Original Scientific Article
A Destination’s Social Sustainability: Linking Tourism
Development to Residents’ Quality of Life
Emil Juvan
University of Primorska, Faculty
of Tourism Studies – Turistica, Slovenia
emil.juvan@fts.upr.si
Eva Podovšovnik
University of Primorska, Faculty
of Tourism Studies – Turistica, Slovenia
eva.podovsovnik@fts.upr.si
Miha Lesjak
University of Primorska, Faculty
of Tourism Studies – Turistica, Slovenia
miha.lesjak@fts.upr.si
Jasmina Jurgec
Sava turizem d.d.
jurgec.jasmina@gmail.com
Tourism positively contributes to quality of life (satisfaction with life and emotional
wellbeing) of the travelling population, but the question remains how tourism affects
quality of life of the host population. Residents’ quality of life is an essential aspect
of sustainable tourism development and offers an attractive destination attribute for
marketing. Research suggests that too much interaction with tourism may reduce
hosts’ quality of life. Low quality of life, typically demonstrated with a low level of
satisfaction with life and poor emotional wellbeing, leads to development of anti-
tourism beliefs and reduces residents’ support for tourism. This may impede local
policymakers and the tourism industry fromdeveloping tourism.High tourismmay
create income but may also induce public expenses on the account of social costs of
tourism. The present study investigates the association of hosts’ satisfaction with life
with objective (level of tourism development) and subjective (perceived interaction
with tourists) levels of tourism development. Results indicate that neither the level of
tourism development nor interactions with tourists predict hosts’ satisfaction with
life and their emotional wellbeing. These findings challenge the existing prevailing
assumption that a high level of tourism negatively affects residents’ quality of life, by
default. A call for empirical evidence on the threshold of quantitative (for example
frequency) and qualitative (for example, the nature of the interaction) tourism de-
velopment is needed to reveal how local authorities can better ensure positive social
impacts of tourism on the host population and tourism social sustainability.
Keywords: sustainable tourism, social sustainability, quality of life, residents,
destination
https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.14.39-52
Introduction
Over the last couple of decades, tourism has under-
gone continuous expansion and diversification to be-
come one of the largest and fastest growing economic
sectors in the world (World Tourism Organization,
2017). Tourism is about movement and interaction of
people within and away from their everyday environ-
ment. This interaction affects how the interacting in-
dividuals perceive, feel and think about the social en-
vironment; consequently, tourism shapes ‘hosts’ and
Academica Turistica, Year 14, No. 1, June 2021 | 39
Emil Juvan et al. A Destination’s Social Sustainability
visitors’ lifestyles’ (Sharpley, 2014, p. 2). While much
of our knowledge about tourism impacts pertains to
the aspects of visitors, little is known about the di-
verse impacts tourism has on the local population.
Knowledge of tourism development trends has essen-
tial meaning for the continuous prosperity of a desti-
nation. Destinations typically embrace existing mar-
ket demand, attract tourists’ attention and support
opportunities for tourist visitation. Tourist demand
changes over time, but one of the fastest-growing as-
pects of tourism demand is tourists’ awareness of the
need to protect the host environment (Buckley, 2011;
Peeters et al., 2018). Moreover, tourism sustainabil-
ity is becoming the paradigm of modern times and
with it the interest to preserve and even increase the
quality of the host environment (Peeters et al., 2018).
Green, healthy and active forms of leisure activities
are attracting an increasing number of people. Also,
high quality is increasingly present in all aspects of
tourism supply, especially in the area of social re-
lations between people involved in tourism (high-
quality, top-quality tourist service adjusted to the in-
dividual) (Vodeb, 2014). Tourist arrivals, tourism in-
frastructure and tourists’ experiences offered change
the destination’s landscape and inevitably affect res-
idents’ lives (Kim et al., 2013; Liang & Hui, 2016, p.
1). Kubickova et al. (2017, p. 1) argue that ‘individuals’
perceptions shape the quality of life, which is a mul-
tidimensional paradigm with many interpretations of
subjective or objective nature.’ The impacts of tourism
depend on the interaction with tourism and level of
tourism development, and hosts may perceive this im-
pact as added or reduced quality of life; the latter may
also bring to a serious level residents’ irritation over
tourism (Doxey, 1975).
Given the tourism trends (World Tourism Organi-
zation, 2019) we anticipate that the tourism industry
will have a massive expansion in the future, which will
bring much appreciated economic benefits to tourist
destinations; however, growing tourism also brings
a number of negative impacts, including unwanted
changes in hosts’ lifestyles (Peeters et al., 2018). While
investigating the relationship between tourism at vari-
ous levels of development and residents’ quality of life
is not new (for example, Doxey, 1975; Murphy, 1985;
Perdue et al. 1990), the generalizability of the relation-
ship remains under-investigated. The present study
discusses the social aspects of tourism development,
more specifically the perceived quality of life among
residents of destinations in different stages of tourism
development. It is aimed at contributing to the knowl-
edge about social impacts of tourism for the host res-
idents and within that deriving empirically supported
practical implications for the destinations’ organiza-
tions andpolicymakers about how to develop tourism,
which will increase not only tourist satisfaction with
life but also contribute to the life satisfaction of the
host population.
Theoretical Background
Tourism impacts tourists and locals in many ways. A
number of different approaches and aspects investigat-
ing tourism impacts were adopted in the past; never-
theless, it appears that researchers have ‘traditionally
assessed the utilitarian attributes of tourism products
and services’ (Lin et al., 2014, p. 1) in spite of the fact
that tourism experiences include a strong affective (i.e.
emotional) component (Gnoth, 1997). More attention
should therefore be paid to understanding the source
of emotions and behaviour, as they play an important
role in shaping attitudes not only for tourists, but also
for locals. Through a number of consequences which
tourism brings to the local community, tourism affects
locals’ perceptions and actual quality of life. Tourism
should focus on the emotional interaction between the
host and the guest, as there is still a lack of research
into the impact of residents’ emotions and consequent
impact on their beliefs about and behaviour towards
tourism (Ribeiro et al., 2017).
Individuals express their thinking in words, which
are based on the emotional experiences at a given time.
Thus, the formation of emotions can be influenced by
a particular situation, surroundings or events, in con-
nection with the individual’s perception. Guests and
hosts can build a (strong) contact, allowing them to
share experiences, advice, and maybe later develop an
emotional attachment. Allport (1961) defines person-
ality ‘as a dynamic organization within an individual’s
psychological and physical systems based on patterns
of actions, thoughts, and feelings.’ An individual’s per-
40 | Academica Turistica, Year 14, No. 1, June 2021
Emil Juvan et al. A Destination’s Social Sustainability
sonality is influenced by a number of factors that are
shaped by a variety of perceptions. A positive percep-
tion of the environment, events and people can lead to
positive feelings (including being fulfilled and happy),
which is an important factor of quality of life (Dol-
nicar et al., 2012). Emotions form emotional wellbe-
ing, which is the actual or perceived quality of one’s
everyday life, typically expressed via feelings of joy,
stress, sadness, anger, and fear (Kahneman & Deaton,
2010) and is one of the seven domains of quality of
life (Cummins, 1993). Emotional wellbeing is affected
by the level of tourism development (Williams, 1979).
More specifically, diverse and rich tourism infrastruc-
ture and experiences (for example, events) improve
or reduce the emotional wellbeing of residents (Uysal
et al., 2012). It is suggested that provision of tourist
attractions based on local culture, tradition, lifestyle
and history, which are readily available to the local
population, will ‘foster the emotional well-being of
the resident community’ (Uysal et al., 2012, p. 440).
Different levels of tourism development and inter-
action with tourists, which are both alleviated with
an increased level of tourism development (Butler,
1980), affect one’s emotional wellbeing. More specif-
ically, an extended level of interaction with tourists
may make local residents irritated. Such interaction
may be materialized either through employment in
tourism (Pizam, 1978) or simply by living closer to
tourist concentration areas (Belisle & Hoy, 1980). This
clearly shows that the level of tourism development
and interaction with tourists will have an impact on
residents’ emotional wellbeing.
Happiness is a personal state derived from posi-
tive and negative emotions following one’s life events
(Sirgy & Lee, 2006). A number of life events and
one’s personal or situational characteristics may im-
pact one’s feeling of happiness (Rivera et al., 2016, p.
1). Given this view, tourism should be considered as a
situation having a different level of impact on an indi-
vidual’s life. For example, at destinations with a larger
number of tourists a chance of waiting in queues at a
local grocery store or experiencing difficulties with
parking a car is by far greater than at destinations
with a lower level of tourists; not finding a car park
or waiting in long queues will reduce one’s feeling of
happiness and lower one’s perceived satisfaction with
life. On the other hand, tourism may also positively
affect locals’ perception of happiness, given that it is
one of the largest start-up trading companies for cre-
ating happiness on the planet (Pearce et al., 2011). For
example, a well-developed tourism industry provides
opportunities for high quality recreation or culinary
experiences, which should increase locals’ feeling of
happiness and satisfaction with life. Hence, no doubt,
that tourism industry may be making tourists happy,
but the question remains how the tourism industry
affects residents’ emotional wellbeing and life satisfac-
tion.
Happiness enhances people’s personal satisfaction,
which contributes to satisfaction with life. Countries
with happier residents may benefit more from resi-
dents’ satisfaction, which may become an intangible
destinations asset for managing and marketing with
international visitors (Gholipour et al., 2016). Happi-
ness is a major contributor to one’s perceived quality
of life and a sense of happiness encourages factors of
pleasure and achievement (Mohit, 2014). One of the
approaches for measuring quality of life is the Gross
National Happiness Index aimed at assessing nations’
overall happiness (Pratt et al., 2016). Pratt et al. argue
that economic indicators do not affect happiness of the
residents, but emotional indicators do. More specif-
ically, life satisfaction is a combination of psycho-
logical wellbeing, time use, community vitality, cul-
tural diversity, ecological resilience, living standard,
health, education, and good governance (Pratt et al.,
2016).
Happiness is the basis for quality of life formation
and can be perceived differently because of the value of
different dimensions within the concept. With the de-
velopmental stages, tourism changes from positive to
negative and consequently affects a sense of happiness
and life satisfaction of local residents. More specifi-
cally, tourism has an indirect relationship with qual-
ity of life, affecting various economic, socio-cultural
and environmental attributes of the host community
and thus aspects of locals’ life (Rivera et al., 2016), for
some in a positive but for others in a negative way
(Lee, 2013; Stylidis et al., 2014). Understanding hosts’
perceived satisfaction with life is an essential driver
Academica Turistica, Year 14, No. 1, June 2021 | 41
Emil Juvan et al. A Destination’s Social Sustainability
of tourism development, at the operational and policy
level. More specifically, when seeking hosts’ support
and insights into the directions of tourism develop-
ment, policy makers must understand how the local
population perceives tourism and its impacts on their
satisfaction with life. Using such an approach, tourism
policy makers and destination organizations have the
best possible starting point for preventing negative
impacts of tourism and maximizing its benefits, thus
achieving greater support for local residents (Prayag et
al., 2013; Stylidis et al., 2014). At the operational level,
the tourism industry should understand how locals
feel about tourism for successful development of so-
cially responsible tourism operations.
Individuals perceive tourism in a subjective way,
according to their emotions and living environment.
Areas that encompass the everyday life of residents,
and acceptance of them, are shaped into a quality of
life that is also heavily influenced by different levels of
tourism development. More specifically, various lev-
els of tourism development influence levels of resi-
dents’ interaction with tourists, their involvement and
dependence on tourism as well as access to tourism-
related infrastructure and leisure opportunities (Mur-
phy, 1985).
The most adopted approach to study destination
tourism development was proposed by Butler (1980).
The Tourism Area Life Cycle (talc) is used in at-
tempts to understand the process of the development
of tourist destinations in a wide variety of settings
(Butler, 2006). The model originally hypothesized six
stages of destinations development based on a number
of indicators; for example, number of tourists, visita-
tion growth over certain time, accommodation oc-
cupancy rate, number of beds, tourists per capita ex-
penditure and similar (Uran Maravić & Juvan, 2009).
Although the model has been widely adopted and ref-
erenced in many academic and professional resources
(Ho &McKercher, 2015) it is assumed that most of the
empirical evidence is of limited validity. Nevertheless,
the model is still a valid approach in defining the de-
velopment stage of a tourism destination for various
reasons, including policy making, strategic develop-
ment and even scientific purposes (Ho & McKercher,
2015). As per the authors’ best knowledge, no attempt
has beenmade so far to classify Slovenian tourism des-
tinations using the talc model; however, a few pub-
lications have touched the different stages of tourism
development in Slovenia (for example, Uran Maravić
& Juvan, 2009).
This literature review allows concluding that (1) the
impact of tourism development plays an important
role in the emotional aspects of the host’s life satisfac-
tion. Overall, research shows that tourism has a posi-
tive and negative impact; (2) not all residents perceive
similar impacts of tourism – those who benefit di-
rectly from tourism through employment are likely to
be better supporters and report higher levels of satis-
factionwith different aspects of life than residents with
no specific connection to tourism; and (3) the level of
positive emotions depends on the level of tourism de-
velopment; predictably people are happier and more
satisfied with life in cities with early stages of tourism
development (Uysal et al., 2016).
Following the theoretical implications of the rela-
tions between different stages of tourism development
and the quality of life discussed above, we hypothesize
the following:
h1 Level of tourism development predicts residents’
satisfaction with life.
h2 Interaction with tourists predicts residents’ sat-
isfaction with life.
h3 Level of tourism development predicts residents’
emotional wellbeing.
h4 Interaction with tourists predicts residents’ emo-
tional wellbeing.
Methodology
The quantitative approachwas adopted to test the pro-
posed hypotheses. Data was collected via an online
survey tool 1ka, using a survey questionnaire. The
survey was distributed among survey participants us-
ing a snowball sampling technique (for example, par-
ticipants who completed the survey were asked to rec-
ommend participation to their peers) and gatekeep-
ers were typically well-known and networked within
observed destinations (for example, local tourist in-
formation centres, local societies and social clubs).
The survey involved participants living in three dif-
42 | Academica Turistica, Year 14, No. 1, June 2021
Emil Juvan et al. A Destination’s Social Sustainability
ferent municipalities in Slovenia, with different levels
of tourism development.
The surveymeasured several aspects of life with the
following being an interest of the current study:
• Satisfaction with life (Pratt et al., 2016) was mea-
sured using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 – not
satisfied at all, and 5 – completely satisfied) for
six different aspects of life: health, life standard,
work, family relations, balance betweenwork and
free time, and relationships with members of the
community.Dependent variable satisfactionwith
life was factor analysed for further regression
analysis with hypothesized predictors. Pearson’s
correlational coefficients were computed to de-
tect multicollinearity and check for internal va-
lidity and Cronbach’s Alpha was used to assess
the reliability. The results show there are statis-
tically significant (at the 0.05 level) correlations
among the pairs of indicators of satisfaction with
life, suggesting a high level of internal validity;
correlational coefficients f 0.491 or lower indi-
cate acceptablemulticollinearity. The value of the
Cronbach Alpha of 0.739 shows an acceptable re-
liability (George & Mallery, 2003).
• Emotional wellbeing (Pratt et al., 2016) was mea-
sured for the frequency of experiencing three
negative (fear, anxiety, depression) and three pos-
itive (calmness, contentment, and pleasure) emo-
tions. Participants were asked to express the fre-
quency of experiencing emotions using four cat-
egories of answers (frequently, sometimes, rarely
and never). To keep the survey instrument as
short as possible and thus avoiding respondent
fatigue (Dolnicar et al., 2011), the original set of
emotions from Pratt et al. (2016) were reduced to
six emotions in total. This procedure was done
using a qualitative pre-study involving 23 par-
ticipants. Participants, randomly intercepted in
public areas of researched communities, were
asked to list three positive and three negative
emotions which they remember experiencing
most frequently. The emotions most frequently
mentioned by interviewees were included in the
quantitative survey.
Table 1 Key Tourism Area Life Cycle Indicators
for the Observed Destinations
Year/destination () () () () ()
 d    . 
d    . 
d    . 
 d    . 
d    . 
d    . 
 d    . 
d    . .
d    . .
 d   – . 
d   – . 
d   – . 
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1) arrivals, (2)
overnights, (3) beds, (4) t/r, (5) people per m2.
• Level of tourism development was assessed as an
objective measurement of tourism development
using the talc tourism development model,
with a number of talc indicators for three ob-
served destinations. More specifically, following
recommendations from UranMaravić and Juvan
(2009), we observed tourist arrivals, number of
nights, number of beds, number of tourists per
local resident and number of people per square
meter of land (see Table 1). Given that no em-
pirical evidence exists on the threshold of dif-
ferent talc indicators specific for the particu-
lar talc stage it was impossible to determine
the actual talc stage for the observed destina-
tions. However, empirical indicators of tourism
development allowed the arbitrary decision to
split the three communities into two extremely
different talc stages: the high and low level of
tourism development. The destination with high
talc is in the later stages of tourism develop-
ment, and the destination with low talc is in
the earlier stages of tourism development. While
the selected dimensions of tourism development
are not exhaustive, they do indicate the level of
tourism development (e.g. Buttler, 1980) andmay
Academica Turistica, Year 14, No. 1, June 2021 | 43
Emil Juvan et al. A Destination’s Social Sustainability
affect residents’ emotional wellbeing and satisfac-
tion with life (Pratt et al., 2016).
• Interaction with tourists was measured as a sub-
jective and objective measurement. Subjectively,
the interaction with tourists was assessed by ask-
ing participants about the perceived extent of
their interaction with tourists in the last 2 years.
Responses were captured on a numerical scale
with endpoints labelled 0 – no interaction with
tourists at all and 100 – a lot of interaction with
tourists. Respondents from high talc (m =
76.87, sd = 25.06) report significantly (t(546) =
–14.352, p < 0.001) higher levels of interaction
with tourists than their counterparts from low
talc (m = 44.05, sd = 28.50). Objectively, this
concept was measured by asking respondents
whether or not they work in the tourism indus-
try. Responses were captured with binary cat-
egorical measure (yes, no). Significantly more
(X2(1) = 82.393, p = 0.000) respondents from
high talc work in tourism.Given the aim of the
study, to determine the association between the
interaction with tourists and satisfaction with life
and emotional wellbeing, we limited ourselves to
the quantitative dimensions of interaction with
tourists as strong factors of hosts’ satisfaction
with life (Murphy, 1985; Perdue et al., 1990).
• In addition, a number of socio-demographic char-
acteristics were measured using categorical (for
example, education was measured with four re-
sponse options: elementary school or less, voca-
tional or high school education, college or uni-
versity degree, postgraduate degree) or with or-
dinal scale (for example, length of living at the
destination was measured with the following re-
sponse options: less than a year, from 1 to 5 years,
from 5 to 10 years, more than 10 years).
Overall, 627 valid surveys were completed (see Ta-
bles 2 and 3), of which 295 (47) are from the destina-
tion in a consolidated talc stage and 332 (53) from
that in the involvement talc stage. 71 of the final
sample are female participants and between 16 and 90
years old (m = 39.53, sd = 14.3). The majority (79)
of respondents have lived in their respective destina-
Table 2 Sample Characteristics: Categorical Variables
Category Item f f ()
Gender Male  .
Female  .
Destination High talc  .
Low talc  .
Highest level
of education
Elementary school or less  .
Voc. school, high school  .
College, university degree  .
Postgraduate degree  .
Working in the
tourism sector
Yes  .
No  .
Table 3 Sample Characteristics: Scale Variables
Item () ()
N Valid  
Missing  
Mean . .
Stdandard deviation . .
Skewness . –
.
Std. error of skewness . .
Kurtosis –. .
Std. error of kurtosis . .
Minimum  
Maximum  
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1) age, (2) length
of living at the destination.
tion formore than 10 years. Almost half of respondents
(49) have completed vocational or a higher level of
education, and 40.3 of participants completed col-
lege or a university degree. On average, (m = 59.77;
sd = 31.5) respondents perceive themselves to have a
moderate level of interactions with tourists. Research
hypotheses were tested using the regression analysis.
Results
This section provides empirical testing of the research
hypotheses, beginning with a descriptive presentation
of the key dimensions of satisfaction with life.
44 | Academica Turistica, Year 14, No. 1, June 2021
Emil Juvan et al. A Destination’s Social Sustainability
Table 4 Descriptive Statistics on Dimensions
of Satisfaction with Life
talc () () () () () ()
Low (a) . . . . . .
(b)      
(c) . . . . . .
(d) –. –. –. –. –. –.
(e) . . . . . .
High (a) . . . . . .
(b)      
(c) . . . . –. .
(d) –. –. –. –. –. –.
(e) . . . . . .
Total (a) . . . . . .
(b)      
(c) . . . . –. .
(d) –. –. –. –. –. –.
(e) . . . . . .
Notes Column/row headings are as follows: (1) health, (2)
living standard, (3) work, (4) family relations, (5) balance of
work and free time, (6) community relations, (a) mean, (b)
N, (c) kurtosis, (d) skewness, (e) standard error of mean.
Satisfaction with Life
Results show (see Table 4) that, on average, respon-
dents are satisfied with family relations (M = 4.05; sd
= 0.935), health (M = 3.74; sd = 1.002) and relation-
ships with members of the community (M = 3.67; sd
= 0.847). On average, respondents are neither satis-
fied nor dissatisfied with work (M = 3.5; sd = 0.976),
balance between work and free time (M = 3.45; sd =
1.021) and life standard (M = 3.44; sd = 0.92). In all
cases, skewness and kurtosis fall in the interval |–2; 2|,
suggesting a distribution close to a normal one. All the
indicators of satisfactionwith life were kept for further
statistical analysis.
In the following, the Pearson’s correlational coef-
ficients were computed (see Table 5), in order to de-
tect multicollinearity and check for internal validity.
The results show there are statistically significant (at
the 0.05 level) correlations among the pairs of indica-
tors of satisfaction with life, suggesting a high level of
internal validity. Since the highest correlational coeffi-
cient is 0.491, there is no evidence of multicollinearity.
The Cronbach Alpha coefficient was computed, in
order to check for reliability. The value of the Cron-
bachAlpha is 0.739, showing a reliable research instru-
ment in the case of satisfaction with life.
Factor analysis with principal axis factoring was
conducted to linearly reduce the number of dimen-
sions of satisfaction with life. The computed com-
munalities (see Table 6) have high extraction scores
(> |0.3|) for life standard, work and balance between
work and free time. For other indicators the extraction
scores fall slightly outside the interval, but communal-
ities support keeping them as indicators of satisfaction
with life. The factor analysis (principal axis factoring)
suggests a single factor solution with the initial eigen-
value higher than 1 (2.623). The one-factor solution
explains 43.722 of total variance (see Table 7). The
factor matrix (see Table 8) supports the one-factor so-
lution, since all the factor scores are higher than |0.3|,
confirming a high importance of the indicator on the
factor. The suggested one-factor solution was kept for
further statistical analysis.
Research hypotheses h1 and h2 were tested using
the regression analysis. Results (see Table 9) show no
statistically significant association (at the 0.05 level)
between talc and/or number of interactions with
tourists and satisfaction with life. The determination
coefficient is 0.004. The regression model is not sta-
tistically significant (F = 0.283; sig. = 0.838).
Emotional Wellbeing
Over half of respondents (see Table 10) often feel calm-
ness (54.7 of respondents) and contentment (58.9
of respondents), but a third of respondents feel the
two emotions only sometimes (35.3 for calmness
and 34.4 for contentment). 44.7 of respondents feel
pleasure often and 45.1 of them feel pleasure some-
times. Regarding the negative emotions, the majority
feels them rarely (fear 45.6 of respondents and de-
pression 47.6 of respondents) or sometimes (46.7
in the case of anxiety). All the indicators of psycholog-
ical wellbeing were kept for further statistical analysis.
Regression analysis (see Table 11) was performed
to test statistically significant relations between the
Academica Turistica, Year 14, No. 1, June 2021 | 45
Emil Juvan et al. A Destination’s Social Sustainability
Table 5 Pearson’s Correlational Coefficients among Indicators of Satisfaction with Life
Factor () () () () () ()
() Health Pearson correlation  .** .** .** .** .**
Sig. (-tailed) . . . . .
N      
() Living standard Pearson correlation .**  .** .** .** .**
Sig. (-tailed) . . . . .
N      
() Work Pearson correlation .** .**  .** .** .**
Sig. (-tailed) . . . . .
N      
() Family relations Pearson correlation .** .** .**  .** .**
Sig. (-tailed) . . . . .
N      
() Work and free time balance Pearson correlation .** .** .** .**  .**
Sig. (-tailed) . . . . .
N      
() Community relations Pearson correlation .** .** .** .** .** 
Sig. (-tailed) . . . . .
N      
Notes ** Sig. < 0.01.
Table 6 Communalities in Factor Analysis, for Indicators
of Satisfaction with Life
Factor Initial Extrac.
Health . .
Living standard . .
Work . .
Family relations . .
Work and free time balance . .
Community relations . .
Notes Extraction method: Principal axis factoring.
level of tourism development and interaction with
tourists and emotional wellbeing. Results suggests
that tourism development as well as interaction with
tourists have no significant relationship with a par-
ticular emotion; the percentage of the explained vari-
ance is very low (between 0.3 and 2.2). All the regres-
Table 7 Total Variance Explained with Factor Analysis,
for Indicators of Satisfaction with Life
Factor Initial eigenvalues Extraction sums*
() () () () () ()
 . . . . . .
 . . .
 . . .
 . . .
 . . .
 . . .
Notes *Of squared loadings. Extractionmethod: Principal
axis factoring.
sion models are not statistically significant at the 0.05
level. There is no evidence of any statistically signifi-
cant impact (at the 0.05 level) of the level of tourism
development or interaction with tourists on residents’
emotional wellbeing.
Finally, the overall regressionmodel (enter meth-
46 | Academica Turistica, Year 14, No. 1, June 2021
Emil Juvan et al. A Destination’s Social Sustainability
Table 8 Factor Matrix, for Satisfaction with Life
Factor Value
Health .
Living standard .
Work .
Family relations .
Work and free time balance .
Community relations .
Notes Extraction method: Principal axis factoring. 1 factor
extracted, 6 iterations required.
Table 9 Associations between Satisfaction with Life,
Level of Tourism Development and Interaction
with Tourists
Item B se β t Sig.
(Constant) . . . .
talc . . . . .
Work in tourism . . . . .
Interac. with tourists –. . –. –. .
Notes Dependent variable: Satisfaction with life (factor).
od) was computed where Satisfaction with life is used
as the dependent variable and other concepts as pre-
dictors. The results (see Table 12) show that the re-
gression model explains 25.8 of the total variance
in Satisfaction with life. The model’s fit is good (F =
6.432; sig. < 0.001). Statistically significant (at the 0.05
level) regression coefficients suggest that contentment
(β = –0.174; sig. = 0.03), pleasure (β = –0.181; sig. =
0.019) and the highest level of education (β = 0.247;
sig. < 0.001) significantly predict satisfaction with life.
The local residents that more often feel contentment
and pleasure and have a higher level of education are
more satisfiedwith life compared to their counterparts
who never feel contentment and pleasure, and have a
lower level of education. The hypothesized prediction
of tourism development and interaction with tourists
indicates no significant direct association with resi-
dents’ emotional wellbeing or satisfaction with life.
Findings and Conclusion
Ensuring residents’ emotional wellbeing and satisfac-
tion with life is an important indicator of sustainable
Table 10 Descriptive Statistics on Emotional Wellbeing
at Destinations with Different Levels of Tourism
Development
Emotion Item talc Total
Low High
Calmness Often (a)   
(b) . . .
Sometimes (a)   
(b) . . .
Rarely (a)   
(b) . . .
Total (a)   
(b) . . .
Contentment Often (a)   
(b) . . .
Sometimes (a)   
(b) . . .
Rarely (a)   
(b) . . .
Never (a)   
(b) . . .
Total (a)   
(b) . . .
Enjoyment Often (a)   
(b) . . .
Sometimes (a)   
(b) . . .
Rarely (a)   
(b) . . .
Never (a)   
(b) . . .
Total (a)   
(b) . . .
Continued in the next column
development, because it seeks to maintain the psy-
chological capacity of the destination (Mowforth &
Munt, 2003) and because satisfied and happy residents
may become an important destinations attribute for
tourism marketing (Pyke et al., 2016). It is widely ac-
Academica Turistica, Year 14, No. 1, June 2021 | 47
Emil Juvan et al. A Destination’s Social Sustainability
Table 10 Continued from the previous column
Emotion Item talc Total
Low High
Fear Often (a)   
(b) . . .
Sometimes (a)   
(b) . . .
Rarely (a)   
(b) . . .
Never (a)   
(b) . . .
Total (a)   
(b) . . .
Worry Often (a)   
(b) . . .
Sometimes (a)   
(b) . . .
Rarely (a)   
(b) . . .
Never (a)   
(b) . . .
Total (a)   
(b) . . .
Sadness Often (a)   
(b) . . .
Sometimes (a)   
(b) . . .
Rarely (a)   
(b) . . .
Never (a)   
(b) . . .
Total (a)   
(b) . . .
Notes (a) Count, (b) percentage within talc.
cepted that vacations add to one’s quality of life but
links between tourism development and hosts’ satis-
faction with life remains unclear. The present study
aims at adding empirical evidence about the links be-
Table 11 Association between Emotional Wellbeing, Level
of Tourism Development and Interaction with
Tourists
R2 F Sig. () () ()
Calmness . . . –.
(.)
.
(.)
.
(.)
Contentment . . . .
(.)
.
(.)
–.
(.)
Enjoyment . . . .
(.)
.
(.)
–.
(.)
Fear . . . .
(.)
.
(.)
–.
(.)
Worry . . . .
(.)
.
(.)
–.
(.)
Sadness . . . .
(.)
.
(.)
–.
(.)
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1) talc β, (2) in-
teraction with tourists, (3) working in tourism; p-vales in
parenthesis.
Table 12 Overall Regression Model for Satisfaction
with Life
Item B se β t Sig.
(Constant) –. . –. .
talc . . . . .
Working in tourism –. . –. –. .
Interac. with tourists –. . –. –. .
Calmness . . . . .
Contentment –. . –. –. .
Enjoyment –. . –. –. .
Fear . . . . .
Worry . . . . .
Sadness . . . . .
Gender . . . . .
Age . . . . .
Highest educ. level . . . . .
Notes Dependent variable: Satisfaction with life (factor).
tween tourism and residents’ emotional wellbeing and
satisfaction with life. Following the theoretical back-
ground and previous empirical research, four research
hypotheses were tested. First, we hypothesized that
48 | Academica Turistica, Year 14, No. 1, June 2021
Emil Juvan et al. A Destination’s Social Sustainability
the level of tourism development predicts residents’
perceived level of satisfaction with life. The analy-
sis section does not allow accepting this hypothesis
because no significant association was identified be-
tween self-reported satisfaction with life and the level
of tourism development. This study empirically as-
sessed the satisfaction with six different aspects of life
at destinations with different levels of tourism devel-
opment. The city with high talc is actually a rather
small coastal city where locals can hardly avoid in-
teraction with tourists. On the other hand, cities with
low talc are larger in area and have a substantially
lower population (tourists and locals) per square me-
ter; hence, it is hard to detect crowds, and tourists in
particular, as well as tourism infrastructure and ex-
periences. This finding challenges the prevailing as-
sumption that higher levels of tourism by default lead
to lower satisfaction with life of local residents and
their low emotional wellbeing. Given that it is the in-
teraction with tourists which may play a higher role
in life satisfaction rather than the level of tourism de-
velopment, we tested how interaction with tourists, at
the subjective and objective level, predicts life satis-
faction. Again, this study finds no statistically signif-
icant association between the two. The finding that
no significant association exists between employment
in tourism and satisfaction with life is extremely in-
teresting. Employment in tourism brings at least eco-
nomic benefits, hence some link to satisfaction with
life should exist; especially given that residents work-
ing in tourism are more likely in support of tourism
than those not working in this industry (McGehee &
Andereck, 2004). Nevertheless, it may be that results
are very context dependent and that other factors (for
example, emotions, family cycle) cause the gap be-
tween levels of tourism development and satisfaction
with life, which would call for more research into the
two concepts.
Secondly, we hypothesize (using separate hypothe-
ses) that residents’ emotional wellbeing depends on
the level of tourism development and residents’ in-
teraction with tourism. Both hypotheses must be re-
jected, as empirical results demonstrate no significant
association between the concepts. The two hypotheses
followed the premises (1) that working in tourism is
extremely demanding, which influences one’s life sat-
isfaction (Baum, 2007) and (2) higher level of interac-
tion with tourists should affect (negatively) one’s feel-
ing of calmness or even fear (Peeters et al., 2018). The
context in which the present study took place does
not allow accepting this hypothesis, but the data also
does not provide insights into why interaction with
tourists does not affect any of the most typically expe-
rienced emotions. It is well accepted that a higher level
of tourism development leads to less favourable res-
idents’ attitudes towards tourism (for example, Mur-
phy, 1985; Teye et al., 2002); the present study demon-
strates that the same logic does not hold for emotions
or satisfaction with life.
Education, as a socio-demographic characteristic,
and feelings of enjoyment and contentment as ele-
ments of emotional wellbeing are the only three signif-
icant predictors of residents’ satisfactionwith life. This
finding challenges previous empirical insights about
the negative impacts of tourism on local residents’ sat-
isfaction with life and emotional wellbeing. There ex-
ists the possibility that even in a context with a high
level of tourism development, local residents may still
have a chance to isolate themselves from tourism, thus
preventing tourism from negatively impacting their
everyday life. Empirical findings show that, irrespec-
tive of the perceived level of interaction with tourists,
residents report similar levels of satisfaction with life.
Interaction with tourists was measured as a subjective
(perceived level of interaction) and objective (work-
ing in tourism industry) measurement, but results of
this study show that neither significantly adds to nor
reduces the level of life satisfaction.
Although emotions appear less frequently associ-
ated with tourism, they are the basis for expression of
individuals and an important factor in creating satis-
faction for both hosts and guests. A high level of sat-
isfaction is the foundation for happiness, and because
tourism is recognized as a means of generating hap-
piness (Pearce et al., 2011) it is reasonable to interpret
tourism as a tool for achieving happiness for tourists as
well as residents. However, our study points out that
the existing believed association of tourism and life
satisfaction and emotional wellbeing cannot be gen-
eralized across different contexts or even cultures.
Academica Turistica, Year 14, No. 1, June 2021 | 49
Emil Juvan et al. A Destination’s Social Sustainability
Tourism success is measured beyond typical in-
come and arrivals numbers, which echoes the prin-
ciples of sustainable yield. By creating a welcoming
atmosphere, locals contribute to a positive tourism ex-
perience but they only can do this if they themselves
feel satisfied and happy. Quality of life has to be main-
tained, with special attention given to improvements,
with a view to achieving mutual effect; quality of life
of local residents and tourists. Interweaving good re-
lationships, coherence and careful planning is the key
to successful, healthy tourism development that com-
plements the lives of locals. The empirical findings
of this study are somewhat surprising, given that the
emotionalwellbeing and satisfactionweremeasured at
destinations with extremely opposite levels of tourism
development. Nevertheless, findings do reflect current
understanding that achieving social sustainability is
context dependent (Font & McCabe, 2017) and that
research is needed around quality of life and tourism
(Liburd et al., 2012).Wehope that the present studyhas
shed more light on the aspects of social sustainability,
as a concept involving residents’ emotional wellbeing
and satisfaction with life, and their dependence on
different contexts.
Practically, this study contributes to the body of
knowledge on managing residents’ emotional wellbe-
ing and satisfaction with life. We empirically high-
light that feelings of contentment and enjoyment act
as drivers of satisfaction with life, dependent on the
level of tourism development. Destination organiza-
tions and tourism providers should monitor the levels
of contentment and enjoyment as well as investigate
which aspects of tourism lead to higher levels of the
two emotions. In addition, when assuring high levels
of contentment and enjoyment, these two emotions
should be used as destination attributes marketed to
the tourists. Marketing campaigns must demonstrate
that locals are content and enjoy their lives at the des-
tination. In addition, a high level of education appears
as a significant driver of life satisfaction and emo-
tional wellbeing. This implies that tourism organiza-
tions shouldworkwith educational institutions to help
build knowledge about tourism impacts at the destina-
tion to improve positive emotions about tourism and,
finally, higher perceived satisfaction with life.
More research into dimensions of life satisfaction,
emotional wellbeing and tourist interaction is needed
to guide destination management policies and opera-
tions in ensuring social sustainability of tourism. Em-
pirical findings in this study come by surprise and ac-
tually call for more specific studies into the levels or
thresholds of interaction with tourists and its impact
on residents’ life satisfaction and emotional wellbe-
ing. This would empirically determine how many and
which kind of interactions with tourists are manage-
able or tolerable for the local population without sac-
rificing their satisfaction with life. While dimensions
of interaction with tourism are beyond the scope of
the current study, we believe it may play an impor-
tant role in emotional wellbeing and satisfaction with
life. Hence, future research should look into different
context-destination specific dimensions of interaction
with tourists and its role in hosts’ emotional wellbeing
and satisfaction with life, most likely, using a mixed
method approach, where a qualitative approachwould
identify different dimensions and a quantitative ap-
proach would test the relevance and potential gener-
alizability across similar destinations. This would im-
prove the managerial ability of destination manage-
ment organizations to benefit from emotional wellbe-
ing and satisfaction with life of the local population.
References
Allport, G.W. (1961).Pattern and growth in personality.Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Baum, T. (2007). Human resources in tourism: Still waiting
for change. Tourism Management, 28(6), 1383–1399.
Belisle, F. J., & Hoy, D. R. (1980). The perceived impact of
tourism by residents a case study in SantaMarta, Colom-
bia. Annals of Tourism Research, 7(1), 83–101.
Buckley, R. (2011). Tourism and environment. Annual Re-
view of Environment and Resources, 36, 397–416.
Butler, R.W. (1980). The concept of the tourist area life-cycle
of evolution: Implications for management of resources.
Canadian Geographer, 24(1), 5–12.
Butler, R. W. (2006). The origins of the tourism area life cy-
cle. In R. W. Butler (Ed.), The tourism area life cycle (vol.
1, pp. 13–26). Channel View Publications.
Cummins, R. A. (1993).The comprehensive quality of life scale
intellectual disability (4th ed.). Deakin University School
of Psychology.
Dolnicar, S., Grün, B., & Leisch, F. (2011). Quick, simple and
50 | Academica Turistica, Year 14, No. 1, June 2021
Emil Juvan et al. A Destination’s Social Sustainability
reliable: Forced binary survey questions. International
Journal of Market Research, 53(2), 231–252.
Dolnicar, S., Yamanadram, V., & Cliff, K. (2012). The con-
tribution of vacation to quality of life. Annals of Tourism
Research, 39(1), 59–83.
Doxey, G. (1975). A causation theory of visitor-resident ir-
ritants: Methodology and research inferences; The im-
pact of tourism. InThe Sixth Annual Conference Proceed-
ings of the Travel Research Association (pp. 195–198). The
Travel Research Association.
Font, X., & McCabe, S. (2017). Sustainability and marketing
in tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(7), 869–
883.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). spss for Windows step by
step: A simple guide and reference, 11.0 update (4th ed.).
Allyn & Bacon.
Gholipour, H. F., Tajaddini, R., & Nguyen, J. (2016). Happi-
ness and inbound tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,
57(c), 251–253.
Gnoth, J. (1997). Tourism motivation and expectation for-
mation. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 283–304.
Ho, G. K. S., & McKercher, B. (2015). A review of life cycle
models by plog & butler from a marketing perspective.
In M. Kozak & N. Kozak (Eds.), Destination marketing:
An international perspective (pp. 145–154). Routledge.
Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves
evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. pnas,
7(38), 16489–16493.
Kim, K., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2013). How does tourism
in a community impact the quality of life of community
residents? Tourism Management, 36, 527–540.
Kubickova, M., Croes, R., & Rivera, M. (2017). Human
agency shaping tourism competitiveness and quality of
life in developing economies. Tourism Management Per-
spectives, 22, 120–131.
Lee, T. H. (2013). Influence analysis of community resident
support for sustainable tourism development. Tourism
Management, 34, 37–46.
Liang, Z. X., &Hui, T. K. (2016). Residents’ quality of life and
attitudes toward tourismdevelopment inChina.Tourism
Management, 57(7), 56–67.
Liburd, J. J., Benckendorff, P., & Carlsen, J. (2012). Tourism
and quality-of-life: How does tourism measure up? In
M. Uysal, R. R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Hand-
book of tourism and quality of life research (pp. 105–132).
Springer.
Lin, Y., Kerstetter, D., Nawijn, J., &Mitas, O. (2014). Changes
in emotions and their interactions with personality in a
vacation context. Tourism Management, 40, 416–424.
McGehee, N., & Andereck K. 2004. Factors predicting rural
resident’s support of tourism. Journal of Travel Research,
43(2), 131–140.
Mohit, M. A. (2014). Present trends and future directions of
quality-of-life. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences,
153, 655–665.
Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (2003). Tourism and sustainabil-
ity: Development and new tourism in the third world (2nd
ed.). Routledge.
Murphy, P. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. Rout-
ledge.
Pearce, P. L., Filep, S., & Ross, G. (2011).Tourists, tourism and
the good life. Routledge.
Peeters, P., Gössling, S., Klijs, J., Milano, C., Novelli, M., Di-
jkmans, C., Eijgelaar, E., Hartman, S., Heslinga, J., Isaac,
R., Mitas, O., Moretti, S., Nawijn, J., Papp, B., & Postma,
A. (2018). Research for tran Committee – Overtourism:
Impact and possible policy responses. European Parlia-
ment.
Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Allen, L. (1990). Resident sup-
port for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Re-
search, 17(4), 586–599.
Pizam, A. (1978). Tourism’s impacts: The social costs to the
destination community as perceived by its residents.
Journal of Travel Research, 16(4), 8–12.
Pratt, S., McCabe, S., & Movono, A. (2016). Gross happiness
of a ‘tourism’ village in Fiji. Journal of Destination Mar-
keting and Management, 5(1), 26–35.
Prayag, G., Hosany, S., Nunkoo, R., & Alders, T. (2013). Lon-
don residents’ support for the 2012 Olympic Games: The
mediating effect of overall attitude. Tourism Manage-
ment, 36(c), 629–640.
Pyke, S., Hartwell, H., Blake, A., & Hemingway, A. (2016).
Exploring well-being as a tourism product resource.
Tourism Management, 55, 94–105.
Ribeiro, M. A., Pinto, P., Silva, J. A., & Woosnam, K. M.
(2017). Residents’ attitudes and the adoption of pro-
tourism behaviours: The case of developing island coun-
tries. Tourism Management, 61, 523–537.
Rivera, M., Croes, R., & Lee, S. H. (2016). Tourism develop-
ment and happiness: A residents’ perspective. Journal of
Destination Marketing and Management, 5(1), 5–15.
Sharpley, R. (2014). Host perceptions of tourism: A review of
the research. Tourism Management, 42, 37–49.
Sirgy, M. J., &, Lee, D. J. (2006). Macro measures of con-
sumerwell-being:A critical analysis and research agenda.
Journal of Macromarketing, 26(1), 27–44.
Stylidis, D., Biran, A., Sit, J., & Szivas, E. M. (2014). Res-
idents’ support for tourism development: The role of
Academica Turistica, Year 14, No. 1, June 2021 | 51
Emil Juvan et al. A Destination’s Social Sustainability
residents’ place image and perceived tourism impacts.
Tourism Management, 45, 260–274.
Teye, V., Sonmez, S. F., & Sirakaya, E. (2002). Residents’ at-
titudes toward tourism development. Annals of Tourism
Research, 29(3), 668–688.
Uran Maravić, M., & Juvan, E. (2009). Strategije v turizmu:
oblikovanje strategije turizma in vloga deležnikov.Društvo
za akademske in aplikativne raziskave.
Uysal, M., Woo, E., & Singal, M. (2012). The tourist area life
cycle (talc) and its effect on the quality-of-life (qol)
of destination community. In M. Uysal & R. R. Perdue
(Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research:
Enhancing the lives (pp. 423–443). Springer.
Uysal, M., Sirgy, M. J., Woo, E., & Kim, H. L. (2016). Quality
of life (qol) andwell-being research in tourism.Tourism
Management, 53, 244–261.
Williams, T. A. (1979). Impact of domestic tourism on holt
population: The evolution of a model. Tourism Recre-
ation Research, 4(2), 15–21.
World TourismOrganization. (2017). unwto tourism high-
lights: 2017 edition [Brochure].
World Tourism Organization. (2019). International tourism
highlights: 2019 edition [Brochure].
52 | Academica Turistica, Year 14, No. 1, June 2021