Content uploaded by Eunju Woo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eunju Woo on Dec 01, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
423
M. Uysal et al. (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research: Enhancing the Lives
of Tourists and Residents of Host Communities, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life,
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2288-0_25, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Introduction
Much of the tourism experience occurs in physical settings as a result of the interaction between
demand and supply factors which change over time. Individuals travel to destinations to visit
attractions, to participate in leisure activities, and to form vacation experiences resulting from
their interactions with the places they visit. While the enjoyment derived from the tourist
experience may vary depending upon the amount and quality of time spent at a destination, the
quality of the service encounter, and personal and situational factors, the general objective of the
travel is to improve the quality-of-life of the tourist. Similarly destinations, where the vacation
experience is sought, undergo different cycles of development over time, affecting the nature
of their appeal. The very existence of tourism and the sustained competitiveness of tourism
areas depends on the availability of resources and the degree to which these resources are
managed, developed, and enhanced in a sustainable manner to meet visitor expectations and
residents’ needs at the destination (Uysal et al. 2011 ) . The extent of this interaction between
the visitor and the visited also affects the nature of actual and perceived tangible and intangible
benefi ts of tourism.
The entry of tourists into a destination changes its character forever. Places as destinations
experience different phases or cycles of development, and examining each cycle of development
and the speed of development reveals clues about managerial actions for destination planners and
marketing organizations. The consequences of each cycle affect the quality-of-life in the destina-
tion in terms of both tangible and intangible benefi ts that result from tourism activities. Structural
changes to the destination area over time invoke behavioral responses from both tourists and resi-
dents. The purpose of this chapter is to review the connection between tourism area life cycle
(TALC) and its effects on the quality-of-life (QOL) of the destination community. The underlin-
ing assumption of this chapter is that as destinations undergo structural change over time, the
dynamics of change affect the QOL of community stakeholders. Our focus is on the destination
community and not the tourist experience per se. The chapter is divided into four major sections.
The fi rst section presents the concept of TALC and describes the indicators of each stage of the
Chapter 25
The Tourist Area Life Cycle (TALC)
and Its Effect on the Quality-of-Life (QOL)
of Destination Community
Muzaffer Uysal , Eunju Woo , and Manisha Singal
M. Uysal (*) • E. Woo • M. Singal
Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Pamplin College of Business
Virginia Tech , Blacksburg , VA 24061 , USA
e-mail: samil@vt.edu; eunjuw3@vt.edu; msingal@vt.edu
424 M. Uysal et al.
life cycle. The second section provides a brief discussion of the impacts of tourism on the
destination in relation to TALC, followed by a third section which focuses on the adjustment of
the community to the changes occurring at the destination while trying to maintain and enhance
their QOL. Section four provides a review of related literature to support the relation between
TALC and QOL of destination communities. The chapter ends with delineating critical topics for
future research, outlining some of the diffi culties in moving forward, and formulating relevant
policy implications that may help researchers and destination management organizations to fur-
ther examine the issues that may surround TALC and QOL connections.
Concept of Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC)
The concept of tourism area life cycle (TALC) implies that places as destinations, like products,
follow a relatively consistent process of development and a recognizable cycle of evolution
(Butler 1980, 2004 ; Crompton et al. 1987 ; Meyer-Arendt 1985 ) . The concept in its abstract form
embodies the assumption that sooner or later a threshold is reached after which a tourist destina-
tion is perceived to decline in desirability. The concept of a tourism area life cycle suggests that
as a destination area evolves, changes occur in the physical environment and the sociocultural
environment that result in changes in the attitudes of the host community. TALC was developed
based on the concept of the product life cycle (PLC). The product life cycle (PLC) framework
has been used in the business sector to model the scale curve for a product over time (Levitt
1965 ; Vernon 1966 ) . In general, the product life cycle describes the evolution of a product as it
passes through the stages of introduction, growth, maturity, and decline, with the growth of prod-
uct sales following an S-shaped pattern. In the fi rst stage known as the introductory stage, sales
growth is slow because of the lack of product awareness and high prices due to low scale produc-
tion resulting in initial losses. In the second stage, known as the growth stage, sales rise rapidly
as the product gains recognition and wide acceptance while prices fall due to large-scale produc-
tion, leading to profi ts. In the third stage known as the maturity stage, sales gradually slow down,
limiting profi t potential. Finally, in the last stage known as the decline stage, the product becomes
outdated, experiences a signifi cant drop in sales, and is accompanied by negative profi ts.
Based on the product life cycle (PLC) framework, since the early 1960s, tourism scholars
conceived that tourism destinations evolve and go through a life cycle process (Martin and Uysal
1990 ; Tooman 1997 ) . Christaller ( 1963 ) fi rst observed that sites of tourism locations follow a
relatively consistent process of evolution. This is the most simplistic approach from discovery to
growth to decline. In this representation, artists search out untouched unusual places to paint.
This can lead to the development of an artist colony which in turn attracts other painters, the
cinema people, and gourmets. This progression results in the destination being identifi ed as fash-
ionable and attracts commercialization. As the popularity of the destination increases, more
working-class people are attracted, and advertising and travel agencies promote the destination.
However, the original tourists leave the destination to fi nd new untouched locations, and the
cycle repeats itself.
Since Christaller’s study, much has been studied with slightly varying approaches. Plog ( 1974,
2001 ) asserted that the rise and fall of a destination is due to the psychology of the travelers. He
identifi ed three main types of tourists: the allocentric, the midcentric, and the psychocentric, cor-
responding to different types (phases) of destinations. Implicit in this approach is that types of
personality correspond to types of destinations and their development phase over time.
Allocentrics are the fi rst to visit a location because they are the most adventuresome. As numbers
of visitations increase overtime, tourism facilities emerge and expand so that midcentrics become
attracted. This increased popularity results in the maturation of the destination. At this point, the
42525 The Tourist Area Life Cycle (TALC) and Its Effect on the Quality-of-Life (QOL)...
destination may have achieved its maximum potential and attracted the broadest possible
number of participants. However, the original tourists depart in search of new discoveries, and
psychocentrics visit the destination. As this process completes itself, the psychocentrics
eventually become the majority tourists and the place faces decline. With this decline, the question
arises as to how the place now affects the well-being of different stakeholders that may represent
both demand and supply sides of tourism and recreation activities. The response to each phase of
development may require different policy and management actions. Residents of the destination
may also have different responses to each phase of development depending on the extent to
which residents may be affected by tourism activities. An earlier application of the product
life cycle model to municipal recreation and park departments indicated that the evolutionary
development of a recreation department or of particular components would have a determining
effect upon selecting the appropriate managerial responses required for maximum effectiveness
(Crompton and Hensarling
1978 ) . Therefore, Crompton and Hensarling ( 1978 ) suggested that
the managerial responses for each of the four life cycle stages should optimize the delivery of
services appropriate for a recreation and parks organization. In the introduction stage, the
department is a refl ection of the individual in charge. The major goal at this stage is to develop
suffi cient public and political support to ensure survival. The dominant characteristic of the
take-off stage is accelerated development. This stage requires a manager with planning and
organizing skills and with the ability to attract high-quality personnel. The maturity stage is
characterized by a move toward stability in organizational structure. The saturation stage is likely
to stagnate and head for decline unless alternative action is taken. The decline stage may occur
because of drastic changes in consumer demand or changes in the general economic environment.
The authors concluded that managerial methods and skills should evolve as the department pro-
gresses through various stages of development. The corresponding method and skill changes
certainly would necessarily have to take into account the types of amenities, service equity, and
quality that will be provided.
Butler ( 1980 ) extended the PLC concept and formally introduced the concept of tourism area
life cycle (TALC) in tourism settings. The TALC model discusses the development of a destination
in terms of a series of life stages defi ned by the number of visitors and the level of infrastructure as
indicators of development. Specifi cally, this model consisted of six stages: beginning with the
exploration stage of the tourism area and followed by the involvement, development, consolidation,
stagnation, and post-stagnation stages. The last stage is further characterized by a period of decline,
rejuvenation, or stabilization. Butler ( 1980 ) reported that tourist areas go through a recognizable
cycle of evolution and illustrated the different stages of popularity using an S-shaped curve.
Subsequently, Haywood ( 1986 ) attempted to operationalize Butler’s TALC concept. He exam-
ined destination life cycle stages based on the percentage of tourist arrivals and annual growth
rates as indicators of TALC. The author described four stages: introductory stage, growth stage,
maturity stage, and decline stage. In the introductory stage, the annual number of tourist arrivals
is less than 5% of the peak year. If the annual growth rate is more than half its standard deviation
for the entire period, this stage is known as the growth stage. When the growth rate is between
minus half and plus half the standard deviation, the maturity stage emerges. The decline stage sets
in when the growth rate falls below minus half of the standard deviation. On the other hand, Toh
et al. ( 2001 ) proposed an alternative and improved method of identifying tourism destination
stages based on TALC. This approach, called travel balance approach (TBA), is premised on the
notion that the economic development of the country in general, and tourism development in
particular, will demarcate four stages of a country’s travel balance, defi ned as net travel exports
(exports over imports), as the driving indicator of change. In the introductory stage, the primitive
destination country earns a limited amount of receipts from adventurous tourists from developed
countries. In the growth stage, a few residents from developing countries start to travel abroad, but
the rate of growth of travel exports far exceeds that of travel imports, resulting in a positive and
426 M. Uysal et al.
growing travel balance. The maturity stage then sets in, when travel exports almost peak, but the
rate of growth slows down. In the decline stage, the country’s focus shifts to high-tech and value-
added industries and services with less emphasis on tourism development.
A general review of the extant literature reveals that the tourism destination life cycle concept
has been studied with varying approaches. However, there is a great deal of similarity in the
outcomes, and a general theme emerges. Among various approaches, Butler’s (
1980, 2004 )
model has attracted the most attention and discussion ( Tooman 1997 ), and most of the reported
studies have supported the belief that Butler’s model provides a useful framework for description
and interpretation (Richardson 1986 ; Johnson and Snepenger 1993 ; Oppermann 1998 ; Formica
and Uysal 1996 ; Hovinen 2002 ; Boyd 2006 ; Zhong et al., 2008 ; Whitfeild 2009 ; Singal and
Uysal 2009 ) . Thus, the following section provides a brief discussion on Butler’s TALC model
with its relevant stages.
Exploration
The exploration stage begins when a small number of visitors who are adventurous and attracted
by the destination’s unique or considerably different natural and cultural features arrive. In this
phase of development, there is low access to the destination and rudimentary facilities for the
visitors. Therefore, visitors use whatever local facilities as may be available and are likely to
have high contact with local residents. At this stage, physical and social characteristics of the
place are unchanged by tourism, and the arrival and departure of tourists would be of relatively
little signifi cance to the economic and social well-being of the permanent residents. The assumed
benefi ts of tourism may accrue to a small number of providers, and the total economic benefi ts
from travel and tourism-generated sales and taxes may be insignifi cant, which may in turn limit
the amount of public spending that could be allocated for further enhancement of the tourist
destination. Nevertheless, the tourist place provides a valuable experience to its visitors, fulfi lling
their needs and expectations.
Involvement
As the number of tourists increases, more of the local residents get involved to provide facilities
for the tourists, thus resulting in additional income for the providers. While there is still limited
interaction between tourists and local residents, the developing tourism industry leads to the
provision of basic services, which also benefi ts the local residents. At this stage, some advertising
to attract tourists can be anticipated, thereby inducing a defi nable pattern of seasonal variation.
The basic initial market area for visitors can now be defi ned. Some level of organization in tourist
travel arrangements can be expected, and the fi rst pressures are put upon governments and public
agencies to provide or improve transport and other facilities for visitors and locals alike.
Development
This stage is characterized as one where large numbers of visitors arrive. The number of tourists
will probably equal to or exceed the permanent local population. Local involvement and control
of development begins to decline rapidly while external companies provide up-to-date facilities.
42725 The Tourist Area Life Cycle (TALC) and Its Effect on the Quality-of-Life (QOL)...
This may be the most important phase of development in improving the quality-of-life for
residents and the economic well-being of employees and providers of tourism goods and services.
Natural and cultural attractions will be developed, maintained, and marketed while some of the
original natural attractions will be supplemented by man-made imported facilities. Such enhance-
ment projects are also available for the local residents to enjoy and enhance their life. On the other
hand, changes in the physical appearance of the area will be noticeable, and not all of the changes
will be welcomed by the local population. Local residents may start developing a negative attitude
because the presence of a large number of visitors may impinge on the quality of their life (Doxey
1976 ) . Moreover, the destination may also suffer from a change in quality of services provided
through problems of over-used facilities, crowding, and increased pressure on existing services.
Consolidation
During the consolidation stage, tourism has become a major part of the local economy. However,
the rate of increase of visitors has declined although the total numbers continue to increase, such
that the total visitor numbers exceed the number of permanent residents. Deterioration of the
quality-of-life and the negative impacts of tourism activities may be felt by the residents. Local
residents may have stronger negative attitudes than at other stages, ranging from almost annoyance
and resentment to antagonism (Doxey 1976 ; Dogan 1989 ) . The perceived impacts of tourism
may not be favorable. In some instances, marketing and advertising efforts will be widened in
order to attract more distant visitors. The large number of visitors and the facilities provided for
them can be expected to arouse some opposition and discontent among permanent residents
particularly those not involved in the tourist industry.
Stagnation
At this stage, the peak number of visitors will have been reached, and most are repeat visitors.
Capacity levels for many attractions and facilities will have been reached or exceeded, resulting
in environmental, social, and economic problems (Butler 1980, 2004 ) . The area will have a well-
established image, but it will no longer be in fashion. Natural and genuine cultural attractions
will probably have been superseded by imported “artifi cial” facilities. These negative changes
will affect the quality of services and experiences provided to the visitors and diminish the value
of tourism on the part of providers and other stakeholders involved in the production and man-
agement of tourism activities.
Decline
In this fi nal stage, the destination will not be able to compete with newer attractions and will face
a declining market. The place will no longer appeal to vacationers. Property turnover will be high,
and tourist facilities and accommodation begin to be converted to non-tourist-related structures
(Butler 1980 ) . Several tourists’ facilities disappear as the area becomes less attractive to tourists,
and the viability of the remaining tourist facilities becomes questionable. Ultimately, the area may
become a veritable tourist “slum” or lose its tourist function completely. The quality-of-life in the
destination community suffers considerably in the decline stage.
428 M. Uysal et al.
Rejuvenation
The rejuvenation stage corresponds to the renovation phase or the reintroduction of the product
with new features phase in the product life cycle. This stage is usually not reached without the
active involvement of destination planners and marketing organizations coupled with a complete
change in the attractions and facilities on which tourism is based. Often, additions of man-made
attractions are necessary. However, if neighboring and competing areas follow suit, the effective-
ness of the measures will be reduced (Butler
1980 ) . An alternative approach is to develop natural
resources untapped previously. Rejuvenation requires a concerted effort on the part of those
involved in the tourism production system.
Over the years, a number of studies have used the TALC model to examine destinations and
their development over time. Most of these studies are descriptive and case-based, tracing the
trajectory of a destination and the number of visitors attracted as it underwent structural
changes during different phases of the life cycle. Table 25.1 provides a list of such studies
describing the places examined, the types of indicators used for diagnosis of the phases, and
results and implications outlined in the study with respect to QOL.
Impacts of Tourism Development and QOL
The discussion so far points to the fact that community consequences emerging from tourism
development embody three major impact categories, namely environmental, social, and eco-
nomic. The nature and level of complexity of these impact states will change over time as the
destination moves from one phase to another on the continuum of destination development. The
following section provides a brief discussion on each state of tourism impact dimensions.
Economic Impacts
To the destination community, the most prominent benefi ts of tourism development are eco-
nomic benefi ts. These include higher tax revenues, increased job opportunities, additional
incomes, increased public spending, and in some instances, foreign exchange earnings, and an
increased tax base for local governments based on increased incomes. These indicators are usu-
ally labeled process indicators of quality-of-life and are the tourism-related factors and condi-
tions that affect the resident community. In addition, there are some other macro indicators,
called outcome indicators, which are also directly related to community residents’ QOL. The
major categories of community residents’ QOL outcome indicators may include changes in
wages, household incomes, degree of unemployment, number of unskilled workers, level of lit-
eracy rates, consumer cost of living indices, prices of goods and services, cost of land and hous-
ing, property taxes, number of retail stores, and the like. Both process and outcome indicators of
tourism economic impacts are measurable, and to a large extent considered objective measures
of QOL (Sirgy et al.
1995 ) .
These benefi ts individually or collectively contribute to the economic and material well-
being of the destination community. Many previous studies not only have examined the posi-
tive economic impacts of tourism development on host communities but also investigated
negative economic impacts. Liu and Var (
1986 ) examined both positive and negative eco-
nomic impacts in terms of residents’ perception of increased employment, investments, and
42925 The Tourist Area Life Cycle (TALC) and Its Effect on the Quality-of-Life (QOL)...
Table 25.1 The application of TALC model to different destinations
Author and date Purpose Region and characteristics Indicators used Notes on results
Hovinen ( 1982 ) To suggest a fi ve-stage evolutionary
sequence appropriate
to Lancaster County
Lancaster County, PA, USA
Pleasure tourism destination
Number of visitors and physical and
psychological carrying capacity
Lancaster County is undergoing an
evolution of tourist development
that involves different identifi able
stages
Meyer-Arendt
( 1985 )
To see the historical evolution of
the resort within the framework
of TALC
Grand Island, Louisiana, USA
Resort town on the Louisiana
Gulf Coast
Building capacity, maps at fi ve
different stages, visitor days, and
capacity indicators
The evolution of Grand Isle can be
described by the TALC
Keller ( 1987 ) To address in general the issue of a
peripheral underdeveloped
region’s industrial diversifi cation
strategy into tourism and to
evaluate this strategy
Canada’s Northwest
Territories
Geographically peripheral and
disadvantaged region
Tourism producers (entrepreneurs),
tourists (types of tourists), and
authorities and agencies indicators
(governments, trade associations,
etc.)
For future development, manpower and
expertise specialized in the tourism
and hospitality industries are
necessary
Strapp ( 1988 ) To examine the TALC concept in
order to determine its
applicability to second homes
Sauble Beach, Ontario,
Canada
Cottage resort community
Number of visitors The most appropriate way to portray
this process is not to use the number
of tourists but the average length of
stays
Copper and
Jackson
( 1989 )
To see the utility of the TALC Isle of Man, UK
Offshore holiday island
Total numbers arriving and departing,
institutional attitudes toward
tourism, and infrastructure
(accommodation, entertainment
facilities, etc.)
The TALC provides a useful descriptive
tool for analyzing the development
of destination and is dependent
upon management decisions and
the setting of the destination
Debbage ( 1990 ) To analyze how industrial
organization and oligopoly
can infl uence the resort cycle
Paradise Island, Bahamas Types of visitors, number of
visitors, capacity levels, and
changes in industrial organization
(international airline, hotel, and
other sectors)
The TALC model does not emphasize
the role of industrial organization
Ioannides ( 1992 ) To identify the role of the agents
and elements behind the rapid
growth and structural change in
tourism
The Cypriot resort cycle
Small island nation
Visitor numbers, number of beds,
types of accommodation, tourism
receipts, tourist type, and arrivals
The state is an active player in tourism
development, as well as foreign
interest groups and transnational
companies
(continued)
430 M. Uysal et al.
Table 25.1 (continued)
Author and date Purpose Region and characteristics Indicators used Notes on results
Getz ( 1992 ) To examine the potential relevance
of the TALC in tourism planning
Niagara Falls Existing documents, interviews, fi eld
and map observations, and a
questionnaire survey
Niagara Falls is in maturity stage.
Planners need to focus on
monitoring and forecasting
Harrison ( 1995 ) To identify the development of
tourism in Swaziland with
TALC
Swaziland, Southern Africa Structured questionnaires, basic data
on the country’s tourism industry,
unstructured interviews, newspaper,
and extensive library research
Tourism development in Swaziland
does not follow Butler’s ideal
type as it consisted of exploration,
inactivity, transaction, truncated
development, and declined and
attempted rejuvenation
O’Hare and
Barrett
( 1997 )
To seek the main trends in the total
numbers of international tourists
Peru, South America Total number of international tourists The TALC is a useful conceptual
framework for describing past
trends in the evolution of the
tourist industry
Agarwal ( 1997 ) To test the applicability of TALC Torbay region, South coast of
Britain
Well-established seaside resorts
Total number of tourists Unit of analysis is important and also
it is diffi cult to operate the TALC
model
Douglas ( 1997 ) To see the historical development
of tourism in three island nations
Melanesia (Papua New Guinea,
Solomon Islands, and
Vanuatu)
Colonial and postcolonial
societies
Historical method and data (type of
tourist, number of tourists, and
infrastructure such as transportation
and accommodations)
Even though the TALC is a useful tool,
there are weaknesses in its
application to colonial and
postcolonial societies
Tooman ( 1997 ) To apply the TALC in a case study in
order to evaluate social welfare
changes as tourism development
evolves over time
Three regions in the Smokey
Mountains, USA
Qualitative and quantitative
indicators (personal incomes,
unemployment, poverty levels,
education attainment,
contemporary observation, and
contemporary observers)
The TALC explains evolution of second
and third economic impact. In order
to benefi t from tourism
development, policies need to be
instrumented to control growth
and emphasize economic diversity
Knowles and
Curtis ( 1999 )
To re-explore the relatively
unexamined post-stagnation
stage of the life cycle for the
second generation of mass
tourist resorts
European seaside resorts
Mass tourism resort destination
Number of tourists The TALC is appropriate to explain
the post-stagnation stages
43125 The Tourist Area Life Cycle (TALC) and Its Effect on the Quality-of-Life (QOL)...
Author and date Purpose Region and characteristics Indicators used Notes on results
Hovinen ( 2002 ) To examine validity of the TALC
with consideration of chaos and
complexity theory
Lancaster County, PA Tourist arrivals and gross sales for
individual businesses
The TALC is a useful framework for
description and interpretation in this
case study and is more useful by
recognizing a “maturity” stage
Boyd ( 2006 ) To illustrate the application of the
TALC in a national park
Banff National Park, Western
Canada
Number of visitors The TALC has applicability as a useful
guide to trace park development
Zhong et al.
( 2008 )
To examine applicability of the
TALC to national park
China’s Zhangjiajie National
Forest Park
Visitors and residents’ perception of
tourism development, secondary
data source (peer-reviewed journals,
books, news articles, etc.)
The park experienced exploration,
involvement, and development
stage. Now it is at the consideration
stage
Singal
and Uysal
( 2009 )
To examine how destination
management development and
rejuvenation strategy affect
destination by combining TALC
and economic cycle
Abingdon in VA, USA
Historical tourist town
Visitors log, sales tax, and other
receipts
For a sustainable growth, there is need
for balance between demand of a
tourism enterprise and destination
offerings on the supply side of
tourism
Whitfeild ( 2009 ) To apply the TALC to the UK
conference sector’s life cycle
UK conference sector Number of venues opening and
offering conference facilities
Theoretical extension of the TALC is
applied to the four conference venue
classifi cations
Diedrich and
Garcia-Buades
( 2009 )
To explore the role of residents’
perception of tourism impacts as
an indicator of destination
decline
Five coastal communities,
Belize
Resident perception Residents’ perception of tourism
impacts is an indicator of destination
decline
Note: This table includes studies that provide both specifi c indicators and development levels of TALC. Thus, it is not intended to be exhaustive in its coverage
432 M. Uysal et al.
profi table local business. As part of the economic indicators of tourism, they mentioned the
existence of negative effects such as an increase in the cost of living. Haralambopoulos and
Pizam ( 1996 ) also found that while tourism increases tax revenue, personal income, standard
of living, and attitude toward work, it also results in an increase in the prices of goods and
services. Other residents’ perspectives of tourism development have generally reported posi-
tive attitudes such as improved economic quality-of-life (Tye et al.
2002 ; McCool and Martin
1994 ; Perdue et al. 1990 ) .
Sociocultural Impacts
Tourism development affects the sociocultural characteristics of residents such as habits, daily
routines, beliefs, and values (Dogan 1989 ) . Sociocultural impacts also have both positive and
negative sides. Brunt and Courtney ( 1999 ) mentioned that tourism can result in improved
community services; additional park, recreation, and cultural facilities; and encouragement of
cultural activities. Such improvements, as a result of tourism, may also improve the well-being
of destination residents. Liu and Var ( 1986 ) also provided that tourism increases entertainment,
historical, and cultural exhibits, that is, tourism development plays a role toward increased
cultural exchange, events, and identity. These improvements contribute to the emotional well-
being of both residents and participants. However, from the negative perspective of sociocultural
impacts, a signifi cant number of studies have identifi ed concern with crime, degradation of
morality, gambling, and crowding of public facilities and resources (Brunt and Courtney 1999 ;
Mok et al. 1991 ; Ap 1992 ; Pizam and Pokela 1985 ) . Such negative impacts undermine the
perceived quality-of-life in the destination community.
Environmental Impacts
Tourism development causes signifi cant environmental damage. Often, the destination is devel-
oped to meet tourists’ needs and wants without considering environmental damage (Andereck
et al. 2005 ) . Andereck ( 1995 ) identifi ed the potential environmental consequences of develop-
ment: air pollution, such as emissions from vehicles and airplanes; water pollution such as waste
water discharge; wildlife destruction as a result of hunting; plant destruction; and deforestation.
Environmental impacts have two perspectives: positive and negative. Liu and Var ( 1986 ) stated
that half of the residents in their study perceived that tourism provided more parks and recreation
areas and also improved public facilities. However, these residents did not perceive ecological
decline as a result of tourism in their community. Perdue et al. (
1990 ) also found a positive aspect
of environmental impact. They mentioned that tourism development improves community
appearance and results in greater recreation and park opportunities than before. Even though
many studies have investigated the positive impacts of tourism on the environment, a majority of
the studies have focused on the negative environmental impacts of tourism development. For
instance, Brunet and Courtney (Brunt and Courtney 1999 ) studied residents concern with traffi c
and pedestrian congestion, and Johnson et al. ( 1994 ) examined overcrowding at outdoor recre-
ation facilities.
Most of the indicators that fall under the social and environmental impacts of tourism are
outcome indicators that are directly related to community residents’ QOL. As seen from this
43325 The Tourist Area Life Cycle (TALC) and Its Effect on the Quality-of-Life (QOL)...
brief discussion, these outcome indicators may cover a wide variety of QOL indicators. The
categories of community residents’ QOL outcome indicators are:
Social (educational attainment, crime rate, quality of the public transportation system, num-•
ber of recreational parks and programs, housing quality, teen pregnancies, quality of local
services such as police and fi re protection, utilities, and roads)
Health (e.g., infant mortality rates; reported incidents of certain diseases such as tuberculosis, •
polio, and venereal disease; infectious and serum hepatitis; life expectancy; number of health-
care facilities in the community)
Environmental well-being (land pollution, air pollution, water pollution, crowd intensity, traf-•
fi c congestion, and the like)
Given the mixed fi ndings of the impacts of tourism, one is challenged to fi nd a way to
minimize the negative impacts of tourism while maintaining a desired level of quality-of-life and
maximizing the positive impacts of tourism through sustaining resources that provide quality
experience and services for both tourists and locals. An interesting study, conducted by Andereck
and Jurowski (
2006 ) , attempted to develop an index called Tourism and Quality-of-Life Index
(TQOL) that demonstrated a method for examining and understanding how tourism activities
(experiences) affect the quality-of-life of residents of a destination. The TQOL index consists of
three complementary measures: (1) residents’ assessments of the importance of quality-of-life
indicators, (2) residents’ assessments of their satisfaction with indicators, and (3) residents’
assessments of tourism’s infl uence on the indicators. By using a scale of 38 items, they covered
economic, sociocultural, and environmental aspects of resident quality-of-life. Using a combina-
tion of methods, they were able to demonstrate that the higher the TQOL index, the more
residents feel that tourism contributes to this particular indicator, even if the indicator is negative,
such as crowding and congestion (p. 145). In other words, if residents feel tourism improves
positive aspects of community QOL, then the TQOL index is a positive number. On the other
hand, if residents feel tourism exacerbates negative QOL indicators such as crowding or conges-
tion, then the index is negative. (For further information on the specifi c method followed to
develop the index, see: Brown et al. 1998 ; Massam 2002 ; Andereck and Jurowski 2006 .) This
particular index is very useful in understanding not only the effects of tourism activities but
also the perceived importance of those impact indicators and the level of satisfaction with the
indicators. The second challenge centers around measuring and monitoring different types of
QOL indicators over time. The operational defi nitions and relative importance of such indicators
as key driving forces of change have to depend on the phase of tourism development in the
destination community. On the other hand, the perceived impacts of tourism, negative or posi-
tive, are considered mostly subjective QOL indicators. The concept of subjective QOL indicators
posits that community residents’ perception of their overall QOL is a function of their satisfac-
tion in their major life domains, namely economic, consumer, social, environmental, and health
life domains.
Adjustment to Change and Maintaining QOL
It is clear from the preceding discussions that the structure of a destination can change under the
infl uence of tourism activities. Tourism provides both positive and negative impacts on destina-
tions, and the reactions of residents can range from complete resistance to acceptance. This
continuum of reactions and adjustments depends upon the specifi c tourism implications on a host
destination along with the number and type of tourists, importance of tourism to the destination,
434 M. Uysal et al.
and the sociocultural structures salient to the destination. Different communities react and adjust
in different ways to the structural changes and their infl uences over time. Strategies and responses
that communities adopt vary depending on the phase of tourism development. There are several
strategies or responses that communities can take when dealing with the impact of tourism in
their community. Responses and negative and positive attitudes to change may be expressed by
residents at any time regardless of the phase of tourism development (Gartner
1996 ; Ap and
Crompton 1993 ; Carmichael 2006 ) , or in some instances, these responses may follow a linear
behavioral reaction from very positive (euphoric) to very negative (antagonism) as articulated by
Doxey ( 1976 ) . In the beginning phase of tourism development, expectations about the potential
of tourism to improve quality of residents’ life are high, and local residents may express euphoric
feelings toward visitors. In the subsequent phases, depending upon the manner in which develop-
ment phases are managed and monitored, local residents may develop resentment and even
antagonism which in turn may impinge further on their quality-of-life. Dogan ( 1989 ) provides a
comprehensive response model and strategy for residents to deal with changes in their commu-
nity. The main adjustment strategies (not necessarily mutually exclusive) are resistance,
retreatism, boundary maintenance, revitalization, and adoption.
Resistance includes an overall envy and resentment of tourists and their lifestyles. This
reaction is found among the upper class as well as the less-fortunate citizens and often leads to
aggressive behavior toward tourists and the venues that support and cater to them. There are
several circumstances that increase the likelihood of resistance as an adjustment tactic, such as
“the existence of a large number of tourists and the fact that the inhabitants have to share facili-
ties with them; the apparent material superiority of the tourists which may lead to feelings of
envy and resentment among the inhabitants; and an increase in the number of facilities managed
by the foreigners where the inhabitants are not usually allowed and where the foreigners work in
higher positions and receive superior salaries compared to the inhabitants” (Dogan 1989 , p. 222).
Residents see tourism negatively and believe it is weakening the traditional institutions of the
destination and destroying local identity and culture.
Another adjustment tactic is retreatism in which hosts attempt to avoid tourists and close
off into themselves. This strategy is often used in situations where tourism has become too
economically important to the destination to push way. Residents who use retreatism withdraw
from society as a whole and fi nd refuge within their own culture or subculture. Retreatism
involves “increasing cultural and ethnic consciousness instead of an active resistance toward
tourism” (Dogan 1989 , p. 223). In yet another strategy, the economic benefi ts of tourism are so
great, hosts choose to “nullify” the negative impacts tourism may bring and instead “present
local traditions to tourists in a different context so that the effects of the tourists on the local culture
are minimized” (Dogan 1989 , p. 224). This strategy is known as boundary maintenance and
enables a location to benefi t economically without hurting the local culture. The most common
example of boundary maintenance are the Amish who maintain a distance between themselves
and the tourists, yet gain the economic rewards that come from tourism and ultimately enable
their community to fl ourish.
Revitalization is a unique adjustment strategy because rather than the destination attempting
to protect the local culture from the negative impacts of tourism, tourism in itself aids the protec-
tion and preservation of the culture by promoting its benefi ts and overall existence. Without
tourism, specifi c celebrations or ceremonies of the local community may be lost. Revitalization
also benefi ts residents by increasing their awareness and appreciation of their own heritage, some
of which could be lost or forgotten with the passage of time. Examples of revitalization may
include the development of local arts and crafts like pottery, basketry, decoration, jewelry, and
leather goods making, or celebrating festivals and events, or participating in folk dances.
The fi nal major category of host adjustment to tourism is adoption. Some residents, especially
the young and the educated population of the upcoming and emerging destinations, who perceive
43525 The Tourist Area Life Cycle (TALC) and Its Effect on the Quality-of-Life (QOL)...
tourism as having mainly positive impacts may choose this method of adjustment. Adoption
includes the “demolishment of the traditional social structure and the adoption of the Western
culture of the tourists” (Dogan 1989 , p. 224).
It is unlikely that any of the fi ve strategies explained above will be seen in their pure form;
rather hosts usually take a hybrid approach by combining aspects of different strategies. In addi-
tion, any adjustment strategy used by a destination at a given time will possibly change as tourism
develops and the different impacts become more pronounced, either positively or negatively.
Resident’s Attitudes to Tourism Development Depending on Life Cycle
As indicated, a structural change to the destination place also invites behavioral responses from
residents. Martin and Uysal ( 1990 ) pointed out that there is an inverse relationship between
development of destination life cycle stage and resident responses. They mentioned that
While the initial stages of tourism are usually met with a great deal of enthusiasm on the part of local resi-
dents because of the perceived economic benefi ts, it is only natural that, as unpleasant changes take place
in the physical environment and in the type of tourist being attracted, this feeling gradually becomes more
and more negative (
1990 :330).
A number of studies have attempted to examine the assumed relationship between life satis-
faction and level of tourism development. For example, Allen et al. ( 1988 ) investigated the rela-
tionship between resident’s perceptions of community life satisfaction and the level of tourism
development in 20 rural Colorado communities that varied with respect to the amount of tourism
development. Their study showed that when the level of tourism development is low to moderate,
residents’ perceptions are positive. However, when tourism development increased, the percep-
tion of residents showed a change from a positive to a negative trend. Long et al. ( 1990 ) , based
on the same study, also reported that residents’ attitudes toward additional tourism development
initially increased in a positive way. However, the threshold for tourism development beyond a
point led to attitudes becoming less favorable. They also found that this threshold was achieved
when approximately 30% of the community’s retail sales were derived from tourism. Along the
same line of research, Allen et al. ( 1993 ) examined the rural resident’s attitudes toward recre-
ation and tourism development in ten rural Colorado towns. They incorporated two per capita
ratios based on tourism retail sales and total retail sales and designed four different tourism
development conditions: low tourism development and low economic activity, low tourism
development and high economic activity, high tourism development and low economic activity,
and high tourism development and high economic activity. The results revealed that residents’
attitudes toward tourism development with both high economic and tourism development and
low economic and tourism development were more positive than those residents of the low/high
or high/low economic and tourism development. A recent study by Meng et al. ( 2010 ) also found
a correlation between differing levels of tourism development and QOL indicators. The study
conducted on China revealed that the residents of provinces with the highest level of tourism
development lead a signifi cantly “better life” than those who are in the regions on medium or low
level of tourism development as measured with a select number of objective indicators of QOL.
Johnson et al. ( 1994 ) examined the resident’s perception of tourism development in the rural
area of Shoshone County, Idaho, USA. To examine the change of resident’s perceptions, this
study relied on a longitudinal research design for 6 years. This study used both secondary and
primary data: 1986 bond levy vote, 1989 tax levy vote, and 1991 survey of local resident’s per-
ceptions. The survey asked residents about their expectations of the economic, social, and envi-
ronmental impacts. The survey results revealed that a majority of the residents were negatively
disposed toward the perceived overall expected economic, social, and environmental impacts
436 M. Uysal et al.
resulting from tourism development. Overall, the longitudinal assessment showed that perceptions
of the residents changed from positive to negative over time. Specifi cally, in 1986, 94% of the
participants supported tourism development; in 1989, 82% supported development, while by
1991, survey results showed that only 28% of the residents supported tourism development.
Akis et al. (
1996 ) compared perceptions of Greek and Turkish Cyprus residents toward tour-
ism development based on Butler’s hypothesis. Their survey asked questions to local residents
about the economic, social, and environmental impacts of tourism development in Paralimni,
Ayia Napa, and Kyrenia. The results revealed that there is no statistically signifi cant difference
among the three places in residents’ perceptions of economic impact. Most residents considered
tourism development as having a positive impact. However, there was a statistical difference in
the social and environmental perceptions between the regions; Kyrenia residents were more posi-
tive toward social and environmental impact than Paralimni and Ayia Napa residents. The results
supported Butler’s model that resident attitudes progress from positive to negative and vary
depending on level of tourism development.
Ryan et al. ( 1998 ) compared attitudes of residents toward tourism development in rural areas
in New Zealand and in the UK. The two regions were in different stages of the destination life
cycle. The fi rst region in the UK could be described as a mature stage destination. The second
region in New Zealand was considered as being at the late involvement stage of the life cycle.
The results revealed that New Zealand residents were more supportive of tourism than UK resi-
dents were toward tourism development.
Upchurch and Teivane ( 2000 ) examined Latvian resident’s perception of tourism through a
descriptive research design using a convenience sampling procedure. They asked residents of
Riga about their perception of economic impact, social impact, and environmental impact factors.
The results suggested that residents perceived that tourist arrivals had not increased local reve-
nues, nor raised their standard of living, nor caused an increase in local employment. In the social
impact perspective, the residents indicated that prostitution, theft, and burglary decreased in the
community. While the residents thought that friendliness, honesty, and trust in people had
increased with the development of tourism, so did pollution. Based on residents’ attitudes toward
tourism development, it could be inferred that tourism development was at the initial stages of
development.
Diedrich and Garcia-Buades ( 2009 ) investigated the role of residents’ perceptions of tourism
destination development. Specifi cally, the researchers examined the interrelationship between
local perceptions of impacts and the level of tourism development. This study collected data
from fi ve different coastal communities in Belize. Each community was considered to be at a
different level of tourism development. They used participant observation, semi-structured inter-
views, key informants, secondary sources, and a household survey instrument. The results
revealed that when tourism progresses through Butler’s stages, residents’ perceptions of benefi ts
increased until the critical point was reached, after which they start to decline. That means that
the perception of costs surpasses the perception of benefi ts when the level of development enters
the critical stage. Kim et al. (
2003 ) study reported that the relationship between tourism impacts
and the satisfaction with particular life domains resulting from tourism vary at different tourism
development stages. For example, the relationship between the economic impact of tourism and
the satisfaction with material well-being, and the relationship between the social impact of tour-
ism and the satisfaction with community well-being, initially decreased in the growth stage of
tourism development and peaked in the maturity stage of tourism development. This fi nding is
consistent with the tenets of social disruption theory. England and Albrecht’s study ( 1984 ) pos-
tulates that boomtown communities initially enter into a period of generalized crisis, resulting
from the stress of sudden, dramatic increases in demand for public services and the need for
improving community infrastructure. Additionally, residents develop adaptive behaviors that
reduce their individual exposure to stressful situations. Through this process, residents’ QOL is
43725 The Tourist Area Life Cycle (TALC) and Its Effect on the Quality-of-Life (QOL)...
expected to initially decline, and then improve as the community and its residents adapt to the
new situation (Krannich et al. 1989 ) . However, when a community enters into the decline stage
of tourism development, the above-mentioned relationships may be considered to be the full
capacity of the destination area to absorb tourists before the host population would feel negative
impacts. This is consistent with the theoretical foundation of carrying capacity. When tourism
development reaches its maturity stage or its maximum limit, residents’ QOL may start deterio-
rating. As such, the concept of sustainable tourism was developed when the maturity stage of the
life cycle is reached.
Thus, based on previous research outlined above, there is an inverse relationship between the
level of tourism development and residents’ perception of economic, social, and environmental
impacts.
Relationship Between TALC and QOL
The previous section illustrated that depending upon the level of the destination development,
residents’ attitudes toward economic, socio-culture , and environment may change from positive
to negative or negative to positive. Destination development not only affects residents’ attitudes
but also their overall quality-of-life. According to Powers ( 1980, 1988 ) , QOL represents the
commodity bundle of attributes such as social characteristics, infrastructure, cost of living,
income, recreational opportunities, and environmental amenities that characterize an area.
Therefore, using these attributes, residents’ perceptions of QOL can be examined. Several previ-
ous studies have been conducted to see the relationship between tourism development and resi-
dent’s quality-of-life, their community satisfaction, and support for different types of development
(Allen et al. 1988 ; Jurowski et al. 1997 ; Gursoy et al. 2002 ) .
Perdue et al. ( 1999 ) compared the concepts of tourism development cycle and social disrup-
tion theories for assessing the impact of gaming tourism on resident quality-of-life. They
developed four hypotheses for that purpose and surveyed adult residents in the fi ve different
communities: one nongaming community, three early stage gaming communities, and one
late-stage gaming community. The results supported the social disruption theory that resident
QOL is expected to initially decline and then improve with community and resident adaption
to the new situation.
Bachleitner and Zins ( 1999 ) mentioned that a high degree of regional identifi cation, with the
space, history, and cultural heritage of the destination, improves the QOL of the residents. Their
study investigated differences in tourism demand toward cultural benefi ts between urban,
multifunctional, and rural regions for 2 years. This study used the extended Tourism Impact and
Attitudes Scale (TIAS). The extended model included the domain of psychosocial impacts.
This model was tested using survey methods conducted twice in 1994 and in 1995. The results
revealed that during a large cultural event, support for economic development and improvement
of infrastructure through the vehicle of tourism were higher than 1 year later. Perceived negative
impacts of environmental and psychosocial dimensions had changed too. The environmental
dimension of the residents’ perceptions seemed far more sensitive to large-scale changes than
small-scale changes.
Roehl ( 1999 ) stated that residents of casino areas perceive both benefi ts and costs from casi-
nos, and that individual differences may be related to these perceptions. The author assumed that
Nevada residents would perceive both the positive and the negative impacts of gambling. These
perceptions varied across respondent characteristics, and the overall evaluation of the effect of
gambling depended upon both specifi c perceived positive and negative impacts. The results of
this study showed that Nevada residents recognized that gambling had brought both economic
438 M. Uysal et al.
benefi ts and social costs. Less than one and half of the respondents agreed that gambling had
made their community a better place to live. The author suggested that if economic benefi ts to
the community and personal benefi ts to residents are perceived to be high while social costs were
perceived to be low, then QOL was perceived to be high. On the other hand, if respondents
believed that casinos were associated with relatively more social costs and fewer benefi ts, then
QOL was perceived to be low.
Previous studies on resident attitudes toward tourism development have supported the notion
that support for tourism development varied among different population segments. Therefore, for
development strategies to be sustainable, market planners and developers need to know how
citizens view their quality-of-life and how they might react to proposed strategies. Jurowski and
Brown ( 2001 ) mentioned that depending on citizens’ community involvement, their perception
of tourism-related QOL is different. Therefore, an understanding of the perceptions of citizens
who are involved in community organizations is important. Results, obtained from using tele-
phone interviews, revealed that residents who belonged to no community organizations evalu-
ated the quality of most aspects of their lives lower than those that were the most involved, that
is, they found a positive relationship between membership in community organizations and
residents’ satisfaction with their quality-of-life.
Andereck and Vogt ( 2000 ) examined the effect of residents’ attitudes toward tourism on sup-
port for development. This relationship was tested for seven different communities (Globe-
Miami, Williams, Hualapai Indian Reservation, Douglas, Peoria, Parker, and Holbrook). These
seven communities represent rural, small urban, and Native American reservation destinations.
The results show that communities have differing attitudes about community development, quality-
of-life, and negative impacts. Most residents, regardless of which community was studied, tended
to have a positive attitude toward community development. However, there were differences in
opinions regarding the tourist’s role in improving the quality-of-life of the residents; for example,
Douglas and Holbrook communities had the most positive attitudes about quality-of-life, while
Parker and Peoria communities were the most concerned with negative impacts.
Ko and Stewart ( 2002 ) investigated the relationship between residents’ perceived negative
and positive tourism impacts and their attitudes toward host community. Specifi cally, they exam-
ined the relationship between fi ve main constructs: personal benefi t from tourism development,
perceived positive tourism impacts, perceived negative tourism impacts, overall community
satisfaction, and attitudes for additional tourism development. They collected data from Cheju
Island, Korea, which is the most popular tourism destination and also where tourism is the
primary source of business activity. The results revealed that resident’s community satisfaction
is related to perceived positive tourism impact and perceived negative tourism impact. Specifi cally,
there is a high positive relationship between community satisfaction and perceived positive tourism
impact, and there is a negative relationship between community satisfaction and perceived nega-
tive tourism impact. Moreover, both positive and negative impacts also affect attitudes toward
additional tourism development.
Using a similar approach, Vargas-Sánchez et al. (
2009 ) examined the relationship between
attitudes (negative or positive), satisfaction, and further development of tourism in Minas De
Riotinto, a destination in the early stages of tourism development. The results of the study showed
that there is a positive relationship between positive impact of tourism and satisfaction of resi-
dents with their community and a negative relationship between perception of negative impact
and negative attitude toward tourism development. Moreover, the authors found that if satisfac-
tion increased, negative attitude toward tourism development decreased.
Milman and Pizam ( 1988 ) examined Central Florida residents’ attitudes toward tourism
development. They found that residents had a positive attitude toward tourism in general. About
78% of the residents favored or strongly favored the presence of tourism. Most residents consid-
ered that tourism development improved employment opportunities, income and standard of
43925 The Tourist Area Life Cycle (TALC) and Its Effect on the Quality-of-Life (QOL)...
living, overall tax revenue, and quality-of-life in general. However, tourism increased negative
impacts such as congested traffi c conditions, and increase in individual and organized crime, and
alcoholism.
As seen from the select studies described above, tourism can have an impact on the culture,
environment, economy, and sociocultural aspect of a community. In general, an examination of
studies on impacts indicates that the economic impacts are perceived as positive in most cases,
whereas sociocultural and environmental impacts are frequently considered as negative or neu-
tral (Tosun
2002 ; Harrill and Potts 2003 ) . Many social scientists agree that in many instances,
tourism has had a negative impact on culture through materialism, decline in traditions, increase
in crime rates, crowding, social confl icts, environmental deterioration, and dependency on other
industrial countries. Such impacts may also contribute negatively to community well-being, eco-
nomic well-being, and health well-being domains of the destination place. All these negative
impacts reduce the quality-of-life of residents and eventually the quality of the vacation experi-
ence. Developers, tourism promoters, and tourists as consumers of tourism products and services
need to become more socially responsible and understand that they are affecting the quality of
lives of many people.
Conclusion
Once a community becomes a tourist destination, the lives of residents in the community are
affected by tourism, and the support of the entire population in the tourism community is essen-
tial for the development, planning, successful operation, and sustainability of tourism (Jurowski
1994 ) . Therefore, the quality-of-life (QOL) of the residents in a community should be a major
concern for community leaders.
A destination has myriad opportunities and challenges due to changing infrastructure,
development of host attitudes, number of tourists, and severity of impacts, both positive and
negative. In order to trace the evolution of a location, the product life cycle model is used to
assist management in decision making and in addressing stakeholder interests. The most
important reason for the development of the tourism life cycle is to realize that a destination is
not static; it changes over time, and the planning process and marketing strategies must also
adapt to enable the adjustment process.
Successful development of a destination’s tourist activity incorporates the sociocultural
concerns of all stakeholders from the inception of a project (Singal and Uysal 2009 ) . Impact
measures such as carrying capacity, limits of acceptable change, objective and subjective indi-
cators, and the visitor impact monitoring process can be used in conjunction with the planning
process to guide each stage of development of the tourism life cycle. Such an approach will
help sustain tourism and contribute to the well-being of the stakeholders. For tourism to be a
force in improving destination residents’ quality-of-life, there has to be healthy economic growth
and development that can meet both basic and growth needs. A high degree of ecological integ-
rity that encourages sustainable development, by preserving and protecting cultural and natural
resources, while making progress and creating social equality, is crucial in terms of empowering
individuals in the process of planning tourism development and decision-making. Without the
presence of the tenets of sustainability (economic vitality, ecological integrity, social equity),
it is very diffi cult to improve the quality-of-life of those that are involved in creating and pro-
ducing tourism goods and services (Pennington-Gray and Carmichael 2006 ; Flint and Danner
2001 ; Weaver 2006 ) .
There are some guidelines that can be followed in order to ensure that tourism development is
socially sensitive and sustainable. The tourism industry should be the subject of a promotional
440 M. Uysal et al.
campaign designed to educate the general public. At the local level, tourism planning should be
based on the goals of the local residents. The promotional efforts of the local attractions should
be subject to resident endorsement and cooperation with different stakeholders. The public and
private sectors should work together to maintain the integrity and quality-of-life that the locals
are familiar with. The traditions and lifestyles of the locals and the biodiversity of the destination
place should be considered, and the boundaries of tourism development should be set so as not
to exceed these limits (Bricker et al.
2006 ) . Locals should be encouraged to use local capital,
entrepreneurial opportunities, and labor to develop their own tourism opportunities. Broad-based
community participation should be encouraged at tourist events and activities. Communities
should adopt or refi ne themes and events that refl ect the history, lifestyles, cultures, and traditions
of the local area which foster the emotional well-being of the resident community. Attempts to
mitigate general growth problems identifi ed in a given community should precede the introduc-
tion of initiatives that increase existing levels of tourist activity. There is ample opportunity to
further examine the connection between level of sustainable tourism development, its tenets, and
quality-of-life of different stakeholders in tourism.
Community quality-of-life indicators should be developed and integrated into overall planning
of tourism development and other public policy activities (Budruk and Phillips 2011 ) . The link
between objective indicators of tourism factors and QOL of destination residents needs to be
strengthened with the subjective indicators of QOL as indicated by different stakeholders at the
destination. There is also scope for further work in this area in relation to different phases of
tourism development over time. The nature and relative importance of QOL indicators will certainly
change over time. Data generated and monitored should refl ect such changes. Without commu-
nity quality-of-life indicators and their perceived importance in relation to satisfaction with the
indicators (Sirgy et al. 2010 ) , we would not have the necessary information to totally understand
the true value of tourism activities in destination areas. We hope future research extends the
results from current studies to provide more integrated information and intelligence for tourism
planning and sustainable development.
A careful review of related studies of tourism impacts on development in relation to destination
phases, and the relationship between destination development and residents’ attitudes, show that,
depending on the level of tourism development, tourists’ attitudes toward economic, socio-culture,
and environment change from negative to positive or positive to negative. However, this does
mean that residents who have positive attitudes toward tourism development are satisfi ed with
their quality-of-life. Tourism growth and its positive socioeconomic results do not necessarily
yield a higher quality-of-life for the residents of the destination community (Jurowski et al. 2006 ) .
For instance, even though residents may face a lower quality-of-life, they may nevertheless be
supportive of tourism development because of better economic prospects or job opportunities
which are directly related to their livelihood and economic well-being. In other words, residents
who are not supportive of tourism development can still be satisfi ed with their community quality-
of-life. This brief argument hits at the notion of equity and distribution of tourism benefi ts. Tourism
development in each phase of the TALC has to address the issues of whether or not tourism meets
both the basic and growth needs of the residents for it to contribute to the quality of residents’ life.
Access to resources (for human needs or animal grazing), empowerment which enables individu-
als to make choices as they see fi t, and creating opportunities for individuals and local businesses
would be at the heart of discussion in each phase of tourism development. Generating such infor-
mation at one point in time is useful; however, monitoring such issues over time in relation to phases
of tourism development would be of immense value for policy makers and tourism developers.
Thus, measuring the equity of exchange related to tourism activities in a destination is critical to
the production of tourism experiences for both residents and tourists (Jurowski et al.
2006 ) . It is
clear that a lower level of quality-of-life of residents of a destination would not be able to sustain
a better quality of tourism experiences in the long run. Further research is needed that focuses on
44125 The Tourist Area Life Cycle (TALC) and Its Effect on the Quality-of-Life (QOL)...
the reciprocity effects of quality-of-life of residents and quality vacation experiences and how this
exchange and interaction may change over time, creating signifi cant challenges and opportunities
for researchers, planners, and policy makers.
References
Agarwal, S. (1997). The resort cycle and seaside tourism: An assessment of its applicability and validity. Tourism
Management, 18 (3), 65–73.
Akis, S., Peristianis, N., & Warner, J. (1996). Residents’ Attitudes to tourism development: The case of Cyprus.
Tourism Management, 17 (7), 481–494.
Allen, L. R., Long, P. T., Perdue, R. R., & Kieselbach, S. (1988). The impacts of tourism development on residents’
perceptions of community life. Journal of Travel Research, 26 (1), 16–21.
Allen, L. R., Hafer, H. R., Long, P. T., & Perdue, R. R. (1993). Rural resident attitudes toward recreation and
tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 31 (4), 27–33.
Andereck, K. L. (1995). Environmental consequences of tourism: A review of recent research. In S. F. McCool &
A. E. Watson (Compilers), Linking tourism, the environment, and sustainability – Topical volume of compiled
papers from a special session of the annual meeting of the National Recreation and Parks Administration
Association (pp. 77–81). Ogden: Intermountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service.
Andereck, K. L., & Jurowski, C. (2006). Tourism and quality of life. In G. Jennings & N. P. Nickerson (Eds.),
Quality tourism experiences (pp. 136–154). London: Elsevier.
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.
Ap, J. (1992). Residents’ Perceptions on tourism impact. Annals of Tourism Research, 19 , 665–690.
Ap, J., & Crompton, J. (1993). Residents’ strategies for responding to tourism impacts. Journal of Travel Research,
32 (1), 47–50.
Bachleitner, R., & Zins, A. H. (1999). Cultural tourism in rural communities: The residents’ perspective. Journal
of Business Research, 44 , 199–209.
Boyd, S. W. (2006). The TALC model and its application to national parks: A Canadian example. In C. Cooper,
C. M. Hall, & D. Timothy (Series Eds.), & R. W. Butler (Vol. Ed.), The Tourism Area Life Cycle: Vol. 1.
Applications and modifi cations (pp. 119–138). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Bricker, S. K., Daniels, J. M., & Carmichael, A. B. (2006). Quality tourism development and planning. In
G. Jennings & N. P. Nickerson (Eds.), Quality tourism experiences (pp. 171–191). London: Elsevier.
Brown, I., Raphael, D., & Renwick, R. (1998). Quality of life (Item # 2) . Toronto: Quality of Life Research Unit.
Center for Health Promotion, University of Toronto.
Brunt, P., & Courtney, P. (1999). Host perceptions of sociocultural impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 26 ,
493–515.
Budruk, M., & Phillips, R. (2011). Quality of life community indicators for parks recreation and tourism manage-
ment . Amsterdam: Springer.
Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourism areas cycle of evaluation: Implications for management of
resources. Canadian Geographer, 24 (1), 5–12.
Butler, R. W. (2004). The tourism area lifecycle in the twenty first century. In A. A. Lew, C. M. Hall, &
A. M. Williams (Eds.), A companion to tourism (pp. 159–169). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Carmichael, A. B. (2006). Linking quality tourism experiences, residents’ quality of life, and quality experiences
for tourists. In G. Jennings & N. P. Nickerson (Eds.), Quality tourism experiences (pp. 115–135). London:
Elsevier.
Christaller, W. (1963). Some considerations of tourism location in Europe: The peripheral regions underdevel-
oped countries-recreation areas. Regional Science Association Papers, 12 (1), 95–105.
Copper, C., & Jackson, S. (1989). Destination life cycle: The isle of Man case study. Annals of Tourism Research,
16 (3), 377–398.
Crompton, J. L., & Hensarling, D. M. (1978). Some suggested implications of the product life cycle for public
recreation and park agency managers. Leisure Sciences, 1 , 295–307.
Crompton, J. L., Reid, I., & Uysal, M. (1987). Empirical identifi cation of product life cycle patterns in the delivery
of municipal park and recreation services. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 5 (1), 17–34.
Debbage, K. (1990). Oligopoly and the resort cycle in the Bahamas. Annals of Tourism Research, 17 , 513–527.
442 M. Uysal et al.
Diedrich, A., & Garcia-Buades, E. (2009). Local perceptions of tourism as indicators of destination decline.
Tourism Management, 30 , 512–521.
Dogan, H. Z. (1989). Forms of adjustment: Sociocultural impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 16 ,
216–236.
Douglas, N. (1997). Applying the lifecycle model to Melanesia. Annals of Tourism Research, 24 (1), 1–22.
Doxey, G. V. (1976). When enough’s enough: The natives are restless in old Niagara. Heritage Canada, 2 (2), 26–27.
England, J. L., & Albrecht, S. L. (1984). Boomtowns and social disruption. Rural Sociology, 49 , 230–246.
Flint, W. R., & Danner, M. J. E. (2001). The nexus of sustainability and social equity: Virginia’s Eastern Shore
(USA) as a local example of global issues. International Journal of Economic Development, 3 (2), 1–30.
Formica, S., & Uysal, M. (1996). The revitalization of Italy as a tourist destination. Tourism Management, 17 (5),
323–331.
Gartner, W. (1996). Tourism development principles, processes and policies . New York: Van Nostrand
Reinold/Wiley.
Getz, D. (1992). Tourism planning and destination lifecycle. Annals of Tourism Research, 19 (4), 752–770.
Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident attitudes: A structural modeling approach. Annals of
Tourism Research, 29 (1), 79–105.
Haralambopoulos, N., & Pizam, A. (1996). Perceived impacts of tourism: The case of Samos. Annals of Tourism
Research, 23 , 503–526.
Harrill, R., & Potts, T. D. (2003). Tourism planning in historic districts: Attitudes toward tourism development in
Charleston. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69 (3), 233–244.
Harrison, D. (1995). Development of tourism in Swaziland. Annals of Tourism Research, 22 (1), 135–156.
Haywood, K. M. (1986). Can the tourist-area lifecycle be made operational? Tourism Management, 7 (3), 154–167.
Hovinen, G. R. (1982). Visitor cycles: Outlook for tourism in Lancaster county. Annals of Tourism Research, 9 ,
565–583.
Hovinen, G. R. (2002). Revisiting the destination model. Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (1), 209–230.
Ioannides, D. (1992). Tourism development agents: The Cypriot resort cycle. Annals of Tourism Research,
19 (4), 711–731.
Johnson, J. D., & Snepenger, D. J. (1993). Application of the tourism life cycle concept in the greater Yellowstone
region. Journal of Society & Natural Resources, 6 (2), 127–148.
Johnson, J. D., Snepenger, D. J., & Akis, S. (1994). Residents’ perceptions of tourism development. Annals of
Tourism Research, 21 (3), 629–642.
Jurowski, C. (1994). The interplay of elements affecting host community resident attitudes toward tourism: A path
analytic approach . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg.
Jurowski, C., & Brown, D. O. (2001). A comparative of the views of involved versus noninvolved citizens on
quality of life and tourism development issues. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 25 (4), 355–370.
Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Williams, D. R. (1997). A theoretical analysis of host community resident reactions to
tourism. Journal of Tourism Research, 36 (2), 3–11.
Jurowski, C., Daniels, M., & Pennington-Gray, L. (2006). The distribution of tourism benefi ts. In G. Jennings &
N. P. Nickerson (Eds.), Quality tourism experiences (pp. 192–207). London: Elsevier.
Keller, C. P. (1987). Stages of peripheral tourism development: Canada’s Northwest Territories. Tourism
Management, 8 , 2–32.
Kim, K., Uysal. M., & Sirgy. J. (2003, June). The effects of tourism impacts upon quality of life of residents in the
community . In TTRA’s 34th Annual Conference Proceedings (pp. 16–20). St. Louis.
Knowles, T., & Curtis, A. (1999). The market viability of Europeans mass tourist destinations: A post-stagnation
lifecycle analysis.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 1 , 87–96.
Ko, D., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of residents’ attitudes for tourism development.
Tourism Management, 23 , 521–530.
Krannich, R. S., Berry, E. H., & Greider, T. (1989). Fear of crime in rapidly changing rural communities: A lon-
gitudinal analysis. Rural Sociology, 54 , 195–212.
Levitt, T. (1965). Exploit the product life cycle. Harvard Business Review, 43 , 81–94.
Liu, J. C., & Var, T. (1986). Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research,
13 (2), 193–214.
Long, P. T., Perdue, R., & Allen, L. (1990). Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes by community level
of tourism. Journal Travel Research, 28 , 3–9.
Martin, B. S., & Uysal, M. (1990). An examination of the relationship between carrying capacity and the tourism
lifecycle: Management and policy implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 31 , 327–333.
Massam, B. H. (2002). Quality of life: Public planning and private living. Progress In Planning, 58 (3), 141–227.
McCool, S., & Martin, S. (1994). Community attachment and attitudes towards tourism development. Journal of
Travel Research, 32 (3), 29–34.
44325 The Tourist Area Life Cycle (TALC) and Its Effect on the Quality-of-Life (QOL)...
Meng, F., Li, X., & Uysal, M. (2010). Tourism development and regional quality of life: The case of China.
Journal of China Tourism Research, 6 , 164–182.
Meyer-Arendt, K. J. (1985). The Grand Isle, Louisiana resorts cycle. Annals of Tourism Research, 12 , 449–465.
Milman, A., & Pizam, A. (1988). Social impacts of tourism on center Florida. Annals of Tourism Research, 15 ,
191–204.
Mok, C., Slater, B., & Cheung, V. (1991). Residents’ attitudes towards tourism in Hong Kong. Journal of
Hospitality Management, 10 , 289–293.
O’Hare, G., & Barrett, H. (1997). The destination life cycle-international tourism in Peru. Scottish Geographical
Magazine, 113 (2), 66–73.
Oppermann, M. (1998). What is new with the resort cycle? Tourism Management, 19 (2), 179–180.
Pennington-Gray, L., & Carmichael, A. B. (2006). Political-economic construction of quality tourism experiences.
In G. Jennings & N. P. Nickerson (Eds.), Quality tourism experiences (pp. 208–223). London: Elsevier.
Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Allen, L. R. (1990). Resident support for tourism development. Annals of Tourism
Research, 17 (4), 586–599.
Perdue, R. P., Long, P. T., & Kang, Y. S. (1999). Boomtown tourism and resident quality of life: The marketing of
gaming to host community residents. Journal of Business Research, 44 , 165–177.
Pizam, A., & Pokela, J. (1985). The perceived impacts of casino gambling on a community. Annals of Tourism
Research, 12 , 147–165.
Plog, S. C. (1974). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 14 , 55–58.
Plog, S. C. (2001). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity: An update of a Cornell Quarterly classic.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42 (3), 13–24.
Powers, T. M. (1980). The economic value of the quality of life . Boulder: Westview Press.
Powers, T. M. (1988). The economic pursuit of quality . Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.
Richardson, L. S. (1986). A product life cycle approach to urban waterfronts: The revitalization of Galveston.
Coastal Zone Management Journal, 14 , 21–46.
Roehl, W. S. (1999). Quality of life issues in a casino destination. Journal of Business Research, 44 , 223–229.
Ryan, C., Scotland, A., & Montgomery, D. (1998). Resident attitudes to tourism development: A comparative
study between the Rangitikei, New Zealand and Bakewell, United Kingdom. Progress in Tourism and
Hospitality Research, 4 (2), 115–130.
Singal, M., & Uysal, M. (2009). Resource commitment in destination management: The case of Abingdon,
Virginia. Tourism Review, 57 (3), 329–344.
Sirgy, M. J., Meadow, H. L., & Samli, A. C. (1995). Past, present, and future: An overview of quality-of-life
research in marketing. In M. Joseph Sirgy & A. C. Samli (Eds.), New dimensions of marketing and quality-of-life
research (pp. 335–364). Westport: Greenwood Press.
Sirgy, M. J., Widgery, R. N., Lee, D., & Yu, G. B. (2010). Developing a measure of community well-being based
on perceptions of impact in various life domains. Social Indicators Research, 96 , 295–351.
Strapp, J. D. (1988). The resort cycle and second homes. Annals of Tourism Research, 15 (4), 504–516.
Toh, R. S., Khan, H., & Koh, A. (2001). A travel balance approach for examining tourism area life cycles: the case
of Singapore. Journal of Travel Research, 39 , 426–432.
Tooman, L. (1997). Tourism and development. Journal of Travel Research, 35 (3), 33–40.
Tosun, C. (2002). Host perceptions of impacts: A comparative tourism study. Annals of Tourism Research, 29 ,
231–253.
Tye, V., Sirakaya, E., & Sonmez, S. (2002). Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development. Annals of Tourism
Research, 29 (3), 668–688.
Upchurch, R. S., & Teivane, U. (2000). Resident perceptions of tourism development in Riga, Latvia. Tourism
Management, 21 , 499–507.
Uysal, M., Harrill, R., & Woo, E. (2011). Destination marketing research: Issues and challenges. In Y. Wang &
A. Pizam (Eds.), Tourism destination marketing and management: Foundations and applications . London: CABI.
Vargas-Sánchez, A., Plaza-Mejía, M., & Porras-Bueno, N. (2009). Understanding residents’ attitudes toward the
development of industrial tourism in former mining. Journal of Travel Research, 47 (3), 373–387.
Vernon, R. (1966). International investment and international trade in the product cycle. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 80 (May), 190–207.
Weaver, D. (2006). Sustainable tourism: Theory and practice . London: Elsevier.
Whitfeild, J. (2009). The cyclical representation of the UK conference sector’s life cycle: The use of refurbish-
ments as rejuvenation triggers. Tourism Analysis, 14 , 559–572.
Zhong, L., Deng, J., & Xiang, B. (2008).Tourism development and the tourism area life-cycle model: A case study
of Zhangjiajie National Forest Park, China. Tourism Management, 29 , 841–856.
