This article was downloaded by: [University of Windsor]On: 20 November 2014, At: 21:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Anatolia: An InternationalJournal of Tourism andHospitality ResearchPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rana20

Impacts of TourismDevelopmentAZIZAN MARZUKI aa Universiti Sains Malaysia , MalaysiaPublished online: 25 Jun 2012.

To cite this article: AZIZAN MARZUKI (2009) Impacts of Tourism Development,Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 20:2, 450-455,DOI: 10.1080/13032917.2009.10518921

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2009.10518921

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Research Notes and Reports

Niranjan Das, Research Scholar, Department of Geography, NEHU. Shillong 793022. Meghalaya, India. E-mail: das_niranjan2002®yahoo.com

H.J. Syiemlieh, Reader, Department of Geography, NEHU. Shillong-793022.Meghalaya, India. E-mail- hjsyiemlieh®rediffmail. com

Impacts of Tourism Development

Submitted: 15 March 2008 Resubmitted: 01 August 2008

Resubmitted: 12 December 2008 Accepted: 14 October 2009

Refereed anonymously

AZIZAN MARZUKI Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia

INTRODUCTION Tourism is an important mechanism for economic development and the crea­tion of employment opportunities in many countries. Many developing coun­tries have also tried to exploit the tourism industry for economic stimulation by getting foreign investment, capital and surplus from currency exchange. In particular, government involvement in tourism development in Malaysia be­gan in the 1970s following an economic downturn and the decline in popular­ity and demand for commodity products. Beginning with the establishment of the Tourism Development Corporation (TDC) in 1972, the first Tourism Master Plan was completed in 1975. The federal government also outlined several strategies for tourism planning and development in the national Five Year Plan by providing statistics and budget allocations for tourism develop­ment in every state in Malaysia.

TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN THE LANGKAWIISLANDS

After the 1975 Tourism Master Plan identified Langkawi as a potential tour­ist destination in Northern Peninsular Malaysia, the Federal Government or­dered the Malaysian Tourism Promotion Board to prepare a tourism master plan for Langkawi. The plan was completed by Peat, Marwick Mitchell & Company in 1977. However, none of the proposals from the plan were im­plemented. In 1984, the first tourism development in the Langkawi Islands was launched. The State Government leased 405 hectares of land in Tanjung Rhu to Promet Berhad to develop seven international hotels with 2500 rooms, but only 135 rooms were completed. In the 1980s, Promet Berhad was one of the biggest public listed companies in Malaysia. Because of economic recession in the end of the 1980s, Promet Berhad fell into financial difficulties and was sold to TRI Berhad. TRI Berhad however failed to develop the whole 405 hectares of land

450 • Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

1:28

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Research Notes and Reports

leased from the State Government except one luxury hotel known as Tanjung RhuResort. From 1988 to 1992, about 106 projects by private companies valued at more than MYR$ 1 billion won approval from authorities, comprising the devel­opment of hotels and resorts (54), marina (1), commercial projects (22), resi­dential (15), recreational (2), tourism products (9), and others (3) (Langkawi District Council1992). In the 1990 Langkawi Structure Plan, the government target was to have 7500 hotel rooms by the end of 2005 (Langkawi District Council 1992) to accommodate the influx of domestic and international ar­rivals in Langkawi. This has resulted in a tremendous increase in hotel and resort rooms. Before 1987,67% of employment in the Langkawi Islands was in the agricul­ture and fisheries sectors. However, the declaration of a duty free island in 1987 has changed the socio-economic patterns in the Langkawi Islands. By the middle of the 1990s, about 32.3% of the working population were involved in the whole-selling and retailing sector, 21% in social services and only 17.3% were employed in the agriculture and fisheries sector (Langkawi Municipal Council2005). By 1999,68.1% of the working population received a monthly income between MYR$ 501 to MYR$ 2000; 4.1% received more than MYR$ 2001; and another 27.8% received less than MYR$ 500 a month compared to before 1987, when the majority of the working population (79%) received only MYR$ 500 or less a month. Indicative of the trend of tourism development, the unemployment rate in Langkawi decreased from 9.7% in 1980, to 9.2% in 1990, and 8.7% in 2000 (Langkawi Municipal Council2005). Rapid development as a tourism destination has also had an impact on the lo­cal population, beaches and coastal area and placed pressure on natural resourc­es and environmental quality. Many developments were not properly carried out and have damaged the sustainability and aesthetic appeal of the islands. A lot of land reclamation in coastal areas for commercial and infrastructure development has changed the landscape of the islands. Various issues and conflicts arising from tourism development however, were documented in the Langkawi Structure Plan in 1990 and the Langkawi Local Plan in 2005. The Structure Plan indicated several types of development along the coastal areas have had a negative impact on the natural environment, such as coastal erosion and sedimentation. The Structure Plan also identified that no special areas were reserved for nature lovers and the public to study or enjoy the wildlife, such as birds. Nevertheless, Sharif (2000) suggests that local residents accepted tourism de­velopment in Langkawi positively due to an improvement in basic infrastruc­ture and public facilities. Local residents' perceptions are strongly influenced by the benefits and costs of tourism development. Those who received benefit from tourism stated that they are dependent on tourism, but the case was con­trary for those who received nothing.

Volume 20 • Number 2 • Winter 2009 • 451

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

1:28

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Research Notes and Reports

METHODOLOGY Stakeholder interviews were used to identify the benefits and costs of tour­ism development in the Langkawi islands. The stakeholders were defined as 'those who have an interest in, or who are affected by tourism. They include travel and tourism companies, governments, and host communities' (Rich­ardson and Fluker 2004: 383). Tourism stakeholders were selected based on their associations with the tour­ism industry in Langkawi, and were categorised into four groups: (1) gov­ernment departments, (2) private companies, (3) community leaders, and (4) interested groups such as non-government organisations (NGOs). They were grouped for two purposes: to avoid a homogeneous group of representatives; and, to have different perspectives about impacts from tourism development in the study area. In total, 40 respondents were selected using a purposive sampling approach. Fourteen of those respondents represented government agencies; 16 were from private companies; 5 were from non government or­ganisations; while another 5 respondents were community leaders. The data collection was done from March to July 2004 in the Langkawi Islands using in depth interview. The interviews with open-ended questions were re­corded by tapes and notes, and lasted between 45 minutes to 75 minutes. An appointment was made with each respondent two weeks prior to actual inter­view. Most of the interviews were held at the interviewees' office, although some preferred to be interviewed in their homes. The interviewees were free to decide whether to do the interviews in English or Malay, but most pre­ferred to talk in Malay. However, the themes of the interviews were generally the same because all of the interviews followed a list of issues decided by the researcher. The inter­view data analysis used a framework method, developed for applied policy research by Ritchie and Spencer (1994). A framework method involves a sys­tematic process with five stages of data analysis: Familiarisation: All recorded interviews were transcribed into data transcripts. The interview tape was listened to more than once to ensure the validity of the transcripts. The transcripts were sent to the interviewees for comments for interpretation validity. Then, all key ideas and recurrent themes from inter­views were placed on a list and used at the thematic framework stage. Identifying a thematic framework: The thematic framework was developed from the transcribing and text reading during the familiarisation stage. It involves 'both logical and intuitive thinking ... making judgements about meaning, the relevance and importance of issues, and implicit connections about ideas' to ensure that the research questions are fully addressed (Ritchie and Spencer 1994: 180). The thematic framework developed for this study is shown in Fig­ure 1. Indexing: From the thematic framework the interview transcripts were inter­preted with numerical codes using the qualitative software NVivo 2.0 and supported by short text descriptors to elaborate index headings (Figure 2).

452 • Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

1:28

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Research Notes and Reports

Index (coding): ..... Benefits o,( tourism development

1.1 Better quality of life

Preliminary index (coding): 1.2 Business opportunity

Changes brought by tourism development ~ 1.3 Employment opportunity 1.4 Better infrastructure

• Benefits ••.•............••.•.••.••..•.••..•.......... ~ 1.5 Environmental awareness • Costs . ........................................ .............. ····• Costs of tourism development

2.1 Changes in local culture 2.2 Social impact 2.3 Higher living cost 2.4 Expensive property values 2.5 Physical development

Figure 1. A Thematic Framework for this Study

Charting: The charting stage is used to develop a visualization of data by con­sidering the familiarity of themes. Charts are set up with headings and sub­headings in two ways: (1) thematic framework and (2) research consideration. The arrangement of charts however, depends on whether the data analysis is 'to be thematic (for each theme across all respondents) or by case (for each re­spondent across all themes)' (Ritchie and Spencer 1994: 182-183). Mapping and interpretation: Ritchie and Spencer (1994) outlined six techniques to be used for interpretation as follows: (1) defining concept; (2) mapping range and nature of phenomena; (3) creating typologies; (4) finding associa­tions; (5) providing explanations; and (6) developing strategies. However, the analysis should be guided by the research questions and the themes from the data, and focus on the structure of evidence rather than the numbers which have been used for this study.

Index frame of key themes: Interview transcript:

... ..r····• 1.1 " ... tourism has improved the quality of life of

Benefits of tourism development local residents by providing them with better 1.1 Better quality of life jobs, business opportunities and other benefits." 1.2 Business opportunity ••····•• ············~ 1.2 " ... the tourism industry is more profitable 1.3 Employment opportunity compared to agriculture. It offers a lot of 1.4 Better infrastructure ........ opportunities and does not have as much risk as 1.5 Environmental awareness agriculture."

···~ 1.4 " ... the standard of infrastructure is much Costs of tourism development better compared to certain areas in the 2.1 Changes in local culture mainland." 2.2 Social impact .................. ············~ 2.2 " ... even though a Muslim is prohibited from 2.3 Higher living cost ···· · · · ···· · ····· · ···: drinking liquor, it is so difficult to prevent this 2.4 Expensive property values ~ problem since the price is cheap." 2.5 Impact from physical ............. l···~ 2.3 ''the cost of living in Langkawi is higher since

development the price of certain goods is more expensive than certain places in the mainland".

L.. .• 2.5 " ... the quality of environment has decreased ... because of too much physical development in Langkawi".

Fzgure 2. Index (Codmg) from Interview Transcnpt

Volume 20 • Number 2 • Winter 2009 • 453

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

1:28

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Research Notes and Reports

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

All stakeholders (40) agreed that tourism development had brought many changes to the residents in Langkawi Islands. A community leader (Respond­ent 34) claimed that their "standard of living is also rising compared to before." Similarly, a study done by King, Pizam and Milman (1993) in Nadi, Fiji, found that tourism development had increased the quality of life of local residents through employment and business opportunities. In the same way, Purdue, Long and Allen (1990) also pointed out that an increase in the tourist numbers had improved the local economy of the county area in Colorado, United States. Furthermore, based on their study in Maldives, Sathiendrakumar and Tis­dell (1989) reported that tourism development had increased investment in infrastructure spending and development. One of the community leaders observed similar cases in the Langkawi Islands. He (Respondent 35) also claimed that the changes had significantly increased residents' support for decisions made by the government.

"We benefited from two aspects. Firstly, there have been a lot of improvements in public infra­structure since tourism emerged in this island. Secondly, there are more employment opportuni­ties for local residents compared to before ... they (the residents) were very positive and accepted the government decision."

Despite receiving many benefits from tourism development, the stakeholders admitted that tourism was also responsible for bringing negative impacts to local residents and the physical environment. Most of the interviewees sug­gested that tourism was liable for providing social and cultural impacts. A community leader (Respondent 31) remarked,

"In the early 90's, local communities had a problem to interact with tourists but it was improved from year to year. Now, we have a problem of social impact from tourism towards the younger generation in this island."

Moreover, even though the quality of life had increased, the cost of living and the property value also increased simultaneously. Another community leader (Respondent 35) explained that, " ... although the standard of living had increased, we need to spend more on property and cost of living." Previous studies on the impacts of tourism development also consistently found that local residents were facing higher costs of living (Purdue, Long and Allan 1990) and an in­crease in the price of land and property (Johnson, Snepenger and Akis 1994). Tourism development in Langkawi also contributed to environmental degrada­tion. Many physical developments such land reclamation projects had damaged the mangrove and beach areas. In fact, "there was a landslide in the highland and pol­lution along the beaches which had not happened before" (Respondent 31). Interest­ingly, these findil tgs were similar to a study in Greece by Akis, Peristianis and Warner (1996). They found that construction of hotels and other tourist facili­ties had damaged the natural environment of the tourist destination area. In general, tourism development in Langkawi Islands, Malaysia, has contrib­uted to both tourism benefits and costs. Despite providing an improvement

454 • Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

1:28

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Research Notes and Reports

in the quality of life of residents, rapid development in physical infrastructure has harmed the island's environment and also affected social and cultural val­ues of local residents.

CONCLUSION

In terms of economic aspect, findings from stakeholder interviews suggested that tourism development in Langkawi has brought more benefits than costs to local residents, especially in improving the residents' quality of life. Despite that, several issues also arise regarding to social and environmental impacts from the progress of the tourism industry. Both issues however, request more signifi­cant measures to be done to ensure the development of the tourism industry in Langkawi does not harm the environment and should be well received by local residents. It is also found that the application of the 'framework method' in analysing qualitative data is useful to investigate in detail the dimensions of impacts from tourism development to achieve the objective of this study.

REFERENCES

Akis, S., Peristianis, N. and Warner, J. (1996). Residents' Attitudes to Tourism Development: The Case of Cyprus, Tourism Management, 17(7): 481-494.

Johnson, J.D., Snepenger, D. J. and Akis, S. (1994). Residents' Perceptions of Tourism Develop­ment, Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3): 629-642.

King, P., Pizam, A., and Milman, A. (1993). Social Impact of Tourism: Host Perceptions, Annals of Tourism Research, 20(4): 650-665.

Langkawi District Council (1992). Langkawi Structure Plan 1990-2005. Department of Town and Country Planning, Ministry of Housing and Local Government: Malaysia.

Langkawi Municipal Council (2005). Langkawi Local Plan 2001-2015. Department of Town and Country Planning. Ministry of Housing and Local Government: Malaysia.

Purdue, R. R., Long, P. T. and Allen, L. (1990). Resident Support for Tourism Development, An­nals of Tourism Research, 17(4): 586-599.

Richardson, J. I. and Fluker, M. (2004). Understanding and Managing Tourism. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.

Ritchie, J. and Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis for Applied Policy Research. In Bryman A. and Burges R G (eds) Analyzing Qualitative Data (pp. 173-194). London: Routledge.

Sathiendrakumar, R. and Tisdell, C. (1989). Tourism and Economic Development of the Mal­dives, Annals of Tourism Research, 16(2): 254-269.

Sharif, N. (2000). Sikap Penduduk Tempatan Terhadap Pembangunan Pelancongan di Negeri

Kedah, Utara Management Review, 1(1): 39-56.

Azizan Marzuki, School of Housing, Building And Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11600 Minden, Penang, Malaysia. E-mail: chik72@usm.my

Submitted: 04 August 2008 Resubmitted: 06 October 2008

Resubmitted: 25 December 2008 Accepted: 10 January 2009

Refereed anonymously

Volume 20 • Number 2 • Winter 2009 • 455

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

1:28

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14