TOURISM AND OLDER RESIDENTSIN A SUNBELT RESORT

Renata TomljenovicBill Faulkner

Griffith University±Gold Coast, Australia

Abstract: The trend towards an aging population and prolonged life-span in Australia isre¯ected in the increased popularity of post-retirement migration to coastal communities.With the unprecedented growth of tourism in these areas, the question of how its impactaffects older residents is becoming increasingly important for the industry and urbanplanners. Intuitively, there are grounds for arguing that this population is more likely to benegatively impacted by tourism than younger residents. A survey of Gold Coast (Australia)residents was carried out to test this hypothesis. Contrary to expectations the resultsrevealed that older residents are generally as favorably disposed to tourism as their youngercounterparts. Keywords: social impacts, senior citizens, Gold Coast, Australia. # 1999 Else-vier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

ReÂsumeÂ: ReÂsumeÂ: Le tourisme et les habitants de troisieÁme aÃge dans des lieux de seÂjourd'une reÂgion ensoleilleÂe. La tendance vers une population vieillissante et une dureÂe de vieprolongeÂe en Australie est re¯eÂteÂe par une popularite croissante de la migration apreÁs laretraite aÁ des communauteÂs coÃtieÁres. Vu la croissance sans preÂceÂdent du tourisme dans cesreÂgions, ses effets sur les habitants de troisieÁme aÃge deviennent une question de plus en plusimportante pour l'industrie et pour les urbanistes. Il y a des raisons intuitives pour soutenirque le tourisme aura plus d'effets neÂgatifs sur la population vieillissante que sur leshabitants plus jeunes. Une enqueÃte parmi les habitants de la CoÃte-de-l'Or en Australie a miscette hypotheÁse aÁ l'eÂpreuve. Contrairement aÁ toute attente, les reÂsultats ont reÂveÂle que leshabitants plus aÃgeÂs eÂtaient aussi bien disposeÂs aÁ l'eÂgard du tourisme que leurs homologuesplus jeunes. Mots-cleÂs: impacts sociaux, troisieÁme aÃge, CoÃte-de-l'Or, Australie. # 1999 Else-vier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

Tourism is an emerging force in the Australian economy. In 1996,its contribution to GNP and national employment reached 5.6 and6.9%, respectively, while it accounted for 12.8% of total export earn-ings and thus became Australia's most important export industry(Commonwealth Department of Tourism 1996). With its increasedsigni®cance, however, destination communities in many parts ofAustralia have been required to cope with unprecedented in¯uxes of

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 93±114, 2000# 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain0160-7383/99/$20.00+0.00

Pergamon

PII: S0160-7383(99)00062-6www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

Renata Tomljenovic is a postgraduate student at Grif®th University±Gold Coast, (Schoolof Tourism and Hotel Management, PMB 50, GCMC 9725, QL., Australia, Email < r.tomljeno-vic@gu.edu.au>). Her research interests are in the areas of social impacts of tourism, socialcontact between hosts and guests, and cultural tourism. Bill Faulkner is Professor andDirector of Centre for Tourism and Hospitality Management Research at the same univer-sity. His current research interests are events tourism, social impacts of destination market-ing, demand forecasting, and strategic analysis.

93

tourists. Pressure on the adaptive capabilities of these communitieshas been accentuated by the fact that growth in tourism activity isconcentrated along the eastern seaboard, where population growthand urbanization are also most pronounced (Faulkner andWalmsley 1998). The Gold Coast in Southeast Queensland epitom-izes this situation in that this area stands out as both a major desti-nation and one of the fastest growing urban conurbations in thecountry (Stimson, Minnery, Kabamba and Moon 1996).

One of the principal factors contributing to the convergence ofrapid population growth and tourism development on the GoldCoast and elsewhere along the eastern seaboard has been retire-ment migration to the sunbelt (Rowland 1991). The same consider-ations that make coastal areas attractive for tourism developmentare driving the lifestyle choices of retirees. Given that the aging ofthe Australian population will accentuate this trend in the future, itis important that the planning and management of tourism becomesensitive to its impacts on older residents.

Older residents may also be particularly vulnerable to adverseimpacts of tourism. As a number of studies have shown, residentsare not a homogeneous group and their reaction to tourism is vari-able (Ap and Crompton 1993; Brougham and Butler 1981; Davis,Allen and Cosenza 1988; Husbands 1989; Millman and Pizam 1988).With the direct and indirect costs of this industry at a destinationbeing often borne by sectors of the community irrespective of thebene®ts derived, some sectors of the host community may be disad-vantaged by its development. Since most older residents are nolonger involved in the workforce and do not derive direct economicbene®ts from tourism, they are not in a position to trade off nega-tive impacts against pecuniary gains in the way postulated by socialexchange theory (Ap 1992). Also, since 25% of the retirees inAustralia live below the poverty line, with a further 22% in theincome category just above this level (Pinkerton-James 1992), theextent to which they can take advantage of the leisure-oriented life-style provided at destinations is limited. Further, it seems likelythat the decreased mobility and fragility accompanying the agingprocess, together with reduced incomes, will make older residentsmore readily disadvantaged by a range of negative impacts, such asincreased cost of living, traf®c congestion, fear of crime, and socialdisorder.

Despite the apparent potential for tourism to accentuate the dis-advantaged position of vulnerable groups such as the aged and theproliferation of research on the social impacts of tourism, littleattention has been given speci®cally to this group. This paper takesa step towards remedying this situation by exploring perceptions oftourism among older residents of Australia's Gold Coast.Speci®cally, the objectives of the study are to measure the percep-tions of, and the reactions to, tourism among the older residents ofthe Gold Coast; to compare these responses with those of theremainder of the Gold Coast population; and to explore the re-lationship between perceptions of tourism and strategies residents

TOURISM AND OLDER RESIDENTS94

adopt to cope with it. A framework is used which interprets socialimpacts of tourism in terms of their quality of life implications.Insights from Maslow's hierarchy of needs provide the basis for ela-borating the framework for analysis, while a selective review of theliterature relating to older residents or senior citizens in urban en-vironments is used as a basis for suggesting that they may be moresensitive to the impacts of tourism than other age groups.

TOURISM AND OLDER RESIDENTS

Traditionally, the social impacts of tourism have been de®nedpragmatically, with their arbitrary classi®cations often being in¯u-enced by the speci®c characteristics of the destination under study.The growing body of research on tourism's social impacts has thusbeen described as `exploratory in nature and primarily descriptive'(Ap 1992:660). Pearce, Moscardo and Ross (1996) have argued for asocial representations approach, whereby more emphasis is placedupon residents' own frame of reference derived from open-endedsurveys, rather than an approach involving pre-conceived schema.However, while the arguments for this approach have been convin-cingly articulated, it does not lend itself to studies where compari-sons of population segments within and between differentcommunities are the ultimate objective.

While a variety of schema for de®ning social impacts of tourismhave been employed (Latane 1981), the suggestion that this shouldencompass all aspects that impinge on the resident's quality of lifeis intuitively appealing (Crandall 1994; Mathieson and Wall 1982).If this quality is to be central to social impact assessment, it followsthat Maslow's hierarchy of human needs may provide a usefulframework for analysis (Sirgy 1986:331). Maslow (1970) structuredhuman needs in terms of ®ve hierarchically organized categories:physiological, safety, social, self-esteem and self-actualization.Physiological and safety needs, described as lower-order needs, aremore fundamental in the sense that they must be satis®ed beforehigher order needs can be addressed. Maslow's hierarchy of needshas been applied to the tourism ®eld previously in Mill andMorrison's (1985) motivation classi®cations. However, there hasbeen no attempt to use this model as a basis for classifying theimpacts of tourism on resident populations. The potential relation-ships between quality of life elements and tourism social impactsare classi®ed in Table 1. The left-hand column lists the need cat-egories and the tourism impacts are classi®ed in terms of their po-tential effect on the satisfaction of those needs. The right-handcolumn indicates labels commonly used to describe these impacts.

In the interpretation of Table 1, those listed in the center columnrefer to both positive and negative effects of tourism. Its in¯uenceon the provision of medical services, for instance, may be both posi-tive and negative. It is positive if the increased demand for servicesarising from the in¯ux of tourists pushes the threshold populationto a point that justi®es the provision of higher level services to a

TOMLJENOVIC AND FAULKNER 95

Table 1. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Affected by a Range of Tourism Impacts

Dimension Tourism impacts Category

Physiological (hunger, shelter,thirst, housing)

. Employment opportunities Economic

. Cost/standard of living

. Land/housing affordability

. Public funds for tourism promotionsSafety (physical andpsychological security)

. Emergency services Safety

. Medical services

. Adequacy of police force

. Road congestion/safety Accessibility

. Shopping facilities

. Congestion

. Overcrowding

. Queuing

. Violence Crime

. Burglaries

. Prostitution

. Gambling

. Personal/organized crime

. Illegal drugs

. Vandalism

. Alcohol abuse

. Pollution

. Congestion Environment

. Visual intrusion

. Litter

. Noise

. Over-crowding

. Population density

. Damage to natural environmentSocial (need for af®liation,friendship, belonging)

. Recreation opportunities (indoor/outdoor) Leisure

. Entertainment (availability of shopping/restaurants/cinemas/attractions). Friend/relatives interaction Social. Neighbors interaction. Contact with visitors. Mutual con®dence among people. Understanding different people. Courtesy and hospitality towards strangers. Migration/demographic changes. Traditional way of life Socio-cultural. Traditional culture. Concern for only material gains. Value change (honesty, morality, customs, morals). Satisfaction with community life. Demonstration effect

Self-esteem (need forachievement, success,recognition)

. Opportunities for economic gains Economic(achievementstatus)

. In¯uence in tourism decisions

. Demonstration effect

. Pride in area's ability to attract visitors Sociocultural

. Cultural identity (vs culture commodi®cation)Self-actualization (need forcreativity, self-expression,achieving one's potential)

. Cultural exchange (host as a culture broker) Socio-cultural

. Life enrichment through mixing with differentculures

TOURISM AND OLDER RESIDENTS96

community. On the other hand, this in¯ux might result in demandexceeding the capacity of local services and, as a consequence, thehost population's access to them could be detrimentally affected.

The application of Maslow's model has the potential to resolvesome complexities of residents' reactions to tourism, which have notbeen fully appreciated in the past. For instance, when consideringthe sociocultural impacts of tourism, one can identify these as ran-ging from positive changes, such as enrichment through mixingwith different people and cultures, to negative changes, whichinclude disruption of value systems or the traditional way of life.Although residents often perceive tourism as having negative socialconsequences, many may conclude that its economic bene®ts out-weigh the social costs (King, Pizam and Milman 1993). While SocialExchange Theory (Ap 1992) describes the underlying rationale forthis response, it fails to explain why economic considerations pre-vail. Maslow's model explains this by indicating that social impactsoperate within the higher-order needs, which are `dispensable luxu-ries when compared with food and shelter' (Maslow 1970:98). Theeconomic bene®ts, as noted earlier, provide for the satisfaction ofmore central and dominant, lower-order needs. Therefore, residentsare motivated to support tourism even though they perceive somenegative social consequences arising from this activity. The factthat these impacts are less fundamental in determining their qual-ity of life means that they are tolerated. Alternatively, as Faulknerand Tideswell (1997) have speculated in an earlier study of GoldCoast resident reactions to tourism, altruism among residents mayresult in their tolerating negative consequences on their quality oflife because they see more generalized community bene®ts being de-rived from this industry.

The application of Maslow's model enables one to conceptualizeimpacts in terms of their centrality and relevance to the individual'sset of needs and motivations. While the examples outlined abovesupport the idea that they are hierarchically organized according totheir importance to the satisfaction of basic needs, they also implythat these impacts vary within and among communities, with vari-ations in residents' exposure to, perceptions of, and reactions to,tourism. On the basis of a synthesis of theory and research,Faulkner and Tideswell (1997) identi®ed two broad dimensions forstructuring the analysis of tourism impacts: extrinsic and intrinsic.The former refers to the destination characteristics and is operatio-nalized in terms of such variables as level of development, touristtype, tourist ratio, and seasonality. The latter refers to the charac-teristics of the host population, such as level of involvement withthe industry, socioeconomic characteristics, residential proximity tofoci of tourism activity, and the period of residence, and is re¯ectedin variations in the response to this development within the commu-nity. In light of the central interest in contrasting responses to tour-ism within the Gold Coast community at this stage, the intrinsicdimension is of primary relevance to the current study.

TOMLJENOVIC AND FAULKNER 97

The framework for the study involves an amalgamation ofinsights drawn from Maslow's hierarchy of needs and the intrinsicdimension already identi®ed. Thus, it is suggested that, while per-ceptions of impacts will be organized according to their effect onresidents' quality of life, as de®ned by Maslow's schema of needs,variations in these perceptions are expected to be related to intrin-sic characteristics such as involvement in tourism, socioeconomiccharacteristics, residential proximity to tourist activity, and periodof residence. This study focuses speci®cally on one aspect of thesocioeconomic factors that might have a bearing on reaction to tour-ism: the age or stage in the lifecycle.

Dimensions of Impacts on Older Residents

While the nature of old age is a socially constructed and relativeconcept (Wiles 1987), for the purpose of this study, older residentsare de®ned as those 65 years. This crude and largely arbitrarymeasure is convenient, because it is the age when people areentitled to the aged pension in Australia and many retire at thispoint. However, it should be recognized that old age can potentiallyspan a period of 20±30 years, during which people experience majorchanges in their lives, such as loss of work, widowhood, modi®edincome, and deteriorating health. Thus, as Rowland (1991:10) hasstressed, a distinguishing feature of the older population is its diver-sity, and appreciating this is a necessity for effective planning. Onthe basis of the interpretation of Maslow's hierarchy (Table 1), sev-eral tourism in¯uences can be identi®ed.

Economic Impacts. A linkage between involvement (and non-invol-vement) in the tourism industry and reactions to its impacts hasbeen observed, with those dependent on it for their livelihood tend-ing to be more positively disposed (Ap 1992; Brougham and Butler1981; Milman and Pizam 1988; Pizam 1978; Rothman 1978;Thomason, Crompton and Dan Kamp 1979). Since the elderly aregenerally retired, and thus unlikely to bene®t economically fromtourism, they might be expected to be less inclined to see bene®tsto compensate for negative impacts. However, there is a possibilitythat their involvement in the pre-retirement period will have a lin-gering effect on the trade-offs made in coping with tourism impacts.On the basis of their study of Darwin residents, Bastias-Peres andVar (1995) suggest that previous employment in tourism should betaken into account in assessing residents' reactions to the industry,while Ross's (1991) study of older residents in Cairns found thatthose whose friends and relatives work in tourism are much morepositive in their evaluation of its impacts.

Crime and Safety. While there are different types of crime, in thiscontext crime refers to the perceived level of threat from criminalactivity, as well as the perceived impact on the moral ®bre of thecommunity of such activities as gambling, drunkenness, prostitu-

TOURISM AND OLDER RESIDENTS98

tion, and vandalism. Safety refers to the provision of emergency ser-vices (police, ®re, or ambulance) as well as impacts on the provisionof medical services or hospital care. Although evidence suggeststhat older residents are least likely to become victims of crime(Clarke 1989; Pinkerton-James 1992), research carried out on thisgroup supports the idea that fear of crime among them is high, es-pecially when it comes to personal safety, theft and householdcrimes (Clark, Adler and Adler 1983; Jones 1987). Fear of crimeadversely affects the quality of life, impacting upon general levels ofhealth, social isolation, restricted lifestyle, and premature admissionto residential care (Pinkerton-James 1992). However, in highlightingthe ambiguities surrounding the notion of `fear of crime', Jones(1987) stressed that the anxiety linked with the fear of becoming avictim must be distinguished from the assessment of crime as asocial problem. In Jones's survey, a relatively low proportion (13%)of older people cited crime as their biggest worry, while 40% per-ceived that crime is the biggest concern of their neighbors. Thissuggests that people are often concerned about crime as a socialproblem, while personally having little fear of becoming a crime vic-tim.

The effects of anti-social behaviors, such as alcohol and drugabuse, vandalism or general rudeness, are also likely to be a concernto older people, as they suggest the changes in the social ®bre ofthe community which highlight the lost values of the past (Eve andEve 1984). However, tourism is only one of many agents of changein the structure of the community, and residents may be able tomake distinctions between those changes associated with this indus-try and those caused by rapid population growth and urbanization.On the other hand, provision of emergency services, adequacy ofmedical care, and police protection may be important to the feelingof safety of the population in general, and more so to the older citi-zens. These elements appear to re¯ect urban population growth,rather than tourism (Allen, Long, Perdue and Kieselbach 1988;Ross 1992). Nevertheless, to the extent that older people are moreconcerned about the provision of these services, their opinionsmight differ from the rest of the population. There are some indi-cations that the health and social services on the Gold Coast do nothave the capacity to handle the increased demands during the peaktourism season (Evenis, Splatt and Tomljenovic 1995:35; Gold CoastBulletin 1993:7; Gold Coast Bulletin 1994:15).

Environment. It has been suggested that the quality of the resi-dential environment is especially important to the elderly, sincethey spend more time at home than any other age group and theyare likely to attach greater signi®cance and meaning to this aspectof their surroundings (Bond 1990:200). This highlights the need todistinguish the immediate environment of a person (street, neigh-borhood) from the broader regional one (such as general appear-ance of the region, degradation of the natural assets, air and waterpollution). According to Burdge (1994), impacts that are commonly

TOMLJENOVIC AND FAULKNER 99

associated with tourism and which concern older residents in par-ticular include changes in the visual environment, noise, and pol-lution. These impacts affect their quality of life and often result inthem developing coping strategies, such as changing their daily rou-tine and movement patterns.

Accessibility and Leisure. Because they may be free of work-relatedconstraints, older residents have more opportunities to engage inleisure-oriented activities. Tourism often exerts a positive in¯uenceon the provision of recreational facilities and the range of shopping,restaurant, and entertainment facilities for the enjoyment of bothresidents and tourists. However, access to these services and facili-ties might be adversely affected by traf®c congestion and queuingeffects, which may require residents to change their patterns ofmovement. In addition, traf®c congestion impinges upon access toservices, and in itself creates hazards that can potentially impactphysical safety and act as a deterrent to the utilization of servicesand facilities.

Sociocultural Impacts. Since the values they grew up with areoften in con¯ict with modern lifestyles, the elderly may ®nd socialchange to be disturbing (Coleman 1990:108). To the extent thattourists are perceived as either the embodiment or forerunners ofchange, they may develop negative attitudes towards the industry.In an earlier Gold Coast study by Faulkner and Tideswell (1997),elderly residents were found to be least inclined to agree with state-ments suggesting that tourism has made the town a more interest-ing place to live and that tourists enrich the culture of the area.However this may indicate, that the increasing diversity and changeassociated with tourism has, perhaps overextended the capacity ofolder people to adjust. Furthermore, reactions may be in¯uenced byxenophobic hangovers from World War II, with Asian visitors(Japanese in particular), being not so readily tolerated by those whoexperienced it. Revisiting the earlier categorization (Table 1), theareas where impacts might be expected to be signi®cant are insocial dimension, including value change and especially changes inmorality, interaction with friends and relatives or neighbors, andcross-cultural exchange as it threatens local culture and lifestyles.

Length of Residence. A signi®cant proportion of the Gold Coast'srecent population growth is attributable to inter-state migration.Indeed, it has been estimated that up to 50% of the area's popu-lation have migrated from elsewhere (Stimpson, Minnery, Kabambaand Moon 1996).

Although the decision to undertake a long-distance relocation isstill a minority choice among the older residents, it is predicted togrow, as a consequence of increase in the pool of potential migrantsassociated with the trend towards early retirement (Murphy 1992).As revealed in other Australian studies, the main motivations formoving were reported to be climate, personal or family member

TOURISM AND OLDER RESIDENTS100

health, and lifestyle (Drysdale 1991; Murphy 1981, 1992; Murphyand Zehner 1988). Social impacts research elsewhere has found thatretirees who moved in search of peace and tranquillity are morenegatively disposed towards tourism (Rotham 1978; Brougham andButler 1981). However, most Australian retirees have previous ex-perience with their retirement destination, through holidays andsecond-home ownership (Murphy and Zehner 1988) and, accord-ingly, they have some prior knowledge of the impacts of tourism ontheir new residential environment. Stimson et al (1996) found that78% of recent migrants to the Gold Coast had visited the areabefore and 90% were happy with their move. They felt better offeconomically and reported a higher degree of happiness than beforethe move. This is even more so for those that moved for lifestylereasons. Further, retiree migrants may be more likely to be adapt-able than the rest of the older population (Murphy and Zehner1988). For those that age in situ, it is speculated that they have hadtime to adjust effectively by virtue of their prolonged exposure tothe effects of tourism. However, these residents might also be moresensitive to the changes tourism has brought into their community.

Place of Residence. A majority of elderly residents on the GoldCoast are concentrated in the established coastal suburbs (ABS1991), which are also zones of high tourism activity. Therefore,these residents are more exposed to possible negative aspects, suchas noise, litter, crime, and traf®c congestion, and might be expectedto have negative perceptions of the industy as a consequence. Whilefor some, the negative effects may be moderated by the tourismzone's attractive provision of leisure and other facilities, it is likelythat a combination of factors in¯uence their choice of residency inthese areas. Since the zones offer a wider range of shops, medical,and social support services within walking distance than the newerresidential areas, residents may choose to live here in anticipationof declined mobility in older age. This suggests a trade-off betweenleisure/accessibility considerations and the safety/crime and en-vironmental dimensions.

In addition, the concentration of older people in the coastal areasmay be due to the cohort aging. That is, over time, suburban subdi-visions will see an increase in the proportion of retirees simplybecause residents age in situ (Laws 1993). Since many of the coastalresidential areas were established in the 1960 s and early 1970 sand were largely populated at that time by young families, many ofthe residents who have remained would be retired, or approachingretirement age by now. Furthermore, if the idea that `individualwell-being is at least partially a function of attachment to place'(Laws 1994: 1791), the inertia of this attachment might outweighany inconveniences associated with tourism that might otherwiseencourage them to relocate. Although the preceding discussionsuggests a complex array of variable factors and considerationsin¯uencing older residents' reaction to tourism individually, thisstudy hypothesized that, in general, their perceptions will be more

TOMLJENOVIC AND FAULKNER 101

negative towards tourism than those of the remainder of the popu-lation. Since they are unlikely to bene®t directly economically, nega-tive impacts will have a disproportionate bearing on their overallevaluation of tourism's in¯uence on their community.

Study Methods

The main purpose of this study, as already noted, is to investigatethe perceptions of, and reactions to, tourism among the older resi-dents of the Gold Coast and, in this process, to test the propositionoutlined above. As the most effective means of collecting the datarequired to address these objectives is by directly approaching resi-dents themselves, a survey of Gold Coast community was conducted.While the focus of the study is older residents, the introduction of acontrol group was necessary in order to enable those impacts oftourism typical to theirs to be distinguished from those that affectthe population in general. A survey instrument for face-to-faceinterview was designed, comprising ®ve sections: demographic ques-tions (including residential history, employment history, and invol-vement in tourism); perceptions of socioeconomic impacts oftourism; perceptions of the resulting environment and leisureimpacts; behavioral adjustment to the industry; and questionsregarding the mobility and general well-being of the older residents.

A battery of 36 perceptual statements was adopted from Faulknerand Tideswell's (1997) earlier Gold Coast Study, with modi®cationsbeing made to include dimensions of the impacts considered likelyto be more central to the quality of life of older residents.Respondents were asked to answer each statement in terms of a 5-point Likert-type scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree). Thesurvey instrument was pretested and a pilot-study of 50 householdswas carried out for the purpose of further testing and re®ning thequestionnaire. Interviewers indicated the need to reduce the num-ber of perceptual statements, and those attracting a large pro-portion of `no opinion' or reactions (suggesting they were dif®cult tounderstand) were excluded from the ®nal questionnaire. A target of400 interviews was set for the main survey, with half of those beingolder residents.

In the absence of a sample frame speci®cally for older residents,a strati®ed, random, cluster sampling approach was adopted. Itsframe was de®ned as all households in the Gold Coast region southof Coomera, using the Australian Bureau of Statistics CensusCollectors' Districts as the basis for structuring the sample. Sincethis source contains a similar number of households, each householdhas equal probability of being selected. The Census Collectors'Districts were aggregated into ten zones of equal size, which weredivided further into tourism (within 4 km of tourism activity con-centrations, where accommodation, attractions, and/or theme parksare located) and non-tourism districts. Six zones, mostly along thecoastal strip, were classi®ed as tourism and four as non-tourism.The sample households, in clusters of ®ve, were chosen using a ran-

TOURISM AND OLDER RESIDENTS102

dom number generator. Such large clusters were necessary to maxi-mize the chances of locating older person households. Interviewerswere instructed to survey at most two control group respondents ineach cluster. Once they located their quota of the control groupwithin a cluster, they were required to interview only older residentsin the remainder of the cluster. Households were informed aboutthe study in advance by letter, and vacant residences were visited atleast three times before interviewers were referred to a replacementhousehold.

In total, 570 households were approached and 370 interviews com-pleted. Of these, 169 involved older residents and the balance (201)were the control group. Thus, a response rate of 64% was achieved,although a relatively high proportion (23%) of households wereexcluded because they were either absent at the time interviewerscalled, or not suitable in cases where the control group quota hadbeen exhausted. The actual refusal rate was only 10%.

Study Findings

Principal components analysis with orthogonal (Varimax) ro-tation was used to summarize responses. The data did not entirelysatisfy the assumptions of normality, with 13 out of 36 variablesbeing either positively or negatively skewed. This was an expectedoutcome of the 5-point Likert response scale and, as a consequence,the solution may be weakened by the lowered correlation and multi-variate non-linearity. However, the measure of sampling adequacyachieved was 0.87 and this is considered satisfactory (Hair,Anderson, Tatham and Black 1995). One of the items Ð `tourismmakes local residents more friendly and courteous' Ð was deletedfrom the ®nal solution due to its low sampling adequacy (0.55) andthe fact that this item was not critical theoretically. Of the 370cases, 15 were removed from the factor analysis due to missingdata.

Nine factors extracted by the principal components analysis,including factor loadings, communalities (h2), % of variance, andmeasure of reliability of factors (Cronbach Alpha) were considered(Table 2). A factor loading cut off of 0.40 was adopted for the in-clusion of variables in the interpretation of a factor and, as theresult of this, only two variables did not load on any factor Ð`Tourism has resulted in a greater range of outdoor and indoor rec-reational facilities for me to enjoy' and `because of tourism, GoldCoast is less polluted than other big cities'. Two variables in the sol-ution, `increased crime/social problems' and `visitors are an intru-sion on my lifestyle', were complex (that is, were included in morethan one factor). As Table 2 indicates, the nine factors accountedfor 55.3% of variance, with the ®rst three factors exhibiting accepta-ble alpha levels and accounting for 21.4, 8.5, and 5.3% of all var-iance respectively. The remaining factors each accounted for arelatively small proportion of variability and have lower than accep-table internal consistency. Even though this suggests that the latter

TOMLJENOVIC AND FAULKNER 103

factors may be unstable, they are nevertheless worth considerationby virtue of their thematic consistency. Furthermore, Hair et al(1996) have observed that, in situations where the sample is nothomogeneous, the later factors are more powerful discriminatorsbetween the different groups because the higher order factors showthe highest consistency. Given the sampling strategy, which isspeci®cally designed to capture the responses of contrasting groups,such as older versus the rest, the sample obtained is relatively het-erogeneous. An interpretation of individual factors is contained inthe analysis of the hypothesis.

It has been hypothesized that older people evaluate tourism morenegatively because they are no longer in a position to bene®t econ-

Table 2. Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation

Factor F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 h2

Increased litter on our streets 0.79 0.67Overcrowded beaches/recreational areas 0.64 0.59Traf®c congestion/parking dif®culties 0.60 0.45Tourism damaged natural environment 0.59 0.52Crowded shops and restaurants 0.56 0.56Increased cost of living 0.53 0.51Tourism causing queues/delays inthe provision of services

0.50 0.44

Increased crime/social problems 0.43 0.43 0.52Important economic bene®ts 0.72 0.60Creates employment opportunities 0.59 0.47Public funding is awaste of ratepayers' money

ÿ0.54 0.57

Economic bene®ts of tourismare overrated

ÿ0.47 0.54

Use of public fundsfor tourism promotion is justi®ed

0.45 0.56

Servicing international tourists underminesour culture

0.58 0.45

Excessive concern about material gains 0.55 0.44Further tourism development willdisadvantage community

0.55 0.57

Visitors are intrusion onmy lifestyle

0.43 0.41 0.52

Visitors enrich the cultureof the area

ÿ0.64 0.55

My neighborhood noisier/congested 0.57 0.52I do not feel safe 0.55 0.62Attract domestic rather thaninternational tourists

0.41 0.53

Better police/emergency services 0.61 0.53Tourism facilities improved my neighbourhood 0.61 0.54Tourism makes me proudto be GC resident

0.54 0.49

Tourism contributed to preservationof natural assets

0.45 0.62

Tourism made authorities moreconscious about need to maintain environment

0.76 0.70

Tourism facilities improved the GC 0.57 0.53I like to see/meettourists to the GC

0.81 0.69

Tourism made GC more interesting/exciting 0.45 0.54Not enough police tocope with tourism related crimes

0.76 0.64

Hospitals/doctors could not cope 0.66 0.59Improved quality of medical services 0.67 0.62GC residents have greaterrange of choice in shops/restaurants

0.48 0.53

Per cent of variance 21.4 8.4 5.3 3.9 3.6 3.5 3.3 3 3Cumulative percentage 21.4 29.8 35.1 38.9 42.5 46.1 49.3 52.3 55.3Cronbach Alpha 0.80 0.70 0.66 0.52 0.56 0.49 0.56 0.54 0.22

TOURISM AND OLDER RESIDENTS104

omically from this activity and are thus, less inclined to trade offnegative impacts in their overall evaluation of it. In order to assessthe differences between the residents according to their age, aseries of t-tests on the mean factor scores was utilized (Table 3).

Table 3. Overall Difference Between the Older and Younger Residents

Percent agreea

Factor Overall < 65 > 65 t-value

Factor 1: Adverse environmental accessibility impacts

Increased litter on our streets 48 44 53

Overcrowded beaches/recreational areas 37 40 33

Traf®c congestion/parking dif®culties 74 72 77

Tourism damaged natural environment 45 50 38

Crowded shops and restaurants 20 21 20

Increased cost of living 36 36 35

Tourism causing queues/delays in the provision of services 32 33 29

Increased crime/social problems 61 55 68

Mean Factor Score ÿ0.059 0.078 ÿ1.22

Factor 2: Economic bene®ts

Important economic bene®ts 93 94 92

Creates employment opportunities 93 93 93

Public funding is a waste of ratepayers' money 22 17 28

Economic bene®ts of tourism are overrated 34 32 36

Use of public funds for tourism promotion is justi®ed 76 77 75

Mean Factor Score ÿ0.167 0.199 ÿ3.50b

Factor 3: Negative social impact

Servicing international visitors undermines our culture 13 16 9

Excessive concern about material gains 33 33 34

Further tourism development will disadvantage community 15 12 19

Visitors are intrusion on my lifestyle 12 12 11

Mean Factor Score ÿ0±5 0±6 ÿ0.11

Factor 4: Adverse neighborhood and safety impacts

Visitors enrich the culture of the area 64 60 62

My neighborhood noisier/congested 17 12 20

I do not feel safe 15 11 20

Attract domestic rather than international visitors 55 54 56

Mean Factor Score 0.109 ÿ0.129 2.25b

Factor 5: Unde®ned

Better police/emergency services 32 32 32

Tourism facilities improved my neighbourhood 28 29 26

Tourism makes me proud to be GC resident 52 51 52

Tourism contributed to preservation of natural assets 51 49 57

Mean Factor Score ÿ0.053 0.063 ÿ1.09

Factor 6: Positive environmental impacts

Tourism made authorities more conscious about need to maintain environment 87 86 87

Tourism facilities improved the GC 72 73 73

Mean Factor Score 0.096 ÿ0.115 2.00b

Factor 7: Positive social impacts

I like to see/meet visitors to the GC 73 74 71

Tourism made GC more interesting/exciting 81 83 77

Mean Factor Score 0.043 ÿ0.057 0.88

Factor 8: Adverse impacts on safety

Not enough police to cope with tourism related crimes 78 72 86

Hospitals/doctors could not cope 52 43 63

Mean Factor Score 0.227 ÿ0.271 4.801b

Factor 9: Unde®ned

Improved quality of medical services 19 20 19

GC residents have greater range of choice in shops/restaurants 92 92 92

Mean Factor Score 0.028 ÿ0.034 0.59

a Response of either 1 or 2 on 5-point Likert scale.b t < 0.05.

TOMLJENOVIC AND FAULKNER 105

The ®rst factor has been labeled `Adverse environmental andaccessibility impacts', as it incorporates items relating to litter, en-vironmental degradation, crowding of beaches, parks, shops, andrestaurants, and queues and delays in provision of services.However, the examination of the raw scores reveals that, apartfrom the increased traf®c/parking problems and increased levels ofsocial problems (where 74% and 61% agree, respectively), there islack of consensus among the Gold Coast residents on the adverseeffects of tourism. The apparent ambivalence towards possible lin-kages between this activity and environmental degradation or thecrowding of recreational areas may indicate that they are either lessconcerned about these impacts or are able to distinguish impactscaused by population growth from those caused by tourism. Overall,there were no signi®cant differences between the older and youngerrespondents on the ®rst factor.

In contrast to Factor 1, where there is overall ambivalence aboutadverse impacts on the environment and accessibility, Factor 2 fea-tures strong agreement with statements emphasizing the economicbene®ts. The majority of respondents agree that tourism brings im-portant economic and employment bene®ts (both 93%) and thinkthat public funding for its promotion is justi®ed (76%). As might beexpected, agreement with the corresponding negative statements isrelatively low. Even though a majority of residents acknowledge theeconomic bene®ts, there is a signi®cant difference between the twoage groups on these mean factor scores. Older residents tend toevaluate these impacts less positively than the younger age group.In particular, there is a slightly higher tendency among the olderresidents to agree that using public funds for promotion is a wasteof ratepayers' money. Given the limited income of the majority ofthe older residents, many may prefer public wealth to be spent onthe services more directly relevant to their needs. There is also apossibility that, as hypothesized at the outset, the older residents'responses are affected by their disengagement from the paid work-force. Since they are no longer deriving bene®ts from engagementin economic activity and no longer have a stake (directly or in-directly) in the economic bene®ts arising from tourism activity, theymay be less inclined to support the diversion of public funding itspromotion. This will be especially so if such funding is perceived tobe at the expense of the provision of other services.

Items relating to the adverse social and cultural effects haveloaded on Factor 3, which has accordingly been labeled `negativesociocultural impacts'. A majority of the residents disagree thathosting foreign tourists threatens the culture and that they intrudeupon their lifestyle. Furthermore, in spite of the current intensity oftourism activity, they generally disagree that further developmentshould be discouraged. A slightly higher proportion of residents (butstill a minority) do think, however, that tourism encourages localresidents to be excessively concerned about material gains (33%).Contrary to expectations, age did not in¯uence the response. Infact, older residents are even more tolerant towards the presence of

TOURISM AND OLDER RESIDENTS106

foreign tourists than their younger counterparts, with only 9% per-ceiving that hosting international visitors threatens their culture(compared with 16% of the control group).

Factor 4 has some confusing elements. On the one hand, olderand younger residents have similar views on questions relating tocultural aspects of tourism. However, their views appear to be con-tradictory in that over 60% in both groups agree that tourists enrichthe culture of the Gold Coast, but over 50% agree that domestic,rather than international, they should be attracted. Some respon-dents indicated that preferring domestic tourists re¯ected a com-mon perception that the ®nancial gain associated with internationaltourism is repatriated to foreign owners of indistry infrastructure.It is also believed that, by attracting domestic tourists who mightotherwise travel abroad, the Gold Coast can reduce the leakage dol-lars from the Australian economy.

There is a signi®cant difference in mean factor score according tothe age of the respondents. The main areas where the views ofolder vary from younger residents involve noise levels and safety ofneighborhoods. While a relatively small proportion of both groupsagree on the adverse impact in these respects, older residents aremore inclined to see this as a problem. Therefore, this factor hasbeen labeled `Adverse neighborhood and safety impacts'. Althoughthe later factors account for a small percentage of variability andare unstable, it is worth noting the extent to which they discrimi-nate between younger and older residents. According to factorscores, the latter are more likely to evaluate tourism's contributionto the maintenance of the Gold Coast and the improvement of theappearance of the region more highly than the former (Factor 6).However, raw response data suggest that there is not much differ-ence in percentage of agreement between the two age groups.Factor 8 is signi®cant as it highlights the concerns of older residentswith the adequacy of police and medical services. The majority ofrespondents agree (78%) with the suggestion that police resourcescannot cope with increased demands associated with tourism, and ahigher proportion of senior citizen express this concern (86%, com-pared with 72% of the youth). It has been acknowledged that thepolice force in the region `often does not have resources to meet thecompeting, yet equally important, needs of the central business dis-tricts and an adjacent large residential area' (Blazevic 1996:10) andthe high agreement suggests that the residents are well aware ofthis problem. Further, a majority of older population (63%) regardtourism as resulting in over-extended health services, while only43% of younger respondents agree.

In summary, Gold Coast residents evaluate tourism positively andthe majority are tolerant towards the presence of tourists. There isa tendency to acknowledge its positive economic contribution anddeny that this industry is associated with negative socioculturalimpacts, while responses to suggestions that negative environmentalimpacts occur are ambivalent at best. This ambivalence may be dueto variations in the degree to which residents are exposed to the

TOMLJENOVIC AND FAULKNER 107

negative impacts, or to the tendency of some to attribute theseimpacts to the urban growth rather than tourism. On the otherhand, residents are especially concerned about its impacts on crimeand social disorder, traf®c congestion, parking dif®culties, and theinadequacy of the police to cope with the tourism-related problems.The response of the older residents mirrors these trends, but thereis notably higher agreement among the older residents with sugges-tions that tourism is associated with crime and personal safety pro-blems, and that it causes police and health services to be stretchedbeyond their capacity. In general, however, the differences in the re-sponses of older residents and the control group are minimal and,in many instances, contrary to expectations. Therefore, the hypoth-esis that, older residents are generally more negatively disposedtowards tourism is rejected.

The extent to which residents are impacted by the industry canalso be assessed by examining the strategies residents adopt to copewith it. Ap and Crompton (1993) suggested a continuum of copingstrategies, from embracement, tolerance, adjustment, and withdra-wal, through to resistance. The sample's responses to statementsreferring to the behavioral patterns described in Ap andCrompton's continuum are presented in Table 4.

The overall positive perceptions of its impacts among the GoldCoast residents is re¯ected in their adjustment to presence of tour-ists. A majority of the respondents tolerate tourism because of itseconomic importance (77%), while a further 6% would like to seemore expansion of it. Given the high percentage of people who as-sociate traf®c problems with tourism, it is to be expected that arelatively high proportion of the residents would report the need toadjust their daily routine in order to avoid the related crowding.However, only 8.4% reported adjustment of their daily activities,while only 1.9% leave town in the peak season. Likewise, only 0.6%of the respondents agree with the proposition that further develop-ment will disadvantage the community and should be discouraged.These measures indicate that the majority of residents have devel-oped a tolerance. Their recognition of tourism's economic contri-bution predisposes them to accommodate some of the downside

Table 4. Resident Reactions to Tourists Presence

Percent AgreeCoping strategy Statement Overall < 65 > 65

Embracement I love tourist. Bring more 6.2 6.7 5.7Tolerance Tourism is good for the local economy, so I

tolerate hassles associated with it77.4 72.4 83

Adjustment I have to readjust my daily schedule to avoidtourist crowd

8.4 9.8 6.9

Avoidance I leave town in peak season to avoid the tourists 1.9 2.5 1.3Resistance I dislike tourism. If I could, I would stop

tourists coming to the Gold Coast0.6 1.2 0

TOURISM AND OLDER RESIDENTS108

effects apparently without resentment. While the comparison ofolder and younger residents' responses reveals similar patterns, theolder group exhibits a slightly higher level of tolerance and are lessinclined to adjust their daily schedule to avoid crowding effects.

CONCLUSION

With the increased intensity of tourism development along theeastern seaboard of Australia, coupled with the fast rate of urbaniz-ation in this area, the likelihood of local communities experiencingits negative impacts has increased. The aging of the Australianpopulation in general has combined with sunbelt retirement mi-gration to increase the concentration of older residents in manyrapidly-growing destinations. Therefore, it is apparent, that itsimpact on this group is an important emerging issue in the planningand management of tourism development. The aim of this studywas to explore the extent to which older residents' perceptions of,and reactions to, tourism differ from that of other residents and, inparticular, to establish whether or not the limited income andreduced levels of health and mobility of this group make them moresusceptible to being adversely affected by the industry. The GoldCoast was considered an ideal location for a case study. It is amature destination, with a possibility that some of the negativeeffects of mass tourism are likely to be experienced by the localcommunity. Moreover, it has an above-average proportion of olderresidents, many of whom have moved to the region after beingattracted by the same attributes that make the area such a populardestination.

The investigation was founded on the premise that older peoplehave a number of characteristics that make them more susceptibleto the negative impacts of tourism. Employing Maslow's hierarchyof needs, it was speculated that the impacts will be most noticeableamong the lower-order needs, related to economic considerations,safety, and health-related factors. In particular, it was suggestedthat the retirees' limited income and non-dependence on tourismwould make them more conscious of increased costs of living associ-ated with it and more critical of its impacts in general. Likewise, itwas considered that the range of intrinsic variables identi®ed in pre-vious studies as having an effect on the residents' response to tour-ism will be equally important among the older age segment. It wassuggested that older people will be more sensitive to the sociocul-tural changes caused by tourism since this would indicate undesir-able changes in social structure, and that the changes inenvironment and the detrimental impact on accessibility of servicesand facilities will cause them to adopt alternative patterns in theirdaily routine.

On most of these matters, however, the response of older resi-dents was contrary to expectations. In fact, they proved to be evenmore favorably disposed towards tourism than their youngercounterparts. In particular, they were more tolerant about the pre-

TOMLJENOVIC AND FAULKNER 109

sence of international tourists and less concerned with the adverseenvironmental impacts than the younger residents. While there wasa tendency among the older residents to perceive tourism's econ-omic contribution slightly less favorably, the differences were largelya matter of degree, rather than the direction of agreement. On theother hand, the results highlight a higher level of sensitivity amongolder residents on the issues related to crime, safety, and disturb-ance in their immediate neighborhoods. However, it should bestressed that only a small proportion of them (20%) attributed thethreat to their safety to tourism, while the crime and social pro-blems are also high on the agenda of the younger age group. Theonly statement where there is ambivalence among the youth, butconsensus among the senior residents, is in relation to the capacityof the health and police services to handle increased demand causedby tourism. There is some evidence that this pressure is real, as thepolice force is stretched in an attempt to satisfy both the demandsof destinations and those of adjacent residential areas, while elderlytourists are causing pressure on health services (Weston 1993:4). Ingeneral, older residents revealed an appreciation of the bene®ts oftourism which was little different from their younger counterparts.Even though a relatively large proportion of respondents attributedtraf®c congestion, increased crime, and social problems, and strainson police and health services to tourism, they are able to accommo-date these negative effects without resentment.

Intrinsic factors other than age (involvement in tourism, residen-tial location, and duration of residence) have been acknowledged asbeing potentially relevant to variations in reactions to tourismwithin communities. A useful extension of the research described inthis paper might thus be to isolate the relative in¯uence of thesevariables. This has already been done by Tomljenovic (1996), whorevealed that residential location, or proximity to tourist concen-tration, stands out as the only factor that produces substantiallydifferent responses. Older residents in the tourism zone are moreconcerned about its effect on health and police services than theircounterparts elsewhere.

The fact that many of the proposed expectations are not sup-ported in this study may re¯ect de®ciencies in the understanding ofthe aging process. Jones, Sloane and Alexander (1992) stressed thatit is society that has de®ned people as old and different, while agedpeople themselves perceive their own aging as a gradual process ina broader continuum. In addition, Coleman (1990) highlighted thefact that the high life-satisfaction reported by older residents, evenas they go through major, often unwanted changes (loss of work orspouse, decreased income, health deterioration) re¯ects a high levelof resilience and adaptability to life's changes. This study revealsthat older people are coping effectively with tourism on the GoldCoast. This may in part be due to the resilience and adaptabilityreferred to, but it may also be a re¯ection of the ability of long-term residents to adjust over an extended period of living with tour-ism and selective migration among shorter-term residents. It

TOURISM AND OLDER RESIDENTS110

appears that the latter group has migrated to the Gold Coast witha good understanding of the lifestyle and conditions of the area.

The ®ndings of this study are encouraging to the extent theyreveal that older residents have adapted to tourism on the GoldCoast and are, in general, not particularly vulnerable to negativeimpacts. As with the remainder of the population, many of theinconveniences associated with tourism are tolerated by older resi-dents and these seem to be regarded as being costs which are out-weighed by the bene®ts of tourism. There are, however, some areasof particular concern to older residents which may result in theirbeing disadvantaged unless some remedial action is taken. Most im-portant, the perception that medical facilities are overloadedbecause of tourists suggests that the impact of the industry on thelevel of demand for health services should be examined with a viewto establishing whether or not adequate provision is made for thisadditional demand in the allocation of health sector resources tothe Coast. Similar perceptions regarding police services suggestthat an evaluation of policy on the allocation of more resources isalso necessary. It is possible that both of these concerns are linkedwith reduced support for the diversion of ratepayers funds for tour-ism promotion. Many who see the industry as being partly respon-sible for de®ciencies in health and police services might disagreewith public support for its promotion funding because they believethat these funds ought to be used to upgrade health and police ser-vices. Given that the funding of police, health services and requiredtourism promotion come from different sources, it is unlikely thatsuch a trade-off exists. These considerations indicate scope forfurther research on these linkages and their policy implications.&

REFERENCES

Allen, L. R., P. T. Long, R. R. Perdue, and S. Kieselbach1988 The Impact of Tourism Development on Residents' Perceptions of

Community Life. Journal of Travel Research 27(1):16±21.Ap, J.

1992 Residents Perception on Tourism Impacts. Annals of Tourism Research17:610±616.

Ap, J., and J. L. Crompton1993 Residents' Strategies for Responding to Tourism Impacts. Journal of

Travel Research 32(1):47±50.Australian Bureau of Statistics

1991 Gold Coast Region: A Social Atlas. Canberra: Australian Bureau ofStatistics.

Bastias-Peres, P., and T. Var1995 Perceive Impacts of Tourism by its Residents. Annals of Tourism Research

22:208±209.Blazevic, G.

1996 Surfers Paradise Safety Action Plan: Creating a Culture of Collaborationfor Addressing Alcohol-related Violence. Queensland Police, South EasternRegion, June 1996.

Bond, J.1990 Living Arrangements of Elderly People. In Aging in Society: An

TOMLJENOVIC AND FAULKNER 111

Introduction to Social Gerontology, J. Bond, P. Coleman and S. Pearce, eds.,pp. 200±225. London: Sage Publications.

Brougham, J., and R. W. Butler1981 A Segmentation Analysis of Resident Attitudes to the Social Impact of

Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 7:569±590.Burdge, R. J.

1994 Utilizing Social Impact Assessment Variables in the Planning Model. In AConceptual Approach to Social Impact Assessment, R. J. Burdge, ed., pp. 50±62. Middleton: Social Ecology Press.

Clark, P. S., L. L. Adler, and H. E. Adler1983 Urban Crime and the Elderly. International Journal of Group Tension

13(14):76±83.Clarke, R.

1989 Keynote Address to the National Workshop: Crime and Elderly. InNational Police Research Unit (Australia) South Australia, Of®ce of theCommissioner for the Aging Collection of papers from the NationalWorkshop: Crime and elderly. Adelaide: Of®ce of the Commissioner for theAging.

Coleman, P.1990 Adjustment in Later Life. In Aging in Society: An Introduction to Social

Gerontology, J. Bond, P. Coleman and S. Pearce, eds., pp. 97±132. London:Sage Publications.

Commonwealth Department of Tourism1996 Australian Tourism: Key Facts and Figures. URL < http://tourism.gov.aut/

facts®g/html > (version current on 15 October 1996).Crandall, L.

1994 The Social Impact of Tourism on Developing Regions and itsMeasurement. In Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Research: A Handbook forManagers and Researchers, J. R. B. Ritchie and C. R. Goeldner, eds., pp.413±424. New York: Wiley.

Davis, D., J. Allen, and R. M. Cosenza1988 Segmenting Local Residents by their Attitudes, Interests and Opinions

Toward Tourism. Journal of Travel Research 27(2):2±8.Drysdale, R.

1991 Aged Migration to Coastal and Inland Centers in New South Wales.Australian Geographical Studies 29(2):268±294.

Eve, R. A., and S. B. Eve1984 The Effects of Powerlessness, Fear of Social Change and Social Integration

on Fear of Crime Among the Elderly. Victimology 9(2):290±295.Evenis, L., E. Splatt, and R. Tomljenovic

1995 Share our Paradise: Gold Coast Tourism Community Awareness Strategy.Center for Tourism and Hotel Management, Grif®th University, Gold Coast.

Faulkner, B., and D. J. Walmsley1998 Globalization and the Pattern of Inbound Tourism in Australia. Australian

Geographer 29(1):91±106.Faulkner, B., and C. Tideswell

1997 A Framework for Monitoring the Community Impacts of Tourism. Journalof Sustainable Tourism 5(1):2±28.

Gold, Coast Bulletin1993 Hospital Bed Crisis. Gold Coast Bulletin (August 4):7.1994 No Tourist Beds in Dialysis Ward. Gold Coast Bulletin (August 9):15.

Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black1995 Multivariate Data Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Husbands, W.1989 Social Status and Perception of Tourism in Zambia. Annals of Tourism

Research 16:237±253.Jones, D., J. Sloane, and L. Alexander

1992 Quality of Life: A Practical Approach. In Gerontology: A MultidisciplinaryApproach, V. Minichiello, L. Alexander and D. Jones, eds., pp. 225±265. NewYork: Prentice Hall.

TOURISM AND OLDER RESIDENTS112

Jones, G.1987 Elderly People and Domestic Crime: Re¯ection on Ageism, Sexism and

Victimology. British Journal of Criminology 27(2):191±201.King, B., A. Pizam, and A. Milman

1993 Social Impacts of Tourism: Host Perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research20(4):650±665.

Latane, B.1981 The Psychology of Social Impact. American Psychologist 36(4):343±356.

Laws, G.1993 `The Land of Old Age': Society's Changing Attitudes Toward Urban Built

Environments for Elderly People. Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers 83(4):672±693.

1994 Aging, Contested Meaning, and the Built Environment. Environment andPlanning 26:1787±1802.

Maslow, A.1970 Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

Mathieson, A., and G. Wall1982 Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. London: Longman.

Milman, A., and A. Pizam1988 Social Impacts of Tourism in Central Florida. Annals of Tourism Research

15:191±204.Mill, R. C., and A. M. Morrison

1985 The Tourism System: An Introductory Text. Eaglewood Cliffs: Prenticeand Hall.

Murphy, P. A.1981 Patterns of Coastal Retirement Migration. In Towards an Older Australia:

Readings in Social Gerontology, A. L. Howe, ed., pp. 301±314. St Lucia:University of Queensland.

Murphy, P. A., and R. B. Zehner1988 Satisfaction with Sunbelt Migration. Australian Geographical Studies

26(2):320±334.Murphy, P. A.

1992 Leisure and Coastal Development: A Review and Prognosis. AustralianPlanner 30(3):145±151.

Pearce, P. L., G. Moscardo, and G. L. Ross1996 Tourism Community Relationships. Oxford: Pergamon.

Pinkerton-James, M.1992 Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice: The Elderly as Victims

of Crime, Abuse and Neglect No. 37. Canberra: Australian Institute ofCriminology.

Pizam, A.1978 Tourist Impacts: The Social Costs to the Destination Community as

Perceived by its Residents. Journal of Travel Research 16(4):8±12.Ross, F. G.

1992 Residents Perceptions of the Impact of Tourism on an Australian City.Journal of Travel Research 30(30):13±17.

Ross, G. F.1991 Community Impacts of Tourism Among Older and Long-term Residents.

Australian Journal on Aging 10(4):17±24.Rothman, R.

1978 Residents and Transients: Community Reaction to Seasonal Visitors.Journal of Travel Research 16(3):8±13.

Rowland, D. T.1991 Aging in Australia. Melbourne: Longmont Cheshire.

Sirgy, J. M.1986 A Quality of Life Theory Derived from Maslow's Developmental

Perspective: Quality is Related to Progressive Satisfaction of a Hierarchy ofNeeds, Lower Order to Higher. American Journal of Economics and Sociology45(3):329±342.

TOMLJENOVIC AND FAULKNER 113

Stimpson, R. J., J. R. Minnery, A. Kabamba, and B. Moon1996 ``Sun-Belt'' Migration Decisions: A Study of the Gold Coast. Canberra:

Australian Government Publishing Service.Thomason, P., J. L. Crompton, and L. Dan Kamp

1979 A Study of the Attitudes of Impacted Groups within a Host CommunityToward Prolonged Stay Tourist Visitors. Journal of Travel Research 17(4):2±6.

Tomljenovic, R.1996 Retiring with Tourism in the Sunbelt: A study of Tourism's Social Impacts

Upon the Older Residents of the Gold Coast. Unpublished honors thesis,Grif®th University.

Weston, P.1993 Hospital Bed Crisis Blamed on Tourists. Gold Coast Bulletin (August 4):7.

Wiles, D.1987 Who is Old?: De®ning Old Age. Australian Journal on Aging 6(4):24.

Submitted 6 February 1998. Resubmitted 15 September 1998. Accepted 3 November 1998.Final version 19 February 1999. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Maria Kousis.

TOURISM AND OLDER RESIDENTS114