Indeed, this has been extended to suggest that population perceptions can be indicators of destination decline (Faulkner & Tideswell, 1997; Diedrich & Garcia-Buades, 2009). 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
). 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 body of literature recognises the separation between structures and
institutions, although they have been labelled objective and subjective indicators (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006). 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). 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).
Arguably, tourism can deliver socio-cultural transformations (Ratz, 2000; Sebastian and Rajagopalan, 2009). 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).
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). As the transformation process is
intertwined with human institutions, a detailed model of the process must consider both structure and
institutions; yet many structural models omit institutional factors and this has been considered their greatest
weakness (Williamson, 2000).
