Local Community Attitudes Towards Tourism Development in ...

Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.TOC-135

Papers from the 6th Tourism Outlook Conference, 22-24 April 2013, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia <http://geog.nau.edu/igust/Sabah2013/>

Local Community Attitudes Towards Tourism Development in Tioman Island

Siti Aisah Abas and

Mohd Hafiz Mohd Hanafiah Faculty of Hotel and Tourism Management

Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Tourism industry has been recognised as the symbol to help the local community especially in changing the economic and atmosphere due to the ability to generate income, employment as well improve the standard of living. The attitudes of the local community can directly affect the development of the tourism industry. Positive attitudes from the local residents not only can help in boosting tourists’ satisfaction levels at the same time it contributes to word-of-mouth promotion among international tourist. In order to ensure the success of the tourism planning, the involvement and the participation of the local communities in the area is pertinent. This study endeavours on local community attitudes’ toward tourism development in Tioman Island. The findings on this study indicated that the local community who obtained the personal benefit from tourism development will support for future tourism development as well as who perceived the positive impact on the tourism development. However, from the finding revealed that the local community who perceived negative impact from tourism activities also support the tourism development in the future due to the reliance on this sector as their main income. The role of perceived tourism impact as the moderator between the relationship between personal benefit from tourism and the future attitudes from tourism development become the contribution of this study. Key Words: Attitudes, Personal Benefit, Perceived Tourism Impact, Future Attitudes INTRODUCTION The tourism industry has faced a rapid growth with the support from local communities who were involved in this industry. The growth of tourism industry is significant to the economic development as well as the related industry such as transportation, leisure services and hospitality. Generally, tourism is acknowledged as one of the major attributes for cultural and economic nowadays and its give the opportunity to the local communities as well. On the other hand, tourism also becomes the symbol to help the communities especially in changing the economics and atmosphere. This is because the ability of the tourism industry to generate income, currency exchanges as well as provides the employment opportunity (Hanafiah, Harun & Jamaludin, 2010). However, Kayat (2002) pointed out that some of the developing country utilized this tourism industry for economic stimulation purposes by gaining the foreign investment and capital. The local community are the main stakeholders of tourism developments (Johari, Myint & Abdul Rani, 2011). Currently, the number of research on local community attitudes towards future tourism development is increasing due to the important to judge tourism appropriateness for particular

mailto:[email protected]



communities. However, limited research was embarked on the roles of personal benefit from tourism development will influence the future support towards future tourism development. As stated by Jafari (2001), it is suggested that research on tourism development should consider the roles of perceived of personal benefit from tourism development towards their support for future development in tourism destination. Thus, this study will look into the personal benefit that local community gain from tourism development and how their response from the development of tourism as well as their support for future development. Prior to the development of the tourism industry, the majority of the residents were dependent on fishing and agriculture activities as their main income. However, in the 80’s, the situation was evolved when the island was turned into one of the main tourism centers of the country. In year 2011, the number of tourist arrival was 213,158 of which includes 57% domestic tourists. Thus, this study assessed local community attitudes towards tourism development in Tioman Island and particularly underscores the personal benefit from tourism development, perceived tourism impact as well as the attitudes for future tourism development. Furthermore, this research looks into the local community participation and non participation in the tourism development. By understanding local community attitudes towards tourism development, the planning for future tourism development will get support from the local community who are one of the stakeholders as well as involve in the decision making process. Tourism Development in Tioman Island Tioman Island is the largest island off the South-East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia and principal target for promotion as a tourist destination. This island situated at 40 Kilometres from the coast, it modest area of 138KM is nevertheless bigger than such well-known island. Its location had imbued the island with some strategic importance in the maritime trade between China and Southeast Asia from about the beginning of second millennium. Tioman probably served as important landmark and watering place for the ancient mariners. The island is rugged; its mountainous backbone constitutes a formidable barrier to overland movements and restricts the area of habitable space. Climatically, the north east monsoon from November to march, often accompanied by gale force winds, produces a marked seasonality in the tourism industry. In 2011 the number of tourist arrival reached to 126,660 tourists domestically as well as internationally. This is the increasing of 8.8% in 2010 which recorded the number of tourist is 213,158 (Tioman Development Authority, 2011). Currently, the largest villages is Tekek and recognised as the administrative centres of the island where the police station, primary school, local offices of the agriculture and veterinary department and airport is located in this village. The traditional economy of the island is one of farming, fishing and village cultivation associated with spontaneous settlement since the 1920. Until the early 1980s the principle means of livelihood were coconut cultivation and fishing involving 70% to 80% of the population. Radical changes in land use began with the Pahang State Government approval to establish a beach resort in 1965 of seafront land originally occupied by a Malay Kampung. Ownership was later transferred to a major Malaysian business corporation with diversified interest in hotel, travel and tours, development and management of golf courses and operation of resort in Malaysian, Fiji and the Mauritius (Azaruddin, 1994). Under the new management, the original 70 rooms resort was extended to 373 rooms and international championship golf course was established. Tourist on package tours provides a captive market to this resort which an effect operates a typical gateway destination where tourist spending hardly spills over to nearby villages (Tioman Development Authority, 2011).



The international beach resort has a catalytic effect in inducing further land use changes in the island. Its success has encouraged a trend in which landowners participate directly as chalet operators to take advantage of the continuing influx of tourist. The potential worth of privately owned seafront land has thus acquired a real value as sites for chalets and other tourist related project. There are three different levels of tourist facilities on the island in the form of the international class beach resort serving the up market tourist sector, the middle level mini resort and the village chalet and the village chalets catering for the budget travellers. The small chalets are run by landowners, and few medium sized ones by private companies and government agencies. The majority of the family run establishment provide limited units of chalets and basic services mainly in the provision of food and drinks, hiring of boats, package tours and snorkelling trips (Tioman Development Authority, 2011). LITERATURE REVIEW Local communities played a vital role in tourism development as they are important to provide a good situation especially for tourist in order to boost up the number of tourist’s arrival as well as improve their quality of life. They are sometimes known as ‘service suppliers’ as well as a focal point to cater the accommodation, information, transformation, facilities and services for the sake of tourism development in their area (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011). Generally, the term ‘community’ can be described as spatial boundaries and area also refers to group with a common interest (Godfery, 1996). Previous researchers mentioned about the term of community in different tourism setting and reflect to what their common interest. Basically, the definition of community is about sharing the boundaries in such piece of area with other people. As stated by Brehm, Eusaneheaur and Krannich (2004), community can be declared as group of individuals living or working within the same geographic of residence. It is crucial to understand how community development is link with the ability of a community to improve tourism development. Local community play their roles in influencing the tourism development activities through organizing themselves at all levels to act more effective in development and good in sense of contact with government. They should be able to determine their potential in terms of tourism resources. On other hand, they should actively participate in community activities as well support tourism and community development. According to Kepe (2004), local communities must have sense to help their community in order to ensure they can gain the positive benefit from tourism development. As suggested from previous research, the communities have to work closely to the non governments organizations as the effort to educate people about tourism development. In order to assessing the level of tourism development, a community can be any existing or potential network of individuals, groups and organizations that share or have the potential to share common concerns, interest and goals (Aref, Gill, & Aref, 2010). But some other researcher found that, conception of communities based on the social network relationship. Chen (2001), clarify that sociology will used two approaches in defining community. The first one is the according to community as a territorial concept meanwhile second is relational concept. Community is labelled as people who are tied together by the combination of communication, friendship and association. The local community plays the important roles to members by promoting their physical, social, psychological and spiritual well being. The term of ‘community’ has been operationally defined as geographical area that assumes a commonality of circumstances and identity among the people and consist functional units for delivery of goods and services (Chaskin, 2001). Generally, a ‘community’ is a group of people who are associated in some way. In easier way, the definition of community is basically based on the geographic location.



Future attitude towards tourism development is the dependents variables in this study. The importance of gaining local community support for the tourism development has been discussed by tourism scholars as vital components in achieving successful tourism industry. Support for future tourism development is a key factor in developing and implementing successful initiatives. On other hand, some of local community perceptions on tourism may positive whereas others are negative (Srikaya, Teye & Sonmez, 2002). Previously, research conducted by Wang and Pfister (2008) on the role personal benefit that local community obtained from tourism development discovered that, benefit and cost are assumed to be more carefully evaluated and benefits exceed the cost, the residents’ be more positive on tourism but then as converse from this, when cost exceed the benefit, residents’ tent to be more negative toward tourism development. Furthermore, the findings from this study revealed that, the significant role play by the personal benefit from tourism development particularly the indirect social values in the process of exchange for residents’ favourable attitudes towards tourism development. In addition, Jurowski, Uysal and William (1997) found out that residents’ did not enjoy a direct economic benefit from tourism and discovered that residents be neutral in their attitudes towards tourism. But then, the findings revealed that some of residents’ still believe there will be economic benefit from tourism development. As an example, the case in Washington the residents’ stated that they did not have a direct economic benefit from tourism but they show a positive attitude towards tourism and a variety of shared social benefit with tourism development. Residents’ perception of social and cultural impacts of tourism development has been study extensively. However, the findings of those studies have produced contradictory results. While, several studies reported that residents tend to perceive the social and cultural impact of tourism development negatively (Johnson et al., 1994; Jurowski et al., 1997, Tosun, 2002 & Dyer et al., 2007). More than that, some of researchers argue that host residents view tourism as providing various social and cultural benefits to the community. However, other effects may be less welcomed such as changes in social and family structure. As suggested by Hovinen (2002), tourism provides new opportunities and instigates social change. But then, because of the flexible working patterns and new opportunities tourism erodes gender segregation (Cooper, 1995 Most of the tourism literatures suggest that, the local residents’ perception of tourism impact is varied. Some residents view tourism as having both positive and negative impacts, some are likely to perceive tourism as having negative social and cultural impacts and some are inclined to view tourism as having positive economic, social and cultural impacts. As stated in Social Exchange Theory, if residents’ believe that tourism creates more benefits than cost for the community they tend to have a favourable view of tourism and as a result, they will support tourism development. Furthermore, if they believe that tourism brings more cost than benefit, they are not likely to endorse tourism development. Previous research examined the relationship between residents’ attitudes and level of tourism development. Allen et al. (1988) found that residents’ perception of tourism impact become less positive as level of tourism in community is increased. Perdue at el (1990) also summarized that residents’ initial attitudes towards tourism were enthusiastic but as cost outweighed benefit of tourism development, attitudes achieve a threshold after which residents support for tourism declined. But Allen et al (1993) argued that the relationship between the level development and residents attitudes was not previously reported. They discovered that, communities with low tourism and high total economic activity, look tourism as development favourable than communities with low tourism and high economic activity and communities with high tourism development and low economic activity.



METHODOLOGY The population of this research are the local community at Tioman Island. There are five village on this island which are Kampung Salang, Kampung Tekek, Kampung Air Batang, Kampung Paya Genting, Kampung Mukat and Kampung Juara. In 2011, the total number of local community in Tioman Island is 3314 residents. The list of the population out of the five villages was obtained from the Tioman Development Authority. The population of Tioman Island in 2011 according to the villagers as stated on the table below

Table 1: Population of local community in Tioman Island

Name of Village Total House Total Residents

Kampung Salang 36 279 Kampung Air Batang/ Tekek 459 2,092

Kampung Paya, Genting & Lanting 86 435 Kampung Mukut 41 225 Kampung Juara 62 283

Total 687 3,314

(Source: Tioman Development Authority, 2011) In order to achieve 95% of confidence level and 5% sampling error, the approximately sample size of 248 respondents is based on Krescjie and Morgan (1970). The sample included the local community from five different villages at Tioman Island. The sample of local community was be selected by using the convenience sampling representing the local community in Tioman Island. Variables are adopted from the Latkova & Vogt (2012) and Lankford & Howard (1994). The questionnaires developed from a review of existing literature dealing with local community attitudes toward tourism development. The measurement of the attitudes used in this study applied the Tourism Impact Attitude Scales (TIAS) developed by Lankford and Howard (1994) as the standardized of measurement of residents attitudes toward tourism developed. This measurement has been tested in various setting of tourism area and destination (Latkova & Vogt, 2012). The number of questionnaires distributed is 250 however, only 129 responses received. STUDY OUTCOME Demographic profiles From the total of 129 respondents, the range age of respondents were between 45 years old to 54 years old represent 28.7% of total respondent followed by range between 35 years old to 44 years old with 25.6%. Only 9.3% of respondents’ age is between 18 years old to 24 years old. In actual fact, most of the youth were studying as well as working at the mainland. The respondents are made up of 54.3% female and 45.7% females. Majority of respondents were married which is representing 78.3%. Most of the respondents possess primary and secondary level education. Only 7.8% of them are with a bachelor degree. 45% of them are working in tourism industry related jobs such as employee in the chalet, resort or handicraft shops, became tourist guide, boatman as well as operating the scuba diving shop.



However, there are 90 respondents work in tourism industry as part timers. Their involvement in tourism industry as part timer earn them an extra income up to RM 1,000. Respondents’ Personal Benefit from Tourism Development

Table 2: Respondents’ Personal Benefit from Tourism Development

No Items N Mean Std deviation

1 I personally generate extra income from tourism industry

129 3.67 1.35

2 I personally feel secure of my current job 129 4.34 .834 3 I am get the extra facilities resulted from tourism

industry 129 3.46 1.17

4 I get the best condition of the environment (Air, water & land)

129 4.15 .761

5 I satisfied with the level of social life in Tioman Island 129 4.31 .716 6 I personally feel that Tioman is Island safe and secure 129 4.50 .575 7 I personally satisfied with the cost of basic necessity

product 129 1.20 .564

8 I would personally benefited from current tourism development in Tioman Island

129 3.9070 1.07

9 I would personally benefited from more tourism development in Tioman Island

129 4.32 .901

10 I am happy to live here 129 4.74 .534

The majority of respondents’ reported gaining a lot of benefits from tourism activity in Tioman Island. This particularly in safety and security (M = 4.50), feel safe in their current job (M = 4.34) and level of social life (M = 4.31) were identified as three major perspectives of personal benefit that respondents’ obtained from tourism development. This result is consistent with the establishment of police booth at every village in Tioman Island in order to control and coordinate the safety and security purposes especially for both local communities and tourists as well. Moreover, most of respondents’ feel that they are safe in their current job which is in line with the ‘Human Capital Program’ that organised by Tioman Development Authority. However, the respondents’ strongly disagree with the cost of the basic necessity in Tioman Island as it is too expensive (M = 1.20). This might due to the high transportation cost and retail operators tend to increase the price of product in order to cover the cost of transportation. Majority of respondents in Tioman Island perceived lots of benefit from more tourism development (M = 4.32) as well as current tourism development (M = 3.9070). Overall, respondents’ were happy lives in Tioman Island.



Respondents’ Perceived Positive Impact

Table 3: Respondents’ by Perceived Positive Tourism Impact


1 Increasing the number of tourists visiting Tioman Island improves the local economy

129 4.61 .489

2 Shopping, restaurants and entertainment option is better as a result of tourism

129 3.78 1.134

3 Tourism encourages more public development (road, public facilities)

129 3.82 1.162

4 Tourism contributes to the income and improvement in standard of living

129 4.42 .681

5 Tourism provides desirable jobs for local homeowners 129 4.49 .574 6 Tourism development increases the number of recreational

opportunities for local homeowners 129 4.10 .900

7 Tourism provides incentives for the protection and conservation of natural resources

129 4.07 1.017

8 Tourism development increases the quality of life in Tioman Island

129 4.39 .938

The increasing number of tourists in Tioman Island had improve the local community economy (M = 4.61), contributes to the income and standard of living (M = 4.42) and at the same time, provides job opportunity (M = 4.49). It is in line with the declaration of Tioman Island as duty free zone in 2002 which directly had boosts up the number of tourists arrival. Due the influx of tourist, local communities generate income especially those who are operating the chalets, resorts or rooms, sea taxi provider, shops as well as the handicrafts shops. Based on Gursory and Rutherford (2004), residents tend to view tourism as a tool to generate income as well as create job opportunities whenever the number of tourists increased, it will also improve their level of economy. Furthermore, respondents also agreed that tourism development increase recreational facilities in Tioman Island (M = 4.10). Recently, the Tioman Development Authority (TDA) installed the ‘pontoon’ at Kampung Juara, Kampung Genting and Kampung Paya as the effort to makes the water recreation activities more systematic and secure to all communities and tourists. More than that, the facilities for scuba also introduced especially for children. The authority had engaged with Scuba School International to carried out the program namely as Kids Scuba Camp at Kampung Salang. This shows that the authority really concern in terms of providing the recreational activities to the local communities.



Respondents’ Perceived Negative Impacts

Table 4: Respondents’ Perceived Negatives Impact


1 Increasing traffic problem because of tourism activity in Tioman Island

129 2.97 1.526

2 Increasing litter problem resulted from tourism development in Tioman Island

129 3.22 1.358

3 Cost of living increases because of the tourism activity 129 3.37 1.649 4 Tourism sector pay the lowest salary 129 3.18 1.406 5 Overcrowding problem because of tourism development in

Tioman Island 129 3.06 1.345

6 Increasing unfairly property taxes because of tourism development in Tioman Island

129 2.74 1.253

7 An increase number of tourist lead to friction between community and tourist

129 2.22 1.134

8 Increasing number of crime as a resulted from tourism development in Tioman Island

129 1.81 1.144

Most of respondents’ perceived that tourism resulted in increasing the cost of living (M = 3.37) and previous studies on tourism impacts found that, cost of living increase because of the tourism activity (Conlin & Baum, 1996). Furthermore, respondents agreed that tourism sector pay the lowest salary to their employee (M = 3.18). In addition, respondents perceived that overcrowding problems occurred because of the tourism development in Tioman Island. The declaration of duty free zone boosted up the arrival of tourists and at same time some of local communities feel inconvenient of the overcrowding of tourists. The arrival of more tourist have always been linked with many social problems such as frictions between tourist and local community as well as the crime resulted from the tourism activities. However, in this case, the respondents do not agree that tourism brings the friction and crime problem to their community. The majority of respondents perceived that tourism sector will continue to play a major role in the economy of the local community in Tioman Island. In other words, perhaps local communities were too reliance on the tourism sector as their main source of income. Moreover, the local communities perceived that Tioman Development Authority (TDA) had promoted the island effectively.



Support for Future Tourism Development

Table 5: Respondents’ by Support for Future Tourism Development


1 I believe that tourism industry should be actively encouraged in my community

129 4.71 .458

2 I support tourism and would like to see it become important part of my community

129 4.69 .464

3 I will support new tourism facilities that will attract more tourism in my community

129 4.69 .464

4 I believe tourism should be actively encouraged in Tioman Island

129 4.67 .487

5 The government support the promotion of tourism in Tioman Island

129 4.73 .496

6 My community should become more of a tourist destination 129 4.67 .520 7 Long term planning on the environmental aspect would

exaggerate tourism business 129 4.63 .546

8 The affect from tourism industry was increase the quality of the outdoor recreation opportunities in my community

129 4.58 .541

9 It is important to manage the growth of tourism in Tioman Island

129 4.73 .446

10 I believe the tourism sector will continue to play a major role in the economy of the community

129 4.76 .429

11 Generally, the positive benefit of tourism outweigh the negative impact

129 4.71 .471

12 The future of Tioman Island as tourist attraction is sustainable

129 4.81 .391

CONCLUSION The significant of personal benefit from tourism development show that most of respondents’ obtaining the benefit from the tourism activity in Tioman Island. In other word, tourism brings improvement of their quality of life. The more benefit respondents’ perceived gaining from tourism personally, the more likely they are to increase the support for tourism development (Wang & Pfister, 2008). Personal benefit and costs are should be evaluate carefully and when benefits exceed cost the perception tend to be positively attitudes towards tourism development. Personal benefits from tourism development had been identified as a significant aspect associated with the attitudes towards tourism development. Respondents’ perceived safe and security as well as feel secure in their current job are two personal benefit items that their obtained from the tourism development in Tioman Island. The authority (TDA) put all effort to help the local communities secure with their current job especially in tourism related business in order to ensure the local people gain advantages from the tourism development. Furthermore, majority of respondents’ perceived get more benefit from more tourism development in their community. Local communities’ attitudes towards tourism development fell into two dimension of positive and negative. The major concern for residents’ in Tioman Island was the potential of tourism to increase cost



of living. Most of previous study on tourism impact discovered that cost of living is increase because of tourism activity (Andereck et al, 2005). More than that, litter and overcrowding problems occurred because of tourism development in Tioman Island. Conversely, a tourism activity in Tioman Island brings opportunity especially for the local community in terms of providing the employment in tourism related business as well as improve their quality of life. Local community perceived positive impact of tourism with the number of facilities are increase for the community purposes. Even though the tourism activity is extensively promoted, the authority also considered about the incentives for protection and conservation of the Tioman Marine Park. Local community in Tioman Island believe that, tourism sector will continue to play a major role in the economy of the community. But then, the Tioman Development Authority should manage the growth of tourism activities wisely. In addition, the role of the government and authority is important to enhance the promotion in order to boost up the tourist arrival to Tioman Island. REFERENCES Allen, L. R., H. R. Hafer, P. T. Long, and R. R. Perdue. (1993).“Rural Residents’ Attitudes toward Recreation and Tourism Development.” Journal of Travel Research, 31 (4): 27-33. Allen, L. R., P. T. Long, R. R. Perdue, and S. Kieselbach. (1988).“The Impact of Tourism Development on Residents’ Perceptions of Community Life.” Journal of Travel Research, 27 (1):16-21. Andereck, K. L., & Nyaupane, G. P. (2011). Exploring the nature of tourism and quality of life perceptions among residents. Journal of Travel Research, 50, 248-260. Andereck, K. L., and C. A. Vogt. (2000). “The Relationship between Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism and Tourism Development Options.” Journal of Travel Research, 39 (1):27-36. Ap, J. (1992). “Residents’ Perception on Tourism Impacts.” Annals of Tourism Research, 19 (4): 665-90. Aref, F., Redzuan, M. r., & Gill, S. S. (2010).Dimensions of Community Capacity Building: A Review of its Implications in Tourism Development. Journal of American Science, 5(8), 74-82. Azaruddin, O (1994). Tourist industry in Tioman Island. Malaysia Journal of Geography, 25 (2) 59-67 Belisle, F. J., and D. R. Hoy. (1980). “The Perceived Impact of Tourism by Residents: A Case Study in Santa Marta, Columbia.”Annals of Tourism Research, 7 (1): 83-101. Brehm, J. M., B. W. Eisenhauer, and R. S. Krannich. (2004). “Dimensions of Community Attachment and Their Relationship to Well-Being in the Amenity-Rich Rural West.” Rural Sociology, 69 (3): 405-29. Brunt, P., & Courtney, P. (1999). Host perceptions of sociocultural impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3), 493–515. Butler, R. W. (1980). “The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Management of Resources.” Canadian Geographer, 24 (1): 5-12. Chaskin, R. (2001). Building community capacity: a definitional framework and case studies from a comprehensive community initiative. Urban Affairs Review, 36(3), 291–323.



Chen, J. S. (2001). Assessing and visualizing tourism impacts from urban residents’ Perspectives. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 25, 235-250. Conlin, M. V., and T. Baum. (1996). Island Tourism: Management Principles and Practice. New York: John Wiley. Cooper, C. (1995). Strategic planning for sustainable tourism: The case of the offshore islands of the UK. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 3(4), 191-209. Davis, D., Allen, J., and Cosenza, R. M. (1988). Segmenting local residents by their attitudes, interests and opinions toward tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 27(2), 2-8. Dyer, P., Aberdeen, L., & Schuler, S. (2007). Tourism impacts on an Australian indigenous community. Tourism Management, 24, 83-95 Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, (2), 335-362. Godfrey, K. B. (1998). Attitudes toward “sustainable tourism” in the UK: A view from local government. Tourism Management, 19(3), 213-224. Gursoy, D., and D. G. Rutherford. (2004). “Host Attitudes toward Tourism: An Improved Structural Model.” Annals of Tourism Research, 31 (3): 495-516. Gursoy, D., C. Jurowski, and M. Uysal. (2002). “Resident Attitudes: A Structural Modeling Approach.” Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (1): 79-105. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tathman, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis (5th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hanafiah, M.H., M.F. Harun and Jamaluddin M.R., (2010). Bilateral Trade and Tourism Demand. World Applied Sciences Journal 10 (Special Issue of Tourism & Hospitality), 110-114. Harrill, R. (2004). Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development: A literature review with implications for planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 18(3), 251-266. Hovinen, G. R. (2002). “Revisiting the Destination Lifecycle Model.” Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (1): 209-30. Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold. Jafari, J., (2001). The socio-economic costs of tourism to developing countries. Annals of Tourism Research., 1(2): 227-234. Johnson, K. M., and C. L. Beale. (2002). “Nonmetro Recreation Counties: Their Identification and Rapid Growth.” Rural America, 17 (4): 12-19.



Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Williams, D. R. (1997). A theoretical analysis of host community resident reactions to tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 34(2), 3-11. Kepe, T. (2004). Poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation: a South African Perspective. Oryx: The International Journal of Conservation, 38( 2):143-5. Ko, D. W., and W. P. Stewart. (2002). “A Structural Equation Model of Residents’ Attitudes for Tourism Development.”Tourism Management, 23 (5): 521-30. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610. Lankford, S. V., and D. R. Howard. (1994). “Developing a Tourism Impact Attitude Scale.” Annals of Tourism Research, 21 (1): 121-39. Latkova, P.,&Vogt, C.A. (2012).Residents’ attitudes toward existing and future tourism development in rural communities. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), 50-67. Lepp, A. (2007). “Residents’ Attitudes towards Tourism in Bigodi Village, Uganda.” Tourism Management, 28 (3): 876-85. Liu, A. (1986). “Tourism in Rural Areas: Kedah, Malaysia.” Tourism Management, 27 (5): 878-89. Madrigal, R. (1993). “A Tale of Tourism in Two Cities.” Annals of Tourism Research, 20 (2): 336-53. McGehee, N. G., and K. L. Andereck. (2004). “Factors Predicting Rural Residents’ of Tourism.” Journal of Travel Research, 43 (2): 188-200. Neuman, W. L. (2006), Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, New York: Pearson Education Inc. Nunkoo, R., & Gursoy, D. (2011). Residents’ support for tourism: An Identity Perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 243-268. Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2012). Power, trust, social exchange and community support. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(3), 997-1023. Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing, and attitude measurement. New York City: St. Martin's Press. Pallant, J., (2005). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows (Version 12). 2nd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Perdue, R. R., P. T. Long, and L. R. Allen. (1990). “Resident Support for Tourism Development.” Annals of Tourism Research, 17 (4): 586-99.



Poh Ling, L., Jakpar, S., Johari, A., Than Myint, K., & Abdul Rani, N. S.(2011). An evaluation on the attitudes of residents in Georgetown towards the impacts of tourism development. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2, 1, 264-277.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication research. The Sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research (pp. 13-54). Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2010). Research Design. In J. W. Ltd, Research Methods for Business - 5th Edition (p. 110). Ltd, John Wiley and Sons.

Sirakaya, E., Teye V., & Sonmez, S. (2002). Understanding residents" support for tourism development in the Central Region of Ghana. Journal of Travel Research, 41, 57-67.

Snaith, T., and A. Haley. (1999). “Resident Attitudes to Tourism in North Wales.” Tourism Management, 15 (5): 358-69. Tosun, C. (2002): Host perceptions of impacts. Annals of Tourism Research 29, 231-253.

Ministry of Tourism Malaysia. (2012). Malaysia National Key Economic Area 2011. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Tourism Malaysia. Tioman Development Authority (2011). Annual Report 2011. Retrieved June 22, 2012, from http://www.tioman.gov.my/Laporan%20Tahunan%202011.pdf Tourism Malaysia Corporate Website (2012). “About us section”. Retrieved from http://www.tourism.gov.my/ms-my/my Vargas-Sanchez, A., Porras-Bueno, N., & Plaza-Mejia, M. (2011). Explaining residents’attitudes to tourism: is a universal model possible? Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2), 460- 480. Wall, G., 1996. Perspectives on tourism in selected The Environment and Economic Implications of Balinese villages. Annals of Tourism Encouraging Tourism, Master thesis: University of Res., 23 (1): 123-138. Wang, Y., and R. E. Pfister. (2008). “Residents Attitudes toward Tourism and Perceived Personal Benefits in a Rural Community.” Journal of Travel Research, 47 (1): 84-93. World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2012, May 10). World Tourism Barometer - Top destinations by international tourism receipts. Retrieved May 15, 2012, from The Bangkok Post - World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). World tourism organization (UNTWO) “Tourism Highlight”. Retrieved from:http://www2.unwto.org/ Yoon, Y., D. Gursoy, and J. S. Chen. (2001). “Validating a Tourism Development Theory with Structural Equation Modeling.”Tourism Management, 22 (4): 363-72.

http://www.tioman.gov.my/Laporan%20Tahunan%202011.pdf

http://www.tourism.gov.my/ms-my/my

http://www2.unwto.org/

Local Community Attitudes Towards Tourism Development in ...

Documents

Transcript of Local Community Attitudes Towards Tourism Development in ...