A longitudinal study of the residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts using data from the sunshine coast Australia

              © PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. ISSN 1695-7121
Vol. 10 Nº 2. Special Issue. Pp. 37-46. 2012
www.pasosonline.org
A longitudinal study of the residents’ perceptions of tourism
impacts using data from the sunshine coast Australia
Bishnu Sharma i
Pam Dyer ii
University of the Sunshine Coast, (Australia)
i University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia, bsharma@usc.edu.au
ii University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia.
Abstract: This study investigates whether there has been a change in residents’ perceptions of living
and tourism impacts, on the Sunshine Coast, in 2009 from their perceptions of 2008. In 2009 more
respondents reported that lifestyle and general pace of life were the key attractions of living on the
Sunshine Coast. The results also demonstrate a signifi cant increase in residents’ perceptions that
tourism is likely to have a positive impact on the cultural identity of the community. The study also
found that between 2008 and 2009 there was a signifi cant decrease in the residents’ concerns re-garding
traffi c congestion; noise and pollution; crime rates; destruction of the natural environment;
and unpleasantly overcrowded beaches, and bush walking paths, parks and outdoor facilities in the
community. The research, however, reveals no signifi cant differences in the residents’ perceptions
of conservation of natural resources; creation of employment; and the possibility of having more cul-tural
exchange between tourists and residents due to tourism. Overall, these fi ndings are favourable
for tourism-related stakeholders in developing future tourism plans for the region in that residents’
appear to be more willing to support tourism development.
Keywords: Residents’ perceptions; Tourism; Sunshine Coast; Surveys.
Título: Estudio longitudinal sobre las percepciones de los residentes de la Costa del Sol australiana
sobre los impactos del turismo
Resumen: Este estudio investiga si ha habido un cambio de percepciones de los residentes de la
Costa del Sol australiana sobre los impactos del turismo en el año 2009, comparándolo con el 2008.
En el 2009 un mayor número de enuestados opinaron que el estilo y ritmo de vida son los principales
atractivos del al Costa del Sol. Los resultados también demuestran un aumento signifi cativo en las pe-repciones
de los residentes sobre el impacto positivo del turismo en la identidad cultural de la comu-nidad.
El estudio también encontró que entre el 2008 y el 2009 hubo una disminución signifi cativa de
las preocupaciones de los residentes con respecto al tráfi co, el ruido y la contaminación, los índices de
criminalidad, la des-trucción del medio ambiente, playas, rutas de senderimso, parques e instalaciones
al aire libre. La inves-tigación, sin embargo, no revela diferencias signifi cativas en las percepciones
de los residentes sobre la conservación de los recursos naturales, la creación de empleo y la posibili-dad
de tener un intercambio más cultural entre turistas y residentes. En general estos resultados son
favorables para las partes intere-sadas en el desarrollo de planes de futuro para turismo en la región,
ya que los residentes parecen dis-puestos a apoyar el desarrollo turístico.
Palabras clave: Percepciones de los residentes; Turismo; Costa del Sol; Encuestas.
38
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 10(2). Special Issue. 2012
A longitudinal study of the residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts ...
ISSN 1695-7121
Introduction
The tourism literature reveals that residents’ at-titudes
toward tourism play an important role for
sustainable management of tourist destinations
(Sharma and Dyer, 2009a; Sharma et al., 2008; Inba-karan
and Jackson, 2006; Gursoy and Rutherford,
2004; Andriotis, 2004; Gursoy et al., 2002; Teye et
al., 2002). Therefore, much attention from tourism
related scholars and researchers has resulted in a
large number of articles in scholarly journals which
have examined various aspects of tourism including
its impacts on host communities and residents’ at-titudes
toward tourism (eg. Brida et al., 2010; Var-gas-
Sanchez et al., 2009; Sharma and Dyer, 2009b;
Wang and Pfi ster, 2008; Solberg and Preuss, 2007;
Inbakaran and Jackson, 2006; Teye et al., 2002;
Jones et al., 2000; Fredline and Faulkner, 2000;
Carmichael et al., 1996; Caneday and Zeiger, 1991).
Involvement of residents in community decision
making about tourism becomes helpful in infl uenc-ing
and shaping the way they perceive the impacts
of tourism (Bonimy, 2008). Residents comprise the
general members of the public, including business
owners, service providers, and workers / employees
who service tourists’ needs and wants. It is neces-sary
to assess the residents’ perceptions of impacts
from tourism on a periodic basis as the tourism-related
activities can impact the residents’ quality
of life (Cecil et al., 2010). This also helps to keep
the residents motivated to act as ‘willing partners’
in the tourism development process (Allen et al.,
1988) and in identifying the impacts of tourism that
could otherwise be overlooked (Mok et al., 1991). In
promoting tourism, it is also important that visi-tors
receive a high quality experience or a high level
of satisfaction from their holiday along with other
tourism experiences which are associated with visi-tors’
perceptions of site-specifi c environmental con-ditions
and standards. These include number of
parking bays, signs, levels of littering, adequacy of
human waste disposal, presence of wildlife, levels
of noise, and access to beach, ocean and residents
and other tourist facilities (Moore and Polley, 2007).
Traffi c congestion can become detrimental to both
tourists and residents and negatively infl uence the
host community’s attitude towards tourism (Cros,
2008).
The fi ndings of residents’ surveys and visitors’
surveys provide useful inputs to the relevant insti-tutions
in crafting or improving tourism related pol-icies
and strategies such as organising business/fun
events (e.g. Australian PGA championship; Triath-lons
at Mooloolaba and Noosa; Woodford folk festival;
Kenilworth cheese, wine and food festival; Gympie’s
gold rush festival; Noosa winter festival; Sunshine
Coast home show and caravan and camping expo),
accommodation planning, developing new tourist
destinations/attractions (e.g. Premier Golf adven-tures;
Australia zoo; Noosa national park; Suncoast
barra fi shing park; Kondalilla falls national park;
Maleny dairies; Rainbow beach houseboats), build-ing
and improving transportation networks, and
planning and scheduling air traffi c/ fl ights. Such
developments can also change residents’ attitudes
to tourism thus determining their level of support
for tourism activities over time. However, there is
a limited number of studies available which have
used a longitudinal approach in assessing residents’
attitudes toward tourism or visitors’ perceptions of
site-specifi c conditions and standards (Sharma and
Dyer, 2010; Huh and Vogt, 2008); hence this study.
Literature review
There is an increasing interest among tourism
stakeholders (e.g researchers, planners, developers)
in the possible contribution of tourism to the social
and economic development of a region/country (Al-balate
and Bel, 2010). Yet, tourism development is
also challenged on the grounds of possible cultur-al,
and/or environmental degradation (Wayakone
et al., 1998). It has also been observed that cities
which lead the world rankings for tourist arrivals
emphasise the importance of improving the public
transport network as this is crucial for improving
visitors’ and residents’ mobility whilst preventing
further traffi c congestion; local/city governments
are actively involved to this end in order to main-tain/
grow tourists infl ow in cities (Albalate and
Bel, 2010). A study of Arnberger and Brandenburg
(2007) discussed the possible link between on-site
(area) experience and crowding perceptions of visi-tors
based on a study of a National park in Austria.
This is particularly important as congestion at tour-ist
attractions can have a negative effect on tour-ists’
preferences for particular destinations (Brau,
2008). This warrants consideration of, and attention
to, crowd management (Heung et al., 2009). Tourist
destinations can become overcrowded due to inad-equate
management of traffi c, therefore, due atten-tion
should be accorded to anticipating and manag-ing
tourism related traffi c (Dickinson and Dickin-son,
2006).
Bishnu Sharma and Pam Dyer
ISSN 1695-7121
39
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 10(2). Special Issue. 2012
Residents’ beliefs and perceptions of tourism im-pacts
infl uence whether or not they enjoy living in
the tourist destination area. Positive perceptions
of residents on social, economic and environmental
impacts would lead to an increased level of willing-ness
to support tourism and vice-versa (Inbakaran
and Jackson, 2006). It is therefore, important that
tourism planners develop an understanding of how
the community perceives tourism to determine what
they need to do to gain local support for strategic
tourism related initiatives (Harrill, 2004). One way
to gain local support for tourism is to involve people
in the community decision-making process (Bonimy,
2008). In a separate study, using data from Folgar-ia
in northern Italy, Brida et al. (2010) developed
a basis for initiating a public participation process
whereby they identifi ed groups of people concerned
about or opposed to tourism planning and develop-ment
in their communities. Using cluster analy-sis
based on positive and negative perceptions of
tourism, residents were sorted into ‘environmental
supporters, development supporters, protection-ists,
and ambivalents’ (Brida et al., 2010: 600). All
these groups were infl uenced by employment in the
tourism sector. Environmental supporters partially
agree with the socio-cultural benefi t of the tourism
and the local and regional profi tability of tourism
but disapprove of the associated negative environ-mental
impact. Development supporters, on the
other hand, ‘agree with the positive economic, en-vironmental
and socio-cultural impacts and believe
that tourism increases regional profi tability’ while
the protectionist groups ‘manifest disappointment
with local, cultural and environmental impacts of
tourism in the region’ (Brida et al., 2010: 600). Am-bivalent
opinions were associated with the years of
residence of the host community.
As discussed by Cecil et al. (2010), the commu-nity
would enjoy a good quality of life if the local
residents feel safe from crime, live in affordable and
high quality housing, and have access to quality
education and employment opportunities, avoiding
some of the tourism impact elements. Some studies,
however, have not found evidence of any relation-ship
between levels of crime and tourism (Gibson
and Bentley, 2007). Wang and Pfi ster (2008) argued
that if the residents perceive that they receive per-sonal
benefi ts from tourism they are likely to lend
their support to tourism. How residents perceive the
costs and benefi ts of tourism is also linked with the
people’s socio-demographic make-up and experience
with tourism (Yang and Chen, 2008). For example,
young adults are more likely to have a favourable
attitude toward tourism’s economic impacts than
others (Huh and Vogt, 2008). Residents’ attitude to-ward
tourism is also affected by their highest educa-tion
level and employment in the tourism industry
(Andriotis and Vaughan, 2003).
In the Australian context, there is some notable
research available which has focused on visitors’
and host community reactions to tourism develop-ment
(Moyle et al., 2010, Sharma et al., 2008, Moore
and Polley, 2007, Fredline and Faulkner, 2000,
Tideswell and Faulkner, 1999, and Tomljenovic and
Faulkner, 2000). There is also some interest in the
development of olive tourism (Alonso and North-cote,
2010) and wine tourism (Beames, 2003) in
Australia. Other areas of research include unethical
marketing practices in tourism (March, 2008), and
‘blogosphere’ as a market research tool for tourism
destinations (Carson, 2008) among others. Most of
these studies are based on case studies. Investiga-tion
of the relationship between residents’ attitudes
toward tourism and associated impacts, and de-mographic
characteristics has led to mixed results
(Sharma and Dyer, 2009b; Teye et al., 2002; Chen,
2000; Jones et al., 2000; Haralambopoulos and
Pizam, 1996, Ritchie, 1988). There is, however, lim-ited
research that deals with the Sunshine Coast, a
very popular tourist destination of Australia.
This study, therefore, focuses on the investiga-tion
of residents’ perceptions of different aspects of
living on the Coast and examination of differences
in their attitudes towards tourism impacts between
the years 2008 and 2009.
Research objectives
As discussed earlier, this study has the following
objectives:
 To investigate whether there has been a change
in the perceptions of residents on various aspects
of living on the Sunshine Coast over a period of
approximately 12 months.
 To examine whether the perceptions of residents
pertaining to tourism impact items on the
Sunshine, Coast has signifi cantly changed
between 2008 and 2009.
Method
A survey approach was used for collecting data
both in 2008 and 2009. The survey was divided
into the following six segments: lifestyle; priority
40
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 10(2). Special Issue. 2012
A longitudinal study of the residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts ...
ISSN 1695-7121
issues; environment / tourism impacts; economy
and money; perception of residents on the effect
of Council amalgamation and demography; and
open-ended questions on critical issues about liv-ing
on the Sunshine Coast and critical issues that
face the tourism industry on the Sunshine Coast.
Originally there were 28 items in the question-naire
pertaining to tourism impacts. These were
based on the items developed by Gursoy and Ru-therford
(2004), and were also used by Dyer et al.,
(2007). They relate to positive or negative aspects
of social, economic, and cultural dimensions; rating
respondents’ level of agreement on a 5-point scale
(1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). Of the
28 tourism impact items only 10 key tourism im-pact
items were selected for the 2008 survey and 15
items for the 2009 survey. Their relevance and im-portance
were decided based on consultation with
the survey sponsors, the Sunshine Coast Daily
and Channel 7 (local television). Thus, the percep-tions
of Sunshine Coast residents regarding tour-ism
development and its impacts focused on traffi c
congestion; employment; noise and pollution; the
natural environment; overcrowding at leisure facil-ities
and locations; crime rates; cultural exchange
between tourists and residents; incentives for the
conservation of natural resources; impact on the
cultural identity of the community; and parks and
recreational areas for residents. The survey was
administered by the Sunshine Coast Daily (SCD).
The survey was included in the daily circulation of
the Sunshine Coast Daily to its regular customers,
and also it was posted online in the 2008 survey.
However, in 2009, the survey was carried out using
entirely the online approach. The hard copy of the
survey was not included in the daily circulation of
the Sunshine Coast Daily. Consequently, the num-ber
of responses received was low in the 2009 sur-vey.
Altogether 1589 and 590 people participated
in the survey in 2008 and 2009 respectively.
Various statistical techniques such as descrip-tive
statistics (mean, standard deviation and fre-quency
analysis), and a ‘t’ test were used to interro-gate
the data. To check for a possible response bias
in the samples, mean scores for some of the items
were compared for early respondents and late re-spondents
using a ‘t’ test. No signifi cant difference
was noted between these scores. This suggested
that response bias was unlikely in the sample. The
data were also checked for normality and the pres-ence
of outliers. For testing the data validity, cor-relation
analysis of similar items in the question-naire
was carried out.
Results
Respondents’ profi le
Although there were 1589 responses in the 2008
survey, not all of them had completed all questions.
The number of responses in 2009 was 585 but as in
the case of 2008, all respondents did not complete all
questions in the survey. In both surveys, nearly 99%
of the respondents were Sunshine Coast residents
and 0.9% were visitors. In terms of age, in both sur-veys
over 55% of respondents were 55 years or more
followed by 45-54 years. Nearly 56% of respondents
were female in the 2008 survey and 60% in the 2009
survey. In both surveys over 35% of respondents had
an annual household income of more than $60,000.
In terms of main occupation, 34.2% were in the ‘oth-er’
category followed by ‘professional’ (23.7%), home
duties (12.4%), small business owner (9.8%), admin-istration
(9.6%), trade (4.5%), and retired (3.1%), in
the 2008 survey. The ‘other’ category included aged
care worker, aged pensioner, artist tutor, carer, dis-ability
pensioner, health worker, investor, personal
carer (nurse), and self-employed.
In the 2009 survey, 26.6% were in the ‘other’ ca-tegory
followed by professional category with 23.5%.
Further, in the 2008 survey 39% of respondents had
a University level of education, followed by secon-dary
education (33.1%), Tertiary and further educa-tion
(TAFE) (19.6%), and an apprenticeship (5.9%).
In the 2009 survey, 36.1% of respondents had uni-versity
qualifi cation followed by secondary educa-tion
(35.4%), and TAFE (21%). In terms of residency
in 2008, the majority of respondents in both surveys
were from Maroochy area (nearly 60%), followed by
Caloundra and Noosa whereas in 2009 respondents
tended to live in the coastal area. In both surveys
over 40% of them had lived in the Sunshine Coast
region for over 15 years. Table 1 shows the compara-tive
profi le of respondents in 2008 and 2009.
Responses to research objective 1: To inves-tigate
whether there has been a change in the percep-tions
of residents on various aspects of living on the
Sunshine Coast.
In response to this objective, information was
collected pertaining to various issues such as the
residents’ belief about the Coast in terms of liv-ing,
their awareness of predicted population in-crease,
their feelings about the predicted population
growth, what they enjoy most about living on the
Bishnu Sharma and Pam Dyer
ISSN 1695-7121
41
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 10(2). Special Issue. 2012
Particular 2008 Survey 2009 Survey
Gender n=1564 n=582
Male 690 (44.1%) 231 (39.7%)
Female 874 (55.9%) 351 (60.3%)
Age n=1584 n=589
Under 25 yrs 45 (2.8%) 11 (1.9%)
25-34 yrs 97 (6.1%) 27 (4.6%)
35-44 yrs 227 (14.3%) 61 (10.4%)
45-54 yrs 341 (21.5%) 160 (27.2%)
55 or more yrs 874 (55.2%) 330 (56.0%)
Annual household income n=1542 n=566
Less than $20,000 202 (13.1%) 67 (11.8%)
$20,000 to < $40,000 383 (24.8%) 134 (23.7 %)
$40,000 to < $60,000 415 (26.9%) 144 (25.4%)
More than $60,000 542 (35.1%) 221 (39.1%)
Occupation n=1564 n=519
Professional 376 (24.0%) 122 (23.5%)
Trade 71 (4.5%) 43 (8.3%)
Administrative 152 (9.7%) 59 (11.4%)
Labourer 22 (1.4%) 8 (1.5%)
Small Business Owner 155 (9.9%) 58 (11.2%)
Home Duties 197 (12.6%) 91 (17.5%)
Other 591 (37.8%) 138 (26.6%)
Education n=1566 n = 587
University 611 (39.0%) 212 (36.1%)
TAFE 307 (19.6%) 123 (21%)
Apprenticeship 93 (5.9%) 35 (6%)
Secondary 519 (33.1%) 208 (35.4%)
Primary 36 (2.3%) 9 (1.5%)
Location of residence n=1564 n=590
Rural area 314 (20.1%) Coastal: 373
(63.2%)
Urban area 360 (23.0%) Non-coastal: 207
(35.1%)
Suburban area 890 (56.9%) Missing: 10
(1.7%)
Time lived on the Coast n=1572 n=585
All my life 74 (4.7%) 36 (6.2%)
1-3 years 202 (12.9%) 64 (10.9%)
3-7 years 277 (17.6%) 93 (15.9%)
7-15 years 377 (24.0%) 151 (25.8%)
More than 15 years 642 (40.8%) 241 (41.2%)
Residence: Previous Council n=1566 n=575
Noosa 184 (11.7%) 52 (9%)
Maroochy 942 (60.1%) 342 (59.5%)
Caloundra 440 (28.2%) 181 (31.5%)
Residency status of respondents n=1582 n=587
Sunshine Coast resident 99.0% 98.6%
Visitor 0.9% 1.0%
Table 1. Respondents’ Profi le
42
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 10(2). Special Issue. 2012
A longitudinal study of the residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts ...
ISSN 1695-7121
Coast, whether Queensland should introduce day-light
saving, and the most pressing employment
based issues on the Coast (see Table 2).
Nearly 53% of the respondents indicated that
they did not believe that the Coast was a better
place to live now and 23% were unsure. There has
been a dramatic increase in the proportion of peo-ple
who thought ‘lifestyle and general pace of life’
was what they enjoyed most about living on the
Coast (an increase from 32.3% in 2008 to 56.4% in
2009). There has been a drop, from 40.1% in 2008
to 32.4% in 2009, in the proportion of respondents
who enjoyed scenic beauty, beaches and hinterland
about living on the Coast. There are four eastern
states in Australia: Queensland, New South Wales,
Victoria and Tasmania. There is no daylight saving
in Queensland as is the case in the other 3 eastern
states. In response to whether Queensland should
introduce daylight saving, in both surveys, over 50%
of respondents supported daylight saving. Howev-er,
there has been some drop in the proportion for
support in 2009 (with 52.7%) as compared to 2008
survey (with 57.8%). Regarding the most pressing
issue of employment on the Coast, nearly 45% of
respondents in the 2008 survey, indicated a lack of
senior management positions on the Coast, while in
2009 nearly 43% indicated that the key issue was
the lack of employment options/job opportunities on
the Coast.
Responses to research objective 2: To exam-ine
whether Sunshine Coast residents’ perceptions
of tourism impact items have signifi cantly changed
between 2008 and 2009.
The results showed few signifi cant differences
in the mean scores for the items considered in this
study. The notable signifi cant differences in the res-idents’
perceptions are summarised below (see table
3 for details).
1. There was a signifi cant increase in the level of
agreement for the item “Tourism development is
likely to create a positive impact on the cultural
identity of the community” in 2009 over 2008.
This is a favourable outcome.
2. Another favourable response in 2009 compared
Particular 2008 Survey 2009 Survey
Awareness of predicted population increase on the Coast n=1580 n=585
Yes 61.1% 84.1%
No 38.9 15.9%
Feelings about the predicted population growth n=1589 n=589
Least concerned 3.9% 2.9%
Less concerned 3.8% 3.6%
Neutral 12.8% 14.1%
Somewhat concerned 26.1% 29.2%
Most concerned 51.9% 48.2%
Belief about the Coast being a better place to live n=582
Yes 23.7%
No 53.1%
Unsure 23.2%
Enjoy most about living on the Coast n=1463 n=510
Scenic beauty – beaches, hinterland etc. 40.1% 32.4%
Lifestyle and general pace of life 32.3% 56.5%
Job prospects and availability 10.1% 1.0%
Supporting infrastructure – roads, public transport etc. 4.0% 0.2%
Access to healthcare and education 1.0% 1.2%
Proximity to family and friends 1.4% 5.7%
Other 11.1% 3.0%
Should QLD introduce daylight saving n=1558 n=569
Yes 57.8% 52.7%
No 42.2% 47.3%
Most pressing employment based issues on the Coast n=1405 n=527
Lack of employment options/job opportunities 18.7% 42.7%
Significantly lower salary levels than metro cities 17.6% 15.4%
Lack of job diversity on the coast 18.9% 21.1%
Lack of senior management opportunities 44.8% 4.2%
Lack of part time/casual roles - 3.8%
Other - 12.8%
Table 2. : Respondents’ perceptions of population size, living on the Coast, employment based issues on the
Coast
Bishnu Sharma and Pam Dyer
ISSN 1695-7121
43
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 10(2). Special Issue. 2012
to 2008 related to the observation that “Tourism
is likely to provide more parks and other recrea-tional
areas for local residents”.
3. There was a signifi cant reduction in the level of
agreement that “Tourism is likely to result in
traffi c congestion” and “Tourism is likely to result
in noise and pollution”. This is perhaps due to
the construction of new roads and upgrading of
existing roads in recent times.
4. There has also been a decrease in the residents’
level of agreement in 2009 compared to 2008
in the following items: 1) tourism is likely to
increase the crime rate, 2) construction of hotels
and other tourist facilities are likely to destroy
the natural environment, and 3) tourism is likely
to result in unpleasantly overcrowded beaches,
bush walking paths, parks and other outdoor
places in the community. These changes in
residents’ perceptions are favourable in terms
of gaining support for further development of
tourism activities on the Coast.
5. In 2009 data were recorded for fi ve extra tourist
impact items such as “tourism is likely to attract
more investment to the community”, “high
spending tourists are likely to affect negatively
our way of living”, “the cost of developing
facilities is too much”, “tourism is likely to
provide more business for local people and small
Table 3. Test of Difference in Residents’ Responses on Tourism Impact Items
2009 Survey 2008 Survey
Tourism impact items Mean1
(SD) [n]
% who
agree
and
strongly
agree2
% who
disagree
and
strongly
disagree3
Mean
(SD)
[n]
% who
agree and
strongly
agree
% who
disagree
and
strongly
disagree
‘t’ value
Tourism development is likely to provide an
incentive for the conservation of natural
resources.
3.36
(1.36)
[579]
54.7 29.7 3.31
(1.40)
[1558]
53.8 32.7 -0.79
Tourism is a key industry that provides
essential jobs in the region.
4.5
(0.97)
[585]
89.2 6.2 4.43
(0.99)
[1572]
88.3 6.9 -1.54
Tourism is likely to result in more cultural
exchange between tourists and residents.
3.58
(1.20)
[587]
57.2 19.3 3.51
(1.21)
[1563]
55.8 21.2 -1.15
Tourism development is likely to create
positive impact on the cultural identity of
your community.
3.40
(1.28)
[585]
50.4 24.8 3.25
(1.27)
[1561]
45.2 28.3 -2.47*
Tourism development is likely to provide
more parks and other recreational areas for
local residents.
3.21
(1.35)
[582]
47.3 35.1 3.09
(1.36)
[1567]
44.4 37.6 -1.8†
Tourism is likely to result in traffic
congestion.
4.32
(1.06)
[587]
83.3 8.5 4.46
(1.01)
[1570]
86.3 6.3 2.86**
Tourism is likely to result in noise and
pollution.
3.88
(1.19)
[581]
67.1 14.5 4.07
(1.16)
[1570]
73.9 11.9 3.42**
Tourism is likely to increase the crime rate. 3.42
(1.30)
[582]
50 28.2 3.56
(1.27)
[1569]
54.2 21.8 2.30*
Construction of hotels and other tourist
facilities are likely to destroy the natural
environment.
3.66
(1.27)
[585]
60.7 21.5 3.84
(1.32)
[1571]
66.9 19.4 2.91**
Tourism is likely to result in unpleasantly
overcrowded beaches, bush walking paths,
parks and other outdoor places in your
community.
3.49
(1.30)
[576]
55.6 26.2 3.73
(1.28)
[1569]
63 20.1 3.80***
Note: * stands for p<0.05, ** for p<0.01 and *** for p<0.001 and † for p<0.10.
1 Mean of five point scale: 1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree. SD = Standard Deviation and n = sample size
2 Combination of 4 and 5 on a five-point scale
3 Combination of 1 and 2 on a five-point scale
44
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 10(2). Special Issue. 2012
A longitudinal study of the residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts ...
ISSN 1695-7121
business”, and “local residents are likely to suffer
from living in tourism destination”. Comparative
analyses cannot be carried out for these at this
time.
6. No signifi cant difference in the residents’
perceptions was found between 2008 and 2009 for
the following tourism impact items: 1) tourism
development is likely to provide an incentive for
the conservation of natural resources, 2) tourism
is a key industry that provides essential jobs in
the region, and 3) tourism is likely to result in
more cultural exchange between tourists and
residents.
Discussion
This study identifi ed changes as perceived by
the Sunshine Coast residents on various aspects of
living on the Coast and also investigated the diffe-rence
in residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts
between 2008 and 2009. In spite of using similar
approaches for collecting the information in 2008
and 2009 surveys, some demographic differences
were noted between these samples. This difference
is perhaps explained by the ongoing growth of popu-lation
on the coast affecting the collective character
of the community. It could also perhaps be because
of difference in the set of respondents in completing
the survey. This should be taken into account when
making decisions based on these fi ndings.
In response to the fi rst research objective, it is
suggested that the proportion of people who percei-ve
the Coast to be a better place to live is fewer than
half of the respondents who perceive the Coast not to
be a better place to live now. These fi ndings warrant
further investigation to determine expectations in
order to develop the Coast such that it becomes
more attractive not only for the tourists but also for
the local residents. In the 2009 survey, a slight ma-jority
of respondents (56.5%) indicated lifestyle and
general pace of life as the key aspect they enjoyed
most about living on the Coast. This is a signifi cant
increase from the 2008 survey (32.3%). The scenic
beauty such as beaches and the hinterland were
considered to be the key aspects that the residents
enjoyed about living on the Coast in 2008 (40.1%),
but this decreased to 32.4% in 2009. The day light
saving has been another topic of debate in Queens-land.
The results indicate that the support for the
introduction of daylight saving has gone down to
52.7% in 2009 from 57.8% in 2008. The survey had
also collected information on residents’ awareness
about predicted population increase on the Coast.
The results suggest that the level of awareness has
signifi cantly increased in 2009 to 84.1% from 61.1%
in 2008. However, in terms of respondents’ feelings
about the predicted population growth, the level
of concern has more or less remained the same. In
terms of the most pressing employment based is-sues
on the Coast, nearly 45% indicated that a lack
of senior management opportunities was the major
issue in 2008 whereas the 2009 survey indicated
that a lack of employment options or job opportuni-ties
was the most pressing employment based issue
on the Coast.
In response to the second research objective, a
‘t’ test was carried out for the 10 common tourism
impact items considered in this study. The results
indicated signifi cant differences in perceptions of
residents in seven items with different levels of sig-nifi
cance as indicated in table 3. For example, there
was a signifi cant difference in 1 item at a p-value
of less than 0.001, 3 items at a p-value of less than
0.01, 2 items at a p-value of 0.05 level and 1 item at
a p-value of 0.10. The residents’ perceptions of tou-rism
impacts are encouraging for the tourism plan-ners
and developers for seeking support for tourism
as residents appeared more favourable towards tou-rism
in 2009 compared to those in 2008. For exam-ple,
there is a decrease in their level of agreement
in possible traffi c congestion, noise and pollution,
and increase in crime rates in 2009 from that of
2008. However, residents’ perceptions of tourism’s
role in providing essential jobs, proving incentive
for the conservation of natural resources, and the
possibility of having more cultural exchange bet-ween
tourists and residents have remained unchan-ged.
There is a need to carry out another survey to
monitor residents’ attitudes in the fi ve new items
added in 2009. Generally, it is necessary to continue
to receive support from local residents for tourism to
inform and assist the relevant tourism institutions,
local government authorities, planners and develo-pers
decision making, thus it is important to moni-tor
such information on an on-going basis to address
the concerns of local residents when making stra-tegic
interventions. Also, this research highlights
the dynamism of residents’ perceptions which are
infl uenced by changing circumstances from year to
year at a local level. Regular monitoring is impor-tant
to elucidate these nuances.
The study has the following limitations: 1) dif-ference
in the sample size between the years (2008
and 2009) and 2) the difference in the data collection
Bishnu Sharma and Pam Dyer
ISSN 1695-7121
45
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 10(2). Special Issue. 2012
techniques used in 2008 and 2009. As discussed ear-lier
in the ‘Methods’ section, in the 2009 survey the
data collection was based on the online approach
whereas in the 2008 survey, along with online post-ing,
a hard copy of the survey was included in the
daily circulation of the Sunshine Coast Daily. This
could have resulted in sample bias (web-user vs.
the people having access to the newspaper through
various other formats/modes).
References
Albalate, D. and Bel, G.
2010. “Tourism and urban public transport: Hold-ing
demand pressure under supply constraints.”
Tourism Management, 31(3): 425-433.
Allen, L. R., Long, P. T., Perdue, R. R. and Kieselbach,
S.
1988. “The impact of tourism development on resi-dents’
perceptions of community life.” Journal of
Travel Research, 27(1): 16–21.
Alonso, A.D. And Northcote, J.
2010. The development of olive tourism in Western
Australia: a case study of an emerging tourism
industry.” International Journal of Tourism Re-search,
12(6): 696-708.
Andriotis, K.
2004. “The perceived impact of tourism develop-ment
by Cretan residents.” Tourism and Hospi-tality
Planning and Development, 1(2): 123–144.
Andriotis, K. and Vaughan, R.D.
2003. “Urban residents’ attitudes toward tourism
development: The case of Crete.” Journal of
Travel Research, 42(2): 172.
Arnberger, A. and Brandenburg, C.
2007. “Past on-site experience, crowding percep-tions,
and use displacement of visitor groups to a
peri-urban national park.” Environmental Man-agement,
40: 34
Beames, G.
2003. “The rock, the reef and the grape: the chal-lenges
of developing wine tourism in regional
Australia.” Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(3):
205-212.
Bonimy, M.M.
2008. “Residents’ attitudes and perceptions towards
the impact of tourism on the environment in Pi-geon
Forge, Tennessee.” PhD Thesis, Tennessee
State University.
Brau, R.
2008. “Demand-driven sustainable tourism? A
choice modelling analysis.” Tourism Economics,
14(4): 691-708.
Brida, J.G., Osti, L. And Barquet, A.
2010. “Segmenting resident perceptions towards
tourism – a cluster analysis with a multinominal
logit model of a mountain community.” Interna-tional
Journal of Tourism Research, 12: 591-602.
Caneday, L. and Zeiger, J.
1991. “The social, economic, and environmental
costs of tourism to a gaming community as per-ceived
its residents.” Journal of Travel Research,
30(2): 45–49.
Carmichael, B.A., Peppard, D.M. and Boudreau,
F.A.
1996. “Megaresort on my doorstep: Local resident at-titudes
toward Foxwoods Casino and casino gam-bling
on nearby Indian reservation land.” Jour-nal
of Travel Research, 34(3): 9–16.
Carson, D.
2008. “The ‘blogosphere’ as a market research tool
for tourism destinations: a case study of Aus-tralia’s
Northern Territory.” Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 14(2): 111-119.
Cecil, A.K., Fu, Y.Y., Wang, S. and Avgoustis, S.
2010. “Cultural tourism and quality of life: Results
of a longitudinal study.” European Journal of
Tourism Research, 3(1): 54-66.
Chen, J.S.
2000. “An investigation of urban tourism residents’
loyalty of tourism.” Journal of Travel and Tour-ism
Research, 24(1): 5–19.
Cros, H. d.
2008. “Too much of a good thing? Visitor Congestion
management issues for popular world heritage
tourist attractions.” Journal of Heritage Tour-ism,
2(3): 225 – 238.
Dickinson, J. E. and Dickinson, J.A.
2006. “Local transport and social representations:
Challenging the assumptions for sustainable
tourism.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(2):
192 – 208.
Dyer, P., Gursoy, D., Sharma, B. and Carter, J.
2007. “Structural modelling of resident perceptions
of tourism and associated development on the
Sunshine Coast, Australia.” Tourism Manage-ment,
28: 409–422.
Fredline, E. and Faulkner, B.
2000. “Host community reactions: A cluster analy-sis.”
Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3): 763–784.
Gibson, P. and Bentley, M.
2007. “A study of impacts-cruise tourism and the
South West of England.” Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing, 20(3): 63 – 77.
Gursoy, D. and Rutherford, D.G.
2004. “Host attitudes toward tourism – An improved
structural model.” Annals of Tourism Research,
46
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 10(2). Special Issue. 2012
A longitudinal study of the residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts ...
ISSN 1695-7121
Recibido: 15/02/2011
Reenviado: 30/09/2011
Aceptado: 31/10/2011
Sometido a evaluación por pares anónimos
31(3): 495–516.
Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C. and Uysal, M.
2002. “Resident attitudes – A structural modelling
approach.” Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1):
79–105.
Haralambopoulos, N. and Pizam, A.
1996. “Perceived impacts of tourism: The case of
Samos.” Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3): 503–
526.
Harrill, R.
2004. “Residents’ attitudes toward tourism develop-ment:
A literature review with implications for
tourism planning.” Journal of Planning Litera-ture,
18(3): 251.
Heung, V. C. S., Tsang, N., et al.,
2009. “Queuing behavior in theme parks: A com-parison
between Chinese and Western tourists.”
Journal of China Tourism Research, 5(1): 41 – 51
Huh, C. and Vogt, C.A.
2008. “Changes in residents’ attitudes toward tour-ism
over time: A cohort analytical approach.”
Journal of Travel Research, 46(4): 446.
Inbakaran, R. and Jackson, M.
2006. “Resident attitudes inside Victoria’s tourism
product regions: A cluster analysis.” Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Management, 13(1):
59–74.
Jones, D. L., Jurowski, C. and Uysal, M.
2000. “Host community residents’ attitudes: A com-parison
of environmental viewpoints.” Tourism
and Hospitality Research, 2(2): 129–155.
March, R.
2008. “Towards a conceptualisation of unethical
marketing practices in tourism: a case study
of Australia’s inbound chinese travel market.”
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 24(4):
255.
Mok, C., Slater, B. and Cheung, V.
1991. “Residents’ attitudes towards tourism in Hong
Kong.” International Journal of Hospitality Man-agement,
10(3): 289–293.
Moore, S.A. and Polley, A.
2007. “Defi ning indicators and standards for tour-ism
impacts in protected areas: Cape Range na-tional
Park, Australia.” Environmental Manage-ment,
39: 291-300.
Moyle, B., Croy, W.G. and Weiler, B.
2010. “Community perceptions of tourism: Bruny
and Magnetic Islands, Australia.” Asia Pacifi c
Journal of Tourism Research, 15(3): 353 – 366.
Ritchie, J. R. B.
1988. “Consensus policy formulation in tourism:
Measuring resident views via survey research.”
Tourism Management, 9(3): 199–212.
Sharma, B. and Dyer, P.
2009a. “An empirical investigation of the relation-ship
between residents’ involvement in tour-ism
and their perceptions of tourism impacts.”
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 16(3).
Sharma, B. and Dyer, P.
2009b. “An investigation of differences in residents’
perceptions on the Sunshine Coast: Tourism im-pacts
and demographic variables.” Tourism Ge-ographies,
11(2): 187-213.
Sharma, B. and Dyer, P.
2010. “Sunshine Coast residents’ perceptions of
tourism impacts: A longitudinal study.” In M Ke-falaki
and Daniel Tixier (Eds.), Challenges and
Prospects in Tourism Research (pp. 175 – 188).
Greece: Atiner Publication.
Sharma, B., Dyer, P., Carter, J. and Gursoy, D.
2008. “Exploring residents’ perceptions of the social
impacts of tourism on the Sunshine Coast, Aus-tralia.”
International Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Administration, 9(3): 288-311.
Solberg, H.A. and Preuss, H.
2007. “Major sport events and long-term tourism
impacts.” Journal of Sport Management, 21: 213-
234.
Teye, V., Sonmez, S.F. and Sirakaya, E.
2002. “Residents’ attitudes toward tourism develop-ment.”
Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3): 668–
688.
Tideswell, C. and Faulkner, B.
1999. “Multidestination travel patterns of interna-tional
visitors to Queensland.” Journal of Travel
Research, 37: 364–374.
Tomljenovic, R. and Faulkner, B.
2000. “Tourism and older residents in a sunbelt re-sort.”
Annals of Tourism Research, 27(1): 93–114.
Vargas-Sanchez, A., Plaza-Mejia, M.A. and Porras-
Bueno, N.
2009. “Understanding residents’ attitudes toward
the development of industrial tourism in a for-mer
mining community.” Journal of Travel Re-search,
47(3): 373.
Wang, Y. and Pfi ster, R.E.
2008. “Residents’ attitudes toward tourism and per-ceived
personal benefi ts in a rural community.”
Journal of Travel Research, 47(1): 84.
Wayakone, S., Daud, M., Bardaie, M.Z., Shuib, A.
and Mohd, A.
1998. “Residents’ attitude towards future impacts of
tourism development in Langkawi.” Borneo Re-view,
9(2): 123-134.
Yang, J.Y.C. and Chen, Y.M.
2008. “Nature-based tourism impacts in I-Lan, Tai-wan:
business managers’ perceptions.” Interna-tional
Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospital-ity
Research, 2(3): 250-270.