www.elsevier.

com/locate/atoures

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 231253, 2002 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain 0160-7383/01/$22.00

PII: S0160-7383(01)00039-1

HOST PERCEPTIONS OF IMPACTS

A Comparative Tourism Study
Cevat Tosun Mustafa Kemal University, Turkey
Abstract: This study investigates resident perceptions of tourism impacts on a Turkish town in absolute and relative terms and draws implications for marketing and destination management from the results. Personal interviews were conducted with household heads and results compared with Fijian and American case studies. Comparative gures suggest that the Turkish residents were generally less supportive of the tourism industry and had fewer positive perceptions of its impacts when compared to the other two cases. It is suggested that a participatory model be implemented to integrate tourism into the local development in the Turkish town. Keywords: tourism impacts, host perceptions, comparative analysis, Turkey, Florida, Fiji. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. sume : Perceptions des impacts par la communaute Re daccueil: une e tude comparative de tourisme. Cette e tude examine les perceptions relatives et absolues de la part des habitants au sujet des impacts du tourisme dans une ville turque et trouve dans les re sultats quelques implications pour le marketing et la gestion des destinations. On a fait une enque te aupre `s des chefs de famille, et on a compare les re sultats avec des e tudes de cas a ` Fidji et en Floride. Des chiffres comparatifs sugge ` rent que les habitants turcs e taient moins favorables a ` lindustrie de tourisme et quils avaient moins de perceptions positives des impacts du tourisme en comparaison aux deux autres cas. On sugge ` re la mise en uvre dun mode ` le participatif s: impacts an dinte grer le tourisme au de veloppement local dans la ville turque. Mots-cle du tourisme, perceptions de la communaute daccueil, analyse comparative, Turquie, Floride, Fidji. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Perceptions of various impacts of tourism have been extensively researched since the 70s. Most studies have concentrated on how various segments of host communities react differently to tourism impacts. The majority of this research has focused on a single host community or small numbers of neighboring areas. This study extends previous studiesthrough its comparative analysis of three case studies of residents perceptions of tourism. Results of the research conducted in Urgup, Turkey, were compared with those from two previous and similar studies that investigated residents perceptions of the impact of tourism in Nadi, Fiji, and Central Florida (Milman and Pizam 1988; King, Pizam and Milman 1993).

Cevat Tosun is Associate Professor and Director of School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Mustafa Kemal University (31200 Antakya, Turkey. Email <cevattosun@hotmail.com>). He served as Fulbright Scholar and Visiting Professor at the University of Northern Iowa during the 20012002 academic year. His research interests include participatory development, sustainable development, and social and economic impacts of tourism. 231

232

IMPACT PERCEPTIONS

Scholars suggest that although the social impact of tourism has been extensively studied, it should be further investigated in other geographical locations in order to form the foundation of some new hypotheses in the development of a theory of the social impacts of tourism (King, Pizam and Milman 1993:663). However, Dann, Nash and Pearce (1988) and Van Doorn (1989) have argued that it is not easy to derive theory from individual tourism impact case studies, since each individual case brings with it so many idiosyncratic peculiarities. Moreover, existing impact studies are seen as quasi-intellectual ndings pretending worldwide validity, but which in fact do not go beyond small-talk at a social gathering (Van Doorn 1989:89). This study aims to be more than small-talk and endeavors at contributing to the body of knowledge concerning the perceptions of host communities towards the presence of tourists and tourism. Stages or step models remain popular in determining tourism impacts and community responses. In 1978, Smith evaluated development in terms of waves of tourist types and presented his seven-stage model to expand the understanding of community impacts. Doxey (1975) explained hostguest interactions and relationship via the irritation index that includes four stages: euphoria, apathy, irritation, and antagonism. Butler (1980) also developed a stage-related model but focused on the more general issue of the evolution of tourism areas; however, the model considered the attitudes of residents and community support for the industry as part of wider issues of development. Butler argued that destinations evolve via the stages of exploration, involvement, development, consolidation, and stagnation, followed by either decline or rejuvenation. This model claims that social impacts emerge in the stages of consolidation and stagnation. The large numbers of visitors and the facilities provided for them can be expected to arouse some opposition and discontent among permanent residents, since at the stagnation stage capacity levels for many variables will have been reached or exceeded with attendant environmental, social, and economic problems (1980:8). Evidence suggests, however, that this is not always the case. For example, it was reported with special reference to Nadi, Fiji, that in spite of very high levels of development and contact with tourists, residents perceived social impacts to be positive (King, Pizam and Milman 1993). Dowlings (1993) study agreed with the above conclusion and noted that although tourist ratios increased dramatically (from 1:10 to 1:150) in six years, along with the emergence of considerable environmental impact problems, residents of Shark Bay in Western Australia are still very positive about the industry and strongly support its expansion. Nevertheless, several authors argued that it is very difcult to operationalize stage or step based models in terms of perceptions of social impacts (Johnson, Snepenger and Akis 1994; Pearce, Moscardo and Ross 1996). Perhaps, because of these difculties, several authors have adopted social survey methods to generate data on how host communities perceive tourism development and tourists. For the same reasons this research has also utilized social survey methods. Although some of the social impacts are known and can be observed,

CEVAT TOSUN

233

it is often difcult to measure the known impact. However, current research indicates that tourism as a factor of change can affect traditional family values (Kousis 1989), cause cultural commercialization (Cohen 1988), increase the crime rate (Nicholls 1976), and lead to negative elements such as prostitution (Cohen 1988) and gambling (Pizam and Pokela 1985). Further, tourism development may create social conicts at the destination community due to the sociocultural differences, economic welfare, and purchasing power gaps between the host community and tourists. In brief, it was found that host communities attitudes and perceptions toward development and tourists uctuate continuously between the negative and the positive (King, Pizam and Milman 1993; Pizam 1978). In this regard, most conclusions on the impacts of tourism development are that economic impacts are perceived as mostly positive while sociocultural, legal, and environmental impacts, in many cases, are viewed as negative and in some cases neutral. Several studies found that residents beneting from tourism have a higher level of support for it and thus report more positive impacts (Husbands 1989; Madrigal 1993; Lankford and Howard 1994). However, King, Pizam and Milman (1993) pointed out that those people with personal benets from tourism are also more likely than others to report negative impacts. In other words, perceptions of positive benets are signicantly related to personal benets from tourism, but they themselves do not explain very much the perceived negative impacts (Pearce, Moscardo and Ross 1996). Dogan (1989) emphasized that tourism from developed countries has negative sociocultural impacts such as the decline in traditions, materialization, increase in crime rates, social conicts, crowding, environmental deterioration, and dependency on the industrial countries on the part of the members of the developing world. Moreover, Dogan claimed that tourism development and presence of tourists has changed the sociocultural structure and diversied previously homogenous host communities. Mansfeld (1992) found that people living further from tourism areas were more negative about the impacts, but Sheldon and Var (1984) reported that residents in higher tourist density areas were more positive about the industry. Although Pizam (1978) found that residents with more contact felt negatively about tourism, Rothman (1978) reported that residents with high contact had positive perception. This difference may be explained by the site-specic conditions under which tourists and hosts interact. To Varley (1978), some of the social problems emerged in Fiji because of the relatively wealthy international tourists in a developing society characterized by relatively lower standards of living. Reising (1994) has argued that the consequences of social contact between tourists and hosts largely depend upon their cultural backgrounds, and the conditions under which they interact. Social contact between individuals from different cultural backgrounds might result in negative attitudes, perceptions, and experiences. On the other hand, while Davis, Allen and Cosenza (1988) found that residents who were natives were more positive about tourism than newcomers to the community, Lankford and Howard

234

IMPACT PERCEPTIONS

(1994) reported no signicant relationship between community attachment and perceptions of tourism. However, according to McCool and Martin (1994), a greater sense of belonging to a country was correlated with higher ratings of both positive and negative impacts of tourism. The Tourism Development Case in Turkey Urgup is one of the major centers in the Cappadocia region that is located in the heart of Asia Minor or Anatolia. It has a permanent population of around 12,000 people. Its territory encompasses an area of 574 square km that constitutes 10% of the total area of the Cappadocia region (Figure 1). A vast majority of the local population (70%) works in agriculture, 15% deal with trades, 10% have independent businesses, and 5% have jobs in other areas. Viniculture and stockbreeding are dominant in the agricultural sector (Ulku 1996). The local community has all the peculiarities of typical Anatolian culture. Extended family structures are frequent, which strengthens communal relations. Foreign independent tourists started visiting Urgup for cultural and religious reasons in the mid-50s. Between the 50s and 70s, local people built and operated small-scale establishments such as a range of accommodation facilities, restaurants, and souvenir shops. Because the locals did not have large amounts of capital and because only a small number of foreign tourists were visiting the region for cultural and religious reasons, development remained small scale until the end of 1982 (Tosun 1998a). With the 1982 Tourism Incentives Act No. 2634, the

Figure 1. Cappadocia 1/25,000 Scale Master Plan (Ministry of Tourism 1986)

CEVAT TOSUN

235

Cappadocia region, including Urgup, was determined as one of several tourism regions. These have the highest priority in terms of tourism development, and construction is supposed to be kept strictly under control. The main criteria for establishing these regions is their potential to attract maximum numbers of tourists who are expected to bring maximum foreign currency earnings. The central government supported large-scale development via generous scal, monetary, and other incentives. In the absence of large-scale local capital, outsiders have invested in the industry in Urgup. Generally speaking, the foundation of this development in Turkey was established during sociopolitical unrest and serious economic crises, via enacting the aforementioned 1982 tourism act and Turkish Travel Agencies Association Act No. 1618 in 1970 by the military-led governments. These legislations appear myopic and have ignored many fundamental sociocultural, developmental, and economic concerns, particularly at local and regional levels. For example, Cappadocia in general and Urgup in particular have historically been visited by foreigners for cultural and religious pilgrimage. Turkey, however, has been promoted by international tour operators and the Ministry of Tourism to satisfy the traditional needs of mass tourists for sun, sea, and sand. Although Urgup does not have sea and sand, tourists visiting coastal destinations in Turkey for all three have also visited Urgup for brief (2-nights and 3-days) periods (Tosun 1998b). Local cultural values have been used as a commodity and marketing tool and have been over-commercialized as a result of using them at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong standards. Consequently, a false and dubious image has emerged, deliberately or not, about the local community. Research Methodology This study employed the research instrument that was developed for similar studies involving central Florida (Milman and Pizam 1988) and Nadi (King, Pizam and Milman 1993). By bearing in mind the distinct Turkish sociocultural settings in central Anatolia and site-specic limitations in the eld study area, the questionnaire was revised and conducted through personal interviews to determine perceptions held by Urgups residents. For example, using place of birth and length of residency may be poor measures to indicate the association between attachment to place or community and residents perceptions towards the industry and its customers. Thus, this study added a variable representing the respondents sense of belonging to Urgup. Moreover, a limited list of occupations given to the respondents, included one category of work clearly identied as being within tourism and was worded according to societal perceptions of occupations in Turkey. Systematic random sampling was utilized for sample selection (and a sampling fraction was used by dividing the population size by the desired sample size of 280). In this study, the population size was the number of households in Urgup. For the population of 3,500 and sample of 280, the sampling fraction was found to be 1/13. In turn, 280

236

IMPACT PERCEPTIONS

households representing 8% of the population were visited to conduct interviews during weekends and after 6 pm on weekdays. In order to minimize any language and translation problems, interviews were conducted by the principal investigator who is uent in both Turkish and English. Heads of households were interviewed. If absent, a copy of the questionnaire was left behind along with the request that the head of the household complete and return it to the ofce of the neighborhood headman on each street. This brought 241 out of 280 questionnaires. Due to the characteristic of the sampling frame, the sampling did not suffer from the periodicity problem of certain types of individuals reoccurring at regular intervals. However, despite every effort made to eliminate limitations from the study, several have remained. For example, due to sociocultural reasons, male respondents dominated the sample and the relatively small numbers of female respondents were not very informative. In addition, only willing local people were interviewed. This may have created problems of representation. There was no control over who participated in the study and the results might be biased by either favorable or unfavorable responses. HOST PERCEPTIONS OF TOURISM IMPACT As already noted, this study was a comparative attempt of three case studies of residents perceptions of tourism for the purposes of generalization. Thus, it may be helpful to rst elaborate on the bases of the comparability of these casesnamely Urgup, Nadi, and Central Florida. To this end, sampling and methodology, study variables, data analysis techniques, and ndings were identied as the bases for this comparison. All cases employed the same questionnaire developed for the study in Central Florida several years ago (Milman and Pizam 1988). However, in each case, the instrument was adapted to the unique environmental setting in which the study was conducted by including additional items and/or rewording some of the items. The three cases employed different types of probability sampling based on various factors such as the availability of good sampling frames, funding, the desired level of accuracy in the sample homogeneity or heterogeneity of the sample population, and site-specic factors under which the studies were conducted. They all identied female or male heads of households in their sampling population in the host communities. Although a different sample size was identied in each case, the numbers of completed interviews were similar; 241, 199, and 203 for Urgup, Nadi, and Central Florida, respectively. While they all utilized a very similar questionnaire to collect data, their data collection methods differed. Face-to-face interviews were conducted in Urgup and Nadi, and telephone interviews in Central Florida. In brief, the research methods and sampling techniques of the three studies share more similarities than differences. While they have common bases for comparison, their dates of investigation were not the same. Data for the research in Urgup was collected in 1999, Nadi in 1992, and Central Florida in 1986. The differences in the time frames need

CEVAT TOSUN

237

to be noted as having possible unspecied effects on the results and thus the comparison. It was not a problem to identify variables to compare, since the questionnaire content used by the three studies were identical to a large extent. In sum, the nine sets of variables identied for the purpose of comparison were feelings about the presence of tourists, perceptions about the impacts of the presence of tourism on the destinations image, 16 tourism impact variables (Table 1), the appeal of certain occupations, perceived degree of similarity between tourists and locals, differences between international and domestic tourists, social relationships with tourists, overall opinions of the industry, and opinions on the volume of tourists visiting the community. Additionally,

Table 1. Comparison of Perceived Tourism Impactsa

Impact Variables Urgup Mean Urgup SD Nadib Mean Nadi SD C. C. Floridac Florida Mean SD 2.54 2.3 2.9 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.98 3.1 3.3 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.7 3.3 4.0 3.6 1.6 3.8 3.4 2.9

Legal Factor Grand Mean Individual crime Morality Drug addiction Organized crime Alcoholism Social Factor Grand Mean Attitude toward working Courtesy and hospitality toward strangers Politeness and good manners Mutual condence among people People honesty Openness to sexual behavior Economic Factor Grand Mean Employment opportunities Towns overall tax revenue Trafc conditions Income and standard of living Quality of life in general Grand Mean of Sixteen Impact Variables

1.84 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.3 2.2 2.8 2.6 2.6 2 2 1.3 3.3 4 3.9 3.1 2.9 2.6 2.4

.9 .7 .9 1.4 .6 1.4 1.2 1.3 1 .9 .7

2.22 2.1 2.9 2.1 2.1 1.9 3.4 3.9 3.7 3.1 3.6 2.8 2.3 3.7 4.4 4.2 2.4 4.1 3.7 3.1

1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 .9 .9 .5 .9 .5 1.2 1.2

.7 .8 .7 .7 .6 .6 .9 .8 .6 .6 .7

1.1 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4

.7 .8 1.0 .9 .6

.9 1.1 .8 .9 .9

a What impact do you think the current level of tourism would have on the following issues? Scale: 1=Signicantly worsen; 2=Worsen somewhat; 3=Not make any difference; 4=Impro somewhat; 5=Signicantly improve. b King, Pizam and Milman (1993). c Milman and Pizam 1988.

238

IMPACT PERCEPTIONS

variables related to the general prole of the respondents were also considered in relative terms. Generally speaking, the cases also used a very similar set of data analysis techniques. They employed frequency and mean (central tendencies) as tools of descriptive data analysis, t-test, ANOVA, and correlation as instruments of bivariate analysis, and R-type factor analysis and step-wise multiple regressions as means of multivariate data analysis techniques. Altogether the three cases have more similarities than differences in terms of research methods, sampling, data collection instruments, administration of eld study, variables employed, and data analysis techniques. These commonalities have provided sufcient bases to make a meaningful comparison. Respondents and their Attitude toward Tourism An examination of the general prole of respondents in the three cases indicates similarities as well as differences. Although respondents length of residency, marital status, and employment status are very close in all cases, their levels of education and annual median income differ. While a majority of the respondents in Central Florida had a college degree, most of the respondents had a secondary school certicate in Nadi and a primary school certicate in Urgup. Interestingly, though, only 4% of the respondents had no children under 18 living with them in Urgup, while the corresponding gures for Central Florida and Nadi were 65% and 21%, respectively. Moreover, the annual median income of the respondents in Central Florida was much higher than of respondents in Urgup and Nadi. On the other hand, while a vast majority of the respondents (94%) from Nadi declared themselves as being employed by or associated with tourism, these gures were only 10% in Urgup and 11% in Central Florida. Although differences and similarities among general proles of the respondents in these case studies may have unknown effects on residents perceptions of tourism impacts in relative terms, this cannot be explained by the present study due to its scope and limitations. In general, respondents in all three cases expressed positive attitudes towards tourism. However, a closer look into comparative gures suggests that respondents in Central Florida and Nadi had a more positive attitude than those in Urgup. While the mean value of the interval variable feeling about the presence of tourists was 4.3 for Nadi and 4.2 for Central Florida, it was 3.5 for Urgup. However, a majority of the respondents in Central Florida (63.2%) and Urguo (67.7%) stated that the industry improved somewhat or signicantly the image of Central Florida and Urgup, while the corresponding gure for Nadi (90.7%) was much higher. The impact of tourism on various social and economic activities and concerns was also investigated. Sixteen variables were considered in relative terms with regard to its impacts (1=signicantly worsened as a result of tourisms presence and 5=signicantly improved); the variables mean values between 1 and 2.4 showed negative perceptions, 2.5 and 3.4 neutral, and 3.5 and 5 positive (Table 1). When it is gen-

CEVAT TOSUN

239

eralized for the purpose of comparison, it can be said that the respondents in the three cases perceived the impact of tourism on employment opportunities and overall tax revenue as positive. Respondents in all three cases believed that tourism had no impacts on politeness and manners, but had negative impacts on drug addiction, individual crime, and organized crime. Although six out of 16 were the only variables perceived by the three communities in a similar direction, the variables perceived as negative, neutral, and positive by the three communities were generally different. For example, the respondents in Urgup perceived that the current level of tourism had no signicant impacts on trafc conditions, income and standard of living, attitudes toward work, courtesy and hospitality toward strangers, quality of life in general, and politeness and manners; for Nadi, the corresponding variables were morality, politeness, and good manners, and peoples honesty; and for Central Florida these were morality, politeness and manners, sexual permissiveness, peoples honesty, attitudes towards work, and mutual condence. In brief, as Table 1 shows, the variables perceived as negative, neutral, and/or positive by each community were not identical. The central tendencies of the respondents, however, indicate that the host community in Urgup had a more negative perception of the industry than those in Nadi and Central Florida. For example, the grand mean of the 16 impact variables was only 2.4 for Urgup, but 3.1 and 2.9 for Nadi and Central Florida, respectively. For a better and more comprehensive comparison it may be useful to classify these 16 impact variables under the legal, social, and economic factors. As illustrated in Table 1, the grand mean of legal factor variables is lowest for Urgup and highest for Central Florida. Evidently, Central Floridians perceived the legal impacts of tourism more favorably than did the other two populations, being between negative and neutral, while Urgup and Nadi had a negative perception. Interestingly, for social impacts, residents of Nadi had positive perceptions, residents of Urgup had negative ones, and residents of Central Florida neutral perceptions. Not surprisingly, the three communities in question perceived positively the economic impacts of tourism. The difference among these three perceptions of all impacts may not be explained in detail based upon the current available data. For example, one may argue, with special references to Turkey, as Morrison and Selman do, that there exists the danger of wide gaps in culture and ethics between host and tourist communities (1991:118). But the perceived degree of similarity between tourists and locals by the respondents in the three cases did not support this argument. As indicated, mean values of the variables representing differences between the host and guest groups do not vary much (1.3 for Urgup, 1.7 for Nadi, and 1.1 for Central Florida). Thus, further interpretation without additional research in this regard seems speculative rather than scientic. As to local residents willingness to take jobs in the tourism and hospitality industry, personal willingness of the respondents to accept jobs was similar to their willingness to suggest to their friends or rela-

240

IMPACT PERCEPTIONS

tives to work in the industry. In Urgup, 59% of the respondents stated that local people would willingly take jobs in the industry (Central Florida 63%, and Nadi 97%). Similarly, a majority of respondents in all the cases were willing to suggest their friends and relatives employment in the industry (68%, 90%, and 75% for Urgup, Nadi, and Central Florida, respectively). Interestingly, more respondents in Central Florida and Urgup would recommend in taking tourism jobs than would do the same themselves; but, the corresponding gures were reversed in Nadi. This may be partly explained by the employment gures: as noted, while 94% of respondents in Nadi stated that they were employed in tourism, the gures were much lower in Urgup (10%) and Central Florida (11%). The survey also set out to investigate attitudes towards tourism employment in relative terms. Respondents were asked to choose their preferred occupations from a limited list that included one category of work clearly identied as being within the industry (that is, hotel worker in the case of Nadi; hotel receptionist in the case of Central Florida and Urgup). The most preferred job in Urgup (48.5%) and Central Florida (31.9%) was schoolteacher, while for Nadi, it was hotel worker (67.4%). The rst preference was followed by ofcer in the armed forces in Urgup (14.5%), hotel receptionist in Central Florida (18.1%), and shop owner in Nadi (11.3%). When job preferences were arranged from the most wanted category to the least preferred one, the most unwanted category was hotel receptionist in Urgup (2.5%) and foreman in a factory in Nadi and Central Florida, though it should be acknowledged that the range of occupations offered to respondents was limited. Several questions were asked to gauge general and current perceptions of residents towards tourists. The results were again compared with the previous cases of Nadi and Central Florida. While a majority of the respondents described tourists in general and international tourists in particular as being very different from local people in Urgup (78.4%) and Nadi (75.9%), only a few did so in Central Florida (6%). These results are not surprising since a vast majority of tourists visiting developing countries such as Turkey and Fiji come from developed countries, whereas tourists visiting destinations in developed countries come from other developed countries. Naturally, there appear to be considerable socioeconomic gaps between tourists and locals in developing countries, which may inuence respondents perceptions. On the other hand, although respondents in Nadi (73.8%) stated that international tourists were very different from the domestic ones; this gure was much lower for Urgup (22.1%) and Central Florida (19.7%). When asked about social relationships, a majority of respondents in Urgup (62.6%) stated that they had no contact with tourists, while those in Nadi (64.5%) had constant contacts and in Central Florida (56.7%) some contacts. In other words, relatively few respondents (37.4%) in Urgup had contact with tourists, but many in Nadi (88%) and Central Florida (69.5%) did. This frequent contact in Nadi may relate to respondents high levels of employment in the industry; and

CEVAT TOSUN

241

the rare contact in Urgup may result from residents low levels of education, lack of a foreign language, and perceptions of international tourists as very different from themselves. Moreover, although about 85% of the Urgup respondents claimed that they or their families did not maintain correspondence with tourists, more than half of the respondents in Nadi (58%) stated that they did.
Given that overwhelming proportions of tourists to Nadi are residents of foreign countries, this is a remarkably high gure. Several alternative explanations can be given. The issue of social desirability, namely a tendency to answer questions in a proper or socially desirable manner is one possible explanation. The much-publicized friendliness of the people of Fiji and the consequent interest that they share in people from other places is a second possibility. Finally, a third possibility might be correspondence with tourists who are friends or relatives and reside in foreign countries, such as India (King, Pizam and Milman 1993:6589).

Respondents overall attitudes towards tourism activity in Urgup, Nadi, and Central Florida were also considered in relative terms. The reported mean values of the variable (3.4, 4.2, and 4.0 for Urgup, Nadi, and Central Florida, respectively) suggest that the central tendency of the respondents in Urgup was to neither oppose nor favor tourism, whereas that in Nadi and Central Florida was to favor it. Similarly, though a majority of respondents supported or strongly supported expansion of tourism in Nadi (82.3%) and Central Florida (58.2%), less than half (42.5%) favored or strongly favored expansion in Urgup. Interestingly, in all three cases only a small proportion of the respondents strongly or somewhat opposed the expansion of tourists numbers visiting their communities. Bivariate and Multivariate Relationships Both bivariate and multivariate statistical analyses were employed to explain the relationship between the sociodemographic variables and respondents support and to predict the level of inuence of the former and tourism impact variables on support of the respondents for the industry. In all three cases, a series of one-way analysis of variance, t-tests, and Pearson correlation as bivariate statistical techniques were used to examine the relationship between the sociodemographics variables and respondents support. This in all cases was measured by three different variables: feelings toward the presence of tourists (DV1), feelings about controlling tourist numbers (DV2), and overall opinion about the industry in Urgup (DV3). In the cases of Urgup and Central Florida (Milman and Pizam 1988), it was found that the DV1, DV2, and DV3 variables were correlated with each other at statistically signicant and moderate levels; thus a new variable (DV4) was created by an index of the sum of these variables (DV1+DV2+DV3). However, in the case of Nadi it was found that the variables were not highly correlated with each other and thus overall opinion about the tourism industry in Nadi was used as the sole dependent variable without combining the three into an index.

242

IMPACT PERCEPTIONS

The correlation analysisbetween number of children in the household under 18, level of education, household income, sense of belonging to Urgup, number of years living in the area, and age, on the one hand, and the level of support for the industry which was measured by DV1, DV2, DV3, and DV4, on the otherillustrated positive but weak associations at a statistically signicant level between the variables used as indicators of level of support for tourism (DV1, DV2, DV3, and DV4), and some of those sociodemographic variables such as age, sense of belonging to Urgup, and length of residency. The associations between these variables representing residents support for the industry in Urgup and number of children under 18 in the household, level of education, and household income were statistically insignicant. In the case of Central Florida, Pearson product-moment correlations between age, number of children, and years living in the area, on the one hand, and the level of support for tourism, on the other, resulted in low and insignicant correlations (.13; .04; .13, respectively) (Milman and Pizam 1988). However, in the case of Nadi, the higher the number of children under 18 living in the household, the less support was found for tourism (r = .42). One-way analysis of variance among level of education, household income, marital status, and the level of support for tourism found that this does not vary signicantly based on education and income levels and marital status. The only difference was found among those who had monthly household incomes of $502 to $750 (mean = .00, p .05). Those had a lower level of support for the industry than respondents in the $377 to $500 (mean = 3.3, p .05), less than $172.5 (mean = 3.5, p .05), $145 $250 (mean = 3.6, p .05), and $252$375 (mean = 3.7, p .05) according to a Duncan Test with a signicance level of .05. It should be noted that differences were found between variable DV1 representing feelings toward the presence of tourists in Urgup and income groups, but no two income groups were signicantly different at the .05 level when the level of support variables were represented by DV2, DV3, and DV4. Results of a one-way ANOVA in the case of Nadi indicated that residents in the 5161 age group had a more positive opinion about tourism in the Nadi area (mean = 4.6) than respondents in the 2939 age group (mean = 4.1). The bivariate analysis in question in the case of Central Florida showed that the respondents who had an annual household income of $40,000 to $50,000 had higher levels of support for the industry than those in the $20,000 to $30,000 category (mean = 12.8 vs. 11.3; F=2.6; p = .01). The other income categories did not differ signicantly from each other in levels of support (Milman and Pizam 1988); although while a higher income group ($502 to $750) had lower levels of support for tourism than lower income groups in Urgup, the relationship in the case of Central Florida was reversed. A series of t-tests conducted with the variables of gender, presence of children under 18 in the household, tourism employment, and family employed in the industry illustrated no signicant differences between these groups with regard to level of support for tourism in Urgup according to Levenes test for equality of variance. In the case of Nadi,

CEVAT TOSUN

243

t-test results showed that respondents who had children under 18 living in their households were more favorably disposed to tourism (mean = 4.3) than those without children under the age of 18 in the household (mean = 3.6) (King, Pizam and Milman 1992). In relation to Central Florida, the notable t-test results were as follows: male respondents more than female expressed a higher level of support for the industry (mean = 12.1 vs. 11.4; t = 1.96; p = .05); those who were employed in tourism had a higher level of support for it than respondents who were not so employed (mean = 13.3 vs. 11.6; t = 4.85; p = .0001); and those whose family members were employed in the industry had higher levels of support for it than those with no family members direct employed in tourism (mean = 12.8 vs. 11.6; t = 2.76; p = .009) (Milman and Pizam 1988). Generally speaking, based upon the results of bivariate statistical analysis such as correlation analysis, one-way ANOVA, and t-tests, it may be said that most demographic variables do not inuence respondents level of support for tourism, although there were some notable exceptions in all three cases. For example, in Urgup, there was a weak but positive correlation between age, sense of belonging to Urgup, and length of residency, and the level of support for the industry. In the case of Central Florida, the only notable exceptions were gender, respondents family employed in tourism, and respondents own employment in the industry, and in the case of Nadi it was children under 18 living with the respondents. Predictors of the Level of Support Stepwise multiple regressions and R-type factor analysis were used in the multivariate data analyses. In the case of Nadi, one stepwise multiple regression was performed. For Urgup and Central Florida initially four step-wise multiple-regressions were conducted to explain what factors affect respondents overall perceptions of tourism. For this study these multiple regression equations were formulated as follows: Y1 = b1X1 + b2X2 + + b36X36 + e1 Y3 = b1X1 + b2X2 + + b36X36 + e3 Y2 = b1X1 + b2X2 + + b36X36 + e2 Y4 = b1X1 + b2X2 + + b36X36 + e4

where Y1 through Y4 represent four independent variables. Y1 denotes feelings about the presence of tourists (DV1), Y2 through Y4 denote feelings about controlling the number of tourists (DV2), overall opinion about the industry in Urgup (DV3), and the new variable (DV4) created by an index of the sum of these three variables (DV1+DV2+DV3). X1 through X36 correspond to 36 independent variables: 16 impact variables; eight sociodemographic variables; 12 variables describing perceptions and social relations with tourists and willingness to work in the industry. It was found that several independent variables signicantly predicted the respondents level of support for tourism in Urgup. However, the amount of variance explained in each of the four regressions was not high. Total variances explained (R2)

244

IMPACT PERCEPTIONS

for these dependent variables were .30 for Y1, .27 for Y2, .35 for Y3, and .45 for Y4 in the case of Urgup, while these gures for Central Florida were .44 for Y1, Y2, and Y3, and .50 for Y4. The corresponding gure for Nadi was .69 for Y1. Seven out of the 36 variables in the multiple regression equation explained 45% of the variance in residents attitudes towards tourism for the dependent variable Y4. Urgup residents whose overall opinion was positive were found to have a number of personal characteristics and perceptions. They believed that tourism was improving Urgups image; that they would not suggest a job in the industry to any of their friends; that they had family members employed in tourism; that they had lower levels of education; that this business did not have a negative impact on morality; that it improved their quality of life; and that it improved mutual condence among people. In the case of Central Florida, eight out of the 34 variables explained 50% of the variance in residents attitudes towards tourism. More explicitly, the supporting Floridan respondents have the following perceptions and personal peculiarities (Milman and Pizam 1988)they stated that tourism was improving their quality of life and the image of their community; that the industry did not have any impacts on drug addiction; that their incomes and standard of living were improved by the industry; that they would suggest a tourism job to a friend; that they were employed in the industry themselves; and that tourism did not have any effect on the introduction of organized crime. In the case of Urgup, a factor analysis was conducted using the 16 independent variables (Table 1). The R-type factor analysis approach was used with a Varimax rotation technique on the variables representing current levels of tourism impacts. Five factors emerged from the analysis, explaining 55.6% of the variation. As a rule of thumb, factor loadings greater than .30 are considered signicant, loadings of .40 or greater are considered more important and .50 or greater as very signicant (Hair, Anderson, Thatan and Black 1995). In this study, factor loadings over 50% (Table 2) were utilized. A new regression analysis was conducted by including those ve factors representing 16 independent impact variables against the combined dependent variable (DV1+DV2+DV3) denoted by Y5. The multiple regression equation was formulated as follows: Y5 = b1X1 + b2X2 + + b25X25 + e5 It was found that ve of the 25 independent variables (X1 through X25) signicantly predicted respondents level of support for tourism in Urgup (Table 3). Residents in favor of the industry were found to have the following individual peculiarities and perceptionsthey believed that it was improving the image of their community; they would not suggest a tourism job; they had members of their family working in this industry; and they had lower levels of education. The regression model contained ve factors as a new set of independent variables explaining 42.4% of the variance (Table 3). To test multicollinearity and collinearity, tolerance values and variance ination factor

CEVAT TOSUN

245

Table 2. Factors Representing Current Level of Tourism Impacts in Urgupa

Impact Variables Factor 1 Factor 2 .37162 .06195 .17568 .09244 .02903 .12075 .17024 .13515 .27969 .09409 .02888 .61170 .33073 .70366 Factor 3 .00763 .05550 .01838 .12628 .20495 .00645 .77823 .41984 .16388 .80007 .08460 .15547 .05379 .01902 .04702 .12491 1.4 8.6 42.1 Factor 4 .33498 .17599 .05113 .18743 .64152 .83484 .20364 .15948 .22033 .05088 .13721 .02698 .14293 .12217 .04694 .10644 1.1 6.9 49.0 Factor 5 .28379 .75707 .58073 .34449 .10212 .10182 .11001 .20437 .10125 .08325 .01782 .04733 .03143 .02426

Morality .41298 Income and standard .00607 of living Employment .53551 opportunities Trafc conditions .59614 Crime .34966 Organized crime .01318 Alcoholism .12887 Drug addiction .54047 Politeness and good .47368 manners Openness to sexual .08462 behavior Overall tax revenue .67730 People honesty .28012 Attitude toward work .60323 Courtesy and .13835 hospitality toward strangers Quality of life in .28332 general Mutual condence .00686 among people Eigen value 3.6 % variance 22.7 Cumulative variance 22.7

.47698 .69850 1.7 10.8 33.5

.34832 .16499 1.0 6.6 55.6

a KaiserMeyerOlkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy=.75. Bartlett test of Sphericity =661.14090; signicance=.0000.

were analyzed. As can be seen from Table 3, the multiple regression equation does not suffer from collinearity or multicollinearity. According to Hair et al (1995), tolerance value should be above .19 and variance ination factor should be below 5.3 since very small tolerance values and very large variance ination factor denote high collinearity or multicollinearity. In the case of Central Florida, the 16 variables representing the current level of tourism impacts were loaded on three factors (legal, social, and economic). In a new multiple regression equation, these replaced the 16 impacts as the other 18 independent variables used in the previous runs were again included. It was found that six out of the 21 variables signicantly predicted respondents level of support for tourism in Central Florida. Residents who supported it were found to have the following perceptions and personal characteristics (Milman and Pizam 1988:201)they believed that the industry was improving the

246

IMPACT PERCEPTIONS

Table 3. Multiple Regression of Level of Support for Tourism in Urgup

Independent Variable Impact of tourism on image of Urgup Suggestion of job in tourism Employment of members of family in the tourism Factor 4 Level of education
a

Standardized F Regression pa Coefcient .57 .21 .15 108.75 .0000 65.85 .0000 48.00 .0000

Zero Order Variance Cumulative Tolerance Correlation Ination R Square Value Coefcient Factor .54 .30 .06 .32 1.00 1.00

.37 .39

1.03 1.06

.96 .94

.14 .12

38.73 .0000 32.65 .0000

.20 .06

.41 .42

1.02 1.01

.97 .98

p.0001. N=228. R square =.42.

image of their community; they would suggest a tourism job to a friend; they did not believe that the industry had negative impacts on legal factors; they were employed in it themselves; they assumed that it was improving the areas economy; and they believed that tourists were similar to locals. In the case of Nadi, results of the multiple regression revealed that nine out of the 23 independent variables predicted 69% of the variance in respondent attitudes towards tourism. Nadis residents whose overall opinion was positive were found to have a number of personal characteristics and perceptionsthey believed that tourism had a negative impact on morality; that it created negative impacts on work attitudes; that local residents were willing to take jobs in this industry; that it improved the image of their community; that tourists were different from themselves; that the industry negatively impacted their quality of life; that they had more children under the age of 18 living in their households; that tourism was having a negative impact on legal/ environmental factors; and that they did not have family members employed in it (King, Pizam and Milman 1993:661662). In the case of Urgup, the multiple regression results suggest that around 55% of variation in the dependent variables were not explained by the independent variables. The corresponding gures were between 50% and 67% for Central Florida, and 31% for Nadi (King, Pizam and Milman 1993). However, what constitutes an acceptable value for R2 is a difcult question to answer and what is acceptable depends on the scientic eld from which the data are taken (Hair et al 1995).

CEVAT TOSUN

247

In both multiple regression equations, .32 out of .45 and .32 out of a 0.42 total variance explained by the variable impact of tourism on the image of Urgup, and .05 out of .45 and .42 total variance explained by the variable suggestion of job in the tourism industry. Standard regression coefcients of these two independent variables were also the highest ones in the equations. This may suggest that those in the equations have not contributed much to the prediction of the level of support for tourism, although their p values were smaller than .05. In other words, as illustrated in Table 3, the variables impact of tourism on the image of Urgup and suggestion of job in the tourism industry appear to be the most important independent variables since their standardized regression coefcients are the highest ones (.49 and .26, respectively) among the independent variables. In the King, Pizam and Milman study, the highest beta weight (.57) belonged to the independent variable tourisms impact on morality which was followed by the variable difference between tourists and residents (.34) and respondents who had children under 18 at home (.34). In the Milman and Pizam study, the highest beta weight of the multiple regression equation belonged to the impact of tourism on the image of community (.36), which was followed by the legal factor (.24). That is to say, this research conrms, to some extent, Milman and Pizams (1988) results as the multiple regression equations in both studies suggest that the most important independent variable is the impact of tourism on community image. The main suggestion of the multiple regression equation in this study may be that these signicant independent variables, which explained the dependent variable to some extent, should be taken into account in order to increase the level of support for tourism in Urgup. CONCLUSION Several conclusions can be derived from the research results in relative and absolute terms and overall discussion in this study. First, in general the comparative gures regarding level of support for tourism suggests that although there is strong support for it among residents in Nadi and Central Florida, residents of Urgup have not developed strong support for the local industry. In the three cases, the residents were not opposed to tourism at its current level. In brief, residents of Urgup were found to be less supportive of it and had less positive perceptions of its impacts in relative terms when compared to those in Nadi and Central Florida. Results in the case of Urgup may be explained by the distribution of tourism benets among the members of the host community and policies of Turkeys political economy. For example, with special reference to Urgup, it is claimed that the governments generous incentives for tourism and biased economic development policies, which accelerated the phase of mass development, planted unsustainable roots. The government supported large scale investments through monetary and scal incentives, but

248

IMPACT PERCEPTIONS

the local people do not have enough capital to establish proper hotels and shops to serve tourists. The capital must come from nonlocal sources. Thus, it is very difcult for the local people to play a leading role as entrepreneurs in tourism qualied employees have been brought from outside Urgup to work for the hotels since there are not qualied local people to work in certain positions in hotels. Not surprisingly, local people are employed for these jobs, which do not require any skills and qualications (Tosun 1998b:601).

The above discussion may reveal that socioeconomic alienation of local people from the tourism development process may have caused the host community to develop less than positive attitudes toward the industry in Urgup. Although strong support for tourism among Nadis residents may be attributed to the employment of a vast majority of the respondents, what made the residents develop strong support in Central Florida may not be explained without knowing much about processes and policies of tourism development and other relevant sitespecic conditions. Second, although the residents of Urgup and Nadi regarded international tourists as being very different from themselves, and the residents of Central Florida viewed them as in some ways different and in other ways similar, the residents of the three host communities expressed no negative feelings towards them. However, these separate residents were able to point out some specic negative impacts that they supposed the industry had on their community. In the case of Urgup, these negative impacts were mutual condence among people and their honesty, individual and organized crime, morality, drug addiction, alcoholism, and openness to sexual behavior. The perceived negative impacts tend to be mostly related to social and legal factors. The perceived positive impacts were employment opportunities and the towns overall revenue earnings. It should be noted that job opportunities in the other sectors of the local economy appear to be very limited. For example, viniculture, stockbreeding, and potato planting are major areas for employment; however, the government has stopped giving incentives to stockbreeding and agriculture in general. This encouraged some local people to sell their land to hoteliers and other investors in the industry. Consequently, it emerged as the most important employment generator under the current socioeconomic conditions. Local people appeared to welcome any job opportunities to earn sufcient income in order to satisfy their basic needs. In this regard, the existence of a limited number of job opportunities in other sectors of the local economy may have contributed to a positive perception of tourism regarding improvement of employment opportunities. This may suggest that local and central government with collaboration of nongovernmental organizations may have taken social and legal measures to turn these negative perceptions of the host community into more favorable attitudes. However, as Tosun (1998b) argued, rapid growth, patronclient relationship and governments biased policies have planted the roots of unsustainable tourism development. This may support the adage that cities are conceived as growth

CEVAT TOSUN

249

machines designed to maximize the interests of a small, powerful elite and that the purpose of local government is to assist in achieving greater growth than competing cities (Madrigal 1993). Using tourism as a tool for this growth machine has led its development to benet only a small portion of local residents and has negatively affected planning decisions. Naturally, under such conditions tourism development may adversely affect host communities welfare and cost residents money since it may take place at the expense of other, more protable development alternatives that provide better sources of income and opportunities to local people. Based upon this discussion, it may be further argued that the emergence of residents negative perceptions toward tourism impacts may have been accelerated by the political economic policies of central and local governments and the ignorance of social and legal measures that should have been taken to minimize negative and maximize positive impacts of tourism development. Clearly, these issues require further investigation for more detailed discussion. Third, this study has found that residents of Urgup tend to have negative perceptions of tourism jobs in absolute and relative terms. The most preferred job category in the cases of Urgup and Central Florida was schoolteacher, while the most notable was hotel worker in Nadi. However, the least preferred job category was hotel receptionist in Urgup and factory foreman in Central Florida and Nadi. A previous study with special references to Urgup also reported that youth in the town of Urgup did not recognize tourism as a potential career choice and a job in tourism did not have much respect in the eyes of the local people (Tosun 1998a:221). There may be wider socioeconomic and cultural reasons, and sector-specic factors behind this low level of respect towards a tourism occupation. For example, it may be argued that given the lack of services of a welfare state such as childbenets, unemployment benets, and national health insurance, fathers or husbands are completely responsible for meeting the basic needs of members of their families in many developing countries with traditional societies. Thus, a seasonal job with a relatively low wage is not attractive enough for people who are in charge of meeting their families needs in the developing world. In this regard, it is reported that hotels employ some of the local people for only three to ve months during the high season, and then lay them off. Thus, locals have not wanted to work in tourism and have not viewed these jobs as reliable (Tosun 1998b). On the other hand, intense emotional debate has emerged about the nature of jobs in this industry. It is argued that while it may create employment, the jobs it produces are of an inferior nature especially in developing countries. Development does not come from a nation of waiters, bell hops and chambermaids, and far less from prostitutes and pimps. Although such assertions clearly go beyond economic criteria, they are at the heart of many criticisms of tourism development (Harrison 1992:18). In brief, the nature of jobs in this industry such as seasonality, low productivity at correspondingly low wages and heavy working conditions, and their poor image in the presence of Urgups problematic

250

IMPACT PERCEPTIONS

socioeconomic structure may have helped the host communities develop negative perceptions of tourism jobs. Whatever the reasons are, this may be viewed as an emergence of a backlash against the industrywhich may take several forms such as reduced support for the politicians and advocates, a decreased willingness to work in tourism, and less welcoming attitudes toward tourists, among other demonstrations of these views. Fourth, this study suggests that resident perceptions of impacts of tourism were not subjective, inconsistent, and affected by some factors more than others, for this study has shown that the support can be related to a belief that it induces negative as well as positive impacts. Comparison of the three cases revealed that three different host communities perceptions of tourism impacts were not identical or very similar. This suggests that tourism impacts are not universal. Naturally, host communities that have that differ in development experiences, developmental level, carrying capacity, and sociocultural, political, and economic problems, should have different perceptions of tourism. Fifth, in many developing countries, including Turkey, tourism policymakers still tend to hide the negative impacts of tourism from host communities and attempt to develop the industry at all costs to solve chronic macro-economic problems and maximize interests for a small number of local people. That is to say, although many scholars have mentioned the undesirable sociocultural impacts of tourism, public authorities seem to be unaware of these facts or simply ignore them for the sake of increasing badly needed foreign currency earnings for the industrialization program. Ozkan (1992 cited in Tosun 1996) reported that one of the main persons responsible at the Ministry of Tourism stated that the industry has positive impacts on Turkish society, which is traditionally known to be tolerant and hospitable hence they can handle the situation fairly well. This unrealistic or biased approach to policy stems from the belief that, if the negative impacts were known, residents would not support the industry. But previous studies have shown that even its best friends are aware of its negative impacts. Thus, it would be logical for decision-makers and private sector representatives to accept that tourism can bring about both negative and positive impacts on host communities. In the light of this admission, they should collaborate with each other and local communities to establish participatory development measures to minimize negative and maximize positive impacts. In other words, deliberate measures must be carefully introduced to enable indigenous people to take advantage of the opportunities brought by tourism if the objectives are to achieve sustainable development. Without such admission and implementation of necessary measures, the industry might lose host communities support in a gradual manner, that may in turn threaten the sustainability of development in future. Finally, based upon the results of this study, the authors personal observations, and overall results of impact studies, host perceptions of

CEVAT TOSUN

251

tourism impacts are shaped by various site-specic conditions under which tourists and hosts interact. In this context, residents perceptions of impacts appear to be affected by a welfare gap between hosts and guests; the distribution of the benets of tourism among locals and between locals and non-locals; sociocultural similarities or differences between residents and tourists; type, phase, and scale of development; level of local community participation in the process of development; and leisure policies of local and central governments. For a better understanding of host perceptions of impacts, more comparative crossnational studies and analyses are recommended. Then, the results of these studies may provide a better set of policy recommendations for more sustainable tourism development.
Acknowledgements The author gratefully acknowledges Mustafa Kemal University for providing funding and support for this study; Bilkent University for funding the presentation of an earlier version of this paper in the Western Social Science Associations 42nd Annual Conference, San Diego, USA. The author also thanks Professor Abraham Pizam at the University of Central Florida for permitting the use of his survey instrument for this study.

REFERENCES
Butler, R. W. 1980 The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Management of Resources. Canadian Geographer 24(1):512. Cohen, E. 1988 Tourism and Aids in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research 15:467486. Dann, G., D. Nash, and P. L. Pearce 1988 Methodology in Tourism Research. Annals of Tourism Research 15:128. Davis, D., J. Allen, and R. M. Cosenza 1988 Segmenting Local Residents by Their Attitudes, Interests, and Opinions Toward Tourism. Journal of Travel Research 27(2):28. Dogan, H. Z. 1989 Forms of Adjustment, Sociocultural Impacts of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 16:216236. Dowling, R. K. 1993 Tourism Planning, People and the Environment in Western Australia. Journal of Travel Research 3(4):5258. Doxey, G. V. 1975 A Causation Theory of VisitorResident Irritants, Methodology and Research Inferences. The Impact of Tourism. Sixth annual conference proceedings of the Travel Research Association, San Diego, pp. 195198. Hair, J. F. Jr., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black 1995 Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan. Harrison, D. 1992 International Tourism and the Less Developed Countries: The Background. In International Tourism and the Less Developed Countries, D. Harrison, ed., pp. 119. London: Belhaven. Husbands, W. 1989 Social Status and Perception of Tourism in Zambia. Annals of Tourism Research 16:237253. Johnson, J. D., D. J. Snepenger, and S. Akis 1994 Residents Perception of Tourism Development. Annals of Tourism Research 21:629642. King, B., A. Pizam, and A. Milman 1993 Social Impacts of Tourism: Host Perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research 20:650665.

252

IMPACT PERCEPTIONS

Kousis, M. 1989 Tourism and the Family in a Rural Cretan Community. Annals of Tourism Research 16:318332. Lankford, S. V., and D. R. Howard 1994 Developing a Tourism Impact Attitude Scale. Annals of Tourism Research 21:121139. Madrigal, R. 1993 A Tale of Tourism in Two Cities. Annals of Tourism Research 20:336 353. Mansfeld, Y. 1992 Group-Differentiated Perceptions of Social Impacts Related to Tourism Development. Professional Geographer 44:377392. McCool, S. F., and S. R. Martin 1994 Community Attachment and Attitudes Toward Tourism Development. Journal of Travel Research 32(3):2934. Milman, A., and A. Pizam 1988 Social Impacts of Tourism on Central Florida. Annals of Tourism Research 15:191204. Ministry of Tourism 1986 Cappadocia Touristic Development Areas. Ankara: Ministry of Tourism. Morrison, P., and P. Selman 1991 Tourism and the Environment: A Case Study from Turkey. Environmentalist 11(2):113129. Nicholls, L. L. 1976 Crime Detection and Law Stabilization in Tourist-recreation Regions. Journal of Travel Research 15(1):1820. Pearce, P. L., G. Moscardo, and G. F. Ross 1996 Tourism Community Relationships. Oxford: Elsevier. Pizam, A. 1978 Tourism Impacts: The Social Costs to the Destination Community as Perceived by its Residents. Journal of Travel Research 16(3):812. Pizam, A., and J. Pokela 1985 The Perceived Impact of Casino Gambling on a Community. Annals of Tourism Research 12:147165. Reising, Y. 1994 Social Contact between Tourists and Hosts of Different Cultural Backgrounds. In Tourism the State of the Art, A. V. Seaton, ed., pp. 743753. Chichester: Wiley. Rothman, R. A. 1978 Residents and Transients: Community Reactions to Seasonal Visitors. Journal of Travel Research 16(1):813. Sheldon, P. J., and T. Var 1984 Residents Attitudes to Tourism in North Wales. Tourism Management 5:4047. Smith, V. 1978 Eskimo Tourism: Micro Models and Marginal Men. In Host and Guests, V. Smith, ed., pp. 5170. Oxford: Blackwell. Tosun, C. 1996 Approaches to Tourism Development Planning at Sub-National Level: A Case Study of Cappadocia in Turkey. MPhil dissertation in Tourism Management, Strathclyde University. 1998a Community Participation in the Tourism Development Process at the Local Level: The Case of Urgup in Turkey. PhD dissertation in Tourism Development, Strathclyde University. 1998b Roots of Unsustainable Tourism Development at the Local Level: The Case of Urgup in Turkey. Tourism Management 19:595610. Ulku, A. 1996 Urgupun Demograk Yapisi: Urgup Kaymakamligi Ozel Raporu (Demographic Features of Urgup). Turkey: Urgup Kaymakamligi. Van Doorn, J. W. M. 1989 A Critical Assessment of Socio-Cultural Impact Studies of Tourism in the

CEVAT TOSUN

253

Third World. In Towards Appropriate Tourism: The Case of Developing Countries, T. V. Singh, L. Theuns and F. Go, eds., pp. 7191. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Varley, R. 1978 Tourism in Fiji: Some Economic and Social Problems. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

Submitted 14 January 2000. Resubmitted 5 July 2000. Resubmitted 10 December 2000. Accepted 20 December 2000. Final version 30 April 2001. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Honggen Xiao