Paper presented at the 108th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) in November 2008

 

 Factors affecting residents’ opinions on tourism in Bocas del Toro archipelago, Panama.

By

Gayatri Thampy and Jeffrey Cohen

Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University

 

Abstract:

The tourism industry in Bocas del Toro archipelago on the Caribbean side of Panama is only 15 years old. Yet, the changes that it has wrought on the people of the islands are profound. The region has seen the rise of tourism as the dominant and almost exclusive industry during this time. Tourism has been actively promoted by the Panamanian government to boost the local economy which had plummeted following the decline of the banana industry in the early 20th century.

 

Based on data collected during Summer 2006, this paper examines the impact of tourism on the economy of the Bocas del Toro archipelago, Panama. Specifically, we examine the factors that influence residents’ opinions on tourism, including factors such as household income, property size and location of the household with respect to tourist centres. We also examine the extent to which tourist revenues penetrate socio-economic strata in the region.

 

Keywords: Panama, neo-liberal reforms, tourism, retirement tourism, resident attitudes.

 

Introduction:

The Bocas del Toro archipelago lies on the Caribbean side of Panama. The region has, in recent years, seen the rise of tourism as the dominant and almost exclusive industry. Tourism has been actively promoted by the Panamanian government to boost the local economy which had collapsed following the decline of the banana industry in the early 20th century.  The rise of the tourism industry coupled with neo-liberal reforms ushered in the wake of structural adjustment programs from the World Bank and the IMF since the 1980s have also resulted in a booming land market in the Bocas del Toro region.

 

Tourism exercises considerable influence on a community’s employment, land use, environment, and social structure (Harrill 2004) and offers both positive and negative consequences for the host community. Some of the problems from tourism include economic instability, unemployment problems due to tourist seasonality, and inflation for both visitors and residents due to tourist oriented economy (Gee, Choy, and Makens 1984, McIntosh and Goeldner 1986). Hence large concentrations and increased frequency of contacts with tourists may elicit negative reactions from residents (Pi-Sunger 1977, Pizam 1978). Inter-cultural differences between tourists and residents combined with the opportunity for exploitation due to the transitory nature of tourist activity (Pearce 1982) may also results in negative attitudes to tourism. These negative attitudes could lead to hostile reactions towards tourists (Bryden 1973 and Pizam 1978). Hence it is very important to obtain residents’ input as an integral part of the tourism planning process.

 

This study examines the factors that influence residents’ opinions on tourism in Bocas del Toro, Panama. In order to understand which consequences of tourism are regarded as positive or negative within various socio-economic and geographical strata, we segment responses of the residents rather than the residents themselves. This approach will facilitate better tourism planning to minimize the negative consequences and maximize the positive ones for the residents in the region.

 

In his review of the literature on residents’ attitudes towards tourism development, Harrill (2004) identifies socio-economic variables such as income, ethnicity, and length of residence, as well as spatial factors such as distance between tourists and residents, size of tourist and resident zones, distance, and location as influencing residents’ attitudes towards tourism. Resident opinions are also influenced by their level of economic dependency on tourism (Belisle and Hoy 1980).

 

Since most studies on tourism have been done in North America and Europe (Harrill 2004), this study examines the factors influencing residents’ opinions in the Caribbean islands of the Bocas del Toro archipelago in Panama. Specifically, we examine the role of the socio-economic variables of income and property size and the spatial variable of location with respect to the hub of Bocas town on residents’ opinions on tourism.

 

Since most tourist activities occur in the town of Bocas, we predict that income will increase closer to the town hub and decrease away from it. We expect property size to increase as we proceed away from the town hub. Hence we hypothesize that socio-economic variables of income and property size vary with distance from the hub of Bocas town.

 

Since we expect greater economic dependency on tourism closer to the town hub, we expect residents’ opinions to be more positive closer to the town and more negative away from the town hub. This is contrary to the prediction of the Linear Model of Community Development (Harrill 2004) which expects more negative opinions with increasing proximity to tourist centres as residents are more exposed to tourism and its negative consequences. A confounding factor in this model is the level of economic dependency on tourism (Belisle and Hoy 1980). In Bocas, the only economy that generates cash flow is tourism. Agriculture is basically subsistence oriented and occasionally fetches very low prices in the town market. Most food products used on the islands are imported from the mainland or from abroad (in super-markets). Therefore, we hypothesize that opinions on tourism vary with geographical location.

 

We predict that with increasing income, people will express more positive opinions on tourism. Also, with increasing property size, we predict more negative opinions since with more property, economic dependency on tourism is possibly reduced. Therefore, we hypothesize that opinions on tourism vary with the socio-economic variables of income and property size.

 

Study Site:

The Bocas del Toro Province is one of Panama’s top tourist destination. According to St. Louis and Doggett (2004), visitors to the island archipelago come to “soak up the laid-back Carribean vibe that Islas Colon and Bastimentos offer”, including snorkelling, surfing, and sailing. In addition, the abundance of rain forests covering the islands allow for hiking, exploring, eco-tourism and establishment of research institutes such as the Smithsonian and the Institute for Tropical Ecology and Conservation. The island, populated by the Teraba, Guaymi, Afro-Carribeans, and Latinos, is also increasingly regarded as a haven for the construction of retirement paradises for American and European retirees (Garcia-Navarro, 2006).

 

The town of Bocas del Toro is situated on Isla Colon, the largest island in the archipelago (61 Km2). Bocas del Toro town is the site of one of United Fruit Company’s oldest stations, established at the beginning of the twentieth century (Gordon 1982). The Chiriqui Land Company (its local name) later moved its headquarters to Almirante on the mainland and eventually Changuinola became its main centre of activity (Gordon 1982). Production in Bocas declined and the community became a ghost-town. In recent years (since 1991), the tourism industry has revived the town and brought a boom in commerce and construction. The town’s population has also since grown to 4300 people (St. Louis and Doggett, 2004). More than 50% of the island population live in the town.

 

A single road connects the town to the interior of the island and ends at the beach Bocas del Drago. Socio-economic characteristics vary as the road proceeds through the town and out of it. Localities of Barrios de Espinos and Barrios de Loma in Isla Colon consist largely of people from the archipelago who have been displaced from the land they originally cultivated. The area consists of swampy ground from recently cut mangroves. The locality of Colonia Santena consists of colonists from the Los Santos province who settled in the archipelago during the 1970s following a government resettlement program. Bikri Arriba and Bluff Centro are populated by the indigenous Guaymi, while Saigon and Ygriega are localities with a mix of mestizo, afro-Caribbean, Guaymi, as well as immigrants from the mainland, including commuters from the towns of Almirante and Changuinola on the mainland. We conducted 33 interviews from residents within the town of Bocas, 19 interviews along the road between the town and the beach of Boca del Drago, and 16 interviews from residents close to the beach. 8 interviews were with people from outside the island of Isla Colon (see Table 1).

 

Other islands in the archipelago include Islas Bastimentos (the second largest in size and population after Isla Colon), San Cristobal, Solarte, Cayo Tigre, and Cayo de Agua.

 

Data and discussion:

This paper is situated in the context of data collected during an ethnographic study of residents’ opinions on the effects of tourism during the summer of 2006.  Out of a total of 83 interviews, 7 interviews were with government officials, elected representatives, and NGOs. These are not included in the statistical data analysis. The remaining 76 participants were selected based on convenience sampling within each locality on the island of Isla Colon in the archipelago. Since the study size is approximately 10% of the total number of households on the island (approximately 600 households) and since sampling was done locality-wise to ensure inclusion of all socio-economic groups, the disadvantages of convenience sampling were ameliorated and the sample is representative of the island population.

 

Using semi-structured interview questionnaire, data on household demographics, income and expenditure were collected. Opinions on tourism were elicited using open-ended questions and then manually coded into different categories. In addition, information was gathered from papers and records at the Instituto Panameno de Turismo in Bocas and from casual conversations with inhabitants.

 

We use household income as an explanatory variable instead of household wealth with the assumption that the most obvious impact of tourism would be in terms of increased cash flow. Average monthly household incomes were calculated and then adjusted for household size (see note following Table 2 in the appendix for explanation). The median household income adjusted for household size is 95.24 $. The number of households that received income directly from tourism (as tourist guides and craftspersons) was 15 (20%). A two-sample t-test revealed that these households had significantly higher incomes than households without tourism income (p value = 0.039). Out of these 15 households, 9 (60%) were located in Bocas town, indicating the geographically inequitable distribution of benefits from tourism. Table 2 gives a breakdown of the number of participants in each income interval. Intervals were determined based on quartiles.

 

The median property size is 1.14 acres. Of the residents who owned property, 34 residents had owned their property for more than 15 years and their average property size is ~42 acres. 7 people owned their property for less than or equal to 15 years and their average property size was less than 1 acre. 9 residents owned property, but neither property size nor length of ownership are known. Neo-liberal reforms started being implemented in the region ~ 15 years ago. So we wanted to see if there was evidence of land banking by residents over the last 15 years, but found none. Note that the terms “own” and “ownership” are used in a very loose sense and does not necessarily indicate legal ownership recognized by the state. Table 3 in the appendix gives a breakdown of the number of people in each property size interval.

 

Opinions on tourism were elicited using open ended questions. The responses were then manually coded into the categories of economic advantages, economic disadvantages, socio-cultural problems due to tourism, socio-cultural advantages from tourism, and land related concerns. Note that the opinion categories are not mutually exclusive. So participants could express opinions that belonged to more than one category. Table 4 in the appendix gives a summary of opinions expressed by the participants and their proportions.

 

We had hypothesized that socio-economic variables of income and property size vary with distance from the hub of Bocas town. We found no support for this hypothesis with respect to income. Although we did not find a direct relationship between income and location with respect to Bocas town, we did find that households with income from tourism fare better economically compared to households without such income (Two sample t-test, p-value = 0.039). And most of the households with tourism income are located in the town of Bocas (9 out of 15).

 

We found that property size increases with distance from the town. One-way ANOVA revealed that property sizes for households in town are significantly lesser than for households in Boca del Drago which is at the opposite end of the island (p value = 0.026). We found that the average property size increased as we proceeded from the town (average 24.0 acres) to locations along the road (average 53.3 acres) to Boca del Drago (average 133.7 acres).

 

 

We hypothesized that opinions on tourism vary with geographical location. At the 90 % confidence level, One-way ANOVA revealed that more people in the town of Bocas were likely to talk about land related concerns than people who were from outside the island (p value = 0.069). Other opinion categories did not vary significantly with location. Hence, this hypothesis is partially supported by the data collected.

 

With respect to the hypothesis that opinions on tourism vary with the socio-economic variables of income and property size, we found that the opinion category of economic advantages varied with property size (One-way ANOVA, p-value = 0.05). More people with little or no land (less than 5 acres) and people with a lot of land (more than 140 acres) perceived greater economic advantages from tourism compared to those in the middle of the property size spectrum (5 – 140 acres). A possible explanation for this result could be that those with little or no land have no choice but to engage in wage labour afforded by construction and other activities from tourism. Those with more land can get greater benefits from tourism because they may be in a position to tap into the real tourism industry (eco-tourism, lodging, restaurants, etc.) and benefit from land reforms. Even if they decide to sell their land they may be in a better position to invest the proceeds profitably. Those in between probably engage in subsistence agriculture and therefore do not perceive much economic advantages from tourism. This relationship needs to be further investigated systematically.

 

We also found that the opinion category of socio-cultural problems varied with household income adjusted to household size (One-way ANOVA, p-value = 0.042). More people in the higher income categories were likely to perceive socio-economic problems due to tourism than other income categories. This could be because people with higher incomes may be more concerned about the safety and security of their assets.

 

Other opinion categories did not significantly vary with the socio-economic variables of property size and household income. Therefore, this hypothesis is partially supported by the data.

 

Literature on residents’ opinions on tourism suggests that socio-economic factors play a relatively minor and often contradictory role in explaining variation in resident attitudes towards tourism development (Perdue et al 1990). This probably explains the ambivalent support for our hypotheses.

 

Harrill (2004) reports that residents are often concerned that tourism will make them strangers in their own community and that they will be left out of tourism’s direct economic benefits and pay disproportionately for its negative consequences. They may also be concerned [among others] that they will not be able to enjoy local recreational amenities if crowded out by tourists (Allen et al 1993, Keogh 1990, Perdue et al 1987). Therefore, it is important that tourism planning should include protecting residents’ use of the recreation area or enhance their ability to use it (Harrill 2004).

 

A sense of loss of access to the archipelago’s resources of land and beaches was expressed by many of the participants in the study. For example, a 27 yr old housewife living in Isla Colon and participating in a protest march against a resort development project in the archipelago opines:

 

“Tourism is partly bad because some people [tourists] buy and limit their boundaries and nobody can then enter their properties. There are boundary limits with closed gates that you can enter only with the permission of the new owners. Even on farms and beaches. Before tourism reached here, there was tranquility and no problems. We were poor, but we lived well and were free to go where we wanted. Since 1990, everything changed. Now we are prohibited from going to various places because they buy up all the property.”

 

A caretaker and administrator for a hotel in Isla Colon speaks up during a reunion of the archipelago residents convened to discuss and protest against the implications of new neo-liberal land reforms designed to promote investment in retirement tourism speaks up:

 

“Everyone knows that we Ngobe are actually the owners of the land. So we do not want or need a big piece of paper that gives us derrecho possesorios or titulo. We know how to take care of the land and develop it. When our land is sold, there is a fence around it and signs to keep out. We can no longer traverse the land. But when the land belongs to us, foreigners , Panamanians and locals can all walk over the land without problems.”

 

In his study of two British Colombia communities, Cooke (1982) found that potential jobs and incomes were not viewed as significant by residents, who also perceived tourism as increasing the cost of living. Many participants in the study expressed fears that they may have to emigrate from the region because of high cost of living and loss of land to development. For example, a 33 year old local surfing teacher and tourist guide explains:

 

“They [tourists] come and they buy the land and when they buy they promise to give work to the people and then in the end they don’t do so. Then they privatize everything. It is painful for me and my family because we traditionally live freely everywhere in Panama. Our concept of property is more open (mas abierto). All pathways are private. All beaches are private. We can’t walk anywhere. So this is a big problem for us over here.”

 

A 20 yr old indigenous housewife living just outside Bocas town opines on the economic implications of tourism for her:

 

“When tourists come here, they try to remain here and so there are more tourists than there are people who belong to here. When Bocas people have a business or a shop, it benefits the people over here. Tourists’ have businesses and shops that satisfy the needs of other tourists only. So it does not benefit the people who are over here.”

 

 

In general, Harrill (2004) says that residents are not only able to correctly assess the negative and positive impacts of tourism on their life and their environment, they also have a sophisticated grasp of tourism economics in their community. For example, Lawson et al (1998) in New Zealand found that communities were concerned that tourism dollars remain in the country, demonstrating an understanding of tourism revenue “leakage” from local economies. This was true in our study too, as illustrated by the following remark by the caretaker mentioned above:

 

“…some tourists come here to exploit the place and then leave. First tourists would come and rent cabins and see stuff and we would offer services. But then things changed. The people come here, buy land, take up capital of other tourists. Because all the businesses and shops are foreigner owned, so all the capital leaves Bocas. Very little remains here. This is exploitative tourism camouflaged within so called tourism. A foreigner comes and buys land in Bocas. He sells parcels of land to other people from abroad. He gets money. The money goes to foreign banks. Nothing for Bocas or Panama. So only about 3 % of money stays back for construction [of houses and resorts for tourists].”

 

 

The Irridex Model of residents’ attitudes developed by Doxey (1975) and explained by Fridgen (1991) defines attitudes of residents based on social impacts of tourism. It predicts that communities hosting tourists go through fours stages. During stage 1, the community has just been introduced to tourism. There is little planning involved, and residents may be said to experience euphoria. During stage 2, tourist presence is no longer a novelty. Some residents take commercial advantage of tourism while other residents criticize the changes they see in their community. This stage is described as apathy. During stage 3, residents start getting irritated by the number of tourists in the area. They see an increased development of tourism amenities and infra-structure. Commercial and real-estate interests move in from the outside to purchase tourism related businesses, franchise hotels appear, etc. Towards end of this stage, zoning starts happening to restrict or isolate visitors. This stage is described as annoyance. During stage 4, the destination becomes a mass tourist destination. Residents start feeling increased antagonism towards tourism and this may get expressed in behaviours such as indifference or open hostility.

 

Based on data collected it would seem that Bocas now falls in stage 3 or annoyance in Irridex model. As the following exchange between me (GT) and a local resident (MR) about “who is a gringo” shows, this community is not far from progressing in to stage 4 of the Irridex model: antagonism.

 

MR: …….. Gringos should leave this country. They come over here and then they buy up land and then they try to evict us from our land. And they don’t do much business here either. They just buy land. So then there are not much opportunities for work for us.

GT: What about Europeans from Spain, Italy, Germany, etc. Are they not Gringos? Do they not buy land here?

MR: Yes they do.

GT: So is there a difference between what the gringo does and what the Europeans do?

MR: No. Its almost the same.

GT: So would you want the Europeans to leave too?

MR: No, not really. Because they are not the same. I just want the gringos to leave.

GT: Why?

MR: Because the gringos have too many rights over here. More than any other country. They have too much power. And I don’t think it is right that it is so. Even the Europeans may want to buy land here, they still abide by the Panamanian rules. But they gringos have special provisions for them.”

 

Conclusion:

This study on residents’ opinions of tourism in Bocas del Toro, Panama tested the following hypotheses: 1.) Socio-economic variables of income and property size will vary with geographical location with respect to Bocas town; 2.) The opinions on tourism will very with geographical location; 3.) Opinions on tourism will vary with respect to the socio-economic variables of income and property size.

 

We did not find any support for hypothesis one with respect to the variable income. But we did find that property size in Bocas town was significantly lesser than property size closer to Boca del Drago beach. With respect to hypothesis two, we found that people in Bocas town were more likely to talk about land related concerns than others. This could be explained if these residents were part of the rural to peri-urban migration due to land loss. However, we had not collected information to verify this. Other opinion categories did not vary significantly with location. Hypothesis three is also partially supported by our data. The opinion category of economic advantages varied significantly with property size while other opinion categories did not. Similarly, the opinion category of socio-cultural problems varied significantly with income while other categories did not.

 

Although the data do not conclusively support our hypotheses, the study is important for two reasons. It throws light on the dynamics of the tourism industry and residents attitudes and the differential benefits derived from the industry. It may also be that opinions in a place like Bocas, which has a high ethnic diversity and close physical interactions among people on a regular basis, may be much more volatile and may probably diffuse across socio-economic and geographical boundaries.

 

Tourism development is essential to the economy of the Bocas del Toro archipelago and it is extremely important that it is planned and managed properly. It is very important to pay attention to residents’ opinions on tourism even in a top-down model of tourism development as is the case in Bocas where tourism is enforced through external stimulation. Otherwise, the negative opinions could eventually lead to open hostility leading to the decline of the destination (Harril 2004).

 

Acknowledgements:

 

I would like to thank Dr. Mark Moritz in the Department of Anthropology at OSU. He was instrumental during the study design and data analysis phases. I am also grateful to my field associate Feliciano Santos and the people of the Bocas del Toro archipelago in Panama who aided and participated in the study and also made my stay very pleasant and enjoyable. Fieldwork was funded by a grant from the Tinker Foundation Grant for Field Research in Latin America, Iberia and Antarctica. A version of this paper was presented at the 108th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association in November 2008 as part of the panel on tourism, “Recent perspectives on eco-tourism: questions of territory, identity, and environmental conservation.”.  I would like to thank all the members of this panel and the panel discussant Dr. Jeffrey Cohen for their helpful comments and questions.

 

Appendix:

 

Table 1: Number of interviews by location.

 

Location

Location category

Count of people

Bocas Town

Bocas town

33

Barrios de Pino, Barrios de Loma, Saigon, Ygriega, Colonia Santena, Bikri Arriba, Bluff Centro

Along road

19

Drago, Drago Mar

Drago

16

San Cristobal, Isla Solarte, Cayo de Agua, Almirante, Changuinola

Outside Isla Colon

8

 

 

Table 2: Number of participants in each income interval.

 

Income interval

Count of people

0

3

>0 and <=50

17

>50 and <=93.33

18

>93.33 and <=226.67

21

>226.67

17

 

Note: Average monthly household incomes were calculated and then divided by the household size to adjust for the household size. So the above table gives the number of people interviewed who are from households where the proportion of household income for one person lies in this interval.

 

 

Table 3: Number of people in each property size interval:

 

Property size intervals (acres)

Codes

Count of people

Don’t know

 

8

0

0

21

>0 and <= 5

1

15

>5 and <= 20

2

8

>20 and <= 60

3

9

>60 and <= 140

4

7

>140 and <=300

5

7

>300

6

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4: Manually coded categories of opinions expressed by residents:

 

Opinion Category

Kinds of opinions included under category

Economic Advantages (EA)

 

N = 57 (76 %)

More Employment, Source of livelihood, info can be sold to tourists as tourist guides, Some jobs from Residential Tourism, Higher Income, tourists pay more, Better Education Access, Economic growth, Bigger market for produce, Market for artesania, More construction, New things available.

Economic Disadvantages (ED)

 

N = 22 (29.3 %)

Higher costs of living, Short-term employment, Limited job options, Foreign ownership of businesses, Loss of capital from foreign ownership, Insufficient/ no compensation for resources used, Businesses irrelevant /not useful to locals, No REAL development, Agriculture non-viable.

Socio-cultural problems (SCP)

 

N = 29 (38.67 %)

Drugs, Prostitution, Crime, More Police presence, Alcohol, Tourist-arrogant, Local Marginalization, Unregulated Tourism, Less Peace, Unfamiliar Socio-cultural environment, Sexually transmitted diseases, Dirty environment/ Pollution, Cultural invasion / Imitation of foreigners, In-migration (foreign and Panamanian), Out-migration of locals, Government corruption, Lacks local control and participation, Feel exploited, poor more vulnerable, Loss of identity, more vehicles, Discontent and desire for more.

Socio-cultural advantages (SCA)

 

N = 14 (18.67%)

 

New cultures, New people, More knowledge of world, new ideas, More knowledge of Bocas, More people.

Land concerns (LC)

 

N = 31 (41.3 %)

High Land prices, Land loss to tourism, Illegal land sales, Restricted mobility, Clashing Private property norms, Insecurity about tenureship, Residential tourism, Bleak future for locals, Locals don’t value land, Too much construction, Environmental destruction, need to Keep Land for future security, fears No place to live in the future after selling all land.

 

Bibliographies:

·              Allen L R, Hafer HR, Long PT, Perdue RR; 1993; Rural residents’ attitudes toward recreation and tourism development; Journal of travel research; Vol 31 (4); pp 27 – 33.

·              Belisle F J and Hoy DR; 1980; The perceived impact of tourism by residents: A case study in Santa Marta, Columbia; Annals of tourism research; Vol 7 (1); pp 83- 101.

·              Bryden J; 1973;  Tourism and development: a case study of the common wealth of the Caribbean; Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

·              Cooke, K; 1982; Guidelines for socially appropriate tourism development in British Colombis; Journal of Tourism Research; Vol 21 (1); pp 22 – 28.

·              Doxey GV; 1975; A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants, methodology, and research inferences; Sixth annual conference proceedings of the Travel Research Association, San Diego, CA: Travel and Tourism Research Association; pp 195 – 98.

·              Fridgen JD; 1991; Dimensions of tourism; Lansing, MI: The educational institute of the American Hotel and Lodging Association.

·              Gee C Y, Choy D J, Makens J C; 1984; The travel industry; AVI publishing; pp 106-120.

·              Harrill, Rich; 2004; Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development: a literature review with implications for tourism planning; Journal of Planning literature; Vol 18; No 251.

·              Keogh, B; 1990; Resident recreationists’ perceptions and attitudes with respect to tourism development; Journal of Applied Recreation Research; Vol 15 (2); pp 71-83.

·              Lawson R, Williams J, Young T, Cossens J; 1998; A comparison of residents’ attitudes towards tourism in 10 New Zealand towns. Tourism Management; Vol 19 (3): pp 247 – 56.

·              McIntosh, RW and Goeldner CR; 1986; Tourism Principles, Practices, Philosophies, New York: John Wiley and Sons.

·              Perdue RR, Long PT, Allen, L; 1987; Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes; Annals of Tourism Research; Vol 14; pp 420 – 29.

·              Perdue RR, Long PT, Allen, L; 1990; Resident support for tourism development; Annals of Tourism Research; Vol 17 (4); pp 586 – 99.

·              Pi-Sunger, O; 1977; Through Native eyes: tourists and tourism in a Catalan Maritime Community; in V. Smith (ed); Hosts and Guests: the anthropology of tourism; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; pp 149 – 155.

·              Pizam, A; 1978; Tourism’s Impacts: The Social Costs to the Destination Community as Perceived by its residents; Journal of Travel research; Vol 16 (Spring); pp 8 – 12.