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). Transformation theory is about structural
change that results from modifications of human institutions (Seliger, 2002). This implies that destinations further progressed in tourism
development would be considered less ‘unique’ than a region in which tourism has just commenced. Diedrich and Garcia-Buades (2009) show that as tourism grows and has more severe impacts on an area, so does the population's perception of tourism implications.
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). Institutions are collective human-
designed action, such as government strategies, plans, policies or laws, business or industry norms, social
norms, cultural beliefs or the general patterns of consumer behaviour (Mantzavinos, North and Shariq, 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,
). 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).
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). This body of literature recognises the separation between structures and
institutions, although they have been labelled objective and subjective indicators (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006).