water to produce artificial snow (only recently, tourism operators have started to apply nature-friendly measures, for example, by collecting rain water instead of using the potable one). This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature containing attitudes and responses of residents towards tourism impacts. In Section 3, the methodology and data collection of the empirical exercise are presented. Section 4 illustrates the results of the empirical examination with a focus on the cluster analysis. In Section 5 of this paper, we present a discussion of the general conclusions. 2. Literature review One of the first studies to recognize that the economic effects of tourism alone did not give a comprehensive vision of the tourism phenomenon was by Pizam (1978). In his research, he examined the negative impacts of tourism on the social sphere and as a result, numerous research projects have been produced focusing on this dimension. One aspect of social impact research which is often investigated, concerns the effects of tourism on the host community. In order to measure inevitable tourism impacts on local population and the perceptions developed, reactions displayed by residents should be investigated, thus an analysis of attitudes from the local residents should be involved: [. . .] attitude is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degrees of favor or disfavor [. . .] evaluating refers to all classes of evaluative responding, whether overt or covert, cognitive, affective or behavioural (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993). Thus, attitudes could be very similar to beliefs, but they additionally possess an evaluative component; understanding attitudes of the people means understanding if residents are supportive or exert opposition towards tourism development projects, and understanding their attitudes allows for the adoption of an adequate responsive mechanism to the negative influences that arise from the tourism exchange (Williams and Lawson, 2001; Sharma and Dyer, 2009).
  • 3. 2.1 Residents’ attitudes towards tourism impacts Residents’Past research on the social and cultural sphere conducted in previous decades, had a attitudestendency to examine the factors that are likely to influence and partly deviate theperceptions of impacts, both taking into account the dependent variables (the elements towards tourismthat directly depend on tourism) and the independent variables (the factors that areindependent on tourism and may or may not exert a direct influence on the perceptualpatterns of residents). 361 Results of various studies show the following factors as determinants in tourismperceptions: . Community attachment or length of residence. Lankford (1994), Sheldon and Var (1984), Belisle and Hoy (1980) and Pearce (1980) identified community attachment or length of residence as factors affecting hosts’ attitudes – the longer an individual resides in a community, the more negative the attitude towards tourism development. However, a study by Andereck et al. (2005) demonstrated that this correlation is not always valid in every circumstance. . Knowledge about tourism, contact with tourists and concentration of visitors. Andereck et al. (2005) discovered that the more residents possess knowledge about tourism and have an intense contact with tourists, the more their perceptions of the benefits of tourism will be positive. The influence of the level of knowledge about tourism on perceptions, was also proved to be true in a study conducted by Davis et al. (1988) and Lankford and Howard (1994) did not find any significant correlation between level of tourism contact with tourists and nature of attitude, while Brougham and Butler (1981) demonstrated that tourism impacts are multifaceted and that attitudes of the residents were related also to tourist contact. Akis et al. (1996) analysed the relationship between intensity of contact with tourists and the attitude of local people, in different places and found that residents with a high interaction with tourists described their contacts as either positive or very positive. Given the concentration of tourists, in a study of Pizam (1978), it was discovered that heavy concentration of visitors tended to attract negative attitudes from residents. . Proximity with the tourism centre. Proximity with the tourism zone was also taken into account by Belisle and Hoy (1980) and later by Sheldon and Var (1984), who stated that if a resident lives in greater proximity of the tourism centre or attraction, the more he will develop a negative attitude towards tourism. . Personal reliance on tourism. In the study of Pizam (1978), it was also underlined that more favourable attitudes of residents were disposed by people whose livelyhood depended upon tourism. Personal reliance on tourism of residents was in fact analysed also by Liu and Var (1986): in their study, they found that the people dependant on tourism and who derive the majority of their income from it, are more supportive towards new development projects. In the research carried out by Haley et al. (2005), though, they found out that low-income residents tend to have a supportive attitude toward tourism, because they perceive the potential benefits behind the industry; the authors also analysed the correlation between the decline of wages earned in local tourism and their subsequent lack of support to the industry, identifying a negative direct relation, due to the explanation given in the social exchange theory, stating that when the balance between
  • 4. BIJ benefits and costs of tourism tends to damage residents, the attitudes displayed18,3 by people also changes and becomes rather negative. . Level of participation in recreational activities. The relationship between residents’ attitude and their ability to use tourism resources, was particularly investigated in the research by Gursoy et al. (2002), who underlined that perception of the local residents can be either positive if they perceive tourism as a factor that improves362 the recreational facilities they enjoy or increases opportunities for recreational activities for the community; on the other hand, their reaction may be negative if they believe that tourism may result in the local population losing accessibility to their traditional leisure pursuits (O’Leary, 1976). Gursoy et al. (2002) continue listing all authors that have treated the topic: researchers who examined the effects of tourism development on the use of resources have generally concluded that the industry improves entertainment and recreational opportunities for the residents; O’Leary (1976) provided significant support for the hypothesis that residents who participated in outdoor recreation would have more negative perceptions of touristic impacts. However, other researchers were unable to support the hypothesis that the use of a recreation area was negatively related to support for tourism development (Keogh, 1990; Perdue et al., 1987). . Demographic variables. Several studies (Davis et al., 1988; Liu and Var, 1986; Madrigal, 1995; Pizam, 1978) also took into consideration the role of socio-demographic aspects (such as age, language, sex, marital status, etc.) in influencing the attitudes of the hosts found in the majority of cases, no effect was exerted upon the perception formation; the only aspect affecting attitudes, uncovered by Lankford (1994), was related to the nature of jobs: he discovered that business owners tended to have a positive attitude towards tourism, as a logical consequence of their reliance on tourism. Other exceptions involve the role of gender upon the formation of perceptions in residents: in the study of Petrzelka et al. (2005), gender differences do develop different attitudes within rural tourism development strategies; gender produces in fact differences both in occupational identity (reliance to a specific industry) and in the perception of rural ideology, and the research shows men would be more opposed to tourism development projects than women. However, these results are specifically related to a territory and a particular environment and cannot be generalized to other realities. In addition, the study of Brougham and Butler (1981) indicated that the attitude of the local people is related to age and language, rather than tourist contact and length of residence. . Seasonality. Murphy (1985) probed the question of seasonality and its impacts, stating that it generally produces a negative attitude in local residents, but in small communities it is of advantage, because it allows residents to catch breath and undertake refurbishment for the following season, therefore produces positive attitudes in locals. Rothman (1978), similarly, found that communities with a long experience of seasonality are able to adapt to accommodate inconveniences and therefore do not experience a negative attitude. . Tourism taxes and perceived future of the community. In the study conducted by Perdue et al. (1990), it was partially demonstrated that special tourism taxes are negatively related to support for tourism development, and more importantly,
  • 5. support for tourism restrictions was positively related to perceived negative Residents’ impacts of tourism and perceived future of the community. attitudes . The development stage of a destination. The relationship between the level of towards tourism tourism development in a destination and residents’ perceptions of impacts, has ´ been widely assessed by Dietrich and Garcıa-Buades (2008). In their study, they found out that a strong correlation exists between the way locals perceive impacts of tourism and the corresponding stage in the development process of the locality, 363 according to the tourist area life cycle presented by Butler (1980). Dietrich and ´ Garcıa-Buades demonstrated that when levels of development are still low, residents tend to show positive attitudes towards tourism, since the potential benefits behind this new industry, are considerable; only after a certain threshold point, their attitude begins to become more negative, because costs related to tourism are prevailing. Also, previous studies underlined the correlation between perceptions and stage of development (Belisle and Hoy, 1980; Long et al., 1990): this research particularly highlights the lack of reliability uncovered in the cost/benefit analysis of tourism and the fact that awareness of the impacts of tourism, both positive and negative, does increase over time, with advancement in the development process. On the contrary, in the research conducted by Dyer et al. (2006), the correlation between level of tourist development and attitude of the residents, was demonstrated not to hold: the study, undertaken in a well-developed tourist destination, showed that locals still express a positive attitude towards tourism (especially for the concerns of cultural and economic benefits) and were likely to support further tourism development.When analysing residents’ attitudes towards tourism, different and various theoriesconcerning the socio-cultural impacts of tourism on residents and the factors affectingtheir perceptions have been developed; some examples are the play theory, compensationtheory and conflict theory by Bystrzanowski (1989), attribution theory by Pearce (1989) ordependency theory by Preister (1989), as cited in the works of Ap (1990, 1992): the majorproblem underlying this wide range of models is related to the lack of comparability andthus of a theoretical framework, able to give a common explanatory basis. However, this limitation has been overcome through the introduction of the “social ´exchange theory”, developed by Ap (1992) from the works of Levis-Strauss (1969),Homans (1961), Blau (1964) and Emerson (1972): this theory states that an exchange ofresources takes place during an interpersonal situation, only if certain conditions are met. According to Ap (1992): [. . .] in developing and attracting tourism to a community, the goal is to achieve outcomes that obtain the best balance of benefits and costs for both residents and tourism actors. Residents evaluate tourism in terms of social exchange, that is, evaluate it in terms of expected benefits or costs obtained in return for the services they supply. Hence, it is assumed host resident actors seek tourism development for their community in order to satisfy their economic, social, and psychological needs and to improve the community’s well-being.2.2 Residents’ response to tourism impactsAfter isolating the factors which may influence the perceptions of residents and theirattitudes towards tourism, it is also important to understand how residents react
  • 6. BIJ to tourism, and which strategies they develop in order to reduce the negative impacts18,3 from the tourism exchange. The main theories proposed in the past and used in order to explain residents’ reactions to tourism, were the Doxey’s Irridex model and the tourism area life-cycle model by Butler (1980). However, these two theories have been demonstrated to be too unidirectional and monolithic, being not able to recognize that “various combinations of strategies may364 exist simultaneously within a region” (Dogan, 1989). Nevertheless, the theories identified in past years as the most appropriate ones, were based on the alternative model of Butler (1975) and of Dogan (1989): Butler (1975) citing a past framework by Bjorkland and Philbrick, analysed the process that takes place when two or more culture groups interact and proposed this framework within the resident-tourist relationships; he stated that residents’ attitudes may be either favourable or unfavourable during their interaction and residents’ behavioural response towards tourism could be either active or passive; from these dichotomies, a four-cell continuum typology was developed. In the model of Dogan, a continuum of residents’ attitudes was additionally presented: adoption (enthusiastic acceptance), boundary maintenance (a boundary between visitors and hosts is kept), retreatism (closure of the society for protection from tourists) and resistance (aggression and resentment towards tourists). Starting from these models, the four-strategies-continuum proposed by Ap and Crompton (1993) identifies the dynamic and diverse reactions that may be employed by residents: first, embracement takes place, namely an enthusiastic and eager acceptance of tourists; afterwards tolerance is showed, because residents recognize both positive and the negative impacts of tourism and cope with them adopting different attitudes; adjustment is the third strategy that comes into consideration when residents try to reschedule their activities to avoid tourist crowds; finally, withdrawal is shown, which normally means residents remove themselves temporarily from the community in order to escape from tourism. This model is nowadays the most valid and it clearly explains how residents could vary their attitudes in a dynamic way and how their reactions could change from the one to the other, within the continuum; opposing the models developed before the theory of Ap and Crompton (1993), no cultural gaps were recognized to be responsible for the adoption of different strategies. 3. Methodology The objective of this paper is to identify the factors and variables affecting the attitudes of residents towards tourism development, and understand the different behaviours and responses present within a tourism destination. We analyse the specific case of the small rural community of Folgaria in the southeast of Trentino (Italy). As a typical mountainous community, Folgaria is characterized by aspects representing the peculiarities of most mountain resorts and therefore worthy of examination. The determinants that have positively conditioned tourism in this destination include: an advantageous position (Folgaria has the privilege of being located on a plateau, where high mountains and wide meadows, thick forests and deep valleys meet together and create a suggestive environment, at about 1,200-meters above the sea level; despite the geographical position, the municipality can be easily reached from the main urban centres of the province); the natural, historical and cultural heritage (Folgaria is mainly characterized by environmental and cultural attractions that make the territory so fascinating, also there are many cultural events and concerts organized in Folgaria
  • 7. in order to evoke past traditions and ways of life); availability of sport facilities (the Residents’circuits for mountain biking, about 100 kilometer, skiing, almost 75 kilometer, and attitudestrekking); availability of hospitality structures on the territory; cooperation with thenear municipalities. towards tourism Limiting factors on the contrary, including the expansion of the economic sector inthe destination, are as follows: Folgaria is a small community (the total surface of thedestination accounts for 72 square kilometer; concerning demography, Folgaria is a 365small town, with a total resident population of 3.142 inhabitants as reported by thedemographic office of Folgaria); geographical dispersion (the municipality comprisesaltogether seven villages; this demographic and geographical conformation of theterritory, though, prevents the local population of benefiting from the advantages suchas economies of scale and the aggregation of resources and know-how); the compositionof society and overcrowding of local residents (the social structure is characterized bysmall familiar nuclei composing two to four members mainly constituted of adult/elderlypeople; many inhabitants tend to leave the municipality in favor of the urbanenvironment); fragmentation and limited integration in the supply of services and goodsfor tourists (there is often a lack of collaboration between small and medium suppliers infavor of individualism, that results in lower quality of the services put on the market anda strong dispersion of the potential benefits of a cooperative behavior among tourismactors); consistent traffic and congestion (tourism causes, especially during theweekends, intense crowds and traffic problems, especially in the main centre of themunicipality); risk of closure of shops and other economic activities (the survival ofmany economic activities is highly dependent on tourism and is at risk because the highseasonality of the tourist destination does not allow a continuity in commercial andeconomic operations during the whole year); under-utilization of infrastructure(sport centres, hotels and ski slopes are not utilized at maximum rate); declining role oftraditional activities (usually the economic activities connected with the land – like theagricultural or farming sectors – have almost disappeared, because the ground useconflicts with other economic activities – like tourism – and lack of labour forcesavailable in these sectors; a separate case of analysis concerns the handicraft sector, thatstill successfully survives, due to the interest displayed by tourists).3.1 Data collectionA hand-delivered questionnaire was directed to a randomly selected sample among allresident families of Folgaria. A total of 444 questionnaires were distributed among the1,580 familiar nuclei (data of the end of 2008) equal to 29,44 percent of the entirepopulation. Altogether, 297 questionnaires were collected (giving us a response rate of66.89 percent) for a total of 293 usable questionnaires. The questionnaire consisted of56 questions, divided into four parts. The first section of the questionnaire included29 statements, presented in order to identify the level of agreement or disagreement ofpeople with the different impacts caused by tourism (in particular economic,environmental and socio-cultural impacts), with two final statements about the balancebetween benefits and costs of tourism, both at local and regional level. The secondsection, consisting of another eight statements, discussed the level of support oropposition of residents in respect with possible future tourism development policies. The third part of the questionnaire was composed of four statements, presentedin order to identify the impacts of tourism seasonality on the local population.
  • 8. BIJ The last section included 11 questions about the socio-demographic profile of the person18,3 interviewed and three options about the level of dependence of respondents on tourism, in order to understand the importance of the industry for the single person and the level of reliance on tourism as a consequence. Except for the last part about the socio-demographic profile of residents and the level of reliance on tourism, statements 1-37 and 41-44, presented the same response pattern: a366 six-point Likert scale was applied to each claim, with 1 indicating total disagreement or total opposition and 6 total agreement or total support, in order to allow people to express different intensity degrees in their attitudes. The questionnaire was based on the literature examined and focused on the research ´ works of Aguilo and Nadal (2005) in their study for the Balearic Islands and that of Akis et al. (1996) in Cyprus; the first section regarding the impacts of tourism on the economic, environmental and socio-cultural dimensions, were mainly derived from the questionnaire of Akis et al. (1996). The only exception was represented by the section about the socio-cultural impacts of tourism, where some statements were created by the researchers in order to focus on specific information about the destination (two statements about whether or not tourists and residents learned one another’s traditions and one about the authenticity of culture transferred to visitors). Furthermore, ´ three statements on the impacts of tourism adapted from Aguilo and Nadal (2005) were presented at the end of each section of the first part of the questionnaire in order to identify a balance between benefits and costs of tourism for each specific impact dimension. The statements about possible future development policies, were mainly adopted from the questionnaire delivered to the Balearic residents, except for the first two sentences, created ad hoc to assess the specific situation of the field of study. 4. Results The average age of respondents is approximately 48 years (47.56), with a prevalence of women completing the questionnaire. The average number of family components declared is three people (3.13), indicating that familiar nuclei are, on average, small conglomerates (in accordance to the overall social trend at national level); the number of children under 18 per family results to be 0.6, again demonstrating that families have a few young children or are relatively elderly social units. The survey shows the respondents have been residing in the same village for quite a long period of time (37.16 years), coincidentally, this was similar to the age of people interviewed; the main professional status indicated by respondents is “retiree” and the average net annual income per familiar nucleus declared lies between e15,000 and e28,000. The majority of people (56.75 percent), stated that they are not employed in the tourism sector, nor were they in the five previous years (67.36 percent); furthermore, 62.32 percent of respondents stated that in their family, no other member works in the tourism industry, which means that even if tourism is the major source of income for the municipality, it is not the first source of income for residents. Table I shows the perception of respondents towards tourism, by listing the means scored by the statements included in the questionnaire. From the economic point of view, it is interesting to note that there is a positive perception by residents of tourism as an attractor of economic investment and spending (5.11) that creates greater benefits than costs (4.86). Tourism is also considered as a factor that contributes to a higher standard
  • 9. Variables Mean value Residents’ attitudesTourism attracts more economic investments and spendings 5.11 towards tourismHigher standard of living because of tourism spendings 4.71Tourism has caused price increases 5.16Economic benefits of tourism to a small group of people 3.62More employment opportunities are created for externals 3.20 367Tourism economic benefits are greater than costs 4.86Tourism creates an incentive for environmental conservation 2.98Tourism increases public facilities’ standard 4.21Tourism determines crowd and accessibility problems 3.83Tourism causes congestion, traffic and noise 4.42Hotels/tourism facilities have destroyed the environment 3.41Tourism environmental benefits are greater than costs 3.45Meeting tourists is a valuable experience 5.15Tourism provides more services and facilities also for residents 5.04Tourists exert an undesirable effect on locals’ habits 3.10Tourism causes changes in local culture and traditions 3.50Tourism leads to a decrease in the quality of life for locals 2.51Daily interaction with tourists during the winter season 4.08Daily interaction with tourists during the summer season 4.25Contact with tourists as a positive experience 4.69Tourists learn about locals’ culture 3.37Residents learn about tourists’ culture 3.24Tourism provides traditions and customs’ valorization 3.99Tourism incentives the restoration of historical buildings 4.29Tourism causes security and crime problems 2.68Culture is presented in an authentical way 3.63Tourism socio-cultural benefits are greater than costs 4.41Tourism benefits are greater than costs at local level 3.99Tourism benefits are greater than costs at regional level 4.05Implementation of winter tourism and especially of ski slopes 3.11Expansion of winter tourism increases tourism attractiveness 3.67New environmental-oriented programmes 5.14New cultural attractions 4.67New tourism attractions and increase in tourism promotion 4.69New big hotels 3.56New small hotels with rural character 4.48More services and commercial suppliers 4.12Seasonality tourism policy 2.83Tourists’decrease during main season to reduce presences 2.09 Table I.Tourists’ increase during low season to augment presences 4.73 Residents’ perceptionsTourists’ decrease during high/increase during low season 3.69 toward tourismof living (4.71). Nevertheless, they also perceive tourism as a cause of price increases(5.16). From a social point of view, residents consider tourism as a valuable opportunityto meet people (5.15). Furthermore, they also believe that tourism provides more servicesand facilities to the local community (5.04). Finally, another aspect that residents agreewith, is the fact that tourism is an activity that contributes to the development ofnew environmental-oriented programs (5.14) although they also support the ideathat tourism contributes only marginally to the conservation of environmentalassets (2.98).
  • 10. BIJ 4.1 Cluster analysis18,3 Although extensive studies have been conducted on residents’ perceptions and attitudes toward tourism destinations, few segmentation studies using cluster analysis can be found in mainstream literature. Notable exceptions are studies by Davis et al. (1988) and Fredline and Faulkner (2000) who identify different opinion groups in Florida and the Gold Coast IndyCar Race, respectively; Madrigal (1995) who distinguishes three nested368 ´ clusters of residents from two cities; Aguilo and Nadal (2005) who identify five different opinion groups in the Balearic Islands in Spain, Kibicho (2008) who empirically investigates factors critical to successful community-based tourism development using a case study of the Kimana Wildlife Sanctuary in Kenya and demonstrates a simultaneous presence of three different segments within the local community; and Williams and Lawson (2001) who examined how residents from ten New Zealand towns viewed the effects of tourism on their communities. The objective of a cluster analysis is to isolate different groups within a sample by examining the individuals’ common features. In our case, the multiple non-hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted following some basic steps. In order to first identify the most appropriate number of clusters in which the sample could be divided – based on a high intragroup distance and a low intergroup variance – an analysis was conducted based on the hypothesis of different clusters numbers (starting from 8 going backwards to 2). Considering different cluster groups, can lead to the presence of irrelevant percentages of sample elements belonging to each specific cluster group: in order to avoid very low percentage values, an optimal combination assuring a certain level of homogeneity within the sample elements’ distribution, was researched; cluster groups with percentage values lower than 5 were therefore not taken into account. For this reason, groups with more than four clusters, were not taken into account (because of the irrelevant values displayed in certain clusters, see Table II). As a result of these considerations, the most adequate cluster number identified was 3: a quite homogeneous distribution of residents can be identified for clusters A and B (respectively 26.9 and 23.32 percent) with a higher percentage rate in cluster C (49.78 percent of the sample members), as it can be clearly noted in Table II. From an initial pool of 295 questionnaires, 223 were identified as usable elements of analysis and 72 surveys were not taken into account because of missing values. Group 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A 54.7 26.9 5.38 28.25 0.45 21.52 14.35 B 45.3 23.32 41.7 28.7 27.35 0.45 8.97 C 49.78 47.53 23.77 18.38 17.94 27.8 D 5.38 18.83 14.35 17.49 27.35 E 0.45 14.8 5.38 0.45 F 24.66 23.77 7.17 G 13.45 12.56 H 1.34 Notes: In this table, the different groups and the relative percentage of members per cluster, areTable II. identified; as it can be clearly seen from the table, clusters with more than four groups display too lowPercentage of sample percentages of sample members within each cluster, so that the optimal combination resulted inwithin each group choosing three groups
  • 11. As concerns the intragroup variability of the identified cluster groups, Table III shows Residents’the specific values indicating the level of heterogeneity within each clusters: the highest attitudeslevel of variability within groups was found between clusters A and C, a medium level ofdisparity was recognized between clusters B and C, while the lowest distance was found towards tourismbetween clusters A and B (Table III). In order to list the major characteristics of each of the identified three groups,a cluster description was developed and for each variable taken into account, the mean 369value referred to each cluster is presented (Appendix 1). Cluster A. This group contains 26.9 percent of respondents. The members of thiscluster can be labelled as “protectionists”. They are the least convinced group thattourism has increased the local standard of life (4) and believe most strongly that tourismbrings economic benefits only for a small group of people (4.68); this group believes thattourism does not bring many economic benefits (4.23) and that employmentopportunities are offered mainly to externals rather than to locals (3.95); althoughthey recognize that tourism has lead to more investments in the destination (5.02), theyalso negatively perceived the considerable increases in prices due to tourism (5.25). Theyshow a certain level of opposition towards the fact that tourism contributes to theconservation of natural resources (1.82) and they do not recognize any evidentimprovement in the quality of roads or services due to tourism (3.43); they perceive morestrongly than other locals the problems related to crowd, noise and traffic during thetourism season (5.27) and not surprisingly, they also do not perceive higher benefits thancosts in the environmental dimension (2.42). Even if they consider the tourism encounteras a positive experience (4.85) and despite recognizing tourism as an economic activityleading to the construction of facilities in the destination (4.67), they perceive morestrongly than the other two groups the undesired effects of tourism on the habits of localresidents (3.92); they are also convinced that tourism has caused some changes in localculture and traditions (4) and that residents partly suffer from a decrease in quality of lifebecause of tourism (3.12); in addition, they feel that tourists are not interested in learningthe local culture (2.33) and they do not display much interest in gaining knowledgeregarding the culture of visitors (2.68); these cluster members do not recognize tourismas an incentive for the valorization of local culture (2.88) and they also have a higherperception of crime and security problems due to tourism (3.22). They tend to disagreethat local culture is presented to tourists in an authentic way (2.93) and display thelowest degree of support towards recognizing the benefits of tourism on thesocio-cultural sphere (3.23); as well, they think that the benefits of tourism at destinationlevel are particularly low (3.38). They also exert a certain level of opposition towardswinter tourism and ski slopes being developed in the future (2), because they do notbelieve that it represents a valuable opportunity for Folgaria (2.58). These people wouldsupport the development of new programs oriented towards natural preservation (5.53)and cultural valorization (4.62). They strongly disagree with the construction of newbig hotels (2.23) while they are indifferent to an increase of commercial services (3.27).Group A B CA – 4.83 8.154B 4.83 – 6.501 Table III.C 8.154 6.501 – Intragroup variability
  • 12. BIJ They seem to be confused about the development of an appropriate tourism18,3 management policy in Folgaria: they are, on the one hand, more favourable than the other two cluster groups with the current seasonal peaks (3.32), while at the same time they tend to prefer a decrease or at least a higher homogeneity in tourism presence (3.98). Cluster B. The members of this cluster represent 23.32 percent of all respondents and can be labelled as “ambivalent and cautious”. They tend to be positive towards the370 economic impacts of tourism (4.38), even if they seem not to recognize the positive and negative effects of tourism on the local economy: in fact, this is the group that least identifies the positive aspects of investment brought about by tourism (4.94) and the problem of price increase (4.81). They do not recognize any negative impacts due to tourism on the environment (3.04), even if they tend to disagree with the statement that tourism provides the incentive of natural conservation in the destination (2.4). In general, they do not believe that tourism exerts unsustainable negative effects on residents and do not exactly know if tourism leads to more benefits or costs to the socio-cultural sphere of the destination (3.94); they tend to consider the tourism encounter as a valuable experience (4.62) and they strongly reject the idea that tourists negatively influence local habits (2.67) or community traditions (2.69) or that tourists cause a decrease in quality of life for residents (2.33); despite this positive attitude, they are not interested in learning the culture of their visitors (2.58) and are indifferent towards the implementation of new cultural programs (3.94), since they are not convinced that tourism is an incentive for conservation of traditions or local customs (3.73). In general, they are neutral towards the recognition of tourism benefits and they also identify minimal advantages deriving from tourism at regional level (3.33). They also show a certain level of cautiousness towards the implementation of ski tourism (3.12) and do not exert strong support towards the development of new programs designed for environmental preservation (4.1). This is the most cautious cluster in respect to an increase in tourism arrivals through additional promotion of the destination (3.94) and is also very negative towards the construction of new hotels with more than 50 beds (2.87). The members of this cluster also display a behavioural contradiction showing a low level of support towards the maintenance of two high seasons (2.88), while at the same time are neutral towards the implementation of a de-seasonal tourism pattern (3.04). Cluster B seems to be composed mainly of younger people when compared with the other two groups, which had the lowest length of residence in Folgaria. Cluster C. This cluster comprises 49.78 percent of respondents, meaning 111 family units and the members of this cluster can be labelled as “tourism supporters”. They are the most supportive cluster claiming the economic benefits of tourism, especially investment (5.36) and the increased standard of life (5.29), even if they recognize the increase in prices due to this economic sector (5.43). They tend to be cautious towards the recognition that tourism provides an incentive for the conservation of natural resources (3.86) and that this industry makes a positive contribution in increasing the standard of roads and other public services (4.89). They strongly disagree that the construction of new hotels has lead to damages on the natural environment (2.8) and are the most supportive group considering the environmental benefits related to tourism (4.1). They are enthusiastic towards positive feelings as a result of meeting new people due to tourism (5.66) and are strongly convinced that tourism has brought more services and facilities also for locals (5.59); they are the group that has the highest interaction level with tourists, both in summer (4.73) and in winter (4.67) and considers the tourism
  • 13. experience in a very good light (5.23); because of their positive attitudes towards the Residents’impacts of tourism, they are the most engaged group in cultural exchanges with tourists attitudesand they are also the most supportive cluster recognizing that visitors are interested inlearning the culture of local people (4) and that residents do learn as well during the towards tourismtourism exchange process (3.83); they also think that tourism creates an incentive for themaintenance of local traditions and costumes (4.7), as well as for the restoration ofhistorical buildings (5.12), therefore recognizing the benefits of tourism on the 371socio-cultural sphere more than previous groups (5.23). They both recognize very hightourism benefits at local (4.68) and regional level (4.76) and are neutral towards thepossibility to increase winter tourism (3.68), even if they tend to be positive with theconsideration that the expansion of existing ski slopes is a very good opportunity toaugment local attractiveness (4.28). These members are favorable to the increase intourist numbers and of tourism promotion (5.4) and are strongly in contrast with clustersA and B for what concerns the construction of new hotels of high accommodationcapacity (4.64); they desire an increase in services and commercial activities on theterritory (5.05) regarding seasonality, they do not favor the maintenance of the actualtwo-seasons-policy (2.42) they are positive towards a de-seasoning of tourism (5.45). Themembers of this cluster differentiate, under a demographic profile, since they tend to bemales and have a higher family income than the members of clusters A and B and in themajority of cases, they also result in being employed in the tourism industry, which isdifferent from the members of previous groups. According to the most significant variables identified, some figures were produced inorder to underline the different position assumed by the different cluster groups inrespect to specific variables, as showed below. Figure 1 shows that cluster C is moresubject to the perception of high prices due to tourism but also of the economic benefitsas a consequence of the industry, while clusters B and A have almost the same level ofperception of benefits, though, with A being more sensitive than cluster B to increases inprices. Figure 2 shows how the impacts of seasonality are related with the perceptionsof the economic benefits of tourism: cluster C displays high rates for the recognitionof economic benefits, while showing low agreement towards considering the 5.1 New hotels with more than 50 beds C 4.5 3.9 3.3 B 2.7 A 2.1 1.5 Figure 1. 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.7 4 4.3 Benefits on nature and new big hotels Benefits on natural environment
  • 14. BIJ 618,3 5.5 C Increase in life standard 5 4.5372 B 4 A 3.5Figure 2. 3Increase in investments 4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4and life standard Increase in investments attractiveness of seasonality; cluster B, on the other hand, shows neutral levels of support towards both variables and cluster A tends to show almost the same attitude as cluster B for economic rentability, while displaying considerably higher levels of support towards a seasonality policy of tourism. Figure 3 shows that cluster C is more concerned with high prices due to tourism but also of the economic benefits as a consequence of the industry, while clusters B and A have almost the same level of perception of benefits, though, with A being more sensitive than cluster B to increases in prices. Finally, Figure 4 shows how the impacts of seasonality are related with the perceptions of the economic benefits of tourism: cluster C displays high rates for the recognition of economic benefits, while showing low agreement towards considering the attractiveness of seasonality; cluster B, on the other hand, shows neutral levels of support towards both variables and cluster A tends to show almost the same attitude as cluster B for economic rentability, while displaying considerably higher levels of support towards a seasonality policy of tourism. 6 5.5 C Economic rentability 5 4.5 B A 4 3.5Figure 3. 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6Increase in price and Increase in priceeconomic rentability
  • 15. 7 Residents’ attitudes towards tourism Economic rentability 6 C 5 373 B A 4 3 Figure 4. 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 Seasonality and economic rentability Seasonality tourism policyNote that in each figure, clusters A and B are in a closer position, indicating that thesegroups are similar and that can be clearly differentiated from cluster C. This isconsistent with the intragroup variability of the different cluster groups identified inTable III.5. ConclusionsFrom a general perspective, the results of the study show that the host populationconsiders that tourism brings to the destination much more advantages thandisadvantages. The findings reflect both the overall opinions of the sample populationand the perceptions of three relatively homogeneous opinion groups of residents, howeverthese findings suggest that successful sustainable tourism developers need to considerdifferent resident segments before they start investing resources. The results indicatethat three segments (protectionists, ambivalent and cautious and tourism supporters) arelikely to influence the local community’s support for a tourism project. The findingsalso suggest that the local people may be willing to enter the exchange process if theybelieve that the project is for the benefit of their community. Consequently, identificationof local residents who feel community projects should be in line with communityaspirations may help developers convince others of the relevance of the proposed project. This research was based on the work by previous research and some parallels canbe identified between the clusters in this study and those identified by others. Forexample, clusters A and B can be associated, respectively, with the protectionists and ´the development supporters identified by Aguilo and Nadal (2005) and those that agreeand disagree with Fredline and Faulkner (2000), Davis et al. (1988) and Madrigal (1995). Concerning cluster A (named in our case “protectionists”) some parallels and somedifferences could be identified with the “protectionists” of the Balearic Islands: forexample in both study works, these members are quite reluctant to recognize thebenefits of tourism and are the respondents that mostly exerted some oppositiontowards the implementation of new hotels in the destination; in addition, respondentstend to display, in both cases, a certain level of concern towards the negative effects oftourism on the environment; residents of Folgaria tend to be concerned also with thenegative impacts on the socio-cultural dimension, especially regarding the perceptionof negative influences on local tradition and culture and, in general, they recognize
  • 16. BIJ no benefits from the tourism industry on the various dimensions analysed; the only18,3 exception is related to the positive attitude towards additional investment in the destination and on the value represented by the tourism encounter. ´ Unlike the respondents of the research work of Aguilo and Nadal, the inhabitants of Folgaria tend to display a confused attitude towards the organization of tourism in the destination: in fact, they wish to maintain the current seasonality pattern in tourism,374 while also supporting more homogenization of tourism presences. With reference to cluster B, some parallelism can be identified between the two studies: in both cases the members of this group are less emphatic in acknowledging both positive and negative impacts of tourism on the economic dimension; also, concerning the environmental dimension they tend to recognize that tourism is not an incentive for the conservation of natural environment, but at the same time, they do not blame tourism for causing particular damages to nature, which is a different opinion when compared with the same group members on the Balearic Islands. Like in the research work of the Spanish authors, respondents of this cluster tend to be averse to an increase in accommodation establishments, even if residents of Folgaria are not the most negative group towards this possible development policy. Distinct from the Spanish clusters, respondents in Folgaria did not display a strong opposition towards the implementation of tourism promotion at destination level, but showed a rather more neutral position towards this policy; concerning the pattern of tourism presences, they show a certain cautiousness in being in favor of a valorization of the off-season. Also, for the last cluster group identified in the research study in Folgaria (named “tourism supporters”), some similarities and differences may be found with the group ´ labelled “development supporters” in the study of Aguilo and Nadal. Similar to respondents on the Balearic Islands, residents of Folgaria recognize the benefits of tourism in the economic dimension, however they differ in the recognition that tourism has also caused problems connected with increased inflation. They also refuse to accept that tourism is responsible for the destruction of the environment and they particularly identify the role tourism plays in the preservation of natural resources: furthermore, residents of Folgaria, fully recognize that the construction of new hotels has not damaged the natural environment and that tourism has led to better standards of public facilities. This study shows that cluster analysis is a suitable methodology to investigate residents’ perceptions and attitudes towards tourism and it can be applied to different environments. It is interesting to note that in most of the previous studies, as it is also highlighted in the results of this study, residents can be divided into three main groups: those who are enthusiastic and supportive of tourism, those who show some concerns and those who are in opposition to the tourism industry and its development. However, the advantage of using a cluster analysis lies in the possibility to identify what factors create more enthusiasm and what factors should be addressed in order to increase tourism acceptance and support. For example, in the specific case of Folgaria, the majority of the residents have a positive attitude towards tourism: they view the global balance of tourism as being very positive; they stress the economic benefits and the beneficial value of meeting new people, they are in favor of the implementation of new project – from the construction of new establishments to additional promotion – however, they are concerned about environmental impacts and winter tourism
  • 17. development, they tend to be partially cautious towards the impact of tourism on local Residents’cultures and traditions and they require a decrees of seasonal peaks and higher attitudeshomogeneity in tourism presence. Therefore, we can conclude that the development of a cluster analysis aimed at towards tourismsegmenting locals by their attitudes and perceptions towards specific dimensions,results in being a useful tool for planning future management policies at local level: in thecase of our specific research work, some implications should be taken into account in 375order to develop a form of responsive tourism and community involvement in planningthe tourism sector. For example, a careful approach should be adopted by local tourismmanagement towards the development of projects oriented towards the increase intourism arrivals or towards the environmental dimension, since “protectionists” areparticularly concerned with the impacts of tourism: therefore, understanding the causeof specific opposition exerted by this cluster group, results in a powerful tool toimplement some interventions aimed at eliminating or reducing the sense of threatrepresented by the tourism dimension. Also, distinguishing among the positive andnegative perceptions of “ambivalent and cautious” cluster, could help tourism managersto focus on the most problematic areas related to tourism development and also toconcentrate their efforts, creating a positive image towards tourism, calming thescepticism of this group. However, since the majority of respondents have beenclassified as being part of the “tourism supporters”, the positive perception of tourismimpacts seem to prevail among residents and this could be useful for the development ofinsights into how to enhance positive aspects of the project, with marketing programsboth inside and outside the host community. Despite the recognition of the benefits of tourism, some problems need, however tobe further addressed. First of all, the problems of tourism on the environmental sphereshould be solved, for example, in creating more nature-friendly programs and ininvolving directly the local community within the framework of public discussions.In establishing the roles the public and private sectors play in the context ofsustainable tourism planning and development, the findings suggests that there is aneed for a more cohesive interaction amongst implementing stakeholders, in theconsideration of sustainable development. For better validation of the findings and itslinkage to sustainability, key issues include the need for responsible planning andmanagement, where a balance must be found between limits and usage so that anychange can be monitored. This requires long-term management and a recognition thatchange is often cumulative, gradual and irreversible. Hence, in order to address thesustainability of tourism, the economic, social and environmental aspects ofsustainable development must include the collective interests of all stakeholders.The public sector must participate in the education and preparation of stakeholders inusing data, exercising judgment, evaluating risks and solving the concerns of allparties concerned in the practice of environmental management. A second step to address tourism aversion is to collect more information about theattitude of local residents towards the possibility to implement winter tourism, usingagain the instrument of public discussions or workshops with experts. Theimplementation of more integration and more acceptance towards visitors, should beachieved especially by developing some programs aimed at incrementing the culturalexchange between tourists and residents (through public events, for example). Finally,the effort of tourism managers should be oriented towards the implementation
  • 18. BIJ of a tourism policy with a focus on incremental tourism presence during off-seasons18,3 (for example, through the organization of events) and in doing so, reducing the negative impacts caused by excess concentration of visitors during the main season. Future research can include new studies which take a transversal approach over a longer time span. In particular, it could be interesting to return to this community in a few years time to measure again the residents’ attitudes to the development of tourism in376 their locality, with the objective of completing the structural work presented here from a longitudinal perspective, and to verify the consistency and significance of the model tested. It may also be possible to incorporate into the model new variables, both extrinsic and intrinsic, which may allow the work to be enhanced and improved with the discovery of new factors that condition the residents’ attitudes toward tourism. Finally, comparative work in a similar context in different mountain destinations would prove beneficial for tourism sustainability. Any similarities, when explored, can resolve many of the issues concerning Folgaria. Comparative studies can also highlight areas whereby individual opinions from one destination may differ from that of another in its aim to implement sustainable development. References ´ Aguilo, E. and Nadal, J.R. (2005), “Host community perceptions. A cluster analysi.”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 925-41. Akis, S., Peristianis, N. and Warner, J. (1996), “Residents’ attitudes to tourism development: the case of Cyprus”, Tourism Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 481-94. Andereck, K.L., Valentine, K.M., Knopf, R.C. and Vogt, C.A. (2005), “Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1056-76. Ap, J. (1990), “Residents’ perceptions research on the social impacts of tourism”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 19, pp. 665-90. Ap, J. (1992), “Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 19, pp. 665-90. Ap, J. and Crompton, J. (1993), “Residents’ strategies for responding to tourism impacts”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 47-50. Belisle, F.J. and Hoy, D. (1980), “The perceived impact of tourism by residents: a case study in Santa Marta, Colombia”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. VII No. 1, pp. 83-101. Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power, Wiley, New York, NY. Brougham, J. and Butler, R. (1981), “A segmentation analysis of resident attitudes to the social impact of tourism”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 8, pp. 569-89. Butler, R.W. (1975), “Tourism as an agent of social change”, Proceedings of the International Geographical Union’s Working Group on the Geography of Tourism and Recreation, Trent University, Peterborough, pp. 85-90. Butler, R.W. (1980), “The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for management of resources”, The Canadian Geographer, Vol. 24 No. 1, spring/printemps. Bystrzanowski, J. (1989), Tourism as a Factor of Change: A Socio-cultural Study, European Co-ordination Centre for Research and Documentation in Social Sciences, Vienna. Davis, D., Allen, J. and Cosenza, R.M. (1988), “Segmenting local residents by their attitudes, interests, and opinions towards tourism”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 2-8. ´ Dietrich, A. and Garcıa-Buades, E. (2008), “Locals perceptions of tourism as indicators of destination decline”, Tourism Management, Vol. 30, pp. 1-10.
  • 19. Dogan, H. (1989), “Forms of adjustment: socio-cultural impacts of tourism”, Annals of Tourism Residents’ Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 216-36. attitudesDyer, P., Gursoy, D., Sharma, B. and Carter, J. (2006), “Structural modeling of residents’ perceptions of tourism and associated development on the Sunshine Coast, Australia”, towards tourism Tourism Management, Vol. 28, pp. 409-22.Eagly, A. and Chaiken, S. (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth, TX. 377Emerson, R. (1972), “Exchange theory, part: a psychological basis for social exchange”, in Berger, J., Zelditch, M. and Anderson, B. (Eds), Sociological Theories in Progress, Houghton-Mifflin, New York, NY, pp. 38-87.Fredline, E. and Faulkner, B. (2000), “Host community reactions: a cluster analysis”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 27, pp. 763-84.Gursoy, D., Jurowskiand, C. and Uysal, M. (2002), “Resident attitudes: a structural modeling approach”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 79-105.Haley, A.J., Snaith, T. and Miller, G. (2005), “The social impacts of tourism: a case study of Bath, UK”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 647-68.Homans, G. (1961), Social Behavior in Elementary Forms, Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, NY.Keogh, B. (1990), “Public participation in community tourism planning”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 17, pp. 449-65.Kibicho, W. (2008), “Community-based tourism: a factor – cluster segmentation approach”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 211-21.Lankford, S. (1994), “Attitudes and perceptions toward tourism and rural regional development”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 35-43.Lankford, S. and Howard, D.R. (1994), “Developing a tourism impact attitude scale”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 121-37. ´Levi-Strauss, C. (1969), The Elementary Structures of Kinship, Beacon Press, Boston, MA.Liu, J. and Var, T. (1986), “Resident attitudes towards tourism impacts in Hawaii”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 13, pp. 193-214.Long, P., Perdue, R. and Allen, L. (1990), “Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes by community level of tourism”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 3-9.Madrigal, R. (1995), “Residents’ perceptions and the role of government”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 86-102.Murphy, P. (1985), Tourism: A Community Approach, Routledge, New York, NY.O’Leary, J.T. (1976), “Land use redefinition and the rural community: disruption of community leisure space”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 8, pp. 263-74.Pearce, J. (1980), “Host community acceptance of foreign tourists: strategic considerations”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 224-35.Pearce, P. (1989), Social Impacts of Tourism. The Social, Cultural and Environmental Impacts of Tourism, New South Wales Tourism Commission, Sydney.Perdue, R., Long, P. and Allen, L. (1987), “Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 14, pp. 586-99.Perdue, R., Long, P. and Allen, L. (1990), “Resident support for tourism development”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 17, pp. 586-99.Petrzelka, P., Krannich, R.S., Brehm, J. and Trentelman, C.K. (2005), “Rural tourism and gendered nuances”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1121-37.
  • 20. BIJ Pizam, A. (1978), “Tourism’s impacts: the social costs to the destination community as perceived by its residents”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 8-12.18,3 Preister, K. (1989), “The theory and management of tourism impacts”, Tourism Recreation Research, Vol. 15, pp. 15-22. Rothman, R. (1978), “Residents and transients: community reaction to seasonal visitors”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 8-13.378 Sharma, B. and Dyer, P. (2009), “Residents’ involvement in tourism and their perceptions of tourism impacts”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 351-71. Sheldon, P. and Abenoja, T. (2001), “Resident attitudes in a mature destination: the case of Waikiki”, Tourism Management, Vol. 22 No. 2001, pp. 435-43. Sheldon, P. and Var, T. (1984), “Resident attitudes to tourism in North Wales”, Tourism Management, Vol. 15, pp. 40-7. Williams, J. and Lawson, R. (2001), “Community issues and resident opinions of tourism”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 269-90. Corresponding author Juan Gabriel Brida can be contacted at: JuanGabriel.Brida@unibz.it To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
  • 21. Appendix 1 Residents’Analysis of the most important quantitative variables taken into account for the cluster analysis,together with the values taken by each variable in respect with each cluster and an overall mean attitudesvalue. towards tourism 379Variables Cluster A Cluster B Cluster C MeanTourism has brought more economic investments 5.02 4.94 5.36 5.11Tourism has increased locals’ life standard 4 4.29 5.29 4.71Tourism has caused price increases 5.25 4.81 5.43 5.16Economic benefits of tourism to a small group of people 4.68 3.25 3.32 3.62More employment opportunities were offered to externals 3.95 2.92 2.87 3.2Tourism economic benefits are greater than costs 4.23 4.38 5.34 4.86Tourism has supported environmental conservation 1.82 2.4 3.86 2.98Tourism has increased public services’ standards 3.43 3.6 4.89 4.21Tourism has determined crowd problems 4.6 3.62 3.53 3.83Tourism has caused congestion, traffic and noise 5.27 3.81 4.2 4.42Hotels/tourism facilities have destroyed the environment 4.63 3.54 2.8 3.41Tourism environmental benefits are greater than costs 2.42 3.04 4.1 3.45Meeting tourists is a valuable experience 4.85 4.62 5.66 5.15Tourism has brought more services and facilities forresidents 4.67 4.35 5.59 5.04Tourists exert an undesirable effect on locals’ habits 3.92 2.67 2.71 3.1Tourism causes changes in local culture and traditions 4 2.69 3.36 3.5Tourism has caused a decrease in quality of life for locals 3.12 2.33 2.25 2.51Daily interaction with tourists during the winter season 3.62 3.56 4.67 4.08Daily interaction with tourists during the summer season 3.88 3.94 4.73 4.25Contact with tourists as a positive experience 4 4.27 5.23 4.69Tourists learn about locals’ culture 2.33 3.17 4 3.37Residents learn about tourists’ culture 2.68 2.58 3.83 3.24Tourism incentives traditions and costumes’ valorization 2.88 3.73 4.7 3.99Tourism incentives the restoration of historical buildings 3.78 3.38 5.12 4.29Tourism causes security and crime problems 3.22 2.31 2.48 2.68Culture is presented in an authentical way 2.93 3.73 3.95 3.63Tourism socio-cultural benefits are greater than costs 3.23 3.94 5.23 4.41Tourism benefits are greater than costs at local level 3.38 3.46 4.68 3.99Tourism benefits are greater than costs at regional level 3.62 3.33 4.76 4.05Implementation of winter tourism and especially of skislopes 2 3.12 3.68 3.11Expansion of winter tourism to increase tourismattractiveness 2.58 3.62 4.28 3.67New environmental-oriented programmes 5.53 4.1 5.43 5.14New cultural attractions 4.62 3.94 5.04 4.67New tourism attractions and increase in tourism promotion 4.37 3.94 5.4 4.69New big hotels 2.23 2.87 4.64 3.56New small hotels with rural character 4.12 3.94 5.11 4.48More services and commercial suppliers 3.27 3.35 5.05 4.12Seasonality tourism policy 3.32 2.88 2.42 2.83Tourists’decrease during main season to reduce presences 2.62 2.08 1.72 2.09Tourists’ increase during low season to augment presences 4.23 3.88 5.45 4.73Tourists’ decrease during high/increase during low season 3.98 3.04 3.74 3.69 Table AI.
  • 22. BIJ Appendix 218,3 Following statements refer to tourism development impacts. Please read each of them and show your level of AGREEMENT or DISAGREEMENT (1= total disagreement and 6 = total380 agreement). The first statements refer, in detail, to the economic impacts of tourism Total disagreement Total agreement 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Tourism attracts more investments and spending to Folgaria 2. Our standard of living has increased more rapidly because of the money that tourists are spending in our territory 3. Prices of many goods, services and real estates have increased because of tourism 4. Tourism brings economic benefits to a small group of people 5. Tourism creates more jobs for externals than for local people in the community 6. In general, it is possible to conclude that tourism brings the local economy more positive than negative effects Next statements refer, in detail, to the environmental impacts of tourism (1 = total disagreement and 6 = total agreement) Total disagreement Total agreement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Tourism provides an incentive for the conservation o natural resources 8. Because of tourism, our roads and other public facilities are kept at a higher standard otherwise not possible 9. Tourism results in unpleasantly crowded and inaccessible places to the local population during the high season 10. Tourism greatly adds to traffic congestion, noise and pollution 11. The construction of hotels and other tourist facilities has destroyed the natural environment in the place 12. In general, it is possible to conclude that tourism brings the environment more positive than negative effects Next statements refer, in detail, to the socio-cultural impacts of tourism (1 = total disagreement and 6 = total agreement) Total disagreement Total agreement 1 2 3 4 5 6 13. Meeting tourists from all over the country and from abroad is definitely a valuable experience 14. Tourism has led to an increase in the availability of recreational facilities (like swimming pools, tennis (continued)Figure A2.
  • 23. Residents’ courts, ski slopes...) for local people attitudes15. Tourists exert an undesirable effect on the way on locals towards tourism habits16. Tourism causes changes in the traditions and culture of the community17. Residents suffer from a lower quality of life as a result 381 of tourist presences18. During the winter season, I daily talk to tourists19. During the summer season, I daily talk to tourists20. Contact with tourists results in being a positive experience21. Tourists are interested in learning the culture of Folgaria22. During the interaction with tourists I learn about their culture23. Tourism provides an incentive for the valorisation of the local traditions and customs24. Tourism provides an incentive for the restoration of historical buildings25. Tourism causes security and crime problems26. Culture is presented to tourists in an authentical way27. In general, it is possible to conclude that tourism brings local society and culture, more positive than negative effectsThe following statements are about the benefits and costs (disadvantages) of tourism, bothperceived on a local and on a more extended, regional basis Total disagreement Total agreement 1 2 3 4 5 628. Overall, the benefits of tourism are greater than the costs for the local population29. Overall, the benefits of tourism are greater than the costs, at regional levelFollowing statements refer to possible future development policies in Folgaria. Please readeach proposal carefully and show your level of SUPPORT or OPPOSITION (1 = totalopposition and 6 = total support) Total disagreement Total agreement 1 2 3 4 5 630. The development policies of Folgaria should be oriented towards the implementation and expansion of winter tourism, especially of the existing ski slopes (continued) Figure A2.
  • 24. BIJ18,3 31. The incrementation of the available ski slopes in the community represents a positive opportunity for present and future tourism attractiveness 32. New programmes, environmentally-oriented towards the preservation and valorisation of natural resources,382 should be developed 33. New cultural attractions should be offered on the territory, such asmuseums, auditoriums... 34. Specific attractions aimed at tourists´ increase should be offered (like entertainment parks, tourist services...) and tourist promotion should be reinforced 35. New accomodation opportunities and structures (hotels, B&B...) with more than 50 beds, should be present in the tourism offer 36. New accomodation opportunities and structures (hotels, B&B...) with less than 50 beds and a typical/rural character, should be present in the tourism offer 37. New service providers and commercial activities (restaurants, shops...) should be present in the territory Following statements refer to the level of dependence on tourism; please read each statement carefully and just give one answer for each question Yes No 38. Is your job related to tourism? 39. Were you employed in the tourism industry 5 years ago? 40. Is any of your family members (wife/husband or children) employed in tourism? With the term seasonality it is intended the considerable difference in tourists´ numbers between high and low season. For that reason some statements are presented in order to understand the impacts of seasonality on residents, if present; please read carefully each statement and express your level of AGREEMENT or DISAGREEMENT. (1 = total disagreement and 6 = total agreement) Total disagreement Total agreement 1 2 3 4 5 6 41. What is actually better is to have things as they are in order to maintain a few months with intensive tourism activity and others in total quiet and peace 42. The total number of tourists in the main season should be diminished so as to decrease the over all number of tourist arrival 43. Specific tourism policies should be developed to increase the tourism presence during the low season periods and therefore increase the total number of tourists (continued)Figure A2.
  • 25. Residents’ attitudes44. The tendency should be to decrease tourist presences towards tourism during high seasons and increase their number during low seasons, in order to maintain actual numbers and homogenize tourists presenceAt the end, some questions about your personal profile are presented, in order to better match 383socio-demographic characteristics with your previous answers; remember that this enquiry iscompletely anonimous and that your personal data are just used for objectives related to theresearch work45. Age 46. Sex Man Woman47. Including yourself, how many people do belong to your family48. How many of your family members are under 18 years old?49. Wherewereyou born? Place (and province) country50. Where are you living at the moment? Place/village Municipality51. Since how much time are you living here?52. Which is your profession?53. What is the approximatesum of annual gross incomes in your family? (including all family members, who receive an income) until 15.000 between 15.000 and 28.000 between 28.000 and 55.000 between 55.000 and 75.000 between 75.000 and 100.000 more than 100.00054. How many of your family members do work?55. How do you think your family income would change consequently to a change in tourism trend? diminishes notably diminishes gets no effect increases56. What is your education level? no formal education elementary school middle school high school bachelor degree master´s degree doctorate otherThank you very much for the collaboration and for the time spent for this questionnaire.Date of the fullfilment of the questionnaireDate of recollection of the questionnaire Figure A2.
  • 26. BIJ 18,3 384 Table AIII. Multiple comparisonsBonferroni Cluster number Cluster number Mean 95% confidenceDependent variable of case (I) of case ( J) difference (I-J) Std error Sig. interval Appendix 3 Lower bound Upper boundInc_price 1 2 0.442 0.193 0.069 2 0.02 0.91 3 2 0.182 0.163 0.796 2 0.58 0.21 2 1 2 0.442 0.193 0.069 2 0.91 0.02 3 2 0.625 * 0.171 0.001 2 1.04 2 0.21 3 1 0.182 0.163 0.796 2 0.21 0.58 2 0.625 * 0.171 0.001 0.21 1.04Econ_rentability 1 2 2 0.151 0.215 1.000 2 0.67 0.37 3 2 1.109 * 0.182 0.000 2 1.55 2 0.67 2 1 0.151 0.215 1.000 2 0.37 0.67 3 2 0.958 * 0.191 0.000 2 1.42 2 0.50 3 1 1.109 * 0.182 0.000 0.67 1.55 2 0.958 * .0191 0.000 0.50 1.42Inc_invest 1 2 0.074 0.179 1.000 2 0.36 0.51 3 2 0.344 0.152 0.074 2 0.71 0.02 2 1 2 0.074 0.179 1.000 2 0.51 0.36 3 2 0.418 * 0.159 0.028 2 0.80 2 0.03 3 1 0.344 0.152 0.074 2 0.02 0.71 2 0.418 * 0.159 0.028 0.03 0.80Inc_life_sta ndard 1 2 2 0.288 0.205 0.482 2 0.78 0.21 3 2 1.288 * 0.173 0.000 2 1.71 2 0.87 2 1 0.288 0.205 0.482 2 0.21 0.78 3 2 1.000 * 0.182 0.000 2 1.44 2 0.56 the most striking differences between variables, for each cluster group. 3 1 1.288 * 0.173 0.000 0.87 1.71 2 1.000 * 0.182 0.000 0.56 1.44Benef_nat_ environment 1 2 2 0.587 * 0.218 0.023 2 1.11 2 0.06 3 2 2.039 * 0.184 0.000 2 2.48 2 1.59 2 1 0.587 * 0.218 0.023 0.06 1.11 3 2 1.452 * 0.193 0.000 2 1.92 2 0.99 3 1 2.039 * 0.184 0.000 1.59 2.48 2 1.452 * 0.193 0.000 0.99 1.92 (continued) In this table, the results of the multiple comparisons analysis, are presented in order to highlight
  • 27. Bonferroni Cluster number Cluster number Mean 95% confidenceDependent variable of case (I) of case ( J) difference (I-J) Std error Sig. intervalNew_hotels _more_50b eds 1 2 2 0.632 0.280 0.075 2 1.31 0.04 3 2 2.406 * 0.237 0.000 2 2.98 2 1.84 2 1 0.632 0.280 0.075 2 0.04 1.31 3 2 1.774 * 0.248 0.000 2 2.37 2 1.18 3 1 2.406 * 0.237 0.000 1.84 2.98 2 1.774 * 0.248 0.000 1.18 2.37Seasonality tourism_policy 1 2 0.432 0.304 0.469 2 0.30 1.16 3 0.893 * 0.257 0.002 0.27 1.51 2 1 2 0.432 0.304 0.469 2 1.16 0.30 3 0.461 0.269 0.265 2 0.19 1.11 3 1 2 0.893 * 0.257 0.002 2 1.51 2 0.27 2 2 0.461 0.269 0.265 2 1.11 0.19 attitudes Residents’ towards tourism Table AIII. 385