Local residents’ attitudes and participation in tourism development in ba be national park, vietnam

Nội dung text: Local residents’ attitudes and participation in tourism development in ba be national park, vietnam

1. Phạm Minh Hương và Đtg Tạp chí KHOA HỌC & CÔNG NGHỆ 133(03)/1: 71 - 81 LOCAL RESIDENTS’ ATTITUDES AND PARTICIPATION IN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN BA BE NATIONAL PARK, VIETNAM Pham Minh Huong, Nguyen Van Huy* College of Economics and Business Administration - TNU SUMAMRY The main purpose of this study was to test the model of local residents’ attitudes and participation in tourism to explore the factors which affect to residents’ support and participation in tourism in Ba Be National Park, Vietnam. The results of factor analyses of tourism impacts generated five new factors: Social and Environmental Benefit (SEB), Personal Economic Benefit (PEB), Local Benefit (LB), Negative Social and Environmental Impacts (NSEI), and Negative economic Impacts (NEI). Hypotheses testing revealed that, in a rural area where the community depends on natural resources, community attachment of local residents significantly affects their perception of positive tourism impacts. In addition, social and environmental impacts from tourism are considered as very important factors influencing local residents’ support and participation in tourism. Keywords: Residents’ attitudes, Participation, Tourism impacts, Ba Be National Park, Vietnam. INTRODUCTION* Vogt, 2012; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Ba Be National Park was established in 1992 Perdue et al., 1990; Vargas-Sánchez et al., and is located in Bac Kan, mountainous 2009). The subject of residents’ participation province in the Vietnam northeast. The area in tourism, also been explored many times in of national park is about 10.048 hectares. The earlier tourism studies (Eshliki & Kaboudi, distance from Bac Kan Town to the park is an 2012; Garrod, 2003; Goodwin, 2002; Key & estimated 50 kilometers, and 250 kilometers Pillai, 2006; McGehee & Andereck, 2004). In from the capital of Hanoi. This national park several studies of participation in tourism, is considered as a model ecosystem for a community involvement in tourism planning forest on limestone mountains both within or decision-making was often put in the Vietnam and for the world (Project: research model in order to explore the factors Sustainable Tourism Development in the affecting them. However, tourism planning or Greater Mekong Subregion, 2011). In 2004, decision-making is not entire of participation Ba Be National Park was recognized as one of in tourism development which was rarely Asia’s natural heritages. Further, Ba Be is an examined in research models of residents’ appealing place of ecotourism place with high attitudes. Especially in Vietnam, research on biodiversity (Ba Be Community Based rural residents’ participation in tourism Tourism Guide Book, 2012). Residents’ development has been studied even less. attitude toward tourism is one of the most Because of the necessity to effectively and well-studied areas of tourism and has been the sustainably develop tourism in Ba Be subject of study for more than 30 years National Park and improve local residents’ (McGehee & Andereck, 2004). Previous support and participation in tourism studies on this subject typically seek the level development, this study intends to analyze of residents’ support for additional or interaction among local residents’ attitude restrictions of in tourism development in one toward support for additional tourism or more regions and the factors influencing activities and participation in tourism with the attitudes (Ko & Stewart, 2002; Látková & some familiar factors: tourism impacts, personal benefit and community attachment * Tel: 0949 275666, Email: huytueba@gmail.com in Ba Be National Park, Vietnam. 71
2. Phạm Minh Hương và Đtg Tạp chí KHOA HỌC & CÔNG NGHỆ 133(03)/1: 71 - 81 LITERATURE REVIEW liking or disliking things and moving toward Residents’ Attitude toward Tourism or away from them”. They stated that Development attitudes are very difficult to change (Kotler et al., 2010). Specifically, once negative Residents’ attitude toward tourism is one of attitudes are developed in someone, it is hard the most well-studied areas of tourism and to change the attitudes (Kotler et al., 2010). In has been investigated many times for more the research of Perdue et al. (1990) and than 30 years (McGehee & Andereck, 2004). Látková and Vogt (2012), residents’ attitude However, before finding the contents of toward tourism development was categorized residents’ attitude toward tourism, it is into “Support for additional tourism necessary to understand what attitude is. development” and “Support for restriction on Kotler et al. (2010) wrote in the book tourism development”. In the other studies, “Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism”: the authors examined the attitudes toward “An attitude describes a person’s relatively tourism development as a dependent factor in consistent evaluations, feelings, and the relationship with dissimilar independent tendencies toward an object or an idea. factors. Attitudes put people into a frame of mind for Table 1. Factors Affecting to Residents’ Attitude toward Tourism Development were Tested The factors References - Perceived positive impacts of tourism Látková and Vogt (2012); McGehee and - perceived negative impacts of tourism, Andereck (2004); and Perdue et al. (1990) - personal benefits from tourism development - Perceived economic impact - Perceived social impact - Perceived environmental impact - Economic gain Jurowski et al. (1997) - Resource use - Community attachment - Ecocentric attitude - Perception of the positive effects - Perception of the negative effects Vargas-Sánchez et al. (2009) - Satisfaction with their community - Perception of the personal benefit - Perceived positive impacts of tourism - Perceived negative impacts of tourism, Ko and Stewart (2002) - Overall community satisfaction - Personal benefit from tourism development - Welcoming nature - Emotional closeness Woosnam (2012) - Sympathetic understanding - Perception of tourism impacts - Overall evaluation of tourism impacts Pham and Kayat (2011) - Residents’ socio-demographic characteristics - Positive impacts - Negative impacts - Environmental sustainability Choi and Murray (2010) - Tourism planning - Community participation - Community attachment 72
3. Phạm Minh Hương và Đtg Tạp chí KHOA HỌC & CÔNG NGHỆ 133(03)/1: 71 - 81 Research Model Andereck, 2004), the factor “Participation The research model of this study based on in Tourism” has been rarely examined. Perdue et al.’s model (1990) which was With involving “Participation in Tourism” utilized by many other scholars (Ko & (an important factor in developing Stewart, 2002; Látková & Vogt, 2012; community-based tourism) in the model, McGehee & Andereck, 2004). The original this study was hoped that the factors model consisted of eight factors: “Resident effecting to local residents’ participation in Characteristics”, “Personal Benefits from tourism would be found. Tourism Development”, “Perceived Positive METHODOLOGY Impacts of Tourism”, “Perceived Negative Measurement Variables Impacts from Tourism”, “Support for A 59 item survey was designed which based Additional Tourism Development”, on the research of Perdue et al. (1990), “Perceived Future of Community”, “Support Gursoy et al. (2002), McGehee and Andereck for Restrictions on Tourism Development”, (2004), Vargas-Sánchez et al. (2009), Pham and “Support for Special Tourism Taxes”. To and Kayat (2011), Látková and Vogt (2012), explore new results, the scholars changed the and Sirivongs and Tsuchiya (2012). Of the 59 research model of Perdue, Long, and Allen by items, 11 items were utilized to obtain local adding, diminishing some factors, or giving residents’ demographics; only one item was new hypotheses. an open-ended question which asked residents Because Ba Be National Park is an area of to give their suggestions for developing ecological preservation, residents’ community tourism in Ba Be National Park. The 47 attachment and their participation in tourism remaining items were distributed into six development are very noticeable and sections: (2 items) personal benefit from important. The research model in this study tourism, (5 items) community attachment, (17 (Figure 3) added more two factor items) positive tourism impacts perception, “Community Attachment” and “Participation (11 items) negative tourism impacts in Tourism” with the purpose is to test the perception, (6 items) support for additional relationships among local residents’ tourism development, and (6 items) perceptions, attitudes toward support for participation in tourism. In order to measure additional tourism and participation in variables of perceptions and attitudes towards tourism development. Although the factor tourism development, a 5-point Likert rating “Community Attachment” was utilized in scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree/not at models of tourism many times (Gursoy & all) to 5 (strongly agree/very much) was Rutherford, 2004; Jurowski et al., 1997; utilized. Detailed contents of items are Látková & Vogt, 2012; McGehee & illustrated in the Appendix. Research Model of Residents’ Attitude and Participation in Tourism Development Perceived H1 Personal Positive Impacts of Benefit from H7 Tourism Tourism H2 H5 Support for Additional H9 Participation Tourism in Tourism Development Development H3 H6 Community Perceived Attachment Negative Impacts of H8 Tourism H4 73
4. Phạm Minh Hương và Đtg Tạp chí KHOA HỌC & CÔNG NGHỆ 133(03)/1: 71 - 81 Sampling and Data Collection A total of 300 questionnaires distributed and collected from February 20th to February 26th in 2013. Of them, 275 samples were obtained from Nam Mau with 17 homestay businessmen. 15 forest rangers are at Khang Ninh Commune, and 10 remains were Non-Government Organization (NGO) staff. During data collection process, the author received assistance from three colleagues of Thai Nguyen University and local government officers to distribute the questionnaires out and collect interview data. The questionnaires were given to households by convenience in geography. Of the 300 questionnaires that were distributed, 267 were returned, with an 89% return rate (230 local residents, 14 businessmen, 15 forest rangers, and 8 NGO staffs). Table 2. Factor Analysis of Positive Tourism Impacts Perception Item description Factor loading Reliability Cronbach’s Cron SEB PEB LB α if item -bach’s α deleted Greater knowledge of other cultures/ .578 .866 communities Increased demand for cultural and leisure .602 .865 activities It strengthens the provision of cultural and .659 .858 leisure activities. Improving quality of police and fire .811 .851 protection .875 Greater protection of the natural environment .724 .860 Improvement of infrastructures (water supply, .798 .850 electricity, telephone, etc.) Improvement of roads in and around its .667 .856 boundary More support for the restoration and .690 .861 maintenance of historic buildings Improvement of investment, more .814 .794 development and better infrastructures Increase of opportunities for employment .761 .775 .836 Contribution to improving incomes and .829 .746 living standards General improvement incomes of the .692 .587 locality, thanks to taxes relating tourism Tourism is one of the principle sources of .726 .726 income in the economy of the locality .728 The money invested by the local authority to attract more tourists to the locality is a .762 .588 good investment Eigen value 6.015 1.667 1.044 Percentage of variance 42.963 11.907 7.460 Total variance explained % 62.330 KMO value .891 Sig. of Barlett’s Test of Sphericity .000 Notes: - Extraction method: Principal component analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. - SEB: Social and environmental benefit - LB: Local benefit - PEB: Personal economic benefit 74
5. Phạm Minh Hương và Đtg Tạp chí KHOA HỌC & CÔNG NGHỆ 133(03)/1: 71 - 81 RESULTS training school, college, and university after Descriptive Analysis of Local Residents high school. Also, 84.6% of respondents were married and 77.4% of respondent households For the purpose of the study, 300 surveys had from four to six family members. were administered. There were 267 returned surveys, and some with missing data. Of the Factor Analysis surveys, 242 residents responded to the Table 2 described the items of positive gender item. There were 164 males and 78 tourism impacts perception. They are females; 67.8% and 32.2%, respectively The partitioned into three new groups named as age range of locals who participated in the Social and Environmental Benefit (SEB), survey was from 18 to 60+ years old. Most Personal Economic Benefit (PEB), and Local participants were from 20 to 49 years old Benefit (LB). The total variance explained for (84%). 72 (28.8%) participants were 20 to 29 the factors was about 62.33% with SEB years old, 71 (28.4%) were 30 to 39 years old, occupying the largest proportion (42.963%), and 67 (26.8%) were 40 to 49 years old. The PEB the second largest part (11.907%), and participants represented four ethnic groups about 7.5% of the variance described LB. The Tay, Nung, Kinh, and Dao in Pac Ngoi, Po appropriate KMO value was .891 which had a Lu, and Coc Toc. 97.1% of residents who significant value on Barlett’s Test of answered this item were Tay ethnic group. Sphericity as .000. Then, the three new Kinh, Nung, Dao ethnic groups represented factors were analyzed for reliability. All items the remaining 2.9% of participants. The were supported with Cronbach’s α as SEB, education level of locals reflected that 39.6% PEB, and LB were .875, .836, and .728 attended secondary school, 33.7% attended respectively, and “Cronbach’s α if item deleted” high school, 16.4% attended vocational values were below Cronbach’s α values. Table 3. Factor Analysis of Negative Tourism Impacts Perception Item description Factor loading Reliability Cronbach’s Cron- NSEI NEI α if item bach’s deleted α Change/loss of traditional culture .758 .845 Problems of conflicts between residents and tourists .781 .848 Loss of tranquility in the zone .875 .818 .873 Damage to the natural surrounding and to the .863 .839 countryside Tourism development in Ba Be National Park interferes .738 .687 with residents’ daily economic activities. Increase in the price of products and services .720 .685 because of tourism Economic benefits only for a small number of .740 .766 .669 residents The benefits generated by the tourism activity end up with companies and people from outside the .684 .681 locality. Eigen values 3.908 1.322 Percentage of variance 48.856 16.530 Total variance explained % 65.386 KMO value .837 Sig. of Barlett’s Test of Sphericity .000 Notes: - Extraction method: Principal component analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. - NSEI: Negative social and environmental impacts - NEI: Negative economic impacts 75
6. Phạm Minh Hương và Đtg Tạp chí KHOA HỌC & CÔNG NGHỆ 133(03)/1: 71 - 81 Factor analysis of negative tourism impacts KMO value was .837; and sig. for Barlett’s perception suggested two new factors. They Test of Sphericity obtained .000; the were named as Negative Social and Cronbach’s α values of the two new factors Environmental Impacts (NSEI), and Negative were .873 (NSEI factor) and .740 (NEI Economic Impacts (NEI). However, all of the factor). items were not retained. Similar to factor Both factor analyses for “Support for analysis for residents’ perception of positive Additional Tourism Development” and tourism impacts, there were three items in “Participation in Tourism” did not nominate negative tourism impacts perception which new factors, but it was noticeable when were disposed of. The values of two items “Cronbach’s α if item deleted” value for an “Increase in the thefts and vandalism” and item was higher than Cronbach’s α value. “Increase in alcoholism, prostitution” showed “Cronbach’s α if item deleted” value for the the cross-loading in factor NSEI and NEI. In item “The government should control tourism addition, “Cronbach’s α if item deleted” value development in Ba Be National Park in order for the item “Unpleasant overcrowding of to maximize the benefits and minimize the tourists and share of leisure spaces” in NSEI cost of development.” was .876. Cronbach’s α factor as .875. It was higher than the factor’s value for “Support for Additional Tourism Cronbach’s α value of .871. Therefore, it was Development” factor was .863. After important and reasonable to delete this item. removing the item, Cronbach’s α value for the Table 8 illustrated that NSEI factor’s percent factor “Support for Tourism Development” of variance explained was larger than NEI was .876, the KMO value obtained a .860; factor’s one (48.856% compared with sig. value for Barlett’ Test of Sphericity .000; 16.530%) and the total percent of variance and 67.266% of variance was explained explained was approximately 65.39%. The (Table 9). Table 4. Factor Analysis of Support for Additional Tourism Development Cronbach’s Cronb Factor Item description α if item -ach’s loading deleted α Support for additional tourism development I would like to see more tourists in Ba Be National Park. .800 .857 The government should increase its efforts to provide infrastructure to support tourism development in Ba Be .840 .843 .876 National Park. I support for additional tourism activities in my community. .840 .844 I support tourism having a vital role in this community. .839 .843 Benefit from tourism should be widely shared by local people. .779 .863 Eigen value 3.363 Total variance explained % 67.266 KMO value .860 Sig. of Barlett’s Test of Sphericity .000 Notes: - Extraction method: Principal component analysis - 1 component extracted All items of the factor “Participation in tourism” were suitable with Cronbach’s α value at .833, “Cronbach’s α if item deleted” values for six items were under .833 (Table 10). The total percent of variance explained for participation in tourism activities was 54.859%. The KMO value .843 and sig. of Barlett’s Test of Sphericity .000 were also appropriated. 76
7. Phạm Minh Hương và Đtg Tạp chí KHOA HỌC & CÔNG NGHỆ 133(03)/1: 71 - 81 Table 5. Factor Analysis of Participation in Tourism Cronbach’s α Cronb Factor Item description if item -ach’s loading deleted α Participation in tourism I will have responsibility to protect the local natural .699 .815 environment. I would like to participate in jobs related to tourism. .803 .792 I have right to participate in decision-making on the .773 .798 development of tourism. If there is opportunity, I would like to attend any training .833 courses related tourism (learning careers, foreigner language, .781 .795 knowledge of tourism, etc.). If appropriate operation and administration, I would like to .737 .806 participate as a volunteer. I would like to tell other local residents about benefits of .638 .827 tourism. Eigen value 3.292 Total variance explained % 54.859 KMO value .843 Sig. of Barlett’s Test of Sphericity .000 Notes: - Extraction method: Principal component analysis - 1 component extracted Overall, factor analyses suggested there were factor “Personal Benefit” impacted “Personal five new factors of tourism impacts of Economic Benefit” and “Negative Economic perception for local residents in Ba Be Impacts” significantly. However, it did not National Park: Social and Environmental influence “Social and Environmental Benefit, Personal Economic Benefit, Local Benefit”, “Local Benefit”, and “Negative Benefit, Negative Social and Environmental Social and Environmental Impacts”. Impacts, and Negative Economic Impacts. Of Obviously, residents believed their personal these factors, Local Benefit and Negative benefit and economic from tourism would be Economic Impacts kept the smallest both positive and negative from future proportions in the total percent of variance tourism development in Ba Be. explained of positive and negative tourism Although, local residents attached to their impacts perception respectively. communities perceived “Social and Results of analysis Environmental Benefit”, “Personal Economic After analyzing frequencies, factors, Benefit”, “Local Benefit”, and “Negative correlations, regressions, and independent Social and Environment Impacts”, they did samples T-tests by SPSS system, overall not perceive negative economic impacts. results implicated three new factors (SEB, Interestingly, awareness about social and PEB, and LB) which were found from the environmental issues (SEB and NSEI) factor “Positive Tourism Impacts Perception”. influenced both residents’ support and Two new factors (NSEI and NEI) were found participation in tourism development. These from “Negative Tourism Impacts Perception”. findings suggested that social and The findings of new factors led to more in- environmental impacts are important issues depth hypotheses. They were tested through which effect support and participation in regression analyses. Twelve of the twenty one tourism activities in Ba Be National Park. hypotheses were supported. Noticeably, the Contrastingly, residents’ support and 77
8. Phạm Minh Hương và Đtg Tạp chí KHOA HỌC & CÔNG NGHỆ 133(03)/1: 71 - 81 participation in tourism development were not indicated that community members’ support influenced by their perception of local benefit of tourism development will predict intention and negative economic benefit. to participate in tourism development Although the perceptions of personal (McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Sirivongs & economic benefit do not impact local support Tsuchiya, 2012). This cause and effect for tourism development, people will take relationship is the closest of all tested model part in tourism development when they with a β value of .584 and sig. value at .000. believe they will receive personal economic Detailed results of the hypotheses by multiple benefit. Similar to previous studies, the results regression analyses were in the table 6. Table 6. Results of Testing Hypotheses by Multiple Regression Analysis Hypothesis Results Local residents’ personal benefit from tourism development will H1 positively influence the perception of positive tourism impacts. Local residents’ personal benefit from tourism development will H1-1 positively influence the perception of social and environmental benefit Not supported from tourism. Local residents’ personal benefit from tourism development will H1-2 positively influence the perception of personal economic benefit from Supported tourism. Local residents’ personal benefit from tourism development will H1-3 Not supported positively influence the perception of local benefit from tourism. Local residents’ personal benefit from tourism development will H2 negatively influence the perception of negative tourism impacts. Local residents’ personal benefit from tourism development will H2-1 negatively influence the perception of negative social and Not supported environmental impacts from tourism. Local residents’ personal benefit from tourism development will H2-2 negatively influence the perception of negative economic impacts from Supported tourism. Local resident’s community attachment will positively influence the H3 perception of positive tourism impacts. Local resident’s community attachment will positively influence the H3-1 Supported perception of social and environmental benefit from tourism. Local resident’s community attachment will positively influence the H3-2 Supported perception of personal economic benefit from tourism. Local resident’s community attachment will positively influence the H3-3 Supported perception of local benefit from tourism. Local resident’s community attachment will negatively influence the H4 perception of negative tourism impacts. Local resident’s community attachment will negatively influence the H4-1 Supported perception of negative social and environmental impacts from tourism. Local resident’s community attachment will negatively influence the H4-2 perception of negative economic impacts from tourism. Not supported Local residents’ perception of positive tourism impacts will positively H5 influence the perception of the support for additional tourism development. Local residents’ perception of social and environmental benefit from H5-1 tourism will positively influence the perception of the support for Supported additional tourism development. Local residents’ perception of personal economic benefit from tourism H5-2 Not supported will positively influence the perception of the support for additional 78
9. Phạm Minh Hương và Đtg Tạp chí KHOA HỌC & CÔNG NGHỆ 133(03)/1: 71 - 81 tourism development. Local residents’ perception of local benefit from tourism will positively H5-3 influence the perception of the support for additional tourism Not supported development. Local residents’ perception of negative tourism impacts will H6 negatively influence the support for additional tourism development. Local residents’ perception of negative social and environmental H6-1 impacts from tourism will negatively influence the support for Supported additional tourism development. Local residents’ perception of negative economic impacts from H6-2 tourism will negatively influence the support for additional tourism Not Supported development. Local residents’ perception of positive tourism impacts will positively H7 influence the participation in tourism. Local residents’ perception of social and environmental benefit from H7-1 Supported tourism will positively influence the participation in tourism. Local residents’ perception of personal economic benefit from tourism H7-2 Supported will positively influence the participation in tourism. Local residents’ perception of local benefit from tourism will H6-3 Not supported positively influence the participation in tourism. Local residents’ perception of negative tourism impacts will H8 negatively influence the participation in tourism. Local residents’ perception of negative social and environmental H8-1 impacts from tourism will negatively influence the participation in Supported tourism. Local residents’ perception of negative economic impacts from H8-2 Not Supported tourism will negatively influence the participation in tourism. Local residents’ support for additional tourism development will H9 Supported positively influence the participation in tourism. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS significant than their perception of economic The results of this study contribute to tourism impacts in support for tourism development. theory. First, the personal benefit from This study completely reinforces Pham and tourism that rural residents receive closely Kayat (2011), but only supports one part of relates to and optimistically influences their Jurowski et al.’s study (1997) which showed perception of good personal economic that residents’ attitude toward nature-based impacts. It supports that personal benefit from tourism is affected by perceived economic tourism is partial to economic indicators and social impacts and excepting perceived (Wang & Pfister, 2008). environment impact. Although Jurowski et al. (1997) did not include perception of Second, Local residents’ community environment impact in support for nature- attachment significant affects to their based tourism, “Perceived Social Impact” is perception of positive tourism impacts which an important factor concerning to support for include social, environmental, personal tourism activities. Combining with the results economic, and local benefit. This finding of Pham and Kayat’s research, which was creates argument with Jurowski et al. (1997) conducted in Cuc Phuong National Park in when they implied there was no significant Vietnam, it can be seen that social and relationship between community attachment environmental impacts from tourism is an and perceptions of economic, social, and important issue to be examined in the studies environmental impacts from tourism. Third, of tourism development attitudes of local local people’s perception of social and residents who depend on the natural resources environment impacts from tourism is more 79
10. Phạm Minh Hương và Đtg Tạp chí KHOA HỌC & CÔNG NGHỆ 133(03)/1: 71 - 81 of their living environment. Fourth, this study 8. Key, C., & Pillai, V. K. (2006). Community suggests that residents’ participation in participation and tourism attitudes in Belize. Interamerican Journal of Environment and tourism activities depends on perception of Tourism, 2. social and environmental impacts, personal 9. Ko, D.-W., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A economic benefit from tourism and support structural equation model of residents’ attitudes for additional tourism. Especially when for tourism development. Tourism Management, looking at the factor of “Support for 23(5), 521-530. 10. Kotler, P., Bowen, J. R., & Makens , J. (2010). Additional Tourism”, this study affirms Marketing for hospitality and tourism (5th ed.): earlier research that local residents’ support Pearson Education. for tourism development significantly impacts 11. Látková, P., & Vogt, C. A. (2012). Residents’ to their participation in tourism. Finally, attitudes toward existing and future tourism development in rural communities. Journal of implications of this study can be useful for Travel Research, 51(1), 50-67. future studies which are undertaken in 12. McGehee, N. G., & Andereck, K. L. (2004). ecological areas or rural areas where Factors predicting rural residents' support of tourism. residents’ lives depend on the natural Journal of Travel Research, 43(2), 131-140. 13. Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Allen, L. (1990). resources of their land. Resident support for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(4), 586-599. REFERENCES 14. Pham, L. H., & Kayat, K. (2011). Residents’ 1. Choi, H. C., & Murray, I. (2010). Resident perceptions of tourism impact and their support attitudes toward sustainable community tourism. for tourism development: the case study of Cuc Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(4), 575-594. Phuong National Park, Ninh Binh province, 2. Eshliki, S. A., & Kaboudi, M. (2012). Vietnam. European Journal of Tourism Reseach, Community perception of tourism impacts and 4(2), 123-146. their participation in tourism planning: A case 15. Sirivongs, K., & Tsuchiya, T. (2012). study of Ramsar, Iran. Procedia - Social and Relationship between local residents' perceptions, Behavioral Sciences, 36(0), 333-341. attitudes and participation towards national protected 3. Garrod, B. (2003). Local participation in the areas: A case study of Phou Khao Khouay National planning and management of ecotourism: A Protected Area, central Lao PDR. Forest Policy and revised model approach. Journal of Ecotourism, Economics, 21(0), 92-100. 2(1), 33-53. 16. Vargas-Sánchez, A., de los Ángeles Plaza- 4. Goodwin, H. (2002). Local community Mejía, M., & Porras-Bueno, N. (2009). involvement in tourism around national parks: Understanding residents' attitudes toward the Opportunities and constraints. Current Issues in development of industrial tourism in a former Tourism, 5(3-4), 338-360. mining community. Journal of Travel Research, 5. Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). 47(3), 373-387. Resident attitudes: A structural modeling approach. 17. Wang, Y., & Pfister, R. E. (2008). Residents' Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 79-105. 6. Gursoy, D., & Rutherford, D. G. (2004). Host attitudes toward tourism and perceived personal attitudes toward tourism: An improved structural benefits in a rural community. Journal of Travel model. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 495-516. Research, 47(1), 84-93. 7. Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Williams, D. R. 18. Woosnam, K. M. (2012). Using emotional (1997). A theoretical analysis of host community solidarity to explain residents’ attitudes about resident reactions to tourism. Journal of Travel tourism and tourism development. Journal of Research, 36(2), 3-11. Travel Research, 51(3), 315-327. 80