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). 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.
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. 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). The
aim was to obtain a measurement system for social norms and community perceptions to inform a broader,
more detailed study into the tourism transformation process. This paradox, however, does not occur consistently and often
development is deliberately cultivated by the community (Gonen, 1981). 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,
).
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 implies that destinations further progressed in tourism
development would be considered less ‘unique’ than a region in which tourism has just commenced.