Memo #3 Government and Sustainability

lable at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 46 (2015) 623e634

Contents lists avai

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tourman

Tourism development and trust in local government

Robin Nunkoo a, b, *

a Department of Management, Faculty of Law and Management, University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius b School of Tourism and Hospitality, Faculty of Management, University of Johannesburg, South Africa

h i g h l i g h t s

* Department of Management, Faculty of Law and Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius. Tel.: þ230 4037932.

E-mail address: [email protected].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.016 0261-5177/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

� The study provides a new perspective on the political dimension of tourism.

� Political trust in tourism influences general level of political trust.

� Community benefits from tourism influence the two dimensions of po- litical trust.

� Residents' knowledge of and power in tourism predicts political trust.

� Tourism industry deserves more respect among political scientists.

Knowledge of tourism

Perceived benefits of tourism

Perceived costs of tourism

Perceived power in tourism

Political trust (Tourism)

Political trust (Generic)

H1

H2 H3

H4 H5

H6

H7

H8 H9

H10

H11

H12

H13

H14

Theoretical model linking tourism development and political trust.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 16 February 2014 Accepted 27 August 2014 Available online 19 September 2014

Keywords: Political trust Knowledge Power Social exchange theory Political economy

a b s t r a c t

The relationship between tourism development and citizens' trust in government is an under-researched area. This study developed a model that established theoretical relationships between important vari- ables of tourism development and two types of political trust: political trust in the specific context of tourism and general level of political trust. Findings suggest a significant relationship between the two constructs. Results indicate that communities should feel empowered in tourism, should be knowl- edgeable of the sector, and should derive benefits from development for them to trust local government. The most important lesson of the study is that if the tourism sector is properly managed and developed, it can have beneficial political effects for governments such as increasing their legitimacy vis-�a-vis cit- izens. The paper argues that like defense and social policies, tourism development have a determining impact on political trust and the industry therefore deserves more respect among political scientists.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Trust is central to a modern society and is essential for social, political, and community relations (Freitag & Bühlmann, 2009). Consequently, the notion of trust has attracted the attention of several social science researchers. Political scientists (e.g. Hardin, 2013; Levi & Stoker, 2000) have shown a particular interest in understanding citizens' trust in government, commonly referred to as political trust. Political trust is defined as citizens' beliefs that the political system or some of it will produce preferred outcomes even

Management, University of

in the absence of constant scrutiny (Miller & Listhaug, 1990). Such studies are driven by the notion that trust links citizens with in- stitutions that are intended to represent them (Bianco, 1994). Trust allows a government to maintain effective legitimacy and authority in decision-making and is important for good governance, sus- tainability of the political system, and democratic consolidation (Christensen & Lægreid, 2005; Park & Blenkinsopp, 2011). Thus, maintaining citizens' trust is an important political objective of any government in power.

Government is the principal actor in the political process of tourism development (Bramwell, 2011; Nunkoo, Ramkissoon, & Gursoy, 2012). It cannot afford to neglect the industry in view of its huge economic, social, and political significance (Richter, 1983). In consequence, development of tourism has important

R. Nunkoo / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 623e634624

implications for political trust. For example, inequalities arising from tourism development hinder citizens' trust in government while tourism policies promoting social equality are likely to pro- mote trust. Also, while government and elite stakeholders often have a direct and powerful influence on tourism development discourses, public interests tend to be marginalized (Dredge, 2010). Consequently, legitimacy of government decisions can be ques- tioned, adversely affecting citizens' trust (McAllister & Wanna, 2001). Literature is rich with evidence of such conflicts in and adverse local impacts of tourism development which may hinder public trust in government (see for e.g. Dredge, 2010; Yang, Ryan,& Zhang, 2013).

Declining trust in the context of tourism development may have implications for citizens' broader level of trust in government because studies suggest that political trust is determined by citizens' trust in specific services and their related political-administrative systems (Bouckaert & Van de Walle, 2003; Christensen & Lægreid, 2005). This is particularly true for locally-based services (such as tourism) where the public are usually better acquainted with the service organizations and the service providers than those located at a greater distance (Christensen & Lægreid, 2005). Understanding such a relationship in the context of tourism development is even more complex, yet important, because many agencies of the state, such as local government institutions have an interest in tourism planning although they are not tourism-specific institutions (Hall, 2000). Even if the connection between tourism development and political trust appears to be obvious, there is a dearth of literature on this topic. This paper fills this important knowledge gap by devel- oping a theoretical model linking tourism development with citi- zen's trust in government actors (Fig. 1).

The research is grounded in political economy of state inter- vention in tourism and draws from social exchange theory (SET) to build the theoretical model. The latter incorporates variables such as trust, power, knowledge, and benefits and costs of tourismwhich are central to any exchange process between social actors (Ap, 1992; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Following recommendations of researchers (e.g. Levi & Stoker, 2000), the model distinguishes and proposes a theoretical relationship between domain specific political trust and generic political trust. The former refers to citi- zens' trust in local government in the specific context of tourism development while the latter refers to citizens' general level of trust in local government. Based on SET and empirical research in political science and tourism, our theoretical model proposes four

Knowledge of tourism

Perceived of tou

Perceived tour

Perceived power in tourism

Poli (T

H2

H4

H6

H7

H8

H10

H11

H12

H13

H14

Fig. 1. Theoretical model linking tourism d

variables that influence the two dimensions of political trust: res- idents' perceived benefits and costs of tourism, their level of power in tourism (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2012; Nunkoo & Smith, 2013) and their knowledge of tourism (Grimmelikhuijsen, 2012). Resi- dents' knowledge is also proposed to influence their level of power (Moscardo, 2005, 2011) and their perceived benefits and costs of tourism (Andereck, Valentine, Knopf, & Vogt, 2005). The model is tested using data collected from residents of Niagara Region, Canada.

This study makes some important theoretical and practical con- tributions to tourism literature. While tourism scholars have paid close attention to the contribution of tourism to wider objectives of government such as promoting economic growth and development (e.g. Chou, 2013) and poverty relief (e.g. Blake, Arbache, Sinclair, & Teles, 2008), the relationship between tourism development and political trust remains to be investigated. Although some tourism researchers have recently started paying attention to the concept of political trust (e.g. Nunkoo& Ramkissoon, 2012; Nunkoo et al., 2012; Nunkoo& Smith, 2013), such research is limited because they do not address whether tourism development may influence citizens' general level of trust in government. Tourism and political science researchers and policy-makers have grossly neglected the relation- ship between tourism development and citizens' trust in govern- ment despite the fact that tourism is “immensely important politically” (Richter, 1983, p. 314).

2. Local government, tourism development, and political trust

The role of government in tourism development and planning has been a subject of academic interests for decades (e.g. Bramwell, 2011; Ruhanen, 2013). Political economy, which is a broad social theory concerned with how politics affect choices in society (Bramwell, 2011), is a useful concept for understanding govern- ment's role in tourism development and political trust (Nunkoo & Smith, 2013). For Harvey (2010), in political economy, the social system is considered as a whole, and hence the various aspects of society are part of that whole. Thus, central to political economy is the notion that the state is a “social relation”, is “socially embedded” and that its “apparatuses and practices are materially interdependent with other institutional orders and social practices” (Jessop, 2008, p. 1, 5). Political economy considers government to have a central role in tourism development and planning (Wang &

benefits rism

costs of ism

tical trust ourism)

Political trust (Generic)

H1

H3

H5

H9

evelopment with trust in government.

R. Nunkoo / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 623e634 625

Bramwell, 2012). Government intervenes in tourism development through formal ministries and other institutions.

Much of the responsibility of managing and developing tourism rests with local governments (Elliot, 1997; Ruhanen, 2013). In most countries, local governments include democratically elected in- stitutions such as councils and municipalities, together with the laws, regulations, and structures that allow them to operate (Church, 2004). Local governments' heavy involvement in tourism is justified on the basis that they are closest to several aspects of tourism development (Aronsson, 2000). They are better placed than other institutions operating at higher levels of government to balance national and local interests and to integrate urban and rural initiatives with national development (Jenkins, 2001). Local gov- ernment institutions control most of the planning aspects needed for tourism development (Dredge & Jenkins, 2007) as they are legislatively mandated to make policies regarding land-use plan- ning and to regulate local development (Dredge & Moore, 1992). Local governments are also best placed to manage tourism due to their local knowledge compared to distant government leaders and institutions (Timothy, 1998). Thus, it is difficult to achieve sus- tainable tourism development without local government involve- ment and strong local authority planning (Ruhanen, 2013).

Nevertheless, local governments face several challenges in achieving sustainable tourism. Local authorities have the mandate to represent the interests of the local community impartially (Ruhanen, 2013). However, they may not always promote de- mocracy, work in the best interests of the society, and further the objectives of sustainable tourism (Bramwell, 2011). For example, excessive influence of local government in tourism development has been found to inhibit sustainable tourism (Ruhanen, 2013). Governments have also been criticized for implementing tourism policies that are short-term and lack overall direction and coordi- nation (Madrigal, 1995) and for embracing communities in tourism development only passively (Godfrey, 1998). In other instances, governments have been found to engage in corrupt practices in tourism development and planning (de Araujo & Bramwell, 1999; Morah, 1996). These threaten legitimacy of government in- stitutions, creating political and social instability. This is probably why some researchers note that public trust in government in the context of tourism development is declining (Bramwell, 2011).

Trust in government is a subjective phenomenon because citi- zens use different criteria to determine their general trust in gov- ernment (Bouckaert & Van de Walle, 2003). This is because certain institutions of government and their services are more visible and judged more important by people than others (Bouckaert & Van de Walle, 2001). The public may also trust government in some re- spects and contexts, but not in others (Lewis & Weigert, 1985). For example, one may trust local government on matters concerning housing policies, but not on matters pertaining to tourism devel- opment and vice-versa. Public trust in a particular situation or institution is extended to their general trust in government (Christensen & Lægreid, 2005). A number of researchers suggest investigating the “domain specificity of trust and trustworthiness judgments” (i.e. public trust in specific contexts and/or in specific institutions) and their influence on the general opinion of public trust in government (Bouckaert & Van de Walle, 2001; Christensen & Lægreid, 2005; Levi & Stoker, 2000, p. 499; Wang, 2005). The profound implications of tourism at the local level suggest that public trust in local government in the context of tourism devel- opment may have determining impact on the general level of po- litical trust. Based on the above discussion, it is logical to hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1. Political trust in the specific context of tourism development positively influences the general level of political trust.

2.1. Benefits and costs of tourism development

Tourism is widely perceived as an industry with several eco- nomic benefits (Andereck et al., 2005). Development of the in- dustry provides employment and investment opportunities for local people and improves the local economy (L�atkov�a & Vogt, 2012; Nunkoo & Smith, 2013). Tourism also increases personal in- come and enhances standard of living of local communities (Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996). The industry promotes cultural exchanges between residents and tourists, provides several enter- tainment, historical, and cultural benefits to local communities (Liu, Sheldon, & Var, 1987), and empower local people (Hamilton & Alexander, 2013). However, growth of the industry also results in several costs on communities. Tourism increases prices of goods, services, land and property, destroys the natural environment (L�atkov�a & Vogt, 2012), increases crime rate, and creates psycho- logical tension among community members (Andereck et al., 2005). Lack of government intervention and poor management of tourism development may also create land use problems and displacement of residents (Unalan, 2013).

Government's responsiveness to its citizens is important in political economy (Besley & Burgess, 2002). Thus, it is not sur- prising that the public often holds government accountable for tourism policy decisions (Bramwell, 2011). Government creates tourism policies that determine the level of benefits and costs of tourism for local communities, and in exchange, it receives trust from individuals who are satisfied with these policies and cynicism from dissatisfied ones (Citrin, 1974). In this sense, all citizens enter into a relationship with their local government (Levi & Stoker, 2000). SET provides a suitable theoretical basis for understanding such a relationship and the interactions between benefits/costs of tourism and political trust. SET suggests that social interaction is an exchange of activity based on rewards and costs (Homans, 1961). The theory postulates that an exchange partner assesses the trustworthiness of another partner based on positive and negative outcomes emerging from a relationship (Sheppard & Sherman, 1998).

Thus, according to SET, public trust in government should be determined by cumulative outcomes between political institutions and citizens. In a tourism context, such outcomes relate to the benefits and costs of tourism development for local communities. In support of SET, some studies demonstrate an empirical rela- tionship between benefits/costs of tourism and public trust in government. For example, Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2012) found public trust in tourism institutions to be positively related to perceived benefits of the industry, but negatively related to perceived costs. Nunkoo and Smith's (2013) study also established a positive relationship between perceived benefits and public trust in government actors involved in tourism, but did not find perceived costs to be a predictor of public trust. Although the conceptuali- zation of political trust is limited to tourism development in these studies, their empirical findings, together with the postulates of SET suggest that theoretically, it is reasonable to propose that benefits and costs of tourism may influence the two dimensions of political trust. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 2. Benefits of tourism positively influence political trust in the specific context of tourism development.

Hypothesis 3. Benefits of tourism positively influence the general level of political trust.

Hypothesis 4. Costs of tourism negatively influence political trust in the specific context of tourism development.

Hypothesis 5. Costs of tourism negatively influence the general level of political trust.

R. Nunkoo / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 623e634626

2.2. Power, tourism development and political trust

Power is an “institutional asset” in destinationmanagement and governance (Beritelli & Laesser, 2011, p. 1299). Power governs the interactions among actors influencing or trying to influence the formulation of tourism policy and the ways in which it is imple- mented (Hall, 1994). All decisions affecting tourism development, nature of government intervention, management of tourism, and community tourism issues emerge from a political process involving the values of actors in a struggle for power (Hall, 2003). This research conceptualizes power from the perspective of resi- dents and it is defined as “the capacity of individuals to make de- cisions that affect their lives” (Johnson & Wilson, 2000, p. 1892). Residents' level of power in tourism depends on the political arrangement of government institutions involved in tourism development. Power of social actors is a central component of SET because it determines the partners' ability to take advantage of the outcome of an exchange (Emerson, 1962). In tourism, less powerful actors are usually negatively disposed toward tourism and view its development skeptically (Ap,1992). Indeed, empirical studies using SET found residents' level of power to be positively related to perceived benefits and inversely related to perceived costs of tourism (e.g. Madrigal, 1993; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2012), although findings are inconclusive to-date (e.g. L�atkov�a & Vogt, 2012).

Hypothesis 6. Power positively influences benefits of tourism development.

Hypothesis 7. Power negatively influences costs of tourism development.

Any treatise of trust should treat power inequalities seriously because the two constructs “cannot be assumed away in any theory that deals with the world of social relations and social institutions” (Cook, Hardin, & Levi, 2005, p. 40). Power and trust complement one another to inform behaviors of social actors (Ireland & Webb, 2007). However, power is considered necessary for trust to develop because it determines an actor's evaluation of the relative worth of an exchange relationship and the kinds of cooperation that take place on the basis of truth (Farrell, 2004). In the event of power inequalities resulting from the political arrangements of government institutions, political trust is hindered (Farrell, 2004; Gabriel, Kunz, Rossdeutscher, & Deth, 2002). Empirical findings confirm a positive relationship between power and trust (e.g. Oberg & Svensson, 2010; Oskarsson, Svensson, & Oberg, 2009). Nunkoo and Ramkissoon's (2012) research also revealed that residents' power in tourism development positively influenced their trust in government actors in tourism. Based on the above, the following hypotheses are developed:

Hypothesis 8. Power positively influences political trust in the specific context of tourism development.

Hypothesis 9. Power positively influences the general level of po- litical trust.

2.3. Knowledge, tourism development, political trust, and power

Citizens' knowledge of the role of government is an important concept in the literature on political trust (e.g. Grimmelikhuijsen, 2012). Such interest stems from the fact that trust involves a de- gree of cognitive familiarity with the object of trust that is some- where between total knowledge and total ignorance (Simmel, 1978). Lewis and Weigert (1985) notes “if one were omniscient, actions could be undertaken with complete certainty, leaving no need, or even possibility for trust to develop. On the other hand, in

the case of absolute ignorance, there can be no reason to trust. When faced by the totally unknown, we can gamble, but we cannot trust” (p. 970). The researcher goes on to argue that some knowl- edge about the object of trust is a necessary condition for devel- opment of trust. For example, knowledge of the functioning of government allows individuals to make relatively confident pre- dictions that the object of trust is trustworthy, while poor knowl- edge causes lack of trust (Lewis & Weigert, 1985). This is because more knowledgeable individuals can distinguish between the various components of government and can understand how public services are organized (Christensen & Lægreid, 2005).

For the purpose of this study, knowledge refers to residents' understanding of tourism development issues and of the role of local government in the industry. While political scientists have investigated the relationship between citizens' knowledge of the functioning of government (or of specific services) and political trust and have demonstrated a positive relationship between the two constructs (e.g. Grimmelikhuijsen, 2012; Li, 2004), tourism researchers have lagged behind such important endeavors. This is an important omission because some researchers note that local communities often have inadequate knowledge of the functioning of the tourism industry, hindering good governance (e.g. Moscardo, 2011; Zhang, Cole, & Chancellor, 2013). Lack of knowledge among communities may cause unfavorable bias in their opinions toward local government, undermining trust. Based on the previous dis- cussion, it is reasonable theoretically to suggest that residents' knowledge of tourism development influences the two dimensions of political trust. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 10. Knowledge positively influences political trust in the specific context of tourism development.

Hypothesis 11. Knowledge positively influences the general level of political trust.

In a democracy, knowledge is power (Jerit, Barabas, & Bolsen, 2006). Not only does citizens' knowledge shapes their trust in government, but it also allows them to translate their opinions into meaningful forms of political participation (Carpini, 1996). Com- munity knowledge of tourism development is central to good tourism governance (Moscardo, 2011). Residents' lack of power in tourism planning is often the result of their poor knowledge of the industry which increases their reliance on other stakeholders to control the process of development (Moscardo, 2005, 2011). Moscardo's (2011) case study revealed that knowledge was a major factor contributing to the level of power among destination com- munities. The results showed that lack of knowledge among resi- dents meant that tourism development was directed by external agents such as government institutions and foreign tour operators, further perpetuating power imbalances. With the exception of the few case study research cited above, empirical investigation on the relationship between knowledge and power remains limited in tourism. Based on the proceeding discussion, the following hy- pothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 12. Knowledge positively influences power in tourism development.

Residents' knowledge of tourism development has also been found to shape their opinions about the benefits and costs of tourism development (Davis, Allen, & Consenza, 1988; Moscardo, 2011), although research is inconclusive to-date. Davis et al. (1988) found that respondents with low levels of knowledge of tourism perceived greater costs from tourism and displayed more cautious attitudes to tourism development. In contradiction with this study, Andereck et al.'s (2005) research found that residents who were knowledgeable about tourism development perceived

Table 1 Measurement scales and their sources.

Constructs and scale items Literature sources

aGeneral level of political trust Wong, Wan, and Hsiao (2011) Trust in your local municipality Trust in the Regional Municipality of

Niagara Region aPolitical trust in the specific context of

tourism Luhiste (2006); Shi (2001)

Trust in tourism decisionsmade by local government

Trust in local government elected officials to make the right decisions in tourism

Trust in local government to do what is right in tourism

Trust in local government to look after the interest of the community in tourism development

bPerceived benefits of tourism L�atkov�a and Vogt (2012); Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2012)Employment opportunities

Opportunities for local businesses More investment Development of nature parks Preservation of cultural identity bPerceived costs of tourism L�atkov�a and Vogt (2012);

Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2012)Traffic problems Litter Increases in prices of goods and services Environmental pollution bPerceived power in tourism Madrigal (1993); L�atkov�a

and Vogt (2012)Opportunity to participate in tourism planning and development

Personal influence in tourism planning and development

bKnowledge Grimmelikhuijsen (2012); Hung, Sirakaya-Turk, and Ingram (2011)

I know about tourism development in my community

I know the possible impacts of tourism on my community

I understand the role of local government in tourism

I have knowledge about local government's tourism policies in general

a 1 ¼ do not trust at all; 5 ¼ trust very much. b 1 ¼ strongly disagree; 5 ¼ strongly agree.

R. Nunkoo / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 623e634 627

greater benefits from the industry. However, the researchers were unable to establish a statistically significant relationship between knowledge and costs of tourism development. More recently, L�atkov�a and Vogt (2012) did not find residents' knowledge of tourism to be a predictor of perceived impacts of tourism devel- opment. These contradictions suggest the need for further research. Hence, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 13. Knowledge positively influences benefits of tourism.

Hypothesis 14. Knowledge negatively influences costs of tourism.

3. Research methodology

3.1. Study site and context

The theoretical model of the study was tested using data collected from residents of Niagara Region located in Southern Ontario, Canada, where tourism is a very important sector of the local economy. The tourism product of Niagara Region is diverse and includes man-made attractions as well as nature-based tourism products, including the world famous Niagara Falls. Tourism in Niagara Region accounts for more than 40% of Ontario's

tourism industry. The region received around 10 million visitors in 2009, out of which 4 million were overnight visitors and 6 million day visitors, resulting in around $1.4 billion in visitor spending (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, 2009). Over the last few years, Niagara Region's economy experienced tremendous tourism-related growth and development. Many of the most sig- nificant capital projects have been related to tourism. These include massive investments in roads and bridges to improve access, con- struction of new accommodations to cater for the increasing number of visitors, and other infrastructural developments to ser- vice both the tourism sector and the local community.

Despite the economic and social benefits of tourism, local communities have expressed concerns over the management of the sector by local government which has the main responsibilities for tourism planning in the region. A review of policy documents of Niagara Region (e.g. IBI Group, 2004; Regional Municipality of Niagara, 2009) suggests that residents have expressed concerns over land use incompatibility issues and adverse changes in neighborhood conditions arising from tourism development. Local authorities have also been criticized for marginalizing residents in and for providing inadequate information on tourism development. The policy documents reviewed also suggest that there is a public desire to understand ideas underlying tourism development in the region. Such political issues in the regionmake it a suitable research study site.

3.2. Measurement of constructs and survey design

Table 1 provides details on the items used to measure each construct and the literature sources from which the measurement scales were derived. The questionnaire started by asking re- spondents their general level of trust in two local government in- stitutions of Niagara Region. These institutions are responsible for tourism planning and development in the region although they are not tourism-specific institutions. This part of the survey made no reference to tourism development. Respondents were simply asked to state their general level of trust in those institutions. Then, re- spondents were asked to state their level of trust in local govern- ment in the specific context of tourism development. As recommended by researchers (Christensen & Lægreid, 2005), this measurement scale included statements on residents' trust in the political-administrative system governing tourism as well as trust in political leaders and public officials involved in tourism planning. The subsequent parts of the questionnaire measured respondents' perceptions of the benefits and costs of tourism development, their knowledge of tourism, and their perceived level of power in tourism. All questionsweremeasured on a 1e5 Likert scales.Where needed, the scales were slightly modified to suit the particular context of tourism development (see Table 1 for details).

3.3. Scale purification

Before the main survey was carried out, the measurement scales were tested by a pilot study. This was conducted in two stages. First, the survey instrument was distributed to 15 local residents and to three tourism policy-makers in local government institutions operating in Niagara Region as well as to a number of tourism professors and researchers with expertise in political trust. They were asked to provide feedback regarding the layout, wordings and ease of understanding the statements that comprised the mea- surement scales. The questionnaire was revised based on the comments and feedback received. Then, the revised measurement scales were tested empirically using a pilot study sample of 130 respondents. Measures with item-to-item correlations lower than 0.30 were removed from the scale. Next, following the

R. Nunkoo / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 623e634628

recommendation of Chen and Hsu (2001), to confirm uni- dimensionality, a separate exploratory factor analysis was run on each construct. Items that had factor loadings lower than 0.40 were considered for elimination. Results indicated that all factor loadings were greater than 0.40. Consequently, all measurement items used in the pilot study were retained for the main survey. These items were validated by a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using data collected from the main survey (Table 2).

3.4. Survey method

Once the scales were refined, the survey was administered to residents of Niagara Region using an online panel provided by TNS Global Marketing Research, Canada. An online access panel “con- sists of people who have registered to occasionally take part inweb surveys” (Goritz, 2004, p. 411). Online panels are increasingly being used in tourism studies (e.g. Chung & Petrick, 2013; Dolnicar, Yanamandram, & Cliff, 2012) and in political science research to seek public opinions about political issues (e.g. Leiserowitz, Maibach, Roser-Renouf, Smith, & Dawson, 2013). Although online panels have some limitations such as under-coverage of the target population, high non-response rate, and self-selection bias, studies

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and properties of the CFA model (N ¼ 391).

Constructs and scale items Mean Factor loadings

Composite reliability

Variance extracted

aGeneral level of political trust 3.32 0.81 0.68 Trust in your local municipality 3.32 0.86 Trust in the Regional Municipality of

Niagara Region 3.31 0.79

aPolitical trust in the specific context of tourism

2.97 0.83 0.82

Trust in tourism decisionsmade by local government

3.01 0.88

Trust in local government elected officials to make the right decisions in tourism

2.98 0.92

Trust in local government to do what is right in tourism

2.96 0.91

Trust in local government to look after the interest of the community in tourism development

2.94 0.91

bPerceived benefits of tourism 3.96 0.89 0.66 Employment opportunities 4.28 0.88 Opportunities for local businesses 4.27 0.89 More investment 3.96 0.76 Development of nature parks 3.73 0.70 Preservation of cultural identity 3.57 0.85 bPerceived costs of tourism 3.66 0.86 0.60 Traffic problems 3.88 0.73 Litter 3.64 0.87 Increases in prices of goods and services 3.59 0.64 Environmental pollution 3.54 0.85 bPerceived power in tourism 1.99 0.84 0.72 Opportunity to participate in tourism

planning and development 2.10 0.81

Personal influence in tourism planning and development

1.88 0.88

bKnowledge 3.52 0.82 0.54 I know about tourism development in

my community 3.37 0.82

I know the possible impacts of tourism on my community

3.81 0.81

I understand the role of local government in tourism

3.42 0.68

I have knowledge about local government's tourism policies in general

3.48 0.62

a 1 ¼ do not trust at all; 5 ¼ trust very much. b 1 ¼ strongly disagree; 5 ¼ strongly agree.

show that online panels generally do not suffer from higher levels of sample bias, have lower rate of missing data, lessen the problem of social desirability bias toward interviewers, and have higher reliability than traditional survey methods (Chung & Petrick, 2013).

4. Results

4.1. Sample characteristics

The sample frame was residents' of Niagara Region who were at least 18 years or older to whom the survey was administered be- tween May and June 2012. A total of 408 responses were received, out of which 17 were eliminated as a result of missing data. The analysis was based on a final sample of 391 respondents. In terms of profile, female represented a larger proportion of the sample (65.7%), while the rest were male (34.3%). Married respondents slightly dominated the sample (53.7%), while the rest were single (17.2%), divorced/separated (14.6%), common-law partners (9.2%) or windowed (4.9%). The age distribution of the sample was as follows: 55e64 years (32.2%), 45e54 years (19.7%), 34e44 years (16.6%), 65e74 years (14.6%), 25e34 years (8.2%), 18e24 years (4.3%), and 74e84 years (4.3%). Non-minorities largely dominated the sample (95.6%). The samplewas fairly educated, withmore than 50% of respondents having at least college level education. A comparison between the survey sample and the population of Niagara Region indicated that the demographic profile of the study sample generally matches that of the census population. However, some differences were noted in the gender profile, suggesting that readers should take this into account when generalizing the results to the wider population.

4.2. Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling

Before the theoretical model was tested with structural equa- tion modeling, the measurement model was validated through a CFA using maximum likelihood estimation with AMOS (Version 9). Where necessary, constructs with unacceptable fits were re- specified by deleting indicators that failed to preserve uni- dimensionality. CFA results are presented in Table 2. The mea- surement model was evaluated using a range of fit indices. The first fit index used was chi-square. However, since chi-square value is very sensitive to sample size, researchers recommend use of other indices such as root mean error of approximation, goodness of fit index, comparative fit index, normed fit index, incremental fit in- dex and TuckereLewis fit index to evaluate measurement and structural models (Bagozzi & Yi, 2012). A root mean error of approximation value of less than 0.07 is desirable, while values for the other indices range from 0 to 1, with scores closer to 1.00 indicating a good model fit (Bagozzi & Yi, 2012).

As indicated in Table 3, these criteria were met, suggesting that the CFA model was a good fit to the data. The model was further tested for its validity and reliability. Dricriminant validity was achieved because the variance extracted value for each construct was higher than the squared correlations between each construct and other constructs in themodel (Fornell& Larcker,1981). The CFA model also achieved convergent validity because the average variance extracted values for all constructs exceeded the recom- mended threshold of 0.50 (Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle, &Mena, 2012, see Table 2). The latter result also suggested that the model was reli- able. Reliability was further verified by examining the standardized factor loadings of the indicators which should have a minimum value of 0.50 (Bagozzi & Yi, 2012). As shown in Table 2, the factor loading value for each indicator ranged between 0.62 and 0.92. These results suggested that the CFA model was both reliable and valid.

Table 3 Fit indices of the measurement and structural models.

Fit indices c2 RMSEA TLI GFI AGFI CFI NFI IFI

Measurement model 372.62 (172) p < 0.01

0.05 0.95 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.96

Structural model 385.35 (173) p < 0.01

0.05 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.93 0.96

RMSEA: Root mean square error of approximation; TLI: TuckereLewis index; GFI: Goodness of fit index; AGFI: Absolute goodness of fit index; CFI: Comparative fit index; NFI: Normed fit index; IFI: Incremental fit index.

R. Nunkoo / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 623e634 629

Given these results, the structural model was tested and eval- uated based on the range of fit indices discussed above. As shown in Table 3, the fit indices satisfied the requirements of a goodmodel fit as established by researchers (Bagozzi & Yi, 2012). Structural models should also be evaluated based on the amount of variance in the primary dependent variable because a model may have an acceptable fit, yet accounts for below 1% of the variance in the primary endogenous variable. Thus, researchers also recommend the use of R2 statistic to evaluate structural models (Hair et al. 2012; Nunkoo, Ramkissoon, & Gursoy, 2013). Our results suggested that the model explained 42.5% and 71.3% of the variance in political trust in the specific context of tourism and in the general level of political trust respectively. Together, these results suggest that the proposed model linking tourism development with political trust is strong, both theoretically as well as empirically. The hypothesized relationships were evaluated and results are presented in Table 4. As presented in the table, 10 out of 14 hypotheses proposed were supported, while four were rejected.

4.3. Discussion of results

Research investigating the relationship between tourism development and public trust in government is limited. This study contributes to such a line of research by developing a model linking

Table 4 Results of path relationships.

Path relationships b values t values Result

H1: Political trust (tourism) / Political trust (General) (þve)

0.49 8.52*** Supported

H2: Benefits of tourism / Political trust (Tourism) (þve)

0.32 6.38*** Supported

H3: Benefits of tourism / Political trust (General) (þve)

0.28 6.70*** Supported

H4: Costs of tourism / Political trust (Tourism) (�ve)

�0.04 �0.76 Rejected

H5: Costs of tourism / Political trust (General) (�ve)

�0.04 �1.06 Rejected

H6: Power / Benefits of tourism (þve)

0.12 2.03* Supported

H7: Power / Costs of tourism (�ve)

�0.09 �1.51 Rejected

H8: Power / Political trust (Tourism) (þve)

0.35 6.28*** Supported

H9: Power / Political trust (General) (þve)

0.10 2.16* Supported

H10: Knowledge / Political trust (Tourism) (þve)

0.17 3.64** Supported

H11: Knowledge / Political trust (General) (þve)

0.14 2.28** Supported

H12: Knowledge / Power (þve) 0.28 3.73*** Supported H13: Knowledge / Benefits of

tourism (þve) 0.05 0.77 Rejected

H14: Knowledge / Costs of tourism (�ve)

�0.14 �2.29* Supported

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

important variables of tourism development to political trust. Findings provided support for Hypothesis 1 that proposed a posi- tive relationship between political trust in the specific context of tourism and general level of political trust. This result does not only confirm a significant relationship between the two dimensions of political trust. The high beta value also suggests that residents of Niagara Region consider tourism development as an important function of local government with the implication that their level of political trust in the specific context of tourism has a decisive impact on their general level of trust in local government. This is because tourism development has profound and long-lasting eco- nomic and socio-cultural implications for destinations that make the industry politically important for local communities and local government (Richter, 1983).

Our findings lend support to researchers' observations that locally-based government services (e.g. tourism) that are more visible to people take amore prominent place in people's mind, and in consequence, public trust in such services have determining impact on their trust in government (Bouckaert & Van de Walle, 2001; Christensen & Lægreid, 2005). The downside is that such proximity between tourism development and local people can create stigma in a community characterized by transparency in case of poor management of tourism by government authorities. This may impinge on public trust in the context of tourism which may then have detrimental consequences for the general level of po- litical trust. Low trust in the context of tourism does not only compromise public trust in government, but it may also result in lack of community support for tourism development. This is because public trust influences citizens' policy attitudes and judg- ments about acceptability of development projects (Bronfman, Vazquez, & Dorantes, 2009; Easton, 1965). For instance, some studies report a positive relationship between residents' trust in tourism institutions and their support for the industry's develop- ment (e.g. Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2012; Nunkoo et al., 2012; Nunkoo & Smith, 2013).

Hypotheses 2 and 3 that proposed a positive relationship be- tween perceived benefits of tourism and political trust in the spe- cific context of tourism and a positive relationship between perceived benefits and the general level of political trust were both supported. These results lend support to SET which postulates that positive outcomes of an exchange between actors increases trust (Blau, 1964; Farell, 2004) and confirm the research by Nunkoo and Smith (2013). Together, these findings suggest that residents enter a relationship with local government with the expectations of receiving benefits from tourism development which act as a basis for development of political trust. The relationships between perceived costs and the two dimensions of political trust were investigated by Hypotheses 4 and 5 which were rejected, sug- gesting that the former did not predict the two types of political trust. Although the insignificant relationships are contrary to SET and the empirical findings of Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2012), our results can be justified theoretically. Some scholars argue that it is not always necessary that costs resulting from an exchange rela- tionship between social actors impede on trust. On the contrary, presence of costs in a relationship acts as a catalyst for development of trust because an exchange partner judges the trustworthiness of the other partner based on the latter's ability to minimize costs (Blau, 1964). Thus, it may be possible that residents of Niagara Region use the costs of tourism development as cues to judge the effectiveness of tourism policies and costs reducing mechanisms of local government, but not as a direct basis for determining trustworthiness.

In line with our theoretical expectation, Hypothesis 6 that proposed a positive relationship between perceived power and perceived benefits was supported, suggesting that residents with

R. Nunkoo / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 623e634630

more power in tourism were more likely to view development positively. This result supports those of Nunkoo and Smith (2013) and Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2011, 2012), but contradicts those of L�atkov�a and Vogt (2012) who were unable to establish a statis- tically significant relationship between the two variables. The study results also led to the rejection of Hypothesis 7 that postulated an inverse relationship between residents' perceptions of their level of power in tourism development and their perceptions of the costs of tourism. Our findings corroborate the study results of L�atkov�a and Vogt (2012) and Nunkoo and Smith (2013), but contradict those of Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2011, 2012) and SET that postulates that less powerful actors are usually negatively disposed toward tourism development (Ap, 1992). It should be pointed out that our findings are not suggesting that level of power and costs of tourism are considered to be insignificant issues in tourism by communities of Niagara Region. In fact, residents reported a very low level of power in tourism development (M ¼ 1.99) and they generally agreed that the industry resulted in several adverse consequences (M ¼ 3.66). Most importantly, the results suggest that the costs of tourism in the region are likely to be borne by all society members irrespective of their level of power in tourism policy-making. Powerful residents are by no means spared from the adverse con- sequences of an unsustainable form of tourism development.

The relationships between power and political trust were investigated by testing Hypotheses 8 and 9 which were supported. Our findings suggest that powerful residents were not only more likely to trust local government in the specific context of tourism, but also generally. Thus, local government in Niagara Region is likely gain residents trust in tourism development as well as in a general context if communities feel empowered in tourism devel- opment. However, if they are singled out in tourism decision- making, political trust is likely to be undermined. These results confirm the centrality of power and trust between actors as important preconditions for successful collaboration and partner- ship as postulated by SET (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1962) and suggest that these constructs cannot be considered separately in any theory that deals with social relations (Cook et al., 2005). Our study further reinforces researchers' arguments that stakeholders' power and trust in tourism planning are important considerations in the po- litical economy of tourism development (Nunkoo & Smith, 2013).

Residents' knowledge of tourism development emerged as an important predictor of the two types of political trust (Hypotheses 10 & 11). The more knowledgeable residents of Niagara Region were of tourism development, the more they were likely to trust local government actors in the specific context of tourism devel- opment as well as generally. Residents' knowledge of tourism development helps individuals develop stable and consistent opinions about government which are then translated into higher levels of political trust. This is because knowledgeable individuals are able to understand the political-administrative system of gov- ernments and are in a better position to appreciate the ways in which public services are organized and structured (Christensen & Lægreid, 2005). However, uneven distribution of knowledge biases collective opinions about government, impeding political trust (Althaus, 2003).

Hypotheses 12 that proposed a direct positive relationship be- tween residents' knowledge and their power in tourism was also supported by the study results. This suggests that residents' knowledge was a good basis of their level of power in tourism. Knowledgeable residents are usually more confident that they can participate in tourismwhich in turn makes them more powerful in development (Simmons, 1994). However, low levels of tourism knowledge render communities less powerful in tourism because this means that development is directed by external agents, further perpetuating power imbalances (Moscardo, 2005, 2011). Our study

findings lend support to Francis Bacon's traditional dictum knowledge is power. Residents' knowledge also emerged to be an insignificant predictor of their perceived benefits of tourism (Hypothesis 13). This finding partially supports those of Andereck et al. (2005) and Zhang et al. (2013) who found no statistically significant relationship between residents' knowledge of tourism and perceptions of benefits. Our results indicated a significant negative relationship between knowledge and perceived costs of tourism development, providing support for Hypothesis 14. This finding suggests that more knowledgeable residents perceived less strongly the costs of tourism. This is not surprising because higher knowledge has been associated with more tolerant attitudes (Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996).

4.4. Implications

Residents' trust in government is an important component of sustainable and good governance of tourism (Nunkoo et al., 2012; Nunkoo & Smith, 2013). According to political economy, govern- ment plays an important role in the development of tourism. The notion that the state is a social relation and is socially embedded suggests that it is important for government to gain political trust to be able to make tourism decisions that are legitimate and accepted by local people. This study develops and tests a theo- retical model linking tourism development with political trust, and in doing so, it provides valuable policy implications for local government in Niagara Region. Literature indicates that political trust is dependent on two aspects: process and output (Easton, 1965). Process relates to the nature of decision-making processes in terms of participants, approaches to solving problems, rules and procedures governing policy-making and involvement of actors. Output relates to the notion of “who gets what” in politics. This is based on the premise that citizens' trust in government is dependent on the benefits they derive from development. The output-based dimension argues for government to be more output-oriented and efficient (Christensen & Laegreid, 2001, 2005). Political trust is high, Christensen and Lægreid (2005) argue, when both dimensions (i.e. process and output) are perceived to be fair and legitimate and reinforce one another. Indeed, our findings confirm that the process of tourism planning and the output of tourism development are important for political trust.

The study results suggest that output-based elements of local government in Niagara Region, in the form of benefits residents derive from tourism development are important determinants of their political trust in the specific context of tourism and of their general level of political trust. Thus, it is important for local gov- ernment to be more efficient in tourism by ensuring that devel- opment results in community benefits. However, there have been cases where the political process of tourism development has led to an uneven distribution of tourism benefits among communities in Niagara Region, where small cities and towns that host important tourist attractions and amenities struggled to derive benefits from the sector (Premier-Ranked Tourism Destination Framework of the Niagara Region, 2005). Such unequal distribution of tourism ben- efits may hinder development of trust, especially among commu- nities who feel marginalized in the process. Therefore, local government should ensure that such benefits are not only confined to limited segments of the population, but that they are distributed more equally across residents of different social spectrum. Such strategies will not only foster residents' trust in local government in the context of tourism development, but also their general level of political trust.

Power, which is a central element of the process of tourism development, emerged as a significant determinant of political

R. Nunkoo / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 623e634 631

trust. Thus, local government can increase political trust by empowering residents in tourism development. However, local governments are usually not neutral conveners of power and may resist its redistribution, hindering collaborations with local com- munities. Local governments are usually purposeful and use power to favor their own goals and objectives and those of societal elites (Reed, 1997). A case in point is the planning process of Fallsview Casino which evidenced the marginalization of local community views on the development, power imbalances in decision-making, and failure of local government to manage inequalities in tourism development. The website (http://www.closefallsviewcasino.org) that lobbies against development of this project reported several comments from residents that demonstrate a feeling of power- lessness. Thus, it is not surprising that residents surveyed in this research reported a very low level of power in tourism develop- ment. Such a process of tourism development and planning which outcaste residents may easily compromise their trust in local government.

It is important that tourism policies and governance processes of tourism are perceived to be universalistic, power-sharing, and nonpartisan by residents. Residents feel empowered in tourism development if tourism policies ensure opportunities for repre- sentation to all members of the community. Local government should also ensure that tourism planning and policies prohibit community exploitation by external tourism agents and do not deny residents the chance to participate in tourism development as in the case of the Fallsview Casino. Such policies are likely to reduce power and political distance between communities and tourism developers and allow residents to benefits more from tourism development (Moscardo, 2011), further fostering political trust. However, only empowering destination's communities and ensuring that they benefit from tourism will not guarantee that residents will perceive the costs of the industry less strongly. It is also important for local government planners to devise mecha- nisms to mitigate the adverse consequences of development on the society, economy, and the environment. Tourism in the Niagara Region should be development in a more socially and environ- mentally compatible way.

Residents' knowledge of tourism development emerged as another important basis of their trust in local government, both in the specific context of tourism as well as generally. Institutions are likely to foster political trust by providing information about their actions to citizens (Farrell & Knight, 2003). Evidence derived from tourism policy documents of Niagara Region suggests that com- munities are generally concerned about the lack of information provided to them on tourism development such as construction of new hotels and resulting infrastructural developments. Residents have also expressed a desire to understand ideas underlying tourism development (IBI Group, 2004; Regional Municipality of Niagara, 2009). Our results suggest that a low level of knowledge about tourism development and role of local government is likely to impede political trust. It is therefore extremely important that local government informs residents' about tourism issues in the Niagara Region and its roles and responsibilities in tourism devel- opment. Information aimed at improving local knowledge can be disseminated by media campaigns such as public service announcement on television, brochures, and newspapers, con- ducting public meetings, and integrating tourism in the academic curricular of primary and secondary schools. Local government can also organize visits to other tourism communities for community leaders to enhance residents' knowledge (Moscardo, 2011). How- ever, for knowledge to improve political trust, information pro- vided should be clear, objective, factual, nonpartisan, and personally relevant to local communities (Cook, Jacobs, & Kim, 2010). Such strategies are also likely to empower residents by

allowing them to make more meaningful decisions and participate for effectively in tourism development.

Above all, local government in Niagara Region can foster polit- ical trust among residents by demonstrating clear leadership in tourism development. At present, local government lacks a clear mandate for tourism development in the region (Graveline, 2011). It is important that local government redefines its roles and re- sponsibilities in tourism planning and development to be able to effectively deal with economic, political, and social challenges as Graveline (2011) recommended:

Regional government should re-state its leadership support for a revitalized regional tourism mandate and include it as an important function in the overall regional economic develop- ment structure. This mandate should come with the necessary resources and political support that will allow it to be successful in its ability to promote, advocate and facilitate Niagara's tourism growth and competitiveness (p. 5).

This objective can be achieved if local government works in collaboration with partners and stakeholders such Niagara Eco- nomic Development Corporation and Niagara Parks Commission and utilize all means and support that are available at the provincial level, including the recently established Niagara's Regional Tourism Organization model (also known as RTO2 and the Niagara Part- nership). These players are likely to strengthen the ability of local government to take full advantage of the economic opportunities in tourism and to deal with emerging challenges.

5. Conclusion and research limitations

Political trust is central for the stability of democratic political systems. However, there is a paucity of research on this topic in tourism studies. More specifically, to-date, the relationship be- tween tourism development and political trust is still unclear to researchers despite the fact that tourism has important political implications for governments. Researchers are still unclear whether and how the tourism development process influences residents' trust in government. Using SET and political economy as theoretical basis, this study developed a model that established theoretical relationships between important variables of tourism development and two dimensions of political trust. The model was tested from data collected using an online panel administered to residents of Niagara Region, Canada. Results from structural equation modeling analysis provided support for 10 hypotheses and indicated that the model explained 42.5% and 71.3% in political trust in the specific context of tourism development and general level of political trust respectively.

This study makes some important theoretical contributions to the literature. Researchers call for more research on the domain specific nature of political trust as Levi and Stoker (2000) argue:

Most work in the survey tradition has gauged whether citizens trust political actors (or judge them trustworthy) in general, rather than whether citizen trust political actors with regard to particular domains or activities…it is reasonable to think of political trust as domain-specific e one trusts a given political actor with respect to some problems, policies, or activities but not others (p. 499).

Building upon this argument, other researchers recommend studying the influence of political trust in specific contexts on cit- izens' general opinion of trust in government (e.g. Christensen & Laegried, 2005; Wang, 2005). One of the most important contri- butions of this study is that it makes a theoretical distinction

R. Nunkoo / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 623e634632

between political trust in the specific context of tourism develop- ment and general level of political trust and it investigates the relationship between the two constructs. To-date, such endeavors are lacking in tourism studies. The study suggests that residents' trust in local government in the specific context of tourism has a determining impact on their general level of political trust. Theo- retically, the findings lend support to the idea that public trust in government is not one amorphous unity, but it is composed of trust in different entities of government. Core government agencies and services that are more visible and important to local people (e.g. tourism) may have deterministic impact on political trust (Christensen & Laegried, 2005).

Another important contribution of this research relates to the simultaneous investigation of the antecedents of the two di- mensions of political trust. Although similar studies exist in tourism literature (e.g. Nunkoo et al., 2012; Nunkoo& Smith, 2013), they are limited because determinants of trust in government were investigated only in the specific context of tourism development. These studies failed to explore whether tourism development and its governance processes may influence the general level of trust in government. Confirming SET, our findings indicate that residents' perceptions of the benefits of tourism, their perceived level of po- wer in, and their knowledge of tourism do not only predict their trust in local government in the specific context of tourism devel- opment, but also their general level of political trust. Thus, our study is more robust theoretically than existing ones. Overall, the research provides a new perspective on and reaffirms the political significance of tourism development for governments.

Despite the theoretical and practical significance of the research, its findings should be interpreted with caution. First, the online sample might not necessarily reflect the real population closely enough. Some studies report differences in sample characteristics and results when analyzing data collected by mail and online panels (e.g. Deutskens, de Ruyter, & Wetzels, 2006). Also, some researchers argue that online respondents tend to be politically more active than their counterparts in face-to-face surveys (Duffy, Smith, Terhanian, & Bremer, 2005). Such differences could have impacted on the direction and magnitude of the relationships among the constructs in the model. Thus, it is important that future studies test the hypotheses using data collected from other types of survey methods to validate the study's findings. Second, although the sample size satisfies the requirement for sound use of structural equation modeling, all other things being equal, smaller samples tend to have greater sampling error than larger samples. This makes it less likely that any statistically significant relationships will be detected in the sample data. Thus, it is important that the study's model is tested using larger sample sizes.

Third, the results may have limited external validity because the study was conducted in an established democracy. Roles of gov- ernment in tourism and governance processes vary across different political contexts (Bramwell & Lane, 2011). In economies charac- terized by poor democratic governance, partisan policies may be popular (Yuksel, Bramwell, & Yuksel, 2005). These may perpetuate power inequalities between local communities and other tourism stakeholders and impact on theways tourism benefits and costs are distributed. Such political differences mean that the findings may have limited applicability to other societies. Thus, it is important that the similar research is carried out in societies operating under different political economy systems. Fourth, the research measured trust in local government only and excluded provincial and central governments. Political trust varies across levels of government and citizens usually have higher trust in local institutions than in na- tional governments (Levi & Stoker, 2000). Future studies should attempt to investigate the relationship between tourism develop- ment and political trust in higher levels of government.

Finally, the study did not investigate the relationship between political trust and residents' support for tourism development. Empirical evidence suggests that residents' trust is an important antecedent of their attitudes toward tourism development (e.g. Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2012; Nunkoo & Smith, 2013). Also, the influence of political trust on public policy attitudes is not fixed, but rather, varies according to the perceived costs/risks associated with a particular policy (Hetherington, 2004; Hetherington & Globetti, 2002). Political trust is most influential when the public is required to bear the costs associated with a certain policy with little return for the sacrifices made (Hetherington, 2004). It is therefore recommended that future tourism studies delve into the influence of residents' trust on their support for different types of tourism development and policies (e.g. mass versus alternative tourism) having varying levels and magnitude of impacts on local communities.

Notwithstanding such limitations, the study sheds light on the intricate relationship between tourism development and political trust. Tourism planners and researchers should note that commu- nities should feel empowered in tourism planning, should have adequate knowledge of tourism and of the functioning of local governments, and should derive benefits from development for them to trust local government in the specific context of tourism development as well as more generally. The most important lesson of the study is that the tourism sector, if properly managed and developed, can have beneficial political effects for governments and increase their legitimacy vis-�a-vis citizens. The paper argues that like defense, racial, and social policies, tourism development have a determining impact on political trust and the industry therefore deserves more respect among political scientists.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.016.

References

Althaus, S. L. (2003). Collective preferences in democratic politics: Opinion surveys and the will of the people. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.

Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C., & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents' per- ceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 1056e1076.

Ap, J. (1992). Residents' perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 665e690.

de Araujo, L. M. D., & Bramwell, B. (1999). Stakeholder assessment and collaborative tourism planning: the case of Brazil's Costa Dourada Project. Journal of Sus- tainable Tourism, 7(3e4), 356e378.

Aronsson, L. (2000). The development of sustainable tourism. London: Continuum. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of

structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 8e34.

Beritelli, P., & Laesser, C. (2011). Power dimensions and influence reputation in tourist destinations: empirical evidence from a network of actors and stake- holders. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1299e1309.

Besley, T., & Burgess, R. (2002). The political economy of government responsive- ness: theory and evidence from India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(4), 1415e1451.

Bianco, W. T. (1994). Trust: Representatives and constituents. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Blake, A., Arbache, J. S., Sinclair, M. T., & Teles, V. (2008). Tourism and poverty relief. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(1), 107e126.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bouckaert, G., & Van de Walle, S. (2001). Government performance and trust in

government. Paper presented at the EGPA Annual Conference: Trust building network: How the government meets citizen in the post bureaucratic era: Citizen direct government through quality, satisfaction, and trust in govern- ment. Vaasa, Finland.

Bouckaert, G., & Van de Walle, S. (2003). Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicators of ‘good governance’: difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction indicators. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69(3), 329e343.

R. Nunkoo / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 623e634 633

Bramwell, B. (2011). Governance, the state and sustainable tourism: a political economy approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4e5), 459e477.

Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2011). Critical research on the governance of tourism and sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4e5), 411e421.

Bronfman, N. C., Vazquez, E. L., & Dorantes, G. (2009). An empirical study for the direct and indirect links between trust in regulatory institutions and accept- ability of hazards. Safety Science, 47, 686e692.

Carpini, M. X. D. (1996).What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Chen, J. S., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2001). Developing and validating a riverboat gaming impact scale. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 459e476.

Chou, M. C. (2013). Does tourism development promote economic growth in transition countries? A panel data analysis. Economic Modelling, 33, 226e232.

Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (Eds.). (2001). Trust and governance. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2005). Trust in government: the relative importance of service satisfaction, political factors, and demography. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(4), 487e511.

Chung, J. Y., & Petrick, J. F. (2013). Price fairness of airline ancillary fees: an attri- butional approach. Journal of Travel Research, 52(2), 168e181.

Church, A. (2004). Local and regional tourism policy and power. In A. A. Lew, C. M. Hall, & A. M. Williams (Eds.), A companion to tourism (pp. 556e568). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Citrin, J. (1974). Comment: the political relevance of trust in government. The American Political Science Review, 68(3), 973e988.

Cook, K. S., Hardin, R., & Levi, M. (2005). Cooperation without trust? New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Cook, F. L., Jacobs, L. R., & Kim, D. (2010). Trusting what you know: Information, knowledge, and confidence in Social Security. The Journal of Politics, 72(2), 397e412.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: an interdisci- plinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874e900.

Davis, D., Allen, J., & Cosenza, R. M. (1988). Segmenting local residents by their attitudes, interests, and opinions toward tourism. Journal of travel research, 27(2), 2e8.

Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Deutskens, E., de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2006). An assessment of equivalence between online and mail surveys in service research. Journal of Service Research, 8(4), 346e355.

Dolnicar, S., Yanamandram, V., & Cliff, K. (2012). The contribution vacation to quality of life. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 59e83.

Dredge, D. (2010). Place change and tourism development conflict: evaluating public interest. Tourism Management, 31(1), 104e112.

Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2007). Tourism and policy and planning. Milton: John Wiley. Dredge, D., & Moore, S. (1992). A methodology for the integration of tourism in

town planning. Journal of Tourism Studies, 3(1), 8e21. Duffy, B., Smith, K., Terhanian, G., & Bremer, J. (2005). Comparing data from online

and face-to-face surveys. International Journal of Market Research, 47(6), 615. Easton, D. (1965). A system analysis of political life. New York: Wiley. Elliot, J. (1997). Tourism: Politics and public sector management. London: Routledge. Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Journal of Sociological

Review, 27(February), 31e41. Farrell, H. (2004). Trust, distrust and power. In H. Russell (Ed.), Distrust (pp.

85e105). New York: The Russell Sage Foundation. Farrell, H., & Knight, J. (2003). Trust, institutions, and institutional change: Indus-

trial districts and the social capital hypothesis. Politics & Society, 31(4), 537e566.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unob- servable variables andmeasurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 39e50.

Freitag, M., & Bühlmann, M. (2009). Crafting trust: the role of political institutions in a comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 42(12), 1537e1566.

Gabriel, O. W., Kunz, V., Rossdeutscher, S., & Deth, J. W. (2002). Social capital and democracy: The resources of civil society in a comparative perspective. Wien, Austria: WUV Universitatsverlag.

Godfrey, K. B. (1998). Attitudes towards ‘sustainable tourism’ in the UK: a view from local government. Tourism Management, 19(3), 213e224.

Goritz, A. S. (2004). Recruitment for online access panels. International Journal of Market Research, 46(4), 411e425.

Graveline, G. (2011). A critical review of the importance of regional government's role in tourism: Acknowledging the past, understanding the present, and recommen- dations for the future. Niagara Economic Development Corporation.

Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2012). Linking transparency, knowledge and citizen trust in government: an experiment. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 50e73.

Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414e433.

Hall, C. M. (1994). Tourism and politics: Policy, power and place. Chichester: John Wiley.

Hall, C. M. (2000). Tourism planning: Policies, process and relationships. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Hall, C. M. (2003). Politics and place: an analysis of power in destination commu- nities. In S. Sing, D. J. Timothy, & R. K. Dowling (Eds.), Tourism in destination communities (pp. 99e113). Oxon, UK: CABI Publishing.

Hamilton, K., & Alexander, M. (2013). Organic community tourism: a cocreated approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 169e190.

Haralambopoulos, N., & Pizam, A. (1996). Perceived impacts of tourism: the case of Samos. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3), 503e526.

Hardin, R. (2013). Government without trust. Journal of Trust Research, 3(1), 32e52.

Harvey, D. (2010). The enigma of capital and the crisis of capitalism. London: Profile Books.

Hetherington, M. J. (2004). Why trust matters: Declining political trust and the demise of American liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hetherington, M. J., & Globetti, S. (2002). Political trust and racial policy prefer- ences. American Journal of Political Science, 46(2), 253e275.

Homans, G. (1961). Social behavior. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Hung, K., Sirakaya-Turk, E., & Ingram, L. J. (2011). Testing the efficacy of an inte-

grative model for community participation. Journal of Travel Research, 50, 276e288.

IBI Group. (2004). City of Niagara Falls tourism policy review: implementation handbook. Retrieved January 24, 2012 from http://www.niagarafalls.ca/pdf/ planning/tourism-policy-handbook.pdf.

Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. (2007). A multi-theoretic perspective on trust and power in strategic supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 25, 482e497.

Jenkins, J. (2001). Editorial: special issue on tourism policy. Current Issues in Tourism, 4(2), 69e77.

Jerit, J., Barabas, J., & Bolsen, T. (2006). Citizens, knowledge, and the information environment. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 266e282.

Jessop, B. (2008). State power: A strategic-relational approach. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Johnson, H., & Wilson, G. (2000). Biting the bullet: civil society, social learning and the transformation of local governance. World Development, 28(11), 1891e1906.

L�atkov�a, P., & Vogt, C. A. (2012). Residents' attitudes toward existing and future tourism development in rural communities. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), 50e67.

Leiserowitz, A. A., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., Smith, N., & Dawson, E. (2013). Climategate, public opinion, and the loss of trust. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(6), 818e837.

Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3(1), 475e507.

Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967e985.

Li, L. (2004). Political trust in rural China. Modern China, 30, 228e258. Liu, J. C., Sheldon, P. J., & Var, T. (1987). Resident perception of the environmental

impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(1), 17e37. Lühiste, K. (2006). Explaining trust in political institutions: some illustrations from

the Baltic states. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 39(4), 475e496. Madrigal, R. (1993). A tale of tourism in two cities. Annals of Tourism Research, 20,

336e353. Madrigal, R. (1995). Residents' perceptions and the role of government. Annals of

Tourism Research, 22(1), 86e102. McAllister, I., & Wanna, J. (2001). Citizens' expectations and perceptions of gover-

nance. In G. Davis, & P. Weller (Eds.), Are you being served? State, citizens and governance (pp. 7e35). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Miller, A. H., & Listhaug, O. (1990). Political parties and confidence in government: a comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 20(3), 357e386.

Morah, E. U. (1996). Obstacles to optimal policy implementation in developing countries. Third World Planning Review, 18(1), 79e105.

Moscardo, G. (2005). Peripheral tourism development: challenges, issues, and success factors. Tourism Recreation Research, 30(1), 27e43.

Moscardo, G. (2011). The role of knowledge in good governance for tourism. In E. Laws, H. Richins, J. Agrusa, & N. Scott (Eds.), Tourist destination governance: Practice, theory and issues (pp. 67e82). Wallingford: CABI.

Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2011). Developing a community support model for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 964e988.

Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2012). Power, trust, social exchange and community support. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 997e1023.

Nunkoo, R., Ramkissoon, H., & Gursoy, D. (2012). Public trust in tourism institutions. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(3), 1538e1564.

Nunkoo, R., Ramkissoon, H., & Gursoy, D. (2013). Use of structural equation modeling in tourism research: past, present, and future. Journal of Travel Research, 52(6), 759e771.

Nunkoo, R., & Smith, S. L. (2013). Political economy of tourism: trust in government actors, political support, and their determinants. Tourism Management, 36, 120e132.

Oberg, P., & Svensson, T. (2010). Does power drive our trust? Relations between labor market actors in Sweden. Political Studies, 58, 143e166.

Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. (2009). Regional tourism profile, 2009, RTO2: Niagara Falls and Wine Country. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/research/rtp/2009/RTO2/index.htm.

Oskarsson, S., Svensson, T., & Oberg, P. (2009). Power, trust, and institutional con- straints: individual level evidence. Rationality and Society, 21, 171e195.

Park, H., & Blenkinsopp, J. (2011). The roles of transparency and trust in the rela- tionship between corruption and citizen satisfaction. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(2), 254e274.

Premier Ranked Tourist Development Framework (2005). Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/PR_Niagara.pdf.

R. Nunkoo / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 623e634634

Reed, M. G. (1997). Power relations and community-based tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 566e591.

Regional Municipality of Niagara. (2009). Region of Niagara sustainable community policies: Places to grow/2005 provincial policy statement conformity and Niagara 2031 amendment. Retrieved, January 24, 2012, from http://www.niagararegion. ca/government/initiatives/2031/pdf/RPPA2-2009.pdf.

Richter, L. K. (1983). Tourism politics and political science: a case of not so benign neglect. Annals of Tourism Research, 10, 313e335.

Ruhanen, L. (2013). Local government: facilitator or inhibitor of sustainable tourism development? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(1), 80e98.

Sheppard, B. H., & Sherman, D. M. (1998). The grammars of trust: a model and general implications. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 422e437.

Shi, T. (2001). Cultural values and political trust: a comparison of the People's Re- public of China and Taiwan. Comparative Politics, 33(4), 401e419.

Simmel, G. (1978). The philosophy of money. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Simmons, D. G. (1994). Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism

Management, 15(2), 98e108. Timothy, D. J. (1998). Cooperative tourism planning in a developing destination.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 6(1), 52e68. Unalan, D. (2013). Integrating cumulative impacts into strategic environmental

decision-making: tourism development in Belek, Turkey. Land Use Policy, 34, 243e249.

Wang, Z. (2005). Before the emergence of critical citizens: economic develop- ment and political trust in China. International Review of Sociology, 15(1), 155e171.

Wang, Y., & Bramwell, B. (2012). Heritage protection and tourism development priorities in Hangzhou, China: a political economy and governance perspective. Tourism Management, 33(4), 988e998.

Wong, T. K., Wan, P., & Hsiao, H. M. (2011). The bases of political trust in six Asian societies: institutional and cultural explanations compared. International Polit- ical Science Review, (3), 263e281.

Yang, J., Ryan, C., & Zhang, L. (2013). Social conflict in communities impacted by tourism. Tourism Management, 35, 82e93.

Yuksel, F., Bramwell, B., & Yuksel, A. (2005). Centralized and decentralized tourism governance in Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 859e886.

Zhang, Y., Cole, S. T., & Chancellor, C. H. (2013). Residents' preferences for involve- ment in tourism development and influences from individual profiles. Tourism Planning & Development, 10(3), 267e284.

Dr Robin Nunkoo is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Management at the University of Mauritius; a visiting Se- nior Research Fellow in the Faculty of Management at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa; and an Adjunct Research Fellow at Griffith Institute for Tourism, Griffith University, Australia. He obtained his PhD from University of Waterloo, Canada. He also holds an M.Phil from Univer- sity of Mauritius; an MA Tourism Management; an MA Development Administration, both from University of Westminster, UK; and a BA Economics from University of Mumbai, India. He has research interests in political econ- omy, government institutions, and community support for tourism. He has articles in such journals as Annals of Tourism Research, Tourism Management, Journal of Travel

Research, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, and Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research.