This paradox, however, does not occur consistently and often
development is deliberately cultivated by the community (Gonen, 1981). 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). Indeed, this has been extended to suggest that population perceptions can be indicators of destination decline (Faulkner & Tideswell, 1997; Diedrich & Garcia-Buades, 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). 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). Delamere 1997 Reid 2006 Petrosillo Zurlini
Grato and Zaccarelli 2006).
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). Another paradox occurs where
tourism is initiated to facilitate economic and social development, but the tourists are separated as an elite
social class (Macaulay, 199
). It
has been suggested that community involvement and collaboration in tourism planning is essential to ensure
the success of the destination and to overcome paradoxes (Cook, 1982; Murphy, 1985; Jamal and Getz, 1995).
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).