INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH Int. J. Tourism Res.

10, 95109 (2008) Published online 2 November 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.644

Gaining Residents Support for Tourism and Planning

M. Angeles Oviedo-Garcia, Mario Castellanos-Verdugo and David Martin-Ruiz University of Seville, Administracion de Empresas y Marketing, Av. Ramon y Cajal 1, 41018 Seville, Spain ABSTRACT This research analyses residents perceptions of the effects of tourism. Economic, cultural and environmental effects are identied as determinants of residents attitudes towards tourism development and planning. Authors speculate that there are different patterns of residents support depending on their differential benets obtained from tourism. A conceptual model is developed and empirically tested in Santiponce, a small community in southern Spain. Our results support our basic hypothesis: residents level of personal benets obtained from tourism inuence their perceptions regarding tourism impacts, and in consequence, their support for tourism development and for tourism planning. Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 4 December 2006; Revised 11 July 2007; Accepted 17 July 2007

Keywords: tourism planning; residents attitude; heterogeneity; Spain. INTRODUCTION

t is widely acknowledged that tourism activities can contribute signicantly to the economic development of regions. Governments and public entities have therefore made strenuous efforts to initiate or foster tourism activities within their geographical areas of inuence.

*Correspondence to: M. Angeles Oviedo-Garcia, University of Seville, Administracion de Empresas y Marketing, Av. Ramon y Cajal 1, 41018 Seville, Spain. E-mail: maoviedo@us.es

Tourism development does not take place in isolation; rather, it occurs within specic environments, each with its own idiosyncratic features. Within these specic environments, the support of the residents is a key factor in developing and implementing successful initiatives. Because tourism development can happen without planning, tourism planners should be concerned about the perceptions and attitudes of residents towards tourism developments in order to gain their support. Some of these community perceptions are positive, whereas others are negative. In fact, residents participation in planning and development stages is a fundamental necessity for sustainability of the development, like good will and cooperation of host communities (Dyer et al., 2006). Some previous studies have aimed to identify, in theory, residents perceptions of the effects of tourism in their communities (Husbands, 1989; King et al., 1993; Madrigal, 1993; Lankford and Howard, 1994); and others have focused on the theoretical relationship between residents and the process of tourism planning (Jamal and Getz, 1995; Robson and Robson, 1996; Yoon et al., 2001). However, an empirical link has not been established between (i) residents perceptions of the effect of tourism and (ii) their attitudes to tourism planning. The main research objective of the present study is therefore to address the various perceptions of residents with respect to tourism, and how those perceptions condition the planning process of tourism in a particular community. In addition, the study speculates based on previous research (Ap, 1990; Perdue et al., 1990; Mansfeld, 1992; Akis et al., 1996; Gursoy et al., 2002; Harrill, 2004) that there might be different patterns of behaviour in various communities, depending on the differential benets that the residents obtain from tourism. In particular, the study examines whether there are signicant differences
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

96 between residents who obtain personal economic benets from tourism and those who do not obtain any such benets, focusing on the moderating role of personal benets. An empirical model is then tested in Santiponce, a small community in the south of Spain. The Roman archaeological site of Italica is located in this area, and no previous research has been conducted in this place. In fact, most studies of this subject area have been conducted in the USA, the UK and Australia (Yoon et al., 2001; Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy and Rutherford, 2004; McGehee and Andereck, 2004). Literature review: three approaches Residents attitudes towards tourism have been studied by three general approaches derived from psychology and sociology (Harrill, 2004). The rst is known as the community-attachment approach. This approach has examined the extent and pattern of social participation and integration in community life in terms of sentiment with respect to the community (McCool and Martin, 1994). A systemic model has been constructed that attachment increases with length of residence, family ties and social advancement. A lineal model has also been posited that attachment weakens as population and density decreases. With respect to tourism, it has been suggested that highly attached residents tend to view tourism development more favourably than do less-attached residents, although with some reservations (Harrill, 2004, p. 206). The second approach is provided by the growth-machine theory. According to this theory, as tourism grows as an economic force, the tourism industry increasingly becomes a focus of economic growth in a region (Harrill, 2004). This framework is useful in addressing differences between the attitudes of residents and the attitudes of certain lites in that the theory assumes that tourism development is controlled by certain powerful urban lite interests, rather than local residents in the region itself. According to this approach, individuals who do not receive real economic benets are not expected to support future tourism development. Finally, social-exchange theory has examined the exchange of resources between
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

M. Angeles Oviedo-Garcia et al. individuals and groups. According to this theory, individuals engage in exchanges if the resulting rewards are worthwhile, and if the exchange is likely to produce rewards that are perceived to be greater than the costs (Jurowski and Gursoy, 2004). The exchanged resources can be material, social or psychological in nature (Harrill, 2004). The present study relies mainly on the last of these approaches (which is discussed in greater detail below), although the community-attachment approach and the growthmachine approaches also provide interesting insights.

Social exchange theory Social-exchange theory implies that there is an increasing likelihood of residents involvement in tourism development if they perceive that the potential benets are greater than the costs. Indeed, if the host community perceives that the benets are greater than the costs, the members of the community are likely to become directly involved in the exchange, and thus endorse future development in their region (Gursoy and Rutherford, 2004). Economic, socio-cultural and environmental tradeoffs, as perceived by residents, all play a part in determining their support for further tourism development (Milman and Pizam, 1987; Gee et al., 1989; Yoon et al., 2001; Ko and Stewart, 2002; Jurowski and Gursoy, 2004). The relationships among the different components that form the total impact of tourism (economic, environmental, social and cultural) are the basis of the social-development theory of tourism, which is rooted in social-exchange theory (Yoon et al., 2001). According to socialdevelopment theory, attitudes towards tourism are thus inuenced by residents perceptions of economic, social and environmental effects (Perdue et al., 1990; Ap, 1992; Gursoy et al., 2002). The economic benets, real or expected, produce support for tourism development (Perdue et al., 1990; Akis et al., 1996). This is the most denite relationship, but some research also suggests a positive relationship between support for tourism and a perception of social and cultural benets (Lankford and Howard,
Int. J. Tourism Res. 10, 95109 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Gaining Residents Support 1994; Yoon et al., 2001; Besculides et al., 2002) and environmental benets (Hillery et al., 2001; Yoon et al., 2001). However, perceptions of negative effects also play a part (Lankford and Howard, 1994). For example, Snaith and Haley (1999) found a great deal of variation in support for tourism development within a historic community in England. In general, those who are not economically tied to tourism view it more negatively than those who are (McGehee and Andereck, 2004). From a socio-cultural perspective, tourism stimulates demand for local craftsmanship, brings opportunities to exchange ideas and cultural knowledge, and stimulates new services, better facilities and alternatives for leisure (McKean, 1978; Sethna and Richmond, 1978; Esman, 1984; Brunt and Courtney, 1999). Nevertheless, there are also potential negative consequences of tourism in socio-cultural terms. It can conict with traditional family values, cause cultural conicts between tourists and residents and generate cultural dependency (Cohen, 1988; Kousis, 1989; Sharpley, 1994). In general, there seems to be a direct relationship between a positive evaluation of social and cultural effects and support of tourism activities (Lankford and Howard, 1994; Besculides et al., 2002). Finally, residents attitudes towards environmental effects of tourism are important as evidenced by the number and variety of environmental concerns in many studies of residents attitudes (Carmichael, 2000; Sheldon and Abenoja, 2001; Ko and Stewart, 2002; Jurowski and Gursoy, 2004; Kuvan and Perran, 2005). Residents who fear that tourism will damage the environment are opposed to development, whereas those who see tourism as an incentive to preserve and protect the natural environment are supportive (Butler, 1980; Martin and Uysal, 1990; Hillery et al., 2001). According to Mbaiwa (2003, p. 460): . . . tourism contains the seeds of its own destruction, tourism can kill tourism, destroying the very environmental attractions which visitors come to a location to experience. Most tourism development places additional pressure on the environmental resources upon which it is based, compromising the future
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

97 prospects of the local population and, indeed, the expectations of tourists themselves. Hughes (2002, p. 459) has made similar observations: . . . some authors consider this to be fatal for the hosts and argue that tourism is predisposed to economic exploitation . . . and environmental and cultural destruction . . . Conversely, others welcome tourism for its culturally constructive contribution . . . its environmental protection . . . and positive economic impact.

Empirical evidence There is empirical evidence regarding residents attitudes towards tourism. Previous research has explored the inuence of demographic characteristics (Ritchie, 1988; Williams and Lawson, 2001), personal benets obtained from tourism and political position (Mansfeld, 1992), degree of contact with tourists (Brougham and Butler, 1981; Lankford, 1994; Akis et al., 1996; Weaver and Lawton, 2001) and environmental attitudes (Jurowski et al., 1997; Gursoy et al., 2002). However, the results of these studies have not been entirely consistent; some of the evidence conrms the inuence of sociodemographic factors on residents attitudes whereas others have not made such connections. According to Tosun (2002), such discrepancies could be explained by the local environment in which the research was conducted because tourism effects are signicantly inuenced by specic situations of interaction between tourists and residents. Most of the studies have demonstrated that residents who depend economically on tourism have a more positive perception of the economic benets of tourism (Haralambopoulos and Pizam, 1996; Kora, 1998; Snaith and Haley, 1999; Deccio and Baloglu, 2002). In fact, Perdue et al. (1990) found that when personal benets from tourism development are taken into account, perceptions of tourism effects were unrelated to socio-demographic characteristics, whereas support for additional development was positively related to the perceived positive effects of tourism (Ko and Stewart,
Int. J. Tourism Res. 10, 95109 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

98 2002). Several studies found that residents who benet from tourism have a higher level of support for it and report more positive effects (Husbands, 1989; Madrigal, 1993; Lankford and Howard, 1994). However, King et al. (1993) pointed out that people who derive personal benets from tourism are also more likely than others to report negative effects. Economic dependency on tourism has thus emerged as a signicant variable underlying residents positive attitudes to tourism development. It is also important to consider the involvement of residents in the process of tourism planning. Jamal and Getz (1995) supported community-based tourism planning arguing that the involvement of residents leads to the development of socially responsible tourism and acceptable social effects in the view of the host community (Robson and Robson, 1996). The attitudes and behaviour of residents are important because interaction between tourists and residents has a signicant effect on visitors satisfaction with the destination (Pizam et al., 2000). Moreover, residents should not only be considered in the planning process of new tourism activities, but also afterwards. Residents attitudes to tourism should be continuously monitored if new tourism initiatives are to succeed (Ko and Stewart, 2002). Therefore, community participation in planning and development of a certain tourist destination is essential in order to achieve tourism development sustainability (Dyer et al., 2006) through local initiatives consistent with local idiosyncrasy (Dufeld and Long, 1981). Nevertheless, lack of participation is very common, regardless of the economic development stage of the country (Teye et al., 2002). Due to the fact that the majority of the studies about residents attitudes have been carried out in American rural areas and because the study of attitudes in different communities around the world will increase the explicative capacity of behavioural models, present research brings forward a new research scope combining heritage tourism in an urban area in a country without studies in this eld. Finally, Ko and Stewart (2002), Gursoy et al. (2002) and Gursoy and Rutherford (2004) have examined structural model of residents attitudes towards tourism, which main conclusions are respectively:
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

M. Angeles Oviedo-Garcia et al. (1) Community satisfaction is inuenced by perception of tourism impacts and may be useful in planning additional tourism development. (2) Host community backing for tourism development is affected directly and/or indirectly by the level of community concern, ecocentric values, utilization of tourism resource base, community attachment, the state of local economy, economic benets, social benets, social costs and cultural benets. (3) Host community support is affected by the level of concern, ecocentric values, utilization of resource base, perceived costs and benets of tourism development. RESIDENTS SUPPORT FOR TOURISM AND PLANNING The objectives of this research are three-fold: rst, to develop and test a model in which all positive and negative effects of tourism from the residents perspective are studied simultaneously (see Figure 1); secondly, to investigate how these perceptions inuence residents support for tourism and their attitudes towards tourism planning in their community; thirdly, to explore whether residents attitudes and perceptions are inuenced by their receiving or not receiving personal benets from tourism. The following hypotheses are proposed. H1: The inuence of residents perceptions of the positive effects of tourism on their global evaluation of tourism are moderated by the personal benets obtained by residents from tourism. H2: The inuence of residents perceptions of the negative impacts of tourism on their global evaluation of tourism are moderated by the personal benets obtained by residents from tourism. H3: The inuence of residents global evaluation of tourism on their support for new tourism activities are moderated by the personal benets obtained by residents from tourism. H4: The inuence of residents support for new tourism activities on their support for tourism planning are moderated by the personal benets obtained by residents from tourism.
Int. J. Tourism Res. 10, 95109 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Gaining Residents Support

ECP SCP ENP ECN SCN ENN Negative impacts Positive impacts Global evaluation Tourism
development

99

Tourism planning

Figure 1. Model of residents support for tourism planning. Notes: ECP, Economic positive; SCP, Socio-cultural positive; ENP, Environmental positive; ECN, Economic negative; SCN, Socio-cultural negative; ENN, Environmental negative.

EMPIRICAL STUDY Location The town of Santiponce is located in the vicinity of the archaeological site of the ancient Roman city of Itlica in Spain. Itlica is a declared Place of Special Cultural Interest in Andalusia, and the archaeological site receives 200 000 visits every year. Santiponce is a small town with a population of 7 511 inhabitants. There are 336 companies registered in the town, of which 290 are service companies. Its unemployment rate is 4.9% (Agencia de Desarrollo Local de Santiponce, 2004; Diputacin de Sevilla, 2005). Cultural tourism is one of the major reasons for visitors choosing Andalusia as a tourist destination (19% of visitors in 2002, mainly coming from Spain) (Consejera de Turismo y Deporte de Andaluca, 2004). Visitors from France, the US, and Britain are the major foreign markets for cultural tourism in Andalusia (Consejera de Turismo y Deporte de Andaluca, 2004). The Roman city of Itlica was founded in 206 BC by Publius Cornelius Scipio, as a place of settlement for soldiers wounded in battle. It was also to serve as a military outpost in an area of great strategic importance. The name Itlica referred to Italy the original homeland of the rst inhabitants of the city. Marcu Ulpius Trajan (AD 53117), the rst Roman emperor to be born in a province, was born in Itlica, as was his successor, Publius Aelius Hadrian (AD 76138). Hadrian spent part of his early life in Itlica, and honoured the city
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

by the construction of a new district (nova urbs) (Consejera de Cultura-Junta de Andaluca, 2004). In Itlica today, two zones can be easily distinguished: the vetus urbs (old city), the nucleus founded by Scipio; and the nova urbs (new city), the district founded by Hadrian. Archaeological excavations began in 1788 and have continued ever since (Consejera de Cultura-Junta de Andaluca, 2004). Research design, sample, and data collection Households were selected as the unit of analysis. According to the census (Agencia de Desarrollo Local de Santiponce, 2004), there were 1 742 families living in the town which led to a random sample of 315 households being required (with an error rate of 5%). In all, 600 surveys were distributed, and a response rate of 66.16% was obtained. After discarding 18 incomplete questionnaires, 376 valid responses were obtained. The data-collection process was performed by ve trained interviewers directly supervised by one of the co-authors. Each interviewer was assigned to one neighbourhood, selecting in each street the even addresses in the even days and the odd addresses in the odd days; the interviewers were given instructions regarding how to present the study to encourage the response of one adult member of the family. After the presentation of the study, the interviewer left a questionnaire. The questionnaire was collected within the next 2 days by the same interviewer, who checked for
Int. J. Tourism Res. 10, 95109 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

100 any problems during completion. The datacollection process was carried out in December 2004. Measurement of variables The nal questionnaire was comprised of 75 items, divided into four sections. The rst section collected data on the positive economic, socio-cultural and environmental effects of tourism, whereas the second section collected data on the negative effects in these categories. The third section focused on residents support for tourism and tourism planning. The nal section collected demographic information on the respondents. In addition, two items addressed residents perceptions of personal benets obtained from tourism. All items were assessed with a ve-degree Likerttype scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Validity and reliability The validity and reliability properties of the model were rst assessed using a main components factor analysis and a conrmatory factor analysis (CFA). In establishing the composite reliability of the scale, a threshold value of 0.7 was established for Cronbachs alpha. The scales convergent validity was also evaluated by examining the factor loading of individual items and their statistical signicance. Discriminant validity was tested by comparing the correlations of the constructs with the shared variance among them (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The CFA was conducted following an asymptotically-free distribution, given that normality is not present for every item. After rening the scales, the path model was tested by means of structural equation modelling. A multi-group analysis allowed testing of the signicance of possible differences among various segments of respondents (Bollen, 1989; Maruyama, 1998). A path model is typically assessed by examining chi-square (2) statistics, goodness of t (GFI), non-normed-t index, comparative t index (CFI) and/or incremental t index. With respect to the distribution of residuals, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was noted;
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

M. Angeles Oviedo-Garcia et al. recommended values should be below 0.05, whereas values above 0.1 are considered unacceptable. Demographics of sample Most households (78.8%) consisted of families of up to four individuals. Most (86.2%) selfreported as belonging to a medium-high social class. Approximately one-third of respondents had a primary level of education (33.8%), and another one-third had achieved secondary education (34.6%). Most respondents (70.8%) were younger than 44 years of age. Slightly more than half the respondents (50.5%) were male. Measurement scales Three dimensions for each type of tourism effects positive and negative impacts are identied by initial factor analysis and conrmed by CFA. On the other hand, global evaluation of tourism, support for new tourism development and support for tourism planning scales are made by one dimension. As can be seen in Tables 1 and 2, all the scales in the model positive impacts, negative impacts, global evaluation, support for tourism development, support for tourism planning demonstrated good validity and reliability properties. Standardised loadings ranged from 0.62 to 0.89, and item reliabilities ranged from 0.4 to 0.8. In addition, adjustment indicators showed good t properties from the data to the model. As can be seen in Table 1, the items capturing positive and negative effects of tourism showed good measuring properties. Their standardised loadings ranged from 0.66 to 0.89, and, after rening the scales, the lowest reliability for an indicator was 0.43, with the rest being greater than 0.5. Table 2 shows the same information for the other constructs in the model. The standardised loading gures ranged from 0.62 to 0.86, with the lowest item reliability being 0.4 (which are acceptable results in terms of measurement quality). Table 3 shows the reliability properties for the different scales, which were evaluated by means of Cronbachs alpha and composite reliability. The results were greater than the recommended threshold values for both indicators, as was the
Int. J. Tourism Res. 10, 95109 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Gaining Residents Support

Table 1. Tourism impact measurement scale properties (N = 376) Second order construct (items)a Positive impacts Economic The increasing number of tourists in your community has improved the economic situation of your town. The buying power of your community is better as a consequence of tourism. Tourism has created jobs in your community Tourism has attracted investments to your community Tourism has provided economic benets for the local residents Tourism has improved the life quality of the community Socio-Cultural Tourism provides incentives to restore historical buildings The quality of public services has improved as consequence of tourism Tourism increases the availability of services and leisure Tourism increases the demand for cultural performances Tourism has improved the service quality of police and re department Tourism has enabled more cultural exchange between tourists and residents Tourism has brought positive impacts for the cultural identity of your community Tourism has fostered the construction of modern buildings Environmental Tourism has improved the infrastructures (water supply, electricity, etc.) Tourism has improved public facilities (road network, civic centres, etc.) Tourism encourages the creation of parks and leisure areas for local residents Negative impacts Economic Tourism unfairly increases the cost of real state and the taxes related to it Tourism increases the cost of living Tourism increases the price of goods and services Tourism causes more public expenses in your community Socio-cultural Tourism increases the number of trafc accidents Tourism increases crime/theft/vandalism Tourism increases alcoholism and prostitution Tourism leads to illegal activities Tourism increases the exploitation of local residents Tourists with high buying power has negatively affected the lifestyle of your community Standardised loadings Item reliability

101

Error variance

0.80 0.84 0.66 0.77 0.81 0.83 0.74 0.77 0.78 0.74 0.82 0.75 0.67 0.72 0.79 0.89 0.83

0.63 0.71 0.43 0.6 0.65 0.70 0.55 0.60 0.60 0.56 0.68 0.56 0.46 0.52 0.63 0.79 0.69

0.48 0.35 0.87 0.56 0.42 0.35 0.69 0.61 0.49 0.60 0.39 0.64 0.76 0.61 0.48 0.28 0.40

0.73 0.85 0.88 0.71 0.76 0.77 0.88 0.85 0.86 0.71

0.53 0.73 0.78 0.50 0.57 0.60 0.77 0.72 0.74 0.51

0.74 0.40 0.29 0.61 0.42 0.42 0.28 0.31 0.22 0.45

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Tourism Res. 10, 95109 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

102
Table 1. (Continued) Second order construct (items)a Environmental Tourism damages the natural environment and landscape Tourism destroys the local ecosystem Tourism increases environmental pollution (trash, water, air, and noise) The construction of hotels and tourism facilities have destroyed the natural environment Tourism has caused the crowding of beaches, paths, parks, and other leisure places in your community
a

M. Angeles Oviedo-Garcia et al.

Standardised loadings

Item reliability

Error variance

0.82 0.89 0.72 0.79 0.89

0.68 0.80 0.52 0.62 0.79

0.34 0.18 0.61 0.39 0.22

Adapted from Ko and Stewart 2002; McGehee and Andereck 2004; Yoon, Gursoy and Chen 2001.

Table 2. Total impacts of tourism, support for tourism development, support for tourism planning and clustering variables measurement scale properties (N = 376) Construct (Items) Global evaluation of tourism The total impacts that tourism development has caused on my community are positive I consider that the bets of tourism are larger than its costs for my community Support for tourism development Tourism can be one of the most important industries for a community More tourism would help my community to grow in the right direction Tourism industry will continue to play an important economic role in your community I am happy and proud that there are tourists coming to see what my community has to offer Tourism must be developed focusing on cultural and historical attractions (museums, palaces, music, historical sites, etc.) Tourism must be developed focusing on events and outdoor programs (sports facilities, expositions, public events, etc.) Support for tourism planning Your community should plan and manage the growing and development of tourism Local institutions must manage the increase of tourism activities at all their levels Clustering variables Personal benets The tourism development of your community positively affects your professional activity In general, I perceive that tourism in my community has personally benet me Support for tourism promotion Local institutions should do more to promote tourism I support the construction of new facilities in order to attract more tourism
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Standardised loadings 0.64 0.63

Item reliability 0.42 0.40

Error variance 0.82 0.77

0.71 0.71 0.62 0.68 0.86 0.66

0.50 0.51 0.4 0.47 0.74 0.43

0.49 0.50 0.62 0.32 0.25 0.69

0.79 0.85

0.63 0.72

0.40 0.27

0.75 0.85

0.56 0.73

0.69 0.43

0.67 0.70

0.45 0.49

0.54 0.54

Int. J. Tourism Res. 10, 95109 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Gaining Residents Support

Table 3. Scales reliability and discriminant validity Scale ECP SCP ENP ECN SCN ENN GET STD STP Alpha 0.85 0.86 0.77 0.76 0.86 0.84 0.75 0.82 0.81 C.R. 0.90 0.89 0.84 0.83 0.92 0.90 0.79 0.87 0.80 AVE 0.74 0.69 0.80 0.74 0.80 0.77 0.65 0.68 0.81 ECP (0.86) 0.76 0.49 0.08 0.12 0.15 0.32 0.14 0.24 SCP (0.83) 0.66 0.17 0.11 0.16 0.34 0.20 0.34 ENP ECN SCN ENN GET STD

103

STP

(0.89) 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.24 0.17 0.26

(0.86) 0.41 0.39 0.04 0.16 0.14

(0.89) 0.71 0.11 0.15 0.16

(0.88) 0.07 0.11 0.10

(0.80) 0.35 0.48

(0.82) 0.59

(0.90)

Note: Diagonal values in brackets represent the squared root of shared variance between constructs. ECP, Economic positive; SCP, Socio-cultural positive; ENP, Environmental positive; ECN, Economic negative; SCN, Sociocultural negative; ENN, Environmental negative; GET, Global evaluation of tourism; STD, Support for tourism development; STP, Support for tourism planning C.R. Composite Reliability, AVE: Average Variance Extracted.

Table 4. Two-step cluster analysis Number of clusters 1 2 3 4 5 6

a

BIC 521,610 398,040 406,611 409,129 270,286 263,001

BIC changea 123,569 8,571 2,518 138,843 7,285

Ratio of BIC changesb 1.000 0.069 0.020 1.124 0.059

Ratio of distance measuresc 1,403 1,025 1,867 1,620 1,185

The changes are from the previous number of clusters in the table; b The ratios of changes are relative to the change for the two cluster solution; c The ratios of distance measures are based on the current number of clusters against the previous number of clusters. BIC, Schwarzs Bayesian Criterion.

shared variance between constructs (average variance extracted). In addition, discriminant validity was tested by comparing the constructs squared correlations with the shared variance among them. For simplicity, diagonal elements in Table 3 represent the squared root of Average Variance Extracted (AVE), which must be larger than the off-diagonal elements to establish the existence of discriminant validity. Cluster analysis Next, using the two items of personal benets perceptions, we follow the two-steps clustering procedure in SPSS software to identify heterogeneous groups in the sample. This procedure is an exploratory tool designed to reveal natural groupings (or clusters) within a data set that would otherwise not be apparent. The algorithm employed by this procedure has several desirable features that differentiate it
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

from traditional clustering techniques. In order to handle categorical and continuous variables, the two-step cluster analysis procedure uses a likelihood distance measure. The agglomerative clustering can be used to produce a range of solutions. To determine which number of clusters is best, each of these cluster solutions is compared using Schwarzs Bayesian Criterion as the clustering criterion. Results are displayed in Table 4, conrming the existence of two groups those residents who personally benet from tourism activities (85 residents) and those who do not (291 residents). Despite the differences in the number of components between both groups, both samples are large enough not to present any statistical limitation. Descriptive analysis A general descriptive analysis demonstrated that the residents of Santiponce perceived that
Int. J. Tourism Res. 10, 95109 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

104 tourism had improved the economic situation of their community (3.21). However, they did not consider tourism to be the most important income for the town (2.78), and they believed that this economic improvement does not imply increased buying power for residents (2.64). In terms of socio-cultural effects, residents acknowledged an improvement in cultural values and activities as a direct consequence of tourism (3.8). Similarly they felt that tourism facilitated the restoration of town buildings (3.44). However, it had reduced the quality of public services managed by the municipal authorities (2.5). In terms of the environment, the residents agreed that tourism had enhanced the landscape of the area (3.61) in which services for tourists were located (3.41). However, it had fostered uncontrolled urban development (2.52). In general, the means of the items capturing tourism negative effects ranged from 1.7 to 2.8, which reects the positive perception of tourism activity in Santiponce. As we can observe in Table 5, there are signicant differences in residents perceptions depending on the cluster they belong to. Thus, those residents who directly benet from

M. Angeles Oviedo-Garcia et al. tourism perceive the positive impacts are signicantly larger than for those who do not directly benet from tourism. Although there are not signicant differences regarding the negative impacts of tourism (except for sociocultural impacts), the total perception of tourism impact is more positive for the residents obtaining personal benets, which also are slightly more supportive of tourism development, but not of tourism planning as expected. This a priori unexpected result leads us to explore the possible causes; to do so, we group the residents depending on their support towards tourism promotion, by repeating the same two-step cluster procedure but using two items of support for tourism promotion. Thus, we obtain also two groups those residents who strongly support tourism promotion in their area (274 residents) and those who do not (83 residents), which clearly present signicant differences in their support for tourism development and support for tourism planning. In conclusion, the residents level of support for tourism planning does not depend on their personal benets coming from tourism activities, but on their attitude towards those tourism activities itself.

Table 5. ANOVA test and descriptive analysis Residents without personal benets (n1 = 291) 2.7731 2.9048 2.9282 2.7339 2.7339 2.0536 3.3395 3.8245 4.1395 Residents with personal benets (n2 = 85) 3.3084 3.4420 3.4016 2.8449 2.8449 2.1826 3.6528 4.0103 4.2133 Residents not pro-tourism develop (n3 = 93) 2.6367 2.7226 2.8118 2.6613 2.1234 2.2251 2.7527 3.4194 3.0771 Residents pro-tourism develop (n4 = 273) 3.0846 3.2255 3.2022 2.7927 1.8281 2.0433 3.6916 4.4414 4.2001

Construct Economic positive Socio-cultural positive Environmental positive Economic negative Socio-cultural negative Environmental negative Global evaluation of tourism Support for tourism development Support for tourism planning

Whole sample (N = 376) 2.9866 3.1191 3.1170 2.7782 2.7782 2.1051 3.4652 4.103 4.1690

Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.326 0.024 0.201 0.003 0.014 0.458

Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.299 0.001 0.102 0.000 0.000 0.000

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Tourism Res. 10, 95109 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Gaining Residents Support

Table 6. Structural model and multigroup analysis Whole sample (N = 376) Path POS GET NEG GET GET STD STD STP Multigroup analysis POS GET NEG GET GET STD STD STP Standardised loadings 0.373 0.362 0.696 0.700 t-Value 5.110 4.772 8.285 7.882 Group 1 (n1 = 291)a Standardised loadings 0.394 0.380 0.569 0.862 t-Value 4.731 3.837 6.400 8.143 Group 2 (n2 = 85)b Standardised loadings 0.595 0.273 0.904 0.581

105

t-Value 7.288 3.862 10.832 5.882

Signicance test for differences in standardised loadingsc (t-value) Sample versus Group 1 0.040 0.537 0.471 1.156 Sample versus Group 2 2.087 1.786 2.040 1.267 Group 1 versus Group 2 1.966 1.993 2.335 2.298

Notes: Global adjustment indexes: 2 = 308.763; degrees of freedom = 150 (p = 0.000); goodness of t = 0.928; TLI = 0.823; comparative t index = 0.866; incremental t index = 0.871; root mean square error of approximation = 0.038. a Residents without personal benets (Group 1) who reported not obtaining direct benets (professional) as a consequence of tourism; b Residents with personal benets (Group 2) who reported obtaining direct benets (professional) as a consequence of tourism; c A t-value > 1.96 represent a signicant difference at 0.05 level. POS, Positive impacts obtained by averaging economic, socio-cultural and environmental factors; NEG, Negative impacts obtained by averaging economic, socio-cultural and environmental factors; GET, Global Evaluation of Tourism; STD, Support For Tourism Development; STP, Support For Tourism Planning.

Structural model Before assessing the structural model, the three sets of positive and negative dimensions of tourism effects economic, socio-cultural and environmental were averaged into a single indicator (see Figure 1) to reduce the number of parameters in the model. According to the indicators shown in Table 6, the adjustment of the structural model showed good t. Because chi-squared (2) is generally affected by the sample size, its value should be analysed with other indicators that are less sensitive to this variable such as GFI, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and CFI. These indicators should be greater than 0.9 and can be used if the items loadings are greater than 0.5 (Sharma et al., 2005). In addition, the RMSEA value conrmed the good t of the model. In general, the relationships represented in the path model were signicant and were as postulated. The loadings of both positive and negative effects of tourism were similar ( = 0.373, t = 5.110; and = 0.362, t = 4.772 respectively) when considering the sample as a whole. In addition, there was signicant
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

support for tourism in the community ( = 0.696, t = 8.285), which implies a denite need for tourism planning ( = 0.700, t = 7.882). However, the hypotheses proposed in this study suggest that different patterns of perception and behaviour exist beneath these general conclusions. In particular, it is proposed that residents who benet personally from tourism perceive positive effects from tourism more strongly and perceive negative effects of tourism less strongly, accordingly with social exchange theory. The results of this analysis conrm the four hypotheses previously proposed. As can be seen in Table 6, there are signicant differences in the patterns of opinions, depending on whether residents do or do not receive personal benets from tourism. Those who receive personal benets as a result of tourism activities in the area have a more intense perception of the positive effects of tourism ( = 0.595, t = 7.288) than those who do not perceive direct benets from tourism ( = 0.394, t = 4.731). According to the t-student test, these differences are statistically signicant, thus supporting the rst hypothesis of the present study.
Int. J. Tourism Res. 10, 95109 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

106 With respect to perceptions of negative effects of tourism, those who personally benet from tourism activities are less sensitive to the negative effects of tourism on their community ( = 0.273, t = 3.862), whereas those who do not receive any personal benets from tourism are more aware of such negative effects ( = 0.380, t = 3.837). This result conrms the second hypothesis of this study. Residents who personally benet from tourism are more supportive of tourism and developing new tourism initiatives ( = 0.904, t = 10.832) than other residents ( = 0.569, t = 6.400). However, the relationship between tourism development and tourism planning is supported more strongly by residents who do not personally benet from tourism ( = 0.862, t = 8.143) than by other members of the community ( = 0.581, t = 5.882) probably because they perceived a need to organise the growth of tourism activities in their community. As a result of the above ndings, hypotheses 3 and 4 are also supported. CONCLUSION Tourism activities can contribute signicantly to the economic development of regions. Local and national governments are therefore making strenuous efforts to initiate and foster tourism activities to improve the economic conditions of regions and their residents. However, we consider that those initiatives will be more likely to be successful if they take into account the residents attitudes towards tourism. Unfortunately, this is not usually the case in the south of Spain, where the residents role has been traditionally neglected. Thus, gaining the support of residents might emerge as a key task for managers who are responsible of planning tourism and its development. The primary objective of this research is to develop and test a model that explains residents attitudes towards tourism and their support for its planning in their community. The model considers both positive and negative effects of tourism economic, cultural and environmental as the major antecedents of residents attitudes to tourism. This model is theoretically rooted in socialexchange theory as applied to tourism.
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

M. Angeles Oviedo-Garcia et al. In addition, the present study speculated that there might be signicant differences among residents attitudes depending on the type of benets they obtain from the development of tourism within their community. This issue was investigated by identifying two segments of the local population those who directly benet from tourism and those who do not and relating their attitudes to the proposed model. The model has been empirically tested in a small Spanish community that attracts signicant numbers of tourists. According to the results, social-exchange theory serves as a sound theoretical framework to explain residents attitudes towards tourism and its planning. The results conrm that residents perceive three effects economic, cultural and environmental which are clearly differentiated and can be perceived as positive or negative. The perception of these effects determines residents support for tourism and planning in their community. In Santipoce, residents perceived the positive effects of tourism to be signicantly greater than the negative effects, which explains their support for tourism and its development. In addition, multi-group analysis demonstrated that there were signicant differences in residents perceptions of tourism depending on whether they personally beneted from it. Moreover, support was greater among those who obtained direct advantages than among those who received only indirect benets (through the community). Residents who obtained personal benets tended to overlook (or discount) the negative consequences of tourism while accentuating the positive effects of tourism activities. However, the situation concerning support for tourism planning was exactly the opposite. The residents who were more interested in tourism planning were those who did not obtain direct benets from tourism. It seems that these citizens acknowledged the negative effects that tourism development might have on their community in the absence of proper planning, whereas residents who directly benetted from tourism activities were less concerned about the negative consequences for the community. This is an interesting phenomenon that merits further research. In spite of such
Int. J. Tourism Res. 10, 95109 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Gaining Residents Support differences, it seems that the degree of support for tourism and its planning was high within the community of Santiponce. According to the empirical study presented in the paper, residents perceive more intensely the positive effects of tourism than the negative ones, which helps to explain their support for tourism development. As the social exchange theory basic statement predicts, an individuals attitudes towards industry and its subsequent level of support for its development, will be inuenced by his or her evaluation of resulting outcomes in the community. We have found that those residents obtaining higher benets from tourism showed higher support for tourism development, and the relationship with their support for tourism planning is stronger. We have also identied that there are two groups of residents according to their support for tourism development, which inuence their level of support for tourism planning. These results are similar to Lee and Back (2003) research about residents support to casino development: they tended to be more supportive when they actually received benet from it, more specically, economic benet. Thus, and according to Gursoy et al. (2002), Ko and Stewart (2002) and Gursoy and Rutherford (2004), perception of tourism impacts may be useful in planning further tourism development. In conclusion, the social exchange theory is very useful in explaining the research results of residents attitudes toward tourism and its planning and development in the host community. The results of the present study also provide managerial implications for tourism planners. First, since positive residents perceptions of tourism benets are relevant, in order to get their support, planners should be concerned about how to communicate such benets through marketing techniques to gain residents collaboration. Conversely, tourism planners should be aware of the negative consequences of uncontrolled tourism development and must minimize these negative effects by respecting the local communitys interests. It would be especially useful to set quantiable goals for the proposed tourism activities, and to communicate these to the residents in a language that residents can understand thus involving them in the process of
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

107 tourism planning. Local tourism planners should consider residents perceptions and attitudes before making costly investments in new initiatives that might not be completely successful if they do not have the residents support. In this regard, it can be useful to position the local tourism attraction in such a way that residents can identify with it. Thus, our managerial implications are in the line of Lee and Back (2003, p. 883) statement the social exchange model ts very well in explaining residents attitudes toward casino operation . . . ; policymakers should identify how to provide benets to local residents so that they can support casino development further; and casino operators and policymakers should make efforts to minimize the negative social impacts, because increase in the level of quality of life or standard of living was not only due to the positive economic impact but also was signicantly affected by negative social factors, such as gambling addiction problems. The present research also calls for future lines of research. It would be interesting to obtain insights from tourists visiting the community of Santiponce, as well as examining the opinions of business managers and entrepreneurs in the community. A qualitative study might reveal hidden insights underlying the attitudes and behaviours of tourists and entrepreneurs. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors wish to thank the Santiponce municipal authorities for their support and collaboration in this research. REFERENCES
Agencia de Desarrollo Local De Santiponce. 2004. Datos del Ao 2003. Ayuntamiento de Santiponce: Sevilla. Akis S, Peristianis N, Warner J. 1996. Residents attitudes to tourism development: the case of Cyprus. Tourism Management 17: 481494. Ap J. 1990. Residents perceptions research on the social impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 17: 610616. Ap J. 1992. Residents perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research 19: 665690. Besculides A, Lee M, McCormick P. 2002. Residents perceptions of the cultural benets of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 29: 303319.
Int. J. Tourism Res. 10, 95109 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

108
Bollen K. 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Wiley: New York. Brougham J, Butler R. 1981. A segmentation analysis of resident attitudes to the social impact of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 8: 569 590. Brunt P, Courtney P. 1999. Host perceptions of sociocultural impacts. Annals of Tourism Research 26: 493515. Butler R. 1980. The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer 24: 512. Carmichael BA. 2000. A matrix model for resident attitudes and behaviours in a rapidly changing tourist area. Tourism Management 21: 601 611. Ceballos-Lascurain H. 1996. Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas. IUCN Publication: Gland. Cohen E. 1987. Tourism: a critique. Tourism Recreation Research 12(2): 1318. Cohen E. 1988. Authenticity and commodication in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 15: 371386. Consejera de Cultura-Junta de Andaluca. 2004. Conjuntos y Zonas Arqueolgicas y Monumentales Gestionados por la Consejera de Cultura. Unidad Estadstica. Servicio de Estudios y Publicaciones: Sevilla. Consejera de Turismo y Deporte de Andaluca. 2004. Sistema de Anlisis y Estadstica del Turismo de Andaluca (2003). Consejera de Turismo y Deporte: Sevilla. Deccio C, Baloglu S. 2002. Nonhost commuity resident reactions to the 2002 winter olympics: the spillover impacts. Journal of Travel Research 41: 4656. Diputacin de Sevilla. 2005. Datos Sociodemogrcos, Econmicos y Culturales de Santiponce. Available at http://www.dipisevilla.es (accessed 17 March 2005). Dufeld BS, Long J. 1981. Tourism in the highlands and islands of Scotland rewards and conicts. Annals of Tourism Research 8(3): 403431. Dyer P, Gursoy D, Sharma B, Carter J. 2006. Structural modeling of resident perceptions of tourism and associated development on the Sunshine Coast, Australia. Tourism Management 28, 409422 (in press). DOI: 101016/J.tourman.2006.04.002 Esman M. 1984. Tourism as ethnic preservation: the cajuns of Louisiana. Annals of Tourism Research 11: 451467. Fornell C, Larcker D. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research 28: 3950. Gee C, Mackens JC, Choy DJ. 1989. The Travel Industry. Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York.
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

M. Angeles Oviedo-Garcia et al.

Glasson J, Godfrey K, Goodey B. 1995. Towards Visitor Impact Management: Visitor Impacts, Carrying Capacity and Management Responses in Europes Historic Towns and Cities. Avebury: England. Gursoy D, Rutherford DG. 2004. Host attitudes toward tourism. An improved structural model. Annals of Tourism Research 31(3): 495516. Gursoy D, Jurowski C, Uysal M. 2002. Resident attitudes: a structural modeling approach. Annals of Tourism Research 29: 79105. Haralambopoulos N, Pizam A. 1996. Perceived impacts of tourism: the case of samos. Annals of Tourism Research 23: 503526. Harrill R. 2004. Residents attitudes toward tourism development: a literature review with implications for tourism planning. Journal of Planning Literature 18(3): 251266. Hillery M, Nancarrow B, Grifn G, Syme G. 2001. Tourist perception of environmental impact. Annals of Tourism Research 28: 853867. Hughes G. 2002. Environmental indicators. Annals of Tourism Research 29(2): 457477. Husbands W. 1989. Social status and perception of tourism in Zambia. Annals of Tourism Research 16: 237253. Jamal T, Getz D. 1995. Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research 22: 186204. Jurowski C, Gursoy D. 2004. Distance effects on residents attitudes toward tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 31(2): 296312. Jurowski C, Uysal M, Williams R. 1997. A theoretical analysis of host community resident reactions to tourism. Journal of Travel Research 36(2): 3 11. King B, Pizam A, Milman A. 1993. Social impacts of tourism: host perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research 20: 650665. Ko D, Stewart W. 2002. A structural equation model of residents attitudes for tourism development. Tourism Management 25: 521530. Kora P. 1998. Resident perceptions of tourism in a resort town. Leisure Sciences 20(3): 193212. Kousis M. 1989. Tourism and the family in a rural Cretan community. Annals of Tourism Research 16: 318332. Kuvan Y, Perran A. 2005. Residents attitudes toward general and forest-related impacts of tourism: the case of Belek, Antalya. Tourism Management 26: 691706. Lankford S. 1994. Attitudes and perceptions toward tourism and rural regional development. Journal of Travel Research 24(3): 3544. Lankford S, Howard D. 1994. Developing a tourism attitude scale. Annals of Tourism Research 21: 121139.
Int. J. Tourism Res. 10, 95109 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Gaining Residents Support

Lee CK, Back KJ. 2003. Pre and post casino impact of residents perception. Annals of Tourism Research 30: 868885. Madrigal R. 1993. A tale of tourism in two cities. Annals of Tourism Research 20: 336353. Mansfeld Y. 1992. From motivation to actual travel. Annals of Tourism Research 19: 399419. Martin B, Uysal M. 1990. An examination of the relationship between carrying capacity and the tourism lifecycle: management and policy implications. Journal of Environmental Management 31: 327332. Maruyama GM. 1998. Basics of structural equation modeling. Sage: Thousands Oaks. Mbaiwa JE. 2003. The socio-economic and environmental impacts of tourism development on the Okavango Delta, North-Western Botswana. Journal of Arid Environments 54(2): 447467. McCool SF, Martin SR. 1994. Community attachment and attitudes toward tourism development. Journal of Travel Research 32(2): 2934. McGehee N, Andereck K. 2004. Factors predicting rural residents support of tourism. Journal of Travel Research 43: 131140. McKean P. 1978. Towards a theoretical analysis of tourism: economic dualism and cultural involution in Bali. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, Smith VS (ed). Blackwell: Oxford; 93107. Milman A, Pizam A. 1987. Social impact of tourism on central Florida. Annals of Tourism Research 15: 91204. Perdue R, Long P, Allen L. 1990. Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes. Annals of Tourism Research 14(3): 420429. Pizam A, Uriely N, Reichel A. 2000. The intensity of tourist-host social relationship and its effects on satisfaction and change of attitudes: the case of

109
working tourist in Israel. Tourism Management 21: 395406. Ritchie J. 1988. Consensus policy formulation in tourism. Tourism Management 9: 199216. Robson J, Robson I. 1996. From shareholders to stakeholders: critical issues for tourism marketers. Tourism Management 17: 533540. Sethna RJ, Richmond BO. 1978. Virginia islanders perceptions of tourism. Journal of Travel Research 17: 3037. Sharma S, Mukherjee S, Kumar A, Dillon WR. 2005. A simulation study to investigate the use of cutoff values for assessing model t in covariance structure models. Journal of Business Research 58: 935943. Sharpley R. 1994. Tourism, Tourists and Society. ELM: Huntingdon. Sheldon P, Abenoja T. 2001. Resident attitudes in a mature destination: the case of Waikiki. Tourism Management 22: 435443. Snaith M, Haley A. 1999. Residents opinions of tourism development in the historic city of York, England. Tourism Management 20: 595603. Teye V, Sonmez SF, Sirakaya E. 2002. Residents attitudes towards tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research 29(3): 668688. Tosun C. 2002. Challenges of sustainable tourism development in the developing world: the case of Turkey. Tourism Management 22: 289303. Weaver D, Lawton L. 2001. Resident perceptions in the urbanrural fringe. Annals of Tourism Research 28: 439458. Williams J, Lawson R. 2001. Community issues and resident opinions of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 28: 269290. Yoon Y, Gursoy D, Chen JS. 2001. Validating a tourism development theory with structural equation modelling. Tourism Management 22: 363372.

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Tourism Res. 10, 95109 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/jtr