|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 TIMESHARE OWNERS PERCEPTIONS OF AND PREFERENCES FOR PARTICIPATION IN TOURISM PLANNING By CHENCHEN HUANG A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007
2 2007 Chenchen Huang
3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost I would lik e to thank my advisory comm ittee. I thank my advisor and committee chair, Dr. Lori Pennington-Gray, for guiding me through this process. Without her constant encouragement and full-hearted support, I would not be where I am. I thank Dr. Brijesh Thapa for his quick responses to my questions and critical review of my work. I thank Dr. Stephen Holland for all the help that he gave me from the start of my doctoral program. I thank Dr. Rhonda Phillips for introducing me to the fi eld of Urban and Regional Planning, which was vital to my dissertation research. I am grateful to the Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Ma nagement for all the support I received during my doctoral study. The Al umni Fellowship that I was awarded is the most generous and valuable gift that I have ever received. Thanks to the fellowship, I was free to concentrate on my academic pursuit for over four y ears. I thank the Graduate Student Council at the University of Florida for partially funding my dissertation research through the Mentorship Opportunity Program Research Grant. I thank those timeshare owners who participat ed in my research. Their voluntary input made my research possible. I sincerely appr eciate their help and hope that findings and suggestions from my research can benefit them in the future. Finally, I thank my parents for their selfless love and support. To write a dissertation was a daunting task; their encouragement and tolerance pr opelled me through it. I am also thankful to my friends in Gainesville, in Shanghai, and in other places. Wherever they are, their friendship and company are an important part of my life.
4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................3 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .......10 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................14 Timeshare Industry: An Overview.........................................................................................17 Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................... .21 Research Questions............................................................................................................. ....21 Definitions.................................................................................................................... ..........25 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................29 A Communicative Approach in Tourism Planning................................................................31 Tourism Planning Literature...................................................................................................37 Residents Attitudes toward Tourism.....................................................................................44 Sense of Place and Tourism Planning....................................................................................49 Civic Engagement a nd Tourism Planning..............................................................................60 3 METHODS........................................................................................................................ .....64 Research Design................................................................................................................ .....64 Web Survey..................................................................................................................... .......65 Instrument..................................................................................................................... ..........69 Perception of Tourism Planning for the City..................................................................70 Perception of Participation in Tourism Planning............................................................70 Preferred Ways of Participation in Tourism Planning....................................................71 Perceived Benefits of Participating.................................................................................72 Perceived Costs of Participating......................................................................................73 Attachment to the Timeshare...........................................................................................74 Attachment to the City.....................................................................................................75 Past Political Participation...............................................................................................75 Past Civic Participation...................................................................................................76 Demographics..................................................................................................................77 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. ........77 4 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ .......80
5 Summary of Survey Procedures.............................................................................................80 Profile of Respondents......................................................................................................... ...81 Characteristics of Primary Timeshares...................................................................................82 Frequencies of Variables in the Survey..................................................................................83 Perception of Participation in Tourism Planning............................................................83 Perception of Tourism Planning for the City..................................................................84 Perceived Benefits of Participating.................................................................................84 Perceived Costs of Participating......................................................................................84 Attachment to the Timeshare...........................................................................................85 Attachment to the City.....................................................................................................85 Past Political Participation...............................................................................................86 Past Civic Participation...................................................................................................86 Model Testing.................................................................................................................. .......86 The Measurement Model.................................................................................................87 The Structural Model.......................................................................................................89 Results of Research Questions Tested....................................................................................89 Research Question 1:.......................................................................................................89 Research Question 2:.......................................................................................................90 Research Question 3:.......................................................................................................90 Research Question 4:.......................................................................................................90 Research Question 5:.......................................................................................................91 Research Question 6:.......................................................................................................91 Research Question 7:.......................................................................................................92 Research Question 8:.......................................................................................................92 Gender and perceptions of partic ipation in tourism planning..................................92 Educational level and perceptions of participation in tourism planning..................93 Annual household income and perceptions of participation in tourism planning....93 Age and perceptions of participation in tourism planning.......................................93 Marital status and perceptions of participation in tourism planning........................93 Research Question 9:.......................................................................................................93 5 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................... ..114 Timeshare Owners Perceptions of Participation in Tourism Planning...............................114 Preferred Ways of Participation............................................................................................122 Tourism Planners and Timeshare Owners Participation in Tourism Planning...................126 The Timeshare Industry and Ti meshare Owners Participation in Tourism Planning.........128 Local Government and Timeshare Owners Participation in Tourism Planning.................130 Limitation..................................................................................................................... ........131 Future Studies................................................................................................................. ......132 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT....................................................................................................136 B INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL..........................................................142
6 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................144 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................161
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1 U.S. states with most timeshare units in 2006...................................................................26 1-2 US timeshare resort sales volume......................................................................................26 1-3 Timeshare resort occupancy in 2006.................................................................................26 3-1 Internet access at home and household income.................................................................78 3-2 Internet access at home and educational level...................................................................78 3-3 Timeshare owners annual household income...................................................................78 3-4 Timeshare owners educational level.................................................................................78 3-5 Sample size................................................................................................................ ........79 4-1 Survey procedure........................................................................................................... ....95 4-2 Response rate.............................................................................................................. .......95 4-3 Responses from group one.................................................................................................95 4-4 Responses from group two.................................................................................................96 4-5 Demographics of the immediate-respons e group and the delayed-response group...........97 4-6 P-values of Chi-Square tests between groups of responses and demographics.................97 4-7 Comparison between groups of respondent s in terms of thei r perceptions of participation in tourism planning.......................................................................................98 4-8 Demographics of respondents............................................................................................98 4-9 Primary residence of respondents......................................................................................99 4-10 Number of timeshares owned by respondents.................................................................100 4-11 Location of primary timeshare.........................................................................................101 4-12 Ownership structure of primary timeshare......................................................................101 4-13 Timeshare exchange companies that the primary timeshare is affiliated with................102 4-14 Satisfaction with their timeshare companies....................................................................102
8 4-15 Most important reason for purchasing primary timeshare...............................................102 4-16 Frequency distributions (percentage) fo r willingness to participate in tourism planning for the city where the primary timeshare is located..........................................102 4-17 Frequency distributions (per centages) for importance of di fferent factors of the city where the primary timeshare is located...........................................................................103 4-18 Parties should be involved in tourism planning for the community................................103 4-19 Frequency distributions (p ercentage) for perceptions of tourism planning for the city where the primary timeshare is located...........................................................................103 4-20 Frequency distributions (p ercentage) for perceived bene fits of participating in tourism planning for the city where the primary timeshare is located.............................104 4-21 Frequency distributions (p ercentage) for perceived costs of participating in tourism planning for the city where the primary timeshare is located..........................................104 4-22 Frequency distributions (percentage ) for attachment to the timeshare............................104 4-23 Frequency distributions (p ercentage) for attachment to the city where the primary timeshare is located..........................................................................................................105 4-24 Frequency distributions (percentage ) for past political participation..............................105 4-25 requency distributions (percentage ) for past civic participation......................................105 4-26 Goodness-of-fit indices of th e initial measurement model..............................................105 4-27 Goodness-of-fit indices of the specified measurement model.........................................106 4-28 Overall CFA for the specified measurement model........................................................107 4-29 Standardized regression coeffi cients of latent variables..................................................109 4-30 Model summary of the regression analysis on attachment to timeshare.........................111 4-31 Regression coefficients of dependent variables in the regression analysis on attachment to timeshare...................................................................................................111 4-32 Crosstabulation of percepti on of participation and gender..............................................111 4-33 Chi-Square test of percepti on of participation and gender..............................................111 4-34 Crosstabulation of perception of participation and e ducational level..............................111 4-35 Chi-Square test of perception of participation and educational level..............................111
9 4-36 Crosstabulation of perception of participation and household income............................112 4-37 Chi-Square test of perception of participation and household income............................112 4-38 Crosstabulation of perception of participation and martial status...................................112 4-39 Chi-Square test of perception of participation and marital status....................................112 4-40 Crosstabulation of percepti on of participation and age...................................................112 4-41 Chi-Square test of percep tion of participation and age....................................................112 4-42 Preferred ways of voting on tourism planning for the city where the primary timeshare is located..........................................................................................................113 4-43 Frequency distributions (p ercentage) for preferred ways to participate in tourism planning for the city where the primary timeshare is located..........................................113 4-44 Mauchlys test of sphericity.............................................................................................113 4-45 Tests of within-subject effects.........................................................................................113
10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 The proposed model......................................................................................................... ..27 3-1 Arnsteins (1969) eight-rung la dder of citizen participation.............................................79 4-1 The structural model (Note: solid lines indicate statisti cally significant paths; dotted lines indicate statistically insignificant paths.)................................................................110 5-1 Relationships among mass tourists, timeshar e owners, residents, and the destination community...................................................................................................................... .134 5-2 A conceptual model of timeshare owners perceptions of part icipation in tourism planning....................................................................................................................... .....134 5-3 A framework of timeshare owners participation in tourism planning............................135
11 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy TIMESHARE OWNERS' PERCEPTIONS OF AND PREFERENCES FOR PARTICIPATION IN TOURISM PLANNING By Chenchen Huang December 2007 Chair: Lori Pennington-Gray Major: Health and Human Performance Tourism development generates benefits and costs to the destination community. Tourism planning is suggested as a way to promote sustainable tourism de velopment. Tourism planning is incomplete and impractical without the input from all four stakeholder gr oups including tourists. Tourists have been overlooked by researchers an d practitioners as a group of stakeholders. Since few studies have been conducted to invest igate tourists perceptio ns of participation in tourism planning, this study is an exploratory effort. Timeshar e owners are a special group of tourists who have additional connections with the tourism destination through their timeshare. Timeshare owners are chosen as the target popu lation for this study. The purpose of this study was to investigate timeshare owners perceptions of and preferences for pa rticipation in tourism planning. The theoretical foundation of this study is composed of three levels of analysis. Timeshare owners perceptions of participation in tourism pla nning are investigated at the rational level, the affective level, and the behavioral level. Ratio nal choice theory is used as the theoretical foundation for guiding the investigation of the e ffects of perceived benefits and costs of participation in tourism planning on timeshare ow ners perceptions of pa rticipation in tourism planning. Theories about sense of place provide foundations fo r exploring the relationships
12 between timeshare owners attachme nt to the timeshare and to the city where the timeshare is located and perceptions of partic ipation in tourism planning. Resear ch on citizen participation in political and civic activities is utilized to understand the effects of timeshare owners past experience of political and civic participation on their perceptions of participation in tourism planning. This study was based on an Internet-based we bsite questionnaire surv ey. The total sample size was 375. A two-stage structur al equation modeling approach wa s applied in data analysis. Results from the measurement model suggested th at the model fit the da ta quite well. Results from the structural model identified four signifi cant relationships among the latent structures. Perceived benefits of participation in touris m planning positively affected perceptions of participation in tourism planning. Perceived costs of pa rticipation in touris m planning negatively affected perceptions of participation in t ourism planning. There was a positive relationship between timeshare owners attachme nt to the timeshare and their pe rceptions of participation in tourism planning. Timeshare owners past expe rience of political pa rticipation positively impacted timeshare owners perception of participation in tourism planning. About one third of respondents indicated that they were willing to participate in tourism planning. Most of them were reluctant to part icipate in tourism pla nning in person. Instead, timeshare owners preferred Internet-based pa rticipation methods. Timeshare owners also indicated that they would prefer to authorize their timeshare management company to represent them in tourism planning processes. Based on the findings of the model analysis, a series of suggestions were proposed to tourism planners, the timeshare industry, and the local government. Tourism planners should take a lead role in the shift toward communicative approach in tourism planning, which is aimed
13 to reach consensus among participants. Both th e timeshare industry and local governments need to take substantial steps to facilitate timeshar e owners participate in tourism planning process.
14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Tourism and travel-related industries are an important economic sector for many countries. The World Tourism Organization (2006) reported that there are over 80 0 million international tourism arrivals per annum. The tourism industry alone is estimated to account for 10.3% of the global Gross Domestic Product and more than 2 34 million jobs. The tourism industry generates jobs, tax revenues, and forei gn exchange earnings for many c ountries (Goeldner & Ritchie, 2006). However, research on tourism development suggests that tourism might not be a panacea for economic development (Honey, 1999; Keit h, Fawson, & Chang, 1996; Law, 1992; Zurick, 1992). There are various indicators of negative economic impacts from tourism development, such as economic leakage, increase in prices, and infrastructure cost s (Ap & Crompton, 1998). Further, tourism development might impose pot ent social and environmental impacts on destination communities, given the tremendous scale of the tourism industry (Gunn & Var, 2002). The negative social and environmental effect s of tourism development pose a great threat on the future of destinations and industry (K avallinis & Pizam, 1994; Pizam, 1978; Zeiger & Caneday, 1991). The scope and scale of tourism impacts call for a comprehensive understanding of the effects of tourism development that coul d be generally classified into economic, social, and environmental impact. Historically, researchers per ceptions of tourism effects ha ve evolved from exclusively concentrating on the bright side to a more balanced view. Ja fari (1986, cited by McGehee and Andereck, 2004) noted that tourism related resear ch focused on the upside of tourism effects in the 1960s, the downside in the 1970s, and a more balanced, systematic approach since the 1980s. Due to market failure or other limits of free mark et economies, it is generally agreed that some interventions are necessary to achieve the goals of sustainable tourism development.
15 The call for intervention might be an imp licit reason for the emergence of tourism planning, which is similar to the start of modern urban planning about a century ago. The modern urban planning movement started in the early twentieth century, reacting to tragedies in London, New York and other big cities in Europe and th e U.S. (Hall, 2002). Except for a similar starting point, urban and regional pla nning provides a significant theo retical foundation for tourism planning. Although tourism planning also benefits from other parent disciplines, such as sociology, political science and environmental sc ience, urban and regional planning is the backbone of many tourism planning theories. Another root of tourism planning lies in th e practice of tourism planning at various destinations around the world. Pract ice in tourism planning not only provides a testing field for theories but also grants new insights and ideas for theoretical innovation. In fact, empirical studies are an important source for theory building in the field of tourism planning. Theoretical development of tourism planning could contribute to better practice. In a market economy, ideal tourism planning involves a ll the stakeholders and benefits from their inputs and support, which is al so the foundation for successful planning. The stakeholders of tourism planning consist of the tourism industry, the local public sector, the host community, and the tourists (Pigram, 1994). In practice, tourism planning is usually led by the local government and the tourism industry, with occasional contribu tions from local residents. In other words, tourists are by and large missi ng from tourism planning, although they might be indirectly represented by the industry. The l ack of tourists inputs in the tourism planning process might contribute to the gap between sustainable tour ism development in theory and in practice. According to Arsteins (1969) model of citi zen participation, ther e is a continuum of citizen participation, ranging fr om nonparticipation to authentic participation. Although some
16 tourism suppliers have initiated campaigns to inform and educate their customers, most tourists are not notified of the impacts of tourism developm ent. If tourists do not recognize their role in changing the tourism destination community, it is unlikely they will change their behavior to mitigate their impacts. There might be two reasons to explain why t ourists are not involve d in tourism planning. First, tourists may not perceive themselves as stakeholders in th e tourism destination. Since their temporary stay in a destination is for leisure purposes, tourists ma y not feel strongly connected to the local community. Similarly, most tourism supplie rs may hesitate to remind tourists of their responsibilities, due to concerns related to customer satisfacti on or pressures of competition. Second, tourism planning procedures might not pr ovide convenient access for tourists. Tourists who intend to participate in tourism planning might face many constraints imposed by the current tourism planning system. Some specific groups of tourists may have greater interest in participating in tourism planning than other tourists. It is possible that tourists w ho have a stronger bond to the community may be more interested in partic ipating in tourism planning. In the academic literature, this bond is referred to as sense of place or place attachme nt. Place attachment may occur due to repeat visitation to the des tination (Moore & Graefe, 1994). Repeat visitation may be attributed to various factors, such as property ownership in th e destination or personal travel preferences. The emotional tie between tourists and the des tination is not explicit. A general survey of all tourists at a destination woul d not be an efficient way of identifying tourists who are attached to the tourist destination. No empirical study has been conducted to discern attached tourists from general tourists. Timeshare owners are a group of tourists who ow n property in tourism
17 destinations and thus may visit repeatedly. Timeshare owners are ideal subjects for investigating the relationship between willingness to participat e in tourism planning and possible influencing variables. Timeshare Industry: An Overview Timeshare refers to the practice of dividi ng accommodation units into weekly increments, usually called as intervals, and sold to cons umers permanently (Suchman et al., 1999). Other names such as vacation ownership or fract ional ownership have also been used for marketing purposes. Timeshare is a tourist ac commodation segment that has undergone rapid growth in the U.S. and around the world. Since it s U.S. debut in the late 1960s, the number of timeshare resorts in the U.S. has grown from just over 400 in 1980, to over 1000 in 1990, and to 1615 in 2007 (American Resort Development A ssociation International Foundation [ARDA International Foundation], 2007). In 2006, there were 176,232 timeshare units in the U.S. with an average resort size of 109 units (ARDA International Foundation, 2007). Timeshare development in the U.S. has highly concentrated in primary tourism destinations. Among the 46 states in the U.S. that have times hare resorts, the top five states with most timeshare units were Florida, California, South Carolin a, Hawaii and Tennessee (Table 1-1). The sales volume of U.S. timeshare propert ies has grown rapidly recently (1996-2005) at an average annual rate of 17% (ARDA International Founda tion, 2006). Sales volume grew tremendously in the first 10 years of inception (33% annual rate) from 1976 to 1985. There was a flat period from 1986 to1995 when the sales revenue increased at an 8% an nualized growth rate. The number of U.S. timeshare owners reached 1 million in 1989. There were more than 2 million U.S. timeshare owners in 1999 and more than 3 million in 2003. There were about 4.4 million U.S. households owned timeshares at the beginning of 2007 (ARDA International Foundation, 2007). The occupancy rate of at U.S. timeshare resorts averaged about 80.9% in
18 2006, while the occupancy rate in 2006 for U. S. hotels was 63.4% (ARDA International Foundation, 2007). Owners, their guests and exchange guests accounted for almost 70% of resort units occupied (ARDA In ternational Foundation, 2007). There are different legal formats of timesha re interest, and the most popular forms are deeded ownership (fee simple) and right-to-us e (Suchman et al., 1999). The legal structure through which accommodation units are subdivided in to periods of time is called the timeshare plan. Timeshare estates are treated as real estate properties while timeshare licenses are seen as personal property in most jurisdictions (Suchman et al., 1999). If a times hare owner buys his or her timeshare in the form of deeded ownershi p, the owner will have the same owner-rights as other forms of real estate by rece iving a deed of trust for a fixed week in a specific unit at a specific resort. The owner can sell, transfer, or bequeat h the ownership. If th e purchase is in the form of right-to-use through a vacation lease, va cation license or membership in a vacation club, the purchaser will have the right to use the accommodation for a designated period of time (usually 10-50 years) while the de veloper (or the club) maintains le gal title to be the owner. Although there are other forms of legal structure, deeded ownership and right-to-use are the most popular forms (ARDA International F oundation, 2006; Suchman et al., 1999). Timeshare developers face challenges both as in dividual developers and as an industry. In a 2000 survey of U.S. timeshare executives, indu stry and company reputation were reported as the most important challenges (Woods, 2001). Si milarly, based on a 1999 national survey of the general public, Upchurch (2000) reported that most respondents held a neutral opinion about the timeshare industry, and their interest in purchas ing timeshare was moderate at the best. This neutral perception might be attributed to the l ack of information about the industry (Upchurch, 2000).
19 In order to mitigate a negative image and promote a favorable environment for the industry, timeshare developers formed an industry association. The American Resort Development Association (ARDA) is a Washin gton D.C. based professional association representing the timeshare indus try. ARDA has nearly 1,000 corporate members. Its membership also includes timeshare owner a ssociations, resort management companies, and owners through the ARDA Resort Owners Coalition (ARDA, 2007a). Most researchers connect the negative reputa tion of the industry with high-pressure marketing and sales techniques employed by the industry in the 1980s. However, successful marketing is still crucial for a viable timeshare project. Data from the industry shows that marketing accounts for about a half of the sales re venue (Bornstein, 2002). It is possible that the negative reputation of the industry is partially caus ed by its marketing and sales efforts, and vice versa. However, marketing might only be part of the reason for the unf avorable reputation. It might be too simplistic to argue that marketing practices are the sole reason for the poor image of the industry. Two other related issues might be consumer prot ection and negative impacts on the host community. Timeshare development might exert significant impacts on the local community. Compared with mass tourism accommoda tions, timeshare resorts might have greater impacts due to (1) higher occupancy rates, (2 ) longer occupancy periods (Rezak, 2002), and (3) development by large scale multi-nationals who are usually housed outside the community. Although the public has little info rmation about the merits and shortcomings of timesharing (Upchurch, 2000), their perceptions of the industry may be influenced by reports about consumer protection issues and impacts of timeshares from the media. Studies of timeshare customers demonstrate th at most customers ar e satisfied (between 85% and 87%) with their timeshare experience (ARDA International Foundation, 2006; Rezak,
20 2002). The disparity between satisfied customers a nd the suspicious public provides an important opportunity for the timeshare industry to mitigate the negative image. Further, more input from timeshare owners may also help minimize negative impacts of timeshare development. Mobilizing customers and involving them in the tourism planning process may be one crucial step to alleviate negative impacts fr om the timeshare industry. From a pluralist perspective, planning is a political process that provides an arena for different interest groups to compete with each other (Klosterman, 1985). The pl uralist paradigm is implicit in many citizen participation processes in pl anning (Day, 1997). If timeshare owners are not involved in planning, their interests might be neglected. Without their customers input, timeshare developers are not much different from any ot her business interest gr oups and hence might be marginalized in the planning process. It is important for timeshare owners to partic ipate in the tourism pl anning process, because their contribution will help the local comm unity, the timeshare industry, and their own experience. The destination commun ity will benefit from the insights of repeat tourists. Since timeshare owners may be regular visitors, it is reasonable to be lieve that they are a group of tourists who may know the community better and would like to see the co mmunity develop in a sustainable way. For example, timeshare owners who are involved in tourism planning might have a better chance to understand the imp acts of tourism development and support the procedures or methods that address the negative impacts. For the timeshare industry, to mobilize their customers and get them involved in touris m planning is an important channel to get the industrys voice heard. And ultimately, a bette r tourism destination based on sound tourism planning will engender more satisfactory t ourism experiences to timeshare owners.
21 However, existing literature on timeshares is mostly from the perspe ctives of marketing and real estate development, a nd the issue of timeshare owners participation in the tourism planning process is by and large overlooked by researchers. Many tim eshare owners usually stay in the timeshare resort for only one week ever y year and are transien t residents in tourism destination communities. In order to get timeshare owners involved, the first step is to examine their willingness to participate. Statement of the Problem This study is an exploratory effort to i nvestigate timeshare ow ners perceptions of participating in the tourism planning process. The research questions which will guide the research are: (1) Are timeshare owners willi ng to participate in t ourism planning? (2) Are timeshare owners perceptions of participati ng in tourism planning related to the owners perceptions of tourism planni ng, perceived benefits and cost s of participating, level of attachment to the timeshare and to the city wher e the timeshare is locate d, and past history of political and civic participation? (3) What are timeshare owners preferred ways of participating in tourism planning? The dependent latent variab le of this study is timesha re owners pe rceptions of participating in tourism planning. Independent latent variables ar e timeshare owners perceptions of tourism planning, perceived benefits and cost s of participation, their attachment to the timeshare and to the city, their experience in civic engagement, and demographics. The relationships among these variab les are described in the theo retical model (Figure 1-1). Research Questions Research question 1: Is there a relationshi p between timeshare owners perceptions of tourism planning for the city where they ow n their timeshare and their perceptions of participation in tourism planning for the city?
22 Research question 2: Is there a relationship between timeshare owners perceived benefits of participation in tourism pla nning and their perceptions of part icipation in tourism planning for the city? Research question 3: Is there a relationship between timeshare owners perceived costs of participation in tourism planning and their perceptions of partic ipation in tourism planning for the city? Research question 4: Is there a relationship between timeshare owners attachment to their timeshare and their perceptions of partic ipating in tourism pl anning for the city? Research question 5: Is ther e a relationship between timeshare owners attachment to the city where they own their timeshare and their per ceptions of participating in tourism planning for the city? Research question 6: Is there a relationship between timeshare owners past experience of political participation and their perceptions of participating in tourism planning for the city? Research question 7: Is there a relationship between timeshare owners past experience of civic participation and their pe rceptions of participating in tourism planning for the city? Research question 8: Is there a relations hip between timeshare owners demographic background and their perceptions of particip ating in tourism planning for the city? Research question 9: What are timeshare ow ners preferred ways of getting involved if they are willing to partic ipate in tourism planning? Timeshare owners perceptions of tourism pla nning are predicted to be closely related to their perceptions of participati ng in tourism planning. If timeshare owners view tourism planning for the city as beneficial and important, they are likely to have a pos itive attitude toward participation in tourism planning.
23 Hypothesis 1: the more important timeshare owners perceive tourism planning, the more likely they are going to partic ipate in tourism planning. According to rational choice theory, those time share owners perceiving that the benefits outweigh the costs of participating in tourism pla nning are likely to partic ipate. The premise of the approach is that timeshare owners recognize both the benefits and costs of participating and evaluate the two sides rationally. Consequently, there are two hypotheses th at are drawn on this basis. Hypothesis 2: The more timeshare owners percei ve the benefits of participating in tourism planning, the more likely they are goi ng to get involved in tourism planning. Hypothesis 3: The more timeshare owners perc eive the costs of par ticipating in tourism planning, the less likely they are going to get involved in tourism planning. The attachment that timeshare owners have to ward their timeshares could be divided into two levels according to the targ et of the sentiment (Figure 1-2). First, many timeshare owners own their timeshares, especially in a deeded legal structure. Almost all timeshare resorts are managed and maintained by professional reso rt management companies, with obvious boundaries separating the timeshare resorts from th e outside community. It is possible that they develop sentiments toward their timeshare in a way similar to thei r year-round residence. Second, timeshare resorts are mostly built in primary tourism destin ations in the U.S. Timeshare owners decision of purchasing the timeshare and th eir travel behaviors are inevitably related to the attractiveness of the tourism destination. Ti meshare owners attachme nt toward the tourism destination could play an important role in their reactions to the planning efforts for the destination. As a result, there are two hypotheses regarding the relationships between timeshare
24 owners attachment to the timeshare and to the city and their perceptions of participating in tourism planning. Hypothesis 4: Timeshare owners who are more attached to the timeshare will be more willing to participate in touris m planning for the destination. Hypothesis 5: Timeshare owners who are more attached to the city where they own their timeshare will be more willing to participat e in tourism planning for the destination. Civic engagement is a multi-faceted constr uct. Political participation and civic participation are the two majo r components of civic engagement (Putnam, 1995; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995). Willingness to participat e in tourism planning could be associated with both political and civic involvement, b ecause tourism planning is conducted within the power structures and institutions of the society for the public inte rest. The relationships between past behavioral civic engagement and willingness to participation in future tourism planning are investigated by the following two hypotheses. Hypothesis 6: Timeshare owners who have an active history of politic al participation are more likely to participate in tourism planning. Hypothesis 7: Timeshare owners who have an ac tive history of civic pa rticipation are more likely to participate in tourism planning. Although some demographic variables, such as length of residence, age, and gender have been found to be associated with residents at titudes toward tourism development (Girard and Gartner, 1993; Mason and Cheyne, 2000; Tom ljenovic and Faulkner, 1999), whether those demographic variables are relevant in the c ontext of timeshare owners remains unclear. However, these variables could be promising in this explorative study. For example, a recent national study by Zukin et al. ( 2006) indicated that different ge nerations of American citizens
25 had significantly different patterns in civic engagement. It is po ssible that timeshare owners in different age groups differ in their willi ngness to participate in tourism planning. Hypothesis 8: Demographic vari ables are indicators of potentia l participants in tourism planning. Definitions Timeshare: the practice of dividing accommodati on units into increments and selling those increments to customers permanently (Suchman et al., 1999). Timeshare owner: individuals who own timeshare property or right in the form of a deeded contract or points. Tourism planning: any effort or activity aime d at managing and/or planning for tourism in the tourism destination.
26 Table 1-1. U.S. states with most timeshare units in 2006 Number of timeshare units Share of U.S. FL 53,575 30.4% CA 11,808 6.7% SC 11,455 6.5% HI 9,869 5.6% TN 7,930 4.5% U.S. total 176,232 100.0% Source: ARDA International Foundation, 2007. Table 1-2. US timeshare resort sales volume Sales statistics 2006 2005 2004 New sales (billion) $10.0 $8.6 $ 7.9 Intervals sold 538,000.0 529,031.0 498,168.0 Average price $18,502.0 $16,278.0 $15,789.0 Source: ARDA International Foundation, 2007. Table 1-3. Timeshare resort occupancy in 2006 Timeshare occupant Percent of time available Owner or owners guest 47.6% Exchange guest 19.8% Renter 10.6% Marketing guest 2.8% Vacant 19.1% Total 100.0% Source: ARDA International Foundation, 2007.
27 Figure 1-1. The proposed model Perceived benefits of participating Perceived costs of participating Perceptions of tourism planning Attachment to the timeshare Attachment to the city Past political participation Past civic participation Perceptions of participation in tourism planning
28 Figure 1-2. Attachment to regular re sidence and to timeshare residence Destination city Home Community Timeshare Attachment to regular residence Attachment to timeshare residence
29 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Related literature will be reviewed in this chapter in the following sequence. First, a communicative approach in tourism planning th at emphasizes stakeholder involvement and consensus building is suggested. Theories and m odels of participatory planning will also be employed to provide a theoretica l and practical evaluation of timeshare owners participation. Although planning is constraine d by the capitalist pol itical economy (C ampbell & Feinstein, 2003) and its implementation faces special chal lenges in the United States (Fainstein, 2000), citizen participation in planning is important not only for better plan ning, but also for its intrinsic value. Communicative planning (For ester, 1987) might be a relevant model for the involvement of timeshare owners and act as a vehicle to achieve consensus or the ideal speech situation (Habermas, 1990). Second, a literature review on studies of resi dent attitudes toward tourism development will provide a basis for understanding timeshare owners rational choice of participating in the tourism planning process or not. There is a rich body of literature on residents attitudes toward tourism development. Some evidence suggests that residents reaction co uld be predicted based on their evaluation of the benefits and costs of tourism development. If the perceived benefits outweigh or equate to the perc eived costs, the residents will support the tourism development (Ap, 1992). If the perceived costs surpass the perceived benefits, the residents will oppose the tourism development. Tourism planning is part of the efforts to develop tourism. Tourism planning provides a platform for the decision-making in touris m development. Tourism planning generates guidelines for tourism development. For residents, tourists and other memb ers of the public, to participate in tourism planning is a good opportunity to have th eir voice heard and to influence
30 tourism development decisions. It is possible th at timeshare owners reactions toward tourism development in the timeshare resort community w ill influence their intentions to participate in the tourism planning process. Third, an analysis of the literature on sense of place and its applic ation in the tourism planning context will establish th e theoretical basis for investigating the effects of timeshare owners sense of place on their willingness to pa rticipate. The study of place investigates the bond between people and place, from different discip linary perspectives. In the tourism context, sense of place or place attachment has been employed to explain tourist behaviors and destination images. For timeshare owners, thei r attachment toward their timeshares and the destination city is proposed to be important in predicting their reaction toward tourism planning. Fourth, a study of the literature on civic enga gement is also part of the theoretical background of the study. Different political pow ers exert their influence over the tourism industry through tourism planning. Ti meshare owners participation in tourism planning is part of their overall engagement in political and civic affairs. It is possible that timeshare owners past experience of political and civic involvement will affect thei r intentions to get involved in tourism planning for the city where th eir timeshare resorts are located. Besides the rational analysis affective bonding, and experi ence of civic engagement, demographic variables will be investigated as factors potentially associated with timeshare owners perceptions of participation in touris m planning. Although timeshare owners are mostly from middle or higher middle class backgrounds, th eir other demographic features are diverse. For example, more young people become patrons of timeshare products (Crottes & Ragatz, 2002). It is worthwhile examining demographic variables as a potential source of predicting
31 timeshare owners perceptions b ecause this study is explorator y and lacks empirical evidence from previous studies. A Communicative Approach in Tourism Planning Although tourism planning benefits from differ ent parent disciplines, many aspects of tourism planning remain underdeveloped, espe cially in theory building and in the implementation of tourism plans. Tourism planni ng theories lag behind theoretical development in urban and regional planning and remain fr agmented. The disconnection between tourism planning theories and practice hinde rs theoretical development. It is advisable to briefly i nvestigate the social environmen t of tourism planning before analyzing the merits and shortcomings of exis ting tourism planning approaches. Tourism is a highly fragmented industry, including major se ctors such as transportation, accommodation, attractions, and services (Gunn & Var, 2002). Touris m is integrated into and constrained by the overall political, cultural and ec onomic environment of society. As a result, tourism planning theories and practice are often an answer to a bl end of complicated and di sjointed challenges in a certain society. In order to dismantle the comp lexity of tourism pla nning, it is necessary to identify a specific perspective to understa nd challenges that tourism planners face. The purpose of planning is to se rve the public interest by reason ed intervention in the form of planning. In the same vein, the central argum ent for tourism planning is to generate better results for the public by promoting tourism devel opment while minimizing its negative effects. This primary task of tourism planning is rela ted to the conflict between tourism planning as a technocratic process versus tour ism planning as a democratic pr ocess (Albrechts, 2002). Some scholars label the tension in different ways, for example, the conflict between a normative approach and a positivist approach (Treuren & Lane, 2003). The conflic t is pivotal to the theoretical discussion as well as choices in practice (Saarikoski, 2002), because different
32 approaches have different answers to these questions: (1) What is the public interest in tourism planning? (2) What is the best wa y to serve the public interest? (3) What is the role of tourism planners? One perspective of unde rstanding the conflict is to inve stigate the issue of citizen participation in planning. The following section will provide a brief review of the literature on citizen participation in planning. Due to the broa d scope of citizen partic ipation, the review will primarily focus on theoretical discussions and empirical studies in the U.S. Citizen participation in the pla nning process is an integral pa rt of citizen involvement in public affairs in the United States. Citizen partic ipation is not only part of the philosophical and political tradition, but also integr ated into U.S. governmental and judicial struct ures (Day, 1997). However, the implementation of citizen particip ation in planning is controversial. Citizen participation experienced ebb and fl ow since the 1950s and its effects varied at different levels of planning. The nature and effects of public particip ation at the national level varied in the U.S. According to Grant (1994), citizen participati on was entrenched in government decisions the 1960s, legislated in the 1970s, a nd retrenched in the 1980s. Howe ver, citizen pa rticipation has remained important at the local government level (Burby, 2003). More importantly, although citizen participation in planning is often shadowed by strategic planning and economic development (Maier, 2001), it remains central to contemporary planning ideology (Lowry, Adler, & Milner, 1997). Although there are many theoretic al and practical studies on ci tizen participation, there is no generally accepted definition of citizen participation. While the literature is ambiguous about approaches and impacts of citizen participation in different contexts, theo retical discussions of citizen participation are ofte n guided by different paradigms. For example, Arnstein (1969, p.216) defines participation as the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens,
33 presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to th e deliberately included in the future. Other researchers from a procedural democratic perspective do not agree with her substantive democratic approach. They argue th at the masses are incapable of constructively contributing to decision-making and a feasible way to achieve democracy is representative democracy (Friedmann, 1987). Although there are various perceptio ns of and attitudes toward citizen participation, citizen participation is an essential part of political theory and practice in the U.S. On the one hand, citizen participation is believed to be intrin sically valuable in many canonical democratic theories, such as in Rousseaus (1948) and Mi lls (1965) works (Pateman, 1975). According to Pateman, Rousseau emphasized individual citizen participation in political decision making and Mills participatory democratic theory viewed the participatory political system as self-sustaining because participation was an educational proc ess for citizens. On the other hand, citizen participation is viewed as a matter of right in the U.S. political practice (Burke, 1979) and institutionalized in the political system. For example, access point or veto points (Johnson, 1984) in the political system gr ant opportunities for citizens to pa rticipate. From a practical perspective, planners have two extra reasons for advocating citizen participation besides mandated participation by law (Carp, 2004). First, to get citizens involved is part of planners ethical standards. Second, citizen participation is a valuable tool for dealing with controversy. The benefits of citizen participation in gove rnance are multi-faceted. Irvin and Stansbury (2004) suggested that there are two aspects of the benefits: benefits from the process and benefits from the outcomes, enjoyed by both government and citizens. The process of citizen participation is alleged to be a process for mutual educat ion and trust building. At the government level, citizen partic ipation is constructive for more representative government and
34 better informed government decisions. At the citi zen level, it is an educational process for individual citizens. Other re searchers caution that there ar e negative impacts of citizen participation. For example, Stivers (1990) ar gued that substantial ci tizen involvement is unworkable because contemporary society is too complex. During the participation process, the relationship between experts and average citizens might be strained. From the perspective of results, the outcomes of participatory process might not necessarily refl ect the public interest. Most of the arguments for and against direct citizen participation in general public affairs are applicable in discussions a bout citizen participation in pla nning. Citizen participation could be a salient issue because of the unique characteri stics of planning as a profession. Planning is an established profession with its t echnocratic processes; however, the democratic political system requires forms of citizen participation in the planning process. As a result, citizen participation is viewed as one of the dilemmas of planning (Beneviste, 1989). For supporters of citizen participation, there are four ra tionales for citizen participati on, as summarized by Sanoff (2000). First, citizen participation is of inherent good and part of the democratic system. Second, citizen participation is a source of wisdom and inform ation about the community and its needs. Third, citizen participation will not only contribute to better decision making but also facilitate the implementation of the plan due to the increased trust between citi zens and planners which is built during the participation process. Fourth, particip ation is good for participants because of the increased sense of having influenced deci sion making, which might promote a sense of community. However, there are tw o potential problematic aspects of citizen participation in planning (Abram, 2000). First, the representa tiveness of participants is questionable. Participants from a heterogeneous community might not represent th e majority of its residents. Second, participation in planning processes does not necessarily imply influence over outcomes
35 (Lane, 2003). If the whole plan ning process is skewed to sp ecial interest groups, citizen participation alone may not change the results. Despite the diverse views of citizen participatio n in planning, the consensus is that citizen participation is intrinsically bene ficial but difficult to implemen t. There are different schools of thought about how to involve individual citizens in the planning process. One potential model for citizen participation is the communi cative approach (F ainstein, 2000). Although some forms of citizen participation ha ve been implicitly or explicitly employed in planning practice for decades (Hibbard & Lurie, 2000) and the terms communication, collaboration, and particip ation are frequently used in the pl anning literature (Abram, 2000), the communicative turn (Healey, 1996 ) did not obtain its popularity until 1990s. An emerging body of literature (e.g., the special volume of Planning Theory 17, 1997) on the communicative approach has formed a new communicative planni ng paradigm (Innes, 1995) A meta-analysis of empirical research in major planning journals by Lauria and Wagner (2 006) indicated that communicative planning theory has provided a theo retical basis for many empirical studies since 1980s. Since Foresters (1989) Planning in the Face of Power the growing body of literature on communicative planning might suggest that the communicat ive planning paradigm is heterogeneous. The themes regarding the comm unicative planning paradigm are concentrated on the idea of the planner, and the practice of planning, as faci litating communicative interchange between interested parties, over matters of common concer n (Huxley & Yiftachel, 2000, p. 333). One approach to classifyi ng communicative planning approaches is to divide them by their respective theoretica l foundations. Communicative planni ng theory mainly draws on two philosophical schools: pragmatism and Habermas ian communicative rationality (Fainstein, 2000;
36 Foley & Lauria, 2000; Huxley & Yiftachel, 2000), as well as other schools of social science (Neuman, 2000). The main doctrines of communicative planning theory could be summarized from four perspectives. First, the goal of communicative planning is to achieve consensus among involved participants. Second, related to the consensus-bu ilding goal, the epistemological basis of the communicative approach lies in the argument th at knowledge is social ly constructed and different people have different perspectiv es (Healey, 1997). Third, in the process of communicative planning, the planner is a facilitator and learner instead of an expert and leader (Fainstein, 2000), although comm unicative planning theory also recognizes the si gnificance of planners behaviors and their ro les in selecting planning partic ipants and subjects (Carp, 2004). Fourth, the vehicle for communication is verb al and text-based co mmunication (Carp, 2004; Healey, 1997; Innes, 1998). Communicative planning theory is not without its critics, main ly those who are from other theoretical camps, especially rational theory a nd political economy (Fischler, 2000). Scholars, who side with a political econom y theory, argue that communicative approaches are naive. For example, the idea of communicative rationality is too ideal (Lauri a, 2000) and neglects the role of societal institutions, such as power relati ons (Huxley, 2000). Rational theorists allege that communicative theorists ignore soci al structures, such as proce dures and political frameworks (Fischler, 2000). Other scholars also posit critiques about the communicative approach from a practical perspective. For exampl e, it might be counter productive to assume that involved parties can set aside their own interests for c onsensus building in practice (Abram, 2000). Communicative theorists concentrate on talk as the main communication channel, which might result in neglecting other im portant communicative methods, such as image (Neuman, 2000).
37 The communicative planning paradigm provides a new foundation for theory building in tourism planning. Although concepts such as co llaborative planning, community-based tourism planning, and participative planning have been employed by theorists and practitioners in tourism planning, there is no systematic i nvestigation about th e connection between communicative planning approaches and tourism planning, which partially reflects the reality that tourism planning theories remain fragmented in genera l. Although there are books about tourism planning, such as Gunn and Var (2000) a nd Inskeep (1991), they are basically textbookoriented and lack theoretical depth. In tourism journals, scholarly papers about tourism planning are scant and are often case studies or empirical reports. The next part will review the major historical developments in tourism planning and suggest directions for further development. Tourism Planning Literature Tourism planning emerged as a reaction to th e negative impacts of tourism development. In developing countries as we ll as in developed countries, to urism often falls short of the promised economic benefits, and contributes to environmental and social problems. Tourism planning evolved over time, accompanying the de velopment of the tourism industry. Burns (1999) summarized the evolution of tourism pl anning over the past half century. In the 1950s, there was no effort devoted to tourism pl anning. In the 1960s, government priority was on investment incentives and operations, which led to the increasing employment of the master planning approach. However, the implementation of plans received little attention. In the 1970s, there was recognition of the role of professional planners an d the necessity of community involvement. In the 1980s, the economic, socio-cu ltural, and environmental impacts of tourism development were scrutinized and recognized. There was a petition for comprehensive and integrated tourism planning. In North America there was an acknowledgment of the need for community involvement (Murphy, 1985). In the 1990s the impacts of tourism development were
38 more explicit and understood. Total destinati on management was suggested as the way to successfully implement tourism plans. Parallel to the evolution of practice in tourism planning, theo retical approaches of tourism planning have also developed. According to Ge tz (1987, cited by Simpson, 2001), there are four traditions in tourism planning approaches: the bo osterism approach, the economic approach, the physical/spatial approach, and the community appr oach. More recently there were a variety of new approaches in the literature (Harill & Pott s, 2003), such as sustainable tourism planning, community-based planning, incremental plannin g, collaborative planning, and comprehensive planning (Timothy, 1998). The general trend of theoretical development in tourism planning is to evolve from a narrow physical approach to a more balanced planning approach, with more emphasis on community involvement and environmental sensitivity (Timothy, 1999). One important development in tourism planning is the increas ing recognition of the im portance of citizen participation. According to Harill and Potts (2003), tourism planning in the 1970s began to acknowledge the need for a par ticipatory approach. Since the late 1980s, the terms cooperation and collaboration have been frequently used in the tourism planning lite rature (Jamal & Getz, 1995). In the 1990s community-driven tourism becam e a major research theme (Harill & Potts, 2003). Although theoretical development in tourism pla nning is substantive an d fruitful, there are shortcomings in tourism planning theories that inhibit further development. The literature on tourism planning theories remains unclear, divided between normative and positivist approaches, and between the assumption of theories and the practice of compromise (Treuren & Lane, 2003). The communicative approach in tourism pla nning remains underdeveloped. Almost 20 years
39 after Inskeeps (1988) judgme nt that tourism planning was among plannings emerging specializations, tourism is still almost unseen to planners and t ourism planning is often left to practitioners (Harill & Potts, 2003). The hurdles for propelling tourism planning might be classified into four groups: lack of theory building, the unclear role of tourism planner, the conf usion between theory and practice, and between process and outcomes, and problems in the practice. The lack of theory building (Simpson, 2001) is reflected in more than one asp ect, such as the lack of a meaningful definition of tourism planning, the free borrowing from ot her disciplines, and the gap between goals and theoretical approaches. The lack of conceptual definition of tour ism planning stymies meaningful theoretical discussions since concepts are the building bricks for theo retical development. Discussions of tourism planning at the operati onalizational level might also be negatively affected. The idea that tourism planning should be integrated in to the overall planning for a community might become more difficult to impl ement without a clear definition of tourism planning. The lack of definition is part of the confusion. In the tour ism planning literature, it is generally accepted that the goal of tourism planning is to maximize the benefits of tourism and minimize its negative impacts. However, the defi nition of tourism planning remains vague and simplistic. For example, tourism planning is propos ed as the efforts to develop tourism in an orderly manner and toward desirable goals (Gunn & Var, 2002, p.132). In fact, tourism planning utilizes relevant planni ng concepts in the context of tourism development for tourism development purposes (Inskeep, 1991). In othe r words, tourism planning is conceptually understood as planning for better tourism. Howeve r, tourism development and tourism planning are always interwoven with the so cial, political, economics, and cultu ral structures of the tourism
40 destination. There might be multiple, conflicti ng goals for tourism development within a community. In fact, those goals of economic development and social and environmental preservation may be beyond the reach of the available planni ng approaches and resources. To add to the confusion, scholars often borrow freely from other disciplines. Although to take advantage of development in other discipli nes has always been cruc ial to the theoretical development of tourism studies, new ideas and a pproaches from other disciplines often function as new labels in tourism planni ng literature. Different concepts and ideas from other disciplines are often isolated and attached to particular contexts because there is no common theoretical basis for cross-pollination in t ourism planning. Merely putting old wine in new bottle is not productive for theory building. There is little discussion of th e role of tourism planner in the tourism planning literature. Although some researchers (Sautter & Leisen, 1999) propose that tourism pl anners hold a central position in the planning process, it might only be an ideal situati on. Planners work for the public interest (Campbell & Marshall, 2002; Friedmann, 1987) but in reality they also work for their clients. In many developing countries, tourism pl anning is dominated by foreign investors, such as transnational organizations (Brohman, 1996; Gunn & Var, 2002). Sometimes tourism planners could be representatives of thes e foreign investors. In develo ped countries, tourism planners might be less influential and constrained by vari ous economic and political institutions (Burns, 2004). There is some confusion between tourism pla nning theories, the planning process, tourism plans and the implementation of tourism plans. This confusion might be attributable to the underdevelopment of tourism planning theori es and the complexity associated with implementing tourism plans in reality. For example, tourism plans for some developing
41 destinations may become documents on the shelf and not implemented (Gunn & Var, 2002). The disconnection between tourism planni ng theory and practice posits yet another challenge for the development of tourism planni ng theories. Generally, most empirical studies are isolated case studies. There is little, if any, effort to sy stematically summarize empirical studies and provide a base for th eory development. For example, little empirical evidence could be employed to support or disprove the potenti al for collaborative t ourism planning (Simpson, 2001). Theoretical development in tourism planning is often detached from reality. The ambition to provide a universal solution for all tourism planners is frequen tly constrained by the reality in various communities. There is a need for separating discussions a bout implications of tour ism planning theories in developing countries and in developed countries (Burns, 1999), because planning in developing countries is differe nt from planning in devel oped countries (Timothy, 1998). However, there is little research on touris m planning in developing countries (Timothy, 1998). The lack of research leads to the gap between western planning theories and the reality in developing countries (Sautter & Leisen, 1999). Fo r example, cooperative planning between the public sector, the private sector and the loca l community is a wester n perspective (Timothy, 1998) and is applicable in a western context. For example, community tourism planning is grounded in the community politics of North Am erica (Murphy, 1985); thei r residents have the political power to resist development, whether it is from local governments or external investors. For residents in developing countries, the pr essure for developmen t does not leave many alternatives (Treuren & Lane, 2003). The mismatch between a western perspectiv e and realities in tourism planning in developing countries led to an ir onic situation. In the developing world, residents do not really
42 have an option to reject tourism development, at least in the short term, and do not have mature social and political infrastructures (Burns 2004), but tourism planners emphasize local involvement. Although developed countries have th e political and social in frastructures, their citizens are mostly involved as ritual participan ts and tourists are ne glected in the tourism planning process. Researchers frequently discu ss attitudes of local residents in developed countries toward tourism development, but they ra rely discuss the implications of these attitudes for planning (Harill & Potts, 2003). Tourism planning has a short history of a fe w decades (Pearce, 1989). The problems with tourism planning discussed above clea rly indicate that ther e is plenty room fo r further theoretical development. The emerging approach of commun icative planning has the potential to develop into a new paradigm in tourism planning. The communicative approach w ould not only provide a new approach to tourism planning theory, but also present a pract ical way of engaging stakeholders. The communicative approach will broaden th e basis for theory building in tourism planning from various perspectiv es. First, it will help identify the goals of tourism planning, which should be based on the consensus of st akeholders. Second, the communicative approach clarifies the roles of tourism pla nners. Tourism planners should be a facilitator of the consensus building process and a student learning local kno wledge and needs. Third, the communicative approach might provide new tool s for theoretical development. Fourth, communicative tourism planning might be an answer to the call of customizing appropriate models for different communities (Simpson, 2001). There are four groups of stakeholders in tourism development: tourists, tourism developers, government planning and control ag encies, and the local populace (Pigram, 1994).
43 Representatives from all the stakeholder groups should be involved in the planning process (Jamal & Getz, 1995). While government agencies a nd the private sector ar e usually represented in the planning process, resident s and tourists are rare. However, tourism planners in developing countries and developed countri es face different challenges in getting underrepresented participants involved. In devel oping countries, there are systema tic and perceived constraints (Ladkin & Bertramini, 2002) for indigenous people to participate in the pla nning process, such as negative political a nd cultural traditions, deprived econom ic conditions, and lack of knowledge and expertise (Timothy, 1999). Communicative tour ism planning in developing countries might play a role of social mobilization (Friedmann, 1987) and change the ba lance of power (Abram, 2000) for the indigenous people. In developed co untries, there are more advanced political and social institutions for citizen participation. Howeve r, citizen participation is often superficial and residents and tourists are not interested in participation. Co mmunicative tourism planning might provide an approach to getting residents and tourists involved. The communicative approach in tourism planning entails authentic participation of tourists and residents. Although currently there is no research investiga ting tourists wi llingness to participate in the tourism pla nning process, research on reside nts attitudes toward tourism development has been an important topic in th e tourism literature for decades. Tourism planning is an important part of the decision making pro cess of tourism developm ent. In fact, tourism planning is also the platform for involved partie s to express their support and concerns toward tourism development. Timeshare owners are tr ansient residents of the timeshare community. Studies investigating resident s support for tourism development should shed some light on timeshare owners perceptions of participation in tourism planning.
44 Residents Attitudes toward Tourism Research on resident attitudes toward touris m development originated from the recognition of the negative impacts of tourism developmen t. While the impacts of tourism development are diverse and far-reaching, the local community us ually burdens an unfair share of the costs (Jurowski, Uysal, & Williams, 1997). Those nega tive impacts not only aff ect the satisfaction of the tourists, but also threaten the very foundation upon which the tourism industry is based. After decades of research, studies on resident s perceptions of tourism development have reached some common ground. Scholars have co ncluded that the impacts of tourism development can be classified into three broad categories: economic impact s, social impacts, and environmental impacts. All three categories of impacts might consis t of both positive and negative components. Communities and residents might differ in their various perceptions of the nature and magnitude of these tourism impacts. Researchers have tested a series of factors, such as demographic characteristics, spatial factors, economic dependence, and personal benefits in order to predict resident attitudes toward tourism development. The literature suggests that socioeconomic factors play a minor, and sometimes ambiguous, role in explaining resident attitudes toward tourism development (McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Perdue, L ong, & Allen, 1990). Among the demographic characteristics investigated, length of reside ncy (Girard & Gartner, 1993; McCool & Martin, 1994), age (Cavus & Tanrisevdi, 2002; Tomlje novic & Faulkner, 1999) and gender (Harrill & Potts, 2003; Mason & Cheyne, 2000) are found to be rela ted to resident attit udes in some studies. Tourism researchers have proposed that resident s living closer to concentrations of tourism activity will perceive the impacts of tourism development more ne gatively than tourists who live farther away from tourism (Jurowski & Gurs oy, 2004). Pizam (1978) proposed that large amount of tourism facilities and services in a destination leads to reside nts negative attitudes toward
45 tourism development. Subsequent research foun d that the relationship was more complicated. While some studies (Gursoy, Jurowski, & Uy sal, 2002; Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004) found that local, heavy users of the tourism concentration area have more ne gative perceptions of tourism than users living further away, Pear ce (1980) reported that distance fr om city centers is related to negative perceptions of tourists. The hypothesis of a positive relationship be tween economic dependence on tourism and support for tourism has been supported in the lit erature (Pizam, 1978), although researchers have found variations in the relationship. Unsurprisi ngly, most individuals and communities who do not benefit economically from tourism growth w ill not support further tourism development, as reported by Martin, McGuire and A llen (1998). Further, most studies demonstrate that residents can recognize both positive and negative aspect s of economic dependency on tourism (Lankford, 1994). Research on resident attit udes entered a new era when social exchange theory was introduced into the area in the early 1990s (Ap, 1990). The main doctrines of social exchange theory could be traced back to the works of Homans (1958), Blau (1964), and Emerson (1976). Social exchange theory suggests that the relationships between individuals and groups are based on subjective evaluation of benef its and costs and comparison of alternatives. Based on the assumption of rational choice, individuals or groups will favor the exchange with other parties if the perceived benefits outweigh or equate to the perceived costs. Ap (1992) adopted the ideas of equal exchange s from social exchange theory and applied them in the context of community tourism devel opment. From the residents perspective, the primary benefit for them to gain is the impr ovement of the economic and social well-being brought out by tourism development. The costs of the exchange are th e negative impacts of
46 tourism development. Ap also proposed that re sidents will support tourism development if the perceived benefits surpass or equate to the per ceived costs. Social exchange theory has been suggested as a useful model for mapping reside nts tradeoffs between perceived benefits and perceived costs and explaining their support for tourism development. A series of empirical studies have been conduc ted on the basis of social exchange theory. For example, Perdue, Long, and Allen (1987, 1990) reported that support for additional tourism development is positively or negatively related to perceived positive or negative impacts of tourism. Similarly, Jurowski, Usyal and Williams (1997) found in a study in Virginia that the potential for economic gain as an exchange item has a direct and posit ive effect on resident support. Although there is some evidence for the relation ship between perceived benefits and costs and resident support for tourism, findings from other studies are not conclusive when other factors are also found to be important predicto rs of residents support (Gursoy, Jurowski, & Uysal, 2002; Lindberg & Johnson, 1997). While the im plication of social exchange theory has propelled studies on resident attitudes into a ne w stage of investigati on, the very purpose of attitude studies could be misse d if researchers fail to make the connection between social exchange theory, resident attitudes, and tourism planning. Lankford (2001) pointed out: Tourism impact research is (or should be) de signed to provide planners with a database with which to develop a planning process aime d at addressing local concerns and issues. Specifically, the data from a community enviro nmental scan (via survey or series of meetings) become the starting point in develo ping a citizen involve ment process (which may take many years) to discuss impacts, to suggest mitigating strategies, and to decide on the scope and density of tourism developments. It is clear that the primary purpose of resident attitude studies is to contribute to tourism planning and eventually the sust ainable tourism development in the local community. A step forward is to investigate the relationship betw een residents personal benefits and costs and
47 support for tourism planning. In other words, ev en though many empirical studies have indicated that most residents support tourism development as an economic development tool, it is unclear whether their support for tourism development will lead to their behavioral contribution to the tourism planning process. The gap between personal bene fit and support for tourism pla nning has been recognized in the literature. In their survey of residents at 12 Arizona communities, McGehee and Andereck (2004) reported a positive relationship between personal benefit from tourism and support for tourism development, but there is no signifi cant relationship between personal benefit and support for tourism planning. While perceived positive impacts do not predict support for tourism planning, perceived negative impacts are positively related to support for tourism planning. Overall, support for tourism developmen t is strongly associated with support for tourism planning. McGehee and Andereck (2004) ar gued that the part of thei r findings regarding support for tourism planning do not support the research hypothesis derived fr om social exchange theory, which states that if residents recognize their benefits in tourism and the positive impacts of tourism development, they should support the effo rts of tourism planning. The authors offer two explanations for this: (1) Reside nts have limited confidence in the ability of the community to plan for tourism. (2) Regardless of personal be nefits, all residents rec ognize the importance of tourism planning. These two explanations are dr awn from two important critiques of social exchange theory. The first is the role of trust. As a party in exchange, re sidents may not trust the other party, who is in charge of tourism planning. The second one is the role of sense of collective interests and social norms in shaping individuals behavior.
48 McGehee and Anderecks (2004) work not only st ated the importance of future research on resident support for tourism planning, but also sugge sted that social excha nge theory alone might not explain the support for tourism planning. On e interesting and alarming issue in the application of social exchange theo ry in resident attitudes studies is that social exchange theory is often taken for granted, while it has evoked plen ty of critiques outside the tourism literature. The most relevant comment regarding the applica tion of social exchange theory in resident attitudes studies is the scope of its application. When the costs and benefits of a social action are qualitative in nature, it is difficu lt for an individual to calculate the net benefit or cost (Sciulli, 1992). In other words, some tourism researchers mi ght have stretched the limits of the scope of social exchange theory. Besides personal benefits, there might be many factors influencing re sidents support for tourism planning, such as personal emotional att achment, the sense of collective benefits, and social norms. However, self-interest is s uggested as the main motivation of mankind (Mansbridge, 1990; Monroe, 1991). Rational choice th eory is based on the premise that human motivation is largely self-intereste d (Petracca, 1991) and its applic ation in social interaction is social exchange theory (Scott, 2000). Rational choice theory states that human actions are rational and people calculate the possible costs an d benefits of any action before they decide what to do (Lawler, 2001; Macy & Flache, 1995). Rational choice theory is the theoretical foundation for expl aining the rational component in timeshare owners perceptions of particip ating in the tourism pl anning process for two reasons. First, social exchange theory has been mi sused in some resident attitude studies as a tool to explain all social relations re lated to tourism development. Th e careless application of social exchange theory in the current literature is mi sleading and counter-produc tive. In order to avoid
49 potential vagueness and ambiguity, this article em ploys rational choice theory in a more rigid and precise way that constrains its application to the domain of personal interests and costs on a rational basis. Second, rational c hoice theory is closely relate d to behavior psychology, which might be more appropriate for predicting behavioral support of tourism planning. Sense of Place and Tourism Planning The emotional bonding between people and place has attracted attention from researchers from various disciplines for decades. Since th e seminal works of Relph (1976) and Tuan (1974, 1975), there has been an emerging and diverse bo dy of literature on the affective connections between people and place. Accompanying the growth of the literature, a series of terms have been minted to describe the connection. For ex ample, Low and Altman (1992, p.3 ) claimed that place attachment is related to a variety of analogous ideas, including topohilia (Tuan, 1974), place identity (Proshansky et al., 1983), inside ness (Rowles, 1980), genres of place (Hufford, 1992), sense of place or rootedness (Chawla, 1992), environmental embeddedness, community sentiment and identity (Hummon, 1992). Despite the obvious common ground among these terms, there are variations and nuances that are context sensitive a nd deserve scrutiny while employed across the line between disciplines. In spite of the fragmented status of the exis ting literature and the la ck of understanding of the relationships among those concepts (Stedm an, 2000), few efforts have been devoted to standardize the terminology of the study of place, which might be attributed to the recognition that the study of place is essentially multidim ensional and multidisciplinary. In fact, some researchers caution the danger of inappropriately simplifying the m eanings of those concepts to measurable variables in the pursuit of a quan titative approach (Stedman, 2000). Similarly, Low and Altman (1992) argued that place research ers need to move beyond the first stage of
50 assuming the consensus among different concepts to the second stage of investigating the relationships among different concepts. Given the multidimensional and multidisciplinary nature of the study of place, an exhaustive review of the existing literature is beyond the purpose of this study. Instead, this study aims at investigating and or ganizing the theoretical and practical findings in a way that will benefit the study of tourism planni ng. As a result, the main findings in the literature on place will be summarized, followed by discussions about the application of study of place in tourism and in planning. Among the various terms describing the emoti onal connections between people and place, sense of place has emerged as an overarching concept (Farnum, Hall, & Kruger, 2005; Stedman, 2002). Humanistic geographers, such as Tuan (1974) argue that place is the central concept of geographic study and space is converted to pla ce after people attach meanings to it. The meanings that people attach to place include co gnitive, affective, and emotional attributes (Altman & Low, 1992; Bricker & Kerstetter, 2000; Farnum et al., 2005). Environmental psychologists (Bonnes & Secchiaroli, 1995; Feimer & Geller, 1993) often use the phrase place attachment. Place attachment is part of human attachment and primarily about affective bonding with place. Since there is a consensus among res earchers (Bott, Cantrill & Myers, 2003; Cheng, Kruger, & Daniels, 2003; Stedman, 2000) that humanistic geography and environmental psychology are the two disciplinary origins of the study of place, sense of place describes the broad boundary of the study of place and is empl oyed as the basic concept in this study. The conceptual discussion of sense of place might be organized by three topics: place, origins of sense of place, and different paradigm s of research. Place is closely related to the concept space and the starting point of understanding place is the dualism of space and place. As
51 Tuan (1977, p.6) pointed out: what begins as un differentiated space becomes place as we get to know it better and endow it with value Tuan de fined place by comparing place with space. The ideas space and place require each ot her for definition. Form the security and stability of place we are aware of the openness, freedom, and threat of space, and vice versa. Furthermore, if we think of space as that which allows movement, then place is pause; each pause in movement makes it possible for location to be transformed into place (Tuan, 1977, p.6). Similarly, Relph (1976, p.8) also compared place with space: space provides the context for places but derives its meaning from particular places. His understanding of place could be described as a continuum with place at one end and space at the other (Cresswell, 2004). Unlike humanistic geographers like Tuan and Relph, other re searchers proposed a broad definition of place. Some researchers (Agnew, 1987, cited by Cresswell, 2004; Gieryn, 2000) argued that there are three dimensions of place: location, locale and se nse of place. Location refers to the geographical position. Locale summa rizes the material form of a place, which provides the setting for social re lations and interactions. Sense of place describes the emotional attachment people have to place. Similarly, Stedman (2000) argued that place includes three intertwining parts: the physical places, human activities, and human social and psychological processes that ha ppen in the setting. The meaning of place is constructed by expe rience (Tuan, 1975). According to different types of experience that places are associated with, Tuan (1974) divided places to two types: places as public symbols and places as fields of care. Public symbols are places that yield their meanings to the eye, such as sacred places and pub lic squares. Fields of care are places that can only be known after extended experience. Fields of care include home, neighborhood, drugstore, etc. While the meanings of place are multidimen sional: physical, social, and psychological (Hidalgo & Hernandez, 2001), there are also differe nt dimensions of sense of place. Sense of
52 place is a categorical concept of the symbolic meanings, attachment, and satisfaction with a spatial setting held by an i ndividual or group (Stedman, 2002), with both symbolic and emotional attributes (Eisenhauer, Kra nnich, & Blahna, 2000). As suggested by its multidisciplinary origin and its broad applicati on in disciplines such as tourism and outdoor recreation, environmental protect ion and education, and urban a nd regional planning, there are diversified discussions and topics in the study of sense of place. Humanistic geographers such as Tuan and Relph pay more attention to built places, because their definition of place is based on hum an experience. However, some researchers argued that there is a distinction between built pl aces and natural places and the concept of place should not only apply to built or natural enviro nments (Bott, Cantrill, & Myers, 2003). For example, in the context of out door recreation and tourism, na tural environments could be important targets and settings for peoples emotional bonding. Although there might not be an absolute distinction between built and natural en vironments, a broader scope including both built and natural places better reflects the diverse research in different areas. Views on the origins of sense of place depe nd on the disciplinary perspective. The potential factors that affect sense of place mi ght be divided into three levels: personal experience, socio/cultural fact ors, and biological/evolutionary factors (Farnum et al., 2005). Individual experience is at the center of humanistic geographers explanation of sense of place. For example, Tuan (1974) emphasized the temporal dimension of place (in his term pause) and the role of personal experience in the forming of sense of pla ce. Based on the argument of the importance of long-time residency and individual experience, Relph (1976) argued that the high mobility of American society caused by ma ss culture and modern travel/tourism are responsible for the placelessness in America. The mobility of Americans makes families stay
53 shorter at a house and decreases the significance of home while tourism only brings superficial and inauthentic experience to tourists (Cresswe ll, 2004). Similarly, Relphs mourning of the loss of place is echoed by other terms used by different researchers, such as the transcendence of place (Coleman, 1993), and phant asmagoric (Giddens, 1990). Social and cultural origins of sense of place are the factors that beyond individual experience; in other words, direct personal expe rience is not necessary fo r sense of place (Moore & Graefe, 1994). Proponents (Bla ke, 2002; Gieryn, 2000) of the soci ocultural perspective argue that places could have common symbolic or cult ural meanings to members of a group, regardless of the members personal visiti ng experience. Contact with a place could be a psychological process instead of a physical experience (Farnum et al., 2005), which might help explain why people are attached to places unr ealistically representing the ac tual landscape in Schroeders (2004) study. Empirical evidence suppor ts the broader view that orig ins of sense of place consist of direct experience and social and cultura l factors (Hammitt, Backlund, & Bixler, 2004; Stedman, 2002). Some other scholars propose that there is a biological/evolutionary component of sense of place. Riley (1992) argued that at tachment to the environment is inherent in the human species. As a result of evolution, humans develop attachment to environments that are similar to critical evolutionary settings. However, it is hard to evaluate this proposal directly (Farnum et al., 2005). Although there is inferentia l evidence by some studies (e.g. crossculture studies of preference of types of landscapes) and psychoevo lutionary theories (attention restoration theory and prospect refuge theory) explaining human sentiments toward certain types of environments, biological/evolutionary components are generally ne glected in tourism studies of sense of place (Farnum et al., 2005).
54 The views guiding intellectual investigations of place consist of both explanatory and normative approaches (Castree, 2004). The social and behavioral approaches view place theory as explanatory, emphasizing on wh at and why; while the envi ronmental design and planning disciplines regard place theory as normative, ai ming at deciding what should be the case (Zube, Sell, & Taylor, 1982, cited by Bott, Cantrill, & Myers, 2003). At the operationalizational level, places are often treated as commerce or settings. Researchers tend to identify place in terms of geographical location and political boundaries. Participants in empirical studies are likely to interpret place in terms of administrative units or political jurisdictions, such as county or city boundaries, because many social functions and individual activities, such as voting and local taxes happen wi thin political boundaries (EPA, 2002). Besides political boundaries, there are othe r units of places, such as natural boundaries (EPA, 2002). There are different scales of place as the ta rget of sense of place. For example, Hidalgo and Hernandez (2001) classified the target of the attachment to three levels: house, neighborhood, and city. In the aren a of outdoor recreation, the scale of attachment has also been investigated. For example, Moore and Scott (2003) treated users attachments to a specific trail and to the larger park separate ly and compared them. A related but separated question is whether outdoor recreationists are attached to a pa rticular setting or a type of settings. There are also different levels of unit of analys is of the people factor in sense of place. The basic dimension is individual sense of place and collective sense of place. Although this difference is not totally exclusive and could ha ve overlaps, individual sense of place is more from a psychological perspective, and collective sense of place is from a social and cultural perspective.
55 The concept of sense of place has been wi dely applied in outdoor recreation. Many researchers in outdoor recreation follow an e nvironmental psychological tradition of study of place, especially about recreationa l uses of public lands and recr eational users place attachment to these lands. There is a cons ensus that place attachment ha s two underlying dimensions: place dependency and place identity (Williams, Ande rson, McDonald, & Patterson, 1995; Williams, Patterson, Roggenbuck, & Watson, 1992; Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989). Place identity describes the emotional dimension of place at tachment, while place dependency portrays the functional dimension of place identity. The application of the term place identity in recreation and tourism is often traced to Proshansky (Proshansky, 1978; Proshansky & Fa bian, 1987; Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983). Proshansky (Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983, p.63-64) theorizes place identity as a complex cognitive structure that includes the norms behaviors, rules, and regulations that are inherent in the use of these places and spaces (Bricker & Kerstetter, 2000). Place identity is described as the combination of attitudes, va lues, thoughts, beliefs, meanings, and behavior tendencies, reaching for beyond em otional attachment and belonging to particular places (Proshansky, Fabian & Kaminoff, 1983, p.61). Place dependence describes the functional attachment that individual users possess towa rds places (Stokols & S humaker, 1981) and how well a setting facilita tes users particular activit ies (Moore & Graefe, 1994, p.27). Although some studies suggest place attachment as a unidimensional construct, based on their findings that measures of place identity and place dependence correlate highly and even do not distinguish (Johnson, 1998; Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001; Moore & Scott, 2003), most empirical studies (Bricker & Kerstetter, 2002) support the two-dimension approach of place
56 attachment in recreation and the measurements ha ve showed consistent validity and reliability (Kyle, Graefe, & Manning, 2005; Williams & Vaske, 2003). While place attachment is a complicated c onstruct (Altman & Low, 1992), research on place attachment in the recreationa l context is narrowly focused on individual sentiments toward natural environments from the psychological pers pective. The focus on na tural environments not only reflects the disciplinary char acteristics of recr eation research, but also suggests that research on place attachment in recreational settings pays more attention to the material form of places and less attention to the geographic location of places and human relationships and emotions related to places. For example, places are frequently only viewed as settings for outdoor recreation activities. The missing of social and cultural factors in place attachment in the recreation context might lead to some theoretical and measurement issues. As an interdisciplinary subj ect, tourism study has incorpor ated the study of place and concepts such as place attachment and co mmunity attachment have been applied. The application of sense of place in t ourism research could be divided into to two areas. One category is about tourists attachment to tourism destinations (Brown, 1990) The other area is the role of residents community attachment in shaping thei r attitudes toward touris m development in their community. There are conflicting views of tourists destination attachment. While some researchers argue that tourists spend a s hort time in a destination in a commercialized manner and such superficial experience could not f acilitate forming the meaning of that place, others respond that direct personal experience is not necessary for forming sentiments toward places and tourists might have collective destinati on attachment due to social an d cultural reasons. For example, potential tourists may feel attached to the Great Wall in China before they ever have a chance to
57 visit it in person. It is reasonable to believe th at destination attachme nt is multi-faceted and includes both psychological factors and social cu ltural components. Tuan (1974) suggested that there are two kinds of place attachment, one is attached to home through long period of residence; the other is attached to selected places Destination attachment could be interpreted as attachment to selected places (Stedman, 2006). Researchers and practitioners have been interested in investigating the emotional connection between tourists and th eir tourism destinations in order to understand tourists travel decision-making and travel behavior. Empirical studies (Lee, Backma n, & Backman, 1997, cited by Lee, 2001) suggest that psycho logical attachment is very im portant in understanding tourist behavior, including repeat visita tions. On the other hand, attractiv eness of the destination and travel to the destination as family tradition are found to be important pr edictors of tourists destination attachment (Brown, 1990; Lee, 2001). Similar to the research of sense of place in the context of recreation, research about destination attachment is more about the emoti onal bonding tourists have toward the destination than the physical characteristic s of the place (Williams et al, 1992). Unlike in the recreation context, research of sense on place in the to urism context also in cludes a sociocultural dimension. Sense of place at the collective level has also been given attention in the tourism context, particularly from the sociocultural perspective. However, there are fewer studies on tourist place attachment, which migh t be attributed to the argument that destination attachment is only one of many variables influencing travel decisions. Recently, Stedman (2002, 2003) suggested that there is another independent attitude dimension of sense of place, different from pl ace identity and place dependency that deserves attention from researchers in the recreation and tourism disciplines. Place satisfaction is a
58 multidimensional summary judgment of the perc eived quality of a setting (Stedman, 2002, p. 564). Following the practice of distinguishi ng community attachment and community satisfaction in community sociology, Stedman (2002) argued that place satisfaction is an important dimension, especially in predicting beha viors. In a mail survey of home owners in a Wisconsin county with over 57% houses classified as for seasonal or r ecreational use, place identity and place satisfaction were found to have independent effects on willingness to engage in activities that prot ected the natural environment. Res pondents with strong place attachment but low place satisfaction were most likely to act for environmental protection purposes. Sense of place is also investigated in the pl anning literature, esp ecially in the area of citizen participation and community building. A va riety of concepts related to sense of place have been implemented in the relevant literatu re, such as place attach ment, place identity, and sense of community. These different aspects of sense of place could be classified into two groups: individual-level place attachment and comm unity-level place attachment, since citizen participation in community planning consists of both individual and community level contributions from the residents. There is a two-way relationship betw een sense of place and citizen participation (Julian & Reischl, 1997). As a reaction to the mourning of the loss of communal and public life, planners, especially urban planners have devoted to restoring sense of community and broader civic lif e through planning tools and efforts (Talen, 2000). However, both individual-level place attachment and comm unity-level place attachment play an important role in citizen participation and empowerment, which are crucial to community building (Lund, 2002; Manzo & Perkins, 2006). Obviously, sens e of place and citizen participation and community building are closely correlated. For the purpose of this article, the role of sense of place in influencing citizen participation is more important and relevant.
59 There is ample evidence for the active role that sense of place and place attachment play in citizen participation in the lite rature. Although it might seem intu itive, stronger sense of place has been found to associate with more socially and environmentally responsible behaviors and more civic engagement. For example, Chavis and Wandersman (1990) reported that sense of community has a direct and an i ndirect effect on pa rticipation based on a casual model analyzing neighborhood block associations. Brown, Pe rkins and Brown (2003) found that place attachments and sense of community play a significant role in ne ighborhood revitalization efforts. Since the use of space is essentially po litical (Hayden, 1995), peoples emotional relationships to places are inevit ably related to the larger soci opolitical reality. As Tuan (1974) pointed out, one of the main usages of place in lay language is a metaphor for social status. Sociopolitical relations are frequen tly expressed in spatial terms, such as position in society and insider and outsider (Cresswell, 1996). The meaning and sense of place could evoke political actions if people feel owning a place or having a right to a place and that place is the objective of a community plan. These political actions include citizen participation in the planning process. Sense of place could also relate to conflicts in citizen participation. From a participatory planning perspective, citizen involvement is cruc ial. To understand residents place attachment is crucial for both consensus building and fo r involving community members. Various place attachments among different members of a community could be a source fo r conflicts. Compared with conflicts over economic or environmental i ssue, this conflict coul d be more subtle and implicit. Understanding place atta chment and meanings could be the first step for consensus building.
60 Civic Engagement and Tourism Planning The concept of civil society was discussed by Aristotle and other Greek philosophers and was prominent among modern writers such as Jean -Jacques Rousseau and Alexis de Tocqueville (Brewer, 2003). Although there are different versions of definitions of civil society, it could be loosely defined as the realm of private volunta ry association (Foley & Edwards, 1996). This association is called as media ting structures in modern soci ety by Berger and Neuhaus (1977) and plays a crucial role in democracy. Many re searchers (Putnam, 1995a) argue that democracy is based on the interaction betw een civil society, the state sect or, and the private sector. The emerging democracies in Latin America and East ern Europe also accentuate the importance of civil society toward democratiz ation (Foley & Edwards, 1996). The American society is characterized as a civil society. The most famous account might be traced to De Tocqueville and his Democracy in America After spending 9 months traveling in the U.S. during 1831 and 1832, De Tocque ville (1835/2001, p. 513-517) described his reaction to Americans associatio nal life as nothing, in my view deserves more attention than the intellectual and moral associations in Amer ica. According to Tocqueville, "Americansare forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand different types--religious moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute Tocqueville viewed the civic association as the most important factor for the success of democracy in the U.S. (Putnam, 1995a). While the concept of civil society remains re levant, it is loosely defined and hard to measure. The concept of social capital was coined from the perspective of civil society and generated interest not only in academia but also in mass media. After years development and diversification, social capital has become a broa d concept and has developed to various forms.
61 There are various intellectual roots and different definitions of social capital. According to Portes (1998), contemporary pioneers in defini ng social capital are Bourdieu (1985), Loury (1977), and Coleman (1988). So cial capital is intellectually rela ted to the concept of capital and could be generally conceptualized as resour ces embedded in a social structure which are accessed and/or mobilized in purposive actions (Lin, 1999, p. 35). As a concept developed in sociology, social capital has been applied across disciplines, especi ally in political sciences by Putnam (1995a, 1995b). Putnam (1993a, p.35) define d social capital as features of social organizations, such as networks, norms, and trus t, that facilitate ac tion and cooperation for mutual benefit. Social capital depends on th e social network of associations and civic participation. In fact, social trust and civic participation are at the heart of Putnams (1995b) argument for the declining social ca pital in the American society. While social capital is often viewed as an a ggregation of social networks and norms, civic engagement is the foundation a nd the direct measure of social capital (Brewer, 2003). Civic engagement refers to both participation in pol itical events and invol vement in social and community affairs (Putnam, 1995b; Verba, Sc hlozman, & Brady, 1995). Civic engagement is pivotal for revitalizing American democracy (Put nam, 1993b), because civi c engagement offers opportunities for people to bond, create joint accomp lishments, and collectiv ely articulate their demands (Curtis, Baer, & Grabb, 2001; Eckste in, 2001; Schofer & Fourcade-Gourinchas, 2001). While there are different ways of classifying citizen involvement in public life, the division between political participation a nd civic participation is an im portant distinction. Political engagement refers to activity that has the inte nt or effect of influe ncing government action either directly by affecting the making or im plementation of public po licy or indirectly by influencing the selection of people who make those policies (Verba, Schlozman, & Brady,
62 1995, p. 38). Voting is the most important activity w ithin this domain, but there are also other activities. Civic involvement, on the other ha nd, is defined as organized voluntary activity focused on problem solving and help ing others (Zukin et al., 2006, p.7). While the trend of declining political particip ation is evident, primarily indicated by the low voting rate, the trend of ci vic involvement is not clear. So me researchers like Putnam (1995b) lament the lost of civic spirit and voluntarism in the Am erican society, especially among the baby boomer generation. Putnam supported his argument by evidence like declining levels of membership in national civic asso ciations. Other researchers ch allenge that Putnams argument is constrained to selected traditional interpersonal networks and thus does not represent the whole picture of civil partic ipation in contemporary society (Jackman & Miller, 1998; Lin, 1999). Further, Putnams empirical approach faces the danger of tautology, because it is at the macro or social level where the sources and outco mes of social capital ar e hard to distinguish (Portes, 1998). This study focuses on civic engagement at the in dividual level. Tourism planning is part of the effort for tourism development and the al lover planning for the destination community. While any planning could be related to power and political relationships, t ourism planning is also associated with the benefits for the community and for others. As a result, participation in tourism planning is both a politic al issue and a civic issue. Both political engagement and civic involvement of timeshare owners are going to be investigated. However, the current literature on tourism pl anning is more about marketing, promotion (Marcouiller, 1997), and physical planning than about social mobiliz ation and consensus building. Participatory approach in tourism pla nning is only an emerging paradigm. Although the role of civic engagement has garnered little at tention among tourist planners, some studies have
63 suggested that tourism development could cont ribute to more civic engagement as well as economic development (Hoffman, 2003). Other res earchers view the broade r concept of social capital as part of the social pillar, which, t ogether with economic and environmental domains, interacts with tourism development (Jha nnesson, Skaptadttir, & Benediktsson, 2003; Patterson, Gulden, Cousins, & Kraev, 2003) Participation in tourism planning is part of civic engagement activi ties of an individual. The individuals past history should be a good indi cator of her intention of civic participation in the future. If activities of civi c engagement reflect an overall le vel of commitment toward civic engagement, and the same level of commitment remains constant, past activities of civic engagement could be efficient in predicting will ingness of participating in tourism planning in the future.
64 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Research Design As proposed in Chapter One, the research questions guiding the re search are (1) Are timeshare owners willing to participate in tourism planning? (2) Are timeshare owners perceptions of participating in tourism planning related to the owners perceptions of tourism planning, perceived benefits and co sts of participating, level of attachment to the timeshare and to the city where the timeshare is located, and past history of political and civic participation? (3) What are timeshare owners preferred ways of participation in tourism planning? This study followed a cross-sectional design wh ere research particip ants were surveyed using a standardized qu estionnaire during summer, 2007. The ta rget population of this study was U. S. timeshare owners. The accessibility of th e target population is limited. Consequently, the survey population is the selection of the unit that the survey da ta is collected from. In the timeshare industry, a national master list of timesh are owners does not exist. The author and his advisory committee originally approached Re sort Condominiums Inte rnational (RCI) and Interval International (II) and asked for permission to use their U.S. member list as the survey frame. According to a recent na tional survey (ARDA Internati onal Foundation, 2006), nearly 94 % of all responding timeshare resorts were affilia ted with RCI and/or II. Although the effort to obtain access to their member list was unsuccessful after a few months in tense and constructive communication, insights from the interaction with RCI contributed significantly to the survey questionnaire. Alternativel y, the author and the advisory comm ittee decided to cooperate with an Orlando-based marketing consulting firm that ow ned a list of 1.45 million U.S. timeshare owners in June, 2007.
65 Web Survey New technology is an important propelling pow er for innovations of alternative survey modes, from the emergence of te lephone survey to the application of the In ternet and computer assistance in the practice. New technology has cha nged every facet of the survey process. To a certain extent, the evolution of su rvey modes represents the proce ss that researchers lose control of the actual interview. From f ace-to-face interview, to mail interview, to telephone interview, and recently to Internet-based interview, resear chers gradually retreat from personal contacts with respondents. Face-to-face interview involve s the interviewer in person and generates a social context for the respondents. Telephone interview only requires voice communication. Mail interview maybe only involves th e researcher through their ha nd-signed cover letter or handwritten address lines. The Internet-based interv iew is generally based on the cyber world and excludes any direct personal cont act between researchers and respondents. To choose a survey mode is more about evaluating trade-offs than finding the best method. The loss of control is accompanied by the dramatic improvement of survey efficiency in terms of time consumption. Although Internet-based surveys ar e found to bear some unique ch aracteristics different from other traditional ways, Internet interviews may become more productive if the Internet keeps changing society and peoples lives at the current speed. The Internet has emerged as the latest front ier for applying new technology in surveys. Internet-based surveys include email survey s and web surveys. Despite the ever-growing enthusiasm about Internet-based surveys, there are drawbacks of collecting data online that cause unnecessary uneasiness and suspicio n. In fact, routine survey modes such as mail survey and telephone survey were subjected to similar doubts in the 1970s when they started to replace faceto-face interviews, as commented by Dillman (1978):
66 Neither mail nor telephone has been consider ed anything more than a poor substitute for the much heralded face-to-face interview. Perh aps this view was just ified, because the two methods had many deficiencies and problems (Dillman, 1978, p.1). The coverage issue is probably the biggest challenge for Internet surveys. Although the percentage of Americans who have access to computer s and to the Internet is increasing steadily, the Internet is still inaccessible to certain groups within the p opulation. According to the U.S. Census Bureaus (2005) Current Population Su rvey, 54.6% of U.S. households had Internet connections in October 2003. Since then, Inte rnet access rate has been increasing. Recent national surveys (Pew Research Center, 2004) in dicate that about 66% of American families have access to the Internet at hom e. In April, 2006, about 74% of American adults were frequent Internet users (Pew In ternet & American Life Project, 2006 ). According to the Pew Internet Survey (Horrigan, 2007), about 67% of the U.S. population has Intern et access at home in February, 2007. The Internet access rate is increasing. More importantly, people from higher socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to ha ve access to the Internet. About 85% of those who had at least a bachelors de gree had Internet access at home in 2003. Internet access has also become a basic work requirement for an in creasing portion of the population (Dillman, 2000). The target population of this research is times hare owners, who are mostly from middle to high socioeconomic backgrounds (Table 3-3 and Tabl e 3-4). About 80% timeshare owners have bachelors degrees or higher educational leve ls. Around 64% of timeshare owners have an annual household income of $50,000 and more. The coverage issue should only be a minor concern for studies about timeshare owners. Another potential pitfa ll of Internet-based surveys is the nonresponse error (Dillman, 2000). If Internet-based surveys are related to hi gher nonresponse rates th an traditional modes, researchers need to consider the extra risk. Altho ugh research on Internet-bas ed surveys is still at
67 its infancy, the existing l iterature suggests that web surveys generally have a lower response rate compared with traditional mail surveys (C ook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000). For example, in a meta-analysis of 68 surveys reported in some academic journals ( Public Opinion Quarterly Journal of Marketing Research and American Sociological Review ), Cook et al. reported that the mean response rate is 39.6%, including studies w ith missing data. The repo rted response rate of web-based survey is lower than the average 55.6% response rate of ma il surveys (Baruch, 1999). Some comparative studies of web surveys and mail surveys also report that web surveys generate lower response rates than mail surveys when conducted side by side (Crawford, Couper, & Lamias, 2001). The reasons for the low response rate could be classified into three categories. First, all survey methods, including face-to-face interviews, are suffering from increasing nonresponse rate since 1950s (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000), and even major national surveys are having the same problem (Krosnick, 1999). Second, after decades of study, especially since Dillmans (1978) total design method, research ers have found ways to boost response rates of mail surveys, but these methods might not be applicable to web surveys (Crawford, Couper, & Limias, 2001). Third, reported response rates of mail surveys in academic journals might be an over-estimation because the standard of respons e rates for publishable research is relatively high (Cook, et al., 2000). Different survey modes represent different means of communicating with survey participants. The interaction with participants could be divided into three components or stages: contact mode, response mode, and follow-up m ode (Schonlau, Fricker, & Elliott, 2002). Different methods have been sugge sted to improve the response ra te of web survey, targeting at different stages of web surveys. Those methods c ould be classified into two categories. The first
68 category aims to increase the percentage of reci pients of the invitation to answer the survey questions. Those methods are mostly focused on the contact and the follow-up stage. For example, Dillman (2000) recommended multiple contacts. Cook, et al., (2000) also suggested pre-contacts and personalized c ontacts. The second category targ ets on increasing the rate of respondents who complete the su rvey after they begin. These methods are more from the perspective of design and administration of web surveys (Crawford, Couper, & Lamias, 2001; Couper, Traugott, & Lamias, 2001). There are some potential benefits of using the Internet as the data collection vehicle. Some researchers (Dillman, 2000) argue that Internet-b ased surveys can save time and money for researchers. Since the average cost for each respon se is lower by Internet survey, researchers can afford a larger sample size, which will reduce sampling error in a probability survey study. In addition, Internet surveys have some advantag es in term of reducing measurement error, including skip pattern automation and eliminatio n of transcription erro rs (Schonlau, Fricker & Elliott, 2002). Researchers could also take advant age of the ability of the Internet to track respondent behavior, such as how long a respond ent spends on answering a certain question, which is potentially beneficial for analyzi ng the effect of soci al desirability. This study used web survey as the data co llection mode, especia lly for the projected benefit of reaching a very la rge audience inexpensively with rapid response (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000). The sample size was decided ba sed on the combination of target power and correlation coefficient with .95 probability. Howeve r, research on timeshare owners perceptions of participating in tourism pla nning does not exist in the literature, and th e population correlation coefficient between the independent variables and dependent variab les is not available. Without
69 a reliable estimation of the correlation coeffi cient, a large enough sa mple size is desirable because both power and accuracy are posit ively correlated with sample size. The literature on structural e quation modeling suggests that a rule of thumb for deciding the sample size is that there should be 10 to 20 subjects for every obser ved variable in the proposed model (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). Th e questionnaire in this study included 19 observed variables from the theoretical mode l, which required about 190 to 380 complete responses without missing data. The target sample size was decided to be the middle value, 285, which equated to 15 subjects per variable. Given the low response rate and the high percentage of incomplete responses of web survey, the actu al response rate after deleting responses with missing data could be around 5%. Based on th e predicted response rate, 6,000 timeshare members would be randomly selected and solici ted to participate in the study (Table 3-5). The survey was administered in the following st eps. First, invitation emails were sent to selected timeshare owners, including a cover letter and a link to the survey website. The recipients were invited to answer the questi onnaire on the survey website. Second, three rounds of reminder emails were sent out to the same recipients. Instrument The first section of the questionnaire asked about timeshare owners use pattern of their timeshares and their travel behavi ors related to their timeshares. More specifically, numbers of timeshares owned and length of ownership were as ked. Since some timeshare owners have more than one timeshare, those timeshare owners were in structed to identify the most frequently used timeshare as their primary timeshare. For timesha re owners have one timeshare, the timeshare was defined as their primary timeshare. A series of questions about the primary timeshare were asked.
70 Perception of Tourism Planning for the City Stakeholder participation in t ourism planning is crucial for th e planning process. However, there is little research about timeshare owners and other transi ent residents perceptions of tourism planning in the existing literature. This study referred to the literature on residents perceptions of tourism planning and measured timeshare owners perceptions of tourism planning for the city where their primary time share was located by two questions. These two questions were based on a fivepoint Likert-type scale, with 1= strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. I believe that successful management of tourism in the city where I own my primary timeshare requires plan ning (Choi & Sirakaya, 2005). The city should plan and manage the growth of tourism (McGehee & Andereck, 2004). Perception of Participation in Tourism Planning Timeshare owners perceptions of participa tion in tourism planning were the dependent variable in the proposed theore tical model. No study on timeshare owners from the perspective of tourism planning is available. Studies about residents and to urism planning in the literature did not investigate residents per ceptions of participation in touris m planning either. In this study timeshares perceptions of par ticipation in tourism planning we re measured by two questions. These two questions were based on a five-point Likert-type scale with 1= strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. I am willing to participate in tourism planning for the city where I own my primary timeshare.
71 I would like to participate in tourism pla nning for the city where I own my primary timeshare. Preferred Ways of Participation in Tourism Planning There is a plethora of studies on citizen pa rticipation in urban and regional planning. Different models of citizen par ticipation have been suggested and tested. This study measures timeshare owners preferred ways of participating in tourism planning based on the literature on citizen participation in urban and regional pla nning. The literature on ci tizen participation in planning suggests a continuum of levels of i nvolvement, from nonparticipation to authentic participation. For example, Arns teins (1969) model of citizen pa rticipation consists of a ladder of participation at three levels (Figure 3-1). Arnsteins metap hor has generated many discussions and modifications (Pretty, 1995). Other researchers also proposed similar mode ls of citizen participation. For example, Deshler and Sock (1985) argued that citizen pa rticipation includes pse udo-participation and genuine participation. Pseudo-par ticipation is composed of domestication and assistancialism; while genuine participation incl udes cooperation and citizen contro l. In the same vein, other researchers (Burke, 1979; Burns, 1979; Wulz, 1986) also suggested the continuum or hierarchy of citizen participation. In this study, timeshare owners preferred ways of participation in tourism planning were investigated by two sets of ques tions. The first set of questions was contingent and only directed to timeshare owners who indicated that they were willing to participate in tourism planning. This set of questions included four questions. These four questions were based on a five-point Likert-type scale with 1=Strongly Disagree and 5=Strongly Agree.
72 I would like to participate in meetings related to tourism planning as a citizen representative. I would like to get informati on about tourism planning for the city in the form of newsletters or regular letters. I would be willing to authorize my timesha re management company to participate in the tourism planning process for the city. I am not interested in participati ng in tourism planning for the city. Another question was presented to all responde nts of the survey regardless of their willingness to participate in tourism planning. This question considered the effects of new communication technology on the preferred ways. The question included four optional answers that represented different levels of personal contact. I would like to vote on local initiatives regarding tourism planning for the city where my primary timeshare is loca ted ____ (in person; online; by mail; not interested in voting). Perceived Benefits of Participating Tourism planning guides and promotes touris m development in a tourism destination. Sound tourism plans help maximi ze the benefits of tourism development and minimize its negative impacts. The positive impacts of tour ism development include not only the economic, social, and environmental benefits to the local co mmunity, but also better tourism experience to tourists. Successful tourism planning and its implementation depend on stakeholders participation. Participation in t ourism planning is beneficial to timeshare owners because tourism planning brings about better tour ism services and facilities th at will make their tourism experience more enjoyable.
73 Improved services and facilities might contri bute to maintaining and increasing the value of the timeshare units. One advantage of timesha re over other forms of tourism accommodations is the exchange opportunity of timeshare. In fact about 25% of all timeshare intervals are used by exchange owners (ARDA International F oundation, 2006). Two questions were asked about timeshare owners perceived benefits of touris m planning. Those two questions were based on a five-point Likert-type scale w ith 1=Strongly Disagree and 5=St rongly Agree. In addition, one open-ended question was asked about timeshare ow ners perceptions of the effects of tourism planning on the exchange value of their timeshare. Tourism planning for the city where I ow n my primary timeshare creates better tourism facilities and tourism services. Tourism planning for the city where I own my primary timeshare contributes to the attractiveness of my primary timeshare in the timeshare exchange market. If you agree that tourism pl anning contributes to the at tractiveness of your primary timeshare in the exchange market, please explain why you think so? Perceived Costs of Participating The main cost for timeshare owners who decide to participate in tourism planning could be time. Most of timeshare owners spend only one week per year in their timeshare resorts. When they are physically in their timeshare resorts, most of their time is spent for leisure and recreational purposes. They might not have e nough time to participat e in tourism planning. Further, participation in tour ism planning often requires that contributors have necessary knowledge and information. For those timeshare ow ners who want to participate, they might have to spend time in getting information a bout the tourism destina tion and learning about
74 tourism planning. This learning process mostly likely happens when timeshare owners are at their regular residence. Besides the time constraint, some timesha re owners might have general negative perceptions of planning. Although no study has investigated timesh are owners perceptions from the perspective, it is clear that some individuals view planning a nd planners negatively (Clifford, 2006). Particularly, some timeshare owners might view planning as a constraint on the private sector, similar to the negative perceptions suggested by Freidmann (1987). This study investigated timeshare owners perceived costs of participating in tourism planning from two perspectives: the time that consumed in the proc ess and the intervention that might be caused by tourism planning. Two questions were asked from these two perspectives and they were based on a five-point Liker-type scale with 1=Strongly Disa gree and 5=Strongly Agree. If I participate in tourism planning for the city where my primary timeshare is located, it would take too much of my valuable time. I would rather be doing other things with my free time. Tourism planning does not allow for free market development of the city. Attachment to the Timeshare There are continuing efforts of measuring pl ace attachment in the recreation and tourism literature (Hou, Lin, & Morais, 2005; Kaltenborn, 1997; Moore & Graefe, 1994; Moore & Scott, 2001; Vaske & Kobrin, 2001; Warzecha & Lime, 2001; Williams, 2000; Williams, Patterson, Roggenbuck, & Watson, 1992; Williams & Vaske, 2003). Based on the existing literature, this study measures both the emotional and functional di mension of timeshare owners attachment to their timeshares and to the tourism destination.
75 My primary timeshare is very special to me (Williams, 2000; Williams & Vaske, 2003). The things I do at my primary timeshar e I would enjoy doing just as much at another site (Williams, 2000; Williams & Vaske, 2003). My primary timeshare means a lot to me (Moore & Graefe, 1994; Williams, 2000; Williams & Vaske, 2003). Attachment to the City Timeshare owners could develop emotional bond ing with the city where they own their timeshare. Timeshare owners were usually frequent visitors to the des tination. Their emotional involvement with the destination would accumula te during their long-term connection with the destination. Timeshare owners attachment to th e city where the primary timeshare was located was measured by three questions in this study. These two questions were based on a five-point Likert-type scale with 1=Strongly Disagree and 5=Strongly Agree. Visiting the city where I own my primary timeshare reflects who I am as a person (i.e., laid back or fast paced) (Williams, 2000; Williams & Vaske, 2003). No other place can compare to the city where my primary timeshare is located (Williams, 2000; Williams & Vaske, 2003). I am very attached to the city where my primary timeshare is located (Moore & Graefe, 1994; Williams, 2000; Williams & Vaske, 2003). Past Political Participation The literature suggests that politi cal and civic participation are two different parts of civic engagement. Political and civic involvements are measured by different indicators. Measurement
76 of political involvement has fewer dimensions because political engagement is basically comprised of voting and nonvoting activities, with voting as the most important indicator. The measurement of political part icipation in the literature was consistent, and this study followed the practice in the literature. Two quest ions were asked about how often the respondent participated in presidential elections and loca l elections. The answers to those two questions were based on a Likert-type scale: neve r, rarely, sometime, often, and always. How often have you voted in presidentia l elections (Brady, Verba & Schlozman, 1995; Gay, 2001)? How often have you voted in local elections (Brady, Verba & Schlozman, 1995; Gay, 2001)? Past Civic Participation Unlike measuring political par ticipation, measurement of civi c engagement could include more dimensions. For example, the Civic Health Report by the National Convention on Citizenship (2006) was based on 40 indicators, which roughly bel onged to nine categories. The report of 2006 Political and Civic Health of the Nation by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (L opez et al., 2006) included five dimensions: community problem solving, regular volunteering, active membership in a group or organization, participation in fund-raising run/ walk/ride, and other f und raising for charity. Similarly, Zukin et al. (2006) also investigated these five aspects of civic participation. Th e measurement of civic participation included variations that reflect diffe rent perspectives of the concept. As a result, this study only looked at certain perspectives of civic participation, including community problem solving, volunteering, and donating to charity. Past civic participation was measured by
77 three questions. Those three questions were ba sed on a five-point Li kert-type scale with 1=Strongly Disagree an d 5=Strongly Agree. Have you ever participated in community activities, such as pick up litter campaigns (Shah et al., 2005; Zukin et al., 2006)? Have you ever donated to a charitable orga nization (Lopez et al., 2006; Zukin et al., 2006)? Have you ever volunteered for a civic orga nization (Shah et al., 2005; Zukin et al., 2006)? Demographics This study surveyed participants de mographic background. Those demographic information included participants gender, age, hi ghest educational level, marital status, annual household income for 2006 and the zip c ode of their permanent address. Data Analysis The data analysis process used both descrip tive and inferential st atistical methods. The descriptive statistical analysis summarized the characteristics of the sample data, such as frequency distribution of the answers. The Stat istical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 15.0 (SPSS Inc., 2006) was employed for th e descriptive section. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the fitness of the pr oposed model and explore the relationships among the latent constructs. SEM emerged as an im portant statistical tool in tourism research, especially in resident attit udes studies (Gursoy, Jurowski, & Uysal, 2002; Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004; Ko & Steward, 2002). The LISREL 8.80 struct ural equation analysis package (Jreskog & Sorbom, 2006) was utilized for the SEM analysis The Weighted Least Square (WLS) method of estimation and the two-stage process were employed.
78 Table 3-1. Internet access at home and household income Household income Percentage of households with Internet connection in October, 2003 Less than $15,000 31.2 $15,000 $24,999 38.0 $25,000 $34,999 48.9 $35,000 $49,999 62.1 $50,000 $74,999 71.8 $75,000 & above 82.9 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. Table 3-2. Internet access at home and educational level Educational level of house hold head Percentage of households with internet connection in October, 2003 Less than high school 15.5 High school diploma 44.5 Some college 68.6 Bachelors degree 84.9 Beyond bachelors degree 88.0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. Table 3-3. Timeshare owners annual household income Household income Percent Under 50,000 24.1 $50,000 to 74,999 32.3 $75,000 to $ 99,999 20.6 $100,000 and over 23.1 Source: Suchman, 1999. Table 3-4. Timeshare owners educational level Educational attainment of household head Percentage High school or less 20.8 Bachelors degree 57.1 Graduate degree 25.9 Source: Suchman, 1999.
79 Table 3-5. Sample size Total timeshare owners available Contacted timeshare owners Target sample size 1,450,000 6,000 285 Manipulation Therapy Nonparticipation Informing Consultation Placation Tokenism Partnership Delegated power Citizen control Degrees of actual citizen power Figure 3-1. Arnsteins (1969) eightrung ladder of citizen participation
80 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Summary of Survey Procedures Two separate lists of timeshare owners we re obtained from an Orlando-based consulting firm. After screening, the first list (group 1) contained 6,289 valid timeshare owners names and corresponding email addresses. The second list included 5,778 valid tim eshare owners names and email addresses. There were four rounds of i nvitation emails and reminder emails sent out to each group, as suggested by Dillman (2000, 2007) (T able 4-1). In order to demonstrate the legitimacy of those emails and encourage res ponses, all the in vitation emails and reminder emails were sent from a University of Florida (U F) server in the name of the Center for Tourism Research and Development at UF. The statement th at this survey was conducted for the authors dissertation research was also included in those emails. The first invitation emails were sent out on August 13, 2007 to timeshare owners belonging to group one and on Augus t 31, 2007 to timeshare owners belonging to group two. By September 21, 2007, 185 responses from group one a nd 172 responses from group two had been received. The total responses were 357. The response rate wa s 3.0% (Table 4-2). Detailed information about the number of responses pe r diem per group during the period was presented in table 4-3 and table 4-4. Responses were divided into immediate respon ses and delayed responses to investigate the possible effect of responding time. Immediat e responses were from those respondents who participated in the survey af ter the first round of invitation emails. There were 96 immediate responses. Delayed responses were generated by respondents who did not participate in the survey until the first round of reminder emails. There were 261 delayed responses. The demographics of respondents belonged to these two groups were compared in table 4-5. A series
81 of Chi-square tests suggested that there were no significant difference between these two groups of respondents regarding their ge nder, age, annual household inco me, and marital status (Table 4-6). However, more respondents from the imme diate-response group had a bachelors degree; while more respondents from the delayed-response group had a graduate or professional degree or a high school degree. Further investigation suggested there was no significant difference between these two groups of respondents in terms of their perceptions of pa rticipation in tourism planning (Table 4-7). Due to time constraints, responses that were later than 5 days after the third round of reminder emails were not included in the analysis of this study. Although a longer waiting time and more rounds of reminder emails might have generated more responses and a higher response rate, the analysis reported in ta bles 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7 sugg ested that those extra responses may not contain additional information for the purpose of this study. Profile of Respondents Most of the respondents were ma le (67.6%) rather than female (34.3%). Over one third of the respondents were in their 50s (38.5%). Respondents in their 60s accounted for over a quarter of the total sample (26.3%). The age di stribution was skewed toward the more mature end, with only 4.2% of respondents younger than 40. All the respondents had at least a high school degree. Over 40% (43.9%) of the respondent s had a graduate degree or professional degree. The next biggest segment (37.7%) was represented by respondents had a bachelors degree. The median annual household income of the respondents was at the range between $75,000 and $99,999. More than a quarter (27.6%) re spondents had an annual household income of more than $125,000 in 2006, followed by 23.3% of respondents who indicated an annual household income for 2006 in the range of between $75,000 and $99,999. Less than 10% of the respondents reported their annua l household income for 2006 as less than $49,999. A majority (78.1%) of respondents were married or part nered, while respondents who reported to be
82 divorced, single and never married, and widowed accounted for 9.7%, 6.6% and 5.6%, respectively (Table 4-8). All th e respondents reported to primar ily live in the U.S. with the exception of one respondent from Canada. Among the 34 states that th e respondents indicated that they lived in, the top five states were Califor nia (13.1%), Florida ( 9.4%), Georgia (6.7%), New York (6.0%), and Indiana (5.2%) (Table 4-9). According to a national study of timeshare resorts by ARDA International Foundation (2007), 96% of the responded resorts were affiliate d with one or both of the two major timeshare exchange companies, Resort Condominiums Intern ational (RCI) and Interv al International (II). The profile of U.S. members of II provides a gene ral picture of a typical U.S. timeshare owner. In 2006, the average II member was approximately 50 years old, married, and with an annual household income of $139,800 (Simmons, 2007). About 80% of II U.S. members were married. According to Simmons, about thr ee quarters of II U.S. member s bought services and packages related to travel service us ing the Internet in 2006. Characteristics of Primary Timeshares Over 44% (44.8%) of respondents reported to have one timeshare. Respondents who had 2 timeshares and 3 timeshares accounted for 26.1% and 14.8% of the total sample, respectively. About 13.7% of respondents indica ted that they had 4 or more timeshares. Less than 1% (0.6%) of respondents only had points (Table 4-10). Th e respondents reported to have their primary timeshares located in 33 states. Over 43% (43.3%) of respondents had their primary timeshare in Florida, followed by Nevada (7.9%), Californi a (7.6%), South Carolina (5.1%), and Arizona (4.2%) (Table 4-11). Most of the respondents (84.8%) had deeded ri ghts over their primary timeshares. A small fraction (7.6%) of respondents indi cated that their ownership was in the right-to-use form (Table 4-12). More than a half of respondents (51.7%) were affiliated with RCI. Almost a quarter
83 (23.9%) of respondents were affiliated with II. About 17.8% of respondents indicated that they received service from both RCI and II (Table 413). Most respondents were satisfied with their timeshare exchange companies. Over a half ( 52.8%) of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with their timeshare exchange companie s. About a quarter (24.5%) of respondents were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their timeshare exchange companies. The other (22.7%) respondents were neutral on this issue. Almost 55% (54.7%) of respondents reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the customer service of thei r timeshare exchange companies. About a quarter (24.9%) of responde nts had neutral opinions about the customer service of their timeshare exchange companies. Just over one fift h (20.3%) of timeshare owners were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the customer service of their timeshare exchange companies (Table 4-14). Almost one third (31.1%) of respondents reported that th e main reason for them to purchase their primary timeshare was for the exch ange opportunity. Some other frequently cited reasons were that they wanted to save money on future vacation costs (18.8%), they liked the tourism destination community/city (16.8%), and they liked the resort, amenities and/or unit (15.4%) (Table 4-15). Frequencies of Variables in the Survey Perception of Participation in Tourism Planning Respondents perceptions of pa rticipation in tourism planni ng for the city where their primary timeshare was located almost spread evenly among positive, neutral and negative territories. About 27.8% of responde nts were willing to particip ate in tourism planning, while about 35.1% of respondents were not willing to pa rticipate and 37.1% of respondents had neutral reaction. Similarly, almost 32% (31.9%) of resp ondents would like to pa rticipate in tourism planning; meanwhile, 29% of participants woul d like to avoid particip ating and almost 40% (39.2%) of respondents did not take sides (Table 4-16).
84 Perception of Tourism Planning for the City Respondents were asked to evalua te the importance of five asp ects of the city where their primary timeshare was located. Many respondents viewed social enviro nment (41.0%), natural environment (40.8%), and resort developmen t (40.0%) as important. Over one third of respondents believed that commercial developm ent (37.9%) and traffic situation (36.9%) were somewhat important (Table 4-17). Respondents were also asked to identify the parties that they believed should be involved in tourism planning for the city (they could choose more than one party). Over a half of respondents suggested that the local government (69.4%), timeshare owners (63.5%), and timeshare developers (52.4%) should be i nvolved (Table 4-18). A majority (81.1%) of respondents agreed that successful management of tourism in the city where they owned their primary timeshare required planning, and only 7.5% of respondents disagreed with that statement. Similarly, most (80.0%) respondents agreed that the city should plan and manage the growth of tourism and mu ch fewer (5.7%) respondents did not agree with that (Table 4-19). Perceived Benefits of Participating Most (78.3%) respondents agreed that tourism planning for the city where they owned their primary timeshare would create better to urism facilities and tourism services, and only 4.2% of respondents did not agree. The major ity (73.3%) of respondents agreed that tourism planning for the city where they owned their primary timeshare would contribute to the attractiveness of the timeshare in the timeshare exchange mark et. Few (7.5%) respondents did not agree with the majority (Table 4-20). Perceived Costs of Participating About one third (33.7%) of respondents agreed that participating in tourism planning would cost them free time, while less than a quarter (23.5%) of responde nts disagreed with the
85 statement. More (42.9%) respondents were neutra l on this issue. However, more respondents took a clearer stand on the next question. Most (61.0%) respondents disagreed that tourism planning prohibited the free market developmen t of the city, while a bout a third (33.2%) of respondents did not take sides on this issue. Only a small proportion (5.8%) of respondents disagreed with the majority on it (Table 4-21). Attachment to the Timeshare Most (64.4%) respondents agreed that their primary timeshare was very special to them, and about 13.7% of respondents disagreed w ith that. About one quarter (24.0%) of the respondents agreed that they would not enjoy the things at another site as much as at their primary timeshare. About 57.2% of respondents indica ted that they would enjoy the same at their primary timeshare or at another site. A majority (55.7%) of responde nts agreed that their primary timeshare meant a lot to them. About 17% of re spondents suggested that their primary timeshare did not mean a lot to them (Table 4-22). Attachment to the City Compared with attachment to their primar y timeshare, respondents were generally less attached to the city where th eir primary timeshare was located About 38.5% of respondents agreed that visiting the city where they owned their primary timeshare reflected who they were as a person, whereas 33.9% of respondents we re neutral on this statement and 27.5% of respondents did not agree with it About 28.4% of respondents agr eed that no other place could be compared to the city where they owned their primary timeshare. More (52.5%) respondents did not agree with this statement. When asked ab out whether they were at tached to the city, the responses spread evenly, with 32.5% agreeing, 35.9% being neutral, and 31.6% disagreeing (Table 4-23).
86 Past Political Participation Except for one Canadian respondent, all responde nts were legitimate to vote in the U.S. Most (87.3%) respondents i ndicated that they always voted in presidential el ections. About 8.7% of respondents suggested that they often voted in presidential elections. Less than 2% (1.8%) of respondents said that they ne ver or rarely voted in pres idential electi ons. Many (60.9%) respondents reported that they always voted in local elections. Almost 30% (29.5%) of respondents suggested that they often vot ed in local elections (Table 4-24). Past Civic Participation Three questions were asked about the respondent s past experience of civic participation. About 44.4% of respondents reported that they sometime particip ated in community activities. Just over 20% (20.7%) of respondents often partic ipated in community activities. Over 80% (81.4%) of respondents indicated that they often or always donate d to a charitable organization. About 18.0% of respondents suggested that sometim es they donated to a ch aritable organization. About 30.8% of respondents indica ted that they sometime volunt eered for a civic organization. Over a quarter (26.5%) of respondents suggested that they often volunteered for a civic organization (Table 4-25). Model Testing A two-step approach in structural equati on modeling (James, Mulaik, & Brett, 1982) is composed of the first step of testing the meas uring model and the sec ond step of testing the structural model. The rationale for this approa ch is to examine the measurement validity and reliability before investigating the structural relationships among latent variables (Jreskog & Srbom, 1993). The two-step approach was used to test the model in this study. There were eight latent variables in the m odel: perception of participation in tourism planning, perception of tourism planning, perceived benefits of participat ion in tourism planning,
87 perceived costs of participation in tourism planning, attachment to the timeshare, attachment to the city where the timeshare is located, past political participa tion, and past civic participation. There were 19 observed variables co rresponding to these la tent variables, as proposed in chapter two. Both the measurement model and the stru ctural model were tested by LISREL 8.80 (Jreskog & Srbom, 2006) with PRELIS and SIMPLIS. After li stwise deletion, 289 complete cases were used in those models. Jreskog & Srbom (1996) provided a criterion for deciding whether a variable was ordinal or interval. A variable had 15 or more distinct scale points should be treated as continuous; variables with 14 or fewe r distinct scale points were ordinal variables. Asymptotically Distribution-Free (ADF) methods such as Weighted Least Square (WLS) was a more appropriate estimation method for ordina l variables than Maximum Likelihood (ML), the default estimation method in LISREL. Since all the 19 observed variables were measured on a five-point Likert-type scale, they were treated as ordinal variables. WLS was used as the estimation method. As a prerequisite of empl oying WLS in LISREL, Po lyserial correlation matrix and asymptotic covariance matrix were calculated by PRELIS. The measurement model and the structural model were based on those two matrices. Suggestions by the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (American Psychological Association, 2002) and researchers (Boomsma, 2000; Thompson, 2000) about reporting results of SEM modeling were referred to when the results of the SEM analysis were presented. The Measurement Model The fitness indices of the initial measurem ent model suggested that the model was a moderate to well fit of the da ta (Table 4-26). Although the Pvalue (<0.01) of Chi-Square ( 2 ) suggested that the model was signi ficantly different from the da ta, the small P-value could be
88 attributed to the relatively small sample size. Since 2 test was sensitive to sample size, 2 /df was a more reliable indicator. The value of 2 /df (3.25) suggested the model fitted the data moderately. The result of another omnibus test of overall model fit, Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) (0.088) suggested an accep table fit. The literature stated that a RMSEA value of <0.05 indicated a good fit of the model and a RMSEA value between 0.05 and 0.10 showed a moderate fit. The 90% confiden ce interval for RMSEA was (0.079; 0.098), which was within the acceptable level. The values of the goodness-of-fit indices Normed Fit Index (NFI), Nonnormed Fit Index (NNFI), Comparativ e Fit Index (CFI) and Goodness-of-fit Index (GFI) were all close to 1 .0 and suggested a good fit. Although the goodness-of-fit i ndices suggested a good fit of th e model, an examination of the estimated parameters raised one issue. Th e estimated variance of two observed variables (question 10: the city should plan and manage the growth of t ourism, and question 19: tourism planning for the city where I own my primary timeshare creates better tourism facilities and tourism services) were negative. Those negati ve estimated variances were referred to as Heywood cases in the literatur e (Bentler & Chou, 1987). Those ne gative variances were not plausible substantially or mathematically. They most likely represented boundary parameters (Byrne, 1998). As suggested by By rne, those two variances were set to 0 in the specified measurement model. The specified measurement model had the same level of fit on the data as the initial measurement model, as suggested by goodness-of-fit indices listed in ta ble 4-27. The index for model comparison Expected Cross-Validat ion Index (ECVI) only increased by 0.01. The reliability of the measurement of each latent variable was also tested in the confirmative factor analysis. Among the 19 obser ved variables, 14 had an factor loading (R 2 )
89 bigger than the recommended value 0.7, 3 had the R 2 between 0.5 and 0.7, and 2 had their variances set at 0 to avoid a nega tive parameter estimate. Seven of the eight latent variables had construct reliability exceeding the recommended level of 0.7 (0.96, 0.95, 0.93, 0.88, 0.91, 0.88, and 0.84) with one latent variable at 0.60 (T able 4-28). Overall, the reliability of the measurement instrument was acceptable. The Structural Model The goodness-of-fit indices of the structural mode l were the same as those of the specified measurement model. The results from the stru ctural model indicated that among the seven proposed structural relationships among latent va riables, four were sta tistically significant (Pvalue <0.05). Perceived benefits of participa ting had a significant positive impact on perception of participation in tourism pla nning. Perceived costs of participat ing had a significantly negative impact on perception of participation in tour ism planning. A significantly positive relationship existed between attachment to the timeshare and perception of participat ion in tourism planning. A significant positive relationship existed between past political participation and perception of participation in tourism planning. There was no significant relationship between perception of tourism planning for the city and perception of participating in tourism planning. There was no significant relationship between at tachment to the city where the timeshare was located and perception of participation in tourism planning. No significant relationship existed between respondents past civic participa tion and perception of participati on in tourism planning (Figure 4-1). Results of Research Questions Tested Research Question 1: Is there a relationship between timeshare ow ners perceptions of tourism panning for the city and their perceptions of pa rticipation in tourism planning?
90 There was no significant relationship betw een respondents perceptions of tourism planning for the city and their perceptions of participation in tourism planning. Although the perceptions of tourism planning for the city had a positive impact on perceptions of participation in tourism planning, which had the same direc tion as predicted by research hypothesis one, the relationship was insignificant. Research Question 2: Is there a relationship between timeshare owne rs perceived benefits of participation in tourism panning and their perceptions of participation in tourism planning? Respondents perceived benefits of participa ting in tourism planni ng had a significantly positive effect on their perceptions of participa tion in tourism planning. The more important a timeshare owner is perceptive of the benefits of participation in tourism planning, the more likely the timeshare owner would be to participate in to urism planning. Research Question 3: Is there a relationship between timeshare ow ners perceived costs of participation in tourism panning and their perceptions of participation in tourism planning? Respondents perceived costs of participating in the tourism planning had a significantly negative impact on their percepti ons of participation in touris m planning. The more a timeshare owner perceived the cost of par ticipating in tourism planning, the less likely the timeshare owner would like to participate in tourism planning. Research Question 4: Is there a relationship between timeshare owne rs attachment to their timeshare and their perceptions of participat ion in tourism planning? Respondents attachment to their timeshar e had a significantly positive impact on their perceptions of participation in tourism planning. Among all the f our statistically significant
91 relationships, the impact of attachment to the timeshare on the perceptio n of participation in tourism planning had the largest ab solute regression coefficient. Si nce all the reported regression coefficients were standardized results, attach ment to the timeshare ha d the biggest impact on perceptions of participat ion in tourism planning. In order to investigate timesh are owners attachment to their timeshare, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) analysis was conducted by SPSS 15.0. Answers to question #29 were used as an indicator to timeshare owners attachment to their timeshare. The independent variables were how many times they have visited their timeshare (question # 5), how long they owned their timeshare (question # 40), and the ownershi p structure of their timeshare (question #7). A General-Linear-Model (GLM) approach was ta ken in the analysis. The results (Table 4-30 and Table 4-31) showed th at the overall R square value of the model was 0.11. The times that timeshare owners visited the timeshare was a significant indicator of th eir attachment to the timeshare (P-value<0.01), while effects of the ow nership structure of the timeshare and how long they owned the timeshare were not significant. Research Question 5: Is there a relationship between timeshare owne rs attachment to the city where they own their timeshare and their perceptions of participation in tourism planning? Respondents attachment to the city where the timeshare was located did not have a significant effect on perceptions of participation in tourism planni ng. Interestingly, attachment to the city had an insignif icant negative impact on perception of participating in tourism planning, which as contradictory to the direction of th e impact predicted by research hypothesis five. Research Question 6: Is there a relationship between timeshare owners past experience of po litical participation and their perceptions of partic ipation in tourism planning?
92 Respondents past political participation had a significantly positive impact on perceptions of participation in tourism planning. The more ac tively the respondents participated in political activities, the more likely they would like to partic ipate in tourism planning. Research Question 7: Is there a relationship between timeshare owners past experience of civil participation and their perceptions of particip ation in tourism planning? Respondents past civic particip ation did not have a significan t impact on their perceptions of participation in tourism pla nning, whereas past civic participat ion had an insign ificant positive impact on respondents perceptions of participation in tourism planning. Research Question 8: Is there a relationship between timeshare owners demographic background and their perceptions of participat ing in tourism planning? In order to investigat e the relationship between respondents perceptions of participation in tourism planning and their gender, age, highest educational level, annual household income, and marital status, a series of cross-tab test and Ch i-Square test were conducted. Answers to Question #11 in the survey instrument: I am willing to part icipate in tourism planning for the city where I own my primary timeshare were chosen as the indicator of res pondents perception of participation in tourism planning. For the purpose of analysis, the measurement scale of question 11 was converted from five-point Likert-type scale (Strongly Disagr ee, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and Strongly Agree) to a three-point s cale (Disagree, Neutral, and Agree). Gender and perceptions of participation in tourism planning The result of the Chi-Square test indica ted that there was no significant correlation between gender and perceptions of participa tion in tourism planning among the respondents (Table 4-32 and Table 4-33).
93 Educational level and perceptions of participation in tourism planning The result of the Chi-Square test indica ted that there was no significant correlation between the respondents educati onal level and their perceptions of participation in tourism planning (Table 4-34 and Table 4-35). Annual household income and perceptions of participation in tourism planning The result of the Chi-Square test indica ted that there was no significant correlation between the respondents annual household income and their perceptions of participation in tourism planning (Table 4-36 and Table 4-37). Age and perceptions of participation in tourism planning The result of the Chi-Square test indica ted that there was no significant correlation between the respondents age and their perceptions of participa tion in tourism planning (Table 4-38 and Table 4-39). Marital status and perceptions of pa rticipation in tourism planning The result of the Chi-Square test indica ted that there was no significant correlation between the respondents ma rital status and their perceptions of participation in tourism planning (Table 4-40 and Table 4-41). Research Question 9: What are timeshare owners preferred ways of participating in tourism planning? When respondents were asked whether they would like to vote on local initiatives regarding tourism planning, over 30% (31.4%) of respondents were not interested in voting. Among those respondents who were interested in voting, none would prefer voting in person. Over a half (52.1%) of respondents would like to vote online, while a smaller portion (14.1%) would rather vote via regular mail (Table 4-42). A separate effort was made to identify the preferred ways for participating of those responde nts who had indicated th at they would like to
94 do so. Almost 60% (58.1%) of thos e respondents would like to partic ipate in meetings related to tourism planning as a citizen representative, wh ile 6.5% of respondents re jected the suggestion. Over 70% (70.7%) of respondents were willing to authorize their timeshare management company to participate in the tourism planning process, and only 8.7% of respondents indicated they would not do that. A vast majority (90.3%) of respondents would like to get information about tourism planning, whereas just 3.3% of respondents did not want to receive that information (Table 4-43). There was a pattern between respondents prefer ences and the level of involvement of the different options (Table 4-43). The most involved way of partic ipating, attendi ng conferences, was the least favored one (mean=3.65), while the l east involved method of pa rticipating, merely getting information, was the most welcomed one (mean=4.12). One-way repeated measures ANOVA was employed to test the difference amo ng these three levels by SPSS 15.0. The result of Mauchlys test of sphericity was significan t (P-value <0.05), which suggested that the assumption of sphericity was violated and al ternative methods should be used. Both the Greenhouse-Geisser correction ( 0.862) and Huynh-Feldt correcti on (0.877) were close to 1.0, which suggested that the data were close to being spheric (F ield, 2005, p. 447). The results from all the three alternative methods suggested that there was si gnificant difference among the three levels of involvement in participa tion (Table 4-44 and Table 4-45).
95 Table 4-1. Survey procedure Group Date Action 1 August 13, 2007 First-round invitation emails sent 1 August 17, 2007 First-round reminder emails sent 1 August 24, 2007 Second-round reminder emails sent 1 September 7, 2007 Last-round reminder emails sent 2 August 31, 2007 First-round invitation emails sent 2 September 4, 2007 First-round reminder emails sent 2 September 7, 2007 Second-round reminder emails sent 2 September 14, 2007 Last-round reminder emails sent Table 4-2. Response rate Group Sent-out emails Responses Response rate 1 6289 185 3.0% 2 5778 172 3.0% Total 12067 357 3.0% Table 4-3. Responses from group one Date Number of responses August 13, 2007 32 August 14, 2007 10 August 15, 2007 6 August 16, 2007 3 August 17, 2007 32 August 18, 2007 9 August 19, 2007 9 August 20, 2007 2 August 21, 2007 3 August 24, 2007 33 August 25, 2007 11 August 26, 2007 7 August 27, 2007 2 August 29, 2007 2 August 30, 2007 2 September 1, 2007 1 September 2, 2007 1 September 4, 2007 2 September 7, 2007 11 September 8, 2007 4 September 9, 2007 3 September 10, 2007 1 September 11, 2007 1 September 12, 2007 1 Total 185
96 Table 4-4. Responses from group two Date Number of responses August 31, 2007 28 September 1, 2007 13 September 2, 2007 2 September 3, 2007 4 September 4, 2007 50 September 5, 2007 7 September 6, 2007 3 September 7, 2007 21 September 8, 2007 2 September 9, 2007 2 September 10, 2007 2 September 12, 2007 3 September 13, 2007 3 September 14, 2007 20 September 15, 2007 4 September 16, 2007 3 September 17, 2007 2 September 18, 2007 2 September 20, 2007 1 Total 172
97 Table 4-5. Demographics of the immediate -response group and the delayed-response group Demographic characteristics Immediate-response group (%) (n=96) Delayed-respondent group (%) (n=261) Gender Male 69.3 66.9 Female 30.7 33.1 Age 21-30 0.0 0.4 31-40 4.5 3.6 41-50 13.6 17.4 51-60 35.2 39.7 61-70 27.3 25.9 71-80 17.0 11.6 81 and up 2.3 1.3 Education Less than high school 0.0 0.0 High school 12.6 20.5 Bachelors degree 50.6 32.9 Graduate or professional 32.8 46.6 2006 Annual household income Less than $49,999 11.5 8.3 $50,000 to $74,999 25.6 19.0 $75,000 to $99,999 25.6 22.4 $100,000 to $124,999 20.5 18.5 $125,000 and up 16.7 31.7 Marital status Divorced 12.5 7.8 Married or partnered 80.7 77.1 Single and never married 2.3 8.2 widowed 4.5 6.1 Table 4-6. P-values of ChiSquare tests between groups of responses and demographics Chi-Square test P-value Groups of respondents and gender 0.685 Groups of respondents and age 0.778 Groups of respondents and educational level 0.012 Groups of respondents and household income 0.145 Groups of respondents and marital status 0.190
98 Table 4-7. Comparison between groups of res pondents in terms of th eir perceptions of participation in tourism planning I am willing to participate in tourism planning for the city where I own my primary timeshare. I would like to participate in tourism planning for the city where I own my primary timeshare. Mean of immediateresponse group 2.77 2.95 Mean of delayed-response group 2.89 2.98 P-vale of independent-sample t-test 0.383 0.774 Table 4-8. Demographics of respondents Demographic characteristics Frequency Percentage (%) Gender (n=324) Male 219 67.6 Female 105 32.4 Age (n=308) 21-30 1 0.3 31-40 12 3.8 41-50 51 16.3 51-60 120 38.5 61-70 82 26.3 71-80 41 13.1 81 and up 5 1.6 Education (n=321) Less than high school 0 0.0 High school 59 18.4 Bachelors degree 121 37.7 Graduate or professional 141 43.9 2006 Annual household income (n=279) Less than $49,999 26 9.2 $50,000 to $74,999 59 20.8 $75,000 to $99,999 66 23.3 $100,000 to $124,999 54 19.1 $125,000 and up 78 27.6 Marital status (n=315) Divorced 31 9.7 Married or partnered 249 78.1 Single and never married 21 6.6 widowed 18 5.6
99 Table 4-9. Primary residence of respondents State Frequency Percentage (%) CA 35 13.1 FL 25 9.4 GA 18 6.7 NY 16 6.0 IN 14 5.2 PA 13 4.9 AZ 12 4.5 KY 12 4.5 MD 11 4.1 IL 10 3.7 VA 10 3.7 TX 9 3.4 MN 9 3.4 NC 9 3.4 MO 7 2.6 CO 6 2.2 MI 6 2.2 OH 6 2.2 WA 5 1.9 WI 5 1.9 SC 4 1.5 TN 4 1.5 KS 3 1.1 LA 3 1.1 NV 3 1.1 DC 2 0.7 MA 2 0.7 DE 1 0.4 IA 1 0.4 MS 1 0.4 NE 1 0.4 NM 1 0.4 OK 1 0.4 AK 1 0.4 Ontario, Canada 1 0.4 Note: N=267
100 Table 4-10. Number of time shares owned by respondents Number of timeshares Frequency Percentage (%) 1 160 44.8 2 93 26.1 3 53 14.8 4 26 7.3 5 7 2.0 6 6 1.7 7 3 0.8 8 2 0.6 9 2 0.6 10 1 0.3 11 1 0.3 16 1 0.3 Points only 2 0.6 Note: N=357
101 Table 4-11. Location of primary timeshare State Frequency Percentage (%) FL 153 43.3 NV 28 7.9 CA 27 7.6 SC 18 5.1 AZ 15 4.2 ID 14 4.0 VA 13 3.7 CO 10 2.8 PA 10 2.8 MA 8 2.3 MO 8 2.3 NC 6 1.7 NJ 5 1.4 TN 5 1.4 TX 5 1.4 GA 4 1.1 MD 3 0.8 AR 2 0.6 OH 2 0.6 OK 2 0.6 WA 2 0.6 WI 2 0.6 DC 1 0.3 ND 1 0.3 NE 1 0.3 NH 1 0.3 MI 1 0.3 MN 1 0.3 NY 1 0.3 OR 1 0.3 RI 1 0.3 UT 1 0.3 Note: N=357 Table 4-12. Ownership struct ure of primary timeshare Item Frequency Percentage (%) Deeded 302 84.8 Right-to-use 27 7.6 Do not know 24 6.7 Other 3 0.7 Note: N=356
102 Table 4-13. Timeshare exchange companies that the primary timeshare is affiliated with Item Frequency Percentage (%) Resort Condominiums International (RCI) 181 51.4 Interval International (II) 84 23.9 Both RCI and II 62 17.6 Another timeshare exchange company 25 7.1 Note: N=352 Table 4-14. Satisfaction with their timeshare companies Item VD D N S VS Mean # of case Overall, how satisfied are you with the costumer service your timeshare exchange company? 8.012.324.9 41.812.93.39 325 Overall, how satisfied are you with your timeshare exchange company? 10.214.322.7 126.96.36.199 322 Note: VD=Very Dissatisfied; D=Dissatisfied; N=Neutral; S=Satisfied; VS=Very Satisfied. Table 4-15. Most important reason for purchasing primary timeshare Item Frequency Percentage Exchange opportunity 111 31.1 Save money on future vacation costs 67 18.8 Liked the tourism destination community/city 60 16.8 Liked resort, amenities and/or unit 55 15.4 Opportunity to own at affordable prices 20 5.6 Other 21 5.6 Certain of quality accommodations 14 3.9 Investment or resale potential 8 2.2 Note: N=357 Table 4-16. Frequency distributions (percentage ) for willingness to pa rticipate in tourism planning for the city where the primary timeshare is located Questionnaire Statement SD D N A SA Mean # of Cases I am willing to participate in tourism planning for the city where I own my primary timeshare. 12.8 22.3 37.1 22.0 5.8 2.86 345 I would like to participate in tourism planning for the city where I own my primary timeshare. 12.6 16.4 39.2 24.9 7.0 2.77 342 Note: SD=Strongly Disagree; D=Disagree; N=Neutral; A=Agree; SA=Strongly Agree.
103 Table 4-17. Frequency dist ributions (percentages) for importance of different factors of the city where the primary timeshare is located Item MI I SI LI NI Mean # of Cases Traffic 4.9 23.1 36.9 15.1 20.0 3.23 350 Commercial development 6.0 23.9 37.9 17.0 15.2 3.13 348 Social environment 21.5 41.0 24.4 7.2 6.0 2.36 349 Natural environment 33.3 40.8 15.2 5.7 4.9 2.09 348 Resort development 34.3 40.0 15.7 4.6 5.4 2.08 350 Note: MI=Most Important; I=Important; SI=Som ewhat Important; LI=Least Important; NI=Not Important Table 4-18. Parties should be involved in tourism planning for the community Party Frequency* Percentage* The local government 245 69.4 Timeshare owners 224 63.5 Timeshare developers 185 52.4 Timeshare exchange companies 87 24.6 The federal government 30 8.5 Note: respondents could choose multiple answers; N=353 Table 4-19. Frequency dist ributions (percentage) for perceptions of tourism planning for the city where the primary timeshare is located Questionnaire Statement SD D N A SA Mean # of Cases I believe that successful management of tourism in the city where I own my primary timeshare requires planning. 5.8 1.7 11.3 45.9 35.2 4.03 344 The city should plan and manage the growth of tourism. 3.5 2.2 13.8 50.6 29.4 4.00 340 Note: SD=Strongly Disagree; D=Disagree; N=Neutral; A=Agree; SA=Strongly Agree
104 Table 4-20. Frequency distributi ons (percentage) for perceived be nefits of participating in tourism planning for the city where the primary timeshare is located Questionnaire Statement SD D N A SA Mean # of Cases Tourism planning for the city where I own my primary timeshare creates better tourism facilities and tourism services. 2.1 2.1 17.4 63.3 15.0 3.87 327 Tourism planning for the city where I own my primary timeshare contributes to the attractiveness of my primary timeshare in the timeshare exchange market. 3.3 4.2 19.1 51.5 21.8 3.84 330 Note: SD=Strongly Disagree; D=Disagree; N=Neutral; A=Agree; SA=Strongly Agree Table 4-21. Frequency dist ributions (percentage) for perceived costs of participating in tourism planning for the city where the primary timeshare is located Questionnaire Statement SD D N A SA Mean # of Cases If I participate in tourism planning for the city where my primary timeshare is located, it would take too much of my valuable time. I would rather be doing other things with my free time. 3.7 19.8 42.9 24.1 9.6 3.16 324 Tourism planning does not allow for free market development of the city. 14.0 47.0 33.2 4.9 0.9 2.32 328 Note: SD=Strongly Disagree; D=Disagree; N=Neutral; A=Agree; SA=Strongly Agree Table 4-22. Frequency distri butions (percentage) for att achment to the timeshare Questionnaire Statement SD D N A SA Mean # of Cases My primary timeshare is very special to me. 5.8 7.9 22.0 41.8 22.6 3.67 328 My primary timeshare means a lot to me. 6.5 10.5 27.2 39.9 15.8 3.48 323 The things I do at my primary timeshare I would enjoy doing just as much at another site.* 12.6 44.6 18.8 19.7 4.3 2.58 325 Note: 1.SD=Strongly Disagree; D=Disagree; N= Neutral; A=Agree; SA=Strongly Agree. 2. indicates reversely recoded.
105 Table 4-23. Frequency distributi ons (percentage) for attachment to the city where the primary timeshare is located Questionnaire Statement SD D N A SA Mean # of Cases Visiting the city where I own my primary timeshare reflects who I am as a person (i.e., laid back or fast paced). 7.0 20.5 33.9 28.7 9.8 3.14 327 I am very attached to the city where my primary timeshare is located. 12.2 19.4 35.9 25.0 7.5 2.96 320 No other place can compare to the city where my primary timeshare is located. 14.5 38.0 19.1 21.3 7.1 2.69 324 Table 4-24. Frequency distri butions (percentage) for past political participation Questionnaire Statement SD D N A SA Mean # of Cases How often have you voted in presidential elections? 0.9 0.9 2.2 8.7 87.3 4.80 323 How often have you voted in local elections? 0.3 3.4 5.9 29.5 60.9 4.47 322 Note: N=Never; R=Rarely; S=Sometime; O=Often; A=Always Table 4-25. Frequency dist ributions (percentage) for past civic participation Questionnaire Statement SD D N A SA Mean # of Cases Have you ever donated to a charitable organization? 0.0 0.6 18.0 47.5 33.9 4.15 322 Have you ever volunteered for a civic organization? 11.8 15.0 30.8 26.5 12.5 3.13 321 Have you ever participated in community activities, such as pick up litter campaigns? 12.0 17.6 44.4 20.7 5.2 2.90 324 Note: N=Never; R=Rarely; S=Sometime; O=Often; A=Always Table 4-26. Goodness-of-fit indices of the initial measurement model 2 P-Value 2 /df RMSEA 90% CI for RMSEA 403.01 <0.01 3.25 0.088 0.079; 0.098 ECVI NFI NNFI CFI GFI 1.86 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.98
106 Table 4-27. Goodness-of-fit indices of the specified measurement model 2 P-Value 2 /df RMSEA 90% CI for RMSEA 411.34 <0.01 3.26 0.089 0.079; 0.098 ECVI NFI NNFI CFI GFI 1.87 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.98
107 Table 4-28. Overall CFA for the specified measurement model Construct and indicators Completely standardized loading Construct and indicator reliability Error variance Perceptions of participation in tourism planning 0.96** I would like to participate in tourism planning for the city where I own my primary timeshare. 0.98 0.96 0.04 I am willing to participate in tourism planning for the city where I own my primary timeshare. 0.95 0.90 0.10 Perceptions of tourism planning for the city 0.95** The city should plan and manage the growth of tourism.* 1.00 1.00 0.00* I believe that successful management of tourism in the city where I own my primary timeshare requires planning. 0.90 0.82 0.18 Perceived benefits of participating 0.93** Tourism planning for the city where I own my primary timeshare creates better tourism facilities and tourism services.* 1.00 1.00 0.00* Tourism planning for the city where I own my primary timeshare contributes to the attractiveness of my primary timeshare in the timeshare exchange market. 0.85 0.73 0.27 Perceived costs of participating 0.60** If I participate in tourism planning for the city where my primary timeshare is located, it would take too much of my valuable time. I would rather be doing other things with my free time. 0.80 0.64 0.36 Tourism planning does not allow for free market development of the city. 0.50 0.25 0.75 Attachment to timeshare 0.88** My primary timeshare means a lot to me. 0.97 0.94 0.06
108 Table 4-28. Continued Construct and indicators Completely standardized loading Construct and indicator reliability Error variance My primary timeshare is very special to me. 0.93 0.86 0.14 The things I do at my primary timeshare I would enjoy doing just as much at another site. 0.58 0.34 0.66 Attachment to the city where the timeshare is located 0.91** I am very attached to the city where my primary timeshare is located. 0.94 0.89 0.11 No other place can compare to the city where my primary timeshare is located. 0.89 0.80 0.20 Visiting the city where I own my primary timeshare reflects who I am as a person (i.e., laid back or fast paced). 0.79 0.63 0.37 Past political participation 0.88** How often have you voted in local elections? 0.95 0.91 0.09 How often have you voted in presidential elections? 0.81 0.66 0.34 Past civil participation 0.84** Have you ever participated in community activities, such as pick up litter campaigns? 0.94 0.89 0.11 Have you ever volunteered for a civic organization? 0.87 0.76 0.24 Have you ever donated to a charitable organization? 0.56 0.31 0.69 Note: the variance of the observed variable was set to 0. ** Composite reliability of each construct.
109 Table 4-29. Standardized regression coefficients of latent variables Planning Benefit Cost Attach1 Attach2 Partici1 Partici2 Coefficient -0.05 0.27 -0.48 0.55 -0.22 0.23 0.03 Z-score -0.64 3.37 -4.66 2.43 -0.91 2.70 0.49 P-value >0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 >0.05 <0.01 >0.05 Note: Planning=Perception of tour ism planning; Benefit=Perceived benefits of participating; Cost=Perceived costs of participating; Attch1=Attachment to the timeshare; Attach2=Attachment to the city; Partici1=Pas t political participation; Partici2=Past civic participation.
110 Figure 4-1. The structural model (Note: solid lines indicate statis tically significant paths; dotted lines indicate statistically insignificant paths.) Perceived benefits of participating Perceived costs of participating Perception of tourism planning Attachment to the timeshare Attachment to the city Past political participation Past civic participation Perception of participation 0.27 -0.48 0.55 0.23
111 Table 4-30. Model summary of the regressi on analysis on attachment to timeshare Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error of the estimate 1 0.330 0.109 0.099 1.029 Table 4-31. Regression coeffici ents of dependent variables in the regression analysis on attachment to timeshare Standardized Coefficients (Beta) T-value Significant level Question #5 0.327 5.327 0.000 Question #40 0.007 0.109 0.913 Question #7 0.005 0.090 0.928 Table 4-32. Crosstabulation of perc eption of participation and gender Female Male Total Disagree 41.9 31.5 34.9 Neutral 32.4 38.8 36.7 Agree 25.7 29.7 28.4 Willing to participate in tourism planning Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Note: N=324 Table 4-33. Chi-Square test of pe rception of participation and gender Value Degree of freedom Significant level (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 3.393 2 0.183 Note: N=324 Table 4-34. Crosstabulation of perception of participation and educational level High school degree Bachelors degree Graduate or professional degree Total Disagree 30.5 31.4 40.4 35.2 Neutral 42.4 43.0 29.1 36.8 Agree 27.1 25.6 30.5 28.0 Willing to participate in tourism planning Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Note: N=321 Table 4-35. Chi-Square test of perception of particip ation and educational level Value Degree of freedom Significant level (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 6.572 4 0.160 Note: N=321
112 Table 4-36. Crosstabulation of percepti on of participation and household income <$49,999 $50,000$74,999 $75,000$99,999 $100,000$124,999 >$125,000 Total Disagree 19.2 40.7 24.2 33.3 43.6 34.3 Neutral 46.2 28.8 39.4 40.7 30.8 35.7 Agree 34.6 30.5 36.4 25.9 25.6 30.0 Willing to participate in tourism planning Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Note: N=321 Table 4-37. Chi-Square test of perception of participation and household income Value Degree of freedom Significant level (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 10.968 8 0.203 Note: N=321 Table 4-38. Crosstabulation of perception of participation an d martial status Married Not married Total Disagree 33.7 40.0 35.1 Neutral 39.8 24.3 36.4 Agree 26.5 35.7 28.5 Willing to participate in tourism planning Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Note: N=319 Table 4-39. Chi-Square test of perception of particip ation and marital status Value Degree of freedom Significant level (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 5.832 2 0.054 Note: N=319 Table 4-40. Crosstabulation of perc eption of participation and age 21-40 41-60 61 and older Total Disagree 30.8 32.7 37.5 34.6 Neutral 30.8 33.9 40.6 36.5 Agree 38.5 33.3 21.9 28.8 Willing to participate in tourism planning Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Note: N=312 Table 4-41. Chi-Square test of pe rception of participation and age Value Degree of freedom Significant level (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 5.327 4 0.255 Note: N=312
113 Table 4-42. Preferred ways of voting on tour ism planning for the c ity where the primary timeshare is located Item Frequency Percentage Online 186 54.5 Not interested in voting 107 31.4 By mail 48 14.1 In Person 0 0.0 Note: N=341 Table 4-43. Frequency distributi ons (percentage) for preferred wa ys to participate in tourism planning for the city where the primary timeshare is located Questionnaire Statement SD D N A SA Mean # of Cases I would like to get information about tourism planning for the city in the form of newsletters or regular letters. 2.2 1.1 6.5 65.6 24.7 4.12 93 I would be willing to authorize my timeshare management company to participate in the tourism planning process for the city. 2.2 6.5 20.7 51.1 19.6 3.80 92 I would like to participate in meetings related to tourism planning as a citizen representative. 1.1 5.4 35.5 44.1 14.0 3.65 93 Note: SD=Strongly Disagree; D=Disagree; N=Neutral; A=Agree; SA=Strongly Agree. Table 4-44. Mauchlys test of sphericity Mauchlys W Approximate Chi-Square df Significant level GreenhouseGeisser HuynhFeldt Lowerbound 0.84 15.39 2 <0.01 .862 0.877 0.50 Table 4-45. Tests of within-subject effects Source Type III Sum of Squares Degree of freedom Mean Square F Significant level Sphericity assumed 10.87 2 5.434 10.891 <0.01 Greenhouse-Geisser 10.87 1.723 6.306 10.891 <0.01 Huynh-Feldt 10.87 1.753 6.199 10.891 <0.01 Lower-bound 10.87 1.000 10.867 10.891 <0.01
114 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Timeshare Owners Perceptions of Pa rticipation in Tourism Planning One of the main purposes of this study was to investigate the missing link in tourism planning: the missing input from tourists. Si nce physical planning for tourism development emerged in the 1970s in the U.S. (Gunn & Va rr, 2002), the local government and tourism industry have played a lead role in most touris m planning cases. Gradually, the potential of local residents contribution to tourism planning receiv ed more and more attention from academia and practitioners. However, there is a lack of discu ssion about specially segmented groups of tourists and their role in tourism planning. As an expl oratory effort, this study focused on timeshare owners, a special group of tourists who have a different connection to the tourism destination than typical tourists. More specifically, this st udy investigated timeshare owners perceptions of participation in tourism planning. Findings from this study were encouraging. Most timeshare owners supported tourism planning for the destination city. A substantial proportion of timeshare owners were willing to participate in tourism planning for the city. Be cause many studies were conducted to investigate long-term residents participation in tourism planning, findings from those studies could be employed to propel our understanding of timeshare owners perceptions of participation in tourism planning. Since Perdue, Long and Allens (1990) st udy, many studies have been conducted to investigate resident attitudes toward tourism development in the community. A non-exhaustive review of the literature found few studies that reported findings about residents support for tourism planning. McGehee and Andereck (2004) f ound that 86.3% of the residents in 12 rural Arizona communities supported tourism planning. In a study about urban residents support for
115 tourism planning, Madrigal (1995) reported that the mean score (five-point Likert-type scale with 1= Strongly Disagree and 5= Strongly Ag ree) for support for tourism planning among residents in Sedona, Arizona was 3.75 and amo ng residents in York, UK was 3.47. Findings from this study suggested that timeshare owne rs had similar levels of support for tourism planning as local residents. About 80% of res pondents in this study s upported tourism planning. In this study, the mean value for support of tourism planning was 4.0, higher than that of the urban residents in Madrigals study. Timeshare owners and local residents ha ve similar reasons for supporting tourism planning. Timeshare owners are tourists patron izing a special form of accommodation. They mostly stay in their timeshare when they visit the tourism destination. Th e parallel support for tourism planning among residents and timeshare owne rs are attributed to three reasons. First, both residents and timeshare owne rs own or rent properties in the community, and planning for the community mostly positively affects these pr operties. Second, both residents and timeshare owners are emotionally connected to the comm unity. The emotional connection, described as sense of place, is an importan t common factor. Third, even though timeshare owners stay a much shorter period of time in the co mmunity than residents do, the qua lity of tourism services and facilities in the community is equally important to timeshare owners. Timeshare owners are often repeat visitors and the quality of tourism am enities in the community is central to their experience. Timeshare owners have a similar level of support for tourism pla nning as residents do; meanwhile, timeshare owners are more likely to support tourism planning than mass tourists. Although few studies have been undertaken to investigate mass touris ts support for tourism planning, some characteristics of mass tourists mi ght indicate that they are less interested in
116 tourism planning. Many mass tourists stay at a destination for a ve ry short period of time, often in the range of a few hours to a few days. Mass tourists are less likely to return to the same tourism destination. Instead, mass tourists are more likely to pursue the best deal in the market and visit different tourism destin ations. Mass tourists temporary c ontact with the destination and their leisure experience in the des tination may not be sufficient to ur ge them to be interested in tourism planning for the community. The relations hip between mass tourists, timeshare owners, and residents and the destination commun ity could be expressed in figure 5-1. There is a continuum from mass tourists to local residents in terms of how long each group may stay in the community, with some overlap among the groups. Mass tourists stay a short period of time in the community, usually no more than a few days. Timeshare owners are more likely to return to the same destination and stay longer than tourists who do not own timeshare in the community (Rezak, 2002). Reside nts live in the community a nd hence they spend most of their time in the community. On the one hand, timeshare owners are one group of transient residents in the community, although they stay lo nger in the community than mass tourists. On the other hand, timeshare owners are more like residents because they own property in the community, while mass tourists usually do not. The demographic background of timeshare owners was not correlated with their perceptions of participation in tourism planning. One possible r eason is that timeshare owners are a homogeneous group with fairly simila r backgrounds. However, timeshare owners perceptions of participation in tourism planning were associ ated with other factors. Timeshare owners are distinctive transient residents. They stay a short time in the community but own property there. The dichotomy of timeshare owners might shed some light on timeshare owners perceptions of tourism pl anning and participati on in tourism planning.
117 Most timeshare owners support tourism planning for the community, however, findings from this study suggest that only about one third of timeshare owners are willing to participate in tourism planning. In fact, support for t ourism planning did not have a significant impact on perceptions of participation in tourism planning. The dispar ity between perceptions of tourism planning and perceptions of participation in tourism planning echoed the them e of this study, to investigate timeshare owners perceptions of participation in tourism planning and the reasons behind their perceptions. It is debatable that whether one third of tim eshare owners are willing to participate in tourism planning is positive or negative. The j udgment depends on the perspective. On the one hand, most timeshare owners are well-educate d, middleand upper-middle-class citizens, who are typically the most active participants in planning and other political and social causes (Hillier, 2000). On the other hand, many individual citizens are skeptical of the participation opportunities in planning processes (Davies, 2001). Furthermore, ther e is little data available in the literature about the percentage of residents or tourists who are willing to participate in tourism planning. As a result, it is impractical to compare timeshare ow ners and residents and mass tourists in their willingness to participate in tourism planning. A logical next step was to investigate why some timeshare owners were willing to participate in tourism planning. Ac cording to the tested theoretical model, perceived benefits of participation in tourism planning, perceived costs of participati on in tourism planning, attachment to the timeshare, and past experi ence of political participation were significant indicators of participation, among the seven exogenous variables. The effects of perceived benefits and costs of participation were hypothesized by the tenets of rational choice. The results from the data an alysis supported these effects. Timeshare owners
118 who perceived more benefits of participation in tourism planning were more likely to participate in tourism planning. Timeshare owners who percei ved more costs of participation in tourism planning were less likely to par ticipate in tourism planning. It is plausible that timeshare owners made rational choices based on the balance of be nefits and costs in terms of making decisions about participating in tourism pl anning. Therefore, timeshare owne rs need to be educated on the benefits of participation and on multiple methods of getting involved. The tenets of rational choice have been a pplied extensively applied to many studies investigating residents attit ude toward tourism developmen t (Ap, 1992; Jurowski, Uysal, & Williams, 1997; McGehee & Andereck, 2004). Many studies applying social exchange theory have supported the connection betw een perceived benefits and costs of tourism development and residents support for tourism development. In this study, the rational decision-making process seems to have also contributed to timeshare ow ners decision-making. For example, when asked about the primary reason for purchasing their times hare, most timeshare owners responded that they wanted to enjoy exchange opportunities and to save money on future vacation costs; those timeshare owners accounted for 50% of the res pondents. Rational reasons about value and costs played an important role in timeshare owners purchase decision. In the same vein, timeshare owners were value conscious and time conscious about participation in tourism planning. They anticipated that tourism planning would bring be tter tourism services and facilities to the community, which would not only bring them more enjoyable experiences but also improve the attractiveness of their timeshare in the timeshare exchange market. On the other hand, timeshare owners perceived the cost of pa rticipation in tourism planning ma inly in the form of consumed time.
119 The results from testing the theoretical model were utilized to weigh the effects of perceived benefits and perceived costs. The regr ession coefficient (0.48) between perceived costs and perceptions of participat ion is bigger than the regre ssion coefficient (0.27) between perceived benefits and perceptions of participation. Since these two regression coefficients were on the same standardized scale, they were compa tible. Thus, perceived costs have a bigger effect on perception of particip ation in tourism planning than the perceived benefits do. This finding might be explained by two reasons. First, perc eived costs are direct and immediate while perceived benefits are indirect and in the future. If timeshare ow ners decide to participate in tourism planning, they need to spend their tim e when the planning process starts. However, perceived benefits might be viewed by timesha re owners as more a bout improving the tourism destination, which will do good to them in a long run. From this perspective, it is not surprising that the effect of the direct and immediate costs outweighs that of the indirect and future benefits. Second, this finding might reflect the fact that a timeshare is still a purchased consumer good. It may be hard to persuade timeshare owners to co ntribute more time to something that they have already paid for. In other words, for timeshare owners, the incremental costs might surpass the incremental benefits in particip ating in tourism planning. As a result, perceived costs play a bigger role in affecting percepti ons of participation in tourism planning than perceived benefits do. Besides the effects of perceive d benefits and costs, effects of the emotional relationships between timeshare owners and their timeshare and the broader destination city were also investigated as potential factor s affecting timeshare owners pe rception of participating in tourism planning. Timeshare owners attachment to their timeshare significantly influenced their perception of participation in t ourism planning. In fact, timeshar e owners attachment to their
120 timeshare had the greatest impact on their percep tion of participation in tourism planning among all the latent exogenous variable s. As reported in chapter f our, the number of times that timeshare owners visited their timeshare was a significant predictor of the strength of the attachment. The more times timeshare owners vi sited the timeshare and the tourism destination, the stronger they became attached to their timeshare. Timeshare management companies need to find ways to facilitate loyalty between owners and owned timeshare units, which will encourage owners to return to the timeshare resort and help the destination. These methods might include more communication with timeshare owners a nd jointed marketing efforts from timeshare management companies and other tour ism suppliers at the destination. The times that timeshare owners visited their timeshare is a behavioral indicator of their bonding with the timeshare as well as a general ov erall indicator of times hare owners emotional involvement with the timeshare. Those timeshare owners who returned to their timeshare multiple times are most likely to spend more time in their timeshare. Timeshare owners who rarely visited their timeshare do not stay long enough to devel op emotional connection to the place (Brown, Perkins, & Brown, 2003). However, timeshare owners attachment to th e city where the timeshare was located was not a significant predic tor of their perceptions of par ticipation in tourism planning. The contradictory effects of attachment to the timeshar e and attachment to the city are likely a result of two reasons. First, timeshare owners attachment to the city is weak (Table 4-20). The mean scores of answers to those th ree questions about a ttachment to the city were around 3 (3.14, 2.69, and 2.96, respectively) on a five -point Likert-type scale with 1=strongly disagree, which suggested that timeshare owners were almost ne utral about whether they were attached to the city. Compared with their attach ment to the timeshare, timeshare owners had weaker bonds with
121 the city. Second, most timeshare resorts are gated communities that are exclusive only to their customers. Timeshare owners tend to travel in bigger groups, typically with family and friends (Rezak, 2002), and therefore may stay inside th eir tourist bubble (MacCa nnell, 2001) when they are at the destination city. Outside the timeshare resort, they mostly visit tourism attractions and amenities; inside the timeshare resort, they stay with their family, friends, and other visitors. Their lack of in-depth involvement with the city might contribute to the weak relationship between their attachment to the city and their perceptions of pa rticipation in tourism planning. Timeshare owners past experience with politi cal participation had a significant impact on their perceptions of participati on in tourism planning. The more fr equently they participated in political activities such as voting, the more likel y they were to particip ate in tourism planning. Planning, in general, is essentia lly a political activity because planning aims to adjust the relationships among people and reallocate benefits and costs to different individuals (Friedmann, 1987). Tourism planning is no exception. Tourism planning affects the interests of all the stakeholders, namely the local government, the tourism industry, the local community, and tourists. For timeshare owners, the relationshi p between past politic al participation and perceptions of participation in tourism planning could be expl ained by four reasons. First, timeshare owners past experience of political pa rticipation will influence their possible future political participation in tourism planning dir ectly, because past behaviors are an important predictor of future behaviors (Bamberg, Ajzen & Schmidt, 2003; Sheeran, Orbell & Trafimow, 1999). Second, those timeshare owners who were activ e political participants are more likely to be confident with their political knowledge and sk ills. As a result, they are confident with the process of participating in tourism planning. Third, those timeshare ow ners who were active political participants were more likely to have benefited from their par ticipation and recognize
122 the value of political participation. Thus, they may believe that there are positive outcomes of participation. Four, some timeshare owners might view participation as a citizens duty, and the social norms about being an active citizen might have influenced them. Timeshare owners past experience in civic par ticipation did not signifi cantly affect their perception of participation in t ourism planning. It is possible that civic participation is mostly related to an individu als residential community. As indi cated early, timeshare owners were generally not attached to the ci ty where the timeshare is locate d. If timeshare owners clearly distinguish the timeshare city from their home community, it is understand able that their civic participatory activities in their residential community may not affect their perception of participation in tourism planning for the timeshare city. Generally, these four significant structural relationships represent three levels of analysis in explaining perceptions of future participation, as described in fi gure 5-2. The three levels are the cognitive level that includes rational components, the affective level that is comprised of emotional components, and the behavioral level that consists of behavioral components. Preferred Ways of Participation Timeshare owners preferred ways of particip ation were also inves tigated in this study. Overall, timeshare owners were willing to receive information about tourism planning but reluctant to get involved in pe rson. Timeshare owners preferred i ndirect ways of participation such as authorizing their timeshare management company to participate in tourism planning or getting involved through the Internet. Timeshare owners preferred ways of partic ipation in tourism reflect the level of participation that timeshare owners may comm it. Participation in pl anning is voluntary and participants contribute at diffe rent levels (Sanoff, 2000). From the perspective of Arsteins (1969) ladder of citizen particip ation, most timeshare owners are satisfied with pa rticipation at
123 the tokenism level. Many timeshare owners are content with the one-way information from the planners. Few timeshare owners are ready to take the partner role and ta ke shared control of tourism planning. Based on Arst eins (1969) model and Hamdi and Goetherts (1997) work, stakeholders participation in t ourism planning are cate gorized into four hierarchical levels: nonparticipation, indirect participa tion, consultative, and shared cont rol. Results from this study suggest that most timeshare owners are willing to indirectly participate in tourism planning or take a consultative role in tourism planning. A lthough timeshare owners and other tourists are viewed as a stakeholder group in theory, they are unorganized individu als. Individual and unorganized timeshare owners are not likely to ta ke shared control of tourism planning for the destination. Levels of citizen participati on in planning and phases of planning are related. Hamdi and Goethert (1997) proposed a model to describe levels of citizen part icipation and phases of planning jointly. Generally, tour ism planning is comprised of eight phases (Nickerson, 1996). Those eight phases of tourism planning are: 1) inventory resources, 2) forecast demand, 3) develop goals and objectives, 4) st udy alternatives, 5) decide pref erred alternative, 6) develop a strategy, 7) implement plan, and 8) review and revise plan. Wh ile the eight-phase model for tourism planning catches many e ssential steps of tourism plan ning, tourism planning could be viewed as a continuous process of four stages from the participative pe rspective. Those four stages are identified by four esse ntial tasks of each phase: initia te, plan, implement, and review. At the initiative stage, the pla nners and all stakeholders recogn ize the need for tourism planning and prepare for the planning process by collec ting information about supply and demand and forming planning committees and task forces. The s econd stage is the stage at which the plan is decided. Benefits and costs of di fferent options are evaluated and consensus is reached before the
124 final plan is formed. The third stage is the impl ementing stage. The implementing stage is crucial because tourism plan needs to be executed in re ality. The last stage is the period of reviewing and evaluating the tourism plan and its implementa tion. The review stage also serves as a basis for a new round of tourism planning. Timeshare owners contribution to the tour ism planning process will concentrate on the initiative stage and the planning stage. The loca l government and other stakeholder groups take responsibility for implementing the tourism plan and evaluating the plan. Timeshare owners will provide input to the tourism planners and rece ive information about the planning process. The role of timeshare owners in tourism planning is proposed in figure 5-3, based on the combination of levels of participation of timeshare owners and different stages of tourism planning that timeshare owners want to participate at. Timeshare owners choice of participation might be explained by a few reasons. First, the perceived benefits and costs of participation mi ght relate to preferred ways of participation. Timeshare owners recognized the benefits of tour ism planning, but they we re also aware of the time costs of participating in tourism planning. Timeshare owners mostly go to their timeshare for leisure and recreational purpos es. Thus, it may be unrealistic to require them to go to the timeshare purposefully to atte nd a tourism planning meeting. Second, traditional participation methods, such as public hearings and meetings might not appeal to timeshare owners. Fewer citizens ar e motivated by traditional methods. Timeshare owners do not want to participat e in tourism planning meetings in person, which reflects the problems of traditional face-oriented or file-orien ted participation styles in general (Conrey & Evans-Cowley, 2006). For example, public meetings about city planning have low participation levels in general. Traditional ways of particip ation may have time and ge ographic constraints for
125 most participants. In the case of transient reside nts such as timeshare owners, these constraints could be more pronounced. Because traditional wa ys such as planning meetings are timeconstrained and face-interaction-based, timesha re owners might be disenchanted by them, whether or not it is about tourism planning fo r the city whether the timeshare is located. Unsurprisingly, timeshare owners prefer indirect participation methods to direct participation ways. Third, Internet-based ci tizen participation repr esents a new trend in citizen participation. Online participation tools have been employed by hundreds of municipal city governments in the U.S. to get their citizens involved in the pla nning process (Conrey & Evans-Cowley, 2006; Scott, 2006). Conrey and Evans-Cowley classified those online partic ipation tools into two groups: information tools and interaction tools. Prev ailing information tools include online zoning ordinances and other online documents, onlin e planning meeting agendas, and email news. Interaction tools include sta ff emails, commission emails, online registration, and online discussion groups etc. According to Scott (2006), Internet action is beneficial for establishing and maintaining weak ties, which is central to a sense of connection and involvement. Internet-based participation tools have great potential to involving timeshare owners. Fourth, this study was based on an Internet su rvey. Respondents to the survey have access to the Internet. Most of them might be Internet savvy. They feel comfortable with the Internet and realize the benefits of using the Internet. Although Internet access has grown steadily in the U.S. recently, it is inevitable that some timeshare owners might not have access to the Internet or do not use the Internet. Therefore a bias might ex ist with the respondents of this study and the general timeshare owner population.
126 Understanding timeshare owners perceptions and preferences is only th e first step to get timeshare owners involved in tourism planning process. More importantly, tourism planning needs to be shifted toward a communicative appr oach. Tourism planners have the responsibilities and opportunities to lead this shift. The four stakeholder gr oups (the local government, the tourism industry, local residents, and the tourists) need to be motivated and get involved. Therefore, the next section will investigate the roles of tourism planners, the timeshare industry, and the local government in faci litating timeshare owners par ticipating in tourism planning. Tourism Planners and Timeshare Owners Participation in Tourism Planning The communicative approach to tourism pla nning calls for an active role of tourism planners as an organizers and facilitators of stakeholder pa rticipation. Local residents and tourists are less involved in th e tourism planning process than the local government and the tourism industry. Timeshare owners are supportive of tourism planning and some of them are willing to participate in tourism planning. Timeshare owners prefer certain ways of participating. Timeshare owners could be a positive force in tourism planning. Tourists and other transient populations have been viewed as a thr eat to planners (Weisskoff, 2000). For example, the accusation that tourists engender traffic jams and other burdens on the infrastructure of the destinations has been widely reported in the liter ature. The challenges that timeshare owners and other tourists generate for planners should not be accepted as a distrust or resentment towards them. It is clear that timeshare owners are willing to get involved in the tourism planning process. Tourism planners need to accept timesh are owners as a valuable party in the planning process. Second, tourism planners need to take init iatives to provide meaningful ways of participation for timeshare owners. Timeshare owne rs prefer certain ways of participating, such as Internet based communication and voting. Tourism planners will benefit from integrating new
127 information technologies into their planning tool s. For example, Hasse and Milne (2005) found that the integration of partic ipatory approaches and geographic information systems (GIS) provided a framework for community participa tion and stakeholder in teraction in tourism planning. Visualization technologies such as GIS reduce the differe nces between experts and lay people and participants have expr essed a clear preference for interp reted information rather than raw data and technical terms (Hacklay, 2002). Other studies (Conroy & Evans-Cowley, 2006; Scott, 2006) have also found that electronic pa rticipation is a usef ul means of citizen participation in planning. Generally, new inform ation technology such as GIS and the Internet can be an important tool for boos ting participation (Hanzl, 2007). Third, tourism planners play a lead role in facilitating consensus among stakeholders. The communicative approach emphasizes the importance of mediated participa tion (Forester, 2006). According to Forester, experienced meditation is crucial not only for assisting dialogues and mediating debates but also for fostering negotia tions. Tourism planners should be mediators and facilitators among the four stakeh older groups. It is crucial for tourism planners to make the communication efficient and effective and to atte nuate the conflicts betw een different parties. The communicative approach to tourism planning might generate more conflict among different parties due to more open communication. Touris m planners should encourage negotiation and comprise to reach consensus among parties. Fourth, tourism planners need to convert th e consensus among stakeholders into practice. One important perspective of tourism planning is to integrate tourism planning into the overall city planning, which could be achieved in two ways. First, it is unrealistic to exclude the influence of tourists and other transient residents from city pl anning. For example, the concern with traffic due to tourists re flects that the planners do not give enough attention to tourists.
128 Planning for the infrastructure needs to consider tourism. Second, tourism planning needs to be incorporated in city planning because tourism pl anning requires the consent and resources from local government. In practice, tourism planners should play two roles, to urism planner and city planner. The Timeshare Industry and Timeshare Owne rs Participation in Tourism Planning The timeshare industry comprises of timesha re developers and timeshare exchange companies. Timeshare developers have two func tions, to develop a timeshare resort and to manage the resort. Timeshare developers build timeshare resorts and sell them to their customers. Most timeshare developers continue to manage the timeshare resort after the transaction of the timeshare to the customers and charge an annual maintenance fee, which is an important revenue source for the manageme nt company. There are two major timeshare exchange companies, Resort Condominiums Internat ional (RCI) and Interval Internati onal (II) as well as other smaller exchange companies. Timeshare exchange companies provide exchange service for affiliated timeshare owners and timeshare resorts. The timeshare industry is dynamic on a few fron ts. With the entrance of big brand-name hotel chains such as Disney and Marriott into the industry in the 1980s the industry changed fundamentally. Market share quickly became concentrated with a few big players. Timeshare products evolved rapidly. The tradit ional fixed intervals have been replaced by floating intervals and points. New products such as fractional ow nership and private recr eational clubs emerged and flourished. Despite the ever-changing nature of the ti meshare industry, customer service is the foundation of the business. Findings from this study show that timeshare owners have the need to participate in tourism planning, which is an opportunity for timeshare developers. Since timeshare developers currently do not provide servi ce to satisfy this need, they need to fill this
129 gap in their service. Facilitati on of timeshare owners participa tion in tourism planning might lead to greater customer satisfa ction. Timeshare owners desire to participate in tourism planning provides an important opportunity for the times hare developers to communicate with local government and planners. Many respondents in this study indicated that they would like to authorize their timeshare management company to represent them in the tourism planning process. Timeshare developers could act as a br idge between timeshare owners and the planning authority, which will grant timeshare develope rs a legitimate role in the tourism planning process, instead of just a business interest. Timeshare developers assistance is important for timeshare owners to participate in tourism planning. Timeshare owners will remain unorganized individuals without some form of collective effort or a voice in the tourism planni ng process. Timeshare developers are in an advantageous position to take on the role as a representative of timeshare owners. Timeshare developers could incorporate the advocacy role to their overall customer service and improve customer satisfaction. For example, among dissa tisfied timeshare owners, many were annoyed by the annual maintenance fee (Suchman et al., 1999). The average annual maintenance fee was $555 in 2006 (ARDA International Foundation, 2007). While the annual maintenance fee covers property taxes, other maintenance costs, and a profit margin for the management company, timeshare owners do not necessarily appreciate th e rationale for the annual maintenance fee. If timeshare developers start to ta ke responsibility to represent ti meshare owners in the tourism planning process, they might be able to relate one additional service item to the maintenance fee and further justify it. The American Resort Development Association (ARDA) could play an important role in representing timeshare owners in the tourism planning process. ARDAs mission is to promote
130 the development and growth of the timeshare industry through advocacy, networking, partnerships, and other activiti es (ARDA, 2007a). At the federal level, ARDA could use its resources to promote the industry s role in tourism planning. At th e state and local level, ARDA could help timeshare developers and timeshar e management companies represent timeshare owners. Furthermore, ARDA could also prov ide information and knowledge about tourism planning to timeshare owners. For example, the ARDA Resort Owners Coalition (ROC) is comprised of timeshare owners across the coun try (ARDA, 2007b). Timeshare owners contribute $ 3 a year to join the coa lition voluntarily. The mission of ARDA-ROC is to promote a legislative agenda that is beneficial to timeshare owners. The coalition coul d be an ideal platform to reach timeshare owners and communicate with them about tourism planning at different levels. Local Government and Timeshare Owners Participation in Tourism Planning Local government and its agencies, such as the planning committee usually lead the planning process for the destinati on city. Local governments regul ations such zoning ordinances affect tourism planning profoundl y. On the other hand, a sound tourism plan and a prosperous tourism industry are in the best interest of local government for the economic, social, and environmental benefits that they bring about to the community. Local government has gradually started to ge t local residents invol ved in the tourism planning process, as mandated by the law or prop elled by calls for more citizen participation. Local government is elected by its citizens and lo cal government represents residents interests in the planning process. Timeshare owners pay property tax to local governments. From this perspective, timeshare owners should be treated as part of the constitu ency. Timeshare owners pay property tax, but most of them do not use loca l public services such as public school or local hospital. From the cost perspective, timesh are owners do not engender many costs to local
131 governments. Local governments need to rec ognize the importance of involving timeshare owners in the tourism planning process. Timeshar e owners input in the tourism planning process provides an important source for the local government to take into account timeshare owners needs and requirements. Furthermore, local government has the opportuni ty to communicate with timeshare owners through new information technologies such as the Internet. Many timeshare owners are willing to participate in tourism planning. Regular communi cations with timeshare owners will not only solicit input for better to urism planning, but also keep remindi ng timeshare owners to come back to their timeshare, which will generate consider able economic benefits to the host community. Limitation This study was an exploratory effort to investigate timesh are owners roles in tourism planning. Findings presented in chapter four are th e result of input from the timeshare industry and many timeshare owners. Although the results re vealed a series of si gnificant relationships among timeshare owners perceptions of participa tion in tourism planning and other variables, this study has its limitations. Those limitations include potential problem s related to the low response rate and some measurement issues a ssociated with the measurement instrument. Although the sample size is big enough for th e purpose of this study, the response rate of the questionnaire survey is relatively low. Th e survey was a Web based survey and invitations were sent to selected timeshar e owners via emails. Some possi ble reasons for the low response rate include: (1) Accessibility issues might have been caused by email invitations. Many email inboxes are protected against unsol icited or harmful emails. As a result, some timeshare owners on the list might never read the invitation email. (2) Unlike resident address, multiple email addresses might correspond to one individual. Many individuals often change their email addresses. Consequently, some email addresses on the list might have been discarded by the
132 users, although technically they are still valid. (3) Some receivers of the email invitation might not be familiar with a Web survey. Some of th em might feel uncomfortable with the idea of sharing their thoughts and information online. Although the measurement model indicated that the model fit the data quite well, some questions in the questionnaire still need improve ment, particularly those questions related to place attachment. Both attachment to the timeshare and attachment to the city were measured in this study; however, these measurement questio ns may not assess place attachment in the timeshare context explicitly mainly because they were adopted from the outdoor recreation literature. As a result, findings re ported in this study might include measurement errors that were caused by those adopted questions. Future Studies This study provides significant insights into tim eshare owners perceptions of participation in tourism planning. The proposed theoretical model fit the collected data well and indicated four latent variables that significantly influenced ti meshare owners perceptions of participation in tourism planning. Those four rela tionships reflected the effects from rational, emotional and behavioral factors on timeshare owners. Future research about timeshare owners in tourism planning, and in an even broader sense, tourists in tourism planning, c ould be undertaken from the following four perspectives. First, more research should be carried out to duplicate the findings in this study. This study provides some guidelines for future endeavor but the results from this study could be preliminary due to the explorator y feature of it. Th e theoretical model should be tested with different data sets to investigate its generalizability. Second, the theoretical a nd practical analysis of tourism planning in this study is based on a normative planning approach. While the focus is on what should be done in planning, the
133 aspect of how to do it in practice might ha ve inevitably been attenuated. Although timeshare owners preferred ways of participation in tour ism planning have been discussed in this study, obviously more research is needed on how to implement the findings and suggestions. A logical follow-up effort of this study shoul d be devoted to find out ways fo r tourism planners as well as local government to involve timeshare owners and other tourists in tourism planning. Third, this study has concentrated on revealing the f actors that influence timeshare owners perception of participation in tourism planning. More specific ally, the emphasis was on which timeshare owners would like to participate in tourism planning and why do they want to do so. Although time has been identified as an importa nt factor that constr ains timeshare owners participation, other research needs to be unde rtaken to better unders tand other constraints on timeshare owners participation. Th e literature suggested that cons traints on citizen participation in planning were complex. For example, Albrec hts (2002) summarized th at there were three main groups of constraints on participants: struct ural constraints, cult ural constraints, and constraints related to a government style. Effo rts to identify constraint s and ways to overcome constraints among timeshare owne rs are very worthwhile. Fourth, it is obvious that timeshare owners a nd other tourists hold a secondary position in the tourism planning process, although they have been extensively accepted as one of the stakeholder groups. In the long run, more research needs to be devoted to study the relationship among timeshare owners, immigration, and resident s in the community. If timeshare owners can be treated as part of the citizenship of the des tination city, at least in some aspects, it will be easier for timeshare owners to join the tourism planning process as well as the city planning process more effectively and efficiently.
134 Duration of stay Days Weeks Months Years No Ownership Yes Figure 5-1. Relationships among ma ss tourists, timeshare owners, re sidents, and the destination community. Figure 5-2. A conceptual model of timeshare ow ners perceptions of pa rticipation in tourism planning. Perceived benefits Perceived costs Rational component Emotional component Behavioral component Attachment to timeshare Political participation Perception of participation Cognitive level Affective level Behavioral level Residents Timeshare owners Mass tourists
135 Levels of participation Stages of tourism planning Initiate Plan Implement Review None Indirect Consultative Shared control Figure 5-3. A framework of timeshare ow ners participation in tourism planning Timeshare owners
136 APPENDIX SURVEY INSTRUMENT Timeshare Owner Survey Dear Research Participant: Thank you in advance for taking time to respond to th is survey. The purpose of this research is to investigate timeshare owners per ceptions of participating in the tourism planning process. Since timeshare owners have the right to have thei r voice heard, we are aski ng your opinion on several issues related to tourism and destination planning. The Center for Tourism Research and Development at the University of Florida is dedicated to facilitate interdisciplinary research projects focusing on a wide range of travel and tourism opportunities. This research project is part of th e Centers efforts to advocate timeshare owners rights and to facilitate th e healthy development of the timeshare industry. Invitation to participate in this research is ra ndomly sent to selected timeshare owners. Your opinions are very important and valuable to this project. We thank you for sharing your opinions with us. This survey will take a bout 10 minutes to finish. Thank you.
137 Center for Tourism Research and Development Department of Tourism, Recr eation and Sport Management University of Florida P.O. Box 118208 Gainesville, FL, 32611 Dear Timeshare Owner: Thank you in advance for taking time to read abou t this research project. The purpose of this research is to investigate timeshare owners pe rceptions of participating in tourism planning, since timeshare owners have the right to have their voice heard in the t ourism planning process. Invitation to participate in this research was randomly sent to selected timeshare owners and you are one of the lucky ones. Your opinions are ve ry important and valuable to this project. If you would like to participate in this study, pl ease answer the following questions. The survey will last less than 10 minutes. You will not have to answer any questions you do not wish to answer. Your individual answers will remain anonymous in any reports or findings. Your privacy will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law and your identity will not be revealed in the final manuscript. There are no anticipated risks to you as a participant in this study. No compensation will be awarded to you. You are free to wi thdraw your consent to partic ipate and may discontinue your participation in the survey at any time without consequence. This project is also part of my dissertation research. I am a Ph.D candidate at the University of Florida. Only my advisor and I will have access to the final data. If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me at 352-392-4042 ext. 1395 or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. You may also contact my facu lty supervisor, Dr. Lori Pennington-Gray at 352-392-4042 ext. 1318. Questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant may be directed to the UFIRB office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611; ph 352-392-0433. Chenchen Huang By clicking on the SUBMIT button, you indicate that you have read the procedure described above for the project and voluntarily agree to part icipate in the intervie w. You also give me permission to report your responses a nonymously in the final manuscript.
138 Please tell us about your timeshare. If you have more than one timeshare, please choose the one that you visited most frequently as the primary one; if you currently have one timeshare, that one is your primary timeshare. 1 How many timeshares do you own in the U.S.? 2 Which city is your PRIMARY timeshare located in? 3 Which state is your PRIM ARY timeshare located in? 4 Which timeshare exchange company does your PRIMARY timeshare affiliate with? Resort Condominiums International (RCI) Interval International (II) Both RCI and II Another timeshare exchange company 5 How often have you visited your PRIM ARY timeshare since you have owned it (including the time you bought it)? 6 What was the most important re ason that you purchased your PRIMARY timeshare? Exchange opportunity Liked the tourism destination community/city Save money on future vacation costs Liked resort, amenities and/or unit Inherited or received as a gift Investment or resale potential Certain of quality accommodations Opportunity to own at affordable prices Other 7 What is the ownership struct ure of your PRIMARY timeshare? Deeded Right-to-use Other Do not know 8 Please indicate how important the followi ng factors are to you, regarding the city where your PRIMARY timeshare is located. Most important Important Somewhat important Least important Not important Traffic Commercial development Resort development Natural environment Social environment Now that we know about your timeshare, we ar e interested in findi ng out your feelings about tourism planning for the city wh ere your primary timeshare is located.
139 Tourism planning refers to any effort or ac tivity aimed at managi ng and/or planning for tourism in the city where yo ur primary timeshare is located. 9 I believe that successful management of tourism in the city where I own my primary timeshare requires planning. Strongly disagree Disagree Neut ral Agree Strongly agree 10 The city should plan and manage the growth of tourism. Strongly disagree Disagree Neut ral Agree Strongly agree 11* I am willing to participate in touris m planning for the city where I own my primary timeshare. Strongly disagree Disagree Neut ral Agree Strongly agree 12 I would like to vote on local initiatives regarding tourism planning for the city where my primary timeshare is located. In person Online By mail Not interested in voting 13 I believe one or more of the following parties should be involved in tourism planning for the city where I own my primary timeshare. Timeshare developers Timeshare owners The local government The federal government Timeshare exchange companies Other, please specify______________________ 14 I would like to participate in touris m planning for the city where I own my primary timeshare. Strongly disagree Disagree Neut ral Agree Strongly agree If you are interested in partic ipating in tourism planning for the city where your primary timeshare is located, please an swer the following questions wh ich relate to your preferred method of participating in tourism planning. 15** I would like to par ticipate in meetings related to tourism planning as a citizen representative. Strongly disagree Disagree Neut ral Agree Strongly agree 16** I would like to get information about tour ism planning for the city in the form of newsletters or regular letters. Strongly disagree Disagree Neut ral Agree Strongly agree 17** I would be willing to authorize my times hare management company to participate in the tourism planning process for the city. Strongly disagree Disagree Neut ral Agree Strongly agree 18** I am not interested in participating in touris m planning for the city. Strongly disagree Disagree Neut ral Agree Strongly agree 19 Tourism planning for the city where I own my primary timeshare creates better tourism facilities and tourism services. Strongly disagree Disagree Neut ral Agree Strongly agree 20 Tourism planning for the city where I ow n my primary timeshare contributes to
140 the attractiveness of my primary timeshare in the timeshare exchange market. Strongly disagree Disagree Neut ral Agree Strongly agree 21 If you agree that touris m planning contributes to the attractiveness of your primary timeshare in the exchange ma rket, please explain why you think so? 22 If I participate in tourism planning for the city where my primary timeshare is located, it would take too much of my valuable time. I would rather be doing other things with my free time. Strongly disagree Disagree Neut ral Agree Strongly agree 23 Tourism planning does not allow for free market development of the city. Strongly disagree Disagree Neut ral Agree Strongly agree Here we would like to understand how impor tant your primary timeshare is to you. We are also interested in un derstanding how important th e city (where your primary timeshare is located) is to you. 24 My primary timeshare is very special to me. Strongly disagree Disagree Neut ral Agree Strongly agree 25 Visiting the city where I own my primar y timeshare reflects who I am as a person (i.e., laid back or fast paced). Strongly disagree Disagree Neut ral Agree Strongly agree 26 The things I do at my primary timeshar e I would enjoy doing just as much at another site. Strongly disagree Disagree Neut ral Agree Strongly agree 27 No other place can compare to the city where my primary timeshare is located. Strongly disagree Disagree Neut ral Agree Strongly agree 28 I am very attached to the city wh ere my primary timeshare is located. Strongly disagree Disagree Neut ral Agree Strongly agree 29 My primary timeshare means a lot to me. Strongly disagree Disagree Neut ral Agree Strongly agree Please tell us about your pa st participation in politi cal and civic activities. 30 Are you eligible to vote in the United States? Yes No 31 How often have you voted in presidential elections? Never Rarely Sometime Often Always 32 How often have you voted in local elections? Never Rarely Sometime Often Always 33 Have you ever participated in community activities, such as pick up litter campaigns? Never Rarely Sometime Often Always 34 Have you ever donated to a charitable organization? Never Rarely Sometime Often Always 35 Have you ever volunteered for a civic organization? Never Rarely Sometime Often Always Finally, we want to know more about you a nd how satisfied you are with your timeshare exchange company. Please be assured that this information will be kept strictly confidential. 36 Please tell us your gender. Male Female
141 37 Please tell us the zip code of your primary residence. 38 Please indicate your highest education level. Less than high school High school Bachelors degree Graduate or professional 39 Please indicate your marital status. Divorced Married or partnered Single and never married widowed 40 In which year did you buy/get your first timeshare? 2006-2007 2001-2005 1996-2000 1991-1995 1986-1990 1981-1985 1976-1980 1971-1975 1966-1970 1960-1965 41 Please tell us your age. 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81 and older 42 Please indicate your annu al household income in 2006. Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $ 74,999 $75,000 to $ 99,999 $100,000 to 124, 999 $125,000 and up 43 Overall, how satisfied are you with your timeshare exchange company? Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Ne utral Satisfied Very Satisfied 44 Overall, how satisfied are you with th e customer service of your timeshare exchange company? Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Ne utral Satisfied Very Satisfied 45 Other comments Note: Mandatory question ** Contingency questions
142 INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL
144 LIST OF REFERENCES Abram, S. (2000). Planning the public: Some comments on empirical problems for planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19 351-357. Agnew, J. (1987). Place and politics Boston: Allen and Unwin. Albrechts, L. (2002). The planning community re flects on enhancing public involvement: Views from academics and reflective practitioners. Planning Theory & Practice 3 (3), 331-347. American Resort Development Association. (2007a). About ARDA. Retrieved on August 5, 2007 from http://www.arda.org/AM/Tem plate.cfm?Section=About_ARDA. American Resort Development Association. (2007b). ARDA-Resort Owners Coalition Retrieved on August 6, 2007 from http://www.arda.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=ARDA_ROC1 American Resort Development Associat ion International Foundation. (2006). State of the vacation timeshare industry: United States study Washington, D.C.: ARDA International Foundation. American Resort Development Associat ion International Foundation. (2007). State of the vacation timeshare industry: United States study Washington, D.C.: ARDA International Foundation. American Psychological Association. (2002). Publication manual of the American psychology association (5th edition). Washington, D.C.: Amer ican Psychological Association. Ap, J. (1990). Residents perceptions on the social impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 17 (4), 610-616. Ap, J. (1992). Residents per ceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research 19 (4), 665-90. Ap, J. & Crompton, J. L. (1998). Developi ng and testing a tourism impact scale. Journal of Travel Research 37 (2), 120-130. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladde r of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35 (4), 216-224. Bamberg, S., Ajzen, I., &Schmidt, P. (2003). Choice of travel mode in the theory of planned behavior: The roles of past beha vior, habit, and reasoned action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25 (3), 175. Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rates in academic studiesa comparative analysis. Human Relations, 52 421-434.
145 Bassili, J. N. (1993). Response latency vs. certa inty as indexes of the strength of voting intentions in CATI. Public Opinion Quarterly 57 54-56. Beneviste, G. (1989). Mastering the politics of planning San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bentler, P.M. & Chou, C.P.(1987). Practi cal issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research 16 78-117. Berger, P. & Neuhaus, R. J. (1977). To empower people: The role of mediating structures in public policy Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute. Blake, K.S. (2002). Colorado fourteeners and the nature of place identity. Geographical Review 92 (2), 155-176. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life New York: Wiley. Bonnes, M. & Secchiaroli, G. (1995). Environmental psychology: A psycho-social introduction London: Sage. Boomsma, A. (2000). Reporting anal yses of covariance structure. Structural Equation Modeling 7 461-483. Bornstein, E. S. (2002). The future of the timeshare industry: Will the brands dominate? A summary of the vacation ownership industry and an analysis of the advantages that the brands have over smaller independent de velopers. Unpublished masters thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston. Bott, S., Cantrill, J. G., & Myers, O. E. (2003). Place and the promise of conservation psychology. Human Ecology Review 10 (2), 100-112. Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of ca pital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-58). New York: Greenwood. Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995).Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review 89 (2), 271-294. Brewer, G. A. (2003). Building so cial capital: Civic atti tudes and behavior of public servants. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13 (1), 5-26. Bricker, K. S., & Kerstetter, D. L. (2000). Le vel of specialization a nd place attachment: An exploratory study of white water recreationists. Leisure Sciences 22 233-257. Bricker, K. S. & Kerstetter, D. L. (2002). An in terpretation of special place meanings whitewater recreationists attach to the Sout h Fork of the American River. Tourism Geographies 4 (4), 396-425.
146 Brohman, J. (1996). New dire ctions in tourism for th ird world development. Annals of Tourism Research 23 (1), 48-70. Brown, G. (1990). Tourism and place identity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX. Brown, B. B., Perkins, D., & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23 259-271. Burby, R. J. (2003). Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action. Journal of American Planning Association 69 (1), 33-49. Burke, E. M. (1979). A participatory approach to urban planning New York: Human Sciences Press. Burns, J. (1979). Connections: Ways to discover and realize community potentials New York: McGraw Hill. Burns, P. (1999). Paradoxes in planni ng: Tourism elitism or brutalism? Annals of Tourism Research 26 (2), 329-348. Burns, P. M. (2004). Tourism planning: A third way? Annals of Tourism Research, 31 (1), 24-43. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, application, and programming Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Campbell, S. & Fainstein, S. (2003). Introduction: The structure and debates of planning theory. In S. Campbell & S. Fainstein (Eds.), Readings in Planning Theory (2nd edition, pp. 1-16). New York: Blackwell Publishers. Campbell, H. & Marshall, R. (2002). Utilitarianisms bad breath? A re-evaluation of the public interest justification for planning. Planning Theory 1 (2), 163-188. Carp, J. (2004). Wit, style, and substan ce: How planners shape public participation. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22 242-254. Castree, N. (2004). Differential geographies: Pl ace, indigenous rights and local resources. Political Geography 23 133. Cavus, S. & Tanrisevdi, A. (2002). Residents attitudes towa rd tourism: A case study of Kusadasi, Turkey. Tourism Analysis, 7 (3-4), 259-268.
147 Chavis, D. M. & Wandersman. A. (1990). Sens e of community in the urban environment: A catalyst for participation in community development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18 (1), 55-81. Chawla, L. (1992). Childhood place attachments. In: I. Altman & S. Low (Eds.), Place attachments (pp. 63). New York: Plenum. Cheng, A. S., Kruger, L. E., & Daniels, S. E. (20 03). Place as an integr ating concept in natural resource politics: Propos itions for a social science research agenda. Society and Natural Resources, 16 87-104. Choi, H. C. & Sirakaya, E. ( 2005). Measuring resident s attitude toward su stainable tourism: Development of sustainable tourism attitude scale. Journal of Travel Research, 43 380-394. Clifford, B. (2006). Only a town planner would run a toxic-waste pipeli ne through a recreational area: Planning and planners in the British press. Town Planning Review, 77 (4), 423-455. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94 95-121. Coleman, J.S. (1993). The rational reconstruction of society. American Sociological Review 58 (1), 1-15. Conroy, M. M. & Evans-Cowley, J. (2006). E-partic ipation in planning: an analysis of cities adopting online citizen participation tools. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 24 371-384. Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R, L. (2000). A me ta-analysis of response rates in web-or Internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60 (6), 821-836. Couper, M. P., Traugott, M. W., & Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web survey design and administration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65 230-253. Crawford, S., Couper, M. P., & Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web surveys: Perceptions of burden. Social Science Computer Review, 19 (2), 146-162. Cresswell, T. (1996). In place/out of place: Geog raphy, ideology and transgression Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Cresswell T. (2004). Place: A short introduction Oxford:Blackwell. Crottes, J. C. & Ragatz, R. L. (2002). Recent US timeshare purchasers: Who are they, what are they buying, and how can they be reached? Hospitality Management 21 227-238.
148 Curtis, J., Baer, D., & Grabb, E. (2001). Nations of joiners: Explaini ng voluntary association membership in democratic societies. American Sociological Review 66 (6), 783-805. Davies, A. R. (2001). Hidden or hiding? Public perspectives of partic ipation in the planning system. Town Planning Review, 72 (2), 193-216. Day, D. (1997). Citizen participation in the planni ng process: An essentia lly contested concept? Journal of Planning Literature 11 (3), 421-434. De Tocqueville, A. D. (1835/2001). Democracy in America. New York: Signet. Deshler, D. & Sock, D. (1985). Community devel opment participation: A concept review of the international literature. Paper prepared for the International League for Social Commitment in Adult Education, Ljungsile, Sweden. Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method New York: Wiley-Interscience. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The total design method (2nd edition). New York: Wiley. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The total design method (2nd edition). New York: Wiley. Eckstein, S. (2001). Community as gift-giv ing: Collectivistic roots of volunteering. American Sociological Review, 66 (6), 829-851. Eisenhauer, B. W., Krannich, R. S., & Blahna, D. J. (2000). Attachments to special places on public lands : An analysis of activities, reason for attachments, and community connections. Society & Natural Resources, 13 421-441. Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2 335-362. Environment Protection Agency. (2002). Community culture and the environment: A guide to understand a sense of place. Retrieved December 10, 2006 from http://www.epa.gov/CARE/libra ry/community_culture.pdf. Fainstein, S. (2000). New dir ections in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review 35 (4), 451-478. Farnum, J., Hall, T., & Kruger, L. E. (2005). Se nse of place in natural resource recreation and tourism: an evaluation and assessment of research findings. Ge n. Tech. Report-660 (pp.159). Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Res earch Station, USDA Forest Service, Feimer, N. R. & Geller, E. S. (1993). Environmental psychology: Directions and perspectives New York: Praeger.
149 Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Fischler, R. (2000). Communicative planni ng theory: A Foucauldian assessment. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19 358-368. Foley, J. & Lauria, M. (2000). Plan s, planning and tragic choices. Planning Theory & Practice 1 (2), 219-233. Foley, M. W. & Edwards, B. (1996). The paradox of civil society. Journal of Democracy 7 (3), 38-52. Forester, J. (1987). Anticipating implementation: Normative practices in planning and policy analysis. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), Confronting values in policy analysis: the politics of criteria (pp. 153-173). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley,CA: University of California Press. Forester, J. (2006). Making participat ion work when interests conflict. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72 (4), 447-456. Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: from knowledge to action Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Gay, C. (2001). The effect of black congressional representa tion on political participation. American Political Science Review, 95 (3), 589-602. Getz, D. (1987, November) Tourism planning and research: Traditions, models and futures. Paper presented at the Australian Tr avel Research workshop, Bunbury, Western Australia. Giddens, A. (1990). Consequence of modernity Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Gieryn, T. (2000). A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26 463. Girard, T. C. & Gartner, W. C. (1993). Sec ond home second view: Host community perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research, 20 (4), 685-700. Goeldner, C. R. & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2006). Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies (10th edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Grant, J. (1994). The drama of democracy: Contenti on and dispute in community planning Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Gunn, G. A. & Var, T. (2002). Tourism planning: Basics, concepts, cases (4th edition). New York: Routledge.
150 Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident attitudes: A structural modeling approach. Annals of Tourism Research 29 (1), 79-105. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hacklay, M. (2002). Public environmental inform ation: understanding requirements and patterns of likely public use. Area, 34 (1), 17-28. Hall, P. (2002). Cities of tomorrow: An intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentieth century (3rd Edition). New York: Blackwell Publishers. Hamdi, N. & Goethert, R. (1997). Action planning for cities: A guide to community practice West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons. Hammitt, W. E., Backlund, E. A., & Bixler, R. D. (2004). Experience use history, place bonding and resource substitution of trout anglers during recreation engagements. Journal of Leisure Research 36 (3), 356-378. Hanzl, M. (2007). Information tec hnology as a tool for public part icipation in urban planning: a review of experiments and potentials. Design Studies, 28 289-307. Harrill, R., & Potts, T. D. (2003). Tourism planning in historic dist ricts: Attitudes toward tourism development in Charleston. Journal of the American Planning Association 69 (3), 233-244. Hasse, J. C. & Milne, S. (2005). Participatory approaches and geographical information systems (PAGIS) in tourism planning. Tourism Geographies 7 (3), 272. Hayden, D. (1995). The power of place: Urban la ndscapes as public history Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Healey, P. (1996). The communicative turn in pla nning theory and its imp lications for spatial strategy formation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 23 217-234. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping pl aces in fragmented societies Vancouver: UBC Press. Hibbard, M. & Lurie, S. (2000). Saving land but losing ground: challenges to community planning in the era of participation. Journal of Planning Education and Research 20 187-195. Hidalgo, M. C. & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place at tachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21 273-281.
151 Hillier, J. (2000). Going round the back? Comple x networks and informal action in local planning processes. Environment and Planning A, 32 33-54. Hoffman, L. M. (2003). The marketing of diversit y in the inner city: Tourism and regulation in Harlem. International Journal of Ur ban and Regional Research, 27 (2), 286-299. Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology 63 597-606. Honey, M. (1999). Ecotourism and sustainable devel opment: Who owns paradise? Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Horrigan, J. B. (2007). U.S. lags behind: Why it will be hard to close the broadband divide. Retrieved on August 4, 2007 from http://www.pewinternet.org/ pdfs/Broadband_Commentary.pdf Hou, J., Lin, C., & Morais, D. B. (2005). Antece dents of attachment to a cultural tourism destination: the case of Hakka and Non-Hakka Taiwanese visitors to Pei-Pu, Taiwan. Journal of Travel Research, 44 221-233. Hufford, M. (1992). Thresholds to an Altern ate Realm: Mapping the Chaseworld in New Jerseys Pine Barrens. In I. Altman and S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 231-252).New York: Plenum. Hummom, D. M. (1992). Community attachment: Local sentim ent and sense of place. In I., Altman & S.M. Low (eds.), Place attachment (pp. 253), New York: Plenum. Huxley, M. (2000). The limits to communicative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19 369-377. Huxley, M. & Yiftachel, O. (2000). New paradigm or old myopia? Unse ttling the communicative turn in planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19 333-342. Innes, J. (1995). Planning theorys emergi ng paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research 14 (3), 183-191. Innes, J. (1998). Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 64 (1), 52-63. Inskeep, E. (1988). Tourism planning: An emerging specialization. Journal of the American Planning Association 54 (3), 360 -372. Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning: An integrated and sustainable development approach New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
152 Irvin, R. A. & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen par ticipation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review 64 (1), 55-65. Jackman, R. W. & Miller, R. A. (1998). Social capital and politics. Annual Review of Political Science 1 47-73. Jafari, J. (1986). A systemic view of so ciocultural dimensions of tourism. In Presidents commission on American outdoors, tourism Washington, DC: United States Travel and Tourism Administration (pp. 33-50). Jamal, T. B., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaborat ion theory and community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research 22 (1), 186-204. James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, model and data Los Angels, CA: Sage. Jhannesson, G., Skaptadttir, U. D., & Benedi ktsson, K. (2003). Coping with social capital? The cultural economy of tourism in the north. Sociologia Ruralis, 43 3-16. Johnson, C. D. (1998). A consideration of collectiv e memory in African American attachment to wildland recreation places. Research in Human Ecology 5 (1), 5-15. Johnson, W. C. (1984). Citizen participation in local planning: A comparison of US and British experiences. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 2 (1), 1-14. Jreskog, K.G. & Srbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language Chicago: Scientific Software International. Jreskog, K. G. & Srbom, D. (1996). PRELIS2: Users reference guide Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. Jreskog, K.G. & Srbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.80 Chicago, IL: Scientific Software. Jorgensen, B. S. & Stedman, R. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environment Psychology 21 (3), 233-248. Julian, D. A. & Reischl, T. M. (1997). Citizen participationLessons fr om a local united way planning process. Journal of the Americ an Planning Association 63 (3), 345-356. Jurowski, C. & Gursoy, D. (2004). Distance effect s on residents attit udes toward tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 31 (2), 296-312. Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Williams, D. R. ( 1997). A theoretical analysis of host community resident reactions to tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 36 (2), 3-11.
153 Kaltenborn, B. P. (1997). Nature of place atta chment: a study among recreation homeowners in southern Norway. Leisure Sciences 19 175-189. Kavallinis, I. & Pizam, A. (1994). The environmen tal impacts of tourismWhose responsibility is it anyway? The case study of Mykonos. Journal of Travel Research 33 (2), 26-32. Keith, J., Fawson, C., & Chang, T. (1996). Recrea tion as an economic development strategy: Some evidence from Utah. Journal of Leisure Research, 28 (2), 96-107. Klosterman, R. E. (1985). Arguments for and against planning. Town Planning Review, 56 (1), 5-20. Ko, D. W. & Stewart, W. P. ( 2002). A structural equation mode l of residents attitudes for tourism development. Tourism Management, 23 521-530. Krosnick, J. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50 537-567. Kyle, G. T., Graefe, A. R., & Manning, R. E. (2005). Testing the dimensionality of place attachment in recreational settings. Environment and Behavior 37 153-177. Ladkin, A., & Bertramini, A. M. (2002). Collabora tive tourism planning: A case study of Cusco, Peru. Current Issues in Tourism 5 (2), 71-93. Lane, M. B. (2003). Participation, decentralizat ion, and civil society: Indigenous rights and democracy in environmental planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22 360-373. Lankford, S. V. (1994). Attitudes and perceptions toward tourism and rural regional development. Journal of Travel Research, 32 (2), 35-43. Lankford, S. V. (2001). A comment concerning Developing and tes ting a tourism impact scale. Journal of Travel Research 39, 315-316. Lauria, M. (2000). The limits to communica tive planning theory: A brief introduction. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19 331-332. Lauria, M. & Wagner, J. A. (2006). What can we learn from empirical studies of planning theory? A comparative case analysis of extant literature. Journal of Planning Education and Research 25 364-81. Law, C. M. (1992). Urban tourism and its contribution to economic regeneration. Urban Studies, 29 (3-4), 599-618. Lawler, E. (2001). An affect theory of social exchange. American Journal of Sociology 107 (2), 321-352.
154 Lee, C. C. (2001). Predicting tour ist attachment to destinations. Annals of Tourism Research 28 (1), 229-232. Lee, C., Backman, K., & Backman, S. (1997). Unders tanding antecedents of repeat visitation and tourists loyalty to a resort destination. In Proceedings of the 1997 Travel and Tourism Research Association Annual Conference, Boulder, CO. Lin, N. (1999). Building a networ k theory of social capital. Connections 22 (1), 28-51. Lindberg, K. & Johnson, R.L. (1997). Modeli ng resident attitudes toward tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24 (2), 402. Lopez, M. H., Levine, P., Both, D., Kiesa, A., Kirby, E., & Marcelo, K. (2006). The 2006 Civic and political health of the nati on. Retrieved on January 5, 2007 from http://www.civicyouth.org/PopU ps/2006_CPHS_Report_update.pdf Loury, G. C. (1977). A dynamic theory of racial income differences. In P.A Wallace & A.M. L. Mond (Eds.), Women, minorities, and empl oyment discrimination (pp. 153-186). Lexington, MA: Heath. Low, S. M. & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment -A conceptual inquiry. In I. Altman & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment. Human behavior and environment 12 (pp. 1-12). New York:Plenum. Lowry, K., Adler, P., & Milner, N. (1997). Partic ipating the public: Group process, politics, and planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 16 177-187. Lund, H. (2002). Pedestrian environments and sense of community. Journal of Planning Education and Research 21 (3), 301-312. MacCannell, J. F.(2001). The non-accidental tourist. Design Book Review 4 3 (Fall), 63. Macy, M. W. & Flache, A. (1995). Beyond rationality in models of choice. Annual Review of Sociology 21 (1), 73-92. Madrigal, R. (1995). Reside nts perceptions and the role of government. Annals of Tourism Research 22 (1), 86-102. Maier, K. (2001). Citizen participat ion in planning: Climbing a ladder? European Planning Studies 9 (6), 707-719. Mansbridge, J. J. (Ed.) (1990). Beyond self-interest Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Manzo, L. C. & Perkins, D. D. (2006). Findi ng common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. Journal of Plann ing Literature 20 (4), 335-350.
155 Marcouiller, D. W. (1997). Toward integr ative tourism planning in rural America. Journal of Planning Literature 11 (3), 337-353. Martin, B., McGuire, F., & Allen, A. (1998). Retir ees attitudes toward tourism: Implications for sustainable development. Tourism Analysis, 3 (1), 43-51. Mason, P. & Cheyne, J. (2000). Residents at titudes to proposed tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 27 (2), 391-411. McCool, S. F. & Martin. S. R. (1994). Commun ity attachment and attitudes toward tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 32 (2), 29-34. McGehee, N. G., & Andereck, K. L. (2004). Fact ors predicting rural re sidents support of tourism. Journal of Travel Research 43 (2), 131-140. Mill, J. S. (1965). Collected works Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Monroe, K. R. (1991). The economic approach to politics New York: HarperCollins. Moore, R. L. & Graefe, A. R. (1994). Attachments to recreation settings: Th e case of rail-trail users. Leisure Sciences 16 17. Moore, R. L. & Scott, D. (2003). Place attach ment and context: Comparing a park and a trail within. Forest Science 49 (6), 1-8. Murphy, A. E. (1985). Tourism: A community approach London: Routledge. National Conference on Citizensh ip. (2006). The civic health index. Retrieved on January 12, 2007 from http://casefounda tion.cachefly.net/pdf/civ ic_health_summary.pdf Neuman, M. (2000). Communicate this! Does co nsensus lead to advocacy and pluralism? Journal of Planning Education and Research 19 343-350. Nickerson, N. P. (1996). Foundations of tourism Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice Hall. Pateman, C. (1975). Participant and democracy theory Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Patterson, T., Gulden, T., Cousins, K., & Kraev, E. (2003). Integrating envi ronmental, social and economic systems: a dynamic mode l of tourism in Dominica. Ecological Modeling, 175 121. Pearce, D. G. (1989). Tourist development Harlow, UK: Longman. Pearce, J. A. (1980). Host community acceptance of foreign tourists: Strategic considerations. Annals of Tourism Research, 7 (2), 224-233.
156 Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Allen, L. (1987). Rura l resident tourism per ceptions and attitudes. Annals of Tourism Research 14 (3), 420-429. Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Allen, L. (1990). Resident support for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research 17 (4), 586-599. Petracca, M. P. (1991). The rational actor appr oach to politics. In K. R. Monroe (Ed.), The economic approach to politics (pp. 171-203). New York: HarperCollins. Pew Internet & American Life Project. ( 2006). Internet adoption. Retrieved on August 3, 2007 from http://www.pewinternet.org /trends/Internet_Adoption_4.26.06.pdf Pew Research Center. (2004). Ne ws audiences increasingly polit icized. Retrieve on April 2, 2007 from http://people-pre ss.org/reports/pdf/215.pdf Pigram, J. J. (1994). Alternative tourism: Touris m and sustainable resource management. In V.L. Smith & W.R. Eadington (Eds.) Tourism alternatives: Potentials and problems in the development of tourism (pp.76-87). Chichester : John Wiley and Son. Pizam, A. (1978). Tourisms impacts: The soci al costs to the destination community as perceived by its residents. Journal of Travel Research 16 (4), 8-12. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its orig ins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 24 1-24. Pretty, J. (1995). The many inte rpretations of participation. Focus 16, 4. Proshansky, H.M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 10 147-169. Proshansky, H. M. & Fabian, A. K. (1987). The deve lopment of place identity in the child. In C. S. Weinstein & T. G. David (Eds.), Spaces for children (pp. 21-40). New York: Plenum Press. Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-iden tity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology 3 57. Putnam, R. D. (1993a). The prosperous co mmunity: social capita l and public life. American Prospect 13 35-42. Putnam, R. D. (1993b). What makes democracy work? National Civic Review 82 (2), 101-108. Putnam, R. D. (1995a). Bowling alone: Americans declining social capital. Journal of Democracy 6 (1), 65-78. Putnam, R. D. (1995b). Bowling alone, revisited. The Responsive Community 5 (2), 18-33.
157 Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness London: Pion Limited. Rezak, S. (2002). Consumer research sheds light on all aspects of resort timesharing business. Hospitality Management 21 (3), 245-255. Riley, R. B. (1992). Attachment to the ordinary landscape. In I. Altman & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp.13-35). New York: Plenum Press. Rousseau, J. J. (1948). The social contract Oxford: University Press. Rowles, G. D. (1980). Toward a geography of gr owing old. In A. Buttimer & D. Seamon (Eds.), The human experience of space and place (pp. 55). London: Croon Helm. Saarikoski, H. (2002). Naturalized episte mology and dilemmas of planning practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22 3-14. Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Sautter, E. T. & Leisen, B. (1999). Managi ng stakeholders: A tourism planning model. Annals of Tourism Research 26 (2), 312-328. Schofer, E. & Fourcade-Gourinchas, M. (2001). Th e structural contexts of civic engagement: Voluntary association membership in comparative perspective. American Sociological Review 66 (6), 806-828. Schonlau, M., Fricker, R. D., & Elliott, M. N. (2002). Conducting research surveys via e-mail and the web Pittsburgh, PA: RAND Schroeder, H. W. (2004). Special place in the Lake Calumet area. St. Paul, MN: North Central Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service. Schumacker, R. E. & Lomax, R. G. (2004) A beginners guide to stru ctural equation modeling (2nd edition). Mahwah, NJ: La wrence Erlbaum Associates. Sciulli, D. (1992). Weakness in rational choice theo rys contribution to comparative research. In J. S. Coleman & T. J. Fararo (Eds.), Rational choice theory: Advocacy and critique (pp.161-80). London: Sage Publications. Scott, J. (2000). Rational choice theory. In G. Browning, A. Halici, & F. Webster (Eds.) Understanding contemporary society: Theories of the present (pp. 126-138). London: Sage Publications. Scott, J. K. (2006). E the people: Do U.S. municipal government web sites support public involve. Public Administration Review 66 (3), 341-353.
158 Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age: Modeling Internet eff ects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32 531565. Sheeran, P., Orbell, S.,& Trafimow, D. (1999). Does the temporal stab ility of behavioral intentions moderate intention-behavior a nd past behaviorfutur e behavior relations? Personality & Social Ps ychology Bulletin, 25 (6), 724-734. Simmons, (2007). 2006 U.S. membership profil e. Washington, D.C.: ARDA International Foundation. Simpson, K. (2001). Strategic planning and community involv ement as contributors to sustainable tourism development. Current Issues in Tourism 4 (1), 3-41. Sniderman, P. M. & Grob, D. B. (1996). Innovation in experimental design in attitude surveys. Annual Review of Sociology, 22 377-399. SPSS Inc. (2006). Statistical Package fo r the Social Sciences Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.. Stedman, R. C. (2000). Attitude and identity in th e prediction of behavior: Fight or flight from threatened places? Retrieved on January 3, 2007 from http://www.ssrc.msstate.edu/Publications /Policy&Rural/PDF%20Files/Stedman,%20Rich ard.pdf. Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychol ogy of place: Predicting behavior from placebased cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and Behavior 34 (5), 561. Stedman, R. C. (2003). Sense of place and forest science: Toward a program of quantitative research. Forest Science, 49 (6), 822-829. Stedman, R. C. (2006). Understanding place attachment among second home owners. American Behavioral Scientist, 50 (2), 187-205. Stivers, C. (1990). The public agency as polis: Active citizenship in th e administrative state. Administrative & Society, 22 (1), 86105. Stokols, D. & Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People in pl aces: A transactional view of settings. In J. H. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social behavi or, and the environment (pp. 441 488). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Suchman, D. R. et al. (1999). Developing timeshare and vacatio n-ownership properties Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute. Talen, E. (2000). The problem with community in planning Journal of Planning Literature 15 (2), 171-183.
159 Thompson, B. (2000). Ten commandments of stru ctural equation modeling. In L. Grimm & P. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics (pp. 261-284). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Timothy, D. J. (1998). Cooperative touris m planning in a developing destination. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6 (1), 52-68. Timothy, D. J. (1999). Participatory pla nning: A view of tourism in Indonesia. Annals of Tourism Research 26 (2), 371-391. Tomljenovic, R. & Faulkner, B. (2000).Tour ism and older residents in a sunbelt resort. Annals of Tourism Research, 27 (1): 93-114. Treuren, G. & Lane, D. (2003). The tourism pl anning process in the context of organized interests, industry structure, state capacity, accumulation and sustainability. Current Issues in Tourism 6 (1), 1-22. Tuan, Y. F. (1974). Space and pl ace: humanistic perspective. Progress in Geography, 6 211252. Tuan, Y. F. (1975). Place: An experimental perspective. Geographical Review, 65 (2), 151-165. Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). Computer and Inte rnet use in the United States: 2003. Retrieved on January 16, 2007 from http://www.census.gov/ population/www/socdemo/computer.html Upchurch, R. S. (2000). A glimpse at US consumers interest in timesharing. Hospitality Management 19 (4), 433-443. Vaske, J. J. & Kobrin, K. C. (2001). Place attach ment and environmentally responsible behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32 (4), 16-21. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady. H. E. (1995). Voice and equity: civic voluntarism in American politics Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warzecha, C. A. & Lime, D. W. (2001). Pl ace attachment in Canyonlands National Park: Visitors assessment of setting attrib utes on the Colorado and Green Rivers. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 19 (1), 59-78. Weisskoff, R. (2000). Missing pi eces in ecosystem restorati on: The case of the Florida Everglades. Economic Systems Research 12 (3), 271-303. Williams, D. R. (2000). Notes on measuring recrea tional place attachment. Retrieved on January 3, 2007, from http://www.fs.fed.us/r m/value/docs/pattach_notes.pdf.
160 Williams, D. R., Anderson, B. S., McDonald, C. D., & Patterson, M. E. (1995, October). Measuring place attachment: More preliminar y results. Paper presented at the National Recreation & Park Association Leisure Re search Symposium, Saint Antonio, TX. Williams, D.R., Patterson, M.E., Roggenbuck, J.W., & Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences 14 (1), 29-46. Williams, D. R. & Roggenbuck. J. W. (1989, Oct ober). Measuring Place Attachment: Some Preliminary Results. Paper presented at th e National Recreation & Park Association Leisure Research Symposium, Saint Antonio, TX. Williams, D. R. & Vaske, J.J. (2003). The measurement of place a ttachment: validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science 49 (6), 830-840. World Tourism Organization. (2006). Tourism Highlights 2006 Edition Retrieved on November 29, 2006 from http://www.worldtourism.org/facts/menu.html. Woods, R. H. (2001). Important issues for a growing timeshare industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Management Quarterly 42 (1), 71-81. Wulz, F. (1986). The concept of participation. Design Studies 7 (3), 153-162. Zeiger, J. & Caneday, L. (1991). The social, economic, and envir onmental costs of tourism to a gaming community as perceived by its residents. Journal of Travel Research 30 (2), 45-49. Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L., & Tayl or, J.G. (1982). Landscape perception. Landscape Planning 9 1-33. Zukin, C., Keeter. S., Andolina, M., Jenki ns, K., & Carpini, M. X. D. (2006). A new engagement: Political participation, civi c life, and the changing American citizen New York: Oxford University Press. Zurick, D. N. (1992). Adventure travel and sustainable tourism in the peripheral economy of Nepal. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 82 (4), 608-628.
161 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Chenchen Huang was born in Jiangyan, Jiangs u Province, China in 1977. He started his formal education at Jiangyan Shiyan Primar y School in 1983. In 1988, he was enrolled at Jiangyan No. 2 High School. His senior high sc hool education commenc ed at Jiangyan High School in 1991. The author entered Fudan University, Sha nghai, China in 1994 where he majored in Tourism Management with a minor in Accountin g. After graduating in 1 998, he enrolled at the Graduate School of Fudan University, majoring in Tourism Management. For his masters thesis he conducted research on cultural tourism resour ces in Shanghai. During his masters program, he also published several journal articles and co-authored a few book chapters on tourism marketing and development. After he was awarded his masters degree, th e author joined Shangha i China International Travel Service (SCITS). During his two years stay at SCITS, he was fortunate to have hands-on experience in the business management of the trav el and tourism industry in general, and travel agencies in particular. In 2003, he was awarded an Alumni Fellowship from the University of Florida (UF) to pursue doctoral studies in the College of Health and Human Performance. His major was tourism and his main research interests include touris m planning, tourism marketing, and the timeshare industry. The author presented hi s research at various conferen ces and in 2006, he was awarded the World Leisure International Scholarship by the World Leisure Congress. His doctoral dissertation investigated timeshare owners perceptions of and pr eferences for participation in tourism planning. The author looks forward to cont ributing to the sustaina ble development of the tourism industry after graduation.