گونه‌شناسی ذی‌نفعان مناطق ساحلی در حمایت از پارادایم توسعۀ گردشگری پایدار (مطالعۀ موردی: شهر بابلسر)

نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار گروه مدیریت جهانگردی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی

2 کارشناس ارشد مدیریت جهانگردی، گرایش برنامه‌ریزی توسعة جهانگردی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی

چکیده

مشارکت و همکاری ساکنان، تضمین‌کنندۀ موفقیت اجرای برنامه‌های گردشگری پایدار است و نبود این مشارکت موجب شکست اجرای آن­ها می­شود. به همین سبب، سنجش نگرش ساکنان به توسعة گردشگری پایدار، اهمیت بسیار دارد. پژوهش حاضر به بررسی این موضوع می‌پردازد و میزان حمایت ساکنان از توسعة گردشگری پایدار را نیز در شهر بابلسر مطالعه می­کند. هدف این پژوهش، بررسی نگرش ذی‌نفعان گردشگری به فعالیت‌های پایدار و طبقه‌بندی آن‌ها براساس نگرش‌هایشان به فعالیت‌های مربوط به توسعة گردشگری پایدار و نیز بررسی ویژگی‌های جمعیت‌شناختی هر طبقه است. روش تحقیق، توصیفی- تحلیلی است. جامعۀ آماری پژوهش شامل خانوارهای شهر بابلسر (درمجموع، 13,486 خانوار) است. بنابر جدول مورگان، از میان آن‌ها 380 نمونه به روش نمونه‌گیری قضاوتی انتخاب شدند. برای سنجش نگرش ساکنان، از مقیاس SUS-TAS استفاده شد. تحلیل داده‌ها در سه مرحله انجام گرفت. در مرحلۀ نخست، برای تعیین روایی سازۀ پرسشنامه، از تحلیل عاملی تأییدی با استفاده از نرم‌افزار Lisrel استفاده شد و تأیید روایی پرسشنامه صورت گرفت. در مرحلۀ دوم، برای تقسیم نمونه‌ها به گروه‌های متجانس براساس نگرش آن‌ها به فعالیت‌های پایدار در توسعة گردشگری، از تحلیل خوشه‌ای با استفاده از نرم‌افزار SPSS استفاده شد و نمونه‌ها به سه گروه تقسیم شدند: بدبینان، حامیان متوسط و حامیان سرسخت. در مرحلۀ سوم، برای مشخص‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌کردن تفاوت‌های جمعیت‌شناختی خاص هر طبقه، برحسب مقیاس متغیرهای مورد مقایسه، از آزمون‌های تحلیل واریانس یک‌طرفه (ANOVA) و کروسکال- والیس استفاده شد. مطابق نتایج این آزمون،‌ گروه‌ها از نظر توزیع متغیرهای مدت سکونت در منطقه و وضعیت تأهل همگون­اند و از نظر متغیرهای سن،‌ جنس، سطح تحصیلات، میزان درآمد ماهیانه و ارتباط شغل با گردشگری تفاوت معنادار دارند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Typology of stakeholders in support of sustainable tourism development paradigm in coastal areas (case study: Babolsar city)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mahdi Karobi 1
  • Shima Bazrafshan 2
چکیده [English]

Extended Abstract
Introduction
Tourism is an important tool of development for many countries. In the past, the development of tourism insisted on maximizing the profit of business owners and little attention was paid to the natural resources and community residents. But today the new paradigm of sustainable tourism development has emerged in the tourism literature. This paradigm is trying to improve the quality of life of local residents, improving the experiences of tourists and protecting environment in the destination. Sustainable tourism development depends on the goodwill of the host community and their support is essential in the development and successful operation of sustainable tourism. For the success and sustainability of tourism in the region, positive interaction between local residents and tourists is necessary. To facilitate such positive interaction, identifying the attitudes, perceptions and satisfaction levels of residents from the tourism is very important. Community participation means that all members of society should participate in the process of tourism planning. While the public participation process is very time consuming and if not managed properly, it would be pointless. Number of stakeholders that should be involved in the tourism planning process, is high, and it is difficult and sometimes impossible to identify all of them. In addition, community members' interests, beliefs, values and attitudes about tourism Development are different and sometimes conflicting. This study intends to use the stakeholder approach as a conceptual framework, help tourism planners to identify the most important interest groups in the region and share them in homogeneous subtypes based on their attitudes to sustainable tourism development in the community and specify the demographic characteristics of each subgroup. Hence, this research seeks to answer two basic questions: are there interest groups with different attitudes to sustainable tourism development activities in the region? What are the demographic characteristics of each subgroup?
Methodology
The population of this research is consist of all 13486 families in the Babolsar city. Among them, 380 samples were selected by the use of Morgan table. Due to the lack of a sampling frame in this study, judgmental sampling is used. To measure the attitudes of the residents to sustainable activities in tourism development, the SUS-TAS questioner is used. This scale is consisted of 7 indicators. These indicators include: environmental sustainability (9 items), perceived social costs (8 items), perceived economic benefits (7 items), long-term planning (7 items), community-based economy (5 items), visitor satisfaction (4 items) and community involvement (4 items). To assess the validity of the Research tool, factor analysis was used. To assess the reliability of the questioner, Cronbach's alpha was used. Data analysis was performed in three steps. In the first step, Factor analysis using Lisrel software was used to confirm the validity of the questionnaire. In the second step, to determine whether similar groups based on their attitude, exists in the sample or not, the cluster analysis using SPSS software was used. In the third step, using the ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests, the demographic variables were compared between the clusters.
Results and discussion
Lisrel software calculated a t-value for each free parameter (estimated) in the model. The ideal is that these values be higher than 1/96 to be considered significant. T value for each of the indicators of the study was higher than 1/96. Therefore there are considered to be significant at the one percent level. In factor analysis, there are several characteristics of fitness. If the amount is at an acceptable level, the implementation of the proposed model is considered appropriate. All fitness indicators in this study, demonstrated a good fit and are approved. Due to verification of all the indicators of the SUS-TAS questionnaire, they have been used for clustering residents. After determining the number of clusters, they were named based on the average privileges. Pessimistic: Cluster 1 members, had the lowest mean and it shows they had the least support from the sustainable development of the tourism and hence Cynics were named. Ardent supporters: Cluster 3 members, had the highest mean and it indicates that they support sustainable activities in tourism development more than other clusters. Medium Supporters: Cluster 2 members that have the greater average from the cluster 1 and lower average from the cluster 3 in all the indicators, were named Medium Supporters. After identifying clusters and naming them, ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for each demographic variable to determine if there is significant differences between the clusters on the basis of sex, age, education, marital status, occupation related to tourism, income and duration of stay at the destination. Clusters were homogeneous at %95 level of confidence in the variables marital status and length of residence in the area. But in the variables sex, education, age, income and occupation related to tourism are different.
Conclusion
According to the results of this research, residents have different ideas about sustainable tourism development and cannot be considered as a homogeneous group. Since not satisfied attitudes of the third group (pessimists) can affect the success of tourism programs, they should be considered and the planners should attempt to obtain their support of sustainable tourism development at the first step. The number of this group in the sample is lower than the other two groups, hence their identification and participation in the tourism development planning will be easier. Tourism planners can identify them according to specific demographic characteristics of this group, and take the necessary steps to change their attitude. Since most of the people in this group, care about the environment and believed that its degradation is caused by tourists, it is necessary that environmental protection programs be included in tourism development plans. Tourists should also be aware of the importance of environmental protection to reduce activities incompatible with their environment. The group also complained about reduced quality of life and bustle over the area in some seasons. It is necessary therefore to increase the facilities and conveniences in the area.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Tourism stakeholders
  • Attitude
  • development
  • Sustainable Tourism
  • SUS-TAS scale
  1. رکن‌الدین افتخاری، عبدالرضا، مهدوی، داوود و مهدی پورطاهری. 1389، فرایند بومی‌سازی شاخص‌های توسعة پایدار گردشگری روستایی در ایران، فصلنامة پژوهش‌های روستایی، سال اول،‌ شمارة 4، صص 1- 41.
  2. قدمی، مصطفی و ناصر علیقلی‌زاده فیروزجایی، 1391، ارزیابی توسعة گردشگری مقصد در چارچوب پایداری، نمونة مورد مطالعه: دهستان تمشکل، شهرستان تنکابن، فصلنامة تحقیقات جغرافیایی، شمارة 1، صص 79- 103.
  3. علیقلی‌زاده فیروزجایی، ناصر،‌ قدمی، مصطفی و مهدی رمضان‌زاده لسبویی، 1388، نگرش و گرایش جامعة میزبان به توسعة گردشگری در نواحی روستایی، نمونة مورد مطالعه: دهستان گلیجان، شهرستان تنکابن، فصلنامة پژوهش‌های جغرافیای انسانی، شمارة 71، صص 35- 48.‌
    1. Ahn, B., Lee, B. and Shafer, C. S., 2002, Operationalizing Sustainability in Regional Tourism Planning: An Application of the Limits of Acceptable Change Framework, Tourism Management, Vol. 23, No. 1, PP. 1-15.
    2. Andereck, K. L. and Vogt, C. A., 2000, The Relationship between Residents' Attitudes toward Tourism and Tourism Development Options, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39, No.1, PP. 27-36.
    3. Angelevska-Najdeska, K. and Rakicevik, G., 2012, Planning of Sustainable Tourism Development, Social and Behavioral Sciences, No. 44, PP. 210-220.
    4. Ap, J., 1992, Resident's Perceptions on Tourism Impacts, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 19, No. 3, PP. 665-690.
    5. 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.
    6. Choi, H. C. and Sirakaya, E., 2005, Measuring Resident's Attitude toward Sustainable Tourism: Development of Sustainable Tourism Attitude Scale, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, No. 3, PP. 380-394.
    7. Choi, H. C. and Sirakaya E., 2006, Sustainability Indicators for Managing Community Tourism, Tourism Management, Vol. 27, PP. 1274-1289.
    8. Chrischol, H. and Sirakaya E., 2005, Measuring Residents’ Attitude toward Sustainable Tourism: Development of Sustainable Tourism Attitude Scale, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, No. 4, PP. 380-394.
    9. Dodds, R. and Joppe, M., 2003, The Application of Ecotourism to Urban Environments Tourism, An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 51, No. 2, PP. 157–164.
    10. Evans, T. R., 1993, Residents’ Perceptions of Tourism in New Zealand Communities, MSc Thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin.
    11. Freeman, R. E., 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston.
    12. Geoldner, C. R. and Ritchie, B., 2006, Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies 10th Edition, Wiley and Sons, John C. Hoboken, NJ.
    13. Gunn, C. A., 1994, Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts & Cases, 3rd Edition, Taylor and Francis, New York.
    14. Harrison, J. S. and John, C. H., 1996, Managing and Partnering with External Stakeholders, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 10, No. 2, PP. 46-59.
    15. Inskeep, E., 1991, Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
    16. Jurowski, C. and Gursoy D., 2004, Distance Effect on Residents' Attitudes toward Tourism, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31, No. 2.
    17. Jurowski, C., Uysal, M. and Williams, D. R., 1997, A Theoretical Analysis of Host Community Resident Reactions to Tourism, Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 36, No. 2, PP. 3-11.
    18. Kavaliauske, M. and Kocyte, R., 2014, Sustainable Tourism Development in Neringa Region, Social and Environmental Sciences, No. 156, PP. 208-212.
    19. Kitnuntaviwat, V. and John C. S. Tang., 2008, Residents’ Attitudes, Perceptions and Support for Sustainable Tourism Development, Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Development, Vol. 5, No. 1, PP. 45-60.
    20. Muganda, M., Sirima, A. and Marva Ezra, P., 2013, The Role of Local Communities in Tourism Development: Grassroots Perspectives from Tanzania, Journal of Human Research, Vol. 41, No. 1, PP. 53-66.
    21. Murphy, P. E., 1983, Perceptions and Attitudes of Decision Making Groups in Tourism Centers, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, PP. 8-12.
    22. Pizam, A., and Milman, A., 1986, The Social Impacts of Tourism, Tourism Recreation Research, Vol. 11, PP. 29-32.
    23. Saftic, D., Tezak, A. and Luk, N., 2011, Stakeholder Approach in Tourism Management: Implication in Croatian Tourism, 30th International Conference on Organizational Science Development, Portoroz, Slovenia.
    24. Sautter E. T. and Leisen, B., 1999, Managing Stakeholders: A Tourism Planning Model, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, PP. 312-328.
    25. Sirakaya, E. and Gursoy, D., 2013, Predictive Validity of SUS-TAS, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 18, No. 5, PP. 601-605.
    26. Sook Fun, F., Chiun, L. M., Songan, P. and Nair, V., 2014, The Impact of Local Communities’ Involvement and Relationship Quality on Sustainable Rural Tourism in Rural Areas, Social and Behavioral Sciences, No. 144, PP. 60-65.
    27. Wang, Y., Pfister, R. E. and Morais, D. B., 2006, Residents Attitudes toward Tourism Development: A Case Study of Washington, NC. Proceeding of 2006 Northern Recreation Research Symposium, PP. 411–418.
    28. Williams, J. and Lawson, R., 2001, Community Issues and Resident Opinions of Tourism, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 28, No. 2, PP. 269-290.
    29. Xiao, C. and McCright, A., 2007, Environmental Concern and Socio-Demographic Variables: A Study of Statistical Models, The Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 38, No. 2, PP. 3-13.
    30. Zelzney L. C., Chua, P. and Aldrich, C., 2000, Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56, No. 3, PP. 443–457.
    31. Zhender, L. E., 1976, Tourism and Social Problems: Implications for Research and Marketing, Proceeding of the Seventh Annual Travel and Tourism Research Association Conference, Lexington, PP. 211-212.
    32. Aligholizadeh Firouzjai, N., Ghadami, M. and Ramezanzadeh Lasboui, M., 2009, Attitude and Orientation of the Host Community to Tourism Development in Rural Areas, Case Study: Golijan Rural District, Tonekabon City, Human Geography Research, No. 71, PP. 35-48. (In Persian)
    33. Eftekhari, A. R., Mahdavi, D. and Poortaheri, M., 2010, The Process of Localization the Indicators of Sustainable Development of Rural Tourism in Iran, Rural Researches, No. 4, PP. 1-41. (In Persian)
    34. Ghadami, M. and Aligholizadeh Firouzjai, N., 2012, The Evaluation of Tourism Development of Destination in Terms of Stability, Case Study: Tameshkel District, Tonekabin City, Geographical Researches, No. 1, PP. 79-103. (In Persian)