Measuring Sustainable Tourism Development in Remote Rural ...

Measuring Sustainable Tourism Development
in Remote Rural Communities of Europe
Carlos Oliveira Fernandes,
Escola Superior de Tecnologia e Gestão
do Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo (Portugal)
cfernandes@estg.ipvc.pt
Charlotte R. Rassing,
Research Centre of Bornholm (Denmark)
rassing@rcb.dk
6th World Leisure Congress, “Leisure and Human Development”, Research Thematic
Area
Assessing the potential for tourism development in peripheral areas is complicated.
Peripheral areas often possess characteristics that are demanded by tourists, and
tourism is often seen as a panacea for such areas both nationally and locally. It is not
simply a question of matching what the tourists want with what communities can
provide, but critically it depends in large measure upon local acceptability. It is often
maintained that the attitude of residents is important because residents themselves are
potentially part of the tourists’ experiences if they interact with local people (Ryan,
Scotland and Montgomery, 1998).
Akis, Peristianis and Warner (1996) argue that as the number of visitors to a region
increases, residents who at first were overwhelmingly positive in their attitudes to their
guests develop increasing reservations concerning the long-term benefits of the
visitors. This may be because the original expectations of the benefits of tourism were
unrealistic (and so are incapable of being fulfilled) or because the benefits are
perceived to accrue only to a small number of people.
This paper sets out to analyse cross-sectoral rural sustainability indicators in an open
participatory bottom-up process that may enable peripheral rural areas to monitor the
contribution of tourism to sustainable development objectives at local community level.
It is intended as supply related research, taking a stakeholder approach to the
development process, empowering communities to identify practical ways for achieving
social and economic progress while protecting the environment, conserving its valuable
natural resources, and ensuring its long term productivity and quality of life.
It will take as case studies the communities of Lindoso and Soajo, in mountainous
northern Portugal, and the community of Svaneke, next to the coast in the island of
Bornholm, Denmark. All three communities are characterised by low population
density, depopulation, agriculturally based and little economic diversity. The survey
research, carried out in August and September of 1999, at the study sites, was made
possible by grants from the following institutions: the Instituto de Cooperação Cientifica
e Tecnológica Internacional (Portugal), in a protocol with the Danish Research
Academy (Denmark). The project partners were the Polytechnic Institute of Viana do
Castelo and the Research Centre of Bornholm

Introduction
Tourism is seen as a possible and viable strategy for development in many remote
rural areas, being viewed as perhaps best meeting the requirements of environmental
sustainability, employment, public and private investment, infrastructure betterment and
economic benefits. The development of tourist facilities and recreational opportunities
has frequently been viewed as a means of redressing regional disparities in incomes
and employment (Mathieson and Wall, 1982). Tourists can play an important part of
community development by giving local residents the possibility of earning some
additional income. It is argued that since local materials and labour are employed in
local production, it represents potential for small-scale development of sustainable
tourism.
The economy of remote rural areas has traditionally been dependent upon a single
local industry, either agriculture, fisheries or other (but mostly agriculture). Thus
agriculture will, inevitably, have an influence on local tourism development, since it is
still part of the local people’s daily lives. Cox and Fox (1991) illustrated the important
relationship between agriculture and tourism, recognising the need to examine this
further, to ensure that the potential of agriculturally based leisure attractions could be
realised. “Agriculture is traditionally the economic mainstay of rural areas, there is a
linkage between agriculture and tourism”.
The current global tourism market is experiencing changes in tourism demand and
consumption patterns as perhaps never before. The tourism consumer is changing
through greater awareness of the world, wider experiences and tourism products, both
domestically and internationally, and through changing consumer pressures and
expectations. The current affects of change are leading to the rise in the
“unmanageable” consumer, the consumer who is more knowledgeable with a wider
perspective of tourism and its products and therefore increasingly demanding (Jones,
1997). This may imply that international mass tourism is no longer a homogenous
phenomenon it purportedly used to be.
Changing perceptions are leading to higher expectations or desired services by
consumers in tourist areas. However, not only is it desirable to study the nature of
tourist demand and the character of the accompanying movements of people, for the
purpose of understanding the driving forces behind recent growth in tourism: it is also
desirable to know something about the impact (environmental, economic, cultural etc.)
of the tourists on the areas which they visit. The need for studies in this field has
grown with the realisation that tourist developments do not always bring benefit to the
host areas; indeed they may lead to the accentuation of the existing social and
economic problems or to the creation of new problems altogether (White, 1974: 1-2)
Literature Review
The sustainable approach to development is not new and there have been many
interpretations of what sustainable development is. But it is now generally accepted
that sustainable development recognises the validity of three interests - the
environment (natural and man made), the economy and socio-cultural concerns
(Macgillivray & Zadek, 1995). Writers generally trace the origins of the term
"sustainable development" back to a 1987 World Commission on Environment and
Development report entitled "Our Common Future", also known as the Brundtland

Report. This commission, established by the United Nations General Assembly in
1984, was asked to learn about the connections between the issues of environment
and development. Hence, the term was first used to bring together the apparently
disparate concepts of economic development and environmental conservation. The
Brundtland Report defined sustainable development as:
“Development that meets the needs of the present generation without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (p.
43)”
Real community development must include physical development with people
development; economic development with political development; increasing a
community’s capacity for taking control of its own development. For this to occur, each
at its own pace, an evolving process is necessary for building within the community the
ability for critical thinking and planning with an increased capacity to meet future needs.
Experience has provided some clear lessons about what works and what does not
work in community- based development. Prominent among the failures has been
attempts to achieve results on a wide scale through the infusion of external
management, funds, and technology, controlled from distant places.
A fundamental prerequisite of successful participatory programs at the community level
is the reversal of control and accountability from central authorities to the community
level; and, when the success of projects depends heavily on changes in behaviour at
the community level, promoting participation in community-based programs may be the
only means of meeting objectives (World Bank, 1998). It is up to individual
communities to determine how they want to balance the status quo with the benefits of
growth, and how effective they are going to be in mitigating the negative effects they
want to avoid. In order to achieve these ends, new techniques to supplement and in
some cases replace the traditional methods of land use control are required (Scott,
Brower and Miner, 1975).
It is suggested that the planning process needs to involve those people who live, work,
own property, or own businesses in the community and includes the organisations and
institutions in the planning process. This bottom-up approach empowers communities
through local actors, i.e. people’s organisations, for creating important sources of
action at the local level with a strong interest for promoting sustainable livelihood. In
other words, it needs to include the local residents and the local stakeholders working
together to promote mutual responsibility and joint problem solving.
In establishing and promoting grass-roots mechanisms, capacity-building and
empowerment, we are inducing a community-driven approach to sustainable
development. In this context it is critical to view community economic development as a
long-term process that fuses community control and direction with specific tools and
outcomes (Zdenek, 1987). Empowerment does not so much mean granting or
transferring power as it does increasing civic awareness of the efficacy of democratic
involvement, through self-respect, mutual esteem, capacity-building, genuine
responsiveness and open accountability (Schwerin, 1995). The diverse members of
the community should be represented in order to, more appropriately, identify the
community´s strengths and assets, needs and concerns; establish goals for
community development; provide recommendations for how to reach those goals; and,
influence, or possibly direct, the policy and financial decisions of local decision-makers.

Unfortunately, in remote areas, many, if not most, local public officials and community
leaders are part time and/or volunteers with limited experience or knowledge of
recently enacted economic development or growth management practices. The lack of
experience and time to become acquainted with such practices often means that
relatively little community development planning occurs (Walzer and Deller, 1996: 9-
10). This factor may lead to little planning and development, or just plain bad planning.
The peripheral location of many rural areas and their poor external communications
make them relatively unattractive to many employers and firms outside these areas
(Shaw, 1979). Local development efforts continue to help rural communities assess
tourism as a potential economic development strategy. The basic question should be
how to develop tourism appropriate to the needs of each locality or region (Bramwell et
al, 1996). How can local interests and needs be satisfied by the increase of increased
tourism in the community? Assessing the potential for tourism development in
peripheral areas is complicated. It is not simply a question of matching what the
tourists want with what communities can provide, but critically it depends in large
measure upon local acceptability. The complex social problems in rural areas make it
necessary for development to involve measures that improve, above all, the human
condition and the quality of life of its residents, guided by the principles of equity and
justice.
The core issue for understanding the community-tourism relationship centres on how
community members communicate and interact, how they are influenced in their
opinions and how this dynamic process of influence might be successfully managed for
sustainable tourism enterprises (Pearce et al, 1996: 228). The failure of local officials
and residents to comprehend both the positive and negative impacts of tourism to the
local economy and community severely inhibits progress (Long, 1991; McLauglin et al,
1991; and Murphy, 1985). As the number of visitors to a region increases, residents
who at first were overwhelmingly positive in their attitudes to their guests develop
increasing reservations concerning the long-term benefits of the visitors. This may be
because the original expectations of the benefits of tourism were unrealistic (and so are
incapable of being fulfilled) or because the benefits are perceived to accrue only to a
small number of people.
Alternatively, although expectations of the benefits are realised, the environmental or
social costs were initially overlooked, or excessively discounted, so that the local
residents come to doubt whether their visitors are an unqualified blessing (Akis,
Peristianis and Warner, 1996: 481). Pizam (1978) has attempted to determine
empirically the existence of negative impacts of tourism with the hypothesis that heavy
tourism concentration on a destination area leads to negative resident attitudes toward
tourists and tourism in general. His study seems to confirm the hypothesised
relationship between an individual’s economic dependency on tourism and one’s
overall attitude towards tourism. It was found that the more dependent a person was
on tourism as a means of livelihood, the more positive was that person’s overall
attitude toward tourism in the study area. People are continually assessing their
situation and surroundings. For effective community-based indicators we need to
translate the things people want to measure into a manageable form. The purpose of
measurement is to make values more precise, to compare and evaluate one thing
against another (Lee-Smith, 1997)

Methodology
The main purpose of attitude research is to examine the association between particular
attitudes and a number of other variables. The study sites were selected because their
lying characteristics are similar in terms of livelihood strategies, because of the similar
geographical (remote) and agricultural conditions they experience, and because the
village of Svaneke has a lot of tourism, Soajo has some tourism, and Lindoso has
mostly day visitors. The tourism in Svaneke is based on people from the rest of
Denmark, Germany and Sweden while tourism in both Soajo and Lindoso mostly is
based on domestic tourism. These factors together offered the opportunity to make
comparative study between areas with tourism and areas with little or none.
A field survey, carried out during the months of August and September of 1999,
consisted of two phases: a week-long survey to gain an overview of the region and to
select communities for further study, and a another week-long survey to gain
knowledge into local residents’ perceptions of local tourism. One community was
selected in Denmark and two in Portugal. The questionnaire was administered to a
random sample of households. The questionnaire was completed by interview with
each member of the household over 16 years of age, up to a maximum of three per
household. No attempt was made to either encourage or discourage multiple returns
from a household, but respondents were asked to fill out the questionnaire
independently. It was explained that the survey was to assess tourism in the area. It
was also stressed that the survey was not a test and that there were no right or wrong
answers. Overall, there were 30 samples in each Lindoso and Soajo and 29 in
Svaneke.
The community attitude questionnaire comprised four sections. The first section of the
questionnaire consisted of attitudinal statements concerning the level of solidarity in the
community and to establish a community profile. The second consisted of 33
attitudinal statements concerning respondents’ frequency of interaction with tourists
and their involvement with the tourism industry and about the residents’ general opinion
about tourism in the community. The third section looked at the specific concerns
about tourism and possible advantages and disadvantages of economic, social and
environmental impacts of tourism and their relationship to tourism development. A final
section elicited information on which should be the specific goals for tourism and
whether or not tourism has effected the local employment situation.
Discussion and findings
The level of meeting attendance is almost the same in Lindoso/Soajo and in Svaneke.
However, more residents serve on a committee working to improve the quality of life
and more residents speak to the town council about community problems in
Lindoso/Soajo that in Svaneke (see table 1). This could very well reflect the different
standards of living in the compared communities (see also statement 3 in table 1). The
standard of living in Svaneke is relatively high and therefore inhabitants do not need an
improvement. Maybe residents in Lindoso/Soajo participate more because they are
less happy with their living conditions and quality of life. Residents in Lindoso/Soajo
might have the feeling that some things should change; that there might be more
difficulties in the two joining communities.

Table 1: Community participation
Item
Lindoso/Soajo
Yes No
Svaneke
Yes No
Did you attend any of the last three meetings of the
local council?
24% 76% 20% 80%
Do you serve on any committee working to improve
the quality of life?
48% 52% 32% 68%
Do you persuade others to take a particular position? 66% 34% 24% 76%
Do you speak to the town council about community
problems?
71% 29% 52% 48%
When it comes to persuading others to take a particular position the distribution in
Soajo/Lindoso and Svaneke is significant different. The reason for this could be that in
Svaneke, as in Denmark in general, you do not want to interfere with your neighbours –
they are allowed to think and believe what they wish and you should not discuss
disagreements. The situation in Soajo/Lindoso is different, mostly as a result of the
need for contact with neighbours due to the daily agricultural tasks.
Table 2, below shows the average scores for 27 different statement regarding the
community profile. In general the citizens in Svaneke seem to be much more satisfied
than the citizens in Soajo/Lindoso. The answer that differs most significantly is caring of
the community’s look. Svaneke has a reputation for being one of the most beautiful
towns in Denmark. The inhabitants are very proud of their town and wish to maintain it.
In Soajo/Lindoso the cultural architecture has suffered some damage as local people
are pushing for what has been termed “rural urbanisation”. Another statement worth
mentioning is statement 4. The answers to this question again reflect the cultural
differences between the communities. In Denmark the public sector is almost obliged
to take care of the eldest people and you would never expect it to be a family-matter.
Until a few years ago, in Soajo/Lindoso kinship ties were still strong and it was still
seen as the responsibility of each family to care for their own. According to statement
3 in table 2, one may conclude that it is now a generally accepted fact that the public
sector has to care for the elderly. The exodus of the young in the last 40-50 years
probably has been the most influential factor this change. Today, these people live in
other countries; their parents or those who chose not to emigrate are now older and
with few relatives to look after them.
The attitudes towards some of the statements are very much alike in the two different
areas observed. Statement 27 stand out, because of the assertion made by the
respondents that, apparently, “what is good for the community is good for me”. It is also
generally agreed by the residents of the two study areas that few people should be
involved in community planning and improvement and that only those with the most
time should have the responsibility for civic activities. Here, most time implies “free
time”, or time in which people are not actively working. So, for example in
Soajo/Lindoso, a farmer who has much land and spends all day working that land
should benefit from recreational activities organised by those who have less land, thus
more disposable time. The researchers observed that the people most seen at local
cafés were precisely the people who had less land and no other source of employment.

Tabel 2: Average scores for the 27 community profile items
Statement Lindoso/ Svaneke Numerical
Soajo
difference
1 None seems to care much how the community looks. 3.73 1.96 1.77
2 Everyone here tries to take advantage of you. 3.21 1.52 1.69
3 Living conditions in the community should be improved 4.63 3.00 1.63
4 The responsibility for older people should be confined to themselves and
their families instead of the community.
3.10 1.60 1.50
5 Our schools do a poor job of preparing young people for life. 3.76 2.28 1.48
6 A community would get along better if each one would mind his own
business and others take care of theirs.
2.83 1.83 1.00
7 People are generally critical of others. 4.23 3.24 0.99
8 A good citizen should be willing to assume leadership in a civic
improvement organisation.
3.98 3.00 0.98
9 The town council gets very little done. 3.91 3.04 0.87
10 The community tries hard to help its young people along. 2.09 2.93 0.84
11 If their children keep out of their way, parents are satisfied to let them do 2.77 2.00 0.77
what they want to do
12 Everyone is out for himself at the expense of everyone else 2.98 2.28 0.70
13 People do not work together to get things done for the community. 3.62 2.93 0.69
14 The church is a constructive factor for better community life. 3.27 2.69 0.58
15 This community lacks real leaders. 4.02 3.41 0.51
16 The local council runs the town to suit themselves. 3.27 2.78 0.49
17 Progress can best be accomplished by having only a few people involved. 2.92 2.45 0.47
18 People give you a bad name if you insist on being different. 3.63 3.29 0.34
19 A citizen should join only those organisations that will promote his own
interests.
1.97 2.27 0.30
20 Busy people should not have the responsibility for civic programmes. 3.52 3.32 0.20
21 Most of the churchgoers do not practice what they preach. 4.02 3.82 0.20
22 Only those who have the most time should assume the responsibility for
civic programmes.
3.05 3.24 0.19
23 Too much time is usually spent on the planning phases of community
projects.
3.78 3.60 0.18
24 Community improvement should be the concern of only a few leaders in
the community.
1.93 1.89 0.04
25 What is good for the community is good for me. 3.83 3.80 0.03
26 In order to grow, a community must provide additional recreation facilities. 4.08 4.11 0.03
27 The social needs of the citizens are the responsibility of themselves and
their families and not of the community.
2.20 2.19 0.01
(strongly agree=5; strongly disagree=1)
The residents of both Lindoso/Soajo and Svaneke are found to have a positive attitude
to tourism, mainly because of the employment opportunities it offers, even if they
themselves do not gain any direct benefit from this sector (see tables 3 and 4). In the
case of Soajo, most residents of the community are aware of the concentration of
tourists around one single village that is felt to have unfairly captured the local tourism
market by having most investment concentrated on that one village. The other villages
of Soajo, having little or no tourism benefits, feel that they have attractions that could
draw people. But because of a lack of interest on the part of the local leadership, it has
not been local policy to distribute infrastructure investment in the other villages. The
researchers feel that the main reason is a lack of leadership and entrepreneurship
among the smaller villages. Also, having to do with the traditional patriarchal system all
major activities are conducted around the village where the main church is located.
Because the local elite is traditionally from this village, and because these elite carry a
high influence in the community, the residents of the main village tend to be more
dynamic and entrepreneurial. Thus, local investment, be it public or private, tends to be
concentrated.
Svaneke is a tourist-town from May – September. The town is well-known by the
visitors to Bornholm and almost everyone wishes to go there once during their holiday.

Therefore it is very crowded in the main season. Apparently these many visitors are bid
welcome by the residents and more than one third of the residents depend on them.
Table 3: Effect of tourism on own job/How tourism affects individuals
Effect Lindoso/ Soajo Svaneke
Very negatively impacted 5% 0
Somewhat negatively impacted 0 12%
Not affected 70% 41%
Somewhat dependent 12% 12%
Very dependent 14% 35%
Table 4: Specific goals for tourism (%)
Lindoso/Soajo Svaneke
1 2 3 1 2 3
Employment opportunities 77 11 5 70 9 0
More or better parks and recreational facilities 7 21 13 0 13 0
A more vital and active local economy 4 23 9 4 26 26
Social or cultural interaction with people from other states 7 16 29 15 13 21
and countries
The overall quality of life in the community 4 14 23 0 17 26
The overall appearance of the community 0 5 9 7 9 21
An increase in the value of real estate 2 7 13 0 13 5
Other 0 2 0 4
1= Biggest Advantage 2=Next Biggest Advantage 3=Third Biggest Advantage
The residents in Lindoso/Soajo and the residents in Svaneke see employment
opportunities as the biggest advantage of tourism (see table 5). In Lindoso/Soajo
some of the residents expressed the opinion that the increasing revenue from tourism
was extremely fortunate in that it complemented local agriculture. More or better parks
and recreational facilities and a more vital and active local economy are the next
biggest advantages according to residents in Lindoso/Soajo together with social and
cultural interaction with people from other states and communities.
The residents in Lindoso/Soajo as well as the residents in Svaneke see traffic
congestion as the biggest disadvantage of the development of tourism. The traffic
congestion bothers more people in Svaneke than in Lindoso/Soajo. Crowded
recreation areas and facilities and higher prices for goods and services are in
Lindoso/Soajo also seen as big disadvantages of tourism (see table 5).
Table 5: Specific concerns about tourism in the Community (%)
Lindoso/Soajo Svaneke
1 2 3 1 2 3
Traffic congestion 29 20 14 52 9 15
Crowded recreation areas and facilities 26 19 2 8 9 15
Higher prices for goods and services 20 19 18 12 30 15
More crime 4 4 10 4 13 5
Higher taxes 2 11 8 4 4 10
Environmental impacts 6 15 18 8 13 15
Overdevelopment 0 2 6 4 0 0
An increase in the cost of real estate 9 4 6 4 9 10
Too many out-of-the-community hunters/fishermen 0 4 10 0 0 0
Too many out-of-the-community people relocating to the 2 4 10 0 9 15
area
Look into private homes through the windows 4
Too much garbage 4 4
1= Biggest Disadvantage 2=Next Biggest Disadvantage 3=Third Biggest Disadvantage

Residents in Lindoso/Soajo are very positive when it comes to the impact of tourist and
the level while the citizens in Svaneke are not as positive towards tourism as it appeals
above. Residents in Lindoso/Soajo do not think that tourism will have a negative impact
on incidence of crime, will not have a negative impact on recreation areas, is not a
burden for community services and does not have a negative impact on the
environment. They think that tourism will encourage investment in their community and
will provide jobs for the local people. According to the residents of Lindoso/Soajo,
should the region attract more visitors to the area, they would like to be involved in
decisions about further tourism development.
Most of the statements in table 6 show that even though residents in Svaneke are to
some extent positive towards tourism (statements 22 and 23 ) they still believe that the
tourists are a burden on the community services, that the tourists have increased the
crime problems, that tourism has negatively impact on the environment, that the region
should not try to attract more tourists and they are not that convinced that tourism
encourages investment in the local economy.
Table 6: Average scores for the 33 items on residents opinion about tourism in the Community
Statement
Lindoso/
Soajo
Svaneke Numerical
Difference
1 Tourists are a burden on the Community services. 1.88 4.07 2.19
2 Tourism encourages investment in our local economy. 4.00 1.93 2.07
3 Tourism development in my community will provide jobs for local people. 4.17 2.17 2.00
4 It is important that Community residents be involved in decisions about tourism. 4.17 2.24 1.93
5 Tourists crowd out local residents in good recreation areas. 2.92 4.14 1.92
6 Communities of this region should not try to attract more visitors. 1.90 3.82 1.92
7 Tourism has increased the number of crime problems in the Community. 1.98 3.79 1.81
8 Tourism has negatively impacted the environment. 2.47 4.18 1.81
9 The tourism industry provides many worthwhile employment opportunities for 3.20 1.72 1.48
Community residents.
10 More outdoor recreation development is not desirable. 2.10 3.57 1.47
11 The Community should take steps to restrict tourism development. 2.68 4.14 1.46
12 In the shops and restaurants, tourists are preferred compared to local people. 2.85 4.22 1.37
13 The Community is becoming overcrowded because of more tourists. 2.18 3.48 1.30
14 I believe tourism should be actively encouraged in my community. 4.43 3.22 1.21
15 Decisions about how much tourism we should have in the Community are best 2.72 3.71 0.99
left to the private sector.
16 Tourists do not pay their fair share for the services they use. 2.68 3.63 0.95
17 The overall benefits of tourism outweigh the negative impacts 3.38 2.45 0.93
18 Tourism is responsible for too fast a rate of development in the Community. 2.48 3.39 0.91
19 By the way of rising tourism there are more cultural events. 3.44 2.62 0.82
20 The most important factor in determining how much tourism to have in the
Community is the impact on local quality of life.
3.66 2.89 0.77
21 The number of jobs produced by tourism is the best measure of success for the
Community.
3.83 3.19 0.64
22 The Quality of public services has improved due to tourism in my community. 3.09 3.67 0.58
23 The community should encourage more intensive development of tourist 4.21 3.64 0.57
facilities.
24 Shopping opportunities are better in my community as a result of tourism 3.26 2.76 0.50
25 My community should become more of a tourist destination 4.12 3.68 0.42
26 Since tourists have arrived I have more recreational opportunities available. 2.95 3.37 0.42
27 The benefits of tourism outweigh the negative consequences of tourism
development.
2.97 2.71 0.26
28 Our household standard of living is higher because of money tourists spend 2.68 2.89 0.21
here.
29 I would prefer that tourists visit our area but not move here. 2.98 3.17 0.19
30 The Quality of life in the Community has improved because of tourism. 3.38 3.46 0.08
31 Most of the jobs in the tourism industry are low paid. 3.72 3.66 0.06
32 The jobs tourism provides are highly desirable jobs. 3.63 3.67 0.04
33 The environmental impacts resulting from tourism are relatively minor. 3.00 3.03 0.03
(strongly agree=5; strongly disagree=1)

Both the residents in Lindoso/Soajo and Svaneke belives that the life in the community
has improved because of tourism (statement 30).
It seems that, according to the residents, there exists hope for more tourism and
development in tourism among the residents in Lindoso/Soajo (statement 11, 14 and
25 in table 6) while Svaneke has reached an upper level for the number of tourists
(statement 13). Lindoso/Soajo do not feel the negative impact nearly as much as
Svaneke. The residents in Soajo/Lindoso wish to spend resources to develop the
community towards more tourism (statement 10 and 23).
According to the socio-demographic characteristics (see table 7a-7f), the respondents
in Lindoso/Soajo have, basically, elementary and secondary education (80%), with
21% of the respondents having a higher level of education. In Svaneke 66% of the
respondents have more than elementary and secondary education. The residents in
Svaneke are more academically educated. In terms of professions, there were major
differences. The number of retired people stood out in Svaneke with 41% compared to
Lindoso/Soajo with 15%. This is reflected in the average age (see Table 7c). Also, in
Lindoso/Soajo, 22% of the respondents were students, compared to no student
respondents in Svaneke. The majority of the people interviewed in Lindoso/Soajo are
men while the distribution in Svaneke is almost half-and-half.
Table 7: Socio-demographic characteristics
Table 7a: Occupation
Lindoso/Soajo Svaneke
Occupation Assisting spouses 17%
Self-employed persons 0 15%
Professional/management 2% 4%
Administrative 15% 26%
Skilled 12%
Unskilled wage earners 10% 11%
Unemployed 7% 4%
Retired 15% 41%
Student 22%
Table 7b: Education
Education Elementary 51% 31%
Secondary 29% 4%
Vocational school 12% 42%
Some college 2% 4%
College graduate 7% 8%
Post-graduate study 12%
Table 7c: Age
Average Age 40.91 56.29
Table 7d: Gender
Gender Male 71% 46%
Female 29% 54%
Table 7e: Average number of years lived in village
Average number of years lived in village 29.35 23.85
Table 7f:Lived outside the village more than one year
Lived outside village more than 1 year Yes 57% 85%
No 43% 15%
If yes, how many years? Average 16.72 32.59

In Lindoso/Soajo some 57% have been outside the area for more than one year. This
is mostly due to the fact that this region has traditionally been one of the largest
exporter of reserve labour to industrialised European countries. Studies have shown
that these communities when confronted with little if any opportunities for employment
that, instead of allowing fear and panic to tear the villages apart, or, on the other
extreme, bringing the village together as a community, the young people were raised to
find solutions to their economic problems not through political pressuring and collective
action but through individual initiative and emigration (Graham, 1979).
Table 7f shows that the majority (85%) of the residents in Svaneke has lived outside
the area for more than one year. This is closely related to the level of education in the
village. It you wish to be educated above secondary school you have to go to school in
the other end of the island and if you wish to graduate you need to move from the
island.
Conclusion
As relevant literature has suggested, many are the communities in remote areas that
have compromised the needs of the resident community to achieve tourism
development goals. While in the short term such compromises at the expense of local
interests may seem appropriate courses of action, there may be negative
repercussions at a later date (Gill and Williams, 1994: 218). The effect of these
changes is the decline and erosion of traditional communities and life styles and an
alteration of the whole economic and social system in the rural areas. Communities
are no longer cohesive entities, and this in turn has an effect on both the viability of and
participation in leisure activities (Arnott and Duffield, n.d.). This case study has
examined residents´ perceptions of the impacts of tourism in communities in two
peripheral regions of Europe. A quantitative survey was carried out in order to
measure the perceived attitudes of tourism development in specific communities in
each of the regions. The survey results show that the attitudes of residents has been
most effected where tourism development is more advanced, and suggests how the
expectations of tourism will inevitably alter communities desperately seeking to
improve the quality of life of people living in remote areas and attempt to put an end to
the rural exodus.

References
Akis, S., Peristianis, N. and Warner, J. (1996), Residents´ attitudes to tourism
development: the case of Cyprus, Tourism Management, Vol. 17, No. 7, pp. 481-494.
Arnott, J. and Duffield, B. (n.d.), Leisure and Community Development in Remote Rural
Areas, Tourism & Recreation Research Unit, University of Edinburgh
Bramwell, B.; Henry, I.; Jackson, G.; Prat, A.; Richards, G.; van der Straaten, J.,
(1986), Sustainable Tourism Management: Principles and Practice, Tilburg University
Press
Gill, A., and Williams, P. (1993), Tourism growth management in mountain
communities. Paper presented at the 24th Annual TTRA International Conference,
Whistler, BC, Canada, June 14th.
Graham, L and Maker, H., (1979) Contemporary Portugal; the Revolution and its
Antecedents, University of Texas Press
Jones, P. A (1997), “There is no certainty anymore” , unpublished paper presented at
the Peripheral Area Tourism— International Tourism Research Conference, Bornholm,
Denmark, 8-10 September 1997.
Lee-Smith, D. (1997), Community-based Indicators— A guide for field workers carrying
out monitoring and assessment at the community level, The World Conservation Union,
Cambridge, UK.
Long, P. (1991), Rural community tourism development impacts and policies. Report
prepared for the Western Governors´ Association. Denver, Colorado.
Macgillivray, A. & Zadek, S., (1995), Accounting for change; indicators for sustainable
development, New Economics Foundation.
Mathieson, A. & Wall, G. (1982): Tourism: Economic, physical and social impacts,
Longman Scientific & Technical, Essex, England.
McLaughlin, W., Black C.D.M. and O`Connell, P. J. (1991), “The Tweed Shire tourism
strategy: Implications of a local tourism planning process”. Paper presented at the
Benefits and Costs of Tourism Conference. October. Port Stephens, NSW, Australia.
Murphy, P.E. (1985), Tourism: A Community Approach. New York: Methuen, Inc.
Pearce, P. L., Moscardo, G. and Ross, G. F. (1996), Tourism Community
Relationships, James Cook University of North Queensland, Australia
Pizam, A. (1978) Tourism´s Impact: The Social Cost of the Destination Community as
Perceived by its Residents. Journal of Travel Research 16 (3): 8-12.
Ryan, C., Scotland, A. and Montgomery, D. (1998), Resident Attitudes to Tourism
Development --- a Comparative Study Between the Rangitikei, New Zealand and
Bakewell, United Kingdom, Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, Res. 4, pp.
115-130.

Scott, R. W., Brower, D. J. and Miner, D. D. (1975), Management and Control of
Growth, 3 Volumes. The Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C.
Shaw, Martin J, (1979), Rural Deprivation and Planning, Geo Abstracts, Ltd
Schwerin, E.W. (1995), Mediation, Citizen Empowerment and Transformational
Politics, Praeger Publishers, New York.
Walzer, N. and Deller, S. (1996), “Rural Issues and Trends: The Role of Strategic
Visioning Programs”, in Community Strategic Visioning Programs, Walzer,N. (ed.),
Praeger, London.
White, P. E. (1974), The Social Impact of Tourism on Host Communites: A Study of
the Language Change in Switzerland, School of Geography, Oxford.
World Bank Participation Sourcebook, (1988) Appendix II: Working Papers
Summaries, Designing Community-Based Development
Zdenek, R., (1987), Community Development Corporations, in S T Bruyn and J
Meehan (Eds) Beyond the Market and the State: New Directions for Community
Development, Philadelphia PA: Temple University Press.

About the authors
Carlos Oliveira Fernandes is an assistant professor at the Escola Superior de
Tecnologia e Gestão of the Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo (Portugal).
Contact information is the following: e-mail cfernandes@estg.ipvc.pt or fax +351 258
827636. He is a Ph.D. student at Bournemouth University (U.K.). Research interests
include tourism as a strategy for local development. Main publications include:
Edwards, J.; Fernandes, C.; (1999) “Espigueiros and Emigrants— Tourism Activities in
a Peripheral Area of Portugal”; Journal of International Tourism and Hospitality
Research, 1, pp. 329-340.
Edwards, J; Fernandes, C.; Vaughan, R.; Fox, J.; (2000) “Tourism Brand Attributes of
the Alto Minho”, in Tourism and Sustainable Community Development, edited by Greg
Richards and Derek Hall, Routledge (London), pp. 285-296.
Fernandes, C., Sousa, L, (1999) “Initiatives for Developing Textile Crafts in the Alto
Minho”, in Developing and Marketing Crafts Tourism, edited by Greg Richards, ATLAS,
(Tilburg), pp. 55-71.
Fernandes, C., “Conservação do Meio Rural e Diversificação da Economia Rural”,
(1999) dos Algarves, Escola Superior de Gestão, Hotelaria e Turismo da Universidade
do Algarve, nº. 4, pp. 9-13.
Richards, G.; Fernandes, C., (2000), “Turismo Cultural: Um Sector em Crescimento do
Mercado Turístico”, dos Algarves, nº. 6, Escola Superior de Gestão Hoteleira e
Turismo da Universidade do Algarve (forthcoming).
Fernandes, C., Botelho, J.A., (2000), “Informação Turística e o Centro de
Interpretação em Áreas Rurais Periféricas”, dos Algarves, Escola Superior de Gestão
Hoteleira e Turismo of Universidade do Algarve, (forthcoming).
Fernandes, C., Sousa, L., (2000) , O Sector Cultural e a Diversificação da Oferta
Turística na Região do Alto Minho”, Centro de Estudos Regionais de Viana do Castelo,
(forthcoming).
Charlotte R. Rassing is a tourism consultant and Ph.D. Researcher at the Research
Centre of Bornholm (Denmark). Contact information is the following: e-mail
rassing@rcb.dk or fax +45 56494624. She is Ph.D. student at Bournemouth University
(U.K.) on the subject “Yield management in the restaurant sector”. Special research
interests include quantitative tourism analysis, statistical data processing and trend
analysis. Recent publications include:
Gyimóthy, S.; Rassing, C.R.; Wanhill, S. (2000) “Marketing works but somebody ought
to tell the suppliers”; International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
(forthcoming).
Lindberg, K.; Dellaert, B.G.D.; Rassing, C.R. (1999) “Resident Tradeoffs: A Choice
Modeling Approach”; Annals of Tourism Research, vol 26, nº 3, pp. 554-569.

Lundtorp, S.; Rassing, C.R.; Wanhill, S. (1999) “The off-season is 'no-season': the case
of the Danish island of Bornholm” Tourism Economics, vol 5, nº 1, pp. 49-68.
Rassing, C.R.; Sørensen, S. (2000) ”Problems and challenges of non repeat tourism –
the case of the Faroe Islands”; Nordic Arctic Research Forum Symposium,
Copenhagen (forthcoming).
Gyimóthy, S.; Rassing, C.R.; Wanhill, S. (1999) “There is something not quite fishy
about the restaurant industry on Bornholm”, 8th Nordic Symposium in Hospitality and
Tourism Research, Alta (forthcoming).
Rassing, C.R. (1998) “Special interest holidays - with fishing on Bornholm as a case”,
7th Nordic Symposium in Tourism, Åre.
Zhang, J.; Rassing, C. (2000) “Economic impact of tourism on Bornholm. The case of
Bornholm”, The Research Centre of Bornholm (forthcoming).
Rassing, C.R. (1998) “Survey of Visitors to Bornholm”, The research Centre of
Bornholm(several years)
Russel, G.; Rassing, C.R.; Gyimóthy, S. (1998) “The Marketing of Danish Arts and
Crafts by Branding using the Principles of 'Clustering'”, The Danish Tourist Board,
Herning.
Zhang, J.; Rassing, C.R. (1997) “The economic impact of tourism on the island of
Bornholm”, The International Tourism Research Conference , Bornholm.