Film Tourism and Its Impact on Residents Quality of Life: A Multi Logit Analysis
9.4 Analysis and Discussion
9.4.1 Demographic Profiling of Residents
Change in demographic variables seems to be relevant in defining the community opinion towards tourism development, in this case, the impact of film tourism. With the exception of gender and length of stay, all other demographic characteristics of residents have statistical significance when it comes to impact of IFFI on the quality of life. Exhibit 9.1 shows general demographic profiling of residents gives age
S. K. B. Pillai et al.
189
distribution as follows Age 20–29 (43%), 30–39 (18.3%), 40–49 (19.9%), 50 and above (18.8%), it clearly shows that there was a significant age difference between supporters, neutral and opposers of film tourism with regards to age (χ2 = 57.33, p < 0.05), with older people opposing IFFI, while younger people were more sup- portive to film based tourism. Significant difference was found between education groups (χ2 = 15.16, p < 0.05), as more educated people were neutral towards IFFI and less educated group opposed IFFI. Educational levels were distributed as fol- lows, up to 12 years of schooling (30.1%), graduation (24.2%) and post-graduation (45.7%). It was found to have significant difference (χ2 = 15.16, p > 0.05). Income levels were distributed as follows, less than 2000 USD (55.4%), 2000 USD – 20000 USD (26.6%), and above 20000 USD (8.1%). Significant difference was found with more middle income group being neutral towards Film based tourism (χ2 = 11.75, p < 0.05). Significant difference existed with respect to marital status among oppos- ers, neutral and supporters. With respect to marital status, married people were more neutral in attitude towards film tourism (χ2 = 15.16, p < 0.05).
With respect to gender and length of stay, no statistical significance was observed among the three categories of respondents. There was a roughly even distribution of male and female with 52.2% for male and 47.3% for female in responses with sig- nificant difference found with gender (χ2 = 1.033, p > 0.05). Respondents’ length of residence ranged from less than 1 years (7%), 1–10 years (59.7%), and 10 years and
Exhibit 9.1 Demographi profiling of residents and attitude towards film tourism Demographic characteristic (N = 186)
Residents Attitude
Total (%) χ2 Supporter Neutral Opposer
Age 20–29 25 48 7 43.0 57.33*
30–39 9 20 5 18.3
40–49 3 26 8 19.9
50 and above 2 9 24 18.8
Education Up to 12 years study 11 22 23 30.1 15.16*
Graduation 11 29 5 24.2
Post graduation 17 52 16 45.7
Gender Male 19 53 26 52.7 1.033
Female 20 50 18 47.3
Income Less than 2000 USD 28 50 25 55.4 11.75*
2000–20,000 USD 6 47 15 26.6
Above 20,000 USD 5 6 4** 8.1
Length of stay Less than a year 5 7 1** 7.0 5.451
1–10 years 22 65 24 59.7
10 years ad above 12 31 19 33.3
Marital status Unmarried 18 46 21 45.7 15.16*
Married 21 57 23 54.3
*p < 0.05
**The authors acknowledge that the number of observations in those cases are low (the expected value under the hypothesis of independences is less than 5) but they leave this analysis for the sake of explanation
9 Film Tourism and Its Impact on Residents Quality of Life: A Multi Logit Analysis
190
above (33.3%), with no statistical significance(χ2 = 5.451, p > 0.05). Hence, based on the above, the formulated hypothesis (H1) of RQ1 that “no significant difference between Film Tourism (Supporters/Neutral/Opposers) with respect to age, gender, marital status, income, education, and length of stay” is rejected with an exception of gender, and length of stay.
9.4.2 Marginal Coefficient
Multi Logit Regression and Marginal effects were to answer RQ2: Is it possible to identify the effect of variations of population characteristics on each of the groups viz.; Supporters, Neutral, or Opposer?; which investigates the effects of the demographic variables over the dependent variable for each group significantly different between the clusters. As shown by the result in Exhibit 9.2, the marginal effect for variable age and income is significant at 95% level of confidence for group of Supporters, meaning that if a resident belonging to the age group (50 and above), the probability of being a supporter will be decreased by 25.2% as compared to the age group 20–29, also a resident belonging to the age group (40–49 years), the prob- ability of being a supporter will be decreased by 21.9% as compared to age group (20–29 years). Similarly, a resident belonging to Income group (2000–20,000 USD), the probability of being a supporter will be decreased by 14.3% as compared to a resident belonging to the income group of less than 2000USD.
Exhibit 9.2 Residents classification based on their different attitudes towards film tourism (supporters, neutral and opposers)
Demographic characteristic
Residents attitude
Supporter Neutral Opposer
Age 20–29 BC BC BC
30–39 −0.0743 −0.0009 0.0752
40–49 −0.219* 0.0922 0.1268
50 and above −0.252* −0.2831* 0.5355*
Education Up to 12 years study BC BC BC
Graduation −0.0143 0.213* −0.1999*
Post graduation −0.0005 0.204* −0.2043*
Gender Male −0.0492 0.0217 0.0274
Female BC BC BC
Income Less than 2000USD BC BC BC
2000–20,000 USD −0.143* 0.188* −0.0447
Above 20,000 USD 0.1621 −0.104 −0.0579
Length of stay Less than a year BC BC BC
1–10 years −0.1537 0.115 0.0379
10 years and above −0.1486 −0.004 0.1531
Marital status Unmarried −0.0782 0.0338 0.0443
Married BC BC BC
*p < 0.05; BC base category
S. K. B. Pillai et al.
191
Residents showing Neutral attitude towards Film Tourism had a marginal effect for variable age, education and income significant at 95% level of confidence, meaning that for a resident in the age group (50 and above), the probability of hav- ing a neutral opinion will decrease by 28.3% as compared to age group 20–29.
Similarly a resident with the education qualification of Post-Graduation, the prob- ability of them having a neutral opinion will increase by 20.4% as compared to a resident with education qualification of up to 12 years of schooling, also a resident with the education qualification of Graduation, probability of them having neutral opinion will increase by 21.3% as compared to a resident with education qualifica- tion of up to 12 years of schooling. Also residents belonging to Income group (2000–20,000 USD), the probability of them having a neutral opinion will increase by 18.8% as compared to a resident with income of less than 2000 USD.
The variable age and education is significant at 95% confidence interval for Opposer, meaning a resident belonging to the age group (50 and above), the prob- ability of them being an Opposer will be increase by 53.5% as compared to resi- dents in the age group 20–29. Similarly a resident with education qualification of post-graduation, the probability of them opposing film tourism will decrease by 19.9% as compared to a resident with an education qualification of up to 12 years of school education, also a resident with education qualification of Graduation, the probability of Opposing Film Tourism will decrease by 20.43% as compared to a resident with education qualification of up to 12 years of school education.
9.4.3 Factor Analysis of Residents Perception
Exploratory factor analysis is used in order to answer RQ3: Is it possible to identify important factors which drive Quality of Life perception of residents due to Film tourism in Goa?; i.e.; to identify factors driving resident’s perception; this analysis was conducted to assess the dimensionality of the 38 items (refer Exhibit 9.3).
Kaiser’s (1974) overall measure of sampling adequacy is 0.85, indicating that the data are appropriate for the principal components model. Values of 0.6 and above are required for a good factor analysis (Tabachnick and Fidell 1989). An examina- tion of the screen plots derived from principal component analysis with varimax rotation indicated that a four-factor solution was appropriate for these data.
These four factors explained 57.43% of the variance in attitudes toward tourism.
Although this percentage is a little less than the 58% found by Lankford and Howard (1994). Of all 38 perception related items based upon the post-survey data were ini- tially factor analyzed; 4 items was removed due to factor loading lower than 0.4.
Thirty-four items were factor analyzed again, resulting in the following four underly- ing dimensions. All factors had reliability coefficients from a low of 0.90 to the high of 0.94. These factors were labelled as: (F1) Community Pride, (F2) Personal gains, (F3) Negative Environmental impact, and (F4) Negative social impact. F1 and F2 deal with the positive aspects of quality of life where as F3 and F4 represents nega- tive aspects. This clearly shows that film tourism in Goa does have positive and negative
9 Film Tourism and Its Impact on Residents Quality of Life: A Multi Logit Analysis
Exhibit 9.3 Factors driving residents quality of life Quality of life perception statements
Factor loading
F1 F2 F3 F4
COMMUNITY PRIDE (F1)
1 They have improved the city’s tourism image 0.522 2 I’ve gained a sense of pride through these events 0.677 3 They have made the city more international 0.780 4 They have contributed to the city’s tourism 0.739 5 They have created more network opportunities for residents 0.838 6 They have promoted economic development 0.844 8 I’ve had lots of enjoyment through IFFI 0.646
9 They have raised the employment rate 0.743
10 They have created profits for the government 0.652 11 They have improved shopping opportunities 0.625 12 They have created profits for private enterprise 0.543 13 They have led to the creation of new facilities 0.679 14 They have improved overall living standards of the residents 0.763 15 They have created many leisure & entertainment opportunities 0.811 16 They have created new family-based leisure opportunities 0.739 17 They have provided opportunities to learn about their own
community
0.637 18 These events expose local artists to expertise 0.784 19 These events provide local artists with an opportunity to show
case their talents
0.835 PERSONAL GAINS (F2)
20 They have enriched my life 0.734
21 They have brought excitement to my life 0.704
22 They have brought emotional experience to my life 0.759 NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT (F3)
23 They have created air pollution 0.798
24 They have destroyed the natural environment 0.832
25 They have damaged heritage sites 0.702
26 They have disrupted normal life 0.766
27 They have created traffic jams 0.710
28 They have put pressure on urban services 0.784
29 Parking space has reduced 0.727
30 Sewage problems has increased 0.813
31 They have made the place more dirty (littering) 0.805 32 These have led to increase in alcohol and drug abuse 0.627
NEGATIVE SOCIAL EFFECT (F4)
33 These have led to increase in prostitution 0.88
34 These have led to increase in crime rate 0.88
ITEMS 19 3 10 2
EIGEN VALUE 11.5 6.01 2.05 1.67
VARIANCE EXPLAINED 31.1 16.2 5.56 4.51
TOTAL VARIANCE EXPLAINED 57.43%
KMO MEASURE OF SAMPLING ADEQUACY 0.861
CRONBACH’S ALPHA 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
193
impacts on the quality of life of residents. Respondents are very well aware that the DMOs are not managing the event IFFI in the best possible manner, but rather as a stop gap arrangement. Furthermore, the majority of residents were of the opinion (based on the informal conversations) that other stakeholders of film tourism (DMOs, producers, tourists, entrepreneurs) are not bothered about making IFFI a sustainable event for the betterment of Goa as an international film tourism destination.
9.4.4 Mean Test of Factors Across Demographic Profile
In order to answer RQ 4: Is there any difference in perception with regards to Quality of life factors across demographic profiles; a mean test was done to analyze difference in perceived Quality of Life factors identified in the preceding section across demographic profiles. Results as per Exhibit 9.4 showed that Factor 1 (Community pride) was not found to be different across various demographic pro- files. Factor 2 (Personal Gain) was perceived differently across variable length of stay, implying people who are residents of Goa for more than 10 years found more
Exhibit 9.4 Factors driving residents quality of life and demographic profiling) Demographic characteristic
Factors driving resident perception
F1 F2 F3 F4
Age 20–29 4.28 3.12 4.49 3.56
30–39 4.84 3.57 4.83 3.86
40–49 4.25 3.11 4.88 4.29
50 and above 4.57 3.21 5.73 4.75
F-value 0.67 0.50 7.31* 3.44*
Education Up to 12 years study 4.49 2.96 5.00 3.58
Graduation 4.38 3.72 4.38 3.97
Post graduation 4.27 3.11 5.03 4.25
F-value 0.558 2.26 3.33* 1.93
Gender Male 4.44 3.09 5.07 4.20
Female 4.28 3.36 4.65 3.75
t-value −0.886 0.947 −2.112* −1.563
Income Less than 2000USD 4.48 3.36 4.75 3.58
2000–20,000 USD 4.26 3.07 5.04 4.63
Above 20,000 USD 4.00 2.84 4.80 3.83
F-value 1.38 0.76 0.92 6.02*
Length of stay Less than a year 4.67 2.94 4.09 2.15
1–10 years 4.28 2.75 4.71 3.76
10 years and above 4.45 4.09 5.31 4.78
F-value 0.85 10.79* 6.37* 12.63*
Marital status Unmarried 4.48 3.24 4.80 4.05
Married 4.26 3.19 4.91 3.93
t-value 1.201 0.198 −0.531 0.437
*p < 0.05
9 Film Tourism and Its Impact on Residents Quality of Life: A Multi Logit Analysis
194
personal benefits with Film based Tourism activity (F = 10.79, p < 0.05). Factor 3 (Negative environmental effect) was perceived significantly different across Age (F = 7.31, p < 0.05), Education (F = 3.33, p < 0.05), Gender (t = −2.121, p < 0.05), Length of stay (F = 6.37, p < 0.05).
Residents in the age group 50, Post graduates, males and residing in Goa for more than 10 years perceived that Film tourism has brought negative environmental effects such as increased air pollution, heritage sites getting damaged, an increase in drug abuse, parking space, sewage problems as well as putting enormous pressure on facilities meant for locals. Factor 4 (Negative social effect) was perceived across Age (F = 3.44, p < 0.05), Income (F = 6.02, p < 0.05) and Length of stay (F = 12.63, p < 0.05). Residents in the age group 50, belonging to the income group (2000–
20,000 USD) and residing in Goa for more than 10 years highly agreed that Film Tourism has brought with it negative social effects such as an increase in crime rate, drug mafia and prostitution.
Hence, based on the above, the formulated hypothesis (H2) of RQ 3, that “no significant difference exists between perceived Quality of life factors which drives resident’s perception with respect to age, gender, income, marital status, education, length of stay” is rejected with an exception of F1 (Community pride) which was not perceived differently, and which clearly corroborates with similar studies previ- ously carried out, that age, education and income influences residents perception towards Film tourism.