Residents´ perceptions of tourism development in Benalmádena (Spain)

Residents´ perceptions of tourism development in Benalmádena (Spain) 1 Tourism Management, 2016 DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2015.11.007 Fernando Almeida-García a [email protected] María Ángeles Peláez-Fernández b [email protected] Rafael Cortés-Macias a [email protected] Antonia Balbuena-Vázquez a abalv[email protected] a School of Tourism, University of Malaga, Campus of Teatinos, 29071, Malaga, Spain b Department of Social Psychology, University of Malaga, Campus of Teatinos, 29071, Malaga, Spain Abstract This study examines the residents´ perceptions of the impact of tourism in Benalmádena, and the profiles of the residents according to socio-demographic characteristics. A questionnaire assessed how these characteristics influence the residents' perceptions towards the environment, economy, and socio-cultural aspects. The survey was administered to a stratified sample of 770 residents in Benalmádena. Results show a significant effect of socio-demographic variables on perception of tourism impact. The educational background, place of birth and how long respondents had been living in the community explain a significant amount of the variance in overall attitudes. Interaction analyses revealed that place of birth moderated the relationship between the tourism dimensions and the years of residence. For instance, the respondents with less than five years of residence showed more positive attitude towards the impact of tourism. We offer a profile of these residents according to their perceptions of the impact of tourism in their community. 1 Acknowledgements This research has received funding from the Spanish Government, Fundamental Research Program (R+D) (CSO2012-30840), “Geographies of crisis: analysis of urban and tourist territories of the Balearic Islands, Costa del Sol and main tourist destinations of the Caribbean and Central America”. 1. Introduction The term impact of tourism has gained importance in the tourism literature. This impact can be assessed through a review of residents. In recent years, numerous studies have examined residents’ attitudes towards and perceptions of the impact of tourism development in their communities. The main reason for the growing interest in this type of study is an awareness that tourism development has positive and negative effects at the local level (Ko & Stewart, 2002; Lankford & Howard, 1994). On the positive side, tourism can generate new employment opportunities for local residents (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Bujosa & Roselló, 2005; Diedrich & García, 2009; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Lindberg & Johnson, 1997), strengthen towns’ business networks, increase residents’ quality of life, help preserve monuments and archaeological sites (Andereck, Valentine, Knopf & Vogt, 2005; Akis Peristianis & Warne, 1996; Liu, Sheldon & Var, 1987; Korca, 1996; Oviedo, Castellanos & Martin, 2008; Yoon, Gursoy, & Chen 2001), and preserve residents’ identity and the cultural pride (Andereck et al., 2005; Besculides, Lee & McCormick, 2002; Yoon et al., 2001). However, tourism can also cause friction and have negative environmental, economic and socio-cultural effects – with seasonality being one of the most relevant negative consequences. During the high tourism season, public and leisure infrastructures become saturated, and traffic congestion and parking problems occur (Lindberg & Johnson, 1997; Sheldon & Abenoja, 2001), which often cause inconvenience to local residents (Liu & Var, 1986; Sheldon & Var, 1984). Tourism can also increase the standard of living (Liu & Var, 1986; McGehee & Andereck, 2004) as well as drug and alcohol problems (Diedrich & García, 2009; Haralambopoulos & Pizam 1996; King Pizam & Milman, 1993; Milman & Pizam 1988); serious environmental damage and significant increases in waste and pollution can also occur (Andereck et al., 2005; Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Lankford, 1994; Liu et al., 1987; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Snaith & Haley, 1999). This tourism-related inconvenience and collateral damage could cause the local population to form and perpetuate negative attitudes towards tourism. Residents’ negative attitudes towards tourism began to receive greater attention in the 1970s (Akis et al., 1996; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Chen, 2000; Gutiérrez, 2010; Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004; Lankford, 1994; Liu & Var, 1986; Long, Perdue & Allen, 1990; Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012; Vargas, Plaza & Porras, 2009). There are several reasons for this growing interest in understanding residents’ attitudes towards the impacts of tourism. For instance, negative attitudes among residents could be a handicap in the development and sustainability of tourist destinations (Ap, 1992; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Butler, 1980; Diedrich & Garcia, 2009; Harrill, 2004; Sirakaya, Teye & Sönmez, 2002); the success of this industry depends on local attractions and the hospitality of local residents (Gursoy, Jurowski & Uysal, 2002). Residents’ hostile behaviour towards tourists could be a factor in restraining the tourism sector; by contrast, a friendly attitude could support tourism development. Generally, tourists tend to be reluctant to visit places where they do not feel welcome (Yoon, Gursoy & Chen, 1999); that is, there is nothing more important to travellers than the way they are treated by residents, and if they not accepted, they will avoid visiting such places (Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Diedrich & García, 2009). Therefore, tourism development does not occur in isolation; instead, it occurs within specific environments with their distinct characteristics. Within these specific environments, residents’ support is a key factor in tourism development (Butler, 1980; Dyer et al., 2007; Miossec, 1977). Thus, researchers recognize the need to include the local community in early planning stages of tourism development (Liu et al., 1987). Monitoring residents’ opinions is necessary to assess local feelings, and such monitoring should be incorporated into tourism projects. It will help planners focus on what residents consider important (Dyer et al., 2007). In particular, knowing residents’ attitudes may result in policies that minimize the negative impact on tourism development and maximize the benefits (Prayag, Hosany & Odeh, 2013; Stylidis, Biran & Szivas, 2014; Vargas, Plaza & Porras, 2011). In addition, residents’ participation in decision making during tourism planning and development can contribute to the development of more positive attitudes towards tourism (Robson & Robson, 1996). Despite the importance of the residents’ attitudes towards tourism, local and national governments are not developing effective mechanisms that favour the local population’s participation in the decision-making process. Political initiatives regarding tourism sustainability and development could be more successful if residents were empowered to make their desires, goals and needs known and were given opportunities to benefit both socially and economically from tourism (D´Amore, 1983; Marien & Pizan, 2005). Residents’ attitudes in relation to the impact of tourism development have been investigated in some areas (Table 1), and there is some consensus that the main impacts are economic, socio-cultural, and environmental. Such studies have examined some variables that correspond to these impacts (Table 1). Some research has focused on analysing these categories in relation to residents’ attitudes, whereas other studies, such as the present one, focus on identifying a set of variables that could help develop a resident profile depending on his or her attitude towards the impact of tourism. Residents’ attitudes have been the subject of many studies, with a particular focus on identifying the factors that influence or determine them (Akis et al., 1996; Bujosa & Rosselló, 2007). As stated by Jackson and Inbakaran (2006), the factors that influence resident attitudes towards tourism can be classified into the following groups: demographic, personal, social, and factors. These same variables, with other names, are found in other studies, such as Harrill (2004); Vargas et al. (2009) call them socioeconomic factors, spatial factors, and factors of economic dependence. Therefore, the literature did not reveal a clear conceptualization or definition of these classifications, nor did it clearly express the criteria for these classifications. Therefore, in this study, we have decided to include all of the variables that define the social profile of the residents as sociodemographic variables. The variables analysed include (1) gender, (2) age, (3) marital status, (4) the condition of being native, (5) foreign participants’ years of residence in the city (these last two variables lead to attachment to the community), (6) parental status, (7) education level, (8) participation in local associations and neighbourhood groups, and (9) the type of work in relation to tourism (Table 2). <Table 1. Studies of tourism’s impacts> Economic impacts Aguiló et al., 2004; Akis et al., 1996; Almeida et al., 2015; Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Andereck et al., 2005; Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003; Belisle & Hoy 1980; Besculides et al, 2002; Bujosa & Rosselló, 2007; Chen, 2000; Diedrich & García, 2009; Dyer et al., 2007; Gursoy et al., 2002; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Horn & Simmons, 2002; Johnson et al., 1994; King et al., 1993; Korca, 1996; Lankford, 1994; Lindberg & Johnson, 1997; Liu & Var, 1986; Liu et al., 1987; Madrigal, 1995; Mason & Cheyne, 2000; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Milman & Pizam 1988; Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012; Perdue et al., 1990; Ritchie, 1988; Saveriades, 2000; Sheldon & Var, 1984; Var et al., 1985; Yoon et al., 1999 Socio-cultural impacts Aguiló et al., 2004; Akis et al., 1996; Almeida et al., 2015; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Andereck et al, 2005; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Besculides et al, 2002; Brunt & Courtney 1999; Bujosa & Roselló, 2007; Chen, 2000; Diedrich & García, 2009; Dyer et al., 2007; Gursoy et al., 2002; Haralambopoulos & Pizam 1996; Johnson et al., 1994; King et al., 1993; Korca, 1996; Lankford, 1994; Lindberg & Johnson, 1997; Liu & Var, 1986; Liu et al., 1987; Long et al., 1990; Mason & Cheyne, 2000; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Milman & Pizam 1988; Oviedo et al., 2008; Perdue et al., 1987; Perdue et al., 1990; Saveriades, 2000; Sheldon & Abenoja, 2001; Sheldon & Var, 1984; Snaith & Haley, 1999; Var et al., 1985; Yoon et al., 1999 Environmental impacts Akis et al., 1996; Aguiló et al., 2004; Almeida et al., 2015; Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Andereck et al., 2005; Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Bujosa & Rosselló, 2007; Dyer et al., 2007; Haralambopoulous & Pizam, 1996; Johnson et al., 1994; Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Korca, 1996; Kuvan & Akan, 2005; Lankford, 1994; Liu & Var, 1986; Liu et al, 1987; Mason & Cheyne, 2000; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Oviedo et al., 2008; Perdue et al., 1987; Sheldon & Abenoja, 2001; Snaith & Haley, 1999; Teye et al, 2002; Yoon et al., 1999 <Table 2. Socio-demographic variables> Factors Studies Gender Kuvan & Akan, 2005; Mason & Cheyne, 2000; Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012 Age Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Huh & Vogt, 2008; King et al., 1993; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Ritchie, 1988; Tomljenovic & Faulkner, 2000 Civil status Allen et al., 1988; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Johnson et al., 1994; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Korca, 1996; Smith & Krannich, 1998 Having children Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; King, et al., 1993; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Pearce, 1980; Tosun, 2002; William & Lawson, 2001 Education level Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003; Haralambopoulos & Pizam 1996; Hernández et al., 1996; Kuvan & Akan, 2005; Teye et al., 2002; Participation Lankford & Howard, 1994 Community attachment (length of residence) Haley et al., 2005; Kuvan & Akan, 2005; Lankford & Howard, 1994; Liu & Var 1986; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Sheldon & Var, 1984 Type of work (economic dependence) Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003; Haralambopoulos & Pizam 1996; Kuvan & Akan, 2005; Lankford & Howard 1994; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Snaith & Haley, 1999 Given the importance of residents in the development process of tourist destinations, an increasing number of studies on the subject have appeared. Sharpley (2014) and Sirakaya et al. (2002) underline the significant increase of theoretical and applied research on residents’ attitudes that has been conducted since the 1970s. The research interest in residents’ attitudes towards tourism began in developed countries, especially in the United States (Almeida, Balbuena & Cortés, 2015), and in areas and countries where tourism has developed more intensely, such as New Zealand, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom (Lawson, Williams, Young & Cossens, 1998; Ritchie, 1988; Ross, 1992; Sheldon & Var, 1984). By contrast, fewer studies have examined regions with a strong specialization in tourism, such as the Caribbean Sea and the Mediterranean basin (Pérez & Nadal, 2005; Sharpley, 2014). Recent research on this issue in Spain has mainly focused on the tourist zones: Marrero (2006) and Gutiérrez (2010) in the Canary Islands; Aguiló Barros, García and Roselló (2004) and Bujosa and Rosselló (2007) in the Balearic Islands; Royo and Ruiz (2009) in Catalonia; Huete (2010) in Valencia; Vargas et al. (2009 and 2011) in Huelva; and Oviedo et al. (2008) in Seville. The report by SOPDE (Sociedad de Planificación y Desarrollo) (2004) on the province of Malaga serves as the antecedent of this study area. This research sample is smaller than our sample (495 respondents), which covers a much wider area (7,300 km2) with a larger population (1.6 million people). Previous analyses have not employed stratified random sampling, which allows the generalization of the results to the entire population. In addition, most of these studies have only evaluated some of tourism’s impacts (e.g., socio-cultural, economic, or environmental impacts) or an overall measure of attitude. In addition, the incremental predictive utility of some socio-demographic factors (e.g., native condition, years of residence, type of work, and level of education) and the interaction between sociodemographic factors in accounting for variance in the different tourism attitude dimensions have yet to be studied beyond the effects of basic socio-demographic variables, such as age or gender. These results are relevant when describing residents’ profiles according to their attitudes towards the different effects of tourism on the local population. Moreover, we should mention that no studies have yet explored tourism’s impact in Benalmádena. Knowing Benalmádena residents’ attitudes towards tourism’s effects and their relation to residents’ profiles would allow us to better understand the status of tourism in this destination. This information might be useful when designing strategies for improving the knowledge about and acceptance of tourism among the local population, which would improve hospitality, development, and the sustainability of tourism in Benalmádena. Thus, our pioneering study investigates the effects of residents’ sociodemographic characteristics on different tourism impacts, thus offering profiles of residents according to their perceptions of tourism’s effects on the local environment, economy, and socio-cultural life. For that purpose, stratified random sampling has been used, and all relevant socio-demographic variables that appear to be associated with perceptions of tourism impact in the literature have been considered. In addition, hierarchical multiple regressions of residents’ socio-demographic characteristics on different tourism impacts (e.g., environmental, economic, and socio-cultural impacts and overall attitudes towards tourism) and the interaction between socio-demographic factors – beyond the effects of basic socio-demographic characteristics – have been conducted. In summary, this study aims to explore the role of residents’ characteristics in their perceptions of tourism’s impacts to propose resident profiles in a mature tourist destination and to propose improvements in the management and planning of this destination. 2. Method 2.1. Localization, study area Benalmádena is a Spanish municipality in the province of Málaga in Andalusia. It is located on the Costa del Sol, approximately 22 km southwest of the provincial capital. Benalmádena belongs to the metropolitan area of Málaga and the Costa del Sol. The municipality of Benalmádena covers an area just over 27 km2, stretching from the Mijas Mountains to the Mediterranean Sea. The city of Benalmádena occupies most of the municipality. Highway A-7 crosses the area from east to west, linking Málaga with other cities along the Mediterranean coast. Benalmádena had 66,939 inhabitants in 2014. It is the eighth largest city in the province and third largest metropolitan area, which had 882,658 inhabitants in 2014 (INE, 2014). Only 14% of residents were born in the city, and 33.4% are foreigners, 25% of whom come from the United Kingdom. Over the past ten years, the population of Benalmádena has increased by 57.7% because of a significant positive net migration. In 2014, Benalmádena had an accommodation supply of 14,320 hotel beds and 5,548 tourist apartments – a total of 19,868 tourist accommodations. Moreover, the city offered 55,220 second homes places for tourists. In 2014, 699,066 tourists lodged in hotels and apartments (INE, 2014). This city serves as a case study of a mature seaside destination that specializes in mass tourism (Almeida & Balbuena, 2014). The study area has been growing continuously since the mid-1950s (Figure 2). As an urban environment, Benalmádena has a dense structure, with few open spaces. This destination has been built in strips parallel to the coast (Barrado & Calabuig, 2001 in Barrett, 1958; Lavery, 1974), from the beach to the mountains; today, the first and second strips are occupied by hotels and apartments (Figure 3), and the third and fourth strips are intended for residential and tourist housing (Figure 4). Most of the local population resides in the inner strips. <Figure 1. The location and study area> <Figure 2. Benalmádena’s hotel bed supply. Source: Guía Oficial de Hoteles (19592000) and INE (2005-2014)> <Figure 3. View of Benalmádena from the sea. Source: Own elaboration> <Figure 4. View of Benalmádena from the mountains. Source: Own elaboration> 2.2. Sample The sample consisted of 770 Benalmádena residents. The participants were selected using stratified random sampling. The population of Benalmádena was stratified proportionally according to population composition (native or immigrant), gender, and age (Table 3), based on the 2011 population of 63,788. After the classification of the population by strata, the sample was fixed in each of them. Affixation refers to the distribution of the overall sample size among different strata. For this study, we chose proportional affixation, in which the distribution of the sample is proportional to the stratum’s relative weight in relation to the entire population. Thus, a larger sample size corresponds with the levels with more population units compared to Environmental impact. No significant main effect of the type of work on the environmental impact was found. Economic impact. The ANOVA showed significant differences (F(3,770) = 3.07; p < .05). Residents working in tourism-induced employment had the best perceptions of tourism’s impact on the local economy. Those who worked in jobs indirectly related to tourism presented the worst perceptions. Differences between these groups were significant (t(3,111) = -2.06; p < .05). Socio-cultural impact. The ANOVA showed significant differences (F(3,770) = 3.16; p < .05). A post hoc t-test showed that residents working in jobs indirectly related to tourism had better attitudes regarding tourism’s impact on social life and culture, whereas those working in non-tourism-related employment had the worst attitudes. Differences between these groups were significant (t(3,522) = 2.18; p < .05). Overall attitude. No significant main effect of the type of work on the overall attitude was found. Social participation. Environmental impact. No significant differences were found. Economic impact. The ANOVA showed significant differences (F(2,770) = 5.88; p < .05). A post hoc t-test showed that residents who occasionally participated in social associations had better attitudes regarding the economic effects of tourism, whereas those who regularly participated in associations presented the worst attitudes. Intergroup differences were significant when comparing no participation to regular participation (t(2,704) = -3.32; p < .05) and occasional participation to regular participation (t(2,199) = -2.34; p < .05). Socio-cultural impact. The ANOVA showed significant differences (F(2,770) = 3.13; p < .05). Residents who regularly participated in social associations presented the worst perceptions of tourism’s impact on social life and culture, whereas those who occasionally participated in social associations presented the best perceptions. The intergroup differences were significant when comparing no participation to occasional participation (t(2,629) = 2.17; p < .05) and occasional participation to regular participation (t(2,199) = -2.31; p < .05). Overall attitude. Social participation had a significant main effect on the overall attitude towards tourism (F(2,770) = 3.78; p < .05), with residents who participated occasionally in social associations having the best attitudes towards tourism and those who participated regularly having the worst attitudes. Native condition. Environmental impact. The ANOVA revealed significant differences (F(2,770) = 7.88; p < .01). The native population of Benalmádena had the worst perceptions of tourism’s impact on the environment, whereas foreigners presented the best perceptions. The differences between natives and foreigners were significant (t(2,358) = 4.67; p < .01). Economic impact. Native condition had a significant main effect on the economic impact (F(2,770) = 5.08; p < .01), with native residents having the worst perceptions of tourism’s effects on the local economy and foreigners having the best perceptions. Post hoc t-tests showed significant differences between natives and foreigners (t(2,358) = 2.28; p < .05) and between those born elsewhere in Spain and foreigners (t(2,665) = 2.96; p < .01). Socio-cultural impact. Native condition also had a significant main effect on the sociocultural impact (F(2,770) = 11.37; p < .01), with natives presenting the worst attitudes towards tourism’s impact on social life and culture and foreigners presenting the best attitudes. The differences between natives and foreigners were significant (t(2,358) = 3.75; p < .01). Overall attitude. Native condition had a significant main effect on the overall attitude towards tourism (F(2,770) = 11.41; p < .01), with natives having the worst attitudes towards tourism and foreigners having the best attitudes. Years of residence. Environmental impact. The years of residence had a significant main effect on the environmental impact (F(2,770) = 14.39; p < .01). Perceptions of tourism’s effects on the local economy gradually worsen as the years of residence increase. Inter-group differences were significant when comparing those who had resided in Benalmádena for less than five years to those who had resided in Benalmádena for 5–10 years (t(2,629) = - 2.24; p < .05), those who had resided in Benalmádena for less than five years to those who had resided in Benalmádena for more than ten years (t(2,662) = -5.19; p < .01), and those who had resided in Benalmádena for 5–10 years to those who had resided in Benalmádena for more than ten years (t(2,249) = -2.11; p < .05). Economic impact. No main effect of the years of residence on the economic impact was found. Socio-cultural impact. The years of residence had a significant main effect on the sociocultural impact (F(2,770) = 11.99; p < .01). Perceptions of tourism’s effects on social life and culture gradually worsen as the years of residence increase. Inter-group differences were significant when comparing those in residence for less than five years to those in residence for 5–10 years (t(2,629) = -3.30; p < .01) and those in residence for less than five years to those in residence for more than ten years (t(2,662) = -4.81; p < .01). Overall attitude. The years of residence had a significant main effect on the overall attitude towards tourism (F(2,770) = 14.73; p < .01), with those who had resided in Benalmádena for more than ten years presenting the worst attitudes towards tourism and those who had resided for less than five years presenting the best attitudes. Native condition X years of residence. Environmental impact. A significant interaction effect of native condition X years of residence on the environmental impact was found (F(12,770) = 4.09; p < .01), with native residents who had lived in Benalmádena for more than 10 years presenting the worst perceptions of tourism’s impact on the local environment and foreigners who had lived in Benalmádena for less than five years presenting the best perceptions. Economic impact. No significant interaction effect of native condition X years of residence on the economic impact was found. Socio-cultural impact. A significant interaction effect of native condition X years of residence on the socio-cultural impact was found (F(12,770) = 4.17; p < .01), with native residents who had lived in Benalmádena for more than 10 years presenting the worst perceptions of tourism’s impact on social life and culture and foreigners who had lived in Benalmádena for less than five years presenting the best perceptions. Overall attitude. Finally, a significant interaction effect of native condition X years of residence on the overall attitude was found (F(12,770) = 4.67; p < .01), with native residents who had lived in Benalmádena for more than 10 years presenting the worst perceptions of tourism’s effects and foreigners who had lived in Benalmádena for less than five years presenting the best perceptions. 3.3. Incremental predictive utility Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to investigate the predictive utility of years of residence and the moderating effect of the native condition on years of residence in explaining the unique variance in the three tourism attitude dimensions (beyond the effects of socio-demographic variables). In the first step, the perceptions of tourism’s impact were regressed on age and gender; in the second step, they were regressed on marital status, parental status, level of education, type of work, social participation, and native condition; in the third step, they were regressed on years of residence; and, to explore the moderating effect of native condition X years of residence, the multiplicative interaction term was included in the final step. All continuous predictors were centred to minimize the multicollinearity between variables. The results indicate that age and gender account for the significant variance of the environmental impact (2%) in the first step. Marital status, parental status, level of education, type of work, social participation, and native condition account for the significant variance in the second step – 3% of the environmental impact variance, 4% of the socio-cultural impact and economic impact variance, and 6% of the overall attitude variance (Table 6). In the third step, the years of residence explain the significant variance (1%) in the environmental impact, the socio-cultural impact, and the overall attitude, even after accounting for the variance due to socio-demographic variables. In addition, it is remarkable that we found the native condition X years of residence interaction explained an additional significant variance in the environmental impact, the sociocultural impact, and the overall attitude (ΔR2 = .01) (beyond the variance explained by demographic variables and the years of residence). Older residents and residents with children scored higher on the environmental impact, showing a more positive attitude towards tourism’s effect on the local environment. Residents with more education reported higher levels of the socio-cultural impact, the economic impact, and the overall attitude, meaning that education is a positive predictor of attitudes towards tourism with regard to the local culture and economy. Residents who were socially involved in associations reported lower levels of the economic impact, which implies that frequent participation in social associations is a negative predictor of attitudes towards tourism’s effects on the local economy. Native residents scored lower in all of the dimensions, which means that being born in Benalmádena is a negative predictor of attitudes towards tourism’s effects on the local environment, culture, and economy. Residents who had lived in Benalmádena longer reported lower levels of the environmental impact, the socio-cultural impact, and the overall attitude, showing that the years of residence in Benalmádena is a negative predictor of attitudes towards tourism’s effects on the local environment and culture. <Table 6. Hierarchical regression analyses showing the amount of variance in attitudes towards tourism by residents’ characteristics > B SEB β R2 FΔ ΔR2 Environmental Impact 1. Age Gender 2. Civil status Having children Level of studies Type of work Social participation Native condition 3. Years residence 4. Native condit. X years res. .07* .04 -.06 .14* .05 -.01 -.03 -.10** -.09** .07** .03 .05 .07 .07 .03 .02 .03 .05 .03 .03 .10 .03 -.04 .10 .06 -.01 -.03 -.09 -.14 .11 .02 .05 .06 .07 6.26** 3.78** 11.15** 7.65** .02 .03 .01 .01 Economic Impact 1. Age Gender 2. Civil status Having children Level of studies Type of work Social participation Native condition 3. Years residence 4. Native condit. X years res. -.02 .00 -.02 .06 .08** -.02 -.05* -.07* -.00 .03† .02 .03 .04 .05 .02 .01 .02 .03 .02 .02 -.05 .00 -.02 .07 .14 -.04 -.08 -.11 -.00 .07 .01 .05 .05 .05 2.58† 5.07** .00 3.73† .01 .04 .00 .00 Socio-cultural Impact 1. Age Gender 2. Civil status Having children Level of studies Type of work Social participation Native condition 3. Years residence 4. Native condit. X years_res. .00 .02 .03 .04 .06* .01 -.02 -.08** -.05** .04† .02 .03 .05 .05 .02 .02 .02 .03 .02 .02 .01 .02 .03 .05 .09 .03 -.03 -.11 -.12 .07 .00 .04 .05 .06 .60 5.48** 7.74** 3.01† .00 .04 .01 .01 Total Attitude 1. Age Gender 2. Civil status Having children Level of studies Type of work Social participation Native condition 3. Years residence 4. Native condit. X years res. .01 .02 .00 .07 .07** .00 -.03 -.08** -.05** .04* .02 .03 .04 .04 .02 .01 .02 .03 .02 .02 .03 .03 .00 .08 .13 .00 -.05 -.12 -.13 .09 .00 .06 .07 .08 .79 7.62** 8.91** 4.97* .00 .06 .01 .01 3.4. Native condition as a moderator of the relationship between the years of residence and tourism attitude dimensions To illustrate the native condition X years of residence interaction effect on the tourism attitude dimensions, we plotted the regression of tourism attitude dimensions on the years of residence by different birthplaces (Benalmádena, elsewhere in Spain, and outside Spain) (Figures 5, 6, and 7), controlling for the effects of the variables related to tourism attitudes (i.e., age, gender, marital status, level of education, parental status, type or work, and social participation). The interaction between the native condition and the years of residence was a significant predictor of the environmental impact (b = -.10, t(770) = -2.77, p < .01) and the overall attitude (b = -05, t(770) = -2.23, p < .01) and a marginally significant predictor of the socio-cultural impact (b = -.04, t(770) = -1.74, p < .10). Among non-native residents, those who had been living in Benalmádena for less than five years showed better general attitudes towards and better perceptions of tourism’s effects on the local economy and socio-cultural life than those who had been living in Benalmádena for longer. In other words, non-natives’ attitudes towards tourism gradually worsen as the years of residence in the city increase. <Figure 5. Interaction of birthplace and years of residence in predicting the environmental impact> <Figure 6. Interaction of birthplace and years of residence in predicting the sociocultural impact> <Figure 7. Interaction of birthplace and years of residence in predicting the overall attitude> 4. Discussion This study examined the effects of the main socio-demographic characteristics of residents on their perceptions of tourism’s impacts on the environment, the economy, and socio-cultural life in Benalmádena. In accordance with previous studies (Davis et al., 1988; Ribeiro, Oom do Valle & Silva, 2013; Ryan & Montgomery, 1994), this study found no effects of gender on residents’ perceptions of tourism’s impact. Other studies, however, suggest that gender can determine residents’ attitudes towards tourism (Mason & Cheyne, 2000; Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012). Age was found to be a predictor of residents’ negative attitudes towards tourism’s effects on the local economy and a predictor of positive perceptions of tourism’s effects on the local environment. The youngest residents, compared to those aged 45–64, were found to have more favourable perceptions of tourism’s effects on the local economy. This result is consistent with Bujosa and Rosselló’s study (2007) of the Balearic Islands. The youngest residents could have been still studying and living with their parents; they were thus less aware of the economic crisis affecting Spain, or they may not have been directly suffering the consequences, unlike older residents. In addition, the youngest residents could have more easily obtained a temporary job during the high tourism season. However, for the group aged 45–64, finding a job would be more difficult. Compared to younger residents, this age group would prefer stable jobs that are not based on seasonality (i.e., not tourism-related jobs). Huh and Vogt (2008) reached a similar conclusion and indicated that middle-aged cohorts (i.e., 45–54 and 55–64) had less favourable attitudes towards tourism’s economic impacts compared to the young adult cohort (aged 25 to 34). Compared to older cohorts, young adults may perceive tourism development as their best economic opportunity for the future. Compared to younger residents, residents over 65 perceived tourism’s impact on the local environment more positively. Compared to those over 65, young people have received more in-depth environmental education; consequently, young people may be more concerned about the environment than seniors. Notably, older residents showed a positive view of tourism’s effects on the environment, despite their greater environmental awareness, as they have no perceptions of losing an area with great environmental quality. Moreover, these residents were born in rural, non-urban areas, and they have observed the transformation of space in rural areas. Likewise, older residents may be insensitive to environmental degradation if the new facilities and tourist accommodations provide jobs. Therefore, as residents age, they seemingly value economic issues more than environmental issues. Regarding the socio-cultural impact, residents aged 45–64 have better attitudes than residents younger than 20. This result could be explained by older people’s perceptions of tourism as a factor in, for instance, creating new public facilities, preserving traditions, and having opportunities to interact with foreigners; by contrast, younger residents could perceive tourism as a source of deficiencies of cultural services and the supply of cultural activities. Marital status was found to be a predictor of residents’ attitudes towards tourism’s impact on socio-cultural life. Married residents, compared to unmarried ones, showed more positive attitudes. Married people perhaps perceive Benalmádena’s sociocultural offerings as better suited to their needs than those who are unmarried. No differences were found between married and unmarried residents regarding their perceptions of tourism’s economic and environmental impacts. Similarly, other studies have not found significant differences (Allen, Long, Perdue & Keiselbach, 1988; Korca, 1996; Kuvan & Akan, 2005; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Smith & Krannich, 1998; Tosun, 2002). Parental status was found to be a strong predictor of positive attitudes towards tourism’s effects on the local environment, explaining a significant amount of the variance of the environmental impact beyond the effects attributable to age and gender. The most significant environmental elements of Benalmádena are large parks (e.g., Paloma Park), which are recreational areas that are most often visited by retirees and young couples with children. In line with these results, the study that King et al. (1993) conducted in Nadi (Fiji Island) showed that respondents who had children under 18 living in their households were more favourably disposed to tourism than those without minor children in the household (Tosun, 2002). In addition, Haralambopoulos and Pizam (1996) found that the more minor children that respondents had in the family, the more positive their perceptions regarding tourism’s impact on certain socioeconomic issues were and the higher their level of support for the industry was. In other studies, however, this variable did not show statistically significant values (Milman & Pizam, 1988; Pearce, 1980; William & Lawson, 2001). Level of education was a strong predictor of positive attitudes towards tourism’s effects on the local economy, the environment, and socio-cultural life, explaining a significant amount of the variance of the impacts studied beyond the effects ascribable to age and gender. Residents with higher education levels perceived tourism’s impacts more positively than residents with lower education levels. Actually, residents’ attitudes towards tourism gradually improve as their levels of education increase. These results are consistent with previous research (Hernández, Cohen & García, 1996; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Teye, Sönmez & Sirakaya, 2002). As these researchers explain, compared to residents with high education levels, residents with lower education levels might consider themselves less likely to get a job and, in turn, to directly benefit from tourism. In the same way, residents with lower education levels might be more interested in maintaining their traditional way of life given the sociocultural changes occurring in their city. Tourism-related immigration has led to strong competition for jobs. These results are similar to those in the study of Kuvan and Akan (2004), who found that less educated residents had more critical attitudes towards tourism. Type of work (economic dependence) was found to be a predictor of the perceptions of tourism’s effects on the economy and socio-cultural life. Compared to those working in jobs not related to tourism, residents working in an activity indirectly related to tourism have better attitudes regarding the socio-cultural impact of tourism. The latter, unlike the former, are engaged in tourism activities related to leisure and culture, and they potentially believe that their jobs positively stimulate socio-cultural activities in the city, which may explain their attitudes. Residents working in tourism-induced jobs have more favourable attitudes towards the economic impact than those working in jobs indirectly related to tourism. Compared to residents with jobs that indirectly relate to tourism, residents with tourism-induced employment may consider their employment to be more favourable, stable, and less conditioned by tourism’s seasonality. Residents with indirect jobs and less education have worse attitudes towards the economic impacts of tourism. In general, residents’ attitudes about tourism’s economic impact are consistent with the principles of social exchange theory that are applied to destinations (Andereck et al., 2005; Ap, 1992; Perdue et al., 1990). Social participation was found to explain differences among residents’ attitudes towards tourism’s impacts. Residents who participate in a social association occasionally have more positive attitudes towards tourism than do residents who participate regularly and those who do not participate in social associations. Cultural associations have become centres of both interpersonal relations and social and economic debate, within the context of the economic crisis in Spain, which may explain this result. Residents who regularly attend associations might develop a critical view of Almeida, F., Balbuena, A., & Cortés, R. (2015). Residents’ attitudes towards the impacts of tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 13(1), 33-40 Andereck, K. L. and Nyaupane, G. P. (2011). Exploring the nature of tourism and quality of life perceptions among residents. Journal of Travel Research, 50(3), 248–260. Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C. & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 1056– 1076. Andereck, K. L. & Vogt, C. A. (2000). The relationship between residents' attitudes toward tourism and tourism development options. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 27-36. Ap, J. (1992). Residents’ perception on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(4), 665−90. Barrado, D. & Calabuig, J. (ed) (2001). Geografia mundial del turismo, Madrid: Síntesis. Barrett, J.A. (1958). The seaside resorts towns of England and Wales. Ph.D. Thesis in Geography. University of London (unpublished). Belisle, F. J., & Hoy, D. R. (1980). The perceived impact of tourism by residents: A case study of Santa Marta, Colombia. Annals of Tourism Research, 7(1), 83-101. Besculides, A., Lee, M.E., & McCormick, P.J. (2002). Residents' perceptions of the cultural benefits of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), 303-319. Bujosa A. & Rosselló J. (2007). Modelling environmental attitudes toward tourism. Tourism Management, 28, 688–695. Brunt, P. and Courtney, P. (1999). Host perceptions of sociocultural impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3), 493-515. Butler, R. (1980). The concept of a tourist area life cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 19(1), 5-12. Contreras, P. (2011). Expansión y agotamiento del modelo turístico dominicano. El turismo en los informes de desarrollo humano en la República Dominicana. In E. Cañada & M. Blázquez (eds) Turismo placebo. Nueva colonización turística: del Mediterráneo a Mesoamérica y El Caribe. Lógicas espaciales del capital turístico (pp. 11-27). Managua: EDISA. Chen, J. S. (2000). An Investigation of urban residents' loyalty to tourism. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24, 5-19. D´Amore, L. J. (1983). Guidelines to planning in harmony with the host community. In P. E. Murphy (ed.) Tourism in Canada: Selected issues and options. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria, Department of Geography, 135-159. Deery, M., Jago, L., & Fredline, L. (2012). Rethinking Social Impacts of Tourism Research: A New Research Agenda. Tourism Management, 33(1), 64-73. Diedrich, A., & García, E. (2009). Local perceptions of tourism as indicators of destination decline. Tourism Management, 30, 512–521. Doxey, G. (1975). A causation theory of visitor–resident irritants, methodology and research inferences. The impact of tourism. In: Sixth annual conference proceedings of the Travel Research Association, San Diego. Dyer, P., Gursoy, D., Sharma, B., Carter, J. (2007). Structural modeling of resident perceptions of tourism and associated development on the Sunshine Coast, Australia. Tourism Management, 28, 409–422. Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident attitudes. A structural modeling approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 79-105. Gursoy, D. & Rutherford, D.G. (2004). Host attitudes toward tourism: An improved structural model. Annals of Tourism Research, 31, 495-516. Gutiérrez, D. (2010). Las actitudes de los residentes ante el turismo. Thesis, Universidad de La Laguna (España). Haley, A. J., Snaith, T. & Miller, G. (2005). The social impacts of tourism: A case study of Bath, UK. Annals of Tourism Research, 32, (3), 647–668. Haralambopoulos, N., & Pizam, A. (1996). Perceived impacts of tourism: The case of Samos. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 503–526. Harrill, R. (2004). Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development: A literature review with implications for tourism planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 18(3), 251–266. Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. New York: Guilford Press. Retrieved from: http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf Hernández, S., Cohen, J., & García, H. (1996). Residents’ attitudes towards an instant resort enclave. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 755–779. Horn, C., & Simmons, D. (2002). Community adaptation to tourism: Comparisons between Rotorua and Kaikoura, New Zealand. Tourism Management, 23, 133–143. Huete, R. (2010). Opiniones y actitudes ante el turismo residencial en el sur de la Comunidad Valenciana. Pasos, Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 8(4), 445461. Huh, C. & Vogt, C. A. (2008). Changes in residents' attitudes toward tourism over time: A cohort analytical approach. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 446-455. (INE) Instituto Nacional de Estadística (2014). Cifras Oficiales de Población de los Municipios Españoles: Revisión del Padrón Municipal, Madrid: Gobierno de España. (INE) Instituto Nacional de Estadística (2005-2014). Encuesta de ocupación hotelera. Madrid: Gobierno de España. Johnson, J. D., Snepenger, D. J.,& Akis, S. (1994). Residents perceptions of tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 629-642. Jurowski, C. & Gursoy, D. (2004). Distance effects on residents’ attitudes toward tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 296–312. King, B., Pizam, A. & Milman, A. (1993). Social Impacts of Tourism: Host Perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research, 20(4), 650-665. Ko, D. W. & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of residents’ attitudes for tourism development. Tourism Management, 23, 521–530. Korca, P. (1996). Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3), 695-726. Kuvan Y. & Akan P., (2005). Residents’ attitudes toward general and forest-related impacts of tourism: the case of Belek, Antalya. Tourism Management, 26, 691–706. Lankford, S.V. (1994). Attitudes and perceptions toward tourism and rural regional development. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), 35-33. Lankford, S. V. & D. R. Howard (1994). Developing a tourism impact attitude scale. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(1), 121-39. Lavery, P. (1974). Resorts and recreation. In P. Lavery (ed) Recreational Geography. New York: Willey. Pp.167-196. Lawson, R., Williams, J. Young, T., & Cossens, J. (1998). A comparison of residents’ attitudes towards tourism in 10 New Zealand destinations. Tourism Management, 19 (3) (1998), 247–256. Lindberg, K., and Johnson, R. L. (1997). Modelling resident attitudes toward tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 402-424. Liu, J., & Var, T. (1986). Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research, 13(2), 193-214. Liu, J., Sheldon, P. J. & Var, T. (1987). Resident perception of the environmental impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 14, 17 – 37. Long, T. P., Perdue, R. R., & Allen, L. (1990). Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes by community level of tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 28(3), 3-9. Madrigal, R. (1993). A tale of tourism in two cities. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(2), 336-353. Manning, E.W. (1998). Governance for tourism. Coping with tourism in impacted destinations, Ottawa: Centre for a sustainable future. Marien, C., & Pizan, A. (2005). Implementing sustainable tourism development through citizen participation in the planning process. In S. Wahab & J. J. Pigram. (eds.) Tourism, development and growth: The challenge of sustainability. London: Routledge. Marrero, J. R. (2006). El discurso de rechazo al turismo en Canarias: Una aproximación cualitativa. Pasos Revista de turismo y patrimonio cultural, 4(3), 327-341. Mason, P., & Cheyne, J. (2000). Residents attitudes to proposed tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 391-411. McGehee, N., & Andereck, K. (2004). Factors predicting rural residents´ support of tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 43(2), 131–140. Milman, A., & Pizam, A. (1988). Social impacts of tourism on Central Florida. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(2), 191-204. Miossec, J.M. (1977): Un modèle de l’espace touristique. L’Espace géographique, 1, 41-48. Nunkoo, R. & Gursoy, D. (2012). Residents’ support for tourism an identity perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 243–268. Oviedo, M. A., Castellanos, M., & Martin, D. (2008). Gaining residents’ support for tourism and planning. International Journal of Tourism Research, 10, 95-109. Pearce, J. A. (1980). Host community acceptance of foreign tourists. Strategic Considerations. Annals of Tourism Research, 7(2), 224-233. Perdue, R. R., Long, T. P., & Allen, L. (1987). Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(4), 586-599. Perdue, R. R., Long, T. P., and Allen, L. (1990). Resident support for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 17, 586-599. Pérez, E., & Nadal, J. (2005). Host community perceptions: a cluster analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 925-941. Prayag, G., Hosany, S. Nunkoo, R., & Alders, T. (2013). London residents´ support for the 2012 Olympic Games: the mediating effect of overall attitude. Tourism Management, 36, 629-640. Ribeiro, M. A., Oom do Valle, P. & Silva, J. A. (2013). Residents’ attitudes towards tourism development in Cape Verde Islands. Tourism Geographies, 15(4), 654–679. Ritchie, J.R.B. (1988). Consensus policy formulation in tourism: Measuring resident views via survey research. Tourism Management, 9(3), 199-212. Robson, J., & Robson, I. (1996). From shareholders to stakeholders: critical issues for tourism marketers. Tourism Management, 17(7), 533-540. Ross, G. (1992). Resident perception of the impact of tourism on an Australian City. Journal of Travel Research, 3(3), 13-17. Royo, M., & Ruíz, M. E. (2009). Actitud del residente hacia el turismo y el visitante: Factores determinantes en el turismo y excursionismo rural-cultural. Cuadernos de Turismo, 23, 217-236. Ryan, C., Chaozhi, Z. and Zeng, D. (2011). The impacts of tourism at a UNESCO heritage site in China – a need for a meta-narrative? The case of the Kaiping Diaolou. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(6), 747–765. Ryan, C. & Montgomery, D. (1994). The attitudes of Bakewell residents to tourism and issues in community responsive tourism. Tourism Management, 15(5), 358–369. Saveriades, A. (2000). Establishing the social tourism carrying capacity for the tourist resorts of the east coast of the Republic of Cyprus . Tourism Management , 21, 147-156. Sharpley, R. (2014). Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tourism Management, 42, 37-49. Sheldon, P. J., & Var, T. (1984). Residents attitudes toward tourism in North Wales. Tourism Management, 5(1), 40-47. Sirakaya, E., Teye, V., & Sönmez, S. (2002). Understanding residents’ support for tourism development in the Central Region of Ghana. Journal of Travel Research, 41(8), 57-67. Smith, M. D., & Krannich, R. S. (1998). Tourism dependence and resident attitudes. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(4), 783-802. Snaith, T. & Haley, A. (1999). Residents' opinions of tourism development in the historic city of York, England. Tourism Management, 20, 595-603. (SOPDE) Sociedad de Planificación y Desarrollo (2004). Informe Observando. 2004. La percepción de los malagueños y malagueñas ante el desarrollo turístico. Málaga: SOPDE. Stylidis, D., Biran, A., Sit, J., & Szivas, E. M. (2014). Residents' support for tourism development: The role of residents' place image and perceived tourism impacts. Tourism Management, 45(0), 260-274. Teye, V., Sönmez, S. F., & Sirakaya, E. (2002). Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 668-688. Tosun, C. (2002). Host perceptions of impacts: A comparative tourism study. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 231–253. Var, T., Kendall, K. W. & Tarakcioglu, E. (1985). Resident attitudes towards tourists in a Turkish resort town. Annals of tourism research, 12(4) 652-658. Vargas, A., Plaza, M. A. & Porras, N. (2009). Understanding residents' attitudes toward the development of industrial tourism in a former mining community. Journal of Travel Research, 47, 373. Vargas, A., Plaza, M. A. & Porras, N. (2011). Explaining residents’ attitudes to tourism is a universal model possible? Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2), 460–480. Vargas, A., Oom do Valle, P., Da Costa, J. & Albino, S. (2015). Residents’ attitude and level of destination development: An international comparison. Tourism Management, 48(3), 199-210. Wall, G. & Mathieson A. (2006). Tourism: Change, impacts and opportunities. Essex: Prentice Hall. Williams, J. & Lawson, R. (2002). Community issues and resident opinions of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 269–290. Yoon, Y., Gursoy, & D. Chen, J. S. (1999). An investigation of the relationship between tourism impacts and host communities’ characteristics. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(1), 29-44. Yoon, Y., Gursoy, D., & Chen, J.S. (2001). Validating a Tourism Development Theory with Structure Equation Modeling, Tourism Management 22, 363-372. Appendix Survey on the impact of tourism in Benalmádena