One of the major reasons why a number of studies have focused on local responses to tourism
development in the community is because tourism has the potential for positive and negative
outcomes at s local level (Lindberg & Johnson, 1997). Generally, people will respond to the
impacts of tourism development in various ways. A substantial number of studies have
revealed that residents of a tourist destination will react to tourism development depending on
their attitudes and perceived benefits of the industry.
Best hotels and private apartments for holidays and vacations
One of the earliest studies explaining residents’ attitudes towards tourism is Doxey’s (1975)
Irritation Index (Irridex scale). This model suggests that as tourist numbers increase and
resorts develop the attitudes of the tourist destination, residents also pass through a sequence
of reactions, which become more negative as tourism develops in their area. This sequence
begins with an attitude of euphoria, which shifts to apathy, then to annoyance or resignation,
and finally to antagonism at the extreme end. This framework suggests that the initial tourism
development stages are accompanied by euphoria amongst residents. In the beginning, when
visitor numbers are low, visitors are welcomed and embraced by residents because they are
seen as a source of income. As tourism development grows and the number of visitors
increases, there is increasing contact between the host population and the visitors. The hosts
begin to take this for granted and their attitude is one of apathy. But as the destination
becomes popular and attracts more tourists, the day-to-day life of the residents becomes
disrupted, and some may express irritation because they feel that they are no longer in control
of the situation. Therefore, their reaction shifts progressively from that of annoyance to the
feelings of irritation and antagonism, when local people see tourism as an agent of negative
changes, such as higher taxes, environmental degradations and immorality.
The ratio of inhabitants of the islands to cruises and tourism
Other studies have inferred that the way the hosts react to tourism will depend on the number
and type of tourists (Smith, 1989a) or the level of tourism development (Butler, 1980).
Similar to Doxey’s (1975) model, Butler’s destination cycle model suggests that destinations
evolve through six stages of tourism development, moving from exploration, involvement,
development, consolidation, stagnation to either decline or rejuvenation, depending on
attempts to improve the adverse impacts. This model suggests that the attitudes of host
residents towards tourism changes as the destination moves through different stages of
development, accompanied by changing types of visitors. These changes can create
favourable to unfavourable perceptions of visitors. At the exploration stage, only a few
tourists visit, therefore, there is not much impact and the residents’ attitude to tourism may be
one of Doxey’s (1976) euphoria. At the involvement stage, more local people are involved in
providing services for the tourists and the residents may embrace tourism because of the
economic benefits gained. In the development stage, tourism is now developed and many of
the small operations will have disappeared due to larger franchises coming in to control
tourism. Reactions will still be positive but some negative feelings will have emerged as
negative impacts of tourism arise with growing visitor numbers and locals begin to sense a
lost of control over the industry. By the consolidation stage, the established franchises and
chains have taken over the smaller businesses; the local people no longer have control over
tourism development. The visitor numbers may also reach the environmental and social
carrying capacities, thus creating negative impacts to arise. At this point, the final stage is
either stagnation, where social and environmental capacities are exceeded and tourism
declines, or the destination may decide to rejuvenate itself by a complete rebranding of itself.
Butler’s model suggests that residents go from ‘approval’ to ‘opposition’ as the destination
grows and adverse impacts of tourism become more noticeable.
Both Butler’s (1980) and Doxey’s (1976) models assume that resident attitudes change over
time in a predictable manner as tourism develops through the different stages due to a
growing sense of lack of control and recognition of negative impacts. These two models also
assume that everyone in a community reacts the same way, regardless of their relationship to
tourists and tourist activities.
Other studies have tried to explain why residents react to the impact of tourism the way they
do and why there may be various levels of support within the same community (Gursoy et al.,
2002; Jurowski & Gursoy; 2004; Jurowski et al., 1997). Most authors agree that the degree to
which residents embrace tourism development will depend on a number of socio-political,
economic and environmental factors (Brougham & Butler, 1981; Dogan, 1989; Horn &
Simmons, 2002; Mason & Cheyne, 2000; Mitchell & Reid, 2001; Saveriades, 2000; Sheldon
& Var, 1984; Simmons & Fairweather, 2000; Um & Crompton, 1987; Williams & Lawson,
2001). To explain this difference in resident attitudes towards tourism, some studies have
used the Social Exchange theory, which states that those benefiting from tourism are likely to
perceive greater economic benefits and fewer social and environmental impacts than those
who do not (Ap, 1990; 1992; Pizam, 1978).
A few researchers have also looked at the distance between a place of residence and tourism
activities and the resident’s attachment to a place and length of residence that affects how they
perceive potential impacts of a growing tourism industry. Other personal factors, such as
knowledge of the industry, will also influence attitudes towards the industry and how they
cope with the impacts (Allen, et al., 1993; Belisle & Hoi, 1980; Horn & Simmons, 2002;
Mason & Cheyne, 2000; McCool & Martin, 1994; Perdue et al., 1990; Sheldon & Var, 1984;
Shone, Simmons & Fairweather, 2003; Um & Crompton, 1987). For instance, residents who
live closer to the tourism activity are more likely to feel the negative social impacts of tourism
and respond accordingly than those who live further from the activity. Similarly, residents
who have lived in a tourism destination area for a long period and have developed a sense of
attachment to the place will tend to perceive the socio-cultural impacts of tourism more
negatively than those who have only recently moved there (Allen, et al., 1988; Liu & Var,
The seasonal nature of the tourism
The seasonal nature of the tourism can also create an impact on the residents and how they
perceive or respond to it. During the peak tourist season, the social impacts may be more
noticeable and stressful to residents than during low seasons. The influx of tourists to only
certain areas of attractions can create negative impacts on the community, such as crowding,
traffic congestion, littering and price increases, amongst other undesirable impacts. To cope
with these changes, residents may adjust by employing various strategies, for instance, by
scheduling their own holidays to avoid the tourist peak seasons (Faulkner & Tideswell, 1997).
The above problems caused by the seasonal nature of tourism are similar to the short-term and
narrow spatial distribution of cruise ship tourists.
An understanding of the local reactions and the factors that influence their attitudes is
essential in assessing how they respond to the impacts of tourism. It is also vital in achieving
the goal of favourable support for tourism development (Gursoy et al., 2002). This sentiment
is shared by Simmons (1994), who argues that residents are part of the hospitality atmosphere
and one of the key resources for sustaining the tourism product. Therefore, for planning
purposes and sustainability of the industry, it is important that the views of the residents are
This next section will look at how some of these factors may determine which coping
strategies resident may choose in responding to the impacts.
How residents cope with tourism
Resident coping strategies
Although existing research has focused on how residents cope with tourism, no studies have
focused on how they cope with cruise ship tourism. Previous studies have acknowledged that
to deal with the socio-cultural impacts and consequences of tourism development, residents of
a tourist destination may often develop different coping strategies. This thesis has chosen
Dogan’s (1989) and Ap and Cromptons’ (1993) models to examine how residents cope with
the impacts. As explained in the previous chapter that although there are various sociocultural
impact models developed to explain how residents cope with the impacts of tourism,
the two models were chosen purely to examine their applicability to cruise ship tourism. In
addition, since this is an exploratory study, both models were chosen so they can form the
basis on any future research work.
In Dogan’s model, he found that tourism development has an effect on the socio-cultural
characteristics of residents such as their habits, daily routines, social lives, beliefs, and values.
These factors may, in turn, lead to psychological tension that can have a variety of
consequences, such as a decline in traditions, materialism and increase in crime rates, social
conflicts, and crowding. Dogan’s model assumes not everyone will cope in the same way or
react to these negative consequences in the same manner, and this depends on the sociocultural
characteristics of the host community and the level of change affected by tourism.
There will be some groups of residents who share similar views about the impacts in their
community and who may react in a similar way.