Residents’ Satisfaction with Tourism and the European Tourism Indicator System in South Sardinia
Abstract
:1. Introduction
One of the most important examples of a policy approach is the European Tourism Indicator System for Sustainable Management at the Destination Level (ETIS) [25,26,27,28,29]. The ETIS was developed as a measurement instrument for the European Commission’s Study on the Feasibility of a European Tourism Indicator System for Sustainable Management at the Destination Level [30]. Its aim was to provide “a tourism system of indicators for destinations to use on a voluntary basis”, and a “guide to policy makers and other destination stakeholders for the improved management of tourism destinations across Europe” ([27] p. 3). This system includes a set of 27 core and 40 optional indicators grouped into four main analysis areas: destination management, economic value, social and cultural impact, and environmental impact.There are two main approaches to developing sustainability indicators. The scientific approach generally seeks to obtain a large amount of information, while the policy-maker approach can tend to encourage a condensing of the initially available data into synthetic indicators that may reflect and help to support political decisions and that can be simplified for public understanding ([22] p. 3).
2. Background and Literature Review
- Statement 1a: There is a relationship between the satisfaction with tourism and the seasonality.
- Statement 1b: In line with the TALC and Irridex models, heavy tourism concentration in a destination leads to negative resident attitudes and resident behavior toward the tourism.
- Statement 2a: The overall attitude of residents toward tourism could be a function of certain sociodemographic characteristics.
- Statement 2b: The attitude of residents toward tourism is a function of the economic dependency of the residents on tourism.
- Statement 2c: In the context of tourism, the ASP theory suggests that individuals tolerate any downside effects of tourism that they might experience personally because they recognize the broader community-wide benefits of this activity.
- Statement 2d: The attitudes of residents toward tourism are a function of the perceived benefit of the residents (e.g., personal benefits and community benefits).
3. Case Study Destination
4. Materials and Methods
5. Results
5.1. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Factors Affecting Host Community’s Satisfaction Toward Tourism in Visit South Sardinia DMO
5.2. Global Satisfaction with Tourism
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- UNEP; UNWTO. Making Tourism More Sustainable: A Guide for Policy Makers; UNEP: Madrid, Spain, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- UNWTO. UNWTO’s Declaration on Tourism and the Millennium Development Goals: Harnessing Tourism for the Millennium Development Goals; UNWTO: Madrid, Spain, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- UNWTO. World Charter for Sustainable Tourism+20. Available online: http://sustainabletourismcharter2015.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ST-20CharterMR.pdf (accessed on 31 January 2019).
- European Commission. Agenda for a Sustainable and Competitive European Tourism; COM/2007/0621 Final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions—Europe, the world’s No 1 Tourist Destination—A new Political Framework for Tourism in Europe; COM/2010/0352; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. The European Tourism Indicator System. Toolkit for Sustainable Destinations; European Union: Luxembourg, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Byrd, E.T. Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development and their roles: Applying stakeholder theory to sustainable tourism development. Tour. Rev. 2007, 62, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Angella, F.; Go, F.M. Tale of two cities’ collaborative tourism marketing: Towards a theory of destination stakeholder assessment. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 429–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kennedy, V.; Augustyn, M.M. Stakeholder power and engagement in an English seaside context: Implications for destination leadership. Tour. Rev. 2014, 69, 187–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez, V.E.; Santoyo, A.H.; Guerrero, F.; León, M.A.; Silva, C.L.; Caballero, R. Measuring the sustainability of Cuban tourism destinations considering stakeholders’ perceptions. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2017, 19, 318–332. [Google Scholar]
- Waligo, V.; Clarke, J.; Hawkins, R. Embedding stakeholders in sustainable tourism strategies. Ann. Tour. Res. 2015, 55, 90–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Choi, H.; Murray, I. Resident attitudes toward sustainable community tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 575–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, J.; Nepal, S.K. Sustainable tourism research: An analysis of papers published in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2009, 17, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Garcia, E.; Raya, J.M.; Majó, J. Differences in residents’ attitudes towards tourism among mass tourism destinations. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2017, 19, 535–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunkoo, R.; Smith, S.L.; Ramkissoon, H. Residents’ attitudes to tourism: A longitudinal study of 140 articles from 1984 to 2010. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 5–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharpley, R. Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tour. Manag. 2014, 42, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.Q.; Fan, D.X.F.; Tse, T.S.M.; King, B. Creating a scale for assessing socially sustainable tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 25, 61–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lundberg, E. The importance of tourism impacts for different local resident groups: A case study of a Swedish seaside destination. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2017, 6, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snyman, S. Strategic community participation in sustainable tourism. In Reframing Sustainable Tourism; McCool, S.F., Bosak, K., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 65–80. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, C.-P.; Chancellor, H.C.; Cole, S.T. Measuring residents’ attitudes toward sustainable tourism: A re-examination of the sustainable tourism attitude scale. J. Travel Res. 2011, 50, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manning, T. Indicators of tourism sustainability. Tour. Manag. 1999, 20, 179–182. [Google Scholar]
- Tanguay, G.A.; Rajaonson, J.; Therrien, M.C. Sustainable tourism indicators: Selection criteria for policy implementation and scientific recognition. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 862–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rametsteiner, E.; Pülzl, H.; Alkan-Olsson, J.; Frederiksen, P. Sustainability indicator development—Science or political negotiation? Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shields, D.J.; Solar, S.V.; Martin, W.E. The role of values and objectives in communication indicators of sustainability. Ecol. Indic. 2002, 2, 146–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torres-Delgado, A.; Palomeque, F.L. Measuring sustainable tourism at the municipal level. Ann. Tour. Res. 2014, 49, 122–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández-Tabales, A.; Foronda-Robles, C.; Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga, L.; García-López, A. Developing a system of territorial governance indicators for tourism destinations. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 25, 1275–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardia, G.; Jones, A. PM4SD as a Methodological Framework for Sustainable Tourism. In Tourism, Culture and Heritage in a Smart Economy; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 275–292. [Google Scholar]
- Modica, P.; Capocchi, A.; Foroni, I.; Zenga, M. An Assessment of the Implementation of the European Tourism Indicator System for Sustainable Destinations in Italy. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tudorache, D.M.; Simon, T.; Frenț, C.; Musteaţă-Pavel, M. Difficulties and Challenges in Applying the European Tourism Indicators System (ETIS) for Sustainable Tourist Destinations: The Case of Braşov County in the Romanian Carpathians. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, G.; Simpson, M.; Twinning-Ward, L. Study on the Feasibility of a European Tourism Indicator System for Sustainable Management at Destination Level. University of Surrey (U.K). Available online: https://www.surrey.ac.uk/shtm/Files/Task%201c)%20Final%20Case%20Study%20Review.pdf (accessed on 31 January 2019).
- Tourism Sustainability Group. Report of the Tourism Sustainability Group—Action for More Sustainable European Tourism; Ref. Ares 78493-15/01/2014.; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Faulkner, B.; Tideswell, C.A. Framework for Monitoring Community Impacts of Tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 1997, 5, 3–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butler, R.W. Sustainable tourism—A state of the art review. Tour. Geogr. 1999, 1, 7–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, G. The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: Results of a Delphi survey of tourism researchers. Tour. Manag. 2001, 22, 351–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torres-Delgado, A.; Saarinen, J. Using indicators to assess sustainable tourism development: A review. Tour. Geogr. 2014, 16, 31–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ap, J. Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 1992, 19, 665–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almeida-García, F.; Peláez-Fernández, M.A.; Balbuena-Vázquez, A.; Cortés-Macias, R. Resident’s perceptions of tourism development in Benalmádena (Spain). Tour. Manag. 2016, 54, 259–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clifton, J.; Benson, A. Planning for Sustainable Ecotourism: The Case for Research Ecotourism in Developing Country Destinations. J. Sustain. Tour. 2006, 14, 238–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paraskevaidis, P.; Andriotis, K. Altruism in tourism: Social Exchange Theory vs. Altruistic Surplus Phenomenon in host volunteering. Ann. Tour. Res. 2017, 62, 26–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butler, R.W. The concept of a tourism area cycle of evolution: Implications for the management of resources. Can. Geogr. 1980, 24, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doxey, G.V. A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: Methodology and research inferences. In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference Proceedings, of the Travel Research Association, San Diego, CA, USA, 8–11 September 1975; pp. 195–198. [Google Scholar]
- Teye, V.; Sonmez, S.F.; Sirakaya, E. Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002, 29, 668–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargas-Sánchez, A.; Plaza-Mejía, M.A.; Porras-Bueno, N. Understanding residents’ attitudes toward the development of industrial tourism in a former mining community. J. Travel Res. 2009, 47, 373–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bestard, B.; Nadal, R. Attitudes toward tourism and tourism congestion. Région et Développement 2007, 25, 193–207. [Google Scholar]
- Cerezo, J.M. Lara de Vicente, F. El turismo como Industria de España y de la Unión Europea. In Turismo Sostenible: Un enfoque Multidisciplinar e Internacional; López, G.E., Tomás, J.Y., de Vicente, F.L., Eds.; Universidad de Córdoba: Córdoba, Spain, 2005; pp. 255–287. [Google Scholar]
- Gursoy, D.; Rutherford, D. Host attitudes toward tourism: An improved structural model. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 495–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, J.; Snepenger, D.; Akis, S. Residents’ perceptions of tourism development. Ann. Tour. Res. 1994, 21, 629–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyer, P.; Gursoy, D.; Sharma, B.; Carter, J. Structural modelling of resident perceptions of tourism and associated development on the Sunshine Coast, Australia. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 409–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fredline, E.; Faulkner, B. Host community reactions: A cluster analysis. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000, 27, 763–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunkoo, R.; Ramkissoon, H. Modeling community support for a proposed integrated resort project. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 257–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, H.; Ryan, C. Place attachment, identity and community impacts of tourism—The case of a Beijing Hutong. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 637–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andriotis, K.; Vaughan, R.D. Urban residents’ attitudes toward tourism development: The case of Crete. J. Travel Res. 2003, 42, 172–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Easterling, D.S. The residents’ perspective in tourism research: A review and synthesis. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2004, 17, 45–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oviedo-Garcia, M.A.; Castellanos-Verdugo, M.; Martin-Ruiz, D. Gaining residents’ support for tourism and planning. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2008, 10, 95–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andriotis, K. Seasonality in Crete. Problem or a Way of Life? Tour. Econ. 2005, 11, 207–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrill, R.; Potts, T. Tourism planning in historic districts: Attitudes toward tourism development in Charleston. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 2003, 69, 233–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mason, P.; Cheyne, J. Residents’ attitudes to proposed tourism development. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000, 27, 391–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomljenovic, R.; Faulkner, B. Tourism and older residents in a sunbelt resort. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000, 27, 93–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nardo, M.; Saisana, M.; Saltelli, A.; Tarantola, S. Tools for Composite Indicators Building. 2005. Available online: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC31473/EUR%2021682%20EN.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2018).
- Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Garrod, B.; Fyall, A.; Leask, A.; Reid, E. Engaging residents as stakeholders of the visitor attraction. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 1159–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawton, L.; Weaver, D.W. Using residents’ perceptions research to inform planning and management for sustainable tourism: A study of Gold Coast Schoolies Week, a contentious tourism event. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 660–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Factor | Influence on Perception | Literature |
---|---|---|
Seasons | High and low seasons change the perceptions of tourism | [16,37,42] |
Density of tourists/tourism development | In general, in destinations with a high density of tourism/tourists, the perception of tourism is more negative. This needs to be counterweighed by positive aspects (e.g., economic benefits). | [16,39,45] |
Demographic profile: age, gender, educational level | The influence of demographic variables is controversial, so they may be considered irrelevant. | [14,16,37,50] |
Economic reliance and dependence on tourism | Many studies suggest that residents who work in the tourism sector or depend on tourism as a source of income are more positively disposed toward tourism than others. | [12,14,16,52,54,55,56] |
Impacts (benefits or costs) | More positive impacts (benefits) tend to generate more positive perceptions of tourism. | [14,48] |
Item | Question | Score | Indicator |
---|---|---|---|
Satisfaction in autumn | Overall, I am very satisfied with tourism in my destination in autumn. | 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree | Ind1: Percentage of residents who are satisfied with tourism in the destination in autumn. |
Satisfaction in winter | Overall, I am very satisfied with tourism in my destination in winter. | 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree | Ind2: Percentage of residents who are satisfied with tourism in the destination in winter. |
Satisfaction in spring | Overall, I am very satisfied with tourism in my destination in spring. | 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree | Ind3: Percentage of residents who are satisfied with tourism in the destination in spring. |
Satisfaction in summer | Overall, I am very satisfied with tourism in my destination in summer. | 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree | Ind4: Percentage of residents who are satisfied with tourism in the destination in summer. |
Benefit for the community | There are benefits for the community from tourism and tourists visiting my destination. | 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree | Ind5: Percentage of residents who consider that tourism and tourists visiting the destination bring benefits for the community. |
Benefit for myself | There are benefits for myself from tourism and tourists visiting my destination. | 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree | Ind6: Percentage of residents who consider that tourism and tourists visiting the destination bring benefits for themselves. |
Satisfaction in the planning and development of tourism | Overall, I am very satisfied with residents’ involvement and influence in the planning and development of tourism. | 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree | Ind7: Percentage of residents satisfied with their involvement and their influence in the planning and development of tourism. |
Effect of tourism on the distinctiveness and local identity, culture, and heritage | In your opinion, what kind of effect does tourism have on the distinctiveness and local identity, culture, and heritage of your destination? | 1 = It damages 2 = It helps to maintain 3 = It helps to improve 4 = It has no effect | Ind8: Percentage of residents who have positive views on the impact of tourism on destination identity. |
Effect of tourism on the quality of life | In your opinion, what kind of effect does tourism have on the quality of your life in your destination? | 1 = It damages 2 = It helps to maintain 3 = It helps to improve 4 = It has no effect | Ind9: Percentage of residents who have positive views on the impact of tourism on the quality of life. |
Characteristic | Frequency | Percentage |
---|---|---|
Gender | ||
Female | 346 | 58.8 |
Male | 242 | 41.2 |
Residence | ||
“Other towns” | 91 | 15.5 |
Cagliari | 497 | 84.5 |
Age | ||
Young (15–24 years old) | 89 | 15.1 |
Adult (25–64 years old) | 408 | 69.4 |
Elderly (>64 years old) | 91 | 15.5 |
Education | ||
Lower secondary school or less | 186 | 31.6 |
Upper secondary school | 274 | 46.6 |
High school or more | 128 | 21.8 |
Employment status | ||
Unemployed | 100 | 16.9 |
Student | 83 | 14.1 |
Retired | 86 | 14.6 |
Employed | 319 | 54.1 |
Occupational reliance on tourism | ||
Yes | 446 | 75.9 |
No | 142 | 21.1 |
Total | 588 | 100.0 |
Indicator | N | Strongly Disagree (%) | Disagree (%) | Neutral (%) | Agree (%) | Strongly Agree (%) | Indicator Value (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Overall, I am very satisfied with tourism in my destination in autumn. | 588 | 10.0 | 39.8 | 19.4 | 22.4 | 8.3 | Ind1 = 30.7 |
Overall, I am very satisfied with tourism in my destination in winter. | 588 | 14.5 | 41.5 | 18.2 | 18.4 | 7.5 | Ind2 = 25.9 |
Overall, I am very satisfied with tourism in my destination in spring. | 588 | 6.5 | 16.8 | 15.8 | 41.7 | 19.2 | Ind3 = 60.9 |
Overall, I am very satisfied with tourism in my destination in summer. | 588 | 4.9 | 11.7 | 7.8 | 41.7 | 33.8 | Ind4 = 75.5 |
There are benefits for the community from tourism and tourists visiting my destination. | 587 | 1.2 | 8.2 | 11.9 | 39.7 | 39.0 | Ind5 = 78.7 |
There are benefits for myself from tourism and tourists visiting my destination. | 582 | 5.8 | 27.1 | 22.3 | 29.7 | 14.9 | Ind6 = 44.6 |
Overall, I am very satisfied with residents’ involvement and influence in the planning and development of tourism. | 587 | 17.0 | 32.5 | 14.8 | 25.4 | 10.2 | Ind7 = 35.6 |
Indicator | N | It Damages (%) | It Has No Effect (%) | It Helps to Maintain (%) | It Helps to Improve (%) | Indicator Value (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In your opinion, what kind of effect does tourism have on the distinctiveness and local identity, culture, and heritage of your destination? | 585 | 1.4 | 10.4 | 27.4 | 60.8 | Ind8 = 60.8 |
In your opinion, what kind of effect does tourism have on the quality of your life in your destination? | 585 | 2.2 | 9.7 | 19.5 | 68.5 | Ind9 = 68.5 |
Autumn/Winter | Autumn/Spring | Autumn/Summer | Winter/Spring | Winter/Summer | Spring/Summer | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
t-statistic | 1.5868 | 8.0523 | 11.7508 | 9.8595 | 13.8211 | 3.1031 |
Degrees of freedom (df) | 588 | 588 | 588 | 588 | 588 | 588 |
p-value | 0.0567 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.00125 |
Indicator | Ind1 | Ind2 | Ind3 | Ind4 | Ind5 | Ind6 | Ind7 | Ind8 | Ind9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Place of residence | |||||||||
Other towns | 14.3% | 11.0% | 62.6% | 84.6% | 80.2% | 56.7% | 36.3% | 74.7% | 80.2% |
Cagliari | 33.7% | 28.5% | 60.5% | 73.9% | 78.5% | 42.3% | 35.5% | 58.3% | 66.3% |
χ2 test | 13.595 | 12.279 | 0.145 | 4.747 | 0.14 | 6.355 | 0.021 | 8.698 | 6.876 |
p-value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.704 | 0.029 | 0.714 | 0.012 | 0.885 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
Characteristic | Ind1 | Ind2 | Ind3 | Ind4 | Ind7 | Ind8 | Ind5 | Ind6 | Ind9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | |||||||||
Female | 32.0% | 28.2% | 62.5% | 76.9% | 37.2% | 60.2% | 81.2% | 44.3% | 70.6% |
Male | 28.8% | 22.2% | 58.4% | 73.7% | 33.3% | 61.7% | 75.3% | 44.8% | 65.4% |
χ2 test | 0.68 | 2.708 | 1.008 | 0.835 | 0.92 | 0.135 | 2.977 | 0.01 | 1.772 |
p-value | 0.409 | 0.100 | 0.315 | 0.361 | 0.337 | 0.714 | 0.084 | 0.92 | 0.183 |
Age | |||||||||
Young | 11.2% | 9.0% | 51.7% | 76.4% | 25.8% | 55.1% | 75.3% | 40.7% | 61.8% |
Adult | 30.5% | 25.9% | 60.5% | 76.3% | 37.3% | 62.2% | 80.2% | 48.5% | 70.7% |
Elderly | 50.5% | 41.8% | 71.4% | 71.4% | 37.4% | 60.4% | 75.8% | 30,0% | 64.8% |
χ2 test | 32.723 | 25.269 | 7.435 | 1.012 | 4.347 | 1.572 | 1.618 | 10.846 | 3.364 |
p-value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.024 | 0.603 | 0.114 | 0.456 | 0.445 | 0.004 | 0.186 |
Educational level | |||||||||
Lower secondary school or less | 32.8% | 28.5% | 55.4% | 71.0% | 43.5% | 53.8% | 72.6% | 28.8% | 61.8% |
Upper secondary school | 27.2% | 21.7% | 62.7% | 79.0% | 36.6% | 59.8% | 80.0% | 53.3% | 68.5% |
High school or more | 35.2% | 30.5% | 64.8% | 75.0% | 21.9% | 73.4% | 85.2% | 48.4% | 78.1% |
χ2 test | 3.193 | 4.544 | 3.585 | 3.903 | 15.763 | 12.566 | 7.633 | 27.7 | 9.329 |
p-value | 0.203 | 0.103 | 0.167 | 0.142 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 0.022 | 0.000 | 0.009 |
Work force | |||||||||
Unemployed | 43.0% | 38.0% | 66.0% | 78.0% | 46.0% | 55.6% | 78,0% | 42,0% | 67.7% |
Student | 12.0% | 6.0% | 56.6% | 77.1% | 25.3% | 65.8% | 79.5% | 45,0% | 71.8% |
Retired | 55.8% | 46.5% | 76.7% | 75.6% | 41.9% | 54.8% | 74.4% | 27.1% | 64.3% |
Employed | 25.1% | 21.6% | 56.1% | 74.3% | 33.1% | 53.5% | 79.9% | 50.2% | 61.6% |
χ2 test | 49.773 | 45.107 | 13.668 | 1.339 | 11.648 | 7.736 | 1.853 | 16.353 | 4.204 |
p-value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.008 | 0.855 | 0.020 | 0.052 | 0.763 | 0.003 | 0.240 |
Occupational reliance on tourism | |||||||||
No | 33.2% | 28.3% | 62.8% | 76.0% | 37.1% | 61.0% | 79.1% | 40.0% | 69.9% |
Yes | 23.2% | 18.3% | 54.9% | 73.9% | 31.0% | 60.2% | 77.5% | 59.2% | 67.1% |
χ2 test | 4.999 | 5.553 | 2.787 | 0.248 | 1.743 | 0.008 | 0.172 | 15.937 | 0.114 |
p-value | 0.025 | 0.018 | 0.095 | 0.616 | 0.187 | 0.931 | 0.678 | 0.000 | 0.735 |
Total | 30.7% | 25.8% | 60.8% | 75.6% | 35.6% | 60.8% | 78.8% | 44.5% | 68.5% |
Mean | Standard Deviation | Factor Loading | Eigenvalue | Variance (%) | Cronbach’s alpha | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
First factor | 2.816 | 61.584 | 0.858 | |||
Satisfaction in autumn | 2.79 | 1.147 | 0.964 | |||
Satisfaction in winter | 2.63 | 1.158 | 0.921 | |||
Satisfaction in spring | 3.50 | 1.167 | 0.654 | |||
Satisfaction in summer | 3.88 | 1.148 | 0.447 |
Variable | Beta | SE | p-Value | Standardized Beta | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Constant | −0.678 | 0.151 | <0.001 | ||
Place of residence (reference: other towns) | |||||
Cagliari | 0.373 | 0.103 | 0.0003 | 0.121 | |
Work force (reference category: unemployed) | |||||
Employed | −0.258 | 0.104 | 0.013 | −0.132 | |
Student | −0.324 | 0.134 | 0.015 | −0.116 | |
Retired | 0.144 | 0.132 | 0.276 | 0.052 | |
Benefit for the community (reference category: negative or neutral) | |||||
Positive | 0.433 | 0.091 | <0.001 | 0.182 | |
Satisfaction with involvement and influence on the planning and development of tourism (reference category: negative or neutral) | |||||
Positive | 0.525 | 0.078 | <0.001 | 0.258 | |
R = 0.409 R2 = 0.167 | D-W = 1.749 | F = 19.34 (df = 6, Sig < 0.001) |
Label | Statement | Analysis | Results |
---|---|---|---|
Statement 1a | There is a relationship between satisfaction with the effects of tourism and the seasonality | ETIS indicators Ind1–Ind4 | The tourism satisfaction is higher in the high season |
Global satisfaction index | - | ||
Statement 1b | The heavy tourism concentration in a destination leads to negative resident attitudes and resident behavior toward tourism. | ETIS indicators Ind1–Ind4 | Cagliari’s tourism satisfaction is higher in autumn and in winter, but the satisfaction with tourism in “other towns” is greater in summer |
Global satisfaction index (GSI) | The GSI results are significantly higher for Cagliari | ||
Statement 2a | The overall attitude of residents toward tourism could be a function of certain sociodemographic characteristics. | ETIS indicators Ind1–Ind4 | Age: Elderly people are more satisfied (from autumn to spring) |
Work force: Retired and unemployed residents’ are more satisfied (from autumn to spring) | |||
Global satisfaction index | Work force: Retired residents’ are more satisfied | ||
Statement 2b | The attitude of residents toward tourism is a function of the economic dependency of the residents on tourism. | ETIS indicators Ind1–Ind4 | Occupational reliance on tourism: residents without occupational reliance on tourism are more satisfied |
Global satisfaction index | Occupational reliance on tourism: no significant difference | ||
Statement 2c | Individuals tolerate any downside effects of tourism they might experience personally because they recognize the broader community-wide benefits of this activity. | ETIS indicators Ind1–Ind4 | - |
Global satisfaction index | Satisfaction with the planning and development of tourism: residents more satisfied in the planning and development of tourism are the more satisfied with tourism | ||
Statement 2d | The attitudes of residents toward tourism is a function of the perceived benefit of the residents (e.g., personal benefits and community benefits). | ETIS indicators Ind1–Ind4 | - |
Global satisfaction index | Benefit to the community: residents recognizing benefits are more satisfied |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Foroni, I.; Modica, P.; Zenga, M. Residents’ Satisfaction with Tourism and the European Tourism Indicator System in South Sardinia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2243. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082243
Foroni I, Modica P, Zenga M. Residents’ Satisfaction with Tourism and the European Tourism Indicator System in South Sardinia. Sustainability. 2019; 11(8):2243. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082243
Chicago/Turabian StyleForoni, Ilaria, Patrizia Modica, and Mariangela Zenga. 2019. "Residents’ Satisfaction with Tourism and the European Tourism Indicator System in South Sardinia" Sustainability 11, no. 8: 2243. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082243