<%BANNER%>

An Exploratory Investigation of Perceived Tourism Impacts on Resident Quality of Life and Support for Tourism in Cologne...

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042861/00001

Material Information

Title: An Exploratory Investigation of Perceived Tourism Impacts on Resident Quality of Life and Support for Tourism in Cologne, Germany
Physical Description: 1 online resource (190 p.)
Language: english
Creator: MEYER,LOUISA A
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: COMMUNITY -- PERSONAL -- QUALITY -- TOURISM -- URBAN
Health and Human Performance -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Health and Human Performance thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: An Exploratory Investigation of Perceived Tourism Impacts on Resident Quality of Life and Support for Tourism in Cologne, Germany The fundamental objective of tourism development lies in achieving a desirable quality of life for residents of host destinations by improving economic prosperity, while protecting cultural and natural resources. If residents perceive that tourism has a substantial role in the achievement of these goals, they will likely be supportive of development. Hence, the effects of perceived tourism impacts on both personal, and community quality of life, along with residents? support for tourism in the historic city of Cologne, Germany were examined. A theoretical model was conceptualized and empirically tested by applying a two-stage structural equation modeling approach. A total of 633 residents of Cologne were sampled which constituted a response rate of 68%. Residents were asked to rate their level of agreement with tourism impacts based on the four dimensions of sustainability-economic, environmental, socio-cultural, and institutional. In addition, two measures of quality of life-community and personal, and support for tourism were assessed. It was hypothesized that resident perceptions of tourism impacts would affect community and personal quality of life, as well as support for tourism. Furthermore, it was postulated that quality of life would mediate the relationship between perceived impacts and support for tourism. Results identified that residents had overall positive perceptions of tourism; were generally satisfied with their quality of life, and were supportive of tourism in Cologne. Based on the inclusion of both community and personal quality of life constructs, although positive perceptions of tourism impacts were found to predict support for tourism, their relationship with resident quality of life may not be as straightforward as previously assumed. Moreover, perceived tourism impacts had varying effects on community and personal quality of life, and neither mediated the relationship between perceived tourism impacts and support for tourism. More specifically, resident perceptions of the institutional structure of Cologne and the socio-cultural impacts of tourism had significant direct effects on community quality of life; conversely, resident perceptions of economic and environmental impacts had significant direct effects on personal quality of life. Moreover, community quality of life had the strongest effect on personal quality of life. Additionally, a negative relationship existed between perceived environmental impacts and personal quality of life while perceptions of socio-cultural tourism impacts and of institutional structure demonstrated weak indirect effects on personal quality of life mediated by community quality of life.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by LOUISA A MEYER.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Thapa, Brijesh.
Local: Co-adviser: Pennington-Gray, Lori.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-04-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042861:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042861/00001

Material Information

Title: An Exploratory Investigation of Perceived Tourism Impacts on Resident Quality of Life and Support for Tourism in Cologne, Germany
Physical Description: 1 online resource (190 p.)
Language: english
Creator: MEYER,LOUISA A
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: COMMUNITY -- PERSONAL -- QUALITY -- TOURISM -- URBAN
Health and Human Performance -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Health and Human Performance thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: An Exploratory Investigation of Perceived Tourism Impacts on Resident Quality of Life and Support for Tourism in Cologne, Germany The fundamental objective of tourism development lies in achieving a desirable quality of life for residents of host destinations by improving economic prosperity, while protecting cultural and natural resources. If residents perceive that tourism has a substantial role in the achievement of these goals, they will likely be supportive of development. Hence, the effects of perceived tourism impacts on both personal, and community quality of life, along with residents? support for tourism in the historic city of Cologne, Germany were examined. A theoretical model was conceptualized and empirically tested by applying a two-stage structural equation modeling approach. A total of 633 residents of Cologne were sampled which constituted a response rate of 68%. Residents were asked to rate their level of agreement with tourism impacts based on the four dimensions of sustainability-economic, environmental, socio-cultural, and institutional. In addition, two measures of quality of life-community and personal, and support for tourism were assessed. It was hypothesized that resident perceptions of tourism impacts would affect community and personal quality of life, as well as support for tourism. Furthermore, it was postulated that quality of life would mediate the relationship between perceived impacts and support for tourism. Results identified that residents had overall positive perceptions of tourism; were generally satisfied with their quality of life, and were supportive of tourism in Cologne. Based on the inclusion of both community and personal quality of life constructs, although positive perceptions of tourism impacts were found to predict support for tourism, their relationship with resident quality of life may not be as straightforward as previously assumed. Moreover, perceived tourism impacts had varying effects on community and personal quality of life, and neither mediated the relationship between perceived tourism impacts and support for tourism. More specifically, resident perceptions of the institutional structure of Cologne and the socio-cultural impacts of tourism had significant direct effects on community quality of life; conversely, resident perceptions of economic and environmental impacts had significant direct effects on personal quality of life. Moreover, community quality of life had the strongest effect on personal quality of life. Additionally, a negative relationship existed between perceived environmental impacts and personal quality of life while perceptions of socio-cultural tourism impacts and of institutional structure demonstrated weak indirect effects on personal quality of life mediated by community quality of life.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by LOUISA A MEYER.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Thapa, Brijesh.
Local: Co-adviser: Pennington-Gray, Lori.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-04-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042861:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

AN EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION OF PERCEIVED TOURISM IMPACTS ON RESIDENT QUALITY OF LIFE AND SUPPORT FOR TOURISM IN COLOGNE, GERMANY By LOUISA MEYER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Louisa Meyer

PAGE 3

3 To my family

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation was made possible through the support and encouragement of many. Firstly I would like to thank the member of my supervisory committee at the University of Florida for their guidance and support throughout this endeavor. I would particularly like to thank my co chairs Dr. Brijesh Thapa and Dr. Lori Pennington Gray who have each in their own way contributed greatly to my academic career. Over the years Dr. Thapa has provided outstanding mentoring and encouraged strong, independent, and critical thinking. He spent countless hours of his time helping me develop and fin e tune my academic skills. I have the utmost respect for his work ethic, the quality of his academic intellect, and his dedication to students. I thank him not only for being an outstanding mentor, for his constant support and encouragement, but also for h is friendship. Dr. Lori Pennington Gray too has been a supportive pillar and I appreciate her insights and contributions not only to my academic work, but also for the invaluable work experiences provided through the participation in various research proje cts. Her support and friendship gave me strength in times when being a student, a wife and a mother, while running a small family business all seemed too much. I am also profoundly appreciative of the invaluable insights and contributions of Dr. Heather Gi bson who is willing to spend time with students to lay sound theoretical foundations, and give much constructive criticism to establish the basis for success. Her British humor and understanding was invaluable along the way. Dr. James Algina challenged my intellect to the utmost with his statistical knowledge and I am grateful that I persevered through his classes. Not only has he been of invaluable help in my analyses, he has managed to awaken in interest in statistics I never knew I had.

PAGE 5

5 I am also very gr ateful to the people of Cologne for participating in this research study, particularly those who endured the 15 minute survey during adverse weather conditions. I am also very thankful for the support received from the Center for European Studies at the Un iversity of Florida who awarded me a travel grant to conduct this dissertation work, as well as the Center for Tourism Research and Development who also furnished financial support for this research. Finally I would like to thank my family and friends My parents have always provided much love and support without which, none of this would have been possible. They always encouraged my academic career and I thank them for this from the bottom of my heart. My brother has also played an important part in this r esearch. He spent countless hours with me in Cologne collecting data and kept encouraging me when the going was tough. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Carina, Verena, Nik, Oliver and Eva for volunteering their time and joining me at var ious times to collect data; it was always more fun when someone else was there. There are also those who supported me in many other ways, mainly by being good friends when I needed them most; by letting me bounce ideas around, proofreading, or by helping m e just to unwind for a while. I am fortunate to have so many wonderful people around me. Lastly, I am forever grateful for the love and support of my husband Mario who has endured this process for so many years. I could not imagine my life without him or o ur son Liam. They give me such strength and joy just by being there. I thank you all from the bottom of my heart

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 1 2 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 14 Tourism in Co logne ................................ ................................ ................................ 19 Theoretical Foundation ................................ ................................ ........................... 23 Definition of Sustainable Touri sm ................................ ................................ ..... 25 Dimensions of Sustainability ................................ ................................ ............. 26 Sustainable Development and Quality of Life ................................ ................... 28 Sustainable Tourism and Quality of Life ................................ ........................... 30 Statement of Problem ................................ ................................ ............................. 31 Contribution of Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 34 Purpose of Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 36 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 44 Resident Perceptions of Tourism Impacts ................................ .............................. 44 Historical Ba ckground ................................ ................................ ...................... 44 Tourism Development ................................ ................................ ...................... 46 Quality of Life ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 56 Alternative Measures of Human Development ................................ ................. 57 Conceptuali zation ................................ ................................ ............................. 59 Operationalization ................................ ................................ ............................ 63 Weighting of Domains ................................ ................................ ...................... 65 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 67 Perceived Tourism Impacts and Quality of Life ................................ ....................... 68 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 77 Resident Support for Tourism ................................ ................................ ................. 77 Operationalization ................................ ................................ ............................ 79 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 80 3 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 88 The Study Site ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 88 Selection of Partic ipants ................................ ................................ ......................... 90 Instrumentation ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 91

PAGE 7

7 Perceived Tourism Impacts ................................ ................................ .............. 92 Quality of Life ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 92 Resident Support for Tourism ................................ ................................ ........... 93 Treatment of Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 94 Data Analysis Procedures ................................ ................................ ................ 95 Testing the Measurement Model ................................ ................................ .... 106 Testing the Structural Model ................................ ................................ ........... 106 Establishing Mediation in SEM ................................ ................................ ....... 107 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 124 Profile of Participants ................................ ................................ ............................ 124 Frequencies of Variables ................................ ................................ ...................... 125 Tourism Impacts ................................ ................................ ............................. 125 Quality of Life ................................ ................................ ................................ 129 Tourism Support ................................ ................................ ............................. 130 Results of Proposed Conceptual Model ................................ ................................ 131 Hypotheses Tested ................................ ................................ ............................... 131 Economic Impacts ................................ ................................ .......................... 131 Environmental Impacts ................................ ................................ ................... 133 Socio cultural Impacts ................................ ................................ .................... 134 Institutional Structure ................................ ................................ ...................... 136 Quality of Life ................................ ................................ ................................ 137 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 146 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ ............................ 146 Community Quality of Life ................................ ................................ .............. 148 Personal Quality of Life ................................ ................................ .................. 154 Resident Support for Tourism ................................ ................................ ......... 157 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 159 Practical Implications ................................ ................................ ............................ 163 Implications for Future Research ................................ ................................ .......... 164 Delimitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 167 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 167 APPENDIX A FILTER QUESTION AND INFORMED CONSENT ................................ ............... 168 B QUESTIONNAIRE ENGLISH VERSION ................................ .............................. 169 C QUESTIONNAIRE GERMAN VERSION ................................ .............................. 171 D INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL ................................ .................. 173 E SATORRA BENTLER C HI SQUARE DIFFERENCE TEST ................................ 174

PAGE 8

8 F COPYRIGHT PERMISSION ................................ ................................ ................. 175 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 176 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 189

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Co logne tourism statistics from 2000 20 10 ................................ ...................... 42 1 2 Principles and objectives of sustainable development ................................ ........ 43 2 1 Positive and negative e conomic impacts ................................ ............................ 82 2 2 Positive and negative environmental impacts ................................ ..................... 83 2 3 Positive and negative socio cultural impacts ................................ ...................... 84 2 4 Tourism impact / attitude themes identified from the literature ........................... 85 2 5 Comparison of life domains utilized in quality of life conceptualizatio n ............... 86 2 6 Comparison of PWI domains with the core domains identified in the literature .. 87 2 7 Single item measures of quality of life ................................ ................................ 87 3 1 Employment contributions by sectors ................................ ............................... 111 3 2 Employed persons subject to social insurance contributions 2008 ................... 111 3 3 Sampling of local residents based on population ................................ .............. 111 3 4 Data collection schedule ................................ ................................ ................... 112 3 5 Operationalization of tourism impacts ................................ ............................... 114 3 6 Operationalization of q uality of life ................................ ................................ .... 115 3 7 Operationalization of resident support for t ourism ................................ ............ 115 3 8 Goodness of fit indices for individual tourism impact dimensions ..................... 115 3 9 Factor loadings and parcel construction for tour ism impact dimensions ........... 116 3 10 Reliability analysis of tourism impacts ................................ .............................. 118 3 11 Factor loadings for personal quality of life ................................ ........................ 120 3 12 Reliability analysis of personal quality of life ................................ ..................... 120 3 13 Factor loadings for community quality of life ................................ ..................... 121 3 14 Reliability analysis of community quality of life ................................ ................. 121

PAGE 10

10 3 15 Reliability analysis of resident support for tourism ................................ ............ 122 3 16 Correlations among measurement constructs ................................ .................. 123 4 1 Demographic profile of participants ................................ ................................ .. 139 4 2 Descriptive statistics of tourism impacts ................................ ........................... 140 4 3 Descriptive statistics of personal quality of life ................................ .................. 143 4 4 Descriptive statistics of community quality of li fe ................................ .............. 144 4 5 Descriptive statistics of resident support for tourism ................................ ......... 145

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Roman city wall ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 39 1 2 Cologne Cathedral ................................ ................................ .............................. 39 1 3 Christmas market ................................ ................................ ............................... 39 1 4 Tanzbrunnen, popular location for open air events ................................ ............. 39 1 5 Theoretical conceptualization of tourism sustainability and quality of life ........... 40 1 6 Conceptual model of tourism impacts, quality of life and support for tourism ..... 41 3 1 Map of Germany highlighting Cologne. ................................ ........................... 108 3 2 Cologne transportation network ................................ ................................ ...... 108 3 3 Simple mediation model ................................ ................................ ................... 108 3 4 Proposed measurement model of tourism impacts, quality of life and support for tourism ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 109 3 5 Modified measurement model of tourism impacts, quality of life and support for tourism ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 110 4 1 Structural model of tourism impacts, quality of life, and support for tourism with standardized coefficients ................................ ................................ ........... 138

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Disser tation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy AN EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION OF PERCEIVED TOURISM IMPACTS ON RESIDENT QUALITY OF LIFE AN D SUPPORT FOR TOURISM IN COLOGNE GERMANY By Louisa Meyer May 2011 Chair: Brijesh Thapa Co chair: Lori Pennington Gray Major: Health and Human Performance The fundamental objective of tourism development lies in achieving a desirable quality of life fo r residents of host destinations by improving economic prosperity, while protecting cultural and natural resources. If residents perceive that tourism has a substantial role in the achievement of these goals, they will likely be supportive of development. Hence, the effects of perceived tourism impacts on both personal, and Cologne, Germany were examined. A theoretical model was conceptualized and empirically tested by applying a two stage structural equation modeling approach. A total of 633 residents of Cologne were sampled which constituted a response rate of 68%. Residents were asked to rate their level of agreement with tourism impacts based on the four dimensio ns of sustainability economic, environmental, socio cultural, and institutional. In addition, two measures of quality of life community and personal, and support for tourism were assessed. It was hypothesized that resident perceptions of tourism impacts wo uld affect community and personal quality of life, as well as support for tourism. Furthermore, it

PAGE 13

13 was postulated that quality of life would mediate the relationship between perceived impacts and support for tourism. Results identified that residents had o verall positive perceptions of tourism; were generally satisfied with their quality of life, and were supportive of tourism in Cologne. Based on the inclusion of both community and personal quality of life constructs although posi tive perceptions of tourism impacts were found to predict support for tourism, their relationship with resident quality of life may not be as straightforward as previously assumed. Moreover, perceived tourism impacts had varying effects on community and personal quality of life, and neither mediated the relationship between perceived tourism impacts and support for tourism. More specifically, resident perceptions of the institutional structure of Cologne and the socio cultural impacts of tourism had sign ificant direct effects on community quality of life; conversely, resident perceptions of economic and environmental impacts had significant direct effects on personal quality of life. Moreover, community quality of life had the strongest effect on personal quality of life. Additionally, a negative relationship existed between perceived environmental impacts and personal quality of life while perceptions of socio cultural tourism impacts and of institutional structure demonstrated weak indirect effects on pe rsonal quality of life mediated by community quality of life.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Over the last two decades, there has been a major paradigm shift from an economically driven development perspective to the concept of sustainable development, which off ers a more holistic framework, integrating economic, environmental, and socio cultural factors. By taking a more comprehensive perspective and recognizing the interactive linkages between society, economy, and the environment, a more balanced and harmoniou s quality of life can be achieved (Noll, 2002). The principles of sustainability have been found to be in congruence with the achievement and/or protection of a better quality of life in community development projects (Christensen, 1995). Community quality assessments range from purely economic measures, such as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP); economic measures combined with measurable objective indicators in both the natural and human realms, such as the Human Development Index or the Genuine Progress In dicator; to measures of subjective well being which assess respondents overall well being, happiness, or satisfaction with their lives (Vemuri & Costanza, 2005). Subjective evaluations of how residents feel about living in their community have been recogni zed as an appropriate measure of community quality and factors related to the community environment are directly relevant to personal quality of life (Marans & Mohai, 1991). d goal for the human species, and society organizes its many institutions to strive to attain should be) to maintain or increase the welfare and quality of life of th eir constituents (Costanza et al. 2007; Noll, 2002). In this vain, Rojas (2009) recently stated:

PAGE 15

15 governments, as well as from local and international organizations, to embra ce the of their constituents has been through tourism development. It has been argued that the fundamental objective of tourism development lies in achieving a desirable or improved quality of life for residents of the host destination by improving economic opportunity/prosperity and protecting cultural and natural resources (Ap, 19 92; Ap & Crompton, 1998; Bachleitner & Zins, 1999; McCool & Martin, 1994; McKool, Moisey & Nickerson, 2001; Murphy & Price, 200 4; Perdue, Long & Allen, 1990). While economic growth and job creation have been the driving force behind much tourism developmen t, negative economic, environmental, and socio cultural impacts of tourism have also been evident. Based on this recognition, many governments and organizations have adopted a sustainable tourism paradigm. By integrating the economic, environmental, and so cio cultural needs of the present tourists and host communities while protecting the needs of future generations, sustainable tourism aims to maximize the positive and minimize the negative impacts of tourism ( UNWTO 2004). Therefore, the aim of sustain able tourism development is to improve the quality of community life, and ultimately improve or maintain the personal well being of the community residents. The sustainable tourism literature has consistently highlighted the importance of local residents i n tourism development based on two overarching themes; the first is that stakeholder involvement is one of the fundamental principles of sustainable tourism

PAGE 16

16 (Byrd, 2007; Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Hardy, Beeton & Pearson, 2002, Nicholas, 2007); and secondly, t he receptiveness of local residents to visitors plays an important role in both visitor enjoyment and overall destination appeal (Ap, 1992, Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004). Therefore, resident support for tourism is extremely important for any community that se eks to utilize tourism as a part of their development strategy. Based on the interdependent relationship between tourists and the destinations visited, there have been a plethora of studies that have examined resident perceptions of tourism impacts (Andere ck, Valentine, Knopf & Vogt, 2005; Ap, 1990 & 1992; Ap & Crompton, 1993 & 1998; Bachleitner & Zins, 1999; Gu & Ryan, 2008; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Johnson, Snepenger & Akis, 1994; Jurowski, Uysal, & Williams 1997; King, Pizam & Milman 1993; Liu, She ldon & Var 1987; Liu & Var 1986; Milman & Pizam 1988); attitudes towards tourism (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003; Allen, Hafer, Long & Perdue, 1993; Allen, Long, Perdue & Kieselbach; 1988; Burns, 1996; Carmichael, Peppard & Boudreau, 1996 ; Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Gilbert & Clark 1997; Johnson, Snepenger, & Akis 1994; Jurowski & Uysal, 2004; Ko, 2002; Mason, 2000; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Lankford 1994; Lankford & Howard 1994; Lindberg & Johnson 1997; Perdue, Long & Allen 1987; Long, Perdue & Allen 1990; McCool & Martin 1994; Snaith and Haley 1995; Wang & Pfister, 2008), and support for tourism development (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Chen, 2001; Gursoy, Jurowski & Uysal, 2002; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Dyer, Gursoy, Sharma & Carter, 2007; Jurow ski, Uysal, & Williams, 1997; Ko and Stewart, 2002; Mason & Cheyne, 2000; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon 2009 ; Pennington Gray, 2005; Perdue et al., 1990; Perdue, Long & Kang, 1995; Shen & Cotrell, 2008; Yoon, Gursoy & Chen, 2001). While these studies play an important role

PAGE 17

17 in the monitoring and evaluation of tourism development, they can also be utilized as a vehicle to increase resident awareness and involvement in community development, as well as tourism planning. Tourism impact and attitude studie s list a litany of positive and negative effects that include but are not limited to : increased employment opportunities ; increased cost of living ; increase in traffic and pollution ; and loss of community character (Easterling, 2004). Researchers have strive n to identify impacts that cover all facets of sustainability in order to help communities successfully plan, manage, and monitor both positive and negative impacts of tourism, which inevitably aff quality of life. While the impact of tourism on life conditions such as population migration, income, employment, poverty, education, health care, and recreation as objective measures of quality of life have been undertaken (Crotts & Holland,1993; Perdue, Long & Gustke, 1991); the majority of tourism impact studies have utilized subjective evaluations of residents from the affected communities. Moreover based on existing research the link between tourism impacts and resident quality of life has been implicitly suggested rather than specifi cally investigated (Ap, 1992; Allen, Hafer, Long & Perdue, 1993; Andereck, Valentine, Knopf & Vogt, 2005; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Ap & Crompton, 1993; Bachleitner & Zins, 1999; Burns, 1996; Carmichael, 2006; Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Diedrich & Garcia Buades, 2008; Gilbert & Clark, 1997; Gu & Ryan, 2008; Gursoy, Jurowski & Uysal, 2002; Johnson, Snepenger & Akis, 1994; Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004; Lankford & Howard, 1994; Long, Perdue & Allen, 1990; McCool and Martin, 1994; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Socher, 1992; Vargas Sanchez, Plaza Mejia & Porras Bueno, 2008; Wang & Pfister, 2008 )

PAGE 18

18 However, there are a few notable exceptions which should be highlighted: Allen et al., (1988), Crotts and Holland (1993), Perdue, Long and Gustke (1991) and Ko and Stewart (2002) examined the impact of tourism development on resident quality of life or resident perceptions of community life based on community characteristics commonly found in quality of life literature. Moreover, based on an extensive literatu re review, there are presently only two known studies that have employed a multidimensional conceptualization of quality of life within the tourism literature (Kim, 2002; Emptaz Collomb, 2009). Furthermore, although tourism impact and attitudinal studies h ave been examined in various communities, there has been a major North American focus geographically, with growing interest in other regions globally ( Emptaz Collomb, 2009; Gilbert & Clark, 1997; Konstantinos & Vaughan, 2003; Mason & Cheyne, 2000; Moswete, 2009; Sheldon & Abenoja, 2001; Shen & Cotrell, 2008; Sirakaya, Teye & Sonmez, 2002; Soutar & McLeod, 1993; Yen & Kerstetter 2009). Moreover, studies have primarily focused on rural communities in the early stages of tourism development (Andereck & Vogt, 2 000; Emptaz Collomb, 2009; Jurowski et al., 1997; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Moswete, 2009; Perdue et al., 1990; Shen & Cottrell, 2008; Wang & Pfister, 2008). Generally, there has been a paucity of research with respect to to urism impact within an urban context and/or destinations in more mature stages of development (Chen, 2001; Diedrich & Garca Buades, 2008; Gilbert & Clark, 1997; Pennington Gray, 2005; Sheldon & Abenoja, 2001; Snaith & Haley, 1999). Similarly, much of the sustainable tourism literature has focused on natural or rural areas in developed nations or general development in less developed nations, while urban or developed environments often

PAGE 19

19 associated with mass tourism have been limited (Butler, 1990; Chen, 2001 ; that every place in the world is now a tourist destination for which the issue of obvious in pristine, natural areas, similar negative consequences exist in developed/urban settings (Hinch, 1996; 1998). For example, Swarbrooke (1999) laments the increasing pressure exerted on many historic towns and cities in Europe based on the rapid g rowth in tourist numbers due to a greater interest in cultural and historic forms of tourism. Although there is extensive literature on sustainable cities from (Hinch, 1 996). Cities have long been recognized as some of the most important types of tourist destinations that feature magnificent tangible and intangible assets (Law, 1993) however, urban tourism research has not reflected its degree of importance relative to ot her types of destinations (Edwards, Griffin & Hayllar, 2008; Gilbert & Clark, 1997). Therefore, this study seeks to contribute to the literature with an examination of wi thin a European context. More specifically the historic city of Cologne, Germany will provide the setting for this research. Tourism in Cologne Cologne is a cultural metropolis offering residents and visitors a wide ranging spectrum of sights and activitie s; including an extensive range of museums, theatres and musical events; many opportun ities for sports and recreation including a variety of professional sports teams; a lively restaurant, bar and club scene; extensive high street shopping, as well as man y smaller, individualized shops and boutiques. According to

PAGE 20

20 experienced firsthand. Cologne offers all the amenities of a metropolitan city, while retaining a friendly local atmosphere. In fact, Cologne is well known throughout Germany for its fun loving residents who exhibit their love of revelry annually in the Cologne is also known for its rich historic tie s to the Roman Empire and while well documented in the Rmisch Germanischen Museum, the footsteps of this ancient civilization can be found throughout the modern city in the form of R oman city walls, several city gates, roman aqueducts, and even roman roa ds spread throughout the city ( Figure 1 1). Cologne also has a long history as an important pilgrimage destination within Europe. In 1164, Archbishop Rainald von Dassel brought the relics of the three Magi to Cologne Cathedral (www.koelner dom.de). This e vent sparked the decision to build the famous Cologne cathedral with its twin spires; a magnificent piece of gothic architecture embedded with monumental historic, religious, and cultural significance, which is presently the most famous landmark of the are a ( Figure 1 2). The Cathedral is architecturally stunning and holds much interest for the local population as well as millions of national and international visitors who flock to behold this World Heritage Site every year. Present day Cologne is known as a cultural metropolis, both for its cultural history as well as the extremely lively modern cultural scene. The city offers a broad spectrum of social and cultural activities, as evidenced by more than 100 art galleries; 36 museums; an active theatre and music scene including permanent venues for major musicals, several orchestras, as well as numerous smaller local theatre and musical venues; while also featuring many annual cultural events such

PAGE 21

21 as Karneval, Christopher Street Day, lite rary festivals and the famous Christmas markets (Figures 1 3 and 1 4). Cologne is a mature tourism destination with wide appeal to all ages and types of travelers. The city has an international exhibition centre with over 50 international trade fairs and exhibitions annually, which draw a large segment of business travelers in addition to leisure travelers. According to the state tourism statistics, close to 2. 6 million tourist arrivals and 4. 6 million overnight stays were recorded in Cologne in 20 1 0 (www.koelntourismus.de). Cologne was the fifth most visited city in Germany in 20 10 based on visitor arrival statistics, outranked only by Berlin, Munich, Hamburg, and Frankfurt ( www. Reise M agazin.de March 17, 2011 ). Since 1994, visitor numbers steadily increased until 2008 when both visitor arrivals and overnight stays decreased for the first time in 14 years ( Table 1 1). The Cologne tourism board attribute d this decrease to the general e conomic climate (Kln Tourismus Jahresbilanz, February 2009). In addition, it could be stipulated that the record visitor numbers garnered in 2007 were partially due to the effects of the football (soccer) World Cup 2006 which was held in Germany with the Cologne region as one of the host sites. Overall, the city has experienced phenomenal growth in visitor arrivals over the last 1 6 years with an average annual increas e of 6 .3 % based on a 101 % overall increase in visitor arrivals ( Kln Tourismus Jahresbilanz en ). Moreover, Cologne most recently experienced a record increase in visitation of 10.7% from 2009 to 2010. Such extreme increase in visit ation has highlighted the city as a major destination, and more importantly positively affects the economy. However, the annual visitor numbers is in excess of twice the resident population, and hence it is vital to assess the perceived level of impact on

PAGE 22

22 resident receptiveness to visitors has been recognized as an important factor for both visitor enjoyment and overall destination appeal (Ap, 1992, Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004). Currently, residents of Cologne are known for their friendliness; however, this could change if the negative impacts of tourism begin to outweigh the benefits. and behaviors towards visitors as well as the overall tourism industry, which pose a threat to the sustainability of the industry. Research in numerous destinations has support for visitors as well as tourism de velopment (Andereck & Jurowski, 2006; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Dyer et al. 2007; Jurowski, Daniels & Pennington Gray, 2006; Jurowski, Uysal, and Williams, 1997; King, Pizam, and Milman, 1993; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Perdue et al., 1990; Snaith & Haley, 1995). In order to alleviate negative impacts, policy makers, destination marketing and management organizations need to be aware Cologne. It is acknowledge d that such related research is lacking in Cologne and much needed given that it is a mature destination with continued growth in visitor arrivals. In Cologne, the community vision for 2020 has committed the city to improve the quality of life in their com munity with sustainable urban development highlighted as a goal. In addition, the importance of greater involvement of residents in the planning and development of the city has been recognized (Klner Leitbild, 2020). Therefore, such evaluations of tourism development can be used to increase resident awareness and involvement in tourism planning in Cologne.

PAGE 23

23 Theoretical Foundation A variety of theoretical frameworks have been utilized to investigate resident impact and attitude studies over the years includi ng equity theory, growth machine theory, life cycle theory, power theory, social exchange theory, and most recently stakeholder theory (Easterling, 2004; Harrill, 2004). However, the predominant theory underlying resident attitude research has been social exchange theory, which evaluates the trade off between costs and benefits resulting from tourism development (Andereck et al. 2005; Ap, 1992). Recently, stakeholder theory has also garnered much attention as it emphasizes the necessity of community partic ipation in the process of tourism development (Byrd, 2007; Getz & Timur, 2004; Moswete, 2009; Nicholas, 2007). However, the larger the stakeholder pool becomes, the more difficult it becomes to be truly inclusive, representative, and to reach consensus in the decision making process (Hartz Karp & Briand, 2009). Moreover, it is generally those with stakes or political power that actively participate in the process and are able to exert the most influence (Hall, 2003; Joppe, 1996; Timothy, 2002). Moreover, Ha rtz Karp and Briand (2009) noted that public involvement in large cities requires many well organized public events, which are currently not very prevalent, and even when they are of a high quality, they do not easily translate to social or political chang e. However, Choi and Sirakaya (2005) existing conceptual frameworks on tourism planning and development by making the alance between the traditional utility paradigm and its deri vative, social exchange theory and the new employed as the conceptual framework for this study.

PAGE 24

24 Sustainable t ourism has indeed garnered much attention over the past years; the concept likely emerged as both a reactive response to negative impacts of tourism, as well as a proactive orientation based on the increased awareness to the importance of a more holistic o utlook due to the general sustainability discourse (Murphy & Price, 2005). The recent increase in environmental awareness by the public, coupled with a decade of identifying numerous serious pollution problems, and a rapidly growing world population, has l ed to global discussions regarding sustainable development (Hardy, Beeton & Pearson, 2002; Saarinen, 2006). Similar to the paradigm shift towards sustainability in the general development discourse, there has been a parallel movement within the tourism ind ustry towards more sustainable tourism practices. Jafari (1989) suggested tourism development has moved through four platforms that range from advocacy (initial support), to cautionary (questioned due to negative impacts), to adaptancy (alternative or more responsible), and finally to knowledge based which embraces the principles and objectives of sustainability. There is a general agreement that sustainable tourism development should be firmly grounded within the tenets of sustainable development (Miller & Twining Ward, 2005; Sharpley, 2000; Swarbrooke, 1999; UNEP, 2003); which challenged the assumption that the natural environment is an unlimited resource, capable of withstanding endless human consumption and pollution in the name of progress (Hardy, Beeto n & Pearson, 2002). Based on the Brundtland report published by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in 1987, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs defines sustainable development as needs of the present without compromising the ability for

PAGE 25

25 frequently cited definition of sustainable development, there are a myriad of interpretations and explanations with no clear agreement on an ultimate definition (Butler, 1998; Sharpley, 2000). Nonetheless, Sharpley concisely expressed the elemental principles underlying sustainability as having an equitable, holistic, and long term approach ( Table 1 2) which inevitably are the same principles underlying sustainable tourism development. Definition of S ustainable T ourism Early work on sustainable tourism was marred by the lack of a clear consensus with respect to its definition (Goodall & Stabler, 1997; Hall & Lew, 1998; Hunter, 1997). However, since then the profound interest in the subject has lead to much debate as illustrated by the proliferation of books on sustainable tourism (see Hall & Brown, 2006; Harris, Griffon & Williams, 2002; Stabler, 1997; Swarbro oke, 1999; Weaver, 2006), as well as a peer refereed academic journal (Journal of Sustainable Tourism). However, the most encompassing and widely accepted definition of sustainable tourism development was put forth by the World Tourism Organization ( UNW TO ): Sustainable tourism development guidelines and management practices are applicable to all forms of tourism in all types of destinations, including mass tourism and the various niche tourism segments. Sustainability principles refer to the environmenta l, economic and socio cultural aspects of tourism development, and a suitable balance must be established between these three dimensions to guarant ee its long term sustainability ( UNWTO 2004). More specifically, the importance and interdependency betw een environmental, socio cultural, and economic spheres are highlighted: 1. Make optimal use of environmental resources that constitute a key element in tourism development, maintaining essential ecological processes and helping to conserve natural heritage and biodiversity.

PAGE 26

26 2. Respect the socio cultural authenticity of host communities, conserve their built and living cultural heritage and traditional values, and contribute to inter cultural understanding and tolerance. 3. Ensure viable, long term economic operati ons, providing socio economic benefits to all stakeholders that are fairly distributed, including stable employment and income earning opportunities and social services to host communities, and contributing to poverty all eviation ( UNWTO 2004). The defi nition further emphasizes the role of political leadership and stakeholder participation in the development process while also addressing tourist education and satisfaction: Sustainable tourism development requires the informed participation of all relevan t stakeholders, as well as strong political leadership to ensure wide participation and consensus building. Achieving sustainable tourism is a continuous process and it requires constant monitoring of impacts, introducing the necessary preventive and/or co rrective measures whenever necessary. Sustainable tourism should also maintain a high level of tourist satisfaction and ensure a meaningful experience to the tourists, raising their awareness about sustainability issues and promoting sustainable tourism pr actices amongst them ( UNWTO 2004). Dimensions of Sustainability Based on early indicator development work by the United Nations Development environmental, and socio cultural dim of sustainability (Murphy & Price, 2005). While economic growth has historically been the cornerstone of development, and is still a vital aspect of sustainable development, environmental, and socio cultural facets have become essential features of the development process in recent years (Miller & Twining Ward, 2005). The recognition of environmental constraints to development based on resource limitations have led to the inclusion of environmental concerns w ithin the development theory, but were also the driving force behind sustainability (Sharpley, 2000). While the socio cultural dimension

PAGE 27

27 recognizes the impact human actions have on the environment (e.g., population increase and high consumption levels), th e quality of human life has also become an important facet of sustainability. These three dimensions are not mutually exclusive and must be viewed as intertwined aspects of one concept that influences each other (Swarbrooke, 1999 ; Nicholas & Thapa, 2009 ). Several institutions such as the World Bank and the Organization for Cooperation and Development (OECD) have advocated for the inclusion of an institutional dimension in order to incorporate essential societal and cultural elements of Agenda 21 (Spannenber g, 2002). Furthermore, the difficulty of realizing the goals of sustainability without an adequate institutional system or political vehicle to plan, implement, and manage the objectives of sustainability has also been recognized (Valentin & Spangenberg, 2 000, 2002; 2007; Cottrell, Vaske, Shen & Ritter, 2007). Spannenberg (2007) denotes that although the institutional dimension has been addressed in most sustainable development as equality, justice (including gender), and human rights are considered not as constitutive to sust ainable development but as part of the governance process created by the political system that enable or hinder the attainment of a better quality of life within a s ustainable paradigm. However, while the institutional dimension has yet to be widely accepted in the general discourse of sustainable development, it is an essential component of the sustainable development paradigm (Spannenberg, 2007)

PAGE 28

28 and further integrat es level of public involvement in to the level of political governance by emphasizing a participatory decision making process. Sustainable Development and Quality of Life The link between sustainable development and quality of life has been implicitly assumed in much of the sustainable development literature (Asheim, 1999; Massam, 2002; Moran, Wackernagel, Kitzes, Goldfinger & Boutaud, 2008; Portney, 2003). There are a few examples in which the connection between the two concepts has been more explicitl e, 2007 ; Miller & Twinning Ward, 2005; Noll, 2002; Patterson, Gulden, Cousins & Kraev, 2004; Vlek, Skolnik & Gatersleben, 1998). For example, it has been noted that sustainability is about maintaining our valued quality of life wh ile being aware of the impact on the world at large (Miller & Twinning Ward the prospect of increasing quality of life has been the driving force for local development, while in the past primarily achieved through economic growth. However, most resource respect sustainable qual Based on the aforementioned importance given to sustainable development by local, regional, national and international organizations and the subsequent political come the dominant

PAGE 29

29 posited that the fundamental goal of sustainable development, and hence the ultimate goal of most governments is to increase the quality of life for pre sent and future generations (Costanza et al. 2007; Noll, 2002; Rojas, 2009). This fundamental objective is clearly denoted in official policy documents that describe goals and objectives (e.g., policy guidelines, principles, or overall goal statements) of international organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union. For instance, based on an assessment of the UN Millennium Development Goals that were adopted by 189 nations in 2000, (addressing issues of poverty, education, gender equality, greatest development challenges and the underlying goal of improving quality of life for all people were clearly identified. More explicitly, in the United Nations Rio D eclaration on Environment and Development, principle 1 addressed the centrality of human beings to sustainable fically addressed the ries & Petersen maintaining a quality of life for a given (human) population has consequences which impair the

PAGE 30

30 options for developing and/or maintaining an aspired quality of life, later and/or Sustainable Tourism and Quality of Life It has been note 1992 as summarized by Ko, 2005, p. 433). A true sense of the importance of this statement can be garnered by the identification of host population quality of life amongst the objectives adopted in the charter of sustainable tourism by the United Nations General Assembly (Miller & Twining Ward, 2005). Furthermore, the European tainability Group also specifically addressed community well being in their guidelines for sustainable tourism: To maintain and strengthen the quality of life in local communities including social structures and access to resources, amenities, life suppor t systems, avoiding any form of soc ial degradation or exploitation (Notarstefano, 2007, p. 47). Notarstefano recognized that the current challenge for the tourism industry is to remain competitive while embracing the principles of sustainability but more importantly achieve competitive and sustainable tourism the European Commission suggested several principles which included a holistic and integrated approach, lon g term planning, involvement of all stakeholders, as well as an appropriate rhythm and pace of development which reflects the character, resources and needs of host communities and destinations. The scale and intensity of tourism development should be dete rmined by local characteristics and focus on local community needs as the most important aspect is the improvement of resident quality of life (Miller & Twining Ward, 2005).

PAGE 31

31 A majority of the tourism impacts and concerns has been taken into consideration i n the conceptualization, planning, and development of sustainable forms of tourism, and are reflected in the formulation of sustainable indicators (Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Miller & Twining Ward, 2005; UNWTO 2004). It is inherent that the principles of s ustainable tourism and the achievement of sustainable destinations would add to the overall quality of life of residents by minimizing the negative and maximizing the positive impacts. Based on the previous discussion, a conceptual framework within the con text of the four dimensions (institutional, socio cultural, economic, and environmental) of sustainability and quality of life is formulated and were employed as the basis for this study ( Figure 1 5). Statement of Problem Between 1994 and 2007, Colo gne experienced a 93% increase in visitors. Although the visitor numbers decreased slightly in 2008 for the first time in 14 years, the overall visitor increase since 1994 was still an astounding 85%. With almost 2.4 million visitors in 2008, the number of annual visitors is presently more than double the number of residents and the local community will undoubtedly feel some associated tourism impacts. While some effects may be more obvious in nature, such as the EUR 5.5 billion total revenue created by Tou rism in Cologne during 2008 (Kln Tourismus Jahresbilanz February 2009); it is imperative to ensure that economic benefits are not offset by adverse environmental or socio cultural impacts due to ever increasing numbers of visitors (Archer & Cooper, 2001). The long term consequences of such a rapidly increasing volume of visitors must be monitored and managed in order to balance the needs and welfare of the tourist and the host community. An import ant planners, city managers, and

PAGE 32

32 mitigate any negative consequences perceived by the community. Hence, it is vital to assess the perceived level of impact such a high volume of visitors has on the quality of life of local residents and their current level of support for tourism. There are a plethora of studies that have examined resident perceptions of tourism impacts in which the term quality of life has been used interchange ably with that of resident attitudes or perceived impacts, and hence the term has been utilized as an expression to encompass all of the perceived impacts attributed to tourism. While some impact and attitudinal scales utilized in the tourism literature ha ve included a quality of life item or two, the operationalization of quality of life as a distinct construct (covering the core domains identified within the quality of life literature in disciplines such as economics, sociology, and social psychology) is lacking. Hence, there is a paucity of a concept (Benckendorff et al., 2009; Carmichael, 2006; Crouch & Ritchie, 1999; Perdue et al., 1999; Urtasun & Gutierrez, 2006). The awareness of resident perceptions of tourism impacts is vital for any tourism development to be truly sustainable. However, in order to make inferences to resident quality of life based on those perceived impacts, it is imperative to understand the relationships between the perceived impacts and resident quality of life rather than grouping all impacts under the general rubric of quality of life. In a study which focuses specifically on tou rism impacts and resident quality of life, Andereck, Valentine, Vogt and Knopf (2007) stated that: the difference between QOL and attitude/impact studies is essentially one of measurement: attitude/impact studies largely focus on the way in which

PAGE 33

33 tourism is perceived to affect the communities and the environment, whereas QOL studies are typically concerned with the way these impacts affect individual or family life satisfaction, including satisfaction with community, neighborhood and personal satisfaction (p. 484 ). While the focus of measurement certainly seems valid and was addressed in this study (by employing a community quality of life measure as well as a personal quality of life measure), the overarching difference between quality of life stud ies and tourism impact / attitude studies appears to be due to conceptualization and operationalization. Although quality of life has been conceptualized as a multidimensional concept (Cummins, 2005; Hagerty, Cummins, Ferriss, Land, Michalos, Peterson, Sha rpe, Sirgy, & Vogel, 2001; Sirgy, Michalos, Ferriss, Easterlin, Patrick, & Pavot, 2006), such an operationalization has been generally lacking within the tourism literature. There are a few notable exceptions which should be highlighted: Allen et a l., (1988), Crotts and Holland (1993), Perdue et al., (1991), and Ko and Stewart (2002), examined the impact of tourism development on resident quality of life or resident perceptions of community life based on community characteristics commonly found in quality of life literature. However based on an exhaustive literature review, the direct effect of perceived tourism impacts on resident quality of life operationalized as a multidimensional construct has onl y been examined by two known authors to date : Kim (2002) and Emptaz Collomb (2009) While Kim documented significant positive effects between specific tourism impact dimensions and specific quality of life dimensions, tourism impacts were not shown to have a significant impact on overall quality of life in the state of Virginia. Similarly, in a study of nature conservancy residents in rural Namibia, Emptaz Collomb (2009) found that the positive effects of tourism were limited to certain quality of li fe domains and restricted to households involved in tourism. Interestingly, Emptaz Collomb

PAGE 34

34 issues; which highlights the importance of includ ing an institutional dimension within the sustainability framework (Spannenberg, 2007) Furthermore, as resident support for tourism has been recognized as a fundamental requirement within the sustainable tourism paradigm, it will serve as the dependent va riable for this study (see Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Dyer et al. 2007; Gursoy et al. 2002; Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Perdue et al. 1990). Contribution of Study The present study seeks to contribute to the current academic body of k nowledge community quality of life and the ensuing support for tourism. The paucity of research a concept, and the lack of confidence in quality of life operationalization within the tourism literature has been noted by researchers (Benckendorff et al., 2009; Carmichael, 2006; Crouch & Ritchie, 1999; P erdue et al., 1999; Urtasun & Gutierrez, 2006). Furthermore, while most scholars have segmented tourism impacts within the economic, environmental and socio cultural dimensions of sustainability, there has been inconsistency in the dimension s that result from confirmatory/exploratory factor analysis in empirical studies (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Ap & Crompton, 1998). Therefore, the main contribution of this research is to examine the relationship between the conceptualized dimensions of perceiv ed tourism impacts (economic, environmental, socio cultural, and institutional community quality of life.

PAGE 35

35 Secondly, much of the tourism literature on sustainability and r esident attitudes and or impacts has focused on natural or rural areas in developed nations or general development in less developed nations, while developed, urban or more mature destinations often associated with mass tourism have been limited (Butler, 1 990; Chen, 2001; Diedrich & Garca Buades, 2008; Gilbert & Clark, 1997; Hinch, 1996; Pennington Gray, 2005; Sheldon & Abenoja, 2001; Snaith & Haley, 1999). Therefore, this study seeks to respond to the gap in the literature by investigating tourism impacts within a developed and urban environment. The third contribution of this study is to examine tourism impacts on resident quality of life within a European context as the majority of related research have focused on North America. More specifically, the hi storic city of Cologne in Germany has been identified as a mature, urban tourism destination and serve d as the study site. Fourthly, from a practical standpoint, empirical findings with respect to tourism impacts as perceived by Cologne resi dents, the ir effect on resident and community quality of life, and subsequent resident support for tourism may provide an important component for future tourism development planning and management. With the number of annual visitors that is presently more than double the number of residents, the local community undoubtedly experiences varying degrees of associated impacts. Moreover, in a recent citywide meeting regarding Agenda 21 and the sustainability of Cologne there was a call to further institutionalize the principles and aims of sustainability into the political agenda; to increase the dialog between city leaders and residents, as well as a call for greater transparency (Kln Agenda, June, 2009). Hence, as tourism is an

PAGE 36

36 integrated function of the urban envi ronment, the overarching sustainable development policies of the city of Cologne will also benefit from this research. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to examine resident perceptions of tourism impacts in the city of Cologne, the effect of th ose impacts on resident quality of life, and subsequent support for tourism. Figure 1 6 represents the proposed conceptual model that illustrates the hypothesized relationships between key variables in this research. The model proposes both direct and indi rect relationships between the exogenous variables (perceived tourism impacts: economic, environmental, socio cultural and institutional) and the endogenous variables (community quality of life, personal quality of life, and support for tourism). Quality o f life (personal and community) is hypothesized to be a mediating variable, which may be both a cause and effect variable. Based on previous literature, the following hypotheses are formulated and were empirically tested: I. Economic Impacts H1a. There is a direct relationship between perceived economic impacts and resident support for tourism. H1b. There is an indirect relationship between perceived economic impacts and resident support for tourism mediated by community quality of life. H1c. There is an indirect rela tionship between perceived economic impacts and resident support for tourism mediated by personal quality of life. H1d. There is a direct relationship between perceived economic impacts and community quality of life. H1e. There is a direct relationship between perce ived economic impacts and personal quality of life. II. Environmental impacts H2a. There is a direct relationship between perceived environmental impacts and resident support for tourism.

PAGE 37

37 H2b. There is an indirect relationship between perceived environmental impacts and resident support for tourism mediated by community quality of life. H2c. There is an indirect relationship between perceived environmental impacts and resident support for tourism mediated by personal quality of life. H2d. There is a direct relationship between per ceived environmental impacts and community quality of life. H2e. There is a direct relationship between perceived environmental impacts and personal quality of life. III. Socio cultural Impacts H3a. There is a direct relationship between perceived socio cultural impacts and resident support for tourism. H3b. There is an indirect relationship between perceived socio cultural impacts and resident support for tourism mediated by community quality of life. H3c. There is an indirect relationship between perceived socio cultural impacts and resident support for tourism mediated by personal quality of life. H3d. There is a direct relationship between perceived socio cultural impacts and community quality of life. H3e. There is a direct relationship between perceived socio cultural impacts and person al quality of life. IV. Institutional Structure H4a. There is a direct relationship between perceived institutional structure and resident support for tourism. H4b. There is an indirect relationship between perceived institutional structure and resident support for tour ism mediated by community quality of life. H4c. There is an indirect relationship between perceived institutional structure and resident support for tourism mediated by personal quality of life. H4d. There is a direct relationship between perceived institutional str ucture and community quality of life. H4e. There is a direct relationship between perceived institutional structure and personal quality of life.

PAGE 38

38 V. Quality of Life H5. There is a direct relationship between community quality of life and personal quality of life.

PAGE 39

39 Figure 1 1. Roman city wall (Source: http://www.smart travel germany.com/image files/colognecitywall_large.jpg last accessed Sept. 16, 2010) Figure 1 2. Cologne Cathedral (Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi kipedia/commons/7/78/Koelne r_Dom.jpg last accessed Sept. 16, 2010) Figure 1 3. Christmas market (Source: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/1 1/14/article 1227769 07317A62000005DC 865_468x328.jpg last accessed Sept. 16, 2010) Figure 1 4. Tanzbrunnen, popular location f or open air events (Source: http://www.koeln deutz.de/images/freizeit/37_Koeln Kongress Tanzbrunnen OpenAir 02.jpg last accessed Sept. 17, 2010)

PAGE 40

40 Figure 1 5 Theoretical conceptualization of tourism sustainability and quality of life

PAGE 41

41 Figure 1 6 Conceptual model of tourism impacts, quality of life and support for tourism

PAGE 42

42 Table 1 1. Cologne tourism statistics from 2000 20 10 Year Visitor arrival s a Overnight stays a 2010 2,595,360 4,574,449 2009 2,343,504 4,133,244 2008 2,384,775 4,308,701 2007 2,487,251 4,480,211 2006 2,423,256 4,382,428 2005 2,329,055 4,211,579 2004 2,128,686 3,850,084 2003 1,876,084 3,427,350 2002 1,825,850 3,300,456 2001 1,796,904 3,257,918 2000 1,739,282 3,065,611 1999 1,686,806 2,959,002 1998 1,614,875 2,809,365 1997 1,521,544 2,734,271 1996 b 1,449,942 2,665,588 1995 1,363,291 2,622,860 1994 1,290,842 2,421,669 Percent change between 2000 20 10 + 49 % + 4 9 % 1994 20 10 + 101 % + 89 % a Source: Landesdatenbank NRW ; b Date of World Heritage Inscription, Cologne Cathedral

PAGE 43

43 Table 1 2 Principles and objectives of sustainable development Fundamental principles Holistic approach : devel opment and environmental issues integrated within a global social (political, socioeconomic and ecological context a ) Futurity : focus on long term capacity for continuance of the global ecosystem Equity : development that is fair and equitable and which provides opportunities for access to and use of resources for all members of all societies, both in the present and future Development objectives Improvement of the quality of life for all people: education, life expectancy, opportunities to fulfill pote ntial Satisfaction of basic needs; concentration on the nature of what is provided rather than income Self reliance: political freedom and local decision making for local needs Endogenous development Sustainability objectives Sustainable population levels Minimal depletion of non renewable natural resources Sustainable use of renewable resources Pollution emissions within the assimilative capacity of the environment Requirements for sustainable development Adoption of a new social paradigm r elevant to sustainable living International and national political and economic systems dedicated to equitable development and resource use Technological systems that can search continuously for new solutions to environmental problems Global alliance facilitating integrated development policies at local, national and international levels Source: Sharpley (2000, p. 8 Reprinted with permission from Channel View Publications ) ; a Parenthesis added by author due to incomp lete sentence in the original, a d dition made with reference to the original text

PAGE 44

44 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The literature review is based on the conceptual model and hence four areas are addressed: resident perceptions of tourism impacts including the economic, environmenta l, socio cultural, and institutional dimensions; quality of life; the connection between perceived tourism impacts and quality of life; and resident support for tourism. Resident Perceptions of Tourism Impacts Historical Background The seminal works by Dox ey (1975) and Butler (1980) have led to a better responses to different stages of to addressed community response to tourism development and postulated that residents progress through four stages, beginning with euphoria in the early phase, then moving from apathy to annoyance, and then possi bly to antagonism towards tourists as the destination experiences increased visitation along with the cumulative effect of development. Doxey (1975) noted that the irritation with rapid or unplanned p.198) voiced by both residents and visitors alike. destinations over time, and described basic stages of destination development based on the product lifecycle concept. Butl er proposed that initially a lack of access, facilities, and local knowledge limit initial exploration to a few adventurous visitors. With growth in awareness and popularity of the destination coupled with the gradual involvement of the

PAGE 45

45 community to provid e visitor facilities often leads to rapid development that result in initial social and environmental pressures. As the negative impacts increase and the decline. Ove rall, the destination reaches the consolidation stage, which is marked by the presence of major international chains and franchises that cater to tourists. The destination marketing organizations seek to increase visitor numbers and extend the season, whil However, additional negative impacts are experienced by resident population and general resentment is evident at this stage. Once the destination reaches a stagnation point the original att ractiveness of the area has likely been lost, while social and environmental carrying capacities have been reached or exceeded, and the popularity of the area has waned. At this point, a destination can either decline or the community can intervene and rejuvenate itself. The model has been criticized for its simplicity (Haywood, 1986; Wall 1982), and while Butler (2005) himself recognized that the model is generalized and essentially simplistic, it remains a core tourism development theory as destination s have experienced this evolution of change. The early contributions of 1979) tourist typologies and experiences sought are key studies from the demand side of tourism, while Plog also used the idea of a destination life cycle, Doxey (1975) and Butler (1980) also offer compliment ary work to assess community impacts from the supply side of tourism. Collectively, these early works offer a foundation to understand the tourism phenomenon from both demand and supply perspe ctives.

PAGE 46

46 Tourism Development Tourism has been examined and defined from a demand and supply side and definitions have varied, however, an encompassing and inclusive definition was offered by Goeldner and Ritchie (2006) who state: tourism may be defined as the processes, activities and outcomes arising from the relationships and the interactions among tourists, tourism suppliers, host governments, host communities, and surrounding environments that are involved in the attracting and hosting of visitors ( p. 5). This definition is broad and inclusive, giving one a sense of the range of participants involved in the tourism phenomena. However, travel and tourism is an experience greater than the sum of its parts: it is more than just tr ansportation, accommodation, and other such hospitality services; it is more than the eating, drinking, sightseeing, shopping, and any myriad of activities and forms of entertainment sought by the tourists. The quality of the tourism experience depends on the tangible and intangible aspects of the environment in which any of the above activities take place: including cultural, natural, and built environments (Goeldner & Ritchie, 2006). In fact, Carmichael (2006) dliness of local people, the language spoken, family structures, occupations, urban layout, population density, poverty levels, and experiences for residents and visitors ali ke. It has been argued that the fundamental objective of tourism development lies in achieving a desirable or improved quality of life for residents of the host destination by improving economic opportunity / prosperity and protecting cultural and natural resources (Ap, 1992; Ap & Crompton, 1998; Bachleitner & Zins, 1999; McCool & Martin, 1994; McKool, Moisey & Nickerson, 2001; Murphy & Price, 2004; Perdue et al. 1990).

PAGE 47

47 As such, tourism has been consistently promoted as a development tool by a wide range of national and international development institutions over the years (Hawkins & Mann, 2007) and sizeable financial development assistance has been given to global tourism development since the 1970s (Lindberg, Molstad, Hawkins, & Jamieson 2001) likely based on the anticipated economic impact and ensuing expectations of a higher quality of life (Andereck & Jurowski, 2006; Ap & Crompton; 1998; Jurowski et al. 2006). While economic growth and job creation have bee n the driving force behind much tourism development, negative economic, environmental, and socio cultural impacts of tourism have also been evident. Based on this recognition, many governments and organizations have adopted a sustainable tourism paradigm. By integrating the economic, environmental, and socio cultural needs of the present tourists and host communities while protecting the needs of future generations, sustainable tourism aims to maximize the positive and minimize the negative impacts of touri sm ( UNWTO 2004). Although it is imperative to view the dimensions of sustainability as inextricably intertwined, tourism impacts have been discussed in terms of the traditional three pillars of sustainability. Hence, the following section will discuss the economic, environmental, and socio cultural aspects of sustainability within a tourism context in order to gain a better understanding of the current body of knowledge regarding tourism impacts as perceived by community residents. Economic dimension Tr aditionally, international tourist arrivals and receipts are utilized to assess the overall economic impacts of tourism (Hawkins & Mann, 2007). Global international arrivals have increased from 25 million in 1950 to an estimated 924 million in 2008, and a continued long term annual growth rate of about 4% is expected until 2020 (UNWTO,

PAGE 48

48 2009). Concurrently, since 2004 there has also been a substantial growth in international tourism receipts with an annual increase of 5.6% in 2006 2007. In monetary terms, th e overall export income generated by international arrivals translates into almost US$ 3 billion a day (UNWTO, 2009). Based on such figures, it has been widely accepted by many local, regional, and national communities that tourism can have significant pos itive economic impacts through both direct (i.e. foreign exchange earnings) and multiplier effects in income and employment (Vanhove, 2005). While tourism has certainly felt the effects of the current economic crisis, tourism is expected to be a significan t part of the recovery process. For example, the UNWTO Secretary as a sector with a unique resurgence capacity and an immense potential in terms of employment creati Economic impact assessments: There has been a surge of economic impact assessments of tourism to demonstrate that local communities and particularly governmental entities accrue the net economic benefits of tourism. Ty rell and Johnston (2006) explain economic impact analysis as the tracking and measuring of cumulative monetary payments as they move through a regional economy i.e., a measure of economic activity or income. A popular economic analysis tool used in tourism development planning is the cost benefit analysis, which estimates net economic benefits of proposed projects (Tyrell & Johnston ). However, criticisms of such economic impact assessments have been voiced based on the validity and appropriate ness of some studies. Crompton (2006) argues that such studies have been used with the aim of legitimizing a predetermined political position rather than being utilized for impartial

PAGE 49

49 decision making. Partially motivated by a desire for standardized, compar able reports, but also as a mechanism to increase the international recognition of tourism as an important industry, the World Tourism Organization and the United Nations has promoted the use of tourism satellite accounting (TSA). Tyrell and Johnston (20 06) residential expenditures on tourism at home, capital investments by governments in p.6). While not explored in detail here, there are many more instruments at hand which are frequently utilized to measure the economic impact of tourism at national, regional, and local levels. Although tourism obviously has the ability to create positive economic benefits for host communities, there are underlying international political and social structures that influence the realization of such benefits. Furthermore, there has been recent criticism that economic development based on free market principl es does not adequately reflect the environmental costs of production and consumption (Holden, 2008). Nevertheless, tourism has been promoted by local, regional, national and international organizations as a positive economic development tool resulting in economic growth through increased investment, development, infrastructure spending, and employment opportunities, resulting in increased income, gross national product and standard of living (Goeldner & Ritchie, 2006; Easterling, 2004). Therefore, many stu dies have investigated the perceptions of tourism related economic impacts over the years (Table 2 1) and have indeed documented positive perceptions such as increased employment ( Ap & Crom pton, 1998; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Carmichael et al., 1996 ; Faulkner &

PAGE 50

50 Tideswell, 1997; Gilbert & Clark 1997; Johnson et al., 1994; Liu & Var, 1986; Milman & Pizam, 1988); increased standard of living ( Akis et al., 1996; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Gilbert & Clark 1997; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996 ; Johnson et al. 1994; Liu & Var, 1986; Long et al.,1990; Pizam, 1978 ); enhanced investment, development, and infrastructure ( Akis et al., 1996 ; Ap & Crom pton, 1998; Sharpley, 1994); increased economic growth (Perdue et al., 1990; Sheldon & Var, 1984); and improved econo mic quality of life ( McCool & Martin 1994; Perdue et al., 1990) Unfortunately, negative economic impacts of tourism development such as increased cost of living, inflation, seasonality of employment, as well as unequal distribution of economic development benefits ( Akis et al., 1996; Carmichael et al., 1996; Easterling, 2004; Faulkner & Tideswell, 1997; Goeldner & Ritchie, 2006; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996 ; Liu et al., 1987; Long et al., 1990 ; Perdue et al.,1987; Pizam, 1978; Ross, 1 992; Vanhove, 2005; Var et al., 1985 ). In order to make tourism a successful element of economic development it is very important that the benefits outweigh the costs in the eyes of the community. Therefore, the economic success of tourism development depe nds on several issues: the amount of tourist expenditures retained within the local community rather than being subject to leakage the minimization of leakages that do occur the level and quality of employment generation the equitable opportunity for enter prise generation the equitable distribution of benefits (Source: Holden, 2008; Nichols, 2006)

PAGE 51

51 Many of these concerns have been addressed with the recent focus on sustainable community development approaches. Ideally, such participatory developments not on ly empowers the local community, but an emphasis on social needs as an integral component of economic development can create more opportunities and results in a more balanced distribution of benefits (Tosun, 2006). Although participatory approaches are not without problems, they have focused the discussion towards integrating the disparate social and political power structures inherent in any community. Environmental dimension Environmental sustainability addresses the preservation and management of natural resources, particularly non renewable resources that are critical in terms of life support functions. These include but are not limited to natural resources such as air, water, land, fauna, and flora as well as all natural and built physical environments i.e., natural landscapes such as coastlines, mountains, forests and built landscapes such as villages, towns, and cultivated or farmed land (UNEP & UNWTO 2005; Nicholas 2007). The orientation towards natural resources is highly dependent on social valu es. Greenwood (2006) highlighted two perspectives with respect to environmental resource sustainability. The first is based on neoclassical economic ideas of limits that advocates resource use to maximize human welfare over time (very weak sustainability); while the second is grounded in ecology and promotes resource preservation based on environment oriented ideas of limits (very strong sustainability) with emphasis on intrinsic values. Different cultures have diverse orientations towards nature; some of t he criticisms of mainstream western development are based on the preoccupation of wealth creation, which historically have little regard for harmful environmental effects

PAGE 52

52 (Castro, 2004). However, due largely to the environmental movement and the subsequent sustainability discourse, the environmental effects of many industries have now been recognized (Murphy & Price, 2005). It has been acknowledged that negative environmental impacts of tourism occur when visitor levels exceed environmental carrying capacit y limits (Table 2 2 for documented environmental impacts within the tourism literature). While sustainable development does not apply absolute limits, it organization on environm ental resources and by the ability of the biosphere to absorb Tourism can place considerable pressure and even cause degradation of the physical environment; disruption to wildlife; exert strain on host communities; compete for the use of scarce resources such as land and water; and make significant contributions to local and global pollution (UNEP & UNWTO 2005; Holden, 2008). While many of the environmental impacts can be related to infrastructure d evelopment (transportation networks and tourism facilities), actual tourist behaviors can also have a major impact. However, if not monitored and managed appropriately, the negative impacts of tourism development will threaten the viability of tourism itse lf by destroying the very assets it relies upon (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; Glasson, Godfrey & Goodey, 1995; Inskeep, 1991; McCool, 1995; Neto, 2003; Plog, 1974; UNEP & UNWTO 2005). Thus, it is in tourisms own self interest to preserve natural resources as it dependent on those assets as an industry. Moreover, tourism also has the potential to play a positive role in environmental protection, although the benefits of tourism refer to the protection of natural resources from more damaging forms of human beha vior

PAGE 53

53 (Holden, 2008), particularly in rural areas and/or developing nations. By providing additional or alternative forms of livelihood to host communities via tourism development (which relies on natural resources to a great extent), the economic value of the environment increases and local communities have direct incentives to protect it. Indeed, tourism can provide direct economic revenues to help finance the protection of natural resources through avenues such as entrance fees, excursion fees, or lodging taxes (McKercher & du Cros, 2002). Socio cultural dimension One of the challenges currently facing the tourism industry is the homogenization of destinations. If the intangible aspects of communities such as heritage, culture, and lifestyle are not protec ted, the very attraction on which much of the success of the tourism industry is based will be lost (Swarbrooke, 1994). It is important to protect both the tangible and intangible socio cultural aspects of communities at all levels from a product different iation as well as a human rights perspective. Tourists affect communities by their mere presence and the type of impact is dictated partially by volume, type of visitor, their conduct, and the interpersonal relations with the host community (Butler, 1975, as cited in Carmichael, 2006; Cohen, 1988; Freestone & Gibson, 2004; Goeldner & Ritchie, 2006; Shackley, 1999; Urry, 1990). In addition, any given impact may be perceived as either positive or negative by different community members (Goeldner & Ritchie, 20 06). However, several social problems have been identified in the literature, such as: erosion of social fabric within communities; loss of community character; increased intergenerational conflict; change in family structures; increased crime, prostitutio n and gambling; commercialization, modification, and exploitation of culture, religion, and the arts, and loss of authenticity (Easterling, 2004;

PAGE 54

54 Goeldner & Ritchie, 2006; Shackley, 1999). From this list, it is evident that tourism has the power to influen ce behaviors and value systems to the detriment of the host community. Conversely, tourism can engender positive socio cultural impacts such as: revitalizing of traditional practices; preserving or strengthening cultural identity, fostering community pride ; increasing demand for local products such as handicraft and arts; increasing understanding of diverse cultures; and promoting cultural exchanges (Andereck et al. 2007; Ap & Crompton, 1998; Easterling, 2004; Goeldner & Ritchie, 2 009; Lui & Var, 1986; Perdue et al., 1990) (Table 2 3). The ultimate purported socio cultural benefit of tourism is that each traveler has International Institute for Peace through Tourism (IIPT). The basic principle is that through the direct contact between people of different cultures a greater cross cultural understanding and cooperation is fostered which ultimately promotes greater peace on earth (IIPT, 2008). If hosts and guests (or residents and tourists) respect the social and cultural differences between peoples and learn to value diverse heritages and ways of life, then tourism will certainly add to their respective quality of life. Institutional dimension The difficulty of realizing sustainability goals without an adequate political structure or institutional system to plan, implement, and manage the objectives of sustainability has been recognized by several organizations such as the World Bank and the Or ganization for Cooperation and Development (OECD) (Spannenberg, 2002). Although most key documents pertaining to sustainable development address the importance of local community involvement, this essential aspect has not been included as a dimension withi n the sustainability framework (Spannenberg, 2007). The German

PAGE 55

55 Wuppertal institute (Valentin & Spangenberg, 2000, 2002; 2007) addressed this by conceptualizing a four dimensional sustainability framework including an institutional dimension which attends t o the governance process emphasizing public participation and involvement (Cottrell & Vaske, 2006; Cottrell, Vaske, Shen & Ritter, 2007; Shen & Cottrell, 2008). While the economic, environmental and socio cultural dimensions address the state of particular resources, the institutional dimension addresses the social and political structures nec ess ary to plan, implement and manage the maintenance of those resources. Cottrell and colleagues (Cottrell & Vaske, 2006; Shen & Cotrell, 2008; Shen, Cottrell & Hughes 2009) recently examined perceived tourism impacts utilizing four dimensions of sustainability (namely economic, socio cultural, environmental, and institutional). More specifically, in a study investigating the relationship between resident perceptions o f tourism and community satisfaction, Cottrell et al. (2007) found the institutional dimension predicted community satisfaction in both Chinese and Dutch communities. However, the authors suggested that further research should strive to refine the it ems used to measure the institutional dimension as it is proposed that there are several sub dimensions including access to decision making, communication processes, politics, and democracy While the institutional dimension has yet to be widely accepted in the general discourse of sustainable development, it further integrates the involvement of local communities into the sustainable tourism framework. Summary As illustrated by this brief literature review, there are a plethora of s tudies that have investigated the impacts of, and attitudes towards tourism by host populations over the last twenty to thirty years. McGehee and Andereck (2004) suggested that the

PAGE 56

56 difference between attitude and impact studies seems to be a matter of sema ntics, as they tend to include similar measures. Indeed, there seems to be a general agreement among scholars with respect to the types of impacts communities experience as a result of tourism. The operationalization of tourism impacts has been fairly cons istent with a focus on the economy, the environment, and community life. However, since researchers have used confirmatory or exploratory factor analysis in segmenting the impacts, impact dimension and respective items are varied within the literature (And ereck et al., 2007; Ap & Crompton, 1998). In order to address this instability, a thorough literature review of previous tourism attitude and impact studies was undertaken and the recurring items were identified (Table 2 4). Based on this review, the items were conceptually classified into four dimensions of sustainability and included in this study. Quality of Life The notion of quality of life is instinctively understood by most people as an overall assessment of the conditions, experiences, and satisfact ion with life. Although there is no agreed upon definition, scholars have defined quality of life by including both the quality of life circumstances as well as the perceptions and feelings towards those circumstances (Diener, 2006). While the quest for an swers pertaining to the nature of the good life date back to Plato and Aristotle (Hagerty et al., 2001); the desire to monitor quality of life to enhance public policy decisions has bee n around since the 1960s (Noll, 2002). At this time, there was a renewed interest in the measurement of human welfare and social development as the dominant goal of increasing economic production and material wealth was replaced with the current sustainabl e model of human development, which incorporates the immaterial aspects of life (Diener & Suh, 1997;

PAGE 57

57 Noll, 2002). Previously, development assessments by policy makers were based solely on economic indicators such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) however; a growing international movement recognizes that material wellbeing, or economic measures alone are not a sufficient indicator of the broader quality of life or well being of a country (Diener & Suh, 1997; NEF, 2009; The Economist, 2005). Alternative Measure s of Human Development In response to the argument that economic measures must be combined with social and environmental measures in order to offer a more comprehensive indication of quality of life (Andereck & Jurowski, 2006), several alternative measures of human development, progress, or welfare have been created. Examples include the Human Development Index, the Genuine Progress Indicator, Index of Social Progress, and the n development such as these often consist of relatively few dimensions. For example, the expectancy, educational attainment, and income to form a composite index. Such indi ces have proven useful for relatively easy and quick comparison at an international level (particularly between more developed and less developed nations) however much detail is lost with the use of composite indexes due to the aggregation of data. More detailed information regarding social conditions and well being have been collected via annual social reporting activities in much of Europe, Canada, and Australia, while many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America have also begun to issue periodic national social reports (Miringoff & Miringoff, 1999). Inter European monitoring activities include regular surveys by the European Commission and Eurostat (the statistical office of the European community) know as Eurobarometer surveys, the

PAGE 58

58 European Syste m of Social Indicators (Zentrum fr Sozialindikatorenforschung based in Germany, known as GESIS), the Euromodule, the European Social Survey initiated by the European Science Foundation, and the European Community Household panel. The European Foundation f or the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound), is a European Union body which has also undertaken regular public opinion analyses since 1973, and recently released the results of their second European quality of life survey. In a recent c omparison of the different European quality of life surveys, Noll (2008) found similarities within domains covered as well as some use of the same indicators, albeit with slightly different word formatting and measurement scales. While some surveys are con ducted bi annually (Eurobarometer), others are only administered every five to ten years (European Value Study). While Noll (2008) lamented limitations with sample sizes, varying inclusions of countries, as well as surveys provide rich sources of data for comparative quality of life research in Europe. The key aim of such initiatives is to further understand the living conditions, social issues, and challenges of society so that they may be addressed through the ongoing political process, which has as its fundamental aim the well being of its constituents. In this vain, the New Economics Foundation (NEF), an independent think tank based in the United Kingdom, has proposed National Accounts of Well policy makers with a better chance of understanding the real impact of their decisions accorded to the concept of q uality of life, or well being, at sub national, national, and international levels.

PAGE 59

59 Conceptualization Two distinctive approaches have been taken in the conceptualization of the quality based individuals. These two approaches have been defined as much by their conceptualization and operationalization of quality of life: the resource or capabilities approach focuses on objective measures while the utilitarian approach focuses on subjective measures. Objective approach Objective indicators are measures of living c onditions, generally focusing on observable and quantifiable indicators (often standardized and fairly easily available in the public domain) such as measure s of economic production, pollution, literacy, life expectancy, and crime. For example, the Scandin avian level of living approach focuses was developed by Amartya Sen, the Nobel laureate in economics who also believes that quality of life should be measured in terms of the capacity to do or be something. However, Noll (2004) points out: The use of objective indicators starts from the assumption that living conditions can be judged to be favourable or unfavourable by comparing real conditions with normative criteria like values, goals or objectives. An important precondition, however, is that there is a societal or even political consensus about three key issues: first, about the di mensions that are relevant for welfare considerations; second, about good and bad conditions; third, about the direction in which society should move. (p. 158)

PAGE 60

60 Furthermore, Diener (1997) makes a valid argument that even objective indicators suffer from mea surement problems based on several examples: the underreporting of certain statistics (such as rape), the difficulty of measurement in nations with inadequate record keeping, or the subjective decisions in selecting and measuring variables (p. 195). Subjec tive approach Subjective indicators have been mainly associated with the American socio psychological research tradition, which emphasized the individual assessment and evaluation of life. According to this tradition, individual satisfaction with life and happiness are the ultimate goals of social development (Noll, 2004). However, subjective measures of quality of life alone have also been criticized, as satisfaction with life is partly dependent on individual aspirations (Erikson, 1993 as cited in Noll, 2 004). Furthermore, Cummins (2000) suggested that subjective measures of quality of life are under a state of homeostasis, in which individuals have normative levels of subjective well being. More specifically, he demonstrated that when asked questions such consistent. For example, western population responses measured on a standardized scale ranging from 0 100% consistently produced a mean and standard deviation of 75 +/ 2.5; while the inclusion of non western samples results in a mean and standard deviation of 70 +/ normative range of values, it can be predicted that western population means will fall withi n 70 80% SM, and the means of all western and non western populations will fall within 60 serves to keep people feeling positive about themselves and their life even when

PAGE 61

61 exposed to diverse life situations. However, it should be noted that the homeostatic set point applies to the reflective measure of overall life satisfaction but not to the formative quality of life domains due to the different level of abstractions (Cummins, 2003, p 164). Current conceptualization Up until recently, most studies focused on either the objective or the subjective approach of operationalizing quality of life however; currently the prevailing conceptualization encompasses both objective and subjective c onsiderations (Costanza et al. 2006; Cummins, 1996, 2005; Hagerty et al. 2001; Noll, 2002). The relationship between objective and subjective indicators has been explored and findings suggest that they are poorly correlated (Cummins, 2000; McCrea, Shyy & S timson, 2006). fairly independent, their degree of dependency increases when the objective conditions predictors of overall subjective quality of life, McCrea et al. (2006) suggested that objective circumstances are related to satisfaction with specific life domains and hence, the latter may mediate the relationship between objective indicators and overal l life satisfaction. Cummins (2005) articulated four important principles with respect to the conceptualization of quality of life construct: it is multidimensional and influenced by personal and environmental factors and their interactions it has the sam e components for all people it has both subjective and objective components it is enhanced by self determination, resources, purpose in life, and a sense of belonging (p. 700).

PAGE 62

62 While the second principle allows for variations based on individual values and circumstances, Cummins (2005) argues that in order to move from a concept of quality of life to a theory, view of the quality of life research movement by prominent scholars, Ferriss (Sirgy et al.,2006) identified several aspects of a comprehensive quality of life theory should encompass: socially defined standard of living, level of living (as evidenced by th e physical attributes of the family), toxic/clean physical environment and climate, satisfaction and benefits derived from social participation in social agencies and institutions of the locale, general satisfaction, happiness, and characteristics and stru cture of the social system that produces the quality of life (p. 376). While there have been numerous methods in the classification and measurement of the different dimensions (Cummins, 2005; Fahey, Nolan & Whelan, 2003; Moscardo, 2009), there has been som e commonality in the basic domains (Table 2 5). Moreover, Hagerty et al. (2001) identified seven domains from the literature that cover the core construct of quality of life: relationship with family and friends emotional well being material well being he alth work and productive activity personal safety Although Hagerty et al. (2001) developed fourteen criteria for their review of twenty two of the most popular quality of life indexes, two are of particular importance

PAGE 63

63 ass a unique variance contributed by each domain to the aggregate quality of life score. The authors suggest that redundancy can be inferred by domain inter correlatio ns exceeding 0.9. Operationalization In their review of the most popular quality of life indexes, Hagerty et al., (2001) identified only two indexes in which each domain could be measured by both subjective Life Ex pectancy Scale (HLE, 1996) and life expectancy scale Veenhoven (1996) combined the objective measure of life expectancy with the subjective measure of happiness to create an in made a strong argument for creating an indicator means of attaining the good life (such as economic affluence) due to the difficulty of not to mention across differ ent cultures. However, Veenhoven it is impossible to discern possible causes in changes of quality of life. Furthermore, discernin g changes in a measure which utilizes life expectancy rates is by nature long term and while happiness rates alone may be more sensitive to change they have been

PAGE 64

64 shown to be fairly stable (Veenhoven, 1996). Hence the Happy Life Expectancy Scale is a measur e similar to the Human Development Index; it is not an appropriate tool to aid short term policy decision making. seven domains: materia l well being, health, productivity, intimacy, safety, place in community, and emotional well being (Cummins, 1997). The ComQol is purported to encompass both objective and subjective components for each domain. Each objective aggregate score based on three objective indices three measures: type of accommodation, income, and personal possessions. However, upon closer examination the objecti ve indices relies on individual recollections or judgments regarding time spent in certain activities ranging from daily, weekly or monthly periods which are generally measured on a five point scale anchored by be argued that this type of measurement is still rather subjective as they are personal assessments of life situations rather than independently collected statistical data such as housing costs, cost of goods and service, and wages which are generally rout inely collected in all western nations at the community level. The 21 objective measures of the ComQol failed to demonstrate construct validity at the level of domains due to lack of seven dimensions of three items each. As the seven items that r epresents the seven dimensions of the ComQol performed well, they were the basis for a new subjective scale called the International Well being Index (IWI) (Cummins et al., 2003). This index has been tested and applied in at least 20 languages and i n numerous countries by the International Wellbeing

PAGE 65

65 Group (2006). While solely a subjective measure, the IWI encompasses the core domains of quality of life identified in the literature (Table 2 6). Weighting of Domains In addition to the utilization of di fferent domains and indicators, different weights have also been applied which adds to the complexity of a comparative analysis between the indices. Hagerty and Land (2007, p. 460) state that many quality of life indices such Physical Quality of Life Expectancy Index apply equal weighs to the indicators although limited reasons or justifications for this practice has been given. Interestingly, there was considerable agreement across all the EU member s tates that health, income, and family life are the most important contributors to a good quality of life (Noll, 2004). Some researchers have chosen to include individual importance measures for each social indicator (e.g., Tourism Quality of Life index), although these have not shown to substantially increase prediction validity with regards to the overall quality of life measures (Hagerty et al. 2001; Trauer & Mackinnon, 2001; Wu & Yao, 2006). Although weighting satisfaction scores by the importance accorded to that domain by an individual is intuitively appealing, Cummins (2002) illustrated the fallacy of n term derived endeavors:

PAGE 66

66 Likert scale data are quasi interval not ratio, and hence the meaning of the product cannot be understood in terms of each constituent variable Th e psychological values of equivalent scale points for satisfaction and importance have asymmetrical psychological meaning as they use different labeling scales. Similarly, equal changes in scores along each scale do not have the same corresponding perceptu al meanings. Multiplicative composites are non linear in nature. The composite has failed to explain any additional variance beyond the use of each variable individually. (p. 3) b ut if it is used then it should be treated as a separate variable (see Cummins 2002 for a more detailed discussion). In addition, by employing statistical modeling Hager ty and Land (2007) illustrated that equal weighting strategies actually minimize the assumption of positive weighting of attributes and the use of general additive mo dels are not violated. Specifically, Hagerty et al. (2007) found that: positive correlations among social indicators result in high agreement regardless of variation in weights disagreement is rare and only occurs when individual weights are bimodal and n egatively correlated (the surveys of real weights tend to be unimodal and generate high agreement) The import ance ratings utilized were not from the same source as the quality of life indices tested so although these findings must be further verified they do position

PAGE 67

67 Summary Based on t his review, the present study utilize d a comprehensive definition of which encompasses both material and immaterial, objective and subjective, individual and p. 6). While quality of life has been conceptualized as encompassing both objective and subjective measures (Christensen, 1995; Costanza et al. 2006; Cummins, 1996, 2005; Hagerty et al. 2001; Noll, 2002; 2004) t here are Expectancy Scale (1996) and Cummins Comprehensive Quality of Life Scale (COMQOL, 1993) have been identified as two instruments that are in this category. However Expectancy Scale is a long term measure by nature and does not make distinctions between the dimensions of well being. Since this study is concerned with the impact of tourism on resident quality of life, it is important to examin e the relationship between specific tourism impacts and specific aspects of resident quality of life if resulting implications are to be addressed through policymaking. Therefore, instead of a global measure of satisfaction with life, a deconstruction meas ure was utilized to operationalize the concept quality of life for this study. While Cummins COMQOL represents such a measure, it has been replaced with the International Well being Index (Cummins et al., 2003) which is solely a subjective measure. Currently there are no appropriate instruments for this study which measure quality of life that utilizes both objective and subjective measures. While it is acknowledged that such a measure would be preferable, it is not within the scope of this study to create such a measure, and therefore an established subjective measure will be utilized.

PAGE 68

68 Perceived Tourism Impacts and Quality of Life The perceptions of tourism impacts and the attitudes towards tourism have been studied at great length, and an implicit c onnection with resident quality of life has frequently been made. Many tourism scholars have addressed this relationship, in some et al., 1993; Andereck et al., 2005; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Ap & Crompton, 1993; Bachleitner & Zins, 1999; Burns, 1996; Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Diedrich & Garcia Buades, 2008; Gilbert & Clark, 1997; Gu & Ryan, 2008; Gursoy, et al., 2002; Johnson, S nepenger & Akis, 1994; Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004; Lankford & Howard, 1994; Long et al., 1990; McCool and Martin, 1994; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Socher, 1992; Vargas Sanchez, Plaza Mejia & Porras Bueno, 2008; Wang & Pfister, 2008). However, som e of these studies have employed the expression quality of life in discussions of perceived impacts of tourism, thus linking the effects to resident quality of life without actually using the term in the operationalization of impacts. For example, Gurso y, Jurowski et al., (2002) stated that the resident attitude literature with their modeling approach, the term quality of life was not utilized to assess resident support for tourism in either perceived costs or benefits. (p.126). In an exploratory study in Austria, more specifically in the cities of Vienna, Innsbruck, Salzburg, and the provinces of Tyrol and Vorarlberg, Socher (1992) made extensive use of the term quality of life. However, Socher drew conclusions that concerned resident quality of life, but lacked concrete measurement of the concept

PAGE 69

69 other than resident perceptions of economic impacts (e.g., income, employment, local prices for consumer goods, services and real estate, financing of cultural buildin gs and services), environmental impacts (e.g., traffic and congestion, air and noise pollution), and cultural impacts (e.g., tourist behaviors, loss of local language, cultural commodification, security and crime, servile position of hosts). Based on this study, Socher concluded that negative tourism impacts dominated resident evaluations of their quality of life due to a lack of information with regards to the positive impacts. While this study added to the theoretical argument with respect to the i mportance of quality of life studies in tourism, this research was unfortunately not comprehensive. The concept of quality of life has been included in tourism models. Crouch and Ritchie (1999) conceptualized destination competitiveness as an economic base that provides a foundation for quality of life, hence linking tourism to prosperity and a high standard of living. It was recognized that tourism could be a vehicle not only for economic growth but also for broader social goals, and overall social well be ing was deemed to include economic prosperity, environmental stewardship, and quality of life. However, the focus of their work was on the economic prosperity and standard of living rather than overall quality of life. A few studies have attempted to link the implicit connection between tourism impacts/attitudes and quality of life by including a measure of resident quality of life. However, this has been to a limited degree as it generally consists of a single item indicator (Table 9). Generally, based on the single item indicator, residents perceived tourism to positively impact overall resident quality of life. For example, Long et al., (1990) included a quality of life item along with variables that measured perceived

PAGE 70

70 resident impacts. As expected, impa ct perceptions increased significantly with increased level of tourism development; quality of life displayed the most significant change in perceptions across level of development. More specifically, as level of development increased, a higher percentage of respondents agreed with the statement Relatively few tourism studies have operationalized quality of life as a multidimensional construct, although a few have used multiple items. Carmicha el, Peppard and Boudreau (1996) used four variables to measure quality of life in a longitudinal study to examine the impact of a tribal casino on three communities in Connecticut: There is more crime near my home than before the casino was built The casin o has created traffic congestion problems near my home The casino is making my town a less desirable place live The historic value of my town is affected by the casino. While the items have different meanings and certainly address aspects of resident qual ity of life, they are by no means representative of the quality of life domains consistently found in the social indicator literature. Nonetheless, the authors noted that residents felt that the casino had significantly reduced the quality of life in their towns. Perdue, et al. (1999) also operationalized quality of life using four items in their study to examine the impact of gaming tourism on resident quality of life: I would like to move away from_____ I am satisfied with ___ as a place to live The fut ure of ___ looks bright Taking everything into account (family, work, leisure, self, etc.), how satisfied are you with the quality of life in ___. Although these studies have advanced the tourism and quality of life literature by operationalizing quality of life as a construct in its own right, further advances could

PAGE 71

71 possibly be gained by making use of the large body of literature concerning quality of life and its subsequent operationalization. Botkin, McGowan, and DiGrino (1991) are a notable exception as they utilized a slightly altered version of the satisfaction with life scale by Diener et al. (1985): In most ways my life is close to ideal. The conditions of my life are excellent. I am satisfied with my life. I have gotten most of the important thing s I want in life. This single construct scale represents variations on the global life satisfaction theme. The original scale consisted of five items and was measured using a seven point scale rather than the five point scale as implemented by Botkin et a l. (1991). The excluded the scale was altered without any explanation given as to why, it is an exceptional use Hence, it is evident that there is a paucity of research that specifically focuses on the effect of tourism development on resident quality of life as a concept (Carmichael, 2006; Perdue et al., 1999; Urtasun & Gutierrez, 2006) As previously mentioned, there are a few exceptions whic h should be highlighted: Allen et al., (1988); Crotts and Holland (1993) ; Perdue et al., (1991) ; and Ko and Stewart (2002) all examined the impact of tourism development on resi dent perceptions of community life based on community characteristics commonly found in quality of life literature. Two of these studies utilized objective indicators in an effort to understand the effect of tourism on resident quality of life. More specif ically, Perdue et al. (1991) included levels of population, income, education, health, welfare, and crime in an i n North Carolina.

PAGE 72

72 More specifically, the level of tourism development was shown to have an effect on net population migration, types of jobs, educational expenditures, overall levels of education and quality of available health care facilities. Crotts and Holland (1993) also utilized objective indicators and found that touri sm had a positive effect on income, health recreation, personal services and per capita sales while negatively affecting the level of poverty. The majority of tourism impact studies however use subjective measures, as exemplified by Allen et al. (1988) wh o examined resident perceptions of community life satisfaction based on level of tourism development in their community. Tourism related retail sales as a percentage of community gross sales receipts were used to operationalize tourism development. Seven d imensions of community life (based on earlier work by Allen et al., 1987) were rated by residents on importance and satisfaction: public services, economics, environment, medical services, citizen involvement, formal education, and recreation services and opportunities. Findings suggested that level of tourism development impact certain dimensions of community opportunity for public service and the perceived importance o f citizen involvement decreased. Conversely, the importance of environmental concerns increased with tourism development. Furthermore, findings suggested that negative effects were most likely to be evidenced at the upper level of development. Of particula r interest was the function of population size than level of tourism development, which was attributed to the availability of certain services and opportunities.

PAGE 73

73 Ko and Ste wart (2002) investigated the link between perceived tourism impacts, resident attitudes, and community satisfaction. More specifically, a model that included community sa tisfaction, and attitudes towards additional tourism development was proposed and empirically tested. Community satisfaction was operationalized as a multidimensional construct comprised of seven latent factors: public service satisfaction, formal educatio n satisfaction, environmental satisfaction, recreation opportunities satisfaction, economic satisfaction, citizen involvement and social opportunities, and alpha values for some factors, particularly the economic satisfaction scale. As hypothesized, the perception of positive impacts of tourism had a positive direct effect on overall community satisfaction and on attitude for additional tourism development. Similarly, the pe rception of negative tourism impacts had a negative direct effect on overall community satisfaction and on attitude for additional tourism development. Furthermore, no significant relationship between personal benefits of tourism development and perceived negative tourism impacts was found. Interestingly, while the personal benefits from tourism development did not have a significant direct effect on overall community satisfaction, an indirect effect via perceived positive tourism impacts was identified. As evidenced by several book chapters and recent journal articles (Andereck & Jurowski, 2006; Andereck, et al., 2007; Benckendorff et al., 2009; Carmichael, 2006; Crouch & Ritchie, 1999; Urtasun & Gutierrez, 2006) it is evident tha t the topic of resident quality of life has gained in interest recently within the tourism literature.

PAGE 74

74 Anderek and Jurowski even created a tourism specific quality of life index based on earlier work by Massam and Everitt (2 001). Their tourism quali ty of life (TQOL) index combined three measures in order to investigate resident perceptions of the costs and benefits of tourism and their affect on resident quality of life: assessment of their satisfaction with indicators related quality of purported to measure the subjective dimension of communit y quality of life. The authors made the implicit connection between tourism impacts and resident quality of life and created a comprehensive and well rounded list of such impacts, which without a doubt affect resident quality of life. However, tourism impa ct items were used in the creation of the index and subjected to a principal component exploratory factor analysis to develop tourism quality of life domains rather than operationalizing quality of life utilizing the domains identified in the quality of li fe literature. Nevertheless, the index was innovative in combining the importance of tourism impacts, resident satisfaction with those same impacts, as well as tourisms influence on them. Andereck et al. (2007) also applied the TQOL index in a cross cultu ral context by investigating the differences in perceived importance, satisfaction, and tourism influence on quality of life variables between Hispanic and Anglo respondents. Based on a priori groupings the variables were subdivided into three sets of meas ures: a negative tourism and quality of life scale, and three positive tourism and quality of life scales (economic, socio cultural, and environmental impacts). It was interesting to note that the domains utilized. However, as the authors

PAGE 75

75 stated, tourism impact studies and resident attitude studies have found a multitude of different dimensions based on factor analysis and each time dimensions are subject to different interpretations and uses depending on t he study purpose and items used. Two known studies have bridged the gap between the tourism and quality of life literature by operationalizing quality of life as a multidimensional construct including specific life domains: Emptaz Collomb (2009) and Kim (2 002). Notably, Kim (2002) utilized four quality of life domains in an examination of perceived tourism impacts and quality of life in various stages of tourism development: material well being, community well being, emotional well being, and health and saf ety well being. In particular, Kim investigated the effect of specific tourism impact dimensions (economic, social, cultural, and environmental) on explicit life domains, which subsequently were posited to affect overall life satisfaction. Stage of tourism development was postulated as a mediating variable between the specific tourism impact and quality of life domains. Although findings did not support a moderating effect of tourism development stage between tourism impact and resident quality of life doma general life satisfaction; each posited relationship between a specific tourism impact dimension and resident satisfaction with a specific quality of life domain was supported. More specifically, economic impacts had a positive effect on material well being ; social impacts had a positive effect on community well being; cultural impacts had a positive effect on emotional well being; and environmental impacts had a positive effect on emotional well being. The specific relationships between tourism impact domains and quality of life domains were formulated a priori although unfortunately no theoretical

PAGE 76

76 background for each posited relationship was provided. Nonetheless, the findings r evealed that different tourism impact dimensions do in fact affect individual quality of life domains, even if no effect on overall quality of life was documented. Most recently, in an examination of the relationships between tourism, human well being and conservation in rural Africa, Emptaz Collomb (2009) created a multidimensional quality of life index that included both subjective and objective measures of health, wealth, education, economic, social, infrastructural and political life. The author indicat ed that the index was largely based on the well being index developed by Cahyat, Gnner, and Haug (2007) for the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and the Personal Wellbeing Index created by the International Wellbeing Group (2006). Howeve r, the resulting index was adapted to the study site using a participatory approach by including residents of five area conservancies in the Caprivi strip, Namibia. The quality of life index created is therefore very specific to this particular study site and the results have to be viewed within the context of a rural location within a developing nation. Although Emptaz Collomb did not find higher quality of life levels for communities with tourism compared to those without tourism; findings at the limited to certain domains and restricted to residents involved with tourism. Thus, the differentiation between tourism impacts at the community and individual levels w as highlighted and should be further explored. Both Kim (2002) and Emptaz Collomb (2009) made significant contributions to the tourism literature by using an interdisciplinary approach and advancing the conceptualization and operationalization of quality o f life within the tourism context.

PAGE 77

77 Summary There are a plethora of studies that have examined resident perceptions of tourism impacts in which the term quality of life has been used interchangeably with that of resident attitudes or perceived impacts, and hence the term has been utilized as an expression to encompass all of the perceived impacts attributed to tourism. While some impact and attitudinal scales utilized in the tourism literature have included a quality of life item or two, the operationalizati on of quality of life as a distinct construct (i.e., covering the core domains identified within the quality of life literature in disciplines such as economics, sociology, and social psychology) is sparse. Hence, there is a paucity of research that invest concept (Benckendorff et al., 2009; Carmichael, 2006; Crouch & Ritchie, 1999; Perdue et al., 1999; Urtasun & Gutierrez, 2006). Resident Support for Tourism Research has utilized touris m impacts as predictors variables (Jurowski et al., 1997; Lankford & Howard, 1994; Liu & Var, 1986; McCool & Martin, 1994; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Perdue et al., 1990; Sheldon & Var 1984; Sirakaya et al., 2002) as well as mediating variables on community satisfaction (Allen et al., 1988; Perdue at al., 1991; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Ross, 1992) and support for tourism development (Chen, 2001; Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Dyer et al., 2007; Jurowski et al., 1997; Ko & St ewart, 2002; Perdue et al., 1990; Perdue et al., 1995). The underlying domains of perceived tourism impacts have varied between studies and hence the resulting relationship with tourism support has been somewhat inconsistent. Some studies have categorized tourism impacts into economic, socio cultural, and environmental dimensions (Chen, 2001; Jurowski et al., 1997; Yoon et al.,

PAGE 78

78 2001), while others have segregated the impacts into costs and benefits (Gursoy et al., 2002; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Perdue et al., 19 90). Furthermore, others have segmented impacts as positive and negative into as many as five dimensions (Dyer et al., 2007; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Pennington Gray, 2005). Research in numerous destinations has generally supported the influence of resid Jurowski, 2006; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Dyer et al., 2007; Gursoy et al., 2002; Jurowski et al., 1997; King, Pizam & Milman, 1993; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Perdue et al., 1990; Snaith & Haley, 1995). More specifically, most studies have found a positive relationship between perceived economic benefits and support for tourism development (Allen et al., 1988; Chen, 2001; Dyer et al., 2007; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Jurowski et al., 1997; L ui & Var, 1986; Pennington Gray, 2005; Perdue et al., 1990). Some have also found the inverse relationship between negative impacts and support for tourism (Ko & Stewart, 2002), although others found no significant effect of perceived costs of tourism on s upport for tourism (Gursoy et al., 2002). The findings with respect to the relationship between perceived socio cultural impacts and support for tourism have been inconsistent. Several studies have found a negative relationship between social costs and sup port for tourism development (Chen, 2001; Gursoy et al., 2002; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Sirakaya, et al., 2002; Tosun, 2002). However, both positive and negative relationships between social benefits and costs respectively and support for tourism have been re jected (Dyer et al., 2007; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004). Similarly, a positive relationship between cultural benefits and resident support for tourism development have been identified (Dyer et al., 2007;

PAGE 79

79 Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004), while a negative relations hip between cultural costs and support was not substantiated (Dyer et al., 2007; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004). Negative environmental impacts have had a negative effect on resident support for tourism (Chen, 2001; Yoon et al., 2001), although Jurowski et al. (1997) found no significant effects of environmental impacts on resident support for tourism. Overall, not all tourism impacts have had an effect on resident support for tourism development (Yen & Kerstetter, 2009). Owing to the variety of different perce ived tourism impact items and dimensions utilized in the literature, the resulting relationships with support for tourism are somewhat mixed. There is a need to further examine the relationship between perceived tourism impacts and support for tourism base d on the conceptual dimensions of sustainability. In addition, support for tourism could also be tourism in their community. Hence, the role of quality of life as a mediating variable needs to be further explored as this link has yet to be comprehensively determined in the literature. Operationalization Resident support for tourism has been operationalized by very general single items such as support for further devel opment (Dyer et al., 2007, Chen, 2001); more specific single items based on location of the study (such as support for nature based tourism, Jurowski et al., 1997), or as willingness to pay a local tax for tourism development (Sna ith & Haley, 1995); support for several types of tourism development ranging from nature based development, large attractions, cultural or historic attractions, to special events (Gursoy et al., 2002; Jurowski et al., 1997; Yoon, Gursoy & Chen, 2001); to very explicit tourism development options (Andereck & Vogt, 2000). McGehee

PAGE 80

80 and Andereck (2004) used eight items to measure residents support for future tourism mmunity, future potential, Interestingly, Yen and Kerstetter (2009) recently found that attitude towards current tourism development is a distinct construct from attitudes towar ds future tourism development. As this is a baseline study and Cologne is a mature and well developed urban destination offering such a wide variety of sights and activities, this study Su mmary As illustrated by this literature review, there are a plethora of studies that have investigated the impacts of, and attitudes towards tourism by host populations. There seems to be a general agreement among scholars with respect to the types of impa cts communities experience as a result of tourism and their operationalization has been fairly consistent with a focus on the economy, the environment, and community life. As many of these studies have been conducted in light of sustainability efforts, the importance of community governance has also been highlighted. Hence, the addition of a fourth dimension encompassing institutional structures has been recently suggested (Spannenberg, 2007) and implemented (Cottrell & Vaske, 2006; Cottrell, Vaske, Shen & Ritter, 2007; Shen & Cottrell, 2008). Researchers have striven to identify impacts that cover all facets of sustainability in order to help communities successfully plan, manage, and monitor both positive and negative impacts of tourism, which inevitably a ffect It is inherent that the principles of sustainable tourism and the achievement of sustainable destinations would add to the overall quality of life of residents by minimizing the negative and maximizing the positive impacts However,

PAGE 81

81 while previous impact and attitude studies have utilized the term quality of life as an expression to encompass all of the perceived impacts attributed to tourism, the operationalization of quality of life as a distinct construct (covering the c ore domains identified within the quality of life literature) has been lacking. Hence, there is a paucity as a concept (Benckendorff et al., 2009; Carmichael, 2006; Crouch & Ritchie, 1999; Perdue et al., 1999; Urtasun & Gutierrez, 2006). Moreover, there are only two known tourism studies that have operationalized quality of life as a multidimensional construct based on the dimensions consistently identified within the quality of life literature (Emptaz Collomb, 2009; Kim, 2002). Therefore, a conceptual framework within the context of the four dimensions of sustainability (economic, environmental, socio cultural and institutional) has been developed to investigate the e ffects of perceived tourism impacts and institutional structure on the quality of life of residents and their ensuing support for tourism development.

PAGE 82

82 Table 2 1. Positive and negative economic impacts Econ omic impact Research Citations Increased emplo yment opportunities Ahmed, 1986; Ap & Crompton, 1998; Belise & Hoy, 1980; Boissevain, 1979; Brayley et al. 1989; Carmichael et al. 1996; Davis et al. 1988; Faulkner & Tideswell, 1997; Forster, 1964; Gilbert & Clark, 1997; Hudman, 1978; Johnson, Snepenge r & Akis, 1994; Keogh, 1990; Lawson et al. 1998; Liu & Var, 1986; Mansperger, 1995; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Prentice, 1993; Rothman, 1978; Schroeder, 1996; Tomljenovic & Faulkner, 1999; Tyrell & Spaulding, 1984; Weaver & Lawton, 2001 Increased standard of living Akis et al. 1996; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Gilbert & Clark, 1997; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Johnson, Snepenger & Akis, 1994; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Laflamme, 1979; Liu & Var, 1986; Long et al. 1990; Pizam, 1978 Increased infrastructure developme nt Akis et al. 1996; Ap & Crompton, 1998; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Fritz, 1982; Liu & Var, 1986; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Sharpley, 1994; Sheldon & Var, 1984; Increased economic growth Ahmed, 1986; Brayley et al. 1989; Cooke, 1982; Greenwood, 1972; Perdue, Lo ng & Allen, 1990; Sheldon & Var, 1984 Increased cost of living Carmichael et al. 1996; Faulkner & Tideswell, 1997; Greenwood, 1972; Lawson et al. 1998; Liu & Var, 1986; Prentice, 1993; Stynes & Stewart, 1993 Increased prices (food, services, goods, lan d, etc.) Ahmed, 1986; Akis et al. 1996; Bystrzanowski, 1989; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Hudman, 1980; Husbands, 1989; Lawson et al. 1998; Liu et al. 1987; Long et al. 1990; Lovel & Feuerstein, 1992; Perdue et al. ,1987; Perdue, Long & Allen, 1990; P izam, 1978; Ross, 1992; Schroeder, 1992; Stonich, 1998; Var et al. 1985 Increased cost of public services Tyrell & Spaulding, 1984 Unequal distribution of benefits Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Brougham & Butler, 1981; Freitag, 1994; Getz, 1994; Johnson et al. 1994; Lindberg et al. 2001; Prentice, 1993; Stonich, 1998; Tosun, 2001 Employment is seasonal /temporary Jordan, 1980; Lovel & Feuerstein, 1992; McCool, 1994; Sharpley, 1994; Stonich, 1998; Tooman, 1997; Tosun, 2001 Increased economic instability Gee et al. 1984 Sources : Ap & Crompton (1998); Andereck & Vogt (2000); Easterling (2004)

PAGE 83

83 Table 2 2. Positive and negative environmental impacts Environmental impact Research Citations Preservation of natural environment or no detrimental effect Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Lui & Var, 1986; Liu, Sheldon & Var, 1987; Sethna & Richmond, 1978; Preservation of historic buildings & monuments Sethna & Richmond, 1978; Sheldon & Var, 1984; Liu, Sheldon & Var, 1987; Improvement of areas appearance Perdue, Long, & Alle n, 1990; Bystranowski, 1989 Increased pollution Akis et al. 1996; Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Caneday & Zeiger, 1991; Gilbert & Clark, 1997; Goksan, 1978; Gunn, 1988; Haulot, 1974; Lankford 1994; Lawson et al. 1998; Lovel & Feuerstein, 1992; Pizam, 1978; Ro thman, 1978; Snaith & Haley 1995; Tyrell & Spaulding, 1984 Overcrowding Akis et al. 1996; Ap & Crompton, 1998; Brougham & Butler, 1981; Liu & Var; 1986; Pizam; 1978; Rothman, 1978; Thomason, Crompton & Kamp, 1979; Wahab, 1978; Var et al. 1985 Traffic a nd parking congestion Akis et al. 1996; Ap & Crompton, 1998; Brougham & Butler, 1981; Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Black & Nickerson, 1997; Caneday & Zeiger, 1991; Carmichael, Peppard & Boudreau, 1996; Christensen & Nickerson 1996; King, Pizam, & Milman 1993; Lindberg & Johnson 1997; Liu & Var, 1986; Liu, Sheldon, & Var, 1987; McCool & Martin 1994; Mok, Slater, & Cheung, 1991; Perdue, Long, & Allen, 1990; Pizam, 1978; Rothman, 1978; Sheldon & Var, 1984; Snaith & Haley, 1995; Tyrell & Spaulding, 1984; Var et al. 1985 Destruction of natural environment (including beauty & tranquility) Akis et al. 1996; Ap & Crompton, 1998; Brayley et al. 1989; Cater, 1987; Faulkner & Tideswell, 1997; Goksan, 1978; Haulot, 1974; Wahab, 1978 Conflict over local wildlife resour ces Cooke, 1982; Gunn, 1988; Kendall & Var, 1984 Sources: Ap & Crompton (1998); Andereck & Vogt (2000); Easterling (2004)

PAGE 84

84 Table 2 3. Positive and negative socio cultural impacts Socio cultural impact : Research Citations Improves quality of life All en, Hafer, Long & Perdue (1993); Bystrzanowski, 1989; McCool and Martin, 1994; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Long, Perdue & Allen, 1990 Promotes cultural exchange Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Brougham & Butler, 1981; Clements et al. 1993; Liu, Sheldon, & Var, 1987; Liu & Var, 1986; Sheldon & Var, 1984 Increased Understanding of Different Cultures Ap & Crompton, 1998; Liu, Sheldon & Var, 1987; Sheldon, & Var, 1984; Liu & Var, 1986; Mathieson & Wall, 1982; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Pizam, 1978; Sheldon & Var, 1984 Revitaliza tion of traditional culture/practices Besculides, 2002; deKadt, 1979; Esman, 1984 Preserves / strengthens cultural identity Liu & Var, 1986; Evans, 1976 Increase in community pride Ap & Crompton, 1998; Delamere & Hinch, 1994 Increased demand for local art Ap & Crompton, 1998; Deitch, 1977; Liu & Var, 1986 Increase in community services & facilities Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Liu & Var, 1986; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Pizam, 1978; Sheldon & Var, 1984 Increase in cultural events & heritag e Gilbert & Clark, 1997; Liu & Var, 1986; Liu, Sheldon, & Var, 1987; Loss of community character & relationships Allen et al. 1988, Bisilliat, 1979; Brayley et al. 1990; Delamere & Hinch, 1994; Faulkenberry et al. 2000; Krippendorf, 1987 Loss of auth enticity Boynton, 1986; Brougham & Butler, 1981; Cohen, 1988; Loss of native language Coppock, 1977; Cybrisky, 1970; White, 1974 Increase in crime Brunt & Courtney, 1999; King, Pizam, and Milman 1993; Lankford 1994; Lindberg and Johnson 1997; Mok, Slater and Cheung 1991 Increased prostitution Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Cohen, 1988; Lankford 1994; Lindberg & Johnson 1997; Liu, Sheldon & Var, 1987; Liu & Var, 1986; Mok, Slater & Cheung, 1991; Intensification of labor burden Brayley et al. 1990; Freitag, 199 4 Worsening of resident attitudes/declining hospitality Bryden, 1973; Doxey, 1975; Dogan, 1989; Husbands, 1986; Liu & Var, 1986; Munt, 1994 Sources: Ap & Crompton (1998); Andereck & Vogt (2000); Easterling (2004)

PAGE 85

85 Table 2 4. Tourism impact / attitud e themes identified from the literature Economic Environmental 1. Standard of living 1. Quality of natural environment 2. Employment opportunities 2. Preservation of natural environment 3. Quality of employment 3. Quality of historic buildings & mon uments 4. Community tax revenues 4. Land use conflict 5. Economic growth 5. Environmental pollution i.e. noise, litter 6. Cost of living 6. Overcrowding 7. Quality of local services 7. Traffic & parking congestion 8. State of infrastructure 8. Preserv ation of historic buildings & monuments Socio cultural Institutional 1. Community character 1. Trust in political system 2. Sense of community (identity / pride) 2. Trust in legal system 3. Cultural events 3. Influence of stakeholders 4. Recreation al opportunities 4. Leadership 5. Local traditions / practices 5. Transparency of decision making process 6. Demand for local goods 6. Good communication 7. Cultural exchange / understanding 7. Stakeholder involvement 8. Local hospitality 8. Respe ct for all stakeholders 9. Community services & facilities 9. Accessibility of government officers & leaders 10. Crime 10. Community development in line in with community vision

PAGE 86

86 Table 2 5. Comparison of life domains utilized in quality of life co nceptualization Eurofound (2007) European System of Social Indicators a Compr ehensive Quality of Life Scale ( ComQol b ) Human Needs c German Social Accounts d Swedish Welfare Tradition d Health Health Health Reproduction Health Health & access to healthcare E conomic resources Income, standard of living, consumption patterns Material well being Subsistence Income & wealth Expenditure Economic resources & consumer protection Family life Household & family Emotional well being Intimacy Affection Unders tanding Ho usehold & families Family & social relationships / integration Housing Housing Housing Housing & local amenities Employment Labor market and working conditions Productivity Labor market Employment & working conditions Education & vocational training Education & training Knowledge & access to education Community life Community E nviron ment Environment Environment Social & political participation & integration Participation Lifestyle & participation Political resources Leisure, media & culture Leisure Recreation & culture Crime and public safety Safety Security Crime & justice Security of life & property Social security Transport Transportation Creativity/ emotional expression Spirituality Identity Fr eedom Population Population Total life situation Sources: a Noll, 2002; b Cummins, 1993; c Costanza et.al., 2006; d Fahey, Nolan & Whelan, 2003

PAGE 87

87 Table 2 7. Single item measures of quality of life Statements used Authors Tourism increases quality of life Allen, Hafer, Long & Perdue, 1993 a ; Ko & Stewart, 2002 b Tourism development increases the quality of life in an area Andereck & Vogt, 2000 b Tourists in my community disrupt my qual ity of life My quality of life has deteriorated because of tourism Choi & Sirakaya, 2005 b Because of tourism in this community, overall quality of life has improved Diedrich & Garcia Buades, 2008 a The quality of life of residents has been improved b ecause of the presence of tourism Gilbert & Clark, 1997 a Tourism can improve the quality of life in (name of destination) Gu & Ryan, 2008 a Tourism has increased the quality of life in this area Long, Perdue & Allen, 1990 c The quality of life in my community has improved because of tourism McCool and Martin, 1994 b What impact has the current level of tourism had on quality of life in general Milman & Pizam, 1988 d Tourism has improved the quality of life Vargas Sanchez, Plaza Mejia & Porras B ueno, 2008 b Quality of life in my community has improved because of tourism facilities in this community Wang & Pfister, 2008 b The general quality of life has become better because of tourism development in my region Zhang, Inbakaran & Jackson, 2006 b a 7 point Likert type agreement scale, anchored by strongly agree and strongly disagree ; b 5 point Likert type agreement scale, anchored by strongly agree and strongly disagree c 4 point Likert type agreement scale, anchored by stron gly agree and strong ly disagree; d 5 point Likert type agreement scale, anchored by significantly improved and significantly worsened Table 2 6. Comparison of PWI domains with the core domains identified in the literature Pers onal Well being Index (Cummins, 2003) Core quality of life domains (Hagerty et al. 2001) S tandard of living M aterial well being H ealth H ealth A chieving in life W ork and productive activity P ersonal relationships R elationship with fami ly and friends S pirituality/religion (recently added) E motional well being S afety P ersonal safety C ommunity connectedness F F uture security (added after 9/11)

PAGE 88

88 CHAPTER 3 M ETHODS The procedures used in the examination of resident perceptions of tourism impacts, their effect on quality of life and subsequent support for tourism are described in th is chapter. First, a description of the study site is provided, followed by the procedure of participant selection and details of the survey instrument. Second, the data analysis procedures are explained, including testing of the measurement, and structural models. The Study Site Cologne or Kln as it is known in German, is a historic city located along the river Rhine in the federal state of Nordrhein Westfalen and is the fourth largest city in Germany wi th approximately one million inhabitants ( Figure 3 famous landmark is its majestic Cathedral, which was inscribed as a World Heritage site of human cre ative genius, constructed over more than six centuries and a powerful testimony to the strength and persistence of Christian belief in medieval and modern 405 square kilometers ( 156 square mi les), of which approximately 33% is composed of built environment while roads and other transporta tion networks make up almost 16% of the total area. Cologne is also one of the greenest cities i n Germany, with approximately 24% of the total ar ea consisting of inner city parks and greenways including a green belt surrounding the city. While the city is relatively large, the high population results in a population density of 2524 residents per square kilometer (.4 miles) which gives the

PAGE 89

89 average r esident a personal living space of approximately 37 square meters (400 square feet) ( http://www.koeln.de ). Due to its location along the river, Cologne has a long history as an important center for trade and is still home to the second largest inland harbor in Germany. Furthermore, the region features a vast transportation network ( Figure 3 2) including the Cologne/Bonn international airport, access to supra regional motorways, and is a key hub in Europe's railroad network which has helped to maintain its importance as a major ec onomic center. In fact, over 40% of the total gross domestic product of the European Union is generated within a radius of only 300 km around the city of Cologne and the region has an export ratio of over 44% ( www.willkommeninkoeln.de ). economy is based on large service and trade sectors including automobile, chemical, pharmaceutical, electrical and mechanical engineering, insurance, informati on technology, and food production industries ( Table 3 1). Within the service sector, the media and telecommunications industries have established Cologne as the primary location of broadcasting, film, television, and video production within Germany (Urban Audit, 2009). The historic city of Cologne, Germany constitutes the setting for this research. Due to the and historic significance, Cologne attracts an immens e number of visitors annually. While this mature urban destination has a wide appeal to many different travel segments, t he city also has an exhibition centre that features over fifty international trade fairs and exhibitions annually, drawing a large segm ent of business travelers to the city in addition to the more traditional leisure segments. Furthermore, Cologne cathedral is the most frequently visited

PAGE 90

90 building in Germany ( www.koelntourismus.de ) and while insc ribed as a World Heritage Site in 1996, it has been a major destination for pilgrims and tourist s for over 800 years. Selection of Participants Data for this study were collected between February 2010 and August 2010. The study adopted a quantitative meth odology utilizing a survey questionnaire format. Since Cologne is divided into nine boroughs, a stratified sampling procedure (Babbie, 2001) was implemented to achieve a representative random sample of residents within each geographic borough (Tabl e 3 2). Residents were approached in the central shopping districts, central business districts, and major bus and train stations of each borough. All participants were first asked a filter question (Appendix A) to determine residence within the Cologne ci ty limits and to determine they were over 18 years of age. If a site had multiple roadways or entrance points, interviewers rotated and included all possible entries. A random sample from each site was requested to complete an on site voluntary "intercept survey". Every third adult was intercepted and asked to complete the survey with a brief explanation of its purpose. Furthermore, participants were assured that all responses were completely anonymous and confidential. Each survey took an average of 12 to 15 minutes to complete. As a rule of thumb, Kline (1998) recommends a desirable ratio of 20 participants to each model parameter while conceding that a 10:1 ratio is more realistic. The proposed model (Figure 3 4) had 68 parameters and hence a sample size of 720 was targeted. The surveys were conducted on weekdays and weekends. Saturday and Sunday were designated weekend days while Mondays through Friday were weekdays. An equal distribution of weekday and weekend days was targeted. S ampling occured between the hours of 9:00 am and 6:00 pm, and interviewers strove to obtain an equal

PAGE 91

91 distribution of mornings and afternoons ( Table 3 3). The lead researcher and an assistant interviewer, both of whom are bilingual, conducted the interviews. Furthermore, four loca l university students familiar with appropriate survey procedures contributed to the data collection at irregular intervals D ue to extremely adverse weather conditions notably during the winter months, it was extremely difficult to garner respondents will ing to take the time to respond to a survey in an outdoor environment. Therefore, an additional avenue was offered to residents to complete the survey online from the comfort of their homes; 77 residents took advantage of this option. Overall, 925 resident s were approached onsite and a combined total of 633 surveys were completed, which yielded a total response rate of 68%. Instrumentation The survey instrument consisted of a 1 page, do uble sided questionnaire with a total of 76 questions categorized into f ive sections (Appendix B) The first section addressed resident quality of life operationalized using Cummins International Wellbeing Index which incorporated two single items that measured overall satisfaction with life. The second section reflected resid ent support for tourism in Cologne and consisted of four items. In the third section, community concerns with respect to tourism impacts in the economic, environmental, socio cultural, and institutional arenas were assessed utilizing thirty six items. Fina and socio economic characteristics such as gender, age, education, employment, income, and length of residence were included. Prior to translation, three t ourism faculty members at the University of Florid a who were familiar with tourism concepts and impacts research assessed the face and content validity of the instrument. Then the questionnaire was translated into the

PAGE 92

92 German language by the principal investigator who is bilingual (Appendix C) The transl ation was subsequently checked by two different bilingual speakers to verify for nuances, accuracy, and meaning. Finally, the survey was pilot tested for clarity among six residents at the study site. Based on the test, minor modifications were made with r espect to the wording of two items. Perceived Tourism Impacts R on a seven point scale where 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=somewhat disagree 4=neutral, 5=somewhat agree, 6=agr ee, 7=strongly agree ( Table 3 4 ) Each identified theme was operationalized using items adapted from the literature (see Andereck & Jurowski, 2006; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Ap & Crompton, 1998; Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Cottrell, Vaske, Shen & Ritter, 2007; McG ehee & Andereck, 2004; Perdue, Long & Allen, 1990; Sirakaya Turk, Ekinci & Kaya, 2008). The institutional items were adapted Quality of Life The International Well being Index (Cummins et al. 2003) was used to operationalize quality of life. The IWI has been applied and validated in 20 languages in numerous countries. Moreover, Renn, Pfaffenberger, Platter, Mitmansgruber, Cummins, and H fer (2009) recently confirmed the validity and reliability of the IWI in Austria based on a German language translation of the scale. The IWI consist s of two subscales : Personal, and National Well being indices. Both were measured on an 11 point Likert ty pe scale anchored in range by completely dissatisfied and completely satisfied ( Table 3 5).

PAGE 93

93 Personal Quality of Life The personal quality of life of residents in Cologne was assessed based on the Personal Well being scale (PWI) and consisted of eight ite ms of satisfaction that corresponded to eight quality of life domains deconstructed from the global question: Additionally, although not part of the PWI Cummins suggest ed that it may be useful to include the global satisfaction measure to test construct validity and hence was also included. Community Quality of Life The community quality of life of residents in Cologne was assessed utilizing the N ational Well being index (NWI) which consisted of six items: satisfaction with economic situation of the country, state of the environment, social conditions, national or local government, business, and national security (Renn et al. 2009). According to Cummins (personal comm. 2009), t he NWI can be applied at a local or regional level. Hence, the scale was included with reference to Cologne rather than Germany as a whole, and the global satisfaction question was accordingly worded as follows: bout the situation in Cologne generally, how Resident Support for Tourism Support for tourism was operationalized using four items measured on a seven point scale where 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=somewhat di sagree 4=neutral, 5=somewhat agree, 6=agree, 7=strongly agree. The items were adapted from the literature (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; McGehee & Andereck, 2004 ; Yen & Kerstetter, 2009 ) and are illustrated in Table 3 6.

PAGE 94

94 Treatment of Data Data for the study wer e entered using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 18 and the proposed conceptual model was assessed using Mplus version 6 structural equation analysis software. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was selected as a statistical m ethodology to estimate and test hypotheses about a model that specifies causal relationships among observed variables. SEM is currently widely used in the behavioral and social sciences and encompasses a wide variety of models and methods of multivariate a nalyses, including factor analysis as well as observed and latent variable models (Satorra, 2008 ). Although structural equation modeling is a priori, it may be applied as a blend of exploratory and confirma tory analyses (Kline, 2005) and was app ropriate f or this investigation due to the desirability of testing an overall model rather than individual coefficients The SEM analysis consisted of a two step process as recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) First, the measurement model was assessed More specifically, the latent constructs were evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine how the individual indicators related to the latent factors. The second step assessed the structural model that examined the hypothesized relation ships between the constructs. In particular, the causal dependencies between exogenous and endogenous variables were evaluated. In order to empirically test the proposed conceptual model and the formulated hypotheses t he fit of the measurement and structu ral models was determined by examining the goodness of fit chi square ( 2 ) statistic. Although it is customary to examine the goodness of fit chi square ( 2 ) it has been criticized for the

PAGE 95

95 following reasons (Algina 1 2008) : any saturated model may fit th e data perfectly, but it will be too complex to interpret non saturated models only fit data approximately, they seldom fit well and almost always have to be reject ed large enough sample size will always affect the chi square for a non saturated model and any non saturated model will be rejected. Therefore four additional goodness of fit indices were utilized, the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), the Tucker Lewis index (TLI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973), the root mean square error of approximation (RMS EA; Steiger, 1998) and the standard r oot mean square residual (SRMR) The criterion for goodness .95, while the criterion for goodnes s of fit for RMSEA and SRMR are respectively. Furthermore, full informati on analysis of the data was employed. All the hypotheses were related to the conceptual model and were examined after the measurement model was prepared Additionally, the validity and reliability of measures employed were also examined. Cronbach's coeffic ient alpha was utiliz ed to assess the reliability of scores on the items utilized as indicators for the latent variables. Data Analysis Procedures Descriptive statistics were first examined to define the sample profile and examine the distributions of the variables to examine if the underlying statistical assumptions were met. Kline (2005) states that variables with an absolute skew index greater than 3.0 are generally problematic and furthermore, absolute values of the kurtosis index greater than 10 may al so indicate a problem (p.50). Based on the aforementioned standards, none of the analyzed variables experienced skewness or kurtosis. 1 Algina, personal communication, 2008

PAGE 96

96 Furthermore, there were no signs of multicollinearity as the highest intercorrelation between individual variables was .68 which is below the recommended criterion of > .85 (Kline, 2005). Although t he effect of violating assumptions of normality generally do not cause severe problems as inflated chi square statistics and underestimated standard errors can be accounted for by u tilizing appropriate scaled and adjusted test statistics which have b een developed for this purpose. Hence, d iagonally weighted least squares estimation using the asympto tic covariance matrix and the robust maximum likelihood (also known as MLR analysis) e stimation s were utilized in combination with the two stage process (Algina 2 2008; Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) and the Satorra Bentler scaled chi A sample size of 720 was targeted, however, due to ti me, weather, and budget restrictions the final sample size resulted in a total of 633, even though the sampling period was extended to encompass a six month period. Although the recommended ratio of 10 participants to each model parameter was not achieved, the constructs were initially specified in that individual item s served as indicator s of the latent construct in order to glean as much information from the individual items as possible. It was decided prior to data collection should the case arise t hat the targeted sample size not be attained, parceling would be an acceptable methodology to improve the variable to sample size ratio and hence increase the stability of the parameter estimates if needed. As the relations among constructs are of foremost interest in the present study, parceling is warranted as an appropriate statistical method ( Algina 2 2008 ; Little, Cunningham, Shahar & Widaman, 2002). 2 Algina, personal communication 2008

PAGE 97

97 Prior to testing the measurement properties of the entire model, individual confirmatory factor and rel iability analyses were conducted for each construct to determine validity. Prior to analysis a number of items were reverse coded in order to ensure consistent directionality It has been suggested that items with factor loadings of less than .4 should be deleted, and hence only attributes with loadings greater than .4 were included in further analysis ( Hatcher 1994) Cronbach's coefficient alpha was used for reliability analysis in which coefficients of .70 or higher have been suggested as a cceptable le vels of reliability (Nunally & Bernstein, 1994). Figure 3 4 illustrates the proposed measurement model in terms of the latent variables and their indicators. More specifically each of the latent variables economic, environmental, and socio cultural impact s, had 8, 8, and 10 observed indicators respectively, while the latent construct institutional structure had 10 observed indicators. Personal quality of life had 6 observed indicators; community quality of life had 8 observed indicators, and resident suppo rt for tourism had 4 observed indicators. Tourism I mpacts R conceptually grouped within the four proposed dimensions of sustainability (economic, environmental, socio cultural, and institutional) and measured on a seven point scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree The items were subjected to a hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of polytomous variables (probit factor analysis) as linear factor analysis is an inappropriate mo del due to the possibility of lower and higher value predictions than the actual possible score based on the scale available to respondents. Hence mean adjusted weighted least squares estimation (WLSM) using the asymptotic covariance matrix was used as re commended for categorical and ordinal data (Muthen,

PAGE 98

98 1993 as cited in Kline, 2005) The tourism impact measurement model had a statistically significant Chi square ( = 6112.245 df ( 318 ), p = 0.000) and the CFI, the TLI, and RMSEA did not met the criterion for good fit (with values of .83, .81, and .17 respectively). A possible reason for the lack of fit could be the decision to specify the model utilizing individual items as indicators of the latent construct s even though the sample size did not meet the recommended ratio of 10 participants to each model parameter. However, a more likely explanation concerns the indicators utilized to measure tourism impacts. Althoug h the items have consistently been used in tourism impact studies and represent well established impact dimensions, they do not constitute a validated tourism impact scale. As discussed in the literature review, although the conceptualization of tourism im pacts have been consistently based on the economic, environmental and socio cultural dimensions of sustainability, operationalization has not been as consistent, and hence impact dimensions and items are varied within the literature (Andereck et al., 2007; Ap & Crompton, 1998). Furthermore, a fourth dimension was added for the purpose of this study based on work by Cottrell et al. (2005); Shen and Cottrell (2008), and Shen et al. (2009). However, scale development was not within the scope of this study, but rather an examination of the relationship between the conceptualized dimensions of perceived of life. In this respect, the present study was exploratory in nature and so each dimension was examined individually in order to assess unidimensionality and reliability. The individual tourism impact dimension resulted in tolerable goodness of fit statistics

PAGE 99

99 (Table 3 8) when considered in combination with the factor loadings ( Table 3 9) and reliability analyses (Table 3 10). All of the indicators specified to measure a common underlying factor had relatively high standardized loadings that indicated convergent validity. In particular, t he economic dimension initially consisted of eight indicators, however the items increases our cost of living and andngases our cost of nitially consisted of eight indicators, however the n particular, tility analyses (Table 3 10). All of the indicators specified ad an acceptable alpha value of .78. Within the preservation of our historic buildings and monument parking congestion The remaining five indicators had an acceptable alpha value of .72. The only item within the socio cultural dimension that failed to load adequately was tourism increases the level of criminal ac tivities and the nine remaining items had an alpha value of .79. The institutional dimension also had three items which had factor loadings less than .4: residents have opportunities to get involved in tourism decision making in line in with the community vision are many good leaders in this town The remaining items had an alpha value of .85. Based on these results, the decision was made to parcel the items within each tourism impact dimension. T here are sever al alternative options for specifying constructs ranging from total disaggregated models ( in which each individual item serves as an indicator of a latent construct ); partial disaggregated models (the combination of small sets of items from a scale to form indicator parcels); to total

PAGE 100

100 aggregated models ( in which all of the items of a scale are summed or averaged to create a single indicator of a construct ) (Coffman & MacCallum, 2005) Total disaggregation: The advantage of using items as individual indicato rs is the amount of information provided about each item. For example, the strength of the relationship between the item and the latent factor as well as information regarding the error variances. However, Little, Cunningham, Shahar and Widaman (2002) ackn owledged that compared to aggregated level data, individual level data will most to unique factor variance, and a greater likelihood of distributional violations Items also hav e There are also concerns regarding the number of parameters required to model item level data versus aggregate level data and the overall fit of the structural model (L ittle et al., 2002). Depending on the model and the number of variables, using individual items can lead to very large covariance matrices which can make it less likely that the model will fit well, even if the estimated coefficients are similar to their p opulation values that when sample sizes are small partial disaggregation models, or parceling is a preferred methodology (Coffman & MacCallum, 2005; Little et al., 2002; W illiams & Partial disaggregation : The combination of small sets of items from a scale to averaging together two or more items and using the resulting sum or avera ge as the

PAGE 101

101 of parcel construction ranging from random assignment, item to construct balance, a priori questionnaire construction, the use of different algorithms, or assi gnment based researchers have reported that parceling is preferable to disaggregated analyses 008) it should be noted that item parceling is controversial in the factor analysis literature (Algina 3 2008; Holt, 2004; Little et al., 2002). Critics of the parceling method focus mainly on concerns of dimensionality of the construct and the meaning of parameter estimates (Little et al., 2002). In fact, both opponents and supporters agree that when latent constructs are not unidimensional then parceling is particularly problematic. Hence, the main assumption underlying the parceling method is the unidime nsionality of Bandalos and Finney (2001) advise that parceling should be implemented only under conditions of unidimensionality. The advantages of parceling are lar gely based on a reduction in estimated parameters and reliability. The reduction of the measured variables in a model lead to smaller correlation matrices (Coffman & MacCallum, 2005) and fewer model parameters as there is only one measurement error varianc e term per parcel, which in turn result in smaller parameter to sample size ratios thus providing greater stability of the estimates (Mbius, 2003). In sum, Little et al. (2002) suggest that the various fit indices are expected to be more acceptable when p arcels rather than individual items are utilized due to three main psychometric and estimation advantages of parcels: 3 Algina, pe rsonal communication 2008

PAGE 102

102 they are more parsimonious (fewer estimated parameters) less chances of correlated residuals or dual loadings to emerge due to fewer indic ators and smaller unique variances reduced sources of sampling error Furthermore, item parceling can reduce the effects of nonnormality and improve the continuity of indicators (Holt, 2004) therefore avoiding the limited number of scale points for item sc ores and the ensuing need for probit analysis (Algina 4 2008; Kline, 2005: Little et al., 2002). Hence, Kline (2005) suggests that in cases where the parcels have a fairly normal distribution, a normal theory method such as maximum likelihood (ML) may be u sed to estimate the model For circumstances in which normal distribution assumptions are not met, robust maximum likelihood (RML) estimation offers a suitable technique which has the same parameter estimates as ML but utilizes the asymptotic covariance ma trix to compute corrected standard errors and the minimum fit function chi square. Total aggregation: When all of the items from a multi item scale used to assess a construct are summed or averaged, the result is a single indicator of the latent variable. It is important to specify this new variable as a latent variable so that measurement error can be included in the model. Hence, a key aspect of this methodology is the inclusion of a reliability correction ( Algina 5 2008; Coffman & MacCallum, 2005; Williams & coefficient alpha: S E 2 = S X 2 (1 ), if the observed variable is standardized the equation can be simplified to: S E 2 = (1 ) (Algina 5 2008). However, this methodology underestimates the unique variance as it only accounts for error variance and does not 4 &5 Algina, personal communication 2008

PAGE 103

103 incorporate the specific varianc e component of unique variance (Coffman & MacCallum, that the scale has no measurement error, it has been suggested that partial disaggregation models are preferable as its reliability estimate includes both common and specific variance (Coffman & MacCallum, 2005). Parcel construction Little et al. (2002) suggest a goal in constructing parcels for use in larger models is creating parcels which are equally balanced in te rms of their difficulty and discrimination. This is achieved by specifying a single construct model including all items associated with the construct and using the loadings as a guide to create item parcels which contain a balanced mixture of high and low loadings (Little et al., 2002) For example, the economic dimension contained 6 items after the items with loadings of less than .4 had been removed. The three items with the highest loadings (items 1, 2 and 3) were used to anchor three parcels, and then the items with the next highest loadings (items 4, 5, and 6) were added to the anchors in reverse order so that the highest and lowest loading items were grouped together in one parcel. This procedure resulted in three parcels with two items each: parcel 1 contained items 1 and 6; parcel two contained items 2 and 5; and parcel 3 contained items 3 and 4. If more items were available, this procedure would be continued. The specific item groupings for each factor based on individual CFA analyses are reported in Table 3 9. The tourism impact measurement model based on parceling resulted in a statistically significant Chi square ( = 223.62 df ( 48 ), p = 0.000) and although the CFI, the TLI, and RMSEA improved, they did not meet the criterion for good fit (valu es of .92, .90, and .08, respectively). Examination of the modification and expected change

PAGE 104

104 indices revealed that an improvement in model fit would be achieved if the second socio cultural parcel were allowed to load on the economic dimension. The parcel c t here is an increased demand for local goods due to tourism can certainly be classified as an economic factor in addition to its socio cultural value. The other two items concerned community character and a positive cultural excha nge which, while not directly economic in nature, can both have a significant influence in creating an appealing environment which attracts both visitors and investors alike. As the modification could be theoretically justified, the parcel was allowed to l oad on both the economic and the socio cultural dimensions. The evaluation of the revised model revealed a statistically significant Chi square 165.613 df ( 47 ), p = 0.000) The CFI was .95, the TLI was .93, the RMSEA .06, and the SRMR was .05 which were acceptable levels of fit. It should be noted that the Satorra Bentler chi square cannot be used for chi square difference testing of nested models. Satorra and Bentler (1999) developed an appropriate chi square difference test utilizing the scaled Satorra Bentler chi square which was used to compare the original (simpler) and the modified (more complex) measurement models. The Satorra Bentler model comparison test yielded (1) = 80.12 (Appendix E) which indicated that the simpler (original) measurement model should be rejected in favor of the more complex (modified) model. Quality of life The international well being index is composed of two sub scales (personal and comm unity) measured on an eleven point scale. Both scales were subjected to a confirmatory factor analysis utilizing the robust maximum likelihood method of

PAGE 105

105 estimation The only item from the personal quality of life sub scale which had a factor loading less t han .4 was satisfaction with spirituality or religion. The factor loadings of the remaining items are illustrated in Table 3 reliability coefficient of .87 (Table 3 12). All items from the community quality of life had factor loadings of above .4 (Table 3 14). Both sub scales exhibited good convergent and discriminant validity. The PWI was conceptualized as an index covering the basic domains of well being or quality of li fe, and hence the domain level items were aggregated as recommended by Cummins (2006). A summated scale was calculated for each sub scale and Cronbach alpha was utilized to include measurement error for both sub scales in the overall measurement model. Res ident support for tourism Four items were employed to evaluate resident support for tourism which were measured on a seven point scale. The individual items were subjected to a hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of polytomous variables (probit facto r analysis) as linear factor analysis is an inappropriate model due to the possibility of lower and higher value predictions than the actual possible score based on the scale available to respondents Hence, WLSM analysis was again utilized (Muthen, 1993 a s cited in Kline, 2005). The had a factor loading below .4 and was hence excluded from further analysis. The factor loadings for the remaining three items were all around .5, and henc e while tolerable are not optimal. (Table 3 15). In order to account for the low reliabilty of the construct it was decided to

PAGE 106

106 create a summated single indicator of t he latent variable so that measurement error Testing the Measurement Model The modified measurement model consisted of seven latent constructs: economic impacts; environment al impacts; socio cultural impacts; institutional structure; community quality of life; personal quality of life; and resident support for tourism (Figure 3 5) The latent tourism impact variables each consisted of three parcels (groupings of individual im pact items), while additive indexes were created for community quality of life, personal quality of life and resident support for tourism. The overall measurement model was assessed using robust maximum likelihood (MLR analysis) estimation and resulted in a statistically significant Chi df ( 71 ), p = 0.000) while the CFI, RMSEA and SRMR all met the criterion for good fit (with values of .95, .06, and .05 respectively). Although the TLI did not meet the criterion for good fit, it was at .92 The measurement model met a satisfactory level of fit based on the goodness of fit indices, and hence the structural model could be assessed. The correlations between observed measurements their means, and their standard deviations are presented in Table 3 16. Testing the Structural Model In order to empirically test the proposed conceptual model and the formulated hypotheses the causal dependencies between exogenous and endogenous variables were evaluated using MLR estimation. As every exogenous variable was specified to affect every endogenous variable, the measurement model and the structural model were statistically equivalent. The examination of the modification and expected change indices revealed no notable changes which woul d have improved the model fit.

PAGE 107

107 Establishing Mediation in SEM Some of the formulated hypotheses postulate indirect relationships between variables. Mediation in SEM requires four steps (Barron & Kenny, 1986) which will be briefly explained. Based on the Fig ure 3 3, there are three variables, X, M and Y, and X affects Y either directly or indirectly. c is equal to the total effect of X on Y, a is the direct effect of X on M, and b is the direct effect of M on Y. The first three steps must establish the signif non significant for complete mediation. If complete mediation fails and if the total effect is larger than the direct effect, then M is said to partially mediate the relation ship between X and Y. Hence, the four steps are as follows: Step 1: The total effect of X on Y (c in Figure 3 3) must be significant. Step 2: The direct effect of X on M (a in Figure 3 3) must be significant. Step 3: The direct effect of M on Y (b in Figur e 3 3) must be significant. 3) must be non significant for complete mediation.

PAGE 108

108 Figure 3 3 Simple mediation model (Barron & Kenny, 1986) Figure 3 1. Map of Germany highlighting Cologne. Source: http://m uslimmedianetwork.c o m Last accessed December 19, 2010. Figure 3 2. Cologne transportation network Source: www.tbg.de/img/bilder allgemein/900_anfahrt_grossra um.gif Last acc essed December 19, 2010.

PAGE 109

109 Figure 3 4 Proposed measurement model of tourism impacts, quality of life and support for tourism TI1=improves standard of living; TI2=creates jobs; TI3=decreases quality of employment; TI4=increases tax revenue; TI5=good for economy; TI6=increases cost of living; TI7=improves infrastruc ture; TI8=decreases quality of local services; TI9=negatively impacts quality of natural environment; TI10=enhances preservation of natural environment; TI11=negatively impacts quality of historic b & m; TI12=enhances preservation of historic b & m; TI13=in creases pollution; TI14=increases exhaustion of water & energy resources; TI15=increases overcrowding; TI16=increases traffic & pa rking congestion; TI17=negatively impacts communities character; TI18=increases sense of community pride; TI19=increases cultural events; TI20=increases recreational opportunities; TI21=conserves local traditions & practices; TI22=increases deman d for loca l goods; TI23=provides cultural exchange & increases cultural understanding; TI24=Decreases local friendliness; TI25=increases criminality; TI26=increases community services; TI27=trust political system; TI28=trust legal sy stem; TI29=access government offi cers & leaders; TI30=many good leaders; TI31=transparency of decision making processes; TI32=good communication; TI33=resident involvement in tourism decision making; TI34=community voices respected by decision makers; TI35=residents can influence communit y decisions; TI36=community development is in line with community vision;PQoL1=standard of living; PQoL2=health; PQoL3=achieving in life; PQoL4=personal relationships; PQoL5=sa fety; PQoL6=part of community; PQoL7=future security;PQoL8=spirituality or relig ion; CQoL1=economic situation; CQoL2=environment; CQoL3=social conditions; CQoL4=government; CQoL5=business; CQoL6=local security ; TS1=current tourism appropriate; TS2=industry not sustainable enough; TS3=actively encourage tourism; TS4=local government sh ould restrict tourism

PAGE 110

110 Figure 3 5 Modified measurement model of tourism impacts, quality of life and support for tourism Econ parcel 1 = economy, quality of employment ; Econ parcel 2 =job opportunities, quality of local services ; Econ parcel 3 = tax re venue, standard of living; Socio cultural parcel 1 = cultural events, sense of community pride, local friendliness; Socio cultural parcel 2 =cultural exchange & understanding, demand for local goods, community character; Socio cultural parcel 3 = recreatio nal opportunities, community services, local traditions & practices; Environmental parcel 1 = quality of historic buildings and monuments, preservation of historic buildings and monuments; Environmental parcel 2 = quality of natural environment; community overcrowding; Institutional parcel 1 = community voices respected, trust in political system, good leaders; Institutional parcel 2 = good communication, transparency of decision making process, access to government officers & leaders; Institutional parcel 3 = residents influence in community decisions, trust in legal system

PAGE 111

111 Table 3 3 Sampling of local residents based on population Community Population (N) Population (%) Sample (N) Sample (%) Innenstadt 127,033 12.5 139 22.1 Rodenki rchen 100,936 9.9 54 8.6 Lindenthal 137,552 13.5 73 11.6 Ehrenfeld 103,621 10.2 66 10.5 Nippes 110,092 10.8 54 8.6 Chorweiler 80,870 7.9 50 7.9 Porz 106,520 10.5 58 9.2 Kalk 108,330 10.6 59 9.4 Mlheim 144,374 14.2 76 12.1 TOTAL 1,019,328 1 00 .0 629 a 100 .0 a Total N = 633, 4 respondents preferred not to report their specific borough of residence Table 3 1. Employment contributions by sectors Economic sector a Percent (%) Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries 0.1 Manufacturing 17.3 Service 82.6 Total 100 a Industrie und Handelskammer zu Kln, 2009 (Cologne Economic Region) ; Table 3 2 Employed persons subject to social insurance contributions 2008 Economic sector a Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries 1,672 Manufacturing & Construction 198,349 Trade 125,687 Hospitality 23,771 Transport & warehousing 45,578 Information & Communication 43,655 Financial & insurance services 47,079 Real estate & housing 6,560 Provision o f other public & private sector services 294,338 Total 786,884 b a Industrie und Handelskammer zu Kln, 2009 (Cologne Economic Region) ; b Discrepancy in source

PAGE 112

112 Table 3 4. Data collection schedule Week Sampling days Location Participants Weekly total 02.15.10 Thursday Kalk 22 Friday Innenstadt 11 Saturday Lindenthal 16 Sunday Innenstadt 11 60 02.22.10 Monday Innenstadt 10 Tuesday Porz 8 Wednesday Porz 4 22 08.03.10 Monday Chorweiler 3 Tuesday Chorweiler 4 Thursday Chorweiler 4 Saturday Mlheim 6 Sunday Mlheim 6 13 03.15.1 0 Wednesday Chorweiler 9 Thursday Rodenkirchen 13 Friday Innenstadt 7 29 03.29.10 Monday Chorweiler 5 Tuesday Kalk 9 Wednesday Chorweiler 10 Thursday Ehrenfeld 22 46 04.19.10 Friday Innenstadt, Lindenthal, Ehrenfeld, Nippes, Kalk, Mlheim 3, 3, 2, 4, 1, 3 Saturday Innenstadt, Lindenthal, Ehrenfeld, Nippes, Porz, Kalk, Mlheim 3, 6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 2 Sunday Nippes, Mlheim 11, 14 62 04.26.10 Monday Innenstadt, Porz 14, 11 Tuesday Lindenthal 12 37 05.03.10 Wednesday Innenstadt, Mlheim 5, 10 Thursday Chorweiler 12 Saturday Rodenkirchen, Lindenthal 23, 8 Sunday Ehrenfeld 13 71 05.24.10 Friday Innenstadt, Lindenthal 12, 10 Saturday Innenstadt, Rodenkirchen 19, 4 45 06.07.10 Saturday Ehrenfeld, Mlheim 15, 6 Sunday Nippes 15 26 06.14.10 Saturday Rodenkirchen, Ehrenfeld 7, 4 Sunday Mhlheim 14 25 06.21.10 Monday Nippes 9 Tuesday Porz, Kalk 7, 4 20 07.26.10 Friday Innenstadt, Rodenkirchen, Lindenthal, Kalk, Mhlheim 9, 2, 3, 2, 2

PAGE 113

113 Table 3 4. Continued Week Sampli ng days Location Participants Weekly total Saturday Innenstadt, Rodenkirchen, Lindenthal, Ehrenfeld, Chorweiler, Porz, Kalk, Mhlheim 7, 1, 2, 1, 1, 6, 4, 2 Sunday Innenstadt, Lindenthal, Ehrenfeld, Kalk, Mhlheim 3, 4, 2, 3, 5 59 08.23.10 Friday Por z, Kalk 9, 7 16 Internet 77 77 TOTAL 633

PAGE 114

114 Table 3 5 Operationalization of tourism impacts Tourism impact factors a Economic: Tourism improves our standard of living Tourism creates job opportunities for local people Tourism decreases the q uality of employment in this area Tourism increases the communit y s tax revenue Tourism is good for our communit economy Tourism increases our cost of living (goods and services more expensive) Tourism has improved the local infrastructure ( roads, public transport, electricity net) Tourism decreases the quality of local services to the community (emergency & utilities) Environmental: Tourism negatively impacts the quality of our natural environment Tourism enhances preservation of our nat ural environment Tourism negatively impacts the quality of our historic buildings & monuments Tourism enhances the preservation of our historic buildings & monuments Tourism increases environmental pollution i.e. noise, litter Increasing exhaustion of water & energy resources due to tourism In recent years, my community has become overcrowded because of tourists Tourism increases traffic & parking congestion in Cologne Socio cultural: Tourism negatively impacts our communit s character Tourism has increased our sense of community pride Tourism increases the number of cultural events offered in our community Tourism increases the recreational opportunities residents can enjoy Local traditions and practices have been conserved or restored due to tourism There is an increased demand for local goods due to tourism Tourism provides cultural exchange and increases cultural understanding Local friendliness has decreased due to tourism Tourism increases the level of criminal activities Tourism has increased community services (restaurants, shopping, cultural facilities) Institutional: I trust our political system I trust our legal system I feel I can access government officers & leaders There are many good leaders in this town There is tr ansparency of decision making processes in our community There is good communication between residents and community leaders Residents have opportunities to get involved in tourism decision making Community voices are respected by decision makers Resid ents can influence community decisions Community development is in line with the community vision a Measured on a 7 point scale anchored by strongly disagree and strongly agree

PAGE 115

115 Table 3 6 Operationalization of q uality of life International Well Bein g Index Personal Well being Index a 1. How satisfied are you with your standard of living? 2. How satisfied are you with your health? 3. How satisfied are you with what you are achieving in life? 4. How satisfied are you with your personal relationships? 5. How sa tisfied are you with how safe you feel? 6. How satisfied are you with feeling part of your community? 7. How satisfied are you with your future security? 8. How satisfied are you with your spirituality or religion? National Well being Index (adapted for researc h site) a 1. How satisfied are you with the economic situation in Cologne? 2. How satisfied are you with state of the environment in Cologne? 3. How satisfied are you with social conditions in Cologne? 4. How satisfied are you with government in Cologne? 5. How sati sfied are you with business in Cologne? 6. How satisfied are you with local security in Cologne? a Measured on an eleven point likert type scale anchored by the phrases completely dissatisfied and completely satisfied. Table 3 7 Operationalization of r esident support for tourism Questionnaire statement a 1. T he current level of tourism development in Cologne is appropriate 2. The tourism sector in Cologne is currently not sustainable enough 3. I support the active encouragement of tourism in Cologne 4. Local government should restrict tourism development in Cologne a Measured on a 7 point scale anchored by strongly disagree and strongly agree Table 3 8 Goodness of fit indices for individual tourism impact dimensions Latent Variable Satorra Bentler Chi square CFI a TLI b RMSEA c Economic 195.44* df (9) .96 .93 .18 Environmental 88.84* df (5) .95 .89 .16 Socio Cultural 105.21* df (14) .98 .97 .10 Institutional 1014.61* df (14) .91 .86 .34 a Comparative Fit Index, criterion for good fit b Tucker Lewis Index, criterion for c Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, criterion for p = 0.000;

PAGE 116

116 Table 3 9 Factor loadings and parcel construction for tourism impact dimensions Questionnaire Statement a Factor loading Parcel Economic Tourism is good for our communit s economy 82 1 Tourism creates job opportunities for local people .81 2 Tourism increases the community tax revenue .68 3 Tourism improves our standard of living .62 3 Tourism d ecreases the quality of local services to the community b .57 2 Tourism decreases quality of employment in this area b .54 1 Environmental In recent years, my community has become overcrowded because of tourists b .71 1 Increasing exhaustion of water & energy due to tourism .66 2 Tourism enhances the preservation of our historic buildings & monuments .62 3 Tourism negatively impacts the quality of our historic buildings & monuments b .54 3 Tourism negatively impacts the quality of our natural envi ronment b .54 2 Socio Cultural Tourism increases the number of cultural events offered in our community .77 1 Tourism provides cultural exchange and increases cultural understanding .73 2 Tourism increases recreational opportunities residents can e njoy in our community .67 3 Tourism has increased the community services .63 3 There is an increased demand for local goods due to tourism .61 2 Tourism has increased our sense of community pride .54 1 Local traditions and practices have been conser ved or restored due to tourism .52 3 Tourism negatively impacts our community character b .42 2 Local friendliness has decreased due to tourism b .40 1 a Measured on a 7 point scale anchored by strongly disagree and strongly agree ; b Items were revers e coded prior to analysis

PAGE 117

117 Table 3 9 Continued Questionnaire Statement Factor loading a Parcel Institutional Community voices are respected by decision makers .85 1 There is good communication between residents and community leaders .79 2 Res idents can influence community decisions .79 3 There is transparency of decision making processes in our community .77 2 I trust our political system .68 1 I trust our legal system .64 3 I feel I can access government officers & leaders .46 2 There ar e many good leaders in this town .38 1 a Measured on a 7 point scale anchored by strongly disagree and strongly agree ; b Items were reverse coded prior to analysis

PAGE 118

118 Table 3 10 Reliability analysis of tourism impacts Questionnaire Statement a Mean SD c Corrected Item Total Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted Economic Tourism decreases quality of employment in this area b 5.04 1.49 .43 .76 Tourism improves our standard of living 5.08 1.53 .47 .75 Tourism decreases the quality of local services t o the community (emergency & utilities) b 5.16 1.65 .46 .75 Tourism increases the community tax revenue 5.22 1.50 .53 .73 Tourism creates job opportunities for local people 5.72 1.32 .63 .71 Tourism is good for our communities economy 5.80 1.27 .62 .72 Overall Scale (n = 592) .78 Environmental Tourism increases environmental pollution i.e. noise, litter b 3.47 1.61 .48 .67 Increasing exhaustion of water & energy resources due to tourism b 4.18 1.65 .50 .66 In recent years, my community has b ecome overcrowded because of tourists b 4.39 1.79 .55 .64 Tourism negatively impacts the quality of our natural environment b 4.43 1.65 .44 .68 Tourism negatively impacts the quality of our historic buildings & monuments b 5.27 1.65 .40 .70 Overall Sca le (n = 611) .72 Socio Cultural Tourism has increased our sense of community pride 4.57 1.71 .42 .76 Tourism increases the recreational opportunities residents can enjoy 4.69 1.50 .51 .74 Local traditions and practices have been conserved or r estored due to tourism 4.69 1.54 .44 .75 Tourism has increased the community services 4.98 1.44 .51 .76 a Measured on a 7 point scale anchored by strongly disagree and strongly agree ; b Items were reverse coded prior to analysis; c Standard deviation

PAGE 119

119 T able 3 10 C ontinued Questionnaire Statement a Mean SD c Corrected Item Total Alpha if Item Deleted Local friendliness has decreased due to tourism b 5.12 1.62 .31 .78 There is an increased demand for local goods due to tourism 5.20 1.29 .50 .75 Touris m negatively impacts our community character b 5.20 1.72 .30 .78 Tourism increases the number of cultural events offered in our community 5.42 1.28 .64 .73 Tourism provides cultural exchange and increases cultural understanding 5.72 1.38 .59 .73 Overall Scale (n = 581) .79 Institutional There is good communication between residents and community leaders 3.27 1.49 .65 .81 There is transparency of decision making processes in our community 3.34 1.46 .67 .81 Community voices are respected by de cision makers 3.67 1.41 .73 .80 I trust our political system 3.92 1.68 .58 .82 Residents can influence community decisions 3.93 1.47 .68 .81 I feel I can access government officers & leaders 4.34 1.54 .39 .84 I trust our legal system 4.62 1.61 .54 .82 Overall Scale (n = 591) .85 a Measured on a 7 point scale anchored by strongly disagree and strongly agree ; b Items were reverse coded prior to analysis; c Standard deviation

PAGE 120

120 Table 3 11 Factor loadings for personal quality of life Questionnai re Statement a Factor loading How satisfied are you with what you are achieving in life? .78 How satisfied are you with your standard of living? .72 How satisfied are you with how safe you feel? .71 How satisfied are you with feeling part of your commu nity? .69 How satisfied are you with your future security? .68 How satisfied are you with your personal relationships? .67 How satisfied are you with your health? .60 a Measured on an eleven point likert type scale anchored by the phrases completely di ssatisfied and completely satisfied. Table 3 12. R eliability analysis of personal quality of life Questionnaire Statement a Mean SD b Corrected Item Total Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted How satisfied are you with your future security? 6.61 2.12 .63 .85 How satisfied are you with feeling part of your community? 7.27 2.01 .67 .84 How satisfied are you with your standard of living? 7.32 1.95 .65 .85 How satisfied are you with what you are achieving in life? 7.37 1.89 .72 .84 How satisfied are you w ith how safe you feel? 7.40 1.88 .66 .85 How satisfied are you with your health? 7.42 2.21 .56 .86 How satisfied are you with your personal relationships? 7.78 2.19 .62 .85 Overall Scale (n = 614 ) 87 a Measured on an eleven point likert type scale anchored by the phrases completely dissatisfied and completely satisfied; b Standard deviation

PAGE 121

121 Table 3 13 Factor loadings for community quality of life Questionnaire Statement a Standardized factor loading How satisfied are you with the economic s ituation in Cologne? .77 How satisfied are you with business in Cologne? .74 How satisfied are you with social conditions in Cologne? .70 How satisfied are you with government in Cologne? .68 How satisfied are you with state of the environment in Colog ne? .63 How satisfied are you with local security in Cologne? .60 a Measured on an eleven point likert type scale anchored by the phrases completely dissatisfied and completely satisfied. Table 3 14. R eliability analysis of community quality of life Questionnaire Statement a Mean SD b Corrected Item Total Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted How satisfied are you with government in Cologne? 4.91 2.07 .63 .83 How satisfied are you with the economic situation in Cologne? 5.62 1.97 .70 .82 How satisfied are you with state of the environment in Cologne? 5.74 2.05 .58 .83 How satisfied are you with business in Cologne? 5.77 1.85 .66 .83 How satisfied are you with social conditions in Cologne? 5.85 1.99 .64 .82 How satisfied are you with local security i n Cologne? 6.25 2.03 .55 .84 Overall Scale (n = 615 ) 84 a Measured on an eleven point likert type scale anchored by the phrases completely dissatisfied and completely satisfied; b Standard deviation

PAGE 122

122 Table 3 15 R eliability analysis of resident support for tourism Questionnaire Statement a Mean SD b Corrected Item Total Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted T he current level of tourism development in Cologne is appropriate 4.91 1.21 .52 .37 I support the active encouragement of tourism in Cologne 4 .33 1.94 .50 .34 Local government should restrict tourism development in Cologne b 5.43 1.64 .51 .32 Overall Scale (n = 621 ) 45 a Measured on a 7 point scale anchored by strongly disagree and strongly agree ; b Items were reverse coded prior to ana lysis ; c Standard deviation

PAGE 123

123 Table 3 16. Correlations among measurement constructs Variable Econ 1 Econ 2 Econ 3 Enviro 1 Enviro 2 Enviro 3 Socio 1 Socio 2 Socio 3 Insti 1 Insti 2 Insti 3 PQo L CQo L TS upp Econ 1 1.00 Econ 2 0.62 1.00 Econ 3 0.50 0.54 1.00 Enviro 1 0.28 0.33 0.15 1.00 Enviro 2 0.39 0.40 0.21 0.51 1.00 Enviro 3 0.22 0.21 0.16 0.43 0.46 1.00 Socio 1 0.46 0.38 0.38 0.17 0.20 0.16 1.00 Socio 2 0.5 6 0.57 0.54 0.29 0.32 0.27 0.57 1.00 Socio 3 0.25 0.24 0.36 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.52 0.43 1.00 Insti 1 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.18 0.19 0.15 1.00 Insti 2 0.03 0.00 0.12 0.10 0.01 0.17 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.59 1.00 Insti 3 0.0 6 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.10 0.11 0.06 0.06 0.58 0.78 1.00 PQo L 0.16 0.12 0.05 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.18 0.17 0.07 0.14 0.08 1.00 CQo L 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.03 0.11 0.26 0.20 0.24 0.29 0.40 0.39 0.36 1.00 TSupp 0.33 0.31 0.39 0.28 0.25 0.32 0.3 5 0.43 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.21 0.16 0.24 1.00 Mean 10.84 10.90 10.33 4.39 9.46 7.90 15.10 16.12 14.39 11.92 7.94 7.17 51.16 34.14 14.73 SD 2.24 2.39 2.48 1.79 2.62 2.66 3.17 3.20 3.42 3.17 2.52 2.65 10.63 8.93 3.36 Note: Econ 1 to 3 = econo mic impact parcels 1 to 3; Enviro 1 to 3 = environmental impact parcels 1 to 3; Socio 1 to 3 = socio cultural impact parcels 1 to 3; Insti 1 to 3 = institutional structure parcels 1 to 3; PQoL = personal quality of life; CQoL = community quality of life; T Supp = tourism support

PAGE 124

124 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Profile of Participants Of the 633 participants, 53% were females and 47% were males. The majority were between ages 26 and 45 (49%), while 25% were aged between 46 and 65. Respondents were fairly well educ ated with 29% having received a u niversity degree. Furthermore, of those who completed a high school level education, 26% did so at the highest level. The German educational system has three levels of high school education: basic high school (Haupts chule), mid level high school (Realschule), and a more advanced level high school at which one can receive two different diplomas Fach Abitur or Abitur. The Abitur is the University entrance diploma which is a prerequisite in order to apply to U niversity. This finding is not surprising, as previously mentioned, highly educated and professional workforce. While 56% of the respondents reported a monthly household in come up to EUR 2500 (before taxes), 23% reported earning between EUR 2500 and EUR 4000 (before taxes), and 21% disclosed earning above EUR 4000 (before taxes). The majority of the respondents were salaried employees (43%) of which 9% were in managerial pos itions. About 18% were either students or in professional or vocational training which is not surprising as Germany has a very structured educational system. After high school there are generally two avenues one can pursue: higher education through the uni versity system or vocational or professional training programs which are a mixture of formal education and on the job learning experience. Twelve percent o f respondents

PAGE 125

125 were no longer in the workforce due to retirement, 6% were homemakers, and 5% were currently unemployed (Table 4 1). Frequencies of Variables Tourism Impacts This construct is based on the dimensions of sustainability and evaluated the and socio cultural impacts of tourism in Co logne, as well as the perception of 2 illustrates the descriptive statistics of perceived tourism impacts and institutional structure. Overall, residents held positive perceptions of tourism impacts, more detaile d descriptions of each dimension are noted below. Economic Impacts Generally, residents felt that the economic impacts of tourism were rather positive. More specifically, the majority (85%) of respondents felt that tourism was good for the local economy, w ith 37% expressing strong agreement with the statement. Similarly, 34% of respondents strongly agreed that tourism creates job opportunities for local people, while 50% generally agreed (somewhat agree combined with agree). Furthermore, almost 70% agreed t and improved their standard of living (69% and 68% respectively), while about 20% felt neutral towards both statements. Residents did not perceive that tourism decreased the quality of local services to t he community (64%); decreased the quality of employment in the area (60%); or increased their cost of living (41% disagreed that tourism increased costs of living while 32% were neutral). In sum, participants felt tourism was good for the community, create d job opportunities, increases community tax revenue, and generally improved the standard

PAGE 126

126 of living. Respondents did not perceive tourism to negatively affect the quality of local services or employment but w ere unsure whether tourism had an impact on the ir cost of living or made improvements to the local infrastructure. Environmental Impacts The perceived environmental impacts were also generally quite optimistic with 85% of participants agreeing that tourism enhances the preservation of historic building s and monuments, and 68% felt that there were no negative impacts on the quality of the historic buildings and monuments due to tourism. However, participants had a little more difficulty assessing similar impacts on the natural environment. While almost 5 0% felt that tourism did not enhance the preservation of the natural environment, 28% were neutral with respect to this impact. Similarly, about 50% felt that tourism did not impact the quality of the natural environment negatively, while 22% were neutral. However, more specific environmental impacts such as noise and litter pollution were perceived to increase through tourism (79% of participants agreed, of whom 25% slightly agreed, 41% agreed, and 34% strongly agreed). Ambivalence was also felt towards th e statement that tourism increases the exhaustion of water and energy resources (approx. 31% neutral, 34% positive, and 36% negative responses). More agreement was expressed towards the statement that tourism increased traffic and parking congestion in Col ogne, as almost 80% felt this to be true. However, traffic congestion and insufficient, overpriced parking is already a much lamented problem in Cologne. Overcrowding due to tourism was not viewed as an overarching problem as almost 50% disagreed with the statement that the community has become overcrowded due to tourism in recent years, and almost 20% were neutral. This may perhaps be

PAGE 127

127 attributed to the fact that Cologne is known to suffer from a chronic state of overcrowding. To summarize, although partici pants attributed some environmental pollution to tourism, most did not feel that tourism negatively affected the quality of the natural environment yet ambivalence was felt towards tourism as a catalyst for environmental preservation. The role of tourism as an incentive for preservation was clearer concerning historic buildings and monuments. Moreover, even though Cologne suffers from overcrowding problems, residents did not attribute these to tourism. Socio cultural Impacts The socio cultural impacts of t ourism were perceived quite positively by residents. For instance, 35% of respondents strongly agreed that tourism provides cultural exchange and increases cultural understanding, while the overall percentage of participants in agreement with this statemen t was 84%. Respondents also felt that tourism increases the number of cultural events (79% agreement), community services (66% agreement), and recreational opportunities (59% agreement) offered in the community. Moreover, 74% agreed that there is an increa sed demand for local goods due to tourism. However, although 40% of participants did not feel felt that tourism increases the level of criminal activities, a considerable 37% felt that tourism did contribute to an increase in criminality. Similarly, 18% of participating residents believed local friendliness had decreased due to tourism while 20% expressed neutrality. About the same proportion of residents felt that tourism negatively impacts the community character (18%) while the majority (67%) disagreed with this statement. A large proportion were neutral in response to two statements: tourism has increased our

PAGE 128

128 community pride and local traditions and practices have been conserved or restored due to tourism (both statements garnered a neutral respo nse of 26%). Essentially, the cultural exchange between residents and tourists, the related increase in cultural understanding; as well as the increased availability of cultural events, recreational events, and community services were viewed as particularl y character or local friendliness. Institutional structure The perceptions of the institutional structure were mixed. Despite the fact that 66% of respondents felt that ther e are many good leaders in Cologne, over half felt that there is a lack of communication between residents and community leaders. Also, 42% were of the opinion that community voices are not respected by decision makers. residents were split in their opinio n with respect to their own influence in community decisions (37% agreed they had influence while 37% disagreed), while 44% did not feel that residents have the opportunity to get involved in tourism decision making. Furthermore, 50% felt there is no trans parency of decision making processes in the community while 31% were neutral. Although 45% of respondents agreed that government officers and leaders were accessible they were divided in their opinion regarding trust in the political system: 38% distrusted the system; 39% trusted the system, while 23% were neutral on the issue. However, 57% of participants agreed that they trusted the legal system. It should be noted that 2010 was a year with an unusually high number of political scan dals which certainly influenced the results of this study. For example, in March 2009 the municipal archive of Cologne completely collapsed while reparations of a smaller cave in were in progress. Similarly, in 2010, evidence of official miss

PAGE 129

129 management an d even manipulation of official documents came to light as the city chose to ignore recommendations of engineers in order to save time and money. Furthermore, it was discovered that workers stole steel girders intended for the municipal archive and sold th em to scrap metal merchants. In conjunction with the collapse of the municipal archive, the Public Attorney began a criminal investigation into possible fraud regarding manipulations and ensuing safety concerns of the construction ons (underground stations). A further scandal involving garbage collection came to an end in the spring of 2010 after several years of investigation; several political leaders were found guilty of fraud that involved falsification of invoices and illicit e arnings. Quality of Life Quality of life was composed of both personal and community quality of life. Although the mean scores for satisfaction with overall personal quality of life and overall satisfaction with community quality were the same (7.6), the i ndividual satisfaction levels with more specific items were markedly lower for community quality of life. Specific item descriptions are noted below. Personal quality of life Respondents were generally satisfied with their personal quality of life (Table 4 3). In fact, on a scale from 0 to 10, the means ranged between 6.04 and 7.79. Respondents were most satisfied with their personal relationships (mean = 7.8, standard deviation= 2.2), and least satisfied with their future security (mean = 6, standard devia tion= 2.1). Although satisfaction with spirituality or religion had the lowest mean, almost 40% rated this item as neutral. Over 50% of respondents rated their satisfaction level at 8 for six out of eight questions. More specifically, 48% rated their satis faction with personal

PAGE 130

130 relationships above 8, while 38% rated the satisfaction level with their health, respectively. Approximately 55% rated their satisfaction with respect to safety, standard of living, and life achievement at 8 or above. Similarly, 53% o f respondents rated their satisfaction with feeling part of one s community at 8 or higher. Respondents were slightly less satisfied, or perhaps more uncertain towards their future security as 42% rated their satisfaction level at 7 or lower. Community qua lity of life The mean scores for community quality of life were slightly lower than personal quality of life and ranged between 4.9 and 6.2 (Table 4 4). Respondents were most satisfied with the local security in Cologne (mean = 6.2, standard deviation= 2.1 ) and least satisfied with the government in Cologne (mean = 4.9, standard deviation= 2.1). Additionally, 50% of respondents rated the state of the environment, business, and social conditions as generally positive with ratings of between 5 and 8. Tourism Support Residents were generally supportive of tourism, with 62% agreement in the current level of tourism development in Cologne as appropriate, and 70% in disagreement with the notion that local government should restrict tourism development. However, o nly 50% reported that they supported the active encouragement of tourism in Cologne. Hence, it could be inferred that although residents are not negatively inclined to tourism in Cologne, they are not supportive of further increases in tourism development. Based on personal interactions with participants, this response was more likely due to the residents were hesitant with respect to the word active The statement was of ten interpreted as a personal active involvement rather than a community wide proactive

PAGE 131

131 tourism development perspective. Respondents did not feel as if they were informed as to the level of sustainability of the tourism sector since 39% were neutral about it. Results of Proposed Conceptual Model Twenty one hypotheses regarding the effects of perceived tourism impacts on were empirically tested. A conceptual model was prop osed and analyzed using SEM. The model proposes both direct and indirect relationships between the exogenous variables (perceived tourism impacts: economic, environmental, socio cultural and institutional) and the endogenous variables (community quality of life, personal quality of life, and support for tourism). Quality of life (personal and community) was hypothesized as a mediating variable, which may be both a cause and effect variable. A visual representation of the resulting structural model with stan dardized coefficients is illustrated in Figure 4 1. Hypotheses Tested The hypotheses were formulated based on sustainable tourism dimensions and are discussed in four sections. Support for the hypotheses were examined via the significance of individual pat h coefficients between the variables of interest based on the results of the structural equation model. Economic Impacts H1a. There is a direct relationship between perceived economic impacts and resident support for tourism. The results of the SEM analysis rev ealed that there was a significant direct effect of perceived economic impacts on resident support for tourism (standardized coefficient of

PAGE 132

132 .18; p = .05). Hence, the hypothesis was supported. Residents who perceive positive economic impacts of tourism wer e more likely to support tourism. H1b. There is an indirect relationship between perceived economic impacts and resident support for tourism mediated by community quality of life. While the total effect of economic impacts on tourism support was significant (st andardized coefficient of .20; p =.03 ), there was no significant indirect path between perceived economic impacts and resident support for tourism through community quality of life (standardized coefficient of .00, p=.75) or through community and personal quality of life (standardized coefficient of .00, p=.59). Therefore, there was lack of support for the hypothesis. H1c. There is an indirect relationship between perceived economic impacts and resident support for tourism mediated by personal quality of life. While the total effect of economic impacts on tourism support was significant (standardized coefficient of .20, p = .03), there was no significant indirect path between perceived economic impacts and through personal quality of life (standardized coefficie nt of .02, p =.23 ) or through both community and personal quality of life (standardized coefficient of .00, p=.59). Therefore, there was lack of support for the hypothesis. H1d. There is a direct relationship between perceived economic impacts and community qu ality of life. The results of the SEM analysis revealed that there were no significant effects of perceived economic impacts on community quality of life (standardized coefficient of .05, p = .56 ). Hence, there was no support for the hypothesis. Howe ver, it was interesting to note, that while not significant, the relationship was negative. H1e. There is a direct relationship between perceived economic impacts and personal quality of life.

PAGE 133

133 The SEM analysis showed that there was a significant direct effect o f perceived economic impacts on personal quality of life (standardized coefficient of .22; p = .03). Therefore, the hypothesis was supported. Residents feel that the economic impacts of tourism positively affect their personal quality of life. Environmental I mpacts H2a. There is a direct relationship between perceived environmental impacts and resident support for tourism. The results of the SEM analysis revealed that perceived environmental impacts had a significant direct effect on resident support for tourism (standardized coefficient of .24, p = 00 ). Therefore, the hypothesis was supported. Residents that perceived positive environmental impacts were more likely to report support for tourism H2b. There is an indirect relationship between perceived environmental im pacts and resident support for tourism mediated by community quality of life. While the total effect of environmental impacts on tourism support was significant (standardized coefficient of .23, p =.00 ), there was no significant indirect path between perce ived environmental impacts through community quality of life (standardized coefficient of .00, p=.73) or through both community and personal quality of life (standardized coefficient of .00, p=.49). Therefore, the hypothesis was not supported. H2c. There is an indirect relationship between perceived environmental impacts and resident support for tourism mediated by personal quality of life. While the total effect of environmental impacts on tourism support was significant (standardized coefficient of .23, p=.00 ), there was no significant indirect path between perceived environmental impacts and resident support for tourism through personal quality of life (standardized coefficient of .01, p = .25) or through both community and

PAGE 134

134 personal quality of life (standard ized coefficient of .00, p=.49). Therefore, the hypothesis was not supported. H2d. There is a direct relationship between perceived environmental impacts and community quality of life. There was no significant direct effect of perceived environmental impacts on community quality of life demonstrated in the SEM analysis (standardized coefficient of .06, p = .41). Hence, there is no support for the hypothesis. H2e. There is a direct relationship between perceived environmental impacts and personal quality of life. The SEM analysis showed that there was a significant negative direct effect of perceived environmental impacts on personal quality of life (standardized coefficient of .15, p = .03). Therefore, residents feel that the environmental impacts of tourism negativ ely affect their personal quality of life. Socio cultural Impacts H3a. There is a direct relationship between perceived socio cultural impacts and resident support for tourism. The results of the SEM analysis revealed that perceived socio cultural impacts had a significant direct effect on resident support for tourism (standardized coefficient of .22, p = 0.01). Therefore, the hypothesis was supported. Residents who perceive positive socio cultural benefits of tourism were more likely to support tourism. H3b. There i s an indirect relationship between perceived socio cultural impacts and resident support for tourism mediated by community quality of life. While the total effect of socio cultural impacts on tourism support was significant (standardized coefficient of .22 p=.01), there was no significant indirect path between perceived socio cultural impacts and resident support for tourism through community quality of life (standardized coefficient of .01, p = .72) or through community and

PAGE 135

135 personal quality of life (stan dardized coefficient of .01, p = .16). Therefore, the hypothesis was not supported. H3c. There is an indirect relationship between perceived socio cultural impacts and resident support for tourism mediated by personal quality of life. While the total effect of socio cultural impacts on tourism support was significant (standardized coefficient of .22, p=.01), there was no significant indirect path between perceived socio cultural impacts and resident support for tourism through personal quality of life (standardi zed coefficient of .01, p = .60) or through community and personal quality of life (standardized coefficient of .01, p = .16). Therefore, the hypothesis was not supported. H3d. There is a direct relationship between perceived socio cultural impacts and communi ty quality of life. P erceived socio cultural impacts had a significant direct effect on community quality of life as evidenced by the SEM analysis (standardized coefficient of .28, p = .00). Therefore, residents feel that the socio cultural impacts of touri sm positively affect their community quality of life. H3e. There is a direct relationship between perceived socio cultural impacts and personal quality of life. There was no significant direct effect of the socio cultural impacts on personal quality of life (st andardized coefficient of .05, p = .56). However, there was a significant indirect effect (standardized coefficient of .10, p=.00). The only indirect path from socio cultural impacts to personal quality of life was via community quality of life hence, the r elationship between socio cultural impacts and personal quality of life was completely mediated by community quality of life.

PAGE 136

136 Institutional Structure H4a. There is a direct relationship between perceived institutional structure and resident support for tourism. The results of the SEM analysis revealed that perceived institutional structure had a significant direct effect on resident support for tourism (standardized coefficient of .23, p=.00). Hence the hypothesis was supported. Residents who feel they have the opportunity to participate in local governance, were more likely to support tourism. H4b. There is an indirect relationship between perceived institutional structure and resident support for tourism mediated by community quality of life. While the total effect of perceived institutional structure on tourism support was significant (standardized coefficient of .23, p=.00), there was no significant indirect path between perceived institutional structure and resident support for tourism through community quality of life (standardized coefficient of .01, p = .71) or through community and personal quality of life (standardized coefficient of .01, p = .14). Therefore, the hypothesis was not supported. H4c. There is an indirect relationship between perceived institutional s tructure and resident support for tourism mediated by personal quality of life. While the total effect of perceived institutional structure on tourism support was significant (standardized coefficient of .23, p=.00), there was no significant indirect path between perceived institutional structure and resident support for tourism through personal quality of life (standardized coefficient of .00, p = .56) or through community and personal quality of life (standardized coefficient of .01, p = .14). Therefore, the hypothesis was not supported. H4d. There is a direct relationship between perceived institutional structure and community quality of life.

PAGE 137

137 P erceived institutional structure had a significant direct effect on community quality of life as evidenced by the SEM analysis (standardized coefficient of .39, p=.00). Not only was the hypothesized relationship supported, the effect of perceived institutional structure had the strongest effect on community quality of life. Residents felt that the opportunity to particip ate in local governance affects their community quality of life. H4e. There is a direct relationship between perceived institutional structure and personal quality of life. While the SEM analysis revealed a significant total effect of perceived institutional st ructure on personal quality of life (standardized coefficient of .11, p=.02), there was no significant direct effect (standardized coefficient of .03, p=.51). However, the indirect effect was significant (standardized coefficient of .15, p=.00). As the on ly indirect path between perceived institutional structure and personal quality of life is via community quality of life, the relationship is completely mediated by community quality of life. Quality of Life H5. There is a direct relationship between community quality of life and personal quality of life. The results of the SEM analysis revealed a significant effect of community quality of life on personal quality of life (standardized coefficient of .37, p=.00). Furthermore, community quality of life had the s trongest effect on personal quality of life. Residents feel that community quality of life affects their personal quality of life.

PAGE 138

138 Figure 4 1 Structural model of tourism impacts, quality of life, and support for tourism with standardized coefficients Note: = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .000

PAGE 139

139 Table 4 1. Demographic profile of participants Demographic Characteristics Frequency Percentage (%) a Gender (n=618) Male 289 47 Female 329 53 Age (n=613) 18 25 115 19 26 35 155 25 36 45 14 6 24 46 55 80 13 56 65 71 12 66 85 46 8 Highest level of Education (n=601) Basic Secondary / High School ( Volks/Hauptschule ) 86 14 Mid level Secondary /High School ( Realschule/Mittlere Reife ) 111 1 9 High level Secondary / High School (Fach ) A bitur (university entrance diploma) 157 26 Tertiary education / Community College (Fach ) Hochschule 71 1 2 University degree ( Studium ) 175 29 Monthly household income before taxes b (n=516) EUR 1000 or less 78 15 EUR 1001 1500 69 13 EUR 1501 20 00 78 15 EUR 2001 2500 64 13 EUR 2501 3000 38 8 EUR 3001 3500 42 8 EUR 3501 4000 36 7 EUR 4001 4500 48 9 EUR 4501 5000 32 6 more than EUR 5001 3 1 6 Employment (n=591) Student, Professional or Vocational Training 109 18 Salaried Empl oyee 208 35 Managerial Employee 52 9 Self employed 41 7 Civil Servant 36 6 Homemaker 37 6 Retired 69 12 Unemployed 29 5 a The percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding; b Exchange rate: United States Dollar (US $) 1 = European Union Euro ( EUR ) 0.73

PAGE 140

140 Tab le 4 2. Descriptive statistics of tourism impacts Questionnaire Statement a e Mean SD b 1 (%) 2 (%) 3 (%) 4 (%) 5 (%) 6 (%) 7 (%) n Economic: Tourism has improved the local infrastructure (roads, public transport, electricity net) d 3.98 1.72 13.3 9.3 10.7 24.6 21.8 13.2 5.1 610 Tourism increases our cost of living (goods and services more expensive) c d 4.43 1.64 4.1 7.7 14.6 32.2 12.7 13.3 15.3 608 Tourism decreases the quality of employment in this area c 5.04 1.50 1.1 4.3 8.5 26.4 17.2 20.1 22.4 611 Tourism improves our standard of living 5.08 1.53 3.5 3.2 6.4 19.2 23.8 24.1 19.8 626 Tourism decreases the quality of local services to the community (emergency & utilities) c 5.16 1.65 2.4 4.2 11.2 17.9 13.5 22.9 27.9 624 Tou rism increases the communit s tax revenue 5.25 1.5 1 2.4 3.2 5.0 20.7 18.1 25.6 24.9 618 Tourism creates job opportunities for local people 5.74 1.3 1 0.8 1.8 4.7 8.7 17.8 32.2 34.1 626 Tourism is good for our communit s economy 5.81 1.27 1.1 1.3 1 .8 10.7 18.3 29.7 37.0 616 Environmental: Tourism increases traffic & parking congestion in Cologne c d 2.56 1.52 26.7 32.5 19.8 9.8 4.5 3.5 3.2 622 Tourism increases environmental pollution c 3.47 1.61 9.0 22.1 26.1 17.5 12.1 8.0 5.2 612 In creasing exhaustion of water & energy resources due to tourism c 4.18 1.65 4.9 10.9 17.7 30.8 11.7 11.5 12.5 606 In recent years, my community has become overcrowded because of tourists c 4.39 1.79 5.2 13.1 14.9 18.2 16.7 16.6 15.3 616 a Variables code d on a 7 point scale anchored with 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree; b Standard deviation; c Item was reverse coded prior to analysis; d Item deleted after confirmatory factor and reliability analyses; e the percentages may not sum to 100 due t o rounding

PAGE 141

141 Tab le 4 2. continued Questionnaire Statement a e Mean SD b 1 (%) 2 (%) 3 (%) 4 (%) 5 (%) 6 (%) 7 (%) n Tourism negatively impacts the quality of our natural environment c 4.4 4 1.6 6 4.3 8.5 17.0 22.0 18.8 16.2 13.3 624 Tourism enhances prese rvation of our natural environment c d 4.52 1.59 3.9 8.9 10.1 27.5 18.7 19.8 11.1 615 Tourism negatively impacts the quality of our historic buildings & monuments c 5.29 1.64 2.1 5.8 6.6 17.3 15.7 20.6 32.0 625 Tourism enhances the preservation of our hi storic buildings & monuments d 5. 7 5 1. 3 6 2.1 1.6 3.9 6.9 16.5 34.7 34.2 619 Socio cultural: Tourism increases the level of criminal activities c d 4.16 1.68 5.2 12.5 19.2 22.9 16.1 12.8 11.2 615 Tourism has increased our sense of community pri de 4.58 1.70 6.9 6.0 9.4 26.0 17.2 20.3 14.2 605 Tourism increases the recreational opportunities residents can enjoy 4.69 1.50 4.6 5.2 7.5 23.4 27.7 21.8 9.8 611 Local traditions and practices have been conserved or restored due to tourism 4.72 1.52 4.7 4.4 7.8 26.3. 22.5 23.2 11.2 617 Tourism has increased community services (restaurants, shopping, cultural facilities) 4.98 1.44 1.9 4.2 8.7 19.1 25.9 25.6 14.6 622 Local friendliness has decreased due to tourism c 5.10 1.63 2.8 4.2 10.5. 19.6 13.5 24.6 24.8 617 Tourism negatively impacts our communities character c 5.20 1.71 2.7 6.5 9.2 14.7 13.6 22.8 30.5 619 There is an increased demand for local goods due to tourism 5.22 1.29 1.3 1.8 5.7 17.3 29.0 28.7 16.2 613 a Variables coded on a 7 point scale anchored with 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree; b Standard deviation; c Item was reverse coded prior to analysis; d Item deleted after confirmatory factor and reliability analyses; e the percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

PAGE 142

142 Tab le 4 2. continued Questionnaire Statement a e Mean SD b 1 (%) 2 (%) 3 (%) 4 (%) 5 (%) 6 (%) 7 (%) n Tourism increases the number of cultural events offered in our community 5.42 1.28 1.0 3.1 2.7 13.7 25.5 33.4 20.5 619 Tourism provides cultural exchange an d increases cultural understanding 5.71 1.39 1.6 2.7 3.1 9.0 17.6 31.0 34.9 619 Institutional: There is good communication between residents and community leaders 3.2 9 1. 52 14.1 19.1 21.1 25.8 11.6 5.9 2.5 612 There is transparency of decisio n making processes in our community 3.3 4 1.46 13.4 17.3 19.4 30.5 11.7 6.4 1.3 613 Residents have opportunities to get involved in tourism decision making d 3.44 1.41 11.7 15.5 16.4 38.4 10.7 5.70 1.50 614 Community voices are respected by decision maker s 3.6 7 1.4 3 7.5 14.9 19.6 31.3 17.2 6.7 2.8 611 I trust our political system 3. 89 1.68 12.1 10.3 16.0 22.9 20.3 13.7 4.7 612 Residents can influence community decisions 3.9 2 1.4 8 6.3 12.9 17.7 26.1 23.4 10.7 3.0 606 Community development is in line wit h the community vision d 3.99 1.17 4..7 6.5 7.0 60.1 12.7 6.3 2.7 557 I feel I can access government officers & leaders 4.34 1.54 7.4 4.5 10.2 33.3 20.6 16.7 7.3 606 I trust our legal system 4. 59 1.6 1 6.3 6.0 9.6 21.0 24.4 22.8 9.9 615 There are many go od leaders in this town d 5.01 1.38 2.0 3.1 6.4 22.6 26.9 24.8 14.3 610 a Variables coded on a 7 point scale anchored with 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree; b Standard deviation; c Item was reverse coded prior to analysis; d Item deleted after confirmatory factor and reliability analyses; e the percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding

PAGE 143

143 Tab le 4 3. Descriptive statistics of personal quality of life Questionnaire Statement a d Mean SD b 0 (%) 1 (%) 2 (%) 3 (%) 4 (%) 5 (%) 6 (%) 7 (%) 8 (%) 9 (%) 10 (%) n How satisfied are you with you spirituality or religion? c 6.04 2.5 3 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.7 4.3 38. 4 9.0 6.5 9.5 7.3 13. 8 60 1 How satisfied are you with your future security? 6.62 2.1 3 0.8 0.6 3.5 3.8 7.0 12. 8 13. 7 18. 0 21. 5 11. 6 6.5 62 7 Ho w satisfied are you with feeling part of your community? 7.26 2.02 0.8 1.3 1.3 2.6 2.6 8.8 10.9 18.5 24.3 19.5 9.6 626 How satisfied are you with your standard of living? 7.31 1.96 0.3 1.3 0.9 2.7 3.8 6.6 12.3 16.9 27.4 17.1 10.6 632 How satisfied are yo u with what you are achieving in life? 7.38 1.90 0.2 0.8 1.9 2.7 2.1. 7.3 9.1 19.7 28.0 18.6 9.7 629 How satisfied are you with how safe you feel? 7.40 1.88 0.2 0.3 2.2 1.8 2.1 8.5 11.4 17.8 26.3 18.4 11.1 624 How satisfied are you with your health? 7.41 2.21 1.3 1.1 1.9 2.7 3.8 7.0 8.7 15.0 20.7 23.7 14.1 632 How satisfied are you with your personal relationships? 7.79 2.18 0.5 1.1 1.8 3.0 3.5 5.3 6.4 11.2 19.5 25.4 22.4 626 a Variables coded on an 11 point scale anchored with 0 = completely dissatisf ied and 10 = completely satisfied; b Standard deviation; c Item deleted after confirmatory factor and reliability analyses; d the percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding

PAGE 144

144 Tab le 4 4. Descriptive statistics of community quality of life Questionna ire Statement a c Mean SD b 0 (%) 1 (%) 2 (%) 3 (%) 4 (%) 5 (%) 6 (%) 7 (%) 8 (%) 9 (%) 10 (%) n How satisfied are you with government in Cologne? 4.90 2.07 3.0 4.2 5.6 10.6 12.6 27.0 15.2 11.8 6.9 2.2 0.8 625 How satisfied are you with the economic situ ation in Cologne? 5.58 2.01 1.3 1.6 5.1 7.6 9.2 22.7 18.6 16.4 11.9 4.1 1.4 629 How satisfied are you with state of the environment in Cologne? 5.73 2.06 1.0 1.7 4.1 8.4 11.0 17.0 18.3 18.4 13.2 4.8 2.2 630 How satisfied are you with business in Cologne? 5.76 1.87 0.6 1.4 4.3 5.0 7.1 25.0 22.2 18.3 9.3 5.3 1.4 623 How satisfied are you with social conditions in Cologne? 5.85 2.01 1.0 1.3 3.8 5.9 10.7 20.3 16.9 19.3 13.1 4.9 2.9 627 How satisfied are you with local security in Cologne? 6.22 2.06 1.3 1.3 2.4 5.8 7.5 14.6 17.6 21.0 17.6 7.5 3.4 624 a Variables coded on an 11 point scale anchored with 0 = completely dissatisfied and 10 = completely satisfied; b Standard deviation; c the percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding

PAGE 145

145 Tab le 4 5. Descript ive statistics of resident support for tourism Questionnaire Statement a e Mean SD b 1 (%) 2 (%) 3 (%) 4 (%) 5 (%) 6 (%) 7 (%) n The tourism sector in Cologne is currently not sustainable enough c d 4.01 1.43 3.4 11.8 16.9 38.5 11.6 12.5 5.2 610 I sup port the active encouragement of tourism in Cologne 4.38 1.95 14.7 5.6 7.4 21.0 16.0 20.7 14.6 624 T he current level of tourism development in Cologne is appropriate 4.90 1.22 1.4 1.6 5.8 29.0 30.1 22.6 9.5 624 Local government should restrict tourism de velopment in Cologne c 5.44 1.63 1.8 4.6 7.4 16.8 11.1 20.4 38.0 624 a Variables coded on a 7 point scale anchored with 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree; b Standard deviation; c Item was reverse coded prior to analysis; d Item deleted after c onfirmatory factor and reliability analyses; e the percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

PAGE 146

146 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Summary of Findings I mproved quality of life for residents has been one of the fundamental objective s of tourism development by highl ighting economic opportunity, prosperity and protecting cultural and natural resources of the host destination (Ap, 1992; Ap & Crompton, 1998; Bachleitner & Zins, 1999; McCool & Martin, 1994; McKool et al., 2001; Murphy & Price, 20 04; Perdue et al., 1990). S ustainable tourism aims to maximize the positive and minimize the negative impacts of tourism b y integrating the economic, environmental, and socio cultural needs of the current tourists and host communities while c oncurrently protecting the needs of future generations ( UNWTO 2004). Subsequently, if residents perceive that tourism has a substantial role in the achievement of these goals, they will likely be supportive of development. The findings of this study hi ghlight the effects of perceived tourism impacts on both personal, and community quality of life, Residents were asked to rate their level of agreement with tourism impacts based on the four di mensions of sustainability, namely economic, environmental, socio cultural, and institutional. It was hypothesized that resident perceptions of tourism impacts affect community and personal quality of life, as well as support for tourism. Furthermore, it w as postulated that quality of life mediates the relationship between perceived impacts and support for tourism. Results revealed that residents had overall positive perceptions of tourism; were generally satisfied with their quality of life, and were suppo rtive of tourism in Cologne. Findings support previous research whereby residents who have positive perceptions of tourism impacts generally support tourism in

PAGE 147

147 their community (Andereck & Jurowski, 2006; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Dyer et al., 2007; Gursoy et al., 2002; Jurowski et al., 1997; King, Pizam & Milman, 1993; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Perdue et al., 1990; Snaith & Haley, 1995). While past research examining resident perceptions of tourism impacts and subsequent support for tourism implied that the impact p erceptions were tantamount to impacts on resident quality of life, the present study integrated an actual measure of quality of life in order to more fully understand the relationship between tourism impacts and resident quality of life. Based on the inclu sion of both community and personal quality of life constructs, the findings showed that although positive perceptions of tourism impacts may predict support for tourism, their relationship with resident quality of life might not be as straightforward as previously assumed. Moreover, perceived tourism impacts had varying effects on community and personal quality of life, and neither mediated the relationship between perceived tourism impacts and support for tourism. More specifically, r esident perceptions of the institutional structure of Cologne and the socio cultural impacts of tourism had significant direct effects on community quality of life; conversely, resident perceptions of economic and environmental impacts had significant dire ct effects on personal quality of life. Additionally, a negative relationship existed between perceived environmental impacts and personal quality of life and perceptions of socio cultural tourism impacts and of institutional structure demonstrated weak in direct effects on personal quality of life mediated by community quality of life Furthermore, community quality of life had the strongest effect on personal quality of life. A thorough discussion regarding individual effects of perceived tourism impacts o n community/personal quality of life, and support for tourism is noted below.

PAGE 148

148 Community Quality of Life perceptions of economic, environmental, socio cultural tourism imp acts, and institutional structure. Contrary to expectations, only the perceptions of the institutional structure of Cologne and of socio cultural tourism impacts had a significant effect on community quality of life; both effects were positive. More specif ically, community quality of life was most strongly affected by perceptions of the institutional structure, indicating that the more residents felt they were informed, consulted, and respected, the more positively they perceived their community quality of life. While there is much theoretical literature which presents reasons why political participation, democracy and political rights positively affect quality of life, relatively little empirical research has been undertaken in this area (Weitz Shapiro & Wi nters, 2008). However, a recent comparison of 127 nations showed strong correlations between both democratic and technical quality of governance, and average happiness of citizens (Ott, 2010). Another current empirical investigation combined data from 20 E uropean countries using the European Social Survey and found a statistically significant relationship between political participation and life satisfaction (Pacheco & Lange, 2010). Furthermore, while social and political structures have always been deemed important within the sustainable development literature; they were historically not conceptualized as a dimension to coincide with the traditional economic, environmental, and socio cultural dimensions. However, Cottrell and colleagues (Cottrell & Vaske, 2 006; Shen & Cottrell, 2008; Huayhuaca, Cottrell, Gradl & Mateev, 2010) recently began including the institutional dimension as an indicator of local participation in

PAGE 149

149 political governance, and have consistently found it to be a significant predictor of r esident satisfaction with sustainable tourism. Similarly, past research has presented a positive relationship between perceived personal influence on decision making and positive perceptions of tourism development (Ap, 1992; Lankford & Howard, 1994; Madrig al, 1993). Hence, positive resident perceptions of the institutional structure lead to higher levels of subjective community quality of life; underscoring the importance of community involvement as a necessary component of successful sustainable tourism de velopment (Byrd, 2007; Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Hardy, Beeton & Pea rson, 2002, Moswete, 2009; Nicholas, 2007; Yoon, Gursoy, & Chen, 2001). The combination of these findings highlight the importance to include a dimension that addresses the social and politic al structures necessary to plan, implement, and manage the sustainable use of community resources. Moreover, recent discussion regarding social capital may also organization, such as trust, norms and networks . can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions The socio cultural perceptions of tourism impacts also had a significant positive effect on community quality of life Residents perceived the deve lopment of the tourism industry and the interactions with tourists as positive, and hence the experiences added to a positive perception of community quality of life This finding is supportive of the quality of life literature, which has identified that social life and social relations are associated with community well being ( Cummins 1997) This is evidenced in Cologne, as residents were very positive with respect to the social exchange and understanding fostered by tourism al ong with their general feelings of community pride, character and

PAGE 150

150 friendliness. Moreover, the association between positive socio cultural attributes and tourism may be quite apparent as cultural and recreational facilities and opportunities often play a ce ntral role in community life; as noted by Kim (2002) who found that resident perceptions with the availability and quality of public services and facilities positively influenced community quality of l ife. While the current findings further support previ ous studies that have documented perceived benefits such as improved community services, increased cultural and recreational opportunities, as well as an increase in cultural exchange and understanding (Liu & Var, 1986; Gilbert & Clark, 1997; McCool & Mart in, 1994; Perdue et al., 1990); it should be noted that findings have also produced inconsistent results socio cultural impacts of tourism that include negative effects on local traditions, values, and culture, even resulting in a commercialization or loss of local culture and identity (Cohen, 1 9 88; Dogan, 1989). However, these impacts are more likely to be problematic in destinations where the socio cultural differences between residents and tourists are divergent. While the residents of Cologne certainly experience negative facets of life such as crime, perhaps even changes in local friendliness, or other negative socio cultural impacts, it is probably difficult to disc ern between the effects of tourism and other causes. Based on the results, residents did not perceive that the environmental impacts of satisfaction with urban living, Mc Crea, Stimson, and Western (2005) found that environmental considerations were one of the least important factors that predicted

PAGE 151

151 regional satisfaction. Although some Cologne residents attributed an increase in environmental pollution to tourism, most did n ot perceive that tourism negatively affected the quality of the natural environment, historic buildings, or monuments. Moreover, residents did not feel their community had become overcrowded through tourism. It is interesting to note that based on a recent report by the Federal Environmental Agency (2010), 87% of Germans felt that the environmental quality of their own community was good, with 16% even rating it very good. As residents indicated either neutral or rather positive perceptions of the environme ntal situation in Cologne, the findings may be analogous to those with respect to the negative socio cultural impacts : the difficulty may lay in identifying exact causes of environmental problems in a major metropolis While it was unexpected that perceiv ed environmental and economic impacts had no statistically significant effect on community quality of life, it was extremely surprising to identify the negative directionality of the economic impacts. Although quality of life scholars have documented the i mportance of economic needs to overall quality of life (Diener et al., 1995; Cummins, 1998; Diener & Suh, 1999), these studies have been conducted at the individual rather than the community level. For example, in a tourism specific study, Kim (2002) inves tigated the effect of economic tourism impact perceptions on the material well being domain of personal well being but a possible effect of economic impacts on community quality of life was unfortunately not examined However, economic growth and job creat ion have been the dri ving force behind much tourism development and it is generally taken for granted that these factors improve resident quality of life within the host community. Residents of Cologne had overall

PAGE 152

152 positive perceptions of tourism, which is in accordance with previous research (Akis et al., 1996; Ap & Crompton, 1998; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Carmichael et al., 1996; Faulkner & Tideswell, 1997; Gilbert & Clark 1997; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Johnson et al., 1994; Long et al.,1990; Liu & Var, 1986; McCool and Martin 1994; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Perdue et al., 1990; Sheldon & Var, 1984) Moreover, it has been documented that reside nts in communities that are less dependent economically on tourism have more positive perceptions of tourism impacts than residents of more economically dependent communities (Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003; McGehee & Andereck, 2004). Hence, resident s overall positive perceptions about economic impacts would be hypothesized to have a positive effect on community quality of l ife This unexpected lack of statistical significance may be reflective of the nature of the study site. Recently Schofield (2010) indicated that economic concerns were not the most pressing issue for residents in an urban environment on the outskirts of Manchester, England. Both Cologne and Manchester are large metropolitan cities that are not economically dependent on tourism. Furthermore, both cities are located in relatively economically affluent countries with strong universal social welfare systems t hat ensure a minimum standard of quality of life for their citizens. In fact, out of 1 69 countries Germany is currently ranked tenth on the United Nations Human Development Index (UNDHI 2011 ) which places it in the top six percent The state of the local economy has been found to influence perceptions of tourism impacts and it has been suggested that residents of economically depressed areas focus more on the economic benefits of tourism and are more likely to support tourism development even if they are aware of possible negative impacts ( Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Gursoy et al., 2002 ; Gursoy &

PAGE 153

153 Rutherford, 2004 ) In a community that is economically diversified and not dependent on tourism, it is likely more difficult to differentiate between the economic im pacts of tourism and other sectors of the economy. However, in smaller and less diversified economies that are more economically dependent on tourism, the economic impacts attributed to the tourism industry are likely to be more readily apparent to residen ts. Hence, it could be posited that in such communities, perceived economic impacts from tourism may have a greater effect on community quality of life. Another possible explanation could be related to the measurement scale or level of proximity with respe ct to the quality of life construct. More specifically, Cummins (2003) proposed two dimensions that influence subjective quality of life evaluations: abstract specific and proximal distal. The abstract specific dimension ranges from the more abstract evalu life domains; the proximal ranges from highly personal to societal/global (p.165) and may be particularly relevant in this cu rrent study As the homeostatic system is intended to maintain a positive sense of personal wellbeing, its influence diminishes as one moves from abstract to specific, and from proximal (personal) to more distal (society) evaluations (Cummins, 2003). There fore, the predictive effect of perceived economic impacts on quality of life may be scale dependent. A recent study in Baltimore examined the relationship between social capital, income, and the natural environment, with life satisfaction while differentia ting between individual and community life satisfaction Results identified that while income resulted in higher satisfaction at the individual level it was not apparent at the community level ( Vemuri Grove, Wilson & Burch, 2011). In light of this findin g, Vemuri

PAGE 154

154 et al. (2011) suggested that individual life satisfaction primarily focuses on an being while neighborhood satisfaction focuses more on social interactions. This might explain why both socio cultural and instituti onal aspects of life significantly affected community quality of life in this study ; both are associated with social interactions, while economic and environmental aspects of life can be more closely aligned with individual psychological well being. Person al Quality of Life perceptions of economic, environmental, socio cultural tourism impacts, institutional structure, and community quality of life. Similar to previous stud ies, community quality of life had a significant positive e ffect on personal quality of life (Marans, 2003; Norman, Harwell & Allen, 1997; Wagner, 1995) which indicates that as community quality of life increases, so does personal quality of life. However the findings with regard to perceived tourism impacts were somewhat surprising, as only two of the impact dimensions significantly affected personal quality of life. Interestingly, they were impact dimensions (economic and environmental) that were statis tically not significant for community quality of life. Consistent with previous findings (Gilbert & Clark, 1997; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Johnson et al., 1994; Liu & Var, 1986; Perdue et al., 1990), residents of Cologne generally perceived that tour ism had positive effects on the local economy, job creation, community tax revenues, and standard of living. Furthermore, the majority of residents did not perceive tourism to decrease the quality of local services to the community, nor the quality of loca l employment. Perceived economic impacts of tourism

PAGE 155

155 perceptions of economic impacts increase, so does their personal quality of life. While overall community qualit y of life was the strongest predictor of personal quality of life, the perceived economic impact of tourism was the second strongest predictor. Since economic needs are central to overall quality of life (Diener et al., 1995; Cummins, 1998; Diener & Suh, 1 999) and the perceptions of economic tourism impacts were predominantly positive, it was not surprising a significant effect on personal quality of life exisited. This effect supports Kim (2002) who found that resident perceptions of economic tourism impac ts positively affected the material well being domain of quality of life. Furthermore, these findings are comparable with Vemuri et al. (2011) who documented that income was a predictor of higher levels of individual life satisfaction in urban areas, but n ot at the neighborhood level. The fact that perceptions of economic tourism impacts only had a significant positive effect on personal quality of life, and not on community quality of life is interesting, as the distinction between both types of quality of life had not previously been examined in tourism impact studies. While some residents felt tourism increased environmental pollution, most did not negatively associate tourism with the quality of the natural environment, historic buildings, or monuments. Moreover, residents did not associate blame to tourism for Nonetheless, although the perceptions of environmental tourism impacts had no effect at the community level, they had a significant negative effect on personal qual ity of life. Based on a recent report of the German Federal Environmental agency (2010), although Germans reported environmental satisfaction with their more immediate surroundings, over 80% felt that the state of the global environment is precarious, and hence environmental issues

PAGE 156

156 remain a high priority among the public. Interestingly, 43% of Germans reported they were aware of environmental s ustainability as a concept and between 30% and 44% (depending on the issue) felt environmental protection was funda mental to the accomplishment of economic and social challenges Hence, in this current study, even though residents generally noted neutral to positive perceptions of tourism impacts, perhaps the environmental consciousness has become so ingrained that it is an important component of psychological wellbeing. Therefore, even though residents may evaluate the surrounding environment as fairly positive, the environmental dimension nevertheless has a negative impact on personal quality of life as improvements a re always deemed possible. T he community quality of life literature has occasionally included an environmental domain that has generally focused on physical, social, economic, and safety features rather than the natural environment (Vemuri et al., 2011 ) Vemuri et al. included both objective and subjective environmental indicators of environmental quality, and contrary to present findings reported positive effects on both neighborhood and personal life satisfaction. However, based on work by Cummins et al. (2001) the study utilized the global personal and neighborhood life satisfaction questions, as well as the domain specific question regarding satisfaction with the quality of the environment as the subjective indicator for environmental quality. Si nce this represents one of the deconstructed domains theoretically embedded in the global question, perhaps it should not be not surprising to identify a statistically significant correlation between the variables. However, as the other environmental quali ty indicators also resulted in positive correlations with both individual and neighborhood satisfaction, the findings

PAGE 157

157 support the call for further investigations into the effect of environmental quality and quality of life (Costanza et al., 2007; van Kamp, Leidelmeijer, Marsman, & de Hollander, 2003; Vemuri & Constanza, 2006 ; Vemuri et al. 2011). The socio cultural impacts perceptions of tourism and the perceptions of the institutional structure had no significant direct effects on personal quality of life However, the perception of institutional structure had a significant total and indirect effect on personal quality of life mediated by community quality of life, while the perceived socio cultural impacts had a significant indirect effect mediated by com munity quality of life. It could be envisaged that residents viewed the opportunity to participate in the political process as more important for overall social welfare than for their personal welfare, yet obviously, it had an indirect impact on personal q uality of life. Similarly, while positive socio cultural effects were perceived to benefit the community as a whole and residents approve d of such positive development within the community ; perhaps they may not utilize the benefits personally and hence on ly fel t the indirect effect on personal quality of life. Resident Support for Tourism It was hypothesized that resident support for tourism was directly affected by their perceptions of economic, environmental and socio cultural tourism impacts, percepti ons of the institutional structure, community quality of life, and personal quality of life. Results partially supported the hypotheses as perceptions of economic, environmental and socio cultural tourism impacts, and perceptions of the institutional struc ture all had positive significant effects on resident support for tourism, which were very similar in strength. However, neither personal nor community quality of life directly

PAGE 158

158 affected resident support for tourism, nor were any of the other relationships mediated by either personal or community quality of life. Resident support for tourism garnered a fairly positive evaluation as 62% of residents generally had positive perceptions of tourism. Moreover, residents particularly recognized the positive impact of t ourism on the local economy and job creation; the increase in cultural and recreational opportunities within the community; as well as the potential enhancement of historic preservation of buildings and monuments. In congruence with previous research, perc eived tourism impacts were found to have a significant positive effect on resident support for tourism (Andereck & Jurowski, 2006; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Dyer et al., 2007; Gursoy et al., 2002; Jurowski et al., 1997; King, Pizam & Milman, 1993; Ko & Stewar t, 2002; Oviedo Garcia, Castellanos Verdugo, & Martin Ruiz; 2008; Perdue et al., 1990; Snaith & Haley, 1995). However, as social exchange theory has been the predominant theoretical base of tourism impact studies (Andereck et al. 2005), tourism impacts ha ve been analyzed in a cost benefit context and generally grouped based on their positive or negative impact on the host community (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Gursoy et al., 2002 & 2009; Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004; Ko & Stewart, 2002; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Ovi edo Garc a et al., 2008; Perdue et al., 1990 & 1995; Vargas Sanchez et al., 2009). Furthermore, the impacts have frequently been subject to factor analysis and failed to produce consistent dimensions. Therefore, possible comparisons with previous studies a re somewhat

PAGE 159

159 limited. However, there are some comparable findings with regard to each of the impact dimensions that will be briefly highlighted. Resident perceptions of positive economic benefits from tourism have been shown to influence resident support fo r tourism development (Chen, 2001; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Dyer et al. 2007; Lee & Back, 2003 ; Shen & Cottrell, 2008; Yoon et al., 2001). Moreover, positive perceptions of socio cultural impacts have also been found to determine resident support for tou rism (Dyer et al., 2007; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Jurowski et al., 1997; Lankford & Howard, 1994; Lee & Back, 2003). While some studies have illustrated that negative perceptions of environmental impacts have a negative effect on resident satisfaction or support for tourism (Chen, 2001; Shen & Cottrell, 2008; Yoon et al., 2001), others have found no significant effects on support for tourism (Jurowski et al., 1997). Finally, perceptions with respect to institutional structure have consistently been found to predict resident satisfaction with tourism ( Cottrell et al. 2007; Cottrell & Vaske, 2006; Huayhuaca et al., 2010). Conclusion Sustainability has become the predominant development per s pective over the last two decades and the fundamental principles hav e been found to be in congruence with the achievement of a better quality of life in community development projects. One avenue of community development has been through tourism. Based on the interdependent relationship between tourists and residents, ther e is a plethora of research which has investigated resident perceptions attitudes and support for tourism However, p ast studies have lacked major reference to the social indicator literature that has utilized relevant subjective conceptu alizations of quality of life. Most tourism studies inferred

PAGE 160

160 scales. Therefore, previous tourism attitude and impact literature has implied that positive or negative perc eptions of tourism impacts could be equated with effects on resident quality of life. Hence, it has been contingent that positive effects of tourism on resident quality of life (as measured by perceived impacts) lead to resident support for tourism. Howeve r, the dearth in literature in the examination of tourism development ( Benckendorff et al. 2009; Carmichael, 2006; Crouch & Ri tchie, 1999; Perdue et al. 1 999; Urtasun & Gutierrez, 2006). Consequently, the present study endeavored to address this gap with the use of two indexes (personal and community) based on domain level scales (from outside the tourism discipli perceptions of tourism (based on the dimensions of sustainability) on quality of life, and subsequent support for tourism. Based on the inclusion of both community and personal quality of life constructs in the present model, significant differences were evidenced with regard to tourism impacts and quality of life. Also, lack of significant relationships between resident quality of life and support for tourism were identified. More specifically, while the perception of i nstitutional structure and socio cultural impacts of tourism had significant direct effects on community quality of life, n either economic nor environmental perceptions of tourism impacts had significant effects. However, the findings with regard to person al quality of life were completely reversed: perceived economic and environmental impacts had significant direct effects, while perceptions of socio cultural tourism impacts and of institutional structure had no significant direct effects. Moreover, neithe r of the quality of life constructs had a significant impact on resident support for tourism. Therefore, two

PAGE 161

161 logical questions arise: first, why do perceptions of tourism impacts have different effects at the personal and community levels; and second, why of life (community/personal) not have any significant impact on support for tourism? The first question has been addressed in the preceding discussion and is related to the scale of measurement, or level of proximity concerning the quality of life construct (Cummins, 2003). Furthermore, the suggestion by Vemuri et al. (2011) that personal quality of life focuses on being while community quality of life is associated with social interactions could al so play a role Additionally, Clarke, Islam, and Paech (2003) suggested that human well being can be approached needs are classified into five progressive categories: basi c, safety, belonging, self esteem and self actualization. The hierarchy begins with the fulfillment of lower order needs (basic needs) and progresses to higher order needs (self actualization). Based on the theory of tourism area life cycle (Butler, 1980) one could argue that early stages of tourism development in a community parallel the level of basic need fulfillment in an individual. Communities initially seek development benefits such as economic growth and job creation to improve local quality of life as evidenced by the by numerous tourism development projects ranging from small local initiatives to major urban hierarchy of needs instead of an individual, it could be p ostulated that initial development stages parallel basic needs fulfillment; as the destination matures and basic needs are fulfilled then the community focus moves to higher order needs.

PAGE 162

162 If this thought process is applied to sic needs are (socio cultural and institutional). Although this is mere supposition, in a statewide survey of Virginia, Kim (2002) hypothesized that the tourism development stage would moderate the relationship between tourism impact dimensions and particular quality of life domains A lthough lack of statistically significant effects were identified some meaningful differences were noted. Particularly relevant t o the previous discussion, the moderating effects between both the economic and social impacts and their respective quality of life domains were strongest in the mature stage of development In order to address the second question, as to why resident qual ity of life fails to predict resident support for tourism, one must step back from the particular research question being investigated and look at the holistic picture. Resident quality of life is affected by numerous aspects of life and while tourism may be particularly relevant for some residents, the majority may feel very little direct impact. In fact, previous research has found that residents who are directly involved with the tourism industry have more positive perceptions and greater support for tou rism ( Brunt & Courtney 1999; Haralambopoulos & Pizam 1996; Jurowski et al., 1997; Lankford & Howard 1994; McGehee & Andereck 2004; Sirakaya et al., 2002). However, although quality of life fail ed to predict resident support we should evaluate whether we are asking the right question The ultimate aim of any community is the maintenance or improvement of resident quality of life and while t ourism is one possible avenue that communities may take in order to achieve this goal tourism development is not the ultimate goal.

PAGE 163

163 vital to monitor resid ent attitudes toward and perceptions of tourism if it is going to be part of successful and sustainable community development, and further understanding of the antecedents of resident support (or lack thereof) is another important aspect of successful deve lopment management. However, it is suggested that the ultimate aim of tourism development should focus on resident quality of life. There is an increasing interest in quality of life by tourism scholars as demonstrated by the recent proliferation of studi es investigating resident quality of life (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2010; Cecil, Fu, Wang & Avgoustis, 2010; Chancellor, Yu, & Cole, 2010; Schofield, 2010). The recent studies certainly contribute to advance the understanding of tourism and quality of life by developing more comprehensive quality of life measures than previously utilized within the tourism literature. However, none have conceptualized quality of life using a domain level representation of global quality of life as conceptualized within the social indicator literature, nor distinguished between personal and community quality of life. Practical Implications Although Cologne experiences visitation rates of more than double its resident population annually, the current assessment of resident perceptions towards tourism noted very positive perceptions of tourism impacts and general support for the industry. City leaders, policy makers, destination marketing and management organizations must make a more concerted effort to further institutional ize the principles and aims of sustainability into the political agenda; to increase the dialog between city leaders and residents, involve local residents in the planning and development processes as highlighted in their community vision for 2020 (Klner Leitbild, 2020). Particularly

PAGE 164

164 apparent was that 60% of respondents were unaware of the community vision, which highlights the insufficient communication between city leaders and community residents. Results indicate that the perceiv ed institutional structu re plays an important role in community quality of life, and to resident support for tourism. However, based on the numerous political scandals between 2009 and 2010, residents have a certain amount of mistrust in the political system. Moreover, residents were uncertain whether they really had any influence on community decision making, feeling that decision makers did not respect community voices. However, residents have not lost hope as they still fe el there are many good leaders who are accessible. Hence it is imperative for the city leadership to improve the transparency of the decision making process, increase communication with residents, and rebuild the mutual respect required for successful governance Implications for Future Research While this stu dy was an exploratory step towards investigating tourism impacts on resident quality of life and subsequent support for tourism, much work is still needed. The findings of this study support the future inclusion of quality of life as a distinct construct i n resident perceptions and attitudinal studies, as they are complex and can be evaluated from both a personal and community perspective. However, it is imperative to determine the appropriate scale of measurement. Furthermore, it has been suggested that no t all domains of quality of life are of equal importance, yet weighting remains a disputed topic (Cummins, 2002; Hagerty et al. 2001; Russell, Hubley, Palepu & Zumbo, 2006; Trauer & MacKinnon, 2001; Wu & Yao, 2006). As quality of life has consistently been conceptualized as a multidimensional construct, and

PAGE 165

165 findings have consistently shown that specific domains are responsible for greater portions of explained variance, the issue of weighting requires further attention. Refinement of the tourism impact cons truct is also warranted. While several researchers have undertaken sophisticated and rigorous development procedures to create tourism impact scales (Andereck & Jurowski, 2006; Ap & Crompton, 1998; Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Lankford & Howard, 1994), they have resulted in a variety of dimensions, which makes it difficult for direct comparative analysis. Perhaps, this lack of consistency should act as an impetus for more qualitative work in the area of tourism impacts. More specifically, research is warranted in urban environments, as it is difficult for residents to distinguish between the effects of tourism versus other influences as tourism activities are wholly integrated into other urban physical, behavioral and functional patterns (Gilbert & Cla rk, 1997). While the present study endeavored to respond to a gap in the literature within the context of a European urban environment, it is recommended that this research be further refined and duplicated in similar urban locations in order t o gain a better understanding of the interplay between tourism Based on the results of this study the following recommendations have been proposed: The present study proposed a conceptu al model to focus on the examination of the effect of perceived tourism impacts on resident quality of life and subsequent support for tourism. As previous research has also documented antecedents of tourism perceptions and/or support, such as demographic variables, industry involvement (economic, decision making, knowledge, contact with tourists, distance residents live from tourism center), community attachment, and state of the economy, the model should be expanded to include such factors. The operationa lization of resident quality of life should be based on established domains from the social indicator literature that represent global quality of life. A

PAGE 166

166 global measure alone is not sufficient as it is too abstract and the homeostatic control regulates wel lbeing at a fairly consistent level. The current findings noted significant differences based on the scale of measurement with regard to quality of life hence, future research must be cognizant of the important distinction between personal and community qu ality of life. Improvements in construct measurement are still needed with regards to tourism impact indicators. Although the traditional three dimensions of sustainability are consistently used in the conceptualization of impacts, fit indices in the pres ent study warrant further attention. This study underscores the importance of including an institutional dimension that addresses the social and political structures necessary to plan, implement, and manage the sustainable use of community resources. While various authors and agencies have proposed the idea of a quadruple bottom line with regard to sustainability there have been differences in what is considered the fourth pillar. For example in a conceptual framework for climate change mitigation in the t ourism sector the U nited N ations E nvironmental P rogra m me and the UNWTO (2007) suggest e d climate responsiveness as a possible fourth pillar However, this is a response behavior in the context of climate change/adaptation and tourism and can be conceptualiz ed as a sub dimension of the environmental pillar. As previously mentioned, the World Bank and the OECD have advocated for the inclusion of an institutional pillar The later approach is adopted for this study and an institutional dimension was included in the sustainab ility framework From a theoretical standpoint, one could advocate that the institutional dimension is perhaps one of capacity building as conceptualized by Alaerts B lair and Hartvelt (1991) which enables an appropriate social, political and legal framework. Institutional development includes community participation and human resource development to strengthen the managerial systems needed to plan, implement and manage the objectives of sustainable development.

PAGE 167

167 Delimitations The present study was delimited to the residents of Cologne, Germany and hence findings may be limited in generalizability to similar communities particularly urban, mature destinations Furthermore, results of the present study should be interpreted with some caution as it was exploratory and may not have included all predictors or mediator variables. However, the aim of the study was to focus on the relationship between resident perceptions of tourism impacts and resident quality of life, and subsequent overall support f or tourism. Limitations Resident perceptions regarding tourism impacts were the basis of this research; therefore, results do not represent actual tourism sustainability in Cologne Furthermore, perceived impacts were prescribed by the researcher based on an extensive literature review, yet may not have represented all of the issues pertinent to Cologne. Qualitative interviews with residents and other stakeholder groups could have added to a more holistic understanding of the impact of tourism on personal a nd community quality of life. However, this was not within the scope of the present study due to time and resource limitations. Furthermore, self reported values could have led to some degree of social desirability bias. Although respondents were assured t here were no correct answers, participants may have biased their responses toward what they perceived as correct.

PAGE 168

168 APPENDIX A FILTER QUESTION AND INFORMED CONSENT Universi ty of Florida and as part of my dissertation, I am asking the residents of Cologne to participate in a survey regarding tourism and quality of life. Do you possibly If the person declined they were politely thanked and a non respo nse recorded. If unfortunately too young to participate, otherwise the following informe d consent was that all your responses will be completely anonymous. There are no anticipated risks, compensation or other direct benefits to you as a participant in this survey. You are free to withdraw your consent and may discontinue your participation at any time without consequences. Again, I assure you that all of your responses are completely nked for their participation and the generosity of their time.

PAGE 169

169 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE ENGLISH VERSION

PAGE 170

170

PAGE 171

171 APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE GERMAN VERSION

PAGE 172

172

PAGE 173

173 APPENDIX D INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL

PAGE 174

174 APPENDIX E S ATORRA BENTLER CHI SQ UARE DIFFERENCE TEST Tourism impact measurement model Modified tourism impact measurement model Chi square: 223.620 Degrees of freedom: 48 Scaling Correction factor: 1.14 Chi square: 165.613 Degrees of freedom: 47 Scaling Correction factor: 1.147 C hi square difference test scaling correction factor: ( 48 x 1.14 ) ( 47 x 1.147 ) = .811 48 47 Satorra Bentler scaled chi square difference test : ( 223.620 x 1.14 ) ( 165.613 x 1.147 ) = 80.12 0.811 2 (.05,1) = 3.84 80.12 > 3.84 Therefore reject the simpler (or nested) structural model in favor of the modified (more complex) model.

PAGE 175

175 APPENDIX F COPYRIGHT PERMISSION

PAGE 176

176 LIST OF REFERENCES Akis, S., N. Peristianis, and J. Warner ( 1996). Residen development: The case of Cyprus Tourism Management, 17: 481 494. Alaerts, G.J., T.L. Blair, and F.J.A. Hartvelt ( 1991 ) A Strategy for Water Sector Capacity Building Proceedings of the UNDP Symposium, Delft 3 5 June, 1991. IHE Delft, The Netherlands, UNDP, New York, USA. Allen, L. R., H. R. Hafer, R. Long, and R. R. Perdue ( 1993) toward recreation and tourism development Journal of Travel Research, 31: 27 33. Allen, L. R., P. T. Long, R. R. Perdu e, and S. Kieselbach (1988). The impact of tourism development on resident s: perception of community life Journal of Travel Research, 27: 16 21. Quality Tourism Experiences G. Jenning s and N. P. Nickerson ed. pp 136 154, Burlington, MA: Elsevier. Andereck, K. L. and C. A. Vogt ( 2000 ). "The Relationship between Residents' Attitudes toward Tourism and Tourism Development Options Journal of Travel Research 39 : 27 36. Andereck, K. L. an of life perceptions among r esidents Journal of Travel Research, 50(2): d oi: 10.1177/0047287510362918 Andereck, K. L., K. M. Valentine, R. C. Knopf, and C.A. Vogt ( 2005 ). p erceptio ns of community tourism impacts Annals of Tourism Research, 32 : 1056 1076. Anderson, J. R. and D. W. Gerbing (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103: 411 423. An driotis, K. and R. D Vaughan ( 2003 ). development: The case of Crete Journal of Travel Research 42: 172 185. Ap, J ( 1990). "Residents' perceptions research o n the social impacts of tourism Annals of Tourism R esearch 17 : 610 616. Ap, J (1991 ). Perceptions of tourism impacts: insights from a qualitative study of four Texan communities in NRPA Leisure Research Symposium P roceedings held in conjunction with the 1991 National Congress for Recreation and Parks, October 17 20, 1991, Baltimore, Maryland.

PAGE 177

177 Ap, J. ( 1991 ). Research Notes and Reports, Annals of Tourism Research 610 617 Ap, J. ( 1992 ). "Residents' perceptions on tourism impacts Annals of Tourism Research, 19 : 665 690. Ap, J. ( 1992 ). Development of a tourism impact scale in the host resident context in NRPA Leisure Research Symposium Proceedings held in conjunction with the 1992 National Congress for Recreation and Parks, October 15 18, 1992, Cincinnati, Ohio. Ap, J. and J. L. C r ompton ( 1993 ). "Resident's strategies for responding to tourism impacts Journal of Travel Research, 32 : 47 50. Ap, J. and J. L. Crompton ( 1998 ). "Developing and Testing a Tourism Impact Scale Journal of Tr avel Research, 37 : 120 130. Asheim, G. B. ( 1999 ). Economic analysis of sustainability in Towards sustainable development: on the goals of development and the conditions of sustainability W. Lafferty and O. Langhelle, ed. Macmillan. Babbie, E. R. (2001) The practice of social research, Wadsworth Thomson Learning. Bachleitner, R. and A. H. Zins (1999 ). "Cultural Tourism in Rural Communities: The Journal of Business Research 44 : 199 209. Bandalos, D. L., and S. J Finney ( 2001 ). modeling in Advanced structural equation modeling: New developments and techniques G. A. Marcoulides and R. E. Schumacker ed., pp. 269 296, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Belisle, F. J. and D. R. Hoy ( 1980 ). The perceived impact of tourism by residents: A case study in Santa Marta, Columbia Annals of Tourism Research 7 : 83 101. Benckendorff, P., D Edwards, C. Jurowski, J. J. Liburd, G. Miller, and G. Moscardo ( 2009 ). Exploring the future of tourism and q uality of life Tourism and Hospitality Research 9 : 171 183. Besculides, A., M. E Lee and P. J. McCormick ( 2002 ). cultural benefits of tourism Annals of Tourism Research 29: 303 319. Brunt, P., and P. Courtney ( 1999 ). H ost perceptions of sociocultural impacts Annals of Tourism Research, 26: 493 515. Burns, D. ( 1996 ). "Attitude towards tourism development Annals of Tourism Research, 23 : 935 938.

PAGE 178

178 Burns, P. and Holden, A. ( 1995 ). Tourism: A new perspective, London: Pren tice Hall, in Brunt and Courtney, 1999. Butler, R. W. ( 1980 ). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources Canadian Geographer 24: 5 12. Byrd, E. T. ( 2007 ). "Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development and their roles: applying stakeholder theory to sustainable tourism development Tourism Review 62 : 6 13. Quality Tourism Experiences G. Jennings and N. P. Nickerson ed. pp 115 135, Burlington, MA: Elsevier. Carmichael, B. A., J. D. M. Peppard, and F. A. Boudreau ( 1996 ). Mega resort on my doorstep: Foxwoods Casino and casino gambling on nearby Indian reservation land Journ al of Travel Research 34: 9 16. Cecil, A. K., Y. Y. Fu, S. Wang, and S. Avgoustis (2010). Cultu ral tourism and quality of life : Results of a longitudinal study Europ ean Journal of Tourism Research, 3(1): 54 66. Chancellor C., C. S. Yu, and S. T. C. Col Exploring quality of life perceptions in rural Midwestern (USA) communities: A n application of the core periphery concept in a tourism development context International Journal of Tourism Research n/a. doi: 10.1002/jtr.823 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/doi/10.1002/jtr.823/full ) Chen, J. ( 2001 ). perspective Journal of Ho spitality & Tourism Research 25: 235 250 Choi, H. C. and E. Sirakaya ( 2005 ). tourism: Development of sust ainable tourism attitude scale Journal of Travel Research 43: 380 394. Choi, H. C. and E. Siraka ya ( 2006 ). "Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism Tourism Management 27 : 1274 1289. Choi, H. C. and I. Murray ( 2010 ). "Resident attitudes toward sustainable community tourism Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18 : 575 594. Clarke, M., S M. N. Islam, and S. Paech (2006). Measuring Australia's Wellbeing Using Hierarchical Needs Journal of Socio Economics 35: 933 945 Coffman, D. L. and R. C. MacCallum ( 2005 ). "Using Parcels t o Convert Path Analysis Models i nto Latent Variable Models Multivariate Behavioral Research 40 : 235 259.

PAGE 179

179 Costa nza, R., B. Fisher, S. Ali, C. Beer, L. Bond, R. Boumansa, N. Danigelis, J. Dickinson, C. Elliott, J. Farley, D. Gayer, L. Glenn, T. Hudspeth, D. Mahoney, L. McCahill, B. McIntosh, B. Reed, S. Rizvi, D. Rizzo, T. Simpatico and R. Snapp ( 2007 ). "Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well being Ecological Economics 61 : 267 276. Cottrell, S. P. and J. J. Vaske (2006). A framework for monitoring and modeling s ustainable tourism. e Review of Tourism Research 4(4): 74 84. Cottrell, S. P., J. J. Vask e, F. Shen, and P. Ritter (2007). Resident Perceptions of Sustainable Tourism in Chongdugou, China. Journal of Society and Natural Resources 20(6): 511 525. Crott s, J.C. and S. M. Holland (1993). Objective indicators of the impact of rural tourism development in the state of Florida Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1 (2): 112 120. Cummins, R. A. (1997). The domain of life satisfaction: an attempt to order chaos Social Indicator Research 38: 303 328. Cummins, R. A. ( 2005 ). Moving from a quality of life concept to a theory Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 49: 699 706. Cummins, R. A., R. Eckersley, J. Pallant, J. V. Vugt, and R. Misajon ( 2003 ). D eveloping a National Index of Subjective Wellbeing: The A ustralian Unity Wellbeing Index Social Indicators Research 64: 159 190. Davis D., J. Allen, and R. M. Cosenza, ( 1988 ). Segmenting local residents by their attitudes, interes ts, and opinions towa rd tourism Journal of Travel Research, 27: 2 8. Diener, E. ( 2000 ). Subjective Wellbeing: The Science of Happiness and a Proposal for a National Index American Psychologist 55: 34 43. Diener, E., and E. Suh ( 1997 ). Measuring Quality of Life: Economic Social, and Subjective Indicators Social Indicators Research 40: 189 216. Diener, E., R. A Emmons, R. J. La rsen, and S. Griffin ( 1985 ). The Satisfaction With Life Scale Journal of Personality Assessment 49: 71 75. Dogan, H. Z. ( 1989 ). Forms of ad justment: So ciocultural impacts of tourism Annals of Tourism Research, 16: 216 236. Doxey, G. V. (1975). A Causation theory of visitor related irritants: methods and research inferences. In the Impact of Tourism : Sixth Annual Conference Proceedings, pp 195 198, Salt Lake City, UT: Travel and Tourism Research Association.

PAGE 180

180 Dyer, P., D. Gursoy, B. Sharma, and J. Carter ( 2007 ). Structural modeling of resident perceptions of tourism and associated development o n the Sunshine Coast, Australia Tourism Mana gement 28: 409 422 Easterling, D. ( 2004 ). review and synthesis Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 17: 45 62 Easterling, D. ( 2005 ). "Residents and Tourism: What Is Really at Stake? Journal of T ravel and Tourism Marketing 18 : 49 64. Eckersley, R. ( 1998 ). Perspectives of Progress: Economic Growth, Quality of Life and Ecological Sustainability i n: Progress: Is Life Getting Better? R. Ec kersley. ed., pp. 3 34, Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing. Empta z Collomb, J. G. J. Linking tourism, human wellbeing and conservation in the Caprivi Strip (Namibia) Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida Frechtling, D. (1994 ). measuring economic costs i n Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Research, J. R. Ritchie and C. Goeldner eds., pp. 367 391, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Fredline, E., and B. Faulkner ( 2000 ). Host communit y reactions: A cluster analysis Annals of Tourism Research, 27: 763 784. Getz, D. ( 1994 ). Valley, Scotland Tourism Management 15: 247 258. Gilbert, D. and M. Clark ( 1997 ). An exploratory examination of urban tourism impact, with reference to residents attitudes, in th e cities of Canterbury and Guildford Cities 14: 343 352. Goeldner, C. R., J. R. B. Ritchie and R.W. McIntosh ( 2000 ). Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies 8th edition, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Gu, H. and C. Ryan ( 2008 ). "Place attachment, ident ity and community impacts of tourism the case of a Beijing hutong Tourism Management 29 : 637 647. Gunn, C. A. ( 1988 ). Tourism planning New York: Taylor and Francis. Annals of Tourism Research, 33 (3):603 623. Gursoy, D., and Rutherford, D. G. ( 2004 ). Host attitudes toward touris m: An improved structural model Annals of Tourism Research 31: 495 516. Gursoy, D., C. G. Chi, and P. Dyer ( 2009 ). "An Examination of Lo cals' Attitudes Annals of Tourism Research 36: 723 726.

PAGE 181

181 Gursoy, D., C. Jurowski, and M. Uysal ( 2002 ). Resident attitudes: A structural modeling approach Annals of Tourism Research 29: 79 105. Hag erty, M. R., R. A. Cummins, A. L. Ferriss, K. Land, A. C Michalos, M. Peterson, A. Sharpe, J. Sirgy and J. Vogel ( 2001 ). Quality of Life indexes for national policy: Review and agenda for research Social Indicators Research 55: 1 96. Haley, A. J., T. Snaith, and G. Miller ( 2005 ). "The Social Impacts of Tou rism: A Case Study of Bath, UK Annals of Tourism Research 32: 647 668. Hall, C.M. ( 2003) Politics and place: an analysis of power in tourism communities', in Tourism in destinations communities S. Singh, D. J. Timothy, and R.K. Dowling eds ., pp. 99 114 Cambridge: CABI. Haralambopoulos, N. and A. Pizam (1996 ). "Perceived impacts of tourism : The case of samos Annals of Tourism Research, 23 : 503 526. Hardy, A., R. J. S. Beeton, and L. Pearson ( 2002 ). "Sustainable tourism: An overview of the concept and its position in rel ation to conceptualisations of T ourism Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10 : 475 496. Harrill, R. ( 2004 ). "Residents' Attitudes toward Tourism Development: A Literature Review with Implications for Tourism Planning Journal of Planning L iterature 18 : 251 266. Harrill, R. and T. D. Potts ( 2003 ). "Tourism planning in historic districts: Attitudes toward tourism development in Charleston Journal of the American Planning Association 69 : 233 244 Hatcher, L. (1994). A step by step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling Cary, NC: SAS. Hu, L., and Bentler, P. M. ( 1995 ). Evaluating model fit i n Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications R. H. Hoyle eds., pp. 76 99 Thousan d Oak, CA: SAGE Publications. Huayhuaca, C., S. Cottrell, S. Gradl and P. Mateev (2010). ( http://www.ch.lu.se/fileadmin/files/msm/bilder/Nordic16/Huayhuaca__Cottrell_et_ al._08 30 07.pdf ) Huh, C. and C. A. Vogt ( 2008 ). "Changes in Residents' Attitudes toward Tourism over Time: A Cohort Analytical Approach Journal of Travel Research, 46 : 446 455. International Wellbeing Group (2006). Personal Wellbeing Index Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University ( http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/wellbeing_index.htm .)

PAGE 182

182 Jamal, T.B. and Getz, D. ( 1994 ). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research 22: 186 204. Johnson, J., D. Snepenger, and S. Akis ( 1994 ). ceptions of tourism development Annals of Tourism Research 21: 629 642. Jurowski, C. and D. Gursoy ( 2004 ). "Distance effects on residents' attitudes toward tourism Annals of Tourism Research, 31 : 296 312. Jurowski, C., M. Uysal, and R. D. Williams ( 1997 ). A theoretical analysis of host community resident reactions to tourism Journal of Travel Research 36: 3 11. King, B., A. Pizam, and A. Milman ( 1993 ). Social impacts of tour ism: Host perceptions Annals of Tourism Research 20: 650 665. Ko, D. W. and W. P. Stewart ( 2002 ). "A structural equation model of residents' attitudes for tourism development Tourism Management 23 : 521 530. Lankford, S. V. ( 1994 ). "Attitudes and perceptions toward tourism and rural regional development Jou rnal of Travel Research, 32 : 35 43. Lankford, S. V. and D. R. Howard ( 1994 ). "Developing a tourism impact attitude scale Annals of Tourism Research, 21 : 121 139. Lawson, R. W., J. Williams, T. Young, and J. Cossens ( 1998 ). A comparison of itudes towards tourism in 10 New Zealand Tourism Management 19: 247 256. Lawton, L. J. ( 2005 ). "Resident Perceptions of Tourist Attractions on the Gold Coast of Australia Journal of Travel Research, 44 : 188 200. Lepp, A. ( 2008 ). "Attitudes Towards Initial Tourism Development in a Community With No Prior Tourism Experience: The Case of Bigodi, Uganda Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16 : 5 22. Lever, J. P. (2000). The Development of an Instrument to Measure Quality of Life in Mexico City. Social Indicators Research 50(2): 187 208. Lindberg, K. and R. L. Johnson ( 1997 ). "Modeling resident attitudes toward tourism Annals of Tourism Research, 24 : 402 424. Little, T. D., W. A. Cunningham, G. Shahar, and K. F. Widaman ( 2002 ). "To Parcel or No t to Parcel: Exploring the Question, Weighing the Merits Structural Equation Modeling 9 : 151 173. Liu, J. C. and T. Var ( 1986 ). "Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawai Annals of Tourism Research, 13 : 193 214.

PAGE 183

183 Liu, J.C., Sheldon, P.J. and Var, T. ( 1987 ). Resident perception of the e nvironmental impacts of tourism Annals of Tourism Research 14: 17 37. L ong, P. T., R. R. Perdue, and L. Allen ( 1990 ). "Rural Resident Tourism Perceptions and Attitudes by Community Level of Tourism Journal of Travel Research, 28 : 3 9 Maddox, R. N. ( 1986 ). Factors contributing to satisfaction with tourism: the resident's view Tourism services marketing: advances in theory and practice Special conf erence series, volume II, 1986. Madrigal, R. ( 1993 ). "A tale of tourism in two cities Annals of Tourism Research, 20 : 336 353. Marans, R. W. and P. Mohai ( 1991 ). Leisure resources, recreation activity and the quality of life Benefits of Leisure B. L. Driver, P. Brown and G. L. Peterson eds, State Colleg e: PA. Venture Publishing. Mark, G. ( 1997 ). "An exploratory examination of urban tourism impact, with reference to residents attitudes, in the cities of Canterbury and Guildford Cities 14 : 343 352. Mason, P. ( 2003 ). Tourism impacts, planning and managem ent Oxford : Butterworth Heinemann. Massam, B. H. ( 2002 ). Quality of life: pub lic planning and private living Progress in Planning 58: 141 227. McCool, S. F ( 1995 ). Linking tourism, the environment, and concepts of sustainability : in a topical volume of compiled papers from a special session of the annual meeting of the National Recreation and Park Association ; 1994 October 12 14; Minneapolis, MN. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT GTR 323. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. McCool, S. F. and S. R. Martin ( 1994 ). Journal of Travel Research 32: 29 34. McCool, S. F., R. N. Moisey and N. P. Nickerson ( 2001 ). "What should tourism sustain? The disconnect with industry perceptions of useful indicators Journal of Travel Research, 40 : 124 131. satisfaction with urban living using data for Brisbane South East Queensland, Social Indicators Research 72: 121 152. McGehee, N. G. and K. L. Andereck ( 2004 ). "Factors Predicting Rural Residents' Support of Tourism Journal of Travel Research, 43 : 131 140.

PAGE 184

184 McIntosh, R. W., and C. R. Goeldner ( 1990 ). Touri sm principles, practices, philosophies New York: Wiley. Milman, A. ( 2004 ). "Residents' Support for Tourism Growth in a Mature Destination: A Chronological Study of Central Florida International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration 5 : 67 83 Milman, A. and A. Pizam ( 1988 ). "Social impacts of tourism on Central F lorida Annals of Tourism Research, 15 : 191 204. Moscardo, G. ( 2009 ). "Tourism and quality of life: towards a more critical approach Tourism and Hospitality Research 9 : 159 170. M oswete, N. (2009). Stakeholder Perspectives On The Potential For Community Based Ecotourism Development And Support For The Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park In Botswana Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, Murphy, P. E. and G. G. Price ( 2005 ). Global Tourism W. F. Theobald ed., pp. 167 193, Burlington: MA, Butterworth Heinemann/Elsevier. Nicholas, L. N. (2007 ). Stakeholder perspectives on the Pitons Management Area in St. Lucia: Potential for su stainable tourism development, Unpublished Dissertation University of Florida. tourism development in the Pitons Management Area World Heritage Site, St. Lucia. Environment, Develop ment and Sustainability 12(5), 839 857. Noll, H. H. ( 2002 ). "Towards a European system of social indicators: theoretical framework and system architecture Social Indicators Research 58 : 47 87. Nunally, J. C. and I. H. Bernstein (1994). Psychometric the ory (3 rd ed.) New York. McGrawHill. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18(2): 257 277 chnical quality Journal of Happiness Studies 11: 353 368. Oviedo Garcia, M. A., M. Castellanos Verdugo, and D. Martin Ruiz ( 2008 ). "Gaining residents' support for tourism and planning The International Journal of Tourism Research 10 : 95 109 International Journal of Social Economics, 37(9): 686 702.

PAGE 185

185 Pavot, W., and Diener, E. ( 1993 ). Review of t he Satisf action With Life Scale Psychological Assessment 5: 164 172. Pennington Gray, L. ( 2005 ). Resident attitudes towards tourism in a destination in the stagnation stage of the tourism life cycle Sustainable Development and Planning II, 2: 1411 1418 Penni ngton Gray, L. Quality Tourism Experiences G. Jennings and N. P. Nickerson ed. pp 192 207, Burlington, MA: Elsevier. P erdue, R. R., P. T. Long, and L. Allen ( 1987 ). "Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes Annals of Tourism Research, 14 : 420 429. Perdue, R. R., P. T. Long, and L. Allen ( 1990 ). "Resident support for tourism development Annals of Tourism Research, 17 : 586 599. Pe rdue, R. R., P. T. Long, and Y. S. Kang ( 1999 ). "Boomtown Tourism an d Resid ent Quality of Life: The Marketing of Gaming to Host Community Residents Journal of Business Research 44 : 165 177. Pizam, A. ( 1978 ). as perceived by its residents Journal of Trave l Research 16: 8 12. Rojas, M. ( 2009 ). "Quality of Life: A Framework for Assessing the Progress of Societies Measuring the Progress of Societies May 12 14. Russell, L. B., A M. Hubley, A. Palepu and B. D. Zumbo important? Revisiting subjective importance weighting with a quality Social Indicators Research 75(1): 141 167. Ryan, C. and D. Montgomery ( 1994 ). "The attitudes of Bakewell residents to tourism and issues in community responsive tourism Tourism Management 15 : 358 369. International Journal of Tourism Research n/a. doi:10.1002/jtr.814 Sharma, B. and P. Dyer ( 2009 ). "Residen ts' involvement in tourism and their perceptions of tourism impacts Benchmarking 16 : 351 371 Sharpley, R. ( 1994 ). Tourism, Tourists and Society Huntingdon: ELM. Tourism and Development R. Sh arpley ed. pp., 11 34, Clevedon: UK, Channel View Publications

PAGE 186

186 Sheldon, P. J. and T. Var ( 1984 ). "Resident attitudes to tourism in North Wales Tourism Management 5 : 40 47. Shen, F. and S. P. Cottrell ( 2008 ). A sustainable tourism framework for monitori ng residents' satisfaction with agritourism in Chongdugou Village, China. International Journal of Tourism Policy 1(4): 368 375 Simpson, M.C., S. Gssling, D. Scott, C.M. Hall and E. Gladin (2008) Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in the Tourism Sector: Frameworks, Tools and Practices. UNEP, University of Oxford, UNWTO, WMO: Paris, France. Sirakaya, E., V. Teye, and S. Sonmez ( 2002 ). tourism development in the central region of Ghana Journal of Travel Rese arch 41: 57 67. Sirakaya Turk, E., Y. Ekinci, and A. G. Kaya ( 2008 ). "An Examination of the Validity of SUS TAS in Cross Cultures Journal of Travel Research, 46 : 414 421 Sirgy, J., D Rahtz, M. Cicic, and R. Underwood ( 2000 ). A Method for Assessing Re sidents' Satisfaction with Community Based Services : A Quality of Life Perspective Social Indicators Research 49: 279 316. Sirgy, M. J. ( 2002 ). The psychology of quality of life Kluwer : Academic Publishing Sirgy, M., A. Michalos, A. Ferriss, R. Easterl in, D Patrick, and W. Pavot ( 2006 ). The Quality of Life ( QOL) Research Movem ent: Past, Present, and Future Social Indicators Research 76: 343 466. Snaith, T., and A. J. Haley ( 1995 ). Tourism, the Stat e of the Art A. V. Seaton ed, pp. 826 835 New York: John Wiley and Sons Soutar, G. N. and P.B. McLeod ( 1993 ). Residents perceptions on impact of the Annals of Tourism Research, 20: 571 582. and the prism of sustainability: Ecological Indicators 2(3): 295 309 Structure, G. and K. Busan ( 2009) "Towards the 3rd World Forum and Beyond in Measuring the Progress of Societies Newslett er OECD, 5, 1. Swarbrooke, J. ( 1999 ). Sustainable Tourism Management Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Teye, V., S. F Sonmez, and E. Sirakaya ( 2002 ). des towards tourism development Annals of Tourism Research 29: 668 688.

PAGE 187

187 Timothy, D. ( 2002 ). Tourism and community development issues in Tourism development concepts and issues R. Sharpley and D. J. Telfer eds. pp. 149 201, Clevedon: UK, Channel View Publications. Tosun, C. ( 2002 ). Host perceptions of impacts: A comparative tourism stud y Annals of Tourism Research 29: 231 245. Trau Why are we weighting? The role of importance ratings Quality of life research 10: 579 585. uide to community sustainability Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20(3): 381 392. van Kamp, I., K. Leidelmeijer, G. Marsman, & A. de Hollander (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well being : Towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study Landscape and Urban Planning 65: 5 18. Vanhove, N. ( 2005 ). The economics of tourism destinations Jordan Hill: Oxford Elsevier Var, T. and K. W. Kendall ( 1985 ). "Resident attitudes towards tourists in a Tur kish resort town Annals of Tourism Research, 12 : 652 658. Vargas Snchez, A., M. de los ngeles Plaza Mejia, and N. Porras Bueno ( 2009 ). "Understanding Residents' Attitudes toward the Development of Industrial Tourism in a Former Mining Community Journ al of Travel Research, 47 : 373 387 Vemuri, A. W. and R. Costanza ( 2006 ). "The role of human, social, built, and natural capital in explaining life satisfaction at the country level: Toward a National Well Being Index ( NWI ) Ecological Economics 58 : 119 133. scales: Evaluating the relationship among life satisfaction, social capital, income, and the natural environment at individual and neighborhood levels in metropolitan Environment and Behavior 43(1): 3 25. Vemuri, A. W., J. M. Grove, M. A. Wilson and W. R. Burch ( 2011 Evaluating the relationship among life satisfaction, social capital, income, and the natural environment at individua l and neighborhood levels in metropolitan 25. Wall, G. ( 1997 ). Impacts of tourism: Theory and practice Tourism Recreation Research 22: 57 58. Wang, Y. and R. E. Pfister ( 2008 ). "Residents' Attitudes Toward Tourism and Perceived Personal Benefits in a Rural Community Journal of Travel Research, 1: 84 93.

PAGE 188

188 Weaver, D. B., and L. J. Lawton ( 2001 ). Resident perceptions in the urban rural fringe Annals of Tourism Research, 28: 439 458. Weitz Shapiro, R. and M Paper by the Inter American Development Bank, Washington DC, USA. Retrieved from http://www.iadb.org/res/publicat ions/pubfiles/pubWP 638.pdf Will iams, L. J. and E. H. O'Boyle Jr ( 2008 ). "Measurement models for linking latent variables and indicators: A review of human resource management research using parcels Human Resource Management Review 18 : 233 242. World To urism Organization (2004) Sustainable tourism developm ent: A guide for local planners, Madrid: World Tourism Organization. Wu, C H. and G. Yao (2006). Do we need to weigh satisfaction scores with importance ratings in measuring quality of life? Social I ndicators Research 78: 305 326 Yen, I. and D. Kerstetter (2009 ). and behavioral intention Tourism Analysis 13: 545 564. Yoon, Y., D. Gursoy, and J. S. Chen ( 2001 ). Validating a tourism development theory wi th structural equation modeling Tourism Management 22: 363 372. Zwick, R. R. ( 1990 ). Rural resident values and attitudes toward tourism General Technical Report Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service; Proceedings of the 1990 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, February 25 28, 1990, State Parks Management and Research Institute, Saratoga Springs, New York, USA.

PAGE 189

189 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Louisa Meyer was born in 1974 in Ger many She grew up and attended schools in Germany, England, Spain and the United States In 1997, she graduated with a international studies from Wake Forest University, North Carolina After working as a project manager for the Y2K project in London, she worked in hotel management in Germany for two years. During this time, she took a sabbatical in Spain to improve her language skills and worked in the tourism industry as an as sistant dive master. Having completed the Y2K project in London, Louisa returned to her hometown in Gainesville, Florida to attend the University of Florida in studies with a specialization in tourism. While obt aining Department of R ecreation, Parks, and Tourism. This position gave her the opportunity to participate in various research projects, present at a variety of conferences and ins truct an u ndergraduate course. Louisa completed her m 2002 and returned to Germany where she was the Managing Director for a small family owned and operated hotel chain. In 2006, Louisa married Mario and returned to the University o f Florida to pursue her Doctoral degree. During her studies, she was the Fellow to the Center for Tourism Research and Development for two years, where her responsibilities include managing interdisciplinary research projects, coordinating work for members of the Center and the Advisory Board, and assisting in general administration of the Center. Concurrently, Louisa and her husband Mario established and managed a successful European Bistro in Gainesville. During this time Louisa also had the opportunity to teach an undergraduate course in tourism development. In 2007,

PAGE 190

190 Louisa and Mario were blessed with the birth of their son Liam. The young family moved back to Germany in late 2009 and Louisa received her PhD in the s pring of 2011. research inter ests include sustainable tourism development, environmental, social and cultural issues, marketing of tourism operations and destinati ons, and hospitality operations