Mitigating the Impact of Touristification on the Psychological Carrying Capacity of Residents
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Touristification
2. Methods
- A semantic differential (SD) scale was used to elicit adjectives to assess the carrying capacity of residents to adapt to touristification.
- A space improvement index was developed and applied to analyze the change in the carrying capacity of residents in response to space improvement.
- Strategies for mitigating the impact of touristification were evaluated for each space type.
2.1. Selecting Adjectives for Touristification Carrying Capacity Assessment
2.2. Analysis of Change in Psychological Carrying Capacity for Touristification Based on Spatial Improvement
2.2.1. Development of Space Improvement Index
2.2.2. Space Improvement Simulation
2.2.3. Analysis of Carrying Capacity Change from Space Improvement
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Selection of Adjectives for Touristification Carrying Capacity Assessment
3.2. Assessment of Seochon Residents’ Current Carrying Capacity
3.2.1. Responses about Inconvenience/Relocation Intent
3.2.2. Results of the Responses to the Semantic Differential Scale Using Adjectives
3.3. Analysis of Carrying Capacity Change after Spatial Improvement
3.4. Strategy to Mitigate the Impact of Touristification
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Cocola-Gant, A. Tourism gentrification. In Handbook of Gentrification Studies; Lees, L., Phillips, M., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Sequera, J.; Norfre, J. Shaken, not stirred: New debates on touristification and the limits of gentrification. City 2018, 22, 843–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freytag, T.; Bauder, M. Bottom-up touristification and urban transformations in Paris. Tour. Geogr. 2018, 20, 443–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, H.-Y. A case study on touristification phenomenon in Seochon, Korea: A critical realism approach. Tour. Leis. Res. 2016, 28, 5–24. [Google Scholar]
- Woo, E.-J.; Kim, Y.-G.; Nam, J.-H. Impacts of touristification on residents’ life from a qualitative approach: Focusing on Bukchon Hanok Village & Ihwa Mural Village. J. Tour. Leis. Res. 2017, 29, 417–436. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, S.-H.; Kang, S.-H. The gentrification process of living space by tourism. J. Tour. Sci. 2018, 42, 85–102. [Google Scholar]
- Relph, E. Place and Placelessness; Pion: London, UK, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- McCabe, S.; Stokoe, E. Place and identity in tourists’ accounts. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 601–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ratz, T.; Smith, M.; Michalkó, G. New places in old spaces: Mapping tourism and regeneration in Budapest. Tour. Geogr. 2008, 10, 429–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, S.-P. Place attachment and tourism marketing: Investigating international tourists in Singapore. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2012, 14, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeong, D.Y.; Yoon, J.H. Research articles: Placeness formation of cultural tourism space by industrial heritage’s reuse. J. Tour. Sci. 2014, 38, 57–78. [Google Scholar]
- Shim, C.S. Urban tourism and place: A critical analysis on Relph’s “Place and Placelessness”. J. Tour. Stud. 2014, 26, 27–43. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, N.-H.; Kim, N.-J. Meaning and attachment of place in urban tourism: Applying visitor employed photography. J. Tour. Stud. 2016, 28, 147–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davidson, M.; Lees, L. New build ‘gentrification’ and London’s riverside renaissance. Environ. Plan. A 2005, 37, 1165–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Glass, R. London: Aspects of Change; Macgibbon & Kee, Centre for Urban Studies: London, UK, 1964. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, N. New globalism, new urbanism: Gentrification as global urban strategy. Antipode 2002, 34, 427–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gotham, K.F. Tourism from above and below: Globalization, localization and New Orleans’s Mardi Gras. Int. J. Urban. Reg. Res. 2005, 29, 309–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendes, L. Gentrification and the new urban social movements in times of post-capitalist crisis and austerity urbanism in Portugal. Ariz. J. Hisp. Cult. Stud. 2018, 22, 199–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belhassen, Y.; Uriely, N.; Assor, O. The touristification of a conflict zone: The case of Bil’in. Ann. Tour. Res. 2014, 49, 174–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Y.; Kou, M.; Lu, S.; Li, D. The characteristics and causes of urban tourism gentrification: A case of study in Nanjing. Econ. Geogr. 2009, 29, 1391–1396. [Google Scholar]
- Liang, Z.; Bao, J. Tourism gentrification in Shenzhen, China: Causes and socio-spatial consequences. Tour. Geogr. 2015, 17, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, S. A Study of Media Cognizance on MICE Integrate Resort using Semantic Network Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, Dongguk University, Seoul, Korea, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, G. A case study of Wolgok-4 Dong redevelopment district: Housing redevelopment and neighborhood change as a gentrification process in Seoul, Korea. J. Korea Plan. Assoc. 2007, 41, 215–216. [Google Scholar]
- Novy, J. What’s new about new urban tourism? And what do recent changes in travel imply for the ‘tourist city’ Berlin? In Tourism and Architecture; Braun: Salenstein, Switzerland, 2010; pp. 190–199. [Google Scholar]
- Jeong, J.H. The uptrending commercialization of Samcheong-dong Street in Seoul, because of the location of cultural and artistic amenities. J. Geogr. 2007, 50, 91–116. [Google Scholar]
- Füller, H.; Michel, B. ‘Stop being a tourist!’ New dynamics of urban tourism in Berlin-Kreuzberg. Int. J. Urban. Reg. Res. 2014, 38, 1304–1318. [Google Scholar]
- Urry, J. The ‘consumption’ of tourism. Sociology 1990, 24, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munt, I. Eco-tourism or ego-tourism? Race Class. 1994, 36, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doxey, G.V. A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: Methodology and research inferences. In Proceedings of the Travel and Tourism Research Association’s Sixth Annual Conference Proceedings, San Diego, CA, USA, 8–11 September 1975; pp. 195–198. [Google Scholar]
- Dogan, H.Z. Forms of adjustment: Sociocultural impacts of tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1989, 16, 216–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Im, S. Environmental Psychology and Human Behaviour: Research on Human-Familiar Environmental Design; Bomoondang: Seoul, Korea, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Kwon, Y. A Study on the Sense of Place of Street Environment using Structural Equation Modeling: Case Study on Insa-dong Streets. Master’s Thesis, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, 2010. [Google Scholar]
Variable | Item | Frequency (Percentage %) | Variable | Item | Frequency (Percentage %) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Men | 12 (60) | Housing type | Single-family housing | 3 (40) |
Women | 8 (40) | Multi-family housing | 9 (45) | ||
Age | 10–19 | 0 (0) | Other | 3 (15) | |
20–29 | 3 (15) | Length of residency | 1–10 years | 6 (30) | |
30–39 | 5 (25) | 11–20 years | 2 (10) | ||
40–49 | 1 (5) | 21–30 years | 3 (15) | ||
50–59 | 3 (15) | 31–40 years | 2 (10) | ||
60+ | 7 (35) | 41–50 years | 3 (15) | ||
Education level | Middle school or below | 2 (10) | Over 50 years | 4 (20) | |
High school graduate | 6 (30) | Location of residency | Samcheong-dong | 3 (15) | |
College graduate or higher | 12 (60) | ||||
Wonseo-dong | 3 (15) | ||||
Occupation | Student | 2 (10) | |||
Gahoe-dong | 8 (40) | ||||
Homemaker | 3 (15) | ||||
Gye-dong | 1 (5) | ||||
Salaried worker | 6 (30) | ||||
Unemployed | 7 (35) | ||||
Other | 5 (25) | ||||
Self-employed | 1 (5) | ||||
Other | 1 (5) |
Superordinate Level Concept (Direction of Improvement) | Basic Level Concept (Specific Direction) | Subordinate Level Concept (Specific Space Items for Improvement) |
---|---|---|
Tourist behavior modification | Promote quiet tourism | Library avenue, outdoor gallery, outdoor screen |
Reinforce the territoriality of the residential area. | Courtyard, bench, or door that fosters a sense of belonging | |
Residents’ psychological change | Mitigate the perception of crowding | Open spaces for reducing the crowding at waiting areas of commercial buildings |
Pedestrian-only walkway, space-dividing objects | ||
Increase the aesthetic beauty of the residential district | Plant trees by the roadside, add interesting elements to the pavement | |
Create outdoor SOC space | Children’s playground, outdoor exercise equipment, grass field |
Category | The Direction of Improvement for Each Space Type | |
---|---|---|
Space type | Main commercial street | <promote quiet tourism> -library avenue, outdoor gallery, outdoor screen, and rest area <mitigate perception of crowding> -create a pedestrian-only walkway |
Famous tourist destination | <create outdoor SOC space> -children’s playground/outdoor exercise equipment/grass field | |
Residents’ convenience facility that became a tourist destination | <mitigate perception of crowding > -open space that residents and tourists can share | |
Front of residence | <increase the aesthetic beauty of residential district> -plant trees by the roadside, add interesting elements on the pavement <mitigate perception of crowding> -unify the colors of the building front <reinforce the territoriality of the residence> -courtyard or bench that fosters a sense of belonging |
Before Improvement | After Improvement |
---|---|
On the main commercial street, a library avenue was created to promote quiet tourism. | |
In front of residences, interesting elements were added to the pavement and trees were planted on the roadside to increase the aesthetic beauty of the residential district. | |
On the main commercial street, a pedestrian-only walkway was created to mitigate crowding. | |
In front of residences, open space was created to mitigate the crowding caused by waiting tourists. | |
In front of residences, a rest area was created to reinforce the territoriality of the residence. | |
In a famous tourist destination, outdoor SOC spaces such as a children’s playground and exercise equipment were installed. | |
At a residential convenience facility that became a tourist destination, open space was created to mitigate crowding. | |
Variable | Item | Frequency (%) | Variable | Item | Frequency (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Men | 19 (38.8) | Housing type | Private housing | 13 (26.5) |
Women | 30 (61.2) | Multi-family housing | 29 (59.2) | ||
Age | 10–19 | 9 (18.4) | Other | 7 (14.3) | |
20–29 | 8 (16.3) | Length of residency | 1 year–10 years | 21 (42.9) | |
30–39 | 12 (24.5) | 11 years–20 years | 14 (28.6) | ||
40–49 | 7 (14.3) | 21 years–30 years | 6 (12.2) | ||
50–59 | 9 (18.4) | 31 years–40 years | 3 (6.1) | ||
60+ | 4 (8.2) | 41 years–50 years | 1 (2.0) | ||
Education level | Middle school or below | 9 (18.4) | Over 50 years | 1 (2.0) | |
High school graduate | 13 (26.5) | Other | 3 (6.1) | ||
College graduate or higher | 27 (55.1) | Location of residency | Nusang/Nuha-dong | 11 (22.4) | |
Occupation | Student | 15 (30.6) | Okin-dong | 18 (36.7) | |
Homemaker | 5 (10.2) | Sajik/Pilwun-dong | 6 (12.2) | ||
Salaried worker | 20 (40.8) | Cheongwun/Hyoja-dong | 8 (16.3) | ||
Unemployed | 3 (6.1) | Chebu/Tongin-dong | 4 (8.2) | ||
Self-employed | 4 (8.2) | Tongui-dong | 1 (2.0) | ||
Other | 2 (4.1) | Other | 1 (2.0) |
Cognitive Concept | Adjective Pairs | Association with Touristification |
---|---|---|
Congestion | Bustling–Secluded | The problem of noise and crowding because of tourists |
Noisy–Quiet | ||
Crowded–Uneventful | ||
Neatness | Cluttered–Orderly | The problem of trash, crowding, and overall deterioration of the environment because of tourists |
Dirty–Clean | ||
Safety | Unsafe–Safe | Increase in crime and anxiety because of tourists (unfamiliar people) |
Inconvenient–Convenient | ||
Unsettling–Relaxing | ||
Openness | Airy–Stifling | Psychological emotion in response to crowding of tourists in residential areas |
Narrow–Wide | ||
Confined–Spacious | ||
Familiarity | Inhospitable–Cordial | |
Unfamiliar–Familiar | ||
Awkward–Intimate | ||
Aesthetics | Plain–Picturesque | |
Psychological emotion | Unpleasant–Pleasant | |
Disturbing–Pleasing |
Variable | Item | Frequency (Percentage %) | Variable | Item | Frequency (Percentage %) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Awareness of tourist influx | Always | 7 (35) | Feeling resentful because of tourists | Always | 5 (25) |
Usually | 9 (45) | Usually | 5 (25) | ||
Sometimes | 4 (20) | Sometimes | 5 (25) | ||
Rarely | 0 (0) | Rarely | 5 (25) | ||
Never | 0 (0) | Never | 0 (0) | ||
Feeling inconvenienced because of tourists | Always | 6 (30) | Intend to relocate because of tourists | Always | 2 (10) |
Usually | 6 (30) | Usually | 5 (25) | ||
Sometimes | 6 (30) | Sometimes | 4 (20) | ||
Rarely | 2 (10) | Rarely | 9 (45) | ||
Never | 0 (0) | Never | 0 (0) |
Correlation Coefficient | Relocation Intent | |
---|---|---|
Perception | Pearson correlation coefficient | 0.263 |
Significance probability of perception (two-tailed) | 0.263 | |
Perception N | 20 | |
Inconvenience | Pearson correlation coefficient | 0.681 ** |
Significance probability of inconvenience (two-tailed) | 0.001 | |
Inconvenience N | 20 | |
Resentment | Pearson correlation coefficient | 0.640 ** |
Significance probability of resentment (two-tailed) | 0.002 | |
Resentment N | 20 |
Adjectives | Perception | Inconvenience | Resentment | Relocation Intent |
---|---|---|---|---|
Unsafe | 0.091003 | 0.517148 * | 0.516908 * | 0.612977 * |
Unfamiliar | −0.04674 | 0.267905 | 0.114357 | 0.426206 * |
Unsettling | 0.174964 | 0.691669 * | 0.611577 * | 0.765532 * |
Noisy | 0.401325 | 0.735218 * | 0.701406 * | 0.649182 * |
Dirty | −0.20004 | 0.345975 | 0.292803 | 0.414592 * |
Unpleasant | 0.077449 | 0.169377 | 0.381906 | 0.412755 * |
Narrow | 0.323602 | 0.484884 * | 0.497152 * | 0.692316 * |
Stifling | 0.302614 | 0.672917 * | 0.634663 * | 0.668994 * |
Confined | −0.01864 | 0.239532 | 0.089606 | 0.309118 |
Cluttered | 0.072739 | 0.575108 * | 0.508513 * | 0.703526 * |
Inhospitable | −0.10131 | 0.250301 | 0.154922 | 0.20996 |
Inconvenient | 0.353706 | 0.313584 | 0.222727 | 0.129366 |
Awkward | −0.24471 | 0.169294 | 0.047046 | 0.202869 |
Crowded | −0.406 | 0.1605 | 0.141915 | 0.186989 |
Disturbing | −0.17496 | 0.432293 * | 0.305788 | 0.483494 * |
Bustling | 0.141827 | 0.745896 * | 0.593129 * | 0.671871 * |
Plain | −0.08992 | 0.325863 | 0.209549 | 0.455573 * |
Cognitive Concept | Adjectives Pairs |
---|---|
Congestion | Bustling–Secluded, Noisy–Quiet |
Neatness | Cluttered–Orderly, Dirty–Clean |
Safety | Unsettling–Relaxing |
Openness | Narrow–Wide, Stifling–Airy |
Aesthetics | Plain–Picturesque |
Psychological Emotion | Unpleasant–Pleasant, Disturbing–Pleasing |
Category | Inconvenience | Relocation Intent | Frequency (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Group 1 | X | X | 8 (16.3) |
Group 2 | O | X | 17 (34.7) |
Group 3 | O | O | 24 (49.0) |
Total | 49 (100%) |
Adjectives | Average | Adjectives | Average |
---|---|---|---|
Unsettling–Relaxing | 3.19 | Stifling–Airy | 3.13 |
Noisy–Quiet | 3.42 | Cluttered–Orderly | 3.40 |
Dirty–Clean | 3.23 | Disturbing–Pleasing | 2.89 |
Unpleasant–Pleasant | 3.01 | Bustling–Secluded | 3.41 |
Narrow–Wide | 3.21 | Plain–Picturesque | 3.32 |
Division | Image before Improvement | Image after Improvement | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adjective | 1 | 5 | 7 | 8 | Ave. | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 9 | Ave. |
Unsettling | 3.45 | 2.90 | 3.39 | 3.00 | 3.19 | 1.88 | 2.22 | 2.37 | 2.24 | 2.33 | 2.21 |
Noisy | 3.57 | 3.41 | 3.69 | 3.02 | 3.42 | 2.47 | 2.57 | 2.55 | 3.08 | 3.18 | 2.77 |
Dirty | 3.31 | 3.51 | 3.31 | 2.82 | 3.24 | 1.88 | 2.24 | 2.00 | 2.49 | 2.49 | 2.22 |
Unpleasant | 3.08 | 3.06 | 3.10 | 2.80 | 3.01 | 1.84 | 2.18 | 2.19 | 2.29 | 2.37 | 2.17 |
Narrow | 4.16 | 2.89 | 3.06 | 2.81 | 3.23 | 1.85 | 2.32 | 2.89 | 2.81 | 2.44 | 2.46 |
Stifling | 3.84 | 2.73 | 3.08 | 2.88 | 3.13 | 1.88 | 2.27 | 2.80 | 2.57 | 2.16 | 2.34 |
Cluttered | 3.73 | 3.31 | 3.60 | 3.02 | 3.42 | 2.08 | 2.59 | 2.31 | 2.73 | 2.69 | 2.48 |
Disturbing | 3.04 | 2.67 | 3.00 | 2.86 | 2.89 | 1.86 | 2.24 | 2.35 | 2.24 | 2.22 | 2.18 |
Bustling | 3.69 | 3.33 | 3.61 | 3.00 | 3.41 | 2.47 | 2.67 | 2.67 | 3.00 | 2.82 | 2.73 |
Plain | 3.51 | 2.96 | 3.43 | 3.39 | 3.32 | 2.06 | 2.24 | 2.29 | 2.29 | 2.39 | 2.25 |
Average | 3.23 | 2.38 | |||||||||
Difference of Average | 0.85 |
Division | ① | ② | ③ | ④ | ⑤ | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adjective | Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | Before | After |
Unsettling | 3.00 | 2.22 | 2.90 | 2.33 | 3.45 | 2.24 | 3.45 | 2.37 | 3.39 | 1.88 |
Noisy | 3.02 | 2.57 | 3.41 | 3.18 | 3.57 | 3.08 | 3.57 | 2.55 | 3.69 | 2.47 |
Dirty | 2.82 | 2.24 | 3.51 | 2.19 | 3.31 | 2.49 | 3.31 | 2.00 | 3.31 | 1.88 |
Unpleasant | 2.80 | 2.18 | 3.06 | 2.37 | 3.08 | 2.29 | 3.08 | 2.19 | 3.10 | 1.84 |
Narrow | 2.81 | 2.32 | 2.89 | 2.44 | 4.16 | 2.81 | 4.16 | 2.89 | 3.06 | 1.85 |
Stifling | 2.88 | 2.27 | 2.73 | 2.16 | 3.84 | 2.57 | 3.84 | 2.80 | 3.08 | 1.88 |
Cluttered | 3.02 | 2.59 | 3.31 | 2.69 | 3.73 | 2.73 | 3.73 | 2.31 | 3.60 | 2.08 |
Disturbing | 2.86 | 2.24 | 2.67 | 2.22 | 3.04 | 2.24 | 3.04 | 2.35 | 3.00 | 1.86 |
Bustling | 3.00 | 2.67 | 3.33 | 2.82 | 3.69 | 3.00 | 3.69 | 2.67 | 3.61 | 2.47 |
Plain | 3.39 | 2.24 | 2.96 | 2.39 | 3.51 | 2.29 | 3.51 | 2.29 | 3.43 | 2.06 |
Ave. | 2.96 | 2.35 | 3.08 | 2.48 | 3.54 | 2.57 | 3.54 | 2.44 | 3.33 | 2.03 |
Dif. Of Ave. | 0.61 | 0.60 | 0.96 | 1.10 | 1.30 |
Space Type of Touristified Area | Key Influencing Factor | Effective Mitigation Strategy |
---|---|---|
Main commercial street | Openness of space (narrow) | Pedestrian-only walkway to mitigate the perception of crowding |
Residents’ convenience facility that became a tourist destination | Neatness (dirty) | Open space that residents and tourists can share |
Front of residence | Aesthetics (plain) Safety (unsettling) | Rest area to secure residents’ space |
Front of famous tourist destination | Noise (noisy) | Outdoor social space |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kwon, Y.; Kim, J.; Kim, J.; Park, C. Mitigating the Impact of Touristification on the Psychological Carrying Capacity of Residents. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2737. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052737
Kwon Y, Kim J, Kim J, Park C. Mitigating the Impact of Touristification on the Psychological Carrying Capacity of Residents. Sustainability. 2021; 13(5):2737. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052737
Chicago/Turabian StyleKwon, Yoonku, Jihyun Kim, Jiyoung Kim, and Chan Park. 2021. "Mitigating the Impact of Touristification on the Psychological Carrying Capacity of Residents" Sustainability 13, no. 5: 2737. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052737