Keywords

Introduction

Many visitors come to tourist areas in every country in the world. Thus, the increase of tourists causes more crowd in touristic places. This situation is seen as positive for tourist places. Nevertheless, once the destination ’s carrying capacity is surpassed, too many tourists might cause significant difficulties. This issue , which is frequently referred to as “overtourism“, appears to have increased in recent years (Weber et al., 2017). Overtourism was mentioned by UNWTO at World Travel Market “Ministerial Summit” in 2017 (Oklevik et al., 2019).

“Overtourism describes destinations where hosts or guests, locals or visitors, feel that there are too many visitors and that the quality of life in the area or the quality of the experience has deteriorated unacceptably” (Goodwin, 2017: 1). On the other hand, over-tourism is defined “as the excessive growth of visitors leading to overcrowding in areas where residents suffer the consequences of temporary and seasonal tourism peaks, which have enforced permanent changes to their lifestyles, access to amenities and general well-being” (Milano et al., 2018: 2).

The causes of overtourism are the falling cost of travel, affordable accommodation enabling more people to travel, the public realm is free, distribution strategies, whether the spreading of tourism impacts is a result of local government action, seasonality bunches tourism concentrates numbers, tourism creates jobs, new originating markets, successfully marketed, established destinations, which attract more tourists, destination marketing organizations, transport is a larger scale than it was ten years ago (Goodwin, 2017). Aside from that, cities are growing economically in order to fulfil the demands of tourists. As a result, local communities’ living costs rise (Milano et al., 2018). Residents find it impossible to do things like relax outside, go local shopping, use public transit, or just walk around the city due to the consequences of overtourism (Pearce, 2018). Locals have both good and negative opinions of tourism’s effects as a result of these factors (Jacobsen et al., 2019). As a result, residents’ support for tourism is contingent on how good and bad impacts are seen by locals (Park et al., 2012; Peric et al., 2016). Understanding locals’ opinions and attitudes is therefore critical for the long-term growth of tourism (Gutiérrez-Taño et al., 2019).

The quality of life is linked to how residents perceive tourism’s influence (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Shani & Pizam, 2012). Reduced life quality as a result of congestion, bad working conditions, excessive costs, or improper visitor behaviour, environmental consequences (trash, noise, pollution, etc.), leaks or unilateral benefits, and poor quality of life and security issues as a result of crime and corruption. Aesthetic degradation, misuse of infrastructure, traffic issues, and insufficient execution of tourist initiatives are all typical issues (Weber et al., 2017). Abdool (2002)’s study determined that there are three perceptions of the resident. The first perception is community attachment. This is a measure of residents’ sense of belonging to their community. The second one is personal and community benefits. It is an indication of the value residents attaches to the benefits of the tourism industry. The third one is socio-environmental impacts. This is an assessment of the consequences residents attribute to tourism development. Andereck and Vogt (2000) and Javari discussed these effects in three groups as social, economic, and environmental.

A wide variety of destinations are now described as experiencing overtourism (Express Newspaper, 2017). Palma de Mallorca, Paris, Kyoto, Berlin, Reykjavik, Venice, Majorca, Barcelona, Boracay Island, Amsterdam, Angkor Wat Temple, Galapagos Islands, Macchu Picchu Ancient City, Iceland, Santorini, Dubrovnik, Bali, some national parks in the USA, Thailand’s Islands and Mount Everest are negatively affected by overtourism (Cnt Editors, 2018; Milano et al., 2018). Turkey’s largest island of Gökçeada is an example of the tourist season for tourism because of the extreme intensity. Gökçeada is a lively place in terms of both internal and external migrations, and a number of national and international decisions have determined the population density of the island. The island has housed a large number of seafarers, invaders, and immigrants since hundreds of years ago. The dynamism in this population change continues today as a demographic feature of the island (Kahraman, 2005). Additionally, the population of the island has increased to 9440 (Gökçeada Municipality, 2020). Gökçeada is a place frequented by local and foreign tourists, especially during the summer months. Ancient Greek villages, organizing festivals in Tepeköy every year, benefiting from the Salt Lake in Aydıncık for health, cleaning the beaches, sea sports activities such as sailing, surfing, diving are among the interesting touristic opportunities of Gökçeada (http://www.Gökçeada.com). Accordingly, the aim of this study is to determine the perceptions of the residents of Gökçeada towards the development of tourism.

Literature Review

Many studies emphasize the concept of overtourism and examine different issues. These include spreading tourists to regions, measuring segment tourists according to their income, purpose, etc., measuring the perception of local people towards crowding, focusing on overtourism and alternative accommodation methods, and offering solutions (Bresson & Logossah, 2011; Duyar & Bayram, 2019; Gutiérrez-Taño et al., 2019; Kuščer & Mihalič, 2019; Oklevik et al., 2019; Panayiotopoulos & Pisano, 2019; Pinke-Sziva et al., 2019; Şahin, 2018). At the same time, the reaction of local people to tourists is a previously discussed topic in the literature (Jacobsen, 2000; Pinkster & Boterman, 2017; Rouleau, 2017; Sommer & Helbrecht, 2017; Pinke-Sziva et al., 2019).

According to many studies, local people who are disturbed by the negative consequences of excessive tourism, such as rising house rents, environmental pollution, and difficult daily life, organize mass protests (Alexis, 2017; Coldwell, 2017; Peter, 2017; Milano et al., 2018; Kuščer & Mihalič, 2019). Jacobsen (2000) focused on the “Anti-Tourist” behavior developed by the local people against the tourists concentrated in destinations such as Greece and Majorca. Some studies found that participants perceived the social effects of tourism negatively (Tatoglu et al., 2002; Öztürk et al., 2015; Boğan & Sarıışık, 2016; Rouleau, 2017; Koens et al., 2018; Martín et al., 2018; Pinke-Sziva et al., 2019). These effects are urban sprawl and population growth, development- land-use conflicts, availability of retail outlets, crowding and congestion, peace and quiet, and drug and alcohol addiction. The factors negatively evaluated by Barcelona’s people are the deterioration in the quality of personal life due to tourism development, peace and tranquillity, and the protection of the lifestyle (Martín et al., 2018:10). These are due to negative effects on the livelihood of citizens (Martín et al., 2018). Many studies found that participants perceived the economic effects of tourism negatively (Rouleau, 2017; Koens et al., 2018; Martín et al., 2018; Pinke-Sziva et al., 2019). These negative economic impacts increase in the price level of rental houses, taxis, shops, restaurants and cafes, public transportation, and entertainment facilities (UNWTO, 2018). Otherwise, in Boğan and Sarıışık (2016)‘s study, it was determined that the participants have a positive view of the economic effects of tourism.

In many studies, the relationship between socio-demographic characteristics of local people and the effects of perceived tourism has been examined. Several studies have discovered a link between gender and perceptions of tourism’s effects (Mason & Cheyne, 2000; Harvey et al., 1995; Williams & Lawson, 2001; Ritchie & Inkari, 2006). Many research have found that women have more unfavourable opinions regarding tourism’s influence than men (Harvey et al., 1995; Mason & Cheyne, 2000; Williams & Lawson, 2001; Ritchie & Inkari, 2006). Tourism, according to women, has a detrimental influence on leisure options (Harvey et al., 1995), entertainment opportunities, and infrastructure issues (Mason & Cheyne, 2000). On the other hand, Korça (1998) and Akdu and Ödemiş (2018) could not find a significant difference in the participants’ attitudes towards tourism according to their gender. Some researchers discovered age-related variations in impact perception (Smith & Krannich, 1998; Teye et al., 2002). King et al. (1993) found that older participants had a more positive opinion of tourism impacts than younger participants Haralambopoulos and Pizam (1996), Weaver and Lawton (2001), and Martín et al. (2018) found that young people perceive the effects of tourism more positively than the elderly. Otherwise, Korça (1998) and Akdu and Ödemiş (2018) could not find a substantial difference in the attitudes of the participants towards tourism according to their ages. Several studies determined that individuals with higher education levels have more positive attitudes towards tourism (Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Korça, 1998; Teye et al., 2002; Kuvan & Akan, 2005). Teye et al. (2002) discovered that when people’ educational levels improved, so did their opinions regarding cultural influences. In contrast, Martín et al. (2018) did not found the difference between the effects of tourism and the education level of residents. Teye et al. (2002)‘s study indicated a positive relationship between income and attitude scores. Martín et al. (2018) found that low and middle-income residents are more negatively view of the tourism impacts. On the other hand, Korça (1998) could not find a significant difference in the participants’ attitudes towards tourism according to their income.

Korça (1998) could not find a significant difference in the participants’ attitudes towards tourism according to their professions. Korça (1998) could not find a significant difference between resident’s marital status and perceptions of tourism impacts.

Many studies accepted that perceived personal benefits from tourism are positively associated with an attitude that supports additional tourism development (Lankford & Howard, 1994; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Vargas-Sánchez et al., 2011; Gonzalez et al., 2018). Haralambopoulos and Pizam (1996) found that the employed residents supported more arrivals and further development. On the other hand, Martín et al. (2018) found that the local people reject tourism due to the economic effects of tourism. Additionally, Ritchie and Inkari (2006)‘s study determined that there were not any significant results in impact perception relate to the willingness to accept more tourism. Additionally, residents, who participate in tourism-related decisions, perceive the effects of tourism more positively (Choi & Murray, 2010).

Many studies determined that residents who benefit economically from tourism perceive the effects of tourism more positively. (Korça, 1998; Andereck et al., 2005; Kuvan & Akan, 2005; Inbakaran & Jackson, 2006; Sharma & Dyer, 2009; Ward & Berno, 2011; Garcia et al., 2015). Additionally, many studies have also confirmed that the employed residents in tourism had positive perceptions of tourism impact . (Williams & Lawson, 2001; Gursoy et al., 2002; Brent & Incari, 2006; Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Gonzalez et al., 2018). Martín et al. (2018) found that the differences between the social and economic impacts of tourism and residents who earn income from tourism.

Research Methodology

The main population of this research is the individuals living in Gökceada. Gökceada’s population is approximately 9780 people, according to 2018 figures. In addition, it is known that the population on the island decreases in winter due to the difficulty of transportation from the mainland to the island and the difficult living standards in winter participants.

The survey method was determined as a data collection technique. The convenience sampling method was used in the study. A questionnaire was applied to 276 local people who wanted to participate in the survey between June 2019 and December 2019. Due to the fact that 3 questionnaires were left blank among the surveys, they were excluded from the sample. So that, the sample of the research consists of 273 people. Attitudes toward tourism development scale were used in the study. Twenty expressions of attitudes toward tourism development scale were adapted from the study of Wang and Pfister (2008). The two expressions about overall impact were adopted from Andriotis and Vaughan (2003), and one expression about grand satisfaction was gotten from Jani (2018). The statements to measure Attitudes toward tourism development statements were measured with five-point Likert scale (1: strongly disagree and 5: totally agree). Before starting the data analysis, the skewness and kurtosis values were checked to determine whether the data showed normal distribution. In social sciences, when exceeding 30 samples, it is assumed that the data approach to a normal distribution. Also, it has been accepted that the data used in the study show a normal distribution since the skewness level is between ±2 and the kurtosis level is between ±7 (West et al., 1995; Kline, 1998).

In the research, data were obtained with the help of the questionnaire, the SPSS 21 package program, which is used in the analysis of quantitative research in the field of social sciences. In this context, explanatory factor analysis, independent sample t-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and linear regression analysis were performed.

Results

As seen in Table 7.1, the descriptive characteristics of the participants included in the study were evaluated using the statistics of frequency and percentage values. Approximately 57% of the 273 respondents are male, and approximately 43% are women. It is seen that approximately one-third of the participants are between the ages of 18–24. Approximately 29% of the people participating in the research are from the private sector. It was determined that the majority (55.6%) of the subjects in the study were married. More than one-third of the participants (35.2%) reported that they were high school graduates. The majority of the respondents (56.4%) stated that they earned less than 2500 TL. Again, it is seen that the majority of the participants (53.4%) have lived in Gökceada for more than ten years (Table 7.1).

Table 7.1 Demographic profile of respondents
Full size table

Participants were asked about their views on the development of tourism in Gökceada, and the answers are given in Table 7.2. According to this Table, approximately two-thirds of the participants think that tourism has developed in Gökceada in the last 5 years. Again, the vast majority of the participants (73.6%) stated that tourism in Gökceada should develop further in the future.

Table 7.2 Respondents’ opinion about improvement of tourism in Gökceada
Full size table

An explanatory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to determine the construct validity of the Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development scale used in the study. KMO value (0.801) Bartlett’s Sphericity test results were found as significant (x2 = 931.431; p < 0.000). When looking at the chi-square and KMO values, it can be said that the sample is suitable and sufficient for factor analysis.

During the analysis, three expressions with common variance values below 0.50 were removed from the scale. In addition, four expressions with factor load less than 0.5 were not included in the analysis result Tables. As a result of the explanatory factor analysis, it was seen that 16 expressions for Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development scale were grouped under four dimensions and explained 52.28% of the total variance (Table 7.3).

Table 7.3 Dimensions of residents’ attitudes toward tourism development
Full size table

The first dimension, called “support for tourism development“, has 2.67 eigenvalues and explains 16.7% of the variance. The second dimension, called “Contributions to community”, has an eigenvalue of 2.07 and explains 12.9% of the variance. The third dimension, called “destination living standards” and the fourth dimension, called “Grand satisfaction” have each eigenvalues of 1.81 and explain 11.3% of the variance.

In addition, reliability analysis for the scale was made. Cronbach’s Alpha value was found to be moderately reliable as 0.793. Considering the results of the reliability analysis regarding the dimensions, the Support for the tourism development dimension was found to be reliable at a medium level. Other dimensions were found to be acceptably reliable as contributions to community (0.644), destination living standards (0.616), and grand satisfaction (0.656).

The overall average of the Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development scale was determined to be 3.53. As the averages of the dimensions are examined, above average participation has been observed support for tourism development (x̄  = 3.89), contributions to community (x̄  = 3.14), destination living standards (x̄  = 3.55), and grand satisfaction (x̄  = 3.41) (Table 7.3).

Independent sample t-test and one-way analysis of variance were used to test the differences of dimensions’ mean between demographic groups. As a result of the t-test conducted in terms of gender, it was not determined (p > 0.05) that any mean of dimension is different. In other words, it can be said that the attitudes of male and female towards the development of tourism in Gökceada are similar.

An Independent sample t-test was conducted to determine whether the averages of dimensions of Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development differed in terms of marital status. Again, it was determined that the dimensions of Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development did not differ statistically (p > 0.05) in terms of marital status. In other words, married and single participants exhibit similar attitudes to tourism development in Gökceada.

One way analysis of variance was conducted to determine whether the averages of dimensions of Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development differed in terms of respondents’ age. Again, it was determined that the dimensions of Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development did not differ statistically (p > 0.05) in terms of age group. From here, it can be concluded that the attitude of tourism to development in Gökceada does not change according to age.

One way analysis of variance was conducted to determine whether the averages of dimensions of Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development differed in terms of respondents’ professions. Again, it was determined that “Support for tourism development”, “Destination living standards”, and “grand satisfaction” dimensions did not statistically vary (p > 0.05) in terms of professions. On the other hand, it is seen that the average of contributions to community dimension differed statistically in terms of profession. LSD test from post hoc tests was used to find the source of the difference in mean. While private sector and self-employed people are found to have a higher average than retired and housewives, the unemployed and public employees have higher average participation than all other groups (Table 7.4).

Table 7.4 Comparison of contribution to community dimension means in terms of the profession
Full size table

One way analysis of variance was conducted to determine whether the averages of dimensions of Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development differed in terms of respondents’ education. Also, it was determined that “support for tourism development”, “destination living standards”, and “grand satisfaction” dimensions did not statistically differ (p > 0.05) in terms of professions. Moreover, it is seen that the average of contributions to community dimension differed statistically in terms of respondents’ education. LSD test from post hoc tests was used to find the source of the difference in mean. The average of attitudes by education level are listed statistically as follows: undergraduate, associate degree, high school, and primary education graduates. It is seen that as education increases, the positive perspective towards the development of tourism in Gökceada decreases (Table 7.5).

Table 7.5 Comparison of contribution to community scale means in terms of education level
Full size table

One way ANOVA analysis was conducted to determine whether the averages of dimensions of Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development differed in terms of respondents’ monthly income. Again, it was determined that the dimensions of Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development did not differ statistically (p > 0.05) in terms of respondents’ monthly income. Based on this, it can be concluded that people’s attitudes towards the development of tourism in Gökceada do not change according to their income groups.

In order to determine whether the averages of Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development dimensions differed in terms of residence duration, one way ANOVA analysis was conducted. The attitude averages of the respondents who resided for different periods were not found statistically different.

An independent samples t-test was conducted in order to determine whether the averages of Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development between those who think there is an improvement in Gökceada since the last 5 years and do not. According to the t-test results, there is not a statistical difference between these two groups.

An independent sample t-test was conducted in order to determine whether the averages of Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development in terms of respondents’ future wishes about tourism in Gökceada. According to the t-test results, there is a statistical difference (p < 0.05) between these two groups for all four dimensions. Those who want tourism to develop in Gökceada have a statistically higher average on Support For Tourism Development dimension (4.11 > 3.11), Contributions To Community dimension (3.20 > 2.95), Destination Living Standards dimension (3.76 > 2.95), and Grand Satisfaction dimension (3.53 > 3.07) than those who want tourism to remain the same in Gökceada (Table 7.6).

Table 7.6 Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development means in terms of respondents’ future wishes about tourism in Gökceada
Full size table

A regression analysis was conducted for the effect of Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development scale dimensions on Grand satisfaction. The established model was found to be statistically significant and explains approximately 21% of grand satisfaction. According to results, Contributions to the community (β = 0.268) and Destination living standards (β = 0.261) have statistically positive significant effects on grand satisfaction. On the other hand, Support for the tourism development dimension has no significant effect on grand satisfaction (Table 7.7).

Table 7.7 Regression analysis for the effect of grand satisfaction
Full size table

Conclusion and Discussion

This study aims to identify and examine residents’ perceptions of tourism’s socio-cultural impacts in Gökceada, Turkey. The study sample consisted of 273 residents of Gökceada. It has been determined that Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development scale average is above the average. It can be concluded that the local people living in Gökceada are generally satisfied with the development of tourism in the region.

In general, it was found that the levels of participation in the Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development scale did not differ in terms of demographic variables. Some studies support these results (Akdu and Ödemiş, 2018; Korça, 1998) and are conflicted by some studies (Ritchie & Inkari, 2006; Williams & Lawson, 2001; Mason & Cheyne, 2000; Harvey et al., 1995). On the other hand, it has been determined that the level of participation in the scale of contribution of tourism development to the community varies by participants’ profession. This result contradicts the research of Korça (1998). This may be due to the higher expectations of tourism-related private sector employees and self-employed participants. The opinion that the tourism season on the island is short and that there is not enough economic benefit may have been considered by the respondents.

Similarly, it has been determined that the contribution to the community dimension differs in terms of the participants’ education level. Accordingly, it has been determined that as the education level of the participants’ increases, the contribution of tourism to society is perceived less. This result contradicts Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Kuvan & Akan, 2005; Korça, 1998 and Teye et al., 2002. This may be due to the increase in expectations from the tourism sector as education increases and fewer socio-economic opportunities due to public transportation difficulty with the mainland.

It is seen that the participants who want the development of tourism have more positive responses contributions of tourism to the society, the effect of tourism on living standards, the tourism development until now, and the higher satisfaction with tourism in general. Many studies accepted that perceived personal benefits from tourism are positively associated with an attitude that supports additional tourism development (Lankford & Howard, 1994; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Gonzalez et al., 2018; Vargas-Sánchez et al., 2011).

Lastly, it is founded that people who think tourism contributes to the community and increases destination living standards are more satisfied. Logically, individuals are satisfied with tourism development, as it contributes to the society they live in and increases their living standards.