10.18601/01207555.n30.12
EVALUATING THE EXPECTATIONS OF RESIDENTS REGARDING THE POSITIVE IMPACTS OF TOURISM1
EVALUAR LAS EXPECTATIVAS DE LOS RESIDENTES SOBRE LOS IMPACTOS POSITIVOS HACIA EL TURISMO
Yusuf Karaus
Ph. D. en Gestión y Producción de Marketing
de la Universidad Nevşehir HBV
Asistente de la Facultad de Turismo
en la Universidad Nevşehir HBV
Turquía
[yKarakus@Nevşehir.edu.tr]
1 Para citar el artículo: Karaus, Y. (2022). Evaluating the expectations of residents for the positive impacts towards tourism. Turismo y Sociedad, vol. XXX, pp. 231-247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18601/01207555.n30.12
Fecha de recepción: 8 de mayo de 2020 Fecha de modificación: 9 de septiembre de 2020 Fecha de aceptación: 13 de noviembre de 2020
Introduction
According to the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTCC, 2018) data, the tourism is a sector where more than 108 million people work, and more than 1 billion 323 million people participate according to the World Tourism Organization (WTO) data, and in 2016, 1.2 trillion dollars is spent (WTO, 2018). The tourism sector, which has such a large volume, is a widespread forecast that it will continue to grow in the future. Indeed, the WTO's 2030 forecasts support this prediction (e-unwto.org, 2017).
The success of tourism is very important especially for underdeveloped and developing countries. However, it will not be easy to carry out successful tourism activities in a situation which is not supported by residents (Choi & Murray, 2010; Sautter & Leisen, 1999; Tosun, 2002). The tourism industry, which has some positive and negative impacts at the place of occurrence, will be able to receive support from residents according to their perception. In other words, when residents evaluate the impacts of tourism, if perceived benefits are greater than perceived costs, they will not resist or even support the development of tourism. (Ap, 1992; Gursoy, Jurowski, & Uysal, 2002; Jurowski, Uysal, & Williams, 1997; Lindberg & Johnson, 1997; Perdue, Long & Allen, 1990; Yoon, Gursoy, & Chen, 2001). However, if the residents perceive the costs of tourism more, they will not want and resist the development of tourism in the region. Therefore, it is important to know the perception of the host community against tourism impacts before carrying out any tourism development project in a region (Tosun, 2000, 2006). Especially in the regions where the residents are isolated from the tourism with the effect of mass tourism, other stakeholders benefit from the advantages of tourism rather than the residents, while the residents assume the cost more.
In this study, "Cappadocia" region which is a very important destination of the Turkey is discussed. The region, which accepts more than two million visitors annually (Anadolu Agency, 2018), is heavily involved in mass tourism and the interaction of residents with tourism is limited (Karameşe. 2014). It is a well-known fact that despite its high potential, the region does not get enough share from tourism market (Karakuş. & Çoban, 2018; Karamustafa et al., 2015). In order to make more effective use of the potential of the region, getting more support from residents can be considered as an effective tool.
Since it is important to get as many stakeholders as possible in the decision-making mechanisms in tourism regions (Karakuş. & Çoban, 2018), it is inevitable that residents will have an influence in destination management. Therefore, residents' perceptions need to be managed.
Destination management organizations (DMO), which will manage these perceptions, should see residents as both a steak holder (Sheehan & Ritchie, 2005) and a component of the tourism product (Smith, 1994). In both cases, residents' perception of tourism impacts should be under the direction of the DMOs. Only in this way will it be possible for residents to support tourism (Tournois & Djeric, 2018).
When we assume that the achievement of successful tourism activities in a destination depends on the support of the residents, an important finding that needs to be put forward is the evaluation of the expectations of residents about the impacts of tourism. In other words, it is necessary to answer the question of what impacts the residents expect in order to support tourism. In this study, the expectations of the residents living in Cappadocia for the positive impacts of tourism were evaluated. As a result of the expectations, DMOs may have obtained a starting point for performing the necessary activities. The expectations of the residents were evaluated with the Kano Model (KM). In this way, if the expectations are met, it will be possible to show indirectly how much the residents can support tourism. This method will be able to present findings about which level of satisfaction of an individual by meeting which expectations. In other words, it helps to identify the factors that can affect the residents' support at the highest level. At this point there are some dilemmas that DMO's will face. It is not possible to meet all the expectations of individuals. It is therefore difficult to choose which expectations should be met. However, each expectation generates different levels of satisfaction if met. An activity to be performed may have less positive results than the opportunity cost. Since KM addresses not only the met expectations, but also the attitudes that will arise if they are not met, it will be possible to obtain very important findings. Obtaining these findings will provide information that will be input to the decision making mechanism for tourism activities of the region. Therefore, it will be possible to realize more successful strategies, projects or policies.
1. Conceptual framework
Tourism is very complex in nature and has a wide range of stakeholders. One of the most important stakeholders for the success of tourism is the local community (Andriotis, 2005; Byrd et al., 2009). It is very difficult to create successful tourism activities without the supports of residents which are part of tourism product (Hall & Boyd, 2005). In other words, one of the prerequisites for the success of tourism is the attitude of the residents towards tourism (García et al., 2015). As Pizam (1978) points out, the residents who perceive the impact of tourism negatively, can be hostile to the tourists and cause a decrease in the attractiveness of the destination. Even the beliefs and attitudes of the residents may cause tourists to refuse certain destinations in their choice of destination (Karakuş & Kalay, 2017). In other words, destinations where residents do not support tourism may no longer be an alternative to the consumer purchasing process. Especially the attitudes of residents towards tourism are very important in regions where the residents' participation in tourism is limited. When we consider the attitudes of residents within the scope of Theory of Reasoned Actions (Sarver, 1983), their perceptions about the impacts towards tourism will determine their attitudes towards the development of tourism (García et al., 2015).
Exploring the impacts of tourism on a particular region is an important endeavor for all levels of destination stakeholders. Naturally, this effort is also important for understanding the degree of residents' response to tourism development in their regions. Since residents are both stakeholders and part of tourism in a region (Karakuş., 2017), handling the impact of tourism is the basis of the success of a destination (Deery et al., 2012).
At this point, it is important to note that there are various studies that focus on the economic, socio-cultural and environmental aspects of tourism (García et al., 2015). Similarly, support for tourism development occurs when tourism meets economic, social and psychological needs of society (Ap, 1992). For this reason, it is vital to examine the factors that affect how tourism is perceived by the host society on the basis of these three basic dimensions and to link tourism support to these dimensions (Andereck et al., 2005; García et al., 2015; Liu & Var, 1986; Mason, 2008; Mathieson & Wall, 1988).
In this study, the impacts of tourism will be considered as the expectation of residents. Therefore, only positive impacts will be included in the study. It is assumed that the positive impacts of tourism activities in the destination are the expectations of the residents. When the literature is examined, it is seen that the attitudes of the residents towards the impacts of tourism is a subject that has been studied quite frequently. Many of these studies emphasize the variables that determine the impacts of tourism. These variables, place image (Ramkissoon & Nunkoo, 2011; Stylidis et al., 2014; Tournois & Djeric, 2018), length of residency and feelings of community attachment (McCool & Martin, 1994), language (Brougham & Butler, 1981), nativity (Davis et al., 1988) community level of tourism (Long et al., 1990) etc. Marsh & Henshall (1987) explaining the expectations of residents for tourism with Expectancy theory, says that in a workplace, it can be used to explore the relationships between motivation, expectations and need satisfaction and proposes a model in which interactions between tourists and residents are decisive. Ozturk, Ozer, & Çaliskan (2015) state that the expectations of residents are aimed at meeting their economic, cultural and environmental needs. From this perspective, expectations can be considered as elements that meet the needs of individuals (Leventhal, 2008). From an economic point of view, it is not possible to meet all the needs of the individual. Because human needs are unlimited. The question that emerges managerially at this point that meeting which needs are more useful. In the same direction, it is an important question which expectations of the residents will be met first. This study is designed to find answers to this question.
2. Methodology
Qualitative and quantitative methods were used in the research. In this study, the expectations of the residents about the impacts of tourism were evaluated with the KM and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) integrated method. KM, developed by Noriaki Kano to classify customers' wishes and needs (Shahin, 2004). It is a tool based on the maximization of the level of benefit that consumers plan to achieve through purchase. In doing so, it is also necessary to minimize the sum of costs and losses. In this way, it is aimed to achieve perfection. Formulated perfection is as follows:
Through the classification of product properties in line with the customers' perceptions, the KM provides decision-makers with the opportunity of prioritizing at the designing stage. In figure 1 the classification in the KM is shown (Meng et al., 2016).
In the figure 1 the horizontal axis shows how successfully the quality-related features of product or services satisfy the customers' needs. When moving from left to right on this axis, it is seen that the features of products and services satisfy customers' needs more.
On the other hand, the vertical axis on the graphic indicates the customers' satisfaction levels regarding the quality-related features of goods or services. It is seen that the higher it is moved along the vertical axis the more the customers' satisfaction levels increases whereas the customers' dissatisfaction levels increase to the extent it is moved downwards on the axis.
Based on the KM graphic (figure 1) it is possible to classify the customers' wishes and needs on goods and services. According to this classification, it will be logical to examine the subject under six titles based on the level of significance. These titles can be put into an order as follow (Iqbal, Saleem, ve Ahmad, 2015; Matzler ve Hinterhuber, 1998; K. C. Tan ve Shen, 2000; Kay C. Tan ve Pawitra, 2001).
Besides the main categories mentioned above, there are three additional categories called as 'indifferent, reverse and questionable attributes'. These can be regarded as characteristics due to the fact that they are not actual customer needs (Tontini, 2007).
When the literature is examined, we see that KM is used for certain purposes in the service sector. Bilgili, Yağmur ve Yazarkan, (2012) used the KM to classify the expectations of consumers in their study to increase the efficiency of an activity. Korkmaz (2013) applied the KM to measure customer expectations for airline companies. Değer (2012), on the other hand, used the KM to analyze and classify customer needs in service quality measurement while using the quality function deployment method. Mikulić & Prebežac (2011) aimed to use the KM in the classification of quality-oriented features. The KM can be used as a basic method in researches (Karakuş & Çoban. 2018) and it can be used by integrating it into different methods such as quality function deployment (Baki et al., 2009; Bayraktaroğlu & Özgen, 2008; Chang & Chen, 2011; Karakuş., 2017; Kay C. Tan & Pawitra, 2001).
In this study, residents living in Cappadocia destination are discussed. The expectations of residents about the impacts of tourism are obtained from the literature (Šegota et al., 2017). These expectations can be seen in table 1.
The expectations of the residents about the impacts of tourism were turned into functional and dysfunctional expressions in terms of KM and they were turned into questionnaires.
As Mikulić & Prebežac (2011) stated in their study, "it is a implicitly assumed that consumers' evaluations of a given attribute in terms of provision/non-provision are the same (or at least similar) to consumers' evaluations of the same attribute in terms of high/low attribute-performance". This implicitly to categories the attribute consistently, raises questions about the reliability and validity of the Kano method. The questionnaire was prepared according to recognition that the key issue that is actually the provision (or non-provision) of a more-or-less expected benefit.
The data collected via questionnaires from 405 residents were analyzed according to the assessment table of the KM and the frequencies were determined. In accordance with the assessment of functional and dysfunctional statements, the categories of the activities that would improve the convention tourism in the region are as follows: (M) Must - be, (O) One - dimensional, (A) Attractive and (I) Indifferent, Questionable (Q), Reverse (R).
In the light of the responses of the respondents, it was determined which statement would fit into which category. Evaluation of this categorization is presented in table 2 (Delice, Güngör, 2008: 196):
In table 3 it is seen how the categorization was realized. For instance, for an attribute to be attractive for a consumer, the customer should not feel uncomfortable in the absence of the attribute whereas should feel pleasant in the presence of the same attribute. If the consumer considers the presence of an attribute normal and feel uncomfortable in its absence, this attribute should be included in the category of basic attributes. If there is no difference between feeling pleasant and non-pleasant in the presence or absence of an attribute, it would be appropriate to include this attribute into the category of indifferent attributes. Under certain circumstances these attributes could create a reverse impact. For instance, sound-proof feature of a car could not be welcome by some individuals whereas it could be main reason why a person keen on sport cars prefers the same car. Therefore, the similar situation is very much likely to be observed in tourism culture, as well.
In order to turn the frequencies of the statements under the categories developed for the KM into weighting values, the categories in question were weighted with the help of the AHP method. In this method developed by Thomas L. Saaty (Saaty, 2003), data are collected from bilateral comparisons. Considering the relevant criteria, all statements are subject to bilateral comparisons. Each variable's bilateral comparisons contribute to consistency and reliability of the responses. For the comparisons the 9-point scale (table 3) developed by Saaty is utilized and bilateral comparison matrices are obtained as a result of the digitization of argument values via quantitative weighting on this scale (from Berrittella, La Franca, Zito, 2009).
It is seen on the matrix that all values are indicated as aij These values refer to quantitative arguments regarding the comparison between Ki (i-th criterion) and K (j-th criterion). For instance, a12 is a value obtained as a result of the comparison of K1 with K2 The value of a11, a22,..., ann elements on the main diagonal of the matrix is 1 and aij=1/ aji.
In order to find value of importance, the total of each column of the matrices is calculated at first. Next, each element on the matrix is divided by the total of the column where each element is included. As a result of the calculation, the total of each column should be 1. It is ensured that each element on the matrix refer to a value ranging between zero (0) and one (1). In other words, the matrix is normalized. The mean values of all lines on the matrix calculated with the help of normalization are calculated one by one. These mean values create a column matrix and show the weightings of each criterion. The W matrix below is the matrix of nx1 column showing the weightings.
In order words, the average value of each line is the weighting of its related criterion. Based on the weightings of the criteria, they are put in order among themselves. According to the order, high values are more important whereas low values are less important. The criterion with the highest weighting value is more important than others. However, consistency scores should also be checked before using the values and their alternatives put in order in line with the significance level. In case of finding inconsistent values as a result of bilateral comparisons, the order should be considered statistically significant. The orders obtained from the comparisons with sufficient consistency rate can be used.
The bilateral comparisons are fundamentally based on subjective bases, and thus, certain fallacies and inconsistencies might occur. To clarify the situation a calculation for consistency rate is required (Önder; Önder, 2015: 32). For the calculation of this rate, the first version of bilateral comparison matrix is multiplied with the weighting obtained from the matrix in question, which refers to multiplication of A matrix in the form of nxn and W matrix in the form of nx1. As a result of this calculation, R matrix is obtained in the form of nx1.
Next, each element on R matrix is divided by the corresponding element on W matrix. This calculation is shown below, and it is seen that B matrix was obtained as a result of the calculation.
Now it is possible to calculate lmax value, which refers to arithmetic average of the values on B matrix.
Then we are able to calculate the Consistency Index (CI):
Consistency Rate (CR) is calculated by dividing CI into Random Index (RI).
RI is an index getting different values in accordance with the matrix dimension (n). The random index values based on different matrix dimensions are shown in table 4.
CR is checked to see whether the bilateral comparisons are consistent. If the rate is equal to or lower than 0.1, it can be indicated that the bilateral comparisons are consistent.
3. Findings
In table 5 developed based on the results of the KM categorization, the frequencies showing which statement falls under which category in accordance with the responses of the respondents. For instance, the first statement (Ec1) in the table "Tourism should promote the production and sales of local products." was assessed by 405 respondents. It was put under the basic attributes category by 86 respondents, the one-dimension attributes category by 98 respondents, the attractive attributes category by 92 respondents and the indifferent attributes category by 121 respondents, reverse attributes category by 6 respondents, questionable attributes category by 2 respondents. As seen in "the Kano Model Evaluation" table, a respondent is expected to mark both positive and negative version of the statement as 'I like' or 'I do not like' in order to put a statement under the category of questionable attributes. A person cannot like and dislike something at the same time, therefore such an answer prevents getting statistically significant results. In some statements, it is seen that there are concentrations in reverse and questionable categories. It can be concluded that these statements are not understood correctly by some participants.
In order to turn the frequencies of the categories and statements developed via the KM into a final weighting, the categories in question were weighted with the help of AHP method. Information regarding this weighting is present in the table below (reverse and questionable categories were not considered because they were not significant).
It is seen in table 6 that the category with the highest weighting is the attractive attributions. In other words, the most important one of the attributes mentioned above is the attractive attributes. Thus, it will be provided that attractive attributes may affect significantly to the ranking. These weightings were multiplied with the frequencies and normalized in table 6 and the final weightings were fixed. Final weightings and ranking based on the KM are present in table 7.
4. Results and discussion
When the expectations of residents about the impacts of tourism are examined, we see that expectations for economic impacts are at the forefront. (see table 8). On average, environmental impacts and socio-cultural impacts have similar values. An interesting point, however, is that Ec3 (Tourism should help to increase the price of land and property), one of the economic expectations, has one of the lowest levels of expectations. As can be seen in table 5, this is the expression that takes the most rated in the reverse category. Increasing the price of land and property should be considered in two dimensions. Of course, it is very pleasing for these owners to raise these prices. However, it is not very desirable for residents who want to own property. It is assumed that this statement is not fully understood due to this confusion.
"Promoting the production and sale of local products produced by the residents" is the highest expectation. At this point, we can conclude that there is not enough participation of residents to tourism. In fact, this situation is mentioned in the literature (Karameşe, 2014). The second highest expectation for the impacts of tourism is "Tourism should attract more investment to our community". More investment naturally means more employment opportunities and more economic contributions etc. In fact, the increase in tourism investments means an increase in tourism activities, in which case expectations can be met more.
The third expectation for the impacts of tourism is a socio-cultural expectation. Residents expect to ensure the quality of public services as a result of the development of tourism in the region. However, the lowest level of expectations is seen as Sc6 "Tourism should provide more parks and other recreational areas for locals" which is a socio-cultural expectation. As it is known, Cappadocia is a tourism destination similar to a natural theme park. Therefore, it is not undesirable to add recreationally new parks to the protected area. The same applies to the expectation of En1 (Tourism should improve the appearance [and images] of Cappadocia's landscape).
5. Conclusions and recommendations
As it is known, successful tourism is not possible in a destination that is not supported by the residents. From an integrated perspective of tourism product (Middleton, 1989), residents are not only a stakeholder but also a component of tourism product. Therefore, destination management organizations will have the chance to determine the expectations of the residents correctly and realize the necessary policy planning and strategies.
In this study, expectations of residents about the impacts of tourism were evaluated. With the findings, decision makers will be able to have preliminary information on the implementation of tourism activities supported by residents. When the findings of the study are examined, it is seen that the expectations of the residents for the impacts of tourism are intensely economic. Cappadocia is a region where mass tourism is intense. As a result, residents are not sufficiently involved in tourism. (Karameşe, 2014). As it is known, one of the important determinants of positive attitudes towards tourism is whether the residents earn income from tourism (McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Perdue et al, 1990). Therefore, in order to continue the tourism activities in the region more successfully, residents should be integrated to tourism. Even if they are not directly involved in tourism, the inclusion and promotion of products produced by residents in tourism may positively affect the perception and attitudes of residents.
From an economic point of view, another important expectation is that more tourism investments should be made in the region. More investment means, more tourists, more income, more employment, etc. Another important expectation is in the socio-cultural category. Residents expect to ensure the quality of public services as a result of the development of tourism in the region. As mentioned in the literature, tourism has an impact on the quality of life of residents (Numanoğlu & Güçer, 2018).
It is not always possible to meet all these expectations in terms of time and cost. In terms of expectation levels, this study provides information to decision-makers by making a ranking. However, it is suggested that the costs of meeting each expectation should be calculated and reflected in this ranking. From this perspective, this is one of the limitations of the research. Another limitation of the study is the evaluation of the positive impacts of tourism only. Taking into consideration the negative impacts of tourism, an evaluation is a suggestion for future studies.
References
Alonso, J. A., & Lamata, M. T. (2006). Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: a new approach. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 14(04), 445-459.
Anadolu Agency. (2018). Kapadokya'ya gelen turist sayisi 2017'de yüzde 48 artti. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/kultur-sanat/kapadokyaya-gelen-turist-sayisi-2017-de-yuzde-48-artti/1024367
Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C., & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents' perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 1056-1076. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANNALS.2005.03.001
Andriotis, K. (2005). Community Groups' Perceptions of and Preferences for Tourism Development: Evidence from Crete. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 29(1), 67-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348004268196
Ap, J. (1992). Residents' perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(4), 665-690. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(92)90060-3
Baki, B., Sahin Basfirinci, C., Murat AR, I., & Cilingir, Z. (2009). An application of integrating SERVQUAL and Kano's model into QFD for logistics services. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 21(1), 106-126. https://doi.org/10.1108/13555850910926272
Bayraktaroğlu, G., & Özgen, Ö. (2008). Integrating the Kano model, AHP and planning matrix. Library Management, 29(4/5), 327-351. https://doi.org/10.1108/01435120810869110
Berrittella, M., La Franca, L., & Zito, P. (2009). An analytic hierarchy process for ranking operating costs of low cost and full service airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management, 15(5), 249-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2008.11.006
Bilgili, B., Yağmur, Ö., & Yazarkan, H. (2012). Turistik Ürün Olarak Festivallerin Etkinlik ve Verimliliği Üzerine Bir Araştirma (Erzurum-Oltu Kirdağ Festivali Örneği). Uluslararasi Sosyal ve Ekonomik Bilimler Dergisi, 2, 117-124. http://dergipark.gov.tr/ijses/issue/34181/377904
Brougham, J., & Butler, R. W. (1981). A segmentation analysis of resident attitudes to the social impact of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(4), 569-590. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(81)90042-6
Byrd, E., Bosley, H., & Dronberger, M. (2009). Comparisons of stakeholder perceptions of tourism impacts in rural eastern North Carolina. Tourism Management, 30(5), 693-703. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TOURMAN.2008.10.021
Chang, K.-C., & Chen, M.-C. (2011). Applying the Kano model and QFD to explore customers' brand contacts in the hotel business: A study of a hot spring hotel. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 22(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2010.529358
Choi, H. C., & Murray, I. (2010). Resident attitudes toward sustainable community tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(4), 575-594. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580903524852
Davis, D., Allen, J., & Cosenza, R. M. (1988). Segmenting Local Residents By Their Attitudes, Interests, and Opinions Toward Tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 27(2), 2-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728758802700201
Deery, M., Jago, L., & Fredline, L. (2012). Rethinking social impacts of tourism research: A new research agenda. Tourism Management, 33(1), 64 -73. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TOURMAN.2011.01.026
Değer, Ç. (2012). Kano modeli ile bütünleştirilmiş Servqual analizinin kalite fonksiyon yayilimina uygulanarak hizmet kalitesinin iyileştirilmesi ve bir sağlik kuruluşunda uygulanmasi. In Yayinlanmamiş Yüksek Lisans Tezi. DEÜ Sosyal Bilimleri Enstitüsü. http://acikerisim.deu.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/12345/10452
Delice, E. K., & Güngör, Z. (2008). Müşteri Isteklerinin Siniflandirilmasinda Kano Model Uygulamasi. Akademik Bilişim 2008, 193-198.
e-unwto.org. (2017). Tourism and the Sustainable Development Goals - Journey to 2030. World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284419401
García, F., Vázquez, A., & Macias, R. (2015). Resident's attitudes towards the impacts of tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 13, 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TMP.2014.11.002
Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident Attitudes: A Structural Modeling Approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00028-7
Hall, C. M., & Boyd, S. W. (2005). Nature-based tourism in peripheral areas : development or disaster? Channel View Publications.
Iqbal, F., Saleem, M. Q., & Ahmad, M. (2015). A Critical Multi-model Comparative Study of QFD, Kano & AHP Hybrids for Product Development. Technical Journal, University of Engineering and Technology (UET) Taxila, Pakistan, 20(2), 1-11.
Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Williams, D. R. (1997). A Theoretical Analysis of Host Community Resident Reactions to Tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 36(2), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759703600202
Karakuş, Y. (2017). Turistik Bölgeler Için Yeni Ürün Geliştirme Modeli: Nevşehir Ili Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Nevşehir Haci Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü PhD disertation.
Karakuş, Y., & Çoban, S. (2018). Evaluation Of Stakeholders' Expectations Towards Congress Tourism By Kano Model: Case Of Nevşehir. Anais Brasileiros de Estudos Turísticos-ABET, 8(2), 8-20. https://abet.ufjf.emnuvens.com.br/abet/article/view/3027
Karakuş, Y., & Kalay, N. (2017). A Study on The Concept and Causes of Destination Rejection. International Journal of Management Economics and Business, 13(3), 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.2017331320
Karameşe, B. (2014). Kapadokya jeopark önerisinin yerel halk açisindan Değerlendirilmesi. Yayinlanmamiş Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Balikesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Balikesir.
Karamustafa, K., Tosun, C., & Çalhan, H. (2015). Tüketici Odakli Yaklaşimla Destinasyon Performansinin Değerlendirilmesi: Kapadokya Bölgesi Örneği. Tüketici ve Tüketim Araştirmalari Dergisi, 7(2), 117-148. http://www.beta-dergi.com/ttad/yonetim/icerik/makaleler/74-published.pdf
Korkmaz, H. (2013). Müşteri Memnuniyetinde Kano Modeli: Türkiye' deki Havayolu Yolculari Örneği. In Yayinlanmamiş Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Balikesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. http://dspace.balikesir.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/2610
Leventhal, L. (2008). The role of understanding customer expectations in aged care. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 21(1), 50-59. https://doi.org/10.1108/09526860810841156
Lindberg, K., & Johnson, R. (1997). Modeling resident attitudes toward tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 402-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(97)80009-6
Liu, J. C., & Var, T. (1986). Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research, 13(2), 193-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(86)90037-X
Long, P. T., Perdue, R. R., & Allen, L. (1990). Rural Resident Tourism Perceptions And Attitudes By Community Level of Tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 28(3), 3-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759002800301
Marsh, N. R. & Henshall, B. D. (1987). Planning Better Tourism: The Strategic Importance of Tourist-Resident Expectations and Interactions. Tourism Recreation Research, 12(2), 47-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.1987.11014513
Mason, P. (2008). Tourism impacts, planning and management. Elsevier/Butterworth Heinemann.
Mathieson, A. & Wall, G. (1988). Tourism : economic, physical, and social impacts. Longman Scientific and Technical.
Matzler, K. & Hinterhuber, H. H. (1998). How to make product development projects more successful by integrating Kano's model of customer satisfaction into quality function deployment. Technovation, 18(1), 25-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(97)00072-2
McCool, S. & Martin, S. R. (1994). Community Attachment and Attitudes Toward Tourism Development. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), 29-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759403200305
McGehee, N. G., & Andereck, K. L. (2004). Factors Predicting Rural Residents' Support of Tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 43(2), 131-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287504268234
Meng, Q., Wei, X., & Meng, W. (2016). A Decision Method to Maximize Service Quality under Budget Constraints: The Kano Study of a Chinese Machinery Manufacturer. Scientific Programming, 1-12. http://10.0.4.131/2016/7291582
Middleton, V. T. (1989). Tourism Marketing and Managemet Handbook. In S. F. Witt & L. Moutinho (Eds.), Tourist Product. Prentice Hall.
Mikulić, J., & Prebežac, D. (2011). A critical review of techniques for classifying quality attributes in the Kano model. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 21(1), 46-66. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604521111100243
Numanoğlu, E., & Güçer, E. (2018). In Terms of Local People, The Cittaslow Movement Perception: The Case of Perşembe. Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Tourism, 3(2), 11-22. https://doi.org/10.31822/jomat.489899
Önder, G., & Önder, E. (2015). Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci. In B. F. Yildirim & E. Önder (Eds.), Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri. Dora.
Ozturk, A., Ozer, O. & Çaliskan, U. (2015). The relationship between local residents' perceptions of tourism and their happiness: a case of Kusadasi, Turkey. Tourism Review, 70(3), 232-242. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-09-2014-0053
Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Allen, L. (1990). Resident support for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(4), 586-599. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(90)90029-Q
Pizam, A. (1978). Tourism's Impacts: The Social Costs to the Destination Community as Perceived by Its Residents. Journal of Travel Research, 16(4), 8-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728757801600402
Ramkissoon, H., & Nunkoo, R. (2011). City Image and Perceived Tourism Impact: Evidence from Port Louis, Mauritius. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 12(2), 123-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2011.564493
Saaty, T. L. (2003). Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary. European Journal of Operational Research, 145(1), 85-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00227-8
Sarver, T. (1983). Ajzen and Fishbein's "Theory of Reasoned Action": A Critical Assessment. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 13(2), 155-164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1983.tb00469.x
Sautter, E. T., & Leisen, B. (1999). Managing stakeholders a Tourism Planning Model. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 312-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(98)00097-8
Šegota, T., Mihalič, T., & Kuščer, K. (2017). The impact of residents' informedness and involvement on their perceptions of tourism impacts: The case of Bled. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 6(3), 196-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JDMM.2016.03.007
Shahin, A. (2004). Integration of FMEA and the Kano model. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 21(7), 731-746. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710410549082
Sheehan, L. & Ritchie, J. (2005). Destination Stakeholders Exploring Identity and Salience. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(3), 711-734. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANNALS.2004.10.013
Smith, S. L. (1994). The tourism product. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 582-595. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(94)90121-X
Stylidis, D., Biran, A., Sit, J. & Szivas, E. (2014). Residents' support for tourism development: The role of residents' place image and perceived tourism impacts. Tourism Management, 45. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TOURMAN.2014.05.006
Tan, K. & Shen, X. (2000). Integrating Kano's model in the planning matrix of quality function deployment. Total Quality Management, 11(8), 1141-1151. https://doi.org/10.1080/095441200440395
Tan, Kay C., & Pawitra, T. A. (2001). Integrating SERVQUAL and Kano's model into QFD for service excellence development. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 11(6), 418-430. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006520
Tontini, G. (2007). Integrating the Kano Model and QFD for Designing New Products. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 18(6), 599-612. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360701349351
Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries. Tourism Management, 21(6), 613-633. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00009-1
Tosun, C. (2002). Host perceptions of impacts: A comparative tourism study. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 231-253. https://doi.org/10.10/S0160-7383(01)00039-1
Tosun, C. (2006). Expected nature of community participation in tourism development. Tourism Management, 27(3), 493-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.12.004
Tournois, L., & Djeric, G. (2018). Evaluating urban residents' attitudes towards tourism development in Belgrade (Serbia). Current Issues in Tourism, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1465030
WTO. (2018). 2017 Annual Report. https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284419807
Yoon, Y., Gursoy, D. & Chen, J. (2001). Validating a tourism development theory with structural equation modeling. Tourism Management, 22(4), 363-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00062-5