Sustaining Quality of Life through Tourism Izmir, Turkey June 24-27, 2008

1. An Examination of the Validity of the SUS-TAS Scale in Cross-CulturesE. (Sirakaya) Turk, Ph.D.Sloan Research Professor University of South CarolinaMuzzoUysal, Ph.DUniversity of South CarolinaTurgutVar, Ph.DIzmir University of Economics Sustaining Quality of Life through Tourism Izmir, Turkey June 24-27, 2008

2. Introduction Residents are considered an integral part of destination planning and development as their receptiveness to both visitors and tourism industry plays an important role in creating a sustainable tourism industry (Davis et al., 1988; Cooke, 1982)

3. The traditional development paradigm • Issues:the traditional developmental paradigm has produced socially inequitable and environmentally disruptive growth by viewing development simply as economic growth(Sachs 1999) . • Pro-growth philosophy of the 1970s continues to influence tourism-projects and -impact studies.

4. The sustainable development paradigm Sustainable tourism refers to an alternative tourism form that can improve “the quality of life of the host community, provide a high quality of experience for the visitors, and maintain the quality of the environment on which both the host community and the visitor depend (Weaver; Hunter and others like McIntyre et al.).”

5. Sustainable Development Paradigm • Our view: SDP strikes a balance between the traditional ‘utility max. paradigm’ and its derivative ‘social exchange theory’(SET) and Dunlap’s ‘new environmental paradigm (NEP)’ & incorporates intergenerational equity • Note: SET concentrates on trade-off between economic costs and benefits, whereas the NEP on conservation/preservation of all resources by eliminating human impacts (Choi and Sirakaya 2005) • Current attitude research reflects the philosophies of the traditional ‘utility theory’ or the “Dominant Social Paradigm” (DSP)

6. Research Gap • Lack of understanding of attitudes toward sustainable tourism development and/or support for pro-sustainability policies/behaviors. • Lack of tools that reflect the paradigm shift toward sustainability. • Need for monitoring developmental progress in host communities

7. Our Sustainability Research Paradigm • Study 1: Delphi Study with a panel consisting of renown tourism scholars – produced objective indicators of sustainable tourism (see Choi & Sirakaya, 2005); • Study 2: Delphi followed by a community survey in New Braunfels, TX – produced a set of subjective indicators (SUS-TAS) that are used to gauge community sentiments toward sustainable tourism development[Sirakaya-Turk, Ekinci, and Giray 2008 published in JTR ]; • Study 3. Follow-up study using data from Izmir/Cyprus identified resident segments (published in Tourism Analysis) • Study 4. current study presented here today measures and compares receptiveness of SUSTAS by the public in two similar cultures (Izmir, Cyprus)

8. Purpose of today’s presentation to present the second of a series of studies that is based on data collected in two different communities Specifically: • The purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to assess general levels of acceptance of sustainability principals in cross cultural setting using SUSTAS 2) compare two communities Turkish Cyprus and Izmir/Turkey in terms of their assessment of SUSTAS items.

9. SUS-TAS factors Revisited 1) Perceived social costs • e.g., I often feel irritated because of Tourism in my community, • I do not feel comfortable or welcome in local TB. 2) Environmental sustainability • e.g., The diversity of nature must be valued and protected, • Regulatory environmental standards are needed to reduce the negative impacts of TD.

10. 3) Long-term planning e.g., I believe we need to take a long-term view when planning for TD. Ancient Side Solid Waste Dumping Site 4) Perceived economic benefits • e.g., Tourism creates new markets for our local products.

11. 5) Community centered economy • e.g., I think TB should hire at least one-half of their employees from within comm. 6) Ensuring visitor satisfaction • e.g., TI must ensure good quality Tourism experiences for visitors 7) Maximizing community participation • e.g., Sometimes, it is acceptable to exclude community's residents from TD decisions. (reverse coded)

12. Again the main purpose of the study was to to assess general levels of acceptance of sustainability principals as reflected in SUS-TAS using two data sets from Izmir/Turkey (n=955) and Northern Cyprus of Turkish Republic (n=1,817). * funded by the Izmir Economy

13. SUSTAS TABLE SUSTAS TABLE [click on this first] Table 2 –comparison (click to see)

14. We used the same SUS-TAS factor structure that was validated elsewhere (see Sirakaya-Turk, Ekinci and Giray 2008) via LISREL-8.72. The labeling of shorter version of SUS-TAS is identical to the original study though with fewer items are: 1) perceived social costs; 2) environmental sustainability; 3) long-term planning; 4) perceived economic benefits; 5) community centeredeconomy; 6) ensuring visitor satisfaction; and 7) maximizing community participation. The reliabilities of the factors were moderately high as Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from a low of 0.70 to a high of 0.80.

15. So What? Implications • Validated tool for assessing community attitudes toward sustainable tourism • It looks like overall sustainability policies do garner some support in all aspects in two communities but with Cyprus sample scoring higher than the Izmir sample.

16. Implications Destination managers and decision-makers shall consider public views on sustainability practices before they can enact conflicting rules, regulations and/or laws. In this regard, it is important to gauge public sentiment toward sustainability if sustainability projects were to be brought alive.

17. Conclusions • Future research shall investigate the factors affecting similarities and differences with respect to adherence to sustainability principles among communities if such differences were to be found. • Future research efforts should establish further evidence for predictive validity for pro-sustainable behavior

18. Thank You Any questions?