Int. J. Tourism Policy, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2010 125

Copyright © 2010 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism development: Frankenwald Nature Park, Germany

Ch’aska Huayhuaca Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, 250 Moore St. #110, Brooklyn, NY 11206, USA E-mail: chaska@gmail.com

Stuart Cottrell* and Jana Raadik Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, 1480 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA E-mail: Cottrell@cnr.colostate.edu E-mail: jraadik@lamar.colostate.edu *Corresponding author

Sabine Gradl 2428 W. Coronado Ave., Flagstaff, Arizona 86001, USA E-mail: gradlzentrum@yahoo.de

Abstract: This paper examined the relationship between four dimensions of sustainability and perceptions of tourism development held by residents of communities in and around Frankenwald Nature Park (FNP) in central Germany (n = 306). Building on a previous study (Shen and Cottrell, 2008), it was hypothesised that ratings for the ecological, economic, institutional and socio-cultural dimensions of sustainability would contribute to resident satisfaction. Final dimensional indices consisted of 5–9 survey items with reliability coefficients ranging from 0.63 to 0.87. Regression analyses revealed all four dimensions of sustainability as significant predictors of resident satisfaction with tourism to FNP. The theoretical and applied implications of these findings for understanding tourism sustainability are discussed.

Keywords: sustainable tourism; PoS; prism of sustainability; dimensions of sustainability; indicators.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Huayhuaca, C., Cottrell, S., Raadik, J. and Gradl, S. (2010) ‘Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism development: Frankenwald Nature Park, Germany’, Int. J. Tourism Policy, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.125–141.

126 C. Huayhuaca et al.

Biographical notes: Ch’aska Huayhuaca received her Master of Science in Human Dimensions of Natural Resources at Colorado State University and her BS from Cornell University. Her research interests include sustainable agriculture and agroforestry, protected area management and environmental behaviour.

Stuart P. Cottrell is an Associate Professor in the Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources at Colorado State University, USA. He received his BA from Western Illinois University, MA from Florida International University, and his PhD from the Pennsylvania State University. His areas of research include sustainable tourism development, ecotourism, and environmental behaviour.

Jana Raadik is a PhD candidate in the Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, USA. She received her Master of Science in Leisure, Tourism and Environment from Wageningen University, The Netherlands. Her research interests are place identity, sense of place, and sustainable tourism development.

Sabine Gradl received her Diploma in Leisure Sciences from the University of Applied Sciences, Bremen, Germany. She conducted this study for her Senior Thesis in 2007.

1 Introduction

As in many parts of the world, the tourism development paradigm in Europe is shifting to sustainable tourism to meet priorities adopted at the ‘Earth Summit’, 5th Action Plan for the European Union, World Charter for Sustainable Tourism and the 4th World Park Congress (Muñoz Flores, 2005). The European Commission on the Environment defines sustainable tourism development as a process to maintain a balance between “the needs of the visitor, the environment and the host community for current as well as future generations” (Sustainable Tourism and Natura, 1999, p.4). Sustainability as a concept typically refers to the environmental, social or socio-cultural and economic impacts created by the development in question (Eden et al., 2000; Valentin and Spangenberg, 2000). The extent to which members of a community have input, leverage and participate in the development of their own tourism industry can determine to a large extent the direction and degree of the aforementioned impacts (Cottrell et al., 2007; Choi and Sirakaya, 2005). This paper examines the context of sustainability for local communities by investigating the relationship between four dimensions of sustainability and perceptions of tourism development held by residents of communities located near a nature park in central Germany.

1.1 Sustainable tourism development

In 1987 Brundtland defined sustainable development as “… development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p.43). With human societies moving into the 21st century, sustainability and sustainable development have become increasingly important, and the concept of sustainable development has been widely used as an organising framework in political

Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism development 127

agendas (Dymond, 1997). The word ‘Sustainable (sustainability)’ became a buzzword, obviously hotly debated, and part of a dominant discourse relating to environmental security and ‘balanced’ development (Becker and Jahn, 1999). In fact, sustainable development is a dynamic concept and process of which people’s understanding changes in tandem with societal development. In its initial phase, people concentrated more on environmental and economic issues. With time, increasing numbers of researchers recognised that equality, justice, poverty alleviation, and local community empowerment (institutional context) should be the core of sustainable development (Ahn et al., 2002; Dymond, 1997; Khanna et al., 1999; McCool et al., 2001).

The concept of sustainable tourism development began to be discussed with different terminology in the 1970s, with ‘new tourism’, ‘Destination Life Cycle Model’ and ‘carrying capacity’ as examples (Hardy et al., 2002). Initially, the concept of sustainable tourism remained at a theoretical level, and did not come into practice until the late 1980s with the rapid spread of the concept of sustainable development launched by the Brundtland report in 1987. However, tourism was given little attention in its role for sustainable development at the Rio Earth Summit. Only ecotourism as a method to enhance sustainable forestry was referred to in Chapter 11 of Agenda 21, and governments were recommended to promote ecotourism (Hardy et al., 2002). In response to this, the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), the World Tourism Organisation and the Earth Council together launched Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry in 1996. This was the first step to achieve a balance between sustainable development and economic growth for travel and tourism. It was the only industry-specific adaptation of Agenda 21 (WTTC, 2002).

The tourism sector, as with many others, has also witnessed the proliferation of the applications of the concept of sustainability. Correspondingly, various definitions, views and forms of sustainable tourism have been identified as the ideal form of what is needed (for examples see Hardy et al., 2002; Mowforth and Munt, 2003; Sharpley, 2000; Swarbrooke, 1999). As a specialised tourism organisation, the World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) set forth the concept of sustainable tourism. Sustainable tourism should make optimal use of environmental resources, respect the socio-cultural authenticity of host communities, and provide socio-economic benefits to all stakeholders (UNWTO, 2004). For the purpose of sustainable development, sustainable tourism calls for the informed participation of all relevant stakeholders, as well as strong political leadership. UNWTO also recognised that achieving sustainable tourism is a continuous process and it requires constant monitoring of impacts. Sustainable tourism should also maintain a high level of tourist satisfaction (UNWTO, 2004).

These definitions originated from the general concepts and issues surrounding sustainable development as discussed earlier. Tourism is only part of the concept of sustainable development; thus tourism development should seek to ensure that nature, scale, location, and manner of development are appropriate and sustainable over time, and that the environment’s abilities to support other activities and processes are not impaired, since tourism cannot be isolated from other resource-use activities (Gunn, 1994). The attempt to control elements of tourism production and consumption to keep tourism sustainable has led to the adoption of alternative tourism forms that purportedly adhere to the ethics of responsible and reflexive operations. Various examples that have resulted include green tourism, farm tourism, adventure tourism, rural tourism, and ecotourism (Mowforth and Munt, 2003); these new forms of tourism are believed to help sustain the tourism industry.

128 C. Huayhuaca et al.

Similar to the evolution of sustainability, sustainable tourism development also experienced a change from the emphasis on governments and enterprises to local communities; from concentration on economic growth and environmental conservation to poverty alleviation and local resident empowerment (Fallon and Kriwoken, 2003; Hardy et al., 2002; Mitchell and Reid, 2001; Sofield, 2003). Like the term from which it is derived, sustainable tourism is a dynamic concept, though capturing the essence of sustainable tourism development and assessing its sustainability are major challenges.

1.2 Prism of Sustainability and sustainability indicators

Traditionally, the sustainable tourism development paradigm includes the three dimensions of economic, socio-cultural, and environmental (Dijks, 1995; Spangenberg 2002). However, achieving a balance among these three classic dimensions of sustainable tourism is difficult to realise without an institutional perspective to manage, mediate and facilitate growth (Eden et al., 2000; Spangenberg, 2002; Spangenberg and Valentin, 1999). The PoS (Figure 1) theorised by Spangenberg combined these four dimensions into a single framework with clearly defined links among the dimensions (Spangenberg and Valentin, 1999).

Figure 1 Prism of Sustainability

Source: Adapted by Cottrell et al. (2007) from Spangenberg

and Valentin (1999)

According to the PoS model, the economic imperative means that an economy should satisfy human needs for material welfare and support employment and livelihoods in a competitive and stable framework at the macro-economic scale. The environmental

Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism development 129

imperative calls for reducing the pressure on the physical environment. An economic system is environmentally sustainable only as long as the amount of resources utilised to generate welfare is permanently restricted to within ecological system limits. The social imperative considers that all individuals have access to the resources and facilities they need to live a healthy and dignified life. Societal interaction and associated social norms are necessary preconditions for economic activities. The fourth institutional imperative emphasises participatory decision-making processes such as public participation and involvement. The PoS model provides a relatively holistic framework to think, understand, and analyse tourism sustainability (Spangenberg and Valentin, 1999).

In order to operationalise sustainability in practice, some tools of sustainability, for example “Area protection”, “Industry Regulation”, “Visitor Management Techniques”, “Environmental Impact Assessment”, “Carrying Capacity Calculations”, and “Sustainability Indicators”, were adopted by many researchers, practitioners, and developers to assess or measure various aspects of sustainability (Mowforth and Munt, 2003). Among these tools the use of sustainability indicators has been seen as necessary to put the concept of sustainability into place and has been introduced to the policy-monitoring arena (Kammerbauer et al., 2001). In Agenda 21, one special task is a call for the harmonisation of efforts to develop sustainable development indicators at the national, regional and global levels. In response to this call, the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) launched the program of work on indicators of sustainable development in 1995. Five years later, highly aggregated indicators were completed and applied in many countries. But these indicators are mostly at the regional, national and global levels; indicators at the local level are seldom developed or used to measure progress toward sustainable development in poor rural areas.

In relation to the tourism industry, indicator approaches can also make a useful contribution to sustainable tourism decision-making. However, according to Twining-Ward and Butler (2002), research on sustainable tourism indicators is still in its initial stages and practical case studies are hard to find. In order to develop a set of internationally acceptable sustainable tourism indicators to assist tourism managers in their decision-making processes, the most significant attempt to date, has been undertaken by the World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) through its Environment Task Force. Eleven core indicators were identified to compare tourism’s sustainability between destinations (see Twining-Ward and Butler, 2002).

Although the work of the UNWTO provides a useful starting point, as Twining-Ward and Butler (2002) note, it failed to justify the choice of indicators and lacked clear stakeholder participation as it did not present an appropriate monitoring framework to help translate indicator information into appropriate management action. As a response, subsequent researchers did much valuable work to develop sustainable tourism indicators at the national, regional and local levels (Miller and Twining-Ward, 2005; Sirakaya et al., 2001). Valentin and Spangenberg (2002) emphasised the importance of local community during the creation of sustainable indicators, and proposed a framework to develop sustainable indicators at the local level. Yuan et al. (2003) practiced the process of sustainability indicator development by communities with a case study of Chongming County, Shanghai, China. Miller (2001) used a Delphi Survey to develop indicators to measure the sustainability of tourism products at a company or resort. Hughes (2002), Innes and Booher (2000) and Dymond (1997) all worked on development and operationalisation of sustainable tourism indicators from various perspectives. With tourism development, more and more researchers have been cognisant of the

130 C. Huayhuaca et al.

importance of community involvement in tourism development (Getz and Timur, 2005; Tosun, 2000; Tosun and Timothy, 2003). Much research, like impact research, has been undertaken to obtain community perception of tourism development, and these research results were expected to be integrated into tourism planning, management and monitoring so as to achieve the purpose of sustainability (for example Kaae, 2001; Mbaiwa, 2003; Pagdin, 1995; Payne et al., 2001; Richards and Hall, 2000; Shen and Cottrell, 2008; Walpole and Goodwin, 2000). Although there is rich literature on measuring tourism sustainability and impacts on the local community, research related to measuring tourism sustainability via sustainability indicators from a community perspective are rare with a few studies appearing more recently (Byrd, 2007; Byrd et al., 2008; Cottrell and Raadik, 2008; Shen and Cottrell, 2008; Tosun and Timothy, 2003).

A prevalent area of research in sustainable tourism is concerned with the development of sustainability indicators, or ways of measuring change and progression toward goal attainment over time (Choi and Sirakaya, 2005; Cottrell et al., 2004; Cottrell and Vaske, 2006; Dymond, 1997; Innes and Booher, 2000; Manning, 1999; McCool et al., 2001; Miller, 2001; Miller and Twining-Ward, 2005; Sirakaya et al., 2001). Since communities are diverse in terms of needs and expectations of tourism, sustainable tourism indicators should be selected based on the specific situations of the communities in question (van den Berg et al., 2004; Johnston and Tyrrell, 2005; McCool et al., 2001; Shen and Cottrell, 2008; Spangenberg, 2002; Valentin and Spangenberg, 2000) and not enforced as a universal set of items across settings; yet some form of consistency for sustainable tourism development is necessary which implies the need for a sustainability framework (Faulkner and Tideswell, 1997; Miller and Twining-Ward, 2005; Sautter and Leisen, 1999).

The ‘PoS’ (Figure 1), provides a framework consisting of four dimensions through which it is possible to organise indicators of sustainability (Spangenberg and Valentin, 1999; Valentin and Spangenberg, 2000). It employs the ‘people/profit/planet’ fundamentals as refractive indices, yet includes an institutional perspective as a focal dimension. The socio-cultural dimension contains indicators of social welfare and dignity, social inclusion and minimum standards of human rights. The economic dimension considers the robustness of the business and employment climate, and the ecological dimension is comprised of perceived environmental quality indicators. The fourth dimension, the institutional imperative, scrutinises the degree and effectiveness of people’s participation in decision making processes, the input and leverage factor described above. As Spangenberg (2002) notes, indicators for institutional sustainability are still largely lacking although the institutional dimension of sustainable development had been introduced as early as 1995 by the CSD. According to the PoS, the institutional dimension should reflect a strengthening of people’s participation in political governance. Mitchell and Reid (2001) applied “Involvement in tourism management”, ‘Solidarity’ and “Democratic and equitable access to power” to measure community participation, which set a basis to develop institutional indicators. Combined with the ‘Future plan’ which originated from the core indicators suggested by the UNWTO (Dymond, 1997), four institutional sustainability indicators, accordingly, are also constructed. These indicators will be employed to implement tourism sustainability measurement with pertinent questions. Because the tourism industry permeates and affects communities on multiple levels (Byrd, 2007; Byrd and Gustke, 2007), viewing impacts of tourism through such a prism should allow for a more holistic interpretation of local realities of tourism yet comparable across locations for monitoring

Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism development 131

and policy development purposes (Cottrell and Cutumisu, 2006; Eden et al., 2000; Valentin and Spangenberg, 2000). This paper employs this framework as a means to examine resident perceptions of tourism development at a nature park in Germany. This approach (common structure, different indicators) allows for community comparisons without ignoring their specific needs and situations. If the four dimensions of sustainable tourism (ecological, economic, socio-cultural, institutional) are generalisable as suggested by prior research (van den Berg et al., 2004; Spangenberg, 2002; Spangenberg and Valentin, 1999), all four predictors should influence local residents’ satisfaction with tourism in a variety of settings whether it be a national park in Poland or a nature park in Germany.

2 Study purpose

This paper examined the relationship between four dimensions of sustainability and perceptions of tourism development held by residents of communities in and around FNP in central Germany (n = 306). The purpose was twofold: first, to provide an opportunity to further operationalise the PoS and further test its application building on the work of Shen and Cottrell (2008) and Cottrell and Vaske (2006). Secondly, the study examined the influence of the four sustainability dimensions on resident satisfaction with tourism development with a better measure of satisfaction with tourism. More specifically, the core question explored was:

Is there a relationship between the four dimensions of sustainable tourism (economic, socio-cultural, ecological, and institutional) and resident satisfaction with tourism development?

The PoS provided the framework for examining respondent beliefs about the dimensions of sustainability (van den Berg et al., 2004; Shen and Cottrell, 2008).

3 Study setting

3.1 Naturpark Frankenwald, Germany

Located in Northern (Figure 2), Frankenwald has held Nature Park status since 1973 and adopted the European Charter for Sustainability in 1998. The park encompasses 102,250 ha and three districts (Hof, Kronach and Kulmbach). Its classification as a Nature Park defines it as a cultural landscape, a landscape whose aesthetic appeal is in part the result of human interaction with nature over centuries (IUCN and EUROPARC Federation, 2000). The emphasis of protection in such an area is on cultural heritage and tradition, historical sites and folklore, rather than on pristine wilderness or ecosystem services. In 2001, Frankenwald (FNP) was awarded European Charter Park status. The European Charter for Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas is a partnership strategy or tool for protected areas and stakeholders in tourism to that area that was initiated in 1995 by the EUROPARC Federation. The Charter certifies parks based on several requirements, including the establishment of a permanent forum for park authorities, local municipalities, businesses and other stakeholders for consultation and

132 C. Huayhuaca et al.

elaboration of decision-making strategies. Certification is independent of park size and conservation status (Gradl, 2007).

Figure 2 Location of Frankenwald Nature Park in Central Germany (see online version for colours)

4 Methods

4.1 Data collection

Data were obtained during November of 2006 from 11 villages in three districts in the Naturpark Frankenwald area (Naila, Bad Steben and Geroldsgrün in the district of Hof (36%; n = 110); Ludwigsstadt, Nordhalben, Steinbach am Wald, Steinwiesen, Marktrodach and Wallenfels in the district of Kronach (50%; n = 153); and Wirsberg and Stadtsteinach in the district of Kulmbach (14%; n = 43)). Representative, purposeful sampling, stratified by age (18 >), was used to select recipients for household surveys in each village. Of the total population of all villages (N = 35,297), the total sample was 306 (Gradl, 2007). Sampling was purposeful largely due to budget constraints, thus caution should be exercised in generalising to a broader population.

4.2 Instrument

The survey was adapted from previous studies developed for the European Protected Area Network (PAN Parks, 2007) to test the PoS (Cottrell and Raadik, 2008). Drawn from previous research (Cottrell et al., 2004; Dymond, 1997; Mitchell and Reid, 2001; Sirakaya et al., 2001), 8–10 survey items (economic, institutional, ecological and socio-cultural statements) were used to measure each dimension of sustainability (independent variables) on a 7 point Likert agreement scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree with a 4 as a neutral point) (Table 1).

Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism development 133

Table 1 Scale items for dimensions of sustainable tourism (Frankenwald and CBNP)

Frankenwald NP1 (n = 306) Dimensions of sustainable tourism α Mean

Institutional dimension 0.828 4.43 Community residents have an opportunity to be involved in tourism decision making

3.97

There is good communication among individuals involved in policy and decision making process

4.18

Entrepreneurship in tourism is encouraged by local government 4.57 I can access the decision-making process to influence tourism development in the park area.

3.63

Tourism facilities are developed in cooperation with local businesses in the region

4.68

Tourism services are developed in cooperation with local businesses in the region

4.54

Tour guides at the park are well trained 4.83 There is sufficient information available about conservation efforts in the park

4.62

The information distributed by the park accurately reflects the history of the park

4.84

Ecological dimension 0.632 5.14 As a result of tourism, residents’ awareness of environmental protection has improved. 4.66 Tourism in the park is developed in harmony with the natural (and cultural) environment 4.93 Tourism activity to the park is directed into areas with suitable facilities 4.58 The diversity of nature in the park must be protected 6.34 Good examples of environmental protection are shown at the park 5.19 Economic dimension 0.869 4.99 Tourism brings new income to local communities 5.79 Tourism diversifies the local economy 5.04 Tourism creates job opportunities for local people 5.14 Tourism creates new markets for our local products 4.68 Tourism is a strong economic contributor to the community 4.32 Socio-cultural dimension 0.862 4.68 There are more educational opportunities for locals due to tourism

3.38

More people visit here because of the park 5.08 Tourism to the park positively influences cultural values of the area

5.00

Local traditions became more important because of tourism 4.40 Tourism created more jobs for women 4.58

134 C. Huayhuaca et al.

Table 1 Scale items for dimensions of sustainable tourism (Frankenwald and CBNP) (continued)

Frankenwald NP1 (n = 306) Dimensions of sustainable tourism α Mean

Socio-cultural dimension 0.862 4.68 Visitors to the park are encouraged to learn about local cultures 4.97 Park operators consider the concerns of local people in their management decisions 3.94 Tourism supports maintenance of local museums 5.54 Tourism promotes restoration of historical sites 5.18

Items measured on 7 point Likert agreement scale. 1Dimensional scale means in bold. α Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability.

Perceived overall satisfaction (dependent variable) was operationalised as the average of 4-items by asking respondents their satisfaction with various aspects of tourism in their area (Table 2). These items, drawn from previous studies to test the PoS framework (Cottrell and Vaske, 2006; Cottrell et al., 2007; Shen and Cottrell, 2008), were adapted as specific satisfaction measures.

Table 2 Scale items for satisfaction index

Frankenwald NP1 (n = 306) Satisfaction with tourism items α Mean

0.746 4.42 Tourism in the area of the park benefits me 3.48 It is important to me to have sustainable tourism in this region 5.58 For me, the attractiveness of the area has been improved because of tourism

4.81

My quality of life has improved because of tourism to the park 3.79

Items measured on 7 point Likert agreement scale. 1Dimensional scale means in bold. αCronbach’s Alpha Reliability.

4.3 Analysis

Reliability analyses were run to test the internal consistency of items measuring each of the dimensions of sustainability, as well as the satisfaction items for FNP. Indices were computed as the variable means comprising each dimension (independent variables). Finally, a regression analysis revealed the predictive power of each of the four dimensions of sustainability for satisfaction.

Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism development 135

5 Results

5.1 Sustainability dimension indices

Cronbach reliability alpha scores were 0.83 for the institutional dimension (9-items), 0.63 for the ecological dimension (5-items), 0.87 for the economic dimension (5-items), 0.86 for the socio-cultural dimension (9-items) and 0.75 for the satisfaction index (see Tables 1 and 2). All alpha scores were acceptable (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994) at 0.65 or higher except for the ecological index at α = 0.63. The lower reliability score for this dimension may be attributable to FNP’s status as a ‘Nature Park’, with greater managerial emphasis on cultural interaction with landscape than on ecological preservation. Multi-item indices were computed to provide mean scores on a 7-point scale with 4 as a neutral point for each sustainability dimension with the ecological dimension having the highest mean (M = 5.15) followed by the economic (M = 4.99), the socio-cultural (M = 4.68) and the institutional (M = 4.43) dimensions. The overall mean for the 4-item satisfaction index was 4.42, slightly lower than for the overall dimensional index scores.

5.2 Predictors of resident satisfaction with tourism

To examine the core question with assumptions that each dimension would contribute to resident satisfaction with tourism (Cottrell et al., 2007), regression analyses were run. The assumption was supported with all four dimensional scores significant predictors of resident satisfaction with tourism accounting for 36% of the variance explained (R² = 0.358) (Table 3). The strongest predictor was the institutional (β = 0.223; p = <0.001) followed by the economic (β = 0.187; p = 0.007), ecological (β = 0.144; p = 0.014), and the socio-cultural (β = 0.190; p = 0.019) dimensions meaning that as scores for the dimensional scores increased there was a slight increase in satisfaction with tourism.

Table 3 Regression analysis of predictive contribution of each dimension on resident satisfaction

Index β¹ p-value

Institutional 0.223 <0.001 Ecological 0.144 0.014 Economic 0.187 0.007 Socio-Cultural 0.190 0.019

1Standardised β value used. R2 = 0.358.

6 Discussion and conclusions

In keeping with the assessment of the most valuable contribution of this (or any) study is the development or refinement of the theory and tools of the field (Choi and Sirakaya, 2005; Wanhill, 1995). This study examined the construct validity of the

136 C. Huayhuaca et al.

PoS and found, in the case of FNP, to be an adequate framework for predicting resident satisfaction supporting previous research claims (Cottrell and Vaske, 2006; Cottrell et al., 2007) with all four dimensions predicting satisfaction.

The institutional dimension was the strongest predictor for FNP supporting claims in the literature (Cottrell and Vaske, 2006; Cottrell et al., 2007; Eden et al., 2000; Valentin and Spangenberg, 2000) as an important if not most important dimension. FNP, as per the Europarc Charter for Sustainable Tourism, must involve local stakeholders in consultation and design of a tourism management strategy. With greater participation in decision-making processes, there should be an increase in acceptance and ownership of decisions made, thus strengthening the institutional imperative (Spangenberg and Valentin, 1999). As it pertains to sustainable tourism development, implications are that the institutional imperative is perhaps the most important consideration for developing tourism sustainably. Traditionally, sustainable development has been considered from the classic pillars of sustainability, namely the ecological, socio-cultural and economic imperatives. The institutional dimension is perhaps the glue that holds any notion of sustainability together with its focus on sub aspects such as communication strategies, policy development and implementation, participation and access to decision making etc. Certification processes such as the Charter for Sustainable Tourism promoted by Europarc’s provides the institutional mechanisms on which to assess and monitor progress towards sustainability across the multiple settings (park and local communities).

The primary focus of this study was to examine the predictive contribution of the sustainability dimensions as index variables on overall resident satisfaction with tourism as a follow-up to previous studies (Cottrell and Raadik, 2008; Cottrell and Vaske, 2006; Shen and Cottrell, 2008) and to further develop items to measure resident satisfaction with tourism (Cottrell et al., 2007). The dependent variable, satisfaction with tourism was based on four items drawn from previous studies to represent satisfaction, thus the application of the scale is exploratory. The items were internally consistent and reflected resident satisfaction with tourism from a content validity context. The FNP survey was based on previous study instruments (Cottrell et al., 2004, 2007; Cottrell and Raadik, 2008; Cottrell and Vaske, 2006; Shen and Cottrell, 2008) with item clarification and a separate section of items pertaining to resident satisfaction with tourism as a means to further advance operationalisation of the sustainability framework and the tool (questionnaire) to do so.

This study indicates that local stakeholders mostly have a positive perception of tourism development in FNP, and tourism benefits the community in several ways, but it is not clear whether the park facilitates sustainable development or not. While monitoring sustainability, it is important to cover a wide range of opinions from local people and not assume that economic development automatically promotes sustainability. PoS framework allows the opportunity to do this. Although tourism satisfaction was just slightly positive overall, most respondents did not see tourism to the park as a benefit directly nor did not feel their quality of life improved because of tourism to the park. The benefits of tourism were more specifically noted when looking at the items used to construct the various dimensions of sustainability (i.e., tourism diversifies local economies; tourism brings new income to local communities). This further supports the notion and or need to provide multiple measures of sustainability to represent the various dimensions to obtain a more holistic

Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism development 137

perspective on what sustainable development means within the context of location destination areas.

6.1 Implications and further research

Mean scores for all dimension indices were slightly on the positive side of the neutral point (4), which suggests that, while residents are not overwhelmingly satisfied with each dimension, they fall between neutrality and agreement with a composite of the statements per dimension that assert their respective park is doing a good job contributing to tourism development according to principles for sustainable tourism (e.g., Charter for Sustainable Tourism principles). However, a few of the mean scores for some items were slightly below the neutral point which suggests disagreement with some aspects of sustainable tourism (i.e., more educational opportunities for locals due to tourism; park operators consider the concerns of locals, and community residents have access to decision making). The somewhat lower scores should prompt managers to take a look at how they are implementing their strategy, particularly in regards to the socio-cultural and institutional dimensions. The fact that overall satisfaction with tourism score was lower than the dimensional mean scores might suggest that some other factor or factors are reducing satisfaction – perhaps a manifestation of one or more of the interlinkages (access, burden-sharing, etc.) of the PoS that were not discussed in this paper. Further research is necessary for development and testing of indicators for the interlinkages or sub-dimensions of the broader dimensional categories (e.g., planning, management for the institutional dimension; nature protection, nature awareness, and conservation for the ecological dimension; cultural awareness and equality for the social).

The role of ecolabeling for protected area management and sustainable tourism development should be examined. The Europarc Charter for Sustainable Tourism is founded on principles for tourism development as well as for transboundary park management of protected areas. To what extent does a certification scheme improve the development of nature based tourism vs. mass tourism and management’s capacity to manage protected areas effectively? There are 400+ Europarc’s that must follow the same principles and criteria. Who benefits from the Europarc’s certification; the ecological, economic, or social environments? To what extent does a holistic framework for sustainability help to assess these issues for tourism policy? These are questions to address through further testing of a holistic framework of sustainable tourism development.

References Ahn, B.Y., Lee, B. and Shafer, C.S. (2002) ‘Operationalizing sustainability in regional tourism

planning: an application of the limits of acceptable change framework’, Tourism Management, Vol. 23, pp.1–15.

Becker, E. and Jahn, T. (1999) Sustainability and the Social Sciences: A Cross-Disciplinary Approach to Integrating Environmental Considerations into Theoretical Reorientation, Zed Books, London.

Byrd, E.T. (2007) ‘Stakeholders in sustainable tourism and their role: applying stakeholder theory to sustainable development’, Tourism Review, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp.6–13.

138 C. Huayhuaca et al.

Byrd, E.T. and Gustke, L.D. (2007) ‘Using decision trees to identify tourism stakeholders: the case of two eastern North Carolina counties’, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7, Nos. 3–4, pp.176–193.

Byrd, E.T., Cardenas, D.A. and Greenwood, J.B. (2008) ‘Factors of stakeholder support for sustainable tourism: the case of eastern North Carolina’, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.192–204.

Choi, H.S. and Sirakaya, E. (2005) ‘Measuring residents’ attitude toward sustainable tourism: development of sustainable tourism attitude scale’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, pp.380–394.

Cottrell, S. and Cutumisu, N. (2006) ‘Sustainable tourism development strategy in WWF Pan Parks: case of a Swedish and Romanian national park’, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.150–167.

Cottrell, S.P. and Raadik, J. (2008) ‘Socio-cultural benefits of PAN Parks at Bieszscady National Park, Poland’, Finnish Journal of Tourism Research (Matkailututkimus), Vol. 1, pp.56–67.

Cottrell, S.P. and Vaske, J.J. (2006) ‘A framework for monitoring and modeling sustainable tourism’, Electronic Review of Tourism Research, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.74–84.

Cottrell, S.P., V/d Duim, R., Ankersmid, P. and Kelder, L. (2004) ‘Measuring the sustainability of tourism in Manuel Antonio and Texel: a tourist perspective’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp.409–431.

Cottrell, S.P., Vaske, J. and Shen, F. (2007) ’Modeling resident perceptions of sustainable tourism development: comparison between Holland and China’, Journal of China Tourism Research, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.219–234.

Dijks, D. (1995) ‘Measuring urban sustainability’, Workshop Proceedings, Canadian Indicators Workshop, Environment Canada, June, Ottawa, pp.1–73.

Dymond, S. (1997) ‘Indicators of sustainable tourism in New Zealand: a local government perspective’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.279–293.

Eden, M., Falkheden, L. and Malbert, B. (2000) ‘The built environment and sustainable development: research meets practice in a Scandinavian context’, Planning Theory and Practice, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.260–272.

Fallon, D.L. and Kriwoken, L.K. (2003) ‘Community involvement in tourism infrastructure: the case of the Strahan visitor centre, Tasmania’, Tourism Management, Vol. 24, pp.289–308.

Faulkner, B. and Tidswell, C. (1997) ‘A framework for monitoring community impacts of tourism’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 5, pp.3–28.

Getz, D. and Timur, S. (2005) ‘Stakeholder involvement in sustainable tourism: balancing the voices’, in Theobald, W.F. (Ed.): Global Tourism, 3rd ed., Elsevier, Burlington, MD, pp.230–247.

Gradl, S. (2007) Resident Perceptions of Sustainable Tourism Development Near Frankenwald Nature Park, Germany, Unpublished Honors Thesis and Report Submitted to Frankenwald Nature Park, Bayern Province, Germany.

Gunn, C.A. (1994) Tourism Planning: Basic Concepts Cases, 3rd ed., Taylor and Francis, Washington DC.

Hardy, A., Beeton, R.J.S. and Pearson, L. (2002) ‘Sustainable tourism: an overview of the concept and its position in relation to conceptualisations of tourism’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 10, pp.474–496.

Hughes, G. (2002) ‘Environmental indicators’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29, pp.457–477. Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (2000) ‘Indicators for sustainable communities: a strategy building

on complexity theory and distributed intelligence’, Planning Theory and Practice, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.173–186.

IUCN and EUROPARC (2000) Interpretation and Application of the IUCN Management Categories for Protected Areas in Europe, EUROPARC, Grafenau.

Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism development 139

Johnston, R.J. and Tyrrell, T.J. (2005) ‘A dynamic model of sustainable tourism’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 44, November, pp.124–134.

Kaae, B.C. (2001) ‘The perceptions of tourists and residents of sustainable tourism principles and environmental initiatives’, in McCool, S.F. and Moisey, R.N. (Eds.): Tourism, Recreation, and Sustainability: Linking Culture and the Environment, CABI, Wallingford, pp.289–314.

Kammerbauer, J., Cordoba, B., Escolán, R., Flores, S., Ramirez, V. and Zeledón, J. (2001) ‘Identification of development indicators in tropical mountainous regions and some implications for natural resource policy designs: an integrated community case study’, Ecological Economics, Vol. 36, pp.45–60.

Khanna, P., Babu, P.R. and George, M.S. (1999) ‘Carrying-capacity as a basis for sustainable development: a case study of national capital region in India’, Progress in Planning, Vol. 52, pp.101–163.

Manning, T. (1999) ‘Indicators of tourism sustainability’, Tourism Management, Vol. 20, pp.179–181.

Mbaiwa, J.E. (2003) ‘The socio-economic and environmental impacts of tourism development on the Okavango Delta, North-Western Botswana’, Journal of Arid Environments, Vol. 54, pp.447–467.

McCool, S., Moisey, N. and Nickerson, N. (2001) ‘What should tourism sustain? The disconnect with industry perceptions of useful indicators’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40, November, pp.124–131.

Miller, G. (2001) ‘The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: results of a Delphi survey of tourism researchers’, Tourism Management, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp.351–362.

Miller, G. and Twining-Ward, L. (2005) Monitoring for Sustainable Tourism Transition: The Challenge of Developing and Using Indicators, CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA.

Mitchell, R.E. and Reid, D.G. (2001) ‘Community integration: Island tourism in Peru’, Annuals of Tourism Research, Vol. 28, No. 1, November, pp.113–139.

Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (2003) Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the Third World, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York, London.

Muñoz Flores, J.C. (2005) ‘The European charter for sustainable tourism in protected areas: an overview: EUROPARC federation and alfred toepfer foundation’, Estudios y Perspectivas en Turismo, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.236–257.

Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994) Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.

Pagdin, C. (1995) ‘Assessing tourism impacts in the third world: a Nepal case study’, Progress in Planning, Vol. 44, pp.185–266.

PAN Parks (2007) Foundation Website, Retrieved from: <http://www.panparks.org/> [accessed 5/5/2007].

Payne, R.J., Johnston, M.E. and Twynam, G.D. (2001) ‘Tourism, sustainability and the social milieux in lake superior’s north shore and islands’, in Mccool, S.F. and Moisey, R.N. (Eds.): Tourism, Recreation, and Sustainability: Linking Culture and the Environment, CABI, Wallingford, pp.315–342.

Richards, G. and Hall, D. (2000) Tourism and Sustainable Community Development, Routledge, London.

Sautter, E.T. and Leisen, B. (1999) ‘Managing stakeholders: a tourism planning model’, Annuals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.312–328.

Sustainable Tourism and Natura (2000) Guidelines, initiatives and good practices in Europe’, SECA Publication of the European Commission, retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ nature/info/pubs/docs/nat2000/sust_tourism.pdf (accessed 13 May 2007).

140 C. Huayhuaca et al.

Sharpley, R. (2000) ‘Tourism and sustainable development: exploring the theoretical divide’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 8, pp.1–9.

Shen, F. and Cottrell, S.P. (2008) ‘A sustainable tourism framework for monitoring residents’ satisfaction with agritourism in Chongdugou Village, China’, International Journal of Tourism Policy, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp.368–375.

Sirakaya, E., Jamal, T.B. and Choi, H.S. (2001) ‘Developing indicators for destination sustainability’, in Weaver, D.B. (Ed.): The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, CAB International, New York, pp.411–432.

Sofield, T.H.B. (2003) Empowerment for Sustainable Tourism Development, 1st ed., Pergamon, Amsterdam.

Spangenberg, J.H. (2002) ‘Environmental space and the prism of sustainability: frameworks for indicators measuring sustainable development’, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 57, pp.1–15.

Spangenberg, J.H. and Valentin, A. (1999) ‘Indicators for sustainable communities’, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, http://www.foeeurope.org/sustainability/ sustain/t-content-prism.htm (accessed 13 May 2007).

Swarbrooke, J. (1999) Sustainable Tourism Management, CABI Publishing, London. Tosun, C. (2000) ‘Limited to community participation in the tourism development process

in developing countries’, Tourism Management, Vol. 21, pp.613–633. Tosun, C. and Timothy, D.J. (2003) ‘Arguments for community participation in the tourism

development process’, The Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.2–15. Twining-Ward, L. and Butler, R. (2002) ‘Implementing STD on a small island: development

and use of sustainable tourism development indicators in Samoa’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 10, pp.363–387.

UNWTO (2004) Sustainable Development of Tourism: Conceptual Definition, http://www.world-tourism.org/frameset/frame_sustainable.html (accessed 15 May 2007).

Valentin, A. and Spangenberg, J.H. (2000) ‘A guide to community sustainability indicators’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 20, pp.381–392.

van den Berg, C., van Bree, F. and Cottrell, S.P. (2004) ‘PAN Parks principles: cross-cultural comparison: Poland/Slovakia’, in Sievänen et al. (Eds.): Proceedings of International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows, 16–20 June, Rovaniemi, Finland, pp.227–234.

Walpole, M.J. and Goodwin, H.J. (2000) ‘Local economic impacts of dragon tourism in Indonesia’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 27, pp.559–576.

Wanhill, S. (1995) ‘The economic evaluation of publicly assisted tourism projects’, in Butler, R., Pearce, D. and London, D. (Eds.): Change in Tourism: People, Places, Processes, Routledge, London, pp.187–207.

WTTC (2002) Tourism Industry as a Partner for Sustainable Development, Retrieved from: <http://www.wttc.org/publications/pdf/UNEP%20Report.pdf> [accessed 10/6/2003].

Yuan, W., James, P., Hodgson, K., Hutchinson, S.M. and Shi, C. (2003) ‘Development of sustainability indicators by communities in China: a case study of Chongming county, Shanghai’, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 68, No. 3, pp.253–261.

Bibliography Iankov, P. (2001) ‘Central Balkan national park management plan: 2001–2010’, in Water, M.o.E.a.

(Ed.): Ruling, Sofia, Bulgaria, Vol. 522, p.321. McCool, S.F. and Stankey, G.H. (2004) ‘Indicators of sustainability: challenges and opportunities

at the interface of science and policy’, Environmental Management, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.294–305.

Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism development 141

Sustainable Tourism and Natura 2000: Guidelines, Initiatives and Good Practices in Europe (2000) SECA publication of the European Commission, retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/nat2000/sust_tourism.pdf (accessed 13 May 2007).

Vaske, J., Gliner, J.A. and Morgan, G.A. (2002) ‘Communicating judgments about practical significance: effect size, confidence intervals and odds ratios’, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.287–300.

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford.