Review of related research

After the research topic was chose the theoretical background of study must be review.

Research problem, aim and objectives, hypotheses, variables and questions should be formulated according to theoretical base of study. This will allow one to compare the results of our research with findings of previous studies concerned with the same notion (pizam, 1994).

In this research different resources including: books, scholarly articles, tourism and other journals in social science, theses and dissertations, newspapers, statistical databases, websites and weblogs, reports and maps were used to provide theoretical base of nature-based tourism impacts and their integration in Mazandaran.

The conceptual framework of this research (figure 3.2) was developed based on the models proposed by Jurowski et al. (1997), Gursoy et al. (2002) and Gursoy and Rutherford (2004). All three studies have examined the attitudes of local community in Virginia (USA) which is a developed area.

Jurowski et al. (1997) suggested that support of tourism is a influenced by perceived economic, social and environmental impacts, use of the tourism resources by residents, ecocentric attitudes, potential economic gain and community attachment. According to their results, four variables including use of the tourism resources by residents, ecocentric attitudes, potential economic gain and community attachment affected residents’

perception of tourism impacts and therefore directly or indirectly affected support for tourism.

Opportunities for shopping, opportunities for recreation, traffic congestion, crime rate local services, the preservation of the local culture, and relationships between residents and tourists were variables that measured residents’ perception of social impacts of tourism.

The quality of natural environment was the only item measured environmental impacts.

Gursoy et al. proposed a tourism support model based on the host community attitudes towards tourism development in Virginia (USA). The findings of this study revealed that the host community support is affected by the level of concern, ecocentric values, utilization of resource base and perceived costs and benefits of the tourism development.

According to their findings, support for tourism development is influenced by the perceptions of its costs and benefits and the state of the local economy. It proposed that these perceptions are affected by the concern residents have for their community, their emotional attachment to it, the degree to which they are environmentally sensitive, and the extent to which they use the same resource base that tourists use (2002, p.79).

They measured perceived benefits by factors including employment prospects, opportunities for shopping, availability of recreation and tourism revenues for government.

Perceived costs were measured by assessing respondents’ opinions towards two items:

crime rate and traffic congestion.

In another study Gursoy and Rutherford (2004) classified the perceived impact into five groups: economic benefits; social benefits; social costs; cultural benefits; and cultural costs. According to them, the perceptions of these five impact factors and the state of the local economy are the determinants of community support for tourism. These perceptions were influenced by residents’ concern for their community, their emotional attachment to it, the degree to which they are environmentally sensitive, and the extent to which they use the same resource base that tourists use.

Figure 3.2 shows the proposed model of this research. According to this model, the local community support for tourism development is a function of their perception of tourism impacts. The perception of local community of these impacts influences their assessment of general tourism’s costs and benefits and in turn local community’s support for tourism. According to social exchange theory, if they perceived the positive impacts more than negative impacts then the overall result of cost-benefit analysis will be positive and they will support tourism development otherwise they would oppose it.

It also proposes that the local community perceptions of tourism impacts are a function of their attachment to the community, the level of concern they have for it, the extent to which they use the tourism resources or tourism superstructures and the extent to which they believe tourism’s economic benefits remain in their community.

Almost all studies on relationship between residents’ perception of economic impacts of tourism and their attitudes towards it indicate a positive relationship (Andriotis, 2004;

Keogh, 1990; Jurowski et al, 1997) but studies on environmental and socioeconomic impacts show different and sometimes contradictory results. Based on literature the tourism impacts segregate into positive socioeconomic, negative socioeconomic, positive environmental and negative environmental.

The model can be displayed as follows:

ST= F(PSEI, NSEI, PEI, NEI) And

PSEI=F(CC, CA, UT, ECRC) NSEI=F(CC, CA, UT, ECRC) PEI=F(CC, CA, UT, ECRC) NEI=F(CC, CA, UT, ECRC) In which:

ST= Support for Tourism Development PSEI= Positive Socioeconomic Impacts NSEI= Negative Socioeconomic Impacts PEI= Positive Environmental Impacts NEI= Negative Environmental Impacts CC= Community Concern

CA= Community Attachment

UT= Utilization of Tourism Resources

ECRC=Economic Benefits Remaining in the Community

Figure 3.2 Model of support for tourism development

Source: own compilation

X7=Concern about natural resources; X8=Concern about crime rate; X9=Concern about culture and traditions; X10=Knowing what goes in the community; X11= to be pleased or sorry if you move away; X12=to be happy living here; X13= Availability of favorite recreational places; X14=Being satisfied with using tourism services; X15=keep infrastructure at a high standard;

X16=More businesses for local people; X17=jobs are more available for foreigner; X18=tourism interest goes to few people; X19=increase recreational facilities; X20=increase job opportunity; X21=Encourage cultural activities; X22=increase residents’ proud; X23=shape a good feeling about area among tourists; X24=has a positive impact on area’s cultural identity;

X25=increase local people acquaintance with other culture; X26=Increase crime rate; X27=Changes way of life; X28=overcrowded beaches; X29=Increase cost of living; X30=changes the traditional dress; X31=local people use fewer local dialect; X32=increase local awareness and appreciation of the environment; X33=improves the appearance of area; X34=provides incentive for conservation of natural resources; X35=keep attraction with more care;X36=increase noise; X37=increase traffic;X38=increase litter problems; X39=increase pollution in beaches; X40=deteriorate natural environment; X41= To support more tourism development.

PSEI

NSEI

PEI

NEI

X7, X8, X9

X10, X11, X12

X13, X14, X15

X16, X17, X18

X32,X33, X34, X35

CC

CA

UT

ECRC

Support for tourism

X19, X20, X21, X22, X23, X24, X25

X26, X27, X28, X29, X30, X31

X36, X37, X38 X39, X40

X41