This body of literature recognises the separation between structures and
institutions, although they have been labelled objective and subjective indicators (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006).
Review of the literature indicates that there is a lack of knowledge surrounding the dynamic interaction of
structures and institutions and the reciprocal relationship they have with tourism, particularly at a local level
(Agarwal, 2002; Scott, 2003; Rodriguez, Parra-Lopez and Yanes-Estevez, 2008). , 2007; Gartner, 200
). A number
of other studies have linked community perceptions towards visitors with the Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC)
model (Butler, 1980), giving rise to concepts of carrying capacity and management across the triple bottom
line (Belisle and Hoy, 1980; Coccossis, 2002; Diedrich and Garcia-Buades, 2009). It has been argued that more rapid and intense tourism development may have a less beneficial effect on societies than smaller scale development (de Kadt, 1979; Pierce, 1989; Ratz, 2000). , 199
; Perdue, Long and Allen, 1990).
Arguably, tourism can deliver socio-cultural transformations (Ratz, 2000; Sebastian and Rajagopalan, 2009). One occurs when tourists are
attracted to the unspoiled nature of a destination, but their increasing visitation transforms the destination
and traditional lifestyle into a more urban or globalised one (Bruner, 1991; Dahms and McComb, 1999; Agarwal,
2002; Zhong, et al. Social norms and cultural beliefs are critical to the tourism transformation process which indicates that
resident attitudes and perceptions need to be understood and monitored (Johnson, Snepenger and Akis, 199
;
Sheldon and Abenoja, 2001; Choi and Sirakaya, 2006).
Some common paradoxes of transformation are cited within the literature.