1. Introduction
Tourism leads millions of people to move from their place of residence to a destination, which results in a series of effects on the receiving communities. Many authors have described these impacts, classifying them as economic, sociocultural and environmental [1,2,3,4,5]. However, the interactions and dependencies among the impacts are such that a holistic approach is necessary to understand how tourism affects local communities [6,7,8]. Consequently, based on these considerations, it may be convenient to combine attitude with other variables, such as place attachment, rootedness or satisfaction towards tourism.
Knowledge of the attitude of the local community towards perceived impacts is important, but it is more important to consider how the negative consequences of tourist activity can be alleviated [8]. In this way, the opinions of local residents can be a tool to take into account. Based on this idea, studies on resident attitudes emerged in the 1970s, questioning the innocuous vision of tourism [9]. From that decade to the present, a significant development of research in this field has taken place [10]. The studies carried out in mature destinations are relevant since these areas are the most complex from the social and economic point of view and face the greatest challenges.
One variable that has a close and remarkable relationship with the residents’ attitudes in tourist spaces is place attachment, which is considered a factor that can affect the perception that residents have of the impacts of tourism and their support for tourism development [11,12,13]. Tourism can be a positive factor that increases the level of attachment to the place because it can raise local self-esteem, although it can also cause discomfort among residents [14]. Place attachment plays an important role in supporting tourism development and adapting the local community to the impacts of this development [15,16]. This aspect has singular importance in the mature destinations that have had a very long history with offers concentrated on few tourist products.
The sociodemographic changes that occur in mature destinations, linked to migratory flows present in tourist spaces, have a prominent role in the relationship between population and tourism. One of the usual consequences in these destinations is that the native populations become the minority compared to the new foreign residents. This circumstance is directly related to the level of rootedness, one of the variables used in this study. The native community (born in the municipality) can present differentiated behaviours with respect to non-native residents, as these attitudes are mediated by the cost-benefit relationship with tourism, following the guidelines of the theory of social exchange [17,18,19]. The people born in the municipality would be more willing to support growth and tourist activity.
The viability of a mature destination over time is closely linked to two aspects: the social and political attitudes shown by the local community and the level of satisfaction expressed by residents with the process of development and management of tourism activity. In the tourism literature, several models seek to explain or predict the attitudes and behaviour of residents, depending on the increase in number of tourists in a destination. The well-known models in tourism research were formulated by Doxey [20] (1975) and Butler [21] (1980). These models highlight the problems that mature destinations face, especially irritation from the local community and competitiveness.
The level of satisfaction of the local population with tourism development provides a general assessment of tourism activity, which includes the negative and positive aspects. In addition, the concepts analysed in this study (attitudes, satisfaction, place attachment and rootedness) should allow one to understand the capacity of the population to adapt to the impacts of tourism, that is, its social resilience, within a context of mature destination, as in the case of Benalmádena. This resilience could be related to the factors that we analysed in the research and could be an element that explains the maintenance of the mass tourism model. This research presents several major contributions. First, this research proposes an approach that distinguishes between attachment to place and rootedness, and, for the latter, a new indicator is proposed. The distinction between the variables is fundamental for the understanding of the study and, until now, has not been implemented in the academic field. Second, the analysis of attachment to the place was conducted by taking into account the social and physical dimensions. The latter case used favourite places as places of identification of the residents, which is not standard in attachment studies. Third, the combination of the four variables used for a mature tourist destination is novel and provides a global view of the behaviour of the resident population in these tourism areas.
There are two main objectives of this study (Figure 1):
The first objective of this study is the evaluation of residents’ attitudes towards tourism in a destination and its relationship with the following variables:
- Place attachment (for the purposes of this study, this variable is understood as a social and physical bond with the place of residence).
- Rootedness (here we refer to having been born and/or having parents or children born in a given place).
- Satisfaction level with tourism (assessment of the destination’s tourism development).
- Other sociodemographic variables, such as length of residence, age, and level of education.
The second purpose of this research is the identification of results in the case of a mature destination specialised in mass tourism (Benalmádena, Spain), and its resilience to tourism impacts. This study is structured into five parts. In the first part, the theoretical context of the research is outlined, and the current status of the literature research on attitudes and satisfaction with tourism and place attachment and rootedness are analysed. Secondly, the methodology is presented, and the instrument and scale of analysis are explained. Third, the results of the data and statistical indices are presented. Fourth, the main results on attitude towards tourism, satisfaction, rootedness and place attachment are discussed. Fifth, in the conclusion section, two main issues are debated: the unequal behaviour of rootedness and place attachment and the role of resilience in mature destinations. 2. Theoretical Context and Review of the Literature 2.1. Attitudes toward Tourism and Satisfaction with Tourism Development
The attitudes of the residents regarding the impacts of tourism has been a research topic for over 40 years. Andereck and Vogt [22] pointed out that research on tourism focused on the positive aspects of the impacts of tourism in the 1960s, on the negative aspects in the 1970s and employed a more balanced approach in the 1980s. In the 1970s, residents began to receive greater interest, with the first studies focusing on the residents’ attitudes on the impacts of tourism [23]. These first studies on attitudes were based on the assumption that residents presented homogeneous attitudes towards tourism. However, communities are heterogeneous, and the residents show diverse attitudes towards tourism [24,25]. The study of the residents’ attitudes in relation to the impacts of tourism development has reached a certain consensus around three dimensions: economic, socio-cultural and environmental [1,2,3,11,26].
The analysis of the attitudes from the economic point of view has highlighted, above all, the positive impacts, although these same studies identify problems indicated by the residents themselves. Studies that analyse social and environmental dimensions tend to highlight more problems. Many of the studies carried out in mature destinations, as in this case, find that residents support tourism [24,27,28,29], which contradicts Doxey’s [20] (1975) model regarding the final phases.
Doxey’s [20] theory is the best known regarding the attitude and satisfaction of the local community in relation to the growth of tourist activity. This author proposes four progressive stages in which it is observed that the higher the number of tourists in a destination, the greater the residents’ hostility towards tourists [25]. Residents’ attitudes towards tourism vary from euphoria in the early stages, towards apathy and irritation in the intermediate phases, reaching antagonism in the final phase [30].
Butler’s [21] model is based on the theory of the life cycle of a product [31]. It presents similarities with Doxey’s [20] model, as it is also concerned with the growth in the arrival of tourists in relation to carrying capacity; it establishes five stages in a destination’s evolution and takes into account the role played by local residents and tourist agents in each phase, especially in the last stage of stagnation [32]. This model is more focused on the analysis of the economic viability of the destination.
Research on attitude and satisfaction towards tourism has focused on the identification of the factors that influence these perceptions and condition the attitudes of residents towards tourism. The most influential factors are the sociodemographic variables, level of economic development and dependence (Table 1).
Most studies on satisfaction in tourism have focused on the opinions of tourists [59,60]. Few studies have been interested in the satisfaction of the local population with respect to the development of tourism (Table 1). The satisfaction of the residents has a decisive role since it is a good indicator of the support of the local community towards the development of tourism [54]. The satisfaction of the tourist experience is linked to the interaction with the resident population, as a positive evaluation of the tourist experience by the traveller is related to contact with the local population, either through the workers who provide services or the residents who provide information [6,61].
Some studies on satisfaction in mature destinations indicate that residents show clear dissatisfaction [20,21,62,63,64], which is mediated by an economic dependence on tourism [8,16,39,42,44,45,51,57,58]. Residents of mature destinations that have reached the final stages in the Doxey and Butler models present negative attitudes.
The perception of hospitality has great value in the creation of tourist destinations, while the signs of discomfort towards tourists by local communities can seriously hinder the development of the destination. In the case of Spain, the irritation of some local communities towards mass tourism and other related problems have been grouped around the concept called tourism-phobia, which reflects a current of social criticism towards mass tourism [65,66]. This scenario is applicable to other saturated destinations, mainly in Europe [67].
Based on the models on the development of destinations and the studies analysed regarding residents’ attitude and satisfaction with tourism development, the following hypotheses can be considered (Figure 2):
H1. Residents in mature destinations have a clear negative attitude towards the impact of tourism.
H2. Residents in mature destinations have a clear dissatisfaction with tourism development.
2.2. Place Attachment and Rootedness
One variable that may have a close, significant link with residents’ attitudes in tourism spaces is place attachment, which can affect residents’ perception of the impact of tourism and their support for the sector [11,13]. Place attachment has been studied by diverse disciplines, especially in geography, anthropology, sociology, and psychology, among others. Authors who have studied this subject have outlined different concepts for this construct: sense of place [68], community attachment [69] and place identity [70], although there does not seem to be a common consensus among researchers regarding the place attachment term. Place attachment has been defined as “a positive affective link between a person and the place where he lives” [71]. Other authors have defined place attachment as an individual’s social integration into the community, which reflects an emotional link between the individual and a specific community [40]. This factor reflects the rootedness of an individual and their sense of belonging to a community [69,72]. Whether viewed from the perspective of social geography [73,74] or that of anthropology [75], both agree in understanding the place as a combination of social and cultural interactions, which is in accordance with the definitions mentioned.
Several studies on place attachment distinguish between two dimensions: social and physical [71,76]. The first component refers to the bonds of union between the individual and their community, in fact, some authors point out that places are part of the collective memory that unites the person to their community [77]. The second refers to the environmental context in which the resident lives and their physical elements of identification or satisfaction. More recently, there has been a shift toward a complex, multifaceted concept with central components of affect (emotion), cognition (identity), and behaviour (action) [78]. Thus, place attachment can play an important role in terms of the perception and attitudes of the local community towards social and economic transformations in their community and place of residence [79]. The differentiation between physical and social attachment is taken into account in this research.
Not many studies have analysed place attachment in relation to residents’ attitudes towards tourism development [3,13,38,40,52]. In any case, tourism studies often understand the concept of place attachment as “attachment to destination”, analysed from the perspective of the visitor, their satisfaction and loyalty to the place [80,81]. On the other hand, the attachment of the residents towards the place where they live and their possible relationship with attitudes towards tourism has been little explored, so it is proposed in this study as a line of research. Place attachment has often been measured in relation to residency time and/or in accordance with having grown up or been born in said community [34,36,38,39,40,43]. However, non-tourism studies have measured place attachment using other variables such as affect, identity, dependency, social links, and/or a preference for or sense of pride in the place [82,83].
However, in accordance with the most recent studies on place attachment [82,84], the fact that one was born and/or is living in a specific place does not necessarily mean that one has developed feelings of attachment to the aforementioned community. It is possible to find natives with a low level of pride and/or affection for their community, as well as non-native residents with strong feelings of attachment and satisfaction for the place in which they have chosen to live. For this reason, it is preferable to separate these measurements in a way that simultaneously reflects the objective fact of being born in and belonging to a specific place (a concept we shall call rootedness) and evaluates the subjective affective bond that residents of a tourist destination (whether they are natives or not) have with that place (which will be the actual variable of place attachment). Taking into account previous studies and the research objectives, we propose these two hypotheses (Figure 2):
H3. Residents with higher social place attachment have a more positive attitude towards tourism.
H4. There is a differentiated behaviour in resident attitudes according to the level of place attachment and rootedness.
3. Methodology 3.1. The Study Area
Benalmádena is located in the tourist area of the Costa del Sol (region of Andalusia, Spain); the municipality covers a surface area of 27.2 km2 and has 20 km of coastline. The municipality includes three small tourist towns: Benalmádena Costa, Arroyo de la Miel and Benalmádena Pueblo (old village). Benalmádena Costa was a small fishing village, while the other two were small agricultural villages. The interior of the municipality is occupied by the Sierra de Mijas, which extends to the coast (Figure 3).
The population of Benalmádena has transformed significantly since the advent of mass tourism at the end of the 1950s and has undergone significant demographic growth due to the arrival of new residents. In 1950 the population was 2076 inhabitants and by 2018 the figure had risen to 67,746, representing a population density of 2446 inhabitants per km2 [85]. Benalmádena is a medium-size city on the Costa del Sol, Province of Malaga.
The significant migratory flows that have reached Benalmádena are motivated by its economic dynamism caused by tourism growth and the supply of family housing (non-tourism) for the Malaga metropolitan area. These migratory flows have generated a remarkable demographic growth, which developed parallel to the growth of the hotel offer (Figure 4). Within the context of the European and Spanish economic crisis in 2008–2012, the economic dynamism of Benalmádena was affected, resulting in a drop in migration flows. From 1996 to 2007, this destination experienced a high level of growth in immigrant reception; notably in 2006, with a positive balance of 3467 inhabitants. From 2007 onwards, the drop in immigration can be identified as the main effect of the economic crisis. During 2016 and 2017 the increase in emigrants was mainly due to administrative arrangements (Figure 5).
The demographic structure shows that a minority of the population was born in the municipality of Benalmádena (15.0%). Most residents come from other municipalities in the province of Malaga or the rest of Spain. It is also worth highlighting that 29% of the population was born abroad. As a result of the influx of new residents, it is necessary to point out that more than half of the municipality´s population has spent 10 years or less living in the municipality. This situation, in which the population born in the municipality is a minority, coincides with other mature seaside destinations in Spain, while in urban or interior destinations the native population is mostly over 50% (Table 2).
The urban growth of the municipality has led to construction on 53% of the area covered by the district. This development has been the most intense in the area closest to the coast, in such a way that 78.6% of the first 1000 m of the coastline has been developed [85]. The municipality offers 19,868 regulated bed places, of which 14,329 are in hotels and similar establishments, and 5548 are in apartments [85]. With the evolution of hotel bed-places (Figure 4) the rate of growth can be observed to have decelerated following years of significant increases. This may be linked to the fact that we are dealing with a mature destination that already has a large range of hotels, as well as the effects of the economic crisis in 2008–2012. Meanwhile, in accordance with the number of properties not used as main homes, it is estimated that the municipality has 59,000 unregulated bed places [86]. Taking into account the number of regulated and non-regulated places, the population of the municipality can double during the peak summer season. Tourism is the main sector of the Benalmádena economy. The local economy has been supported by a model of massive seaside tourism, with poorly paid jobs and high tourism seasonality, which causes the closure of many hotels in winter.
The identification of Benalmádena as a mature destination can be made based on the remarkable chronological period dedicated to tourism and the specialization in seaside tourism focused on mass tourism. In general terms, Benalmádena adapts to the main requirements of the stagnation phase pointed out by Butler [21] and other authors [87]. These authors highlight the following variables: stagnation of tourism supply or demand, lack of definition of destination image, predominance of tourists from lower-middle socioeconomic classes, high dependence on repeat tourists and the predominance of artificial versus natural attractions, among other aspects. Other authors [88] link the maturity of a tourist destination with the loss of productivity, stagnation of the economic growth of the destination, obsolescence of the tourist offer and the urban scene. Benalmádena, as a tourist destination, is facing a critical phase of consolidation and/or stagnation. The local government try to implement actions focused on strategies based on the quality of the tourist areas and the improvement of the tourist offer.
3.2. Study Method
3.2.1. Instruments
The questionnaire was the instrument used to obtain information on the opinion of residents regarding the aspects analysed. First, a pilot study was carried out using a sample size of 50 people with the aim of assessing the suitability of the questionnaire. The pilot study was distributed proportionally to gender, age, nationality and district of the municipality. The technical team was in charge of its distribution and completion. This work resulted in an improvement of the Likert scale and explanations of some of the questions. 80% of respondents showed some doubts regarding some of the questions; therefore, we made modifications for better understanding. The definitive sample comprised a total of 770 people, all residents in the municipality of Benalmádena. The total population in the study area was 65,598 inhabitants in 2015. Using the usual generic formula for a simple or systematic random sample with a finite population, as in our case, the result was a sample of 381; however, we decided to expand the sample and reach 770 to obtain more reliable data.
In order to ensure that the sample was fully representative and that all the residents felt their opinions were reflected in the results of the study, proportionate stratified random sampling was carried out. The population of Benalmádena was stratified in accordance with several categories: gender, age (under the age of 20; aged 20 to 44; aged 45 to 64; aged over 65) and being a native or non-native resident (to have been born or not to have been born in Benalmádena (Table 3). The size of each sampling stratum was proportional to its size in the population. This method ensures that the sample is statistically representative of the population, with a margin of error of ±5% and a 2σ (95%) confidence level.
Questionnaires were completed by students, businesspeople, workers from the tourism and/or service sector, civil servants, pensioners, etc., with the aim of reaching the largest number of residents with different characteristics. The technical team distributed 918 questionnaires, 770 of which were correctly answered, 68 were rejected for being incomplete and 80 were lost. They were administered in June 2015 and between October and December of the same year, taking into account the high and low tourism seasons in the municipality. The majority of the questionnaires were self-administered, that is to say, respondents noted down their own answers. The exception was the population group aged over 65, where, due to their difficulty in understanding and writing down the answers, face-to-face and direct interviews were held.
3.2.2. Scales of Analysis of the Questionnaire
The questionnaire was created following a review of the literature [3,7,11,23,27,54,57,89,90,91] and it consisted of three sections: questions linked to sociodemographic aspects; a series of questions used to measure attachment to the community, rootedness, and satisfaction with tourism; and, finally, an attitude scale measuring the general impacts of tourism.
First, the sociodemographic variables used in the questionnaire were: gender, age, respondent´s own place of birth, place of birth, native or non-native (population born in Benalmádena or not), years of residence, place of residence in Benalmádena, and level of education (Table 4).
Second, the attitude scale towards tourism was made up of 21 items, of which 11 are positive aspects of tourism (a positive economic impact, employment, improved quality of life, increased cultural offer, preservation of local traditions, the possibility to mix with residents, an increase in green zones, and environmental protection, among others); and 10 are negative aspects (increased property prices, increased cost of living, seasonal work, an increase in drug and alcohol consumption, more traffic and noise, destruction of the environment, etc.; Table 5). Scale items were adapted from the main authors who have researched this issue [1,2,3,11]. These variables were classified in three main groups (economic, sociocultural, and environmental) and were measured on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 representing “Strongly disagree”, 2: “Disagree”, 3: “Neither agree nor disagree”, 4: “Agree”, and 5: “Strongly agree” [92]. The perception towards each impact of tourism is presented in Table 5.
The general attitude towards tourism was calculated based on the tourism impact items; for this, an average of all the mentioned items was made (Table 6).
Third, in this study, tourism satisfaction levels were evaluated using the following item: “In general, I feel satisfied with the tourist development of Benalmádena.” The response format was a Likert scale with five options. The level of satisfaction is considered a general evaluation of the destination, as well as the expectations of the resident, in relation to the tourist development process [93]. We use a single item to avoid conceptually interfering with the scale of attitudes, and we analyse the differentiated behaviour according to native and non-native resident conditions (Table 6).
Fourth, we measured place attachment from social and physical points of view. The following item was chosen to measure the residents’ social attachment: “I feel proud to live in Benalmádena”, which has been previously used by different authors [78,94,95]. This item reflects a subjective measurement of place attachment, as suggested above. Physical attachment was measured using the item: “What is your favourite place in Benalmádena?” [96]. This question has an open answer, and the results were classified along environmental, urban, and other categories (Table 7 and Figure 6). The level of attachment is related to the variables of native and non-native and place of residence.
Fifth, as a novel contribution, we introduced a method for measuring the level of rootedness, which results from the aggregation of three variables: birthplace, birthplace of a parent, and birthplace of a child (Table 8 and Table 9). This idea arose from the need to know the role that the native population plays in tourist destinations. This study is concerned with identifying any links between the rootedness of residents and their attitude toward tourism (Table 10). Unlike other authors, we consider rootedness as the linking of the resident to the place, by recording their place of birth, as well as that of their parents and their children. We understand that this relationship between the resident and the place is less variable, as opposed to place attachment. The index is a summation of the three conditions (Table 8).
Data were processed using the statistics program SPSS version 19. Reliability analysis, Pearson correlations, chi-squared testing, and stepwise linear regression were carried out to analyse the results. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the scheme of the research.
4. Results 4.1. Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Sample
This section describes the main results obtained from the analysis of the sociodemographic aspects of the survey carried out (Table 4).
The sample is comprised of 378 men and 392 women. The age group between 20 and 44 years stand out, representing 39.5% of the sample, followed by the group between the ages of 45 and 64 (26%). The largest group of residents comes from a municipality within the province of Malaga (32.5%), and the second most prominent group includes those who come from European country (23.2%). Natives of Benalmádena represent only 13.6%; 11.7% are residents who come from somewhere in Spain; 9.6% come from somewhere in the world other than Europe. The majority of the population lives in the small towns of Benalmádena Costa and Arroyo de la Miel (83.9%). Benalmádena Costa has a large proportion of non-native population (92.1%). Residents who were not born in Benalmádena but who have spent more than 11 years living in the municipality represent 60.9% of the sample and they are the largest group. A long way behind, they are followed by non-natives who have lived in the area for between six and ten years (17%), and those who have lived there for between one and five years (14.3%). Lastly, the smallest group includes those that have lived in Benalmádena for less than a year (7.8%). 4.2. Rootedness Level
The rootedness index adds three conditioning factors of the residents; this is reflected in the score (0, 1, 2 and 3; Table 8) (see Methodology). According to these requirements, Group 3 represents those who satisfy the three conditions, which amounts to 2.9%; Group 2 meets two requirements, which amounts to 5.8% of the total sample and Group 1 only meets one requirement and represents 17.5%. Lastly, Group 0 are residents who do not meet any of the three requirements; this group is comprised of the largest number of residents (73.8%), most of whom have arrived in the municipality over the last few years. Group 3 can be considered to have the greatest level of rootedness, while Group 0 has the lowest rootedness rating, or, in any event, they are rootless (Table 9).
4.3. Scale of Attitude of Residents Towards Tourism
Below is a presentation of the internal consistency of the scale used for residents’ attitudes in 21 items, positive and negative (Table 5). The value of Cronbach´s alpha is high on the scale for attitudes towards tourism, 0.76 (n = 21), indicating a good reliability level [97]. The mean values were measured using a five-point Likert scale.
4.4. Descriptive Analysis of Attitudes towards Tourism, Satisfaction, and Place Attachment
Listed below are the average ratings and/or frequencies of the variables analysed in the two resident groups, natives and non-natives (residents who were born in the municipality and those who were not born in Benalmádena) (Table 6). Tourism attitude is a variable that comes from the mean of the 21 tourism impact items. As can be seen, the attitude towards tourism scores in all three groups show a positive attitude (native mean, non-native mean, and total mean). A Student’s t-test was performed to find out the differences between the analysed groups. The group of natives had a less favourable attitude towards tourism than non-natives (t = 3.39; p = 0.01). Regarding satisfaction with tourism, both groups displayed moderately high satisfaction (mean = 3.69; values from 1–5). The Student’s t-test shows that there are no significant differences between both groups (t = −0.02; p = 0.98). 65.7% of residents are quite satisfied with the tourist development.
We observe a very high rate among both native and non-native residents (Table 7) for the social level of attachment. In the case of natives, 92.3% claim to feel proud about living in Benalmádena, as opposed to 1.9% who do not. The percentage of people who feel proud is lower among non-natives (82.4%), although it is still very high, while 4.9% of non-natives state that they do not feel attachment. There is not an estimable difference between the two groups (χ2 = 2.17; p = 0.14).
With respect to the level of physical attachment, we observed that the beach is the favourite place chosen by the population of Benalmádena (20%) (Table 7; Figure 6 and Figure 7). This place is particularly likely to be chosen by young people and residents in Benalmádena Costa and Arroyo de la Miel, especially the native residents. The residents show a remarkable physical attachment to the small towns in which they live, as well as Paloma Park and public facilities (marina, library, sports facilities). Other favourite places include monuments such as the Bil-Bil Castle or the Buddhist Stupa. The greatest concentration of favourite places is located around Benalmádena Costa (Figure 6). The mountain is not a favourite place due to access difficulties, unlike Paloma Park. Taking into account the variable of place of residence, we find that there is a significant relationship between the place of residence and favourite place. Residents tend to choose the area in which they live and the nearby areas as their favourite places (χ2 = 0.00) (Table 7). The residents in Benalmádena Pueblo (the old village) are those who tend to choose their small town as a favourite place (Table 7; Figure 8).
As can be seen in Table 10, the attitude towards tourism correlates positively and significantly with satisfaction with tourism (r = 0.24), attachment (r = 0.26), and level of studies (r = 0.13). The correlation is significant but in a negative sense in the case of years of residence (r = −0.19) and level of attachment (r = −0.09).
Finally, a stepwise linear regression analysis was carried out using attitude towards tourism as the criterion variable, and those that correlated significantly with said attitude as predictors (Table 11). Level of rootedness was found to be non-significant; the variables in the regression were attachment, residence time, satisfaction, and level of education, explaining 13% of the variation in total. A description of the main results of the Pearson correlation and the linear regression is given in the Discussion.
5. Discussion
In this study, we mainly analysed the attitude of residents to the impacts of tourism and its connection to the following variables: place attachment, rootedness, tourism satisfaction, and time of residence by applying correlation analysis and linear regression (Table 10 and Table 11), which provided significant results.
First, the attitude towards tourism in the residents and the groups (native and non-native) is notable; the group of natives had a more favourable attitude than non-natives (Table 6). Therefore, as a positive attitude towards tourism development was found, H1 is rejected.
The analysis shows that the local population has a positive attitude towards tourism (3.49; Table 6). This could be due to the fact that residents in mature destinations are more aware of the effects of tourism, negative and positive. Tourism is part of the daily routine and the local community accumulates a wide historical experience of tourism. This result supports the studies by Madrigal [53] (1993). In some studies, it can be observed that in destinations that have reached the stage of maturity in their lifecycle or experienced intense growth, the attitude and support of residents towards tourism development is clear.
The positive attitude of residents in Benalmádena corresponds with a large number of studies carried out in mature destinations [24,27,28,29,89], which found that the attitude of residents is one of support for tourism. Even in mature national destinations with a “sun and sea” model that have had a history similar to that of Benalmádena, they concluded that while residents acknowledge the negative effects of tourism, they have a positive predisposition towards this sector. There were similar findings in studies carried out by Díaz [2] carried out in Tenerife and Ibiza (Spain). This last destination was studied by Cardona [98] and by Cardona and Serra [99]. Both destinations are characterised by having significant economic dependence on tourism and this activity is what leads residents to value the benefits more than the costs [12].
The destination cycle of evolution proposed by Butler [21] suggests that residents become less supportive of tourism as a destination reaches the latter stages of tourist development. Butler was especially concerned with the stagnation process that takes place in the final stage. Butler points out that during this mature stage there may be resentment towards tourists if stagnation of the tourism area persists. Likewise, there is a certain connection between Butler’s model and the proposal created by Doxey [20] that links the attitude of residents in tourism spaces with the destination’s level of development. The mentioned arguments, as well as the results reached in this study, contradict the theories presented by Butler and Doxey. However, it is necessary to bear in mind that the previously mentioned models have served as a basis for several studies that have criticised the limited capacity of these models in explaining the evolution of numerous destinations [100,101].
Benalmádena is a destination with a long history of tourism within a geographic area (Costa del Sol) that is accustomed to the presence of foreign people. The local population of Benalmádena may show a positive attitude because the residents are accustomed to dealing with tourists and because of the demographic structure of the city, in which a high proportion of the population was born outside of Benalmádena. These aspects would also explain the capacity for adaptation and resilience to the impacts of tourism. In accordance with Cohen [102], in mature and highly professionalised areas, where the population has learned to welcome visitors and to tolerate their peculiar behaviour, contact may be characterised by an absence of aggression and antagonism. A similar attitude is shown by the population of Benidorm (Spain), a destination with characteristics similar to those of Benalmádena [101,103].
Second, tourism satisfaction has been found to be moderately favourable, and there are no differences between the native and non-native population (Table 6). This research is in line with studies by Ko and Stewart [54] and Park, Nunkoo and Yoon [104], which found that the satisfaction of residents in a community is closely linked to the personal and general benefits that tourism provides, considering that the positive benefits outweigh the negative. Therefore, H2 is rejected since residents show a clear satisfaction with tourism development.
Third, we found that the social attachment levels of residents toward Benalmádena is very high (83.7%; 82.4% and 92.3% for non-natives and natives, respectively) (Table 7), and this variable has a close relationship with the attitude towards tourism. Therefore, hypothesis 3 (H3), regarding the positive attitude toward tourism for residents with greater social attachment, is accepted.
The level of social attachment in Benalmádena is quite high among both native and non-native populations. This finding supports the results of McCool & Martin [40] and Vidal [105], who found that people living in communities with a high level of tourism development have a stronger sense of attachment to the community. Newcomers (more than half of the population of the municipality has been living there for less than 10 years) may quickly become attached to a community because they have made a prior choice to come and live in a place that provides them with work and/or they value the comfort of the climate and environment in the area as a place of retreat.
The factor of physical attachment shows results similar to those of other studies evaluating places of nature [96,106]. Therefore, the most valued elements are those related to natural resources, especially beaches. The choice of beaches as a favourite place is logical in a seaside destination. It is also necessary to emphasize that the beach may have a more important place meaning for the native population than the non-native, in line with the Kajan study [14]. As in the Kajan study [14], we found a concentration of places of interest for residents around Benalmádena Costa, so this area has a special symbolic value for residents. The significance of places for Benalmádena residents coincides with the results obtained for tourists, except in the case of the mountains, which are very attractive to tourists due to the landscape [107].
Fourth, with regard to the level of rootedness, we found that the highest percentage group of the population (73.8%) has a minimum level of rootedness (Table 9). That is to say, participants who not only were not born in the area, but they do not have parents or children living in the municipality either. Despite this, and as seen above, the levels of social attachment are very high, which confirms the relevance of separating both concepts. There has often been some confusion about this in prior literature, as discussed in the literature review, and it may explain the wide range of results found in relation to the link between these variables. For this reason, we should consider differentiated behaviour between both indicators, as would be checked later. Therefore, we accept hypothesis 4 (H4) and explain it in more detail at the end of this chapter.
Fifth, regarding the links between variables, the attitude towards tourism appears to positively correlate with social place attachment and satisfaction, implying that residents have a more positive attitude towards tourism in relation to these aforementioned variables (Table 10). This result is consistent with hypothesis 3 (H3) regarding the relationship between social attachment and attitude towards tourism.
(i)
Social place attachment has the highest correlation with attitude toward tourism, which confirms the importance of this link in accordance with prior studies [6,11,38,40,72]. The positive relationship of social attachment with the attitude toward tourism may indicate that the existence of affective bonds with the place of residence can add nuance and modulate the negative impacts derived from tourism, as has been observed with natural disasters and the persistence of the population in occupying the same zones [108]. In turn, this fact is linked to the social resilience that is discussed in the conclusions.
(ii)
Satisfaction with tourism also has a positive link with attitude, which may confirm the connection between the two variables [16,45].
The variables with a slight and negative correlation are the following:
(i)
Years of residence and level of rootedness: it was found that there are differences in the attitude between participants with longer or shorter terms of residence in Benalmádena (Table 10). As the years go by, residents display a somewhat more negative attitude.
(ii)
The same process happens with the rootedness variable: the higher the level of rootedness, the less favourable the attitude towards tourism; likewise, in the regression analysis, rootedness is not a significant variable, while social attachment is (Table 11).
These results are in line with the studies by Besculides, Lee and McCormick [35], Um & Crompton [13], Lankford & Howard [39], Haley, Snaith and Miller [37], Martínez-García, Raya and Majó [4], who found that natives and residents who have spent more time living in a destination had less favourable attitudes towards tourism than those with short-term residences. This may be because residents with more years of residence in the municipality have seen more evidence of the negative effects of tourism [37]. Permanent residents are more sensitive to the impacts of tourism because they have witnessed the changes that have occurred in their way of life [43], or they feel that the peacefulness and natural resources of their environment are being lost [7].
The same explanation could apply to residents with a higher level of rootedness. This group has witnessed the changes that have taken place in Benalmádena, they have seen the alterations of the landscape, and have witnessed the tourism development in the destination. It could be said that these residents connect their personal wellbeing with the area where they live. In relation to hypothesis 4 (H4), it can be concluded that this proposal is accepted since the residents with the highest level of rootedness show a more negative attitude towards tourism and its development, unlike the residents with the highest level of social attachment which is linked to a more positive attitude towards tourism. For this reason, these two indicators have been separated from a methodological point of view. 6. Conclusions 6.1. Contributions After analysing a series of variables that explain the attitude of residents towards tourism, the major contributions can be summarised as follows:
(i) We chose to conceptually and empirically separate the place attachment and rootedness variables and their link to the attitudes of residents towards tourism. Using the obtained results, these variables were found to behave differently: social attachment correlates positively with attitudes towards tourism; rootedness, on the other hand, has a negative correlation. That is to say, stronger attachment means a better attitude towards tourism, whereas greater rootedness suggests a worse attitude towards it (Figure 9). This distinction has not been made in other similar studies and we believe it is highly important to make this clarification. We also created and used our own indicator to measure rootedness, which is the sum of three intersections or conditioning factors of the demographic characteristics of residents. This proposal is especially suitable for mature tourism areas that have a very small native population, as in the case of Benalmádena. There are no comparative studies for this indicator; however, the results show that the higher the level of rootedness, the less favourable the attitude towards tourism. This could be explained by the fact that residents with strong community ties are more concerned with the negative effects of tourism than those with weaker links [35].
(ii) There are few studies regarding social resilience in mature tourism areas [15,109,110], as most of the studies focus on destinations with low environmental impact, especially sustainable tourism destinations. The mature destinations that rely on mass tourism show high economic, social and environmental vulnerability (Table 12). The survival of these destinations is linked to their ability to absorb disturbances and reorganise to maintain their competitiveness and growth [111]. Benalmádena is a good example of a vulnerable destination, since it is highly dependent on the consumption of natural resources (land, water, etc.) [112]. This model needs constant population rotation to maintain an unsustainable model of mass tourism, which is dependent on continuous growth. The high proportion of the non-native population that has migrated to Benalmádena to work in the tourism sector favours the maintenance of the current model. This statement is in accordance with Gómez’s study for the Costa del Sol [113].
Faced with these vulnerabilities, it is observed that many of the mature destinations manage to overcome these weaknesses. The resilience factors appear to be related to professional management and useful governance, in such a way that the residents are more capable of adjusting to the impact caused by tourism [4,88,110,114,115,116,117]. The extensive tourism experience of Benalmádena and the importance of tourism in the political agenda of the local government would explain the maintenance of the tourism model, despite the successive crises that tourism has suffered on the Costa del Sol since the middle of the 20th century.
Some previous studies have highlighted factors of social structure that increase social resilience [118]. These variables include the strength of social networks, social self-organisation, collaborative governance, economic diversification, social diversity, satisfaction with tourism, and the connection between the local community and places of reference or place attachment (many of these elements are related to social capital concept). Some studies highlight a high level of social place attachment that may explain the level of social resilience [119] and support for tourism [105].
Benalmádena residents demonstrate a persistent likelihood to stay where they live, accept the impacts of tourism and improve economic and environmental processes so that tourism activities continue to function. The level of satisfaction with tourist activity has a role similar to that of place attachment. These aspects coincide with what occurs in Benalmádena. The factors of attitude and satisfaction towards tourism together the place attachment must be understood within the scope of the theory of Social Exchange, and it would better explain the adaptation to the impacts, rather than the social capital of the Benalmádena society. Likewise, in our study area, the continual arrival of an immigrant population to Benalmádena, people who have made the choice to live in a mature tourist destination, determines a more positive and resilient behaviour towards tourism, and probably this behaviour supports the growing model of mass tourism. These facts are related to the low proportion of the population who were born in Benalmádena, as discussed above. This situation is in accordance with other Spanish mature destinations (Table 2 and Table 12). The results in Benalmádena can be extrapolated to the municipalities of the Western Costa del Sol, due to the similar socio-economic characteristics. Benalmádena shares the tourist evolution of the Costa del Sol.
This panorama of resilience in mature tourist destinations is in contrast with the hostility shown in areas or destinations that were not expressly created for tourism and support a high tourism pressure, such as Barcelona or Venice [120,121]. This situation has given rise to what is called tourism-phobia in several European destinations [65]. The residents’ annoyance in tourist areas is a vulnerability that mature destinations should take into account.
6.2. Implications
The findings provided by this research should be considered when planning and managing tourism policies. Residents may play a role in deterring the tourism sector if the local community exhibits hostile behaviour towards tourists, whereas a friendly and hospitable local population is a factor for success. The link between rootedness and a greater awareness of the problems and benefits caused by tourism is a highly significant factor that should be considered in destination development. Rootedness may play a highly positive role in local governance [122] and in social resilience policies. There is no doubt that the attitude of residents towards the proposed tourism model should be considered in the planning of tourism policies [123], as community participation in the planning and development of a tourist destination is essential to achieving sustainable tourism development [89]. Therefore, the local community itself should play an active role and participate in the design and management of tourism [4,16,124]. The shift towards a less vulnerable and more sustainable tourism model closely depends on the attitudes of residents.
6.3. Limitations This research should be conducted with destinations of different typologies (cultural, rural) and in various stages of development. Likewise, it would be interesting to complement the results with a qualitative analysis.
![View Image - Figure 4. Compared evolution of hotel supply and population in Benalmádena. Source: [85].](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/8/37eaG?_a=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&_s=FIGXOCwFrLnG4GvDUlJK1pij98w%3D "View Image - Figure 4. Compared evolution of hotel supply and population in Benalmádena. Source: [85].")
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. Compared evolution of hotel supply and population in Benalmádena. Source: [85].
![View Image - Figure 5. Evolution of migrations in Benalmádena (1988-2014). Source: [85].](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/10/37eaG?_a=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&_s=q4hGfImHzJvDmkXxCullNTYX%2FFE%3D "View Image - Figure 5. Evolution of migrations in Benalmádena (1988-2014). Source: [85].")
| Demographics | ||
| Place of birth | Attitude | Almeida, Balbuena & Cortés, 2015 [26]; Almeida, Peláez, Balbuena & Cortés, 2016 [33]; Davis, Allen & Cosenza, 1988 [34]; Um & Crompton 1987 [13] |
| Years of residence | Attitude | Besculides, Lee, & McCormick, 2002 [35]; Brougham & Butler 1981 [36]; Davis et al., 1988 [34]; Haley, Snaith & Miller, 2005 [37]; Jurowski, Uysal, & Williams, 1997 [38]; Kuvan & Akan, 2005 [7]; Lankford & Howard, 1994 [39]; McCool & Martin 1994 [40]; McGehee & Andereck, 2004 [41]; Stylidis, 2018 [12]; Wang & Chen, 2015 [16] |
| Satisfaction | Besculides et al., 2002 [35]; Davis et al., 1988 [34]; Haley et al, 2005 [37]; Harrill, 2004 [42]; Kuvan & Akan, 2005 [7]; Lankford & Howard, 1994 [39]; McGehee & Andereck, 2004 [41]; Sheldon & Var 1984 [43]; Um & Crompton, 1987 [13] | |
| Education level | Attitude | Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003 [24]; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996 [44]; Hernández, Cohen & García, 1996 [32]; Kuvan & Akan, 2005 [7]; Rasoolimanesh, Jaafar, Kock & Ramayah, 2015 [45]; Sheldon & Abenoja, 2001 [29]; Teye, Sönmez & Sirakaya, 2002 [46]; Tournois & Djeric, 2018 [5] |
| Age | Attitude | Bujosa & Rosselló, 2007 [47]; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996 [44]; Kuvan & Akan, 2005 [7]; McGehee & Andereck, 2004 [41]; Rasoolimanesh, et al., 2015 [45]; Sheldon and Abenoja, 2001 [29]; Tournois & Djeric, 2018 [5] |
| Socioeconomics | ||
| Level of economic development | Attitude | Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003 [24]; Andriotis, 2005 [48]; Diedrich & García, 2009 [30]; Eusébio, Vieira, & Lima, 2018 [6]; Hernández et al., 1996 [32]; Liu & Li, 2018 [49]; Smith & Krannich, 1998 [50]; Stylidis, 2018 [12]; Vargas, Oom do Valle, Da Costa & Albino, 2015 [51]; Yoon, Gursoy, & Chen, 1999 [52] |
| Satisfaction | Alrwajfah, Almeida, & Cortés, 2019 [53]; Ko & Stewart, 2002 [54]; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2010 [55]; Smith & Krannich, 1998 [50]; Vargas et al., 2009 [23]; Wang & Chen, 2015 [16] | |
| Level of economic dependence | Attitude | Almeida, et al., 2016 [33]; Andereck et al., 2005 [1]; Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003 [24]; Bujosa & Rosselló, 2007 [47]; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996 [44]; Kuvan & Akan, 2005 [7]; Lankford & Howard, 1994 [39]; Liu & Var, 1986 [27]; Jani, 2018 [18]; Madrigal, 1993 [56]; Milman & Pizam, 1988 [28]; Rasoolimanesh, et al., 2015 [45]; Teye et al., 2002 [46]; Vargas et al., 2015 [51] |
| Satisfaction | Akis, Peristianis & Warner, 1996 [57]; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996 [44]; Harrill, 2004 [42]; Lankford & Howard, 1994 [39]; Lawson, Williams, Young & Cossens, 1998 [58]; Liu et al., 1987 [8]; Rasoolimanesh, et al., 2015 [45]; Vargas et al., 2015 [51]; Wang & Chen, 2015 [16] |
| City and Rural Destination | % | Seaside Destination | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Madrid | 50.7 | Benidorm | 16.6 |
| Barcelona | 51.9 | Calviá | 10.1 |
| Sevilla | 66.6 | Salou | 9.5 |
| Ronda | 67.7 | Lloret de Mar | 17.8 |
| Jaca | 44.1 | S. Bartolomé de Tirajana | 27.0 |
| Cangas de Onís | 52.2 | Torremolinos | 12.6 |
| Origen | Gender | Age |
|---|---|---|
| Native | Male | Less than 20 years |
| Between 20 and 44 years | ||
| Immigrants Spaniards, foreigners | Female | Between 45 and 65 years |
| More than 65 years |
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Place of residence | ||||
| Male | 378 | 49.1 | Benalmádena Pueblo | 124 | 16.1 |
| Female | 392 | 50.9 | Benalmádena Costa | 291 | 37.8 |
| Total | 770 | 100.0 | Arroyo de la Miel | 355 | 46.1 |
| Age (years) | Level of education | ||||
| Under the age of 20 | 158 | 20.5 | No education | 35 | 4.5 |
| Aged 20 to 44 | 304 | 39.5 | Primary education | 140 | 18.2 |
| Aged 45 to 64 | 200 | 26.0 | Secondary education | 404 | 52.5 |
| Aged over 65 | 108 | 14.0 | University education | 191 | 24.8 |
| Total | 770 | 100.0 | Total | 770 | 100.0 |
| Place of birth | Years of residence | ||||
| Benalmádena | 105 | 13.6 | Less than 1 year | 50 | 6.5 |
| Province of Malaga | 250 | 32.5 | Between 1 and 5 years | 91 | 11.8 |
| Province of Andalusia | 72 | 9.4 | Between 6 and 10 years | 108 | 14.0 |
| Province of Spain | 90 | 11.7 | Over 11 years | 388 | 60.9 |
| Country in Europe | 179 | 23.2 | Missing | 133 | 17.3 |
| Other | 74 | 9.6 | Total | 770 | 100.0 |
| Total | 770 | 100.0 | |||
| Native, non-native population | |||||
| Native | 105 | 13.6 | |||
| Non native | 665 | 86.4 | |||
| Total | 770 | 100.0 | |||
| Positive Impacts | Item Mean | Cronbach’s Alpha | Negative Impacts | Item Mean | Cronbach’s Alpha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tourism is the main economic activity in Benalmádena | 4.24 | 0.76 | Tourism increases house prices | 3.76 | 0.76 |
| Due to tourism more roads and developments are built | 3.42 | 0.77 | Tourism increases living costs | 3.74 | 0.75 |
| Tourism creates employment | 4.10 | 0.75 | Tourism generates employment instability | 3.07 | 0.74 |
| Tourism improves quality of life | 3.79 | 0.74 | Tourism increases pollution | 3.60 | 0.73 |
| Due to tourism there are more cultural activities | 3.35 | 0.75 | Tourism causes more crime | 3.33 | 0.73 |
| Due to tourism public services are improved | 3.24 | 0.74 | Tourism causes more traffic jams | 3.73 | 0.74 |
| Tourism stimulates local fiestas | 3.75 | 0.75 | Due to tourism local fiestas are lost | 2.41 | 0.75 |
| I mix with foreigners who do not speak Spanish | 3.59 | 0.75 | Due to tourism more alcohol and drugs are consumed | 3.46 | 0.73 |
| I mix with foreigners who speak Spanish | 3.96 | 0.75 | Tourism damages the natural surroundings | 3.37 | 0.73 |
| Due to tourism there are more gardens and public parks in the town | 3.28 | 0.74 | Due to tourism there is overcrowding in Benalmádena | 3.12 | 0.74 |
| Tourism protects the environment | 2.77 | 0.74 | |||
| Mean | 3.59 | 0.75 | Mean | 3.36 | 0.74 |
| N | Mean | Standard Deviation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tourism satisfaction | Non-native | 665 | 3.69 | 0.88 |
| Native | 105 | 3.69 | 0.99 | |
| Total | 770 | 3.69 | 0.91 | |
| Tourism attitude | Non-native | 665 | 3.47 | 0.40 |
| Native | 105 | 3.62 | 0.39 | |
| Total | 770 | 3.49 | 0.41 |
| Social Attachment | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feel Proud of Living in Benalmádena (%) | Resident Place | |||||
| Mean | Native | Non-Native | Benalmád. Pueblo | Benalmád. Costa | Arroyo de la Miel | |
| Yes | 83.7 | 92.3 | 82.4 | 16.6 | 36.8 | 46.6 |
| No | 4.5 | 1.9 | 4.9 | 11.8 | 38.2 | 50.0 |
| I do not know | 11.8 | 5.8 | 12.8 | 14.4 | 42.2 | 43.3 |
| Physical Attachment | ||||||
| Favourite places in Benalmádena (%) | Resident Place | |||||
| Place Categories | Mean | Native | Non-Native | Benalmád. Pueblo | Benalmád. Costa | Arroyo de la Miel |
| Benalmádena Costa | 15.0 | 8.1 | 16.1 | 16.9 | 22.2 | 8.7 |
| Benalmádena Pueblo | 11.1 | 15.2 | 10.5 | 42.4 | 5.5 | 4.9 |
| Arroyo de la Miel | 14.1 | 15.2 | 13.9 | 6.8 | 9.5 | 20.2 |
| Beach | 20.8 | 28.3 | 19.7 | 14.4 | 21.4 | 22.6 |
| Paloma Park | 13.0 | 10.1 | 13.4 | 5.9 | 13.1 | 15.3 |
| Mountains | 1.9 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 2.2 | 2.0 |
| Public Facilities | 13.3 | 10.1 | 13.7 | 3.3 | 16.4 | 13.9 |
| Others | 10.8 | 11.1 | 10.8 | 9.5 | 9.7 | 12.4 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Variable Name | Description | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rootedness index (RI) | RI = pr + or + cr | 0 | 3 |
| Parent rootedness (pr) | Dummy variable that takes the value 1 if a parent was born in Benalmádena and 0 if elsewhere | 0 | 1 |
| Own rootedness (or) | Dummy variable that takes the value 1 if the respondent was born in Benalmádena and 0 if elsewhere | 0 | 1 |
| Child rootedness (cr) | Dummy variable that takes the value 1 if a son/daughter was born in Benalmádena and 0 if elsewhere | 0 | 1 |
| Score | Frequency | Percentage | Valid Percentage | Cumulative Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 568 | 73.8 | 73.8 | 73.8 |
| 1 | 135 | 17.5 | 17.5 | 91.3 |
| 2 | 45 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 97.1 |
| 3 | 22 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 100.0 |
| Total | 770 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Place Attachment | 0.26 ** |
|---|---|
| Tourism Satisfaction | 0.24 ** |
| Level of studies | 0.13 ** |
| Years of residence | −0.19 * |
| Age | 0.04 |
| Rootedness | −0.09 * |
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
| Beta | Adjusted R | F | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attachment | 0.23 | 0.08 | 49.03 ** |
| Years of residence | −0.11 | 0.09 | 31.48 ** |
| Satisfaction | 0.15 | 0.11 | 25.26 ** |
| Level of education | 0.13 | 0.13 | 22.03 ** |
Note: ** p < 0.01.
| Weaknesses | Strengths |
|---|---|
| Economic vulnerability: dependence on mass tourism (increase in tourists, low cost airlines, etc.) | Governance and professional tourist management |
| Environmental vulnerability: consumption of natural resources (land, water, air, landscape, etc.) | Satisfaction with tourism development and high level of attachment |
| Socio-economic vulnerability: poorly paid jobs, economic dependency, high turnover of population, low level of rootedness | Socially diverse community. High level of non-native population |
Author Contributions
F.A.-G.: Writing-reviewing and editing, supervision, discussion and conclusions; R.C.-M.: Data curation; validation, formal analysis, funding, methodology and introduction; A.B.-V.: Writing-original draft preparation, investigation, statistical analysis and literature review; M.C.-H.: Statistical analysis, research resources, visualization, project administration, conceptualization and results. All authors have read and agree to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
The research was supported by the research projects: "Transformations of the historical urban landscape induced by tourism: contradictions and controversies, government and local governance" (CSO2016- 75470-R); "Over-tourism in Spanish coastal Destinations. Tourism de- growth strategies. An approach from the social dimension" (RTI2018- 094844-B-C33), Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (National Plan for R+D+i).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
1. 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.
2. Díaz, R. La actitud del residente en el destino turístico de Tenerife: Evaluación y tendencia. PASOS Rev. Tur. Patrim. Cult. 2010, 8, 431-444.
3. Gursoy, D.; Jurowski, C.; Uysal, M. Resident attitudes: A structural modeling approach. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002, 29, 79-105.
4. Martínez-García, E.; Raya, J.M.; Majó, J. Differences in residents' attitudes towards tourism among mass tourism destinations. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2017, 19, 535-545.
5. Tournois, L.; Djeric, G. Evaluating urban residents' attitudes towards tourism development in Belgrade (Serbia). Curr. Issues Tour. 2019, 22, 1670-1678.
6. Eusébio, C.; Vieira, A.L.; Lima, S. Place attachment, host-tourist interactions, and residents' attitudes towards tourism development: The case of Boa Vista Island in Cape Verde. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 890-909.
7. Kuvan, Y.; Akan, P. Residents' attitudes toward general and forest-related impacts of tourism: The case of Belek, Antalya. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 691-706.
8. Liu, J.; Sheldon, P.; Var, T. Resident perception of the environmental impacts of tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1987, 14, 17-37.
9. De Kadt, E. Tourism: Passport to development. In Perspectives on the Social and Cultural Effects of Tourism in Developing Countries; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1979.
10. Sirakaya, E.; Teye, V.; Sönmez, S. Understanding residents' support for tourism development in the Central Region of Ghana. J. Travel Res. 2002, 41, 57-67.
11. Gursoy, D.; Rutherford, D. Host attitudes toward tourism: An improved structural model. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 495-516.
12. Stylidis, D. Place attachment, perception of place and residents' support for tourism development. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2018, 15, 188-210.
13. Um, S.; Crompton, L. Measuring resident's attachment levels in a host community. J. Travel Res. 1987, 26, 27-29.
14. Kajan, E. Community perceptions to place attachment and tourism development in Finnish Lapland. Tour. Geogr. 2014, 16, 490-511.
15. Lew, A.A.; Cheer, J.M. (Eds.) Tourism, Resilience and Sustainability: Adapting to Social, Political and Economic Change; Routledge: London, UK, 2018.
16. Wang, S.; Chen, J. The influence of place identity on perceived tourism impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 2015, 52, 16-28.
17. Bimonte, S.; Punzo, L.F. Tourist development and host-guest interaction: An economic exchange theory. Ann. Tour. Res. 2016, 58, 128-139.
18. Jani, D. Residents' perception of tourism impacts in Kilimanjaro: An integration of the Social Exchange Theory. Tourism 2018, 66, 148-160.
19. Sharpley, R. Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tour. Manag. 2014, 42, 37-49.
20. Doxey, G. 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 September 1975; pp. 195-198.
21. Butler, R. The concept of a tourist area life cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. Can. Geogr. 1980, 19, 5-12.
22. Andereck, K.L.; Vogt, C.A. The relationship between residents' attitudes toward tourism and tourism development options. J. Travel Res. 2000, 39, 27-36.
23. Vargas, A.; Plaza, M.; Porras, N. Understanding residents' attitudes toward the development of industrial tourism in a former mining community. J. Travel Res. 2009, 47, 373-387.
24. Andriotis, K.; Vaughan, D. Urban residents' attitudes towards tourism development: The case of Crete. J. Travel Res. 2003, 42, 172-185.
25. Mason, P.; Cheyne, J. Residents attitudes to proposed tourism development. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000, 27, 391-411.
26. Almeida, F.; Balbuena, A.; Cortés, R. Resident's attitudes towards the impacts of tourism. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2015, 13, 33-40.
27. Liu, J.; Var, T. Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii. Ann. Tour. Res. 1986, 13, 193-214.
28. Milman, A.; Pizam, A. Social impacts of tourism on Central Florida. Ann. Tour. Res. 1988, 15, 191-204.
29. Sheldon, P.; Abenoja, T. Resident attitudes in a mature destination: The case of Waikiki. Tour. Manag. 2001, 22, 435-443.
30. Diedrich, A.; García, E. Local perceptions of tourism as indicators of destination decline. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 512-521.
31. Agarwal, S. The resort cycle and seaside tourism: An assessment of its applicability and validity. Tour. Manag. 1997, 18, 65-73.
32. Hernández, S.; Cohen, J.; García, H. Residents' attitudes towards an instant resort enclave. Ann. Tour. Res. 1996, 23, 755-779.
33. Almeida, F.; Peláez, M.A.; Balbuena, A.; Cortés, R. Residents' perceptions of tourism development in Benalmádena (Spain). Tour. Manag. 2016, 54, 259-274.
34. Davis, D.; Allen, J.; Cosenza, R. Segmenting residents by their attitudes, interests, and opinions toward tourism. J. Travel Res. 1988, 28, 2-8.
35. Besculides, A.; Lee, M.; McCormick, P. Residents' perceptions of the cultural benefits of tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002, 29, 303-319.
36. Brougham, J.; Butler, R. A segmentation analysis of resident attitudes to social impact of tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1981, 8, 569-590.
37. Haley, A.; Snaith, T.; Miller, G. The social impacts of tourism: A case study of Bath, UK. Ann. Tour. Res. 2005, 32, 647-668.
38. Jurowski, C.; Uysal, M.; Williams, R. A theoretical analysis of host community resident reactions to tourism. J. Travel Res. 1997, 36, 3-11.
39. Lankford, S.; Howard, D. Developing a tourism impact attitude scale. Ann. Tour. Res. 1994, 21, 121-139.
40. McCool, S.; Martin, S. Community attachment and attitudes toward tourism development. J. Travel Res. 1994, 32, 29-34.
41. McGehee, N.; Andereck, K. Factors predicting rural residents´ support of tourism. J. Travel Res. 2004, 43, 131-140.
42. Harrill, R. Residents' attitudes toward tourism development: A literature review with implications for tourism planning. J. Plan. Lit. 2004, 18, 251-266.
43. Sheldon, P.; Var, T. Residents attitudes toward tourism in North Wales. Tour. Manag. 1984, 5, 40-47.
44. Haralambopoulos, N.; Pizam, A. Perceived impacts of tourism: The case of Samos. Ann. Tour. Res. 1996, 23, 503-526.
45. 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.
46. Teye, V.; Sönmez, S.; Sirakaya, E. Residents' attitudes toward tourism development. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002, 29, 668-688.
47. Bujosa, A.; Rosselló, J. Modelling environmental attitudes toward tourism. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 688-695.
48. Andriotis, K. Community groups' perceptions of and preferences for tourism development: Evidence from Crete. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2005, 29, 67-90.
49. Liu, X.R.; Li, J.J. Host perceptions of tourism impact and stage of destination development in a developing country. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2300.
50. Smith, M.; Krannich, R. Tourism dependence and resident attitudes. Ann. Tour. Res. 1998, 25, 783-802.
51. Vargas, A.; Oom do Valle, P.; Da Costa, J.; Albino, J. Residents' attitude and level of destination development: An international comparison. Tour. Manag. 2015, 48, 199-210.
52. Yoon, Y.; Gursoy, D.; Chen, J. An investigation of the relationship between tourism impacts and host communities' characteristics. Anatolia Int. J. Tour. Hosp. Res. 1999, 10, 29-44.
53. Alrwajfah, M.M.; Almeida-García, F.; Cortés-Macías, R. Residents' perceptions and satisfaction toward tourism development: A case study of Petra Region, Jordan. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1907.
54. Ko, D.; Stewart, W. A structural equation model of residents' attitudes for tourism development. Tour. Manag. 2002, 23, 521-530.
55. Nunkoo, R.; Ramkissoon, H. Gendered theory of planned behavior and resident support for tourism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2010, 13, 525-540.
56. Madrigal, R. A tale of tourism in two cities. Ann. Tour. Res. 1993, 22, 336-353.
57. Akis, S.; Peristianis, N.; Warner, J. Residents attitudes to tourism development: The case of Cyprus. Tour. Manag. 1996, 17, 481-494.
58. Lawson, R.W.; Williams, J.; Young, T.A.C.J.; Cossens, J. A comparison of residents' attitudes towards tourism in 10 New Zealand destinations. Tour. Manag. 1998, 19, 247-256.
59. Joppe, M.; Martin, D.; Waalen, J. Toronto's image as a destination: A comparative importance-satisfaction analysis by origin of visitor. J. Travel Res. 2001, 39, 252-260.
60. Kozak, M.; Rimmington, M. Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-season holiday destination. J. Travel Res. 2000, 38, 260-269.
61. Marsh, N.R.; Henshall, B.D. Planning better tourism: The strategic importance of tourist-resident expectations and interactions. Tour. Recreat. Res. 1987, 12, 47-54.
62. Butler, R. The concept of carrying capacity for tourism destinations: Dead or merely buried. Prog. Tour. Hosp. Res. 1996, 2, 283-293.
63. Butler, R. Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review. Tour. Geogr. 1999, 1, 7-25.
64. Butler, R. The tourism area life cycle in the twenty-first century. In Tourism: Conceptualizations, Institutions, and Issues; Hall, C.M., Williams, A.M., Lew, A.A., Eds.; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2004; pp. 159-169.
65. Almeida-García, F.; Cortés-Macías, R.; Balbuena-Vázquez, A. Tourism-phobia in historic centres: The case of Malaga. Boletín Asoc. Geógrafos Españoles 2019, 83, 13.
66. Huete, R.; Mantecon, A. The rise of tourism-phobia. Research hypothesis or ideological noise? PASOS Rev. Tur. Patrim. Cult. 2018, 16, 9-19.
67. Milano, C. Overtourism, malestar social y turismofobia. Un debate controvertido. PASOS Rev. Tur. Patrim. Cult. 2018, 16, 551-564.
68. Hummon, D.M. Community attachment: Local sentiment and sense of place. In Place Attachment; Altman, I., Low, S., Eds.; Plenum: New York, NY, USA, 1992.
69. Kasarda, J.; Janowitz, M. Community attachment in mass society. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1974, 39, 328-339.
70. Proshansky, H.M. The city and self-identity. Environ. Behav. 1978, 10, 140-170.
71. Hidalgo, M.; Hernández, B. Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 273-281.
72. Lee, T.H. Influence analysis of community resident support for sustainable tourism development. Tour. Manag. 2013, 34, 37-46.
73. Massey, D.B.; Jess, P. (Eds.) A Place in the World? Places, Cultures and Globalization; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1995; p. 45.
74. Tuan, Y.F. Language and the making of place: A narrative-descriptive approach. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 1991, 81, 684-696.
75. Leonard, S.P. The need to 'belong': Social connectedness and spatial attachment in Polar Eskimo settlements. Polar Rec. 2014, 50, 138-146.
76. Giuliani, M.V. Theory of attachment and place attachment. In Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues; Bonnes, M., Lee, T., Bonaiuto, M., Eds.; Ashgate: Aldershot, UK, 2003; pp. 137-170.
77. Woosnam, K.M.; Aleshinloye, K.D.; Ribeiro, M.A.; Stylidis, D.; Jiang, J.; Erul, E. Social determinants of place attachment at a World Heritage Site. Tour. Manag. 2018, 67, 139-146.
78. Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 1-10.
79. Nicholas, L.; Thapa, B.; Ko, Y. Residents' perspectives of a world heritage site: The Pitons management area, St. Lucia. Ann. Tour. Res. 2009, 36, 390-412.
80. Alegre, J.; Juaneda, C. Destination loyalty: Consumers' economic behavior. Ann. Tour. Res. 2006, 33, 684-706.
81. Ramkissoon, H.; Graham, L.; Weiler, B. Testing the dimensionality of place attachment and its relationships with place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviours: A structural equation modeling approach. Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 552-566.
82. Hernández, B.; Hidalgo, M.; Ruiz, C. Theoretical and methodological aspects of research on place attachment. In Place Attachment, Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications; Manzo, L., Devine-Wright, P., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2014; pp. 125-137.
83. Hidalgo, M. Operationalization of place attachment: A consensus proposal. Stud. Psychol. 2014, 34, 251-259.
84. Hernández, B.; Hidalgo, M.C.; Salazar-Laplace, M.E.; Hess, S. Places attachment and place identity in natives and no natives. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 310-319.
85. SIMA (Sistema de Información Multiterritorial de Andalucía). Acceso a Datos. Instituto de Estadística y Cartografía: Andalusia, Spain, 2018. Available online: http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/institutodeestadisticaycartografia/sima/index2.htm (accessed on 15 March 2018).
86. INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadística). Censo de Población y Viviendas 2011. 2016. Available online: http://www.ine.es/ (accessed on 15 May 2017).
87. Parra, E.; Melchior, M.; Fuentes, L. Dinámicas de transformación de un destino turístico maduro. In Destinos Turísticos Maduros ante el Cambio. Reflexiones desde Canarias; Hernández, R., Santana, A., Eds.; Universidad de la Laguna: La Laguna, Spain, 2010; pp. 217-232.
88. Rodríguez, I.; Conejero, A.M. Renovación de destinos turísticos maduros, expertos y grupos de interés, discurso global-local y escenarios de futuro: El caso de Benidorm. Tour. Manag. Stud. 2011, 1, 969-981.
89. 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.
90. Johnson, J.; Snepenger, D.; Akis, S. Residents perceptions of tourism development. Ann. Tour. Res. 1994, 21, 629-642.
91. Williams, J.; Lawson, R. Community issues and resident opinions of tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2001, 28, 269-290.
92. Nunkoo, R.; Gursoy, D. Residents' support for tourism an identity perspective. Ann. Tour. Res. 2012, 39, 243-268.
93. Rodríguez del Bosque, I.; San Martín, H. La satisfacción del turista: Un modelo cognitivo-afectivo. Ann. Tour. Res. 2008, 10, 122-145.
94. Lewicka, M. What makes neighborhood different from home and city? Effects of place scale on place attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 35-51.
95. Scopelliti, M.; Tiberio, L. Homesickness in University Students: The Role of Multiple Place Attachment. Environ. Behav. 2010, 42, 335-350.
96. Korpela, K.; Hartig, T. Restorative qualities of favourite places. J. Environ. Psychol. 1996, 16, 221-233.
97. Luque, T. Investigación de Marketing; Ariel: Barcelona, Spain, 1997.
98. Cardona, J. Actitudes de los Residentes Hacia el Turismo en Destinos Turísticos Consolidados: El Caso de Ibiza. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Balearic Islands, Palma de Mallorca, Spain, 2012. (Unpublished).
99. Cardona, J.R.; Serra, A. Historia del turismo en Ibiza: Aplicación del Ciclo de Vida del destino Turístico en un destino maduro del Mediterráneo. PASOS Rev. Tur. Patrim. Cult. 2014, 12, 899-913.
100. Pavlic, I.; Portolan, A. Irritation index, tourism. In Encyclopedia of Tourism; Jafari, J., Xiao, H., Eds.; Springer: Basel, Switzerland, 2015.
101. Vera, J.F.; López, F.; Marchena, M.; Antón, S. Análisis Territorial del Turismo y Planificación de Destinos Turísticos; Tirant Lo Blanch: Valencia, Spain, 2011.
102. Cohen, E. The Sociology of Tourism: Approaches, Issues and Findings. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1984, 10, 373-392.
103. Ivars-Baidal, J.; Rodriguez-Sanchez, I.; Vera-Rebollo, J.F. The evolution of mass tourism destinations: New approaches beyond deterministic models in Benidorm (Spain). Tour. Manag. 2013, 34, 184-195.
104. Park, D.-B.; Nunkoo, R.; Yoon, Y.-S. Rural residents' attitudes to tourism and the moderating effects of social capital. Tour. Geogr. 2015, 17, 112-133.
105. Vidal, S. Perceptions of tourism: A study of residents' attitudes towards tourism in the city of Girona. J. Tour. Anal. Rev. Análisis Turístico 2020.
106. Korpela, K.M.; Ylén, M.; Tyrväinen, L.; Silvennoinen, H. Stability of self-reported favourite places and place attachment over 10-month period. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 95-100.
107. Rosa, C.; Reyes, S.; Nogueira, B. New possibilities of GIS for mapping a mature destination: A case in Benalmádena, Spain. Anatolia 2016, 27, 82-90.
108. Ruiz, C.; Hernández, B. Emotions and coping strategies during an episode of volcanic activity and their relations to place attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 38, 279-287.
109. Luthe, T.; Wyss, R. Assessing and planning resilience in tourism. Tour. Manag. 2014, 44, 161-163.
110. Saarinen, J.; Gill, A.M. (Eds.) Resilient destinations and tourism. In Governance Strategies in the Transition towards Sustainability in Tourism; Routledge: London, UK, 2019.
111. Hall, M. Resilience theory and tourism. In Resilient Destinations and Tourism. Governance Strategies in the Transition towards Sustainability in Tourism; Saarinen, J., Gill, A.M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; pp. 34-47.
112. Adger, W.N. Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2000, 24, 347-364.
113. Gómez, M.L. Los procesos interactivos del tejido social como causa del urbanismo expansivo en la Costa del Sol. In Proceedings of the XII congreso de Geógrafos Españoles, Alicante, Spain, October 2011; pp. 307-318.
114. Cochrane, J. The sphere of tourism resilience. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2010, 32, 173-185.
115. Cruz, V.; Agaton, D. La resiliencia a partir de los estudios de grado de satisfacción del turista: Un estudio de caso. TURyDES 2014, 7.
116. Keck, M.; Sakdapolrak, P. What is social resilience? Lessons learned and ways forward. Erdkunde 2013, 67, 5-19.
117. Roca, E.; Villares, M. Reforzar la resiliencia socioecológica de los destinos turísticos: El caso de la Badia de Roses (Costa Brava). ACE Archit. City Environ. 2014, 9, 493-524.
118. Berkes, F.; Ross, H. Community resilience: Toward an integrated approach. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2013, 26, 5-20.
119. Guo, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zheng, C. Catalyst or barrier? The influence of place attachment on perceived community resilience in tourism destinations. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2347.
120. Abril-Sellarés, M.; Azpelicueta, M.C.; Sánchez-Fernández, M.D. Turismo sostenible: Lugareños frente a turistas. El caso de la ciudad de Barcelona. Holos 2015, 3, 331-337.
121. Vianello, M. The No Grandi Navi campaign: Protests against cruise tourism in Venice. In Protest and Resistance in the Tourist City; Colomb, C., Nowy, C., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 185-204.
122. Presenza, A.; Del Chiappa, G.; Sheehan, L. Residents' engagement and local tourism governance in maturing beach destinations. Evidence from an Italian case study. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2013, 2, 22-30.
123. Ap, J. Residents' perception on tourism impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 1992, 19, 665-690.
124. Allen, L.; Long, P.; Perdue, R.; Keiselbach, S. The impact of tourism development on resident's perceptions of community life. J. Travel Res. 1988, 27, 16-21.
Fernando Almeida-García1,*, Rafael Cortes-Macías1, Antonia Balbuena-Vázquez2 and M. Carmen-Hidalgo3
1Department of Geography, Tourism Intelligence and Innovation Research Institute (i3t), University of Malaga, Campus of Teatinos, 29071 Malaga, Spain
2Department of Economic Geography, Institute of Geography, National University of Mexico (UNAM), México D.F. 04510, Mexico
3Department of Social Psychology, Tourism Intelligence and Innovation Research Institute (i3t), University of Malaga, Campus of Teatinos, 29071 Malaga, Spain
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
© 2020. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Cortes-Macías, Rafael; Balbuena-Vázquez, Antonia; Carmen-Hidalgo, M