微信客服：xiaoxionga100
微信客服：ITCS521
程序代写案例-2LEARNING
时间：2021-10-31
2LEARNING OUTCOMES
After studying this lecture, you should be able to
• Understand the various ways in which tourism can
impact on the destination in terms of socio-cultural
aspect.
• Identify the social and cultural benefit of tourism.
• Critically evaluate the negative impacts of tourism from
social and cultural perspectives.
3LECTURE SUMMARY
A. Tourism Interaction
The Tourism System (Leiper 1979)
Social Exchange Theory (Homans 1958)
B. Carrying Capacity
Types of Carrying Capacity
Limits of Acceptable Changes
Carrying Capacity in Application
C. Irritation Index (Doxey, 1975)
D. The socio-cultural impacts of tourism
Positive impacts
Negative impacts
A . T O U R I S M I N T E R A C T I O N
5A. TOURISM INTERACTION
THE TOURISM SYSTEM (LEIPER, 1979)
Figure 1.2 The tourism system
Source: adapted from Leiper, 1979
6A. TOURISM INTERACTION
THE TOURISM SYSTEM (LEIPER, 1979)
1. Interaction among three elements
• A traveller generating region is the place where tours start
and end (home).
• A tourist destination region is the places and areas visited by
the tourist.
• A transit region is the places or route where some form of
transport is used to move the tourist from, and back to, the
generating region and between any destinations visited.
2. Interaction with other elements of macro environment
• Political, economic, socio-cultural, technological, human,
legal.
7A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
• The exchange behavior school of social exchange theory (SET) originated from Homans
(1958). It was taken from the perspective of economics (individual theory) that, under free
competition and open markets, humans may rationally measure and pursue maximum
utility from a transaction or exchange (Chang, 2018; Ritzer, 1983).
• Social exchange theory conceptualizes the exchange of resources between individuals and
groups in an interaction situation (Brinberg and Castell, 1982) and provides a framework
visitor-host interactions (Ap, 1992).
• Ap (1992) outlines four key stages: (1) initiation of exchange; (2) exchange formation; (3)
exchange transaction evaluation; (4) positive evaluation of exchange consequences, that is,
reinforcement of behavior; and (2a) and (4a) negative evaluation of exchange
consequences resulting in a reduction of exchange behavior or possibly the withdrawal of
exchange behavior which results in no-exchange.
7
8A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
8
(Ap, 1992)
9A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
• In the host resident-tourism context, people (actors) involved in the exchange
may include individuals or groups such as local residents, local workers,
local entrepreneurs, town officials, resident action groups, tourists, tourism
operators, developers, environmentalists, or investors. (Ap, 1992)
9
10
A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
Need Satisfaction
• As the driving force behind exchange, it is assumed that the primary motive
for a community in attracting and developing tourism to its area is to
improve the economic, social, and psychological well-being of its residents.
(Ap, 1992).
• Some key community actors who may encourage tourism are civic officials,
local businesses, or even residents, depending upon the circumstances (Ap,
1992).
10
11
A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
• Process 1 - Initiation of Exchange
• Expression of a need initiates the exchange process (Flow 1). This initiation of
exchange linkage connects need satisfaction to the exchange relation. An person
involved in the exchange will initiate an exchange relationship when there is a
need to satisfy (Ap, 1992).
• This need may be internally motivated by either one of the actors, or it may be
stimulated by an imposition from an external source. In the latter situation, the
imposition places the exchange in a state of imbalance which then needs to be
addressed by the disadvantaged participants involved in the exchange (Ap, 1992).
11
12
A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
• Process 2 - Exchange Relation
• The Exchange Relation is composed of two subcomponents:
antecedents and form of the relation, which determine the
nature of an exchange. It is defined by Emerson (1972) as a
series of temporally interspersed opportunities, initiations, and
transactions. (Ap, 1992)
12
13
A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
Antecedents of the Exchange Relation
• The antecedents represent the opportunities or situations in an exchange
• relation. The four antecedents shown in the model (Figure 1) are adapted from
Searle (1991) and viewed as opportunities perceived by at least one of the
participants before the exchange forms (Ap, 1992).
• Rationality of behavior refers to an actor's behavior being based upon reward
seeking. In this model, rationality is assumed--that the rewards and benefits
derived from exchange are valued resources; and actors who derive reward from
the exchange relationship will act in a way that will tend to produce these
benefits.
13
14
A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
Exchange Formation
• Meeting the antecedent conditions creates an environment conducive to forming
an exchange relationship (Flow 2). The antecedents (i.e., opportunities) must be
perceived by an actor to be rewarding and able to be consummated as a mutually
reinforcing transaction.
• Exchange Formation involves a two-way directional linking of the antecedents to
the forms of exchange relation.
• Alternatively, if either actor anticipates or perceives that the consequences of
exchange will be unworthwhile or unrewarding, then withdrawal of exchange
behavior will result and no exchange between the actors will occur (Flow 2a).
14
15
A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
• The form of exchange relation is measured in terms of power or dependence of
the actors involved and provides the basis for explaining why residents perceive
the impacts of tourism to be either positive or negative.
15
16
A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
16
• Process 3 - Consequences of Exchange (Exchange Evaluation)
• Upon completion of the exchange process, an evaluation of its consequences
takes place. When evaluation of the consequences of an exchange transaction
are viewed as being rewarding and positive (Flow 4), the actor's needs are
satisfied and it reinforces the behavior of the actor such that the latter is likely
to continue engaging in future exchanges. (Ap, 1992)
• Perdue, Long and Allen (1990) found that support for additional tourism
development was related to perceived positive impacts of tourism and
negatively related to perceived negative impacts, thus suggesting that
behavioral intentions were related to residents‘ perceptions.
• Alternatively, if the consequences of the exchange have been evaluated as
being unrewarding and negative, then exchange behavior is likely to be
withdrawn with no exchange likely to occur between the participants in the
future (Flow 4a). (Ap, 1992)
17
A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
• The consequences of the exchange transaction depend upon what resources are
valued and exchanged by the respective actors. These consequences may be
positive or negative, and may also be evaluated in terms of outputs, actions,
and/or outcomes. (Ap, 1992)
17
18
A. A. TOURISM INTERACTION
EXAMPLE: CRUISE TRIPPERS UNWELCOME IN VENICE,
ITALY
• Venice is one of the world’s most popular tourist destinations.
• An average of 59,000 tourists a day visit Venice to see the old town’s
romantic canals, labyrinthine alleys and, of course, St. Mark’s Square.
They want to experience peaceful canals and narrow alleyways.
• A lot of locals say it’s too popular - and are calling for a limit on the
numbers of day trippers.
Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/venice-sitting-ban-fine-
tourists-overtourism-sit-mayor-luigi-brugnaro-a8547086.html
19
A. TOURISM INTERACTION
EXAMPLE: CRUISE TRIPPERS UNWELCOME IN
VENICE, ITALY
• Visitors to Venice could be fined up to €500 (£440) for
sitting in undesignated spots, after the mayor suggested a
new ban as part of wider efforts to crack down on
undesirable tourist behaviour.
Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/venice-sitting-ban-fine-
tourists-overtourism-sit-mayor-luigi-brugnaro-a8547086.html
B . C A R R Y I N G C A P A C I T Y
21
B. CARRYING CAPACITY
Definition
“the maximum use of any site without causing negative
effects on the resources, reducing visitor satisfactions, or
exerting adverse impacts upon the society, economy or
culture of the area.” (McIntyre, 1993, 23)
“There is a finite capacity for a tourist facility or destination
which should be identified and not exceeded in order to
restrict any damaging impacts.”
Generally agree that it is difficult to establish one numerical
capacity point - various stakeholders are likely to have
different perspective on where the limit lies.
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1-pa3DtMMo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV2-2Ym3IIc
22
B. CARRYING CAPACITY
• Likewise, Inskeep (1991: 144) states that ‘establishing carrying capacities is
based on the concept of maintaining a level of development and use that will
not result in environmental or sociocultural deterioration …’ (emphasis
added).
• World Tourism Organization has defined Tourism Carrying Capacity as “the
maximum number of persons which could visit a location within a given
period, such that local environmental, physical, economic, and socio-cultural
characteristics are not compromised, and without reducing tourist
satisfaction” (WTO, 1999). Thus, physical (or ecological), social and
economic carrying capacity can be defined as follow:
22
23
B. CARRYING CAPACITY
1. Physical capacity
• Richardson and Fluker (2004) pointed out that physical capacity is referred to
the number of visitors that the site was designed for or has the ability to
accommodate. The assessment of the above carrying capacity is determined
through the analysis of the facilities required by both tourists and residents:
saturation limits for existing facilities (for example, sewage treatment plants,
waste treatment plants) and limits for new facilities construction. (WTO, 1998).
23
24
B. CARRYING CAPACITY
2. Ecological capacity
• Ecological capacity is the threshold limit beyond which natural and cultural
heritage of a destination are damaged by tourism; physical carrying capacity of a
destination is thence determined through the analysis of its environmental
components (for example, water resources quantity and availability, limits for air
pollutants concentrations) (WTO, 1998)
• The numbers of tourists that can use an area before damage is done to the natural
or biological environment. (Richardson and Fluker, 2004)
24
25
B. CARRYING CAPACITY
(RICHARD AND FLUKER, 2004)
2. Ecological capacity
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
Bleached coral 珊瑚白化
26
B. CARRYING CAPACITY
2. Economic capacity
• Economic carrying capacity is the threshold limit beyond which tourism growth
becomes economically unacceptable; this situation may rise from two conditions: a)
when tourism interfere with other economic activities obstructing their development,
b) when the presence of a great number of tourists makes the destination no more
comfortable and attractive and causes a contraction in tourism demand.
• The level at which the tourism business can operate before other industries are
squeezed out by the competition for resources. (Richardson and Fluker, 2004).
26
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education
Limited 2016
27
B. CARRYING CAPACITY
3. Social capacity
• The numbers of visitors that can be tolerated by the host community.
(Richardson and Fluker, 2004)
• Social carrying capacity is the threshold beyond which social aspects of the
host community are badly influenced and damage by tourism activities and
life’s quality of residents is no more granted; this situation can also lead to
conflicts between tourists and resident population, generating social tensions.
(WTO, 2021)
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e ©
Pearson Education Limited 2016
28
B. CARRYING CAPACITY
(RICHARD AND FLUKER, 2004)
4. Perceptual capacity
– The level of use that can be accommodated before the
psychological experience of visitors is negatively affected.
(Richardson and Fluker, 2004)
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
29
B. CARRYING CAPACITY
LIMITS OF ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (STANKEY ET AL.,
1985)
• Humans’ use of the natural environment will ultimately lead to
change
• LAC is to manage the destination or attraction through this
change
• impacts beyond a pre-established level will not be tolerated
• Actions will be taken to ensure that the limits of acceptable
change (LAC) are not exceeded
• Management challenge: decide how much change will be
allowed to occur, where, and the actions needed to control it
(Stankey et al. 1985, p.1)
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
30
B. CARRYING CAPACITY LIMITS OF
ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (STANKEY ET AL., 1985)
30
Stankey, G.H. Stephen, F., & McCool and Stokes, G.L. (1985) Limits of Acceptable Change: A new framework from
managing Bob Marshall and Wilderness Complex, Western Wildlands, 10 (3): 33-37.
31
B. CARRYING CAPACITY LIMITS OF
ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (STANKEY ET AL.,
1985)
31
Stankey, G.H. Stephen, F., & McCool and Stokes, G.L. (1985) Limits of Acceptable Change: A new framework from
managing Bob Marshall and Wilderness Complex, Western Wildlands, 10 (3): 33-37.
32
B. CARRYING CAPACITY LIMITS OF
ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (STANKEY ET AL.,
1985)
32
Stankey, G.H. Stephen, F., & McCool and Stokes, G.L. (1985) Limits of Acceptable Change: A new framework from managing
Bob Marshall and Wilderness Complex, Western Wildlands, 10 (3): 33-37.
33
B. CARRYING CAPACITY LIMITS OF
ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (STANKEY ET AL., 1985)
33
To implement the LAC Framework, the managers proceed through nine interrelated
steps as below :
Stankey, G.H. Stephen, F., & McCool and Stokes, G.L. (1985) Limits of Acceptable Change: A new framework from managing
Bob Marshall and Wilderness Complex, Western Wildlands, 10 (3): 33-37.
34
B. CARRYING CAPACITY LIMITS OF
ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (STANKEY ET AL.,
1985)
34
Stankey, G.H. Stephen, F., & McCool and Stokes, G.L. (1985) Limits of Acceptable Change: A new framework from managing Bob
Marshall and Wilderness Complex, Western Wildlands, 10 (3): 33-37.
35
B. CARRYING CAPACITY LIMITS OF
ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (STANKEY ET AL.,
1985)
35
Stankey, G.H. Stephen, F., & McCool and Stokes, G.L. (1985) Limits of Acceptable Change: A new framework from managing Bob
Marshall and Wilderness Complex, Western Wildlands, 10 (3): 33-37.
36
B. CARRYING CAPACITY LIMITS OF
ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (STANKEY ET AL.,
1985)
36
Stankey, G.H. Stephen, F., & McCool and Stokes, G.L. (1985) Limits of Acceptable Change: A new framework from managing
Bob Marshall and Wilderness Complex, Western Wildlands, 10 (3): 33-37.
37
CARRYING CAPACITY IN
APPLICATION
• Carrying capacity is not recommended to consider only as an objective
characteristics of a given area. At the same time, it should be seen as a
managerial concept in relation to its utilization (see e.g. Pásková, 2008).
Carrying capacity is multidimensional and it may be described in a lot of
different ways. This multidimensionality must be borne in mind in relation to
the character of impacts on the natural and socio-cultural parts of the area.
According to the purpose of its utilization in management, it is relevant to
choose dimensions and their specifications in relation to the appropriately
defined area, the type of phenomena, possibilities of influence and impact
monitoring (Zelenka, Josef; Kacetl, Jaroslav 2014)
37
38
CARRYING CAPACITY IN
APPLICATION
• Capacity to absorb tourism impacts must be perceived as a time-space
variable, e.g. in the case of ecological carrying capacity, its manifestations
must be considered in relation to the local changeability of ecosystems, time
changeability (seasons, weather, belated effects of certain influences) and a
suitable size of the area for its determining and utilization (making an
average across dissimilar ecosystems) (Zelenka, Josef; Kacetl, Jaroslav
2014)
38
39
CARRYING CAPACITY IN
APPLICATION
• Carrying capacity should be viewed as a dynamic quantity – under dissimilar
conditions tourism effects on nature and landscape might be much different even
if there are otherwise the same numbers of visitors. For example, the same
amount of hiking visitors behaving in the same way in the given area in dry and
rainy weather, respectively.
• Carrying capacity is also different in different seasons. Concretely, e.g.
biophysical impacts result from a lot of variables: the rate of area utilization,
visitor behaviour, types of visitor activities, destination management activities,
realized investments in the protection of nature and landscape, types of tourism
facilities and ways of their utilization, weather, seasonality and localisation of
utilization, soil, geologic, vegetation and topographic characteristics. (Zelenka,
Josef; Kacetl, Jaroslav 2014)
39
40
CARRYING CAPACITY IN
APPLICATION
• Carrying capacity should be seen as an approximate value, or an interval. It
should be periodically determined, made more accurate, and interpreted.
Therefore, it is important to do constant monitoring and tourism research,
non-linear modelling, modelling using techniques of artificial intelligence
and cognitive sciences, and utilize Delphi method and experts from different
fields. (Zelenka, Josef; Kacetl, Jaroslav 2014)
40
41
CARRYING CAPACITY IN
APPLICATION
• Realize that determined values (intervals) are managerial decision – it is
impossible to determine them objectively. Nobody can therefore say whether
certain changes in the given ecosystem are still acceptable or not (the same
applies to the Limits of Acceptable Change Model, or the LAC Model, as
well as to indicators of sustainable tourism).
• It is appropriate to combine the approach of carrying capacity with the LAC
Model. Moreover, the LAC Model is the basis for most models of visitor
management. (Zelenka, Josef; Kacetl, Jaroslav 2014)
41
C . I R R I T A T I O N I N D E X
43
C. Irritation Index (or ‘Irridex’) model
(DOXEY, 1975)
Table 6.1 Irridex model of stress relative to tourism development
Source: Doxey, 1975
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
44
C. IRRITATION INDEX (OR ‘IRRIDEX’) MODEL
(DOXEY, 1975)
• Doxey (1975) came up with the idea of the ‘Irridex’ model which
suggests that communities pass through a sequence of reactions as
the impacts of an evolving tourism industry in their area become
more pronounced and their perceptions change with experience.
Thus, an initial euphoria is succeeded by apathy, irritation and,
eventually, antagonism.
44
45
C. IRRITATION INDEX (OR ‘IRRIDEX’) MODEL
(DOXEY, 1975)
Characteristics Symptoms
Stage 1:
Euphoria
The local residents are euphoric, pleased to see
investment and improved job opportunity for the
locals. The tourists are welcomed and even cultivated
as ‘friends’ as these ‘explorers’ are willing to accept
the norms and values of the hosts.
Stage 2:
Apathy
As locals become used to the benefits gained from
tourism, but aware of the problems caused by
tourism as it grows. They come to accept the tourism
development. Their interaction with tourists becomes
more commercial.
46
C. IRRITATION INDEX (OR ‘IRRIDEX’) MODEL
(DOXEY, 1975)
Characteristics Symptoms
Irritation As tourism further grows, the local residents are
concerned about tourism but feel tourists are an irritant
rather than a benefit. The locals realize how tourism is
changing their community and their cultural norms.
Antagonism Local residents show open hostility towards the steady
stream of visitors. Many of the visitors will not attempt
to adapt to local norms. The locals will attempt to limit
damage and tourism flows.
47
C. Irritation Index (or ‘Irridex’) model
(DOXEY, 1975)
47
Postma, A., & Schmuecker, D. (2017). “ Understanding and overcoming negative impacts of tourism in city destinations:
conceptual model and strategic framework”, Journal of Tourism Futures, Vol. 3, No. 2017, pp. 144-156, Emerald Publishing
limited. ISSN 2055-5911DOI 10.1108/JTF-04-2017-0022
D . T H E S O C I O - C U L T U R A L
I M P A C T S O F T O U R I S M
1. Positive impacts
2. Negative impacts
49
D1. POSITIVE SOCIO-CULTURAL
IMPACTS
Cultural awareness and maintaining local traditions
• re-establishing or retaining cultural and heritage features of
destination countries
• Reviving traditional arts, crafts, hand-made souvenirs
• Widening tourists’ cultural interests and appreciation of
foreign food and drink
• Reducing tensions and even avoiding conflicts
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
50
D2. NEGATIVE SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
Cultural clash
• Exploitation of local cultures and traditions,
including religious observances
• Visitors can be culturally insensitive, disrespectful,
and unaware of their behaviour towards religious site
or practice.
• tourism can create friction between hosts and guests.
50
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
51
D2. NEGATIVE SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
Criminal acts
• Tourism encourages growth in local crime and
deviant behaviour (e.g. drugs, gambling and
prostitution)
• Sexual exploitation of locals, especially minors in
developing countries by some tourists
• Example: sex tourism in Pattaya, Thailand
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
52
D2. NEGATIVE SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
Demonstration effect
• The display of relative wealth by tourists can leave
the host population dissatisfied with their own way of
life and seek to emulate the visitor. It may cause loss
of cultural identity.
• This may also apply to tourists, whose behaviour is
adjusted having viewed the lifestyle of their hosts.
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
53
D2. NEGATIVE SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
Staged authenticity
• Demand by tourists can encourage traditions to be maintained
and valued; however, culture is in danger of becoming
commercialized and trivialized.
• Given the constraints of time and place, tourists seek the
authentic experiences of local culture so locals ‘perform or
demonstrates’ their culture on stage in an attempt to stage
experiences to appear as realistic as possible.
• Relationships between hosts and guests become
increasingly commercial and superficial as tourist numbers
grow. (e.g. the performance become artificial.)
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
54
D2. NEGATIVE SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
Change in types of employment
• distracting for traditional agriculture or manufacturing
employment
• Example: casino and gambling in Macau
54
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
55
SCHOLARS’ RESEARCH
• This change was largely influenced by the penetration of tourism in various
patterns: “We could not even talk to tourists in those days. As the number of
tourists increased, the residents began to receive their shares, because their
sons, daughters or daughters-in-law were working for those tourism
facilities” (R14). Table 3 summarizes resident perceptions of socio-cultural
benefits and costs of tourism in Cappadocia. (Ö zel & Kozak 2016).
55
https://www.google.com/search?q=cappadocia&rlz=1C1
GCEU_enHK922HK922&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=
X&ved=2ahUKEwjLsJ-
9wLfzAhUIc3AKHaiTALcQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw
=1632&bih=875&dpr=1#imgrc=6o2ss_CRK7mcFM
56
SCHOLARS’ RESEARCH
56
Ö zel, C.H. & Kozak, N. (2016). An exploratory study of resident perceptions toward the tourism industry in Cappadocia: a
Social Exchange Theory approach, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 22, 2017, Issue 3
https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2016.1236826
Resident perceptions of the socio-cultural impacts of tourism in Cappadocia
57
REFERENCES AND USEFUL LINKS
Ap, J. (1992), “Residents' perceptions on tourism impacts”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 665‐90.
Brinberg, D. and Castell, P. (1982), “A resource exchange theory approach to interpersonal interactions: a test of
Foa's theory”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 260‐9.
Chang (2018), “The affecting tourism development attitudes based on the social exchange theory and the social
network theory”, Vol. 26 Issue 2, pp. 167-182, https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2018.1540438
Holloway, J. C. & Humphreys, C. (2016). The business of tourism (10th ed.). England: Pearson Education
Limited.
Inskeep, E. (1991) Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. London, UK:
Routledge.
McCartney, G. (2013) Introduction to Tourism Management An Asian Perspective, McGraw-Hill
McCool, S.F. & Lime. D.W. (2001). Tourism Carrying Capacity: Tempting Fantasy or Useful Reality?, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 9:5, 372-388, DOI: 10.1080/09669580108667409
Moyle, B., Croy, G. and Weiler, B. (2010), "Tourism interaction on islands: the community and visitor social
exchange", International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 96-
107. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506181011045172
Ö zel, C.H. & Kozak, N. (2016). An exploratory study of resident perceptions toward the tourism industry in
Cappadocia: a Social Exchange Theory approach, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 22, 2017,
Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2016.1236826
Postma, A., & Schmuecker, D. (2017). “ Understanding and overcoming negative impacts of tourism in city
destinations: conceptual model and strategic framework”, Journal of Tourism Futures, Vol. 3, No. 2017, pp. 144-156,
Emerald Publishing limited. ISSN 2055-5911DOI 10.1108/JTF-04-2017-0022
Richardson, J. I. and Fluker, M. (2004) Understanding and Managing Tourism, French’s Forest, Pearson
Hospitality Press.
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/venice-sitting-ban-fine-tourists-overtourism-sit-mayor-
58
REFERENCES AND USEFUL LINKS
• Zelenka, Josef; Kacetl, Jaroslav (2014) : The Concept of Carrying Capacity in Tourism, Amfiteatru Economic Journal, ISSN
2247-9104, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Vol. 16, Iss. 36, pp. 641-654,
http://hdl.handle.net/10419/168848
• World Tourism Organization, WTO (1999) Global code of ethics for tourism. Proc. of Thirteenth session of General Assembly:
Santiago, Chile, 1999.
58
59
SELF REFLECTION
What is the situation after the pandemic ? Is it necessary
to revisit the carrying capacity ?
59
60
Q&A
60
61
Thank You !
61
学霸联盟
学霸联盟
After studying this lecture, you should be able to
• Understand the various ways in which tourism can
impact on the destination in terms of socio-cultural
aspect.
• Identify the social and cultural benefit of tourism.
• Critically evaluate the negative impacts of tourism from
social and cultural perspectives.
3LECTURE SUMMARY
A. Tourism Interaction
The Tourism System (Leiper 1979)
Social Exchange Theory (Homans 1958)
B. Carrying Capacity
Types of Carrying Capacity
Limits of Acceptable Changes
Carrying Capacity in Application
C. Irritation Index (Doxey, 1975)
D. The socio-cultural impacts of tourism
Positive impacts
Negative impacts
A . T O U R I S M I N T E R A C T I O N
5A. TOURISM INTERACTION
THE TOURISM SYSTEM (LEIPER, 1979)
Figure 1.2 The tourism system
Source: adapted from Leiper, 1979
6A. TOURISM INTERACTION
THE TOURISM SYSTEM (LEIPER, 1979)
1. Interaction among three elements
• A traveller generating region is the place where tours start
and end (home).
• A tourist destination region is the places and areas visited by
the tourist.
• A transit region is the places or route where some form of
transport is used to move the tourist from, and back to, the
generating region and between any destinations visited.
2. Interaction with other elements of macro environment
• Political, economic, socio-cultural, technological, human,
legal.
7A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
• The exchange behavior school of social exchange theory (SET) originated from Homans
(1958). It was taken from the perspective of economics (individual theory) that, under free
competition and open markets, humans may rationally measure and pursue maximum
utility from a transaction or exchange (Chang, 2018; Ritzer, 1983).
• Social exchange theory conceptualizes the exchange of resources between individuals and
groups in an interaction situation (Brinberg and Castell, 1982) and provides a framework
visitor-host interactions (Ap, 1992).
• Ap (1992) outlines four key stages: (1) initiation of exchange; (2) exchange formation; (3)
exchange transaction evaluation; (4) positive evaluation of exchange consequences, that is,
reinforcement of behavior; and (2a) and (4a) negative evaluation of exchange
consequences resulting in a reduction of exchange behavior or possibly the withdrawal of
exchange behavior which results in no-exchange.
7
8A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
8
(Ap, 1992)
9A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
• In the host resident-tourism context, people (actors) involved in the exchange
may include individuals or groups such as local residents, local workers,
local entrepreneurs, town officials, resident action groups, tourists, tourism
operators, developers, environmentalists, or investors. (Ap, 1992)
9
10
A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
Need Satisfaction
• As the driving force behind exchange, it is assumed that the primary motive
for a community in attracting and developing tourism to its area is to
improve the economic, social, and psychological well-being of its residents.
(Ap, 1992).
• Some key community actors who may encourage tourism are civic officials,
local businesses, or even residents, depending upon the circumstances (Ap,
1992).
10
11
A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
• Process 1 - Initiation of Exchange
• Expression of a need initiates the exchange process (Flow 1). This initiation of
exchange linkage connects need satisfaction to the exchange relation. An person
involved in the exchange will initiate an exchange relationship when there is a
need to satisfy (Ap, 1992).
• This need may be internally motivated by either one of the actors, or it may be
stimulated by an imposition from an external source. In the latter situation, the
imposition places the exchange in a state of imbalance which then needs to be
addressed by the disadvantaged participants involved in the exchange (Ap, 1992).
11
12
A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
• Process 2 - Exchange Relation
• The Exchange Relation is composed of two subcomponents:
antecedents and form of the relation, which determine the
nature of an exchange. It is defined by Emerson (1972) as a
series of temporally interspersed opportunities, initiations, and
transactions. (Ap, 1992)
12
13
A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
Antecedents of the Exchange Relation
• The antecedents represent the opportunities or situations in an exchange
• relation. The four antecedents shown in the model (Figure 1) are adapted from
Searle (1991) and viewed as opportunities perceived by at least one of the
participants before the exchange forms (Ap, 1992).
• Rationality of behavior refers to an actor's behavior being based upon reward
seeking. In this model, rationality is assumed--that the rewards and benefits
derived from exchange are valued resources; and actors who derive reward from
the exchange relationship will act in a way that will tend to produce these
benefits.
13
14
A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
Exchange Formation
• Meeting the antecedent conditions creates an environment conducive to forming
an exchange relationship (Flow 2). The antecedents (i.e., opportunities) must be
perceived by an actor to be rewarding and able to be consummated as a mutually
reinforcing transaction.
• Exchange Formation involves a two-way directional linking of the antecedents to
the forms of exchange relation.
• Alternatively, if either actor anticipates or perceives that the consequences of
exchange will be unworthwhile or unrewarding, then withdrawal of exchange
behavior will result and no exchange between the actors will occur (Flow 2a).
14
15
A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
• The form of exchange relation is measured in terms of power or dependence of
the actors involved and provides the basis for explaining why residents perceive
the impacts of tourism to be either positive or negative.
15
16
A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
16
• Process 3 - Consequences of Exchange (Exchange Evaluation)
• Upon completion of the exchange process, an evaluation of its consequences
takes place. When evaluation of the consequences of an exchange transaction
are viewed as being rewarding and positive (Flow 4), the actor's needs are
satisfied and it reinforces the behavior of the actor such that the latter is likely
to continue engaging in future exchanges. (Ap, 1992)
• Perdue, Long and Allen (1990) found that support for additional tourism
development was related to perceived positive impacts of tourism and
negatively related to perceived negative impacts, thus suggesting that
behavioral intentions were related to residents‘ perceptions.
• Alternatively, if the consequences of the exchange have been evaluated as
being unrewarding and negative, then exchange behavior is likely to be
withdrawn with no exchange likely to occur between the participants in the
future (Flow 4a). (Ap, 1992)
17
A. TOURISM INTERACTION FROM SOCIAL
EXCHANGE THEORY (HOMANS, 1958)
• The consequences of the exchange transaction depend upon what resources are
valued and exchanged by the respective actors. These consequences may be
positive or negative, and may also be evaluated in terms of outputs, actions,
and/or outcomes. (Ap, 1992)
17
18
A. A. TOURISM INTERACTION
EXAMPLE: CRUISE TRIPPERS UNWELCOME IN VENICE,
ITALY
• Venice is one of the world’s most popular tourist destinations.
• An average of 59,000 tourists a day visit Venice to see the old town’s
romantic canals, labyrinthine alleys and, of course, St. Mark’s Square.
They want to experience peaceful canals and narrow alleyways.
• A lot of locals say it’s too popular - and are calling for a limit on the
numbers of day trippers.
Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/venice-sitting-ban-fine-
tourists-overtourism-sit-mayor-luigi-brugnaro-a8547086.html
19
A. TOURISM INTERACTION
EXAMPLE: CRUISE TRIPPERS UNWELCOME IN
VENICE, ITALY
• Visitors to Venice could be fined up to €500 (£440) for
sitting in undesignated spots, after the mayor suggested a
new ban as part of wider efforts to crack down on
undesirable tourist behaviour.
Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/venice-sitting-ban-fine-
tourists-overtourism-sit-mayor-luigi-brugnaro-a8547086.html
B . C A R R Y I N G C A P A C I T Y
21
B. CARRYING CAPACITY
Definition
“the maximum use of any site without causing negative
effects on the resources, reducing visitor satisfactions, or
exerting adverse impacts upon the society, economy or
culture of the area.” (McIntyre, 1993, 23)
“There is a finite capacity for a tourist facility or destination
which should be identified and not exceeded in order to
restrict any damaging impacts.”
Generally agree that it is difficult to establish one numerical
capacity point - various stakeholders are likely to have
different perspective on where the limit lies.
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1-pa3DtMMo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV2-2Ym3IIc
22
B. CARRYING CAPACITY
• Likewise, Inskeep (1991: 144) states that ‘establishing carrying capacities is
based on the concept of maintaining a level of development and use that will
not result in environmental or sociocultural deterioration …’ (emphasis
added).
• World Tourism Organization has defined Tourism Carrying Capacity as “the
maximum number of persons which could visit a location within a given
period, such that local environmental, physical, economic, and socio-cultural
characteristics are not compromised, and without reducing tourist
satisfaction” (WTO, 1999). Thus, physical (or ecological), social and
economic carrying capacity can be defined as follow:
22
23
B. CARRYING CAPACITY
1. Physical capacity
• Richardson and Fluker (2004) pointed out that physical capacity is referred to
the number of visitors that the site was designed for or has the ability to
accommodate. The assessment of the above carrying capacity is determined
through the analysis of the facilities required by both tourists and residents:
saturation limits for existing facilities (for example, sewage treatment plants,
waste treatment plants) and limits for new facilities construction. (WTO, 1998).
23
24
B. CARRYING CAPACITY
2. Ecological capacity
• Ecological capacity is the threshold limit beyond which natural and cultural
heritage of a destination are damaged by tourism; physical carrying capacity of a
destination is thence determined through the analysis of its environmental
components (for example, water resources quantity and availability, limits for air
pollutants concentrations) (WTO, 1998)
• The numbers of tourists that can use an area before damage is done to the natural
or biological environment. (Richardson and Fluker, 2004)
24
25
B. CARRYING CAPACITY
(RICHARD AND FLUKER, 2004)
2. Ecological capacity
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
Bleached coral 珊瑚白化
26
B. CARRYING CAPACITY
2. Economic capacity
• Economic carrying capacity is the threshold limit beyond which tourism growth
becomes economically unacceptable; this situation may rise from two conditions: a)
when tourism interfere with other economic activities obstructing their development,
b) when the presence of a great number of tourists makes the destination no more
comfortable and attractive and causes a contraction in tourism demand.
• The level at which the tourism business can operate before other industries are
squeezed out by the competition for resources. (Richardson and Fluker, 2004).
26
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education
Limited 2016
27
B. CARRYING CAPACITY
3. Social capacity
• The numbers of visitors that can be tolerated by the host community.
(Richardson and Fluker, 2004)
• Social carrying capacity is the threshold beyond which social aspects of the
host community are badly influenced and damage by tourism activities and
life’s quality of residents is no more granted; this situation can also lead to
conflicts between tourists and resident population, generating social tensions.
(WTO, 2021)
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e ©
Pearson Education Limited 2016
28
B. CARRYING CAPACITY
(RICHARD AND FLUKER, 2004)
4. Perceptual capacity
– The level of use that can be accommodated before the
psychological experience of visitors is negatively affected.
(Richardson and Fluker, 2004)
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
29
B. CARRYING CAPACITY
LIMITS OF ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (STANKEY ET AL.,
1985)
• Humans’ use of the natural environment will ultimately lead to
change
• LAC is to manage the destination or attraction through this
change
• impacts beyond a pre-established level will not be tolerated
• Actions will be taken to ensure that the limits of acceptable
change (LAC) are not exceeded
• Management challenge: decide how much change will be
allowed to occur, where, and the actions needed to control it
(Stankey et al. 1985, p.1)
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
30
B. CARRYING CAPACITY LIMITS OF
ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (STANKEY ET AL., 1985)
30
Stankey, G.H. Stephen, F., & McCool and Stokes, G.L. (1985) Limits of Acceptable Change: A new framework from
managing Bob Marshall and Wilderness Complex, Western Wildlands, 10 (3): 33-37.
31
B. CARRYING CAPACITY LIMITS OF
ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (STANKEY ET AL.,
1985)
31
Stankey, G.H. Stephen, F., & McCool and Stokes, G.L. (1985) Limits of Acceptable Change: A new framework from
managing Bob Marshall and Wilderness Complex, Western Wildlands, 10 (3): 33-37.
32
B. CARRYING CAPACITY LIMITS OF
ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (STANKEY ET AL.,
1985)
32
Stankey, G.H. Stephen, F., & McCool and Stokes, G.L. (1985) Limits of Acceptable Change: A new framework from managing
Bob Marshall and Wilderness Complex, Western Wildlands, 10 (3): 33-37.
33
B. CARRYING CAPACITY LIMITS OF
ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (STANKEY ET AL., 1985)
33
To implement the LAC Framework, the managers proceed through nine interrelated
steps as below :
Stankey, G.H. Stephen, F., & McCool and Stokes, G.L. (1985) Limits of Acceptable Change: A new framework from managing
Bob Marshall and Wilderness Complex, Western Wildlands, 10 (3): 33-37.
34
B. CARRYING CAPACITY LIMITS OF
ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (STANKEY ET AL.,
1985)
34
Stankey, G.H. Stephen, F., & McCool and Stokes, G.L. (1985) Limits of Acceptable Change: A new framework from managing Bob
Marshall and Wilderness Complex, Western Wildlands, 10 (3): 33-37.
35
B. CARRYING CAPACITY LIMITS OF
ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (STANKEY ET AL.,
1985)
35
Stankey, G.H. Stephen, F., & McCool and Stokes, G.L. (1985) Limits of Acceptable Change: A new framework from managing Bob
Marshall and Wilderness Complex, Western Wildlands, 10 (3): 33-37.
36
B. CARRYING CAPACITY LIMITS OF
ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (STANKEY ET AL.,
1985)
36
Stankey, G.H. Stephen, F., & McCool and Stokes, G.L. (1985) Limits of Acceptable Change: A new framework from managing
Bob Marshall and Wilderness Complex, Western Wildlands, 10 (3): 33-37.
37
CARRYING CAPACITY IN
APPLICATION
• Carrying capacity is not recommended to consider only as an objective
characteristics of a given area. At the same time, it should be seen as a
managerial concept in relation to its utilization (see e.g. Pásková, 2008).
Carrying capacity is multidimensional and it may be described in a lot of
different ways. This multidimensionality must be borne in mind in relation to
the character of impacts on the natural and socio-cultural parts of the area.
According to the purpose of its utilization in management, it is relevant to
choose dimensions and their specifications in relation to the appropriately
defined area, the type of phenomena, possibilities of influence and impact
monitoring (Zelenka, Josef; Kacetl, Jaroslav 2014)
37
38
CARRYING CAPACITY IN
APPLICATION
• Capacity to absorb tourism impacts must be perceived as a time-space
variable, e.g. in the case of ecological carrying capacity, its manifestations
must be considered in relation to the local changeability of ecosystems, time
changeability (seasons, weather, belated effects of certain influences) and a
suitable size of the area for its determining and utilization (making an
average across dissimilar ecosystems) (Zelenka, Josef; Kacetl, Jaroslav
2014)
38
39
CARRYING CAPACITY IN
APPLICATION
• Carrying capacity should be viewed as a dynamic quantity – under dissimilar
conditions tourism effects on nature and landscape might be much different even
if there are otherwise the same numbers of visitors. For example, the same
amount of hiking visitors behaving in the same way in the given area in dry and
rainy weather, respectively.
• Carrying capacity is also different in different seasons. Concretely, e.g.
biophysical impacts result from a lot of variables: the rate of area utilization,
visitor behaviour, types of visitor activities, destination management activities,
realized investments in the protection of nature and landscape, types of tourism
facilities and ways of their utilization, weather, seasonality and localisation of
utilization, soil, geologic, vegetation and topographic characteristics. (Zelenka,
Josef; Kacetl, Jaroslav 2014)
39
40
CARRYING CAPACITY IN
APPLICATION
• Carrying capacity should be seen as an approximate value, or an interval. It
should be periodically determined, made more accurate, and interpreted.
Therefore, it is important to do constant monitoring and tourism research,
non-linear modelling, modelling using techniques of artificial intelligence
and cognitive sciences, and utilize Delphi method and experts from different
fields. (Zelenka, Josef; Kacetl, Jaroslav 2014)
40
41
CARRYING CAPACITY IN
APPLICATION
• Realize that determined values (intervals) are managerial decision – it is
impossible to determine them objectively. Nobody can therefore say whether
certain changes in the given ecosystem are still acceptable or not (the same
applies to the Limits of Acceptable Change Model, or the LAC Model, as
well as to indicators of sustainable tourism).
• It is appropriate to combine the approach of carrying capacity with the LAC
Model. Moreover, the LAC Model is the basis for most models of visitor
management. (Zelenka, Josef; Kacetl, Jaroslav 2014)
41
C . I R R I T A T I O N I N D E X
43
C. Irritation Index (or ‘Irridex’) model
(DOXEY, 1975)
Table 6.1 Irridex model of stress relative to tourism development
Source: Doxey, 1975
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
44
C. IRRITATION INDEX (OR ‘IRRIDEX’) MODEL
(DOXEY, 1975)
• Doxey (1975) came up with the idea of the ‘Irridex’ model which
suggests that communities pass through a sequence of reactions as
the impacts of an evolving tourism industry in their area become
more pronounced and their perceptions change with experience.
Thus, an initial euphoria is succeeded by apathy, irritation and,
eventually, antagonism.
44
45
C. IRRITATION INDEX (OR ‘IRRIDEX’) MODEL
(DOXEY, 1975)
Characteristics Symptoms
Stage 1:
Euphoria
The local residents are euphoric, pleased to see
investment and improved job opportunity for the
locals. The tourists are welcomed and even cultivated
as ‘friends’ as these ‘explorers’ are willing to accept
the norms and values of the hosts.
Stage 2:
Apathy
As locals become used to the benefits gained from
tourism, but aware of the problems caused by
tourism as it grows. They come to accept the tourism
development. Their interaction with tourists becomes
more commercial.
46
C. IRRITATION INDEX (OR ‘IRRIDEX’) MODEL
(DOXEY, 1975)
Characteristics Symptoms
Irritation As tourism further grows, the local residents are
concerned about tourism but feel tourists are an irritant
rather than a benefit. The locals realize how tourism is
changing their community and their cultural norms.
Antagonism Local residents show open hostility towards the steady
stream of visitors. Many of the visitors will not attempt
to adapt to local norms. The locals will attempt to limit
damage and tourism flows.
47
C. Irritation Index (or ‘Irridex’) model
(DOXEY, 1975)
47
Postma, A., & Schmuecker, D. (2017). “ Understanding and overcoming negative impacts of tourism in city destinations:
conceptual model and strategic framework”, Journal of Tourism Futures, Vol. 3, No. 2017, pp. 144-156, Emerald Publishing
limited. ISSN 2055-5911DOI 10.1108/JTF-04-2017-0022
D . T H E S O C I O - C U L T U R A L
I M P A C T S O F T O U R I S M
1. Positive impacts
2. Negative impacts
49
D1. POSITIVE SOCIO-CULTURAL
IMPACTS
Cultural awareness and maintaining local traditions
• re-establishing or retaining cultural and heritage features of
destination countries
• Reviving traditional arts, crafts, hand-made souvenirs
• Widening tourists’ cultural interests and appreciation of
foreign food and drink
• Reducing tensions and even avoiding conflicts
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
50
D2. NEGATIVE SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
Cultural clash
• Exploitation of local cultures and traditions,
including religious observances
• Visitors can be culturally insensitive, disrespectful,
and unaware of their behaviour towards religious site
or practice.
• tourism can create friction between hosts and guests.
50
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
51
D2. NEGATIVE SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
Criminal acts
• Tourism encourages growth in local crime and
deviant behaviour (e.g. drugs, gambling and
prostitution)
• Sexual exploitation of locals, especially minors in
developing countries by some tourists
• Example: sex tourism in Pattaya, Thailand
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
52
D2. NEGATIVE SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
Demonstration effect
• The display of relative wealth by tourists can leave
the host population dissatisfied with their own way of
life and seek to emulate the visitor. It may cause loss
of cultural identity.
• This may also apply to tourists, whose behaviour is
adjusted having viewed the lifestyle of their hosts.
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
53
D2. NEGATIVE SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
Staged authenticity
• Demand by tourists can encourage traditions to be maintained
and valued; however, culture is in danger of becoming
commercialized and trivialized.
• Given the constraints of time and place, tourists seek the
authentic experiences of local culture so locals ‘perform or
demonstrates’ their culture on stage in an attempt to stage
experiences to appear as realistic as possible.
• Relationships between hosts and guests become
increasingly commercial and superficial as tourist numbers
grow. (e.g. the performance become artificial.)
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
54
D2. NEGATIVE SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
Change in types of employment
• distracting for traditional agriculture or manufacturing
employment
• Example: casino and gambling in Macau
54
Holloway & Humphreys, The Business of Tourism, 10e © Pearson Education Limited 2016
55
SCHOLARS’ RESEARCH
• This change was largely influenced by the penetration of tourism in various
patterns: “We could not even talk to tourists in those days. As the number of
tourists increased, the residents began to receive their shares, because their
sons, daughters or daughters-in-law were working for those tourism
facilities” (R14). Table 3 summarizes resident perceptions of socio-cultural
benefits and costs of tourism in Cappadocia. (Ö zel & Kozak 2016).
55
https://www.google.com/search?q=cappadocia&rlz=1C1
GCEU_enHK922HK922&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=
X&ved=2ahUKEwjLsJ-
9wLfzAhUIc3AKHaiTALcQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw
=1632&bih=875&dpr=1#imgrc=6o2ss_CRK7mcFM
56
SCHOLARS’ RESEARCH
56
Ö zel, C.H. & Kozak, N. (2016). An exploratory study of resident perceptions toward the tourism industry in Cappadocia: a
Social Exchange Theory approach, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 22, 2017, Issue 3
https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2016.1236826
Resident perceptions of the socio-cultural impacts of tourism in Cappadocia
57
REFERENCES AND USEFUL LINKS
Ap, J. (1992), “Residents' perceptions on tourism impacts”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 665‐90.
Brinberg, D. and Castell, P. (1982), “A resource exchange theory approach to interpersonal interactions: a test of
Foa's theory”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 260‐9.
Chang (2018), “The affecting tourism development attitudes based on the social exchange theory and the social
network theory”, Vol. 26 Issue 2, pp. 167-182, https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2018.1540438
Holloway, J. C. & Humphreys, C. (2016). The business of tourism (10th ed.). England: Pearson Education
Limited.
Inskeep, E. (1991) Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. London, UK:
Routledge.
McCartney, G. (2013) Introduction to Tourism Management An Asian Perspective, McGraw-Hill
McCool, S.F. & Lime. D.W. (2001). Tourism Carrying Capacity: Tempting Fantasy or Useful Reality?, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 9:5, 372-388, DOI: 10.1080/09669580108667409
Moyle, B., Croy, G. and Weiler, B. (2010), "Tourism interaction on islands: the community and visitor social
exchange", International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 96-
107. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506181011045172
Ö zel, C.H. & Kozak, N. (2016). An exploratory study of resident perceptions toward the tourism industry in
Cappadocia: a Social Exchange Theory approach, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 22, 2017,
Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2016.1236826
Postma, A., & Schmuecker, D. (2017). “ Understanding and overcoming negative impacts of tourism in city
destinations: conceptual model and strategic framework”, Journal of Tourism Futures, Vol. 3, No. 2017, pp. 144-156,
Emerald Publishing limited. ISSN 2055-5911DOI 10.1108/JTF-04-2017-0022
Richardson, J. I. and Fluker, M. (2004) Understanding and Managing Tourism, French’s Forest, Pearson
Hospitality Press.
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/venice-sitting-ban-fine-tourists-overtourism-sit-mayor-
58
REFERENCES AND USEFUL LINKS
• Zelenka, Josef; Kacetl, Jaroslav (2014) : The Concept of Carrying Capacity in Tourism, Amfiteatru Economic Journal, ISSN
2247-9104, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Vol. 16, Iss. 36, pp. 641-654,
http://hdl.handle.net/10419/168848
• World Tourism Organization, WTO (1999) Global code of ethics for tourism. Proc. of Thirteenth session of General Assembly:
Santiago, Chile, 1999.
58
59
SELF REFLECTION
What is the situation after the pandemic ? Is it necessary
to revisit the carrying capacity ?
59
60
Q&A
60
61
Thank You !
61
学霸联盟
学霸联盟
