TRANS Internet-Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften 17. Nr. September 2010

Sektion 1.6. The Effects of Natural and Cultural Values on Tourism
Sektionsleiter | Section Chair: Turhan Çetin (Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey)

Dokumentation | Documentation | Documentation


Residents’ Perceptions on the Social and Cultural Impacts
of Tourism in Alanya, Turkey

Hilmi Demirkaya (Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Burdur, Turkey) [BIO] | Turhan Çetin (Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey) [BIO]

Email: hilmi.demirkaya@gmail.com | cetin.turhan@gmail.com

 

Abstract

Apart from obvious and visible effects on the economy and the physical environment, tourism can contribute to social and cultural changes in host societies, including changes in value systems, traditional lifestyles, family relationships, individual behavior or community structure. The purpose of this study was to investigate the social and cultural impacts and consequences of tourism in the case of Payallar and Konakli town in Alanya, Turkey. Tourism's social and cultural impacts are often difficult to measure, as, to a large extent, they are indirect. The larger the cultural and economic difference between tourists and local residents, the more obvious and more significant changes are. Changes in the host community's quality of life are influenced by two major factors: the tourist-host relationship and the development of the industry itself. The basis of this study was a survey of residents in the two settlements of the Mediterranean region. In order to gather information on residents' perceptions, structured and unstructured personal interviews were carried out in the region over 3 days period in spring 2007. The questionnaire in the survey was conducted by the authors. The unstructured personal interviews with students were conducted by the author. Sample size was set at 207 for the region. Data were collected and analyzed with qualitative and quantitative methods. Some general outcomes can be drawn for the local government administration and ministry of tourism and, tourism planners from this study.

 

1. Introduction

Tourism has been one of the global economic success stories in the last 40 years (Coccossis & Parpaires, 1995). It is arguably the world’s largest industry, accounting for about 5.5% of the world’s Gross National Product (GNP) and 6% of the employment, and it is growing fast (Glasson et al., 1995). Statistical data indicate that there has been a rapid growth in Turkish tourism in volume and value since 1982. Tourist arrivals were measured at 200.000 in 1963 and 11.619.909 in 2001. Tourism revenues were US$7.7 million in 1963. For 2001, this figure was estimated to be some US$8.1 billion. Bed capacity and number of lodging establishments were 28.354 and 292 respectively in 1970, and these reached 331.023 and 1911 respectively in 2000 (Ministry of Tourism, 2001).

According to Yoon et al. (2000), who studied residents’ attitudes and support for tourism development by using a structural model, local residents are likely to participate in exchange (support tourism development) as long as the perceived benefits of tourism exceed the perceived costs of tourism. Their empirical findings support this statement in that the economic and cultural impact of tourism, “while the social and environmental impacts negatively affected the “total impact of tourism” (Yoon, 2002:27).

In the tourism literature, a number of studies have investigated residents’ reactions to tourism development (Jurowski, Uysal, & Williams, 1997; Yoon, Gursoy, Chen, 2000).

The results of these studies have suggested that community support for tourism development is essential for the successful operation and sustainability of tourism. This is because tourism relies heavily upon the goodwill of the local communities’ reactions toward tourism development is essential in achieving the goal of favorable host community support for tourism development (Yoon, 2002:38).

In fact, a source of the common benefits and costs of tourism development is economic impacts. Local communities are greatly influenced by their economies (Jurowski, Uysal, & Williams, 1997; Yoon, 2002). Job creation or reduced unemployment has been discussed as the most prominent benefit of tourism development. Changing investment and spending (Akis, Peritianis, & Warner, 1996), economic gain (Milman & Pizam, 1995), income distributions for hosts and government (Perdue, Long, & Allen, 1987), prices of goods and services, costs of land and housing (Perdue, Long & Allen, 1987), costs of living, development and maintenance of infrastructure, and resources are given as other examples of the economic impacts of tourism development (Yoon, 2002:39).

Additionally, the social/cultural impacts of tourism have been discussed. For example, tourism provides cultural exchange opportunities and more recreational facilities, and disrupts various quality of life factors. However, it was also found that unlike the economic impacts of tourism, the social and cultural impacts of tourism development could negatively affect residents’ perceptions (Yoon, 2002:39; Perdue et al., 1987). Creating congestion, traffic jams, noise and increasing crime are examples of the social/cultural impacts of tourism (Gunn, 1988). Researchers found that tourism improved local public services, cultural activity, changing traditional culture and preserved the identity of local culture (Liu & Var, 1986).

Likewise, it has been concluded that if residents have a positive perception of tourism impacts in terms of physical and environmental consequences, they will render support for additional tourism development is critical for examining a community’s preferences and support of tourism development or opposition to tourism development. Particularly, as key player in local communities, students’ perceptions on tourism impacts are critical to implementing further tourism planning and development.

As with any type of economic development, tourism creates changes that threaten the quality of life. Changes in the host community’s quality of life are influenced by two major factors: the tourist-host relationship and development of the industry itself (Ratz, 2002). Social and cultural changes to host societies include changes in value systems, traditional lifestyles, family relationships, individual behavior or community structure (Mbaiwa, 2004:164).

Payallar town is located 18 km west of Alanya. According to the census in 2000 the town is inhabited by 3736 men and 3080 women total of 6816 people. The population is mainly consisted of local people and migration rate to the town is low. The town is dominated with local culture motifs and people mainly work in the production with fresh vegetables in greenhouses. The domination of the male population over women is mainly due to migration of the males to the town to work in the hotels present in the town. Konaklı town is located 8 km west of Alanya. According to census in 2000 the population of the town is 28801 people with 15863 males and 12963 women. There is influx of people to the town due to its rapidly developing tourism sector and its location at the middle of the neighboring villages. The people who come to the town through internal migration mainly work in tourism, construction and greenhouse sectors.

The objective of this paper is to assess the socio-cultural impact of tourism development in the Payallar and Konaklı district. In terms of structure, the paper is organized as follows: The first section describes the socio-cultural impacts of tourism development in destination areas. The second section describes the methodology that was used in the study. The third section discusses the positive and negative socio-cultural impacts of tourism in Payallar and Konaklı, and fourth section concludes the paper.

 

2. Method

This paper examines the results of a survey conducted by the author in Spring 2007. In the study, the analysis of descriptive statistics was used to determine the attitudes of 6th, 7th, and 8th grade primary school students to tourism development impacts. The data of the study attained by using “ Tourism Development Impacts” which has reliability coefficient (0.79) that was developed in 2002 by Yoon.

The data was analyzed by using SPSS 15.0 mean and standard deviations were calculated for variables. Whether there was any significant difference between variables was fixed by using independent sample test on the level of .05 and ANOVA.

The sample of the survey was 207 local residents aged from 12 to 15, who were approached at their school (Payallar and Konaklı Primary School). Finally, in order to accomplish a correct data analysis, the Reliability of the scales was examined. The result shows a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.773, which is a satisfactory level of reliability. A five-point Likert scale was used as the response format with assigned values from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree.

 

3. Findings

Regarding the demographics of the sample, the respondents were comprised of female 99 (47.8%), and male 108 (52.2%), and average of the respondents’ age was 13 years old. 106 (51.2%) of respondents are living Payallar town, 100 (48.8%) of respondents are living Konaklı town. Class level of respondents revealed that 25 (12.1%) of respondents are 6th grade, 79 (38.2%) of respondents are 7th grade, and 103 (49.8%) of respondents are 8th grade.

The findings that has appeared on the evaluation of the data gotten from this study have interpreted one by one in the direction of sub-problems.

 

Table 1. Mean scores and standard deviations of the impacts of tourism 

Variables
 Mean
 SD
               %*
5
4
3
2
1
Tourism Development Impact Items
1. Tourism has created jobs for our community.
3.78
1.12
27.5
42.0
18.8
4.3
7.2
2. Tourism has attracted investment to our community
3.70
1.24
29.0
39.1
14.5
7.7
 
9.7
3. Our standard of living has increased considerably  because of tourism.
3.43
1.11
16.9
34.8
30.4
10.6
 
 7.2
4. Tourism has given economic benefits to local people and businesses.
3.61
1.16
23.2
39.6
18.4
12.6
 
 6.3
5. High-spending tourists have negatively affected our way of life.
3.35
1.27
20.8
30.0
24.6
13.0
11.6
6. Tourism has changed our traditional culture.
2.99
1.30
15.9
19.8
28.0
19.8
16.4
7. Local residents have suffered from living in a tourism destination area.
3.22
1.26
16.9
28.5
26.1
16.9
11.6
8. Tourism has encouraged a variety of cultural activities by the local residents.
3.24
1.13
13.5
29.5
32.4
16.4
 8.2
9. Tourism has resulted in more cultural exchange between  tourists and residents.
3.41
1.10
15.9
32.4
35.7
8.2
   7.7
10. Tourism has resulted in positive impacts on the cultural identity of our community.
3.21
1.19
18.4
19.8
33.8
20.3
 7.7
11. Tourism has resulted in traffic congestion, noise, & pollution.
3.55
1.43
36.7
19.8
18.8
10.6
14.0
12. Construction of hotels & tourist facilities have destroyed the natural environment.
3.02
1.51
23.2
20.3
15.9
16.9
23.7
13. Tourism has resulted in unpleasantly overcrowded beaches, hiking trails, parks
and other outdoor places in our community.
2.62
1.41
14.5
15.0
17.9
23.7
29.0
14. Tourism provides more parks and other recreational areas for local residents.
2.52
1.30
11.1
12.1
19.8
31.4
25.6
Overall Mean
3.26
           

* 1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3= neutral, 4= agree, 5= strongly agree

 

Table 1 shows the results of the descriptive statistics of the students’ tourism development impact scale. This measurement scale consisted of 14 items reflecting the perceived economic, socio-cultural, environmental, and physical impacts.

As shown in Table 1, the mean scores of the measurement items were between 2.52 and 3.78. The highest mean score was “tourism has created job for our community (M=3.78, SD=1.12),” followed by “tourism has attracted investment to our community (M=3.70, SD=1.24),” and “tourism has given economic benefits to local people and businesses (M=3.61,SD=1.16). The lowest mean score was “tourism provides more parks and other recreational areas for local residents (M=2.52,SD=1.30),” followed by “tourism has resulted in unpleasantly overcrowded beaches, hiking trails, parks and other outdoor places in our community (M=2.62,SD=1.41),” and “tourism has changed our traditional culture (M=2.99, SD=1.30).

When the percentage of students who has attended the research is taken into consideration, item 1 (tourism has created jobs for our community), 27.5% of students were preferred strongly agree, 42.0% of students were preferred agree, 18.8% of students were preferred neutral, 4.3% of students were preferred disagree, and 7.2% of students were preferred strongly disagree. Item 14 (tourism provides more parks and other recreational areas for local residents), 11.1% of students were strongly agree, 12.1% of students were agree, 19.8% of students were neutral, 31.4% of students were disagree, and 25.6% of students were strongly disagree.

 

Table 2. The t-test results of the scale points of students with the comparison of gender

  Gender N Mean
Std. Deviation
Df
T
Sig. (2-tailed)

Economic benefits to local people
and businesses  

Female
99
18,5253
2,89385
205
2,656
,009
Male
108
17,2870
3,71924

Cultural Exchange between tourists
and residents  

Female
99
16,5051
2,56497
205
2,294
,023
Male
108
15,6481
2,78955

Traffic congestion, noise, pollution  

Female
99
11,5556
2,28224
205
-,813
,417
Male
108
11,8426
2,74853

Total  

Female
99
46,5859
4,78733
205
2,498
,013
Male
108
44,7778
5,55572

 

As shown in Table 2, the responses of students to tourism development impact for economic benefits to local people and businesses (Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) presents a significant difference on the variable of their gender [t(205)=2,656, p<.01]. The responses of the female (M=18.53) is more positive than the male (M= 17.29).

The responses of students to tourism development impact for cultural Exchange between tourists and residents (Items 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10) presents a significant difference on the variable of their gender [t(205)=2,294, p<.01]. The responses of the female (M=16.51) is more positive than the male (M=15.65).

The responses of students to tourism development impact for traffic congestion, noise, pollution (Items 11, 12, 13, and 14) presents no significant difference with gender. However, the responses of the male (M=11.84) is more positive than the female(M=11.56).

The responses of students to total tourism development impact presents a significant difference on the variable of their gender [t(205)=2,498, p<.01]. The responses of the female (M=46.59) is more positive than the male (M=44.78).

 

Table 3. The t-test results of the scale points of students with the comparison of their settlement

 

Settlement
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Df
T
Sig. (2-tailed)

Economic benefits to local people
and businesses

Payallar
106
16,9340
3,96477
204 -4,171
,000
Konaklı
100
18,8300
2,28767

Cultural Exchange between tourists
and residents

Payallar
106
15,5943
2,67182
204 -2,718
,007
Konaklı
100
16,6000
2,63619

Traffic congestion, noise, pollution

Payallar
106
12,2736
2,53559
204 3,398
,001
Konaklı
100
11,1000
2,41418

Total  

Payallar
106
44,8019
5,63225
204 -2,374
,019
Konaklı
100
46,5300
4,74917

 

As shown in Table 3, the responses of students to tourism development impact for economic benefits to local people and businesses (Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) presents a significant difference on the variable of their settlement [t(204)= -4,171, p<.01]. The responses of the students living in Konaklı (M=18.83) is more positive than the students living in Payallar (M= 16.93).

The responses of students to tourism development impact for cultural exchange between tourists and residents (Items 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10) presents a significant difference on the variable of their settlement [t(204)= -2,718, p<.01]. The responses of the students living in Konaklı (M=16.60) is more positive than the students living in Payallar (M= 15.59).

The responses of students to tourism development impact for traffic congestion, noise, pollution (Items 11, 12, 13, and 14) presents a significant difference on the variable of their settlement [t(204)= 3,398, p<.01]. The responses of the students living in Payallar (M=12.27) is more positive than the students living in Konaklı (M= 11.10).

The responses of students to total tourism development impact presents a significant difference on the variable of their settlement [t(204)= -2,374, p<.01]. The responses of the students living in Konaklı (M=46.53) is more positive than the students living in Payallar (M=44.80).

 

4. Conclusion

To sum up, tourism results in a range of social impacts, both positive and negative depending on a variety of factors present in a destination. The data obtained in this study reveal us that the students emphasize both the positive and negative impacts of tourism. The positive views are mainly focused on the effects of tourism on social and economic aspects while negative views are concerned with the distortion of the natural habitat and uncontrolled flux of people in to the region.

It is obvious that tourism holds on important place in the Turkish economy. The central government has accepted and designed tourism to be an important tool for generating badly needed foreign currency earnings and employment (Tosun et al., 2003:156).

It is not easy to measure the full economic and developmental impacts of tourism because the various components of the industry on both the supply and demand sides are closely linked to other segments of the economy. Furthermore, there is no reliable method to assess the economic contribution to a given economy (Tosun et al., 2003:138). It is seen that tourism has numerous direct and indirect effects upon the economy of the region. These effects range from the economic benefits obtained as a result of the services provided to the tourists to the increase in the real estate prices.

Tourism is a labor-intensive industry and therefore a major source of employment (OECD, 1992). Although the employment rate of the people living in Payallar town in the tourism sector is low this ratio is much higher in Konaklı town which population increases rapidly with an influx of people coming from other regions.

As for the school of thought, which supports that tourists can have a strengthening and stimulating effect on a destination, tourism plays a significant role in enhancing communication and understanding between tourists and local people (Smith, 1989). Although the interaction between the people living in Payallar and Konaklı towns and the tourists is not very strong the young adults establish a much better communication with them and there are marriages between the local people and the tourists.

As for the occupational sector, competition for labor is another considerable fact. New opportunities or employment are not only visible to local residents; they also attract migrants who may have different characteristics from the locals and who must be absorbed into the community (Teo, 1994). There has been a considerable migration of young people to Payallar and Konaklı town to work in the tourism and greenhouse sectors. Also some of the retired people from European countries buy estates and settle there.

Developing tourism in rural or relatively poor regions of a country may mitigate imbalances between developed and underdeveloped areas. When the tourism sector expands, new revenues flow into the economy of the destination region. As a result, jobs are created and income grows (Tosun et al., 2003:142). Based on the high unemployment rate in the country there is a migration of people to the region from the neighboring towns and far away cites due the employment opportunities in the tourism sector.

Other significant impacts of tourism development are changes in the size and the demographic characteristics of the host population, alteration of community structure, increased mobility of women and young adults, infrastructural development in the destination, increased supply of services, consequently, improved quality of life for local residents (Perdue et al., 1987). The sub structural other services in the region improve as a result of development of the tourism sector in the region. There is various employment opportunities emerge for the local people. Based on the economic development of the region due tourism sector the sectors such as education, transportation, health and sportive activities started to flourish.

 

References

1.6. The Effects of Natural and Cultural Values on Tourism

Sektionsgruppen | Section Groups| Groupes de sections


TRANS   Inhalt | Table of Contents | Contenu  17 Nr.
INST

For quotation purposes:
Hilmi Demirkaya | Turhan Çetin: Residents’ Perceptions on the Social and Cultural Impacts of Tourism in Alanya, Turkey - In: TRANS. Internet-Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften. No. 17/2008. WWW: http://www.inst.at/trans/17Nr/1-6/1-6_demirkaya_cetin17.htm

Webmeister: Gerald Mach     last change: 2010-09-08