DETERMINACIÓN DE LAS CONDICIONES DE OPERACIÓN DEL OLEODUCTO TRAMO SPF A NPF EN EL BLOQUE

towards the damage associated with mass tourism. This period was what Jafari (1979) called the “tourism advocacy platform”. Since then there has been a growing body of research and literature on residents’ perceptions and attitudes towards tourism development and its impact (Andereck,

Valentine, Knopf, & Vogt, 2005; Ap, 1992; Besculides, Lee, & McCormick, 2002; Getz, 1994; Kayat, Sharif, & Karnchanan, 2013; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Lepp, 2007; Türker & Asst Sevgi, 2013).

An understanding of residents’ reactions towards tourism and its impact is important for planning, policy making, marketing and prospecting tourism developments. This is because of the paramount status ‘community’ holds in any CBT. The prosperity of CBT depends on the hospitality of the local residents towards tourists and tourism (Murphy, 1985). As such the success and sustainability of CBT is not merely about minimising the negative impacts; rather' it must be actively favoured and supported by the community. Therefore, research into residents’ perceptions and attitudes is useful to assess the appropriateness of tourism development, or prior to development. To determine whether residents favour the establishment of tourism or are pessimistic about it (Harill, 2004; Ribeiro, Valle, & Silva, 2013; Simão & Môsso, 2013).

Moreover, host-guest relationships may be altered as a result of the residents’ perceptions and attitudes towards tourism development and its impact. Thus by transmitting what is “perceived” by the residents and their attitudes, a basis is provided to comprehend the resident’s judgments about the tourism process and the reasons why they approve of, or dislike tourism (Simão & Môsso, 2013).

43

In tourism, residents’ perceptions of attitudes towards tourism are psychological tendencies which explain whether they support or disagree with tourism development following their assessment (Simão & Môsso, 2013). It is important to take note of the residents’ perceptions in tourism development because most of the unwanted consequences of tourism are inflicted on the

community and the residents are in the appropriate situation to point out which impacts are good for them and to object to the undesirable ones. Ap (1992) argued that perceptions are good predictors of attitudes, as residents do not have knowledge and fixed attitudes, yet they put meanings on objects.

According to Getz (1994) attitude is “a state of mind of the individual toward a value” and as an “enduring predisposition towards a particular aspect of one’s environment” (page 247). He further added that attitudes, as opposed to opinions, are slow to alter; and they are strengthened by perceptions of belief and reality associated with profound values and even associated with

behaviour. Moreover, he also explained that researchers categorised attitude into three features: (a) the cognitive, which is concerned with beliefs and perceptions; (b) the affective, which includes likes and dislikes, and is focused on evaluation; and (c) actions and expressed intent, which are reflected in the behavioural sphere.

Several pieces of research have used residents’ attitudes towards tourism to evaluate the suitability of tourism for a community, and in doing so have drawn conclusions to say that positive reactions from residents are good signs showing that tourism has met its social and cultural requirements in the community (Lepp, 2007; Türker & Asst Sevgi, 2013) . However, Lepp (2007) argued that such intuitive understanding requires thorough assessment into the relationships between residents’ attitudes and the different elements that influence such reactions, such as hosts' attitudes or perceptions. Also, subject to the various issues confronted, residents’ reactions towards tourism development and impact can be numerous and varied, and at different occasions and these

residents’ responses can be individual or communal (Kayat et al., 2013). Residents’ perceptions and attitudes towards tourism can be determined by the level of impact inflicted on them either

individually or collectively; and further to that, the perceptions will depend on the residents’ expectations, experiences and values, which are context based (Tosun, 2002).

One of the early studies on understanding residents’ responses towards tourism and its impact is that of Doxey (1975). Doxey’s irridex model on the relationship between hosts and guests is

presented in four stages: euphoria, apathy, irritation and antagonism. According to Doxey, residents’ perceptions and attitudes change over time with the development of tourism. At the beginning the residents will welcome tourism; however as it expands over the years, the undesirable effects will cause them to have negative responses. He also argued that these responses are unidirectional

44

(though this varies across communities). To understand the effects of tourism, Smith (1978) developed a seven stage model of tourist typologies: explorer, elite, off–beat, unusual, incipient mass, mass and charter tourists. According to Smith, development can be evaluated through the different types of tourists and their effects on the host community which will influence the hosts’ responses (Tosun, 2002). Butler (1980) explained the host-guest relationship using a six stage model: exploration, involvement, consolidation, stagnation and decline or rejuvenation. According to Butler, residents’ responses are influenced and determined by the development, and so positive responses were apparent in the early stages of development; however negativity becomes evident towards the stagnation stage. This has been criticised by others who argued that such a model is not universally applicable to other destinations, and tourism destination in a community is not always linear as there are other contributing factors (Tosun, 2002). Bjorklund & Phlibrick (1972, p 8 as cited in Wall & Mathieson, 2006) analysed cross-cultural interactions of two or more groups through an attitudinal framework ( Figure 2.4.8).

Figure 2: Host/Attitudinal/behaviour responses to tourist activity

45

This framework proposed that residents’ attitudes and behaviours towards tourism development and impact can be classified into positive, negative, active and passive. This implies that residents have several responses at certain times or when they are facing certain circumstances. The response of people in each of the group does not necessarily need to be uniform; thus for instance the people who are involved in tourism may aggressively promote tourism, while those who are not involved may highly oppose the initiatives and the changes such development will bring (Wall & Mathieson, 2006). Likewise, residents can fall into any of the quadrants at any given time. The model tolerates heterogeneity and flexibility in the collective and individual responses to tourism in the community. There are several factors that affect or influence residents’ attitudes and perceptions towards tourism development and impacts, and there has been considerable research done on this area of tourism in the past decades (Simão & Môsso, 2013; Wall & Mathieson, 2006). These factors include socio-economic elements such as ethnicity, level of household income, educational level, residential areas, the length of time spent on the location, or they could be demographic characteristics such as age or gender. Other factors may include cultural variations and the stage of tourism development in the community.

While some authors have argued that there is a relationship between gender and attitude towards tourism and that females tend to support tourism development rather than the opposite, a study by Mason and Cheyne (2000) on gender proved this wrong. Another study by Lepp (2007) on residents’ attitudes towards tourism in Bigodi (Uganda) showed that residents' attitudes were positive towards tourism because they trusted that it would improve their agricultural markets, provide income, create community development and bring good fortune. The intensity and magnitude of the negative consequences of tourism development differs across places and can depend on several factors such as the characteristics of the place, the activities and the behaviours of the residents and the tourists (Andereck et al., 2005; Ribeiro et al., 2013).

A study by Ryan & Montgomery (1994, as cited in Mason & Cheyne, 2000) found that communities with high tourism activities supported tourism; however, there are still negative perceptions towards tourism. Carpenter (1994, as cited in Mason & Cheyne, 2000) also stressed the fear held by residents over their perception of the impact that tourism will have on their community. Some residents are of the view that the development of tourism will contribute to their lack of control over ecological conservation. Another study showed that local residents who have stronger attachment to community also have both positive and negative perceptions of tourism development. There are some studies which show that local residents who reside longer in a community are more aware of the impact of tourism and tend to have more negative perceptions (Mason & Cheyne, 2000).

46

Several studies on economic effects have indicated a positive perception towards tourism because it provides employment, investment and brings profits to entrepreneurs (Liu & Var 1986). Although negative perceptions of tourism stem from its contribution to the increment of the prices of goods and services, there is a positive perception that tourism contributes to an improved standard of living, income, tax takes, and attitudes towards work (Haralambolous and Pizam 1996). Thus, given these different reactions towards tourists and tourism, there are no everywhere-valid conclusions because things can vary according to the context and other factors (Sharpley, 2014).