Resident's attitudes towards the impacts of tourism

Abstract

This text makes a tour through the most important aspects of residents' attitudes towards the impact of tourism in relation to some of the most studied variables that attempt to explain the behaviour of residents. The heterogeneity of methodologies and different models or theories proposed to the present day, have not produced results with universal validity or efficacy, so these studies could be directed to the analysis of other variables beyond the tourism sector and especially focusing on local studies. Tourist destinations are places conditioned by history, tourist developments, social and cultural aspects which make each tourist area identified by factors that shape the zone. This paper opens a discussion on the limitations of the methods and theories developed for the study of resident attitudes towards tourism. The creation of a new framework of study that overcomes the identified problems is advocated.

Full text

1

RESIDENTS' ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE IMPACTS OF TOURISM
Fernando Almeida, Antonia Balbuena & Rafael Cortés
(2015) Tourism Management Perpectives, 13
Abstract: This text makes a tour through the most important aspects of residents’ attitudes towards the
impact of tourism in relation to some of the most studied variables that attempt to explain the behaviour
of residents. The heterogeneity of methodologies and different models or theories proposed to the present
day, have not produced results with universal validity or efficacy, so these studies could be directed to the
analysis of other variables beyond the tourism sector and especially focusing on local studies. Tourist
destinations are places conditioned by history, tourist developments, social and cultural aspects which
make each tourist area identified by factors that shape the zone. This paper opens a discussion on the
limitations of the methods and theories developed for the study of resident attitudes towards tourism. The
creation of a new framework of study that overcomes the identified problems is advocated.
Keywords: residents, attitudes, impacts, factors, tourism
1. INTRODUCTION
The term "impact of tourism" has been garnering great attention in the literature. It is for this reason that a
number of studies in recent years have examined the attitude/perception of residents to these impacts. The
main reason for this growing interest has been the consideration that tourism development does not only
bring positive effects but also has a potentially negative effect on a local level (Lankford & Howard,
1994; Ko & Stewart, 2002).
Residents' attitudes regarding the impacts of tourism have been a subject of research for more than 30
years. Jafari (1986), cited in Andereck and Vogt (2000), pointed out that research on tourism in the sixties
focused on the positive aspects of the impacts of tourism, in the seventies on the negative aspects and in
the eighties had a more balanced focus. However, it was in the seventies that residents began to receive
more attention (Vargas et al., 2007) with the first studies focusing on residents' attitudes to “the impacts
of tourism” (Andereck & Vogt, 2000).
Thereafter from the mid-seventies to the current day there has been a proliferation of empirical and
theoretical research examining residents' attitudes (Sirakaya et al., 2002), so much so, that to analyze all
the studies in their entirety would be a difficult task if not impossible (Sharpley, 2014).
These studies have spread to different destinations across various countries. However, a significant
number of them have been made in the USA, that is to say, much of this research has been limited to case
studies in the developed world and specifically in places where rural tourism or leisure areas is focused
(Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012). Likewise, a lack of attention to these studies in destinations such as the
Mediterranean or the Caribbean, where tourism is the economic base of residents has been observed
(Pérez & Nadal, 2005; Sharpley, 2014) (Table 1).
Research on the impacts of tourism has reached a consensus on the following groups (Gursoy et al., 2002;
Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Andereck et al., 2005; Díaz & Gutiérrez, 2010): economic, sociocultural and
environmental. Most studies have identified these impacts in two possible aspects: positive and negative,
i.e. residents observed that tourism contributes to both benefits and costs in their tourism zone.
Likewise, many of these studies have been based on the identification of variables that influence the
attitude of residents towards tourism (Akis et al., 1996; Bujosa & Rosselló, 2007) and, in the search for a
theoretical basis, widespread attitudes of residents in different destinations. Although the primary
intention of a significant amount of research is the search for models or theories that help to generalize
the results, through this brief literature review, we note that the data obtained are contradictory and,
therefore, are not applicable to all tourist destinations.

2

TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF STUDIES IN RELATION TO THE DESTINATION
STUDY AREA RESEARCHES
U.S.A. Pearce, 1980; Pizam & Pokela, 1985; Perdue et al., 1987; Allen et
al., 1988; Davis et al., 1988; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Long et al.,
1990; Perdue el al., 1990; Madrigal, 1993; Johnson et al., 1994;
Lankford, 1994; Lankford & Howard, 1994; McCool & Martin,
1994; Lindberg & Johnson, 1997; Smith & Krannich, 1998;
Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Chen, 2000; Yoon et al., 2001; Besculides
et al., 2002; Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004;
Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Andereck
et al., 2005; Young et al., 2007; Wang & Pfister, 2008; Andereck &
Nyaupane, 2011
Alaska Huh and Vogt, 2008
Hawaii Islands Liu & Var, 1986; Sheldon & Abenoja, 2001
Cyprus Akis, et al. 1996
Crete Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003; Andriotis, 2005
Colombia Belisle & Hoy, 1980
U.K. Brougham & Butler, 1981; Murphy, 1981; Sheldon & Var, 1984;
Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Snaith & Haley, 1999; Haley et al., 2005
Belize Diedrich & García, 2009
Australia Tomljenovic & Faulkner, 2000; Weaver & Lawton, 2001; Lawton,
2005; Dyer et al., 2007; Gursoy et al., 2009
Greece Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996
Puerto Rico Hernández et al., 1996
Fiji Islands King et al., 1993
Korea Ko & Stewart, 2002
Turkey Var et al., 1985; Korca, 1996; Kuvan & Akan, 2005
África Sirakaya et al., 2002; Teye et al., 2002; Lepp, 2007
New Zealand Mason & Cheyne, 2000; Williams & Lawson, 2001
Saint Lucia Island Nicholas et al., 2009
Mauritius Island Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012
Canada Ritchie, 1988
Mexico Mendoza & Monterrubio, 2012
Cape Verde Castillo et al., 2012
Spain Aguiló et al., 2004; SOPDE, 2004; Paniza, 2005; Marrero, 2006;
Bujosa & Rosselló, 2007; Rodríguez, 2007; Oviedo et al., 2008;
Royo & Ruíz, 2009; Díaz & Gutiérrez, 2010; Gutiérrez, 2010;
Huete, 2010; Vargas et al., 2009, 2011
Source: Own formulation
2. RESIDENTS' ATTITUDES ON ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Generally, the economic dimension is the main cause of positive attitudes from the residents. However,
they also have the ability to differentiate the positive and negative aspects of tourism within their
community and thus assess according to the context in which the industry develops.
One of the aspects most valued by residents of this impact is the generation of employment opportunities
(Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Sheldon & Var, 1984; Var et al., 1985; Liu & Var, 1986; Liu et al., 1987; Ritchie,
1988; Milman & Pizam, 1988; King et al., 1993; Lankford, 1994; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996;
Korca, 1996; Lindberg & Johnson, 1997; Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Chen, 2000; Mason & Cheyne, 2000;
Saveriades, 2000; Yoon et al., 2001; Besculides et al., 2002; Gursoy et al., 2002; Horn & Simmons, 2002;
Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003; Aguiló et al., 2004; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Andereck et al., 2005;
Bujosa & Rosselló, 2007; Dyer et al., 2007; Diedrich & García, 2009; Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011),
suggesting that tourism is an important source of income for residents (Liu & Var, 1986; Milman &

3

Pizam, 1988; King et al., 1993; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Korca, 1996; Brunt & Courtney, 1999;
Saveriades, 2000; Bujosa & Rosselló, 2007; Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011).
Residents also benefit from tourism to the extent that it produces greater opportunities to negotiate (Var et
al., 1985; Liu & Var, 1986; Liu et al., 1987; Akis et al., 1996; Lindberg & Johnson, 1997; Chen, 2000;
Yoon et al., 2001; Aguiló et al., 2004; Bujosa & Rosselló, 2007; Dyer et al., 2007) and, in this way, to
create the local business environment.
Residents also note that tourism leads to a set of improvements in community infrastructure and public
facilities (Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Sheldon & Var, 1984; Korca, 1996; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Mason &
Cheyne, 2000; Saveriades, 2000; Yoon et al., 2001; Andereck et al., 2005), that contributes to the
improvement of living standards (Liu & Var, 1986; Milman & Pizam, 1988; King et al., 1993;
Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Korca, 1996; Saveriades, 2000; Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011).
In contrast, the aspect of tourism least valued by residents is its seasonality (Bujosa & Rosselló, 2007).
On the one hand, tourism creates employment opportunities but, on the other, forces residents to deal with
an intra-annual irregularity as to the needs of labour. The trade-off is clear: if there is no activity, no
compensation, so the tourism workers should find another activity or be unemployed during the months
of downtime (Cerezo & Lara de Vicente, 2005).
Residents are aware that tourism increases the cost of living (Liu & Var, 1986; Saveriades, 2000;
McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Bujosa & Rosselló, 2007) raising the price of goods and services (Jonhson
et al., 1994; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Korca, 1996; Aguiló et al., 2004); in general, living
standards go up, as does inflation (Akis et al., 1996) and, therefore, also property value and housing
prices go up (Var et al., 1985; Perdue, et al., 1990; Madrigal, 1993; Korca, 1996; Aguiló et al., 2004),
including land value (Korca, 1996; Saveriades, 2000; Aguiló et al., 2004), resulting in the inability of
much of the local population to buy their first home (Antón & González, 2008).
The overall assessment of this impact is generally positive, because residents recognize that the tourist
industry enriches the fabric of the community (Adereck et al., 2005). Various studies reveal that
economic benefits are the most highly valued and sought after by the local population (Liu et al., 1987;
Ritchie, 1988; Akis et al., 1996).
Generally, economic benefits are an important influence on residents' attitudes towards tourism (King et
al., 1993; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Lindberg & Johnson, 1997) due to the fact that according to
many residents tourism improves, benefits or increases the local economy (Perdue et al., 1990; Gursoy et
al., 2002). For this reason, almost all the studies that examined the relation between the benefits of
economic gain and attitudes towards tourism reported a positive relation (Allen et al., 1988; Davis et al.,
1988; Perdue et al., 1990; Jurowski et al., 1997; Pizam, 1978, cited in Dyer et al., 2007). One of the
exceptions was the Johnson et al. (1994) study, which found that residents perceived tourism as an
industry offering low salaries and low-quality jobs.
3. RESIDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE SOCIOCULTURAL IMPACTS
Tourism has an effect on local sociocultural characteristics, affecting the habits, customs, social life,
beliefs and values of the inhabitants of the tourist destination.
On the sociocultural plane, interactions take place between local residents and tourists which may result
in new social and cultural opportunities or, on the contrary, generate feelings of distress, pressure,
congestion, etc., at different moments in the life of residents, threatening their cultural identity and social
reality.
Some studies have highlighted that residents have valued positively the fact that tourism has a positive
influence on the services offered by the community (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Andereck et al., 2005). It
creates opportunities for leisure activities (Liu et al., 1987; Perdue et al., 1990; Korca, 1996; Brunt &
Courtney, 1999; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Yoon et al., 2001; Gursoy et al., 2002; Bujosa & Rosselló,
2007; Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011); it stimulates cultural activities (Var et al., 1985; Liu & Var, 1986;
Liu et al., 1987; Korca, 1996; Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Chen, 2000; Yoon et al.,
2001); it raises interest in maintaining and preserving historic buildings and archaeological sites (Liu et

4

al., 1987; Akis et al., 1996; Korca, 1996; Yoon et al., 2001; Andereck et al., 2005; Oviedo et al., 2008)
and increases pride and cultural identity (Yoon et al., 2001; Besculides et al., 2002; Andereck et al.,
2005), that preserves cultural values (Andereck et al., 2005; Oviedo et al., 2008). Overall, it improves the
quality of life of the residents (Milman & Pizam, 1988; Perdue et al., 1987; Long et al., 1990; King et al.,
1993; McGehee & Andereck, 2004). The authors also recognize that tourism promotes exchange among
local people and tourists (Korca, 1996; Yoon et al., 2001; Besculides et al., 2002; Dyer et al., 2007).
Other studies report that residents perceive some negative aspects in this impact, the most important are:
traffic congestion (Sheldon & Var, 1984; Liu et al., 1987; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Ritchie, 1988; Perdue
et al., 1990; King et al., 1993; Jonhson et al., 1994; Lindberg & Johnson, 1997; Snaith & Haley, 1999;
Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Mason & Cheyne, 2000; Sheldon & Abenoja, 2001; McGehee & Andereck,
2004; Andereck et al., 2005; Bujosa & Rosselló, 2007; Dyer et al., 2007) and parking problems (Lindberg
& Johnson, 1997; Sheldon & Abenoja, 2001).
From a social viewpoint, residents may recognize that tourism increases delinquency and vandalism
(Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Dogan, 1989, cited in Andereck et al., 2005), serious crime (Milman
& Pizam, 1988; Long et al., 1990; King et al., 1993; Lankford, 1994; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996;
Lindberg & Johnson, 1997; Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Andereck et al., 2005; Diedrich & García, 2009)
and theft (Belisle & Hoy, 1980). It also causes increased drug use (Belisle & Hoy, 1980; King et al.,
1993; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Saveriades, 2000; Diedrich & García, 2009), as does the
consumption of alcohol (Milman & Pizam, 1988; King et al., 1993), and, finally, tourism can give rise to
prostitution (Liu & Var, 1986; Sheldon & Abenoja, 2001).
Residents’ attitudes towards the sociocultural impacts of tourism have been widely studied. However, this
research has produced contradictory results. Some studies report that residents also tend to perceive some
sociocultural aspects negatively (Andriotis, 2005; Andereck et al., 2005), while others maintain that
residents see tourism as offering their community diverse benefits (Besculides et al., 2002; Sirakaya et al.,
2002). A possible direct relation has been observed between the positive evaluation of sociocultural
impacts and support for tourism (Lankford & Howard, 1994; Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Besculides et al.,
2002). Other studies, however, suggest that tourism development probably brings benefits to the host
community, but also social costs (Gursoy et al., 2002; Teye et al., 2002; Tosun, 2002). Therefore, there is
no consensus on this impact and studies suggest that depending on the context and circumstances in
which tourism develops, so it will, to a greater or lesser extent, impact on the sociocultural aspect.
3. RESIDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Tourism can be a reason to protect and preserve resources or may damage or destroy them as it is often
developed in attractive yet fragile settings. Local residents also identify this duality of the environmental
impact in their community: positive and negative (Liu & Var, 1986; Liu et al., 1987; Yoon et al., 2001).
Residents value the fact that tourism helps preserve natural resources (Akis et al., 1996; Andereck et al.,
2005; Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011). Also, it improves the appearance of their city or surroundings
(Perdue et al., 1987; Korca, 1996; Andereck, et al., 2005; Oviedo et al., 2008).
However, in some studies, residents recognize that tourism causes pollution (Jonhson et al., 1994; Yoon
et al., 2001)and rubbish (Liu et al., 1987; Lankford, 1994; Snaith & Haley, 1999; Brunt & Courtney,
1999; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Andereck et al., 2005) and especially recognize it provokes
overcrowding and congestion (Liu et al., 1987; Johnson et al., 1994; Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Yoon et al.,
2001; Andereck et al., 2005) and, therefore, agglomeration in public facilities and resources (Lindberg &
Johnson, 1997; Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Aguiló et al., 2004; Bujosa & Rosselló, 2007).
Many studies (Bujosa & Rosselló, 2007) identify negative aspects or residents' concern for the
environment. Nevertheless, even where this dimension is important to the community, as demonstrated in
the study by Liu and Var (1986), it is not significant enough for them to be prepared to lower their living
standards. It seems that residents prefer to support tourism, putting its advantages ahead of environmental
damage.

5

4. SOME VARIABLES STUDIED IN ATTITUDES OF RESIDENTS
Residents’ attitudes have been the object of many studies that focus on identifying factors that influence
such behaviour (Akis et al., 1996), and, therefore, a significant number of investigations continue
studying them in order to explain and predict the responses of residents to tourism (Sharpley, 2014).
Some of the most studied are:
(i) The community's economic dependence on the tourism industry. For a great majority of studies this is
one of the factors that is beginning to look like a significant variable underlying the local perception of
the impacts of tourism development as positive and favourable (Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Korca,
1998, cited in Kuvan & Akan, 2005). For example, the results concerning the economic impact reflect a
clearly positive opinion of the benefits that tourism represents for the economy of the Balearic Islands, a
tourist destination that depends on this industry (Bujosa & Rosselló, 2007). The results suggest,
therefore, that residents who depend economically on tourism have a greater propensity to recognize its
benefits (Madrigal, 1993).
Residents' attitudes towards tourism and tourists will be more positive if the community or residents
depend on the tourist dollar, in other words, if a family member, friend or neighbour depends on tourism-
based employment. This variable of employment has given rise to an attitude that is more positive than
that held by those residents who do not work for this industry (Milman & Pizam, 1988; Lankford &
Howard, 1994; Snaith & Haley, 1999; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003;
Kuvan & Akan, 2005; Andereck et al., 2005). Residents that are not economically linked to tourism
through employment exhibited an attitude that was less positive, neutral or, in some cases, negative
(Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Kuvan & Akan, 2005).
The study conducted by Kuvan and Akan (2005) also indicates that residents with tourism-related jobs
not only display more positive attitudes, but are also less disapproving of its negative effects in
comparison with their fellow residents who do not have jobs related with the tourism sector. Residents
that do not enjoy these economic benefits are more critical of tourism's negative effects.
Teye et al. (2002) call into question the existence of a direct relation between dependence on tourism and
a positive attitude towards it. The results of the study they conducted in Ghana (Africa) indicate that the
inhabitants that work in businesses related with the tourism industry bear negative attitudes towards the
sector.
In addition, the results of Liu and Var's (1986) study indicate that a dependence on tourism-related jobs
does not seem to be a significant factor. One possible explanation is that in a mature destination such as
Hawaii, where tourism is so dominant, few residents are conscious of the importance of the industry (Liu
& Var, 1986).
(ii) The level of tourism development (Yoon et al., 1999). Some researchers have suggested that residents'
attitudes may be related with the state or stage of development of the tourist destination (Butler, 1980;
Johnson, et al., 1994). The results of a study by Smith and Krannich (1998) suggest that the highest levels
of tourism development are associated with the lowest levels of satisfaction in terms of the community's
social conditions, although other factors unrelated with tourism may also reduce social satisfaction.
The study by Andriotis and Vaughan (2003) concluded that the degree of development is not a
determining factor in the attitudes of urban residents in Crete. However, it should also be stressed that
while Crete is a mature destination, residents expressed strong support for tourism development without
signs of criticism. The results of the study by Diedrich and Garcia (2009) showed that most residents
recognize the good and bad changes that tourism brings and yet only a small proportion cite the bad
changes. At the same time, they perceived the level of tourism as “adequate” or “too low”.
In the study by Andriotis (2005), the results concluded that most of the sample group were generally
unsatisfied with the current levels of tourism development and requested further expansion. The King et
al. study (1993) also indicated similar results. They observed strong support for tourism and interest in
seeing it developed further.
However, in the Hernandez et al. study (1996) conducted in Isabela, Puerto Rico, a destination where
tourism development is still in its early stages, residents have ambivalent attitudes and are conscious of
both its positive and negative impacts. The Long et al. study (1990) concluded that the perception of the
impacts of tourism, both good and bad, grew with the increase in tourism levels.

6

(iii) Attachment to the community measures the length of residence in a community and/or having been
born there (Sheldon & Var, 1984; Liu & Var, 1986; Lankford & Howard, 1994; McGehee & Andereck,
2004).
The study by Besculides et al. (2002) signalled that residents with strong ties to the community worry
more about the effects of tourism than those with a weaker connection. The same conclusion was reached
in studies by Um and Crompton (1987), cited in Gursoy et al., (2002), Lankford and Howard (1994) and
Haley et al., (2005). These detected that long-term residents and those born locally had less favourable
attitudes towards tourism or, as in the study by Haley et al. (2005), were more aware of the negative
effects of tourism than those who had been residents for less time. According to McGehee and Andereck
(2004), residents born in the community were more likely to perceive the negative impacts of tourism.
In the study by Bujosa and Rosselló (2007), length of residence in the Balearic Islands seems to
determine environmental attitudes. The longer an individual lives in the municipality, the worse their
view is of the environmental impacts or repercussions of tourism.
Those who have arrived more recently and have lived less time in the community may have moved to the
area for reasons of work and, therefore, value the economic benefits of tourism more highly (Sheldon &
Var, 1984; Kuvan & Akan, 2005). Long-term residents and those born locally are more sensitive to the
impacts of tourism. This could be because they have witnessed the changes that have taken place in their
way of life (Sheldon & Var, 1984) or feel that their peace, tranquillity and the natural resources of their
surroundings are being sacrificed (Kuvan & Akan, 2005).
On the other hand, Jurowski et al. (1997) determine that residents attached to their community may
evaluate the impact of economic and social development positively and environmental impact negatively.
Davis et al. (1988), cited in Gursoy and Rutherford (2004), suggest that long-term residents were more
positive about tourism than those who had recently arrived to the community.
Other studies were unable to find a clear relation between attachment and the perception of impacts. They
either found no relations between these variables (Gursoy et al., 2002) or the results obtained regarding
this variable were mixed or contradictory (Lankford & Howard, 1994; Gursoy et al., 2002).
Liu and Var's (1986) study of the residents of Hawaii found no significant difference in attitudes based on
length of residence. Supporting the results of Liu and Var (1986), the study of ten rural communities in
Colorado by Allen et al. (1993) did not find length of residence to have any significant influence on
attitudes.
In short, there is no unanimity among the authors of the studies cited on the establishment of a clear
relation between length of residence and residents' attitudes. Perhaps there is no reason to believe that the
amount of time spent living in a community or having lived there since childhood predisposes residents to
perceive the benefits of tourism or the costs they incur to a greater or lesser degree than any other resident
(Andereck et al., 2005).
(iv) The distance between the local resident's home and the tourist area (Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Sheldon &
Var, 1984; Weaver & Lawton, 2001). In their study of Santa Marta, Columbia, Belisle and Hoy (1980)
found that residents that live closer to the tourist area had a more positive attitude towards tourists than
those living further away. This was explained as the result of being in the early stages of tourism
development. It is possible that later on in the destination's cycle of evolution those living closer to the
main tourist centres will feel more and more affected by the pressure of the increasing number of tourists
on the local infrastructure. But it may also be the case that those that live closer to a hub of tourist activity
are usually more economically dependent and, therefore, have more positive attitudes (Vargas et al.,
2011).
Sheldon and Var (1984) concluded that the residents of North Wales that live in denser tourist areas have
a positive perception of tourism due to the fact that they appreciate the greater employment opportunities
and perceive their public facilities to be in better conditions. Likewise, in the study by Haley et al. (2005)
residents living closer to the tourist area perceived the impacts of tourism more positively.
On the other hand, some researchers indicated that residents living closer to tourist attractions have a
more negative perception of the impacts and, as a result, have less favourable attitudes, that is to say, that
the negative impact of tourism increases as the distance between the local resident's home and the tourist
area decreases. Such is the case in Korca's (1996) study in Antalya, Turkey. The study by Weaver and
Lawton (2001) gave no significant results in relation to this variable.
(v) The residents' level of knowledge about tourism. Studies highlight that the general level of knowledge
about tourism and the local economy could influence attitudes towards tourism development. The study
by Lankford and Howard (1994) indicates that with greater knowledge, attitudes towards tourism are
more favourable. The following authors reach the same conclusion in their research: Davis et al. (1988)
and Andereck et al. (2005).

7

(vi) Type of tourist. Weaver and Lawton (2001) concluded in their study that international tourism may be
a positive rather than negative influential variable on residents' attitudes. The study by Sheldon and Var
(1984) conducted in North Wales obtained a significant difference when it came to tourists that speak
Welsh or come from the same cultural tradition. These were considered less negative than German
tourists, for example, who were less preferred as tourists.
(vii) The type and level of contact between residents and tourists (Brougham & Butler, 1981; King et al.,
1993; Lankford & Howard, 1994; Akis et al., 1996; Weaver & Lawton, 2001). Those who have greater
knowledge and more contact with tourists have more positive attitudes regarding the impact of tourism
(Brougham & Butler, 1981; Akis et al., 1996; Weaver & Lawton, 2001; Andereck, et al., 2005). Lankford
and Howard (1994) did not find a significant association between residents and the amount of contact
with tourists.
(viii) Access to recreational activities (Lindberg & Johnson, 1997). The local reaction to tourism may be
positive or negative depending on how residents perceive its impact on their ability to use tourist
resources. In this sense, they will react positively if they perceive tourism as a factor that improves leisure
facilities or increases the residents' opportunity to participate in recreational activities (Perdue et al., 1987;
Allen et al., 1993). On the other hand, the reaction will be negative if they consider that tourism may
provoke overcrowding or the expulsion of the resident population from places of leisure (O’Leary, 1976,
cited in Royo & Ruiz, 2009).
The perceived competition to access tourist attractions decreased the favourable evaluation of tourism.
Perdue et al. (1987) found that when residents felt that tourism was having an increasingly negative
impact on their own recreational opportunities, the desire for tourism development diminished. By the
same token, the study by Lankford and Howard (1994) concluded that if local residents felt that the
increasing number of visitors affected this access, their attitude towards tourism development deteriorated
drastically.
4.1. Sociodemographic variables
Regarding the most important sociodemographic variables highlighted by research in this field, we note
the following:
(i) Gender. Mason and Cheyne (2000) claim that gender difference in attitudes towards tourism should be
researched further. When both sexes express their support, they may give different reasons for doing so,
suggesting a difference in attitudes based on gender difference (Kuvan & Akan, 2005).
Nunkoo and Gursoy (2012) claim that gender is a good predictor of both positive and negative attitudes
towards tourism. In their study they conclude that the women were more likely to perceive the negative
impacts of tourism and, therefore, support the tourism industry less. In Mason and Cheyne's (2000) study
of rural areas in New Zealand they found that the women were more opposed to tourism development
than the men due to the negative impacts perceived, such as increased traffic, noise and crime. However,
they also recognized positive benefits. Ritchie (1988) concluded that despite some differences between
men and women, there are a great number of common elements between both sexes.
(ii) Age. A study by Tomljenovic and Faulkner (2000) on Australia's Gold Coast found that older
residents were generally more favourably inclined towards tourism than younger ones. The same
conclusion was reached by the authors McGehee and Andereck (2004), who published a study on
residents' attitudes based on a dozen communities in Arizona. They reported that older residents were
more likely to see the positive impacts of tourism and not so much the negative impacts.
On the other hand, Cavus and Tanrisevdi (2002), cited in Harrill (2004), in their study conducted in
Kusadasi, Turkey, discovered that older residents had more negative perceptions than younger ones. The
study by Huh and Vogt (2008) identified age as a variable that explains the change in the attitudes of
residents over time. Young adults were more likely to have favourable attitudes towards the economic
impacts as it leads to them having work opportunities. They, therefore, appreciate the advantage tourism
offers them. As the age groups become older, they begin having less favourable attitudes than younger
ones.
The study by Ritchie (1988) observed that younger age brackets had a more positive predisposition than
older groups. Along the same lines, the study by Sheldon and Abenoja (2001) in Hawaii observed that
older residents were more satisfied with the facilities in the area while younger residents wanted further

8

improvements. The results of other studies are mixed and ambiguous, with this factor not constituting a
significant variable (Kuvan & Akan, 2005).
To summarize, there are studies where the results indicate that older residents had more positive attitudes
towards tourism (King et al., 1993; Tomljenovic & Faulkner, 2000) or a less negative view of some
aspects of the impact of tourism, such as the environmental impacts (Bujosa & Rosselló, 2007). In other
studies older residents had negative attitudes towards tourism (Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Cavus
& Tanrisevdi, 2002, cited in Harrill, 2004).
(iii) Level of education. Residents with a higher educational or cultural level expressed greater support for
tourism and a more positive attitude to tourists (Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Hernandez et al., 1996;
Teye et al., 2002). Yet other authors found that the attitudes of residents with advanced studies were less
favourable towards the impacts of tourism than those with an average or low level of studies (Andriotis &
Vaughan, 2003). The study by Sheldon and Abenoja (2001) found that residents with a high level of
education were more concerned about the erosion of the beaches than those with a lower education level.
The study by Hernandez et al. (1996) states that residents that had not completed secondary school had
less favourable attitudes than those with a higher level of education. According to the authors, it's possible
that residents with a lower level of academic achievement consider that they have less chances of
acquiring a job and/or obtaining direct benefits from tourism than those with a higher level of education.
It may also be the case that residents with a lower level of education are more interested in preserving
their way of life. Kuvan and Akan (2005) are also of the opinion that a lower level of education is related
to a more critical outlook or point of view.
(iv) Level of income. Haralambopoulos and Pizam (1996) found a relation between positive attitudes and
larger incomes, according to which wealthier residents with more positive attitudes would support tourist
development more and low-income residents would support it less. Along the same lines, Kuvan and
Akan (2005) seem to have a more critical perspective in terms of only a few benefiting from tourism.
At the opposite end, McMinn and Cater (1998) found that low-income groups supported tourism more in
comparison with other residents. One possible explanation might be that the poorest find themselves at a
stage where their principle concern is obtaining an adequate salary, and a tourism-related job helps them
achieve this goal. Local residents that have their basic needs covered may look beyond these and be
concerned with other issues, such as culture or the environment.
These variables have been studied in the research and authors have obtained significant results more or
less depending on the destination. However, the variables are all related in some way, with the field of
tourism studies having not taken into account some factors that could be influencing the attitudes of the
resident such as cultural historical events, or values that define a concrete community. A
multidimensional approach (Sharpley, 2014) could give us a broader and more complete view of a
destination and we could help to understand the attitudes of residents in a specific context.
5. METHODOLOGY AND THEORETICAL MODELS USED TO STUDY THE ATTITUDES OF
RESIDENTS
In recent years, studies on the attitudes of the residents have been accompanied by an increase in
sophisticated research tools in order to research the subject in depth and thus reveal new relationships
(Kuvan & Akan, 2005). These studies have mostly used quantitative methodology and have based their
analysis on the questionnaires, which are often a set of proposals, suggestions or statements where
respondents declare their opinions or attitudes using a Likert scale of five points (Bujosa & Rosselló,
2007). These questionnaires are carried out in locations that vary significantly both in general terms
(geographical, economic, sociocultural) and in tourism (nature, size, stage of development) so it is not
surprising that variable results are obtained (Sharpley, 2014).
Inside this extensive research there are two different approaches. Firstly, empirical studies applying
statistical techniques without providing theory. Secondly, in addition to measuring attitudes, studies also
test and develop theory. Studies using the first approach are more frequent than those using the second
(Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003).
The methodology proposed in these investigations is so heterogeneous that it has generated a wide
fragmentation rather than a coherent vision. Likewise, the sampling methodology, sample size and the use
of statistical techniques vary considerably from study to study, making comparisons difficult between
them (Haley et al., 2005). As the authors Lankford and Howard (1994) explain, the lack of consistent

9

methods and standardized instruments is very evident in the literature on the measurement of attitudes of
residents towards tourism.
Qualitative techniques are less used in these studies (Horn & Simmons, 2002; Marrero, 2006; Lepp,
2007) which is one of the deficiencies of this research. Qualitative methodology provides greater
knowledge and understanding of the topic, and that explains why residents have certain attitudes towards
tourism (Sharpley, 2014), so we encourage exploration of data through these techniques.
Something similar happens with longitudinal studies (Getz, 1994; Johnson et al., 1994; Huh & Vogt,
2008), very few of which have been done to date, which is a bias in these studies. Most of these
investigations are limited to collecting data in one period, a very specific point of destination
development and the tourist season. This fact provides a very restricted view of the attitude of the
resident, along with a possibly limited conclusion (Huh & Vogt, 2008). Longitudinal studies provide us
with a broader view, which allows us to identify trends and changes that occur over time (Vargas et al.,
2011). On the other hand, there are some attempts or theoretical models that try to generalize the
behaviour of the resident to the impacts of tourism. In fact, some research on tourism was an attempt to
find evidence to support or contradict these models (López, 2011).
One of these theoretical frameworks, the saturation model proposed by Doxey (1975), tries to explain or
predict the behaviour of the resident, according to the increasing number of tourists in a destination. Some
authors have questioned and doubted its validity in any situation or tourism context. Lepp's study (2004),
cited in Lepp (2007), carried out among residents of rural village Bigodi (Uganda) said that residents did
not react to the early stages of tourism with a "high", but rather with fear, anxiety and suspicion about the
risk of destruction of the ecosystem, which is a contradiction to the model of Doxey (1975).
Furthermore, most studies in mature destinations (Liu & Var, 1986; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Sheldon &
Abenoja, 2001; Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003) found that the attitude of residents is to support tourism, and
they, therefore, have a positive attitude, which again contradicts the model of Doxey (1975) according to
which, residents should have an antagonistic attitude to tourism.
Some previously mentioned studies tell us something interesting to note: a major tourist development, the
closer it is to the final stages in the life cycle model of a destination (Butler, 1980), the more defined is
the attitude of the impacts of tourism development. Residents of cities with extensive tourism
development perceived impacts, both positive and negative, more heavily than residents of less developed
cities (Madrigal, 1993). It seems that the consequences of living with daily tourism causes residents to be
more aware of the positive and negative aspects of tourism development.
In the literature on tourism, the predominant framework in research into residents' attitudes has been
social exchange theory. The theoretical basis of social exchange theory states that local residents are
prepared to participate in an exchange with tourists if they believe that it is likely they will obtain benefits
without incurring unacceptable costs. If the residents perceive that the positive effects of tourism
development outweigh the negative impacts, they will feel inclined to participate in the exchange and,
therefore, will support future tourism development in their community (Yoon et al., 2001; Andriotis &
Vaughan, 2003; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004, Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2010). However, the contribution
of this theory to explain the attitudes of the residents, remains unclear.
Theoretical models for the same purpose have emerged (Jurowski et al., 1997; Lindberg & Johnson,
1997; Gursoy et al., 2002), and other proposals have been used such as dependency theory, the
compensation of the social representations, etc. These theories have not proven their validity or
effectiveness to provide an adequate framework to explain resident attitudes towards tourism. For a
couple of decades, Ap (1990) has identified this lack of a comprehensive theoretical framework as a
problem and a limitation in the advancement of knowledge of the attitudes of residents to the impacts of
tourism. To date, this debate has not yet been resolved and we consider, in view of the diversity of
contexts within developing tourism, that it is difficult to reach a general and comprehensive framework
that can be extrapolated to hundreds of destinations, each with its unique characteristics and peculiarities.
6. CONCLUSION
Some studies have demonstrated that residents tend to have a positive perception of the economic impacts
of tourism and a negative view of some aspects of the sociocultural and environmental impacts. The most

10

common feature of these studies is precisely finding as many positive and negative aspects of
sociocultural and environmental impacts (Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Andereck et al., 2005; Andriotis, 2005;
Diedrich & Garcia, 2009).
In general, most of the research up until now has not concluded that residents were generally worried
about the negative aspects of tourism. In most studies it seems that positive attitudes imply support for
tourism development and that residents have a positive disposition with regards to it (Murphy, 1981). At
any rate, various studies have outlined the concerns over one or more specific elements with regards to
the negative impacts of tourism (Andereck & Vogt, 2000). Some contradictions in opinion have been
revealed in particular with regards to environmental impact. In terms of the factors that affect residents'
attitudes, there is really no consensus when it comes to identifying the variables that determine the
receptive community's attitudes. For example, in the studies that analyze the variable “distance between
the resident's home and the tourism centre”, we can find research that has delivered both positive results
in relation to the proximity of the home to the tourist area (Belisle & Hoy, 1980, Sheldon & Var, 1984)
and negative findings. It is also sometimes the case that no significant results are derived from this
variable (Weaver and Lawton, 2001). The same goes for the socio-demographic variables; some authors
have achieved significant results and others have not found a consistent relationship to test the connection
between these variables and attitudes (Lankford, 1994; Williams & Lawson, 2001; Hernández et al.,
1996).
Those studies that have aimed to clarify this issue by focusing on the tourist destination's stage of
development have not arrived at a definitive agreement either. It could seem logical to explain that
moderate tourism development tends to be perceived in a positive light and that, as this development
intensifies, opinions become more negative. But this logic does not hold with residents' attitudes to
tourism as this very argument has also been called into question. It may be that there are other variables
beyond the tourist field and relating to the social life of residents that have not yet been analyzed and that
could influence the attitude in the area. Therefore, the need for a multidimensional approach should not
be excluded (Sharpley, 2014). Different models and theories adapted to predict and explain the attitude of
the residents have been questioned, and no academic consensus has been reached due to the contradictory
results.
This discrepancy in results may be attributed to the population characteristics unique to all the places
where the studies are conducted. In other words, not all the communities at destinations will detect all
types of impacts, or at least not with the same intensity. The attitude that residents have toward tourism
impacts will be determined by the particular characteristics of the destination (Tosun, 2002). It seems that
the impacts of tourism on communities are highly localized in time and place. The conditions of each
context (topography, heritage, culture, history, infrastructure, etc.) create results that, while they might
have some common characteristics with other places, are still unique and based on the local (Ryan et al.,
2011). In fact, according to Ryan and Gu (2007) the only long-term response to globalization in tourism is
glocalization.
REFERENCES
Aguiló, E., Barros, V., García, M. A., & Rosselló, J. (2004). Las actitudes de los residentes en Baleares
frente al turismo. Palma: Universidad de las Islas Baleares.
Akis, S., Peristianis, N., & Warner, J. (1996). Residents attitudes to tourism development: The case of
Cyprus. Tourism Management, 17(7), 481-404.
Allen, L. R., Long, P. T., Perdue, R. R., & Keiselbach, S. (1988). The impact of tourism development on
residents perceptions of community life. Journal of Travel Research, 27(1), 16-21.
Allen, R.L., Hafer, H.R., Long, P.T., & Perdue, R.R. (1993). Rural resudents’ attitudes toward recreation
and tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 31(4), 27–33.
Andereck, K. L., & Vogt, C. A. (2000). The relationship between residents' attitudes toward tourism and
tourism development options. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 27-36.
Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C., & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents’ perceptions of
community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 1056–1076.

11

Andereck, K. L., & Nyaupane, G. P. (2011). Exploring the nature of tourism and quality of life
perceptions among residents. Journal of Travel Research, 50(3), 248–260.
Andriotis, K., & Vaughan, D. R. (2003). Urban residents’ attitudes towards tourism development: The
case of Crete. Journal of Travel Research, 42(2), 172-185.
Andriotis, K. (2005). Community Groups' Perceptions of and Preferences for Tourism Development:
Evidence from Crete. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 29(1), 67-90
Antón, S., & González, F. (Eds.). (2008). A propósito del turismo. Barcelona: Editorial UOC.
Ap, J. (1990). Residents’ perceptions research on the social impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 17(4), 610-16.
Belisle, F. J., & Hoy, D. R. (1980). The perceived impact of tourism by residents: A case study of Santa
Marta, Columbia. Annals of Tourism Research, 7(1), 83-101.
Besculides, A., Lee, M. E., & McCormick, P. J. (2002). Residents’ perceptions of the cultural benefits of
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), 303-319.
Brougham, J. E., & Butler, R.W. (1981). A segmentation analysis of resident attitudes to social impact of
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(4), 569-590.
Brunt, P., & Courtney, P. (1999). Host perceptions of sociocultural impacts. Annals of Tourism Research,
26(3), 493-515.
Bujosa A., & Rosselló J. (2007). Modelling environmental attitudes toward tourism. Tourism
Management, 28, 688–695
Butler, R. (1980). The concept of a tourist area life cycle of evolution: Implications for management of
resources. Canadian Geographer, 19(1), 5-12.
Castillo A. M., Osuna, M., & López, T. (2012). Percepción y actitudes del residente acerca del impacto
del turismo en la isla de Santiago (Cabo Verde). Revista de investigación en turismo y desarrollo local,
5(12), 1-23.
Cerezo, J. M., & Lara de Vicente, F. (2005). El turismo como industria de España y de la Unión Europea.
En López, G., Tomás J. y Lara de Vicente, F. (Eds.), Turismo sostenible: un enfoque multidisciplinar e
internacional (pp. 255-287). Córdoba: Universidad de Córdoba.
Chen, J. S. (2000). An Investigation of urban residents' loyalty to tourism. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 24, 5-19.
Davis, D., Allen, J., & Cosenza , R. M. (1988). Segmenting local residents by their attitudes, interests,
and opinions toward tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 28(2), 2-8.
Díaz, R., & Gutiérrez, D. (2010). La actitud del residente en el destino turístico de Tenerife: evaluación y
tendencia. PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 8 (4), 431- 444.
Diedrich, A., & García, E. (2009). Local perceptions of tourism as indicators of destination decline.
Tourism Management, 30, 512–521.
Dyer, P., Gursoy, D., Sharma, B., & Carter, J. (2007). Structural modeling of resident perceptions of
tourism and associated development on the Sunshine Coast, Australia. Tourism Management, 28, 409–
422.
Doxey, G. V. (1975). Acausation theory of visitor-resident irritants, methodology, and research
inferences. Sixth annual conference proceedings of the Travel Research Association, San Diego, CA:
Travel and Tourism Research Association, 195-98.

12

Getz, D. (1994). Residents' attitudes towards tourism: A longitudinal study in Spey Valley, Scotland.
Tourism Management, 15(4), 247–258.
Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident attitudes. A structural modeling approach. Annals
of Tourism Research, 29(1), 79-105.
Gursoy, D., & Rutherford, D.G. (2004). Host attitudes toward tourism: An improved structural model.
Annals of Tourism Research, 31, 495-516.
Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G., & Dyer, P. (2009). An examination of locals’ attitudes. Annals of Tourism
Research, 36(4), 715–734
Gutiérrez, D. (2010). Las actitudes de los residentes ante el turismo. (Thesis). Universidad de La Laguna.
Santa Cruz de Tenerife.
Haley, A. J., Snaith, T., & Miller, G. (2005). The social impacts of tourism: A case study of Bath, UK.
Annals of Tourism Research, 32, (3), 647–668.
Haralambopoulos, N., & Pizam, A. (1996). Perceived impacts of tourism: The case of Samos. Annals of
Tourism Research, 23, 503–526.
Harrill, R. (2004). Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development: A literature review with implications
for tourism planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 18(3), 251–266.
Hernández, S., Cohen, J., & García, H. (1996). Residents’ attitudes towards an instant resort enclave.
Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 755–779.
Horn, C., & Simmons, D. (2002). Community adaptation to tourism: comparisons between Rotorua and
Kaikoura, New Zealand. Tourism Management, 23, 133–143.
Huete, R. (2010). Opiniones y actitudes ante el turismo residencial en el sur de la Comunidad Valenciana.
Pasos, Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 8(4), 445-461.
Huh, C., & Vogt, C. A. (2008). Changes in residents' attitudes toward tourism over time: A cohort
analytical approach. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 446-455.
Johnson, J. D., Snepenger, D. J., & Akis, S. (1994). Residents perceptions of tourism development.
Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 629-642.
Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Williams R. (1997). A theoretical analysis of host community resident
reactions to tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 36(2), 3–11.
Jurowski, C., & Gursoy, D. (2004). Distance effects on residents’ attitudes toward tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 31, (2), 296–312.
King, B., Pizam, A., & Milman, A. (1993). Social Impacts of Tourism: Host Perceptions. Annals of
Tourism Research, 20(4), 650-665.
Ko, D. W., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of residents’ attitudes for tourism
development. Tourism Management, 23, 521–530.
Korca, P. (1996). Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts. Annals of tourism research, 23(3), 695-726.
Kuvan Y., & Akan P. (2005). Residents’ attitudes toward general and forest-related impacts of tourism:
the case of Belek, Antalya. Tourism Management, 26, 691–706.
Lankford, S.V. (1994). Attitudes and perceptions toward tourism and rural regional development. Journal
of Travel Research, 32(3), 35-33.

13

Lankford, S. V., & D. R. Howard (1994). Developing a tourism impact attitude scale. Annals of Tourism
Research, 21(1), 121-39.
Lawton, L. J. (2005). Resident perceptions of tourist attractions on the Gold Coast of Australia. Journal
of Travel Research, 44(11), 188-200.
Lepp, A. (2007). Residents’ attitudes towards tourism in Bigodi village, Uganda. Tourism Management,
28, 876–885.
Lindberg, K., & Johnson, R. L. (1997). Modelling resident attitudes toward tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 24(2), 402-424.
Liu, J., & Var, T. (1986). Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism
Research, 13(2), 193-214.
Liu, J., Sheldon, P. J., & Var, T. (1987). Resident perception of the environmental impacts of tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 14, 17–37.
Long, T. P., Perdue, R. R., & Allen, L. (1990). Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes by
community level of tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 28(3), 3-9.
López, V. (2011). La reorientación del ciclo de vida del área turística: El caso de Bahías de Huatulco,
Oaxaca (México). Investigaciones Turísticas, 1 (January-June), 107-121.
Madrigal, R. (1993). A tale of tourism in two cities. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(2), 336-353.
Marrero, J. R. (2006). El discurso de rechazo al turismo en Canarias: Una aproximación cualitativa. Pasos
Revista de turismo y patrimonio cultural, 4(3), 327-341.
Mason, P., & Cheyne, J. (2000). Residents attitudes to proposed tourism development. Annals of Tourism
Research, 27(2), 391-411.
McCool, S. F., & Martin, S. R. (1994). Community Attachment and Attitudes toward Tourism
Development. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), 29-34.
McGehee, N., & Andereck, K. (2004). Factors predicting rural residents´ support of tourism. Journal of
Travel Research, 43(2), 131–140.
McMinn, S., & Cater E. (1998). Tourist typology: Observations from Belize. Annals of Tourism
Research, 25(3), 675-99.
Mendoza, M. M., & Monterrubio, J. C. (2012). Actitud de la comunidad residente en Acapulco hacia los
spring breakers y su comportamiento. Revista de análisis turístico, 13, 27-38
Milman, A., & Pizam, A. (1988). Social impacts of tourism on Central Florida. Annals of Tourism
Research, 15(2), 191-204.
Murphy, P. E. (1981). Community attitudes to tourism: A comparative analysis. International Journal of
Tourism Management, 8, 189-195.
Nicholas, L. N., Thapa, B., & Ko, Y. J. (2009). Residents’ perspectives of a world heritage site: The
Pitons management area, St. Lucia. Annals of Tourism Research, 36,(3), 390–412
Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2010). Gendered theory of planned behavior and resident support for
tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 13(6), 525–540.
Nunkoo, R., & Gursoy, D. (2012). Residents’ support for tourism an identity perspective. Annals of
Tourism Research, 39(1), 243–268.

14

Oviedo, M. A., Castellanos, M., & Martin, D. (2008). Gaining residents’ support for tourism and
planning. International Journal of Tourism Research, 10, 95–109.
Paniza, J. L. (2005). Percepción social del golf en Andalucía. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía.
Pearce, J. A. (1980). Host commumty acceptance of foreign tourists. Strategic Considerations. Annals of
Tourism Research, 7(2), 224-233.
Perdue, R. R., Long, T. P., & Allen, L. (1987). Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes. Annals of
Tourism Research, 17(4), 586-599.
Perdue, R. R., Long, T. P., & Allen, L. (1990). Resident support for tourism development. Annals of
Tourism Research, 17, 586-599.
Pérez, E., & Nadal, J. (2005). Host community perceptions: a cluster analysis. Annals
of Tourism Research, 32(4), 925-941.
Pizam, A., & Pokela, J. (1985). The perceived impacts of casino gambling on a community. Annals of
Tourlsm Research, 12, 147-165.
Ritchie, J. R. B. (1988). Consensus policy formulation in tourism: Measuring resident views via survey
research. Tourism Management, 9(3), 199-212.
Rodríguez, P. (2007). Los andaluces y el turismo. Percepción social del turismo en Andalucía. Junta de
Andalucía. Consejería de Turismo, Comercio y Deporte.
Royo, M., & Ruíz, M. E. (2009). Actitud del residente hacia el turismo y el visitante: Factores
determinantes en el turismo y excursionismo rural-cultural. Cuadernos de Turismo, 23, 217-236.
Ryan, C., & Gu, H. (2007). The social impacts of tourism in a Beijing Hutong: A case of environmental
change. China Tourism Research, 3(2), 251–271.
Ryan, C., Chaozhi, Z., & Zeng, D. (2011). The impacts of tourism at a UNESCO heritage site in China –
a needfor a meta-narrative? The case of the Kaiping Diaolou Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19 (6),
747–765.
Saveriades, A. (2000). Establishing the social tourism carrying capacity for the tourist resorts of the east
coast of the Republic of Cyprus . Tourism Management , 21, 147-156.
Sharpley, R. (2014). Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tourism Management, 42, 37-
49.
Sheldon, P. J., & Var, T. (1984). Residents attitudes toward tourism in North Wales. Tourism
Management, 5(1), 40-47.
Sheldon, P. J., & Abenoja, T. (2001). Resident attitudes in a mature destination: The case of Waikiki.
Tourism Management, 22, 435-443.
Sirakaya, E., Teye, V., & Sönmez, S. (2002). Understanding residents’ support for tourism development
in the Central Region of Ghana. Journal of Travel Research, 41(8), 57-67.
Smith, M. D., & Krannich, R. S. (1998). Tourism dependence and resident attitudes. Annals of Tourism
Research, 25(4), 783-802.
Snaith, T., & Haley, A. (1999). Residents' opinions of tourism development in the historic city of York,
England. Tourism Management, 20, 595-603.
SOPDE (2004). La percepción de los malagueños y malagueñas ante el desarrollo turístico. Málaga:
Sociedad de Planificación y Desarrollo.

15

Teye, V., Sönmez, S. F., & Sirakaya, E. (2002). Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development. Annals
of Tourism Research, 29(3), 668-688.
Tomljenovic, R., & Faulkner, B. (2000). Tourism and older residents in a Sunbelt Resort. Annals of
Tourism Research, 27(1), 93-114.
Tosun, C. (2002). Host perceptions of impacts: A comparative tourism study. Annals of Tourism
Research, 29(1), 231–253.
Var, T., Kendall, K. W., & Tarakcioglu, E. (1985). Resident attitudes towards tourists in a turkish resort
town. Annals of tourism research, 12(4) 652-658.
Vargas, A., Plaza, M. A., & Porras, N. (2007). Desarrollo del turismo y percepción de la comunidad local:
Factores determinantes de su actitud hacia un mayor desarrollo turístico. Madrid: XXI Congreso Anual de
AEDEM.
Vargas, A., Plaza, M. A., & Porras, N. (2009). Understanding residents' attitudes toward the development
of industrial tourism in a former mining community. Journal of Travel Research, 47(3), 373-387.
Vargas, A., Plaza, M. A. & Porras, N. (2011). Explaining residents’ attitudes to tourism is a universal
model possible? Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2), 460–480.
Wang, Y., & Pfister, R. E. (2008). Residents' Attitudes Toward Tourism and Perceived Personal Benefits
in a Rural Community. Journal of Travel Research, 47, 84-93.
Weaver, B. D., & Lawton, L .J. (2001). Resident perceptions in the urban-rural fringe. Annals of Tourism
Research, 28(2), 439-458.
Williams, J., & Lawson, R. (2001). Community issues and resident opinions of tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 28(2), 269–290.
Yoon, Y., Gursoy, D., & Chen, J. S. (1999). An investigation of the relationship between tourism impacts
and host communities’ characteristics. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality
Research, 10(1), 29-44.
Yoon, Y., Gursoy, D., & Chen, J. S. (2001). Validating a tourism development theory with structural
equation modeling. Tourism Management, 22, 363-372
Young, C. A., Corsun, D. L., & Baloglu, S. (2007). A taxonomy of hosts visiting friends and relatives.
Annals of Tourism Research, 34(2), 497–516.
