Residents’ perception of tourism and their satisfaction: Evidence from Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania

ABSTRACT

This study aimed at assessing the influence of residents’ perception of socio-cultural, economic and environmental impacts of tourism on their overall satisfaction with tourism. The moderation effect of residents’ tourism economic dependency was also tested within these relationships. Using a structured questionnaire, data were collected from 160 residents living along the Mount Kilimanjaro climbing routes. Moderated multiple linear regression was used to test the hypotheses. The findings show that, generally, the residents are positive about the impacts of tourism in their areas, and that perceived economic and environmental impacts of tourism significantly influence residents’ overall satisfaction with tourism. However, tourism economic dependency appears not to moderate the influence of perceived economic, social-cultural, and environmental impacts on residents’ overall satisfaction with tourism. The study results offer implications to mountain destination managers on the use of perceived impacts of tourism in enhancing the residents’ overall satisfaction as a means to sustainable tourism.

KEYWORDS:

• Sustainable tourism
• economic dependency
• mountain
• satisfaction
• perception

1. Introduction

Tourism is among the fastest-growing industries in the world with the potential advantage of supporting other sectors within a destination. According to the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO, 2016), international tourist arrivals grew by 4% with a total of 956 million worldwide in 2016. This indicates that the number of tourist arrivals and receipts worldwide is growing and it is expected to contribute economically in most countries around the world. In Tanzania the number of international tourist arrivals rose by 90% from 622,000 to 1.1 million during the period 2006–2014. The tourism sector contributes 17% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). The average expenditure per tourist per night ranged between USD 117 and USD 277 in 2014. During that period, tourism alone generated around USD 2 billion which constituted 25% of the country’s foreign exchange earnings (URT, 2015). With the increase in the number of tourists in Tanzania, it is imperative to appraise the local residents’ perception of the impacts of tourism on these residents’ overall satisfaction with tourism (Cottrell et al., 2013). A thorough understanding of local community perceptions of tourism is a critical issue for tourism development. In fact it is considered to be a means towards sustainable tourism development (Sharpley, 2014) as the information forms a crucial input for destination planners and managers (Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004).

According to the Social Exchange Theory (SET) that is commonly used in understanding residents’ perception of tourism impacts (Nunkoo et al., 2013), tourism impacts are generally organised into positive and negative impacts (e.g. Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012; Ozturk et al., 2015) with respect to the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) of tourism, which includes economic, socio-cultural, and environmental impacts (Cottrell et al., 2013). These perceived impacts of tourism have been noted to influence residents’ support for tourism (Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012; Li & Wan, 2013; Nunkoo & So, 2016; Rasoolimanesh & Jaafar, 2016), satisfaction with tourism (Xie et al., 2014; Hussain et al., 2015; Ozturk et al., 2015; Park et al., 2015), and quality of life (Chancellor et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2013; Woo et al., 2015). Though a few studies exist that related residents’ perception of tourism impacts and their satisfaction with tourism, the results of such studies are inconclusive on the effects and strengths of the perceived impacts on residents’ satisfaction (Xie et al., 2014; Hussain et al., 2015; Ozturk et al., 2015; Park et al., 2015). Moreover, previous research indicates that those residents who economically depend on tourism have more positive perceptions compared to those who do not benefit economically from tourism. The possible moderating influence of tourism economic dependency on the perceived impacts of tourism and satisfaction (Deery et al., 2012) is yet to be appraised.

Despite having abundant literature on residents’ perception of tourism impacts, and specifically the influence of the perceived impacts of tourism on residents’ satisfaction with tourism, evidence from sub-Saharan African countries is still missing (Chiutsi & Saarinen, 2017). Moreover, the few available regional studies have focused on nature-based tourism (Chiutsi & Saarinen, 2017; Gronau et al., 2017), leaving an information gap on other types of tourism, including mountain tourism. This is alarming given the fact that in some parts of the region such as Tanzania, particularly in the areas around the highest mountain in Africa (Mount Kilimanjaro), tourism is among the major economic contributors as well as a source of employment. To fill this knowledge gap, this paper reports a study that aimed at testing the impacts of residents’ perceived socio-cultural, economic, and environmental impacts of tourism. Moreover, the study aimed at comparing the impacts of residents’ perception of tourism between those who economically gain from tourism and those who do not.

1.1. Literature review

Local residents’ perception in this study refers to the general feelings held by residents towards the impacts of tourism which can be either positive or negative with respect to economic, socio-cultural, and environmental impacts of tourism (Andereck & Vogt, 2000). This general conceptualisation of residents’ perception is opted for as it encompasses other related terms that have been used in the literature, including residents’ opinion (Williams & Lawson, 2001), residents’ reactions (Fredline & Faulkner, 2000), and residents’ attitudes (Lankford, 1994). According to Andereck & Vogt (2000), most of the terms used to refer to residents’ perception of tourism impacts have used similar if not the same measurements, implying the definitional problem is a semantic issue. Thus, the use of a more encompassing conceptualisation is distinctly preferred.

Among the theories that have been widely used in understanding residents’ perception of tourism impacts is the SET (Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012; Nunkoo et al., 2013). The theory explains how individuals or a group of individuals voluntarily engage in an exchange. Exchanges occur when the individual or group of individuals perceive the value or benefits derived from that exchange to outweigh the costs involved in the exchange process (Easterling, 2004). In the context of tourism, particularly concerning residents in a destination, the residents are satisfied with and offer their support to tourism if they perceive the positive tourism impacts to outweigh the negative impacts; otherwise they are dissatisfied and are likely not to support the tourism industry. The positive and negative tourism impacts are usually related with the TBL of tourism that includes economic, socio-cultural, and environmental impacts (Ozturk et al., 2015; Gon et al., 2016). The positive and negative impacts can be understood by using a semantic continuum, with favourable perceptions reflecting positive perceptions while unfavourable perceptions reflect the negative perceptions under the TBL dimensions. The positive economic impacts of tourism include increase in income, creation of employment, increase in investments, and increase in tax; whereas negative economic impacts include leakages, low wages, seasonal income, and competition for economic resources between tourism and other sectors (Ko & Stewart, 2002; Cottrell et al., 2013). Positive socio-cultural impacts of tourism that have been mentioned in the literature include improvement of infrastructure, cultural exchange, enhancement of cultural identity, improvement of standard of living, and recreation for locals; while the negative socio-cultural impacts reflect the negative aspects such as traffic congestion, crime, increase in prices of goods and services, and cultural erosion (Ko & Stewart, 2002; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004). The positive environmental impacts include environmental awareness, conservation, and preservation whereas the negative environmental impacts include pollution and environmental degradation (Ko & Stewart, 2002; Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003).

There is a growing research interest to ascertain the antecedents of residents’ support for tourism, satisfaction with tourism impacts, and local residents’ quality of life (e.g. Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Choi & Murray, 2010; Hussain et al., 2015; Park et al., 2015). This study opted for residents’ satisfaction with tourism rather than support for tourism or quality of life for several conceptual and operational reasons. Conceptually, support for tourism is future oriented, implying intentions that do not reflect behaviour accurately (Sheeran, 2002); quality of life is a much broader concept with other factors apart from tourism influencing it, thus it is less likely to capture the effects specifically related to tourism. Operationally, most of the instruments that are used to capture either support for tourism or quality of life are those that also reflect satisfaction with tourism. Satisfaction with tourism in this study is considered to be a multidimensional concept (Nunkoo et al., 2013) and thus taken to be the general overall feeling about tourism impacts.

Despite the perspectives taken by some authors on the general and universal effects of residents’ perceived economic, environmental, and socio-cultural impacts of tourism on residents’ satisfaction (Cottrell et al., 2013; Hussain et al., 2015), there is still room to confirm whether residents’ perception of tourism impacts has a significant effect on their overall satisfaction with tourism as the results are inconclusive (Ko & Stewart, 2002; Xie et al., 2014; Park et al., 2015; Liang & Hui, 2016; Rasoolimanesh & Jaafar, 2016; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017). In terms of methodological approach, there are those who used residents’ perceptions with respect to the TBL as antecedents to residents’ satisfaction with tourism or related concepts like attitude to future tourism (Xie et al., 2014; Liang & Hui, 2016) while others have grouped the elements of the TBL into either positive or negative perceptions (Ko & Stewart, 2002; Vargas-Sanchez et al., 2014; Rasoolimanesh & Jaafar, 2016; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017). Those who have used positive and negative perceived impacts have lumped different TBL dimensions together under the two broad categories, which might not reflect the conceptual understanding of the tourism impacts with respect to the TBL. Studies that have used the TBL dimensions offer conflicting results that might reflect contextual factors influencing the relationships. For instance, Gursoy & Rutherford (2004), in testing the influence of social benefits, social costs, economic benefits, cultural benefits, and cultural costs, among other variables, noted that social benefits and costs, and cultural costs do not have any significant effect on Idaho (USA) residents’ support for tourism. A study conducted in China by Xie et al. (2014), on the other hand, confirmed the existence of economic, environmental, and cultural perceived impacts of tourism on the overall satisfaction but not for the perceived social impact. Hussain et al. (2015), appraising the effect of environmental, economic, and socio-cultural impacts of tourism from residents’ perspective in India, noted all the factors have a significant effect on residents’ satisfaction albeit at different degrees of effects. Such findings are shared by Cottrell et al. (2013). Additionally, Ko & Stewart (2002), testing the influence of perceived positive and negative impacts of tourism on the overall community satisfaction in Jeju Island (Korea), observed the positive perception to have much greater positive effects compared to the negative perceived impacts, which had a negative effect on overall satisfaction. In a context similar to that of Ko & Stewart (2002), Park et al. (2015) observed that only perceived environmental impacts of tourism have a significant influence on community satisfaction in rural Korean communities. Unlike other studies, Ko & Stewart (2002) lumped together socio-cultural, economic, and environmental tourism impacts under either positive or negative dimensions, thus the results cannot inform with regard to the impact of individual aspects of the TBL of sustainability. Such inconclusive findings reflect the contextual differences among and between residents of different destinations (Almeida-Garcia et al., 2015), which makes it necessary for further studies to be conducted in different contexts, especially those that are less researched like sub-Saharan African countries. In view of the foregoing, this study aimed at testing the following hypotheses in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania:

H₁: residents’ perceived economic impacts of tourism significantly influence their overall satisfaction with tourism in their area.

H₂: residents’ perceived socio-cultural impacts of tourism significantly influence their overall satisfaction with tourism in their area.

H₃: residents’ perceived environmental impacts of tourism significantly influence their overall satisfaction with tourism in their area.

1.2. Tourism economic dependency

Using the SET, logically it can be assumed that those who economically depend on tourism are likely to have positive perceptions of tourism impacts (Madrigal, 1995). This tourism economic dependency hypothesis has been widely and extensively tested with results affirming the validity of the hypothesis (Harrill, 2004; Deery et al., 2012; Almeida-Garcia et al., 2015). Despite the presence of many empirical studies supporting the tourism economic dependency hypothesis, there are pockets of results indicating otherwise (Liu & Var, 1986; Teye et al., 2002) and that might reflect contextual variations. The study by Teye et al. (2002) in Ghana indicates that those residents who are employed in tourism-related businesses are likely to have more negative attitudes towards the industry because their expectations are not being met. In many developing countries, where tourism is still being developed, particularly sub-Saharan African countries, the residents, who are poor, are likely to have higher expectations from tourism. If their expectations are not met as is the case in Ghana (Teye et al., 2002), then they are likely to harbour more negative attitudes towards tourism. Another angle to explain results that run contrary to the tourism economic dependency hypothesis is through the Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) whereby destinations in the maturity and saturation stages are likely to have residents harbouring less positive perceptions of tourism impacts (Diedrich & Garcia-Buades, 2009). A study by Liu & Var (1986) undertaken in Hawaii where tourism is mature indicates that tourism economic dependency is to be related with residents’ perception of tourism impacts. Such a variation in the influence of tourism economic dependency on residents’ perception of tourism impacts calls for more research, especially in a less researched context like Africa where tourism is yet to be fully developed. Unlike previous studies that considered economic benefits to be an antecedent to residents’ perception (e.g. Teye et al., 2002), this study considers tourism economic dependency to be a moderator which increases or decreases the effect of perceived tourism impacts on overall residents’ satisfaction with tourism. This approach is in line with Deery et al. (2012) who consider economic dependency an external variable that moderates the relationship between the antecedents of residents’ perceived tourism impacts and the perceptions of tourism impacts. On the basis of these arguments, this study aimed at testing the following hypothesis:

H₄: economic dependence on tourism moderates the effects of residents’ perceived economic, socio-cultural, and environmental tourism impacts on overall residents’ satisfaction with tourism.

2. Methods

2.1. Study area

This study was conducted in the areas near and around the Kilimanjaro National Park (KINAPA). Mount Kilimanjaro is the highest peak in Africa with a height of 5895 metres. It is located three degrees south of the equator. The mountain contains a volcano and it has two peaks (Kibo and Mawenzi) which are surrounded by dense forests consisting of varieties of flora and fauna. There are six routes to climb the mountain, namely the Machame, Marangu, Rongai, Lemosho, Shira, and Umbwe routes. According to recent statistics, KINAPA receives more than 40,000 tourists in 2014 (URT, 2015). Along the slopes of the mountain, there are locals who reside there carrying out various economic activities, including farming. According to the last Tanzania census, the areas on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro are classified as having a high population density with 124 persons per km² compared to the national average of 51 persons per km² (Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics, 2012). Due to the larger number of local communities surrounding the park and due to the fact that visitors stay in this destination for longer periods (five to six days), the area offered a suitable study site for this research.

2.2. Data collection

Data for this study were collected between June and July 2016, which was the high tourism season in the study areas. A research permit was obtained from a Kilimanjaro regional officer and it was presented to district executive officers (DEOs) of the respective districts where the data were collected. This was helpful and it served as an assurance of getting assistance from the relevant authorities, including local village leaders. The village leaders along the routes considered in this study assisted in identifying the prospective respondents and asking for their willingness to participate in the study. Potential respondents were purposively and conveniently selected after a short discussion between researchers and the village officers. Only those residents who physically resided in any household along the mountain climbing routes were considered as potential respondents. Moreover, households that were physically accessible by the researchers by car, bicycle, or on foot were considered for the study, leaving out those who lived in the wilderness. The researchers accompanied by the village officers approached different local residents in their households and requested they participate in the study. Upon agreement, the researchers interviewed the respondents by using a questionnaire. A total of 180 local residents were approached using 160 questionnaires.

2.3. Measurement and data analysis

Data were collected using a closed-ended Swahili (Tanzanian national language) questionnaire which had three sections. The first section comprised demographic questions while the second section captured the economic benefits that the local residents derived from tourism. The third section had Likert-type scale items that captured the economic, environmental, and socio-cultural perceived benefits, and overall satisfaction with tourism. These items were adopted from previous studies (McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Latkova & Vogt, 2012; Almeida-Garcia et al., 2015; Ribeiro et al., 2013). The adopted questions were translated into Swahili and thereafter translated back into English in order to cross-check the consistency of the questions (Brislin, 1970). The Likert scale used in the questionnaire had anchors of 1 and 5 with 1 indicating strong disagreement with the statement, 5 indicating strong agreement with the statement, and the mid-point of 3 indicating neither agreement nor disagreement with the statement. Prior to the final use of the questionnaire, the questionnaire was piloted in a different area to ensure its usability and the relevance of the data.

The collected data were coded and entered into SPSS 20. Both descriptive and inferential analyses were performed. Before the performance of the inferential tests, normality and sphericity tests were performed with the results indicating the data follow a normal distribution through graphical appraisal and skewness and kurtosis being within the acceptable range of ±1 (George & Mallery, 2009). In testing the hypotheses, moderated multiple linear regression was used (Sharma, Durand, & Gur-Arie, 1981). Initially, the three independent variables (economic, social-cultural, and environmental perceptions) were included and thereafter the interaction terms were included in the regression analysis. The statistics and coefficients for the different models were used to test the study hypotheses. The dichotomous item for economic dependency used to create the interaction term was derived from three dichotomous items that were collapsed into a single item using conditional logic. Using the SPSS transformation menu, ‘if’ conditional logic was used to group those who were economically dependent on tourism by instructing the system to code 1 in case all the items had ‘YES’ (coded 1) responses. In exploring the general residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts, a one-sample t test using 3 as the test value was performed, which is commonly used to compare mean scores on a measure with a hypothetical or standard mean to appraise whether the former significantly deviates from the latter value (Jin & Pearce, 2011).

3. Results

3.1. Social demographic characteristics of respondents

Table 1 depicts the social demographic characteristics of the sample. Gender-wise, the sample had slightly more males (56.2%) compared to females (43.8%). With respect to marital status, education level, and occupation, the sample had more respondents who were married (61.2%), substantially more with primary education (66.87%), and who were self-employed (67.5%). About half of the respondents (49.4%) indicated they had been born in the area as well as derived economic benefits from tourism.

Table 1. Social demographic characteristics of the sample.

Distribution of respondents	Respondents’ characteristics	Frequency	%
Gender	Male	90	56.2
	Female	70	43.8
Age	18–25 years	32	20
	26–41 years	68	42.6
	42–50 years	22	13.8
	51–57 years	17	10.6
	Above 57	21	13.1
Marital status	Single	37	23.1
	Married	98	61.2
	Others	25	15.8
Education level	Primary education	107	66.87
	Secondary education	36	22.5
	Tertiary	17	10.62
Occupation status	Employed	7	4.4
	Self-employed	108	67.5
	Unemployed	41	25.6
	Pensioner	4	2.5
Period of residence in their area	1–5 years	31	19.3
	5–10 years	50	31.2
	Since I was born	79	49.4
Earn a living from tourism	Yes	79	49.4
	No	81	50.6

In appraising the general perceptions of residents on the impacts of tourism in their areas, one-sample t tests were performed on the scale items with the value of 3 used as a test value. The results are presented as Table 2. Of the 15 items capturing residents’ perception of tourism impacts, 14 items statistically differ from the test value of 3. The only exception was: tourism provides a market for farm products. For those items that are statistically significant, 10 indicate the residents’ perceptions to be more positive while 4 items indicate the residents have negative perceptions.

Table 2. One-sample t test results.

Scale item	Mean	Std. deviation	Std. error mean	t value	Status
Household standard of living is higher	2.7375	1.59594	.12617	−2.081*	−VE
Creates more jobs for foreigners than locals (R)	3.8625	1.12986	.08932	9.656**	−VE
Provides market for farm products	3.1875	1.25987	.09960	1.883**	+VE
Tourism brings in benefits to only few people (R)	3.9938	1.29584	.10245	9.700**	−VE
Increases price of goods and services	2.4188	1.40293	.11091	−5.241**	+VE
Preserves the culture and encourages local handicrafts	4.2625	.69579	.05501	22.952**	+VE
Local community adopt bad foreign culture (R)	3.4500	1.15905	.09163	4.911**	−VE
Provides culture exchange and education	4.2563	.54075	.04275	29.386**	+VE
Improvement of infrastructure and public service	3.7813	1.28695	.10174	7.679**	+VE
Community friction between residents and tourists (R)	1.1875	.42244	.03340	−54.271**	+VE
Greater protection of natural environment	4.7313	.67032	.05299	32.669**	+VE
More rubbish (R)	1.4438	.84487	.06679	−23.300**	−VE
Destruction of natural environment (R)	1.8938	.84375	.06670	−16.584**	+VE
Community awareness of environmental conservation	4.6688	.74159	.05863	28.463**	+VE
Tourism leads to less agriculture land (R)	2.3250	1.06724	.08437	−8.000**	+VE
Grand satisfaction	4.1104	.54654	.04321	25.700**	+VE

Note: (R) reversed item, +VE = positive, −VE = negative; **Significance at 1%, *Significance at 5%.

3.2. Tests of hypotheses

The four hypotheses were tested using the moderated multiple linear regressions with the results shown in Table 3. The results offer support for H₁ and H₃ but not for H₂ and H₄, implying that residents’ perceived economic and environmental impacts of tourism significantly influence their overall satisfaction with tourism while the perceived socio-cultural impact of tourism does not exert any significant influence on residents’ overall satisfaction with tourism. As the value of F-change in the model with interaction terms is not significant, it indicates that tourism economic dependency does not moderate the relationships.

Table 3. Moderated multiple linear regression results.

Independent variable and interaction terms	Beta coefficients
	Model 1	Model 2
economic perception	.321**
social culture perception	.175
environmental perception	.212**
economic perception		.268**
social culture perception		.192
environmental perception		.254**
economic perception  × economic dependency		.161
social culture perception  × economic dependency		−.020
environmental perception  × economic dependency		−.074
R^2	.324	.340
F change	24.904**	1.243

** Significance at 1%.

4. Conclusions and implications

Generally, the study findings indicate that residents have both positive and negative perceptions towards the impacts of tourism in their areas. In terms of source of income, about 50% of the respondents indicated they had been benefiting economically from tourism. The findings indicate that residents’ perceived economic and environmental impacts of tourism have significant effects on their satisfaction with tourism. The findings further show that residents’ perceived socio-cultural impacts of tourism do not exhibit any significant effect on their satisfaction with tourism. Economic dependency on tourism is observed not to moderate the relationships.

These findings from relatively less researched and emerging long-haul destinations in sub-Saharan Africa offer several theoretical and practical implications. The fact that residents harbour both positive and negative perceptions towards tourism in their areas indicates the applicability of the SET (Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012) as the residents are aware of the benefits and costs of tourism and yet they are in a position to compare and relate them with their overall satisfaction. The greater influence of perceived economic impacts of tourism on residents’ overall satisfaction with tourism compared to socio-cultural and environmental impacts is in line with some previous studies (Shen & Cottrell, 2008; Cottrell et al., 2012; Ozturk et al., 2015) yet diverges from other scholars’ findings (Hussain et al., 2015; Park et al., 2015). Such differences might emanate from contextual factors like economic conditions and socio-demographic variables of the residents (Harrill, 2004; Almeida-Garcia et al., 2015). Taking into account the findings from previous studies in similar contexts (Shen & Cottrell, 2008; Ozturk et al., 2015), it can be concluded that perceived economic impacts of tourism have greater influence on residents’ overall satisfaction with tourism compared to the other perceived impacts in areas that are less economically developed. This further supports the fact that the effects of different dimensions of residents’ perceived impacts of tourism differ according to context (Shen & Cottrell, 2008; Huayhuaca et al., 2010). The non-significant moderation impact of economic dependency (Deery et al., 2012) theoretically implies that it is more of an antecedent than a moderator (Ko & Stewart, 2002) that contributes to the theoretical understanding of the relationships between perceived tourism impacts and residents’ satisfaction.

The findings of the present study offer practical policy and management implications. In conjunction with findings from previous studies that indicate the residents’ perceived impacts of the different sustainable tourism dimensions exert influences of different strengths on their satisfaction (Hussain et al., 2015), it is important for tourism policy makers and planners to include the three dimensions of sustainable tourism as perceived by the residents in their tourism plans and strategies. Moreover, it is essential to monitor the changes of the effects of the perceived impacts of tourism on residents’ satisfaction with tourism and develop strategies directed towards the residents in order to improve their satisfaction and support to tourism. The relatively higher contribution of perceived economic impacts on satisfaction with tourism compared to the other two factors can be assumed to signify the low level of economic development in the area. To the destination managers from both public and private sectors, such a conclusion implies they need to ensure that employment within tourism is expanded and that locals are given priority in employment so that they can broadly and widely be satisfied with tourism and consequently support the industry. In order to further improve the perceived economic contribution of tourism, destination managers should ensure that leakages from tourism in developing countries like Tanzania are minimised (Mitchell & Ashley, 2009). This can be done by ensuring that the majority of tourism services and products are sourced locally.

Despite the fact that this study extended and complemented previous studies on residents’ perception of tourism impacts and their satisfaction with evidence from a less-researched African context, the study is limited in several ways that can inform future studies. Owing to the fact that different perceived impacts of tourism with respect to sustainability have different impacts on residents’ satisfaction depending on the context, the findings from this study cannot be generalised for similar areas in Africa. Thus future studies can contribute to the general body of knowledge by testing the relationships in similar contexts to appraise and confirm the stability of the relationships. A longitudinal study in the same area or others can further provide information on the perceived impacts of tourism over time.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Dev Jani http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3760-6714