3.residents' perception

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, Italy

Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this paper is to analyse how the impacts of tourism are perceived by a local
population and which factors affect the relationship between impacts and perceptions’ formation, with
specific consideration of the framework in a mountain resort. For this purpose, the paper explores the
existing literature on issues related to host perceptions and attitudes and involves a primary data
collection in the mountain community of Folgaria in Northern Italy.
Design/methodology/approach – The number and quality of the questionnaires collected allowed
a quantitative analysis of the hosts’ perceptions and attitudes to be performed, and a cluster analysis
has demonstrated the existence of different groups within which members have common features and
similar perceptions and attitudes.
Findings – In general, this research work has revealed a recognition by the residents of the positive
economic impacts of tourism. Also, the social and cultural impacts are recognized to be positive, but at
a lower degree. In terms of the future tourism polices, the different groups identified in the cluster
analysis exert different positions.
Originality/value – The paper presents the first study of residents’ perceptions and attitudes
applied to a small mountain community.
Keywords Italy, Tourism, Rural areas, Attitude surveys, Individual perception
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Tourism, as a dynamic and exchange process, involves a direct and reciprocal
relationship between users and producers of the tourism product. This interaction
component, is usually the essential element which characterizes a tourism experience.
This can have both positive and negative consequences and therefore should be
carefully monitored in order to minimize the costs implied with the tourism process
(Sheldon and Abenoja, 2001). Positive and negative elements (referred in tourism
literature 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, 2011
The 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”. 1463-5771
The authors have all contributed equally to the paper. DOI 10.1108/14635771111137769

BIJ The aim of this paper is to analyse: how tourism impacts are perceived by the
18,3 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 local
360 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).

2.1 Residents’ attitudes towards tourism impacts Residents’
Past research on the social and cultural sphere conducted in previous decades, had a attitudes
tendency to examine the factors that are likely to influence and partly deviate the
perceptions of impacts, both taking into account the dependent variables (the elements towards tourism
that directly depend on tourism) and the independent variables (the factors that are
independent on tourism and may or may not exert a direct influence on the perceptual
patterns of residents). 361
Results of various studies show the following factors as determinants in tourism
perceptions:
.
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

BIJ benefits and costs of tourism tends to damage residents, the attitudes displayed
18,3 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 improves
362 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,

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 theories
concerning the socio-cultural impacts of tourism on residents and the factors affecting
their perceptions have been developed; some examples are the play theory, compensation
theory and conflict theory by Bystrzanowski (1989), attribution theory by Pearce (1989) or
dependency theory by Preister (1989), as cited in the works of Ap (1990, 1992): the major
problem underlying this wide range of models is related to the lack of comparability and
thus 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 of
resources 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 impacts
After isolating the factors which may influence the perceptions of residents and their
attitudes towards tourism, it is also important to understand how residents react

BIJ to tourism, and which strategies they develop in order to reduce the negative impacts
18,3 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 may
364 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

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 attitudes
trekking); availability of hospitality structures on the territory; cooperation with the
near municipalities. towards tourism
Limiting factors on the contrary, including the expansion of the economic sector in
the destination, are as follows: Folgaria is a small community (the total surface of the
destination accounts for 72 square kilometer; concerning demography, Folgaria is a 365
small town, with a total resident population of 3.142 inhabitants as reported by the
demographic office of Folgaria); geographical dispersion (the municipality comprises
altogether seven villages; this demographic and geographical conformation of the
territory, though, prevents the local population of benefiting from the advantages such
as economies of scale and the aggregation of resources and know-how); the composition
of society and overcrowding of local residents (the social structure is characterized by
small familiar nuclei composing two to four members mainly constituted of adult/elderly
people; many inhabitants tend to leave the municipality in favor of the urban
environment); fragmentation and limited integration in the supply of services and goods
for tourists (there is often a lack of collaboration between small and medium suppliers in
favor of individualism, that results in lower quality of the services put on the market and
a strong dispersion of the potential benefits of a cooperative behavior among tourism
actors); consistent traffic and congestion (tourism causes, especially during the
weekends, intense crowds and traffic problems, especially in the main centre of the
municipality); risk of closure of shops and other economic activities (the survival of
many economic activities is highly dependent on tourism and is at risk because the high
seasonality of the tourist destination does not allow a continuity in commercial and
economic operations during the whole year); under-utilization of infrastructure
(sport centres, hotels and ski slopes are not utilized at maximum rate); declining role of
traditional activities (usually the economic activities connected with the land – like the
agricultural or farming sectors – have almost disappeared, because the ground use
conflicts with other economic activities – like tourism – and lack of labour forces
available in these sectors; a separate case of analysis concerns the handicraft sector, that
still successfully survives, due to the interest displayed by tourists).

3.1 Data collection
A hand-delivered questionnaire was directed to a randomly selected sample among all
resident families of Folgaria. A total of 444 questionnaires were distributed among the
1,580 familiar nuclei (data of the end of 2008) equal to 29,44 percent of the entire
population. Altogether, 297 questionnaires were collected (giving us a response rate of
66.89 percent) for a total of 293 usable questionnaires. The questionnaire consisted of
56 questions, divided into four parts. The first section of the questionnaire included
29 statements, presented in order to identify the level of agreement or disagreement of
people with the different impacts caused by tourism (in particular economic,
environmental and socio-cultural impacts), with two final statements about the balance
between benefits and costs of tourism, both at local and regional level. The second
section, consisting of another eight statements, discussed the level of support or
opposition of residents in respect with possible future tourism development policies.
The third part of the questionnaire was composed of four statements, presented
in order to identify the impacts of tourism seasonality on the local population.

BIJ The last section included 11 questions about the socio-demographic profile of the person
18,3 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: a
366 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

Variables Mean value
Residents’
attitudes
Tourism attracts more economic investments and spendings 5.11 towards tourism
Higher standard of living because of tourism spendings 4.71
Tourism has caused price increases 5.16
Economic benefits of tourism to a small group of people 3.62
More employment opportunities are created for externals 3.20 367
Tourism economic benefits are greater than costs 4.86
Tourism creates an incentive for environmental conservation 2.98
Tourism increases public facilities’ standard 4.21
Tourism determines crowd and accessibility problems 3.83
Tourism causes congestion, traffic and noise 4.42
Hotels/tourism facilities have destroyed the environment 3.41
Tourism environmental benefits are greater than costs 3.45
Meeting tourists is a valuable experience 5.15
Tourism provides more services and facilities also for residents 5.04
Tourists exert an undesirable effect on locals’ habits 3.10
Tourism causes changes in local culture and traditions 3.50
Tourism leads to a decrease in the quality of life for locals 2.51
Daily interaction with tourists during the winter season 4.08
Daily interaction with tourists during the summer season 4.25
Contact with tourists as a positive experience 4.69
Tourists learn about locals’ culture 3.37
Residents learn about tourists’ culture 3.24
Tourism provides traditions and customs’ valorization 3.99
Tourism incentives the restoration of historical buildings 4.29
Tourism causes security and crime problems 2.68
Culture is presented in an authentical way 3.63
Tourism socio-cultural benefits are greater than costs 4.41
Tourism benefits are greater than costs at local level 3.99
Tourism benefits are greater than costs at regional level 4.05
Implementation of winter tourism and especially of ski slopes 3.11
Expansion of winter tourism increases tourism attractiveness 3.67
New environmental-oriented programmes 5.14
New cultural attractions 4.67
New tourism attractions and increase in tourism promotion 4.69
New big hotels 3.56
New small hotels with rural character 4.48
More services and commercial suppliers 4.12
Seasonality tourism policy 2.83
Tourists’decrease during main season to reduce presences 2.09 Table I.
Tourists’ increase during low season to augment presences 4.73 Residents’ perceptions
Tourists’ decrease during high/increase during low season 3.69 toward tourism

of 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 opportunity
to meet people (5.15). Furthermore, they also believe that tourism provides more services
and facilities to the local community (5.04). Finally, another aspect that residents agree
with, is the fact that tourism is an activity that contributes to the development of
new environmental-oriented programs (5.14) although they also support the idea
that tourism contributes only marginally to the conservation of environmental
assets (2.98).

BIJ 4.1 Cluster analysis
18,3 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 nested
368 ´
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, are
Table II. identified; as it can be clearly seen from the table, clusters with more than four groups display too low
Percentage of sample percentages of sample members within each cluster, so that the optimal combination resulted in
within each group choosing three groups

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 attitudes
level of variability within groups was found between clusters A and C, a medium level of
disparity was recognized between clusters B and C, while the lowest distance was found towards tourism
between 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 369
value referred to each cluster is presented (Appendix 1).
Cluster A. This group contains 26.9 percent of respondents. The members of this
cluster can be labelled as “protectionists”. They are the least convinced group that
tourism has increased the local standard of life (4) and believe most strongly that tourism
brings economic benefits only for a small group of people (4.68); this group believes that
tourism does not bring many economic benefits (4.23) and that employment
opportunities are offered mainly to externals rather than to locals (3.95); although
they recognize that tourism has lead to more investments in the destination (5.02), they
also negatively perceived the considerable increases in prices due to tourism (5.25). They
show a certain level of opposition towards the fact that tourism contributes to the
conservation of natural resources (1.82) and they do not recognize any evident
improvement in the quality of roads or services due to tourism (3.43); they perceive more
strongly than other locals the problems related to crowd, noise and traffic during the
tourism season (5.27) and not surprisingly, they also do not perceive higher benefits than
costs in the environmental dimension (2.42). Even if they consider the tourism encounter
as a positive experience (4.85) and despite recognizing tourism as an economic activity
leading to the construction of facilities in the destination (4.67), they perceive more
strongly than the other two groups the undesired effects of tourism on the habits of local
residents (3.92); they are also convinced that tourism has caused some changes in local
culture and traditions (4) and that residents partly suffer from a decrease in quality of life
because of tourism (3.12); in addition, they feel that tourists are not interested in learning
the local culture (2.33) and they do not display much interest in gaining knowledge
regarding the culture of visitors (2.68); these cluster members do not recognize tourism
as an incentive for the valorization of local culture (2.88) and they also have a higher
perception of crime and security problems due to tourism (3.22). They tend to disagree
that local culture is presented to tourists in an authentic way (2.93) and display the
lowest degree of support towards recognizing the benefits of tourism on the
socio-cultural sphere (3.23); as well, they think that the benefits of tourism at destination
level are particularly low (3.38). They also exert a certain level of opposition towards
winter tourism and ski slopes being developed in the future (2), because they do not
believe that it represents a valuable opportunity for Folgaria (2.58). These people would
support the development of new programs oriented towards natural preservation (5.53)
and cultural valorization (4.62). They strongly disagree with the construction of new
big hotels (2.23) while they are indifferent to an increase of commercial services (3.27).

Group A B C

A – 4.83 8.154
B 4.83 – 6.501 Table III.
C 8.154 6.501 – Intragroup variability

BIJ They seem to be confused about the development of an appropriate tourism
18,3 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 the
370 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

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 attitudes
and they are also the most supportive cluster recognizing that visitors are interested in
learning the culture of local people (4) and that residents do learn as well during the towards tourism
tourism exchange process (3.83); they also think that tourism creates an incentive for the
maintenance of local traditions and costumes (4.7), as well as for the restoration of
historical buildings (5.12), therefore recognizing the benefits of tourism on the 371
socio-cultural sphere more than previous groups (5.23). They both recognize very high
tourism benefits at local (4.68) and regional level (4.76) and are neutral towards the
possibility to increase winter tourism (3.68), even if they tend to be positive with the
consideration that the expansion of existing ski slopes is a very good opportunity to
augment local attractiveness (4.28). These members are favorable to the increase in
tourist numbers and of tourism promotion (5.4) and are strongly in contrast with clusters
A and B for what concerns the construction of new hotels of high accommodation
capacity (4.64); they desire an increase in services and commercial activities on the
territory (5.05) regarding seasonality, they do not favor the maintenance of the actual
two-seasons-policy (2.42) they are positive towards a de-seasoning of tourism (5.45). The
members of this cluster differentiate, under a demographic profile, since they tend to be
males and have a higher family income than the members of clusters A and B and in the
majority of cases, they also result in being employed in the tourism industry, which is
different from the members of previous groups.
According to the most significant variables identified, some figures were produced in
order to underline the different position assumed by the different cluster groups in
respect to specific variables, as showed below. Figure 1 shows that cluster C is more
subject to the perception of 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. Figure 2 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

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

BIJ 6
18,3 5.5
C

Increase in life standard
5

4.5
372 B
4 A

3.5

Figure 2. 3
Increase in investments 4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
and 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

3.5
Figure 3. 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6
Increase in price and
Increase in price
economic rentability

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 policy

Note that in each figure, clusters A and B are in a closer position, indicating that these
groups are similar and that can be clearly differentiated from cluster C. This is
consistent with the intragroup variability of the different cluster groups identified in
Table III.

5. Conclusions
From a general perspective, the results of the study show that the host population
considers that tourism brings to the destination much more advantages than
disadvantages. The findings reflect both the overall opinions of the sample population
and the perceptions of three relatively homogeneous opinion groups of residents, however
these findings suggest that successful sustainable tourism developers need to consider
different resident segments before they start investing resources. The results indicate
that three segments (protectionists, ambivalent and cautious and tourism supporters) are
likely to influence the local community’s support for a tourism project. The findings
also suggest that the local people may be willing to enter the exchange process if they
believe that the project is for the benefit of their community. Consequently, identification
of local residents who feel community projects should be in line with community
aspirations 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 can
be identified between the clusters in this study and those identified by others. For
example, clusters A and B can be associated, respectively, with the protectionists and
´
the development supporters identified by Aguilo and Nadal (2005) and those that agree
and disagree with Fredline and Faulkner (2000), Davis et al. (1988) and Madrigal (1995).
Concerning cluster A (named in our case “protectionists”) some parallels and some
differences could be identified with the “protectionists” of the Balearic Islands: for
example in both study works, these members are quite reluctant to recognize the
benefits of tourism and are the respondents that mostly exerted some opposition
towards the implementation of new hotels in the destination; in addition, respondents
tend to display, in both cases, a certain level of concern towards the negative effects of
tourism on the environment; residents of Folgaria tend to be concerned also with the
negative impacts on the socio-cultural dimension, especially regarding the perception
of negative influences on local tradition and culture and, in general, they recognize

BIJ no benefits from the tourism industry on the various dimensions analysed; the only
18,3 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

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 attitudes
homogeneity in tourism presence.
Therefore, we can conclude that the development of a cluster analysis aimed at towards tourism
segmenting locals by their attitudes and perceptions towards specific dimensions,
results in being a useful tool for planning future management policies at local level: in the
case of our specific research work, some implications should be taken into account in 375
order to develop a form of responsive tourism and community involvement in planning
the tourism sector. For example, a careful approach should be adopted by local tourism
management towards the development of projects oriented towards the increase in
tourism arrivals or towards the environmental dimension, since “protectionists” are
particularly concerned with the impacts of tourism: therefore, understanding the cause
of specific opposition exerted by this cluster group, results in a powerful tool to
implement some interventions aimed at eliminating or reducing the sense of threat
represented by the tourism dimension. Also, distinguishing among the positive and
negative perceptions of “ambivalent and cautious” cluster, could help tourism managers
to focus on the most problematic areas related to tourism development and also to
concentrate their efforts, creating a positive image towards tourism, calming the
scepticism of this group. However, since the majority of respondents have been
classified as being part of the “tourism supporters”, the positive perception of tourism
impacts seem to prevail among residents and this could be useful for the development of
insights into how to enhance positive aspects of the project, with marketing programs
both inside and outside the host community.
Despite the recognition of the benefits of tourism, some problems need, however to
be further addressed. First of all, the problems of tourism on the environmental sphere
should be solved, for example, in creating more nature-friendly programs and in
involving directly the local community within the framework of public discussions.
In establishing the roles the public and private sectors play in the context of
sustainable tourism planning and development, the findings suggests that there is a
need for a more cohesive interaction amongst implementing stakeholders, in the
consideration of sustainable development. For better validation of the findings and its
linkage to sustainability, key issues include the need for responsible planning and
management, where a balance must be found between limits and usage so that any
change can be monitored. This requires long-term management and a recognition that
change is often cumulative, gradual and irreversible. Hence, in order to address the
sustainability of tourism, the economic, social and environmental aspects of
sustainable development must include the collective interests of all stakeholders.
The public sector must participate in the education and preparation of stakeholders in
using data, exercising judgment, evaluating risks and solving the concerns of all
parties concerned in the practice of environmental management.
A second step to address tourism aversion is to collect more information about the
attitude of local residents towards the possibility to implement winter tourism, using
again the instrument of public discussions or workshops with experts. The
implementation of more integration and more acceptance towards visitors, should be
achieved especially by developing some programs aimed at incrementing the cultural
exchange between tourists and residents (through public events, for example). Finally,
the effort of tourism managers should be oriented towards the implementation

BIJ of a tourism policy with a focus on incremental tourism presence during off-seasons
18,3 (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 in
376 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.

Dogan, H. (1989), “Forms of adjustment: socio-cultural impacts of tourism”, Annals of Tourism Residents’
Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 216-36.
attitudes
Dyer, 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. 377
Emerson, 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
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”,
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
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
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.

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”,
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

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
attitudes
value. towards tourism

379
Variables Cluster A Cluster B Cluster C Mean

Tourism has brought more economic investments 5.02 4.94 5.36 5.11
Tourism has increased locals’ life standard 4 4.29 5.29 4.71
Tourism has caused price increases 5.25 4.81 5.43 5.16
Economic benefits of tourism to a small group of people 4.68 3.25 3.32 3.62
More employment opportunities were offered to externals 3.95 2.92 2.87 3.2
Tourism economic benefits are greater than costs 4.23 4.38 5.34 4.86
Tourism has supported environmental conservation 1.82 2.4 3.86 2.98
Tourism has increased public services’ standards 3.43 3.6 4.89 4.21
Tourism has determined crowd problems 4.6 3.62 3.53 3.83
Tourism has caused congestion, traffic and noise 5.27 3.81 4.2 4.42
Hotels/tourism facilities have destroyed the environment 4.63 3.54 2.8 3.41
Tourism environmental benefits are greater than costs 2.42 3.04 4.1 3.45
Meeting tourists is a valuable experience 4.85 4.62 5.66 5.15
Tourism has brought more services and facilities for
residents 4.67 4.35 5.59 5.04
Tourists exert an undesirable effect on locals’ habits 3.92 2.67 2.71 3.1
Tourism causes changes in local culture and traditions 4 2.69 3.36 3.5
Tourism has caused a decrease in quality of life for locals 3.12 2.33 2.25 2.51
Daily interaction with tourists during the winter season 3.62 3.56 4.67 4.08
Daily interaction with tourists during the summer season 3.88 3.94 4.73 4.25
Contact with tourists as a positive experience 4 4.27 5.23 4.69
Tourists learn about locals’ culture 2.33 3.17 4 3.37
Residents learn about tourists’ culture 2.68 2.58 3.83 3.24
Tourism incentives traditions and costumes’ valorization 2.88 3.73 4.7 3.99
Tourism incentives the restoration of historical buildings 3.78 3.38 5.12 4.29
Tourism causes security and crime problems 3.22 2.31 2.48 2.68
Culture is presented in an authentical way 2.93 3.73 3.95 3.63
Tourism socio-cultural benefits are greater than costs 3.23 3.94 5.23 4.41
Tourism benefits are greater than costs at local level 3.38 3.46 4.68 3.99
Tourism benefits are greater than costs at regional level 3.62 3.33 4.76 4.05
Implementation of winter tourism and especially of ski
slopes 2 3.12 3.68 3.11
Expansion of winter tourism to increase tourism
attractiveness 2.58 3.62 4.28 3.67
New environmental-oriented programmes 5.53 4.1 5.43 5.14
New cultural attractions 4.62 3.94 5.04 4.67
New tourism attractions and increase in tourism promotion 4.37 3.94 5.4 4.69
New big hotels 2.23 2.87 4.64 3.56
New small hotels with rural character 4.12 3.94 5.11 4.48
More services and commercial suppliers 3.27 3.35 5.05 4.12
Seasonality tourism policy 3.32 2.88 2.42 2.83
Tourists’decrease during main season to reduce presences 2.62 2.08 1.72 2.09
Tourists’ increase during low season to augment presences 4.23 3.88 5.45 4.73
Tourists’ decrease during high/increase during low season 3.98 3.04 3.74 3.69 Table AI.

BIJ Appendix 2
18,3

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 = total
380 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)
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
the environment more positive than negative effects
Next statements refer, in detail, to the socio-cultural impacts of tourism (1 = total
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.

Residents’
courts, ski slopes...) for local people attitudes
15. Tourists exert an undesirable effect on the way on locals towards tourism
habits
16. Tourism causes changes in the traditions and culture of
the community
17. Residents suffer from a lower quality of life as a result 381
of tourist presences
18. During the winter season, I daily talk to tourists

19. During the summer season, I daily talk to tourists
20. Contact with tourists results in being a positive
experience
21. Tourists are interested in learning the culture of
Folgaria
22. During the interaction with tourists I learn about their
culture
23. Tourism provides an incentive for the valorisation of
the local traditions and customs
24. Tourism provides an incentive for the restoration of
historical buildings
25. Tourism causes security and crime problems

26. Culture is presented to tourists in an authentical way
local society and culture, more positive than negative
effects
The following statements are about the benefits and costs (disadvantages) of tourism, both
perceived on a local and on a more extended, regional basis
1 2 3 4 5 6
28. Overall, the benefits of tourism are greater than the costs
for the local population
29. Overall, the benefits of tourism are greater than the costs,
at regional level
Following statements refer to possible future development policies in Folgaria. Please read
each proposal carefully and show your level of SUPPORT or OPPOSITION (1 = total
opposition and 6 = total support)
1 2 3 4 5 6
30. 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.

BIJ
18,3 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

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.

Residents’
attitudes
44. 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 presence
At the end, some questions about your personal profile are presented, in order to better match
383
socio-demographic characteristics with your previous answers; remember that this enquiry is
completely anonimous and that your personal data are just used for objectives related to the
research work

45. Age 46. Sex
Man Woman

47. Including yourself, how many people do belong to your family

48. How many of your family members are under 18 years old?
49. Wherewereyou born?
Place (and province) country
50. Where are you living at the moment?
Place/village Municipality

51. 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 100.000
54. 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 increases

56. What is your education level?
no formal education elementary school middle school high school
bachelor degree master´s degree doctorate other

Thank you very much for the collaboration and for the time spent for this questionnaire.
Date of the fullfilment of the questionnaire
Date of recollection of the questionnaire

Figure A2.

BIJ
18,3

384

Table AIII.
Multiple comparisons
Bonferroni
Cluster number Cluster number Mean 95% conﬁdence
Dependent variable of case (I) of case ( J) difference (I-J) Std error Sig. interval
Appendix 3

Lower bound Upper bound
Inc_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 1.04
Econ_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 1.42
Inc_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 0.80
Inc_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 1.44
Benef_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

Bonferroni
Cluster number Cluster number Mean 95% conﬁdence
Dependent variable of case (I) of case ( J) difference (I-J) Std error Sig. interval

New_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 2.37
Seasonality 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

3.residents' perception

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to 3.residents' perception

More from libfsb

3.residents' perception