Environ Dev Sustain (2010) 12:839857

DOI 10.1007/s10668-009-9227-y

Visitor perspectives on sustainable tourism development

in the Pitons Management Area World Heritage Site,
St. Lucia
Lorraine Nicholas Brijesh Thapa

Received: 15 May 2009 / Accepted: 23 December 2009 / Published online: 5 January 2010
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract The Pitons Management Area (PMA) World Heritage Site is one of the most
visited tourist attractions in St. Lucia. Given the magnitude of the tourism industry in St.
Lucia in general, coupled with the expanding growth of tourism in the PMA, the need to
adopt a sustainable approach to tourism development is imperative. Identifying visitors as a
key stakeholder group in sustainable tourism development, this study examined their
perspectives and support for sustainable tourism development in the PMA. More specifically, it examined visitors environmental, economic, and social attitudes based on a
sustainable tourism development framework and explored the effect and best predictive
validity of attitudes on support for sustainable tourism development. Results indicated that
attitudes were generally positive, and as each of the respective attitudes increased, visitors
level of support for sustainable tourism development at the PMA also increased. The
Economic Attitudinal Index had the highest predictive power, followed by the Social
Attitudinal Index. The Environmental Attitudinal Index was not significant although it was
strongly correlated in the bivariate analysis. Implications of the findings for the sustainable
development of tourism in the PMA are discussed.
Keywords Visitors
Sustainable tourism development
World Heritage Site

Pitons Management Area
St. Lucia

Readers should send their comments on this paper to BhaskarNath@aol.com within 3 months of publication
of this issue.
L. Nicholas
B. Thapa
Center for Tourism Research and Development, Department of Tourism, Recreation & Sport
Management, University of Florida, P.O. Box 118208, Gainesville, FL 32611-8208, USA
B. Thapa
e-mail: bthapa@hhp.ufl.edu
L. Nicholas (&)
Castries, St. Lucia, West Indies
e-mail: tourismphd@hotmail.com

123

840

L. Nicholas, B. Thapa

1 Introduction
Tourism plays a pivotal role in the economic development for most of the islands in the
Caribbean, including St. Lucia, a Windward Island, inhabited by some 170,000 people.
The economy of St. Lucia is largely dependent on tourism, which is currently the
largest foreign exchange earner. The countrys international tourist arrivals have surpassed the 300,000 mark and comprise essentially of leisure visitors from the Western
world, especially the United States (St. Lucia Tourist Board 2006). Two of the most
popular tourist attractions on the islandboth the Sulphur Springs (drive-in volcano)
and the Pitons (mountains) are located within the Pitons Management Area (PMA). In
fact, the PMA is a major tourist attraction in St. Lucia that hosts approximately 200,000
visitors annually.
The PMA consists of 2,909 ha and is basically a volcanic complex with geothermal
field comprised of sulfurous fumaroles and hot springs that extends over 11 square miles. A
number of rare plant and animal species, some of which have been deemed endemic, are
found at the site. Also, 60% of the sites marine area comprises of coral reefs (UNESCO
2006). The site is divided into three management zones: (1) Terrestrial Conservation Area
(17% of total area); (2) Terrestrial Multiple Use Area (53%); and (3) Marine Management
Area (30%). The majority of the Terrestrial Conservation Area is owned by the government, while 80% of the multiple use area is privately owned. Although the Multiple Use
Area consists of largely private lands, there are relatively few permanent inhabitants.
Among the rural communities, there are approximately 1,500 persons in 400 private
households that primarily depend on small scale agriculture. The Marine Management
Area is further segmented into five zones: a marine reserve, fishing priority area, yachting
area, multi-purpose, and recreational area. Tourism, particularly resort development, is the
dominant economic activity in the multiple use area with two major resort hotels in
operation therein.
The PMA is the most recently inscribed of three World Heritage Sites in the Eastern
Caribbean. The PMA was awarded World Heritage Status in 2004 by the United Nations
Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Areas are inscribed as a
World Heritage Site1 based on their outstanding and universal value with sites designated
under the Cultural, Natural or Mixed Site category. However, each country is responsible
for maintenance and management of their respective sites (Pederson 2002). The number of
inscriptions to the World Heritage List has grown substantially with selected new sites
approved on an annual basis. There are currently 890 World Heritage Sites under the
cultural (n = 689), natural (n = 176), and mixed sites (n = 25) categories in 148 countries
(UNESCO 2009).
Given the annual growth of approved sites, the World Heritage brand has become
significant and especially desired by developing countries for numerous perceived and
actual benefits, notably increased tourism activity (Timothy and Boyd 2006; Leask
2006; Li et al. 2008; Smith 2003; Thapa 2007). However, there has been mixed
reviews with respect to the inextricable link between tourism and increased visitation to
World Heritage Sites (Cochrane and Tapper 2006; Fyall and Rakic 2006; Hall 2006;
Hall and Piggin 2001; Pederson 2002; Shackley 1998a; Thapa 2007, 2010). Besides
1

UNESCO designates World Heritage Sites based on the 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage. This international treaty has been ratified by 186 countries. The World
Heritage Committee approves the nominated sites that are identified individually by member states. Site
acceptance is based on specific selection criteria and should demonstrate outstanding universal value.

123

Sustainable tourism development in the Pitons Management

841

access to reliable data for visitation trends, there are a variety of factors beyond World
Heritage designation that influence visitation (Buckley 2004; Hall 2006; Leask 2006).
Nonetheless, tourism development is a key management issue for World Heritage Sites
(Buckley 2004; Li et al. 2008; Pederson 2002; Thapa 2007). The long-term protection
of World Heritage Sites hinges greatly upon the promotion of sustainable development
of local resources, as well as appropriate tourism, as a means of conserving the
resources upon which the industry depends (Wager 1995). Thapa (2007) further stresses
the primary importance of sustainability, highlighting that although the World Heritage
brand is significant for marketing; there should be a balance between conservation and
tourism.
Given the magnitude of the tourism industry in St. Lucia in general, coupled with
the expanding growth of tourism in the PMA, the need to adopt a sustainable approach
to tourism development in the PMA cannot be overemphasized. Further, the inscription
of the PMA as a World Heritage Site heightens the need for its sustainability as there
is a major challenge in balancing conservation and development (Nicholas et al.
2009a). The designation of the PMA as a World Heritage Site is indeed a major feat
for St. Lucia, as a small island developing State. This designation can potentially play
an instrumental role in the sustainable development of not only the PMA, but also
St. Lucia in general. However, the governments ability to maintain the integrity of the
designation has been a serious challenge due to increased pressure for major tourism
development. The government has been faced with a major dilemma with respect to
conservation versus development of the PMA (Nicholas et al. 2009a). To address the
challenge, it is vital that a holistic approach to integrated management with stakeholder
participation and involvement is necessary. Stakeholder involvement and collaboration
is critical for policy formulation and decision-making in order to reduce conflict (Aas
et al. 2005; Byrd 2007; Jamal and Getz 1999; Medeiros de Araujo and Bramwell 1999;
Nicholas et al. 2009b; Pederson 2002; Sauter and Leisen 1999; Selin and Chavez
1995).
Stakeholder identification is important as there are numerous entities that can be
identified based on one or all of the following attributes: their power to influence
decisions; the legitimacy of their relationship with the business; and the urgency of their
claim on the business (Mitchell et al. 1997; Sauter and Leisen 1999). In the tourism
literature, the major stakeholder segments identified include: local communities, tourists,
government/public sector, and industry/private sector. For the most part, previous
research has focused on residents in local communities as key stakeholders in the
sustainable tourism development process (Bass et al. 1995; Caffyn and Jobbins 2003;
Choi and Sirakaya 2005; Cole 1997; Getz and Jamal 1994; Jamal and Getz 1999;
Medeiros de Araujo et al. 1999; Nicholas et al. 2009b; Pennington-Gray 2005; Simpson
2001; Timothy 1998). Within the PMA context, three key stakeholder groups (local
residents, government, and visitors) were identified as part of a larger research study
(Nicholas 2007). The objective of this particular study is to focus on the visitor segment
as the resident (Nicholas et al. 2009b) and the public/government (Nicholas et al.
2009a) perspectives have been outlined and published elsewhere. The visitor as a
stakeholder in the planning process is largely understudied, especially in the context of
a World Heritage Site in the Caribbean. Visitors play a vital role in ensuring the
economic viability of the PMA via their patronization. This study offers an examination
with respect to the perspectives of visitors as stakeholders and their support for sustainable tourism development in the PMA.

123

842

L. Nicholas, B. Thapa

2 Literature review
2.1 Sustainable tourism development
The concept of sustainable tourism development has over the past two decades gained
increased momentum both in the academic and in the practical arena, in light of the
endorsement given to the concept. Generally, the concept has achieved extensive acceptance as a desirable tourism development option. Despite the popularity, sustainable
tourism development remains largely a hotly debated subject. However, there has been
more consensus on the notion that sustainable tourism development should be firmly
grounded in the principles of its parental paradigmsustainable development (Murphy and
Price 2005; Sharpley 2000; Stabler and Goodall 1996).
Unlike for sustainable development, a universally accepted definition of sustainable
tourism development remains elusive. However, several definitions have been proposed.
The World Tourism Organization (1993) defined sustainable tourism as tourism that meets
the needs of current tourists and host populations, while enhancing opportunities for the
future. It is envisaged as leading to the management of resources in such a way that
economic, social, and esthetic needs can be met while maintaining essential ecological
processes, biological diversity, cultural integrity, and life support systems. This conceptualization suggests that the desires of both tourists and hosts are key development considerations. Hunter (1997) proposed another conceptualization. He argued that the
paradigm of sustainable tourism development is founded on the principles of safeguarding
the environmental resource base for tourism, encompassing natural, built, and cultural
components; meeting the needs of the local host community by improving their living
conditions and quality of life; and satisfying tourist demands and that of the tourism
industry, while continuing to attract tourists. These principles emphasize the primacy of
meeting the needs of both local residents and tourists whilst concurrently pursuing environmental conservation. Overall, the application of sustainable development to tourism has
been rapid and widespread (Garrod and Fyall 1998; Milne 1998). A synthesis of the
extensive literature on sustainable tourism development revealed numerous principles and
is illustrated in Table 1 (Slee et al. 1997; Southgate and Sharpley 2002; Swarbrooke 1999;
WTO 1993).
Table 1 Principles of sustainable tourism development
Tourism development should reflect and respect the scale, nature, and distinct character of the local
community
Tourism should support a wide range of local economic activities, taking into account environmental
costs and benefits yet should not displace existing industries
Tourism should not obliterate the natural and cultural environment
Emphasis should be placed on balancing the needs of the visitors with that of the local community
Emphasis on limits to growth, and managing tourism within these limits
The involvement of all stakeholders in sustainable development issues
The equitable dissemination of benefits derived from tourism
The promotion of cultural and environmental stewardship
Tourism planning and development should be integrated with national and local sustainable development
initiatives
Economic benefits must be equitably distributed
Development activities must be based on local value systems

123

Sustainable tourism development in the Pitons Management

843

Many scholars have summarized the concept of sustainable tourism development to

encompass three related, yet disparate componentseconomic, environmental, social
(Butler 1999; Murphy and Price 2005; Swarbrooke 1999; Wight 1993).
2.1.1 Economic sustainability
While much attention is paid to the economics of the tourism industry in general, relative
to environmental concerns, in the context of sustainable tourism development, the situation
is reversed, as ecological concerns are preeminent to economics. The economic dimension
of sustainability emphasizes the need to promote and enhance the viability of the industry
by maximizing benefits, whilst minimizing costs. The mitigation of leakages is also vital in
enhancing the multiplier effect of tourism in the economy.
2.1.2 Environmental sustainability
The environment is the linchpin of the tourism product. As such, issues surrounding the
management and protection of the environment have increasingly been put at the hub of
sustainable tourism development. Environmental sustainability essentially promotes the
protection of essential ecological processes and biodiversity. Tourism should thus be used
as an avenue to attain conservation in order to ensure resource sustainability (Wahab
1997).
2.1.3 Social sustainability
The social component of sustainable tourism development has been afforded less attention
in the sustainable tourism debate, than the environmental dimension. Swarbrooke (1999)
attributes this tendency to the notion that socio-cultural impacts are for the most part
intangible and tend to occur at a slower pace and in a rather subtle manner. Social
sustainability primarily involves impacts on the socio-cultural fabric of the community
the host community. It emphasizes involvement of local residents in tourism development
thereby promoting the equitable distribution of benefits derived from tourism. The tourism
industry should operate with integrity when dealing with tourists, suppliers, local residents,
and travel intermediaries.
An amalgam of these three dimensions of sustainability suggests that sustainable
tourism development should not only be ecologically bearable but that it should also be
economically viable and socially equitable. It should be noted that these three pillars of
sustainable tourism development are by no means mutually exclusive but can rather be
both mutually reinforcing and in competition. The key is to strike a balance between them,
in order to produce a synergistic effect (UNEP/WTO 2005).
2.2 Visitor perspectives
In the sustainable tourism development literature, the focus on the tourist has for the most
part centered on the negative environmental, economic, and social impacts of tourist
activities. In many instances, the tourist is portrayed as an intruder in lieu of a welcomed
visitor (Swarbrooke 1999). Swarbrooke expressed that in order to develop more sustainable
forms of tourism, additional emphasis should be placed on the role of the tourist and a
more fair-minded attitude toward tourists should be encouraged. This involves recognizing

123

844

L. Nicholas, B. Thapa

that true sustainability may not be attained unless tourists take a genuine interest in and
demonstrate commitment toward sustainable tourism development; accepting that tourists
have rights as well as responsibilities; promoting types of sustainable tourism that will be
attractive to tourists and enhance their tourist experience; and educating tourists on the
principles of sustainable tourism (Swarbrooke 1999).
Visitor management at heritage sites is an essential element of protected area management (Boyd and Timothy 2001; Eagles 2002; Jamieson 2003; Li et al. 2008; Marion
and Farrell 1999; Mason and Kuo 2006; Shackley 1998a; Timothy and Boyd 2006; Tureley
1998). These researchers note that managing visitor numbers, behavior, and impacts is the
key to sustainability of heritage attractions. They argued that it is important that visitor
volumes have minimal negative impacts to the site while ensuring its economic viability.
In addition, they suggested a number of management strategies for dealing with visitor
numbers including restricting entry, reducing group sizes, implementing a quota system,
using pricing techniques to reduce demand, directing visitors to other sites, varying prices
for select times of the week and year, taking reservations, extending hours and limiting
accommodation near the site. Educating visitors also contributes to mitigating negative
impacts on the site. Some strategies include interpretation techniques and furnishing visitors with guidelines and advice about proper or acceptable behavior.
With specific reference to World Heritage Sites, Boyd and Timothy (2001) contended
that since World Heritage Sites are often considered to be icons of a nations heritage and
therefore appeal to visitors, good management is essential (p. 53). It is also pivotal that
visitor expectations and interests be understood in the management of heritage attractions.
In fact, any visitor management program hinges strongly on understanding the perspectives
of visitors. Jamieson (2003) explicated that visitor expectations can be understood via
visitor surveys/interviews, observation, videotape, photography, and focus groups. Such
data collection techniques from visitors contribute significantly to the enhancement of the
quality of the visitor experience. In essence, the sustainability of World Heritage Sites from
the visitor perspective hinges on effective visitor management that focuses on minimizing
impact, while maximizing understanding, appreciation and economic returns (Tureley
1998, p. 119).
2.3 Visitor attitudes and support for sustainable tourism
Research on attitudes toward tourism has been examined based on residents and/or visitors
perspectives in numerous geographical regions (Weaver and Lawton 2004). Visitor
research has been restricted to assessing visitor preferences and levels of satisfaction to
improve profitability of tourism operations. However, resident research has generally
focused on impacts (socio-cultural, economic, and environmental) and associated correlates (Weaver and Lawton 2004). Research has predominantly centered on the examination
of resident perspectives largely due to the direct impacts experienced. Also, since communities are heterogeneous and as such, residents hold diverse perceptions and attitudes
toward tourism (Andereck and Vogt 2000; Andriotis and Vaughn 2003; Harrill 2004; Lepp
2007; Mason and Cheyne 2000; Sirakaya et al. 2002; Snaith and Haley 1999). Resident
attitudes research has been examined with a focus on various factors that include: level of
involvement in tourism (Akis et al. 1996; Smith and Krannich 1998); type of tourism
development (Gursoy et al. 2002; Jurowski 1994); socio-demographic characteristics
(Williams and Lawson 2001); community attachment (Jurowski 1994; Nicholas et al.
2009b); distance from tourism areas (Jurowski and Gursoy 2004); environmental attitudes
(Nicholas et al. 2009b), and quality of life (Andereck and Jurowski 2006; Jennings 2006).

123

Sustainable tourism development in the Pitons Management

845

Given the dominant focus on residents, Weaver and Lawton (2004) have argued the
importance of integrating tourist attitudes, behavior, and motivations in managementrelated decisions especially within the paradigmatic context of sustainable development
and sustainable tourism. Weaver and Lawton (2004) examined both resident and visitor
attitudes toward tourism in the hinterland of the Gold Coast in Australia. Research revealed
that visitors supported tourism in the Gold Coast hinterland as long as it offered opportunities to experience the open hinterland and did not affect the natural resources of the
region. Also, proximity to the tourism core was a factor whereby those residents that lived
closer were more likely to support sharing of the tourism resources. More recently, Raymond and Brown (2007) compared resident and visitor attitudes toward tourism growth
and development in the Otways region of Victoria, Australia. Their findings were consistent with those of Weaver and Lawton (2004) and concluded that visitors were in
support of tourism development, but preferred slow growth that focused on nature-based
opportunities. Also, residents significantly expressed more support for tourism development than visitors, but there were some differences among coastal and non-coastal
residents.
Visitor attitudes are of paramount importance to the development of all three pillars of
sustainable tourism, namelyeconomic, ecological, and social sustainability (Weaver and
Lawton 2004). Visitor spending is a prime determinant of the economic viability of
tourism; visitor behavior and attitudes toward the environment are also likely to impact on
the ecological sustainability of a tourism site; and the extent to which visitors interact with
the host/local community has major implications for the social sustainability of a tourism
development project. However, despite the primacy of visitors as key players in sustainable
tourism development, there is a paucity of research examining visitor attitudes toward
tourism development in general and sustainable tourism development, in particular
(Raymond and Brown 2007; Weaver and Lawton 2004).

3 Purpose of study
The purpose of this study was threefold: (1) to examine visitors environmental, economic,
and social attitudes based on the sustainable tourism development framework; (2) to further explore the effect of environmental, economic, and social attitudes on support for
sustainable tourism development; and 3) to assess the best predictive validity of attitudes
on support for sustainable tourism development. A conceptual model (Fig. 1) was developed and highlights the direct relationships between the primary cause variables. Based on
the purpose of the study, the following research questions were formulated and empirically
tested:
Question 1:

What is level of Visitor Attitudes (Environmental, Economic, and Social)

and Support for Sustainable Tourism Development in the PMA?

Fig. 1 Modeling visitors

support for sustainable tourism
development

Environmental
Attitudes
Economic
Attitudes
Social
Attitudes

Support
for
Sustainable
Tourism
Development

123

846

Question 2:
Question 3:

L. Nicholas, B. Thapa

Is there a relationship between Visitor Attitudes (Environmental, Economic,

and Social) and Support for Sustainable Tourism Development in the PMA?
Which type of Visitor Attitude (Environmental, Economic, and Social) is
the best predictor of Support for Sustainable Tourism Development in the
PMA?

4 Methods
4.1 Study sites
The respondents for this study were sampled at three main locations in the vicinity of the
PMA: Sulphur Springs, Gros Pitons Nature Trail, and the PMA gateway community of
Soufriere. The Sulphur Springs is arguably the most visited tourist attraction in St. Lucia
and is promoted as the worlds only drive-in volcano that incorporates a seven-mile-wide
volcanic crater and 24 bubbling cauldrons. Viewing stations have since been installed for
visitors, and they can also enjoy hot steamy baths in a designated pool. The site is equipped
with an interpretation center and a service building (snack shop, rest room). Visitors are
charged a fee of US$3 and locals US$1 to enjoy a guided tour of the Sulphur Springs.
The Gros Piton Nature Trail is a prime tourist attraction that involves a hike of the 2,
500 ft Gros Piton and originates in a remote community known as Fond Gens Libre. There
are a number of caves along the way, which were used as camps by the Brigands (run away
slaves) in the 1700s and 1800s. Visitors are charged a fee of US$25, while locals pay about
US$6 to enjoy a guided tour of the trail. Soufriere is the oldest settlement in St. Lucia,
located on the southwestern coast of the island and is a popular tourist destination. Founded
in 1796 by the French, Soufriere, once the capital city, still retains some of its historic
French architecture. Soufrieres is endowed with natural attractions including the Pitons
and coral reefs.
4.2 Data collection
Data collection at the Sulphur Springs (N = 114) was conducted mainly at the gazebo
where tours originate. At the Gros Pitons Nature Trail (N = 30), visitors were surveyed at
the interpretation center. In the town of Soufriere (N = 75), the harbor, the beach, and the
community park were utilized. A random sampling method was used in which visitors
from each site were asked to complete a survey. One adult from each travel party was
identified (alternating male and female) and requested to complete the interview. Data
were collected during the period June 20, 2006September 04, 2006, and occurred both on
weekdays and weekends between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. The average length of
an interview was 20 min, and 219 visitors were sampled (95% response rate with 10
refusals).
4.3 Operationalization of variables
A survey instrument was designed to solicit visitors perceptions of the quality of their
experience at the PMA, as well as their perspectives on sustainable tourism development.
The questionnaire comprised of six sections that measured the following variables: PMA
Visit Characteristics and Satisfaction, Environmental Attitudes, Economic Attitudes,

123

Sustainable tourism development in the Pitons Management

847

Social Attitudes, Support for Sustainable Tourism Development and Demographics (age,
gender, income, education, country of residence).
PMA Visit Characteristics and Satisfaction included information such as: number of
trips; source of information about the PMA; travel group composition and number; and
purpose of trip. This section also evaluated visitors level of satisfaction with their visit to
the PMA. Satisfaction was measured based on the overall quality of their experience on a
scale that ranged from 1 to 10, with 10 being perfect. Environmental Attitudes examined
visitors general attitudes toward the environment. The five items were measured on a fivepoint Likert scale that ranged from 1 to 5, where 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree;
3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree. The items were adapted from the literature
(see Choi and Sirakaya 2005; Swarbrooke 1999; Thapa and Graefe 2003; Wahab 1997).
Economic Attitudes measured perceptions of economic factors with respect to their visit
to the PMA and were measured based on a five-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 to 5,
where 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree.
The items were adapted from the literature on sustainable tourism development (see Hunter
1997; Swarbrooke 1999; UNEP/WTO 2005). Social Attitudes examined visitors perceptions about social factors that relate to their visit to the PMA. These perceptions were
measured based on a five-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 to 5, where 1 = strongly
disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree. Similarly, the items
were based on the literature on sustainable tourism development (see Hunter 1997;
Swarbrooke 1999; UNEP/WTO 2005). Finally, visitors support for sustainable tourism
development in the PMA was measured based on a five-point scale that ranged from 1 to 5,
where 1 = strongly oppose; 2 = oppose; 3 = neutral; 4 = support; 5 = strongly support.
The items were also adapted from the literature (see Bramwell and Lane 1993; Choi and
Sirakaya 2005; Sharpley 2000; Southgate and Sharpley 2002; Swarbrooke 1999; UNEP/
WTO 2005).

5 Results
5.1 Profile of respondents
Respondents comprised slightly more females (53%) than males (47%). Most of the visitors were residents of the United States (65%); followed by England (20%); the Caribbean
(10%); and Canada (3%). The average age was 42.3 years while those who were above
60 years of age (6%) were the least represented. Most respondents (63%) had obtained a
bachelors or higher degree; while 37% reported they were high school graduates. The
most frequent annual household income level from all sources reported was US$80,000
99,999 (27%).
Only 32% of respondents were aware of UNESCOs World Heritage Site, while 54%
were knowledgeable that the PMA had been designated as a World Heritage Site. The
majority (74%) reported to be their first visit to the PMA. Most visitors (68%) had heard
about the PMA prior to their trip. The most common source of information about the PMA
was the Internet (46%), followed by brochure (24%), and friends/family (15%). Most
persons were in groups of 12 people (39%).
The most frequently reported primary purpose for visit to the PMA was sightseeing
(48%); followed by to enjoy nature (30%); outdoor recreation (26%); and bathe in the
Sulphur Springs (21%). Most respondents had visited the Sulphur Springs (86%), while
30% had visited the Gros Piton Nature Trail. All visitors rated their overall quality of the

123

848

L. Nicholas, B. Thapa

Table 2 Frequency distributions (percentages) for environmental attitudes

Questionnaire statementa

The diversity of nature must be valued and protected

It is not important to protect rare plant and animal species
Community environment must be protected now and in the future
Less public lands should be under protected areas
It is more important to protect habitat for plants and animals than
provide recreation opportunities
a

SD

0.0

0.0

27.2 66.4
0.0

0.0

SA

# of
cases

0.5 74.3 25.2 218

5.1

0.5

0.9 217

2.8 69.6 27.6 217

15.7 50.2 31.8

0.0

2.3

0.0 217

0.9 22.6 51.6 24.9 217

SD, strongly disagree; D, disagree; N, neutral; A, agree; SA, strongly agree

experience at the PMA to be above average (mean score = 8.3/10). The majority (61%)
were very satisfied while with the others (39%) were somewhat satisfied. Also, 39%
indicated that they were likely to return while 36% of visitors were not sure.
5.2 Research question testing
For the first research question, descriptive statistics based on frequency analysis were
conducted. For the second research question, Pearson correlation coefficient (Pearsons r)
was used to investigate the potential association between the environmental, economic, and
social attitudes and support for sustainable tourism development. Similarly, for the third
research question, linear regression analysis was employed to examine the strongest predictor of attitudes on support for sustainable tourism development among visitors. Based
on the empirical testing of the research questions, the following were identified:
Question 1:

What is level of Visitor Attitudes (Environmental, Economic, and Social)

and Support for Sustainable Tourism Development in the PMA?

5.3 Environmental attitudes

Almost all respondents (99%) agreed2 that the diversity of nature must be valued and
protected. Similarly, the majority (93%) agreed that it was important to protect rare plant
and animal species. Additionally, 97% agreed that the community environment should be
protected now and in the future, with 3% that expressed neutrality. Half of the visitors
(50%) disagreed that less public lands should be under protected areas, followed by 32%
who were neutral. The majority (77%) agreed that it is more important to protect habitat for
plants and animals than provide recreational opportunities (see Table 2).
5.4 Economic attitudes
The majority (92%) agreed that it is important to purchase local products. Similarly, most
respondents (87%) indicated that it is important to purchase local services. Thirty-eight
percentage of visitors were neutral about the notion that visits to protected areas should be
free; while 56% agreed that such visits should not be free. Likewise, visitors (51%) were
neutral about whether tourists should not have to pay to experience/view/interact with
2

Agreed (strongly agreed combined with agreed responses).

123

Sustainable tourism development in the Pitons Management

849

Table 3 Frequency distributions (percentages) for economic attitudes

Questionnaire statementa

SD

SA

# of
cases

It is important to purchase local products

0.0

0.5

It is important to purchase local services

0.0

0.0 13.4 46.5 40.1 217

7.8 50.2 41.5 217

Visits to protected areas should not be free

0.0

6.0 38.0 27.8 28.2 216

Tourist should not have to pay to experience/view/interact with nature 18.1 28.2 50.9

2.9

0.0 216

Tourists should be willing to spend more at World Heritage Sites than

other attractions

0.0

1.4 57.9 28.7 12.0 216

Tourists should donate funds for conservation at World Heritage Sites

0.0

1.9 55.6 29.6 13.0 216

SD, strongly disagree; D, disagree; N, neutral; A, agree; SA, strongly agree

Table 4 Frequency distributions (percentages) for social attitudes

Questionnaire statementa

SD

Meeting and interacting with local residents is not important

30.0 58.1

I feel safe when interacting with local residents

0.0

9.7

SA

# of
cases

1.4

0.9 217

0.5 22.1 67.7

9.7 217

Cultural exchange is not an important part of the visitor experience 23.0 58.1 15.7

2.8

0.5 217

Local residents should not be allowed to use attractions just like 31.3 62.2
tourists

4.6

1.4

0.5 217

Tourists should respect the values and culture of local residents

0.0

0.5

3.7 66.4 29.5 217

Local residents should be treated fairly and equitably

0.0

0.0

2.8 66.8 30.4 217

SD, strongly disagree; D, disagree; N, neutral; A, agree; SA, strongly agree

nature. Visitors were also mostly (58%) neutral about whether tourists should be willing to
spend more at World Heritage Sites than at other attractions, while 41% agreed. The
majority (56%) were neutral about whether tourist should donate funds for conservation at
World Heritage Sites while 43% agreed (see Table 3).
5.5 Social attitudes
The majority of respondents (88%) agreed that meeting and interacting with local residents
are important. Also, most visitors (77%) agreed that they felt safe when interacting with
local residents, while 22% were neutral. The majority (81%) agreed that cultural exchange
is an important part of the visitor experience. Almost all the respondents agreed that local
residents should be allowed to use attractions just like tourists (93%); that tourists should
respect the value and culture of local residents (96%); and that local residents should be
treated fairly and equitably (97%) (see Table 4).
5.6 Support for sustainable tourism development in the PMA
Forty-two percentage of the tourists were neutral about the prohibition of big tourism
development such as large resort hotels in the PMA, while 53% expressed support.3
3

Support (strongly support combined with support responses).

123

850

L. Nicholas, B. Thapa

Table 5 Frequency distributions (percentages) for support for sustainable tourism development in the PMA
Questionnaire statementa

SO O

Prohibit big tourism development projects

0.5 4.1

SS

# of
cases

42.4 26.7 26.3 217

Emphasis on limits to growth in tourism development in the PMA 0.0 2.3

39.6 34.1 24.0 217

Regulatory environmental standards to reduce the negative impacts 0.0 0.5

of tourism

11.1 63.6 24.9 217

Cooperation and unity in tourism planning and development

0.0 0.0

5.1 70.5 24.4 217

Cultural exchanges between local residents and visitors

0.0 0.0

4.2 66.2 29.6 216

Local participation in tourism planning and development

0.0 0.0

3.7 71.9 24.4 217

Development of community-based tourism initiatives

0.0 0.5 370

Promotion of environmental education and conservation

0.0 0.0

71.0 24.9 217

3.7 71.9 24.4 217

SO, strongly oppose; O, oppose; N, neutral; S, support; SS, strongly support

Similarly, visitors were neutral (40%) about emphasis on limits to growth in tourism in the
PMA. With regards to support for regulatory environmental standards, only about 1%
opposed and the majority (89%) expressed support. Almost all respondents (95%)
expressed their support for cooperation and unity in tourism planning and development.
Similarly, the majority (96%) supported cultural exchanges between local residents and
visitors; 96% supported local participation in tourism; development of community-based
tourism initiatives, and promotion of environmental education and conservation (see
Table 5).
Following frequency analysis, reliability analysis using Cronbachs alpha was employed
to determine the internal consistency of items within each construct. All four constructs
had acceptable standardized alpha values that were above the recommended level of .70
(Nunnally 1978). After the reliability analysis was conducted, the items were summed to
create an index for each construct: Environmental Attitudinal Index (alpha value .85),
Economic Attitudinal Index (alpha value .91), Social Attitudinal Index (alpha value .81),
and Sustainable Tourism Development Index (alpha value .94) (see Table 6).
Question 2:

Is there a relationship between Visitor Attitudes (Environmental, Economic,

and Social) and Support for Sustainable Tourism Development in the PMA?

Based on the analysis (Pearsons r), the correlations resulted in all significant relationships. The Economic Attitudinal Index (r = .72) had the strongest relationship with
Support for Sustainable Tourism Development Index, followed closely by Social (r = .63)
and Environmental (r = .60) Attitudinal Indexes. The relationships were all positive which
indicated that as each of the respective attitudes increased, their level of support for
sustainable tourism development at the PMA subsequently also increased. Overall, as
attitudes increased, support also increased (see Table 7).
Question 3:

Which type of Visitor Attitude (Environmental, Economic, and Social) is

the best predictor of Support for Sustainable Tourism Development in the
PMA?

Following the bivariate correlations, all variables were taken together to conduct the
linear regression whereby 58% of the variance in support for sustainable tourism development was explained by the three attitudinal constructs. The Economic (beta = .48)

123

Sustainable tourism development in the Pitons Management

851

Table 6 Reliability analysis for visitors perspectives

Questionnaire statements

Mean SDa Corrected Alpha

Item total If item
correlation deleted

Environmental attitudes
The diversity of nature must be valued and protected

4.25

.44

.70

.82

Community environment must be protected now and in the future

4.25

.49

.75

.81

It is more important to protect habitat for plants and animals than

provide recreation opportunities

4.00

.72

.68

.82

It is not important to protect rare plant and animal speciesb

4.18

.63

.62

.83

Less public lands should be under protected areasb

3.79

.73

.68

.82

4.10

.48

It is important to purchase local products

4.33

.64

.73

It is important to use local services

4.27

.68

.75

.89

Visits to protected areas should not be free

3.78

.93

.74

.90

Tourists should not have to pay to experience/view/interact with natureb 3.62

.81

.72

.90

Tourists should be willing to donate funds for conservation at World

Heritage Sites

3.54

.74

.77

.89

Tourists should be willing to spend more at World Heritage Sites than 3.51
other attractions

.72

.80

.88

Overall Index (N = 217)

.85

Economic attitudes

Overall Index (N = 216)

3.84

.63

.90

.91

Social attitudes
Local residents should be treated fairly and equitably

4.28

.51

.64

.77

Cultural exchange is not an important part of the visitor experienceb

4.25

.54

.63

.77

Tourists should respect the values and culture of local residents

4.25

.54

.70

.76

Meeting and interacting with local residents is not importantb

4.15

.72

.50

.80

I feel safe when interacting with local residents

3.87

.57

.51

.79

Local residents should not be allowed to use attractions just like

touristsb

4.00

.74

.51

.79

4.13

.45

Overall Index (N = 217)

.81

Support for sustainable tourism development

Cultural exchanges between local residents and visitors

4.25

.52

.85

.93

Local participation in tourism planning and development

4.21

.49

.89

.93

Promotion of environmental education and conservation

4.21

.49

.87

.93

Development of community-based tourism initiatives

4.20

.51

.89

.93

Cooperation and unity in tourism planning & development

4.19

.51

.89

.93

Regulatory environmental standards to reduce the negative impacts

of tourism

4.13

.60

.82

.93

Emphasis on limits to growth in tourism development

3.80

.83

.78

.93

Prohibition of big tourism development projects

3.74

.91

.72

4.09

.53

Overall Index (N = 217)

a

Standard deviation,

.95
.94

items reverse coded

Attitudinal Index had the highest predictive power followed by the Social (beta = .29)
Attitudinal Index. The Environmental (beta = .08) Attitudinal Index was not significant
although it was strongly correlated in the bivariate analysis (see Table 7).

123

852
Table 7 Results of attitudes on
support for sustainable tourism
development

L. Nicholas, B. Thapa

Attitudes

Pearson r
Support for
correlations sustainable tourism
development index
Beta

Environmental Attitudinal Index .60***

Adjusted R2

.08

Economic Attitudinal Index

.72***

.48*** .58

Social Attitudinal Index

.63***

.29***

*** Significant at .001 level

6 Discussion
Although visitors have been largely overlooked as stakeholders in tourism development,
their input as consumers of the tourism products is undoubtedly invaluable (Weaver and
Lawton 2004). The attitudes and perspectives of visitors to the PMA can significantly
influence the long-term prosperity and sustainability of the PMA. In this study, an overwhelming majority of visitors held very positive attitudes toward the environment with all
but one respondent agreeing that the diversity of nature must be valued and protected.
These findings are consistent with those of Weaver and Lawton (2004) who found that
existing visitors prioritized the preservation of nature over tourism development. Their
study was based on six tourist sites which were predominantly eco-tourism based with two
of the sites were gateways to a World Heritage-listed National Park. Also, in this study
found a strong positive significant relationship between Environmental Attitudes, and
Support for Sustainable Tourism Development was identified. The relationship indicated
that the more environmentally sensitive the visitor, the greater their support for Sustainable
Tourism Development in the PMA. These results augur well to realize sustainable tourism
development in the PMA. Jurowski (1994) argued that the degree of ecological sensitivity
and site-specific preferences of visitors are essential information for the management of
natural resource recreation areas. She also noted that the environmental attitudes of tourists
may play a key role in determining the environmental impacts of tourism.
However, despite the strong relationship between Environmental Attitudes and Support
for Sustainable Tourism Development in the PMA, the Environmental Attitudinal Index
was not a significant predictor of Sustainable Tourism Development in the PMA. This
finding was surprising given the strong positive bivariate correlation. The environmental
attitude items were largely adapted from the New Ecological Paradigm Scale that measures
a general set of beliefs or attitudes toward the environment (Thapa and Graefe 2003).
Given that the items tap into a general overall environmental worldview rather than specific attitudes toward the visited destination, this may have been a limitation and resulted in
the lack of predictive validity. The utilization of general attitudinal scales especially the
New Environmental/Ecological Paradigm is extensively employed in the sustainable
tourism literature, and future research should consider general as well as specific attitudes
toward the sampled destination (Weaver and Lawton 2004).
In addition, based on the literature from the general environmental attitudebehavior
relationship, it has been noted that research has generally identified a weak or modest
relationship (Cottrell 2003; Tarrant and Cordell 1977). In order to further examine this
relationship, the use of external (e.g., socio-demographic factors and personality characteristics) and mediating variables has been employed to gain better behavioral predictability of environmental attitudes (Tarrant and Cordell 1997; Cottrell 2003; Tarrant and
Green 1999). Based on the utilization of mediating variables, Nicholas et al. (2009b)

123

Sustainable tourism development in the Pitons Management

853

conducted a study among residents in order to understand support for sustainable tourism
development in the PMA. They found that an overwhelming majority of residents
expressed positive attitudes about the environment in general; however, Environmental
Attitudes was not found to have significant impacts on Support for Sustainable Tourism
Development. Rather, Environmental Attitudes was found to have a significant direct
relationship with the mediating variable-perceptions about the PMA. As such, residents are
likely to support sustainable tourism development only when they develop positive perceptions about PMA. This may also be the case for visitors, and the use of mediating as
well as external variables is recommended for future research.
Generally, visitors expressed economic attitudes that are compatible with the principles
of sustainable tourism development. The majority of respondents reported that it was
important to purchase local goods and services. These findings are in accord with the
principles of the economic component of sustainability, as increased expenditure on local
products can contribute to the minimization of leakages from the local economy, thereby
enhancing the multiplier effect, as well as helping to stimulate local business ventures in
the community (Swarbrooke 1999). Thus, it is not surprising that a strong positive relationship was found between Economic Attitudes and Support for Sustainable Tourism
Development, which suggests that the sustainability of the site hinges strongly on its
potential to remain economically viable. Additionally, Economic Attitudes was also found
to be the strongest predictor of Support for Sustainable Tourism Development in the PMA.
Visitors were mostly neutral when asked about paying for experiences or donating funds
for conservation at Heritage Sites. Mason and Kuo (2006) found similar results in their
study on visitor management at the Stonehenge World Heritage Site whereby the opinions
of visitors were equally divided on whether the visit to Stonehenge should be free.
However, in this study, only 15% of visitors thought that entrance fees should be increased
with the extra income allocated toward conservation, whilst 43% of the PMA visitors who
expressed that they were willing to donate funds toward conservation. A number of factors
may be attributable to such neutrality. For example, whilst many visitors may be willing to
contribute funds, they may not be able to, due to lack of financial resources. In Komodo
National Park in Indonesia, visitors were willing to pay over 10 times the current entrance
fee, indicating a substantial potential for increased revenue (Walpole, Goodwin and Ward
2001). Tapper and Cochrane (2005) revealed that tour operators indicated that the most
effective way to encourage personal donations by visitors is to explain the nature and
objectives of projects. They asserted that visitors who are informed of the value of conservation projects often want to make direct personal donations in support of those
projects.
Timothy and Boyd (2006) noted that the lack of financial capacity to conserve World
Heritage Sites is probably the most endemic problem in the poorer countries of the
Americas. They further contended that the countries of Latin American and the Caribbean
are economically challenged and have little money to devote to heritage conservation
and management. Timothy and Boyd (2003) also remarked that in most developing
countries like the Caribbean, the conservation of sites like World Heritage Sites is viewed
as a luxury that is beyond their means in light of other pressing issues such as high
illiteracy rates, declining health care, and food shortages. Thus, it is imperative that the
PMA management authorities devise viable strategies of raising adequate funds to manage
the site. Buckley (2004) also posited that management costs money. Parks need money to
protect, monitor and restore natural environments, endangered species and heritage items,
which are subject to impacts from land uses both within and outside their boundaries
(p. 57). He further added that currently parks are compelled to raise operating funds by

123

854

L. Nicholas, B. Thapa

charging park users fees. However, Shackley (1998b) found it quite surprising that on-site
level of economic exploitation of World Heritage Sites was generally quite low, particularly in developing countries (p. 197).
A preponderance of respondents expressed positive social attitudes consistent with the
principles of sustainability. The majority of visitors revealed that it was essential to interact
with local residents and felt safe doing so. This same magnitude of visitors expressed that
locals should be treated fairly and equally and should be allowed to use attractions just like
tourists. Such sentiments are critical to attain sustainability, as a key cornerstone of social
sustainability is equity and cooperation between local residents and visitors, thereby
reducing resentment and conflict. These findings corroborate the results that a significant
direct relationship exists between Social Attitudes and Sustainable Tourism Development.
Despite the strong positive social attitudes expressed by visitors to the PMA, it should,
however, be noted that the social sustainability of tourism development in the PMA may be
compromised due to the lack of involvement of local community residents in the tourism
development process. Study results by Nicholas et al. (2009b) on residents perceptions on
sustainable tourism development in the PMA reveal that the majority of residents (73%)
were not at all involved in tourism associated with the PMA. They nonetheless expressed
strong support for the PMA as a World Heritage Site and for Sustainable Tourism
Development in the PMA.

7 Conclusion
Evidently, tourism looms large in any credible vision of the PMA, as the PMA epitomizes
the flagship of a tourist attraction. Notwithstanding, the World Heritage Status of this site
makes it incumbent that a sustainable approach to tourism development be adopted in order
to ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained over the long term. Given that the
sustainability of the site hinges strongly on the attitude and behavior of visitors, this study
has produced invaluable insights on the perspectives of visitors as it relates to sustainable
tourism development. Study results indicate that generally visitors are very satisfied with
their experience and are very supportive of sustainable tourism development. The findings
also brought to light opportunities for increased interaction between visitors and locals as
well as for increased revenue to the area. Also, greater promotion of the World Heritage
Status of the PMA (e.g. during tours at the site; and in the promotional and advertising
campaigns of the St. Lucia Tourist Board) is needed to create awareness and support.
It is recommended that this research be further refined, fortified, and then duplicated, in
order to gain a better understanding of the variables that influence visitors support for
sustainable tourism development. In addition, the variables that were found to influence
visitor support could be further investigated to develop a better understanding of why and
how they have an effect on their support for the PMA. These variables should also be
explored further to determine a more in-depth understanding of the nature of their effect on
their support for sustainable tourism development in the PMA. Finally, although this study
did not reveal many negative perceptions, it was undertaken at a relatively early stage in
the life cycle of the PMA as a World Heritage Site. Patterns of attitudes toward both
tourism and conservation may change as tourism develops. It is therefore vital that longitudinal research examining visitors perspectives be undertaken.
Given the aforementioned results in terms of visitors environmental, social, and economic attitudes, it is not surprising that visitors were generally supportive of Sustainable
Tourism Development. These results bode well to realize the potential for sustainable

123

Sustainable tourism development in the Pitons Management

855

tourism development in the PMA. Research has predominantly focused on resident attitudes toward tourism, and this research is one of the few that have utilized visitor attitudes
with respect to sustainable tourism development. This research supports the sparse literature on visitor attitudes (Raymond and Brown 2007; Weaver and Lawton 2004) and calls
for additional research given the importance of integration of visitor perspectives.

References
Aas, C., Ladkin, A., & Fletcher, J. (2005). Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management. Annals of
Tourism Research, 32(1), 2848.
Akis, S., Peristianis, N., & Warner, J. (1996). Residents attitudes to tourism development: The case of
Cyprus. Tourism Management, 17(7), 481494.
Andereck, K. L., & Jurowski, C. (2006). Tourism and quality of life. In G. Jennings & N. P. Nickerson
(Eds.), Quality tourism experiences (pp. 136152). New York: Elsevier.
Andereck, K. L., & Vogt, C. A. (2000). The relationship between residents attitudes toward tourism and
tourism development options. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 2737.
Andriotis, K., & Vaughn, R. D. (2003). Urban residents attitudes toward tourism development: The case of
Crete. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 172185.
Bass, S., Dalal-Clayton, B. & Pretty, J. (May, 1995). Participation in strategies for sustainable development.
Environmental Planning Issues, 7. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
Boyd, S. W., & Timothy, D. J. (2001). Developing partnerships: Tool for interpretation and management of
World Heritage Sites. Tourism Recreation Research, 26(1), 4753.
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (1993). Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 1(1), 15.
Buckley, R. (2004). The effects of World Heritage Listing on tourism to Australian national parks. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 12(1), 7084.
Butler, R. (1999). Sustainable tourism: a state-of- the-art review. Tourism Geographies, 1, 725.
Byrd, E. (2007). Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development and their roles: Applying stakeholder
theory to sustainable tourism development. Tourism Review, 62(2), 613.
Caffyn, A., & Jobbins, G. (2003). Governance capacity and stakeholder interactions in the development and
management of coastal tourism: Examples from Morocco and Tunisia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
11(2&3), 224245.
Choi, H., & Sirakaya, E. (2005). Measuring residents attitude toward sustainable tourism: Development of
sustainable tourism attitude scale. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 380394.
Cochrane, J., & Tapper, R. (2006). Tourisms contribution to World Heritage Site management. In A. Leask &
A. Fyall (Eds.), Managing World Heritage Sites (pp. 97109). Burlington, MA: Butterworth:Heinemann.
Cole, S. (1997). Anthropologists, local communities and sustainable tourism development. In M. J. Stabler
(Ed.), Tourism & sustainability: Principles to practice (pp. 219230). New York: CABI.
Cottrell, S. (2003). Influence of socio-demographics and environmental attitudes on general responsible
environmental behavior among recreational boaters. Environment and Behavior, 35(3), 347375.
Eagles, P. (2002). Trends in park tourism: Economics, finance and management. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 10(2), 132153.
Fyall, A., & Rakic, T. (2006). The future market for World Heritage Sites. In A. Leask & A. Fyall (Eds.),
Managing World Heritage Sites (pp. 159175). Burlington, MA: Butterworth:Heinemann.
Garrod, B., & Fyall, A. (1998). Beyond the rhetoric of sustainable tourism? Tourism Management, 19(3),
199212.
Getz, D., & Jamal, T. (1994). The environment-community symbiosis: A case of collaborative tourism
planning. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2(3), 152173.
Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident attitudes: A structural modeling approach. Annals of
Tourism Research, 29, 79105.
Hall, C. M. (2006). Implementing the World Heritage Convention: What happens after the listing? In A.
Leask & A. Fyall (Eds.), Managing World Heritage Sites (pp. 2034). Burlington, MA:
Butterworth:Heinemann.
Hall, C. M., & Piggin, R. (2001). Tourism and world heritage in OECD countries. Tourism Recreation
Research, 26(1), 103105.
Harrill, R. (2004). Residents attitudes toward tourism development: A literature review with implications
for tourism planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 18(3), 251266.

123

856

L. Nicholas, B. Thapa

Hunter, C. (1997). Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(4), 850
867.
Jamal, T., & Getz, D. (1999). Community roundtable for tourism related conflicts: The dialectics of consensus and progress structures. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7, 290313.
Jamieson, W. (2003). Poverty alleviation through sustainable tourism development. New York: United
Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.
Jennings, G. (2006). Perspectives on quality tourism experiences: An introduction. In G. Jennings & N. P.
Nickerson (Eds.), Quality tourism experiences (pp. 121). New York: Elsevier.
Jurowski, C. (1994). The interplay of elements affecting host community resident attitudes toward tourism: A
path analytic approach. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, Virginia Tech University.
Jurowski, C., & Gursoy, D. (2004). Distance effects on residents attitudes toward tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 31, 296312.
Leask, A. (2006). World Heritage Site designation. In A. Leask & A. Fyall (Eds.), Managing World
Heritage Sites (pp. 619). Burlington, MA: Butterworth:Heinemann.
Lepp, A. (2007). Residents attitudes towards tourism in Bigodi village, Uganda. Tourism Management, 28,
876885.
Li, M., Wu, B., & Cai, L. (2008). Tourism development of World Heritage Sites in China: A geographic
perspective. Tourism Management, 29, 308319.
Marion, J. L. & Farrell, T. A. (1999). Managing ecotourism visitation in protected areas. In K. Lindberg,
M. Epler-Wood, & D. Engeldrum (Eds.), Ecotourism: A guide for planners and managers (Vol. II).
Washington, DC: The International Ecotourism Society.
Mason, P., & Cheyne, J. (2000). Residents attitudes to proposed development. Annals of Tourism Research,
27(2), 391411.
Mason, P., & Kuo, I. (2006). Visitor management at Stonehenge, UK. In A. Leask & A. Fyall (Eds.),
Managing World Heritage Sites (pp. 181194). Burlington, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.
Medeiros de Araujo, L., & Bramwell, B. (1999). Stakeholder assessment and collaborative tourism planning: the case of Brazils Costa Dourada Project. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(3&4), 356378.
Milne, S. (1998). Tourism and sustainable development: The global-local nexus. In M. C. Hall & A. Lew
(Eds.), Sustainable tourism: A global perspective (pp. 3548). New York: Longman.
Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience:
Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853886.
Murphy, P., & Price, G. (2005). Tourism and sustainable development. In W. Theobald (Ed.), Global
tourism (3rd ed., pp. 167193). Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Nicholas, L. (2007). Stakeholder perspectives on the Pitons Management Area in St. Lucia: Potential for
Sustainable Tourism Development. PhD dissertation in Recreation, Parks and Tourism. University of
Florida, USA.
Nicholas, L., Thapa, B., & Ko, Y. J. (2009a). Residents perspectives of a World Heritage Site: The Pitons
Management Area, St. Lucia. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 390412.
Nicholas, L., Thapa, B., & Pennington-Gray, L. (2009b). Public sector perspectives and policy implications
for the Pitons Management Area World Heritage Site, St. Lucia. International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology, 6(3), 205216.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pederson, A. (2002). Managing tourism at World Heritage Sites: A manual for World Heritage Site
Managers. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
Pennington-Gray, L. (2005). Resident attitudes towards tourism in a destination in the stagnation stage of the
tourism life cycle. Sustainable Development and Planning, 2, 14111418.
Raymond, C., & Brown, G. (2007). A spatial method for assessing resident and visitor attitudes towards
tourism growth and development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5), 122.
Sauter, S. T., & Leisen, B. (1999). Managing stakeholders: a tourism planning model. Annals of Tourism
Research, 26(2), 312328.
Selin, S., & Chavez, D. (1995). Developing a collaborative model for environmental planning and management. Environmental Management, 19(2), 189195.
Shackley, M. (1998a). Introduction: World cultural heritage sites. In M. Shackley (Ed.), Visitor management: Case studies from World Heritage Sites (pp. 19). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Shackley, M. (1998b). Conclusions: Visitor management at cultural World Heritage Sites. In M. Shackley
(Ed.), Visitor management: Case studies from World Heritage Sites (pp. 194205). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Sharpley, R. (2000). Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 8(1), 119.

123

Sustainable tourism development in the Pitons Management

857

Simpson, K. (2001). Strategic planning and community involvement as contributors to sustainable tourism
development. Current Issues in Tourism, 4(1), 341.
Sirakaya, E., Teye, V., & Sonmez, S. (2002). Understanding residents support for tourism development in
the central region in Ghana. Journal of Travel Research, 4(1), 5767.
Slee, W., Farr, H., & Snowdon, P. (1997). Sustainable tourism and the local economy. In M. J. Stabler (Ed.),
Tourism & sustainability: Principles to practice (pp. 6987). Wallingford, UK: CABI.
Smith, M. K. (2003). Issues in cultural tourism. New York: Routledge.
Smith, M. D., & Krannich, R. S. (1998). Tourism dependence and resident attitudes. Annals of Tourism
Research, 25(4), 783802.
Snaith, T., & Haley, A. (1999). Residents opinions of tourism development in the historic city of York,
England. Tourism Management, 20(5), 595603.
Southgate, C., & Sharpley, R. (2002). Tourism, development and the environment. In R. Sharpley & D. J.
Telfer (Eds.), Tourism and development: Concepts and issues (pp. 231262). Clevon, UK: Channel
View Publications.
Stabler, M., & Goodall, B. (1996). Environmental auditing in planning for sustainable island tourism. In L.
Briguglio, B. Archer, J. Jafari, & G. Wall (Eds.), Sustainable tourism in islands and small island states:
Issues and policies (pp. 170196). London: Pinter.
Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable tourism management. Wallingford, UK: CABI.
Tapper, R., & Cochrane, J. (2005). Forging links between protected areas and the tourism sector: How
tourism can benefit conservation. Paris: UNEP.
Tarrant, M., & Cordell, K. (1997). The effect of respondent characteristics on general environmental
attitude-behavior correspondence. Environment and Behavior, 29(5), 618633.
Tarrant, M., & Green, G. (1999). Outdoor recreation and the predictive validity of environmental attitudes.
Leisure Sciences, 21(1), 1730.
Thapa, B. (2007). Issues and challenges of World Heritage Sites in Nepal. In R. White & J. Carman (Eds.),
World heritage: Global challenges and local solutions (pp. 2327). Oxford, UK: Archaeopress.
Thapa, B. (2010). Funding strategies for World Heritage Sites in Least Developed Countries. In P. Messenger & G. Smith (Eds.), Heritage resource management, policy, and issues in global perspective.
Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press.
Thapa, B., & Graefe, A. (2003). Forest recreationists and environmentalism. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 21(1), 77105.
Timothy, D. J. (1998). Cooperative tourism planning in a developing destination. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 6(1), 5268.
Timothy, D. J., & Boyd, S. W. (2003). Heritage tourism. London: Prentice Hall.
Timothy, D. J., & Boyd, S. W. (2006). Heritage tourism in the 21st century: Valued traditions and new
perspectives. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 1(1), 116.
Tureley, S. (1998). Hadrians Wall (UK). Managing the visitor experience at the Roman frontier. In M.
Shackley (Ed.), Visitor management: Case studies from World Heritage Sites (pp. 100120). Oxford:
Butterworth Heinemann.
UNEP/WTO. (2005). Making tourism more sustainable: A guide for policy makers. Paris: UNEP; Madrid: WTO.
UNESCO. (2006). World Heritage List. Retrieved March 10, 2006 from the official website of UNESCO:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1161/documents/.
UNESCO. (2009). World Heritage List. Retrieved Sep 19, 2009 from the official website of UNESCO:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list.
Wager, J. (1995). Developing a strategy for the Angkor World Heritage Site. Tourism Management, 16(7),
515523.
Wahab, S. (1997). Sustainable tourism in the developing world: The challenge of sustainability. In S. Wahab
& J. J. Pigram (Eds.), Tourism, development and growth (pp. 129146). New York: Routledge.
Walpole, M. J., Goodwin, H. J., & Ward, K. G. R. (2001). Pricing policy for tourism in protected areas:
Lessons from Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Conservation Biology, 15(1), 218227.
Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. J. (2004). Visitor attitudes towards tourism development and product integration in an Australian urban-rural fringe. Journal of Travel Research, 42(3), 286296.
Wight, P. (1993). Sustainable ecotourism: Balancing economic, environmental and social goals within an
ethical framework. Journal of Tourism Studies, 4(2), 5466.
Williams, J., & Lawson, R. (2001). Community issues and resident opinions of tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 28(2), 269290.
World Tourism Organization (WTO). (1993). Sustainable tourism development: A guide for local planners.
Madrid: World Tourism Organization.

123