Casino Gambling Tourism-A View From Community: The Case of North Cyprus (TRNC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is an investigation of a host community's perception of the social and cultural impacts of casino gambling in the major coastal tourist destination of Northern Cyprus, where it represents a vital source of income and employment for the area. The study is also an evaluation of this perception within the context of tourism-host community? interaction, in respect to a general theory of community participation in the decision-making process. To achieve this aim, a survey questionnaire was applied to collect data from the Kyrenia district (the main venue for casino gambling activities) in Northern Cyprus (TRNC). The questionnaires were analyzed to access: (1) the general attitude towards casino gambling, (2) the social and cultural impacts of casino gambling on local residents, (3) the community?s concerns about the presence of casinos in their community, and (4) to develop a profile of respondents in respect of their attitudes towards gambling behaviour. Findings indicated that the respondents had a negative attitude towards casino gambling. The socio-cultural impacts that were cited most frequently were crime and domestic violence, prostitution, threat to the traditional way of life, social values, diminishing the historic, aesthetic value of Kyrenia town, and threatening the basis of family structure and life. Findings also revealed that tourism planners and developers need to be aware of the perceptions of the community and of actively encouraging community members involvement in any decision-making processes, connected to specific types of tourism - particularly gambling. Many casinos have been constructed on the coastal environment, which raises numerous concerns regarding the ecological impact of casinos on the health and sustainability of the coastal areas. The study revealed that there is no integrated coastal management (ICZM) in place which emphasizes the integration of systems, co-ordination of policies and institutions, management concerns, development objectives andstakeholder interests across the different landscapes of the coastal zone (Hope & Lekorwe, 1999, p. 853). The community's concerns were directed at the serious lack of awareness displayed towards these issues. Keywords: Residents' attitudes; Casino Gambling; Tourism Development; Growth machine thesis; North Cyprus.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".