Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.

495–516, 2004
# 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Printed in Great Britain
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures 0160-7383/$30.00
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2003.08.008

HOST ATTITUDES TOWARD TOURISM

An Improved Structural Model
Dogan Gursoy
Denney G. Rutherford
Washington State University, USA

Abstract: Drawing from current literature, a theoretical tourism support model with a
series of hypotheses was proposed. The model and the hypotheses were tested by utilizing a
two-stage structural equation modeling approach. The findings of this study revealed that
the host community backing for tourism development is affected directly and/or indirectly
by nine determinants of residents’ support: the level of community concern, ecocentric
values, utilization of tourism resource base, community attachment, the state of the local
economy, economic benefits, social benefits, social costs, and cultural benefits. Further,
results indicated that there are interactions among five dimensions of impacts. The pro-
posed model explained the majority of the variance. Keywords: determinants of support,
attitudes, host community, structural equation modeling. # 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Résumé: Les attitudes de la communauté d’accueil envers le tourisme: un modèle struc-

turel amélioré. En se basant sur la littérature récente, on a proposé un modèle théorique
de soutien de tourisme comprenant une série d’hypothèses. Le modèle et les hypothèses
ont été mis à l’épreuve en utilisant une approche de modelage d’équation structurelle à
deux stades. Les résultats de cette étude révèlent que le soutien par la communauté
d’accueil du développement du tourisme est influé directement et/ou indirectement par
neuf déterminants du soutien des habitants: niveau d’intérêt de la communauté, valeurs
écologiques, utilisation de la base de ressources pour le tourisme, attachement de la com-
munauté, état de l’économie locale, bénéfices économiques, bénéfices sociaux, coûts
sociaux et bénéfices culturels. En plus, les résultats ont indiqué qu’il y a des interactions
parmi les cinq dimensions des impacts. Le modèle proposé a expliqué la plus grande partie
de la variance. Mots-clés: déterminants de soutien, attitudes, communauté d’accueil, mode-
lage par équation structurelle. # 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

INTRODUCTION
Understanding the antecedents of support by local residents
towards tourism development is crucial for local governments, policy-
makers, and businesses, because the success and sustainability of any
development depends on active support of the local populations.
Active opposition has been shown to hinder or stop development.

Both authors are members of the School of Hospitality Business Management

at Washington State University (Pullman WA 99164-4742, USA. Email
<dgursoy@cbe.wsu.edu>). Dogan Gursoy, Assistant Professor, conducts research on tourists’
information search behavior, community support for tourism development, cross-cultural
studies, and involvement. Denney Rutherford, Ivar Haglund Distinguished Professor, specia-
lizes in hospitality law and operations. He conducts research on quick service restaurants,
hospitality liability, and services management.

495
496 HOST ATTITUDES TOWARD TOURISM

The importance of local community support has been widely recog-

nized and thus has been a growing area of research (Akis, Peristianis
and Warner 1996). A majority of researchers who examined the topic
studied the perceived impacts (Besculides, Lee and McCormic 2002).
This interest can trace its genesis to the study of economic impacts
(Getz 1986; Liu, Sheldon and Var 1987). While this interest in econ-
omic impacts continues (Walpole and Goodwin 2000), researchers
have also started studying other dimensions such as cultural (Besculides
et al 2002), social (Brunt and Courtney 1999), and environmental
(Liu et al 1987).
In the last two decades, researchers also started examining the fac-
tors that are likely to influence these perceived impacts and sub-
sequent support for development. Among the factors studied and
identified were community attachment or length of residence
(Lankford 1994), levels of participation in recreation (Keogh 1990),
level of knowledge about tourism and the local economy (Pizam and
Milman 1986), personal economic reliance on tourism (Liu and Var
1986), proximity to the tourist zone or contact with tourists (Sheldon
and Var 1984), sociodemographic characteristics (Williams and Lawson
2001), political and demographic position in society (Mansfeld 1992),
type and form of tourism (Ritchie 1988), and level of contact with
tourists (Akis et al 1996).
While most of these studies have been descriptive, a small number
of researchers systematically examined the relationship between sup-
port and certain perceptions and personal characteristics (Williams
and Lawson 2001) and some attempted to examine local community
attitudes in a systematic manner by developing and testing theoretical
models (Gursoy, Jurowski and Uysal 2002; Lindberg and Johnson
1997; Jurowski, Uysal and Williams 1997).
The purpose of this study is to expand the existing support models
by testing one that was developed based on the previous constructs
and social exchange theory. This study has three objectives: to
develop a theoretical support model that examines the direct and/or
indirect effects of both perceived impacts and the factors that are
likely to influence the perception of impacts and subsequent support
for development; to test and refine the proposed theoretical model
using structural equation modeling; and to evaluate the strength and
direction of these factors on the host community’s support.

RESIDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD TOURISM

Although much of the research on residents’ reactions has been
atheoretical, a number of researchers investigated the topic by
employing a theoretical framework. The latter most often employed
social exchange theory. Its basic tenet is that locals are likely to par-
ticipate in an exchange if they believe that they are likely to gain ben-
efits without incurring unacceptable costs. If locals perceive that the
benefits are greater than the costs, they are inclined to be involved in
the exchange and, thus endorse future development in their com-
munity (Allen, Hafer, Long and Perdue 1993).
 GURSOY AND RUTHERFORD 497

Using the social exchange theory, Jurowski et al (1997) developed a

model that integrated factors likely to influence reactions toward
tourism. In their model, they proposed that the perceived potential
for economic gain, use of the resource base, attachment to one’s
community, and attitudes toward the preservation of the natural
environment influenced how residents perceived the economic,
social, and environmental impacts. The model postulated that both
the antecedents and the three categories of impacts had direct and/
or indirect effects on support. Later, Gursoy et al (2002) criticized
Jurowski et al’s (1997) model for aggregating the costs and benefits
factors into three categories. They proposed a new model that expan-
ded on the findings of Jurowski et al study by segregating the impacts
into costs and benefits and then examining the influence of these two
on support. They also added two new constructs: the state of the local
economy and the level of community concern.
While Gursoy et al (2002) expanded the understanding of com-
munity support for tourism, they examined the perceived impacts as
having two dimensions—costs and benefits—which limited the appli-
cability of the findings. The model proposed and tested in this study
expands on the findings of the models proposed by Jurowski
et al (1997) and Gursoy et al (2002) by breaking down the perceived
impact into five areas: economic benefits; social benefits; social costs;
cultural benefits; and cultural costs.
Figure 1 presents the model being tested, which proposes that the
perceptions of these five impact factors and the state of the local
economy are the antecedents of community support for tourism. It
suggests these perceptions are influenced by the concern locals have
for their community, their emotional attachment to it, the degree to
which they are environmentally sensitive, and the extent to which
they use the same resource base that tourists use. It also suggests that
the perceived state of the local economy influences the perceptions
of the benefits and costs. The next section presents support for the
inclusion of each of the variables. The narrative works backward
beginning with the ultimate dependent variable and ends with the
exogenous variables. The hypotheses tested are also presented.

Ultimate Development Variable

The tourism support construct is examined as the ultimate depen-
dent variable. Social exchange theory suggests that residents are likely
to support development as long as they believe that the expected ben-
efits exceed the costs. Since the majority of residents see tourism as
an economic development tool (Keogh 1990), it is not surprising that
the findings of most of the studies suggest that, overall, locals have
positive attitudes toward tourism (Andereck and Vogt 2000). Only a
few reported negative attitudes (Johnson, Snepenger and Akis 1994;
Pizam 1978) due to communities’ desire to avoid negative social
impacts being felt by the neighboring towns (Cheng 1980), had con-
flict with the US forest service (Knopp 1980) or with the resource
management (O’Leary 1976).
498 HOST ATTITUDES TOWARD TOURISM

Figure 1. Proposed Model: Determinants of the Community Support

Six constructs are examined as mediating variables between

exogenous constructs and the ultimate dependent variable: economic
benefits, social costs, social benefits, cultural costs, cultural benefits,
and the state of the local economy. Tourism has long been viewed as
a tool for economic development (Walpole and Goodwin 2000). Sev-
eral studies reported that economic benefits are the most important
 GURSOY AND RUTHERFORD 499

elements sought by locals (Akis et al 1996; Ritchie 1988). Research

has demonstrated residents feel tourism reduces unemployment by
creating new opportunities (Tosun 2002), brings in new businesses
and creates new investment opportunities (Sethna and Richmond
1978), creates opportunities for small businesses (Davis, Allen and
Cosenza 1988), and generates revenue for local communities and gov-
ernments (Jurowski et al 1997). Almost all studies examining the
relationship between perceived economic benefits and attitudes
reported a positive relationship (Keogh 1990).
Several tourism researchers have extensively examined the percep-
tions of social and cultural impacts. However, the findings of those
studies have produced contradictory results. While most of them indi-
cated that locals viewed economic impacts as being positive (Jurowski
et al 1997), some reported that they tend to perceive the social and
cultural impacts negatively (Brunt and Courtney 1999). On the other
hand, some researchers concluded that residents view tourism as pro-
viding various social and cultural benefits (Besculides et al 2002).
Harrison (1992) suggests that it provides new opportunities and insti-
gates social change. Others suggest that it creates new opportunities
for locals such as new shopping and recreation alternatives (Brunt
and Courtney 1999). Sethna and Richmond (1978) and Pizam (1978)
suggest that locals perceive tourism as having a positive impact on ser-
vices by improving the standards of roads and other public facilities.
Previous literature demonstrates that tourism creates a demand for
local arts (McKean 1978), increases pride and cultural identity,
cohesion, and exchange of ideas, and increases knowledge about the
culture of the area (Esman 1984). It also creates opportunities for
cultural exchange and revitalization of local traditions, increases qual-
ity of life, and improves the image of the community (Besculides
et al 2002). However, the literature also suggests that it creates nega-
tive cultural impacts. As a factor of change, it can negatively influence
traditional family values (Kousis 1989), cause cultural commercializa-
tion (Cohen 1988), and may create social and cultural conflicts at the
destination community due to sociocultural differences, economic
welfare, and purchasing power gaps between hosts and tourists
(Tosun 2002). In the long term, the host community may start adopt-
ing tourists’ norms and values and may become culturally dependent
on the generating country (Sharpley 1994).
In sum, the local residents’ perception of tourism impacts is varied.
Some view tourism as having both positive and negative impacts; some
are likely to perceive it as having negative social and cultural ones; and
some view it as having positive economic, social and cultural impacts.
Based on the conceptual and empirical perspectives from the litera-
ture, five hypotheses are proposed. These hypotheses are:

Hypothesis 1a. A direct positive relationship exists between the perceived

economic benefits and residents’ support.

Hypothesis 1b. A direct negative relationship exists between the perceived

social costs and residents’ support.
500 HOST ATTITUDES TOWARD TOURISM

Hypothesis 1c. A direct positive relationship exists between the perceived

social benefits and residents’ support.

Hypothesis 1d. A direct positive relationship exists between the perceived cul-
tural benefits and residents’ support.

Hypothesis 1e. A direct negative relationship exists between the perceived cul-
tural costs and residents’ support.

Many communities have been going through substantial changes

over the past decade. The primary industries on which such com-
munities have depended have departed, leaving behind economic dif-
ficulties and a search for alternative development strategies
(Andereck and Vogt 2000). Faced with a narrow resource base, some
embraced tourism as a panacea for their economic malaise (Harris,
McLaughlin and Brown 1998). Evidence suggests that in economically
depressed regions, locals underestimate the cost of tourism develop-
ment and over-estimate the economic gains (Liu and Var 1986). They
are willing to ‘‘put up with some inconvenience in exchange for tour-
ist money’’ (Var, Kendall and Tarakcoglu 1985:654).
Previous research also suggests that the perception of local econ-
omy has a significant impact on both perceived costs and benefits,
and on the support for tourism. Gursoy et al (2002) argue that if the
economy is depressed, locals are likely to place more importance on
benefits and consequently support tourism. There is also empirical
evidence to suggest that locals are aware of the potential for tourism
to result in negative impacts but still support its development (Andereck
and Vogt 2000)

Hypothesis 2a. An inverse relationship exists between the perceived state of

the local economy and the perceived economic benefits.

Hypothesis 2b. An inverse relationship exists between the perceived state of

the local economy and the perceived social benefits.

Hypothesis 2c. A direct negative relationship exists between the perceived

state of the local economy and the perceived social costs.

Hypothesis 2d. An inverse relationship exists between the perceived state of

the local economy and the perceived cultural benefits.

Hypothesis 2e. A direct negative relationship exists between the perceived

state of the local economy and the perceived cultural costs.

Hypothesis 2f. An inverse relationship exists between the perceived state of

the local economy and residents’ support.
 GURSOY AND RUTHERFORD 501

Exogenous Latent Variables

Four constructs are examined as exogenous latent variables: The
community concern, economic attitudes, community attachment and
utilization of tourism resource base by locals. Several studies have sug-
gested that attachment to the community is one of the factors that
affects people’s perception of tourism impacts and their support (Um
and Crompton 1987). However, contradictory findings regarding the
influence of community attachment on impact perceptions and
support have been reported. Davis et al (1988) suggest that people
who were natives were more positive about tourism than newcomers
to the community. Conversely, Um and Crompton suggest a negative
relationship between community attachment and the perceived
impacts. Jurowski et al argue that attached residents are likely to form
positive perceptions of the economic and social impacts. Lankford
and Howard (1994) and Gursoy et al (2002) were unable to find a
clear connection between attachment and perceptions of the impacts.
McCool and Martin (1994) reported that a greater sense of belonging
to a community is highly correlated with higher ratings of both posi-
tive and negative impacts.
In addition, community attachment was found to influence how locals
perceive their economy; previous studies argued the more attached the
people to their community the more likely they are to perceive that the
local economy needs assistance (Gursoy et al 2002). This is likely to
mediate how they perceive the costs and benefits. If they feel that new
investments are needed in their region, they are likely to evaluate the
benefits more positively and minimize the negative impacts. The follow-
ing hypotheses were formulated based on the preceding discussion:

Hypothesis 3a. A direct positive relationship exists between the level of

attachment to the community and the perceived economic benefits.

Hypothesis 3b. A direct positive relationship exists between the level of

attachment to the community and the perceived social benefits.

Hypothesis 3c. A direct negative relationship exists between the level of

attachment to the community and the perceived social costs.

Hypothesis 3d. A direct positive relationship exists between the level of

attachment to the community and the perceived cultural benefits.

Hypothesis 3e. A direct negative relationship exists between the level of

attachment to the community and the perceived cultural costs.

Hypothesis 3f. A direct inverse relationship exists between the level of attach-
ment to the community and the state of the local economy.

Previous research suggests that community concern is likely to

influence the perception of the state of the local economy (Gursoy
et al 2002), the cost and benefits (Allen, Long, Perdue and
502 HOST ATTITUDES TOWARD TOURISM

Kieselbach 1988; Perdue, Long and Allen 1990) and the support. The
researchers suggested that people with higher levels of concern about
their community are likely to also be more concerned with the state
of the local economy. As suggested by previous studies, it is proposed
that community concern is likely to influence the perception of the
impacts. On the bases of these propositions, the following hypotheses
were formulated:

Hypothesis 4a. A direct positive relationship exists between the level of com-
munity concern and the perceived economic benefits.

Hypothesis 4b. A direct positive relationship exists between the level of com-
munity concern and the perceived social benefits.

Hypothesis 4c. A direct negative relationship exists between the level of com-
munity concerns and the perceived social costs.

Hypothesis 4d. A direct positive relationship exists between the level of com-
munity concern and the perceived cultural benefits.

Hypothesis 4e. A direct negative relationship exists between the level of com-
munity concern and the perceived cultural costs.

Hypothesis 4f. A direct inverse relationship exists between the level of com-
munity concern and the state of the local economy.

Evidence exists that the level of ecocentric attitudes significantly

affects host community reaction to and their perceptions of tourism
impacts (Jurowski et al 1997). Jurowski et al (1997) reported a
negative relationship between ecocentric attitudes of locals and
three impact variables they examined: perceived economic impact,
perceived social impact, and perceived environmental impact. Gursoy
et al (2002) reported a negative impact on both perceived benefits
and costs. They also reported that support is positively influenced
by the strength of the locals’ ecocentrism. Five hypotheses are pro-
posed:

Hypothesis 5a. A negative relationship exists between the level of ecocentric

values and the perceived economic benefits.

Hypothesis 5b. A negative relationship exists between the level of ecocentric

values and the perceived social benefits.

Hypothesis 5c. A direct inverse relationship exists between the level of eco-
centric values and the perceived social costs.

Hypothesis 5d. A negative relationship exists between the level of ecocentric

values and the perceived cultural benefits.
 GURSOY AND RUTHERFORD 503

Hypothesis 5e. A direct inverse relationship exists between the level of eco-
centric values and the perceived cultural costs.

Previous research suggests that locals can view tourism either posi-
tively or negatively based upon how they perceive its impact on utiliza-
tion of recreation resources. Kendall and Var (1984) concluded that
people who utilize the resource base view impacts positively because it
improves leisure facilities and opportunities for the host community.
This finding was supported by Allen et al (1993). Others reported
that locals who utilize the resource base view impacts negatively due
to the belief that tourism may result in crowding the local population
out of traditional leisure pursuits (O’Leary 1976). Jurowski et al
(1997) reported a positive influence on the perceived economic,
social, and environmental impacts. They also reported that the utiliza-
tion of the resource base by locals had a significant influence on sup-
port. Studies that investigated the effects of tourism on use of tourism
resources have generally concluded that it improves entertainment
and recreational opportunities for the host community (Jurowski et al
1997). The overall conclusion is that the utilization of resource base
by locals is likely to have a positive relationship with positive impacts
and an inverse relationship with negative impacts.

Hypothesis 6a. A direct positive relationship exists between utilization of the

resource base by locals and the perceived economic benefits of tourism.

Hypothesis 6b. A direct positive relationship exists between utilization of the

resource base by locals and the perceived social benefits.

Hypothesis 6c. A direct inverse relationship exists between utilization of the

resource base by locals and the perceived social costs.

Hypothesis 6d. A direct positive relationship exists between utilization of the

resource base by locals and the perceived cultural benefits.

Hypothesis 6e. A direct inverse relationship exists between utilization of the

resource base by locals and the perceived cultural costs.

Research Design and Measurement of Variables

The sample population consisted of individuals who reside in selec-
ted counties in Washington and Idaho, USA. It was selected using a
stratified random sampling approach. A self-administered survey was
used to collect data. A total of 414 usable instruments were returned
for a response rate of 20.7%. However, for the purpose of this
research, returned surveys with missing data were eliminated from the
analysis, because any statistical result based upon the data set with
missing values would be biased to the extent that the variables
included in the analysis are influenced by the missing data process
(Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black 1998). Therefore, 290 responses
with complete data were retained for the analysis.
504 HOST ATTITUDES TOWARD TOURISM

Support was measured by responses to three items. Respondents

were asked to indicate how much they would oppose or support nat-
ure based tourism, cultural, or historic based attractions (such as visi-
tor centers or museums) and nature programs (such as guided nature
walks) developments in their community on a 5-point anchor scale
with ‘‘strongly oppose’’ at the low end and ‘‘strongly support’’ at the
high end.
Items that are used to measure the positive and negative perceived
impacts were adopted from Liu et al (1987) and Akis et al (1996).
Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement
with the statements that measure perceived impacts on a 5-point
Likert type totally agree–totally disagree scale. As shown in Table 1,
four items were used to measure the perceived economic benefits,
perceived social costs, and perceived social benefits. Three items were
used to measure perceived cultural costs and perceived cultural bene-
fits.
Items that measured community attachment, community concern,
perceived state of the local economy, ecocentric attitude, and use of
tourism resource base were adapted from Gursoy et al (2002). As
shown in Table 1, the state of the local economy and the use of tour-
ism resource base were measured by three items, and five items mea-
sured the ecocentric attitudes using a 5-point anchor scale with
‘‘strongly disagree’’ at the low end and ‘‘strongly agree’’ at the high
end. Three items measured the community concern construct using a
4-point anchor scale with ‘‘not at all’’ at the low end and ‘‘very much’’
at the high end.

Study Methods
The proposed model and hypothesized paths were tested on the
survey data collected from the residents of selected counties of
Washington and Idaho during the Spring of 2002. The measurement
and structural models were tested using the LISREL 8 structural equa-
tion analysis package (Joreskog and Sorbom 1989). The maximum
likelihood method of estimation, in combination with the two-stage
process was utilized to analyze the data (Anderson and Gerbing
1988).
The fit of the measurement and structural models was determined
by examining chi-square (v2) statistics, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI;
Joreskog and Sorbom 1989), the non-normed-fit index (NNFI; see Hu
and Bentler 1995), the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler 1990), the
incremental Fit Index (IFI; Mulaik James, Alstine, Bennett, Lind and
Stilwell 1989) and the critical N statistic (Hoelter 1983). Values of
GFI, IFI, CFI and NNFI range from 0 to 1.00 with a value close to
1.00 indicating good fit (Mulaik et al 1989). Two indices that are pro-
posed to measure the parsimony of the model are also reported: par-
simony goodness of fit index (PGFI) and parsimony normed fit index
(PNFI). Values of PGFI and PNFI range from 0 to 1.00 with a value
above .70 indicating a good fit (a parsimonious model) (Joreskog and
 GURSOY AND RUTHERFORD 505

Table 1. Measurement Scale Properties (N ¼ 290)

Constructs and Indicators Completely Indicator Error

Standardized Reliability Variance
Loadings

Community Support for Tourism Development 0.83b

Nature based tourism development 0.79 0.63 0.37
Cultural or historic based attractions 0.80 0.64 0.36
Nature programs (such as guided nature walks) 0.78 0.61 0.39
Perceived Economic Benefits of Tourism 0.86b
Employment opportunities 0.85 0.72 0.28
Investment opportunities 0.79 0.62 0.38
More business for local people and small businesses 0.72 0.52 0.48
Revenues from tourists for local governments 0.75 0.57 0.43
Perceived Social Cost of Tourism 0.81b
Increase in the prices of goods and services 0.60 0.36 0.64
Increase in crime rate 0.69 0.48 0.52
Increase in traffic congestion 0.70 0.49 0.51
Increase in noise and pollution 0.85 0.73 0.27
Perceived Social Benefits 0.78b
Provide an incentive for the preservation of local culture 0.84 0.71 0.29
Provide more parks and other recreational areas for locals 0.63 0.40 0.60
Provide an incentive for the restoration of historical buildings 0.64 0.41 0.59
Improve the standards of road and other public facilities 0.61 0.38 0.62
Perceived Cultural Cost of Tourism 0.87b
Negative effects of high spending tourist on local’s way of living 0.84 0.71 0.29
Negative effects of tourism on the local culture 0.82 0.68 0.32
Suffering from living in a tourism destination 0.84 0.71 0.29
Perceived Cultural Benefits 0.74b
Development of cultural activities by local residents 0.60 0.36 0.64
Cultural exchange between tourists and residents 0.68 0.47 0.53
Positive impact on cultural identity 0.80 0.64 0.36
Community Attachment 0.73b
How much do you feel at home in this community 0.74 0.55 0.45
Knowing what goes in the community 0.35 0.12 0.88
How sorry or pleased would you be if you move awaya 0.78 0.61 0.39
Satisfaction with the community 0.62 0.39 0.61
Community Concern 0.57b
Schools 0.53 0.28 0.72
Crime 0.44 0.19 0.81
Recreation and culture 0.68 0.46 0.54
State of the Local Economy 0.74b
Government should help to create more jobs 0.41 0.17 0.83
Need more jobs 0.88 0.78 0.22
Need more jobs to stop young people moving away 0.75 0.56 0.44
Ecocentric Attitude 0.83b
Interfering with nature 0.64 0.41 0.59
Nature can cope with impacts of industrial nationsa 0.50 0.25 0.75
Earth has very limited room and resources 0.71 0.50 0.50
The balance of nature 0.84 0.71 0.29
Ecological catastrophe 0.80 0.64 0.36
Use of Tourism Resource Base 0.86b
Favorite place to go during free time 0.77 0.60 0.40
Coming here is most satisfying 0.93 0.86 0.14
Express who I am 0.74 0.55 0.45

a
Recoded.
b
Composite reliability of each construct.
506 HOST ATTITUDES TOWARD TOURISM

Sorbom 1989). A cut off of 200 or greater is suggested as an indi-

cation of adequate model fit for the critical N statistic (Hoelter 1983).
Before testing the overall measurement model with a confirmatory
factor analysis, unidimensionality of each proposed construct was
assessed. This procedure assures that each set of alternate indicators
has only one underlying trait or construct in common (Sethi and
King 1994). Constructs with unacceptable fits were re-specified by
deleting the indicators that failed to preserve unidimensionality of
the measurement (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). Afterwards, items
that had a coefficient alpha below .3 were eliminated from the further
analysis as suggested by Joreskog (1993). The items that remained
after these two steps are presented in Table 1. The resulting measure-
ment model is tested by a confirmatory factor analysis (Table 1).
In an overall measurement model, the adequacy of the individual
items and the composites are assessed by measures of reliability and
validity. A value of higher than 0.70 is acceptable for a composite
reliability. However, Hair et al (1998) argue that scores between 0.60
and 0.70 are also acceptable, because they represent the lower limit of
acceptability. As shown in Table 1, the composite reliability scores of
all constructs were above 0.70 with the exception of community
concern construct (0.57). Two types of validity measures (discriminant
validity and convergent validity) were examined. Results indicated
that the proposed measurement model had both discriminant and con-
vergent validity. The overall fit of this final measurement model was
v2ð646Þ ¼ 695:15 (p ¼ 0:088); GFI ¼ :90; NNFI ¼ :98; CFI ¼ :98, IFI ¼
:98 and PGFI ¼ :74; PNFI ¼ :75 and critical N ¼ 289:76. Further, the
indicators of residuals, RMR (root mean square), standardized RMR
and RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) were .036, .045
and .016, respectively.
The review of the proposed theoretical structural model revealed
the chi-square value of the proposed theoretical model was not sig-
nificant, indicating that it might be under-identified and could be
improved. Therefore, the existence of a better and improved model
was assessed by utilizing a pseudo chi-square test (Anderson and
Gerbing 1988). The pseudo chi-square test result was found to be
insignificant (pseudo v2ð741Þ ¼ 695:15, P ¼ :88), suggesting the exist-
ence of a better model.
A series of five nested structural models were tested to identify the
best model for the study. After their assessment, sequential chi-square
difference tests were conducted to provide successive fit information
(Anderson and Gerbing 1988). The results indicated that the con-
strained model was better. As a result, the proposed theoretical model
was rejected and the constrained one was accepted as the best. In the
constrained construct, 14 of the 33 proposed paths (parameters) were
fixed at zero (eliminated) and eight additional paths were estimated.
The overall model fit statistics indicated that the accepted con-
strained model fit the data within the established guidelines: v2ð668Þ ¼
707:72 (p-value > 0:14); GFI ¼ :90; NNFI ¼ :98; CFI ¼ :98; IFI ¼ :98;
PGFI ¼ :76 PNFI ¼ :77; RMR ¼ :039; standardized RMR ¼ :048; and,
 GURSOY AND RUTHERFORD 507

Figure 2. Modified Model: Determinants of the Community Support

RMSEA ¼ :014. In addition, the critical N value was 293.55, well above
the recommended cut of value of 200 (Figure 2).

Results and Discussion

Fifteen of the 19 hypothesized paths retained in the accepted con-
strained model were statistically significant in the direction predicted
at the .05 probability level. In addition, all of the new paths identified
in the constrained model were found to be significant at the .05 prob-
ability level. The new ones indicated that there were interactions
among the perceived costs and benefits constructs. In addition, the
path from the community attachment to the support constructs indi-
cated that the former does not only affect the support through affect-
ing the perceptions of cost and/or benefits, but also it directly affects
the support for tourism development.
The constrained model, a better fitted model, indicated that it was
not necessary to test all of the proposed hypotheses, because testing
only 19 of the proposed 33 would explain the same, if not more, of
the variance. Therefore, 14 hypotheses were eliminated. Two related
to the state of the local economy were eliminated (H2b and H2d),
because they did not have any significant impact on the perceived
social and cultural benefits. Previous studies suggest that the percep-
tion of local economy has significant impacts on both perceived costs
and benefits and on the support (Gursoy et al 2002). However, the
relationship between the perceived state of the local economy and
508 HOST ATTITUDES TOWARD TOURISM

perceived economic, social, cultural benefits and costs was not exam-
ined in pervious studies. The relationship was suggested based on an
aggregate examination of costs and benefits. The lack of relationship
reported in this study indicates that residents who believe the local
economy is in bad shape are more concerned about economic bene-
fits than other benefits of tourism.
Three hypotheses related to the community attachment construct
were eliminated (H3c, H3d and H3e) because they did not have any
significant impact on the social costs, cultural benefits, or cultural
costs. The lack of relationship between these constructs is consistent
with the results reported by Jurowski et al (1997). Their findings indi-
cated that attached residents are likely to evaluate the economic and
social impacts of tourism positively, suggesting that they are more
concerned about positive economic and social benefits.
Three hypotheses related to the community concern construct were
eliminated (H4b, H4c and H4e), because they did not have any sig-
nificant impact on the cultural costs and social benefits or social
costs. Previous studies in this area produced mixed results, especially
on the impact of tourism on the environment (Allen et al 1988;
Ritchie 1988), on local culture (Mathieson and Wall 1982), and on
recreation opportunities (Keogh 1990; Perdue et al 1990). However,
findings reported here are consistent with Gursoy et al’s (2002) and
suggest that community concern is not likely to influence the percep-
tion of social costs/benefits and cultural benefits.
Two hypotheses related to the ecocentric attitudes construct were
eliminated (H5d and H5e), because they did not have any significant
relationship with the cultural costs or cultural benefits. This finding
suggests that locals with high ecocentric values are not concerned
with cultural costs and benefits, but are with the economic and social
impacts.
Four hypotheses related to the use of tourism resources base con-
struct were eliminated (H6a, H6b, H6c and H6d), because they did
not have any significant relationship with the economic benefits,
social costs, social benefits, or cultural benefits. While this finding is
supported by Gursoy et al (2002), it contradicts Lankford’s (1996)
that users of recreational resources are likely to name the issue of
crime to protect recreational resources and to keep them for their
own use. However, the data suggest that the use of the tourism resour-
ces base construct is likely to influence the cultural costs of tourism.
This finding might be explained by the theory that locals might be
willing to or may have developed and adopted coping mechanisms to
avoid competition with tourists for recreational resources.
The result of the model development process suggested that add-
ing new paths would improve the model fit. Based on the recommen-
dations of modification indices and the literature, eight additional
paths were added. The first is from the community attachment con-
struct to the support construct (b ¼ :12; t ¼ 2:03). Earlier research
supports this addition that implies community attachment has a
direct impact on support (Mansfeld 1992; McCool and Martin 1994).
However, this finding also contrasts with other studies indicating that
 GURSOY AND RUTHERFORD 509

the longer residents have been living in a community, the more nega-
tive they will be toward tourism (Allen et al 1988; Um and Crompton
1987). This contradictory finding may suggest that the length of resi-
dency may not be a good indicator of community attachment, and it
should be measured by several items.
The model development process suggested there were interactions
among the impact constructs. Seven new paths were added to further
investigate these relationships. First, three were to investigate the
impact of the economic benefits construct on the social costs, the cul-
tural costs, and the cultural benefits constructs. Results indicated that
the relationships between the economic benefits and the social costs
(b ¼ :23; t ¼ 33:35), and the cultural costs constructs (b ¼ :33;
t ¼ 5:78) are negative, while the relationship between the economic
benefits and the cultural benefits is positive (b ¼ :35; t ¼ 4:52). The
fourth path investigated the relationship between the social costs and
the cultural costs constructs. It was found to be positive (b ¼ :55;
t ¼ 8:72). Two paths examined the relationships between the cultural
costs to the cultural benefits, and social benefits constructs. Results
demonstrated a negative relationship between the cultural costs con-
struct to these two (b ¼ :36; t ¼ 4:97; b ¼ :13; t ¼ 2:03, respect-
ively). The last new path was from the cultural benefits construct
social benefits construct. The relationship between these was found to
be positive and significant (b ¼ :68; t ¼ 7:79).
These findings suggest that perceptions of impacts are not mutually
exclusive. A change in perceptions of one type of impact is likely to
influence the perceptions of other types. If residents perceive one
impact factor as more important than others, it is likely that the per-
ception of that impact factor will influence the perceptions of other
impact factors. For example, if one has a very strong perception of
economic benefits, this is likely to influence his/or perceptions of
social and cultural impacts. In other words, the most salient perceived
impact is likely to influence the perception of all other impacts.
Four hypotheses were rejected: H1b proposed a direct negative
relationship between social costs and support; H1c proposed a direct
positive relationship between social benefits and support; H1e pro-
posed a direct negative relationship between cultural costs and sup-
port; and H2e proposed a direct inverse relationship between state of
the local economy and cultural costs. Findings indicated social cost,
social benefits, and cultural costs do not have any significant impact
on support (b ¼ :05; t ¼ 1:18; b ¼ :03; t ¼ :27; b ¼ :09 t ¼ 1:71,
respectively). Additionally, results further suggested that the state of
the economy did not have any significant impact on social costs
(b ¼ :08; t ¼ 1:50).
The finding that there is no significant direct negative relationship
between cultural/social costs and support contradicts the conclusion
of most of other studies that costs negatively relate to support (Keogh
1990; Ritchie 1988). However, Gursoy et al’s findings (2002) are con-
sistent with this study. Insignificant relations between costs and sup-
port may be explained by the economic conditions of the community
where the study was conducted. Communities of this study have been
510 HOST ATTITUDES TOWARD TOURISM

experiencing economic downturns due to loss of mainstream indus-

tries or an evolution of economic base, for example from extractive to
service/technology or pure agricultural to a mix of agriculture and
tourism. Evidence suggests that in communities experiencing econ-
omic downturns, residents are likely to view tourism as a means of
improving their economic position (Allen et al 1993; Keogh 1990)
while underestimating the social and cultural costs (Akis et al 1996).
The finding that there is no significant relationship between social
benefits and support may be explained by the importance communi-
ties place on economic benefits. Evidence suggests that locals are
likely to place more importance on such gains than any other impacts
(Akis et al 1996; Husband 1989). Again, because of the significant
emphasis placed on economic gains, residents may underestimate the
social and over-estimate the economic benefits.
The findings supported 15 of 19 proposed hypotheses. Evidence
was found to support the direct relationship between the economic
benefits and support (b ¼ :10; t ¼ 2:36). Support was also found for
the hypothesis that a direct positive relationship exists between the
cultural benefits and support (b ¼ :50; t ¼ 3:82). These findings are
consistent with previous studies, suggesting that economic (Tosun
2002) and cultural benefits (Jurowski et al 1997) positively affect the
level of host community support.
Hypothesis 2a that predicted an inverse relationship between the
state of the local economy and the economic benefits (b ¼ :11;
t ¼ 2:12), 2c that proposed a direct negative relationship between the
state of the local economy and the social costs (b ¼ :16; t ¼ 2:30),
and 2f that predicted an inverse relationship between the state of the
local economy and support (b ¼ :21; t ¼ 3:70) were supported. These
findings indicate that the more residents felt the local economy nee-
ded improvement, the more favorably they evaluated the economic
benefits while minimizing the social costs, and thus they support tour-
ism development.
Hypothesis 3a that proposed a direct positive relationship between
the level of attachment to the community and the economic benefits
(b ¼ :15; t ¼ 2:20), 3b that predicted a direct positive relationship
between the level of attachment to the community and the social ben-
efits (b ¼ :12; t ¼ 2:11) and 3f that proposed a direct inverse relation-
ship between the level of attachment to the community and the state
of the local economy (b ¼ :17; t ¼ 2:11) were supported. These
findings suggest that people who are highly attached to their com-
munity are more likely to view tourism as having positive economic
and social impacts. Findings also suggest residents who are highly
attached to their community are more likely to view the state of the
local economy favorably than residents who are not highly attached.
Hypothesis 4a predicted a direct positive relationship between the
level of community concern and the economic benefits (b ¼ :29;
t ¼ 2:91); 4b proposed a direct positive relationship between the level
of community concern and the cultural benefits (b ¼ :19; t ¼ 2:34)
and the hypothesis proposing a direct inverse relationship between
the level of concern and the state of the local economy (b ¼ :20;
 GURSOY AND RUTHERFORD 511

t ¼ 2:16) were supported. This suggests people who are highly con-
cerned about their community and community issues are more likely
to perceive tourism as creating economic and cultural benefits for
their community. Additionally, these findings also demonstrate that as
the level of community concern increases, the perception of the state
of the local economy is likely to diminish.
Hypothesis 5a proposing a negative relationship between the eco-
centric values of residents and the economic benefits (b ¼ :10;
t ¼ 1:99); 5b proposing a negative relationship between the eco-
centric values and the social benefits (b ¼ :12; t ¼ 2:21) and 5c
predicting a direct relationship between the ecocentric values and the
social costs (b ¼ :20; t ¼ 3:05) were supported. These support the
findings of Gursoy et al (2002) that locals with high ecocentric values
are likely to view tourism less favorably and place a greater impor-
tance on the costs of tourism than locals with low.
Hypothesis 6e predicting a direct inverse relationship between utili-
zation of the tourism resource base and the cultural costs (b ¼ :24;
t ¼ 4:57) was supported. This is consistent with the findings of
previous studies reporting that locals who participated in outdoor
recreation would have more negative perceptions of the impacts
(Lankford 1996; O’Leary 1976).
Results indicated that the proposed constrained model explained
62% of the variance in the residents’ support for tourism construct,
while the rejected proposed theoretical model explained 60% of the
variance. Similar R2 values produced by both models support the
acceptance of the constrained model over the hypothesized model,
because elimination of several paths did not have any significant
affect on the amount of variance explained (R2) in the ultimate
dependent variable in the accepted constrained model.
Gursoy et al (2002) tested a similar model; however, they were only
able to explain 44% of the variance in residents’ support for tourism
development. In their model, they aggregated the costs and benefits.
The amount of variance explained in this study indicates that segre-
gation of positive and negative impacts as economic benefits, social
benefits, social costs, cultural benefits, and cultural costs significantly
improves the understanding of the antecedents of support by advanc-
ing the theoretical base.

Implications
Communities and organizations seeking to develop or increase
tourism should realize that the issue of support is complex (Gunn
1988). Findings of this and other studies suggest that community lea-
ders and developers thinking of developing tourism need to consider
perceptions and attitudes of residents before they start investing
scarce resources if the proposed development project is to be success-
ful. Therefore, the results of this study can be valuable to local plan-
ners, policymakers, and business operators considering the type, size,
and complexity of development.
512 HOST ATTITUDES TOWARD TOURISM

Findings indicated that five factors are likely to influence host com-
munity’s perception of impacts and their support: community attach-
ment, community concern, use of tourism resources, ecocentric
attitudes, and the state of the local economy. These suggest that
before attempting to develop tourism, planners should gather infor-
mation about individuals attached to their community, those con-
cerned about community issues, those with strong environmental
attitudes, those currently using the resource to be developed, and
those believing the economy needs improvement. Once these groups
are identified, planners and developers can develop communication
strategies to address the issues raised by each group individually.
Findings also indicated that the state of the local economy is likely
to mediate the influences of community attachment and community
concern on five dimensions of costs and benefits. It is suggested that
the more residents feel the economy needs improvement, the more
likely they are to support tourism, and the less likely they are to be
troubled by any social costs. The study results suggest that the com-
munities investigated may be willing to enter the exchange process if
the potential for economic gain is considerable. Identification of resi-
dents who feel the economy needs improvement may help planners
and developers in convincing others about the benefits of develop-
ment. Developers and planners can utilize those in their internal mar-
keting efforts to change the opinion of others who feel that they have
little to gain from tourism by promoting the positive economic bene-
fits on one-to-one and face-to-face bases.
Findings also demonstrated that those residents who expressed a
high level of attachment to their communities are more likely to view
tourism as being both economically and socially beneficial. The
interpretation of the model suggests that these people are concerned
and attached to their communities and could likely be recruited or
marketed to directly as supporters of the right sort of development.
This would appear to be important not just for the development of
sites, but also in residents’ response and attitude toward the tourists
themselves, providing a welcoming atmosphere that promotes success
of the venture on a sustainable basis.
This study also demonstrated that both positive and negative
impacts should be examined to better understand host community’s
attitudes. While most of members of the community were found to be
concerned about economic benefits, others were more concerned
about specific benefit and cost factors. For example, while residents
with high ecocentric attitudes were concerned about both social ben-
efits and costs in addition to economic benefits, those who were
highly concerned about community issues were more worried about
the cultural costs and benefits. Planners and developers can utilize
these findings to develop communication strategies that deal with
specific issues raised by each group. This may help them gain a larger
support and may increase the chance of success of the proposed
development.
The study and its findings are not free from limitations. The investi-
gation was directed at only the residents of the selected counties of
 GURSOY AND RUTHERFORD 513

Washington and Idaho. It is possible that if it were conducted in

other counties and states, the magnitude and direction of the rela-
tionships might be different. Therefore, other counties, states, and
geographic regions should be explored and additional studies should
be conducted. In addition, respondents were only asked to indicate
whether they would oppose or support nature based, cultural, or historic
based tourism and nature programs. It is possible that the specification
of the level of tourism development may alter the magnitude and direc-
tion of the relationship in the model. Future studies should include how
much development is likely to be supported by local residents.
The physical and environmental factors were not examined. Several
studies suggest that these are likely to influence support for develop-
ment. It is possible that if they were included in the model, it could
have explained a larger percentage of the variance in host community
support. Future studies should include them in their model to exam-
ine their impacts on support and to explore the impact of their
inclusion on the explained variance. As such, this study only exam-
ined hosts’ reactions toward natural and cultural tourism develop-
ments. It is possible that examination of the support for other types
may produce different results.

CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to develop and test a model based on
social exchange theory that examines both perceived impacts and the
factors that are likely to influence those perceptions. Drawing from
previous literature and social exchange theory, a theoretical support
model to examine the direct and/or indirect effects of impacts and
the factors likely to influence them on subsequent support was pro-
posed. It was tested and refined using data generated by the residents
of 14 counties in two adjacent states of the United States utilizing a
structural equation modeling approach.
The major theoretical contribution of this study is the integration
of two separate research streams. The first is the body of studies that
identify the perceived impacts of tourism and the other is the work
done to identify the factors likely to influence those impacts and host
community support. This study demonstrates how community attach-
ment, community concern, use of tourism resource base, and eco-
centric attitudes affect each of the five impact perceptions and the
state of the local economy separately, and shows the interplay among
these perceptions, and how these perceptions impact support.
Another important theoretical contribution of this study is that
findings confirm the usefulness of social exchange theory principles
in explaining the host community’s attitudes toward tourism. Impor-
tant factors for the host were identified as the determinants of the
impacts and, hence support for development. The model presented
here also advances the understanding of the community’s reactions
and attitudes by segregating positive and negative impacts into five
cost and benefit factors: economic benefits, social benefits, social
514 HOST ATTITUDES TOWARD TOURISM

costs, cultural benefits, and cultural costs. This study takes the Gursoy
et al (2002) model a step further and adds these five factors. What
results is a very complex model of host community attitudes that
explains substantially more of the variance than previously reported.
This large difference (.62 to .44) provides clear and convincing
evidence that segregating the cost and benefit factors improves the
theory of understanding of residents’ reactions/attitudes toward
tourism. A

REFERENCES
Anderson, J., and D. Gerbing
1988 Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended
Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin 103:411–423.
Akis, S., N. Peristianis, and J. Warner
1996 Residents’ Attitudes to Tourism Development: The Case of Cyprus.
Tourism Management 17:481–494.
Allen, L., H. Hafer, R. Long, and R. Perdue
1993 Rural Residents’ Attitudes toward Recreation and Tourism Develop-
ment. Journal of Travel Research 31(4):27–33.
Allen, L., P. Long, R. Perdue, and S. Kieselbach
1988 The Impact of Tourism Development on Residents’ Perception of Com-
munity Life. Journal of Travel Research 27(1):16–21.
Andereck, K., and C. Vogt
2000 The Relationship between Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism and
Tourism Development Options. Journal of Travel Research 39:27–36.
Bentler, P.
1990 Comparative Indexes in Structural Models. Psychological Bulletin
107:238–246.
Besculides, A., M. Lee, and P. McCormick
2002 Residents’ Perceptions of the Cultural Benefits of Tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research 29:303–319.
Brunt, P., and P. Courtney
1999 Host Perceptions of Sociocultural Impacts. Annals of Tourism Research
26:493–515.
Cheng, J.
1980 Tourism: How Much is too Much? Lessons for Canmore from Banff.
Canadian Geographer 23:72–80.
Cohen, E.
1988 Tourism and Aids in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research 15:467–486.
Davis, D., J. Allen, and R. Cosenza
1988 Segmenting Local Residents by their Attitudes, Interests and Opinions
toward Tourism. Journal of Travel Research 27(3):2–8.
Esman, M.
1984 Tourism as Ethnic Preservation: The Cajuns of Louisiana. Annals of
Tourism Research 11:451–467.
Getz, D.
1986 Models in Tourism Planning toward Integration of Theory and Practice.
Tourism Management 7:21–32.
Gunn, C.
1988 Tourism Planning. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Gursoy, D., C. Jurowski, and M. Uysal
2002 Resident Attitudes: A Structural Modeling Approach. Annals of Tourism
Research 29:79–105.
Hair, J., R. Anderson, R. Tatham, and W. Black
1998 Multivariate Data Analysis (5th ed.).Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice
Hall.
 GURSOY AND RUTHERFORD 515

Harris, C., W. McLaughlin, and G. Brown

1998 Rural Communities in the Interior Columbia Basin: How Resilient are
They? Journal of Forestry 96:11–15.
Harrison, D.
1992 Tourism to Less Developed Countries: The Social Consequences in
Tourism and Less Developed Countries London: Bellhaven.
Hoelter, J.
1983 The Analysis of Covariance Structures: Goodness-of-Fit Indices. Socio-
logical Methods and Research 11:325–344.
Hu, L., and P. Bentler
1995 Evaluating Model Fit. In Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues
and Applications, R. Hoyle, ed., pp. 76–99. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.
Husband, W.
1989 Social Statue and Perception of Tourism in Zambia. Annals of Tourism
Research 16:237–255.
Johnson, J., D. Snepenger, and S. Akis
1994 Residents’ Perceptions of Tourism Development. Annals of Tourism
Research 21:629–642.
Joreskog, K.
1993 Testing Structural Equation Models. In Testing Structural Equation
Models, K. Bollen and J. Long, eds., pp. 294–316. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Joreskog, K., and D. Sorbom
1989 LISREL 7: User’s Reference Guide (1st ed.).Chicago: Scientific Software.
Jurowski, C., M. Uysal, and R. Williams
1997 A Theoretical Analysis of Host Community Resident Reactions to Tour-
ism. Journal of Travel Research 36(2):3–11.
Keogh, B.
1990 Resident and Recreationists’ Perceptions and Attitudes with Respect to
Tourism Development. Journal of Applied Recreation Research 15(2):71–83.
Kendall, K., and T. Var
1984 The Perceived Impact of Tourism: The State of the Art Vancouver:
Simon Fraser University.
Knopp, T.B.
1980 Tourism: The Local Interest and the Function of Public Lands. In Tour-
ism Planning and Development Issues, D. Hawkins, E. Shafer and J. Rovelstad,
eds., pp. 225–238. Washington, DC: George Washington University.
Kousis, M.
1989 Tourism and the Family in a Rural Cretan Community. Annals of Tour-
ism Research 16:318–332.
Lankford, S.
1994 Attitudes and Perceptions toward Tourism and Rural Regional Develop-
ment. Journal of Travel Research 32(4):35–43.
1996 Crime and Tourism: A Study of Perceptions in the Pacific Northwest In
Tourism, Crime and International Security Issues, A. Pizam and Y. Mansfeld,
eds., pp. 51–58. West Sussex: Wiley.
Lankford, S., and D. Howard
1994 Developing a Tourism Attitude Impact Scale. Annals of Tourism
Research 21:121–139.
Lindberg, K., and R. Johnson
1997 Modeling Resident Attitudes toward Tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research 24:402–424.
Liu, J., P. Sheldon, and T. Var
1987 Residents Perceptions of the Environmental Impacts of Tourism. Annals
of Tourism Research 14:17–37.
Liu, J., and T. Var
1986 Residents Attitudes toward Tourism Impacts In Hawaii. Annals of Tour-
ism Research 13:193–214.
Mathieson, A., and G. Wall
1982 Tourism: Economic, Physical, and Social Impacts. New York: Longman.
516 HOST ATTITUDES TOWARD TOURISM

McCool, S., and S. Martin

1994 Community Attachment and Attitudes toward Tourism Development.
Journal of Travel Research 32(3):29–34.
McKean, P.
1978 Economic Dualism and Cultural Involution in Bali. In Host and Guests:
The Anthropology of Tourism, V. Smith, ed., pp. 93–108. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mansfeld, Y.
1992 Group-Differentiated Perceptions of Social Impacts Related to Tourism
Development. Professional Geographer 44:377–392.
Mulaik, S., L. James, J. Alstine, N. Bennett, S. Lind, and C. Stilwell
1989 Evaluation of Goodness-of-Fit indices for Structural Equation Models.
Psychological Bulletin 10:430–445.
O’Leary, J.
1976 Land Use Redefinition and the Rural Community: Disruption of Com-
munity Leisure Space. Journal of Leisure Research 8:263–274.
Perdue, R., P. Long, and L. Allen
1990 Resident Support for Tourism Development. Annals of Tourism
Research 17:586–599.
Pizam, A.
1978 Tourism’s Impacts: The Social Costs to the Destination Community as
Perceived by its Residents. Journal of Travel Research 16(4):8–12.
Pizam, A., and A. Milman
1986 The Social Impacts of Tourism. Tourism Recreation Research 11:29–32.
Ritchie, J.
1988 Consensus Policy Formulation in Tourism. Tourism Management 9:
199–216.
Sethi, V., and W. King
1994 Development of Measures to Assess the Extent to Which an Information
Technology Application Provides Competitive Advantage. Management
Science 40:1601–1624.
Sethna, R., and B. Richmond
1978 U.S. Virgin Islanders’ Perceptions of Tourism. Journal of Travel
Research 17(1):30–37.
Sharpley, R.
1994 Tourism, Tourists and Society Huntingdon: ELM.
Sheldon, P., and T. Var
1984 Resident Attitudes to Tourism in North Wales. Tourism Management
5:40–47.
Tosun, C.
2002 Host Perceptions of Impacts: A Comparative Tourism Study. Annals of
Tourism Research 29:231–245.
Um, S., and J. Crompton
1987 Measuring Resident’s Attachment Levels in a Host Community. Journal
of Travel Research 26(2):27–29.
Var, T., K. Kendall, and E. Tarakcoglu
1985 Residents Attitudes toward Tourists in a Turkish Resort Town. Annals of
Tourism Research 12:652–658.
Walpole, M., and H. Goodwin
2000 Local Economic Impacts of Dragon Tourism in Indonesia. Annals of
Tourism Research 27:559–576.
Williams, J., and R. Lawson
2001 Community Issues and Resident Opinions of Tourism. Annals of Tour-
ism Research 28:269–290.

Submitted 18 September 2002. Resubmitted 27 March 2003. Resubmitted 2 July 2003.

Accepted 9 August 2003. Final version 18 August 2003. Refereed anonymously. Coordi-
nating Editor: Abraham Pizam