It is often postulated that
local or regional governments should self-direct and play a greater role in tourism development because
structural changes and impacts have the greatest effect and can be more readily observed at the local level
(Adams, Dixon and Rimmer, 2001; Milne and Ateljevic, 2001; Pavlovich, 2003; Haung, 200
) and, at this level,
institutional modifications and planned intervention are more likely to be effective (Roberts, 200
; McLennan,
2005; Sebastian and Rajagoplan, 2009). This paper primarily focuses on measuring social norms and cultural beliefs
relating to economic and tourism development and discusses findings in the context of Toowoomba. This paradox, however, does not occur consistently and often
development is deliberately cultivated by the community (Gonen, 1981).
Institutions and perceptions are an important element of transformation (Mwangi, 2006), so it is appropriate
that the dynamics of tourism transformation have been frequently investigated using resident perceptions of
the industry (Allen, Long, Perdue and Kieselback, 1988; Andereck, Valentine, Knopf and Vogt, 2005; Andriotis,
2005; Ap, 1992; Belisle and Hoy, 1980; Besculides, Lee and McCormick, 2002; Harrill, 200
; Horn and Simmons, 2002;
Johnson, et al. This paper reports on a preliminary investigation into social
values and perceptions of tourism and economic development in the case study of Toowoomba, Australia. , 199
; Perdue, Long and Allen, 1990). This implies that destinations further progressed in tourism
development would be considered less ‘unique’ than a region in which tourism has just commenced. 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). For
example, Saarinen (200
) argued that a destination’s image, knowledge, meanings and natural and cultural
features over slowly stereotype and modify over the course of the transformation process, resulting in a loss of
differentiation between destinations. As the transformation process is
intertwined with human institutions, a detailed model of the process must consider both structure and
institutions; yet many structural models omit institutional factors and this has been considered their greatest
weakness (Williamson, 2000).