1 / 17

Tourism Planning in Historic Districts: Attitudes Toward Tourism Development in Charleston

Tourism Planning in Historic Districts: Attitudes Toward Tourism Development in Charleston. Rich Harrill, Ph.D. Tourism and Regional Assistance Centers (TRACS). About TRACS. Georgia Tech’s Economic Development Institute Tourism research for state, national, and international clients

dani
Download Presentation

Tourism Planning in Historic Districts: Attitudes Toward Tourism Development in Charleston

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tourism Planning in Historic Districts: Attitudes Toward Tourism Development in Charleston Rich Harrill, Ph.D. Tourism and Regional Assistance Centers (TRACS)

  2. About TRACS • Georgia Tech’s Economic Development Institute • Tourism research for state, national, and international clients • Customer segmentation, market profiling, market feasibility, economic impact, and tourism planning

  3. Objectives • To understand differences in attitudes toward tourism development among neighborhoods based on community attachment variables • Explore the role of community attachment in predicting attitudes toward tourism development

  4. Hypotheses • Hypothesis one—There are significant differences among neighborhoods regarding attitudes toward tourism development and community attachment. • Hypothesis two—There is a significant influence of community attachment variables on attitudes toward tourism development.

  5. Dependent Variables • Tourism Impact Attitude Scale (TIAS) (Lankford and Howard, 1993) • 28 original items, 5-point response format • 19 items (adapted for telephone interviewing) • Standard of living, recreational impacts, development issues, and government and public services

  6. Independent Variables • Situational (Socio-demographic)—age, ethnicity, income, and gender • Tenure—birthplace, native, hometown, homeowner, and length of residence • Relational—organizations, friendships, kinships, and acquaintances

  7. Charleston Study Area • Charleston, South Carolina • Historic, cultural, and ecotourism • 2000 population: 96,650 • 7.4 million tourists in 1997 • Contributing $2.3 billion per year

  8. Neighborhoods • Ansonborough • Located near the city’s administrative center • Downtown • The city’s commercial core located near theCollege of Charleston • Harleston Village • Located north of South of Broad, west of Downtown • South of Broad • Overlooks Charleston Harbor and receives the most concentrated tourism impacts

  9. Methods • 1999 random sample of 2,599 households • 29401 Zip Code • 404 completed surveys • 58 percent response rate using CATI (Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing)

  10. Dimension of Attitudes Toward Tourism Development • Factor 1: Negative Impacts • Eigenvalue: 3.36; Percent variance explained: 22.38; Factor mean = 2.96; Reliability alpha = .7834 • Factor 2: Economic Benefits • Eigenvalue: 2.65; Percent variance Explained: 17.63; Factor Mean = 3.28; Reliability alpha = .8203 • Factor 3: Cultural Benefits • Eigenvalue: 2.64; Percent variance explained: 17.59; Factor mean = 2.21; Reliability alpha = .8115

  11. Hypothesis One • Supported: There are significant differences among neighborhoods regarding attitudes toward tourism development and community attachment variables (ANOVA). • Negative impacts (South of Broad and Harleston Village), • (HARL = 3.20 and SOB = 2.79), (F = 5.92; p = .001)

  12. Hypothesis One • Economic Benefits (South of Broad, Downtown, and Harleston Village), • (SOB = 3.60, HARL = 3.02, and DOWN = 3.01), (F = 14.23; p = .001) • Cultural Benefits (South of Broad and Harleston Village), • (SOB = 2.37 and HARL = 1.99), (F = 5.64; p = .001)

  13. Hypothesis Two • Supported: There is a significant influence of community attachment on attitudes toward tourism development (regression). • Regression model for economic benefits factor based on attachment variables • (F = 5.043; p = .001), (Adjusted R squared = .075). • Significant variables: Downtown, tourism employment, Harleston Village, gender, number of relatives

  14. Hypothesis Two • Regression model for cultural benefits factor based on attachment variables • (F = 2.078; p = .013), (Adjusted R squared = .075). • Significant variables: Harleston Village, homeownership

  15. Implications for Tourism Planning • Neighborhood outreach—“family friendly” tourism • Economic policy—tax abatement • Regional tourism—dispersal • Urban design

  16. Conclusions • Investment plus roots • Equation implies negative attitudes toward tourism development. • Tourism planning mediates external development pressures and internal resident attitudes.

  17. Contact • Rich Harrill, Ph.D. • Phone: (803) 777-7682 • E-mail: rharrill@hrsm.sc.edu

More Related