Measuring Sustainable Tourism Development in Remote Rural ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
Page 1 and 2: Measuring Sustainable Tourism Devel
Page 3: Report. This commission, establishe
Page 7 and 8: Tabel 2: Average scores for the 27
Page 9 and 10: Residents in Lindoso/Soajo are very
Page 11 and 12: In Lindoso/Soajo some 57% have been
Page 13 and 14: Scott, R. W., Brower, D. J. and Min
Page 15: Lundtorp, S.; Rassing, C.R.; Wanhil

Measuring Sustainable Tourism Development in Remote Rural ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?