Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (2015) 3645

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm

Research Paper

Residents' perceptions toward tourism development:

A factor-cluster approach
Gaunette Sinclair-Maragh a,n, Dogan Gursoy b,1, Michael Vieregge c,2
a

School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, College of Business and Management, University of Technology, Jamaica
Washington State University, College of Business, School of Hospitality Business Management, 340G Todd Hall, PO Box 644736, Pullman, WA 99164-4736,
USA
c
Resort Management, Western State Colorado University, 213 Borick Business Building, Gunnison, CO 81231, USA
b

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 11 February 2014
Accepted 31 October 2014
Available online 12 February 2015

The purpose of this study is to classify residents into separate groups based on their perceptions of the
impacts of tourism development on their community as they relate to economic, social, cultural,
environmental, and public service factors, and to identify similarities and differences among these
groups. Using data collected from residents of two communities that are new to tourism development, a
factor-cluster approach was utilized to identify four groups of residents. The public service and
environment focused group was mostly concerned with the availability of amenities, facilities, and
environmental issues; the community focused group was generally concerned with the social and
cultural impacts; the communitypublic service and environment focused group comprised those
individuals who considered both sets of issues; and the inconsequential group included individuals
who did not have any specic concerns about the impacts of tourism development. A descriptive prole
of each group and the signicant differences among groups are provided. Based on the ndings,
implications for developers and policy makers are discussed.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Tourism development
Classication of residents' perceptions
Tourism impacts
Destination life cycle
Tourism planning

1. Introduction
It is important that destination planners understand residents'
perceptions of tourism impacts. According to Brida, Osti, and Barquet
(2010), they are the ones who are exposed to the many effects of
tourism development. While several approaches are utilized in the
literature to study residents' perceptions, some researchers argue
that grouping residents based on their perceptions and examining
differences among those groups might provide more meaningful
information to policy makers and tourism developers compared to
other methodological approaches that are mainly concerned with
measuring residents' overall perceptions (Fredline & Faulkner, 2000).
Furthermore, grouping residents based on their perceptions and studying each group separately may enable policy makers and tourism
developers to better understand the relationship among the perception factors for each group, especially since one can inuence the
formation of the other (Gursoy, Chi, & Dyer, 2010).

Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 876 927 1680 9.

E-mail addresses: gaunsm@gmail.com,
gmaragh@utech.edu.jm (G. Sinclair-Maragh), dgursoy@wsu.edu (D. Gursoy),
mvieregge@western.edu (M. Vieregge).
1
Tel.: 1 509 335 7945; fax: 1 509 335 7736.
2
Tel.: 1 970 943 2566.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2014.10.001
2212-571X/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

However, despite the number of studies that have examined tourism development, only a few have classied residents based on their
perceptions in this regard. Earlier pioneers, for example, Davis, Allen,
and Cosenza's (1988) were able to identify commonalities among
groups of residents in Florida regarding tourism development. The
clusters identied showed that the residents expressed strong sentiments for or against tourism development. This nding was similar
to Madrigal's (1995) study that identied common features regarding
residents' perceptions about the development of natural attractions
in Arizona, USA, and York in the United Kingdom. Findings of these
studies showed that grouping residents based on their perceptions
and examining similarities and differences among those groups can
provide meaningful and useful information for tourism planning and
development purposes.
Although further classication of residents based on their perceptions of tourism development has been carried out by other researchers, these were either specic to events (Fredline & Faulkner,
2000), parks and protected areas (Weaver & Lawton, 2001), scenic
areas (Hang, Fang, & Huang, 2011), or more mature and developed
tourism destinations such as Crete (Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003), the
Balearic Islands in Spain (Aguilo & Rossello, 2005), and New Zealand
(Williams & Lawson, 2001). However, examinations of residents'
perceptions of tourism impacts and their classication in newly
developing tourism destinations have not received much attention.
Hence, conducting this assessment in a region that is new to tourism

G. Sinclair-Maragh et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (2015) 3645

development would further the literature in this domain especially

since residents' perceptions differ as destinations move through the
stages of development (Diedrich & Garcia-Buades, 2009).
A factor-cluster analysis is used to carry out this study. Although
previous studies have used this approach to determine residents'
attitude towards tourism development in emerging tourism destinations, none of them examined this area within the context of rural
communities. This study will therefore, focus on two rural communities in Turkey that are new to tourism development. These
communities are Goynuk and Camyuva where the residents are
predominantly engaged in agriculture and are now exposed to a new
and different type of industry which involves visitors coming into
their communities.
Hence, the purpose of this study is to classify residents of two
destinations that are new to tourism based on their perceptions of
the impact of tourism development on their communities and to
examine similarities and differences among the groups identied.
Findings of this study will provide information to tourism developers and policy makers of destinations that are at the early stage
of their life cycle regarding residents' perceptions of tourism
development. They will be better able to make the most favorable
development plans and policy decisions.

2. Literature review
2.1. Perceptions of tourism development dimensions
The gamut of studies conducted in this area is an indication of the
importance of understanding residents' perceptions, especially as
they pertain to the sustainable development of any destination
(Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2011). Although studies have concluded that
most residents believe tourism provides signicant benets
(e.g. Andriotis & Vaughan, 2004; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Ko
& Stewart, 2002; Mitchell & Reid, 2001; Saveriades, 2000; Tosun,
2002; Weaver & Lawton, 2001), this does not mean that they do not
have issues pertaining to tourism (Sirakaya-Turk & Gursoy, 2013). As
noted by Easterling (2004), most residents are likely to view tourism
as having both positive and negative consequences.
Most studies concluded that the economic impacts of tourism
development are predominantly viewed in a positive way (Gursoy,
Chi, & Dyer, 2009). This is because tourism is an economic development tool for local economies (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Gursoy
& Rutherford, 2004; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Teye, Sonmez, & Sirakaya,
2002). This contribution is perceived as the most important benet
of tourism development (Gursoy et al., 2010), as it provides jobs and
other economic opportunities for the residents (Choi & Sirakaya,
2005). However, it is believed that only a small proportion of
residents derive these benets (Sreekumar & Parayil, 2002). There
are also economic costs associated with tourism development
(Chen, 2000), such as economic leakage (Singh & Wright, 2011)
and disparity in the distribution of nancial resources (Mbaiwa,
2003).
In relation to the social impacts of tourism development,
Andereck and Vogt (2000) noted that tourism can have positive
impacts on the development of communities with the spin-off of
improving the quality of residents' lives. This is ostensibly so since
tourism constitutes a range of activities and employs persons from
diverse social strata, age groups, gender and levels of education
(Tomic, Gajic, & Bugar, 2012). Meanwhile, several studies have also
alluded to the negative social impacts of tourism development
(e.g. Aguilo & Rossello, 2005; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Teye et al.,
2002; Tosun, 2002; Wan, 2012).
Cultural benet is perceived as one of the gains from tourism
development, as there is the advantage of preserving the unique
culture of the community (Andereck, Valentine, Knopf, & Vogt,

37

2005; Stronza & Gordillo, 2008). This is achieved through cultural

tourism events and facilities, as well as improving cultural awareness, especially among the younger generation (Besculides, Lee,
& McCormic, 2002). However, tourism is also perceived as a
phenomenon that can result in immoral behaviors (Andereck et
al., 2005; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Barker, Page, & Meyer, 2003), the
erosion of traditional values (Andereck et al., 2005; Besculides
et al., 2002; Mbaiwa, 2003) and the commercialization of hostcommunity culture (Choi & Sirakaya, 2005).
It is also postulated that the residents' support for tourism
development can be inuenced by environmental impact perceptions (Yoon, Gursoy, & Chen, 2001). On the one hand, tourism is
seen as a mechanism for reducing environmental pollutions and
decrease demands on the use of resources (Dwyer, Edwards,
Mistilis, Roman, & Scott, 2009). On the other hand, the activities
of tourism are believed to be negatively impacting the natural and
physical resources on which it depends (Halloway, 2004), resulting
in environmental degradation (Choi & Sirakaya, 2005).
As it relates to the quality of public service, it is believed that
tourism development has resulted in improved infrastructure and
facilities for the community (Dyer, Gursoy, Sharma, & Carter, 2007;
Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011). Despite the discourse that the needs
of the residents should supersede those of tourism development
(Andereck & Vogt, 2000), there are concerns about the real
purpose of infrastructural development in a community poised
for tourism development (Mbaiwa, 2003). This leads to the
additional issue regarding investments in expensive infrastructural development and irrational construction of tourism facilities
(Tomic et al., 2012).
2.2. Classifying residents based on their perceptions of tourism
impacts
Identifying groups of residents by placing them into clusters is
believed to be effective in providing a better insight into the
structure of the community's reactions to tourism (Fredline &
Faulkner, 2000). In classifying host community residents based on
their reactions towards the staging of major events in Gold Coast
Indy in Australia, Fredline and Faulkner (2000) were able to
identify response patterns that indicated commonalities and
consensus among residents who were classied into ve clusters.
There were the ambivalent supporters, the cautious romantics,
the largest group who were moderate and indecisive in their
responses; the haters, who highly disagreed with the positive
impacts but agreed with the negative impacts; the lovers, who
were in direct opposition to haters, the realists, who acknowledged that events have both positive and negative impacts; and
the concerned for a reason, the smallest group, who were
extremely concerned about specic impacts but did not completely have negative perceptions.
Similarly, Williams and Lawson (2001) identied four homogenous groups of residents in 10 New Zealand towns. This was
based on the residents' opinions of tourism and community issues
as well as their demographic characteristics. The largest group
strongly supported tourism development and was similarly named
the lovers as done by Fredline and Faulkner (2000). The cynics
comprised the smallest group and were the least likely to approve
of tourism development and were more community oriented. The
tax payers were mostly concerned about taxes and had little
concern about other issues; and the innocents missed out on the
benets of tourism because they had the least direct contact with
the industry.
Another study of residents' attitudes toward tourism development was conducted by Andriotis and Vaughan (2003) in Crete.
They identied three clusters of residents, namely, the advocates, who were the largest group strongly supporting tourism

38

G. Sinclair-Maragh et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (2015) 3645

development; the socially and environmentally concerned, who

had the most negative views of these factors; and the economic
skeptics, who were the smallest group and most negative about
the economic impacts. They concluded that the clustering procedure showed that community groups have varying degrees of
positivity toward the impacts of tourism development.
Classifying residents based on their perspectives was also used by
Aguil and Rossell (2005) to determine their opinions regarding the
proposed restructuring of the tourism industry in the Balearic
Islands. They were able to establish ve clusters. The smallest group,
the development supporters was similar to Fredline and Faulkner's
(2000) lovers group. This group believed that there were economic
benets to be derived from tourism and they had no concern for the
negative impacts. The prudent developer, being the largest group,
supported economic development and was aware of the negative
impacts of tourism. The ambivalent and cautious group, similar to
Fredline and Faulkner's (2000) nding, was less assertive and
indecisive about the impacts of tourism development. The protectionist group, which was equivalent to Fredline and Faulkner's
(2000) haters group, was concerned about the negative impacts,
and the alternative developer favored the economic benets and
had low ratings for the negative impacts.
Hang et al. (2011) in studying China's Tiantangzhai scenic area,
found four groups of residents. The rst was labeled the nave
optimism group because they were highly supportive of tourism
development and not concerned with the economic benets. The
second group was the community economy-led group, which was
concerned with community satisfaction especially economic benets. The cautious proponent group was supportive, but was
very concerned about social costs. The pessimistic opponents
were very concerned about the social costs and were not supportive of tourism development.
Overall, all the studies indicated that there are general patterns as
they relate to residents' perceptions of tourism development (Fredline
& Faulkner, 2000). One major limitation of these studies, with the
exception of Andriotis and Vaughan's (2003) study is that there was
no discussion of their ndings regarding the stage of the destination
life cycle and its inuence on the residents' perceptions. It is believed
that as a destination moves from one stage of its life cycle to another,
residents' perceptions will change (Gursoy et al., 2010; Nepal, 2008;
Sirakaya, Teye, & Sonmez, 2002), However, Andriotis and Vaughan
(2003) indicated that the stage of the destination life cycle was not a
signicant determinant of residents' perceptions, but they also stated
that there were mixed ndings about this.

3. Methodology
3.1. Sample and data collection
The aim of the study was to identify the differences among
groups of residents regarding their perceptions about tourism
development in destinations that are relatively new to tourism
development. During the 1980s Turkey was faced with severe
balance of payment decits and so several regions were developed
for tourism as a means of improving the economy. Foreign
investments, particularly in mass tourism resulted in the construction of several hotels and holiday villages in these regions
(Tosun, Timothy & zturk, 2003).
Two rural communities, Goynuk and Camyuva, in the Kemer
region in Turkey were specically selected for the study due to the
observed increase in tourism development. This phenomenon is not
typical of these areas because for many years they remained as
farming communities, specializing in olive, citrus and pomegranate
production, and were totally segregated from external inuences.
These communities are considered new to tourism development

because the supporting infrastructure was only developed in the early

2000's. Also, tourism has been institutionalized just over a decade ago
and there is now an increase in the number of tourists and further
development of tourist facilities. These features make the communities
very similar especially in terms of their socio-economic structure. They
were traditionally agriculture-based but now developed for tourism
activities with new developments in infrastructure, transportation and
communication services, accommodation, and food and beverage
facilities.
A stratied random sampling approach was used to distribute a
total of 800 structured survey questionnaires; 400 in each of the
residential areas to every fourth door. Overall, the survey resulted in
613 usable instruments representing a 76.6% response rate. Both
communities were combined into one group because of similarities in
their socio-economic framework as mentioned earlier, as well as their
proximity to each other, being neighboring communities in Kemer.
3.2. Measurement of variables
The survey instrument was comprised of four sections. The rst
three sections included a total of 21 items, all measured using 5-point
Likert-style scales, and the fourth section was used to ascertain the
respondents' demographic prole. In the rst section, eight items
were used to garner responses from the respondents regarding their
perceptions on the potential impacts of tourism development on their
local community, with became signicantly worse at the lower end
and became signicantly better at the upper end. The second
section comprised three items, which were used to measure the
socio-cultural impacts of tourism development having signicantly
decreased at the lower end and signicantly increased at the upper
end. The third section included three sub-areas with a total of 10
items measuring the economic impact of tourism development. The
anchor for the rst three items ranged from signicantly increased
at the lower end to signicantly decreased at the upper end. The
second sub-section had six items anchored on a scale ranging from
strongly agree to strongly disagree, and the last subsection had a
single item measured with very satised to not satised at all.
3.3. Study methods and data analysis
An independent sample t-test was conducted on the variables
to determine if the sample data from Goynuk and Camyuva were
actually similar so that they could be combined for further
analysis. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using SPSS was
employed to determine the underlying dimensions among the
variables (Dolnicar & Grun, 2008; Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson,
2010). A cluster analysis was used to identify groups of residents
with similar response patterns (Fredline & Faulkner, 2000). Prior to
the cluster analysis, a summated scale was created to replace each
of the factors identied in the EFA in the cluster analysis, which
employed hierarchical and non-hierarchical procedures. These
were used to classify the residents' perceptions according to the
factors derived from the factor analysis. Identied cluster solutions
were validated using one-way ANOVA with other variables not
used in the two previous analyses. Cross-tabulation of the demographic data identied the prole of each segment.
3.3.1. Exploratory factor analysis
The items were factor-analyzed using principal component
analysis with the Varimax rotation method to establish the underlying constructs. The KaiserMeyerOlkin (KMO) measure of
sampling adequacy and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity were examined
to determine the tness of the data. The factor loading matrix was
examined and the items that showed cross-loading on two or
more factors, and factor loading of .60 or less, were removed from

G. Sinclair-Maragh et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (2015) 3645

39

Table 1
Independent samples t-test results.
Goynuk N 356

Camyuva N 257

Measures

Community

Mean scores

Standard deviation

Goynuk
Camyuva
Goynuk
Camyuva
Goynuk
Camyuva
Goynuk
Camyuva
Goynuk
Camyuva
Goynuk
Camyuva
Goynuk
Camyuva
Goynuk
Camyuva

3.96
3.89
3.67
3.70
2.51
2.97
2.30
3.14
2.36
2.11
2.02
2.09
2.86
2.82
3.15
3.25

.966
.992
1.044
1.115
1.246
1.314
1.166
1.234
1.308
1.122
1.172
1.123
1.290
1.356
1.306
1.341

Goynuk
Camyuva
Goynuk
Camyuva
Goynuk
Camyuva
Goynuk
Camyuva
Goynuk
Camyuva
Goynuk
Camyuva
Goynuk
Camyuva
Goynuk
Camyuva

2.44
2.89
2.34
2.52
2.31
2.61
4.10
4.21
3.10
2.81
3.52
3.17
3.94
4.00
3.72
3.53

1.136
1.205
1.186
1.296
1.149
1.258
1.219
1.000
1.325
1.333
1.152
1.324
1.066
.937
1.198
1.228

Goynuk
Camyuva
Goynuk
Camyuva
Goynuk
Camyuva
Goynuk
Camyuva
Goynuk
Camyuva

1.90
2.34
2.21
2.64
1.51
1.96
2.19
2.66
2.41
2.32

1.178
1.325
1.301
1.410
.841
1.117
1.149
1.538
1.285
1.322

Potential impacts of tourism development

Quality of public service
Transportation services
Water supply and quality
Electricity supply
Beach
Forest
Trafc problems
Parks/recreational areas
Socio-cultural impacts of tourism development
Cultural identity of community
Morality
Attachment to traditions
Population
Cultural activities
Education level
Crime rate
I personally receive social benets from tourism
Economic impacts of tourism development
Employment opportunities
My personal income
Price of goods and services
My household income mostly depends on the money which is spent by tourists.
Overall, the benets of tourism are greater than the costs to the people of the area.

the analysis. This is plausible as factor loading ought to be greater

than .50 (Hair et al., 2010; Wong & Ko, 2009). Those items with
communalities lower than .50 were likewise removed (Hair et al.,
2010). The Eigenvalues derived for each factor were also used to
justify their retention for further analysis (Hair et al., 2010).
Subsequently, the Cronbach Alpha reliability test was conducted
to check the internal consistency of the underlying constructs (Leech,
Barrett, & Morgan, 2008). Descriptive statistics indicating the means
and standard deviations of each variable were used to describe the
basic features of the data set (Heung, Kucukusta, & Song, 2010) as
presented in Table 1. Following the factor analysis, the SPSS
transform-variable function was used to generate a summated scale
for each of the constructs by summing items loaded on each
construct and then deriving their average score. The factors were
subsequently named, and the factor mean and corresponding standard deviation for each of the summated scales are reported.

3.3.2. Cluster analysis

The objectives of the cluster analysis were to isolate the different
groups within the sample to examine their common features (Aguil

& Rossell, 2005; Anderson, 2003) and divide the sample into meaningful groups (Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003). The clusters were determined by splitting the sample and using both hierarchical and nonhierarchical clustering techniques. One hundred and forty observations
from the sample were randomly selected for the hierarchical cluster
analysis. The Ward Method, with squared Euclidean distance, was
employed to establish the preliminary number of clusters based on
measured characteristics. This was achieved by assessing the proportionate increase in heterogeneity for the most dissimilar observations
and identifying the most drastic change.
To further substantiate the number of clusters, the remaining
number of observations (473) was analyzed using non-hierarchical
clustering technique. An a priori number of clusters established by
the hierarchical technique was used. The maximum number of
runs was carried out to determine the optimal cluster solution.
Identied clusters were named accordingly using the cluster
centroids. Following this, the key characteristics of the items and
the factors were analyzed using one-way ANOVA. This technique
was used to compare the different groups (Heung et al., 2010) by
analyzing the statistical signicant differences between their
means (Hair et al., 2010).

40

G. Sinclair-Maragh et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (2015) 3645

Subsequently, cluster validation using ANOVA for the purpose

of criterion validity used three measures that were not included in
the previous analyses to justify whether or not the measures from
the survey instrument actually measured the residents' perceptions of tourism development. These measures were tourism gives
benets only to a small number of people in the region; tourism
creates more jobs for foreigners than for local people in the region
and taking everything into account (family, work, leisure, etc.) how
satised are you with the quality of the life in the region? This is
acceptable where the measures from an assessment instrument
are comparable with the scores from non-test criteria that are of
practical value in measuring the phenomena of interest (Haynes,
Smith, & Hunsley, 2011). Cross-tabulation was then conducted
with the demographic data to determine the proles of the
respondents.

4. Study results
The independent sample t-test analysis showed that there were
no signicant differences between the samples from Goynuk and
Camyuva thereby, enabling the combination of the data from the two
communities for the EFA and cluster analysis. Table 1 presents the
mean scores and the standard deviations of the 21 variables derived
from the questions asked in the survey conducted in both communities. Except for employment opportunities for Goynuk (1.90) and
price of goods for both Goynuk (1.51) and Camyuva (1.96), all the
mean scores are above 2.0. Likewise, all the standard deviation scores
exceed 1.0 excepting quality of public service for Goynuk (.966) and
Camyuva (.922), and price of goods for Goynuk (.841).
4.1. Exploratory factory analysis
The result of the 21 tourism impact variables that were factor
analyzed resulted in a KMO of .726 and a signicant Bartlett's Test
of Sphericity of p .000. These values as presented in Table 2 show
that the use of factor analysis was appropriate in identifying the
dimensions for the cluster analysis (Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003).
Items with factor loadings below .60 (Hair et al., 2010; Wong & Ko,
2009) and communalities below .5 were deleted, resulting in
the retention of 15 items for further analysis (Hair et al., 2010).
The ve factors derived from the EFA were accepted based on the
Eigenvalues which were greater than 1.0. The Cronbach's Alpha

reliability test showed high internal consistencies for factors 1 to 4

with values ranging from .739.868 (Hair et al., 2010). Although
Factor 5 had the lowest Cronbach Alpha value (.646), it was retained
since values greater than .6 can ensure satisfactory internal reliability (Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003; Malhotra, 1996).
Table 2 also presents the ve underlying dimensions resulting
from the principal component factor analysis. Factor 1, labeled
Cultural Factors was loaded with the three items: morality, attachment to traditions and cultural identity of the community. Factor 2,
described as Public Service Factors, had four items loaded, namely,
transportation services, quality of public service, water supply and
quality, and electricity supply. Factor 3, called Economic Factors had
three items: employment opportunities, my personal income, and
price of goods. Factor 4, named Environmental Factors loaded two
items, namely, beach and forest, while Factor 5, labeled Social
Factors, was comprised of three items: crime rate, education level
and cultural activities for residents. The result of the means and
standard deviations of the 15 variables are reported in Table 2. Except
for the price of goods variable, they all had acceptable mean scores
which were greater than 2.0 and only the quality of public service
and price of goods had a standard deviation a little less than 1.0.

4.2. Cluster analysis

A summated scale was created for each factor to be used in the
cluster analysis. The mean score and standard deviation for each
factor was culture (M2.49, SD1.07); public service (M3.24,
SD.87); economic (M2.06, SD 1.00); environment (M2.15,
SD1.11); and social (M3.44, SD .92). Hence, all ve factors,
inclusive of the 15 items, were cluster analyzed. Using the hierarchical clustering technique with 140 observations, four clusters were
selected based on the largest and most plausible proportionate
change. The proportionate change moving from the four-cluster to
the three-cluster solution indicated that two very different clusters
were being combined. Therefore, a four-cluster solution was chosen.
Next, a non-hierarchical cluster analysis procedure was utilized
to nalize the cluster solutions using the a priori number of clusters
determined by the hierarchical technique. From the nonhierarchical procedure using 473 observations, four clusters were
derived. Cluster 3 (N221), being the largest, represented 46.7% of
the residents and Cluster 4 (N 62) was the smallest (13.1%). Cluster
1 (N113) represented 23.9%, and Cluster 2 (N77) represented

Table 2
Results of the EFA (N 613).
Measures
Morality
Attachment to traditions
Cultural identity of the community
Transportation
Quality of public service
Water supply and quality
Electricity supply
Employment
Personal income
Price of goods
Forest
Beach
Crime rate
Education
Cultural activities for residents
Eigenvalue
% of total variance
Cronbach's Alpha
KMO
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (signicance level)
n

po .05.

Cultural

Public service

Economic

Environmental

Social

.898
.880
.833
.798
.760
.707
.675
.877
.868
.691

.909
.890
772

3.524
23.494
.868

2.397
15.983
.739

2.094
13.957
.762

1.415
9.433
.846

.692
.640
1.028
6.851
.646

Mean

SD

2.41
2.44
2.63
3.68
3.93
2.70
2.65
2.09
2.39
1.70
2.05
2.25
3.96
3.38
2.98

1.236
1.204
1.185
1.074
.977
1.294
1.265
1.259
1.364
.991
1.151
1.239
1.014
1.238
1.335

.726
.000*

G. Sinclair-Maragh et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (2015) 3645

16.3%. The clusters were subsequently named according to the two

factors considered most important to the residents, in order to
distinctively represent the four segments that were established. As
indicated in Table 3, the residents in Cluster 1 believed that public
service became better as a result of tourism development in their
communities. They likewise stated that the environment signicantly worsened. Hence, this cluster was labeled public service and
environment focused.
Cluster 2 was predominantly characterized by those residents
who believed that the social impact of tourism development was
signicantly increased. They also noted that the cultural impacts
were signicantly increased because of tourism development. This
cluster was subsequently named community focused to reect the
impacts of the socio-cultural factors. This cluster also agreed, or was
very satised, with the economic impacts. Similar to the community
focused group, residents in Cluster 3 were also concerned about
social issues associated with tourism development. In order to
further differentiate this cluster from Cluster 2, the residents' next
highest perception rating was considered. This was the perception of
public service provided. The cluster was consequently named communitypublic service focused. Cluster 4 characterized residents
who had little interest in the impacts of tourism development and
thus named the inconsequential cluster.
4.3. Cluster validation
As presented in Table 4, the ANOVA results of the three measures
used for the cluster validation were all statistically signicant. This
veried that there were statistical signicant differences among the
four clusters established in the study as indicated in Table 4 and also
provides support for the criterion validity of the items that measured
the residents' perceptions of tourism development.
4.4. Clusters' overall prole
Cross-tabulation was used to identify the demographic prole of
the respondents in terms of their residency, gender, age, education

41

level, monthly income, and job/occupation and their corresponding

cluster. Andriotis and Vaughan (2003) used this approach to match
the cluster to the socio-demographics of respondents in order to
determine their attitudes toward tourism development. The crosstabulation approach utilized enabled researchers to identify commonalities across all the clusters as the majority of respondents in
all four clusters were male. Likewise, the majority of respondents
were between 20 and 39 years old, had secondary education,
earned less than 1500 Turkish Liras, and worked indirectly in
tourism. With regards to length of residency, the majority of
respondents in three out of the four clusters have been living at
their current abode for more than 10 years. The exception is Cluster
2 as the residents have been living in their communities between
ve and ten years (Table 5).

5. Discussion
The ndings indicated that the community public service
focused cluster comprised the largest group of residents, and they
represented those who spanned across both the socio-cultural and
public service perceptions. They believed that the social impacts of
tourism, as well as the public services followed by the cultural
impacts, were signicantly increased. This cluster included more
females when compared to the other clusters. It is believed that
females are more perceptive of tourism generating negative
impacts, such as trafc congestion, noise pollution, and crime, in
spite of their desire for the economic and public service benets
(Harrill & Potts, 2003; Mason & Cheyne, 2000). This could possibly
explain why this cluster pointed out an increase in crime as an
issue. This cluster also had the largest amount of residents who had
attained high school education, which, according to Andriotis and
Vaughan (2003), afforded them the ability to articulate their
concerns about tourism impacts.
The communitypublic service focused cluster also comprised
the majority of residents who were 60 years and older. There are
mixed views regarding age and tourism development. In studying

Table 3
Clustering variable proles for the rst sub-sample from the non-hierarchical cluster analysis with initial seed points from the hierarchical analysis (N 473).
Factors

Cultural a
Public serviceb
Economiccde
Environmentalb
Environmentalb

Initial cluster centers

Clusters

Final cluster centers

Clusters

1.00
5.00
1.00
3.50
1.67

5.00
3.50
1.67
5.00
5.00

2.00
1.50
4.33
5.00
3.33

.00
.00
.33
.00
.00

2.16
3.52
2.41
3.38
3.17

4.03
3.81
1.81
2.84
4.20

2.45
3.10
1.86
1.48
3.67

1.42
2.27
2.53
1.27
2.10

F value

Signicance

153.172
53.7660
14.976
255.354
114.268

.000*
.001*
.000*
.000*
.000*

Note: All factors were measured on a ve-point Likert scale with the following range from the lower end to the upper end:
n

p o .05.
signicantly decreased to signicantly increased.
became signicantly worse to became signicantly better.
c
signicantly increased to signicantly decreased.
d
strongly agree to strongly disagree.
e
very satised to not satised at all.
a

Table 4
ANOVA results for cluster validation.
Measures

Mean square

df

Signicance

Tourism gives benets only to a small number of people in the region

Tourism creates more jobs for foreigners than for local people in the region
Taking everything into account (family, work, leisure, etc.) how satised are you with the quality of the life in the region?

63.098
12.240
7.068

1
1
1

34.719
9.678
5.531

.000*
.004*
.019*

po .05.

42

G. Sinclair-Maragh et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (2015) 3645

Table 5
Demographic prole (N 473).
Demographic proles

Cluster 1
Public service and environment focused
N 113

Cluster 2
Community focused
N 77

Cluster 3
Community public service
N 221

Cluster 4
Inconsequential
N 62

Residency

o5 years
510 years
410 years

23.5
28.5
48.0

18.3
53.5
28.2

14.9
31.2
53.9

15.8
29.8
54.4

Gender

Male
Female

63.4
36.6

68.8
31.2

62.4
37.6

68.9
31.1

Age

19 years & less

2039
4059
60 & more

11.8
60.0
22.7
5.5

17.1
59.2
19.7
4.0

7.0
53.5
26.8
12.7

8.6
46.6
36.2
8.6

Educational levels

No school
Primary
Secondary
High

5.5
17.4
67.9
9.2

4.0
22.7
61.3
12.0

6.9
31.8
46.1
15.2

8.2
39.3
39.3
13.2

Monthly income (Turkish Liras/TL)

o1500 TL
15005000TL
45000 TL

68.3
22.8
8.9

67.6
25.6
6.8

65.5
24.0
10.5

68.5
25.9
5.6

Job/occupation

Direct tourism
Indirect tourism
Non-tourism

22.6
46.8
30.6

29.3
48.0
22.7

24.5
41.5
34.0

27.9
41.0
31.1

tourism in the Gold Coast in Australia, Tomljenovic and Faulkner

(2000) showed that the older residents were as favorable toward
tourism development as the younger ones, but they were more
accepting of international tourists and had less concern about any
adverse environmental impacts. Deng, Arbogast, and Selin (2011)
pointed out that the older residents in Anstead, West Virginia were
more positive in their attitudes toward tourism development than
the younger ones. Conversely, in a study of Kusadasi, Turkey, Cavus
and Tanrisevdi (2002) found that the older the residents, the more
negative their perceptions toward tourism development. Cavus and
Tanrisevdi's (2002) study concentrated on a similar social, cultural,
environmental, and public service framework as this study and could
perhaps provide a more plausible explanation to the age inuence of
this cluster rather than Deng et al. (2011) and Tomljenovic and
Faulkner (2000).
The second largest cluster was the public service and environment focused group of residents, who believed that the public
service amenities were most notably improved due to tourism
development, while tourism had negative consequences on the
environment. These public service amenities included transportation services, quality of public service, water supply and quality, and
electricity supply. These are critical, as they provide important
benets to the residents, despite the fact that they may be viewed
as enabling tourism development rather than being put in place for
the residents' usage (Mbaiwa, 2003) or being an expensive investment (Tomic et al., 2012). It was, however, the only cluster to
indicate a great concern for the environment. Concern for the
environment would have been expected to be a priority for all the
clusters, and therefore was not in keeping with the literature which
pointed out that the environment is given serious considerations by
residents as it pertains to tourism development (Choi & Sirakaya,
2005; Yoon et al., 2001). Although this could possibly be explained
by the stage of the destination life cycle, Andriotis and Vaughan
(2003) found that the stage of development was not a signicant
determinant of the residents' perceptions in Crete, which, being at
the maturity stage, residents indicated a relatively strong support

for tourism development without signicant anti-tourism perceptions. This type of response was expected to occur at the early stage
of the destination life cycle.
Also, this concern for the environment by this cluster could be
due to its characterization by persons who were predominantly
between 20 and 39 years old. As noted earlier, Tomljenovic and
Faulkner (2000) postulated that older residents were less concerned about the negative impacts of tourism development on the
environment, thus suggesting that younger persons would be
more concerned. This substantiated the view of Harrill (2004)
that the age of residents has been claimed to be a factor in their
attitudes toward tourism development.
The public service and environment focused cluster also
represented the majority of residents who lived in their communities for more than ve years, and they seemed to have better
access to places and an improved standard of living from the
increased public service. They predominantly attained secondary
level education and earned less than 1500 Turkish Liras monthly.
This could suggest a dependence on public service amenities such
as transportation. Having secondary level education could probably
provide the landscape for these residents to better understand the
dynamics of tourism development as pointed out by Andriotis and
Vaughan (2003).
The community focused cluster, the third largest group, was
the most concerned with social issues as they relate to tourism.
This group of residents noted that the rate of criminal activities
had increased. This is popularly perceived as a negative outcome
of tourism development (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Mbaiwa, 2003;
Tosun, 2002). They, however, asserted that the education level and
cultural activities were also signicantly increased, thus, providing
a positive outlook. This is an interesting perspective by this group,
since the majority of these residents had only attained secondary
education and were 19 years old and younger; hence, they may
welcome the improvements to the educational system. This cluster
also had the largest proportion of residents who worked both
directly and indirectly in tourism. This could suggest some level of

G. Sinclair-Maragh et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (2015) 3645

objectivity in the responses since, by working indirectly in tourism;

they were not dependent on the industry to provide jobs for them.
Interestingly, this was the only cluster which indicated that the
cultural identity of the communities, as well as morality and attachment to the community, were signicantly increased. This was also
the only cluster comprising the largest number of residents who lived
in their communities between ve and 10 years. This could ostensibly
suggest that these residents may not have been living in their
communities long enough to notice any negative cultural impacts.
Conversely, both the public service and environment focused and
communitypublic service clusters perceived that there was a
signicant decrease in the cultural variables. The majority of these
residents had been living in their communities for more than 10
years, and would therefore be familiar with their surroundings.
Hence, they are better able to judge what factors have a positive or
negative impact on their communities. Yet, Allen, Hafer, Long, and
Perdue (2011) found that the length of residency did not signicantly
inuence residents' perceptions toward tourism development.
Also, noteworthy are the mixed views pertaining to the impact
of tourism development on culture, which were actually highlighted in the literature. On the one hand, it was believed that
these cultural variables can be made signicantly better through
culture preservation (Andereck et al., 2005; Stronza & Gordillo,
2008), as well as tourism awareness programs (Besculides et al.,
2002). On the other hand, culture degradation was a frequent
concern with many tourism developments, as it is believed to
result in the commodication of the culture (Choi & Sirakaya,
2005), thereby eroding its authenticity, as well as breaking down
the moral structure through activities such as gambling and
prostitution (Andereck et al., 2005; Tosun, 2002), as well as and
the use of drugs and alcohol (Barker et al., 2003; Tosun, 2002).
The smallest of the four clusters was the inconsequential
group. This included those residents who did not indicate any
factor that was of particular concern to them. This signied that
they have no major concern about the impacts of tourism development. However, one nding was that this cluster, comparable to
the community-focused cluster, comprised the largest proportion of males. This is interesting, as it is believed that males are
more in favor of tourism development than females (Mason &
Cheyne, 2000) and, therefore, would have probably have been
expected to show more interest in this case. This cluster also
represented the largest amount of respondents who had only
attained primary school education, and this could explain their
indifference to tourism development issues. It also comprised the
largest proportion of respondents who have been living in their
community for more than 10 years. It is also noteworthy that they
have no particular concern about tourism development issues.
Overall, the study showed that the residents predominantly
indicated that social variables are the most important concerns for
tourism development, and this was likewise alluded to by Dyer
et al. (2007) and Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2011). Findings also
suggested that residents believed that the price of goods as
specied by the mean score of 1.70 in Table 1 had signicantly
increased. This has been identied in the literature as one of the
main drawbacks of tourism development, as prices for land (Jackson
& Inbarakan, 2006), and goods and services (Aguilo & Rossello,
2005; Weaver & Lawton, 2001) usually increase, resulting in a
heightened cost of living.
The study also showed that within each cluster, there were both
positive and negative perceptions of tourism development. This
nding is consistent with ndings of Gursoy et al. (2010), who
pointed out that residents did not see tourism development as either
bad or good as they believed that the development may have both
positive and negative impacts. This also supported the viewpoint of
Easterling (2004), who noted that a resident will indicate that there
may be both positive and negative consequences of tourism.

43

Furthermore, Gursoy, Jurowski, and Uysal (2002) stated that despite

the economic benets of tourism to local communities, there were
perceived costs associated with the environment, culture, and social
framework of a destination.
The cross-tabulation procedure carried out in this study also
showed that there were commonalities across all four clusters in
terms of gender, age, education levels, monthly income, and job and
occupation. This justies the usefulness of stratied random sampling
in obtaining the key characteristics in the sample that were proportional to the overall population in the two communities. The majority
of residents in all four clusters were male. This gender distribution was
similar to that of Tosun (2006) in a study of community participation
in tourism in Urgup, Turkey. This ostensibly could be explained in the
context of a male-dominated society where the males are the head of
the household and are thus, considered to be responsible for participating in surveys. As alluded to by McMillian, Gorman, and MacLaren
(2011), a male-dominated society is controlled by this sex, the
outcome of which separates both sexes through social and power
distances, as well as marginalization. Additionally, since males are
more pro-tourism development than females, they could display more
interest in participating in the survey.
The study showed that the subsequent clusters derived from
the cluster analysis were theoretically and statistically meaningful.
The cross-tabulation was also able to determine the cluster
proles according to their demographics to enable a reasonable
analysis. Based on the premise of destination life cycle, the study
was able to show the perceptions of residents in two geographical
areas that were new to tourism development.

6. Implications
This study shows that there were specic concerns pertaining to
tourism development, which residents believed have had both a
positive and negative impact on their lives. It is therefore imperative
for tourism developers and policy makers to have knowledge and
an understanding of the dynamics of these impact factors and how
they are perceived by the residents before they embark on new
tourism developments or make changes to existing destinations.
Having knowledge of the specic clusters and the demographic
prole of each cluster is extremely useful for future planning,
especially in locations that are new to tourism development.
It is important to balance the benets and costs of tourism
development and hence there is a need to continuously assess
residents' perceptions of tourism development (Nunkoo, Gursoy &
Ramkissoon, 2013). Tourism planners need to devise the most
appropriate strategies geared at sustainable tourism development,
which will strengthen those factors deemed positive. For instance,
they can improve public services such as the public transportation
system and water and electricity supply so as to facilitate residents'
usage, rather than putting them in place for the purpose of tourism.
Likewise, they should aim at reducing the associated impacts of those
concerns or variables considered negative. For example, they could
try to reduce the incidence of criminal activities by having community forums to educate residents about the importance of tourism
and the detrimental effects of criminal activities on the number of
visitors who come to their communities, resulting in a decrease in
tourism revenue. In terms of price rises, this can be controlled
through a regulatory body to ensure that goods and services are
not overpriced in these touristic areas but are kept at a reasonable
level where the residents will not be burdened from high prices.
Immoral behaviors such as prostitution, gambling, and the use and
abuse of alcohol and drugs can be curtailed through enforced laws, as
well as educational programs for both the residents and visitors.
These efforts could be supported by use of brochures and information on relevant on-line marketing websites.

44

G. Sinclair-Maragh et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (2015) 3645

One of the contributions of this paper is that it expands the

knowledge on residents' impact perceptions of tourism development by examining their perspectives of two communities where
the economy is shifting from being predominantly agriculture
based to an emerging tourism industry. This contribution to the
literature is a major difference from other studies conducted in
this area. Furthermore, this paper attempts to identify dimensions
of community life that is new to tourism using factor analysis. This
result in ve distinct factors, namely cultural, public service,
economic, environmental and social, which tourism planners can
use as the basis for identifying factors impacting tourism development in communities that are particularly new to this industry.
Signicantly, unlike the others identied, public service is not a
popular factor identied by extant studies. Scholars can therefore,
conduct future studies on tourism development in communities
new to tourism using these factors.
Another contribution of this study is that it derives clusters of
residents based on their perceptions of tourism impacts and
establishes a prole of each cluster so that planners and developers
can develop customized communication strategies for each group. A
major difference between this study and previous ones is that it
establishes new cluster names or labels that are not used in the
cluster analysis of residents' perceptions in previous studies such as
those done by Aguilo and Rossello (2005), Andriotis and Vaughan
(2003), Fredline and Faulkner (2000), Hang et al. (2011), and
Williams and Lawson (2001). The cluster proles identied in this
study particularly grouped residents according to their specic
concerns about the tourism development factors that directly affect
their personal lives in an emerging destination which spans across
two rural communities that are new to tourism development. The
cluster solutions demonstrated groups of residents that are either
concerned about one particular issue or a combination of issues.
This resulted in a single issue cluster such as the community
focused group, double issue cluster such as the public service and
environment focused group and a triple issue cluster such as the
communitypublic service group. The inconsequential cluster
showed that there are in fact residents who have no concern about
tourism development.
These clusters can be further examined in future studies in the
context of destinations that have not reached maturity in their life
cycle, as well as places that are being considered for tourism
development. Another opportunity for future research is to conduct a comparative analysis between the residents of mature and
new tourist destinations to determine the similarities and differences in terms of their perceptions regarding the impact of
tourism development on their respective communities. The clusters derived can also achieve practical signicance as they are
useful in providing policy makers with appropriate information
regarding the specicity of residents' perceptions of and concerns
regarding tourism development.
One limitation of the study is that the six identier characteristics used to describe the residents, namely, their years of residency
in the communities, gender, age, educational levels, monthly income and job occupation may not be adequate in dening their
attitudes towards tourism development. Other identiers such as
their personality, marital status and religious tendency could be
useful in doing so. Also, the difference in the wording of the items
on the residents attitude scale could impact its reliability. For instance, some items are in one word, for example, "forest" and others
are in multiple words, such as "water supply and quality". Future
studies should therefore take these limitations into consideration.
Another limitation of this study is that it is concentrated on two
geographical locations in Turkey. This however presents the
opportunity for future studies to examine the variables in other
destinations to get a better understanding of residents' perceptions of tourism development from a factor-cluster analysis

perspective. Future research could also continue this assessment

using discriminant analysis to determine the differences in characteristics between the respondents in the two communities.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned limitations, the study provides both theoretical and practical implications.

7. Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to identify the differences among
groups of residents regarding their perceptions about tourism
development in two communities in Turkey. Utilizing a factorcluster analyses approach, this study classied residents into homogenous groups, namely, public service and environment focused,
community focused, communitypublic service focused and the
inconsequential clusters. The differences in the residents'
responses were also ascertained using cross-tabulation of their
demographic prole. The results are very useful to policy makers,
practitioners, and scholars. The ndings of this study can be useful
in providing policy makers with appropriate information for tourism development, to inform practitioners of resident's perceptions,
and to encourage scholars to conduct similar studies.
References
Aguil, E., & Rossell, J. (2005). Host community perceptions: a cluster analysis.
Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 925941.
Allen, L. R., Hafer, H. R., Long, P. T., & Perdue, R. R. (1993). Rural residents' attitudes
toward recreation and tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 31(4),
2733.
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),
10561076.
Andereck, K. L., & Vogt, C. A. (2000). The relationship between residents' attitudes
toward tourism and tourism development options. Journal of Travel Research
39(1), 2736.
Anderson, T. W. (2003). An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis (2nd ed.).
New York: Wiley.
Andriotis, K., & Vaughan, R. D. (2003). Urban residents' attitudes toward tourism
development: The case of Crete. Current Issues in Tourism, 42(2), 172185.
Andriotis, K., & Vaughan, R. D. (2004). The tourism workforce and policy: exploring
the assumptions using Crete. Journal of Travel Research, 7(1), 6687.
Barker, M., Page, S. J., & Meyer, D. (2003). Urban visitor perceptions of safety during
a specialevent. Journal of Travel Research, 41(4), 335361.
Besculides, A., Lee, M. E., & McCormic, P. J. (2002). Residents' perceptions of the
cultural benets of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), 30033319.
Brida, J. B., Osti, L., & Barquet, A. (2010). Segmenting residents' perceptions toward
tourism: a cluster analysis with multinomial logit model of a mountain
community. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12(5), 591602.
Cavus, S., & Tanrisevdi, A. (2002). Residents' attitudes toward tourism development:
a case study in Kusadasi, Turkey. Tourism Analysis, 7(34), 259269.
Chen, J. S. (2000). An investigation of urban tourism residents' loyalty of tourism.
Journal of Travel and Tourism Research, 24(1), 519.
Choi, H.-S. C., & Sirakaya, E. (2005). Measuring residents' attitude towards sustainable tourism: development of sustainable tourism attitude scale. Journal of
Travel Research, 43(4), 380394.
Davis, D., Allen, J., & Cosenza, R. M. (1988). Segmenting local residents by their
attitudes, interests and opinions toward tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 27
(2), 28.
Deng, J., Arbogast, D., & Selin, S. (2011). Community-based tourism planning: an
application of the APPA approach to Anstead, West Virginia. Tourism Analysis,
16(5), 601615.
Diedrich, A., & Garcia-Buades, E. (2009). Local perceptions of tourism as indicators
of destination decline. Tourism Management, 30(4), 512521.
Dolnicar, S., & Grun, B. (2008). Challenging Factor-Cluster Segmentation. Journal
of Travel Research, 47(1), 6371.
Dwyer, L., Edwards, D., Mistilis, N., Roman, C., & Scott, N. (2009). Destination and
enterprise management for a tourism future. Tourism Management, 30(1), 6374.
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, 409422.
Easterling, D. S. (2004). The residents' perspective in tourism research. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing, 17(4), 4562.
Fredline, E., & Faulkner, B. (2000). Host community reactions: a cluster analysis.
Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 763784.
Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G., & Dyer, P. (2010). Local's attitudes toward mass and alternative
tourism: the case of Sunshine Coast, Australia. Journal of Travel Research, 49(3),
381394.

G. Sinclair-Maragh et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (2015) 3645

Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G., & Dyer, P. (2009). An examination of locals' attitudes. Annals of
Tourism Research, 36(4), 723726.
Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident attitudes: a structural
modeling approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 79105.
Gursoy, D., & Rutherford, D. (2004). Host attitudes toward tourism: an improved
structural modeling approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 495516.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, A. E. (2010). Multivariate Data
Analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Halloway, J. C. (2004). Marketing for Tourism (4th ed.). England: Pearson Educational
Limited.
Hang, G., Fang, W.-T., & Huang, Y.-W. (2011). Classication and inuential factors on
the perceived tourism impacts of community residents in nature-based China's
Tiantangzhai scenic area. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 10(2011), 20102015.
Harrill, R. (2004). Residents' attitudes toward tourism development: a literature
review with implications for tourism planning. Journal of Planning Literature., 18
(3), 251266.
Harrill, R., & Potts, T. D. (2003). Tourism planning in historic districts : attitudes
toward tourism development in Charleston. Journal of American Planning
Association, 69(3), 233244.
Haynes, S.N., Smith, G.T., & Hunsley, J.D. (2011). Scientic Foundations of Clinical
Assessment. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. New York. ISBN : 0-203-829174.
Heung, V., Kucukusta, D., & Song, H. (2010). A conceptual model of medical tourism:
implications for future research. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 27(3),
236251.
Jackson, M. S., & Inbarakan, R. J. (2006). Evaluating residents' attitudes and
intentions to act toward tourism development in Regional Victoria, Australia.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 8(5), 355366.
Ko, D. W., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of residents'
attitudes for tourism development. Tourism Management, 23(5), 521530.
Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2008). SPSS for Intermediate Statistics :
Use and Interpretation (3rd ed.). New York: Taylor and Francis Group (ISBN
13;978-0-8058 6267-6).
Madrigal, R. (1995). Residents' perceptions and the role of government. Annals of
Tourism Research, 22(1), 86102.
Malhotra, N. K. (1996). Marketing Research: An Applied Analysis (2nd ed.). London:
Prentice;
(In) Andriotis, K., & Vaughan, R. D. (2003). Urban residents' attitudes toward
tourism development: the case of Crete. Journal of Travel Research, 42(2),
172185.
Mason, P., & Cheyne, J. (2000). Residents' attitudes to proposed tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 391411.
Mbaiwa, J. E. (2003). The socio-economic and environmental impacts of tourism
development on the Okavango Delta, north-western Botswana. Journal of Arid
Environments, 54(2), 447467.
McMillian, C. L., Gorman, K. D., & MacLaren, A. C. (2011). Commercial hospitality: a
vehicle for the sustainable empowerment of Nepali women. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(2), 189208.
Mitchell, R. E., & Reid, D. G. (2001). Community integration: osland tourism in Peru.
Annals of Tourism Research, 2(1), 113139.

45

Nepal, S. (2008). Residents' attitudes to tourism in Central British Columbia, Canada.

Tourism Geographies, 10(1), 4265.
Nunkoo, R., & Gursoy, D. (2011). Residents' support for tourism: an identity
perspective. Annals of Tourism Research., 39(1), 243268.
Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2011). Residents satisfaction with community
attributes and support for tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research,
35(2), 171190.
Nunkoo, R., Gursoy, D., & Ramkissoon, H. (2013). Developments in hospitality
marketing and management: social network analysis and research themes.
Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 22(3), 269288.
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(2), 147156.
Singh, D. R., & Wright, A. (2011). Tourism and economic growth, the Jamaican
experience. In I. Boxil (2011), Caribbean tourism perceptions, economic development and air travel, Centre for Tourism and Policy Research, The University of
the West Indies, Mona, 1, 1119.
Sirakaya, E., Teye, V., & Sonmez, S. F. (2002). Understanding residents' support for
tourism development in the central region of Ghana. Journal of Travel Research,
41(1), 5767.
Sirakaya-Turk, E., & Gursoy, D. (2013). Predictive validity of SUSTAS. Tourism
Analysis, 18(5), 601605.
Sreekumar, T. T., & Parayil, G. (2002). Contentions and contradictions of tourism as
development option: the case of Kerala, India. Third World Quarterly, 23(3),
529548.
Stronza, A., & Gordillo, J. (2008). Community views of ecotourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 35(2), 448468.
Tomljenovic, R., & Faulkner, B. (2000). Tourism and older residents in a sunbelt
resort. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(1), 93114.
Teye, V., Sonmez, S. F., & Sirakaya, E. (2002). Residents' attitudes toward tourism
development. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 668688.
Tomic, R., Gajic, T., & Bugar, D. (2012). Tourism as a basis for development of the
economy of Serbia. UTMS Journal of Economics, 3(1), 2131.
Tosun, C. (2002). Host perceptions of impacts: a comparative tourism study. Annals
of Tourism Research, 29(1), 231253.
Tosun, C. (2006). Expected nature of community participation in tourism development. Tourism Management, 27(3), 493504.
Tosun, C., Timothy, D. J., & zturk, Y. (2003). Tourism growth, national development
and regional inequality in Turkey. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(23),
133159.
Wan, P. Y. K. (2012). Governance of tourism planning in Macao. Tourism Analysis, 17
(3), 357369.
Weaver, D., & Lawton, L. (2001). Resident perceptions in the urbanrural fringe.
Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 439458.
Williams, J., & Lawson, R. (2001). Community issues and opinions of tourism. Annals
of Tourism Research, 28(2), 269290.
Wong, S. C., & Ko, A. (2009). Exploratory study of understanding hotel employees'
perception on work-life balance issues. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 28(2), 195203.
Yoon, Y., Gursoy, D., & Chen, J. S. (2001). Validating a tourism development theory
with structural equation modeling. Tourism Management, 22(4), 363372.