A current research for the keywords “residents’ attitude & tourism development” in Google Scholar on 22/07/2012 returned 81,900 references, indicating that research into residents’
attitudes has occupied a significant space in the study of tourism. In this section, the author has summarized 10 representative case studies to summarise research into local residents’
attitudes and perceptions toward tourism development.
To analysis residents’ attitudes and to determine the key variables influencing those attitudes, a number of theories and models have been developed. Popular examples include Doxey’s (1975) Irridex Model, Butler’s (1980) Tourism Destination Lifecycle Model, and Ap’s (1992) Social exchange Theory. In this section, these models will be introduced separately.
Index of Tourist Irritation
Doxey’s (1975) “Irridex” model was one of the first models to explore residents’ attitudes.
This model suggests that local communities experience a sequence of reactions as the impacts of an evolving tourism industry in their area become more pronounced and over time their attitudes also change. The process by which this occurs evolves through stages of “euphoria-apathy-annoyance-antagonism”, and indicates that, as the tourism industry develops and the number of tourists increase, local residents’ attitudes change and become increasingly negative (Getz, 1994; Kwon, 2008). For example, in the Euphoria stage, visitors are welcome, and residents show enthusiasm about tourism; in the Apathy stage, residents start to concentrate on the benefits of tourism, and visitors are taken for granted (Mason, 2008; Wall
& Mathieson, 2006, Beeton, 2006), and in the latter stage residents are unhappy with the evolution of mass tourism. They begin to develop negative stereotypes about tourists, and begin to act on their dissatisfaction (Nancy, 2006, p.102).
- 42 -
Figure 2.1 Doxey’s Irritation Index
Euphoria Residents show enthusiasm about tourism and they want more visitors at the early stage of tourism development
Apathy Residents start to concentrate on the benefits of tourism that bring to the community.
Annoyance Saturation is approached, residents begin to aware of their life more or less affected by tourists
Antagonism Residents feel their life has been changed caused expensive life
costs, inappropriate tourists‟ behaviour, unrespect local culture, etc.
Residents are very angry about mass tourist at this level
Sources: Wall & Mathieson, 2006, p. 228; Mason, 2008, p.29
Social exchange theory
Social exchange theory has been accepted as an appropriate tool to explain residents’
attitudes and perceptions of tourism development. It indicated that individuals or groups will engage in an exchange if they feel mutual benefit, and perceived costs do not exceed perceived rewards (Skidmore, 1975). With regard to tourism development, community groups are keen to support tourism development if they find the exchange beneficial for their well-being; otherwise, if community groups see the exchange as problematic, they will be against the exchange and oppose tourism development (Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003;
Easterling, 2004). In other words, social exchange theory supports the view that community members “balance the costs and benefits of tourism development and their support for tourism depends on the outcome of this cost-benefits equation” (Pearce, Moscardo, & Ross, 1996). Latkova (2008, p.21) has summarized the both strengths and problems of social exchange, as follows:
Strengths
1. “Considers heterogeneity of communities, thus explains why there are different attitudes within the same community,
- 43 -
2. Explains both positive and negative effects of a phenomenon under study, 3. Can explain relationship at both individual and collective levels,
4. Provide understandings of exchange of social, environmental, cultural and economic resources, thus the evaluation of the exchange process is complex and dynamic, 5. Individual’s evaluation of social, environmental, cultural and economic benefits/cost
differs based on personal benefits/cost measures,
6. Individuals evaluate a range of interacting costs and benefits before they make a rational decision based on individual interactions and community outcomes,
Weakness
1. Not all people who enter exchange have complete or correct information,
2. Assumes individuals’ knowledge is a result of direct experience rather than socially and historically derived,
3. Suggests those who perceive benefits will also perceive higher positive impacts but the simple theory it does not consider the nature of interaction or stage of tourism development,
4. Residents vary in the degree to which they benefits/ bear the costs (Easterling, 2004)”
Butler – tourism area life cycle
The conceptual framework of the Tourism Area Life Cycle has been frequently examined since 1980. Butler‘s (1980) Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) described the relationship between tourism development stages (exploration, involvement, development, consolidation, stagnation, decline and rejuvenation) and their impacts. In other words, it indicates that the environmental, social and economic situation of a tourism area will change over time as an area moves through the different stages. Based on this theory, it is assumed that there is a cycle in the development of tourist resorts. Initially, at exploration stage, there is only a small number of visitors and no specific facilities are provided for them. As awareness of the destination increases, the number of visitors increases. As such, in the involvement stage, local residents begin to provide facilities for visitors, and some level of organization in tourists travel arrangements can be expected. In the following development stage, the area has been defined as a significant tourist market destination, local involvement and control of development will decline rapidly, and external capital becomes increasingly dominant and provides larger facilities. In this stage, the number of tourist in peak periods will exceed the
- 44 -
permanent local population. At the next stage, namely the consolidation stage, the rate of increase in numbers of visitors will decline but local areas are mainly dependent on the tourism industry; and there are some opposition and discontent among local residents. This may be followed by a period of consolidation follow by stagnation when the destination has already a well-established image but will no longer be in fashion. As a result, the destination will have a heavy reliance on repeat visitation. In the final decline stage, the destination will not be able to compete with other newer attractions and face a declining market; many facilities disappear or become less attractive, but local involvement begins to increase at this stage, because they can purchase facilities at lower prices and may need to be involved in possible rejuvenation policies (Butler, 1980; Mason, 2008).
After two decades, Butler (2008) revisited his 1980’s model, and highlighted some aspects to explain the growth, change, limits, and intervention in a tourism area that are used to guide more particular use of the model, such as by Rodríguez et al., (2008) who applied the model to determine and explain stages of tourism development in Canary Islands, Spain. Kamat (2010) attempted to evaluate the Goa tourism industry performance through Butler’s Life Cycle model, concluding that Goa’s beach tourism had not reached the stagnation stage. In China, Zhong, Deng and Xiang (2008) employed this model to analyse the Zhangjiajie National Forest Park life cycle, concluding that the park had experienced three stages (exploration stage, involvement stage, development stage) and that currently the park is at the consolidation stage.
- 45 -
Figure 2.2 Stages in tourist area life cycle Butler (1980, p. 7)
2.3.4.2 Factors influence residents’ perceptions and attitude toward tourism