四個離島地區觀光發展階段暨觀光衝擊之研究

(1)

國立臺灣大學生物資源暨農學院森林環境暨資源學系碩士論文

School of Forestry and Resource Conservation College of Bioresources and Agriculture

National Taiwan University Master Thesis

四個離島地區觀光發展階段暨觀光衝擊之研究

Tourism Development Stages and Tourism Impacts of Four Offshore Islands in Taiwan

葉八方 Pa-Fang Yeh

指導教授：余家斌博士

Advisor: Chia-Pin Yu, Ph.D.

中華民國 103 年 7 月

July 2014

(2)

謝誌

本論文謹獻給在一路上給予支持的各位，這不單單記錄了我研究的成果，更是研究所生活的紀念。

進入研究所後，雖然沒有進入新環境的不適應，但是我仍面對接踵而來的挑戰。此時，在余家斌老師辛苦且不辭辛勞地教導下，讓我從一開始的懵懂，到成功完成論文，甚至通過口試。老師的教學方法新穎而自由，循序漸進且深入淺出，

逐漸讓我了解研究方向也同時讓我體會做研究的核心精神。再來要感謝嘉義大學黃宗成院長、東華大學陳麗如老師在最後口試時給予建議與鼓勵，使得本研究更加嚴謹與完備。

在校園生活中，在此感謝在研究所的朋友與同學，有你們的鼓勵和陪伴，使我的研究生生活多了幾分樂趣。感謝 Lab205 的學長瑋陽和慎威，同學冠賢、瑞邦、御祥及莉蘋的支持與勉勵。

最後感謝最親愛的家人。感謝父母支持我的決定，並且隨時給予關心，讓我在研究時無後顧之憂，並且跟我一起面對挫折和瓶頸。也感謝弟弟們，跟你們一起在同一屋簷下生活，我知道你們在背後默默地支持與加油打氣，讓我感受到家庭的溫暖。我很幸運也很驕傲，能在這家庭成長，我愛你們。

研究所的生活需要感謝的人事物，就用這本論文表示心中最懇切的謝意。由於需要感謝的人太多，難免疏漏，恕無法一一列舉。最後再次表達謝意，謝謝你們，

有你們真好。

八方 2014.8.01

I

(3)

II

(4)

中文摘要

觀光發展在臺灣已受到廣泛重視。然而，觀光衝擊也隨著觀光發展而產生。本研究採用旅遊地區生命週期理論來探討澎湖、小琉球、綠島和蘭嶼四個研究地點在不同觀光發展階段下的觀光衝擊以及社區生活品質。首先，利用個觀光客人數及居民人數可以幫助判定觀光發展階段。此外，為了加強研究的信度，研究者採取德菲爾法了解各研究地點的觀光衝擊。除了採用德菲爾法之外，本研究也採取網路問卷以調查居民與遊客對於觀光衝擊以及社區生活品質的看法。研究結果顯示經濟、社會文化與環境衝擊最為明顯也最容易受到不同觀光發展階段而改變。另外，二手資料判讀與德菲爾法對於觀光發展階段的判定較不一致，兩者結果互有出入。因此，

本研究針對觀光衝擊與觀光發展階段有較全面的分析，可以促進較有效的經營管理和決策。

關鍵字：觀光發展階段、觀光衝擊、社區生活品質、旅遊地區生命週期理論、

澎湖、小琉球、綠島、蘭嶼。

III

(5)

Abstract

Tourism development in Taiwan has been widely discussed in tourism research. As tourism rapidly develops, concomitant tourism impacts occur. This thesis aims to

investigate tourism impacts and community QOL across different stages of development in terms of TALC model to four offshore islands—Penghu, Little Liuqiu, Green Island, and Orchid Island. The number of tourists and residential populations help to further designate the stages. In addition, to ensure the credibility, Delphi method is also applied, thereby reassuring tourism impact on those four islands. Apart from Delphi, another survey was conducted for both residents and tourists to investigate tourism impacts and community QOL. The results indicated that those impacts regarding economy,

environment and services would be the most explicit and changeable, subject to tourism development. Next, tourism development stages by no means correspond to Delphi and secondary data analysis. As a result, comprehensive studies of tourism impacts and tourism development analyzed by this thesis can substantially facilitate successful management and effective decision making.

Keywords: Tourism Development Stages, Tourism Impacts, Community QOL, Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) model, Penghu, Little Liuqiu, Green Island, Orchid Island

IV

(6)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1: Reported empirical studies of TALC related research ... 11

Table 2-2: Reported empirical studies of economic impacts ... 18

Table 2-3: Reported empirical studies of socio-cultural impacts ... 20

Table 2-4: Reported empirical studies of environmental impacts ... 22

Table 3-1: Criteria calculation of tourism development stages ... 40

Table 4-1: TAGR results of Penghu ... 46

Table 4-2: TAGR results of Little Liuqiu ... 48

Table 4-3: TAGR results of Green Island ... 50

Table 4-4: TAGR results of Orchid Island ... 52

Table 4-5: Samples for each study site... 52

Table 4-6-1: Summary of background information ... 54

Table 4-6-2: Summary of background information ... 54

Table 4-7: One-way ANOVA result of economic impacts ... 57

Table 4-8: One-way ANOVA result of socio-cultural impacts ... 61

Table 4-9: One-way ANOVA result of environmental impacts... 64

Table 4-10: One-way ANOVA result of impacts on conditions ... 68

Table 4-11: One-way ANOVA result of impacts on services ... 73

Table 5-1: Comparisons for TALC stages ... 77

VIII

(10)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1:Tourism Life Cycle Model………...………..…..6

Figure 3-1:Study Process………..………..…..35

Figure 4-1: Annual Tourist Arrivals (1986~2012) ... 45

Figure 4-2: TAGR in Penghu (1986~2012) ... 45

Figure 4-3: Population in Penghu (1986~2012) ... 46

Figure 4-4: Tourist/Population Ratio in Penghu (1986~2012) ... 46

Figure 4-6: TAGR in Little Liuqiu (1986~2012) ... 47

Figure 4-7: Population in Little Liuqiu (1986~2012) ... 47

Figure 4-8: Tourist/Population Ratio in Little Liuqiu (1986~2012) ... 47

Figure 4-10: TAGR in Green Island (1986~2012) ... 49

Figure 4-11: Population in Green Island (1986~2012) ... 49

Figure 4-12: Tourist/Population Ratio in Green Island (1986~2012) ... 49

Figure 4-14: TAGR in Orchid Island (1986~2012) ... 51

Figure 4-15: Population in Orchid Island (1986~2012) ... 51

Figure 4-16: Tourist/Population Ratio in Orchid Island (1986~2012) ... 51

IX

(11)

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

This chapter is mainly composed of study background, research questions, and purpose. Moreover, the significance of the study and the limitations are in the remaining section.

1. Study Background

For the past four decades, studies pertaining to tourism impacts have rapidly developed (Jafari, 1986). Both positive and negative impacts studies have drawn researchers’ attentions. From positive to negative aspects, tourism impacts studies have grown to full dimension (Jafari, 1986). On the other hand, tourism development has also been widely discussed in the field of tourism, since community quality of life (QOL) is deemed as a crucial component of successful tourism industry. The

importance of residents strike a great influence in tourism development in a destination. With rapid growth of tourism development in Taiwan, concomitant tourism impacts occur as well. Recently, tourism has become a serious issue s in policy making and management. Although tourism impacts are not new for researchers, the linkage between tourism development and tourism impacts needs more comprehensive studies.

In this research, the author tried to analyze tourism impacts and community QOL

1

(12)

among tourism development stages in Penghu, Little Liuqiu, Orchid Island, and Green Island. Having determined to develop sustainable tourism industry, the local

government has created different visions. Therefore, balancing between tourism developments and maintaining public goods such as environment and cultural heritage initiates an important concern in offshore public construction (National Development Council, 2009).

2. Research Purpose

The purpose of this research is to understand the tourism impacts in light of community QOL across different development stages. Simply, the tourism impacts are discussed in five aspects: economy, socio-culture, environment, conditions and

services (community QOL) under development, stagnation, decline and rejuvenation stages in Tourism Life Cycle Model of each study site.

3. Research Questions

Two major research questions are provided:

(1) What are the development stages in Penghu, Little Liuqiu, Orchid Island and Green Island?

(2) What tourism impacts or QOL may change in different tourism development?

2

(13)

To sum up, the research is based on the tourism impacts and community QOL in different development stages, so researcher will show different degree of impacts in different stages.

4. Limitations

In this research, there are several limitations. Firstly, with limited time and budget, the author cannot investigate four islands comprehensively. Next, in order to get adequate samples, the author applied online survey, which may contain potential errors. Dilution constitutes the final factor. With the limitations of sample size, the results shall slightly alter under different circumstances.

5. Significance of the Study

This research applies the model to analyze stages of development in the four study sites. Additionally, this research provides insight of tourism impacts and tourism development in offshore islands nearby Taiwan; therefore, managers or policy makers can monitor the destination development, thus formulating better policies.

3

(14)

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

The chapter consists two main themes: TALC model and tourism impacts. In the first part, a brief introduction of TALC model is given firstly. Later on, a recollection of TALC research would be later discussed by its methods and variables. Besides, the second part of tourism impacts and QOL would be given brief introductions, variables and empirical studies respectively.

1. Tourist Area Life Cycle (TALC) Model

The tourist area life cycle (TALC) model is known as a conceptual model

derived from product life cycle (PLC) which indicates the lifecycle for a product over time (Levitt1965; Vernon 1966). In 1960s, PLC model was applied in tourism

research based on the concept, which tourism was another type of product fitting a life cycle in the market (Martin and Uysal 1990; Tooman 1997). It was also widely

accepted that W. Christaller observed a progression in a tourist site which may follow the concept of evolution in 1963. Later, R.W. Butler created a more concrete depiction by conceptualizing evolution. Since then, more and more researchers developed different methodologies to interpret TALC model. The essence in TALC model can be traced back to the theory of evolution cycle (Butler 1980, 2004; Crompton et al. 1987;

Meyer-Arendt 1985). Likewise, tourist area life cycle (TALC) model defines the

4

(15)

degree of development involved in tourism destination with two factors: time and number of tourists. This model examines tourist area development from growth to decline; moreover, the concept has been widely applied in the tourism industry. TALC model was first proposed by R.W. Butler (1980). Butler discovered a trend in a tourist site representing an S-curve with six stages: exploration, involvement, development, consolidation, stagnation, and post-stagnation stages. The conceptual graph is shown below.

Once a destination experiences tourism development, only a few tourists come due to lack of access, facilities, and local knowledge, and researchers defined this stage as “exploration.” With more people involved in this destination, the destination becomes more familiar to tourists; accordingly, the stage moves to “involvement.”

The state of involvement keeps happening because the destination attracts more tourists, thus improving the amenities. Researchers regard this stage as “development stage,” in which the destination grows rapidly. After that, if the development reaches theoretical carrying capacity (see Fig. 2-1), so the development slows down at

“consolidation stage” owing to social and environmental limits. Next comes

“stagnation,” the following stage, in which the development maximized in the destination. After stagnation, the development would go to decline stage which is shown by dotted lines. For line A or B, the destination undergoes rejuvenation due to

5

(16)

technological developments or infrastructure improvements. As for C and D, congestion and unsustainable development leads the destination to fail. The line E implies the destination may encounter disasters or crisis.

Fig. 2-1 Tourism Area Life Cycle Model (Source: Butler, 1980)

The measurement for the TALC model varies from case to case. Basically, there are several indicators, specifically capacity, satisfaction or congestion, and quality of life (QOL). With the help of the TALC model, researchers can obtain the further understanding of tourism industry, thereby formulating optimum and seek better strategies for management. TALC model could be implied as a flow from PLC model to TALC model. TALC model was derived from PLC model; Butler extended the

6

(17)

essence to tourism development by adding the concept of evolution. After that, tourism studies modified TALC model and consequently made it more practical instead of rather than just a conceptual model. The indicators applied were number of visitors, qualitative research, economic conditions, and residents’ perceptions.

It was Christaller (1963), who set up a milestone in tourism research. After Christaller, evolution concept was incorporated into tourism studies. Different approaches were applied to further investigate the development toward a specific location. Plog (1974, 2001) proclaimed that psychology of travelers may influence the fluctuation of a tourist area. According to Plog’s study, three types of tourists are identified: as alloentric, the midcentric, and the psychocentric. The characters would be related to different stages of development. However, Crompton and Hensarling (1978) emphasized maximum effectiveness with regard to tourism development by contemplating managerial responses to different development stages, which could be applied to improve the services in park management.

After 1980, Butler recollected and encompassed PLC model into tourist area life cycle (TALC) model. Butler used the number of tourists as well as the level of

infrastructure to identify the development stages of a particular tourist area. Moreover, he portrayed the concept with an S-shaped curve, and the curve influenced greatly among recent research.

7

(18)

However, based on Butler’s TALC model, the number of visitors was thought to be one convenient indicator. Furthermore, the indicators taken remained the most celebrated ones in the field. Most studies thought of the number of visitors as indicators (Hovinen 1982; Haywood 1986; Strapp 1988; Copper and Jackson 1989;

Debbage 1990; Ioannides 1992; O’Hare and Barrett 1997; Agarwal 1997; Douglas 1997; Knowles and Curtis 1999; Hovinen 2002; Boyd 2006). Haywood (1986) applied tourist arrivals and annual growth rates as main indicators to detect the

development stages. In addition, the upper bound and lower bound of each stage were not only decided by highest or lowest 5% of tourist number, but also connected with the mean of tourists and standard deviation of tourist arrival growth rates. As opposed to Haywood (1986), Strapp (1988) argues that the average length of stays is more persuasive than the number of visitors.

Apart from the number of visitors, carrying capacity constitutes another crucial determining factor. Hovinen (1982) used physical and psychological carrying capacity to analyze whether the study site underwent evolution. Following Hovinen, Meyer- Arendt (1985) also applied carrying capacity to explicate tourism development stages.

Debbage (1990) made a step further by utilizing industrial organization with a view to proving that industrial organization was not the major concern of TALC. However, Cole (2011) focused on synergy and congestion which would vary across tourism

8

(19)

styles and time. Cole established a model with TALC which could demonstrate destination growth. Because of this, researcher could possibly realize that the role of carrying capacity could be another reliable indicator and method when TALC model was employed.

Furthermore, Toh et al. (2001) realized the importance of economic power. Their studies differed from that of other researchers. Toh et al. (2001) advanced travel balance approach (TBA) as an improvement for Haywood (1986). The findings of Haywood (1986) were basically based on statistical analysis; conversely, Toh et al.

(2001) implied economic development of the country as basis with actual tourism development together. Toh et al. (2001)stated export and import values to frame four development stages. To put simply, export would exceed import and later decline in the whole life cycle. Singal and Uysal (2009) took visitors log, sales tax, and other receipts to evaluate tourism growth in the study site. Hovinen (2002), Whitfeild (2009) both showed the importance in economic power, and they all declared the importance in tourism revenues.

On the other hand, some other researchers emphasized qualitative research. Getz (1992) used spatial perceptive secondary data analysis, interviews, and survey to understand the development. Harrison (1995) also reviewed newspaper and extensive library research. Douglas (1997) however, applied historical method to evaluate

9

(20)

tourism development. Particularly, Tooman (1997) applied both qualitative and quantitative to comprehend the situation in the study site.

Last of all, some researchers also regarded residents significant in the research.

Zhong et al. (2008) as well as Diedrich and Garcia-Buades (2009) display resident perception to fill up the gap of tourists and residents. Kim, Uysal, and Sirgy (2012) later found the link residents’ perceptions of tourism impact with residents’ life satisfaction. Residents’ perceptions, inclusive of perceived tourism impacts and quality of life, could be influenced by different degree of tourism development (Allen, et al., 1988; Johnson, Snepenger, & Akis, 1994; Madrigal, 1993; Perdue, et al., 1991).

Although TALC remains a conceptual model, TALC model is believed to be unequivocal clear and useful (Richardson 1986; Johnson and Snepenger 1993;

Tooman, 1997; Oppermann 1998; Formicaand Uysal 1996; Lundtorp & Wanhill, 2001; Hovinen 2002; Boyd 2006; Zhong et al., 2008; Whitfeild 2009; Singal and Uysal 2009).

Empirical Studies

In the previous section, a number of TALC were analyzed based on academic literatures. Most researchers approved TALC model a prodigious concept for

understanding tourism development. However, TALC seemed to be more than just a

10

(21)

concept. In the future, TALC could be a practical model to investigate tourism development.

Firstly, Keller (1987) found out necessities in tourism services, namely

manpower and hospitality when applying TALC model in the study site. Getz (1992) contended that managers should accentuate monitoring and forecasting in the study site. Similarly, O’Hare and Barrett (1997) also regarded TALC model as a monitoring and forecasting tool for managers to understand the best strategies in management.

Moreover, Tooman (1997) thought that applying TALC model in policy making could control growth and emphasize economic diversity for better beneficial tourism

development. In the same vein, Zhong et al. (2008) alleged that TALC model could significantly assist park development in considerable stage. Additionally, Singal and Uysal (2009) maintained that balancing both supply and demand sides were important in development. On the contrary, Diedrich and Garcia-Buades (2009) indicated that residents’ perception of tourism impacts may account for the decline of destination.

To put it briefly, TALC model could be remarkably effective in decision making, monitoring, forecasting, and tracing back the development in the past, an important component in the field of tourism management.

To sum up, tourism development management, and decision making are

inextricably intertwined. Although TALC model may not precisely depict or forecast

11

(22)

potential problems, TALC model still remains an effective tool for understanding tourism development.

Table 2-1: Reported empirical studies of TALC related research Method/Measure Author/Year Indictors Findings

Number of Visitors Hovinen (1982)

Evolution of tourism development took place in the study site.

Strapp (1988)

The average length of stays is more persuasive than the number of visitors.

Debbage (1990)

industrial organization

TALC neglects industrial organization.

Ioannides (1992)

accommodation , tourism receipts, types of tourists and arrivals

Focus on authorities and investment.

O’Hare and Barrett (1997)

international tourists

TALC model is useful for analyzing and portraying the development for tourism industry.

Agarwal (1997)

Unit of analysis is vital in the study; furthermore, operating the TALC model is not easy.

Knowles and Curtis (1999)

Post-stagnation stages could be explained by TALC.

Hovinen (2002)

tourist arrivals and gross sales for

individual businesses

Accurate description for

“maturity” stage.

Boyd (2006) The TALC can be a

powerful guide to trace park

12

(23)

development.

Carrying Capacity Hovinen (1982)

physical and psychological carrying capacity

Evolution of tourism development took place in the study site.

Meyer- Arendt (1985)

TALC could explicate the development of the study site.

Debbage (1990)

industrial organization

TALC neglects industrial organization.

Cole (2012) discussion of agglomeration and clustering

Synergy and congestion vary across tourism styles and time.

Economic Ioannides (1992)

accommodation , tourism receipts, tourist type, and arrivals

Focus on authorities and investment.

Toh et al.

(2001)

travel balance approach (TBA)

The research mentioned export and import to frame four development stages.

Hovinen (2002)

tourist arrivals and gross sales for

individual businesses

Precise description for

“maturity” stage.

Singal and Uysal (2009)

visitors log, sales tax, and other receipts

Balance of supply and demand in tourism market is necessary.

Qualitative Research

Getz (1992) Existing documents, interviews, field and map observations and a

questionnaire

The study site is in maturity stage; planners and

managers should take monitoring and forecasting seriously.

13

(24)

Harrison (1995)

Structured questionnaires, basic data on the country’s tourism industry, unstructured interviews, newspaper, and extensive library research

Tourism development in Swaziland does not fully correspond Butler’s TALC model.

Douglas (1997)

Historical method and data analysis.

TALC explains evolution of the second and third

economic impact. Also, the importance of control growth and economic diversity are analyzed.

Tooman (1997)

Qualitative and quantitative indicators

The TALC application to colonial and postcolonial societies may not reflect actual situation.

Residents’/Tourists

’ Perspective

Allen, et al.

(1988)

Tourism impacts and quality of life could be influenced by different degree of tourism development.

Perdue, et al.

(1991) Madrigal (1993) Johnson, Snepenger and Akis (1994) Diedrich and Garcia- Buades (2009)

Residents’ perception of tourism impacts is an indicator of destination decline.

Zhong et al.

(2008)

Visitors and residents’

perception of

TALC model could help park development to be in considerable stage.

14

(25)

tourism development, secondary data analysis Kim, Uysal

and Sirgy (2012)

Residents’ perceptions of tourism impact with residents’ life satisfaction had a link in between.

Combination Keller (1987)

roles of entrepreneurs, authorities and tourists

Manpower and hospitality play an important role in tourism services.

Copper and Jackson (1989)

mainly number of visitors and institutional attitudes toward tourism

services and facilities

TALC model is useful for analyzing and portraying the development.

Whitfeild ( 2009 )

Number of venues opening and offering conference facilities

Theoretical extension of the TALC is applied to the four conference venue

classifications.

(Source: Uysal, Wooand& Singal, 2012, chap. 25)

2. Tourism Impacts

Tourism impacts studies could be traced back to 1960s; positive impacts and later studied on negative impacts were studied (Jafari, 1986). Most commonly, tourism impacts could be discussed in three aspects: economic, socio-culture and environment. Every time when a destination experienced tourism development, it is also affected by both positive and negative impacts. In this section, researcher would

15

(26)

discuss both positive and negative impacts in these three dimensions.

Once a destination encountered tourism development, it may also be affected by tourism impacts. The studied tourism impacts among residents could be characterized into three groups as economic, socio-cultural and environmental impacts by benefits and costs (Allen, et al., 1988; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Lankford & Howard, 1994).

The first group is economic; positive and negative impacts have been listed such as increasing income, job opportunities, tax, and inflation. Secondly, in socio-cultural aspect, researchers found out impacts like crime, crowding and community image, awareness of cultural pride and heritage, and improvement of cultural facilities. The last part is environmental; researchers noticed that congestion, pollution, wildlife destruction and improvement of local infrastructure could be positive or negative impacts (Andereck, 1994; Andereck & Jurowski, 2006; Jurowski, 1994; Marcouiller, 1997; Yu, 2011). With positive impacts, the well improved infrastructure, festivals, restaurants, natural and cultural attractions, and recreation/leisure opportunities could be found in an enhanced resident community, thus attaining higher quality of life (Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Liu, et al., 1987; Liu & Var, 1986; McCool & Martin, 1994;

Perdue, et al., 1990).

On the other hand, negative impacts would influence resident community’s quality of life. For example, crowding, traffic congestion, crime, increased cost of

16

(27)

living and conflict between tourists and residents were common impacts which influenced negatively (Andereck, 1994; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Cohen, 1988; Lindberg & Johnson, 1997; Liu, et al., 1987; McCool & Martin, 1994; Perdue, et al., 1990; Pizam, 1978). With negative impacts, residents’ quality of life could be deteriorated (Allen, et al., 1993; Andereck & Nyaupane, 2010;

Andereck, Valentine, Vogt, & Knopf, 2007; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Liu, Sheldon,

&Var, 1987).

Economic Impacts

Most conspicuously, higher tax revenues, increased job opportunities, additional incomes are all common and notable indicators for residents’ quality of life under tourism impacts. However, tourism development also brought negative impacts such as inflation. Empirical studies showed positive impacts such as higher tax revenues (Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Tyrrell & Spaulding, 1984), increased job opportunities (Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Liu & Var, 1986; Milman &

Pizam, 1988; Pizam, 1978; Sheldon & Var, 1984; Tyrrell & Spaulding, 1984; Weaver

& Lawton, 2001), additional incomes (Liu, et al., 1987; Prentice, 1993), more investments (Akis, et al., 1996; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Liu & Var, 1986; Milman &

Pizam, 1988; Sheldon & Var, 1984), improving local economy (Akis, et al., 1996;

Allen, et al., 1988; Perdue, et al., 1990). Moreover, with the help of tourism

17

(28)

development, the destination may increase living standard or income and services (Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Lankford & Howard, 1994;

Liu & Var, 1986; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Pizam, 1978; Tosun, 2002; Weaver &

Lawton, 2001).

On the other hand, a destination may suffer from tourism development in several aspects such as inflation (Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996;

Husbands, 1989; Liu, et al., 1987; Liu & Var, 1986; Pizam, 1978; Ross, 1992; Tosun, 2002; Weaver & Lawton, 2001), increasing price of real estate (Perdue, et al., 1990;

Pizam, 1978; Ross, 1992; Tosun, 2002; Var, et al., 1985; Weaver & Lawton, 2001).

Moreover, with better development of tourism, government would probably tax on residents more than before (Liu & Var, 1986; Perdue, et al., 1990; Ross, 1992).

Table 2-2: Reported empirical studies of economic impacts

Impacts Studies

Economic (positive)

Improving local economy (Akis, et al., 1996; Allen, et al., 1988; Perdue, et al., 1990)

Increasing stand-of- living/income/

economic quality of life

(Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Lankford & Howard, 1994; Liu & Var, 1986;

Milman & Pizam, 1988; Pizam, 1978; Tosun, 2002;

Weaver & Lawton, 2001)

Employment (Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Liu & Var, 1986; Milman &

Pizam, 1988; Pizam, 1978; Sheldon & Var, 1984;

Tyrrell & Spaulding, 1984; Weaver & Lawton, 2001) Profitable local businesses (Liu, et al., 1987; Prentice, 1993)

Investments (Akis, et al., 1996; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Liu & Var, 1986; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Sheldon & Var, 1984) Tax revenue (Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Milman & Pizam,

1988; Tyrrell & Spaulding, 1984) Improving infrastructure

and services

(Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Liu & Var, 1986)

18

(29)

Economic (negative) Inflation of goods and services

(Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Husbands, 1989; Liu, et al., 1987; Liu & Var, 1986; Pizam, 1978; Ross, 1992; Tosun, 2002; Weaver

& Lawton, 2001) Increasing price of land and

housing

(Perdue, et al., 1990; Pizam, 1978; Ross, 1992; Tosun, 2002; Var, et al., 1985; Weaver & Lawton, 2001) Increasing tax (Liu & Var, 1986; Perdue, et al., 1990; Ross, 1992) (Source: Yu, 2011)

Socio-cultural Impacts

Tourism development also affect the community’s cultures and social status.

Obviously, tourism helped the community improving quality of fire/police protection or quality of life (Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Liu, et al., 1987; Milman & Pizam, 1988;

Dogan, 1989; McCool & Martin, 1994; Perdue, et al., 1990; Pizam, 1978; Ross, 1992;

Perdue, et al., 1990). Moreover, tourism development also brought cultural exchange (Akis, et al., 1996; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Keogh, 1989; Liu, et al., 1987; Liu & Var, 1986), increasing availability of recreation facilities/opportunities (Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Liu, et al., 1987; McCool & Martin, 1994; Perdue, et al., 1990; Pizam, 1978;

Ross, 1992) and increasing demand for historical and cultural exhibits (Liu & Var, 1986). Tourism development could also preserve cultural identity (Liu & Var, 1986;

Pizam, 1978), provide educational experience (Liu, et al., 1987; Liu & Var, 1986) and improve understanding through different cultures (Liu, et al., 1987; Liu & Var, 1986;

Milman & Pizam, 1988; Pizam, 1978).

However, tourism development may disturb residents’ living in several aspects.

19

(30)

For one thing, congestion (Akis, et al., 1996; Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Lindberg &

Johnson, 1997; Liu & Var, 1986; Long, et al., 1990; McCool & Martin, 1994;

Prentice, 1993; Rothman, 1978; Tyrrell & Spaulding, 1984) would be the most apparent problem. Secondly, illegal act such as crime (Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Brunt &

Courtney, 1999; Cohen, 1988; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; King, et al., 1993;

Lankford & Howard, 1994; Lindberg & Johnson, 1997; Liu, et al., 1987; Liu & Var, 1986; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Tosun, 2002), drug use/addiction and alcoholism (Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; King, et al., 1993; Tosun, 2002) and sexual permissiveness (King, et al., 1993) were common negative impacts observed by researchers. For another thing is the degeneration of cultures. Researchers have found out culture commercialization in a destination after undergoing tourism development (Ap & Crompton, 1993; Cohen, 1988; Liu & Var, 1986; Weaver & Lawton, 2001).

Table 2-3: Reported empirical studies of socio-cultural impacts

Impacts Studies

Socio-cultural (positive) Increasing availability of recreation

facilities/opportunities

(Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Liu, et al., 1987; McCool &

Martin, 1994; Perdue, et al., 1990; Pizam, 1978;

Ross, 1992) Improving quality of

fire/police protection

(Keogh, 1989; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Pizam, 1978)

Increasing availability of entertainment/cultural activities

(Liu & Var, 1986)

Improving quality of life (Dogan, 1989; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Perdue, et al., 1990; Pizam, 1978)

Improving understanding and (Liu, et al., 1987; Liu & Var, 1986; Milman &

20

(31)

image of different communities/culture

Pizam, 1988; Pizam, 1978) Enables meeting visitors (an

educational experience)

(Liu, et al., 1987; Liu & Var, 1986) Increasing demand for

historical and cultural exhibits

(Liu & Var, 1986)

Promoting cultural exchange (Akis, et al., 1996; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Keogh, 1989; Liu, et al., 1987; Liu & Var, 1986)

Preserving cultural identity (Liu & Var, 1986; Pizam, 1978) Socio-cultural (negative)

Congestion (Akis, et al., 1996; Brunt & Courtney, 1999;

Lindberg & Johnson, 1997; Liu & Var, 1986;

Long, et al., 1990; McCool & Martin, 1994;

Prentice, 1993; Rothman, 1978; Tyrrell &

Spaulding, 1984)

Increasing crime (Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Brunt & Courtney, 1999;

Cohen, 1988; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996;

King, et al., 1993; Lankford & Howard, 1994;

Lindberg & Johnson, 1997; Liu, et al., 1987; Liu

& Var, 1986; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Tosun, 2002)

Increasing drug use/addiction and alcoholism

(Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; King, et al., 1993; Tosun, 2002)

Increasing sexual permissiveness

(King, et al., 1993)

Culture commercialization (Ap & Crompton, 1993; Cohen, 1988; Liu & Var, 1986; Weaver & Lawton, 2001)

(Source: Yu, 2011)

Environmental Impacts

Environment could be changed and affected by human activities, so tourism development could also alter a destination’s environment. Researchers have found not only negative impacts but also positive impacts. Once a destination underwent

tourism development, it must sacrificed its environment. For example, pollution was the most evident impacts for a destination (Andereck, 1994; Pizam, 1978). Moreover, ecological degradation was also a severe problem for a destination (Andereck, 1994;

Kendall & Var, 1984; Liu & Var, 1986); throughout unlimited development,

21

(32)

researchers also found littering and solid waste in the destination (Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Lankford & Howard, 1994).

Yet, tourism development could also inspire environmental senses thus improving host area’s appearance (Perdue, et al., 1987, 1990) or else help local community in environment and wildlife protection and improvement (Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Liu, et al., 1987; Liu & Var, 1986). Besides, tourism development could also preserve historic buildings (Liu, et al., 1987; Sheldon & Var, 1984) and provide recreation facilities and opportunities (Liu, et al., 1987; Liu & Var, 1986; McCool & Martin, 1994; Perdue, et al., 1990).

Table 2-4: Reported empirical studies of environmental impacts

Impacts Studies

Environmental (positive) More leisure/recreation facilities and opportunities

(Liu, et al., 1987; Liu & Var, 1986; McCool &

Martin, 1994; Perdue, et al., 1990) Environment/wildlife

protection and improvement

(Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Liu, et al., 1987; Liu &

Var, 1986) Improving host area’s

appearance

(Perdue, et al., 1987, 1990) Preservation of historic

buildings

(Liu, et al., 1987; Sheldon & Var, 1984) Environmental (negative)

Traffic congestion/crowding (Andereck, 1994; Brunt & Courtney, 1999;

Lindberg & Johnson, 1997; Liu, et al., 1987;

McCool & Martin, 1994; Perdue, et al., 1990;

Pizam, 1978)

Pollutions (Andereck, 1994; Pizam, 1978)

Ecological degradation (Andereck, 1994; Kendall & Var, 1984; Liu &

Var, 1986)

Littering/solid waste (Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Lankford & Howard, 1994)

(Source: Yu, 2011)

22

(33)

3. Community Quality of Life

Quality of life is also abbreviated as QOL which examine various aspects and levels of people’s lives and environments it encompasses (Schalock, 1996). To evaluate QOL, both subjective and objective perspectives are under studies (Sirgy, Meadow, and Samli 1995; Sirgy, Rahtz, Cicic, and Underwood 2000), so scholars proposed a variety of QOL definitions and models.

At first, bottom-up spillover theory is established as a compound of several domains of satisfaction aggregating from its sub domains, and all the domains can be added up to global life satisfaction (Andrew and Withey 1976; Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers 1976; Diener 1984; Sirgy et al., 2000). Afterward, Philips (2006) noted 3 non-mutually exclusive items, happiness, life satisfaction and subject well-being, are near to form up QOL. Later, Sirgy et al. (2000) linked up individuals’ QOL to their life satisfaction. So, based on bottom-up spillover theory the aggregation of every domain of satisfaction in a community can form up QOL to global life satisfaction.

Continue with global life satisfaction, Sirgy and Cornwell (2001) extended the concept by summing up three domains: global community services satisfaction, global satisfaction of community conditions and global satisfaction with other life domains.

More precisely, community services can include satisfaction with government

23

(34)

services, business services and nonprofit services (Sirgy and Cornwell 2001; Sirgy, et al. 2000). Following, satisfaction of community conditions also include quality of the environment, change to the natural landscape, cost of living, crime, ties with people, neighborhood situation and the housing situation (Sirgy and Cornwell 2001). Besides, some other scholars concluded QOL as socio-economic and environmental indicators to examine livability as well as desirability of the region (Epley and Menon 2008;

Sirgy and Cornwell 2001; Sirgy, et al. 2000).

Above all, most topic studying QOL in community are based on services and conditions. For one thing, community conditions can be regarded as socio-economic and environmental indicators to one community such as crime and safety, recreational and entertainment activities, infrastructure, traffic condition, parks, job opportunities, and taxes (Grzeskowiak, et al. 2003; Yu, 2011). On the other hand, community services includes government services (police, fire/rescue, library), business services (banking/savings, insurance, department stores), and non-profit services (alcohol/drug abuse services, crisis intervention, religious services) that are potentially influenced by tourism development (Grzeskowiak, et al. 2003; Yu, 2011).

Empirical Studies

There are existing communities which first fully supported tourist development but later oppose it only to find out that living costs may degrade residents’ quality of

24

(35)

life(Liu and Var 1986). Thus, economic benefits may not reflect residents’ QOL because of deterioration in social or physical environments (Jurowski and Gursoy 2004; Roehl 1999). In short, residents’ QOL may be influenced by tourism impacts among socio-cultural, environmental and economic aspects. As a result, the

relationships between tourism have been extensively noticed.

With this perception, Allen and colleagues (1988) found out residents’ perceptions of community life satisfaction changed in different level of tourism development. The study investigated residents’ perceptions of importance and satisfaction of QOL by adopting 33-indicators with seven community life dimensions such as public service, formal education, environment, recreation opportunities, economics, citizen

involvement and social opportunity, and medical service (Allen and Beattie 1984;

Allen, et al. 1987; Allen, et al. 1988; Yu, 2011).

Moreover, Roehl (1999) investigate relationships among resident characteristics, perceptions of the impacts of gaming, and QOL in Nevada. Roehl found that social costs were negatively correlated with QOL, but job growth was positively correlated with QOL.

Later in 2002, Ko and Stewart found that residents’ overall community satisfaction was related to both positive and tourism impacts. Similarly, Vargas- Sanchez et al. (2009) had comparable findings. However, Ko and Stewart did not

25

(36)

explain abundantly about the relationship between overall community satisfaction and resident attitude on additional tourism development.

Next, Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2010a, 2010b) found that overall community satisfaction has relationships with community conditions. Also, satisfaction with community services could be seen as community support for tourism development. In recent times, Kim, Uysal and Sirgy (2013) implied that particular tourism impacts on life domains may also influenced overall satisfaction.

In sum, QOL of a community could be affected by both positive and negative impacts; as a result, not only tourism practitioners but also tourists are responsible in residents’ QOL. Studies has shown that both positive and negative tourism impacts would influence community conditions in different ways (Andereck 1994; Belisle and Hoy 1980; Brunt and Courtney 1999; Lankford and Howard 1994; Liu, et al. 1987;

Liu and Var 1986; McCool and Martin 1994; Perdue, et al. 1987, 1990; Pizam 1978).

Similarly, positive and negative tourism impacts would also influence community services in different ways (Ap 1990; Ap 1992; Ap and Crompton 1998; Belisle and Hoy 1980; Brunt and Courtney 1999; Keogh 1989; Lankford and Howard 1994; Liu and Var 1986; Milman and Pizam 1988; Pizam 1978).

26

(37)

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY

This research aims to investigate tourism development in offshore islands and explore tourism impacts toward different developing stages. Firstly, researcher would fist discuss our four study sites, Penghu, Little Liuqiu, Green Island and Orchid Island and give all general and detailed information. Next, researcher would apply Delphi panel and survey in data analysis; besides, the investigation for tourism development and impacts are surveyed in the second stage. In this chapter, brief introduction of the four study sites may first be given. Later on, the methods applied as quantitative approaches would be more clearly familiarized.

1. Study Site

All of our study sites are islands surrounding around Taiwan. Recently, tourism has already become an important income for offshore islands in Taiwan. According to official statistics (Ministry of Household, 2013), about 121 islands can be included in the territory of Taiwan (National Development Council, 2009). Although many islands scattered around, only a few of them possess residents¹. Varying from landscapes, ecology, culture and society, every single island owns spectacular attractions for tourists. Besides, the serenity causes the islands difficult in

1 Although some desert islands are also familiar for tourists, researcher would not discuss in this section.

27

(38)

development. Once tourism enters in the offshore islands, it brings not only better chances but also improvements in living standards for the residents. Then, tourism gradually develops and is more likely to replace employment structure in the offshore islands. Consequently, balancing between tourism developments as well as

maintaining public goods such as environment and cultural heritage strike an important concern in offshore public construction (National Development Council², 2009).

Sustainable development states an important role in offshore general public construction programs³. Based on our four study sites, Penghu, Little Liuqiu, Green Island and Orchid Island, local government planned for further tourism development as follow. Penghu planned to be an international island because of its special but important location in Taiwan Strait⁴. Little Liuqiu planned to cultivate as the educational and recreational island⁵. Green Island used its character “Green” to emphasize the importance of sustainable development⁶. Orchid Island specified its specialties as “hometown for aboriginals.⁷” Thus, sustainable development has become an important issue in offshore islands.

2 前經濟建設委員會，後併入國家發展委員會。

3 第二期（96-99 年）、第三期（100-103 年）離島綜合建設實施方案 translated by researchers.

4「國際島嶼，海上明珠」

5「海上休習(休閒與學習)島」

6「永續海洋生態與綠色旅遊產業島嶼」

7「原住民海洋原鄉」

28

(39)

Background of Penghu

Penghu islands (23°12 to 23°47 N, 119°19 to 119°43 E) are also well known for Pescadores Islands, the islands are an archipelago lying in the west of Taiwan. Penghu occupies the entire archipelago and forms Penghu County. Penghu County covers 141 square kilometers; most remarkable, there are over 90 islands scattered around

Penghu (Ministry of Household, 2013). Recently, according to statistics, Penghu has more than 90,000 residents (Ministry of Household, 2013).

Tourism development in Penghu has lasted for decades. After World War II, Penghu started public constructions so as to improve living standards. In early 1950s, Penghu underwent a series of reconstructions, there were limited spaces for tourism development. The limitations came from military control and lack of public

infrastructure and services. Consequently, the 50s seemed to be Penghu’s reconstruction period. Later in late 1950s to 1970s, tourism in Penghu started to develop. Later in 1980s and 1990s, tourism became an important role in Penghu (Chuang, 2012).

Recently, Penghu National Scenic Area was founded and had 3 recreation areas:

North Sea recreation area (北海遊憩系統), Magong Island Recreation Area (馬公本島遊憩系統) and South Sea recreation area (南海遊憩系統). Although Penghu is

well known a destination for summer vacation, potential limitations cutback its

29

(40)

development. For one thing, the monsoon in Penghu is so strong that tourists cannot stand the wind. For another, the limited transportation also drawback development (National Development Council, 2009).

Background of Little Liuqiu

Little Liuqiu is governed by Liuqiu Township in Pingtung County. Besides, Little Liuqiu is the only one coral island of Taiwan’s offshore islands suited south of

Kaoping River. Recently, about 13,000 residents Live on little Liuqiu (Ministry of Household, 2013). Besides tourism, fishing is another important industry in Liuqiu.

Little Liuqiu is famous for coral ecosystem and aquatic activities, and in summer times, Little Liuqiu is on season. Besides, Little Liuqiu is also renowned for cultural resources, especially Taoist festivals which celebrates and honors Wong Ye (王爺).

Recently, Little Liuqiu becomes a well-known destination, but restricted lands and transportations limit tourism development. In addition, the management also need improvements. Finally, with the rapid development, Little Liuqiu needs more

investigations in tourist spots and monitoring to prevent the irreversible damages in nature resources (National Development Council, 2009).

Background of Green Island

Green Island is a small volcanic island about 33 km (21 mi) off the eastern coast of Taiwan. Recently, there are more than 3500 residents on the island (Ministry of

30

(41)

Household, 2013). Green Island is famous for the nature resources.

In early19^th century, immigrants from Liuqiu settled down and established villages. The industries on the islands remained primary industrial sectors such as farming, forestry, livestock and fishing sectors for a long time. In 1990s, tourism industry surpassed other industries to be the most important ones. With the help of tourism development, the residents living has improved (Lee, 2001).

In 1990, Green Island was included in East Coast National Scenic Area. Later on, the infrastructures such as water, electricity and airport has enhanced. Moreover, the tourists started increasing in 1990s, and most residents rely on tourism for living (Su, 1995).

Background of Orchid Island

Orchid Island is a 45 km² high island off the southeastern coast of Taiwan.

Recently, more than 5000 residents living on the island (Ministry of Household, 2013). Besides aboriginal cultures, Orchid Island is also famous for nature resources.

The aborigines, Tao has lived on the island for centuries. Tao’s industries on the islands remained primary industrial sectors such as farming (mainly slash and burn), livestock and fishing sectors for a long time. Besides tourism, the industries on the island still remain farming (mainly slash and burn), livestock and fishing; most interesting, women and men work cooperatively. Likewise, the flying fish is

31

(42)

considered the most important food which is necessary for aboriginal festivals.

Tourism development in Orchid Island remain slow and steady. Because of rich nature natural and cultural tourism resources, Orchid Island seems to have potential in tourism. However, the limitation of transportation, qualities of accommodations and lack of infrastructures put a sever drawback in development. As a result, the balance of conservation and development still remain a great problem (Chen, 2007).

2. Research Design

In this research, researcher aimed at exploring tourism development stages as well as investigating tourism impacts and community QOL. Thus, researcher divided the research into two steps, secondary data analysis and survey.

Firstly, secondary data analysis is used to explore tourism development stages based on Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) model (Butler 1980, Haywood, 1986; Toh et al., 2001; Kim, Uysal, & Sirgy, 2012). Besides secondary data analysis, Delphi was applied in survey of researchers. The conceptual graph of TALC model (Butler 1980) was given for the participants to portray the development stages in order to prevent misleading.

On the other hand, tourism impacts were mainly focused on the impacts brought by tourism development. For all indicators investigating tourism impacts, researchers

32

(43)

evaluated all items from present empirical studies (Dyer, et al., 2007; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Lankford & Howard, 1994; Liu & Var, 1986; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Perdue, et al., 1987; Vargas-Sánchez, et al., 2009; Yu, et al., 2009). Then, all the included impacts could be composed of economics, environment, culture and community QOL.

However, for more detailed indicators for impacts on residents, researchers also analyze community services, community conditions and satisfaction in living qualities. In addition, all involved indicators were developed from previous studies (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2010; Dyer, et al., 2007; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Lankford &

Howard, 1994; Liu & Var, 1986; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Perdue, et al., 1987; Sirgy

& Cornwell, 2001; Sirgy, et al., 2000; Vargas-Sánchez, et al., 2009; Yu, et al., 2009).

As for measuring tourism impacts, the survey in Delphi panel encompassed items of tourism impacts in economics, environment, culture, community services, community conditions and satisfaction in living qualities. The measurement was designed as a checklist about the impacts. After second check from Delphi panel, researchers provided online survey systems for residents and tourists. Moreover, the survey contained scales of importance, satisfaction, and perceived tourism effect rating (Yu, et al., 2009). All the respondents for surveying must rate both importance (1 to 5, from not important at all to extremely important) and satisfaction (1 to 5, from not at all satisfied to extremely satisfied) with each indicator. Finally, for the effect of

33

(44)

tourism were graded from 1 to 5, and the rating symbolized the degree of tourism greatly decreases or tourism greatly increases (Yu, 2011).

The reasons why researcher implemented Delphi panel in the middle of investigation could be explained in two aspects. Firstly, Delphi could be used as a second check the results came out after secondary data analysis. Because TALC model was often brought out for tourism development stages conceptually,

researchers tried to recheck whether our results were coincide with the professionals.

Secondly, it has pretested the tourism impacts. Although a great amount of research indicated numerous possible impacts toward residents, using Delphi panel could validate measurement. The following figure illustrates research process.

34

(45)

Fig. 3-1 Study Process

3. Data Collection

Secondary Data Analysis

From literature, Haywood (1986) indicated that stage identifications could be relied on the percentage of tourist arrivals and annual growth rate. Therefore, author used tourist numbers as the secondary indicator to cognize tourism development in the four study sites.

35

(46)

Firstly, data were collected from Tourism Bureau in Taiwan website to find out tourist numbers as for tourist arrivals. After visiting the database, researcher collected all data about visitors in the principal scenic spots from year 1986 to 2012 (Tourism Bureau, 2013). To run for TALC model, researcher identified the locations for every single spot and sorted them into the four study sites.

The second process is to understand the population shift so as to be another indicator for tourism impacts. In our research, researcher also observe population shift in the four study sites to understand the potential or existing impacts. The population data were from the Ministry of Household (http://www.ris.gov.tw/). All data were grouped by study sites chronically.

Delphi Panel

Delphi method is an organized expert panel for systematic, collaborative

estimating insights toward one specific issue. Norman Dalkey, Olaf Helmer proposed a method in 1963, and the method relied on a panel of experts in two rounds. All experts involved were encouraged to propose their own thoughts without face to face.

Mostly, Delphi method could be used in policy making, education and estimation (Rowe and Wright, 1999, 2000; Green, Armstrong, and Graefe, 2007).

To better understand tourism impacts, researcher formed up an expert panel for professional feedback. All candidates were selected into groups of the four study sites

36

(47)

based on their expertise. To construct Delphi Panel, the survey list was selected from National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations in Taiwan. The participants for Delphi were professionals selected by research which must include at least one related study site. After selecting professionals, researchers acquired 35 people for Little Liuqiu, 58 people for Penghu, 11 people for Green Island and 5 for Orchid Island. The second step was to select randomly of the professionals for each study site. However, the sample for Orchid Island was not enough, researcher took general investigation instead of sampling. As a result, researcher invited 18 people for Little Liuqiu, 19 people for Penghu, 8 people for Green Island and 5 for Orchid Island. Yet, researcher only invited 8 people for Little Liuqiu, 19 people for Penghu, 8 people for Green Island and 5 for Orchid Island successfully. The last step was to generate an online survey system for Delphi panel respondents. The online survey system adopted was on Dosurvey.com (http://www.dosurvey.com.tw). At final, researcher distributed the invitation on 11th February 2014 and finished surveying on 31st March 2014.

In the aspect of tourism development, a given TALC graph led the subjects to answer in which the degree of tourism development was for each study site. The stages were divided into development, stagnation, decline and rejuvenation (Butler 1980; Haywood, 1986; Toh et al., 2001; Kim, Uysal, & Sirgy, 2012). Although theoretical TALC model encompassed 6 stages, researcher simplified into 4 so as to

37

(48)

eliminate vague answers. Besides, the Delphi survey conducted by reference of tourism impact studies as noted in previous section. About tourism impacts, all questions mainly contained positive and negative impacts with their details such as environmental, cultural, services and conditions.

However, in this study, there were two rounds survey. For one reason was that all researcher applied Delphi method as “pre-test.” Thus, Delphi panel was just another method to gather feedback in definite issues. Through doing Delphi, researcher could recollect all possible tourism impacts. The second reason was about research scale.

Researcher defined this research as a prior study for cognizing the development and tourism impacts in offshore islands. In addition, researchers involved would list up different tourism impacts happening in different development stages. Therefore, Delphi panel was another approach of investigation in this study.

Online Survey

This research adopted online survey of tourism impacts toward local people and tourists in terms of their perceptions. Through this survey, researcher could better understand the differences and similarities of potential or existing impacts among each group. Finally, all data collected would go under analysis discussed below.

Survey Method

For tourism impacts online survey, researcher collected public contact

38

(49)

information and sent various emails for invitations of this survey. The survey was posted on Dosurvey.com, and divided into 4 individual surveys of each study site. In addition, researcher adopted volunteer online survey system for residents and tourists in the four study sites to provide their perceptions toward tourism impacts. To

encourage more participants, researcher also cooperated with Pollster.com.

Pollster.com is an online survey company which runs for market research. The survey was distributed by Pollster.com to its members which would be rewarded by bonus.

At final, researcher also offer lottery for several gift certificate to thank for

participants. Additionally, with the help of online survey company, researcher gained over 1004 samples in total.

While Zikmud (2003) recommended mail survey could be most effective for collecting a larger amount samples by spreading the survey geographical limitations in a short time, it was not possible for the researcher to finish under difficult

circumstances. Instead, online survey system would be less expensive, more effective and time-saving (Davis, 1997; Dommeyer & Moriarty, 2000; Pitkow & Recker, 1995;

Tse, 1998; Witte, Amoroso, & Howard, 2000); also, online survey system could be less offensive for Respondents (Walsh, Kiesler, Proull, & Hesse, 1992).

However, online survey system must went under specific design for improved reliability by eliminating sampling errors. Most researchers argued that online survey

39

(50)

system did not meet accessibility to reality. There were common errors such as coverage error, sampling frame and volunteer sample (Li, 2003).

4. Data Analysis

When it comes to data analysis, author may divide into three sections: secondary data analysis, Delphi panel and survey. In this part, researcher would deliberate these analysis respectively.

Secondary Data Analysis

In the first section, researcher tried to recollect all secondary data form Tourism Bureau, and the method used to run for descriptive statistics was Excel. In each study site, researcher focused on tourist arrivals growth rate (TAGR), mean of TAGR and standard deviation. Mostly, tourist arrivals growth rate could combine with standard deviation to identify the four stages in TALC model. (Haywood, 1986; Toh et al., 2001; Kim, Uysal, & Sirgy, 2012)

Table 3-1: Criteria calculation of tourism development stages

Terms Descriptions

M=ΣTi*/N Mean of TAGR

σ=(Σ(Ti*-M)²/N- 1)^1/2

Standard Deviation of TAGR Introduction stage (M-0.5σ)~M

Growth stage (M+0.5σ)~Highest TAGR Maturity stage M~(M+0.5σ)

Decline stage Lowest TAGR~(M-0.5σ)

(Sources: Haywood, 1986; Toh et al., 2001; Kim, Uysal, & Sirgy, 2012)

40

(51)

Besides the TAGR and its standard deviation, the selection criteria in the previous studies mentioned above also implied the upper and lower bound for each stage. For beginning stage, researcher could depict the lower bound as the mean of TAGR minus 0.5 standard deviation of the TAGR, and researcher could also noticed the upper bound as the mean of TAGR. Then, maturity stage is defined as the mean of TAGR for lower bound and the mean of TAGR plus 0.5 standard deviation as the upper bound. Furthermore, in growth stage, researcher described the upper bound and the lower bound with the highest TAGR and TAGR plus 0.5 standard deviation respectively. Lastly, for the decline stage, the interval lied in the lowest TAGR to TAGR minus 0.5 standard deviation. By integrating tourism statistics, researcher could categorize the four intervals of TAGR. As a result, these intervals could represent the four stages in TALC model.

After categorizing the four stages, researcher also applied statistical cartography method to allow us portray the developing stages among TALC model. By illustrating an S-curve graph of TAGR growth, researcher simply point out the recent tourism development of each study site.

Afterwards, researcher took population data with tourist arrivals in a ratio. The ratio was called tourist/resident ratio. For tourist/resident ratio, this research examined the degree of tourism impacts in each study site. Tourist/resident could also defined as

41

(52)

“how many tourists should a local person serve? “If the ratio came to its limit, author assumed that the study site might contain more tourist impacts.

Delphi Panel

To analyze the survey for Delphi panel, two critical parts are provided: tourism development stages and tourism impacts. Although researcher had already pointed out tourism development by applying TAGR growth, the participants of Delphi panel might threw different perspectives. As a result, the professionals involved were given a basic graph of TALC (Butler 1980) to portray the development stage of each study site. After the beginning phase, researcher could combine the differences and

similarities to search for the most suitable development stage. Furthermore, through surveying, researcher could recognize positive and negative tourism impacts toward each study site. For detailed impacts such as environment, culture, and services and conditions, professionals involved could give their perceptions. Through reviewing the perceptions, author could successfully explain the residents’ survey and therefore have an insightful realization.

Tourism Impacts Online Survey

The method of analyzing survey was firstly based on descriptive purposes such as frequencies, tendency and variability. As for the attribute datasets, e.g. socio- demographics, geographical proximity to tourism center and the dependency on

42

(53)

tourism, were all stored for comparison and grouping. Next, all datasets for economy, environment, culture, community services, and community conditions, were later listed by frequencies, tendency, and variability. Thirdly, the data collected required to run for one way ANOVA to observe the significance for each tourism impacts. The results helped to analyze the s existing tourism impacts and the degree of impacts, compared with the Delphi pretest. After that, researcher may realize in what aspect and in what way tourism influence residents and tourists on the offshore islands.

43

四個離島地區觀光發展階段暨觀光衝擊之研究

國立臺灣大學生物資源暨農學院森林環境暨資源學系 碩士論文

School of Forestry and Resource Conservation College of Bioresources and Agriculture

National Taiwan University Master Thesis

四個離島地區觀光發展階段暨觀光衝擊之研究

Tourism Development Stages and Tourism Impacts of Four Offshore Islands in Taiwan

葉八方 Pa-Fang Yeh

指導教授：余家斌 博士

Advisor: Chia-Pin Yu, Ph.D.

中華民國 103 年 7 月

July 2014

謝誌

中文摘要

Abstract

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY

國立臺灣大學生物資源暨農學院森林環境暨資源學系碩士論文

指導教授：余家斌博士