This paradox, however, does not occur consistently and often
development is deliberately cultivated by the community (Gonen, 1981). , 199
; Perdue, Long and Allen, 1990).
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). This implies that destinations further progressed in tourism
development would be considered less ‘unique’ than a region in which tourism has just commenced. 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. 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,
). This body of literature recognises the separation between structures and
institutions, although they have been labelled objective and subjective indicators (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006).
The literature indicates that clusters require leadership to grow and that direction can originate from
government, as well as from the private sector (Pavlovich, 2003; McLennan, 2005). It has been argued that more rapid and intense tourism development may have a less beneficial effect on societies than smaller scale development (de Kadt, 1979; Pierce, 1989; Ratz, 2000). 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.
