Index

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to research the relationship between tourism development in the province of Burdur, satisfaction, support to tourism development and tourism entrepreneurship. The research model developed was based upon the theory of social change and was tested by using PLS-SEM. The data were obtained from 390 persons residing in the province of Burdur by using the survey method. The findings have revealed significant relationships between positive economic and sociocultural effect in tourism development and satisfaction by tourism development, support for tourism development and tourism entrepreneurship. No relationship between positive environmental effect, negative economic, sociocultural and environmental effect, and satisfaction by tourism development was confirmed. The results are coherent with the theory of social change in terms of indicating that the residents of Burdur perceive much the benefits in tourism development, but not yet the costs. Moreover, the findings of this study reveal the tourism entrepreneurship role of the residents, although the tourism development studies neglect the tourism entrepreneurship of the residents on a large scale.

Keywords: Tourism development, Satisfaction, Support to tourism development, Tourism entrepreneurship, Burdur, Turkey.

Received: 6 May 2022 / Revised: 30 June 2022 / Accepted: 15 July 2022 / Published: 3 August 2022

Contribution/ Originality

This study contributes to the existing knowledge about the relationship between perceived tourism development, satisfaction and support and also supports the theory of social change by emphasizing the importance of tourism entrepreneurship in tourism development. Moreover, this study evaluates for the first time the relationship between tourism development and tourism entrepreneurship.

1. INTRODUCTION

Tourism development is a term that expresses different things to different people. Some describes tourism development as economic growth, higher income, GDP per capita, employment and investment (Alrwajfah, Almeida-García, & Cortés-Macías, 2021; Cañizares, Tabales, & García, 2014; Gartner & Mihalič, 2013) , whereas some claim that it deteriorates economic, environmental or cultural elements (Akis, Peristianis, & Warner, 1996; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Sharpley, 2014) . According to Rivera, Croes, and Lee (2016), tourism development is a multidimensional structure involving economic, social, environmental and cultural conditions. Tourism development leads to both benefits and costs for the local community. Nevertheless, tourism development may set off economic, sociocultural and environmental effects on a destination (Akis et al., 1996; Alrwajfah et al., 2021; Amuquandoh, 2010; Cañizares et al., 2014; Daskin, Tiril, & Bozkurt, 2020; Uslu, Alagöz, & Güneş, 2020) .

In accordance with the residents’ positive and negative perceptions of tourism development on a destination, they will or will not support the tourism development in terms of their satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Uslu et al., 2020). The residents will take both entrepreneurship and employment opportunities by the positive tourism atmosphere and culture to be formed. Thus, the region’s level of wealth and development will increase (Avcıkurt, 2017). Assessing the residents’ satisfaction is important for the success of tourism development, sustainable tourism development, discovering the residents’ perceptions towards tourism effects and supporting tourism development (Alrwajfah et al., 2021). Local residents’ support for tourism development depends upon policymakers implementing a plan for maximum benefit by minimum cost (Deery, Leo Jago, & Liz Fredline, 2012; Maragh & Gursoy, 2017). The local community should be at the centre of that development for tourism to be developed and development to be maintained (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006). The support for tourism development given by the residents specifies the success of the tourism destination (Chang, Choong, & Ng, 2020). The perception of the residents has an effect on their support for tourism development (Látková & Vogt, 2012).

Bringing touristic sources into service for tourists can only be achieved by the enterprises providing services in this field. Tourism entrepreneurship is required to increase the number of these enterprises and to develop tourism. By the virtue of entrepreneurship, tourism is able to develop, tourists may be provided with further opportunities and the way to innovativeness in tourism is paved (Aslan, 2019). Even a single entrepreneur or a small size enterprise is of vital importance in the development of a tourism destination (Akbaba, 2012). Recently, entrepreneurship has become a significant topic drawing scientific attention in tourism researches (Zhang, Lu, & Sun, 2021). According to Fu, Okumus, Wu, and Köseoglu (2019), the researches on tourism entrepreneurship have developed starting from the micro level (individual entrepreneurs) to intermediate level (companies) and macro level (environment). Koh and Hatten (2002) emphasised the necessity of increasing the supply of tourism entrepreneurship by defining and outlining the typology of tourism entrepreneurs (creative, innovative and imitative tourism entrepreneur). According to Lordkipanidze, Brezet, and Backman (2005) tourism investments are required to diversify touristic products and services, and to overcome the increasing demand. Tourism entrepreneurship is independent of the entrepreneurship researches in other industries because employees, shareholders, the state, other enterprises, residents and tourists profit from it (Solvoll, Alsos, & Bulanova, 2015). The term was, however, questioned in the later empirical studies due to the unavailability of an accepted definition and specifications (Booth, Chaperon, Kennell, & Morrison, 2020; Zhang et al., 2021). This article aims to obviate that ambiguity in the context of the tourism industry, the relation between entrepreneurship and tourism development, satisfaction and support.

2. LITARATUR REVIEW

2.1. Tourism Development

Tourism development has both positive and negative effects on the residents in the region and their lifestyles (Maragh & Gursoy, 2017). The theory of social change makes a significant contribution to understand the positive and negative effects led by tourism development (Kılıç & Senel, 2021). The theory signifies that tourism partners and local residents exchange based upon benefits and costs, and the exchange may only be achieved to the extent that both parties feel to have received further benefits by the exchange (Kurniawan, Fanani, & Supriono, 2022). Goeldner and Ritchie (2009) interpret tourists, residents, entrepreneurs and local government officials as significant partners. Tourism development’s achievement of its objectives depends upon the coordinated working of the partners (Mustapha, Azman, & Ibrahim, 2013). If tourism in a region is planned inaccurately due to a lack of coordination between partners, that may dispel the sources upon which tourism development hinges. Tourism development should be planned and executed sustainably for achieving its success (Wan & Li, 2013).

In a destination, residents will tend to be more willing for tourism development when they come up with the positive results of tourism initially. In the later periods, they will tend to object to tourism development when they come up with the negative results such as traffic congestion, noise pollution, destruction and even negative environmental effects (Chang et al., 2020). Previous studies on tourism development revealed the potential economic, social and environmental costs of tourism (biodiversity and habitat destruction, pollution, climate change, loss of comfort, seasonality, unearned income, costliness, rent increase) and increase in the level of income, employment, foreign exchange, payments, infrastructural development, environmental consciousness and investment, cultural heritage restoration, contributions to social life (Akis et al., 1996; Alrwajfah et al., 2021; Amuquandoh, 2010; Cañizares et al., 2014; Daskin et al., 2020; Uslu et al., 2020) .

2.2. Positive and Negative Economic Effects of Tourism

Regional economic revival occurs (investment in the destination, employment, standards of living, taxes, foreign exchange, GDP per capita and traditional handicrafts) where there are tourism activities (Bojanic & Lo, 2016; Maragh & Gursoy, 2017). However, that brings over negative economic effects to be led by tourism such as seasonality, inability to provide permanent employment, occurrence of regional inflation (increase in the costs of property, land, living and the prices products and services), constitution of a foreign capital oriented economy (Maragh & Gursoy, 2017; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2012; Türker, 2020) . The hypotheses as follows have been developed in accordance with the Burdur residents’ positive and negative perception of the economic effects of tourism.

H1: There is a relation between the positive economic effects of tourism and satisfaction with tourism development.
H4: There is a relation between the negative economic effects of tourism and satisfaction with tourism development.

2.3. Positive and Negative Sociocultural Effects of Tourism

Tourism is regarded as an important sociocultural event affecting the local community’s lifestyle, worldview and understanding (Tayfun & Kiliclar, 2004). From a social point of view, the fact tourism may cause some changes broadly in the sociocultural structure of a society in its existing social value systems, family relations, personal behaviours, moral rules, collective lifestyles, the concept of security and traditions (Yavuz & Unur, 2021). Such changes may occur both positively and negatively. The positive effects may be listed as sociocultural development of regions (standards of living, making use of spare time, quality of service), social welfare, getting to know different cultures and cultural exchange, development of understanding and tolerance, developing human relations, progress in respect of women’s rights, keeping cultural values alive and protecting them (Cañizares et al., 2014; Golzardi, Sarvaramini, Sadatasilan, & Sarvaramini, 2012; Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004) . On the other hand, the negative effects may be listed as increase in crime rates in the region (robbery, alcohol, prostitution, traffic accidents, illegal gambling, etc.), change of social values, increase in borrowed words in the language, bearing hostility towards foreigners, deterioration of local cultural values and authenticity (cultural degeneration) and commercialisation of cultural values (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Cañizares et al., 2014; Yavuz & Unur, 2021) . The hypotheses as follows have been developed in accordance with the Burdur residents’ positive and negative perception of the sociocultural effects of tourism.

H2: There is a relation between the positive sociocultural effects of tourism and satisfaction with tourism development.
H5: There is a relation between the negative sociocultural effects of tourism and satisfaction with tourism development.

2.4. Positive and Negative Environmental Effects of Tourism

One of the main sources of tourism is the environment. The main reason for that is the contribution of the natural and environmental beauties of the destination to tourism development. In this context, it is necessary to protect the environment for the sustainable development of tourism (Kılıç & Senel, 2021). An accurate planning and management of tourism provides environmental protection, improvement of infrastructure and superstructure, and further support for historical buildings (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2012; Ukaegbu & Carr, 2020). On the contrary, damages to the landscape, destruction of natural and ecological resources, air-water-soil-noise pollution and overcrowding of recreation areas may be caused (Cañizares et al., 2014; Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Gursoy, Jurowski, & Uysal, 2002) . The hypotheses as follows have been developed in accordance with the Burdur residents’ positive and negative perception of the environmental effects of tourism.

H3: There is a relation between the positive environmental effects of tourism and satisfaction with tourism development.
H6: There is a relation between the negative environmental effects of tourism and satisfaction with tourism development.

2.5. Satisfaction with Tourism Development and Support to Tourism Development

The local community’s satisfaction and support for tourism development depends upon how the effects of tourism are perceived by them. If the local community’s perception of the effects of tourism is positive, they are satisfied with and they support the tourism development; whereas they object to the tourism development if their perception of the effects of tourism is negative. For this reason, tourism activities carried out without the satisfaction and support of the local community are never expected to be successful (Stylidis, 2018; Yeşilyurt & Koçak, 2020; Yoon, Gursoy, & Chen, 2001) . One of the most convenient and acceptable models to develop an understanding of the attitudes and perceptions of the local community towards tourism is the theory of social change. Researchers used the theory of social change to test the validity of the hypothesis that people reaping the benefit of tourism will be satisfied and supportive of tourism development (Ap, 1992; Perdue, Long, & Allen, 1990). The theory looks forward to providing individual benefits to the residents in return for their services as well as the tourism developers, tour operators, resources made available for tourists. As the number of tourists increases and the economic effects remain positive, the tourists in the destination are well accepted and welcomed by the public. However, a lot of negative attitudes including anger and exploitation occur when this limit is exceeded (Oviedo-Garcia, Castellanos-Verdugo, & Martin-Ruiz, 2008). 

H7: There is a relation between satisfaction with tourism development and support to tourism development.

2.6. Support to Tourism Development andTourism Entrepreneurship

Associated with maturation of the literature of the local community’s attitude towards tourism, the parameter of the local residents’ “Support to Tourism Development” has become the dependent variable for researchers (Boley & Strzelecka, 2016). Perdue et al. (1990) revealed that the local community supports the tourism development and specialized tourism policies, by controlling the individual benefits acquired by tourism development, when they perceive the positive effect of tourism. McGehee and Andereck (2004) found a linear relation between the residents’ perceptions towards tourism development and their support. Gursoy and Rutherford (2004) revealed that their support for tourism development is affected by the level of interest in tourism, perceived costs and benefits. Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2012) ascertained that the support for tourism development is shaped by the local residents’ trust in government actors and their perception of the benefits. On the other hand, the study by Andereck and Vogt (2000) demonstrated that the perception towards the negative effects of tourism does not affect the support for tourism. Even if the region suffers an economic impasse, the local community provides support for tourism development despite the negative effects of tourism (Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004).

Tourism entrepreneurship is a value creation process aiming the tourism resources to be used in line with the tourists’ demands, and realized through the components such as risk, investment, innovation, competition and productivity for the purpose of ensuring the development of a destination (Aslan, 2019). Tourism entrepreneurship is of vital importance for the success of tourism and hospitality as well as making significant contributions to the country's economy with many sub-sectors (Booth et al., 2020; Medina, Arteaga-Ortiz, Naumchik, & Pellejero, 2020). The tourism sector is a dynamic one offering new opportunities to local, national and international entrepreneurs, mostly SMEs (Güzel, Ehtiyar, & Ryan, 2021). It is of vital importance to increase the supply of domestic tourism entrepreneurs in the long-term to ensure that the income from tourism to be kept in that region (Koh & Hatten, 2002). The local residents’ attitude towards entrepreneurship and the use of opportunities offer regional development opportunities (Dana, Gurau, & Lasch, 2014). Entrepreneurship should be seen as a propellant power for the destination and tourism development along with a particular focus on small scale tourism entrepreneurship (Medina et al., 2020).

There are opportunities available in the new destinations for accommodation, transportation services, tour guiding, running dining places and restaurants, entertainment and gift shops –the economic importance of which has not yet been noticed (Kala & Bagri, 2018). The local residents’ tendency to tourism entrepreneurship upon noticing those opportunities ensures the development of tourism in the region (Mustapha et al., 2013). According to Kline, Shah, and Rubright (2014) & McGehee, Kline, and Knollenberg (2014), a lot of tourism entrepreneurships are based upon the local residents when geographical location, scale of the enterprises (large scale, SME) and mission of the enterprises are taken into consideration. Especially, the investment for and running of small scale tourism enterprises should be executed by the local tourism entrepreneurs (Adams & Sandarupa, 2018). Yuan, Liu, Ju, and Li (2017)  emphasized the motivation, opportunity, resource accessibility, performance and effectiveness of farmers in rural areas toward tourism entrepreneurship. It will increase the economic welfare and living standards of the settled population in that region by encouraging the production of goods and services by local entrepreneurs in the region (Gazoni & Silva, 2021; Kline et al., 2014).

H8: There is a relation between support for tourism development and tourism entrepreneurship.

2.7. Satisfaction with Tourism Development andTourism Entrepreneurship

Houston and Gassenheimer (1987) emphasise that any point to start the change requires the need for satisfaction. The primary motivation behind that change is the public being satisfied with the change by meeting their economic, social and psychological requirements and ensuring the development (Ap, 1992). According to Ekici and Çizel (2014), positive effects perceived by the local community affect satisfaction positively, while the negative effects perceived affect satisfaction negatively. After the 2000s, the increase in demand for alternative tourism instead of the trio of sea, sand and sun led to new destinations being offered and tourism diversity to be increased (Duran & Özkul, 2012). The satisfaction with tourism and the support of the local community in those new destinations have been one of the most important factors in tourism development in the region (Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004). Tourism development in tourism destinations is directly proportional to the satisfaction and support of the local community, without which tourism development will either be interrupted or discontinued (Kılıç & Senel, 2021).

The tourism sector is one of the most prone sectors to different entrepreneurship practices (Koh & Hatten, 2002). One of those is social entrepreneurship which specifies the efforts made to solve certain problems of society (Aquino, Lück, & Schänzel, 2018). The tourism sector, which is in service on the basis of human and human relations, plays an important role in the creation of social capital and has a close relationship with social entrepreneurship which combines social benefits and profit motives (Dias & Silva, 2021). Social entrepreneurship in tourism has  principles and objectives as; a) to promote environmentally conscious behaviours, b) not to interfere in the natural environmental processes, c) to minimise  damage caused by tourism to the natural and traditional environment, d) to protect hosting communities and institutions, to meet tourism needs of the local community, e) to minimise the negative effects of tourism, f) to execute the infrastructure investments of tourism in an environmentally friendly manner, g) to develop tourism in a way to  provides a livelihood for the local community, h) to support those needy for the issues such as employment and to provide economic benefits, i) to provide social and economic benefits for minorities such as women and the elderly in society (Günlü, 2015).

H9: There is a relation between the satisfaction with tourism development and tourism entrepreneurship.

3. METHOD

3.1. Study Area

The province of Burdur is located in the south of the Republic of Turkey in the Mediterranean region and the region of lakes (Akay, 2020). It has the potential to offer opportunities for many tourism activities by natural heritage areas such as Salda Lake, important lakes where birds spend the winter (Yarışlı, Karataş, Yazır, Burdur Lakes), archeological sites belonging to different eras (Sia, Milias, Boubon, Balbura, Kremna), antique cities entered in the Tentative List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites (Sagalassos, Kibrya), mounds (Hacılar, Kuruçay), historic buildings (Ulu Mosque, Susuz Inn, İncir Inn, Velidede Tomb, Taşoda Mansion), handicraft weaving (Alaca, İbecik), local tastes certified as geographical indication (walnut paste, meatballs on skewers, Karamanlı walnut, fennel and coriander, Melli fig, Bucak salep), upland festival reflecting the Yuruk culture (Aziziye Village Upland Festival, Lake Festival, Altınyayla Oil Wrestling) (Erkan, 2018; Tozkoparan, Elibol, & Gürlek, 2021).

The province of Burdur has become an important destination progressing for tourism development in recent years. It has achieved a significant growth by the number of staying tourists in the accommodation facilities in 2021 as 152.052, while that number was 67.622 in 2011. In Burdur, there are 704 rooms with 1.333 beds in the 26 accommodation facilities (5, 4, 3, and 2 star hotels, apart-hotels, rural tourism facilities and private accommodation facilities) with tourism operation license (in the year 2021). There are 570 rooms with 1.076 beds in the 26 accommodation facilities (hotels, hostels, apart-hotels) with Municipality certificate (Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2022). The best preserved antique cities of Anatolia, Sagalassos and Kibyra, were added into the Tentative List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites. In 2021, Salda Lake deemed to  be the Maldives of the Republic of Turkey, attracted 323.596 visitors daily by its white beach and turquoise colour despite the Covid-19 pandemic. Burdur archaelogical museum, natural history museum, Sagalassos ve Kibyra antique cities were visited by 103.797 visitors and İnsuyu Cave, being the first to be opened to tourism in the Republic of Turkey, was  received 64.264 visitors (Burdur Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism, 2022). Furthermore, the lavender gardens in the Region of Lakes (in Isparta and Burdur)  have been flooded by visiotrs in the recent years and have turned into a  toursim product (Temurçin, Atayeter, & Tozkoparan, 2019).

3.2. Research Instrument

A questionnaire consisting of two main parts was used to collect the data: the first part subsumes the questions on the demographic characteristics of the Burdur residents and the second part subsumes those on the items related to the parameters included in the research model. All items related to the parameters were measures according to the 5-point Likert scale (from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree"). The scales consisting of 35 items and 6 sub-dimensions were used to measure the tourism development. Those sub-dimensions were  taken from studies in the tourism literature for positive and negative economic, environmental and sociocultural effects (Alrwajfah et al., 2021; Cañizares et al., 2014; Daskin et al., 2020; Uslu et al., 2020). The satisfaction with touism development was measured by using the 3-expression scale of Ekici and Çizel (2014) and Vatan and Bildin (2020). The support  for tourism development was measured using the  four expressions taken from the study of Boley and Strzelecka (2016) and Kılıç and Senel (2021). The tourism entrepreneurship scale was adapted to tourism entrepreneurship (seven items) predicated upon the study of Hallak, Assaker, and Lee (2015). The questionnaire was put into its final revision by performing the pilot test with 30 participants (ten postgraduate students, ten employees in the public sector and ten city tradesmen) to design the questionnaire, identify the problematic items and further develop the questionnaire (Fink, 2017).

3.3. Sampling and Data Colections

In the research, the table calculated by Sekaran (2003) in 1.000.000 universe magnitude and 384 samples was utilised. The population of Burdur, generating the research universe, was 273.716 persons in 2021 (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2022). The total of 404 questionnaires were collected from those who live in Burdur between December 2020 and April 2021 by the convenience sampling method as mostly online (275 questionnaires) and face to face (129 questionnaires). When the questionnaires were evaluated, it was confirmed that the 14 questionnaires, missing data ratio of which exceeded 5%, should have been deducted ( Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2017). By reaching the total of 390 samples, the traget of 384 was exceeded.

3.4. Data Analysis

Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) was used for the analysis of the data (Hair et al., 2017; Uşakli & Küçükergin, 2018). That is an appropriate analysis approach for heuristic approach (Wold, 1985). The relation between tourism entrepreneurship and tourism development has not been examined in detail in the literature and there is no comprehensive model on this issue. It was also seen that the model contains a complex relationship structure. This is because the model has a lot of elements and hidden parameters. In addition, many relations were confirmed between the parameters themselves (Chin, 1998). In this context, the use of PLS-SEM was confirmed to be appropriate (Uşakli & Küçükergin, 2018). The PLS algorithm technique was used to assess the outer model, whereas the inner model was examined by the bootstrapping technique and blindfolding technique (Chang et al., 2020).

4. FINDINGS OF THE RESEARCH

4.1. Demographic Findings

According to Table 1, 50.3% (196 people) of the study's participants are men, while 49.7% (194 people) are women. In terms of marital status, around 51 percent (198 individuals) are married and 48 percent (186 individuals) are single. The bulk of participants are between the ages of 18 and 34 (59.5%, or 232 people) and 35 and 50 (33.15%, or 129 people) and are of entrepreneurial age. The public sector employs 32.6% (127 individuals), students 31.3% (127 individuals), workers 11.3% (44 individuals), housewives 5.6% (22 individuals), retailers 4.9% (19 individuals), and the unemployed 3.6% (36 individuals) (14 persons). According to the status of education, the majority of them had a bachelor's degree (54.1% or 211 individuals), followed by a high school education (16.9% or 66 individuals), a graduate education (14.9% or 58 individuals), and an associate degree (12.6 percent and 49 people). Looking at the monthly income status of the participant, 25% individuals have earnings (as Turkish Lira) of ₺ 1,499 or less, 24% have incomes between ₺3000-₺4449, and 20% have incomes between ₺4500- ₺5999. The 25.1% (98) of the residents participating in the study have lived in Burdur for less than 2 years, 23.6% (92) between 7-10 years, 20.3% (79) between 11-20 years, and 18.2% (71) more than 20 years.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of residents.
Gender
Frequency
%
 Marital Status
Frequency
%
Male
196
50.3
 Married
198
50.8
Female
194
49.7
 Single
186
47.7
Age Divorced
6
1.5
18-34
232
59.5
 Employment status
35-50
129
33.1
 Government employee
127
32.6
51-64
27
6.9
 Student
122
31.3
65 years and older
2
0.5
 Worker
44
11.3
Educational level Housewife
22
5.6
Primary school
6
1.5
 Tradesmen
19
4.9
High school
66
16.9
 Unemployed
14
3.6
Associate degree
49
12.6
 Retired
8
2.1
Bachelor degree
211
54.1
 Others
34
8.7
Master's degree
58
14.9
 How many years live in Burdur
Level of income (monthly)
Less than 2 years
98
25.1
1499 ₺ and below
98
25.1
2-6 years
50
12.8
1500-2999 ₺
50
12.8
7-10 years
92
23.6
3000-4449 ₺
92
23.6
11-20 years
79
20.3
4500-5999 ₺
79
20.3
More than 21 years
71
18.2
6000 ₺and above
71
18.2

Table 2. Outer model results.
Items
Factor
Load.
C.A.
CR
AVE
Positive Environment Effect (PEE)
0.846
0.897
0.686
PEE _1: Tourism supports the protection and development of natural environment
0.752
      
PEE _2: Tourism improves the infrastructure of the region
0.848
PEE _3: Tourism improves the transportation networks of the region
0.848
PEE _4: Tourism improves the quality of environment for future generations
0.860
Positive Economic Effect (PECE)  
0.778
0.850
0.536
PECE_1: Tourism increases in investments and development
0.789
PECE_2: Tourism increases employment opportunities
0.781
PECE_3: Tourism improves the standards of living in our province
0.823
PECE_5: Tourism is one of the main sources of income in our province
0.616
PECE_6: The investments to attract tourists are positive
0.623
Positive Sociocultural Effect (PSCE)
0.692
0.806
0.512
PSCE_1: Tourism improves the standards of living
0.609
PSCE_5: By tourism. restaurants and hotels provide better services
0.704
PSCE_6: By tourism. our province develops as a safe city
0.780
PSCE_7: Tourism ensures the preservation of historical and natural areas
0.757
Negative Environment Effect (NEE)
0.852
0.898
0.748
NEE_1: The existing natural appearance (landscape) of the province is deteriorated by tourism
0.913
NEE_2: By tourism. the local ecosystem of the province is destroyed
0.929
NEE_3: By tourism. atmosphere (air) pollution increases in our province
0.739
Negative Economic Effect (NECE)
0.810
0.866
0.686
NECE_1: Tourism leads to an increase in the prices of properties
0.923
NECE_2: Tourism leads to an increase in the costs of living
0.847
NECE_3: Tourism leads to an increase in the prices of products and services
0.699
Negative Sociocultural Effect (NSCE)
0.894
0.913
0.567
NSCE_1: By tourism development. there occurs an increase in the number of traffic accidents
0.695
NSCE_2:  By tourism development. there occurs an increase in the crime rates such as robbery
0.760
NSCE_3: By tourism. there occurs an increase in alcohol and prostitution rates
0.749
NSCE_4: Tourism leads to exploitation of the local community
0.761
NSCE_5: Tourism leads to negative changes in local culture
0.834
NSCE_6: There occurs problems between local residents and tourists
0.769
NSCE_7: Tourists become more privileged than local residents
0.763
NSCE_8: By tourism. peace and silence in the region end
0.686
Satisfaction of Tourism Development (STD)
0.827
0.897
0.744
STD_1: I am satisfied with the environmental developments provided by tourism
0.816
STD_2: I am satisfied with the economic developments provided by tourism
0.900
STD_3: I am satisfied with the chances and opportunities provided by tourism
0.869
Support to Tourism Development (SUTD)  
0.899
0.929
0.767
SUTD_1: I support the tourism development in Burdur
0.799
SUTD_2: I want tourism to take an important place in Burdur
0.876
SUTD_3: I want the authorities to support the tourism development
0.916
SUTD_4: Burdur should continue to be a tourism destination
0.907
Tourism Entrepreneurship (TE)
0.933
0.945
0.711
TE_1: I can identify market opportunities for new tourism products
0.796
TE_2: I can explore the ways to improve the existing tourism products
0.852
TE_3: I can identify the tourism products to support the tourism development
0.877
TE_4: I can design tourism products to solve the existing problems
0.846
T4_5: I can create tourism products to meet the needs of tourists
0.879
TE_6: I can deliver the concepts of tourism products on time
0.850
TE_7: I can determine what an enterprise will be like in the future
0.800

4.2. Outer Model Findings

The external model was evaluated first in the PLS-SEM results. The evaluation criteria of the reflective measurement model were used in the external model. The outer loadings were examined in the identification of indicator reliability. Mostly, those values exceeded 0.70 and the items with the values between 0.40 and 0.70 were evaluated separately. The values over 0.60 were used because those factor loads did not affect the values average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) (Hair et al., 2017) (see Table 2). The items, factor loads of which were below 0.60 (PECE_4, PECE_7, NECE_4, NECE_5, PSCE_2, PSCE_3, PSCE_4 and NEE_4), were deducted from the analysis. Some items (PECE_5, PECE_6, PSCE_1, NECE_3, NSCE_1, NSCE_8) were kept in the model since they did not cause the average variance extracted (AVE), composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha values to fall below acceptable levels. Cronbach’s alpha values are above 0.70. Only the value of the positive sociocultural effect scale is 0.69 and is acceptable (Altunışık, Coşkun, Bayraktaroğlu, & Yıldırım, 2010). In addition, the CR values between 0.85 and 0.95 indicated the acceptable construct validity (Hair et al., 2017). The AVE values were examined for convergent validity, observed to be above 0.50, which is the threshold that needs to be exceeded (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Being the discriminative validity, Fornell-Larcker criterion was used to evaluate the external model. In Table 3, the diagonal values were found to be larger than the correlation values; therefore, it was seen that the discriminative validity of the factors was fine (Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015).

Table 3. Discriminant validity analysis (Fornell-Larcker Criterion).
Variables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Tourism Entrepreneurship (1)         
0.843
Positive Economic Effect (2)
0.281
0.732
Positive Socio-Cultural Effect (3)
0.362
0.550
0.716
Positive Environment Effect (4)
0.342
0.389
0.694
0.828
Negative Economic Effect (5)
-0.134
0.128
0.196
0.272
0.828
Negative Socio-Cultural Effect (6)
0.161
-0.162
-0.324
-0.241
0.332
0.753
Negative Environment Effect (7)
-0.136
-0.131
-0.351
-0.323
0.236
0.706
0.865
Support to Tourism Dev. (8)
0.447
0.383
0.459
0.454
0.150
-0.305
-0.229
0.876
Satisfaction of Tourism Dev. (9)
-0.356
0.511
0.532
0.375
0.140
-0.139
-0.110
0.335
0.862

4.3. Inner Model

Evaluation of the inner model may take place as all the requirements for the external model are met. The methodology suggested in the literature was followed in the evaluation of the  inner model (Hair et al., 2017; Uşakli & Küçükergin, 2018).

In Table 4, the variance inflation factor (VIF) was analyzed first, and there were no issues with multiple connections because no value exceeded 5 (Hair et al., 2017). R2 values of 0.02, 0.13, and 0.26 were considered to be relatively significant, moderate, and weak, respectively (Cohen, 1988). In this instance, the R2 values for tourist entrepreneurship (R2 = 0.248), support for tourism development (R2 = 0.082), and satisfaction with tourism development (R2 = 0.356) are moderate, weak, and significant, respectively (see Table 4). To calculate the Q2 values, blindfolding was utilized. As all of these values were greater than zero, it was decided that the model had predictive value. If Q2 is more than 0.00, 0.25, and 0.50, the model can be regarded to have minor, medium, and large level predictive relevance, respectively (Hair et al., 2017). Whereas Q2 values for tourist entrepreneurship and support for tourism development were low, satisfaction with tourism development was moderate. On the basis of the r2 statistic, the effect of the independent variable on the R2 value was determined. The f2 statistical values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 are correspondingly classed as small, medium, and large (Cohen, 1988).  Two values are moderate for H1, H7, and H8 but low for H2 and H9.

The findings show that positive economic impact, tourism development satisfaction (β = 0.306, p<0.05, ƒ2 = 0.100), positive socio-cultural impact, tourism development satisfaction (β = 0.371, p <0.000, ƒ2 = 0.086), tourism development support, tourism entrepreneurship (β = 0.370, p <0.000, ƒ2 = 0.161), tourism development satisfaction, tourism entrepreneurship (β = 0.232, p<0.000, ƒ2 = 0.064) and tourism development satisfaction have a positive and significant effect on tourism development support (β = 0.335, p<0.000, ƒ2 = 0.126). Consequently, H1, H2, H7, H8, and H9 were supported. Positive environmental impact has no significant effect on tourism development satisfaction (β = 0.015, p<0.828, ƒ2 = 0.000), negative economic impact has no significant effect on tourism development satisfaction (β = 0.015, p<0.828, ƒ2 = 0.000), negative socio-cultural impact has no significant effect on tourism development satisfaction (β = -0.028, p < 0.663, ƒ2 = 0.001), and negative environmental impact has no significant effect on tourism development satisfaction (β = 0.082, p <0.213, ƒ2 = 0.005). H3, H4, H5 and H6 were, therefore, not supported.

Table 4. Inner model results.
Hypothesis
Effect
Path Coefficients
t-value
Result
VIF
 ƒ 2
H1
PECEè STD
0.306 [0.306; 0.306]
5.577
Supported
1.446
 0.100
H2
PSCE    è STD
0.371 [0.371; 0.371]
4.243
Supported
2.504
 0.086
H3
PEE è  STD
0.015 [0.015; 0.015]
0.217
Not Supported
2.085
 0.000
H4
NECE è  STD
0.014 [0.014; 0.014]
0.232
Not Supported
1.354
 0.000
H5
NSCE  è  STD
-0.028 [-0.028; -0.028]
0.436
Not Supported
2.216
 0.001
H6
NEE è STD
0.082 [0.082; 0.082]
1.246
Not Supported
2.145
 0.005
H7
STD è  SUTD
0.335 [0.335; 0.335]
5.864
Supported
1.000
 0.126
H8
SUTD  è TE
0.370 [0.370; 0.370]
7.480
Supported
1.126
0.161
H9
STD  è  TE
0.232 [0.232; 0.232]
4.183
Supported
1.126
 0.064
TE R2 = 0.248. Q2 = 0.169; SUTD R2 = 0.082. Q2 = 0.102; STD R2 = 0.356. Q2 = 0.255.

5. DISCUSSION

Figure 1 illustrates the research model and the t-values of the variables. The positive economic (t=5,577) and positive sociocultural impact (t=4,243) of tourism as a sub-dimension of tourism development affects the satisfaction of tourism development. The positive environmental (t=0,217), negative economic (t=0,232), sociocultural (t=0,436), and environmental impacts (t=1,224) of tourism do not affect the satisfaction of tourism development. Satisfaction with tourism development affects tourism entrepreneurship (t=4,183) and support for tourism development (t=5,864). Support for tourism development has an impact on tourism entrepreneurship (t=7,480).

The hypothesis (H1) indicates that tourism development positively affects economically the satisfaction of Burdur residents and is consistent with the findings of the previous studies (Alrwajfah et al., 2021; Wang, Zhen, Zhang, & Wu, 2014). Sharpley (2014) points out that for satisfaction in the local community, the economic expectations of the local community should be fulfilled and the distribution of the benefits should be balanced. A balanced distribution of benefits is one of the requirements of the theory of social change.

It is estimated that perceptions of tourism effects (environmental and sociocultural) affected satisfaction with tourism development (H2, H3). The hypothesis on positive sociocultural effects (PSCE) is supported and the hypothesis on positive environmental effects (PEE) is rejected. The results regarding the positive sociocultural effects are supported by the studies of Uslu et al. (2020); Maragh and Gursoy (2017) and Ekici and Çizel (2014).

It is estimated that perceptions of the negative effects of tourism (economic, environmental and sociocultural) affected negatively satisfaction with tourism development (H4, H5 and H6). The hypotheses on negative economic (NECE), sociocultural (NSCE) and environmental effects (NEE) are rejected.  The results of the negative effects and satisfaction are supported by the studies of Ekici and Çizel (2014); Uslu et al. (2020); Ko and Stewart (2002). It may be said that, as a newly developing destination, the negative effects of tourism have not yet been felt in Burdur. As a matter of fact, a negative relation is determined between the negative effects of tourism and satisfaction in the destination of Antalya (Kaş-Kalkan) where tourism is well developed (Ekici & Çizel, 2014). Those results support the theory of social change by indicating that benefits come into prominence and costs are not felt when the residents exchange on the basis of benefits and costs.

Figure 1. Structural model of the research.

If the residents of Burdur, as a developing destination, are satisfied with tourism development, Hypothesis (H7) predicted support for tourism development was accepted. The results of the research show similarities with the studies evaluating the effects of satisfaction with tourism development over support for tourism development (Uslu et al., 2020; Ward & Berno, 2011). Maintaining the residents’ satisfaction with tourism development in this process depends upon preservation and promotion of local culture, cuisine and environment (Tiwari, Tomczewska-Popowycz, Gupta, & Swart, 2021).

There is a close relationship between support to tourism development and tourism entrepreneurship (H8). This result demonstrates that tourism investments made by local tourism entrepreneurs are an important factor as well as supporting tourism development. This situation ensures the development of Burdur's economy and minimising the economic leakage (payment made outside the tourist accepting economy). On the other hand, there is a bank deposit of ₺2.032.668.000 (Turkish lira) and $1.973.264.000 in Burdur to be used by local entrepreneurs (The Bank Association of  Turkey) The Bank Association of Turkey (2022). The literature supports the findings of the study (Koh & Hatten, 2002; McGehee. et al., 2014; Mustapha et al., 2013) .

There is a significant and positive relationship between satisfaction with tourism development and tourism entrepreneurship (H9). This result demonstrates the importance of tourism investments to be made by the local tourism entrepreneurs as Burdur residents are satisfied with tourism development.

6. RESULTS AND SUGGESTION

This study focuses on the points of view of satisfaction, support and tourism entrepreneurship of the residents of the province of Burdur to tourism development. The findings show that there is a relation between the effect of tourism development perceived positively by the residents, and satisfaction, support and tourism entrepreneurship. This study contributes to the existing information about the  relationship between perceived tourism development, satisfaction and support and also supports the theory of social change by  emphasizing the importance of tourism entrepreneurship in tourism development. Moreover, this study evaluates for the first time the relationship between perceived satisfaction with tourism development and support and tourism entrepreneurship.

The residents of the province of Burdur accept the benefits of the effects of tourism development, especially the economic effects, because tourism development is in its earlier stages and they expect tourism to increase their economic income. From the residents' perspective, the economic benefits of tourism are cited as the most important way to improve their quality of life, especially in developing countries (Alrwajfah et al., 2021; Gursoy. & Rutherford, 2004).

The residents accept the benefits of the positive sociocultural effects of tourism development (standards of living, making use of spare time, cultural exchange, understanding and tolerance, promoting human relations, women's rights, keeping cultural values alive and protecting them) (Cañizares et al., 2014; Golzardi et al., 2012). Tourism development is considered as a process of social change between the residents and other partners (Huang, Lin, & Cui, 2021; Jordan, Spencer, & Prayag, 2019).

Tourism effects in a destination are often measured by attitudes towards tourism effects or support  for tourism development (Alrwajfah et al., 2021). In this case, it misses out the entrepreneurship role of the residents in tourism development. However, entrepreneurship in a region provides better health, education and social services by reducing poverty and inequality of income (Dhahr, Slimani, & Omri, 2021). For instance, an investment was made for the total of 21 2-3 star hotels, hostel and apart-hotel in the county of  Yeşiova as 11 of which were opened in 2019, five of which were opened in 2018 and  five of which were opened earlier by the number of visitors to Salda Lake in Burdur, a.k.a. the Saldives, famous for its white beach and turquoise colour, increased to 1.000.000 (Temurçin et al., 2019).

Negative economic, environmental and sociocultural effects are an important dimension of tourism development (Amuquandoh, 2010; Cañizares et al., 2014; Daskin et al., 2020; Uslu et al., 2020) . In general, negative effects of tourism occur in developed destinations (Akis et al., 1996; Alrwajfah et al., 2021).  In recent years, extreme tourism, which refers to exceeding physical, social, ecological and psychological capacity in a certain time and place, has emerged (Vagena, 2021). The challenges associated with extreme tourism have alienated residents, degraded experiences of tourists, overloaded infrastructure, damaged nature, and threatens culture and heritage. Even though this stage is still early, it is suggested that the province of Burdur should create a good tourism development plan.

Tourism infrastructure, which usually includes transportation, accommodation and attraction centres in a destination, plays an important role in tourism development (Virkar & Mallya, 2018). At the beginning of this process, tourism investments are made by local entrepreneurs (SME hotels, travel agencies, restaurants, gift shops, transportation companies, shopping stores), in the next stage by national tourism entrepreneurs (medium and large scale hotels, chain restaurants, large scale travel agencies, car rental companies, national airline companies, etc.) and at the last stage by international tourism entrepreneurs (chain hotels (Hilton, Accor, Marriott, IHG, Radisson, etc.), tour operators (Tui, Coral Travel, Anex tour, Expedia TAAP, etc.), food and beverage companies (McDonald's, Burger King, Pizza Hut, KFC, Arby's, Starbucks, etc.), car rental companies (Avis & Budget, Enterprise rent a car, Sixt, Hertz, Europcar, etc.), airline companies (American, Delta, United, China, SkyWest, Ryanair Airlines, etc.). During this process, the share of local community decreases while the touristic earnings of large-scale tourism enterprises grows (Iakovleva, Bay-Larsen, Kharitonova, & Didyk, 2012). The literature shows that the touristic income should be kept in the region by increasing the share of local tourism entrepreneurship. A few suggestions for planned tourism development in Burdur destination are:

If the tourism entrepreneur is the catalyst of the tourism development ripple and the sculptor of the community “touristscape”, then the tourism development literature would be incomplete if the role of the tourism entrepreneur continues to be disregarded (Koh & Hatten, 2002). This article contributes to the importance of the role of local entrepreneurship in understanding tourism development.

7. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

This study has some significant practical implications for tourism partners in Burdur. On the whole, this study concludes that tourism development, satisfaction with tourism development, support for tourism development and tourism entrepreneurship are interrelated. In the early stages of tourism development, the hosting residents focus on the benefits of economic, environmental and sociocultural effects of tourism. From this aspect, this study contributes to the existing tourism literature and helps partners and local government understand what needs to be considered when assessing local residents' perceptions of future tourism development and the role of entrepreneurship. Attaching much importance to the residents' perceptions of tourism development and the role of entrepreneurship will help support tourism development and maximise economic development in the destination.

8. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

This study has some limitations that may encourage and direct future research endeavors. This study is based on an exploratory quantitative approach on tourism development, satisfaction, support perceptions and entrepreneurship role of the residents of the province of Burdur. This study may be repeated and re-validated in different destinations using qualitative, mixed methods or innovative research designs. Furthermore, current research focused on local entrepreneurship in tourism development may provide more detailed information by assessing the role of national and international entrepreneurship.

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.  

Competing Interests: The author declares that there are no conflicts of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

REFERENCES

Adams, K. M., & Sandarupa, D. (2018). A room with a view: Local knowledge and tourism entrepreneurship in an unlikely Indonesian locale. Asian Journal of Tourism Research, 3(1), 1-26.Available at: https://doi.org/10.12982/ajtr.2018.0001.

Akay, B. (2020). Examining the rural tourism experiences of tourists in emerging rural tourism destination: Burdur province, Turkey. Geo Journal of Tourism and Geosites, 29(2), 534-544.Available at: https://doi.org/10.30892/gtg.29212-487.

Akbaba, A. (2012). Destination development and small tourism ventures: An analysis in Akcakoca. Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of Social Sciences, 24(1), 1-16.

Akis, S., Peristianis, N., & Warner, J. (1996). Residents' attitudes to tourism development: The case of Cyprus. Tourism Management, 17(7), 481-494.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0261-5177(96)00066-0.

Alrwajfah, M. M., Almeida-García, F., & Cortés-Macías, R. (2021). The satisfaction of local communities in World Heritage Site destinations. The case of the Petra region, Jordan. Tourism Management Perspectives, 39, 100841.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100841.

Altunışık, R., Coşkun, R., Bayraktaroğlu, S., & Yıldırım, E. (2010). Research methods in social sciences Spss applied. Sakarya: Sakarya Yayıncılık.

Amuquandoh, F. E. (2010). Residents' perceptions of the environmental impacts of tourism in the Lake Bosomtwe Basin, Ghana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(2), 223-238.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580903298531.

Andereck, K. L., & Vogt, C. A. (2000). The relationship between residents’ attitudes toward tourism and tourism development options. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 27-36.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/004728750003900104.

Ap, J. (1992). Residents' perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(4), 665-690.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(92)90060-3.

Aquino, R. S., Lück, M., & Schänzel, H. A. (2018). Tourism social entrepreneurship for sustainablecommunity development: Review and conceptual framework. In T. Young, P. Stolk, & G. McGinnis (Eds.), Get Smart: Paradoxes and Possibilities in Tourism, Hospitality and Events Education andResearch (pp. 369-379). Newcastle, Australia: The University of Newcastle.

Aslan, S. (2019). A conceptual review on life style tourism entrepreneurship. International Social Sciences Studies Journal, 5(30), 617-625.

Avcıkurt, C. (2017). Tourism sociology general and structural approach. Ankara: Detay Publishing.

Bojanic, D. C., & Lo, M. (2016). A comparison of the moderating effect of tourism reliance on the economic development for islands and other countries. Tourism Management, 53, 207-214.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.10.006.

Boley, B. B., & Strzelecka, M. (2016). Towards a universal measure of ‘Support for Tourism.’. Annals of Tourism Research, 61(C), 238-241.

Booth, P., Chaperon, S. A., Kennell, J. S., & Morrison, A. M. (2020). Entrepreneurship in island contexts: A systematic review of the tourism and hospitality literature. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 85, 102438.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102438.

Burdur Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism. (2022). Retrieved from: https://burdur.ktb.gov.tr/TR-298132/bakanlik-isletme-belgeli-burdur-ili-konaklama-tesisleri.html.

Cañizares, S. M. S., Tabales, J. M. N., & García, F. J. F. (2014). Local residents’ attitudes towards the impact of tourism development in Cape Verde. Tourism & Management Studies, 10(1), 87-96.

Chang, M.-X., Choong, Y.-O., & Ng, L.-P. (2020). Local residents’ support for sport tourism development: The moderating effect of tourism dependency. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 24(3), 215-234.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14775085.2020.1833747.

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Choi, C. H., & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1274-1289.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.05.018.

Choi, H.-S. C., & Sirakaya, E. (2005). Measuring residents’ attitude toward sustainable tourism: Development of sustainable tourism attitude scale. Journal of Travel Research, 43(4), 380-394.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287505274651.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Berbaum Associates.

Dana, L.-P., Gurau, C., & Lasch, F. (2014). Entrepreneurship, tourism and regional development: A tale of two villages. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 26(3-4), 357-374.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2014.918182.

Daskin, M., Tiril, A., & Bozkurt, A. (2020). Coastal tourism development in Sinop as an emerging rural destination: A preliminary study from the residents’ perspective. Tourism & Management Studies, 16(2), 16-25.Available at: https://doi.org/10.18089/tms.2020.160202.

Deery, M., Leo Jago, L., & Liz Fredline, L. (2012). Rethinking social impacts of tourism research: A new research agenda. Tourism Management, 33(1), 64-73.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.01.026.

Dhahr, S., Slimani, S., & Omri, A. (2021). Behavioral entrepreneurship for achieving the sustainable development goals. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 165, 1-11.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120561.

Dias, Á., & Silva, G. M. (2021). Willingness to stay of tourism lifestyle entrepreneurs: A configurational perspective. Sustainability, 13(24), 13519.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413519.

Duran, E., & Özkul, E. (2012). Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development: A structural model via Akcakoca sample. Journal of Human Sciences, 9(2), 500-520.

Ekici, R., & Çizel, B. (2014). Differences in the attitudes of local people towards tourism development support according to the development levels of destinations. Journal of Travel and Hotel Management, 11(3), 73-87.

Erbaş, E. (2019). Social business model and sharing economy for community based tourism development: A case study of Lisinia Doğa. Journal of Tourism and Gastronomy Studies, 7(4), 2399-2417.Available at: https://doi.org/10.21325/jotags.2019.478.

Erkan, Y. (2018). Burdur travel guide beyond time. Bursa: Ekin Publishing Distribution.

Fink, A. (2017). How to conduct surveys: A step by step guide (6th ed.). California: Sage Publications.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/3150979.

Fu, H., Okumus, F., Wu, K., & Köseoglu, M. A. (2019). The entrepreneurship research in hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 78, 1-12.

Gartner, W. C., & Mihalič, T. (2013). Introduction to tourism development - issues and challenges. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Gazoni, J. L., & Silva, E. A. M. d. (2021). System dynamics framework for tourism development management. Current Issues in Tourism, 1-22.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1970117.

Goeldner, C. R., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2009). Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies (11th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Golzardi, F., Sarvaramini, S., Sadatasilan, K., & Sarvaramini, M. (2012). Residents attitudes towards tourism development: A case study of Niasar, Iran. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 4(8), 863-868.

Günlü, E. (2015). The conceptual analysis of social entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship in to tourism. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Researches, 35(2), 23-42.

Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident attitudes: A structural modeling approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 79-105.

Gursoy, D., & Rutherford, D. G. (2004). Host attitudes toward tourism: An improved structural model. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 495-516.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2003.08.008.

Güzel, Ö., Ehtiyar, R., & Ryan, C. (2021). The success factors of wine tourism entrepreneurship for rural area: A thematic biographical narrative analysis in Turkey. Journal of Rural Studies, 84, 230-239.

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hallak, R., Assaker, G., & Lee, C. (2015). Tourism entrepreneurship performance: The effects of place identity, self-efficacy, and gender. Journal of Travel Research, 54(1), 36-51.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513513170.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.

Houston, F. S., & Gassenheimer, J. B. (1987). Marketing and exchange. Journal of Marketing, 51(4), 3-18.

Huang, X., Lin, S., & Cui, Q. (2021). From “villages of longevity” to “villages of cancer”? The emotional geography of tourism development in Bama, China. Emotion, Space and Society, 40, 100813.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2021.100813.

Iakovleva, T., Bay-Larsen, I., Kharitonova, G., & Didyk, V. (2012). Entrepreneurship and sustainability in nature-based tourism: The role of institutional profiles in Northern Norway and Northwest Russia. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 25(4), 433-450.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2012.10593583.

Jordan, E. J., Spencer, D. M., & Prayag, G. (2019). Tourism impacts, emotions and stress. Annals of tourism Research, 75, 213-226.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.01.011.

Jurowski, C., & Gursoy, D. (2004). Distance effects on residents’attitudes toward tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 296-312.

Kala, D., & Bagri, S. (2018). Barriers to local community participation in tourism development: Evidence from mountainous state Uttarakhand, India. Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 66(3), 318-333.

Kılıç, İ., & Senel, E. (2021). The role of socio-cultural and environmental impacts of tourism in the development of tourism. DEU Journal of GSSS, 23(2), 789-808.

Kline, C., Shah, N., & Rubright, H. (2014). Applying the positive theory of social entrepreneurship to understand food entrepreneurs and their operations. Tourism Planning & Development, 11(3), 330-342.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2014.890126.

Ko, D.-W., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of residents’ attitudes for tourism development. Tourism Management, 23(5), 521-530.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0261-5177(02)00006-7.

Koh, K. Y., & Hatten, T. S. (2002). The tourism entrepreneur: The overlooked player in tourism development studies. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 3(1), 21-48.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1300/j149v03n01_02.

Kurniawan, A., Fanani, D., & Supriono. (2022). Examining resident’s perception of sustainability tourism planning and development: The case of malang city, Indonesia. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, 40(1), 242–252.

Látková, P., & Vogt, C. A. (2012). Residents’ attitudes toward existing and future tourism development in rural communities. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), 50-67.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287510394193.

Lordkipanidze, M., Brezet, H., & Backman, M. (2005). The entrepreneurship factor in sustainable tourism development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(8), 787-798.

Maragh, S.-G., & Gursoy, D. (2017). Residents’ identity and tourism development: The Jamaican perspective. International Journal of Tourism Sciences, 17(2), 107-125.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/15980634.2017.1313472.

McGehee, N. G., & Andereck, K. L. (2004). Factors predicting rural residents’ support of tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 43(2), 131-140.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287504268234.

McGehee., N. G., Kline, C., & Knollenberg, W. (2014). Social movements and tourism-related local action. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 140-155.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.06.004.

Medina, S. A. J., Arteaga-Ortiz, J., Naumchik, R. M., & Pellejero, M. (2020). The intention to quit entrepreneurship in tourism SMEs: The effect of work addiction. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 89, 102400.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102400.

Ministry of Culture and Tourism. (2022). Tourism-tourism statistic. Retrieved from: https://www.ktb.gov.tr/EN-249308/accomodation-statistics.html & https://www.ktb.gov.tr/EN-249315/establishment-statistics.html.

Mustapha, A. O., Azman, I., & Ibrahim, Y. (2013). Barrıiers to community participation in tourism development n Island destination. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality & Culinary Arts, 5(1), 102-124.

Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2012). Power, trust, social exchange and community support. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 997-1023.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.11.017.

Oviedo-Garcia, M. A., Castellanos-Verdugo, M., & Martin-Ruiz, D. (2008). Gaining residents' support for tourism and planning. International Journal of Tourism Research, 10(2), 95-109.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.644.

Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Allen, L. (1990). Resident support for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(4), 586-599.

Rivera, M., Croes, R., & Lee, S. H. (2016). Tourism development and happiness: A residents’ perspective. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 5(1), 5-15.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.04.002.

Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Sharpley, R. (2014). Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tourism Management, 42, 37-49.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.10.007.

Shi, H., Liu, Y., Kumail, T., & Pan, L. (2022). Tourism destination brand equity, brand authenticity and revisit intention: the mediating role of tourist satisfaction and the moderating role of destination familiarity. Tourism Review, 77(3), 751-779.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/tr-08-2021-0371.

Solvoll, S., Alsos, G. A., & Bulanova, O. (2015). Tourism entrepreneurship – review and future directions. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 15(1), 120-137.

Stylidis, D. (2018). Place attachment, perception of place and residents’ support for tourism development. Tourism Planning & Development, 15(2), 188-210.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2017.1318775.

Tayfun, A., & Kiliclar, A. (2004). Social effects of tourism and local people's view of tourists. Journal of Gazi University Faculty of Commerce and Tourism Education, 6(1), 1-17.

Temurçin, K., Atayeter, Y., & Tozkoparan, U. (2019). Tourism potential of Lake Salda and its surroundings and its impact on socio-economic structure of Yeşilova District. SDU Faculty of Arts and Sciences Journal of Social Sciences, 47(2), 40-63.

The Bank Association of Turkey. (2022). The bank association of Turkey. Retrieved from: https://www.tbb.org.tr/tr/bankacilik/banka-ve-sektor-bilgileri/veri-sorgulama-sistemi/illere-ve-bolgelere-gore-bilgiler/73.

Tiwari, S., Tomczewska-Popowycz, N., Gupta, S. K., & Swart, M. P. (2021). Local community satisfaction toward tourism development in pushkar region of Rajasthan, India. Sustainability, 13(23), 13468.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313468.

Tozkoparan, U., Elibol, A., & Gürlek, M. (2021). Burdur in all aspects 2021 provincial Yearbook, In: Tourism in Burdur, (Edt.: Kılınc. M.). Ankara: Uyum Agency Ankara.

Türker, G. O. (2020). The effects of tourism on residents: A review from the perspective of travel agencies. Journal of Travel and Tourism Research, 16, 65-84.

Turkish Statistical Institute. (2022). Turkish statistical institute. Retrieved from: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Adrese-Dayali-Nufus-Kayit-Sistemi-Sonuclari-2021-45500.

Ukaegbu, M. O., & Carr, N. (2020). An analysis of hope as a contributor to local people’s perspectives of tourism development. Anatolia, 31(3), 349-359.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2020.1719524.

Uşakli, A., & Küçükergin, K. G. (2018). Using partial least squares structural equation modeling in hospitality and tourism: Do researchers follow practical guidelines? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(11), 3462–3512.

Uslu, A., Alagöz, G., & Güneş, E. (2020). Socio-cultural, economic, and environmental effects of tourism from the point of view of the local community. Journal of Tourism and Services, 21(11), 1-21.Available at: https://doi.org/10.29036/jots.v11i21.147.

Vagena, A. (2021). OVERTOURISM: Definition and impact. Academia Letters, 12(7).Available at: https://doi.org/10.20935/AL1207.

Vatan, A., & Bildin, E. (2020). A research evaluating the attitudes of local people towards the effects of tourism in Bozcaada. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 62, 285-305.Available at: https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2019-0123.

Virkar, A. R., & Mallya, P. D. (2018). A review of dimensions of tourism transport affecting tourist satisfaction. Indian Journal of Commerce and Management Studies, 9(1), 72-80.Available at: https://doi.org/10.18843/ijcms/v9i1/10.

Wan, Y. K. P., & Li, X. (2013). Sustainability of tourism development in Macao, China. International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(1), 52-65.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.873.

Wang, X., Zhen, F., Zhang, J., & Wu, X. (2014). Exploring factors influencing residents' satisfaction with tourism development in poverty-stricken areas: A case study of five poor villages in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 19(5), 517-537.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2013.768283.

Ward, C., & Berno, T. (2011). Beyond social exchange theory: Attitudes toward tourists. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1556-1569.

Wold, H. (1985). Partial least squares. In S. Kotz, & N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences (pp. 581–591). New York: Wiley.

Yavuz, H., & Unur, K. (2021). A comparative research on the local people's perception of the socio-cultural impacts of tourism in Alanya. Journal of Travel and Hospitality Management, 18(3), 633-655.

Yeşilyurt, H., & Koçak, N. (2020). The role of place ıdentity and place ımage in the perception and support of residents towards tourism development. Journal of Social Sciences of Muş Alparslan University, 8(4), 1165–1174.

Yoon, Y., Gursoy, D., & Chen, J. S. (2001). Validating a tourism development theory with structural equation modeling. Tourism Management, 22(4), 363-372.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0261-5177(00)00062-5.

Yuan, P., Liu, Y., Ju, F., & Li, X. (2017). A study on farmers’ agriculture related tourism entrepreneurship behavior. Procedia Computer Science, 122, 743-750.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.432.

Zhang, H., Lu, L., & Sun, F. (2021). Changing role of lifestyle in tourism entrepreneurship: Case study of Naked Retreats Enterprise. Tourism Management, 84, 104259.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104259.

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), The Economics and Finance Letters shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content.