Gaining Residents Support for Tourism and Planning

ABSTRACT

This research analyses residents’perceptions of the effects of tourism.Economic, cultural and environmentaleffects are identified as determinants ofresidents’ attitudes towards tourismdevelopment and planning. Authorsspeculate that there are different patterns ofresident’s support depending on theirdifferential benefits obtained from tourism.A conceptual model is developed andempirically tested in Santiponce, a smallcommunity in southern Spain. Our resultssupport our basic hypothesis: residents’level of personal benefits obtained fromtourism influence their perceptionsregarding tourism impacts, and inconsequence, their support for tourismdevelopment and for tourism planning.Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 4 December 2006; Revised 11 July 2007; Accepted 17July 2007

Keywords: tourism planning; residents’attitude; heterogeneity; Spain.

INTRODUCTION

It is widely acknowledged that tourismactivities can contribute significantly to theeconomic development of regions. Govern-

ments and public entities have therefore madestrenuous efforts to initiate or foster tourismactivities within their geographical areas ofinfluence.

Tourism development does not take place inisolation; rather, it occurs within specific envi-ronments, each with its own idiosyncratic fea-tures. Within these specific environments, thesupport of the residents is a key factor in devel-oping and implementing successful initiatives.Because tourism development can happen with-out planning, tourism planners should be con-cerned about the perceptions and attitudes ofresidents towards tourism developments inorder to gain their support. Some of these com-munity perceptions are positive, whereas othersare negative. In fact, resident’s participation inplanning and development stages is a funda-mental necessity for sustainability of the devel-opment, like good will and cooperation of hostcommunities (Dyer et al., 2006).

Some previous studies have aimed to identify, in theory, residents’ perceptions of the effects of tourism in their communities (Husbands, 1989; King et al., 1993; Madrigal,1993; Lankford and Howard, 1994); and othershave focused on the theoretical relationshipbetween residents and the process of tourismplanning (Jamal and Getz, 1995; Robson andRobson, 1996; Yoon et al., 2001). However, anempirical link has not been establishedbetween (i) residents’ perceptions of the effectof tourism and (ii) their attitudes to tourismplanning. The main research objective of thepresent study is therefore to address thevarious perceptions of residents with respectto tourism, and how those perceptions condi-tion the planning process of tourism in a par-ticular community. In addition, the studyspeculates — based on previous research (Ap,1990; Perdue et al., 1990; Mansfeld, 1992; Akiset al., 1996; Gursoy et al., 2002; Harrill, 2004) —that there might be different patterns of behav-iour in various communities, depending on thedifferential benefits that the residents obtainfrom tourism. In particular, the study examineswhether there are significant differences

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCHInt. J. Tourism Res. 10, 95–109 (2008)Published online 2 November 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.644

Gaining Residents’ Support for Tourismand PlanningM. Angeles Oviedo-Garcia, Mario Castellanos-Verdugo and David Martin-RuizUniversity of Seville, Administracion de Empresas y Marketing, Av. Ramon y Cajal 1, 41018 Seville, Spain

*Correspondence to: M. Angeles Oviedo-Garcia, Univer-sity of Seville, Administracion de Empresas y Marketing,Av. Ramon y Cajal 1, 41018 Seville, Spain.E-mail: [email protected]

between residents who obtain personal eco-nomic benefits from tourism and those who donot obtain any such benefits, focusing on themoderating role of personal benefits.

An empirical model is then tested in Santiponce, a small community in the south ofSpain. The Roman archaeological site of Italica islocated in this area, and no previous research hasbeen conducted in this place. In fact, moststudies of this subject area have been conductedin the USA, the UK and Australia (Yoon et al.,2001; Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy and Rutherford,2004; McGehee and Andereck, 2004).

Literature review: three approaches

Residents’ attitudes towards tourism havebeen studied by three general approachesderived from psychology and sociology(Harrill, 2004). The first is known as the ‘com-munity-attachment’ approach. This approachhas examined the extent and pattern of socialparticipation and integration in communitylife in terms of sentiment with respect to thecommunity (McCool and Martin, 1994). Asystemic model has been constructed —that attachment increases with length of residence, family ties and social advancement.A lineal model has also been posited — thatattachment weakens as population and densitydecreases. With respect to tourism, it has beensuggested that ‘highly attached residents tendto view tourism development more favourablythan do less-attached residents, although withsome reservations’ (Harrill, 2004, p. 206).

The second approach is provided by the‘growth-machine’ theory. According to thistheory, as tourism grows as an economic force,the tourism industry increasingly becomes afocus of economic growth in a region (Harrill,2004). This framework is useful in addressingdifferences between the attitudes of residentsand the attitudes of certain élites — in that the theory assumes that tourism developmentis controlled by certain powerful urban éliteinterests, rather than local residents in theregion itself. According to this approach, indi-viduals who do not receive real economic ben-efits are not expected to support future tourismdevelopment.

Finally, ‘social-exchange’ theory has exam-ined the exchange of resources between

individuals and groups. According to this theory, individuals engage in exchanges if theresulting rewards are worthwhile, and if theexchange is likely to produce rewards that are perceived to be greater than the costs(Jurowski and Gursoy, 2004). The exchangedresources can be material, social or psycholog-ical in nature (Harrill, 2004).

The present study relies mainly on the lastof these approaches (which is discussed ingreater detail below), although the commu-nity-attachment approach and the growth-machine approaches also provide interestinginsights.

Social exchange theory

Social-exchange theory implies that there is anincreasing likelihood of residents’ involvementin tourism development if they perceive thatthe potential benefits are greater than the costs.Indeed, if the host community perceives thatthe benefits are greater than the costs, themembers of the community are likely tobecome directly involved in the exchange, andthus endorse future development in theirregion (Gursoy and Rutherford, 2004). Eco-nomic, socio-cultural and environmental trade-offs, as perceived by residents, all play a part indetermining their support for further tourismdevelopment (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 com-ponents that form the total impact of tourism(economic, environmental, social and cultural)are the basis of the social-development theoryof tourism, which is rooted in social-exchangetheory (Yoon et al., 2001). According to social-development theory, attitudes towardstourism are thus influenced by residents’ per-ceptions of economic, social and environ-mental 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 themost definite relationship, but some researchalso suggests a positive relationship betweensupport for tourism and a perception of socialand cultural benefits (Lankford and Howard,

96 M. Angeles Oviedo-Garcia et al.

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 10, 95–109 (2008)DOI: 10.1002/jtr

1994; Yoon et al., 2001; Besculides et al., 2002)and environmental benefits (Hillery et al., 2001;Yoon et al., 2001). However, perceptions of neg-ative effects also play a part (Lankford andHoward, 1994). For example, Snaith and Haley(1999) found a great deal of variation insupport for tourism development within a his-toric community in England. In general, thosewho are not economically tied to tourism viewit more negatively than those who are(McGehee and Andereck, 2004).

From a socio-cultural perspective, tourismstimulates demand for local craftsmanship,brings opportunities to exchange ideas andcultural knowledge, and stimulates new services, better facilities and alternatives forleisure (McKean, 1978; Sethna and Richmond,1978; Esman, 1984; Brunt and Courtney, 1999).Nevertheless, there are also potential negativeconsequences of tourism in socio-culturalterms. It can conflict with traditional familyvalues, cause cultural conflicts betweentourists and residents and generate culturaldependency (Cohen, 1988; Kousis, 1989;Sharpley, 1994). In general, there seems to be adirect relationship between a positive evalua-tion of social and cultural effects and supportof tourism activities (Lankford and Howard,1994; Besculides et al., 2002).

Finally, residents’ attitudes towards envi-ronmental effects of tourism are important —as evidenced by the number and variety ofenvironmental concerns in many studies ofresidents’ attitudes (Carmichael, 2000; Sheldonand Abenoja, 2001; Ko and Stewart, 2002;Jurowski and Gursoy, 2004; Kuvan and Perran,2005). Residents who fear that tourism willdamage the environment are opposed todevelopment, whereas those who see tourismas an incentive to preserve and protect thenatural environment are supportive (Butler,1980; Martin and Uysal, 1990; Hillery et al.,2001). According to Mbaiwa (2003, p. 460):

. . . tourism contains the seeds of its owndestruction, tourism can kill tourism,destroying the very environmental attrac-tions which visitors come to a location toexperience. Most tourism developmentplaces additional pressure on the envi-ronmental resources upon which it is based, compromising the future

prospects of the local population and,indeed, the expectations of tourists themselves.

Hughes (2002, p. 459) has made similarobservations:

. . . some authors consider this to be fatalfor the hosts and argue that tourism is pre-disposed to economic exploitation . . . andenvironmental and cultural destruction. . . Conversely, others welcome tourismfor its culturally constructive contribution. . . its environmental protection . . . andpositive economic impact.

Empirical evidence

There is empirical evidence regarding resi-dents’ attitudes towards tourism. Previousresearch has explored the influence of demo-graphic characteristics (Ritchie, 1988; Williamsand Lawson, 2001), personal benefits obtainedfrom tourism and political position (Mansfeld,1992), degree of contact with tourists(Brougham and Butler, 1981; Lankford, 1994;Akis et al., 1996; Weaver and Lawton, 2001) andenvironmental attitudes (Jurowski et al., 1997;Gursoy et al., 2002).

However, the results of these studies havenot been entirely consistent; some of the evidence confirms the influence of socio-demographic factors on residents’ attitudeswhereas others have not made such connec-tions. According to Tosun (2002), such discrep-ancies could be explained by the localenvironment in which the research was con-ducted — because tourism effects are signifi-cantly influenced by specific situations ofinteraction between tourists and residents.

Most of the studies have demonstrated thatresidents who depend economically on tour-ism have a more positive perception of the eco-nomic benefits of tourism (Haralambopoulosand Pizam, 1996; Korça, 1998; Snaith andHaley, 1999; Deccio and Baloglu, 2002). In fact,Perdue et al. (1990) found that when personalbenefits from tourism development are takeninto account, perceptions of tourism effectswere unrelated to socio-demographic charac-teristics, whereas support for additional devel-opment was positively related to the perceivedpositive effects of tourism (Ko and Stewart,

Gaining Residents’ Support 97


2002). Several studies found that residents whobenefit from tourism have a higher level ofsupport for it and report more positive effects(Husbands, 1989; Madrigal, 1993; Lankfordand Howard, 1994). However, King et al. (1993)pointed out that people who derive personalbenefits from tourism are also more likely thanothers to report negative effects. Economicdependency on tourism has thus emerged as asignificant variable underlying residents’ pos-itive attitudes to tourism development.

It is also important to consider the involve-ment of residents in the process of tourism planning. Jamal and Getz (1995) supported com-munity-based tourism planning — arguing thatthe involvement of residents leads to the devel-opment of socially responsible tourism andacceptable social effects in the view of the hostcommunity (Robson and Robson, 1996). The atti-tudes and behaviour of residents are important— because interaction between tourists and residents has a significant effect on visitors’ sat-isfaction with the destination (Pizam et al., 2000).Moreover, residents should not only be consid-ered in the planning process of new tourismactivities, but also afterwards. Residents’ atti-tudes to tourism should be continuously moni-tored if new tourism initiatives are to succeed(Ko and Stewart, 2002).

Therefore, community participation in plan-ning and development of a certain tourist des-tination is essential in order to achieve tourismdevelopment sustainability (Dyer et al., 2006)through local initiatives consistent with localidiosyncrasy (Duffield and Long, 1981). Never-theless, lack of participation is very common,regardless of the economic development stageof the country (Teye et al., 2002). Due to the factthat the majority of the studies about resident’sattitudes have been carried out in Americanrural areas and because the study of attitudesin different communities around the worldwill increase the explicative capacity of behav-ioural models, present research brings forwarda new research scope combining heritagetourism in an urban area in a country withoutstudies in this field.

Finally, Ko and Stewart (2002), Gursoy et al.(2002) and Gursoy and Rutherford (2004) haveexamined structural model of residents’ atti-tudes towards tourism, which main conclu-sions are respectively:

(1) Community satisfaction is influenced byperception of tourism impacts and may be useful in planning additional tourismdevelopment.

(2) Host community backing for tourism devel-opment is affected directly and/or indirectlyby the level of community concern, ecocen-tric values, utilization of tourism resourcebase, community attachment, the state oflocal economy, economic benefits, socialbenefits, social costs and cultural benefits.

(3) Host community support is affected by thelevel of concern, ecocentric values, utiliza-tion of resource base, perceived costs andbenefits of tourism development.

RESIDENTS’ SUPPORT FOR TOURISM AND PLANNING

The objectives of this research are three-fold:first, to develop and test a model in which allpositive and negative effects of tourism fromthe residents’ perspective are studied simulta-neously (see Figure 1); secondly, to investigatehow these perceptions influence residents’support for tourism and their attitudes towardstourism planning in their community; thirdly,to explore whether residents’ attitudes and per-ceptions are influenced by their receiving or notreceiving personal benefits from tourism.

The following hypotheses are proposed.

H1: The influence of residents’ perceptions ofthe positive effects of tourism on theirglobal evaluation of tourism are moder-ated by the personal benefits obtained byresidents from tourism.

H2: The influence of residents’ perceptions ofthe negative impacts of tourism on theirglobal evaluation of tourism are moder-ated by the personal benefits obtained byresidents from tourism.

H3: The influence of residents’ global evalua-tion of tourism on their support for newtourism activities are moderated by thepersonal benefits obtained by residentsfrom tourism.

H4: The influence of residents’ support fornew tourism activities on their support fortourism planning are moderated by thepersonal benefits obtained by residentsfrom tourism.



EMPIRICAL STUDY

Location

The town of Santiponce is located in the vicin-ity of the archaeological site of the ancientRoman city of Itálica in Spain. Itálica is adeclared ‘Place of Special Cultural Interest’ inAndalusia, and the archaeological site receives200000 visits every year. Santiponce is a smalltown with a population of 7511 inhabitants.There are 336 companies registered in thetown, of which 290 are service companies. Its unemployment rate is 4.9% (Agencia de Desarrollo Local de Santiponce, 2004;Diputación de Sevilla, 2005).

Cultural tourism is one of the major reasonsfor visitors choosing Andalusia as a touristdestination (19% of visitors in 2002, mainlycoming from Spain) (Consejería de Turismo yDeporte de Andalucía, 2004). Visitors fromFrance, the US, and Britain are the majorforeign markets for cultural tourism inAndalusia (Consejería de Turismo y Deportede Andalucía, 2004).

The Roman city of Itálica was founded in 206BC by Publius Cornelius Scipio, as a place ofsettlement for soldiers wounded in battle. Itwas also to serve as a military outpost in anarea of great strategic importance. The name‘Itálica’ referred to ‘Italy’ — the original home-land of the first inhabitants of the city. MarcuUlpius Trajan (AD 53–117), the first Romanemperor to be born in a province, was born inItálica, as was his successor, Publius AeliusHadrian (AD 76–138). Hadrian spent part ofhis early life in Itálica, and honoured the city

by the construction of a new district (nova urbs)(Consejería de Cultura-Junta de Andalucía,2004).

In Itálica today, two zones can be easily dis-tinguished: the vetus urbs (old city), the nucleusfounded by Scipio; and the nova urbs (newcity), the district founded by Hadrian. Archae-ological excavations began in 1788 and have continued ever since (Consejería deCultura-Junta de Andalucía, 2004).

Research design, sample, and data collection

Households were selected as the unit of analy-sis. According to the census (Agencia de Desar-rollo Local de Santiponce, 2004), there were 1742 families living in the town — which led toa random sample of 315 households beingrequired (with an error rate of 5%). In all, 600surveys were distributed, and a response rateof 66.16% was obtained. After discarding 18incomplete questionnaires, 376 valid responseswere obtained.

The data-collection process was performedby five trained interviewers directly super-vised by one of the co-authors. Each inter-viewer was assigned to one neighbourhood,selecting in each street the even addresses inthe even days and the odd addresses in theodd days; the interviewers were given instruc-tions regarding how to present the study toencourage the response of one adult memberof the family. After the presentation of thestudy, the interviewer left a questionnaire. Thequestionnaire was collected within the next 2days by the same interviewer, who checked for



Negative impacts

Positive impacts

Globalevaluation

Tourism development

Tourismplanning

ECP

SCP

ENP

ECN

SCN

ENN

Figure 1. Model of residents’ support for tourism planning.Notes: ECP, Economic positive; SCP, Socio-cultural positive; ENP, Environmental positive; ECN, Economicnegative; SCN, Socio-cultural negative; ENN, Environmental negative.

any problems during completion. The data-collection process was carried out in December2004.

Measurement of variables

The final questionnaire was comprised of 75items, divided into four sections. The firstsection collected data on the positive eco-nomic, socio-cultural and environmental ef-fects of tourism, whereas the second sectioncollected data on the negative effects in thesecategories. The third section focused on resi-dents’ support for tourism and tourism plan-ning. The final section collected demographicinformation on the respondents. In addition,two items addressed residents’ perceptions ofpersonal benefits obtained from tourism. Allitems were assessed with a five-degree Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = stronglyagree).

Validity and reliability

The validity and reliability properties of themodel were first assessed using a main com-ponents factor analysis and a confirmatoryfactor analysis (CFA). In establishing the com-posite reliability of the scale, a threshold valueof 0.7 was established for Cronbach’s alpha.The scale’s convergent validity was also eval-uated by examining the factor loading of indi-vidual items and their statistical significance.Discriminant validity was tested by comparingthe correlations of the constructs with theshared variance among them (Fornell andLarcker, 1981). The CFA was conducted fol-lowing an asymptotically-free distribution,given that normality is not present for everyitem.

After refining the scales, the path model wastested by means of structural equation model-ling. A multi-group analysis allowed testing ofthe significance of possible differences amongvarious segments of respondents (Bollen, 1989;Maruyama, 1998). A path model is typicallyassessed by examining chi-square (χ2) statis-tics, goodness of fit (GFI), non-normed-fitindex, comparative fit index (CFI) and/orincremental fit index. With respect to the dis-tribution of residuals, the root mean squareerror of approximation (RMSEA) was noted;

recommended values should be below 0.05,whereas values above 0.1 are considered unac-ceptable.

Demographics of sample

Most households (78.8%) consisted of familiesof up to four individuals. Most (86.2%) self-reported as belonging to a medium-high socialclass. Approximately one-third of respondentshad a primary level of education (33.8%), andanother one-third had achieved secondaryeducation (34.6%). Most respondents (70.8%)were younger than 44 years of age. Slightlymore than half the respondents (50.5%) weremale.

Measurement scales

Three dimensions for each type of tourismeffects — positive and negative impacts — areidentified by initial factor analysis and con-firmed by CFA. On the other hand, global eval-uation of tourism, support for new tourismdevelopment and support for tourism planningscales are made by one dimension. As can beseen in Tables 1 and 2, all the scales in the model— positive impacts, negative impacts, globalevaluation, support for tourism development,support for tourism planning — demonstratedgood validity and reliability properties. Stan-dardised loadings ranged from 0.62 to 0.89, anditem reliabilities ranged from 0.4 to 0.8. In addi-tion, adjustment indicators showed good fitproperties from the data to the model.

As can be seen in Table 1, the items captur-ing positive and negative effects of tourismshowed good measuring properties. Theirstandardised loadings ranged from 0.66 to0.89, and, after refining the scales, the lowestreliability for an indicator was 0.43, with therest being greater than 0.5. Table 2 shows thesame information for the other constructs inthe model. The standardised loading figuresranged from 0.62 to 0.86, with the lowest itemreliability being 0.4 (which are acceptableresults in terms of measurement quality).

Table 3 shows the reliability properties for thedifferent scales, which were evaluated by meansof Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability.The results were greater than the recommendedthreshold values for both indicators, as was the





Table 1. Tourism impact measurement scale properties (N = 376)

Standardised Item ErrorSecond order construct (items)a loadings reliability variance

Positive impactsEconomic

The increasing number of tourists in your community has 0.80 0.63 0.48improved the economic situation of your town.

The buying power of your community is better as a 0.84 0.71 0.35consequence of tourism.

Tourism has created jobs in your community 0.66 0.43 0.87Tourism has attracted investments to your community 0.77 0.6 0.56Tourism has provided economic benefits for the local 0.81 0.65 0.42

residentsTourism has improved the life quality of the community 0.83 0.70 0.35

Socio-CulturalTourism provides incentives to restore historical buildings 0.74 0.55 0.69The quality of public services has improved as consequence 0.77 0.60 0.61

of tourismTourism increases the availability of services and leisure 0.78 0.60 0.49Tourism increases the demand for cultural performances 0.74 0.56 0.60Tourism has improved the service quality of police and fire 0.82 0.68 0.39

departmentTourism has enabled more cultural exchange between 0.75 0.56 0.64

tourists and residentsTourism has brought positive impacts for the cultural 0.67 0.46 0.76

identity of your communityTourism has fostered the construction of modern buildings 0.72 0.52 0.61

EnvironmentalTourism has improved the infrastructures (water supply, 0.79 0.63 0.48

electricity, etc.)Tourism has improved public facilities (road network, civic 0.89 0.79 0.28

centres, etc.)Tourism encourages the creation of parks and leisure areas 0.83 0.69 0.40

for local residents

Negative impactsEconomic

Tourism unfairly increases the cost of real state and the taxes 0.73 0.53 0.74related to it

Tourism increases the cost of living 0.85 0.73 0.40Tourism increases the price of goods and services 0.88 0.78 0.29Tourism causes more public expenses in your community 0.71 0.50 0.61

Socio-culturalTourism increases the number of traffic accidents 0.76 0.57 0.42Tourism increases crime/theft/vandalism 0.77 0.60 0.42Tourism increases alcoholism and prostitution 0.88 0.77 0.28Tourism leads to illegal activities 0.85 0.72 0.31Tourism increases the exploitation of local residents 0.86 0.74 0.22Tourists with high buying power has negatively affected the 0.71 0.51 0.45

lifestyle of your community



Table 1. (Continued)

Standardised Item ErrorSecond order construct (items)a loadings reliability variance

EnvironmentalTourism damages the natural environment and landscape 0.82 0.68 0.34Tourism destroys the local ecosystem 0.89 0.80 0.18Tourism increases environmental pollution (trash, water, air, 0.72 0.52 0.61

and noise)The construction of hotels and tourism facilities have 0.79 0.62 0.39

destroyed the natural environmentTourism has caused the crowding of beaches, paths, parks, and 0.89 0.79 0.22

other leisure places in your community

a Adapted from Ko and Stewart 2002; McGehee and Andereck 2004; Yoon, Gursoy and Chen 2001.

Table 2. Total impacts of tourism, support for tourism development, support for tourism planning and clus-tering variables measurement scale properties (N = 376)

Standardised Item ErrorConstruct (Items) loadings reliability variance

Global evaluation of tourismThe total impacts that tourism development has caused on my 0.64 0.42 0.82

community are positiveI consider that the befits of tourism are larger than its costs for 0.63 0.40 0.77

my community

Support for tourism developmentTourism can be one of the most important industries for a 0.71 0.50 0.49

communityMore tourism would help my community to grow in the right 0.71 0.51 0.50

directionTourism industry will continue to play an important economic 0.62 0.4 0.62

role in your communityI am happy and proud that there are tourists coming to see what 0.68 0.47 0.32

my community has to offerTourism must be developed focusing on cultural and historical 0.86 0.74 0.25

attractions (museums, palaces, music, historical sites, etc.)Tourism must be developed focusing on events and outdoor 0.66 0.43 0.69

programs (sports facilities, expositions, public events, etc.)

Support for tourism planningYour community should plan and manage 0.79 0.63 0.40

the growing and development of tourismLocal institutions must manage the increase of tourism activities 0.85 0.72 0.27

at all their levels

Clustering variablesPersonal benefits

The tourism development of your community positively affects 0.75 0.56 0.69your professional activity

In general, I perceive that tourism in my community has 0.85 0.73 0.43personally benefit me

Support for tourism promotionLocal institutions should do more to promote tourism 0.67 0.45 0.54I support the construction of new facilities in order to attract 0.70 0.49 0.54

more tourism

shared variance between constructs (averagevariance extracted). In addition, discriminantvalidity was tested by comparing the construct’ssquared correlations with the shared varianceamong them. For simplicity, diagonal elementsin Table 3 represent the squared root of AverageVariance Extracted (AVE), which must be largerthan the off-diagonal elements to establish theexistence of discriminant validity.

Cluster analysis

Next, using the two items of personal benefitsperceptions, we follow the two-steps cluster-ing procedure in SPSS software to identify heterogeneous groups in the sample. This procedure is an exploratory tool designed toreveal natural groupings (or clusters) within adata set that would otherwise not be apparent.The algorithm employed by this procedure hasseveral desirable features that differentiate it

from traditional clustering techniques. In orderto handle categorical and continuous variables,the two-step cluster analysis procedure uses alikelihood distance measure. The agglomera-tive clustering can be used to produce a rangeof solutions. To determine which number ofclusters is ‘best’, each of these cluster solutionsis compared using Schwarz’s Bayesian Crite-rion as the clustering criterion. Results are dis-played in Table 4, confirming the existence oftwo groups — those residents who personallybenefit from tourism activities (85 residents)and those who do not (291 residents). Despitethe differences in the number of componentsbetween both groups, both samples are largeenough not to present any statistical limitation.

Descriptive analysis

A general descriptive analysis demonstratedthat the residents of Santiponce perceived that



Table 3. Scale’s reliability and discriminant validity

Scale Alpha C.R. AVE ECP SCP ENP ECN SCN ENN GET STD STP

ECP 0.85 0.90 0.74 (0.86)SCP 0.86 0.89 0.69 0.76 (0.83)ENP 0.77 0.84 0.80 0.49 0.66 (0.89)ECN 0.76 0.83 0.74 0.08 0.17 0.14 (0.86)SCN 0.86 0.92 0.80 0.12 0.11 −0.02 0.41 (0.89)ENN 0.84 0.90 0.77 0.15 0.16 0.05 0.39 0.71 (0.88)GET 0.75 0.79 0.65 0.32 0.34 0.24 0.04 −0.11 −0.07 (0.80)STD 0.82 0.87 0.68 0.14 0.20 0.17 0.16 −0.15 −0.11 0.35 (0.82)STP 0.81 0.80 0.81 0.24 0.34 0.26 0.14 −0.16 −0.10 0.48 0.59 (0.90)

Note: Diagonal values in brackets represent the squared root of shared variance between constructs.ECP, Economic positive; SCP, Socio-cultural positive; ENP, Environmental positive; ECN, Economic negative; SCN, Socio-cultural negative; ENN, Environmental negative; GET, Global evaluation of tourism; STD, Support for tourism develop-ment; STP, Support for tourism planning C.R. Composite Reliability, AVE: Average Variance Extracted.

Table 4. Two-step cluster analysis

Number of clusters BIC BIC changea Ratio of BIC changesb Ratio of distance measuresc

1 521,6102 398,040 −123,569 1.000 1,4033 406,611 8,571 −0.069 1,0254 409,129 2,518 −0.020 1,8675 270,286 −138,843 1.124 1,6206 263,001 −7,285 0.059 1,185

a The changes are from the previous number of clusters in the table; b The ratios of changes are relative to the change forthe two cluster solution; c The ratios of distance measures are based on the current number of clusters against the previ-ous number of clusters.BIC, Schwarz’s Bayesian Criterion.

tourism had improved the economic situationof their community (3.21). However, they didnot consider tourism to be the most importantincome for the town (2.78), and they believedthat this economic improvement does notimply increased buying power for residents(2.64). In terms of socio-cultural effects, resi-dents acknowledged an improvement in cultural values and activities as a direct consequence of tourism (3.8). Similarly theyfelt that tourism facilitated the restoration oftown buildings (3.44). However, it had reducedthe quality of public services managed by themunicipal authorities (2.5). In terms of theenvironment, the residents agreed that tourismhad enhanced the landscape of the area (3.61)in which services for tourists were located(3.41). However, it had fostered uncontrolledurban development (2.52). In general, themeans of the items capturing tourism negativeeffects ranged from 1.7 to 2.8, which reflects the positive perception of tourism activity inSantiponce.

As we can observe in Table 5, there are sig-nificant differences in residents’ perceptionsdepending on the cluster they belong to. Thus,those residents who directly benefit from

tourism perceive the positive impacts are significantly larger than for those who do notdirectly benefit from tourism. Although thereare not significant differences regarding the negative impacts of tourism (except for socio-cultural impacts), the total perception oftourism impact is more positive for the residentsobtaining personal benefits, which also areslightly more supportive of tourism develop-ment, but not of tourism planning as expected.

This a priori unexpected result leads us toexplore the possible causes; to do so, we groupthe residents depending on their supporttowards tourism promotion, by repeating thesame two-step cluster procedure but using twoitems of support for tourism promotion. Thus,we obtain also two groups — those residentswho strongly support tourism promotion intheir area (274 residents) and those who do not(83 residents), which clearly present significantdifferences in their support for tourism devel-opment and support for tourism planning. Inconclusion, the residents’ level of support fortourism planning does not depend on theirpersonal benefits coming from tourism activi-ties, but on their attitude towards thosetourism activities itself.



Table 5. ANOVA test and descriptive analysis

Residents Residentswithout with Residents not Residents

Whole personal personal pro-tourism pro-tourismsample benefits benefits develop develop

Construct (N = 376) (n1 = 291) (n2 = 85) Sig. (n3 = 93) (n4 = 273) Sig.

Economic positive 2.9866 2.7731 3.3084 0.000 2.6367 3.0846 0.000Socio-cultural 3.1191 2.9048 3.4420 0.000 2.7226 3.2255 0.000

positiveEnvironmental 3.1170 2.9282 3.4016 0.000 2.8118 3.2022 0.001

positiveEconomic negative 2.7782 2.7339 2.8449 0.326 2.6613 2.7927 0.299Socio-cultural 2.7782 2.7339 2.8449 0.024 2.1234 1.8281 0.001

negativeEnvironmental 2.1051 2.0536 2.1826 0.201 2.2251 2.0433 0.102

negativeGlobal evaluation of 3.4652 3.3395 3.6528 0.003 2.7527 3.6916 0.000

tourismSupport for tourism 4.103 3.8245 4.0103 0.014 3.4194 4.4414 0.000

developmentSupport for tourism 4.1690 4.1395 4.2133 0.458 3.0771 4.2001 0.000

planning

Structural model

Before assessing the structural model, the threesets of positive and negative dimensions oftourism effects — economic, socio-cultural andenvironmental — were averaged into a singleindicator (see Figure 1) to reduce the numberof parameters in the model. According to theindicators shown in Table 6, the adjustment ofthe structural model showed good fit. Becausechi-squared (χ2) is generally affected by thesample size, its value should be analysed withother indicators that are less sensitive to thisvariable — such as GFI, Tucker-Lewis Index(TLI) and CFI. These indicators should begreater than 0.9 and can be used if the items’loadings are greater than 0.5 (Sharma et al.,2005). In addition, the RMSEA value confirmedthe good fit of the model.

In general, the relationships represented inthe path model were significant and were aspostulated. The loadings of both positive andnegative effects of tourism were similar (β =0.373, t = 5.110; and β = −0.362, t = −4.772respectively) when considering the sample asa whole. In addition, there was significant

support for tourism in the community (β =0.696, t = 8.285), which implies a definite needfor tourism planning (β = 0.700, t = 7.882).However, the hypotheses proposed in thisstudy suggest that different patterns of per-ception and behaviour exist beneath thesegeneral conclusions. In particular, it is pro-posed that residents who benefit personallyfrom tourism perceive positive effects fromtourism more strongly and perceive negativeeffects of tourism less strongly, accordinglywith social exchange theory.

The results of this analysis confirm the fourhypotheses previously proposed. As can beseen in Table 6, there are significant differencesin the patterns of opinions, depending onwhether residents do or do not receive per-sonal benefits from tourism. Those who receivepersonal benefits as a result of tourism activi-ties in the area have a more intense perceptionof the positive effects of tourism (β = 0.595, t =7.288) than those who do not perceive directbenefits from tourism (β = 0.394, t = 4.731).According to the t-student test, these differ-ences are statistically significant, thus support-ing the first hypothesis of the present study.



Table 6. Structural model and multigroup analysis

Whole sample (N = 376) Group 1 (n1 = 291)a Group 2 (n2 = 85)b

Standardised Standardised StandardisedPath loadings t-Value loadings t-Value loadings t-Value

POS → GET 0.373 5.110 0.394 4.731 0.595 7.288NEG → GET −0.362 −4.772 −0.380 −3.837 −0.273 −3.862GET → STD 0.696 8.285 0.569 6.400 0.904 10.832STD → STP 0.700 7.882 0.862 8.143 0.581 5.882

Multigroup analysis Significance test for differences in standardised loadingsc (t-value)

Sample versus Group 1 Sample versus Group 2 Group 1 versus Group 2

POS → GET 0.040 2.087 −1.966NEG → GET −0.537 1.786 −1.993GET → STD −0.471 2.040 −2.335STD → STP 1.156 −1.267 2.298

Notes: Global adjustment indexes: χ2 = 308.763; degrees of freedom = 150 (p = 0.000); goodness of fit = 0.928; TLI = 0.823;comparative fit index = 0.866; incremental fit index = 0.871; root mean square error of approximation = 0.038.a Residents without personal benefits (Group 1) who reported not obtaining direct benefits (professional) as a consequenceof tourism; b Residents with personal benefits (Group 2) who reported obtaining direct benefits (professional) as a conse-quence of tourism; c A t-value > ±1.96 represent a significant difference at 0.05 level.POS, Positive impacts obtained by averaging economic, socio-cultural and environmental factors; NEG, Negative impactsobtained by averaging economic, socio-cultural and environmental factors; GET, Global Evaluation of Tourism; STD,Support For Tourism Development; STP, Support For Tourism Planning.

With respect to perceptions of negativeeffects of tourism, those who personallybenefit from tourism activities are less sensi-tive to the negative effects of tourism on theircommunity (β = −0.273, t = −3.862), whereasthose who do not receive any personal benefitsfrom tourism are more aware of such negativeeffects (β = −0.380, t = −3.837). This result con-firms the second hypothesis of this study.

Residents who personally benefit fromtourism are more supportive of tourism anddeveloping new tourism initiatives (β = 0.904,t = 10.832) than other residents (β = 0.569, t =6.400). However, the relationship betweentourism development and tourism planning issupported more strongly by residents who donot personally benefit from tourism (β = 0.862,t = 8.143) than by other members of the com-munity (β = 0.581, t = 5.882) — probablybecause they perceived a need to organise thegrowth of tourism activities in their commu-nity. As a result of the above findings, hypothe-ses 3 and 4 are also supported.

CONCLUSION

Tourism activities can contribute significantlyto the economic development of regions. Local and national governments are thereforemaking strenuous efforts to initiate and fostertourism activities to improve the economicconditions of regions and their residents.However, we consider that those initiativeswill be more likely to be successful if they takeinto account the residents’ attitudes towardstourism. Unfortunately, this is not usually thecase in the south of Spain, where the resident’srole has been traditionally neglected. Thus,gaining the support of residents might emergeas a key task for managers who are responsi-ble of planning tourism and its development.

The primary objective of this research is todevelop and test a model that explains resi-dents’ attitudes towards tourism and theirsupport for its planning in their community.The model considers both positive and nega-tive effects of tourism — economic, culturaland environmental — as the major antece-dents of residents’ attitudes to tourism. Thismodel is theoretically rooted in social-exchange theory — as applied to tourism.

In addition, the present study speculatedthat there might be significant differencesamong residents’ attitudes — depending onthe type of benefits they obtain from the devel-opment of tourism within their community.This issue was investigated by identifying twosegments of the local population — those whodirectly benefit from tourism and those who donot — and relating their attitudes to the pro-posed model.

The model has been empirically tested in asmall Spanish community that attracts signifi-cant numbers of tourists. According to theresults, social-exchange theory serves as asound theoretical framework to explain residents’ attitudes towards tourism and its’planning. The results confirm that residentsperceive three effects — economic, culturaland environmental — which are clearly differ-entiated and can be perceived as positive ornegative. The perception of these effects deter-mines residents’ support for tourism and planning in their community. In Santipoce, res-idents perceived the positive effects of tourismto be significantly greater than the negativeeffects, which explains their support fortourism and its development.

In addition, multi-group analysis demon-strated that there were significant differ-ences in residents’ perceptions of tourism —depending on whether they personally bene-fited from it. Moreover, support was greateramong those who obtained direct advantagesthan among those who received only indirectbenefits (through the community). Residentswho obtained personal benefits tended tooverlook (or discount) the negative conse-quences of tourism while accentuating the pos-itive effects of tourism activities. However, thesituation concerning support for tourism plan-ning was exactly the opposite. The residentswho were more interested in tourism planningwere those who did not obtain direct bene-fits from tourism. It seems that these citi-zens acknowledged the negative effects thattourism development might have on theircommunity in the absence of proper planning,whereas residents who directly benefittedfrom tourism activities were less concernedabout the negative consequences for the com-munity. This is an interesting phenomenonthat merits further research. In spite of such



differences, it seems that the degree of supportfor tourism and its planning was high withinthe community of Santiponce.

According to the empirical study presentedin the paper, residents perceive more intenselythe positive effects of tourism than the nega-tive ones, which helps to explain their sup-port for tourism development. As the socialexchange theory basic statement predicts, anindividual’s attitudes towards industry and itssubsequent level of support for its develop-ment, will be influenced by his or her evalua-tion of resulting outcomes in the community.We have found that those residents obtaininghigher benefits from tourism showed highersupport for tourism development, and therelationship with their support for tourismplanning is stronger. We have also identifiedthat there are two groups of residents accord-ing to their support for tourism development,which influence their level of support fortourism planning. These results are similar toLee and Back (2003) research about residents’support to casino development: they tended to be more supportive when they actuallyreceived benefit from it, more specifically, eco-nomic benefit. Thus, and according to Gursoyet al. (2002), Ko and Stewart (2002) and Gursoyand Rutherford (2004), perception of tourismimpacts may be useful in planning furthertourism development. In conclusion, the socialexchange theory is very useful in explainingthe research results of residents’ attitudestoward tourism and its planning and develop-ment in the host community.

The results of the present study also providemanagerial implications for tourism planners.First, since positive residents’ perceptions oftourism benefits are relevant, in order to gettheir support, planners should be concernedabout how to communicate such benefitsthrough marketing techniques to gain resi-dents’ collaboration. Conversely, tourism planners should be aware of the negative consequences of uncontrolled tourism devel-opment and must minimize these negativeeffects by respecting the local community’sinterests. It would be especially useful to setquantifiable goals for the proposed tourismactivities, and to communicate these to the res-idents in a language that residents can under-stand — thus involving them in the process of

tourism planning. Local tourism plannersshould consider residents’ perceptions andattitudes before making costly investments innew initiatives that might not be completelysuccessful if they do not have the residents’support. In this regard, it can be useful to posi-tion the local tourism attraction in such a waythat residents can identify with it. Thus, ourmanagerial implications are in the line of Leeand Back (2003, p. 883) statement ‘the socialexchange model fits very well in explainingresidents’ attitudes toward casino operation. . . ; policymakers should identify how toprovide benefits to local residents so that theycan support casino development further; andcasino operators and policymakers shouldmake efforts to minimize the negative socialimpacts, because increase in the level of qualityof life or standard of living was not only dueto the positive economic impact but also wassignificantly affected by negative social factors,such as gambling addiction problems.

The present research also calls for futurelines of research. It would be interesting toobtain insights from tourists visiting the com-munity of Santiponce, as well as examining theopinions of business managers and entrepre-neurs in the community. A qualitative studymight reveal hidden insights underlying the attitudes and behaviours of tourists andentrepreneurs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors wish to thank the Santiponcemunicipal authorities for their support andcollaboration in this research.

REFERENCES

Agencia de Desarrollo Local De Santiponce. 2004.Datos del Año 2003. Ayuntamiento de Santiponce:Sevilla.

Akis S, Peristianis N, Warner J. 1996. Resident’s attitudes to tourism development: the case ofCyprus. Tourism Management 17: 481–494.

Ap J. 1990. Residents’ perceptions research on thesocial impacts of tourism. Annals of TourismResearch 17: 610–616.

Ap J. 1992. Resident’s perceptions on tourismimpacts. Annals of Tourism Research 19: 665–690.

Besculides A, Lee M, McCormick P. 2002. Resident’sperceptions of the cultural benefits of tourism.Annals of Tourism Research 29: 303–319.



Bollen K. 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Vari-ables. Wiley: New York.

Brougham J, Butler R. 1981. A segmentation analy-sis of resident attitudes to the social impact of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 8: 569–590.

Brunt P, Courtney P. 1999. Host perceptions ofsociocultural impacts. Annals of Tourism Research26: 493–515.

Butler R. 1980. The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for management ofresources. Canadian Geographer 24: 5–12.

Carmichael BA. 2000. A matrix model for residentattitudes and behaviours in a rapidly changingtourist area. Tourism Management 21: 601–611.

Ceballos-Lascurain H. 1996. Tourism, Ecotourism andProtected Areas. IUCN Publication: Gland.

Cohen E. 1987. Tourism: a critique. Tourism Recre-ation Research 12(2): 13–18.

Cohen E. 1988. Authenticity and commodificationin tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 15: 371–386.

Consejería de Cultura-Junta de Andalucía. 2004.Conjuntos y Zonas Arqueológicas y MonumentalesGestionados por la Consejería de Cultura. UnidadEstadística. Servicio de Estudios y Publicaciones:Sevilla.

Consejería de Turismo y Deporte de Andalucía.2004. Sistema de Análisis y Estadística del Turismo de Andalucía (2003). Consejería de Turismo yDeporte: Sevilla.

Deccio C, Baloglu S. 2002. Nonhost commuity resi-dent reactions to the 2002 winter olympics: thespillover impacts. Journal of Travel Research 41:46–56.

Diputación de Sevilla. 2005. Datos Sociodemográficos,Económicos y Culturales de Santiponce. Available athttp://www.dipisevilla.es (accessed 17 March2005).

Duffield BS, Long J. 1981. Tourism in the highlandsand islands of Scotland rewards and conflicts.Annals of Tourism Research 8(3): 403–431.

Dyer P, Gursoy D, Sharma B, Carter J. 2006. Struc-tural modeling of resident perceptions of tourismand associated development on the SunshineCoast, Australia. Tourism Management 28, 409–422(in press). DOI: 10–1016/J.tourman.2006.04.002

Esman M. 1984. Tourism as ethnic preservation: thecajuns of Louisiana. Annals of Tourism Research 11:451–467.

Fornell C, Larcker D. 1981. Evaluating structuralequation models with unobservable variablesand measurement error: algebra and statistics.Journal of Marketing Research 28: 39–50.

Gee C, Mackens JC, Choy DJ. 1989. The Travel Indus-try. Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York.

Glasson J, Godfrey K, Goodey B. 1995. TowardsVisitor Impact Management: Visitor Impacts, Carry-ing Capacity and Management Responses in Europe’sHistoric Towns and Cities. Avebury: England.

Gursoy D, Rutherford DG. 2004. Host attitudestoward tourism. An improved structural model.Annals of Tourism Research 31(3): 495–516.

Gursoy D, Jurowski C, Uysal M. 2002. Resident atti-tudes: a structural modeling approach. Annals ofTourism Research 29: 79–105.

Haralambopoulos N, Pizam A. 1996. Perceivedimpacts of tourism: the case of samos. Annals ofTourism Research 23: 503–526.

Harrill R. 2004. Resident’s attitudes toward tourismdevelopment: a literature review with implica-tions for tourism planning. Journal of Planning Literature 18(3): 251–266.

Hillery M, Nancarrow B, Griffin G, Syme G. 2001.Tourist perception of environmental impact.Annals of Tourism Research 28: 853–867.

Hughes G. 2002. Environmental indicators. Annalsof Tourism Research 29(2): 457–477.

Husbands W. 1989. Social status and perception oftourism in Zambia. Annals of Tourism Research 16:237–253.

Jamal T, Getz D. 1995. Collaboration theory andcommunity tourism planning. Annals of TourismResearch 22: 186–204.

Jurowski C, Gursoy D. 2004. Distance effects on resident’s attitudes toward tourism. Annals ofTourism Research 31(2): 296–312.

Jurowski C, Uysal M, Williams R. 1997. A theoreti-cal analysis of host community resident reactionsto tourism. Journal of Travel Research 36(2): 3–11.

King B, Pizam A, Milman A. 1993. Social impacts oftourism: host perceptions. Annals of TourismResearch 20: 650–665.

Ko D, Stewart W. 2002. A structural equation modelof resident’s attitudes for tourism development.Tourism Management 25: 521–530.

Korça P. 1998. Resident perceptions of tourism in aresort town. Leisure Sciences 20(3): 193–212.

Kousis M. 1989. Tourism and the family in a ruralCretan community. Annals of Tourism Research 16:318–332.

Kuvan Y, Perran A. 2005. Residents’ attitudestoward general and forest-related impacts oftourism: the case of Belek, Antalya. Tourism Man-agement 26: 691–706.

Lankford S. 1994. Attitudes and perceptions towardtourism and rural regional development. Journalof Travel Research 24(3): 35–44.

Lankford S, Howard D. 1994. Developing a tourismattitude scale. Annals of Tourism Research 21:121–139.



Lee CK, Back KJ. 2003. Pre and post casino im-pact of residents perception. Annals of TourismResearch 30: 868–885.

Madrigal R. 1993. A tale of tourism in two cities.Annals of Tourism Research 20: 336–353.

Mansfeld Y. 1992. From motivation to actual travel.Annals of Tourism Research 19: 399–419.

Martin B, Uysal M. 1990. An examination of therelationship between carrying capacity and thetourism lifecycle: management and policy impli-cations. Journal of Environmental Management 31:327–332.

Maruyama GM. 1998. Basics of structural equationmodeling. Sage: Thousands Oaks.

Mbaiwa JE. 2003. The socio-economic and environ-mental impacts of tourism development on theOkavango Delta, North-Western Botswana.Journal of Arid Environments 54(2): 447–467.

McCool SF, Martin SR. 1994. Community attach-ment and attitudes toward tourism development.Journal of Travel Research 32(2): 29–34.

McGehee N, Andereck K. 2004. Factors predictingrural resident’s support of tourism. Journal ofTravel Research 43: 131–140.

McKean P. 1978. Towards a theoretical analysis oftourism: economic dualism and cultural involu-tion in Bali. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropologyof Tourism, Smith VS (ed). Blackwell: Oxford;93–107.

Milman A, Pizam A. 1987. Social impact of tourismon central Florida. Annals of Tourism Research 15:91–204.

Perdue R, Long P, Allen L. 1990. Rural residenttourism perceptions and attitudes. Annals ofTourism Research 14(3): 420–429.

Pizam A, Uriely N, Reichel A. 2000. The intensity oftourist-host social relationship and its effects onsatisfaction and change of attitudes: the case of

working tourist in Israel. Tourism Management 21:395–406.

Ritchie J. 1988. Consensus policy formulation intourism. Tourism Management 9: 199–216.

Robson J, Robson I. 1996. From shareholders tostakeholders: critical issues for tourism mar-keters. Tourism Management 17: 533–540.

Sethna RJ, Richmond BO. 1978. Virginia islanders’perceptions of tourism. Journal of Travel Research17: 30–37.

Sharma S, Mukherjee S, Kumar A, Dillon WR. 2005.A simulation study to investigate the use of cutoffvalues for assessing model fit in covariance structure models. Journal of Business Research58: 935–943.

Sharpley R. 1994. Tourism, Tourists and Society.ELM: Huntingdon.

Sheldon P, Abenoja T. 2001. Resident attitudes in amature destination: the case of Waikiki. TourismManagement 22: 435–443.

Snaith M, Haley A. 1999. Residents’ opinions oftourism development in the historic city of York,England. Tourism Management 20: 595–603.

Teye V, Sonmez SF, Sirakaya E. 2002. Residents’ attitudes towards tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research 29(3): 668–688.

Tosun C. 2002. Challenges of sustainable tourismdevelopment in the developing world: the case ofTurkey. Tourism Management 22: 289–303.

Weaver D, Lawton L. 2001. Resident perceptions inthe urban–rural fringe. Annals of Tourism Research28: 439–458.

Williams J, Lawson R. 2001. Community issues andresident opinions of tourism. Annals of TourismResearch 28: 269–290.

Yoon Y, Gursoy D, Chen JS. 2001. Validating a tourismdevelopment theory with structural equationmodelling. Tourism Management 22: 363–372.



Gaining Residents Support for Tourism and Planning

Documents

Transcript of Gaining Residents Support for Tourism and Planning