Menu
Home
Log in / Register
 
Home arrow Travel arrow Linking urban and rural tourism : strategies in sustainability
Source

Test results

The set of tables below depict analyses results; unless otherwise noted, the df = 1. Because chi-square is an estimation of probability, results are to be interpreted as more or less ‘likely than expected’. Among the town descriptors (Table 7.3), respondents agreed that Moore County towns are not boring, not dated, not fast-paced, not hip and happening, not littered,

Generation (df = 3)

Gender

Race

Education (df = 2)

Employment

Income (df = 4)

Resident

status

Residential

setting

Residential tenure (df = 3)

SRER (df = 2)

Artsy

7681

0.097

2.153

1.834

0.749

2.386

0.085

5.375*

2.643

2.286

Boring

6.982

0.000

3.814

4.407

0.787

7.841

0.214

0.001

2.039

4.220

Boutique

0.302

2.462

0.362

8.240*

0.978

0.481

3.269

1.617

0.987

4.638

Bucolic

9.575*

10.661**

0.217

6.605*

0.502

5.542

0.691

0.569

4.054

0.966

Charming

8.982*

0.004

7.825**

4.021

0.256

5.691

10.658**

10.541**

3.372

3.040

Clean

8.156*

0.020

2.359

4.244

1.233

1.469

18.970**

7765**

2.016

0.234

Closed

3.967

3.097

2.478

2.202

0.503

2.750

0.063

0.020

7.858*

2.221

Conservative

2.102

11.322**

3.197

12.531**

0.260

1.115

6.647**

7.273**

8.612**

4.288

Culinary

7991*

0.781

0.000

0.091

0.525

2.088

13.636**

4.496*

0.937

7878*

Cultured

40.619**

1.184

6.089*

0.675

0.000

3.505

1.327

0.929

9.321*

4.500

Dated

4.959

2.067

0.002

1.825

0.485

2.400

0.066

0.489

1.965

1.060

Diverse attractions

40.879**

1.300

0.019

1.189

0.411

6.504

2.440

1.128

4.678

1.021

Dynamic

13.008**

0.311

0.020

0.227

0.289

8.296

4.340**

0.000

5.084

4.222

Entrepreneurial

communities

5.076

0.261

0.468

0.616

0.440

1.662

0.435

1.098

4.403

8.020*

Exciting

19.539*

0.000

0.037

2.200

0.231

1.671

0.066

0.022

3.843

0.963

Exclusive

1.497

0.025

0.267

9.113**

3.183

1.272

0.049

0.372

2.866

0.963

Family-oriented

1.747

0.029

1.894

0.011

3.832*

4.023

9.176**

0.379

1.230

0.497

Fast-paced

3.540

0.359

0.000

3.522

0.142

3.489

0.073

1.363

2.203

2.123

Friendly

9.829*

1.176

5.032*

2.255

0.097

5.572

18.450**

3.243

0.329

0.518

Green

(environmentally)

17984**

0.000

1.585

0.239

0.003

5.956

1.503

0.361

1.672

2.138

Growing

10.653*

2.711

0.509

0.533

0.594

12.623*

11.299**

4.119*

3.748

0.601

Historic

7.410

0.763

2.434

0.744

0.126

3.712

20.378**

2.629

3.986

1.333

Hip and happening

6.689

0.000

0.000

3.647

0.831

2.348

0.221

0.001

6.383

0.029

Homogenous

0.401

0.058

0.486

9.511**

0.002

3.654

0.193

0.208

1.831

0.632

Littered

6.699

0.000

0.000

4.367

1.526

2.601

1.769

0.000

1.562

1.955

Picturesque

30.153**

1.913

2.759

2.142

0.658

7.229

6.198*

2.549

1.185

1.501

Pricey

8.292*

1.799

0.060

0.729

5.652'

Progressive

3.730

2.753

0.000

0.208

0.962

Quiet

4.942

0.343

0.022

4.770

0.697

Remote

1.176

0.051

0.147

2.804

0.418

Retirement area

4.567

0.599

0.187

3.135

2.410

Rural

3.200

0.196

0.000

1.128

3.87V

Safe

3.652

2.962

0.491

5.962

0.400

Sleepy

1.355

1.258

0.401

2.622

0.106

Smart

26.134**

5.862*

0.887

0.413

0.007

Stagnant

3.385

0.000

3.934*

1.751

0.010

Strong economy

4.967

0.372

0.000

0.580

0.002

Tacky

0.401

0.932

0.663

0.053

2.148

Trendy

4.827

0.506

0.000

0.209

0.411

Upscale

4.697

0.952

0.000

4.205

0.000

Vibrant

6.157

0.016

0.060

0.936

0.740

Walkable

2.260

0.048

5.592**

3.796

0.000

Well-located

3.662

0.592

0.041

0.279

0.397

Note: SRER = self-reported entrepreneurial. When df = 1, continuity correction was used;

11.037*

0.263

0.000

0.910

6.945*

1.298

0.005

0.069

10.790*

0.307

1.209

22.466**

3.786

8.882*

0.855

4.819

0.815

0.099

12.674**

4.190

5.159

9.038**

11.956**

4.086

0.699

3.560

8.492**

1.216

1.176

0.025

4.845

12.378**

7.337**

12.123**

5.068

2.691

0.000

0.000

8.621*

1.147

3.932

0.416

3.312

6.540

3.799

7.411

0.891

0.000

11.236*

0.640

3.999

1.546

1.581

1.164

3.813

4.626

0.242

0.000

5.979

1.547

5.202

0.017

0.035

1.962

2.045

1.639

0.234

2.138

4.421

0.770

0.445

3.817

1.919

11.282**

6.152*

6.289

5.493*

1.139

6.320

0.803

10.263*

7.565**

0.036

5.154

0.498

*P < 0.05; **P< 0.01.

not tacky, not trendy, not upscale and did have a strong economy. The town descriptor with the most disagreement was conservative, in which five of 11 groups felt differently about the county. Four groups felt differently about charming, culinary, growing and pricey, and three groups about bucolic, clean, cultured, family-oriented and friendly. Planners and marketers should take note that these words may be ‘hot buttons’ or areas of conflict.

To understand how groups view the county differently, respondent characteristics must be examined. Among town descriptors, the largest number of disparate views occurred between generations, residential status (resident or non), residential setting (rural or town) and residential tenure. In the case of the statistically significant differences among generations, both Gen X and Gen Y respondents were more negative about Moore County than the older age groups, considering the county bucolic, charming, clean, culinary, cultured, with diverse attractions less than expected. Residents were more likely to see the county as charming, clean, conservative, culinary, dynamic, family-oriented, growing, historic, picturesque, quiet, a retirement area, rural, safe, walkable and well-located. Rural residents were less likely to regard the county as artsy, charming, clean, conservative, culinary, growing and a retirement area. Respondents living in the county for more than 20 years were less likely to consider the county conservative, quiet, remote, sleepy and more likely to consider it cultured, progressive and vibrant. Newer residents (living in the county for five or fewer years) were more likely to consider the county stagnant, sleepy, closed or remote and less likely to consider it vibrant and cultured.

Focusing only on those descriptors with the most discrepancies between groups, residents, town residents, residents with a graduate degree, residents living in the county between six and 20 years, and men were more likely to consider the county conservative. Residents, town residents, older (Baby Boomer and Silent Generation) and white respondents were more likely to consider it charming. Residents, town residents, older and the entrepreneurial and somewhat entrepreneurial were more likely to consider it culinary. Residents, town residents, older (Baby Boomer and Silent Generation), and those with annual incomes of $50,001-100,000 and $100,001-150,000 were more likely to consider it growing. Government and non-profit employees, respondents with an annual household income less than $100,000, members of Gen X, and self-reported non-entrepreneurs found the towns to be pricey. In general, older residents, residents with longer residential tenure and town residents viewed the towns in a positive light.

Among resident descriptors, the largest number of disparate views occurred between residential status and generation. In the case of the statistically significant difference among residents and non-residents, residents were more likely to perceive the residents of their county as easy-going, educated, friendly, healthy, innovative, kind, middle class, military-friendly, multi-cultural, poverty-stricken, racially diverse, religious, retired, savvy and young families. Gen Xers were more likely to perceive the residents

Generation

(df=3)

Gender

Race

Education (df = 2)

Employment

Income (df = 4)

Resident

status

Residential

setting

Residentia tenure (df = 3)

l

SRER (df = 2)

Anti-growth

0.996

1.241

3.752

2.909

0.047

8.558

1.854

5.626*

2.698

4.420

Arrogant

8.065*

0.689

4.534*

5.190

0.660

5.119

0.160

0.080

1.843

1.891

Artsy

Business

8.264*

0.006

2.526

0.526

0.014

1.017

1.972

1.905

4.258

3.720

people

4.790

0.200

0.088

1.515

2.099

7.466

2.258

3.227

2.431

5.789

Cliquish

7.469

2.031

0.218

4.172

4.399*

0.794

0.475

0.067

5.251

0.654

Conservative

8.674*

4.317*

0.658

18.359**

0.023

3.460

10.904**

11.348**

5.580

6.532*

Cosmopolitan

30.311**

0.296

0.000

0.096

1.231

0.342

1.391

0.851

2.938

4.213

Easy-going

9.574*

2.199

1.005

3.407

0.000

5.281

5.321*

1.569

1.439

0.436

Educated

24.139**

0.599

4.209*

3.234

0.000

3.546

8.772**

7524**

2.608

2.270

Entrepreneurial

Environmentally

9.303*

0.000

0.398

0.115

5.234*

3.460

0.008

3.456

2.212

16.837**

conscious

33.016**

0.345

1.680

0.906

0.511

1.283

3.433

0.238

0.691

0.854

Forward-thinking

13.793**

0.000

0.079

2.231

0.740

2.911

2.229

0.518

2.487

5.062

Friendly

12.394**

2.785

3.012

1.803

0.035

3.004

11.031**

9.858

3.243

0.148

Healthy

20.914**

0.195

1.015

3.955

0.090

0.950

5.149*

0.589

2.437

1.309

Ignorant

4.356

0.139

0.654

1.377

1.908

5.610

2.241

1.670

1.701

1.254

Innovative

11.513**

0.891

0.001

1.381

0.655

1.551

3.915*

2.218

1.759

6.273*

Kind

8.151*

0.737

0.405

1.752

1.772

3.106

10.578**

4.072*

2.976

1.450

Liberal

0.137

0.000

1.804

0.445

0.655

2.851

0.277

0.000

0.780

0.319

Middle class

3.979

0.049

0.670

2.908

2.097

3.720

12.286**

0.114

2.882

1.255

Military-friendly

9.517*

0.000

2.573

2.854

3.178

1.497

28.407**

8.248**

3.757

1.770

Multi-cultural

9.934*

0.322

0.029

0.834

1.406

8.184

5.866*

0.004

3.275

0.262

Non-partisan

1.369

0.150

0.019

2.536

0.000

8.995

0.000

0.099

2.017

2.632

Old

14.126**

0.062

1.145

3.016

0.019

1.593

0.096

0.734

6.898

1.861

Overweight

4.633

0.112

0.468

1.116

0.093

4.309

3.197

9.744*

1.021

1.791

Poverty-stricken

0.120

4.299*

0.000

1.005

11.415**

11.616*

5.353*

0.134

2.168

2.957

Progressive

1.266

0.176

0.000

0.469

0.143

2.509

0.310

1.135

6.410

0.539

Continued

Table 7.4. Continued.

Generation

(df=3)

Gender

Race

Education (df = 2)

Employment

Income (df = 4)

Resident

status

Residential

setting

Residential tenure (df = 3)

SRER (df = 2)

Racially diverse

5.638

0.876

0.029

1.842

12.736**

7.997

15.602**

0.011

5.603

6.717*

Religious

5.140

0.162

0.006

5.027

3.327

4.206

19.743**

4.031*

5.062

2.835

Reserved

2.460

1.617

5.519*

3.915

0.102

4.313

0.000

2.249

4.201

2.965

Retired

4.150

0.230

0.000

3.769

3.312

3.896

10.837**

7.548**

8.219*

1.583

Rich

2.849

0.763

0.269

1.344

4.111*

2.140

0.263

3.757

3.129

15.302**

Savvy

3.813

0.000

0.000

0.555

0.172

15.786**

4.795*

5.485*

6.405

0.468

Snobby

11.358**

0.223

0.019

5.537

3.230

3.439

1.920

0.047

0.977

5.820

Uneducated

2.165

2.446

0.000

0.307

3.392

4.774

3.062

0.519

1.100

0.375

White

13.666**

1.984

0.171

5.181

0.000

5.501

2.315

6.666**

8.543*

0.257

Young families Young

2.610

1.135

0.096

0.588

0.241

3.950

10.305**

1.081

3.218

0.074

professionals

10.714**

0.000

2.713

0.479

0.168

3.806

1.577

0.866

6.446

5.275

Note: SRER = self-reported entrepreneurial. When df = 1, continuity correction was used; *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01.

Generation (df = 3)

Gender

Race

Education (df = 2)

Employment

Income (df = 4)

Resident

status

Residential

setting

Residentia tenure (df = 3)

l

SRER (df = 2)

Art galleries Athletic programmes

61.164**

1.808

0.003

1.587

8.804**

10.949*

2.025

10.027**

1.407

30.157**

for children

0.961

1.700

1.434

11.690**

8.125**

3.999

31.304**

7800**

1.318

7641*

Coffee shops

3.259

2.042

2.244

0.849

2.156

7710

20.225**

5.408*

3.754

2.326

Craft beers

3.121

2.137

1.176

2.603

3.517

3.160

7009*

1.099

10.980*

3.718

Diverse architecture

26.239**

0.536

0.896

2.429

2.037

1.736

2.615

10.292**

2.210

12.499**

Farmers market

9.633*

2.030

1.376

2.467

2.609

5.589

30.538**

10.294**

4.797

1.797

Forested areas

6.868

7.586**

0.000

4.921

2.831

3.618

7016**

2.291

7.347

6.204*

Great restaurants

2.747

0.008

2.935

1.447

0.533

2.354

23.161**

10.758**

1.170

0.468

Greenways

2.243

0.057

5.382*

4.888

4.592*

3.588

17300**

4.486*

7.184

3.893

Gyms/fitness centres

12.552**

.076

1.970

1.919

1.281

6.944

29.601**

9.431**

8.850*

1.751

Hotels

8.402*

0.273

1.635

0.278

0.000

1.321

21.472**

7548**

4.675

2.077

Independent bookstore

6.007

1.200

6.069*

5.627

0.670

1.595

15.098**

8.928**

1.130

0.291

Library (public)

12.558**

0.569

0.053

2.658

3.094

2.542

21.752**

6.628**

4.630

1.866

Local food

4.492

1.404

2.063

1.124

0.594

2.338

6.692**

3.944*

0.462

0.399

Parks/open space

2.294

0.441

2.644

4.624

0.278

6.333

19.818**

9.769**

8.999*

0.819

Public parking Public recreation

4.992

2.006

0.101

7461*

0.007

2.095

6.819**

9.880**

4.708

0.006

opportunities

5.521

3.343

0.748

1.586

0.003

5.173

8.399**

1.200

0.482

2.011

Safe biking paths Safe walking/running

2.573

0.800

0.222

0.287

0.398

8.165

6.275*

0.007

4.948

3.082

routes

1.975

1.422

0.557

1.066

0.260

5.211

8.234**

1.236

1.240

1.804

Scenic beauty

4.535

0.522

2.503

4.176

0.000

1.655

17768**

8.786**

0.539

6.132*

Spas/salons

Theatres

6.535

5.570*

3.188

2.257

0.631

5.747

10.919**

7.484**

4.327

4.351

(performing arts) Theatres (independent

14.068**

0.000

0.305

0.358

0.000

2.401

7260**

.963

6.520

3.346

movies)

30.995**

0.592

2.646

3.170

1.233

5.658

20.246**

8.046**

5.322

2.553

Continued

Table 7.5. Continued.

Generation (df = 3)

Gender

Race

Education (df = 2)

Employment

Income (df = 4)

Resident

status

Residential

setting

Residential tenure (df = 3)

SRER (df = 2)

Theatres (mainstream movies)

Wine selection

  • 3.145
  • 3.068
  • 0.003
  • 0.732
  • 7358**
  • 6.264*
  • 2.774
  • 6.698*
  • 6.980**
  • 0.135
  • 4.858
  • 2.511
  • 23.437**
  • 24.221**
  • 3.644
  • 15.579**
  • 0.592
  • 7.484
  • 3.216
  • 1.218

Note: SRER = self-reported entrepreneurial. When df = 1, continuity correction was used; *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01.

as arrogant, old and snobby, and less likely to perceive residents as artsy, conservative, cosmopolitan, easy-going, educated, entrepreneurial, environmentally conscious, forward thinking, healthy, innovative and young professionals. Their older counterparts, the Silent Generation, held contrasting opinions on each of these descriptors, viewing residents in a very positive light, but in particular kind and multi-cultural. Boomers were more likely to perceive the residents as entrepreneurial and racially diverse. Millennials were less likely to feel the residents are environmentally conscious, friendly or military-friendly, and more likely to perceive them as old, snobby, white and somewhat entrepreneurial.

The most contentious resident descriptors were conservative with six groups that viewed residents differently on this matter, and poverty- stricken with five. Four groups saw residents differently on educated, military-friendly and racially diverse variables, and three on arrogant, entrepreneurial, kind, religious and retired variables. Those who were more likely to deem the residents conservative were county residents who lived in town, male, older (Silent Generation) and held a graduate degree. Those who saw the residents as poverty-stricken were residents who worked in the county, were employed in the public or non-profit sector, female, and in the lowest three income brackets (spanning $0-150,000 annually). In general, older residents and town residents viewed the towns in a positive light.

Respondents were provided with a list of community elements and asked to indicate Which of the following amenities are readily available/ easily accessible in the Moore County area? The amenities with the most disagreement among groups were art galleries and athletic programmes for children, for which six groups perceived differently. Other disagreement was found on theatres (mainstream movies) and wine selection (five groups each) and greenways and gyms/fitness centres (four groups each). The largest number of disparate views occurred between residential status and residential setting. Not surprisingly, residents, more than non-residents, were more likely to indicate that the amenities were available. Additionally, the town residents appeared to be more aware of amenities than their rural counterparts.

 
Source
Found a mistake? Please highlight the word and press Shift + Enter  
< Prev   CONTENTS   Next >
 
Subjects
Accounting
Business & Finance
Communication
Computer Science
Economics
Education
Engineering
Environment
Geography
Health
History
Language & Literature
Law
Management
Marketing
Mathematics
Political science
Philosophy
Psychology
Religion
Sociology
Travel