INTRODUCTION

Social and economic research has been conducted by most of the tourism and coastal management literature, recognizing the recreational and tourism value of beaches (Cervantes, Espejel, Arellano, & Delhumeau, 2008; Tudor & Williams, 2006; Roig-Munar, Martín-Prieto, Rodríguez-Perea, Pons, Gelabert & Mir-Gual, 2013; McLachlan, Honey & Krantz, 2007). Also, according to the reports provided by the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO, 2010), there is not global data that presents the size of growth of the coastal and beach market but they believe that this market remains as one of the preferred destinations for tourists worldwide (Honey & Krantz, 2007; UNWTO, 2013; UNEP, 2009). Reinforcing this, the European Commission for Maritime Affairs studied the importance of coastal and maritime tourism and concluded that it has become the largest maritime activity in the continent and supports the maritime economy by providing employment to about 3.2 million people.

An attractive beach and conserved ecosystem are important factors to become a recognized destination. However unmeasured visits could generate excessive pressure on beaches (Mosoco, Loyola & Quijano, 2009; McLachlan, Gilfillan & Gordon, 2013; Gheskiere et al., 2005) Therefore, beach management is required ‘because of poor choices of use’ (Williams & Micallef, 2011). And it is crucial to comprehend that each beach has its singular characteristics so they should be managed in a different way. (Micallef & Williams, 2004; Botero & Hurtado, 2009). Some authors (Bowen & Riley, 2003; Cervantes & Espejel, 2008) have contributed to this concept; with Integrated Coastal Management (Wesley & Pforr, 2010; Jennings, 2004; Hall, 2001); on Sustainable Tourism Development (Bowen & Riley, 2003; Gari, Newton & Icely, 2014; Ojeda-Martínez et al., 2009); on the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response [DPSIR] framework; and Williams y Micallef (2011) on the Bathing Area Registration and Evaluation [BARE] system.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Beach management - Beach management literature has centered on attending users’ expectations based on the supply and demand but neglecting a sustainable beach use. The general approach considers perceptions, preferences and behaviors of tourist and local community towards the use of beaches, as well as the expectations and conflicts generated between this two groups (Breton, Clapes, Marques & Priestle, 1996; Lozoya, Sardá, & Jiménez, 2014; Maguire, Miller, Weston & Young, 2011; Phillips & House, 2009; Roca, Villares, & Ortego, 2009; Vaz, Pereira Da Silva, Phillips & Williams, 2009; Villares, Roca, Serra & Montori, 2006, Marin, Palmisani, Ivaldi, Dursi, & Fabiano, 2009; Paksoy & Çolakoğlu, 2014; Oh, Draper & Dixon, 2010; Concu & Atzeni, 2011). Some studies have focused on analyzing the perceptions of beach users and local stakeholders in order to have a wider approach for beach management on topics regarding environmental, physical and morphological aspects, aspects related to facilities and services and aspects related to beach design and comfort (Villares et al, 2006)

Social conflicts and differences between residents and tourists - The analysis of social conflicts has been extensively addressed in the literature of different disciplines including economy, anthropology, and sociology. One of the first relevant findings was made by Lewis A. Coser (1956) in his book called Functions of Social Conflicts. This sociologist defined conflicts as a ‘form of socialization’, an important element for society as result of agreements and disagreements between the involved parties. He concluded that the study of conflicts provides the input for the analysis of social change and progress (Coser, 1956). In addition, the consequences of social conflicts depend on the benefit of the social system, so in order to get positive benefits, the negative consequences must be reduced. The same author also integrated the 16 propositions of Simmel (1955) into seven groups in order to guide the understanding of social conflicts: conflict and group boundaries, conflict relationship, in-group conflict, conflict with out-group, the ideology of conflicts, the unification benefit of conflict and, alliances between groups as results of conflicts.

Several studies considerate that residents and tourist instinctively differ on recreational needs on beach use, however it is important to examine this relation from different perspectives in order to help destination managers to create regulations which could benefit both groups. Maguire, Miller, Weston & Young (2011) focused on beach use preferences and recreational activities preformed at the beach; while Oh et al. (2010) connected the recreational activities undertaken by visitors, and the benefits to local communities as it supports the economy and its tourism development. This study also concluded that visitors and residents have different needs regarding beach access amenities.

Concu and Atzeni (2011) considerate the conflicts between tourist and residents; he agreed with Coser (1956) and found that social conflicts between residents and tourist are related to the different uses of the beach. Additionally, Sinkovicz and Penz (2009) evaluated that by addressing the conflicts between demand and community could improve the economic outcomes and support policy makers and destination tourist organizations. Bowen and Riley (2003) associated the socio-economic aspects and coastal environmental dynamics of the local communities. And Diedrich and García (2009) linked the local’s perceptions towards tourism and its main impacts. Conclusively, understating both tourist and resident’s perceptions is become fundamental for tourism development and this paper seeks to contribute the analysis of conflicts and beach management that residents have with the tourism industry.

Residents: native and non-native - Studies have shown that visitors’ needs can change significantly according to their own interests. This same concept applies to local communities, considering that several sociocultural factors influence in groups of people, therefore residents cannot be seen as a homogeneous group. Considering the few studies that address this topic, Xie, Bao and Kerstetter (2012) conducted a study regarding the effects of tourism impacts on satisfaction with tourism between native and non-native residents. They concluded that native and non-native have generic differences because these groups “were born and raised in different cultures”. Consequently, natives and non-natives may assign different levels of importance to tourism impacts when evaluating local tourism development (Smith & Bond, 1999; Aaker & Schmitt, 2001). In this particular study conducted in Huangshan, China, four aspects were considered: economic development, environmental degradation, loss of traditions and norms and sociocultural development; representing overall satisfaction with tourism effects. Results showed that residents [native and non-natives] had different perspectives in tourism impacts, mainly because “environmental degradation negatively affected non - natives’ level of satisfaction” while “loss of traditions and norms had a negative effect on natives’ satisfaction but a positive effect on non –natives’ satisfaction” (Xie, Bao & Kersetetter, 2012).

López-Hernández and Mercader (2015) on the other hand, conducted a study in Torrevieja, Spain and considerate important to analyze the perception of the local community according to the nationality of the host population and divided it into: national and non-national residents. Their perception was analyzed regarding topics in economic, cultural, environmental and infrastructures impacts. At comparing the views of this two groups its main conclusions were that non-national hosts have more positive perception of the positive economic impact of tourism, while being more permeable to socio-cultural influences (López-Hernandez & Mercader, 2014). However, the national “host group perceives that tourism has a higher negative environmental impact than the non-national host group” (López-Hernandez & Mercader, 2014). According to Xie, Bao and Kerstetter (2012), residents are segmented in native-born and non-native born groups because of their different cultural backgrounds. And even though an acculturation process contributes to accept or reject the local culture, the place attachment could significantly change the perception of residents [primarily for non-native] towards the tourism industry in general. Due to the permanent evolutions every culture experiment as a result of the interaction between different cultures (Ruiz, 2014)

From the literature reviewed regarding social use and beach management, most of the researches have mainly focused their studies on visitors’ attitudes and behaviors, some have investigated residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts and only a few have examined residents’ conflicts considering both native and non-natives groups. Furthermore, expectations related to beach management from residents and local’s conflicts with tourism, has not been considerate in any study related to beach management. Particularly in Latin America there are not studies in this topic. Therefore this study seeks to identify the perceptions regarding conflicts and beach management between native and non-native residents of four beaches in Ecuador in order to expand our understanding of residents’ attitudes that would be useful to direct tourism management efforts and will represent a better comprehension of the role of demand and communities as important stakeholders which reinforces the social part of beach management and could benefit all participants from the tourism industry. In the following article, the methodology explains how the study was undertaken, and then presents the results on socio-demographic features, residents’ perceptions on social, physical and environmental conflicts with tourism and beach management. Finally, the study conclusions and limitations.

METHODOLOGY

Ecuador tourism development - Tourism is known as a socio-economic activity which commonly relates tourist contribution to the local community in terms of economic impacts. Worldwide researches have mainly focus on studying the relation between residents and visitors from the tourist point of view. Yet a few studies in Ecuador suggest that tourism affects the quality of life or the ‘good life’ of the recipient population. Particularly beach and coastal tourism is considerate highly important as it represents about 30% of the national tourism demand according to the Sustainable Tourism Strategic Plan of Ecuador (Plandetur, 2007). Delgado, López and Ricaurte (2009), conducted a study assessing how the pressure of tourism in Salinas, one of the beach destinations which hosts more visitors per resident in high season, negatively affects the quality of life of the local community due to increased traffic, the accumulation of solid waste, inflation in commodities, increased insecurity, among others.

Study sites and population - The unsustainable growth of coastal tourism in Zone 5 of Ecuador it’s manifested through the decrease of the economic benefits generated by this industry, disorderly increase of informal employment, decrease of visitor satisfaction, deterioration of physical and biotic environment of the beach area and particularly good living of the local population, which is affected by a tourist activity that doesn’t meet their expectations and generates conflicts with local and traditional uses of the beach areas. For this reason, this research seeks to produce knowledge about the perceptions of the following populations located in the coastal area in Zone 5 of Ecuador: Ayangue [1º58’55.87”S; 80º45’7.531”W] is located in Santa Elena province; a fishermen village and a well-known beach for families, Chipipe [2º11’51.229”S; 80º58’56.88”W] a popular destination for the citizens of Guayaquil [Ecuador’s largest city], considered as an urban beach and one of the most visited destinations on local holidays, Olon [1º47’50.705”S; 80º45’37.744”W] is a famous beach with a high percentage of international tourist demand and also many people have settle down in this beach as a second home; and Puerto Engabao [2º33’38.557”S; 80º30’31.504”W] this town is mainly recognized for water sports such as surfing (see Fig.1).

Figure 1
Location of the beaches

Key: 1 Ayangue; 2 Chipipe; 3 Olon; 4 Puerto Engabao

Saberia. (2017). Mapa del contorno de Ecuador[5]

In the matter of population density of the four study towns, Table 1 considerate the number of inhabitants as well as the municipality surface, showing the population density from most to less populated beach in this order: Olon (5718.92 people per km2), Chipipe (1441.63 people per km2), Puerto Engabao (1014.29 people per km2) and Ayangue (396.74 people per km2)

Table 1
Demographic features of the four study towns
Instituto Nacional De Estadística y Censos [INEC]; Censo de Población y Vivienda [CPV], 2010, Quito, Ecuador

Questionnaire design - By conducting an applied research, a ten questions questionnaire was designed in order to evaluate the following research aspects: conflicts with tourism and beach management. In relation to conflicts, generally, investigators have focused on analyzing residents’ perceptions towards tourism impacts and classified them on economic impacts (Bestard & Nadal, 2007; Andereck & Nyaupane, 2010; Lankford, 1994), environmental impacts (Sheldon & Abenoja, 2001; Mason & Cheyne, 2000; Ko & Stewart, 2002), socio-cultural conflicts (Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Lindberg & Johnson, 1997).

Table 2
Conflicts, study aspects, categories and variables
Self design

In this research social, environmental and physical conflicts were study, considering different variables in each category, in order to have a wide feedback from the residents who participated in the four study towns. The study aspects, categories and variables are presented in Table 2. As Table 3 indicates, participants could choose their expectations related to beach management according to the Government Levels (national, regional and local) provided by the Organic Code of Territorial Organization of the National Assembly of Ecuador.

Table 3
Ecuador territorial political division
Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador. (2010). Código Orgánico de Organización Territorial, Autonomía y Descentralización. Quito

The majority of questions (6) were closed [‘yes’ or ‘no’ and multiple choice], and three of them were open-ended questions. The first section approach eight questions about the respondents’ demographic profile [e.g. residency, nationality, age, education, occupation]. And section two contained two open-ended questions that discussed the variety of conflicts and beach management perceptions (Robson, 2011).

Table 4
Research sample
Self design * 95% confidence level, 5% margin error

Sampling and distribution - By using a probability sampling approach, specifically a stratified sample; the survey was conducted in the different locations of the inhabitants (See Tab. 4). By calculating the sample with 95% confidence level and 5% margin error from a population of 38,319 inhabitants, 840 respondents were finally selected.

In addition, hand-delivered interviews were run in low tourist season, from September to November 2016 by approaching the locals homes (Veal, 2006). The interviewers were properly distributed in order to avoid overlapping.

Data analysis - Descriptive analysis by generating cross tabulation was conducted relating the perceptions of conflicts and beach management with the land of origin. In addition, Chi-Square Tests for independence were used for analyzing the statistically significance results and association between variables [where p ≤ 0.05 a result is regarded as statistically significant].

RESULTS

Demographic features - Participants’ socio-demographic characteristics (See Tab. 5) of the four studied communities showed: Olon with the highest rate for native respondents with 66.1%, in contrast with Puerto Engabao where most participants (69.7%) were non - native residents. Chipipe’s results were: 49.4 %, n=176 native residents and 50.6%, n=180 non - native residents. Ayangue in the other hand got: 50.6%, n=84 respondents were non-native and 49.4% n=82 native residents. A similar percentage of respondents were female and male in Olon, Ayangue and Puerto Engabao communities: Olon 51.4% female and 48.6% male, Ayangue 52.4% female and 47.6% male, Puerto Engabao 52.7% female and 47.3% male. While most Chipipe´s participants were male (56.5%, n=201) and 43.5%, n= 155 were female. Most respondents from Chipipe and Olon had high school education, 47.2% and 44% respectively. While in Ayangue (48.5%, n=80) and Puerto Engabao (48.5%, n=54) had finish their primary school. In Chipipe 24.2% respondents had a university degree and 0.3% had a master’s degree. In Olon participants with a university degree were 8.7%. Likewise, 6.7% respondents from Ayangue and 5.3% participants from Puerto Engabao got a university degree.

When asked about the employment status, most respondents from Chipipe (62.4%, n=221) were employed full-time, 24% worked in home duties, 7.3% studied full time, 5.4% retired and 0.8% unemployed. Most participants from Olon also were employed full time representing 56.8%, then 31.9% conducted home duties, 6.5% were unemployed, 2.7% were retired and 2.2% were students. Ayangue got the highest rate of respondents with a full-time job with 75.2%, while 14.3% participants worked in home duties, 5.6% studied full time, 4.3% were unemployed and 0.6% were retired. Similarly, Puerto Engabao’s respondents were 56.2% employed full time, 35.4% conducted home duties, 4.6% were unemployed, 3.1% were students and 0.8% retired.

Table 5
Demographic features per town
Self design

Conflicts - When participants evaluated the perception of tourism impacts divided in social, environmental and physical conflicts; results showed that: in Ayangue respondents considered environmental conflicts has the most affecting tourism impact with 78%, this conflict affected both natives and non-natives by 50.8% and 49.2% respectively, then physical conflicts got 12% of the total respondents, affecting 45% of native residents and 55% of non- natives. Fewer respondents opted for social conflicts with 2% which correspondent to 33% native residents and 67% non-natives participants. While 8% of the total respondents in this community marked no conflicts with tourism at all. This result was 46% from native respondents and 54% from non-native residents.

Similarly, in Olon most respondents (77%) selected environmental conflicts of all tourism impacts, corresponding 68% from native residents and 32% from non-native residents. Then 11% of the total respondents considerate they do not have any conflict with tourism [62% selected by native participants and 38% by non-native]. Physical conflicts got 10% of total participants, represented by 53% native respondents and 47% non-native, social conflicts concern 1% of the total respondents, only chosen by two native residents.

Chipipe got a significant difference marking physical conflicts up to 62% [49, 8% were native residents and 50, 2% were non-native], the second most affecting impact were environmental conflicts selected by 19% of the total participants and was equally chosen by natives n=34 (50%) and by non- natives n=34 (50%), social conflicts got 10% of respondents affecting evenly 50% of native and 50% of non-native respondents. Finally, 9% participants considered no conflicts with tourism and 45.5% were native residents and 54.5% of which were non-native respondents. In contrast Puerto Engabao got a high rate for no conflicts with 22% of respondents: corresponding 31% from native participants and 69% from non-native residents. However, the most affecting tourism impact were environmental impacts selected by 45% of all respondents, disturbing native participants by 37% and non-native residents by 63%. Physical conflicts got 27% of all participants, particularly affecting 20% native residents and 80% of non-native. Social conflicts were selected by 6% participants in Puerto Engabao, also with a significant difference between native and non- native residents by 25% and 75% respectively.

Above all conflicts in Ayangue, the water supply (environmental conflict) was the most affecting tourism impact in their community chosen by 32% of native residents and by 33% of non-native residents. Similarly, in Olon water supply affects 38% of native respondents and 19% of non-native residents. In Puerto Engabao, 11% of native participants’ considerate environmental pollution as the worst tourism impact, while most non-natives chose parking with 16%. For natives and non-natives residents from Chipipe parking (physical conflict) affected them the most with 18% and 17% correspondently.

In addition to the above descriptive analysis, Chi Square Test was conducted and the result shows that the p values were over 0.005, which means non-significant relation between the aspects of conflicts and their land of origin in any of the beaches (Tab. 6).

Table 6
Conflicts with tourism between native and non-native residents
Self design

Beach management - As a result of the evaluation the majority of native residents in Ayangue chose a community management (56%) while 45% of non – native participants believed regional or local institutions were the best option. Native and non- native participants from Olon agreed that a community management would be the ideal choice with 71% and 56% respectively. On the other hand, the least voted option was a regional or local government (natives: 12% and non-natives 10%). In the case of Chipipe, 52% of native participants prefer national institutions while non-natives selected a regional or local government with 51%. The most selected option for beach management in Puerto Engabao for native residents was 54% for community management and 49% for national institutions. Among the four beaches studied, a national and regional government was the least selected option, this management was only chosen by 6% of participants from Puerto Engabao: 5% were native and 1% non-native residents.

Regarding the Chi Square Test, the results shows that only in Puerto Engabao the p value was less than 0.005, which means the aspects of beach management perceptions and the places of origin are related. But, for the other three beaches, non-significant relation was found. (Tab. 7).

Table 7
Beach management perceptions between native and non-native residents
Self design

CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS AND INSIGHTS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The results of this study about residents of four beaches in Ecuador, contributes to understand residents’ perceptions towards tourism impacts and their preferences on beach management, because is important to acknowledge that residents represent a heterogeneous group and is essential to considerate multi-dimensional aspects to understand their needs. In one hand, some of the most important considerations in the analysis of tourism impacts are that environmental conflicts represent the highest issue for residents from three of the beaches while in Chipipe residents are mainly affected by physical problems. On the other hand, in Puerto Engabao a significant percentage of participants did not considerate any conflicts with tourism at all, this aspect was voted by 15% of non-native residents and 7% of native residents. Social disputes got very little response by participants in the four beaches. In general, there is no significant link between the conflicts presented by natives and non-natives residents according to the Chi-Square Test.

As a result of the analysis of preferences related to beach management, natives and non-native residents did not acknowledge the same type of management. An exception was only found in Olon because both groups of residents considered local community as the prefer management. And only a few residents from Puerto Engabao opted for a beach management linking national and regional organisms. Finally, according to the results of the chi-square test of beach management, a significant relation was founded in Puerto Engabao between the variables present by the four study beaches.

Compared to the previous studies regarding native and non-native residents (Xie, Bao and Kerstetter, 2012; Hernández & Mercader, 2014), our investigation considered four destinations with a diverse community population with different characteristics and levels of tourism development. Examining a sample of 50% natives and 50% non-natives in Ayangue and Olon, while in Olon the majority of participants were native and in Puerto Engabao 70% respondents were non-natives. However, some aspects were not deeply investigated such as: the nationality of non-native residents and if participants work in the tourism industry, as this potentially could differ on the perception of tourism conflicts.

Future research may consider study economic impacts to relate with residents’ quality of life; use satisfaction levels to classify conflicts according to the level of importance; and also analyze the time in life that non-native residents settle down in their new residency, in order to inquire the place attachment with the study area.

References

Aaker, J. & Schmitt, B. (2001). Culture-dependent assimilation and differentiation of the self: preferences for consumption symbols in the United States and China. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 561-576. Link

Andereck, K. L., & Nyaupane, G. P. (2010). Exploring the nature of tourism and quality of life perceptions among residents. Journal of Travel Research, 50(3), 248-260. Link

Biggs, D., Hall, C. M., & Stoeckl, N. (2012). The resilience of formal and informal tourism enterprises to disasters: reef tourism in Phuket, Thailand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(5), 645-665. Link

Botero, C. & Hurtado, Y. (2009). Tourist Beach Sorts as a classification tool for integrated beach management in Latin America. International Approaches of Coastal Research in Theory and Practice Coastline Reports, 13, 133-142. Link

Bowen, R. & Riley, C. (2003). Socio-economic indicators and integrated coastal management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 46 (1), 299-312. Link

Breton, F., Clapes, J., Marques, A. & Priestle, G. K. (1996). The recreational use of beaches and consequences for the development of new trends in management: the case of the beaches of the metropolitan region of Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain). Ocean & Coastal Management, 32(3), 153-180. Link

Brunt, P. & Courtney, P. (1999). Host perceptions of sociocultural impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3), 493-515. Link

Bestard, A. B. & Nadal, J. R. (2007). Modelling environmental attitudes toward tourism. Tourism Management, 28(3), 688-695. Link

Cervantes, O., Espejel, I., Arellano, E. & Delhumeau, S. (2008). Users’ perception as a tool to improve urban beach planning and management. Journal of Environmental Management, 42(2), 249-264. Link

Concu, N. & Atzenib, G. (2011). Conflicting preferences among tourists and residents. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1293-1300. Link

Coser, L. A. (1956). The functions of social conflict. London: Routledge.

Moscoso, A. P. D., Loyola, J. I. L. & Quijano, C. R. (2009). Creación de un manual que permita medir la presión en centros turísticos de playa en el Ecuador: caso Salinas. Monografia, Faculdad de Ingeniería Marítima y Ciencias del Mar, Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral. Link

Diedrich, A. & García -Buades, E. (2009). Local perceptions of tourism as indicators of destination decline. Tourism Management, 30(4), 512 -521. Link

Gari, S. R., Newton, A. & Icely, J. D. (2014). A review of the application and evolution of the DPSIR framework with an emphasis on coastal social-ecological systems. Ocean & Coastal Management, 103(1), 63-77. Link

Gheskierea, T., Vincx, M., Urban-Malinga, B., Rossano, C., Scapini F. & Degraera S. (2005) Nematodes from wave-dominated sandy beaches: diversity, zonation patterns and testing of the isocommunities concept. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, 62(1), 365-375. Link

Hall, C. M. (2001). Trends in ocean and coastal tourism: the end of the last frontier?. Ocean & Coastal Management, 44(9-10), 601-618. Link

Honey, M. & Krantz, D. (2007). Global trends in coastal tourism. Washington D.C.: Marine Program World Wildlife Fund. Link

Jennings, S. (2004). Coastal tourism and shoreline management. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 899-922. Link

Ko, D. W. & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of residents' attitudes for tourism development. Tourism Management, 23(5), 521-530. Link

Lankford, S. V. (1994). Attitudes and perceptions toward tourism and rural regional development. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), 35-43. Link

Lindberg, K. & Johnson, R. L. (1997). Modeling resident attitudes toward tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 402-424. Link

López-Hernández, F. & Mercader, S. (2015). Perceived impact of tourism by the resident population in Torrevieja: national versus non-national residents, Spain. European Journal of Tourism Research, 10(1), 120-126. Link

Lozoya, J., Sardá, R. & Jiménez, J. (2014). Users expectations and the need for differential beach management frameworks along the Costa Brava: urban vs. natural protected beaches. Land Use Policy, 38(1), 397-414. Link

Maguire, G., Miller, K., Weston, M. & Young, K. (2011). Being beside the seaside: Beach use and preferences among coastal residents of south-eastern Australia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 54(1), 781–788. Link

Marin, V., Palmisani, F., Ivaldi, R., Dursi, R. & Fabiano, M. (2009). Users’ perceptions analyses for sustainable beach management in Italy. Ocean & Coastal Management, 52(5), 268-277. Link

Mason, P. & Cheyne, J. (2000). Residents attitudes to proposed tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 391-411. Link

McLachlan, A., Defeo, O., Jaramillo, E. & Short, A. (2013). Sandy beach conservation and recreation: Guidelines for optimizing management strategies for multi-purpose use. Ocean & Coastal Management, 71(1), 250-268. Link.

McLachlan, R., Gilfillan, G. & Gordon, J. (2013). Deep and Persistent Disadvantage in Australia. Camberra, Australia. Australian Government Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper. Link

Micallef, A. & Williams, A. (2004). Application of a novel approach to beach classification in the Maltese Islands. Ocean & Coastal Management, 47(5/6), 225-242. Link

Ministerio de Turismo del Ecuador. (2007). Plan Estratégico de Desarrollo Sostenible del Turismo, Plandetur 2020. Quito: Tourism and Leisure Consulting Group. Link

Oh C., Draper, J. & Dixon, A. (2010). Comparing resident and tourist preferences for public beach access and related amenities. Ocean & Coastal Management, 53(5/6), 245-251. Link

Ojeda-Martínez, C., Casalduero, F. G., Bayle-Sempere, J. T., Cebrian, C. B., Valle, C., Sanchez-Lizaso, J. L. & Salas, F. (2009). A conceptual framework for the integral management of marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management, 52(2), 89-101. Link

Paksoy, P. & Çolakoğlu, N. (2014). Beach management & analysis of visitors’ remarks, Turkey. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 3(30). Link

Phillips, M., & House, C. (2009). An evaluation of priorities for beach tourism: Case studies from South Wales, UK. Tourism Management, 30(2), 176-183. Link

Roca, E., Villares, M. & Ortego, M. (2009). Assessing public perceptions on beach quality according to beach users’ profile: A case study in the Costa Brava (Spain). Tourism Management 30(2) 598-607. Link

Roig-Munar, F. X., Martín-Prieto, J. A., Rodríguez-Perea, A., Pons, G. X., Gelabert, B. & Mir-Gual, M. (2012). Risk assessment of beach-dune system erosion: beach management impacts on the Balearic Islands. Journal of Coastal Research, 28(6), 1488-1499. Link

Sheldon, P. J. & Abenoja, T. (2001) Resident attitudes in a mature destination: the case of Waikiki. Tourism Management, 22(5), 435-443. Link

Simmel, G. (1955). Conflict. New York: Free Press.

Sinkovicz, R. & Penz, E. (2009). Social distance between residents and international tourists--Implications for international business. International Business Review, 18(5), 457-469. Link

Smith, P. & Bond, M. (1999). Social psychology across cultures. Allyn & Bacon: Needham Heights.

Tudor, D. T. & Williams, A. T. (2006). A rationale for beach selection by the public on the coast of Wales, UK. Area, 38(2), 153-164. Link

United Nations World Tourism Organization (2010). Sustainable tourism governance and management in coastal areas of Africa. Madrid: UNWTO. Link

United Nations Environment Programme (2009). Sustainable Coastal tourism: An integrated planning and management approach. Paris: Unep. Link

Vaz, B., Pereira Da Silva, C., Phillips M. & Williams, A. (2009). The importance of user’s perception for beach management, Portugal. Journal of Coastal Research, 56(1), 1161-1168. Link

Veal, A. (2006). Research methods for leisure and tourism: a practical guide. New York: Prentice Hall, Financial Times.

Villares, M., Roca, E., Serra, J. & Montori, C. (2006). Social perception as a tool for beach planning: a case study on the Catalan coast. Journal of Coastal Research, 48(1), 118-123. Link

Wesley, A. & Pforr, C. (2010). The governance of coastal tourism: Unraveling the layers of complexity at Smiths Beach, Western Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(6), 773-792. Link

Williams, A., Micallef, A., Anfuso, G. & Gallego-Fernandez, J. (2011). Andalusia, Spain: an assessment of coastal scenary. Landscape Research, 37(3), 327-349. Link

Xie, H., Bao, J. & Kerstetter, D. (2012). Examining the effects of tourism impacts on satisfaction with tourism between native and non-native residents. International Journal of Tourism Research, 16(1), 241-249. Link

Notes