x?“
.V. . 1,‘
u.

(Tr... ._ a

{fiattuiz

{(15 ;.u
sv 1.“

‘ .
na‘ I.fll"
1|“ 3‘ 1k: .'
. u H I .1 1;”,
. am...
4 . a ..
. .5
v \3. {ant
.11'3. L .
a)? .331...
p q , x.
will“.
.ab I. lift:
1.3 3.. .5- :1
v .. 2.2!

1.:
.i.‘ 1|
.11. $21....
5|» Q 5‘
up

u .1 .
an. 51% . ..
nun-f, wtr‘v

— :4!
u: Ham. 1
2 .. {taxvfnl

z

. a

t :..

.uw;

II p.

:1»... f...$ r
xt‘

 

X ‘ . 10* 1.1.13.5. Ahxlfinll: . :00»:
F ‘1 41.). i fit} .A......\. 2.2 ..l.....\.

"KI’

<

. .
.. .3... .2.

w .
....\, k. ‘1!
I l

33.11 1.,“ a... .33.?» .

!., x
c.vu.; ‘.
...-...x

<

 

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIIIIll'lllllllllllllllll

3 1293 01026 2305

 

LIBRARY
Mlchlgan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Comwtwvgmq Paasévw'wus “"45
M1s‘1'u‘9qss "Tau-INK“) 'TO¢R\$M 1
“ Lns DruEKOS' mfian’ VENEZUELA

presented by

Dov/MAC“: pvt—flat?) M63n~A DMga‘fl

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MAsTER o? éumcfidegree in PARK AND K'EgzebmoN
RESOURSEb

 

 

 

gawk/44¢“

Major profegé)

k
Datejovsmatas V‘laT WW5

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE II RETURN BOX to move this checkout from your rocord.
TO AVOID FINES rotum on or More dot. duo.

DATE DUE I , DATE DUE DATE DUE
1" EQ (£491. 5

,1. ’7 LCCT 16 2007

   

 

 
 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:1? l l
_;__jl___l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Mon/Equal Opponunlty Inotltutlon
Wanna

COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES
TOWARD TOURISM: "LOS ALEROS" MERIDA, VENEZUELA

by

Domingo Alberto Medina Dagert

AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Park and Recreation Resources

1993

Joseph D. Fridgen, advisor

ABSTRACT

COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES
TOWARD TOURISM: "LOS ALEROS" MERIDA, VENEZUELA

By
Domingo Alberto Medina Dagert

The reconstructed rural Andean community of the 1930's in Mérida, Venezuela,
called "Los Aleros" was the focus of this study. This tourism attraction is unique
in Venezuela. The research problem was to assess the social, cultural, economic
and environmental impacts of "Los Aleros" on the communities that surround
the attraction (T abay, Mucuruba and Cacute) as they are perceived by the local

residents.

A cross-sectional survey was conducted through face to face interviews
with residents of the communities of Tabay, Mucuruba and Cacute. These
interviews provided information about the perceived impacts of Los Aleros and
who is being impacted. General attitudinal scales were developed based on
previous studies (Lui 8: Var,1986, Long, Purdue & Allen,1990). Other sources of
evidence such as personal interviews with key informants addressed how and
why the town was built, the type of deveIOpment that was involved and the

impacts that have been generated in the communities.

A two stage cluster sampling technique was applied. One hundred and
ninety six households were systematically chosen from a list of census blocks
and households from each of the three communities (T abay, Mucuruba and
Cacute). One hundred and seventy seven surveys were completed for a 90.7%

response rate. Factor analysis is used to reduce the data, and to identify natural

subscales or underlying constructs (factors) in order to determine the structure of
community attitudes. One way analyses of variance and t-tests were used to test
significant differences among demographic subgroups by factors and to

determine if there are patterns of relations among the variables.

The findings suggest that 15 years after Los Aleros was created, the
residents of the communities of Tabay, Mucuruba and Cacute have a positive
attitude toward Los Aleros and tourism and its resultant social, cultural,
economic and environmental impacts. There was little variation in attitudes
about Los Aleros or tourism impacts more generally among various
demographic and socio-economic subgroups. Six constructs resulted from factor
analyzing Los Aleros impact statements. These factors were in order of level of
agreement: Development of Recreational area (4.03), Social benefits (3.96),
Natural environment preservation (3.83), Cultural promotion & preservation
(3.68), Community benefits (3.41) and Economic impacts (3.20). Overall the mean
of the factors is 3.68 based on a scale of 1(totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).
Although the communities recognize the economic benefits from Los Aleros,
considerable importance is attributed the town-museum concept as an activity
that does not deteriorate the environment and that develops and operate in ways
that contribute to mantain the social characteristics of the area while promoting
and preserving the Andean culture. The attitudinal pattern reflects the lack of
dependency of these communities on the economic activities of Los Aleros. There
are elements from the experience of "Los Aleros" that can serve as strategies for

tourism development in rural areas.

Copyright by
Domingo A. Medina Dagert
1993

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I could not be handing in my Master thesis if it were not for some of the
people who have been with me during the past few years. Here I want to
acknowledge their help and express my gratitude. First of all I would like to
thank Dr. Joseph D. Fridgen, my major professor and friend who encouraged and
challenged me to take the difficult path regardless of how unorthodox it could
be. I would also like to thank Dr. Daniel Stynes and Dr. Frank Fear, my
professors and members of my committee, who gave me their guidance,
complete trust and always expected the best from me. Second, I want to thank
my friends and colleagues who over the years gave me their support and with
whom I shared many difficult and interesting moments. Specially Susan Stewart
who guided me innumerable times with her insights in our discussions, and

Fang who supported me in the department during hard moments.

I would also want to thank "La Fundacidn Gran Mariscal de Ayacucho"
for looking at the field of Park and Recreation Resources as an area for
development in Venezuela and giving me the financial support necessary to

achieve my goals.

I want to thank my family, especially my Mother and Angel’who raised
me to be the person I am today, and who have consistently and honestly

supported me in all my endeavors.

And finally to my partner, friend and future wife Maria, for her consistent
company and understanding through all the things that I have gone through.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ viii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
The Tourism Industry and the Community ..................................... 1
Relation between Attitudes and Behavior ........................................ 4
Attitudes as an Indicators of Social Change ..................................... 5
Host Community Attitudes toward Tourism .................................. 6
Problem Statement ............................................................................... 9
Study Objectives ................................................................................... 11
Research Questions .............................................................................. 11
Study Definitions .................................................................................. 12
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................... 13
Introduction .......................................................................................... 13
Tourism Impacts ................................................................................... 14
Positve Economic Impacts ...................................................... 14
Positive Social Impacts ............................................................ 15
Positive Environmental Impacts ............................................ 16
Negative Economic Impacts ................................................... 17
Negative Social Impacts .......................................................... 18
Negative Environmental Impacts .......................................... 20
Perceived Tourism Impacts ................................................................ 21
Tourism Model of Development (Butler’s Model Life Cycle) ....... 27
Host Attitudinal/ Behavioral Models ................................................ 33
Doxey Irritation Index ............................................................. 34
Butler’s Host Attitudinal/ Behavioral Model ....................... 39
Studying Tourism Impacts: Case Study ........................................... 41
Tourism in the Venezuelan Andes .................................................... 41
The Developmental of "Los Aleros" ................................................. 46
Summary ............................................................................................... 57

CHAPTERIII

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 60
Introduction .......................................................................................... 60
Field Research Preparation ................................................................. 61

The Study Area ......................................................................... 61
Institutional Contacts for the Study ...................................... 62
Data Collection ..................................................................................... 63
Sample Design .......................................................................... 63
Sampling Frame ........................................................................ 63
Survey Population .................................................................... 64
First Stage Sampling ................................................................ 65
Second Stage Sampling ........................................................... 68
Selection and Training of Interviewers ............................................. 69
Implementation of the survey ................................................ 70
Survey Instrument Development ...................................................... 71
Pool of Items and Scale Development ................................... 71
Validity and Reliability of the Instrument ............................ 76
Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 77
CHAPTER V

RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 80
Introduction .......................................................................................... 80
Description of the Study Sample ....................................................... 80
Attitudes toward Los Aleros Impacts ............................................... 84

Socio-Cultural Impacts ............................................................ 85
Economic Impacts .................................................................... 87
Environmental impacts of Los Aleros ................................... 89
Attitudes toward Tourism Impacts ................................................... 91
Socio-Cultural Impacts of Tourism ....................................... 91
Economic Impacts of Tourism ................................................ 93
Environmental Impacts of Tourism ....................................... 94
Tourism, Local control, and Desiribility for More
Tourism Development ............................................................ 96
Perceptions of the Community .............................................. 98
Factor Analysis of Los Aleros Impact Items ..................................... 100
Factor Definition ....................................................................... 102

Results of the Reliability Test for the Scales ..................................... 106

One-way Analysis of Variance: Aleros Impact Factors .................. 108
Tourism Attitude Items: Factor Analysis ........................................ 112
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 113
Introduction .......................................................................................... 113
Summary of the Study and Findings ................................................ 113
Findings from the Survey ....................................................... 116
Results of the Reliability Test for the Scales ......................... 118
Conclusions ........................................................................................... 119
Limitations of the Study ...................................................................... 125
Implications for Tourism Planning .................................................... 128
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................ 131
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................... 135
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A .
Response Frecuencies in Questionnaire Format .............................. 141
APPENDD( B
Interviewers Training Guide .............................................................. 154
APPENDD( C
List of Sectors and Clusters ................................................................. 160
APPENDD( D
Maps of Mérida State and the communities of Tabay,
Mucuruba and Cacute ......................................................................... 164
APPENDD( D
Questionnaire Codebook ................................................................................ 166

vii

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Sample List of Sectors and Clusters ................................................... 66
Sample List of Households ................................................................. 69
List of Variables and the Number of the Question that
Operationalize them ............................................................................ 75
General Population Census (1981) and Sample by Address ....... 81
Sample Characteristics ........................................................................ 82
Aleros Social Cultural Impacts ........................................................... 86
Aleros Economic Impacts .................................................................... 88
Aleros Environmental Impacts .......................................................... 89
Tourism Social Cultural Impacts ....................................................... 92
Tourism Economic Impacts ................................................................ 93
Tourism Environmental Impacts ....................................................... 95
Tourism Local Control and Desiribility for More Tourism ........... 97
Perceived Characteristic of Respondents Community ................... 98
Percent Perceived Change in Community ....................................... 99
Factor Structure for Perception of Los Aleros Impact
Statement ............................................................................................... 101
Order of Los Aleros Factors by Level of Agreement ...................... 103
Factor Scale Reliability ......................................................................... 107
Demographics Differences in Residents Attitude to the
Aleros Impact Factors ......................................................................... 109

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Butler's tourist area cycle of evolution .............................................. 28
Doxey’s Irridex model. ...................................................................... 36
Butler’ 5 Host Attitudinal/ Behavioral model of host
population reaction to tourism development. ................................ 40

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Tourism Industg and the Communig

The tourism industry is recognized as the second largest industry in the
world and the largest industry in the US, and it is likely to increase in size in the
future based on demographic data (Richter, 1989). The revenue from worldwide
domestic and international travel was estimated to be $2 trillion in 1990 (US
Travel & Tourism Administration, 1991), and tourist arrivals around the world
continue to grow. Because of its potential economic benefits, some small
communities, third world island and non-island microstates and other
underdeveloped nations view tourism as an attractive option for resolving their
economic problems (Wilkinson, 1989; Richter, 1989; Macnaught, 1982; Cater,
1987).

Some small islands have sociodemographic and resource constraints and
little economic choice but to accept traditional tourism development,
characterized by mass volume of visitors, control by multinational companies,
and large-scale facilities (Wilkinson, 1989). The fact that tourism plays a major
role in so many island economies underlines this view of "inevitability". Other
industrialized island microstates (e.g., Jamaica and Trinidad) with broader
economic bases, invest in tourism as a means to diversify their economy

(Wilkinson, 1989).

Similarly, rural communities in the US, with declining populations and
revenues, seek ways to diversify their economies through tourism. Leaders in
these communities seek a tourism development that parallels their rural values,
preservation of community character and quality of life. Many of these
communities are powerless to control major developments, and lack the skills

necessary to ascertain the likely impacts on the community (Richter, 1989).

It is believed that tourism as an "industry" can contribute to the economic
development of such communities, and that these direct and indirect economic
benefits do have positive social impacts, creating employment, a better standard
of living, health services, educational opportunities and community integration
(Wilkinson 1989; Boissevain, 1979). But some researchers (Macnaught 1982;
Wilkinson 1989) argue that there is an exaggeration of tourism's positive
economic impacts, and that the multiplier effect on the economy is not as high as

is often predicted or reported.

Cater (1976) stresses that impact studies are complicated by the
difficulties of weighing the relative costs and benefits as they occur across these
dimensions. This is particularlly well illustrated by the fact that the economic
benefits of tourism have been over valued while there is a relative lack of studies
of environmental and sociocultural impacts. There is also a concern that the
positive impacts attributed to tourism are short-term benefits while the potential
social and cultural negative impacts are the long term consequences that need to

be considered (Wilkinson, 1989; Macnaught, 1982; Turner 8: Ash, 1975).

If these negative impacts occur, some researchers believe (Macnaught,
1982), that the economic foundation and vitality of tourism will be destroyed. In
other words, the business of tourism depends on the cultural, scenic, historic and
aesthetic value of the community, and if these are impacted negatively, the
desire of people to travel to the destination will decline. Cater (1976) affirms that
it is very easy to engage in long term costs for immediate short term benefits, and
it is the long term interests which are so often sacrificied. Short term effects are
generated primarily through direct activity (and related multiplier effects),
whereas long term effects may affect the nature and feature of a city or

community well into the future.

There is a considerable debate about whether tourism generates negative
social, cultural and environmental impacts, or if these impacts are just an effect of
normal societal modernization, other forms of economic development or the
natural dynamics of societies (McElroy 8: Albuquerque, 1986). Some believe that
tourism is only a catalyzer of the evolution of societies but that it is not the
principal cause of social impacts. Macnaught (1982) states that "tourism

accelerates changes already underway" (pp. 372).

Consequently, this debate raises a common question among researchers; if
tourism generates negative impacts, then is it possible to plan large scale tourism
and preserve the social, cultural and environmental aspects of the community?.
Until now it seems that the tourism industry focuses its attention primarily on
the economic issues, and often overlooks in its planning process, the political,
social, cultural and environmental aspects that can affect communities in the

long term.

Relation between Attitudes and Behavior

There has been extensive discussion in regard to the relationship between
attitudes and behavior. In the sixties and early seventies most researchers were
skeptical and pessimistic about predicting human behavior by assessing
attitudes. Studies reviewed by Wicker (1969), showed low correlations between
attitudes and overt behaviors leading them to conclude that individual attitudes
do not influence verbal expressions or behavior (Hill, 1992). However, some of
these correlation are considered in psychology to be large enough under a variety

of conditions to suggest that important causal forces are involved.

In the seventies conceptual, methodological and measurement limitations
were improved, and several mathematical models and self-report models began
to show moderate correlations between attitudes and behavior. Fishbein and
Ajzen influenced the research on attitudes with their model of reasoned action in
an attempt to demonstrate the relationship between attitudes and behavior. The
model has been tested and evidence has been found to support the model mainly
under experimental and laboratory conditions. But still this model has not

included other variables considered determinants of behavior.

Other researchers focused on attitude change and proposed a different
perspective on the relationship between attitudes and behaviors. Now
researchers agree that attitudes have a modest value in predicting behavior, and
behavior has‘ a modest value in predicting attitude change (Eagly 8: Chaiken,
1993).

Eagly 8r. Chaiken (1993) state that attitudes are tendencies to evaluate an
object with some degree of favor or disfavor, and that attitudes are expressed
through cognitive, affective and behavioral responses which lead to expectations
that people’s attitudes are positively correlated with the evaluative implications
of their overt behaviors. They explain, ...”people who hold positive attitudes
should engage in behaviors that approach, support, or enhance the attitude
object, and people who hold negative attitudes should engage in behaviors that
avoid, oppose, or hinder the object” (Eagly 8: Chaiken, 1993, p. 219).

There seems to be a general agreement among social scientist about the
relationship between attitudes and behavior. Neither reliable nor valid measures
for assessment of attitudes or behaviors have been developed. On the other hand,
research has provided indications that attitudes represent only one of several
important variables that determine overt behavior. Therefore based on these
limitations, only positive moderate correlations are expected by social
researchers when assessing the relationship between attitude and behavior

(Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).

Attitudes as an Indicators of Social Change

Hill (1992) states that the analysis of the relationship betWeen individual
attitudes and behaviors is equally valuable when studying such relationships at
the system or community level. The levels of analysis may differ between
individual and community attitude and behavior relationship from their specific
conceptual and methodological aspects. However, Hill believes that the findings
concerning the individual should be applied with those related to collectives. In

other words, the studies and models that try to assess individual attitude and

behavior consistency can be applied to the inquiry of communities attitude-

behavior.

Social change at the macro-societal level has been a subject of study for
social researchers for years. Attitudinal data have been used as a way to monitor
and assess such changes. The focus of this kind of study has been to determine
the interrelationship between aggregated data measures of attitude and indices
of the behaviour of groups or communities. The hypothesis is that if attitudes
change during the process of development of social action, then important social
events should have an impact on the attitude of those people involved in such
actions (Hill, 1992). That is, attitude-behavior information from communities or
societies can be valuable indicators of how events such as political decisions,
strategies for development of regions, actions that set new forms of organization,
etc., affect and determine social changes. Most studies of this nature have
concentrated on longitudinal inquiries. A limitation of many of these studies is
that they cannot establish causality. This is due in part to the inability to

determine the temporal order of the variables under study.

Recognizing the limitations of attitudinal research should encourage social
researchers to improve the conceptual, methodological and measurement aspects
in order to enhance the value of assessing attitudes. However, the last argument

about attitudes still has not been written and there is a lot to be accomplished.

Host Community Attitudes toward Tourism

Murphy (1985), believes that the extent to which a community takes

advantage of the opportunities that tourism offers, and proactively responds to

the process of tourism development depends mainly of residents’ attitude
toward the industry. The expectation is that the more favorable a community’s
general attitude is toward tourism, the more likely it is that the community will
engage in supportive action. Local residents’ attitudes toward tourism should be
related to such behaviors as public support, involvement in community tourism
development, volunteering, keeping up the image of the community and treating

tourists well.

Host community's perceptions of and attitudes toward tourism and the
type and level of tourism development in a community are important factors that
should be considered in a case study approach as important information in
measuring impacts. The relationships between these variables will help to
understand how different forms and levels of tourism development impacts local

residents’ perceptions.

Attitudes of a host community are considered a major factor governing
the touristic attractiveness of a country or area (Marsh & Henshall, 1987). This
factor has been found in selected studies (Sheldon 8: Var, 1985) to be the most
important factor in predicting a destination choice. Sectors of the tourist industry
are recognizing their dependency in some respect on the local population, and
the need to monitor its attitudes and behavior toward tourists and tourism. For
exampla, Pizam (1978) believes, that in areas being impacted negatively by
tourism, the local residents retaliate by exhibiting hostile behavior toward the
tourist. This causes a reduction in the attractiveness of the destination area for
the tourist, which proportionally affects the income potential and employment

opportunities of the local tourism industry. It is critical that residents and

tourism industry leaders understand the consequences of tourism impacts in the

host community.

Several researchers have discussed the value of measuring residents'
attitudes toward tourism. Liu & Var (1986) state that attitudes and perceptions of
residents are essential in providing valuable input in dealing with the strategic,
managerial and developmental decisions regarding tourism. Beslisle & Hoy
(1980) state that by identifying negative impacts as perceived by the residents,
such information is useful in setting up programs to minimize friction between
tourists and residents, and in formulating plans to gain resident support for
tourist ventures. Attitudinal surveys are considered useful by Pearce (1991) in
discerning the impacts felt by different groups within the community, and how

the characteristics of these groups influence their attitudes.

For Long (1991) residents perceptions of cost, benefits and effects of
tourism is a subjective indicator of tourism impacts because different
communities may have different saturation points or tolerance level toward
tourism activities. These perceptions can be inaccurate when compared to more
objective indicators. However, he believes that resident perceptions can help to
understand what factors must be taken into account in planning for community
tourism development. Long (1991) adds that residents’ attitudes emphasize the
importance of local involvement in the planning, implementation and evaluation
processes in order to reduce as much as possible the negative effects of tourism

development on community ideals.

Gaining a better understanding of the local residents' perceptions and

feelings toward tourism will enable governments or communities to plan more

carefully for the future of tourism (Sethna, et al., 1978). Therefore, attitudes and
perceptions of a host community toward tourism are an indicator or variable that
need to be measured as part of a case study to assess the kind of positive or
negative impacts a community is experiencing as a result of tourism activities.
This information is important because it takes into account a community’s
feelings and opinions in relation to development processes that might be
affecting or will be affecting its life in the near future. It also is a way to
determine which development strategies contribute to minimizing negative
impacts in a community, while enhancing the benefits to be obtained from
tourism activities. A better understanding of attitudes toward tourism can
eventually enable policy-makers, to forecast potential impacts and establish

plans of action to minimize those impacts.

Problem Statement

Planning tourism development appropriately is important in order to
maximize the benefits and minimize the potential negative economic, social,
cultural and environmental impacts over the long run. A host communities'
perceptions and attitudes toward tourism development is one of the many
variables within a case study approach that needs to be monitored. Such
monitoring permits an understanding of the kinds of impacts a community is
experiencing, how it is changing over time and what variables are influencing
these attitudes. Only by understanding how impacts are generated will it be
possible to develop strategies according to the needs of the tourism system and

the needs of the host community.

10

The State of Mérida in Venezuela has concentrated on tourism as another
form of economic development; and, it is in the early stages of planning and
implementing new policies and strategies to develop their tourism industry. The
reconstructed Andean town of the 1930's called "Los Aleros" is becoming a major
tourism attraction in the Andes region because of it’s novelty and uniqueness;
and, it is developing year by year in new ways to satisfy the demands of tourist.
A very similar development is being constructed in another population center
near the city of Mérida as a consequence of the relative success of Los Aleros.
Little is known about the positive and negative impacts that Los Aleros and
tourism in general has generated in the communities of Tabay, Mucuruba and

Cacute that surrounds the ”town-museum”.

The purpose of this thesis is to study the impacts of tourism at the
community level, and to understand community residents' attitudes toward the
tourism development which has occurred in the Andean town of "Los Aleros".
To address this question, cross-sectional face-to-face interviews were used to
gather information from residents of the three communities (T abay, Mucuruba
and Cacute). Other sources of evidence, such as personal interviews with key
informants, addressed how and why the town was built, the type of
development that was involved and the impacts that have been generated in the

communities.

Tourism development models and models of residents’ attitude behavior
toward tourism will be used as frameworks to conceptualize and explain Los
Aleros experience. The experience of Los Aleros suggests strategies for
operationalizing sustainable tourism in other rural areas in Venezuela or

elsewhere.

11

Study Objectives

0 To identify and assess the socio-cultural, economic and environmental

impacts of "Los Aleros" as perceived by residents of Tabay, Mucuruba

and Cacute in Mérida, Venezuela.

0 To identify and assess the socio-cultural, economic and environmental

impacts of tourism in general as perceived by the residents of Tabay,

Mucuruba and Cacute in Mérida, Venezuela.

Research Questions

From the review of literature the following research questions will guide

the discussion and final conclusions of this study:

0 In what stage of tourism development is located ”Los Aleros” attraction?.

0 What are the local residents’ attitudinal / behavioral response toward ”Los
Aleros” and tourism development in general?

0 Which factors have contributed to generate the kind of host community

attitudinal] behavioral response toward ”Los Aleros” and toward tourism

development in general?

12

Stud Definitions

The following conceptual definitions are used for the purpose of this

study:

Attitudes: a psychological tendency that is expressed by an individual when
evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor (Eagly and

Chaiken, 1993).

Social impact assessment: any study which attempts to determine the impacts of
a particular physical development on the day to day quality of life of persons
whose environment is affected by the development, other than those for whom
the development is expressly designed to serve; such study may be prospective

or retrospective (Boothroyd, 1975).

Tourism impact analysis: research designed to measure the positive and negative
economic, psychological, environmental, and social effects of travel and tourism

activity (The Ontario Research Council on Leisure, 1977).

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This chapter reviews the literature in the area of tourism impacts. It
focuses on the theoretical framework and research on attitudes and perceived
impacts of tourism. First, relevant literature on the positive and negative impacts
attributed to tourism is reviewed to understand the complexity of the tourism
phenomena and its effect. Second, research on attitudes and perceived impacts of
tourism is presented, emphasizing their objectives, hypothesis, methods and
findings. Third, Butler’ 5 model of tourism development is reviewed and its
utility in the analysis of perceived tourism impacts is discussed. Fourth, local
residents adjustment and reactions toward tourism development are discussed
through Doxey’s index of tourist irritation, and Butler’s model of host
attitudinal/ behavioral responses to tourist activity. These models also serve as
frameworks to analyze tourism impacts. Fifth, case study methodology is
justified as a research approach to study tourism impacts. Sixth, tourism in the
Venezuelan Andes is introduced as background information and Merida’s
geographical characteristics and economic activities are briefly presented.
Seventh, Los Aleros development process is described as background
information to understand the how and why of its creation and the kinds of

impacts is being generated in the communities that surround the attraction.

13

14

Finally, research questions are stated to orient the analysis and the discussion of

the findings of this research.

Tourism Impacts

According to Murphy (1985), ...” tourism is an industry which uses the
community as a resource, sells it as a product, and in the process affects the lives
of everyone”(p.120). Attributed to the tourism industry are economic, social and
environmental benefits as well as costs. These benefit-cost effects categorize the

impacts on a destination area positive or negative.

Positve Economic Impacts

Positive economic impacts of tourism occur mainly through primary and,
secondary effects. Mathieson & Wall (1982) define the primary effects as the
immediate and direct effects generated by the expenditures of domestic and
foreign tourist in the destination area. These expenditures include hotel,
restaurants, car rental, recreational activities, special events, shopping, etc.
Tourist spending brings to the host community income generation, foreign
exchange earnings, job opportunities, and entrepreneurial activities. From the
tourism receipts, tourist related businesses and services pay salaries to their
employees, pay government taxes and purchase goods and other services to
satisfy tourist demands. This is what Mathieson & Wall (1982) call secondary
effects. These are effects of direct tourist expenditures as they filter through the
economy. Two types of secondary effects are categorized: indirect and induced
effects. Indirect effects are produced when tourist related businesses expend
primary revenues in purchasing supplies to run their business or when such

revenues are transferred to other domestic or foreign suppliers of goods and

15

services. Induced effects are produced when the revenues gained by suppliers of
tourist goods and their employees in form of wages, salaries and rent are spent in

the local community (Mathieson 8: Wall, 1982).

Positive Social Impacts

In regard to the positive social impacts of tourism, Crandall (1987)
identifies socio-economic and socio-cultural impacts. Examples of some socio-
economic impacts include: the individual economic independence that is a
product of job opportunities and improved standards of living due to tourists or
other benefits from new goods and services planned for tourist such as health

services, transportation, roads, recreational facilities, water and sewage systems.

Among social-cultural impacts, Crandall (1987) emphasize the cross-
cultural exchanges that are a result of the interaction between host and guests.
Cross-cultural exchanges can foster an understanding of cultures’ political,
social, economic and environmental dimensions through the exchange of
information, opinions and ideas between tourist and residents. In this interaction
and exchange, Crandall believes that local residents can feel stimulated to
improve their standards of living by working harder and continuing to educate
themselves, by being motivated to reach the standard of living or the socio-

economic status of the tourist.

Another social-cultural impact occurs when tourism fosters the
maintenance and preservation of historical and cultural traditions, infrastructure
and festivities of the host community, as represented in their arts and crafts,

monuments, dances, music, customs, rituals, food and language. This can help in

16

building community feelings of belonging and self identity by preserving the

uniqueness of the culture.

Positive Environmental Impacts

Similarly, positive environmental impacts include the enhancement of
the aesthetics of a community by remodeling and reconstructing a tourist
destination and improving its image and attractiveness. Another positive impact
is the protection of natural areas and ecosystems, preserving natural resources in
order to develop and maintain recreational opportunities for future generations.
Preserving these natural environments and educating local residents and tourists
about their relationship to these environments can encourage voluntary and
private efforts and funding from tourists, tour operators and governments to

enhance and sustain protected natural environments.

Appropriate planning is necessary to maximize benefits from touristic
activities and to minimize negative sociocultural and environmental effects.
Indeed, tourism is considered by some researchers (Crandall, 1987) as an
influential change agent in the system of a host community that has the potential
of generating social problems. The literature underlines the negative side of
tourism and its complexity. The economic impacts of tourism are subject to a
great variety of variables. These variables include the level of economic
development of the tourist destination, the nature and attractiveness of the
tourist destination, the degree to which tourist expenditures filters through the
local economy, and how well the tourist destination can adapt to the seasonality

of tourist arrivals (Mathieson 8: Wall, 1982).

17

Negative Economic Impacts

Some of the negative economic impacts pointed out by Mathieson & Wall,
(1982) are the overdependence on tourism, increased inflation and property
values, the tendency to import goods, the seasonality of production and the
potential low rate of return on investments. The tendency to import goods, are
leakages in the economic system of a tourist destination. Buying goods and
services from out of the country or community, means that the jobs related with
the production of those supplies are also out of the country (Ryan, 1991). On the
other hand, tourism development implies investment, costly infrastucture,
services and attractions that might be difficult to justify because of the

seasonality of production and the potential low rate of return on investments.

The negative socio-economic and socio-cultural impacts that Crandall
describes, are also subject not only to economic factors but also by unmeasurable
variables that set an undefined threshold of tolerance of tourist by residents of a
tourist destination area. Variables considered by Mathieson & Wall (1982)
include: the degree of difference in socio-economic and cultural status between
tourist and host, and the capacity of the host community to support large
numbers of tourists without straining local services and facilities or without
disturbing local activities. Another factor is the rate of tourism development in
the area. That is, how fast and how intense tourism develops in the area. The
pace of development is critical to control for proper planning, adjustment to
changes in physical, psychological and local activity patterns. Development
should be evaluated in order to provide feedback to the system and to improve

the overall tourism planning and development process.

18

Other factors that Crandall (1987) includes that can contribute to the
threshold of tolerance of tourists in a community are: the length of stay of
tourists, the activities of such tourists, the degree of local involvement in tourism
affairs, the strength of the local culture and the historical context and political

stability of the host community.

Negative Social Impacts

As for the negative socio-economic impacts, Crandall (1987) comments
that individual economic independence can generate problems within traditional
families because it can change the status between family members and change its
traditional power structure. Another impact is migration to tourism areas for
employment creating competition for local jobs, or emigration by local people
because of labour force displacement. There is change in the use of land such as
from agriculture to tourism, obligating workers to look for jobs out of the area, or
look for temporary jobs during tourist seasons. This can cause a loss of labour in
the traditional economical sectors of the region. Crandall refers to this as changes
in forms of employment, and the local people that change their traditional jobs
to tourism jobs run the risk of being unemployed if tourist demand falls or shifts

to other destinations.

Change of land values and ownership is also a potential negative impact
that has to do with labour force displacement. High land prices as a result of
tourism development can limit local residents ability to purchase such lands.
Subsequent opportunities are available only to wealthy domestic and foreign
companies and businesses, leaving them to pick and choose which lands to use in

what manner.

19

The development and enhancement of local services planned for tourist
can bring inflation to a region because prices can raise not only because tourist
are willing to pay, but because some local businesses and services tend to
speculate in order to maximize their profit during tourist season, affecting the

community in their daily economic activities.

In the area of socio-cultural impacts, an increase of unwanted activities is
often attributed to tourism. Such undesirable activities include: drug dealing,
prostitution, gambling and other crimes. Tourist attitudes, their form of dress
and their behavior can sometimes be offensive to specific cultures generating

resentment among the local residents toward tourists.

The acceptance and adoption by local residents of tourist’s way of life,
ideas, attitudes and behaviours can generate what Crandall defines as social
dualism or demonstration effect. In some cases social dualism can create conflict
by introducing new social norms, consumption patterns and behaviors that are
not understood, or are undesired in a community that is trying to keep
traditional values and customs. The adoption of a tourist way of life can produce
negative feelings of frustration in a community lacking the economic system to
warrant jobs and educational opportunities for its residents (Mathieson & Wall,

1982; Crandall, 1987).

Another impact discussed in the literature (Ryan, 1991; Murphy, 1985; and
Mathieson & Wall, 1982) is the loss of value and significance of local arts and
crafts, music, ceremonies, customs and traditions by local residents. This occurs
when cultural elements are converted to ”commercial commodities”. When the

cultural elements of a particular community are produced just to attract and

20

satisfy tourist needs there is a tendency to devalue their meaning. For instance,
when rituals are not performed repeatly in the traditional ways, or when arts

and crafts are replicated artificially, authenticity is lost or diminished.

Negative Environmental Impacts

Finally, tourism can bring environmental impacts or costs as a result of
pollution, congestion, littering and infrastructure wear & tear. This can include
the reduction in the quality of air, water, land, flora and fauna in a specific tourist
area characterized by a disruption in the balance of its ecosystem (Frechtling,

1987).

Positive and negatives impacts discussed above can be observed in
different environments, settings and tourism destinations across the world. In
each setting different levels of positive and negative impacts occur. The balance
between benefits and costs of tourism is critical in the process of defining tourism
as a legitimate alternative for economic development. Until now tourism is a
complex phenomenon with potentially unreversible negative consequences.
These consequences not only influences the touristic product (the physical, social,
cultural and environmental features of a destination area) but the tourism
industry itself that is trying to profit by marketing and selling its fragile and
sensitive product. These consequences are reflected in the coMunity in many
objective and subjective ways such as in socio-economic indicators and socio-

psychological reaction from local residents.

21

Perceived Tourism Impacts

According to Marsh & Henshall (1987), it is important to conduct research
into the attitudes of residents concerning tourism and social interaction with
tourist, because attitudes of residents may or may not favor tourist-resident
interaction. From the strategic planning point of view, Marsh & Henshall (1987)
believe that the contact between people is "at the heart of the tourist product",
and that any model of tourism that is being planned to be implemented, must be
"socially acceptable to residents". This is important because each type of tourism
development sets different levels of interaction between host and guests, and this
requires a specific attitude by local residents in order to facilitate the success of

the model chosen by a specific area.

Belisle and Hoy (1980), studied Santa Marta's local population's
perception of tourism impacts, identifying the positive and negative aspects of
the industry and, hence, establishing a general profile of the population's
satisfaction. They also determined the influence of selected variables on the
population's responses such as: distance, socioeconomic status, age, education,

and sex.

Two hypotheses were tested and these were: (1) that the perception of
tourist impact varies with the distance a person lives from the tourist zone and
(2) with the resident's socioeconomic status. A questionnaire for a structured
interview was conducted on a stratified sample of 108 respondents, according to
distance from the Santa Marta tourist zone and socio-economic status. It was
found that despite the perception of serious negative aspects, Santa Marta

residents consider the overall impact of tourism to be beneficial. As distance from

22

tourist zone increases, the impact of tourism is perceived less favorably. Overall,
the residents want their government to offer more economic incentives and
eliminate any restrictive measures in order to stimulate tourism in the area. The
positive attitudes of the Santa Marta residents toward tourism may be a function

of the early stage of tourism development in this area.

Liu & Var (1986) conducted a survey to determine resident attitudes to the
economic sociocultural, and ecological impacts of tourism development in
Hawaii. Six hundred and thirty six questionnaires were obtained by a random
sample of residents of Oahu, Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai. The results were: a strong
perception of the positive economic benefits of tourism, high agreement on the
cultural benefits, and ambivalence toward environmental benefits. Regardless of
the negative impacts that the tourism literature mentions, residents are reluctant
to attribute social and environmental cost to tourism, but they do agree on the

fact that crime and prostitution increases because of tourism.

Comparing the levels of agreement, the study observed the following
ranked tradeoffs of tourism development: high standard of living; environmental
protection; economic benefits, social costs; cultural benefits. A contradiction is
observed when residents give more importance to the environmental than to the
economic benefits without being willing to lower their standard of living to
achieve such a goal. On the other side, crime prevention, as an example, is the
highest priority for the Hawaiian residents when they were asked how tax

dollars should be spent.

Compared to the economic effects, a smaller percentage of significant

differences was found in the social and cultural effects questions. Occupation,

23

island residency, ethnicity and income varied among respondents. Sex, job type,
and length of residency do not reflect many significant differences. A general
perception was the declining aloha spirit, a crucial element of the culture of the

Hawaiian Island, however, it was not attributed to tourism.

Another study completed by Long, Perdue and Allen (1990) examined
residents of 28 rural Colorado communities, observing the differences in resident
tourism perceptions and attitudes across communities categorized on the basis of
the community's (rural Colorado) existing level of tourism. The researchers
conducted a survey focusing on three general types of tourism questions: the
perceived impact of existing tourism, the desirability of additional tourism

development, and the appropriateness of special tourism user fees and taxes.

The results indicated that the perceived impacts of tourism, both positive
and negative, increased with levels of tourism development. Based on the data it
appears that after a certain point resident attitudes toward additional tourism
development becomes less favorable. This point seems to be when approximately
30% of local retail sales are derived from tourism, thus, a threshold is established.
A final result was the favorable attitude of the residents toward the application of
differential user fees and taxes with increasing levels of tourism development.
This may be perceived as a benefit by reducing costs for local residents' use of
park and outdoor recreation facilities and a reduction of their property and sales
taxes. It can also indicate less disposition by resident to support "high tourism"

development through general revenue tax funds.

Milman & Pizam (1988) conducted a telephone survey of 203 households,

in a study of Central Florida residents perceptions of the social consequences

24

and impacts of tourism. Strong support for the tourism industry was found
among its residents. However, negative impacts such as traffic, individual and
organized crime, drug and alcoholism were perceived to occur but were
overshadowed by the economical benefits as employment, income, standard of
living, the town's overall tax revenue and quality of life. The highest support for
Central Florida tourism came from people who believed the industry represented

an important factor in the image and economy of their community.

Pearce (1980) studied the anticipated reaction to foreign visitors in
Harrison County, West Virginia. This area was being considered for a tourism
development program. A telephone survey was conducted and 846 of 1574
households completed the questionnaire (54% response rate). The objectives of
the study were to address the following questions: (1) How accepting of tourists
from foreign countries will traveler destination residents perceive their
community members to be? , and (2) What demographics and socioeconomic
characteristics of survey respondents are related to their perceptions of the
acceptance level which their community members will feel toward tourists from
foreign countries?. Analysis of the possible relationships between twelve
demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents and their
expectations concerning host community acceptance of tourist from foreign
countries disclosed only one statistically significant relationship. Survey
participants who reported living in urban areas assessed the community's
probable reaction to foreign travelers most positively, while a movement away
from urban centers was associated with more negative expectations. Although a
generally high level of acceptance was predicted by the residents, only 11% of the

846 respondents anticipated negative reactions from their residential community.

25

A study by Pizam (1978) empirically established the existence of negative
impacts of tourism in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The study consisted in
interviewing 1,636 residents and 212 entrepreneurs to measure their perceptions
of tourism impacts upon several different domains. Heavy tourism
concentration on a destination area leads to residents’ negative attitudes towards
tourists and tourism in general. Findings confirm the relationship between an
individual's economic dependency on tourism and their overall attitude towards
tourism. The less dependent a resident is economically on tourism, the more
negative their attitude is toward tourism. Entrepreneurs who have the highest
contact with tourists and whose business or employment is independent of
tourism have negative attitudes toward tourism. Entrepreneurs' tourist contact
and their economic dependency on tourism are the best predictors of their
attitudes toward tourism. The entrepreneurs' overall attitude toward tourism
would be a function of certain socioeconomic demographic characteristics such

as age, income, occupation, place of employment, etc.

A much larger portion of the residents sampled felt an overall negative
effect from the impact of tourism on Cape Cod than those who felt an overall
positive effect. Entrepreneurs had almost identical feelings as the residents
regarding the most negative impacts of tourism on the Cape. However they saw
tourism as having many more positive impacts on the quality of life on the Cape,

than the residents did. They were not limited to the economic type only.

Thomason, Crompton & Kamp (1979) conducted a study attempting to
determine impact of winter visitor as perceived, by residents and particular
interests groups, on host communities in the Texas Gulf Coast. Using a series of

24 unstructured personal interviews (with representatives of area residents,

26

entrepreneurs and public providers of tourism), they discovered a general
positive attitude in the community, supporting the efforts of the State and city
tourists agencies in promoting winter tourism. Public service providers were
more sensitive, feeling that the visitors placed some strain on community
services. They found, not suprisingly, that the attitude of the entrepreneurs was
the most positive, perceiving that the visitors place the least strain on the city

resources.

Sethna et. al (1978), conducted a survey to a stratified random sample of
citizens in the US Virgin Islands, to gain a better understanding of the local
residents' perceptions of and feelings toward tourists and tourism. A total of 690
residents were interviewed to obtain their responses to a 56 - item questionnaire.
The questionnaire provided eight statements in each of the following general
categories: financial, moral, religious, social, physical, human, and cultural. The
results revealed that Virgin Islanders feel generally positive about tourism and
tourists, and that they have a favorable image of the industry. The respondents
deny that tourism activity has adversely influenced their countryside, sexual
morality, feelings for tourists, church attendance, or thier own opportunity to
have a good time. Overall, residents had a positive feeling, approving tourists
visitation. Tourism is considered important in the financial stability of the
islands, but residents want to retain local control of tourism growth and
development. Residents also do not want to sacrifice historical buildings to the

commercial interests of the tourist industry.

27

Tourism Model of Development (Butler’s Model Life Cycle)

Butler (1980) presents a framework that describes the specific phases in the
evolutionary sequence of tourist destinations. The framework is based on the
assumption that tourist destinations are dynamic, and that they evolve and
change overtime. Butler (1989) believes that even though there is controversy on
the unidirectionality of his model there is enough evidence to support the
consistency of the evolutionary nature of tourist destinations as described by his
model. He states that, ..."rates of growth and change may vary widely, but the
final result will be the same in almost all cases" (1980, p. 6).

The framework developed by Butler is based on ther product life cycle
concept applied to tourism development. The product life cycle concept refers to
the idea that a product goes through transitional phases similarly as the life cycle
of human beings, animals and plants. In other words, products go through the
evolutionary stages of birth, growth, reproduction and death. Butler explains that
the sales of a product begins with an introduction to the market, then it

experiences a fast growth rate, subsequently stabilizes and then inevitably

declines.

The number of tourist and time are the axes of the cycle (Figure 1). The
principle of this cycle is as follows: as time or the number of visitors increases, a
general reduction in overall quality and attractiveness of the area is experienced,
after physical and psychological capacity levels are reached. The curve of the
cycle is expected to be different for different areas because it depends on factors

such as rate of development, number of visitors, accesibility of the area,

28

government policy and the number of similar competing areas that exists in the

region.

The phases that the tourist destination go through according to Butler’s
model are: exploration, involvement, development, consolidation, stagnation,

decline and rejuvenation.

Rejuvenation A
I

 

'5 'E

E

8

'—

LL

0

E Development

in

E

D

Z Involvement
Exploration

 

 

TIME

Figure 1. Butler's tourist area cycle of evolution

29

The evolution of a tourist destination area begins with an ”exploratory
stage” in which the area has no facilities nor services for tourists, and no
planning for tourism exists. The demands of the tourist are very small, and the
type of tourist that visits the area is mainly attracted by the novelty and the
social, cultural and environmental uniqueness of the area. Visitors are welcome
and received by the local community. The interaction between tourist and
residents are considered to be intensive and tourists make extensive use of local
facilities and services. Tourism at this stage has no influence on the physical and
social changes occuring in the community. Ongoing change is a function of the
community’s own evolution. Also, tourism generates very little economic

benefits to the area.

Eventually, a tourist destination reaches the second stage called
”involvement”. This stage occurs when facilities and services are developed for
the tourist. The arrival of visitors increases progresively and continuosly. Host-
guest interaction continue to be high, facilitated by the involvement of residents

in attending to and serving the tourist.

The tourism industry in the area becomes organized, and the area begins
to be marketedto the outside. A regular pattern of visitation by tourist is defined.
This seasonality of tourism begins to affect the social patterns of the local people
involved in tourism. Accesibility and services are demanded of government, and
public agencies make investments to enhance public services and facilities for

tourist and tourism related activities.

Subsequently, the ”development stage” of the tourism destination is

reached, when the area has very well established a tourist market. Intense

30

advertising is observed promoting a defined image or set of images of the
destination. The common mass tourist is attracted to the area, demanding

specific services, commodities, and amenities.

A fast and intense growth of tourism facilities and infrastructure are
noticeable, often controlled by external and multinational organizations in the
case of international destinations. These facilities would eventually overtake the
locally provided facilities established in the early stages of development. In this
stage, tourism development is handled by major organizations and ecOnomical
groups. Butler states, ..."local involvement and control of development will

decline rapidly” (1980, p. 8).

Tourism development at this stage has brought significant physical
changes to the area, and some sectors of the local population begin to disapprove
of such changes. New attractions are marketed, adding or supplementing initial
attractions, and imported cultural elements are introduced in the area. The
amount of tourists in peak seasons can exceed not only the local population, but
the capacity of local resources. In order to attend to tourist demand, there is the
need to incorporate auxiliary facilities and services and import labour to support
the tourism industry. Regulation and policies to control growth and expansion

are needed, and in certain cases they are implemented.

The ”consolidation stage” is the fourth phase in the evolution cycle. At
this point, tourism represents an important activity for the local economy.
Advertising and marketing strategies are used systematically in continuing
efforts to attract new tourists and expand the tourist season. Although large

numbers of tourist continue to arrive, and still exceed the local population, a

31

decline is observed in the rate of increase in the number of tourists. The capacity

of local resources and services are reaching their limits.

A select few multinationals agencies and organizations have control and
monopoly over the industry. Negative reactions and attitudes toward tourism
can be expected as a result of the strain that large amounts of tourist put in local
services, and infrastructure developed for tourist satisfaction and not for local
use. These attitudes can be expressed in form of lack of support and
disappointment, specially from local residents that do not depend or are not
directly related to the industry. Also from those residents that might feel that the
level of tourism development in the area restricts or limit their day by day

activities.

When the capacity level to receive and absorb visitors and their demand
for services are strained and exceeded, a touristic area has reached the
”stagnation” stage. At this point, it is believed that negative environmental,
economical and social impacts begin to to outweigh the benefits for the local
community. The image of the area will begin to deteriorate, and the destination is
not fashionable anymore for tourists. Levels of visitation are hard to mantain,
and the industry depends on other motivations for travel such as conferences,
buisness, special events, etc. Original cultural and environmental attractions may
be replaced by unauthentic imported products. A new image of the destination is
developed, an image different from that which initially provided for the

development of the destination.

The final phase called ”decline stage” is characterized by declining visits,

a loss of market share, and a deterioration of the infrastructure. The area is not so

32

attractive as other new touristic destinations. The sesonality or pattern of
visitation will shift to shorter visitation periods such as weekends and day trips.
Ownership turnover of properties will be more evident, and tourist facilities will
be replaced eventually by non related structures, as the destination shifts from
being a tourist place. As the area becomes less attractive visitation patterns
decrease and tourism resources and facilities are under utilized and are hard to

mantain.

As the market declines, facilities are likely to be sold at low prices,
permitting local people to purchase such infrastructure and get involved in
tourism. As a consequence the area might loose its tourism industry and the
community will find itself with a great deal of negative impacts. Butler explains
that a ”rejuvenation” can occur. This would happen only if the tourism product
that characterized the area is changed. In other words, a new type of destination
is needed that can attract tourists again. Developed attractions and/or the
exploitation of untouched natural resources oriented to new and different
activities and forms of recreation, could attract specific travel markets. Butler
explains that even the attractions of the rejuvenated tourist area can lose their
competitivenes over time. Very unique areas or artificial attractions that can
change their product to satisfy visitor preferences have the potential of
perceptual attractiveness, remaining competitive with other attractions, and
mantaining a continuos pattern of visitation. However, these areas attractiveness

still are subject to tourist preference changes overtime.

33

Host Attitudinallfiehavioral Models

Host attitudes toward the tourism industry are considered a causal factor
in how communities react, interact and benefit from tourism affairs. Indeed,
Murphy (1985) belives that in order to maximize the socio-economic
development of tourism, and minimize its potential negative effects, community
involvement and support for tourism plans are required. Such involvement can
shape the relations between the community and the industry, and can determine

both community and tourism development.

Murphy (1985) underlines three variables that determine host population
attitudes:
0 Type of contact between residents and tourists.
0 Relative importance of tourism to the individual and community
development.

0 Saturation point or threshold that the community can support.

All these factor vary from one destination area to another according to the
extent that tourism is part of the local economy, to the extent that local resident
are involved, to the extent that tourism meets community needs, and that to the

extent the community has the resources to handle the demands of tourists.

The nature of the interactions between residents and tourists varies
according to the types of tourists who visit, and the role of the resident.
Interaction situations vary from business and service relationships, using and
enjoying the same opportunities and services, to genuine relationships that

evolve into frienships, with open communication and the exchange of ideas and

34

information. Such relationships are determined by tourists that respect the host
culture and want to learn from it, and hosts who are pleased to receive the
tourist and welcome other people with different cultural background. Also a host

community willing to share its own culture.

Another factor is the relative importance of tourism to the individual and
the community's economic and social development. This factor requires that
residents understand the potential benefits of tourism, the extent of their
involvement and dependency on the tourism system, and the extent to which
they benefir directly. Saturation point or threshold that the community can
support has to do with the physical carrying capacity of the tourist destination
and the residents psychological abilities to tolerate ceratin levels of tourist

demand.

If the tourism industry understands the importance of the host community
to the touristic system, the community’s sensitivity to the potential negative
impacts of tourism, then the industry has to plan in ways to respond not only to
the tourist demands but to the community’s needs. That is why the industry
should strive to diminish social stress by planning limits on development and

communicating the benefits of its activities to the community (Murphy, 1985).

Doxgy Irritatipn Index

Mathieson & Wall (1982) and (Murphy 1985) cite the model of Doxey’s
Irridex and Butler’s Host attitudinal] behavioral model as frameworks to explain
social impacts based on residents affective and behavioral reaction to tourist
interactions and tourism development. The two models assume that changes

generated by tourism development can generate attitudes that can lead to

35

positive or negative behavior toward tourism activities. Positive behaviors
include: involvement in community tourism development, keeping up the image
of the community, treating tourists well, public support of tourism activities,
volunteerism, and investing in the tourism industry. However, Mathieson &

Wall believe that these models are just hypothesis yet to be tested.

Doxey’s model (Figure 2) relies on the assumption that impacts or social
changes due to the development of tourism and tourist-host interrelations can be
reflected or manifested through varying levels of local citizen irritation
(Mathieson 8: Wall, 1982). Irritations can be considered a measure of host
population’s psychological reaction that they experience while the tourism cycle

developes and generate changes in the community, spatially and structurally.

Mathieson & Wall (1982), state that irritations are the product of the
number of tourists, their compatibility with the host population and the strain
and conflict that they generate in the community. Doxey’s model predicts
changes of host population degree of irritation in a linear fashion across
sequential time defined by the pace of tourism development in a specific tourist
destination. The model is related directly to the concept of host community

saturation point or threshold.

Doxey’s model has to do with the value system of the community that is a
critical value variable to be considered when studying social impacts (Matieson
& Wall, 1982). It is also a variable that conditions the saturation point or tolerance
level to tourist. Murphy (1985) illustrates Doxey’s irritation index in an attempt
to show the sequential stages of the host population attitude (Fig. 2). According

to the model, the host community experiences four levels or stages of affective

36

reaction to tourism: euphoria, apathy, annoyance, and the antagonism stage.

Each stage varies accordingly to the stages of tourism development.

llx’lx’l'l'.\'l'|()\ |\|)|i.\

 

Figure 2. Doxey’s Irridex model. Source: Murphy 1985, p. 124

The first stage called ”euphoria” is characterized by a small scale, slow
pace development of tourism activities with little planning and control over the
process of development. The area is beginning to attract tourists and developing
an image of its own as a tourism attraction. Very few tourist services or
businesses exist. Visitors are a novelty and are welcomed by the residents. The
type of tourists that tend to arrive at this stage of development are tourist that
respect the local culture, want to merge and experience local traditions, customs
and the way of life. The tourist-host relation is very friendly, residents are very

hospitable and willing to share their culture, and there is a feeling of satisfaction

37

with the relationship. Tourism begins to bring jobs opportunities for local people,

I r 1

creating an alternative for economic growth. .'

The second stage in the irridex model is called ”apathy”. In this stage the
tourism industry continues to grow and expand. The pace of development is
accelerated, and most of the planning and control of the tourism system is being
made by external domestic and/ or transnational businesses. The area has
developed an image and is recognized as a tourist attraction. Services and
businesses for tourism continue to develop as tourist demand increases. The
tourism in the area is begining to be taken for granted and tourists are not a
novelty anymore. The host population is also beginning to be taken for granted
by the tourism industry. A different type of tourist is attracted to the destination.
This type of tourist is not concerned with the local culture, and the tourist-host
relation is commercialized, service oriented and less personal. Residents continue
to be hospitable but their satisfaction with tourism has reached its peak and is
begining to decline. The seasonality of the industry creates some disapointment
within the community that is trying to adjust to dimensional and structural

changes.

”Annoyance" is the third stage of the irridex model. This stage can be
experienced when the physical and psychological saturation point or tolerance
level of the community toward tourism is being reached. The tourist area
experiences large amounts of tourist arrivals that put a strain on services. High
levels of congestion bring conflict to local daily activities. Inflation and other
negative impacts are being attributed to the industry. More infrastructure is
developed in order to satisfy tourist demand and little effort is made to evaluate

the impacts and feed this back to the industry to limit growth or plan other types

38

of development. Residents feel that their community has changed and stress
levels are experienced. Negative impacts are beginning to be attributed to the
tourism industry, and these outweigh the overall perceived benefits that

characterized the industry in its early stages.

The last stage is ”antagonism”. If the industry continues to grow
unrestrained, unregulated and uncontrolled, tourism and tourists would be
considered the main causes of conflict in the community and the major generator
of the residents’ social and economical problems. The reputation and image of
the destination deteriorates, and the area cannot attract as many tourists as in
their later stage. Policy makers and tourism officials try to revive the area with
new attractions, change of image, and change the product. Resident’s openly
demontrate their dissatisfaction with the industry showing hostility toward the
tourists, not volunteering nor attending events, and overall not being hospitable

to visitors.

According to Murphy (1985), the last two stages of the model imply that
the local population perceive significant modifications to their way of life, their
identity and culture, and that they are not willing to tolerate such changes.
Again, Doxey in his model just suggest the linear sequence of attitude change,
assuming that the direction of change is one-way. He does not discuss the time
frame for such changes, he just indicates that the mood of the community will
change over time while the industry developes. The predictibility of attitude
change is practically impossible to establish based on this model because they
depend on the tolerance capabilities of the community for each stage of

development.

39

Butler’ 5 Host Attitudinallfiehavioral Model

Butler’ 3 host attitudinal/ behavioral response model is a model adapted
from a work developed by Bjorklund 8r Philbrick, designed to explained the
process that occurs as a result of culture groups interacting (Mathieson 8.: Wall,
1982). Butler applies the framework to the tourist-host interaction, in an attempt

to explain the response of local residents .

In the model the tourist destination population can react with a positive or
negative attitude and or behavior, and that their behavior varies from passive to
active. In the two by two table (Fig. 3), four different forms of reaction can be
expected, from different groups within a community. The proportion of people
expressing specific reactions will vary from community to community, and such
proportion can vary overtime in any direction in any stage of tourism

development, conditioned by different variables.

 

 

 

 

Active '
‘ > Passwe
o
.2
:2:
8 szourable: SI :avcurable: i
gressuve _> i tacce tance c
0. promotion and support ‘- grid supd’ort for
of tourist activity tourist activity
_ A
3
.9
>
m
.c 4 x 4
a)
e i i
c)
'0
a
g UiXavcurable: S :Jniavcurable:
gressive ‘ . ient acceptance
V cppcsntion to but opposition to
d) tourist actwnty tourist activity
>
iii
0)
(D
Z

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. Butler’ 5 Host Attitudinal/ Behavioral model of host population
reaction to tourism development. Source: Mathieson 6: Wall 1982, p. 139

41

Studying Tourism Impacts: Case Study

Tourism and its resultant impacts are complex, somewhat unpredictable
and include a broad range of key variables. Variables of interest include
historical, political, physical, social, economical, cultural and environmental
factors that are all interrelated. Multiple sources of evidence should be used in
order to determine as accurately and as fairly as possible the potential impacts,
and to corroborate and avoid misconceptions about these impacts (Long 1991).
Indeed case study approaches are often recommended when there is a need to
understand complex social phenomenan (Yin, 1989). Yin summarizes the criteria
used when applying a case study approach. Usually a case study is useful when,
...how or why questions are being asked about a contemporary set of events, over

which the investigator has little or no control (Yin, 1989, p. 20).

An assessment of the impacts of tourism in small communities through a
case study approach would eventually provide a better understanding of the big
picture of the potential cause-effect relationships among key variables. Crandall
(1987) explains that a combination of several methodologies should be applied to
assess social impacts because the concept of social impact assessment is

subjective and this complicates the process of formulating concrete conclusions.

Tpurism in the Venezuelap Andes

The Venezuelan Andes has always been a region with great potential for
tourism development. The region is characterized by having innumerable
touristic attractions and resources that include natural elements, as well as

historical and cultural attractions. The high mountains, peaked with snow and

42

lakes are unique in this part of Venezuela, as well as the typical andean culture of
the Paramo valleys. Thermal waters and places of scientific and archeological
interest of the states of Mérida and Trujillo, constitute some of the most
significant examples of the touristic potential of the region (Venturini, 1983). The
Paramo offers a typical vegetation and species such as the frailején, la trucha and
the frontino hear. The landscape with mountains, glaciers and lakes offer
recreational opportunities for fishing ”truchas”, hiking, backpacking and

climbing with beautiful scenery as a backdrop.

The state of Mérida is located in the western part of Venezuela and joins
with the states of Tachira and Trujillo in the Venezuelan Andes. Mérida has an
extension of 5,000 KmZ, and 60% of its population is located in urban areas.
According to Venturini (1983), the spatial development of the region is
characterized by a lineal development of small population centers located along

the Chama River Valley, which run through the city of Mérida.

The state of Mérida consists of 22 autonomous municipals, and 38
municipals in which are located Santos Marquina and the municipal of Range].
In these two municipals are the communities of Tabay, Cacute and Mucuruba
(see Appendix D for Merida State map). These three communities contain the
population of interest for this study. The capital of Santos Marquina municipal is
Tabay, it was founded in 1689. This town is located between the Sierra Nevada
and the Paramo of Escorial at 1,710 meters above sea level. The municipal of
Santos Marquina has a population of 6,721 inhabitants and its capital Tabay 2,160
for 1981. The projection of the population for 1995 according to the calculations
of Balza (1990) will be 9, S85 habitants for the municipal and 2,652 habitants for
its capital. This is based on the growth rate of 1.45% per year (OCEI-Central

43

Office of Statistics and Informatics of Venezuela: Projection of Districts and
Municipals period 1980-2000). The density of the population in this municipal is
92 inhabitants/ Km2 for 1990.

According to Balza (1990), seventy five percent of the population are
involved in agricultural activities, fifteen percent in artisanship and thirteen
percent in food production. Another activity is mining of sand and granzon.
Venturini (1983) claims that Tabay has been experiencing a radical change of its
function as a rural center, changing to be a supplier of workmanship and
resources for the construction industry supplying the city of Mérida. In this
region there is located approximately 70 industries almost all of them between
Tabay and Mérida, in which their production is to satisfy the needs of the more

heavily populated urban centers.

The capital of Rangel municipal is Mucuruba. The municipal of Range]
had a population of 18,166 inhabitants and its capital Mucuruba had 1,093
residents in 1981. Cacute the other community of interest had a poplation of 319
habitants. The projection of the population for 1995 according to the calculations
of Balza (1990) will be of 23,112 habitants for the municipal. This is based on the
growth rate of 1,45% (OCEI- Central Office of Statistics and Informatics of
Venezuela: Projection of Districts and Municipals period 1980-2000). The density
of the population in this municipal was approximately of 21 inhabitants/ Km2
in1990.

In the Rangel municipal the economic base is mainly agriculture
represented by the production of potatoes, carrots, trigo, arvejas, cebada,

strawberries and blackberries. Most campesinos concentrate their efforts just in

44

cultivating and producing. The artisanship in the municipium has developed
satisfactorily, and it plays an important role in the economy because they attract
tourist to the area (Balza 1990). Mucuruba supplies sugar, milk, fruits and honey
in the area for the preparation of ”dulces”. On the other hand, there is practically
no industries in the area and very limited commerce. The area also has problems
with a lack of basic services that could contribute to the development of the
communities such as medical care, educational opportunities, transportation and

recreational facilities.

The Rangel municipal is very important for the tourism of the state
because it is located in the Paramo where there are many small population
centers and touristic attractions and events that can attract tourist all year
around. It counts four hotels, seventeen restaurants, several "posadas”,

recreational areas and parks.

The city of Mérida is the primary center of the State. The economic base of
Mérida relies on the commerce and services that the city offers, with significant
influence from the University of the Andes. The University constitutes the
principal impetus for the rest of the urban activities in the city and region
(V enturini, 1983). The city of Mérida has the most important base of development
of touristic services of the state because it has one of the moSt important
attractions of the region. The presence of this attraction has concentrated touristic
services in Mérida. This attraction is the highest cable car in the world (Teleférico
de Mérida) that connects the city with the highest peaks, reaching an altitude of
4.756 meters.

45

In 1983, tourism was insignificant in the regional economy because it only
generated 4% of the growth national product. In 1983, the region of Mérida had
a deficient infrastructure. It had 260 hotels with 5,000 rooms and 10,000 beds, that
determines a theoretical capacity of 3.5 million bed night per year. It also had
insufficient places of recreation and limited restaurants. The Andes receive
approximately 700,000 tourist every year, increasing a progessively by year after
year. The average touristic expenditure per capita was 200 bolivares per day

(Venturini, 1983).

According to Venturini (1983) the tourist flow for 1983 had been
produced after individual efforts to construct more hotels and attractions.
However he believes that there was no true planning for the sector nor was there
a touristic organization leading the way to create specific infrastructure,
activities and services as well as promotion activities to stimulate significant new

flows of visitors.

Currently the state of Mérida has a Corporation of Tourism that is
responsible for the planning, programming and the promotion of tourism in the
state. One of its primary projects is to finance private efforts to develop
”Posadas” (small local motels) around Mérida in order to satisfy the needs for
beds during the high tourist season (December, June, March, April and August,
OCEI, 1991). These posadas must have a specific colonial design and features,
and offer restaurant and bar facilities. Another project that the Corporation is

involved in, is in the reconstruction of historical sites and towns.

46

The Developmental of "Los Aleros"

This section attempts to answer in general why and how Los Aleros was
constructed. A series of focused in-depth interviews (open-ended) were planned
to be conducted with people that directly and indirectly participated in the
developmental process of the town. The idea was to reconstruct the development
process. The interviews would help to identify key elements of this experience of
Los Aleros development process. Only one these interviews took place. People
were not willing to be interviewed and the people of Los Aleros were busy in

preparing themselves for the Holy Week and the tourism season.

Gerardo Montilla, the President of the company that runs Los Aleros
agreed to be interviewed. He is responsible of the personnel and the
administration of Los Aleros.The following is a description of the experience of
Los Aleros according to Gerardo, and based on information from Pablo Emilio
Moreno’s book called "Los Aleros: The history of a history”. The interview with

Gerardo Montilla is a translation from Spanish.

Los Aleros and its creator

For Moreno (1984), to visit Los Aleros, and to live the moment, is to go
back into history, to feel the past and search in depth into the lives, habits and
customs of the ancestors. That is 5 why Moreno calls Los Aleros the town where
the history has been retained, and that’s why it is considered a town-museum.
He explains that, ”more than a spatial trip, is a trip in time to yearn for the
experiences and style of asimple life, that slowly is being erased by the giddy

erosion of a world characterized by violent changes” (1984, p. 5).

47

Alexis Montilla is recognized to be the creator and founder of Los Aleros.
He comes from Chachopo, a town in the andean paramos of Trujillo (a state
nearby Mérida), and beacuse of this he has been always perceived as a member
of the community that surrounds Los Aleros. When Gerardo was asked, where
the idea of Los Aleros came from, he said that it was an idea of his father, and
that according to his father, since he was a child in school, he used to play with
designs, with little houses and cars made by himself. He would draw and design
towns during his free time. Later on, during his youth, he would dream about
doing something in reality someday. Gerardo explains that his father is very
nostalgic about andean towns and the times of his parents, even more than those
of his grandparents’. Gerardo adds, ”I don’t know the reason for the nostalgia
for those times, both from their arquitectual aspect as well as for their customs

and traditions” (Montilla, 1992).

Moreno (1982) writes that Alexis Montilla didn’t know exactly how he
would built the town, but was sure that it, ”was going to be a town very
particular, of far off stories, grandparents fairytyles, of nights illuminated by
kerosene lamps and fireflies. An austere town, welcoming and calm. A true

reflection of yore towns, with their typical customs and traditions” (1982, p. 12).

After several years of sacrifice, moving to one place and another, working
in different jobs, Alexis Montilla is able to establish his own businesses (El Caney,
El Caneicito y Los Tejados de Chachopo) and have economic independence. The
income and benefits of these small restaurants will help Alexis and his family to

cover the cost of constructing the town. Gerardo states:

48

In general there were no barriers or limitations to constructing the town. Once the
construction stopped for one month, because there were no resources to finish the town.
Los Aleros was constructed with the income and benefits of the restaurant El Caney and
Los Tejados de Chachopo (Montilla, 1992).

Moreno (1984) also affirms that Alexis Montilla has always demonstrated
a vocation for displaying out the andean traditions through his restaurants and
collection of antiques. He organizes events, fairs, parades, in which he exibits
typical ”carrozas”, old cars and folkloric musical groups that show the regional

values and meanings of his people.

In 1979 the construction of Los Aleros began. According to Gerardo, the
idea was conceived long time ago by his father. It was a family project in which
sons and cousins of Alexis Montilla as well as his wife engaged in its
construction. The role of these people at the time of the construction, was to
contribute with ideas, based on what was already conceived by Montilla.
Gerardo comments on the family role, ..."they would suggest changes,
contribute with new ideas, in sum, bring up to reality the idea, the dream that my

father had from the begining” (Montilla, 1992).

From the beginning none of the family members, including Alexis
Montilla had any idea of the potential impacts that Los Aleros would have.
Gerardo said:

We told our father at times that he was crazy, that this was not the moment because we

were going through an economical crisis not very favorable, and that it was not the best
moment to engage in the construction of Los Aleros; it cost money (Montilla, 1992).

49

Finally they saw the opportunity, the pros and cons, and slowly became
motivated. They realized that their father had decided to begin with the
construction and that they could not turn their backs on him. Gerardo comments:

We started to like the idea, and we got facinated. Every day there were new ideas, new

comments, and we had that illusion, something completely new. Nobody had done

something similar, and this was the principal motivation. The only incentive within the
organization was the illusion that we were doing it. The illusion of going there, seeing it

and being able to tell it to others. The incentive was our own satisfaction (Montilla,
1992).

In regard of how participation was distributed in the construction of Los
Aleros, Gerardo explained that in the begining, Los Aleros was characterize by a
lack of planning or design for the town:

it was 100% empiricist. Everything was done according to the topography of the

terrain. We always had made jokes about my father. He first would made the things that

would go into the houses and then the houses. There was no specific task for each of us,
nor any type of organization. Everything was being made according to how things were

going. If something was built, and we didn’t like it, we had to tear it down and do it
again (Montilla, 1992).

Gerardo believes that they never needed technical or professional
assistance during the construction nor do they need it now for the operation of
Los Aleros. Most of the problems and decision making were done by them and
until now everything has functioned well. But according to Moreno (1984), Alexis
Montilla looked for special ”technicians” in far villages that knew the old
architectural style of the houses, they were needed to construct the town, and
they knew the techniques necessary to make it happen. Five architects were the
responsible of giving shape to Los Aleros. A specific type of soil was required to
build the walls of the houses. These walls consisted of tamped soil, so this soil
needed to have certain characteristics that could develop the project with certain

architectonic security and authenticity. Therefore, according to the ”technicians”

50

the soil in the center of the town was the most appropriate. They saved time and

money in looking for soil in another place having to in transport it.

In August, 1979, the first wall of the town was constructed and it took
almost 5 years to finish the principal structure. During the early stages of
development of Los Aleros, a lot of people, family members and close friends

contributed and worked in Los Aleros without expecting something in exchange.

In July, 1984, they were able to inagurate the town-museum of Los Aleros.

Once the basic core of houses that comprise the town was finished, the
idea of charging people to visit the place was somehow decided. For Gerardo this
was not clear, it was not planned. In 1984, when the town was inaugurated, the
cost of the entrance was Bs. 5 per person. This was managed without much
control. There was no accounting of any kind, and there was no organization. In
1989 and 1991 there was a big increase in the number of visitors. According to
Gerardo, there was nothing to offer to the visitor. Slowly the town of Los Aleros
grew, much of it based upon visitor suggestions. Due to the number of tourists
they begun to realize the size of the enterprise in which they had engaged, and
that they needed to define and decentralize functions. Gerardo adds that their
resources and income were probably badly distributed. They needed to know if
the business was profitable. Gerardo explains, ”we never calculated the
expenditures and income, nor did we calculated the cost -benefit of the activity.
That is when we said we needed to have a strict accounting and administration

as an enterprise, that is as it should be” (Montilla, 1992).

After three years from its inauguration, Los Aleros begun to get organized

as an enterprise. Gerardo comments that now they are so organized that, ”our

51

presence is no longer necessary at Los Aleros, because we have personnel that

are in charge of all that. Entertainment, administration, contability, etc.”

(Montilla, 1992).

In the first 2 or 3 years, there was always a deficit realted to covering the
expenses of Los Aleros. After that, they were able to balance their cost and
revenues, and now 30 to 40 percent of the income is reinvested in the town for
repairing buses, to maintain the infrastructure, construct new houses, etc. At the

begining they had only one bus to transport tourists, and now they have nine.

One of the aspects that Moreno most underlines about Los Aleros is its
landscape and its natural environment. He says that none of what constitutes Los
Aleros was done artificially. He explains that everything was made from the
nature, and the arrangements necessary for the architectonic infrastructure did
not change the conditions of the landscape. The soil that were used to construct
the town, was extracted from the center of the town, where today is the ”Siote"
lagoon. This was considered as the only movement of ground necessary to build
the attraction. The rest according to Moreno was respected. He explain that,
”You can still find the original trees, stones and paths. The water from streams
that comes from the mountain were used to create a small river across the town
to end at the lagoon” (Montilla, 1992). Gerardo adds to this, ”There was a lot of
respect for the environment. The trees were not cut down. If we needed to cut

any of them we would plant another one in a different place” (Montilla, 1992).

The rest of 105 Aleros are the antiques collected by Alexis Montilla for

almost 20 to 25 years. Alexis Montilla would go around the Andes and different

52

parts of Venezuela to look for and buy any relic or antiques such as old vitrolas,

pianos, catre, sinfonia, pictures , tinajero, pendulo, taburete, etc..

Alexis Montilla have played an important leadership role in the
organization of Los Aleros. This has been a key factor, and a dimension within
the organization that needs to be studied. The leadership of Alexis Montilla seem
to have been democratic, based on strong convictions and guided by specific
objectives. This leadership has brought atmosphere of total and constant
cordiality within the organization. Furthermore, being a family, they are also
busineSs partners. Since the company has been funded there has been a constant
compenetration between the members. Gerardo explains:

...we are always in contact, and we meet in a regular bases to discuss any doubts or

changes that needs to be done. Everybody has their area of action well defined and make

our own decisions when necessary. My father has always conducted his business very
empirically. We are the ones that have convinced him to create an office to handle the
mail, recruit personnel, etc. At the end of each tourism season we evaluate what has

happened?, in what have failed? what needs to be improved?, and what has worked?
(Montilla, 1992).

Los Aleros has been a learning experience for all involved, from the
construction and organization to the servicing of visitors. The experience
permitted the current administrators of the town to work independently of
Alexis Montilla, buy decentralizing responsibilities and creating admisnistrative
units to handle income, personnel, maintenance, etc. Also, they have established
ways to evaluate the tourist enterprise after each season in order to improve

service and hospitality.

Another key factor that seem to have contributed to the success of Los

Aleros, is the work and creativity of the people that play different characters and

53

have different tasks at Los Aleros. Each of them have shared their own unique
abilities and skills, contributing with the uniqueness and authenticity of the

attraction. Gerardo said that:

The personnel that work in Los Aleros has green light to create, suggest ideas and
changes, under the condition that they communicate this to us and we approve it,
although sometimes there has been no need to communicate to us their decisions.

...the most particular of I05 Aleros are their characters. Each of them have taken their
role very seriously, and they have learn to love their job and the business (Montilla,
1992).

Gerardo explains that his personnel is now more in touch with the visitor
and that they are more capable to see what are the needs in order to improve the

service and the experience to the tourist.

When Gerardo was asked how would he defined as unique of 105 Aleros,
he said that it was something particular. Los Aleros was the only touristic
complex in Venezuela that works this way. That is, transports the visitor from

one place and time to another time period in the past.

The Community

Gerardo agrees that in the construction of Los Aleros there was a
significant involvement of the community, and that currently there still is.
Gerardo says that sixty to seventy percent of the people that work in Los Aleros
live in the communities that surrounds the attraction. There is another small
percentage that are from Mérida, students, and other people dedicated to to other
activities but work at Los Aleros during the tourism seasons. The community

was not so involved with the decision making in regard to how to give a better

54

service to the tourist, and in regard to the kind of services offerred. Gerardo
explains that this is because Los Aleros is a private enterprise and most of the
decisions are made by the owners. Serving the visitor has been one of the most
important aspect that Gerardo have taken care off. He said that they have learn

this by travelling to touristic attractions out of Venezuela.

During the construction, Los Aleros had collaboration from Merida’s local
government, with public and private institutions that facilitated their
development. A mutual cooperation with official organizations such as the
National Guards, the Ministry of the Environment, the Police and the [NOS
(National Institution of Sanitary Labor) also supported the project. Construction

businesses collaborated with the organization by finding materials and giving

them credit.
Impacts in the Community

 

Gerardo states that Los Aleros have always collaborated with the
community from all points of view. Specifically donating money and
collaborating with the visits that the schools do to the town. Weekly 80 to 100
children from diffrent schools around the state, visit the Aleros without paying.

Gerardo continues:

The community have received our help. Probably it has not been sufficient from some
points of view. We have received a lot of support and collaboration from the community.
There are always 2 or 3 people that feel mad because of the traffic that occurs in certain
moments during the season (Montilla, 1992).

There always been a good reception from part of the community. Gerardo

believes that indirectly aproximately 600 to 700 people benefit from Los Aleros.

55

Small buses and taxi drivers, artisan and small street vendors that go there to
offer their products, are the ones that benefit most according to Gerardo. He
explains that they have commercial places, and that they give concession to these
people. These people buy products from other people in the area, and sometimes

serve as intermediaries.

Some of the impacts that Gerardo attributes to Los Aleros, is the growth
of a line of Por Puestos (buses) of Tabay. One of the population centers has
grown because of Los Aleros. A lot of people come in taxi. There are new small
tourism developments that have been approved such as ”Valle Hermoso”
(Restaurant and playground), artisanship factories and some hotels that have
open near Los Aleros. Gerardo also believes that Tourism in Mérida has
incremented since Los Aleros success, and that a lot of people go to Mérida just
to see the town-museum, and now the new attraction, the ”Venezuela de Antier”.
Gerardo adds, ”I believe that we have constructed a pole of tourism development
in Mérida. Thirty and forty percent of the people that visit Los Aleros arrange
their visit through travel agencies” (Montilla, 1992).

Maintaining the attraction

Constantly los Aleros is being modified, in order to present to the visitor
something new such as new attractions and recreational activities as well as new
services. Gerardo explains that ”if you go to 10$ Aleros twice in a year, the next
time you visit Merida, you won’t be interested to visit the town because you
know you are going to find the same things. We take this into account carefully,
to present something new. For each season, I am sure you will find a new

attraction. In this sense, we always have been changing the presentation that we

56

do to attract the visitor again, but always maintaining the same treatment with
the tourist, the same ideology in regard to the visitor, as they are in their house or

better.

In general Los Aleros have attempted to rescue the old traditions and
values, recreating the times of the 1930’s, but the administrators have recognized
that they have to respond to the tourist. In order to attend the needs of the
visitors, they needed to use modern technology to deliver a better service. Such is
the case of the use a refrigerators and a modern kitchen for the restaurant, as well

as the construction of a new restroom.

Gerardo believes that if he could go through again the experience of
developing Los Aleros, he would not change anything. On the contrary knowing
its current impacts he would add more things. For example he would make a
bridge across the river so he could construct a new parking lot and a new station
so people do not need to park in the transandean road and avoid traffic and the

danger that implies walking on this road.

Unexpected results

At the begining there was no expected results. Gerardo was collaborating
on an idea of his father without knowing where they were going. They never
advertised Los Aleros. It became widespread because while people visited the
attraction they would communicate this to others face to face. Of course there
was a lot of interviews through the newspapers and television but just to inform

the people of Los Aleros existence.

57

The success of Los Aleros as an enterprise permitted the Montilla’s familiy
to invest in another touristic project but with a similar concept as Los Aleros.

Gerardo states:

The most unexpected results is the ”sister” that has resulted from Los Aleros that is ”La
Venezuela de Antier”. Until 4 years ago we never expected that my father would have
another idea because it was enough with the crazyness of Los Aleros. But something
different got into his head, not only an andean site, but also 7 or 8 other regions of
Venezuela in the same time period as in Los Aleros (1920’s and 30’s). As with Los
Aleros, we engaged ourselves in this new project without thinking what was going to
happen. Of course we were more prepared and organized from all points of view. Now
we had the ”know-how” in the sense of getting organized, because of our precedent
experience (Montilla, 1992).

Gerardo feels now that they have a commitment with the development of
Merida’s tourism and that Los Aleros plays an important role in the industry. In
general he concludes that the organization of Los Aleros has been succesful, not
only because it generates profit, but because they have complied with the
objective that they had in mind. That is to satisfy the needs for recreation of the
visitors, with something new and different. Also Gerardo feels that they were
able to rescue certain real architectual, cultural, artistic and folcloric values of

Merida and specifically from the 1930’s.

Summary

This chapter reviewed the literature in the area of tourism impacts to
emphasize the different types of positive and negative effects attributed to
tourism. Tourism as an economical activity can bring significant economic
benefits to a tourist destination, but if it is not well planned it has the potential in
the long run to generate negative socio-cultural, economic and environmental

impacts in a community with very small probabilities of reversing those effects.

58

The research reviewed about impacts of tourism are the basis for the
design of this study. The literature reveals several important factors that
influences resident attitudes and perceptions of tourism as an activity for
development. For example, perception of tourism impacts seem to vary with the
distance a person lives from the tourist area (Beslisle and Hay, 1980). Perceived
positive and negative impacts seem to vary according to different levels of
tourism development (Long, Perdue and Allen, 1990). Another factor that
conditions how people perceive tourism impacts is peoples economic
dependency on tourism activities (Pizam, 1978; Milman & Pizam, 1988). Intensive
concentration of tourism activities in a destination area is another factor that is
related to residents negative attitudes towards tourists and tourism. Very few of
the studies if any found socio—economic variables to be a factor that influences

residents perceptions.

The models outlined in this section are the basis for theoretical grounds to
understand tourism development. They are reviewed with the objective to serve
as frameworks to conceptualize and analyze the findings of this study. Butler’ 3
model of tourism development focuses on stages of tourism development based
on the number of tourist that visit an area over time. Doxey’s irridex model
concentrates on residents reactions and levels ”irritation” for different levels of
tourism development in an area, and Butler’s model of host
attitudinal/ behavioral is concerned with the different residents’ attitude-

behaviour responses to tourist activity.

A justification of the use of case study methodology to study tourism

impacts is presented. Case study is a way to determine as accurately as possible

59

the impacts of tourism in an area using several sources of evidence. It is
considered a comprehensive approach to understand complex phenomenas such

as tourism.

The tourism in the Venezuelan Andes is described in this section as well
Los Aleros development process. This information intends to set the background
necessary to understand the context and characteristic of the object of this study

and to help to analyze the results of the research.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter contains the methodology of this research. A description of
the survey research methods, data collection and instrument development are
presented in the following manner: First the field research preparation is
presented. This section deals with the different tasks in the preparation of the
field work including the study area and the research site. It also includes the

institutional contacts made for this study and their roles in the research.

Second, the data collection procedures are discussed. This section includes
the sampling procedures comprising the definition of the study population, the
sampling units per sampling stage and the sampling frame. Also, the selection
and training of the interviewers process is described. The last part of this section
has to do with the explanation of the actual implementation of the survey in the

three communities and the survey instrument development process is outlined.

Third the data analysis chosen for this study is discussed. This section
presents the statistical methods used in the analysis of the data, specifically factor
analysis as a tool for reducing the amount of data, and analysis of variance which

was used to determine if subgroups were being impacted differently.

60

61

Field Research Preparation

The Study Area

"Los Aleros" is a reconstruction of a typical Andean town of the 1930's . It
was built for tourism purposes in 1979, and currently, it is one of the major
tourism attractions of the state. It is located in the state of Mérida, specifically in
the Range] district. It is located 20 kilometers away from Merida, the capital of
the state, 10 kilometers away from Mucuruba, the capital of the municipium and
5 km away from Tabay, the capital of the Santos Marquina district. Tabay,
Mucuruba and Cacute are the major population centers surrounding "Los

Aleros".

According to a National Market Study of Tourism and Recreation Supply,
"Los Aleros" is considered a tourism complementary enterprise of the type of
recreation and amusement. That is, an organized enterprise dedicated to attend
to the needs of the tourist regarding recreation and food service, as well as
travel business and tourism promotion. Recreation and amusement entreprises
are defined as those services provided as pasive and/ or active distractions for

the tourist.

"Los Aleros"was selected for this study, because it represents a unique
case of tourism in Venezuela. The case of "Los Aleros" seems to be a successful
experience that might illustrate tourism development strategies. It is a small
scale, community oriented process, that may provide a model or alternative for

other rural areas to use in their development efforts. It appears to be controlled

62

locally, it is accesible, open for study, and a site that a theory of development

might apply to.

The case study of "Los Aleros" is an exploratory study of a tourism
system developed in a rural community in Merida, Venezuela. It is belived that a
community development process has taken place, with some characteristics of
self-help development, and that this kind of development has brought significant
benefits to the community. The purpose of the study is to understand the
developmental process of "Los Aleros" as a tourism system and to determine
what kind of impact this kind of development generates for the community. As
part of the case study, multiple sources of evidence will be used to determine the
social, economic and environmental impacts of "Los Aleros" in the communities

that surrounds it.

Instimtional Contacts for the Study

Several institutions and professionals contributed to this study. The
Central Office of Statistics and Informatics (OCEI) facilitated the sampling frames
for the populations of Tabay and Mucuruba. Specifically, this organization
provided maps of Census Blocks and their respective list of household inventory
(register of structure) for the population centers of Tabay and Mucuruba based
on the 1990 census. The Corporation of the Andes (CORPOANDES) provided
maps for the communities of Tabay and Mucuruba. The reproduction of the
survey instrument was partially sponsored by the Corporation of Tourism of
Mérida (CORMETUR) and it also contributed with interviewers. The Institute of
Statistics and Computer Science at the University of the Andes contributed
assisted the reseacher in establishing the sample size for the study and

technically in the conduction of the community survey.

63

Data Collection

Sample Design

A two-stage cluster, stratified and proportionate to size sampling was
selected for this research because it was very difficult and time consuming to

compile an exhaustive list of the elements comprising the target population.

Sampling Frame

Maps of Census Blocks and their respective list of household inventory
(register of structure) for the population centers of Tabay and Mucuruba were
found in the Venezuelan Central Office of Statistics and Informatics (OCEI). This
data was based on the 1990 census. The study was conducted two years after the
census, so the sample was drawn from these sample frames, with an error of
(3.6%) according to the relative growth of the area. The map of blocks and list of
households for the population center of Cacute was developed by the researcher.
There was no time nor money to do a census with the clusters selected. The idea
was to stratify sections of the community, tracts on the map into socioeconomic
sectors, but Venezuela's census information doesn't include information in terms
of social class, property values, quality of structures, nature of property
ownership and/ or size. So the plan was to stratify the area into sectors based on
criteria defined by leaders of each community. But because it was very difficult
to come up with a criteria with the leaders in each community (transportation,
' communication and diverse points of view) the researcher decided to stratify the
maps according to geographical criterias defined by the OCEI, that is each sector

should contain aproximately 200 households. The stratification of the clusters

64

and household sample into geographical sectors assumes relative homogeneity,

and blocks were selected from them.

Survey Population

Adults (16 years and older) residents of the populations centers of Tabay,
Mucuruba and Cacute were to be interviewed. The dates were the 10, 11 and 12
of April of 1992. The primary sampling unit, were census blocks within each
population center. The secondary sampling unit was a sample of households
within the selected blocks and finally adult residents (16 years and older) of the

households were interviewed.

For the purpose of the study, the communities of Tabay, Mucuruba and
Cacute were divided into seven sectors, using the OCEI criteria, that each sector
to be considered a sector should have approximately 200 households. Of the 7
sectors defined, only three of them did not comply with this criteria, and they
were not able to be treated or added because of their geographical definition and
size. These sectors were: sector 4 (188 households); sector 6 (128 households); and
sector 7 (67 households). These sectors were not added because they were
separated from each other geographically and were considered heterogeneous

because of their different distance to respect to "Los Aleros".

The total population size was 1,262 households according to the sampling
frame. The total sample size for the community was set at 196 households. This
sample size was calculated by the Institute of Statistics and Computer Science at

the University of the Andes.

65

First Stage Sampling

For the first stage of sampling, blocks were selected with probability
proportionate to size to warrant the selection of a representative sample of
elements. Probability proportionate to size sampling provides according to
Babbie (1991), for the selection of more clusters, ensures the representation of
elements contained in large clusters, and gives each element in the population an
equal chance of selection. The sample was designed so as to select 28 households
from each sector, even though the seven sectors differed in their total numbers of
households. Since the procedures were replicated for each sector, the following

explantion is an example of the sample selection procedures used for sector 2.

Selecting 196 household from the community, meant that 28 clusters or
blocks would be selected, with 7 households taken from each block. From the
household inventory for the population centers of Tabay and Mucuruba, and
from the list of households of Cacute generated by the researcher, 1.263
households were the estimated population size. With this list it was possible to
determine the number of households on each sector and blocks, so that a

probability proportionate to size block sample could be selected.

Each sector of the community had some census blocks that containd large
numbers of households. Some consisted in large blocks in geographical size, and
others had large number of households concentrated in small blocks. Following
Babbie's (1991) methodology, it was decided that each sector that contained
clusters with 100 or more households, would automatically be included in the
sample so they could be represented. Each such block was listed, and according

to their sector sampling ratio, households would be selected for the study.

Some blocks in each of the sectors contained very few households. In
order to increase their chance of selection, and to comply with the design for the
selection of 7 households from each selected block, those blocks with fewer than
ten households, were added to the adjacent cluster until 10 households or more
and then treated as one cluster for the purpose of sampling. The number of
households expected on the small blocks was added to the number of households
of the adjacent block. The combined blocks had a chance of being selected
proportionate to its new size. By adding the adjacent small blocks, also helped to

maintain the relative homogeneity of the blocks.

After treating the large and small census blocks, a total of 51 clusters were
defined (see Appendix C. List of sectors and clusters). From these 51 clusters, 4
blocks were to be selected from each sector. First, the order of the clusters or
blocks in the list was randomized, then a table such as the following was created

from the household estimates for each block (Table 1).

Table 1. Sample List of Sectors and Clusters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—Tabay Census Cluster Number of Cumulative Cumulative
__Sector 2 Blocks _ Hous_eholds Total Range
Selected 11 5 56 282 227 - 282
12-13 6 21 303 1 283 - 303
f ’4
14 7 14 317 303 - 317
Selected 19 11 '5'5‘ 372 318 -372_‘
Selected 15 8 58 430 373 - 430
. 17-18 10 12 442 431 - 442
Selected 16 9 11 453 443 - 453
Subtotal 7 227

 

 

 

67

The first column in the Table 1 identify the clusters selected. The second
column identify the census blocks, and the third column the list of new clusters
after treating for small blocks. The fourth column contains the cluster size based
on the number of households. The fifth column gives the cumulative total across
the clusters, and the final column in the table shows the cumulative range of

numbers assigned to each block on the basis of its size.

Since 4 blocks were to be selected, the cumulative total for the sector was
divided by four. A random number between the first number of the cumulative
range and the resulted number of the division was then selected. For example for
the Sector 2 (see Table 1. above), the sector contained 227 households. Since 4
blocks were to be selected, the cumulative total for the sector was divided by
four, giving 56.75 (227/4). A random number between the first number of the
cumulative range (227) and 283.75 (227 + 56.75) was selected. This was 280.
Cluster number 5 with a range of 227 - 282, contained this random number, so it
was selected into the sample of blocks. The random number (280) was then
added to 56.75. Cluster number 11 with a range 318 - 372 had this new number
(336.75), so it was the second block selected into the sample. The new number
was then added again to 56.75. Cluster number 8 with a range of 373 - 430
contained this other new number (393.5), so it was the third block selected into
the sample. And finally, the other new number (393.5) was then added to 56.75.
Cluster number 9 with a range 443 - 453 contained this number (450.25) and was
the fourth cluster selected for the sample.

This same procedure was replicated for the rest of the sectors. Only on
those sectors with blocks larger than 100 the procedure changed slightly because

these blocks were automatically included in the sample.

Second Stage Sampling

The procedures described above resulted in the selection of 28 clusters
throughout the community. Seven households were to be interviewed on each
block selected. To accomplish this objective, maps were prepared in order to
clearly identifying each of the selected blocks (see maps appendix). The maps
used were the ones found in the OCEI, and the one of Cacute designed by the
researcher. There was no time or money to go to each block selected and do a
census of households to prepare a more accurate list . List of the households were
taken from the 1990 census and from the one developed by the researcher. These

lists provided an estimate of the number of households on each block.

To select the households from a given block, a systematic sampling
technique was applied. A sampling interval was calculated on the basis of the
estimates of households from the list. The selection of households was
accomplished by selecting a random number between the first household listed
and the sampling interval. The household with that random number was
selected. Then every nth household in the list was selected in the sample until
completing the 7 to be selected. From these procedures 196 household were

selected for the study.

Before selecting the households, the list from the OCEI were cleaned. Only
households were listed, taking out of the list houses that had different use such
as restaurant or any kind of business. This kind of information was included in

the census. Table 2 is an example of the list used for sampling households from

blocks.

69

Table 2. Sample List of Households

 

 

 

 

Sector 2, Block # 5
Hh Number Lot Number Complete Address.
(Street or Avenue, Urbanization or Barrio, Name and/or number)
227 001 Transandina con Calle Vieja la Plazuela. Casa color AzuI, sin nfimero.
La Plazuela.
228 002 Calle la Plazuela entre Calle Vi 'a y carretera Vieja la Plazuela. Casa

 

color amarilla, sin numero. La P azuela.

 

 

 

 

282 067 Transandina entre Carretera Vieja la Plazuela y Calle Vieja. Casa
color, sin numero. La Plazuela.

 

 

 

The list provided by the OCEI were not accurate. Sometimes there were no
color or number specification for the households. In order to resolve this
situation, houses were located by their lot number. Some houses had their lot
number on a stone on one side of the house, and others were identified by
couting the houses. The households were counted walking clockwise around the
block, beginning from the corner of the block specified by the first household in
the list, and finishing returning to the starting point.

Selection and Trainipg pf Interviewers

Five interviewers were selected by the Corporation of Tourism of Mérida
(CORMETUR). All the interviewers were senior students of tourism at the
Univerisity Institute of Technology of Merida (IUT). The team of interviewers
consisted of four women and one man, and all seem to have some experience and
training in interviewing. Most of them have been involved in collecting data for

CORMETUR for planning purposes.

70

A training course for the interviewers was set on April 9th, 1992 at the
offices of CORMETUR in Mérida. The objective of the course was to explain the

details and objectives of the study to the interviewers. The content of the course

included:

 

0 Welcome and introduction to the course.
0 General information about the questionnaire.
0 The interviewer and the interview.
0 Purpose of training interviewers.
0 Points of discussion:
0 Neutral role.
0 Identification
0 Appearance
0 Demeanor
0 Interviewer instructions.
0 Familiarity with the questionnaire.
0 Following the exact wording of the items.
0 Reporting the answers accurately.
0 Probing or checking answers.
0 Study of the questionnaire and its specifications.

Familiarity with the questionnaire.
0 Interview practice.
0 Interview schedules, maps and list of households.

Also part of the training was to familiarize the interviewers with the
interview schedule, procedures, and have an opportunity to practice using the

questionnaire and interviewing each other (Appendix B: Training Guide).

Implementation of the survey

Maps .were prepared in order to clearly identifying each of the selected
blocks (Appendix C). List of the seven households to be interviewed on each
block selected were prepared. Interviews were conducted on April 10th, 11th,
and the 12th of 1992, Friday, Saturday and Sunday respectively. By doing the

interviews over the week end, the researcher expected to have a good

71

representation of men and women in the sample. A variable that needs to be
considered for the analysis, was that the weekend in which the questionnaire was
administered, it was the beginning of the Holy Week in Venezuela, for most
people this is vacation time, and a large number of tourist are expected to visit

the State of Mérida.

Interviews were completed sector by sector, going from the highest sector
(sector #5 Mucuruba) in the mountain to the lowest sector in Tabay (#4). All the
interviewers had the opportunity to interview at least 1 or 2 households per
sector. This process of going sector by sector with the group of interviewers
facilitated the communication among the interviewers and the researcher. It also
facilitated the control of households being interviewed and the transportation of

the interviewers.

Survey Instrument Development

This section will address the construction of the survey instrument for
this study. The focus will be in how was developed, its characteristics, and the
variables that intends to measure. Also, a brief discussion about the reliability

and validity of the instrument is discussed.

Pool of Items and Scale Development

No theory was considered before the development of the survey
instrument scale, however the survey was based on prior literature and
conceptual formulations of tourism impacts, and an attempt was made to

operationalize them.

72

To obtain a range of items that would measure people's attitude toward
"Los Aleros" and tourism impacts, and to develop a general scale, the researcher
collected two survey's applied in previous studies. The instruments were shared
by the researchers of the following studies: Long, Purdue 8: Thompson (1990)
Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes by community level of tourism,
and from the study by Liu, Juanita 8: Var, Turgut (1986): Resident attitudes

toward tourism impacts in Hawaii.

The purpose of the survey was to measure four constructs that
conceptually represented an overview of attitudes toward tourism impacts. The
constructs were Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental impacts. This
guided the selection of items. The items selected were translated into Spanish,
and some of them were changed and adapted to refelect the attitude object of
interest (Los Aleros). Other items were formulated based on the literature review.
The result was a 73 - item questionnaire, developed to measure peoples
perception and attitudes toward "Los Aleros" and tourism impacts in the
communities that surround Los Aleros (Appendix A. "Los Aleros, Tourism and
the Community". A Community Opinion Survey Response Frequencies in
Questionnaire Format"). The survey questionnaire contained the following five

sections:

1. Background Information. Several questions were developed to obtain
demographic information. The variables measured were: age, location of
residence, tenure in the community, gender, marital status, household size,
education, whether the subject owns or rents, occupation, occupation related to
tourism industry, other household member related to tourism industry, tenure of

relation with tourism industry, and monthly income.

73

2. Perception of the impacts of Los Aleros. Perceptions of specific impacts
associated with Los Aleros were measured with a 5 point Likert like set of items.
Subjects were asked to respond to a list of specific impact statements by
specifying if they ”totally agree” (5), ”agree” (4), ”not sure” (3), ”disagree” (2),
and ”totally disagree” (1). This section consisted of 25 questions, broken down
into seven economic impacts questions, seven social, seven cultural and four

measuring environmental impacts.

3. Perception of the impacts of tourism in general. Perceptions of specific
impacts associated with tourism were also measured with a 5 point Likert like
items. Subjects were asked to respond to a list of specific economic, social,
cultural and environmental impact statements.This section consisted of 23
questions, broken down into ten economic impacts questions, four social, two

cultural, four environmental and three local control questions.

4. Desirability of increased tourism development. This issue was measured
with another 5 point Likert like items. Subjects were asked questions in relation
to tourism development in their community. For example, should their
community attract more tourists, plan for tourism, and are they willing to
participate in its planning, and if they would benefit from more tourism. A total

of five questions comprised this section of the questionnaire.

5. Community change: Perceptions of the characteristics of their community
were measured by asking if their community was an agricultural, industrial,
touristic, residential or retirement area. Using the same format, it was asked how

would they like their community to be in the future, and how did they think it

74

would be in the future. Following these questions, perception of changes in the
community were measured relative since the subjects live in the area, and
changes in the next five years. For both questions, subjects evaluated their
community, based on three categories, whether their community had become a

worse, the same or better place to live.

The pool of items were reviewed by four professors in different
disciplines. The review consisted mainly of the wording of the items evaluating
their ambiguity, conciseness, and clarity for the target population. It also
consisted on reviewing the questionnaire format and design. The variables
measured in this study are listed in Table 3 along with the question numbers

design to operationalize each variable.

The reviewed items were then administered to a sample of the
community. Due to time and resource constraint, only five people from each area
(T abay, Mucuruba and Cacute) participated in the pretest of the questionnaire.
Items were evaluated based on how people reacted to the statements, if they
understood the questions, and if the wording was appropriate. Also it was
observed items means and relative variances. As indicated before, from this

process 73 items conformed the final questionnaire.

75

Table 3. List of Variables and the Number of the Question that Operationalize
them

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Question #
SECTION I. BACKGROUND.
Age 0-].
Address Q-2
How longirave you lived at this address? Q-3.
Gender Q-4.
Marital status Q-5.
People living in the household Q-6.
Children attending school Q—7.
Education level Q—8.
Housing type Q-9.
Primary occupation? Q-10.
Occupation related to the tourism industry Q-ll.
Time in that occupation Q-11.1
Household members occupation related to the tourist Q-12.
industry
Time in that occupation Q-12.1,
Household monthly income Q-13.
SECTION II. "LOS ALEROS"
Economic impacts of Los Aleros Q-14, 16, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 8: 33
Social impacts of Los Aleros Q-15, 20, 21, 22, 26, 35 8:38
Cultural impacts of Los Aleros Q-18, 23, 30, 31, 32, 36 8:37
Environmental impacts of Los Aleros 0-17, 19 8: 34
SECTION III. TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
Economic impacts of Tourism Q—40, 44, 46, 48, 49, 51, 55, 59, 60 8: 61
Social impacts of Tourism Q-41, 47, 52 8: 58
Cultural impacts of Tourism Q39 8: 57
Environmental impacts of Tourism Q-45, 50, 54 8: 56
Tourism Local control Q-42, 43,8: 53.
Tourism development in the community:
Desirability for more tourism
Attract more tourist Q-62
Community planning for tourism 0-63
Participation in planning tourism Q-64
Benefits from tourism Q-65
Community characteristics and change
Community characteristic Q—66.
Community change since living in the area Q-67.
Community change next five years 0-68.

 

 

76

Social ~Cultural
Environmental

Economic

Local control

for more

tourism

Comm. character

 

TOTAL 1

Question numbers refer to the questionnaire in Appendix B. "Los Aleros, Tourism and the
Community".

Validity and Reliability of the Instrument

Content validity is the extent to which a specific set of items reflects a
content domain. In measuring attitudes it is difficult to determine exactly which
is the universe of potential items and when a sample of items is representative.
According to DeVellis, a scale has a content validity when its items are a
randomly chosen subset of the universe of appropriate items. In measuring
attitudes toward Los Aleros and toward tourism impacts, a list of items where
chosen from instruments applied in other studies (Long, Purdue 8: Thompson,
1990; Liu, Juanita 8: Var, Turgut ,1986), and from the literature review. Most of
the items were translated into Spanish and adapted to the attitudinal object. The
instrument was developed in Venezuela and there was no opportunity for items

to be presented and reviewed by experts for relevance to the domain of interest.

77

On the other hand, the reliability of the scales used to measure people
attitude toward Los Aleros and tourism impacts were assessed. This was done by
calculating the inter-item correlation or internal consistency of the items for each
scale using cronbach alpha coefficient. Items are reliable to the extent that they
are free from random error. Scales are reliable to the extent they have reliable
items that share a common latent variable (DeVellis, 1991). Internal consistency
reliability is a function of how strongly the items correlate with one another (and
hence with the latent variables), and how many items are in the scale. It was
determine how intercorrelated the items were by observing their correlation
matrix that was run using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. For
the purpose of analyzing the data and to correct negative correlations among
items, those items that were negatively set, their scores were reversed. The result

of the reliability test for each of the scales is presented in the following chapter.

Data Analysis

Three levels of analysis are performed in order to achieve the objectives of
this study. The first level was to calculate descriptive statistics on all the
variables, frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations. This
procedure permited a descriptive analysis of the distribution of the population
for all the demographic variables. It also permitted to analyze individually each
item of the scales. This included not only the overall population response to the
item, but also to evaluate each item that conformed each scale. This consisted in
observing the behavior of the items in terms of how high their variance is, and
how close the mean of each item is to the center of the range of possible scores.
This is done to see how well each item discriminate among individuals and are

detecting certain values of the construct they intend to measure.

APPENDIX D
Maps of Mérida State and the communities of Tabay, Mucuruba and Cacute

78

The second level of analysis was to identifying a perceptual pattern of the
respondents toward Los Aleros and tourism impacts in the community. Factor
analysis with a principal component solution, and a oblique rotation was used
on the variables representing the current level of Los Aleros impacts and for the

variables measuring tourism impacts.

Factor analysis is a statistical tool or technique used to identify factors that
can represent relationships among a set of interrelated variables. De Vellis (1992)
explains that factor analysis serves several related purposes. First, it determines
how many latent variables or constructs underlie a set of items. Second, it
provides a means of explaining variation among original variables using a
smaller number of created variables (factors), helping to define substantive
meaning of the factors that account for the variation among a larger set of items.
DeVellis explains that this helps to reduce or condense information so that the

variation can be accounted for by using a smaller number of variables.

In this study, factor analysis is used mainly for exploratory purposes. In
other words a tool to explore the nature structure of the data, and a way to
reduce the number of variables in the study for its analysis. The factor analysis
was run only with the reverse coded and reliable items of Los Aleros general

scale.

The third and final level of analysis is to determine any significant
differences among the demographic subgroups. One-way analysis of variance is
used to determine the influence of selected independent variables on the

resulting factors (average scores of each respondents on the 6 factors).

79

The one-way analysis of variance statistically tested whether the means of
the subsamples are significantly different from each other. For the purpose of
comparing subgroups, and to have a better distribution among the selected
independent variables, the variables age (Q-1), length of residency (Q-3),
education (Q-8), and monthly income (Q-13) were aggregated, reducing the

number of subgroups. The demographic variables include:

Gender: Male, Female.

Age: Less than 20 yrs., Between 20 and 39, Between 40 and 59, 60 yrs.
or more.

Community: Tabay, Mucuruba and Cacute.

Length of Residency: 1 to 5 years, 6 to 10 years, 11 years or more,
lifelong resident.

Occupation: Education] Health] Social work, Homemaker] General
Labor, Housekeeper, Managerial Executive / Professional, Office worker,
Farmer, Retired, Sales representative, Skilled Craftsman, Artisan, Artist,
Student, Other.

Education: Primary School, Secondary School, Technical and College
degree, and no degree.

Job type: Tourism related, Non-tourism related.

Income: Less than Bs. 6.000, Between 856.000 and 10.000, Between
Bs.11.000 and 15.000, Between Bs.16.000 and over, and N / A.

CHAPTER V

RESULTS

Introduction

In this chapter the results of the attitudinal study are presented. First, the
sample is described. Second, the descriptive results of the perceived impacts of
Los Aleros and the perceived impacts of tourism in general are shown and
compared across demographic groups. Third, the results of the survey sections in
regard to tourism local control, and desiribility for more tourism development is
discussed, followed by peoples’ perception of the community. Fourth, Los Aleros
attitude factor structure is explained, underlying the overall attitude pattern of
the community, and the results of the reliability test for each of the scales is
outlined. Fifth, the results of the analysis of variance for each factor is discussed.

Finally, the results of the attitudinal tourism impact analysis is presented.

Description of the Study Sample

The response rate for the survey was 90.3% . This is attributed to the fact
that the data were gathered through face to face interviews. One hundred and
seventy-seven interviews (out of 196 households) were completed between the
10th and 12th of April, 1992. The sample was divided between Tabay (56%),
Mucuruba (28%) and Cacute (15%). All of the respondents came from the

communities that surround "Los Aleros” (Table 3.1).

80

81

Table 3.1. General Population Census (1981) and Sample by Address

j

 

 

 

Population Sample
Address 8 Households n % n %
Mucuruba 257 1.093 31% 50 28%
Cacute 61 319 9% 26 15%
Tabay 439 2.160 60% 100 56%
Other: 1 1%
Total 757 3572 100% 177 100%

 

Demographic characteristics of the sample are summarized in "Los Aleros,
Tourism and the Community": A Community Opinion Survey Response
Frecuencies in Questionnaire Format" (see Appendix A). The sample is
disproportionate by gender and age group. Females represent 69% of the sample
(Table 3.2). This high percentage of women in this sample is due to the fact that
most women in these communities are housekeepers, and men tend to work out
of the house. Implementing the survey during the weekend, it was expected to
have a better representation of men, but this did not occur, suggesting that men
in this area work also during the weekend, or women tend to deal with most

matters related to the household.

The majority of the sample (68%) is between 16 and 39 years old (Table
3.2), as well as married (54%). Over half (64%) of the sample has between 0 to 2
children currently living in their household, and eighty one percent (81%) of the
sample have 1 to 5 adults living in their household and the rest have 6 to 14
adults.

Primary and Secondary school (82%) are the highest levels of education
achieved by the respondents (Table 3.2). The majority of the respondents (81%)

were house-owners.

82

Table 3.2. Sample Characteristics

 

 

 

Characteristics n %
(N= 177)
Gender
Female 123 69%
Male 54 31%
Age

< 20 yrs. 32 18%
20 - 29 yrs. 54 30%
30 - 39 yrs. 35 20%
40 - 49 yrs. 19 11%
50 - 59 yrs. 17 10%
60 - 69 yrs. 15 8%
70 yrs or more 5 3%
Marital Status
Single 69 39%
Married 95 54%
Separated 2 1%
Divorced 4 2%
Widowed 7 4%
Education
Primary School 80 45%
Sec. School 65 37%
Technical degree 2 1%
College degree 5 3%
Graduate degree 1 <1%
None 24 13%
Occupation
Education, Health, Social 13 7%
Work.
Homemaker, General Labor 5 3%
Housekeeper 81 46%
Managerial Executive, 1 <1%
Professional
Office worker 8 4%
Farmer. 10 5%
Retired. 3 2%
Sales representative. 12 7%
Skilled Craftsman, Artisan 9 5%
Artist 0 0%
Student. 26 15%
Other 9 5%

 

(table continues)

83

Table 3.2. Sample Characteristics. (Cont)

 

 

Characteristics n %
(N= 177)
Residency
<3 years 29 16%
3 to 5 years 13 7%
6 to 10 years 20 11%
11 years or more 39 22%
Lifelong resident 76 43%
Montly salary
<Bs 6,000 52 29%
85 6,000 y 8510,000 55 31%
lel,000 y 8515,000 17 10%
le6,000 y Bs20,000 5 3%
B521,000 y Bs 25,000 6 3%
BsZ6,000 y Bs 30,000 2 1 %
83 31,000 or more 3 2%
N] A 20 11%
No response 17 9%

 

Housekeeping (46%), students (15%) and education] health and social
workers (7%) are the largest occupational groups represented (Table 3.2). Of all
the samples occupations, 71% of them are not related to the tourism industry of
the State of Merida, and three quarters of the sample (75%) does not have any
households' members related to the tourism industry. Of the fifty one residents
that responded that their occupations were related to tourism, very few (5%)
have 11 years or more in their occupations. This suggests that the majority of

those respondents are related relative recently to tourism through their jobs.

In regard to length of residency, 43% of the sample lived all their lives at
their current address, 22% lived eleven or more years in the area, and 34%

moved to the area within the past 10 years. Finally, 70% of the sample have a
monthly income lower than 3516.000 (213 $U.S; Bs. 75] dollar for 1992).

Attitudes toward Los Aleros Impacts

As specified in the data analysis section, attitudes of specific impacts of
Los Aleros were measured with a general 5 point Likert like scale questionnaire.
Responses to the 25 survey items showed a general profile of the attitudes from
the respondents in regard to the social, cultural, economic and environmental

impacts of Los Aleros.

The results of this part of the questionnaire were tabulated grouping the
variables that were measuring the social-cultural, economic and environmental
impact. The items were ranked by mean values. The higher the expressed value

of the mean, indicates a greater agreement of the statement and vice versa.

The 25 variables were tested by t-test for gender and job type, and analysis
of variance for age, community, residency, occupation, education and income.
The t-test and the one-way analysis of variance statistically tested whether the
means of the subsamples are significantly different from each other. For some
independent variables it was necessary to aggregate subgroups in order to
compare them between each other. Subgroups have each independent sampling
errors, and the size of the sample affects their true representation of the mean of
the population and might be biasing such a parameter. Therefore, the variables
age (Q-l), length of residency (Q-3), education (Q-8), and monthly income (Q-13)
were aggregated, reducing the number of subgroups and inceasing their sample

size.

85

Socio-Cultural Impacts

There is a general agreement on the positive socio-cultural benefits of Los
Aleros (Table 4.1). In regard to tourist-host community interaction, a good
relation seems to be perceived. Resident's behaviors are believed to be courteous
and friendly to tourists (95%), and that tourists are courteous and friendly to the
community (88%). A minority of the sample feels that tourists disrupt the peace
and tranquillity of their parks and community (4.5%). The cultural impacts of Los
Aleros are perceived to be positive, but there is an area that can be reinforced.
Over half of the respondents (55%) believe that Los Aleros promotes cultural
exchange among residents and tourists. However, very few respondents thought
that tourists that visited Los Aleros were aware of the customs and ways of life of
their community (23%). This could be an area of emphasis for the programming

of Los Aleros activities.

Respondents were reluctant to believe that Los Aleros has changed the
customs and way of life of their community (14% ), and very few believed that
Los Aleros disrupts the cultural identity of the community (5%). Instead, the
majority of respondents thought that Los Aleros promoted the Andes' culture
(85%) and rescued the historical environments of the state of Merida (73%). Los
Aleros also encouraged a variety of cultural activities for the lOcal population

(61%).

On the other hand, 70% of the respondents felt that they do not receive
any kind of benefits from Los Aleros, contradicting the fact that less than half of
the sample (45%) felt that local residents were the people who benefit the least

from the touristic activities of Los Aleros. This was supported by sixty percent of

86

the sample (60%) that believes that the population feels that Los Aleros brings

benefits to the community. These results are difficult to interpret because of the

generality of the item in question. Benefits could be understood as economic or

social benefits, or both.

Table 4.1. Aleros Social Cultural Impacts

 

 

Residentsa
:21; g Impact Statements Meanc Std. Dev. % Agreed
20,. EmiramsfmmWm“ 437 .2 95%
36 / 2 Los Aleros promotes the Andes culture. 4'13 .85 85%
ms 1.3:.3msagsgsri‘yss35.3333“: and 3.93 .9 88%
31 / 4 wajeéoosf mg. the historicals environments of 3.84 .86 73%
26 / 5 Egg! feltil)$ “2138:. do not have any kind of benefits 370 1.35 70%
32 / 6 fifinfi i3$ifismflni$ gimdfiiéfiii‘f 338 1-10 55%
18/ 7 {fissil‘io'iifé‘égfiiiiiiiii’rii,‘§3§,°§i$i2‘.i‘éi"fies 336 1-06 61%
35/8 Lesimmszssizfisis‘m“ 3.27 ms 60%
Aleros.
23x10 massmrziirszsymmts 29s .95 35%
15m hostess a... w 11%
touristic activities of Los Aleros.
30 / 12 01?; £52? Ititlir‘slizuhtaynged the customs and way of life 1.98 .99 14%
21/13 38321233333333: #:3388533?“ 1-85 -74 45%
37 / 14 Los Aleros disrupts the cultural identity of the 1.85 .78 5%

community.

 

a Results represent res nses from 177 residents of Tabay, Mucuruba and Cacute.
b Questions are ranked
c Scale ranges from 5 =- totally agree to 1 a totally disagree.
d Percent agreeing are those answering 4 or 5 point on the scale. Nonresponses are not included.

b mean values.

87

Finally, in relation to specific negative social impacts, the sample did not
agree (11%) with the idea that the level of personal insecurity and vandalism in

the community had increased because of Los Aleros touristic activities.

In only 6 (5.3%) of the 112 tests (t-test and oneway analysis of variance)
completed, showed significant differences among subgroups. Gender, age,
community, education and job type show greater subgroups variances among
individual items. On the contrary, residency, occupation and income do not

show significant differences at all.
Economic Impacts

The survey results showed (Table 4.2) a split agreement on the positive
economic benefits of Los Aleros. Jobs' opportunities (90%) and local business
benefits (78%), were the most agreed upon benefits. However, respondents
believed that the government should invest in other sectors of production rather
than investing in attractions like Los Aleros (71%). This could be thought as a
contradiction, but people may believe that other sectors of economic growth need

attention.

Less than half of the respondents agreed that Los Aleros contributes to the

Merida's State economy (45% ), and were split in their belief that it contributed to
I the community's' economic growth (51%). Few respondents agreed that their
standard of living had increased due to Los Aleros (34%), and finally, revenues
from Los Aleros were not considered more important than other production

sectors in the community (29%).

Table 4.2. Aleros Economic Impacts

 

Residentsa
Item / Impact Statements Meanc Std. Dev. % Agreed
Rankb
One of the im rtant as ts of Los Aleros is that
14 / 1 it has createcfio more ng)ac opportunities for the 4‘10 '75 90%
community .
Local businesses are the ones which benefit most
25 l 2 from tourists that visit Los Aleros. 3'88 '97 78%
Government should invest in other sectors of
28 l 3 pgduction rather than investing in attractions like 3’77 1‘11 71%
Aleros.
Los Aleros contributes to the Merida's State
33 / 4 economy. 3.25 1.03 45%
Los Aleros contributes to the economic owth of
29 / 5 the community. 8‘ 3.14 1.16 51%
The standard of livin increases considerabl
27 / 6 because of the moneygthat tourists that visit {05 2'99 '99 34%
Aleros spend in the community.
24 / 7 Revenues from Los Aleros are more important than 2.73 1 05 29%

other production sector in the community.

 

a Results mpmserarlt‘fiscjronses from 177 residents of Tabay, Mucuruba and Cacute.

b Questions are r by mean values.

c Scale ranges from 5 = totally agree to 1 =- totally disagree.

:1 Percent agreeing are those answering 4 or 5 point on the scale. Nonresponses are not included.

These results suggest that although the community perceives positive
economic benefits from the activities of Los Aleros such as jobs opportunities
and local businesses’s benefits, they view the attraction as an activity that is
diversifying the local economy but is not the most important one. This perception
limits a dependency on tourism activities, and maintain other areas of

economical grth in the community such as agriculture.

Of the seven questions on economic impacts, significant differences at the
5 percent level were found only 4 (7.14%) out of the 56 tests (t-test and oneway
analysis of variance). Difference were found on specific items for age,

community and job type.

 

89

Environmental impacts of Los Aleros

As with the other two types of impacts, the respondents have a positive
attitude about environmental impacts. Table 4.3 shows that the majority of the
respondents agreed that Los Aleros promoted the creation of other recreational
parks (85%), and that it preserved the natural environment (71%). Also, the
majority of the respondents did not support the statement that Los Aleros had
contributed to a deterioration of the ecological environment (7.6%). In regard to
traffic problems in the community, more than three quarters of the respondents
did not agree that tourists that visits Los Aleros added to this kind of problem in
their community (23%).

Table 4.3. Aleros Environmental Impacts

 

 

Residentsa
Item {) Impact Statements Meanc Std. Dev. % Agreed
The creation of Los Aleros, has romoted the
16 l 1 creation of other recreational argas (parks, 4'03 '83 85%
playgrounds).
Los Aleros reserves the natural environment of the
34 I 2 State of MerPida. 3'68 ’83 71%
Tourist that visit Los Aleros add to the traffic
17 / 3 problems in the community. 2’42 1'09 23%
19 / 4 Los Aleros has contributed to a deterioration in the 202 .81 7.6%

ecological environment.

 

a Results represent reesponses from 177 residents of Tabay, Mucuruba and Cacute.

b Questions are rank by mean values.

c Scale ranges from 5 - totally agree to 1 a totally disagree.

d Percent agreeing are those answering 4 or 5 point on the scale. Nonresponses are not included.

The four items on environmental impacts showed statistical significant
differences among specific subgroups. Six (18.75%) of the 32 tests (t-test and
oneway analysis of variance) completed, showed greater subgroups variances
by gender, community, education, job type and income in individual items at the

.05 level.

 

90

Summarizing, of the 200 tests (t-test and analysis of variance) completed
for the 25 Aleros impact variables by the 8 demographic subgroups, only 8% (16
items) were significant at the .05 level. By demographic subgroups, the most
significant differences were observed on job type (4 items), followed by
community, gender and education (3 items), and income (1 item). Length of
residency and occupation did not show any items with significant differences.
For any single question, the maximum number of significant differences was 4
out of 8 demographic variables, and this occured only for question 16. However,
when a large number of means are repeatedly compared and tested, there are
increasing probabilities that significant differences will be observed. In other
words, it is to be expected that 5 type I errors would occur in 100 subgroup
comparison. In any case, those moderate indications of subgroup differences

suggest a fruitful area for future research.

It is possible that the small number of significant differences encountered
among subgroups by Los Aleros impacts is due to the degree of homogeneity in
the communities positive attitudes toward Los Aleros impacts. On the other
hand, it is also possible that due to sampling error, considerable amount of

variance within subgroups might be affecting the results of the tests.

91

Attitudes toward Tourism Impacts

This part of the questionnaire addressed peoples’ attitude toward tourism
impacts. As explained in the methodology chapter, perceptions of specific
impacts associated with tourism were measured with a general 5 point likert like
scale. Responses to each 23 survey items of this third part of the questionnaire,
showed a general profile of the attitudes from the respondents in regard to the
social, cultural, economic and environmental impacts of tourism as well as
respondents attitude toward local control of tourism, desiribility for more
tourism, and at the end peoples’ perception of the community. The results of this

part of the questionnaire were tabulated and analyzed as with the Aleros data.

Socio-Cgtural Impacts of Tpurism

As with the results of Los Aleros, tourism seems to be perceived in a
positive way. In relation to the socio-cultural impacts of tourism, the majority of
the sample (Table 5.1) felt that meeting tourist is a valuable experience (99% ),
that tourism increases the number of recreational opportunities for local
residents (85% ), and that tourism development increases the quality of life in an

area or community (78%).

On the other hand, over half (64%) of the respondents believed that
ordinary people don't benefit from tourism, suggesting that tourism benefit more
the local businesses or other sectors related to tourism. This particular item is
considerd too general and ambiguous because the kind of benefit in question is

not defined, allowing any interpretation from part of the respondent.

92

Table 5.1.Tourism Social Cultural Impacts

 

Residentsa

Item é Impact Statements Meanc Std. Dev. % Agreed
Meetin tourists from all over Venezuela and the

39 I 1 world igs a valuable educational experience. 4'69 '51 99%
Tourism develo ment increases the number of

51 l 2 recreational opprbrtunities for local residents. 4'03 '87 85%
Tourism develo ment increases the uali of life in

41 l 2 an area or comrfrunity. q ty 3'75 '92 78%

52 / 3 Ordinary people don't benefit from tourism. 3.51 1.20 64%
Tourism has not chan ed the costumes and wa of

57/ 4 life of the communitiegs. y 3'06 1‘25 54%

58 / 5 Tourism exploits certain worker groups. 2.76 1.08 30%

47 / 6 Tourism development increases insecurity and 2.03 1.02 15%

vandalism in this community or area.

 

a Results represent reescponses from 177 residents of Tabay, Mucuruba and Cacute.

b Questions are rank by mean values.

c Scale ranges from 5 = totally agree to 1 a totally disagree.

d Percent agreeing are those answering 4 or 5 point on the scale. Nonresponses are not included.

Of the respondents, 54% agreed that tourism has not changed the
costumes and way of life of the communities, and only 30% of the sample believe
that tourism exploits certain groups of workers. Finally very few respondents
(15%) perceive that tourism is the cause of an increase in insecurity and

vandalism in the community.

The six items that measure the social cultural impacts of tourism showed
in three (6.25%) of the 48 tests (t-test and oneway analysis of variance)
completed, greater subgroups variances by gender, community, and job type in

individual items at the .05 level .

93

Economic Impacts of Tourism

The results of this section indicate that the community perceives economic

benefits coming from tourism (Table 5.2). In general the community understands

the potential of tourism to generate economic benefits, and supports the idea of

facilitating visits from tourists. Respondents did not support (11%) the statement

that tourism does not create employment opportunies. The majority (92%) agreed

that tourism benefits the arts and craft business in their community, and agreed

(75%) that increasing the number of tourists visiting an area improves the local

economy.

Table 5.2. Tourism Economic Impacts

 

Residentsa
Itemfi Impact Statements Meanc Std. Dev. % Agreed
46 / 1 Tgunrrjlslmmbénefits the arts and crafts business in your 429 .79 92%
Tourism develo ment crates speculation in the .81 1,01 77
61 / 3 services (transplzrrt, ho ls, restaurants). 3 %
Increasi the number of tourists visi ' an area
48 I 4 improvensg the local economy. ting 3'75 '89 75%
55 / 5 Tourism development increases property values. 3.38 1.09 57%
40 / 6 Ergism development unfairly increases real estate 337 .97 54%
Tourism develo ment has resulted in a ch e of 9 1,14
60 I 7 the use of the lagd (agriculture - tourism).ang Z 1 41%
Tourists should a more mon than local
44 / 8 residents to visitppg’rks and mcfyeational facilities. 2'59 1'34 36%
49 / 9 2113?;th pay a special tax on hotel and motel 250 1.24 29%
59 / 10 Tourism does not create employment opportunities. 1.97 .98 11%

 

a Results represent res nses from 177 residents of Tabay, Mucuruba and Cacute.

b Questions are rank by mean values.
c Scale ranges from 5 = totally agree to 1 = totally disagree.

d Percent agreeing are those answering 4 or 5 point scale. Nonresponses are not included.

94

In regard to the tourist, respondents are reluctant to agree that tourists
should pay more money than local residents to visit parks and recreational
facilities (36%) and also very few agreed that tourist should pay a special tax on
hotel and motel room fees. These findings indicate support for tourism and

imply high expectancy from the industry.

Less than half of the respondents (41%) believe that tourism has resulted
in a change in the use of the land (agriculture - tourism). The community
recognize that at this level, tourism has not affected significantly the use of lands
implying that agriculture continuous to be a strong means of economical

production.

Despite that more than half (57%) believe that tourism development
increases property value, on the negative side, tourism is viewed by the
respondents (77%) as a factor that generates speculation in services such as
transportation, hotels and restaurants; and over half of the sample felt that

tourism unfairly increases real estate costs (54%).

The nine items that measures the economic impacts of tourism showed in
ten (12.55%) of the 80 tests (t-test and oneway analysis of variance) completed,
greater variation between subgroups by gender, community, education, job type

and income in individual items at the .05 level.

Environmental Impacts of Tourism

The sample feels impacts are positive in regard to the environmental
effects of tourism. Table 5.3 shows that the majority of the respondents agreed

that tourism development improves the appearance of an area or community

95

(89% ), and did not agreed that it has resulted in a congestion of recreational and

community areas (36%). Also, only a third of the respondents (35%) agreed that

tourism development increases the traffic problems of an area or community,

and that tourism leads to deterioration of the environment (33%).

Table 5.3 Tourism Environmental Impacts

 

 

Residentsa
:23) Impact Statements Meanc Std. Dev. % Agreed
50 / 1 1322:? 03535111333; improves the appearance of 4.19 .78 89%
45/2 uncanny?“ 278 ms 36%
54 / 3 23:21: aclgyecljgp‘rrl;1e‘:rrt1i iglcreases the traffic problems 2.75 1.13 35%
56 / 4 Tourism leads to deterioration of the environment. 259 1.23 33%

 

a Results represent res nses from 177 residents of Tabay, Mucuruba and Cacute.

b Questions are rank by mean values.
c Scale ranges from 5 a totally agree to 1 = totally disagree.

d Percent agreeing are those answering 4 or 5 point on the scale. Nonresponses are not included.

The four items that measures the environmental impacts of tourism

showed in five (15.62%) of the 32 tests (t-test and oneway analysis of variance)

completed, greater subgroups variances by gender, community, education, and

job type in individual items at the .05 level.

Summarizing, of the 160 test (t-test and analysis of variance) for the 20

tourism impact variables by the 8 demographic subgroups, only 11.25% (18

items) are significant at the .05 level. By demographic subgroups, job type shows

the most amount of items significant (7), followed by community (5), gender (4),

education (2 items), and income (1 item). As with the data of Los Aleros, length

of residency and occupation did not show any item with significant difference.

Age also did not show items with significant difference. For any single question,

96

the maximum number of significant differences was 3 out of 8 demographic
variables, and this occured only for question 55 and 54. Again, these significant
differences among subgroups by tourism impacts are considered to be very
small. It is expected to make 5 type I error for 100 test comparing the same
subgroup differences. Still, there is some indication of subgroups differences

among independents variables that needs to be considered in future studies.

Overall the subgroup differences results by tourism impacts might reflect
high degree of homogeneity in the communities positive attitudes toward
tourism. At the same time, as with Los Aleros statements, sampling error, within

subgroups might be affecting the results of the tests.

TourismI Local gontrol, and Desiribility for More Tourism Development

Respondent's have an overall strong positive attitude towards local
control of tourism and their desiribility for more tourism (Table 5.4). In regard to
desiribility for more tourism, the majority of the sample agreed (97%) that this
community should try to attract more tourist to the area, and they will be glad if
this community plans for tourism (98%). Also respondents expressed their
willingness to participate in planning tourism in their community (93% ), and
recognize that they will benefit from more tourism development in their

community (76%).

In relation to local control of tourism, respondents agreed that non-
residents should be allowed to develop tourism attractions in an area or
community (77% ), but a greater majority (87%), agreed that the local community

should control tourism development in its own community. Somehow this is

97

contradicted by the fact that very few respondent (15%) agreed with the

statement that local community should restrict tourism development.

Table 5.4 Tourism Local Control and Desiribility for More Tourism

   

 

 

Residentsa

Item {) Impact Statements Meanc Std. Dev. % Agreed

62 / 1 Lhifiptanrrgaunity should try to attract more tourists 451 .58 97%

63 / 2 You 'll be glad if this community plans for tourism. 4.43 57 98%
You would like to artici ate in the lannin of

64 / 3 tourism in your cognmunpity. p g 4‘33 '66 93%
The local communi should control tourism

43 I 4 development in its bywn community. 4‘16 '84 _ 87%
You would benefit from more tourism

65/ 5 development in this community. 3'91 1'00 76%
Non-resident should be allowed to devel tourism

42 / 6 attractions in an area or community. 0p 3'84 1°00 77%

53 / 7 The local community should restrict tourism 2.06 1.07 15%

development.

 

a Results represemnses from 177 residents of Tabay, Mucuruba and Cacute.

b Questions are r by mean values.

c Scale ranges from 5 == totally agree to 1 = totally disagree.

d Percent agreeing are those answering 4 or 5 point on the scale. Nonresponses are not included.

These findings suggest a strong support for the tourism from part of the
community, but with the desire to get involved and have control on tourism

development projects that are going to affect their lives directly or indirectly.

The seven items that measuring local control and desiribility for more
tourism showed in five (8.92%) of the 56 tests (t-test and oneway analysis of
variance) completed, greater subgroups variances by age, community, and job

type in individual items at the .05 level (Table 7.4 and 7.5).

98

Perceptions of the Communig

Perceptions of the characteristics of the respondent’s community were
measured by asking if their community was an agricultural, industrial, touristic,
residential or retirement area. Using the same format, it was asked how would
they like their community to be in the future, and how they think it will be in the
future. Following these questions, perception of changes in the community were
measured relative since the subjects live in the area, and changes in the next five
years. For both questions, subjects evaluated their community, based on three
categories, whether their commuity has become a worse, the same or better place

to live.

Over half of the sample considers that their community is currently an
agriculture area (Table 5.5). Less than half of the sample (45%) would like their
community to be a touristic area in the future and 39% would like their
community to remain as an agricultural area. Half of the sample (50%) believes
that in the future their community will be a touristic area and 31% believe that it

will remain an agricultural area.

Table 5.5 Perceived Characteristic of Respondents Community

 

 

 

 

 

Agricultural Industrial Touristic Residential Retirement
Area Area Area Area Area
Today your community 55% 0% 23% 22% 0%
is a...
In the future you would 39% 10% 45% 6% 0.6%
like your community to
be...
In the future you think 31% 5% 50% 15% 0%
that your community
will be...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

99

According to these findings agriculture is the traditional medium of
production in the area and its likely to remain the same as an important
economical sector, but people would like some development of other economical

areas and forsees a growth of the tourism industry in their communities.

In regard to the change of the community, respondent’s hold a positive
and optimistic attitude (Table 5.6). Those residents that considered their
community to have become a better place to live (47% ), outnumbered slightly,
those residents that considered that their community had stayed the same since
they had lived there (43%). Contrary to that, over half of the residents (53%) feel

that in the next 5 years their community will become a better place to live.

Table 5.6 Percent Perceived Change in Community

     

 

Percved cange Pre_—— __________
Has become a worse place to 10% 18%
live.
Has stayed the same. 43% 28%
Has become a better place to 47% 53%

live.

 

100

Factor Analysis of Los Aleros Impact Items

A factor analysis was conducted on the general scale of Los Aleros impact
statements in order to determine natural sub-scales and to describe a perceptual
pattern of the respondents. Those items that were correlating poorly consistently
with other items were eliminated for the purpose of factor analyzing the scale.
Table 6, shows the results of the factor analysis. In this study, factor analysis is
used mainly for exploratory purposes. In other words, as a tool to explore the
dimensional structure of the data and as a mean to reduce the number of

variables for the analysis.

A principal component solution, and a oblique rotation was used to run
the factor analysis on the 17 variables representing the current level of Los
Aleros impacts. The rotated solution yielded 6 factors with eigenvalues greater
than 1.0 , explaining 59.3% of the variance of the data. An oblique rotation was

used because the assumption is that factors may be correlated ( DeVellis 1991).

The six factor structure were of different nature such as cultural
promotion and preservation, social benefits, community benefits, development of
recreational areas, economic impacts and natural environment preservation.
Factors were selected with the criteria that each item contained in a factor, must

have a factor loading equal or greater than (.5).

101

Table 6. Factor Structure for Perception of Los Aleros Impact Statement

 

Item Aleros Impact Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor
9 1 2 3 4 5 6

Factor Eigenvalue 2.92 2.13 1.57 1.28 1.14 1.03
Percent of total variance explained by factor 17.2% 12.5% 9.2% 7.5% 6.7% 6.0%
FACTOR 1: Cultural promotion 8: preservation

18 Los Aleros encourages a variety of cultural activities .762
by the local population (crafts, arts, music, etc).

32 Los Aleros promotes cultural exchange among .634
residents of your community and the tourists.

36 Los Aleros promotes the Andes culture. .545

31 Los Aleros rescues the historicals environments of .530
the State of Merida.
FACTOR 2: Social benefits.

30 Los Aleros has changed the customs and way of life .715"
of your community.

15 The level of personal insecurity and vandalism in the .601‘
community has increased because of the touristic
activities of Los Aleros.

37 Los Aleros disrupts the cultural identity of the .594"
community.

21 The tourists that visit Los Aleros disrupt the peace .548"
and tranquility of our parks and community.

17 Tourist that visit Los Aleros add to the traffic .522"

problems in the community.
FACTOR 3: Community benefits.
14 One of the important aspects of LosAleros is that it
_ has created more job opportunities for the
community .

38 The local residents are the people who benefit the
least because from the touristics activities of Los
Aleros.

35 You believe that the population feels that Los Aleros
brings benefits to the community.

FACTOR 4: Development of Recreational areas.

16 The creation of Los Aleros, has promoted the
creation of other recreational areas (parks,

playgrounds).
FACTOR 5: Economic impact.

33 Los Aleros contributes to the Merida's State
economy.

29 Los Aleros contributes to the economic growth of the
community.
FACTOR 6: Natural environmental presevation

19 Los Aleros has contributed to a deterioration in the
ecological environ.

34 Los Aleros preserves the natural environment of the
State of Merida.

.729

.704"

.561

.849

.690"

.510

 

TTotal variance explained by factor analysis = 59. 3%.
* Items reverse-coded.

102

Factor Definition

Los Aleros impact factors are defined as common underlying and not
directly observable concept or constructs that comprise a set of attitude statement
related to specific type of impacts, attributed to Los Aleros. The factors are
defined by observing which variables correlate to each other and therefore load
together on a factor. That is, if they are measuring the same concepts. All six

Aleros perceived impact factors were defined as following:

The first construct called ”cultural promotion and preservation” includes
Los Aleros encouragement of cultural activities (18), promotion cultural
exchange (32), promotion of Andes culture (36) and rescue of historical
environments (31). The second factor denominated ”social benefits”
comprehended variables that were reverse-coded. This include Los Aleros
changes customs and way of life (30), increased personal insecurity and
vandalism (15), disruption of cultural identity (37), disruption of peace and

tranquility (21), and traffic problems by tourists (17).

The third construct or factor called ”community benefits” include creation
of more job opportunities (14), local residents benefits the least (38 reverse-
coded) and benefits to the community (35). Factor four defined as ”development
of recreational areas” is conformed by one variable that is promote creation of
recreational areas (16). The fifth construct of ”economic impact” contained the
variable Los Aleros contributes to Merida’s economy (33), and contribution to the
community economic growth (29). The last construct called ”natural
environment preservation” was measured by Los Aleros deterioration of

ecological environment (19 reverse-coded), and preserves natural environment

103

(34). Ordering the factors by level of agreement will have the pattern defined in
Table 6.1.

Table 6.1. Order of Los Aleros Factors by Level of Agreement

 

 

 

 

 

 

Factorii 4> 2> 6> 1> 3> 5>
Develop. of Social Natural Cultural Community Economic
Rec. area benefits Environ. promotion benefits impacts
preserv. 8: preserv.
Mean 4.03 3.96 3.83 3.68 3.41 3.20
Std Dev. .83 .57 .61 .66 .74 .92
Std. Error .0622 .0427 .0457 .0495 .0555 .0690

 

 

Development of Recreational area (Factor4 24.03, n=177, 95% CI:
3.905 It s 4.15), resulted in the most agreed upon factor. This is explained
because the development of new recreational areas and activities around Los
Aleros is evident and observable. Attractions such as a restaurant-playground,
and recreational activities such as horse riding have been developed as a result of

Los Aleros touristic activities.

Social benefits (I? 3.96, n=177, 95% CI: 3.87s If s 4.04), is the second most
agreed upon factor. The stage of development in which Los Aleros is, has not
reached levels where potential negative social impacts are perceived by the
communities. Los Aleros is located out of the boundaries of the communities,
therefore most interactions between tourist and host is done in the town-
museum. This minimizes the congestion of tourist in these communities limiting
their interaction to local businesses of arts and crafts by the road, and local
restaurants. This also minimize the potential for undesirable activities that can
generate some type of criminal activity in the area due to tourist visitation. The

number of tourist is low enough and their lenghth of stay is short enough that

104

residents do not perceive significant changes in their way of life or culture that
might be considered negative, nor touristic activities that can affect and disrupt

their daily activites.

The third most important factor is Natural Environment preservation
(Factor 6, X 3.83, n=177, 95% CI: 3.745 It s 3.92). As with Factor 4, the
preservation of the environment can be observed around Los Aleros. In general,
the small scale, low intensity growth of the town has permitted the preservation
of the original landscape before its construction. Although, trails have been built,
and small infrastructures continue to be constructed. Still, the designed of these
new infrastructure are well adapted and do not disrupts the environment nor the
scenic view. The infrastructure fits the traditional arquitecture already found in

the area.

The Cultural promotion 8: preservation construct (Factor 1, X 3.68, n=177,
95% CI: 3.58 s If s 3.77), reflect the importance of Los Aleros as tourism attraction
and its role in preserving the Andean culture. Residents recognize the promotion
of the Andean culture through Lso Aleros, and how its activity have encouraged
local craftman, artisan and musicians to rescue traditional arts and mantain the
current ones. As a town-museum Los Aleros plays an important role of
communicating and educating visitors about the Andean culture, its history, its

tradition, folklore and uniqueness.

Community benefits (Factor 3, 23.41, n=177, 95% CI: 3.30 s it s 3.51) is the
fourth factors most agreed upon. Los Aleros is perceived to be a good activity in
the area generating jobs opportunities for people with different ages, gender and

skills. Most of the people surveyed are working, have worked, or know

105

somebody or heard about somebody that have worked in the town. Residents
recognize that the community benefit from Los Aleros directly or indirectly and

that is a development that pertains to the area.

The least agreed upon construct but still perceived positively is the
Economic impacts (Factor 5, X 3.20, n=177, 95% CI: 3.06s )2 s 3.33). Los Aleros
certainly contributes to the economic growth of the community. Despite of
generating jobs opportunities, Los Aleros give concession to small arts and crafts
businesses to sell their products. The town attract a lot of tourist that spend not
only in the town but in the surroundings. Tourist will take advantage of their
visit to go to other small attractions in the communities and pay for services such
as small hotels, restaurants and markets. This aspect also reflects the lack of
dependency of the communities on Los Aleros. Los Aleros brings diversity to the

economy of the area, but it is not more important than the other benefits.

Overall the average of the factors is 3.68, indicating a general positive
attitude toward Los Aleros impacts. This mean is considered an estimate of the
true population mean. In other words the overall population attitude. The 95%
confidence interval for the average of the Aleros factors falls between 3.63 and
3.72. This suggest that of all possible randomly sampled means, the probability
that the population mean falls within the interval calculated is .95. That is
approximately 95 out of 100 sample confidence intervals will include the

population mean.

106

Results of the Reliability Test for the Scales

In the factors analysis factors were define by referring to the content of
those items, and discerning the nature of the latent variable that each factor
represents. For the six factors that resulted, reliability test were conducted on the

six homogeneous set of items.

Internal consistency reliability is a function of how strongly the items in a
scale correlate with one another (and with the latent variable), and how many
items you have in your scale. Internal consistency is concerned with the
homogeneity of the items comprising a scale. The scales that resulted from the
factor analysis were tested for their reliability using Cronbach alpha coefficient

(Table 7).

In Factorl and Factor2, the scales yielded undesirable alpha level (.6180
and .6040 accordingto DeVllis, 1991). However all the items have a moderate
correlation with the total correlation indicating that they are measuring the same
thing partially. Also, alpha does not increase by dropping any item. The
undesirable alpha level is due to the small number of items for each scale, and
the correlation are moderate due to being influenced by different latent

variables.

In Factor3, Factor5 and Factor6, the scales yielded unacceptable (DeVllis,
1991) alpha level (.5257 , .5891 and .2212 respectively). All the items for Factor 3
and 5 have a moderate correlation with the their total correlation, indicating that
they are measuring partially the same common concept. The unacceptable alpha

level is due to the small number of items for each scale, and the correlation are

107

moderate are due to being influenced by different latent variables. The items
that comprise Factor6 correlate very low. These items might be tapping different
construct. These items need to be reviewed or eliminated for future scale

development.

Table 7. Factor Scale Reliability

 

 

FACTOR / ITEM Item-Total Alpha if item Factor Alpha
Correlation deleted
FACTOR 1: Cultural promotion .6180
8: preservation.
Item18 .3771 .5669
Item32 .4057 .5457
Item36 .4155 .5408
Item31 .4130 .5410
FACTOR 2: Social benefits. .6040
Item30 .4506 .4957
Item15 .3604 .5485
Item37 .3962 .5353
Item21 .3353 .5642
Item17 .2877 .5997
FACTOR 3: Community .5257
benefits.
Item14 .3734 .4193
Item38 .3171 .4752
Item35 .3662 .3808
FACTOR 4: Dev. of Rec. areas.
Item16 Cannot be
proccessed
FACTOR 5: Economic Impact. .5891
Item33 .4205
Item29 .4205
FACTOR 6: Nat. Environ. .2212
Presevat.
Item19 .1244
Item34 .1244

 

Factor four was comprised by only one item. However, this item has a
relative good variance and the mean does not fall in any of the extremes of the

range of possible answers. This means that is a good item that can be included in

108

future scales because it can discriminate among respondents and can discern

values of the construct that intends to measure.

Qne-way Analysis pf Variance: Aleros Impact Factors

As stated in the data analysis section, after running the factor analysis, a
one-way analysis of variance was run to determine any significant differences
occurred among the selected demographic subgroup variables. In other words to
determine if subgroups were being impacted differently. These variables were
selected as independent variables to measure their effect on the Aleros impact

factors (average scores of each respondent on the 6 factors variables).

The results demonstrate (Table 8) that gender, and job type are related
significantly to perceived social benefits of Los Aleros in the community (F
significance p<.05). Females (average score 4.02) tend to agree more than males
(average score 3.83) that tourism in Los Aleros bring social benefits. People in
non-tourism related jobs have a more positive perception (4.05) than people with
jobs related to tourism (3.63) in regard to the social benefits, showing a
significant difference. This might be explain because people in non-tourism
related jobs do not depend on tourism as an economic activity and tend to be

more perceptive of other kind of effect.

109

Table 8. Demographics Differences in Residents Attitude to the Aleros Impact
Factors

   

 

Demographics '
Cultural Social Communit Development Negative Natural
promotion8: benefits y benefits of Rec. areas Economic Environment
preservation Impacts preservation

Gender

Female 123 3.62 4.02 339 3.94 3.13 3.84

Male 54 3.79 3.% 3.45 4.22 334 3.79
b- -1.53 t- 2.01" t-- .43 t= 4.08" ta 4.” t- .45

Age

Less than 20yrs. 32 3.92 3.94 3.43 4.18 3.10 3.82

Between 20 and 39 89 3.60 3.98 332 4.06 3.14 3.84

Between 40 and 59 36 3.68 415 357 3.97 3.11 3. 86

60 yrs. or more. 20 357 3. 75 350 3. 70 3.72 3 .67
F=2.06 F=1. 31 F=1.06 F=1. 57 F=2.57 Pa. 47

Community

Mucuruba 50 354 3.96 3.17 3.76 3.17 3.71

Cacute 26 3.74 3.97 339 4.23 3.15 3.82

Tabay 1(1) 3.72 3.96 3.54 4.11 3.20 3. 88
F8144 133,0(5 F=4.3‘l“ 17:3 .99“ F=.04 F- 1.34

Residency

1 to 5 ears 42 359 3 % 3.31 3.88 3.01 3.91

6 to 1 years 20 3.78 4.09 3.50 4.25 3.47 3.82

11 years or more 39 3.79 3.97 3.63 4% 334 3.97

Ligelong resident 76 3.63 3 .99 333 4 .06 3.14 3. 70
F=.92 F=1. 10 F=1.80 F=. 98 F=1.61 F=2.09

Occupation

Educab‘on/ Health/ 13 3.80 4.12 3.64 423 3.42 3%

Social work

Homemaker] 5 3.90 3.96 4.13 4.60 3.30 4.00

General Labor

Housekeeper 81 356 4.01 3.30 3.79 3.17 3%

Managerial 1 5.00 4(1) 433 5.00 450 450

Executive]

Professional

Office worker 8 3.87 4.07 358 4.87 3.5 3.93

Farmer 10 3.82 3.62 3.10 3.80 3.45 3.90

Retired 3 350 3.80 333 3. 66 250 3.%

Sales re resentative 12 4.04 4.08 3.47 4 .41 3.25 3%

Skilled ftsman, 9 350 3.86 355 4.11 277 3.94

Artisan

Student 26 3. 86 4.06 3.44 4.07 3.19 3.75

Other 9 3.11 3.26 3.48 433 3.15 3.38
F=2.33 F-2.25 F-l. 22 F=2.74 F-.74 F-.73

Education '

Prima School 80 3.69 3.99 332 3% 3.16 381

a 65 3.77 3% 352 4.20 3.12 3.89

TQChNCR and 8 353 4.07 337 4.62 3.37 3.75

College degree

None degree . 24 339 3.86 3.43 3.62 3.43 3. 72
F-2.10 F=.41 F-I.86 F-4.72" F-.82 PI. 49

 

(tables continues)

110

Table 8. Demographics Differences in Residents Attitude to the Aleros Impact
Factors. (Cont)

 

Demographics N factor 1: Factor 2: Factor 3: Factor 4: Factor 5: Factor 6:

 

Cultural Social Communit Development Negative Natural
promotion& benefits y benefits of Rec. areas Economic Environment
preservation Impacts preservation
I ob type
Tourism related 51 3.63 3.75 3.61 4.19 331 3.77
Non-tourism related. 126 3.69 415 333 3.96 3.14 3.84
b -.56 t= -3.25" t= 2.51 t= 1.78 t= 1.09 t= -.73
Income
Less than BS. 600) 52 354 4.00 334 3.92 3.11 3.76
536%“ Bs.6.000 and 55 3.72 4.04 339 4.10 315 3.88
Between Bs.11.ooo 17 3.63 3.70 354 435 3.41 3.70
and 15.(D0
Between Bs.16.000 16 3.96 4.06 3.62 456 359 4.09
and over
N/ A 20 3.82 3.78 3.48 355 3.47 3.67
F=1.56 F8138 F=.60 F=4.31" F=1.86 F=1.41

 

Note: *" significant p< .05

The community and job type are the only independent variables that have
significant effect on the perceived community benefits from Los Aleros. The
effect of distance seems to have an effect on how communities perceive these
benefits. As the distance from Los Aleros increases, the perceived community
benefits is less positive. Tabay has a more positive perceived impacts (3.54) than

Mucuruba (3.17).

This can be explained because Mucuruba is located 10 km from the
touristic attraction compared to Tabay that is located at 5 km. This support the
findings of other studies, where the distance from the tourist zone increases, the
impact of tourism is perceived less positively (Belisle & Hoy). Contrary to this
finding is that those from the nearest population center to Los Aleros (Cacute)
do not report greater perceived community benefits. Residents from Cacute seem
to expect more from Los Aleros administration in regard to collaboration and

donations. At the time of this study, a new restaurant-playground close to Cacute

111

was being more active in collaborating with the community than Los Aleros. This

might explain the difference in regard to their attitudes.

The factor four, development of recreational areas showed significant
differences among gender, community, education and income. Male more than
female reported that they felt a positive impact in this area. Again the distance
seems to have an effect on how communities perceive this kind of development.
Most of the recreational development are close to Cacute, and the pattern here is
more clear. As the distance increases from Los Aleros and basically from the

recreational areas, the impacts tends to be less positive.

Education is another independent variable that seem to have an effect on
the perceived development of recreational areas. The data show that people
while more educated tend to perceive more positive the impact of this factor.
Finally income also is an independent variable that seems to be related to factor
4. The pattern is that people with better income, tend to perceive more positive

the impacts on the area of recreation development.

Fourty eight tests (t—test and analysis of variance) for the 6 Aleros impact
factors by the 8 demographic subgroups were run (T able 8). Only 14.5% of these
tests (7) are significant at the .05 level. By demographic subgroups, gender,
community and job type shows the most amount of significant differences by
factors (2), followed by education and income with one each. Age, length of
residency, and occupation did not show any significant differences. For any
single factor, the maximum number of significant differences was 2 out of 8

demographic variables, and this occured for question gender, community and job

112

type. The number of significant differences among subgroups by Aleros impact

factors is considered to be very small.

Tourism Attitude Items: Factor Analysis

Factor analysis was also conducted on the general tourism impact
statements. A principal component solution, and a oblique rotation was used to
run the factor analysis on the 23 variables representing the current level of
tourism impacts. The rotated solution yielded 3 factors with eigenvalues greater
than 1.0 , explaining 62% of the variance of the data. However, the factors were
very difficult to define. The items that were loading together with each of the
factors did not have theoretical communalities, making the interpretation of the
factor very difficult. Therefore, the factor analysis approach was dropped and no

further analysis was done.

A major problem with the attitude statements in relation to tourism is that
most of the items were tapping different concepts, generating unreliable scales.
Future research needs to take into account the difficulty of measuring broad

concept such as tourism.

CHAPTERVI

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

In this final chapter, the conclusions, limitations implications and
limitations of this research will be presented and recommendations for future
research are underlined. First, the study and findings of this research is
summarized. Second, the research questions outlined in Chapter I guide the
conclusions of this study. The models of tourism development, and host
attitude / behaviour presented in the literature review are used as frameworks to
conceptualize residents of Tabay, Mucuruba and Cacute’s attitudes toward Los
Aleros and tourism. Third, from the researcher’ s personnel observation and
informal interviews, key factors that seem to have generated the kinds of attitude

responses toward Los Aleros and tourism are discussed.

Summary of the Study and Findings ,

The purpose of this research was to study the impacts of tourism as they
are perceived by residents, and to understand resident’ s attitudes toward the
Andean town of Los Aleros in relation to the development process that they have
experienced. The study attempts to explain the Aleros experience and its

perceived impacts in the communities that surround the attraction using

113

114

frameworks such as development theory, tourism development models and

resident’ s attitude behavior models.

Planning appropriate tourism developments is important in order to
maximize the benefits from its activities and minimize the potential economic,
social, cultural and environmental negative impacts in the long term. Host
community perceptions and attitudes toward tourism development are critical
variables that need to be included in tourism planning in order to minimize
impacts. Within a case study approach host community perceptions and
attitudes toward tourism development need to be monitored in longitudinal
studies, in order to understand the kind of impacts that a community is
experiencing, how it is changing overtime, what variables are conditioning these

attitudes and how these attitudes are influencing residents behaviour.

Assessing residents' attitudes and behavior is not only a research
endeavor but strategy that is part of a community development approach
because takes into account the community feelings and opinions in relation to
development processes that might be affecting or will be affecting residents in

the future.

The State of Mérida in Venezuela has concentrated on tourism as a
another activity to diversify the region economical development, and it is in its
early stages. of planning and implementing new policies and strategies to
develop their tourism industry. The reconstructed Andean town of the 1930's
called Los Aleros is becoming one of the major tourism attractions in the Andes
region. It’s novelty and uniqueness, generate a strong demand by tourists, and

the town is developing year by year to satisfy such demand. A very similar

115

development is being constructed in another population center near the city of
Mérida as a consequence of the success of Los Aleros. Little is known about the
positive and negative impacts that Los Aleros and has generated in the
communities of Tabay, Mucuruba and Cacute that surrounds this ”town-

museum”.

The object of this study was Los Aleros and its development process. This
tourism attraction is unique in Venezuela. The objectives of this study is to assess
the social, cultural, economic and environmental impacts of Los Aleros and
tourism on the communities that surrounds the attraction (T abay, Mucuruba and

Cacute) as they are perceived by the local residents.

A cross-sectional survey was conducted through face to face interviews
with residents of the communities of Tabay, Mucuruba and Cacute. These
interviews provided needed information about what are the perceived impacts of
Los Aleros and who is being impacted. Other sources of evidence such as
personal interviews with key informants addressed how and why the town was
built, the type of development that was involved and the impacts that have been

generated in the communities.

For the study, a two stage cluster sampling technique was applied. One
hundred and ninety six households were systematically chosen from a list of
census blocks and households from each of the three communities (T abay,
Mucuruba and Cacute). Factor analysis is used to reduce the data, and to
identify natural subscales or underlying constructs (factors) in order to determine
communities attitudinal structure. In order to determine how different

subgroups were being impacted, one way analyses of variance and t-test are

116

used to test statistical differences among demographics subgroups by factors and

to determine if there are patterns of relations among the variables.

Findings from the Survey

The residents of the communities of Tabay, Mucuruba and Cacute have a
positive attitude toward Los Aleros socio—cultural, economic and environmental
impacts (Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3). They also reported similar attitudes toward
tourism general impacts (Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.3). This results are supported with the
fact that residents strongly desire more tourism in the area and they feel that they
will benefit from it. Also, they are willing to participate in the planning of
tourism and would like that their communities control for such development

(Table 5.4).

In this study, both for Los Aleros data and for the general tourism data,
significant differences among subgroups are considered to be very small. It is
considered that the significant difference found are because of the expected 5% of
the test with statistical significance due to chance only. The other small
percentage is some indication of some difference in the population mean
subgroups but this needs to be reviewed. The variables job related to tourism (job
type), gender and distance (community) from the tourist area showed some
consistent evidence that they are variables that condition residents perception of
tourism impacts. On the other hand, the variables age, gender, residency,

occupation, education, and income did not reflect any significant difference at all.

Another explanation is that there might not be a difference at all among

subgroups indicating and homogenous attitude. It is also possible that the

117

sample for some groups were to small, or that there was to much variability

within sub-groups.

Six constructs resulted from factor analyzing Los Aleros impact statement
(Table 6).. These factors were in order of level of agreement: Development of
Recreational area (4.03), Social benefits (3.96), Natural Environment preservation
(3.83), Cultural promotion & preservation (3.68), Community benefits (3.41) and
Economic impacts (3.20). Overall the average of the factors is 3.68 based on a
scale of 1(totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). This reflects that the communities
of Tabay, Mucuruba and Cacute have a general positive attitude toward Los
Aleros touristic activities. Despite that the communities recognize the economic
benefits from Los Aleros, they perceive more the town-museum as an economic
activity that does not deteriorate the environment and that develops and operate
in ways that contributes in mantaining the social characteristics of the area while
promoting and preserving the Andean culture. The attitudinal pattern reflects
the lack of dependency of these communities on the economical activities of Los
Aleros. This is positive because even though the town is bringing diversity in the
economy, it has the same characteristics of seasonality as any other touristic

attraction.

Tests to compare differences in means (t-test and analysis of variance) for
the 8 demographic subgroups by the 6 Aleros impact factors were conducted.
The results showed significant differences at the .05 level in 7 test out of 48. The
variable gender, community and job type showed the most amount of differences
among subgroups in specific items. Again this differences are expected due to

chance alone.

118

Three constructs resulted from factor analyzing the tourism impact scale.
These factors were very difficult to define. The items that were loading together
with each of the factors did not have theoretical communalities, making the
interpretation of the factor very difficult. Therefore, the factor analysis approach

was dropped and no further analysis followed.

Results of the Reliability Test for the Scales

For the six factors that resulted from Los Aleros general scale, reliability
test were conducted on the six homogeneous set of items (Table 7). The small
scales comprising Factor] and Factor2, yielded undesirable alpha level (.6180
and .6040 according to DeVllis, 1991). The undesirable alpha level was due to the
small number of items for each scale, and the correlations between them are

moderate.

The scales for Factor3, Factor5 and Factor6, yielded unacceptable
(DeVellis, 1991) alpha level (.5257 , .5891 and .2212 respectively). All the items for
Factor 3 and 5 had a moderate correlation with the their total correlation. The
unacceptable alpha level is due to the small number of items for each scale, and
their inter-correlation are moderate. The items that comprise Factor6 correlate
very low. Factor four was comprised by only one item. However, is a good item
that can be included in future scales because it can disCriminate among

respondents and can discern values of the construct that intends to measure.

119

Conclusions

Based on the results several conclusions can be abstracted from the
findings of this research. These findings suggest that 15 years after the creation
of Los Aleros, the residents of the communities that surrounds it have an overall
positive attitude toward the attraction. This attitude is attributed not only to the
beliefs and perceived social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that
the community holds in regard to Los Aleros, but also because of its
development process. Is important to underlined that the communities of Tabay,
Mucuruba and Cacute recognize as more important those benefits related to the

social, environmental and cultural aspects than the economic benefits.

In general, ”Los Aleros” is an example of a tourist enterprise based on
indigenous knowledge and community resources. Its a small scale, slow pace,
low intensity and locally controlled development, located outside of the
surrounding communities. However it is perceived as part of the community, but
the community does not depend on the economic benefits. The objectives of Los
Aleros has been primarily the rescue of the social, cultural and historical values
of a town, as well as its environmental features. Los Aleros uniqueness, its
contribution to the tourism of Mérida, and its consistent relation and
collaboration with the community, have gained the support from public and

private agencies and institutions as well from the community and the tourist.

The attitudes toward Los Aleros seem to be a community response to the
kind of tourist development that was experienced. The response manifested by
the community seem to be one of "acceptance". According to Dogan (1989) this

kind of response is characteristic of tourism development that involves the local

120

population, who expect to gain socioeconomic benefits from it and where

tourism is integrated into the community.

Three research questions were stated in Chapter I. The first question was
at what stage of tourism development is ”Los Aleros” located?. Using Butler's
model of a tourism cycle evolution as a framework, and residents attitudes as
one of the indicators, Los Aleros is located at the "deveIOpment stage". At this
stage of development Los Aleros is characterized by a well established tourist
market. Los Aleros has a very well defined image that is part of the overall image
of the state of Mérida. The kind of tourist that visits the town are mass tourists,
that demand specific services and commodities that the town has needed to

develop in order to satisfy their needs.

Growth of new facilities and infrastructure is observed but still under the
control of the original owners. Physical changes are noticeable if compared with
the initial stages of development, and some congestion and traffic problems have
been created on the Panamerican road. New attractions have been added,
probably supplementing some of the initial attractions. Until now, development

seems to be controlled, keeping a slow pace but increasing in visitor numbers.

Residents’ attitudes are positive toward the town and they are supportive
of its activities. The development stage of Los Aleros still mantains a level that
does not exceed the tolerance of residents. Looking to the future, the success of
Los Aleros could be threatened by the excessive tourist demand, and by the
limited capacity of local resources to meet future demand. Los Aleros has

continously changed its product in order to continue to attract tourists. This has

121

implied the development of more infrastructure and attractions that has

modified the original design of the town.

If we believe in the inevitable process of the tourism product cycle
defined by Butler's model, Los Aleros will be challenged with new changes and
future growth. Los Aleros needs to plan ahead and think about the problems that
excessive demand of tourist can bring to the area with the physical restrain and
local resources. It is imperative to begin to think about the necessary mangerial

strategies to deal with these issues and sustain its success.

The second question is what are Tabay, Mucuruba and Cacute’s
attitudinal/ behavioral response toward ”Los Aleros” and tourism development
in general?. This question is addressed by using Doxey’s irridex model and
Butler's host attitudinal behavioral model as frameworks. In other words as
models that help conceptualize the resulting attitudes of the communities

toward Los Aleros and tourism in general.

Based upon the evidence observed in the study, it appears that the
response of the residents towards the development of tourism in Los Aleros
could be placed between “euphoria” and ”apathy” along the continuum of
Doxey’s irridex model. Evidence in support of this conclusion. is that Los Aleros
is still a small scale tourism attraction, characterized by a slow pace of
development, which is still controlled by the local people. This attraction does
attract a considerable number of tourists, and has a well defined image, but it is

still appreciated by local residents.

122

Furthermore, Los Aleros offers sufficient services for its visitors. There are
some indication that tourist are being taken for granted and that tourist are not a
novelty anymore. Visitors are not novelty anymore and they are still very
welcomed by residents. However the type of tourist that arrive are of the kind of
”mass tourist”. Another type of tourist is attracted to this area. This type of
tourist is not much concerned about the local culture, and the tourist-host
relation is already more commercialized, service oriented and less personal. The
tourist-host relation is open and friendly, and residents continue to be hospitable
and willing to share their culture. Is possible that residents satisfaction with
tourist has not reached its peak and consequently, residents expect more tourism

activity in the area.

The town of Los Aleros continues to grow and expand but at a slow and
controlled pace. Services and businesses for tourist around the area continue to
develop as tourist demand increase. Los Aleros have been generating jobs
opportunities for almost 15 years for the local people, but there is some
indication that the local people are taken for granted by Los Aleros. The
seasonality of Los Aleros activities seem not to disappoint the communities

because they do not depend on its economic benefits at least directly.

In regard to Butler’ 5 host attitude/ behavioral model, the communities of
Tabay, Mucuruba and Cacute have a positive attitude toward Los Aleros but a
somewhat passive to active behaviour. These communities are favorable toward,
accept and support Los Aleros activities. However the town is perceived as an
attraction that is a private enterprise that is part of the local area but the

benefits to the community are limited.

123

The last research question is: which factors , have contributed to generate
the kind of host community attitudinal] behavioral response toward ”Los
Aleros" and toward tourism development in general?. Several key factors can be
abstracted from this process that have influenced the residents’ attitudes toward
the town and has brought success to the business. ”Los Aleros” is an example of
a touristic enterprise based on indigenous knowledge and community resources.
The ideas, technology and resources to construct Los Aleros came from within
the region and community, this held down costs and provided independence
from external sources. The leadership of Alexis Montilla has been a very
important force, and its image of an indigenous community member that has

developed a dream under difficult circumstances remains to be studied.

List of Factors that have Contributed to the Success of Los Aleros

 

 

0 Unique attraction in the area.

0 Development based in indigenous knowledge and community resources.
0 Strong leadership.

0 Small scale, slow pace, low intensity tourism development.

0 Development locally controlled.

0 Community involvement in its construction through volunteerism.
0 Perceived to be an attraction as part of the community.

0 Design respects the cultural and environmental context of the area.

0 Has helped in capacity building through learning experience.

0 Authentic product.

0 Consistent relation and collaboration with the community.

0 The community is not dependent on Los Aleros economical benefits.

0 It has stimulated local cultural activities.

 

 

124

The size, pace and intensity of the development of Los Aleros has
permitted the communities time to adapt to changes in the area and to be tolerant
to the attraction and its activities. The "town-museum" is located an average of
12km apart from the communities that surround it. This avoids a high
concentration of visitors in these communities. Los Aleros seems to be locally
controlled because the enterprise is operated by people from the community and

not by external organizations.

Community involvement in the construction of Los Aleros through
volunteerism is another key factor in the success of Los Aleros. This has
generated a feeling of ownership and belonging. It also has reduced costs and no
need for external labor force. Los Aleros is perceived as part of the community,
not because is located in the area, but because it has been developed by people of
the community, with a design that respects the cultural and environmental

context of the area without disrupting the landscape.

Los Aleros has permitted capacity building through the learning
experience of constructing and operating the town. People involved with the
construction, operation of the town and servicing tourist, have developed skills
and experience that has allow them to apply them in other circumstances and in

other projects.

Even though the ”town-museum” has been criticized by people that have
visited the town several times because of its changes and growth, Los Aleros has
been able to offer an authentic product by primarily preserving the social,
cultural and historical values of a town, as well as its environmental features. Its

contribution to the tourism of Mérida, and its consistent collaboration with the

125

community have given to Los Aleros the support from public and private

agencies and institutions as well as from the community and the tourist.

Los Aleros has created job opportunities for the communities that
surround it. However, the community does not depend on the economic benefits
that are generated by Los Aleros. For all its support, the town has stimulated
other businesses permitting concessions, and encouraging a variety of cultural
activities such as arts and crafts, and music. Los Aleros is a strong economic force

for the nearby communities but not the only one.

Finally, Los Aleros is unique, and this attracts tourist. As defined by
Gerardo Montilla, Los Aleros is the only touristic complex in Venezuela that
transports the visitor from one place and time to another place and time in the
past. Therefore, the findings suggest that Los Aleros could represent a successful
"model" of tourism development . There are elements from the experience of
"Los Aleros" that can be incorporated as part of tourism and community

development and planning in rural areas.

Limitations of the Study

The limitations of the study involve several issues. Primarily no specific
set of reliable and valid scales were developed to gather the information required
in order to. satisfy the study objectives. An appropriate pretest of the
questionnaire and evaluation of the items were not conducted. This could have

helped in developing more reliable attitudinal scales.

126

Second, because of the cluster sampling technique, in each sampling stage
a new sampling error was introduced. Even though the sampling technique
warranted that households had similar probabilities of being selected,
respondents in each households were not selected randomly introducing a bias
in the selection of respondents. The small sample and the last stage of sampling
drew a sample representing very few specific subgroups which limited

comparison between variables.

In regard to the limitations of this kind of research, most studies assessing
host attitudes toward tourism focus only on the attitude itself, and do not focus
on how these attitudes are formed. It is important according to Crandall (1987)
that the survey not only reflect the researchers theory or framework on what
impacts may have had on an area, but it is also important that it be designed with
the values of the impacted area in mind, in other words, what is important to the
community. Crandall does not explain this concept further, but it can be assumed
that determining community values can help us in designing questionnaires that

contain the necessary salient beliefs of a community toward tourism.

One criticism of this type of research is that it is subjective. What is
reported is the respondent's perception of impacts and they may or may not -
reflect the reality (Pearce, 1991; Crandall, 1987; Long, 1991). Pearce (1991)
recommends cross checking the perceptions with more objectives indicators of

social, cultural, economic, and environmental issues.

The usefulness of this type of research is not clear. Specifically it is not
clear how the information about attitudes of a host community can be used to

minimize friction between tourists and residents, and in formulating plans to

127

gain residents support for tourism activities. Also there is a need for research to
develop reliable measures of communities beliefs, feelings and behaviors toward
tourism. This would assist in the determination of those attitudinal structures

that shape communities attitudes.

There are several other problems that limit an understanding of tourism
impacts. First, in many studies there is a lack of adequate experimental design
which would enable the researcher to establish cause - effect relationships within
communities before and after tourism development occurs (Macnaught, 1982).
Only descriptive case studies have suggested hypotheses of possible
relationships of this nature. Second, there is a lack of generally accepted
sociological methodology for analyzing the impact of tourism (Macnaught, 1982).
Third, it is difficult to understand impacts in isolation as well as to differentiate
convincingly between social changes due to general economic and social
developements and those changes unique to tourism (Macnaught, 1982). Finally,
there are too many variables interrelated without indicators, which are very
difficult to control, and whose contributions to the mentioned impacts are

uncertain.

Therefore, because of the great number of variables and the actual
unpredictability of impacts, and while techniques are being refine to study
them, several sources of evidence should be used that look at both subjectives

and objectives data, in order to corroborate findings and conclusions.

128

Implications for Tourism Planning

Tourism planners and promoters need to understand the potential
negative impacts of tourism, and how this affects the industry, and most
importantly the host community and its human and natural resources that
comprise the tourism product. The character of host communities and their
social, cultural, environmental and physical resources are at the center of the
tourism industry business. These elements need to be sustained in ways that can
satisfy the actual and future demands of the tourism industry. Negative impacts
of tourism can change and destroy the product affecting both the development of

industry and the prosperity of the community with little possibility of reversal.

Residents attitudes towards tourist destination serves as an indicator of
social change and can be very helpful for monitoring negative impacts when they
begin to emerge. If negative attitudes or perceptions are identified within a
specific community, corroboration is required using more objective socio-
economic indicators. If such perceptions are not supported by these other
indicators, then a process of change of attitudes needs to be implemented at the
level of the community. Attitudes and perceptions are useful in identify feelings,
knowledge or behaviour that are determining residents attitudes toward tourism
activities. Being able to determine these dimensions, it is then possible to design
ways to change attitudes and or behaviours if necessary. In the case that
residents negative perception or attitudes are corroborated, then the industry can
set strategic managerial and developmental decisions to cope with the problems

identified, and work in ways to minimize any counterproductive effects.

129

Assessing host communities’ attitudes towards tourism helps to identify
those impacts that are being felt by different groups within the community. This
serves as a tool for needs assessment. This helps to design specific programs
according to the needs and characteristics of those groups. Some strategies that
can be useful to change attitudes or perceptions at the individual, community

and industry level include:

Inform and communicate facts about the industry benefits and problems.

0 Develop programs of environmental and cultural sensitivity to create
awareness of the potential cost-benefit of tourism oriented to reduce tension
or problems between tourists and residents, and to formulate plans to gain

resident support of tourist activities .

0 Develop programs for all sectors involved in tourism to deliver direct

experiences with the benefits and negative effects of the industry.

0 Involve local people in the planning, implementation and evaluation of
tourism in their community so they can be part of the decision making about

issues that affects them directly.

The pace and intensity as well as the community development process
needs to be taken into account in order to minimize negative impacts. These
factors are critical because they have to do with how well residents can adapt to
changes and be responsible in making decisions that will affect their lives in the

future.

130

Therefore, it is important for community and tourism developers to
monitor host communities’ attitudes and behavior toward tourists and tourism
as part of an overall evaluation of the industry. This will help to determine
appropriate development strategies which reduce detrimental effects on the
community. Only then, is it possible to formulate and plan sound tourism
developments that can maximize benefits while minimizing potential negative
impacts. Host communities’ attitudes and behavior can be viewed as a strategy
that that takes into account the community feelings and opinions in relation to
development processes that might be affecting or will be affecting residents in

the near future.

131

Recommendations for Future Research

Attitudes toward tourism by themselves only tell us about what people
know, want, feel and do in relation to tourists and tourism. If planners are
concern in how likely a community will engage in supportive action toward
tourism, measuring just residents attitudes would not tell them much about such
behaviour. It is difficult to predict behaviour such as public support, involvement
in community tourism development, volunteering, keeping up the image of the
community, and treating tourist well, by just measuring attitudes. The
consistency between attitudes and behaviour is subject to other variables such as
peoples behavioral and normative beliefs and the importance of those beliefs;
attitudes and subjective norms that determine intentions to behave in a particular
way, and the behaviour itself. As Ryan (1991) explains, attitudes toward
tourism depends on many complicated variables that include beliefs of what
residents think is true, and the importance of those beliefs; and the importance of
norms and values attributed to potential outcomes of thier behaviour. Attitudes
of residents toward tourism and tourists is not always manifested because of
these inhibiting factors, but may reflect their attitudes in behavioral ways that
cannot be observed(e.g.', orienting tourists). In general residents behaviour is a
result of a series of compromises between conflict of intersts of varying
importance to them and their tolerance level and empowerment (Ryan, 1991).
Therefore, if the idea is to predict behaviour, future studies should look at
applying behavioral models such as the theory of reasoned action of Fishbein

(1967), or the theory of planned behaviour by Ajzen (1985).

Standardarized reliable and valid scales that can measure residents

attitudes needs to be developed in order to be able to measure accurately

132

attitudes and be able to compare across studies. Operationalization of the

variables for measurement guided by theory.

Is very difficult to manipulate the existence and absence of tourism
development in a same area in order to determine causality between tourism and
its impacts in a specific community. Therefore, quasiexperimental and or
longitudinal studies are needed to monitor changes overtime. We may be able to

infer causality by attempting to control for threats to internal validity.

This line of research needs to begin to develop theoretical and conceptual
frameworks that can explain attitudes and perceived impacts of tourism. Ap
(1990) proposed social exchange theory that is based on understanding the
exchange of resources during interpersonal situation, and predicting the
behaviour from that interaction. Another theoretical framework is social
judgement theory that can help to explain peoples range of acceptable attitudinal

positions toward different pace, level and intensity of tourism development.

Attention should be given to the influence of the development process that
communites experience and how it affects communities and residents in regard
to economic, social, cultural and environmental impacts. The form, type and
pace of tourism development in rural areas need to be studied along with how
these variables influence the social dynamics of communities. Such information
will eventually enable policy-makers, in the comprehensive planning process of
tourism systems in small communities, to forecast potential impacts and to

establish plans of action for community development.

133

Case study approaches need to be developed and applied in order to
understand the effects of tourism system in communities. Such methodologies
have the potential to assess each of the dimensions of tourism and explain more
accurately the effects of tourism in social dynamics. A better understanding of
how tourism impacts are generated we will be able to develop strategies
according to the needs of the tourism system and the needs of the host

community.

134

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ajzen I. (1991). Benefits of Leisure: A social psychological perspective. In B.L.
Driver, Perry]. Brown and George L. Peterson. Benefits of Leisure. State College,
Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Ajzen I. and Driver, B.L. (1991). Prediction of leisure participation from
behavioral, normative, and control beliefs: An application of the theory of
planned behavior. Leisure Sciences. 13, 185-204.

 

American Psychological Association (1990). Publication Manual (rev. ed.) Ninth
printing. Pennsylvania: Lancaster press.

Allen, L. R., Long, P.T., Perdue, R.R. & Kieselbach, S. (1988). The impact of
tourism development on residents' perceptions of community life. lournal of
Travel Research. 27 (3) 16-21.

Babbie, Earl (1990). Survey Research Methods 2nd ed. Belmont, California:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Balza (1990). Prediagnéstico municipio autonomo Rangel e inventario de su
planta turistica. Mérida: Corporacién de Los Andes, Gerencia de Planificacién,

Departamento de Turismo.

Balza (1990). Prediagnéstico municipio auténomo Santos Marquina e inventario
de su planta turistica. Mérida: Corporacién de Los Andes, Gerencia de

Planificacién, Departamento de Turismo.

Belisle, F. I. & Hoy, D. R. (1980). The perceived impact of tourism by residents. A
case study in Santa Marta, Colombia. Annals of Tourism Research fl (1), 83 -
101.

Berghe Van Den, P. 8: Keyes, C. (1984). Introduction: tourism and recreated
ethnicity. Annals of Tourism Research 11, 343-352.

Boossevain, I. (1979). The impact of tourism on a dependent island: Gozo, Malta.
Annals of Tourism Research _6_ (1), 76 — 90.

Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications
for management of resources. The Canadian Geographer 2_4, 40—45.

135

136

Butler, R. W. (1990). Alternative tourism: pious hope or trojan horse?. lournal of
Travel Research. _2_8 (1) 40-45.

Butler, R. W. (1989). Tourism and tourism research. In Edgar L. I. 8: Thomas L. B.

(Eds.). Understanding leisure and recreation. Mapping the past charting the
future State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

 

Campbell, D., 8: Stanley, J. (1978). Disefios experimentales y cuasiexperimentales
en la investigacién social. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Amorrortu editores S.A.

Carmines, E. G., 8: Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment.
Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Cater, Erlet A. (1987). Tourism in the least developed countries. Annals of
Tourism Reseailt 1_4, 202-226.

Christenson, I. A. and Robinson, ].W. (Eds.). (1989). Community Development in
Perspective. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

Cohen, Erik. (1988). Authenticity and commodization in tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research 1_5 (4), 371-386.

Cooke, K. (1982). Guidelines for socially appropiate tourism development in
British Columbia. lournal of Travel Research. 21 (1 ), 22-27.

Corporacién Venezolana de Turismo, Direccién de Planificacion, Programacién y
Presupuesto (1988). Estudio de Mercado Turfstico. Mérida, Venezuela.

Crandall, Louise (1987). The social impact of tourism on developing regions and
its measurement. In Ritchie LR. Brent 8: Goeldner Charles R. Travel tourism and
hospitality research. (pp. 373-382). New York: John Wiley 8: Sons, Inc.

 

Davis, D., Allen, 1., 8: Cosenza, R. M. (1987 ). Segmenting local residents by their
attitudes, interests and opinions toward tourism. lournal of Travel Resegch.

DeVellis, Robert F. (1991). Scale development: Theoty and applications. Newbury
Park, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Din, K. H. (1988). Social and cultural impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research _1_5_ (4), 563-566.

Dogan, Hasen Zajer. (1989). Forms of adjustment social cultural impacts of
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 1_6_, 216-236.

Eagly, Alice H. and Chaiken, Shelly (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort
Worth: Harcourt Brace Iovanovich College Publishers.

137

Fishbein, M. (1963). An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about
an object and attitude toward that object. Human Relations E, (3), 233-239.

Frechtling, Douglas C. (1987). Assessing the impacts of travel and tourism -
Introduction to travel impact estimation. In Ritchie J.R. Brent 8: Goeldner

Charles R. TravelI tourism, and hospitality research. (pp. 325-331). New York:
John Wiley 8: Sons, Inc.

Getz, D. (1983). Capacity to absorb tourism: concepts and implications for
strategic planning. Annals of Tourism Research 1_0_, 239-263.

Heenan, D. (1978). Tourism and the community: A drama in three acts". lournal
of Travel Research 30-33.

Hill, R. J. (1992). Attitudes and behavior. In Morris Rosenberg 8: Ralph H. Turner

(Eds.). Social psychology. Sociological perspective. (pp.347-378). New Brunswick:
Transaction Publishers.

Judd, C.M., Smith, ER, 8: Kidder, L.H. (1991). Research methods in social
relations. (6th ed.). Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Kemper, R. (1979). Tourism in Taos and Patzcuaro: A comparison of two
approaches to regional development. Annals of Tourism Research 4 (1) 91-110.

Kousis, Maria. (1989). Tourism and the family in a rural Cretan community.
Annals of Tourism Research 1_6, 318-332.

Leistritz, FL. 8: SH. Murdock. (1981). The socioeconomic impact of resource
development: methods for assessment. Westview Press, Boulder Colorado.

Lew, Alan A. (1989). Authenticity and Sense of Place in the Tourim Development
Experience of Older Retail Districts. lournal of Travel Research 2_7, (4), 15-22 .

Liu, Juanita 8: Var, Turgut (1986). Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in
Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research l3 , 193-214.

Long, Patrick (1991). Tourism on our terms: Rural community tourism
development impacts and policies. Western Governors’ Association. College of

Business and Administration, University of Colorado at Boulder.

Long, Patrick; Perdue, Richard 8: Allen, Lawrence (1990). Rural resident tourism
perceptions and attitudes by community level of tourism. Journal of Travel
Research 3-9.

138

Macnaught, T. (1982). Mass tourism and the dilemma of Modernization in Pacific
Island Communities. Annals of Tourism Research 9, 359-381.

Marsh, Nicholas R. 8: Henshall Brain D. (1987). Planning better tourism: the
strategic importance of tourist-resident expectations and interactions. Tourism
Recreation Research 12 (2), 47-54.

Marvin E. O., Melber, B. D. 8: Merwin D. J. (1981). A methodology for conducting
social impact assessments using quality of social life indicators. In Fintersbusch,

K. 8: Wolf C.P. Methodology of Social Impact Assessment. (pp. 43-78). Second
Edition. Pennsylvania and Massachusets, Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company.

Mathieson, A. 8: Wall G. (1987). Tourism: economic, physical and social impacts.
London and New York, Longaman Scientific 8: Technical.

McDougall, Gordon and Munro, Hugh (1987). Scaling and attitude measurement
in tourism and travel research. In J.R Brent Ritchie and Charles R. Goeldner

(Eds.). Travel , tourismI and hospitality research. A handbook for managers and
researchers. (pp. 87-99). New York: John Wiley 8: Sons.

McElroy, J. 8: Albuquerque, Klaus (1986). The tourism Demostration Effect in the
Caribbean. lournal of Travel Research pp. 31-34.

Milman, A. 8: Pizam, A. (1988). Social impacts of tourism on Central Florida.
Annals of Tourism Research E, 191-204.

Mings, Robert C. (1988). The Importance of more research on the Impacts of
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 1_5, 191-204, .

Monk, J. 8: Alexander, C. (1986). Free Port Fallout. Gender, Employment and
Migration on Margarita Island. Annals of Tourism Reseaggh 13, 393—413.

Moreno, P. E. (1984). Los Aleros: La historia de una historia. Editorial Logos
Merida, Venezuela.

Milman, A. 8: Pizam, A. (1988). Social impacts of tourism on Central Florida.
Annals of Tourism Research E, 191-204.

Montilla, G. (Los Aleros representative). (1992). Los Aleros development process
and impacts (Cassette Recording No. 1). Mérida: Los Aleros.

Murphy, P. E. (1983). Perceptions and attitudes of decisionmaking groups in
tourism centers. Journ_al of Travel Research 24 (1) 8-13.

Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism A Community Approach. London: Methuen 8:
Co.

139

Oficina Central de Estadistica e Informatica (1986). XI Censo General de
Poblaciény Vivienda 1981 Estado Mérida. Caracas, Venezuela.

 

Oficina Central de Estadistica e Informatica (1989). Anuario Estadistico de
Venezuela 1988. Caracas, Venezuela.

Oficina Central de Estadistica e Informatica (1991). Anuario Estadistico de
Venezuela 1990. Caracas, Venezuela.

Oficina Central de Estadistica e Informatica (1991). Encuesta Turistica. Caracas.

Oficina Central de Estadistica e Informatica (1986). Nomenclador de Centros
Poblados, Region Los Andes. Venezuela.

Oficina Central de Estadistica e Informatica (1981). Viviendas 100% y Poblacién.
Indicadores Socio-econémicos segpp Municipios. Caracas, Venezuela.

Patton, M. Q. (1986). Utilization - Focused Evaluation. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Newbury Park, California.

Pearce II, J. (1980). Host community acceptance of foreign tourists. Annals of
Tourism Research Z (2), 224-233.

Pizam, A. (1978). Tourism's Impacts: The social costs to the destination
community as perceived by its residents. lournal of Travel Research pp. 8-12.

Richter, L. K. (1989). Nurturing Tourism and Community Character: Public
Sector Opportunities in Rural America. Kansas State University. Unpublished

Paper.

Rothman, R. A. (1978). Residents and transients: Community reaction to seasonal
visitors. lournal of Travel Research 16, 8-13.

Ryan, Chris (1991). Recreational tourism: A social science perspective. New York:
Routledge.

Sethna, R. J. 8: Richmond, B. O. (1978). US Virgin Islanders' perceptions of
tourism. lournal of Travel Research 12 (1), 30 - 31.

Smith, V. L., (Ed). (1977). Host and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvanis Press.

Stynes, J. D. 8: Stewart, S. I. (1990). The impacts of the Grand Traverse Resort on
the local community. A case study. Michigan State Univ. Unpublished paper.

140

Thomason, P., Crompton, J. 8: Kamp, D. (1979). A study of the attitudes of
impacted groups within a host community toward prolonged stay tourist

visitors. lournal of Travel Research 2-6 .

Tull, D. S. 8: Hawkins, D. (1990). _M_arketin&Research Measurement 8: Methods
(5th ed.) New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Turner, L., and Ash, J. (1975). The golden hordes London: Constable.

US Travel 8: Tourism Administration (1991). USTTA Statistics. Washington,
DC: US Department of Commerce.

Venturini, O. L. (1983). Geogi'afia de la region de los andes venezolgnos. Caracas:
Ariel-Seix Barral Venezolana.

Wicker, A.W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: the relationship of verbal and
overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. lournal of Social Issues 25, 41-78.

Wilkinson, P. (1989). Strategies for tourism in island microstates. Annals of
tourism Research 16, 153-177.

Yin, Robert K. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods Sage
Publications, Inc. Beverly Hills, California.

141

APPENDIX A

Los Aleros", Tourism and the Community: A Community Opinion Survey

Response Frequencies in Questionnaire Format

142

Los Aleros ", Tourism and the
Community

A Community Opinion Survey
Response Frequencies in Questionnaire Format
April, 1992

Conducted by:
Domingo A. Medina

with the assistance of the

Instituto de Estadistlca Apllcada y Computaclon
de la Universldad de Los Andes

and the colaboration ot the
Corporacldn do Ios Andes (CORPOANDES)

Sponsored by

La Corporacién Merldeiia de Turismo
(CORMETUR)

143

INTRODUCCION

This document presents preliminary results of the "Los Aleros, Tourism
and the Community" survey. Only numerical responses, regarding response
frecuency are included here. The analisis, discusion and conclusions of this
survey will be included in a separate document.

A two stage cluster sampling, stratified and probability proportionate to
size was used in this study, because it was very difficult and resource and time
consuming to compile an exhaustive list of the elements that comprising the
target population. The survey questionnaire was administered in 196 (15.5% of
the total popultion) households sistematically sampled from a list of 1263
households in Mucuruba, Tabay and Cacute. Of the 196 interviews, 177 (90% of
total of questionnaires) were succesfully completed. This high rate of response,
represents 14% of the total population. The reliability of the questionnaire and
the margin of statistical error is still being processed, however, frecuencies of
response are considered generally reliable, and all should be useful for
interpretation.

The following is a replica of the questionnaire filled out by the residents of
Mucuruba, Cacute and Tabay in the State of Mérida. Except for this introduction,
the wording on all pages and questions are a direct translation of the original
questionnaire in Spanish. Percentages of response are listed, in place of the
numbers that the interviewers circled to indicate the respondents answers. Next
to each question there is a number after "h =", indicating how many people
answered that question. For example, in Q-4, 177 people answered the question,
123 women (69%) and 54 men (31%). For most questions, the percentages add
to 100%; in some cases, rounding off numbers results in sums of 99% or 99.5%.

These are responses to questions worded and written in Spanish, and
given on particular days, specifically Friday 10, Saturday 11 and Sunday 12 of
April of 1992. The reasearcher believes that responses could have been slightly
different if the questionnaire would have been administered during the week
because of the division of labor between men and women in the area. Another
variable that needs to be considered, was that the weekend in which the
questionnaire was administered, it was the beggining of the Holy Week in
Venezuela, that it for most people vacation time, and a large number of tourist
visit the State of Merida.

144

(Head to the respondent)

SECTION I.- BACKGROUND. In order to find out how different kinds of people
feel about different issues, your answers to some background questions are very
important. As with all information in this survey, tour answers to the following
questions will be kept confidential. No one in your community will ever see your
individual answers and there is no way that those answers can ever be
associated with your name.

Q-1. What is your age?

Between 40 - 49 yrs. 11%
Between 50 - 59 yrs. 10%
Between 60 - 69 yrs. 15 8%

n=177
Less than 20 yrs. 32 18%
Between 20 - 29 yrs. 54 30%
Between 30 - 39 yrs. 35 20%
19
17

70 yrs or more 5 3%
0-2. Where do you live?
n= 177
Mucuruba 50 28%
Cacute 26 15%
Tabay 100 56%
Other: 1 0.6%

0-3. How long have you lived at this address? (circle one number)

n: 177
Less than 3 years 29 16%
3 to 5 years 13 7%
6 to 10 years 20 11%
11 years or more 39 22%
Lifelong resident 76 43%

Q-4. Are you: (circle one number)
n=1 77

Female 1 23 69%
Male 54 31 °/o

Q-5. Are you currently: (circle one number)

n: 177
Single 69 39%
Married 95 54%
Separated 2 1%
Divorced 4 2%
Widowed 7 4%:

145

Q-6. How many people currently live in your household?
n= 175
Number of children

Between 0 - 2 children 114 64%
Between 3 - 5 children 57 32%
Between 6 - 9 children 5 3%

Number of adults (including yourself)

Between 0 - 2 adults 62 35%
Between 3 - 5 adults 80 46%
Between 6 - 8 adults 27 15%
Between 9 - 11 adults 5 3%
Between 12 y 14 adults 1 0.6%

Q-7. Do you have children attending school? (circle one number)
n=175

Yes 85 48%
No 90 51%
Missing 2 1%

Q-8. What is the highest level of education you have finished? (circle one number)
n=177

Primary School 80 45%
Secondary School 65 37%
Technical degree 2 1%
College degree 5 3%
College graduate 1 0.6%
ane 24 13%5

Q-9. What kind of housing do you live in ? (circle one number)

n: 177
Owned house. 144 81%
Owned apartment. 2 1%
Rented house. 29 16%
Rented apartment. 2 1%
A room. 0 0%

Q-10. What is your primary occupation? (circle one number)

n=177 '

Education, Health, Social Work. 13 7%
Homemaker, General Labor 5 3%
Housekeeper 81 46%
Managerial Executive, Professional 1 0.6 %
Office worker 8 4%
Farmer. 10 5%

Retired. 3 2%

146

Sales representative. 12 7%
Skilled Craftsman, Artisan 9 5%
Artist 0 0%
Student. 26 15%
Other 9 5%

0-11. Would you say that your occupation is either directly or indirectly related to the tourism
industry in the State of Merida? (circle one number)
n: 177

Yes 51 29%

No 126 71 %

If yes to question 11, how long have you been in that occupation for? (circle one number)
n: 177

Less than 3 years. 10 6%
3 to 5 years. 17 10%
6 to 10 years 15 8%
11 years or more 9 5%
NIA 126 71%

Q-12. Would you say that the occupation of any of your household members is directly or
indirectly related to the tourist industry? (circle one number)

n: 177
Yes 45 2570
No 132 75%
If yes to question 12, how long has s/he or have they been in that occupation for? (circle one
number)
l'l= 177
Less than 3 years 18 10%
3 to 5 years 9 5%
6 to 10 years 11 6%
11 years or more 7 4%
NIA. 132 75%

Q-13. What range was your total household monthly income? (circle one number)
n: 160

Less than Be 6,000 52 29%

Between Bs 6,000 y Bs10,000 55 31%

Between Bs11,000 y Bs15,000 17 10%

Between 3516.000 y 8820.000 5 3%
Between Bs21,000 y Be 25,000 6 3%
Between 8326.000 y Bs 30,00 2 1%
88 31,000 or more 3 2%
NIA 20 11%
No response 17 9%

147

SECTION II. "LOS ALEROS": Los Aleros is one of the most successful tourism
attractions of the State of Merida. In effect, it has been able to cautivate a large
number of tourists and visitors. Los Aleros represent an important proyect
because, it is believed, it has contributed to the social and economic
development of the area. However it is important to assess its value and the
effects that it has generated in the community that sorrounds it. Therefore, we
would like to know your opinion in regard to this subject.

In the following section I will read a list of statements to which I would like you to
respond according to HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THE STATEMENT. Please
respond according to the following five point scale: 5 means that you tgtally
agree, 4 means that you agree, 3 means that you are not sure, 2 means that you
disagree and 1 means that you totally disagree.

As an example, suppose you are considering this statement: "I like to help
visitors who are lost". Perhaps you feel that giving assistance will take to much
time. However, you also feel that visitors should be welcome as they contribute to
the local economy. Suppose tou decided that you generally agreed with this
statement; then you would respond as follows:

Totally Totally
Agree Agree Not sure Disagree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

(circle one number for each)
Totally Totally
Agree Agree Not sure Disagree Disagree

n=177

Q-14. One of the important aspects of 27% 63% 3% ‘ 7% 0%
Los Aleros is that it has created
more job opportunities for the
community .

n=1 77

Q-15. The level of personal insecurity 1% 10% 10% 52% 27%
and vandalism in the community has
increased because of the touristic
activities of Los Aleros.

n=177

Q-16. The creation of Los Aleros, has 27% 58% 7% 7% 0.6%
promoted the creation of other
recreational areas (parks,
playgrounds)

n=1 77

O-17. Tourist that visit Los Aleros add 3% 20% 7% 53% 16%
to the traffic problems in the
community.

148

(circle one number for each)
Totally Totally
Agree Agree Not sure Disagree Disagree

n=177

Q-18 Los Aleros encourages a variety of 7% 54% 14% 19% 6%
cultural activities by the local
population (crafts, arts, music, etc).

n=177

O-19. Los Aleros has contributed to a 0.6% 7% 10% 59% 23%
deterioration in the ecological
environment.

n=177

0-20. The residents of this community 44% 51% 4% 1% 0%
are courteous and friendly to the
tourists.

n=1 77

Q-21. The tourists that visit Los Aleros 0.5% 4% 5% 60% 30%
disrupt the peace and tranquility of
our parks and community.

n=177

O-22. The tourists that visit Los Aleros 12% 76% 7% 3% 2%
are courteous and friendly when
they pass by your comunity.

n=1 77

O-23. The tourists that visit Los Aleros 2% 33% 29% 32% 4%
are aware of the customs and ways
of life here in your community.

n=1 77

Q-24. Revenues from Los Aleros are 4% 25% 20% 42% 9%
more important than other
production sector in the community.

n=1 77

025. Local businesses are the ones 25% 53% 5% 16% 0%
which benefit most from tourists
that visit Los Aleros.

n=1 77

026. You feel that you do not have any 37% 33% 2% 20% 8%
kind of benefits from Los Aleros.

n=1 77

Q-27. The standard of living increases 5% 29% 32% 29% 5%

considerably because of the money
that tourists that visit Los Aleros
spend in the community.

149

(circle one number for each)
Totally Totally
Agree Agree Not sure Disagree Disagree

n=1 77

O-28. Government should invest in other 29% 42% 9% 18% 2%
sectors of production rather than
investing in attractions like Los

Aleros.

n=177

O-29. Los Aleros contributes to the 8% 43% 11% 30% 7%
economic growth of the community.

n=177

Q-30. Los Aleros has changed the customs 1% 13% 3% 50% 33%
and way of life of your community.

n=1 77

O-31. Los Aleros rescues the historicals 21% 52% 17% 10% 0%
environments of the State of Merida.

n=1 77

O-32. Los Aleros promotes cultural 14% 41% 19% 22% 4%

exchange among residents of your
community and the tourists.

n=1 77

0-33. Los Aleros contributes to the Merida's 9% 36% 30% 20% 5%
State economy.

n=177

Q-34. Los Aleros preserves the natural 10% 61% 18% 10% 1%
environment of the State of Merida.

n=1 77

Q-35. You believe that the population feels 6% 54% 8% 24% 8%
that Los Aleros brings benefits to the
community.

n=1 77

Q-36. Los Aleros promotes the Andes 35% 50% 8% 6% 0.5%
culture.

n=1 76

O-37 Los Aleros disrupts the cultural 1% 4% 6% 57% 32%
identity of the community.

n=176

Q-38. The local residents are the people 12% 33% 12% 38% 3%

who benefit the least because from
the touristics activities of Los Aleros.

150

SEC'ITON III. TOURISM DEVELOPMENT: People travel from all over Venezuela
and the World to visit Merida State. Because of the potential economic benefits,
many communities are trying to attract these tourists to their area. At the same
time, other communities are trying to restrict development. Now, we would like to
know your opinion in regard to how you feel about each of the following
statements concerning tourism development.

(circle one number for each)

Totally Totally
Agree Agree Not sure Disagree Disagree
n=177
Q-39. Meeting tourists from all over 71% 28% 0.5% 0.5% 0%
Venezuela and the world is a
valuable educational experience.
n=177
O-40. Tourism development unfairly 8% 46% 20% 25% 0.5%
increases real estate costs.
n=176
Q-41. Tourism development increases 14% 64% 5% 15% 1%
the quality of life in an area or
community.
n=176
Q-42. Non-resident should be allowed to 24% 53% 7% 14% 2%
develop tourism attractions in an
area or community.
n=176
Q-43. The local community should control 37% 50% 4% 8% 0%
tourism development in its own
community.
n=176
Q-44. Turists should pay more money 9% 27% 2% 38% 24%
than local residents to visit parks
and recreational facilities.
n=1 76
O-45. Tourism has resulted in a congestion 3% 33% 11% 41% 11%
of recreational and community areas.
0:176
O-46. Tourism benefits the arts and crafts 43% 49% 0.6% 7% 0%
business in your community.
n=176
Q-47. Tourism development increases 0% 15% 7% 42% 35%

insecurity and vandalism in this
community or area.

151

Totally
Agree

n=175

Q-48. Increasing the number of tourists 15%
visiting an area improves the local
economy.

n=1 75
Q-49. Tourist should pay a special tax on 7%
hotel and motel room fees.

n=175

Q-50. Tourism development improves 34%
the appearance of an area or
community.

n=175

Q-51. Tourism development increases 28%
the number of recreational
opportunities for local residents.

n=1 75

Q-52. Ordinary people don‘t benefit from 20%
tourism.

n=1 75

O-53. Local community should restrict 2%
tourism development.

n=175

Q-54. Tourism development increases the 4%
traffic problems of an area or

community.

n=175

Q-55. Tourism devel0pment increases 13%
property value.

n=1 75

0-56. Tourism leads to deterioration of 6%
the environment.

n=175

Q-57. Tourism has not changes the 7%
costumes and way of life of the
communities.

n=175

O-58. Tourism exploit certain worker 7%
groups.

n=175

O-59. Tourism does not create 2%

employment opportunities.

(circle one number for each)

Agree

60%

22%

55%

57%

44%

1 3%

31 °/o

44%

27%

47%

23%

9%

Not sure

1 0%

6%

5%

5%

5%

7%

1 1%

1 5%

7%

1%

1 3%

5%

Disagree

1 4%

44%

4%

9%

26%

42%

42%

25%

41 %

33%

52%

50%

Totally
Disagree

0.6%

21 °/o

1 °/o

0.6%

4%

34%

11%

3%

19%

12%

5%

33%

152

(circle one number for each)
Totally Totally
Agree Agree Not sure Disagree Disagree

n=175

O-60. Tourism development has resulted 6% 35% 12% 38% 9%
in a change of the use of the land
(agriculture - tourism).

n=1 75

0-61. Tourism development generates 22% 55% 6% 15% 2%
especulation in the services
(transport. hotels, restaurants)

THE NEXT THREE QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN
THIS COMMUNITY.

n=175
Q-62. This community should try to 55% 42% 2% 0.6% 0%
attract more tourists to this area.

n=175
Q-63. You 'Il be glad if this community 46% 52% 0.6% 1% 0%
plans for tourism.

=175
064. You would like to participate in the 41% 52% 4% 2% 0%
planning of tourism in your
community.

n=175

Q-65. You would benefit from more 30% 46% 11% 12% 1%
tourism development in
this community.

O-66. Which of the terms on the right do you think best describes your community?
(circle one number for each)

Agricultural Industrial Touristic Residential Retirement

Area Area Area Area Area
n=177
a.- Today your community is a.. 55% 0% 23% 22% 0%
n=1 75
b.- In the future you would like 39% 10% 45% 6% 0.6%

your community to be...

n=174
c.- In the future you think that your 31% 5% 50% 15% 0%

community will be...

153

Q-67. Since you have lived here, how has your community changed?
n= 177 (circle one number)

Has become a worse place to live. 17 10%
Has stayed the same. 77 43%
Has become a better place to live. 83 47%

P-68. In the next five years, how do you feel your community will change?
n= 176 (circle one number)

Has become a worse place to live. 32 18%
Has stayed the same. 50 28%
Has become a better place to live. 94 53%
For the Interviewer:

When you finish to fill up the questionnaire, put the questionnaire in the envelope that came with it
and seal the envelope. Do not write on the envelope.

Indicate to the respondent: Thank you for taking the time to share your opinions about ”Los
Aleros“ and about tourism. Your Opinion will be very important for the valueof this study. If the
respondent have any final comments, please use the space below or the next page.

154

APPENDIX B

Interviewers Training Guide

 

155

HNS'II‘IRUC'II‘IIVO IPAIRA ENTIREVHSTADOIRIES

”Los Aleros”, el Turismo y la
Comunidad

Encuesta de opinién de la Comunidad

Abril, 1992

Auspiciado por

La Corporacion Meridefia de Turismo
(CORMETUR)

 

156

Informacion General:

Esta encuesta es parte de un estudio de caso explorativo de los Aleros en
el Edo. Mérida. Es el estudio del desarrollo de un sistema turistico en una
comunidad rural y sus efectos. Se cree que un proceso de desarrollo de auto-
ayuda ha tomado lugar, y que este tipo de desarrollo a generado ciertos efectos
positivos y negativos en la comunidad. El propésito del estudio es entender e1
proceso de desarrollo de los Aleros desde el punto de vista de las teorias de
desarrollo comunal y determinar que tipo de impactos este tipo de desarrollo ha
generado. Multiples fuentes de evidencia seran utilizados para documentar los
impactos sociales, economicos, culturales y ambientales de los Aleros en las
comunidades adyacentes. Especificamente esta encuesta pretende medir los
impactos de los Aleros y del Turismo como es percibida por la comunidad.

Las referencias que soportan este estudio de caso vienen de la literatura,
textos y revistas de investigacidn en las areas de planificacién turistica, impactos
del turismo y teon’as de desarrollo comunitario.

Este estudio sera conducido por Domingo Medina como parte de sus
requerimientos para obtener el titulo de maestrfa. El proyecto es auspiciado por
la Corporacidn Meridefia de Turismo (CORMETUR), con la asistencia técnica del
Instituto de Estadistica Aplicada y Computacion de la Universidad de los Andes
y la colaboracién de la Corporacion de los Andes (CORPOANDES).

La Investigacién ppr encuestas:

La investigacién por encuestas esta basado en las teorias no realistas
cognitivas y de comportamiento denominada estimulo-respuesta. Se presume
que un item en un cuestionario significara exactamente la misma cosa para cada
encuestado, y que cada respuesta dada debe significar lo mismo cuando es dada
por diferentes encuestadores. Aunque esto es un objetivo imposible, preguntas
en las encuestas estan disefiadas de tal manera que se aproxime a este ideal.

Lps Engggstadggs y la entrevistp;

El objetivo de los encuestadores es conducir entrevistas personales
estructuradas en zonas asignadas en las poblaciones de Tabay, Cacute y
Mucuruba.

El éxito de una entrevista personal depende mucho del encuestador(a). Un
encuestador(a) necesita estar especialmente entrenado(a) en los procedimientos
de la entrevista y en las especificaciones del cuestionario o instrumento. Luego e1
encuestador(a) entrevista a una muestra de la poblacion predeterminada y

157

registra las respuestas. La entrevista es cara a cara con el entrevistado y el
cuestionario es administrado verbalmente.

La entrevista personal estructurada consiste en un cuestionario detallado
que el entrevistador(a) debe seguir al pie de la letra. Bl entrevistador(a) no esta
permitido(a) en adaptar o cambiar, preguntas o topicos, o hacer otras preguntas
que no estan incluidas en el cuestionario. (Durante la prueba piloto se permite
probar las respuestas, clarificar respuestas particulates y refrasear preguntas
ambiguas).

Cuestionarios administrados por entrevistadores en vez por un
entrevistado, ofrece un numero de ventajas:

- Entrevistas estructuradas tipicamente genera altos fndices de respuestas
que encuestas por correo. Una entrevista propiamente disefiada puede lograr un
indice de respuesta por lo menos de180 a1 85%.

- La presencia de un entrevistador generalmente disminuye la cantidad de
"no se" 0 preguntas no contestadas. Si el minimizar estas respuestas es
importante para el estudio, e1 entrevistador puede estar entrenado para sondear
y probar las respuestas.

- El entrevistador(a) tambien puede proveer asistencia cuando hay
confusién sobre algunos items en el cuestionario. Si el encuestado(a) claramente
no comprende e1 intento de una pregunta o indica que no entiende, el\
entrevistador(a) puede clarificar y por ende recibir respuestas relevantes (tales
clarificaciones deben ser estrictamente controladas, sin embargo, a través de
especificaciones formales.

- El entrevistador(a) puede tanto hacer preguntas como observar. Por
ejemplo, en una entrevista cara a cara el entrevistador(a) puede notar la raza o
condicién de una Vivienda, si esto se considera demasiado delicado para

preguntar.
En it into I Encuestadores r '
Propositos.

1.- Explicar los detalles, objetivos e importancia del estudio, y explicar el rol y
asignaciones de los encuestadores(ras) .

2.- Familiarizar a los encuestadores(ras) con el cronograma de entrevistas, con el
cuestionario, y el proceso de la entrevista.

158

La lista siguiente son discusiones breves sobre puntos importantes y
factores potenciales de conflicto que deben ser considerados por el
entrevistador(a).

a.- Rol Neutral. El entrevistador(a) esta en una posicion que puede afectar las
respuestas de los encuestados. Parcialidad en el entrevistador(a) debe ser
controlada haciendo que el entrevistador tome una posicién o rol neutral. Debe
ser enfatizado que cualquier aprobacidn o desaprobacién de las respuestas del
entrevistado, asi sea por cambios verbales, expresiones faciales o gestos entre
otros, pueden influenciar la calidad de los datos que se estan recogiendo. En
muchas discusiones y conversaciones las partes involucradas tienden a
responder en términos de indirectas, sugerencias, gestos o disposiciones dadas o
recibidas. Estos elementos deben ser mantenidos en un absoluto minimo o 103
resultados de los datos seran mas una funcién del entrevistador(a) que del
entrevistado.

b.- Identificacion. Una persona que va para una casa y quiere hacer preguntas,
especialmente preguntas personales, socio-economicas, generalmente se le
exigira alguna forma de identificacién. La identificacién debe incluir al nombre
del entrevistador(a) y al auspiciador de la encuesta. Esta identificacién debe ser
claramente visible al encuestado.

c.- Apariencia. Estrevistadores(ras) no deben verstirse en ningun extremo; esto
significa ni muy "rico" o muy "pobre". Nitido(a), conservativo(a), casual y
limpio(a), e1 entrevistador(a) presenta una norma acceptable afin cuando el
entrevistado no este vestido de la misma forma. Ropa llamativa sobre un
entrevistador(a) aparentemente adinerado, creara problemas y misconcepciones
en areas de bajo recursos, asi como una persona pobremente vestida en una area
de altos recursos. Se recomienda algun consenso sobre la vestimenta a user entre
los encuestadores.

d.- Conducta. El entrevistador(a) debe mostrar interés y atencién, pero deber
evitar dar la impresién de estar espiando en los asuntos, intereses y opiniones
personales de los entrevistados. Una personalidad placentera y amistosa debe
transmitirsele al encuestado. El encuestador(a) siendo casual y relajado puede
impartir esta actitud al encuestado, en la cual este podrta dar informaciones
honestas. Probablemente lo peor que un entrevistador(a) puede hacer, es ser
agresivo. Esta conducta de negociante debe ser desincentivada.

e.- Instrucciones del entrevistador. Un cronograma de entrevistas pobremente
disefiado puede bajar la moral, tanto del entrevistador(a) como del entrevistado.
Aunque e1 entrevistador(a) es el punto central en este método de encuestas, él o
ella solamente son tan buenos como sus herramientas y familiaridad con ellas.

f.- Familiaridad con el cuestionafirio. Si e1 entrevistador(a) no esta familiarizado
con el cuestionario, el estudio puede ser afectado e injustamente poner bajo

159

presidn a1 encuestado. Por ejemplo, el entrevistador(a) puede tomar mas tiempo
que lo necesario y crear una situacién no muy agradable. Familiaridad no puede
ser lograda simplemente examinando por encima el cuestionario varias veces. El
cuestionario debe ser estudiado con cuidado, pregunta por pregunta, y el
encuestador(a) debe practicar leyéndolo en voz alta. El entrevistador(a) debe ser
capaz de leer e1 cuestionario sin error y sin dificultad sobre las palabras y frases.
Las oraciones o enunciados deben ser leidas con naturalidad como si
constituyera una conversacidn natural, pero la conversacidn debe exactamente
seguir e1 lenguaje estipulado en el cuestionario. El entrevistador no debe intentar
memorizar el cuestionario.

De la misma forma el entrevistador(a) debe estar familiarizado con las
especificaciones preparadas conjuntamente con el cuestionario. Inevitablemente,
algunos items no seran compatibles con una situacién particular de un
encuestado, y preguntas pueden surgir en relacion a como tales preguntas deben
ser interpretadas en la situacion dada. Las especificaciones proveidas a1
encuestador(a) deben dar suficientes orientaciones en tales casos, pero el
entrevistador(a) debe estar suficientemente familiarizado con la organizacién y el
contenido de las especificaciones para permitir una eficiente referencias a ellos.
Es mejor para el entrevistador(a) dejar una pregunta sin contestar que pasar 5
minutos buscando a través de las especificaciones para clarificar o tratar de
interpretar las instrucciones relevantes.

g.- Siguiendo la redaccion exacta de 105 items. Un prquefio cambio en el fraseo de

una pregunta determinada puede guiar a un encuestado a responder 31 en vez
de "no".

h.- Reportando exactamente respuestas dadas. Siempre que una pregunta sea
abierta, es decir, preguntas solicitando una respuesta propia por parte del
encuestado, es muy importante que el entrevistador(a) registre esas respuestas
tales como son dadas. Ningun intento debe hacerse para resumir, parafrasear o
corregir errores gramaticales. Esto es importante porque el encuestador no sabe
como estas respuestas van a ser codificadas antes de su procesamiento.

i.- Probar o chequear respuestas. Encuestados algunas veces pueden responder
una pregunta de manera inapropiada. Por ejemplo, la pregunta puede mostrar
un enunciado actitudinal y preguntarle al encuestado que responda 'Totalmente
de acuerdo, de acuerdo, no esta segura(o), en desacuerso, o Totalmente en
desacuerdo". El encuestado podrfa responder "yo pienso que eso es verdad". En
tal situacién, el entrevistador(a) debe responder "esta usted totalmente de
acuerdo, o simplemente de acuerdo?". Si es necesario, el encuestador(a) puede
explicar que tiene instrucciones precisas de chequear una de las categorias u
opciones dadas. Si el encuestado firmemente se niega a escoger, el
entrevistador(a) debe aceptar tal decisidn y escribir la respuesta exacta dada por
el encuestado.

160

APPENDIX C

List of Sectors and Clusters

161

 

 

 

 

 

List of Sectors and Clusters
Tabay Census Cluster Number of Cumulative Cumulative

Sector 1 Block Households Total Range
Selected 1-2-3 1 21 21 1 - 21
Selected 7s9-1o 4 35: 56 22‘s?
Selected 4-5 2 11 67 57 - 67
Selected 6 3 159 226 68 - 226
Subtotal 4 226

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cum tive Cum tive
Households Total

282 - 282
21 283 - 303
14 31 - 1
1 -
430 373 -
442 - 442
443 -

Cum tive Cum tive
Households Total

481 -
541-

 

162

Households
1
26

34

1

188

Households

Households
1

6 -
694 - 719

7 - 801
802 -

five

1 - 1
1082 - 11
1 - 111
111 -1131
1 - 11
11 - 11

- 11
11 4- 11

 

163

tive C tive
Total

0 Cum
Households

Census
Block

Sector 7

4-

5
51

12

11

1

1

1

67
1263

1208
1

12

Summary of Sectors and Total of Households.

1197 -

- 12
1 -
1230 - 1248
1 - 1263

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total # of % per Total / % per
Tabay Sector Households Sector Poplulation Population
Center Center
1 226 17.89% 862 68.25%
2 227 17.97%
3 221 17.49%
4 188 14.88%
Total if of % per Total / % per
Mucuruba Sector Households Sector Poplulation Population
Center Center
5 206 16.31% 334 26.44%
6 128 10.13%
Total # of % per Total / % per
Cacute Sector Households Sector Poplulation Population
Center Center
7 67 7.30% 67 5307'.”—
TOTAL 7 1263 99.97% 100%

 

 

164

APPENDIX o_ 345.}. 1..

 

165

 

 

2th Stem .
\t .. A on e?

.O

.. ‘coEos‘ 5.

 

 

     

was. en
8:on

BEE. cam

    

v"...
u

. 22.3.5.5 rem-mac I m. _v
.e s... a...”
. . . .. .. . b.

 

a.»

  

«Eek 3

TABAY
Merida, Venezuela

Census Blocks &
Clusters Selected

Po ulation: 2160
# ouseholds: 257
(1981 Census)

 

167

 
 
  
 
  
  

MUCURUBA

Estado Merida, Venezuela

Census Blocks &
Clusters Selected

Population: 1093
# Households: 257
(1981 Census)

168

A2550 :3:
B ”me—onomso: #
2m ”cone—Eon
assoc—om Beams—O
5% 832m 2550

£c:~u=o> SEE—2

mELDU/VQ

 

 

 

 

 

 

169

APPENDIX E
Questionnaire Codebook

170

“Los Aleros", tourism and the Connunity 1992

FILE 'a:TBSIS3.sye'.
The SPSS/PC+ system.file contains
177 cases, each consisting of

68 variables (including system variables).

SURVEY VARIABLES

Codebook On-site interview Survey

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALL TO SCASENUM SDA‘I‘E SWEIGBT AGE ADDRESS QUES'I‘3
_QUES'I‘4 QUESTS QUESTSJ QUEST6.2 QUEST? QUESTB QUEST9 CLUES'I‘IO
_QUBSTIII QUESTIIZ QUESTIZI AQUEST122 QUESTlB AQUEST14 LQUESTIS QUESTIG
LQQBST17 QUEST18 QUEST19 QUESTZO QUESTZl QQBSTZZ QUESTZB QUEST24
_(EESTZS QUESTZS QUEST27 QUESTZB QUESTZQ QUESTBO (2388131 QUEST32
#0158193 QUEST34 gussr35 QUEST36 QUESTB? gues'rae QUEST” guss'rm
uss'rcl guss'r42 guzs'r43 ngs'ru guss'rds QUEST46 QUES'M'I pursue
UES'I'49 QUESTSO QUESTSI QUESTSZ QUEST53 QUESTSII QUESTSS UESTSG
(TESTS? QUESTSB 9288169 QUESTGO QUESTGl 931581262 QUESTGB S'I'64
_QUEST65 QUESTGGI QLUEST662 QUEST663 QUESTS‘I QEESTGB
SPSS Variable Description Quest. Scale Coding
VarJIane 8
AG: Responderlt's Age 1 Interval 1- Less than 20
2- m 20-39
3- Between 40-59
4- Gays-s or more
-9- Missing
ADDRESS Respondent's Address 2 Naninal 1- Mucuruba
. 2- Cacute
3-1nnnw
4-(nmer
9- Hissig
QUBS'r3 Living in this address. 3 Interval 1- 1 to Syrs
Residency 2- 6 to lOyrs
3-111rumsrnrlnne
4- Lifelaig
9- Missing
QUEST4 Calder 4 Naninal 1- Female
2- Halo
9- Missing
ours'rs MARITAL STATUS 5 Retinal 1- single
2- Harriet!
3- Separated
4- Divorced
5- Widowred
9- Missing
QUESTG. 1 # Children living in 6.1 Interval 1- Between 0-2 children
household 2- Between 395 children: I
3- Between 6-9 children
-9- Kissing ,
ouss'rs.2 # Children living in 5.2 Interval 1- am o-z adults I
household 2- Between 3-5 adults
3- Between 6-8 adults
4- Between 9—11 adults
5= Between 12-14 adults
-9=- HissinL

 

171

 

0038!?

Chlhhlnlmn-Mungsmhmfl.

ib-!es * 447
fills
9-Iflsshgj

 

GUESTS

lduathnudlhnel

h-Prhuuylkwnol
2-lfixnnflu3'8dhxfl
:h-hudnucdlsmdtknlege

dqpme
4-Iknerknnee
9-iflnsfl5L

 

Baudng

l-tmmndlmmse
2-CNMedlanuunt
3-Ihnnedlxmue
4-lunMuiapuxnun.
S-ltroan
9-IUsshul

 

QUESTIO

Prhuuytxnnpndnn

10

h-BdmamiuumedhmMSafinl
imam

2-Iknumfluuveumnmllumer

3-lkmsdh-mnr

t-Iunugennu.lxunndvel
Professional

s-tniicetunmer

fllranmu'

7-lundxed

e-tuues.nqnemnnambua

9-tfldlledthnmtnnuh
Arthun

lo-Iundst

lv-suMkne

lz-tnmer

99-lusehxl

 

QUEST11.1

Ocaqnthllrehuad‘ua
tundra

11.1

Dflflmmaumw

l-tke
m-Bo
9-lunsth

 

QUEST11.2

tharhathhsooannmhxl

11.2

l-Innstmnniurs
2- 3tx>5yrs
3-45to Mann

4- Lunatarrmun
s-lVA
9-Iunshg1

 

QUEST12.1

linthrnnflnrfiloammnthxl
rehfladtmwhmuinn

12.1

mkmoummus

1-lhu
r-No
9-lu1shni

 

oursrlz.2

15ne:hlthis¢xxmpatnnl

12.2

nnnrwfl.

l-Iaestmmnihns
z-3'u35yns
3-45toiuurs

4- Lunm»orrmue
s-tVA
9-lusshql

 

 

QUESTIB

 

Monday'uUMmy

 

13

 

Inumwal

 

1- Less than Bs. 6.000

2- Between Bs.6.000 and
10.000

y-BetwmnsllnllJMKland«
uLooo

4- Between Bs.16.000 and
cwer

5- NIA

9-lflnshg1

 

 

 

 

172

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QUEST14 *llo lebel* 14 Ordlnel 1- Melly disegree
0088115 15 2- Diseqree
0038116 15 :- germ-
00381317 17 "
0038118 19 g: W W
0038119 19
QUESTZO 20
QUEST21 21
QUESTZZ 22
QUEST23 23
QUEST24 24
00381‘25 25
OUESTZG 26
QUESTZ? 27
QUESTZB 28
QUEST29 29
QUEST30 30
QUEST31 31
QUEST32 32
QUESTBB 33
QUEST34 34
QUEST35 35
QUESTBG 36
GUESTS” 37
_QUESTBB 38
QUEST39 *No lebel* 39 Ordinel 1- Totelly disagree
QUEST4O 40 g: giteegree
0025111 41 “1“
QUEST42 42 4- Agree
001531-43 4 3 995: m; agree
QUEST44 44
QUEST45 45
QUEST46 46
QUEST47 47
QUEST48 48
QUEST49 49
QUESTSO 50
QUESTSI 51
QUESTSZ 52
QUEST53 53
QUEST54 54
QUESTSS 55
QUESTSG 56
QUEST57 57
QUESTSB 58
QUESTSQ 59
QUEST6O 60
UEST61 61
QUESTGZ 62 Ordinal 1- Totally disagree
QUEST63 53 2- Disagree
QUESTG’I 54 3- Not sure
QUESTGS 65 4" Agree

5- Totally agree
9- Missing

 

 

173

 

 

 

QUEST66.1 Your annuity is a... 66 1- Retiranent area
QUEST66.2 Ion would like your a.. 2- Residential area
to be. .. 3- Touristic area
003 ton think your 0.. will 4- Industrial area
ST66'3 be... 5- Agricultural area
9- Missing
GUESTS? lovhesyonroan. changed 67 1- Basbecaneeuorse
90331-68 How do you feel your a.. 53 place to live

 

ville-heme

 

 

 

2- Has stayed the same

3- Bee becane a better
place to live

9- Missing

 

 

"‘7fllflfl'fllflifliflfll‘lflfflllflr