When considering tourism planning, a key concern in the tourism transformation literature is the role and
responsibility of government (Haung, 200
; Briedenhann and Butts, 200
; Pavlovich, 2003; McLennan, 2005). 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). , 2007; Gartner, 200
). This literature shows that the social impact and sensitivity of an area can be measured by monitoring local community perceptions of tourism through
3
social impact or evaluation studies (Fredline, Deery, &
Jago, 2005 ; Delamere, 2001; Delamere, Wankel and Hinch,
). 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. These studies have often been undertaken for two primary
reasons: to overcome barriers to successful and sustainable tourism development (commonly termed
paradoxes) and to provide insight into the level of impact tourism has on the community (Diedrich and Garcia-
Baudes, 2009).
Paradoxes often occur if tourism is adopted simply for the economic benefits it can provide, such as
employment opportunities, increased income and standards of living and improvements in infrastructure
(Archer and Cooper, 1998; Lindberg, 2001; Liu and Var, 1986; Allen, Hafer, Long and Perdue, 1993) as it can also have
negative impacts, such as inflation, leakage of tourism revenue, changes in value systems and behaviour,
crowding, littering and water shortages (Buckley, 2001; Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996; Mathieson and Wall, 1982). This body of literature recognises the separation between structures and
institutions, although they have been labelled objective and subjective indicators (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006).
Literature
The theoretical framework underpinning the measurement system devised for this study derives from a well
developed and established body of tourism literature relating to community (host) perceptions and attitudes
of tourism activity and development (see Pizam, 1978; Belisle and Hoy, 1980; Cohen, 198
; Long and Allen, 1986;
Liu, Sheldon and Var, 1
; Milman and Pizam, 1988; Ap, 1992; Ross, 1992; Madrigal, 1995; Lindberg and Johnson,
1997; Ap and Crompton, 1998; Brunt and Courtney, 1999; Fredline and Faulkner, 2000; Weaver and Lawton, 2002;
Davis and Morais, 200
; Easterling, 200
; Harrill, 200
; Ritchie and Inkari, 2006; Zhong, Deng and Xiang, 2007;
Moyle, Croy, Weiler, In Press).
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).