The Society’s Heterogeneity Regarding Attitudes towards Tourism: A Cluster Analysis of the Ibiza Residents

Abstract

The residents’ attitudes towards tourism are heterogeneous, although most studies do not focus their analysis on analyzing this variability. The segmentation of residents based on their attitudes has sought to determine the existing profiles within the local society of tourist destinations and their quantitative importance. The aim of this article is to carry out a segmentation of Ibiza residents according to their attitudes towards tourism. In this case, it seeks to analyze the existing heterogeneity in the local society of a mature and highly mediated tourist destination. Ibiza is a Spanish island in the Western Mediterranean with a surface area of 572 km and 150,000 inhabitants. It receives three million tourists a year, making it one of the most internationally known tourist destinations. The methodology used is a descending hierarchical cluster analysis (Howard-Harris algorithm) on a sample of 418 residents selected by a random procedure. The analysis has made it possible to identify five groups with opinions ranging from the most favorable towards tourism (enthusiastic supporters) to the most adverse (critics), with several intermediate groups (interested supporters, supporters with nuanced opinions, and neutrals). The most numerous groups are the supporters with nuanced opinions (23.0%), called by other authors “realists” for being aware of both the positive and negative impacts, and the critics (23.4%) concerned about the negative impacts. The minority group is the neutrals (13.6%). These proportions are plausible given the fact that it is a mature and highly crowded destination. This heterogeneity of attitudes should remind us that, in societies, there are always very different personal situations that will generate very different attitudes, and it is essential to know this social heterogeneity in order to manage the tourist destination correctly.

1. Introduction

Tourism managers must consider the perceptions, attitudes, and opinions of local society if they want the sustainable development of the tourism sector [1,2,3,4,5]. Because of the concern about this aspect, research has been carried out focused on measuring the residents’ attitudes and evaluating how the perceived impacts affect these attitudes (e.g., [6,7,8,9,10]). But societies are not heterogeneous, and there are differences due to multiple personal elements that cause different attitudes, for example, working or not in the sector, being from the region or not, educational and cultural level, personal values, etc. However, most of these studies do not have among their aims to analyze the heterogeneity of society [4,11].

The heterogeneity of local societies is usually analyzed using various segmentation techniques that allow the study population to be subdivided into groups or segments that are internally homogeneous and externally heterogeneous. The published segmentations have detected groups of residents who are very supportive of tourism living with other groups that are less enthusiastic or clearly opposed to the development of this sector [11], showing to what extent the heterogeneity of residents affects their attitudes towards tourism.

This article makes a segmentation of the residents of the island of Ibiza (Spain) according to their attitudes towards tourism and the impacts it generates. In this case, the aim is to segment the residents’ attitudes toward a mature destination with great international media impact [12,13]. The main contribution to the theory is to verify if the types of clusters that repeatedly appear in previous studies also appear in the case of Ibiza, corroborating previously proposed typologies [11]. Specifically, a descending cluster analysis was carried out using the Howard-Harris algorithm [14] on a sample of 418 surveyed residents. The cluster analysis has made it possible to identify five groups with different opinions, ranging from the most favorable positions towards tourism (enthusiastic supporters) to the most adverse to tourism development (critics), with several intermediate groups (interested supporters, supporters with nuanced opinions, and neutral). It should be noted that being a mature destination, neutrals are a relatively small group (13.6%) compared to other regions in earlier stages of development. In general, it should be remembered that within a society there will always be very different personal situations that will generate very different attitudes, opinions, and actions, and it is essential to know this social heterogeneity in order to manage the tourist destination for all groups in society.

This article is structured in this introduction, followed by a literature review where a selection of segmentations carried out in different destinations and contexts throughout the world during the last decades is compiled. Next, there is a methodology section and a section where the characteristics of the conserved segments are described. Finally, there is a section on conclusions where the results obtained and the implications are discussed.

2. Literature Review

Usually, studies on the residents’ attitudes consider local society as a homogeneous mass and focus on seeing how the average response varies under the effect of various explanatory variables (e.g., [7,8,15,16,17]). There are also models that seek to describe the evolution of residents’ attitudes, such as Doxey’s [18] and Butler’s [19]. However, in these cases, it is estimated that attitudes are homogeneous at a given moment and variable over time. When considering factors such as age, language, length of residence, and relative distance to tourist areas, it is not surprising to observe differences [20]. It should be noted that studies that consider residents in a homogeneous way do so because their aim is to study cause-and-effect relationships that act directly or indirectly in determining attitudes.

Knowing the diversity of opinions in local society is important to improve the planning and management of destinations and tourism companies [11]. Segmentation is a feasible approximation to the true ideal situation, consisting of the analysis of the specific attitudes of everyone. In the last forty-five years, studies have been carried out that seek to segment residents in order to detect different groups according to their attitude towards tourism. One of the first published segmentations is a study conducted on the Sleat peninsula (Isle of Skye) in Scotland [21,22,23]. Since then, studies have been carried out in various regions of the world: Australia [24,25,26,27,28], Brazil [29], Cambodia [30], Cape Verde [31], China [32,33,34,35,36], Croatia [37], Greece [38,39], Italy [17,40,41,42,43,44], Malaysia [45], Mexico [46], New Zealand [5,47,48,49], Portugal [50], Senegal [51], Spain [52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61], Sweden [62], Türkiye [63], United Kingdom [21,22,23,64,65], United States [64,66,67,68,69], Uruguay [58], and Vietnam [70].

The study by Fredline and Faulkner [24] refers to an event, the Gold Coast IndyCar Race (Australia), and determines five groups: ambivalent supporters (cautious romantics), haters, realists, lovers, and concerned for a reason. In the study by Weaver and Lawton [27], at Tamborine Mountain (Queensland, Australia), three groups were defined: supporters, opponents, and neutrals. Inbakaran and Jackson [26] analyzed five tourist attractions in the state of Victoria (Goldfields, The Grampians, The Murray, Gippsland Natural Discovery, and Goulburn Murray Waters), located in South Australia, and found four groups of residents: tourism industry connection, low tourism connection, neutral tourism development, and high tourism connection. Weaver and Lawton [28] found four groups among Gold Coast residents: supporters, conditional supporters, conditional opponents, and opponents. The study by Fredline et al. [25] analyzed the perception of residents towards the Australian Formula 1 Grand Prix at two different moments, finding five groups: very negative, negative, unconcerned, positive, and very positive.

In a study conducted in Shanghai (China), three groups were identified: pecuniary benefit seekers, nature advocates, and family life relievers [34]. In another study conducted in Shenzhen (China), four groups were detected: neutrals, boosters, realists, and objectors [35]. In Hangzhou and Yangshuo (China), four groups were defined: enthusiasts, committed supporters, appraisers, and critics [36]. Gu et al. [33] analyzed the attitudes of the inhabitants of the city of Erdaobaihe (China) towards tourism in the Changbai Mountain Biosphere Reserve, obtaining four groups: somewhat irritated, enthusiastic supporters, cautious romantics, and in-betweeners.

In a study carried out in Crete, Andriotis and Vaughan [38] detected three groups: advocates, socially and environmentally concerned people, and economic skeptics. On the island of Chios, Doumi et al. [39] found three groups: embracers, realists, and neutrals.

Brida et al. [40] detected four groups in the small community of Folgaria (Italy): environmental supporters, development supporters, protectionists, and ambivalents. Presenza et al. [17], in Termoli (Italy), detected four groups: activists, disenchanted, opponents, and favorers. Del Chiappa et al. [42] found four groups of residents in Olbia (Sardinia, Italy) in relation to the FIA World Rally Championship: supporters, neutrals, enthusiasts but culturally and environmentally concerned, and critics. Gon et al. [44] analyzed nautical tourism and the residents’ attitudes towards this offer in destinations on the Adriatic coast, finding three groups: supporters, cautious, and skeptics. In the town of Arzachena (Sardinia, Italy), a cluster analysis divided residents into four groups: enthusiasts, moderate supporters, critics, and indifferents [41]. Regarding cruise tourism, Del Chiappa et al. [43] found four groups of attitudes among the residents of Naples: indifferent, moderate lovers, moderate critics, and cautious.

In the study by Evans [47], conducted with data from New Zealand, four groups were identified: lovers, haters, controlled, and selfish. Ryan et al. [48] observed three groups in Rangitikei (New Zealand): moderate enthusiasts, extreme enthusiasts, and cautious supporters. Williams and Lawson [5] analyzed the residents’ attitudes in ten New Zealand cities (Auckland, Blenheim, Christchurch, Hokitika, Kaikoura, Napier, Queenstown, Rotorua, Taupo, and Whangarei) and found four groups: lovers, cynics, taxpayers, and innocents. Thyne and Lawson [49] conducted a study in the Southern Lakes Region (New Zealand) and obtained four groups: lovers, we miss out, self-interest supporters, and critics.

In the study by Aguiló and Rosselló [52] in the Balearic Islands (Spain), five groups were defined: development supporters, prudent developers, ambivalent and cautious, protectionists, and alternative developers. Garau et al. [55] compared Tenerife and Mallorca and detected three groups: positive, cautious, and critical. Serra and Ramón [60] analyzed the residents’ attitudes of the Ibizans (Spain) towards nightlife and found three groups: supporters, opponents, and mild opponents. Del Chiappa et al. [54] analyzed the perceptions of the impacts of cruise tourism among the residents of the city of Valencia, obtaining three groups: pessimists, cautious supporters, and optimists. In a study carried out in Gran Canaria (Canary Islands, Spain), three representative profiles were obtained for two scenarios: extreme tourist lovers, extreme tourist haters, and ambivalents; lovers, haters, and ambivalents [57]. In a study that analyzed the different residents’ assessments of the types of tourists offered in Ibiza (Spain), the authors found five clusters: disappointed, favorable with nuances, moderate, enthusiasts but anti-nightclub, and enthusiasts [59]. Ramon et al. [58] compared the residents’ attitudes in Ibiza (Spain) and Punta del Este (Uruguay), obtaining four groups: enthusiasts, moderates, critics, and negatives. In relation to overtourism, a study carried out in Barcelona (Spain) identified three types of residents: tourism supporters, tourism-opposed residents, and neutral residents [56]. Soares et al. [61] analyzed the attitudes of Santiago de Compostela residents toward tourist taxes and found three groups: tax skeptics, tax enthusiasts, and tax reactionaries.

Ryan and Montgomery [65], in Bakewell (England), identified three groups: enthusiasts, somewhat irritated, and middle-of-the-roaders. In the study by Madrigal [64], two destinations are compared, one rural (Sedona, AZ, USA) and the other urban (York, UK), with haters, lovers, and realists appearing.

Davis et al. [67] focused on Florida and identified five groups: lovers, haters, cautious romantics, in-betweeners, and “love ‘em for a reason”. Canan and Hennessy [66] found substantial differences between groups of residents in their Moloka’i, Hawaii, study, and Schroeder [68] found three groups in their Flagstaff, Arizona, study. In the work of Sox et al. [69], the residents’ attitudes in the city of Columbia (USA) towards an event, the Solar Eclipse Weekend, were analyzed, with three clusters labeled neutralists, supporters, and enthusiasts.

In other countries, studies of this type have also been occasionally carried out. In a study conducted in the city of Joinville (Santa Catarina State, Brazil), Scalabrini and Remoaldo [29] found four clusters: moderate optimists, optimists, skeptics, and enthusiasts. In a study in Cambodia, four groups of residents were detected in relation to ecotourism [30]: absolute supporters, beneficiary supporters, concerned supporters, and ambivalent supporters. In Cape Verde, Ribeiro et al. [31] found three groups: optimistic, rational, and indifferent. Pavlic et al. [37] analyzed a World Heritage Site, specifically the case of Dubrovnik (Croatia), and obtained three groups: cultural and safety caregivers, cultural illuminators, and phlegmatics. Ali et al. [45] analyzed a mature Malaysian resort and defined three groups: optimists, favorers, and nay-sayers. In the study by Monterrubio and Andriotis [46], conducted in reference to spring breaks in Acapulco (Mexico), three groups were determined: supporters, ambivalents, and realistics. In Guimarães (Portugal), Vareiro et al. [50] found three groups: skeptics, moderately optimistic, and enthusiasts. Lundberg [62] compared three tourist destinations in western Sweden (Björholmen, Käringön, and Marstrand), finding four groups with different proportions in each destination: development supporters, prudent developers, ambivalent/cautious, and skeptics. In a study conducted in the towns of Goynuk and Camyuva (Turkey), four groups were defined: public service and environment-focused, community-focused, community public service, and inconsequential [63]. An analysis carried out by Nguyen [70] in Sapa (Vietnam) found three groups of residents according to their attitude towards tourism: supporters, pessimists, and neutralists.

Although the results of the various studies are different, some groups are repeated on most occasions, especially the staunch defenders of tourism and the outright detractors, although they are not the only ones. The most enthusiastic supporters go by different names. Absolute supporters [30], development supporters [40,52,62], embracers [39], enthusiastic supporters [33], enthusiasts (e.g., [29,36,41,58,59]), favorers [17], lovers (e.g., [5,24,47,49,57]), optimists [31,45,54], supporters (e.g., [44,46,56,60,70]), etc. Detractors are called critics [36,41,42,49,58], cynics [5], haters [24,47,57,64,67], naysayers [45], opponents [27,28,56], opposers [17,60], pessimists [54,70], protectionists [40,52], skeptics [29,62], somewhat irritated [33,65], etc.

Apart from enthusiastic supporters and detractors, existing studies detect between one and three groups with intermediate positions. However, parallels are difficult to draw in these cases [11]. One of these groups is made up of individuals with a high perception of the impacts, both positive and negative, and who recognize the region’s dependence on tourism. The fact that they are highly in agreement with the negative and positive impacts has led some authors to call them realists [24,35,39,64]. In many cases, groups with confused responses are detected due to a lack of direct knowledge of the sector (e.g., [42,43,55,56,57,69,70]). Finally, some studies detect a group that responds in a personal way, valuing tourism development in relation to what they receive and what they give in return and not considering the global effects on the society or region (e.g., [30,38,47,48,49,52,67]).

Based on the analysis of the repetition of certain patterns in existing studies, Ramón and Serra [11] proposed the existence of five groups of residents whose weight in society will depend on the specific destination being analyzed: enthusiastic supporters, supporters with nuanced opinions, interested supporters, critics, and those without a formed opinion. Even so, Ramón and Serra [11] indicate that the five groups do not always have to appear.

3. Methodology

Of the various existing segmentation methods, the most commonly used is cluster analysis (e.g., [5,24,27,40,64]). The aim of the cluster analysis technique is to describe a population in relation to certain phenomena by dividing it into groups that are more internally homogeneous than the total population. In this case, rather than analyzing the average responses of the total population, the average responses of population groups or communities with low internal variability and high variability between groups are studied [5]. In the case of the residents’ attitudes, this type of analysis is carried out on a sample of inhabitants of the region under study who are interviewed with the help of a questionnaire with closed questions referring to the impacts, attitudes, or other aspects of residents, including sociodemographic questions.

In this case, we have chosen to carry out a segmentation of the residents of the island of Ibiza (Spain) by means of a descending hierarchical cluster analysis (Howard-Harris algorithm) using DYANE 4 [14] software, and the largest segmentation meeting two criteria has been preserved: all groups contain at least 10% of the total sample, and a new segmentation would explain less than 2% of the variance. The descending hierarchical cluster analysis was selected because it involved a large sample (more than 200 individuals) and ascending hierarchical techniques were not adequate. The algorithm used is widely used and has similar results to other tools for descending hierarchical cluster analysis, such as k-means.

To carry out this segmentation, a set of 60 items that measure various aspects of the residents’ attitudes toward tourism has been taken as a starting point. These items used a five point Likert scale [71], with 1 being “Strongly Disagree”, 3 being “Indifferent”, and 5 being “Strongly Agree” [27]. These items, together with other demographic items and questions, were contained in a general questionnaire for the study of the residents’ attitudes in Ibiza. The fieldwork technique was selected considering the characteristics of the population, the questionnaire, and the available resources. Population nuclei were randomly selected within the island, then streets within each population were also randomly selected, and later people were selected in their places of residence or work, among other points of contact. The questionnaire was delivered and collected a few days later, leaving time to answer. Due to the length of the questionnaire, this action was taken to reduce the proportion of people who did not respond to the questionnaire. During the fieldwork, the demographic variables of the sample were reviewed to correct deviations from the population data in subsequent distributions of the questionnaire.

The Case Study of Ibiza (Spain)

Ibiza is an island in the Western Mediterranean (Figure 1) with a surface area of 572 square kilometers and more than 150,000 inhabitants, characterized by its strong economic dependence on tourism. Every year, it receives about 3,000,000 tourists, mostly concentrated in the months of May to October. The beginnings of tourism in Ibiza can be found in the first third of the 20th century, but it was between the second half of the fifties and the seventies that the greatest expansion took place. The rapid growth occurred because it allowed the abandoning of the previous situation of poverty [12,13]. Danielle Rozenberg highlighted the importance of tourism in the history of Ibiza and commented that “the Ibizans themselves, to differentiate time, talk about before tourism and now”. “They know that they are two times, two very different eras” [72] (p. 33). Tourism continued to grow rapidly until the growth of tourist places came to a halt in the early nineties, and tourist volumes stabilized around the year 2000, with tourism data remaining stable since then [12,13].

The available historiographical data allows us to outline some elements of the residents’ attitudes in the past. Starting from an initial situation of majority indifference and ignorance, a group of staunch defenders of tourism was formed that was not stopped by groups critical of tourism development. Possibly the cause of the lack of opposition was the non-existence of groups that considered tourism personal harm. No one was in a positive enough situation not to see tourism development as beneficial. The post-war period and its deficiencies facilitated the residents’ involvement in tourism, as it constituted a rapid form of economic improvement, generating significant growth in the fifties, sixties, and seventies. The first clear signs of critical positions toward tourism growth were observed at the end of the seventies and, mainly, in the eighties. Currently, the local media reflect the existence of conflicting positions regarding the direction that the sector should take [12,13].

4. Description of the Clusters Generated

The fieldwork was carried out throughout an entire calendar year, and as a result, 418 valid responses were obtained. After determining the groups based on the indicated methodology, the corresponding ANOVA was calculated (

Table 1. Mean values of the items for the clusters generated (own elaboration).

Item	Total	ES	Crit.	IS	SNO	Neut.	Sn. F	Impact
Job opportunities are higher	4.50	4.77	4.33	4.61	4.59	4.05	*	Positive
There are more companies interested in investing in the island	4.28	4.56	4.05	4.38	4.43	3.86	*	Positive
There are more business opportunities for residents	4.33	4.63	4.10	4.46	4.56	3.67	*	Positive
Tourism is basic to the island’s economy	4.64	4.91	4.47	4.84	4.71	4.16	*
The economic situation of the island is worrisome	3.98	4.00	4.04	4.32	3.78	3.67	*
Creates jobs for residents	3.74	4.41	3.21	3.84	4.09	2.95	*	Positive
We have better public services	3.48	4.12	2.81	3.86	3.81	2.58	*	Positive
Tourism saturates public services	3.84	3.45	4.22	4.08	4.24	2.72	*	Negative
Traffic problems increase	4.28	3.99	4.64	4.44	4.36	3.70	*	Negative
Tourism caused inflation and price increases	3.60	3.02	4.21	4.45	3.40	2.42	*	Negative
Tourism causes the loss of our customs and identity	2.77	2.05	3.47	3.53	2.28	2.30	*	Negative
Due to tourism, we pay higher taxes	3.24	2.52	3.87	3.88	2.98	2.65	*	Negative
Tourism has contributed to improving the urban environment	3.15	3.93	2.32	3.47	3.52	2.39	*	Positive
Tourism generates an important change in local culture	3.35	3.20	3.76	3.73	3.10	2.75	*
With tourism, recreational and cultural activities increase	3.32	3.93	2.56	3.40	3.80	2.84	*	Positive
Tourism generates a positive cultural exchange with tourists	3.73	4.18	3.12	3.87	4.11	3.26	*	Positive
Tourists treat residents respectfully	3.10	3.88	2.50	2.99	3.32	2.77	*	Positive
Tourism helps preserve cultural heritage	3.27	3.90	2.68	3.29	3.66	2.67	*	Positive
Tourism has helped maintain traditional activities	2.57	3.02	1.97	2.79	2.80	2.26	*	Positive
Tourism has increased crime and citizen i ns ecurity	3.57	2.84	4.01	4.09	3.54	3.12	*	Negative
Life is better now than twenty years ago	3.06	3.60	2.90	2.91	3.15	2.65	*
Tourism has caused a conflict between immigrants and residents	3.32	2.78	3.64	3.88	2.90	3.39	*	Negative
The opinion of the local population must be considered	4.33	4.21	4.53	4.45	4.25	4.09	*
Tourism has caused a conflict between tourists and residents	2.88	2.24	3.32	3.42	2.45	2.93	*	Negative
I am proud that so many tourists want to visit the island	4.18	4.68	3.62	4.51	4.27	3.75	*
I feel overwhelmed by the large number of summer tourists	3.21	2.10	4.27	3.28	2.99	3.23	*	Negative
Tourism has contributed to the environmental degradation	3.71	2.49	4.57	4.15	3.44	3.81	*	Negative
Tourism has caused the saturation of the natural landscape	3.84	2.78	4.61	4.32	3.71	3.56	*	Negative
Tourism favors the conservation of natural resources	2.82	3.40	2.12	2.95	3.01	2.63	*	Positive
Environmental degradation prevents new tourism projects	3.46	3.15	3.70	3.78	3.50	2.95	*
The noises coming from tourist establishments bother me	3.41	2.73	4.11	3.61	3.18	3.30	*	Negative
Tourism has positive and negative effects on the quality of life	3.98	3.35	4.51	4.14	3.98	3.74	*
The positive effects outweigh the negative	3.66	4.28	2.94	3.81	3.97	3.26	*
Thanks to tourism we have a higher quality of life	3.80	4.30	3.30	4.00	4.17	3.02	*
Renowned events should be held	4.34	4.43	4.21	4.58	4.33	4.11	*
Local culture is a dynamic element that evolves over time	3.61	3.99	3.45	3.79	3.74	2.88	*
The number of tourists must increase to improve the well-being	2.62	3.56	1.74	3.27	2.23	2.49	*
Tourism increases public revenue	3.71	3.93	3.59	3.87	3.89	3.04	*	Positive
I have a great ability to influence the future of the island	2.93	3.22	2.77	3.35	2.48	2.89	*
The number of tourists should continue to increase	3.04	4.17	1.83	3.86	2.47	3.21	*
The tourist promotion should increase	3.98	4.56	3.33	4.39	3.96	3.68	*
The quality of public services is better thanks to tourism	3.05	3.72	2.26	3.27	3.38	2.56	*	Positive
The number of tourists must decrease to improve the well-being	2.49	1.82	3.37	2.41	2.39	2.26	*
Tourism management must be carried out at the island level	3.80	3.80	3.81	3.65	4.16	3.42	*
Tourism must continue to be the main economic activity	3.61	4.33	2.92	3.71	3.73	3.46	*
It is not good to further increase the number of tourists	4.45	4.10	4.60	4.51	4.67	4.28	*
I believe that tourism generates benefits for all	4.15	4.65	3.57	4.45	4.29	3.72	*	Positive
I believe that tourism benefits, above all, a few	3.33	2.10	4.11	3.69	3.11	3.60	*	Negative
Tourism entrepreneurs have too much political influence	3.85	2.88	4.41	4.13	3.80	3.93	*
We have a low-quality tourism	3.99	3.55	4.40	4.06	3.95	3.89	*
Tourism decisions must be made by businessmen	2.86	3.24	2.41	3.28	2.77	2.61	*
There must be a control of tourism by the Administrations	4.26	4.30	4.44	4.26	4.22	3.93	*
The best thing is to leave things as they are	1.92	1.84	1.90	1.93	1.89	2.09	ns
It is a mistake to make tourists pay tourist taxes	2.77	3.26	2.33	2.94	2.77	2.56	*
What we have is already enough for residents to live well	3.28	2.51	3.87	3.12	3.55	3.16	*
New tourist service areas should be opened	2.86	2.71	2.94	3.11	2.49	3.23	*
Tourists should come more spread throughout the year	4.41	4.32	4.44	4.56	4.45	4.23	ns
Increasing the number of tourists will improve the quality of life	3.09	3.85	2.26	3.91	2.53	3.12	*
It is good that more accommodation places are opened	2.55	3.00	1.84	3.11	2.11	3.00	*
The number of tourists should be maintained	3.31	2.89	3.36	3.49	3.66	2.96	*

Note: ES—Enthusiastic Supporters; Crit.—Critics; IS—Interested Supporters; SNO—Supporters with Nuanced Opinion; Neut.—Neutrals; Sn. F—Snedecor’s F; *—significant at 0.001; ^ns—Not significant.

), and cross-tabulation was performed with the demographic variables (

Table 2. Cross-tabulation with the demographic variables (own elaboration).

Demographic Variables	Total	ES	Crit.	IS	SNO	Neut.	χ2 Test
Sex:							*
Man	36.12%	39.02%	35.71%	30.59%	46.88%	22.81%
Women	63.64%	60.98%	64.29%	69.41%	52.08%	77.19%
Not answer	0.24%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	1.04%	0.00%
Age:							***
less than 25	13.16%	6.10%	18.37%	15.29%	4.17%	26.32%
25–34	24.40%	17.07%	23.47%	31.76%	18.75%	35.09%
35–44	23.44%	21.95%	30.61%	20.00%	19.79%	24.56%
45–54	21.05%	28.05%	13.27%	20.00%	34.38%	3.51%
55 or more	11.48%	19.51%	10.20%	8.24%	14.58%	1.75%
Not answer	6.46%	7.32%	4.08%	4.71%	8.33%	8.77%
Education Level:							ns
Primary studies	22.01%	28.05%	14.29%	25.88%	23.96%	17.54%
Secondary studies	41.87%	36.59%	39.80%	44.71%	41.67%	49.12%
University Studies	35.41%	35.37%	44.90%	28.24%	33.33%	33.33%
Not answer	0.72%	0.00%	1.02%	1.18%	1.04%	0.00%
Main Occupation:							**
Salaried (Employee)	35.65%	25.61%	40.82%	38.82%	31.25%	43.86%
Salaried (Middle Managers)	5.50%	4.88%	6.12%	5.88%	6.25%	3.51%
Salaried (Senior Executive)	0.72%	1.22%	0.00%	2.35%	0.00%	0.00%
Works for the Administration	9.57%	8.54%	9.18%	8.24%	11.46%	10.53%
Entrepreneur (Business Owner)	29.19%	42.68%	17.35%	24.71%	38.54%	21.05%
Liberal Professional	3.11%	4.88%	4.08%	1.18%	3.13%	1.75%
Housework	2.15%	6.10%	0.00%	2.35%	2.08%	0.00%
Student	8.37%	2.44%	13.27%	10.59%	4.17%	12.28%
Retired	1.67%	1.22%	5.10%	0.00%	1.04%	0.00%
Unemployed	3.35%	2.44%	3.06%	4.71%	1.04%	7.02%
Others	0.72%	0.00%	1.02%	1.18%	1.04%	0.00%
Annual Family Income:							ns
Less than €15,000	11.00%	15.85%	8.16%	14.12%	8.33%	8.77%
From €15,001 to €30,000	35.89%	28.05%	43.88%	35.29%	33.33%	38.60%
From €30,001 to €45,000	22.97%	21.95%	18.37%	21.18%	27.08%	28.07%
From €45,001 to €60,000	8.85%	8.54%	12.24%	7.06%	6.25%	10.53%
From €60,001 to €75,000	2.87%	3.66%	1.02%	4.71%	3.13%	1.75%
More than €75,000	2.39%	1.22%	2.04%	0.00%	4.17%	5.26%
Not answer	15.55%	20.73%	14.29%	17.65%	17.71%	7.02%
Effect of a tourist crisis:							***
Income would drop a lot	38.52%	59.76%	21.43%	42.35%	36.46%	35.09%
income would drop	40.67%	34.15%	42.86%	37.65%	48.96%	36.84%
Income would not change	19.62%	4.88%	35.71%	17.65%	13.54%	26.32%
income would increase	0.48%	1.22%	0.00%	1.18%	0.00%	0.00%
Not answer	0.72%	0.00%	0.00%	1.18%	1.04%	1.75%

Note: ES—Enthusiastic Supporters; Crit.—Critics; IS—Interested Supporters; SNO—Supporters with Nuanced Opinion; Neut.—Neutrals; *—significant at 0.05; **—significant at 0.01; ***—significant at 0.001; ^ns—Not significant.

). The result is the generation of five clusters or segments and the definition of their characteristics: enthusiastic supporters, critics, interested supporters, supporters with nuanced opinions, and neutrals.

4.1. Enthusiastic Supporters (19.6%)

This cluster is the one that shows the most positive opinions toward tourism. Regarding the total sample, there are more men, they are older people, and there are fewer individuals who have spent their entire lives on the island. In this cluster, there are many entrepreneurs and liberal professionals, as well as a few employees and students. It is the cluster with the highest proportion of people who work in contact with tourists, and, therefore, they are the ones who consider to a greater degree that their income would drop a lot in the event of a tourism crisis.

They are the people with the most positive assessment of the economic impacts. They are the cluster that most agree that tourism generates job and business opportunities, and they are also the individuals who strongly believe that the jobs created by tourism are good. Regarding the effect of tourism on inflation, they do not have a clear position regarding whether it generates inflation or not. Although they consider that tourism on the island is of low quality, this cluster is the most benevolent of the sample.

They are the most supportive of the fact that thanks to tourism, there has been an improvement in public services (both quantitative and qualitative), the appearance of towns has improved, public revenues have increased (income from fees and taxes), and it has generated a recreational offer from which the residents benefit. After the Neutrals, it is the cluster with a more moderate stance in relation to the saturation of services and infrastructure. Although the majority consider that saturation is generated, their position is more moderate than the rest of the clusters.

They are the most supportive of considering local culture as something dynamic and changing. They have the most positive view of the impacts of tourism on local society and culture. They are the ones who have the most positive vision of the cultural exchange between tourists and residents and of the treatment received from tourists, and they are the most supportive of the fact that tourism has helped to preserve heritage. They show clear opposition to considering tourism the cause of the loss of customs and identity and do not have a majority position on whether it has helped preserve traditional activities. This cluster believes that tourism has not increased crime or levels of insecurity on the island. And they consider that there is no cultural conflict between immigrants and tourists.

They are not critical of the impacts of tourism on the environment. They consider that tourism favors conservation and does not degrade the island environmentally, nor does it cause saturation of natural spaces. In addition, they are not bothered by noise from tourist establishments.

They are the only cluster that opposes tourist taxes and believes they can influence the future of the island. Tourism generates benefits for all and is distributed very evenly. They are in favor of tourism being regulated by the administration, but businessmen should also participate in decision-making.

Globally, they consider that tourism has had both positive and negative impacts, but the positives far outweigh the negatives, and the quality of life has greatly increased. Finally, it must be said that the members of this cluster are very convinced that tourism must continue to be the main economic activity.

4.2. Critics (23.5%)

This cluster is made up of people with the worst assessment of tourism. There are fewer businessmen than in the other clusters and more employees and students. It is the cluster with the fewest people working in contact with tourists and, consequently, the cluster that considers that their family income would be less affected in the event of a tourism crisis.

After the Neutrals, they are the ones that show a more moderate vision in relation to the economic impacts, reaching an average score that is only slightly positive when asked about the quality of the jobs generated. This cluster has the most critical position in the generation of inflation, only slightly surpassed by the Interested Supporters. This cluster is the one that considers with greater intensity that tourism on the island is of low quality.

Along with the Neutrals, they are of the opinion that tourism has not improved public services, neither quantitatively nor qualitatively, being the most opposed to believing that there have been qualitative improvements. They are also against considering that tourism has improved the appearance of urban areas and generated a suitable leisure offer for residents. They consider that the sector has helped generate public income (through fees and taxes), but their support for this statement is lower than the average. Along with the supporters with Nuanced Opinions, they are the individuals most in favor of the fact that tourism causes saturation, especially in traffic.

They consider that the local culture is changeable and dynamic, but to a lesser degree than the average. It is the cluster with the worst opinion of the impacts of tourism on society and local culture. They do not have a clearly positive vision of cultural exchange and consider the treatment received from tourists to be bad. They believe that tourism has not helped preserve heritage, much less traditional activities. In addition, tourism causes important cultural changes and the loss of customs and collective identity. Together with the Interested Supporters, it is the cluster that strongly believes that tourism has increased insecurity and crime. They see a cultural conflict between immigrants and tourists.

It is the cluster that is most critical of the environmental impacts and considers that tourism causes the degradation and saturation of the environment and does not favor the conservation of natural resources. As regards future developments, they are more opposed than the rest to continuing to increase the number of tourists; they welcome maintaining the current level, and they are the only ones who would agree with a progressive reduction.

They feel very overwhelmed by tourists during the summer months, are the least in favor of increasing tourism promotion and the most in favor of tourist taxes, and oppose the opening of new tourist service areas. But above all, they oppose the creation of new accommodations. They are the ones who most value the residents’ opinions being considered; however, they believe that they do not have the capacity to influence the future of the island. They consider that tourism generates benefits, but the distribution is very unequal, and they are in favor of tourism being regulated by the administration without the participation of businessmen in decision-making since they consider them to have excessive political influence.

Globally, they consider that tourism has had positive and negative impacts, with the negatives being greater than the positives, although they recognize that the quality of life has improved somewhat thanks to tourism. Finally, it must be said that they consider that tourism should not continue to be the main economic activity, although this is not a resounding position.

4.3. Interested Supporters (20.3%)

They strongly perceive the negative impacts of tourism but support the development of the sector due to their high level of economic concern. They have an assessment of the economic impacts slightly higher than the average and like that of the Supporters with Nuanced Opinions. It is the cluster that is most in agreement with the statement that tourism generates inflation.

Like the Supporters with Nuanced Opinions, they consider that there has been a qualitative and quantitative improvement in public services; urban centers have improved their appearance; public revenues have increased; and tourism has generated a usable leisure offer for residents, all thanks to tourism. They show concern about the saturation caused by tourism, which is slightly higher than the average.

They consider culture a dynamic element in a greater proportion than the average. In relation to the impact of tourism on culture and society, this cluster has an assessment very similar to the average, except for the fact that there has been a significant change in the local culture and a loss of local customs and identity. Together with the Critics, it is the cluster that considers with greater intensity that tourism has increased insecurity and crime on the island. They are the most supportive of the existence of cultural conflict, both with tourists and with immigrants. After the Critics, it is the cluster that is most critical of the environmental impacts and considers that tourism causes the degradation and saturation of the environment.

They are in favor of increasing tourism promotion to a greater extent than the average and do not have a clear position on tourist taxes, but they are not opposed and believe they can influence the future of the island. They consider that tourism generates benefits for all but is distributed unequally and are in favor of tourism being regulated by the administration, but businessmen should also participate in decision-making, which they see as having a lot of political influence.

Globally, they consider that tourism has had positive and negative impacts, but the positives outweigh the negatives, and the quality of life has increased a lot. Finally, they believe that tourism must continue to be the main economic activity.

4.4. Supporters with Nuanced Opinion (23.0%)

Regarding the total sample, it has more men, its members are older, and there are more individuals who have spent their entire lives on the island. In this cluster, there are more people working in contact with tourists than the average, and they consider that their income would drop, but not dramatically, in the event of a crisis in the tourism sector.

They have an assessment of the economic impacts slightly above the average, like that of the Interested Supporters. In relation to inflation, this cluster has valuations slightly below the average, being slightly in favor of the fact that inflation is generated.

Like the Interested Supporters, they consider that there has been a qualitative and quantitative improvement in public services; urban centers have improved their appearance; public revenues have increased; and the generation of usable leisure offers for residents has increased, all thanks to tourism. This cluster is, together with the Critics, the one that believes with the greatest intensity that tourism causes saturation.

They consider the local culture dynamic but to the same degree as the average. This cluster has a more positive assessment than the average of the impacts of tourism on local culture and heritage, not considering tourism as the cause of a great change in local culture, much less the loss of local customs and identity. Their opinion about tourism as a cause of insecurity and crime is average. They believe that there is no cultural conflict between immigrants and tourists, but this opinion is not as strong as that of the Enthusiastic Supporters.

They are moderate supporters of tourist taxes. They are clearly opposed both to the creation of new accommodation places and to the opening of new tourist service areas. They believe that they have no ability to influence the future of the island and are most in favor of management being carried out at the island level. They believe that tourism generates benefits for everyone, but there is a certain inequality in the distribution, and they are in favor of tourism being regulated by the administration without the participation of businessmen in decision-making since they consider them quite influential politically.

Globally, they consider that tourism has had positive and negative impacts, but the positives outweigh the negatives, and the quality of life has improved. Finally, they believe that tourism must continue to be the main economic activity.

4.5. Neutrals (13.6%)

They show confused and ambiguous opinions. It is the cluster with the highest proportion of women, the youngest, and the most individuals residing all their lives on the island. This cluster has a higher proportion of employees, students, and unemployed and a lower proportion of businessmen and liberal professionals. In this cluster, there are fewer people working in contact with tourists than the average, and they consider that a tourist crisis would not affect them or would affect them moderately.

Although they acknowledge that tourism has generated jobs and business opportunities, they are the cluster with the lowest ratings, especially in relation to business opportunities for residents. When asked if the jobs created are good, their assessment falls into a medium position of indifference. Although his ratings are low, his main criticism is qualitative, not quantitative. It is the cluster most opposed to the negative economic impacts (inflation and higher tax burdens), showing a majority opposition to both facts.

Along with the Critics, they are of the opinion that tourism has not improved public services, neither quantitatively nor qualitatively. They neither consider that tourism has improved urban spaces nor has it generated a suitable leisure offer for residents. The general position of this cluster in relation to whether tourism has generated public income (fees and taxes) is one of indifference, being the cluster that values this effect the lowest. It is the cluster with the most contrary position to consider that tourism saturates the services and infrastructure of the island. They do agree with the idea that traffic is saturated, but it is more moderate than in the other clusters.

It is the only cluster with a largely static vision of local culture. They do not consider the cultural exchange with tourists to be positive and see the treatment of tourists by residents as disrespectful. They do not believe that the sector has helped to preserve the heritage and traditional activities, although they do not blame the sector for the social changes that have taken place on the island or for the loss of customs and identity. This cluster is less convinced that tourists cause an increase in crime and citizen insecurity. They have the peculiarity of considering that there is a conflict with immigrants but not with tourists, although both positions are very moderate.

Their position towards the impacts of tourism on the natural environment is similar to the average but with more emphasis on the degradation than on the saturation of natural resources. In addition, they do not agree that tourism helps conserve natural resources.

They feel somewhat overwhelmed by tourism during the summer, are in favor of increasing tourism promotion to a lesser extent than the average, and are moderately supportive of tourist taxes. They are moderately in favor of opening new tourist service areas, believe that they have no ability to influence the future of the island, and consider that benefits are generated for all but are distributed unequally. They are in favor of tourism being regulated by the administration without the participation of businessmen in decision-making since they consider them quite influential politically.

Globally, they recognize positive and negative impacts and consider that the positive ones are somewhat higher than the negative ones, but it is not clear if the quality of life has improved. Finally, they believe that tourism must continue to be the main economic activity, although it is the cluster that shows a more moderate position.

4.6. Clusters Positioning

As a complement and summary of the segmentation, a graphic representation was made, inspired by the Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA), which helps to clarify the positioning of the different segments. To this end, two sets of tourism impacts have been taken: the first made up of 15 items referring to positive impacts, and the second made up of 13 items referring to negative impacts (Table 1). Subsequently, the average has been calculated for each set of items and each cluster of residents. The result is the obtaining of two values between one and five that briefly represent the importance they give to the positive and negative impacts (

Table 3. Clusters mean scores (own elaboration).

Cluster	Positive Impacts	Negative Impacts	Size
Enthusiastic Supporters	4.069	2.699	19.6%
Critics	3.013	4.081	23.4%
Interested Supporters	3.700	3.909	20.3%
Supporters with Nuanced Opinions	3.817	3.275	23.0%
Neutrals	3.017	3.133	13.6%
Total Sample	3.547	3.462	100.0%

).

By representing the means obtained (Figure 2), a result is obtained that is reminiscent of Madrigal [64] and, especially, of Fredline and Faulkner [24]. Enthusiastic Supporters show the highest score for positive impacts and are the only cluster that is against the existence of negative impacts. Critics show indifference to the existence of positive impacts and a high level of agreement with the existence of negative impacts. The Neutrals have mean scores lower than the average both in relation to the positive impacts and in relation to the negative impacts. In general, this cluster shows very moderate and ambiguous responses.

5. Discussion

The segmentation carried out shows similarities and differences with previous works of the same nature carried out in various destinations around the world. The main similarity with other studies (e.g., [5,24,33,36,41,45,47,52,58,70]) is that in all of them, the presence of two clusters is detected: defenders and detractors. Both clusters always appear, although in different proportions. Enthusiastic Supporters are characterized by giving enormous importance to positive impacts and minimizing negative impacts by receiving important benefits from tourism, and they are mostly people who come from outside the island. Enthusiastic Supporters are like absolute supporters [30], development supporters [40,52,62], embracers [39], enthusiasts (e.g., [29,36,41,58,59]), favorers [17], lovers (e.g., [5,24,47,49,57]), optimists [31,45,54] and supporters (e.g., [44,46,56,60,70]) in previous studies. In percentage terms, Enthusiastic Supporters are few, a situation like that of the equivalent clusters that appeared in studies carried out in other mature destinations (e.g., [47,67]). It should be noted that mature destinations are characterized by being in the final stages of Butler’s TALC model (consolidation, stagnation, or decline) and receiving a much higher number of tourists than residents [19]. In destinations that are in earlier stages of Butler’s TALC model [19], this cluster represents higher percentages of society (e.g., [24,27,38,40]). Critics place great importance on negative impacts and receive little direct benefit from the tourist sector. In general, they would prefer tourism development to be limited. Critics are like the cynics [5], haters [24,47,57,64,67], nay-sayers [45], opponents [27,28,56], opposers [17,60], pessimists [54,70], protectionists [40,52], skeptics [29,62], somewhat irritated [33,65] appeared in previous studies. The percentage of the population included in this cluster is much higher than in destinations with a lower level of development (e.g., [24,40,49]), an expected result given the existing theoretical literature [18,19], but it could be higher based on the results obtained in studies carried out in other mature and crowded destinations (e.g., [64]).

In the analysis carried out, three other clusters with intermediate positions to the two previous clusters have appeared, being the most difficult groups to define. Supporters with Nuanced Opinions and Interested Supporters have an overall positive stance, but not as much as Enthusiastic Supporters. Supporters with Nuanced Opinions are overwhelmingly older and largely island-born. The age and, above all, knowing the evolution of the island over many years make it easier to get to know the pros and cons of tourism in great depth. The Interested Supporters are the residents who are less integrated into the community and in the worst economic situation, which causes them to show concern and disenchantment with the tourist impacts, especially with the economic crisis. Finally, there is a cluster made up of people who, for various reasons, do not show a clear general position: the Neutrals. The Neutrals stand out for being mostly young people under 35 years of age born on the island. Possibly there is an important number of Neutrals in the local society among the immigrants who have arrived in recent years however, these people are very reluctant to answer questionnaires.

The two most abundant clusters are the Critics and the Supporters with Nuanced Opinions, which is logical if it is considered that it is a mature destination [18,19]. One of the characteristics of mature destinations is that the negative effects of tourism are very strong, generating contrary positions or conditioning favorable positions [18]. In highly consolidated and crowded tourist destinations, individuals with a high perception of both positive and negative impacts and who recognize the region’s dependence on the sector tend to be one of the most important clusters in terms of numbers [38,40,47,48,64]. They are in themselves a confirmation that the local society is aware of its economic dependence, but this should not be an excuse for the destination management organization since economic dependence does not guarantee avoiding the opposition of the residents when the negative impacts are very serious. The fact that they highly agree with the negative and positive impacts stated in the questionnaires has led some authors to call them realists [24,35,39,64].

On the other hand, the minority cluster is the Neutrals. In regions with little tourism development or with large areas devoid of tourist presence, large clusters of people are detected who show confused responses (e.g., [5,24,25,49,65]). These confusing answers hide, in many cases, a lack of first-hand knowledge of the sector due to a lack of contact with it. In mature destinations, as in the case of Ibiza, residents without a clear opinion have been greatly reduced since the importance of tourism in society cannot be ignored.

Ibiza has a situation dominated by residents concerned about the negative impacts generated, although not in exceptionally high numbers for a mature destination. In any case, combating the negative impacts generated by tourism is a priority policy for the local authorities if they want to prevent opposing groups from blocking tourist activity.

Finally, the results obtained reinforce two types of theoretical approaches. On the one hand, they confirm the theoretical segments proposed by Ramón and Serra [11] and, on the other hand, these results are consistent with the evolution towards more informed and critical positions that Doxey [18] and Butler [19] proposed. This implies that tourist destination managers must consider this heterogeneous social context and tendency to take positions contrary to the sector or, at least, critical of the development experienced. In practice, it is a constant increase in the difficulties of these managers to maintain mostly favorable attitudes towards tourism.

6. Conclusions

In the last forty-five years, studies have been carried out in which the residents of a destination were segmented through a cluster analysis that sought to cluster them according to their attitudes towards tourism. These studies have certain variations in the resulting segmentation, but if they are compared, certain repeating patterns can be observed. Some clusters are always present, and some clusters appear and disappear depending on the case. In this study, clusters like those determined in previous cluster analyses have been observed, but the reiteration of these differences highlights the importance of analyzing the heterogeneity of the local society to better understand the residents and act in response to their attitudes.

Although similar profiles are repeated in many studies, the specific characteristics and size of the clusters vary between the regions studied. It is important to keep in mind that the average values of a region would be determined by a combination of different clusters with different positions, and different combinations can give similar average values. For tourist destination managers, one combination of profiles or another is not the same, even if the mean scores of the sample are the same, because each resident profile has different values, ideas, and objectives and must be treated differently. This makes studies of the residents’ attitudes very important for tourism managers, as is the segmentation of the sample into clusters according to their vision of tourism to better understand the underlying reality.

In future studies, new analyses and segmentations of residents should be carried out based on their attitude towards tourism development, both in Ibiza and in other mature tourist destinations, to confirm the profiles that already seem to be repeated in the reviewed studies and to analyze how these clusters vary over time and changes in the destination environment. Cluster analyses that make comparisons between destinations should also be deepened, seeking to better understand the motives and attitudes of each cluster of residents and the causes that favor the presence of one cluster or another. These studies would also serve to determine in which cases clusters clearly opposed to tourism appear and what the reasons are for their appearance. All this should serve to advance the development of a theory that allows merging the contributions made by various authors: on the one hand, the theoretical segmentation of residents proposed by Ramón and Serra [11]; on the other hand, the Tourism Area Life Cycle Model (TALC) proposed by Butler [19]. With this, an evolutionary model could be obtained in which the different tourism destinations could be located.

The main limitation of this study is that it is a case study carried out in a specific geographical and temporal context, and the quantitative analysis is based on a sample, which makes it necessary to take the sizes of the clusters only as approximate data.