1. Introduction
Coastal ecosystems are one of the most productive yet highly threatened ecosystems in the world [
1,
2,
3]. The world’s coastal zones represent some of the most diverse and productive ecological and social systems. About two-thirds of the world’s population live within 60 km of the coast [
4]. Gerhartz-Abraham et al. [
5] (p. 69), highlighted that ‘as a result of a burgeoning population, human activities such as fishing, aqua-culture, oil and gas exploitation, tourism, agriculture, coastal development and shipping continue to put considerable pressure on the world’s ocean and coastal environment’.
Communities in different coastal regions are at the forefront of coastal environments, which are affected by coastal vulnerability to tourism, climate change, erosion, population growth, and overall development. However, in the case of island states, mass tourism as their economic backbone applies further pressure to limited coastal zones and surrounding communities. ‘In addition to having limited resources, in the island states, the economic and social activities tend to be concentrated in coastal areas and interconnectivity between the economic, environmental, social, cultural and political spheres is highly pervasive’ [
6] (p. 1).
Since such communities are the first ones impacted by changes in coastal ecosystems because of tourism, it is imperative to explore their views and understand the challenges they face in order to facilitate a possible integration and harmonious interaction between anthropogenic activities and the sustenance of communities. Therefore, plans to support coastal change governance in the context of ICZM and collective action are critical before it is too late [
7,
8].
However, because of the immediate return of benefits from mass tourism, especially 3S (sun, sea, and sand) tourism [
9], which is dependent on coastal areas, the long-term management and protection of coastal areas have been compromised in various destinations and more so in island states [
10,
11,
12,
13]. While mass tourism has been the focus, notwithstanding its measurable negative impacts, alternative tourism, which ‘improves local conditions-be it environmental, cultural or socio-economic’ [
14] (p. 331), has been neglected. Furthermore, coastal urbanization has also exacerbated the pressure on coastal ecosystems. ‘Worldwide there are 23 megacities with populations of over 10 million people. Of these, 16 are in the coastal zone’ [
13] (p. 86). Coastal tourism, as a dominant form of global mass tourism [
15], applies various pressures on coastal zones through accommodation, beach front strip cities, hotels, condominiums, transportation, cruise ships, and various forms of pollutions that are reminiscent of Davenport and Davenport’s [
16] previous assertion that ‘tourism is now the largest single economic sector in the World. Impacts of leisure transport and tourism on the coastal environment have considerably increased (and are currently scheduled to continue increasing) in a non-linear fashion and are extremely difficult to manage or limit’ [
13] (pp. 94–95).
It is well established that coastal regions are socio-ecological systems (SESs) [
17,
18] that are shaped and structured by the environment, society, and economic development in the context of the Anthropocene; ‘the Anthropocene argument is substantiated by the presence of climate change in addition to myriad other attributes of environmental change and degradation on an unprecedented scale’ [
19] (p. 1). In the meantime, tourism’s long-term sustainability depends on the harmonious interaction and balanced utility of SESs where the community’s future is at stake. ‘SESs as an interdependent and co-evolutionary [process], in which social and ecological domains are linked by ecological knowledge, governance arrangements, and ecosystem services’ [
20] (p. 2), cannot be separated from the dynamism of human and habitat.
Coastal zone management, which is also known as integrated coastal zone management (ICZM), has been established since the 1960s as part of Agenda 21 to show nations how to manage and protect the coastal zones in a sustainable manner [
21]. The question is: to what extent do destinations adhere to the principles of ICZM? This study aims to investigate the case of North Cyprus where the coast is the main resource and is highly vulnerable to the impacts of mass tourism among many other threats. For the purpose of this study, we targeted several communities who are in constant interaction with the coastal regions and resources. We assumed that the targeted communities are sources of knowledge concerning ICZM and its implementation. At the same time, they are the main actors in the creation of institutions for collaboration towards the collective action that is essential for the implementation of ICZM [
22,
23].
The impact of tourism development on the immediate communities has been addressed in the literature; however, much of the earlier literature does not incorporate the local social structures, values, and environmental capacities of communities in the context of a larger socio-ecological system. Movono et al. [
24] (p. 452) highlighted that ‘as a result, only a few tourism studies have explored the intricate connections between people and their environment, and even fewer have questioned how these connections may be affected as a society that adapts to tourism development’. Moreover, with the continuation of human migration towards coastal zones and the growing trend of coastal tourism, sustainability of coastal areas has become a complex and challenging task. Therefore, any strategic undertaking must consider social, economic, institutional, biophysical, and legal dimensions in order to achieve the goals of sustainability [
25]. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the establishment of ICZM over the last several decades, successful strategies have remained a rarity in most of the communities that are dependent on coastal resources. We hope this study will provide a new strategic direction for coastal tourism in general and island coastal management in particular in a vigorous and sustainable manner by departing from a myopic view of tourism development [
26].
4. Results
The result of reliability for all the scale variables is presented in
Table 6. Three items from ED (ED_13, ED_14, and ED_15), two items from II (II_1 and II_2), and two items from TIM (TIM_1 and TIM_10) were removed due to the low corrected item-total correlation. This is because corrected item-total correlation values greater than 0.3 are acceptable [
105] (p. 1050). The removed items were eliminated from the rest of the analysis. The Cronbach alpha (α) values ranged between 0.848 and 0.908 and were greater than 0.7, as the threshold [
106].
In this study, the 5-point Likert scale was utilized. According to Balcı [
107], if the average of each question for all the respondents is between 1 and 1.79, it can be considered that they strongly agreed with that specific question. When it ranges from 1.80 to 2.59, it can be thought as agreement, 2.60 to 3.39 as undecided, 3.40 to 4.19 as disagreement, and 4.20 to 5 as strong disagreement. After calculating the attitude score based on Balcı’s [
107] recommendation, the results revealed that respondents almost agreed with all of the items of the ED variable, except for ED_12, with which their attitudes were strongly agreed. For the II variables, most of the respondents were undecided about the items, except for II_10 (agree) and II_13 (disagree). Except for TIM_2 (agree), the respondents were shown to be undecided for all of the items of the TIM variable. By taking the average of the ED, II, and TIM variables, the results showed that respondents agreed with the ED variables; however, they were undecided about the II and TIM variables. For the details, see
Table A1/
Appendix A.
In order to investigate the influence of gender, age, location, and years of residency on residents’ perceptions regarding all the variables, the t-test and ANOVA were utilized. The mean scores, which were measured on a Likert scale from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree, were used for the ranking. The results are presented in
Table 7 and
Table 8. Moreover, the post hoc analysis of Scheffe was implemented to explore differences in variables between the subgroups of related variables.
The result of the independent samples t-test in
Table 7 shows that there is a statistically significant difference between the male and female respondents in only the means of II_4 to 9, II_11, II_12, and TIM_4 to 7 variables. The results showed that the mean for these variables was greater for female respondents than for males. These results revealed that males were more agreed about II_4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 variables (mean = 2.796, 2.979, 2.915, 2.831, 2.930, and 2.852, respectively) than females (mean = 3.147, 3.495, 3.431, 3.257, 3.284, and 3.275, respectively). Moreover, males were shown to be more agreed or neutral about the TIM_4, 5, 6, and 7 variables (mean = 2.852, 2.951, 3.106, 2.655, respectively) than females (mean = 3.514, 3.615, 3.532, and 2.963, respectively).
Differences between the perceptions of residents by different age levels, years of residency, occupation, and location of the residents were verified using one-way ANOVA. The results are presented in
Table 8, which shows that there were significant differences in community members’ perception of the ED_4, II_6, II_10, TIM_4, TIM_5, TIM_7, TIM_11, and TIM_12 variables regarding their age levels. There is also a significant difference in the ED_10 to 12, II_4, II_9 to 11, TIM_4 to 7, and TIM_11 variables regarding the years of residency. In addition, there were significant differences in community members’ perception of the ED_11 and II_6 variables regarding their occupation. In addition, there is a significant difference in the ED_1, ED_5, II_6 to 9, II_12 to 13, and TIM_3 to 8 variables regarding the community members’ locations. In order to find out which pairs of means are significantly different from each other between the groups of variables, Scheffe’s post hoc test was utilized.
The results of Scheffe’s post hoc test in
Table 8 showed that, for the II_10, TIM_11, and TIM_12 variables, there is a main effect for age levels (
F = 5.984, 3.478, and 5.046,
p < 0.01), due to residents with ages ranging 51–65 scoring higher than those with ages ranging 20–30, 41–50, and 66–80 (only for II_10). The results showed that the mean for these variables was greater for respondents with ages ranging 51–65 than for others. These results revealed that residents with ages ranging 66–80 (mean = 1.800, only for II_10), 41–50 (mean = 2.103, 2.632, and 2.588, respectively), and 20–30 (mean = 2.130, 2.565, and 2.413, respectively) were more agreed about the II_10, TIM_11, and TIM_12 variables than residents age ranging 51–65 (mean = 2.862, 3.262, and 3.38, respectively). These results also revealed that residents with ages ranging 66–80 were the most agreed about the II_10 variable.
The results of Scheffe’s post hoc test in
Table 8 showed that, for the TIM_5 and TIM_6 variables, there is a main effect for years of residency (
F = 3.606 and 3.518,
p < 0.01), due to those with residency years ranging 1–10 and 11–20 (for TIM_5 and TIM_6, respectively) scoring higher than those with residency years ranging 51–60. These results revealed that residents with 1 to 10 and 11 to 20 years of residence (mean = 4.188 and 3.772, respectively) were more disagreed about the TIM_5 and TIM_6 variables than residents with 51 to 60 years of residence (mean = 2.538 and 2.615, respectively).
The results of Scheffe’s post hoc test in
Table 8 showed that, for the ED_11 and II_6 variables, there is a main effect for the resident’s occupation (
F = 4.376 and 3.640,
p < 0.05), due to the unemployed residents scoring higher than residents with full-time/governmental jobs and self-employed residents (for ED_11 and II_6, respectively). These results revealed that residents with full-time/governmental jobs and self-employed residents (mean = 2.246 and 2.863, respectively) were more agreed about ED_11 and II_6 variables than unemployed residents (mean = 2.844 and 3.422, respectively).
The results of Scheffe’s post hoc test in
Table 6 showed that, for the II_7, II_9, II_13, TIM_3, TIM_4, TIM_6, and TIM_7 variables, there is a main effect for resident’s location (
F = 5.356, 4.196, 3.316, 3.928, 3.287, 3.789, and 5.295,
p < 0.01 or better). This is because the residents of Kumyali, Tatlisu, Balalan, and Kaplica scored higher than the residents of Dipkarpaz, and the residents of Balalan and Yenierenkoy scored higher than the residents of Kaplica.
These results revealed that the residents of Dipkarpaz (mean = 2.364, 2.341, 2.886, 2.250, 2.318, and 2.545, respectively) and Kaplica (mean = 1.909, only for TIM_7) were more agreed about the II_7, II_9, II_13, TIM_3, TIM_4, TIM_6, and TIM_7 variables than the residents of Kaplica and Kumyali (mean = 3.682 and 3.692, respectively, for II_7). Furthermore, for residents of Tatlisu and Kumyali, the mean = 3.452 and 3.615, respectively, for II_9; for residents of Kumyali, the mean = 3.615, for II_13; for residents Kumyali and Kaplica, the mean = 3.538 and 3.545, respectively, for TIM_3. In addition, for residents of Balalan, the mean = 3.630, for TIM_4; for residents of Yenierenkoy and Balalan, the mean = 3.543 and 3.815, respectively, for TIM_6; for residents of Yenierenkoy and Balalan, the mean = 3.239 and 3.444, respectively, for TIM_7.
5. Discussion and Conclusions
This study investigated coastal communities’ perceptions in the case of North Cyprus, which is highly dependent on tourism since tourism in North Cyprus is highly based on coastal resources [
108,
109]. To contribute to our understanding of coastal governance based on the ICZM framework, we employed SESs and Ostrom’s collective action principles as theoretical backdrops. This paper is the first attempt to investigate North Cyprus’s coastal management policies and governance based on the aforementioned theories and the coastal communities’ perception.
Based on Balcı’s [
107] recommendation and the results, the answer to the first and second research questions indicate that ICZM has not been institutionalized as a framework to guide the management of coastal zones. As shown in
Appendix A, coastal community residents expressed their lack of knowledge and awareness of any institutional approach to the governance of coastal zones. Nevertheless, tourism is perceived as the main source of impact by residents, and ICZM might be able to address or negate those impacts to some degree. This means that they have no cognizance of any institutional policy or its implementation towards an integrated ICZM and tourism development. This is in line with a study by Gray et al. [
110], who investigated coastal community residents’ perception concerning coastal hazard mitigation.
There were some common perceptions regarding environmental dimensions (ED) in coastal areas. In this regard, the perception was that tourism negatively affected coastal areas and the lack of a framework such as ICZM exacerbated the negative impacts. This finding is also supported by Zahedi [
70], who examined the 3S tourism’s negative impacts. Zahedi [
70] (p. 49) highlighted that:
‘This type of tourism which is the main cause of developing too many buildings, too close to beaches, is associated with the emergence of a leisure-dominated pleasure periphery occupying a significant portion of the Mediterranean and Caribbean basins, along with the parts of the South-Pacific, South-eastern Asia and Indian Ocean basin. At times, the infrastructure has lagged behind development or has not been maintained, including sewerage, water and power facilities, roads and rubbish clearance in the Caribbean Island and Mexico’.
The study has also revealed there is not much difference between male and female respondents regarding the environmental dimension issues. However, regarding the institutional issues and ICZM, female respondents were more skeptical and had doubts and reservations.
Moreover, results revealed that residents with different age levels, years of residency, occupation, and location have the same perception regarding the environmental dimension (ED), except for ED_11, with which residents with full-time/governmental jobs were more agreed in comparecomparison to unemployed residents. While residents with different years of residency had the same perception regarding the institutional issues, residents with different occupations had the same perception regarding the ICZM. However, the perception of residents regarding the II_10, TIM_11, and TIM_12 variables were shown to differ according to their different age levels. Residents aged 51–65 agreed less strongly than the other age groups. This implies that the younger residents were either less concerned about the institutional issues and ICZM or less aware. Moreover, residents with less than 20 years of residency were shown to disagree more strongly or to be neutral regarding the TIM_5 and TIM_6 variables, compared to the residents with 51–60 years of residency. This implies that residents with longer residency have more awareness of ICMZ related issues. The results also revealed that residents with full-time/governmental jobs and self-employed residents agreed more strongly about the ED_11 and II_6 variables than the unemployed residents. Regarding the location of residents, the results showed that residents of Dipkarpaz agreed more strongly about the II_7, II_9, II_13, TIM_3, TIM_4, and TIM_6 variables in comparison to residents of Kaplica, Kumyali, Tatlisu, and Balalan. In addition, residents of Kaplica were shown to agree more strongly about TIM_7 in comparison to residents of Balalan and Yenierenkoy. This means that the institutional and ICMZ issues are less problematic in Dipkarpaz and Kaplica than in other locations. It can be concluded that residents of Dipkarpaz and Kaplica areas are also more aware of institutional and ICMZ issues than other locations.
A survey conducted with residents of eight coastal communities in North Cyprus revealed several similarities, as well as important differences, in their awareness and perceptions of institutional issues, ICZM, and the environmental impacts of coastal development including tourism. Lack of awareness and knowledge about overall coastal management and governance among the surveyed communities indicates that the relationships and interactions between coastal communities and coastal resources as commons are devoid of the perception of these resources in the context of socio-ecological systems (SES). To uphold and embed the principles of SES requires a cohesive collective approach as elaborated in Ostrom’s collective action principles. In all communities that were investigated, participants understood the values of coastal resources; however, they had minimal understanding of ICZM, SES, and the collective approach to the governance of coastal areas. This research has found that government and the tourism sector have failed to bring the communities on board and to involve them in enhancing social capital, which is essential for collaboration in any social innovation [
111,
112].
We have also taken the effort to review existing laws and amendments pertaining to the management of coastal zones. Two sets of legislation were reviewed by the authors that included legislation No. 1/1992, 22/1961, 26/1993, 28/1996, and 55/89.2020—construction regulation [
86]. Prior to the year 2020, the regulations regarding coastal zones lacked any comprehensive guideline or management system. However, the laws that were recently revised addressed issues of distance from the shoreline, the bulk of the construction, and intensity of development for the purpose of tourism. The legislation failed to address the issues relevant to ICZM and community involvement. The new legislation perceived coastal zones as comparable to any other terrestrial entity without considering the specific characteristics of coastal ecosystems. The further pressure on coastal zones is underway as the development of second-home tourism is intensified by both local and international investors.
This study is also in line with Heslinga et al.’s [
113] study, who applied the SES framework and concluded that a discussion of synergy between tourism and the landscape/ecosystem has been neglected due to a simplistic view of the environmental impact of tourism; therefore, it is time to ‘balance the needs of nature protection and socio-economic development’ [
113] (p. 187).
However, this study has also yielded an unexpected finding about the ethos of the community, which signifies the heterogeneity of the community structure. This should come of no surprise to scholars of community who consider community to consist of complex layers of different views and expectations.
The World Tourism Organization and United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2017) conceptualized the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) [
114]. The ICZM can be instrumental in paving the path for the tourism sector and its vast value chain to contribute to the progress towards all 17 SDGs goals.
In the meantime, this study’s finding is in line with Gerhartz-Abraham et al.’s [
5] findings who revealed the effectiveness of ICZM in the case of Cuba. Furthermore, they emphasized coastal community participation as the backbone of successful ICZM. They recommended ‘policy makers to explore new integrative arrangements in the governance framework that promotes local engagement and empowerment in order to improve legitimacy of the regulatory regime and hence compliance’ [
5] (p. 74).