Int. J. Tourism Policy, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2010.docx

Int. J. Tourism Policy, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2010 125
Copyright © 2010 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism
development: Frankenwald Nature Park, Germany
Ch’aska Huayhuaca
Human Dimensions of Natural Resources,
Colorado State University,
250 Moore St. #110,
Brooklyn, NY 11206, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
Stuart Cottrell* and Jana Raadik

Human Dimensions of Natural Resources,
Colorado State University,
1480 Campus Delivery,
Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
*Corresponding author
Sabine Gradl
2428 W. Coronado Ave.,
Flagstaff, Arizona 86001, USA
Abstract: This paper examined the relationship between four
dimensions
of sustainability and perceptions of tourism development held
by residents
of communities in and around Frankenwald Nature Park (FNP)
in central
Germany (n = 306). Building on a previous study (Shen and
Cottrell, 2008),
it was hypothesised that ratings for the ecological, economic,
institutional
and socio-cultural dimensions of sustainability would contribute
to resident
satisfaction. Final dimensional indices consisted of 5–9 survey
items with
reliability coefficients ranging from 0.63 to 0.87. Regression
analyses revealed
all four dimensions of sustainability as significant predictors of
resident
satisfaction with tourism to FNP. The theoretical and applied
implications
of these findings for understanding tourism sustainability are
discussed.
Keywords: sustainable tourism; PoS; prism of sustainability;

dimensions of
sustainability; indicators.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Huayhuaca,
C., Cottrell, S.,
Raadik, J. and Gradl, S. (2010) ‘Resident perceptions of
sustainable tourism
development: Frankenwald Nature Park, Germany’, Int. J.
Tourism Policy,
Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.125–141.
126 C. Huayhuaca et al.
Biographical notes: Ch’aska Huayhuaca received her Master of
Science

in Human Dimensions of Natural Resources at Colorado State
University and
her BS from Cornell University. Her research interests include
sustainable
agriculture and agroforestry, protected area management and
environmental
behaviour.
Stuart P. Cottrell is an Associate Professor in the Department of
Human
Dimensions of Natural Resources at Colorado State University,
USA.
He received his BA from Western Illinois University, MA from
Florida
International University, and his PhD from the Pennsylvania
State University.
His areas of research include sustainable tourism development,
ecotourism,
and environmental behaviour.
Jana Raadik is a PhD candidate in the Department of Human
Dimensions
of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, USA. She
received her
Master of Science in Leisure, Tourism and Environment from
Wageningen
University, The Netherlands. Her research interests are place
identity, sense of
place, and sustainable tourism development.
Sabine Gradl received her Diploma in Leisure Sciences from the
University of
Applied Sciences, Bremen, Germany. She conducted this study
for her Senior
Thesis in 2007.

1 Introduction
As in many parts of the world, the tourism development
paradigm in Europe is shifting
to sustainable tourism to meet priorities adopted at the ‘Earth
Summit’, 5th Action Plan
for the European Union, World Charter for Sustainable Tourism
and the 4th World Park
Congress (Muñoz Flores, 2005). The European Commission on
the Environment defines
sustainable tourism development as a process to maintain a
balance between “the needs
of the visitor, the environment and the host community for
current as well as future
generations” (Sustainable Tourism and Natura, 1999, p.4).
Sustainability as a concept
typically refers to the environmental, social or socio-cultural
and economic impacts
created by the development in question (Eden et al., 2000;
Valentin and Spangenberg,
2000). The extent to which members of a community have input,
leverage and participate
in the development of their own tourism industry can determine
to a large extent the
direction and degree of the aforementioned impacts (Cottrell et
al., 2007; Choi and
Sirakaya, 2005). This paper examines the context of
sustainability for local communities
by investigating the relationship between four dimensions of
sustainability and
perceptions of tourism development held by residents of
communities located near a
nature park in central Germany.
1.1 Sustainable tourism development

In 1987 Brundtland defined sustainable development as “…
development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their
own needs” (p.43). With human societies moving into the 21st
century, sustainability and
sustainable development have become increasingly important,
and the concept of
sustainable development has been widely used as an organising
framework in political
Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism development 127
agendas (Dymond, 1997). The word ‘Sustainable
(sustainability)’ became a buzzword,
obviously hotly debated, and part of a dominant discourse

relating to environmental
security and ‘balanced’ development (Becker and Jahn, 1999).
In fact, sustainable
development is a dynamic concept and process of which
people’s understanding changes
in tandem with societal development. In its initial phase, people
concentrated more on
environmental and economic issues. With time, increasing
numbers of researchers
recognised that equality, justice, poverty alleviation, and local
community empowerment
(institutional context) should be the core of sustainable
development (Ahn et al., 2002;
Dymond, 1997; Khanna et al., 1999; McCool et al., 2001).
The concept of sustainable tourism development began to be
discussed with different
terminology in the 1970s, with ‘new tourism’, ‘Destination Life
Cycle Model’ and
‘carrying capacity’ as examples (Hardy et al., 2002). Initially,
the concept of sustainable
tourism remained at a theoretical level, and did not come into
practice until the late 1980s
with the rapid spread of the concept of sustainable development
launched by the
Brundtland report in 1987. However, tourism was given little
attention in its role for
sustainable development at the Rio Earth Summit. Only
ecotourism as a method to
enhance sustainable forestry was referred to in Chapter 11 of
Agenda 21, and
governments were recommended to promote ecotourism (Hardy
et al., 2002). In response
to this, the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), the
World Tourism Organisation
and the Earth Council together launched Agenda 21 for the

Travel and Tourism Industry
in 1996. This was the first step to achieve a balance between
sustainable development
and economic growth for travel and tourism. It was the only
industry-specific adaptation
of Agenda 21 (WTTC, 2002).
The tourism sector, as with many others, has also witnessed the
proliferation of the
applications of the concept of sustainability. Correspondingly,
various definitions, views
and forms of sustainable tourism have been identified as the
ideal form of what is needed
(for examples see Hardy et al., 2002; Mowforth and Munt,
2003; Sharpley, 2000;
Swarbrooke, 1999). As a specialised tourism organisation, the
World Tourism
Organisation (UNWTO) set forth the concept of sustainable
tourism. Sustainable tourism
should make optimal use of environmental resources, respect
the socio-cultural
authenticity of host communities, and provide socio-economic
benefits to all stakeholders
(UNWTO, 2004). For the purpose of sustainable development,
sustainable tourism calls
for the informed participation of all relevant stakeholders, as
well as strong political
leadership. UNWTO also recognised that achieving sustainable
tourism is a continuous
process and it requires constant monitoring of impacts.
Sustainable tourism should also
maintain a high level of tourist satisfaction (UNWTO, 2004).
These definitions originated from the general concepts and
issues surrounding
sustainable development as discussed earlier. Tourism is only

part of the concept of
sustainable development; thus tourism development should seek
to ensure that
nature, scale, location, and manner of development are
appropriate and sustainable over
time, and that the environment’s abilities to support other
activities and processes
are not impaired, since tourism cannot be isolated from other
resource-use activities
(Gunn, 1994). The attempt to control elements of tourism
production and consumption to
keep tourism sustainable has led to the adoption of alternative
tourism forms that
purportedly adhere to the ethics of responsible and reflexive
operations. Various
examples that have resulted include green tourism, farm
tourism, adventure tourism, rural
tourism, and ecotourism (Mowforth and Munt, 2003); these new
forms of tourism are
believed to help sustain the tourism industry.

Similar to the evolution of sustainability, sustainable tourism
development also
experienced a change from the emphasis on governments and
enterprises to local
communities; from concentration on economic growth and
environmental conservation to
poverty alleviation and local resident empowerment (Fallon and
Kriwoken, 2003;
Hardy et al., 2002; Mitchell and Reid, 2001; Sofield, 2003).
Like the term from which
it is derived, sustainable tourism is a dynamic concept, though
capturing the essence
of sustainable tourism development and assessing its
sustainability are major challenges.
1.2 Prism of Sustainability and sustainability indicators
Traditionally, the sustainable tourism development paradigm
includes the three
dimensions of economic, socio-cultural, and environmental
(Dijks, 1995; Spangenberg
2002). However, achieving a balance among these three classic
dimensions of sustainable
tourism is difficult to realise without an institutional
perspective to manage, mediate and
facilitate growth (Eden et al., 2000; Spangenberg, 2002;
Spangenberg and Valentin,
1999). The PoS (Figure 1) theorised by Spangenberg combined
these four dimensions
into a single framework with clearly defined links among the

dimensions
(Spangenberg and Valentin, 1999).
Figure 1 Prism of Sustainability
Source: Adapted by Cottrell et al. (2007) from Spangenberg
and Valentin (1999)
According to the PoS model, the economic imperative means
that an economy should
satisfy human needs for material welfare and support
employment and livelihoods in a
competitive and stable framework at the macro-economic scale.
The environmental

imperative calls for reducing the pressure on the physical
environment. An economic
system is environmentally sustainable only as long as the
amount of resources utilised to
generate welfare is permanently restricted to within ecological
system limits. The social
imperative considers that all individuals have access to the
resources and facilities they
need to live a healthy and dignified life. Societal interaction
and associated social norms
are necessary preconditions for economic activities. The fourth
institutional imperative
emphasises participatory decision-making processes such as
public participation and
involvement. The PoS model provides a relatively holistic
framework to think,
understand, and analyse tourism sustainability (Spangenberg
and Valentin, 1999).
In order to operationalise sustainability in practice, some tools
of sustainability, for
example “Area protection”, “Industry Regulation”, “Visitor
Management Techniques”,
“Environmental Impact Assessment”, “Carrying Capacity
Calculations”, and
“Sustainability Indicators”, were adopted by many researchers,
practitioners, and
developers to assess or measure various aspects of sustainability
(Mowforth and Munt,
2003). Among these tools the use of sustainability indicators
has been seen as
necessary to put the concept of sustainability into place and has
been introduced to the
policy-monitoring arena (Kammerbauer et al., 2001). In Agenda

21, one special task is a
call for the harmonisation of efforts to develop sustainable
development indicators at the
national, regional and global levels. In response to this call, the
Commission on
Sustainable Development (CSD) launched the program of work
on indicators of
sustainable development in 1995. Five years later, highly
aggregated indicators were
completed and applied in many countries. But these indicators
are mostly at the regional,
national and global levels; indicators at the local level are
seldom developed or used to
measure progress toward sustainable development in poor rural
areas.
In relation to the tourism industry, indicator approaches can
also make a useful
contribution to sustainable tourism decision-making. However,
according to
Twining-Ward and Butler (2002), research on sustainable
tourism indicators is still in its
initial stages and practical case studies are hard to find. In order
to develop a set of
internationally acceptable sustainable tourism indicators to
assist tourism managers in
their decision-making processes, the most significant attempt to
date, has been
undertaken by the World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO)
through its Environment Task
Force. Eleven core indicators were identified to compare
tourism’s sustainability between
destinations (see Twining-Ward and Butler, 2002).
Although the work of the UNWTO provides a useful starting
point, as Twining-Ward

and Butler (2002) note, it failed to justify the choice of
indicators and lacked clear
stakeholder participation as it did not present an appropriate
monitoring framework to
help translate indicator information into appropriate
management action. As a response,
subsequent researchers did much valuable work to develop
sustainable tourism indicators
at the national, regional and local levels (Miller and Twining-
Ward, 2005; Sirakaya et al.,
2001). Valentin and Spangenberg (2002) emphasised the
importance of local community
during the creation of sustainable indicators, and proposed a
framework to develop
sustainable indicators at the local level. Yuan et al. (2003)
practiced the process of
sustainability indicator development by communities with a
case study of Chongming
County, Shanghai, China. Miller (2001) used a Delphi Survey to
develop indicators to
measure the sustainability of tourism products at a company or
resort. Hughes (2002),
Innes and Booher (2000) and Dymond (1997) all worked on
development and
operationalisation of sustainable tourism indicators from
various perspectives.
With tourism development, more and more researchers have
been cognisant of the

importance of community involvement in tourism development
(Getz and Timur, 2005;
Tosun, 2000; Tosun and Timothy, 2003). Much research, like
impact research, has been
undertaken to obtain community perception of tourism
development, and these research
results were expected to be integrated into tourism planning,
management and monitoring
so as to achieve the purpose of sustainability (for example
Kaae, 2001; Mbaiwa, 2003;
Pagdin, 1995; Payne et al., 2001; Richards and Hall, 2000; Shen
and Cottrell, 2008;
Walpole and Goodwin, 2000). Although there is rich literature
on measuring tourism
sustainability and impacts on the local community, research
related to measuring
tourism sustainability via sustainability indicators from a
community perspective are rare
with a few studies appearing more recently (Byrd, 2007; Byrd et
al., 2008; Cottrell and
Raadik, 2008; Shen and Cottrell, 2008; Tosun and Timothy,
2003).

A prevalent area of research in sustainable tourism is concerned
with the development
of sustainability indicators, or ways of measuring change and
progression toward goal
attainment over time (Choi and Sirakaya, 2005; Cottrell et al.,
2004; Cottrell and Vaske,
2006; Dymond, 1997; Innes and Booher, 2000; Manning, 1999;
McCool et al., 2001;
Miller, 2001; Miller and Twining-Ward, 2005; Sirakaya et al.,
2001). Since communities
are diverse in terms of needs and expectations of tourism,
sustainable tourism indicators
should be selected based on the specific situations of the
communities in question
(van den Berg et al., 2004; Johnston and Tyrrell, 2005; McCool
et al., 2001;
Shen and Cottrell, 2008; Spangenberg, 2002; Valentin and
Spangenberg, 2000) and not
enforced as a universal set of items across settings; yet some
form of consistency for
sustainable tourism development is necessary which implies the
need for a sustainability
framework (Faulkner and Tideswell, 1997; Miller and Twining-
Ward, 2005; Sautter and
Leisen, 1999).
The ‘PoS’ (Figure 1), provides a framework consisting of four
dimensions
through which it is possible to organise indicators of
sustainability (Spangenberg and
Valentin, 1999; Valentin and Spangenberg, 2000). It employs
the ‘people/profit/planet’
fundamentals as refractive indices, yet includes an institutional
perspective as a focal
dimension. The socio-cultural dimension contains indicators of

social welfare and
dignity, social inclusion and minimum standards of human
rights. The economic
dimension considers the robustness of the business and
employment climate, and the
ecological dimension is comprised of perceived environmental
quality indicators.
The fourth dimension, the institutional imperative, scrutinises
the degree and
effectiveness of people’s participation in decision making
processes, the input and
leverage factor described above. As Spangenberg (2002) notes,
indicators for institutional
sustainability are still largely lacking although the institutional
dimension of sustainable
development had been introduced as early as 1995 by the CSD.
According to the PoS,
the institutional dimension should reflect a strengthening of
people’s participation in
political governance. Mitchell and Reid (2001) applied
“Involvement in tourism
management”, ‘Solidarity’ and “Democratic and equitable
access to power” to measure
community participation, which set a basis to develop
institutional indicators. Combined
with the ‘Future plan’ which originated from the core indicators
suggested by the
UNWTO (Dymond, 1997), four institutional sustainability
indicators, accordingly, are
also constructed. These indicators will be employed to
implement tourism sustainability
measurement with pertinent questions. Because the tourism
industry permeates and
affects communities on multiple levels (Byrd, 2007; Byrd and
Gustke, 2007),
viewing impacts of tourism through such a prism should allow

for a more holistic
interpretation of local realities of tourism yet comparable across
locations for monitoring
and policy development purposes (Cottrell and Cutumisu, 2006;
Eden et al., 2000;
Valentin and Spangenberg, 2000). This paper employs this
framework as a means to
examine resident perceptions of tourism development at a nature
park in Germany.
This approach (common structure, different indicators) allows
for community
comparisons without ignoring their specific needs and
situations. If the four dimensions
of sustainable tourism (ecological, economic, socio-cultural,

institutional)
are generalisable as suggested by prior research (van den Berg
et al., 2004;
Spangenberg, 2002; Spangenberg and Valentin, 1999), all four
predictors should
influence local residents’ satisfaction with tourism in a variety
of settings whether it be a
national park in Poland or a nature park in Germany.
2 Study purpose
This paper examined the relationship between four dimensions
of sustainability and
perceptions of tourism development held by residents of
communities in and around
FNP in central Germany (n = 306). The purpose was twofold:
first, to provide an
opportunity to further operationalise the PoS and further test its
application building on
the work of Shen and Cottrell (2008) and Cottrell and Vaske
(2006). Secondly, the study
examined the influence of the four sustainability dimensions on
resident satisfaction
with tourism development with a better measure of satisfaction
with tourism.
More specifically, the core question explored was:
Is there a relationship between the four dimensions of
sustainable tourism
(economic, socio-cultural, ecological, and institutional) and
resident
satisfaction with tourism development?
The PoS provided the framework for examining respondent
beliefs about the dimensions
of sustainability (van den Berg et al., 2004; Shen and Cottrell,

2008).
3 Study setting
3.1 Naturpark Frankenwald, Germany
Located in Northern (Figure 2), Frankenwald has held Nature
Park status since 1973 and
adopted the European Charter for Sustainability in 1998. The
park encompasses 102,250
ha and three districts (Hof, Kronach and Kulmbach). Its
classification as a Nature Park
defines it as a cultural landscape, a landscape whose aesthetic
appeal is in part the result
of human interaction with nature over centuries (IUCN and
EUROPARC Federation,
2000). The emphasis of protection in such an area is on cultural
heritage and tradition,
historical sites and folklore, rather than on pristine wilderness
or ecosystem
services. In 2001, Frankenwald (FNP) was awarded European
Charter Park status.
The European Charter for Sustainable Tourism in Protected
Areas is a partnership
strategy or tool for protected areas and stakeholders in tourism
to that area that was
initiated in 1995 by the EUROPARC Federation. The Charter
certifies parks based on
several requirements, including the establishment of a
permanent forum for park
authorities, local municipalities, businesses and other
stakeholders for consultation and

elaboration of decision-making strategies. Certification is
independent of park size and
conservation status (Gradl, 2007).
Figure 2 Location of Frankenwald Nature Park in Central
Germany (see online version
for colours)
4 Methods
4.1 Data collection
Data were obtained during November of 2006 from 11 villages
in three districts in the
Naturpark Frankenwald area (Naila, Bad Steben and
Geroldsgrün in the district
of Hof (36%; n = 110); Ludwigsstadt, Nordhalben, Steinbach

am Wald, Steinwiesen,
Marktrodach and Wallenfels in the district of Kronach (50%; n
= 153); and Wirsberg and
Stadtsteinach in the district of Kulmbach (14%; n = 43)).
Representative, purposeful
sampling, stratified by age (18 >), was used to select recipients
for household surveys in
each village. Of the total population of all villages (N =
35,297), the total sample was
306 (Gradl, 2007). Sampling was purposeful largely due to
budget constraints, thus
caution should be exercised in generalising to a broader
population.
4.2 Instrument
The survey was adapted from previous studies developed for the
European Protected
Area Network (PAN Parks, 2007) to test the PoS (Cottrell and
Raadik, 2008). Drawn
from previous research (Cottrell et al., 2004; Dymond, 1997;
Mitchell and Reid, 2001;
Sirakaya et al., 2001), 8–10 survey items (economic,
institutional, ecological and
socio-cultural statements) were used to measure each dimension
of sustainability
(independent variables) on a 7 point Likert agreement scale
(strongly disagree to strongly
agree with a 4 as a neutral point) (Table 1).

Table 1 Scale items for dimensions of sustainable tourism
(Frankenwald and CBNP)
Frankenwald NP1 (n = 306)
Dimensions of sustainable tourism α Mean
Institutional dimension 0.828 4.43
Community residents have an opportunity to be involved
in tourism decision making
3.97
There is good communication among individuals involved
in policy and decision making process
4.18
Entrepreneurship in tourism is encouraged by local government
4.57
I can access the decision-making process to influence tourism

development in the park area.
3.63
Tourism facilities are developed in cooperation with local
businesses in the region
4.68
Tourism services are developed in cooperation with local
businesses in the region
4.54
Tour guides at the park are well trained 4.83
There is sufficient information available about conservation
efforts in the park
4.62
The information distributed by the park accurately reflects
the history of the park
4.84
Ecological dimension 0.632 5.14
As a result of tourism, residents’ awareness of environmental
protection has improved. 4.66
Tourism in the park is developed in harmony with the natural
(and cultural) environment 4.93
Tourism activity to the park is directed into areas with suitable
facilities 4.58
The diversity of nature in the park must be protected 6.34
Good examples of environmental protection are shown
at the park 5.19
Economic dimension 0.869 4.99

Tourism brings new income to local communities 5.79
Tourism diversifies the local economy 5.04
Tourism creates job opportunities for local people 5.14
Tourism creates new markets for our local products 4.68
Tourism is a strong economic contributor to the community
4.32
Socio-cultural dimension 0.862 4.68
There are more educational opportunities for locals due
to tourism
3.38
More people visit here because of the park 5.08
Tourism to the park positively influences cultural values
of the area
5.00
Local traditions became more important because of tourism
4.40
Tourism created more jobs for women 4.58

Table 1 Scale items for dimensions of sustainable tourism
(Frankenwald and CBNP)
(continued)
Dimensions of sustainable tourism α Mean
Socio-cultural dimension 0.862 4.68
Visitors to the park are encouraged to learn about local cultures
4.97
Park operators consider the concerns of local people in their
management decisions 3.94
Tourism supports maintenance of local museums 5.54
Tourism promotes restoration of historical sites 5.18
Items measured on 7 point Likert agreement scale.
1Dimensional scale means in bold.
α Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability.
Perceived overall satisfaction (dependent variable) was
operationalised as the average of
4-items by asking respondents their satisfaction with various
aspects of tourism in their
area (Table 2). These items, drawn from previous studies to test
the PoS framework
(Cottrell and Vaske, 2006; Cottrell et al., 2007; Shen and
Cottrell, 2008), were adapted as
specific satisfaction measures.
Table 2 Scale items for satisfaction index

Satisfaction with tourism items α Mean
0.746 4.42
Tourism in the area of the park benefits me 3.48
It is important to me to have sustainable tourism in this region
5.58
For me, the attractiveness of the area has been improved
because
of tourism
4.81
My quality of life has improved because of tourism to the park
3.79
Items measured on 7 point Likert agreement scale.
1Dimensional scale means in bold.
αCronbach’s Alpha Reliability.
4.3 Analysis
Reliability analyses were run to test the internal consistency of
items measuring each
of the dimensions of sustainability, as well as the satisfaction
items for FNP. Indices
were computed as the variable means comprising each
dimension (independent
variables). Finally, a regression analysis revealed the predictive
power of each of the four
dimensions of sustainability for satisfaction.

5 Results
5.1 Sustainability dimension indices
Cronbach reliability alpha scores were 0.83 for the institutional
dimension (9-items),
0.63 for the ecological dimension (5-items), 0.87 for the
economic dimension (5-items),
0.86 for the socio-cultural dimension (9-items) and 0.75 for the
satisfaction index
(see Tables 1 and 2). All alpha scores were acceptable
(Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994) at
0.65 or higher except for the ecological index at α = 0.63. The
lower reliability score for
this dimension may be attributable to FNP’s status as a ‘Nature

Park’, with greater
managerial emphasis on cultural interaction with landscape than
on ecological
preservation. Multi-item indices were computed to provide
mean scores on a 7-point
scale with 4 as a neutral point for each sustainability dimension
with the ecological
dimension having the highest mean (M = 5.15) followed by the
economic (M = 4.99),
the socio-cultural (M = 4.68) and the institutional (M = 4.43)
dimensions. The overall
mean for the 4-item satisfaction index was 4.42, slightly lower
than for the overall
dimensional index scores.
5.2 Predictors of resident satisfaction with tourism
To examine the core question with assumptions that each
dimension would contribute to
resident satisfaction with tourism (Cottrell et al., 2007),
regression analyses were run.
The assumption was supported with all four dimensional scores
significant predictors
of resident satisfaction with tourism accounting for 36% of the
variance explained
(R² = 0.358) (Table 3). The strongest predictor was the
institutional (β = 0.223;
p = <0.001) followed by the economic (β = 0.187; p = 0.007),
ecological (β = 0.144;
p = 0.014), and the socio-cultural (β = 0.190; p = 0.019)
dimensions meaning that as
scores for the dimensional scores increased there was a slight
increase in satisfaction
with tourism.
Table 3 Regression analysis of predictive contribution of each

dimension on resident
satisfaction
Index β¹ p-value
Institutional 0.223 <0.001
Ecological 0.144 0.014
Economic 0.187 0.007
Socio-Cultural 0.190 0.019
1Standardised β value used.
R2 = 0.358.
6 Discussion and conclusions
In keeping with the assessment of the most valuable
contribution of this (or any) study is
the development or refinement of the theory and tools of the
field (Choi and
Sirakaya, 2005; Wanhill, 1995). This study examined the
construct validity of the

PoS and found, in the case of FNP, to be an adequate framework
for predicting
resident satisfaction supporting previous research claims
(Cottrell and Vaske, 2006;
Cottrell et al., 2007) with all four dimensions predicting
satisfaction.
The institutional dimension was the strongest predictor for FNP
supporting claims
in the literature (Cottrell and Vaske, 2006; Cottrell et al., 2007;
Eden et al., 2000;
Valentin and Spangenberg, 2000) as an important if not most
important dimension. FNP,
as per the Europarc Charter for Sustainable Tourism, must
involve local stakeholders
in consultation and design of a tourism management strategy.
With greater participation
in decision-making processes, there should be an increase in
acceptance and ownership
of decisions made, thus strengthening the institutional
imperative (Spangenberg and
Valentin, 1999). As it pertains to sustainable tourism
development, implications are
that the institutional imperative is perhaps the most important
consideration
for developing tourism sustainably. Traditionally, sustainable
development has been
considered from the classic pillars of sustainability, namely the
ecological, socio-cultural

and economic imperatives. The institutional dimension is
perhaps the glue that holds
any notion of sustainability together with its focus on sub
aspects such as communication
strategies, policy development and implementation,
participation and access to decision
making etc. Certification processes such as the Charter for
Sustainable Tourism
promoted by Europarc’s provides the institutional mechanisms
on which to assess and
monitor progress towards sustainability across the multiple
settings (park and local
communities).
The primary focus of this study was to examine the predictive
contribution of the
sustainability dimensions as index variables on overall resident
satisfaction with tourism
as a follow-up to previous studies (Cottrell and Raadik, 2008;
Cottrell and Vaske, 2006;
Shen and Cottrell, 2008) and to further develop items to
measure resident satisfaction
with tourism (Cottrell et al., 2007). The dependent variable,
satisfaction with tourism was
based on four items drawn from previous studies to represent
satisfaction, thus the
application of the scale is exploratory. The items were
internally consistent and reflected
resident satisfaction with tourism from a content validity
context. The FNP survey was
based on previous study instruments (Cottrell et al., 2004, 2007;
Cottrell and Raadik,
2008; Cottrell and Vaske, 2006; Shen and Cottrell, 2008) with
item clarification and a
separate section of items pertaining to resident satisfaction with
tourism as a means to

further advance operationalisation of the sustainability
framework and the tool
(questionnaire) to do so.
This study indicates that local stakeholders mostly have a
positive perception
of tourism development in FNP, and tourism benefits the
community in several ways,
but it is not clear whether the park facilitates sustainable
development or not.
While monitoring sustainability, it is important to cover a wide
range of opinions
from local people and not assume that economic development
automatically promotes
sustainability. PoS framework allows the opportunity to do this.
Although tourism
satisfaction was just slightly positive overall, most respondents
did not see tourism
to the park as a benefit directly nor did not feel their quality of
life improved because
of tourism to the park. The benefits of tourism were more
specifically noted
when looking at the items used to construct the various
dimensions of sustainability
(i.e., tourism diversifies local economies; tourism brings new
income to local
communities). This further supports the notion and or need to
provide multiple
measures of sustainability to represent the various dimensions
to obtain a more holistic

perspective on what sustainable development means within the
context of location
destination areas.
6.1 Implications and further research
Mean scores for all dimension indices were slightly on the
positive side of the neutral
point (4), which suggests that, while residents are not
overwhelmingly satisfied with each
dimension, they fall between neutrality and agreement with a
composite of the statements
per dimension that assert their respective park is doing a good
job contributing to tourism
development according to principles for sustainable tourism
(e.g., Charter for Sustainable
Tourism principles). However, a few of the mean scores for
some items were slightly
below the neutral point which suggests disagreement with some
aspects of sustainable

tourism (i.e., more educational opportunities for locals due to
tourism; park operators
consider the concerns of locals, and community residents have
access to decision
making). The somewhat lower scores should prompt managers
to take a look at how they
are implementing their strategy, particularly in regards to the
socio-cultural and
institutional dimensions. The fact that overall satisfaction with
tourism score was lower
than the dimensional mean scores might suggest that some other
factor or factors are
reducing satisfaction – perhaps a manifestation of one or more
of the interlinkages
(access, burden-sharing, etc.) of the PoS that were not discussed
in this paper.
Further research is necessary for development and testing of
indicators for the
interlinkages or sub-dimensions of the broader dimensional
categories (e.g., planning,
management for the institutional dimension; nature protection,
nature awareness, and
conservation for the ecological dimension; cultural awareness
and equality for the social).
The role of ecolabeling for protected area management and
sustainable tourism
development should be examined. The Europarc Charter for
Sustainable Tourism is
founded on principles for tourism development as well as for
transboundary park
management of protected areas. To what extent does a
certification scheme improve the
development of nature based tourism vs. mass tourism and
management’s capacity to
manage protected areas effectively? There are 400+ Europarc’s

that must follow the same
principles and criteria. Who benefits from the Europarc’s
certification; the ecological,
economic, or social environments? To what extent does a
holistic framework for
sustainability help to assess these issues for tourism policy?
These are questions to
address through further testing of a holistic framework of
sustainable tourism
development.
References
Ahn, B.Y., Lee, B. and Shafer, C.S. (2002) ‘Operationalizing
sustainability in regional tourism
planning: an application of the limits of acceptable change
framework’, Tourism Management,
Vol. 23, pp.1–15.
Becker, E. and Jahn, T. (1999) Sustainability and the Social
Sciences: A Cross-Disciplinary
Approach to Integrating Environmental Considerations into
Theoretical Reorientation,
Zed Books, London.
Byrd, E.T. (2007) ‘Stakeholders in sustainable tourism and their
role: applying stakeholder theory
to sustainable development’, Tourism Review, Vol. 62, No. 2,
pp.6–13.

Byrd, E.T. and Gustke, L.D. (2007) ‘Using decision trees to
identify tourism stakeholders: the case
of two eastern North Carolina counties’, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 7, Nos. 3–4,
pp.176–193.
Byrd, E.T., Cardenas, D.A. and Greenwood, J.B. (2008)
‘Factors of stakeholder support for
sustainable tourism: the case of eastern North Carolina’,
Tourism and Hospitality Research,
Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.192–204.
Choi, H.S. and Sirakaya, E. (2005) ‘Measuring residents’
attitude toward sustainable tourism:
development of sustainable tourism attitude scale’, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 43,
pp.380–394.
Cottrell, S. and Cutumisu, N. (2006) ‘Sustainable tourism

development strategy in
WWF Pan Parks: case of a Swedish and Romanian national
park’, Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.150–167.
Cottrell, S.P. and Raadik, J. (2008) ‘Socio-cultural benefits of
PAN Parks at Bieszscady National
Park, Poland’, Finnish Journal of Tourism Research
(Matkailututkimus), Vol. 1, pp.56–67.
Cottrell, S.P. and Vaske, J.J. (2006) ‘A framework for
monitoring and modeling sustainable
tourism’, Electronic Review of Tourism Research, Vol. 4, No.
4, pp.74–84.
Cottrell, S.P., V/d Duim, R., Ankersmid, P. and Kelder, L.
(2004) ‘Measuring the sustainability
of tourism in Manuel Antonio and Texel: a tourist perspective’,
Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp.409–431.
Cottrell, S.P., Vaske, J. and Shen, F. (2007) ’Modeling resident
perceptions of sustainable tourism
development: comparison between Holland and China’, Journal
of China Tourism Research,
Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.219–234.
Dijks, D. (1995) ‘Measuring urban sustainability’, Workshop
Proceedings, Canadian Indicators
Workshop, Environment Canada, June, Ottawa, pp.1–73.
Dymond, S. (1997) ‘Indicators of sustainable tourism in New
Zealand: a local government
perspective’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 5, No. 4,
pp.279–293.

Eden, M., Falkheden, L. and Malbert, B. (2000) ‘The built
environment and sustainable
development: research meets practice in a Scandinavian
context’, Planning Theory and
Practice, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.260–272.
Fallon, D.L. and Kriwoken, L.K. (2003) ‘Community
involvement in tourism infrastructure: the
case of the Strahan visitor centre, Tasmania’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 24, pp.289–308.
Faulkner, B. and Tidswell, C. (1997) ‘A framework for
monitoring community impacts of tourism’,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 5, pp.3–28.
Getz, D. and Timur, S. (2005) ‘Stakeholder involvement in
sustainable tourism: balancing
the voices’, in Theobald, W.F. (Ed.): Global Tourism, 3rd ed.,
Elsevier, Burlington, MD,
pp.230–247.
Gradl, S. (2007) Resident Perceptions of Sustainable Tourism
Development Near Frankenwald
Nature Park, Germany, Unpublished Honors Thesis and Report
Submitted to Frankenwald
Nature Park, Bayern Province, Germany.
Gunn, C.A. (1994) Tourism Planning: Basic Concepts Cases,
3rd ed., Taylor and Francis,
Washington DC.
Hardy, A., Beeton, R.J.S. and Pearson, L. (2002) ‘Sustainable
tourism: an overview of the concept
and its position in relation to conceptualisations of tourism’,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
Vol. 10, pp.474–496.

Hughes, G. (2002) ‘Environmental indicators’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 29, pp.457–477.
Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (2000) ‘Indicators for sustainable
communities: a strategy building
on complexity theory and distributed intelligence’, Planning
Theory and Practice, Vol. 1,
No. 2, pp.173–186.
IUCN and EUROPARC (2000) Interpretation and Application of
the IUCN Management
Categories for Protected Areas in Europe, EUROPARC,
Grafenau.

Johnston, R.J. and Tyrrell, T.J. (2005) ‘A dynamic model of
sustainable tourism’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 44, November, pp.124–134.
Kaae, B.C. (2001) ‘The perceptions of tourists and residents of
sustainable tourism
principles and environmental initiatives’, in McCool, S.F. and
Moisey, R.N. (Eds.): Tourism,
Recreation, and Sustainability: Linking Culture and the
Environment, CABI, Wallingford,
pp.289–314.
Kammerbauer, J., Cordoba, B., Escolán, R., Flores, S., Ramirez,
V. and Zeledón, J. (2001)
‘Identification of development indicators in tropical
mountainous regions and some
implications for natural resource policy designs: an integrated
community case study’,
Ecological Economics, Vol. 36, pp.45–60.
Khanna, P., Babu, P.R. and George, M.S. (1999) ‘Carrying-
capacity as a basis for sustainable
development: a case study of national capital region in India’,
Progress in Planning, Vol. 52,
pp.101–163.
Manning, T. (1999) ‘Indicators of tourism sustainability’,
Tourism Management, Vol. 20,
pp.179–181.
Mbaiwa, J.E. (2003) ‘The socio-economic and environmental
impacts of tourism development
on the Okavango Delta, North-Western Botswana’, Journal of
Arid Environments, Vol. 54,
pp.447–467.

McCool, S., Moisey, N. and Nickerson, N. (2001) ‘What should
tourism sustain? The disconnect
with industry perceptions of useful indicators’, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 40,
November, pp.124–131.
Miller, G. (2001) ‘The development of indicators for
sustainable tourism: results of a Delphi
survey of tourism researchers’, Tourism Management, Vol. 22,
No. 4, pp.351–362.
Miller, G. and Twining-Ward, L. (2005) Monitoring for
Sustainable Tourism Transition: The
Challenge of Developing and Using Indicators, CABI
Publishing, Cambridge, MA.
Mitchell, R.E. and Reid, D.G. (2001) ‘Community integration:
Island tourism in Peru’, Annuals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 28, No. 1, November, pp.113–139.
Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (2003) Tourism and Sustainability:
New Tourism in the Third World,
2nd ed., Routledge, New York, London.
Muñoz Flores, J.C. (2005) ‘The European charter for
sustainable tourism in protected areas:
an overview: EUROPARC federation and alfred toepfer
foundation’, Estudios y Perspectivas
en Turismo, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.236–257.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994) Psychometric Theory,
3rd ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Pagdin, C. (1995) ‘Assessing tourism impacts in the third
world: a Nepal case study’, Progress in

Planning, Vol. 44, pp.185–266.
PAN Parks (2007) Foundation Website, Retrieved from:
<http://www.panparks.org/> [accessed
5/5/2007].
Payne, R.J., Johnston, M.E. and Twynam, G.D. (2001)
‘Tourism, sustainability and the social
milieux in lake superior’s north shore and islands’, in Mccool,
S.F. and Moisey, R.N. (Eds.):
Tourism, Recreation, and Sustainability: Linking Culture and
the Environment, CABI,
Wallingford, pp.315–342.
Richards, G. and Hall, D. (2000) Tourism and Sustainable
Community Development, Routledge,
London.
Sautter, E.T. and Leisen, B. (1999) ‘Managing stakeholders: a
tourism planning model’, Annuals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.312–328.
Sustainable Tourism and Natura (2000) Guidelines, initiatives
and good practices in Europe’, SECA
Publication of the European Commission, retrieved from:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
nature/info/pubs/docs/nat2000/sust_tourism.pdf (accessed 13
May 2007).

Sharpley, R. (2000) ‘Tourism and sustainable development:
exploring the theoretical divide’,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 8, pp.1–9.
Shen, F. and Cottrell, S.P. (2008) ‘A sustainable tourism
framework for monitoring residents’
satisfaction with agritourism in Chongdugou Village, China’,
International Journal of
Tourism Policy, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp.368–375.
Sirakaya, E., Jamal, T.B. and Choi, H.S. (2001) ‘Developing
indicators for destination
sustainability’, in Weaver, D.B. (Ed.): The Encyclopedia of
Ecotourism, CAB International,
New York, pp.411–432.
Sofield, T.H.B. (2003) Empowerment for Sustainable Tourism
Development, 1st ed., Pergamon,
Amsterdam.

Spangenberg, J.H. (2002) ‘Environmental space and the prism
of sustainability: frameworks for
indicators measuring sustainable development’, Ecological
Indicators, Vol. 57, pp.1–15.
Spangenberg, J.H. and Valentin, A. (1999) ‘Indicators for
sustainable communities’, Wuppertal
Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy,
http://www.foeeurope.org/sustainability/
sustain/t-content-prism.htm (accessed 13 May 2007).
Swarbrooke, J. (1999) Sustainable Tourism Management, CABI
Publishing, London.
Tosun, C. (2000) ‘Limited to community participation in the
tourism development process
in developing countries’, Tourism Management, Vol. 21,
pp.613–633.
Tosun, C. and Timothy, D.J. (2003) ‘Arguments for community
participation in the tourism
development process’, The Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 14,
No. 2, pp.2–15.
Twining-Ward, L. and Butler, R. (2002) ‘Implementing STD on
a small island: development
and use of sustainable tourism development indicators in
Samoa’, Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, Vol. 10, pp.363–387.
UNWTO (2004) Sustainable Development of Tourism:
Conceptual Definition, http://www.world-
tourism.org/frameset/frame_sustainable.html (accessed 15 May
2007).
Valentin, A. and Spangenberg, J.H. (2000) ‘A guide to

community sustainability indicators’,
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 20, pp.381–
392.
van den Berg, C., van Bree, F. and Cottrell, S.P. (2004) ‘PAN
Parks principles: cross-cultural
comparison: Poland/Slovakia’, in Sievänen et al. (Eds.):
Proceedings of International
Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows,
16–20 June, Rovaniemi,
Finland, pp.227–234.
Walpole, M.J. and Goodwin, H.J. (2000) ‘Local economic
impacts of dragon tourism in Indonesia’,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 27, pp.559–576.
Wanhill, S. (1995) ‘The economic evaluation of publicly
assisted tourism projects’, in Butler, R.,
Pearce, D. and London, D. (Eds.): Change in Tourism: People,
Places, Processes, Routledge,
London, pp.187–207.
WTTC (2002) Tourism Industry as a Partner for Sustainable
Development, Retrieved from:
<http://www.wttc.org/publications/pdf/UNEP%20Report.pdf>
[accessed 10/6/2003].
Yuan, W., James, P., Hodgson, K., Hutchinson, S.M. and Shi, C.
(2003) ‘Development of
sustainability indicators by communities in China: a case study
of Chongming county,
Shanghai’, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 68, No.
3, pp.253–261.
Bibliography
Iankov, P. (2001) ‘Central Balkan national park management

plan: 2001–2010’, in Water, M.o.E.a.
(Ed.): Ruling, Sofia, Bulgaria, Vol. 522, p.321.
McCool, S.F. and Stankey, G.H. (2004) ‘Indicators of
sustainability: challenges and opportunities
at the interface of science and policy’, Environmental
Management, Vol. 33, No. 3,
pp.294–305.
Sustainable Tourism and Natura 2000: Guidelines, Initiatives
and Good Practices in Europe (2000)
SECA publication of the European Commission, retrieved from:

http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/nat2000/sust_tourism.pdf
(accessed 13 May 2007).
Vaske, J., Gliner, J.A. and Morgan, G.A. (2002)
‘Communicating judgments about practical
significance: effect size, confidence intervals and odds ratios’,
Human Dimensions of Wildlife,
Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.287–300.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987)
Our Common Future, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.

Int. J. Tourism Policy, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2010.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Int. J. Tourism Policy, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2010.docx

Similar to Int. J. Tourism Policy, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2010.docx (16)

More from tarifarmarie

More from tarifarmarie (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Int. J. Tourism Policy, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2010.docx