Rural areas have long provided the setting for recreation and tourism activities in many parts of the world (Roberts & Hall, 2001), and rural tourism has become a very important and fast-growing industry. Much of the recent literature on the development of world tourism has been focused on the impacts of tourism in the host community (Allen, Hafer, Long, & Perdue, 1993; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996) because the diverse pressures from tourism and its associated development have begun to affect local populations worldwide. Thus, residents’ attitudes toward tourism have become a social psychological issue. In this study local resident’s perceptions of rural tourism in Taiwan were analyzed and it was established whether or not economic dependence is an important and influential factor affecting residents’ attitudes toward rural tourism in Taiwan, a factor found in past studies conducted in other countries and based on social exchange theory (Bryant & Napier, 1981).

Countries and regions within nations have turned to tourism to increase residents’ income, employment, and living standards and to end dependency of those areas on a limited range of primary products for international trade (Fleischer & Felsenstein, 2000; Jurowski, Uysal, & Williams, 1997; Sharpley & Sharpley, 1997). Although governments generally believe that tourism development will generate new jobs, enhance community infrastructure, and assist in revitalization of the flagging economies of rural areas, tourism as a development option has come under increasing criticism and scrutiny because of the alleged paucity of revenue, the inequity of benefit distribution, and the perceived social costs to resident communities (Ap & Crompton, 1998; Briedenhann & Wickens, 2004; Simpson, 2008). For example, the use of land designated to be used by tourists changes, traditional culture may be altered, and the whole character of a town or village may be destroyed (Butler, 1980). Additionally, different kinds of rural tourism can exist that evolves from the combination of the complex pattern of environment, economy, history, and location (Akis, Peristianis, & Warner 1996; Frochot, 2005; Halfacree, 2007; Lane, 1994); these phenomena make tourism not just an industry but a new social development issue that is of concern to the community.

Tourism development can have positive or negative impacts that can be divided into three categories: economic, sociocultural, and environmental. Economic impacts include attracting more investment and spending, adding to regional revenue, causing prices to rise, providing greater employment opportunities, and raising residents’ living standards (Fleischer & Pizam, 1997; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Sharpley, 2002); sociocultural impacts include change to traditional culture, increased crime, establishment of a local identity, land values and sales increasing, and effects on residents’ way of life (Delamere, Wankel, & Hinch, 2001; Hall, 1992; Liau, Ku, & Chen, 2006); and conservation of natural resources, improvement of public facilities, more traffic with increased incidence of jams and accidents, and increased noise and pollution are the main environmental impacts (Ap & Crompton, 1998; Wu, 2003).

A number of empirical studies have been conducted in which researchers have explored residents’ attitudes. For example, in 1980 Butler investigated the relationship between residents and tourism development, postulating the existence of a link between tourism development and the attitudes of residents towards tourists. Akis et al. (1996) investigated residents’ attitudes towards tourism development in Cyprus. Their findings supported Butler’s conclusion that most residents accepted local regional tourism development because of economic factors. In their study of the impact of tourism on rural community life, Allen et al. (1993) reported that low economic activity and low tourism development tended to result in positive perceptions of tourism because the residents of such areas had high hopes and expectations of the benefits of tourism. Andereck, Valentine, Knopf, and Vogt (2005) reported the impacts of community tourism using social exchange theory. They found that residents recognized many positive and negative consequences. Residents appreciated the way industry enriched the community fabric while not discounting negative effects. Economically, tourism was seen as positive. These researchers also found that respondents who were economically dependent on tourism had more positive attitudes towards the industry than did those who did not depend on it, a finding that conforms to social exchange theory. Thus most researchers found that rural tourism will cause fewer negative impacts.

General definitions of rural tourism include the following: the tourism behavior must occur in rural areas (Lane, 1994; Sharpley & Sharpley, 1997), and must have indigenous characteristics that may include traditional culture, agriculture culture, countryside landscape, and simple lifestyles (Roberts & Hall, 2001; Saxena & Ilbery, 2008; Thompson, 2004).

According to most tourism theorists, for tourism to sustain itself in a local community, the residents must be willing partners in the enterprise (Murphy, 1985; Pigram, 1992). In this study, we surveyed residents’ attitudes. Our objectives were as follows:

• To determine whether or not rural tourism causes fewer negative tourism impacts than does mainstream tourism in Taiwan,

• To explore the economic, sociocultural, and environmental impacts of rural tourism in Taiwan,

• To establish whether residents’ attitudes towards rural tourism are different for residents who are, or are not, economically dependent on the rural tourism industry in Taiwan.

Method

We selected two villages – Nanjuang and Tongsiao – as our study areas. Both are located in northern Taiwan and have been promoting rural tourism development for 20 years.

The questionnaire we used to survey residents was composed of four sections. The first consisted of 28 attitudinal statements concerning the economic (8 statements), sociocultural (9 statements), and environmental impacts (11 statements) of rural tourism. A final statement provided us with an overall assessment of rural tourism by the respondent. These questions were taken from Akis et al. (1996), Andereck and Vogt (2000), Andereck et al. (2005), and Zamani-Farahani and Musa (2008) and modified to fit Taiwanese society; all statements were measured using 5-point Likert scales. The reliability coefficients of the 28 items in terms of these three impacts (Cronbach’s alpha) were all higher than 0.75. The second section of the questionnaire concerned details about the respondent’s frequency of interaction with tourists and his/her involvement with the rural tourism industry. The third section elicited basic demographic data on age, sex, education level, and occupation.

Sampling and Survey

We accessed registered permanent residence data in two areas with the aid of local government staff, in order to achieve a systematic household sample. We included only permanent residents of the community, defined as those persons who had been living in the community for at least eight months of each year and were more than 18 years of age. The surveys were carried out by interviewers who were trained by one of the authors in how to conduct the interviews and in the culture and tourism development of the areas being surveyed, between 25 to 31 January, 2005. The sample consisted of 280 respondents, who provided 236 valid questionnaires, giving us a response rate of 84.3%. The respondents’ demographic characteristics are shown in Table 1.

Data Analysis

Eight economic statements were used to measure the perceived changes in investment and spending, standard of living, inflation, income distribution, and employment opportunities, and their distribution between the local people and people from other regions in Taiwan. Nine social impact statements were used to assess the attitudes of local people regarding various sociocultural issues; for example, whether rural tourism would provide valuable experiences and more recreational facilities for residents or whether the effect would be deterioration in both the local culture and residents’ quality of life. The 11 environmental impact questions were used to gauge the residents’ perceptions of the effect of rural tourism on public facilities and roads, preservation of heritage buildings, and the overall quality of the local environment. The respondent’s attitude overall about the continuing development of rural tourism in the future was assessed with one question.

In Table 2 results are set out on the impacts of rural tourism. For all three types of impact, residents recorded a positive attitude towards rural tourism, which differs from the results gained by Haralambopoulos and Pizam (1986) and Akis et al. (1996). In other words, our findings provide sufficient evidence that rural tourism may have fewer negative impacts than does mainstream tourism, and this finding is consistent with the conclusions of other researchers (Kuo & Chiu, 2006; Liau et al., 2006; Park & Stokowski, 2009; Wu, 2003).

In Table 3 the results are set out of tests on the relationship between respondents’ social demographic characteristics and their opinions on the social impacts of rural tourism. Person correlations and t tests were also conducted. Age and education level caused significant differences in environmental impacts, but no significant differences were found to be caused according to sex, age, and educational level by either economic or sociocultural impacts.

Influences of Rural Tourism Attitudes Related to Economics

Next we carried out tests to explore whether the residents’ perceptions of rural tourism depended on the residents’ economic involvement in the rural tourism industry. As shown in Table 4, the results indicated that residents whose main business activity related to rural tourism exhibited a more positive perception of rural tourism and its impacts than did those who did not have a main business relating to rural tourism, especially in terms of economic impacts and overall evaluation (p < 0.01, where the difference was noted using a t test). Secondly, we examined whether more positive perceptions exist regarding rural tourism for residents who had family members employed in rural tourism as opposed to those who did not. The results showed the same tendency as in the previous test. Residents in both areas with family members employed in rural tourism had more positive economic perceptions and expressed greater support for rural tourism. These findings support the conclusions gained by other researchers, who found differences in the perceptions of those who were, and those who were not, economically dependent on the tourism industry (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Jurowski et al., 1997; Wu, 2003). This finding confirmed the relevance of social exchange theory to the rural tourism development process.

Based on the results shown in Tables 6 and 7, most of our respondents agreed that overall local areas should develop rural tourism. The percentage of respondents who agreed was 43.6% and 33.90% said they strongly agreed. We believe that the best explanation for our findings is that, presumably, the respondents’ lives do not depend on rural tourism but they think that rural tourism would be a good option for preserving rural life (compared with no development or the invasion of urbanization in the future). As Kinsley (2000) observed, tourism frequently remains the preferred development option, especially in rural communities. This finding is consistent with the rural construction theory (Marsden, Murdoch, Lowe, & Munton, 1993).

As frequency of contact with tourists increased, the proportion of respondents with a positive attitude also increased (Tables 8 and 9). A total of 63.09% of respondents agreed that interaction with tourists was a good experience. This response was dependent on frequency of contact (Table 9). The Spearman’s correlation between interaction frequency and quality was positive at p < 0.01. This finding suggests that, in Murphy’s (1983) terms, tourism is still at the development or welcome stage, resentment has not yet begun to appear, and it also confirms that the interaction between residents and tourists is a social psychological issue in that the interaction has an effect on residents’ attitude.

Conclusion

We established that rural tourism in Taiwan caused fewer negative effects than does mainstream tourism by measuring residents’ perceptions of the mean value of economic, sociocultural, and environmental impacts. Our findings provide support for the claim that rural tourism should be a good choice for residents trying to preserve rural landscapes, lifestyles, and culture, and wanting to promote local agricultural development. We also found that residents who were economically dependent on rural tourism tended to have more positive attitudes towards the rural tourism industry, a finding that demonstrated the relevance of social exchange theory in this field of research. Furthermore, the frequency and quality of the interactions between rural tourism tourists and residents also plays an important role in influencing residents’ attitudes and that this is so provides evidence that the resident-tourist interaction is an important social psychology issue.

Rural tourism in Taiwan has characteristics that are different to other countries or urban areas, thus, we needed to modify existing theories in order to have a clear understanding about rural tourism impacts in Taiwan. The results of our empirical study provide sources of data and may provide inspiration for the development of robust planning programs that place greater emphasis on social development and psychological aspects of rural tourism development in Taiwan.

References

Akis, S., Peristianis, N., & Warner, J. (1996). Residents’ attitudes to tourism development: The case of Cyprus. Tourism Management, 17(7), 481-494.

Allen, L. R., Hafer, H. R., Long, P. T., & Perdue, R. R. (1993). Rural residents’ attitudes towards recreation and tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 31(4), 27-33.

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 towards tourism and tourism development options. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 27-37.

Ap, J., & Crompton, J. L. (1998). Developing and testing a tourism impact scale. Journal of Travel Research, 37(4), 120-130.

Briedenhann, J., & Wickens, E. (2004). Tourism routes as a tool for the economic development of rural areas – vibrant hope or impossible dream? Tourism Management, 25, 71-79.

Bryant, E. G., & Napier, T. L. (1981). The application of social exchange theory to the study of satisfaction with outdoor recreation facilities. In T. L. Napier (Ed.), Outdoor recreation planning, perspectives, and research. Indianapolis: Kendall Hunt Publishing.

Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24(5,) 5-12.

Delamere, T. A., Wankel, L. M., & Hinch, T. D. (2001). Development of a scale to measure resident attitudes toward the social impacts of community festivals, Part I: Item generation and purification of the measure. Event Management, 7, 11-24.

Fleischer, A., & Felsenstein, D. (2000). Support for rural tourism: Does it make a difference? Annals of Tourism Research, 27(4), 1007-1024.

Fleischer, A., & Pizam, A. (1997). Rural tourism in Israel. Tourism Management, 18(6), 367-372.

Frochot, I. (2005). A benefit segmentation of tourists in rural areas: A Scottish perspective. Tourism Management, 26, 335-346.

Halfacree, K. (2007). Trial by space for a “radical rural”: Introducing alternative localities, representations, and lives. Journal of Rural Studies, 23, 124-140.

Hall, C. M. (1992). Hallmart tourism events: Impacts, management, and planning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Haralambopoulos, N., & Pizam, A. (1996). Perceived impacts of tourism: The case of Samos. Annual of Tourism Research, 23(3), 503-526.

Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Williams D. R. (1997). A theoretical analysis of host community resident reactions to tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 34(2), 3-11.

Kinsley, M. (2000). Economic renewal guide: A collaborative process for sustainable community development. Snowmass, CO: Rocky Mountain Institute.

Ko, D. W., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of residents’ attitudes for tourism development. Tourism Management, 23, 521-530.

Kuo, N. W., & Chiu, Y. T. (2006). The assessment of agritourism policy based on SEA combination with HIA. Land Use Policy, 2, 560-570.

Lane, B. (1994). What is rural tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2, 7-21.

Liau, S. J., Ku, Y. L., & Chen, I. P. (2006). An associated analysis of social impact and social capital in rural tourism: A case study of Baiho’s lotus festival. Journal of Outdoor Recreation Study, 19(4), 31-63.

Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Munton, R., & Flynn, A. (1993). Constructing the countryside. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Murphy, P. (1983). Tourism as a community industry: An ecological model of tourism development. Tourism Management, 4(3), 180-193.

Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. New York: Taylor/Francis.

Park, M., & Stokowski, P. A. (2009). Social disruption theory and crime in rural communities: Comparisons across three levels of tourism growth. Tourism Management, 30(6), 905-915.

Pigram, J. (1992). Alternative tourism: Tourism and sustainable resource management. In V. Smith & W. Eadington (Eds.), Tourism alternatives: Potentials and problems in the development of tourism (pp. 76-87). Philadelphia, PA; University of Pennsylvania Press.

Roberts, L., & Hall, D. (2001). Rural tourism and recreation: Principles to practice. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

Saxena, G., & Ilbery, B. (2008). Integrated rural tourism: A border case study. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(1), 233-254.

Sharpley, R. (2002). Rural tourism and the challenge of tourism diversification: The case of Cyprus. Tourism Management, 23, 233-244.

Sharpley, R., & Sharpley, J. (1997). Rural tourism: An introduction. London: Thomson Business Press.

Simpson, M. C. (2008). Community benefit, tourism initiative: A conceptual oxymoron. Tourism Management, 29, 1-18.

Thompson, C. S. (2004). Host produced rural tourism Towa’s Tokyo antenna shop. Annual of Tourism Research, 31(1), 580-600.

Wu, T. C. (2003). The influences of development stages and tourism dependency on tourism impact perceptions. Journal of Outdoor Recreation Study, 16(1), 45-61.

Zamani-Farahani, H. Z., & Musa, G. (2008). Residents’ attitudes and perception towards tourism development: A case study of Masooleh, Iran. Tourism Management, 29(6), 1233-1236.

Akis, S., Peristianis, N., & Warner, J. (1996). Residents’ attitudes to tourism development: The case of Cyprus. Tourism Management, 17(7), 481-494.

Allen, L. R., Hafer, H. R., Long, P. T., & Perdue, R. R. (1993). Rural residents’ attitudes towards recreation and tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 31(4), 27-33.

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 towards tourism and tourism development options. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 27-37.

Ap, J., & Crompton, J. L. (1998). Developing and testing a tourism impact scale. Journal of Travel Research, 37(4), 120-130.

Briedenhann, J., & Wickens, E. (2004). Tourism routes as a tool for the economic development of rural areas – vibrant hope or impossible dream? Tourism Management, 25, 71-79.

Bryant, E. G., & Napier, T. L. (1981). The application of social exchange theory to the study of satisfaction with outdoor recreation facilities. In T. L. Napier (Ed.), Outdoor recreation planning, perspectives, and research. Indianapolis: Kendall Hunt Publishing.

Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24(5,) 5-12.

Delamere, T. A., Wankel, L. M., & Hinch, T. D. (2001). Development of a scale to measure resident attitudes toward the social impacts of community festivals, Part I: Item generation and purification of the measure. Event Management, 7, 11-24.

Fleischer, A., & Felsenstein, D. (2000). Support for rural tourism: Does it make a difference? Annals of Tourism Research, 27(4), 1007-1024.

Fleischer, A., & Pizam, A. (1997). Rural tourism in Israel. Tourism Management, 18(6), 367-372.

Frochot, I. (2005). A benefit segmentation of tourists in rural areas: A Scottish perspective. Tourism Management, 26, 335-346.

Halfacree, K. (2007). Trial by space for a “radical rural”: Introducing alternative localities, representations, and lives. Journal of Rural Studies, 23, 124-140.

Hall, C. M. (1992). Hallmart tourism events: Impacts, management, and planning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Haralambopoulos, N., & Pizam, A. (1996). Perceived impacts of tourism: The case of Samos. Annual of Tourism Research, 23(3), 503-526.

Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Williams D. R. (1997). A theoretical analysis of host community resident reactions to tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 34(2), 3-11.

Kinsley, M. (2000). Economic renewal guide: A collaborative process for sustainable community development. Snowmass, CO: Rocky Mountain Institute.

Ko, D. W., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of residents’ attitudes for tourism development. Tourism Management, 23, 521-530.

Kuo, N. W., & Chiu, Y. T. (2006). The assessment of agritourism policy based on SEA combination with HIA. Land Use Policy, 2, 560-570.

Lane, B. (1994). What is rural tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2, 7-21.

Liau, S. J., Ku, Y. L., & Chen, I. P. (2006). An associated analysis of social impact and social capital in rural tourism: A case study of Baiho’s lotus festival. Journal of Outdoor Recreation Study, 19(4), 31-63.

Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Munton, R., & Flynn, A. (1993). Constructing the countryside. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Murphy, P. (1983). Tourism as a community industry: An ecological model of tourism development. Tourism Management, 4(3), 180-193.

Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. New York: Taylor/Francis.

Park, M., & Stokowski, P. A. (2009). Social disruption theory and crime in rural communities: Comparisons across three levels of tourism growth. Tourism Management, 30(6), 905-915.

Pigram, J. (1992). Alternative tourism: Tourism and sustainable resource management. In V. Smith & W. Eadington (Eds.), Tourism alternatives: Potentials and problems in the development of tourism (pp. 76-87). Philadelphia, PA; University of Pennsylvania Press.

Roberts, L., & Hall, D. (2001). Rural tourism and recreation: Principles to practice. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

Saxena, G., & Ilbery, B. (2008). Integrated rural tourism: A border case study. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(1), 233-254.

Sharpley, R. (2002). Rural tourism and the challenge of tourism diversification: The case of Cyprus. Tourism Management, 23, 233-244.

Sharpley, R., & Sharpley, J. (1997). Rural tourism: An introduction. London: Thomson Business Press.

Simpson, M. C. (2008). Community benefit, tourism initiative: A conceptual oxymoron. Tourism Management, 29, 1-18.

Thompson, C. S. (2004). Host produced rural tourism Towa’s Tokyo antenna shop. Annual of Tourism Research, 31(1), 580-600.

Wu, T. C. (2003). The influences of development stages and tourism dependency on tourism impact perceptions. Journal of Outdoor Recreation Study, 16(1), 45-61.

Zamani-Farahani, H. Z., & Musa, G. (2008). Residents’ attitudes and perception towards tourism development: A case study of Masooleh, Iran. Tourism Management, 29(6), 1233-1236.

Appreciation is due to anonymous reviewers.

Shu-Tzu Chuang, Department of Kinesiology, Health, and Leisure Studies, National University of Kaohsiung, No. 700 Kaohsiung University Road, Nan-Tzu District, Kaohsiung 811, Taiwan, ROC. Phone: +886-7-5919215; Fax: +886-7-5919215; Email: [email protected]