Next Article in Journal
The Spatiotemporal Evolution and Prediction of Carbon Storage in the Yellow River Basin Based on the Major Function-Oriented Zone Planning
Next Article in Special Issue
Understanding the Evolution of Regional Tourism Efficiency: Through the Lens of Evolutionary Economic Geography
Previous Article in Journal
Between Participatory Approaches and Politics, Promoting Social Innovation in Smart Cities: Building a Hum–Animal Smart City in Lucca
Previous Article in Special Issue
Forecasting the Volume of Tourism Services in Uzbekistan
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 13
10.3390/su14137962
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Residents’ Perceptions towards Tourism Development—The Case of Galaţi-Brăila Conurbation, Romania

by
Iulian Adrian Șorcaru
1,*,
Alexandru Capatina
2,
Mihaela-Carmen Muntean
1,
Ludmila-Daniela Manea
1 and
Ionica Soare
1
1
Economics Department, “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati, 800008 Galați, Romania
2
Business Administration Department, “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati, 800008 Galați, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(13), 7962; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137962
Submission received: 16 May 2022 / Revised: 24 June 2022 / Accepted: 28 June 2022 / Published: 29 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Collection Tourism Research and Regional Sciences)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Business and transit tourism are representative of the Galati-Brăila conurbation. Its favorable geographical location, at the eastern border of Romania and the EU, and its natural and cultural tourist potential are the main assets towards tourism development. Therefore, future tourist facilities developed by public authorities or private investors could generate a viable economic alternative for its residents. The objectives of this study were to identify residents’ perceptions, both positive and negative, concerning the impact of tourism development on tourist potential, socio-economic characteristics and the environment of the region. Another major objective was to establish the correlation between the residents’ involvement in tourism activities and tourism development in the region. In this regard, based on social exchange theory and applying the Sem-Pls method, we designed hypotheses and a research model which were verified based on a questionnaire implemented online. The data were processed using SmartPls3 software, all the research hypotheses being validated.

1. Introduction

Galati and Brăila cities are located in the eastern part of Romania on the left shore of the Danube river, at the intersection of many transport routes. These cities form a bipolar structure, Galati-Brăila conurbation, unique in Romania in terms of population and geographical location [1,2]. The region belongs to the South-East Development Region of Romania, in close vicinity to the EU’s eastern border with Moldova and Ukraine. In January 2022, Galati-Braila conurbation had a population of 497,731 inhabitants [3] and is bordered by six communes: Vânători, Tulucești and Șendreni in the Northern and Western part of Galati city; and Vădeni, Cazasu and Chiscani in the Northern, Eastern and Southern part of Brăila city.
The geographical location of this conurbation is favorable for the development of both economical and touristic activities (Figure 1). The strategies [4] elaborated on the evaluation of the entire tourist potential of Romania, show valuable tourist resources in this region. Among natural attractions, we mention: the Danube, Siret and Prut rivers together with Brateș Lake for leisure and sport fishing; Sărat Lake, which is capitalized by Lacu Sărat resort; and the protected natural area “Gârboavele Forest”.
The cultural tourist attractions were also determined by the geographical and strategic position of Galati and Braila cities and by their status of being large ports on the Lower Danube, in the vicinity of the Black Sea, since the medieval period. These advantages were also perpetuated after the unification of the Romanian Lands and the installation of the
European Commission at the mouth of the Danube river. Currently, the most valuable cultural tourist attractions are: the former Palace of the European Commission of the Danube (currently the headquarters of the County Library “V.A. Urechia”); the former Italian consulate in Galati city; the building where the Violatos Mill operated in Brăila; history and culture museums; and churches (“Sfânta Precista” fortified church in Galati; churches built by ethnic communities such as the Greeks, or Russian-Lipovans; Church of “St. Archangels Michael and Gabriel” in the center of Brăila city).
Currently, Galati-Braila conurbation is characterized by two defining forms of tourism: business and transit tourism. In the near future tourism development may be supported by natural, socio-economic and cultural tourist resources, stated and described in many scientific papers [5,6,7,8,9] and could be better valued through the forms of tourism mentioned above.
With their role of “bridges” over the maritime Danube to and from Dobrogea region, currently traversed via ferry, and accentuated by their status as ports, Galati and Braila cities will be better connected and integrated in the Romanian and European transport system. Moreover, the car route to and from the famous Danube Delta and Romanian Black Sea coast tourist destinations, indicate both Galați and Brăila as locations for crossing the Danube River. This car route is preferred by potential tourists from northern and center regions of Romania, Republic of Moldova and Ukraine.
The operation of the new bridge over Danube river would further develop tourism activities, emphasizing new transit and business opportunities. Therefore, residents’ perceptions towards tourism development are important, and local authorities should take their opinions into account for future strategies.

2. Literature Review

In recent decades, increasing academic attention has been paid to residents’ opinions concerning the impact of tourism on different regions of the world, and a considerable number of studies have emerged.
In this regard, we mention studies dedicated to cities in Europe [10,11,12,13], Australia [14], Asia [15] or Africa [16,17]. Other researchers have analyzed the perception of residents in an island context, where the economy is strictly based on tourism [18,19,20]. Mountainous regions [21,22], rural regions [23,24,25] or those that contain valuable tourist attractions, recognized and protected worldwide [26,27], have also been analyzed. Other authors have analyzed tourist circuits that include valuable natural and cultural tourist attractions, located on the states border [28].
The literature on residents’ perceptions of tourism development also reflects a frequent terminological inconsistency that could underlie the wide variation of findings and conclusions in certain studies. Therefore, various concepts are used to refer mainly to residents’ views on tourism. For example, while some researchers have commonly used the term “perceptions” [29,30,31,32,33,34], others have chosen to use the term “attitudes” [35,36,37].
At the same time, the terms “opinions” [38] and “reactions” [39] have also been used for similar purposes, other researchers preferring instead to use the term “perspectives” [40]. However, other researchers have simultaneously used two of these terms “attitudes and perceptions” [41] in an indistinguishable way. Despite this frequent variation of terms, few researchers have acknowledged such an inconsistency, and it has been argued that the difference between terms is important because many studies seem to use attitudes when actually measuring perceptions [42].
However, most research in the last decade has started from similar theories, such as social exchange theory (SET) [29,43,44,45], stakeholder theory (ST) [46,47,48] or Weber’s theory of formal and substantive rationality (WFSR) [49,50]. These theories have been tested through a series of econometric models and tools used to analyze residents’ perceptions of tourism development. The sustainable tourism attitude scale (SUS-TAS) stands out, as this approach integrates sustainability, the new environmental paradigm (NEP) and social exchange theory (SET).
SUS-TAS aggregates the residents’ perceptions on tourism development, taking into account the need to increase quality of life without damaging the environment, balancing the costs and benefits the community perceives. In the original version, SUS-TAS consists of seven constructions (perceived social costs; environmental sustainability; long-term planning; perceived economic benefits; ensuring visitor satisfaction; a community-centered economy; maximizing community participation) assigned by 44 items [51].
Different versions of this scale (one factor, second-order, 21-item, 27-item, 33-item, and 44-item models) have been tested in numerous studies in the last decade [52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60]. The results validated SUS-TAS for the Cape Verde Islands in Africa [57] and Taiwan in Asia [58].
Our research is based on the most discussed theory, social exchange theory (SET), still dominant in the literature due to its explanatory power, as it can differentiate the benefits and costs perceived by residents as an antecedent for tourism development [61].
SET was first applied in tourism in the early 1990s [29], and the results of the study show the direct link between the effects of tourism development perceived by residents and their desire to support tourism development. Therefore, residents who associate tourism development with a series of positive effects have a greater desire to support this economic activity, a desire that decreases in the case of residents who perceive mainly the negative effects. Subsequently, SET has been tested in various empirical studies, being useful for differentiating the positive and negative effects perceived by residents in connection with tourism development [20,43,51,62,63,64]. In addition, the theory has been improved, being used to study the link between residents’ perceptions of tourism and sustainable development. Therefore, the results of previous research conclude that residents’ attitudes concern the impact of tourism development on the local economy, socio-cultural characteristics and the environment. For each of the three categories, the residents’ perceive a series of positive and negative effects as a result of tourism development.
Previous studies have shown that assessing residents’ perceptions is a valuable component in identifying and measuring tourism impact. The authors of these studies reflected that tourism development, in different regions on all continents, is closely linked to the residents’ life quality and local economic development [65,66,67,68,69]. The positive effects of tourism development on the local economy appear in connection with a higher number of jobs and increased investment for the development of transport infrastructure and tourist facilities. Escudero Gomez, in a study of the historic center of Toledo, Spain [12], shows that residents associate tourism with economic development through higher employment rates and higher incomes. Similar results have been achieved by Sirakaya, E., Teye, V. and Sönmez, S. F. for the Central Region of Ghana [70], Brida J.G. et al. for Folgaria (Trentino-Italy) [24], Rua Vidal for Girona, Spain [71], and Snyman, S. for Botswana, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe [72]. Another positive effect is the increase of the local budget by collecting additional local taxes and a better standard of living [73,74,75].
Other studies have shown that residents’ perceive a series of negative effects as a result of tourism development, effects that directly affect the increase in prices of goods and services and indirectly on the cost of living, generating an unequal distribution of wealth [71,76].
Another issue of tourism development, according to the studies conducted in the last two decades, concerns the residents’ perceptions of personal benefits. This effect, also analyzed in our research, reflects how residents’ perceptions of personal benefits are more difficult to detect because they are dependent on economic development. Moreover, personal benefits are related to personal well-being by obtaining an increased income from tourism or getting a job in the hospitality industry [77].
Residents’ positive perceptions concerning the impact of tourism development on the environment are closely linked to the promotion of sustainable tourism. Research conducted so far has concluded that sustainable tourism can stimulate the creation of new green spaces and leisure and natural protected areas. Other positive effects could be the modernization of public infrastructure and urban street facilities or developing activities to raise awareness of the importance of environmental protection [49,78]. Therefore, residents’ perceptions of tourism development are also directions for local public authorities to improve infrastructure and create new attractions.
The same papers found a number of negative perceptions, according to which tourism development can negatively affect the environment in certain natural regions considered fragile [79]. In detail, some authors associate tourism development with the destruction of natural habitats caused by illegal construction of accommodation units, as well as by congestion of road traffic and lack of parking spaces that generate increased air pollution in urban areas [49], vandalism [80], and accumulation of high amounts of waste or water pollution of nearby rivers [81].
The studies published so far also analyze residents’ perceptions, both positive and negative, about the effects of tourism development on cultural heritage.
The positive effects perceived by the residents are the improvement of the recreation services associated with the cultural tourist attractions, organization of cultural events (fairs, festivals) by local authorities, the opportunity to gain new experiences through cultural exchanges, opportunities to preserve and promote the region’s valuable cultural heritage-traditions, gastronomy, and traditional products [28,82].
The negative effects identified so far, show that some residents have expressed concerns about the deterioration of cultural heritage or even the decline of cultural identity amid increasing tourist pressure. These effects are often associated with increasing insecurity of tourist destinations by increasing crime rates [32,45], drug and alcohol use [45,83], prostitution [45,84], accommodation rates or the delivery time of transport and catering services [85].
More recent literature has analyzed regions characterized by mass tourism, where this economic activity generates a substantial income for residents. In these regions, residents are also aware of the negative effects specific to overtourism generated by tourism development [45,86,87,88,89,90,91]. In this regard, the Tourism Destination Lifecycle Model developed by Butler in 1980 is another significant contribution to the relationship between tourism development and residents’ attitudes. Based on the concept of product cycle, where sales of a product are slow at first, then experience a rapid growth rate, stabilize and then decrease, Butler’s model suggests that tourist destinations follow a similar pattern of evolution [92]. This hypothetical evolution stipulates the stages that any tourist region experiences: exploration, involvement, development, consolidation, stagnation, decline and/or rejuvenation. However, as other researchers have stated, not all areas experience the stages of the cycle as clearly as others, and therefore the model should be considered partially applicable, as the cycle experience varies for different regions. Therefore, many studies reveal an important motivation for further research, as residents’ perceptions towards tourism development can change according to the stage experienced by the regions [20,58,70].
According to Butler’s model, Galati-Braila conurbation, although it has all the prerequisites for tourism development, is a region where tourism is in the exploration stage. This is because tourism activities do not currently have a consistent contribution to the local economy. Also, residents do not face the negative effects of overtourism.
This research approaches Galati-Brăila conurbation in Romania, where tourism development could be an important alternative for the local economy and a higher quality of life for the residents. In this context, we considered that investigating residents’ perceptions towards tourism development in the region is mandatory.
Moreover, our research covers the gap in the literature by analyzing residents’ perceptions of tourism development in a bipolar conurbation, consisting of two port cities located in southeastern Romania, close to the EU’s eastern border with Moldova and Ukraine. In addition, as far as we know, this is the first study in Romania that addresses this type of region. Other recent studies have been dedicated, either to a Romanian tourist center on the Black Sea, known for coastal tourism [45], or to a partial analysis of the perception of residents on tourism [93,94]. This research also seeks to provide preliminary results that may be useful for a longitudinal study in the future. Longitudinal studies, which highlight changes in residents’ perceptions of tourism development, its development phases and the implications for the local economy, can be extremely useful for local public authorities and investors. Thus, the negative effects of tourism development can be much more easily combated, through appropriate actions and strategies adopted by public and private decision-makers.

3. Methods

The main objectives of this research were primarily to identify the residents’ awareness of the importance of tourism for Galati-Braila conurbation, as well as its involvement in the development of this economic sector. Secondly, the study aimed to identify the positive and negative perceptions of residents regarding the impact of tourism development on tourism potential, socio-economic characteristics and personal benefits, as well as on the region’s environment.
The specific objectives aimed to establish the effect coefficients between the latent variables considered in the study: involvement in tourism; tourism development; personal benefits; positive perceptions; and negative perceptions.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) has become a quasi-standard in recent research approaches based on the analysis of cause-and-effect relationships between latent constructs. The present study uses the potential of PLS-SEM and its algorithm to test the hypothesis considered.
The quantitative method used to test the proposed research hypotheses included the development of a survey questionnaire to measure the community’s perceptions on the mentioned constructs. The justification for the selection of this method was based on several reasons. First, the survey method based on the questionnaire is considered effective in order to obtain specific and primary information from target respondents. Second, the chosen method can assist the examination of factors and the relationships involved [95].
In this study, statistical analysis and hypotheses were tested using structural equation modelling (SEM) by performing partial least squares (PLS) method. Smart PLS software version 3.2.6 developed by Ringle, Wende and Becker in 2015, was used to perform the analysis. PLS is a well-established technique for estimating path coefficients in structural models. This technique has become increasingly popular in the last decade due to its ability to model latent constructs under conditions of non-normality and small to medium sample sizes. In addition, the PLS analysis was performed and found suitable in this study since one of the constructs is measured using two items [96]. For an efficient analysis of the specific objectives, we used the SEM-PLS method and developed the conceptual model that reflects the links between the five latent variables (Figure 2).
Most of the latent variables are reflective, with 2 or 5 items assigned to the questionnaire to highlight their content. Thus, personal benefits (PB) is characterized by 2 items, involvement in tourism (IT) and negative perceptions (NP) by 5 items, while tourism development (TD) and positive perceptions (PP) are characterized by a single item, for a respective total of 9 items.
Modeling using structural equations, based on the least partial squares method (SEM PLS), gave us the opportunity to configure and estimate complex relationships between latent variables in this model.
The hypotheses we used to create the model were:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Involvement of residents in tourism activities has a significant effect on tourism development in the region.
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Tourism development generates negative effects in the region according to residents’ perceptions.
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Tourism development generates personal benefits according to residents’ perceptions.
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Tourism development generates positive effects in the region according to residents’ perceptions.
The research hypotheses presented above were verified based on a 27-item questionnaire, which was completed online by 343 respondents between November 2021 and April 2022.
Segmentation criteria such as age, gender, education, occupation and income generated the demographic profile of respondents, presented in Table 1.
Data collection was followed by the preparation of the database, prior to their processing, using the SmartPLS software. Thus, all responses were weighted using Likert’s scale, with the following scores: 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = indifferent/neutral, 2 = disagree, and 1 = strongly disagree.
The sources of information, analyzed in detail in the previous chapter, were both theoretical, useful for configuring the conceptual model and research hypotheses, and empirical obtained using the online questionnaire.

4. Results

Figure 3 illustrates the effect relationships between the latent variables included in the research model approached by the SEM-PLS method. These are indicated by arrows oriented from latent variables considered independent to dependent latent variables.
The structural model shows that tourism development (TD) has the strongest effect on positive perceptions (PP), as the coefficient of effect associated with this link is the highest (0.542), while the same independent latent variable (TD) has the weakest effect on negative perceptions (NP) with an effect coefficient of −0.323.
Regarding the external loads of the latent reflective variables, which reflect the statistical contributions of each item to each latent variable, we note the following:
Q21 item (Public authorities in Braila and Galati should cooperate for tourism development of the region) has the most representative statistical contribution to the latent variable Involvement in Tourism (external load of 0.896, higher than Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q20);
Q10 item (Tourism development would determine an increase in the residents’ income) has the most representative statistical contribution to the latent variable Personal Benefits (external load of 0.874, higher than Q14);
Q6 item (Tourism development would increase the residents’ awareness concerning the value of cultural heritage and tourism) has the most representative statistical contribution to the latent variable Positive Perceptions (external load-0.775, higher than Q4, Q5, Q8, Q9, Q11, Q12, Q13 and Q18);
Q17 item (Tourism development would increase the insecurity for the residents) has the most representative statistical contribution to the latent variable Negative Perceptions (external load-0.807, higher than Q7, Q15, Q16 and Q19).
The variable “Involvement in tourism” (IT) explains 24.4% of the variance of the Tourism Development variable (TD) (coefficient of determination R2 = 0.244). At the same time, the variable Tourism Development (TD) explains:
-
29.3% of the variance of the Positive Perceptions variable (PP) (coefficient of determination R2 = 0.293);
-
22.5% of the variance of the Personal Benefits variable (PB) (coefficient of determination R2 = 0. 225);
-
10.4% of the variance of the Negative Perceptions variable (NP) (coefficient of determination R2 = 0.104).
The model evaluation based on the modeling of the six structural equations was undertaken by determining the level of internal consistency (SmartPLS software calculated the Cronbach Alpha and composite confidence level), convergent validity (SmartPLS software generated a variance report extracted media) and discriminant validity (SmartPLS software generated reports on the Fornell–Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT).
The Cronbach Alpha indicator highlights the internal consistency and, implicitly, the reliability of the research tool, as well as the degree of correlation between the latent variables integrated in the structural model. The minimum threshold accepted by statisticians for this indicator is 0.7. The values of Cronbach Alpha exceed the allowed threshold for the variables TD (1.000), and PP (0.882), while for two variables (NP and PB) they are located near the minimum allowed threshold—0.656, and 0.657, respectively. The only variable with a value well below the minimum allowable threshold is IT (0.392).
The composite reliability takes into account the variable loads of all indicators, being more flexible than Cronbach Alpha. The minimum allowable threshold for the composite confidence level is also 0.7, and in our research, four variables have values above the minimum accepted value (NP-0.766; PB-0.853; PP-0.906 and TD-1.000). IT is the only variable whose value of the composite confidence level is less than 0.7, according to Table 2.
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (Rho) is a nonparametric test whose values should be between −1 and = 1. The value r = 1 reflects a perfect positive correlation and the value r = −1 is associated with a perfect negative correlation. We note in the case of the six reflective variables only positive correlations.
The convergent validity of the model is determined by the average extracted variance (AVE), which measures the variance of a latent variable relative to the variance associated with the measurement error. In general, statisticians recommend a minimum AVE threshold of 0.5. We note that three of the five variables (PB, PP and TD) have values of the mean variance extracted above the recommended threshold, and two variables are below the minimum allowable threshold, although the value for one of these is close to 0.5 (NP-0.412; IT-0.247). According to these values, we consider that the convergent validity of this model for measuring the relationships between variables is confirmed.
To determine the discriminant validity, we will first apply the Fornell–Larcker criterion, which compares the square root of the extracted average variance (AVE) with the correlation of latent variables.
Statisticians recommend that the square root of AVE for each reflective variable be greater than the correlations with other latent variables, as confirmed in this empirical research (since the AVE values for IT (0.497), NP (0.642), PB (0.863) PP (0.720) and TD (1.000) are superior to the correlations with the other latent variables, positioned below the main diagonal in Table 3.
The second way to determine discriminant validity is provided by the Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) correlation report. HTMT is considered by statisticians to be more appropriate for assessing discriminant validity than the Fornell–Lacker criterion, in terms of superior performance, which allows it to achieve higher reliability rates. HTMT values approaching the maximum allowable threshold of 1 indicate discriminatory invalidity. The use of HTMT as a criterion implies its comparison with a predefined maximum threshold indicating the existence of discriminant validity, considered by most researchers to be 0.9.
In our study, we observe that most correlations have values below the threshold of 0.9, being in the range 0.279–0.754 (Table 4). A single correlation between the variables exceeds the maximum threshold of 0.9, which is why we consider that the discriminant validity of the model is also validated by this criterion.
The PLS-SEM method focuses on the principle that data do not have standardized statistical distributions, which requires the application of a bootstrapping procedure to allow meaning tests to be run between model assumptions. Through the bootstrapping procedure, subsamples are created with observations randomly extracted from the original data set (by successive replacements), which are used to estimate the new structural model. In the case of this research, SmartPLS software generated less than 500 samples.
Estimates of the parameters associated with the analyzed structural model (external variable loads and estimated relationship coefficients in the subsamples) are used to generate statistical reports, which reflect t-test values and asymptotic meanings (p values). These statistical tests are able to validate or invalidate the model hypotheses.
In this model we observe that all the hypotheses are validated, as the p values do not exceed the maximum allowed significance level of 0.05 (Table 5):
H1—involvement of residents in tourism activities (IT) has a significant effect on tourism development in the region (TD)—asymptotic significance value p = 0.000;
H2—tourism development (TD) generates negative effects according to residents’ perceptions (NP)—asymptotic significance value p = 0.000;
H3—tourism development (TD) generates personal benefits (PB) according to residents’ perceptions—asymptotic significance value p = 0.000;
H4—tourism development (TD) generates positive effects according to residents’ perceptions (PP)—asymptotic significance value p = 0.000.
The t-test reflects the strength of the correlation between the latent variables considered in the model. Thus, tourism development (TD) has a significant effect on residents’ perceptions in relation to the positive effects that may occur in the region—t value = 10.286—and personal benefits (PB)—t value = 8.332. Also, the involvement in tourism of the residents (IT) has an important effect on tourism development (TD)—t value = 8.244.

5. Discussion

All four hypotheses were validated, with only three of them being statistically significant.
The results, processed with SmartPls3 software, show strong correlations for three hypotheses: H4, with the highest effect coefficient (0.542); H1, with an effect coefficient of 0.494; and H3, with an effect coefficient of 0.475. The findings correspond to the results from previous studies [20,28,45,70,71,73,74,75] concerning the residents’ positive perceptions, personal benefits and support for tourism development.
These results validate SET theory in the case of Galati-Braila conurbation, the residents’ desire to support tourism development being directly proportional to the positive effects and personal benefits they perceive. Among the positive perceptions we notice the ”increase of the residents’ awareness concerning the value of cultural heritage”. This item has the most representative statistical contribution, as in previous research [12,30,82]. Among the personal benefits, the perception that ”tourism development would determine an increase in the residents’ income”, has the most representative statistical contribution [12,45].
However, we must admit that Galati-Brăila conurbation is in the exploration phase, as, according to Butler’s model [92], the region is little known by potential foreign tourists. Therefore, the actual reduced tourist traffic generated by transit or business opportunities, justifies the residents’ euphoria, according to Doxey’s index of resident irritation model [97]. They perceive the benefits rather than the costs of tourism development, being willing to accept the changes more easily.
An interesting result in our study is related to H2, the only hypothesis which was not found to be statistically significant. Therefore, residents’ negative perceptions towards tourism development in the region has the weakest correlation (an effect coefficient of −0.323). In the present research the variable ”Tourism Development” explains only 10.4% of the variance of ”Negative Perceptions” (coefficient of determination R2 = 0.104), a result contradicted by some studies [28,45,71].
Bagri and Kala, in a study dedicated to Koti-Kanasar, Indroli, Pattyur Tourism Circuit of Uttarakhand State, India, have shown that tourism development in this region is perceived negatively by some residents. The perceived costs are related to the cultural heritage damages and an increase in the consumption of narcotics and alcohol. Also, another perceived cost is damage to the environment by increasing air and soil pollution or illegal constructions located in the protected areas [28].
Rua Vidal, in a study dedicated to Girona city, Spain has shown that residents perceive the costs of tourism development more than other communities in similar destinations. The authors explain this result by the fact that residents tended to compare the situation in their own city with that of the more developed tourist regions in the vicinity, such as Costa Brava and Barcelona [71].
Moraru A.D. et al. [45] show that residents of Constanța city, located on the Romanian Black Sea coast, also perceive the negative effects generated by tourism development. They mention alcohol and drug consumption, prostitution, crime and vandalism.
Other research also aligns with our findings [20,35,98,99]. These studies analyzed agricultural regions that have experienced severe economic recessions, with residents earning higher incomes from tourism compared to agricultural activities. In this regard, the study of Gursoy and Rutherford [98] shows that residents’ perceptions are limited only to the personal and economic benefits generated by tourism development, disregarding socio-cultural costs.
The findings of Hsu et al. [20] in research on Taiwan island are similar, as the region also experienced an economic recession and emigration. Moreover, the construction of new tourist facilities generated a shift in the residents’ income, from fishing to tourism. Therefore, the region’s economy depends more on tourism, a situation that explains the residents’ perceptions.
The economy of Galati-Braila conurbation, although it has not experienced the situation of the regions mentioned above, was totally dependent on light industry, steel and shipbuilding before 1989. The change of the communist political regime in December 1989 led to a rapid privatization of the region’s industrial sector. The need for industrial refurbishment and economic profitability of the industrial plants have led to high unemployment rates among residents, poor diversification of jobs and emigration in recent decades. Currently, residents’ incomes in Galați-Brăila conurbation are below the national average, being among the urban regions with the lowest earnings in Romania. In this context, the results of the research explain the residents’ disregard of the potential socio-cultural and environmental costs generated by tourism development in the region.

6. Conclusions

This research sought to investigate residents’ perceptions of tourism development in the Galati-Braila conurbation via SET theory. This is the first study that approaches a Romanian conurbation, where tourism development could be an important alternative for the region’s economy.
The theoretical contributions of the research consist in understanding the residents’ perceptions of tourism development in regions where tourism is not the main economic activity. Currently, Galati-Braila conurbation does not depend on tourism, although its natural and cultural potential are valuable. Therefore, besides transit and business tourism, leisure and cultural tourism could increase the number of tourist arrivals and also the residents’ economic benefits. Moreover, the region could experience a revival of tourist activities, competing with more famous cities in Romania, such as Constanta and Brasov. The study proves an important connection between the low economic growth of a region and residents’ desire to accept tourism development at all costs. The residents’ poor perception of costs can also be explained by the low tourist traffic from the Danube Delta and Romanian Black Sea Coast, located nearby.
The results can be extremely useful for a series of future comparative studies between different regions and different communities.
This approach is also supported by recent research that analyzed other urban regions in Europe. Therefore, Escudero Gomez [12] aims to compare results obtained in the city of Toledo with findings from a similar research in Patagonia, Argentina.
The need for comparative analysis is also confirmed by the results of the present research. The alternative of possible higher incomes determined by tourism development in the region and an increase in residents’ awareness concerning the value of cultural heritage are the items with the most representative statistical contribution for personal benefits and positive perceptions.
The findings correspond to previous research that examines residents’ perceptions of the sustainable tourism development, in regions which depend on tourism [20] or have experienced periods of economic recession in the past [98]. Therefore, the residents of Galati-Braila conurbation mainly perceive the personal and economic benefits generated by tourism development, being less preoccupied with the socio-cultural or environmental costs.
In conclusion, the relationship between benefits and costs generated by tourism development in Galati-Braila conurbation, according to SET theory, is undoubtedly in favor of economic benefits.
Related to managerial implications, the results of the study show that residents are willing to support tourism development in Galati-Braila conurbation, most of the respondents being aware of the economic benefits. Moreover, the results highlight the idea that residents would accept an upward tourist traffic, disregarding the negative effects of tourism development. Therefore, the residents could be consulted by the public authorities, being directly or indirectly involved in future planning. The findings may also be useful for new business opportunities in the region, strategies or projects initiated by investors and public authorities.
This research has several limitations. First, the data were not collected on the basis of a rigorous sampling specific to exhaustive sociological research. Therefore, the results are based on a limited number of answers and do not represent the entire population in Galați-Brăila conurbation.
Another limitation of the research concerns the ST and SUS-TAS theories which can offer more substantial results. In this regard, considering that tourism in Galati-Braila conurbation is in the exploration phase [92 we tested only the residents’ perceptions, based on SET theory. Therefore, the findings of this research must be complemented with more comprehensive studies in the future, in order to investigate the perceptions of all the stakeholders. Moreover, a longitudinal approach should be adopted to analyze eventual changes in the residents’ perceptions towards tourism development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.A.Ș. and A.C.; methodology, A.C., M.-C.M. and I.A.Ș.; validation, L.-D.M., I.S. and M.-C.M.; formal analysis, I.S. and L.-D.M.; investigation, I.A.Ș. and A.C.; resources, L.-D.M. and I.S.; data curation, I.A.Ș.; writing—original draft preparation, I.A.Ș.; visualization, A.C. and M.-C.M.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Marchis, G. (Re)Inventing Galati-Braila Urban Agglomeration with the Support of HEIs. EIRP Proc. 2019, 14, 82–93. [Google Scholar]
  2. Mehedinti, I.L.; Gherman, M.G. Galati—Braila: Becoming the Potential Capital of the Southeast Region of Romania, Risk in Contemporary Economy; “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration: Galați, Romania, 2014; pp. 427–436. [Google Scholar]
  3. TEMPO Online. Available online: insse.ro (accessed on 15 May 2022).
  4. Available online: http://www.mmediu.ro/app/webroot/uploads/files/Modificare-PATN-sectiuneaVIII-zone-cu-resurse-turistice-1.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2022).
  5. Soare, I. Spatiul Dunarean Fluvio-Maritim; Studiu de geografie umana si economica, Editura N’Ergo: Galati, Romania, 2004; ISBN 973-86289-8-9. [Google Scholar]
  6. Soare, I. The Tourist Potential and Sustainable Development—New Trends and Opportunities for Galati Located in RomaniaáS South-East Development Region, Annals of “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati, Fascicle I. Economics and AppliedInformatics, Years XXIII—no 3/2017, ISSN 1584-0409, ISSN-Online 2344-441X. Available online: http://www.eia.feaa.ugal.ro/images/eia/2017_3/Soare.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2022).
  7. Șorcaru, I.A. The Evaluation Stage of the Specific Tourism Infrastructure and Tourist Flows- Chances to Revitalize Galati City, Annals of “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati, Fascicle I. Economics and Applied Informatics, Years XXII—no1/2016, ISSN-L 1584-0409 ISSN-Online 2344-441X. Available online: http://www.eia.feaa.ugal.ro/images/eia/2016_1/Sorcaru.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2022).
  8. Muntean, M.-C.; Manea, L.D.; Nistor, C.; Nistor, R. In Proceedings of the Biodiversity of Small Wetland of Brăila—Factor of Promotion and Development of Tourism in the Metropolitan Area Galati-Brăila, International Conference “Risk in Contemporary Economy”, Warsaw, Poland, 10 April 2014, XVth ed.; Romania“Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati—Faculty of Economics and Business Administration: Galati, Romania, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  9. Beciu, S.; Arghiroiu, A.G. Will The New Bridge Over Danube Create A Tourism Sustainable Hub In The Urban Area Of Brăila-Galați-Măcin? In Proceedings of the Basiq International Conference: New Trends in Sustainable Business and Consumption, Bari, Italy, 30 May–1 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cardoso, C.; Silva, M. Residents’ perceptions and attitudes towards future tourism development: A challenge for tourism planners. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2018, 10, 688–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Koens, K.; Postma, A. Understanding and Measuring Visitor Pressure in Urban Tourism—A Study into the Nature and Methods Used to Manage Visitor Pressure in Six Major European Cities. 2018. Available online: https://www.celth.nl/sites/default/files/2018-09/Voorkomen%20van%20bezoekersdruk%20in%20Europese%20steden.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2022).
  12. Escudero Gómez, L.A. Residents’ Opinions and Perceptions of Tourism Development in the Historic City of Toledo, Spain. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Janusz, K.; Six, S.; Vanneste, D. Building tourism-resilient communities by incorporating residents’ perceptions? A photo-elicitation study of tourism development in Bruges. J. Tour. Futur. 2017, 3, 127–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Ross, G.F. Resident Perceptions of the Impact of Tourism on an Australian City. J. Travel Res. 1992, 30, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Guo, Y.; Kim, S.; Chen, Y. Shanghai Residents’ Perceptions of Tourism Impacts and Quality of Life. J. China Tour. Res. 2014, 10, 142–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rogerson, C.M. Urban tourism in the developing world: The case of Johannesburg. Dev. South. Afr. 2002, 19, 169–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tichaawa, T.M.; Moyo, S. Urban resident perceptions of the impacts of tourism development in Zimbabwe. Bull. Geogr. Socio-Econ. Ser. 2019, 43, 25–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Hanafiah, M.H.; Jamaluddin, M.R.; Zulkifly, M.I. Local Community Attitude and Support towards Tourism Development in Tioman Island, Malaysia. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 105, 792–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Ramseook-Munhurrun, P.; Perunjodi Naidoo, U. Residents’ Attitudes toward Perceived Tourism Benefits. Int. J. Manag. Mark. Res. 2011, 4, 5–56. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hsu, C.-Y.; Chen, M.-Y.; Yang, S.-C. Residents’ Attitudes toward Support for Island Sustainable Tourism. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Weaver, D.B.; Lawton, L.J. Resident Perceptions in the Urban–Rural Fringe. Ann. Tour. Res. 2001, 28, 439–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Su, Q.; Cao, Y.-H.; Lin, B.-Y. Comparative study on residents’ perception of tourism impact at tourist places. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2005, 15, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Abdollahzadeh, G.; Sharifzadeh, A. Rural Residents’ Perceptions toward Tourism Development: A Study from Iran. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2014, 16, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Brida, J.G.; Osti, L.; Faccioli, M. Residents’ perception and attitudes towards tourism impacts: A case study of the small rural community of Folgaria (Trentino-Italy). Benchmarking Int. J. 2011, 18, 359–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. McGehee, N.G.; Andereck, K.L. Factors Predicting Rural Residents’ Support of Tourism. J. Travel Res. 2004, 43, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Roldán, J.L.; Jaafar, M.; Ramayah, T. Factors Influencing Residents’ Perceptions toward Tourism Development: Differences across Rural and Urban World Heritage Sites. J. Travel Res. 2016, 56, 760–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mensah, I. Effects of Socio-Demographic Characteristics and Perceived Benefits of Tourism on Community Participation in Tourism in the Mesomagor Area of the Kakum National Park, Ghana. Athens J. Tour. 2016, 3, 211–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bagri, G.S.; Kala, D. Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development and Impacts in Koti-Kanasar, Indroli, Pattyur Tourism Circuit of Uttarakhand State, India. Pasos. Rev. Turismo Patrim. Cult. 2016, 14, 23–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ap, J. Residents’ Perceptions on Tourism Impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 1992, 19, 665–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Brunt, P.; Courtney, P. Host perceptions of social cultural impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 1999, 26, 493–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Besculides, A.; Lee, M.E.; McCormick, P.J. Residents’ perceptions of the cultural benefits of tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002, 29, 303–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tosun, C. Host perceptions of impacts: A comparative tourism study. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002, 29, 231–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Aguiló, E.; Roselló, J. Host community perceptions: A cluster analysis. Ann. Tour. Res. 2005, 32, 925–941. [Google Scholar]
  34. Dyer, P.; Gursoy, D.; Sharma, B.; Carter, J. Structural modeling of resident perceptions of tourism and associated development on the Sunshine Coast, Australia. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 409–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Akis, S.; Peristianis, N.; Warner, J. Residents’ attitudes to tourism development: The case of Cyprus. Tour. Manag. 1996, 17, 481–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mason, P.; Cheyne, J. Residents’ Attitudes to Proposed Tourism Development. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000, 27, 391–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, J.; Inbakaran, R.J.; Jackson, M.S. Understanding Community Attitudes towards Tourism and Host—Guest Interaction in the Urban—Rural Border Region. Tour. Geogr. 2006, 8, 182–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Williams, J.; Lawson, R. Community issues and resident opinions of tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2001, 28, 269–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fredline, E.; Faulkner, B. Host Community Reactions: A Cluster Analysis. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000, 27, 763–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wall, G. Perspectives on tourism in selected Balinese villages. Ann. Tour. Res. 1996, 23, 123–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lankford, S.V. Attitudes and Perceptions toward Tourism and Rural Regional Development. J. Travel Res. 1994, 32, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Getz, D. Residents’ Attitudes towards Tourism: A Longitudinal Study in Spey Valley, Scotland. Tour. Manag. 1994, 15, 247–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gursoy, D.; Jurowski, C.; Uysal, M. Resident Attitudes: A Structural Modeling Approach. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002, 29, 79–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Jaafar, M.; Kock, N.; Ramayah, T. A revised framework of social exchange theory to investigate the factors influencing residents’ perceptions. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2015, 16, 335–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Moraru, A.-D.; Duhnea, C.; Barbulescu, A.; Juganaru, M.; Juganaru, I.-D. Residents’ Attitude toward Tourism—Do the Benefits Outweigh the Downsides? The Case of Constanta, Romania. Sustainability 2021, 13, 882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Nicholas, L.N.; Thapa, B.; Ko, Y.J. Residents’ perspectives of a World Heritage Site: The Pitons Management Area, St. Lucia. Ann. Tour. Res. 2009, 36, 390–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Byrd, E.T.; Bosley, H.E.; Dronberger, M.G. Comparisons of stakeholder perceptions of tourism impacts in rural eastern North Carolina. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 693–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Luštický, M.; Musil, M. Towards a Theory of Stakeholders’ Perception of Tourism Impacts. Czech J. Tour. 2016, 5, 93–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Andereck, K.; Valentine, K.; Knopf, R.; Vogt, C. Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 2005, 32, 1056–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Boley, B.; McGehee, N.; Perdue, R.; Long, P. Empowerment’s and resident attitudes toward tourism: Strengthening the theoretical foundation through a Weberian lens. Ann. Tour. Res. 2014, 49, 33–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Choi, H.-S.C.; Sirakaya, E. Measuring Residents’ Attitude toward Sustainable Tourism: Development of Sustainable Tourism Attitude Scale. J. Travel Res. 2005, 43, 380–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sirakaya-Turk, E.; Ekinci, Y.; Kaya, A.G. An Examination of the Validity of SUS-TAS in Cross-Cultures. J. Travel Res. 2007, 46, 414–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hung, K.; Sirakaya-Turk, E.; Ingram, L. Testing the Efficacy of an Integrative Model for Community Participation. J. Travel Res. 2010, 50, 276–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kvasova, O. Socio-demographic determinants of eco-friendly tourist attitudes and behaviour. Tour. Today 2011, 11, 73–95. [Google Scholar]
  55. Yu, C.P.; Chancellor, H.C.; Cole, S.T. Measuring Residents’ Attitudes toward Sustainable Tourism: A Reexamination of the Sustainable Tourism Attitude Scale. J. Travel Res. 2011, 50, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Prayag, G.; Dookhony-Ramphul, K.; Maryeven, M. Hotel development and tourism impacts in Mauritius: Hoteliers’ perspectives on sustainable tourism. Dev. South. Afr. 2010, 27, 697–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ribeiro, M.A.; Pinto, P.; Silva, J.; Woosnam, K.M. Examining the predictive validity of SUS-TAS with maximum parsimony in developing island countries. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 26, 379–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hsu, C.-Y.; Chen, M.-Y.; Nyaupane, G.P.; Lin, S.-H. Measuring sustainable tourism attitude scale (SUS-TAS) in an Eastern island context. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2019, 33, 100617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Vong, M.; Pinto, P.; Albino Silva, J. Different Type of Residents, Different Type of Attitudes?: The Case of Tourism Development in East Timor. In Handbook of Research on Resident and Tourist Perspectives on Travel Destinations; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Obradović, S.; Stojanović, V. Measuring residents’ attitude toward sustainable tourism development: A case study of the Gradac River gorge, Valjevo (Serbia). Tour. Recreat. Res. 2021, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hadinejad, A.; Moyle, B.D.; Scott, N.; Kralj, A.; Nunkoo, R. Residents’ attitudes to tourism: A review. Tour. Rev. 2019, 74, 150–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Choi, H.C.; Murray, I. Resident attitudes toward sustainable community tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 575–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lee, T.H. Influence analysis of community resident support for sustainable tourism development. Tour. Manag. 2013, 34, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Nunkoo, R.; Ramkissoon, H. Residents’ Satisfaction with Community Attributes and Support for Tourism. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2010, 35, 171–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Crouch, G.; Ritchie, J.R.B. Tourism, Competitiveness, and Societal Prosperity. J. Bus. Res. 1999, 44, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Andereck, K.L.; Vogt, C.A. The relationship between resident’s attitudes toward tourism and tourism development options. J. Travel Res. 2000, 39, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Jurowski, C.; Gursoy, D. Distance effects on residents´ attitudes toward tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 296–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Karanth, K.K.; Nepal, S.K.; Deery, M.; Jago, L.; Fredline, L. Rethinking social impacts of tourism research: A new research agenda. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 64–73. [Google Scholar]
  69. Wang, Y.; Pfister, R.E. Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism and Perceived Personal Benefits in a Rural Community. J. Travel Res. 2008, 47, 84–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sirakaya, E.; Teye, V.; Sönmez, S.F. Understanding residents’ support for tourism development in the Central Region of Ghana. J. Travel Res. 2002, 41, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Rua Sira, V. Perceptions of tourism: A study of residents’ attitudes towards tourism in the city of Girona. J. Tour. Anal. Rev. Análisis Turístico 2020, 27, 165–184. [Google Scholar]
  72. Snyman, S. Assessment of the main factors impacting community members’ attitudes towards tourism and protected areas in six southern African countries. Koedoe 2014, 56, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Diedrich, A.; García-Buades, E. Local perceptions of tourism as indicators of destination decline. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 512–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Vargas-Sanchez, A.; Porras-Bueno, N.; Plaza-Mejia, M. Explaining residents’ attitudes to tourism: Is a universal model possible? Ann. Tour. Res. 2011, 38, 460–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Nunkoo, R.; So, K.K.F. Residents’ support for tourism: Testing alternative structural models. J. Travel Res. 2016, 55, 847–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Andriotis, K. Community Groups’ Perceptions of and Preferences for Tourism Development: Evidence from Crete. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2005, 29, 67–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Jurowski, C.; Uysal, M.; Williams, D.R. A Theoretical Analysis of Host Community Resident Reactions to Tourism. J. Travel Res. 1997, 36, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kuvan, Y.; Akan, P. Residents’ attitudes toward general and forest-related impacts of tourism: The case of Belek, Antalya. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 691–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Andereck, K.L.; McGehee, N. The Attitudes of community residents towards tourism. In Tourism, Recreation and Sustainability: Linking Culture and Environment, 2nd ed.; McCool, S.F., Moisey, R.N., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2008; pp. 236–259. [Google Scholar]
  80. Liu, J.C.; Sheldon, P.J.; Var, T. Resident perception of the environmental impacts of tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1987, 14, 17–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Jago, L.; Fredline, L.; Deery, M. Tourism in a Small Community: Risks and Benefits. Tour. Rev. Int. 2006, 10, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. McCool, S.F.; Martin, S.R. Community Attachment and Attitudes toward Tourism Development. J. Travel Res. 1994, 32, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Haralambopoulos, N.; Pizam, A. Perceived impacts of tourism: The case of Samos. Ann. Tour. Res. 1996, 23, 503–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lindberg, K.; Johnson, R.L. Modeling resident attitudes toward tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1997, 24, 402–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Martin, K. Tourism as Social Contest: Opposing Local Evaluations of the Tourist Encounter. Tour. Cult. Commun. 2008, 8, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kim, S.; Kang, Y. Why do residents in an overtourism destination develop anti-tourist attitudes? An exploration of residents’ experience through the lens of the community-based tourism. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2020, 25, 858–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kuščer, K.; Mihalič, T. Residents’ Attitudes towards Overtourism from the Perspective of Tourism Impacts and Cooperation—The Case of Ljubljana. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Szromek, A.R.; Kruczek, Z.; Walas, B. The Attitude of Tourist Destination Residents towards the Effects of Overtourism—Kraków Case Study. Sustainability 2019, 12, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Smith, M.K.; Sziva, I.P.; Olt, G. Overtourism and Resident Resistance in Budapest. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2019, 16, 376–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Carballo, R.; Leon, C.; Carballo, M. Fighting overtourism in Lazarote (Spain). Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2019, 11, 506–515. [Google Scholar]
  91. Gonzalez, V.M.; Coromina, L.; Galí, N. Overtourism: Residents’ perceptions of tourism impact as an indicator of resident social carrying capacity—Case study of a Spanish heritage town. Tour. Rev. 2018, 73, 277–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Butler, R.W. The Concept of a Tourist Area Life Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Management of Resources. In The Tourism Area Life Cycle: Applications and Modifications; Butler, R., Ed.; Channel View Publications: Clevedon, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  93. Mawby, R.I.; Tecău, A.S.; Constantin, C.P.; Chițu, I.B.; Tescașiu, B. Addressing the Security Concerns of Locals and Visitors for the Sustainable Development of Tourist Destinations. Sustainability 2016, 8, 524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Frînculeasa, M.N.; Chiţescu, R.I. The perception and attitude of the resident and tourists regarding the local public administration and the tourism phenomenon. HOLISTICA—J. Bus. Public Adm. 2018, 9, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Andersen, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis; Pearson Prentice–Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  96. Hair, J.F.; Hult, T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Square. Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  97. Pavlić, I.; Portolan, A. Irritation index, tourism. In Encyclopedia of Tourism; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Gursoy, D.; Rutherford, D.G. Host Attitudes toward Tourism: An Improved Structural Model. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 495–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Allen, L.R.; Hafer, H.R.; Long, P.T.; Perdue, R.R. Rural Residents’ Attitudes toward Recreation and Tourism Development. J. Travel Res. 1993, 31, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 07962 g001 550
Figure 1. The geographical location of Galati-Braila Conurbation (source: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3465904,28.0314487,10z (accessed on 15 May 2022)).
Figure 1. The geographical location of Galati-Braila Conurbation (source: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3465904,28.0314487,10z (accessed on 15 May 2022)).
Sustainability 14 07962 g001
Sustainability 14 07962 g002 550
Figure 2. Conceptual model based on the PLS-SEM method (source: graphics generated by SmartPLS software).
Figure 2. Conceptual model based on the PLS-SEM method (source: graphics generated by SmartPLS software).
Sustainability 14 07962 g002
Sustainability 14 07962 g003 550
Figure 3. The effect coefficients and external loads of latent reflective variables (source: generated by SmartPLS software).
Figure 3. The effect coefficients and external loads of latent reflective variables (source: generated by SmartPLS software).
Sustainability 14 07962 g003
Table
Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents (source: authors’ contribution).
Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents (source: authors’ contribution).
Segmentation
Criteria		CategoriesNumber of RespondentsPercentage (%)
AgeUnder 20 years41.16
20–39 years11332.94
40–65 years19857.72
Above 65 years288.16
SexMales11633.81
Females22766.19
IncomesBelow 500 euros9126.53
500–1000 euros15244.31
Above 1000 euros10029.15
EducationSecondary School20.58
High School5816.91
Bachelor Diploma16648.40
Post University Diploma11734.11
OccupationAgriculture&forestry&fish farming20.58
Industrial&Construction activities329.33
Services20258.89
Freelancer or Registered sole trader277.87
Pupil or Student5114.87
Pensioner298.45
Total343100
Table
Table 2. Assessment of internal consistency and convergent validity within the evaluated model.
Table 2. Assessment of internal consistency and convergent validity within the evaluated model.
MatrixCronbach’s AlphaRho_AComposite ReliabilityAverage Variance Extracted (AVE)
Involvement in tourism0.3920.4420.5310.247
Negative perceptions0.6560.7280.7660.412
Personal benefits0.6570.6600.8530.744
Positive perceptions0.8820.8890.9060.518
Tourism development1.0001.0001.0001.000
Table
Table 3. The assessment of discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker criterion).
Table 3. The assessment of discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker criterion).
Fornell–Larcker CriterionInvolvement in TourismNegative PerceptionsPersonal BenefitsPositive PerceptionsTourism Development
Involvement in tourism0.497
Negative perceptions−0.1820.642
Personal benefits0.378−0.1650.863
Positive perceptions0.542−0.2350.7660.720
Tourism development0.494−0.3230.4750.5421.000
Table
Table 4. Application of the HTMT report to assess discriminant validity.
Table 4. Application of the HTMT report to assess discriminant validity.
Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)Involvement in TourismNegative PerceptionsPersonal BenefitsPositive PerceptionsTourism Development
Involvement in tourism
Negative perceptions0.454
Personal benefits0.5690.279
Positive perceptions0.7540.3191.08
Tourism development0.4940.3390.5850.573
Table
Table 5. Values associated with the asymptotic significance P and t-test for structural model hypotheses.
Table 5. Values associated with the asymptotic significance P and t-test for structural model hypotheses.
Path CoefficientsOriginal Sample (O)Sample Mean (M)Standard Deviation (STDEV)t Statistics (O/STDEV)p Values
Involvement in tourism → Tourism development0.4940.5060.0608.2440.000
Tourism development → Negative perceptions−0.323−0.3360.0457.2240.000
Tourism development → Personal benefits0.4750.4780.0578.3320.000
Tourism development → Positive perceptions0.5420.5480.05310.2860.000
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Șorcaru, I.A.; Capatina, A.; Muntean, M.-C.; Manea, L.-D.; Soare, I. Residents’ Perceptions towards Tourism Development—The Case of Galaţi-Brăila Conurbation, Romania. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7962. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137962

AMA Style

Șorcaru IA, Capatina A, Muntean M-C, Manea L-D, Soare I. Residents’ Perceptions towards Tourism Development—The Case of Galaţi-Brăila Conurbation, Romania. Sustainability. 2022; 14(13):7962. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137962

Chicago/Turabian Style

Șorcaru, Iulian Adrian, Alexandru Capatina, Mihaela-Carmen Muntean, Ludmila-Daniela Manea, and Ionica Soare. 2022. "Residents’ Perceptions towards Tourism Development—The Case of Galaţi-Brăila Conurbation, Romania" Sustainability 14, no. 13: 7962. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137962

APA Style

Șorcaru, I. A., Capatina, A., Muntean, M. -C., Manea, L. -D., & Soare, I. (2022). Residents’ Perceptions towards Tourism Development—The Case of Galaţi-Brăila Conurbation, Romania. Sustainability, 14(13), 7962. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137962

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop