#3, 34:1 , . ‘ ‘ . V . . . . . V . . H >.. (Nara.
,u. 3..., V . ., . . , .A , , . . _ . . r .,. View

:4.
3&5
mm. .

I »

.

. , . «13.3. 5.3

.7 .- ‘w . . wﬁ‘ ..

.. “new. . , _ ﬁn,
. . 1.9.1.1.. 3

wumnﬁwm. .
4 wruﬂmwg oust .;
.ﬁhﬁﬂ. .. w. ..+

‘
ﬂ...
,1! r.» ‘
S. u... .rvv... I n .
an 7 _ $3. a...
a; .. r . .
a

:
1‘

. w %

. . ,, . . .M. y I. 4

. . ., ...

.1 . , , . u . WW .m‘ht , . .

swamp» . . . ‘ ‘ ‘ 2
. ‘ . . , . zJHﬂHY

‘ , EN.”

.ajmm.§%. , ., .. V a .

T .3 '3' - lI-‘:§ u
WE. thug

Na... . . .. . . ‘ :Jau..f..
n33 , . _ . , , y . t1.
8 if... , . , ‘

1::

\Htfbu...

A L .T

5.11., . .

r: . . , , .itf?» .
. ¢ kiln};

. .3135

. L‘ \'a\..
-uﬁhﬂl-

 

 

diﬁkﬁg.

\.A

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Power through Tourism: A Blessing
on Mahsuri's Eighth Generation
in Langkawi?

presented by

Kalsom Kayat

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degreein Park, Recreation and

Tourism Resources

74414-77 6 ﬂrf
' T

Major professor

/ . ,.
Datejﬂrf’ccj, Z—Ué'é'

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

._.—-_. ——.—— ~—

PLACE lN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

SEP] 1 4 2002
Us ‘u' {12

 

AUM 9 2005 a

 

h

H3309?

 

ﬁg 19m

 

 

MAR 1 1 2009
OSQA 43

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11/00 cJClRC/DatoDmpGS-p.“

 

 

POWER THROUGH TOURISM: A BLESSING ON MAHSURI’S EIGHTH
GENERATION IN LANGKAWI?

By

Kalsom Kayat

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

2000

ABSTRACT

POWER THROUGH TOURISM: A BLESSING ON MAHSURI’S EIGHTH
GENERATION IN LANGKAWI?
By

Kalsom Kayat

One of the frameworks used in earlier studies to understand residents’ attitudes
towards tourism development is based on social exchange theory. Basically, this
framework explains that residents will have positive attitudes towards tourism if they feel
that'tourism gives them more beneﬁts than costs. This study proposed that social
exchange theory alone cannot sufﬁciently explain residents’ attitudes towards tourism. A
literature review indicated that power plays a role in the exchange between residents and
tourism; thus it was proposed that power might play a role in determining residents’
attitudes.

In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with thirty residents from the
‘power’ group and sixteen residents from the ‘no-power’ group. An interview guide
based on a conceptual framework established from literature reviewed was used during
each interview. These data were then analyzed qualitatively.

Findings reveal that social exchange theory is useful in examining residents’
attitudes towards tourism — during their exchange with tourism, residents indeed based
their attitudes on their evaluations of the impacts. Power does not appear to affect
residents’ evaluations of these impacts directly. Instead, residents’ general values (about

religion, culture, equity, resources, and the environment), their dependence on tourism,

and their ability and willingness to adapt seem to have more direct influence on the
evaluation of impacts than power. Study results are expected to be useful to researchers
with interests in expanding conceptualizations on the understanding of residents’ attitudes
towards tourism. The results are also useful to tourism planners with interests in

understanding issues that arise due to tourism development.

To those who taught me the most
about the value of hard work and perseverance:
my parents, Kayat and Suminah,
my husband, Hidzir, and
my children, Afandi and Dianah

iv

 

_\.
iMAU

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people have played a major role in the development and completion of this
dissertation. To all of them I am deeply grateful. I am particularly indebted to Dr. Dennis
Propst, my advisor and chairman of my guidance committee, who has always given
freely of his time to my interests since I entered the doctoral program. He was always
patient, counseled wisely, and his advice and guidance have been invaluable to me. I
would also like to thank the other members of my guidance committee, Dr. Daniel
Stynes, Dr. Angela Mertig, and Dr. Maureen McDonough for their assistance and
guidance in all phases of this research.

I greatly appreciate the contributions of the Malaysian Government and Universiti
Utara Malaysia for sponsoring my studies and for granting my study leave.

The research on which this dissertation is based could not have been carried out
without the aid of Langkawi Development Authority (LADA). I would like to
acknowledge them for their funding and active cooperation with the research.

Special thanks are due to the respondents who without advantage to themselves,
shared their feelings, experiences, and inspirations regarding tourism in Langkawi with
me. It is my hope that the research ﬁndings will help make their ideal future vision of
Langkawi a reality.

I am thankful to my husband Hidzir, and my children, Afandi and Dianah; their
smiles and capacity for happiness have contributed immeasurably to the attainment of
this goal. Most specially, I want to acknowledge Hidzir, whose authenticity has

challenged me to grow and whom I will always love.

To all mentioned above, and the rest who have also contributed indirectly towards

the completion of this dissertation by being a part of my life, I would like to dedicate

these words:

THATMAN ISA SUCCESS

who has lived well,
laughed often and loved much;

who has gained the respect
of intelligent men
and the love of children;

who has ﬁlled his niche
and accomplished his task;

who leaves the world better
than he found it,
whether by an improved poppy,
a perfect poem
or a rescued soul;

who never lacked appreciation
of earth ’3 beauty

or failed to express it;

who looked for the best in others
and gave the best he had.

-author unknown-

vi

US

US

Cl

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................

CHAPTER 1.

CHAPTER 2.

CHAPTER 3.

INTRODUCTION ......................................................

1.1

Background of the study .......................................
Tourism in Langkawi ..........................................
The study of social impacts of tourism and

Residents’ attitudes .............................................

1.2 Purpose of the study .............................................

1.3

Beneﬁciaries ......................................................

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

Social impacts of tourism ....................................
Social impacts of tourism to the Paciﬁc Islands .........
Social impacts of tourism in Fuenterrabia ...............
Social impacts of tourism in the West Indies ............
Social impacts of tourism in Green Turtle Cay .........

Summary ..........................................................

Residents’ perceptions and attitudes toward tourism

and its impacts ...................................................
A study in Cape Cod ..........................................
A study in Delaware ..........................................
A study in Santa Marta, Columbia ........................

Summary .........................................................

Conceptual approaches related to residents’ attitudes

towards tourism .................................................
Tourism cycle development approach .....................
Segmentation approach .......................................
Social exchange theory .......................................

Summary ..........................................................

Power, social exchange, and attitudes towards

tourism .........................................................

Summary ..........................................................

Problem Statement, conceptual framework, and

Objectives .........................................................

Problem statement ...............................................

Conceptual framework ..........................................

Objectives of the study ..........................................

Propositions ......................................................

METHODS ..............................................................

3.1
3.2

Deﬁnitions ........................................................
Subjects ...........................................................

vii

xi

xii

l
3
3

6
8
9

11
11
12
13
15
15
17

l 8
1 8
20
22
24

25
26
30
34
38

38
43

43
43
44
45
46

47
48
50

CHAPTER 4.

Study population ................................................
Sample ............................................................

3.3 Procedures .......................................................
UCRIHS Review ................................................
Recruitment ......................................................
Conduct of inquiry and instrumentation ......................
In-depth interviews ..........................................
Interview Guide ..............................................
Interviewing Process ......................................

Informal Interview and Secondary Data ..................

3.4 Data collection ...................................................
3.5 Data Analysis .....................................................
Organizing ........................................................
Segmenting and coding .........................................

Categorizing, Displaying, Pattern Generating, and

Concluding ........................................................

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .....................................
4.] Proﬁles of respondents ..........................................
4.2 Tourism development and changes in Langkawi ............
Physical development .......................................
Employment and earning opportunities ..................
Entrepreneurial opportunity ................................
Lifestyle ......................................................
Newcomers .................................................
Social deviance .............................................
Competition for land .......................................
Price inﬂation .............................................
Discussion: Objective one ....................................
4.3 Variables that determine residents’ attitudes ................
Power as the determinant of residents’ attitudes ............
Proposition 1 .................................................
Resources and tourism beneﬁts .........................
Capital ....................................................
Young age ................................................
Knowledge ...............................................
Experience ...............................................
Access to information ..................................
Connection ...............................................
Effort, ideas, and visions ..............................
Discussion: Objective two, proposition
one .........................................................
Proposition 2 .................................................
Resources and dependence ..............................
Discussion: Objective two, proposition two ..........
Proposition 3 .................................................

viii

50
52
56
56
57
57
57
59
61
62
62
65
65
66

68

71
71
72
72
74
75
76
78
78
79
80
80
81
81
81
82
83
85
86
87
88
89
89

91
92
94
96

 

 

CH

Al

Al

Perceived beneﬁts and costs ............................. 97
Differences in attitudes between ‘power’

and ‘no-power’ respondents ............................ 98
Attitudes regarding employment and
earning opportunities .................................. 98
Attitudes towards tourism impacts on
the younger population ................................ 100
Attitudes towards tourism and social deviance. . . .. 101
Attitudes towards tourism and price inflation ...... 104
Relationship between residents’ power and
attitudes towards tourism ................................ 104
Respondents with very favorable attitudes
towards tourism ....................................... 105
Respondents with favorable attitudes towards
tourism .................................................. 109
Respondents with favorable attitudes towards
tourism but wanted control ......................... ll 1
Respondents with unfavorable attitudes
towards tourism ........................................ 1 13
Discussion: Objective three .............................. 1 15
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................... 119
5.1 Inﬂuence of power on residents’ attitudes ................... 119
5.2 Inﬂuence of other factors on residents’ attitudes ............ 123
5.3 Qualitative data in studies of residents’ attitudes ........... 125
5.4 Limitations of study ............................................. 126
5.5 Recommendations for further study ........................... 129
5.6 Policy implications .............................................. 130
APPENDIX A Translated version of the interview guide .......................... 133
APPENDIX B Informed Consent ...................................................... 135
APPENDIX C Summary description for each respondent .......................... 137
APPENDIX D Excerpts from the interviews regarding changes brought by
tourism .................................................................. 139
APPENDIX E Changes perceived as beneﬁts ........................................ 143
APPENDIX F Changes perceived as costs ........................................... 145
APPENDIX G Difference in perceptions about beneﬁts ............................ 147
APPENDIX H Difference in perceptions about costs ............................... 149

ix

APPENDIX I Themes from each interview .......................................... 151

APPENDIX .1 Interview transcript (respondent 31) ................................. 165
APPENDIX K Interview transcript (respondent 25) ................................. 168
APPENDIX L Interview transcript (respondent 5) .................................. 171
LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................... 174

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Study variables ................................................................ 49
Table 2. Resident distribution in Langkawi ........................................ 51

Table 3. Residents interviewed by group and by district (Langkawi Island,

Malaysia, 1999) ...................................................... 55
Table 4. Interview Guide ............................................................... 59
Table 5. Number of respondents per category ...................................... 71
Table 6. Number of respondents who perceived different types of resources

as contributing to power ..................................................... 82
Table 7. Respondents’ dependence on tourism .................................... 92
Table 8. Summary of respondents’ attitudes towards tourism .................... 104

Table 9. ‘Power’ and ‘no-Power’ respondents with very favorable attitudes
towards tourism ............................................................... 107

Table 10. ‘Power’ and ‘no-Power’ respondents who favored
tourism .......................................................................... 109

Table 11. ‘Power’ and ‘no-Power’ respondents with favorable support
towards tourism but wanting control ....................................... 11 1

Table 12. ‘Power’ and ‘no-Power’ respondents with unfavorable attitudes
towards tourism ............................................................... 1 13

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map Of Langkawi Island, Malaysia ....................................... 4
Figure 2. Residents’ attitudes towards tourism .................................... 30

Figure 3. Conceptual framework for understanding residents’ attitudes

toward tourism ............................................................... 44
Figure 4. Districts in Langkawi ........................................................ 50
Figure 5. A sample of segmented and coded portion of a transcript .............. 67
Figure 6. Framework established by Jurowski et a1. (1997) ....................... 120

Figure 7. Interrelationships of variables that determine residents attitudes
towards tourism ................................................ 121

xii

krill!
II I If 'I I II I Ill r1! Ell .

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

On Langkawi Island in Malaysia, local food stalls known as “warungs” are built
in the front of well-located village homes, oﬁen near main roads. At one such warung on
a hot aﬂemoon, a group of school children in uniforms were observed walking in after
ﬁnishing their morning session of school. Each of them took turns grabbing a plate and
together they formed a line at the long table located in the middle of the warung. The
table was ﬁlled with different local dishes beautifully displayed in serving trays. The
children helped themselves anxiously to the feast and proceeded to the lady at the counter
table to pay before they sat down to eat. The middle-aged owner of the warung turned to
the researcher and said,

“You see, they don ’t even eat lunch at home anymore now. Their parents are either too
busy working or they think that it is more convenient for the children to eat outside since
there are many warungs that sell prepared meals today. All that the parents have to do is
to give them the money. When I was growing up, we could only dream of eating these
good foods so easily. These foods, the kinds that I sell here, would only be available at
wedding ceremonies. 0n ordinary days, we did ﬁnd our own food by going to the beach
with friends to ﬁnd shellfish. That ’5 how it was back then. These children do not know
just how lucky they are today. Things have really changed and in such a short time too.
In a way, I am glad they did. I have this business now and my life is better. Having things
like these was only a dream back then. ”

The description given by this warung owner reﬂects his attitudes towards some of the
social changes contributed by tourism development in Langkawi.

Located in northwest Malaysia, Langkawi is endowed with beautiful beaches,
natural ﬂora and fauna, and a tropical climate. These are all good reasons for Langkawi

to become an attractive tourist destination. Prior to the late 19805, when tourism began to

be developed on a large scale by the local and central governments, Langkawi was one of

the least developed districts in the state of Kedah (Din, 1990) with the majority of the
residents making their living by ﬁshing or growing rice. On January 1, 1987, the federal
government conferred Duty Free Port status to Langkawi. This has, to a large extent,
hastened economic growth, especially in creating opportunities for the business,
commercial, and service sectors of Langkawi. The rapid development of tourism coupled
with its position as a duty free port are believed to be responsible for the major economic.
physical, and social changes on the island during the past decade (Mohamad, 1997).

Some of the local residents may connect the sudden development to the legendary
local beauty, Mahsuri, who put Langkawi under a curse when she was condemned to
death for not being faithful to her husband while he was away at war against the Siam
(Mohamed Shariff, 1980). There are many versions on how her death sentence was
carried out. One version claims that as the executioner plunged his kris (Malay dagger)
into Mahsuri, who was tied to a tree, white blood spurted from her body. Astonished, the
villagers quickly untied the near dead Mahsuri. Lifting her hands to the sky, Mahsuri
presaged that prosperity would elude Langkawi for seven generations to come (North
Review 1995). Soon after her death, Langkawi did observe a decline in its prosperity, as
described by a local historian, “ ...even grass refused to grow on the island” (Mohamad
Shariff 1980). The sudden prosperity due to the aggressive tourism development could
have marked the end of the curse. True or not, the legend and Mahsuri’s grave add to the
attraction of the island.

This study examined the Langkawi residents’ attitudes towards and support for
tourism both using social exchange theory (Blau, 1967) and power theory (Harsanyi,

1971). The guiding question for this inquiry was “what is the unique contribution of

 

 

 

power in explaining residents’ attitudes towards tourism?” This study proposed that
having the power to beneﬁt from tourism would inﬂuence residents to perceive tourism

more positively than if they did not have power to begin with.

1.1 Background of the Study
This section brieﬂy introduces readers to some relevant terms as well as
theoretical foundations for the dissertation. Chapter 2 is a more thorough review of the
literature and theory that provides the background, framework, and rationale for this

dissertation.

Tourism in Langkawi

Langkawi is located off the northwestern coast of Peninsular Malaysia between
latitudes 6° 10’ and 6° 30’ north and longitudes 99° 35’ and 100° east (Figure 1). It is
about 30 km (18.6 miles) from Kuala Perlis and 51.5 km (32 miles) from Kuala Kedah,
two points of departure located at the northwest of the Peninsular. Langkawi is comprised
of 104 islands, of which, Langkawi Island with an area of 32,180 ha. (0.8 million acres)
is the largest. Langkawi Island is divided into 6 mukims (districts), namely Kuah, Padang
Matsirat, Ayer Hangat, Bohor, Ulu Melaka, and Kedawang (Langkawi District Council,
1992). All 6 districts are considered as the study sites for this research.

Langkawi Island is well endowed with natural resources and landscapes, such as
tropical rainforests, white sandy beaches, unspoilt islands, and natural waterfalls.
Histories and legends, such as the tale of Mahsuri mentioned above, add to the

attractiveness of the island. Historical remains such as the Tomb of Mahsuri and the Field

 

 

oil

€\

of Burnt Rice are popular tourist attractions. Langkawi Island is also becoming a popular

venue for many prestigious conferences, exhibitions, and sports events. International

events are held annually in Langkawi such as the International Motor Show, World

Powerboat Race, LeTour de Langkawi (an international cycling competition), and the

Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace Exhibition (LIMA) (Wayakone, 1999).

 

 

 
    

 

  
 
 
   

 

  

 

T ., . /
Gulf 0! g 190 '200m . z - PHILIPPINES
Thadand mo 200'” , ". " ‘O_ o . . .
WW ’ \' '~ . f .
Kudat ’0. .
South China Kata new
“Tm“ Sea Pulau Laban, swan
‘ sauna . ‘
gm" . 1(an W ‘ J: Mu
' l 0
lat! ‘9 'v
mom‘s“) Mk V' Catches
J Sea
’ " .SIOu ,
. ‘ Borneo K
I N D 0 N E s t A

 

Figure 1. Map of Langkawi Island, Malaysia.

According to the 1999 Langkawi Residential/Socioeconomic Study, the

population of Langkawi Island at present is 62,617 compared to 42,938 in 1991. About a

third of the population consists of newcomers who are attracted to Langkawi Island by

the economic opportunities that exist due to its status as a tourist destination and a duty

free port (Langkawi Development Authority 1999).

The declaration of Langkawi Island as a free port has enhanced the potential for

developing trading and commercial activities. The duty free status of the island has also

contributed to tourism development as it has attracted enormous public and private

 

investment in the development of services and facilities contributing to the promotion of
tourism. Since 1990 about 320 million ringgit (approximately US$84 million) has been
channeled through Langkawi Island Development Authority (LADA), a federal agency
formed to co-ordinate development in Langkawi, and an additional sum of 350 million
ringgit (approximately US$ 92 million) has been allocated under the Sixth Malaysia Plan
for socio—economic and infrastructure development in Langkawi. Meanwhile, a total of 4
billion ringgit (approximately US$1 billion) from private developers funded 7,200 new
hotel rooms since 1990 (North Review 1995).

Langkawi is experiencing considerable changes in terms of its economic
performance and its socioeconomic base. In 1987, 79 percent of Langkawi’s residents
earned 500 ringgit (US$143) or less per month (Langkawi District Council 1992). In
1999, only 11 percent of the residents were in this income bracket (LADA 1999). The
Langkawi Residential/Socioeconomic Study 1999 reports that the majority (33.8 percent)
of the present working population in Langkawi is involved in the wholesaling and
retailing sector and only 19 percent of the working population work in the agricultural,
forestry, hunting, and ﬁshery industries (LADA 1999). This indicates a tremendous
change from the situation in 1987 when the economic base of Langkawi was still
dominated by the agricultural/ﬁshery sector with 63% of the population at that time
employed in this sector (Langkawi District Council 1992). The bulk of tourism
businesses, including hotels and catering, are included under the wholesaling and
retailing sector.

The growth of tourism and the tourist industry in Langkawi Island has been

dramatic during the past decade. The number of visitor arrivals increased from slightly

more than 200,000 in 1986 to about 1,800,000 in 1997 (LADA 1999). This increase is
consistent with the growth in the numbers of resorts, special events, and the number of
other tourism related investments taking place on Langkawi Island. The Langkawi
Structure Plan 1990-2005 (1992) strongly suggests that tourism should be the main focus
of island development for the next ﬁve years. Although the censuses carried out by
Malaysian government agencies do not establish tourism as an economic sector, it is

apparent that tourism plays a vital role in the economy of Langkawi.

The Study of Social Impacts of Tourism Ed Residents’ Anitudes

Social impacts of tourism are the immediate changes in the host community’s
social structure. Such changes include adjustments to the destination’s economy and
industry (Murphy 1985). Cleverdon (1979) quotes the Tourism Compendium, a WTO
publication, to describe its views about social impacts of tourism:

“For many observers. . .the beneﬁts, both economic and social, conferred by
tourism are so obvious as to be hardly worthy of deeper examination. They point
to. . .the Spanish example where tourism could be the stimulus behind a whole
economy’s expansion and has seemingly enabled the largely farming
communities of Spain’s Mediterranean seaboard to move, relatively painlessly,
from a life lived at near-subsistence level to one enjoying a relatively high
prosperity in less than two decades. It is assumed that tourism is capable of
similar successes in developing countries all over the world, whatever the nature
of their economies or their social structure. At the other extreme are those who
doubt. . .whether tourism confers any economic beneﬁts at all, and who are
convinced that it is socially very damaging. This attitude is especially prevalent in
the Caribbean where it has been claimed that tourism has exacerbated social
tensions, where a relatively low proportion of tourist expenditures have been
retained in the island economies, and where it has had, apparently, a detrimental
effect on the local wage structures, most notably in the agricultural sector. . .Such
adverse cements regularly include accusations of neo-colonialisation — the
perpetuation of the subservience of poor peoples to afﬂuent visitors, and the
creation of further wealth for foreign investors through the labour of the
underpriviledged.” (Cleverdon, 1979, p. 1)

 

COS'

,.
.99

0?’

Cr

10

I1;

Thus tourism, like many other human activities, can produce both beneﬁts and
costs. Tourism advocates oﬁen emphasize tourism tangible beneﬁts (Ap and Crompton
1996), such as increased income and employment, while its costs are less emphasized.
Thus it may not be immediately evident that tourism is causing certain economic
problems such as inﬂation. Tourism must be viewed as a local resource. The management
of this resource for the common good and future generations should become the goal and
criterion by which the industry is judged (Murphy 1985). This involves understanding
tourism’s beneﬁts and costs from the residents’ point of view. In other words, there is a
need to understand residents’ attitudes towards tourism and its beneﬁts and costs (both
tangible and intangible) to them in order to manage tourism in a sustainable manner.

This study proposes that social exchange theory alone cannot sufﬁciently explain
residents’ attitudes towards tourism. A person’s attitude about a behavior is a function of
his or her salient beliefs about this behavior, including the likelihood that the behavior
produces certain consequences, and the evaluation of those consequences (Petty and
Cacioppo 1996). In the context of this study, residents’ attitudes towards tourism and
their exchange decisions with tourism can be said to be a function of their beliefs that
tourism produces certain consequences (beneﬁts or costs) and how they value these
consequences (Jurowski et a1. 1997). Additionally, there are other variables that indirectly
inﬂuence these attitudes as they affect residents’ beliefs and values. One of them is
power. Blau (1967) argues that power inﬂuences the process of social exchange.
According to him, the partner with fewer alternative opportunities, hence less power,
tends to be more dependent on and committed to the exchange relationship that the other

partner (Blau 1967). Power may also inﬂuence residents’ attitudes as it has an effect on

how residents’ evaluate the consequences of tourism. Hypothetically, a ‘powerless’
resident facing economic hardship may value the earning opportunity created by tourism
higher than s/he does the environment. Thus, this study proposes that, based on social
exchange theory, power must be considered when studying social impacts of tourism and
residents’ support for tourism.

The base of power is the resources (economic assets, constitutional prerogatives,
military forces, popular prestige, etc.) that A can use to inﬂuence B’s behavior. These
include resources owned by an individual that s/he could offer as an exchange for
something that helps fulﬁll her or his needs. Ap (1992) proposes that residents with no
power will be the disadvantaged partner in the social exchange process relating to

tourism development and thus will not support it.

1.2 Purpose of the Study

The literature on social exchange and power theories indicates that they could be
used to explain residents’ attitudes towards tourism. Several studies on residents’
attitudes towards tourism have developed frameworks and models based on social
exchange theory (Ap 1992; Jurowski et a1. 1997) but none has attempted to empirically
explore the role of power in determining these attitudes. The literature suggests two
equally plausible but contradictory propositions.

The ﬁrst proposition, provided by Blau (1967) in the previous section, is that lack
of power will make residents become dependent on tourism and thus support its
development. Ap (1992), on the other hand, argues that residents’ lack of power will

make them the ‘disadvantaged’ partner in the social process relating to tourism

 

1161:

res:

52.11

I
0n
ml

C1.

development. Based on Ap’s argument, the second proposition is that the ‘power-less’
residents will view tourism negatively.

J urowski et a1. (1997), through their exploratory study of the residents
surrounding Mt. Rogers National Recreation Area, believe that they have established a
theoretical foundation for examining resident attitudes towards tourism based on social
exchange theory. They found that residents supported tourism when they felt that beneﬁts
from tourism outweighed the costs. The authors suggest that future research is needed to
uncover what inﬂuences residents to view a speciﬁc impact as a beneﬁt or a cost and how
the evaluation of each impact affects support for tourism. Following these
recommendations and the two propositions discussed in the previous paragraph, the
purpose of this study is to expand the theoretical foundation suggested by J urowski et al.
(1997), which is based on social exchange theory, with the inclusion of power theory.
One way to do this is by examining the perceived changes that tourism has brought to the
residents based on their actual experiences and observations. In particular, this research
studied what these changes mean to them and how these changes and their meanings
explain the residents’ support for tourism development in their area. In addition, the study
also explored the proposition that power inﬂuences the perceptions that residents have

about the changes and their attitudes towards tourism.

1 .3 Beneﬁciaries
At the beginning of this chapter, it was noted that many governments are anxious
to promote tourism development. Many developing countries, anxious to reap the fullest

beneﬁts of tourism development have, without indulging into the proper analysis of

impacts, transformed their virgin areas into tourist centers that cater to the desires of mass
travellers. Such rapid development can lead to a complete transformation of the area,
with grave consequences such as extensive or irreversible damage to the natural
environment (Wayakone, 1999) and local society. Currently, governments do not fully
understand the costs and beneﬁts of tourism. This may weaken natural resources planning
in these countries. To assure that tourism or natural resources will be sustained, these
governments need to understand the beneﬁts and costs brought by tourism to the host
population and to assess their attitudes towards tourism. This will in turn help the
governments to plan efﬁciently and equitably as they will be more aware of the social
consequences brought about by tourism and can then decide if those consequences are
desirable for local society and the country as a whole. The results of the study can
provide a basis upon which Langkawi tourism development strategies can be formulated.
The results of the study can contribute to a cumulative development of knowledge
in tourism research. At present, the status of research on the social impacts of tourism
suffers from the absence of theory and a lack of strong empirical foundation upon which
to base policy decisions (Faulkner and Tideswell 1997). This study represents an effort to
expand and integrate existing theories in order to establish a general framework that can
guide empirical investigations of tourism’s impacts and residents’ attitudes towards those

impacts.

10

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter presents the theoretical foundations for the dissertation. A review of
the literature provides the background, framework, and rationale for analyzing residents’
attitudes toward tourism development in their area. The chapter is divided into ﬁve

1
sections. First, studies of the social impacts of tourism development are discussed. This
W

Ewan—

will be followed by a review of studies that were carried out speciﬁcally to understand
residents’ perceptions and attitudes towards tourism. Then, the concepﬂtualﬂframgworﬂksg)
used in several studies of residents’ attitudes toward tourism are discussed: tourism
development cycle theory, segmentation and social exchange theory. This is followed by

. '1
. . 2 . . .
a discussronof thegconcept of power and its relevance to the study of resrdents’attitudes

‘-_——-—--»A_~ H .. . K.— “I

toward ti urism. This chapter ends with statement of the research problem and discussion

M__

of the conceptual framework, objectives and hypotheses.

2.1 Social Impacts of Tourism
Social impacts of tourism to the host community can be described as the
“immediate changes in the social structure of the community and adjustments to the
destination’s economy and industry...” (Murphy 1985:117). Early studies on social
impacts of tourism, including four of them reviewed in this section, were concerned with
the social changes of having thousands of travelers visiting an area and of having this

area developed to service these travelers. Most of these studies are exploratory in nature

11

and lack any theoretical orientation. They were undertaken primarily to describe major

social impacts of tourism.

Social Impacts of Tourism to the Paciﬁc Islands

Studies of the social impacts of tourism have been reported as early as 1964 when
Forster (1964) wrote about the sociological consequences of tourism on the Paciﬁc
Islands based on his personal observations, interviews, and published reports in Hawaii
and New Zealand. Tourists, he observed, brought money to a destination and for this
reason they were tolerated and sometimes actively courted by the residents. Tourism
changed both the standard of living and the lifestyle of the community. In several parts of
the Paciﬁc, the increased need for cash and the Opportunity provided by tourists to ﬁrlﬁll
this need had caused the establishment of cottage industries for the production of native
handicrafts to be marketed to the tourists. In this way, tourism has helped rekindle the
handicraft practice. Tourists needs are not limited to just the handicrafts, and these other
needs had brought increased competition for the resources in the community. According
to Forster (1964), this competition often took place to the extent that local resources, like
food and land were restrained. In the case of land, there is often a drastic increase in
values. Fulﬁlling tourists’ needs required more than the local resources. Thus, tourism
also increased the dependence of the Paciﬁc Islands on external sources of supply and
capital. With this external capital and external trade came new ideas, values, and opinions
which contributed to the changes in the community.

Tourism had also transformed local culture, such as traditional courtesy and ritual

Observances into performance for getting cash from the tourists. “Phony” folk cultures, as

12

Forster (1964) puts them, emerged within the community. Human capital required to
service the tourist industry created new jobs especially for the younger generation but
these in turn created stratiﬁcation of the community along with a heightened generational
conﬂict. Conﬂicts arose due to the ability of tourism development to draw people from
diverse backgrounds. Tourism made a small town where everyone knew everyone else
grow by having a large transitory population. Since the economies of the Paciﬁc Islands
are not “well-rounded” due to the unequal development of their various sectors, Forster
(1964) felt that the islanders would be more liable to be socially disrupted by tourism.
However, the residents in such an area have no resistance to such a development as

“. . .land will be available, and for many people the new occupations will be more

desirable than the old” (Forster 1964).

Social Impacts of Tgurism in Fuenterrabia
A ﬁeld study was undertaken by Greenwood (1972) to analyze the historical

development and socio-economic effects of tourism on the local community of
Fuenterrabia. F uenterrabia is a Spanish Basque destination that in the summer of 1969,
despite the small size of the town — 10,000 inhabitants living on 2,450 hectares (less than
61 million acres) of land - an estimated 40,000 tourists spent time there. At the time it
was written, F uenterrabia was at the beginning phase of tourism development. It began its
tourism development in 1965 when the government established national touristic
planning to promote national economic growth. The development involved massive
outside intervention by the central government and large investors. Fuenterrabia’s culture

and monuments became centers of promotion, speculating, and manipulating by outside

13

investors, making Fuenterrabia look more like an enterprise than a town (Greenwood
1972).

Greenwood (1972) found that tourism development has affected the rhythm of life
of the residents of F uenterrabia, the physical and architectural characteristics of the town,
and social life in general. Economically, all sectors experienced unparalleled economic
growth. The municipal economy became far more dependent on national and
international business cycles. Balance of payment problems and policies, inﬂation, and
exchange restrictions came to affect the people of Fuenterrabia directly. Social
differentiation increased with economic growth as the wealth received from tourism
facilitated upward mobility. At the same time older ties of co-operation and mutual aid
between families began to lapse because most families had the economic strength to fend
for themselves without incurring Obligations to neighbors. Barter and reciprocity were
replaced by cash exchanges. Family size decreased, couples married at younger age, and
families became more mobile than before. Generational conﬂict took place, as happened
in the Paciﬁc Islands (Forster 1964). As the value of small family businesses soared,
sibling conﬂict over inheritance violently erupted. Farming became commercial and
declined relatively to the other sectors in the economy. Greenwood (1972) concluded that
total impacts from tourism development in Fuenterrabia raised questions about the
contradictions possibly inherent in tourism as an industry and as a source of economic

growth.

14

Social Impacts of Tourism in the West Indies

Perez (1973/4) Observed that tourism made the economies of the West Indies
more dependent on the inﬂuences from the outside, thus bringing the West Indies further
into underdevelopment. Instead of stimulating the local economy, as predicted by the
Anglo-American Caribbean Commission, tourism in the West Indies actually served to
sustain metropolitan economic growth and foreign imports because imported materials,
foods prepared abroad, and expatriate employees made up the tourism support system.
Since the industry was foreign-owned and controlled from abroad, tourist expenditures
did not remain within the region but were repatriated to metropolitan centers. Tourist
employment among West Indians was in the capacity of low wage jobs such as waitresses
and dishwashers as they were unable to access the higher positions due to a lack of
education or experience.

According to Perez (1973/4), tourism had also increased land value in the West
Indies. Thus only the local elite and foreigners could afford to own land while the local
population, in search of cheaper land, was pushed further away from the coast into the
mountainous interior. Inﬁ’astructures and facilities development projects made additional
claims on West Indian budgets, but such projects accommodated the tourists’ needs, not
the national priorities. In short, tourism contributed little to economic development in the

West Indies (Perez 1973/4).

ialIm tsofTo 'mi ree T 1e a

LaFlamme (1979) studied the social and cultural consequences of increased

tourism within the context of a small community in Green Turtle Cay, which is located

15

off the coast Of Great Abaco Island in the northern Bahama Islands. Large-scale tourism
reached Green Turtle Cay in mid—1960. Laﬂamme (1979) Observed that middle—class
tourists to Green Turtle Cay did not seem to compete with the local population for
resources. Upper class tourists were also deemed acceptable, as they did not interfere
with the residents’ daily chores such as commercial ﬁshing. At the time of his study, the
quaint villages in the area still lacked the artiﬁcial, contrived appearance as no one ever
intended the villages to be an attraction (LaFlamme 1979). No “phony folk cultures”
(Forster 1964) have emerged within the community.

The most obvious changes had been the dramatic increases in the material living
standards of virtually all community members. Imported goods had become more
widespread due to a greatly expanded amount of cash. Similar to the developments
reported by Greenwood (1972) in Fuenterrabia, LaFlamme (1979) also Observed that cash
exchanges had almost completely replaced barter and reciprocity in the study area. Thus,
he concluded that Green Turtle Cay had evolved from a subsistence-oriented community
to a minor tourist center with a cash-oriented economic system. Some traditional
occupational skills, such as boatbuilder’s crafts, had changed in relative importance due
to the rapid expansion of tourism. The boatbuilder’s craft, once a regional specialization
of note, was not being passed on to members of the younger generation as new tourism-
related occupations have come into being.

Tourism has also altered the economic role of women. Tourism created jobs for
women who used to just stay at home or work in family-run shops before. These new
opportunities, observed LaFlamme (1979), had not yet brought about strikingly different

behavioral roles for local women but he argues that the potential for this to happen exists.

l6

Tourism decreased the potentially explosive gulf between the Green Turtle Cay
community’s two racial enclaves. Today, due to tourism, blacks and whites in that area
receive equal wages for equal work in most instances. Other impacts that often take place
in other destinations have appeared not to happen in Green Turtle Cay. For example,
tourism in this area did not produce high foreign investment nor reduced control over the
tourist inﬂux. Also, host-tourist interactions had not evolved from personal to impersonal,
as has happened at other destinations (Noronha 1975). LaFlamme (1979) concluded that
many of the negative consequences of tourism had been avoided due to the relatively
small numbers of tourists to this area, the absence of organized mass tourism, and the
ability of the host culture to maintain its integrity. The majority of the residents wanted
the material beneﬁts offered by tourism, but they also preferred to maintain their

communities’ traditions.

Summag

The preceding paragraphs illustrate the different impacts of tourism on the host
communities of the tourist destinations. Tourism is capable of changing the standard of
living and lifestyle of destinations’ residents (Forster 1964; Greenwood 1972),
transforming local culture (Forster 1964), rekindling local arts for monetary gains
(Forster 1964), producing social stratiﬁcation (Forster 1964; Greenwood 1972), proﬁting
outsiders at the expense of the locals (Forster 1964; Perez 1973/4), making the local
economies more dependent on the external business cycle (Greenwood 1972), creating
conﬂicts both among residents and between residents and outsiders (Greenwood 1972),

changing traditional occupational skills (LaFlamme 1979), and altering race relations

17

 

w-c

(LaF 1amme 1979). These studies imply interesting hypotheses concerning the
consequences of tourism as far as social change is concerned. The foregoing studies did
not include what the residents have to say about these changes. That is, do residents have
positive or negative attitudes towards tourism and its impacts? Which types of residents
view tourism negatively and positively? This chapter now turns to a review of studies on

residents’ attitudes and perceptions towards tourism in their areas.

2.2 Residents’ Perceptions and Attitudes toward Tourism and its Impacts
Tourism brings about changes in the host communities - changes welcomed by

some segments of the communities and arousing contention among others (Lundberg
1985). The previous section illustrates that tourism is capable of bringing both beneﬁcial
and adverse impacts to the host societies. For tourism in a destination area to thrive, its
adverse impacts should be controlled, minimized, and it must be viewed favorably by the
host population (Ap 1992). Earlier studies on the perceptions and attitudes of residents
toward the impacts of tourism include limited explanatory analysis as to why some
people are, or are not, favorably disposed to tourism (Husbands 1989). Three of these
studies are reviewed in this section. The subsequent section reviews studies that

attempted to develop theoretical understandings of residents’ attitudes toward tourism.

A Study in Cape gpd

Pizam (1978) undertook an exploratory study to investigate residents’ perceptions
of the impacts of tourism in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Pizam (1978) hypothesized that

heavy tourism concentrations in a destination area might lead to negative resident

18

attitudes and behaviors towards the tourists. The study also hypothesized that the
residents’ attitudes towards tourism and tourists would be a function Of their economic
dependency on tourism. Additionally, it was anticipated that the overall attitudes towards
tourism would be a function of certain demographic characteristics such as age, income,
occupation, and place of employment. No theoretical framework was used to develop
these hypotheses.

A total of 1,636 residents and 212 entrepreneurs (business owners) in Cape Cod
were interviewed. Each group was given a different questionnaire. The respondents from
both groups indicated that tourism affected their quality of life both positively and
negatively. Tourism on the Cape improved residents’ income, unemployment, standard of
living, quality of police and ﬁre protection, understanding different people, availability of
recreational facilities, and Opportunity for shopping. At the same time, tourism also was
perceived to have brought unfavorable impacts to the following: trafﬁc conditions, litter,
noise, vandalism, higher prices for goods and services, drug abuse, and alcoholism.

A much larger portion of the resident and the entrepreneurs sample felt an overall
negative effect from the impact of tourism in Cape Cod than those who felt an overall
positive effect. Pizam’s ﬁrst hypothesis seemed to be supported. However, this study
took place only in Cape Cod, a famous tourist destination that attracts thousands of
visitors annually. The ﬁrst hypothesis may have received more support had the author
also studied an area that had comparatively less tourism concentration.

As for the second hypothesis, the ﬁndings ascertained the relationship between an
individual’s economic relationship with tourism and the individual’s general attitude

toward tourism on Cape Cod. It was found that the most negative attitudes towards

l9

tourism on the Cape were expressed by residents employed in non-tourism enterprises,
followed by residents employed in tourism enterprises, residents who were unemployed,
and non-tourism business owners, respectively. The most positive attitudes were
expressed by the tourism business owners. Using multiple regression it was found that
residents’ economic dependency on tourism, their income, and their occupations were the
best predictors of their attitudes toward tourism, while the entrepreneurs’ tourist contact
and their economic dependency on tourism were the best predictors of the entrepreneurs’
attitudes toward tourism. The amount of variance left unexplained was not mentioned by

the author of the study.

A Stpdy in Delaware

Rothman (1978) noted that research on resort communities neglected the
permanent population of the communities. Little was known of how permanent residents
felt about their communities or how they reacted to the presence of large numbers of
transients in their community (Rothman 1978). An exploratory study was undertaken by
Rothman (1978) on this topic in two resort communities on the Atlantic coast in southern
Delaware, namely Rehoboth and Bethany, using multiple research techniques. Rothman
(1978) canied out a survey among residents to determine how seasonal vacationers
inﬂuenced their lives and how they felt about the visitors. The data from the survey was
supplemented by interviews with public ofﬁcials, conversations with business people,
and several lengthy interviews with two older residents who acted as informal historians

of the area.

20

The two communities differ from each other. Rehoboth Beach is a community
consisting of 1,614 permanent residents with a long history as a resort community
dependent upon seasonal visitors. In contrast, Bethany Beach, which only has 189
permanent residents, has evolved as a family-oriented community of private residences.
Summer visitors came for religious, not secular activities. Besides a relatively
uncongested beach area, it did not provide many other recreational facilities. The ﬁndings
of the study revealed that in both communities, the presence of tourists generated
contradictory responses in residents. On one hand, tourists were perceived to produce
negative consequences for the community as they generated noise, litter, trafﬁc
congestion, increased crime, overcrowding, heightened tension, increasingly hectic
community and personal life, and increased prices. On the other hand, tourism brought
positive outcomes to the communities. These were in the forms of revenues, seasonal
jobs, an expansion of commercial and municipal services, and an opportunity to see old
ﬁiends. There appeared to be some fundamental divisions within both communities
regarding their attitudes towards tourism. One group, comprising 22 percent in Rehoboth
and 36 percent in Bethany, believed its community would be better off with no
vacationers. Another group, comprising of 17 percent in Rehoboth and 26 percent in
Bethany, would prefer the community to increase its attractiveness, thus indicating that
they preferred to see more vacationers in their communities. A third group, representing a
majority, exhibited ambivalence. This group perceived both advantages and
disadvantages from having tourism in their communities. They were Optimistic about
tourism, but they agreed that their community experienced a better time when the

vacationers are gone in winter, indicating that vacationers were perceived to be

21

burdensome. Those who favored tourism development were more likely to be
economically dependent upon vacationers and more likely to be in contact with tourists.
In contrast, those who were less favorably inclined were from a somewhat older group
and were more likely to have moved to the study areas for retirement purposes. The
investigator concluded that while vacationers had a signiﬁcant impact upon the
community, the impact did not appear to be disruptive because the communities could

reconcile the demands of residential and commercial growth.

A Study in Santa Marta, Qolombia

Just like Rothman (1978), Belisle and Hay (1980) also noticed that not much was
known about local residents’ perceptions of tourism. According to them, this gap was
very obvious in developing countries. Stressing the notion that in developing countries
economic beneﬁts of tourism may not be as great as Often thought, while the
environmental and social impacts from tourism are detrimental, Belisle and Hoy (1980)
sought to study the positive and negative impacts of tourism as perceived by the residents
of Santa Marta, Colombia, and to determine the inﬂuence of selected variables on the
residents’ responses. Two hypotheses were used to accomplish the study purposes: (1)
The perception of tourist impact varies with the distance a person lives from the tourist
zone (deﬁned as a three-street ribbon extending along the Santa Marta beach) and (2) The
perception of tourist impact varies with the residents’ socio-economic status.
Psychological research as well as geographical theory supported the ﬁrst hypothesis. No

explanation was offered to support the second hypothesis.

22

Using structured interviews to a sample of 108 respondents, the study found that
ﬁfty eight percent neither agreed nor disagreed about tourism impacts, indicating that
they were neutral about tourism development in their area. However, the study found that
positive tourism impacts were recorded more than twice as frequently as negative tourism
impacts, indicating greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction with the industry. Most
respondents agreed that tourism potential was the area’s most important economic
resource but tourism only beneﬁted a minority of the population or companies and
individuals outside the area. Nevertheless, they indicated that further tourism
development would contribute to increasing their average living standards.

Tourism was also perceived by the respondents as the reason for the improvement
of transportation, employment, artisans’ standard of living, and seasonal variations in
food prices. Tourism was perceived as the cause of increased robberies and to a lesser
extent, drug trafﬁcking, smuggling, and prostitution. Tourism was not perceived to have
much impact on agriculture and ﬁshing, on the improvement of public services facilities,
or on the cost of land and housing. Overall, tourism was not thought by respondents to
disrupt traditional ways of life and local culture in Santa Marta, unlike what was reported
by Forster (1964) and Greenwood (1976) in their studies in the Paciﬁc Islands and
Fuenterrabia, respectively.

The respondents appeared to want more tourism development. This was reﬂected
in their responses that they wanted their government to offer more economic incentives to
stimulate tourism, disapproved of a higher tax on tourist expenditures, disapproved the
govemment’s limiting the number of visitors at each tourist site, and favored foreign-

controlled hotels. Among the ﬁve variables (distance, socio-economic status, education,

23

age, and sex) that were selected as independent variables, only distance was found to
signiﬁcantly affect the perception of tourism impact. Thus, the second hypothesis used in
this study, which was “the perception of tourism impact varies with the residents’ socio-
economic status,” was rejected. The results Of the study indicated that all groups found
some direct or indirect beneﬁts in tourism. The study’s investigators rationalized that the
positive attitudes of the Santa Marta residents toward tourism were possibly a function of
the incipient stage of tourism development in Santa Marta (Belisle and Hoy 1980). Santa
Marta appeared to be in the ﬁrst stage of the Irritation Index constructed by Doxey
(1976).1 Residents’ attitudes may no longer be positive as tourism development increases

in their area (Belisle and Hoy 1980).

Summm

It can be concluded from the foregoing discussion that there tends to be general
agreement among residents that tourism contributes to favorable economic impact.
However, there appears to be a degree of ambivalence among residents regarding social
impacts of tourism in their areas and communities. For example, Belisle and Hay (1980)
reported that residents in their study perceived that tourism did not disrupt their ways of
life, while the ﬁndings by Rothman (1978) in an earlier study indicated that residents
perceived tourism had caused increasingly hectic communities and personal lives.

Belisle and Hoy (1980) used Doxey’s (1980) Irritation Index to explain their

ﬁndings regarding residents’ attitudes towards tourism in Santa Marta. Other studies

 

' . " Doxey (1976) proposed the Irritation Index to explain that residents’ reactions towards tourists change
according to the cycles of development that the destinations are in. Doxey suggested that residents’
attitudes towards tourism are initially positive but residents become irritable and begin to resent tourism in
later stages of the development.

24

reviewed above could not do the same with their ﬁndings. Pizam (1978) and Rothman
(1978) concluded that the degree to which residents depend on tourism for their
economic well-being predicts their attitudes. On the other hand, Belisle and Hoy (1980)
found that distance from tourism development was the variable that explained these
attitudes. It is apparent that authors of the above studies were unable to explain why any
particular constellation of variables accounts for differences in the residents’ attitudes.
Why is economic dependency important in predicting the residents’ attitudes toward
tourism in Cape Cod, Rehoboth, and Bethany but not important in predicting the
residents’ attitudes in Santa Marta? The foregoing studies are lacking in theoretical
orientation (Ap 1992). Due to the exploratory and descriptive nature of the studies, no
theoretical frameworks were used by the authors to rationalize the approaches they took.
This literature review now turns to the discussion of theoretical approaches related to
resident attitudes toward tourism and how they are used by several authors in their studies
of the social impacts of tourism. A combination of two of these approaches is used as the

basis of this dissertation.

2.3 Conceptual Approaches Related to Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism
Several approaches for understanding the determinants of residents’ attitudes
towards tourism have been suggested (Hernandez et a1. 1996). Three of these approaches,
which speciﬁcally relate to how residents assess the changes brought by tourism, will be

discussed here.

25

Tourism Cycle Development Framework

The tourism cycle development framework explains that resident attitudes
towards tourism change as the tourism industry develops (Hernandez et al. 1996). The
framework suggests that communities have a certain capacity to absorb tourists. Growth
beyond this capacity or threshold may result in negative social and environmental
impacts and diminishing returns on tourism investments (Allen et al. 1988). Two well-
known tourism cycle development frameworks are the Irritation Index model (Doxey
1976) and the cycle of evolution (Butler 1980). In his Irritation Index model, Doxey
(1976) explains that tourist destinations pass successively through stages of euphoria,
apathy, irritation, and antagonism, to the ﬁnal stage in which people have forgotten what
they cherished and the environment is destroyed. The stages of affective reaction to
tourism are: stage I - euphoria where tourist-host relation is very friendly and tourists are
welcome, stage II — apathy where residents continue to be hospitable but their satisfaction
with tourism has reached its peak and beginning to decline, stage HI - annoyance where
residents feel that their community has changed and stress levels are experienced, stage
IV — antagonism where residents openly demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the
industry, and ﬁnally stage V — residents now must learn to live with a changed
ecosystem. The level of irritation arising from contacts between the hosts and the tourists
will be determined by the mutual compatibility of each, with the assumption that even
with seemingly compatible groups, sheer numbers may generate tensions, with
differences in culture, economic status and nationality as complicating factors (Mathieson

and Wall 1982).

26

Butler’s (1980) model explains that the cycle starts with the ‘exploration’ stage,
when there are very few tourists and the structural development for tourism is minimal.
As time passes by, the number of tourists increases and some local residents enter the
‘involvement’ stage. The ‘development’ stage sees heavy structural development to
facilitate the growing number of visitors. At the ‘consolidation’ stage, major franchises
and chains will represent the industry. The model predicts that the peak number of
visitors will be reached in the ‘stagnation’ stage. This is when the resentment towards
tourists starts, as the capacity levels are exceeded. In the ‘decline/rejuvenation’ stage, the
area will either face a declining market as it loses the visitors to competing destinations
or revive itself, thus rejuvenating itself as a tourist destination. In short, then, these two
models explain that residents’ attitudes toward tourism depend on the developmental
stage that the industry is in: they have favorable attitudes toward tourism at the earlier
stage but the attitudes became unfavorable as the development advances. Belisle and Hoy
(1980) used the Irritation Index model (Doxey 1976) to explain why the residents of
Santa Marta, Columbia welcomed tourism and did not perceive it as disrupting their ways
of life.

Referring to the suggestion by Doxey (1976), Butler (1980), and Cooke (1982)
that tourism may be related directly to the degree and/or stage of development within the
host community, Allen et al. (1988) conducted a study to determine the relationships
between levels of tourism development and residents’ general satisfaction with
community life in 20 rural Colorado communities. The degree of tourism development
was determined through an analysis of lodging, eating and drinking establishments’ retail

sales as a percentage of the community’s gross retail sales receipts. The authors admitted

27

that these percentages are very conservative estimates of retail sales attributable to
tourism, but they provide a common base that is consistently available in each
community and are more reﬂective of tourism activity in these communities than tourism
density or intensity measures. A comprehensive questionnaire investigating residents’
perceptions of the importance of, and their satisfaction with, 33 elements of community
life was hand-delivered to a random sample of adults in each community. A response rate
above 65% was received. Respondents rated items on a ﬁve—point scale. The authors
grouped the 33 elements into seven dimensions of community life: public services,
economics, environment, medical services, citizen involvement, formal education, and
recreation services and opportunities.

The percentage of retail sales attributed to tourism activities, which is the measure
for tourism development in the study, and community size were treated as the
independent variables and the 33 elements which measure community life were treated as
the dependent variables. Community size was included because it was assumed that it
inﬂuences the availability of services and opportunities and that it is an important
consideration when attempting to determine the inﬂuence of tourism development on
residents’ perceptions of community life. A multivariate approach using canonical
correlation analysis was chosen to analyze the data. Two relationships between residents’
perceptions of community life and level of tourism development and community
population size were found. The ﬁrst relationship suggests that satisfaction with medical
services and recreation opportunities and the importance placed on environmental issues
are more a function of community size than level of tourism development. The second

relationship revealed that as tourism development increased, residents’ satisfaction with

28

opportunities for citizen involvement and public services decreased, as well as the
importance residents attached to citizen involvement. The importance residents attached
to environmental concerns was found to increase as tourism development increases.
These ﬁndings support the concept of a threshold for tourism development as suggested
by Cooke (1982) above. The threshold effect, however, appears to be conﬁned only to
certain dimensions of community life.

The authors concluded that the ﬁndings of the study contribute to identifying a
downward trend in the data at the upper level of tourism development, but the ﬁndings
did not establish an absolute threshold beyond which tourism development should stop.
Each community is different, and the tolerance for tourism activity will depend upon
several factors including the economic, social, and environmental resources of the
community (Allen et al. 1988). Further studies are obviously needed to substantiate this
conclusion. The study also indicated that residents were not homogeneous in terms of
their attitudes toward tourism, a point overlooked by the models proposed by Doxey
(1976) and Butler (1980). Similar to the conclusion arrived by Allen et al. (1988),
Lankford and Howard suggested that understanding residents’ attitudes toward tourism
require the consideration of “the complexity of factors that can inﬂuence, either
positively or negatively, residents’ attitudes towards tourism” (Lankford and Howard
1994:135). The two frameworks do not consider these factors and they also fail to explain
the reasons for the non-homogeneity in residents’ perceptions in each of the stages.
Lankford and Howard (1994) suggest that the segmentation approach is more useful to
explain residents’ reactions to tourism. His study, which used this approach, is discussed

in the next section.

29

Segmentation Approach

The segmentation approach considers how the attitudes towards tourism differ for
different segments of the population. Butler (1975) suggests a framework, based on the

matrix below, to explain this.

Attitudes towards tourism
(Arrows indicate possibility of change)

 

 

 

Active ¢ a Passive
Positive
Attitude/Behavior FAVORABLE ("'9 FAVORABLE
Aggressive promotion and Slight acceptance of and
support of tourist activity support for tourist activity
A /l\
\l/ u \l/
UNFAVORABLE <__> UNFAVORABLE
Aggressive opposition to Silent acceptance but
Negative tourist activity opposition to tourist activity
Attitude/Behavior

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Residents’ attitudes towards tourism.

Individuals or groups in a host community may view tourism positively or negatively,
and they may show off their attitudes actively or passively. The combinations of these
attitudes and behaviors result in four forms Of reactions to tourism, as represented by the
four matrices. As far as this researcher knows, this framework has not been tested either
by Butler or by any other researchers, and it still does not answer the underlying question:
Why do these different groups or individuals view tourism the way they do? This
question was touched upon in a study conducted by Thomason et al. (1979) in Corpus
Christi, Texas. Suspecting that there might be different views among different groups in a

community, Thomason et al. (1979) undertook a study to evaluate the impact of winter

30

visitors to the Texas Gulf Coast on three groups in the host community: the
entrepreneurs, the public sector personnel, and the residents.

A series of 24 unstructured personal interviews was undertaken over a three-day
period with representatives of the resident, entrepreneur, and public provider segments of
the Corpus Christi area population. Content analysis of the tapes resulted in an exhaustive
list of frequently repeated words and phrases relating to winter visitors. Antonyms were
developed for each identiﬁed word and phrase. These verbal expressions were then used
as the polarized items in the development of a series of seven-point semantic differential
scales. The scales were subsequently grouped and incorporated into a questionnaire.
Copies of the questionnaire were mailed to a probability sample of 283 residents, 93
entrepreneurs, and 94 public providers. 156 residents, 55 entrepreneurs and 50 public
providers responded to the questionnaires.

Entrepreneurs perceived visitors signiﬁcantly more favorably than did the other
two respondent groups. Public service providers felt that visitors placed strains on
community services, while the residents felt visitors tend to crowd beaches and ﬁshing
areas. The results suggest that respondents’ attitudes toward winter visitors were
inﬂuenced by the relative costs and values brought about by those visitors as perceived
by each group. They bring additional income to the entrepreneurs who in turn perceived
them most favorably. Their presence placed additional responsibilities upon public
providers and required them to accrue additional resources in order to service the winter
visitors. The ﬁndings also conﬁrmed what Rothman (1978) and Pizam (1978) found —
those who favored tourism development were most likely to be economically dependent

upon the tourists for their livelihood.

31

Arguing that the segmentation approach is more useful that the tourism cycle
development approach in explaining residents’ reactions to tourism and that there is a
need for standardized measurement of resident attitudes toward tourism development,
Lankford and Howard (1994) developed a multiple item tourism impact attitude scale
(TIAS). They (Lankford and Howard 1994) then used a multiple regression model on the
TIAS to assess the effects of selected independent variables cited in the literature on
resident attitudes toward tourism development in the Columbia River Gorge region of
Oregon and Washington. The authors employed the basic procedures in developing the
scale for measuring resident attitudes toward tourism suggested by Likert (quoted in
Lankford and Howard 1994) and others. Four steps were taken to develop the TIAS.
First, items representing resident attitudes toward tourism were generated. Second, the
items were pretested on a screening sample of residents drawn from two Paciﬁc
Northwest tourist destination communities. Third, scale puriﬁcation was conducted.
Fourth, the scale was further veriﬁed by testing it on larger samples from the Columbia
River Gorge area.

The selected independent variables then were analyzed to determine their unique
contribution to explaining the variance of the 2 factors identiﬁed in the TIAS. Factor 1
was identiﬁed as “concern for local tourism development” and Factor 2 was interpreted
as the “personal and community beneﬁts” dimension. Establishing these two factors
functioned as a way to segment the respondents in the study based on their perceptions of
how tourism personally impacted their lives and their community. The authors found that
the extent to which local residents felt they maintained some level of control over its

planning and development process favorably inﬂuenced attitudes toward tourism. The

32

results of the study also revealed that if local residents felt that increasing numbers of
visitors impinged on their access to and use of preferred outdoor recreational areas, their
attitude toward tourism development diminished dramatically. This ﬁnding indicates that
residents put high value on outdoor recreational activities in their lives and this in turn
inﬂuences their attitude towards tourism. This is in agreement with the suggestion by
Thomason, Crompton, and Karnp (1979) that resident attitudes are inﬂuenced by the
perceived costs and values brought about by tourists to them. Additionally, the ﬁnding
from the study by Lankford and Howard (1994) also supports earlier ﬁndings by Pizam
(1978) that the more dependent residents are on tourist for their economic well-being, the
more supportive they are of its growth and development. However, Lankford and Howard
(1994) found that level of attachment to the local area did not have much bearing on-
resident attitudes toward tourism as was found in the studies by Rothman (1978).

It can be noted that studies that used the segmentation approach as discussed;
above help overcome the weakness of the development cycle framework, which. assumes
that residents are homogeneous in their reaction toward tourism development inthe
different stages of its development. A pattern consisting of several common explanatory
factors emerge from the two studies above. Thomason, Crompton, and Karnp (1979)
found that residents’ attitudes were inﬂuenced by the relative costs and values brought
about by those visitors as perceived by each group. Lankford and Howard (1994);
Obtained a similar ﬁnding: residents’ attitudes are inﬂuenced by what they value: It can
be concluded then, that how residents assess the costs and beneﬁts of tourism plays a role

in determining their attitude — a suggestion offered by social exchange theory, which is

discussed next.

33

Social Exchange Theory

Social exchange refers to voluntary actions of individuals that are motivated by
the returns they are expected to receive and typically do in fact receive from others (Blau
1967). With these returns acting as goals, an individual or a party engages into an
exchange of resources or favors with another. Social exchange differs from strictly

economic exchange because social exchange entails unspeciﬁed Obligations. The
,wwlm MW- -._____.._

 

prototype of an economic transaction rests on a formal contract that stipulates the exact
quantities to be exchanged. Social exchange, in contrast, involves the principle that one
person does another a favor, and while there is a general expectation of some future
return, its exact nature is not stipulated in advance. In every exchange transaction, each
participant’s goal is to gain much at little cost (Blau 1967).

Basically, exchange theory rests on the principle that human beings are reward
seeking and punishment-avoiding creatures, and that people are motivated to action by
the expectation of proﬁts (rewards minus costs, investments, and foregone rewards).

RWntextoLWums, but may be social or

psychological in nature (Napier and Bryant 1980). Since the future return from an

exchange is unspeciﬁed, the individual’s decision to enter into a socialexchangexlepends _, ..

on ‘perceived’ rewards and ‘perceived’ costs that the individual expmtsjom the

~-——.__.#‘* A.-_.. __ _, I . .-..__. . ﬂ..-

 

 

 

 

exchange. The individual will choose to be involved in the exchange if the perceived
rewards from the exchange exceed the perceived costs from it (Skidmore 1975).

Ap (1992) introduced a model of the social change process to help facilitate

   
   

understanding f residents’ perceptions of tourism. process begins with need

 

 

 

 

 

34

satisfaction as the driving force behind the exchange. According to Ap (1992), it is
assumed that the driving force for a community in developing tourism is to improvethe __ ____‘

economic, $00131, angSYChOlogical well-beingﬁoﬂfﬂits residents. This is the basic rationale

.A ________.7 _..4.—._ ﬁf- M‘-’

 

 

used by the governments to justify their decisions to develop tourism in their countries.
The+ﬂﬁviﬂngf6rce fortourism developmentgm—ay not come from the residents themselves,
but it may be imposed upon them through the decisions of others. The residents, then,
must evaluate the perceived beneﬁts and costs and determine whether they want to enter
the exchange (support tourism) or not. As long as residents perceive that tourism brings
more beneﬁts than costs to them, they will view them favorably. But if tourism is
perceived to create costs that impinge on them adversely, they may develop negative
attitudes to tourism in their communities. Studies have shown that residents will support
tourism if they perceive that tourism brings more beneﬁts than costs (Rothman 1978;
Thomason, Crampton, and Kamp 1979; Belisle and Hoy 1980; Mihnan and Pizam 1988).
Jurowski et al. (1997) applied the social exchange model to Wily“
support for tourism in ﬁve counties surrounding the Mt. Rogers National Recreation Area
(NRA) located in southwest Virginia. Their proposed path model showed that support
for tourism depends on three intervening endogenous variables - the respondents’
perceptions of economic impact, the respondents’ perceptions of social impact, and the
respondents’ perceptions of environmental impacts of tourism. Their perceptions of the
three types of impacts, in turn, depend on four exogenous variables — economic gain, use
of the tourism resource, attachment to the community, and attitudes toward the
environment. Jurowski et al. (1997) found that the perception of tourism’s impact is a

result of assessing beneﬁts and costs, and that this evaluation clearly depends on what

35

1

they value, a suggestion put forward by Thomason et al. (1979) in a much earlier study. ‘3

. . . TENTH" ” T . ‘ " "‘“‘ . “w .
The potential for economic gain leads to direct and posrtrve support for tourrsrlslhrp/

variable als positively inﬂu$esthe manner in which the residents evaluate the impacts

w

 

 

 

 

 

 

(economic, social, and environmental) of tourism. As for the resource use variable, it was
ft“ ¥

 

 

found that residents who use the same resource as tourists are relatively neutral toward
tourism development but they believed that there would be economic, social, and
environmental beneﬁts from an increase in tourism. Thus, these residents support tourism

even though they have@esources with the tourists. Further, the greater the

degree of community attachment the more residents evaluate mic and social

  
 
 

impacts positively but the environmental impacts negativel \Lastly, th respondents with
\

strong ecocentric attitudes did not perceive tourism favorabl eir attitudes inﬂuence

their perceptions of the impacts of tourism.

Mal exchange theory @Wy Jurowski et al. (1997)

 

but there are at least three problems which require modiﬁcation. First, there is usually a
l lag between the beneﬁts and the costs that result from such exchanges. This is in accord
with Blau’s (1967) proposition that the exact nature of returns in an exchange is mostly
not stipulated in advance. Thus, residents’ evaluation of the elements of exchange may
indicate that the residents’ support for tourism is based c921] bathe-immediate. PEREIIIE-..
that they receive. but notethhe east. that.theywillreéliAEiEEhRIQQSLuﬂ- They may not
even Wlong term costs are._ F or example, a previously unemployed resident

may see tourism as very beneﬁcial to him because it allows him to get a job. He may

have no knowledge of the costs that tourism may bring as the costs will only take place in

36

the future. His support for tourism is based only on the beneﬁt (getting a job) he received

from tourism. The costs from tourism may not even enter his mind during the exchange.
Secondly, this theory needs to take into consideration the condition that Blau

(1967) argues will inﬂuence the process of social exchange, which is the character of the

relationship between exchange partners. Although social exchange requires trusting
__ .. I much

_____..,_-
.._4_.__..4

others to reciprocate (Blau 1967), what B gives to A in exchange for whatever A gives to
B may not be equivalent in value. There is a possibility that A may not have other
alternatives but to exchange with B. The partner with fewer alternative opportunities
tends to be more dependent on and committed to the exchange relation than the other
(Blau 1967). A resident faced with poverty and the need to survive is an example of the
partner with restricted alternative Opportunities. He may not be in favor of tourism but
still commit himself to an exchange with the tourists in order to receive an income. This
argument will lead to the concept of power, which will be discussed later.

The third problem is related to the unit of analysis used in the exchange process.
There is a great possibility that the residents view the results from tourism to be
individually beneﬁcial, but may view the costs to be borne by the society as a whole, not
just to themselves. The beneﬁt in this case is personal, but the cost is broader. Most
people will choose personal beneﬁts knowing fully well that there are social costs,
especially if the personal beneﬁt is a difference between being jobless and having a job as
a means to support a family, which is a typical situation faced by a resident in a
developing country. This may explain the results of the study by Liu and Var (1986) on
the tourism impacts upon Hawaiian residents. The results of their study show that

residents of Hawaii regarded environmental protection as more important than economic

37

 

beneﬁts of tourism but they were unwilling to sacriﬁce their standard of living for

environmental conservation.

Summm

The three problems discussed above suggest that social exchange theory alone
cannot sufﬁciently explain residents’ support for tourism, especially in the case of the
residents in the developing countries. Many areas in these countries that have been
developed into tourism destinations are homes to native people who are, in most cases,
facing economic hardships. Understanding how residents evaluate the beneﬁts and costs
Of tourism will help explain why residents perceive tourism the way they do. Their
evaluation of rewards and costs of tourism may be inﬂuenced by certain factors that
explain the power that the residents have. Constrained by not having the power to make
their future lives better, the residents may support tourism development in their area due
to the fact that the immediate impacts from tourism is individually beneﬁcial to them
without considering, or even knowing, the cost of tourism to their area and their
community in the long run. The literature review now focuses on the discussion of power

and power relations, and their role in the exchange process.

2.4 Power, Social Exchange, and Attitudes toward Tourism
There is no universal deﬁnition for power} In four studies included in the book
entitled Studies in Sociﬂ Power, four slightly different deﬁnitions of power were used
(Cartwright 195” Generally, P033 is Yiewed.a§.“tbe,ab.ilitxef enepersenler $933119

inﬂuence or control some aspect gfgromther person (or group)” (Cartwright 1959: v).

M—M‘-‘ "'I ., H -—-—--—
Iﬁ-mm INN”

 

38

Wolfe (1959) lists a number of assumptions about the nature of the individual and of
interpersonal relations that are relevant to the concept of power. First, it is assumed that
every individual is continually attempting to satisfy her needs and desires and to attain
her goals (Wolfe 1959). This assumption is consistent with the explanation by Ap (1992)
that the social exchange process that takes place between residents and the tourism actors
begins with the drive to satisfy the needs of both parties. Thus, there appears to be a
linkage between power and social exchange. The second assumption is that most of the
individual’s needs are satisﬁed and goals attained through social interaction with other
persons or groups (Wolfe 1959). Finally, it is also assumed that during this interaction,
there is a continual exchange of resources that contribute to the satisfaction of individual
needs and to the attainment of individual or group goals (Wolfe 1959). The last two
assumptions again imply the appropriateness of including the power concept in social
exchange theory. Within this general conception of and assumptions about power, its
applicability in understanding resident support for tourism lies in the understanding of
residents’ ability to achieve the goals that are important to them. But how do we measure
this ability or power? To answer this question requires one to consider the source of
power.

A resource is anything, such as property, money, skills, competence, or
knowledge, owned by an individual that“ can be made available to others as instrumental
to the satisfaction of their needs” (Wolfe 1959: 100). The resources owned by residents
may be a source of power (Harsanyi 1971; Nagel 1975) as they dictate the residents’
ability to inﬂuence the tourism development process in order to satisfy her/his needs.

Resources represent power that residents could use to satisfy their needs from the

39

exchange with tourism deveIOpment. Resources, then, are crucial considerations in the
exchange process involving residents and tourism development.

Ap (1992) also suggested the inclusion of power in the study of residents’
perceptions towards tourism impact. Power is the central variable of exchange as it
provides the basis for determining the form of the exchange relation (Ap 1992). If both
the actors in an exchange have high levels of power, then the exchange relation is said to
be symmetrical. If the levels of power between the actors are uneven, with one actor’s
level of power higher than the other, the exchange relation is said to be asymmetrical.
Residents with high levels of power are at the more advantageous positions than those
with low levels of power as they will be more able to obtain something that they value
from the exchange (i.e. from tourism development). Since it is argued above that a
resource owned by a resident will inﬂuence how much power s/he has, it can be implied
then that the resident with more resources has more power than the resident with fewer
resources.

Findings from a study by Peck and Lepie (1989) of recreational tourism on three
coastal communities in North Carolina reﬂect the proposition made by Ap (1992) about
the role that power plays in tourism development. Peck and Lepie (1989) examined the

v”... ‘” -..MMH—‘t—r-H ‘-

hypothesis that both commy/Iinyqyemgtgd control (power) bver the change would

 

 

 

 

 

..- .h v-—-r-A»Jv—~,

affect the amount and distribution of payoffsﬂand trade-offs associated/with increased

 

m -31 -F

tourism. In their study, “power” included the ownership of land that is developed, the

 

source of ﬁnancing, input from local people, and the relation of local traditions to tourism
development projects. This deﬁnition of power coincides with the deﬁnition of of the

source of power given by Harsanyi (1971) and Nagel (1975), indicating a close link

40

between resources and power. Peck and Lepie (1989) deﬁne “payoffs” in their study to
include beneﬁts to the host culture from tourism and “tradeoffs” to include the social
impact, which changes the nature of the communities.

They used a participatory observation technique in three coastal communities in
North Carolina, each representing a different style of tourism development, to test their
hypothesis. The three communities were Oriental, Bath, and Harkers Island. Peck and
Lepie (1989) concluded from their ﬁndings that the differentiating factor in determining
the positive or negative impact of tourism development on the host community was the
source of regulatory power, that is, whether or not the host community perceived they
had access to that power. Harkers Island was found to be an “unincorporate ”
community; it has no truly functioning local political or governmental mechanism and it
lacks political strength and cohesiveness. As a result, the community is poorly equipped
to cope with problems of integrating rapid changes, especially the ones brought by
tourism. Although islanders apparently do not welcome the tradeoffs from tourism, they
are resigned to the attitude that there is not much that they could do to change the almost
“apocalyptic” process they envision. Oriental, on the other hand, has a strong and active
local government. It also has appropriate commercial infrastructure. In the face of the
increasingly rapid development of its tourist industry, Oriental is found to have fared
well. Although there are some tradeoffs from the tourist industry that they are not keen to
have, Oriental residents seem to appreciate its payoffs enough to want an expansion of
the tourism development. Bath has successfully resisted change by maintaining a strong
town government that takes control of planning for the community. As opposed to the

residents of Oriental, Bath’s residents did not perceive that tourism was giving them the

41

payoffs that they needed. Thus, the town of Bath has established a land-use plan for a
number Of years, and has stuck to its policy of very limited development. It has also
resisted attempts to develop marinas along the Parnlico. These ﬁndings indicate that, with
power, a community is better able to direct tourism development according to their own
needs and compatibility. Ap (1992) proposed that residents with high levels of power are
in more advantageous positions than those with low levels of power as they will be more
able to get something that they value from the exchange. Equivalently, a community with
high levels of power (such as Oriental) is more able to direct tourism development than
another community with a low level of power (such as Harker Island). Consequently,
members of a more powerful community have more positive attitudes towards and
exchange (i.e., from tourism development) than members of a less powerful community.
But in many economically peripheral areas such as those in developing countries
the creation of some jobs from tourism is better than no jobs at all (Hall, 1994). Due to
this, primary control of tourism development lies with government, which will mostly
collaborate with non-local companies and the local elites. The other residents do not
possess sufﬁcient power to control the development but yet they may still be willing to
support tourism and enter into an exchange with the tourists even when they get less from
the exchange (i.e., when their beneﬁts are lower than the costs). This creates a situation
of power-dependence where the local residents (the party that complies with the ‘more
powerful party’) are dependent on the tourism industry (the ‘more powerﬁrl party’) for

continuous supply of the needed beneﬁts (better standard of living) (Emerson, 1962).

42

Summag

Existing studies indicate that understanding destination residents’ reactions
towards tourism requires a contextual exploration of each individual destination. In
practice, the residents in a destination are never homogeneous in their views with regard
to the exchanges taking place in their support for tourism. Social exchange theory offers
an underlying framework for understanding residents’ attitudes towards tourism because
it deals with how residents evaluate the costs and beneﬁts of tourism. This literature
review concludes that unless we consider the role of power, social exchange theory
cannot sufﬁciently help explain why residents have certain attitudes toward tourism
development in their area. The inclusion of power relations in social exchange theory in
the tourism context will provide a more useﬁrl framework to explain support for tourism
by residents in a developing country than just social exchange theory alone. The residents
or group of residents with more resources will have relatively more power than the
residents or groups who lack those resources as they will be more able to get something
that they value from the exchange (i.e. tourism development). This, in turn, may

determine their attitudes towards tourism.

2.5 Problem Statement, Conceptual Framework, and Objectives

Problem t t me t

J afari (1973) suggests that tourism development without proper planning may

cause the host society to experience ‘premature modernization’, which is reﬂected by

rapid replacement of traditional lifestyles with those practiced by the tourists of whom

43

the majority originate from the West. Tourism can evidently bring mixed outcomes to the
host society, and these outcomes can differ substantially from one society to another
(Harrison, 1992). There is a need to study these outcomes in each speciﬁc society as “in
the ﬁnal analysis, the ‘truth’ about the impact of tourism must surely be context-speciﬁc”
(Din, 1989).

Recent studies indicate that insights derived from social exchange theory stand
out as signiﬁcant contributions to the development of knowledge about residents’
attitudes towards tourism and its impacts (Ap 1992; Jurowski et a1. 1997). Social
exchange theory explains that generally, residents view tourism favorably if they perceive
that tourism brings more beneﬁts than costs to them. But this alone does not provide a

strong foundation upon which residents’ attitudes could be fully comprehended. The

'. a, .“v . 4’14.)-
- u-t -ﬂm.lr wheat-Pr ﬂrwvw» \

tourism impacts and residents’ attitudes towards tourism.

.Mnsu-ne .mum « -..
.. hi 4 F-vu~.«v—-..

 

one tual Framework
Based on the literature review, a conceptual framework for the study is depicted
in Figure 3. According to the framework, the resources owned by the residents deﬁne
their level of power. Power inﬂuences their ability to use the opportunities offered by
tourism and their level Of dependence on tourism, which in turn inﬂuence their
evaluations of the exchange they make with the tourism actors. The evaluations of
exchange affect the way tourism is perceived by the residents. These perceptions

determine residents’ attitudes towards and support for tourism.

 

 

 

 

Resources
owned by
residents

 

 

.9

 

Residents ’

level of
power

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m

Beneﬁts

and costs

from

tourism ‘ l l
Evaluation
of exchange

Level of

dependence ——J\

on tourism

 

 

*9

 

 

Perceptions
of changes

9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attitudes
towards and
support for
tourism

 

 

Figure 3. Conceptual framework for understanding residents’ attitudes toward

tourism.

ijgtives pf me Study

1. To identify the changes brought by tourism to Langkawi.

2. To strengthen the theoretical foundation used in studies on residents’ attitudes

towards tourism by using both power and social exchange theories guided by three

propositions discussed in the next section.

3. To explore variables, other than power, that may also determine residents’ attitudes

towards tourism.

4. To make recommendations for tourism policy, planning, and further research.

45

 

 

Propositions

Referring to the second Objective, the following propositions are used to guide the

study:

Proposition 1:

Proposition 2:

Proposition 3:

The more resources the residents have, the more able they feel they

are to take advantage of the Opportunities Offered by tourism, thus the

more power they feel they have.

The fewer resources (less power) the residents have, the more

dependent they are on tourism.

The power possessed by the residents inﬂuences their attitudes

toward changes brought by tourism and the meaning they attach to

these changes. This is because:

(a) The more power they have, the more able they are to beneﬁt from
tourism, and hence the more positive their attitudes and support.

(b) The less power they have, the more dependent they will be on

tourism, and hence the more positive their attitudes and support.

46

Chapter 3

METHODS

This study employed the constructionist research paradigm, which is most broadly
known in current jargon as “naturalistic inquiry” (Lincoln and Guba 1985). This
paradigm competes with positivism, which tends to emphasize quantiﬁcation in its
methods. The methods used in constructionism are typically qualitative and aim at
providing a rich portrait and a better understanding of the phenomenon under study than
the more traditional quantitative methods (Hernandez, Cohen, and Garcia 1996). Given
that the study was looking for patterns in order to help explain residents’ attitudes, that an
in-depth probe would be more valuable than surface understanding, and that there was a
need to have contact with the residents themselves in order to understand how tourism
inﬂuences them (Mathieson and Wall 1982), a qualitative approach was chosen for this
study. J urowski et al. (1997) also recommend the use of this approach in order to reveal
elements that residents (as opposed to researchers) feel they might be exchanging in
return for the beneﬁts of tourism development.

Qualitative designs can either be loose (unstructured) or tight (prestructured). The
research design used in this study lies between these two extremes. The study has a
conceptual framework, a set of propositions, a sampling design, and a procedure
determined at the beginning of the study. The study collected information primarily from
residents with different power levels on Langkawi Island, Malaysia regarding their
perceptions of the changes brought by tourism development to their lives and their

attitudes toward tourism development in Langkawi. The data were analyzed to explore

47

how power inﬂuences residents’ attitudes. The data were also analyzed to discover other

determinants of residents’ attitudes that may contribute to the study objectives.

3. 1 Deﬁnitions
To achieve its Objectives, the study focuses on a number of variables that emerged
from the literature reviewed. Based on the literature reviewed and the conceptual
framework, the study variables, their deﬁnitions, and how they are measured are shown

in Table l.

48

/mw”

/'/ /
Table 1. Study variables,

V"!-

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Definition Questions used to measure variables
Power Residents’ ability to take Based on resources owned by residents.
advantage of the opportunities Residents had power if they indicated they
offered by tourism had at least one of the ﬁve resources listed
development. under the ‘resources’ deﬁnition below.
Residents had no power if they indicated
that they had none of the listed resources.
Resources Anything owned by residents Five determinants Of power were used at
that they could use as an the beginning of study: ownership of land,
exchange for the beneﬁts from access to capital (accumulated stock of
tourism. wealth, for example money or property,
used by a person in business), knowledge
level (due to education and experience),
young age (forty years old or less), and
leadership position in the community.
Respondents were also asked about the
kinds of resources they thought could help
[,{;-::-.\ them beneﬁt from tourism.
Beneﬁts K. Chan 's_f_r_gmht,0urism,_ Intervi’eiuquestions: Do you consider
from j" T lgopmeptywhi‘chjmprgves thesei'ghanges as beneﬁts tqyou/your
tourism residents’ lives. commW--. v T.“
Costs of Changes from tourism Interview questions: Do you consider
tourism development, which degrades these changes as costs to you/your
residents’ lives. community?
Level of The degree of residents’ Respondents’ perceptions on the
dependence reliance on tourism for their importance of tourism to residents’ lives
upon living. and to their community.
tourism
Evaluation How residents assess the Respondents’ perceptions on the tradeoffs
of beneﬁts and costs Of tourism that are involved by having tourism in
exchange (whether it is beneﬁcial or Langkawi.
costly to them).
Attitudes Residents’ predisposition or Interview questions: Do you support
toward action tendencies to tourism tourism in your area?
tourism (whether they are favorable of Are you in favor of tourism in Langkawi?
tourism or not), which is a Do you have any comments about it?
function of their beliefs that
tourism produces certain
consequences and how they
value these consequences.

 

 

 

49

3.2 Subjects

Study Populzgion
The population under study consisted of the residents in the six districts in
Langkawi Island: Kuah, Padang Matsirat, Kedawang, Bohor, Ayer Hangat, and Ulu

Melaka (Figure 4).

. ' In or. Imi no
.l ,. Goon I!“ "an

...Zz‘e: .
' fa... Q'glm__

' ’lu Melaka ‘V'
:7 .l‘ ‘ Kuah

l w , , g
< Kedawang . jg ' $0
7." )5 low ' ‘. .“‘

again..- In
moo-Q ' lan-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’Ol"

 

 

 

"'19

5‘ him: a...- g'u'I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Districts in Langkawi.

50

In terms of tourism, Kuah, Padang Matsirat and Kedawang have more tourism
attractions and development compared to Ayer Hangat, Ulu Melaka, and Bohor.
Shopping and commercial activities are concentrated in Kuah town. Beautiful beaches
and hotel development are mainly in Kedawang, Padang Matsirat, and Air Hangat.

Kuah has the largest number of residents (37.9% of Langkawi population)

followed by Ulu Melaka, Air Hangat, Kedawang, Padang Matsirat, and Bohor (Table 2).

Table 2. Resident distribution in Langkawi.

 

 

 

District Number of
residents

Kuah 23,750
Ulu Melaka 9,417
Ayer Hangat 8,458
Kedawang 8,050
Padang Matsirat 7,654
Bohor 5,288

Total 62,617

 

Source: LADA, 1999
The present number of residents on Langkawi is 62,617, indicating a 46% increase from
the 42,938 in 1991. Approximately a third of the present population consists of
newcomers who were attracted to Langkawi by the economic opportunities Offered by its
development as a tourist destination and a duty free port (LADA, 1999).

Malays represent the largest ethnic group in Langkawi (91.2%), followed by
Chinese (5.1%) and Indians (2%). The majority of the Malays live in Bohor, Air Hangat,
Ulu Melaka, and Kedawang while the majority of the non-Malays are concentrated in

Kuah and Padang Matsirat (LADA 1999).

51

Less than half of the population is employed while the rest is not employed
mostly because they are either still in school, housewives, or retired. Prior to the
development of tourism in the island, the residents were dependent on ﬁshing and other
agricultural activities for their income. However, this situation had changed since the
early 1980’s when the island was turned into one of the main tourism destinations in the
country. LADA (1999) reports that the majority (33.8%) of the present working
population in Langkawi is involved in the wholesaling and retailing sector, which
includes the bulk of tourism business, including hotels and catering. Nineteen percent of
the working population work in the agriculture, forestry, hunting, and ﬁshery sector. The
situation was very different in 1987 when 63% of the working population then was
concentrated in the agriculture/ ﬁshery sector (Langkawi District Council, 1992). The
residents are also experiencing improvement in their incomes. In 1987, 79% of Langkawi
residents earned RMSOO (US$132) or less monthly (Langkawi District Council, 1992). In
1999, only 11% of the residents were in this income bracket (LADA, 1999). Seventeen
percent of the residents earn between RMSOl (US$132) and RM1,000 (US$263) a month
and a small percentage (0.6%) earn more than RM3,000 (US$789) a month. The majority
(62.7%) of the residents report that they do not have any ﬁxed earnings. This is in accord
with the high percentage of non-working residents mentioned earlier. These residents

depend either on their families or on odd jobs for their livings.

Sample
Patton (1990) and Kuzel (1992) together describe some sixteen types of sampling

that can be used in qualitative research. Most sampling in qualitative research is not

52

probability sampling but rather nonprobability sampling. In probability sampling, each
member of a population has the same random chance of being chosen for the study. This
allows for statistical generalizing to the population of interest. Nonprobability sampling
uses subjective judgement to determine the units of the population to be included in the
sample. Qualitative samples tend to be purposive, rather than random (Kuzel, 1992).
Miles and Huberrnan (1994) explain that this tendency is because social processes, which
qualitative research are mostly interested in, “. . .have a logic and a coherence that random
sampling can reduce to uninterpretable sawdust” (Miles and Hubennan, 1994). Thus,
choices of the sample are being driven by the conceptual questions, not by a concern for
‘representativeness’.

Miles and Huberrnan (1994) suggest that sampling in qualitative research should
involve two actions: (1) setting boundaries to deﬁne aspects of the cases or subjects that
the researcher wants to study within the time and resource limits, yet connect the
researcher directly to the research questions; and (2) creating a frame to help the
researcher uncover, conﬁrm, and qualify the basic constructs on which the study is based.
A conceptual framework and research questions, such as the ones used in the present
study, can help set the boundaries for sampling decisions. Researchers select respondents
because the respondents are believed to be the experts in an area or privileged witnesses
to an event (Weiss, 1994). Information is the factor that drives qualitative sampling, not
the number of people.

The sampling strategy adopted in this study was a purposeful one. From a
positivist research perspective, it could be argued that the main weakness of purposive

sampling is that the researcher’s subjectivity can introduce bias in the selection of the

53

subjects for the sample. However, if the criteria for selecting the sample are established
beforehand and the researcher strictly adheres to the criteria, this problem can be
minimized. It was established early in the study that the sample would consist of
residents who have different levels of power, which would be determined by certain
resources that they owned, namely ownership of land, access to capital (access to income,
savings, assets, and other ﬁnancial resources that could be used as capital), knowledge
level, young age, and leadership position. The strategy used for selecting the sample in
this study was based on the rationale that comparisons need to be made between how
‘power’ and ‘no-power’ residents think about tourism in Langkawi. Land, capital,
knowledge, young age, and leadership position qualify as bases of power as these factors
allow residents who own them to take advantage of the employment and earning
opportunities offered by tourism development. Residents who own land may sell their
land to the tourism developers or they may develop the land themselves. They may also
use the land that they own as collateral to secure loans from the bank to set up their own
businesses. Residents who have access to capital are capable of setting up businesses in a
business-conducive environment created by tourism development. Having knowledge
based on education or experience increases a resident’s ability to either get an
employment or start a business. Physiologically, a younger resident is in a better position
to be employed by the tourism industry than an older resident is. The base of power for
younger residents come from physical ability rather than their wealth or political position.
Those with leadership positions are able to use their authority and inﬂuence to gain from
the development. The sampling strategy above helps the researcher to evaluate the

theoretical proposition put forth at the beginning of this study.

54

Based on the research framework, the researcher canvassed randomly selected
communities in each district in Langkawi to recruit early respondents from both the
‘power’ group (consisting of these sub-groups: ‘Ownership of land’, ‘access to capital’,
‘knowledge level’, ‘young age’, and ‘leadership position’) and the ‘non-power’ group
(consisting of those residents who possess the following characteristics: no land, no
access to capital, low level of knowledge and expertise, over forty years old, and no
leadership positions). Each county has a number of ‘kampungs’ or villages. Each of these
villages has its own ‘Jawatankuasa Kampung (J K)’ or commrmity committee that
represents the communities in different issues and activities that effect their karnpungs.
Lists of each county’s community committee were used to recruit respondents from the
leadership position sub-group. From interviews with initial respondents, the snowball
technique was used in recruiting subsequent respondents. One of the sampling principles
in qualitative research is to stop interviewing at the point of “saturation”. This principle
was followed as, in each district, no new respondents were interviewed when the
researcher felt that no new information would be uncovered from them in order to answer
the research questions.

Forty-six residents were interviewed: thirty from the ‘power’ group (six
respondents from each sub-group) and sixteen from the ‘non-power’ group (Table 3).
The sampling design for this study assured that the characteristics of the respondents
could provide credibility to the development of a framework for understanding residents’
attitudes toward tourism. Nevertheless, the non-probability sampling design does not

allow extrapolation of the results to the study population.

55

Table 3. Residents interviewed by group and by district (Langkawi Island,
Malaysia, 1999).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISTRICT
Group Sub-groups Kuah Kedawang Padang Bohor Ulu Ayer Total
Matsirat Mela Hangat
ka
Ownership 1 1 1 1 l l 6
of land
Financial 1 l l l l 1 6
source
Power Knowledge 1 1 1 1 1 l 6
level
Young age 1 l l l 1 1 6
Leadership 1 l 1 1 1 l 6
position
NO - 2 3 2 3 3 3 16
Power
Total Respondents 46

 

 

3.3 Procedures

The research program consisted of a series of ﬁeld research components and the

analysis of the qualitative data Obtained from individual in-depth interviews.

UCRIHS Review

In accordance with Michigan State University and federal regulations, the
dissertation research project was submitted for review by the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects [UCRIHS], an institutional review board, before
data collection began. Pursuant to those regulations, no data collection can begin until
UCRIHS approval of the proposed project has been received. UCRIHS approved the
dissertation project as adequately protecting the rights and welfare of its human subjects

and its methods to obtain informed consent on June 4, 1999.

56

Recruitment

Following the purposeful sampling technique discussed earlier, the researcher
recruited respondents for individual interviews with the help of two research assistants.
The research assistants were graduates from a local university who had experience
working with the Center for Research and Consultancy, Universiti Utara Malaysia. At the
early stage of the ﬁeldwork, the research team stayed on Langkawi Island to meet with
local government agencies to establish networks and potential relationships. The research
team then canvassed the communities in each district — stopping in local establishments,
engaging people in ‘warungs’, etc. - having non-formal conversations with members of
the communities in their effort to recruit and screen potential respondents. In some cases,
the non-formal conversation with a particular resident led to that resident being chosen as
a respondent. In other cases, the non-formal conversations resulted in names and
addresses of potential respondents being secured. Nevertheless, an attempt was made by
the team to recruit respondents that represented the ‘power’ group and the ‘nO-power’
group. In the end, forty-six people from the six districts and nine local ofﬁcials were

recruited and interviewed during approximately ﬁve weeks of interview activity.

conduct of Inguipy and Instrumentation

ln—denthlatmiew—s

In-depth interviews were conducted with Langkawi residents to ascertain the costs
and beneﬁts brought by tourism as perceived by them. The questions were open-ended
and the interview informal and semi-structured. The main advantage of in-depth

interviews is that a better understanding of respondents’ thinking and attitudes on some

57

issues could be achieved than when structured interviews are conducted (Hernandez et al.
1996). Hernandez et al. (1996) refer to the problem regarding the use of structured
interviews in the Santa Marta study described in chapter two (Belisle and Hoy 1980). In
the study, respondents were asked to react to an a priori theoretical framework devised by
the researchers, which may or may not have corresponded to their personal experiences.
Results of the study showed that 58% of responses were in the neutral category. These
results might have been different if the study had used less structured interviews that
would allow interviewees to explain their experiences in their own way.

In qualitative research, the primary instrumentation of the research project is the
human Observer, who is also the interviewer. In order to have conﬁdence in the data
collected, there must be conﬁdence in the quality, consistency, and accuracy of human
observers and the technique used to collect such data. For these reasons, two days were
spent with the research assistants to familiarize them with the research objectives,
procedures, the interview guide, and the interviewing techniques. The research assistants
also helped in translating the questions in the interview guide from English to Malay. As
a result, the research assistants developed an understanding of the phenomena under
study, the research questions, the interview questions, and the non-directive probes and
prompts used in the study. The research assistants were also familiar with the language
and culture of the study population and this was helpful for the team in carrying out the
interviews. During the actual interviews, the researcher accompanied the research
assistants on a random, alternating basis. That is, the researcher would Observe an
interview conducted by one research assistant, debrief the research assistant after the

interview, and offer the assistant suggestions for the next interview before locating the

58

other research assistant for observation. The researcher would then observe, debrief, and
assist the other research assistant with his future interviews.

This system Of in-ﬁeld observation and debrieﬁng was aimed at increasing the
conformity across different interviews and the quality of the data. Likewise, at the end of
each day, the researcher would meet with both research assistants to discuss the ﬁndings
and difﬁculties of the day and to exchange ideas about the progress of the data collection.
As a result of the training, interview observations, and daily debrieﬁng sessions, it is
believed that a high degree of inter-interviewer consistency was maintained for the in-

depth interviews.

M

An interview guide (Table 4) was developed for use during the in—depth
individual interviews. The guide was organized to help the researcher answer the research
questions using a semi-structured interviewing technique. The questions in the interview
guide were translated to Malay as the interviews were carried out in that language
(Appendix A). Since qualitative procedures were employed, the interview guide was not
strictly followed. The order and speciﬁc wording of the questions varied from interview
to interview. However, the guide helped interviewers to continually focus the interviews
onto topics of interest for the dissertation research. Interviewers’ question choice and
phrasing did evolve throughout the interviewing activity to assure that the study variables
were addressed to and to capture any other variables that were not determined early in the

study but anticipated to assist in accomplishing the research objectives.

59

Table 4. Interview Guide.

 

Interview questions

Probing questions

 

 

Nv—i

9.

How long have you lived in Langkawi?

. When (what year) did you ﬁrst realize that you

are living in a tourist area? What made you
realize this?

From your own experiences and observations,
what are the changes brought by tourism to
your life?

From your own experiences and observations,
what are the changes brought by tourism to
your community?

How do you feel about these changes?

What kind of opportunities do tourism offer to
the residents?

How do you think you can beneﬁt from
tourism?

DO you support tourism in your area?

What do you know about the residents’ ability
to voice out their Opinions?

10. How would you like Langkawi to be in the

future?

 

9‘.”

a.

b.

What do these changes mean to you?
Do you consider these changes as
beneﬁts to you/your community?

Do you consider these changes as
costs to you/your community?

Do you think you could beneﬁt more
if things were different?

DO you think you could beneﬁt more
if you have certain resources that
you do not have right now?

What kind of resources do you think
could help you to beneﬁt more from
tourism?

Are you in favor of tourism in
Langkawi?

Do you have any comments about
it?

Have you ever voiced out your
opinions?

 

60

 

Interviewing Process

Depending on the respondents’ preference, the interviews were conducted either
at the respondents’ home, ofﬁce, business place, or at public places such as the ‘warungs’
or restaurants. Each interview began with the interviewer explaining the goals of the
project in the most general terms. Then, the interviewer followed the approved format
and asked the respondent for their informed consent to be interviewed (Appendix B). In
short, the informed consent explained to respondents that the study was a partial
requirement for a Ph.D. program, that their participation was voluntary, and that their
identity and responses would be kept conﬁdential. Respondents were also asked if their
interviews could be audiotaped.

On average, each interview was 40 minutes long. Following the basic rules for
conducting interviews suggested by Berg (1995), several minutes were spent chatting
with the respondent to establish a comfortable rapport. The interviewers were instructed
to always keep the respondent on track and have a copy of the interview guide in front of
them. They were also reminded to use the probes in the interview guide and also to probe
whenever they were given a yes-and-no answer. At the end of each interview,
interviewers summarized the key points of the ideas given by the respondents and the
respondents were asked to conﬁrm these points. Respondents were thanked for their
participation and instructed how to contact the research team if they had additional

questions or comments.

61

Informal Interview and Secondary Data

To support and complement the primary data gathered from in-depth personal
interviews, the candidate also conducted informal interviews with key informants and
collected secondary data. Nine key informants, consisting of ofﬁcials afﬁliated with
different local and federal govemment agencies were contacted and interviewed in
between the resident interviews. Unlike the resident interviews, key informant interviews
were informal and unstructured. The purpose of the conversations was to discover the
changes taking place in Langkawi from different aspects. An attempt was made to seek
informants’ opinions on the connection between tourism development and these changes
and to seek clariﬁcation on issues that stood out in the resident interviews prior to the key
informant interviews.

Published secondary data was gathered from different government ofﬁces and
local libraries. These data were published statistics and reports concerning the
development of Langkawi. Data from the key informant interviews and the secondary
data were used to conﬁrm or disconﬁrrn the data from the resident interviews and to

assist in the interpretation of the results.

3.4 Data Collection
Regardless of the type of method and data used, all research should pay attention
to how the data are collected (Ruderstrom and Newton 1992). Data recording should
facilitate analysis and not interfere with real world phenomena (Marshall and Rossrnan
1989). In some situations, even note taking interferes with, inhibits, or in some way acts

upon the setting and the subjects. Some typical data collection and management strategies

62

used by researchers are ﬁeld notes, diaries, theoretical notes, analytic memos, videotape
recording, and audiotape recording.

The researcher used debrieﬁng notes and notes from the interviews with
informants to help clarify and interpret some responses and to gain a better understanding
of tourism development in Langkawi. However, the primary data of the individual in-
depth interviews were audiotape recorded. Audiotape recordings were chosen because
recordings are easily retrievable and this was particularly helpful because it allowed for
the typing of accurate transcripts for subsequent use in data analysis. Audiotape
recordings also help assure that responses are accurately captured and that interruptions
caused by awkward pauses in conversations as their comments were written down are
minimized. This practice conforms to the recommendations of Marshall and Rossman
(1989)

The researcher together with a research assistant who was ﬂuent in the local
northern Malaysian dialect transcribed the recordings of the interviews (in the original
Malay language). A primary purpose of qualitative research is to understand the meaning
of the respondent’s words as s/he does. Thus, throughout the transcription process, the
candidate made every effort to include words, sentence structures, and punctuation marks
that seemed to best express the respondent’s perspective. Because this is a subjective
process, and thus open to reliability and validity problems, the researcher designed
guidelines for transcription of probable punctuation and content selection.

The transcription punctuation choices made by the researcher were based on four
guiding criteria. Sentence breaks were made when the respondent’s words and vocal

intonations appeared to indicate that s/he had completed a thought. Paragraph breaks

63

were created when the interview conversation seemed to move to a different topic.
Occasional bold letters were used to show vocal emphasis on speciﬁc words and phrases.
And instead of noting all utterances (such as “uh” and “um”) by the respondent, only
words exchanged in the conversation were included. Similarly, the interviewer’s
expression of interest, such as “Iya?” — meaning “really?”, “OK”, or “ saya faham” —
meaning “ I understand”, were not noted. These statements were used to express interest,
not add to the interview discussion. The researcher’s interpretations were separated from
observable phenomena by the use of brackets. As the transcription process progressed,
and later into the translation process, the entire candidate’s bracketed thoughts and
opinions were inserted in the proper places within the translated interview transcripts.

After the recordings were transcribed, the researcher then translated the
transcripts from Malay to English. To retain the meaning of the statements and ideas
contained in the transcripts, word-to-word translation was avoided. Instead, translation
was made on each sentence. These translated transcripts were then reviewed for accuracy
by a colleague of the candidate, who is also from Malaysia. These veriﬁed translated
transcripts of the in-depth individual interviews became the data used in subsequent data
analysis.

Unlike the resident interviews, audiotape recordings were not used during the
informant interviews. Brief notes were taken during the conversation, which were
expanded soon after each interview. Data from the informal, informant interviews were

used to help interpret the residents’ interviews, but not as the primary data for analysis.

3.5 Data Analysis

Data analysis is the process of bringing order, structure, and meaning to the mass
of collected data in a search for general statements about relationships among categories
of data. The purpose of the analysis is to interpret, explain, and understand the data.
Miles and Huberrnan (1994) explain that qualitative analysis consists of three concurrent
ﬂows of activity: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing. Thus in
qualitative studies, analysis occurs continuously throughout the life of the research
project. In this research study, data analysis refers to a process undertaken by the
researcher in her attempt to support the propositions put forth at the beginning of the
study.

Data reduction aims at selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and
transforming the data that appear in written ﬁeld notes or transcriptions so that the data
will be more manageable (Miles and Huberrnan 1994). The general steps involved in this
process are organizing the data, coding them by putting labels on statements of interest,
decoding these labels by compartrnentalizing the codes, and generating themes and
patterns. Data display facilitates explanation and interpretation by assembling the
information in an organized and compressed way. The researcher eventually draws the
conclusions as the meaning from the data becomes explicit and grounded (Miles and

Huberman 1994).

grew
Transcribing the recordings of the interviews and translating the transcripts were

the early steps taken to organize the data in the study. The translated transcripts were

65

typed with wide right hand margins to allow the researcher to make early comments or
notes about different aspects such as the main issues or themes that may surface; the
research questions and variables in the initial framework that may be touched upon; and
new speculations that may be suggested. At the same time, the translated transcripts were
saved in computer ﬁles in ‘text-only with line-breaks’ format and were imported as
primary documents into ATLAS/ti, a software program (ATLAS.ti 1998) that was used to

facilitate data analysis in this study.

Semen—dcgiing

Once they were imported into ATLAS/ti, data from the translated transcripts were
then coded. This coding process involved segmenting and coding, two tasks which
together Tesch (1990) describes as ‘de-contextualization’ the data. According to Tesch
(1990), to ‘de-contextualize’ or to segment the data is to separate relevant portions of
data from their context and then categorize these segments into an organizing system.
The researcher did this by carving segments of the data out of their context in such a way
that they retained their meaning. The segments could consist of a sentence, paragraph, or
a question and response segment within an interview.

Alter segmenting the data, the data had to be categorized by coding them
according to an organizing system. There are two ways for establishing an organizing
system: (1) it can be created ﬁ‘om prior material, such as the theoretical ﬁamework
adopted for the research and/or the research questions that guide the investigation; or (2)
it can be constructed from the data themselves (Tesch 1990). The two methods were

combined in the data analysis of this study. The researcher assigned codes or labels to the

66

different segments of the data. The coding scheme used in this study was initially guided

by the research questions but as the coding process developed, the scheme iterated as new

and different issues surfaced. The predetermined codes developed at the beginning of the

study were:

1.

2.

Length of residency

Situations that made respondents become aware of tourism development in
Langkawi

Changes brought by tourism development in Langkawi:
0 To their personal lives
0 To their communities

The meaning of the changes:
0 Changes they considered as beneﬁts
0 Changes they considered as costs

. Their attitudes regarding opportunities made available by tourism in

Langkawi

Their support for tourism in Langkawi

Their opinion regarding residents’ participation in planning
Their level of dependence on tourism

Their hope for Langkawi’s future.

The coding procedure was performed using the different coding techniques offered by

ATLAS/ti. These resulted in quotations being linked with codes (Figure 5).

67

 

 

Interviewer : Is it easy for the residents to get the
opportunities to open up a business here?

0 Opportunities Respondent: Before the recent economic problem, there
depend on 4.: were many opportunities. It was easy to start a business. But
economic now, even those who came here to set their business have
condition ‘ already left because business is bad. Very few people stay in

business because there are not many customers.

Interviewer: Is capital a problem for the residents to start
""""" up their businesses?

 

0 Opportunities Respondent: They have capital, capital is not a problem.
depend on The problem is that the number of visitors has reduced
economic 4— because of the economic problem. Before the problem, the
condition eateries were opened day and night, because there were too

many customers. Now, it is not like that anymore. The
......... number of customers fell.

Interviewer: If you compare yourself when you were
""""" growing up with the youth in Langkawi today, can you tell
me the diﬂerences, if there is any?

0 Changes = Respondent: Of course the youth today are not like the
lifestyle youth during my time. For one thing, we did not have
0 Changes = televrsrons before. Once in a while, we would go to the
Youth behavior movies. There was not much entertainment. But, there were

fewer problems among the youth at that time. Socializing
between girls and boys were limited. Courting were done
through letters, not like today. Girls and boys mix very freely
today. They can go out together.... We did not do such things
before. I think they are inﬂuenced very much by the
westerners.

 

.........

 

Figure 5. A sample of segmented and coded portion of a transcript.

Qgegorizing, Displayp'ng, Pattern Generating, and gongluding

To prepare the coded data for interpretation, the data had to be categorized
according to the guideline: .. everything that belongs in one category must be

assembled in one place” (Tesch 1990: 122). Tesch (1990) describes this assembling as

68

 

‘re-contextualizing’. ‘Re-contextualizing’ allows the researcher to read in a continuous
fashion about a certain concept of interest, for example, about everyone’s attitudes
regarding Opportunities made available by tourism in Langkawi. Thus, a category deals
with one concept, representing a ‘pool of meanings’ that forms the new ‘context’ of a
segment (Tesch 1990). This ‘re-contextualizing’ task was performed through ATLAS/ti.
Since the codes used by the researcher were the same as categories/concepts, ATLAS/ti
allows this ‘re-contextualizing’ task to be performed by obtaining a compressed report of
all primary document passages (quotations) assigned to a code. This allowed the
researcher to view ‘who’ and ‘how many’ respondents said ‘what’. That is, respondents
and their responses were grouped into categories and the ‘content’ of each category could
by viewed by clicking on a speciﬁc code. In the end, the researcher was able to assemble
all segments of the responses that belonged to each different concept and was ready to go
to the next step of this data analysis, which was the display of data.

Displaying of data means reducing them into matrices of the ideas that could
facilitate thinking about common patterns that would provide the answers to the research
propositions (Miles and Huberman 1994). Using the reports for each of the codes
produced by ATLAS/ti, conceptually clustered matrices (Miles and Huberman 1994)
were developed to describe ‘what is happening’ in each category or concept under study.
These matrices consist of rows (representing the codes, research questions, or two or
three research questions clustered to provide conceptual coherence) and columns
(representing the type of respondents — power or non-power). Miles and Huberman
(1994) imply that such displays are particularly helpful in studies like this, where some

clear conceptual themes have already been identiﬁed in literature.

69

With those descriptions in hand, the candidate proceeded in developing
explanatory matrices (Miles and Huberman 1994) in order to articulate the discoveries
and patterns. An explanatory matrix may contain patterns, quotations, and researcher’s
explanation for these patterns. Using this matrix, relationships between different variables
under study could be explored. Thus, conclusions moved from understanding what
changes were brought by tourism and what the respondents’ attitudes about tourism were
to explaining why these are so. Bernard (1988) suggests that explanation makes
complicated things understandable by showing how their components ﬁt together
according to some rules. The explanation phase concluded the data analysis and was used
by the researcher to examine the propositions that were constructed at the beginning of

the study.

70

Chapter 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A qualitative data analysis procedure was used to discover if social exchange and
power theories are useful in understanding Langkawi residents’ attitudes toward tourism.
Audio-taped interviews were transcribed and translated in order to examine the
relationship between the respondents’ level of power and their support for tourism.

This chapter focuses on the results of the study. It begins with a description of the
proﬁles of respondents. Results of the analysis of the changes brought by tourism in
Langkawi follow. Lastly, each proposition is analyzed and the variables that were found

to determine residents’ attitudes are presented and discussed.

4.1 Proﬁles of Respondents

Forty-six individuals from the different districts of Langkawi participated in this
study. Thirty of them fulﬁlled the ‘power’ deﬁnition and sixteen of the others fulﬁlled the
‘non-power’ deﬁnition as indicated in Table 1. The respondents who were in the ‘power’
category were those who had at least one of the ﬁve resources listed under the deﬁnition
of ‘resources’ in table 1. Six respondents, one from each district, representing each of the
resources that deﬁne the power category were selected (Table 5). The respondents who
were in the ‘no-power’ category had none of the listed resources. Three respondents were
chosen from Kedawang, three from Bohor, three from Ulu M elaka, three from Ayer

Hangat, two from Kuah and two from Padang Matsirat (Table 5).

71

 

 

 

 

Iabl
“cl—o.

7%

NO

11

Table 5. Number of Respondents Per Category.

 

 

Group Sub-group Number of respondents

POWER Own lands 6 (1 each from 6 districts)
Access to capital 6 (1 each from 6 districts)
Hold positions 6 (1 each from 6 districts)

Have high education/experience 6 (1 each from 6 districts)
Younger age (< 35 years old) 6 (1 each from 6 districts)

NO-PO WER 16 (3 each from 4 districts and 2
from 2 districts)

 

 

 

Total 46

 

All of the respondents had lived in Langkawi since 1987, the year it was declared as a
duty free island. Five of the ‘power’ respondents and four of the ‘no-power’ respondents
were females. Ten of the respondents were non-Malays (either Chinese or Indians). A

description of each respondent is provided in appendix C.

4.2 Tourism Development and Perceived Changes in Langkawi
This section discusses the ﬁndings pertaining to objective one: “to identify the

changes brought by tourism to Langkawi.”

Physical Development

The respondents expressed that tourism and the duty free status have changed
Langkawi and their lives in different ways. Among the changes described, physical
development was mentioned most often. All forty-six respondents mentioned that they
observed tremendous physical changes in Langkawi since the late 19803. An elderly man
from Ulu Melaka district described this in his remark about the changes that he observed

in Langkawi:

72

”Approximately since 1988 or 1989, around that year. It began to develop slowly, and
then bit by bit, the development became more rapid. I would say that in theyear 1990, the
development became very rapid. Especially over there, at the Pantai C henang area,
development was very rapid over there. Before, that area, you know... Pantai C enang
and Padang Matsirat, those area were all not developed at all, there were nothing except
jungle and coconut trees there, but now, you can look for yourself Now those areas are
full with buildings. So many different kinds of projects, like the marine park. ”

Tourism has been the primary development in Langkawi for the past decade, as is
explained by LADA’s (Langkawi Development Authority) objective:

“The key objective of LADA is to make Langkawi a major tourism destination and to
upgrade the socio-economic standards of the local people as stipulated in the Draft of the
Langkawi Structural Plan 1990-2005.” (Langkawi Development Authority, 1996)

There is little doubt that tourism development is responsible for Langkawi’s physically
transformation.

Physical development is among the tourism impacts typically described in the
literature review. Tourism reportedly has improved investment, development, and
infrastructure spending in other destinations such as in southern Delaware (Rothman
1978), the US. Virgin Islands (Sethna and Richmond 1978), Santa Marta, Columbia
(Belisle and Hoy 1980) and in Central Florida (Milrnan and Pizam 1988). Published data
reﬂects that the infrastructure development in Langkawi, especially in areas identiﬁed for
tourism development, has been accelerated (North Review 1995). Since 1990, about 320
million ringgit (approximately US$110 million) has been channeled through LADA for
infrastructure and public facilities development. Most of the allocated money was spent
for road development, sewage projects, water supply and distribution systems, and the

beautiﬁcation of the Island (North Review 1995). The improved infrastructure allows

residents to live more comfortably as it improves their quality of life (Zainuddin, 1997).

73

Besides the infrastructure development and expansion, numerous other projects
approved by LADA were completed in Langkawi, most of them related to tourism.
Examples of the projects are theme parks, resorts, and jungle trekking facilities. Some of
these projects involve developing the inland areas of Langkawi (North Review 1995).
Thus, it is not a coincidence that the present study found respondents expressing their

awareness Of tremendous physical changes in Langkawi due to tourism development.

Emploment and Earning Opportunities

Tourism creates employment and earning opportunities to the residents (Pizam
1978; Belisle and Hoy 1980; and Liu and Var 1986). Indeed, increases in employment
and earning opportunities were often mentioned by people when they were asked about
the changes brought by tourism to their lives. A taxi driver’s comment“ when there is
tourism... income has increased indeed’ ’ was Often repeated by Langkawi residents. The
spin-off effects of increased earnings, such as improvement in residents’ life situations,
were also mentioned by the respondents. A lady who runs a small business in her warung
described her hardships before tourism was developed in Langkawi:
“I faced hardship before, people ...did not like your uncle (her husband). We had to work
so hard, doing odd jobs for other people, at people ’s rice ﬁelds and rubber trees. My
children, when they were smaller, I used to just let them lay down on old blankets, just
like that, on the ﬂoor. I cannot tell you how diﬂicult live was for us, it makes me sad. I
don ’t want my children to go through what we have gone through
Other authors have also found such changes in other tourism destinations (Belisle and
Hoy 1980; Liu and Var 1986).

The present study found that the group mostly affected by the increase in

employment opportunities was the younger generation. Due to the rapid development in

74

Langkawi, the younger generation is better able to ﬁnd employment compared to before
tourism development, as was observed by a respondent from Bohor, “T he young people,
many of them work with the hotels, because in Langkawi, there are many hotels. "
Haralarnbopoulos and Pizam (1996) found the same change in their study in the island of
Samos in Greece. Respondents in their study felt that tourism was responsible for the
increased economic independence Of young adults from the family and for the decrease in
the out-migration of young family members because they were able to ﬁnd employment
mostly with the tourism-related workplaces. In Langkawi, the increase in the number of
young people employed not only increases their economic independence, but it also helps
in their family income. An elderly man who described himself as poor expressed his
relief regarding this situation, “ Youngsters whose parents are poor like us are all
working. The young people now can aﬂord to buy motorcycles...and some could even buy

cars

Entreprenemﬂ Qppprtunig

Besides opening opportunities for increased employment, tourism development
has also opened up opportunities for residents to have their own businesses. A large
number of residents became entrepreneurs by selling food, souvenir items, and traditional
medicine and herbs, and by opening car rental companies, travel agencies, and many
other businesses. This has been acknowledged by the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr.
Mahather Moharnad, in his message in the special issue of the New Straits Times, “ ...the
people of Langkawi have been involved in all kinds of lucrative businesses. Even

roadside stalls selling fried bananas can give a very good income (Mohamad, 1997).” A

75

 

 

 

religior
lourisn
llimgs
detelt
incre;
amor
Rain
inlet
repa

(Me

““11
au'

3C1

to
tilt

ell

fut;

religious teacher from Kuah agreed to the Prime Minister’s remark, “ Before
tourism...things sold by the people in Langkawi were wasted, nobody bought them.
Things like coconut and other fruits, nobody was to buy them...But after tourism
development, businesses were booming, because there are now many customers. ” The
increase in the number of entrepreneurial activities is also indicated by the increased
amount of ﬁnancial assistance given to qualiﬁed entrepreneurs. MARA (Maj lis Amanah
Rakyat or People’s Trust Council), a federal agency that offers assistance to the Malays
interested in setting up their own businesses, saw an increase in the amount of loan
repayment from RM210,935 (US$52,733) in 1990 to RM607,650 (US$151,912) in 1998

(Majlis Amanah Rakyat Langkawi 1998).

Lifesgle

It was apparent from this study that tourism has brought changes in the way in
which Langkawi residents think. Such changes are not widely mentioned by other
authors. As earning opportunities emerge and as the residents observe the changes that
accompany their increases in earnings, the way they think about their ﬁrture also changes.
The increment in their earnings may become a motivation for them to work even harder
to earn and produce even more. Similar change was observed by Richter (1978) among
the Kulebele of the northern Ivory Coast. The enhanced economic position the Kulebele
enjoy through tourist art market participation made them realize a new goal in their lives:
to acquire wealth to support their expanded needs. A ﬁsherman remarked, “I think the

ﬁiture is going to be bright for us in Langkawi... Last time, old folks had nothing to do,

76

they would only waste their time at the coffee stalls. Nowadays, everybody have things to
do, to make money. Time is money. It was not like that before. ”

Previous studies reported that tourism altered the lifestyles of several
communities. Residents of Delaware, for example, noted a decline in time spent with the
family (Rothman 1978). Tourism development affected the rhythm of life of the residents
of F uenterrabia where more of residents’ time and energy were channeled to satisfying
the tourists (Greenwoodl972). Tourism was blamed for disrupting traditional
relationships among family members by creating changes, which affect the internal
family structure (Forster 1964). Forster also found from his study of the Paciﬁc Islands
that tourism work patterns inﬂuenced the established order of daily life that was in the
past based on a different timetable. Indeed, respondents in the present study revealed that
tourism has changed their lifestyles. Most of the younger generation practices a totally
different way of life than their parents. Their economic independence is making them
want to take control of their own lives and to create a space between them and their
parents. Money and material wealth have taken over close relationships with families and
friends as the important things in residents’ lives, as was declared by a young man from
Padang Matsirat:

“Before, I never went out...I was at home all the time. My friends and I never hang out
and gossipped. Now, there are many places that the young people can go to hang out. I
think that hanging out is their favorite things to do, to just talk and relax at hang out
places. Most of them don ’t even stay with their parents anymore. They have their own
jobs, and some prefer to stay with friends. They will only go home to their parents during

the weekend... In short, things have changed, and the most obvious change is the
residents ’ ways of lives. Money and material have become very important in their lives

1,

now.

77

Another youth described the present lifestyle of people in Langkawi as “ what do you call
that, modern? " as he thought that, compared to the present situation, “people were much

closer before too. "

Newcomers

The increase in the opportunities to earn and to open businesses has also attracted
many newcomers to Langkawi, as was observed by a college student in the study. “We
see many newcomers in our community, " he explained. Between 1987 and 1999, there
was a 54 percent increase in the number of out-migrated Langkawians who returned to
Langkawi and the number of ‘irnmigrants’ from outside of Langkawi (LADA 1999). This
ﬁnding coincides with the ﬁnding from a study in Dawlish, South Devon, United
Kingdom (Brunt and Courtney 1999). Respondents in the study observed that
employment in the tourism industry attracted outsiders to the area. When asked if he
observed many newcomers in the area where he lived, an elderly man who runs a small
sundry shop replied, “ Yes, they came here to start their businesses. Some came from very

far, like from Pakistan...1t is a good place to come and ﬁnd jobs here. ”

Social Deviepce

Previous studies (Pizam 1978, Belisle and Hay 1980, Milrnan and Pizam 1988)
found that tourism led to an increase in alcoholism, prostitution, and/or drug problems.
Respondents in this study perceived that such social problems, particularly alcoholism
and drug use have increased in Langkawi because of tourism. These problems are

considered to be serious by many respondents since the majority of Langkawi residents

78

are the followers of the religion of Islam, which prohibits such activities. A government
Ofﬁcer remarked, “ ...tourism is able to bring social problem... This may ruin the Malay
culture and the Islamic values...we need to adhere to these values.” The duty free status
makes alcohol inexpensive and lack of selling regulations makes it easily accessible. A
contractor living in Ayer Hangat voiced this concern when he noted with irritation, “
There are even incidents where the school children ...drink and socialize in ways that are
so unlike our culture. The beers are cheap...they are 80 cents per can...Many shops, even
in small villages, sell that stuﬂ (beer) ...there is no way of stopping people to buy the stuff
(beer) ...it is easily accessible. " Many of the respondents blamed this problem on
outsiders and visitors who have inﬂuenced the locals to do the same, as was expressed by
an elderly woman from the Kuah, “ The teenagers... They have become bigheaded. They
smoke and became wild. Last time...there were no such things. They are inﬂuenced by

the tourists ' cultures. ”

Competition fer Lad

Forster (1964) suggests that tourism causes increased competition for certain
resources in the host communities. Many respondents in the present study explained that
tourism has made land in Langkawi highly sought after either by private businesses or by
the government. This has increased land prices in Langkawi, and many residents ended
up selling their land and received large sums of money. Just like residents on the Paciﬁc
Islands (Forster 1964), changes in the socioeconomic status of some individuals also
occured among residents on Langkawi because their land suddenly acquired considerable

value. An elderly man mentioned these changes when he stated, “ The government took

79

the villagers land for the development and paid them. The price was good. This was when
those people... lost their selves, they were shocked. They married other women
(practicing polygamy) and bought cars.” Another elderly man thought that the
exploitation of the land’s sudden commercial value has made the land in Langkawi to
become scarce. He remarked,” If you want to buy land here in Langkawi, you may buy
the land on the hills, that is all the land that is left. Some Langkawians even live outside
Langkawi.” A young man from Ulu Melaka observed that those who sold off their land “
were not able to get another land.” One respondent who felt that land as too important an
asset to lose, stated, “ ...they (the government) should replace the lands to the villagers,

giving the remuneration is not enough...at least (then) they would have some asset.”

Price Inﬂetion

Respondents also indicated that tourism development was responsible for price
inﬂation. Although several of them did not perceive this as a burden to them, other
respondents believed that price inﬂation affects those in low-income groups. An elderly
man from Kuah spoke of this, “ I observe that the prices of food have increased... This is
a burden to the residents, especially to those who are not rich.” Other authors, for
examples Peck and Lepie (1989) argue that tourism-induced inﬂation places a continuing

strain on the community.

Discussion: Objective me

This study ﬁnds that tourism brought many different changes to the residents of

Langkawi. Several excerpts from the interviews are presented as evidence. Appendix D

80

provides additional quotes that support he results presented here. Most of these changes
have also been found in previous studies on tourism impacts. In general, changes such as
the improvement of infrastructure, earning opportunities, ways of living, and ways of
thinking were perceived by the respondents to be beneﬁcial. Changes that degrade their
lives, either socially or physically were perceived to be costly. Thus far, no analysis Of
the differences of these perceptions between the ‘power’ and ‘no-power’ group has been
presented. This analysis is presented within the next section, where the analysis of the

study propositions is discussed.

4.3 Variables that Determine Residents’ Attitudes
To strengthen the theoretical foundation used in studies on residents’ attitudes
towards tourism, the second objective of this study aims to uncover the role of power in
the social exchange between residents and tourism development. Besides power, the
study also aims to explore other variables that may determine residents’ attitudes towards

tourism (objective 3).

Pewer as a Determinant of Residents’ Attitudes

Proposition 1: The more reeeurees the residents have, the more able they feel they are to
take advggge ef the epportunitiee offered by tourism, thus the more power they feel
they have.

According to Ap (1992), residents’ decisions in the exchange process depend on
their level of power to beneﬁt from tourism development in their area as much as they

can at relatively little cost. Wolfe (1959) explains that a resouree is something that one

81

owns that one can use to satisfy one’s Leds. As reﬂected by Harsanyi (1971), there is an
apparent relationship between me; and resources owned by an individual. The base of
po_WQt, according to Harsanyi, is determined by the resources that a party has (e. g.,
economic assets, constitutional prerogatives, military force, and popular prestige). The
ﬁrst proposition in the study proposes that the resources owned by the residents can
predict how much ‘power’ they have. Some questions used by the researcher during the
in-depth interviews were aimed at discovering how the respondents thought they could
take advantage of the opportunities offered by tourism, and if they thought they would be
more able to take advantage of these opportunities if they had certain resources that they

did not have at the time of the interview.

Resotgces and Tourism Beneﬁts

Respondents from both groups recognized that certain resources are needed in
order for residents to be able to beneﬁt from tourism. There are two ways for residents to
beneﬁt from tourism: by obtaining jobs that are made available by tourism development
or by becoming entrepreneurs, since tourism opens up new business opportunities
(Mohamad 1997; Zainuddin 1997). Both tourism development and the duty-ﬂee status
create a suitable condition for business to ﬂourish in Langkawi. Businesses related to
tourism, retailing, construction, souvenirs, traditional medicine, and telecommunication
have grown ever since the government began a serious effort to develop Langkawi as a
tourism destination and a duty-free port. The effort includes the development of projects
such as golf courses, accommodations, commercial establishments, and recreational

facilities. Development of apartments and chalets can be observed in the Pantai Cenang

82

and Pantai Tengah areas. Meanwhile, shopping and commercial complexes and
recreational attractions mushroomed in Kuah. In fact, plans are under way to have more
commercial and business establishments in other areas such as in Padang Lalang and
Padang Matsirat (North Review 1995). This development has opened up employment and
business opportunities, but most respondents did not believe that these opportunities are
opened for just everybody. They believed that, in order to achieve these beneﬁts,
residents must have certain resources. Among the resources mentioned by the
respondents were capital, young age, knowledge, land, inﬂuence, connection, access to

information, vision, and effort (Table 6).

Table 6. Number of respondents who perceived different types of resources as
contributing to power.

 

 

 

 

 

Types of resources ‘Power’ Respondents ‘No-power’ Respondents
perceived as contributing (n=30) (n=l6)
to power

Capital 17 14
Young age 7 4
Knowledge 9 4
Experience 5 0
Access to Information 4 0
Connection 2 1
Effort 7 1
Vision 6 O
Qapital

To take up business opportunities made available by tourism development
requires one to have capital. Capital is deﬁned here as accumulated stock of wealth
(money or property) used by a person in business (Samuelson et al. 1995). Seventeen of

the thirty ‘power’ respondents spoke of the importance of capital in determining whether

83

 

 

 

 

 

3??

rec
01:
inc‘
far.

1'6?

or not one can start up a business and fourteen of the sixteen ‘no-power’ respondents
explained that lack of capital is the reason for them not to start their own businesses, as
shown by the following excerpts:

“...those who have money or land, many of them open their own businesses, built chalets,
etc. " (Power).

“Other people really have the opportunity because they have... money. ” (Power).

“Those who have capital ...they know how to develop their lives. ” (Power).
“I do not take part in it (businesses) Where do we get money to build up chalets? ”

(N o-power).

“Really, the thought (of opening a business) has come through me, but the problem is
that I do not have the capital. ” (No-power).

“...not everybody can take the opportunity out there...me...no capital, it is quite diﬂicult
to do anything. " (No-power).

Many respondents indicated that residents who sold off their land, which
appreciated in value due to tourism development (Mohamad 1997), were better able to
take advantage of the business opportunities as they were then able to come up with their
own capital. A chalet owner in Kedawang (a ‘power’ respondent) remarked that tourism
development offers many unlimited opportunities for the residents but declared, “I
received a little bit of money when I sold my land. I started a small business...1 used my
own capital. " A young girl from Kuah (a ‘power’ respondent) also made a remark
indicating that residents who sold off their land are at more advantageous positions. “My
father... ” she said, “opened this stall, selling fried bananas...now the business is doing
very well. We sell many diﬂerent foods here today. ” Then she added, "...he (her father)
received some money when my grandfather sold of his land ...he used that money to start
this stall. ” It has been mentioned earlier in this dissertation that many residents did not
have high income prior to tourism development. They rarely owned any other asset

besides land, which many of them do not even have. For those without any land, tourism

opened up opportunities for them to ﬁnd jobs and increase their earnings just enough to

84

allow them to purchase household items and transportation, which they were not able to
buy before but are needed to ease their lives. An elderly man (a ‘no-power’ respondent)
asserted, “Our lives have changed and have become easier...there are many things that
we have today that we did not have before, like the washing machine, the telephone, and
other appliances. " Like him, most other residents do not have extra money to be used to

open new businesses.

Youn A e

Capital was not the only requirement that respondents perceived one must have in
order to gain from tourism development. Several respondents (seven from ‘power’ group
and four from ‘no-power’ group) thought that jobs created by the tourism industry are
mostly tailored to those who are young. One of the ‘power’ respondents who is an
appointed ofﬁcial indicated that being young also increases one’s ability to beneﬁt from
tourism. “...the village folks in this area, ” he said, “eighty percent of them work with the
hotel, I mean the young people... " Tourism-related jobs and small business require skills
and physiological characteristics offered by the younger generation on Langkawi. They
also require some level of education that many of the older generations do not possess, as
has been mentioned elsewhere in this study. In addition, an elderly respondent from the
‘no-power’ group observed that being old also minimizes one’s chances to be given the
opportunity to beneﬁt from tourism. When he tried to apply for a shop lot from the local
authority, he was told that his application had to be declined because of his old age. He

said, “For me, I don 't see anyway I am able to do anything. But for the young people, I

85

think they should try to make the best of it. I did put my name for the application (for a

shop lot), but they said that I am already 70 years old, I was too old to be given a shop. "

Knowledge

Respondents in this study (nine from ‘power’ group and four from ‘no-power’
group) suggested that power, as deﬁned in this study, could also be determined by one’s
level of knowledge. Knowledge increases residents’ ability to gain from tourism.
Knowledge, which is not just limited to knowledge gained through proper training and
education, aids residents in getting jobs, securing loans for starting businesses, planning,
and managing these businesses. The more one knows the better the chances s/he has to be
hired or to earn. An example was given by a young respondent who works in a hotel,
“...many Langkawi ’s young people, " he explained, “...do not know English ...even the
interviews (forjobs at the hotels) are conducted in English. They kept quiet during the
interview. How could they get the job? (In) tourism job..., we need to speak English.
English, which is the second language in Malaysia, is one of the compulsory subjects
taught to all of the grades in the Malaysian school system. A person who has some level
of education has a better chance to take advantage of the opportunities compared to those
who did not get any education at all. An elderly man from the ‘no-power’ group declared
that he did not have much opportunity because of his low education level, “I did not go to
school. The only thing I know to do is growing (rice). There is not much opportunity for
people like me. ” Since rice growing is not one of the “developments” planned for

Langkawi (Langkawi District Council 1992), most growers have moved to other types of

86

employment. But being old and uneducated certainly restrict the opportunities for them to

ﬁnd jobs as in the case of this elderly respondent.

Experience

Experience expands one’s knowledge and increases one’ s ability to gain from
tourism. With the increased opportunities in the building, commercial and retailing
sectors coupled with the increase in the residents’ purchasing power (Zainuddin 1994),
those with skills such as cooking, building, traditional medicine making, and marketing
are able to make better livings with their experience. Five respondents from the ‘power’
group reﬂected this. A businesswoman who owns a travel agency described that her
experience is important for her in running her business. Her father started the business in
1987 and she “was involved since I was inform 3...] worked with my father, helping him
while I was still schooling. ” Since she took over the business, the travel agency has
expanded. “We used to have only one oﬂice...now we have three, " she explained
proudly.

Another woman entrepreneur in this study also attributed her success to her
experience in having a small business. Describing herself as not knowing “how to read
or write, " she explained that her business has helped her to get out of poverty. She
observed that many residents take advantage of the tourism development by using their
experience. "Some... get contracts to plant grass, " she said about her neighbors. Then she
continued, “Me, I cannot do other things too well... The only thing I have is experience...I
just do this business. ” A special publication in the New Straits Times also reported that

tourism development in Langkawi has opened opportunities for those with related

87

experience when it noted a successful traditional medicine practitioner turned
entrepreneur. According to one of the articles, the 65 years old Hussin Salleh decided to
set up the country’s ﬁrst gamat (sea cucumber) factory in tandem with the rapid
development on the duty free island (Bakar 1997). The factory manufactures nearly thirty

types of remedies for various ailments made from gamat, which is known for its healing

property.

Access to Information

Four respondents from the ‘power’ group shared that access to information about
tourism development helps certain people to beneﬁt more than others. A contractor saw
that having access to information regarding existing opportunities is an important factor
for businesses to be successful. He explained, “...I knew ahead of time about the exact
date that Langkawi was to become a duty free island. But that was all I knew, the date.
The day Langkawi became a duty free island, the Chinese already had ships in the port
full with products... That was how fast they were. They had the information and they used
it. " A young man from Mata Ayer indicated that having access to information on how to
take advantage of the opportunities would help Langkawi residents in grabbing these
opportunities. He remarked, “They (Langkawi residents) saw the opportunity, but they
have no way of taking this opportunity. The responsible authority should show these

people the way. The people do not have their chances...they still stay poor. "

88

Connection
Two ‘power’ respondents and one ‘no-power’ respondent insisted that having

‘connections’ with inﬂuential individuals who are involved with decision-making helps
some people in grabbing the opportunities. When asked about the beneﬁts that residents
are able to obtain from tourism, a contractor responded, “Yeah ...they bring in their own
contractors and they don 't open the jobs for tenders. Only certain people would get the
job... We had never heard about the projects before that at all. " A motel owner
expressed a similar view:

“You know, the big shots, they plan and arrange everything, if they plan for Langkawi to
have a certain type of restaurant, for example, they will arrange to have a restaurant
owner from outside, for example from Kuala Lumpur, to open the restaurant here in
Langkawi ...I see no opportunity... We are weak. Other people...has the opportunity

because they have inﬂuence or money. They give the opportunity to these people, to their
own pe0ple. ”

Effon, Ideas, and Vision

While they did not deny that the above resources are important, some respondents
stressed that effort and ideas are also required for a person to take advantage of the
opportunities offered by tourism. A head of a district from the ‘power’ group, was one
who believed the importance of effort. Obtaining employment made available by tourism
development requires effort, as explained by an elderly man in the ‘no-power’ category,
“Those who are willing to work hard, they could gain something...by ﬁnding jobs...F or
those who are lazy and do not want to find jobs, they cannot be gaining anything. "

Several respondents in the ‘power’ group, but none from the ‘no-power’ group,
expressed that more vision and motivation are the most important qualities to possess. A

chalet owner from the ‘power’ category indicated that one could be motivated to grasp

89

the given opportunities only if one has a vision to be successful in the future. When asked
if residents who did not grasp the opportunities could be blamed for not doing so when
they were powerless, the chalet owner replied, “Maybe they did not get the information
or guidance... You know there are many types of people. Some just want to stay at the old
level. They did not think far... You want something, you work for it. If you want to be
rich, you look for ways to become rich. You see what I mean? ” On the same question, an
airline worker from the ‘power’ category respondent, “I think the people of Langkawi
still are not able to visualize the opportunities... (they) have not awakened to the
opportunities. ”

Another respondent who holds a position in his community described that most
Langkawi residents are not thinking about being successful, as they are complacent with
their lives. He remarked, “They are complacent with their lives...we need to change their
attitude so that they can catch up with the development... The school children ...they do
not care very much about passing the examinations because they know even if they fail,
they can still ﬁnd jobs to support themselves. Worse come to worse, they could become

ﬁshermen and earn good money catching ﬁsh. "

Di cussion' 'ec ive Two Pro osition e
Respondents felt that certain resources, namely capital, young age, knowledge,
experience, access to information, connection with inﬂuential individuals, effort, and
vision, are required for residents of Langkawi to take advantage of the opportunities
offered by tourism (i.e. have ‘power’). The results also indicate that the more resources a

resident has the greater the ability the resident will have to prosper from tourism. This

90

ﬁnding coincides strongly with the suggestion by Ap (1992) that, in an exchange
situation, power is derived from having and controlling resources that another actor needs
and values. Bringing various resources to an exchange, an actor who has an array of
valued resources available to exchange with the other actor is the one with more power.
A resident with more resources to exchange with the tourism industry has relatively more
power than the resident with fewer resources as those with more resources have more
alternative opportunities. Respondents from both groups reﬂected that because of the
different levels of resources owned by residents of Langkawi, the degree of beneﬁt that
they are able to gain from tourism also differ.

Residents with more resources or with certain types of resources felt more
powerful than those without. Residents in the ‘power’ group felt that people should have
many types of resources in order to seize the opportunities. The ‘no-power’ respondents
felt that only capital, young age, and knowledge are needed for one to have power, while
the ‘power’ respondents mentioned that experience, access to information, connection,
effort, and vision are also needed. Thus, the proposition that the more resources residents
possess, the more power they feel they have to beneﬁt from tourism is found to be true in

this study.

Promeitien 2: j_I_fhe fewer resources (less power) the residents have, the more dependent
they are on tomsm

Emerson (1962) suggests that the power of a partner in an exchange process
depends on the control this partner has over what the other partner values. In an exchange
between A and B, A’s power resides in B’s dependency on A. The more control A has on

the items in exchange that B highly values, than the more dependent B will be on A. In

91

short, according to Emerson (1962), power resides implicitly in the other’s dependency.
Blau (1967) argues that the partner with fewer alternative opportunities tends to be more
dependent on and committed to the exchange relation than the other. The analysis of
proposition 1 indicated that the fewer resources a resident has, the fewer alternative
opportunities these resources bring him or her. Going back to Blau’s (1967) argument,
then, it can also be argued that the partner with fewer resources tends to be more
dependent on to the exchange relation than the other. No speciﬁc question was used to
allow respondents to directly indicate their level of dependence upon tourism during the
in-depth interviews. But level of dependencies of each respondent was reﬂected in their

explanation about the beneﬁts that tourism brings and about their support for tourism.

Resothces and Depgtdence

A sample of responses from several respondents that reﬂect their level of
dependence upon tourism is shown in Table 7. The sample of responses (Table 7)
indicates that Blau (1967) appears to be correct. That is, the partner with fewer resources
tends to be more dependent on the exchange relation than the other. Although those with
more power were also dependent on tourism, respondents with fewer resources,
especially those who had to face economic hardships before tourism development,
perceived that tourism created opportunities for them to overcome the hardships. They
then became dependent on tourism for the earnings that tourism allowed them to have
and with which their lives became economically better. Respondents 33 and 36 are

examples of respondents who ﬁt this description.

92

Table 7. Respondents’ dependence on tourism.

 

Power

No-power

 

 

Respondent 9
“Last time when there were not so many

tourists and not many people, money was
also hard. I could not even get a hundred
ringgit sales a day. But, sales are good
today.”

Respondent 41

“You see, tourism helped developed
Langkawi. . .by providing the
infrastructure and this helped me a lot.
You know, you are better and productive
when the place you live in has good roads
and have all the facilities.”

Res on ent 23

“I think Langkawi now really depends on
tourists. When the tourists come, then
businesses are good. But when they don't
come, like when the economic recession
hit recently, many businesses slowed
down. Many leﬁ Langkawi and moved to
other places.”

Reependent 16

“The problem is that the number of
visitors has reduced because of the
economic problem. Before the problem,
the eateries were Opened day and night,
because there were too many customers.
Now, it is not like that anymore. The
number of customers fell.”

 

Respondent 36

“The development has helped me in terms
of my earning opportunity. . .There is not
much opportunity for people like

me. . .(but) because of tourism, I could get
roots and sell to people who make
traditional medicine. Those things sell
good in Langkawi. . .I also help sell these
medicines. In that way, tourism helps me
get some extra money... My wife works
too. She washes dishes at one of the food
places in Kuah. There are many
businesses that need people to work with
them.”

Respondent 33

“I used to. . .worked in the ﬁeld and did
odd jobs. Sometimes I did not have any
money at all. . .But since tourism started to
be developed in a big scale in Langkawi, I
am able to earn better. . .Especially at the
beginning, when they ﬁrst started with the
development. The construction companies
use workers like me, and this has help my
income.”

W

“. . .the tourism projects, the building
projects and such, they give me a way to
earn money. . .when the contractors need
people to help build buildings, they look
for us, me and my ﬁiends, all get jobs
with the contractors. . .their (the residents)
ability to earn have really increased. More
tourism is better because then we can have
more jobs, and we can earn more money.”

 

For respondents in the power group, especially the ones who own businesses (for

example, respondent 9), tourism was perceived to have a strong inﬂuence on their

success. Thus, these respondents became dependent on tourism. The sharp drop in

visitors due to the 1998 regional economic crisis (Hiebert 1998) hurt many of these

93

 

businesses, as well as most other segments of Langkawi’s economy. Visitor numbers
dropped so sharply that the head of the Langkawi taxi owners association reported that 80
percent of its members faced difﬁculty making payments on their vehicles (Hiebert
1998). A government ofﬁcial interviewed in this study shared his observation on the
impact of the economic downturn on the tourism industry in Langkawi. He said, “Before
the economic downturn, Langkawi was full with tourists. But since the economic
downturn, we only see tourists during the school holidays. But tourists from overseas still
come here...the problem has eﬂected the domestic tourists. ” Although the situation is
improving, the study found that Langkawi depends very much on tourism, which in turn
depends on the external economies. Another respondent who is a ﬁsherman explained
that tourists are important to them as it has increased the demand and hence the price for
their catch. He remarked, " If there is no tourism, our spirit will be down. We cannot just
depend on the Langkawi residents to buy our catch, that market will not be enough.
Tourism brings tourists and outside people that come to work here. That help increases
our buyers. "

Respondent 41 reﬂected that he depends on tourism to be productive and to have
a better life. Tourism development seems to have improved Langkawi’s facilities and

infrastructure, which in turn make residents’ lives much more comfortable.

Qisettssioh: thective Two, Proposition jljwo

Respondents felt that, overall, tourism played an important role in their earnings,
either through employment or business. They also depended on tourism for the comfort

they obtained from the improved infrastructure. Nevertheless, the degree of dependence

94

was higher for those who were in the ‘no-power’ group compared to those in the ‘power’
group. This is because those who lacked power depended on tourism to fulﬁll their basic
needs while those with power depended on tourism to fulﬁll their secondary needs. The
degree of dependence on tourism seems to be less for those in the ‘power’ group as they
felt that the overall economy was more important than tourism. For example, respondent
23 responded that many businesses moved away because the number of visitors had
dropped during the recent economic turmoil, when the economic recession hit
recently, many businesses slowed down. Many left Langkawi and moved to other places. "
Without tourism, or during the time when the number of visitors decrease, the business
owners seemed to have the ability to open their businesses elsewhere. But the residents
who lacked resources did not have such ability. They were more affected by the drop in
visitors compared to those who had resources. They are less able to handle the
consequences that arise if the tourism industry fails or if fewer visitors come to
Langkawi. Thus, Blau (1967) is correct: in an exchange, the partner with fewer resources
tends to be more dependent on the exchange relation compared to the partner with more
resources. This means that proposition 2 is supported by the data from this study. The
degree of dependence was higher for the ‘non-power’ respondents than the ‘power’
respondents.

For either ‘power’ or ‘non-power’ residents, the beneﬁts from tourism could be
offset by an overall economic downturn. Tourists’ disposable income, which is
inﬂuenced by the economic condition in the tourist generating region, is a major
constraint to tourism demand (Bull 1995). It can be implied, then, that Langkawi

residents do not depend only on tourism for their livelihood, they are also dependent on

95

the overall economic situation. This clariﬁes the ﬁnding that Blau’s (1967) argument
above is only partially correct in the case of social exchange involving residents and

tourism development.

Proposition 3: The power possessed by the residents inﬂuences their attitudes toward

changes brought by tourism and the meaning they attach to these changes. This is
because:

(i) The more power they have, the more able they are to beneﬁt from tourism, and
hence the more positive their attitudes and support toward tourism.

(ii) The less power they have, the more dependent they will be on tourism, and hence
the more positive their attitudes and support toward tourism.

The research aimed to study the variables, including power, which may determine
residents’ attitudes towards tourism. In the context of social exchange theory, how
residents view and evaluate a speciﬁc impact (i.e., as a beneﬁt or a cost) is indicative of
the exchange made between residents and tourism (Jurowski et al. 1997). According to
social exchange theory, residents will support tourism if the changes brought by tourism
hold positive meaning to them (i.e., if they perceive the changes as beneﬁting them as
opposed to costing them). However, Jurowski et al. (1997) suggest that merely knowing
residents’ evaluations of these impacts is not sufﬁcient in explaining residents’ support
and attitudes towards tourism. They recommended ﬁiture research to uncover the factors
that inﬂuence residents to view a speciﬁc impact as a beneﬁt or a cost and how the
evaluation of eachirnpact affects support for tourism.

The present study argues that the element of power will also inﬂuence residents’

support for tourism. Being ‘power-less’ may also cause residents to be dependent (Blau

1967) upon tourism for their livelihood. Brown (1998) observes an example of this

96

phenomenon taking place in Boracay. This study proposes that ‘power-less’ residents
may also support tourism due to their dependency upon tourism.

This section ﬁrst presents ﬁndings pertaining to the meanings of the changes
brought by tourism (i.e., if residents perceive the changes as beneﬁts or costs to them).
Then, the differences in these perceptions between ‘power’ and ‘no-power’ respondents
are discussed. Finally, the results of the relationship between residents’ power and

attitudes towards tourism are presented.

Perceived beneﬁts and Costs

Respondents considered some of the changes brought by tourism as beneﬁts and
some of them as costs. The changes they perceived as beneﬁts were (1) improvement of
infrastructure and facilities, (2) increased employment and earning opportunities, (3)
improvement of living situations, (4) increased residents’ purchasing power, (5)
improvement in performances of businesses, (6) high remuneration for lands sold to the
government or the developers, (7) improvement of the residents in term of their lifestyles
and way of thinking, and (8) increased exposure for the younger generation. The changes
they perceived as costs were (1) increases in social problems particularly alcohol and
drug abuse, (2) loss of religious and cultural values, (3) loss of residents’ lands to
development, (4) increase in “unhealthy” inﬂuences from the outside, (5) degradation in
youth behavior, (6) inﬂation and higher prices, and (7) losses to outsiders due to
residents’ lack of resources.

Each of the different changes perceived as beneﬁts (Appendix E), except for
improvement of residents’ lifestyle and increased exposure for younger generation, was

expressed by at least one respondent from both respondent groups. Each of the different

97

changes perceived as costs (Appendix F) was also expressed by at least one respondent
from both respondent groups. Differences in the attitudes between the ‘power’ and ‘no-
power’ respondents were not very clear. Thus, in addition to analyzing the data to
discover what the changes brought by tourism meant to the respondents, the data were
also analyzed to ﬁnd differences in these perceptions between ‘power’ and ‘no-power’

respondents.

Qitterences in Attitudes between ‘Power’ and ‘No-power’ Respondents

 

Respondents from the two groups differed in what they perceived as beneﬁts and
costs (Appendix G and Appendix H). The results are presented in the order that they were

discussed in section 4.2

Attt'tttdes Regarding Employment and Earning Opportunities

The majority of the respondents explained that tourism brought employment and
earning opportunities to the residents. These perceived beneﬁts have been found to
produce positive attitudes toward tourism among residents, especially among those who
are directly affected (Brougham and Butler 1981; Haralambopoulos and Pizam 1996).
However, in the present study, several respondents argued that these beneﬁts took place
only under certain conditions. This was alluded in the discussion of proposition 1.
Respondents perceived that employment and earning opportunities depended on the
different resources that residents possessed, suggesting that the resources owned by
residents inﬂuence their perceptions towards tourism impacts. A quotation from a

respondent in the ‘no-power’ group (Appendix G) reﬂects this phenomenon:

98

“I am saying tourism is good, good for the people who have businesses. The people, who
have businesses, tourism is really good. But not everybody has a business, right? So,
those ordinary people, there is not much changes to them. Those who are willing to work
hard, they could gain something, you know, by ﬁnding jobs. ” As explained in the
discussion regarding proposition 1, the more resources one has, the more able they are to
obtain employment or become successful in their businesses. This perception was held by
respondents from both groups.

Tourism is often credited with generating new employment opportunities for the
host population, particularly in developing communities (UNESCO 1976). However,
some scholars claim that uncontrolled tourism development on a massive scale generates
employment for migrants/immigrants and expatriate labor, rather than the local
population (Forster 1964; MacNaught 1982; Brown 1998). Well-paid managerial and
professional jobs are mostly ﬁlled by expatriates (Mathieson and Wall 1982; Brown
1998). While a large number of unskilled or semi-skilled workers may be available
locally, they are often characterized by low status and low pay (MacNaught 1982; Brown
1998), bringing the concern about the quality of the jobs as opposed to the quantity of
jobs. A ‘power’ respondent from Ayer Hangat expressed that this is also the case for
Langkawi:

"Jobs, of course, there are plenty of job opportunities in Langkawi today. If you yourself
were to look for a job today, I am very sure you will face no dzﬁiculties in getting one.
But the question is what kind of jobs? There are many openings at the hotels but not
oﬂicejobs. Professional and technical jobs are rare. And also, hotels are more inclined

to hire foreign workers instead of the locals, as the foreign workers are cheaper. So they
hire Filipinos instead of Malaysians. “

A ‘no-power’ respondent agreed that tourism only brings low status jobs. He said,

“What jobs? As coolies, yes those jobs are plenty. ” Thus, tourism was seen to bring more

99

low-paying jobs to residents in Langkawi than high paying or professionals ones.
Residents’ low education level may have caused this, as explained by respondent 22
about the difﬁculties that he had to face in terms of hiring:

"F or example, we had difficulties in getting the staff getting people to work with us. It
was diﬂicult for us to get staff from among the locals. Firstly, their education level did
not qualify them. The numbers of applicants who had SPM (Malaysian Certificate of
Education) and S T P (Higher Secondary Certiﬁcate) were low...most of the Langkawi

people only went to school up to the SPM or S T P level. This level is low. Even if they
could get jobs, they have limited opportunities for career advancement. "

This response concurs with ﬁndings from other studies. For example, Macnaught (1982)
found that local employment with the hotels in Fiji was minimal and menial in nature,

with the real beneﬁts going to expatriates in the managerial positions.

Ahitpdes tewares Teurism Impact on me Younger Pephlation

Respondents in this study perceived that many young people in Langkawi are now
able to ﬁnd jobs due to the development in the tourism sector. To some of the
respondents, this has brought economic independence to these young people. However,
with the money that they earn, coupled with the inﬂuence from outsiders, many
respondents explained that young people are inclined to involve themselves with
unreligious and non-traditional behavior such as drinking, smoking, using drugs, and
unlimited socializing between males and females. Many respondents, such as an elder
woman interviewed in Ulu Melaka, considered this as a ‘cost’ to the society on Langkawi
that needs to be controlled. The woman asserted, “ The teenagers, they have problems.
They are not grown up, but they have become bigheaded because they make they own

money now. They smoke and become wild. Last time, there were no such things. They are

100

inﬂuenced by the tourists’ culture...they (the government) also need to develop the
children...their behavior and their education. ”

On the other hand, several respondents, as shown in Appendix H, considered
having employment for the young people in Langkawi as beneﬁting their families and
Langkawi as a whole. For the low-income families, young adult children who work
supplement family earnings. Some of these families, in fact, become dependent on their
young members who work and bring home money to help support the families. This is
deﬁnitely a change from former times. Employment opportunities for the young people in
Langkawi were rarely available before tourism. A government ofﬁcer interviewed in the
study observed that most of them ended up going to sea and “became ﬁshermen like their

fathers, " or leaving Langkawi to ﬁnd work elsewhere.

Attitudes towards Tourism and Social Deviance

Many respondents claimed that unhealthy inﬂuence brought into Langkawi by the
outsiders due to tourism has caused increases in social problem. Several respondents, like
the ones quoted in appendix H, indicated that tourism and the tourists no longer bring
‘culture shock’ to the people of Langkawi as they adapt to the tourists and the outsiders.

3‘ At the beginning, yes it was a shock with the different cultures brought in by the tourists
but after one point the situation went back to the old situation. In other words, the people
have become used to it, ” remarked a chalet owner in Kedawang. In fact, some
respondents believed that tourism is not the one causing the social problem. A respondent
from the ‘power’ group who held a position in his community explained that families are

responsible for making sure that their children are not involved with the social problem.

101

It was his opinion that social problems like the ones taking place in Langkawi are typical
with the social problems elsewhere in Malaysia:

”One problem is about the socio-cultural problem. Because those tourists that come
here, they are from all sorts of culture. But the people in Langkawi are already used to
that, they know how the tourists are like. But only the younger generation, the parents
need to control them because if not, they could follow the wrong ways. Like in the
villages, there is a problem with the young people because they are too free to do
anything that they like....But I do not think that we should blame any one because this is
a common problem with big cities. It is the same in any other big cities, only that the
situation and location is not the same... The problem is with the kids 15 years and older.
But I think that no matter where you live at, it is the same. The important thing is that we
have to take care of our children so they would not become like that. My brother-in-Iaw
is in Kuala Lumpur, but he has no problems with his children. His children are all good,
you see. The important thing is the family. "

Many respondents in the present study claimed that the social problems are

caused by inﬂuences brought into their communities by tourists or outsiders, a
phenomenon labeled by other writers as the ‘demonstration effect.’ According to
Greenwood (1972), the presence of tourists, with or without interaction with residents,
arouses the desire of the locals to imitate the behavior they see especially that which
violates the standards of their own community. Similarly, the wealth of tourists is thought
to induce envy and materialistic desires beyond the hope of local fulﬁllment, thereby
adding to the restlessness of young people and reinforcing local feelings of deprivation
(Macnaught 1982). Tourism development, then, has been said to have a disruptive role in
reinforcing social and economic aspiration that the local inhabitants cannot attain
(Mathieson and Wall 1982). The demonstration effect is in most cases seen as the
principal causative factor of change in community values brought by tourism and thus is
often invoked to arouse negative emotions about tourism.

But according to Macnaught (1982), even if tourism seems to have a direct effect

on residents’ values or behavior, it is because one section of the population desires the

102

changes and is already challenging the values or conventions of the past. Findings by
Hernandez et al. (1996) who studied the perceptions of the residents in Isabela, Puerto
Rico, regarding the development of a resort in their community coincide with this
suggestion. Hernandez et al. (1996) found that young respondents who favored the
tourism project in the study did so not only for economic reasons but also because it
brought a more desirable modern way of life. A young government ofﬁcer in this study
reﬂected the same opinion. When asked about tourism social impacts in Langkawi, the
respondent described that the community is more advanced in their lifestyle than before.
He remarked, “ Socially the people of Langkawi have changed. They seem to be more
dynamics and more like forward thinking. Langkawi has become famous now in the
whole Malaysia so we should not be backward anymore. Outside inﬂuence causes this
change. " As a young man, he realized that the changed behavior among the adolescents
indicated development. According to him, “ Oh, yeah, the behaviors of the people, mostly
the younger generation, are not favored by others especially the older generation. But,
the thing is...the older generation does not seem to mind. Anyway, I think this is part of
development. ” When asked if the change of behavior among the young people bothered
him, he answered, “ No, it does not really bother me. We do silly things, but those things
do not hurt anybody. ” He then explained about the ‘silly things’ that most youngsters do,
“Oh, things like going out and hanging around, especially at the cyber cafes. Or we stay
out late and just hang around. ” It is apparent then, that the changes among the younger
generation in Langakawi represent the changes experienced by many other young people

in Malaysia and may not be caused by tourism alone.

103

Attitudes 110ng Tourism and Price Inﬂation

Although several respondents agreed that prices of goods in Langkawi have
increased because of tourism, they indicated that the increase does not pose as a threat to
the residents. This is because, with the increase in their eamings, these respondents
believed that residents could afford the higher prices of goods. Burns and Holden (1995)
wrote that many residents in different tourism destinations try to cope with changes
brought by tourism to their lives. The present study found that respondents did not think
that a higher price of goods caused by tourism development was a burden to them. In fact
these respondents, such as a ﬁsherman interviewed in Kuah (Appendix H), did not
consider these changes as problems. He stated, “ High prices? I do not feel that prices of
goods are high in Langkawi, no...no problem with the prices. ” Langkawi residents are
not bothered by the higher prices of goods in Langkawi because according to him, we
all can aﬂord it. ” This ﬁnding may be explained by the fact that Langkawi residents have
been able to adapt to the situation, just as residents in Delaware were able to adapt to the

inconveniences caused by tourism (Rothman 1978).

Relationship between Residents’ Bower and Attitudes towards Tourism

Appendix I contains beneﬁts and costs of tourism as perceived by each
respondent, the weight each respondent put on her/his perceived beneﬁts and costs, the
respondent’s degree of dependency on tourism, the respondent’s perception regarding
local involvement in tourism planning, and the respondent’s attitudes towards tourism.

Table 8 below summarizes the ﬁndings from Appendix I.

104

Table 8. Summary of respondents’ attitudes towards tourism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attitudes Power Grog Non-power Group
Respondent Total Respondent Total
Very favorable 7, I4, 19, 31, 42, 7 I, 8, 10, 25, 28, 8
44, 36, 39, 45
Favorable 2, I5, 21, 27, 30, 11 I3, 26, 29, 3
32, 34, 35, 37,
40, 4], 46
Favorable but wants more 4, 9, 11, 16, 20, 9 6, 12, 33, 38 4
control 22, 23, 24, 43
Not favorable 3, 5, 17 3 18 1
Total 3O 16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All respondents in the ‘power’ group, except for three, expressed favorable
attitude and support towards tourism in Langkawi. Among the respondents of the ‘power’
group who were favorable toward tourism, seven of them strongly supported tourism and
wanted to see expansion in tourism development in Langkawi while nine of them wanted
to see some control over the development. Fifteen out of the sixteen respondents in the
‘no-power’ group were favorable of tourism in Langkawi. Among them, eight strongly

supported tourism and four supported tourism but wanted to see it be controlled. Each of

the ﬁve levels of support requires further clariﬁcation.

Respondents with Vm Favorable Attitudes tewards Tourism

Seven out of thirty ‘power’ respondents and eight out of sixteen ‘no-power’
respondents indicated very favorable attitudes towards and strong support for tourism in
Langkawi. These respondents indicated that what they perceived as beneﬁts greatly
outweighed what they perceived as costs. Respondents from both groups who strongly
supported tourism perceived that tourism did not bring serious negative impacts to the

people in Langkawi (Table 9). For example, respondents 10 (no-power), 28 (no-power),

105

and 31(power) indicated that tourism brought no problem whatsoever to residents. “No,
no problem, I see no problem, ” said respondent 10. Likewise, respondent 28 indicated
the same thing, "No, there is nothing negative. I mean, the residents are so used to
tourists, even the small children. The tourists do not bother their lives as all. "
Respondent 31 indicated that tourism did not bring any negative impact to Langkawi. He
indicated that it was impossible for residents to say that they did not beneﬁt from tourism,
unless residents did not put forth any effort to grasp the beneﬁts. He remarked, “No
(negative impacts from tourism). Some people think that tourism only beneﬁt certain
people...but I think they are just lazy... just because they don ’t want to do anything, they
feel mad at others who do. ”

Those in the ‘very favorable’ category, who mentioned the existence of some
social problems in Langkawi due to tourism, expressed that the individuals with the
problems cause these problems themselves and the problems have nothing to do with
tourism or the tourists. They were optimistic that the authorities could easily control the
problems. In addition, respondents in this segment indicated that residents are adapting to
the physical, economic, and social changes brought by tourism and they perceived this
adaptation favorably.

Most of the ‘power’ respondents in this category indicated that they were
dependent on tourism because their businesses depend on tourism, either their jobs or
their parents’ jobs depend on tourism, and/or Langkawi’s development and progress
depend on tourism. Respondent 31, a young man who goes to school and helps with the
family’s business in his spare time, represents the ‘power’ respondents who strongly

support tourism. An excerpt of the interview with him is shown in Appendix J. The

106

interview with this respondent indicates that tourism means greater earnings and a more
comfortable life for him. His family depends on tourism as the success of their family
business is inﬂuenced by the growth in the tourism industry.

All of the ‘no-power’ respondents who showed strong support for tourism showed
great dependence on tourism. They were either ﬁshermen, whose earnings were raised
because of tourism, owned business establishments, or worked in the hotels. Overall, the
eight ‘no-power’ respondents (e. g. respondent 25 in Appendix K) perceived that tourism
brought money and material wealth to them and to the people on Langkawi and these
beneﬁts were very important to them.

Table 9 provides a sample of statements from the interviews that describe the

evaluation of tourism to these respondents and their level of dependence on tourism.

Table 9. ‘Power’ and ‘no-Power’ respondents with very favorable attitudes towards
tourism.

 

 

 

 

Power No-Power
Beneﬁts outweigh Respondent 7: Respondent 1:
costs “I support tourism ...tourism “Without tourism, things
beneﬁts the residents very much.” would be just like before.
Respendent 19: With tourism, there are many
“. .. there are some problems due jobs. . .they (the residents) do
to tourism, but that happens not have any objections. . .they
anywhere else too. We cannot want more development
blame tourism because it really is because the development help
up to each individual.” raise their income.”
Respondent 31: Respondent 10:
“(Tourism brings) many ”The biggest change from
beneﬁts. . .I support tourism tourism is that it is easier for
entirely.” me to work and earn my
living. . .I see no problem
(from tourism). . .no problem
with the prices. . .because we
all can afford it.”
Respondent 28:

 

 

 

 

107

 

“I am very satisﬁed. . .there is
nothing negative (from
tourism). . .More tourists the
better. . .Tourism. . .means
progress to us. . .who does not
want progress? I do not have
any problem withprogress.”

 

Social costs are
under control, no
social problem as
residents can adapt

Respondent 7:
“There are also some residents

who are involved with alcohol.
But I think it is under control.”
W:

“Tourists do bring in some
unnecessary inﬂuences especially
in the aspect of culture and ways
of lives. . .the society could not
accept this at the beginning, but
later they learnt to accept.”

 

Attitudes toward
social costs,
society can adapt

Respondent 7:
“We cannot determine the

seriousness of the problem (from
tourism) because it is difﬁcult to
really see. The outsiders do most
of the negative things.”
Respondent 19:

“...to join them. . .drinking 1 up to
each individua .”

W31:

“No (negative impacts from
tourism). Some people think that
tourism only beneﬁt certain
people. . .but I think they are just
lazy. . . just because they don’t want
to do anything, they feel mad at
others who do.”

Respondent 28:
“. . .the residents are so used to

tourists, even small children.
The tourists do not bother
their lives.”

 

 

Dependence on
tourism

 

W:
“My business depends on it

(tourism).”

Respondent 19:

“I am. . .involved (with tourism), I
have two chalets.”

Respohdent 3 1 :

“Since my tourists began to
come. . .my father started to open
this stall. . .now the business is
doing ver)I well.”

 

Respondent 1:
“. . .the villagers are all stupid,

they do not have any
education. . .when they
received money (from tourism
development), they became
quiet and have no power to
object anything.”

Re on ent 10:

“I am a ﬁsherman, ﬁsh prices
have really gone up. . .that

 

 

108

1". ...

 

 

 

really has helped me.”
Respondent 28:

“I have had this warung
(coffee stall) for almost 20
years. . .The ﬁshermen drink
in this warung more than they
drink coffee in their own
homes. . .my business have
improved.”

 

 

 

 

Respondents with Favorable Attitudes towards Tourism

This segment consisted of respondents from both groups who indicated their
support for tourism development in Langkawi and who perceived that the beneﬁts
brought by tourism are about equal to, if not more, than the costs (Table 10). They
generally were satisﬁed with its economic beneﬁts and perceived that the negative social
impacts do not pose serious threats to Langkawi. They were not disturbed about the
negative social impacts, as the impacts were perceived either to be ‘under control’ or not
caused by tourism. Several of them indicated that they were not worried about the
negative impacts of tourism, as they were not directly affected by those impacts. Most of
the respondents who supported tourism had high levels of dependence on tourism

because their jobs or businesses were directly or indirectly related to tourism.

Table 10. ‘Power’ and ‘no-Power’ respondents who favored tourism.

 

 

 

 

 

Power No-Power

Beneﬁts weigh the Respendent 2: Respondent 13:

same or more than “The good of tourism is “I think the (tourism)

costs there. . .tourism makes this place to development is good, it gives
be well known...tourism creates us jobs and easier lives.”
jobs. . .in terms of the bad Respondent 26:
things. . .(are) the social “(1) never (complain). . .those
problems. . .The beneﬁts are things I am not happy about,
more.” they do not really relate to

 

 

109

 

Respondent 15:
“If I think in a negative way, there

are many impacts. But if I think in
a positive way, I see many
beneﬁts.”

Respondent 21 :

“The trouble about tourism. . .those
who drink, they leave the beer
cans inside the mosques. . .(But) I
do not have anything I am not
satisﬁed about (tourism).”
W:

“I feel that there are no negative
impacts from tourism, most
changes are positive.”

me.”

Respondent 29:

“. . .it is good to have tourism
because it gives us jobs.”

 

Social costs are

Emu-z

WI;

 

 

 

under control “. . .the Religious ofﬁce take good “The government is doing
eyes on (monitoring) this problem something (about the social
(drinking).” problems)”
Attitudes toward Respendent 2: Rgpondent 26:
social costs “. . .the moral problems. . .come “. . .those things I am not
from us.” happy about, they do not
Respendent 15: really relate to me.”
“. . .the bad always come from our Responth 29:
own self.” “We cannot blame the tourists
for our children’s (bad)
behavior.”
Dependence on Re on 2: Regendent 26:

tourism

 

“I am a wage earner, I work with
the government.”

Resmndent 1 5 :

“I am indirectly involved with the
tourists because of my business.”
Respondeht 21:

“(I work) As a mechanic (Datai
Resort.”

Responth 27:

“. . .my children, they may start
something (tourism business)”

 

“I work with a hotel.”

 

110

 

 

Respondents with Favorable Attitudes towards Tourism But Wented Control

 

Nine respondents in the ‘power’ category and four respondents in the ‘no-power’
category expressed both their support for tourism and their concern about the costs that
they perceived are brought by tourism. They were optimistic about tourism, but they
agreed that their community has to solve problems such as social deviance and equity for
tourism development to be truly beneﬁcial. Respondents (from both groups) who wanted
to see tourism to be controlled indicated that they wanted the actors responsible for
tourism development to limit the perceived costs that they mentioned during the
interviews. All of them expressed their satisfaction with the economic beneﬁts they
received from tourism but perceived that the social costs were serious. Most of them
perceived that the (uncontrolled) costs from tourism would eventually outweigh its
beneﬁts. They were aware that tourism development beneﬁted certain groups of
communities, especially those who have power, while costing the others.

Interestingly, six of them either own a business that is directly inﬂuenced by
tourism or have jobs that are related to tourism. Although they expressed their concern
about the costs, they also indicated that Langkawi’s development was dependent upon
tourism. “Langkawi is nothing without tourism, " said one of them. Working with a group
of ﬁsherman, this respondent reﬂected that tourism in Langkawi helped in his earnings. “
Yes, it does, ” he said when asked if tourism contributes to his eamings. Then he
continued, “...because the demand for fish has increase, so that helps us. ” As tourism
development raised the demand of ﬁsh, this particular respondent who depended on ﬁsh
was also dependent on tourism for his living. Table 11 contains a sample of responses

from interviewees in this segment.

11]

I”; . . ...-"v ""-.

Table 11. ‘Power’ and ‘no-Power’ respondents with favorable support towards
tourism but wanting control.

 

Power

No-Power

 

Weight between
beneﬁts and costs,
high value on race,
religion, and
equity.

Respondent 4:
“. . .tourism development. . .has

brought. . .up. . .our standard of
living. But the respective parties
need to control. . .tourism
development...must be compatible
with the residents. If they only
think about the proﬁt, the residents
will be at a loss... I agree with the
development but I wish it is in the
Malay and Islamic direction. . .I
agree with the development but let
us take care of the Malays. . .we
have to be fair to everybody.”
Respondent 9:

“. . .Yes I do (support

tourism). . .but when the situation
becomes too much, I don’t think I
will support anymore. . .At this
rate, now, the Malays don’t get
anything, the outsiders get most of
the things. . .we need to take care
of our own pe0ple.”
Email:

“I think tourism brings good things
to the people. . .what do they
(villagers) gain, maybe. . . get a job
easier, that is all. . .There are many
obstacles. . .Yes, I do (favor
tourism), but they need to put
limits and help people (the
villagers). That is important.”

Respondent 6:
“I think there are many good

things from tourism and many
not good things. . .I support the
development, but I do not
support the impacts, they are
too burdensome to me. So, I
would like the development to
be balanced.”

Moo—um:

“I do support tourism, but I
don’t like the strange things
(social problems) that are
happening to the young
people. . .I hope that the
activities will be controlled so
that things will not get
worse.”

Respendent 33:

“I think the development and
the moral development are not
balanced. . .There are times
when I feel like I am in favor
of tourism development in
Langkawi because it helps
improvise our standard of
living. At times, I do not favor
tourism when I look at the
social problems it creates.”

 

 

Dependence on
tourism

 

Respondent 4:
“. . .my parents and I. . .we built

small places and chalets for the
local tourists. . .”

W2:

“1 opened (the sundry

shop). . .about three years ago. . .my
earnings has improved a little bit.”

 

Respondent 6:

“. . .with tourism, people’s
lives are better, not like
before. I managed to open this
small business, because
people need to buy stuff.”

Respondent 12:
“I have this small

 

112

 

 

 

 

Respondent 11: business. . .(tourism changed
“I work with a hotel.” my life) a little bit. My
children’s lives are a little bit
better. Langkawi is a much
better place.”
W:

“Tourism has helped my
family because tourism
brought many jobs.”

 

 

 

 

Respondents with Unfavorable Attitudes towards Tourism

Three respondents in the ‘power’ category and one respondent in the ‘no-power’
category indicated unfavorable attitudes towards tourism in Langkawi. They also
indicated that they did not support tourism development in Langkawi as they perceived
that costs brought by tourism outweighed the beneﬁts. They took the social problems in
Langkawi seriously and perceived that tourism was the cause of those problems. They
reﬂected that they put higher values on their religion and culture than on economic and
physical beneﬁts alone. They indicated their concerns and dissatisfaction over the fact
that community involvement in the development planning was very minimal.

Although they indicated that tourism development has improved their standard of
living, these respondents also indicated that they did not depend on tourism (Table 12).
For example, respondent 5 indicated that, although he has a business and that tourism
does help his business, his business does not really depend on tourism. The conversation

that the researcher had with him is attached as Appendix L.

113

Table 12. ‘Power’ and ‘no-Power’ respondents with unfavorable attitudes towards

 

 

tourism.
Power No-Power
Costs outweigh Respondent 3: Respondent 18:

beneﬁts, beneﬁts
are not equally
distributed, high
value on culture,
society, and
religion.

“A tragedy was what happened to
Langkawi (because of tourism). . .they
need to take care of a lot of the bad
things that I have said. . .they (residents)
sold off their land to the people
(developers). . .the developers become
richer, while the Langkawi folks become
poorer.”

Respondent 5:

“Tourism brings more threats than
beneﬁts ...I support tourism if it doesn’t
bring bad things to us, but now we know
it is able to make bad things to happen.
Thus, I am not really keen for them to
development tourism any further. . .I do
not deny that they (residents) have more
income now...But. . .we cannot evaluate
everything based on money.”
Respondent 17:

“ Some changes are beneﬁcial to the
residents, some are not beneﬁcial. . .The
not so good things are related to the
social problems. . ..now (the social
problems) are worse, much worse. . .I
think our lives were okay without
tourism. No tourism is still okay. Last
time we were not well off, but we were
much happier. . .I think it would be good
if they slow down a little bit for now
because they need to take care of the
problems.”

“Tourism does create
jobs, but the jobs are
limited. . .they work and
get paid three, four
hundred, but they have
to spend ﬁve, six
hundred. . .They (local
authority) develops
things unnecessarily.”

 

 

Attitudes toward
community
involvement in
planning

 

Respondent 3:
“. . .They did call us. . .to come to. . .the

DC. (District Ofﬁcer) ofﬁce. We
discussed. . .Aﬁer much talking I just
left. . .I wanted to go to sleep at home.
Sleep could cure the heartache I got from
the discussion. . .they need to study why
we have objections...”

Respondent 5:
“The problem is that you do not know

 

Respondent 18:
“They (residents) do

object, but if we give
the objections to the
village head. . .he just
keep the objections in
the book. . .They always
say that the villagers
only know how to
complain and object.

 

114

 

 

 

 

anything about whatever plans they have. But the villagers object
They just develop, they don’t let us know because what they do is
anything. . ..I don’t know if anybody else wrong.”

get any information about their plans, but
I certainly don’t.”

Respondent 17:

“There were many meetings, and we put
forward many objections in those
meetings. . .but there were no responses.”

 

 

Dependence on Respondent 3: Respondent 18:

tourism “1 have a business I started a long time “I am a contractor but 1
ago in Kuah town.” do not have many
Respondent 5: opportunities.”

“In some cases, yes, I do beneﬁt from the
development. Like when a part of my
land is involved with the airport
development plan, so I did receive some
direct beneﬁts from cases like that. But, I
cannot say that I used that money for my
business, because I already had the
capital even before that. . .I cannot say
that my life has beneﬁt so much from
tourism.”

Respendmt 17:

“I am working with MAS (Malaysian
Airlines)”

 

 

 

 

Discussion: thective Three

The above analysis includes a sample of the interviews with respondents from
both the ‘no-power’ and ‘power’ groups. Respondents in the ‘no-power’ group had
relatively less resources or power than the respondents in the ‘power’ group. Ap (1992)
suggests that the form of the exchange relation measured in terms of the power of the
actors involved provides a basis for explaining why residents perceive the impacts of
tourism to be either positive or negative. According to Ap, residents with greater power
(more resources) will be in the advantageous position in the exchange (between them and

the tourism actors) as they are able to obtain an additional valued resource(s) from

115

tourism development. Meanwhile, residents with less power (few resources) will be in the
disadvantageous position, and will see the exchange between them and the tourism actors
as unfair. Ap proposes that when the form of the relation involves an imbalance and is
asymmetrical, the advantaged residents’ perceptions toward tourism will be positive
while the disadvantaged residents’ perceptions toward tourism will be negative. But Blau
(1967) contended that the partner with fewer alternative opportunities tends to be more
dependent on and committed to the exchange relationship than the other, and thus would
have less power. Residents faced with poverty and the need to survive may commit to an
exchange with the tourism actors and support tourism because they depend on the
tourism actors and the tourists for their earnings. Hence, according to proposition 3, these
respondents would support tourism more because they are dependent on tourism than
because they are really able to beneﬁt from it. On the other hand, respondents in the
‘power’ group have relatively more resources or power than the respondents in the ‘no-
power’ group. It was proposed that these respondents would support tourism not because
they are dependent upon tourism, but because they are able to beneﬁt much from it.

While Ap’s (1992) explanation was partially supported by the data from this
study, Blau’s (1967) contention was supported more fully. The study found that, as
opposed to Ap’s proposition above, the percentage of ‘no-power’ respondents who were
favorable of tourism was much higher than the percentage of ‘power’ respondents who
were favorable of tourism. The reason for this could be that the ‘no-power’ respondents
were not totally in the ‘disadvantaged’ situation, as they did not perceive that the

exchange is unfair, as Ap would have suggested.

116

The study also found that respondents who indicated dependence on tourism were
not disturbed by the costs that they perceive tourism brings to their community. They
were more willing to ‘accept’ these costs in their lives and their community as long as
they could obtain from tourism what they valued most; that is, the opportunity for them to
escape a life of hardships and poverty. These respondents viewed tourism positively. In
this way, they are similar to the Boracayans who endured the costs of tourism to their
society and who enjoyed having cash with which to buy material wealth (Brown 1998).
Their dependence on tourism affected their evaluation of tourism. They refused to blame
tourism for the changes that they perceived as ‘costs’. Instead, they put the blame on
themselves.

Many of the respondents, such as respondent 25, indicated their “powerlessness”
by choosing to be passive toward tourism development. According to them, they would
be much better off keeping their dissatisfaction about the development to themselves and
to support tourism than to voice their opinions. The respondents explained that by voicing
their opinions, they would risk losing the beneﬁts from tourism that they are enjoying.
These respondents saw tourism as a way for them to earn, which they perceived as very
important to them. Again, this ﬁnding does not coincide with a part of Ap’s (1992)
proposition that says “. . .the disadvantaged host actors’ perceptions toward tourism will
be negative” (Ap 1992: 683). In fact, none of the respondents in the ‘no-power’ group
perceived the exchange as unfair and all them, except one, supported tourism in their
community.

Several respondents expressed their concern about the social costs brought by

tourism to their community. These respondents indicated that they put high values on

117

their religion, culture, and community. They did not try to ignore the problems but
instead stressed that there is a need for the problem to be controlled or resolved. They
indicated that they were more proactive about the Island’s development and that they
were keen to participate in the policy and decision making process. Although they were
able to beneﬁt much from tourism, they still wanted to have control of their community’s
development and to make tourism work for them, rather than hurt them.

Several of those who indicated their willingness to ‘accept’ the costs brought by
tourism to their lives and their community also perceived that they have adapted to the
changes brought by tourism. Thus, these respondents were not ‘disturbed’ by certain

changes that were perceived as ‘costs’ to others.

118

 

Chapter 5

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate a need to revise the social exchange
conceptualization that is used to explain residents’ attitudes towards tourism. The desire
to build some conceptual linkages led to a series of propositions that focus on the role of
power in the exchange relationships between residents and tourism. The primary
signiﬁcance of this study lies in the fact that, not only is the role of power in the
exchange relationship clariﬁed, complex relationships among power and other variables
that inﬂuence residents’ attitudes were discovered. These other variables were found to
inﬂuence the relationship between power and residents’ attitudes towards tourism. In
other words, this study has synthesized and expanded the conceptualizations put forth by
earlier authors (i.e., Blau 1967; Ap 1992; Jurowski et al. 1997) in the effort to understand
residents’ attitudes towards tourism development. This discovery was made possible by

the use of qualitative procedures.

5.1 Inﬂuence of Power on Residents’ Attitudes
Jurowski et al. (1997) established a framework using social exchange to examine
resident attitudes towards tourism. Based on their study, Jurowski et a1. (1997) found that
resident attitudes were determined by their evaluation of tourism impacts, which was in
turn inﬂuenced by their values (Figure 6). Thus, residents who were more ecocentric, for
example, perceived tourism unfavorably as they perceived tourism effects the physical

environment negatively. J urowski et al. (1997) suggested further research to study what

119

inﬂuences residents to view a speciﬁc impact as a beneﬁt or a cost and how the
evaluation of the tourism impacts affects resident attitudes. A review of the literature
regarding power led this researcher to propose that power determines whether residents
evaluate tourism impacts as positive or negative through its inﬂuence on residents’ ability

to beneﬁt from tourism and on residents’ level of dependence on tourism for their

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

livelihood (Figure 3).
Residents’ values
concerning economic gain, Evaluation of
community resource use, tourism impacts Resident
community attachment, and '—"—’ i.e. impacts as ‘—’ attitudes
natural environment beneﬁt or costs
=

 

 

 

 

Figure 6. Framework for understanding residents’ attitudes towards tourism
established by J urowski et al. (1997)

The study concludes that social exchange theory is useful in examining residents’
attitudes towards tourism because during their exchange with tourism, residents indeed
based their attitudes on their evaluations of tourism impacts. The study also concludes
that, in examining residents’ attitudes towards tourism, other variables that inﬂuence
residents’ evaluations need to be examined. Analysis of the propositions put forth in this
study leads to the conclusion that power has an effect on the evaluation of impacts but it
does not appear to be a direct effect as was suggested by Blau (1967). Instead, residents’
general values (about religion, culture, equity, resources and the environment), their
dependence on tourism, and their ability and willingness to adapt seem to have more

direct inﬂuence on the evaluation of impacts than power. These intervening variables

120

moderate the inﬂuence of power, as operationalized in this study. These relationships are

indicated in Figure 7.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 
   
   
 
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resources (quantity and types)
Power
. L vel of Abili and
Resrdents e . . ty
eneral dependence wrllmgness Economic
Ealues on tourism to adapt to d't'
change con 1 ions
Evaluations
of Impacts
Residents’
attitudes
towards ‘
tourism
Key:
.................... Unclear relationships from the
data
Clear relationships from the data

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7. Interrelationships of variables that determine residents attitudes towards
tourism.

121

Power, as indicated by the results of this study, depends on how many and what
types of resources residents possess. Respondents asserted that those who possess
speciﬁc resources are indeed in an advantageous position to reap the beneﬁts brought by
tourism. In the case of the social exchange between Langkawi residents and tourism,
residents’ power is vested in the number and availability of these resources that may be
used by the residents to beneﬁt from tourism.

The results from this study establish a relationship between power and residents’
dependency on tourism for their livelihoods. Respondents from both groups were found
to be dependent on tourism. However, the results indicate a difference in the way these
two groups depend on tourism. Respondents with fewer resources, especially those who
had to face economic hardships before tourism development, perceived that tourism had
created opportunities that allowed them to escape the hardships. They then became
dependent on tourism for the earnings with which their lives became economically better.
Respondents with more resources indicated that they were dependent on tourism to make
their earnings even better than what they already were. The study concludes that although
the two groups evaluated the beneﬁts and costs differently, their attitudes toward tourism
were the same: tourism is good for Langkawi in general.

Also, it was found that power and level of dependence contribute to the value held
by residents, which in turn determine how residents evaluate the impacts brought by
tourism. Those who were dependent on tourism were found to put high value on
economic returns over religion and maintaining their culture. For example, low-income
parents whose children work because of tourism development put high value on the

money that these children brought into the households. Although it cannot be concluded

122

that these parents put lower value on religion and culture, this result indicates that they
put higher value on the money comparably to those parents who have higher incomes.
The low-income parents indicated dependence on tourism and perceived Langkawi
youngsters as being productive and helpful. The relationships between values held by
residents, their evaluation of tourism impacts, and their support towards tourism were like

those prOposed by Jurowski et al. (1997).

5.2 Inﬂuence of Other Factors on Residents’ Attitudes

Other relationships emerged from this study pertaining to residents’ attitudes
(Figure 7). Findings strongly indicate that residents’ evaluation of tourism impacts (i.e.
its beneﬁts and costs) greatly determine their attitude towards tourism. These ﬁndings
support the model established by Jurowski et al. (1997). Respondents in the present study
who positively evaluated tourism impacts indicated that its beneﬁts outweighed its costs
while respondents who did not favor tourism indicated that its costs outweighed its
beneﬁts.

Several factors were found to inﬂuence the evaluation of these impacts.
Dependency was strongly related to (a) the perception of beneﬁts and costs and (b)
attitudes towards tourism. Those who did not perceive tourism favorably (those who
thought that costs exceeded beneﬁts) did not indicate dependence on tourism. Those who
thought that beneﬁts exceeded costs, and who either indicated or did not indicate that
costs need to be controlled, stated that they personally or Langkawi in general depended

on tourism.

123

 

 

 

IOU
the

EV:

b)

Values held by residents contributed to their evaluation of tourism impacts.
Residents who valued what their religion dictates about appropriate behavior above all
else were reluctant to show support for the impacts of tourism while residents who put
high values on economic gains from tourism indicated dependence on and support for
tourism. It can be concluded that while power contributed to the values held by residents,
these values, in tum, contributed to residents’ power and dependence, and their
evaluation of tourism impacts.

The study also found that residents’ evaluation of tourism impacts is inﬂuenced
by their ability and willingness to adapt. Those who viewed adaptation positively and
who were willing to adapt to the changes brought by tourism indicated that tourism
brought more beneﬁts than costs. Examples of adaptations in the interviews included
becoming accustomed to tourists’ culture, changing of lifestyles, and income and price
increases.

Further, a unique ﬁnding rarely mentioned in previous studies was that the state of
the national and global economy directly inﬂuences residents’ attitudes towards tourism.
Since a destination’s tourism demand depends on the economic conditions in both the
tourist generating and the tourist receiving regions (Bull 1995), a healthy economy
creates a favorable condition for tourism to prosper in Langkawi. In this way, economic
conditions have a direct effect on residents’ attitudes towards tourism. In another way,
economic conditions effect residents’ attitudes indirectly through their effect on
dependence and adaptability. Economic conditions affected residents’ level of
dependence and their ability to adapt to the changes brought by tourism, which, in turn,

inﬂuenced residents’ attitudes towards tourism (Figure 7).

124

 

5.3 Qualitative Data in Studies of Residents Attitudes

The purpose of this study was to expand theoretical ideas that explain why
residents develop positive or negative attitudes toward tourism. To do this, the study
required a method that would help the researcher to not only examine the role played by
certain variables proposed at the beginning of the study, but one that would also allow her
to discover other variables as well. Yow (1994) suggests that a researcher can better
understand the meanings that lie behind human behavior by obtaining rich, thorough
descriptions from the respondents. One way to do this is by using the in-depth
interviewing technique. This technique is often used to obtain the personal descriptions
and accounts that can be helpful in developing a theory, as opposed to measuring certain
variables suggested by a theory. A quantitative technique is more suitable for the latter
goal. Thus, in-depth interviews were used for gathering the qualitative data used in this
study.

In this study, qualitative data were instrumental in determining the factors that
inﬂuence residents’ evaluation of the beneﬁts and costs brought by tourism. In-depth
interviewing was a ﬂexible method of discovering how respondents’ attitudes were
formed. Data from the in-depth interviews were invaluable for understanding the
meanings behind why Langkawi residents feel the way they do towards tourism
development.

If the study had begun with a quantitative technique, information would be
limited to the questions asked, and in the form in which they were asked. Given that this
study was based on the review of power literature and previous studies on residents’

attitudes, the questions asked would be formulated to measure only variables identiﬁed

125

 

 

b} I
this
Res

res:

tht

pa

dc

th
SE

Te

i it J .Fﬂan 3.9.! 5 ‘33:".

by this literature. This would mean that no questions about the variables discovered by
this study (values, dependence, adaptability, and economic conditions) would be asked.
Results might have shown that power had no effect on residents’ attitudes, leading the
researcher to conclude that future studies need to look at other variables that might
explain attitudes toward tourism. The qualitative method provided the researcher with
rich data that allowed her to discover the role of power, how residents evaluate the

impacts of tourism and the variables that effect this evaluation.

5.4 Limitations of the Study

The qualitative approach is frequently criticized for questionable reliability and
the lack of generalizability (Henderson 1991). Due to time and ﬁnancial constraints, to
some extent, these are also limitations of the present study.

Qualitative research can achieve trustworthiness or “true value” if attention is
paid to the methodology so as to make the data and ﬁndings credible, transferable,
dependable, and conﬁrmable. Several strategies could be utilized to help the researcher to
assess trustworthiness: make data collection explicit, minimize data collection and data
interpretation bias, use speciﬁc examples from the data, check for participants’
truthfulness, check for representativeness, triangulate data sources and methods, and go
back and forth between data discovery and data interpretation (Henderson 1991).

As is evident in chapter three, the present researcher utilized some, but not all, of
the suggested strategies. Speciﬁcally, although used in transcribing and translating, a
second opinion was not used in data coding and interpretations. The researcher with a

research assistant who was ﬂuent in the local northern Malaysian dialect transcribed the

126

recordings of the interviews (in the original Malay language). Guidelines for transcription
were designed to reduce reliability and validity problems (Chapter 3). After the
recordings were transcribed, the researcher translated the transcripts from Malay to
English. The researcher’s colleague, who is also from Malaysia, then reviewed the
translated transcripts for accuracy. Afterwards, the researcher alone coded and interpreted
the translated transcripts. This opens the present study to dependability problems; that is,
the study ﬁndings are open to consistency and reproducibility problems (Henderson
1991)

However, several strategies were utilized to help overcome these problems:

1. The researcher had a sense of what she was researching as the conceptual framework
and the plan for data collection were made explicit. This helped increased the
dependability of the study.

2. Researcher subjectivity that may have introduced bias in the selection of the subjects
for the sample was minimized because the criteria for selecting the sample were
established beforehand.

3. The interviews were tape recorded to assure the conﬁrmability of the data.

4. Efforts were taken by the researcher to have conﬁdence in the data. This was done
through interviewers’ training, interview observations, and daily debrieﬁng sessions
with the interviewers.

5. At the end of each interview, interviewers summarized the key points of ideas given
by the respondents and the respondents were asked to conﬁrm these points. This
‘member check’ helped in verifying conclusions and should increase data credibility.

6. Descriptions and quotes were used to support conclusions.

127

 

7. To some extent, triangulation of data source was utilized. Secondary data were
analyzed with the key informant interviews to add credibility to the conclusions.

8. The interviews were conducted by interviewers who were occasionally accompanied
by the researcher. The interviewers provided each respondent with informed consent
and cover letters from the local university where the researcher is employed. These
letters indicated to the respondents that the study was undertaken by a neutral party
and this, in turn, helped the interviewers to obtain honest responses from
participants.

Unlike quantitative studies from which scholars may be able to generalize to
study populations based on statistics, qualitative research is limited to making claims
only about the people studied. While qualitative studies are usually used to study a single
setting or a small sample, this does not mean that qualitative studies are never
generalizable beyond the settings or respondents studied (Maxwell 1996). Often,
qualitative studies can be generalized when there are no obvious reasons not to believe
the results could be applied more generally (Kaplowitz 1997 ).

Data obtained from the in—depth interviews were not designed to be generalized to
the greater population of Langkawi residents. Nevertheless, this study may hold interest
for members of other communities in developing tourist destinations that may also be
experiencing sudden growth in and dependence on tourism development. Decision-
makers in those communities may be the most appropriate people for determining
whether their locale holds many similarities with Langkawi and thus whether these

ﬁndings have interest for their own communities.

128

Lastly, Langkawi Development Authority (LADA) published some of the
secondary data used in this study. As has been mentioned elsewhere in this dissertation,
LADA is a federal agency formed to co-ordinate development in Langkawi. Over
reliance on these secondary data may naturally lead to pro-development bias. To
minimize this bias, the study also used both the primary data from the interviews and

other published secondary data in its analysis.

5.5 Recommendations for Further Study

This study marks the early stage in the building of a theoretical framework. The
concepts explored by and the variables discovered from this study can be used to build a
theoretical framework, which may account for the impacts perceived by the host
residents. This theoretical framework, which is based on social exchange and power
theories, lays the groundwork for forthcoming studies in the realm of tourism social
impacts.

The results ﬁ'om this study open up further questions regarding the
interrelationships among the variables in Figure 7. Additional data using a quantitative
method and an expanded sample either in Langkawi or elsewhere are needed to test and
measure the interactions and variance of the variables that evolved from this study.

In addition, it would also be interesting to learn whether similar ﬁndings could be
found in other developing tourist destinations, either in Malaysia or other countries, or
whether Langkawi is a unique location in terms of tourism development. Future research

should study other tourist destination communities to learn about their attitudes toward

129

 

tourism development in their area and whether the meanings behind their attitudes are
similar to those of Langkawi residents.

Lastly, it should be kept in mind that the researcher used one of the many possible
ways of measuring power in this study. The amount and types of resources owned by
respondents that would allow them to beneﬁt from the tourism industry were used to
deﬁne and measure power. This deﬁnition and measurement of power were the most
useful in describing the people of Langkawi. Other researchers may wish to consider
other deﬁnitions and measurement of power in their studies. One example would be
individual’s ability to participate in the planning process. For the individuals affected by
any decisions to exercise power, they need to be able to participate in the decision-

making process (McDonough and Wheeler 1998).

5.6 Policy Implications

These ﬁndings hold many implications for toruism destination management
decisions and evaluation. To assure successful tourism development, planners and
policymakers must understand the issues that arise due to the development. The
fundamental policy option is not whether a community should be ‘for’ or ‘against’
tourism, but whether tourism will bring the desired degree of ‘progress’ with the least
undesirable impacts on the community. When there is no opposition from the residents
toward tourism development, it does not necessarily indicate that tourism development
has brought the desired degree of ‘progress’ nor does it indicate that tourism brings no
harm. It is important to study what factors determine the attitudes residents have with

regard to tourism. For example, the non-anxiety expressed by the residents about tourism

130

negative impact on the community may be attributed to their dependence on tourism for
their livelihood. The frequency and the intensity with which people spoke of how tourism
in Langkawi was effected by the recent economic upheaval implies that residents may
show favorable attitudes only as long as a favorable national or global economy are able
to bring tourists to Langkawi. Residents may show different attitudes if tourists no longer
wish to visit Langkawi.

The inability to seize the opportunities offered by tourism and to participate in
the tourism development process was expressed by several respondents. In this sense,
power helps explain who gains and who loses from tourism development. Regardless of
support, certain groups are able to beneﬁt from tourism development, while others
cannot. Beneﬁts achieved by some at the expense (economic, environmental, or social) of
others are unjust. While it is important to know residents’ support for tourism, it is also
important to make certain that the residents have equal access to the beneﬁts offered by
the development and that they are empowered to voice out their feelings towards the
development. This is especially crucial if the goal for having tourism is community
development. According to Bilinski (1969):

“success” cannot be the sole criterion of evaluation. How the decision was made may
be as important as the outcome; equity as important as success. By equity, it is meant not
only the distributive effects of outcome, but whether those effected by the decisions were
able to, and did, participate in making it. To make decisions, to participate in the
decision-making process, is to exercise power. The exercise of power is recognized as the
attribute not only to the “citizen”, but of the “free” man in a free society (Bilinski
1969:241).

If the areas likely to affect the equitability of tourism development can be

identiﬁed, measures to help make a more balanced development can be made. Some of

the measures include the need for integrated, long-term planning and impact assessment

131

that avoids the temptation to go for short-term gain; the need to set proper goals and
identify which areas should be the main beneﬁciaries of tourism; the need to involve
local people in the decision-making process and the industry itself; and the need for local
authority control of land-use.

The mitigation of undesirable impacts . .seems to rest ultimately on residents
achieving more extensive control of tourism’s course (Macnaught 1982: 377).” For a
tourism-based economy to sustain itself in local communities, the residents must be
willing partners in the process and must be allowed to control its growth. Residents must
be able to be involved in the planning. They must be informed and consulted about the
scope of development (Cooke 1982) and their attitudes toward tourism and perceptions of

its impact on community life must be continually assessed.

132

APPENDIX A — TRANSLATED VERSION OF THE INTERVIEW GUIDE

 

 

Soalan Temubual
. Telah berapa lama Encik tinggal di
Langkawi?

. Bilakah (tahun bila) Encik mula

menyedari tempat tinggal Encik
merupakan sebahagian dari satu
kawasan pelancongan? Apakah yang
menyebabkan anda menyedari fakta ini?

. Adakah Encik sendiri atau sesiapa di a.

dalam keluarga Encik yang terlibat

dengan sektor pelancongan di b.

Langkawi?

. Dari pengalarnan dan pemerhatian
Encik, apakah perubahan yang dibawa
oleh pelancongan kepada kehidupan
Encik?

. Dari pengalarnan dan pemerhatian
Encik, apakah perubahan yang dibawa
oleh pelancongan kepada komuniti
Encik?

. Bagaimanakah perasaan Encik terhadap a.
perubahan ini?

b.

c.

. Adakah Encik menyokong pelancongan a.

di kawasan tempat tinggal Encik?

. Adakah Encik terﬁkir bahawa Encik

mempunyai sumber dan keupayaan yang
cukup yang membolehkan Encik
mengarnbil kesempatan di dalam
industri pelancongan bagi membolehkan
Encik melakukan sesuatu bagi
memajukan kehidupan Encik?

Soalan Susulan

Pemahkah Encik/mereka bekerja
secara langsung dengan pelancong?
Pemahkah Encik/mereka membuka
pemiagaan yang berkaitan dengan
pelancongan?

Apakah erti perubahan in kepada
Encik?

Adakah Encik merasakan bahawa
perubahan ini memberi manafaat
kepada Encik?

Adakah Encik merasakan bahawa
perubahan ini membebankan Encik?

Adakah Encik menyumbangkan tenaga
dalam pembangunan industri ini?

 

133

 

 

 

9. Adakah Encik merasakan bahawa Encik
boleh mempengaruhi/membuat
keputusan tentang pembangunan
pelancongan di kawasan Encik?

10. Apakah yang Encik lakukan untuk
mempengaruhi keputusan yand dibuat
tentang pembangunan pelancongan?

11. Masakan depan yang bagaimana yang
Encik mahukan untuk Langkawi?

3..

Adakah Encik merasakan bahawa
Encik mempunyai kuasa untuk
mempengaruhi keputusan mengenai
pembangunan di Langkawi?
Adakah Encik merasakan bahawa
pandangan Encik diambilkira?
Adakah Encik menyuarakan
pendapat/pandangan Encik kepada
pihak terbabit?

 

 

134

'l—J,

‘.

APPENDIX B — INFORMED CONSENT

 

 

Statement of Informed Consent

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. It is very important
because the study that I am doing requires the researcher to understand the
changes brought by tourism in Langkawi as experienced and observed by the
residents on Langkawi; we will discuss our general ideas about the costs and
beneﬁts from tourism.

This interview will last for one hour or less and will be audiotaped. The
participation in this study is entirely voluntary. If you wish to withdraw from the
interview, you may do so at any time, and you do not need to give any reasons or
explanations for doing so.

The names of all the people in the study will be kept conﬁdential.

You will not receive any direct beneﬁt from participating in this study, but your
participation may help others in the future.

The members of the research team will answer any questions you may have about
the study.

 

I have read and understand this information and I agree to take part in this study.

 

 

Today’s Date Your signature

If you have concern or questions about this study, please contact either Kalsom
Kayat, telephone number: (517) 355-2917; or the chair of Michigan State
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS), 246
Administration Building, East Lansing, MI 48824-1046, USA. Telephone
number: (517) 355-2180.

 

135

 

(MALAY VERSION)

 

 

Pengakuan

Terima kasih kerana bersetuju untuk mengambil bahagian di dalam temuramah
ini.

Temuramah ini penting memandangkan kajian ini memerlukan penyelidik
memahami perubahan yang telah dibawa oleh sektor pelancongan di Pulau
Langkawi seperti yang dirasakan/dialami dan diperhatikan oleh penduduk
Langkawi, kita akan membincangkan tentang idea/pendapat tentang kos dan
keuntungan yang diperolehi dari sektor pelancongan.

Temuramah ini akan mengambil masa satu jam atau kurang dan akan
dirakamkan/direkodkan.

Penyertaan di dalam kajian ini adalah secara sukarela.

J ika anda berhasrat untuk tidak meneruskan temuramah ini anda bolehlah berbuat
demikian pada bila-bila masa tanpa perlu membuat sebarang penjelasan.

Nama-nama mereka yang terlibat dalam kajian ini adalah dirahsiakan.
Walaupun anda tidak mendapat sebarang faedah kewangan dengan penyertaan
dalam kajian ini, tetapi penglibatan anda dapat membantu orang lain pada masa

hadapan.

Ahli-ahli dalam kumpulan penyelidik akan menjawab sebarang pertanyaan yang
anda mungkin ada mengenai kajian ini.

 

Saya telah membaca dan memahami segala isi kandungan dan bersetuju untuk
mengambil bahagian dalam kajian ini.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

(Tandatangan) (Tarikh)

Segala pertanyaan hendaklah ditujukan kepada Kalsom Kayat, nombor telefon:
(517) 355-2917; atau kepada The chair of Michigan State University Committee
on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS), 246 Administration Building,
East Lansing, MI 48824-1046, USA. Nombor telefon: (517) 355-2180.

 

 

136

1'.

APPENDIX C - SUMMARY DEMOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION FOR EACH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONDENT
ID District Category Gender Race
#
l Kuah No-power Male Malay
2 Kedawang Power (position) Male Malay
3 Padang Power (land) Male Malay
Matsirat
4 Bohor Power (land) Female Non-Malay
5 Ayer Hangat Power (land) Male Malay
6 Kuah No-power Female Malay
7 Kuah Power (ﬁnancial) Female Non-Malay
8 Kedawang No-power Male Malay
9 Bohor Power (ﬁnancial) Female Malay
10 Kedawang No-power Male Malay
ll Ulu Melaka Power (land) Male Non-Malay
12 Kedawang No-power Female Malay
13 Padang No-power Male Malay
Matsirat
14 Padang Power (position) Male Non-Malay
Matsirat
15 Bohor Power (position) Female Malay
16 Padang Power (ﬁnancial) Male Malay
Matsirat
l7 Ayer Hangat Power (young) Male Malay
1 8 Padang No-power Male Non-Malay
Matsirat
l9 Kedawang Power (lang Male Non-Malay
20 Ayer Hangat Power (ﬁnancial) Male Malay
21 Padang Power Male Malay
Matsirat (knowledgeL
22 Ayer Hangat Power (position) Female Malay
23 Ulu Melaka Power (ﬁnancial) Male Malay
24 Ayer Hangat Power Female Malay
(knowledge)
25 Ayer Hangat No-Power Male Malay
26 Ayer Hangat No-power Male Non-Malay
27 Ulu Melaka Power (position) Male Non-Malay
28 Ayer Hangat No-power Male Malay
29 Ulu Melaka Noyower Male Malay
30 Kuah Power (young) Male Malay
31 Kedawang Power (ﬁnancial) Male Malay
32 Padang Power (young) Male Malay
Matsirat

 

 

 

 

 

 

137

1'!

‘l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33 Ulu Melaka No-power Male Non-Malay

34 Kuah Power (lancD Male Malay

35 Bohor Power (young) Male Malay

36 Ulu Melaka No-power Male Malay

37 Ulu Melaka Power (young) Male Malay

38 Bohor No-power Male Malay

39 Bohor No-power Male Malay

4O Kuah Power (Position) Male Malay

41 Ulu Melaka Power Male Malay
(knowledge)

42 Bohor Power Male Non-Malay
(knowledge)

43 Kedawang Power Male Malay
(knowledge)

44 Kedawang Power (young) Male Malay

45 Bohor No-power Female Malay

46 Kuah Power Male Malay
(Imowledge)

 

 

138

 

APPENDIX D - EXCERPTS FROM THE INTERVIEWS REGARDING CHANGES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BROUGHT BY TOURISM
Changes ‘Power’ ‘No-power’
Physical Respondent20 Respondent25
changes “Changes? Really, the changes “Approximately since 1988 or
and we see buildings, many buildings, 1989, around that year. It began to
improved hotels, shops. Last time, in the develop slowly, and then bit by
infrastruct 60's, 70's, 80's, there were not bit, the development became more
ure many buildings.” rapid. I could say that in the year
Respondent46 1990, the development has become
“Changes are mostly about the very rapid. Especially over there,
life situation. I was not able to at the Pantai Chenang area,
enjoy the basic facilities before, development was very rapid over
like the facilities that there are there. Before, that area, you
today in Langkawi. So, life was know.. . Pantai Cenang and
not so easy when I was small. I Padang Matsirat, those area were
still remember that there were all not developed at all, there was
many nothing there except jungle and
things we had to live without coconut trees there, but now, you
before, like good toilet and also can look by yourself. Now those
telephones. Hmmh, I think the areas are full with buildings. So
communication system and the many different kinds of projects,
transportation system are much like the marine park.”
better now, so that really changed Respondent12
my life.” “Everything is easier for them
today. Not like last time, we did
not have much facilities. Lives
were more difficult and less, much
less comfortable than they are
today.”
Increased RegrondentZO Respondenth
in “The changes, like they say, when “Changes in me, well the biggest
employme there is the duty free change is that it is easier for me to
nt and status...income has increased work and cam my living. ...I am a
earning indeed. “ ﬁsherman, ﬁsh prices have really
opportunit gone up. So, that really has helped

ies

 

Resmndent32
“Tourism has helped my family

in terms of our earning. My
father’s income, he once told me,
was less that 500 ringgit monthly
before. Now, his earning
increased, he is earning more than
500 ringgit now with the hotel. So

 

me very much.”

Respondent25

“Oooh, yeah, the tourism projects,
the building projects and such,
they give me a way to earn money,
you know, when the contractors
need people to help build

 

139

 

 

our family life got better, more
comfortable. “

Respondent35

“Personally, tourism has also
helped increased the standard of
living of my family. Both my
parents are in the business line
and they became involved in
business due to tourism.”

buildings, they look for us, me and
my friends, all get jobs with the
contractors. That allows us to earn
extra money.”

Respondentl 3

“Because I feel that the work is a
bit more easier with a bit more
income than before. During the old
times, I had to always hunt for
work, I did anything for pay and
for my family’s necessities. I had
to climb up the hill and ﬁnd rattan
from the jungle. “

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Business Respondent3l Respondent 29
opportunit “Since tourists began to come to “Before tourism, before tourists
ies Langkawi in big numbers, my came to Langkawi, things sold by
father started to open this stall, the people in Langkawi were
selling fried bananas. As the wasted, nobody bought them.
development Things like coconut and fruits,
expanded, Langkawi became nobody to buy them. . .But after
more attractive to tourists and tourism development, businesses
more of them come to Langkawi. were booming, because there are
This has brought many customers many customers. ..I am saying
to my father’s business and now tourism is good, good for the
the business is doing very well. people who have businesses. The
We sell many different foods here people, who have businesses,
today.” tourism is really good. But not
everybody has a business, right?
So, those ordinary people, there is
not much changes to them.”
Lifestyles Respondent 32 Respondent38
“Oh, okay. Before, I never went “I think the people were much

 

out. I mean, I was at home all the
time. My ﬁiends and I never hang
out and gossip. Now, there are
many places that the young
people can go to hang out. I think
that hanging out is their favorite
things to do, to just talk and relax
at hang out places. Most of them
don’t even stay with their parents
anymore. They have their own
jobs, and some prefer to stay with
ﬁiends. They will only go home

 

closer before too. I think the
people here today are much, what
do you call that, modern? “

Respondent25

“Things were very, very different
before tourism. You see, last time,
one would not dare to walk in this
area at night, now, you can sit here
by yourself until 10 or 11 o’clock
at night without feeling scared or
worried. It is not too quiet here

 

140

 

 

to their parents during the
weekend. The middle aged
people, most of them work, either
on their own, or with others. They
are trying to make as much
money as possible and trying to
grab the opportunities by having
small businesses. There are many
consumers in Langkawi today,
consisting of both tourists and the
locals themselves. So, businesses
ﬂourish. The older people, those
who used to catch ﬁsh and still
are strong now, they still do catch
ﬁsh today. In short, things have
changed, and the most obvious
change is the residents’ ways of
lives. Money and material have
become very important in their
lives now.”

now, with many cars passing by, it
is not quiet anymore, it is not too
scary anymore. “

Respondent38

“And the people in the community
are busy working that they are not
close any more. They do not know
what is going on even if the things
are right in front of their noses. I
think they are more concern with
their own lives only and they have
also become materialistic. It is
difficult to seek help from the
community members now. For
example, more people that have
wedding festivals have to use
contract people to cook for the
food. Before, the whole village
used to cook together themselves
for weddings did not have to pay
others to cook.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More Respondent46 Respondentl
newcomer “Tourism has also brought in Interviewer: “Are there many
5 many outsiders that also want to more newcomers?”
work or open their businesses Respondent: “Yes, they come here
here. So, we see many to start their business. Some come
newcomers in our community.” from very far, like from Pakistan.
They also come and work here. It
is a good place to come and ﬁnd
jobs here.”
Social Respondent7 Respondent6
deviance “Really, tourism does bring in “The teenagers, they have
some negative outcomes. problems. They are not that grown
Langkawi is a duty free island, so up, but they have become

 

you know. .. people like coming
here because they want to buy
liquor. There are also some
residents who are involved with
alcohol. But I think it is under
control.

 

bigheaded. They smoke and
become wild. Last time. . . .there
were no such things. They are
inﬂuenced by the tourists’
cultures.”

 

141

 

 

 

Competiti
on for land

Respondent l 6

“Land, for example, is one of the
major aspects. Many Langkawi
people still do not own land.
Those poor people who cultivated
the land, especially the land at the
strategic tourism area, they
worked those lands for many
years, but they were not given
grants to the land. The
government does not allow grants
to be given to these people, but
they turn around and give out the
grants to other parties. The parties
who get land are the ones that are
close to them.”

Respondent l 2

“If you want to buy land here in
Langkawi, you may buy the lands
on the hills, that is all the lands
that are left. Some Langkawi
people live outside Langkawi too.“

 

 

Price

 

Respondent 17

“Things are also expensive now.
This put burden to ordinary
people here.”

 

Respondent 29

“ I observe that the prices of food
have increased. The prices are
higher compared to the prices at
the other places in Malaysia. You
yourself, compare how much you
pay to eat at a restaurant here in
Langkawi with how much you pay
in Alor Setar. You will be surprise
how much more expensive it is in
Langkawi. This is a burden to the
residents, especially to those who
are not rich. In fact, I feel that the
high prices may hinder the tourists
from coming back to visit us here.
Actually, I do not understand why
some parties have to take
advantage of the situation by
putting high prices to the goods. I
do not agree on this at all.”

 

142

 

APPENDIX E — CHANGES PERCEIVED AS BENEFITS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondents
Types of Power No-power
beneﬁts
Improved “I am proud of the Prime “Well, there are many facilities that were
infrastructu Minister because he make not available in this area before. And also,
re and certain that other things it is faster today. Last time, if I needed to
facilities develop together with go to Kuah, I did not have my own
tourism development.” transportation, then I had to depend on the
taxis. . .Last time, when we had to wait for
the taxi, if our children felt hungry, then
we had to cook rice ﬁrst to feed them, and
then wait for the taxi. Even then, the taxi
would not be here yet. . .To visit our
relatives in Kuah would take us a whole
day. Now, as soon as we go to the road,
the taxis will already be passing by and
we do not have to wait at all.”
Increases “In the aspect of “The changes brought by tourism
job unemployment, it has development are mostly economic. Jobs
opportuniti decreased. . .In fact the are easy to get...you know with all the
es LADA people had told me hotels being built here, the hotels give
that there are more jobs plenty of jobs to the people in Langkawi.
than applicants. Some of Before Langkawi was developed, there
the employers have to go were not many jobs, it was not like what it
inside the villages to ﬁnd is today at all.”
workers.”
Increases “If there was no “. . .the tourism projects, the building
earning development .. .There projects and such, they give me a way to
opportuniti might not be so many earn money. . .when the contractors need
es opportunities. Not many people to help build buildings, they look
opportunities to increase for us, me and my friends, all get jobs
our income.” with the contractors.”
Improves “The residents here, those “If there is no tourism, Langkawi will be
lives who had difﬁcult lives like before, no development, no progress.
before, now many have There will be nothing in Langkawi. Lives
easy lives.” will be hard. Now, lives are easier
congrared to before.”
Increased “Economically, the “The people of Langkawi are doing better
purchasing/ changes are obvious. There in terms of economic. There are many
spending were many of us who lived different jobs to do. Almost everybody
power in hardships before. Things has a job today. They are capable to buy
were different, we could many things that they want.”
not buy anything much
except the very basic

 

143

 

 

things.”

 

Improves
businesses

“There are many
consumers in Langkawi
today, consisting of both
tourists and the locals
themselves. So, businesses
ﬂourish.”

“Of course, I see some of the villagers are
really good. They try to sell something,
like prepare dishes and food and then sell
them at the ‘warung’. They try to gain
something by selling.”

 

High
remunerati
on for land

“Like when a part of my
land is involved with the
airport development plan,
so I did receive some direct

beneﬁts from cases like
that.”

“Yes, a lot of changes, good changes. For
example, let us say somebody used to be
not so well off before, with low-income,
then a party came and bought his land. He
could use the money he got from the land
sale to do other things such as starting his
own business, or buy cars to start a car
rental company, things like that. So, he is
able to earn more money for his family
because he has more opportunity.”

 

People
improveme
nt

“1 think one of the beneﬁts
is that the residents are
more exposed to the
outside world now, not like
before, like they say, we
lived like a frog under the
coconut shell. We did not
know what was going on
out there. The development
for tourists also beneﬁts
the residents. The minds of
the people have changed
now, they are more
motivated to compete with
the outside people in many
different sectors.
Competition is good, it
helps make us better, I
think.”

 

 

Increased
youth
exposure

 

“Socially, before, the
young people used to not
know how to mix around
that much. I think they did
not mix like we are today.
They stayed at home most
of the times. Nowadays,
the young people like to go
out and check things out.”

 

 

144

 

APPENDIX F - CHANGES PERCEIVED AS COSTS

 

Costs

Respondents

 

Power

No-power

 

Increased in
social

“I don’t feel the cost to
myself personally but I know

“A little problem with alcohol
consumption. Every time I come

 

 

 

 

problem that the community suffers back from the sea, 1 will see empty
because what is happening to beer cans on the beach. It is
the young people. The young difﬁcult for me to say, as this is
people are inﬂuenced easily my place, my home, but I do see
to do the strange things, the problem that people here are
especially if they go to the now drinking alcohol.”
entertainment spots in the
hotels or elsewhere. There
are even incidents where the
school children are involved.
They drink and socialize in
ways that are so unlike our
culture.”
Loss of “Well, at the same time, “In 1988. ...they started to have
religious and tourism is able to bring luxurious development. The
cultural social problem especially government took the villagers
values with the entrance of many lands for the development and paid
different cultures and the land prices to them. The price
different people. This may was good. This was when those
ruin the Malay culture and poor people at that time had lost
the Islamic values. Like I their selves, they were shocked.
have said before, we need to They married other women and
adhere to the good values bought cars. They forgot about
...” God.”
Residents “Now, the government took “Like the lands that they took to
lose lands to their lands, and they are not make hotels. By right they should
tourism able to get other lands to replace the lands to the villagers,
development replace those lands. Maybe giving the remuneration is not
they could get the lands on enough. They need to give a
the hill and plant rubber or different land to the buyers, at
fruits, but that is all.” least they would have some assets.
Sometimes what happen is that
those who sold off their lands had
nowhere to go but to put up at
relatives’ homes in the villages.”
Unhealthy “Outside people should be “The teenagers, they have
inﬂuence blamed as well. Now they problems. They are not that grown
ﬁ'om have opened many colleges up, but they have become
outsiders here in Langkawi, the bigheaded. They smoke and

 

Lagenda college at Delima,

 

become wild. Last time there were

 

 

145

 

the outside kids who came to

no such things. They are

 

 

 

 

that college, they brought it a inﬂuenced by the tourists’
lot of bad inﬂuences...” cultures.”
Degradation “Social problems, especially “But now, there is a lot of
in youth among the younger unhealthy problems since we have
behavior generation. Crimes, drugs, tourism here. There are so many
smoking, and drinking. youth who have their behavior
Those kinds of things are ruined in this village. Now, they
evidently on the rise right are introduced to beer drinking.
now.” Some of them take drugs. Their
socializing is too much, they are
free to mix girls and boys.”
Inﬂation in “I think that things are “Now... if your wage is
prices expensive in Langkawi 500. . .600. . .you can’t barely have
today. Food is expensive, enough. Food are expensive, ﬁsh’s
ferry fare is expensive. ...The price is high. I think the price in
only cheap things are the Perlis is much lower. I have been
dishes, batiks, cigarettes, and to Alor Setar, Perlis, and
alcohol. Most of us in Terengganu. If you go out and eat,
Langkawi go shop outside 3... 4 people, it would be about 15
for festivals such as Eid day ringgit. In Langkawi .....it would
because things are expensive be more. ...like 20 something
in Langkawi. The goods here ringgit.”
do not have high quality.”
Residents “But the government took Interviewer: “I have heard that
lose to the land and build buildings, they have started the Langkawi
outsiders but they sold the buildings to Trust Share. Do you invest in it?”

 

the Chinese, even Chinese
from outside. When they
brought in these outside
Chinese into Langkawi, what
is going to happen to the
Malays of Langkawi? What
is going to happen to the
Langkawi Malays in the
future?”

 

Respondent: “Shares. . . .we do not
know how to buy or do. The
people up there make it, and then
the outside people bought them. I
did hear about it on TV and radio,
but the villagers do not know or
they are not exposed to it. Even
when they bought the lands from
the villagers, they did not talk
completely, they give small
amount of money for the lands,
and that was all. Later on, they
resold the land and made a lot of
proﬁt.”

 

 

146

APPENDIX G - DIFFERENCE IN PERCEPTIONS ABOUT BENEFITS

 

Beneﬁts denied

Respondents

 

Power

No-power

 

Tourism
increases in
employment
and earning
opportunities

“Jobs, of course, there are
plenty of job opportunities in
Langkawi today. If you yourself
were to look for a job today, I
am very sure you will face no
difﬁculties in getting one. But
the question is what kind of
jobs? There are many openings
at the hotels but not office jobs.
Professional and technical jobs
are rare. And also, hotels are
more inclined to hire foreign
workers instead of the locals, as
the foreign workers are cheaper.
So they hire Filipinos instead of
Malaysians.”

“1 am saying tourism is good,
good for the people who have
businesses. The people, who
have businesses, tourism is
really good. But not everybody
has a business, right? So, those
ordinary people, there is not
much changes to them. Those
who are willing to work hard,
they could gain something, you
know, by ﬁnding jobs.”

 

 

Tourism
improves
residents’ lives

 

“What happened? You can see
by yourself. A tragedy was
what happened to Langkawi.
The development was so
sudden and drastic that the
residents did not even know
what was going on. That was
when the tragedy happened. At
ﬁrst, when they wanted to buy
the land, the villagers asked
them, what do they want to do
with the land? They said they
want to do this, or that....
Actually they were just waiting
for buyers, buyers from
outside... Buyers from Kuala
Lumpur, Japan, or Korea. Those
people came and wanted land to
do their project, so they sold
this land to these outsiders, 2
acres they bought for 40,000
but they could sell for 100,000.
They are the residents of
Langkawi too, but they
speculate, or they know more
than other people do. If they

 

 

147

 

 

 

want to build government
ofﬁces. Well, we don’t have
any objections. Or if they want
that land to build a hospital, or
clinic. But no, they make it for
tourists and brought the
orangutan here.”

 

 

Tourism
‘develops’
people in
Langkawi

 

“I am worried about the future
of Langkawi in terms of
tourism. 1 used to joke with my
friends that one day, the people
of Langkawi will become the
only attraction in Langkawi due
to their mentality and attitude.
Since they cannot catch up with
the development, they will
become the tourist attraction. I
am wonied that if I were to
become a tourist guide one day,
I would bring a group into a
village and introduce the group
to Pak Mat, and say “Pak Mat,
why don’t you show the group
how you get the coconuts from
the coconut tree”. This could
happen if they couldn’t catch up
with the development. Another
thing, I think the school
children in Langkawi are not
sensitive with what is going on
around them. They still do not
care very much about passing
the examinations because they
know that even if they fail, they
could still ﬁnd jobs to support
themselves. They would say
that “my parents do not have
proper jobs, but they can still
survive”. So, you see, they do
not see the importance of
moving forward and improve
themselves.”

 

 

 

148

mum-r,— 43-

" 1121‘ __.,, I

APPENDIX H - DIFFERENCE IN PERCEPTIONS ABOUT COSTS

 

 

 

Respondents
Costs denied Power No-power
Tourism “Before, after completing “There is no problems because the
produces form ﬁve, a young man had young people are all working.

problems with
youth

not many choices but to
follow his dad and go to the
sea to become a ﬁsherman, or
go to the ﬁeld to grow rice, or
become a rubber tapper. Well,
since in rice is grown only
once a year in Langkawi,
most of them used to only be
ﬁsherman, or be both
ﬁsherman and rice grower.
Now, they choose to do other
work, mostly related to
commerce or tourism.”

“1 think if Langkawi has no
tourism, the young people
would go away from
Langkawi, and the old folks
would go to sea.”

Those who are not working are
those with rich parents.
Youngsters whose parents are poor
like us are all working. The young
people now can afford to buy
motorcycles, sometimes big
motorcycles and some of them
could even by cars. We could
never afford that when we were
young.”

“The young can go to work. They
can proﬁt from the projects. They
can bring home money for their
families.”

 

Residents are
inﬂuenced by
tourists and
outsiders

“At the beginning, yes it was
a shock with the different
cultures brought in by the
tourists but after one point the
situation went back to the old
situation. In other words, the
people have become used to
it. At the beginning it was
difﬁcult to accept the
changes, but slowly people
began to accept. For example,
in the old time many residents
waste their time by gossiping
at the coffee stalls, now they
began to discuss about
businesses at the coffee
stalls.”

“No, there is nothing negative. I
mean, the residents are so used to
tourists, even the small children.
The tourists do not bother their
lives as all.”

 

 

Higher
consumer prices

 

“The prices are high but we
can still afford it.”

 

“High prices? I do not feel that
prices of goods are high in
Langkawi, no...no problem with

the prices... because we all can
afford it.”

 

149

 

 

 

 

Overall
problems with
tourism

 

“Some people think that

tourism only beneﬁt certain
people who are lucky enough

to take advantage of the
situation, but I think
they. . .beneﬁt from the

development too, but just

because they don’t want to do

anything, they feel mad at

other people who do. I think

that is not fair. This is our

chance to change our life, we
are all lucky actually. I think
other people in other parts of
Malaysia would. . .die for this

kind of opportunity.

Langkawi is blessed with its

ability to become a tourist

destination. Other places do
not have what Langkawi has.

I support tourism entirely.”

“I feel that there are no
negative impacts from

tourism, most changes are

positive.”

 

“I see no problem at all, no
problem at all.”

“Oh, no no, no burden at all,
why burden? We can earn more
now. . .with the earnings we can
buy more, well, as much as we
could afford. If we cannot afford
it, then don’t buy. Don’t you think
so? If things are expensive and
you cannot afford to buy, then
don’t buy them. It is that simple
don’t you agree?”

 

 

150

13' ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

83 gm 80.588 :0 0:090 80: 0009 $803820 80.00 Eagem o 30.353930— 5 09.00005 0 5508
connocmﬁnd 0?: 55 5:0»
3 00:538an no“ 00000005 0
.85 00.8 @0935 . wee—55
0n 8 .5838 .80 >03 .8598.— 00>89£ 0
«0G $346365 ogogmg ©0>OEEH e
88.53 :0 800.090 880 805 003003 :5 mourn—tonne 000885 00000.85 0 Am :5
«hogan 000585 88:00:83“ £30350 8c0=0m 50505 300m 0 80385 a 00:03 33880.8 0 :oEwom
55850008 80
tag 000 :5 8859
.3 008.00 80:
88:68 03 080305 308 30“ 082 o
“025:0 co 805900 Eon—@2300 0030on .8000 «0.5259830 9:500 0030.85 a $75
bwaobm Spa—m5..— 805 0030on £30330 8a0=0m 30305 Econ 0 0.5825385 6265:: 0 action
00>: .3 >338 vo>oEEM
.0503é. 096:5:
.0>.50:po.& 0.88 8:0200m 0
000.582 5800 55 085 00.8
.3880 00803 00888009? 00.0585 00305 0
0025 80505 on 8 8 8858 530% 0882504..“ a
308 85 0030003 80: 8038205 00885250 mg 60000005 0
.bommo 805505» .8000 85 002002 :5 852000 80950» 8.8 32. a $5
.9535 a 8 0: 003003 035 “30380 8c05m 080508 300m 0 .33 0.82 0 action
03
8000 v0>_00.~0m .80
83.53 583 a> £22 060
8%..» 380683.. 8&8 Baggage? e8 09.003 E22 8283 .880

 

 

Bax/Mag mv<m ZONE mmzmmh I H EQZm—AQ

151

 

 

:08: .880

80288

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:88 8:803 .8880: 0: 0888: 0800:: 8808:: o
:8 80895 :0 8:080: 0888: 8: 088 0:: 809:: 08— .8—88.8“: o 80.: 0:02 0 A35 :8:
0:88
80:: 0082.8:
8:88: o
:80»
8080 380088
80308 800m 0
88:80:
802330 5:3 850:0: .«0 08800:
808800 8:88 08:88 :30380 880 o 08: 8:028: o
:8: 88008: 808088: :88 50:0: 80:88 0: m8: 0
8083 :8 88:8: .3 80:03.8: :0: 0: 8:028: 8:8 80:: A8000: :0: 50:8 00
:0: 0D 3:00:68 8088: :8: 88008:: 0 08— 8:028: o :0: :8: 8:880:80 0888: o 23 :8:
5:0» :0: 8% 8808:: o
m::x::: 983:0:
8888:: :0 .33 8 888:: o
80880—08: :0 0808088 8888: o
:8 8 :8: 880088 80:96::
.88.: :83 80508 080308 :800m 0 0:08 8:028: 583:0: .
:0 £803 8:: :5: 88.: 00:83:88 80:88 00808:: 0
0800:: 88088 :0 8080 080308 80.: 0:02 a 83::
8085 88:8: :0 8080: :0: 800 £803 :0 :0: a 8a: 8808:: 0 8:88:88 88:00 8808:: a 8:888
8888080 80.H 0:02 0
88:8: 8880 888:: :0 8:880:80 88:00 @0808:— a 9.9::
toanzm :0 808080: :0: 0800:: £803 .:0 :0: a :38 0:02 0808088 888:: o 8:80:
0808 0:: 80:08:. 8:888
8:800 :0: 80:0 88:8: :8: 0: 08: 8828: o
0:08 8:03 880088 8:08: 8:80:80: 8:88:88 0888: 8808:: o 3.93

 

 

152

 

 

 

 

 

:26 0038208
5: $55.30: 0:: 8255:0550 wEEno 080805
“a #00:,“ 0.52:0 2300535 0255::
6080:: may»:
0003: :02: u: 00 SEES .«0 08053 $50.58 080205
m_ 505: 2800000 :0: £32205 momma—:3:
0:053 Evans :0 330805 .8000 0:: £8305 :30 tﬁm 0: 2:0 35063: 3:5
bacobm €550: 0:0 320:0 £50 :mﬁzzso magnum 300m 080m 05: 5.: 08:08 woZoooM 0:3
$02330 3 83
:50»
wcoﬁa 080505
mos—g
3:05:00: 50 $3
02800
QAN—mz 50¢ Guava—CH:
30% x55 8 0:28:03
EoEEo>0w E0505 300m
353 0200
5:000 002 80: 3:05 00:63.55
353 23:50: :0 $0500 3:000: 98 05: :05 wEEuo .3528: 03.0805 2 :5
S: tomasm 0:250:05: .56wa :30500 $80 30— $528M 30.. 202 093
0:2 80— $0004
$80305 Eoom
.82?
:30ch3 Ea: 250.560: .«0 $04
0330 $0065: 2: PEG :3 50.5050:
0: 6:: 830805 .EmrSB :0 .50 8:000:
.Emtzs 0:500 00: 800 5000053: 80— mﬁooq $055555
0.5553. 3: £3.59 x: 0300550 9:05: 5:“ «52300 wEFBo .3528.— 0800.85
CEO a: 32:3: 9500:0595 3:9: :02: 3,000 00 80. £0004 .05: 00.: 3:08 003003: 55 003
Snowy—080
00:00:00 80305 080205 oéogmgi 0265::
0: $80 8:: 80305 Boom 5305 280.59%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

153

 

$5880 3585

 

 

 

 

 

8:828 co “covaquv .ogogm£:_ 32:95 0
on 8 wEEOoom .532. 365% @8365 o
58 3:85 .8258 ﬁancee 4558.05“. .35an @5662 3822: o GE;
:5 toansm co mucoaov 30525 mi 563:8 $80 9 98— 32 £304 539% wmocmmzm .- REGEE
@8233 o. 304
880 02330
8.“ 3:83 on Bob cocoa—.2: ogogmwaﬁ 355:: 0
2:9? Ewing mun—Sr 630“ 0.52 o
wu=ob=ou 8: $9636.: 72536.3 mo 304 .82—
3 9 85 83083 :5an 38m be 3:56 .acoEmB 355:: o
980 $53 .8258 05m :5 59oz .meEmo .mEoEmE tomato:— 0 A95
:5 toausw co $533 325.5 5: .088 05 53¢. a 98:8 E235 .ntsew 30595 c 3.285"—
35—
82 mEoEwom ugogmacﬁ @3895 o
.rsmchmq E “cacao—gov corn—E: 02.5 5:9» .5.“ $255538 90—. o
Bambi Sm 88 05 ﬂ $0283 8 084 35>:
86.5.9 85 828th .82 3:83 2 mo “ragga .ﬂcoEmﬁ @8885 o
toamzm .Emgo. £80 masa—2 $3830 .33 802 a $5
bwcobm :c manage—u 30525 SE £30325 magnum .EoBOE .38m 539% $0595 a 365:5
5088 0883 58> o
8:63.250 32:95 @8385 o
833 36283 @8865 o
526% 382.com o
028:0 mo>=
Eat 8:265 we b=§c 3:368 @9659: o
car—:8 $80 any—«2:5 wormed—toga $98
toaqsm so mvcoaoc wEEuu 955E £30330 Smocom «So—poi Eoom wEan .3528.— 32205 c 2.3
baomwﬁmﬁoaa @8385 o
0.:— uo 3:54.. 32:95 0
.: $5.55 he an? 32:95 a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

154

 

can. 8.“ 5:2: “mm mbEsovcaq

 

 

woven—tonne
Dog v5 3:58 @8335 o
toga .598 8383.38 mmoﬁmsm o 2&0
bwcobm no avenue—u 32:25 3:5"— Eocun =< 538w 389.com o 3255,.—
mos—g
35:68”. 98
323—?— to mmoq
5:9»
wcoEa 33830
3:325 4383
BEEEE on Eco—pen 38m $55250 wEEmo @8885 n
:3» £80 :2: :ocmnnecm mac.“ 0.52 o
8 75:00 no #02 $0539 :25 8 952230
EOE $53 BESS ca “52536 8283 $3625 98 $528“ ..8 82:29.88 o Ammuv
:5 tonnzm Scan—co 23:8 So a £50 2:8 05 Son? 9 82 mace—viola chaosbméﬁ 32:95 0 3285"—
wu:ob=oo 33832 c
on #58 Bongo—gov mo>= .«o 3:36 @2658— o
“cacao—gov 2 $5: :05 $8253
35 8.55 @553 5m 8258 so 32 8523”— wE>= E 8865 Emzm o 8N5
=5 toqasm 353v .836 :23 a E 03 068 05 Son< :ozmcﬁ 025 230ng5 @3895 o REF—«Em

 

 

 

 

 

$8233 8 804
623:0 88m
353:: 02332
.mEoBoE 38m
.8313

3:03:23 mo $04
.529» means
8030.5 .5322:
325 5:3:

 

 

 

 

155

 

 

023:0

E0: 00:25::
3:30:33
5:0» w:0::a

02:09:05

0:08 .05: 0.:— :0>0::::_
05030::5 :0>0.::::_
32:3: 333.8,:

0:08 3:355 .:0 >03 :0>0:::::
:00:0>:a 0.8:: 583:3

 

 

5030:: 3:00m 002538.50 3:530 235
83.50: 30.00 0033:: :5: Boga—9:0 3308:: o 0m:0_
tomaam :0 ::0:0: :0: :00: no: :90500 3:0:0m 3:09:33 5 80.: m::>: :0 20:55 330:0:— o -305:
5:30:60
:0 35:09::
:3: :0: 0: 53>
030—305— .:0 0.03:
833». 03300.: 302300
3:0:30::0 E350: 0: 000— 3:0:33:
:5: 3.03:0: 505:? 0330»: m003> 03:05:03: 0.6:: 3:0:33— o
:0 60:3 05 8:53 583:0.— m=0:w:0: :5 wExEﬁ :0 >03 :0>0::::_ o
E 338030 53.50: 03300: 2303 3:02:03 :0 30.: >0:0:: 003:: 0: 0:3 35:33: 0 2&5
33:00 3:33 :0 ::0:0: :0: 80: 30.: Emmi 323:: 03: 5:0» w:0::0 3:0:30: 0:: :0: 0w:0_
:5 toaasm £0050 ::0E::0>0w 0 3 0: 3:05: 002080: 08030:: 330m 83:35:“? w::::00 330:0:— o -305:
05:03:08.3: :0>0::::_ o
.5350: .3835: 0: 33:32 a
0: 23:3 35:30: 38030:: 3:00m .32. 0:02 o
83:00: :0 ::0:0: 3:: 32080: .0009: 8:35 00>: .:0 >555 :0>0::E_ a £95
::0E:0_0>0: 583:3 .3000 .m0=3> .353. 0m:0_
toaasm :5: mw:_:.30 3:: 003020: :35 :23: 360:0m 3:02:33 :0 $0.: :0 :3::3m 35:30: :035— o -305:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50:08 0.8:: 58>
0:: :o $25 8858:
05:03:08.:5 :0>0:9:~

 

 

 

156

.‘ ‘ s‘ q. .. J
rlrlblllll!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eugen—m2 .0533 98 “5:52qu @3885 o
€258 22.52 .5259 baa—3E3 38253 2.33
6: 800 so Eovconov 8: a no.“ at 55 6:3: amoU £8an 38m 8.“ 8:33.83 3322: o wane»
025388 0.86 acoEmom o
3898 v.55 3.528% o
308830: 28 3529: 8a
825538 «.8525 3382: 0
362» 15:33 89: :58.ng 0
icon 088 8.3.4 moamcztoano $550
6:?» 93 28:52an 3322: ..
wcoEa 33809.0 mast:—
wﬁxowco ﬂ 2. om: 6:832; 38m mo @3985 .3528“ @886:— o 835
Ear—:3 mo 3:56 B>EQE_ cousﬁwoc n.5,? 3:96 .533 9 emce—
toaasm so “covenant 3886 Ho: ﬂ co Ems? $on :5 .8:05:8_>:m mangan— dhzosbmﬂmﬁ 335:: o {scam
mommoﬁmzn come
3 bmgtoano 96: $538M o
ogogmﬁmﬁ @3995 o
“cacao—gov mac—£5
E8 Eaton—E_ b? Ewing go 933 .8528.— B>oEE~ c
83359 :5 .5332 5:9A Eugen Eat So How acuEmom o 935
.0950 8.83 so muck—ow 3826 $80 9555 236030 maﬁa—nuance mEan ©8385 o om?—
Sn toaasm 8: moo—u “53:35 @6325 ﬁcucom £5306 Eoom 2:85 3322: o -305—
obdosbmﬁmﬁ BEBE— a
mass—
8.“ >288 0238 3.828% o
3.50ng 22: $523M o
Swine“ :0 $59“. 3:83 380532 ES
“588.3% 3 2 £558 9 82383 26; 352mg .
Spa—mg “o: £56365 moﬁcauonqo 9:53 3238:— . 33$
conga. 289.2 .8 8332 .380 85 8283 :5 m3: ow?—
bwcobm muck—on 2:85 $358,.“ @3330 smocom .mEoBPE .amoom mo 3:96 .3523.— vu>89£ o -30;

 

 

157

 

 

 

 

 

cocoa—(o Ewan—tonne 9:an
mEoSEQ 38m 93 Evie—nab 33805 c
Emtso. :0 $80 033098 mchston—mo 32:95 c8385 0 $95
tong—6 $536 32:95 93:5,.“ FREE—5 wagon 308 maﬁa. war:— mo 2856 @8885 o w§o>
$8 a Sc b33333 v8.8.8:— 0
2 0:23 3:2:ch mac—£5 mo was? 32:95 a
E omens—U «cacao—96v Roam—E o
.380 moz—
ba mats “a: meow .«o 3:95 .3528» 33.58— . €95
toaasm 38: a E $.83 55mm 83:3 mozoobm 3553.83 9:an 330.8:— o m§o>
macs—é 8:83p Emu—mg o
moz—
uo 3:36 @5662 @2558— 0
can.
5mm 5m 3388 ha >258 2:32 3.828% o
8333 mbEOoBo: 802 E8 Bobs £528» 082 o
3 caucus—WE 2 wEan $80 3.88 mag:— mo 2356 32:9:— o 895
tonazm :9: 6255.9 a m. 85am £30330 Eco—Sm 3:589 v53 obsosbmaaﬁ B>PEE~ a maze.»
3:3 :05
82 ﬂauEmom
533:?
5:3: wﬁsmha
.«o @335
.we—75:8 #53 53>
ﬁmoo cows—mam 02.5
can :32. @5233 2 33
Be? 2 wave: mos—9,
“cacao—gov 3523.5 5 $3 BBoanatE 85.5.5 0
35 355 scan—8:88 8:83.5an wEan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

158

 

238.:— E958
05 SM seaﬂooaqm 8on

mos—g
323.2 .3 mmoA
859:5

mE>= .«o

c3938 .mEoEmB 3382:
ouaoabmmcﬁ 35qu—
wzﬂﬁﬁ mo 33 BSEEH
332.3 89: 58>

moon—q wcﬁnonm 3320:—
E0238

5;» €55 BEE 53>
coco 22: 53>

:mzwcm mi @3295
833:8

.8529: 3320:—

“0520

28 35:39 088 583:3
on 3 mwﬁﬁ 29: >52

m9»:

ho b=§v .8528» 9;an—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

toaazm $65 :5 82.53 so 380 528:0 9 26 mwﬁﬁ v.88 Rota accused o A33
bmcobm Eugene—V 2886 82 @6330 macocom 5038a Eoom $33 @6295; 33205 0 w§o>
33:39 EOE 3:“ng o
mocaztoaao wEEQo
Emtaou $30 852%: mac—ha can “5&2an 83805 c ASE
toaasm :o Eugen—ow 382% 82 £32,330 Emu—Sm :85 2330 5.5» M8 95898 330.8:— 0 wane.»
mos—S,
3536.3 mo $04
0238
88m 352.2:
3:355 53on omﬁocoom o

 

 

 

159

 

0:00:00
>_w:0bm

0:003:04

:_ 000800—050 .20 000:

2 2 00 82.0000 :0 000000
3:028: 005 0020003

.0000 00

0500 05 00000 2
50:00 005 820:.
.0020:

:02 55 E2020
2 0:05 005
0300.00: 00: 000D

300200.. w:0E0
2005 0:00—00
:200000

£80 2020
00:0—

000. $528M
m:00> 05
w:0E0 E0305
00020000 00 003
00603 00

00 .8309 00:
0.002302 000
8030.5 200m

00020000000 @200
0:0 “Ego—0:00 005000:—

mt

 

00:00:00 00
00 0.000 0:03
000 toma0m

.301—

0800 08 000.2

00:0—
000— 3:02.032
.0020:

2 00000.55
.500»

w:0E0 80305

300200.. 00.2
00200000000 000002000 0:000
00200000000 w:_::00

0:0 000050—900 0000000:—
00>:

.20 ©2000 2:028: 02600::

0*

 

0.5.500
bwcobm

30:08

00.2 82:09 :0 000000
300200: 005 00300000
.33

0:00—0:02

000.: 000“ w2>0n
00300000 3000
5.5 .202 00050

$00200: w:0.=0
200% 0000—00
00803 0n

00 .8233 00:
2002302 005
00300.00: 000
08030:: 200m
000_0> 300200.:
.20 0004

002200000000 32000
0:0 20:52:80 00000.82

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.530

2|

 

160

 

8.. E as

83% 0:5 ABS—mama
8 80882088 0 mm
0005 mag—mama .8088
080003 005 830008
0: :3 .8082 9 000208

083888_ b0>
080 now 080 8.88
0030088 .980

.8 0.02 0050003
802080

8 000— $523M
80882088

9 0082

08— 8:0Em0m
002? .808 05
0:08:08 .8 0004
@5550
80308 380m
w8>=

.8 $000 8&5
08—

0300385— 3
x02 8 .8800 0:

30088 9 300 0082 :05
8.« 888 020008 3:0Em0m
002838880 88.80

 

 

 

tcmqsm 300080 8: mm 30“ mm: 380380 £85m 3:3 0,8028% 05 8088880 v0>o88_ 2%
8:08.88
0:0 .8800
3 x02 080003
802080
000300. 8882 0. 08— 3:0Em0m
080308 :0 088800 80882050 33.8
3000 803 :50chde 35 8300808 8300—3 380» 03888800
:3 8882 02808 05 $80 8080 3.80800 088 00>: .080200M
toqasm 00 :80 :080 0 8080 0S 380288 mucocom 80308 ~80om 0800—50898 00>088_ N E
0008 003mm: 8 3300—0 3:3
80880 8 333: 308 .8 08800 8 80308 03: <
£80800 0: .0m $0823 80308 80 98.3 80882080 080gma¢8 00888—
20800 808308 0 :30 808—30 8: 0000 8889 2 0:0— 00:88080 9:800
bwcobm 03 080 8080030.: 0 ﬂ 0: 005 8300808 000— 080200m 080 8088880 00>088~ o;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

161

 

0803089 0830
:08 00300008

080308 800m

00805
3088008

8 000.3
300803 03 8:
08830 83.82
3033 0030008

00000883 :80
0. 3888080 0>03 08003033

 

 

8m: 083:0 .0038 w80:80 0000088
.8388 :0 8:800 .3000 :88 00:08.38 00888880 88.80
3885 088.80 0:0 38. .3833 380380 380:0m 0>80m0Z 0:0 8088880 00000.88 can
80308
0 3 0038 00383
88 ~08 8: on
83.82
>3 00:00.83 088800.88 80888—
80.“ 8: on 380NA 8.3 030a 0.82
80882080 80888 00000883 :30
088 80> 38:03 8 3888880 0>03 0808033
000 03 3:03 300.88 88:30:00 30.0 0:0 08008 08008 0000088
388:0 383 0.83 00880800 030008 .3000 00888880
bw83m 0:0 :0800308 0 3 03 380380 380:0m 88:00 0000088 mg
000:098 W83—
030.a 000m 8030 8 00000008
0m8..3 83.88 3033 88088 00:8
80:03 8 0008000: 030008 8: 000D 80308 800m
3.88:0 .8 0.00— 008003 83.88 8.8803 83880: 0. 0:0
8: 000D :0 0:800 8800 :03: 00333 3000 000— 0808033 88:00 8 8000088 385 m :0

 

 

 

 

 

080385.

 

 

 

 

162

 

 

 

 

0003 08880088 008883 0
8080—3 00888080
03 8 .8388 88:00 0000088 0
83.88 8: 30003308 08880
808:0 :0 00:88 80:08 .3000 0030085 00033003 8: .8888
.3888 0:008 8388 0383... 380380 330:0m 083308 800m .8 0.303 8 80808883 0 3.3
088008 088 08003008 0
08880088 008883 0
0803308 0w8>3 .8 0:00:30 8383 o
.3000 00>:
8.3 83:00 082308 800m 8 .3308 .3888: 808883 c
088 3:03 83.88 :0 33803 03888 00888880 88:00
83 8088 0:808 8800 0.83.0.3 0800 08 803< 088 0m83h 0:0 8088880 0000088 0 mmu
8388 8:
30008308 08 :0
0080—3 03 88030 0080> 00888880 88:00
083308 8000 0:08:00 8 000..— 0:0 8088880 0000088 0
8388 3033 0030088 080_308 800m 0800300:
:0 00:88 80888088 3000 03880.0 030 8080 0033:8880
888m 3300—803 0033 0030088 380380 080:0m 088 0833... 0008003 0000088 0 0%
088.
808 08.3.30 :00 08083008 o
8088 80333 00>:
EO—DOHQ DD ———3 MO ~A~——NDU war—O—vmmpn U0>OHQEH O
8388 8388 :0 00:88 088 0030008 00888880
8 86:88 80880—080 330380..— 83 .8388 88:00 0000088 0
000 8 3:03 0033 0030008 .=08>O 383 83308 83003
0:0 888m .8803 3.080 0 0:30 0: 0030088 080003 380300: 802 0 mg

 

 

 

 

 

8:080:20
83 8080 8: 00

 

 

 

 

163

 

82:2,: é

um: mo 3:95 35895

 

 

 

 

Eats“: so 2596 Q: c2858 353 53c» 2: 8m 33038
masoSEmm—nﬁmo mo commem 335533 9:53
toga Eat—.3 55 x83 $80 mos—S, 3:023: 25 Evie—a8» @0882: o
bwcobm E382: zzﬁﬂ >52 £30330 mausom no v.84 chaosbmacﬁ 355:: o 3%
maﬁa—arcane
$0525 33805 a
Bow 822 o
BESS $3 “on? mm :03 85:8.“
2033 :0 $533 $3.80 :80: 380 33? 3:03:33 5258 we b=Ew=m>< o
bwcobm a ~33 8.83 85mm .3533 ﬂaccom mo 33 mag: .«o Esta—3m 380.85 o amt
3:2 :05
82 3.828%
:ozmvﬁwoc
Ecoﬁnohzm
bmcaﬁﬁoo
5 3263858 obdoEHmatcm @3895 a
mac: 630a @6283 33205 0
28.5.9 £5an 38m wE>= mo Eng—Sm 33805 a
comma so $233 @158 $80 033098 3558 88805 0
bwcobm dag—05c x mm 65mm £92330 mEocom 808 mwﬁﬁ. £38m BEE—cam 0 mm“
coca—om
.8:oE:0:>:m
3308

 

 

 

Gm mmocv>mm0£00

 

5255 29: 33:3

 

 

 

164

APPENDIX J — INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT (RESPONDENT 31)

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:

“Can you share with me about the development that Langkawi has

undergone lately, like since 10 years ago? Did you realize about the
development? "

“ Yes. Langkawi has developed so much since that time, about 10 years ago,

since it became a duty-free island. And since then, Langkawi has been
developed to attract many tourists. "

“ Is tourism the main economic activity in Langkawi? "

“ Yes, it is. All these developments that take place in Langkawi are related

to tourism. Tourism is the reason Langkawi has become what it is today, I
mean more advanced than before. ”

“ So, the local economy depends on tourism a whole lot? ”

“ Yes, I mean, tourism in Langkawi is quite important not just to Langkawi,

but also to Malaysia. The government wants tourism to be an important
sector in the country '3 economy. "

“ Has tourism development changed your life or your family ’s life? "

“ Economically it has. Since tourists began to come to Langkawi in big

numbers, my father started to open this stall, selling fried bananas. As the
development expanded, Langkawi became more attractive to tourists and
more of them come to Langkawi. This has brought many customers to my
father ’3 business and now the business is doing very well. We sell many
diﬂerent foods here today. ”

“ What did your father do for a living before the development? "

“ He worked at the rice ﬁeld and did other jobs around the village. His

earning was not ﬁxed. I don 't remember noticing him saving any money.
But he received some money when my grandfather sold oﬂ his land. I think
he used that money to start this stall. ”

“ Who did your father sell his land to? ”

“ Actually he did not intend to sell it. It so happened that the government

was building a road, and a bit of my grandfather '3 land was involved. So,
the government paid some money to my grandfather for that. "

“ Does your father or your grandfather have anymore land? ”

I65

Respondent:

Interviewer: ‘

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:

“ No, only the land where our house is on now. My grandfather passed

away last two years. I don 't think my grandfather had anymore land
either. ”

‘ What are the other changes that you observe due to tourism? "

“ The infrastructure has improved in the area where I live. Last time it was

bad, Langawi was bad. There were not many good roads around
Langkawi. I remember....my elder siblings had a hard time going to
school because the road ’5 condition was bad. Especially during rainy
days, sometimes they missed schools because the road was bad. Other
facilities have also been developed like the telephone lines and the
hospital. Especially near the town area, it really looks diﬂerent. It is more
beautiful now. ”

‘How about your village, does it look beautiful? ”

“ Well, my village still, you know, is a village. But many basic facilities are

I!

built here. But they don ’t beautiﬁ» the village like they do in the town.

‘Socially, have you changed because of tourism? ”

“ I think I have because I am now more receptive towards the tourists. I am

able to communicate better with the tourists. I go out often with my friends
to just see the places around Langkawi. That is all. ”

‘ What about your community, what are the changes in your community

have you observed, which are due to tourism? "

“ In my community, there are more people working now because there are

many job opportunities, especially in the tourism sector. If they don 't
work, they usually have some business going on. The development
requires many workers, like in the hotels and the shops. So, there is less
unemployment in the community. The people can earn more money now to
allow them to buy things. ”

‘So you think that tourism brings many beneﬁts to the people of Langkawi,

including you? "

“ Yes, many beneﬁts. I think tourism is enabling us to live more comfortably

and to know about other diﬂerent cultures. I am proud whenever I could
explain things to the tourists. "

‘Has tourism cause any negative impacts to you or to other people? "

166

I”

Respondent: “ To me.... ? No. Some people think that tourism only beneﬁt certain people
who are lucky enough to take advantage of the situation, but I think they
are just lazy people. I think they beneﬁt from the development too, but just
because they don ’t want to do anything, they feel mad at other people who
do. I think that is not fair. This is our chance to change our life, we are all
lucky actually. I think other people in other parts of Malaysia would die
for this kind of opportunity. Langkawi is blessed with its ability to become
a tourist destination. Other places do not have what Langkawi has. I

support tourism entirely. "

167

APPENDIX K — INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT (RESPONDENT 25)

Interviewer: “How about your community, how did tourism development change
the community where you live? "

Respondent: “Nowadays, the people here are better off it used to be, it was very
difﬁcult for us to ﬁnd jobs and get money. You see, last time, the
person who sold ‘cucur ' at the roadside, it was diﬂicult to sell even 2
‘cucur ', no body wanted to buy. Nowadays, she could easily sell Off
100 of them, sometimes even 100 is not enough. You see, how good
their lives now, compared to last time, they are much better oﬂ If
they say that they are not better off now, I just do not know what to

I

say.
Interviewer: “I see, so the people '3 ability have increased?"

Respondent: "Sure, their ability to earn have really increased. Last time, it was
really hard. "

Interviewer: "Do you support tourism in Langkawi then? "

Respondent: “Surely I do, we all do, jobs are easy to get. And the young people
too, they all have jobs now. Both of my children are working at the
factories. There were no factories before, you just depend on
catching ﬁsh, that was all. Now, the young people have more
opportunities, job opportunities and this is good for them. Even the
girls in the area could work now and this helps their parents. Even if
you only pass LCE, you can still ﬁnd a job now. Even if you only go
to school until grade six, at least if you now how to read, you can
already find a job you see. There are jobs in the hotels, even with the
government. It used to be that parents were worried because their
children could not get any jobs after they finished their schooling. "

Interviewer: “What do you feel about the changes? ”

Respondent: “What do you mean? ”

Interviewer: “I mean, do you feel good about the change, or do you feel burden
by the changes? ”

Respondent: “Oh, no no, no burden at all, why burden? "

Interviewer: “Well, some people say that things are more expensive nowadays
compared to before the development. "

168

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

“I don 't feel it. We can earn more now. I do not know about others,
but with the earnings we can buy more, well, as much as we could
afford. If we cannot afford it, then don ’t buy. Don ’t you think so? If
things are expensive and you cannot afford to buy, then don 't buy
them. It is that simple, don ’t you agree? ”

“T hat is a good way of thinking. So, if there were no tourism in
Langkawi, how would Langkawi be? ”

"If there is no tourism, Langkawi will be like before, no development,
no progress. There will be nothing in Langkawi. Lives will be hard.
Now, lives are easier compared to before. "

“So you see no problem with tourism? "

"No, no problems at all. Nobody is unemployed, and that is
important. ”

“Do you support tourism in your area? "

“Of course I do. More tourism is better because then we can have
more jobs, and we can earn more money. "

“As aﬁsherman who depends on the environment, do you observe
any problem with the environment now, after tourism? "

"Last time, there were not too many people. But there were plenty of
ﬁsh. Now, there are many people, but the catch is smaller. But,
although we had bigger catch before, we could get less money than
we get now. This is because, the price of the ﬁsh or the prawns is
higher. 1 kilogram of prawns could only be sold for 4 ringgit, but
today we can sell I kilogram of prawns for 27 ringgit. Just like for
example, last time, with 1 ringgit one could go to the coffee stall to
drink with friends, today, we cannot drink coﬂee with just one
ringgit, but...to ﬁnd money is easier. So you see, it is hard to say
about the changes. There is always good and bad about any thing. "

”Have you ever been involved in meetings about the development in
your area? Do you participate? ”

“Yes, I do go to meetings whenever they have meetings. I do not
really participate. Whenever they ask for opinions, I would always
say, ‘it is up to you, if you say this plan is good, that it is good '.
Ha...ha, you know, as long as it is going to bring good things to us,
we will always support. Why should we object? If we object, and
then they give us money, then maybe that is ﬁne. If we object, we do

169

not get even a dime, so I think it is better that we do not object, but
just follow. At least, if we support, the chance that we are going to
get a dime is there. "

170

APPENDIX L - INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT (RESPONDENT 5)

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:
Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

“How has tourism beneﬁt or eﬂect your life? "

“Tourism brings more threats than beneﬁts, especially to the younger
generations. T hey follow the foreign culture very easily. ”

“But how about to yourself how has tourism beneﬁts or poses costs to your
own life? How has your life change due to tourism? ”

“In some cases, yes, I do beneﬁt from the development. Like when a part of
my land is involved with the airport development plan, so I did receive
some direct beneﬁts from cases like that. But, I cannot say that I used that
money for my business, because I already had the capital even before that.
I was a contractor even before the tourism development, so, I cannot say
that my life has beneﬁt so much from tourism. "

“How about the community of Langkawi, how has tourism changed them? ”
“Tourism hasn 't really brought direct beneﬁts to them. "

“Did many of them take advantage of the situation and did something for
their future, for example by opening businesses or things like that? ”

“Oh, no, only very few did like that. Really very few. "
“ ow do you evaluate the changes brought by tourism development in your
area? Do you see tourism brought in the beneﬁts or costs to the
residents? ”

“Beneﬁts? What beneﬁts? The tourists, especially those who have big
money, they come and stay in big hotels, they don ’t come to stay in small
places owned by the residents. Most of the time, contracts for big projects
are not put out for tender, they just came and began the project with their
own contractors. We had never heard about the projects before that at all.
In fact, even LADA does that, they would usually have their own
contractors already when they started any development projects. The local
contractors only get small jobs, leftover jobs. "

“They choose certain contractors only? ”

“Yeah, like I said, they bring in their own contractors and they don ’t open
the jobs for tenders. Only certain people would get the job. "

Interviewer: “Don ’t the residents gain anything at all from the tourism development?”

171

,-
.' ‘

I ' ' - _- .
up . A ~‘ I '

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

Interviewer:

Respondent:

“I don 't see the residents gain very much. From my observation, the
residents who start any businesses, their businesses have not improved ever
since they started. For example, one resident opens a souvenir shop. It will
be hard for his business to flourish if he does not give good commissions to
the tourist guides. The tourist guides would not bring the tourists to your
shop if they can get better commissions somewhere else. And it is hard to
compete with the other big businesses in terms of commissions. "

“How about the costs from tourism? Do you feel that tourism imposed costs
to you or to your community? "

“I don ’t feel the cost to myself personally but I know that the community
suﬂers because what is happening to the young people. The young people
are inﬂuenced easily to do the strange things, especially if they go to the
entertainment spots in the hotels or elsewhere. There are even incidents
where the school children are involved. They drink and socialize in ways
that are so unlike our culture. The beers are cheap, I think they are 80
cents per can. They are very tempted to try the drink, and sometimes they
continue drinking. Many shops, even in small villages, sell that stuﬂf And
there is no way of stopping people to buy the stuﬁf so it is easily
accessible. "

“Do you support tourism in Langkawi? ”
“I support tourism if it doesn 't bring bad things to us, but now we know it is
able to make bad things to happen. Thus, I am not really keen for them to

development tourism any further. They need to control these things too. ”

“Do you plan to take advantage of what tourism development has to oﬂer by
getting involved in the tourism sector yourself? "

llNo. "

“My is that? ”

“I see that it is dtﬂicult to do anything successﬁdly here. I am a contractor,
and I ﬁnd business elsewhere, not in Langkawi. I have businesses outside

Langkawi, in the mainland. "

“Do you feel that you have the power or ability to be involved in the
development planning of your community? ”

“The problem is that you do not know anything about whatever plans they

have. They just develop, they don’t let us know anything. They don ’t discuss
with us, the residents, or ask our opinions. Nothing whatsoever. I don ’t

172

know if anybody else get any information about their plans, but I certainly
don ’t. "

Interviewer: ”Can I safely say that you do not want tourism in the future of Langkawi ? "

Respondent: “Yes, you can say that I don ’t think tourism is the way to develop Langkawi.
There are more bad things about tourism. "

Interviewer: “But the residents ’ income did increase because of tourism? "

Respondent: “I don 't deny that they have more income now. But the additional income
cannot help ﬁx the damage. For example, they get an additional 1,000
ringgit per month, especially those young people, they used to not have
jobs before. But, at the same time, their generations are ruined, and that is
permanent, the 1,000 is not permanent because they are going to spend this
money. The damage that happens in the society, it is going to be with the

society for a long time. We need to look at this thing this way, we cannot
evaluate everything based on money. ”

173

LITERATURE CITED

Allen, R., P. Long, R. Purdue, and S. Kieselbach. (1988). The impact of tourism
development on residents’ perceptions of community life. Journal of Travel
Research. 27(1): 16-21.

Ap, J. (1992). Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research,
19: 665-690.

ATLAS.ti [Computer software]. (1998). Thousand Oaks, CA: Scolari, Sage Publications
Software.

Baldwin, D. A. (1989). Paradoxes of Power. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Bakar, Z. A. (1997). “Langkawi: Into the Next Millennium.” New Straits Times Special
Report. July 28: 13-13.

Belisle, F. J. and D. R. Hoy. (1980). The perceived impact of tourism by residents: A
case study in Santa Marta, Columbia. Annals of Tourism Research, 7: 83-101.

Berg, B. L. (1995). Qualitative Research Methods for Social Sciences. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.

Bilinski, R. (1969). The problem of participation in community development. In:
Wallace, L. T., D. Hobbs, and R. D. Vlasin (eds.). Selected Perspectives for
Community Resource Development. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North
Carolina: Agricultural Policy Institute.

Blau, P. M. (1967). Exchange and Power in Social Life. rev. edition. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.

Brohman, J. (1996). New directions in tourism for third world development. Annals of
Tourism Research, 23 (1): 48-70.

Brougham, J. and R. Butler. (1981). A segmentation analysis of resident attitudes to the
social impact of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 8 (4): 569-590.

Brown, F. (1998). Tourism Reassessed: Blight or Blessing? Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.

Brunt, P., and P. Courtney (1999). “Host Perceptions of Sociocultural Impacts.” Annals
of Tourism Research, 26 (3): 493-595.

Bull, A. (1995). The Economics of Travel and Tourism. (2"d ed.) Melbourne: Longman.

174

Burns, P. and A. Holden. (1995). Tourism: A New Perspective. London: Prentice-Hall.

Butler, R. (1975). Tourism as an agent of change. In Helleiner (ed.): Tourism as a Factor
in National and Regional Development. Occasional Paper No. 4. Peterborough,
Ontario: Department of Geography Trent University.

Butler, R. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for
management of resources. Canadian Geographer 24: 5-12.

Cartwright, D.(1959). Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research,
The University of Michigan.

Chesney-Lind, M. and I. Y. Lind (1986). Visitors as victims: Crimes against tourists in
Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research, 13: 167-191.

Cleverdon, R. (1979). The Economic and Social Impact of International Tourism on
Developing Countries. EIU Special Report No. 60. London: The Economist
Intelligence Unit.

Cohen, E. (1979). Rethinking the sociology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 6
(28): .

Cohen, E. (1982). Thai girls and Farang men: The age of ambiguity. Annals of Tourism
Research, 9: 403-428.

Cohen, E. (1984). The sociology of tourism: Approaches, issues, and ﬁndings. Annual
Review of Sociology 10: 373-392.

Coppock, J .T. (1977). Tourism as a tool for regional development. In: Dufﬁeld, B. S.
(ed.) Tourism: A T 001 for Regional Development. Edinburgh: Tourism and Recreation
Research Unit, University of Edinburgh.

Cooke, K. (1982). Guidelines for socially appropriate tourism development in British
Colombia. Journal of Travel Research. 21: 22-28.

Dann, G. M. S. (1984). Santa Marta revisited: Comments on Belisle and Boy’s “The
Perceived Impact of Tourism by Residents: A Case Study in Santa Marta, Columbia”.
Annals of Tourism Research, 11: 292-296.

Din, K.H. (1989). Towards an integrated approach to tourism development: Observations
from Malaysia. In: Singh, T.V., Theuns, H.L., and Go, F .M. (eds). Towards
Appropriate Tourism: The Case of Developing Countries. Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang.

Din, Abdul-Kadir. (1990). ‘Bumr'putera ’ Entrepreneurship in the Penang-Langkawi
Tourist Industry. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Hawaii.

175

Dogan, H. Z. (1989). Forms of adjustment: Sociocultural impacts of tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 16 : 216-236.

Doxey, G. V. (1976). A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: methodology and
research inferences. In Impact of Tourism (pp 195-208). Salt Lake City: The Travel
Research Association.

‘ Emerson, Richard M. (1962). Power-Dependence Relations. American Sociological
Review. 27: 31 — 41.

Faulkner, B. and Tideswell, C. (1997). A framework for monitoring community impacts
of tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 5(1): 3 — 28.

Forster, J. (1964). The sociological consequences of tourism. International Journal of
Comparative Sociology 5:217 - 227.

Graburn, N. H. (1983). Tourism and prostitution. Annals of Tourism Research, 10: 43 7-
442.

Greenwood, D. J. (1972). Tourism as an agent of change: A Spanish basque case.
Ethnology. 11(1): 80-91.

Guba E. G. and Y. S. Lincoln (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds): Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 105-
117. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

‘ Hall, C. M. (1994). Tourism and Politics: Power, Policy and Place. London: John Wiley
and Sons.

Haralambopoulos, N., and A. Pizam (1996). “Perceived Impacts of Tourism: The Case of
Samos.” Annals of Tourism Research, 23 (3):503-26.

. Harrison, D. (1992). “International Tourism and the Less Developed Countries: The
Background.” In: Harrison, D. (ed.), Tourism and the Less Developed Countries.
London: Belhaven Press.

Harsanyi, J. (1971). “The Dimension and Measurement of Social Power.” In: Rothschild,
K. W. (ed), Power in Economics. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd.

Haralambopoulos, N. and A. Pizam (1996). Perceived impacts of tourism: The case of
Samos. Annals of Tourism Research, 23 (3): 503-526.

Henderson, K. A. (1991). Dimensions of Choice: A Qualitative Approach to Recreation,
Parks, and Leisure Research. State College, PA: Venture

176

Henry, G. T. (1990). Practical Sampling. Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol.
21. New bury Park: Sage.

Hernandez, S. A., J. Cohen, and H. L. Garcia (1996). “Residents’ Attitudes Towards an
Instant Resort Enclave.” Annals of Tourism Research, 23 (4):755—79.

Hiebert, M. (1998). Paradise Lost: Would-be tourist mecca in Malaysia needs a new
strategy. Far Eastern Economic Review July 23: 56-57.

Jafari, Jafar. (1973). Role of Tourism in the Socio-Economic Transformation of
Developing Countries. Published M.A. thesis. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.

‘ ' Jenkins, C. L. (1994). Tourism in developing countries: the privatisation issue. In A. V.

Seaton (Ed), Tourism the state of the art (pp3-9). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.

Johnson, J. D., D. J. Snepenger, and S. Akis (1994). “Residents’ Perceptions of Tourism
Development.” Annals of Tourism Research, 21 (3):629-42.

Jurowski, C., M. Uysal, and D. R. William (1997). “A Theoretical Analysis of Host
Resident Reactions to Tourism.” Journal of Travel Research, Fall: 3-11.

Kaplowitz, MD. (1997). Improving Economic Valuation Studies by Using Qualitative
Methods. Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan State University.

Krueger, R. A. (1998). Moderating Focus Groups — Focus Group Kit 4. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Kuzel, A. J. (1992). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller
(Eds), Doing Qualitative Research (pp. 31-44) (Research Method for Primary Care
Series, Vol. 3. Newbury Park: Sage.

LaFlamme, A. G. (1979). The impact of tourism: A case from the Bahamas Islands.
Annals of Tourism Research, 6 : 137-148.

Langkawi District Council (1992). Langkawi Structure Plan 1990-2005. Government
Gazette No. 1, Notice No. 8, Volume 35, Dated 9th January 1992. Department of
Town and Country Planning, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia.

Langkawi Island Development Authority (1999). Kajian Kependudukan Sosioekonomi
Pulau Langkawi. Langkawi: Langkawi Island Deve10pment Authority.

Lankford, S. V. (1994). Attitudes and perceptions toward tourism and rural regional
development. Journal of Travel Research. 32 (4): 35-43.

Lankford, S. V. and Howard, D. R. (1994). Developing a tourism impact attitude scale.
Annals of Tourism Research. 21:121-139.

177

Lankford, S.V., A. Williams, and J. Knowles-Lankford (1997). “Perceptions of Outdoor
Recreation Opportunities and Support for Tourism Development.” Journal of Travel
Research, 36 (4): 65-69.

Lea, J. (1988). Tourism and Development in the Third World. London: Routledge.

Lederman, L. C. (1990). Accessing educational effectiveness: the focus group interview
as a technique for data collection. Communication Education 38: 117-127.

Lincoln, Y. S. and E. G. Guba (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications.

Liu, J .C. and Var, T. (1986). Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii. Annals
of Tourism Research 13: 193 — 214.

Macnaught, T. J. (1982). Mass tourism and the dilemmas of modernization inPaciﬁc
Island communities. Annals of Tourism Research, 9 : 359-381.

Mahathir, M. (1997). “Langkawi: Into the Next Millennium.” New Straits Times Special
Report. July 28: 1-1.

Majlis Amanah Rakyat Langkawi (1998). Brieﬁng notes on the activities for MARA
Langkawi, presented to the General Manager. Langkawi: Majlis Amanah Rakyat
Langkawi.

Marshall, C. and G. B. Rossman. (1989). Designing Qualitative Research. Newbury
Park: Sage.

Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. (1985). Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts.
London: Longrnan.

Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Applied
Social Research Method Series, vol. 41. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

McCool, S. F. and S. R. Martin. (1994). Community attachment and attitudes toward
tourism development. Journal of Travel Research. 32(3): 29-34.

McDonough, M. H. and Wheeler, C. W. (1998). Toward School and Community
Collaboration in Social Forestry: Lesson from the Thai Experience. Washington,
DC: ABEL Clearinghouse for Basic Education Academy for Educational
Development.

McElroy, J. L. and K. de Albuquerque (1986). The tourism demonstration effect in the
Carribean. Journal of Travel Research 25: 31-34.

178

Miles, M. B. and A. M. Huberman. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook (2”! ed. ). Thousand Oaks: Sage

Milman, A. and A. Pizam. (1988). Social impacts of tourism on Central Florida. Annals
of Tourism Research, 15 : 191-204.

Mighot-Adholla, SE. (1989). Toward alternative tourism in Kenya. In: Singh, T.V.,
Theuns, H.L., and Go, F.M. (eds). Towards Appropriate Tourism: The Case of
Developing Countries. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Mohamed Shariff, R. (1981). Versi-versi Mahsuri Dalam Konteks Sosio-budaya Dan
Perbandingan. B.A. Thesis. Universiti Malaya.

Murphy, P. E. ((1985). Tourism: A Community Approach. New York: Methuen.

Nagel, J .H. (1975). The Descriptive Analysis of Power. New Haven, London: Yale
University Press.

Napier, T. L. and E. G. Bryant. (1980). Attitudes toward outdoor recreation development:
An application exchange theory. Leisure Sciences. 3: 169-187.

Noronha, R. (1979). Paradise revisited: Tourism in Bali. In deKadt, E. (ed.): Tourism:
Passport to Development? Pp. 177-204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

North Review (1995). Langkawi Soars to Greater Heights. Published brochure. Alor
Setar, Kedah: The State Government of Kedah Darul Aman.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park:
Sage.

Peck, J .G., and A. S. Lepie (1989). “Tourism and Development in Three North Carolina
Coastal Towns.” In: V. Smith (ed.), Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism
(2“ ed. ). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., and Allen, L. (1990). Resident support for tourism
development. Annals of Tourism Research. 17:586-599.

Perez, L. A. (1973/4). Aspects of underdevelopment: tourism in the West Indies. Science
and Society. 37: 473-480.

Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and
Contemporary Approaches. Colorado: Westview Press.

Pizam, A. (1978). Tourism’s impacts: The social costs tot he destination community as
perceived by the residents. Journal of Travel Research 16(4): 8-12.

179

Richter, D. (1978). The tourist art market as a factor in social change. Annals of Tourism
Research. V (3): 323-338.

Romeril, M. (1989). Tourism — the environmental dimension. In: Cooper, P.C. (ed).
Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management. London: Belhaven
Press.

Ross, G. F. (1992). Resident perceptions of the impact of tourism on an Australian city.
Journal of Travel Research, 30 (Winter): 13-17.

Rothman, R. (1978). Residents and Transients: Community reaction to seasonal visitors.
Journal of Travel Research. 16(3): 8 - 13.

Ruderstorrn, K. E. and R. R. Newton. (1992). Surviving Your Dissertation: A
Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process. Newbury Park: Sage.

Ryan, C. and D. Montgomery. (1994). The attitude of Bakewell residents to tourism and
issues in community response tourism. Tourism Management. 15: 358-369.

Sakdan, M. F., N. A. Marzuki, C. S. Mustafa, R. Yusof, and M. T. Arifﬁn. (1995). Sikap
Masyarakat Melayu T erhadap Pembangunan Pelancongan di Pulau Langkawi.
Sintok, Kedah: Sekolah Pembangunan Sosial, Universiti Utara Malaysia.

Samuelson, P.A., Nordhaus, W. D. and Mandel, M. J. (1995). Economics. New York:
McGraw-Hills.

Sethna, R. J. and B. 0. Richmond (1978). US. Virgin Islander’s perceptions of tourism.
Journal of Travel Research. 17 (Summer): 30-31.

Sharpley, R. (1994) Tourism, Tourists and Society. Huntingdon: ELM.

Skidmore, W. (1975). Theoretical Thinking in Sociology. New York/London: Cambridge
University Press.

Smith, V. (1988). Geographical implications of ‘Drrfter' tourism: Boracay, Philippines.

Paper presented to the Symposium on Tourism, 13m — 20th August, Christchurch,
New Zealand: International Geographical Union.

Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and Software Tools. New York:
Falrner.

180

Thomason, P., J. Crompton, and B. Karnp (1979). A study of the attitudes of impacted
groups within a host community toward prolonged stay of tourist visitors. Journal of
Travel Research. 17: 2-6.

Turner, 1. and Ash, J. (1975). The Golden Hordes: International Tourism and the Pleasure
Periphery. London: Constable.

UNESCO (1976). The effects of tourism n sociocultural values. Annals of Tourism
Research, 4: 74-105.

Wall, G. and Ali, 1. (1977). The impact of tourism in Trinidad and Tobago. Annals of
Tourism Research. 5 (Special Number): 43 - 49.

Wayakone, S. (1999). The Impacts of Tourism Development and Resource Assessment in
Langkawi, Malaysia: Analyses and Expert System Development. Ph.D. Dissertation.
Serdang, Selangor: Universiti Putra Malaysia.

Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative
Interview Studies. New York: The Free Press.

Wilkinson, P. F. (1989). Strategies for tourism in island microstates. Annals of Tourism
Research. 16(2): 153-177.

Wolfe, D. M. (1959). Power and authority in the family. In Cartwright, D. (Ed), Studies
in Social Power. (pp 99-117). Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The
University of Michigan.

Yow, V. R. (1994). Recording Oral History: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Zainuddin, D. (1997). “Langkawi: Into the Next Millennium.” New Straits Times Special
Report. July 28: 3-3.

181

Ilv '0

I

.1

(IE...

’4. in.