PowerPoint Lecture Presentationto accompany Contem.docx

PowerPoint Lecture Presentation
to accompany
Contemporary Issues In Tourism
Yu Liu
Instructor of Bowling Green State University
Associate Professor of Tourism School, Beijing Union
University
Fast and effective creation of your presentation
1.Tendency.
Globalization;
Online business;
Niche market.
2.Impact.
Economic impacts;
Social-Cultural impacts;
Environmental impacts;
3.Public Policy.
Intergovernmental;
National;
Local;
Policy making.

使用方法：
【更改文字】：将标题框及正文框中的文字可直接改为您所需文字
【更改图片】：点中图片》绘图工具》格式》填充》图片》选择您需要展示的图
片
【增加减少图片】：直接复制粘贴图片来增加图片数，复制后更改方法见【更改
图片】
【更改图片色彩】：点中图片》图片工具》格式》色彩（重新着色）》选择您喜
欢的色彩
下载更多模板、视频教程：http://www.mysoeasy.com
*
Sociology is the study about the society which consists of the
groups of people and their interaction, attitudes and behavior;
Culture is a central concept in anthropology, includes
knowledge, belief, arts, artifacts, customs, rituals, languages,
architectures and all other things from people in a society.

Social-cultural impact in tourismIn tourism, social-cultural
impacts refer to changes and conflicts among stakeholders.
Stakeholders include tourist, host, tourism companies, NGO’s
and tourism agency; Changes include the stakeholders’
everyday experience, values, way of life, intellectual and so on;
Social-cultural impact focus on the weaker party to whom
suffered disadvantages and conflicts tourism brought.

Firstly, sociologists emphasis on the disadvantage on tourist
when they travelling:The quest of tourist is perusing
authenticity which is absent from his own world but he hopes
encounter in other places or other times (Mac Cannel 1973,
1976). Tourists’ desire of experience the “real” life of the locals
in their authentic back region is thwarted by the tourist
establishment of destinations who create a front of “staged
authenticity”.
Impact on tourists
The first travel group is for religion reason On 5 July 1841,
Thomas Cook arranged to take a group of 540 temperance
campaigners from Leicester Campbell Street railway station to a
rally in Loughborough with the opening of the extended
Midland Counties Railway, eleven miles away.Thomas Cook
arranged for the railway company to charge one shilling (5p)
per person that included railway tickets and food for this train
journey.
Tourists’ desire of experience the “real” life of the locals in
their authentic back region is thwarted by the tourist
establishment of destinations who create a front of “staged
authenticity”.
But eventually, the mass of tourists turned out to peruse from
the genuine authentic to constructed authenticity or existential
authenticity and where the fullness and exaltation of “real

living” experienced by tourists becomes irrelevant whether the
external circumstance are perceived as authentic or not.
Host communities are local peoples have few control and
influence on tourism;
They often suffering over capacity of social and cultural and
cultural shock.
Cultural shock or cultural conflict or cultural clashes can take
place as result of differences in cultures, ethnicity, religion,
values, lifestyles, languages, and levels of prosperity.
In most of tourism destinations, the attitude of local residents
toward tourism development may unfold through the stages of
euphoria, where visitors are very welcome, through apathy,
irritation and potentially antagonism, when anti-tourist attitudes
begin growing among local people.
Examples.
Tourists’ consumption patternsTourist from different countries
with different consumption patterns and the preference of the
lifestyles;Tourists usually out of ignorance or carelessness, not
familiar with the local customs and moral values, sometimes
fail to respect local custom.

Inequality between Tourist and Local peopleAn employee
working at San Ya luxurious hotel with annual salaries of US$
4000 but their guest who spent US$1200 on their hotel room per
night.
Chinese tourists bought a dozen of LV in Paris. What’s the
feelings of the staff who worked at this shopping center?
Tourist’s goal is seeking pleasure in a short period, being a
person as a stranger who is different as himself or herself.
Local people’s goal is living a quiet life in a long period, being
a person as himself or herself.
Tourists spend large amounts of money;
Tourists behave in ways that they never do at home:
Sex tourism, prostitution in some Asian countries.

Why?
Research on Social-Cultural Tourism Impacts Analysis
empirically what happened in a certain tourism destination and
what are the social-cultural impacts;Delineate variables
influencing residents’ or other stakeholders’ perceptions of
tourism;Comparing the different impacts in the different
countries or regions;Case study is used very popularly in social-
cultural impact research.Richard Sharpley, Host perceptions of
tourism: A review of the research(2014) , Tourism Management,
42, 37-49.
Source: Richard Sharpley, Host perceptions of tourism: A
review of the research(2014) , Tourism Management, 42, 37-49.
Fig. Attitudes and behaviors.

Online class: social-cultural impact on Thursday, Sep 29th .
Search and download an article from an academic journal and
this article should be a case study analyzing social-cultural
impact in tourism. After reading this article, complete a 1-2
pages summary of this article which includes location of this
case study, background, author's purpose of writing this article,
research method employed by the author, and conclusions of
this case study. At the end of this summary, write a paragraph
of your own reflections on tourism social-cultural impact of this
article.
The recommended academic Tourism Journals (not limited as
that):
Tourism Management;
Annals of Tourism Research
Journal of Travel Research.
The recommended article which can help you to find

appropriate case studies (on Canvas/Files):
Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research
You also can refer to the content what we learned in class. Chap
2.2Chap 2.2 Social-cultural impact.ppt
lable at ScienceDirect
Tourism Management 42 (2014) 37e49
Contents lists avai
Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman
Progress in Tourist Management
Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research
Richard Sharpley*
School of Sport, Tourim & The Outdoors, University of Central
Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 25 July 2013
Accepted 18 October 2013
Keywords:
Residents’ perceptions
Tourism impacts
Touristehost encounters
* Tel.: þ44 (0)1772 894900.

E-mail addresses: [email protected], richard
0261-5177/$ e see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.10.007
a b s t r a c t
It has long been recognised that it is incumbent on those
responsible for the planning of tourism to seek
to optimise the well-being of local residents whilst minimising
the costs of tourism development.
It is not surprising, therefore, that academic attention has long
been paid to the social impacts of
tourism in general and to the understanding of host
communities’ perceptions of tourism and its impacts
in particular. Nevertheless, despite the significant volume and
increasing scope of the research, the
extent to which understanding of residents’ perceptions of
tourism has been enhanced remains uncer-
tain. Thus, the purpose of this Progress Review is to explore
critically the development of the research
into residents’ perceptions of tourism. Highlighting key themes
and trends in the literature, it identifies a
number of limitations in the research, including a narrow case
study base, a dependence on quantitative
methods, a focus on perceptions as opposed to responses, and
the exclusion of the tourist from the
majority of the research. Consequently, it argues for a
multidimensional approach to the research.
� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Fundamental to the successful development of tourism is the
balanced or harmonious relationship between tourists, the
people

and places they encounter, and the organisations and businesses
that provide tourism services (Zhang, Inbakaran, & Jackson,
2006).
In other words, as the ‘largest peaceful movement of people’
(Lett,
1989: 277) in history both within and across national
boundaries,
tourism represents one of the world’s largest discretionary
trans-
fers of wealth, thereby providing a source of income, foreign
ex-
change, government revenues and employment, business and
infrastructural development and, hence, wider economic growth
and development in destination areas. Consequently, the role of
tourism as an agent of economic growth and development has
been
widely adopted and officially sanctioned (Jenkins, 1991; WTO,
1980).
However, such benefits are not, of course, achieved without
cost.
The development of tourism incurs varying degrees of impact
on
destination environments and, in particular, on the local people
who act as ‘hosts’ to tourists (Wall & Mathieson, 2006). Indeed,
destination communities face something of a ‘development
dilemma’ (Telfer & Sharpley, 2008); they are, in a sense,
required to
engage in a trade-off between the benefits they perceive to
receive
from tourism and the negative social and environmental
[email protected]
All rights reserved.
consequences of its development. Moreover, as Andriotis and
Vaughan (2003: 172) observe, many claim that the ‘balance of
residents’ perceptions of the costs and benefits of tourism is a

major
factor in tourist satisfaction and is, therefore, vital for the
success of
the tourism industry’. That is, destination communities’ support
for
tourism, or what Snaith and Haley (1999: 597) refer to as a
‘happy
host’, is considered essential as the success and sustainability of
the
sector depends upon the goodwill of local residents (Jurowski &
Gursoy, 2004; Pérez & Nadal, 2005) Consequently, it is widely
suggested that, should local communities perceive the costs of
tourism to outweigh the benefits, then they will withdraw their
support for tourism, thereby threatening the future success and
development of the sector (Lawson, Williams, Young, &
Cossens,
1998).
In practice, evidence of such a withdrawal of support for
tourism
by host communities is limited. In other words, the assertion by
many commentators that negative perceptions of tourism on the
part of destination communities may be translated into similarly
negative (or, as Doxey (1975) famously suggested, antagonistic)
behaviour towards tourists or the tourism sector is not widely
supported in the literature. Nevertheless, it has long been recog-
nised that, given its ability to ‘permeate communities unlike
other
industries’ (Harrill, 2004: 2), it is incumbent on those
responsible
for the planning of tourism to seek to optimise the well-being of
destination communities whilst minimising the costs of tourism
development. Hence, it has equally long been suggested that the
attitudes and perceptions of local residents should directly
inform
tourism planning (Ap, 1992), the ideal being what has been

termed
mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.tourman.20
13.10.007&domain=pdf
www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02615177
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman
R. Sharpley / Tourism Management 42 (2014) 37e4938
‘resident responsive’ tourism planning (Vargas-Sánchez, Plaza-
Mejía, & Porras-Bueno, 2009).
It is not surprising, therefore, that much academic attention has
been paid to the social, economic and environmental impacts of
tourism in general and to the understanding of host
communities’
perceptions of tourism and its impacts in particular. Some of the
earliest research dates back to the late 1970s (for example,
Pizam,
1978; Rothman, 1978; Thomason, Crompton, & Kamp, 1979),
since
when a significant volume of work has been published on the
subject. Indeed, in preparing this review, a search of just three
journals (Tourism Management, Annals of Tourism Research
and
Journal of Travel Research) based on four key words
(‘resident’,
‘perceptions’, ‘attitudes’ and ‘tourism’) produced a total of
1070
published articles. In all likelihood, this represents only a
relatively

small proportion of all published/unpublished academic work on
residents’ attitudes to tourism, yet it reflects its enduring
popularity
as the focus of research. Moreover, it is not only the volume of
work
that is of note. Some two decades ago, John Ap, lamenting the
restricted and descriptive nature of much of the extant research,
called for a more theoretically informed approach: ‘Unless re-
searchers launch out of the elementary descriptive stage of the
current state of research and into an explanatory stage, where
research is developed within some theoretical framework, they
may find themselves none the wiser in another ten years time’
(Ap,
1990: 615). Since then, and as discussed later in this review, not
only has the scope of research expanded greatly, but attempts
have
indeed been made to base it on rigorous theoretical foundations.
Given both its increasing volume and also its trajectory, it is
now
timely to review to the development of this research. Thus, the
broad purpose of this paper is to consider whether progress has
been made in our understanding of host communities’
perceptions
of and responses to tourism development, or whether we do, in
fact, remain ‘none the wiser’. More specifically, it seeks to
address a
number of important questions, not least the extent to which, as
some suggest, the research can be generalised into a universal
model or understanding of residents’ perceptions (Draper,
Woosnam, & Norman, 2011; Vargas-Sánchez, Porras-Bueno, &
Plaza-Mejía, 2011) and, hence, inform a generally applicable
framework to support the planning and management of tourism.
Or
does the research, perhaps, remain an eclectic collection of
studies

relevant only to the context of each study? In doing do, the
paper
traces the evolution of research, highlighting key themes and
methodologies and exploring future directions and challenges.
The
first task, however, is to review briefly the concept of
touristehost
interaction, for this is the context in which the study of
residents’
perceptions is, or should be, located.
2. Background: touristehost interaction
Although variously defined, tourism has long been con-
ceptualised as ‘the quintessence of relationships which result
from
travel and sojourn by outsiders’ (Hunziker & Krapf,1942: 21,
cited in
Dann & Parrinello, 2009: 15). That is, tourism is essentially a
social
phenomenon defined by the consequences of the movement of
people to and their temporary stay at places away from their
normal residence; it is about people ‘interacting with other
places
and other people, undergoing experiences that may influence
their
own or the host community’s attitudes, expectations, opinions
and,
ultimately, lifestyles’ (Sharpley, 2008: 1e2). Thus, fundamental
to
tourism are so-called ‘hosteguest’ relations (Smith, 1977), the
na-
ture of which may determine, on the one hand, the extent to
which
tourists have a successful or fulfilling experience (Reisinger &
Turner, 2002) and, on the other hand, the degree of impact,

posi-
tive or otherwise, experienced by host communities or residents
in
the destination area and, hence, their perceptions of tourism and
tourists. Consequently, although some studies explore residents’
perceptions of proposed, rather than existing, tourism de-
velopments (Keogh, 1990; Mason & Cheyne, 2000; Nepal,
2008), it
is logical to suggest that, in order to identify and explain local
communities’ perception of and responses to tourism and
tourists,
the research should be located within a conceptual framework of
hosteguest relations. However, as this paper will reveal, this is
rarely the case; as Woosnam (2012: 315) observes, ‘The present
residents’ attitudes literature does not consider how residents’
feelings towards tourists (on an individual level) may
potentially
influence their attitudes about tourism’. In other words,
although
the terms ‘tourism,’ and ‘tourists’ are often used inter-
changeably
within the literature, most studies are concerned with residents’
attitudes towards what may referred to as tourism development,
and the benefits/disbenefits that arise from it. Conversely,
attitudes
towards tourists, which may be rather different from those
related
to tourism development, are rarely addressed.
Of course, the contexts within which such relations occur vary
almost infinitely, from the stage, scale and type of tourism
devel-
opment or the expectations/behaviour of tourists to the structure
and characteristics of the destination society (Pearce, 1994).
Indeed,
as will be discussed shortly, much of the research is concerned

with
identifying these variables that may determine differing resident
perceptions of tourism. Nevertheless, early studies of
touristehost
relations attempted to model the structures and settings of en-
counters between tourists and local people as a basis for
predicting
their (a)symmetry. Sutton (1967), for example, identified five
char-
acteristics seen as common to most encounters. He claimed that
contact is transitory, both parties seek instant satisfaction,
encoun-
ters tend to be new or unusual experiences for tourists but
‘business
as usual’ for local people, cultural distinctions exist between
the two
parties and, overall, encounters tend to be unbalanced.
Similarly, a
later UNESCO paper found that ‘the encounter between tourist
and
host is characterized by its transitory nature, constraints in
terms of
time and space, and relationships that are both unequal and
lacking
in spontaneity (UNESCO, 1976: 82). Implicitly, both papers
focus on
encounters between tourists and local people in what might
be referred to as organised tourist spaces. In other words, the
encounters occur not only at specific sites within resort areas
(in
hotels/restaurants, in shops/markets, on the beach, and so on)
but
also between tourists and people engaged formally or informally
in
the tourism sector. Thus, both Sutton and UNESCO are
concerned

primarily with encounters which occur in the first of three
principal
settings describedby de Kadt (1979: 50), namely, ‘where
thetouristis
purchasing some good or service from the host’. In addition, en-
counters may occur, according to de Kadt, where ‘the tourist
and host
find themselves side by side’ and where ‘the two parties come
face to
face with the object of exchanging information or ideas’.
A number of points immediately demand attention. Firstly, the
form and nature of relations between local people and tourists
evidently varies significantly, from structured, commercial
exchange-based encounters to spontaneous, serendipitous meet-
ings or even relations that involve no contact or communication
at
all (that is, limited to the sharing of space). Such distinctions
have
long been recognised. Krippendorf (1987), for example,
accepting
that destination residents do not form an homogeneous group,
proposed four types of resident within a primarily business
context: those in direct businesses with continuous contact with
tourists; those in irregular contact in unrelated businesses; those
in
regular contact but only partially deriving their income from
tourism; and those with no contact with tourists. Similarly, it is
possible to conceptualise touristehost encounters as lying on a
continuum, though based more generally on the nature of
contact
and subsequent influences on host perceptions rather than the
business-specific context proposed by Krippendorf (see Fig. 1).
liu

高亮
R. Sharpley / Tourism Management 42 (2014) 37e49 39
Inevitably, this continuum over-simplifies the complex and
variable nature of the encounters between tourists and members
of
the host community. Nevertheless, it serves to highlight the
different forms of such encounters and, importantly in the
context
of this paper, the extent to which the tourist experience and host
perceptions may be influenced by them (Krippendorf, 1987: 46e
47). Thus, at one extreme, those engaged in regular
commercially-
based exchanges with tourists may directly affect the tourists’
de-
gree of satisfaction whilst themselves being affected by
tourists’
attitudes and behaviour. Hence, it is this group of local people
that
is most significant in terms of understanding perceptions of and
responses to tourism and tourists. Conversely, at the other
extreme,
those residents who share space with tourists but who do not
come
into direct contact with them are less likely to influence the
tourist
experience, irrespective of their perceptions of tourism. Thus,
un-
derstanding the perceptions of this latter group is important in
terms of their well-being but arguably less so in terms of the
suc-
cess of the tourism sector.
Secondly, it is important to note that encounters at the ‘com-
mercial exchange’ point of the continuum typically occur in

what
may be described as a liminal ‘tourism culture’ (Reisinger &
Turner,
2003). That is, although both parties bring their own culturally-
defined expectations, behaviours and prejudices to the
encounter,
these may be temporarily suspended in mutual recognition of
the
nature of that encounter: business-as-usual for the local person,
a
novel out-of-the-ordinary experience for the tourist. Consequen-
tially, not only is it incorrect to describe tourists as ‘guests’ and
local
people as ‘hosts’ e ‘customer’ and ‘service provider’ perhaps
being
more accurate terms (see Aramberri, 2001) e but also the extent
to
which local people respond to their attitudes towards tourists
may
be limited by the context of the encounter. Although they may
hold
negative attitudes towards certain groups of tourists, they may
suppress such attitudes in the interests of providing a good
service
or making a profit. For example, in their study in a resort in
Turkey,
Reisinger, Kozak, and Visser (2013) found that local hoteliers
held
predominantly negative attitudes towards Russian tourists but
that
‘in order to succeed they would do well to learn and understand
the
cultural discrepancies between them and their international
guests’ (Reisinger et al., 2013: 60). In short, the responses of
local
people to tourists, particularly those engaged in the tourism

sector,
are more likely to be conditioned by the commercial basis of
their
encounters with tourists rather than reflecting their actual atti-
tudes towards them.
Thirdly, the varying nature or structure of the encounters be-
tween tourists and different members of the host community has
implications for the theoretical frameworks within which host
Intentional encounters
based on commercial
exchange
Intentional
encounters for
personal exchange
Contact:
Frequent
Structured / planned
Mutually beneficial
High degree of
influence on tourist
experience and host
perceptions
Contact:
Occasional
Planned
Mutually beneficial
Some degree of

experience and host
perceptions
Fig. 1. A continuum of tou
community perceptions are analysed. As noted above, since the
early 1990s, an increasing number of studies have attempted to
draw on recognised theory and concepts although social
exchange
theory, discussed in detail by Ap (1992) as a potentially fruitful
conceptual framework for such research, has proved to be
partic-
ularly popular. However, social exchange theory is, by
definition,
concerned with the exchange of material or symbolic resources
between people or groups of people; that is, it is relevant
primarily
to the analysis of implicitly voluntary exchange processes
between
two parties e in this context, tourists and local people. Where
no
such exchange is initiated (for example, where residents share
space but do not make contact or communicate with tourists) e
or,
where as is often the case, the research focuses on one party
only,
the resident (Woosnam, 2012) e then the contribution of social
exchange theory to an understanding of residents’ perceptions is
questionable and alternative conceptual frameworks, such as
social
representation theory (Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003) might be
more
appropriate.
The conceptual frameworks employed in research into resident
perceptions of tourism are considered in more detail below. The
important point for now, however, is that touristehost

interaction
is a complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon, encounters be-
tween tourists and members of the host community varying ac-
cording to context, roles, expectations and so on. At one
extreme,
tourists and local people may interact frequently and fully, with
all
that implies with respect to perceptions of and responses to
those
encounters as well as the importance of understanding and, if
necessary, managing them. At the other extreme, local residents
perceptions of tourism may be based on limited, if any actual
contact with tourists, hence any exchange being less tangible
and
lacking reciprocity. Nevertheless, all forms of encounter
demand
research and understanding although, as the following review of
that research now considers, more limited progress has been
made
than the volume of research might suggest. That is, despite
continuing interest in and published contributions to the subject
based upon an increasing variety of case studies and conceptual
frameworks, a deeper understanding of host/resident perceptions
of tourism and, in particular, tourists themselves has not neces-
sarily been forthcoming.
3. Resident perceptions: evolution of the research
The roots of the now considerable body of research into resident
perceptions of tourism lie, of course, in the early recognition of
tourism’s negative consequences. From the late 1960s onwards,
as
tourism came to be seen by many to be in conflict with the
Sharing space: no
physical / verbal contact

/ communication
Unintentional
/spontaneous
encounters
Contact:
Infrequent
Unplanned
Uncertain benefit
Some degree of
experience and host
perceptions
Contact:
None
No influence on
tourist experience;
possible influence
on host perceptions
ristehost encounters.
Table 1
Resident perceptions of tourism: characteristics of the research.
Author(s) Date Case study location Sample size Methodology
Conceptual framework
Amuquandoh, 2010 Lake Bosomtwe Basin,

Ghana
628 Quantitative: household survey Symbolic intercationism
Andereck, Valentine,
Knopf, & Vogt,
2005
Arizona (state-wide),
USA
695 Quantitative: postal survey Social exchange theory
Factor analysis
Andereck &
Nyaupane, 2011
Arizona (state-wide),
USA
695 Quantitative; postal and phone survey Quality of Life
Factor analysis
Andriotis & Vaughan,
2003
Crete: four urban areas 194 Quantitative: face-to-face
interviews Social exchange theory/Social
representations theoryCluster analysis
Bastias- Perez & Var,
1994
Darwin, Australia 200 Quantitative: self-administered
questionnaire

n/a
Factor analysis
Belisle & Hoy, 1980 Santa Marta, Colombia 108 Quantitative:
interview via
questionnaire
n/a
Factor analysis
Besculides, Lee, &
McCormick, 2002
Colorado, USA: Los
Caminos Antiguos
Byway
329 Quantitative: postal survey Cultural benefit/disbenefit
Bestard & Nadal,
2007
Balearic Islands 791 Quantitative: questionnaire survey e
scaled items
Social exchange theory/Theory of
reasoned action
Brayley & Var, 1989 Canada: tertiary
education students
125 Quantitative: questionnaire survey n/a
Brayley, Var, &
Sheldon, 1990

University of Hawaii 90 Quantitative: self-administered n/a
questionnaire e scaled items
Brougham & Butler,
1981
Isle of Skye, Scotland 123 Quantitative: structured interviews
n/a
Brunt & Courtney,
1999
Dawlish (seaside
resort) UK
12 Qualitative: interviews n/a
Carmichael, 2000 Connecticut, USA 203 Quantitative:
telephone survey Attitude-behaviour model
Factor analysis
Davis, Allen, &
Cosenza, 1988
Florida 415 Quantitative: postal survey n/a
Cluster analysis
Draper et al. (2011) South Carolina, USA:
two counties
994 Quantitative: self-administered and
postal survey
Tourism Use History
Fredline & Faulkner,

2000
Gold Coast, Australia
(Gold Coast Indycar
event)
337 Quantitative: face-to-face survey Social representations
theory
Cluster analysis
Gursoy, Chi, & Dyer,
2009
Sunshine Coast,
Australia
n/a Quantitative: survey n/a
Structural equation modelling
Gursoy & Jurowski,
2002
USA: Rural counties
surrounding a national
Recreation Area (not
specified)
776 Quantitative: postal survey n/a
Invariance testing
Gursoy, Jurowski, &
Uysal, 2002
Virginia, USA: Rural
counties surrounding a
national Recreation

Structural modelling
Gursoy & Rutherford,
2004
Washington and Idaho,
USA
290 Quantitative: survey n/a
Structural modelling
Haralambopoulos &
Pizam, 1996
Samos, Greece 85 Quantitative: pre-structured
questionnaire
n/a
Factor analysis
Huh & Vogt, 2008 Island community,
Alaska,
200 (1995) 385
(2001)
Quantitative longitudinal study: postal
surveys
Cohort analysis
Factor analysis
Husbands, 1989 Livingstone, Zambia 195 Quantitative:
questionnaire survey e

scaled items
n/a
Johnson, Snepenger,
& Akis, 1994
Shoshone County
(Silver Valley), Idaho,
USA
349 Quantitative: secondary data and
survey, scaled items
n/a
Jurowski & Gursoy,
2004
Mt Rogers NRA,
Virginia, USA
Kim, Uysal, & Sirgy,
2013
Virginia, USA 327 Quantitative: postal survey Quality of life
Factor analysis
King et al., 1993 Nadi, Fiji 199 Quantitative: structured
interviews n/a
Variance analysis
Ko & Stewart, 2002 Cheju Island, Korea 732 Quantitative:
postal survey n/a

Kuvan & Akan, 2005 Belek, Antalya, Turkey 167 Quantitative:
structures interviews n/a
Variance analysis
Lankford & Howard,
1994
Colunbia River Gorge,
Oregon and
Washington, USA
1436 Quantitative: postal questionnaire n/a
Factor analysis
Lawson et al., 1998 New Zealand, 10 towns 1056 Quantitative:
postal questionnaire n/a
Lepp, 2007 Bigodi, Uganda 48 Qualitative: interviews n/a
Table 1 (continued )
Author(s) Date Case study location Sample size Methodology
Conceptual framework
Lindberg & Johnson,
1997
Oregon, USA (coastal
communities)
945 (phone) Quantitative: phone and postal survey n/a

571(mail) Structural equation modelling
Liu & Var, 1986 Hawaii 636 Quantitative: postal survey n/a
Liu, Sheldon, & Var,
1987
Hawaii, North Wales,
Istanbul
636 Quantitative: postal; survey and
structured interview
n/a
54
461 Factor analysis
Long, Perdue, &
Allen, 1990
Colorado, USA: 28 rural
communities
Approx 1300 Quantitative: self administered
n/a
Factor analysis
Madrigal, 1995 Sedona, Arizona, USA 428 Quantitative: postal
survey n/a
York, UK 315 Cluster analysis
Mason & Cheyne,
2000
Pohangina Valley,

North Island, New
Zealand
McCool & Martin,
1994
Montana, USA 1128 Quantitative: postal survey e scaled
items
n/a
McGehee & Anderek,
2004
Arizona, USA: 12 rural
communities
1403 Quantitative: self-administered
questionnaires- scaled items
Social exchange theory
Nepal, 2008 Valemount, BC, Canada 85 Quantitative: face-to-
face
questionnaires
n/a
Nunkoo & Gursoy,
2012
Mauritius 300 Quantitative: self-administered
questionnaire

Social exchange theory; identity theory
Palmer, Koenig-
Lewis, & Jones,
2013
Wales 307 Quantitative: on-line survey Identity
Perdue, Long, &
Allen, 1987
communities
264 Quantitative: self-administered
questionnaire
n/a
Correlation analysis
Perdue, Long, &
Allen, 1990
communities
1346 Quantitative self-administered
questionnaire
n/a
Factor analysis
Pérez & Nadal, 2005 Balearic Islands 791 Quantitative: postal
survey n/a

Cluster analysis
Raymond & Brown,
2007
Victoria, Australia 560 Quantitative: postal surveys n/a
Variance analysis and spatial
preferences
Ritchie, 1988 Alberta and BC, Canada 1004 Quantitative: phone
survey n/a
Variance analysis
Ross, 1992 Cairns, Australia 508 Quantitative: structured
interview n/a
Ryan & Montgomery,
1994
Bakewell, Derbyshire,
UK
101 Quantitative: administered and postal
surveys
59 Factor/cluster analysis
Sheldon & Var, 1984 North Wales 54 Quantitative: postal
survey n/a
Factor analysis
Sharma & Dyer, 2009 Sunshine Coast,
Australia
732 Quantitative: letter box drop survey n/a
Factor/variance analysis
Smith & Krannich,

1998
Utah/Idaho, USA 528 Quantitative: self-administered survey n/a
Variance analysis
Teye et al., 2002 Cape Coast and Elmina,
Ghana
464 Quantitative: structured interviews n/a
Variance analysis
Tosun, 2002 Urgup, Turkey 241 Quantitative: household survey
n/a
Factor analysis
Upchurch & Teivane,
2000
Riga, Latvia 250 Quantitative: survey e scaled items n/a
Vargas-Sánchez
et al., 2011
Huevla, Spain 400 Quantitative: survey e scaled items n/a
Variance analysis
Wang & Pfister, 2008 Washington, North
Carolina, USA
Regression analysis
Williams & Lawson,
2001
10 towns, New Zealand 1062 Quantitative: postal survey n/a

Cluster analysis
Woosnam, 2012 Galveston, County,
Texas, USA
446 Quantitative: self-completion
Emotional solidarity
Zhang et al., 2006 Melbourne, Australia 1022 Quantitative:
postal survey n/a
Zamani-Farahani &
Musa, 2012
Masooleh and Sare’in,
Iran
500 Quantitative: survey- scaled items n/a
environment within which it occurred (Dowling, 1992), the
enthusiasm for its economic development potential became
tempered by increasing awareness of the associated costs as
numerous commentators drew attention to the economic, social
and environmental ‘impacts’ of tourism in general (for example,
de
Kadt, 1979; Turner & Ash, 1975; Young, 1973). However, it
was in-
terest in the responses of local communities in particular to
tourism
development, perhaps most notably Doxey’s (1975) widely-
cited
(and equally widely criticised) ‘irridex’ model, which
established
the foundation for the subsequent research into resident percep-

tions. Since then, ‘research on resident attitudes of tourism.
[has
become] .one of the most systematic and well-studied areas of
tourism’ (McGehee & Anderek, 2004: 132), driven primarily by
the
belief that understanding resident perceptions and responses is
fundamental to the successful and sustainable development of
tourism.
Such has been the proliferation of research into residents’ or the
host community’s perceptions of and attitudes towards tourism
that reviewing it in its totality would be a difficult, if not
impossible
task. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this paper it is possible
to
identify key trends, themes and issues within that research that
may be exemplified by way of reference to a relatively limited
number of studies. Therefore, the following review draws on
studies that not only remain the most cited within the literature
since residents’ attitude/perceptions studies first became an
iden-
tifiable research theme in the late 1970s but which are also sig-
nificant for establishing the foundation upon which subsequent
studies have built. In addition, more recent work is included to
both
demonstrate the expanding focus and conceptual underpinnings
of
the research, thus tracing the continuing development of
research
into residents’ perceptions of tourism, and in particular to
consider
the extent to which our understanding and knowledge, within a

tourism planning and management context, has been progressed.
Before doing so, however, a number of broad observations with
regards to the extant research can be made.
Firstly, contemporary tourism is remarkable for its continuing
growth and internationalisation and for its increasing economic
significance, particularly in less developed countries e not only
did
the annual international arrivals figure surpass the one billion
mark
in 2012, but more than seventy countries now attract more than
one million international arrivals. To a great extent, however,
this
scale, scope and significance is not reflected in the residents’
perception research. In other words, and as only recently
observed
by Nunkoo and Gursoy (2012), much of the research is
restricted to
case studies in the developed world; indeed, as can be seen from
Table 1, the research is largely dominated by case studies in
North
America (many studies focusing specifically on rural tourism or
the
perceptions of residents in the vicinity of recreation areas) and,
to a
lesser extent, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. This is not to
say
that other regions, countries or destinations have not benefitted
from academic attention. Listed in Table 1 is research
undertaken in
Fiji (King, Pizam, & Milman, 1993), Ghana (Amuquandoh,
2010;
Teye, Sönmez, & Sirakaya, 2002), Turkey (Tosun, 2002),
Uganda
(Lepp, 2007), Iran (Zamani-Farahani & Musa, 2012), Mauritius
(Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012), Korea (Ko & Stewart, 2002) and

Latvia
(Upchurch & Teivane, 2000), whilst other destinations not
included
in Table 1, such as Cyprus (Akis, Peristianis, & Warner, 1996)
and Italy (Canosa, Brown, & Bassan, 2001), have also been the
focus
of research into residents’ perceptions of and relations with
tourism/tourists. Nevertheless, a surprising lack of attention has
been paid to mainstream tourism regions or destinations, such
as
the Caribbean and the Mediterranean, Pérez and Nadal’s (2005)
study being a notable exception (see also Boissevain, 1996),
whilst those in the developing world have also been largely
over-
looked. Thus, destinations with dominant tourism sectors and/or
significant economic dependence on tourism and where
residents
may arguably be more sensitive (if not sensitised) to tourism
have,
to a great extent, been excluded from the research.
Secondly and related, many studies, particularly those based in
North America, implicitly focus on domestic tourism; relatively
few
of those listed in Table 1 are concerned explicitly with
international
tourism whilst in others it is unclear whether the destinations
attract primarily domestic or international visitors. In the
context of
the stated objectives of.individual studies, this is not
necessarily
problematic. However, residents’ perceptions and attitudes are
potentially influenced by the nature of tourism/tourists, particu-
larly when significant cultural and economic distinctions exist
as is
often the case in international tourism. As a consequence, the

wider
relevance or applicability of much of the research is
questionable.
And thirdly, the vast majority of the research into host percep-
tions of tourism employs quantitative methods, an issue
discussed
in more depth by Deery, Jago, and Fredline (2012) and Nunkoo,
Smith, and Ramkissoon (2013); indeed, only two papers listed
in
Table 1 claim to employ qualitative research (Brunt &
Courtney,
1999; Lepp, 2007). Typically, the research takes the form of
large-
scale surveys based upon questionnaires combining a variety of
question formats and either distributed by mail or administered
by
hand or face-to-face structured interview, the distinction
between
studies thus lying primarily in the method of data analysis and
the
selected variables being tested. On the one hand, the use of
quan-
titative methods is understandable, the objective of most studies
being to identify and test the relationship between variables that
influence resident perceptions of tourism or, in some cases, to
segment residents through cluster analysis. On the other hand,
the
predominantly quantitative nature of the research serves to
enhance what some commentators consider to be the simplistic
and theoretically weak character of much of the work on
resident
perceptions of tourism (Woosnam, 2012; Zhang et al., 2006). It
tends to describe what residents perceive, but does not
necessarily
explain why. For this reason, Deery et al. (2012) call for more
qualitative studies although it should be noted that although this

might enhance knowledge and understanding of residents’ per-
ceptions on a case-by-case basis, it would not mitigate the lack
of
generalisability of the extant research. Moreover, despite the
po-
tential for residents’ attitudes to change over time, few studies
adopt a longitudinal approach (Hsu, 2000; Lee & Back, 2006);
the
majority of studies collect ‘data at a single period and, thus,
their
conclusions may be limited’ (Huh & Vogt, 2008: 446). Thus, it
is
immediately evident that there exists a number of potential
weaknesses in the collective body of research on residents’ per-
ceptions of tourism that may limit its contribution to knowledge
and, in particular, to the effective planning and management of
tourism. The question now to be addressed, therefore, is: what
progress has been made?
3.1. The foundations of the research
Research into resident perceptions can be traced back more than
thirty-five years. Therefore, it is not surprising that, given the
vol-
ume of work published over this period, a number of reviews of
the
literature have been undertaken (Deery et al., 2012; Easterling,
2004; Harrill, 2004), the most recent based upon a detailed con-
tent analysis of relevant articles published in three journals be-
tween 1984 and 2010 (Nunkoo et al., 2013). These reviews
characterise the evolution of the research in different ways.
Harrill
(2004), for example, identifies three broad themes in the
literature:
factors that influence residents’ attitudes; methods of analysis;
and,

theoretical perspectives. Alternatively, Deery et al. (2012)
propose a
four stage model, from (i) definitions and concepts, through (ii)
model development and (iii) instrument design and
development,
to (iv) instrument design and testing. Although the implicit
chro-
nology of these four stages is not reflected in the literature,
there is
nevertheless consensus amongst reviewers that, over time, the
research has become more sophisticated, progressing both
conceptually and in methodological design.
The early research, in a sense, combines Deery et al.’s (2012)
first
two stages. On the one hand, a number of now well-known
though
simplistic models were developed to theorise the relationship
be-
tween tourism development and residents’ perceptions of
impacts.
In particular, Doxey’s (1975) ‘irridex’ model, Butler’s (1980)
seminal
resort life-cycle model and, less directly, Smith’s (1977) tourist
ty-
pology all proposed that residents adopt increasingly negative
at-
titudes towards tourism as it develops and grows. These are
criticised for their inherent linearity and assumptions of local
Table 2
Variables in resident perceptions.
Influence on perceptions Studies

Extrinsic variables
Extent/stage of tourism development ‘Traditional’, linear
models predict that perceptions of
tourism become more negative as the sector becomes
more developed/mature. However, results of studies are
contradictory.
Allen, Long, Perdue, & Kieselbach, 1988; Butler,
1980; Doxey, 1975; Lepp, 2008; Long et al.,
1990; Sheldon & Abenoja, 2001; Upchurch &
Teivane, 2000; Vargas-Sánchez et al., 2009
Nature/type of tourism/tourists The character of tourists,
including nationality, may
correlate with positive/negative resident perceptions.
Johnson et al., 1994; Sheldon & Var, 1984;
Smith, 1977
Density of tourists/tourism development The greater the density
of tourism/tourists, typically the
more negative the perceptions of tourism. However,
positive attitudes (e.g. economic benefits) may
outweigh such concerns.
Bestard & Nadal, 2007; Vargas-Sáchez et al.
2011;
Seasonality Perceptions of tourism are found to vary according
to
seasonality, though high and low season may balance
attitudes.
Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Sheldon & Var, 1984

National stage of development Though few studies address this
variable, the less
(economically) developed the destination, the more
positively are the opportunities presented by tourism
perceived.
Lepp, 2007
Intrinsic variables
Economic/employment dependency on tourism The results of
many studies suggest that a working in
the tourism sector/dependence on tourism as a source
of income is related to more positive attitudes towards
tourism. However, a variety of variables (e.g level of
wages in tourism) may temper these attitudes.
Brougham & Butler, 1981; King et al., 1993;
Smith & Krannich, 1998; Snaith & Haley, 1999;
Um & Crompton, 1987; Wang & Pfister, 2008
Community attachment Community attachment, measured by
variables such as
length of residency, property ownership, extended
family and so on, has been found to have an ambiguous
and sometimes contradictory influence on perceptions
of tourism.
Andereck et al., 2005; Gursoy et al., 2002;
Mason & Cheyne, 2000; McCool & Martin, 1994;
Nepal, 2008; Ross, 1992; Sheldon & Var, 1984;
Woosnam, Norman, & Ying, 2009; Woosnam,
2012
Distance from tourism zone Although it may be assumed that

the greater proximity
to the tourism zone, the more negative are perceptions
of tourism. However, such a relationship has not been
consistently found in studies, other factors (e.g. nature
of development/economic dependency being
influential)
Belisle & Hoy, 1980, Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004;
Raymond & Brown, 2007; Sharma & Dyer, 2009
Interaction with tourists Contact or interaction with tourists has
been found to
be correlated positively with support for tourism,
though this varies with the nature of contact and the
type of tourist.
Anderek et al. 2005; Lawson et al., 1998; Teye,
Sönmez and Sirakaya, 2002.
Personal values More recently, studies have explored the
relationship
between personal values and tourism perceptions
Choi & Murray, 2010; Woosnam, 2012;
Woosnam, Norman, & Ying, 2009.
Social identity/social status Some correlation has been found to
exist between
residents’ social status and the extent to which they
identify themselves with the destination.
Husbands, 1989; Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012;
Palmer et al., 2013;
Demographic: age, gender, education Some studies have
associated certain socio-

demographic characteristics with positive/negative
attitudes e for example, older residents may view
tourism less favourably than younger people. However,
most conclude that such variables do not explain
variations in resident perceptions of tourism.
Fredline & Faulkner, 2000; Haralambopoulos &
Pizam, 1996; Huh & Vogt, 2008; Mason &
Cheyne, 2000; Snaith & Haley, 1999; Tosun,
2002
community homogeneity although, subsequently, Ap and
Crompton (1993) identified four different strategies that
residents
follow in response to the level of tourism development, from
embracing tourism to withdrawal from the destination. This
latter
work is significant inasmuch as it focuses not on perceptions of
but
on responses to tourism’s social impacts, a perspective that is
rare
within the literature but, as argued later, one which would
enhance
the value of the research.
On the other hand, a number of early studies explored the extent
to which documented social, economic and environmental
impacts
of tourism are perceived by residents, typically identifying
positive
attitudes towards tourism for its economic potential but at the
same time revealing factors that temper that enthusiasm for
tourism. For example, Pizam’s (1978) study of residents of
Cape Cod
revealed an unsurprising positive correlation between residents’

dependence for their livelihood on tourism and their attitudes
to-
wards it, whilst Belisle and Hoy (1980) found that the greater
their
distance from the tourist zone (and implicitly the less their
dependence on tourism), the less positive were residents’
percep-
tions of tourism. Similarly, other research also adopted what
McGehee and Anderek (2004: 132) refer to as a ‘tourism
impact’
focus (Brougham & Butler, 1981; Haralambopoulos & Pizam,
1996;
King et al., 1993; Liu & Var, 1986; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Um
&
Crompton, 1987). Collectively, this body of work confirms the
ex-
istence and experience of economic, environmental and social
impacts amongst members of destination communities, yet it
tends
to be descriptive. As Deery et al. (2012: 67) observe, ‘While it
is
important to know which impacts are of concern to residents
and a
starting point for further research .[listing]. impacts does not
provide insights as to why residents perceive them in a
particular
way’.
Consequently, the research increasingly adopted a ‘tourism
perceptions’ approach, McGehee and Anderek (2004: 132)
arguing
that, from a planning perspective, understanding residents’ per-
ceptions of tourism’s impacts is as important, if not more so,
than
understanding the impacts themselves. It should be noted here

that, in the literature, the term ‘perceptions’ is widely used,
although many commentators refer to ‘attitudes’ (for example,
Gursoy et al., 2002; Lindberg & Johnson,1997; Ryan &
Montgomery,
1994; Smith & Krannich, 1998), whilst others refer to residents’
‘opinions’ (Williams & Lawson, 2001) or ‘reactions’ (Fredline
&
Faulkner, 2000). To a great extent the distinction between these
terms is semantic; simply stated, most studies are concerned
with
what residents think about (as opposed to how they respond to)
tourism and its impacts. However, the way in which people
‘think’
about tourism is itself conditioned by a variety of factors, from
personal values to socio-demographic variables. That is, percep-
tions or attitudes are unique to the individual yet it is only
recently
that this has been recognised in the literature, residents more
typically being considered a relatively homogeneous group.
Nevertheless, the ‘tourism perceptions’ approach to the research
seeks to distinguish between residents and their perceptions of
tourism in two broad ways: though the identification and testing
of
variables that may determine or predict residents’ perceptions;
and
through the segmentation of local communities according to
their
degree of support for tourism. Both perspectives are discussed
widely in the literature (Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003; Draper,
Woosnam, & Norman, 2011; Harrill, 2004; Kuvan & Akan,
2005;
Nunkoo et al., 2013); for the purposes of this paper, a summary
of

key themes will suffice.
3.2. Variables influencing residents’ perceptions of tourism
Much of the research has been, and continues to be, concerned
with identifying, measuring and comparing the variables that
may
influence the manner in which tourism and its impacts are
perceived, the purpose being to both explain and potentially
pre-
dict residents’ responses to tourism. Most commentators draw
attention to the plethora of studies addressing the subject and
the
diversity of variables identified and explored; hence, attempts
are
frequently made to categorise variables under headings. Harrill
(2004), for example, refers broadly to socioeconomic and
spatial
factors and economic dependency whereas other distinguish be-
tween macro, community-wide factors and micro factors
relevant
to the individual resident. Deery et al. (2012) go further by
dividing
micro factors into those which are ‘external’ and those which
are
internal, ‘values variables’. Commonly, however, the dichotomy
between broader destinational factors and those related to the
in-
dividual are defined as ‘extrinsic’ and ‘intrinsic’ factors
(Faulkner &
Tideswell, 1997). Table 2 summarises the principal variables in
resident perceptions under these two headings.
The list of studies in Table 2 is by no means exhaustive; most
commentators review the elements of the literature to a lesser or
greater extent, typically as a means of framing their specific

research, whilst work by Nunkoo et al. (2013), referred to
above,
considers the focus, content and methodology of 140 research
pa-
pers on resident perceptions published over a twenty-six year
period. However, Table 2 serves to summarise the diversity of
variables that researchers have focused upon in an attempt to
predict how residents perceive actual or, in a small number of
studies, planned tourism developments. It also demonstrates
what
more recently has come to be widely recognised within the liter-
ature: namely that, other than economic dependence on tourism,
few if any consistent relationships have emerged when testing
the
correlations between specific variables and resident attitudes to-
wards tourism. At the same time, it is also evident that, whilst
much
effort has been committed to identifying and measuring one or
more variables that may influence residents perceptions of
tourism,
in many studies ‘residents’ are treated as a single group. That
is, as
Andriotis and Vaughan (2003) note, these variables, either
singly or
in relationship to each other, are considered independently from
subsets within the group of residents, thus overlooking the po-
tential of different segments of resident populations maintaining
different overall attitudes towards tourism. Consequently, as
considered in the following subsection, a number of studies
have
sought to explore residents’ attitudes based on cluster analysis.
3.3. Segmentation studies
Table 3 below summarises a number of key perceptions studies
based on cluster analysis e again, this list is not exhaustive.

Inevi-
tably, each study is undertaken in a different context and with
different objectives and measurement instruments. For example,
Fredline and Faulkner (2000), exploring residents’ reactions to
a
major event, the Gold Coast Indy race in Australia, summarise
resident responses to the questionnaire into six principal
factors.
Based upon these, they identify five clear segments, from
‘Lovers’,
who agree most highly with community benefit, international
profile, economic benefit and facility/amenity development
benefit
factors, and disagree least negative impacts factors, to ‘Haters’,
characterised by an opposite profile. Conversely, Pérez and
Nadal’s
(2005) study segments residents of the Balearic Islands, one of
few
mature, mass tourism destinations to be subject to such
research,
into clusters defined by their support or otherwise for new
tourism
development. Thus, ‘Development Supporters’ believe tourism
brings significant employment and business opportunities, and
display less concern for social and environmental impacts,
whereas
‘Protectionists’ believe there to be a ‘negative balance between
tourism’s beneficial and harmful aspects’ (ibid 2005: 937). As a
consequence, the latter group are opposed to further tourism
development and would, in fact, support a reduction in tourist
numbers.
Interestingly, the ‘Alternative Developers’ can see the benefits
of
tourism but, similar to ‘Protectionists’ would support a
reduction in

tourist numbers and a focus on small scale, alternative develop-
ment projects.
Despite these differences, however, some commonality is in
evidence between these studies, not least in the terminology
used
to describe different clusters. Four of the six studies listed in
Table 3
refer to those most in favour of tourism as ‘lovers’. For this
common
cluster, the potential economic benefits of tourism are
considered
its most positive aspect. Similarly, ‘Haters’ typically give
precedence
to the negative social and environmental consequences whilst
be-
ing less supportive or ‘skeptical’ (Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003)
of the
economic benefits of tourism.
At the same time, the segmentation studies also attempt to link
clusters to particular variables. Pérez and Nadal (2005), for
example, relate their clusters to income level and place of resi-
dence, whilst Andriotis and Vaughan (2003) indicate that
positive
perceptions of tourism are correlated to levels of education,
their
study revealing that the most highly educated residents fall
under
the ‘Socially and Environmentally Concerned’ heading.
However,
these studies suffer the same weakness as those seeking to
identify
the variables that influence resident perceptions. That is, they
describe clusters, and they describe variables that define those
clusters, yet they are unable to explain why the members of

clusters
collectively ascribe to particular perceptions of tourism.
On the one hand, this reflects the fact that, although methods of
data analysis and manipulation have become more sophisticated
(Nunkoo et al., 2013), the great majority of studies employ
quan-
titative methods based on attitudinal-scale questionnaires to
collect those data. On the other hand, it also reflects the
assertion
that ‘attempts to model community residents’ attitudes towards
tourism have been, to date, relatively simplistic’ (Zhang et al.,
2006:
185), an issue that a number commentators have drawn attention
to.. Liu and Var (1986: 196), for example, point to the ‘absence
of a
Table 3
Cluster analyses of resident perceptions of tourism.
Positive perceptions Negative perceptions
Davis et al., 1988 Lovers (20%) Love ’Em for a Reason (26%)
In-Betweeners (18%) Cautious Romantics (21%) Haters (16%)
Ryan & Montgomery, 1994 Enthusiast (22.2%) Middle of the
Road (54.3%) Somewhat Irritated (24.2%)
Madrigal, 1995 Lover (13%) Realistic (56%) Hater (31%)
Fredline & Faulkner, 2000 Lover (23%) Ambivalent Supporter
(29%) Realistic (24%) Concerned for a Reason (9%) Hater
(15%)
Williams & Lawson, 2001 Lover (44%) Taxpayer (25%) Cynics
(10%) Innocents (20%)
Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003 Advocates (42%) Socially &
Environmentally

Concerned (40%)
Economic
Skeptics (18%)
Pérez & Nadal, 2005 Development
Supporters (11%)
Prudent Developers (26%) Ambivalent and
Cautious (24%)
Protectionists (20%)
Alternative Developers (18%)
comprehensive tourism theory .[and]. a dearth of proven
methodologies to measure non-economic impacts’ whilst, as
noted
in the introduction to this paper, Ap (1990) warned of a lack of
progress in the research unless it is developed within an appro-
priate theoretical framework. Not all have responded to Ap’s
call for
more theoretically-informed research. As can be seen from
Table 1,
many studies remain atheoretical, the research not being located
in
an identifiable theoretical framework; conversely, a number
draw
on social exchange theory and, to a lesser extent, social
represen-
tations theory. However, even where they have been utilised,
the
contribution of these theoretical frameworks to explaining or
un-
derstanding residents’ perceptions remains unclear.

3.4. Resident perceptions: theoretical frameworks
Although commentators claim that a number of theories, such
as compensation, conflict and dependency theory have been
drawn
upon, none ‘were able to provide a theoretical perspective that
encompassed the phenomenon of residents’ perceptions of
tourism’ (Ap,1992: 667). Ap goes on to suggest that social
exchange
theory, referred to in an earlier paper by Perdue et al. (1990),
‘can
accommodate explanation of both positive and negative
perceptions. at the individual or collective level’ (ibid 1992:
667).
However, despite the application of social exchange theory to a
number of studies, not only does there remain a lack of
consensus
over its usefulness in explaining residents’ perceptions of
tourism
but also other theories, in particular social representations
theory,
have been proposed as alternative conceptual frameworks
(Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003; Fredline & Faulkner, 2000).
Addressing the latter first, social representations are the
mechanisms by which people try to understand or make sense of
their world (see Moscovici, 1981). In other words, they are the
in-
fluences within a particular society (and shared by members of
that
society) that determine how and what people think in their day-
to-
day lives, in effect a set of ideas, values, knowledge and
explana-
tions that comprises a social reality (Pearce, Moscardo, & Ross,

1996). Of course, such representations are not fixed; they are
dy-
namic and determined by direct experience, social interaction
and
the media (Fredline & Faulkner, 2000). As such, social
representa-
tion theory is not dissimilar to Berger and Luckmann’s (1991)
concept of the social construction of reality, which posits that
people’s everyday reality is structured and maintained through
social interaction with family, friends and strangers (in the
present
context, tourists). Key to both concepts is social interaction (or
touristehost interaction) which, as discussed earlier in this
paper, is
fundamental to understanding destination resident perceptions
of
tourism. However, although social representations and/or the
social
construction of reality provide the conceptual context for
research,
are they able to explain the outcomes of that research? In other
words, identifying what Fredline and Faulkner (2000: 768) refer
to
as ‘consensus of residents’ perceptions’ (hence social
representation theory typically underpinning cluster analysis)
may
identify a particular social representation, but it does not
explain
why a particular perception is commonly held.
In contrast, social exchange theory seeks to explain the process
of interaction, or the exchange of physical or symbolic
resources,
between people or groups of people. In other words, it views the
interaction between people as a form of transaction which, in
the

tourism context, suggests that tourists and hosts undergo a
process
of negotiation or exchange, the ultimate aim of which for each
party
is to optimise the benefit accruing from the encounter
(Sharpley,
2008: 9-6). Thus, social exchange is considered a sequential
pro-
cess (Ap,1992), the first stage being the identification of a need
that
requires satisfaction; that is, both parties, the tourist and the
host,
must be motivated to engage in the exchange process. Once that
process has been initiated, for it to be successful it must be
based on
rationality, fairness, reciprocity and satisfactory outcomes for
those
engaging in the exchange process. This implies that both parties
choose to engage in social exchange in the expectation of
balanced
‘negotiations’ resulting in satisfactory outcomes. Consequently,
if
the process is unbalanced or if the expected benefits do not
materialise, then the process will be evaluated negatively and
no
exchange will occur.
Within the resident perception research, social exchange theory
is typically interpreted somewhat simplistically in the sense that
it
is argued that, should residents perceive that the costs of
tourism
(social, economic and/or environmental) outweigh the benefits,
then they will have negative perceptions of and withdraw their
support for tourism. However, not only is such an argument
intu-

itive, but it overlooks the implicit processes suggested by social
exchange theory that underpin why exchange process might be
considered unsuccessful. Indeed, Pearce et al. (1996) suggest
that
the relevance of social exchange theory to explaining resident
perceptions of tourism is limited by three factors, namely: (a)
that
people are national rational, systematic information processors;
(b)
an individual’s knowledge is often socially derived rather than
based on personal experience; and (c), perceptions are formed
within a wider socio-cultural and historical framework. In other
words, the linear, rational process proposed by social exchange
theory is in actuality infrequently followed, whilst to ignore the
socio-cultural context within which social exchanges occur is to
ignore the extrinsic influences on that process. More
specifically,
the basis of social exchange theory is that both parties engage
voluntarily and proactively in the process. However, for many
residents in tourism destinations, any form of interaction with
tourists, as considered earlier in this paper, may be
unintentional
and involuntary whilst, in many cases, no tangible interaction
(or
exchange) may occur. Moreover, almost without exception
studies
of residents’ perceptions focus on ‘variables used to predict
resi-
dents’ attitudes. that exist within the resident or as part of a
resident’s identity and not the relationship that exists between
resident and tourist (Woosnam, 2012: 316). In other words, one
of

the two principal players in touristehost interactions, the tourist,
is
overlooked, thereby limiting the extent to which residents’ per-
ceptions can be fully understood as part of an exchange process.
Hence, although social exchange theory points to why local
residents may adopt positive or negative attitudes towards
tourism
and tourists, it is inadequate as a conceptual framework for the
research. Indeed, as is now discussed, the limitations of social
ex-
change theory in particular reflect some of wider limitations of
the
research into residents’ perceptions of tourism more generally.
4. Residents’ perceptions: progress in the research?
As observed in the introduction to this paper, over the last
thirty-five years or so academic interest in residents’
perceptions of
tourism has increased to the extent that it has become one of the
most researched topics within tourism studies. However, as this
paper set out to question, has it consequently become one of the
better understood topics in tourism? In other words, has
significant
progress been made in knowledge and understanding of
residents’
perceptions commensurate with the volume of research that has
been undertaken?
In addressing this question, it is first worthwhile to return to the
original purpose of this area of research. Simply stated, tourism
incurs both benefits and costs to destination communities. If
those
communities perceive the costs of tourism development to be
greater than the benefits then, it is argued, they may withdraw

their support for tourism, hence threatening the future success
of
the sector. Thus, an understanding of local residents’
perceptions of
or attitudes towards tourism and tourists is considered a vital
ingredient of tourism planning and management.
In this context, progress has in some respects undoubtedly been
made. Not only has the research identified the enormous
diversity
of variables and the relationships between many of them that
may
influence how residents perceive tourism both positively and
negatively but also these have provide the basis for developing
models, such as that proposed by Vargas-Sánchez et al. (2011)
which attempt to generalise an explanation of residents’ atti-
tudes. However, such a model conceptualises the relationship
be-
tween dominant variables, including tourist density, perceptions
of
tourists, perceptions of impacts, personal benefits and level of
tourism development; it does not necessarily provide a tool that
would aid tourism planning.
At the same time, however, the research continues to display a
number of particular limitations, some of which have already
been
alluded to in this paper. Firstly, the majority of research is in
the
form of surveys in locations that vary significantly both in
general
terms (geographically, economically, socio-culturally) and with
respect to tourism (nature, scale, stage of development). Conse-
quently, it is not surprising that widely varying results are
obtained
from different studies, even when similar survey methods and

measurement scales are used, and that limited commonality is
identifiable in the outcomes of the research as a whole.
Moreover,
many of those locations, whilst justifiable as the focus of
research in
their own right, are not ‘typical’ tourism destinations. Many
studies
have been undertaken, for example, in rural locations in the
USA;
conversely, research into residents’ perceptions of tourism in
large
scale resort areas in both the industrialised and developing
world
are notable for their scarcity yet, arguably, it is the latter that
would
benefit most from such research. Putting it another way, the
results
of much of the research is of little relevance to the tourism
sector
more generally.
Secondly, tourism destinations are, of course, dynamic. Whether
or not they follow a resort ‘life cycle’, as proposed by Butler
(1980),
remains a matter of debate yet there is no doubt that
destinations
adapt and transform in response to changes in demand and
supply
and to challenges emerging in an increasingly competitive
global
tourism environment. However, the great majority of studies are
cross-sectional; they consider specific aspects of resident
percep-
tions at a particular point in time. Thus, although the results of
such
studies are of relevance to the research objectives within a

specific
timeframe, they become less meaningful in an historical
context. As
a consequence, there is no evidence to suggest how residents’
at-
titudes (and, as discussed below, their responses) to tourism
evolve
or transform over time, evidence that would add a vital
dimension
to academic understanding of the phenomenon as well, from a
practical perspective, informing longer-term strategic planning.
Moreover, as is evident from Table 1, much of the (still cited)
research was undertaken during the 1980s and 1990s. Since
then,
not only has tourism grown exponentially in scope and scale
but, as
Urry (1994: 234) suggests, culturally ‘tourism is no longer a
differentiated set of social practices with its distinct rules,
times
and spaces’. In other words, not only are destinations dynamic;
so
too is the cultural significance of tourism itself. As it has
allegedly
merged into other contemporary social practices, tourism has
become less distinct and, perhaps, more recognised/accepted as
an
element of contemporary life, with all that implies for people’s
perceptions of it.
Thirdly, and related to the preceding point, much of the
research
is tourism-centric e that is to say, it focuses, by definition, on
local
residents’ perceptions of tourism. However, as noted above, one
of
the criticisms of social exchange theory as a conceptual

framework
is that perceptions are influenced by or formed within a wider
socio-cultural and historical framework. In other words,
focusing
on a particular form of social exchange, in this case between
resi-
dents and tourists, is to overlook the wider socio-cultural
context
within which that exchange occurs. Not only may there be
factors
beyond the tourism domain (and falling outside the scope of the
research) that influence residents’ perceptions of tourism, but
also
there may be other aspects of their social lives that supersede
these
perceptions. To an extent, this issue is implicitly addressed by
more
recent research that attempts to identify and measure the impact
of
tourism on the quality of life or well-being of residents
(Andereck &
Nyaupane, 2011; Andereck, Valentine, Vogt & Knopf, 2007
Kim
et al., 2013) but, as Deery et al. (2012) suggest, such research
pen-
etrates only the first ‘layer’ of perceptions of residents’
perceptions.
They go on to propose that, through qualitative/ethnographic
research, the behaviours and values of residents should also be
considered but, of equal if not greater importance are extrinsic
factors relevant to residents’ lives, such as climate, physical
envi-
ronment, employment opportunities, proximity to family and
friends, availability and cost of housing and so on, factors
which
determine why people choose to live in particular places. In this

context, the presence/impact of tourism and tourists may be
rela-
tively unimportant, or simply accepted, when making lifestyle
de-
cisions and, thus, a more complete understanding residents
perceptions is only likely to emerge from a more multi-
dimensional
approach.
This, in turn, points to a fourth issue, also alluded to by Deery
et al. (2012) and, arguably, the most significant limitation,
namely, the ‘value-action gap’ (Blake, 1999) inherent in the
research. In many contemporary contexts but particularly that of
environmental concern there exists a value- or intent-action
gap;
what people say they would do is not reflected in what they
actually do. Thus, for example, surveys consistently show that,
on
the one hand, tourists claim they would be prepared to pay a
premium for ‘responsible’ or environmentally-sound tourism ex-
periences but, on the other hand, research demonstrates that, for
a
majority of tourists (in the UK at least), price is the most
important
factor when purchasing a holiday (Sharpley, 2012). Quite
evidently,
the residens’ perception research suffers a similar problem for,
by
definition, it considers residents’ perceptions of the impacts of
tourism, but not their responses. According to Nunkoo and
Gursoy
(2012) some commentators, such as Jackson and Inbarakan

(2006),
attempt to bridge this divide by considering residents’ support
for
or opposition to tourism as behavioural intent, but few if any
explicitly address residents’ actions. One notable exception is
Carmichael’s (2000) study of residents’ attitudes and responses
to a
‘mega resort casino development’. Based on a model linking
atti-
tudes and behaviours (Fig. 2), she explores the extent to which
the
positive/negative attitudes she identifies in the research are sub-
sequently reflected in actions on the part of residents.
Interestingly, she reveals that, typically, neither positive nor
negative attitudes lead to subsequent actions; the majority of
those
who support the casino accept it ‘silently’, whilst the majority
of
those who express negative attitudes demonstrate ‘resigned
acceptance’. In short, perceptions or attitudes cannot be
considered
synonymous with behavioural intent. This suggests that,
contrary
to the claim that residents with negative attitudes towards
tourism
will withdraw their support or become antagonistic towards
tour-
ists, there may not exist such a causal relationship; residents
may
not be happy about particular impacts of tourism, but this does
not
imply consequential actions or behaviours on their part. In turn,
this suggests that, from a management perspective, it may be
more
fruitful to explore both the perceptions and the subsequent re-

sponses/actions of residents whilst also relevant to this issue is
the
lack of longitudinal studies in the research referred to above.
That
is, not only may residents’ attitudes transform over time, but so
too
may their responses. For example, in Carmichael’s model
above,
‘resigned acceptance’ might be replaced by ‘active opposition’
or
vice versa as the nature of tourism or tourists in a resort
evolves.
Fifthly, as discussed earlier in this paper, the nature of interac-
tion between tourists and local residents may be determined by
a
variety of factors related to both the structure of the encounter
and
the socio-cultural distinctions between them. In other words,
resident perceptions of tourists (and vice versa) are likely to be
influenced by an existing awareness of these distinctions. At a
basic
level, for example, it has been found that tourist behaviour is
perceived by hosts to vary according to nationality (Pizam &
Sussman, 1995) whilst, in a more recent study that contempora-
neously focuses on both visitors and local residents in a specific
setting, Griffiths and Sharpley (2012) reveal how a varying
sense of
nationalism amongst both groups may in different ways
prejudice
the nature of their encounters. In short, residents’ perceptions
of
tourism are likely to be influenced by their pre-existing
attitudes or
beliefs about particular tourist types and, indeed, by the nature
of

social interaction that results from tourists’ preconceptions of
res-
idents themselves. However, with few exceptions (Woosnam,
2012), the research has not embraced the tourist in this manner.
Active
opposition
Silent
acceptance
Resigned
acceptance
Active
support
Behaviour
Active Passive
Attitude
Positive
Negative
Fig. 2. Attitudes and behaviours.
Source: adapted from Carmichael (2000: 604)
Finally, and perhaps somewhat controversially, it can also be
argued that whilst it is important and justifiable from a
community
well-being perspective to consider the perceptions of
destination
residents generally, including those who have little or no direct
contact with tourists on a regular basis, from a tourist
experience

perspective it is the perceptions, attitudes and responses of
those
who, as suggested in Fig. 1, have regular, intentional and
commer-
cial exchange-based encounters with tourists that most deserve
the
attention of researchers. Ultimately, the success of the
destination
depends upon tourists receiving satisfying experiences and this
is
largely dependent on the nature of the interaction between
tourists
and those providing the services they require. Such research has
long been undertaken; for example, in a widely cited work,
McKean
(1989) considers the responses of local people in Bali to the de-
mands of tourists for cultural performances whilst a recent
edited
text focuses specifically on host responses to tourists
(Moufakkir &
Reisinger, 2013a). Moreover, Brunt and Courtney (1999: 498)
study
explored the perceptions of ‘people who are in continuous and
direct contact with tourists’ as one of four categories of
residents
embraced by their research. Generally, however, within much of
the research the perceptions of this sub-group of residents is
either
implicit, inasmuch as those who depend on tourism for a living
typically view it more favourably than those who do not, or is
overlooked. This is not to say that the perceptions and attitudes
of
residents more generally are not important. However, if the pur-
pose of the research is to inform the effective planning and
man-
agement of tourism, it is only logical to direct the focus of the

research onto those most likely to influence the tourist
experience.
5. Conclusion
As noted in the introduction, the overall purpose of this paper
was to consider the extent to which progress has been made in
research into residents’ perceptions of tourism. More
specifically, it
set out to identify whether the challenge set by Ap (1990) has
been
met by the research, specifically the extent to which we now
have
an enhanced understanding and explanation of residents’
percep-
tions sufficient to inform effective destination planning and
man-
agement. Certainly, the research has undoubtedly contributed to
a
wider understanding and knowledge of the phenomenon, not
least
as a result of the sheer volume of work that has been and
continues
to be undertaken. At the same time, the breadth of that work in
terms of its focus and the rigour of the methods of analysis
employed has contributed to a significantly wider understanding
of
the factors, both intrinsic and extrinsic, that may influence how
residents, from both an individual and a group perspective,
perceive tourism and its consequences. However, it is uncertain
whether this body of work has contributed to a more general ac-
ademic understanding of residents’ perceptions of tourism. That
is,
the ever-increasing number of case-based studies (albeit
limited, as
observed earlier, in geographic and thematic scope) has, by

defi-
nition, increased the collective level of knowledge. Arguably,
however, this has not contributed to the development of a
broader
conceptual foundation for understanding residents’ perceptions;
the value of the research remains primarily case-specific.
Equally, progress towards a more general, viable model to
facilitate tourism planning has also been limited. In other
words,
although many studies commence by justifying of their
contribu-
tion to (implicitly, ‘resident responsive’) tourism planning, how
this
contribution might be manifested either on a local or more
general
scale remains unclear. To an extent, this is not surprising; such
is
the variety of contexts within which residentetourist
interactions
may occur that a general planning model is unviable. At same
time,
however, there is arguably a need to adopt a more multi-
dimensional approach to research into residents’ perceptions
from the perspective of both residents themselves and their in-
teractions with tourists. With respect to the former, the model
proposed by Deery et al. (2012) goes some way towards
recognising
this by expanding the scope of research to embrace residents’
values and behavioural norms. Nevertheless, the need remains
to
consider perceptions of and, in particular, responses to tourism

within the totality of residents’ social lives. That is, tourism
may be
located relatively low in the hierarchy of factors that influence
residents’ lifestyle decisions. Regarding the latter, and as noted
in
the preceding section, it is important not to exclude tourists
themselves from the equation. Tourists hold
perceptions/expecta-
tions of residents (and respond accordingly) as much as
residents
do of tourists and thus, as Moufakkir and Reisinger (2013b:
xiii)
argue, ‘perception studies tend to reduce the reality of the
.[host]. gaze to what is visible; yet we know what is visible is
not
the whole truth’. That ‘truth’ will only emerge from a deeper
un-
derstanding of the interactions between residents and tourists
and
their responses to each other and, until it emerges, it is likely
that,
as Ap (1990: 615) warned, we are likely to find ourselves ‘none
the
wiser’.
References
Akis, S., Peristianis, N., & Warner, J. (1996). Residents’
attitudes to tourism devel-
opment: the case of Cyprus. Tourism Management, 17(7),
481e494.
Allen, L., Long, P., Perdue, R., & Kieselbach, S. (1988). The
impacts of tourism
development on residents’ perceptions of community life.
Journal of Travel
Research, 27(1), 16e21.

Amuquandoh, F. (2010). Lay concepts of tourism in Bosomtwe
Basin, Ghana. Annals
of Tourism Research, 37(1), 34e51.
Andereck, K., & Nyaupane, G. (2011). Exploring the nature of
tourism and quality of
life perceptions among residents. Journal of Travel Research,
50(3), 248e260.
Andereck, K., Valentine, K., Knopf, R.., & Vogt, C. (2005).
Residents’ perceptions of
community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research,
32(4), 1056e1076.
Andereck, K., Valentine, K., Vogt, C., & Knopf, R. (2007). A
cross-cultural analysis of
tourism and quality of life perceptions. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 15(5),
483e502.
Andriotis, K., & Vaughan. (2003). Urban residents’ attitudes
toward tourism
development: the case of Crete. Journal of Travel Research,
42(2), 172e185.
Ap, J. (1992). Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts.
Annals of Tourism Research,
19(4), 665e690.
Ap, J. (1990). Residents’ perceptions research on the social
impacts of tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 17(4), 610e616.
Ap, J., & Crompton, J. (1993). Residents’ strategies for
responding to tourism im-

pacts. Journal of Travel Research, 32(1), 47e50.
Aramberri, J. (2001). The host should get lost: paradigms in
tourism theory. Annals
Bastias- Perez, P., & Var, T. (1994). Perceived impacts of
tourism by residents. Annals
Belisle, F., & Hoy, D. (1980). The perceived impact of tourism
by residents: a case
study of Santa Marta, Colombia. Annals of Tourism Research,
7(1), 83e101.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of
reality: A treatise in the
sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin Books [1966].
Besculides, A., Lee, M., & McCormick, P. (2002). Residents’
perceptions of the cul-
tural benefits of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2),
303e319.
Bestard, B., & Nadal, R. (2007). Attitudes toward tourism and
tourism congestion.
Région et Développment, 25, 193e207.
Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the ‘value-action gap’ in
environmental policy: ten-
sions between national policy and local experience. Local
Environment: The
International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 4(3),
257e278.
Boissevain, J. (Ed.). (1996). Coping with tourists: European

reactions to mass tourism.
Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Brayley, R., & Var, T. (1989). Canadian perceptions of
tourism’s influences on eco-
nomic and social conditions. Annals of Tourism Research,
16(4), 578e582.
Brayley, Var, T., & Sheldon, P. (1980). Perceived influence of
tourism on social issues.
Annals O F Tourism Research, 17(2), 285e289.
Brougham, J., & Butler, R. (1981). A segmentation analysis of
resident attitudes to
the social impact of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(3),
569e589.
Brunt, P., & Courtney, P. (1999). Host perceptions of
sociocultural impacts. Annals of
Tourism Research, 26(3), 493e515.
Butler, R. (1980). The concept of a tourism area cycle of
evolution. Canadian
Geographer, 24(1), 5e12.
Canosa, A., Brown, G., & Bassan, H. (2001). Examining social
relations between
adolescent residents and tourists in an Italian coastal resort.
Journal of Tourism
Studies, 12(1), 50e59.
Carmichael, B. (2000). A matrix model for resident attitudes
and behaviours in a
rapidly changing tourist area. Tourism Management, 21(6),
601e611.
Choi, C., & Murray, I. (2010). Resident attitudes towards

sustainable community
tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(4), 575e594.
Dann, G., & Parrinello, G. (2009). Setting the scene. In G.
Dann, & G. Parrinello (Eds.),
The sociology of tourism: European origins and developments
(pp. 1e63). Bingley:
Emerald.
Davis, D., Allen, J., & Cosenza, R. (1988). Segmenting local
residents by their atti-
tudes, interests, and opinions toward tourism. Journal of Travel
Research, 27(2),
2e8.
Deery, M., Jago, L., & Fredline, L. (2012). Rethinking social
impacts of tourism
research: a new research agenda. Tourism Management, 33(1),
64e73.
de Kadt, E. (1979). Tourism: Passport to development? New
York: Oxford University
Press.
Dowling, R. (1992). Tourism and environmental integration: the
journey from
idealism to realism. In C. Cooper, & A. Lockwood (Eds.),
Progress in tourism, rec-
reation and hospitality management (Vol. IV; pp. 33e46).
London: Bellhaven Press.
Doxey, G. (1975). A causation theory of visitor-resident
irritants: methodology and
research inferences. In Proceedings of the sixth annual
conference of the travel
research association (pp. 195e198). San Diego, CA: Travel and

Tourism Research
Association.
Draper, J., Woosnam, K., & Norman, W. (2011). Tourism use
history: exploring a
framework for understanding residents’ attitudes toward
tourism. Journal of
Travel Research, 50(1), 64e77.
Easterling, D. (2004). The residents’ perspective in tourism
research: a review and
synthesis. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 17(4),
45e62.
Faulkner, B., & Tideswell, C. (1997). A framework for
monitoring community im-
pacts of tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(1), 3e28.
Fredline, E., & Faulkner, B. (2000). Host community reactions:
a cluster analysis.
Griffiths, I., & Sharpley, R. (2012). Influences of nationalism
on tourist-host re-
lationships. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(4), 2051e2072.
Gursoy, D., Chi, C., & Dyer, P. (2009). An examination of
locals’ attitudes. Annals of
Gursoy, D., & Jurowski, C. (2002). Resident attitudes in
relations to distance from
tourist attractions. Available on:
http://fama2.us.es:8080/turismo/turismonet1/
economia%20del%20turismo/turismo%20y%20ocio/RESIDENT
%20ATTITUDES%

20IN%20RELATIONS%20TO%20DISTANCE%20FROM%20T
OUSTIST%
20ATRACTIONS.PDF (accessed 20.06.13).
Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident
attitudes: a structural
modelling approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1),
79e105.
Gursoy, D., & Rutherford, D. (2004). Host attitudes toward
tourism: an improved
structural model. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 495e516.
Haralambopoulos, N., & Pizam, A. (1996). Perceived impacts of
tourism: the case of
Samos. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3), 503e526.
Harrill, R. (2004). Residents’ attitudes toward tourism
development: a literature
review with implications for tourism planning. Journal of
Planning Literature,
18(3), 251e266.
Hsu, C. (2000). residents’ support for legalized gaming and
perceived impacts of
riverboat casinos: changesinfiveyears. Journal of
TravelResearch, 38(4), 390e395.
Huh, C., & Vogt, C. (2008). Changes in residents’ attitudes
toward tourism over time:
a cohort analytical approach. Journal of Travel Research, 46(4),
446e455.
Hunziker, W., & Krapf, K. (1942). Grundriss der Allgemeinen
Fremdenverkehslehre.
Zurich: Polygraphischer Verlag.

Husbands, W. (1989). Social staus and perceptions of tourism in
Zambia. Annals of
Jackson, M., & Inbarakan, R. (2006). Evaluating residents’
attitudes and intentions to
act toward tourism development in regional Victoria, Australia.
International
Journal of Tourism Research, 8(5), 355e366.
Jenkins, C. (1991). Development strategies. In L. Likorish, A.
Jefferson, J. Bodlender, &
C. Jenkins (Eds.), Developing tourism destinations (pp.
59e118). London:
Longman.
Johnson, J., Snepenger, D., & Akis, S. (1994). Residents’
perceptions of tourism
development. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 629e642.
Jurowski, C., & Gursoy, D. (2004). Distance effects on
residents’ attitudes toward
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 296e312.
Keogh, B. (1990). Public participation in community tourism
planning. Annals of
Kim, K., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, J. (2013). How does tourism in a
community impact the
quality of life of community residents? Tourism Management,
36, 527e540.
King, B., Pizam, A., & Milman, A. (1993). Social impacts of
tourism: host perceptions.

Ko, D.-W., & Stewart, W. (2002). A structural equation model
ofresidents’ attitudes
for tourism development. Tourism Management, 23(5),
521e530.
Krippendorf, J. (1987). The holiday makers. Understanding the
impact of leisure and
travel. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann.
Kuvan, y., & Akan, P. (2005). Residents’ attitudes toward
general and forest-related
impacts of tourism: the case of Belek, Turkey. Tourism
Management, 26(5), 691e
706.
Lankford, S., & Howard, D. (1994). Developing a tourism
impact attitude scale.
Lawson, R., Williams, J., Young, T., & Cossens, J. (1998). A
comparison of residents’
attitudes towards tourism in 10 New Zealand destinations.
Tourism Manage-
ment, 19(3), 247e256.
Lee, C.-K., & Back, K.-J. (2006). Examining structural
relationships among perceived
impact, benefit and support for casino development based on 4
year longitu-
dinal data. Tourism Management, 27(3), 466e480.
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00190-8/sref1

PowerPoint Lecture Presentationto accompany Contem.docx

PowerPoint Lecture Presentationto accompany Contem.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to PowerPoint Lecture Presentationto accompany Contem.docx

Similar to PowerPoint Lecture Presentationto accompany Contem.docx (20)

More from harrisonhoward80223

More from harrisonhoward80223 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

PowerPoint Lecture Presentationto accompany Contem.docx