Rural tourism in Ankang

lable at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 32 (2011) 604e615

Contents lists avai

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tourman

Perceptions of place, modernity and the impacts of tourism e Differences amongrural and urban residents of Ankang, China: A likelihood ratio analysis

Xiaoming Cui a,*, Chris Ryan b

aAnkang University Economics and Management School, Ankang 725000, ChinabDepartment of Tourism and Hospitality Management, The University of Waikato Management School, New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 29 January 2010Accepted 18 May 2010

Keywords:Resident perceptionsTourismChinaAnkangPlace attachment

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (X.

(C. Ryan).

0261-5177/$ e see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.05.012

a b s t r a c t

This paper reports results from a survey of urban and rural residents’ of the perceived impacts of changeinduced by tourism in Ankang, China. The paper will initially indicate the literature that informed theresearch and the geographical context of the study. Second, results derived from a questionnaire thatincorporated both open-ended and closed questions will be presented. The concepts that informed theresearch were derived from past similar studies, place attachment and senses of modernity. Initialanalysis showed no differences between urban and rural residents, both on impact assessment scales andcategorical data derived from the coding of responses to open-ended questions. Overall it was found thatresidents had favourable attitudes toward tourism. The use of comparison based likelihood ratios didreveal some nuanced differences between ‘high’ and ‘low scorers’ relating to the issues of economicdevelopment and pollution independent of place of residence but based on a sense of that place ofresidence being ‘special’. The total number of respondents was 474. Implications for future studies arediscussed and include comments on the need for direct contact and observation.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

This paper reports findings derived from surveys of residents inurban and rural areas in Ankang, Shaanxi Province, China. Thepurpose of the study was to assess residents’ perceptions oftourism, its development and impacts on place attachment. Addi-tionally the authors found that the process of data collection wasvaluable in helping to generate awareness of tourism and its longerterm impacts among respondents. The research process itselftherefore raised questions as to the reality of post-positivisticresearch paradigms in the setting of rural China. In addition thepaper extends the concepts of place attachment and modernitywithin a Chinese setting based on nuanced differences of high andlow scorers in the sample.

The paper is structured by first describing the literature relatingto perception of tourism impacts. It next describes the location ofthe research before describing the research process and subse-quently the results. Finally both the research process and theresults are discussed and implications highlighted.

Cui), [email protected]

All rights reserved.

2. Literature review

Informing this research was literature relating to past studies ofresident perceptions of tourism impacts, place attachment theoryand concepts of themodern,with attempts to apply this to a Chinesesituation. The literature relating to community reactions to thedevelopmentof tourism iswell establishedsince theearlywritingsofG. Young (1973) and Doxey (1975). Doxey’s initial work envisageda linear positive relationship between growing resentment andgrowing tourist numbers. Young (1983) described the changingpatterns of land use in a Maltese farming-fishing village settingwhere a small community eventually became host to apartments,hotels, summerhomesandamarina, and local peopleweredisplacedfrom their original homes, and ownership and marketing of assetspassed beyond the control of the local community. In his turn Ryan(1991) argued that any growth in tourist numbers would meana loss of local resources to local people as tourism became themajorindustry but one increasingly dependent on finance and agenciesexternal to the destination to develop both resources and demand.Following this early period of conceptual development researchersbegan to collect data based not only on observation, but on empiricalwork. The different studies undertaken by Long, Perdue, and Allen(1990), Liu and Var (1986), and Sheldon and Var (1984) amongothers established parameters still measured by researchers today.Impacts were considered as falling into four areas, economic, social,

X. Cui, C. Ryan / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 604e615 605

cultural and environmental, and thus items appeared on question-naires that related to perceptions about income, employment, noise,crime, congestion and other social intrusion effects, the opportuni-ties for a renaissance in local arts and the dangers of over modifica-tion of local art to meet the demand of out of region visitors. Finallyquestions were asked about potential damage to local natural envi-ronments. Such itemshavebeen incorporated into thepresent study.

However the research of the 1980s quickly revealed that resi-dents did not form a homogenous group and various differenceswere ascertained. For example, was length of residence a factor inthat longer term residents may wish for the status quo to be sus-tained? Did younger people welcome change more than their oldercounterparts? Did it matter if you were employed or not in thetourism industry? Mathieson and Wall (1982) and Murphy (1985)explored these themes in their respective books and since thena plethora of papers have appeared on the subject. Additionallyadvances in computing technology made possible more sophisti-cated forms of analysis and the use of clustering techniques indi-cated the existence of different resident groupswithin communitiesbased on attitudinal differences and psychometric measures. Suchstudies included the work of Ryan, Scotland, and Montgomery(1998), Lawson, Williams, Young, and Cossens (1998) and Williamsand Lawson (2001). Other variables relating to the spatial dimen-sions of a location also began to emergeashaving importance.Was itpossible that tourists and residents tended not to mix, perhaps onlymeeting at certain locations associated with leisure (e.g. at thebeach)? Did this minimise any resentment local people might feel?Among researchers that examined these issues are Brown and Giles(1994) while Thyne, Lawson, and Todd (2006) looked at the roleplayed by social distance between tourists and residents. Otherstudies highlighted the changing patterns of land use and physicalchanges that occurred within the destination (e.g. Oppermann,1993; Smith, 1992).

It can therefore be claimed that, within the tourism literature, anexamination of residents and their views of tourism has a longhistory, continues to attract attention and additionally has beenagain brought to the fore by issues of sustainability and theincreasing role of governmental and non-governmental agencies incommunity development and sustainable livelihoods in developingnations. Examples of such literature can be found in, for example,reports of the World Bank (1994, 1996), the World Wildlife Fund(2001), and the work of researchers such as Ashley (2000) inNamibia and Simpson (2007) in Maputaland, KwaZulu-Natal, SouthAfrica. For example, for Simpson (2007) an important component offield work is stakeholder analysis, and the view that communityleaders and entrepreneurs are key actors alongside governmentalofficials, NGOs and the like. Similar themes can be found in theChinese literature and descriptions of tourism that contain imper-atives driven by central economic and policy needs. However Jia,Zhu, and Han (2007, p. 380) argue that research in China tends torelate to problem solving and ‘It concentrates on case studies whichunderpin the policy aspect of the selected location of developmentat macro level with a particular emphasis on discussing existingproblems. Such research is inclined to be repetitive and lackstheoretical foundation.’ However, examples contrary to thiscontention can be found. For example Ryan and Gu (2007) discussthe impacts of tourism on the residents of Shi Cha Hai hutong inBeijing within the context of a modification of the Butler TourismArea Life Cycle, suggesting modifications with the concept of‘glocalisation’ while Su and Huang (2005) clearly indicate theemergence of hybrid interpretations of the Zhongyuan festival fromthe different perspectives of commercial and other interests.

A parallel literature has emerged in other fields of study such asrecreation and leisure, and one that particularly informed thisresearch project has been the concept of place attachment

developed by researchers in the field of environmental psychology.Among these are Breakwell (1986, 1992), Hogg and Abrams (1988),Hidalgo and Hernández (2001) and Twigger-Ross and Uzzell(1996). Hernández, Hidalgo, Salazar-Laplace, and Hess (2007, p.311) define place identity ‘as the process by which, through inter-action with places, people describe themselves in terms ofbelonging to a specific place.’ They go onto to note that ‘placeidentity would be a component of personal identity’ (p. 311).Lewicka (2009, p. 2) notes that there ‘is a plethora of differentconcepts used to name people’s relations with place: placeattachment, place satisfaction, place identity, place dependence,a sense of place, community attachment, sense of community anda number of other factors’. Core ideas that exist within this litera-ture relate to how experienced daily life within given built andnatural environments impacts onways of seeing not only the worldbut also one’s self. However the distinctions are nuanced andvarious researchers have adopted different perspectives e someuse the terms as interchangeable while others sought to makedistinctions (Hernández et al., 2007). This becomes evident in theitems used to measure the concepts. For Morgan (2009) theconcepts are essentially affective and he has recourse to attachmenttheory and amends a Circle of Security model in a qualitative studythat generated categories of emotional connection to place, so it isa place of childhood remembrances, grief, pleasure, security,identity and arousal-interaction-pleasure. A number of differentscales exist. Lewicka (2004, 2006) proposes two scales in whichthere are items such as ‘I would like to move out’, ‘I have noinfluence over its affairs’, ‘I belong here’ etc.; items that she alsoreproduces in her 2009 paper.

In the tourism literature some of this work informed thepredisposition toward repeat visitation by tourists with referenceto concepts derived from marketing such as repeat purchasing andplace (brand) loyalty (e.g. Brown & Raymond, 2007, Gross & Brown,2008). Gu and Ryan (2008) took those ideas and applied them toresidents in a Beijing hutong to help assess their responses totourism, finding that years of residency, the intrusiveness of tour-ists, the attractiveness of employment in tourism and perceptionsof the hutong as a cultural asset combined with an assessment ofthe role of local government and its sensitivity to local preferenceswere all significant determinants in explaining reactions to tourismdevelopment and forming attachment to place.

Another issue that informs this paper, and one that emergedfrom the initial interviews with respondents, was the notion oftourism as a proxy for modernity. Williams and Kaltenborn (1999,p. 214) note that ‘Contrary to images of “gazing” tourists ona pilgrimage for the authentic, much of modern tourism is ratherordinary and involves complex patterns of social and spatialinteraction that cannot be neatly reduced to a shallow detachedrelation’. While for non-Asian visitors a visit to Ankang may be farfrom ordinary, the majority of visitors to that area are domesticChinese e but what may not be ‘ordinary’ for residents in this partof China, especially in rural areas, is the notion that people wouldwish to travel to their home, their place. Williams and Kaltenbornanalyse linkages between modernity, identity and a sense of place,citing Gergen (1985, p. 215) that with each new symbolic connec-tion to the larger world “the traditional face-to-face communityloses its coherence and its significance in the life of participants.Their sense of ‘belonging’ is no longer only, or even primarily rootedin the local soil’. Ryan and Gu (2010) also found some evidence ofthis in their study of a Daoist village community in rural Anhui;namely that tourists were to be welcomed as a connection to thewider outside world. When incomes are low, and opportunities tosee theworld are few, then tourists help bring theworld to the localvillage, and in doing so may well open unexpected opportunitiesfor subsequent changes in life (Collins, 2004).

Fig. 1. Nangongshan Park in Shaanxi Province near to Ankang City.

X. Cui, C. Ryan / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 604e615606

However the work of commentators such as Williams & Kal-tenborn emerges from a Eurocentric world far removed from thepast of rural China. Yet today, in rural China, modernity impingesas readily observed by the impact of the cell phone. Ryan and Cui(2009) argued that within a Chinese rural context tourism may bewell received not simply for the immediate anticipated economicbenefits but also as a proxy for modernisation whereby ruralcommunities previously marginalized are now perceived part ofa wider entity of national and possible international relationships.Dirlik (2003) grapples with concepts of the simultaneous exis-tence of multiple modernities in a post-colonial age characterizedby a resurgence of Islamic thought and the rise of Asia. In doing sohe notes the work of Levenson (1968) who argued that, for Chinato become a modern state, its adherence to Confucianism had tobe overcome. Dirlik (2003, p. 278) comments ‘It may be one of theprofound ironies of our times that this situation has been reversedsince Levenson wrote in his analysis: Confucius has been broughtout of the museum once again, while it is the revolution that is onits way to being museumified; not by feudal worshippers ofConfucius, but by the bourgeoisie who once disdained Confucius,and the Communist Party that remains in power as the benefi-ciary of that revolution’. One might argue that modernity andglobalization are not ‘things’ but patterns of relationships char-acterized by technologies that permit spatially extended networksof social relationships. Yet within these relationships tensionsexist between, on the one hand, the perpetuation of currentpower structures inherent in nations and businesses, and on theother, a challenge that emanates from the informality of networksmade possible by the new technologies that permit nodes ofinfluence outside conventional power structures (e.g. by blogs).Yet both characterize the modernity of the early twenty-firstcentury.

In passing, it should be noted that, in China, discussions ofmodernity often recognize the 4th May Movement that arosefrom student demonstrations in Beijing on May 4th 1919. Ip, Hon,and Lee (2003) characterize the conventional themes of themovement as being one seeking to transform China, supportinginnovation in a western mode, an evocation of the ideas of theEnlightenment and an emphasis upon the individual. Onehundred years later it can be argued these themes remainpertinent when applied to tourism, including domestic andoutbound Chinese tourism. What is very rarely considered is theimpact of such phenomenon upon the residents of touristreceiving zones.

2.1. The location of the research

Ankang is an intermediate zone between north and south ofChina, sub-tropical in nature with beautiful landscapes as at Qinbaand the Han River. The wider provincial authority has 32 scenicformally designated areas and 78 scenic spots, including historicand scenic sites at the provincial level such as Nangong MountainNational Forest Park, Ying Lake and Xiangxi Hole, andmany historicand scenic sites or tourism projects such as those at Qianjia Ping,the origin of Shen River, Pinghe Liang and rafting on the Lan River.In addition Ankang also has four national forest parks and sevenforest parks at the provincial level. For Shaanxi Province as a wholeforeign exchange earnings from international tourism exceed US$500 million, but Ankang’s earnings are more modest.

As in many parts of China, the municipal authorities in Ankangwish to benefit from and develop tourism, much of which isdomestic. As noted, international tourism does exist, but it isprimarily business tourism associated with the industries of theAnkang, foremost of which is textiles. The region is under-devel-oped, but in 2009 a motorway connection was completed with

Xi’an to the west, while rail links have also been recentlycompleted. Xi’an itself possesses significant levels of tourism, bothinternational and domestic, based on the reputation of the terra-cotta warriors as one of the ‘must see sights’ in China. Like manyareas of China, a contrast exists between the industrialisation of theurban areas and the higher mountain locations that still retainsignificant amounts of wild life and beautiful, unspoilt naturalareas. Examples of such comparisons are shown in Figs. 1e3.

From the perspective of international tourism, the area is in theearly stages of the Tourist Area Life Cycle (Butler, 1980, 2006a,2006b) although the city of Ankang itself has a significant pop-ulation of some 4 million, thereby possessing the potential to bea generator of day trip and short stay tourism in the surroundingrural areas. The characteristics of the early stages of the tourist arealife cycle include residents who are open to the development oftourism, and who welcome tourists. Much of the conceptualisationfor such tourism theory was influenced by the growth of masstourism in Europe, notably in the Mediterranean region, and rep-resented a ‘pleasure periphery’ that spread into relatively unpop-ulous areas with little economic resource. Similar considerationsapply to the poorer regions of China, of which Shaanxi is one.Indeed rural incomes in Shaanxi remain among the lowest in China.Liu et al. (2006: p. 1053) describe the situation thus:

The total population is 36.9 million and 67.26% live in ruralareas. . [T]he average per capita annual incomes for rural andurban households in Shaanxi province were $159 and $426,respectively, which is lower than the national average ($222 forrural households, $670 for urban households). In rural areas,about 60% of households have a lower income than theirexpenditure, compared with 40% of households in urban areas.. The main cause of poverty is disease (33.4% in rural areas and25.0% in urban areas), and other causes are natural disasters,shortage of labour force, etc.

The potential development of tourism with the opportunitiesthat the industry possesses for income generation and employmentin rural areas is thus significant, and data such as that just citedexplains much of the enthusiasm being expressed for the devel-opment of tourism. However, concepts relating to tourism devel-opment and its impacts such as those of place attachment andsocial intrusion warn that development needs to be managed forlonger term sustainability while clear goals also need to beestablished.

Fig. 2. Construction in Ankang City.

X. Cui, C. Ryan / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 604e615 607

3. The research method and data collection

The data were collected through a questionnaire that comprisedthe following sections. First, respondents were asked to identifywhere they lived and how long they had lived in that location.A series of open-ended questions then followed in which respon-dents were asked to record changes they thought important in therecent years, to note when they commenced and finally to assess towhat degree tourismmight have had a role to play in those changes.On turning the page they were asked to rate on a seven-point scalethe importance they attributed to changes associated with tourismas they related to their home community, and finally data werecollected as to the respondent’s socio-demographic profile. ‘Seven’represented the highest level of agreement with an item. The itemsused in the questionnaire were derived from the above literatureand are listed in the Appendix 1. Drawing from the above literatureamong the items used to measure place attachment were ‘Mycommunity is a special place and should be protected’, ‘Personally, Iwould like to see my community demolished and more modernhouses for local people to be built’, ‘My community would be a dullplace if it were not for the attempts to attract tourists’, ‘Do you feelpride with your community and place of residence?’ and ‘With thechanges I would like to move out of my community’. Other itemsdrawn from the wider tourism literature yet which have implica-tions for place attachment included items such as ‘When I see thetourists coming here I am envious of their way of life’ and othersrelating to the planning of the destination, the nature of that plan-ning and the role of tourism in the community.

Fig. 3. Hanjiang River Park at night.

The justification for a divide between urban and rural residentsreflects past research. Among the determinants of place attachmenthave been issues as to the scale of the placee and it could be arguedthat there may be stronger attachments to smaller rural villageswhere a sense of community may be stronger. However, in urbanareas there has been a discussion as to which is the stronger,attachment to neighbourhood or city, and conflicting results havebeen found. In the case of Ankang’s recent history, tourism has beenonly recently developed in rural areas, while of course much of thecity’s tourism has been related to business and visiting friends andrelatives. It has also been argued that larger populated urban areasmore easily absorb tourists and hence negative social and otherimpacts are less apparent in the daily life of city residents.

The propositions being examined were therefore:

a) There is a difference between the residents of urban and ruralzones in their attitudes toward the impacts of tourism, with, inthe case of Ankang, rural residents being more supportive forreasons of economic progress. Urban residents would expresslower degrees of support but across a wider range of tourismimpacts.

b) There is a difference between urban and rural residents as tothe distribution of clusters based on psychometrics, withsupporters of tourism being proportionately larger in ruralzones.

c) The relationship between place attachment and tourismwoulddiffer between urban and rural residents, with rural areasexpressing more concern.

The study also sought to tease out more the relationshipbetween place attachment and tourism impacts. However, as statedabove, issues of modernity emerged during the research processand the interviews that accompanied the self completion of forms.

3.1. The sample and its characteristics

The sample comprised 474 respondents, and the basic socio-demographic data of age and gender is shown in Table 1 for 437 ofthese respondents who provided data about both variables. Of thetotal 360 lived in urban Ankang and the remainder in rural areas.With reference to levels of income, 38 percent self-defined them-selves as having less than average income, and 13 percent statedthey had above average household incomes.

With reference to employment, 9.9 percent were employed full-time in the tourism industry and a further 7.8 percent had part-time employment in tourism. The percentage of the urban sampleemployed full-time in tourism was 11.3 percent as against 6.8percent of the rural sample (Cramer’s V¼ 0.065, p¼ 0.17) whereasof the rural sample, 12.8 percent had part-time employment intourism as against 6.8 percent of urban sample (Cramer’s V¼ 0.082,p¼ 0.086). Cramer’s Vwas used as themeasure because both sets ofdata are nominal in nature. As to the duration of residency, 80

Table 1Nature of the sample (age and gender).

Age Gender Total

Male Female

18 Years and under 21 17 3819e25 Years 27 21 4826e35 Years 27 51 7836e45 Years 127 92 21946e50 Years 21 13 3451 Years and over 14 6 20Total 237 200 437

X. Cui, C. Ryan / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 604e615608

percent had been resident in their current location for 10 or moreyears. These data are thought to be representative of the populationin Ankang City and the surrounding rural district.

4. The results

In reporting the results a series of tests were undertaken.Initially the overall mean scores and t-tests between the rural andurban areas were completed and are briefly reported below. Next,drawing on the literature as to determinants of attitudes, socio-economic variables were examined by the use of analysis of vari-ance (ANOVA) and regression analysis. Third, a conventional clusteranalysis was undertaken of the whole sample and its compositionexamined as to the residence of respondents. As described below,these tests failed to find any difference between the urban and ruralzones. The next stage of the analysis was to divide the sample intothe rural and urban sub-samples. Subjecting the sub-samples toexploratory factor analysis found evidence of different factorstructures. At this point recourse was made to the qualitative dataand categories were established from the responses given and thefrequency of such categories allocated across the urban and ruralsub-samples. This permitted the use of a likelihood ratio analysisand it was this that provided evidence of differences in the patternsof urban and rural response with specific reference to impacts oftourism and place attachment. The results from these processes arenow provided in more detail.

4.1. Descriptive scores and t-test values

A full set of mean scores for both rural and urban respondentsthat takes into account non-respondents is shown in Appendix 1.The highest score is attributed to feelings of pride in the community(urban, 5.68, vs. rural 5.72, t¼ 0.166, df¼ 427, p¼ 0.87), followed by‘tourism is good for the economy (urban, 5.40, vs. rural 5.59,t¼ 0.909, df¼ 457, p¼ 0.36) and ‘I think attracting more tourists isa good idea’ (urban, 5.44, vs. rural 5.41, t¼ 0.168, df¼ 436, p¼ 0.87).Among the lowest scoring items are ‘I think visitors are far toointrusive in our everyday lives’ (urban, 2.41, vs. rural 2.26, t¼ 0.626,df¼ 367, p¼ 0.53), ‘The tourists are far too noisy for my liking’(urban, 2.59, vs. rural 2.48, t¼ 0.509, df¼ 388, p¼ 0.61) and. ‘Thearea would be better off if tourists did not come’ (urban, 2.69, vs.rural 2.52, t¼ 0.741, df¼ 353, p¼ 0.50).

Prior to accepting these data it should be noted that there existdifferences in sub-sample sizes that require testing of effect size,that is, are the t-test significances of practical importance? Varioustests exist to calculate this, including Cohen’s delta (d) or thecoefficient of determination (R2) as a measure of the proportion ofvariance shared by the two variables (in this case ‘urban’ and‘rural’). This latter calculation is provided by the formula R2¼ t2/(t2þ df) (Acock, 2008). Values of 0.01e0.09 are designated ashaving a small size effect, 0.10e0.25 a ‘medium effect’ and above0.26 a ‘large effect’. All 49 items were found to have values of lessthan 0.09, thereby indicating that the t-tests were not affected bya size effect in the two sub-samples of ‘urban’ or ‘rural’.

A number of conclusions can be drawn from these scores. Thefirst is that the scores are consistent with a location in the earlystages of tourism development. To what extent these are repre-sentative of a wider Chinese situation can be assessed by compar-ison with results secured by Gu and Ryan in the village of Hungconin Anhui Province (which receives over 500,000 visitors a year), andShi Cha Hai hunting in Beijing which by 2010 was showing signs ofmaturation as a domestic and international tourism location. In theformer case the scores between this study and the Anhui village aresimilar, whereas in 2008 Gu and Ryan reported that hutong

residents did not feel that tourismwould improve the quality of lifewhile problems such as congestion were seen as relatively severe.

A second conclusion is that generally the respondents favourfurther development of tourism and do not feel that a number ofproblems thought to accompany tourism such as added congestion,noise, a growth of petty crime and a loss of retail provision thatservices the local community is an issue. Indeed there is relativelystrong agreement that tourism will help to improve the quality oflife (urban, 4.99, vs. rural 5.47, t¼ 0.741, df¼ 353, p¼ 0.03).

A third conclusion is that there is little sign of a response set, forthe scores vary from approximately 2.2e5.7, and thus the issue ofresponse sets noted by Gu, Ryan, and Chon (2009) in a set ofChinese hotel managers does not seem to be operating in this case.

4.2. The role of socio-demographic variables

What then of socio-demographic variables? Using the t-test forindependent samples, no statistically significant difference wasfound between males and females other than on two items. Thefirst was ‘The area would be better off if tourists did not come’. Onthis item males scored 2.99 and females 2.20 (p< 0.001), but atthese scores both genders are strongly disagreeing with the state-ment. Similarly males scored 2.54 on the item that the tourists aretoo intrusive, and females 2.02 (p¼ 0.0.16). Using analysis of vari-ance, age was also found not to be a significant determinant ofdifference. With reference to the impact of being employed in thetourism industry, there was a difference with reference to only fouritems. These were ‘My income has increased with the introductionof tourism’ where those employed scored this item at 5.07 asagainst 2.75 of others (t¼ 7.21, df¼ 351, p< 0.001) and ‘The touristsare far too noisy for my liking’ (3.25 vs. 2.47, t¼ 2.63, df¼ 381,p¼ 0.009). Those working in the industry also agreed (5.0) that thecommunity would be a dull place if it were not for tourism, whileothers were of a more neutral view (4.06). As to the last item, whichrelated to traffic congestion, the statistically significant differencerelated to degrees of strong disagreement that tourism did createsuch congestion. However, on using a chi-squared test and Cramer’sV with the variables ‘employment in tourism’ and ‘householdincome’ no statistically significant relationship was found, implyingtherefore that neither full-time or part-time employment in theindustry had created no additional chance of enjoying reportedhigher levels of income.

With reference to the results derived from cluster analysis, thefirst approach combined both samples of rural and urban respon-dents and derived four clusters, and then used crosstabs commandin PASW to assess the distribution of rural and urban residentsacross the four clusters. No statistically significant difference wasfound. Given this, and bearing in mind observational data andexperiences gained during the data collection process (for example,in the villages with little tourism development data collection washampered in some cases by lower levels of literacy and a lack ofexperience in being asked to complete questionnaires), theresearchers sought nuanced differences in the data set that wouldcreate a congruency between the experience of data collection andthe results identified above. In addition the role of residency in andattachment to a place was thought to be important for the reasonsoutlined above.

4.3. Exploratory factor analysis

The first evidence of such nuances emerged when the data weredivided into the two sub-samples of rural and urban residents andseparately subjected to exploratory factor analysis. The usualcriterion for the selection of an optimum number of factors isdetermined by the number of factors for which eigenvalues have

Fig. 4. The Slogan ‘Shuangchuang’ displayed at a busy road junction.

X. Cui, C. Ryan / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 604e615 609

values in excess of 1.0 (Acock, 2008; Gorsuch, 1983). Following thisrule produced for the rural data 15 principal components‘explaining’ 72 percent of the variance, but 13 principal compo-nents ‘explaining’ 59 percent of the variance for the urban sample,with both failing to converge in the standard default setting of 25iterations in PASW. Examination of the scree diagram using Cattell’s(1956, 1966) test of a ‘turning point’ indicated, for the urban data,the existence of four factors. Examination of the data shown inAppendix 2 indicates that the first factor comprises items critical oftourism impacts, and the remaining factors would appear to over-lap. The second factor, arguably, represents a view that tourismbrings modern features to the city, the third possesses, in part,a theme relating to economics, and the final fourth componentcomprises a mix of difficult to interpret items that representfavourable dispositions toward tourism. The four factors (thatconverge after 9 iterations) ‘explain’ 35 percent of the variance,while the communalities range for 0.25e0.45 approximately. Inshort, the ‘solution’ is sub-optimal, but the finding of importancehere is that it differs from the results derived from the rural sub-sample.

4.4. Analysis of qualitative data, categorical variables andlikelihood ratio analysis

Given this evidence of differences existing between rural andurban zones, the next stage was to create categories from the initialopen-ended questions in the questionnaire. These had askedrespondents to provide examples of changes they attributed totourism, and to indicate whether they thought them beneficial ornegative. These statements were then carefully considered andgiven numeric codes to create categorical datasets. With referenceto these changes generally the most frequent responses referred togrowing incomes (67 mentions) and a generally better set ofeconomic conditions (n¼ 58) and living conditions (n¼ 31) andmore specific examples being reference to the amount ofconstruction in the city (n¼ 71), movements of rural workers(n¼ 34) with two significant negative impacts being an increase inpollution and degradation of the natural environment (n¼ 52) andthe commercialization of culture and tradition (n¼ 17). Whenasked to specify what were thought to be positive changes, higherincomes led the way with n¼ 83, economic improvement being 64,a better quality of life, 61, an enhanced natural and city environ-ment being 83 and a cultural revival of old traditions being 39. Thenegative changes were outstandingly pollution (n¼ 163), a wors-ening of behavior including graffiti, more rudeness and less toler-ance (n¼ 86), added to which there was a perception of corruptionamong officials and poorer administration (n¼ 26), more noise(n¼ 68) and traffic congestion (23). Nearly all of these factors were,in the eyes of the respondents, also associated with an increase intourism, although with reference to this last item respondents alsonoted an increase in the numbers of hotels, restaurants, shops andother facilities (n¼ 63).

A number of respondents (34) made reference to shuangchuangwhich is an Ankang governmental initiative to create awareness ofenvironmental issues but which also extends to the cultural (seeFig. 4). The policy was introduced in 2008 with the intention ofenabling the city to attain the status, by 2011, of “NationalOutstanding Tourist City” (as accredited by the China NationalTourism Administration, CNTA) and a Sanitary City of ShaanxiProvince. It is locally referred to as “Double Construction Tourism”

and hence a number of projects have been commenced. There islittle doubt that these have had an impact and environmental andsocial issues emerged strongly in the open-ended responses asdemonstrated by these statements that are representative of suchcomments:

“In my view all these developments and tourism have createda noisy, polluted city, but there is also corruption and takentogether this gives Ankang a bad reputation”.Respondent 139 (Male, urban resident, 36e45 years of age,below average income, full-time employment in tourism).“We have a better income than before, but in some importantways things have not improved e there is more pollution andalso social life is less harmonious and there is a worsening ofrelationships between neighbours e people think more aboutthemselves today”.Respondent 156 (Male, urban resident, 36e45 years of age,below average income).“There are much better roads today and city is a lot tidier butthere are costs such as the loss of public sports areas and thedisappearance of the Hanjiang River beach. Today Ankangpeople just want to spend their time playing mah-jong”.Respondent 181 (Male, urban resident, 36e45 years of age,below average income).“The economy today is a lot stronger and the natural environ-ment is also much better.A major benefit has certainly been the economic improvement,but I still am unsure that we have all the solutions for problemsin the natural environment”.Respondent 185 (Male, village resident, 36e45 years of age,average income).

However, for those like the above respondents who werecritical, an even larger number spoke of an improved, muchcleaner city, one where there was a cultural revival of old tradi-tions and also a much livelier city with better shops, cafes andrestaurants. It was also thought important that 6 respondentsmade specific references to greater income disparities, mixedfeelings about rural workers as migrants into the city, and theperception of greater commercialization as a negative aspect ofcontemporary life.

Having created these categories the next stage was to develop 2by 2 matrices based on (a) the respondent’s rural or urban area ofresidence and (b) the mention or non-mention of the category, andthe data were again transformed to create these matrices to permitasymmetric testing. Because of the number of categories Table 2shows only some of the major calculations, which tend toconfirm that no statistically significant difference existed betweenthe urban and rural residents. On the other hand the data derivedfrom this analysis are supportive of the findings derived from thequantitative analysis in that income and economic growth effectsare seen to be present and due, at least in part, to tourism and thatin consequence there are generally improvements for the quality of

Table 2Categorical data e asymmetric analysis.

Item Urban Rural c2 Prob

Positive changesHigher incomes 17 66 0.68 nsBetter economic conditions 10 54 0.83 nsBetter quality of life 13 48 0.11 nsBetter educational provision 8 18 2.16 nsEnhanced natural environment 12 48 0.11 ns

Negative changePollution of the natural environment 32 129 0.70 nsPoor social conduct 20 66 0.89 nsNoise 12 56 0.03 nsPoor sanitation/dirty streets/garbage 8 30 0.02 ns

Table 3Likelihood ratio tests e economic development.

Effect Model fitting criteria Likelihood ratio tests

�2 Log likelihoodof reduced model

Chi-square df Sig.

Intercept 374.697 (a) 0.000 0Sense of place as special 381.836 7.139 2 0.028Duration of residence 374.929 0.232 2 0.891Gender 379.545 4.848 2 0.089Age 408.818 34.120 16 0.005Income 384.360 9.663 6 0.140

X. Cui, C. Ryan / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 604e615610

life. Additionally, while environmental problems, congestion, andinconvenience due to construction works are again confirmed asminor concerns, the open-ended response elicited more details asto specifics about river pollution, dirt from the construction works,and the loss of green spaces due to building. Other items notrevealed by the more conventional approach of responses to scaleditems included the perceived improvement in education, andconcerns being expressed about the commercialization andcommodification of heritage and culture e though these last werebalanced in part by a sense of such commercialization creatinga ‘cultural revival’. In short the two modes of questioning werecongruent, but also nuanced in style e implying therefore that thismixed research method approach possesses advantages in gener-ating more detailed data.

There remained, however, in the minds of the researchersa conundrum. The scales and open-ended responses tended tocongruency between urban and rural residentswhereas observationhad led the researchers to expect a difference. Was that expectationwholly wrong? Or did a possible solution lie in a combination offactors wherein residents anywhere perceive the same advantagesand disadvantages of tourism, but may interpret them differently inthe light of a daily experience rooted in the structures of place andneighbourhoods and the community living in those places?

With reference to place attachment the sense of a communitybeing a special place deserving protection was stronger among theurban residents (4.8) than the rural residents (4.2, t¼ 2.27, df¼ 378,p¼ 0.02). A chi-squared test using the scores on this item by therural or urban location of residence found the relationship to againbe statistically significant at p< 0.05. However this was the onlymeasure where such statistically significant differences werefound. The ‘sense of community being a special place’was thereforetreated as a determinant ordinal item in assessments of attitudinalmeasures of tourism impacts relating to income and perceivedpollution in conjunction with socio-demographic variables andemployment in the industry e the justification for this being theliterature reviewed above where such items had been found to bedeterminants of attitudes toward tourism impacts. This permittedthe development of a model where:

a) Economic development was divided into the categories ofagreement, mid point and disagree, thereby permittinga baseline logit model to be developed where;

b) g1¼ log {(P(Agree)/(P(Mid Point)¼ b10þ b11 Genderþ b12Ageþ b13 Incomeþ b14 Special Placeþ b15 Residency Duration

g2¼ log {(P(Disagree)/(P(Mid Point)¼ b20þ b21 Genderþ b22Ageþ b23 Incomeþ b24 Special Placeþ b25 Residency Duration

Similar procedures were undertaken for perceptions of pollu-tion, with again a threefold division of agree/indifferent/disagreebeing used.

The baseline for the calculations was the mid point (the neitheragree nor disagree score) on the scales. Prior to reporting results it isperhaps worth noting the warning provided by Long and Freese(2006, p. 235), namely that ‘Given the difficulties of interpretationthat are associated with the MNLM, it is tempting to search fora more parsimonious model by excluding or combing outcomecategories based on a sequence of tests. Although the overall testmight indicate as a group the coefficients are not significantlydifferent fromzero, an individual coefficient can still be substantiallyand statistically significant.’ There is therefore a need to continuallyexamine data and one means is the use of conditional-effect plots(Kohler & Kreuter, 2009). Various diagrams were therefore inspec-ted before arriving at the outcomes of the Likelihood Ratio testsusing multinomial logistic regression as shown in Table 3. Beforediscussing these it needs to be noted that the Nagelkerke PseudoMeasure of Coefficient of Determination is 0.19, i.e. the variables‘explain’ 19 percent of the variance in the estimation of perceptionof economic development. It can be noted that the sense of place asbeing special is significant (p¼ 0.028) as is age, which is howeverindependent of durationof residence. TheWald statistic for ‘sense ofplace as a special place’ is 0.50, implying a potential relationshipbetween ‘sense of place’ and perception of economic development,albeit weak, and generally commentators prefer the use of thelikelihood ratio (although some disagree, e.g. Long & Freese, 2006).The likelihood ratio compares thefittedmodelwith an alternative inwhich all other coefficients other than the constant are set at zero,and the larger the value the better the model.

It might be queried that ‘age’ and ‘sense of place’may be subjectto interaction between the two variables (i.e. older people mayhave a sense of greater place attachment), and thus a full factorialmodel was calculated. It was found that the removal of an inter-action between ‘age’ and ‘sense of place’ createdminimal change inthe likelihood ratio, but of interest was the existence of a relation-ship between ‘sense of place’ and duration of residency. Given thata baseline model had been adopted (that is a comparison betweenhigh and low levels of agreement with perceptions of economicdevelopment) it was also found that for low scorers income had norole as a determinant, but it was a determinant in the perceptions ofhigh scorers.

Finally the classification table generated by PASW indicated thatoverall 74.8 percent of the respondents were ‘correctly’ allocated toa group, but the model does poorly among the ‘low scorers’ (32percent) but does very well among the high scorers (97 percent),pointing to the role of income being significant in forming attitudes.

Utilising the same procedures to assess the perception ofincreased pollution generated a high pseudo coefficient of deter-mination at 0.35, and ‘sense of place as special’ is significant atp¼ 0.02, income at p¼ 0.03 and duration of residence at p¼ 0.051(see Table 4). Of specific interest is that ‘a sense of place beingspecial’ is statistically significant for ‘low scorers’ (i.e. there is nopollution) and in spite of the higher pseudo R2 the overall perfor-mance of the model is less at 45 percent ‘correct classification’ of

Table 4Likelihood ratio test e levels of pollution.

Effect Model fitting criteria Likelihoodratio tests

�2 Log likelihoodof reduced model

Chi-square

df Sig.

Intercept 380.548 (a) 0.000 0Sense of place as

special390.198 9.650 3 0.022

Duration ofresidence

388.321 7.773 3 0.051

Gender 383.931 3.383 3 0.336Age 407.635 27.087 21 0.168Income 410.347 29.799 12 0.003

X. Cui, C. Ryan / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 604e615 611

respondents e but it is more evenly distributed over the differentgroups of respondents than in the case of economic development.

5. Discussion and conclusions

To summarise the findings it appears that respondents aregenerally supportive of tourism as represented by the overall meanscores on a list of items derived from past literature and otherstudies undertaken in mainland China. There is also evidence oflevels of pride in local communities (for example in a wish not tomove away from the communities or neighbourhoods) and this canbe taken as evidence of place attachment. With reference to theproposition that differences existed between rural and urbancommunities in their perceptions of the impacts of tourism, littledifferencewas found. Thus, undertaking a cluster analysis identifiedfive groupings of respondents, most of whom expressed variousdegrees of support for tourism although 24 percent of the samplewas described as being ‘lukewarm’ and 18 percent as ‘indifferent’toward tourism’s development. Although not reported in the maintext of the paper, cluster membership was found to have morerelationship with degrees of identification with place than withother variables such as the duration of residence, age, income orgender, but importantly for this paper, cross tabulation showed nosignificant statistical difference in the allocation of urban and ruralresidents to different psychometric groups. Further, as reportedabove, coding responses to open-ended questions, creating cate-gories, and then again cross tabulating those categories with placeof residence, again found no statistically significant difference.

However closer examination provides evidence through likeli-hood ratios derived from multinomial logistic regression of somedifferences where, for high scorers for perceptions of economicdevelopment and concerns about pollution, higher income anda sense of a place ‘being special’ had a role to play. Within thesample it was also noted that those resident in rural areas hadstatistically significant lower scores that their community was‘something special’ but it should be noted this was the only itemderived from place attachment scales where this was the case. It issuggested three factors may account for these findings. Tenta-tively, with reference to the issues of modernity noted in theliterature review, the authors would suggest that those resident inthe rural areas tend not to see their communities as being either‘modern’ or more clearly demarcated from other similar villagecommunities. There is some evidence for this from the data shownin Appendix 1, although it remains statistically insignificant, butthere is one area in which the urban and rural samples do differ atp¼ 0.002, and that is in the age distribution of the sample. Hencethe second reason is that the ages of the rural sample are lowerthan those of the urban sample, and thus it might be thought thatyounger people may be more concerned about ‘a lack of moder-nity’. Thus, in Table 3 age was found to be a statistically significant

variable for perceptions of tourism being a cause of economicdevelopment, but this was not the case for pollution. The thirdreason for the results lies in the significance of the level of incomefor higher scorers. Given China’s economic development and theemergence of an affluent middle class which is basically urban innature, it is suggested that not only income per se but the differentdistributions of income between rural and urban areas may playsome role in explaining the results. Although not statisticallysignificant, 14 percent of the urban sample reported incomesabove average as against 9 percent of the rural area. A furthervariable that needs some exploring as possibly complicating theissue is the level of urban residents’ ownership of rural propertiesas a means of escaping the city.

The complex interplay of these variables lends support to theobservation made by Williams and Kaltenborn (1999) that gazesare far from simple and patterns of spatial interaction are complex.With reference to issues of modernity it is suggested that, giventhe role of age, income and place attachment, reactions to whatrepresents the modern is filtered through these variables e theyoung and old have inter-generational differences, as do those oflower and higher income, and concerns about whether thechanges induced by modernity are positive or negative for place.Tourism represents the modern in opening access to a widerworld e something shown not only in the welcome extended totourists in this study but in other studies of residents’ viewstoward tourism undertaken in China (e.g. Su & Huang, 2005,question whether tourism undermines residents’ concepts of placethrough commodifying culture). Indeed Xie, Bao, and Kerstetter(submitted for publication) in a study of Hungcon, Anhui Prov-ince note the tension between villagers who wish to modernize,those who want to conserve and the wishes of tourists to see the‘traditional’. Similar tensions can be traced in the current study.

There remain other issues to be assessed, and which operate aslimitations to the research. Ryan and Gu (2009) have warnedagainst too easily assuming that scales found to be valid in westerncountries will indeed be applicable in countries where culturalunderstandings and values may be very different. This may beparticularly apposite when considering poorer parts of China andfor this reason the qualitative data are thought to be important.Nonetheless it is felt that a contribution is being made to theresearch of the impacts of tourism within a Chinese context. Thereare indications that attitudes between rural and urban populationswith respect to tourism may possess more similarities than differ-ences. Additionally in a developing economy, some variables foundto be of importance in research within western countries such asduration of residence seems to be of little importance in China, butthe divisions between those of higher and lower income may besharper than among their western counterparts. There is alsoevidence within the paper that it is possible within larger samplesto meaningfully create congruence between categories derivedfrom open-ended responses and subject them to statistical analysisand data derived from conventionally scaled items, and thissupports the point made by Mazanec (2009). The paper is thussupportive of the view that studies can be pragmatically driven bydefined research problems and a researcher need not be impris-oned within any one research paradigm.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge grants received from TheUniversity of Ankang, The University of Waikato ManagementSchool and The Department of Science and Technology of ShaanxiProvince (Grant Number 2010KRM48). The photographs used inthis paper were taken by Cui Xiaoming.

X. Cui, C. Ryan / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 604e615612

Appendix 1. t-Tests for rural and urban respondents

Group statistics

Rural or urban N Mean Std. deviation Prob

Tourism has created job opportunities Rural 93 4.9247 1.92374 0.422Urban 353 4.7337 2.06772

Tourism is good for the local economy Rural 96 5.5938 1.68322 0.364Urban 363 5.4050 1.84141

My income has increased with the introduction of tourism Rural 69 3.1159 2.13883 0.792Urban 292 3.0411 2.11971

Tourists create traffic and parking problems Rural 86 4.1744 2.12654 0.061Urban 335 3.6687 2.24690

Tourism gives you the opportunity to meet people from other countries Rural 80 3.7250 2.06830 0.072Urban 310 3.2516 2.10284

The tourists that come are usually very friendly Rural 84 4.7857 1.87611 0.167Urban 328 4.4451 2.04761

I have no objection to visitors who spend less than Rural 71 3.0704 2.19300 0.173Urban 283 3.4558 2.10891

I would prefer it if visitors stayed overnight Rural 79 4.7215 2.14797 0.948Urban 311 4.7395 2.20842

Tourism encourages a wide variety of cultural and other activities Rural 87 4.9195 2.05290 0.653Urban 343 5.0262 1.95921

The main problem with my community is that there are not enough facilities Rural 79 4.1519 2.07605 0.832Urban 324 4.2099 2.20310

My community has a number of good quality restaurants because of tourism Rural 77 3.4286 2.04829 0.002Urban 329 4.2584 2.13067

I think visitors are far too intrusive in our everyday lives Rural 72 2.2639 1.87641 0.532Urban 297 2.4175 1.86561

There will be problems of traffic congestion and accidents Rural 78 3.4615 2.16640 0.330Urban 322 3.7391 2.27549

The money spent locally to attract more tourists is a good investment Rural 87 5.3448 1.95786 0.360Urban 341 5.1202 2.05946

There are already some things I do not do because of the number of tourists Rural 76 3.6053 1.93273 0.381Urban 305 3.8525 2.26120

I think that attracting more tourists is a good idea Rural 91 5.4066 1.69953 0.867Urban 347 5.4438 1.92313

My community has a wide selection of tourist attractions Rural 90 5.1667 1.80667 0.997Urban 350 5.1657 1.92435

Planning authorities pay little attention to views of residents when planning tourism Rural 74 3.9865 2.01020 0.854Urban 266 4.0376 2.14179

My community is a special place and should be protected Rural 79 4.2278 2.08135 0.024Urban 301 4.8306 2.10425

Local residents are the people who mainly suffer from the development of tourism Rural 75 2.6000 1.94520 0.796Urban 277 2.6679 2.03541

My community is now a lot smarter and cleaner because of tourism Rural 89 5.0899 2.07058 0.290Urban 317 4.8233 2.16861

Tourism might lead to more petty crime Rural 75 3.0000 2.17479 0.529Urban 289 2.8408 1.88440

I feel the tourism planning authorities should encourage further development Rural 89 5.2809 1.93055 0.782Urban 347 5.3458 1.98295

The development of tourism facilities and attractions is a threat to the local environment. Rural 88 3.4545 2.12218 0.207Urban 304 3.7961 2.26128

Tourism is one way of protecting the local houses and courtyards Rural 81 4.1358 1.92193 0.330Urban 312 4.4359 2.58907

I feel that tourism is growing too fast for my community to cope with Rural 81 2.7778 1.85742 0.119Urban 301 3.1860 2.14132

I believe the tourism industry can improve the quality of life Rural 93 5.4731 1.76679 0.034Urban 343 4.9942 1.97350

I am able to go to the new restaurants that meet the needs of tourists Rural 68 4.1324 2.33663 0.041Urban 273 3.5238 2.14553

Personally, I would like to see my community demolished and more modernhouses for local people to be built.

Rural 81 5.0247 2.07952 0.065Urban 317 4.5174 2.23405

The region tourism planners should invest more public money in tourism development Rural 71 3.3662 2.25033 0.083Urban 296 3.9088 2.38536

Shopping hours should be extended to cater better for tourists Rural 84 4.9881 1.94809 0.527Urban 308 5.1656 2.35633

The benefits of tourism get distributed widely through my community Rural 88 3.8977 2.13907 0.316Urban 286 4.1538 2.08017

My community would be a dull place if it were not for the attempts to attract tourists Rural 83 3.8313 2.14032 0.100Urban 320 4.2781 2.21441

I feel that the planning authorities should consider plans to restrict the growth of tourism Rural 86 4.0349 2.24629 0.621Urban 313 4.1661 2.15977

The tourists I have seen generally have little consideration for the local population Rural 83 3.4819 2.19401 0.439Urban 320 3.6813 2.06287

The tourism authorities do an excellent job in balancing the needs of local people and tourists Rural 83 4.0361 1.82427 0.261Urban 310 3.7645 1.98686

Appendix 1 (continued )

Group statistics

Rural or urban N Mean Std. deviation Prob

The tourists are far too noisy for my liking Rural 83 2.4819 1.86339 0.611Urban 307 2.5993 1.86446

I feel the tourism planning authorities do an excellent job in making the right decisions Rural 69 3.8406 2.05529 0.162Urban 309 4.2233 2.04938

Tourism means the area is losing shops that once served local people Rural 77 2.8571 2.07564 0.866Urban 297 2.9024 2.09582

I agree with the way tourism income is distributed throughout the town Rural 75 4.5067 2.15214 0.256Urban 303 4.1782 2.25991

I no longer go to some local shops because of the tourists Rural 72 2.8611 2.19028 0.711Urban 280 2.9643 2.08394

The area would be better off if tourists did not come Rural 74 2.5135 1.96715 0.500Urban 281 2.6904 2.01429

When I see tourists coming here I am envious of their way of life Rural 84 4.1667 2.27524 0.251Urban 317 4.4700 2.11906

With the changes I would like to move out of my community Rural 74 2.4865 1.96715 0.508Urban 275 2.6545 1.92769

My community is becoming too expensive for me to live in. Rural 79 4.4684 2.25795 0.633Urban 320 4.3313 2.28590

I would like to have a job in tourism Rural 74 4.2703 2.25314 0.872Urban 298 4.2248 2.13984

Tourism is the only way my community can survive in the future. Rural 74 2.4459 2.02817 0.001Urban 283 3.4452 2.15524

Would you like your children to be employed in tourism? Rural 78 4.0000 2.16225 0.758Urban 293 3.9181 2.06075

Do you feel pride with your community and resident place? Rural 89 5.7191 1.76448 0.868Urban 340 5.6824 1.88746

X. Cui, C. Ryan / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 604e615 613

Appendix 2. Rotated principal components factor analysis forurban data

Component

1 2 3 4

Tourism might lead to more petty crime 0.698 0.026 �0.113 0.100The area would be better off if tourists did not come 0.688 �0.061 0.037 0.148I feel that tourism is growing too fast for my community to cope with 0.658 �0.120 �0.002 0.191Tourism means the area is losing shops that once served local people 0.632 �0.184 0.081 0.253I no longer go to some local shops because of the tourists 0.631 0.036 �0.062 0.222The development of tourism facilities and attractions is a threat to the local environment0. 0.619 �0.153 0.079 0.045Local residents are the people who mainly suffer 0.585 0.170 �0.306 0.174There will be problems of traffic congestion and accidents 0.583 0.051 0.106 �0.333With the changes I would like to move out of my community 0.561 �0.010 0.214 0.172Planning authorities pay little attention to views of residents when planning tourism 0.558 0.084 0.137 �0.118There are already some things I do not do 0.510 0.187 �0.013 �0.001I think visitors are far too intrusive in our everyday lives 0.490 0.044 �0.315 0.134The tourists are far too noisy for my liking 0.484 �0.166 �0.143 0.079The region tourism planners should invest more public money 0.473 0.017 0.186 0.225The tourists I have seen generally have little consideration for the local population 0.462 0.024 0.134 �0.046I feel that the planning authorities should consider plans to restrict the growth of tourism 0.368 �0.040 0.169 0.164I have no objection to visitors who spend less than 0.337 �0.206 0.323 0.230I agree with the way tourism income is distributed throughout the town 0.313 0.312 0.249 �0.092My community is becoming too expensive for me to live in. 0.311 0.225 0.088 0.048Shopping hours should be extended to cater better for tourists �0.131 0.611 0.056 0.173The benefits of tourism get distributed widely through my community 0.145 0.531 �0.021 0.415I feel the tourism planning authorities should encourage further development �0.267 0.521 0.234 �0.117Tourism gives you the opportunity to meet people from other countries 0.051 0.494 �0.047 0.014Personally, I would like to see my community demolished and more modern houses for local people to be built. �0.025 0.486 0.046 0.394I would prefer it if visitors stayed overnight 0.094 0.475 0.186 0.073I believe the tourism industry can improve the quality of life �0.110 0.456 0.358 0.168My community is now a lot smarter and cleaner because of tourism �0.286 0.444 0.270 0.355Tourism encourages a wide variety of cultural and other activities �0.063 0.424 0.216 0.078My community would be a dull place if it were not for the attempts to attract tourists 0.148 0.402 0.158 0.375Do you feel pride with your community and resident place? �0.143 0.318 0.273 0.125The main problem with my community is that there are not enough facilities 0.154 0.310 0.220 �0.189The money spent locally to attract more tourists is a good investment �0.001 0.066 0.601 �0.032My community has a number of good quality restaurants because of tourism 0.091 �0.132 0.540 0.338Tourism is good for the local economy �0.090 0.366 0.494 �0.041Tourism has created job opportunities 0.058 0.201 0.488 �0.034Tourism is one way of protecting the local houses and courtyards 0.361 0.090 0.466 0.074I think that attracting more tourists is a good idea �0.019 0.361 0.458 0.065

(continued on next page)

X. Cui, C. Ryan / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 604e615614

Appendix 2 (continued)

Component

1 2 3 4

The tourists that come are usually very friendly 0.129 0.204 0.437 0.047My community is a special place and should be protected 0.193 0.068 0.428 0.153My community has a wide selection of tourist attractions �0.078 0.165 0.399 0.093The tourism authorities do an excellent job in balancing the needs of local people and tourists 0.030 0.036 0.362 0.321I feel the tourism planning authorities do an excellent job in making the right decisions 0.137 �0.030 0.389 0.639Tourism is the only way my community can survive in the future. 0.312 0.046 0.128 0.619Tourists create traffic and parking problems 0.144 0.412 0.081 L0.550Would you like your children to be employed in tourism? 0.142 0.131 0.007 0.486I would like to have a job in tourism 0.140 0.174 0.048 0.480I am able to go to the new restaurants that meet the needs of tourists 0.112 0.110 0.051 0.397My income has increased with the introduction of tourism 0.167 0.310 �0.011 0.393When I see tourists coming here I am envious of their way of life 0.155 0.297 0.310 0.389

Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization.Rotation converged in 9 iterations.

Appendix. Supplementary material

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found inthe online version, at doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.05.012.

References

Acock, A. C. (2008). A gentle introduction to Stata (2nd ed.). College Station, Texas:Stata Press.

Ashley, C. (2000). Applying livelihood approach to natural resource managementinitiatives: Experience in Namibia and Kenya. Sustainable livelihoods workingpaper no. 134. London: ODI.

Breakwell, G. M. (1986). Coping with threatened identity. London: Methuen.Breakwell, G. M. (1992). Social psychology of identity and the self concept. Guildford:

Surrey University Press.Brown, G., & Giles, R. (1994). Coping with tourism: an examination of resident

responses to the social impact of tourism. In A. V. Seaton (Ed.), Tourism: Thestate of the art (pp. 755e764). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Brown, G., & Raymond, C. (2007). The relationship between place attachment andlandscape values: toward mapping place attachment. Applied Geography, 27(1),89e111.

Butler, R. (1980). The concept of tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for themanagement of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24, 5e12.

Butler, R. (Ed.). (2006a). Conceptual and theoretical issues. The tourism area life cycle,Vol. 2. Clevedon: Channel View Press.

Butler, R. (Ed.). (2006b). Applications and modifications. The tourism area life cycle,Vol. 1. Clevedon: Channel View Press.

Cattell, R. B. (1956). Second order personality factors in the questionnaire realm.Journal of Consulting Psychology, 20(6), 411e418.

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate BehavioralResearch, 1(2), 245e276.

Collins, M. W. (2004). Desert rose. Auckland: Penguin Books.Dirlik, A. (2003). Global modernity?: modernity in an age of global capitalism.

European Journal of Social Theory, 6(3), 275e292.Doxey, G. V. (1975). A causation theory of visitoreresident irritants,methodology and

research inferences. In The impact of tourism. Sixth annual conference proceedingsof the Travel and Tourism Research Association (pp. 195e198). San Diego.

Gergen, K. J. (1985). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. NewYork: Basic Books.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Gross, M. J., & Brown, G. (2008). An empirical structural model of tourists and

places: progressing involvement and place attachment into tourism. TourismManagement, 29(6), 1141e1151.

Gu, H., & Ryan, C. (2008). Place attachment, identity and community impacts oftourism e the case of a Beijing hutong. Tourism Management, 29(4), 637e647.

Gu, H., Ryan, C., & Chon, K. (2009). Managerial responsibility, environmentalpractice and response sets in a sample of Chinese hotel managers. Journal ofChina Tourism Research, 5(2), 140e157.

Hernández, B., Hidalgo, M. C., Salazar-Laplace, M. E., & Hess, S. (2007). Placeattachment and place identity in natives and non-natives. Journal of Environ-mental Psychology, 27, 310e319.

Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernández, B. (2001). Place attachment: conceptual and empiricalquestions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273e281.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology ofintergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.

Ip, H.-Y., Hon, T.-K., & Lee, C.-C. (2003). The plurality of Chinese modernity: a reviewof recent scholarship on the May Fourth movement. Modern China, 29(4),490e509.

Jia,L. L., Zhu,H.,&Han,Y.L. (2007).The impactof tourismdevelopmentonlandusee acasestudy of Zhapo Resort in Hialing Island. China Tourism Research, 3(3/4), 373e393.

Kohler, U., & Kreuter, F. (2009). Data analysis using Stata (2nd ed.). College Station,TX: Stata Press.

Lawson, R., Williams, J., Young, T., & Cossens, J. (1998). A comparison of residents’attitudes towards tourism in 10 New Zealand destinations. Tourism Manage-ment, 19(3), 247e256.

Levenson, J. (1968)Confucian China and its modern fate, 3 vols.. Berkeley: Universityof California Press.

Lewicka, M. (2004). Place attachment among Warsaw inhabitants: determinantsand consequences. In J. Grzelak, & T. Zarycki (Eds.), Social map of Warsaw. Aninterdisciplinary study of Warsaw metropolis (pp. 273e315). Warsaw: Wydaw-nictwo Naukowe ‘Scholar’.

Lewicka, M. (2006). Regional differentiation of identity: comparison of Poland andUkraine. Studia Regionalne I Lokalne, 23, 5e36.

Lewicka, M. (2009). What makes neighbourhood different from home and city?Effects of scale on place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology.doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.004.

Liu, J., & Var, T. (1986). Resident attitudes towards tourism impacts in Hawaii. Annalsof Tourism Research, 13(2), 193e214.

Liu, Y.-L., Wang, H.-M., Wang, X., Dai, M.-X., Shang, L., Liu, D.-H., et al. (2006). Factorsinfluencing the care needs and demands of rural outpatients in Shaanxi, China.Public Health, 120, 1052e1054.

Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variablesusing Stata (2nd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.

Long, P., Perdue, R., & Allen, L. (1990). Rural resident perceptions and attitudes bycommunity level of tourism. Journal of Tourism Research, 28(3), 3e9.

Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, physical and social impacts.Harlow: Longman.

Mazanec, J. A. (2009). Unravelling myths in tourism research. Tourism RecreationResearch, 34(3), 319e323.

Morgan, P. (2009). Towards a developmental theory of place attachment. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.07.001.

Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. New York: Methuen & Co. Ltd.Oppermann, M. (1993). Tourism space in developing countries. Annals of Tourism

Research, 20(3), 535e556.Ryan, C. (1991). Recreational tourism: A social science perspective. London: Routledge.Ryan, C., & Cui, X. (2009). Perceptions of the impacts of tourism e a case study of

ongoing research in Ankang, China. In International conference on the develop-ment trends of tourism and hospitality industry and education. Jinwen Universityof Science and Technology, Taiwan, 25e26 September.

Ryan, C., & Gu, H. (2009). Tourism in China. London: Routledge.Ryan, C., & Gu, H. (2007). The social impacts of tourism in a Beijing hutong: a case of

environmental change. China Tourism Research, 3(2), 251e271.Ryan, C., & Gu, H. (2010). Tourist motivations and faith e a survey of visitors to

a Daoist Mountain in Anhui Province, China. In Paper presented at the 2010 atlasconference e Mass and niche tourism. Nicosia, Cyprus.

Ryan, C., Scotland, A., & Montgomery, D. (1998). Resident attitudes to tourism devel-opment e a comparative study between Rangitikei, New Zealand, and Bakewell,United Kingdom. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4, 115e130.

Sheldon, P., & Var, T. (1984). Resident attitudes towards tourism in North Wales.Tourism Management, 5(4), 280e287.

Simpson, M. C. (2007). An integrated approach to assess the impacts of tourism oncommunity development and sustainable livelihoods.

Smith, R. A. (1992). Beach resort evolution: implications for planning. Annals ofTourism Research, 19(2), 304e322.

Su, X. B., & Huang, C. Y. (2005). The impacts of heritage tourism on public space inhistoric towns: a case study of Lijiang Ancient Town. China Tourism Research, 1(4), 401e421.

Thyne, M., Lawson, R., & Todd, S. (2006). The use of conjoint analysis to assess theimpact of cross-cultural exchange between hosts and guests. TourismManagement, 27(2), 210e213.

Twigger-Ross, C. L., & Uzzell, D. L. (1996). Place and identity processes. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 16, 205e220.

X. Cui, C. Ryan / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 604e615 615

Williams, D. R., & Kaltenborn, B. P. (1999). Leisure places and modernity: the useand meaning of recreational cottages in Norway and the USA. In D. Crouch (Ed.),Leisure practices and geographic knowledge (pp. 214e230). London: Routledge.

Williams, J., & Lawson, R. (2001). Community issues and residents’ opinions oftourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 269e290.

World Bank. (1994). The World Bank and participation. Operations Policy Depart-ment, World Bank report. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

World Bank. (1996). Global economic prospects and developing countries. Wash-ington, D.C.: World Bank.

World Wildlife Fund. (2001). Guidelines for community-based ecotoruism develop-ment. Gland, Switzerland: WWF International.

Xie, H., Bao, J., & Kerstetter, D. To combine or to separate? Examining the effects oftourism impacts on satisfaction with tourism between native and non-nativeresidents. Tourism Management, submitted for publication.

Young, B. (1983). Touristization of traditional Maltese fishing-farming villages.A general model. Tourism Management, 4(1), 35e41.

Young, G. (1973). Tourism: Blessing or blight. Harmondsworth: Pelican/PenguinBooks.