Int. j. econ. manag. soc. sci., Vol(4), No (3), March, 2015. pp.

293-300

TI Journals

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences

www.tijournals.com

ISSN:
2306-7276

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved for TI Journals.

Will Tourism Development Improve the Quality of Life in Hashtpar

City? An Analysis of Local Residents Attitudes
Bahram Zeinali *
M.A. In Geography & Tourism Planning.

Mohsen Jafarpour
TEFL instructor Payam-e- Noor University of Guilan, Iran. Phd Candidate.

Esllam Omidi
B.A. In Business Management.

Naser Tahmasbi
M.A. Student of education management, Islamic Azad university of Ardabil.

Sobhan Dorangard
Lecturer for Payam-e Noor University, Iran.
*Corresponding author: bahramzeinali344@yahoo.com

Keywords

Abstract

Quality of life
Tourism Development
Hashtpar City

According to Buttler formulation Hashtpar City is passing from the involvement stage to the development
stage. These days the fundamental issue in the city is the effect of tourism development on the residents
quality of life in the near future. Therefore, the purposes of this study are to measure the quality of life in the
city, to evaluate the effect of tourism development on the residents quality of life, and to assess the local
residents willingness for supporting tourism development. The results suggested that the quality of life in
the city was poor. Moreover the local residents believe that tourism development would lead to the positive
and negative outcomes on their quality of life, nevertheless they support tourism development.

1.

Introduction

Tourism has become one of the important sectors of the global economy [1] accounting for 11% of global gross domestic product (GDP) and
employing 200 million people [2]. That is why tourism may be considered as an effective vehicle for economic development [3] or as an
effective way to revitalize the economy of a destination [4].
Long term planning in tourism is associated with the reactions of local residents to it [5], so that the principle that tourism planning and
development should involve the broader community is now widely accepted and endorsed [6]. At the point when a tourism destination is born,
the quality of life of the local residents goes through radical changes [5]. Scholars have indicated the positive effects of tourism could lead to a
higher quality of life for the residents. Conversely the negative impacts of tourism would lead to a lower quality of life [7] [8] [9] [10]. The
major positive contributions of tourism are, more job opportunities, more income generation, more foreign exchange earnings [11], more imports
and exports [12], more availability for recreation and entertainment, increased knowledge in locals culture, and promotion of community pride,
tolerance and a stronger sense of ethnic identity within the host community [13]. Further environmental values, biodiversity maintenance,
architectural and historical conservation, maintenance and recreation habitat and ecosystems are enhanced [14]. The possible negative impacts
include overcrowding, traffic [5], lack of economic diversification, economic strain due to inflation of prices of goods and services [13],
increased property values [15], modification of cultural and practices [13], pollution of all environment resources and loss of biodiversity [14],
increased undesirable behaviors such as crime, prostitution gambling, alcohol and drug abuse [6]. As a consequence "communities change with
tourism development" [16].
Local residents are the main stakeholders of tourism development [17]. Tourism could develop and grow when residents have a positive attitude
toward it [5], in other words, tourism relies heavily upon the goodwill of the local residents [4]. The attitudes of residents towards tourists and
tourism are perceived as an important aspect of tourism development. The importance of residents' attitudes toward tourism development reflects
the concern of scholars and planners with well-being of the local population in tourist destinations. It also reflects the scholars concern
regarding the impact of local population's attitudes towards tourists and tourism on the local tourism industry [18]. Moreover, understanding the
residents perspective can help tourism official in policy, decision-making [9], and formulation process [19] for tourism development.
Furthermore, the main concern regarding residents attitudes in the latter destinations is associated with the willingness of the local population to
support local authorities expenditure for tourism development and the image of the destination [18].
The local population is a resource in developing and sustaining a tourism industry and is also directly impacted, positively and/or negatively, by
the development and practice of tourism [20]. That is why most tourism impact studies are conducted through measuring residents' attitudes
toward tourism and the effects that are perceived by community residents. The history of the study of tourism impacts can be traced back to the
60s when the more positive impacts of tourism development were identified and reported. Conversely, many studies in the 70s focused on the
negative aspects. The 80s brought a more balanced approach where research highlighted both positive and negative impacts. In the new century,
tourism impact's studies continue to focus on the fast grow of tourism industry, lifestyle changes and emergence of new characteristics of
tourism development [8]. Hence, there is a substantial body of literature on the impacts of tourism development on the quality of life of hostcommunities, and on the resident attitudes toward tourism development [21]. In the meanwhile, Iranian researchers in recent decades have
studied effects of tourism development on the quality of life of the famous tourist destinations such as Shiraz, Ramsar, Tehran, etc. They, like
previous studies, have confirmed significant and important effects of tourism development on the quality of life of locals in various aspectseconomic, socio-cultural, and environmental [22] [23] [24] [25]. Moreover, simultaneous with increasing locals awareness of the effects of
tourism development (either positive or negative) and thus increasing their desire to attract tourists (either domestic or foreign) and on the other

Bahram Zeinali *, Mohsen Jafarpour, Esllam Omidi , Naser Tahmasbi , Sobhan Dorangard

294

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (3), March, 2015.

hand raising the issue of sustainable tourism development in destinations, Iranian researchers have attempted to measure locals willingness in
tourism development [26] [27] [28].
The study area was Hashbar City, located in the north of Iran (see figure 1), the political and economic capital of Talesh County, with population
of 52,344 [29] residents is outnumbered by the hundreds of tourists, particularly during the spring and summer seasons. The city from north is
connected to Astara Port and the Republic of Azerbaijan, from south is connected to Anzaly Port, from east is connected to the Caspian Sea, and
in the west is connected to Ardabil Province. The city offers year around recreation and tourism opportunities to residents and tourists. A review
of tourist attractions of the city found that Hashbar is rich in natural and cultural tourism resources many of which are unique to tourists.
Hshbar's primary natural tourism assets include beaches of the Caspian Sea, the Taleshian Forests and Mountains, Karganrood River, Seraga
Lake, many falls and mineral springs, beautiful landscapes, variety of flora and fauna (the altitude in the city is differ from under zero to 2893
meters), rice farms, Ghorogh and Siahderan Parks, and good climate specifically in spring and summer seasons. The city also possesses rich
intangible living customs that are exemplified in countries and villages such as Tollarood, Taki Taz Abad, Miankoh, Kishonben, Rick, etc.
Furthermore the native language of the local residents "Tallishi" provide a great opportunity to some tourists who they are like the social
attractions [30]. According to Buttler formulation [31] Hashtpar City is passing from the involvement stage to the development stage.
Undoubtedly, the development of tourism in this city is not far from environmental, socio-cultural, and economic influences on locals quality of
life. Therefore, the key issue is how the locals view these influences with regard to the present situation? In fact, for the first time, we decided to
measure the of locals attitude towards the effects of tourism, in terms of present condition to find out how locals view (positive or negative) the
effects of tourism development on their quality of life. On the other hand, we seek to understand whether or not the locals, with the existing
conditions, are willing to support the tourism development. The major purposes of the paper are:
(1) To measure the quality of life of the city from standpoints of the residents,
(2) To analysis of the host community attitudes toward the effects of tourism development on the quality of life, and
(3) To assess the local resident's willingness for supporting tourism development.

Figure 1. The study area

2.

Methodology

The survey instrument used in this research was a structure questionnaire, which based on a review of the literature and opinions of
academicians. The questionnaire was divided into three sections [23]. The first section gathers information on the residents socio-demographics.
This section contains seven aspects namely gender, marital status, age, length-of-residence, education level, occupation and monthly income [32]
[33]. The second section measures the quality of life in Hashbar, and the effects of tourism development on the quality of life in the city. In order
to measure the quality of life in the city we used 25 elements of quality of life, traffic congestion, cleanliness of natural environments, water
quality, cleanliness within the city, emergency services (police and fire), health and medical services, calmness and tranquility in the city,
education opportunities, leisure and recreation opportunities, protection of local tradition and identity, reconstruction of historical and ancient
sites, safety from crime, civil liberties, parks and resort areas, accessibility to the public transports, investment on the infrastructures (highway,
railway, ports, and sewer), personal incomes, job opportunities, created income from local business, property value, cost of living, purchasing
power, price of goods and products, life expectancy, and job quality. This study used a five-point scale: (1) very poor, (2) poor, (3) fair, (4) good,
(5) very good, to measure resident perceptions on 30 quality of life aspects (Chancellor et al, 2011). In order to evaluate the effects of tourism
development on the quality of life we used other five-point scale: (1) very bad effect, (2) bad effect, (3) neither good nor bad effect, (4) good
effect, (5) very good effect. The third section assesses the local resident's willingness for supporting tourism development. This section contains
13 statements. The scale options for measuring resident willingness for supporting tourism development were: strongly disagree (1) disagree
(2), neither agree nor disagree (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5), analogous with previous Research [34] [4] [35].
After the above process, to evaluate validity and reliability of the survey instrument, two steps were passed: (1) Handing in the questionnaire to
the specialists and experts, who has ensured content validity of the survey instrument, and (2) Cornbachs alpha using SPSS version 20.0 also for
the tourism impacts scale was 0.94 indicating very good degree of reliability for the sample [21]. Moreover, the alpha for the supporting tourism
development was 0.85 indicating a good degree of the reliability. This revealed that, the survey was consistent, internally.
Two hundred questionnaires were distributed to the residents of Hashbar city at main public areas. The study sample was selected by the
convenience sampling method due to time and cost restraints. In total 170 usable questionnaires were collected from residents over the course of
8 weeks. Of those returned, 12 questionnaires were eliminated (7 percent). These questionnaires were incomplete or had an excessive amount of
missing data. After elimination 158 questionnaires were coded for data analysis (93 percent). The data was analyzed by Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0.

295

Will Tourism Development Improve the Quality of Life in Hashtpar City? An Analysis of Local Residents Attitudes
International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (3), March, 2015.

3.

Results and Discussions

Sample Profile
In the respondents profile, the majority of the respondents participated in this study are males (62%), almost 58% are married, approximately
59% are aged between 20 and 30, and nearly 66% have resided in Hashtbar over 20 years. Most of the respondents hold a university degree
(71%). Based on occupation type the respondents are divided into five categories, which most of them were employees in the private sector or
business (59%), 8.2% worked in the public sector, 7.6% were unemployed, 0.6% was retired, and 24.7% were choose other. Based on the
monthly income, most of the respondents (57.6%) indicated earning less than 600.000 Iranian Tomans (The rate change of 3500 Tomans is equal
with 1 USD.), 35% indicated earning between 600.000-1.000.000, and 7.6% indicated earning upper than 1.000.000 Tomans (Table 1).
Table 1. Sample profile
Gender
Marital status

Age

Length-of-residence

Education level

Occupation type

Monthly income

male
female
married
single
<20 years old
20-30
30-40
40-50
>50 years old
1-3
4-10
10-15
15-20
>20

98
60

62
38

91
67
3
93
47
12
3
4
24
13
13
104

57.6
42.4
1.9
58.8
29.7
7.6
1.9
2.5
15.2
8.2
8.2
65.8

elementary
high school
university degree

6
40
112

3.8
25.3
70.9

public service
private sector
unemployed
retired
other
<600.000 Tomans
600.000-1.000.000
>1.000.000 Tomans

13
93
12
1
39
91
55
12

8.2
58.9
7.6
0.6
24.7
57.6
34.8
7.6

Segmentation the sample population based on the demographic characteristics

In order to segment the sample population based on the demographics, one of the direct marketing techniques in the SPSS (version 20.0) was
applied. Cluster analysis is an exploratory tool designed to reveal natural groupings (or clusters) within the data. This procedure works with both
scale and categorical data (SPSS, 20.0). The model summary indicated that two clusters were found based on the seven demographic aspects
gender, marital status, age, length-of-residence, education level, occupation type, and monthly income (figure 2). The cluster quality chart
indicates that the overall model quality is in the middle range of the fair range (figure 2). Based on clusters sizes, the largest cluster includes
57.6 percent of the sample, and the smallest cluster includes 42.4 percent of the participants (figure 3). In the largest cluster, respondents have
lowest monthly income (< 600.000 Tomans), employed in the private or business sector, young (less than 20 years old), single, female,
university educated, and resided in Hashtapar city for more than 20 years. In the smallest cluster, respondents have medium monthly income
(form 600.000 to 1.000.000 Tomans), employed in the private sector or business, middle aged (30 to 40 years old), married, male, university
educated, and resided in Hashtapar city for more than 20 years (Table 2).

Figure 2. Summary of the overall model

Bahram Zeinali *, Mohsen Jafarpour, Esllam Omidi , Naser Tahmasbi , Sobhan Dorangard

296

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (3), March, 2015.

Figure 3. Cluster sizes

Table 2. Segmentation the sample population based on the demographics

Features of the largest cluster

Features of the smallest cluster

Income
Lowest (98.9%)
Occupation
Business or private sector (49.5%)
Age
Young (75.8%)
Marital status
Single (57.1%)
Gender
Female (51.6%)
Education level
University degree (65.9%)
Length-of-residence
More than 20 years (70.3%)

Income
Medium income (82.1%)
Occupation
Business or private sector (71.6%)
Age
Middle aged (44.8%)
Marital status
Married (77.6%)
Gender
Male (80.6%)
Education level
University degree (77.6%)
Length-of-residence
More than 20 years (59.7%)

The results of respondents ratings of quality of life elements are illustrated in Table 3. Table 4 shows that residents recognize the potential for a
wide range of positive and negative outcomes on the quality of life by tourism development.
In the element traffic congestion most of the sample population by 42 percent were considered poor or very poor, by 48 percent were
believed fair, and by 9 percent were considered good or very good. The mean for traffic congestion was 2.57, near the equivalent of fair
(Table 3). While most of the respondents by 65 percent are believe that tourism development will affect traffic congestion bad or very bad i.e.
tourism will bring more traffic to the city (Table 4). In the element cleanliness of natural environments the sample population by 38 percent
were considered poor or very poor, by 28 percent were believed fair, and by 34 percent were considered good or very good. The mean for
cleanliness of natural environments was 2.98, the equivalent of fair (Table 3). While most of the respondents by 47 percent are believe that
tourism development will affect cleanliness of natural environments good or very good, in other words, most respondents are believe that
tourism development will improve cleanliness of natural environments (Table 4). In the element water quality most of the sample population
by 40 percent were considered good or very good, by 30 percent were believed fair, and by 30 percent were considered bad or very bad.
The mean for water quality was 3.16, the equivalent of fair (Table 3). While most of the respondents by 47 percent are believe that tourism
development will affect water quality good or very good i.e. most respondents are believe that tourism development will enhance water quality
in the city (Table 4). In the element cleanliness within the city the sample population by 42 percent were considered fair, by 35 percent were
believed poor or very poor, and by 23 were considered good or very good. The mean for cleanliness within the city was 2.73, very near the
equivalent of fair (Table 3). While most of the respondents by 46 percent are believe that tourism development will affect cleanliness within
the city bad or very bad, in other words, most respondents are believe that tourism development will decrease the cleanliness within the city
(Table 4). In the element emergency services (police and fire) the sample population by 45 percent were considered fair, by 28 percent were
believed poor or very poor, and by 27 percent were considered good or very good. The mean for emergency services was 2.91, the equivalent
of fair (Table 3). While most of the respondents believed that by 51 percent are believe that tourism development will affect emergency
services good or very good, in other words, most respondents are believe that tourism development will improve emergency services (Table 4).
In the element health and medical services most of sample population by 46 percent were considered fair, by 34 percent were believed poor
or very poor, and by 20 percent were considered good or very good. The mean for health and medical services was 2.73, very near the
equivalent of fair (Table 3). While most respondents 46 percent are believe that tourism development will affect health and medical services
good or very good, in other words, tourism development will improve health and medical services (Table 4). In the element calmness and
tranquility most of the respondents by 51 percent were considered good or very good, by 32 percent were believed fair, and by 18 percent
were considered poor or very poor. The mean for calmness and tranquility was 3.4, the equivalent of fair (Table 3). While the respondents are
believe that although tourism development will decrease calmness and tranquility but the change is not too much for disturbing it, thus by
tourism development the city will remain calm and tranquil (Table 4). In the element education opportunities most of sample population by 43
percent were considered fair, by 38 percent were believed poor or very poor, and by 19 percent were considered good or very good. The
mean for education opportunities was 2.74, very near the equivalent of fair (Table 3). While most of the respondents by 51 percent are believe
that tourism development will affect education opportunities good or very good, in other words, they are believe that tourism development will
enhance education opportunities in the city (Table 4). In the element leisure and recreation opportunities most of the respondents by 54 percent
were considered poor or very poor, by 32 percent were believed fair, and by 13 percent were considered good or very good. The mean for
leisure and recreation opportunities was 2.37, the equivalent of poor. While most of the respondents by 60 percent are believe that tourism
development will affect leisure and recreation opportunities good or very good, in other words, most respondents are believe that tourism
development will improve leisure and recreation opportunities (Table 4). In the element protection of local tradition and identity most of
sample population by 46 percent were considered poor or very poor, by 38 percent were believed fair, and by 16 percent were considered
good or very good. The mean for protection of local tradition and identity was 2.57, near the equivalent of fair (Table 3). While most of the
respondents by 42 percent are believe that tourism development will affect protection of local tradition and identity good or very good, in other
words, the respondents are believe that tourism development will enhance protection of local tradition and identity (Table 4). In the element
reconstruction of historical sites most of sample population by 64 percent were considered poor or very poor, by 27 percent were believed

297

Will Tourism Development Improve the Quality of Life in Hashtpar City? An Analysis of Local Residents Attitudes
International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (3), March, 2015.

fair, and by 9 percent were considered good or very good. The mean for reconstruction of historical sites was 2.19, the equivalent of poor
(Table 3). While most of the respondents by 49 percent are believe that tourism development will affect reconstruction of historical sites good or
very good, in other words, the respondents are believe that tourism development will improve reconstruction of historical sites (Table 4). In the
element safety from crime most of sample population by 48 percent were considered good or very good, by 38 percent were believed fair,
and by 14 percent were considered poor or very poor. The mean for safety from crime was 3.4, the equivalent of fair (Table 3). While most of
the respondents by 50 percent are believe that tourism development will affect safety in the city good or very good, in other words, the
respondents are believe that tourism development will enhance safety in the city (Table 4). In the element civil liberties most of sample
population by 44 percent were considered poor or very poor, by 37 percent were believed fair, and by 19 percent were considered good or
very good. The mean for civil liberties was 2.6, near the equivalent of fair (Table 3). While most of the respondents by 57 percent are believe
that tourism development will affect civil liberties good or very good, in other words, the respondents are believe that tourism development
will improve civil liberties in the city (Table 4). In the element parks and resort areas most of sample population by 72 percent were considered
poor or very poor, by 20 percent were believed fair, and only by 8 percent were considered good or very good. The mean for parks and
resort areas was 1.96, the equivalent of poor (Table 3). While most of the respondents by 56 percent are believe that tourism development will
affect parks and resort areas good or very good, in other words, the respondents are believe that tourism development will enhance parks and
resort areas in the city (Table 4). In the element accessibility to the public transports most of sample population by 40 percent were considered
fair, by 32 percent were believed good or very good, and by 28 percent were considered poor or very poor. The mean for accessibility to the
public transports was 3, the equivalent of fair (Table 3). While most of the respondents by 47 percent are believe that tourism development will
affect accessibility to the public transports good or very good, in other words, the respondents are believe that tourism development will
improve accessibility to the public transports in the city (Table 4). In the element investment on the infrastructures e.g. highway, railway, ports,
and sewer most of sample population by 86 percent were considered poor or very poor, by 8 percent were believed good or very good, and
by 6 percent were considered fair. The mean for investment on the infrastructures was 1.6, near the equivalent of poor (Table 3). While most
of the respondents by 50 percent are believe that tourism development will affect investment on the infrastructures good or very good, in other
words, the respondents are believe that tourism development will enhance investment on the infrastructures (Table 4). In the element personal
incomes most of sample population by 52 percent were considered poor or very poor, by 36 percent were believed fair, and by 11 percent
were considered good or very good. The mean for personal incomes was 2.4, the equivalent of poor (Table 3). While most of the respondents
by 57 percent are believe that tourism development will affect personal incomes good or very good, in other words, the respondents are believe
that tourism development will improve personal incomes (Table 4). In the element job opportunities most of sample population by 80 percent
were considered poor or very poor, by 15 percent were believed fair, and only by 5 percent were considered good or very good. The mean
for job opportunities was 1.8, very near the equivalent of poor (Table 3). While most of the respondents by 49 percent are believe that tourism
development will affect job opportunities good or very good, in other words, the respondents are believe that tourism development will
enhance job opportunities (Table 4). In the element created income from local business most of sample population by 45 percent were
considered fair, by 42 percent were believed poor or very poor, and by 13 percent were considered good or very good. The mean for created
income from local business was 2.6, near the equivalent of fair (Table 3). While most of the respondents by 63 percent are believe that tourism
development will affect created income from local business good or very good, in other words, the respondents are believe that tourism
development will improve created income from local business (Table 4). In the element property value most of sample population by 40
percent were considered fair, by 30 percent were believed poor or very poor, and by 30 percent were considered good or very good. The
mean for property value was 2.9, the equivalent of fair (Table 3). While most of the respondents by 63 percent are believe that tourism
development will affect property value good or very good, in other words, the respondents are believe that tourism development will enhance
property value (Table 4). In the element cost of living most of sample population by 64 percent were considered poor or very poor, by 30
percent were believed poor, and by 6 percent were considered good or very good. The mean for cost of living was 2.17, the equivalent of
poor (Table 3). While most of the respondents by 46 percent are believe that tourism development will affect cost of living bad or very bad,
in other words, the respondents are believe that tourism development will increases cost of living (Table 4). In the element purchasing power
most of sample population by 62 percent were considered poor or very poor, by 33 percent were believed fair, and only by 4 percent were
considered good or very good. The mean for purchasing power was 2.16, the equivalent of poor (Table 3). While the respondents are believe
that tourism development will increase purchasing power, although there is a twofold attitude toward this element, in the one hand some of the
respondents by 35.5 percent are believe tourism development affect purchasing power bad or very bad, on the other hand others by 35 percent
are believe that tourism development affect purchasing power good or very good (Table 4). In the element price of goods and products most
of the sample population by 63 percent were considered poor or very poor, by 31 percent were believed fair, and only by 6 percent were
considered good or very good. The mean for price of goods and products was 2.2, the equivalent of poor (Table 3). While most of the
respondents by 65 percent are believe that tourism development will affect price of goods and products bad or very bad i.e. tourism development
will rise price of goods and products, thus they are believe tourism development may lead to the inflation (Table 4). In the element life
expectancy most of the sample population by 41 percent were considered poor or very poor, by 35 percent were believed fair, and by 23
percent were considered good or very good. The mean for life expectancy was 2.7, very near the equivalent of fair (Table 3). While most of
the respondents by 52 percent are believe that tourism development will affect life expectancy good or very good i.e. tourism development will
enhance life expectancy in the city (Table 4). In the element job quality most of the sample population by 72 percent were considered poor or
very poor, by 21 percent were believed fair, and only by 6 percent were considered good or very good. The mean for job quality was 1.9, the
equivalent of poor (Table 3). While most of the respondents by 47 percent are believe that tourism development will affect job quality good or
very good i.e. tourism development will enhance job quality (Table 4).
Supporting Tourism Development in the Future
Table 5 provides a list of statements gathered from previous studies that were used as basis for this study to measure the level of Hashtpar local
residents willingness for supporting tourism development in the future. The overall mean of willingness for supporting tourism development
was 4.13, the equivalent of agree (Table 5). Indeed the majority of respondents believe that the tourism industry should be developed in in the
future, not only because of the increase in job opportunities, or increase in personal incomes, or local business development, or increase in the
property value, but also because of local residents belief in that simultaneous with tourism development, aspects of quality of life in the city,
including emergency services, health services, protection of local identities and traditions, educational opportunities, recreation and leisure
opportunities, reconstruction of historical and archaeological sites, civil liberties, parks and recreation areas, access to public transportation,
investment in infrastructures, life expectancy, and quality of employment will be improved considerably (Table 4). Moreover, the respondents
believe that tourism development in the future should be based on Hashtpars three main attractions, that is, the seas, forests and mountains
(mean: 4.5). Furthermore, promotions and facilities to attract more tourists should also be expanded. It should be added that simultaneous with
the tourism development they want a greater role in decision-making processes for tourism development.

Bahram Zeinali *, Mohsen Jafarpour, Esllam Omidi , Naser Tahmasbi , Sobhan Dorangard

298

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (3), March, 2015.

Table 3. Rating of the current condition of elements of the quality of life in Hashbar City
Elements
1. Traffic congestion
2. Cleanliness of natural environments
3. Water quality
4. Cleanliness within the city
5. Emergency services (police & fire)
6. Health and medical services
7. Calmness and tranquility
8. Education opportunities
9. Leisure and recreation opportunities
10. Protection of local tradition and identity
11. Reconstruction of historical sites
12. Safety from crime
13. Civil liberties
14. Parks and resort areas
15. Accessibility to the public transports
16. Investment on the infrastructures (highway, railway, ports, & sewer)
17. Personal incomes
18. Job opportunities
19. Created income from local business
20. Property value
21. Cost of living
22. Purchasing power
23. Price of goods and products
24. Life expectancy
25. Job quality

1
11.4
14.6
8.9
17.7
10.1
16.5
4.4
11.4
24.7
15.2
25.9
7
18.4
40.5
10.1
63.9
19
39.9
8.2
10.8
27.2
27.8
26.6
19
44.9

2
31
23.4
20.9
17.7
18.4
17.7
13.3
26.6
29.7
30.4
38.6
7
25.3
32.3
17.7
22.2
33.5
40.5
33.5
19
36.7
34.2
36.1
22.2
27.2

3
48.1
27.8
30.4
41.8
44.9
46.2
31.6
43
32.3
38
26.6
38
37.3
19.6
40.5
6.3
36.1
14.6
44.9
40.5
29.7
33.5
31
35.4
21.5

4
8.2
17.7
24.7
19
23.4
15.8
39.9
14.6
10.1
15.2
8.2
35.4
15.8
5.7
27.2
5.1
9.5
4.4
12
25.9
4.4
3.2
4.4
17.7
4.4

5
1.3
16.5
15.2
3.8
3.2
3.8
10.8
4.4
3.2
1.3
0.6
12.7
3.2
1.9
4.4
2.5
1.9
0.6
1.3
3.8
1.9
1.3
1.9
5.7
1.9

Mean
2.57
2.98
3.16
2.73
2.91
2.73
3.39
2.74
2.37
2.57
2.19
3.39
2.6
1.96
2.98
1.6
2.42
1.85
2.65
2.93
2.17
2.16
2.19
2.69
1.91

Note: 1= very poor; 2= poor; 3= fair; 4= good; 5= very good.

Table 4. Respondents attitudes toward the impact of tourism development on the elements of quality of life
Elements
1. Traffic congestion
2. Cleanliness of natural environments
3. Water quality
4. Cleanliness within the city
5. Emergency services (police & fire)
6. Health and medical services
7. Calmness and tranquility
8. Education opportunities
9. Leisure and recreation opportunities
10. Protection of local tradition and identity
11. Reconstruction of historical sites
12. Safety from crime
13. Civil liberties
14. Parks and resort areas
15. Accessibility to the public transports
16. Investment on the infrastructures (highway, railway, ports, & sewer)
17. Personal incomes
18. Job opportunities
19. Created income from local business
20. Property value
21. Cost of living
22. Purchasing power
23. Price of goods and products
24. Life expectancy
25. Job quality

1
32.3
15.2
11.4
20.9
9.5
7.6
10.8
8.2
12.7
12.7
13.3
7.6
5.7
12
7.6
11.4
5.7
13.9
2.5
15.8
14.6
16.5
22.2
10.8
15.8

2
32.2
13.3
16.5
25.3
8.9
13.3
12
10.8
9.5
17.1
13.9
12
12
8.2
13.3
13.3
12
10.8
12.7
7
31.6
18.4
26.6
14.6
13.3

3
15.8
24.7
25.3
27.8
30.4
33.5
34.2
30.4
17.7
27.8
24.1
30.4
25.3
24.1
31.6
25.3
25.3
25.9
22.2
14.6
24.7
29.7
28.5
22.8
23.4

4
15.8
23.4
31.6
17.1
33.5
30.4
29.7
36.1
34.8
25.9
32.9
29.7
40.5
32.3
30.4
29.1
40.5
28.5
38.6
29.1
22.2
28.5
16.5
32.3
32.3

5
3.8
23.4
15.2
8.9
17.7
15.2
13.3
14.6
25.3
16.5
15.8
20.3
16.5
23.4
17.1
20.9
16.5
20.9
24.1
33.5
7
7
6.3
19.6
15.2

Mean
2.27
3.27
3.23
2.68
3.41
3.32
3.23
3.38
3.51
3.16
3.24
3.43
3
3.47
3.36
3.35
3.5
3.32
3.69
3.58
2.75
2.9
2.58
3.35
3.18

Note: 1= very bad effect; 2= bad effect; 3= neither good nor bad effect; 4= good effect; 5= very good effect.

Table 5. Supporting of tourism development in the future

Statements of tourism development supporting
1. Tourism is able to be the most important industry for our community.
2. Tourism would help our community to grow in the right direction.
3. I am both happy and proud when tourists come to our city.
4. I agree with making new facilities to attract more tourists.
5. I agree with more promotions to attract tourists.
6. Our communitys economical future should depend on the development of tourism industry.
7. Our community should plan for tourism development.
8. Tourism must be developed focusing on natural attractions (beach, forests, mountains, etc.)
9. Tourism must be developed focusing on social attractions (events, traditions, language, etc.)
10. Tourism should play the most important role in our communitys economy.
11. I tend to participate in the decision making process of tourism development.
12. I tend to volunteer to work in the local committee of tourism development.
13. I support tourism and would like to see it become important part of my community.
Note: 1= strongly disagree; 2= agree; 3= neither agree nor disagree; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree.

1
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
1.9
1.3
5.1
0.0

2
6.3
2.5
1.3
0.6
0.6
3.2
0.0
1.3
8.2
8.9
3.8
13.3
1.3

3
24.1
15.2
15.8
8.2
5.7
30.4
5.1
8.2
25.9
24.1
27.2
36.7
15.8

4
29.1
44.3
25.9
31.6
27.2
39.9
25.9
31
39.9
35.4
42.4
29.7
38.6

5
40.5
36.7
57
58.9
66.5
26.6
69
59.5
24.1
29.7
25.3
15.2
44.3

Mean
4.04
4.13
4.39
4.47
4.59
3.9
4.64
4.49
3.76
3.82
3.87
3.37
4.26

299

Will Tourism Development Improve the Quality of Life in Hashtpar City? An Analysis of Local Residents Attitudes
International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (3), March, 2015.

4.

Conclusion

The research outcomes indicate the local residents are believe that tourism development in Hashbar city would improve quality of life aspects
such as cleanliness of natural environments, water quality, emergency services (police and fire), health and medical services, education
opportunities, leisure and recreation opportunities, protection of local tradition and identity, reconstruction of historical and ancient sites, safety
from crime, civil liberties, parks and resort areas, accessibility to the public transports, investment on the infrastructures (highway, railway,
ports, and sewer), personal incomes, job opportunities, created income from local business, property value, purchasing power, life expectancy,
and job quality. On the other hand, the residents are believe that tourism development will bring some negative impacts such as more traffic,
decreasing cleanliness within the city, decreasing calmness and tranquility, increasing cost of living, and increasing price of goods and products.
Nevertheless the residents will support tourism development in the future because they are believed that tourism development would change
quality of life in Hashbar City.
Measuring quality of life rating indicates that the overall quality of life mean for all respondents was 2.5, the equivalent of poor. The highest
rated elements, calmness and tranquility (Mean= 3.39), and safety from crime (3.39) were approached fair. The lowest related elements,
investment on the infrastructures (Mean= 1.6), job opportunities (Mean= 1.85), job quality (Mean= 1.91), parks and resort areas (Mean= 1.96),
were considered poor. The overall quality of life mean for all respondents was 2.5, the equivalent of poor. So in order to improve the quality
of life in Hashtpar, following strategies are presented:
Allocation of capital to develop, strengthen and rebuild infrastructures (e.g., sewerage, highways, ports) and historical and
archaeological sites,
In many cases, the lack of officials monitoring of suppliers of goods and products has resulted in indiscriminate and spontaneous
increase in prices of goods and products. Consequently, the cost of living has increased, so we consider monitoring vendors a solution
to this problem that we can at least prevent spontaneous increase in the prices of goods and products.
Increase in recreation and leisure opportunities, through the development of recreation and leisure areas such as theaters, museums,
and parks in the city,
Traffic congestion in city is not because of lack of enough streets and passages, but in many cases high volume of traffic is due to noncompliance with traffic laws. Therefore, our strategy in the first stage is to strengthen the education system of driving and to follow
laws. The second stage is the expansion of surveillance and the next stage is to create new roads.
In the end, Hashtpar city, with a very high potential in tourism, in order to be released from poor quality of life and to prevent social
crisis ahead, has to value the tourism industry since it is the last and only solution to the current situation.

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]

[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]

Lopes, S.D.F. (2011). Destination image: Origins, Developments and Implications. PASOS, 9 (2), 305-315. Retrieved from http://www.pasosonline.org
Okello, M.M. & Yerian, S. (2009). Tourist satisfaction in relation to attractions and implications for conservation in the protected areas of the Northern
Circuit, Tanzania, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, (5), 605-625. Retrieved from http://www.informaworld.com
Vanhove, N. (2005). The economics of tourist destinations (First ed.). Jordan Hill (Oxford): Butterworth-Heinemann Publication (Elsevier).
Chen, C.F & Chen, P.C. (2010). Resident attitudes toward heritage tourism development, Tourism Geographies, 12: 4, 525-545.
Ambroz, M., (2008). Attitudes of local residents towards the development of tourism in Slovenia: The case of the Primorska, Dolenjska, Gorenjska and
Ljubljana regions, Anthropological Notebooks, 14 (1): pp. 6379.
Eraqi, M.I. (2007). Local communities attitudes towards impacts of tourism development in Egypt. Tourism Analysis, Vol. 12, pp. 191-200. Retrieved
form http://www.cognizantcommunication.com
Akis, S. Peristianis, N, Warner, J. (1996). Residents attitudes to tourism development: the case of Cyprus. Tourism Management, 17 (7): 481-494.
Zhang. J., Inbakaran. R., & Jackson. M., (2006). Understanding community attitudes towards tourism and hostguest interaction in the urbanrural border
region. Tourism Geographies, 8 (2), 182-204.
Chancellor. C., Yu. C., & Cole. S., (2011). Exploring quality of life perceptions in rural Midwestern (USA) communities: an application of the Core
Periphery concept in a tourism development context. International Journal of Tourism Research, 13, 496507. Retrieved from
http://www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
Aman. A., Manap. A., Ismail. A., Kudus. N., & Rahmiati. F., (2013). The impact of tourism innovation on quality of life of residents in the community: a
case study of Sungai Melaka. Journal of Human Capital Development,6 (1), 27-39.
Timur. S., & Getz. D., (2009). Sustainable tourism development: how Do destination stakeholders perceive sustainable urban tourism? Journal of Sustainable
Development, 17, 220232. Retrieved from http://www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
Lickorish, l. & Jenkins, C. (1997). An Introduction to Tourism. Butterworth- Heinemann Publication. Jordan Hill, Oxford.
Jackson, M., & Inbakaran. R., (2006). Evaluating residents attitudes and intentions to act towards tourism development in regional Victoria, Australia.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 8, 355366. Retrieved from http://www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
Cooper, C., & Hall, C.M. (2008). Contemporary tourism: an international approach (First ed.). Jordan Hill (Oxford): Butterworth-Heinemann Publication
(Elsevier).
Ritchie. B., & Inkari. M., (2006). Host community attitudes toward tourism and cultural tourism development: the Case of the Lewes District, Southern
England. International Journal of Tourism Research, 8, 27-44. Retrieved from http://www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
Vogt, C.A. and Jun, S.H. (2004). Residents attitudes toward tourist market segments and tourism development in Valdez, Alaska: a comparison of residents
perceptions of tourist impacts on the economy and quality of life. Proceeding of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium.
Hanafiah. M., Jamaluddin. M., & Zulkifly. M., (2013). Local community attitude and support towards tourism development in Tioman Island, Malaysia.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 105, 792 800. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com
Uriely. N., Israeli. A., & Reichel. A., (2003). Religious identity and residents attitudes toward heritage tourism development: the case of Nazareth. Journal
of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 27 (1), 69-84.
Pappas, N.V. (2008). City of Rhodes: residents' attitudes toward tourism impacts and development. Anatolia: an International Journal of Tourism and
Hospitality Research, 19 (1), 51-70.
Suntikul. W., Bauer. T., & Song. H., (2010). Towards tourism: a Laotian perspective. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12, 449461. Retrieved
from http://www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
Schofield. P., (2011). City resident attitudes to proposed tourism development and its impacts on the community. International Journal of Tourism Research,
13, 218233. Retrieved from http://www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
Aref. F., (2011). The Effects of Tourism on Quality of Life: A Case Study of Shiraz, Iran. Life Science Journal, 8 (2), 26-30.
Alipour Eshliki. S., & Kaboudi. M., (2012). Community perception of tourism impacts and their participation in tourism planning: a case study of Ramsar,
Iran. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 333 341. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com
Rezvani, M., Badri. S., Sepahvand, F., & Roonizi. S., (2012). The effects of second home tourism on improving life quality of rural residents (Case:
Roudbar-e Qasran District Shemiranat County). Urban - Regional Studies and Research Journal, 4 (13), 23-40.
Yeganeh, B., Cheraghi, M., & Vollaiee, M., (2013). Role of religious tourism to the rural development, emphasizing on the quality of life and social capital;
case study of Ghopchagh Village. Journal of Applied research in Geographical Sciences,, 13 (30), 7-25. Retrieved from http://jgs.khu.ac.ir
Zamani Farahani, H., and Musa, G. (2008). Residents' attitudes and perception towards tourism development: a case study of Masooleh, Iran. Tourism
Management, 29 (6), pp. 1233-1236. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com

Bahram Zeinali *, Mohsen Jafarpour, Esllam Omidi , Naser Tahmasbi , Sobhan Dorangard

300

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (3), March, 2015.

[27] Rastegar. H., (2010). Tourism development and residents attitude: a case study of Yazd, Iran. TOURISMOS: AN INTERNATIONAL
MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF TOURISM, 5 (2), 203-211.
[28] Foroughzadeh, S., Shariati, S., and Danaee, M. (2013). A developing factor or a threat to tradition, Kang residents' perception of tourism, Biannual Journal of
Tourism Studies, 2 (3), 46-73. Retrieved from http://www.journalitor.ir
[29] Statistical Center of Iran (2012). www.amar.org
[30] Middleton, V., & Clarke, J. (2001). Marketing in travel and tourism. Jordan Hill (Oxford): Butterworth-Heinemann Publication (Elsevier), Third edition.
[31] Butler, R.W. (1980). The concept of tourism area cycle of evaluation: implication for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, Volume 21, No 1, pp.
5-12.
[32] Harrill. R., (2004). Residents attitudes toward tourism development: a Literature review with implications for tourism planning. Journal of Planning
Literature, 18 (1), 1-16.
[33] Harrill. R., Uysal. M., Cardon. P., Vong. F., Dioko. L., (2011). Resident attitudes towards gaming and tourism development in Macao: Growth Machine
Theory as a context for identifying supporters and opponents. International Journal of Tourism Research, 13, 4153. Retrieved from
http://www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
[34] Oviedo-Garcia. M., Castellanos-Verdugo. M., & Martin-Ruiz. D., (2008). Gaining residents support for tourism and planning. International Journal of
Tourism Research, 10, 95109. Retrieved from http://www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
[35] Long, P., (2012). Tourism impacts and support for tourism development in Ha Long Bay, Vietnam: an examination of residents perceptions. Asian Social
Science, 8 (8), 28-39. Retrieved from http://www.ccsenet.org/ass