Resident perception of the environmental impacts of tourism

Annals of Tourzsm Research. Vol. 14, pp. 17 - 37, 1987 Printed in the USA. All righo reserved.

OISO-7383/87 $3.00 + .OO 0 1987 Pergamon Journals Ltd and J. Jafari

RESIDENT PERCEPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF TOURISM Juanita C. Liu Pauline J. Sheldon

University

of Hawaii,

Honolulu,

USA

Turgut Var

Simon

Fraser

University,

Canada

Abstract: This paper focuses on resident perception of tourism’s impacts and reports on the results of three case studies conducted in Hawaii, North Wales, and Istanbul. Factor analysis is used to isolate economic, social, and environmental variables that explain residents’ perception of tourism and tourists. Cross-national comparisons are made between the three geographic settings and maturity levels of tourism. The results indicate that the impact of tourism on the environment is shared by all the residents regardless oftheir geographic locations and maturity levels of tourism. Cross-national differences in how residents perceive environmental impacts are identified. The study results suggest that residents living in areas with more mature tourist industry are more aware of both positive and negative environmental impacts. Keywords: resident perceptions, tourism impacts, environmental impacts. R&urn& La perception des impacts environnementaux du tourisme par les habitants. Cet article se concentre sur la perception des habitants au sujet des impacts du tourisme et prksente les conclusions de trois Ptudes individuelles qui ont Ct6 faites en Hawaii, dans le nord du Pays de Galles, et g Istamboul. On emploie I’analyse des facteurs pour isoler les variables &onomiques, sociales et environnementales qui dbterminent la perception des habitants vis-i-vis du tourisme et des touristes. On fait des comparaisons entre les trois pays et entre les diffkrents niveaux de dPveloppement du tourisme. Les conclusions indiquent que tous les habitants sont sensibles g I’impact du tourisme, peu importe leur pays d’origine ou le niveau de dCveloppement du tourisme dans un lieu donn6. On identifie pourtant des diffkrences nationales dans la perception des habitants au sujet de I’impact sur I’environnement. Les conclusions de la recherche suggPrent aussi que les habitants des rkgions ob I’industrie touristique est relativement plus dPveloppCe sont plus conscients des impacts positifs et nkgatifs sur I’environnement. Mots clef: perceptions des habitants, impacts du tourisme, impacts environnementaux.

Juanita Liu is an Associate Professor at the School of Travel Industry Management, University of Hawaii (Honolulu, HI 96822, USA). She has written extensively on economic and social impacts of tourism. Pauline Sheldon, an Assistant Professor at the same institution, has written several articles on technology, tourism, and social impacts of tourism. Turgut Var is a Professor at Faculty of Business Administration, Simon Fraser University, Canada. He has authored several books and articles on tourism planning, measurement of touristic attractivity, and economic and social impacts of tourism. 17

18

ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS

ON TOURISM

INTRODUCTION Does tourism “create the seeds of its own destruction?” (Plog 1972). This question is critical given the fact that tourism, more than any other industry, relies on the attraction of a place. Research indicates that landscape is a key contributor of attraction. According to visitor satisfaction surveys conducted by the Hawaii Visitors Bureau, Hawaii’s natural features impress visitors more than anything else. Studies in Turkey and British Columbia indicate that the highest ranked attractivity criterion for tourism is “natural beauty” (Gearing et al 1976; Var et al 1977). More importantly, the results from this study, although rather limited, show that residents of Hawaii and North Wales, when questioned, give protection of the environment the highest priority. Environment was ranked higher than cultural benefits, social costs, and even economic benefits. Hence, protection of the environment is essential for the continued success of any tourism destination. Tourism development is usually justified on the basis of economic benefit and challenged on the grounds of social, cultural, or environmental destruction. Given the scenario of a rapidly expanding global tourism, it is becoming increasingly important for researchers to provide guidelines for environmental planning of tourism. This initial study, which is intended to lead to greater cross-cultural comparisons, deals only with resident perception of the impact of tourism on the environment. Currently two additional studies using the same methodology are being conducted in Cordoba (Argentina) and Anchorage (Alaska). As the sample size increases a better understanding will emerge. Some tourism projects have been stopped or delayed after much investment because of resident concerns about the environment. The present approach is useful from the standpoint of monitoring resident opinion on various aspects of tourism development, and also identifying key planning issues and priorities. Researchers in tourism are stressing the views of residents and recognizing the need to include the local community at the outset of planning. This study illustrates the important role that resident perception, especially related to environmental impacts, can play in tourism development. To an extent regional resident perception of tourism may vary in quality and intensity. For example, researchers have discussed differences between “Western” versus “Pacific” thinking and “island” versus “continental” mind (Farrell 1979; Ritchie 1974). However, cross-national and cross-cultural comparisons appear useful in identifying common parameters and establishing norms in terms of perceptual differences in resident attitudes toward impacts. In this study factor analysis is used to identify structural dimensions relating to the economic, social, and environmental aspects of tourism. This method was chosen because of its ability to identify underlying dimensions in data for which there is a limited theoretical basis. Factor analysis is based on the assumption that there are causal factors upon which relationships between the variables cluster. In order to determine these causal factors, a covariance matrix of variables is formed, and the reduced correlations from the analysis are compared with the actual correlations. When a certain acceptable level of discrepancy is reached, the causal factors are determined. The analysis involves the iden-

LIU, SHELDON,

AND VAR

19

tification of principal axes either by using the least-squares approach or the maximum likelihood approach. After the initial factoring is performed, the matrix is rotated to find simpler and more easily interpretable factors. The eigenvalue of the matrix is a measure of the variance represented by a given axis or dimension and can be used to determine the appropriate number of causal factors. An eigenvalue of 0.9 is the cut-off point to determine a causal factor. The degree of correlation between each variable and a particular causal factor is called a loading value. Only variables with a loading of greater than 0.5 are considered to be correlated with a casual factor (Sheldon and Var 1984). As the result of numerous informants, physical environmental aspects appear critical, but such elements are of little use in isolation because of dependence on other factors. Consequently, a holistic approach to planning is necessary since one cannot separate environmental aspects from economic and social ones. Three locations are compared. Hawaii, a tourism-dominated island resort, North Wales, a region with a more modest tourism sector within the United Kingdom, and Istanbul, a diversified urban area in which tourism represents only a small but rapidly growing part of Turkey’s economy.

LITERATURE

REVIEW

A review of the literature reveals that little in-depth study has been done on resident attitudes towards environmental changes brought about by tourism. The review does show, however, that researchers have examined both negative and positive environmental impacts. Kendall and Var (1984), after reviewing numerous articles on resident perceptions, summarized some negative environmental impacts-those which impinge on the residents’ lifestyle such as crowding (including traffic congestion), noise, litter, property destruction (including crop destruction), pollution, change in community appearance, depletion of wildlife, and ad hoc development. Moreover, Travis (1982) reviews damage to cultural resources, land use loss, and increased urbanization. Virtually all relevant studies have focused on such environmental costs. Positive impacts which enhance residents’ living are summarized by Kendall and Var (1984) as “more and better leisure facilities,” “more beaches designated as parks,” and “greater recognition of the importance of saving historical buildings.” Travis (1982) also discusses development of infrastructure and superstructure, pollution control, and public health benefits as additional positive environmental aspects of tourism. A list of positive and negative effects comes from studies in England (Economic Intelligence Unit 1975), Scotland (Brougham and Butler 1977), Wales (Wales Tourist Board 1981) Delaware, USA (Rothman 1978), Oahu, Hawaii (Kono 1976), Corpus Christi (Thomason, Crompton, and Kamp 1979), Gozo, Malta (Boissevain 1979), and the Virgin Islands (Sethna and Richmond 1978). The identification of perceived impacts, both negative and positive, is important, but more important is the issue of what can be done to alleviate negative consequences. There is a concern in the literature whether environmental and social costs of tourism development outweigh economic benefits (Krippendorf 1982). For long-term stability of the industry, resi-

20

ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS

ON TOURISM

dent input and positive resident attitudes are essential, especially in the area of environmental impacts. The World Tourism Organization recommends the use of environmentally respectful planning techniques (Lonati 1985). Cook (1982), in her study of tourism development in British Columbia, Canada, makes specific suggestions for minimizing negative environmental impacts. She recommends that all tourism planning be based on the goals and priorities of residents. In addition she makes an even stronger statement for the need of resident input when she recommends that local attractions be promoted only when endorsed by residents. As tourism gains importance in an economy, this level of resident input will be necessary for industry stability. Residents’ perceptions of tourism are a function of the tourist-resident ratio related to the carrying capacity of the area. As the ratio increases, perceptions tend to become more negative as does understanding about the need to enhance the physical environment. Pizam (1982) in a study of Cape Cod, found that high concentrations of tourists fostered negative attitudes regarding the environment. Duffield and Long (1981) found that in peripheral regions with low tourist- resident ratios, the majority of residents perceived tourism to be positive. They did caution, however, that issues relating to the “intangible social, cultural and environmental disbenefits arouse the strongest complaints from residents.” Belisle and Hoy (1980) concluded, after studying resident attitudes to tourism in Santa Marta, Columbia, that positive resident attitudes may be a function of the incipient stage of tourism development in that area. Resident attitudes are important, but how do they differ from those of the business community? As Farrell (1977) points out, each interest group is subject to a different paradigm. Thomason, Crompton, and Kamp (1979) studied three groups affected by the tourist industry: residents, entrepreneurs, and public sector providers. They found significant differences in the attitudes of these three groups to environmental issues such as crowding and strain on environmental and community services. Entrepreneurs had more positive attitudes than did residents and public sector providers. In a similar study Murphy (1983) surveyed residents, the business sector, and local government on their attitudes toward tourism. He found that residents attitudes differed from the local government and business sectors. Residents were especially concerned that any development would or would not bring with it additional amenities for local people. The implications of these findings are that all sectors of a commumust be consulted in the early stages of the nity, including residents, tourism planning process for the development to be successful in the long run.

STUDY

AREAS

The three areas studied for this paper are the state of Hawaii (USA), the region of North Wales (United Kingdom), and the city of Istanbul (Turkey). The first one, the state of Hawaii, which consists of four major islands, is a mature tourist destination hosting approximately five million tourists per year. With a permanent, non-tourist population close to one million, on any given day the tourist -resident ratio is about 1 to 10.

LIU, SHELDON,

21

AND VAR

Tourism represents the state’s leading industry, and provides approximately one third of the jobs, government revenues, and gross national product of Hawaii (Dept. of Planning and Economic Development 1983). Except for a leveling of the visitor count for 1980 - 82, the tourist industry in Hawaii is now growing at a steady rate. The promotion of Hawaii and the visitor’s experience are based on the Hawaiian culture, which represents only a small fraction of the population. The population of Hawaii has a diverse ethnic makeup, with 30% of the population describing themselves as of mixed ethnic origin, including part-Hawaiian. Causcasians represent 25%, Japanese 23%, Filipinos 1 l%, Chinese 4%, and pure Hawaiians 0.8% (Hawaii State Department of Health 1983). This multi-ethnic population, a characteristic of Hawaii’s society, is considered by Farrell to be one of the most valuable tourist resources of Hawaii (Farrell 1982:210). The second study was performed in North Wales which is primarily rural but includes coastal resorts. The tourism industry here is well-established and concentrated in the coastal region. Tourism represents a much smaller component of the economy than in Hawaii. The average daily tourist ratio is approximately 1 to 36. In North Wales, the tourism sector represents approximately 15.3% of the region’s income, ranking second after agriculture of 17.9%. The major demographic characteristic of the population of North Wales relates to whether or not a resident is permanently domiciled and speaks Welsh. Welsh-speaking residents represent approximately 33% of the population. Many of the non-Welsh speakers have moved from other parts of the United Kingdom, often upon retirement (Sheldon and Var 1984). Previous analysis of the data on Hawaii and Wales, compiled by two of the present authors and used in this study, showed that respondents in both areas rank environmental protection higher than other “trade-off” items such as economic benefits, social costs, and cultural benefits of tourism (Liu and Var 1984; Sheldon and Var 1984). For both Hawaii and North Wales, notions such as environmental protection ranked more importantly (>) than certain expected costs and benefits. The rank order was as follows: environmental protection

> economic benefits

> social > cultural costs benefits

However, the Hawaii study which covered all the islands revealed that residents valued a high standard of living over and above environmental protection. In North Wales, the reverse was found to be true. Residents of North Wales appeared to be more altruistic and willing to undergo personal sacrifice for environmental protection. There may be, however, more appropriate explanations. From an interpretation of results values appear to emerge. For Hawaii: high standard of living

> environmental protection

For North environmental protection

Wales:

> high standard of living

22

ENVIRONMENTAL

Table

Study Areas Hawaii North Wales

Istanbul

Region

IMPACTS

1. Comparison

Number of Visitors/Year

Urban Island Rural Continental

4,870,OOO

Urban Continental

4,000,000

1,391,ooo

ON TOURISM

of Three Study Areas Proportion of Tourism Income as a % Total (GDP) 34% Tourism-dominated 15% Significant tourism sector 0.8% Industrial rapidly developing tourism

Average Daily Tourist/Resident Ratio I:10 High 1:36 Medium high 1:1500= Low

a Calculated from information in Travel Industry World Yearbook (Waters 1985:82).

The third study was performed in the city of Istanbul, which represents a large metropolitan area. More than 50% of tourists visiting Turkey visit Istanbul. The Turkish government is currently implementing policies to encourage tourism development, in particular to attract foreign investments. Tourism currently represents about 5.3% of export earnings, and 0.8% of gross domestic product (OECD 1985). The average daily tourist resident ratio is only 1 to 1500. Turkey represents a developing country whose tourism industry has a major history dating back to ancient times. Yet tourism does not play a major role in the economy. Table 1 compares the three study areas. SURVEY

AND

METHODOLOGY

The Hawaii survey, conducted in fall 1982, had the largest sample. Three thousand questionnaires were mailed to residents of the four major counties of the state of HawaiiOahu, Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai. Six hundred and thirty six questionnaires were returned representing a the sample was slightly skewed toward 2 1.2% response rate. Although certain groups in the population, it met expectations of representativeness since statistical tests indicated that the results would not vary significantly. The Northern Wales study, performed in summer 1982, was smaller due to a limited budget. Two hundred and fifty questionnaires were mailed to households in the two counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd in North Wales. Fifty four questionnaires were returned representing a 25% response rate. The sample was representative of the population in terms of income, age, language, ethnic background, length of stay, and other aspects. Of special concern was whether Welsh-speakers were adequately represented in the sample; they were (34% of the sample). The Istanbul study, performed in spring 1985, was done by interviewing 46 1 residents in 2 1 precincts. The population which was sampled was ethnically homogeneous, with almost all of the residents being of Turkish Due to interviewing, instead of mail-in origin and of Moslem religion. surveying, the rejection rate was close to zero (Korzay and Var 1985). The basic questionnaire was devised by using parameters identified by Kendall and Var (1984). These included economic contribution, social

LIU, SHELDON,

AND VAR

23

and cultural effects, environmental effects, government planning, attractions and stereotyping tourists, as well as demographics of respondents. Additionally, the Hawaii and Wales questionnaire, which were almost identical, included “trade-offs” that compared tourism with other industries in the region and others that compared various effects of tourism (e.g., environmental protection versus economic benefit). Specific issues relevant to each area are as follows. The Hawaii questionnaire included items on exploitation of native Hawaiians, hotel tax, commercialization of specific recreational sites, and decline of Aloha Spirit. The Wales survey included questions on caravan sites, historic buildings, purchase of property by foreigners, and decline of the use of the Welsh language. Questions pertinent to Turkish interview included tourism promotion, market mix, scarcity of necessities, impact on local behavior and mores, political factors, vacation villages, and Turkish migrant workers. RESULTS

AND FINDINGS

Tables 2 - 4 show the results of the three studies. Factor analysis was used to identify the major structural dimensions underlying the list of variables on the questionnaire. Principal components analysis without iterations, using varimax rotation, was employed. Listwise deletion was used for the Hawaii study, reducing the number of cases to 450. In other respects, pairwise deletion was used for the Welsh and Turkish data. Cattel’s (1952) Scree test was used to identify a set of significant factors. For the sake of consistency, eight factors were selected for each data set. For Hawaii 25% of the variation is explained by the eight factors with 36 out of 67 variables. Correspondingly, 58% of the variation is explained in the Welsh case with 34 out of 75 variables. Finally, 26% of the variation is explained in the Turkish data with 26 out of 78 variables. The large proportion of explanation in the Welsh case is due to two factors: the degree of homogeneity of the population and visibility of the tourism industry. In Hawaii, the industry is highly visible but the population is ethnically diverse. In Istanbul, the population is homogeneous, and tourism has a lower but growing importance. The results ofpollution and rapid industrialization are highly visible, especially the destruction of both sides of the Bosphorus and the Golden Horn (Korzay and Var 1985). Since factor analysis clusters questions that are associated by degree of similarity in responses, each factor identifies a separate dimension in which there is commonality in how respondents perceive the items. It does not reflect the level of agreement or disagreement to the question at hand. For example, the first factor, which explains the most variation compared with any other factor in the Hawaii study, is one on which negative environmental and social items loaded. However, respondents did not agree with the questions. The level of agreement is measured by the mean and percentage values in the tables. The reader is cautioned that the Turkish method used a scale of 1 - 5 instead of a scale of I- 6 used in the other two studies. Hence, comparisons of resident opinion are limited. The results from the factor structures of the three study areas (Tables 2- 4) are consolidated in Table 5. Altogether, 14 separate dimensions were identified, indicating overlaps. Three dimensions are common to all three destinations: environmental, negative socio-environmental effect, and importance to the economy. In addition, seven factors are held in

Factor 1: Negative So&o-environmental Effect Mainly because of tourists, I rarely go shopping in the Ala Moana area. Tourism has resulted in unpleasantly overcrowded beaches, hiking trails, parks and other outdoor places for the local population. Tourists disrupt the peace and tranquility of our public parks. Tourists are inconsiderate in restaurants and hotels. Improving public tourist facilities is a waste of taxpayers’ money. The economic gains from tourism are detrimental to our cultural identity here in the state of Hawaii. Native Hawaiians are being exploited by tourism. Mainly because of the increasing number of tourists, I rarely go shopping in the Waikiki area. Tourists are a burden on government services. During the peak tourist season it is harder to get tickets for the theater, movies, concerts, and athletic events. The local residents are the people who really suffer from living in a tourist area. Factor 2: Stereotyping Tourists I think European tourists are nice and considerate. I think tourist from Canada are nice and considerate. I think east coast mainland tourists are nice and considerate. I think Hispanic tourists are nice and considerate. I think Australian tourists are nice and considerate. I think tourists from the west coast mainland are nice and considerate. I think Asian (except Japanese) tourists are nice and considerate. Factor 3: Cultural Exchange Meeting tourists from all over the world is definitely a valuable educational experience. Tourism results in more “cultural exchange” between local residents and tourists, which gives us a better understanding about the world. I would like to meet tourists from as many countries as possible in order to learn about their culture.

Factor

4.963 4.444 4.483

.698 .638

2.70 .750

3.60

3.377

.496

4.124 4.349 3.822 3.716 4.162 4.091 3.849

2.916 2.917

.565 ,553

.732 .709 .689 .678 ,666 .658 .538

2.856 3.320

.600 ,582

5.38

2.641 2.814 2.247 2.595

.686 .645 .629 .611

3.85

2.103 3.099

9.96

Mean’

.707 .687

6.67

Eigenvalue

in Hawaii’

Variance

of Tourism

Rank Loadingb

Table 2. Factor Schedule for Resident Perception

77.9

78.5

90.6

74.5 81.1 63.7 57.7 75.5 73.7 64.2

43.3

28.6 32.1

31.0 41.4

21.8 26.1 12.7 22.2

14.9 38.0

Percent Agreed

91.8

5.029

40.5 16.5

3.339 2.721

,636 ,632

90.4 87.1

4.963 4.799 ,600

49.6

20.8

36.5

64.2

.715

1.61

.590 1.82

3.414

3.966 2.938 2.540

1.72

1.91

.616

1.92

2.08

g U 52.8 3.611

.515

.708 .569

2

57.5 3.613

,860

z

$

3 c

% *

_=

68.4 4.288

.862

2.10

28.0

3.117

,658

2.33

31.1

3.157

.a27

2.40

.510 2.34

80.9

4.446

548

a Results represent responses from 450 residents of Hawaii State. b Twenty-five percent of the variance is explained by 8 factors (36 out of 67 variables). L Scale ranges from I = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. d Percent agreeing are those answering 4, 5,6 on a 6-point scale. Nonresponses are not included.

Tourism encourages a variety of cultural activities by the local population (e.g., crafts, arts, music) Tourism is one major reason for the great variety of entertainment in Honolulu. Factor 4: Stereotyping Tourist Spending I think European tourists tend to bring in more dollars (per tourist) than do other tourists. I think east coast mainland tourists tend to bring in more dollars (per tourist) than do other tourists. I think Canadian tourists tend to bring in more dollars (per tourist) than do other tourists. I think the Hispanic tourists tend to bring in more dollars (per tourist) than do other tourists. Factor 5: Imfortance to Economy Revenues from the tourism industry are more important for the Sate of Hawaii than revenues from the pineapple industry. Tourism revenue is more important for the State of Hawaii than revenue from the sugar industry. Tourism revenue is more important for the State of Hawaii than revenue from the military. Factor 6: Crime Tourism has led to more prostitution. Because of tourists the crime rate in the state has increased. Factor 7: Environment The economic gains of tourism are more important than the protection of our environment. Tourism has not contributed to a decline in the ecological environment in the State of Hawaii. Factor 8: Government Planning Long-term planning by the government can control the impact of tourism on the ecological environment I I think that tourism has caused more need for historical and cultural exhibits to educate the tourists and create a positive feeling about our state.

Factor I: Negative Socio-environmental Effecl Improving public tourist facilities is a waste of taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ money. Tourists disrupt the peace and tranquility of our public parks. Native Welsh people are being exploited by tourism. I believe that our historical buildings are being spoiled by the large number of tourists. I feel that tourists should only be allowed to visit churches if they go for religious reasons. Tourism has resulted in unpleasantly overcrowded beaches, footpaths, parks, and outdoor places for the local population. Factor 2: Positive Socio-economicEffect Tourism attracts more investment and spending in the economy of North Wales. Because of tourism there are more parks and other recreational areas for swimming, walking, golfing, etc., for local residents. One of the most important aspects of tourism is that it has created morejobs for the residents of North Wales. Tourism encourages a variety of cultural activities by the local population (e.g., crafts, arts, music). Tourism is one major reason for the great variety of entertainment in North Wales. Tourists’ keen interest in our history means that our old buildings are cared for more than they otherwise would be. Factor 3: Stereotyping Tourist Spending I think German tourists tend to bring in more money (per tourist) than do other tourists. I think Canadian tourists tend to bring more money (per tourist) than do other tourists. I think Australian tourists tend to bring in more money (per tourist) than do other tourists. I think Scandinavian tourists tend to bring in more money (per tourist) than do other tourists.

Factor

3.429 3.260 3.217

.812 .756 ,744

4.736

.707

3.300

3.887

,717

4.65

4.615

,768

6.2

4.528

.783

,875

4.404 4.000

8.89

,789 .787

11.9

3.358

,577

.663 ,655 ,641 2.491

Mean’

.758

11.90

Eigenvalue

2.686 2.962 2.453 2.673

15.9

Variance

.775

Rank Loading!’

Table 3. Factor Schedule for Resident Perception of Tourism in North Wales”

37.3

32.0

51.0

48.0

86.8

62.3

82.7

81.1

76.9 66.0

45.3

24.5

31.4 37.7 17.0 34.6

Percent Agreed

a Results represent responses from 250 residents of North Wales. b Fifty-eight percent of the variance is explained by 8 factors (34 out of 75 variables). c Scale ranges from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. d Percent agreeing are those answering 4, 5, or 6 on a 6-point scale.

I think tourists from USA tend to bring in more money (per tourist) than do other tourists. I think tourists from France tend to bring in more money (per tourist) than do other tourists. Factor 4: Purchuse ofProperty by Foreigners I think that Americans should be allowed to buy property in North Wales. I think that other nationalities should be allowed to buy property in North Wales. I think that English people should be allowed to buy property in North Wales. Factor 5: Stereotyping Tourists I think English tourists are nice and considerate. I think Canadian tourists are nice and considerate. I think French tourists are nice and considerate. Factor 6: Negative Ejjds (Crowding, Crime) Mainly because of tourists, I rarely go shopping in Rhyl. Mainly because of tourists, I rarely go shopping in Llandudno. I think tourism has led to more vandalism in North Wales. I think tourism prevents the Welsh language from being used as much as it otherwise would. Factor 7: Cultural Exchange I would like to meet tourists from as many countries as possible to learn about their culture. Meeting tourists from all over the world is definitely a valuable educational experience. Tourism results in more “cultural exchange” between local residents and tourists, which gives us a better understanding about the world. Factor 8: Ecology Local residents are the people who really suffer from living in a tourist area. Tourism has not contributed to a decline in the ecological environment in North Wales. Long-term planning by the government can control the impact of tourism on the ecological environment.

F 50.9 25.0

47.2 56.6 76.9

3.396 3.641 4.250 .610

2.69

.748 .654

3.6

79.2 4.189

.560

73

s

79.2

u

!S

76.9

B _?

8

30.2

r “Z

44.0

72.5 86.0 54.0

4.547

3.360 2.736 3.528 2.615

3.882 4.320 3.380

64.2 64.2 71.7

.760

3.29

3.64

4.14

3.790 3.717 4.019

4.442

4.4

4.9

5.5

4.48

.817

.785 .775 .701 .517

.821 .778 .618

6.0

34.0

2.960

,512

.942 .935 ,913

74.5

4.098

.644

Factor I: Importance 10 Economy Tourists visiting Turkey constitute an important component of our national economic development. Tourism can be one of the most important industries for Turkey. Because tourists contribute a great deal of money to the local economy, we must put up with some inconveniences. Istanbul is an attractive tourist center especially for the Middle East region. Factor 2: Environment Keeping streets clean and tidy have a favorable impact on tourists. The tourism department of the government should do more to promote tourism. We litter more than the tourists do. Long-range state planning for tourism is a must. I am happy and proud to see domestic and foreign tourists coming to see natural beauties and benefit from the recreational and rest opportunities which Istanbul has to offer. We need better touristic facilities. Factor 3: Negative Socio-environmentalEffect Tourists have negative effects on our social and family structure. Tourism causes a decline in acceptable commercial behaviour of our people. Tourism adds to traffic problems. Tourism contributes to making our necessities more scarce.

Factor

,700 .648 ,632 ,605

2.501 2.484 2.562 2.291

4.388 3.36

,504 3.98

4.623 4.449 4.365 4.329 4.495

7.34

.709 .676 .666 .595 .565

4.41

4.154

.731 ,636 .523

10.97

4.61

Mean’ 4.253 3.274 4.315 4.202

Eigenvalue

in Istanbul”

Variance

of Tourism

,753

Rank Loadi&

Table 4. Factor Schedule for Resident Perception

22.7 20.0 24.7 17.0

87.9

95.3 89.9 90.0 85.4 93.2

86.6

86.4 86.7

87.7

Percent Agreed

.743 ,606

.752 .698 2.06

1.58

1.67

3.998 4.161

2.792 2.919

3.267 2.24

.567

1.73 3.611

2.63

3.313 3.236

.619 ,567 ,594

3.149

.706

1.96

3.875 2.81

.634

2.00 3.897

2.91

2.473

,726

.597

a Results represent responses from 461 residents of Turkey. b Twenty-six percent of the variance is explained by 8 factors (26 out of 78 variables). c Scale ranges from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. d Percent agreeing are those answering 4 or 5, on a 5-point scale. Nonresponses are not included.

Tourists from different cultural and social backgrounds have negative impacts on our people’s moral values. Factor 4: Visitor Satisfaction If I were a European tourist, 1 would recommend to my friends to visit Turkey upon my return. Traditional Turkish hospitality is one of the important ways to attract tourists. Factor 5: Tourism Infrastructure Tourism facilities and transportation continue to offer services to all people throughout the year. In recent years I have noticed more tourists in my part of town. Tourists from the Middle East are nice and considerate. Factor 6: Vacation Villages, Safety New vacation villages that can accommodate large numbers of tourists should be established around Istanbul. We provide safety and security for our tourists. Factor 7: Stereotyping Tourists Adjustment American tourists adjust themselves quite well to our way of life. European tourists adjust themselves quite well to our way of life. Factor 8: Health Services, Promotion We cannot provide necessary health services for tourists. Touristic promotion aborad is insufficient. 79.6 84

22.7 31.7

50.1

65.0

44.2 45.8

45.9

71.3

71.1

20.3

ENVIRONMENTAL

30

IMPACTS

ON TOURISM

Table 5. Cross-National Comparison of Key Dimensions Perception of the Impacts of Tourism

in Resident

Order of Factor Hawaii

Dimension Socio-Environmentallpact 1. Environment/Ecology 2. Government Planning 3. Negative Socio-environmental 4. Crime, Crowding

7 8 Effect

5. Cultural Exchange Economic Impact 6. Importance to Economy 7. Purchase of Property by Foreigners Sterotyping 8. Tourists Nice and Considerate 9. Tourist Spending

Istanbul

8

2 -

-

1 6

1 6

3

7

5

2 4

-

5 3

-

2 4

10. Tourist Adjustment Hospitality 11. Visitor Satisfaction 12. Infrastructure 13. Vacation Villages, Safety 14. Health Services, Promotion

North Wales

-

3 -

1

-

7

-

4 5 8 8

common with Hawaii and Wales indicating some cross-national similarities. Consistency in the factor structures suggest that the issues on the environment may be of universal concern. However, the difference in the loadings indicated some cross-similarities and differences. For example, residents in Hawaii and North Wales for the most part, associate environment with ecology (Table 5, factors 7 and 8, respectively), while Istanbul residents think of standard of facilities, natural beauty, and government promotion (factor 2). Further, in North Wales and Istanbul, residents perceive government planning as part of the environmental dimension, while in the case of Hawaii, it is seen as a separate factor that is associated with historical and cultural exhibits. The order of the factors shows the high degree of concern of residents of Hawaii and North Wales of the negative socio-environmental impact of tourism such as crowding, noise, exploitation of locals, and lack of public spending on tourism facilities (factor 1). A tourist behavior variable also loaded onto this factor for Hawaii respondents, while the factor for North Wales included historical buildings. In both the Hawaii and North Wales studies, this factor accounted for the largest variation (6.7% and 15.9%, respectively). In contrast, residents from Istanbul include social and family structure, commercial behavior, moral values, traffic, and scarcity of necessities as negative socio-environmental effects (factor 3). It is interesting to note that residents in all three places tend to associate negative social with negative environmental effects, and one group, Welsh residents, linked positive economic with positive social effects. Hawaii residents tend to be much more specific about positive economic and cultural effects.

LIU, SHELDON,

AND VAR

31

In Hawaii “crime” was singled out as the sixth factor, indicating its importance to residents. A larger proportion of respondents (64%) agree that more taxes should be used to reduce crime rather than promote tourism. In North Wales, the crime variable was associated with crowding and decline of the Welsh language variables. There may be an interesting explanation for the association between crime and the decline of the Welsh language. For the past few years Welsh nationalists, feeling that all road and similar notices should be in Welsh rather than English, have taken to defacing English language signs. It is important to emphasize that the local media in all three study areas play an equally important role in forming resident opinions. It should be pointed out, however, that respondents in all three places, for the most part, do not generally agree with statements representing negative impact dimensions. Hence, respondents tend not to blame tourism for adverse social and environmental effects. Some exceptions are that in Hawaii, tourism is blamed for prostitution (64.2% agree) and in North Wales tourism is equated with traffic problems (98.1%). These issues are discussed extensively in the local media. The importance of the economic dimension is common to all three studies. Hawaii’s factor 5 links together questions ranking tourism with other major industries in the economy. There is such high and consistent agreement on the economic benefits of tourism that these items do not even appear in the factor structure. Economic benefits such as investment and spending, recreational sites, andjobs loaded onto factor 2 in the North Wales data. In contrast, Istanbul’s factor 1 indicates that residents feel that tourism can become an important economic component in the Turkish economy. These results point out how residents perceive the role that tourism plays in their economy. Purchase of property by foreigners in North Wales is a separate factor (4), reflecting residents’ concern about the loss of Welsh identity. Cultural exchange appeared as factors 3 and 7 in Hawaii and North Wales, respectively. In both studies there was high agreement on all items, including educational value of tourism, cultural activities, and entertainment facilities. Conversely, in the Istanbul study, when asked whether tourism improves international peace and understanding only 28.7% of the respondents agreed. This may be attributable to the unstable political situation in Turkey, religious differences between tourists and residents, and low agreement on the ability of tourists to adjust (factor 7). This interaction does confirms Farrell’s (1979) sus p icion that the tourist-host not necessarily lead to a breaking down of stereotypes. Stereotyping dimensions appear prominently in factor structures of all three destinations. This indicates that stereotyping might play an important role in resident perception and hence has a place in the planning process. Clearly, there is a need for further research in this area. The hospitality component is unique to Turkey, indicating resident concern for visitor satisfaction (factor 4), development of infrastructure (factor 5), establishing vacation villages, safety (factor 6), and health services and promotion (factor 8). These are all reasonable items for consideration by a destination planning a full-scale expansion and improvement of its tourism services. Table 6 lists the questions relating to environmental issues for each of the three study areas and shows the mean, the percent agreeing with the

on Survey

Instrument

North

Wales,

and Istanbul

ment.

Long-term planning by the government can control the impact of tourism on the ecological environment. Long-range state planning of tourism is a must. More government expenditures should go towards protecting the environment rather than encouraging more tourists to visit. There should be stiffer fines for tourists who litter because littering destroys the beauty of our islands. We litter more than tourists do. Tourists greatly add to the traffic problems. Because of tourism there are more parks and other recreational areas for swimming, hiking, golfing, etc., for local residents. Because of tourism our roads and other public facilities are kept at a high standard. Tourism has not contributed to a decline in the ecological environ-

Question

Table 6. Hawaii,

5.604 4.000

4 5

47.9 51.3 47.5 49.6

3.602 3.509 3.415 3.414

7

6

5.000

3

51.7

3.620

50.9 56.5

3.642

98.1 65.0

84.9

62.3

66.9

% Agree

3.434

3.943

2

61.7

Mean 4.25

3.878

1

Rank

9

11

1 6

2

7

5

Rank

4.365 4.388 3.904

4.329

Mean

Residents

90.0 87.9 76.4

85.4

% Agree

Istanbul

Effects of Tourism

N. Wales Residents

90.4

% Agree

Residents

of the Environmental

4.963

Mean

Hawaii

Resident Opinion

2 1 7

5

Rank

_ _ _ I”

_ ,,

_ _-

_

_ ___

,

Mainly because of the increasing number of tourists, I rarely go shopping in the Waikiki (Rhyl-N. Wales) area. Large tourist groups visiting the city cause inconveniences for local residents. A lower standard of living is worth the cost of a protected environment. Because tourists contribute a great deal of money to the local economy we must put up with some inconveniences. I think tourism has led to more vandalism. Tourism has resulted in unpleasantly overcrowded beaches, hiking trails, parks, and other outdoor places for the local population. There are too many tourists visiting Istanbul. Tourists are a burden on government services. Tourists disrupt the peace and tranquility of our public parks. Improving public tourist facilities is a waste of taxpayer money. Mainly because of tourists I rarely go shopping in the Ala Moana (Llandudno - N. Wales) area. Tourists spoil historic buildings. Tourists visiting Istanbul are amazed with the historic monuments. Buildings are better cared for as a result of tourism. More historic buildings are open as a result of tourism.

7

I”

28.6 21.8 12.7 14.9

2.916 2.641 2.241 2.103

>

43.1 38.0

3.234 3.099

L.

41.2

3.235

_

41.4

3.320

_,“_.>

12 13 14 15

10 11

9

8

.-

.^

4.736 4.604

,_

3 4

86.8 88.6

2.673

-_

18

34.6

2.717 2.962 2.686 2.736

10 13

50.9 45.3

16 14 17 15

8

12

58.5

44.0

25.5 37.7 30.4 30.1

3.528 3.358

3.679

3.360

-_--IT-

4.356

4.352

4.202

2.221

92.3

93.5

86.7

16.5

3

4

r

$ u c

B "2

2 F

"Z

34

ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS

ON TOURISM

statement, and ranking. A comparison of the rankings in the three studies reveals that residents in Hawaii ranked questions relating to government control over the impact of tourism on the environment the highest, thereby recognizing the importance of the role of government in planning a healthy tourist industry. Residents of North Wales and Istanbul, however, view littering as a prime concern. Interestingly, Istanbul residents felt that they litter more than tourists do, indicating an awareness that tourists are not solely responsible for negative impacts on the environment, but residents also share that responsibility. Further, tourism is not a prerequisite or sole cause of environmental destruction. Indeed, any type of industrialization, including tourism, tends to lead to environmental perturbation. Traffic problems ranks highest in North Wales and Istanbul, whereas in Hawaii they rank fourth after governmental issues and littering. Since the survey was done in North Wales, a new road was built to bypass the coastal resorts, thus relieving congestion along the coast. If this study were to be completed today, the authors feel that traffic problems would not rank as high. In North Wales and Istanbul, residents perceive that tourism is beneficial, because it helps preserve historic buildings. Residents are aware that, as a result of tourism, historic buildings are better cared for and a greater number are open for them to enjoy. Hawaii residents perceive similar benefits of tourism. They feel that recreational facilities, roads, and other public facilities are better maintained and more are available as a result of tourism. It appears from these results that the longer tourism has been operating in the economy, the greater the awareness of residents of both positive and negative environmental impacts of tourism. CONCLUSIONS

AND POLICY

IMPLICATIONS

Despite some differences in methodologies, some conclusions on resident perception can be drawn. First, this study has shown that the impact of tourism on the environment is of universal concern. Both Hawaii and Welsh residents rank environmental protection as being of paramount concern, compared with trade-offs with other social and economic effects. Second, differences in factor structures indicate some cross-national variances in the way environmental and negative impact of tourism are perceived. For instance, residents of Hawaii and North Wales perceive “environment” as “ecology,” while those from Istanbul associate it with facilities, natural beauty, and promotion. In addition, Hawaii and Welsh respondents are highly concerned with the negative socio-environmental impact of tourism, which appears as factor 1 in both instances. In contrast, it appears as factor 3 in the Istanbul case, include variables of values and mores, family structure, traffic, and scarcity of necessities. Interestingly, Istanbul residents have a much more global perception of negative impacts linking together social, cultural, and environmental variables, yet tend to be more specific about positive aspects. Third, the study points out some geographically specific concerns. In Hawaii and Wales, where tourism is a significant part of the economy,

LIU, SHELDON,

AND VAR

35

residents are primarily concerned with the negative impact on their environment. The Welsh are also concerned over purchase of property by foreigners. In contrast, in Turkey, which hopes to expand its tourism, respondents are concerned with development of facilities, hospitality, and promotion. Fourth, the data revealed that residents do not blame tourism only for environmental changes, they also perceive many of the benefits brought by the industry, such as preservation of historic sites. The Turkish study concluded that residents are also responsible for environmental pollution even more so than tourists (Var, Kendall, and Tarakcioglu 1985). The comparison of the three surveys revealed that residents in more developed regions may be more aware of both positive and negative impacts largely because tourism is kept to the forefront of thinking through the media, public issues, and community discussions. Moreover, Hawai is always updating tourism facilities, which tends to make residents more aware of the impacts of tourism. Fifth, the study illustrates the value of incorporating resident perception in evaluating the effects of tourism development for planning purposes. Monitoring resident opinion is necessary in order to assess local sentiments which should be incorporated at the outset of the planning process. Further, to the extent that relevant questions are asked, the factor analysis approach identifies issues and concerns of residents upon which there is a high degree of association. Thus, it helps to focus planners on what residents consider to be important. A cross-national approach provides direction to planners on the types of resident concerns that are appropriate in various cultures and at different stages of tourism development. Sixth, it can be concluded that residents are highly aware of the important role of government planning in long-term protection of the environment. Finally, it also confirms the necessity of adopting a holistic approach to tourism planning, since issues on the environment are not perceived as being entirely distinct from economic and social ones. It should be stressed that this is a limited effort towards achieving a cross-national comparison of residents’ perceptions of the impact of tourism on the environment. The Alaska and Argentina studies (in process), together with the present study, are expected to result in a better comparison. In all these studies, other parameters are included and environmental impacts are analyzed in relation to these parameters, not in a vacuum. In all three cases in the present study, there was a bias towards educated residents, as evidenced by the skewing of the data. Some local issues, not comparable cross-nationally, were also obtained from the surveys. There are two phases to tourism impacts and the picture is completed only when one phase supplements the other. These phases are: what perceivers believe to be the case (a situation often underlying policy decision) and the scientific monitoring of actual physical changes in the total environment. The latter reinforces, helps change, or, in the extreme, is rejected by the former. It is hoped that the perception studies conducted in the three geographically diverse locations will serve as a springboard to more specific scientific investigations and cross-national comparisons. q Cl

36

ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS

ON TOURISM

REFERENCES Belisle, Francois J., and Don R. Hoy 1980 The Perceived Impact of Tourism by Residents: A Case Study in Santa Marta, California. Annals of Tourism Research 7( 1):83 - 10 1. Boissevain, Jeremy 1979 The Impact of Tourism on a Dependent Island: Gozo, Malta. Annals of Tourism Research 6( 1):76 -90. British Tourists Authority 1975 Is There “Welcome” on the Mat? Prepared by the Economist Intelligence Unit. London: British Tourist Authority. Brougham, J. E., and R. W. Butler 1977 The Social and Cultural Impact of Tourism: A Case study of Sleat, Isle of Skye. Edinburgh: Scottish Tourist Board. Cattel, Raymond B. 1952 Factor Analysis: An Introduction and Manual for the Psychologist and Social Scientist. New York: Harper. Cook, Karen 1982 Guidelines for Socially appropriate Tourism Development in British Columbia. Journal of Travel Research 21(1):22-28. Department of Planning and Economic Development 1983 The Economic Impact of Tourism in Hawaii, 1970 - 1980, Research Report 1983 82. Hawaii: Research & Economic Analysis Division. Duffield, Brian S., and Jonathan Long 198 1 Tourism in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland: Rewards and Conflicts. Annals of Tourism Research 8(3):403 - 431, Farrell, Bryan H. 1979 Tourism’s Human Conflicts: Cases from the Pacific. Annals of Tourism Research 6(2):122-136. 1977 Breaking Down the Paradigms: The Realities of Tourism. The Social and Economic Impact of Tourism on Pacific Communities, Bryan H. Farrell, ed. Santa Cruz: Center for South Pacific Studies, University of California. 1982 Hawaii: The Legend that Sells. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Gearing, Charles E., William W. Swart, and Turgut Var 1976 Planning for Tourism Development: Quantitative Approaches. New York: Praeger Publishers. Hawaii State Department of Health 1983 Hawaii Health Surveilance Program, Honolulu. Kendall, K. W., and Turgut Var 1984 The Perceived Impacts of Tourism: The State of the Art. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University. Korzay, Meral, and Turgut Var 1985 Resident Perception of Tourist and Tourism. Istanbul, Turkey. Burnaby, B.C.: Simon Fraser University, Faculty of Business Administration. Knox, John M. 1978 Classification of Hawaii Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourists and Tourism. Tourism Research Project: A joint project of the School of Travel Industry Management and the Social Science Research Institute (November). 1979 Determinants of the “Aloha Spirit”: A Study of Oahu Resident Attitudes Toward Tourists. Tourism Research Project: A joint project of the School of Travel Industry Management and the Social Science Research Institute, University of Hawaii-Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii (July). Kono, Hideto 1976 What Hawaii’s People Think of the Visitor Industry. Honolulu: Department of Planning and Economic Development. Krippenddorf, Jost 1982 Towards new Tourism Policy: The Importance of Environmental and Sociocultural Factors. Tourism Management 3(3): 135- 148. Liu, Juanita, and Turgut Var 1984 Resident Attitudes to Tourism in Hawaii. Paper presented at the 15th TTRA Conference, Philadelphia.

LIU, SHELDON,

AND VAR

37

Lonati, Robert C. 1985 Impact of Tourism on the Environment of the Mediterranean Basin: Communication by the Secretary-General of the WTO. World Travel 184:25 - 26. Murphy, Peter E. 1983 Perceptions and Attitudes of Decisionmaking Groups in Tourism Centers. Journal of Travel Research 11(3):8 - 12. Pizam, Abraham 1982 Tourism and Crime: Is There a Relationship? Journal of Travel Research 20(3):7 10. Plog, Stanley C. 1972 Why Destination Areas Rise and Fall in Popularity. Presented before the Travel Research Association, Southern California Chapter. Ritchie, James E. 1974 The Honest Broker in the Cultural Marketplace. A New Kind of Sugar: Tourism in the Pacific, Ben R. Finney and Karen Ann Watson, eds. Honolulu: East- West Center. Romeril, Michael 1985 Tourism and Conservation in the Channel Islands. Tourism Management 6(1):4349. Rothman, Robert A. 1978 Residents and Transients: Community Reaction to Seasonal Visitors. Journal of Travel Research 16:8 - 13. Sethna, Rustum J., and Bert 0. Richmond 1978 U.S. Virgin Islanders’ Perception of Tourism. Journal of Travel Research 17(1):30-31. Sheldon, Pauline J., and Turgut Var 1984 Resident Attitudes to Tourism in North Wales. Tourism Management 5(1):40 - 48. Thomason, Pamela, J. L. Crompton, and D. B. Kamp 1979 A Study of the Attitudes of Impacted Groups Within a Host Community Toward Prolonged Stay Tourist Visitors. Journal of Travel Research 17(3):2- 6. Travis, Anthony S. 1982 Managing the Environment and Cultural Impacts of Tourism and Leisure Development. Tourism Management 3(4):256-262. Var, Turgut, R. A. D. Beck, and P. Loftus 1977 Determination of Touristic Attractiveness of the Touristic Areas in the British Columbia. Journal of Travel Research 15(3):23 - 29. Var, Turgut, K. W. Kendall, and E. Tarakcioglu 1985 Resident Attitudes Towards Tourists in a Turkish Resort Town. Annals of Tourism Research 12(4):652-658. Wales Tourist Board 198 1 Survey of Community Attitudes Toward Tourism in Wales. Cardiff: Strategic Planning and Research Unit. Waters, Somerset 1985 Travel Industry World Yearbook: The Big Picture1985. New York: Child and Waters. Inc. Submitted 29 January 1986 Revised version submitted 10 July Accepted 29 July 1986 Refereed anonymously

1986