Residents’ attitudes towards different tourist offers: Maldonado-Punta del Este conurbation (Uruguay) Vol.8 • No.1 2019 ISSN: 2254-7088 European Journal of Government and Economics 8(1), June 2019. European Journal of Government and Economics ISSN: 2254-7088 Number 8, issue 1, June 2019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17979/ejge.2018.8.1 The evaluation index improvement for the relocation of research equipment 6-29 Donghun Yoon Residents’ attitudes towards different tourist offers: Maldonado-Punta del Este conurbation (Uruguay) 30-47 José Ramón Cardona, Daniela Álvarez Bassi, María Dolores Sánchez-Fernández Social capital and banking system profitability: A survey of European Union countries 48-62 Arash Nayebyazdi Governance and Domestic Investment in Africa 63-80 Chimere Okechukwu Iheonu Economic Analysis of Supply Functions, Private Returns to Investment in Education and Skill Mismatch in Egypt 81-95 Marwa Shibl Biltagy Give me liberty or give me money: the fiscal decentralization and autonomy of regional governance in Slovakia 96-109 Jaroslav Mihálik, Peter Horváth, Martin Švikruha https://doi.org/10.17979/ejge.2018.8.1 European Journal of Government and Economics 8(1), June 2019, 30-47. European Journal of Government and Economics ISSN: 2254-7088 Residents’ attitudes towards different tourist offers: Maldonado- Punta del Este conurbation (Uruguay) José Ramón Cardonaa, Daniela Álvarez Bassib, María Dolores Sánchez-Fernándezc * a Universitat de les Illes Balears, Spain b Universidad Católica del Uruguay, Uruguay c Universidade da Coruña, Spain * Corresponding author at: maria.sanchezf@udc.es Article history. Received 8 October 2018; first revision required 21 October 2018; accepted 10 January 2019. Abstract. The study of residents' attitudes is fundamental for tourist destinations managers. Residents form their attitude towards tourism through a cost-benefit analysis based on their perception of tourism impacts. The objective of this paper is to analyse the relationship between the perception of the different types of impacts, the general attitude toward tourism and various types of tourism offer: sport tourism, maritime tourism, nature tourism and sun and beach tourism. The analysis of the data was performed using Partial Least Squares on a sample of 420 residents of the Maldonado-Punta del Este conurbation, interviewed in 2016. The strongest causal relationship is between general attitude and acceptance of sun and beach tourism, the traditional offer in the region. The main conclusion is that a more favourable attitude to tourism does not imply greater support for any type of tourism. It is not possible to generalize the support to tourism to any tourism project, and tourist destinations managers must take it into account. Keywords. Attitudes, residents, PLS, Punta del Este. JEL codes: C88, L83, Z32 DOI. https://10.17979/ejge.2019.8.1.4580 1. Introduction Several studies on the residents’ attitudes towards tourism have been undertaken since the end of the 70s (Almeida, Balbuena & Cortés, 2015; Sharpley, 2014). At first researchers focused their investigations on measuring attitudes and their relationship with the impacts perceived (Besculides, Lee & McCormick, 2002; Gursoy, Jurowski & Uysal, 2002; Jurowski, Uysal & Williams, 1997; Lindberg & Johnson, 1997; Mason & Cheyne, 2000; Teye, Sirakaya & Sönmez, 2002). These investigations grouped the impacts, benefits and costs into three or four categories within the economic, social, cultural and environmental framework (Andereck, Valentine, Knopf & Vogt, 2005; Ayres, 2000; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Gursoyet al., 2002; Özel & Kozak, 2017). mailto:maria.sanchezf@udc.es https://10.0.70.59/ejge.2019.8.1.4580 J.R. Cardona et al. / European Journal of Government and Economics 8(1), June 2019, 30-47. 31 On the other hand, different types of tourism affect the residents’ attitudes (Murphy, 1985; Williams & Lawson, 2001) when it involves different impacts on the local environment and interactions between tourists and residents. However, the vast majority of studies on residents´ attitudes analyse the tourism sector as a whole. Only a few cases have focused on a particular type of tourism or activity. The only exceptions are resorts (Hernandez, Cohen & Garcia, 1996), national parks (Hammitt, Bixler & Noe, 1996; Holladay & Ormsby, 2011; Jurowski, Uysal, Williams &Noe, 1995; Sekhar, 2003; Walpole & Goodwin, 2001), dark tourism (Chen, Wang & Xu, 2017), hunting (Mackay & Campbell, 2004) and casinos (Coulter, Hermans & Parker, 2013; Kang, Lee, Yoon& Long, 2008; Lee, Kang & Reisinger, 2010; Lockyer, 2012; McCartney & In, 2016; Nichols, Giacopassi & Stitt, 2002; Stitt, Giacopassi & Nichols, 2003; Sutton & Griffiths, 2008; Vong, 2009). The objective of this investigation is to determine how the residents’ perceptions and attitudes affect the level of acceptance of different types of tourism offer (Lai & Hitchcock, 2017; McCartney & In, 2016; Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2017) in the case of Maldonado-Punta del Este conurbation. Punta del Este forms part of the Department of Maldonado and is the main sun and beach tourism destination in the Oriental Republic of Uruguay. There are 9,200 inhabitants in the city centre of Punta del Este, but there are more than 100,000 residents in the Maldonado-Punta del Este conurbation. Punta del Este receives more than 689,000 tourists annually during the high season from December to February (Ministerio de Turismo, 2017). The different types of tourism offers analysed are sports tourism, maritime tourism (sailing and cruises), nature tourism and sun and beach tourism. The analysis of the data has been carried out through the Partial Least Squares (PLS) regression, specifically the statistical software SmartPLS 2.0 (Ringle, Wende & Will, 2005). The objective of this investigation study is to analyse whether there is a relationship between the residents’ attitudes towards tourism in general and the degree of acceptance of different types of tourism offer. This article has four sections. The first section being the literature review, the second section showing the methodology used the third being the analysis of the results and the fourth section gathers the conclusions. The bibliographic references can be found at the end. 2. Literature review Investigations carried out on residents’ attitudes towards tourism have grouped the impacts perceived into three or four categories within the economic, social, cultural and environmental framework (Andereck et al., 2005; Ayres, 2000; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Gursoy et al., 2002; Özel & Kozak, 2017). The economic benefits stand out the most amongst, the four types of benefits analyzed in the literature review (Besculides et al., 2002; Bruner, 1996; Gursoy et al., 2002; Jurowski et al., 1997; Madrigal, 1993; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Ramón, Álvarez & Sánchez, 2018; Teye et al., 2002); mainly the creation of job opportunities (Besculides et al., 2002; Bruner, 1996; Gursoy et al., 2002; Teye et al., 2002). However, the other benefits must J.R. Cardona et al. / European Journal of Government and Economics 8(1), June 2019, 30-47. 32 not be disregarded, which leads to the proposed hypothesis 1: Hypothesis 1: The perception of the benefits generated by tourism has a positive effect on the general attitude towards tourism. Hypothesis 1.1: The perception of the economic benefits generated by tourism has a positive effect on the general attitude towards tourism. Hypothesis 1.2: The perception of the social benefits generated by tourism has a positive effect on the general attitude towards tourism. Hypothesis 1.3: The perception of the cultural benefits generated cultural by tourism has a positive effect on the general attitude towards tourism. Hypothesis 1.4: The perception of the environmental benefits generated by tourism has a positive effect on the general attitude towards tourism. As a counterpart of the benefits, the perceived costs have a significant and negative effect on attitudes towards tourism (Jurowski et al., 1997; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Prentice, 1993; Ramón et al., 2018). The perception of the costs along with the perception of benefits allows residents to carry out an overall assessment of tourism, which in turn determines their attitude towards the sector. Based on the existing literature review (Bujosa & Rosselló, 2007; Jurowski et al., 1997; King, Pizam & Milman, 1993; Long et al., 1990; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Prentice, 1993), the perception of the existence of costs derived from tourism leads to a less favourable assessment and a more negative attitude towards tourism. The following hypothesis 2 is proposed: Hypothesis 2: The perception of the costs generated by tourism has a negative effect on the general attitude towards tourism. Hypothesis 2.1: The perception of the economic costs generated by tourism has a negative effect on the general attitude towards tourism. Hypothesis 2.2: The perception of the social costs generated by tourism has a negative effect on the general attitude towards tourism. Hypothesis 2.3: The perception of cultural costs generated by tourism has a negative effect on the general attitude towards tourism. Hypothesis 2.4: The perception of environmental costs generated by tourism has a negative effect on the general attitude towards tourism. The differences in the behaviour of tourists at the destination, when studying the different types of tourism, must be taken into account as it is the element which has the most significant effect on residents´ attitudes. A tourist who shows respect and interest in the local culture and society is seen differently from a tourist seeking only freedom at low prices. Plog (1974) establishes typologies as to the reason why tourists choose their destination: Allocentrics (tourists who search for unknown places with no tourism development) and Psychocentrics J.R. Cardona et al. / European Journal of Government and Economics 8(1), June 2019, 30-47. 33 (tourists who escape from unknown places and visit consolidated destinations). Tourists with cultural and adventurous motivations tend to show greater respect for the residents and take part in more activities during their stay. On the other hand, there are tourists with no interest in the local culture and who want to rest (Gómez, San Martín & Bertiche, 1999). This type of tourist considers that the tourist destination, including residents, should adapt to the tourists and not vice versa. Some tourists have anti-tourist attitudes(Bruckner & Finkielkraut, 1979; Doran, Larsen & Wolff, 2015; Gration, Raciti & Arcodia, 2011; Gustafson, 2002; Jacobsen, 2000; Yu, Kim, Chen & Schwartz, 2012)and do not want to mix with tourist masses, i.e. they want to live an original experience which is not lived by mass tourism, since tourists are not considered (Hennig, 1997). Anti-tourist attitudes have become a symbol of prestige since this type of tourist does not want to be an ordinary tourist (Bruckner & Finkielkraut, 1979). Their behaviour emphasizes individualism and has elements in common with allocentric tourists such as the adventurous spirit and the taste for freedom which travelling independently gives (Plog, 1974, 2002). The type and intensity of contact between visitors and residents are important variables in determining the residents’ attitudes (Pearce, 1996), especially when the resident works in the sector or is economically dependent on tourism (Milman & Pizam, 1988). The interaction between the resident population and visitors is one of the most important factors when determining the perceptions and attitudes of residents (Murphy, 1985), as well as determining the levels of tourist satisfaction through the perception obtained from their destination (Gómez et al., 1999; Nyaupane, Teye & Paris, 2008; Yu & Lee, 2014). The degree of acceptance of a type of tourism on behalf of the residents depends on the benefits and costs generated and the tourists’ attitudes towards the destination they have visited (Milman & Pizam, 1988; Pearce, 1996). It is expected that the residents with a more positive attitude towards tourism have higher levels of acceptance of different types of tourism although these causal relationships may depend on the type of offer analysed. The following hypothesis 3 is proposed: Hypothesis 3: The general attitude towards tourism increases the acceptance of the different tourist offers. Sports tourism includes multiple types of sports. Golf stands out due to its impact on the environment and the level of expenditure created by tourists who tend to practice this sport. Hypothesis 3.1: The general attitude towards tourism increases the acceptance of sports tourism. Along with Montevideo, Punta del Este is one of the two ports in Uruguay with an important presence of cruiser liners (Ministerio de Turismo, 2017). It is also a destination of great interest for nautical tourism due to its international relevance and its geographical location. Both types of offers make Punta del Este a destination with great potential for tourist activities linked to the sea and can be included within the denomination of maritime tourism. Hypothesis 3.2: The general attitude towards tourism increases the acceptance of maritime J.R. Cardona et al. / European Journal of Government and Economics 8(1), June 2019, 30-47. 34 tourism. Rural tourism and nature-based tourism base their offer on the natural environment and activities involving physical exercise in natural surroundings. Hypothesis 3.3: The general attitude towards tourism increases the acceptance of nature tourism. Sun and beach tourism is the main offer in Punta del Este, attracting a high volume of tourists who stay in hotels and rented houses. Hypothesis 3.4: The general attitude towards tourism increases the acceptance of sun and beach tourism. The causal model proposed on the basis of the hypotheses proposed is shown in Figure 1. They will be subject to analysis for the case of Punta del Este. Figure 1. Proposed structural model. Source: own elaboration. 3. Methodology The data, which was obtained between February and September 2016, is made up of a sample of 420 residents from Maldonado-Punta del Este conurbation. To achieve the highest level of representativeness of the sample and to solve potential bias in the composition of the sample, the demographic parameters of the collated questionnaires were checked. The questionnaire used contained items with Likert scales for responses and a set of socio-demographic questions (Table 1). The maximum margin of error allowed was 4.88% given a level of confidence of 95%. In the case of the constructs measuring residents’ perceptions and attitudes, the causal analysis used a set of items whose possibility of response consisted of a five-point Likert scale; 1 being "Totally disagree", 3 "Irrelevant" and 5 "Strongly agree". For the constructs measuring the J.R. Cardona et al. / European Journal of Government and Economics 8(1), June 2019, 30-47. 35 degree of acceptance of the tourist offers, the Likert scale ranged from 1 "Unacceptable" to 5 "Totally acceptable". Based on Table 1, a slightly larger presence of men (55%) than women (45%) can be seen in the sample; however, it is a very common difference in this type of field work. The most representative age range is between 25 and 54, the vast majority having secondary and university qualifications. The main profile is characterized by working in the tourism sector and being born outside the studied region. Table 1. Socio-demographic profile of the samples. Frequency % Sex: Man. 230 54.76 Woman. 190 45.24 Age Less than 25. 104 24.76 From 25 to 34. 67 15.95 From 35 to 44. 81 19.29 From 45 to 54. 80 19.05 From 55 to 64. 49 11.67 65 or more. 39 9.29 Level of studies: No Studies. 8 1.90 Primary Studies. 39 9.29 Secondary Studies. 177 42.14 University Studies. 196 46.67 Birthplace: In the region. 181 43.10 Outside the region. 239 56.90 Works in Tourism: Yes. 243 57.86 No. 177 42.14 Source: own elaboration. The research model (Figure 1) has been tested using Partial Least Squares (PLS) technique (Gursoy et al., 2002; Lindberg & Johnson, 1997; Nunkoo & So, 2016; Ramón et al., 2018), a variance-based structural equation modelling (SEM) method. Partial Least Squares (PLS) technique is especially suitable for predictive research and theoretical developments. More precisely, this study uses SmartPLS 2.0 software for the PLS analysis (Ringle et al., 2005). While the results differ little for the alternative weighting schemes, path weighting is the recommended approach and the one used in this study. This weighting scheme provides the highest R² value for endogenous latent variables and is generally applicable for all kinds of PLS path model specifications and estimations (Henseler, Ringle & Sinkovics, 2009). J.R. Cardona et al. / European Journal of Government and Economics 8(1), June 2019, 30-47. 36 4. Results Before proceeding to the analysis of the proposed structural model it is necessary to previously analyse the measurement model. Individual reliability is considered adequate when an item has a factor loading that is greater than 0.707 on its respective construct (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). Construct reliability is usually assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha (Cronbach, 1970) and composite reliability (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). It can be observed in Table 2 that values for Cronbach’s Alpha and Composite Reliability are acceptable. Table 2. Reliability and Convergent Validity AVE Composite Reliability R2 Cronbach’s Alpha Communality Economic Benefits 0.599 0.882 0.000 0.832 0.599 Social Benefits 0.562 0.865 0.000 0.804 0.562 Cultural Benefits 0.738 0.893 0.000 0.828 0.738 Environmental Benefits 0.515 0.809 0.000 0.687 0.515 Economic Costs 0.743 0.850 0.000 0.744 0.743 Social Costs 0.615 0.757 0.000 0.696 0.615 Cultural Costs 0.554 0.832 0.000 0.734 0.554 Environmental Costs 0.596 0.880 0.000 0.835 0.596 General Attitude 0.627 0.871 0.363 0.802 0.627 Sport Tourism 0.767 0.868 0.067 0.699 0.767 Maritime Tourism 0.747 0.856 0.050 0.662 0.747 Nature Tourism 0.828 0.906 0.010 0.800 0.828 Sun and Beach Tourism 0.589 0.811 0.103 0.659 0.589 Source: own elaboration. To assess convergent validity must be examined the Average Variance Extracted (AVE). AVE values should be greater than 0.50 (Baggozi & Yi, 1998) and are greater (Table 2). There are two approaches to assess discriminate validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) in PLS: no item should load more highly on another construct than it does on the construct it intends to measure; the square root of the AVE of each latent variable should be greater than its correlations with any other latent variable in the assessment (Chin, 1998). Table 3 illustrates the final measurement model used. Table 3. Loadings of structural models. Arithmetic Average Standard Deviation Loadings Economic Benefits: Tourism generates many job opportunities for residents. 4.350 0.780 0.776 Tourism generates numerous business opportunities for residents and small businesses. 4.195 0.837 0.838 Tourism generates greater opportunities for investment in the town. 4.264 0.798 0.780 Tourism generates revenue for the Administration and local organisms. 4.293 0.818 0.734 J.R. Cardona et al. / European Journal of Government and Economics 8(1), June 2019, 30-47. 37 Arithmetic Average Standard Deviation Loadings Tourism significantly increases residents’ levels of income. 4.048 0.940 0.737 Social Benefits: Thanks to tourism residents have a better and wider range of leisure and entertainment. 3.740 1.072 0.685 Thanks to tourism basic services are better. 2.967 1.276 0.777 Thanks to tourism there are better public services. 2.855 1.225 0.786 Tourism promotes the restoration and conservation of historical heritage. 3.274 1.150 0.738 Tourism improves the quality of infrastructure and public works. 3.555 1.062 0.757 Cultural Benefits: Tourism promotes the preservation of local culture. 3.062 1.081 0.914 Tourism promotes the preservation of local traditions. 3.000 1.123 0.911 Tourism promotes the cultural identity of citizens. 3.167 1.100 0.741 Environmental Benefits: Tourism encourages the protection of natural areas. 3.379 1.101 0.762 Tourism converts natural resources into a source of income for residents. 3.652 1.009 0.688 Tourism is less polluting than other economic activities. 3.429 1.118 0.714 Tourism promotes respect for the environment. 2.936 1.101 0.705 Economic Costs: Tourism has led to an increase in prices and the cost of living. 4.076 1.007 0.716 Tourism has led to an increase in the cost of housing and land. 4.136 0.945 0.987 Social Costs: Tourism has increased the levels of public insecurity. 3.119 1.149 0.892 Tourism has increased the discomfort to residents. 3.548 1.106 0.659 Cultural Costs: Tourism hinders the enjoyment of public spaces by overcrowding them. 3.269 1.164 0.697 Tourism has made residents feel like strangers in their own town. 2.817 1.145 0.826 Tourism has generated a negative effect on local culture. 2.588 1.023 0.772 Tourism has generated conflicts between visitors and residents. 2.969 1.103 0.674 Environmental Costs: Tourism causes serious environmental pollution problems. 3.057 1.052 0.782 Tourism leads to the loss of local ecosystems. 3.002 1.025 0.841 Tourism consumes resources in excess. 3.319 1.064 0.747 Tourism has contributed to the degradation of the natural environment of the town. 3.062 1.063 0.806 Tourism has caused the saturation of some natural areas. 3.362 1.077 0.675 General Attitude: Tourism development has been very beneficial to the town and its inhabitants. 4.093 0.836 0.772 Tourism must continue to be promoted as an essential part of the town. 4.300 0.802 0.828 Tourism is beneficial for residents’ day to day lives. 3.988 0.930 0.802 There is a better quality of life thanks to tourism. 3.848 0.996 0.765 Sport Tourism: Golf Tourism. 3.781 1.012 0.849 J.R. Cardona et al. / European Journal of Government and Economics 8(1), June 2019, 30-47. 38 Arithmetic Average Standard Deviation Loadings Sport tourism. 4.067 0.934 0.902 Maritime Tourism: Cruise Ship Tourism. 3.976 1.095 0.874 Nautical Tourism. 3.964 0.964 0.855 Nature Tourism: Nature-based tourism. 4.012 1.006 0.872 Agro-tourism, rural tourism, etc. 3.848 1.065 0.946 Sun and Beach Tourism: Holiday houses and apartments for rent. 4.150 0.822 0.702 Second home tourism. 3.990 0.902 0.754 Family sun and beach tourism. 4.533 0.788 0.841 Source: own elaboration. After testing the measurement model, proceeded to the analysis of the structural model and the proposed causal relationships. PLS-SEM does not assume that the data is normally distributed, which implies that parametric significance tests cannot be applied to test whether coefficients such as outer loadings and path coefficients are significant. Instead, PLS-SEM relies on a nonparametric bootstrap procedure (Davison & Hinkley, 1997; Efron & Tibshirani, 1993) to test the significance of estimated path coefficients. Through bootstrapping, 5,000 subsamples are created with randomly drawn observations from the original set of data (with replacement). The subsample is then used to estimate the PLS path model by calculating the average values of the parameters obtained in the 5,000 samples and compared with those obtained from the original set of data. The parameters estimated from the subsamples are used to derive standard errors for the estimates. With this information, t-values are calculated to assess each estimate's significance (Hair, Hult, Ringle & Sarstedt, 2014).To determine the critical values, a Student’s t distribution with 4,999 degrees of freedom and one tail has been used (as the direction of the relationship was defined). Significance analysis results for the different direct causal relationships, both through the use of Student's t values and using non- parametric techniques (Henseler et al., 2009), are detailed in Table 4. Based on the results (Table 4), only the economic benefits (Hypothesis 1.1) have a significant and important effect on the general attitude of the residents of Maldonado-Punta del Este conurbation. This reminds us of the importance that the economic improvements most directly perceived by residents have on their attitude towards the sector (Gursoy et al., 2002; Jurowski et al., 1997; Lankford & Howard, 1994; Teye et al., 2002). Social benefits (Hypothesis 1.2) do not have a significant effect on residents’ general attitude, therefore differing from the results of some previous studies (Gursoy et al., 2002; Lankford & Howard, 1994). Cultural benefits (Hypothesis 1.3) and environmental benefits (Hypothesis 1.4) did not have significant effects on the general attitude towards tourism either. Table 4. Path Coefficients. J.R. Cardona et al. / European Journal of Government and Economics 8(1), June 2019, 30-47. 39 Path Coefficients Standard Error T-Statistic P-value Economic Benefits General Attitude (H1.1) 0.373*** 0.115 3.245 0.001 Social Benefits General Attitude (H1.2) 0.098ns 0.114 0.857 0.196 Cultural Benefits General Attitude (H1.3) 0.036ns 0.095 0.382 0.351 Environmental Benefits General Attitude (H1.4) 0.067ns 0.109 0.615 0.269 Economic CostsGeneral Attitude (H2.1) 0.134ns 0.133 1.015 0.155 Social CostsGeneral Attitude (H2.2) 0.018ns 0.098 0.184 0.427 Cultural CostsGeneral Attitude (H2.3) -0.228* 0.111 2.053 0.020 Environmental CostsGeneral Attitude (H2.4) -0.073ns 0.105 0.697 0.243 General Attitude Sport Tourism (H3.1) 0.258** 0.090 2.863 0.002 General Attitude Maritime Tourism (H3.2) 0.224* 0.107 2.098 0.018 General Attitude Nature Tourism (H3.3) 0.102ns 0.124 0.823 0.205 General Attitude Sun and Beach Tourism (H3.4) 0.321*** 0.090 3.589 0.000 *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; ns not significant. Source: own elaboration. Economic costs (Hypothesis 2.1), social costs (Hypothesis 2.2) and environmental costs (Hypothesis 2.4) do not have a significant effect on the general attitude towards tourism (Table 4), not coinciding with the results of previous studies (Jurowski et al., 1997; Long et al., 1990; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Prentice, 1993). Only cultural costs (Hypothesis 2.3) have a negative and significant effect on the general attitude. The general attitude of residents towards tourism has significant and positive effects (Table 4) on the sun and beach tourism (Hypothesis 3.4), sports tourism (Hypothesis 3.1) and maritime tourism (Hypothesis 3.2), but there is no significant effect on nature tourism (Hypothesis 3.3). The two most important (β > 0.250) and significant (P > 0.01) effects from these are on the sun and beach tourism and sports tourism. It should be considered if the explanatory power of the degree of acceptance of the various analysed tourist offers would improve by implementing a direct relation between the perception of benefits and costs generated by tourism and the degree of acceptance of different types of tourism. In order to do so, the analysis was repeated with the new structural models. Table 5 shows that the vast majority of causal relations raised are not significant: • Sport Tourism: only cultural costs show a negative and significant effect. • Maritime Tourism: there is a positive and significant effect of economic benefits and a negative and significant effect of environmental costs. • Natural Tourism: no causal relation is significant in this case. • Sun and Beach Tourism: the economic benefits have a positive and significant effect and cultural costs have a negative and significant effect. The few significant causal relations have significance levels that do not reach the level 0.01, indicating that they are possibly causal relations of little importance and not therefore not possible to generalize. Table 5. Alternative models. J.R. Cardona et al. / European Journal of Government and Economics 8(1), June 2019, 30-47. 40 Path Coefficients Standard Error T-Statistic P-value Economic Benefits Sport Tourism 0.089ns 0.125 0.715 0.237 Social Benefits Sport Tourism 0.051ns 0.139 0.367 0.357 Cultural Benefits Sport Tourism 0.080ns 0.133 0.599 0.275 Environmental Benefits Sport Tourism 0.104ns 0.135 0.768 0.221 Economic Costs Sport Tourism 0.053ns 0.108 0.487 0.313 Social Costs Sport Tourism 0.007ns 0.143 0.049 0.481 Cultural Costs Sport Tourism -0.197ᶲ 0.135 1.454 0.073 Environmental Costs Sport Tourism 0.036ns 0.128 0.279 0.390 Economic Benefits Maritime Tourism 0.165ᶲ 0.128 1.289 0.099 Social Benefits Maritime Tourism -0.005ns 0.141 0.035 0.486 Cultural Benefits Maritime Tourism 0.128ns 0.115 1.108 0.134 Environmental Benefits Maritime Tourism 0.089ns 0.127 0.706 0.240 Economic Costs Maritime Tourism 0.078ns 0.111 0.702 0.241 Social Costs Maritime Tourism 0.019ns 0.146 0.127 0.449 Cultural Costs Maritime Tourism 0.053ns 0.136 0.389 0.349 Environmental Costs Maritime Tourism -0.237* 0.121 1.966 0.025 Economic Benefits Nature Tourism 0.145ns 0.142 1.021 0.154 Social Benefits Nature Tourism -0.062ns 0.165 0.376 0.353 Cultural Benefits Nature Tourism 0.098ns 0.136 0.720 0.236 Environmental Benefits Nature Tourism 0.038ns 0.143 0.267 0.395 Economic Costs Nature Tourism 0.041ns 0.132 0.313 0.377 Social Costs Nature Tourism 0.034ns 0.134 0.253 0.400 Cultural Costs Nature Tourism -0.097ns 0.134 0.724 0.235 Environmental Costs Nature Tourism 0.038ns 0.128 0.301 0.382 Economic Benefits Sun and Beach Tourism 0.173ᶲ 0.128 1.352 0.088 Social Benefits Sun and Beach Tourism 0.087ns 0.136 0.639 0.261 Cultural Benefits Sun and Beach Tourism -0.079ns 0.123 0.640 0.261 Environmental Benefits Sun and Beach Tourism 0.009ns 0.140 0.064 0.474 Economic Costs Sun and Beach Tourism 0.100ns 0.115 0.870 0.192 Social Costs Sun and Beach Tourism -0.061ns 0.137 0.442 0.329 Cultural Costs Sun and Beach Tourism -0.218* 0.130 1.685 0.046 Environmental Costs Sun and Beach Tourism -0.081ns 0.120 0.673 0.250 ᶲp<0.1; *p<0.05; ns not significant. Source: own elaboration. The alternative analysis proposed makes it possible to note that the causal model initially proposed has a higher explanatory capacity about residents’ behaviour than the alternative approach with different types of offers posed as a variable directly dependent on the general perceptions of benefits and costs. Although the initially proposed model has few significant causal relationships (table 6), the suggested alternative models have fewer significant relationships. Moreover, in alternative models, the degree of significance of causal relations is very low and does not allow the existence of causal relations to be affirmed. It is very possible that there is no existence of the causal relations proposed in the alternative models. Table 6. Hypotheses summary table. J.R. Cardona et al. / European Journal of Government and Economics 8(1), June 2019, 30-47. 41 Hypotheses Accepted Rejected 1: The perception of the benefits generated by tourism has a positive effect on the general attitude towards tourism. 1.1: The perception of the economic benefits generated by tourism has a positive effect on the general attitude towards tourism. X 1.2: The perception of the social benefits generated by tourism has a positive effect on the general attitude towards tourism. X 1.3: The perception of the cultural benefits generated cultural by tourism has a positive effect on the general attitude towards tourism. X 1.4: The perception of the environmental benefits generated by tourism has a positive effect on the general attitude towards tourism. X 2: The perception of the costs generated by tourism has a negative effect on the general attitude towards tourism. 2.1: The perception of the economic costs generated by tourism has a negative effect on the general attitude towards tourism. X 2.2: The perception of the social costs generated by tourism has a negative effect on the general attitude towards tourism. X 2.3: The perception of cultural costs generated by tourism has a negative effect on the general attitude towards tourism. X 2.4: The perception of environmental costs generated by tourism has a negative effect on the general attitude towards tourism. X 3: The general attitude towards tourism increases the acceptance of the different tourist offers. 3.1: The general attitude towards tourism increases the acceptance of sports tourism. X 3.2: The general attitude towards tourism increases the acceptance of maritime tourism. X 3.3: The general attitude towards tourism increases the acceptance of nature tourism. X 3.4: The general attitude towards tourism increases the acceptance of sun and beach tourism. X Source: own elaboration. The results of this work indicate that attitudes towards different types of tourism are created in two phases. Firstly, tourism is valued as a whole taking into account the economic benefits it generates and the cultural costs it causes, mainly being the inconvenience and discomfort, it generates (table 6). Although it is very likely to take the current tourism model of the destination as a reference to create attitudes towards tourism, it is not possible to exchange a particular type of tourism with the global tourism sector as a dependent variable. In the second phase, the residents decide the combination of offers they prefer for the tourism sector; therefore, the overall valuation of tourism has different causal effects on the four types of offer analysed. These causal effects show recognition of the possibilities of each type of tourism in the region and its quantitative importance. The greater the potential of the destination to develop a higher type of tourism, the greater the causal effect. In the case of Maldonado-Punta del Este, a conurbation located on the coast, there are significant effects on the sun and beach tourism (the main in Punta del Este) and maritime and sports tourism, but not on nature tourism. The latter has more limited possibilities in this type of tourist destination. J.R. Cardona et al. / European Journal of Government and Economics 8(1), June 2019, 30-47. 42 5. Conclusions When analysing the effect of residents’ attitude on the degree of acceptance of the different tourist offers it can be seen that there are no significant effects on nature tourism. In the other three types of tourism, the relations are significant, although the effects are more important and significant in the case of sun and beach tourism. As a result of the causal analysis carried out, the proposed model was reduced to the causal relationships shown in Figure 2, once the non- significant causal relationships were eliminated. Nature tourism has a high degree of acceptance by residents but it is a response which has little to do with the tourism analysis process carried out by residents. It is possibly a more "automatic" response and caused less by a critical analysis of tourism. Figure 2. Causal relations preserved. Source: own elaboration. The main limitation of the study is that it is a case study: the analysis has been carried out on a sample of a specific tourist destination. Another limitation is that other types of tourism offers have not been taken into account, although they are more than in previous studies, and the measurement scales used may have influenced the result. Even so, the analysis provides the main result of the importance of separating the general attitude toward tourism from the concrete attitudes towards a specific type of offer. This implies that the managers of the tourist destinations must carry out two complementary analyses: measure the residents’ attitudes towards the tourism sector in general, to determine the support towards this type of activity; determine the degree of acceptance of the various types of tourism offer and whether this acceptance depends on the general attitude towards the sector or is independent. If it is independent of the general attitude, it is possible that it is a "learned" or "politically correct" support but not based on a rational analysis of tourism activity. When it depends on the general J.R. Cardona et al. / European Journal of Government and Economics 8(1), June 2019, 30-47. 43 attitude, it would be showing a preference for the short and medium term development of tourism in the region. But these are only hypotheses of interpretation that should be developed in future studies. Based on the results, managers from the tourism sector are recommended to maximize the economic benefits which have a direct impact on the residents. This would involve prioritizing the endogenous development of the sector (workers, entrepreneurs and local investors), and minimizing the negative consequences of contact between tourists and residents: calculating the capacity of the region and not exceeding it; prioritizing tourists who are respectful of the places visited and who have similar cultures to that of the residents. When tourists are from countries which are culturally different from the local society, it is important to diversify tourism so that local culture remains the main culture in the destination and reduces the alienation of the resident in their own land. Future studies should repeat the analysis with new types of tourism to try to determine when the acceptance of a type of tourism is the result of the attitude towards tourism or a response with no connection to the residents’ cost-benefit evaluation. In relation to this point, it should be analysed if the degree of acceptance of offers with no connection to the general attitude towards tourism is due to a learned response or a perception of respectful tourism with the local inhabitants. References Almeida, F., Balbuena, A., & Cortés, R. (2015). Resident's attitudes towards the impacts of tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 13, 33-40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.11.002 Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knoff, R. C., & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 1056-1076. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2005.03.001 Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 Ayres, R. (2000). Tourism as a passport to development in small states: Reflections on Cyprus. International Journal of Social Economics, 27(2), 114-133. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290010308992 Bagozzi, R. P.,& Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(2), 74-94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327 Besculides, A., Lee, M., & McCormick, P. (2002). Resident's perceptions of the cultural benefits of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), 303-319. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160- 7383(01)00066-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.11.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2005.03.001 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290010308992 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00066-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00066-4 J.R. Cardona et al. / European Journal of Government and Economics 8(1), June 2019, 30-47. 44 Bruckner, P., & Finkielkraut, A. (1979). Au Coin de la Rue. L'aventure. Paris: Èditions du Seuil. Bruner, E. (1996). Tourism in Ghana: the representation of slavery and the return of the black diaspora. American Anthropologist, 98(2), 290-304. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1996.98.2.02a00060 Bujosa, A., & Rosselló, J. (2007). Modeling environmental attitudes toward tourism. Tourism Management, 28(3), 688-695. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.04.004 Carmines, E., & Zeller, R. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment, N. 07-017. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. doi: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985642 Chen, S., Wang, S., & Xu, H. (2017). Influence of place identity on residents’ attitudes to dark tourism. Journal of China Tourism Research, 13(4), 338-356. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2017.1401023 Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinions on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7-16. Coulter, R. L., Hermans, C. M., & Parker, R. S. (2013). Religiosity and generational effects on gambling: Support for and opposition to introducing casino gambling in a non-gambling tourist entertainment environment. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1682-1688. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.015 Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of Psychological Testing. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Davison, A., & Hinkley, D. (1997). Bootstrap Methods and Their Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802843 Doran, R., Larsen, S., & Wolff, K. (2015). Different but similar: Social comparison of travel motives among tourists. International Journal of Tourism Research, 17(6), 555-563. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2023 Efron, B.,& Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York, NY: Chapman Hall. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-4541-9 Gómez, L., San Martín, J., & Bertiche, C. (1999). A model of tourism experience and attitude change. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 1024-1027. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160- 7383(99)00063-8 Gration, D., Raciti, M., & Arcodia, C. (2011). The role of consumer self-concept in marketing festivals. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 28(6), 644-655. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2011.603631 Gursoy, D., & Rutherford, D. (2004). Host attitudes toward tourism: An Improved Structural Model. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 495-516. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2003.08.008 Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident attitudes: a structural Modeling Approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 79-105. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160- 7383(01)00028-7 Gustafson, P. (2002). Tourism and seasonal retirement migration. Annals of Tourism Research, https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1996.98.2.02a00060 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.04.004 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985642 https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2017.1401023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.015 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802843 https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2023 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-4541-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00063-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00063-8 https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2011.603631 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2003.08.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00028-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00028-7 J.R. Cardona et al. / European Journal of Government and Economics 8(1), June 2019, 30-47. 45 29(4), 899-918. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00084-6 Hair, J., Hult, G., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hammitt, W. E., Bixler, R. D., & Noe, F. P. (1996). Going beyond importance-performance analysis to analyze the observance: influence of park impacts. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 14(1), 45-62. Hennig, C. (1997). Touristenbeschimpfung. Zur geschichte des anti-tourismus. Zeitschrift für Volkskunde, 93(1), 31-41. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in international marketing. In R. R. Sinkovics, &P. N. Ghauri (Ed.), Advances in International Marketing (pp. 277-320). Bingley, WA: Emerald. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014 Hernandez, S. A., Cohen, J., & Garcia, H. L. (1996). Residents' attitudes towards an instant resort enclave. Annals of tourism research, 23(4), 755-779. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160- 7383(95)00114-X Holladay, P. J., & Ormsby, A. A. (2011). A comparative study of local perceptions of ecotourism and conservation at Five Blues Lake National Park, Belize. Journal of Ecotourism, 10(2), 118-134. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2010.529910 Jacobsen, J. K. S. (2000). Anti-tourist attitudes: Mediterranean charter tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 284-300. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00069-9 Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Williams, R. D. (1997). A theoretical analysis of host community resident reactions to tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 36(2), 3-11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759703600202 Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., Williams, R. D., & Noe, F. P. (1995). An examination of preferences and evaluations of visitors based on environmental attitudes: Biscayne Bay National Park. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 3(2), 73-86. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759703600202 Kang, S. K., Lee, C., Yoon, Y.,& Long, P. T. (2008). Resident perception of the impact of limited-stakes community-based casino gaming in mature gaming communities. Tourism Management, 29(4), 681-694. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.07.011 King, B., Pizam, A., & Milman, A. (1993). Social impacts of tourism: Host perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research, 20(4), 650-665. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(93)90089-L Lai, I. K. W., & Hitchcock, M. (2017). Local reactions to mass tourism and community tourism development in Macau. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(4), 451-470. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1221413 Lankford, S. V., & Howard, D. R. (1994). Developing a tourism impacts attitude scale. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(1), 121-139. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(94)90008-6 Lee, C. K., Kang, S., & Reisinger, Y. (2010). Community attachment in two rural gaming communities: Comparisons between Colorado gaming communities, USA and Gangwon gaming communities, South Korea. Tourism Geographies, 12(1), 140-168. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00084-6 https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014 https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(95)00114-X https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(95)00114-X https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2010.529910 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00069-9 https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759703600202 https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759703600202 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.07.011 https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(93)90089-L https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1221413 https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(94)90008-6 J.R. Cardona et al. / European Journal of Government and Economics 8(1), June 2019, 30-47. 46 https://doi.org/10.1080/14616680903493688 Lindberg, K., & Johnson, R. L. (1997). Modeling residents attitudes toward tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 402-424. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(97)80009-6 Lockyer, T. (2012). Perceptions of the Hamilton New Zealand casino upon local residents. Tourism Review, 67(4), 12-25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/16605371211277786 Mackay, K. J., & Campbell, J. M. (2004). An examination of residents’ support for hunting as a tourism product. Tourism Management, 25(4), 443-452. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261- 5177(03)00127-4 Madrigal, R. (1993). A tale of tourism in two cities. Annals of Tourism Research, 20(2), 336-353. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(93)90059-C Mason, P., & Cheyne, J. (2000). Resident's attitudes to proposed tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 391-411. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00084-5 McCartney, G., & In, W. L. W. (2016). House of cards - An analysis of Macao’s resident support for tourism and casino development. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 16(2), 144-157. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358415600215 Milman, A., & Pizam, A. (1988). Social impact of tourism on Central Florida. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(2), 191-204. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(88)90082-5 Ministerio de Turismo (2017). Anuario 2017: Estadísticas de Turismo. Montevideo: Ministerio de Turismo. Retrieved form http://www.mintur.gub.uy/ [september 10, 2018] Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. New York, NY: Routledge. Nichols, M., Giacopassi, D., & Stitt, B. G. (2002). Casino gambling as a catalyst of economic development: Perceptions of residents in new casino jurisdictions. Tourism Economics, 8(1), 59-76. doi: https://doi.org/10.5367/000000002101297990 Nunkoo, R., & Gursoy, D. (2017). Political trust and residents’ support for alternative and mass tourism: An improved structural model. Tourism Geographies, 19(3), 318-339. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2016.1196239 Nunkoo, R., & So, K. K. F. (2016). Residents’ support for tourism: Testing alternative structural models. Journal of Travel Research, 55(7), 847-861. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287515592972 Nyaupane, G. P., Teye, V., & Paris, C. (2008). Innocents abroad:Attitude change toward hosts. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3), 650-667. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2008.03.002 Özel, Ç. H., & Kozak, N. (2017). An exploratory study of resident perceptions toward the tourism industry in Cappadocia: A social exchange theory approach. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 22(3), 284-300. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2016.1236826 Pearce, D. G. (1996). Tourist organizations in Sweden. Tourism Management, 17(6), 413-424. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(96)00050-7 Plog, S. C. (1974). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 14(4), 55-58. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/001088047401400409 https://doi.org/10.1080/14616680903493688 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(97)80009-6 https://doi.org/10.1108/16605371211277786 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00127-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00127-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(93)90059-C https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00084-5 https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358415600215 https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(88)90082-5 https://doi.org/10.5367/000000002101297990 https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2016.1196239 https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287515592972 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2008.03.002 https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2016.1236826 https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(96)00050-7 https://doi.org/10.1177/001088047401400409 J.R. Cardona et al. / European Journal of Government and Economics 8(1), June 2019, 30-47. 47 Plog, S. C. (2002). The power of psychographics and the concept of venturesomeness. Journal of Travel Research, 40(3), 244-251. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/004728750204000302 Prentice, R. (1993). Community-driven tourism planning and residents' preferences. Tourism Management, 14(3), 218-227. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(93)90023-E Ramón, J., Álvarez, D., & Sánchez, M. D. (2018). Principales causantes de la actitud de los residentes: Comparativa entre dos destinos de playa. Revista Portuguesa de Estudos Regionais, 47, 37-48. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, S. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (Beta). Hamburg: SmartPLS. Sekhar, N. U. (2003). Local people's attitudes towards conservation and wildlife tourism around Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of environmental Management, 69(4), 339-347. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2003.09.002 Sharpley, R. (2014). Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tourism Management, 42, 37-49. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.10.007 Stitt, B. G., Giacopassi, D., & Nichols, M. (2003). Gambling among older adults: A comparative analysis. Experimental Aging Research, 29(2), 189-203. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03610730303713 Sutton, R., & Griffiths, M. D. (2008). The casino attitudes scale: The development of a new brief psychometric instrument. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 6(2), 244- 248. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-007-9127-z Teye, V.,Sirakaya, E., & Sönmez, S. F. (2002). Resident's attitudes toward tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 668-688. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00074-3 Vong, F. (2009). Changes in residents’ gambling attitudes and perceived impacts at the fifth anniversary of Macao’s gaming deregulation. Journal of Travel Research, 47(3), 388-397. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287508322787 Walpole, M. J., & Goodwin, H. J. (2001). Local attitudes towards conservation and tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation, 28(2), 160-166. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892901000169 Williams, J., & Lawson, R. (2001). Community issues and resident opinions of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 269-290. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00030-X Yu, J., & Lee, T. J. (2014). Impact of tourists' intercultural interactions. Journal of Travel Research, 53(2), 225-238. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513496467 Yu, X., Kim, N., Chen, C., & Schwartz, Z. (2012). Are you a tourist? Tourism definition from the tourist perspective. Tourism Analysis, 17(4), 445-457. doi: https://doi.org/10.3727/108354212X13473157390687 https://doi.org/10.1177/004728750204000302 https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(93)90023-E https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2003.09.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.10.007 https://doi.org/10.1080/03610730303713 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-007-9127-z https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00074-3 https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287508322787 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892901000169 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00030-X https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513496467 https://doi.org/10.3727/108354212X13473157390687 Front81 EJGE OFICIAL 8-1 Contents81 Number 8, issue 1, June 2019 4580 Abstract. The study of residents' attitudes is fundamental for tourist destinations managers. Residents form their attitude towards tourism through a cost-benefit analysis based on their perception of tourism impacts. The objective of this paper is to... Keywords. Attitudes, residents, PLS, Punta del Este. JEL codes: C88, L83, Z32 DOI. https://10.17979/ejge.2019.8.1.4580 1. Introduction 2. Literature review 3. Methodology 4. Results 5. Conclusions References