UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies Business School
Residents perceptions of negative tourism impacts
Master’s Thesis Tourism Marketing & Management Jatta Kalajoki 291270 June 2020
Abstract
UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
Faculty
Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies
Department
Business School
Author
Jatta Kalajoki
Supervisor
Juho Pesonen
Title
Residents perceptions of negative tourism impacts
Main subject
Tourism Marketing and Management
Level
Master’s Thesis
Date
3.6.2020
Number of pages
50 + 7
Abstract
This thesis studies the perceptions of local residents towards negative tourism impacts in Helsinki. Several previous studies concentrate to both negative and positive tourism impacts in general, including economic, environmental and sociocultural aspects. The main focus in this study is only negative aspects, and more accurately the paper concentrates on negative environmental effects. The aim is to find out a group of Helsinki residents who perceive the negative tourism impacts the most. The groups of residents are formed based on 4 different socio-demographic characteristics: age, gender, education level and area of living.
This research is quantitative study. The data was collected via Kantar panel between 28.2 – 12.3.2019. 1054 valid answers were got from Helsinki citizens. The questionnaire included 5- point Likert scale -questions, which all were in statement form.
The analysis where made mainly using crosstabulation tool to find out the respondents with the strongest negative perceptions. Post hoc analysis where used to confirm the significance between the founds. Results state that residents under 30 years old with high school or vocational college as their highest completed degree are the ones perceiving the negative impacts stronger than others. There were no significant differences between the genders, and also the area of living had no affection to the results.
Key words
Negative tourism impacts, tourism carrying capacity, mass tourism, place image
Tiivistelmä
ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO Tiedekunta
Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta
Yksikkö
Kauppatieteiden laitos
Tekijä
Jatta Kalajoki
Ohjaaja
Juho Pesonen
Työn nimi (suomeksi ja englanniksi)
Paikallisten käsitys matkailun negatiivisista vaikutuksista Residents perceptions of negative tourism impacts
Pääaine
Matkailun markkinointi ja johtamine
Työn laji
Pro Gradu - tutkielma
Aika
3.6.2020
Sivuja
50+7
Tiivistelmä
Tämä Pro gradu -tutkielma tarkastelee paikallisten asukkaiden näkemyksiä negatiivisista matkailun vaikutuksista Helsingissä. Useissa aiemmissa tutkimuksissa keskitytään sekä negatiivisiin että positiivisiin matkailun vaikutuksiin, sisältäen taloudelliset, ympäristölliset ja sosiokulttuuriset näkökohdat. Tämän tutkimuksen pääpaino on negatiivisissa näkökohdissa, ja se keskittyy eniten matkailun negatiivisiin ympäristövaikutuksiin. Tavoitteena on löytää Helsingistä sellainen ryhmä asukkaita, jotka kokevat negatiiviset matkailun vaikutukset voimakkaimmin. Ryhmät muodostetaan neljän eri sosiodemografisen muuttujan mukaa, jotka ovat ikä, sukupuoli, koulutustaso sekä asuinpaikka.
Tämä tutkimus on kvantitatiivinen tutkimus. Tiedot kerättiin Kantar-paneelin kautta 28.2 - 12.3.2019. Helsingin asukkailta saatiin 1054 hyväksyttyä vastausta, joiden perusteella tutkimusta lähdettiin tekemään. Kyselylomakkeessa käytettiin 5-portaista Likert asteikkoa.
Kysymykset kyselylomakkeessa olivat väittämä muodossa.
Analyysi tehtiin pääasiassa crosstabulation -työkalun avulla, jolla saatiin selville ne kyselyyn vastanneet henkilöt, jotka kokivat matkailun negatiiviset vaikutukset kaikkein voimakkaimmin.
Post hoc -analyysiä käytettiin vahvistamaan löydökset. Tulokset näyttävät, että alle 30-vuotiaat helsinkiläiset, joiden korkein suoritettu koulutusaste on lukio tai ammattikorkeakoulu, ovat niitä, jotka kokevat matkailun negatiiviset vaikutukset voimakkaimmin. Sukupuolella tai asuinpaikalla ei ollut merkitystä tuloksiin.
Avainsanat
Matkailun negatiiviset vaikutukset, matkailun kantokyky, massaturismi
Table of Contents
1.INTRODUCTION ...6
1.1 Background ...6
1.2 Helsinki ...8
1.2.1 Tourism in Helsinki ... 8
1.2.2 Helsinki Residents ... 13
1.3 Key concepts ... 15
1.4 Structure of the paper ... 16
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 17
2.1 Tourism impacts on local community ... 17
2.1.1 Economic impacts ... 18
2.1.2 Sociocultural impacts... 20
2.1.3 Environmental impacts... 23
2.2 Residents perceptions of place image ... 25
3. METHODOLOGY ... 28
3.1 Quantitative approach ... 28
3.2 Questionnaire design and sample ... 28
3.3 Analysis of collected data ... 30
4. FINDINGS ... 33
4.1. Socio-demographic profile of the respondents ... 33
4.2. Socio-demographic analysis ... 35
5. CONCLUSIONS ... 42
5.1 Discussion ... 42
5.2 Managerial implications ... 45
5.3 Evaluation of the study / limitations ... 46
5.4 Future research ... 48
REFERENCES ...1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Helsinki regions ...9
Figure 2. Helsinki according to postal code areas ... 10
Figure 3. Age distribution of Helsinki residents ... 13
Figure 4. Positive tourism effects ... 24
Figure 5. Negative tourism effects ... 24
LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Theoretical background of the statements used in questionnaire ... 30
Table 2. Socio-demographic information of the respondents ... 34
Table 3. Negative impacts of tourism in Helsinki. ... 35
Table 4. Mean scores of genders ... 36
Table 5. Independent samples test. ... 36
Table 6. Analysis according to age ... 37
Table 7. Analysis according to education ... 39
Table 8. Analysis according to postal code area ... 41
6
1.INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Some people love tourism, others don’t. There are several reasons why people have either negative or positive feelings towards tourism and tourists. Traveling is becoming more and more popular leisure time activity for people all around the world. In 2019, the number of international tourist arrival in the world was 1,5 billion, and the number was expected to be higher every year. (e-unwto 2020) Tourism doesn’t only cause different emotions and to the ones who travel, or for those who work in tourism industry. Residents who live in the tourism destination are involved to the field and can also perceive different kind of tourism effects in their everyday life.
Due to the popularity of traveling, the field gives numerous possibilities for researchers to investigate. In tourism literature, the role of the local community has been a popular topic for decades. Number of studies have been examining how the tourism impacts to the residents of the host community. For example, at the beginning of the century Andereck & Vogt (2000) conducted a study concerning the local people attitudes towards the impacts of tourism.
Sirakaya et al. (1999) and Perez & Nadal (2005) studied the impacts of tourism development.
García et al. (2015) aggregated a comprehensive review of researches which investigate the attitude of residents towards tourism. Economic, sociocultural and environmental tourism impacts are widely studied by several authors, (Andereck et al. 2005; Brida et al. 2014; Garau- Vadell et al. 2014; García et al. 2015; Guo et al. 2014; Gursoy et al. 2002; Gursoy & Rutherfor 2004; Gong et al 2019 and Wang & Lou 2018). All of these affect to the lives of the residents, especially to the lives of those who live in tourism centers.
People choose travel destination based on the image they have (Baloglu et al. 1999).
Destinations should create and keep a positive image of the place in order to attract more tourists as well as skillful employees and investments to the area (Stylidis et al. 2016). Stylidis et al.
(2016) in their paper studied how local residents perceive their home place as a tourism destination. It is more difficult for people to define what kind of tourism destination is the place where you live and make your living, compared to defining other destinations (Henkel et al.
7
2006). Local residents have several kinds of perceptions of their home as a tourism destination, which quite often are contradict to the perceptions what other people (e.g. international tourist) have towards the destination. Local’s may for example see their home place as tourism destination in more negative light than tourists do (Stylidis et al. 2015), or they may have different kind of opinions what are the main attractions (Henkel et al. 2006).
Negative tourism impacts are usually outcome of a mass tourism (Chakrabarty 2016). Mass tourism is considered as a phenomenon where a large amount of people visits a destination at one time. Development of technology has boosted the popularity of mass tourism, since it gives people easier access to find information about holiday destinations (UKessays 2016). Erkuş- Öztürk et al. (2016) add that mass consumption, standardization, low prices and lack of authentic tourism places are concepts associated with mass tourism.
Like many other countries, also Finland is raising its awareness in the eyes of tourists, and during the year 2018, 8.5 million foreigners traveled to Finland. During the year 2019, 7.1 million nights were slept in Finland by international tourist (Mara 2020). Helsinki, which is the capital of Finland, is the most popular destination for foreign tourists. During the year 2019, almost 2.4 million nights were spent in Helsinki by foreign tourists (Visitory.io 2020). Helsinki is willing to grow its tourism more, but in a sustainable way, which greatly takes into account the local people and their wellbeing (Mustonen 2017).
The aim of this research is to investigate how the local residents in Helsinki are feeling the negative effects of tourism. Okulicz-Kozaryn & Strzelecka (2017) in their study pointed out, that there is a need for research which investigates the effects of tourism on different residents’
group. Related to that, the purpose of this study is to find out groups of residents in Helsinki who perceive the negative impacts of tourism the most. Socio-demographic characteristics of Helsinki residents are utilized to define the group of people. (Haralambopoulos and Pizam, 1996)
8
Following the researches of Haralambopoulos and Pizam, (1996) and Stylidis et al. (2016), the aim of this research is to find those Helsinki residents who perceive negative affect of tourism the most. Socio-demographic characteristics are used as a factors to find the right people.
Resident perception of a place image (Stylidis et al. 2016) and negative tourism impacts (e.g.
García et al. 2015; Brida et al. 2014, Garau‐Vadell et al. 2014 and van Der Borg et al. 1996) are used as a core units for the research. With different analysis methods, the first aim for this research is to see how the answers of the respondents are divided between different socio- demographic groups. Following the research of Haralambopoulos and Pizam, (1996) age and education level are used as demographic factors, as well as the gender (Stylidis et al. 2016) and area of living (Gerritsma et al. 2017). The aim is also to find out whether the residents living in different areas of Helsinki area perceiving the negative effect of tourism in different ways.
Secondly, the goal is to investigate whether there are statistically significant differences between the answers of these selected demographic groups. There are several positive impacts of tourism as well, but this study concentrates on the negative outcomes.
1.2 Helsinki
1.2.1 Tourism in Helsinki
Helsinki is located in the southern part of the country, right next to the Baltic Sea. Helsinki, which is the capital of Finland, is easy to reach regardless of the semi distant location in the far north on the world map. Even though Helsinki is the largest city in Finland, its relatively small compared to many other cities. In Helsinki metropolitan area is home for 1.4 million people, which is approximately a quarter of the whole population. Reaching the places inside Helsinki doesn’t take much time, since the public transportation system is very simple yet effective, not to mention the easiness of using bicycle as a way of transportation. (Visit Finland 2020)
Helsinki states that it has great amount of attractions of which you can find something for everyone. Attractions vary from old castles to beautiful islands on the archipelago and from museums to amusement parks (Visit Finland 2020). Helsinki (2019) has made statistics of its most popular tourism destinations. The most common place for tourist to visit during the year 2018 was Linnanmäki amusement park, which attracted 1,1 million visitors. Second most popular destination was World heritage site Suomenlinna, with 1,09 million visitors. The next
9
four destinations in most popular order are Temppeliaukio Church, Uspenski Cathedral, Helsinki Cathedral Crypt and Korkeasaari Zoo, which all got hundreds of thousands of visitors.
Figure 1. Helsinki regions
Helsinki divides into 59 neighborhoods. Central area of the city is marked with red circle.
10 Figure 2. Helsinki according to postal code areas
Helsinki also divides into different areas according to the postal codes.
One of the few studies regarding Helsinki tourism was conducted by Tescasiu et al (2015). In the study of Tescasiu et al. (2015) they were examining different kind of assumptions what people have about tourists who arrive to Helsinki. They concluded that there are differences between the reasons why foreign and domestic tourists travel to Helsinki. While international tourists were expected to seek for elements such as attractions, culture, climate, nature, architecture, sea, and safety the Finnish tourist could be more interested in shopping, family, business, nightlife, leisure and knowledge. Design, architecture, culture and shopping are aspects which have made Helsinki more known destination in the eyes of tourists. In addition, Helsinki is considered as a more expensive, smaller, not so famous, safer and unusual compared to other destinations which the respondents of the survey have visited. (Tescasiu et al. 2015)
Tourism industry has a remarkable role in Helsinki. According to Tutkimus ja analysointi keskus TAK oy (2017) the direct employment effect of tourism during the year 2016 was 10,384 person-years, of which the biggest part was in accommodation and foodservices, 6459 person-
11
years. However, they note that the actual number of people working on the field is higher, since the statistics doesn’t show people who work part timely for example only during the high season in summer. Also, those working on a public sector are not seen in the statistics. According to these abovementioned numbers, the directs salary income generated by tourism was around 312 million euros, which then again makes the amount of salary tax income to 46,4 million euros for Helsinki.
There are not many studies or statistics which would tell environmental or sociocultural impacts of tourism in Helsinki. Most of the statistics concentrate on economic aspects, such as (1) the amount of arrived travelers, (2) the amount of nights they spend it Helsinki, (3) how much money tourists spend on accommodation services and (4) how fully booked the accommodation facilities have been during different times. Through these statistics can be created a perception about how big the tourism has been in Helsinki lately. (visitory.io 2020)
1. More than 2 million tourists arrive to Helsinki every year. The number of arrivals has been rising regularly, as when 2015 2,1 million people found their way to Helsinki, four years later (2019) the number was 2,6 million. There is not a significant difference between the amount of domestic and foreign tourists, as both are a bit over 1 million. However, it needs to be remembered that the actual number of domestic arrivals is much higher, since many people are not seen in the statistics because they are staying with their family and friends. (visitory.io 2020)
2. According to Visitory statistics (2020), on the average visitors spend approximately four million nights in Helsinki every year. Year 2016 was breakpoint, since before that the amount of spend nights has been a bit lower than four million, and after that it has been higher. So far, the highest number of nights spend in Helsinki was 2019, when 2,6 million tourists spend in total 4,5 nights in such places which are along with these statistics. Foreign visitors tend to spend more nights in Helsinki, for example during the year 2019 2,4 million nights were spend by foreign people, and 2,1 million by Finnish travelers.
3. Accommodation sales have been rising with enormous speed in Helsinki. In five years, the amount of gained earnings from accommodation sector rose from 235,7 million to 352,6 million. The difference is as high as 116,9 million, which is remarkable.
12
4. According to Mustonen (2017) lately there has been several discussions about adequacy of accommodation capacity in Helsinki. Since the tourism numbers have been growing year by year, more accommodation facilities have been established. Between the years 2015 and 2019 26 new places were formed, but the occupancy rate remained in similar levels (Visitory.io 2020). Even though the average occupancy percentage has been around 70-75%, during the high season (June, July, August, September) it climbs to more than 80%, which is significantly high. (Mustonen 2017)
An addition to the hotels and hostels, there are also other types of accommodation available.
Helsinki has various offers in Airbnb Platforms, as well as in HomeAway- site (www.homeaway.com), which is similar sharing-economy platform. In total, in these two platforms 2400 entire homes, 360 private rooms and 28 shared rooms were booked during the year 2019 in Helsinki. 690 apartments where not sold, which makes the occupation percentage to 71,7%. The amount of money what Airbnb and HomeAway gathered was 45,9 million euros (Visitory.io 2020). Wang and Luo (2018) stated that, sharing-economy can create more job opportunities for the locals. Everyone who is connected to internet can offer goods and services to others, which means that various groups of people have the possibility to gain some economic benefits through these platforms. This is especially important for people who are not in a favorable situation is job markets. Airbnb can also have some negative impacts for the cities as well as residents. Zervas et al. (2014) argued that Airbnb intensifies the overcrowding in touristic cities, since it has the possibility to spread basically everywhere where there are apartment buildings. It doesn’t need big premises like hotels do, so the possibility to spread is easier. For some local people it can be unpleasant if several tourists suddenly appear to their living surroundings. (Gerritsma et al. 2017)
In Helsingin matkailuvuosi 2017 – tourism strategy paper made by Mustonen (2017) it was announced that Helsinki is aware of the disadvantages of tourism. However, they don’t mention any negative phenomenon which would have occurred in Helsinki area. They have highlighted that the goal is to implement sustainable tourism, and three most important dimensions for that are ecological, socio-cultural and economic sustainability. According to the strategy, securing sustainable growth is the city's most important task, which ensures the tourism field in the future. Concentrating too much on tourism field would take space from other important fields, which in not a wanted situation.
13
There is also another point of view how the tourism should occur. Helsingin matkailusäätiö (2017) has established that Helsinki has potential to double its tourism and tourism incomes during the next ten years. They have a vision that Helsinki would gain around 3 milliard euros and 30 000 new jobs would occur on the tourism field. The only goal of this paper is to grow, and it doesn’t mention any negative sides what the growing process would create. Mustonen (2017) then again reminds that even though the tourism growth has been mostly positive so far, there might be some negative issues coming later.
It has been noted in Helsinki that local people have an important role in Tourism field. If the tourism is wanted to grow, Helsinki needs to make sure it is still seen as an attractive place to live and work, and the tourism growing process need to establish in a way that residents see it as a positive phenomenon. If local residents start to have negative attitudes towards tourism, it will have a negative impact on benefits that tourism has. (Mustonen 2017)
1.2.2 Helsinki Residents
Helsinki had 648 042 residents in 1.1.2019. 52,5% of those were women and 47,5% men.
Biggest age group of Helsinki residents is 30-44 years, which are almost quarter of the residents (24,3%). The middle age of Helsinki residents is 40,7 years. Table below presents more detailed information about the age distribution in Helsinki. (Helsinki 2020)
Figure 3. Age distribution of Helsinki residents
14
78,7% of Helsinki residents spoke Finnish as their native language. Swedish was the native language for 5,6% of the people, and in addition more than 100 000 residents speak other languages as their native language (15,7%). Most common foreign language heard in Helsinki is Russian (2,9%), when more than 18 000 residents speak it as their native language. Also, Estonian, Arabic, English and Somali language were commonly used as native language, when all of these had 1% or bigger share of all the languages. (Helsinki 2020)
During the year 2018, almost half of the Helsinki residents were living in a single household (48,7%). 30,7% were living in two-person households and 10,2% in three-person households.
The rest of the population, 10,6%, were living at least in four-person households. The average size of the households were 1,9 persons. (Helsinki 2020)
Määttä (2019) concluded some statistics which state the education level of Helsinki residents by the year 2017. In Finland the education levels are divided into three main categories, primary education, middle-level education and higher education. Primary level education means only the basic education which is compulsory to all the residents in Finland. Middle-level education includes high school and vocational college. Technical college, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree and doctor’s degree together are the higher education. Minor part, only 2% of the Helsinki residents had completed doctor’s degree. Master’s degree with 23% and bachelor’s degree with 18% were greatly presented. 7% of the residents had completed technical college.
From the middle-level educations, 22% of the residents had completed vocational college and 10% high school. The lowest level of education, primary education, was the highest completed degree by 19% of the respondents.
Rental apartments were more common way of living (47%) compared to owner-occupied apartments (42%). Accommodation of the rest of the residents is unknown. (Mäki et al. 2018) 48,2% of Helsinki residents are unmarried, while 34,4% are married. 13% of the residents are divorced. 0,2% are in registered partnership and 0,1% are divorced from registered partnership.
The rest of the population are widows/widowers, which is 4,1%. (Mäki et al. 2018) There are 159 092 families in Helsinki. People living in a same household are seen as a family, excluding people with same gender unless they are officially in registered partnership. In following statistics registered partnerships are included into married couples. The most common family form in Helsinki is married couple without kids (29,2%). Unmarried couples without kids
15
represent 21,2% of the population. When we come to the families with kids, married couples with kids are 25,9% of the family and unmarried couples with kids 7,6% of the Helsinki residents. In addition, in Helsinki there are single parents with kids, and mother with kids represent 13,6% of the residents, as father with kids just 2,1%. (Mäki et al. 2018)
1.3 Key concepts
Negative tourism impacts
As a negative tourism aspect is seen everything which leads to displeasure among tourist or the residents who live in the area where tourism occurs. These negative aspects don’t boost tourism development in valuable ways and may even cause problems with existence of tourism in these areas (Chakrabarty 2016).
Tourism carrying capacity
Tourism carrying capacity is a concept, which states the level of tourism development when destination starts getting negative impacts of tourism. Tourism carrying capacity has been exceeded if environment, tourists or local community are negatively affected. Tourism carrying capacity is a concept which helps destinations to develop their functions in sustainable (Kayat, 2012). World Tourism Organization UNWTO defined tourism carrying capacity as “The maximum number of people that may visit a tourist destination at the same time, without causing destruction of the physical, economical, socio-cultural environment and an unacceptable decrease in the quality of visitors’ satisfaction.” (e-UNWTO, 2018)
Mass tourism
Mass tourism is the outcome when tourism carrying capacity is exceeded. It is common way of tourism. It is also the form of tourism with causes most negative outcomes of tourism (Chakrabarty 2016). According Erkuş-Öztürk et al. (2016) mass tourism has several characters such as great number of tourists visiting the same destination at the same time, mass consumption, low prices, standardization and lack of authenticity. However, Vainikka (2016) states that mass tourism is complex concept, which can mean different things to different
16
people. It was for example stated that mass tourism can also be called with terms that refers to it, such as “sun and sand”, “package holiday” or “charter holiday”, which are not easy to use when defining the concept of mass tourism.
Place image
People have different kind of image about different places. This image is called place image (Stylidis et al. 2016). Place image is important for tourism destinations, since travelers make their destination choice mostly according to the image they have (Baloglu et al. 1999). Henkel et al. (2006) in their study concluded that if the destination meets needs of great number of tourists, it becomes more attractive among people. The place image formation in divided into two main factors: personal and stimulus factors. Personal factors are for example social and psychological factors like education, age and personality, while stimulus factors are formed e.g.
from previous experiences about the place. (Baloglu et al. 1999)
1.4 Structure of the paper
This study consists of five different parts. Introduction is the first part which leads the reader to the topic and gives information about the research in general. It also explains how tourism occurs in Helsinki and informs the reader about Helsinki resident’s and their socio-demographic characteristics. Second part is theoretical background. It explains the main theoretical information what is needed to understand the study. Two main topics are presented: tourism impacts for local communities and residents place image perceptions. Methodological choices are explained in the third part. It tells those analytical methods used to sort out the data.
Methodology part also explains how the data was collected, what kind of sample was obtained, and how the questionnaire was designed. Findings are explained in the fourth part. Different kind of tables are presented to explain the analyzed data. Fifth concentrates on discussing the study in general. The conclusion part is divided to several parts, which each discuss about the research with different angles.
17
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Tourism impacts on local community
Several studies state that tourism has three kind of impacts to the local communities: economic, sociocultural and environmental. (Andereck et al. 2005; Brida et al. 2014; Garau-Vadell et al.
2014; García et al. 2015; Guo et al. 2014; Gursoy et al. 2002; Gursoy & Rutherfor 2004; Gong et al 2019 and Wang & Lou 2018). King et al. (1993) stated that tourism brings generally positive attitudes. Gursoy et al. (2002), Gursoy & Rutherfor (2004), Ko & Steward (2002) and Okulicz-Kozaryn & Strzelecka (2017) have also discussed that tourism development brings also negative impacts beside the positive ones. Economic impacts are the one of these three aspects, which has the most positive perceptions. Sociocultural impacts are quite equally both positive and negative, but environmental impacts are usually just negative. (Chakrabarty 2016) Mass tourism is a concept which is greatly connected with negative effects. (Chakrabarty 2016)
It has been argued by several authors whether those residents who are more deeply related to tourism field, more have more positive attitude towards tourism development in the area. Brida et al. (2014) stated that support towards tourism development policies is more likely becoming from people who see tourism impacts positive in their lives. According to Wang & Luo (2018) those people who are not working on tourism related jobs, where not supporting the tourism development as much as those who were working in tourism field. In addition, McGehee &
Andereck (2004) confirmed that those people who get some economical gains are more positive towards tourism. Weaver et al. (2013) also argue that residents working in tourism are more supportive compared to residents who work in other fields. King et al. (1993) found out that those who are getting more positive benefits from tourism, are supporting more the future development of tourism. People who are economically dependent on tourism field, support tourism activities more likely that those who don’t get any or just a little economic benefit (Haralambopoulos and Pizam, 1996, Brida et al. 2014). Kayat et al. (2013) add that those citizens who benefit from tourism either collectively or individually see tourism in more positive light than those who don’t benefit at all. More specifically, if tourism fulfills the individual needs and interests of the local people, they are more likely to support tourism development, than if the tourism would only fulfill the collective needs and interests. According
18
to Brida et al. (2014) people working on tourism field hope that during low season the would be more tourists, and that the length of the high season was longer. King et al. (1993) stated that it is typical that if residents benefit economically from tourism, they support it more. Those people who gain the benefits also usually believe that tourism generally causes just positive benefits. On the contrary, those who perceive that tourism causes mostly negative impacts, are not getting any or much benefits from it.
Brida et al. (2014) also found out that people working in tourism field, and also native-born residents consider meeting the tourists in more positive light than those don’t work in the field or are not native-born. According to Brida et al (2014), those residents who are interacting more with tourists, feel stronger that tourism can enhance local traditions. Also, they concluded that those who work on the field of tourism hope that there would be more marketing which attract more tourist, as well as that new tourism attractions would be made. Andereck at al. (2007) enhance that those residents who have more knowledge about tourism and its benefits, and are frequently in communication with tourists, tend to have more positive thoughts about tourism.
Contrarywise, there was also a study which concluded that there is no significant relation between the frequent communication with tourists, and the residents’ attitudes towards tourism.
(Lankford & Howard, 1994).
2.1.1 Economic impacts
García et al. (2015) in their study made a review of great number of different researches which investigate the economic, sociocultural and environmental impacts of tourism. According to their literature review, 28 different articles inform that new employment opportunities is valued impact among the residents. In addition, Garau-Vadell et al. (2014) stated that tourism creates more jobs. Weaver et al. (2013) stated that due to tourist flow, the tourism in the area can expand and diversify, which have several effects on the area, of which employment opportunities is one. Ashley et al. (2000) introduced that tourism creates jobs which are suitable for people who are in disadvantaged situation in job markets, like young people and ethnic minorities. In tourism jobs, there are for example task which doesn’t require the knowledge of local language or other special skills. Blake et al. (2008) agreed that tourism benefits the people with low income. Then again, Crick (1989) stated that the situation between the locals and tourist can be
19
tricky, since the local people need to be at work, the serve the tourist who are enjoying their holidays.
In literature review made by García et al. (2015) nine researches claim that tourism is remarkable source of income for the local people of the host community. Kayat et al. (2013) and van Der Borg et al. (1996) also noted how important it is for the residents that tourism is a source of income. Guo et al. (2014) found out that residents perceive that tourism creates better community life. Also, Wang & Luo (2018) stated that tourism can be beneficial for the community in general. Haralambopoulos and Pizam (1996) and Garay-Vadell et al. (2014) stated that one of the important influence factors on residents’ attitudes toward tourism are the economic benefits. Brida et al. (2014), Guo et al. (2014) and Wang and Luo (2018) introduced that tourism creates economic benefits to the local community. In recent studies, Garau-Vadell et al. (2018) found out that if the community is facing financial crisis, the support for tourism development tends to grow remarkably. Wang & Luo (2018) stated that economy recovery and tourism development are strongly related to the tourism. They made a study related to dark tourism, where the citizens had been facing a crisis, which destroyed a lot of their city, but because tourist who come to see the area afterwards, they have been getting economic benefits, and that’s why locals have positive attitudes towards the tourism development. Van Der Borg et al. (1996) claim that in some destinations, tourism is the major source of local economic development.
Then again, Boukas and Ziakas (2016) argued that working in a busy tourism company may cause problems in families, if both parents are working long stressful days. The limited time of relaxation and minimalistic time to spend with family can lead even into divorces. However, Guo et al. (2014) argued that tourism affects positively to the family life, by bringing economic wealth and enhance family cohesion. They continued that tourism can be contribute the better physical and mental condition of residents.
Brida et al. (2014), Haralambopoulos & Pizam (1996) and King et al. (1993) inform that in the eyes of residents, tourism has an effect to the improvement of living standards. Vice versa, Okulicz-Kozaryn & Strzelecka (2017) found out that a high level of tourism development contributes less happiness, than tourism at a low level of development. So basically, in places where there are a lot of tourist, the local people are not too satisfied with the situation of the
20
tourism. In high development places, further development will usually create more negative attitudes towards tourist and tourism.
Andereck & Vogt (2000), Andereck et al. (2005), Brida et al. (2014) and Garau‐Vadell et al.
(2014) stated that residents claim that tourism improves the infrastructure and public facilities in the host destination. Then again it is argued that its wiser to travel to areas where the infrastructure is already well developed (Mustonen 2017). It is also noted that tourism attracts new investments to the area (Andereck & Vogt 2000; Andereck et al. 2005; Brida et al 2014 and Garau-Vadell et al. 2014). Then again Garau‐Vadell et al. (2014) found out that tourism is not favorable for the development of harmonic urban structures.
Boukas and Ziakas (2016) found out that seasonality can be a major problem for local people, who work in a tourism field. During the low season many residents are unemployed, it can be hard to find any proper income. Also, Bujosa and Rosselló (2007) run into the results that seasonality is not favorable for the local people. Chakrabarty (2016) also claims that off seasonal unemployment has negative impacts to the industry and the employees. Then again, tourism even brings employment to the people at certain time of the year, which is better than being unemployed the whole year. Due to seasonality destinations have also time to recover and develop when not many tourists are around. (Costa et al. 2013, 53)
Brida et al. (2014), Bujosa & Rosselló (2007), Garau‐Vadell et al. (2014), Guo et al. (2014), Haralambopoulos & Pizam (1996), Kayat et al. (2013) and McGehee & Andereck (2004) found out that residents are aware of the fact that tourism increases the cost of living, since the prices of different good are getting higher due to bigger demand. Chakrabarty (2016) stated that the land value in tourism centers has been rising, which might lead residents with lower income into difficulties. For example, residents in Cyprus have noted how they can’t afford to buy things like earlier, since tourism has raised the prices of several goods, but the earning haven’t raised as much. (Saveriades 2000)
2.1.2 Sociocultural impacts
Tourism also affects the sociocultural characteristics of local people. Andereck & Vogt (2000) and Andereck et al. (2005), noticed in their studies that local people see in positive light the
21
fact that tourism affects positively to the services what the community offers. Due to the higher demand there is a possibility for entrepreneurs to develop their businesses. Garau‐Vadell et al.
(2014) stated that tourism helps in preserving local traditions.
Andereck & Vogt (2000) and Garau‐Vadell et al. (2014) also stated that tourism creates larger scale of free time activities, and that it has good effect on cultural activities as well. Wang &
Luo (2018) found out that residents perceive that culture reconstruction have been more effective. According to van Der Borg et al. (1996) tourism has been in significant role especially in heritage tourism destinations. On the contrary, Chakrabarty (2016) claims that mass tourism may increase the commercialization of country’s culture/customs, which has negative impacts on this certain destination.
Garau‐Vadell et al. (2014) introduces that tourism furthers discovering and getting to know new cultures. The increasing amount of recreational facilities have been also noted by locals (Brida et al. 2014). Andereck et al. (2005) found out that residents feel that the maintaining of historical sites is more effective due to tourism. Guo et al. (2014) noted that tourism brings positive cultural impacts to the host community, and for example boosts tourism planning in the area.
On the contrary, van Der Borg et al. (1996) found out that when tourism has been too massive in the destination, it supplants the other urban functions. They also noted that in some destinations the tourism development hasn’t been monitored enough, as well as the tourism strategy haven’t been competently planned in order serve the destination in decent way.
Quality of life is the topic of the study in several papers. Haralambopoulos & Pizam (1996), McGehee & Andereck (2004) and King et al. (1993) stated that locals believe the quality of life is improved by tourism. Boukas and Ziakas (2016) found out that social problems caused by the tourism can change the quality of life. According to Guo et al. (2014) residents perceived that quality of live has a straight connection to the tourism. Brida et al. (2014) then again discovered in their paper that residents perceive that tourism has not negative affect on their quality of life. Brida et al. (2014) and Kayat et al. (2013) stated how the local people in tourism destinations feel that they have better possibilities to meet new people from abroad.
Many researches have also faced some negative issues, what locals feel is caused or getting worse because of tourism. Traffic jams have been the result in many papers (Andereck et al.
22
2005; Bujosa and Rosselló 2007; Brida et al. 2014; Kayat et al. 2013; King et al. 1993;
McGehee and Andereck 2004 and van Der Borg et al. 1996). Chakrabarty (2016) included that due to mass tourism there has been some problems with flight services and difficulties in customs clearance. Also finding a parking spot have been harder when the level of tourists has been rising (van Der Borg et al. 1996). Haralambopoulos and Pizam (1996) also stated that tourism increases the amount of vandalism. They also found out that different kinds of crimes have been increasing at the same time with tourism. When the number of tourists grow on area, the crime and vandalism strengthen according to van Der Borg et al. (1996). Chakrabarty (2016) found out that also pick pocketing and theft has been rising when the amount of tourist is higher.
Kayat et al. (2013) stated that the level of safety has been decreasing, when tourism has been popular in the destination. According to Garau‐Vadell et al. (2014) tourism fosters insecurity in tourism destinations. Then again, Brida et al. (2014) argues that locals do not feel that the presence of tourist would create more problems with crime. Guo et al. (2014) adds that locals perceive that while there is more tourist in the destination, the level of public security is also higher. Chakrabarty (2016) found that when the amount of tourist rises, it brings along illegal money changers, which harms the tourist and the image of the destination
Haralambopoulos and Pizam (1996), Kayat et al. (2013) and King et al. (1993) argued that in the eyes of locals, use of drugs have been more common phenomenon. Chakrabarty, (2016), King et al. (1993) and Kayat et al. (2013) also claim the use of alcohol rises when there are more tourists around, and that the people are more open for sex. Chakrabarty (2016) continues that since people are more open for sex, the spread of AIDs and other sexually transmitted diseases has been faster. Chakrabarty (2016) also found out that there has been growth of unscientific massage parlors, such as some suspicious Thai massage places, which also is considered as negative aspect.
Haralambopoulos and Pizam (1996) also noted that sexual harassments have been more common. According to Chakrabarty (2016) and Kayat et al. (2013), prostitution is perceived to be more apparent, especially among females. However, Chakrabarty (2016) also discovered that male and child prostitution has also occurred in popular tourism destinations, as well as pornography -related things have been noted.
23
Kayat et al. (2013) continue that because of the tourism, the comfort and welfare of the residents is not that high anymore. According to them, residents have noted that other locals may imitate the behavior of tourists, which might have negative consequences. Garau‐Vadell et al. (2014) introduces that tourism can be a reason for local people not to feel so comfortable at their homes.
Then again Chakrabarty (2016) stated that some locals have taken advantage of the tourist in not generally acceptable ways.
2.1.3 Environmental impacts
In addition to economic and sociocultural impacts, authors have found out that residents have also attitudes towards environmental impacts of tourism. Andereck et al. (2005) stated how residents’ value that tourism boosts the maintaining of natural resources. In addition, they found that appearance of the city is upgraded due tourism. Then again Brida et al. (2014) argue that the environment is destroyed because of the frequently happening construction works. Brida et al. (2014) also noted that the level of noise tends to be higher when there are more tourists in the area. In addition, they continue that residents are giving their support to possible plans, which are related to valorization and preservation of natural resources.
Brida et al. (2014), Garau‐Vadell et al. (2014) and van Der Borg et al. (1996) noted how the residents perceive that tourism increases the amount of pollution, which is usually mainly caused by the transportation systems such as airplanes. According to Hiltunen (2007) domestic travelers are more favorable when thinking in environmental ways, since usually they are not traveling by air to reach the destination, and so are causing less pollution and greenhouse gases.
Then again, Wang and Luo (2018) claim that environment protection has been better because of the tourism, and that the local people tend to consider it beneficial.
McGehee and Andereck (2004), Andereck et al. (2005), Chakrabarty (2016) and van Der Borg et al. (1996) claim that residents have noted how the amount of rubbish has increased because of tourism. Kayat et al. (2013) add as a negative aspect that tourism increases the attention on materialistic values. Overcrowding in public facilities have been seen as a problem caused by tourism. (Andereck et al. 2005; Bujosa & Rosselló, 2007; Chakrabarty 2016; Garau‐Vadell et al. 2014 and Kayat et al. 2013) For example in some popular destinations where the amount of tourist has been higher that the number of residents living in the area, the residents have changed
24
their attitudes towards tourism to negative direction, even though they know that is in important source of income. (Mustonen 2017)
Hiltunen (2007) made a comprehensive overview of how second home tourism affects to the environment in the area. Hiltunen (2007), who cited Wong (2004), concluded that tourism causes more usage of energy and water, and it increases the land use, accelerates soil erosion and reduces biodiversity. Also, greenhouse gas emissions will be higher, and there will be other problems such as wastewater and noise pollution. In addition, all this is harmful for the wildlife in the area.
Hiltunen (2007) also cited Mathieson and Wall (1982) who claim that wildlife is harmed by the clearance of vegetation, which is an outcome of tourism. They also introduce that water quality gets worse since tourists deposit the human waste into natural waters. In addition, the aesthetic value of the rural landscapes is not as high if there are too many cottages build for the tourist.
Chakrabarty (2016) add that water pollution increases due to too many tourists in certain area during a short time. Also, other natural resources are in high usage, which might lead to lack of some necessary resources. Hiltunen (2007) continue that in rural areas tourism might be better option regardless of all the negative impacts. If there were no attractions targeted for tourist, the area might attract other industries such as mines or agriculture and forestry, which may have even more harmful impacts on the environment.
Figure 4. Positive tourism effects
Figure 5. Negative tourism effects Income
from tourism
•Accommodation
•Services
•Restaurants
•Transportation
Indirect effects
•Infrastructure
•Investments
•Services
•Maintenance
Wellbeing
•Employment
•Education
•Culture
•Health care
25
2.2 Residents perceptions of place image
Each destination has different kind of image among people. Stylidis et al. (2016) cited in their paper few researches which state that it is important for destination that tourist have a positive image about the place. Image is one of the most important influences when deciding the travel destination. (Baloglu et al. 1999) Positive image attracts more tourist, skillful people to work in the destination and attracts new investments to the area. Henkel et al. (2006) stated that destination becomes more attractive among people, if it will meet the needs of as many tourists as possible. Each destination has different kind of attributes, and tourist will choose the destination which has the most attributes fulfilling their needs. Tourism marketers need to ensure that the destination stays similar as it is imagined by the travelers, so it won’t lose its attractiveness. (Do Valle et al. 2012; Stylidis et al. 2015)
According to Baloglu et al. (1999) several researchers agree that the image people have is formed by two major factors: personal factors (e.g. social and psychological factors such as age, education, motivations and personality) and stimulus factors (e.g. previous experience about the place and information sources).
Baloglu et al. (1999) and Stylidis et al. (2016) cited great number of authors who claim that majority of place image researches focuses on tourists’ perceptions, since tourists are the ones who consume the services and gain experiences, and so on that information be utilized in tourism development. Local residents have also perceptions of the place image of their own place of living, but only few researches have been made of that topic. (Do Valle et al. 2012;
Economic
• Long stressful workdays
• Seasonality
• Increased cost of living
Sociocultural
• Crime
• Vandalism
• Overcrowding
• intoxicants
Environmental
• Overuse of natural resources
• Pollution
• Trash
• destruction of nature
26
Henkel et al.2006; Stylidis et al. 2015; Stylidis et al. 2016) The place image of the local residents is usually more complex, since the place in addition of being a tourist destination, is also a home, place where they make their living and place where they communicate with people close to them (Henkel et al. 2006).
Henkel et al. (2006) made a research, in which they compared the place image of local residents and tourists. It was found out, that the residents and tourists had different kinds of opinions what the most popular attractions in the destination are. Then again, Stylidis et al. (2015) found out in their study that local resident were the ones who were seeing the destination in more negative light, while tourists had mainly positive image. Differences in place image may lead to situation where the locals don’t appreciate the tourists anymore so much (Henkel et al. 2006).
Guo et al. (2014) stated that tourism has several effects on the local residents, which means that tourism development should happen in a way that residents support it. Without the support of residents there are mainly negative outcomes, which create negative place image among both, local residents and tourists. Taking local residents place image into account can be helpful when creating tourism strategies since the locals may have some thoughts of how to create better experiences for the tourists (Guo et al. 2014; Stylidis et al. 2015). Local residents also usually give great information about the destination, since they are very familiar with the attractions and other interesting facilities (Shani et al. 2012). Stylidis et al. (2015) add that residents more often recommend places what are located outside of the “basic” tourist areas, which distributes the tourism into wider areas, and more locals have the possibility to get some economic gains.
(Garay-Vadell et al. 2014)
One of the aims of this paper is to find out whether there are significant differences how people with different socio-demographics experience the negative effects of tourism in their own area of living. Baloglu et al. (1999) and Stylidis et al. (2016) found out that age is one important factor which influences to several things. They concluded that older people have generally more positive perceptions of towards tourism than young generation. The study made by Baloglu et al. (1999) concentrated on local people perceptions of international tourism destinations, while Stylidis et al. (2016) made the same conclusion with local people thinking their own place of living as the tourism destination. Beerli et al. (2004) then again got the same results from international tourists visiting the object country in their research. Based on these studies made
27
with different methods it can be understood that some socio-demographics characteristics, at least age, have an impact on what kind of image people have towards different destinations. On the other hand, MacKay et al. (1997) claim that the age of an individual does not have an effect on the image of the destination if is created through advertising. Nguyen et al. (2018) then again found that people with all ages are perceiving negative impacts, but there are differences between the ages. For example, young people were having more negative perceptions towards of littering while old people we concerned about crime rates.
Visitor’s gender has an influence on how people create their image towards certain place in some cases. (Walmsley et al. 1993). On the contrary, few years later Baloglu (1997) found out that gender is a characteristic which has no effect on how people perceive the place image. Then again, Mackay et al. (1997) stated that advertising creates different kind of images of the place between the genders.
Stern et al. (1993) claimed education level to be one of the most meaningful socio-demographic characteristics. Conclusion in this study was clear; there are significant differences on place image perceptions among people with different education backgrounds. Also, Baloglu et al.
(1999) claim that education variable is one of the most important variables, in addition to age (Husbands, 1989). However, it was concluded that education has only small meaning on place image, but not anything remarkable Baloglu (1997). Then again, Baloglu (1997) could not found any significant marks that education nor or income has meaning on perceived place image.
Area of living inside the tourism destination also may have affection how individuals create the place image. For example, noise and pollution levels are higher in the city centers where more tourist spends their time (Brida et al. 2014), so people living in that area may have different perceptions compared to those who live farther from the main tourist spots and attractions (Gerritsma et al. 2017). Gerritsma et al. (2017) also state that people living in the area where tourism is more advanced (overcrowding, noisy, insecure) have more negative feeling towards tourism compared to those who live in more peaceful neighborhoods. Also, people living in a city centers state that they don’t feel less insecure there, which also have an affection to place image formation.
28 3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Quantitative approach
In business studies, quantitative method is dominating over qualitative method. Quantitative approach is designed to test different statistical analysis and hypothesis, and qualitative method is used to gain deeper understanding of the topic, generally by interviewing people (Eriksson ja Kovalainen 2016, 4). Valli (2015) stated that quantitative research is more useful when handling numbers, and so on the analysis is generally made with different kinds of tables. Quantitative approach aims to analyze and collect empirical data, which can be abstracted, structured or standardized. (Eriksson ja Kovalainen 2016, 5). Since goal for this study is to find out certain group of people, but there is no need to gain a deep understanding of mindsets of people, quantitative approach is chosen.
The objectives for this research was to find out whether there is a group or groups of people in Helsinki who perceive the tourism impacts the most negative. The aim is to classify people by their socio-demographics characteristics. Both qualitative and quantitative methods are widely used in tourism research, but based on earlier studies with similar topics, (e.g. Bujosa et al.
2007; Brida et al. 2011; García et al. 2015 and Stylidis et al. 2016) this study is conducted by using quantitative methods in data collection and data analyzing.
3.2 Questionnaire design and sample
The data collection of this study was implemented by questionnaire, to ensure that the data is comprehensive and versatile. Most of the questions were closed ones. According to Peer et al.
(2012, 100) closed questions are better than open questions, since into closed questions it is easier and faster to answer and also the analysis is handier. With open questions there is also the problem, that respondents might understand the used term is different ways as the original idea was.
Studies concerning residents’ attitudes and opinions regarding tourism are mostly using quantitative methods. Using a 5-point Likert scale has been mostly used to questions which are proposals, statements or suggestions. (Bujosa et al. 2007; Stylidis et al. 2016). Several studies
29
which concentrate on residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts have shown, that when doing quantitative approach studies, Likert scale has been the most accurate. (Bujosa et al. 2007; Brida et al. 2011; Guo et al. 2014; García et al. 2015; Lankford et al. 1994 and Stylidis et al. 2016) Respondents were asked to give their opinion with different statements in which 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree. In Likert scale the respondents are wanted to point out the degree of how much they agree or disagree with the given statement (Peer et al. 2012, 114). Likert scale is not created the test the knowledge of the respondents, but to test the attitudes. Likert scale is an interval measure. Interval measures always include a
“zero” point, which in this case is the answer option 3=neutral. Other answer options are either below or above the zero point. (Peer et al. 2012, 103). There are advantages of using Likert scale, where the answer options are named: it is easier for the respondents to choose what they want to answer, since they have written information about was each of the answers literally mean. (Peer et al. 2020, 112)
The questionnaire was designed to gain perceptions how Helsinki residents perceive tourism by statements related to their area of living. As the questionnaire was also designed to collect data for other purposes than this, all the questions are not significant for this study, and so on were left out. Majority of the questions in this questionnaire were dressed in statement form.
The questionnaire was concluded in Finnish to ensure that the questions will be understood properly, and the answers are more accurate. After the data was ready, statements and were translated to English. Questionnaire was part of a bigger research, so only few questions were designed to give answers to fulfill the purpose of this paper. Generally, questions/statements were in negative from, so the respondents who perceive tourism impacts the most negative ways could be found. Nine questions (all in pattern Q003) were designed for this research, all concerning topics of the possible negative effects of tourism for Helsinki.
The respondents for this study consist of residents living in Helsinki. Data was collected via Kantar panel, in which a group of separately recruited residents responds to questionnaires over the Internet. Data is collected between 28.2 – 12.3.2019. During this time in total 1097 Helsinki residents responded the survey. Due to several missing answers in dataset, 43 respondents were deleted, making the amount of suitable answers to 1054. Cleaning data by removing the whole respondent or by modifying single incomplete or inaccurate answers, is a way to ensure that the
30
data is reliable. Problems with data quality can lead to problems in analysis and so on create false conclusion. (Rahm et al. 2000)
Table 1. Theoretical background of the statements used in questionnaire
STATEMENT ADOPTED FROM
Environmental
impact Helsinki has become noisier because of tourism
Brida et al, 2014; Kuvan and Akan, 2005
Environmental
impact Helsinki has become untidier because of tourism
Chakrabarty, 2016; Kuvan and Akan, 2005
Environmental
impact Helsinki is too congested because of tourism
Brida et al, 2014; Kuvan and Akan, 2005
Sociocultural impacts
Tourists don't pay enough attention to locals and
their customs Kuvan and Akan, 2005
Sociocultural
impacts Helsinki has become more insecure because of tourism
Chakrabarty, 2016;
Haralambopoulos and Pizam, 1996
Sociocultural
impacts There are already so many tourists in Helsinki that I don’t always feel like home there
Haralambopoulos and Pizam, 1996; Kuvan and Akan, 2005 Sociocultural
impacts
I feel like an outsider in Helsinki because of
tourism Kuvan and Akan, 2005
Sociocultural
impacts Tourism disrupts my daily life in Helsinki Guo et al. 2014 Sociocultural
impacts
The growth of tourism in Helsinki has made my quality of life worse
Guo et al. 2014; Kuvan and Akan, 2005;
3.3 Analysis of collected data
Data analysis for the study were conducted by using the SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). SPSS “is a package of programs for manipulating, analyzing, and presenting data;
the package is widely used in the social and behavioral sciences” (Landau et al. 2004, 11.) SPSS was chosen to analysis tool since it has effective tools to analyze 5-point Likert scale - data, of which this study mostly consists. The goal for the study was to sort out what kind of socio-demographic profiles those respondents have who perceive in negative ways the tourism impacts in Helsinki.
31
First, to find out the respondent’s socio- demographics (such as age, gender and education), frequency analysis was made. Frequency analysis is part of descriptive statistics, and its used define the numbers of how many times something occurs. The importance and usefulness of frequency analysis lies in its ability to analyze percentages, deviations and central tendencies (Research Optimus 2020). The table of socio-demographics of the respondents, created by utilizing frequency analysis tool, can be seen in table 1.
After defining the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents, mean scores with all nine statements was conducted. From the results of the mean score analysis, four most relevant statement were taken into further investigation. Mean score indicates sum of all values divided to the total number of the values. In four statements (Tourist don’t pay enough attention to locals and their customs, Helsinki has become untidier because of tourism, Helsinki is too congested because of tourism, Helsinki has become noisier because of tourism) the mean score was highest being above 2 (on score 1-5), and so on those 4 statements were chosen to further investigation.
Independent samples t-test in analysis which is used to compare the means of two different samples (Urdan 2017). In this paper, independent samples T-test was utilized to define if genders have an effect on the results.
Crosstabulation analysis was conducted with most of the chosen socio-demographic variables (age, education and living area according to postal codes). Crosstabulation is used analyze categorial data, the tool investigates whether there is a relationship between two different variables (study.com 2020). Before analyzing postal code areas, recoding the answer options was needed. From the 90 options of which the participants had to choose, nine new groups were formed, based on the area where they live. Further analysis process was more efficient with the new compact groups.
According to the results of all these aforementioned analysis, groups of people with certain demographic profiles was created. To proof that results are statistically significant, one-way ANOVA -test, and further on Post Hoc -test were conducted. ANOVA test are used to test the equality between group means, though it cannot state where are the significant differences
32
between the means. Post Hoc -test is a suitable tool for further identification between the group means. (Frost, 2020)
33 4. FINDINGS
4.1. Socio-demographic profile of the respondents
In total 1097 Helsinki resident respondents answered to the questionnaire which was sent to separately recruited group of people via internet. The answers of 43 respondents were inadequate, so those were deleted from the survey. Table 1 shows the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents.
Frequency analysis was conducted to sort out the data. The share gap between the respondent’s genders is moderate; 54,2% of the respondents were male and 45,4% female. Other 0,4% of the respondents defined their gender as other. The age distribution of the respondents was 15-74 years. 19,6% of the respondents were under 30 years. 15,8% of the respondents were 30-39 years old and 15,7% were 40-49 years old. The smallest age group were 50-59 years old (23,8%), while the majority (35%) of the respondents were more than 60 years.
When the highest level of education was asked, bachelor’s (26%) and master’s (25%) degree got the most answers. 9,2% stated that they have only completed elementary school, while 12,1% had graduated from Vocational college. 13,9% of the respondents answered high school to be their highest level of education, and 12,7% answered Technical college. 1,1% of the respondents answered other.
Personal yearly income distributed quite equally among residents: 11,3% earn less than 10 000€, 18,2% earn between 20 001€ - 30 000€, 17,7% earn between 30 001€ - 40 000€ and 16,6% earn more than 50 000€. Quite large group (15,1%) of the respondents were not willing to tell how much they earn during a year, and in addition 0,7% didn’t answer anything to this question.
Majority of the respondents live either alone (35,6%) or together with spouse, but without children (40,2%). 14,1% answered that they are living with the spouse, and they also have children. Living with parents (3,7%), single parent (3%), other (2,9%) represented the minor parts of families. In addition, 0,4% of the respondent were not willing to tell about their family status. When asking the marital status, results were similar to family status. 32,8% of the
34
respondents were unmarried, while 36% were married. 18% stated themselves as cohabiting with someone. Only 0,7% of the respondents were in registered partnership. The rest of the respondents answered following: 3,5% were widows, 7,9% divorced, 0,3% were living in a separation and 0,9% of answerers choose the option other.
Helsinki is divided in to nine main postal code area in this research. There are participants from all of these nine areas. Postal code area starting with the numbers 009 had the lowest number of participants (8,1%) and area starting with 001 has the most (16,9%). Map of the postal code areas can be seen in figure 2.
Table 2. Socio-demographic information of the respondents
