rural residents' perceptions toward tourism development: a study from iran

Rural Residents’ Perceptions Toward Tourism Development: a Study from Iran

GHOLAMHOSSSEIN ABDOLLAHZADEH* and ABOLQASEM SHARIFZADEH

Faculty of Agricultural Management, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran

ABSTRACT

This paper focuses on the identification and explanation of rural residents’ perceptions toward the impacts of tourism development and theirgrouping with respect to these attitudes. Data from 262 households are used in the empirical analysis. Because of emerging stages of tourismdevelopment in the study area, most residents expressed a quite strong support for tourism development, although some social andenvironmental concern was expressed. The results revealed that respondents most value economic objectives, but the community wasnot homogeneous in its views. Education, gender, age, income, employment and a high degree of community attachment were found tobe the major factors affecting the attitudes of residents. Findings of this study indicate that local people value the tourism in ways consistentwith the social exchange theory. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 05 July 2011; Revised 19 June 2012; Accepted 20 June 2012

key words residents’ perceptions; rural tourism; tourism attitudes; social exchange theory; Golestan province

INTRODUCTION

Tourism is one of the largest and fastest growing industriestoday with the potential to support local communities indeveloping economic diversity (Long et al., 1990; Allenet al., 1993; McGehee and Andereck, 2004). However, tour-ism has the potential to create both positive and negativeimpacts. To address tourism’s appropriateness, it is necessaryto determine the profile of residents’ perception.

Local communities traditionally may perceive tourism ina positive manner because of its potential for job creation,investment attraction, income generation, improved welfareand enhanced rural infrastructure and services, as has beenfound in many host area (Saveriades, 2000; Mitchell andReid, 2001; Andriotis, 2002). Otherwise, the people of hostcommunities may perceive tourism in a negative mannerbecause of the socio‐cultural and environmental costs, ashas also been found in many host areas (Liu et al., 1987;Perdue et al., 1990; Chen, 2000). More likely, people willbe aware of the positive and negative implications of tourismand will depict their judgment based on the relativeweightings they consider to the benefits and the costs. Somescholars (Lankford and Howard, 1994; Allen et al., 1988;Ritchie, 1988) have suggested that this balance of residents’perceptions of the costs and benefits of tourism is a majorfactor in visitor satisfaction and is, therefore, vital for the suc-cess of the tourism industry. Thus, awareness of residents’perceptions of tourism development and its impacts can helpplanners and policy‐makers to identify real concerns andissues for appropriate policies and action to take place, opti-mizing the benefits and minimizing the problems.

Recently, many researchers argue that integrating localpeople is the most effective means of tourism development.They suggest that effective tourism planning requires residentinvolvement to mitigate the negative impacts and to clarify

the benefits associated with the tourism industry (Sewelland Coppock, 1977; Rohe and Gates, 1985; Wates, 2000;Chambers, 2002). Consequently, several studies have beenconducted to investigate residents’ perceptions toward tourismdevelopment worldwide (Liu and Var, 1986; Long et al., 1990;Perdue et al., 1990; Ap, 1992; Getz, 1994; Lankford, 1994;Lankford and Howard, 1994; McCool and Martin, 1994; Akiset al., 1996; Hernandez et al., 1996; Jurowski et al., 1997;Chen, 2000; Gursoy et al., 2002; McGehee and Andereck,2004; Andereck et al., 2005). A common finding followingfrom these studies is that involving host community opinionsand beliefs is inevitable part of any effort toward sustainabletourism development.

The province of Golestan in east coast of Caspian Sea is anatural‐based tourism destination where the diverse forest,rural landscape, natural protected area, local handicrafts andliving cultural traditions attract large numbers of tourists(Jamali, 2001). As a result, tourism is one of the maineconomic activity of the province. Recently, tourism in ruralarea of province of Golestan, is at an emergent level ofdevelopment. This paper targeted in the village of Zyarat asmain destination of rural tourists in the province of Golestan.Zyarat, due to its really gorgeous natural attraction always ishost of many tourists all year round (HFIR, 2010).

However, in spite of the above importance of tourism tothe study area, little is known about the local community’sperceptions toward tourism development.

Moreover, no research has been conducted to investigatethe rural residents’ feelings or perceptions toward touristsand the impact of tourism as a whole. In addition, rural resi-dents in study area have not been considered in the tourismdevelopment process, and the most of rural inhabitantsbelieve that they are not involved in the decision making thataffects their lives (HFIR, 2010). Because rural livelihood instudy area depends on quality and quantity of tourists, under-standing perceptions regarding aspects of tourism and howthey vary may be critical to managing tourism activity andsustaining rural livelihood.

*Correspondence to: Gholamhosssein Abdollahzadeh, Faculty of Agricul-tural Management, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and NaturalResources, Gorgan, Iran.E‐mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

International Journal of Tourism Research, Int. J. Tourism Res., 16: 126–136 (2014)Published online 24 July 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.1906

A better understanding of rural people’s knowledge of thetourism development, their awareness of its benefits and itsperceived impact on their welfare is fundamental to thedevelopment and implementation of management strategiesthat are both sustainable in the long term and sensitive toexisting local needs. This paper aimed to investigate ruralresidents’ perceptions on the impact of the tourism on theeconomic, social, environmental and physical status of ruralarea. To meet the above goal, two specific research questionswere proposed:

1 What are the underlying factors explaining rural residents’perceptions of tourism development?

2 Are there any differences in perceived tourism impactsamong rural residents with different demographiccharacteristics?

Qualitative information collected during focus groupmeetings and data gathered through a survey of the Zyaratvillage in province of Golestan are used to enhance and buildempirical models of residents’ perceptions. Factor analysisand linear structural models are used to examine the linkbetween socio‐economic characteristics and the perceivedimportance of tourism benefits.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. After thisintroduction, the theoretical framework is reviewed in thesecond section. Research methodology and basic informationrelated to study area are reported in the third section,followed by data analysis and results in the fourth section.In the conclusion section, the results are discussed, andpolicy implications are explored.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The conceptual framework for this study is based on thesocial exchange theory (Ekeh, 1974; Turner, 1974). Thecentral idea of this theory is that the exchange of social andmaterial resources is a fundamental form of human interac-tion (Ingoldsby and Smith, 1995). Exchange theory assumesthat people select exchanges after having assessed benefitsand costs (Homans, 1961). According to this idea, percep-tions are affected by the perceptions of the exchange peoplebelieve they are making. Consequently, individuals whoevaluate the exchange as beneficial perceive the same impactdifferently than someone who evaluates the exchange asharmful. The social exchange theory suggests that expressedsupport for tourism development is considered as a willingnessto enter into an exchange (Ap, 1992; Jurowski et al., 1997).

It specifies the exchange of tangible or intangible resourcesthat residents and tourists may give and receive in the host–resident tourism context. Therefore, the starting point forsocial exchange comes from the need to reciprocate forbenefits received to continue receiving them (Moore andCunningham, 1999, p. 106). Residents are willing to enterinto exchange with tourists if they receive more benefits thancosts (Blau, 1964; Jurowski et al., 1997). Residents whofound the exchange beneficial for their well‐being are keento support tourism development and have positive reactionsto tourists. Residents who view the exchange as problematic

will oppose tourism development. To support this assertion,social exchange theory has been frequently adopted in tour-ism studies as a theoretical framework for developing anunderstanding of residents’ attitudes toward tourism (Perdueet al., 1990; Ap, 1992; Jurowski et al., 1997; Sirakaya et al.,2002; Andereck et al., 2005).

Three basic categories of the exchange process can berecognized: economic, environmental and socio‐cultural.Regarding economic point of view, the majority of studieshave shown that residents who are dependent on the tourismindustry or perceive a greater level of economic gain such;increased employment opportunities, investments and profit-able local businesses tend to have a more positive perceptionof tourism than other residents (Haralambopoulos and Pizam,1996; Jurowski et al., 1997; Deccio and Baloglu, 2002;Sirakaya et al., 2002).

Similarly, resident attitudes toward tourism are oftenfound to be related to involvement with the tourism industry.Residents who feel they are knowledgeable about tourism, aswell as those who are more involved in tourism decisionmaking, are often more positively inclined toward the industry(Davis et al., 1988; Lankford and Howard, 1994; Anderecket al., 2005). Residents who believed tourism caused positiveeffects including improved standard of living, entertainment,historical and cultural exhibits, cultural exchange, culturalevents and a strengthening of cultural identity (Liu and Var,1986) tend to be stronger supporters for tourism development.

Finally, there are some scholars who propose that resi-dents give higher preference to environmental dimensionsthan economic factors (e.g. Liu and Var, 1986). Althoughthe impacts of tourism on the environment are evident toscientists, not all residents attribute environmental damageto tourism. Residents’ reactions to environmental impactsare mixed. Some feel tourism provides more parks andrecreation areas, improves the quality of the roads and publicfacilities and does not contribute to ecological decline. Somestudies suggest variations in residents’ feelings about tour-ism’s relationship to environmental damage are related tothe type of tourism, the extent to which residents feel thenatural environment needs to be protected and the distanceresidents live from the tourist attractions (Jurowski et al.,1997; Jurowski and Gursoy, 2004). Current study indicatesthat residents perceive that tourism increases traffic andovercrowding problems, but they also feel it results in moreparks and recreation areas and improves an area’s appearance(Table2). Respondents tend to be somewhat unsure ifenvironmental impacts of tourism are minor.

The way that residents perceive the economic, socio‐cultural and environmental elements of exchange affectsthe manner in which they react to tourism, which includesthe cognitive element of perceptions. Thus, perceptions towardtourism are a combination of characteristics of individualresidents, as well as subjective evaluations of groups, that arefunctions of organizational characteristics. Because residents’perceptions are measured multi‐dimensionally, this modelintegrates several family components that potentially influenceeach dimension of residents’ perceptions.

The predominate theoretical base for many of the tourismstudies has been social exchange theory. However, there has

Rural Residents’ Perceptions Toward Tourism Development 127

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res., 16: 126–136 (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/jtr

been mixed support for social exchange theory in the tourismliterature. Some studies have found support for the theory(Andereck and Vogt, 2000; Andriotis and Vaughan, 2003;Wang and Pfister, 2008), whereas others have not been conclu-sive (Ap, 1992; Jurowski et al., 1997; Lindberg and Johnson,1997; Gursoy et al., 2002; McGehee and Andereck, 2004).

METHODOLOGY

Study areaZyarat is a small forestry village with a permanent residentpopulation of 1964 people according to Iranian 2006 nationalsurvey (ISC, 2006). Zyarat is situated at the 17 km southof Gorgan as center of province of Golestan in 36°43northern latitude and 54°39 eastern longitude (Figure1).The village and its surrounding forests are well used bynational tourists during the peak spring and summermonths, with an average daily tourist arrival ranging from5000 to 10000.

The southern extent of the village is less than a 10‐minutedrive from the capital city of Northern Iran, Gorgan, and thisis another significant advantage to the village in terms ofpotential tourism development. With the completion of thenew road in 2001 along the riparian, the entire tourism attrac-tions of region especially twin waterfall will be accessible tothe visitors in just fiveminutes. Ziyarat waterfalls with all ofits green background are very attractive points as far as eco‐tourists are concerned (Figure2). Mud spring geysers areanother point of interest for eco‐tourists. Currently, develop-ment of the tourist industry in the village are motivated byother attractions such handicraft, local livestock productsand sparse settlement pattern.

Economy of the village is based on agriculture (farming,livestock and horticulture) and services related to a growing

tourism sector. The growth of tourism has stimulated thedevelopment of a variety of allied infrastructure, facilitiesand services, such as hotels, lodges and camps, transporta-tion station, housing agency, guided services, house rentals(weekends and during the summer and spring months), retailmarkets and services related to house building within andaround the village. These tourism services have led to abooming tourist economy and generating alternative incomefor local people.

Over the last 10years, the village of Zyarat has seen largeincreases in tourist arrivals. Advances in completion ofaccessible roads coupled with the granting of provincialincreased tourists’ awareness in the destination leading tobeginning of mass tourism in the village. In absence offormal data, the results of survey interview about touristarrivals trend shows the growth in the number of touristsexhibit almost classic Butler TALC behavior % (exploration/discovery and recently development stages in TALC) (Butler,1980, 2006a, 2006b). After finding of the village by the firstreal wave of tourists, now, the village is discovered by themedia and mass tourism. Coinciding with the tourism boomis the general decline in the agricultural industry because ofincrease in price of energy due to plan of targeting subsidiesin Iran. With the general decline of the agriculture sector,policy‐makers have looked to tourism to provide much neededemployment and generate income. Despite the positive eco-nomic effects, tourism in Zyarat has resulted in various socialand environmental strains, such as environmental degradation,water pollution, commercialization of human relations, changein agricultural land use and vast uncontrolled constructionactivities (Navabakhsh and Rafiefar, 2010).

Measuring rural residents’ perceptions toward tourismFor measuring rural residents’ perceptions of the tourism, therespondents were asked a set of questions, which addressed

Figure 1. Location map of the study area.

128 G. Abdollahzadeh and A. Sharifzadeh


DOI: 10.1002/jtr

their perceptions toward the tourism. Perception statementswere derived from a two‐phase approach to gather data(Creswell, 1994). The first phase consisted of focus groupinterviews expert in Department of Tourism in provinciallevel. Two focus group meetings were conducted in the threevillages (Zyarat and two villages with similar situation intourism attractions) using purposive sampling. They wereasked about their perceptions and the benefits received fromthe tourism. The qualitative nature of focus groups allowedfor a good understanding of rural residents’ perceptions ofthe tourism.

The feedback and information obtained from focus groupsallowed us to identify lists of benefits, which were used tofurther build and develop the questionnaire. The question-naire was pre‐tested with five research assistants, whichrandomly selected from department of tourism in province.As a result, some questions were deleted and some modifiedto improve their clarity.

The second phase expanded the first phase and took aquantitative approach to understanding the values rural resi-dents have for the tourism development. Respondents inZyarat village of the Golesten province presented a list ofbenefits from the tourism development. Using a five‐pointLikert scale with ‘1’ indicating strongly disagree and ‘5’indicating strongly agree, participants were requested tospecify their attitudes toward the role tourism played in theircommunity for each statement. Data collected from 262households in the spring of 2011 through formal and infor-mal survey techniques with the household living in the studyarea. The interviewees were selected randomly from the listof the households provided by the Administrative Councilof Village. Local words were often used wherever possibleto avoid technical terminology. We often provoked informalfollow‐up discussions and made use of our observations toassure the validity of our findings.

Data analysisA combination of descriptive and inferential statistics wasused to address stated research objectives. Descriptive statis-tics were used to describe rural residents’ perceptions abouttourism. Factor analysis was used to identify latent dimen-sions underlying the different variables that measured ruralresidents’ perceptions. Linear structural equation modelingwas used to analyze the differences in perceived importanceof tourism among rural people based on gender, age, educa-tional level, born inside or outside the village, group mem-bership, land tenure and income level.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

About 210 men (80%) and 52 women (20%) were interviewedduring the survey (Table1). The respondents were relativelymiddle age with an average age being 44.7 years. The largestproportion of respondents was in the 30‐ to 39‐year‐old cate-gory (35.2%). The years of education range from 0 to 18, withan average of 6.3. About 14.1% of the respondents wereilliterate, and 36.6 had completed primary school (fifth grade);9.5 of the respondents had obtained some college degree,followed by 30.9% who had less than high school and 22.9%of them had completed high school. The majority of respon-dents did not have membership in local civic groups (71.4%;see Table2). The average annual income of the respondentswas $US4863, and majority of them (44.7) were in the2500–4999 annual income category. Respondents’ length ofresidence ranges from 2 to 80 years, with a mean of 42.7years.The largest proportion of respondents was in the 31‐ to 45‐yearresidence category (34.0%); 73.7% of the samples had lived inthe village as child, and 46.9% of them had been employed inthe village.

Sorkh spring

Twin waterfalls

Kahseh River

Spring of mineral water

Sarvansar Mountain

Poshteh-Kamar Mountain

Hotel

Holey Shrine

Torineh spring

Zyarat

Inn

Safid-Ab Mountain

Figure 2. Zyarat and its key features.



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Rural residents’ perceptions toward tourismResults showed that rural residents have good awareness ofthe tourism (overall mean score=3.81). Their preferencesfor statements related to economic and business benefits.Twenty three perception statements were used to describerural residents’ perceptions toward the tourism (Table2).The overall mean scores of importance range from a highmean of 4.41 to a low mean of 2.26. People strongly believethat ‘tourism development ensures long‐term businessprofitability’ (mean=4.41), followed by ‘tourism createmany job for locals’ (mean=4.39) and ‘tourism increase inthe demand for local products’ (mean=4.35). On the otherhand, two has low important promoting tourism activitiesshould be the least important concern as tourism benefits, ‘tour-ism results in an increase in the cost of living’ (mean=2.26)and ‘tourism caused overcrowding problems for residents’(mean=2.67).

Statements that specifically addressed the economicalbenefits received five of the seven highest mean scores.These results imply that locals placed a high priority on theeconomical attributes of the tourism. This is not surprising;local residents are acutely aware of the serious consequencesof unemployment for household economy. Finding a favorable

job is main challenges for young people. Moreover, agricultureis no longer profitable for local residences because of increas-ing price of energy. Therefore, currently, tourism is goodsupport as alternative livelihood for many rural families.

Factor analysisIn this study, a four‐factor solution (termed economic, social,environmental and physical) was adopted and accounted for77.51% of total variance as indicated in Table3. A criterioncutoff loading of 0.50 is used to determine which variableswere included in a given factor (Sharma, 1996). Kaiser’soverall measure of sampling adequacy (cited in Sharma,1996) is 0.802, suggesting that the data are appropriate forfactor analysis. Seven perception variables (‘tourism increasesnew market for farm product’, ‘tourism create many job forlocals, tourism increases income’, ‘increase in the demandfor local products’, ‘tourism create new business investmentsopportunity’, ‘tourism diversifies the rural economy’ and

Table 1. Characteristics of respondents

Variables Percentage

Gender (N=262)Male 80.2Female 19.8

Age (mean=44.7)Less than 30 11.130–39 35.240–49 28.250–59 14.560–69 8.8Older than 70 4.6

Education (mean=6.3)Illiterate 14.1Fifth grade 22.5Less than high school 30.9High school graduate 22.9Some college 9.5

Membership of local civic groupsYes 28.6No 71.4

Annual household income (mean=4863)Less than $2499 24.4$2500–4999 44.7$5000 or more 30.9

Length of residence (mean=42.7)1–15years 6.516–30years 17.631–45years 34.046–60years 24.8More than 60years 17.2

Live in village as a childYes 73.7No 26.3

EmploymentPart time 14.5Full time 46.9Retired 18.7Not currently employed 19.8

Table 2. Descriptive statistical summary of the perceptions ofrespondents

StatementsMean rating ofimportance

Tourism increases income 4.30Tourism caused overcrowdingproblems for residents

2.67

Tourism increases new market forfarm product

4.01

Tourism development enhance morerecreational opportunities for locals

3.46

Tourism develops a sense of ownership 4.25Tourism improves locals standard of living 3.42Tourism create new businessinvestments opportunity

4.04

Increase in the demand for local products 4.35Tourism create many job for locals 4.39Tourism caused respect for local cultureand customs

4.13

Tourism fostering environmental conservation 2.70Increase investments in basic ruralinfrastructures (road, sanitation, water supply,health centers)

2.78

Increase traffic problems in rural area 3.52Increase locals awareness by interactionbetween residents and visitors

4.19

Increase investments in modern infrastructures(hotels, restaurants, souvenir shops, campsites,parking lots)

3.30

Tourism ensures long‐term business profitability 4.41Tourism enhance participation of residents inlocal activities

3.47

Tourism increase in the value of propertyowned by locals

4.14

Tourism results in an increase in the costof living

2.26

Tourism diversifies the rural economy 4.10Tourism creates public environmentallyprotected area

3.34

Increase investments in rural facilitiesand services (sanitation, water supply,solid waste management)

3.31

Tourism creates new learning opportunitiesfor local residents

3.06



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

‘tourism ensures long‐term business profitability’) concerningthe importance of economic aspect of tourism were loadedon first factor with the cross‐correlation coefficients of 0.425,0.931, 0.925, 0.041, 0.868, 0.911 and 0.840. This factoraccounted for 25.31% of the total variance and was termedeconomic benefits because these variables involve improve-ment of the welfare of local people. Higher scores and positiveresponses on this factor revealed a general agreement forpromoting economic activities resulted from tourism develop-ment. It could be noted that respondents often saw tourismactivities as an income generating asset and a powerful incen-tive for business. This finding supports past studies regardingpeople perceptions of tourism, which found that creating morejobs attracted more investment in their community and gener-ated economic benefits to local people and businesses (Perdueet al., 1990; Lankford, 1994; Jurowski et al., 1997; Yoon et al.,2001; Sirakaya et al., 2002; McGehee and Andereck, 2004;Andereck et al., 2005; Wang and Pfister, 2008).

Factor 2 had cross‐correlation coefficients of 0.773, 0.840,0.843, 0.782, 0.792, 0.738 and 0.736 with the variables‘tourism improves locals standard of living’, ‘increase localsawareness by interaction between residents and visitors’,‘tourism caused respect for local culture and customs, tourismenhance participation of residents in local activities’, ‘tourismdevelops a sense of ownership’, ‘tourism creates new learningopportunities for local residents’ and ‘tourism results in anincrease in the cost of living’. Because these variables implyreinforcement of the organizational, cultural and social struc-ture of rural communities, factor two was then labeled socialbenefits and accounted for 19.76% of the total variance.

Although the economic benefits of tourism are usuallyconsidered to improve communities, previous studies haveindicated that the socio‐cultural effects may not always beas positive (Liu et al., 1987). However, in the case of theZyarat study, residents tend to not perceive any of the thesepotential negative socio‐cultural consequences of tourismthat were measured while agreeing that it can provide manybenefits. Most residents did not report that tourism causesproblems, but there is also some uncertainty with respect toits effects on crime, discourtesy and friction between resi-dents and visitors. This finding was consistent with previousstudies that found that local residents perceived tourism as adevelopment that provides cultural identity and activity,cultural exchange and valuable meeting experiences withtourists (Yoon et al., 2001).

Four attributes (‘tourism fostering environmental conser-vation’, ‘tourism development enhances more recreationalopportunities for locals’, ‘increase traffic problems in ruralarea’, ‘tourism creates public environmentally protected area’,and ‘tourism caused overcrowding problems for residents’)were loaded on factor 3 with cross‐correlation coefficients of0.974, 0.963, 0.946, 0.929 and 0.844. Because these attributesfocus on preservation and conservation of ecological qualityand other environmental aspects, factor 3 was termed environ-mental effects and accounted for 19.08% of the total variance.These results represent that local residents believed thatenvironmental benefits should not be viewed as the mostimportant objective of tourism development program. In studyarea, many respondents do not blame tourism for traffic prob-lems, water and soil pollution, litters, overcrowded outdoor

Table 3. Varimax rotation factor pattern of rural residents’ perceptions

EigenvaluePercentageof variance Label Benefits Factor loadings

5.82 25.31 Economical Tourism increases new market for farm product 0.925Tourism create many job for locals 0.931Tourism increases income 0.925Increase in the demand for local products 0.941Tourism create new business investment opportunity 0.868Tourism diversifies the rural economy 0.911Tourism ensures long‐term business profitability 0.840

4.54 19.76 Social Tourism improves locals standard of living 0.773Increase locals awareness by interaction betweenresidents and visitors

0.840

Tourism caused respect for local culture and customs 0.843Tourism enhance participation of residents in local activities 0.782Tourism develops a sense of ownership 0.792Tourism creates new learning opportunities for local residents 0.738Tourism results in an increase in the cost of living 0.736

5.39 19.08 Environmental Tourism fostering environmental conservation 0.974Tourism development enhance more recreationalopportunities for locals

0.963

Increase traffic problems in rural area 0.946Tourism creates public environmentally protected area 0.929Tourism caused overcrowding problems for residents 0.844

3.07 13.36 Physical Tourism increase in the value of property owned by locals 0.871Increase investments in modern infrastructures (hotels,restaurants, souvenir shops, campsites, parking lots)

0.760

Increase investments in basic rural infrastructures (road,sanitation, water supply, health centers)

0.870

Increase investments in rural facilities and services(sanitation, water supply, solid waste management)

0.867



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

recreation or the disruption of peace and tranquility of ruralenvironment (Liu and Var, 1986).

Factor 4 had cross‐correlation coefficients of 0.871,0.760, 0.870 and 0.867 with the variables ‘tourism increasein the value of property owned by locals’, ‘increase invest-ments in modern infrastructures (hotels, restaurants, souvenirshops, campsites and parking lots)’, ‘increase investments inbasic rural infrastructures (road, sanitation, water supply andhealth centers)’, ‘increase investments in rural facilities andservices (sanitation, water supply and solid waste manage-ment)’. Because these variables related to the physical struc-ture and landscape in rural area, factor 4 was labeled physicalimpacts and accounted for 13.36% of the total variance.

These four impact constructs (economic, social, environ-mental and physical benefits) appears to be congruent withthe conceptual frameworks of perceived tourism impactspreviously proposed by scholars (Mathieson and Wall, 1982).However, unlike other research (Lankford and Howard, 1994;McCool andMartin, 1994), this study clearly portrays residents’concerns about tourism with four discernible factors includingits economic, social, environmental and physical impacts.

Linear structural equation modelEstimation of the confirmatory factor analysis, using as input262 samples, generated goodness of fit (GFI), adjusted GFI(AGFI) and the standardized root mean‐square error ofapproximation values of 0.95, 0.91 and 0.074. Accordingto Hu and Bentler’s (1999) cutoff criteria, all fit indices arewell above acceptable limits providing strong evidence ofmodel fit. χ2 per degree of freedom is 1.97, also indicatinggood fit of the model. The t‐values indicate that all theestimated loadings and the variance of the error term aresignificant at the 95% coefficient level.

Estimation of the structural parameters is the second stepin the linear structural model (Anderson and Gerbing,1988). The results of coefficient estimates are indicated inTable4. The overall fit of the model is good and specifies thatthe model’s parameters differ significantly across respondents,with χ2 =106.62. The statistical significance of explanatoryvariable coefficients estimated by the latent variable equations

disclosed differences in residents’ perceptions about tourismacross respondent’s characteristics. Results of the linear struc-tural model showed that residents with fifth grade (includeprimary school and illiterate) tend to prefer all four benefits lessthan do respondents who do not have fifth degree and less, withthe greatest difference being the preference for economicbenefits. Residents with a high‐school degree and some collegefavor environmental benefits less than do middle educateddegree respondents. As a result, it may be assumed that themedium‐educated residents are more likely to be supportiveof tourism development, the less educated are more likely tobe negative to the all aspects of tourism effects and the highlyeducated are more likely to be concerned about the environ-mental and social costs of tourism.

The coefficient for respondents’ age is significant in theequation describing perceptions for economic and physicalbenefits but non‐significant in the environmental and socialequations. This implies that perceptions for environmentaland social benefits are constant across respondents’ age, butolder respondents have a propensity to prefer economic andphysical benefits less than younger respondents.

An examination of responses by gender revealed womenwere more positive than men toward promoting physicalbenefits such (increase infrastructures, facilities and services)in tourism development. A possible explanation for therelationship between gender and impacts of tourism mightbe that the increase in opportunities to benefit from tourismby women. Instead of direct sale of handicrafts and dairyproducts, women may have the more chance to obtainservice positions within the tourism industry, such as restau-rants and hotels, and to become self‐employed in one’s owntourism‐related business. This explanation is, of course, tem-pered for a number of reasons. Facilitating the developmentof tourism‐based enterprises in the local economy canprovide a reliable opportunity for the women to supplementtheir livelihood activities.

Recently in Zyarat village, physical and infrastructuraldevelopment has increased food services and the number ofretail outlets with arts, handiworks and household stuff. Itcould be deduced that the improvements in the tourism‐

Table 4. Estimated LISREL coefficients of the latent variable equations for tourism perceptions

Explanatory variables

Latent variables

Environmental Social Economic Physical

Fifth grade and less −0.35 (−2.98)** −0.44 (−2.20)** −0.42 (−3.48)** −0.40 (−3.44)**Less than high school 0.15 (1.60) 0.07 (0.74) 0.26 (2.68)** 0.18 (2.46)**High school graduate −0.01 (−1.74)* 0.02 (1.13) −0.06 (−0.60) −0.07 (−0.61)Some college −0.03 (−2.20)** 0.05 (1.18) −0.04 (−0.50) −0.03 (−0.44)Age 0.02 (0.77) −0.02 (−0.64) −0.34 (−2.48) −0.31 (−2.35)**Live in village as a child 0.04 (0.16) 0.23 (2.68)** 0.02 (0.55) 0.28 (2.72)**Membership of local civic groups 0.21 (0.20) 0.28 (2.69)** −0.03 (−2.23)** −0.11 (−2.26)**Low income<$2499 0.22 (1.77)* 0.18 (1.90)* 0.20 (1.83)* 0.18 (1.80)*Mid income: $2500–4999 0.12 (1.21) 0.03 (0.69) 0.10 (2.42)** 0.08 (2.35)**Unemployed people −0.04 (−0.28) −0.19 (−4.64)** −0.19 (−2.56)** −0.17 (−2.38)**Women −0.04 (−0.15) 0.02 (0.54) 0.08 (1.25) 0.18 (2.35)**

t‐values are given in parentheses.*and**denote significance at 10 and 5% respectively.



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

related business are viewed as a benefit more by femalethan by male respondents. Also, women reported more negativeperception about environmental aspects of tourism activitiesthan did men. This finding was consistent with the study ofMason and Cheyne (2000), which found that women were moreopposed to tourism development than men due to perceivednegative impacts, such as increases in traffic, noise and crime,although acknowledging positive benefits, including commu-nity tourism facilities and regional economic benefits.

Residents who have lived in village as a child reportedmore positive perceptions toward all four objectives oftourism. They favor social and physical benefits significantlymore than do respondents who were born outside the village.This finding was inconsistent with previous studies thatfound positive influence of length of residence on attitudestoward tourism development (McCool and Martin, 1994;Williams et al., 1995; Snaith and Haley, 1999). Investmentin physical and infrastructural development in study areahas created several benefits for village such as improvementin the quality of the roads and public facilities. Thesekinds of development also have provided more employ-ment opportunities for local residents. Because a largeportion of the rural population depends on tourism forlong‐term, people who likely had the most cultural andsocial ties to the village favored social and physicalbenefits of tourism.

Importance of tourism benefits for the development of thevillage also vary by whether respondents belong to localcivic organization. Residents who are members of a localcivic group favor social benefits more and prefer economicand physical benefits less relative to respondents who arenot members of a local organization. People who aremembers of a local group probably are most concerned withenvironmental benefits. More informed individuals appar-ently were better able to assess the potential impacts oftourism development on their village. Residents who arenot members of a local civic group and not well informedabout tourism development programs may overvalue thecosts and underestimate the benefits. This verifies findingsof Wang and Pfister (2008) as noted in their examinationthat respondents who were active in civic organizationsreported an improvement of recreation opportunities as abenefit of tourism.

Data revealed that rural residents’ perceptions varysignificantly across different income levels. Respondentswith incomes less than $US2449 tend to support environ-mental benefits more than respondents with incomesbetween $US2500 and 4999. Respondents with incomesbetween $US2500 and 4999 were more likely to promoteeconomic and physical benefits than respondents in theother groups. Importance of tourism benefits also differsby whether respondents were employed and unemployed.Unemployed people, find all four benefits less importantthan people who are employed. This finding is consistentwith some previous research, which determined that resi-dents who believed that their activities would benefit fromtourism programs through business improvement tendedto be more positive (Allen et al., 1993; Lankford, 1994;Harrill and Potts, 2003).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this research indicate that local people valuetourism in ways consistent with the social exchange theory.Previous applications of this theory in tourism researchappear to favor an economic approach in which it is assumedthat the residents’ attitude toward tourism arises fromconscious evaluation to maximize well‐being after weighingall options. By careful evaluation of benefits and costs, actorswho found the exchange beneficial for their self‐interest arekeen to support tourism development and have positivereactions to tourists. Actors who view the exchange as prob-lematic will oppose tourism development. This perspectivefulfills the rationality principle, which is at the core of theeconomic approach to the examination of exchange.

In this research, positive attitudes were connected with thebelief that tourism creates more jobs and opportunities forearning income, increases demand for local products, pro-motes agricultural markets and improves rural services anda chance to have more welfare. These results confirm thetenets proposed by previous studies, which indicated thatresidents who receive direct benefits from tourism tend tohave more positive attitudes toward its development (Pizam,1978; Milman and Pizam, 1988; Lankford and Howard,1994; Lepp, 2007). Furthermore, positive residents’ attitudestoward tourism appeared to be related to some non‐economicvalues such as the improvements in the rural infrastructure.Similar findings in examination of two emerging tourismareas were found in Ghana by Sirakaya et al. (2002).Although residents were generally supportive, there was asignificant level of opposition, related to environmental andsocial factors such as increase in the cost of living andovercrowding problems for residents. Study by Navabakhshand Rafiefar (2010) in Zyarat reported similar findings.

The findings of this study appear to be in agreement withthose of Hall (1994) and Joppe (1996) and others (Broughamand Butler, 1981; Husbands, 1989; Ap and Crompton, 1993;Ryan and Montgomery, 1994; Haralambopoulos and Pizam,1996; Lawson et al., 1998), which revealed that communitiesare composed of different actors with mixed attitude inrelation to the perceived impacts of tourism. The contributionof current research is the finding that within communities,there are segments expressing different levels of support/concern for the various tourism impacts (economic, envi-ronmental, social and physical).

As mentioned, for some groups, tourism was viewed as apositive force, whereas for others, it was seen as bringingsome cost.

The findings of this study, with respect to the intrinsicaspects, revealed interesting issues of concern. Specifically,the most significant single factor affecting residents’ percep-tions within the sample was education. Consistent withprevious research (Andriotis and Vaughan, 2003), this studyfound that less‐educated people was not aware of tourismbenefits, and they are more likely to be negative to thetourism effects, whereas medium‐educated people werestronger supporters for tourism development. Following theprinciples of the social exchange theory, the current studyconcludes that those residents who benefit from tourism



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

perceive, on average, greater physical and economic advan-tages than those who do not receive any benefits (Pizam,1978; Milman and Pizam, 1988), since employed peoplewho benefit from the tourism industry had more positiveopinions toward tourism.

In this survey, attitude on the tourism development werepartly gender based. It appeared that women generally agreedmore than men to the development on the some physicalinfrastructures in the community. Women highlighted posi-tive impacts, including the provision of rural facilities andservices and benefits of this development to the region to agreater extent than men. Further research into gender varia-tions in relation to such development should have priority,particularly as any findings should assist in the tourismplanning process. Also, older respondents perceived lessbenefit associated with economic aspects and activitiesrelated to physical features than did younger respondents.Physical activities to renovate old textures often havechanged natural perspective in the village, and this is notconsistent with their different expectations in term of sociallife. Such results may reflect the argument that the olderpeople have perceived loss of control of their environmentand romanticized views of their community environment.Thus, the result suggests that the local tourism authorityshould consider the special requirements of older residentsto obtain their support for tourism programs. The findingsof the research confirm the results of some previous researchthat membership in civic groups (Vesey and Dimanche,2001; Wang and Pfister, 2008) were to be significantly corre-lated with attitudes toward tourism. Such results imply thatrespondents who engaged in civic groups are also activeparticipants with access to the special events and servicesthat represent the most visible aspect of attracting visitorsto the study area.

Although this study is a snapshot of a particular time andlocation, similar to those prevalent since the early tourismimpact studies, it is important because it is representative ofcommunity attitudes prior to the development of significanttourism interests. Most research has taken place after tourismhas taken root, but there is a need to conduct investigationsprior to its establishment; as such, research can provide abenchmark of community attitudes and assist in the planningprocess (Keogh, 1990; Hernandez et al., 1996).

The Zyarat village used in the sample was in its pre‐development phase of tourism, and this is why mostresidents expressed a quite strong support for tourismdevelopment, although some concern was expressed.

According to the concept of destination life cycle, resi-dents tend to change their attitudes toward tourism develop-ment when the level of tourism development increases.However, if the magnitude of tourism increases, then furtherresearch into resident attitudes would be conducted withdifferent study populations in terms of tourism developmentstages to help advance the current impact theories (e.g. socialexchange) advocated by scholars (Butler, 1980; Ap, 1992;Getz, 1994).

Although the results of this study are encouraging for thetourism industry because of the positive attitudes expressedby the local residents to tourism development, attention

should be given to the fact that a segment of residents, somegroups expressed concern about the environmental and socialimpacts of tourism. Therefore, it is suggested that decisionmakers and planners should take into consideration the viewsof this segment of the rural population and direct increasedefforts toward environmental protection and social welfarein future tourism strategies.

Finally, this study was subject to several limitations,mainly limited time, small size of study area and low budget;it was possible to understand people grant considerableimportance to economic objectives (Lankford, 1994). Futureresearch should be conducted that examines local economicalternatives for the people that will have both a developmentimpact and serve as incentives to empower social culture andconservation of environment. Moreover, the supportiveservice of the Organization of Tourism and Cultural Heritageshould continue to provide information about and demon-strate the potential benefits to be derived by local peoplefrom tourism activities. Particular attention on the impactsof tourism programs on residents’ income, and demand forlocal products is recommended. If it can be shown thattourism activities can generate substantial benefits at thefamily welfare level without increasing the amount of landused for agriculture, it is likely that the implementation ofsuch programs will be much appreciated.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to thank residents of Zyarat for their important workin data collection.

REFERENCES

Akis S, Peristianis N, Warner J. 1996. Residents’ attitudes to tour-ism development: The case of Cyprus. Tourism Management17(7): 481–494.

Allen, LR, Long PT, Perdue RR, Kieselbach S. 1988. The Impact ofTourism Development on Residents’ Perceptions of CommunityLife. Journal of Travel Research 27(1): 16–21.

Allen LR, Hafer HR, Long PT, Perdue RR. 1993. Rural residents’attitudes toward recreation and tourism development. Journalof Travel Research 31(4): 27–33.

Andereck KL, Vogt CA. 2000. The relationship between residents’attitudes toward tourism and tourism development options.Journal of Travel Research 39: 27–36.

Andereck KL, Valentine KM, Knopf RC, Vogt CA. 2005. Resi-dents’ Perceptions of Community Tourism Impacts. Annals ofTourism Research 32(4): 1056–76.

Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. 1988. Structural equation modelingin practice: a review and recommended two‐step approach.Psychological Bulletin 103(3): 411–423.

Andriotis K. 2002. Local Authorities in Crete and the Developmentof Tourism. Journal of Tourism Studies 13(2): 53–62.

Andriotis K, Vaughan RD. 2003. Urban Residents’ Attitudestoward Tourism Development: The Case of Crete. Journal ofTravel Research 42: 172–185.

Ap J. 1992. Residents’ Perception on Tourism Impacts. Annals ofTourism Research 19(4): 665–690.

Ap J, Crompton JL. 1993. Residents’ Strategies for Responding toTourism Impacts. Journal of Travel Research 32(1): 47–50.

Blau PM. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. NewYork:Wiley.



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Brougham JE, Butler RW. 1981. A Segmentation Analysis ofResident Attitudes to the Social Impact of Tourism. Annals ofTourism Research 7: 569–590.

Butler RW. 1980. The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolu-tion: Implications for Management of Resources. The CanadianGeographer 24(1): 5–12.

Butler RW. 2006a. The Tourism Area Life Cycle: Vol. 1. Appli-cation and Modifications. Channel View Publications:Clevedon, UK.

Butler RW. 2006b. The Tourism Area Life Cycle: Vol. 2. Con-ceptual and Theoretical Issues. Channel View Publications:Clevedon, UK.

Chambers R. 2002. Participatory Workshops. London: Earthscan.Chen JS. 2000. An investigation of urban residents’ loyalty to

tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research24(1): 21–35.

Creswell JW. 1994. Research Design: Qualitative and QuantitativeApproaches. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Davis D, Allen J, Cosenza RM. 1988. Segmenting local residents bytheir attitudes, interests, and opinions toward tourism. Journal ofTravel Research 27(2): 2–8.

Deccio C, Baloglu S. 2002. Nonhost community resident reactionsto the 2002 winter Olympics: the spillover impacts. Journal ofTravel Research 41(1): 46.

Ekeh P. 1974. Social Exchange Theory. Harvard University Press:Cambridge, MA.

Getz D. 1994. Residents’ attitudes toward tourism: A longitudinalstudy in Spey Valley, Scotland. Tourism Management 15(4):247–258.

Gursoy D, Jurowski C, Uysal M. 2002. Resident attitudes: a struc-tural modeling approach. Annals of Tourism Research 29(1):79–105.

Hall CM. 1994. Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power and Place.Chichester: Wiley.

Haralambopoulos N, Pizam A. 1996. Perceived impacts of tourism:the case of Samos. Annals of Tourism Research 23(3): 503–526.

Harrill R, Potts TD. 2003. Tourism planning in historic districts:Attitudes toward tourism development in Charleston. Journalof the American Planning Association 69(3): 233–44.

Hernandez SA, Cohen J, Garcia HJ. 1996. Residents attitudestowards an instant resort enclave. Annals of Tourism Research23(4): 754–779.

HFIR (Housing Foundation of Islamic Revolution). 2010. Zyarat, amemorial of ancients, a heritage to posterities. A report onthe initiatives of the HFIR the revitalization of historicvillage of Zyarat.

Homans G. 1961. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. NewYork: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Hu L, Bentler PM. 1999. Cutoff criteria in fix indexes in covariancestructure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives.Structural Equation Modeling 6(1): 1–55.

Husbands W. 1989. Social Status and Perception of Tourism inZambia. Annals of Tourism Research 16: 237–253.

Ingoldsby BB, Smith S. 1995. Families in Multicultural Perspec-tive. The Guilford Press: New York.

Jamali MJ. 2001. Location of tourism in province of Golestan.Unpublished research project. Headquarter of Cultural Geritage,Handicraft and Tourism for Province of Golestan. Gorgan. Iran.

Joppe M. 1996. Sustainable Community Tourism Revisited.Tourism Management 17: 475–481.

Jurowski C. Gursoy D. 2004. Distance effects on residents’ attitudestoward tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 31(2): 296–312.

Jurowski C, Uysal M, Williams DR. 1997. A Theoretical Analysisof Host Community Resident Reactions to Tourism. Journal ofTravel Research 36(2): 3–11.

Keogh B. 1990. Public Participation in Community TourismPlanning. Annals of Tourism Research 17: 449–465.

Lankford SV. 1994. Attitudes and perceptions toward tourism andrural regional development. Journal of Travel Research 31(3):35–43.

Lankford SV, Howard DR. 1994. Developing a tourism impact atti-tude scale. Annals of Tourism Research 21(1): 121–139.

Lawson RW, Williams J, Young T, Cossens J. 1998. A Comparisonof Residents’ Attitudes towards Tourism in 10 New ZealandDestinations. Tourism Management 19(3): 247–256.

Lepp A. 2007. Residents’ attitudes towards tourism in Bigodivillage, Uganda. Tourism Management 28: 876–885.

Lindberg K, Johnson RL. 1997. Modeling Resident AttitudesToward Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 24(2):402–24.

Liu J, Sheldon PJ, Var T. 1987. Resident Perceptions of theEnvironmental Impacts of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research14(1): 17–37.

Liu JC, Var T. 1986 Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts inHawaii. Annals of Tourism Research 13(2): 193–214.

Long PT, Perdue RR, Allen L. 1990. Rural resident tourism percep-tions and attitudes by community level of tourism. Journal ofTravel Research 28(3): 3–9.

Mason P, Cheyne J. 2000. Residents’ attitudes to proposed tourismdevelopment. Annals of Tourism Research 27: 2: 391–411.

Mathieson A, Wall G. 1982. Tourism: Economic, physical, andsocial impacts. New York: Longman.

McCool SF, Martin ST. 1994. Community attachment and attitudestoward tourism development. Journal of Travel Research 32(2):29–34.

McGehee NG, Andereck KL. 2004. Factors predicting rural res-idents’ support of tourism. Journal of Travel Research 43:131–140.

Milman A, Pizam A. 1988. Social Impacts of Tourism on CentralFlorida. Annals of Tourism Research 15(2): 191–204.

Mitchell RE, Reid DG. 2001. Community Integration: IslandTourism in Peru. Annals of Tourism Research 28(1): 113–39.

Moore KR, Cunningham WA. 1999. Social Exchange Behavior inLogistics Relationships: A Shipper Perspective. InternationalJournal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management29(2): 103–21.

Navabakhsh M, Rafiefar M. 2010. Outline of Tourism Effect onSocio‐economic living of Zyarat Residents. Quarterly Geo-graphical Journal of Environmental Based Territorial Planning9: 1–21.

Perdue R, Long PL, Lawrence A. 1990. Resident Support forTourism Development. Annals of Tourism Research 17(4):586–99.

Pizam A. 1978. Tourism’s Impacts: The Social Costs to the Destina-tion Community As Perceived by its Residents. Journal ofTravel Research 16(4): 8–12.

Ritchie JRB. 1988. Consensus Policy Formulation in Tourism:Measuring Resident Views via Survey Research. TourismManagement 9(3): 199–212.

Rohe WM, Gates LB. 1985. Planning with Neighborhoods. ChapelHill: University of North Carolina Press.

Ryan C, Montgomery D. 1994. The Attitudes of Bakewell Resi-dents to Tourism and Issues in Community Responsive Tourism.Tourism Management 15: 358–369.

Saveriades A. 2000. Establishing the Social Tourism CarryingCapacity for the Tourist Resorts of the East Coast of the Repub-lic of Cyprus. Tourism Management 21 (2): 147–56.

Sewell DWR, Coppock JT. 1977. Public Participation in Planning.Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Sharma S. 1996. Applied Multivariate Techniques. John Wiley:New York.

Sirakaya E, Teye V, Sonmez S. 2002. Understanding Residents’Support for Tourism Development in the Central Region ofGhana. Journal of Travel Research 41(1): 57–67.

Snaith T, Haley A. 1999. Residents’ opinions of tourism develop-ment in the historic city of York, England. Tourism Management20(1): 595–603.

Turner JH. 1974. The Structure of Sociological Theory. DorseyPress: Homewood, IL.



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Vesey C, Dimanche F. 2001. Urban Residents’ Perceptions ofTourism and Its Impacts: An Application of the TIAS Scale. Pro-ceedings of the 2001 Travel and Tourism Research AssociationAnnual Conference: 151–58.

Wang Y, Pfister RE. 2008. Residents’Attitudes toward Tourism andPerceived Personal Benefits in a Rural Community. Journal ofTravel Research 47: 84–93.

Wates N. 2000. The Community Planning Handbook. London:Earthscan.

Williams DR, McDonald CD, Riden CM, Uysal M. 1995. Com-munity attachment, regional identity and resident attitudes to-ward tourism development. 26th annual conferenceproceedings of the Travel and Tourism Research Association.Acapulco, Mexico: Travel and Tourism Research Associa-tion, 424–31.

Yoon Y, Gursoy D, Chen JS. 2001. Validating a tourism develop-ment theory with structural equation modeling. Tourism Man-agement 22: 363–372.



DOI: 10.1002/jtr

rural residents' perceptions toward tourism development: a study from iran

Documents