resident perceptions of tourism development in riga, latvia

*Corresponding author.

Tourism Management 21 (2000) 499}507

Resident perceptions of tourism development in Riga, Latvia

Randall S. Upchurch!,*, Una Teivane"!Department of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816-1400, USA

"Tourism Agent, Riga, Latvia

Received 21 December 1998; accepted 3 February 1999

Abstract

The thrust of this study was to (a) determine the stage of development of tourism in Latvia and (b) to evaluate the positive andnegative impacts of tourism development in Riga, Latvia. In terms of Butler's tourist life cycle theory, residents indicated that touristdevelopment is in the early stages of development. This is re#ected in their bifurcate, and somewhat ambivalent, responses regardingpositive and negative impacts associated with the in#ux of tourists in their community. ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rightsreserved.

1. Introduction: foundation of tourism development

Tourism is the largest peacetime movement of peoplein the history of mankind that continues to grow at anastonishingly high annual rate worldwide (Jafari, 1973,1986). As various tourism researchers have discovered,this service based industry has wide-ranging social andcultural impacts upon a community's social structure,individual lifestyles, and the destination's economy(Eadington & Redman, 1991; Gartner, 1996). In supportof this view, tourism researchers have asserted that thisservice industry has become one of the largest and fastestgrowing industries in the world economy, with nations,states, and communities funding tourist boards to pro-mote their locations and attract further investment(Edgell, 1990).

Undoubtedly tourism plays an important role in (a)the economic and technological development of nationsby stimulating the development of basic infrastructure(such as airports, harbors, roads, sewers and electricalpower), (b) contributing to the growth of domestic indus-tries that supply the tourism industry (e.g. transporta-tion, agriculture, food processing, commercial "shing,lumbering, construction), (c) attracting foreign invest-ment (especially in hotels), and (d) facilitating transfer oftechnology. Furthermore, tourism is an economic activ-ity that provides a country with income, creates jobs,reduces unemployment, fosters entrepreneurship, stimu-

lates production of food and local handicrafts, facilitatescultural exchanges, and contributes to a better under-standing of the country and the world at large. Certainly,the changing dimensions of this vast, expanding industrybrings into focus concerns over cultural, ecological,environmental, social, and political consequences oftourism (Edgell, 1990).

2. Resident perception research

One sub-component of tourism development researchis a spate of studies that have focused on resident percep-tions concerning tourism development. In general, resi-dent perception research has focused on pro"ling socialand cultural impacts of tourism in a variety of developedand developing countries, or on relating resident percep-tion research to a corresponding stage of tourismdevelopment.

Residential impact studies that were conducted in the1970s and 1980s studied the impacts of tourism in rela-tionship to its proportionate growth in the hostcommunity (Butler, 1980; Getz, 1983; Haywood, 1986).Richardson notes that tourism not only creates jobs andbusiness opportunities, helps to stabilize the local econ-omy, provides cultural exchange between hosts and visi-tors, improvement of community and recreation facilities(Richardson, 1991). Continuing on, it has been found thattourism improves the standard of living, increases avail-ability for recreation and entertainment, promotescultural change, promotes the cultural identity of host

0261-5177/00/$ - see front matter ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S 0 2 6 1 - 5 1 7 7 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 0 4 - 1

community, and increases the demand for preservation ofhistorical and architectural monuments (Cohen, 1984). Inan e!ort to pro"le current research surrounding residen-tial impacts, Ap summarized residential perceptionresearch conducted by other resident perception re-searchers (Ap, 1992; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Liu & Var,1986). This cumulative piece noted impacts ranged froman increase in recreational facilities and entertainment,improved police and "re protection, and improved cul-tural understanding and exchange. Furthermore, Pizamand Milman surmised that tourism impacts could becategorized as (a) size and age of respondent (demo-graphic variables), (b) change and distribution of occupa-tion (occupational variables), (c) tradition, religion andlanguage (cultural variables), (d) values, morals and sexroles (norm transformation variables), (e) values, moralsand sex roles (consumption variables), and (f ) pollutionand tra$c congestion (environmental impacts) (Pizam& Milman, 1984).

On the negative impact side of the spectrum one studyconcentrated on such variables as an increase in theprices of goods and services, and in#ation in propertyvalues, while another focused on social disadvantages,such as crowding, congestion, pollution and an increaseof undesirable activities, like prostitution, gambling, al-cohol and drugs and crime (Johnson, Snepenger & Axis,1984; Ap, 1992). Yet, other researchers noted negativeimpacts ranging from an increase in crime, drug-relatedproblems, alcoholism, noise, congestion, prices of prod-ucts and services, unfriendly behavior to prostitution(Davis, Allen & Cosenza, 1988; McCool & Martin, 1994;Allen, Long, Perdue & Kieselbach, 1988).

Regardless of the negative impacts cited there is a no-ticeable relationship between the impacts and advance-ment of tourism in the host community (Allen et al.,1988). In support of this view, Pizam and Milman in-dicated that tourism can `contribute to social conditionsthat may lead to serious problems in the host society.a(Pizam & Milman, 1984). These authors continued on toassert that these negative impacts can be in the formof changes in an individual's value system, lifestyles,ceremonies and community organization.

3. Ap and Crompton:s developmental stages:understanding resident reactions

The aforementioned negative impact studies typicallydid not link resident perceptions to the stage of tourismdevelopment present in the host community. Therefore,Ap and Crompton attempted to pro"le the intricaterelationship of resident perceptions and tourism impactsby measuring the stage of tourism development in a hostcommunity. Their view is that the development oftourism progresses through the stages of embracement,tolerance, adjustment, and withdrawal. These stages

agree with the tourist-area life cycle theory developed byButler that asserts that as the growth and demand fortourism increases in an area, the impacts upon the com-munity gradually become more apparent and more nega-tive in impact. Basically, the stage of embracement istypi"ed as the stage whereby residents openly accepttourists into their community. The tolerance stage is bestdescribed as a collective indecisiveness towards touristsand tourist development. During the third stage (adjust-ment) the resident stays in the community but delibe-rately avoids the destinations frequented by tourists.Finally, the withdrawal stage is in e!ect when the localresidents engage in a #ight versus "ght reaction, whichmeans that residents leave the community during timesof massive tourism in#ux (Ap & Crompton, 1993).

4. Butler:s tourism life cycle model: a precursor tounderstanding impacts

Another proposed model for understanding residentperceptions as related to tourism development is Butler'sTourist Area Life Cycle theory. Butler proposed thattourism progresses through the stages of exploration,involvement, development, consolidation, stagnation,and then decline. The initial stage of exploration is typi-"ed by a new found curiosity in traveling to the area. Thefollowing stage is re#ective of this new found interest intraveling to the area in that services begin to be estab-lished that serves the needs of this traveling public. Dur-ing the third stage there is robust physical developmentin area product and services. However, this rapid devel-opment becomes an issue to the residents and to policyagents relative to host community impacts. Hence, thedevelopment phase is where the economic, sociological,cultural, and ecological impacts become an issue. Thisphase of development is commonly associated with con-siderable advertising and promotional e!orts aimed atattracting tourists and in maintaining a balance withavailable resources. The last phase is strongly impactedby positive or negative impacts that have occurred dur-ing the development phase. Hence, the "nal stage ofdecline is largely contingent on the host community'sability to cope with identi"ed tourism impacts. If theissues are insurmountable, then decline follows witha concomitant drop in tourist arrivals to the area. How-ever, if policies are enacted that sustain the balancebetween precious resources and tourist demands then theprobability of decline is averted (Butler, 1980).

5. An introduction to Latvia

In order to understand resident perceptions, one mustunderstand the stage of tourism development present inthe speci"ed community under review. This statement

500 R.S. Upchurch, U. Teivane / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 499}507

Table 1Persons crossing Latvia's border in thousands

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Non-resident arrivals 2446 1944 1633 1750 1842

portends the importance of determining the historicaland economic impacts of tourism in Latvia.

6. Review of Latvian history

According to the Central Statistical Bureau of Latviathe development of tourism has been impacted byvarious critical events in this country's rich history.The country's history goes back 3000 years, with the "vemain regions of Latgale, Zemgale, Kurzeme, Livland andSelija, without a central government. Next the crusadingTeutonic Knights of the Sword conquered the people ofthese "ve areas, which resulted in the founding of Riga in1201. From World War I the Germas, Russians, Polesand Swedes fought for control of the territory and Lat-vian culture was severely suppressed (Central StatisticalBureau, 1998).

The end of World War I sparked the War of Indepen-dence, which led to Latvia's claim of freedom from ex-ternal rule in 1920. During the inter-war years (between1920 and 1940) Latvia rebuilt her economy, reformingagriculture, industrializing, and extending higher educa-tion. But the outbreak of World War II threw the coun-try back into the old power struggle over cultural, social,and economic survival. After WWII the country becamea Soviet Socialist Republic. This term of occupation didnot allow for the national #ag to be #own, nor theanthem heard, and all farmland was collectively held forthe good of the Soviet Republic. However, this time ofoppression came to a close on August 21, 1991 with theLatvian people reclaiming their independence. More-over, the removal of all Russian troops in August of 1994is considered the time when the whole economy wasrestructured with the net result being recognition ofentrepreneurial spirit, expression of human values andfreedom. Moreover, this was the time in this country'shistory that marked the beginning of tourism develop-ment in Latvia.

Latvia had been occupied by the Soviet Union for halfa century, which left Latvia with serious demographic,economic, and psychological legacies. Despite these bur-dens, Latvia has made greater progress toward Western-ization than any of the other former Soviet republics(Dreifelds, 1996). Under the control of the Soviet Union,international tourism in Latvia was undeveloped andserved mostly Soviet tourists. The seashore adjoining thepopulation centers around Riga, was the major focus ontourism during Soviet domination and now. But thepollution of water, resulting from the waste of heavyindustry in the Baltics and Russia that is spilling intorivers that #ow into the Baltic Sea, has done muchdamage not only to nature, but also to the tourismindustry. The beach areas are sometimes closed becausewater conditions fail to meet minimum safety standards(EIU International Reports, 1993).

Latvia su!ered terribly from the Soviet occupation,experiencing mass deportations, the imposition of anindustrial economy regardless of resources and environ-mental considerations, and attempts to wipe out cultureand language. That is why it is taking longer for Latviathan for other Eastern European countries, like Hun-gary, Poland and the Czech Republic to establish them-selves as democratic states with market economies. Thereis no doubt among observers that the tourism industry inLatvia will develop but it will take time. The uncertaintylies rather in the size of the industry, and the speed withwhich it will develop (Dreifelds, 1996).

7. Tourism patterns in Latvia

In agreement with Ap and Crompton and Butler, thestate of tourism activity in Latvia was a prerequisite tointerpreting resident perceptions of tourism impactsupon their community. Therefore, in order to properlyframe the perceived impacts of tourism, a discussion oftourism growth was necessary. To accomplish this task,sources from the Latvian government were reviewed.

According to the Central Statistical Bureau of Latviathe development of tourism products and services in-cludes lodging accommodations, restaurants, historicalsites, retail establishments, lakes, rivers, architecturalmonuments, castles, homesteads and other cultural,social, and environmental settings.

The Latvian government classi"es tourism as activitiesof persons traveling for leisure, business, and other pur-poses and staying in places outside their usual environ-ment for not more than one consecutive year (CentralStatistical Bureau, 1998). Accordingly, the governmentuses this traveler, otherwise called a tourist, as the basicmeans for measuring all activities surrounding the touristindustry. Therefore, the number of departures and arri-vals of residents and non-residents are monitored by theInformation Centre of the Border Guard in order topro"le the impact of tourists upon a given region. Forinstance, Table 1 indicates that the number of non-resident arrivals has #uctuated over the last four years.There is no doubt that the number of people crossing theLatvian border was directly related to the upcomingseparation from Russia in 1994. However, Tables 2 and3 indicate that tourism has slowly impacted the Latvianinfrastructure. This contention is supported by the slowdevelopment of lodging facilities from 1995 to the end of1997.

R.S. Upchurch, U. Teivane / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 499}507 501

Table 2Hotels and accommodation establishments

Hotels & motels Holidayhouses

Short termfacilities

Accommodations at year'send for 1995

106 29 74


124 27 68


132 20 68

Number of Beds1995 8649 4727 48151996 8774 3614 50871997 9813 4796 4619

Number of visitors1995 271185 47497 218681996 300324 46302 195791997 325916 65753 34426

Table 3Travelers by length of stay

Winter Summer Autumn}spring

Same-day 69.9 61.3 66.11}3 days 19.5 20.7 18.84}7 days 5.5 8.4 8.97# 5.1 9.6 6.2

Purpose of TripHoliday 1.9 2.7 2.4Business 5.5 6.2 4.0Visiting friends or relatives 1.9 6.0 2.5Health treatment 10.3 15.1 14.6Sport 3.6 4.1 9.5Shopping 0.2 0.3 0.2Transit 0.2 0.2 0.2Other 2.3 2.1 1.2

Table 4Average length of stay in Latvia by country of residence

Winter Summer Autumn}spring

United States 5.0 2.8 11.6Belarus 1.6 4.1 4.2Denmark 7.9 4.5 8.1Estonia 0.4 0.6 0.5Russian Federation 7.4 10.0 8.3United Kingdom 3.2 5.7 7.4Lithuania 0.4 0.7 0.7Poland 0.8 1.3 0.8Finland 2.2 1.3 0.8Ukraine 3.2 7.0 3.8Germany 3.2 4.3 2.5Sweden 2.7 5.5 3.2

The statistics compiled by the Central StatisticalBureau of Latvia also indicates that many travelers stayin Latvia for less than one day, travel for health treat-ment, and are predominantly represented by the UnitedStates and the Russian Federation during the autumn tothe spring season (Table 4). Even though the number oflodging operations has increased in the hotel/motel cat-egory, the other lodging categories have decreased overtime for a net result of 11 additional lodging facilities.Also, the number of visitors for each lodging categoryincreased from 1995 to 1997, and the number of over-night guests resulted in an increase of 898 beds (EIUInternational Reports, 1993).

In summary, the information in this section establishesthe notion that tourism in Latvia became formalized bythe establishment of the Latvian Tourism Board in 1994.This fact clearly shows governmental interest in formaliz-ing and capitalizing on the economic impacts of tourism.

In contrast, the slow pace of lodging developmentover the three reported years (1995}1997) in combi-nation with the low average length of stay in Latviaindicates that tourism development is slowly progressingforward. Moreover, it is quite interesting to note thatthe in#ux of non-resident arrivals has decreasedover time. The reason for this decrease is not known instudy. However, this downward trend does not speakwell for rapid advancement of international tourism inLatvia.

So, in the context of Butler's tourism developmentmodel, tourists appear to be `exploringa the productsand services that Latvia has to o!er. However, the num-ber of visitor arrivals entering the country in combina-tion with the lackluster pace of physical developmentdoes not indicate a plethora of product and service o!er-ings designed for tourist needs. Clearly, tourism develop-ment is in the formative (i.e., introductory) stages ofdevelopment.

8. Focus of study and process

The purpose of this study is to analyze Latvian resi-dents' perceptions of tourism via a descriptive researchdesign using a convenience sampling process. A fact-to-face survey was used as the process to collect the data.The subjects of the study were randomly selected andapproached on the main square of Old Riga, which is anarea that attracts tourists due to the presence of historicalsites and architecture, restaurants, lodging accommoda-tions and museums.

All respondents were assured that their responseswould remain anonymous. With the distribution of ques-tionnaires, a letter explaining the study was provided toeach respondent. The respondent was asked to frametheir response based on the in#ux of tourists to Riga. Inaddition, the respondents were asked not to disclose theirname, address or other means of contact. A total of 271


Table 5Respondent pro"le

Frequency

Gender Male 91Female 159

Age 16}24 6025}34 9835}44 45Over 45 47

Personal income per month(Ls ruble)

)100 62

100}200 65200}300 59*300 64

Question: Have you hadinteraction with tourists

80 males(87.5%"Yes)

133 females(84.1%"Yes)

surveys were completed; however, only 250 were usablefor the purposes of this study.

9. Questionnaire construction

In general, the resident impact literature indicates thattourism activity impacts the host community structure,employment patterns, social structure, crime, prostitu-tion, and gambling in the host community (Haralam-bopoulous & Pizam, 1996). Also, quality of life as a resultof tourism, friendliness, prices of products and services,availability of products and services are potential im-pacts resulting from the development of tourism (Allen etal., 1988; Davis et al., 1988). Therefore, the questionnairedeveloped for the present study is designed around theseaforementioned resident perception studies.

The questionnaire included 20 questions that weregrouped into two primary sections. The "rst sectioncontained questions relating to the issue of how Latvia'sresidents thought tourism impacted their community.The second portion asked the respondents to identifyeconomic, social and environmental impacts as related toan increase of tourists to Riga, Latvia. They were askedto rate the items on an ordinal scale of 1}5, 1 being themost negative (i.e., much worse or greatly increasing) and5 being the most positive, with 3 meaning `no changea.

10. Data analysis: respondent pro5le

The respondents for this study were generally wellrepresented across gender, age, personal household in-come levels and the majority had interactions with tour-ists in their host community (Table 5). In essence, thispro"le is not skewed toward any one demographic cat-

egory. And given the fact that the majority of respon-dents had interactions with tourists indicates that theyare a valid source of information. Still, caution should betaken not to generalize the population at large given thesmall sample size and the use of a convenience samplingprocedure.

11. Tourism impacts

In the following section community impacts are seg-mented by economic, social and environmental factors.This process is necessary to pro"le the existence of anypositive or negative developments as reported by theresidents. Once this process is accomplished, the resi-dent's categorical perceptions are discussed in thecontext of Ap and Crompton and Butler's tourismdevelopmental models.

11.1. Economic impacts

According to Table 4, the residents of Riga perceivedthat tourist arrivals had not generally increased localrevenues (M"2.513), raised their standard of living(M"2.642) nor caused an increase in local employment(M"2.54) in Riga (Table 4). The only category thatreceived a `no changea rating was agriculture. This pos-sibly indicates that agricultural tourism is not evident inRiga, which makes sense due to the fact that Riga is anindustrialized city. However, these residents did indicatethat prices of products and services were decreasing dueto the development of tourism in their community. Inaddition, residents indicated a slight negative impactupon local arts and handicrafts (M"2.554) as an out-come of tourism development.

An interpretation might be that the residents did nothave su$cient public information at their disposal onwhich to base their decision. This appears to be the case,because the Latvian Tourism Board documents revieweddid not contain job generation or local community im-pact statistics. If this assumption is valid, then any per-ception that the resident develops is based on personalobservations that might be based on inaccurate informa-tion. Therefore, it is imperative that residents are pro-vided with accurate and timely information concerningtourism impacts. This is especially true if tourism isperceived to be a major contributor to the localeconomy.

Nonetheless, it is quite interesting to note that local-arts and handicrafts, product and service prices were onthe decline. On the a$rmative side, this is a favorableoutcome because the reduction in prices lowers the pur-chase price for residents as well. However, the long-rangeeconomic impact is negative because revenues are de-creased over time. This, of course, indicates a less thanfavorable impact upon the local economy.


Table 6Tourism impacts

Type of impact Mean SD

EconomicPrice of services 1.948 0.702Price of products 2.108 0.717Transportation 2.401 0.732Revenue 2.513 0.719Employment 2.54 0.769Standard of living 2.642 0.639Agriculture 3.22 0.702Arts and handicrafts 2.554 0.697

SocialTrust in people 3.563 0.810Honesty 3.279 0.811Generosity 3.25 0.771Friendliness 2.627 0.810Human relationships 2.612 0.727Fashion 2.332 0.785Theft and burglary 2.31 0.807Personal appearance 2.239 0.771Alcohol and drugs 2.067 0.783Prostitution 2.06 0.824Entertainment 2.034 0.694

EnvironmentalPollution 2.424 0.891

11.2. Social impacts

The advancement of tourism can have certain impactsthat can take either a negative or a positive form of e!ect,given the stage of development that the country is in (Ap& Crompton, 1993). As Table 6 indicates the residentsidenti"ed both positive and negative impacts.

Overall, the respondents indicated that the social cat-egories of prostitution, theft and burglary and use ofalcohol and drugs were decreasing in frequency in thecommunity. Conversely, residents believed that friendli-ness, honesty, and trust in people had greatly improvedwith the advent of tourism in Riga. This positive trendshould be capitalized on by the appropriate tourismbody due to the obvious public relation reasons. This isa logical `next stepa given the assertion by Butler thattourism development can only progress to the third stage(i.e., growth of the infrastructure) with an active cam-paign that accentuates the positive impacts of tourismupon the host community.

Still, the authors would like to stress that the residentsmight have been evaluating these concepts basedon general conditions in Latvia at the time even though therespondents were instructed to evaluate these social catego-ries relative to the in#ux of tourists into their community.

11.3. Environmental factors

The residents indicated a negative trend in communitypollution (M"2.424) as an outcome of tourism develop-ment. This "nding is interesting because residents have

already, in the early stages of tourist development, notedthat pollution is a potential drawback of an increasednumber of tourists in the community. But what is unclearis a description of the type of pollution that is viewed asbeing a direct derivative of tourism development. None-theless, a negative sign so early in the tourism life cycleappears to be a precursor of continued resident resistanceto further tourism development in Riga.

12. Discussion of economic, social, and environmentalimpacts

If you place the residents' economic, social, and envir-onmental impact responses in the context of Butler'stourism development model you will "nd that tourismdevelopment is in the initial stages of development. Therehas not been a signi"cant increase in the number oflodging accommodations nor in the total number of non-native travelers to Latvia, which indicates that tourism inLatvia has not reached Butler's third stage of rapidproduct and service development. Also seeing that theLatvian Tourism Board was not formalized until 1994, itis expected that tourism development would still be in theintroductory stages of growth.

In the context of Ap and Crompton's tourism develop-ment model these residents are best placed in the`embracement phasea of tourism development. This as-sumption is based on the observation that residents'perceptions of honesty, generosity, and trust in peopleare on the rise. This is a unique "nding in that it re#ectson the favorable nature of heightened social interactionsbetween residents and non-residents of Riga. Still, it isunknown whether these positive social interaction im-pacts are based on the residents' desire to share theirlocal culture and history with the mystique of learningmore about non-native cultures. Furthermore, it is im-portant to note that these residents believe that vicessuch as prostitution, theft and burglary, and use of alco-hol and drugs are on the decline. If this is indeed the case,it appears that the community is looking towardstourism as a mechanism that can, directly or indirectly,reduce these social ills. Regardless, these residents dobelieve that tourism has a relationship with a decrease inthese social vices.

From a cumulative perspective, these residents areambivalent relative to tourism development in their com-munity. In essence, these residents are tolerant of tourismdevelopment; yet they are irresolute to the positiveand negative impacts given the early stage of tourismdevelopment that Riga is experiencing.

13. Limitations of the study

The "ndings of this study are limited by the natureof the convenience sampling process. In essence, these


Appendix A

This survey is part of a research study on tourism impacts. Your participation in this study is voluntary. All informationis con"dential and anonymous. Please do not write your name on this survey.

1. Have you had personal contact with tourists?

**** Yes

**** No

2. Why do you think visitors come to Latvia?

**** a. scenery

**** b. culture

**** c. curiosity in a post Soviet country

**** d. untouched nature/eco-tourism

**** e. inexpensive entertainment

**** f. other

3. The following is a list of potential tourism impacts upon your community. Please rate these items on the followingscale as it relates to the in#ux of tourists into your community:

1 2 3 4 5 N/AMuch worse Worse No change Better Much better Not applicable

RevenueStandard of livingTransportationEntertainmentEmployment opportunitiesArts and handicraftsAgricultureHuman relationshipsFashionOther

"ndings cannot be generalized to the population at largein Riga due to obvious sampling biases that might haveexisted.

14. Recommendations

As tourism development advances in a community`the residents of communities and regions a!ected bytourism demand to be involved in decisions a!ectingtheir development.a (Ritchie, 1993). In agreement withthis developmental pattern, it appears that resident per-ceptions are beginning to emerge as Riga's tourism in-dustry develops. However, before any gainful tourismdevelopment plan can be established, an analysis of theeconomic, social, and environmental variables must be

studied from a longitudinal view. This requires that anappropriate experimental methodology is developed thatwill monitor and assess these impacts across time. Inessence, a sampling process that randomly selects resi-dents based on established criteria that approximates theresident demographics of Riga is a necessary prerequisitefor an empirical research study.

Therefore, the charge from this study is for theappropriate stakeholders to monitor the economic,social, and environmental impacts of tourism develop-ment in Riga in order to verify or discon"rm the "ndingsof this study using sound experimental design principles.This, of course, is a necessary prerequisite beforethe public can be educated about existing positive ornegative impacts that tourism is exerting upon theircommunity.


4. Please rate the following items as being impacted by the in#ux of tourists into your community. Please rate theseitems using the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5 N/AGreatlydecreasing

Decreasing No change Increasing Greatlyincreasing

Not applicable

FriendlinessTheft and burglaryAlcohol and drugsHonestyProstitutionBegging peopleKids in the streetFamily con#ictsTrust in peopleGenerosityPersonal appearancePrices of productsPrices of servicesPollutionOther

5. The following are demographic items that will be used to pro"le the residents in your community.Your gender is:

****Male

**** Female

My age category is:

**** 16}24

**** 25}34

**** 35}44

**** over 45

My monthly income is:

****)100 rubles

**** 100}200 rubles

**** 200}300 rubles

**** 300}400 rubles

**** over 400 rubles

References

Allen, L., Long, P., Perdue, R., & Kieselbach, S. (1988). The impact oftourism development on residents' perceptions of community life.Journal of Travel Research, 27(1), 16}21.

Ap, J. (1992). Residents' perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals ofTourism Research, 19, 665}690.

Ap, J., & Crompton, J. (1993). Residents' strategies for responding totourism impacts. Journal of Travel Research, 32(1), 47}50.

Belisle, F., & Hoy, D. (1980). The perceived impact of tourism byresidents. Annals of Tourism Research, 7(1), 83}101.

Butler, R. (1980). The Concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution:Implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer,24, 5}12.

Central Statistical Bureau (1998). Riga in "gures. Riga: Latvija.Cohen, E. (1984). The sociology of tourism: approaches, issues, and"ndings. Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 373}392.

Davis, D., Allen, J., & Cosenza, R. (1988). Segmenting local residents bytheir attitudes, interests and opinions toward tourism. Journal ofTravel Research, 27(2), 2}8.

Dreifelds, J. (1996). Latvia. In Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania Counja studies.Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

Eadington, W. R., & Redman, M. (1991). Economics and tourism.Annals of Tourism Research, 18, 41}56.

Edgell, D. J. (1990). International Tourism Policy. New York: VanNostrand Reinhold.

EIU International Reports. (1993). Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia (No. 4,pp. 71}88). The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited.

Gartner, W. (1996). Tourism development principles, processes and pol-icies. New York: Van Nostrand Reinold.

Getz, D. (1983). Capacity to absorb tourism concepts and implicationsfor strategic planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 10, 239}263.

Haralambopoulous, N., & Pizam, A. (1996). Perceived impacts oftourism: The case of Samos, 23(3), 503}526.


Haywood, K.M. (1986). Can the tourist area life cycle be made opera-tional? Tourism Management, 7, 154-167.

Jafari, J. (1973). The role of tourism in the socio-economic transformationof developing countries. Published master's thesis, Cornell Univer-sity, Ithaca.

Jafari, J. A. (1986). Systemic view of sociocultural dimensions of tourism.In the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors (pp. 33}50).

Johnson, J., Snepenger, D., & Axis, S. (1994). Residents' perceptions oftourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 629}637.

Liu, J., & Var, T. (1986). Resident attitudes toward Tourism Impacts inHawaii. Annals of Tourism Research, 13(2), 193}214.

McCool, S., & Martin, S. (1994). Community attachment and attitudestoward tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3),29}34.

Pizam, A., & Milman, A. (1984). The social impacts of tourism. UNEPIndustry and Environment, 7(1), 11}14.

Richardson, S. L. (1991). Colorado community tourism action guide.Boudler: University of Colorado.

Ritchie, J. B. R. (1993). Crafting a destination vision: putting theconcept of resident-responsive tourism into practice. Tourism Man-agement, 14(5), 379}389.


resident perceptions of tourism development in riga, latvia

Documents