Posted on 28th Sep 2024 09:04:39 PM Tourism and Hospitality
ATTITUDE OF LOCAL COMMUNITY TOWARDS TOURISM
Increasingly research is being conducted on host community attitudes toward tourism. However, few studies have been conducted at a regional level and none have examined the attitudes of the host community towards both tourism and cultural tourism development. According to Allen et al. (1988) the attitude of local community towards tourism is growing dramatically, yet they should be one of the greatest concerns with respect to the long-term sustainability of tourism. The range of tourism impacts is broad and often influences areas beyond those usually associated with tourism. As Matheson and Wall (1982) suggest, attitude towards tourism explain the way in which tourism contributes toward change in value systems, individual behavior, family relation- ships, collective life styles, safety levels and so forth.
Although limited research has been conducted on resident attitudes toward events (see Fredline and Faulkner, 1998, 2000; Cegielski and Mules, 2002; Fredline, 2004), few studies have been completed concerning resident attitudes toward other market segments, including cultural tourism development. Those that have been conducted on cultural tourism development focus on rural communities (see Long et al., 1990; Lankford, 1994; Bachleitner and Zins, 1999). However, Bachleitner and Zins (199) and Richards (1996) note that since the 1970s the demand for cultural tourism in Asia has been growing considerabley. Reasons for this include changes in working time and conditions, as well as expectations regarding holidays and leisure time. Passive and regenerative elements on longer dominate the way holidays are organized, but instead active holidays, and in this case increasingly culturally oriented elements, are attracting broad sections of population and social classes (Bachleitner and Zins, 1999). Demand has grown due to a growing’ new middle class’ with high levels of education and income (Richards, 1996). Although there appears to be growth in cultural tourism, little research has been conducted on resident attitudes toward cultural tourism development. As there are few studies that examine cultural tourism and social impacts or resident attitudes, this paper examines residents’ attitudes toward cultural tourism as well as tourism development more broadly.
According to Williams and Lawson (2001), many studies have tried to investigate residents’ opinions, but most have used different sampling techniques and statistical analyses, making comparisons difficult. Residents’ attitude studies are rather new, with secondary or less popular destinations being less researched compared with mass tourism destinations. According to Gursoy et al., (2002) and Williams and Lawson (2001), the community consists of different groups of people who live in the same geographical area, which does not mean they necessarily belong to the same ‘community’. In any geographical area, there may be a number of communities, such as a gay or elderly community or communities defined by ethnic groups (Jackson and Morpeth, 1999; Williams and Lawson, 2001). Certainly such groups’ attitudes toward tourism development may be influenced by economic, social, cultural or environmental factors that may be more homogeneous at the group level rather than the community level.
GAINING SUSTAINABLE OF LOCAL COMMUNITY’S INCOME AND LIVELIHOOD
The concept of sustainable rural livelihoods and income diversification of assess the role that basket making as a cultural tourism activity can play in improving rural livelihoods.
Littrel (1997) notes that culture can be viewed as comprising what people think (attitudes, beliefs, ideas and values), what people do (normative behavior patterns, or way of life) and what people make (artworks, artifacts, cultural products). Culture is therefore composed of processes (the ideas and way of life of people) and the products of those processes (buildings, artefacts, art, customs, atmosphere) (Richards, 2001). Berwick (2003) notes that culture is an artefact of human social practice which has visual outcomes that reflect the messages of particular organizations and send them to individual participants.
Cultural tourism is a form of tourism built around cultural resources (Swarbrooke, 1999; McGettigan and Burns, 2001). Cultural tourism involves the consumption of cultural resources (Richards, 1993; McGettigan and Burns, 2001).
Besed on the above understanding of cultural products and cultural tourism, the objective of this paper, therefore, is to use the concepts of sustainable rural livelihoods and income diversification to assess the role that making as a cultural tourism activity can play in improving rural livelihoods and income diversification.
EXPERIENCE
A cultural tourism typology using centrality of purpose and depth of experience as the core dimensions was proposed in this journal (see McKercher, 2002). Five types of cultural tourist were identified in that study, ranging from those people for whom culture played on role in their decision to travel and who had a shallow experience to those people who were highly motivated to travel for cultural reasons and who subsequently had deep experiences. This paper develops the tourism experience further by testing the validity of the segments identified against a wider range of trip, demographic, experiential, motivational, attitudinal and learning variables.
Marketing theory argues that every market consists of groups or segments of customers with different needs and wants (Kotler, 1999). Customers who react in a homogeneous way, be it in their motivations, behaviour, reactions to marketing activities, or the benefits they seek from consuming products and services can be grouped (Sollner and Rese, 2001), enabling products to be developed that can more effectively satisfy the differing needs of each segment. Segments are only meaningful if they help an organization better match its products with it target markets (Mitchell and Wilson, 1998). The operationalisation challenge is to find a means of identifying discrete market segments while working within the financial and skills limits of the organization. In the absence of more discriminating variables, researchers sought to identify differences between cultural tourists and other tourists using demographic variables (Richards, 1996; Blackwell, 1997; Miller, 1997; Kimberling Clack, 1999). But a number of authors (Prentice et al., 1998; Frochot and Morrison, 2000) argue that because tourism is experiential and that experience is sought by groups of tourists across socio-demographic strata, benefit segmentation may be more applicable than strict socio-demographic segmentation.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
Recently, the attention given to the importance of tourism in economic impact has significantly increased. However, research in this area mainly refers to international tourism and to the national level. Tourism is one of the economic activities with a higher capacity to generate employment and to attract investments and foreign capital.1 In addition, tourism is also characterized by generating direct, indirect and induced effects in the local economy. It can be argued for its potential role in the economic growth and development of regions inside a country.
A number of recent studies analysing the causality between international tourism and economic growth of countries (Balaguer and Cantavella-Jorda, 2002; Dritsakis, 2004; Gunduz and Hatemi-J, 2005; Oh, 2005; Kim et al., 2006; Nowak et al., 2007), and some others that investigate the possible relationship between specialisation on tourism and economic growth from an endogenous growth model (Lanza and Pigliaru, 2000a,b; Brau et al., 2003; Algieri, 2006; Brau te al., 2007), the present paper attempts to assess whether tourism is a relevant factor for economic impact in a convergence context. Results revel that both domestic and international tourism have a significant and positive role in regional economic impact although each one becomes important in different scenarios. Interestingly, for coastal regions and regions with mediterranean coast, both domestic and international tourism appear as important factors for economic growth while for internal regions, only domestic tourism is relevant.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CULTURE
Socio-economic culture implies that there is an increasing likelihood of residents’ involvement in tourism development if they perceive that the potential benefits are greater than the costs. Indeed, if the host community perceives that the benefits are greater than the costs, the members of the community are likely to become directly involved in the exchange, and thus endorse future development in their regin (Gursoy and Rutherford, 2004). Economic, socio-cultural and environmental tradeoffs, as perceived by residents, all play a part in determining their support for further tourism development (Milman and Pizam, 1987; Gee et al., 1989; Yoon et al., 2001; Ko and Stewart, 2002; Jurowski and Gursoy, 2004). the relationships among the different components that form the total impact of tourism (economic, environmental, social and cultural) are the basis of the social-development theory of tourism, which is rooted in social-exchange theory (Yoon et al., 2001). According to social-development theory, attitudes towards tourism are thus influenced by residents’ perceptions of economic, social and environmental effects (Perdue et al., 1990; Ap, 1992; Gursoy et al., 2002). The economic benefits, real or expected, produce support for tourism development (Perdue et al., 1990; Akis et al., 1996). This is the most definite relationship, but some research also suggests a positive relationship between support for tourism and a perception of social and cultural benefits (Lankford and Howard, 1994; Yoon et al., 2001; Besculides et al.,2002) and environmental benefits (Hillery et al.,2001; Yoon et al.,2001. From a socio-economic cultural perspective, tourism stimulates demand for local craftsmanship, brings opportunities to exchange ideas and cultural knowledge, and stimulates new services, better facilities and alternatives for leisure.
SOCIAL IMPACT
As the support of host communities is a precondition for a sustainable industry, regional social impact studies are a crucial input to tourism planning and decision-making. The environmental and economic effects of tourism have been the focus of numberous studies (see for example, Nepal, 2000; Barros and Matias, 2005). While there have been several assessments of social impacts, both conceptual and empirical the social costs and benefits of tourism remain under-researched (Ap, 1990; Haley et al., 2005). Social impact studies are crucial, as support for tourism development within host communities has been recognized as fundamental precondition for a sustainable industry. It as well as providing data to aid regional tourism planning and management, aimed to
a) enhance understanding of differences in individual’s perceptions regarding the personal and community-wide impacts of tourism;
b) advance understanding of the influences on residents’ perception of tourism impacts at the personal and community levels; and
c) assess the degree to which tourism activity associated with protected areas contributes to the identified social impacts.
Share on Facebook