Memo #3 Government and Sustainability

Find an article (electronic) on sustainability and the Government as it relates to club operations and food service.

From the article, you will write a very particular type of memo that is a proposal of how you would utilize this information in business. The memo has to be in a proposal format. It has to make business sense and demonstrate your ability to take information and utilize it in a hospitality/tourism/leisure business setting.

The memo should not just relay the facts of the article – the student must take the information and figure out how such information would be useful in a business.

The first of these memos will be upward in the organization. Later memos may go across the organization, peer to peer, in the organization (these must make sense for the other person to join you in a further proposal so that it would be a win –win for both of you). Finally, a proposal will be a top down in the organization (these will be used to gain input from people below you in the organization structure). The writer should make sure they are not an order or something you as the boss has already decided to do. In making business sense, no memo should be about a meeting to decide what to do about a situation. Memos that are just about a meeting to meet or FYI type of memos will receive an F.

The memo should have three sections:

An opening sentence or two that states why the reader is getting the memo- The proposal
This should state the issue and your proposal to solve the business or the organization issue (in one sentence if possible)

Example: Due to the increase in gasoline prices, I believe we should review our marketing plans to include Family packages.
A middle section that supports the reason for the proposal
This should support the proposal from why it is good to why it makes business sense to do this. DO NOT give me the details of the proposal- give the business reasons on why this makes sense (3-4 reasons). You should look at this section as to what would be the good business results if you were allowed to go forward with the proposal. Keep it simple

Example:

Family packages may:

Help to offset Total Vacation Cost and possibly extend times at our destination thus increasing profits.
An action closing that is sender based.
This section should have an assertive tone – one where you have set up a time and meeting. The goal is to get an answer as to whether your proposal is going forward.

Examples:

I have set up an appointment, through your office, for next Tuesday at10 AM. I look forward to discussing the details and to gaining your input.
I am looking forward to our meeting next Tuesday at 10AM in your office. Our goal would be to create the next steps for this concept.

In the meeting, you would actually begin to give the workings of your proposal- where it can be discussed in a two-way conversation.

Make sure your articles are current (within the last 12 months)

A middle memo – across the organization- should have reasons for why the other person should join you in the endeavors so that you can both send it forward.
Example:

Working together on this technology project should increase efficiency for my department and less technical support calls to your department

at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 36 (2013) 120e132

Contents lists available

Tourism Management

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

Political economy of tourism: Trust in government actors, political support,
and their determinants

Robin Nunkoo a,c,*, Stephen L.J. Smith b,1

aDepartment of Management, Faculty of Law and Management, University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius
bDepartment of Recreation and Leisure Studies, University of Waterloo, Burt Matthews Hall, 200 University Ave. W. Waterloo ON N2L 3G1, Canada
c Faculty of Management, University of Johannesburg, South Africa

h i g h l i g h t s

< Trust in government is a good determinant of political support. < Political performance of government is the strongest predictor of trust. < Social exchange theory is partially supported. < No empirical support for cultural theory of political trust. < Strong empirical support for institutional theory of political trust.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:
Received 2 September 2012
Accepted 26 November 2012

Keywords:
Political support
Trust in government actors
Institutional theory of political trust
Cultural theory of political trust
Social exchange theory
Political economy

* Corresponding author. Department of Manage
Management, University of Mauritius, Reduit, Maurit

E-mail addresses: r.nunkoo@uom.ac.mu, rnunkoo
slsmith@uwaterloo.ca (S.L.J. Smith).

1 Tel.: þ1 519 888 4567; fax: þ1 519 747 1141.

0261-5177/$ e see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.11.018

a b s t r a c t

This study developed a comprehensive model of residents’ trust in government actors and political
support for tourism based on social exchange theory, institutional theory of political trust, and cultural
theory of political trust. The model was tested on a sample of 391 residents of Niagara Region, Ontario,
Canada, using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling. Findings suggested that
residents’ perceptions of the benefits and costs of tourism and their trust in government actors were
significant determinants of political support. Their perceptions of the political and economic perfor-
mance of government actors significantly predicted trust in government actors. Interpersonal trust,
perceived costs of tourism, and perceived power in tourism decision-making were insignificant deter-
minants of trust. The study found partial support for social exchange theory. Cultural theory of political
trust was not found to be relevant, while strong support was found for institutional theory of political
trust.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

The negative consequences of tourism development on local
communities have led researchers emphasise on the sustainability
of the sector (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006). It is now widely accepted
among scholars and destination practitioners that sustainable
tourism requires that residents are involved in the planning process
of and actively support the sector (Diedrich & Garcia-Buades, 2009;
Dyer, Gursoy, Sharma, & Carter, 2007; Latkova & Vogt, 2012;
Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011, 2012). Recognizing communities’
central role in tourism, researchers have widely investigated

ment, Faculty of Law and
ius. Tel.: þ230 403 7400.
@uwaterloo.ca (R. Nunkoo),

residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts and their support for the
sector’s development (e.g. Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011, 2012;
Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012). The premise of these studies rests on the
assumption that residents’ perceptions of tourism are at least as
important as the actual benefits and costs of the sector, if not more
so (McGehee & Andereck, 2004).

Various theories have been used to explain the ways in which
residents react to tourism development. While each theory has
contributed in its own ways to this area of investigation, social
exchange theory (SET) has been the most widely utilized and has
made significant contributions to studies on residents’ support for
tourism (Gursoy, Chi, & Dyer, 2010). AP (1992) described SET as “a
general sociological theory concerned with understanding the
exchange of resources between individuals and groups in an
interaction situation” (p. 668). Applied to a tourism context, SET
posits that residents’ support is determined by their perceptions of
the benefits and costs of tourism development. A key concept of

mailto:r.nunkoo@uom.ac.mu

mailto:rnunkoo@uwaterloo.ca

mailto:slsmith@uwaterloo.ca

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02615177

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.11.018

R. Nunkoo, S.L.J. Smith / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 120e132 121

SET is trust among the actors involved in a social exchange rela-
tionship (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). The funda-
mental role of trust in social exchanges is reinforced because
exchange of benefits is a voluntary action and entails unspecified
future obligations (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994). The persistence and
extension of social exchange are based on implicit trust among the
actors involved in an exchange relationship (Blau, 1964). In the
absence of trust, opportunities for mutually beneficial co-
operations among social actors would have to be forgone (Arrow,
1971; Bowles & Gintis, 2002).

The studies by Beritelli (2011) and Beritelli, Bieger, and Laesser
(2007) reinforce the need for researchers to consider trust as an
important ingredient for cooperation among tourism actors and
effective destination management. One of the lacunae of existing
studies on community support for tourism is that the majority of
them have omitted trust as a key component of SET. This omission
needs to be addressed by future studies to ensure that the full
potential of SET in explaining community support for tourism is
achieved. Also, notwithstanding the contributions of SET to this
research area, the theory has been criticized by some researchers
(Pearce, Moscardo, & Ross, 1996; Ward & Berno, 2011). SET assumes
that individuals are rationale decision-makers, processing informa-
tion systematically. However, research from psychology suggests
that humans are more likely to be cognitive misers who use mental
shortcuts that result in quick but inaccurate solutions instead of
engaging in an effortful mental processing (Fredline & Faulkner,
2000; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2009; Pearce et al., 1996). SET is also
based on the premise that a person’s knowledge is derived from
direct experiences with tourism, when in reality such knowledge is
socially derived (Fredline & Faulkner, 2000). Given these limitations,
it is important that SET is complemented with other theoretical
approaches to investigate community support for tourism to provide
new perspectives to this scientific area of investigation.

This paper develops a comprehensive model that predicts resi-
dents’ trust in government actors and political support for tourism
based on three different theories: SET, institutional theory of
political trust (ITPT), and cultural theory of political trust (CTPT).
Grounded in a political economy perspective, the study investigates
the concept of trust in the context of a social exchange relationship
between residents and local government actors involved in tourism
development. Political economy suggests that government has
a central role in tourism planning and regulation of the sector

Notes:
PST: political support for tourism; PBT: perceived benefits o
in government actors; PPT: perceived power in tourism; P
actors; PPP: perceived political performance of government a

PPT

PEP

PPP

IPT

TGA

PBT

PCT

H10

H11

H12

Fig. 1. The propo

(Bramwell, 2011). Thus, trust is conceptualized as residents’ trust in
government actors (also referred to as political trust or citizens’
trust in institutions) involved in tourism development. Addition-
ally, the study uses ITPTand CTPT to investigate the determinants of
residents’ trust in government actors. Fig. 1 shows the proposed
model of the study which was tested on a sample of 391 residents
of Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada, using structural equation
modelling (SEM).

This paper makes some valuable contributions to existing
literature. Despite the centrality of trust in social exchanges
(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) and its importance for good
governance of the tourism sector (Beritelli, 2011; Beritelli et al.,
2007), very little is known about its role in tourism planning and
development. Few researchers have considered trust in the context
of community support for tourism (e.g. Nunkoo & Ramkissoon,
2011, 2012; Nunkoo, Ramkissoon, & Gursoy, 2012), yet these
studies contain some theoretical limitations that need to be
addressed. Although Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2011, 2012) provide
valuable insights on the role of trust in fostering community
support, the studies are limited because the models tested were
developed solely on the postulates of SET. These studies do not
provide any insights on the determinants of residents’ trust in
government actors in tourism. Nunkoo et al.’s (2012) used ITPT and
CTPT to investigate the antecedents of residents’ trust in govern-
ment actors. However, the study considered trust as the only
determinant of community support for tourism and failed to take
into account two important variables of SET (residents’ perceptions
of the benefits and costs of tourism) that have been found to be
strong predictors of residents’ support in many previous studies
(e.g. Ko & Stewart, 2002; Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012).

The implications of these are that existing research on this topic is
based on incomplete theoretical propositions and may be lacking in
predictive power. It is therefore important that these studies are
enhanced and made theoretically more robust so that a more
accurate analysis of residents’ support for tourism is achieved. It is
also important thatmore research is carried out on residents’ trust in
government actors and its determinants given the paucity of
research on this topic in tourism. The study of trust in tourism is
more than ever important because several recent studies alert us of
declining societal trust and citizens’ trust in government institutions
(e.g. Scheidegger & Staerkle, 2011), including those of tourism
(Bramwell, 2011). By empirically testing the model illustrated in

f tourism; PCT: perceived costs of tourism; TGA: trust
EP: perceived economic performance of government
ctors; IPT: interpersonal trust.

PST

sed model.

R. Nunkoo, S.L.J. Smith / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 120e132122

Fig. 1, the study provides new theoretical perspectives on residents’
trust in government actors and their support for tourism. Findings
from this study may also have significant influence on the gover-
nance and management of tourism. Policy-makers could benefit
from a better understanding of residents’ trust in government actors
in tourism and their support for the sector’s development.

2. Political economy of government intervention

Political economy is concerned with the political nature of
decision-making and with how politics affects choices in a society.
It provides an understanding of structures and social relations that
form societies in order to evoke social change towards more
equitable and democratic conditions (Mosedale, 2011). Political
economy offers a useful perspective to study tourism development
and government processes (Bramwell, 2011). This approach
considers that the state has an influential role in managing and
promoting tourism (Wang & Bramwell, 2012; Webster, Ivanov, &
Illum, 2011). Government is the principal actor in the political
process of tourism development (Bramwell, 2011) and has usually
adopted a more interventionist approach in tourism development
than in other sectors (Ruhanen, 2013). Government controls the
industry through formal ministries, other institutions, legislations,
and various programs and funding initiatives (Elliot, 1997), and
intervenes in tourism for environmental, political, and economic
reasons (Nyaupane & Timothy, 2010). According to Hall (2005),
government has seven functions in tourism development: coordi-
nation, planning, legislation and regulation, entrepreneurship,
stimulation, social tourism, and public interest protection roles.

Traditionally, economic concerns were the principal reasons for
governments to intervene in tourism (Bramwell, 1994). Overtime,
the negative effects of tourism and local residents’ reluctance to
accept development have meant that governments’ roles in the
sector have extended beyond economic considerations to address
the environmental and social consequences of development. The
diffusion of the sustainable development concept in the 1980s has
also led governments to assume greater roles and responsibilities in
tourism planning (Ruhanen, 2013). Governments now usually
attempt to secure a balance between economic priorities, the
environment, and the local society in order to gain political support
for tourism development (Bramwell, 2011). Political economy
suggests that a politically stable relationship between the state and
the citizens is important to maintain political legitimacy and
effective authority (Purcell & Nevins, 2005) and to ensure the
state’s ability to reflect the popular will (Bramwell, 2011). Political
legitimacy cannot be achieved without residents’ trust in govern-
ment and their support for tourism development.

While political economy is a broad social perspective that
scholars and analysts can use to study the motivations, roles, and
effects of a state’s activities in tourism development, distribution of
tourism benefits among society members, citizens’ trust in
government actors, and political support for tourism (Bramwell,
2011; Dredge & Jenkins, 2007; Mosedale, 2011), SET, ITPT, and
CTPTenable an empirical testing of the relationships among the key
concepts of political economy. More specifically, these theories
provide an understanding of the determinants of political trust and
how residents’ perceptions of the benefits and costs of tourism and
their trust in government actors interact to influence political
support for tourism development.

2.1. Political support for tourism

Support is an “attitude by which a person orients himself to an
object either favourably or unfavourably, positively or negatively”
(Easton, 1965, p. 436). Government requires a certain amount of

political support for its policies to persist or flourish (Gregory &
Gibson, 1992). In a tourism context, political economy suggests
that it is important for government to maintain legitimacy and
influence on governance processes by ensuring that the local pop-
ulation supports its policies (Wang & Bramwell, 2012). Residents’
support for tourism is influenced by their perceptions of the benefits
and costs of the sector. Tourism development results in investment
opportunities, better infrastructure, employment opportunities,
more public development, and improvement in the local economy
(Latkova & Vogt, 2012; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011). Tourism also
provides opportunities for cultural exchanges (Besculides, Lee, &
McCormick, 2002) and increases entertainment opportunities for
local people (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Latkova & Vogt, 2012).
Several studies report a positive relationship between perceived
benefits and support for tourism (Latkova & Vogt, 2012; Nunkoo &
Gursoy, 2012; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011). Based on the
preceding discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): There is a direct positive relationship between
residents’ perceptions of the benefits of tourism and their political
support for the sector’s development.

Development of tourism also results in several costs to local
communities that may threaten the legitimacy of government and
its political support (Wang & Bramwell, 2012). Tourism increases
costs of living and the price of land and housing (Latkova & Vogt,
2012; Liu & Var, 1986); leads to a lack of economic diversification
(Jackson & Inbarakan, 2006); and negatively affects a community’s
traditional employment patterns (Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012).
Tourism may also destroy the natural environment; increase
environmental pollution (Dyer et al., 2007; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon,
2011); cause litter; create traffic congestion (Latkova & Vogt, 2012);
increase prostitution in a destination area (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon,
2011): increase vandalism; and change local culture (Dyer et al.,
2007). In support of SET, a number of studies empirically demon-
strate that a negative relationship exists between residents’
perceptions of the costs of tourism and their support for the sector’s
development (e.g. Gursoy et al., 2010; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Nunkoo
& Gursoy, 2012; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011). This discussion led
to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): There is a direct negative relationship between
residents’ perceptions of the costs of tourism and their political support
for the sector’s development.

Residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts are not held in isola-
tion. A change in the perceptions of one type of impact is likely to
influence other types of impacts. Gursoy and Kendall (2006) argued
that “themost salient impact is likely to influence the perceptions of
all other impacts” (p. 610). Although the relationship between
perceived benefits and costs is notwell established in the literature,
there is some evidence confirming that interactions exist among
residents’ perceptions of the different impacts of tourism. For
example, Gursoy and Kendall’s (2006) and Gursoy and Rutherford’s
(2004) studies revealed a significant negative relationship between
perceived benefits and costs of tourism. Based on the above
empirical evidence, the following hypothesis is developed:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): There is a direct negative relationship between
residents’ perceptions of the benefits of tourism and their perceptions
of the costs of tourism.

2.2. Residents’ perceived level of power

Power is a central concept of SET (Emerson, 1962) and is an
underlying theme of political economy (Mosedale, 2011). It is
defined as the capacity of individuals to make decisions that affect
their day-to-day lives (Johnson & Wilson, 2000). Existing tourism
literature considers power as key issue in destination management

R. Nunkoo, S.L.J. Smith / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 120e132 123

and governance (e.g. Beritelli & Laesser, 2011; Beritelli et al., 2007;
Reed, 1997). Power gains additional significance because destina-
tions comprised of diverse stakeholders influencing or trying to
influence the formulation of tourism policy and the ways in which
it is implemented (Beritelli & Laesser, 2011; Hall, 1994). All deci-
sions affecting tourism development, the nature of government
intervention, management of tourism, and community tourism
issues emerge from a political process, all of which involve actors in
a struggle for power, reflecting different values and priorities (Hall,
2003). Power issues among stakeholders also explain inherent
imbalances in destination governance (Beritelli et al., 2007).
Usually, the less influential groups are marginalized in tourism
development because power relationships among stakeholders are
inherent to society, both within local communities and with actors
affecting those communities (Holland, 2000; Reed, 1997).

SET posits that the level of power of an actor has a considerable
influence on the social exchange process because power deter-
mines the ability of the actor to take advantage of the outcomes of
tourism development (AP, 1992; Cook & Emerson, 1978). An actor
with low level of power is usually negatively disposed towards the
exchange relationship AP (1992). Local communities usually have
the least influence on tourism planning and governance processes
(Moscardo, 2011). Their level of power influences their disposition
towards tourism development. For example, a number of studies
have demonstrated empirically that residents’ perceived level of
power in tourism planning is positively related to their perceptions
of the benefits and negatively related to their perceptions of the
costs of tourism (Madrigal, 1993; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011).
Contrary to these studies, Latkova and Vogt (2012) did not report
any significant relationship between residents’ perceived level of
power and their perceptions of tourism. This discussion led to the
following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4 (H4): There is a direct positive relationship between
residents’ perceptions of their level of power in tourism development
and their perceptions of the benefits of tourism.

Hypothesis 5 (H5): There is a direct negative relationship between
residents’ perceptions of their level of power in tourism development
and their perceptions of the costs of tourism.

2.3. Trust in government actors

Trust is a relational construct (Markova & Gillespie, 2008) that is
inherent to SET (Blau, 1964). Trust between actors (e.g. residents
and government) is fundamental in the emergence and mainte-
nance of social exchanges between two parties (Cropanzano &
Mitchell, 2005). Political trust (i.e. residents’ trust in government)
is the belief that the political system or some of it will produce
preferred outcomes (in tourism development) even in the absence
of constant scrutiny (Miller & Listhaug, 1990). Studies on political
trust are driven by the importance of linking citizens to institutions,
the desire to achieve good governance, and the need to gain public
support for development (Scheidegger & Staerkle, 2011). Political
trust is important because it conveys a message to the governing
elite whether or not their policy decisions conform to the norma-
tive expectations of the governed (Citrin & Luks, 2001).

In any model of destination governance, trust is a key compo-
nent of the relationship between individuals and government
institutions and is important for consensual decision-making and
actions in tourism development (Beritelli et al., 2007). Discussing
the importance of public trust in government for a democratic
society, Nye, Zelikow, and King (1997) noted that:

If people believe that government is incompetent and cannot be
trusted, they are less likely to provide [critical] resources.
Without critical resources, government cannot perform well,

and if government cannot perform, people will become more
dissatisfied and distrustful of it. Such a cumulative downward
spiral could erode support for democracy as a form of gover-
nance (p. 4).

A number of studies confirm the significant influence of trust on
people’s support for government policies. Nunkoo and Ramkissoon
(2012) and Nunkoo et al. (2012) found that residents’ trust in
tourism institutions positively influenced their level of support for
tourism development. A number of other studies have validated the
relationship between trust in government and political support for
government policies (e.g. Gabriel & Trudinger, 2011; Hetherington,
2004; Hetherington & Globetti, 2002; Rudolph & Evans, 2005).
Based on this discussion, the following hypothesis is developed:

Hypothesis 6 (H6): There is a direct positive relationship between
residents’ trust in government actors in tourism and their political
support for the sector’s development.

SET postulates that the benefits and costs resulting from a social
exchange relationship influence the trust of one actor on the other
(Blau, 1964). These benefits/costs can be of either an economic or
non-economic nature (Farrell, 2004). In a political context, the
outcomes of a social exchange relationship between the govern-
ment and citizens influence political trust. Government institutions
create policies and in return, they receive trust from those indi-
viduals who are satisfied of these policies, and cynicism and
mistrust from those who are dissatisfied (Citrin, 1974). Nunkoo and
Ramkissoon’s (2012) study demonstrated that residents’ percep-
tions of the benefits of tourism positively influenced their trust in
government actors while perceptions of the costs adversely influ-
enced trust. Hence, the following hypotheses are formulated:

Hypothesis 7 (H7): There is a direct positive relationship between
residents’ perceptions of the benefits of tourism and their trust in
government actors.

Hypothesis 8 (H8): There is a direct negative relationship between
residents’ perceptions of the costs of tourism and their trust in
government actors.

3. Institutional determinants of trust in government actors

Researchers have made use of two competing theories to
explain the origins of citizens’ trust in government institutions:
ITPT and CTPT. ITPT is based on the assumption that trust stems
from the extent to which people perceive political institutions to
work effectively (Hetherington, 1998). Here, trust is dependent on
how people evaluate the performance of institutions with respect
to their expectations (Luhiste, 2006; Mishler & Rose, 2001). In
tourism development, citizens often hold the government
responsible for policy decisions and call upon the state to improve
sustainability practices that affect their daily lives (Bramwell, 2011).
The performance of government actors in tourism has a direct
bearing on how citizens view the government.

3.1. Economic performance of government actors in tourism

Political economy suggests that a key role for the government is
intervention to encourage the conditions for capital accumulation
and economic expansion (Bevir, 2009). In the context of tourism,
government often gives priority to economic growth over envi-
ronmental and social concerns (Wang & Bramwell, 2012). Institu-
tionalists argue that the economic performance of government
institutions is one of the strongest determinants of citizens’ trust
(Mishler & Rose, 2001, 2005). Citizens trust government to the
extent that its institutions produced desired economic outcomes
and meet their expectations in the economic domain (Luhiste,
2006). Government’s inability to deal with economic challenges

R. Nunkoo, S.L.J. Smith / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 120e132124

such as unemployment and poverty impinge on citizens’ trust.
Nunkoo et al. (2012) reported that residents’ perceptions of the
economic performance of tourism institutions positively influenced
political trust. Such a relationship has been validated by several
studies in political science (e.g. Mishler & Rose, 2001, 2005; Wang,
2005; Wong, Wan, & Hsiao, 2011). Based on this discussion, the
following hypothesis is developed:

Hypothesis 9 (H9)e There is a direct positive relationship between
residents’ perceptions of the economic performance of government
actors and their trust in those actors.

3.2. Political performance of government actors in tourism

The political performance of government actors covers issues
such as extent of corruption among public officials, fair treatment of
citizens and protection of their rights in development, and
a democratic form of governance (Wong et al., 2011). These
dimensions of development are crucial for sustainable and good
governance of tourism. Although political economy suggests that
government intervenes in tourism to protect societal interests,
government is often criticised for being politically unfair to
communities because of its undue influence on the tourism policy
process (Bramwell, 2011; Ruhanen, 2013), for imposing tourism
planning on and marginalising local communities (Moscardo,
2011), and for having hidden agendas (Nyaupane & Timothy,
2010). These factors results in citizens’ poor evaluation of the
political performance of government and impinge on their trust
(Freitag & Buhlmann, 2009). Nunkoo et al.’s (2012) recent study
demonstrated that residents who evaluated the political perfor-
mance of government actors in tourism more positively were more
likely to trust those actors. Several other studies have validated
such a relationship (e.g. Luhiste, 2006; Wong et al., 2011). Hence,
the following hypothesis is developed:

Hypothesis 10 (H10) – There is a direct positive relationship
between residents’ perceptions of the political performance of
government actors and their trust in those actors.

3.3. Power and trust in government actors

Power and trust are inherent to social exchanges and should be
considered jointly in any theory that deals with social relations
(Cook, Hardin, & Levi, 2005). Power is an important dimension of
the political arrangements of institutions. Institutions which are
universally oriented and share power in decision-making with
citizens generate political trust (Freitag & Buhlmann, 2009). Power
inequalities create ground for distrust and block the possibility of
trust (Cook et al., 2005; Farrell, 2004). In a tourism context, Nunkoo
and Ramkissoon (2012) and Nunkoo et al. (2012) demonstrated
empirically that residents’ perceived level of power in tourism
positively influenced their trust in government actors. Similar
conclusion can be drawn from the research of Oberg and Svensson
(2010) and Oskarsson, Svensson, and Oberg (2009). Hence, the
following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 11 (H11): There is a direct positive relationship
between residents’ perceptions of their level of power in tourism
development and their trust in government actors.

4. Cultural determinants of trust in government actors

4.1. Interpersonal trust

CTPT posits that trust does not originate from within the polit-
ical spheres, but outside of it, in the long standing and deeply
seeded beliefs about people that are rooted in cultural norms and
values in a society (Wong et al., 2011). Cultural theorists assume

that trust is a phenomenon linked to basic forms of social rela-
tionships and are shaped by cultural orientations that assign
meanings and values to events (Mishler & Rose, 2001; Shi, 2001).
Culturalists argue that trust is generated by non-political factors
such as interpersonal trust which is the general disposition to trust
or distrust in others (Luhiste, 2006). They note that political trust is
an extension of interpersonal trust learnt in life, and later projected
onto political institutions. Trust starts within the immediate family
and eventually extends to include friends, colleagues, neighbours,
and political institutions. Nunkoo et al. (2012) reported that inter-
personal trust was positively related to residents’ trust in govern-
ment actors in tourism. Many other studies in political science
validate such an empirical relationship (e.g. Dowley & Silver, 2002;
Luhiste, 2006). Based on the preceding discussion, the following
hypothesis is developed:

Hypothesis 12 (H12): There is a direct positive relationship
between interpersonal trust and residents’ trust in government actors.

5. Research design

5.1. Study location and context

This studywas conducted in Niagara Region, located in Southern
Ontario, Canada. The Region is one of the fastest growing areas of
Canada. Tourism is a major sector of the regional economy and
a major player in the provincial tourism sectore contributing more
than 40% of total revenues to Ontario’s overall tourism perfor-
mance. A review of existing policy documents and published
studies on Niagara Region indicates that although tourism makes
significant contributions the local economy, development of the
sector also leads to a number of adverse consequences such as
conflicts between tourism developers and residents, environmental
destruction, marginalization of local people, inadequate public
consultation, and opposition to tourism development. Planning
authorities in Niagara Region recognize the need for community
involvement in the sustainable development of the region and this
has been expressed in a number of policy documents (e.g. Regional
Municipality of Niagara, 2006, 2009).

5.2. Data collection: online panel

Data were collected from residents of Niagara Region using an
online panel provided by TNS Global Marketing Research, Canada.
An online panel “consists of people who have registered to occa-
sionally take part in web surveys” (Goritz, 2004, p. 411). Online
panels are increasingly being used as a mode of data collection for
social science research (e.g. Dolnicar, Yanamandram, & Cliff, 2012;
Vocino & Polonsky, 2011). Although researchers report some limi-
tations with online panels such as under-coverage of the target
population, high non-response within the panel, and self-selection
bias, online panel data generally do not suffer from higher levels of
sample bias than traditional mail surveys and usually display
higher reliability than those collected by telephone surveys
(Braunsberger, Wybenga, & Gates, 2007). The data requirements in
terms of sample frame and size were provided to TNS. The sample
frame was the residents of Niagara Region who were at least 18
years of age or older. TNS online panel consists of 3271 residents of
Niagara Region. The minimum sample size for this study was
determined based on recommendations for SEM.

5.3. Scale development and statistical procedures

Items to measure political support for tourism were derived
from Andereck and Vogt (2000). Themeasurement scale for trust in
government actors were borrowed from Luhiste (2006) and Shi

Table 1
Exploratory factor analysis (N ¼ 130).

Scale items Factor
loadings

Eigen
value

% Of variance
explained

aPolitical support 1.92 47.89
Hotel development

0.81

Convention and meeting facilities

0.73

Attractions designed to

attract large number of tourists

0.67

Casino development 0.54

bTrust in government actors 2.45 61.21
Trust in tourism decisions

made by local government (LG)

0.85

Trust in local elected officials

0.83

Trust in LG to do what is right in

tourism
0.75

Trust in LG to look after the
interests of the community
in tourism

0.70

cPerceived benefits 2.70 53.98
Employment opportunities

0.84

Opportunities for local businesses 0.84
More investment 0.75
Development of nature parks 0.65
Preservation of cultural identity 0.55

cPerceived costs 2.56 42.58
Environmental pollution 0.79
Traffic problems 0.75
Litter

0.72

Increase in prices of goods and services 0.61

cPerceived economic performance 2.75 55.04
LG effectively uses tourism to deal

with current economic problems.

0.76

LG effectively uses tourism to deal
with future economic problems.

0.76

LG effectively uses tourism to
reduce unemployment.

0.76

LG effectively uses tourism to
reduce poverty.

0.73

LG effectively uses tourism to take
advantage of current economic
opportunities.

0.70

cPerceived political performance 2.25 57.27
LG treats residents fairly in the

tourism development process.
0.82

LG ensures that there is an adequate
representation of residents in the
tourism development process.

0.78

LG is responsive to the needs of the
residents in tourism development.

0.72

Corruption and bribe-taking are
uncommon among LG officials.

0.67

cPerceived power 1.36 68.22
Personal influence in tourism

planning and development
0.83

Opportunity to participate in
tourism planning and development

0.83

bInterpersonal trust: 2.09 52.23
Trust in people you meet for the first time 0.85
Trust in people in general

whom you do not know
0.81

Trust in friends 0.60
Trust in people of a different ethnicity 0.60

a 1 ¼ strongly oppose, 5 ¼ strongly support.
b 1 ¼ do not trust them at all, 5 ¼ trust them very much.
c 1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree.

R. Nunkoo, S.L.J. Smith / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 120e132 125

(2001). Measures of perceived benefits and costs of tourism were
borrowed from Latkova and Vogt (2012) and Nunkoo and
Ramkissoon (2011). Items to measure perceived level of power
were based on the study of Hung, Sirakaya-Turk, and Ingram (2011),
Latkova and Vogt (2012), and Madrigal (1993). Perceived economic
and political performance were measured using items adopted
from Luhiste (2006), Mishler and Rose (2001), and Wong et al.
(2011). The scale to measure interpersonal trust was borrowed
from Delhey, Newton, and Welzel (2011). Many of the measure-
ment items were slightly modified to suit the context of the study.
Such modifications were contextual rather than conceptual.

To purify the scale items, they were tested empirically using
a pilot study sample of one hundred and thirty respondents to
whom the survey was administered face-to-face. The criterion used
in deciding whether to delete an item from the scale was the item’s
corrected item-to-total correlation. Items with an item-to-item
correlation score lower than 0.30 were discarded (Churchill,
1979). This process resulted in the deletion of several items from
the scales. Then, a separate exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using
a principal component methods with varimax rotation was per-
formed on each construct. In each EFA, attributes that had factor
loadings of lower than 0.40 and attributes that loaded onmore than
one factor were eliminated from the analysis as recommended by
Chen and Hsu (2001). The items that remained after these steps and
the results of the EFA are presented in Table 1. The measurement
scales were revised based on these results and the survey was sent
to TNS for administration to the residents of Niagara Region. The
survey was opened to residents for a period of ten days, between
28th May and 6th June 2012. The data obtained were then sub-
jected to a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and the model was
tested using SEM.

6. Results

6.1. Sample profile and representativeness

Four hundred and eight responses from residents of Niagara
Region were obtained from the online panel survey. Seventeen
questionnaires were eliminated from the analysis because they
contained missing responses. This resulted in a final sample size of
391 respondents. Table 2 presents the profile of the sample. Of the
391 respondents, 65.7% were females and 34.3% were males.
Respondents between the age of 55 and 64 represented a slight
majority. The sample was dominated by non-minorities (95.6%).
Respondents were generally educated; only 4.9% of respondents had
less than high school education. The majority of respondents were
married (53.7%). To verify the sample representativeness, the sample
data were compared to the census data of Niagara Region using chi-
square difference test. Although chi-square is mostly used for
frequency data, in some cases it can be used on percentage data as
explainedbyNesbitt (1966) andWilliams (1974). Results fromTable 2
suggested that the sample data did not differ significantly from the
census data in terms of age, ethnicity, level of education, and marital
status. However, a significant difference was noted between the
gender profile of the sample data and the census data. Nevertheless,
taken together, these findings suggested that the survey sample was
representative of the population with respect to the majority of
variables. However, the gender difference suggests that readers
should take this into account when reviewing the results.

6.2. Confirmatory factor analysis

SEM involves the testing of a confirmatory measurement model
and a structural equation model. Before testing the overall
measurement model, the unidimensionality of each construct was

assessed by CFA using AMOS package (Version 9) with maximum
likelihood estimation method. Constructs with unacceptable fits
were re-specified by deleting indictors that failed to preserve
unidimensionality. The items that remained after this process are

Table 3
Confirmatory factor model (N ¼ 391).

Construct and indicators Standardized
loadings

Composite
reliability

AVE

Political support for tourism 0.75 0.51
Convention and meeting facilities 0.59
Hotel development 0.77
Casino development 0.78

Trust in government actors 0.83 0.82
Trust in tourism decisions made by LG

0.88

Trust in LG to look after the interests

of the community in tourism
0.92

Trust in local elected officials 0.91
Trust in LG to look after the interests

of the community in tourism
0.91

Perceived benefits 0.89 0.66
Employment opportunities 0.88
Opportunities for local businesses 0.89
More investment 0.76
Development of nature parks 0.70
Preservation of cultural identity 0.85

Perceived costs
Traffic problems 0.73 0.86 0.60
Litter 0.87
Increases in prices of goods and 0services

0.64

Environmental pollution 0.85

Perceived economic performance 0.70 0.65
LG effectively uses tourism to take

advantage of current economic
opportunities

0.90

LG effectively uses tourism to
reduce unemployment

0.88

LG effectively uses tourism to deal
with current economic problems

0.73

LG effectively uses tourism to deal
with future economic problems.

0.69

Local government effectively uses
tourism to reduce poverty

0.81

Perceived political performance 0.87 0.72
LG treats residents fairly in the tourism

development process
0.86

LG ensures that there is an adequate
representation of residents in the
tourism development process

0.84

LG is responsive to the needs of the
residents in tourism development

0.85

Perceived power 0.84 0.72
Opportunity to participate in tourism

planning and development
0.81

Personal influence in tourism planning
and development

0.88

Interpersonal trust 0.84 0.65
Trust in your friends 0.83
Trust in people of an ethnicity

different to your own
0.92

Trust in people in general whom
you do not know

0.64

Table 2
Sample profile and representativeness.

Variables Sample
data

Census
data

Chi-square
difference

Gendera (N ¼ 391)
Male 34.3% 48.39% c2 (1) ¼ 4.09; p ¼ 0.04*
Female 65.7% 51.61%

Agea (N ¼ 391)
18e24 years old 4.3% 9.01% c2 (6) ¼ 8.91; p ¼ 0.18 (ns.)
25e34 years old 8.2% 10.58%
35e44 years old 16.6% 12.21%
45e54 years old 19.7% 15.84%
55e64 years old 32.2% 14.18%
65e74 years old 14.6% 9.68%
75e84 years old 4.3% 6.45%

Ethnicityb (N ¼ 383)
Non-minorities 95.6% 93.74% c2 (1) ¼ 0.34; p ¼ 0.56 (ns.)
Visible minorities 4.4% 6.26%

Level of educationb (N ¼ 391)
Less than high school 4.9% NA c2 (3) ¼ 2.51; p ¼ 0.47 (ns.)
High school 37.1% 29.93%
Apprenticeship 6.6% 9.85%
College 33.0% 20.34
University 18.4% 15.96

Marital statusb (N ¼ 391)
Widowed 4.9% 7.73% c2 (4) ¼ 3.73; p ¼ 0.44 (ns.)
Single 17.6% 28.76%
Common-law 9.2% 7.07%
Married 53.7% 51.89
Divorced/separated 14.6% 11.62%

*Significant at p < 0.05; NA: Data not available. a Based on 2011 census figures provided by Statistics Canada (2012). b Based on 2006 census figures provided by Statistics Canada (2007). More recent

statistics were not available for this category.

Table 4
Fit indices of the measurement model.

Fit indices c2 RMSEA TLI GFI AGFI CFI NFI IFI

Values 780 (349) p < 0.001 0.05 0.93 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.94

R. Nunkoo, S.L.J. Smith / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 120e132126

presented in Table 3. The resulting measurement model was tested
using CFA and evaluated based on a number of fit indices. c2 was
used as the first fit index. However, because c2 is very sensitive to
sample size (Bagozzi & Yi, 2012), other fit indices were used. These
included root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA),
goodness of fit index (GFI) comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit
index (NFI), incremental fit index (IFI), and TuckereLewis index
(TLI). Values for GFI, CFI, NFI, TLI, and IFI range from 0 to 1, with
values greater than 0.90 indicating a good model fit (Hair, Black,
Babin, & Anderson, 2010). Value of RMSEA should be less than
0.06 for a model to have a good fit (Bagozzi & Yi, 2012). Results of
the measurement model evaluation are presented in Table 3 and
indicated that the model was a good fit to the data: c2(349) ¼ 780
(p < 0.001); RMSEA ¼ 0.05; TLI ¼ 0.93; GFI ¼ 0.97; AGFI ¼ 0.94; CFI ¼ 0.094; NFI ¼ 0.90; IFI ¼ 0.94 (Table 4).

The measurement model was further evaluated for its reliability
and validity. Reliability of measurement models should also be
assessed by the composite reliability and average variance extrac-
ted (AVE) of each construct. Values of composite reliability and AVE
should be 0.70 or greater and 0.50 or greater, respectively. In
addition, an indicator is considered to be reliable if its loading score
is at least 0.50 or above (Bagozzi & Yi, 2012). As indicated in Table 3,
the composite reliability and AVE scores for each construct were
above the recommended threshold of 0.70 and 0.50 respectively.
Also, the loading scores of each indicator were well beyond the
recommended value of 0.50. These results suggested that the
measurement model was reliable.

The validity of the measurement model is usually assessed by
convergent validity and discriminant validity. Convergent validity
is determined by examining the AVE value which should be 0.50 or

Table 6
Fit indices of the structural model.

Fit indices c2 RMSEA TLI GFI AGFI CFI NFI IFI

Values 844.94 (359) p < 0.001 0.05 0.93 0.96 0.93 0.94 0.90 0.94

R. Nunkoo, S.L.J. Smith / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 120e132 127

higher (Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle, & Mena, 2012). As shown in Table 3,
the AVE scores for all constructs were greater than 0.50. Discrimi-
nant validity is assessed by comparing the squared correlation
between a pair of constructs against the AVE for each of the two
constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 5 shows that discrimi-
nant validity was achieved because the AVE for each construct was
higher than the squared correlations between the construct and
other constructs in the model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

6.3. Structural model and hypotheses testing

Once it was ensured that the measurement model had good fit
and was reliable and valid, the structural model was tested and
evaluated. Results are presented in Table 6 and suggested that the
structural model was a good fit to the data: c2(359) ¼ 844.94
(p < 0.001); RMSEA ¼ 0.05; TLI ¼ 0.93; GFI ¼ 0.96; AGFI ¼ 0.94; CFI ¼ 0.94; NFI ¼ 0.90; IFI ¼ 0.94. Fig. 2 shows the tested SEM with beta coefficients and explained variance in the dependent vari- ables. As illustrated in the figure, eight of the 12 proposed hypotheses were supported by the SEM results. The model explained 54% and 41% of the variance in trust in government actors and in political support for tourism respectively. Therefore, the proposed model can be assumed to sufficiently predict residents’ trust in government actors and their political support for tourism.

7. Discussion of results

This study tested a model that predicted residents’ trust in
government actors and their political support for tourism. H1 that
proposed a direct positive relationship between perceived benefits
and political support and H2 that proposed a direct negative
relationship between perceived costs and political support were
both supported (b ¼ 0.53, t ¼ 7.58; b ¼ �0.17, t ¼ �3.05). From
a theoretical perspective, these results provide support for SET.
Findings are also congruent with those of Gursoy and Rutherford
(2004), Latkova and Vogt (2012), Nunkoo and Ramkissoon
(2011), Nunkoo and Gursoy (2012). A closer look at the beta
coefficients in Fig. 2 suggested that perceived benefits of tourism
had the strongest influence on political support (0.53 vs. �0.17).
This finding provides support to Vargas-Sanchez, Plaza-Mejia, and
Porras-Bueno (2009) who noted that “perceptions of the positive
effects of tourism is the variable that most strongly and with
a direct relationship, conditions the attitudes towards the devel-
opment of tourism” (p. 466).

H3 that postulated a direct negative relationship between
perceived benefits and perceived costs was supported (b ¼ �0.21,
t ¼ �3.62). This result suggests that residents’ perceptions of the
different categories of impact are not mutually exclusive. Themost
salient impact is likely to influence perceptions of all other
impacts. In the context of the present study, the more Niagara’s
residents perceived tourism to result in benefits, the less they
were likely to perceive the sector to result in costs. This finding is

Table 5
Discriminant validity results.

PST TGA PBT PCT PPT PEP PPP IPT

PST 0.51 0.35 0.61 �0.29 0.16 0.09 0.16 0.21
TGA 0.82 0.35 �0.07 0.35 0.63 0.35 0.08
PBT 0.66 �0.22 0.12 0.17 0.12 0.26
PCT 0.60 �0.08 0.07 �0.16 �0.15
PPT 0.72 0.34 0.47 0.21
PEP 0.65 0.34 0.02
PPP 0.72 0.05
IPT 0.65

consistent with Gursoy and Kendall (2006), Gursoy and
Rutherford (2004), and Gursoy et al. (2010) whose study results
suggested the existence of interactions among perceived benefits
and perceived costs of tourism.

H4 that proposed a direct positive relationship between
residents’ perceptions of their level of power and their percep-
tions of the benefits of tourism was supported (b ¼ 0.15, t ¼ 2.67).
This result is consistent with those of Madrigal (1993) and
Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2011, 2012) whose findings suggested
that residents who perceived that they had strong influence in
tourism decision-making were more likely to view tourism
positively compared to those who had less power. The positive
relationship between perceived level of power and perceived
benefits of tourism may be explained by the fact power deter-
mines an individual’s ability to benefit from an exchange
(Ap, 1992). H5 that proposed a direct negative relationship
between residents’ perceived level of power in tourism and their
perceptions of the costs of tourism was rejected (b ¼ �0.07,
t ¼ �1.26). This finding supports the results of Latkova and Vogt
(2012), but contradicts those of Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2011,
2012) who reported a significant negative relationship between
the two constructs.

Results provided support for H6 that proposed a positive
relationship between residents’ trust in government actors and
political support (b ¼ 0.15, t ¼ 2.85). This finding is consistent
with the results of recent studies of Nunkoo and Ramkissoon
(2012) and Nunkoo et al. (2012). The results also lend support
to Beritelli’s (2011) assertion that cooperative behaviour is not
solely based on economic considerations, but also on relation-
based items such as trust among tourism actors in a destina-
tion. Our results suggest that Niagara residents who trust local
government are convinced that government leaders will act in
the interests of the community and will behave honestly and
fairly even if they are not continually scrutinized. For local
government leaders, political trust contributes to reducing
transaction costs because they need to make lower efforts to
induce a trusting than distrusting public to conform to political
decisions related to tourism development. However, the down-
side of this is that local government actors may easily gain
political support from residents who trust them even if they
choose to implement unpopular tourism policy options, although
they are also likely to meet with opposition from distrusting
citizens. In general, the result suggests that people need to trust
local government to support its policies and strategies as
confirmed by several empirical studies (e.g. Gabriel & Trudinger,
2011; Hetherington & Globetti, 2002; Hetherington & Husser,
2012; Rudolph & Evans, 2005).

H7 that proposed a direct positive relationship between resi-
dents’ perceptions of the benefits of tourism and their trust in
government actors was supported (b ¼ 0.21, t ¼ 5.05). Local
government actors in Niagara Region discharge their political
obligations to local communities by providing them with tourism
benefits that in turn help to foster trust among residents. Our
results suggest that political trust can develop when government
actors offer incentives and benefits that encourage people to act in
collaboration (Freitag & Buhlmann, 2009). The finding confirms the
study of Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2012) that suggested perceived
benefits of tourism positively influenced residents’ trust in
government actors. The result is also consistent with the arguments

Notes:
PST: political support for tourism; PBT: perceived benefits of tourism; PCT: perceived costs of tourism; TGA: trust
in government actors; PPT: perceived power in tourism; PEP: perceived economic performance of government
actors; PPP: perceived political performance of government actors; IPT: interpersonal trust.
* p < .01; ** p < .001; Broken arrow indicates an insignificant path

PPT

TGA

PCT

PBT

PST

PPP

IPT

PEP

= .53**

= .17*

= .15*

= .21**

= .03

= .00

= .47**

= .27**

= .02

= -.21**

= – .07

= .15*

R2 = .41R2 = .54

R2 = .02

R2 = .05

Fig. 2. The tested structural equation model with b coefficients and R2 values.

R. Nunkoo, S.L.J. Smith / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 120e132128

of social exchange theorists who note that when social exchange
results in positive economic and social outcomes, these increase the
partner’s trust in each other (Blau, 1964).

H8 that postulated a direct negative relationship between resi-
dents’ perceptions of the costs of tourism and their trust in
government actors was rejected (b ¼ 0.03, t ¼ 0.62). This result
contradicts that of Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2012) who reported
a significant negative relationship between perceived costs of
tourism and residents’ trust in government actors. While contextual
differences may explain the contradictory findings, the non-
significant relationship between perceived costs and trust can be
theoretically explained. Social exchange theorists note that the
presence of risks and costs in an exchange relationship may not
necessarily impede trust (Ekeh, 1974). Researchers argue that in
some cases, risks and costs resulting from a social exchange rela-
tionship are essential to development of trust. Institutional policies
and their conflict resolution mechanisms that minimize these costs
act as catalysts for development of political trust (Freitag &
Buhlmann, 2009). Thus, it may be possible that residents of
Niagara Region based their trust on the extent to which local
government is able to effectively dealwith the adverse consequences
of tourism development. The costs of tourism on local communities
serve as a basis for residents’ judgement rather than impede on their
trust, explaining the insignificant result noted in this study.

Results indicated support for H9 that proposed a positive rela-
tionship between residents’ perceived economic performance of
government actors and their trust in those actors (b ¼ 0.26,
t ¼ 3.93) and for H10 that postulated a positive relationship
between perceived political performance of government actors and
trust (b ¼ 0.47, t ¼ 6.38). These results suggest that the extent to
which local government actors is perceived to be effective in using
tourism to deal with economic problems and enshrines fairness,
justice, incorruptibility, and transparency in tourism development
as core norms of communal living has a strong bearing on trust
(Delhey & Newton, 2005). Findings from this study corroborate
those of Nunkoo et al. (2012) and those reported by political
scientists (e.g. Luhiste, 2006; Mishler & Rose, 2001, 2005; Wong
et al., 2011). While the general agreement among political scien-
tists is that economic and political performance of government are

the primary sources of political trust (Mishler & Rose, 2001; Wong
et al., 2011), economic performance is viewed as a stronger
predictor of trust (Mishler & Rose, 2005). However, interestingly,
our results suggest otherwise. A closer look at the beta values
indicates that residents’ perceptions of the political performance of
government actors in tourism have the strongest effect on trust.

The difference in findings may be attributed to the specific
characteristics of the tourism sector in general as well as to the
politics of tourism in Niagara Region. Governments have usually
been criticized for adopting top-down tourism planning and
decision-making (Dredge & Jenkins, 2007), for achieving self-
serving outcomes that are against the interests of local people
(Bramwell, 2004), and for undermining and marginalizing resi-
dents in tourism development (Moscardo, 2011). Existing tourism
policy documents on Niagara Region suggest that these challenges
are inherent to tourism development in the region. Given that
political performance of government measures the extent of
universalism in decision-making and the extent to which local
government enshrines fairness in tourism, it is not surprising to
note that residents’ perceptions of the political performance of
government actors have a very strong bearing on political trust.

H11 that proposed a direct positive relationship between
perceived power and trust was rejected (b ¼ 0.02, t ¼ 0.40). This
finding contradicts those of Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2012),
Nunkoo et al. (2012), and Oberg and Svensson (2010) who re-
ported a significant relationship between power and trust. The
contradictory findings can be theoretically justified. Some
researchers note that the effect of power on trust is context
specific (Olekalns & Smith, 2006). This is probably why Oberg and
Svensson (2010) argued that the relationship between power and
trust is expressed with more nuances than just an obvious positive
relationship in existing literature. While disparities in power may
influence the way in which the proceeds of trust-based coopera-
tion are distributed, they will not necessarily prevent trust from
arising (Farrell, 2004). Supporting the argument of Farrell (2004),
Oberg and Svensson (2010) noted that when an actor (e.g. resi-
dents) has relatively low or no power at all vis-à-vis another actor
(e.g. government), there is no need for trust to engage in
cooperation.

R. Nunkoo, S.L.J. Smith / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 120e132 129

H12 that proposed a direct positive relationship between
interpersonal trust and political trust was rejected (b ¼ 0.00,
t ¼ 0.11). This finding is not surprising as it is consistent with
several studies that found interpersonal trust to be a weak deter-
minant of political trust (e.g. Mishler & Rose, 2001). However, the
result goes against Putnam (1993) who conceived a positive rela-
tionship between interpersonal trust and political trust and Luhiste
(2006) who demonstrated empirically a significant positive rela-
tionship between the two constructs. There are a number of well-
rehearsed arguments that explain the insignificant relationship
and inconsistent findings. Fukuyama (1999) argued that interper-
sonal trust is culturally determined. He noted that while a degree of
trust among individuals is common in all societies and cultures, the
radius of trust (i.e. the extent to which individuals extend their
interpersonal trust to institutions) varies widely across cultures.
While in some cultures citizens trust only people who they know
well, in others, trust extends beyond the immediate family to
include fellow citizens, but exclude political institutions. In still
other societies, the radius of trust is extended to the political
domain as well. In other instances, interpersonal trust has been
found to negatively influence political trust (Campbell, 2004). Thus,
it appears that interpersonal trust influences political trust only in
certain circumstances, and in the present research, interpersonal
trust among Niagara residents does not have a spill-over effect on
the political context. This is probably because in post-industrial
societies (e.g. Canada) the “thick” trust previously present among
individuals or groups, has now been transformed into “thin” trust
that is not extended to political institutions (Mishler & Rose, 2001).

7.1. Implications

Findings from this study have important implications for local
government attempting to promote the sustainability of the
tourism sector in Niagara Region and for officials to better under-
stand the influences on public support for tourism initiatives or
potential “hot buttons” with taxpayers. Results suggest that polit-
ical support for tourism is positively related to residents’ percep-
tions of the benefits of tourism and negatively related to their
perception of the costs that they as taxpayers must bear. Thus, it is
important that local government ensures that tourism develop-
ment results in more benefits than costs for local communities in
Niagara Region. The benefits of tourism should also be distributed
more equally across residents of different social spectrum and
municipalities of Niagara Region. Education, awareness, and
internal marketing campaigns that advocate the community
benefits of tourism fuel greater support for tourism and generate
positive views towards the sector among local residents.

Policy-makers should also recognise that residents should
trust government actors in tourism to support their policies.
Trust facilitates cooperation among tourism actors in a destina-
tion (Beritelli, 2011; Beritelli et al., 2007). Our findings suggest
that trust can be developed if government actors improve their
political performance in tourism development. This can be ach-
ieved if local government shows sensitivity and consideration to
residents’ needs in tourism planning and development. They
should refrain from engaging in policy decisions that are in the
interests of powerful stakeholders at the expense of local
communities. Residents are likely to trust government actors if
they are treated fairly in tourism development (Rothstein, 2000).
There should also be a high standard of tourism leadership by
local government designed to create and reinforce the centrality
of public interests in tourism above the self-interest of politicians
and societal elites. Trust can also be promoted through proper
exchange of information between local communities and
government actors. Information exchange does not only relate to

intensity or contact ease, but should also include explanations
about tourism policy decisions and other issues in the tourism
sector (Beritelli, 2011).

Residents’ perception of the economic performance of govern-
ment actors was also a good predictor of trust. Local government
should be viewed by residents as being effective in delivering
economic benefits to local communities and in dealing with current
and future economic challenges facing Niagara Region. At present,
local government lacks a clear mandate for tourism development in
the Region (Graveline, 2011). Thus, local government should rede-
fine its roles and responsibilities in tourism planning and devel-
opment to be able to deal effectively with current and future
economic challenges. This can be achieved if local government
works in collaboration with other stakeholders such as Niagara
Economic Development Corporation and The Niagara Parks
Commission, and utilizes all means and support that are available at
the provincial level, including the recently established Niagara
Regional Tourism Organization model. These players are likely to
strengthen the ability of local government to take full advantage
economic opportunities in tourism and deal with emerging
challenges.

7.2. Limitations and direction for future research

Like any other research, this study is not without caveats.
Although the study sample was generally representative of the
census population, the survey method employed (online panel)
may introduce some element of bias in the findings. Some studies
found considerable differences in sample characteristics and
statistical results when analysing data collected by mail and web-
based surveys such as online panels (e.g. Cole’s, 2005; Duffy,
Smith, Terhanian, & Bremer, 2005). On-line respondents are also
usually more politically active than mail survey respondents (Duffy
et al., 2005). These differences mean that future researchers should
test the study’smodel using responses collected from other types of
survey methods to validate the research findings and to note
similarities and differences in results.

There are also some limitations with measuring citizens’
perceived performance of government institutions that readers
should take into account. Nye et al. (1997) noted that:

People say they are dissatisfied with the performance of
government, and in a democracy that is one important measure.
But performance is more complicated than it first appears.
Performance compared with what? Expectations? The past?
Other countries? Other institutions such as business or
nonprofit organizations? And what are people willing to pay for
government efficiency, either in dollars or other values? A
federal systemwith separated institutions sharing powers is not
designed to optimize performance. Do peoplewant this change?
Probably not. Would they if new problems like terrorism
produced a “domestic Pearl Harbor”? Perhaps (p. 8).

Also, citizens’ knowledge about the roles and functioning of
institutions may not always be reliable (Van de Walle, Van
Roosbroek, & Bouckaert, 2008). Poor knowledge and lack of
familiarity with government may result in low standard of judge-
ments as to the achievements and the abilities of its institutions to
deal with economic and political problems. In the particular
context of tourism development, some researchers note that local
communities are not able to fully understand the sector and its role
in economic development (Timothy, 1999). This may in turn
adversely influence residents’ general attitudes towards govern-
ment actors involved in tourism development and planning and
may result in poor evaluation of the economic and political
performance of those actors in tourism. Thus, it is important that

R. Nunkoo, S.L.J. Smith / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 120e132130

future studies attempt to develop and usemore objective indicators
to evaluate performance of government institutions.

The research investigated trust and power issues in the context
of a tourism social exchange relationship between residents and
government actors only. In reality, the tourism sector comprises
several other actors such as private stakeholders (e.g. accommo-
dation businesses, transport operators, attractions, hotels, inves-
tors, etc.) and successful implementation of sustainable tourism
and good governance requires the cooperation of all those actors
(Vernon, Essex, Pinder, & Curry, 2005). These various stakeholders
have varying levels of power on tourism planning decisions and on
governance processes affecting tourism development, with some
groups in society having relatively more influence than others
(Dredge & Jenkins, 2007; Hill, 1997). Power asymmetries among
stakeholders may result in conflicts around tourism development
and governance (Bramwell & Lane, 2011; Beritelli & Laesser, 2011).
Residents may also exhibit different levels of trust in private
tourism actors in comparison to government institutions involved
in tourism development (Nunkoo et al., 2012). Thus, it is important
for future researchers to expand the scope of this study and
consider investigating trust and power among a wider range of
tourism stakeholders.

Finally, because the study has been carried out in a society
located in an established democracy, its findings may have limited
applicability to other economies. Webster et al. (2011) adopted
O’Neil’s (2007) view that there are four fundamental types of
political economy (liberalism, social democracy, communism, and
mercantilism), each based on a different assumption of the rela-
tionship between the market and the state, to explain tourism
development policies and processes in different economies.
Corroborating Webster’s et al. (2011) distinction among different
economic systems that govern tourism development, Bramwell and
Lane (2011) noted that roles of government in tourism develop-
ment and tourism governance processes are context specific and
vary across different political contexts. Such differences mean
findings from this study may not be entirely relevant to other
political economies, for examples those operating under commu-
nism or mercantilism regimes. Future research should be con-
ducted in other societies that operate under different political
economy systems to validate the results of this study.

8. Conclusion

This study tested a political support model based on three
different theories: SET, ITPT, and CTPT. Some of the study’s findings
reinforce the results of previous research. The study also provides
new theoretical perspectives on the determinants of residents’
trust in government actors and their political support for tourism.
The study found SET to be partially relevant because level of power
was not found to be a significant predictor of perceived costs, while
the latter had an insignificant relationship with trust. CTPT was also
not relevant in this research because interpersonal trust was found
to be an insignificant determinant of residents’ trust in government
actors. In contrast, ITPT was found to be very relevant in explaining
trust. An important lesson for researchers and tourism planners is
that trust in government actors in tourism is primarily influenced
by the political and economic performance of those actors.
Furthermore, destination managers should also recognize that
residents are likely to support policies related to tourism if they
trust government.

The research suggests that residents’ trust in government actors
and their level of political support for tourism are complex issues
that are determined by several factors. A single theory is unlikely to
provide a comprehensive understanding of residents’ trust and
political support for tourism development. Based on the results of

this research, future researchers are urged to avoid using a single
theoretical perspectivewhen investigating public trust and support
for tourism development and planning. Adopting more than one
theoretical perspective in such studies is likely to provide a broader
and deeper analysis of findings, prevent premature acceptance of
plausible explanations, increase confidence in developing concepts
or constructs in theory development, and reduce potential biases in
and improve credibility of research findings. Overall, the findings
suggest trust is a key ingredient of a democratic and sustainable
development of tourism and the concept should be investigated
further by tourism researchers.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank TNS Global Marketing Research,
Canada, for collecting the data used for this study using its online
panel.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.11.018.

References

Andereck, K. L., & Nyaupane, G. P. (2011). Exploring the nature of tourism and
quality of life perceptions among residents. Journal of Travel Research, 50,
248e260.

Andereck, K. L., & Vogt, C. (2000). The relationship between residents’ attitudes
toward tourism and tourism development options. Journal of Travel Research, 39,
27e36.

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

Arrow, K. J. (1971). Political and economic evaluation of social effects and exter-
nalities. In M. D. Intriligator (Ed.), Frontiers of quantitative economics (pp. 3e23),
(Amsterdam, North Holland).

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of
structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(8),
8e34.

Beritelli, P. (2011). Cooperation among prominent actors in a tourist destination.
Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2), 607e629.

Beritelli, P., Bieger, T., & Laesser, C. (2007). Destination governance: using corporate
governance theories as a foundation for effective destination management.
Journal of Travel Research, 46, 96e107.

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

Besculides, A., Lee, M. E., & McCormick, P. J. (2002). Residents’ perceptions of the
cultural benefits of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), 303e319.

Bevir, M. (2009). Key concepts in governance. London: Sage.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). Social capital and community governance. The

Economic Journal, 112, F419eF436.
Bramwell, B. (1994). Rural tourism and sustainable rural tourism. Journal of

Sustainable Tourism, 2(1/2), 1e6.
Bramwell, B. (2004). The policy context for tourism and sustainability in Southern

Europe’s coastal regions. In B. Bramwell (Ed.), Coastal mass tourism: Diversifi-
cation and sustainable development in Southern Europe (pp. 32e47). Clevedon:
Channel View.

Bramwell, B. (2011). Governance, the state and sustainable tourism: a political
economy approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4/5), 459e477.

Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2011). Critical research on the governance of tourism and
sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4/5), 411e421.

Braunsberger, K., Wybenga, H., & Gates, R. (2007). A comparison of reliability
between telephone and web-based surveys. Journal of Business Research, 60,
758e764.

Campbell, W. R. (2004). The sources of institutional trust in East and West
Germany: civic culture or economic performance. German Politics, 13(3),
401e418.

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

Choi, H. C., & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainability indicators for managing community
tourism. Tourism Management, 27, 1274e1289.

Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64e73.

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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.11.018

R. Nunkoo, S.L.J. Smith / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 120e132 131

Citrin, J., & Luks, S. (2001). Political trust revisited: déjà vu all over again? In
J. R. Hibbing, & E. Theiss-Morse (Eds.), What is it about government that Amer-
icans dislike? (pp. 9e27). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cole, S. T. (2005). Comparingmail andweb-based survey distributionmethods: results
of surveys to leisure travel retailers. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 422e430.

Cook, K. S., & Emerson, R. M. (1978). Power, equity, and commitment in exchange
networks. American Sociological Review, 43(5), 721e739.

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

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

Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2005). Predicting cross-national levels of social trust: global
patterns or nordic exceptionalism. European Sociological Review, 21(4), 311e327.

Delhey, J., Newton, K., & Welzel, C. (2011). How general is trust in “most people”?
Solving the radius of trust problem. American Sociological Review, 76, 786e807.

Diedrich, A., & Garcia-Buades, E. (2009). Local perceptions of tourism as indicators
of destination decline. Tourism Management, 30, 512e521.

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

Dowley, K., & Silver, B. (2002). Social capital, ethnicity and support for democracy in
the post-community states. Europe-Asia Studies, 54(4), 505e527.

Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2007). Tourism planning and policy. Milton: Wiley.
Duffy, B., Smith, K., Terhanian, G., & Bremer, J. (2005). Comparing data from online

and face-to-face surveys. International Journal of Market Research, 47(6), 615e639.
Dyer, P., Gursoy, D., Sharma, B., & Carter, J. (2007). Structural modeling of resident

perceptions of tourism and associated development on the Sunshine Coast,
Australia. Tourism Management, 28(2), 409e422.

Easton, D. (1965). A system analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.
Ekeh, P. P. (1974). Social exchange theory: The two traditions. Cambridge, Mass:

Harvard University Press.
Elliot, J. (1997). Tourism: Politics and public sector involvement. New York: Routledge.
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Journal of Sociological

Review, 27(February), 31e41.
Farrell, H. (2004). Trust, distrust and power. In H. Russell (Ed.), Distrust (pp. 85e

105). New York: The Russell Sage Foundation.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unob-

servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39e50.

Fredline, E., & Faulkner, B. (2000). Host community reactions: a cluster analysis.
Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 763e784.

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

Fukuyama, F. (1999). The great disruption. Human nature and the reconstitution of
social order. London: Profile Books.

Gabriel, O. W., & Trudinger, E. M. (2011). Embellishing welfare state reforms?
Political trust and the support for welfare state reforms in Germany. German
Politics, 20(2), 273e292.

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

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

Gregory, G. A., & Gibson, J. L. (1992). The etiology of public support for the Supreme
Court. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 635e664.

Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G., & Dyer, P. (2010). Local’s attitudes toward mass and alternative
tourism: thecaseofSunshineCoast,Australia. JournalofTravelResearch,49, 381e394.

Gursoy, D., & Kendall, K. (2006). Hosting mega events: modeling local’s support.
Annals of Tourism Research, 33(3), 603e623.

Gursoy, D., & Rutherford, D. G. (2004). Host attitudes toward tourism: an improved
structural model. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 495e516.

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010).Multivariate data analysis: A global
perspective. London: Pearson.

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

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

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

Hall, C. M. (2005). The role of government in the management of tourism: the
public sector and tourism policies. In L. Pender, & R. Sharpley (Eds.), The
management of tourism (pp. 217e230). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hetherington, M. J. (1998). The political relevance of political trust. American
Political Science Review, 92, 791e808.

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

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

Hetherington, M. J., & Husser, J. A. (2012). How trust matters: the changing political
relevance of political trust. American Journal of Political Science, 56(2), 312e325.

Hill, M. (1997). The policy process in the modern state. Harlow: Pearson.
Holland, J. (2000). Consensus and conflict: the socioeconomic challenges facing

sustainable tourism development in Southern Albania. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 8(6), 510e524.

Hung, K., Sirakaya-Turk, E., & Ingram, L. J. (2011). Testing the efficacy of an integrative
model for community participation. Journal of Travel Research, 50, 276e288.

Jackson, M. S., & Inbarakan, R. J. (2006). Evaluating residents’ attitudes and inten-
tions to act toward tourism development in Regional Victoria, Australia. Inter-
national Journal of Tourism Research, 8, 355e366.

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

Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. The
Academic of Management Journal, 37(3), 656e669.

Ko, D. W., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural model of residents’ attitude for
tourism development. Tourism Management, 23, 521e530.

Latkova, P., & Vogt, C. A. (2012). Residents’ attitudes toward existing and future
tourism development in rural communities. Journal of Travel Research, 51,
50e67.

Liu, J., & Var, T. (1986). Residential attitudes toward tourism impact in Hawaii.
Annals of Tourism Research, 13, 193e214.

Luhiste, K. (2006). Explaining trust in political institutions: some illustrations from
the Baltic States. Communist and Post-communist Studies, 39, 475e496.

McGehee, N. G., & Andereck, K. L. (2004). Factor predicting rural residents’ support
for tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 131e140.

Madrigal, R. (1993). A tale of tourism in two cities. Annals of Tourism Research, 20,
336e353.

Markova, I., & Gillespie, A. (2008). Trust and distrust: Sociocultural perspectives.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

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

Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (2001). What the origins of political trust? Testing institu-
tional and cultural theories in post-communist societies. Comparative Political
Studies, 34, 30e62.

Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (2005). What are the political consequences of trust? A test
of cultural and institutional theories in Russia. Comparative Political Studies,
38(9), 1050e1078.

Moscardo, G. (2011). Exploring social representations of tourism planning: issues
for governance. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4), 423e436.

Mosedale, J. (Ed.), (2011). Political economy of tourism: A critical perspective. London:
Routledge.

Nesbitt, J. E. (1966). Chi-square: Statistical guides in educational research. Man-
chester: Manchester University Press.

Nunkoo, R., & Gursoy, D. (2012). Residents’ support for tourism: an Identity
perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 243e268.

Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2009). Applying the means-end chain theory and the
laddering technique to the study of host attitudes to tourism. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 17(3), 337e355.

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

Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2012). Power, trust, social exchange and community
support. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(3), 997e1023.

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

Nyaupane, G. P., & Timothy, D. J. (2010). Power, regionalism and tourism policy in
Bhutan. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 969e988.

Nye, J. S., Zelikow, P. D., & King, D. C. (1997). Why people don’t trust government.
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

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

Olekalns, M., & Smith, P. L. (2006). Trust, power (a)symmetry and misrepresentation in
negotiation. Retrieved July 16, 2012, from. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id¼913727.

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

O’Neil, P. (2007). Essentials of comparative politics (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Pearce, P. L., Moscardo, G., & Ross, G. F. (1996). Tourism community relationships.

Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Purcell, M., & Nevins, J. (2005). Pushing the boundary: state restructuring, state

theory, and the case of US: Mexico border enforcement in the 1990s. Political
Geography, 24(2), 211e235.

Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic tradition in modern Italy. Prince-
ton: Princeton University Press.

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

Regional Municipality of Niagara. (2006). Niagara 2031: A strategy for a healthy,
sustainable future. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from. http://www.regional.
niagara.on.ca/government/initiatives/2031/pdf/GMSBackgrounder .

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

Rothstein, B. (2000). Trust, social dilemmas and collective memories. Journal of
Theoretical Politics October, 12, 477e501.

Rudolph, T. J., & Evans, J. (2005). Political trust, ideology, and public support for
government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 660e671.

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

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm%3fabstract_id%3d913727

http://www.regional.niagara.on.ca/government/initiatives/2031/pdf/GMSBackgrounder

http://www.niagararegion.ca/government/initiatives/2031/pdf/RPPA2-2009

R. Nunkoo, S.L.J. Smith / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 120e132132

Scheidegger, R., & Staerkle, C. (2011). Political trust and distrust in Switzerland:
a normative analysis. Swiss Political Science Review, 17(2), 164e187.

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

Statistics Canada (2007). Niagara, Ontario (Code3526) (table). 2006 Community
Profiles. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-591-XWE. Ottawa.
Released March 13, 2007. Retrieved June 27, 2012, from http://www12.statcan.
ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/index.cfm?Lang¼E.

Statistics Canada (2012). Niagara, Ontario (Code 3526) and Ontario (Code 35) (table).
Census Profile. 2011 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-XWE. Ottawa.
Released May 29, 2012. Retrieved June 17, 2012, from http://www12.statcan.gc.
ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E.

Timothy, D. (1999). Participatory planning: a view of tourism in Indonesia. Annals of
Tourism Research, 26(2), 371e391.

Van de Walle, S., Van Roosbroek, S., & Bouckaert, G. (2008). Trust in the public
sector: is there any evidence for a long-term decline? International Review of
Administrative Sciences, 74(1), 45e62.

Vargas-Sanchez, A., Plaza-Mejia, M., & Porras-Bueno, N. (2009). Understanding
residents’ attitudes toward the development of industrial tourism in a former
mining community. Journal of Travel Research, 47, 373e387.

Vermon, J., Essex, S., Pinder, D., & Curry, K. (2005). Collaborative policymaking: local
sustainable projects. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 325e345.

Vocino, A., & Polonsky, M. J. (2011). Volunteering for research: a test of the
psychometric properties on the volunteer functions inventory with online
panelist. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23(4), 508e521.

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

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

Ward, C., & Berno, T. (2011). Beyond social exchange theory: attitudes toward
tourists. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1556e1569.

Webster, C., Ivanov, S., & Illum, S. F. (2011). The paradigms of political economy and
tourism policy. In J. Mosedale (Ed.), Political economy of tourism. A critical
perspective (pp. 55e73). London: Routledge.

Williams, P. W. (1974). Use of chi-square on percentage orientation data: reply.
Geographical Society on America Bulletin, 85(5), 833e834.

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

Robin Nunkoo, Ph.D is a Senior Lecturer in the Depart-
ment of Management at the University of Mauritius and
a visiting Senior Research Fellow in the Faculty of
Management at the University of Johannesburg, South
Africa. He obtained his PhD from University of Waterloo,
Canada. He also holds an M.Phil from University of
Mauritius; an MA Tourism Management and an MA
Development Administration, both from University of
Westminster, UK; and a BA Economics from University of
Mumbai, India. He has research interests in political
economy, public trust in government institutions, and
community support for tourism. He has articles in such
journals as Annals of Tourism Research, Tourism
Management, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, and Journal

of Hospitality and Tourism Research.

Stephen Smith, Ph.D is a Professor in the Department of
Recreation and Leisure Studies at the University of
Waterloo. His research interests include methodology,
philosophy of science, and knowledge management in
tourism. He has published widely in Annals of Tourism
Research, Journal of Travel Research, and Tourism
Management. He serves as a consultant for numerous
local, provincial, and national agencies, particularly in the
area of tourism product development and destination
management.

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/index.cfm%3FLang%3DE

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm%3FLang%3DE

Political economy of tourism: Trust in government actors, political support, and their determinants

1. Introduction

2. Political economy of government intervention

2.1. Political support for tourism

2.2. Residents’ perceived level of power

2.3. Trust in government actors

3. Institutional determinants of trust in government actors

3.1. Economic performance of government actors in tourism

3.2. Political performance of government actors in tourism

3.3. Power and trust in government actors

4. Cultural determinants of trust in government actors

4.1. Interpersonal trust

5. Research design

5.1. Study location and context

5.2. Data collection: online panel

5.3. Scale development and statistical procedures

6. Results

6.1. Sample profile and representativeness

6.2. Confirmatory factor analysis

6.3. Structural model and hypotheses testing

7. Discussion of results

7.1. Implications

7.2. Limitations and direction for future research

8. Conclusion

Acknowledgement

Appendix A. Supplementary data

References

lable at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 46 (2015) 623e634

Contents lists avai

Tourism Management

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

Tourism development and trust in local government

Robin Nunkoo a, b, *

a Department of Management, Faculty of Law and

Management, University of

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

h i g h l i g h t s

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

E-mail address: r.nunkoo@uom.ac.mu.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.016
0261-5177/

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

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

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

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

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

� Tourism industry deserves more
respect among political scientists.

Knowledge of
tourism

Perceived benefits
of tourism

Perceived costs of
tourism

Perceived power
in tourism

Political trust
(Tourism)

Political trust
(Generic)

H10

H11

H12

H13

H14

Theoretical model linking tourism development and political trust.

a r t i c l e i n f o

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

Keywords:
Political trust
Knowledge
Power
Social exchange theory
Political economy

a b s t r a c t

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

1. Introduction

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

Management, University of

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

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

mailto:r.nunkoo@uom.ac.mu

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.016&domain=pdf

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02615177

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.016

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

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

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

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

Knowledge of
tourism

Perceived
of tou

Perceived
tour

Perceived power
in tourism

Poli
(T

H10

H11

H12

H13

H14

Fig. 1. Theoretical model linking tourism d

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

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

2. Local government, tourism development, and political
trust

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

benefits
rism

costs of
ism

tical trust
ourism)

Political trust
(Generic)

evelopment with trust in government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.1. Benefits and costs of tourism development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2. Power, tourism development and political trust

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

Hypothesis 6. Power positively influences benefits of tourism
development.

Hypothesis 7. Power negatively influences costs of tourism
development.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hypothesis 12. Knowledge positively influences power in tourism
development.

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

Table 1
Measurement scales and their sources.

Constructs and scale items Literature sources

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

Niagara Region
aPolitical trust in the specific context of

tourism
Luhiste (2006); Shi (2001)

Trust in tourism decisionsmade by local
government

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

Trust in local government to do what is
right in tourism

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

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

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

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

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

Personal influence in tourism planning
and development

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

I know about tourism development in
my community

I know the possible impacts of tourism
on my community

I understand the role of local
government in tourism

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

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

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

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

Hypothesis 13. Knowledge positively influences benefits of tourism.

Hypothesis 14. Knowledge negatively influences costs of tourism.

3. Research methodology

3.1. Study site and context

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

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

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

3.2. Measurement of constructs and survey design

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

3.3. Scale purification

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

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

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

3.4. Survey method

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

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

Constructs and scale items Mean Factor
loadings

Composite
reliability

Variance
extracted

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

Niagara Region
3.31 0.79

aPolitical trust in the specific context of
tourism

2.97 0.83 0.82

Trust in tourism decisionsmade by local
government

3.01 0.88

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

2.98 0.92

Trust in local government to do what is
right in tourism

2.96 0.91

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

2.94 0.91

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

planning and development
2.10 0.81

Personal influence in tourism planning
and development

1.88 0.88

bKnowledge 3.52 0.82 0.54
I know about tourism development in

my community
3.37 0.82

I know the possible impacts of tourism
on my community

3.81 0.81

I understand the role of local
government in tourism

3.42 0.68

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

3.48 0.62

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

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

4. Results

4.1. Sample characteristics

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

4.2. Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling

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

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

Table 3
Fit indices of the measurement and structural models.

Fit indices c2 RMSEA TLI GFI AGFI CFI NFI IFI

Measurement model 372.62 (172)
p < 0.01

0.05 0.95 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.96

Structural model 385.35 (173)
p < 0.01

0.05 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.93 0.96

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

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

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

4.3. Discussion of results

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

Table 4
Results of path relationships.

Path relationships b values t values Result

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

0.49 8.52*** Supported

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

0.32 6.38*** Supported

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

0.28 6.70*** Supported

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

�0.04 �0.76 Rejected

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

�0.04 �1.06 Rejected

H6: Power / Benefits of tourism
(þve)

0.12 2.03* Supported

H7: Power / Costs of tourism
(�ve)

�0.09 �1.51 Rejected

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

0.35 6.28*** Supported

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

0.10 2.16* Supported

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

0.17 3.64** Supported

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

0.14 2.28** Supported

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

tourism (þve)
0.05 0.77 Rejected

H14: Knowledge / Costs of
tourism (�ve)

�0.14 �2.29* Supported

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.4. Implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Conclusion and research limitations

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

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

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

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

http://www.closefallsviewcasino.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix A. Supplementary data

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.016

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref1

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref2

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref3

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref4

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref5

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref7

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref8

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref9

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref10

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref11

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref12

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref13

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref15

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref16

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref17

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref18

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref19

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref20

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref21

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref22

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref23

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref24

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref25

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref26

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref27

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref28

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref29

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref30

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref31

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref32

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref33

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref34

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref35

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref36

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref37

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref38

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref39

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref40

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref41

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref42

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref43

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref44

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref45

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref46

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref47

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref48

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref49

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref50

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref51

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref52

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref53

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref54

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref55

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref56

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref57

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref58

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref59

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref60

http://www.niagarafalls.ca/pdf/planning/tourism-policy-handbook

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref62

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref63

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref64

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref65

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref66

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref67

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref68

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref69

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref70

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref71

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref72

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref73

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref74

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref75

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref76

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref77

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref78

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref79

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref80

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref106

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref81

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref82

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref83

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref84

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref85

http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/research/rtp/2009/RTO2/index.htm

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref87

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref88

http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/PR_Niagara

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref89

http://www.niagararegion.ca/government/initiatives/2031/pdf/RPPA2-2009

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref91

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref92

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref93

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref94

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref95

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref96

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref97

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref98

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref99

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref100

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref101

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref102

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref103

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00168-X/sref104

1 Introduction

2 Local government, tourism development, and political trust

2.1 Benefits and costs of tourism development

2.2 Power, tourism development and political trust

2.3 Knowledge, tourism development, political trust, and power

3 Research methodology

3.1 Study site and context

3.2 Measurement of constructs and survey design

3.3 Scale purification

3.4 Survey method

4 Results

4.1 Sample characteristics

4.2 Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling

4.3 Discussion of results

4.4 Implications

5 Conclusion and research limitations

Appendix A Supplementary data

References

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Memo #3 Government and Sustainability ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Are you stuck with your online class?

Get help from our team of writers!

Order Today