1. Stakeholders’ Attitudes towards Sustainable Tourism Development in Coastal Communities
Whitney Knollenberg 
Thesis Committee
Dr. Joseph Fridgen, Associate Director for Academic Programs,
Center for Sustainable Tourism (Committee Chair)
Dr. Huili Hao, Research Director, Center for Sustainable Tourism
Dr. Tom Crawford, Associate Professor, Geography

2. Overview What is sustainable tourism development?
Why do we care what residents think?
Description of theory
Study location
Purpose
Method
Analysis
Results
Conclusions
Applications
Future Research

3. Sustainable Tourism Development
“…achieving sustainable forms of tourism is the responsibility of all stakeholders involved, including government at all levels, international organizations, the private sector, environmental groups and citizens both in tourism destination countries and countries of origin.”
The Berlin Declaration On  Biological Diversity and Sustainable Tourism, 1997
As suggested by the Berlin Declaration of 1997 all stakeholders must be involved in sustainable forms of tourism, this include the citizens that live in the destinations where tourism occurs. Prior to starting any sustainable tourism development initiatives it is critical that planners understand the attitudes of stakeholders towards sustainable actions in tourism development.
This study supports the necessity for involving all stakeholders in tourism planning, though it will focus specifically on the property owners of the studied communities. It will explore their attitudes towards sustainable actions in tourism development through the use of a survey. The property owners’ attitudes will then be used to determine whether all property owners hold the same attitudes towards sustainable actions in tourism development.

4. Sustainable Tourism Development
Actions that contribute to a balanced and healthy economy by generating tourism-related jobs, revenues, and taxes while protecting and enhancing the destination's socio-cultural, historical, natural and built resources for the enjoyment and well-being of both residents and visitors.
Center for Sustainable Tourism
But first, we must define how sustainable tourism development was defined in this study. There are many definitions of sustainable tourism development, which leads to confusion among researchers, planners, business owners, travelers and citizens. This is one of the limitations of this study. The fifteen actions used to measure resident’s attitudes towards sustainable tourism may not have included all of the actions that citizens consider sustainable, or man not have matched their definition of sustainable tourism development.
The definition of sustainable tourism development that was used to shape this study is as follows (CLICK): it addresses the three traditional pillars of sustainability, the economy, the environment and people.

5. Importance of Residents’ Attitudes
Many studies have been conducted examining resident’s attitudes towards tourism
“…without community support, it is difficult to develop a sustainable tourism industry in a community.” - Andereck and Vogt, 2000 (p. 27)
New research is focusing on resident’s attitudes towards sustainable tourism development (Choi and Sirakaya, 2005 and 2006 )
As in the definition of sustainable tourism development used in this study states the preservation of natural and cultural resources and the stimulation of a destination’s economy is critical not only for travelers but also for the resident’s in the destination. For it is the residents that have to live in the community year round and contend with the impacts of tourism.
There have been many studies conducted examining residents attitudes towards tourism. Though there have been mixed results and different findings across different communities it has been determined that understanding residents’ attitudes towards tourism and responding to those attitudes is critical for tourism to be successful in any community. Andereck and Vogt suggest that without an understanding of residents attitudes it is “difficult to develop a sustainable tourism industry in a community.”
Furthermore, new research is being conducted to understand residents’ attitudes towards sustainable tourism development. Choi and Sirakaya have made efforts to develop a scale to measure these attitudes and have tested the scale in multiple destination worldwide.

6. Stakeholder Theory Stakeholder Theory
A stakeholder is, “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives.”
- Freeman, 1984 (p. 46)
Translating Stakeholder Theory to tourism
“Freeman’s concepts requires the tourism planner(s) to have a full appreciation of all the persons or groups who have interests in the planning, process(es), delivery and/or outcomes of the tourism service.”
- Sautter and Leisen, 1999 (p. 315)
Not all members of a stakeholder group may feel the same way
The practice of engaging all residents in the tourism planning process, is a crucial component of sustainable tourism development. Recall that the Berlin Declaration called for the inclusion of all stakeholders in the process. This study expanded upon that idea and uses stakeholder theory as its framework.
Developed in 1984 by Freeman, Stakeholder Theory states that “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” should be considered a stakeholder. This theory was originally developed for use in the field of business management. Therefore stakeholders were identified by their membership in a group or organization such as employees, suppliers, competitors, and stockholders. However, Sautter and Leisen help to translate it’s use to the field of tourism. (CLICK) This is an adaption of Sautter and Leisen’s translation of Stakeholer Theory to the tourism industry. It was modified for this study, so the central focus is on property owners with other immediately impacted stakeholders including: Policy makers, businesses, tourists, employees and tourism planners. And secondarily impacted stakeholders including: developers, coastal zone managers, business groups, preservation groups, environmental activists, public land managers and competing destinations.
There are several challenges that exist in applying stakeholder theory to the field of tourism. First, it is difficult to accurately identify all legitimate stakeholder groups. There are many individuals and groups who may be impacted by the success or failure of tourism in a community. Second, it may not be true that all members of a stakeholder group feel the same way about an issue. When stakeholders are identified by their membership in a group (i.e. they pay property taxes, so therefore they are property owners) it does not accurately represent their attitudes, emotions, current and past experiences with tourism. Therefore this study will attempt to determine if additional stakeholder groups can be classified by their attitudes towards sustainable actions in tourism development.

7. Location
The fragile nature of coastal environments requires local decision-makers to consider how their actions may impact the resources that attract tourists, such as the ocean and beaches
Coastal communities have large numbers of second homes, which introduces a new group impacted by tourism
Although any tourism destination may benefits from the implementation of sustainable tourism development, coastal areas in particular will benefit from actions taken to protect natural and cultural resources. The very attributes that attract visitors to these areas are at risk of being destroyed by overuse. The ocean, beaches and wildlife are susceptible to the impacts of storm water runoff, the construction of offshore structures, water pollution and heavy traffic.
Furthermore these areas are not solely a tourist attraction, but are home to residents who live there year round and must content with the impacts of tourism. A particularly trying issue for permanent residents is seasonality. During the summer months they must contend with heavy traffic and distriuption to their normal routines because of tourists and in the off seasons they must contribute taxes to maintain the infrastructure that is designed to accommodate the summertime population.
In addition to the permanent population and tourists the coastal areas attract another special population, second homeowners. These property owners may have inherited land or a home, purchased it for investment purposes or intend to retire to the area. Just as the permanent residents and tourists enjoy the natural resources oftentimes second homeowners are attracted to the coastal areas because of the natural beauty and cultural uniqueness of beachside communities. This population also has an impact on the communities in which they live, and have been included as a part of the property owner population for this study.

8. Study Areas Three coastal counties
Brunswick, Currituck, Pender Counties, NC
In order to study coastal areas that are heavily impacted by tourism three counties in North Carolina were selected for study. These three counties have many miles of beaches that serve as breeding grounds for wildlife, played a role in the initial colonization of the area, a rich history in the shipping and seafood industries, and have been recognized nationwide as having spectacular beaches that are family friendly.
They also have a high percentage of second home owners. After examining the property tax record for each county it was determined that the property tax paying population was made up of over 30% of second homeowners for each county, with Currituck having the highest percentage of second homeowners at 43%. A second homeowner was determined by one having a mailing address that did not match the parcel address provided in the property tax record.
Additionally two of the counties, Pender and Currituck represent a lower level of economic development than Brunswick county. This may allow for future analysis based on different levels of economic development.
Percentage of Second home:
Brunswick: 40%
Currituck: 43%
Pender: 33%
Counties selected due to:
High percentage of 2nd Homes
Different tiers of economic development
Proximity to fragile coastal resources

9. Purpose
This study aims to further enable resident involvement in tourism planning by identifying groups of property owners based upon their attitudes towards sustainable development.
Research Question 1: Among coastal community property owners, are there different stakeholder groups based on their perceptions of sustainable actions in tourism development?
Research Question 2: How do these stakeholder groups compare in terms of sociodemographic characteristics?
These coastal communities have many stakeholders who should be involved in the tourism planning process, many of which may be unique to that area such as commercial and recreational fishermen, members of the shipping industry, real estate agents that specialize in rental properties. However, this study will focus solely on property owners, both permanent residents and second home owners.
Specifically this study aims to answer two research questions. (CLICK) First, among the stakeholder group of property owners, are there different stakeholder groups based upon perceptions of sustainable actions in tourism development.
To answer this question property owners’ attitudes towards sustainable tourism development will be measured and used to organize them into stakeholder groups based upon common beliefs. The intent of recognizing these groups and the common attributes held by their members is to make decision-makers aware of the levels of support or dissent towards sustainable tourism development in these coastal counties.
In order for decision-makers to be able to identify members of these different groups to ensure that their opinions are brought to the table a second research question was developed (CLICK). How do these stakeholder groups compare in terms of sociodemographic characteristics? By examining tangible attributes such as income, employment, education, gender, type of ownership and length of residency that would create a profile of each group it may make recognizing the group’s members easier.

10. Methods
Questionnaire development – pilot tests, focus groups, literature review
Population – Property tax payers (both permanent residents and second homeowners)
Sample –Total of 14,587 members were randomly selected from property tax records
Questionnaire available online, over the phone, or on paper
The data used to answer these research questions was obtained as a part of a larger study conducted by the Center for Sustainable Tourism at ECU.
Two pilot tests of this study were conducted in counties with high levels of second home ownership. One was a coastal county, the other was located in the mountains of Western North Carolina.
This initial components of this study began in the Spring of 2010 and the final stages of data collection will end in June 2011.
Focus groups were conducted with tourism business owners, local tourism officials, permanent residents and second homeowners to ensure that issues pertinent to the new study sites were covered in the instrument. Additionally a thorough literature review was conducted which helped to reshape the scale used to measure resident’s attitudes towards sustainable tourism development.
The population for the study was all property tax paying individuals. The property tax records for each county were obtained to draw a sample. Therefore, no renters were included in the sample. This is a limitation of the study, as it is possible that many renters work seasonally in the tourism industry.
An equal number of permanent residents and second homeowners were sampled, and an equal percentage of cases from each county was used

11. Subsample Selection
Prior to the completion of data collection a subsample was chosen for this study
Online surveys only
Random selection of 300 cases
Because this study was conducted as a thesis project it was necessary to select a subsample of data to analyze before the actual data collection was complete
Only online surveys were used and upon downloading them they were cleaned to ensure that the responses used had completed over half of the survey.
Because cluster analysis was going to be used to determine homogenous groups within the sample it was determined that a sample size of 300 was appropriate.
The subsample was randomly selected and the percentages mirrored those in the full sample, i.e. 50% permanent residents, 50% second homeowners, approximately 33% from each county.

12. Analysis
Similar to the analysis used by Williams and Lawson (2001) and Sirakaya-Turk, Ingram and Harrill (2009) exploratory factor analysis and cluster analysis will be used to analyze the data.
Exploratory factor analysis
Used to identify the underlying dimensions of variables designed to measure respondent’s perceptions on the importance of sustainable actions in tourism development
TwoStep Cluster analysis
Determines groups of respondents based upon the dimensions of responses to the variables resulting from factor analysis
Descriptive analysis
Used to create profile of each group based upon their sociodemographic characteristics
Previous studies have grouped respondents based on their attitudes towards tourism, Williams and Lawson in 2001 and Sirakaya-Turk, Ingram and Harill in The analysis methods they used were replicated in this study.
15 variables were used to measure respondents’ attitudes towards sustainable actions in tourism development, they were asked to rank the importance of using this action on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being not all important and 5 being very important.
Exploratory factor analysis was used to determine if there were any underlying dimensions in these 15 variables.
TwoStep Cluster Analysis was then used to determine if there were any homogenous groups of respondents based upon their responses to these variables. TwoStep Cluster analysis was used because of the relatively large sample size and for ease of recognizing the clusters.
When Williams and Lawson used this approach they found four groups: Lovers, cynics, taxpayers, innocents
Sirakaya-Turk, Ingram and Harrill found three groups: Ecological sustainers, Socially concerned, Utilitarian Sustainers
Finally, methods of descriptive analysis were used, such as compared means and frequencies to create profiles for each cluster based on sociodemographic characteristsics

13. Sustainable Actions
Measured on a scale of 1 (Not at All Important) – 5 (Very Important)
These actions were adapted from Sustainable Travel International's 12 categories of sustainability
These actions were identified through a literature review
Reducing and managing greenhouse gas emissions
Managing, reducing and recycling solid waste
Reducing consumption of freshwater
Managing wastewater
Being energy efficient
Conserving the natural environment
Protecting air quality
Protecting water quality
Reducing noise
Preserving culture and heritage
Providing economic benefits from tourism to locals
Purchasing from companies with certified green practices
Training and educating employees and clients on sustainability practices
Protecting our community’s natural environment for future generations
Full access for everyone in the community to participation in tourism development decisions

14. Results – Factor Analysis
Fifteen variables used to measure property owners’ attitudes towards sustainable actions in tourism development
Cronbach’s alpha = .935
Principal component analysis (PCA) extraction used
Items included actions related to environmental conservation, cultural preservation, equal distribution of economic benefits and community participation in the planning process
Though 3 factors were identified through their Eigenvalues, the factor loadings revealed only one strong factor
Fourteen of the variables had a loading scores of >.5 onto Factor 1, with the exception of “providing economic benefits from tourism to locals”, it was determined that .489 was close enough to .5 to include it in the 1st factor. No rotation was necessary to determine that only one factor was present.

15. Variable Factor 1 Reducing and managing greenhouse gas emissions .751
Managing, reducing and recycling solid waste
.812
Reducing freshwater consumption
.761
Managing wastewater
.702
Being energy efficient
.873
Conserving the natural environment
.819
Protecting our community's natural environment for future generations
.810
Protecting air quality
.795
Protecting water quality
.765
Reducing noise
.613
Preserving culture and heritage
.579
Providing economic benefits from tourism to locals
.489
Purchasing from companies with certified green practices
.782
Training and educating employees and clients on sustainability practices
.802
Full access for everyone in the community to participation in tourism development decisions
.565
Eigen Value = 8.13
Variance Explained = 54.16%

16. Results – Cluster Analysis
The 15 variables were used to create a mean factor score
This score was used in TwoStep cluster analysis to determine the groups of property owners
Three groups were discovered and an ANOVA test confirmed their mean factor scores were significantly different
After determining that all 15 variables were measuring the same dimension a mean factor score was calculated. This score was simply the respondent answer for each variable added up and divided by 15. This lead to the mean factor score following the same scale of 1 – 5.
This mean factor score was then used as the continuous variable for TwoStep Cluster analysis.
This analysis revealed that there were three clusters within the sample, and an ANOVA test confirmed that their mean factor scores were significantly different from one another.
Based upon the mean factor scores for each cluster the clusters were named Skeptics, Supporters and Advocates.
Skeptics had the lowest mean factor score, and their responses to the 15 variables further supported the conclusion that they had little support for sustainable actions in tourism development. The actions the felt were most important (and this was only at the Neither Important nor Unimportant level) were: Protecting water quality, Providing economic benefits from tourism to locals, Managing wastewater, Protecting air quality, Preserving culture and heritage. It should be noted that this cluster had very little support for Purchasing from companies with green practices and Reducing and managing greenhouse gas. These actions could be considered those that are in the media the most and receive the most investigation on their actual impacts on the environment and people.
Supporters had more support for sustainable actions in tourism development, though not as much as advocates, with a mean factor score of The actions they most strongly support include: Protecting natural environment for future generations, Conserving the natural environment, Protecting water quality, Protecting air quality, and Managing, reducing and recycling solid waste. It should also be noted that Purchasing from companies with green practices and Reducing and managing greenhouse gas are the two least supported actions by this group.
Advocates had the highest level of support for sustainable actions in tourism development, with a mean factor score of 4.71, indicating that they felt that the actions were Very Important. The actions the supported most strongly included: Protecting natural environment for future generations, Protecting water quality, Conserving the natural environment, Protecting air quality and Being energy efficient. For this group Reducing and Managing GHG was the least important action followed by reducing noise.
It is interesting to note that reducing GHG emissions was the lowest priority for all three groups. This action, which seems to be the priority at an international level may be met with skepticism at the local level, where property owners recognize other actions which may have a more immediate impact on their lives.
It should also be noted that the Supporters and Skeptics both considered more environmental actions to be more important, whereas the Skeptics supported more economic and social benefits of sustainability.
Cluster
Name n
% of Sample
Average Mean Factor Score 1
Skeptics 35
11.7%
2.85 2
Supporters
159
53.0%
3.95 3
Advocates
106
35.3%
4.71

17. Sustainable Action in Tourism Development
Skeptics
Supporters
Advocates
Being energy efficient
Conserving the natural environment
Full access for everyone in the community to participate in tourism development decisions
Managing wastewater
Managing, reducing and recycling solid waste
Preserving culture and heritage
Protecting air quality
Protecting natural environment for future generations
Protecting water quality
Providing economic benefits from tourism to locals
Purchasing from companies with green practices
Reducing and managing greenhouse gas
Reducing freshwater consumption
Reducing noise
Training and educating employees on sustainability practices X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

18. Results – Sociodemographic Profiles
Skeptics
Supporters
Advocates
Property Owner PR
2HO
60.0%
40.0%
48.4%
51.6%
50.0%
Length of Residency
17.14 years
16.27 years
14.97 years
13.30 years
13.83 years
11.94 years
Gender *
Male
Female
74.3%
25.7%
56.6%
43.3%
38.7%
61.3%
Education
4 – Year College 40.0%
4 – Year College 32.1%
Post Graduate 40.6%
Employment in Tourism
14.3%
8.8%
6.6%
Income
<$50,000
(31.4%)
$100,000 - $199,999 (35.8%)
$50,000 - $99,999 (38.7%)
Frequencies and a chi-square tests were used to analyze the sociodemographic characteristics of each cluster. Gender was the only variable found to be significant at the .05 level. However the frequencies for each variable can tell us something about the members of the cluster.
The Skeptics were most likely to be permanent residents and have lived in the area the longest. They are most likely to be male. They are also most likely to be employed in the tourism industry. A majority of the Skeptics had completed a 4-year college degree, but also had the highest percentage of members who had completed less than a 2-year college degree. A majority of the members made under $50,000, but this cluster also had the highest percentage of members making over $200,000. The majority are working full time and this cluster had the lowest percentage of retirees.
The supporters were nearly as likely to be permanent residents as they were second home owners, have lived in the area the second longest and are slightly more likely to be males. They are well educated, with the majority of respondents completing a four year degree. A quarter of this group were retirees, with the majority of the group working full time.
The advocates were evenly split as second home owners and permanent residents. They had lived in the area for the shortest amount of time and are most likely female. They are the most well educated group with 40% of members completing a post graduate degree. Though the majority work full time about ¼ are retirees.
These findings support conclusions made in other studies such as Zelzny, Chua and Aldrich, 2000 that suggest females express greater environmental concern than males. Recall that many of the priorities for the Advocate group (with significantly more females) were related to taking action to protect the environment. Whereas, members of the Skeptics group (with more males) supported actions in economic and social sustainability.
Additionally it should be noted that all three clusters had a similar make up for family status and age. Each group had a majority of respondents between the ages of 55 and 64, married with children no longer at home. This suggests that many of the property owners in these three counties are at retirement age, and if they are second homeowners may be looking to retire to the area. This is important for planners to be aware of.
* Significant at .05

19. Additional Characteristics
Attitudes towards current levels of tourism development
Advocates had the most members (15.1%) who felt tourism had reached a point where they wished they purchase property elsewhere
Satisfaction with quality of life
Moderate satisfaction with healthcare, housing, recreational opportunities and water quality
Skeptics had the fewest members who felt that tourism had reached a point where they wished they had purchased property elsewhere. This may be because this group had the most number of members employed in tourism. There may be stronger support for further tourism development among this group, leading to conflict with the supporters and skeptics

20. Conclusions
Research Question 1: Among coastal community property owners, are there different stakeholder groups based on their perceptions of sustainable actions in tourism development?
Within the population of property owners there are three attitude-specific stakeholder groups: Skeptics, Supporters and Advocates
Differing attitudes on what actions are important
This study has determined that there are three different attitude-specific stakeholder groups within the population of property owners in these three coastal counties. These groups have different levels of support for sustainable actions in tourism development, and feel that different types of actions are important. This indicates that there is the potential for conflict among the groups should planners decide to implement sustainable actions into tourism plans.
Additionally this study finds that there are few tangible characteristics that distinguish members of one group from another. This makes a planners task in identifying all legitimate stakeholders even more difficult.
However, it also supports the need to include all property owners in the tourism planning process. By including as many property owners as possible through various means, such as public forums, surveys, and focus groups planners may be able to reach all three attitude-specific stakeholder groups.

21. Socio-Cultural Impacts
Environ
ment
Activist
Groups
Public
Land
Managers
Competing
Destinations
Coastal
Zone
Mangers
Business
Employees
Historians/ Preservation
Local
Businesses
Tourists
Tourism
Planners
Policy
Makers
Socio-Cultural Impacts
Environmental Impacts
Economic Impacts
Developers
Skeptics
Supporters
Advocates
Property
Owners
Adapted from Sautter, E. T. and Leisen, B. (1999). Managing stakeholders: A tourism planning model. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 312 – 328.

22. Conclusions
Research Question 2: How do these stakeholder groups compare in terms of sociodemographic characteristics?
There are few sociodemographic features which distinguish the members of each group
Adds to the challenge of identifying all stakeholder groups

23. Applications
A change in tourism development would require input from property owners
Planners should be aware there is potential for conflict among property owners
These findings support the need for further public involvement in the tourism planning process

24. Future Research Apply data collection methods to larger population
Further exploration of relationship between support for general tourism development and attitudes towards sustainable actions
Explore other predictors of attitudes towards sustainable actions

25. References
Andereck, K.L. and Vogt, C.A. (2000). The relationship between residents’ attitudes toward tourism and tourism development options. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 27 – 36. Berlin Declaration (1997). The Berlin declaration on biological diversity and sustainable tourism. International Conference of Environment Ministers on Biodiversity and Tourism. March 6–8. Berlin, Germany: United Nations. Center for Sustainable Tourism (n.d.) What is Sustainable Tourism? Retrieved from Choi, H.C. and Sirakaya, E. (2005). Measuring residents’ attitude toward sustainable tourism: Development of sustainable tourism attitude scale. Journal of Travel Research, 43 (3), 380 – 394 Choi, H.C. and Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tourism Management, 27, 1274 – 1289 Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman. Sautter, E. T. and Leisen, B. (1999). Managing stakeholders: A tourism planning model. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 312 – 328 Sirakaya-Turk, E., Ingram, L, and Harrill, R. (2009). Resident typologies within the integrative paradigm of sustaincentric tourism development. Tourism Analysis, 13, 531 – 544 Williams, J. and Lawson, R. (2001). Comuity Issues and Residents Opinions of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2),

26. Questions?