Tourism-related impacts on quality of life

As already mentioned, quality of life research is mainly oriented towards subjective or objectifiable parameters. Uysal, Perdue & Sirgy (2012) divide the objective parameters into outcome and process-oriented ones to enable a differentiated approach (see Table 27).

Accordingly, the authors define outcome indicators as all factors that deal with non-tourism-specific influences. They distinguish between economic, social, health-related, and environmental parameters (Uysal, Perdue, & Sirgy, 2012).

Table 27: Quality of life influencing indicators

Objective indicators Subjective indicators

Outcome orientation (non-tourism-related) Process orientation (tourism-related)

Economic effects Number of jobs created Economic domains

Social effects Number of sales created Consumer domains

Health effects Tax revenues generated Social domains

Environmental effects Imbalanced finances Environmental

domains Attractions developed Health domains Accessibility of open spaces

Source: Own table based on Uysal, M., Perdue, R. R., & Sirgy, M. J. (Eds.) (2012). International handbooks of quality-of-life. Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host communities. Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York: Springer.

It should be noted that the social and environmental factors are directly related to and affect the quality of life of the population (Uysal, Woo, & Singal, 2012). The following table provides information on the individual sub-areas of the outcome-oriented indicators:

Table 28: Objective outcome indicators influencing the quality of life

Economic effects Social effects Health effects Environmental effects Wage Educational attainment Infant mortality rates Land pollution

Household income Crime rate Prevalence of certain diseases like Low skilled workers Number of recreational

parks and programs

Life expectancy Crowdedness Literacy rates Housing quality Healthcare infrastructure Traffic jams Living costs Teen pregnancies

Prices of consumer goods Police services Cost of land and housing Fire protection

Property taxes Roads

Number of retail stores

Source: Own table based on Uysal, M., Perdue, R. R., & Sirgy, M. J. (Eds.) (2012). International handbooks of quality-of-life. Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host communities. Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York: Springer.

Process indicators are those objectifiable factors that are directly influenced by tourism activities. These include, for example, the (1) number of jobs created, (2) overnight stays and arrivals sold, (3) tax revenues generated, the (4) tourism import-export balance, (5) the range and quality of excursion destinations and tourism businesses in a region, and the (6) accessibility of local recreation areas (Uysal, Perdue, & Sirgy, 2012).

Uysal et al. (2012) present another observation. The approach of classifying objective and subjective factors influencing residents' quality of life within a community gives the impression that these subjective factors and their importance can be separated from the objective factors.

But, this is not so. Of course, subjective perceptions can be categorized into different sub-areas (e.g., economic, social, health-oriented) and then measured and analyzed. However, the cross-connections between the areas are complex and influence each other or are additionally counteracted by non-tourism-specific conditions. Thus, the perception of tourism-related impacts on individual domains of life can influence generally perceived life satisfaction (Uysal, Perdue, & Sirgy, 2012).

In recent decades, numerous studies have been conducted on the impact of tourism activities on the population's quality of life. It has been shown that the only reliable link between demographic parameters and attitudes towards tourism activities of people in a region is that of the direct economic connection of people who directly or indirectly benefit economically from tourism activities (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011, p. 249; Uysal, Sirgy, & Perdue, 2012, p. 671).

Yu, Cole & Chacellor (2013) summarize that the areas of tourism development that are perceived as positive create jobs and/or additional infrastructure (e.g., recreational facilities or

attractions), or develop new events or nightlife opportunities. Precisely the opposite is the case with the aspects of increasing crime, the rising cost of living, higher traffic volume, overcrowded alleys and pubs or attractions, whose offers are oriented exclusively to tourists.

“The findings to date suggest that residents who are more engaged with tourism and tourists are more positively inclined toward tourism and express more positive attitudes” (Andereck, Valentine, Knopf, & Vogt, 2005, p. 1062).

The basic framework for the findings mentioned above, the Social Exchange Theory, should be mentioned. It provides a set of indicators that allows researchers to balance the benefits and costs of a particular interaction situation (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011, p. 965). In simple terms, the aim is to determine the extent to which stakeholders affected by a tourism measure benefit from it or suffer as a result (Nunkoo, 2016; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2012).

A similar approach is taken by the “social or resident capital” model. Moscardo (2012) summarizes that QOL, in general, is based on the following four dimensions of influence and depends on the extent to which people can meet their needs within these areas:

• “Physiological needs which include subsistence, good health and physical protection from harm

• Security refers to a stable place to live and work

• Belongingness or the ability to make and maintain social relationships and opportunities to engage in social, cultural, and political activities

• Self-esteem based on knowledge and confidence, and the ability and freedom to make choices” (Moscardo, 2012, p. 404)

In order to satisfy these needs, access to a specific form of capital is required (Vemuri &

Costanza, 2006). Moscardo (2012, p. 405) states the following forms of capital that residents can draw on to meet their needs: (1) financial, (2) built, (3) natural, (4) human, (5) political, (6) cultural and (7) social.

Applied to a tourist region, tourism can mean the following positive or negative impact on the existing “capital” of the population:

Table 29: Tourism-related impact on resident capital

Capital Positive tourism impacts or contributions Negative tourism impacts or depletions Financial Creation of jobs, business opportunities, and

through this income for destination residents

Increases in the costs of living for destination residents

Built Building of transport infrastructure to support tourism which provides more significant opportunities for other economic sectors in the destination

Damage to transport infrastructure because of increased usage for tourism

Natural Resources and support are provided for the conservation and restoration of natural

Tourist populations increase resource use (e.g., energy and water) and waste

Human Provision of training and education for residents working in tourism

Tourists bring diseases with them into destinations creating health problems for residents

Political Tourism interest in ethnic minorities or marginalized indigenous populations at destinations can support greater political power for these groups

Transnational tour operators who can control the flow of tourists to a destination can be given political power and advantage by elected representatives

Social Tourists can support traditional festivals and events that bring destination residents together and strengthen social connections

Controversial tourism developments can create social conflict that breaks down social

connections Cultural Incentives from the interest of tourists for the

preservation of cultural traditions

Destruction of built cultural heritage to make way for tourism facilities

Source: Moscardo, G. (2012). Building Social Capital to Enhance the Quality-of-Life of Destination Residents.

In M. Uysal, R. R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), International handbooks of quality-of-life. Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host communities (pp. 403–423).

Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York: Springer.

The above diagram shows that it is essential to determine what concrete influence tourism has in the respective areas in a specific region. Only in this way can sustainable decisions be made in regions' tourism development in the long term.

Another interesting model in evaluating the impacts of tourism is the so-called “carrying capacity”. This concept was initially developed to evaluate biological relations between species in their habitat.

“Carrying capacity can be defined as a species’ average population size in a particular habitat. The species population size is limited by environmental factors like adequate food, shelter, water, and mates. If these needs are not met, the population will decrease until the resource rebounds” (National Geographic, n.d.).

Kerstecker & Bricker (2012, p. 477) mentioned that tourism research has adopted the “carrying capacity” model and added several aspects of community development. The so-called SIA (social impact assessment) analyses data from different aspects of social and community parameters to “identify who or what is being (maybe) affected by tourism development”. So, the interrelations between the model of carrying capacity and the sustainable development of destinations are closely given and limited, especially when measuring tourism outcomes, as sustainability always has a global component (Saarinen, 2006). When tourists exceed the local carrying capacity, one could speak of overtourism (Tokarchuk, Gabriele, & Maurer, 2020). To make tourism developments measurable, the next chapter focuses on instruments and scales.