Understanding the effect of place image and knowledge of tourism on residents' attitudes towards tourism and their word-of-mouth intentions: evidence from Seville, Spain

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rthp21 Tourism Planning & Development ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rthp21 Understanding the Effect of Place Image and Knowledge of Tourism on Residents’ Attitudes Towards Tourism and Their Word-of-Mouth Intentions: Evidence from Seville, Spain Dimitrios Stylidis & Ana Maria Dominguez Quintero To cite this article: Dimitrios Stylidis & Ana Maria Dominguez Quintero (2022) Understanding the Effect of Place Image and Knowledge of Tourism on Residents’ Attitudes Towards Tourism and Their Word-of-Mouth Intentions: Evidence from Seville, Spain, Tourism Planning & Development, 19:5, 433-450, DOI: 10.1080/21568316.2022.2049859 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2022.2049859 © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 11 Mar 2022. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1782 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 2 View citing articles ORIGINAL ARTICLE Understanding the Effect of Place Image and Knowledge of Tourism on Residents’Attitudes Towards Tourism and Their Word-of-Mouth Intentions: Evidence from Seville, Spain Dimitrios Stylidis a and Ana Maria Dominguez Quintero b a Marketing Branding & Tourism, Middlesex University, London, England; b Department of Applied Economics I, University of Seville, Seville, Spain ABSTRACT As places are greatly shaped and reshaped by tourism, the way residents perceive their place and their knowledge of tourism gradually transform and become more complex and influential. Drawing on the social exchange and social representations theory, this research aimed to explore the effect residents’place image and knowledge of tourism have on perceived tourism impacts, which were subsequently expected to predict residents’ support for tourism development and their word-of-mouth (WOM) intentions. Data were collected from 484 residents in Seville, the third most visited destination in Spain. The findings suggest that place image shaped residents’perceptions of the economic, socio-cultural and environmental impacts, while knowledge of tourism affected only the economic ones. Additionally, place image and support for tourism determined residents’WOM intentions. The study extends current knowledge in mature destinations on the way residents’attitudes are shaped, whereby additional emphasis on place based and resident informed policies is needed. KEYWORDS Residents’attitudes towards tourism; place image theory; social exchange theory; Spain 1. Introduction Studies on residents’perceptions of tourism impacts and support for its development have rapidly developed over the last decades (Maruyama et al., 2019; Rasoolimanesh & Seyfi,2021). Such academic popularity is grounded on the axiom that the sustainable planning, development and marketing of tourism rely on local communities’goodwill and support (Hadinejad et al., 2019; Stylidis et al., 2014). Previous research has focused on the various factors shaping local residents’perceptions and attitudes towards tourism, with an emphasis on intrinsic ones (related to locals), such as their image/perceptions of their place (Ganji et al., 2020; Stylidis et al., 2014; Tosun et al., 2020), or subjective knowledge of tourism (Andereck et al., 2005; Nunkoo & So, 2016; Rua, 2020). Despite its potential in explaining residents’responses to tourism, knowledge of tourism has produced contradictory results, due to the variety of approaches used (factual/objective © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. CONTACT Dimitrios Stylidis [email protected] TOURISM PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 2022, VOL. 19, NO. 5, 433–450 https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2022.2049859 knowledge vs. subjective knowledge). Somewhat similarly, while the prominence of residents’place image to serve as an antecedent of residents’attitudes has been well documented in the literature (Stylidis, 2021), studies have very rarely pointed to how locals’ image dictates their WOM intentions; and whether the latter corresponds with their support for tourism. Last but not least, knowledge of tourism and place image have never been jointly used (to the best of our knowledge) to explain local perceptions of and support for tourism development. Asplacesaregreatlyshapedandreshapedbytourism(Heo, 2016), the wayresidentsperceive their place and theirknowledge of tourism (Latkova &Vogt, 2012)graduallytransform and become more complex and influential. As stated earlier, studies on the role of locals’ subjective knowledge of the industry in the tourism development context have been inconclusive, with some authors (see Andereck et al., 2005) reporting that the less knowledgeable residents are less supportive of tourism, while other studies (see Nunkoo & So, 2016; Rua, 2020) confirming the opposite. Following Nunkoo and So (2016), knowledge is defined here as residents’understanding of tourism development issues in their area. At the same time, local residents have been progressively recognised—due to their familiarity with the destination—as key informants and destination marketers who often recommend (word-of-mouth or WOM) to their acquaintances local sites to visit and places to dine, thereby shaping visitors’destination image and experience (Tosun et al., 2020). WOM intentions are known in the tourist context to be related to the image visitors hold of the destination; the more positive the image, the greater the WOM intentions (Zhang et al., 2014). Little is known though, in the tourism development context, about the potential relationships between residents’place image and WOM intentions; and especially between residents’support for tourism and WOM. The willingness to share local views of the place with current and/or potential visitors serves as a powerful promotional tool for the destination, an act of direct support for the tourism industry, and a positive influence on visitors’experiences (Stylidis, 2021). Extensive reviews on this field (Hadinejad et al., 2019; Rasoolimanesh & Seyfi,2021), further support the integration of models considering both antecedents (place image, knowledge of tourism) and consequences of residents’perceptions of tourism impacts (support for tourism, WOM intentions), for a better understanding of such phenomena. The current study seeks thus to explore the effect of residents’place image and knowledge of tourism on their perceptions of tourism impacts, which in turn affect support for tourism development and WOM intentions. To address this aim, three objectives are formulated: (a) investigate the impact residents’knowledge of tourism has on perceived tourism impacts; (b) examine the effect residents’place image has on perceived tourism impacts, support for tourism, and WOM intentions; (c) explore the relationships between perceived tourism impacts and support; and between the latter and WOM intentions. Such examination sheds more light on the antecedents and consequences of residents’perceptions of tourism impacts (Rasoolimanesh & Seyfi,2021) and of their WOM intentions (Stylidis, 2018). More specifically, understanding and incorporating in tourism planning residents’knowledge of tourism and image of their place is central to the sustainable development and marketing of the sector (Moscardo, 2011). Furthermore, such understanding will assist local authorities in Seville and elsewhere to assess residents’level of knowledge of tourism, which is often based on misinformation, as this might pose a threat to successful planning and development of tourism. 434 D. STYLIDIS AND A. M. QUINTERO 2. Literature review 2.1 Theoretical framework: social exchange theory and place image Social-Exchange Theory (SET) is the most commonly applied theoretical framework to explain community attitudes towards tourism (Fredline & Faulkner, 2000; Hadinejad et al., 2019; Ramkissoon & Nunkoo, 2011). SET postulates that residents support tourism development in cases where they foresee the potential benefits to exceed the expected costs (Ap, 1992). A vast volume of studies reported that the more positive the evaluations of tourism impacts, the greater the support for tourism development (Hadinejad et al., 2019). Some researchers though criticised SET for treating the decision-making process as too systematic and rational (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2010), merely focusing on monetary transactions (Woosnam & Norman, 2010; Stylidis & Terzidou, 2021). For Sharpley (2014), SET is primarily relevant to the analysis of implicitly voluntary exchange processes between the parties. But even in cases of co-existence in a shared space without contact, the local residents might feel that the act of sharing “their”locality’s space is part of the exchange process in which they participate. Rasoolimanesh et al. (2015) further argued that while some impacts might not directly benefit individuals, they can still influence their perceptions of those impacts, as they recognise the benefits accrued by the community. Despitethecriticism,SET offers a solid theoretical foundation to explain the examination of the inter-relationships between the perceptions of positive and negative impacts and support for tourism; whereby at the community level, positive and negative, economic, sociocultural and environmental impacts have been validated as significant determinants of residents’attitudes toward tourism development (Ward & Berno, 2011). Nunkoo and So (2015), for example, who compared four competing models of residents’support for tourism, offered additional insights on the relationships among the various SET variables. Another theory that can supplement well SET in explaining residents’attitudes is the Social Representations Theory (SRT) (Fredline & Faulkner, 2000; Moscardo, 2011; Pearce et al., 1996). In line with Moscovici (1981), social representations are “systems of preconceptions, images and values which have their own cultural meaning and persist independently of individual experience”(p.122). As issues associated with tourism development are often context-specific, the need for place-related policies that consider the locality’s uniqueness has been highlighted (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2010). Within this context, a concept critical for planning, which also offers strong potentials to elucidate the locality’s characteristics is that of residents’place image (Schoreder, 1996; Stylidis et al., 2014). Drawing on the works of Boulding (1956, p. 6) who defined image as “what we believe to be true, our subjective knowledge”, and Scott (1965, p.72) who argued that image is “the totality of attributes that a person recognises when he contemplates that object,” place image is commonly defined as the sum of beliefs, ideas and impressions individuals have of a place (Crompton, 1979), or perceptions about the characteristics of a place (Gallarza et al., 2002). Boulding (1956), in his seminal work in the field of psychology was among the first to recognise that people’s subjective knowledge consists not only of images of “fact”, but also of images of “value”. Building on Boulding’s(1956) work, place image comprises a cognitive and an affective component (Chew & Jahari, 2014). The former encompasses peoples’beliefs and knowledge about a destination (Pike & Ryan, 2004), while the latter corresponds to their feelings and emotions towards it TOURISM PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT 435 (Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997). Both are known to give shape to behavioural intentions such as WOM (Stylidis et al., 2017). Images are not necessarily accurate or representative of the reality, as the evaluations of the attributes of a place are based on personal views, and are, thus, highly subjective (Neal et al., 1999). A number of reasons explain why places should manage their image, including the need to attract tourists, investors and new residents (Kotler & Gertner, 2002). Despite the strong emphasis given in the past on tourists’destination image, there is a growing recognition in the literature that residents’place image is equally pivotal, especially in relation to tourism planning, development and marketing (Bigné et al., 2005; Ganji et al., 2020). Local residents’image of their place is more complex and comprehensive than visitors’image (Stylidis et al., 2014), and several studies have confirmed differences in the images of the two parties (Chan & Marafa, 2016; Ku & Mak, 2017; Stylidis et al., 2017). For instance, Ku and Mak (2017) reported that residents were attracted by recreational activities and relaxation, while tourists preferred the facilities and public space while visiting a scenic area in Taiwan. Residents also act as destination marketers by recommending cultural sites, restaurants, experiences and activities to their friends and relatives (Gallarza et al., 2002; Hudson & Hawkins, 2006); their image is therefore a key determinant not only of their perceived tourism impacts but also of their WOM intentions. Further exploring place image from the resident perspective is critical in tourism planning and marketing, for understanding its impact on perceptions of tourism/support for its development along with residents’WOM intentions (Campelo et al., 2014; Hsu et al., 2004; Tosun et al., 2020). Empirical research, however, is limited in this regard; in response to this lack of research on this field, the study applies SET and place image to explore how residents’support for tourism development and WOM intentions are shaped, as discussed below. 2.2 Perceived tourism impacts and support for tourism There is anonymous agreement in the literature that the impacts of tourism can be classified as economic, socio-cultural and environmental (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2019; Vargas-Sanchez et al., 2011). In economic terms, tourism generates employment and increased investment opportunities (Almeida-García et al., 2016; Gursoy et al., 2002), leading to improved local economies and residents’quality of life (Ribeiro et al., 2017; Woo et al., 2015), while it also increases the cost of living (Bujosa & Roselló, 2007; Vargas-Sanchez et al., 2011). In the socio-cultural domain, tourism provides increased opportunities for leisure and cultural activities, assists in the maintenance and conservation of historical heritage, the preservation of customs, values and cultural identity, and boosts pride and cultural identity (Besculides et al., 2002; Sinclair-Maragh et al., 2015). On the other hand it is often linked to traffic and parking issues, increased crime and vandalism (Andereck et al., 2005; Bujosa & Roselló, 2007). As for the environmental impacts, tourism is considered a driver for the preservation of natural resources (Mathew & Sreejesh, 2017), whereas it is also a source of increased litter and pollution (Almeida-García et al., 2016), and generates congestion in public services and overcrowding in the destination (Bujosa & Roselló, 2007; Terzidou et al., 2008). Based on SET, studies have established links between the evaluations of tourism impacts by residents and their level of support for tourism development (Almeida436 D. STYLIDIS AND A. M. QUINTERO García et al., 2016; Prayag et al., 2013; Stylidis et al., 2014). For example, Almeida-García et al. (2016) reported that more favourable perceptions lead to more supportive behavioural intentions. Residents as such with positive attitudes towards tourism impacts are expected to show higher levels of support, while those with negative attitudes will oppose tourism development (Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012; Ribeiro et al., 2017). Following this discussion, the next hypotheses are proposed: H1a: Perceived economic impacts affect support for tourism development. H1b: Perceived socio-cultural impacts affect support for tourism development. H1c: Perceived environmental impacts affect support for tourism development. 2.3 Knowledge of tourism and residents’perceptions of tourism impacts Knowledge sits well within the SET framework as an important resource for locals, which determines their position in a social exchange network (Cook et al., 2013). Nunkoo (2015), Nunkoo and So (2016) and Rua (2020) reported that knowledge of tourism does not explain perceptions of positive impacts, but is linked to perceptions of negative impacts. A tenable explanation offered by these researchers is that knowledge reinforces “critical citizens”who hold more critical attitudes towards further tourism development (Christensen & Laegreid, 2005). For Rua (2020), these more knowledgeable residents can act as gatekeepers of sustainable tourism development in the area, with such knowledge elevating their notion of empowerment (Joo et al., 2020). For example, Joo et al. (2020) reported that the more knowledgeable about tourism local residents were, the more psychologically, socially, and politically empowered they felt. In contrast, lack of knowledge is reported as a main obstacle in residents’participation in decision making related to tourism (Weng & Peng, 2014). Andereck et al. (2005), on the other hand, found knowledgeable residents to be more positively predisposed towards the positive impacts of tourism, perhaps a sign of appreciation to the industry. Davis et al. also noted that a group of residents classified by the researchers as “haters”were the ones with the lowest level of knowledge about tourism. Lastly, Latkova and Vogt (2012) did not report any relationship between knowledge and positive or negative impacts of tourism. Part of these variations can be attributed to the variety of measures of knowledge used, ranging from a single item (Latkova & Vogt, 2012) to a four-item scale (Nunkoo and So, 2016). Based on this discussion, the following hypotheses were formulated: H2a: Residents’knowledge of tourism affects the perceived economics impacts of tourism. H2b: Residents’knowledge of tourism affects the perceived socio-cultural impacts of tourism. H2c: Residents’knowledge of tourism affects the perceived environmental impacts of tourism. 2.4 Place image, residents’perceptions of tourism impacts, and support for tourism The link between residents’place image, perceived tourism impacts andsupport for tourism has been progressively explored the past years (Ganji et al., 2020; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, TOURISM PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT 437 2010;Stylidisetal.,2014;Tosunetal.,2020).Schroeder’s(1996) workwas thefirstto establish a positive relationship between place image and support for tourism. Ramkisoom and Nunkoo (2010) further confirmed that three out of four dimensions of place image these researchers explored exerted a positive effect on the perception of overall tourism impacts, ignoring through the tri-dimensional nature of tourism impacts. Stylidis et al. (2014) also established a positive effect of place image on the economic, socio-cultural and environmental impacts, and on support for tourism. Tournois and Djeric (2019), Ganji et al. (2020) and Tosun et al. (2020) further confirmed that residents’place image had both direct and indirect effects (via perceived impacts) on support for tourism. As most of the previous research was conducted on destinations at the first stages of tourism development, our understanding of such relationships in the context of well-established, mature destinations remains limited. Based on SRT and previous research, it is suggested that: H3a: Residents’place image affects the perceived economics impacts of tourism. H3b: Residents’place image affects the perceived socio-cultural impacts of tourism. H3c: Residents’place image affects the perceived environmental impacts of tourism. H4: Residents’place image affects support for tourism development. 2.5 Residents’place image and WOM intentions Positive recommendations serve as a credible source of information for potential tourists (Yoon & Uysal, 2005). This is especially relevant in tourism, which heavily relies on positive word-of-mouth for destination image building (Williams & Soutar, 2009). In recent times this also takes also the form of positively/negatively discussing about a destination through social media via chatting with friends or posting content on social networks (Kislali et al., 2019). Although the link between destination image and WOM has been well established in the tourism literature (e.g. Choi et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2014), there is limited evidence on the stability of this relationship when applied to local residents; locals’place image and its effect on their word-of-mouth intentions is thus far little understood. Among the few studies available, Schroeder (1996)first reported that residents who hold a more positive image of North Dakota are more likely to recommend it as a tourist destination to others. Stylidis (2018), who clustered residents of Eilat in Israel based on their place image, confirmed that those with more favourable images—termed nature aesthete and appreciators—were more likely to recommend Eilat to others as compared to the critical residents. Similarly, limited empirical evidence is available regarding the relationship between residents’support for tourism and their intentions to spread positive WOM about their place to others. For Hsu et al. (2004), such positive recommendations imply indirect support for tourism activity. Aiming to fill these two gaps, the following hypothesis are proposed: H5: Residents’place image affects their WOM intentions. H6: Residents’support for tourism affects their WOM intentions. Figure 1 below presents the proposed model including the hypothesised relationships previously discussed. 438 D. STYLIDIS AND A. M. QUINTERO 3. Methodology 3.1 Research setting The research setting of this study is Seville (population 700,000), one of the most historical cities in Spain. Seville is on the banks of Guadalquivir and the capital of Andalusia region. The city boasts a number of cultural and heritage attractions, such as the Cathedral, the Alcázar, and the Archivo General de Indias, declared as World Heritage Sites. Seville is also known for hosting the Holy Week Processions and the April Fair. Massive developments such as new bridges, highways, and transport links (e.g. high-speed train to Madrid) were undertaken in 1992 as part of the Universal Exhibition. Seville, the third most visited destination in Spain (only after Madrid and Barcelona), welcomed 3,121,934 travellers in 2019, while the number of overnight stays the same year reached 6,706,744 (Ayuntamiento de Sevilla, 2020). 3.2 Questionnaire design The questionnaire contained four parts and all items were measured on seven-point Likert scale, from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The first part captured the perceived impacts of tourism via 14 items across the three impact domains. Economic was measured by five items (e.g. revenue generated in the local economy) adopted from Gursoy and Rutherford (2004) and Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2010). Socio-cultural were evaluated by six items (e.g. availability of recreational facilities) adopted by Gursoy and Rutherford (2004) and Stylidis et al. (2014). Four items (e.g. pollution) were used to measure environmental, borrowed from Gursoy and Rutherford (2004) and Gu and Ryan (2008). Support for tourism was assessed using four items drawn from McGehee and Andereck (2004) and Nepal (2008). Figure 1. Proposed Model. TOURISM PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT 439 The second part was devoted to understanding residents’place image. The concept of image is elusive, known for its complexity and multiplicity (Di Vittorio, 2007; Gallarza et al., 2002). This is evident on the number of components (cognitive, affective) and attributes used to measure image in the past. Place attributes typically cover (a) commonly applied ones such as the natural environment, activities, and accessibility (Chen & Tsai, 2007; Chi & Qu, 2008) and (b) place-specific ones, given that image greatly hinges upon the place under investigation (Chen et al., 2013). Place image cognitive component was assessed in this study based on Stylidis et al. (2014) work, with items classified across four factors: community services, physical appearance, social environment and entertainment services. The affective component was evaluated via four items (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Stylidis et al., 2011). The third part captured residents’knowledge of tourism based on Nunkoo and So (2015) and Andereck et al. (2005). WOM intentions were captured via three items following Bosnjak et al. (2011) and Chen et al. (2018). The last part included questions about respondents’personal characteristics. A pilot version of the survey was distributed to 40 conveniently selected Sevillians, out of which, 38 agreed to participate. During this process, the researchers ensured that the respondents understood the wording of the items and that the time for completion was within a logical timeframe to avoid withdrawals. The responses and comments obtained during this process did not suggest any major changes to the initial wording of the items, assisting in establishing the face validity of the research instrument. 3.3 Sampling and data collection Data were collected using self-administered pen and paper questionnaires, which were distributed by one of the researchers over the months of April-May, and October-December 2019. These months were selected as they are the peak and mid tourist season in Seville. Following a stratified random sampling approach based on gender, age and postal districts—using the 2018 Seville census data available—the sample was proportionally selected in accordance with the stratums’relative weight in relation to the population. In total, 484 questionnaires were returned by adult residents, who were approached in their neighbourhoods. This approach is commonly used in researching the attitudes of residents as it is known to produce results that are reflective of the local population (McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Woosnam, 2012). 3.4 Data analysis Priortodataanalysis,adatascreeningprocess was performed to identify incomplete or unengaged responses and to assess normality. Assessment of the kurtosis and skewness values confirmed that the responses in all variables did not violate normality, and were within the suggested threshold (Hair et al. 2018). Next, a two-stage CBSEM was conducted using SPSS v.26 and AMOS v. 26. The appropriateness of the measurement model was assessed first using the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), followed by CB-SEM for testing the proposed hypothesised relationships between the constructs. 440 D. STYLIDIS AND A. M. QUINTERO Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2005). Trust in government: The relative importance of service satisfaction, political factors, and demography. Public Performance and Management Review,28(4), 487–511. Choi, J. G., Tkachenko, T., & Sil, S. (2011). On the destination image of Korea by Russian tourists. Tourism Management,32(1), 193–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.12.002 Cook, K. S., Chesire, C., Rice, E. R., & Nakagawa, S. (2013). Social Exchange Theory. In J. DeLamater & A. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 61-88). Dordrecht: Springer. Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for Pleasure Vacation. Annals of Tourism Research,6(4), 408–424 Di Vittorio, A. (2007). Customer relationship management and new processes of buying by tourist consumers. Franco Angeli. Fredline, E., & Faulkner, B. (2000). Host community reactions: A cluster analysis. Annals of Tourism Research,27(3), 763–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00103-6 Gallarza, M. G., Saura, I. G., & Garcı a, H. C. (2002). Destination image: Towards a conceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research,29(1), 56–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00031-7 Ganji, S. F. G., Johnson, L. W., & Sadeghian, S. (2020). The effect of place image and place attachment on residents’perceived value and support for tourism development. Current Issues in Tourism, 24 (9), 1304–1318. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1784106 Garau-Vadell, J. B., Gutierrez-Taño, D., & Diaz-Armas, R. (2018). Economic crisis and residents’perception of the impacts of tourism in mass tourism destinations. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management,7,68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.08.008 Gu, H., & Ryan, C. (2008). Place attachment, identity and community impacts of tourism—the case of a Beijing hutong. Tourism Management,29(4), 637–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007. 06.006 Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident attitudes: A structural modelling approach. Annals of Tourism Research,29(1), 79–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00028-7 Gursoy, D., & Rutherford, D. G. (2004). Host attitudes toward tourism: An improved structural model. Annals of Tourism Research,31(3), 495–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2003.08.008 Hadinejad, A., Moyle, B., Scott, N., Kralj, A., & Nunkoo, R. (2019). Residents’attitudes to tourism: A review. Tourism Review,74(2), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-01-2018-0003 Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2018). Multivariate data analysis (9th eds.). New Jersey: Pearson Education. Heo, Y. (2016). Sharing economy and prospects in tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research,58, 166–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.02.002 Hsu, C. H., Wolfe, K., & Kang, S. K. (2004). Image assessment for a destination with limited comparative advantages. Tourism Management,25(1), 121–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177 (03)00062-1 Hudson, M., & Hawkins, N. (2006). A tale of two cities—A commentary on historic and current marketing strategies used by the Liverpool and Glasgow regions. Place Branding,2(2), 155–176. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.pb.5990053 Joo, D., Woosnam, K. M., Strzelecka, M., & Boley, B. B. (2020). Knowledge, empowerment, and action: Testing the empowerment theory in a tourism context. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,28(1), 69– 85. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1675673 Kislali, H., Kavaratzis, M., & Saren, M. (2019). Destination image formation: Towards a holistic approach. International Journal of Tourism Research,22(2), 266–276. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr. 2335 Kotler, P., & Gertner, D. (2002). Country as brand, product, and beyond: A place marketing and brand management perspective. Journal of Brand Management,9(4-5), 249–261. https://doi.org/10. 1057/palgrave.bm.2540076 Ku, G. C. M., & Mak, A. H. N. (2017). Exploring the discrepancies in perceived destination images from residents’and tourists’perspectives: A revised importance–performance analysis approach. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research,22(11), 1124–1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2017. 1374294 TOURISM PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT 447 Latkova, P., & Vogt, C. A. (2012). Residents’attitudes toward existing and future tourism development in rural communities. Journal of Travel Research,51(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0047287510394193 Maruyama, N., Keith, S., & Woosnam, K. M. (2019). Incorporating emotion into social exchange: Considering distinct resident groups’attitudes towards ethnic neighborhood tourism in Osaka, Japan. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,27(8), 1125–1141. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582. 2019.1593992 Mathew, P. V., & Sreejesh, S. (2017). Impact of responsible tourism on destination sustainability and quality of life of community in tourism destinations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,31,83–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2016.10.001 McGehee, N. G., & Andereck, K. L. (2004). Factors predicting rural residents’support of tourism. Journal of Travel Research,43(2), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287504268234 Moscardo, G. (2011). Exploring social representations of tourism planning: Issues for governance. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,19(4–5), 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.558625 Moscovici, S. (1981). On social representations. In J. Forgas (Ed.), Social cognition (pp. 181–209). Academic. Neal, C., Quester, P., & Hawkin, D. (1999). Consumer behavior: Implications for marketing strategy. McGraw-Hill. Nepal, S. K. (2008). Residents’attitudes to tourism in central British Columbia, Canada. Tourism Geographies,10(1), 42–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616680701825123 Nunkoo, R. (2015). Tourism development and trust in local government. Tourism Management,46, 623–634. Nunkoo, R., & Gursoy, D. (2012). Residents’support for tourism: An identity perspective. Annals of Tourism Research,39(1), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.05.006 Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2010). Modeling community support for a proposed integrated resort project. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,18(2), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09669580903290991 Nunkoo, R., & So, K. K. F. (2016). Residents’support for tourism: Testing alternative structural models. Journal of Travel Research,55(7), 847–861. Pearce, P. L., Moscardo, G., & Ross, G. F. (1996). Tourism community relationships. Pergamon. Pike, S., & Ryan, C. (2004). Destination positioning analysis through a comparison of cognitive, affective, and conative perceptions. Journal of Travel Research,42(4), 333–342. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0047287504263029 Plan 8 Seville Tourism Impact (2020). Seville: Tourism Seville. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff,N.P.(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology,63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.08.003 Ramkissoon, H., & Nunkoo, R. (2011). City image and perceived tourism impact: Evidence from Port Louis, Mauritius. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration,12(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2011.564493 Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jaafar, M., Kock, N., & Ramayah, T. (2015). A revised framework of social exchange theory to investigate the factors influencing residents’perceptions. Tourism Management Perspectives,16, 335–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.10.001 Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Noor, S. M., & Jaafar, M. (2019). Positive and negative perceptions of residents toward tourism development: Formative or reflective. In Quantitative tourism research in Asia (pp. 247–271). Singapore: Springer. Rasoolimanesh, S. M., & Seyfi,S.(2021). Residents’perceptions and attitudes towards tourism development: a perspective article. Tourism Review,76(1), 51–57. Ribeiro, M. A., Pinto, P., Silva, J. A., & Woosnam, K. M. (2017). Residents’attitudes and the adoption of pro-tourism behaviours: The case of developing island countries. Tourism Management,61, 523– 537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.03.004 448 D. STYLIDIS AND A. M. QUINTERO Rua, S. V. (2020). Perceptions of tourism: A study of residents’attitudes towards tourism in the city of Girona. Journal of Tourism Analysis,27(2), 165–184. Schroeder, T. (1996). The Relationship of Residents’Image of Their State as a Tourist Destination and Their Support for Tourism. Journal of Travel Research,34(4), 71–73. Scott, W. A. (1965). Psychological and social correlates of international images. In H. C Kelman (Ed.), International behaviour: A socio-psychological analysis (pp. 71–103). London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Sharpley, R. (2014). Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tourism Management,42, 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.10.007 Sinclair-Maragh, G., Gursoy, D., & Vieregge, M. (2015). Residents׳perceptions toward tourism development: A factor-cluster approach. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management,4(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2014.10.001 Stylidis, D. (2018). Residents’place image: A cluster analysis and its links to place attachment and support for tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,26(6), 1007–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09669582.2018.1435668 Stylidis, D. (2021). Exploring resident-tourist interaction and its impact on tourists’destination image. Journal of Travel Research,61(1), 186–201. Stylidis, D., Shani, A., & Belhassen, Y. (2017). Testing an integrated destination image model across residents and tourists. Tourism Management,58, 184–195. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th Ed.). New York: Pearson Education. 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, 260–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.05.006 Stylidis, D., & Terzidou, M. (2021). Exploring how perceived tourism impacts evolve over time (20092019) in an era of uncertainty: Economic crisis, host-guest interactions, and Airbnb. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1939707 Tasci, A. D. A., Uslu, A., Stylidis, D., & Woosnam, K. M. (2021). Place-oriented or people-oriented concepts for destination loyalty: Destination image and place attachment versus perceived distances and emotional solidarity. Journal of Travel Research,61(2), 430–453. Terzidou, M., Stylidis, D., & Szivas, E. M. (2008). Residents’perceptions of religious tourism and its socio-economic impacts on the island of Tinos. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development,5(2), 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790530802252784 Tosun, C., Dedeoğlu, B. B., Çalışkan, C., & Karakuş,Y.(2020). Role of place image in support for tourism development: The mediating role of multi-dimensional impacts. International Journal of Tourism Research,23(3), 268–286. Tournois, L., & Djeric, G. (2019). Evaluating urban residents’attitudes towards tourism development in Belgrade (Serbia). Current Issues in Tourism,22(14), 1670–1678. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13683500.2018.1465030 Vargas-Sanchez, A., Porras-Bueno, N., & de los Ángeles Plaza-Mejía, M. (2011). Explaining residents’ attitudes to tourism: Is a universal model possible? Annals of Tourism Research,38(2), 460–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2010.10.004 Ward, C., & Berno, T. (2011). Beyond social exchange theory: Attitudes toward tourists. Annals of Tourism Research,38(4), 1556–1569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.02.005 Weng, S., & Peng, H. (2014). Tourism development, rights consciousness and the empowerment of Chinese historical village communities. Tourism Geographies,16(5), 772–784. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14616688.2014.955873 Williams, P., & Soutar, G. N. (2009). Value satisfaction and behavioural intentions in an adventure tourism context. Annals of Tourism Research,36(3), 413–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals. 2009.02.002 Woo, E., Kim, H., & Uysal, M. (2015). Life satisfaction and support for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research,50,84–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.11.001 TOURISM PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT 449 Woosnam, K. M. (2012). Using emotional solidarity to explain residents’attitudes about tourism and tourism development. Journal of Travel Research,51(3), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0047287511410351 Woosnam, K. M., & Norman, W. C. (2010). Measuring residents’emotional solidarity with tourists: Scale development of Durkheim’s theoretical constructs. Journal of Travel Research,49(3), 365– 380. Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management,26(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tourman.2003.08.016 Zhang, H., Fu, X., Cai, L. A., & Lu, L. (2014). Destination image and tourist loyalty: A meta-analysis. Tourism Management,40, 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.06.006 450 D. STYLIDIS AND A. M. QUINTERO