Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
sustainability
Article
Investigating Residents’ Attitudes towards Tourism Growth in
Downtown Greenville, SC: The Effect of Demographic Variables
Yuting An 1,* , Jang-Won Moon 2and William C. Norman 3
Citation: An, Y.; Moon, J.-W.;
Norman, W.C. Investigating
Residents’ Attitudes towards Tourism
Growth in Downtown Greenville, SC:
The Effect of Demographic Variables.
Sustainability 2021,13, 8474.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158474
Academic Editor: Andrea Pérez
Received: 1 July 2021
Accepted: 26 July 2021
Published: 29 July 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1
Department of Tourism, Hospitality and Event Management, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
2School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of South Florida, Sarasota, FL 34243, USA;
jangwom@g.clemson.edu
3Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA;
wnorman@clemson.edu
*Correspondence: yutingan@ufl.edu
Abstract:
Given the high density of urban spaces, residents and tourists share resources and in-
frastructure in limited spaces. The purpose of the study is to investigate the influence of residents’
perceived tourism impacts on their attitudes towards tourism growth, the effect of proximity to
tourism center on residents’ attitudes, and how this effect is moderated by residents’ demographic
features (age, gender, length of residence) in urban settings. A total of 251 responses were collected
in downtown Greenville, a tourist zone located in the heart of Greenville, SC, USA. Using multiple
regression models and ANOVA, the study suggested that (1) economic impact was the most impor-
tant predictor of residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth, (2) downtown residents were more
favorable of tourism growth than county residents, and (3) Age and gender moderated the effect of
proximity to a tourism center on residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth.
Keywords:
demographic variables; residents’ attitudes; tourism growth; urban spaces; social ex-
change theory
1. Introduction
Tourism growth can bring economic benefit to a local community while negatively
influencing its sociocultural and environmental environment [
1
,
2
]. The concept of sustain-
able tourism development, introduced into the tourism field, focuses on how to maximize
the former while minimizing the impact of the latter [
1
]. According to McIntyre [
3
], sustain-
able tourism is considered an alternative type of tourism, one that enhances the residents’
quality of life, offers an excellent tourist experience, and balances the quality of the en-
vironment on which both parties depend. As a result, communities should consider the
sustainable tourism goal of balancing residents’ wants and needs, which can result in a
strong tourism market orientation [
4
]. If done properly, sustainable tourism can foster a
balanced environment that enhances residents’ everyday lives and provides a pleasant
travel experience for tourists [5–7].
One salient way to ensure the success of sustainable tourism development is to
understand residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth [
4
]. Social exchange theory has
been widely accepted and applied in understanding residents’ attitudes towards tourism
growth. The theory is premised on individuals’ evaluations on benefits and costs during
resource exchange processes. It is argued that both parties in the exchange process are
willing to trade resources if they perceive more benefits than costs. In the field of tourism,
the social exchange theory indicates that residents who perceive more benefits than costs
are more favorable to tourism development [
8
]. Such tourism development will potentially
benefit the community by generating job opportunities, improving its infrastructure to
meet the growth in the number of visitors, increasing the number of parks and recreational
facilities, and improving the general standard of living [
9
–
11
]. However, tourism can also
Sustainability 2021,13, 8474. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158474 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021,13, 8474 2 of 18
have such negative sociocultural and environmental impacts as an increased cost of living,
traffic congestion, and overuse of natural resources [1,12].
The majority of the studies, examining factors influencing residents’ attitudes towards
tourism development, have been conducted in rural areas in developed countries [
13
].
However, research regarding residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth in urban areas
has not received much attention. Urban areas are condensed in nature regarding resources
and population. In city areas, tourists and residents share the same infrastructure and
leisure facilities in a limited periphery [
14
]. Residents are more likely to interact with
tourists since tourists are looking to experience the everyday life of the residents [
15
].
As a result, it is important to understand if and how residents living in a tourism center
have different attitudes towards tourism growth than residents who live away from a
tourism center. [
14
] One way to explore the potential differences of residents’ attitudes
towards tourism growth based on the proximity to a tourism center is through analyzing
residents’ demographic features. Residents’ demographic variables (i.e, age, gender, length
of residence) indicated the distinct features of resident identities [
13
,
16
–
18
]. Understanding
residents’ demographic features can help create a satisfactory tourism plan for locals
with different identities [
18
]. Although previous studies have examined the effect of
demographic variables on residents’ attitudes towards tourism with contradictory results,
few studies have considered if residents’ demographic features can explain how proximity
to a tourism center influences residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth.
To summarize, previous studies haven’t paid much attention to understanding resi-
dents’ attitudes towards tourism growth in urban areas. Specifically, the potential differ-
ences of residents’ attitudes towards tourism development based on their proximity to
tourism centers and its driving forces haven’t been explored. To explore how proximity to
a tourism center affects residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth, this study proposes
using residents’ demographic variables since residents’ demographic features indicate
their own identities that will influence their behavior and attitudes [
19
]. To address these
research gaps stated above, the purpose of the study is to examine the influence of residents’
perceived tourism impacts on their attitudes towards tourism, as well as the effect of prox-
imity to a tourism center on residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth in a downtown
tourist zone of a popular small urban city. Another goal of this study is to determine how
the proximity influences residents’ attitudes based on residents’ demographic variables.
Specifically, this study examines age, gender, and length of residence since these three
variables indicate the heterogeneity of a local community [
20
] that may affect residents’
attitudes toward tourism growth.
In this study, three research questions will be answered
1.
how do residents’ perceived tourism impacts affect their attitudes towards tourism
growth?
2.
how does proximity to a tourism zone make a difference in residents’ attitudes
towards tourism growth?
3.
how do residents’ age, gender, and length of residence moderate the relationship
between proximity to a tourism center and their attitudes towards tourism growth?
Downtown Greenville is selected as the research site for the study. It is in the heart of
Greenville, which is the fourth tourism city in the State of South Carolina [
21
]. Downtown
Greenville is a revitalized tourism center, which consists of hotels, restaurants, sports
venues, parks, and local businesses ventures. The tourism center is a hotspot for travelers
to visit, which attracts 2.5 million tourists annually [
22
]. Both residents and tourists can
attend the major local events each season (i.e., Fall for Greenville, Euphoria, and Artisphere),
as well as become active users of the convenient facilities and infrastructure in the area [
23
].
2. Literature Review
2.1. Residents Attitudes towards Tourism Growth and Social Exchange Theory
According to Eagly and Chaiken [
24
], attitude is a psychological term, reflecting an
individual’s assessment of certain objects as being seen as having or not having favors.
Sustainability 2021,13, 8474 3 of 18
According to Zhang et al. [
25
], residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth indicate how
they expect tourism development to be coordinated to achieve its sustainability. Specifically,
residents’ attitudes are based on four factors: long-term planning, a tourism-centered
economy, community participation, and assurance of tourist satisfaction. These four factors
emphasized residents’ extensive involvement and administrative role in the process of
tourism planning, both of which are key for a successful sustainable tourism industry.
One of the well-known theories to understand residents’ attitudes towards tourism
growth is the social exchange theory. Social exchange theory emphasizes the interaction
among people [
26
]. The essence of the social exchange theory is concerned with the
assessment of the benefits and the costs to both parties [
27
], two factors leading to their
willingness to participate in the process of trading various kinds of rewards [
28
–
31
]. The
goal of participation in this trading process is to optimize the balance between the benefits
and the expenses and to obtain mutual profits for both parties [
31
,
32
]. It was argued that
the participants are likely to continue interacting if they see more benefits and discontinue
the relationship if they see more costs [
29
]. In the field of tourism, Ap [
28
] applied the social
exchange theory to explain how residents perceived tourism development, arguing that
residents who assessed more benefits than expenses have more willingness to participate in
the trading process as they are more positive on tourism growth [
9
]. Social exchange theory
is suitable to understand residents’ attitudes of tourism development since the optimal
consequence of the trading process is the gratification for both tourists and residents [
32
,
33
],
an intangible form of interaction during the trading process [
34
], which will eventually
reach the goals of sustainable tourism development [
4
]. Using the social exchange theory
and the definition of residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth, proposed by Zhang
et al. [
25
], not only satisfies the premises of sustainable tourism growth but also addresses
the importance of residents’ participation in tourism planning.
2.2. Tourism Impacts
2.2.1. Economic Impacts
Extending the assumptions of the social exchange theory, residents’ attitudes towards
tourism growth are influenced by residents’ perceptions of tourism growth [
8
], which are
categorized into economic, sociocultural, and environmental dimensions [
35
]. Tourism has
significantly contributed to the economic growth in many regions [
36
]. Specifically, in rural
and developing areas, tourism has become the main source of economic development since
traditional industries have declined [
37
]. Previous research has suggested that residents’
perceived economic impacts were one of the most influential factors to predict residents’
attitudes towards tourism development [
38
]. These perceived tourism impacts were sorted
into positive and negative dimensions. The positive categories include increased job oppor-
tunities, salary growth, improved infrastructure, and enhanced living standards
[7,9,39–41]
.
The negative category mainly focuses on the increased cost of living [40].
Most of the previous studies have determined that residents’ perceived tourism im-
pacts affected residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth. Specifically, positive perceived
economic impacts were the most influential factor for residents’ attitudes towards tourism
growth [
8
,
42
–
44
]. On the other side, a study found out that both positive economic impacts
and negative economic impacts significantly predicted residents’ attitudes towards tourism
growth. Relative to negative economic impacts, positive economic impacts were more
important in affecting residents’ attitudes toward tourism development [
40
]. Consistent
with previous studies, this study proposes that
Hypothesis 1a (H1a).
Residents’ perceived economic impacts will significantly influence their
attitudes towards tourism growth.
2.2.2. Sociocultural Impacts
In addition to economic benefits and costs, tourism growth also causes both sociocul-
tural benefits and costs to the community. Sociocultural impacts are concerned with the
Sustainability 2021,13, 8474 4 of 18
routine life, cultural values, and changes in conventions resulting from tourism growth [
45
].
Tourism growth has been found to stimulate connections between tourists and the local
community, a situation with both positive and negative impacts [
38
]. On the positive side,
these interactions strengthen cultural exchange, increase the number of recreational and
leisure facilities and activities, facilitate the conservation of historical and heritage sites,
and help maintain the original culture of the local community [
9
,
46
,
47
]. On the negative
side, tourism increases the crime rate and results in traffic congestion as well as changes or,
in some cases the loss, of the original culture of the community [42,48].
Previous studies have examined the relationship between residents’ perceived socio-
cultural impacts and their attitudes towards tourism growth. Although a small number
of previous studies have determined the nonsignificant relationship between perceived
sociocultural impacts and their attitudes towards tourism growth [
49
], most studies have
found out that perceived sociocultural impacts have significantly predicted their attitudes
towards tourism development [
8
,
43
,
46
,
50
]. Specifically, compared with other tourism
influences, sociocultural impacts were a moderately influential factor of residents’ atti-
tudes [
8
,
46
]. According to Meimand et al. [
49
], compared to negative sociocultural impacts,
positive sociocultural impacts were more influential in predicting residents’ attitudes to-
wards tourism development. Based on the assumptions of social exchange theory, this
study proposes
Hypothesis 1b (H1b).
Residents’ perceived sociocultural impacts will significantly influence their
attitudes towards tourism growth.
2.3. Environmental Impacts
Environmental influence is considered an important element for tourism researchers
to understand how residents perceive tourism growth since the environment is one of
the primary driving forces attracting tourists [
36
]. Similar to perceived economic and
sociocultural impacts, residents perceive environmental impacts both positively and nega-
tively. However, more negative environmental impacts have been identified than positive.
Specifically, residents perceive that tourism development leads to air pollution, increased
trash, environmental deterioration, noise, and congestion [
9
,
51
–
53
]. On the other hand,
locals perceive that tourism growth can stimulate their efforts to conserve their natural
environment and engage in sustainable tourism [9,52].
Past studies have investigated the relationship between residents’ perceived environ-
mental impacts and their attitudes towards tourism growth. However, different results
were obtained. Some studies have determined that perceived environmental impacts
didn’t predict residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth [
54
]. On the contrary, other
studies have found out that environmental impacts influence residents’ attitudes towards
tourism development. A study determined that residents complained about the negative
environmental impacts, which led to negative attitudes towards tourism development [
51
].
Nevertheless, several studies have suggested that residents’ perceived environmental im-
pacts positively affected their attitudes towards tourism growth [
8
,
49
,
55
]. As a result, in
line with the assumptions of the social exchange theory, this study proposes that
Hypothesis 1c (H1c).
Residents’ perceptions of environmental impacts will significantly affect
their attitudes towards tourism growth.
2.4. Proximity to a Tourist Center
The concept of proximity involves several perspectives. Some studies measured
proximity from the perspective of geographical distance, while others measured it from
the perspectives of social and psychological distance [
56
]. The proximity to a tourist center
means residents’ geographical distance to this zone. It is important in urban tourism due to
the dense and diversified nature of urban cities [
14
] as both residents and tourists share the
same urban infrastructure in a limited space [
57
]. Several researchers have explored how
Sustainability 2021,13, 8474 5 of 18
the proximity to a tourist center affected residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth. They
examined the effect through the associated residents’ perceived tourism impacts. However,
the results of such studies varied.
According to Liu and Li [
17
] maintained that residents living away from the tourist
zone in India were more supportive of tourism growth due to its increased job opportunities
and better access to recreational facilities. Similarly, residents living near the tourist zone
were less favorable to tourism growth because of its increased living expenses. These
results were supported by Rasoolimanesh et al.’s [
58
] study conducted on heritage sites
in Iran. The reason for these results could be that residents who are proximal to tourist
zones have higher chances of interacting with tourists in these areas [
59
]. However, a study
conducted by Weaver and Lawton [
60
] found that the proximity to a tourist zone did not
explain residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth caused by tourism.
Unlike previous studies regarding proximity to a tourist center as a dichotomous
variable, this study categorizes the variable into three groups due to the nature of urban
spaces. Specifically, this study compares the differences among attitudes of downtown
residents, city residents and county residents (County residents represent residents who
live outside the City of Greenville but within the County) on tourism development. As a
result, this study proposes that
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Downtown residents hold different attitudes towards tourism growth from
city and county residents.
2.5. Residents’ Demographic Variables
As mentioned in the previous section, past studies have attempted to examine how
proximity to a tourism center affects residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth via
residents’ perceived tourism impacts. However, the results were disparate. An alternative
way to explore this effect is through examining residents’ demographic variables. Residents’
demographic variables can be the explanation regarding the effect of proximity on residents’
attitudes towards tourism growth since a person’s identity shapes his or her attitudes and
values of society [
19
]. In this study, residents’ age, gender, and length of residence are
used since they indicate the heterogeneity of the local community [
20
], which might affect
residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth.
2.5.1. Age
Previous studies have shown mixed results regarding the effect of age on residents’
attitudes towards tourism development [
61
]. Such studies explained the results by address-
ing the association of age and perceived tourism impacts, which results in significant or
non-significant changes in residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth. On one side, older
adults are more favorable towards tourism growth since they tend to perceive that they
receive more economic benefits [
62
,
63
] and concern less on the environmental impacts [
64
].
The underlying reasoning is that older residents are more likely to obtain managerial
roles and have the funds in tourism businesses. According to adults’ lifespan patterns,
middle-aged adults earn higher income and obtain higher positions and managerial roles in
workplaces [
65
]. On the other side, Sinclair-Maragh [
18
] determined that younger residents
were more favorable towards tourism development. Tourism development increases job
openings in tourism businesses (i.e., restaurants, hotels). Such openings are mostly filled by
younger generations, which leads to younger residents’ positive attitudes towards tourism
growth.
In general, differences of residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth in varying
age groups are associated with increased income and job opportunities. Similarly, this
reasoning is suitable for explaining the effect of proximity to a tourism center on residents’
attitudes towards tourism growth since residents who are proximal to a tourism center
have easy access to the economic benefits [66]. As a result, this study proposes that
Sustainability 2021,13, 8474 6 of 18
Hypothesis 3a (H3a).
Age will moderate the relationship between proximity to a tourism center
and residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth.
2.5.2. Gender
Prior studies have received varied results regarding the effect of gender on residents’
attitudes towards tourism growth. Such studies have explained the effect deriving from
the links between gender and its associated tourism influences. On one hand, past studies
have indicated that female residents were less favorable towards tourism growth [
13
,
67
,
68
]
since they tend to be more sensitive and show more concern about issues arising in the
community [
69
]. Another rationale originates from income inequality between males and
females, suggesting that females receive less economic benefits and have less positive
attitudes towards tourism growth [
67
]. On the contrary, other studies have determined
that females showed more positive attitudes towards tourism growth because of the
job openings deriving from tourism growth allow more female residents to earn second
income (i.e., housekeeping), especially in the developing countries [
18
,
70
]. However, other
studies haven’t found out the influence of gender on residents’ attitudes towards tourism
growth [71,72].
As a result, the gender differences in residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth
derive from the essential divergent roles that males and females are having in society.
While males’ traditional roles focus on supporting their families with their income [
73
],
females are more sensitive to community changes and development [
74
]. In a tourism
center where gathers people and compatible infrastructure and facilities in a limited area,
gender might explain the effect of proximity to a tourism center on residents’ attitudes
towards tourism growth because more business opportunities are arising. Residents living
near a tourism center are more or less sensitive to these opportunities depending on their
gender identities. Hence, this study proposes that
Hypothesis 3b (H3b).
Gender will moderate the relationship between proximity to a tourism
center and residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth.
2.5.3. Length of Residence
Past studies have explored to gain knowledge in residents’ length of residence and
their attitudes towards tourism development. However, the results varied. On one side,
long-term residents were less favorable towards tourism growth since they witness un-
expected community changes [
75
]. On the other side, long-term residents were more
supportive of tourism development because they are emotionally attached to their commu-
nities [
76
], driving them to focus more on the positive sides of tourism development, such
as economic gains [
17
]. Nevertheless, other studies have found out that length of residence
didn’t influence residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth [18,77,78].
Overall, there are two main reasons in explaining the effect of length of residence on
residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth: individual’s belongingness to the community
and the community changes. Length of residence might serve as an indicator, regarding
the effect of proximity to a tourism center, on residents’ attitudes towards growth because
residents define their community based on where they live. Additionally, a tourism center
might experience more changes and transitions than other places in a destination because
of the built infrastructure and facilities to meet tourists’ needs. As a result, this study
proposes that
Hypothesis 3c (H3c).
Length of residence will moderate the relationship between proximity to a
tourism center and residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth.
Sustainability 2021,13, 8474 7 of 18
3. Method
3.1. Study Site
The data was collected in downtown Greenville. Greenville, South Carolina, the
largest city in Greenville County and the Update region, is located in northwestern South
Carolina [
79
] (“Greenville”, n.d.). Downtown Greenville, the heart of the city, is both a
tourist zone and a residential area where parks, sports venues, restaurants, and hotels
are located. It is a place where both residents and tourists share the same infrastructure.
Greenville’s city center has been recognized as one of the best downtowns in America
by Livability [
80
] and one of the top cities to visit by Expedia [
81
]. There were 5 million
tourists visiting the city of Greenville in 2019, contributing $1.3 billion in expenditures and
74.3 million in taxation to the community [82].
3.2. Survey Instrument
The SUS-TAS scale was developed by Choi and Sirakaya [
36
] to measure residents’
attitudes towards sustainable tourism development. The scale reflects a new sustainable
tourism development paradigm to bring the success of sustainable tourism development.
To increase residents’ participation and controls during the tourism development planning
process, the scale intends to provide detailed information regarding residents’ perceptions
of tourism impacts and their attitudes towards sustainable tourism development. The
original scale comprises 44 items in 7 main dimensions: social expenses, economic benefits,
environmental sustainability, long-term planning, tourism-centered economy, community
participation, and tourist satisfaction assurance. Using their original 44-item scale [
36
],
researchers validated and reduced the items in different contexts [25,83].
This study adopted the SUS-TAS scale consisting of 20 statements validated by
Zhang et al. [25]
The first section of the questionnaire comprises 9 items regarding tourism
impacts, with 3 statements for each of the three impacts, economic, sociocultural, and
environmental. The second section focuses on residents’ attitudes towards tourism devel-
opment, with a total number of 11 statements measuring the four dimensions of long-term
planning, tourism-centered economy, community participation and tourist satisfaction
assurance. The last section of the survey examines respondents’ demographic information,
including age, gender, education level, race and ethnicity, annual income, zip code of
residence, and length of residence. This study used age, gender, length of residence, and
zip code to test the hypotheses.
3.3. Validity Check and Data Collection
Prior to data collection, a group of experts was invited to review survey items to
check the validity of the survey instrument. The group was composed of two tourism
professors, one leisure professor and one statistics professor. Based on their comments and
suggestions, two survey items were revised. A pilot study was conducted to check the
readability and reliability of survey items. According to the 32 responses received from the
pilot study, survey items were reworded and revised. Based on the results of expert reviews
and the pilot study, data were collected in downtown Greenville using a self-administered
survey method. To ensure potential participants’ eligibility to take part in the survey, the
researchers approached a person/people passing by and screened them by asking them
if they resided in Greenville County. The researchers then gave a questionnaire to the
qualified respondents who were willing to complete it. Overall, data were collected from
11 locations in downtown Greenville for 11 days. Among the 320 people approached, a
total of 251 respondents completed the questionnaire for a response rate of 85.1%.
4. Results
4.1. Respondent Profile
Of the 251 respondents in the study, male respondents (N= 147, 58.6%) and female
respondents (N= 104, 41.4%) were distributed (Table 1). For the majority of respondents,
the age ranged from 18–25 (33.9%) and 26–30 (26.7%). As for residence, 45.6% of the sample
Sustainability 2021,13, 8474 8 of 18
were city residents, followed by county residents (31.6%) and downtown residents (22.8%).
For the length of residence, the majority of respondents have resided in Greenville County
for less than 10 years: 36.8% between 1–5 years, 16.4% less than 1 year (16.4%) and 14.8%
between 5–10 years (14.8%). In addition, the largest two groups of downtown residents
have lived there 1–5 years (N= 33) and less than one year (N= 11). Similarly, more city
residents in this study have lived in the area for less than 5 years (N= 58). For county
residents, a larger percentage of people have lived in the county for 1–5 years (N= 20) and
16–20 years (N= 15).
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.
Demographic Variables N= 251 %
Gender
Male 147 58.6
Female 104 41.4
Age (M= 34, SD = 14.03)
Under 18 8 3.2
18–25 85 33.9
26–35 67 26.7
36–45 35 13.9
45–55 31 12.4
Above 55 25 10
Residence
Downtown 57 22.8
City 114 45.6
County 79 31.6
Length of Residence (M= 9.46, SD = 11.13)
Downtown City County
Less than 1 year 11 21 9 16.4
1–5 years 33 37 20 36.4
6–10 years 5 20 12 14.8
11–15 years 2 8 6 6.4
16–20 years 4 10 15 11.6
21–24 years 0 12 8 8.0
More than 25 years 2 6 8 6.4
4.2. Reliability Test and Descriptive Statistics
A reliability test was conducted to examine if the items were compatible with each
other regarding economic impacts, sociocultural impacts, environmental impacts and resi-
dents’ attitudes towards tourism growth. As seen in Table 2, the scales for economic impacts,
sociocultural impacts and environmental impacts exhibited acceptable reliability as their
Cronbach alphas were 0.78, 0.75, and 0.70, respectively. However, the reliability score for res-
idents’ attitudes towards tourism growth was relatively low
(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.6)
. After
deleting the item “tourism businesses should measure visitor satisfaction,” the reliability of
the scale improved to an acceptable level (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80). In addition, according
to in Table 2, the respondents in this study perceived economic (
M= 4.29
,
SD = 0.69
), socio-
cultural (
M= 4.19
,
SD = 0.72
), and environmental impacts (
M= 3.49
,
SD = 0.74
) positively
and showed favorable attitudes towards tourism growth (M= 4.06, SD = 0.48).
Sustainability 2021,13, 8474 9 of 18
Table 2. Reliability and Descriptive Statistics.
Variables Statement 1M SD
Economic Impact
(M= 4.29)
(SD = 0.69)
(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.78)
Tourism is good for our community’s economy.
4.36 0.83
Tourism creates new markets for local products.
4.35 0.72
Tourism benefits businesses other than just the
tourism industry in our community.
4.15 0.91
Sociocultural Impact
(M= 4.19)
(SD = 0.72)
(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75)
My community is not overcrowded because of the
tourism industry.
3.98 0.89
My quality of life is not destroyed because of tourism
in downtown Greenville.
4.43 0.83
Tourists in my community do not disrupt my quality
of life.
4.16 0.91
Environmental Impact
(M= 3.49)
(SD = 0.74)
(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.70)
The natural environment in our community is
protected by the tourism industry now and for the
future.
3.20 0.84
Tourism improves the environment in our
community.
3.71 1.03
Tourism development in our community promotes
positive environmental ethics.
3.57 0.95
Residents’ Attitudes
towards Tourism Growth
(M= 4.06)
(SD = 0.48)
(Cronbach Alpha = 0.80)
Successful tourism development needs advanced
tourism planning.
4.05 0.79
Tourism development needs well-coordinated
planning.
4.21 0.67
We cannot be short-sighted when planning for
tourism development.
4.27 0.69
Local residents should receive a fair share of
economic benefits from tourism.
3.68 0.93
The tourism industry should contribute economically
to the community’s improvement.
4.34 0.65
The tourism industry should try to purchase goods
and services within the community.
4.40 0.68
The tourism industry should ensure a high-quality
tourist experience.
4.24 0.57
Community attractiveness is a core element of
ecological “appeal” for visitors.
4.26 0.67
Tourism decisions should be made by all members in
the community regardless of their backgrounds.
3.64 1.07
Everyone in the community should participate in the
decision-making process for tourism development.
3.49 1.09
1Based on a scale of 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.
4.3. Effect of Tourism Influence
The average of economic impacts, sociocultural impacts, environmental impacts, and
residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth was calculated to represent the correspond-
ing variables. Before running regression analyses, preliminary analyses were conducted.
The data were normally distributed. In addition, there were no multicollinearity prob-
lems. Seven cases were removed because of detected multivariate outliers based on their
Mahalanobis distance.
To test the effect of economic, sociocultural and environmental impacts on residents’
attitudes towards tourism growth, a multiple regression was conducted where the de-
pendent variable was residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth and the independent
Sustainability 2021,13, 8474 10 of 18
variables were economic impacts, sociocultural impacts and environmental impacts. The
independent variables explained 54% of the variances, F(3, 239) = 57.90, R
2
= 0.54, and
p< 0.001
. Seen in Table 3, economic impact predicted residents’ attitudes towards tourism
growth (
β
= 0.63, t(239) = 7.51, p< 0.001) significantly. Sociocultural impact (
β
= 0.30,
t(239) = 5.00
,p< 0.001) and environmental impact (
β
= 0.11, t(239) = 2.21, p= 0.03) were
significant predictors. Among these three tourism impacts, the economic impact was the
more important factor in predicting residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth. Thus,
Hypothesis 1a–c, were all supported.
Table 3. Multiple Regression between Tourism Impacts and Attitudes to Tourism Growth.
Coefficient
Variables Bβt p
Economic Impact 0.70 0.63 7.51 0.00 ***
Sociocultural Impact 0.30 0.30 5.00 0.00 ***
Environmental Impact 0.27 0.11 2.21 0.03 *
R20.54
F 57.90
p0.00 ***
*p< 0.05; *** p< 0.001.
4.4. Effect of Proximity to Tourist Zone
Before testing H2, the variable proximity to tourist zone was created based on re-
spondents’ self-reported zip codes. Respondents with zip code 29601 were coded as 1
and categorized as downtown residents, while those with zip codes ranging from 29602
to 29617 were coded as 2 and sorted as city residents. The remaining respondents were
coded as 3 and considered as county residents. For the county residents, the researchers
checked each zip code to confirm that each reflected a city in Greenville County. Before
determining the effect of proximity to a tourist zone, preliminary analyses were conducted,
the results indicating that the datapoints were normally distributed, and the assumptions
of homogeneity variances were satisfied.
To test H2, a one-way ANOVA was conducted with proximity to a tourist zone as the
independent variable and residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth as the dependent
variable. According to Table 4, the results indicated that the one-way ANOVA was statisti-
cally significant, F(2, 248) = 3.72, p= 0.03. Post-hoc comparisons using Tukey revealed that
downtown residents (M= 4.19, SD = 0.46) were more favorable towards tourism growth
than the county residents (M= 3.97, SD = 0.47; p= 0.02). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was
supported.
Table 4. Effect of Proximity to a Tourism Center.
Variables
Proximity to a Tourism Center Fp
Downtown City County
M SD M SD M SD
Attitudes towards Tourism Growth 4.19 * 0.46
4.06 0.48
3.97 * 0.47
3.72
0.03 *
*p< 0.05.
4.5. Moderation Effect of Age
Before testing the moderation effect of age on proximity to a tourist center and resi-
dents’ attitudes towards tourism growth, preliminary analyses were conducted. The results
of the preliminary analyses indicated that data was normally distributed without any miss-
ing values and outliers. A factorial ANOVA analysis was conducted to test the interaction
effect of age proposed in Hypothesis 3a. The interaction effect of age and proximity to a
tourist center was statistically significant F(8, 236) = 1.91, p= 0.04.
Sustainability 2021,13, 8474 11 of 18
A post hoc test using Tukey LSD was conducted to explore the specific differences.
According to Table 5, for downtown residents, residents who are in age group 40–50
(
M= 4.7
,SD = 0.42) were more favorable towards tourism growth than whom were in the
age group of 18–29 (M= 4.16, SD = 0.48, p= 0.03), 30–39 (M= 4.13, SD = 0.54, p= 0.02),
and above 50 (M= 4.12, SD = 0.39, p= 0.04). For city residents, residents who were in the
age group of 40–50 (M= 4.32, SD = 0.35) showed more positive attitudes towards tourism
growth than whom are in the age group of 14–17 (M= 3.45, SD = 0.07, p= 0.01), 18–29
(
M= 4.02
,SD = 0.45, p= 0.02), and 30–39 (M= 3.84, SD = 0.52, p= 0.003). Residents who
were above 50 (M= 4.16, SD = 0.50) were more in favor of tourism development than
whom were in the age group of 14–17 (M= 3.45, SD = 0.07, p= 0.04), and 30–39 (M= 3.84,
SD = 52, p= 0.03). Therefore, Hypothesis 3a was supported.
Table 5. Moderation Effect of Age.
Proximity to a Tourism Center Age Group Comparison Fp
Age Group MAge Group M
Downtown 40–50
4.7
0–17 4.45
1.91 0.04 *
18–29 4.16 *
30–39 4.13 *
Above 50 4.12 *
City
40–50
4.32
14–17 3.45 *
18–29 4.02 *
30–39 3.84 **
Above 50
4.16
14–17 3.45 *
30–39 3.84 *
County 40–50
4.06
0–17 3.98
18–29 4.00
30–39 3.93
Above 50 3.80
*p< 0.05; ** p< 0.01.
4.6. The Moderation Effect of Gender
To determine Hypothesis 3b, a factorial ANOVA was used. As seen in Table 6, the
interaction effect of gender and proximity to tourism center was statistically significant,
F(2, 243) = 5.07
,p< 0.001. To determine the specific differences, a post hoc test using Tukey
was run. According to the results, for city residents, female residents (M= 4.18, SD = 0.44)
were more positive towards tourism growth than male residents (M= 3.94, SD = 0.49)
since p= 0.01 Also, for downtown residents, male residents (M= 4.28, SD = 0.44) were
more favorable towards tourism development than female residents (M= 4.03, SD = 0.46)
due to the significant p= 0.04. However, for county residents, female residents (M= 3.94,
SD = 0.52) didn’t have significantly different attitudes towards tourism growth than male
residents (M= 4.02, SD = 0.40) because of its p= 0.40. Hence, Hypothesis 3b was supported.
Table 6. The Interaction Effect of Gender.
Proximity to a Tourism Center Gender p
Male Female
Downtown 4.28 * 4.03 *
0.00 *
City 3.94 * 4.18 *
County 4.02 3.94
*p< 0.05.
4.7. The Moderation Effect of Length of Residence
Before testing H5, a preliminary analysis was conducted. The results of the preliminary
analysis indicated that the data were normally distributed without any missing values and
Sustainability 2021,13, 8474 12 of 18
outliers. To test the moderation effect of length of residence, a factorial ANOVA analysis
was conducted. Based on the results, the interaction effect of age was not significant,
F(2, 245) = 1.46, p= 0.23. Therefore, Hypothesis 3c was not supported.
5. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore the influences of residents’ perceived tourism
impacts on their attitudes towards tourism development, as well as the effect of proximity
to a tourism center on residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth in an urban setting.
Moreover, the study was to determine how residents’ demographic variables (age, gen-
der, length of residence) can influence the effect of proximity to a tourism center on their
attitudes. The results showed that participants in this study viewed tourism influences
positively and had favorable attitudes toward tourism development. This study also found
that economic impact was the most important significant predictor of residents’ attitudes to-
wards tourism growth among these three significant tourism impacts. Regarding residents’
proximity to a tourism center, downtown residents were more favorable towards tourism
growth than county residents. In terms of the moderation effects of residents’ demographic
variables, both age and gender significantly moderated the effect of proximity to a tourism
center on residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth, while the length of residence didn’t
show any significant moderation effects.
5.1. Tourism Impacts
The results from this study indicated that economic impact was the most important
predictor of residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth among all of the three tourism
impacts (economic, sociocultural, and environmental impacts). These results were par-
tially consistent with previous studies arguing that both positive and negative tourism
impacts significantly affected residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth [
4
,
48
,
84
]. In
these three studies, the positive tourism impacts were primarily economic ones, and the
negative impacts were primarily sociocultural and environmental. One reason could be
that residents in Greenville view tourism growth as a way to strengthen the economy [
85
].
Hence, compared to other sociocultural and environmental impacts, these benefits were
much more important, resulting in their favorable attitudes towards tourism growth [
53
].
Another reason could be that the tourism growth in Greenville is still in the involvement
phase as described by Butler’s [
86
] tourism life cycle model. In this stage, the local com-
munity begins building infrastructure and offering services to tourists. This might explain
why residents in this study valued the economic impact the most because locals realized
an economic benefit from the tourism facilities being built (i.e., restaurants and hotels)
through the creation of local job opportunities and the increase in the cash flow for the
business owners who opened and operated such facilities.
5.2. Proximity to a Tourist Center
This study determined that there were significant differences in resident attitudes
towards tourism growth based on proximity to a tourist zone. Specifically, in this study,
downtown residents were more favorable towards tourism growth than county residents.
These results were consistent with the findings from Juroski and Gursoy [
59
], suggesting
that environmentally responsible residents living near a natural recreation area are more
supportive of tourism growth than those who live away from that area. For this study,
downtown residents were more favorable to tourism growth than the county residents
because the former more directly experienced the benefits from the economic gains and
employment opportunities that the tourist zone and surrounding infrastructure provided
as well as the availability of leisure and recreation resources [
66
]. The downtown residents
realized the economic advantages and the convenience that tourism infrastructure brought
because of their geographical advantage.
Sustainability 2021,13, 8474 13 of 18
5.3. Moderation Effect of Age
Based on the results from this study, age moderated the effect of proximity to a tourism
center on residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth. Specifically, for downtown residents,
middle-aged residents were more favorable towards tourism growth than other age groups.
Similarly, for people living in the city, middle-aged and older residents were more favorable
comparing to younger residents. The results can be explained that middle-aged and older
residents paid more attention to the accessibility of infrastructure [
87
], which is maximized
in the downtown tourism center area due to its compact nature. Moreover, middle-aged
residents reached the highest status and income in their career development during their
entire life courses [
88
]. Hence, middle-aged residents were more sensitive to economic
benefits, which led to the most favorable attitudes towards tourism growth among all the
age groups.
5.4. Moderation Effect of Gender
The results of the study indicated that gender moderated the effect of proximity to
a tourism center on residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth. In the downtown area,
male residents were more favorable towards tourism development. In the city area, female
residents were more positive towards tourism growth. Downtown tourism center brings
a large portion of economic benefits to the area. Due to the income differences between
males and females, female residents receive less economic blooming from tourism develop-
ment, which led to less favorable attitudes towards tourism growth than male residents.
Since the traditional role of males focuses more on earning income and supporting their
families [
73
], they are more sensitive to the economic gains from tourism development
in the downtown area, which resulted in their more positive attitudes towards tourism
development. Traditionally, female roles focus more on taking care of their families and
concentrating on community building and development [
74
]. In this study, females living
in the city area were concerned less about the negative community changes since the city
area is away from the downtown tourism area, which raises some safety concerns and
causes negative community changes. As a result, females living in the city were more
supportive of tourism growth.
5.5. Moderation Effect of Length of Residence
Nevertheless, length of residence didn’t have a significant moderation effect on the
relationship between proximity to a tourism center and residents’ attitudes towards tourism
growth. The results were partially consistent, arguing that long-term residents and short-
term residents showed similar attitudes towards tourism growth [
18
]. The reason is that
tourism has been rapidly developed in the last 10 years in Greenville. More than 50% of
the residents have lived in Greenville for less than 10 years. The emotional attachment to
their community suggested by previous studies [
76
] hasn’t been fully developed since the
length of residence is not sufficient. Greenville tourism is still in the involvement stage
where an increasing number of tourism facilities have been constructed to match tourist
inflow expansion. In this phase, residents haven’t generated any negative attitudes towards
tourism growth [
86
,
89
]. As a result, long-term residents in Greenville haven’t lived long
enough in their communities to witness any negative community changes, which explained
that long-term residents and short-term residents were both favorable towards tourism
growth regardless of where they live.
5.6. Implications
This study provided new knowledge in understanding residents’ attitudes towards
tourism growth in urban settings. The study investigated the influence of proximity to
a tourism center on residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth. It validated the nature
of urban spaces where both urban residents and visitors share the same resources and
infrastructure [
14
], leading to the differences in residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth.
This study also examined the moderation effect of residents’ demographic variables on
Sustainability 2021,13, 8474 14 of 18
proximity to a tourism center and residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth, which
hasn’t been tested in previous studies. The moderation effects of residents’ demographic
variables explained how the proximity to a tourism center influences residents’ attitudes
towards tourism growth. Moreover, the moderation effects validated that individual’s
identity influences their attitudes and values [
19
]. The significant results of the moderation
effects indicated that residents’ demographic features are distinct, which affected residents
living in different proximity to a tourism center had varying attitudes towards tourism
growth.
The study results also provide several recommendations for tourism planners and the
Visit Greenville DMO as they plan for effective tourism growth. First, since the economic
impact was the most significant predictor of residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth,
tourism planners need to collaborate with the government and private business owners to
maintain, or increase, the economic benefits that the local community and residents receive
while at the same time implementing measures to control sociocultural and environmental
impacts. For example, the entities might consider turning unused spaces into event venues
that will generate job opportunities and bring additional money into the community. In
addition, residents will gain access to these places where they can enjoy socializing and
leisure activities, eventually improving their standard of living.
Also, the study found that downtown residents are more favorable toward tourism
growth than county residents. Therefore, tourism marketers are advised to take measures to
improve county residents’ attitudes to tourism growth while at the same time maintaining
favorable attitudes from downtown residents. Specifically, tourism practitioners need to
keep county residents up to date regarding the changes in Greenville by inviting locals
and community leaders in the county to participate in the decision-making processes.
Furthermore, the city government needs to promote the purchase of agricultural products
produced in the county by downtown businesses (i.e., restaurants, bars, and caterers).
Moreover, tourism practitioners need to plan major events, restaurant weeks, and farmer
markets during the peak tourist season when county businesses and farmers can participate.
Thus, county residents will perceive that they benefit from downtown tourism even though
they are geographically distant from this area.
Moreover, age and gender moderated the effect of proximity to a tourism center on
residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth. For downtown residents and city residents,
people who were above 40 were more favorable towards tourism growth. Thus, tourism
planners need to concentrate on tourism business development (i.e., turning unused
public spaces into events, organizing community events) so that middle-aged and other
adults maintained their favorable attitudes towards tourism growth. For younger age
groups, tourism planners can use hashtags on popular social media platforms to advertise
events the communities are organizing and changes they are going through. In addition,
for downtown residents, male residents were more favorable towards tourism growth.
Regarding gender differences, male residents were more favorable towards tourism growth
in the downtown area. On the contrary, for city residents, female residents were more
favorable towards tourism growth. Hence, tourism practitioners can focus on tourism
business development and community life enhancement so that both male and female
residents are in favor of tourism growth in the downtown and city areas. However,
the study indicated that length of residence didn’t moderate the effect of proximity to a
tourism center on residents’ attitudes towards tourism growth. Destination management
organizations and the local government need to control tourist flow in Greenville so that the
development phase can be extended. Hence, long-term residents and short-term residents
can have fewer negative attitudes towards tourism growth in Greenville.
5.7. Limitations and Future Directions
As with all research, this study has several limitations. First, it was conducted in
downtown Greenville, a tourist zone. Due to the nature of the survey location, researchers
may have surveyed more residents favorable towards tourism growth in this area. In
Sustainability 2021,13, 8474 15 of 18
other words, researchers did not survey in neighborhoods where residents might be less
favorable towards tourism growth. Future studies might consider surveying additional
neighborhoods, in areas outside of downtown, to balance residents’ attitudes towards
tourism growth. Secondly, this study included more city and county residents than down-
town residents, meaning the results for perceived tourism impacts and their attitudes
towards tourism growth may be skewed toward these populations. Future studies could
collect responses based on similar sample sizes of downtown, city, and county residents.
Author Contributions:
Y.A.: conceptualization, methodology, data curation, formal analysis, writing
the original draft, revising the manuscript; J.-W.M.: methodology, data curation aid, formal analysis,
writing the original draft and revising the manuscript; W.C.N.: project administration and resources.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This project receives no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the
Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Clemson University
(Protocal number:IRB 2015-362).
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study.
Data Availability Statement:
The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: These authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Choi, H.C.; Sirakaya, E. Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tour. Manag.
2006
,27, 1274–1289. [CrossRef]
2. Lankford, S.V.; Howard, D.R. Developing a tourism impact attitude scale. Ann. Tour. Res. 1994,21, 121–139. [CrossRef]
3.
McIntyre, G. Sustainable Tourism Development: Guide for Local Planners; World Tourism Organization (WTO): Madrid, Spain, 1993.
4.
Lee, T.H. Influence analysis of community resident support for sustainable tourism development. Tour. Manag.
2013
,34, 37–46.
[CrossRef]
5. Choi, H.C.; Murray, I. Resident attitudes toward sustainable community tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010,18, 575–594. [CrossRef]
6. Gursoy, D.; Kendall, K.W. Hosting mega events. Ann. Tour. Res. 2006,33, 603–623. [CrossRef]
7.
Gursoy, D.; Jurowski, C.; Uysal, M. Resident attitudes: A Structural Modeling Approach. Ann. Tour. Res.
2002
,29, 79–105.
[CrossRef]
8.
Stylidis, D.; Biran, A.; Sit, J.; Szivas, E.M. Residents’ support for tourism development: The role of residents’ place image and
perceived tourism impacts. Tour. Manag. 2014,45, 260–274. [CrossRef]
9.
Andereck, K.L.; Valentine, K.M.; Knopf, R.C.; Vogt, C.A. Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Ann. Tour. Res.
2005,32, 1056–1076. [CrossRef]
10.
Deery, M.; Jago, L.; Fredline, L. Rethinking social impacts of tourism research: A new research agenda. Tour. Manag.
2012
,33,
64–73. [CrossRef]
11.
Sinclair-Maragh, G.; Gursoy, D. A Conceptual Model of Residents’ Support for Tourism Development in Developing Countries.
Tour. Plan. Dev. 2016,13, 1–22. [CrossRef]
12.
Akis, S.; Peristianis, N.; Warner, J. Residents’ attitudes to tourism development: The case of Cyprus. Tour. Manag.
1996
,17,
481–494. [CrossRef]
13. Nunkoo, R.; Gursoy, D. Residents’ support for tourism: An Identity Perspective. Ann. Tour. Res. 2012,39, 243–268. [CrossRef]
14. Ashworth, G.; Page, S. Urban tourism research: Recent progress and current paradoxes. Tour. Manag. 2011,32, 1–15. [CrossRef]
15.
Dirksmeier, P.; Helbrecht, I. Resident Perceptions of New Urban Tourism: A Neglected Geography of Prejudice. Geogr. Compass
2015,9, 276–285. [CrossRef]
16.
Khoshkam, M.; Marzuki, A.; Al-Mulali, U. Socio-demographic effects on Anzali wetland tourism development. Tour. Manag.
2016,54, 96–106. [CrossRef]
17.
Liu, X.; Li, J. Host Perceptions of Tourism Impact and Stage of Destination Development in a Developing Country. Sustainability
2018,10, 2300. [CrossRef]
18.
Sinclair-Maragh, G. Demographic analysis of residents’ support for tourism development in Jamaica. J. Destin. Mark. Manag.
2017,6, 5–12. [CrossRef]
19. Stets, J.E.; Biga, C.F. Bringing Identity Theory into Environmental Sociology. Sociol. Theory 2003,21, 398–423. [CrossRef]
20.
Lopez, F.; Mercader, S. Perceived Impacts of Tourism by the Resident Population in Torrevieja: National vs. Non-National
Residents. Eur. J. Tour. Res. 2015,10, 120–126.
Sustainability 2021,13, 8474 16 of 18
21.
Travel Impact Analysis. The Economic Impact of Travel on South Carolina State and Counties. 2020. Available online:
https://embed.widencdn.net/pdf/plus/scprt/1zkpxfpdh4/2020EIReport_SC_Final.pdf?u=sgt8lu (accessed on 19 July 2021).
22.
City of Greenville. Downtown Reborn. Available online: https://citygis.greenvillesc.gov/downtownreborn/index.html (ac-
cessed on 19 July 2021).
23.
Visit Greenville SC. Signature Events. Available online: https://www.visitgreenvillesc.com/events/signature-events/ (accessed
on 19 July 2021).
24.
Eagly, A.H.; Chaiken, S. The Psychology of Attitudes; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers: Fort Worth, TX, USA, 1993;
ISBN 978-01-5500-097-1.
25.
Zhang, Y.; Cole, S.T.; Chancellor, C.H. Facilitation of the SUS-TAS Application with Parsimony, Predictive Validity, and Global
Interpretation Examination. J. Travel Res. 2014,54, 744–757. [CrossRef]
26.
Hadinejad, A.; Moyle, B.; Scott, N.; Kralj, A.; Nunkoo, R. Residents’ attitudes to tourism: A review. Tour. Rev.
2019
,74, 150–165.
[CrossRef]
27.
Emerson, R.M. Social exchange theory. In Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives; Rosenberg, M., Turner, R.H., Eds.; Basic Book:
New York, NY, USA, 1981; pp. 30–65, ISBN 978-088-738-854-5.
28. Ap, J. Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 1992,19, 665–690. [CrossRef]
29.
Cook, K.S.; Molm, L.D.; Yamagishi, T. Exchange Relations and Exchange Networks: Recent Developments in Social Ex-change
Theory. In Theoretical Research Programs: Studies in the Growth of Theory; Berger, J., Zelditch, M., Eds.; Stanford University Press:
Stanford, CA, USA, 1993; pp. 296–322, ISBN 978-080-472-230-8.
30. Emerson, R.M. Power-Dependence Relations. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1962,27, 31. [CrossRef]
31.
Yutyunyong, T.; Scott, N. The Integration of Social Exchange Theory and Social Representations Theory: A New Perspective on
Residents’ Perception Research. In CAUTHE 2009: See Change: Tourism & Hospitality in a Dynamic World; Carlsen, J., Hughes, M.,
Holmes, K., Jones, R., Eds.; Curtin University of Technology: Fremental, Australia, 2009; pp. 549–568.
32. Homans, G. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms; Harcourt, Brace & World: New York, NY, USA, 1961; ISBN 978-015-581-417-2.
33.
Özel, Ç.H.; Kozak, N. An exploratory study of resident perceptions toward the tourism industry in Cappadocia: A Social
Exchange Theory approach. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2017,22, 284–300. [CrossRef]
34. Homans, G.C. Social Behavior as Exchange. Am. J. Sociol. 1958,63, 597–606. [CrossRef]
35.
Andriotis, K.; Vaughan, R.D. Urban Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development: The Case of Crete. J. Travel Res.
2003
,42,
172–185. [CrossRef]
36.
Choi, H.-S.C.; Sirakaya, E. Measuring Residents’ Attitude toward Sustainable Tourism: Development of Sustainable Tourism
Attitude Scale. J. Travel Res. 2005,43, 380–394. [CrossRef]
37.
Tetsu, K. Tourism Promotion and Regional Development in Low-Income Developing Countries on JSTOR. Pak. Dev. Rev.
2006
,45,
417–424. [CrossRef]
38.
García, F.A.; Vázquez, A.B.; Macías, R.C. Resident’s attitudes towards the impacts of tourism. Tour. Manag. Perspect.
2015
,13,
33–40. [CrossRef]
39.
Andereck, K.L.; Nyaupane, G. Exploring the Nature of Tourism and Quality of Life Perceptions among Residents. J. Travel Res.
2011,50, 248–260. [CrossRef]
40. Liu, J.C.; Var, T. Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii. Ann. Tour. Res. 1986,13, 193–214. [CrossRef]
41.
Luo, X.; Bao, J. Exploring the impacts of tourism on the livelihoods of local poor: The role of local government and major investors.
J. Sustain. Tour. 2019,27, 344–359. [CrossRef]
42.
Gursoy, D.; Chi, C.G.; Dyer, P. Locals’ Attitudes toward Mass and Alternative Tourism: The Case of Sunshine Coast, Australia. J.
Travel Res. 2009,49, 381–394. [CrossRef]
43.
Gursoy, D.; Rutherford, D.G. Host attitudes toward tourism: An Improved Structural Model. Ann. Tour. Res.
2004
,31, 495–516.
[CrossRef]
44.
Campón-Cerro, A.M.; Folgado-Fernández, J.A.; Hernández-Mogollón, J.M. Rural Destination Development Based on Olive Oil
Tourism: The Impact of Residents’ Community Attachment and Quality of Life on Their Support for Tourism Development.
Sustainability 2017,9, 1624. [CrossRef]
45.
Glasson, J.; Godfrey, K.; Goodey, B. Towards Visitor Impact Management: Visitor Impacts, Carrying Capacity, and Management Responses
in Europe’s Historic Towns and Cities; Avebury: Aldershot, UK, 1995; ISBN 9781859720547.
46.
Dyer, P.; Gursoy, D.; Sharma, B.; Carter, J. Structural modeling of resident perceptions of tourism and associated development on
the Sunshine Coast, Australia. Tour. Manag. 2007,28, 409–422. [CrossRef]
47.
Yoon, Y.; Gursoy, D.; Chen, J. Validating a tourism development theory with structural equation modeling. Tour. Manag.
2001
,22,
363–372. [CrossRef]
48.
Nunkoo, R.; Ramkissoon, H. Power, trust, social exchange and community support. Ann. Tour. Res.
2012
,39, 997–1023. [CrossRef]
49.
Luo, S.; Furuya, K.; Xie, J. Impacts and residents’ attitudes to flower-viewing tourism in Chengdu, PR China. Tour. Recreat. Res.
2020, 1–15. [CrossRef]
50.
Meimand, S.E.; Khalifah, Z.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Mardani, A.; Najafipour, A.A.; Ahmad, U.N.U. Residents’ Attitude toward Tourism
Development: A Sociocultural Perspective. Sustainability 2017,9, 1170. [CrossRef]
51. Bestard, A.B.; Nadal, J.R. Modelling environmental attitudes toward tourism. Tour. Manag. 2007,28, 688–695. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021,13, 8474 17 of 18
52.
Oviedo-Garcia, M.A.; Castellanos-Verdugo, M.; Martin-Ruiz, D. Gaining residents’ support for tourism and planning. Int. J. Tour.
Res. 2008,10, 95–109. [CrossRef]
53.
Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Jaafar, M.; Ramayah, T. Urban vs. rural destinations: Residents’ perceptions, community
participation and support for tourism development. Tour. Manag. 2017,60, 147–158. [CrossRef]
54.
Gursoy, D.; Ouyang, Z.; Nunkoo, R.; Wei, W. Residents’ impact perceptions of and attitudes towards tourism development: A
meta-analysis. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2019,28, 306–333. [CrossRef]
55.
Amuquandoh, F.E. Residents’ perceptions of the environmental impacts of tourism in the Lake Bosomtwe Basin, Ghana. J. Sustain.
Tour. 2010,18, 223–238. [CrossRef]
56.
Jeuring, J.H.G. Pluralising touristic production and consumption roles of residents? An SME perspective on proximity tourism.
Tour. Recreat. Res. 2018,43, 147–160. [CrossRef]
57.
Ashworth, G. Urban Tourism: Still an Imbalance in Attention? In Classic Reviews in Tourism; Cooper, C., Ed.; Channel View
Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 143–163. [CrossRef]
58.
Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Taheri, B.; Gannon, M.J.; Vafaei-Zadeh, A.; Hanifah, H. Does living in the vicinity of heritage tourism sites
influence residents’ perceptions and attitudes? J. Sustain. Tour. 2019,27, 1295–1317. [CrossRef]
59. Jurowski, C.; Gursoy, D. Distance effects on residents’ attitudes toward tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004,31, 296–312. [CrossRef]
60. Weaver, D.B.; Lawton, L.J. Resident Perceptions in the Urban–Rural Fringe. Ann. Tour. Res. 2001,28, 439–458. [CrossRef]
61. Sharpley, R. Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tour. Manag. 2014,42, 37–49. [CrossRef]
62.
Látková, P.; Vogt, C.A. Residents’ Attitudes toward Existing and Future Tourism Development in Rural Communities. J. Travel
Res. 2011,51, 50–67. [CrossRef]
63.
Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Jaafar, M.; Kock, N.; Ramayah, T. A revised framework of social exchange theory to investigate the factors
influencing residents’ perceptions. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2015,16, 335–345. [CrossRef]
64. Tomljenovic, R.; Faulkner, B. Tourism and older residents in a sunbelt resort. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000,27, 93–114. [CrossRef]
65.
Orth, U.; Robins, R.W.; Widaman, K.F. Life-span development of self-esteem and its effects on important life outcomes. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 2012,102, 1271–1288. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66.
Keogh, B. Resident Recreationists’ Perceptions and Attitudes with Respect to Tourism Development. J. Appl. Recreat. Res.
1990
,
15, 71–83.
67.
Harrill, R.; Potts, T.D. Tourism Planning in Historic Districts: Attitudes Toward Tourism Development in Charleston. J. Am. Plan.
Assoc. 2003,69, 233–244. [CrossRef]
68. Mason, P.; Cheyne, J. Residents’ attitudes to proposed tourism development. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000,27, 391–411. [CrossRef]
69.
Spence, J.T.; Helmreich, R.L. Masculinity & Femininity: Their Psychological Dimensions, Correlates, and Antecedents; University of
Texas Press: Austin, TX, USA, 1978.
70.
Wang, S. Predicting Effects of Demographics and Moderating Power of Engagement on Residents’ Perceptions of Tourism
Development. Eur. J. Tour. Res. 2013,6, 170–182.
71.
McGehee, N.G.; Andereck, K.L. Factors Predicting Rural Residents’ Support of Tourism. J. Travel Res.
2004
,43, 131–140. [CrossRef]
72.
Sharma, B.; Gursoy, D. An Examination of Changes in Residents’ Perceptions of Tourism Impacts Over Time: The Impact of
Residents’ Socio-demographic Characteristics. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2015,20, 1332–1352. [CrossRef]
73.
Fortin, N.M. Gender Role Attitudes and the Labour-market Outcomes of Women across OECD Countries. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy
2005,21, 416–438. [CrossRef]
74.
Heilman, M.E. Description and Prescription: How Gender Stereotypes Prevent Women’s Ascent Up the Organizational Ladder. J.
Soc. Issues 2001,57, 657–674. [CrossRef]
75.
Almeida-García, F.; Fernández, M.; Ángeles, P.; Balbuena-Vázquez, A.; Macías, R.C. Residents’ perceptions of tourism develop-
ment in Benalmádena (Spain). Tour. Manag. 2016,54, 259–274. [CrossRef]
76.
Jurowski, C.; Uysal, M.; Williams, D.R. A Theoretical Analysis of Host Community Resident Reactions to Tourism. J. Travel Res.
1997,36, 3–11. [CrossRef]
77.
Wang, Y.; Pfister, R.E. Residents’ Attitudes Toward Tourism and Perceived Personal Benefits in a Rural Community. J. Travel Res.
2008,47, 84–93. [CrossRef]
78.
Xu, S.; Barbieri, C.; Anderson, D.; Leung, Y.-F.; Rozier-Rich, S. Residents’ perceptions of wine tourism development. Tour. Manag.
2016,55, 276–286. [CrossRef]
79.
Visit Greenville SC. All about Greenville, South Carolina. Available online: https://www.visitgreenvillesc.com/about-greenville/
(accessed on 20 July 2021).
80.
Livability. 2016 Top 10 Downtowns. Available online: https://livability.com/top-10/downtowns/top-10-downtowns/2016
(accessed on 20 July 2021).
81.
Rogers, L. 19 Cities That Must Be Seen in 2019. Available online: https://viewfinder.expedia.com/cities-that-must-be-seen-this-year/
(accessed on 20 July 2021).
82.
Visit Greenville SC. The Impact of Tourism in Greenville, SC. Available online: https://assets.simpleviewinc.com/simpleview/
image/upload/v1/clients/greenville/VGSC_FINAL_PurposeBook_6_18_20_fa87afba-6880-43a9-88d3-6b238ec5a1f3.pdf (ac-
cessed on 20 July 2021).
83.
Yu, C.-P.; Chancellor, H.C.; Cole, S.T. Measuring Residents’ Attitudes toward Sustainable Tourism: A Reexamination of the
Sustainable Tourism Attitude Scale. J. Travel Res. 2009,50, 57–63. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021,13, 8474 18 of 18
84.
Nugroho, P.; Numata, S. Changes in residents’ attitudes toward community-based tourism through destination development in
Gunung Ciremai national park, Indonesia. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2020, 1–19. [CrossRef]
85.
Tournois, L.; Djeric, G. Evaluating urban residents’ attitudes towards tourism development in Belgrade (Serbia). Curr. Issues Tour.
2017,22, 1670–1678. [CrossRef]
86.
Butler, R. The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. Can. Geogr.
1980
,24, 5–12.
[CrossRef]
87.
Sinclair-Maragh, G.; Gursoy, D.; Vieregge, M. Residents’ perceptions toward tourism development: A factor-cluster approach. J.
Destin. Mark. Manag. 2015,4, 36–45. [CrossRef]
88.
Miech, R.A.; Eaton, W.; Liang, K.-Y. Occupational Stratification Over the Life Course: A Comparison of Occupational Trajectories
Across Race and Gender during the 1980s and 1990s. Work. Occup. 2003,30, 440–473. [CrossRef]
89.
Doxey, G.V. A Causation Theory of Visitor/Resident Irritants: Methodology and Research Inferences. In Proceedings of the Travel
Research Association 6th Annual Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, 8–11 September 1975; pp. 195–198.
