CC BY
46
ISSN 1728-2667
ЕКОНОМ1КА. 6(201)/2018
Н. Балтеш, д-р философии, проф., А.-Г.-М. Драгое, д-р философии, М.-Д. Козма, д-р философии
Университет имени Лучиана Блага, Сибиу, Румыния
ОЦЕНКА РИСКА НЕПЛАТЕЖЕСПОСОБНОСТИ ДЛЯ ПРЕДПРИЯТИЙ ОБРАБАТЫВАЮЩЕЙ ПРОМЫШЛЕННОСТИ, ЗАРЕГИСТРИРОВАННЫХ НА БУХАРЕСТСКОЙ ФОНДОВОЙ БИРЖЕ
Представлены исследованные как теоретически, так и эмпирически при помощи четырех моделей: Спрингейт, Таффлер, Альтман и Французский коммерческий кредит, риски неплатежеспособности для 35 компаний перерабатывающей промышленности в Румынии, котировавшихся на Бухарестской фондовой бирже в премиальной и стандартной категориях в период с 2007 по 2016 год. Результаты исследования показали, что в период с 2007 по 2016 год более 50 % компаний столкнулись с высоким риском неплатежеспособности, наибольшая вероятность которого была для Cemacon S.A. and Prefab S.A. Меньшая вероятность такого риска в течение указанного периода была для компаний Aerostar S.A и Conted S.A.
Ключевые слова: риск неплатежеспособности, модель Спрингейт, модель Таффлера, модель Альтмана, модель Французский коммерческий кредит.
Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Economics, 2018; 6(201): 41-46
УДК 336
JEL classification: Z32, Z38
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/1728-2667.2018/201-6/6
U. Chailiskan, PhD ORCID iD 0000-0002-6844-7197, I. A. Saltik, PhD ORCID iD 0000-0002-3456-2787 Mugla Sitki Kogman University, Mugla, Turkey
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMUNITY ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTIONS ON ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF TOURISM AND SUPPORT TO TOURISM DEVELOPMENT: AN IMPLEMENTATION IN A SETTLEMENT NEAR BUT DISTANT FROM TOURISM
Tourism is one of the most important economic sectors in world and its impacts on local communities are discussed in the literature frequently. Even though also socio-cultural and environmental impacts are also examined, the focus is on economic effects. This study investigates whether community attachment makes difference in perceptions on economic impacts and in supporting tourism development. The study utilizes multiple analysis methods and Path Analysis and is important in terms of examining relationship between community attachment and perceptions of local residents in a settlement which is very near to popular tourism destinations but also where is distant from the tourism activities. Thus it contributes to tourism planning literature. Findings reveal out that community attachment has relations with economic impacts and positive support for tourism development, while it has no relation with negative thoughts about tourism development.
Keywords: Tourism impacts, local residents, Community attachment, CFA, Path Analysis, Turkey
Introduction. Tourism development is a popular option/tool for improving the socio-economic situation of societies [9]. Tourism, however, is not only product/service consumption process, but also has remarkable social, economic, and environmental impacts [58] in global and local scale [67, 62, 61]. Even though impact categories overlap significantly, most of the researches have focused on economic effects [23, 2, 10].
The perceptions of tourism development and its impacts are not homogenous within societies and individuals in a particular society. These differences are influenced by many factors such as the history of societies, socio-cultural structures, the level and type of tourism development. Scholars have given attention to these impacts since 1970s and many opinions have been put forward. Pioneer models such as Doxey's Irridex [14], Butler's TALC [7] or Dogan [13] predict that the local residents' attitudes towards tourists and tourism would change on a linear continuum while tourism develops. They claimed that locals would be very friendly and kindly towards tourism at the beginning but in time, they would behave "hostile" towards tourists and even leave the destination temporarily since negative impacts would surpass the positive ones. Afterwards, approaches which underline that the attitudes change on a non-linear base were developed. These models point out that some certain stages were never reached or never encountered and different features were effective on perceptions of tourism impacts. In this context, Social Exchange Theory which is based on the
assumption that local people would be in favor of tourists and tourism when they perceive positive impacts higher than negative impacts, and the community attachment model which predicts that feeling to belong to the society will largely affect the perception and support of tourism, are amongst the models frequently used in the recent period.
In this study, firstly, the literature on tourism impacts and perception and attitudes of the local residents will be reviewed. Then, whether community attachment affect local residents' perceptions on economic impacts of tourism and support for tourism will be examined in case of Mugla center (Mentese) district which is very near to some popular tourism destinations of Turkey, but which has no intensive tourism activities. Finally, results and discussions will be presented.
Literature. Many countries accept tourism as basic tool for development. For this reason, the number and type of destinations increase day by day and also the number of tourists. In 2016, approximately 1.25 billion people participated in international tourism activities, and this number is expected to grow and to approach 2 billion soon [65].
Since tourism is very dynamic and multidimensional sector, it has many socio-cultural and environmental impacts besides its economic ones. Nevertheless, as in this study, the economic impacts of tourism have been more intensively studied in the literature. Scholars indicate that foreign tourist expenditure contributes to the balance of payments (Liu and Var [40], Dogan [13], Gee, Makens, Choy [18]; Jurowski, Uysal and Williams [23]; Tatoglu, et al. [60]), and by
© Chailiskan U. Saltik I., 2018
~42 ~
BIOHMK KuiBCbKoro нацiонапbного yHiBepcuTeTy iMeHi Tapaca lUeBHeHKa ISSN1728-3817
incorporating the inert local resources into socio-economic life, tourism creates economic vitality [60]. In addition, the tax revenues of the governments may also increase [49]. Tourism development increases employment opportunities for different age, gender, education status and social strata (Sheldon and Var [55]; Tosun [62]; Ladkin [34]; Tomic, Gajic and Bugar [61]). Demand rise will lead to increase national and international investments towards region (Liu, Sheldon & Var [41]; Inskeep [28]; Sheng and Tsui [56]), and to diversify commercial activities (Prentice [53]; Ozturk, Ozer and Caliskan [49]) and therefore to develop other sectors (Latkova and Vogt [37]; Tomic, Gajic and Bugar [61]).
Literature points out that economic benefits and the attitudes of local people are generally positively related (Keogh [32]; Sinclair-Maragh, Gursoy [57]). Within the scope of literature, the following hypotheses were developed;
H1: The perception of positive economic impacts of tourism affects positively the support to tourism development.
H2: The perception of positive economic impacts of tourism lessens attitudes against tourism development.
However, there are some economic costs that tourism development brings to the region. The ascending demand results in inflation rise [49] and increases prices of goods, services and real estate (Pizam [52], Var, Kendall, and Tarakcioglu [66], Liu and Var [40], Husbands [26], Nunkoo and Ramkissoon [48]). Moreover, imports of goods and services from abroad will be increased to meet the tourist expectations [49] and tourism development model which is mainly based on investors who are not residents of destination limits contribution of tourism to the region. When tourism development eliminates the traditional economic sectors (such as agriculture, fishery), over-dependency to tourism will occur [49]. These led to the following hypotheses;
H3: The perception of negative economic impacts of tourism affects negatively the support to tourism development.
H4: The perception of negative economic impacts of tourism deepens attitudes against tourism development.
The residents' attitudes and perceptions towards tourism and its impacts are very important in terms of guiding and sustaining tourism development, since tourism may develop only with support of the local residents (Garrod & Fyall [17], Sheldon & Abenoja [54], Ambroz [1], Nunkoo and Ramkissoon [48]). In this frame, since the 1960s and 70s, perception and reaction of the local people have been examined frequently by scholars from various disciplines including anthropology, geography, economics, sociology and recreation (Prentice [53], Gursoy and Chen [20], Williams and Vaske [68], Qali§kan and Ozer [10]).
Many models and theories have been used for this purpose. As well as models such as Irridex [14], TALC [7], Dogan [13] and Ap - Crompton [3 which propose that tourism development and the response of local people occur in a linear process, social exchange theory which is based on the assumption that when positive (especially economic) impacts of development are perceived more dominant than the negative effects, people would support tourism development (Ap [4]; Gursoy & Rutherford [21]) and community attachment model which argues that feelings towards the society have notable impacts on perceptions and attitudes of individuals [36] were also used.
Many studies have been carried out within the context of the community attachment model based on the idea that the people who feel belonging to the society will perceive tourism effects differently [12]. In these studies, birth place (Lankford and Howard [36]; Haley, Snaith and Miller [25]), commitment to the society (Goudy [19]; Williams and
Lawson [69]), ownership of residential buildings [59], were also used as indicators but the contradictory results were obtained and the consensus was not reached. While some studies have found no relationship between community attachment and perception of tourism influences and attitudes towards tourism development (Liu and Var [40]; Andereck et al. [2]), researchers as Sheldon and Var [55], Brunt and Courtney [6], Williams and Lawson [69], and Gursoy, Jurowski and Uysal [22], pointed out that the tendency to perceive the negative effects of tourism increases as the level of loyalty to the community increases. Nevertheless, there are also many studies that show that tourism impacts are perceived more positively as community attachment increases (Belisle and Hoy [5], Jurowski, Uysal and Williams [31], Gursoy and Rutherford [21], Lee [38]). In the light of previous studies, the final hypotheses to be tested in the study are as follows;
H5: Community attachment affects negatively the perception of positive economic impacts of tourism.
H6: Community attachment deepens the perception of negative economic impacts of tourism.
H7: Community attachment affects negatively the support to tourism development.
H8: Community attachment deepens attitudes against tourism development.
Another variable used to explain differentiation in the perception of impacts of tourism and tourism support is the distances from destinations, tourism attractions and activities. Some researchers have found that local residents who live closer to the attractions and tourist activities have a more positive perception and attitude than those who live far away (Belisle & Hoy [5], Pearce [50]; Sheldon and Var [55]; Keogh [32]; Mansfeld [43]). However, some researchers (Pizam [52]; Madrigal [42]) found an inverse relationship and emphasized that the increase in distance may result in more positive perceptions of tourism and therefore more support towards tourism development. Similarly, Tyrell and Spaulding [64] and Williams and Lawson [69] found that people living close to the tourist center can exhibit a negative attitude due to problems such as increased traffic, noise, pollution, and restrictions on the use of public spaces and Lankford, Williams and Lankford [35] or Jurowski and Gursoy [30] have shown that those who live far away can appreciate tourism more positively as recreational benefits which tourism has brought increases. Nevertheless, literature review did not reveal any studies on relations of community attachment and tourism perceptions in distant settlements. In this context, this article contributes also to elimination of this deficiency in the literature.
Methodology. The universe of the research is composed of local people living in central district of Mugla province (Mente§e) in Turkey. The reasons for choice of this province as the universe are twofold. First, there are limited numbers of researches concerning central district of Mugla, even though there are numerous researches related to its other districts which are popular tourism destinations such as Fethiye, Bodrum, and Marmaris. Second, the central district of Mugla differentiates due to the fact that being very close to tourism destinations but far from tourism activities. Hence it is expected to contribute the literature by determining perceptions of residents of the settlements where intensive tourism activities are not experienced directly.
The population of central district of Mugla is 109.979 (TUiK, 2017). The sample size was calculated as 384 according to Krejcie and Morgan's [33] formula, assuming an alpha of .05 and a degree of accuracy of .05. The data were gathered from people living in central district of Mugla by random sampling. Primary data collection was conducted at various places (main streets, residential zones, shopping
centers, parks, etc.) in city center through an on-site self-administered questionnaire. Of 629 collected questionnaires, 619 were respected as the research data. Since 10 of them which were not filled out completely and were not suitable for the further analysis, were extracted as emphasized by Hair et al. [24].
The questionnaire includes four parts, which are perceptions on economic impacts of tourism scale, community attachment perception scale, support to tourism development scale and demographic features. At preliminary stage, 51 scale items were identified through a comprehensive literature review. The scale of EIT was prepared by using the scale items developed by Gursoy, Chi and Dyer [22], Gursoy and Rutherford [21], Brida et al., (2011), Garcia et al., (2016); the scale of STD was prepared by using the scale items developed by Teye et al (2002), Alhasanat (2010), Abas and Hanafiah (2014) and the scale
of CA was prepared by using the scale items developed by Gursoy et al. [22], Wang and Hu (2015) and all the items were adapted in line with the objectives of the study. Then as suggested by Conradson [8], some items that were misunderstood, redundant or duplicated with others were excluded after getting expert appraisal and conducting pilot study. The final version of the questionnaire was consisted of 36 items and demographics. The items were measured using a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 5 = "strongly agree."
The aim of this research is to investigate the relationship between local residents' community attachment (CA) and perceptions on economic impacts of tourism (EIT; P: Positive, N: Negative) and attitudes towards tourism development (TD; S: Support; A: Against). The proposed model of the study is shown in Figure 1.
Fig. 1. Proposed Model and Hypothesis
Findings. Demographic features of participants were investigated with SPSS 22 using descriptive analysis. The sample was 49,6% female, and 58% married. In terms of age, 29,7% were between 26 and 35, 23,3% were between 18 and 35, and 22,6% were between 36 and 45. Approximately 50% of the participants have high school or university education (35,2% bachelor degree, 17,8% high school graduate). The most of the respondents (55,7%) were born in Mugla while 40,7% were born in other cities within the country. These indicate that participants are heterogeneous and belong to different socio-economic groups and therefore findings can be generalized more or less to whole society.
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyzes were used to test the structural validity of the variables. Furthermore, the reliability of each scale is determined by the Cronbach alpha statistic. In order to test the hypotheses of the study, path analysis was finally applied. In order to increase the reliability and reveal the dimensions of the scales, each one was examined by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with SPSS 22 as suggested by Netemeyer, Bearden and Sharma (2003). Principal component extraction with Varimax rotation was applied all the scales independently. As a result of the analyzes, it was determined that the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) values were 0.859 for EIT scale, 0.805 for STD scale, 0.892 for CA scale and the Bartlett's Test of Sphericity results were significant at the significance level of 0.001 for all scales. These results indicate the sampling adequacy [27]. Items with cross-loadings and communalities less than 0.40 were removed iteratively. Accordingly, two items from EIT scale, and four items from STD were eliminated. The EFA results were identified two-factor model for both scales.
Factors were labelled as perception of positive economic impacts of tourism (PEIT), perception of negative economic impacts of tourism (NEIT), support to tourism development (STD), and against to tourism development (ATD). The exploratory factor analysis conforms to the one factor structure of the CA scale, without excluding any items. The reliability and internal consistency of each variable were inspected by Cronbach's alpha coefficient. All the scales were found to be internally reliable with Cronbach's alphas ranging between 0.699 and 0.892 [16].
Then confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the proposed model to confirm the validity of the factors revealed by EFA for each construct of research and the path analysis was performed to test the proposed model. Analysis was carried out with AMOS 21.0. Two items from STD (The state should provide more working areas, The state supports tourism development in Mugla), two items from PEIT (Tourism creates a market for local products, Tourism provides more investment to the Mugla districts) and one item form NEIT (Tourism provides jobs to people from outside Mugla, rather than locals) were considered "inadequate or mediocre" and excluded because of low factor scores (<0.55) and explaining less than 30% of the variance [11]. Model fit was assessed using Root Mean Square Error of Approximations (RMSEA), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI). As all the indices for proposed model met the criteria suggested by Hair et al. [24], (x2/df =1,949; RMSEA=0.039; GFI =0.933; NFI =0.911; CFI =0.955) the model is accepted. The obtained t values and path analysis results are presented in Figure 2.
~44 ~
B I C H H K KuiBCbKoro Ha^oHanbHoro ymBepcMTeTy iMeHi Tapaca UeB^eHKa ISSN1728-3817
Fig. 2. Path Analysis Results
Results indicate that, CA has positive and significant effect on NEIT, negative and significant effect on PEIT and STD. In line with these results H5 and H6 and H7 were accepted. However negative effect of CA on ATD is statistically nonsignificant. Thus H8 was rejected. It was revealed that PEIT has a positive and significant impact on STD, meanwhile affecting ATD negatively. Hence Hi and H2
were accepted. Moreover, it was also determined that NEIT affects both STD and ATD, positively. Consequently, these findings bring acceptance of H4 while H3 is rejected because, on the contrary to the negative effect indicated in the hypothesis, NEIT has a considerably positive impact on STD. The results of path analysis and hypothesis test are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Results of Path Analysis and Hypothesis Test
Hypothesis No Path Estimate S.E. C.R. P Result
1 STD <— PEIT ,124 ,036 3,443 *** Accepted
2 ATD <— PEIT -,317 ,054 -5,827 *** Accepted
3 STD <— NEIT ,145 ,070 2,071 ,038 Rejected
4 ATD <— NEIT ,351 ,107 3,284 ,001 Accepted
5 PEIT <— CA -,233 ,051 -4,553 *** Accepted
6 NEIT <— CA ,110 ,043 2,563 ,010 Accepted
7 STD <— CA -,221 ,042 -5,313 *** Accepted
8 ATD <— CA -,058 ,055 -1,064 ,287 Rejected
Conclusions. This study examines the relationship between the community attachment of local people and the economic impact of tourism and the support to tourism development. For this purpose, data were collected in Mugla (Turkey) where does not experience intensive tourism activities despite it is very close to popular mass tourism destinations.
In contrast to Jurowski, Uysal and Williams [31], who did not find a relationship between community attachment and economic impact and Choi and Murray (2009), who stated that community attachment has positive relationship with positive economic effects, it is found that community attachment leads in decreasing positive perceptions about the economic effects of tourism. The results are in line with Sheldon and Var [55], Brunt and Courtney [6] and Choi and Murray [](2009) who found that community attachment has negative effects in support to tourism development. Likewise, it is revealed out that as the community attachment increases, the support to tourism development decreases. This finding is congruent with Williams and Lawson [69], Gursoy et al. [23], Choi and Murray, (2009).
Similar to what is generally emphasized in the literature, results point out that the more positive perception of economic impacts of tourism, the greater the support given to tourism. However, while the perceptions of negative economic impacts have positive impact on support to tourism development with anticipation of improvement of current economic situation, it is clear that they considerably increase the attitudes against tourism development.
Findings determine that the higher the level of perception of the adverse economic impacts of tourism, the higher the level of attitudes against tourism development. This finding support Perdue, Long and Allen [51], Keogh [32], Jurowski, Uysal and Williams [31], Choi and Murray (2009) but contradicts the results of studies as Gursoy and Rutherford [21], and Lee [38]. At the same time, it was revealed that negative economic impacts influence significantly the attitudes towards tourism development. The negative economic impacts cause people expect that tourism would help to develop economic conditions but also they consider further tourism development is redundant because it cannot meet the current expectations. In other words, it can be interpreted that efforts should be made to raise economic contribution of the current tourism development instead of attracting new investments. This antinomy may occur mainly due to differences of sample and the study area (which is close to but also far from tourism centers and activities). This finding increases authenticity of the study for its contribution to literature. Therefore, the findings of this study must be tested with the studies on the opinions of the residents of the settlements where are physically close to the tourism destinations though they are not in administrative zone.
In order to have sustainable tourism development and to increase its positive contributions, it is necessary to understand the variables of tourism support. Planning should be conducted with stakeholders who have different expectations from and perceptions about tourism and who are at different socio-economic strata, and have different social and environmental perspectives. Opinions and
expectations of residents of tourism destination and socioeconomic hinterland of destination should be incorporated into planning and implementation process. This will contribute to the spread of tourism influences to the community. Local support to tourism development can be enhanced through explanation of possible benefits and costs of tourism in planning process and taking preventive measures by negotiation with local people.
Future studies should examine the results of this study in other places akin to our study field. Also, relation between community attachment and tourism development should be surveyed by examining the opinions of the residents of tourism centers and of the settlements in the vicinity to those centers together. As our study examines perceptions about 3S tourism, relation of community attachment with tourism perceptions and tourism development support should be explored for other types of tourism. Additionally, even though it is revealed statistically insignificant in this work, studies testing whether community attachment decreases/increases the attitudes against tourism development may yield contributions to the literature.
Limitations. This study searches perceptions and attitudes of local residents about mass tourism. Beyond Mugla, Mentese, the results of this study cannot be generalized for other settlements where have different features in terms of tourism development and type, proximity to tourist destinations/attractions, or economic and social structure.
References:
1. Ambroz, M., 2008. Attitudes of Local Residents towards the Development of Tourism in Slovenia: The Case of the Primorska, Dolenjska, Gorenjska and Ljubljana Regions. Anthropological Notebooks, 14(1), pp.63-79.
2. Andereck, K., Valentine, K., Knopf, R. and Vogt, C., 2005. Residents' perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), pp.1056-1076. D0I:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2005.03.001
3. Ap, J. and Crompton, J.L., 1993. Residents' Strategies for Responding to Tourism Impacts. Journal of Travel Research, 32(1), pp.47-50. D0I:https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759303200108
4. Ap, J., 1990. Residents' perceptions research on the social impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(4), pp.665-690. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(90)90032-M
5. Belisle, F.J. and Hoy, D.R., 1980. The perceived impact of tourism by residents a case study in Santa Marta, Colombia. Annals of Tourism Research, 7(1), pp.83-101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(80)80008-9
6. Brunt, P. and Courtney, P., 1999. Host perceptions of sociocultural impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3), pp.493-515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00003-1
7. Butler, R.W., 1980. The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Management of Resources. Canadian Geographer, 24(1), pp.5-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.1980.tb00970.x
8. Conradson, D., 2005. Focus groups. In: R. Flowerdew & D. Martin Eds. Methods in human geography: A guide for students doing a research project. New York: Pearson Education, pp.128-143.
9. Croes, R., 2012. Assessing tourism development from Sen's capability approach. Journal of Travel Research, 51(5), pp.542-554. DOI: 10.1177/0047287511431323
10. Chaliskan U. and Ozer O., 2014. A Comparative Study of Local Residents' Attitudes towards Tourism in Ku§adasi. DEU I§letme Fakultesi Dergisi, 15(2), pp.117-133.
11. Qokluk, O., §ekercioglu, G., and Buyukozturk, 2016. Sosyal Bilimler igin Qok Degi§kenli Istatistik SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamalari. 4th ed. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
12. Qolak, E., 2017. Mugla Halkinin Turizm Olgusuna ve Turizm Etkilerine Baki§ Agilanni Anlamaya Yonelik BirAlan Ara§tirmasi. MSc, Mugla Sitki Kogman University.
13. Dogan, H., 1989. Forms of adjustment: socio-cultural impacts of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(2), pp.216-236. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(89)90069-8
14. Doxey, G.V., 1975. A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: Methodology and research inferences. In: Travel Research Association, The Impact of Tourism: Sixth Annual Conference Proceedings, 195-198, Salt Lake, Utah.
15. Esman, M., 1984. Tourism as Ethnic Preservation: The Cajuns of Louisiana. Annals of Tourism Research, 11, pp. 451-467. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(84)90031-8
16. Field, A., 2009. Discovering Statistics using SPSS. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications.
17. Garrod, F. and Fyall, A., 1998. Beyond the Rhetoric of Sustainable Tourism? Tourism Management, 19(3), pp.199-212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(98)00013-2
18. Gee, C.Y., Makens, J.C. and Choy, D.J.L., 1997. The Travel Industry. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
19. Goudy, W.J. 1990. Community Attachment in a Rural Region. Rural Sociology 55(2), pp.178-198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111Zj.1549-0831.1990.tb00679.x
20. Gursoy, D. & Chen, J.S., 2000. Competitive analysis of cross cultural information search behavior. Tourism Management, 21(6), pp.583590. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00005-4
21. Gursoy, D. and Rutherford, D., 2004. Host attitudes toward tourism: An improved structural model. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), pp.495516. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2003.08.008
22. Gursoy, D., Chi, C.G. & Dyer, P., 2010. Local's attitudes toward mass and alternative tourism: The case of Sunshine Coast, Australia. Journal of Travel Research, 49(3), pp.381-394. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0047287509346853
23. Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C. and Uysal, M., 2002. Resident Attitudes: A Structural Modeling Approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, pp.79-105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00028-7
24. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E., 2010. Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
25. Haley, J., Snaith, T. and Miller, G., 2005. The social impacts of tourism a case study of Bath, UK. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(3), pp.647668. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.10.009
26. Husbands, W., 1989. Social Status and Perception of Tourism in Zambia. Annals of Tourism Research, 16, pp. 237-255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(89)90070-4
27. Hutcheson, G. and Sofroniou N., 1999. The multivariate social scientist; introductory statistics using generalized linear models. London: Sage Publications.
28. Inskeep, E., 1991. Tourism Planning - An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
29. Irandu, E.M., 2004. The role of tourism in the conservation of cultural heritage in Kenya. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 9(2), pp.133150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1094166042000233658
30. Jurowski, C. and Gursoy, D., 2004. Distance Effects on Residents' Attitudes toward Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), pp.296-312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2003.12.005
31. Jurowski, C., Uysal, M. and Williams, D.R., 1997. A theoretical analysis of host community resident reactions to tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 36(2), pp.3-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 004728759703600202
32. Keogh, B., 1990. Public participation in community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research, (17), pp.449-465. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0160-7383(90)90009-G
33. Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D. W., 1970. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, pp.607610. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
34. Ladkin, A., 2011. Exploring tourism labor. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), pp.1135-1155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.annals.2011.03.010
35. Lankford, S., Williams, A. and Lankford J, 1997. Perceptions of Outdoor Recreation Opportunities and Support for Tourism Development. Journal of Travel Research, 35(3), pp.60-65. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1177/004728759703500311
36. Lankford, S.V. and Howard, D.R., 1994. Developing a tourism impact attitude scale. Annals of Tourism Research, (21), pp.121-139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(94)90008-6
37. Latkova, P. & Vogt, C.A., 2012. Residents' attitudes toward existing and future tourism development in rural communities. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), pp.50-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287510394193
38. Lee, T.H., 2013. Influence analysis of community resident support for sustainable tourism development. Tourism Management, 34, pp.37-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.03.007
39. Liang, Z.X. and Bao, J.G., 2015. Tourism gentrification in Shenzhen, China: causes and socio-spatial consequences. Tourism Geographies, 17(3), pp.461-481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2014.1000954
40. Liu, J. and Var, T., 1986. Residents Attitudes toward Tourism Impacts in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research, 13, pp.193-214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(86)90037-X
41. Liu, J.C., Sheldon, P.J. & Var, T., 1987. Resident perception of the environmental impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(1), pp.1737. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(87)90045-4
42. Madrigal, R., 1993. A Tale of Tourism in Two Cities. Annals of Tourism Research, 20, pp.336-353. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(93)90059-C
43. Mansfeld, Y., 1992. Group-Differentiated Perceptions of Social Impacts Related to Tourism Development. Professional Geographer, 44, pp.377-392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1992.00377.x
44. Mathieson, A. and Wall, G., 1982. Tourism, economic, physical and social impacts. UK: Longman.
~46 ~
В I С Н И К КИвського нацiонального ушверситету iMeHi Тараса Шевченка ISSN1728-3817
45. Mbaiwa, J.E., 2004. The socio-cultural impacts of tourism development in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 2(3), pp.163-184.
46. Milman, A. and Pizam, A., 1988. Social impacts of tourism on central Florida. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(2), pp.191-204. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0160-7383(88)90082-5
47. Netemeyer, R.G, Bearden, W.O. and Sharma, S., 2003. Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications. California: Sage Publications.
48. Nunkoo, R. and Ramkissoon, H., 2011. Developing a community support model for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), pp.964-988. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.01.017
49. Ozturk, A.B., Ozer O. and Chaliskan U., 2015. The relationship between local residents' perceptions of tourism and their happiness: a case of Kusadasi, Turkey. Tourism Review, 70(3), pp.232-242. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1108/TR-09-2014-0053
50. Pearce, J., 1980. Host Community Acceptance of Foreign Tourists: Strategic Considerations. Annals of Tourism Research, 7, pp.224-233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(80)90005-5
51. Perdue, R.R., Long, P.T. and Allen L., 1990. Resident Support for Tourism Development. Annals of Tourism Research, 17, pp.586-599. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(90)90029-Q
52. Pizam, A., 1978. Tourism's impacts: the social costs to the destination community as perceived by its residents. Journal of Travel Research, 16(4), pp.8-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 004728757801600402
53. Prentice, R., 1993. Community-driven tourism planning and residents' preferences. Tourism Management, 14(3), pp.218-227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(93)90023-E
54. Sheldon, P.J. & Abenoja, T., 2001. Resident attitudes in a mature destination: the case of Waikiki. Tourism Management, 22(5), pp.435-443. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00009-7
55. Sheldon, P.J. and Var, T., 1984. Resident attitudes to tourism in North Wales. Tourism Management, 15, pp.40-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(84)90006-2
56. Sheng, L. and Tsui, Y., 2010. Foreign investment in tourism: the case of Macao as a small tourism economy. Tourism Geographies, 12(2), pp.173-191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616681003725219
57. Sinclair-Maragh, G. and Gursoy, D., 2016. A Conceptual Model of Residents' Support for Tourism Development in Developing Countries. Tourism Planning & Development, 13(1), pp.1-22. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1080/21568316.2015.1047531
58. Smallman, C. & Moore, K., 2010. Process studies of tourists' decision making. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(2), pp.397-422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.10.014
У. Чалишкан, д-р фшософм, 1.А. Салтик, д-р фшософм
Унтерситет Мугли Ситк Космана, Мугла, Турцт
59. Snaith, T. and Haley, A., 1999. Residents' opinions of tourism development in the historic city of York, England. Tourism Management, 20(5), pp.595-603. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(99)00030-8
60. Tatoglu, E., Erdal, F., Ozgur, H. and Azakli, S., 2002. Resident attitudes toward tourism impact. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 3(3), pp. 79-100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(95)00092-5
61. Tomic, R., Gajic, T. and Bugar, D., 2012. Tourism as a basis for development of the economy of Serbia. UTMS Journal of Economics, 3(1), pp. 21-31.
62. Tosun, C., 2002. Host perceptions of impacts: A comparative tourism study. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), pp. 231-253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00039-1
63. TUIK (Turkish Statistical Institute), 2018. Address Based Population Registration System Results, (online) URL : <http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/ PreTablo.do?alt_id=1059> (Accessed 28/02/2018)
64. Tyrrell, T. and Spaulding, P., 1984. A Survey of Attitudes toward Tourism Growth in Rhode Island. Hospitality Education and Research Journal, 8, pp. 22-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/109634808400800204
65. UNWTO, 2017. Tourism Highlights.(online) URL : <https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/book/10.18111/ 9789284419029 (Accessed 31.01.2018)
66. Var, T., Kendall, K.W. and Tarakcioglu, E., 1985. Resident attitudes towards tourists in a Turkish resort town. Annals of Tourism Research, 12 (4), pp. 652-658. URL : https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(85)90086-6
67. Weaver, D. & Lawton, L., 2001. Resident perceptions in the urban-rural fringe. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), pp.439-458. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00052-9
68. Williams, D.R. and Vaske, J.J., 2003. The Measurement of Place Attachment: Validity and Generalizability of a Psychometric Approach. Forest Science, 49(6), pp.830-840.
69. Williams, J. and Lawson, R., 2001. Community issues and resident opinions of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(29), pp.269-290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00030-X
Received: 06/06/2017 1st Revision: 22/10/2017 Accepted: 15/11/2018
This paper has been granted (Project Grant Number: 17/257) by the Mugla Sitki Kocman University Research projects Coordination Office. This paper is expanded version of the study presented in IECS 2018 which took place in Sibiu, Romania, May 11-12, 2018.
ЗВ'ЯЗОК М1Ж 1НТЕГРОВАН1СТЮ ГРОМАДИ, УСВ1ДОМЛЕННЯМ ЕКОНОМ1ЧНОГО ЗНАЧЕННЯ ТУРИЗМУ I П1ДТРИМКОЮ ЙОГО РОЗВИТКУ: ОРГАН1ЗАЦ1Я ТУРИСТИЧНОГО Б1ЗНЕСУ В СЕЛ1
Туризм е одним iз найважлив/'ших секторiв економ/'ки у свiтi, i його вплив на мiсцевi спльноти часто обговорюеться в лiтературi. Хоча соцiально-культурнi та екологiчнi наслiдки розглядаються часто, але основна увага придляеться економг'чним тдсумкам. У цьому дослiдженнi з'ясовуеться, чи впливаелокальна згуртовансть спльноти на розумшня економiчних результатiв i на пiдтримку розвитку туризму. Уроботi використовуються рiзт способи оцшювання i метод шляхового аналiзу, який важливий iз точки зору вивчення взае-мозв'язку мiжлокальною згуртованстю спльноти i сприйняттям мiсцевих жител/'в у поселенн^ яке мститься дуже близько до попу-лярних туристичних об'ектiв, але при цьому вiддалене в/'д туристичноУ дiяльностi. Цим вноситься певний внесок у лтературу про планування туризму. Результати показують, що локальна згуртовансть спльноти мае вiдношення до економiчних насл/'дк/'в i дае по-зитивну пiдтримку розвитку туризму, водночас вона не пов'язана з негативними уявленнями про розвиток туризму.
Ключовi слова: вплив туризму, мiсцевi жителi, локальна згуртовансть спльноти, конфiрматорний факторний аналiз, шляховий аналiз, Туреччина.
У. Чалишкан, д-р философии, И.А. Салтик, д-р философии
Университет Муглы Сытки Космана, Мугла, Турция
СВЯЗЬ МЕЖДУ ЛОКАЛЬНОЙ ИНТЕГРИРОВАННОСТЬЮ ОБЩИНЫ, ОСОЗНАНИЕМ ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКОГО ЗНАЧЕНИЯ ТУРИЗМА И ПОДДЕРЖКОЙ ЕГО РАЗВИТИЯ: ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯ ТУРИСТИЧЕСКОГО БИЗНЕСА В СЕЛЕ
Туризм является одним из наиболее важных секторов экономики в мире, и его влияние на местные сообщества часто обсуждается в литературе. Хотя социально-культурные и экологические последствия рассматриваются часто, но основное внимание уделяется экономическим итогам. В этом исследовании выясняется, влияет ли локальная сплоченность сообщества на понимание экономических результатов и на поддержку развития туризма. В работе используются различные способы оценок и метод путевого анализа, который важен с точки зрения изучения взаимосвязи между локальной сплоченностью сообщества и восприятием местных жителей в поселении, которое находится очень близко к популярным туристическим объектам, но при этом удалено от туристической деятельности. Этим вносится определенный вклад в литературу о планировании туризма. Результаты показывают, что локальная сплоченность сообщества имеет отношение к экономическим последствиям и оказывает положительную поддержку развитию туризма, в то время как она не связана с негативными представлениями о развитии туризма.
Ключевые слова: влияние туризма, местные жители, локальная сплоченность сообщества, конфирматорный факторный анализ, путевой анализ, Турция.
