Cruise Tourism and Residents in Arctic Canada:Development of a Resident Attitude Typology

Emma J. StewartLincoln University, New Zealand

Jackie DawsonUniversity of Guelph, Canada

Dianne DraperUniversity of Calgary, Canada

CorrespondenceEmma J. Stewart, Senior Lecturer in Parks and Tourism, Environment, Societyand Design, PO Box 84, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, Christchurch, NewZealand. E-mail: emma.stewart@lincoln.ac.nz

The Canadian Arctic represents an emerging market in the rapidly evolving polar cruise sector. Since 1984

when cruises began in this region, cruise ship activity has been sporadic, but in 2006 the number of cruises to

Nunavut doubled from 11 to 22. This elevated level of growth has persisted with ice strengthened cruise vessels

conducting between 23 and 26 separate cruises through Arctic Canada each year from 2007 to 2010. With a

warming climate some suggest this trajectory of growth will continue as sea ice diminishes and passages

open up. Despite this growth little is known about this burgeoning sector from the perspectives of local resi-

dents. Through two community case studies local attitudes toward cruise tourism are positioned in a resident

attitude typology. In Cambridge Bay, where cruise tourism is just emerging, resident attitudes were found to

gravitate toward the passive-favourable areas of the typology. By contrast, in Pond Inlet, which is one of the

most visited cruise destinations in Nunavut, attitudes were more varied with some individuals expressing

degrees of resistance. The article suggests that if local people are to become engaged participants in the

development of cruise tourism in Nunavut, then it is critical that resident attitudes and aspirations are articu-

lated, respected and acted upon.

Keywords: residents, attitudes, typology, expedition cruises, Nunavut, Arctic Canada

The waterways of Arctic Canada are coming under

increasing scrutiny from the international community, not

least because the prospect of an ice-free summer may facil-

itate a shortened trading route and an increased shipping

season between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans via the

fabled Northwest Passage (Furgal & Prowse, 2008;

Stewart, Howell, Draper, Yackel, & Tivy, 2007).

Additionally, it is claimed that the receding ice may reveal

a rich supply of natural resources and in doing so, increase

maritime traffic, and associated risks, throughout the

Arctic region (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, 2004;

Arctic Council, 2009). Such unprecedented global atten-

tion also may have raised awareness about the tourism

potential of the northern polar regions. Already, in some

Arctic locations tourists have been motivated by ‘last

chances’ to see vanishing polar landscapes and unique

polar mega fauna ‘before it is too late’ (Dawson, Lemelin,

& Stewart, 2009; Dawson, Stewart, Lemelin, & Scott,

2010; Lemelin, Dawson, Stewart, Maher, & Lück, 2010).

This stimulation of demand has coincided with increasing

access to previously difficult to reach communities and

other shore locations. Diminishing sea ice and a longer

summer season may help explain the recent patterns of

growth experienced in the cruise sector in Arctic Canada

(Stewart, Dawson, & Draper, 2010). However, despite

anticipated growth, little is known about local attitudes

toward the rapidly developing Arctic cruise industry.

This lack of community-based research is of concern

considering the local level is where the effects of change are

manifested. This article presents an analysis of local atti-

tudes toward the burgeoning cruise sector by focusing on

two contrasting locations (see Figure 1). The locations vary

geographically and represent different stages of develop-

ment in relation to cruise tourism. Cambridge Bay, located

along the Northwest Passage in the Western Canadian

Arctic, is a community that only recently has experienced

an increase in cruise traffic. By contrast, Pond Inlet in the

Eastern Canadian Arctic on the north eastern shores of

Baffin Island has been one of the most visited communities

in Nunavut over the past two decades.

The article begins with a brief historical overview of

cruise ship activities in Nunavut, and highlights the overall

lack of research on local attitudes toward the cruise indus-

try in the region. The community-based approach to the

research is outlined and the data generated from the two

Nunavut community case studies is presented as a resident

attitude typology. The article draws to a close by compar-

ing resident attitudes across both communities and

drawing attention to the importance of continued research

on this topic given the anticipated increase in cruise ship

activity in the region.

Stewart, E.J., Dawson, J., & Draper, D. (2011). Cruise tourism and residents in Arctic Canada: Development of a resident attitude typology. Journal ofHospitality and Tourism Management, 18, 95–106. DOI 10.1375/jhtm.18.1.95

SPECIAL SECTION: CRUISE TOURISM AVAILABLE ONLINEJournal of Hospitality and Tourism Management

Jour

nal o

fHosp

ital

ity

and

Touri

smM

anag

emen

t

95

Emma J. Stewart, Jackie Dawson and Dianne Draper

Overview of Cruise Activities in NunavutNunavut, the largest and newest federal territory in

Canada, lies at the heart of the Canadian Arctic. The ter-

ritory was established through the Nunavut Act in 1999

and the jurisdiction’s boundaries were carved out of the

Northwest Territories and extend over 1.9 million square

kilometres. Nunavut, meaning ‘our land’ or ‘Inuit home-

land’, has for approximately 4,000 years supported a con-

tinuous Indigenous population, and today consists of

three culturally and environmentally diverse regions: the

Kitikmeot region in western Nunavut, the Kivalliq region

in central Nunavut, and the Qikiqtaaluk (or Baffin)

region (Bone, 2003). The Indigenous population of these

three regions is 29,325, representing approximately 95%

of Nunavut’s total population (Statistics Canada, 2009).

The young and rapidly growing population is one of the

most prominent features of Nunavut’s demographic

profile, with 80% of the population aged between 20–29

years (Simeone, 2008). Currently, residents engage in a

variety of paid employment particularly within the public

sector, but also in the private and service sectors, and

there are those who prefer to live a largely traditional sub-

sistence lifestyle (Bone, 2003).

Tourism, mainly consisting of remote fishing and

hunting camps, sport hunting and adventure tourism

operations, has long been regarded as an important

source of supplementary income for residents of Arctic

Canada , as well as an opportunity to showcase northern

culture and environment, including four National Parks

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management96

Figure 1A map of Nunavut highlighting the two case study communities of Cambridge Bay and Pond Inlet (adapted from Stewart, Dawson & Draper, 2010).

Cruise Tourism in Arctic Canada

(Robbins, 2007). Since 1984 expedition cruising has been

added to Nunavut’s tourism portfolio. In that year the

Explorer, the first purpose-built polar expedition cruise

vessel, took fare paying passengers through the Northwest

Passage. Other cruise vessels were slow to follow, but by

the mid-1990s, with the sudden availability of retro-fitted

ice breakers from the former Soviet Union, a discernable

number of cruise ships were operating regularly in the

Canadian Arctic (Grenier, 2004).

A watershed came in 2006 when the number of

cruises doubled from 11 (2005) to 22 separate cruises

within a single season (Stewart et al., 2007). At this time

it was estimated that approximately 2,100 tourists

visited Arctic Canada by cruise vessel, and the industry

generated C$2.1 million dollars to Nunavut specifically

(Datapath, 2006). By the end of the 2008 cruise season,

the Canadian Arctic had hosted 26 separate cruises

making it the busiest cruise season on record. In addi-

tion, the 2008 season had started two weeks earlier, and

had finished two weeks later than it did in 2006, a

finding quite remarkable given the increase occurred

over a short three-year period (Stewart, Howell, Draper,

Yackel, & Tivy, 2010). The number of cruises in 2009

dropped slightly likely due to declining global

economies, but despite economic concerns the 2010

cruise season appears to confirm a heightened level of

interest in visiting the polar north, with 25 separate

cruises to the region.

The patterns of cruise activity are quite variable across

the territory. For example, the Northwest Passage is

emerging as one of the most popular locations visited by

cruise vessels with the number of itineraries increasing by

over 70% in recent years (Dawson, Stewart, Howell,

Tivy, & Draper, 2009). Depending on the chosen route

through the Northwest Passage, cruise ship passengers

have the opportunity to visit communities such as

Holman, Cambridge Bay, Resolute and Pond Inlet, as

well as other places of natural, historic or cultural interest

such as Beechey Island, Hershel Island and King William

Island (Figure 1). Favourable ice conditions, allied with

spectacular scenery, good wildlife viewing and opportuni-

ties to visit Greenland, means that the Eastern Canadian

Arctic has continued to receive the most cruises through-

out Arctic Canada. For example, Baffin Island communi-

ties such as Pangnirtung and Pond Inlet regularly host

cruise passengers each season (Stewart et al., 2007). By

contrast, other historically popular cruising routes along

southern Baffin Island and northern Hudson Bay have

witnessed an almost 50% decline in popularity in recent

years (Stewart, Tivy, Howell, Dawson, & Draper, 2010).

Typically, the ice-congested conditions of the High Arctic

have deterred cruise ship travel, although the icebreaker,

the Kapitan Khlebnikov (Figure 2), has been a regular

visitor to Ellesmere Island since the 1990s.

Although the region has experienced variable growth

to 2010, there has been an overall stabilisation in the

number of cruises to the Canadian Arctic since 2006.

However, mirroring patterns of growth in cruise activities

in Antarctica, combined with better access and height-

ened demand as a result of ‘last chances to see’, numbers

of cruises to the Canadian Arctic are likely to be on an

escalating trajectory.

Volume 18 2011 97

Figure 2The Kapitan Khlebnikov visiting Pond Inlet in August 2010. (photo credit: Emma J. Stewart)

Emma J. Stewart, Jackie Dawson and Dianne Draper

Resident Attitudes Toward TourismGiven anticipated growth in the Nunavut cruise sector, it is

surprising that there have been no studies that analyse the

cruise industry from a residents’ perspective. Marquez and

Eagles (2007) who examined Nunavut’s cruise sector from

a stakeholder perspective, but did not include local resi-

dents, report this as a critical omission. Only a few research

projects have assessed resident attitudes toward tourism —

in a general sense — in Nunavut. Grekin (1994), for

example, provided a snapshot of resident attitudes toward

tourism activities in Pond Inlet (see map — Figure 1),

which found the majority of residents were in favour of

tourism. However, of note was that just over 10% of resi-

dents indicated that ‘Greenpeace’ tourists (a label given to

visitors perceived to have an animal rights persuasion) were

unwelcome as “they have the potential to jeopardise the

freedom of locals to hunt” (Grekin & Milne, 1996, p. 89).

Similarly, a study of Inuit perceptions of tourism develop-

ment in Clyde River, also on Baffin Island (see map —

Figure 1), revealed support for the growth of tourism as

long as its development was gradual, culturally sensitive

and the community maintained control of the industry

(Nickels, Milne, & Wenzel, 1991). In confirmation of these

results, a study in Baker Lake noted that attitudes toward

tourism generally were positive (Woodley, 1994). This

small body of research indicates that local communities

across Nunavut have endorsed tourism, although, as Hinch

and Swinnerton (1993) point out, a significant proportion

of the population remain disinterested in the industry and

the potential it could bring the region. Is this finding

indicative of more cautious, or even passive, resident atti-

tudes toward tourism?

Despite the relative paucity of research in Nunavut,

since the 1970s the subject of resident attitudes toward

tourism has been one of the most widely researched topics

in the tourism field. Since ‘actual’ sociocultural effects of

tourism are difficult to measure, mainly because the effects

are indirect and inconspicuous (unlike economic effects),

research attention has been focused on how local people

might view tourism (Gjerald, 2005; Ratz, 2000). The logic

of this approach is that local people are most familiar with

their surroundings and best able to comment on the effects

of tourism. Collectively, the research that followed tried to

find correlations between resident attitudes and various

aspects of community life, individual circumstances and

stages of tourism development. Illustrations of this field of

research include influential models developed by Doxey

(1976) and Butler (1980) who suggested that as tourism

intensified the destination would become less attractive.

However, when researchers realised that host communities

were not homogenous in their opinions, as both Doxey and

Butler had assumed, the research emphasis shifted to

understanding the heterogeneity of resident attitudes

toward tourism.

Dogan (1989), for example, discussed five proto-

typical strategies, such as resistance and adoption, that

communities develop to cope with the effects of tourism.

Dogan (1989) acknowledges that a combination of strate-

gies may exist simultaneously and suggests that resident

attitudes toward tourism in the first stages of develop-

ment are reasonably homogenous, but that over time,

attitudes become more differentiated within the commu-

nity. Dogan (1989) noted also that the proportions of res-

idents who exhibit a certain response will vary between

destinations depending on the characteristics of the com-

munity, the level of tourism development, the type of

tourism pursued, and the types of tourists hosted.

Building on Dogan’s (1989) work and other investiga-

tions by Krippendorf (1987) and Ap and Crompton

(1993), for instance, researchers used a form of cluster

analysis to illustrate the diversity of resident attitudes

likely to exist in any one community (Fredline &

Faulkner, 2002, 2003; Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005;

Pérez & Nadal, 2005). Although variations occur, typi-

cally three main clusters exist along a ‘positive-ambiva-

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management98

�Figure 3

Host responses to tourist activity (Butler, 1975).

Cruise Tourism in Arctic Canada

lent-negative’ continuum (Fredline & Faulkner, 2000).

Illustrative of this clustering is Thyne and Lawson’s

(2001) study of residents in ten communities in the

Southern Lakes Region of New Zealand where four

groups were identified: ‘the lovers’, ‘we miss out group’,

‘the self-interest supporters’ and ‘the critics’.

A much overlooked conceptualisation of resident atti-

tudes is the early work by Butler (1975) who applied a

matrix to help understand resident attitudes toward

tourism initially developed by cultural geographers Abler,

Janelle, Philbrick, and Sommer (1975) to describe cul-

tural interaction (see Figure 3). In the adapted matrix

Butler (1975) essentially identified four clusters of atti-

tudes, suggesting that tourism can take on one of four

proto-typical forms depending on (a) resident attitudes

measured along a ‘positive-negative’ continuum and (b)

resident behaviour measured along an ‘active-passive’

continuum.

Mathieson and Wall (2006) suggested that the major-

ity of the population are likely to fall into the ‘passive’ cat-

egories, silently accepting tourism and its impacts because

of the benefits which it brings, or because they can see no

way of reversing the trend. The key contribution of

Butler’s attitude matrix was the apparent recognition that

within any community, all four forms of attitudes may co-

exist, and/or change over time.

A Community-Based ApproachWith a population of 1,315 Pond Inlet is located on the

north-eastern shores of Baffin Island at 72° N (see Figure

1). The community is regarded as the main gateway com-

munity to Sirmilik National Park which was designated in

1999 when Nunavut was created. The Park is a major

draw for cruise visitors, and one of the assets that has

caused this community to become Nunavut’s most visited

destination. Each year since 2006, between nine and

twelve ships disembarked approximately 100 passengers

per ship over a relatively short 40-day period (Stewart,

Howell, Draper, Yackel, & Tivy, 2008). During the 2010

summer season the community hosted 11 cruise vessels

and approximately 1,100 tourists. Typically, cruise vessels

anchor off shore and bring passengers to the community

via small inflatable zodiacs (see Figure 4). Passengers

usually are divided into small groups, with some visiting

the cultural centre to view Inuit sports, throat singing,

and drum dancing. Other groups visit stores where local

carvings and art can be purchased; but with only a short

time in the community, passengers are limited in their

activities. Occasionally some cruise operators organise

sporting competitions with local residents, such as a base-

ball game, while other operators have invited elders for a

tour on board the cruise ships.

To the east, at 69° N, Cambridge Bay (population of

1,477) is located on the Northwest Passage in the

Western Canadian Arctic on the southern shores of

Victoria Island (see Figure 1). The community is a key

port of call for Northwest Passage travellers and is a fea-

tured stop on some itineraries of cruise ships sailing the

Northwest Passage. Since 1984, cruise ships occasionally

have docked in Cambridge Bay. From 2006 to 2008 the

community hosted approximately three cruise vessels per

season (about 300 cruise visitors annually), but this

Volume 18 2011 99

Figure 4The Bremen visiting Pond Inlet and disembarking passengers by zodiac (photo credit: Emma J. Stewart).

Emma J. Stewart, Jackie Dawson and Dianne Draper

number increased to six visits in 2009 reflecting an overall

increase in Northwest Passage tours. The hamlet hosted

three ships in 2010. Tourists are attracted by unique

natural features (such as opportunities to view

Muskoxen) as well as cultural and historic relics such as

Amundsen’s ship wrecked Bay Maud (see Figure 5).

Previous research has identified that understanding the

effects of change occurring within communities, and the

attitudes local people have toward change, is best achieved

through engaging residents directly and recording local

knowledge (Berkes, 1999; Ford et al., 2008). The process

of understanding local knowledge from this perspective

involves use of a grounded approach whereby results and

theory are generated inductively and where data collection

and analysis take place concurrently (Glasner, 1992).

Within this approach, the concept of ‘localised meaning’ is

also integrated, which seeks to develop theory and recom-

mendations that are culturally relevant and that recognise

the unique geographical, historical and social setting of

Arctic communities (Trochim, 2005).

In this context a community-based approach toward

understanding community attitudes, that directly

involved local people in the research process, was appro-

priate (see Stewart, 2009). An iterative, multistaged and

multimethod approach evolved that included semistruc-

tured interviews based on a series of open-ended ques-

tions with a cross-section of the hamlets’ residents. The

topics of interest in the interview included, but were not

restricted to: residents’ involvement in the tourism indus-

try; how cruise tourism had evolved over time; residents’

attitudes toward the consequences, both negative and

positive, of cruise development and; the challenges facing

the tourism industry in the future. Between 2006 and

2007, 70 residents were interviewed in Cambridge Bay

and 71 interviews were conducted in Pond Inlet. The

research took place in the foyer of the local cooperative

store since it was found to be the most conducive central

space in both of the communities. The researcher

approached people to ask if they were willing to be

involved in the study with approximately a 60% success

rate in recruitment. In an effort to attain a reasonable

cross section of residents, interviews took place at differ-

ent times of day and week. In Pond Inlet, it was necessary

to employ a local resident, so that participants had the

option to be interviewed in Inuktitut. The interviews took

on average, 15 minutes to complete; some were consider-

ably longer (up to 60 minutes) and some shorter. After

finishing an interview the researcher counted two people

passing by (as best as possible) and then approached the

third to see if they were willing to answer questions.

Research results were returned to both communities in

2007 in an attempt to seek general feedback and verifica-

tion of findings (Stewart & Draper, 2009).

ResultsIn both communities, cruise tourism was welcomed and

supported. Tourists were accepted as an important part of

the new mixed socioeconomic environment of the north.

However, a variety of consequences, both positive and

negative, were articulated by the residents. Importantly,

the positive effects of cruise tourism were cited much

more frequently than negative outcomes in both commu-

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management100

Figure 5Cruise ship passengers visit Cambridge Bay (photo credit: Emma J. Stewart).

Cruise Tourism in Arctic Canada

nities.1 In Cambridge Bay, economic effects were most

commonly cited with 16 residents stating cruise tourism

was especially ‘beneficial to local carvers’, a point also

made by residents in Pond Inlet who indicated that the

cruises have helped to ‘rekindle the craft industry’ and

‘create good jobs for local people’. A number of Pond

Inlet residents noted the potential to generate more eco-

nomic return from the cruises.

In Pond Inlet, the sociocultural effects of cruise tourism

were raised most frequently, with 11 people identifying

cruise tourism as a ‘good way to meet new people’.

Additionally, 12 people thought that ‘encounters between

Inuit and Qallunaat [Inuit term for non-Inuit] facilitated

positive communication’, particularly when there was an

‘opportunity to interact’. Similarly, six people favourably

recollected the annual baseball match with cruise visitors.

Four residents recognised that in some cases ‘friendships

can even develop between residents and tourists’. In both

communities locals thought the ‘opportunity to educate

visitors and to dispel myths about living in the north’ was

important, as was the opportunity to “participate in culturalshows’ since it ‘keeps the traditions of our ancestors alive” (PI:

60). Another resident thought local people talked more

about ‘IQ’ Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (the Inuit way of inter-

preting the world) because “tourists ask questions” (PI: 26).

Cambridge Bay residents raised few concerns about

cruise tourism, although one resident indicated that

“tourists want to see how it was, rather than how it is, butnothing stays the same” (CBCM: 22). Pond Inlet residents

raised more concerns that focused on issues related to the

land, and how Inuit culture was perceived by tourists. One

person said that Pond Inlet gets at least one ‘surprise’

cruise ship a year, which is disruptive. Cruise ship tourism

was thought to “turn our kids into beggars” (PICM: 20) and

similarly, the behaviour of children around cruise passen-

gers was “embarrassing” (PICM: 44). Another resident

claimed that tourists were ‘suspicious of us’ and “they don’ttrust us” (PICM: 10). Other voiced concerns included the

use of traditions for “show time for tourists and I don’t likethat” (PICM: 12; referring to the cultural demonstrations

for visitors); ‘tourists don’t always ask permission before

they take photographs’ and one person was upset because

tourists don’t ask before taking pictures of children in

amautis (Inuit baby carriers); ‘tourists are not always cul-

turally aware’; and ‘tourists misunderstand Inuit hunting

culture’. That ‘tourism will bring cultural change’ was

articulated clearly by one resident:

“Except for the money it’s no good. Tourism will change their lives – for thebetter and for the worse. They need some tourism, but they don’t need thedrugs and the alcohol. The white man brings bullsh*t. He brings in lots ofmoney – then we always want more”. (PICM: 30)

Other Pond Inlet residents noted that some ‘tourists don’t

seem very interested in Inuit life’ and ‘have no sense of

what it is really like to live in the north’; and some tourists

“stand in judgement of Inuit people” (PICM: 54). The

concern that tourists somehow ‘interfere’ or ‘bother’ tradi-

tional narwhal hunting practices was suggested by three

residents. Cruises in general caused angst for three resi-

dents both because the ships “scare off the meat” (PICM:

54), and, in particular, “the big ships scare narwhal” (PICM:

56), and because there is insufficient ‘orientation of cruise

visitors in the community’.

In summary, residents in Cambridge Bay and Pond

Inlet regarded income from the cruise sector as positive but

only for a small sector of the population, such as carvers.

Residents expressed a sense of pride that cruise ship

tourists wanted to visit their respective communities, that

tourism afforded the opportunity to meet new people, and

that there were opportunities for cross-cultural interaction

among residents and tourists. The opportunity to educate

visitors was stressed. In both communities there was a

desire for more cruise tourism, so long as development was

respectful and gradual. In Pond Inlet, a small number of

environmental and cultural threats were perceived to exist

if future development of cruise tourism were to occur, but

this was not the case in Cambridge Bay.

Development of a Resident AttitudeTypologyIn line with earlier cluster analysis research, data gathered

from residents was assigned a position along an emerging

typology, named the ‘resident attitude typology’. This

process of assignment involved reviewing the interview

transcript and assessing it against key dimensions such as

resident involvement in the industry, self-declared

support for cruise tourism, behavioural response to

cruises and identification of tourism effects. To avoid

offending residents in the communities (had terminology

such as ‘enthusiasts’, ‘somewhat irritated’ and the ‘middle

of the roaders’ [Ryan & Montgomery, 1994] been used),

numeric ‘types’ following Krippendorf (1987) were

employed. Through this approach six proto-typical atti-

tudes to cruise tourism were identified (see Table 1).

The first characteristic refers to residents’ overall level

of support for tourism in their respective community;

Volume 18 2011 101

Table 1Characteristics of Prototypical Resident ‘Attitude Types’.

I (a), (b), (c) II III IV V VI (a), (b)

Support level Supportive Somewhat Marginally Marginally Somewhat Unsupportivesupportive supportive unsupportive unsupportive

Activity level Active Neither active Passive Passive Neither active Activeor passive or passive

Coping strategy Embrace Accept Tolerate Endure Ignore Dissent

Attitude Positive Somewhat Marginally Marginally Somewhat Negativepositive positive negative negative

Emma J. Stewart, Jackie Dawson and Dianne Draper

with the second characteristic, activity level refers to the

varying degree to which this support is made explicit. The

third characteristic, coping strategy refers to various

mechanisms engaged by residents to help deal with their

concerns about the impacts of cruising, and the fourth

characteristic, attitude refers to an overall assessment of

residents’ attitudes toward cruise tourism along a posi-

tive-negative axis.

Type I individuals generally are those who are active in

their support for the cruise industry; they are willing to

embrace the changes tourism brings, and are positive

about potential future opportunities. This attitude type

correlates with other established (or identified) cluster

analyses groups such as: ‘lovers’ identified by various

researchers (Davis, Allen, & Cosenza, 1988; Fredline &

Faulkner, 2000; Madrigal, 1995; Thyne & Lawson, 2001;

Williams & Lawson, 2001) and ‘extreme enthusiasts’

(Ryan, Scotland, & Montgomery, 1998). For those indi-

viduals economically dependent on tourism, this attitude

type is associated to the groups: ‘love ’em for a reason’

(Davis et al., 1988); ‘development supporters’ (Pérez &

Nadal, 2005); and ‘the self-interest supporters’ (Thyne &

Lawson, 2001). Notwithstanding Type I’s support for

tourism, these individuals are not unaware of the negative

aspects of tourism, and report constructive criticism of the

effects of tourism on their community.

The separation of the Type I category was necessary

since some residents expressed the general characteristics

of the category, but these individuals were passive, rather

than active, in their behavioural response to cruise tourism,

called Type I (b). Similarly, some residents, labelled I (c)

were active in their support for cruise tourism (usually

through their working lives) but not as supportive as those

in the general Type I cluster, termed I (a).

Type II individuals are those who support the cruise

ship industry, with less enthusiasm compared to Type I

individuals, and who are more cautious of current and

future development. Nonetheless, these individuals are

willing to accept the impacts perceived to arise from

cruising and, overall, hold positive attitudes toward the

sector. Type II individuals resonate with groups previ-

ously identified as: ‘moderate enthusiasts’ (Ryan et al.,

1998) and ‘enthusiasts’ (Ryan & Montgomery, 1994).

These individuals are not naïve about the mixed implica-

tions of cruise tourism for their communities.

Type III individuals are those who dislike certain ele-

ments of the cruise industry, but who nevertheless are cau-

tiously supportive and silently tolerate cruise tourism

without resentment. The overall attitude of Type III indi-

viduals could be described as marginally positive. Type III

individuals correlate to clusters previously identified as:

‘cautious supporters’ (Ryan et al., 1998), ‘ambivalent and

cautious’ (Pérez & Nadal, 2005), ‘realists’ (Madrigal,

1995), ‘cautious toleraters’ (Stewart, Kirby, & Steel, 2006)

and, ‘ambivalent supporters’ (Fredline & Faulkner, 2000).

Those individuals labelled as Type IVs largely are indif-

ferent to the tourism industry, expressing little interest in it

and passively enduring its effects. Their overall attitude

could be described as marginally negative toward cruise

ship tourism, due to their lack of interest. The distinction

between Type III and Type IV individuals is important,

and individuals could, depending on circumstances, fall

into either category as these individuals are neutral in their

opinion about cruise tourism. Similar clusters have been

previously labelled: ‘middle of the roaders’ (Ryan &

Montgomery, 1994) ‘neutrals’ (Weaver & Lawton, 2001)

and ‘in-betweeners’ (Davis et al., 1988).

Type V individuals are those who are somewhat

unsupportive of the cruise industry and are resigned to

accepting something they do not like. At times these indi-

viduals are disillusioned by the effects of cruise tourism in

their respective communities, but ignore the situation to

avoid conflict. It is probable that these individuals will see

little hope in the future of the cruise tourism industry.

This attitude type correlates with other reported clusters

such as: ‘complex toleraters’ (Stewart et al., 2006),

‘cynics’ (Williams & Lawson, 2001), and ‘the

critics’(Thyne & Lawson, 2001).

Those labelled as Type VI individuals are actively

unsupportive of cruise tourism in their respective com-

munity, and resent the changes brought about by cruises.

Type VI individuals also resent cruise ship tourism being

part of the future of the community. These individuals

largely match clusters identified by other researchers, var-

iously labelled as: ‘we miss out group’ (Thyne & Lawson,

2001), ‘opponents’ (Weaver & Lawton, 2001) and the

‘haters’ (Davis et al., 1988; Fredline & Faulkner, 2000;

Madrigal, 1995). The Type VI category was revised after

fieldwork was conducted in Pond Inlet where it was

found that the small number of least supportive residents

could be differentiated along the active-passive dimen-

sion, that is, some people were actively engaged with

tourism, or had been previously, and were found to be

unsupportive of tourism, labelled Type VI (a), and some

people who had no association with tourism were simi-

larly negative, and labelled Type VI (b).

DiscussionAs Table 2 illustrates, the overwhelming majority (90%)

of Cambridge Bay residents were classified as Type I resi-

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management102

Table 2Percentage (%) of Residents Expressing ‘Attitude Type’ Per Community

Community Attitude Type

I (a) (b) I (c) II III IV V VI (a) VI (b)

Cambridge Bay (70) 27.2 57.1 5.7 5.7 4.3 — — — —

Pond Inlet (71) 21.1 26.7 8.5 23.9 7.0 4.2 2.8 1.5 4.3

Note: Numbers in brackets denote number of residents participating in the research.

Cruise Tourism in Arctic Canada

dents while the remaining 10% of residents clustered in

the Type II and III attitude categories. No residents were

placed on the negative side of the typology. Just over 25%

of Cambridge Bay residents were classified as Type I (a),

and were regularly and actively involved in tourism either

through a professional association or, interestingly, on an

occasional basis through a volunteer role such as a driver

or drum dance coordinator when the cruise ships arrived.

These individuals, the majority of whom were of Inuit

ancestry, consisted of elders, teachers, hunting guides and

spanned a large age range (19–65). They saw tourism as

an opportunity to educate visitors about the north.

Despite recognising the challenges associated with growth

in the tourism sector, these individuals would like to see

more cruise tourists visit the community in the future.

Type I (c) individuals in Cambridge Bay, are a small

minority of just 5.7%. These individuals are active in

their association to the tourism industry (such as working

for an outfitter, Parks Canada or Hunters and Trappers

Organization) but are not as supportive as individuals in

the Type I (a) category. The majority of Cambridge Bay

residents were categorised into the passive form of the

Type I (b) group representing 57.1% of those residents

interviewed. The overwhelming majority of these individ-

uals have no or only occasional contact with visitors, but

still embrace the opportunities cruise tourism presents to

the community.

Type II (5.7%) and Type III (4.3%) categories were

frequented by a much smaller percentage of residents.

Compared to the residents in the Type I grouping, these

individuals were more likely to be newcomers to the com-

munity (with the average residency of Type II individuals

being 4.5 years and for Type III individuals, 3.5 years).

These individuals also were more likely to be Qallunaat

than Inuit and either had no or occasional contact with

cruise tourists; but the numbers of individuals in these

groups are so small that such findings can be regarded

only as anecdotal.

Although each of the nine attitude types is represented

by residents in Pond Inlet, the vast majority (87.2%) of

residents expressed a positive attitude toward tourism

(i.e., attitude Types I–III). However, the remaining resi-

dents (12.8%) occupy the negative half of the typology.

Type I(a) residents (21.1%) mainly are connected to

tourism in some way, usually through their work (a

current or former guide, performer, or elder). The major-

ity are Inuit and there is a large range in residency length

(5–76 years). These individuals embrace cruise tourism,

and regard it as an important vehicle for educating

tourists about Inuit culture; they believe opportunities for

interaction (such as the annual baseball match with cruise

passengers) are crucial for developing dialogue between

Inuit and Qallunaat. Cruise tourism, so long as develop-

ment is gradual and respectful, is welcomed.

The Type I (c) individuals in Pond Inlet similarly were

a small group (8.5%) as in Cambridge Bay. All of these

residents had regular, occasional or previous association

with tourism; all were Inuit and the average length of resi-

dence was 39 years. As in Cambridge Bay, the passive

form of the Type I cluster constituted mainly residents

(26.7%) with no association to cruise tourism such as stay

at home parents, people who were unemployed and those

working in office-based jobs. The average residency was

27 years (ranging from 10–47), and all individuals were

Inuit; all quietly accepted cruise tourism and welcomed

its presence in the community.

There are no sociodemographic patterns of interest for

Pond Inlet residents falling into the Type II category

(23.9%), but these individuals share in common an inter-

est in the cruise tourism industry but are not as support-

ive as Type I(a) and I(b) residents. Unlike similar

residents in Cambridge Bay these individuals are not nec-

essarily newcomers to the community (with a residency

range of 2–70 years). However, like residents in

Cambridge Bay, these individuals mainly had no associa-

tion or only occasional association with the tourism

industry. The same low level of contact with tourism is

true for Pond Inlet residents (7.0%) classified as having a

Type III attitude.

On the negative side of the typology, all residents

exhibiting Type IV to VI attitude types have no, occa-

sional, or only previous association with tourism.

Although numbers are small (only up to three individuals

in the clusters), these residents tend to gravitate toward

the passive end of the typology (i.e., Type IV and Type VI

[b]). This passivity echoes findings in Cambridge Bay,

that nontourism affiliated individuals tend to occupy the

passive zone of the typology regardless of whether or not

individuals are favourable or unfavourable toward

tourism. These Pond Inlet residents quietly dislike facets

of the cruise sector, to varying degrees.

Resident attitudes toward cruise tourism are heteroge-

neous, with a broad range of attitude types uncovered.

However, less differentiation between attitude types

occurred in Cambridge Bay than in Pond Inlet, where all

Cambridge Bay residents reported, to varying degrees,

support for, and a positive attitude toward cruise tourism.

More differentiation across the attitude types was found

in Pond Inlet, with two and nine individuals respectively

located on the negative side of the resident attitude typol-

ogy. In Cambridge Bay and Pond Inlet, the most fre-

quented clusters were those in the passive-supportive

regions of the typology (i.e., Type I [b]). Similarly, but at

the other end of the ‘favourable-unfavourable’ dimen-

sion, the majority of these residents were characterised by

passivity.

The resident attitude typology helps to contextualise

how resident attitudes of tourism vary across, and within,

communities that are at different stages of tourism devel-

opment in Nunavut, and illustrates that variation in atti-

tude does exist within each of the communities, if only

moderately; and that subtle but interesting differences can

be detected in attitude types between communities.

According to Madrigal (1995) the value of profiling clus-

ters of residents in this way is that those residents at the

end of the spectrum, that is, those with positive attitudes

(such as ‘lovers’, ‘enthusiasts’, ‘supporters’) and those

with negative attitudes (such as ‘haters’, ‘cynics’ and

‘critics’) would feel strongly enough to participate in deci-

sion-making processes related to tourism. Those clusters

Volume 18 2011 103

Emma J. Stewart, Jackie Dawson and Dianne Draper

in between these extremes, such as ‘realists’, ‘ambiva-

lents’, ‘middle of the roaders’ might not feel strongly

enough to participate.

Revisiting Resident Attitude ResearchModels such as those developed by Doxey, Smith and

Butler have been helpful in understanding some of the

generalities about resident attitudes toward tourism, and

have proven to be broadly applicable in some, but not in

all destinations. In this research, such models only go so

far in explaining some of the findings. On the surface the

‘euphoria’ described by Doxey could be said to exist in

Cambridge Bay where there is overwhelming resident

support for tourism. Although the least developed of the

two case study sites, tourism here is hardly in its first

flush of development. Sport hunting, for example, has

been in operation since the 1980s; and the first cruise

ship stopped in this community in 1984. Birders and

fishers also have been welcomed in this community

(although in relatively small numbers) for decades.

However, conference/business tourism is a new phenome-

non. This complexity is not addressed well by such

models.

The sweeping generalities associated with the stage

models do little to unravel the complexity associated with

how cruise tourism is perceived in the two communities.

This is because the models assume community homo-

geneity, as well as treating tourism as one entity, rather

than a series of individual, yet connected phenomena,

each of which can prompt different responses in individu-

als (i.e., residents may be supportive of cruise tourism but

scorn the activities associated with sport hunters). The

models also assume that tourism activities equally are

visible in a community, which is far from the case in the

two case study sites. In Cambridge Bay, tourism activities

mainly are removed from daily life in the community;

cruise ships, more often than not, dock away from the

community’s main harbour (as it is too shallow); meaning

that residents are not always aware of these ‘hidden’

tourism activities. By contrast, in Pond Inlet, tourism

activities are visible; the cruise ships dock right outside

the community’s beach area, and tourists readily are

viewed moving in predictable patterns around the hamlet.

Such geographic factors influence the type, duration and

regularity of encounters between local people and

tourists, and although this has been explored as a deter-

minant of attitude the findings are inconclusive.

Furthermore, the mixed (although generally positive)

findings in Pond Inlet are hard to explain utilising stage

models, other than this community has had more expo-

sure to tourism than Cambridge Bay. The models cer-

tainly do not shed any light on why residents in different

communities express emphasis on certain impacts arising

from tourism. For example, environmental issues (such as

those related to climate change in the Inuit communities)

were downplayed in relation to the perceived economic

and cultural consequences of tourism; a finding hard to

explain, but which has been acknowledged in other desti-

nations (Dyer, Gursoy, Sharma, & Carter, 2007). Neither

do such models help explain the passivity found to exist

in Pond Inlet and Cambridge Bay, although this tendency

has been noted elsewhere (Mathieson & Wall, 2006). In

Nunavut this passivity, some argue, cannot be understood

without recognising the effects of colonialism deeply

rooted in indigenous communities (Castleden, Garvin, &

Huu-ay-aht First Nation, 2008).

These points illustrate that in this research attitudes

toward tourism cannot be easily or exclusively explained

by conventional models traditionally used by tourism

researchers. Some of the existing models and propositions

are helpful, but not all aspects related to resident attitudes

can be accounted for, because the models assume tourism

to be a single tangible reality that can be fragmented into

independent variables, allowing reductionism and the

possibility of time and context-free generalisations (Kuhn,

2007). Clearly, the multifacet phenomenon of tourism

does not exist within a bounded system, so instead, expla-

nations of how and why attitudes emerged as they did,

can be better served by understanding tourism as a holis-

tic system (Dawson, Maher, & Slocombe, 2007; Farrell &

Twining-Ward, 2004). It is clear from this research that

individuals do not see tourism as one isolated thing; but

view tourism as a web of connections, interwoven into

families, livelihoods, lifestyles and landscapes evidenced

by the range of consequences residents expressed. The

clue that researchers should take from this, is that there is

little point trying to understand attitude formation as if it

were an isolated variable, but rather it should be concep-

tualised as a holistic, interconnected phenomenon.

Future research may benefit from adopting a complex

systems approach and its associated concepts to help

understand resident responses to the dynamic nature of

cruise tourism in the Arctic context.

ConclusionCruise tourism in Nunavut is illustrative of the rapidly

changing Arctic environment. In a relatively short time

period some communities in Nunavut have witnessed

dramatic growth in the number of visiting cruise ships.

However, despite the sector’s trajectory of growth little is

known about how local people perceive cruise tourism.

The research reported in this article responds to the sug-

gestion by Marquez and Eagles (2007) to assess resident

perspectives since this was omitted in their stakeholder

analysis of the cruise tourism in Nunavut. As a conse-

quence, this research developed a resident attitude typol-

ogy to document the range of resident attitudes. In

Cambridge Bay, the economic benefits of cruise tourism

were most readily cited, followed sociocultural and envi-

ronmental benefits. The vast majority of residents could

not identify negative effects of cruise tourism in

Cambridge Bay. In Pond Inlet, residents expressed a

sense of pride that tourists wanted to visit their commu-

nity; that cruise tourism afforded the opportunity to meet

new people; and gave residents’ and tourists’ possibilities

for cross-cultural interaction. The opportunity to educate

visitors was especially stressed. In Pond Inlet, a small but

significant number of environmental and cultural threats

were perceived to exist particularly in relation to the land,

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management104

Cruise Tourism in Arctic Canada

and how Inuit culture was perceived by cruise tourists,

but this was not the case in Cambridge Bay.

The resident attitude typology should send an impor-

tant signal to decision-makers as well as cruise operators

that cruise tourism in the Canadian Arctic is not inconse-

quential; rather cruise tourism is intertwined into the

reality of the new north, and generally garners a high level

of support among local populations (Stewart & Draper,

2010). However, it is also clear from the findings pre-

sented in this article that risks are beginning to manifest

at the community level, particularly in locations regularly

visited by cruise vessels such as Pond Inlet. Given antici-

pated growth in this sector in Nunavut, the negative con-

sequences for local people could escalate, if allowed to go

unchecked. It is, therefore, vital that operators are aware

of their impact, and that appropriate policy, regulation

and intervention be in place to help reduce community

vulnerability. It is important that local people ‘themselves

define the risks related to rapid change’ (Nuttall, Forest,

& Mathiesen, 2008, p. 5) because the identification of

appropriate interventions have a better chance of success

if they are developed in collaboration with local people

(Ford & Smit, 2004; Ford, Smit, & Wandel, 2006; Ford

et al., 2008; Nuttall et al., 2008).

Continuation of the work started in this research is

important therefore because cruise ship tourism develop-

ment needs to proceed at a pace and style that is accept-

able to local people, and appropriate to the Arctic

environment. It is essential to respect attitudes of local

people not only because the community level is where the

effects of change are manifested but also because this is

where decisions become real to people and have the

potential to affect their quality of life, economic status

and local environment. Future research should involve

other Nunavut communities, particularly those locations

less frequented by cruise ships such as Gjoa Haven,

Kugluktuk and Kimmirut, to ensure at the outset that

risks associated with cruise tourism development are min-

imised and opportunities maximised both for local

people, and the wider territory.

AcknowledgmentsLocal residents in both Cambridge Bay and Pond Inlet

are thanked for their generosity and willingness to con-

tribute to this research. The Pierre Elliot Trudeau

Foundation provided the funding and support to com-

plete the doctoral research upon which this article is par-

tially based. Acknowledgement is also made to the Global

Environmental Change Group at the University of

Guelph. We would also like to thank Robin Poitras, car-

tographer at the University of Calgary, for creating the

map used in this article, as well as two anonymous

reviewers for useful comments.

Endnote1 In order to differentiate direct quotes from paraphrased quotes from

residents, direct quotes are provided in italics and with double

inverted commas followed by the interview code (PI for Pond Inlet

and CB for Cambridge Bay), and paraphrased quotes are nonitalicised

and presented in single inverted commas.

ReferencesAbler, R., Janelle, D., Philbrick, A., & Sommer, J. (1975). Human geogra-

phy in a shrinking world. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press.

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). (2004). Impacts of a warmingArctic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Arctic Council. (2009). Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA) 2009Report. Tromsø: Author.

Ap, J., & Crompton, J.L. (1993). Residents’ strategies of responding to

tourism impacts. Journal of Travel Research, 22(1), 47–49.

Berkes, F. (1999). Sacred ecology: Traditional ecological knowledge andresource management. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.

Bone, R.M. (2003). The geography of the Canadian North: Issues and chal-lenges (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Butler, R. (1975). Tourism as an agent of social change. Peterborough:

Department of Geography, Trent University.

Butler, R.W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution:

Implications for management of resources. The Canadian Geographer,24(1), 5–12.

Castleden, H., Garvin, T., & Huu-ay-aht First Nation. (2008). Modifying

Photovoice for community-based participatory indigenous research.

Social Science and Medicine, 66(6), 1393–1405.

Datapath. (2006). Nunavut Exit Survey.

Davis, D., Allen, J., & Cosenza, R. (1988). Segmenting local residents by

their attitudes, interests, and opinions toward tourism. Journal ofTravel Research, (Fall), 2–8.

Dawson, J., Lemelin, H., & Stewart, E.J. (2009, October 14–16). Lastchance tourism: Risks and opportunities of an emerging market segment.Paper presented at the Travel and Tourism Research Association,

Guelph, Ontario.

Dawson, J., Maher, P., & Slocombe, S. (2007). Climate change, marine

tourism, and sustainability in the Canadian Arctic: Contributions from

systems and complexity approaches. Tourism in Marine Environments,4(2–3), 69–83.

Dawson, J., Stewart, E.J., Howell, S.E.L., Tivy, A., & Draper, D. (2009,

December 8–11). The relationship between sea-ice change and patterns ofcruise ship tourism across Arctic Canada. Paper presented at the

ArcticNet Scientific Meeting, Victoria, BC.

Dawson, J., Stewart, E.J., Lemelin, H., & Scott, D. (2010). The carbon

cost of polar bear viewing tourism in Churchill, Canada. Journal ofSustainable Tourism, 18(3), 319–336.

Dogan, H.Z. (1989). Forms of adjustment: Socio-cultural impacts of

tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 16, 216–236.

Doxey, G.V. (1976). When enough’s enough: The natives are restless in

Old Niagara. Heritage Canada, 2(2), 26 27.

Dyer, P., Gursoy, D., Sharma, B., & Carter, J. (2007). Structural model-

ing of resident perceptions of tourism and associated development on

the Sunshine Coast, Australia. Tourism Management, 28, 409–422.

Farrell, B.H., & Twining-Ward, L. (2004). Reconceptualizing tourism.

Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 274–295.

Ford, J., & Smit, B. (2004). A framework for assessing the vulnerability of

communities in the Canadian Arctic to risks associated with climate

change. Arctic, 57(4), 389–400.

Ford, J.D., Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Vulnerability to climate change

in the Arctic: A case study from Arctic Bay, Canada. GlobalEnvironmental Change, 16, 145–160.

Ford, J.D., Smit, B., Wandel, J., Allurut, M., Shappa, K., Ittusarjuat, H.,

& Qrunnut, K. (2008). Climate change in the Arctic: Current and

future vulnerability in two Inuit communities in Canada. TheGeographical Journal, 174(1), 45–62.

Fredline, E., & Faulkner, B. (2000). Host community reactions: A cluster

analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 764–785.

Fredline, E., & Faulkner, B. (2002). Residents’ reactions to the staging of

major motorsport events within their communities: A cluster analysis.

Event Management, 7, 103–114.

Volume 18 2011 105

Emma J. Stewart, Jackie Dawson and Dianne Draper

Fredline, E., & Faulkner, B. (2003). Host community reactions: A cluster

analysis. In B. Faulkner (Ed.), Progressing tourism research (pp. 114–

135). Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Furgal, C., & Prowse, T.D. (2008). Northern Canada. In D.S. Lemmen

& F.J. Warren & J. Lacroix & E. Bush (Eds.), From impacts to adapta-tion: Canada in a changing climate (pp. 57–118). Ottawa: Government

of Canada.

Gjerald, O. (2005). Sociocultural impacts of tourism: A case study from

Norway. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 3(1), 36–58.

Glasner, B.G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA:

Sociology Press.

Grekin, J. (1994). Understanding the community level impacts of tourismdevelopment: The case of Pond Inlet, NWT. (Unpublished master’s

thesis). McGill University, Canada.

Grekin, J., & Milne, S. (1996). Towards sustainable tourism development:

The case of Pond Inlet, NWT. In R.W. Butler & T.D. Hinch (Eds.),

Tourism and indigenous peoples (pp. 76–106). London: International

Thomson Press.

Grenier, A.A. (2004). The nature of nature tourism. Rovaniemi: University

of Lapland.

Hinch, T.D., & Swinnerton, G.S. (1993). Tourism and Canada’s North-

West Territories: Issues and prospects. Tourism Recreation Research,18(2), 23–31.

Krippendorf, J. (1987). The holidaymakers: Understanding the impact ofleisure and travel. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Kuhn, L. (2007). Why utilize complexity principles in social inquiry?

World Futures, 63(3–4), 156–175.

Lemelin, H., Dawson, J., Stewart, E.J., Maher, P., & Lück, M. (2010).

Last-chance tourism: the boom, doom, and gloom of visiting vanishing

destinations. Current Issues in Tourism, 13(5), 477–493.

Madrigal, R. (1995). Residents’ perceptions and the role of government.

Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 86–102.

Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (2006). Tourism: Change, impacts and opportuni-ties. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Miller, G., & Twining-Ward, L. (2005). Monitoring for a sustainable tourismtransition: The challenge of developing and using indicators. Wallingford:

CABI.

Nickels, S., Milne, S., & Wenzel, G. (1991). Inuit perceptions of tourism

development: The case of Clyde River, Baffin Island. Etudes Inuit,15(1), 157–169.

Nuttall, M., Forest, P.A., & Mathiesen, D. (2008). Adaptation to climatechange in the Arctic. Rovaniemi: University of the Arctic Rectors’

Forum, University of Lapland.

Pérez, E.A., & Nadal, J.R. (2005). Host community perceptions: A cluster

analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 925-941.

Ratz, T. (2000). Residents’ perceptions of the socio-cultural impacts of

tourism at Lake Balaton, Hungary. In G. Richards & D. Hall (Eds.),

Tourism and sustainable community development (pp. 36–47). London:

Routeldge.

Robbins, M. (2007). Development of tourism in Arctic Canada. In J.M.

Snyder & B. Stonehouse (Eds.), Prospects for polar tourism (pp. 84–

101). Wallingford: CABI.

Ryan, C., & Montgomery, D. (1994). The attitudes of Bakewell residents

to tourism and issues in community responsive tourism. TourismManagement, 15(5), 358–369.

Ryan, C., Scotland, A., & Montgomery, D. (1998). Resident attitudes to

tourism development — a comparative study between Rangitikei. New

Zealand and Bakewell, United Kingdom. Progress in Tourism andHospitality Research, 4, 115–130.

Simeone, T. (2008). The arctic: Northern aboriginal peoples. Retrieved from

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0810-e.htm

Statistics Canada. (2009). Population by year, by province, by territory.

Retrieved from http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo02a-

eng.htm

Stewart, E.J. (2009). Comparing resident attitudes toward tourism:Community-based cases from Arctic Canada. (Unpublished doctoral

thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.

Stewart, E.J., Dawson, J., & Draper, D. (2010). Monitoring patterns of

cruise tourism across Arctic Canada. In M. Luck, P.T. Maher & E.J.

Stewart (Eds.), Cruise tourism in the Polar Regions: Promoting environ-mental and social sustainability? (pp. 133 145). London: Earthscan.

Stewart, E.J., & Draper, D. (2009). Reporting back research findings: A

case study of collaborative tourism research in the Canadian North.

Journal of Ecotourism, 8(2), 128–143.

Stewart, E.J., & Draper, D. (2010). The creation of Nunavut and its

impact on the development of tourism in Arctic Canada. In R. Butler

& W. Suntikul (Eds.), Political change and tourism (pp. 68–81). Oxford,

England: Goodfellows.

Stewart, E.J., Howell, S.E.L., Draper, D., Yackel, J., & Tivy, A. (2007).

Sea ice in Canada’s Arctic: Implications for cruise tourism. Arctic,60(4), 370–380.

Stewart, E.J., Howell, S., Draper, D., Yackel, J., & Tivy, A. (2008, May).

Cruise tourism in a warming Arctic: Implications for northern nationalparks. Paper presented at the Parks for Tomorrow, University of

Calgary, Canada.

Stewart, E.J., Howell, S.E.L., Draper, D., Yackel, J., & Tivy, A. (2010).

Cruise tourism in Arctic Canada: Navigating a warming climate. In

C.M. Hall & J. Saarinen (Eds.), Tourism and change in polar regions(pp. XX). Abingdon: Routledge.

Stewart, E.J., Kirby, V.G., & Steel, G.D. (2006). Perceptions of Antarctic

tourism: A question of tolerance. Landscape Research, 31(3), 193–214.

Stewart, E.J., Tivy, A., Howell, S.E.L., Dawson, J., & Draper, D. (2010).

Cruise tourism and sea ice in Canada’s Hudson Bay region. Arctic,63(1), 57–66.

Thyne, M., & Lawson, R. (2001). Research note: Addressing tourism

public policy issues through attitude segmentation of host communi-

ties. Current Issues in Tourism, 4(2–4), 392–400.

Trochim, W. (2005). Research methods. Cincinnati: Atomic Dog

Publishing.

Weaver, D.B., & Lawton, L.J. (2001). Resident perceptions in the urban-

rural fringe. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 439–458.

Williams, J., & Lawson, R. (2001). Community issues and resident opin-

ions of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 269–290.

Woodley, A. (1994). Culture, perceptions and community-based tourism: Thecase of Baker Lake, NWT. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of

Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management106