Next Article in Journal
Open Innovation Readiness Assessment within Students in Poland: Investigating State-of-the-Art and Challenges
Previous Article in Journal
Integrated Policy Package Assessment (IPPA): A Problem-Oriented Research Approach for Sustainability Transformations
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effects of Demographic Trends on the High-Quality Development of the Chinese Sports Industry
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 3
10.3390/su14031232
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Residents’ Perception of the Impact of Sports Tourism on Sustainable Social Development

by
Rómulo Jacobo González-García
1,
Gabriel Mártínez-Rico
1,*,
Francesc Bañuls-Lapuerta
1 and
Ferran Calabuig
2
1
Campus Capacitas, Universidad Católica de Valencia, 46110 Valencia, Spain
2
Department of Physical Education and Sports, Faculty of Physical Activity and Sport Sicences, Universitat de Valéncia, 46010 Valencia, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(3), 1232; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031232
Submission received: 1 December 2021 / Revised: 7 January 2022 / Accepted: 18 January 2022 / Published: 21 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sport-Based Entrepreneurship, Sport Management, and Sustainable Development Goals)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The analysis of the social perception of citizens and evaluations of the impact of sport tourism and their support for tourism development can be of great use in the formulation of policies aimed at social cohesion and local development. These actions favor social participation and inclusion, equal opportunities, and more positive attitudes towards sports tourism and inclusive sport. This study aims to analyze the perception and predisposition towards the support of citizens on the impact of sport tourism from a multidimensional perspective. Specifically, this study evaluates the social perception on four measures: social impact, cultural impact, environmental impact, and local policies. The sample of this study is composed of 607 people living in Gran Canaria. A survey with two scales were used, one on the perception of the social, cultural, environmental, economic, and political–administrative impact and the other was on the predisposition to support the development of sport tourism from the perspective of sustainable and inclusive social development. Using the partial least square methodology, the results show that all the study variables were significant except for social impact. It is concluded that there is a favorable social perception towards sport tourism. The results of this study might have a effect on the planning of the tourism sector in Gran Canaria as well as on the policies and regulations governing this activity.

1. Introduction

The promotion and development of tourism are generally perceived as a large source of income, new jobs, and changes and improvements in community infrastructures. This fact constitutes a pole of attraction for other industries and, consequently, conditions their subsequent development. It can be affirmed that tourist activity has a global effect on the host populations [1]. Tourism activity has not been left out in its relationship with sport, the latter being one of the areas of most remarkable growth in tourism at present. Sports tourism accounts for an essential part of the income in this sector at a global level. Sports tourism has been defined as a leisure trip whereby individuals temporarily leave their place of residence to participate in physical sporting activities, to view physical sporting activities, or to visit attractions associated with physical sporting activities [2,3,4]. Different studies highlight that, in general, local residents express favorable attitudes towards tourism [5,6,7]. A deeper understanding from the resident’s point of view is needed to enable the governments involved to plan more effectively for the future of tourism. Information on residents’ perceptions, as well as assessments of the impact of tourism activity and their support for tourism development, can be of great use in formulating tourism plans and policies, not only to gain residents’ support for tourism but also to implement sustainable development of the sector [8].
Social exchange theory has been considered one of the most appropriate frameworks for understanding residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts [9]. One of the advantages of using social exchange theory is that it can explain both positive and negative perceptions, as well as examine residents’ relationships at both the individual and collective levels [10]. Hence, social exchange theory is considered as an important sociological conceptual approach to the study of tourism–community relations, and is concerned with understanding the exchange of resources between the two parties in a situation of interaction, where the objects offered for exchange have value and are measurable and there is a mutual management of rewards and costs between the actors [4,11].
The reasons why the field of sports tourism has not progressed as quickly as expected may be due to the fact that the vast majority of contributions have focused on general theories rather than theories specific to sports tourism [2,3]. In relation to tourism, there is a recognized need for a multidimensional framework for sport tourism research, a framework that recognizes time, space, and sport as an activity [12]. Commonly, contributions on the impacts associated with sport tourism have been analyzed from a multidimensional perspective, related to aspects encompassed within the different categories described in the literature in reference to residents’ perceptions [13].
As indicated by [4,14,15], the impacts associated with tourism have been investigated, generally from an economic and environmental perspective. The socio-cultural impacts associated with this activity have also been frequently investigated. Some studies have delved into the impacts associated with residents’ perceptions of the impact of tourism on the community with multidimensional scales [16,17] or have developed theoretical frameworks for the evaluation of this type of impacts on the community [4,11].
For their part, Ref. [18] classify these impacts into economic, environmental, and social. The authors of [15], in their study on the impacts received by residents in India-Naples (USA), revealed after an exploratory factor analysis that the impacts associated with tourism, sports explicitly tourism, can be structured into four factors: social benefits, environmental benefits, economic benefits, and generally negative impacts.
The economic impacts associated with sport tourism have had a notable impact on the relationship between these elements [10,19,20], affecting the communities that develop this type of activity. Likewise, tourism is commonly associated with new employment opportunities for local residents [21,22], generating an important source of income [23] as well as the creation of business opportunities in the locality [24]. These circumstances derive from the empowerment of the local economy [25]. Similarly, the impacts of tourism on the locality translate into an improvement of infrastructure and facilities [26], which translates into an increase in the quality of life of the resident inhabitants [27,28]. At the same time, there are negative impacts associated with the development of tourism, such as an increase in the cost of living [29,30,31], which in turn can affect temporary employment and unemployment [29], together with an increase in price inflation [32].
The social impact on the community associated with sports tourism is associated with changes in moral and social norms and values [2,33,34]. Social impacts are commonly associated with a positive influence on the services offered by the community to its inhabitants [23,35], allowing the creation of new leisure opportunities [36,37]. On the other hand, social impacts can also be associated with other more negative events, such as the production of urban congestion [30,38], increased public insecurity [25,26], overcrowding in certain localities [38,39,40] or public facilities [25,32], or environmental and noise pollution [41].
Tourism researchers are often interested in variables that are not easily observed and measured in reality. Consequently, researchers rely on indicators to measure the variables of interest to them. However, the indicators used in tourism research are only an approximation of reality. They not only reflect the latent variable they are intended to measure but also contain measurement errors. That is why all indicators in the model contain an element of error, so measuring this threatens the validity of the research findings, particularly when the concepts used by the researcher are abstract to measure [7] (e.g., impacts associated with active-sport tourism). Measurement errors artificially attenuate the estimate of the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable and affect the entire model.
The tourism sector, especially in the active sports sector, whose activities occur in nature, has a great responsibility in its relationship with the environment. Sometimes, these activities can be aggressive with natural resources if they are not carried out in the right places and with the necessary measures to ensure that they do not harm the environment [42]. According to [43], it must be designed and managed sustainably for successful tourism development to occur. Regarding the environmental impacts associated with tourism development, several studies indicate that these have a reinforcing effect on preserving natural resources and improving different aspects associated with the environment [29,35]. On the other hand, other studies point to the generation of tourism-related pollution [10,30,35] or a decrease in the available natural habitat [44]. As [43] points out, the importance of tourism within the framework of sustainability, despite the intensification of negative impacts, could bring quality to the exchange between residents and tourists if approached within appropriate margins, preserving and maintaining the environment and the culture of the localities and the economic and social well-being of the residents. The conservation of the environment of nature at the municipal level, regarding tourism planning also towards sustainable management of the environment, is sometimes confronted with the desire of the agents associated with tourism activity to operate only following the principles of economic development [45].
For this reason, it is essential not only to raise awareness among entrepreneurs of the principles of environmental sustainability but also to encourage governments to act by regulating these activities with actions that are less and less harmful to the natural environment in which they take place [17,46]. Improving innovation and environmental performance in the tourism sector is essential, and tourism companies often lead to new approaches. However, legislation is required, as self-regulation and ecological certification are ineffective [46,47]. Despite this uncertainty, it is clear that traditional tourism is still far from being considered sustainable, so it is necessary to implement policies that support the sustainable development of the destination [17,48,49].
Understanding local residents’ support for tourism development is essential for local governments, policy makers, and businesses. The success and sustainability of any activity being developed depend on local policymakers’ support [50,51,52]. This is why researchers have explored the factors that could influence these perceived impacts and subsequent support for development [37]. Within a specific setting, Ref. [20,53] noted that the support and involvement of local residents are crucial for the sustainable development of the tourism industry. Consequently, residents perceive the positive effects of tourism more strongly than the negative ones, which helps explain their support for tourism development. Thus, gaining residents’ support could emerge as a key task for managers responsible for tourism planning and development [35]. Regarding residents’ perceptions, several authors [17,53,54] found that critical personal development is controlled for residents with positive perceptions of tourism development, who also support specific tourism development policies. This support can be enhanced by improving the standard of living and safety of residents and tourists, benefiting local residents economically, and encouraging a variety of cultural activities through the development of a range of tourism projects, such as seasonal cultural and folkloric events, inclusive sports and outdoor recreational facilities and activities, as well as meetings, incentives, conventions, and exhibitions [14,27,30,39]. Additionally, economic impacts remain an essential factor in supporting development while perceived costs significantly and negatively influence support for tourism development [10,53]. Therefore, there is a need for tourism planners to tailor their decisions to the needs of the community [43]. This will increase community support, which is an essential component for the success of sport tourism at the destination [39,53,54].
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to know the perceptions of residents on sports tourism developed on the island of Gran Canaria. In addition, it analyzes their predisposition to support the development of the sector. Specifically, this study evaluates the perception of citizens in five dimensions: social impact, cultural impact, environmental impact, and impact on local policies.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The sample of this study is composed of a total of 607 persons residing in Gran Canaria. The total population of Gran Canaria is 855,521 inhabitants (2020). According to data published by the Canary Islands Institute of Statistics, in 2020, there was a total of 748,849 inhabitants over 15 years of age. Those surveyed were with an average age of 36 years (M = 35.90; SD = 13.82), ranging from 18 to 86 years of age. In turn, 50.50% of the respondents were women compared to 49.50% of the male respondents. It should be noted that a stratified random sampling based on sex was used for the study, which meant that some of the population groups were excluded or underrepresented in the overall sample [47]. In this study, with a population sample of 727,124 residents (2018), the final size of 607 residents determined a confidence level of 95%, with a range of error of 3.9%. During sample collection, an attempt was made to minimize this effect, paying particular attention to the sociodemographic variables, including the variable municipality of residence, so that the sample would be distributed throughout all the large municipalities of the island. Of the sample, 67% reported doing some type of sport, compared to 33% who reported not doing any type of sporting activity. A total of 42.8% had university studies. A total of 38.5% completed secondary education. A total of 16.2% of those surveyed reported having only primary education and only 2.3% said they had no education at all. Considering the income level of the sample, slightly more than half of the respondents (57.8%) indicated having an annual family income of less than 12,000 euros. Some 23.5% of respondents indicated that their income was between €12,001 and €18,000, while 18.7% of respondents indicated that their annual income was above €18,001. As for the geographic location of residence of the respondents in Gran Canaria, 50.8% of the respondents stated that they lived in urban areas, while 28.4% indicated that they lived in coastal areas and 20.8% of the respondents indicated that they lived in rural areas of the island.

2.2. Procedure

The sample was collected by means of proportional stratified sampling by sex quota, where the last sampling unit was the municipality. In the present work, the sampling frame was all residents of legal age whose residence is on the island of Gran Canaria. For this reason, the study used a systematic random selection to extract the sample, based on the explicit rule of taking the sample in different points of Gran Canaria, following a predetermined route in each of the municipalities, emphasizing the number of residents of the municipality to obtain the sample, making a bias proportional to the percentage of residents on the island according to sex, as well as attending to a greater extent to the areas where there is a higher population density or tourist activity.
A self-administered survey was hand-delivered to randomly selected residents by the researcher and a team of collaborators previously instructed for the task. Prior to completing the questionnaire, each respondent had been informed of the purpose of the study, as well as that the data completed would be completely anonymous. In addition, confidentiality was guaranteed by omitting any information that was not necessary for the purpose of the study. Respondents were also informed of the possibility of not answering any question that they felt might infringe on their anonymity. The areas where the sample was collected were selected by systematic sampling with a previously selected collection point. Specifically, the sample collection area was selected on the basis of a series of characteristics such as the affluence of residents and proximity to tourist points. On the other hand, an attempt was made to distribute the sample selection sites over as much of the island as possible.

2.3. Instruments

The instrument is composed of different scales measuring residents’ perceptions of sports tourism’s economic, social, cultural, environmental, political, and administrative impacts [1,3,55,56,57]. The scale has been previously validated [54]. Additonally, a scale designed to measure the predisposition to support the development of sport tourism by residents was used [39]. The reliability of the scales was determined by Cronbach’s alpha analysis, being in all scales above the cut-off point set at 0.70 [58]. The measures have been taken through a five-point Likert scale, where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means strongly agree. The scale is composed of 21 items.
  • Economic impact (three items)
  • Cultural impact (three items)
  • Political–administrative impacts (three items)
  • Social impacts (three items)
  • Environmental impacts (three items)
  • Support (six items)

2.4. Data Analysis

The SmartPLS statistical package has been used to evaluate the model using the Partial Least Square (PLS) method, which employs a two-stage analysis approach: first, an evaluation of the measurement model, and second, a structural evaluation of the model. In the first stage of the analysis, the acceptability of the measurement model must be confirmed [59]. The evaluation of the measurement model involves an assessment of the validity and reliability of the latent variables. The validity, in turn, comprises two types: convergent and discriminant. Assessing the reliability and validity of the model involves assessing the relationships between the latent variables and their associated items, which is performed through two key coefficients: composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) [58].
When assessing the reliability of a model, the loading of each indicator on its associated latent variable, checked against a threshold, should be taken into account. In general, the loading should be greater than 0.70 for the reliability of the indicator to be considered acceptable [58]. Likewise, a loading below 0.40 indicates that the item should be considered for deletion, and items with loadings between 0.40–0.70 should be considered for deletion if they increase the CR and AVE above the established threshold [58,60]. Cronbach’s alpha values were used to measure the reliability of the indicator.
The previously described Fornell–Larcker criterion must be met to establish discriminant validity. The square root of the AVE for each construct must be greater than all the correlations between the other constructs in the model [60,61,62]. In addition, the heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT), recently established as a superior criterion compared to more traditional evaluation methods such as the Fornell–Larcker criterion, has been calculated [59,60]. The variance inflation factor (VIF) has been calculated with regression analysis to rule out multicollinearity problems. A VIF greater than ten indicates a multicollinearity problem [61].
In the second stage of analysis, the structural model was evaluated using the R2 value as an indication of the model’s explanatory power [62]. In addition, SRMR values were calculated as an approximate model suitable for PLS-SEM [60]. An SRMR value of less than 0.08 can be considered acceptable for PLS-SEM [60].

3. Results

Regarding the results of this study, Table 1 shows the mean rating of residents’ opinions on different scales. The average score for observing the economic impact is 4.03 (SD = 0.83), out of 5 points. This means that the respondents have a positive attitude towards the economic impact of sports tourism in Gran Canaria. On the other hand, regarding the positive direction of the ratings, the lowest evaluation of the perceived impact is related to the impacts associated with the co-community culture, with an average of 3.60 (SD = 0.89), out of a total of five points.
Likewise, regarding political–administrative influence, the three-item scale has an average of 4.26 (SD = 0.78) among the five items. In relation to social impacts, an average of 2.04 points (out of five points) was obtained. Finally, environmental cost is the negative dimension with the highest score, with an average of 2.37 (SD = 1.07), with a maximum score of 5.
Table 2 presents the results obtained for the size of the association of the population to sport tourism. The total Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is 0.81, a value that indicates the excellent reliability of the scale. After analyzing the respondents’ answers, a mean of 3.99 out of five was received, with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.77.
The results obtained from the analysis of the relationship between the impacts associated with residents’ perception of sports tourism and their predisposition to support its development in the community will be presented below. For this purpose, the model will be developed using PLS-SEM using a two-stage analysis approach. First, an evaluation of the measurement model is carried out, and then the structural model evaluation is completed.

3.1. Evaluation of the Measurement Model

The measurement model used in this study included the five associated impact variables extracted from the previous study [54]: economic impact, cultural impact, political–administrative impact, social impact, and environmental impact of residents on sports tourism development.
Cronbach’s Alpha values measuring the factor loadings recorded were above the recommended threshold of 0.70. The reliability coefficient (FC) is also used to assess construct reliability and should be greater than 0.70 to establish construct reliability [61]. Table 3 indicates that the FC for all latent variables in the measurement model for both groups was greater than 0.70. These results indicate that the measurement model has acceptable reliability.
To assess the convergent validity of the measurement model for both groups, the AVE of the latent variables must also be greater than 0.50 for its convergent validity to be considered acceptable [59]. Table 3 shows that the AVE of the constructs was greater than 0.50; therefore, the convergent validity was acceptable.
Discriminant validity is the extent to which each latent variable is different from other constructs in the model [60]. To establish discriminant validity, the square root of the AVE for each construct must be greater than all correlations between the constructs and the other constructs in the model to meet the Fornell–Larcker criterion [60]. As a criterion, HTMT values are compared with a predefined threshold: discriminant validity is lacking if the HTMT value is higher than this threshold. Previous studies have suggested constructing thresholds below 0.85 or 0.90 for the HTMT to establish discriminant validity [59].
The results of the discriminant evaluation of the discriminant validity of the measurement model using the Fornell–Larcker criterion (Table 4) and the HTMT relation (Table 5) are shown below and indicate that the model has acceptable discriminant validity.

3.2. Evaluation of the Structural Model

As can be seen in Figure 1, the R2 value was 0.497. An R2 value of 0.20 is relatively high and acceptable by behavioral research standards [63]. Table 6 shows the path coefficients:
Additionally, an SRMR value of less than 0.08 can be considered acceptable for PLS-SEM [63]. The results revealed that the SRMR model conformed to values of 0.65.

4. Discussion

The authors of [51] state that residents should contribute with their participation in the different levels of planning, development, and implementation of tourism activities to help and extend their hospitality to tourists. All this should be undertaken during the exchange produced in the process of coexistence [31].
Social exchange theory has frequently been used to understand residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts [10,14,48]. This research follows this theory to interpret the results obtained. As stated in the literature [64], social exchange theory allows explaining both positive and negative perceptions [10,31]. In our research, it is clear that the perceptions of the residents of Gran Canaria are also that way.
Concerning the impacts of sports tourism on the locality, Ref. [11] emphasizes that, firstly, sport tourism improves and differentiates the tourism offer of a locality or area. These activities can be carried out in coastal and inland areas, thus contributing to promoting this type of alternative tourism. Likewise, concerning those activities that are usually carried out in a natural environment, a series of factors must be taken into account: positive, in terms of the promotion of tourism, economic activity, and local development in the area, or an alternative and attractive offer to the user, but also harmful, such as the inevitable degradation of the environment and possible overcrowding of areas that do not have the necessary infrastructure [23,41]. There is a need for collaboration between public institutions and private companies when investing, financing, and promoting this type of action, without forgetting the link with culture and even with the cultural heritage of the locality [18].
Frequently, most research has focused on observations of tourism in general, without focusing on the field of sports tourism [2,47]. Thus, our work focused its observation on the specific field of sports tourism. Thus, this is perceived from a multidimensional perspective in a similar way to previous research [12,13]. In this way, economic, social, cultural, environmental, and political–administrative impacts exert an effect on support, these being a tool with enormous potential to take advantage of tourism as part of a community development strategy [23]. Some studies have delved into the impacts associated with residents’ perceptions of the impact of tourism on the community with multidimensional scales [11,16] or have developed theoretical frameworks for the evaluation of this type of community impacts [9,12].
In general terms, the residents of Gran Canaria consider that sports tourism produces more benefits than detriments in the locality. The positive perception that the local population has of the impacts that tourism causes or could cause in the locality leads to a favorable attitude towards more significant tourism development oriented towards the sports sector. This result coincides with that obtained by various studies [43,47] on the perceptions and attitudes of residents regarding the impact of tourism. These studies show that residents are clearly in favor of more remarkable tourism development because they consider it beneficial; however, they are consistent with the negative impacts it causes.
The literature suggests a positive relationship between factors associated with perceived positive impacts and residents’ support for tourism development. These reflect the standard view of tourism as a tool for economic prosperity and community development. They are consistent with the findings of [65], which indicate that, when residents have a better perception of positive social, cultural, environmental, and economic impacts, they support tourism development. For their part, Ref. [66] note in their study that, in the United States, residents’ perceptions of positive socio-cultural and economic impacts positively affect support for tourism development. The authors of [67] point out that the positive impacts derived from tourism development will directly impact the economy (increased employment opportunities; improved investment, more development, and better infrastructure; and improved income and standard of living).
In addition, Ref. [19] found that perceived positive social and economic impacts directly relate to residents’ support for tourism development on the Sunshine Coast, Australia. In the present work, economic, cultural, and political–administrative impacts were positively related to support for sports tourism development in the community.
In turn, and similar to the results obtained in the analysis of residents’ perceptions in Gran Canaria, Ref. [68] indicate that residents’ negative perceptions of tourism and environmental impacts negatively influence support for tourism development. This is also consistent with the findings of [66,69] who found a negative relationship between residents’ perceptions of the negative impacts of tourism and support for tourism development. On the contrary, Ref. [32] indicates that, even when residents recognize the negative impacts of tourism, they continue to support tourism development, a case similar to that of the residents of Gran Canaria. Despite recognizing the negative impacts associated with the activity in question, the latter highly value the development of sport tourism.
Similar to residents’ perceptions in Gran Canaria, Ref. [68] suggest that there is no relationship between residents’ perceptions of the negative social impacts of tourism and support for tourism development. Likewise, although residents recognize the negative social impacts of tourism, they support tourism development in Abu Dhabi. On the other hand, Ref. [66] reported that negative socio-cultural impacts negatively affect support for tourism development. However, the current study found no relationship between negative social impacts and support for tourism development, and in our work, cultural impacts were positively rated.
The same line of our work [70] revealed significant impacts of two variables (environmental and economic impacts) on the support for tourism development. In contrast, the social impacts variable has no significant impact on it. Likewise, Ref. [53] found no relationship between negative social impacts and residents’ support for tourism development. A possible explanation is that some residents ignore social costs if they expect economic benefits, especially during times of economic crisis [71]. Since residents emphasize the benefits of tourism development to the community, they may overestimate the positive economic impacts of tourism and underestimate the negative social impacts.
As pointed out by [72], there are different degrees of perception among the impacts. Likewise, the effects that residents’ perceptions could have on the support for tourism development in the community would vary, with these effects being more potent in the positive impacts and smaller in the negative impacts [73,74].
In this work, political–administrative impacts are highlighted as the factor that most influences residents’ support for the development of sport tourism. Some studies suggest that this factor is a determining factor [50]. The government is considered the main decision-maker during the organization and management processes of the activity [75], in the same way, that it controls the actions developed in the sector by public and private organizations [55].
They point out [68] that, given that the steps for bidding and planning have a minimal component of citizen participation, the level of trust and perception that residents may have towards those responsible for the organization and management of the sector plays a significant role. Thus, studies such as the one by [36] indicate that the organizations in charge of the management and development of tourism activity need to take advantage of this relationship between residents and institutions, designing programs where locals can feel integrated into leisure activities with tourists.
In this paper, political–administrative impacts are highlighted as the factor that exerts the greatest force on residents’ support for active-sport tourism development. Some studies suggest that this factor is determinant [7,51]. The government is considered to be the main decision-maker during the processes of organization and management of the activity [75] in the same way that it controls the actions developed in the sector by agencies, whether public or private [53].
They point out [52] that, given that the steps for bidding and planning have a minimal component of citizen participation, the level of trust and perception that residents may have towards those responsible for the organization and management of the sector, plays a significant role. In this way, studies such as the one elaborated by [36] point out that the organizations in charge of the management and development of tourism activity need to take advantage of this relationship between residents and institutions, designing programs where locals can feel integrated in leisure activities together with tourists.
Following political–administrative impacts, residents in Gran Canaria perceive cultural and economic impacts as influential in supporting the development of sport tourism in the community. Some studies have shown that residents’ perceptions tend to be positive concerning the economic impacts associated with the sector [20,71], while socio-cultural and environmental aspects have a negative tendency [18,21,54].
As far as Gran Canaria is concerned, residents differentiate social impacts from cultural impacts, similar to other studies [54,71]. Indeed, it can be observed that cultural impacts have a positive trend while social impacts have a negative trend. In this sense, in situations where the community has fully integrated tourism activity, some of the negative impacts can be avoided [64]. In the specific case of Gran Canaria, the social impacts are not significant in supporting the development of sports tourism in the community, which could be a possible explanation for their dissociation from the cultural impacts, as well as the indifference of residents to the social impacts associated with the tourism-sports activity.
Regarding the environmental impacts associated with tourism and sports activities, residents of Gran Canaria significantly perceive their relationship with support for developing the activity on the island. According to [29], residents in the Balear Islands highlight environmental impacts as a common denominator among the community. Likewise, the authors argue that, depending on the area of residence, citizens could vary this type of perceptions, with residents in rural areas being more perceptive about environmental impacts than those residing in urban or eminently tourist areas, whose perception will be inclined towards other types of impacts, such as the economic impacts associated with the activity. These same authors also point out that, depending on the type of tourism analyzed, different effects on the environment and residents’ perceptions of this factor may arise.
In general, most research has not reached a consensus as to what factors affect residents’ perceptions and what variables determine these perceptions in the community [5]. This fact can be attributed to the characteristics of each population, each of which has its particularities so that residents’ perceptions vary [39]. The development of this study complements the findings in the field of sport management, more specifically in the analysis of social impact. As noted in the literature [39], the difficulty of reaching consensus in the analysis of perceptions of social impacts on the community is complex, since these can vary over time and even in the period where the study is conducted.
The study has been elaborated focusing on an everlasting activity in the community, such as tourism. For this reason, it would be interesting to check the background and the main consequences of decision-making related to the sport tourism sector by the agents in charge of its organization and management. Finally, the results obtained in this study are useful for communities where tourism is fully developed, this being their main economic sector. Furthermore, it can be extrapolated to many tourist areas with similar characteristics to those described above. As a limitation, it should be considered to separate the positive and negative impacts associated with residents. In this work, it can be observed how there is a negative orientation in some of the observed variables (social impacts and environmental impacts), while the rest of the variables are attributed to positive impacts. This fact could be due to the specificity of the study carried out, since the survey was developed with the aim of measuring the perceptions associated with sports tourism impacts. In future research, it could be interesting to group these dimensions into general positive or negative impacts, as developed in some studies on the impacts of tourism. Thus, it would be possible to check how they group other types of second-order indicators within the structural equation model. This would make it possible to explain residents’ perception of the impacts of sports tourism, contributing to expanding the information and checking which other factors make a greater contribution to explaining the impacts associated with tourism activity.

5. Conclusions

The residents of Gran Canaria have a generally positive perception of the impact of sports tourism on the island. The highest averages correspond to the political–administrative impacts associated with sports tourism, which suggests that citizens consider it very important that the administrations regulate themselves correctly in this area, which will allow for proper tourism planning and the consequent attraction of tourists to the island. For their part, support for the development of tourism in Gran Canaria is highly valued by residents. Therefore, they consider that sports tourism can be an essential asset to complement the island’s existing tourism offer. Residents’ perceptions of the impacts of sports tourism should be considered as a multidimensional construct.
After analysing the influence that perceptions of the impacts associated with sports tourism have on support for tourism development in Gran Canaria, it is observed that, except for social impacts, all the variables are significant in the influence they have on support for tourism development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.B.-L. and F.C.; methodology, R.J.G.-G.; software, R.J.G.-G.; validation, R.J.G.-G., G.M.-R., and F.C.; formal analysis, R.J.G.-G.; investigation, F.B.-L.; resources, F.B.-L.; data curation, R.J.G.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, R.J.G.-G.; writing—review and editing, G.M.-R.; visualization, F.B.-L.; supervision, G.M.-R. and F.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kim, K.; Uysal, M.; Sirgy, M.J. How Does Tourism in a Community Impact the Quality of Life of Community Residents? Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 527–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gibson, H. Sport Tourism and Theory and Other Developments: Some Reflections. J. Sport Tour. 2017, 21, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Weed, M. Sports Tourism Theory and Method—Concepts, Issues and Epistemologies. Eur. Sport Manag. Q. 2005, 5, 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gibson, H.J. Sport Tourism: A Critical Analysis of Research. Sport Manag. Rev. 1998, 1, 45–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Almeida García, F.; Balbuena Vázquez, A.; Cortés Macías, R. Resident’s Attitudes towards the Impacts of Tourism. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2015, 13, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Simpson, K.; Bretherton, P. The Impact of Community Attachment on Host Society Attitudes and Behaviours Towards Visitors. Tour. Hosp. Plan. Dev. 2009, 6, 235–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Vargas-Sánchez, A.; Porras-Bueno, N.; de los Ángeles Plaza-Mejía, M. Explaining Residents’ Attitudes to Tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2011, 38, 460–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Byrd, E.T.; Bosley, H.E.; Dronberger, M.G. Comparisons of Stakeholder Perceptions of Tourism Impacts in Rural Eastern North Carolina. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 693–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ap, J. Residents’ Perceptions on Tourism Impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 1992, 19, 665–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nunkoo, R.; Ramkissoon, H. Power, Trust, Social Exchange and Community Support. Ann. Tour. Res. 2012, 39, 997–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Weed, M. Research Quality Considerations for Grounded Theory Research in Sport & Exercise Psychology. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2009, 10, 502–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Leung, Y.-F.; Spenceley, A.; Hvenegaard, G.; Buckley, R. (Eds.) Tourism and Visitor Management in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Sustainability, 1st ed.; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2018; ISBN 978-2-8317-1898-9. [Google Scholar]
  13. Brida, J.G.; Chiappa, G.D.; Meleddu, M.; Pulina, M. A Comparison of Residents’ Perceptions in Two Cruise Ports in the Mediterranean Sea: Cruise Tourism Development in Mediterranean Ports of Call. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2014, 16, 180–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. González-García, R.J.; Escamilla-Fajardo, P.; López-Carril, S.; Nuñez-Pomar, J. Percepciones de Los Residentes Sobre El Turismo Deportivo: Impactos, Calidad de Vida y Apoyo al Sector: Residents’ Perceptions of Sports Tourism: Impacts, Quality of Life and Sector Support. Cuad. Psicol. Deporte 2020, 20, 174–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hritz, N.; Ross, C. The Perceived Impacts of Sport Tourism: An Urban Host Community Perspective. J. Sport Manag. 2010, 24, 119–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Choi, H.C.; Murray, I. Resident Attitudes toward Sustainable Community Tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 575–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lee, T.H. Influence Analysis of Community Resident Support for Sustainable Tourism Development. Tour. Manag. 2013, 34, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mair, J.; Smith, A. Events and Sustainability: Why Making Events More Sustainable Is Not Enough. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 29, 1739–1755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gursoy, D.; Chi, C.G.; Dyer, P. Locals’ Attitudes toward Mass and Alternative Tourism: The Case of Sunshine Coast, Australia. J. Travel Res. 2010, 49, 381–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kurtzman, J. Economic Impact: Sport Tourism and the City. J. Sport Tour. 2005, 10, 47–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Diedrich, A.; García-Buades, E. Local Perceptions of Tourism as Indicators of Destination Decline. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 512–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Carrascal Incera, A.; Fernández, M.F. Tourism and Income Distribution: Evidence from a Developed Regional Economy. Tour. Manag. 2015, 48, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Andereck, K.L.; Nyaupane, G.P. Exploring the Nature of Tourism and Quality of Life Perceptions among Residents. J. Travel Res. 2011, 50, 248–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. McDowall, S.; Choi, Y. A Comparative Analysis of Thailand Residents’ Perception of Tourism’s Impacts. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2010, 11, 36–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sharma, B.; Dyer, P.; Carter, J.; Gursoy, D. Exploring Residents’ Perceptions of the Social Impacts of Tourism on the Sunshine Coast, Australia. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2008, 9, 288–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. 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]
  27. 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]
  28. Xu, S.; Barbieri, C.; Anderson, D.; Leung, Y.-F.; Rozier-Rich, S. Residents’ Perceptions of Wine Tourism Development. Tour. Manag. 2016, 55, 276–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bujosa Bestard, A.; Nadal, J.R. Modelling Environmental Attitudes toward Tourism. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 688–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Látková, P.; Vogt, C.A. Residents’ Attitudes toward Existing and Future Tourism Development in Rural Communities. J. Travel Res. 2012, 51, 50–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Deery, M.; Jago, L.; Fredline, L. Rethinking Social Impacts of Tourism Research: A New Research Agenda. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bull, C.; Lovell, J. The Impact of Hosting Major Sporting Events on Local Residents: An Analysis of the Views and Perceptions of Canterbury Residents in Relation to the Tour de France 2007. J. Sport Tour. 2007, 12, 229–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hemmonsbey, J.; Tichaawa, T.M. Brand Messages That Influence the Sport Tourism Experience: The Case of South Africa. J. Sport Tour. 2020, 24, 177–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jeong, Y.; Kim, S.-K.; Yu, J.-G. Determinants of Behavioral Intentions in the Context of Sport Tourism with the Aim of Sustaining Sporting Destinations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Woosnam, K.M.; Aleshinloye, K.D. Residents’ Emotional Solidarity with Tourists: Explaining Perceived Impacts of a Cultural Heritage Festival. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2018, 42, 587–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Herbold, V.; Thees, H.; Philipp, J. The Host Community and Its Role in Sports Tourism—Exploring an Emerging Research Field. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yürük, P.; Akyol, A.; Şimşek, G.G. Analyzing the Effects of Social Impacts of Events on Satisfaction and Loyalty. Tour. Manag. 2017, 60, 367–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fredline, E. Host and Guest Relations and Sport Tourism. Sport Soc. 2005, 8, 263–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mao, L.L.; Huang, H. Social Impact of Formula One Chinese Grand Prix: A Comparison of Local Residents’ Perceptions Based on the Intrinsic Dimension. Sport Manag. Rev. 2016, 19, 306–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Van Rheenen, D.; Cernaianu, S.; Sobry, C. Defining Sport Tourism: A Content Analysis of an Evolving Epistemology. J. Sport Tour. 2017, 21, 75–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Silva, G.; Correia, A.; Rachão, S.; Nunes, A.; Vieira, E.; Santos, S.; Soares, L.; Fonseca, M.; Ferreira, F.A.; Veloso, C.M.; et al. A Methodology for the Identification and Assessment of the Conditions for the Practice of Outdoor and Sport Tourism-Related Activities: The Case of Northern Portugal. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jiménez-García, M.; Ruiz-Chico, J.; Peña-Sánchez, A.R.; López-Sánchez, J.A. A Bibliometric Analysis of Sports Tourism and Sustainability (2002–2019). Sustainability 2020, 12, 2840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Frauman, E.; Banks, S. Gateway Community Resident Perceptions of Tourism Development: Incorporating Importance-Performance Analysis into a Limits of Acceptable Change Framework. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 128–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hall, C.M.; Page, S. The Geography of Tourism and Recreation: Environment, Place and Space; Routledge: London, UK, 2006; ISBN 978-0-203-42024-9. [Google Scholar]
  46. González-Serrano, M.H.; Añó Sanz, V.; González-García, R.J. Sustainable Sport Entrepreneurship and Innovation: A Bibliometric Analysis of This Emerging Field of Research. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Buckley, R. Sustainable Tourism: Research and Reality. Ann. Tour. Res. 2012, 39, 528–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Jiang, X.; Kim, A.; Kim, K.A.; Yang, Q.; García-Fernández, J.; Zhang, J.J. Motivational Antecedents, Value Co-Creation Process, and Behavioral Consequences in Participatory Sport Tourism. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Martín-González, R.; Swart, K.; Luque-Gil, A.-M. Tourism Competitiveness and Sustainability Indicators in the Context of Surf Tourism: The Case of Cape Town. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nunkoo, R.; Gursoy, D. Rethinking The Role of Power and Trust in Tourism Planning. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2016, 25, 512–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Nunkoo, R.; So, K.K.F. Residents’ Support for Tourism: Testing Alternative Structural Models. J. Travel Res. 2016, 55, 847–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Olya, H.G.T.; Gavilyan, Y. Configurational Models to Predict Residents’ Support for Tourism Development. J. Travel Res. 2017, 56, 893–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gursoy, D.; Yolal, M.; Ribeiro, M.A.; Panosso Netto, A. Impact of Trust on Local Residents’ Mega-Event Perceptions and Their Support. J. Travel Res. 2017, 56, 393–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. González-García, R.J.; Añó Sanz, V.; Parra-Camacho, D.; Calabuig, F. Perception of Residents about the Impact of Sports Tourism on the Community: Analysis and Scale-Validation. J. Phys. Educ. Sport 2018, 18, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Delamere, T.A. Development of a Scale to Measure Resident Attitudes Toward the Social Impacts of Community Festivals, Part II. Verification of the Scale. Event Manag. 2001, 7, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lankford, S.V.; Howard, D.R. Developing a Tourism Impact Attitude Scale. Ann. Tour. Res. 1994, 21, 121–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mayfield, T.L.; Crompton, J.L. Development of an Instrument for Identifying Community Reasons for Staging a Festival. J. Travel Res. 1995, 33, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hair, J.F.; Babin, B.J.; Sarstedt, M. The Great Facilitator: Reflections on the Contributions of Joseph F. Hair, Jr. to Marketing and Business Research; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; ISBN 978-3-030-06030-5. [Google Scholar]
  59. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Henseler, J.; Hubona, G.; Ray, P.A. Using PLS Path Modeling in New Technology Research: Updated Guidelines. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2016, 116, 2–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Watson, P.K.; Teelucksingh, S.S. A Practical Introduction to Econometric Methods: Classical and Modern; The University of the West Indies Press: Barbados, 2002; ISBN 978-976-640-122-1. [Google Scholar]
  62. Hair, J.F. (Ed.) Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th ed.; Pearson Eduation: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010; ISBN 978-0-13-515309-3. [Google Scholar]
  63. Wong, K.K.-K. Mastering Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) with SmartPLS in 38 Hours; IUniverse: Bloomington, IN, USA, 2019; ISBN 978-1-5320-6649-8. [Google Scholar]
  64. Andriotis, K. Community Groups’ Perceptions of and Preferences for Tourism Development: Evidence from Crete. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2005, 29, 67–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Stylidis, D. Place Attachment, Perception of Place and Residents’ Support for Tourism Development. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2018, 15, 188–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Yu, C.-P.; Chancellor, H.C. Shu Tian Cole Measuring Residents’ Attitudes toward Sustainable Tourism: A Reexamination of the Sustainable Tourism Attitude Scale. J. Travel Res. 2011, 50, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wang, Y.; Pfister, R.E. Residents’ Attitudes Toward Tourism and Perceived Personal Benefits in a Rural Community. J. Travel Res. 2008, 47, 84–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hammad, N.; Ahmad, S.Z.; Papastathopoulos, A. Residents’ Perceptions of the Impact of Tourism in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2017, 11, 551–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hanafiah, M.H.; Jamaluddin, M.R.; Zulkifly, M.I. Local Community Attitude and Support towards Tourism Development in Tioman Island, Malaysia. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 105, 792–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Masa’deh, R.; Nasseef, M.A.; Alshayeb, H.; Ojilat, J.; Alshafiee, M. The Effect of Sport Tourism Management on Support for Tourism Development. J. Manag. Strategy 2017, 8, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Garau-Vadell, J.B.; Gutierrez-Taño, D.; Diaz-Armas, R. Economic Crisis and Residents’ Perception of the Impacts of Tourism in Mass Tourism Destinations. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 7, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Müller, M. Popular Perception of Urban Transformation through Megaevents: Understanding Support for the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2012, 30, 693–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. González-García, R.J.; Parra-Camacho, D.; Calabuig, F.; Añó Sanz, V. Percepción de Los Residentes Sobre El Impacto Del Mundobasket 2014 En Gran Canaria y Apoyo a La Celebración de Eventos Deportivos. Rev. Iberoam. Psicol. Ejerc. Deporte 2016, 11, 279–288. [Google Scholar]
  74. Sinclair-Maragh, G.; Gursoy, D. A Conceptual Model of Residents’ Support for Tourism Development in Developing Countries. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2016, 13, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Bramwell, B. Governance, the State and Sustainable Tourism: A Political Economy Approach. J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 459–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 01232 g001 550
Figure 1. Support prediction model with the PLS statistical.
Figure 1. Support prediction model with the PLS statistical.
Sustainability 14 01232 g001
Table
Table 1. Mean scores, asymmetry, kurtosis, and Cronbach’s alpha of the impact scales associated with residents’ perceptions.
Table 1. Mean scores, asymmetry, kurtosis, and Cronbach’s alpha of the impact scales associated with residents’ perceptions.
Complete Survey (α = 0.79)Mean (SD)AsymmetryKurtosis
Economic Impacts:α = 0.79
Sports tourism brings more economic investment to the community4.12 (0.96)−0.940.40
Sports tourism helps to improve the economic situation for many residents in this community.3.89 (1.04)−0.66−0.28
Sports tourism creates market opportunity and attracts foreign investment in Gran Canaria4.09 (0.96)−0.910.28
Cultural Impacts:α = 0.74
Sports tourism fosters a variety of cultural activities and events for local residents.3.65 (1.07)−0.45−0.49
Sports tourism helps keep culture alive and helps maintain the ethnic identity of local residents.3.33 (1.18)−0.20−0.80
Sports tourism has led to a greater cultural exchange between tourists and residents as an enriching experience.3.84 (1.02)−0.62−0.21
Political–administrative impacts:α = 0.81
Sports tourism industry must plan for the future4.19 (0.90)−0.960.61
Tourism-sport development plans must be continuously improved.4.35 (0.86)−1.401.84
I think the island should make an effort to attract more sports tourists.4.23 (0.99)−0.861.61
Social Impacts:α = 0.78
Sports tourism generates social problems such as delinquency, drug consumption…1.79 (1.15)1.400.87
Sports tourism creates conflicts between residents and visitors1.97 (1.16)1.030.07
Residents suffer the consequences of sports tourism by living in a tourist destination area.2.36 (1.23)0.54−0.67
Environmental Impacts:α = 0.82
Sports tourism pollutes the environment and accelerates its deterioration.2.21 (1.23)0.71−0.54
Sports tourism generates noise, air, and water pollution.2.25 (1.20)0.62−0.61
Regulatory environmental standards are needed to reduce the negative impacts of sports tourism development.3.19 (1.38)−0.22−1.14
Sports tourism consumes a large amount of natural resources (water, energy, etc.).2.65 (1.24)0.24−0.91
Source: Prepared by the authors. Note. α = Cronbach’s alpha; SD = standard deviation.
Table
Table 2. Mean scores, asymmetry, kurtosis, and Cronbach’s alpha of the scale of support for the development of sport tourism in the community.
Table 2. Mean scores, asymmetry, kurtosis, and Cronbach’s alpha of the scale of support for the development of sport tourism in the community.
Support (α = 0.81)Mean (SD)AsymmetryKurtosis
I would like to see more tourists doing sporting activities in Gran Canaria.3.98 (1.01)−0.8510.246
Support for sports tourism to play a key economic role in Gran Canaria4.09 (0.99)−0.9950.551
Support for the development of sport-tourism events/programmes/services (e.g., recreational facilities, exhibitions, sporting events, events, etc.)4.28 (0.93)−1.321.345
In general, I support the development of tourism through water-based tourism.4.00 (0.98)−0.8520.273
In general, I support the development of golf tourism on the island.3.21 (1.43)−0,231−1.22
In general, I support the development of nature tourism on the island (hiking, cycling tourism…).4.35 (0.92)−1.682.93
Total3.99 (0.77)−0.991.41
Source: Prepared by the authors. Note. α = Cronbach’s alpha; SD = standard deviation.
Table
Table 3. Constructs, indicators, factor loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and AVE.
Table 3. Constructs, indicators, factor loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and AVE.
ConstructsIndicatorsλAFCAVE
ECI 0.790.880.70
Sports tourism brings more economic investment to the community0.85
Sports tourism helps to improve the economic situation for many residents in this community.0.83
Sports tourism creates market opportunity and attracts foreign investment in Gran Canaria0.83
CI 0.740.850.66
Sports tourism fosters a variety of cultural activities and events for local residents.0.77
Sports tourism helps keep culture alive and helps maintain the ethnic identity of local residents.0.79
Sports tourism has led to a greater cultural exchange between tourists and residents as an enriching experience.0.88
PAI 0.810.890.72
Sports tourism industry must plan for the future0.83
Tourism–sport development plans must be continuously improved.0.86
I think the island should make an effort to attract more sports tourists.0.86
SI 0.780.870.70
Sports tourism generates social problems such as crime, drug abuse….0.84
Sports tourism creates conflicts between residents and visitors0.91
Residents suffer the consequences of sports tourism by living in a tourist destination area.0.74
EI 0.850.910.76
Sports tourism causes environmental pollution and accelerates the deterioration of the environment.0.91
Sports tourism generates noise, air, and water pollution.0.92
Regulatory environmental standards are needed to reduce the negative impacts of sports tourism development.0.79
S 0.860.900.59
I would like to see more tourists doing sporting activities in Gran Canaria.0.78
Support for sports tourism to play a key economic role in Gran Canaria0.83
Support for the development of sport-tourism events/programmes/services (e.g., recreational facilities, exhibitions, sporting events, events, etc.)0.85
In general, I support the development of tourism through water-based tourism.0.81
In general, I support the development of golf tourism on the island.0.52
In general, I support the development of nature tourism on the island (hiking, cycling tourism…).0.78
Note: ECI = economic impact; CI = cultural impact; PAI = political–administrative impact; SI = social impact; EI = environmental impact; AP = support.
Table
Table 4. Correlations of the variables under study.
Table 4. Correlations of the variables under study.
123456
1. ECI0.84
2. CI0.390.81
3. PAI0.440.290.85
4. SI−0.17−0.070.370.84
5. EI−0.04−0.30−0.200.570.87
6. S0.470.470.59−0.34−0.300.77
Note: The value of the root of AVE is indicated in bold in the diagonal. ECI = economic impact; CI = cultural impact; PAI = political–administrative impact; SI = social impact; EI = environmental impact; AP = support.
Table
Table 5. Heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT).
Table 5. Heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT).
123456
1. ECI
2. CI0.50
3. PAI0.530.33
4. SI0.210.120.45
5. EI0.060.100.220.69
6. S0.560.580.660.410.33
Note: ECI = aconomic impact; CI = cultural impact; PAI = political–administrative impact; SI = social impact; EI = environmental impact; AP = support.
Table
Table 6. Path coefficients (pc).
Table 6. Path coefficients (pc).
Path Coefficients (pc)
ECI > S0.189 *
CI > S0.271 *
PAI > S0.369 *
SI > S−0.067
EI > S−0.154 *
Note: ECI = economic impact; CI = cultural impact; PAI = political–administrative impact; SI = social impact; EI = environmental impact; AP = support. * p ≤ 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

González-García, R.J.; Mártínez-Rico, G.; Bañuls-Lapuerta, F.; Calabuig, F. Residents’ Perception of the Impact of Sports Tourism on Sustainable Social Development. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1232. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031232

AMA Style

González-García RJ, Mártínez-Rico G, Bañuls-Lapuerta F, Calabuig F. Residents’ Perception of the Impact of Sports Tourism on Sustainable Social Development. Sustainability. 2022; 14(3):1232. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031232

Chicago/Turabian Style

González-García, Rómulo Jacobo, Gabriel Mártínez-Rico, Francesc Bañuls-Lapuerta, and Ferran Calabuig. 2022. "Residents’ Perception of the Impact of Sports Tourism on Sustainable Social Development" Sustainability 14, no. 3: 1232. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031232

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop