Description
The purpose of this paper is to explore the cultural interaction between communities and
visitors to islands using social exchange theory to enhance the understanding of the island experience.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Tourism interaction on islands: the community and visitor social exchange
Brent Moyle Glen Croy Betty Weiler
Article information:
To cite this document:
Brent Moyle Glen Croy Betty Weiler, (2010),"Tourism interaction on islands: the community and visitor social exchange", International
J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 Iss 2 pp. 96 - 107
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011045172
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:09 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 71 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2324 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Sandra M. Sánchez-Cañizares, Ana María Castillo-Canalejo, (2014),"Community-based island tourism: the case of Boa Vista in
Cape Verde", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp. 219-233http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJ CTHR-04-2012-0015
J enny Cave, Keith G. Brown, (2012),"Island tourism: destinations: an editorial introduction to the special issue", International J ournal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 6 Iss 2 pp. 95-113http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181211233036
Bishnu Sharma, Pam Dyer, (2009),"Residents' involvement in tourism and their perceptions of tourism impacts", Benchmarking: An
International J ournal, Vol. 16 Iss 3 pp. 351-371http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635770910961371
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Tourism interaction on islands: the
community and visitor social exchange
Brent Moyle, Glen Croy and Betty Weiler
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the cultural interaction between communities and
visitors to islands using social exchange theory to enhance the understanding of the island experience.
Design/methodology/approach – The method consisted of 30 in-depth interviews with community and
tourism stakeholders, and formed part of a multi-phase study that used social exchange theory as the
lens to illuminate a range of perspectives of island interaction. This paper presents a comparative case
study of Bruny Island in Tasmania, and Magnetic Island in Queensland, Australia.
Findings – Findings revealed that local community members have a wide range of motivations for
entering into social exchanges with visitors, ranging from solely economic, to a genuine desire to
provide quality experiences. Additionally, ?ndings showed the nature of island cultural interaction could
vary immensely, from welcoming and meaningful exchanges through to super?cial and even hostile
contact.
Research limitations/implications – As this research is on two islands in Australia, within a particular
timeframe, the results may not be representative of island communities generally. Nonetheless, the
results are indicative of locals’ perceptions of their interactions with visitors.
Practical implications – The ?ndings have a range of practical implications for the management of
local and visitor interaction on islands. A key implication for island communities is the importance of
developing programs that educate and inform locals about the potential bene?ts of interaction.
Additionally, this research illustrates how islands can use cultural interaction to differentiate their tourism
product and market island experiences.
Originality/value – The paper’s contribution is its use of social exchange theory at a micro-level to
illuminate a range of local community members’ perspectives of their tourism exchanges, in order to
enhance understanding of the complex process of interaction between locals and visitors to islands.
Keywords Social interaction, Tourism, Communities, Australia, National cultures
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Earth includes a scattering of more than 100,000 islands containing in excess of 400 million
inhabitants (Lilley, 2006). Islands are integral to the earth’s biodiversity, with their distinct
environmental conditions offering a haven for a variety of threatened species of plants and
wildlife (Mueller-Dombois and Fosberg, 1998). Tourism is often the vehicle for economic
development and job creation for the locals who inhabit these inherently fragile destinations
(Croes, 2006; Keane et al., 1992; Scheyvens and Momsen, 2008). However, inappropriate
tourism development can lead to adverse environmental and social impacts on islands,
including exposing locals to behavior that may clash with the island culture or traditional
community values (MacDonald and Jolliffe, 2003). Friction within island communities can
cause locals to resent tourism and adopt coping mechanisms to avoid contact, creating an
uncomfortable atmosphere for visitors (Bunce, 2008).
As cultural interaction is often central to the visitor experience on islands, resentment of
tourism by locals can dilute the tourism experience and form an obstacle to harnessing
PAGE 96
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010, pp. 96-107, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/17506181011045172
Brent Moyle, Glen Croy and
Betty Weiler are all based at
the Tourism Research Unit,
Monash University, Narre
Warren, Australia.
Received February 2009
Revised March 2009
Accepted July 2009
This research is an outcome of
a project funded by the
Sustainable Tourism
Cooperative Research Centre
(STCRC), established by the
Australian Commonwealth
Government.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
host-guest interaction as a point of market differentiation. Consequently, the sustainable
management of island tourism is particularly complex with the need to be responsive to the
diverse and often con?icting opinions of locals (Lilka, 2001). Integrating tourism into
communities can be especially problematic for islands due to the temporal and spatial
con?nement of visitors and locals – tourismstrategists must ?nd a way for tourists and locals
to coexist harmoniously (Albuquerque and McElroy, 1992). As a result, understanding
interaction between visitors and locals is crucial for the management of tourism to small
islands. This paper explores locals’ perceptions of interaction between communities and
visitors to islands using social exchange theory. Through further advancing the
understanding of local and visitor interaction, this paper contributes to the management
of tourism on islands by helping to identify strategies that ensure tourism is sustainable and
suits the lifestyle of island locals, whilst optimizing the visitor experience.
Literature review
Much of the tourism knowledge base on islands builds from research that focuses on a
variety of Paci?c and Greek islands (Camhis and Coccossis, 1983; Hall, 1994; King et al.,
2000; Black and King, 2002; Haas, 2002; Marinos, 1983; Peak, 2007; Webster and Timothy,
2006). Previous studies on islands comprise a broad range of issues, including economic
development (McElroy, 2006), community perceptions of impacts (Ko and Stewart, 2002),
environmental resource management (Walker, 1991), and industry and government
partnerships (Rao, 2002). In an Australian context a range of studies have been
undertaken on islands, from the provision of facilities and services on Kangaroo Island
(Thomson and Thomson, 1994), to the backpacker experience on Fraser Island (Cooper,
2001). Nonetheless, the actual holistic process of interaction between visitors and locals on
islands has remained largely unexplored. The present study addresses this conceptual gap
of how locals and visitors can experience meaningful and mutually bene?cial interactions in
island settings.
The disciplines of sociology, social psychology, anthropology, and economics examine
interactions among various groups or actors (Goodwin, 1981; Goffman, 1961; Manski,
2000). Teichman and Foa (1975) argue that the concept of interaction builds on an
interconnected systemin which two or more actors connect, evoking a two-way exchange of
resources leading to a range of outcomes. The literature includes several human or personal
interaction-based theoretical frameworks; sociology, in particular, employs such
frameworks. These frameworks include, though are not limited to, symbolic interaction
(Blumer, 1969), interaction process analysis (Bales, 1950), human ecological systems
theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), resource dependence theory (Boyd, 1990), transaction cost
theory (Galbraith, 1973), economic rational choice theory (Becker, 1978), expectations
con?rmation theory (Oliver, 1977), and various forms of resource exchange theories
(Homans, 1961).
Since the introduction of various theories of human and personal interaction into sociology
and social psychology, researchers have been applying a number of them to tourism and
leisure (Auld, 1997). Kelly (1994) uses the theory of symbolic interaction to explore the
meaning of leisure behavior in social contexts. Woodside et al. (2005) use ecological
systems theory to examine the contextual facilitators and constraints to the thoughts and
actions of individuals regarding work, leisure and travel alternatives. Pearce (1995) explores
the concepts of interaction and exchange between different cultures to help inform the
ecologically sustainable socio-cultural development of destinations. Nash (1989) uses a
transactional approach to explore the economic relationship in host-guest interactions in
developing destinations. Not surprisingly, intercultural interaction is the focus of a number of
research projects in tourism (Frakowski-Braganza, 1983; Santos and Prof?tt, 2004).
Social exchange theory is perhaps the best-known interaction-based theory in tourism (Ap,
1992; Deccio and Baloglu, 2002; Jurowski and Gursoy, 2004; McGehee and Andereck,
2004). Social exchange theory is a derivative of sociology and social psychology
(Alexander, 1990). Psychological researchers Emerson (1962) and Homans (1961), together
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 97
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
with an economic researcher Blau (1964), are largely responsible for developing social
exchange theory in sociology.
Social exchange theory conceptualizes the exchange of resources between individuals and
groups in an interaction situation (Brinberg and Castell, 1982), and thus provides a
framework for understanding tourismrelationships, interactions and transactions. Long et al.
(1990) ?rst introduced the theory into tourism to harness its potential to explain residents’
differing perceptions towards impacts. Ap (1992) uses a model of social exchange theory in
tourism visitor-host interactions. The basic premise of social exchange theory is that in order
to sustain interaction at least a two-way ?ow of material, social and or psychological
resources between individual actors or groups of individuals must be present (Ap, 1992).
Social exchange theory is principally a behaviorally based theory, focusing on the process of
exchange during the two-way ?ow of resources between actors (Beeton, 2006). Ap (1992)
outlines four key stages: the initiation of an exchange, the exchange formation, the exchange
transaction evaluation, and the evaluation of exchange consequences.
The ?rst stage of the exchange process, the initiation of an exchange, occurs during the
pre-exchange period (Gaechter and Fehr, 1999). Social exchange theory posits that during
this period satisfaction of an actor’s needs motivates an exchange relationship; without a
need to satisfy there is no reason to seek interaction (Ap, 1992). The initiation of an exchange
by an actor begins the process of interaction.
The second stage, the exchange formation, encompasses three interconnected
components: antecedents, the exchange relation, and the form of the exchange relation
(Ap, 1992). The antecedents are the preceding conditions of interaction, and represent
opportunities or situations perceived by at least one actor before the exchange relation
forms. At this stage an actor predicts if an exchange with another will result in rewards or
bene?ts, and attempts to maximize the possible rewards and bene?ts or at least ensure that
the resources to be exchanged are roughly equivalent (Gui, 2000). If either actor perceives
the antecedents as inequitable, they have the option to withdrawbefore the actual exchange
of resources. If the actors view the antecedents as favorable, then an exchange relation
usually forms.
During the exchange relation, a series of temporally inter-dispersed exchanges of material,
social and or psychological resources transpires, determining the nature of the exchange
(Ap, 1992). Important to note is that exchanges, though often ?nancial in nature, do not
necessarily involve economic or physical resources. The form of the exchange relation is a
function of the power and dependency relationship between actors, which often manifests
because of either a balanced or unbalanced exchange of resources during the exchange
relation (Yamagishi and Cook, 1993).
The ?nal two stages of the exchange process are the exchange transaction evaluation and
the evaluation of exchange consequences (Ap, 1992). Both stages form the overall
post-exchange, when each actor enacts a process to evaluate the transaction of resources,
and identi?es the consequences of the exchange (Cook et al., 1983). The evaluation also
includes the actors to identifying whether the exchange is positive or negative for the other
actor(s) involved in the process (Ap, 1992). If either actor perceives the consequences of the
exchange as negative, meaning the exchange relation is unbalanced and the transactions of
resources are not gratifying, the actor has the option to withdraw from future exchanges
(Emerson, 1976). A negative evaluation does not mean the actor will necessarily withdraw
from the social exchange, as an actor may perceive the exchange as negative, but continue
the exchange because of necessity (Lindberg et al., 2001). Rather, a negative evaluation
provides the prompt to withdraw, and is where power or dependence on the other actor may
in?uence the decision to continue exchanging. Nonetheless, if both actors perceive the
consequences of the exchange as positive and further exchanges are in both actors’ best
interests, continuation of the exchange behavior will generally transpire (Goldberg, 1980).
Two stages of Ap’s (1992) model are assessed in previous social exchange theory studies in
a tourism context, principally, the ?nal stage of the exchange process focusing on
community evaluation of exchange consequences. The consequences of the exchange
PAGE 98
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
refer to the range of economic, environmental and socio-cultural impacts of tourism for
communities (Hernandez et al., 1996). Previous studies also explore the ?rst stage of Ap’s
(1992) model – the initiation of an exchange. These studies assess community support for
further tourism development through the identi?cation of particular needs that communities
seek to satisfy (Kayat, 2002; Sirakaya et al., 2002).
These applications of social exchange theory in a tourism context focus on the collective
rather than the individual level. In other words, the tourism literature that uses social
exchange theory focuses on macro-level applications to tourism and communities
(Chhabra, 2008; Sirakaya et al., 2002), and the interactions between collective entities
(Hernandez et al., 1996; Lee and Back, 2003). Given the notion of tourism exchanges are in
the complex involvement of people as individuals, such macro-level applications may be
limiting and suggest an opportunity to undertake a micro-level application of social
exchange to the interactions that occur between the subgroups and even the individuals
who comprise these larger entities. This paper follows the lead of previous studies in
employing social exchange theory as a theoretical lens, to explore the in-depth and dynamic
process of interaction between locals and visitors to islands. In summary, the paper’s
contribution is its use of social exchange theory at a micro-level to illuminate a range of local
community members’ perspectives of their tourism exchanges, in order to enhance
understanding of the complex process of interaction between locals and visitors to islands.
Island selection
This research uses the two islands of Bruny Island, Tasmania, and Magnetic Island,
Queensland, Australia. Bruny Island is actually two islands connected by a narrow isthmus,
including Bruny Island National Park on the southern island, and has a local population of
around 620 (Bruny Island Tourism, 2008). Magnetic Island is part of the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park, a World Heritage listed area, and has a local population of around 2,500
(Townsville Enterprise, 2008). Tourism is important to the local economy on Bruny and
Magnetic Islands, the communities are small and identi?able, residents experience and live
with tourism impacts, and locals live in close proximity to protected areas used by tourists
visiting the islands. Selecting two islands that have commonalities and differences enables a
comparative case study and enhances the generalizability of the results to islands with
similar traits (Marshall and Rossman, 2006).
Method
This comparative study of locals’ tourism exchanges with visitors on Bruny Island and
Magnetic Island uses ?fteen in-depth interviews from each island community[1]. To gain a
variety of perspectives, we sampled a variety of community and tourism stakeholders,
including people from community groups, associations and clubs, accommodation
providers, tour operators, local business owners, local government and council, and
parks and wildlife agencies. Using one-hour semi-structured on-site interviews, we took
each interviewee through the process of interaction conceptualized by social exchange
theory.
We then followed Huberman and Miles’ (2002) three step approach of data reduction, data
display and conclusion drawing-veri?cation to enhance the reliability and validity of the
results. The data reduction phase involves coding the interview transcripts using codes that
best re?ect emergent patterns and expected theoretical themes from the data (Van Dijk and
Kirk, 2007). The data display phase makes the tabulated data highly accessible and easy to
interpret. The conclusion drawing-veri?cation stage ensures all authors independently
check the initial themes and some re?nement follows. Finally, two additional independent
coders, with no previous involvement in the study, re-coded the data achieving an
inter-coder reliability score over 90 percent, which is above the recommended reliability level
(Huberman and Miles, 2002).
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 99
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Results
The presentation of the results applies the four-stage framework of social exchange theory:
the initiation of an exchange; the exchange formation; the exchange transaction evaluation;
and the evaluation of exchange consequences (Ap, 1992).
Interviews reveal that locals have a diverse range of reasons for interacting with visitors
during the initiation of an exchange stage. The most common motivation locals have to
interact with visitors, across both islands, is the desire to satisfy ?nancial or economic needs,
with a business owner on Bruny Island commenting:
People who are providing services interact with tourists because they need an income, but still
resent the people being here and say thank god the tourist season is over.
Such evidence indicates that some locals see the tourists only in terms of the ?nancial
resources that they bring to the exchange. Whilst the desire to interact with visitors for
?nancial reasons is strongly evident on both islands, locals not economically dependent on
tourism often express a genuine desire to interact to provide quality and meaningful
experiences. These locals describe giving visitors a meaningful experience as rewarding,
and seek to ful?ll the desire or need to help others. A member of a local community group on
Magnetic Island describes certain locals within the community who:
. . . desire interaction with tourists and just want to do something good for the people who are
visiting here, nothing else.
Thus, locals interact with tourists to the island to provide a meaningful experience. Locals’
desire to share information and knowledge with visitors is also evident on both islands,
particularly among those who have lived on the island for long periods, who describe
interaction as a process of storytelling. For many island locals, the motivation to interact is for
the opportunity to share information and knowledge with visitors, either during an economic
transaction, or just socially.
Some families have inhabited Bruny Island for generations, and many locals actively engage
with the area’s history. Consequently, a key desire expressed by many Bruny Island locals is
to share information of the islands’ history, the culture and the environment. This observation
by a retired Bruny Island local shows the pride in the heritage of the island:
All of Bruny Island residents living here are proud of its attributes, proud of family contributions to
the island. Some families have been here for generations, have a wealth of knowledge on the
culture and history of the island, and more recently with forestry on the island; the environment
has become a hot topic of discussion. I think these stories are what the community wants to share
with tourists.
On Magnetic Island, the information locals desire to share with visitors is different, even
though many locals have resided on the island for long periods. Community pride is still
evident, focusing on concepts of lifestyle and community, as a retired Magnetic Island
resident illustrates:
I often connect with tourists about the day-to-day life of locals on the Island. I recall a particular
encounter with a tourist from Bristol and comparing my daily routine with his daily routine back
home. The conversation ended with him going to the real estate of?ce to look for a house to buy!
That’s the beauty of Magnetic Island: the community is extremely welcoming and the lifestyle is
enticing. Many tourists want that deeper, authentic meaning fromsomeone in the community who
was not making any money off them.
All the same, often interviewees expressed the view that unless an economic incentive is
involved, locals usually do not interact with visitors, and tourists need to drive any interaction.
It is not something they seek, unless they need visitors to make money. This interaction has to be
driven from the tourists.
This example clearly describes the complex nature of the exchange between locals and
visitors, with the desire to attain ?nancial resources central to determining how, when, where
and very often why locals choose to initiate an interaction with visitors.
PAGE 100
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Interviews show that locals have the opportunity to assess the antecedents or preceding
conditions of a potential interaction, before the actual transaction of resources with visitors,
during the second stage of exchange formation. Interviewees reveal a number of facilitating
conditions to interaction on Bruny and Magnetic Islands, speci?cally conditions where locals
feel rewards and bene?ts occur from an equivalent, fair and just exchange of resources.
Facilitating conditions include community events, markets and attractions, initiatives by tour
operators, accommodation providers, community clubs and societies, and, on Magnetic
Island in particular, the opportunities for socializing presented by local shops, restaurants
and pubs on the island. For example, a member of a local community group and business
owner on Magnetic Island describes an annual jazz festival as:
. . . a great opportunity where we can choose to interact with tourists, we are not forced, it is all
authentic, heaps turn out from the community and we all intermingle. Plenty of new friendships
and even relationships have developed during the festivals on the island.
Opportunities such as festivals, events, and markets came out in the interviews as forming
favorable conditions, where locals can choose to interact with visitors, with a time limit, and
without any major perceived threat to locals’ lifestyle.
Although a range of favorable antecedents exists, a number of barriers or unfavorable
preceding conditions that make locals view interaction with visitors as undesirable are also
present. On Magnetic Island, a particularly strong barrier is apparent because of the
perceived negative impacts of tourism on the island. Many interviewees describe the recent
re-development of Nelly Bay as aesthetically unappealing, and with apartments close to sea
level, an environmental disaster waiting to happen. Due to Nelly Bay, many locals on
Magnetic Island perceive they have lost control over tourism, often translating into
unwillingness to interact with visitors altogether.
We’re all still really annoyed about what they did to Nelly Bay; before I talk to a visitor, I think of that
bloody development and tend to avoid them as a form of silent protest.
This retired Magnetic Island tour operator’s remark shows how deeply a loss of perceived
control over development on the island can affect the community, even those previously
dependent or tourism.
Interviews on Magnetic Island also reveal different clusters of locals who are unwilling to
interact with visitors because of negative impacts of visitors on their lifestyle, as these words
of a local artist illustrate:
Most locals aren’t involved in the tourism industry and are apathetic to tourism on the island; it’s a
lifestyle thing really. They don’t want to be connected to tourism because it has a number of
negative impacts on their lives.
The lifestyle of islanders thus serves as a simultaneous attractor to tourists and barrier to
interaction of those who move to the islands for a more relaxed and private lifestyle. Many
locals consequently regard visitors as compromising their new way of life, especially during
peak periods.
On Bruny Island, a number of other barriers form unfavorable conditions for interaction with
visitors. In particular, locals comment on the lack of public infrastructure and transport on the
island. One local community group member exempli?ed this, commenting:
. . . community members are not used to the in?ux of tourism; they think tourists are tearing up our
roads and using all our facilities and tend to avoid contact with visitors. In fact, we had a tourist
who attempted to talk to a local up one end of the island and was given the one-?ngered salute, so
they weren’t welcomed at all.
In other words, some locals blame visitors for the deterioration of the island’s infrastructure,
and are then unwilling to interact because of the negative impacts.
If the antecedent conditions are positive during the exchange formation, then the
exchange relation forms. Interviewees identify a variety of local and visitor resources
transacted during the exchange relation. On both islands, the resources were tangible
and intangible, and could be categorized into the six resource exchange dimensions
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 101
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
money, goods, services, knowledge, status and love (Rettig, 1985), with one minor
modi?cation. To re?ect the interviews, hospitality is substituted for love as the resource
exchange dimension to ?t more appropriately to the tourism context. Hospitality refers
broadly to the host-guest relationship, and is a common term used in the tourism ?eld
(Levy and Hassay, 2005). All six-resource dimensions are present on the islands. Money
is a common resource transacted in local-visitor exchanges. Nonetheless, the following
observation of an accommodation provider on Magnetic Island serves as an example of a
local giving information in exchange for recognition of their role as experience providers
outside of economic transactions:
There are many quirky island characters that love to be larger than life and end up in Facebook
photos . . . . They act like they know it all and give visitors all sorts of information.
Evidently, locals and visitors to islands undertake a diversity of exchanges, with interactions
taking place on multiple levels, frompurposeful economic transactions interactions, through
to serendipitous transactions around the island.
With regard to the form of exchange relation, there are varying community responses to the
balance-of-power between locals and visitors. Interviewees with an economic dependence
on tourism feel both locals and visitors receive mutual bene?ts:
I think tourism is a win-win situation; residents receive economic bene?ts and improvements to
infrastructure and key services.
This tour operator on Magnetic Island exempli?es the views of many island locals with a
?nancial interest in tourism. However, locals without a direct economic attachment to
tourism, usually retirees or those working on the mainland, generally feel visitors are in a
position of power:
We are too often powerless in the attempt to gather funds for badly needed infrastructure to
support tourism, there are just so many and it’s getting worse.
This observation by a member of a local community group on Bruny Island re?ects the angst
among many locals who have seen an increase in visitors to each island, yet feel the tangible
bene?ts of tourism are lacking.
During the transaction evaluation, locals assess the transfer of resources and identify a
variety of consequences of their exchange with individual visitors and with tourism as a
collective entity. On Bruny and Magnetic Islands, interviewees perceive consequences of
the exchange to vary immensely, from experiencing meaningful and welcoming encounters,
through to super?cial and even hostile contact. When locals refer to tourism as a collective,
the focus is on the range of socio-cultural impacts of tourism:
It is the congestion on roads and ferry. Residents have no priority and many people have to
adjust social and work habits over summer; it takes them three hours to get home off the
mainland. This comment from an accommodation provider on Bruny Island demonstrates
the immense strain on resources during peak periods of visitation. The interviewees’
uncovering of tourism impacts re?ect those in the tourism literature, with many impacts such
as noise disturbance and littering on the forefront of many locals’ minds. However, when
locals re?ect on personal examples of how an interaction with an individual visitor made
them feel, the responses are immensely different:
Hard to say. Fair percentage who don’t want the tourist, don’t like the tourist and think the
tourist is scum, especially the backpackers and wouldn’t interact with them in the ?rst place,
but I on the other hand enjoy interacting with visitors as a way of making friends and enriching
my social life.
This comment demonstrates that, at the individual level, locals have an immense range
of feelings and emotions because of an interaction with a visitor. Interviewees describe
a variety of positive and negative interactions with visitors, revealing feelings of
economic dependence through to friendships and relationships, from annoyance to
euphoria.
PAGE 102
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Contributions and implications
This study is on two islands in Australia within a particular timeframe, thus the results may not
represent island communities generally. Nonetheless, the results indicate the locals’
perceptions of interactions with visitors. This paper contributes to the theoretical
understanding of complex social interaction in a tourism context. The primary theoretical
contribution is the use of social exchange theory to frame the understanding of
local-tourist-tourism interaction. In particular, this research has advanced knowledge on
the individual complexities and multiple levels of interaction, including the range of different
motivations, facilitating factors, barriers, resources and consequences of interaction for the
locals that inhabit small island communities.
This exploratory research uncovers a number of challenges to the successful management
of the interaction between local communities and visitors on small islands. A key challenge
for islands is the need to understand and manage local attitudes towards tourism. Many
locals are unhappy with the level of tourism and development on the island, and see visitors
as an intrusion or threat to their lifestyle. As a result, certain segments of locals are unwilling
to interact with visitors, often implementing coping mechanisms to avoid interaction
altogether. Given the desire of many visitors to enrich their experience through engaging
with host communities, and the fact that the island people and their lifestyle are arguably the
key to the destinations’ attraction, an unmitigated approach is incompatible with the
long-term sustainability of tourism on these islands. To address this issue, islands might
consider developing programs that educate and inform island locals and visitors on the
importance of interaction and the potential bene?ts and affects tourism can have on the
community. Connecting to this is the need for island communities to further manage and
mitigate the negative impacts of tourism and associated development on the lifestyle of
locals. Islands and islanders can achieve further education by exploring ways of using local
interaction to inform visitors to make decisions about their own behavior and the activities
they engage in on islands. Those responsible for islands tourism development might also
consider the training of tourism professionals to play the role of mediator within the
community, to encourage both locals and visitors to connect in a meaningful way.
By recognizing the role locals’ play in visitors’ experiences, the opportunities to use
community-based interaction programs to achieve a variety of objectives is immense. The
education of island communities can help locals appreciate the distinct opportunity they
have to foster a quality experience for visitors, which at the same time can enhance the
island’s appeal as a place to live. Additionally, enhancing local understanding of the
importance of interaction will help island communities in particular prepare for, and adapt to,
a shifting global landscape where visitors in the future will have more interest in more
holistically experiencing each destination. In turn, enhancing locals’ understanding will
assist efforts to reduce negative impacts on island communities.
Conclusion and future research
Tourism interaction between locals and visitors to islands is dynamic and complex. Using
social exchange theory to examine interaction, this study consisted of thirty semi-structured
interviews with local community members on Bruny and Magnetic Islands, Australia. This
research reveals that locals have an immense range of motivations for interaction, from
solely economic reward seeking through to a genuine desire to provide meaningful
experiences. Events, markets, community clubs, and groups facilitate island interaction. All
the same, a number of barriers to interaction exist, including resistance by many members of
local communities, and a lack of infrastructure and resources to support interactions. The
nature of interaction on islands also varies immensely from welcoming and meaningful
exchanges through to super?cial and even hostile contacts.
Future research on the interaction between locals and visitors to small islands needs to
include the visitors’ perspective. Communities can develop programs to cater for and
manage the local-visitor experience once they understand visitor demand for interaction,
through social exchange theory. Importantly, the interaction programs, tailored to the lifestyle
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 103
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
preferences of locals, enhance visitors’ awareness and knowledge of the island
environment, and modify behaviors that locals consider inappropriate. Interaction
programs enable islanders to seek out and initiate exchanges that are balanced and
bene?cial to visitors and locals, which provide quality island experiences, while preserving
the quality of life and lifestyle of local islanders.
Note
1. Interviews with visitors to both islands are planned as a follow-up stage in this study, as a basis for
further insight.
References
Albuquerque, K.D. and McElroy, J.L. (1992), ‘‘Caribbean small-island tourism styles and sustainable
strategies’’, Environmental Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 619-32.
Alexander, J. (1990), ‘‘Structure, value, action’’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 339-45.
Ap, J. (1992), ‘‘Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 665-90.
Auld, C.J. (1997), ‘‘Social exchange processes in leisure and non-leisure settings: a review and
exploratory investigation’’, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 183-200.
Bales, R.F. (1950), Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups, Addison
Wesley, Cambridge.
Becker, G.S. (1978), The Economic Approach to Human Behavior, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL.
Beeton, S. (2006), Community Development through Tourism, Landlinks Press, Victoria.
Black, R. and King, B. (2002), ‘‘Human resource development in remote island communities:
an evaluation of tour-guide training in Vanuatu’’, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 103-17.
Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Blumer, H. (1969), Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method, University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA.
Boyd, B. (1990), ‘‘Corporate linkages and organizational environment: a test of the resource
dependence model’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 419-30.
Brinberg, D. and Castell, P. (1982), ‘‘A resource exchange theory approach to interpersonal interactions:
a test of Foa’s theory’’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 260-9.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979), The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bruny Island Tourism (2008), ‘‘Welcome to Bruny Island, Tasmania’’, available at: www.brunyisland.net
(accessed 12 April, 2008).
Bunce, M. (2008), ‘‘The ‘leisuring’ of rural landscapes in Barbados: new spatialities and the implications
for sustainability in small island states’’, Geoforum, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 969-79.
Camhis, M. and Coccossis, H. (1983), ‘‘Environment and tourism in island regions’’, Planning and
Administration, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 16-23.
Chhabra, D. (2008), ‘‘Social exchange theory in resort and non-resort casino settings’’, Anatolia, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 155-60.
Cook, K.S., Emerson, R.M., Gillmore, M.R. and Yamagishi, T. (1983), ‘‘The distribution of power in
exchange networks: theory and experimental results’’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 89 No. 1,
pp. 275-305.
Cooper, M. (2001), ‘‘Backpackers to WP Island: why is WP a neglected aspect of their experience?’’,
Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 45-9.
PAGE 104
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Croes, R.R. (2006), ‘‘A paradigm shift to a new strategy for small island economies: embracing demand
side economics for value enhancement and long termeconomic stability’’, TourismManagement, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 453-65.
Deccio, C. and Baloglu, S. (2002), ‘‘Nonhost community resident reactions to the 2002 Winter Olympics:
the spillover impacts’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 46-56.
Emerson, R. (1962), ‘‘Power dependence relations’’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 31-41.
Emerson, R. (1976), ‘‘Social exchange theory’’, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 335-62.
Frakowski-Braganza, A.C. (1983), ‘‘Host/guest interaction and its impact on social identity’’, Dissertation
Abstracts International, Vol. 44 No. 3, p. 803.
Gaechter, S. and Fehr, E. (1999), ‘‘Collective action as a social exchange’’, Journal of Economic
Behaviour and Organisation, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 341-69.
Galbraith, J. (1973), Designing Complex Organizations, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Goffman, E. (1961), Encounters: Two studies in the Sociology of Interaction, Macmillan Publishing Co.,
London.
Goldberg, V.P. (1980), ‘‘Relational exchange: economics and complex contracts’’, American Behavioral
Scientist, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 337-52.
Goodwin, C. (1981), Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers,
Academic Press, New York, NY.
Gui, B. (2000), ‘‘Beyond transactions: on the interpersonal dimension of economic reality’’, Annals of
Public and Cooperative Economics, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 139-69.
Haas, H.C.D. (2002), ‘‘Sustainability of small-scale ecotourism: the case of Niue, South Paci?c’’, Current
Issues in Tourism, Vol. 5 Nos 3/4, pp. 319-37.
Hall, C.M. (1994), ‘‘Tourism in Paci?c Island microstates: a case study of Vanuatu’’, Tourism Recreation
Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 59-64.
Hernandez, S.A., Cohen, J. and Garcia, H.L. (1996), ‘‘Residents attitudes towards an instant resort
enclave’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 755-79.
Homans, G. (1961), Social Behaviour, Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, NY.
Huberman, M.A. and Miles, M.B. (2002), The Qualitative Researchers Companion, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Jurowski, C. and Gursoy, D. (2004), ‘‘Distance effects on residents’ attitudes toward tourism’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 296-312.
Kayat, K. (2002), ‘‘Power, social exchanges and tourism in Langkawi – rethinking residents’
perceptions’’, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 171-91.
Keane, M.J., Brophy, P. and Cuddy, M.P. (1992), ‘‘Strategic management of island tourism: the Aran
islands’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 406-14.
Kelly, J.R. (1994), ‘‘The symbolic interaction metaphor and leisure: critical challenges’’, Leisure Studies,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 81-96.
King, B., McVey, M. and Simmons, D. (2000), ‘‘A societal marketing approach to national tourism
planning: evidence from the South Paci?c’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 407-16.
Ko, D. and Stewart, W.P. (2002), ‘‘A structural equation model of residents attitudes towards tourism
development’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 521-30.
Lee, C. and Back, K.J. (2003), ‘‘Pre- and post-casino impact of residents’ perception’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 868-85.
Levy, S.E. and Hassay, D.N. (2005), ‘‘Visitor communities’’, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 57-72.
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 105
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Lilka, C. (2001), ‘‘Tourismdevelopment in small islands: a case study of Elephanta Island’’, Maharashtra,
India, Tourism Recreation Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 15-23.
Lilley, I. (2006), Archaeology of Oceania: Australia and the Paci?c Islands, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Lindberg, K., Andersson, T. and Dallaert, B.G.C. (2001), ‘‘Tourism development: assessing social gains
and losses’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1010-30.
Long, P.T., Perdue, R.R. and Allen, L. (1990), ‘‘Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes by
community level of tourism’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 3-9.
McElroy, J.L. (2006), ‘‘Small island tourist economies across the life cycle’’, Asia Paci?c Viewpoint,
Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 61-77.
McGehee, N.G. and Andereck, K.L. (2004), ‘‘Factors predicting rural residents’ support of tourism’’,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 131-40.
MacDonald, R. and Jolliffe, L. (2003), ‘‘Cultural rural tourism: evidence from Canada’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 307-22.
Manski, C.F. (2000), ‘‘Economic analysis of social interactions’’, NBER working paper no. W7580,
available at:http://ssrn.com/abstract ¼ 219392 (accessed 10 December 2008).
Marinos, P. (1983), ‘‘Small island tourism: the case of Zakynthos, Greece’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 4
No. 3, pp. 212-5.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (2006), Designing Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Mueller-Dombois, D. and Fosberg, R.F. (1998), Vegetation of the Tropical Paci?c Islands, Springer
Publishing, New York, NY.
Nash, D. (1989), ‘‘Tourism as a form of imperialism’’, in Smith, V. (Ed.), Guests and Hosts:
The Anthropology of Tourism, 2nd ed., University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 37-52.
Oliver, R.L. (1977), ‘‘Effect of expectation and discon?rmation on postexposure product evaluations: an
alternative interpretation’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 480-92.
Peak, D. (2007), ‘‘Problems in developing tourism in Fiji Islands’’, e-Review of Tourism Research, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 64-73.
Pearce, P.L. (1995), ‘‘From culture shock and cultural arrogance through to cultural exchange:
ideas towards sustainable socio-cultural tourism’’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 143-54.
Rao, M. (2002), ‘‘Challenges and issues for tourism in the south island states: the case of the Fiji
Islands’’, Tourism Economics, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 401-29.
Rettig, K. (1985), ‘‘Conceptual issues for integrated economic and social resource exchange theories’’,
Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 43-62.
Santos, C.A. and Prof?tt, J.F. (2004), ‘‘The humor in it: tourists and intercultural interaction’’, Tourism
(Zagreb), Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 51-64.
Scheyvens, R. and Momsen, J.H. (2008), ‘‘Tourism and poverty reduction: issues for small island
states’’, Tourism Geographies, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 22-41.
Sirakaya, E., Teye, V. and Sonmez, S. (2002), ‘‘Understanding residents support for tourism
development in the central region of Ghana’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 57-67.
Teichman, M. and Foa, U.G. (1975), ‘‘Effect of resources similarity on satisfaction with exchange’’, Social
Behavior and Personality, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 213-24.
Thomson, F.L. and Thomson, N.J. (1994), ‘‘Tourism, tax receipts and the local government: the case of
Kangaroo Island’’, Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 57-66.
Townsville Enterprise (2008), ‘‘Magnetic Island – things to see and do’’, available at: www.
townsvilleonline.com.au (accessed 11 April, 2008).
PAGE 106
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Van Dijk, P. and Kirk, A. (2007), ‘‘Being somebody else: emotional labor and emotional dissonance in the
context of the service experience at a heritage museum site’’, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 157-69.
Walker, T.A. (1991), ‘‘Tourism development and island limitations at Heron Island, Great Barrier Reef’’,
Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 117-22.
Webster, C. and Timothy, D.J. (2006), ‘‘Travelling to the ‘other side’: the occupied zone and Greek
Cypriot views of crossing the Green Line’’, Tourism Geographies, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 162-81.
Woodside, A.G.M., Caldwell, M. and Spurr, R. (2005), ‘‘Advancing ecological systems theory in lifestyle,
leisure and travel research’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 259-72.
Yamagishi, T. and Cook, K.S. (1993), ‘‘Generalised exchange and social dilemmas’’, Social Psychology
Quarterly, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 235-48.
About the authors
Brent Moyle is a PhDscholar in the TourismResearch Unit, Monash University. Brent Moyle is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Glen Croy is a lecturer in the Tourism Research Unit, Monash University.
Betty Weiler is a Professor of Tourism and Director of the Tourism Research Unit, Monash
University.
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 107
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Brendan Canavan. 2016. Tourism culture: Nexus, characteristics, context and sustainability. Tourism Management 53,
229-243. [CrossRef]
2. Alexandra Bec, Char-lee McLennan, Brent D. Moyle. 2015. Community resilience to long-term tourism decline and
rejuvenation: a literature review and conceptual model. Current Issues in Tourism 1-27. [CrossRef]
3. Jeremy Buultjens, Kate Neale, Matthew Lamont. 2013. Hosts, guests and a drug culture in a destination: A case study of
Nimbin, Australia. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 2, 185-195. [CrossRef]
4. Aishath Shakeela, Noreen Breakey, Lisa Ruhanen. 2012. Tourism Education's Roles in Sustainable Tourism Development:
A Case Study of SIDS Introduction. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education 24, 35-43. [CrossRef]
5. Suh-hee Choi, Liping A. Cai. 2012. Destination Loyalty and Communication—A Relationship-based Tourist Behavioral
Model. International Journal of Strategic Communication 6, 45-58. [CrossRef]
6. Brent Moyle, W. Glen Croy, Betty Weiler. 2010. Community Perceptions of Tourism: Bruny and Magnetic Islands, Australia.
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 15, 353-366. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_305785829.pdf
The purpose of this paper is to explore the cultural interaction between communities and
visitors to islands using social exchange theory to enhance the understanding of the island experience.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Tourism interaction on islands: the community and visitor social exchange
Brent Moyle Glen Croy Betty Weiler
Article information:
To cite this document:
Brent Moyle Glen Croy Betty Weiler, (2010),"Tourism interaction on islands: the community and visitor social exchange", International
J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 Iss 2 pp. 96 - 107
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011045172
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:09 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 71 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2324 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Sandra M. Sánchez-Cañizares, Ana María Castillo-Canalejo, (2014),"Community-based island tourism: the case of Boa Vista in
Cape Verde", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp. 219-233http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJ CTHR-04-2012-0015
J enny Cave, Keith G. Brown, (2012),"Island tourism: destinations: an editorial introduction to the special issue", International J ournal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 6 Iss 2 pp. 95-113http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181211233036
Bishnu Sharma, Pam Dyer, (2009),"Residents' involvement in tourism and their perceptions of tourism impacts", Benchmarking: An
International J ournal, Vol. 16 Iss 3 pp. 351-371http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635770910961371
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Tourism interaction on islands: the
community and visitor social exchange
Brent Moyle, Glen Croy and Betty Weiler
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the cultural interaction between communities and
visitors to islands using social exchange theory to enhance the understanding of the island experience.
Design/methodology/approach – The method consisted of 30 in-depth interviews with community and
tourism stakeholders, and formed part of a multi-phase study that used social exchange theory as the
lens to illuminate a range of perspectives of island interaction. This paper presents a comparative case
study of Bruny Island in Tasmania, and Magnetic Island in Queensland, Australia.
Findings – Findings revealed that local community members have a wide range of motivations for
entering into social exchanges with visitors, ranging from solely economic, to a genuine desire to
provide quality experiences. Additionally, ?ndings showed the nature of island cultural interaction could
vary immensely, from welcoming and meaningful exchanges through to super?cial and even hostile
contact.
Research limitations/implications – As this research is on two islands in Australia, within a particular
timeframe, the results may not be representative of island communities generally. Nonetheless, the
results are indicative of locals’ perceptions of their interactions with visitors.
Practical implications – The ?ndings have a range of practical implications for the management of
local and visitor interaction on islands. A key implication for island communities is the importance of
developing programs that educate and inform locals about the potential bene?ts of interaction.
Additionally, this research illustrates how islands can use cultural interaction to differentiate their tourism
product and market island experiences.
Originality/value – The paper’s contribution is its use of social exchange theory at a micro-level to
illuminate a range of local community members’ perspectives of their tourism exchanges, in order to
enhance understanding of the complex process of interaction between locals and visitors to islands.
Keywords Social interaction, Tourism, Communities, Australia, National cultures
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Earth includes a scattering of more than 100,000 islands containing in excess of 400 million
inhabitants (Lilley, 2006). Islands are integral to the earth’s biodiversity, with their distinct
environmental conditions offering a haven for a variety of threatened species of plants and
wildlife (Mueller-Dombois and Fosberg, 1998). Tourism is often the vehicle for economic
development and job creation for the locals who inhabit these inherently fragile destinations
(Croes, 2006; Keane et al., 1992; Scheyvens and Momsen, 2008). However, inappropriate
tourism development can lead to adverse environmental and social impacts on islands,
including exposing locals to behavior that may clash with the island culture or traditional
community values (MacDonald and Jolliffe, 2003). Friction within island communities can
cause locals to resent tourism and adopt coping mechanisms to avoid contact, creating an
uncomfortable atmosphere for visitors (Bunce, 2008).
As cultural interaction is often central to the visitor experience on islands, resentment of
tourism by locals can dilute the tourism experience and form an obstacle to harnessing
PAGE 96
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010, pp. 96-107, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/17506181011045172
Brent Moyle, Glen Croy and
Betty Weiler are all based at
the Tourism Research Unit,
Monash University, Narre
Warren, Australia.
Received February 2009
Revised March 2009
Accepted July 2009
This research is an outcome of
a project funded by the
Sustainable Tourism
Cooperative Research Centre
(STCRC), established by the
Australian Commonwealth
Government.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
host-guest interaction as a point of market differentiation. Consequently, the sustainable
management of island tourism is particularly complex with the need to be responsive to the
diverse and often con?icting opinions of locals (Lilka, 2001). Integrating tourism into
communities can be especially problematic for islands due to the temporal and spatial
con?nement of visitors and locals – tourismstrategists must ?nd a way for tourists and locals
to coexist harmoniously (Albuquerque and McElroy, 1992). As a result, understanding
interaction between visitors and locals is crucial for the management of tourism to small
islands. This paper explores locals’ perceptions of interaction between communities and
visitors to islands using social exchange theory. Through further advancing the
understanding of local and visitor interaction, this paper contributes to the management
of tourism on islands by helping to identify strategies that ensure tourism is sustainable and
suits the lifestyle of island locals, whilst optimizing the visitor experience.
Literature review
Much of the tourism knowledge base on islands builds from research that focuses on a
variety of Paci?c and Greek islands (Camhis and Coccossis, 1983; Hall, 1994; King et al.,
2000; Black and King, 2002; Haas, 2002; Marinos, 1983; Peak, 2007; Webster and Timothy,
2006). Previous studies on islands comprise a broad range of issues, including economic
development (McElroy, 2006), community perceptions of impacts (Ko and Stewart, 2002),
environmental resource management (Walker, 1991), and industry and government
partnerships (Rao, 2002). In an Australian context a range of studies have been
undertaken on islands, from the provision of facilities and services on Kangaroo Island
(Thomson and Thomson, 1994), to the backpacker experience on Fraser Island (Cooper,
2001). Nonetheless, the actual holistic process of interaction between visitors and locals on
islands has remained largely unexplored. The present study addresses this conceptual gap
of how locals and visitors can experience meaningful and mutually bene?cial interactions in
island settings.
The disciplines of sociology, social psychology, anthropology, and economics examine
interactions among various groups or actors (Goodwin, 1981; Goffman, 1961; Manski,
2000). Teichman and Foa (1975) argue that the concept of interaction builds on an
interconnected systemin which two or more actors connect, evoking a two-way exchange of
resources leading to a range of outcomes. The literature includes several human or personal
interaction-based theoretical frameworks; sociology, in particular, employs such
frameworks. These frameworks include, though are not limited to, symbolic interaction
(Blumer, 1969), interaction process analysis (Bales, 1950), human ecological systems
theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), resource dependence theory (Boyd, 1990), transaction cost
theory (Galbraith, 1973), economic rational choice theory (Becker, 1978), expectations
con?rmation theory (Oliver, 1977), and various forms of resource exchange theories
(Homans, 1961).
Since the introduction of various theories of human and personal interaction into sociology
and social psychology, researchers have been applying a number of them to tourism and
leisure (Auld, 1997). Kelly (1994) uses the theory of symbolic interaction to explore the
meaning of leisure behavior in social contexts. Woodside et al. (2005) use ecological
systems theory to examine the contextual facilitators and constraints to the thoughts and
actions of individuals regarding work, leisure and travel alternatives. Pearce (1995) explores
the concepts of interaction and exchange between different cultures to help inform the
ecologically sustainable socio-cultural development of destinations. Nash (1989) uses a
transactional approach to explore the economic relationship in host-guest interactions in
developing destinations. Not surprisingly, intercultural interaction is the focus of a number of
research projects in tourism (Frakowski-Braganza, 1983; Santos and Prof?tt, 2004).
Social exchange theory is perhaps the best-known interaction-based theory in tourism (Ap,
1992; Deccio and Baloglu, 2002; Jurowski and Gursoy, 2004; McGehee and Andereck,
2004). Social exchange theory is a derivative of sociology and social psychology
(Alexander, 1990). Psychological researchers Emerson (1962) and Homans (1961), together
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 97
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
with an economic researcher Blau (1964), are largely responsible for developing social
exchange theory in sociology.
Social exchange theory conceptualizes the exchange of resources between individuals and
groups in an interaction situation (Brinberg and Castell, 1982), and thus provides a
framework for understanding tourismrelationships, interactions and transactions. Long et al.
(1990) ?rst introduced the theory into tourism to harness its potential to explain residents’
differing perceptions towards impacts. Ap (1992) uses a model of social exchange theory in
tourism visitor-host interactions. The basic premise of social exchange theory is that in order
to sustain interaction at least a two-way ?ow of material, social and or psychological
resources between individual actors or groups of individuals must be present (Ap, 1992).
Social exchange theory is principally a behaviorally based theory, focusing on the process of
exchange during the two-way ?ow of resources between actors (Beeton, 2006). Ap (1992)
outlines four key stages: the initiation of an exchange, the exchange formation, the exchange
transaction evaluation, and the evaluation of exchange consequences.
The ?rst stage of the exchange process, the initiation of an exchange, occurs during the
pre-exchange period (Gaechter and Fehr, 1999). Social exchange theory posits that during
this period satisfaction of an actor’s needs motivates an exchange relationship; without a
need to satisfy there is no reason to seek interaction (Ap, 1992). The initiation of an exchange
by an actor begins the process of interaction.
The second stage, the exchange formation, encompasses three interconnected
components: antecedents, the exchange relation, and the form of the exchange relation
(Ap, 1992). The antecedents are the preceding conditions of interaction, and represent
opportunities or situations perceived by at least one actor before the exchange relation
forms. At this stage an actor predicts if an exchange with another will result in rewards or
bene?ts, and attempts to maximize the possible rewards and bene?ts or at least ensure that
the resources to be exchanged are roughly equivalent (Gui, 2000). If either actor perceives
the antecedents as inequitable, they have the option to withdrawbefore the actual exchange
of resources. If the actors view the antecedents as favorable, then an exchange relation
usually forms.
During the exchange relation, a series of temporally inter-dispersed exchanges of material,
social and or psychological resources transpires, determining the nature of the exchange
(Ap, 1992). Important to note is that exchanges, though often ?nancial in nature, do not
necessarily involve economic or physical resources. The form of the exchange relation is a
function of the power and dependency relationship between actors, which often manifests
because of either a balanced or unbalanced exchange of resources during the exchange
relation (Yamagishi and Cook, 1993).
The ?nal two stages of the exchange process are the exchange transaction evaluation and
the evaluation of exchange consequences (Ap, 1992). Both stages form the overall
post-exchange, when each actor enacts a process to evaluate the transaction of resources,
and identi?es the consequences of the exchange (Cook et al., 1983). The evaluation also
includes the actors to identifying whether the exchange is positive or negative for the other
actor(s) involved in the process (Ap, 1992). If either actor perceives the consequences of the
exchange as negative, meaning the exchange relation is unbalanced and the transactions of
resources are not gratifying, the actor has the option to withdraw from future exchanges
(Emerson, 1976). A negative evaluation does not mean the actor will necessarily withdraw
from the social exchange, as an actor may perceive the exchange as negative, but continue
the exchange because of necessity (Lindberg et al., 2001). Rather, a negative evaluation
provides the prompt to withdraw, and is where power or dependence on the other actor may
in?uence the decision to continue exchanging. Nonetheless, if both actors perceive the
consequences of the exchange as positive and further exchanges are in both actors’ best
interests, continuation of the exchange behavior will generally transpire (Goldberg, 1980).
Two stages of Ap’s (1992) model are assessed in previous social exchange theory studies in
a tourism context, principally, the ?nal stage of the exchange process focusing on
community evaluation of exchange consequences. The consequences of the exchange
PAGE 98
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
refer to the range of economic, environmental and socio-cultural impacts of tourism for
communities (Hernandez et al., 1996). Previous studies also explore the ?rst stage of Ap’s
(1992) model – the initiation of an exchange. These studies assess community support for
further tourism development through the identi?cation of particular needs that communities
seek to satisfy (Kayat, 2002; Sirakaya et al., 2002).
These applications of social exchange theory in a tourism context focus on the collective
rather than the individual level. In other words, the tourism literature that uses social
exchange theory focuses on macro-level applications to tourism and communities
(Chhabra, 2008; Sirakaya et al., 2002), and the interactions between collective entities
(Hernandez et al., 1996; Lee and Back, 2003). Given the notion of tourism exchanges are in
the complex involvement of people as individuals, such macro-level applications may be
limiting and suggest an opportunity to undertake a micro-level application of social
exchange to the interactions that occur between the subgroups and even the individuals
who comprise these larger entities. This paper follows the lead of previous studies in
employing social exchange theory as a theoretical lens, to explore the in-depth and dynamic
process of interaction between locals and visitors to islands. In summary, the paper’s
contribution is its use of social exchange theory at a micro-level to illuminate a range of local
community members’ perspectives of their tourism exchanges, in order to enhance
understanding of the complex process of interaction between locals and visitors to islands.
Island selection
This research uses the two islands of Bruny Island, Tasmania, and Magnetic Island,
Queensland, Australia. Bruny Island is actually two islands connected by a narrow isthmus,
including Bruny Island National Park on the southern island, and has a local population of
around 620 (Bruny Island Tourism, 2008). Magnetic Island is part of the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park, a World Heritage listed area, and has a local population of around 2,500
(Townsville Enterprise, 2008). Tourism is important to the local economy on Bruny and
Magnetic Islands, the communities are small and identi?able, residents experience and live
with tourism impacts, and locals live in close proximity to protected areas used by tourists
visiting the islands. Selecting two islands that have commonalities and differences enables a
comparative case study and enhances the generalizability of the results to islands with
similar traits (Marshall and Rossman, 2006).
Method
This comparative study of locals’ tourism exchanges with visitors on Bruny Island and
Magnetic Island uses ?fteen in-depth interviews from each island community[1]. To gain a
variety of perspectives, we sampled a variety of community and tourism stakeholders,
including people from community groups, associations and clubs, accommodation
providers, tour operators, local business owners, local government and council, and
parks and wildlife agencies. Using one-hour semi-structured on-site interviews, we took
each interviewee through the process of interaction conceptualized by social exchange
theory.
We then followed Huberman and Miles’ (2002) three step approach of data reduction, data
display and conclusion drawing-veri?cation to enhance the reliability and validity of the
results. The data reduction phase involves coding the interview transcripts using codes that
best re?ect emergent patterns and expected theoretical themes from the data (Van Dijk and
Kirk, 2007). The data display phase makes the tabulated data highly accessible and easy to
interpret. The conclusion drawing-veri?cation stage ensures all authors independently
check the initial themes and some re?nement follows. Finally, two additional independent
coders, with no previous involvement in the study, re-coded the data achieving an
inter-coder reliability score over 90 percent, which is above the recommended reliability level
(Huberman and Miles, 2002).
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 99
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Results
The presentation of the results applies the four-stage framework of social exchange theory:
the initiation of an exchange; the exchange formation; the exchange transaction evaluation;
and the evaluation of exchange consequences (Ap, 1992).
Interviews reveal that locals have a diverse range of reasons for interacting with visitors
during the initiation of an exchange stage. The most common motivation locals have to
interact with visitors, across both islands, is the desire to satisfy ?nancial or economic needs,
with a business owner on Bruny Island commenting:
People who are providing services interact with tourists because they need an income, but still
resent the people being here and say thank god the tourist season is over.
Such evidence indicates that some locals see the tourists only in terms of the ?nancial
resources that they bring to the exchange. Whilst the desire to interact with visitors for
?nancial reasons is strongly evident on both islands, locals not economically dependent on
tourism often express a genuine desire to interact to provide quality and meaningful
experiences. These locals describe giving visitors a meaningful experience as rewarding,
and seek to ful?ll the desire or need to help others. A member of a local community group on
Magnetic Island describes certain locals within the community who:
. . . desire interaction with tourists and just want to do something good for the people who are
visiting here, nothing else.
Thus, locals interact with tourists to the island to provide a meaningful experience. Locals’
desire to share information and knowledge with visitors is also evident on both islands,
particularly among those who have lived on the island for long periods, who describe
interaction as a process of storytelling. For many island locals, the motivation to interact is for
the opportunity to share information and knowledge with visitors, either during an economic
transaction, or just socially.
Some families have inhabited Bruny Island for generations, and many locals actively engage
with the area’s history. Consequently, a key desire expressed by many Bruny Island locals is
to share information of the islands’ history, the culture and the environment. This observation
by a retired Bruny Island local shows the pride in the heritage of the island:
All of Bruny Island residents living here are proud of its attributes, proud of family contributions to
the island. Some families have been here for generations, have a wealth of knowledge on the
culture and history of the island, and more recently with forestry on the island; the environment
has become a hot topic of discussion. I think these stories are what the community wants to share
with tourists.
On Magnetic Island, the information locals desire to share with visitors is different, even
though many locals have resided on the island for long periods. Community pride is still
evident, focusing on concepts of lifestyle and community, as a retired Magnetic Island
resident illustrates:
I often connect with tourists about the day-to-day life of locals on the Island. I recall a particular
encounter with a tourist from Bristol and comparing my daily routine with his daily routine back
home. The conversation ended with him going to the real estate of?ce to look for a house to buy!
That’s the beauty of Magnetic Island: the community is extremely welcoming and the lifestyle is
enticing. Many tourists want that deeper, authentic meaning fromsomeone in the community who
was not making any money off them.
All the same, often interviewees expressed the view that unless an economic incentive is
involved, locals usually do not interact with visitors, and tourists need to drive any interaction.
It is not something they seek, unless they need visitors to make money. This interaction has to be
driven from the tourists.
This example clearly describes the complex nature of the exchange between locals and
visitors, with the desire to attain ?nancial resources central to determining how, when, where
and very often why locals choose to initiate an interaction with visitors.
PAGE 100
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Interviews show that locals have the opportunity to assess the antecedents or preceding
conditions of a potential interaction, before the actual transaction of resources with visitors,
during the second stage of exchange formation. Interviewees reveal a number of facilitating
conditions to interaction on Bruny and Magnetic Islands, speci?cally conditions where locals
feel rewards and bene?ts occur from an equivalent, fair and just exchange of resources.
Facilitating conditions include community events, markets and attractions, initiatives by tour
operators, accommodation providers, community clubs and societies, and, on Magnetic
Island in particular, the opportunities for socializing presented by local shops, restaurants
and pubs on the island. For example, a member of a local community group and business
owner on Magnetic Island describes an annual jazz festival as:
. . . a great opportunity where we can choose to interact with tourists, we are not forced, it is all
authentic, heaps turn out from the community and we all intermingle. Plenty of new friendships
and even relationships have developed during the festivals on the island.
Opportunities such as festivals, events, and markets came out in the interviews as forming
favorable conditions, where locals can choose to interact with visitors, with a time limit, and
without any major perceived threat to locals’ lifestyle.
Although a range of favorable antecedents exists, a number of barriers or unfavorable
preceding conditions that make locals view interaction with visitors as undesirable are also
present. On Magnetic Island, a particularly strong barrier is apparent because of the
perceived negative impacts of tourism on the island. Many interviewees describe the recent
re-development of Nelly Bay as aesthetically unappealing, and with apartments close to sea
level, an environmental disaster waiting to happen. Due to Nelly Bay, many locals on
Magnetic Island perceive they have lost control over tourism, often translating into
unwillingness to interact with visitors altogether.
We’re all still really annoyed about what they did to Nelly Bay; before I talk to a visitor, I think of that
bloody development and tend to avoid them as a form of silent protest.
This retired Magnetic Island tour operator’s remark shows how deeply a loss of perceived
control over development on the island can affect the community, even those previously
dependent or tourism.
Interviews on Magnetic Island also reveal different clusters of locals who are unwilling to
interact with visitors because of negative impacts of visitors on their lifestyle, as these words
of a local artist illustrate:
Most locals aren’t involved in the tourism industry and are apathetic to tourism on the island; it’s a
lifestyle thing really. They don’t want to be connected to tourism because it has a number of
negative impacts on their lives.
The lifestyle of islanders thus serves as a simultaneous attractor to tourists and barrier to
interaction of those who move to the islands for a more relaxed and private lifestyle. Many
locals consequently regard visitors as compromising their new way of life, especially during
peak periods.
On Bruny Island, a number of other barriers form unfavorable conditions for interaction with
visitors. In particular, locals comment on the lack of public infrastructure and transport on the
island. One local community group member exempli?ed this, commenting:
. . . community members are not used to the in?ux of tourism; they think tourists are tearing up our
roads and using all our facilities and tend to avoid contact with visitors. In fact, we had a tourist
who attempted to talk to a local up one end of the island and was given the one-?ngered salute, so
they weren’t welcomed at all.
In other words, some locals blame visitors for the deterioration of the island’s infrastructure,
and are then unwilling to interact because of the negative impacts.
If the antecedent conditions are positive during the exchange formation, then the
exchange relation forms. Interviewees identify a variety of local and visitor resources
transacted during the exchange relation. On both islands, the resources were tangible
and intangible, and could be categorized into the six resource exchange dimensions
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 101
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
money, goods, services, knowledge, status and love (Rettig, 1985), with one minor
modi?cation. To re?ect the interviews, hospitality is substituted for love as the resource
exchange dimension to ?t more appropriately to the tourism context. Hospitality refers
broadly to the host-guest relationship, and is a common term used in the tourism ?eld
(Levy and Hassay, 2005). All six-resource dimensions are present on the islands. Money
is a common resource transacted in local-visitor exchanges. Nonetheless, the following
observation of an accommodation provider on Magnetic Island serves as an example of a
local giving information in exchange for recognition of their role as experience providers
outside of economic transactions:
There are many quirky island characters that love to be larger than life and end up in Facebook
photos . . . . They act like they know it all and give visitors all sorts of information.
Evidently, locals and visitors to islands undertake a diversity of exchanges, with interactions
taking place on multiple levels, frompurposeful economic transactions interactions, through
to serendipitous transactions around the island.
With regard to the form of exchange relation, there are varying community responses to the
balance-of-power between locals and visitors. Interviewees with an economic dependence
on tourism feel both locals and visitors receive mutual bene?ts:
I think tourism is a win-win situation; residents receive economic bene?ts and improvements to
infrastructure and key services.
This tour operator on Magnetic Island exempli?es the views of many island locals with a
?nancial interest in tourism. However, locals without a direct economic attachment to
tourism, usually retirees or those working on the mainland, generally feel visitors are in a
position of power:
We are too often powerless in the attempt to gather funds for badly needed infrastructure to
support tourism, there are just so many and it’s getting worse.
This observation by a member of a local community group on Bruny Island re?ects the angst
among many locals who have seen an increase in visitors to each island, yet feel the tangible
bene?ts of tourism are lacking.
During the transaction evaluation, locals assess the transfer of resources and identify a
variety of consequences of their exchange with individual visitors and with tourism as a
collective entity. On Bruny and Magnetic Islands, interviewees perceive consequences of
the exchange to vary immensely, from experiencing meaningful and welcoming encounters,
through to super?cial and even hostile contact. When locals refer to tourism as a collective,
the focus is on the range of socio-cultural impacts of tourism:
It is the congestion on roads and ferry. Residents have no priority and many people have to
adjust social and work habits over summer; it takes them three hours to get home off the
mainland. This comment from an accommodation provider on Bruny Island demonstrates
the immense strain on resources during peak periods of visitation. The interviewees’
uncovering of tourism impacts re?ect those in the tourism literature, with many impacts such
as noise disturbance and littering on the forefront of many locals’ minds. However, when
locals re?ect on personal examples of how an interaction with an individual visitor made
them feel, the responses are immensely different:
Hard to say. Fair percentage who don’t want the tourist, don’t like the tourist and think the
tourist is scum, especially the backpackers and wouldn’t interact with them in the ?rst place,
but I on the other hand enjoy interacting with visitors as a way of making friends and enriching
my social life.
This comment demonstrates that, at the individual level, locals have an immense range
of feelings and emotions because of an interaction with a visitor. Interviewees describe
a variety of positive and negative interactions with visitors, revealing feelings of
economic dependence through to friendships and relationships, from annoyance to
euphoria.
PAGE 102
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Contributions and implications
This study is on two islands in Australia within a particular timeframe, thus the results may not
represent island communities generally. Nonetheless, the results indicate the locals’
perceptions of interactions with visitors. This paper contributes to the theoretical
understanding of complex social interaction in a tourism context. The primary theoretical
contribution is the use of social exchange theory to frame the understanding of
local-tourist-tourism interaction. In particular, this research has advanced knowledge on
the individual complexities and multiple levels of interaction, including the range of different
motivations, facilitating factors, barriers, resources and consequences of interaction for the
locals that inhabit small island communities.
This exploratory research uncovers a number of challenges to the successful management
of the interaction between local communities and visitors on small islands. A key challenge
for islands is the need to understand and manage local attitudes towards tourism. Many
locals are unhappy with the level of tourism and development on the island, and see visitors
as an intrusion or threat to their lifestyle. As a result, certain segments of locals are unwilling
to interact with visitors, often implementing coping mechanisms to avoid interaction
altogether. Given the desire of many visitors to enrich their experience through engaging
with host communities, and the fact that the island people and their lifestyle are arguably the
key to the destinations’ attraction, an unmitigated approach is incompatible with the
long-term sustainability of tourism on these islands. To address this issue, islands might
consider developing programs that educate and inform island locals and visitors on the
importance of interaction and the potential bene?ts and affects tourism can have on the
community. Connecting to this is the need for island communities to further manage and
mitigate the negative impacts of tourism and associated development on the lifestyle of
locals. Islands and islanders can achieve further education by exploring ways of using local
interaction to inform visitors to make decisions about their own behavior and the activities
they engage in on islands. Those responsible for islands tourism development might also
consider the training of tourism professionals to play the role of mediator within the
community, to encourage both locals and visitors to connect in a meaningful way.
By recognizing the role locals’ play in visitors’ experiences, the opportunities to use
community-based interaction programs to achieve a variety of objectives is immense. The
education of island communities can help locals appreciate the distinct opportunity they
have to foster a quality experience for visitors, which at the same time can enhance the
island’s appeal as a place to live. Additionally, enhancing local understanding of the
importance of interaction will help island communities in particular prepare for, and adapt to,
a shifting global landscape where visitors in the future will have more interest in more
holistically experiencing each destination. In turn, enhancing locals’ understanding will
assist efforts to reduce negative impacts on island communities.
Conclusion and future research
Tourism interaction between locals and visitors to islands is dynamic and complex. Using
social exchange theory to examine interaction, this study consisted of thirty semi-structured
interviews with local community members on Bruny and Magnetic Islands, Australia. This
research reveals that locals have an immense range of motivations for interaction, from
solely economic reward seeking through to a genuine desire to provide meaningful
experiences. Events, markets, community clubs, and groups facilitate island interaction. All
the same, a number of barriers to interaction exist, including resistance by many members of
local communities, and a lack of infrastructure and resources to support interactions. The
nature of interaction on islands also varies immensely from welcoming and meaningful
exchanges through to super?cial and even hostile contacts.
Future research on the interaction between locals and visitors to small islands needs to
include the visitors’ perspective. Communities can develop programs to cater for and
manage the local-visitor experience once they understand visitor demand for interaction,
through social exchange theory. Importantly, the interaction programs, tailored to the lifestyle
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 103
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
preferences of locals, enhance visitors’ awareness and knowledge of the island
environment, and modify behaviors that locals consider inappropriate. Interaction
programs enable islanders to seek out and initiate exchanges that are balanced and
bene?cial to visitors and locals, which provide quality island experiences, while preserving
the quality of life and lifestyle of local islanders.
Note
1. Interviews with visitors to both islands are planned as a follow-up stage in this study, as a basis for
further insight.
References
Albuquerque, K.D. and McElroy, J.L. (1992), ‘‘Caribbean small-island tourism styles and sustainable
strategies’’, Environmental Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 619-32.
Alexander, J. (1990), ‘‘Structure, value, action’’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 339-45.
Ap, J. (1992), ‘‘Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 665-90.
Auld, C.J. (1997), ‘‘Social exchange processes in leisure and non-leisure settings: a review and
exploratory investigation’’, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 183-200.
Bales, R.F. (1950), Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups, Addison
Wesley, Cambridge.
Becker, G.S. (1978), The Economic Approach to Human Behavior, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL.
Beeton, S. (2006), Community Development through Tourism, Landlinks Press, Victoria.
Black, R. and King, B. (2002), ‘‘Human resource development in remote island communities:
an evaluation of tour-guide training in Vanuatu’’, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 103-17.
Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Blumer, H. (1969), Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method, University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA.
Boyd, B. (1990), ‘‘Corporate linkages and organizational environment: a test of the resource
dependence model’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 419-30.
Brinberg, D. and Castell, P. (1982), ‘‘A resource exchange theory approach to interpersonal interactions:
a test of Foa’s theory’’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 260-9.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979), The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bruny Island Tourism (2008), ‘‘Welcome to Bruny Island, Tasmania’’, available at: www.brunyisland.net
(accessed 12 April, 2008).
Bunce, M. (2008), ‘‘The ‘leisuring’ of rural landscapes in Barbados: new spatialities and the implications
for sustainability in small island states’’, Geoforum, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 969-79.
Camhis, M. and Coccossis, H. (1983), ‘‘Environment and tourism in island regions’’, Planning and
Administration, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 16-23.
Chhabra, D. (2008), ‘‘Social exchange theory in resort and non-resort casino settings’’, Anatolia, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 155-60.
Cook, K.S., Emerson, R.M., Gillmore, M.R. and Yamagishi, T. (1983), ‘‘The distribution of power in
exchange networks: theory and experimental results’’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 89 No. 1,
pp. 275-305.
Cooper, M. (2001), ‘‘Backpackers to WP Island: why is WP a neglected aspect of their experience?’’,
Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 45-9.
PAGE 104
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Croes, R.R. (2006), ‘‘A paradigm shift to a new strategy for small island economies: embracing demand
side economics for value enhancement and long termeconomic stability’’, TourismManagement, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 453-65.
Deccio, C. and Baloglu, S. (2002), ‘‘Nonhost community resident reactions to the 2002 Winter Olympics:
the spillover impacts’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 46-56.
Emerson, R. (1962), ‘‘Power dependence relations’’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 31-41.
Emerson, R. (1976), ‘‘Social exchange theory’’, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 335-62.
Frakowski-Braganza, A.C. (1983), ‘‘Host/guest interaction and its impact on social identity’’, Dissertation
Abstracts International, Vol. 44 No. 3, p. 803.
Gaechter, S. and Fehr, E. (1999), ‘‘Collective action as a social exchange’’, Journal of Economic
Behaviour and Organisation, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 341-69.
Galbraith, J. (1973), Designing Complex Organizations, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Goffman, E. (1961), Encounters: Two studies in the Sociology of Interaction, Macmillan Publishing Co.,
London.
Goldberg, V.P. (1980), ‘‘Relational exchange: economics and complex contracts’’, American Behavioral
Scientist, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 337-52.
Goodwin, C. (1981), Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers,
Academic Press, New York, NY.
Gui, B. (2000), ‘‘Beyond transactions: on the interpersonal dimension of economic reality’’, Annals of
Public and Cooperative Economics, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 139-69.
Haas, H.C.D. (2002), ‘‘Sustainability of small-scale ecotourism: the case of Niue, South Paci?c’’, Current
Issues in Tourism, Vol. 5 Nos 3/4, pp. 319-37.
Hall, C.M. (1994), ‘‘Tourism in Paci?c Island microstates: a case study of Vanuatu’’, Tourism Recreation
Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 59-64.
Hernandez, S.A., Cohen, J. and Garcia, H.L. (1996), ‘‘Residents attitudes towards an instant resort
enclave’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 755-79.
Homans, G. (1961), Social Behaviour, Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, NY.
Huberman, M.A. and Miles, M.B. (2002), The Qualitative Researchers Companion, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Jurowski, C. and Gursoy, D. (2004), ‘‘Distance effects on residents’ attitudes toward tourism’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 296-312.
Kayat, K. (2002), ‘‘Power, social exchanges and tourism in Langkawi – rethinking residents’
perceptions’’, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 171-91.
Keane, M.J., Brophy, P. and Cuddy, M.P. (1992), ‘‘Strategic management of island tourism: the Aran
islands’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 406-14.
Kelly, J.R. (1994), ‘‘The symbolic interaction metaphor and leisure: critical challenges’’, Leisure Studies,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 81-96.
King, B., McVey, M. and Simmons, D. (2000), ‘‘A societal marketing approach to national tourism
planning: evidence from the South Paci?c’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 407-16.
Ko, D. and Stewart, W.P. (2002), ‘‘A structural equation model of residents attitudes towards tourism
development’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 521-30.
Lee, C. and Back, K.J. (2003), ‘‘Pre- and post-casino impact of residents’ perception’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 868-85.
Levy, S.E. and Hassay, D.N. (2005), ‘‘Visitor communities’’, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 57-72.
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 105
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Lilka, C. (2001), ‘‘Tourismdevelopment in small islands: a case study of Elephanta Island’’, Maharashtra,
India, Tourism Recreation Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 15-23.
Lilley, I. (2006), Archaeology of Oceania: Australia and the Paci?c Islands, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Lindberg, K., Andersson, T. and Dallaert, B.G.C. (2001), ‘‘Tourism development: assessing social gains
and losses’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1010-30.
Long, P.T., Perdue, R.R. and Allen, L. (1990), ‘‘Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes by
community level of tourism’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 3-9.
McElroy, J.L. (2006), ‘‘Small island tourist economies across the life cycle’’, Asia Paci?c Viewpoint,
Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 61-77.
McGehee, N.G. and Andereck, K.L. (2004), ‘‘Factors predicting rural residents’ support of tourism’’,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 131-40.
MacDonald, R. and Jolliffe, L. (2003), ‘‘Cultural rural tourism: evidence from Canada’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 307-22.
Manski, C.F. (2000), ‘‘Economic analysis of social interactions’’, NBER working paper no. W7580,
available at:http://ssrn.com/abstract ¼ 219392 (accessed 10 December 2008).
Marinos, P. (1983), ‘‘Small island tourism: the case of Zakynthos, Greece’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 4
No. 3, pp. 212-5.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (2006), Designing Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Mueller-Dombois, D. and Fosberg, R.F. (1998), Vegetation of the Tropical Paci?c Islands, Springer
Publishing, New York, NY.
Nash, D. (1989), ‘‘Tourism as a form of imperialism’’, in Smith, V. (Ed.), Guests and Hosts:
The Anthropology of Tourism, 2nd ed., University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 37-52.
Oliver, R.L. (1977), ‘‘Effect of expectation and discon?rmation on postexposure product evaluations: an
alternative interpretation’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 480-92.
Peak, D. (2007), ‘‘Problems in developing tourism in Fiji Islands’’, e-Review of Tourism Research, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 64-73.
Pearce, P.L. (1995), ‘‘From culture shock and cultural arrogance through to cultural exchange:
ideas towards sustainable socio-cultural tourism’’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 143-54.
Rao, M. (2002), ‘‘Challenges and issues for tourism in the south island states: the case of the Fiji
Islands’’, Tourism Economics, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 401-29.
Rettig, K. (1985), ‘‘Conceptual issues for integrated economic and social resource exchange theories’’,
Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 43-62.
Santos, C.A. and Prof?tt, J.F. (2004), ‘‘The humor in it: tourists and intercultural interaction’’, Tourism
(Zagreb), Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 51-64.
Scheyvens, R. and Momsen, J.H. (2008), ‘‘Tourism and poverty reduction: issues for small island
states’’, Tourism Geographies, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 22-41.
Sirakaya, E., Teye, V. and Sonmez, S. (2002), ‘‘Understanding residents support for tourism
development in the central region of Ghana’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 57-67.
Teichman, M. and Foa, U.G. (1975), ‘‘Effect of resources similarity on satisfaction with exchange’’, Social
Behavior and Personality, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 213-24.
Thomson, F.L. and Thomson, N.J. (1994), ‘‘Tourism, tax receipts and the local government: the case of
Kangaroo Island’’, Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 57-66.
Townsville Enterprise (2008), ‘‘Magnetic Island – things to see and do’’, available at: www.
townsvilleonline.com.au (accessed 11 April, 2008).
PAGE 106
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Van Dijk, P. and Kirk, A. (2007), ‘‘Being somebody else: emotional labor and emotional dissonance in the
context of the service experience at a heritage museum site’’, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 157-69.
Walker, T.A. (1991), ‘‘Tourism development and island limitations at Heron Island, Great Barrier Reef’’,
Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 117-22.
Webster, C. and Timothy, D.J. (2006), ‘‘Travelling to the ‘other side’: the occupied zone and Greek
Cypriot views of crossing the Green Line’’, Tourism Geographies, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 162-81.
Woodside, A.G.M., Caldwell, M. and Spurr, R. (2005), ‘‘Advancing ecological systems theory in lifestyle,
leisure and travel research’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 259-72.
Yamagishi, T. and Cook, K.S. (1993), ‘‘Generalised exchange and social dilemmas’’, Social Psychology
Quarterly, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 235-48.
About the authors
Brent Moyle is a PhDscholar in the TourismResearch Unit, Monash University. Brent Moyle is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Glen Croy is a lecturer in the Tourism Research Unit, Monash University.
Betty Weiler is a Professor of Tourism and Director of the Tourism Research Unit, Monash
University.
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 107
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Brendan Canavan. 2016. Tourism culture: Nexus, characteristics, context and sustainability. Tourism Management 53,
229-243. [CrossRef]
2. Alexandra Bec, Char-lee McLennan, Brent D. Moyle. 2015. Community resilience to long-term tourism decline and
rejuvenation: a literature review and conceptual model. Current Issues in Tourism 1-27. [CrossRef]
3. Jeremy Buultjens, Kate Neale, Matthew Lamont. 2013. Hosts, guests and a drug culture in a destination: A case study of
Nimbin, Australia. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 2, 185-195. [CrossRef]
4. Aishath Shakeela, Noreen Breakey, Lisa Ruhanen. 2012. Tourism Education's Roles in Sustainable Tourism Development:
A Case Study of SIDS Introduction. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education 24, 35-43. [CrossRef]
5. Suh-hee Choi, Liping A. Cai. 2012. Destination Loyalty and Communication—A Relationship-based Tourist Behavioral
Model. International Journal of Strategic Communication 6, 45-58. [CrossRef]
6. Brent Moyle, W. Glen Croy, Betty Weiler. 2010. Community Perceptions of Tourism: Bruny and Magnetic Islands, Australia.
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 15, 353-366. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_305785829.pdf