Residents’ Perceptions about Tourism Development: A Comparative Analysis of Selected Locations in the North of Portugal

Travelling while minimising negative impacts on destinations and positively affecting the lives of local populations and their surroundings has become a paramount concern (Marques & Oliveira, 2023). Embracing sustainability has become an inevitable and increasingly recognised path for all stakeholders in the global tourism sector (Turismo de Portugal, 2023).

Although there are different definitions of sustainable tourism, the definition by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and the United Nations World Tourism Organization (WTO) is widely accepted by scholars (Vu et al., 2023). These organisations defined sustainable tourism as “tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social, and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment, and host communities” (United Nations Environment Programme & World Trade Organization, 2005, p. 12). This definition underscores the economic, social, and environmental dimensions as fundamental pillars of sustainable tourism development.

A tourist destination represents a dynamic and multifaceted environment where a vast and complex set of activities, with various interdependent stakeholders, provide the tourism experience (Carvalho, 2020). Sustainable tourism development faces challenges in practical implementation, leading to increasing attention to the notion of responsible tourism (Mihalic, 2016). The sustainability of tourism is the consequence, therefore, of the responsibility of all segments involved. However, the crucial leadership role of government officials in this process is evident and necessary (United Nations Environment Programme & World Trade Organization, 2005).

As societal awareness of the environment and the need for sustainability increases, sustainable tourism assumes greater importance. Talking about sustainability, however, has become a trend. Currently, the term is often used as a marketing tool and for commercial exploitation, even though, sometimes, nothing is being done in that direction, a phenomenon known as ‘Greenwashing’. It’s essential to fight it because the efforts of responsible companies are then neglected due to a loss of trust on the part of consumers, which puts the entire sustainable tourism industry at risk. Stakeholder engagement and ongoing impact monitoring are crucial for sustainable development in tourist destinations.

Over the years, tourism has emerged as an economic and social development tool. It facilitates increased employment opportunities, attracts capital investments for new businesses, and fosters the growth of small and mediumsized enterprises, among other advantages (World Tourism Organization, 1998). Tourism enhances the quality of life for communities and promotes local development.

Despite its positive contributions, tourism also poses potential threats to the well-being of communities and the environment. The rampant growth of mass tourism, driven by globalisation and unchecked exploitation of capacity (often disregarding carrying capacity), has resulted in adverse effects in various regions. Many destinations, such as Amsterdam, Barcelona, Dubrovnik, and Venice, experienced the detrimental effects of overtourism, leading to complaints and dissatisfaction among residents (Alexis, 2017; Cassinger, 2019; Marques, 2021). Consequently, residents’ sense of place and cultural identity has eroded, leading to anti-tourism campaigns (Hempen, 2020; Hughes, 2018; Novy & Colomb, 2016).

Issues associated with mass tourism have amplified tension between residents and tourists. Conflicts arise as destinations attract increasing numbers of tourists (Engberg et al., 2022). Striking a balance between the needs and expectations of residents and the interests of tourists becomes a complex challenge that requires inclusive stakeholder participation and continual monitoring of tourism’s impacts.

Over the last few years, several studies have reported significant variations regarding residents’ attitudes towards tourism development within communities, as various factors can influence their attitudes (Gursoy et al., 2019; Sharpley, 2014). These include socioeconomic factors, economic dependency on tourism, and spatial factors.

Socioeconomic factors, such as job opportunities, influence residents’ perceptions and attitudes (Gursoy et al., 2019). Several studies (e.g., Ambrož, 2008; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2010; Snaith & Haley, 1999) have observed that residents who were economically tied to the tourism industry showed a higher level of support for tourism development than residents who are financially independent of tourism. On the other hand, some residents may perceive the higher property taxes and repair costs associated with tourism development as negating potential economic benefits (Harrill & Potts, 2003).

Overall, perceived positive tourism impacts, such as the quality of leisure structures and improvements in the quality of built heritage and natural environment, positively influence residents’ perceptions of tourism development (Ambrož, 2008; Harril & Potts, 2003). The positive perceptions, however, are negatively associated with the length of residency, as long-term residents are generally less favourable to tourism development (Ambrož, 2008; Gu & Ryan, 2008).

Different environments are related with varied perspectives and attitudes towards tourism development, as is the case of historic districts (e.g., Harrill & Potts, 2003) and city centres (Snaith & Haley, 1999), resort towns (Korça, 1998), small islands (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2010), rural areas (Kosmaczewska et al., 2016), or natural areas (Gogitidze et al., 2022; Muresan et al., 2021).

The environmental and geological vulnerabilities of natural areas (especially protected sites) have also resulted in a significant proportion of sustainable management programs focusing on ecological dimensions and criteria, neglecting the social dimensions of development (e.g., community involvement and feelings toward tourism), which require an equal focus. Due to their nature, natural and mountainous areas (protected or not) represent unique tourism contexts, enhanced by the demand for more ecological and nature-based tourism solutions and requiring strategies in terms of making political and economic decisions (Gogitidze et al., 2022; Muresan et al., 2021).

The involvement of all stakeholders and continuous monitoring of impacts is indispensable to ensuring a harmonious and sustainable coexistence between tourism and local communities (Brito, 2012). To meet the challenges of sustainable tourism, a holistic approach to monitoring must be adopted, and indicators must encompass environmental, economic, and social aspects. Brito (2012) asserts that the indicators used for monitoring can help communities, industries, and countries define their sustainability objectives, establish their concept of sustainability, assess the progress made, and identify priority areas for intervention. Although complicated or demanding to implement due to the process of indicators selection, data collection and measurement, monitoring processes are fundamental tools for decision-makers to reduce the chances of making wrong decisions.

Developed by the European Commission and targeted at achieving sustainable tourism development goals outlined in the agenda for sustainable and competitive European tourism, the European Tourism Indicators System (ETIS) is a crucial self-assessment tool that helps tourism destinations monitor their sustainability performance (European Commission, n. d). Furthermore, ETIS is a flexible system that can be adapted to the needs of each destination (European Commission, 2013). It includes twenty-seven core indicators and 40 supplementary indicators grouped into four categories: destination management, environmental impact, economic value, and social and cultural impacts. The indicators can be used individually, in combination, or integrated into existing destination monitoring systems, offering adaptability to suit each destination’s specific needs (EUR-Lex, 2007).

Turismo de Portugal, the national Portuguese tourism authority, has demonstrated its commitment to sustainability through several initiatives, including the Tourism Strategy 2027, the ‘Tourism + Sustainable 2020/2023’ plan, and the ‘Reactivate Tourism | Build the Future’ plan. Tourism Strategy 2027 is a strategic framework for Portugal’s next ten years of tourism, with sustainability explicitly highlighted as a guiding principle. The strategy sets ambitious objectives and targets to achieve across three dimensions of sustainability and a set of sustainability monitoring indicators — Sustainable Tourism Indicators System (SITS) — oriented towards facilitating and supporting the decision-making process by enabling managers’ and other stakeholders’ access to updated and relevant data about the performance of tourism destinations. SITS is supported by a business intelligence platform, available freely on Travel BI, Turismo de Portugal’s knowledge management website (Guerreiro & Seguro, 2018).

Moreover, as part of Tourism Strategy 2027, sustainability observatories have been established to gain indepth knowledge of the industry’s impacts on the territory and to enhance planning and destination management efficiency. The most recent addition to these observatories is the Sustainable Tourism Observatory of the Porto and Northern Portugal Region, created in 2022 to monitor the supply and demand of this destination (TravelBI, 2023a).

The choice of relevant indicators is oriented to ensure their feasibility and comparability, and the choice has envisioned, as far as possible, to select indicators using secondary data from recognised sources, often referred to as big data (Pardo et al., 2021). ITC and big data enable the prospective analysis of complex systems and the anticipation of complex relationships between the environment’s carrying capacity and infrastructures, tourism, and the economic growth of a region (Pardo et al., 2021). Although residents’ satisfaction with tourism is a highly relevant indicator among the established priorities for Turismo de Portugal (Guerreiro & Seguro, 2018), data is rarely available. This survey aims to address this information gap through primary data collection based on a questionnaire from residents in three locations in north Portugal.

The northern region of Portugal, the third largest region in the country, comprises eight sub-regions or NUTS III level units (Figure 1): Porto Metropolitan Area, Alto Minho, Ave, Cávado, Douro, Tâmega e Sousa, Alto Tâmega, and Terras de Trás-os-Montes. It comprises 86 municipalities and 1.426 parishes (Comissão de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional do Norte, n. d.).

Figure 1:

Map of the northern region of Portugal.

Source: Comissão de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional do Norte (n. d.).

Approximately 35% of the Portuguese population resides in the north (Comissão de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional do Norte, n. d). According to Census 2021, the area with the most inhabitants is the Porto Metropolitan Area, with a 1,736,228 resident population, while the territory with the lowest resident population is Alto Tâmega, with 84,248. The northern region has been experiencing a population decline; in 2021, the resident population was 3,586,586 (PORDATA, 2023).

The northern region of Portugal holds significant potential for tourism growth, with a growing number of visitors. In 2022, the tourism sector in Portugal approached the values of 2019 in terms of overnight stays (-0.7%) and guests (-2.3%), having surpassed the values in tourism revenues (+16.7%), while the northern region exceeded: overnight stays (6.9%), guests (2.9%) and tourism revenues (19.6%). Spain, France, the United States, Brazil, and Germany were the main issuing markets for the northern region (TravelBI, 2023b).

In 2022, Portugal received 26.5 million guests, of which 15.3 million were foreign, and registered 69.7 million overnight stays (46.8 million by foreigners and 22.9 million by nationals). The northern region received 6 million guests, of which 3 million were foreigners, and registered 11.6 million overnight stays (6.8 million by foreigners and 4.8 million by nationals) (TravelBI, 2023b).

This region has various tourist attractions, some distinguished by UNESCO as World Heritage Sites: the historic centre of Porto, the rock engravings of Foz Côa representing the world’s most extensive collection of prehistoric engravings, the historic centre of Guimarães and the Alto Douro Wine Region, as a ‘living cultural landscape’, where one of the most striking wines in human history was born: Port wine. The region has many endogenous resources as strategic differentiation factors, with a national and international dimension (Comissão de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional do Norte, 2008). Moreover, the area has representative traditions, such as handicrafts, festivals, pilgrimages, and local products.

The three areas under study (marked as a, b, and c below and in the map above) are amongst the most visited places in the northern region: (a)

The historical city centre of Porto, Portugal’s second-largest city, located on the coast and stretching along the right bank of the Douro River, referred to as the capital of the north. The city has a diverse and solid transport network, including air, road, rail, and cruise, hosting the country’s second main airport and facilitating the arrival of tourists (Área Metropolitana do Porto, n. d.). It offers numerous historical, cultural and recreational opportunities. It became known worldwide mainly for its port wine cellars. The historical centre has been classified as a Cultural World Heritage Site by UNESCO since 1996 (Silva et al., 2022).

Over the last several years (before the COVID-19 pandemic and again after 2022), tourism in Porto has been so intense that it has been referred to as ’overtourism’, and is associated with short-stay rentals of private houses (alojamento local), causing more pressure on the historical city centre (Costa et al., 2019; Pinheiro, 2019), starting to disturb on residents’ living conditions (Veríssimo et al., 2020).

This research has adopted a quantitative approach using a survey administered through a questionnaire, which was developed on the basis of a thorough literature review (e.g., Borges et al., 2020; Gomes, 2020; Souza, 2009; Sousa, 2019; Vareiro et al., 2013) of reports using similar approaches, from which questions were drawn or adapted.

The target population was residents from the locations mentioned above, more precisely in the six parishes of the historic centre of Porto (União das freguesias de Sé, Vitória, Cedofeita, Santo Ildefonso, Miragaia, São Nicolau), which according to the 2021 census has 37.430 inhabitants; in the united parishes of Oliveira, S. Paio e S. Sebastião of Guimarães (these areas having a more significant number of visitors and potentially higher pressure) with a total of 7830 inhabitants; and in the entire territory of the two parishes of the PNPG, Soajo and Gavieira, where the population is more widely dispersed and with 670 and 258 inhabitants, respectively (INE, 2023). Weighing overnights against residents and KM2 (Tourism Intensity and Tourism Density) (Table 1) in the research areas, we notice that Porto presents much higher results, anticipating tourist pressure and potential antagonistic sentiments from residents (Silva et al., 2022).

The study employed a nonprobabilistic, convenience sampling approach. However, concerns and efforts were addressed to meet the strata of the local population profile (e.g., age, gender, students, and workers) (Veal, 2018). In total, 757 valid questionnaires were collected (Table 2) and fit for analysis, distributed as follows:

The questionnaire included mainly closed questions aimed at profiling the sample (namely the length of residence), the residents’ views and sentiments towards tourism, economic and cultural opportunities, and any constraints caused by tourism. Five-point Likert-type scales were used to assess residents’ perceptions, as suggested in the literature (Vagias, 2006).

Data was collected face-to-face (Bäckström, 2008; Alreck & Seetle, 1995) to control respondents’ legitimacy and representativeness; only residents were invited to complete the questionnaire. Online tools were also considered but discarded because the response rate tends to be lower, as recruiting participants is more complex (Hansen & Hurwitz, 1946). A pre-test was carried out, involving 30 people living in Porto. The questionnaire fits the aim and objectives (Veal, 2018). The primary data collection took place between May 2021 and May 2022. Respondents were approached in several outdoor public areas and in their homes.

Data analysis, descriptive and inferential, was conducted through SPSS (Pallant, 2020). The inferential analysis (Kruskal-Wallis’ test) was aimed at exploring the existence of differences between groups of respondents from the three identified areas (independent variables) as showcasing different levels of demand and tourist behaviours, which might cause residents to perceive tourism impacts differently (e.g., Devine et al., 2009; Gursoy et al., 2019; Muresan et al., 2019).

The main limitation we identified is that it was restricted to a limited number of sites in the territories under study, particularly in the case of the PNPG. This aspect makes it difficult to generalise the data. Future research should take this into account, seeking broader territorial coverage. Additionally, the reliance on self-reported perceptions as the measure of satisfaction introduces the potential for response bias. The views of other interlocutors who also represent the local community, such as municipalities and parish councils or business associations, would allow them to triangulate results, despite this approach being used in previous studies carried out by the authors, particularly for the historic centre of Porto (e.g., Silva et al., 2022).