Location

4th Floor,
Commerce Building, cnr Union and Clyde Streets,
University of Otago,
Dunedin 9054, New Zealand

Contact

Tel 64 3 479 8520
Fax 64 3 479 9034
tourism@otago.ac.nz

Sustainable Tourism Project: Delphi Report

Professor Geoffrey W. Kearsley
Richard D. Mitchell
W. Glen Croy

Department of Tourism
University of Otago
Dunedin, New Zealand

Research Paper Number Seven

Bibliographic Reference

Authors: Kearsley, G. W.; R. D. Mitchell and W. G. Croy.
Publication Date: 1999
Title: Sustainable Tourism Project: Delphi Report
Series Number: Research Paper Number Seven.
Place of Publication: Dunedin, New Zealand,
Publisher: Centre for Tourism, University of Otago.

Kearsley, G. W.; R. D. Mitchell and W. G. Croy (1999) Sustainable Tourism Project: Delphi Report. Research Paper #7. Dunedin, New Zealand: Centre for Tourism, University of Otago.

ISBN: 0-473-06443-X

Acknowledgments

This study was carried out by the Centre for Tourism at the University of Otago. The project was funded from the Public Good Science Fund administered by the Foundation for Research Science and Technology.

This report is one in a series of Research Papers that present the results of a series of studies funded by the Public Good Science Fund as part of the Sustainable Tourism programme of research carried out by the Centre for Tourism at the University of Otago.

The Authors

The research team consisted of Geoff Kearsley, Richard Mitchell and Glen Croy from the Centre for Tourism at the University of Otago. Geoff is currently Professor of Tourism within the University of Otago. Professor Kearsley established a Postgraduate Diploma in Tourism in 1989 while a senior lecturer in geography. The programme developed into a Centre for Tourism in 1993 and Professor Kearsley was appointed to the full-time directorship. Richard graduated with a Postgraduate Diploma in Tourism from the Centre in 1998, is currently completing his Ph.D. in Tourism and employed within the Centre as a Research Fellow. Glen completed his Postgraduate Diploma in Tourism in 1998, is also employed as a Research Fellow on the Sustainable Tourism Projects and has begun his Ph.D. in Tourism.

^ Top of page

Introduction

The Centre for Tourism, funded by the Public Good Science Fund, undertook a survey that examined the New Zealand tourism industry's attitudes towards and understanding of sustainable tourism. The questionnaire was divided into 6 sections: Business Profile; Sustainability within the Organisation; Perceptions of Sustainability; Attitudes towards Sustainability; Specific Actions and Consequences (examining perceptions and usage of various management strategies and which organisations should take responsibility); and, lastly Funding Solutions. The results of this survey are presented below for your comment, while questions have been posed to stimulate thought on the issues that arose.

Note needs to be made of two significant implications of the timing of this survey. Firstly, the survey was undertaken in mid 1998, shortly after the occurrence of the Asian Financial Crisis. During this period there was a dramatic decline in Asian tourists travelling to New Zealand and overall tourist numbers had decreased. Secondly, the 'Tourism Policy Group' (TPG) was in existence. The TPG has successively been reorganised and enlarged to become the 'Office of Tourism and Sports Policy' (OTSP). For the interpretation of the following results the TPG and the OTSP are interchangeable.

1. Background: Business Profile (Sample Characteristics)

A mail out (via the New Zealand Tourism Industry Association newsletter) of around 3,000 invitations to participate saw 335 businesses showing an interest in participating. Of these, 156 (47%) completed and returned the questionnaire. A supposition from the final response rate is that whilst most respondents were sympathetic to sustainable practices and development, these were not a priority for them.

All sectors of the industry are represented in the sample, although the accommodation sector may be slightly over represented at 29% while ecotourism/nature-based tourism (4%), the hospitality/service sector (1%) and trade associations (1%) are under-represented. Generally reflecting the industry as a whole, most businesses surveyed were small (57% 5 or less full-time equivalents) and relatively young (71% less than 2 years old). Almost half (48%) of those surveyed indicated that they received less than 10,000 visitors per annum (23% receiving less than 1,000) and the percentage of international visitors received varied from none to 100%. More than four out of five of the respondents (83%) were Owner/Operators or Managers/CEOs.

^ Top of page

2 Sustainability within the Organisation

Major Issues Facing Business

When asked what were the 'key issues or problems facing their organisation', many respondents identified business issues. One in four responses (25%) referred specifically to business issues such as profitability and growth, while a further 16% cited market conditions, 7% industry related issues, 6% competition/competitors and 5% funding (mainly government). However, less than 10% were concerned with issues relating to sustainability (2%) or environmental issues (5%) (refer Table 1 below).

Table 1: Major issues for the business

Issue Number of Responses Percentage of Responses
Business Issues 85 25%
Market Conditions 52 16%
Government Policy 31 9%
New Zealand Industry Issues 24 7%
Environmental issues 18 5%
Funding 18 5%
Quality 13 4%
Competitors/Competition 19 6%
DoC 9 3%
NZTB 10 3%
Airlines 7 2%
Technology 7 2%
Sustainability of Tourism 7 2%
Weather/Climate 7 2%
Miscellaneous 19 6%
No response 9 3%
Total 334* 100%

Note: *Larger than 156 as respondents were able to list multiple issues.

Use of Codes of conduct/practice and management strategies

Around two out of three businesses indicated that they followed a social code of conduct (58%) and an environmental code of conduct (60%). Of those that said that they followed a social code (n=90), almost half (46%) used an unwritten/informal code (e.g. 'do unto others', common sense, moral/legal behaviour) and almost a quarter (22%) used their own code. Of the remainder, sector specific codes of conduct (e.g. HAPNZ) were the highest rating (16%). Similarly, 44% (n=93) stated they used an unwritten/informal environmental code and 18% used their own environmental code. Of the remainder, the Department of Conservation Environmental Care Code rated highest with 13% using it. A small percentage of those using environmental codes (less than 5%) stated that they used more than one code of conduct (usually including a combination of Department of Conservation, PATA and their own). It is important to note that around 6% of those surveyed stated that they were not sure what a social code of conduct was, while 3% were unsure what an environmental code was.

Three external 'management strategies' were rated as being significant to some degree to tourism businesses (where 1 is very insignificant, 3 is neutral and 5 is very significant).

Significant or very significant external management strategies

Neither significant nor insignificant external management strategies

Insignificant to some degree external management strategies

Issue 1

Given that business issues dominate, is it possible to increase the significance of industry-driven and global sustainable management strategies?

If so, how?

^ Top of page

3. Perceptions of Sustainability

Definitions of Sustainability

Respondents were asked how they would define sustainable tourism. Sustainable tourism was seen to comprise of a care for the environment (61%: n=135); a long-term view (39%); economic growth and viability (34% stating a need for and 4% stating that this was not a factor for sustainable tourism); consideration of visitors (31%); consideration of society (30%); resource and environmental management (13%); carrying capacity consideration (4%); and using codes of practice (2%).

Sustainable tourism was primarily defined involving the factors of:

Multiple factors were mentioned in many of the definitions supplied, therefore these results are indicative, but do give a high level of insight.

Level of Knowledge

One in three respondents (n=155: 33%) indicated that they knew nothing at all or very little about sustainable tourism, a further 35% indicated they knew a moderate amount, while the remaining third (32%) knew quite a bit or a great deal. However, almost nine out of ten (n=155: 87%) stated that they needed to know more about sustainable tourism.

Importance of Sustainability

Social sustainability was considered to be important for both the company (61% stating it was a major issue or the top priority) and the tourism industry as a whole (66% stating it was a major issue or the top priority). Similarly, environmental sustainability was considered to be important to the company (63% stating it was a major issue or the top priority) and the tourism industry as a whole (76% stating it was a major issue or the top priority). In all cases less than 3% considered social and environmental sustainability to be irrelevant.

The top priority was asked for those that did not state social sustainability or environmental sustainability as their businesses top priority (n=58). Profit and business survival was the most common response (50%). To deliver consistent standards to guests and growth were stated far behind at second equal (7%). Stability of business (5%) and a balance of environmental and economic matters (3%) were the other notable mentions. Other top priorities stated by respondents were individual ranging from ensuring gay and lesbian tourist are treated with respect to regaining lost tourism after the Korean crash.

For respondents who did not state social sustainability or environmental sustainability as the top priority for the tourism industry as a whole, the most common response was obtaining funding as the industries top priority (36%: n=66). Growth (8%), stability and a steady business flow (8%), market New Zealand as a unique market effectively (6%), forward planning (6%), and finding a balance between economic and environmental matters (6%) were the other key responses. Again the rest of the responses were highly individualised.

Impacts of Tourism

Table 2 (below) shows the impacts of tourism on the host community as stated by respondents (where 1 is strongly disagree, 3 is neither and 5 strongly agree).

Agreed that tourism contributes to an increase in

Neither agreed nor disagreed that tourism contributes to an increase in

Disagreed that tourism contributes to an increase in

Table 2: Impacts of Tourism on the Host Community

Tourism contributes to   Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Strongly Agree Mean Score
increase in user conflicts (n=155)* 1.9 21.3 19.4 49.0 8.4 3.41
increase in traffic congestion (n=155)* 2.6 26.5 20.0 45.8 5.2 3.25
increase in crowding (n=153)* 2.0 27.5 20.9 43.1 6.5 3.25
increase in water pollution (n=156)� 5.1 25.6 26.3 37.2 5.8 3.13
increase in litter (n=155)� 5.8 27.1 22.6 39.4 5.2 3.11
increase in noise (n=153)� 7.2 35.3 24.8 28.8 3.9 2.87
reduction in local ownership (n=155)� 10.3 31.6 27.7 23.9 6.5 2.85
increase in prostitution (n=155)� 17.4 33.5 25.2 21.9 1.9 2.57
increase in inflation (n=154)� 13.0 41.6 35.1 9.7 0.6 2.44
increase in gambling (n=154)� 14.9 46.8 19.5 18.2 0.6 2.43
increase in crime (n=155)� 24.5 43.9 14.8 15.5 1.3 2.25

Notes: One-Sample T-Test (test value = 3): * = agree to some degree (p<0.05), � = neither disagree nor agree (p>0.05), � = disagree to some degree (p<0.05).

Issue 2:

The level of understanding of the principles of sustainability is relatively low and the vast majority of tourism businesses feel that they need to know more.

How might this lack of understanding be overcome?

^ Top of page

4. Attitudes towards Sustainability

Attitudes to Participation in Sustainable Tourism Development

Businesses agreed with 12 of 14 statements that were designed to elicit an in-depth understanding of attitudes how the business should participate in sustainable tourism development (refer Table 3 below, where 1 is strongly disagree, 3 is neither and 5 strongly agree).

Strongly agree that businesses should participate in:

Neither agree nor disagree that:

The latter, with in excess of one in three respondents (38%) disagreeing to some extent.

Table 3: Attitudes to Participate in Sustainable Tourism Development

My business /organisation should   Strongly disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree Mean
help bring satisfaction and enrichment (n=156)* 0.6 2.6 21.2 75.0    
help strengthen respect for NZ's natural areas and historic places (n=156)* 1.3 1.3 5.1 28.2 64.7 4.55
help support the maintenance and improvement of NZ's environment and heritage (n=154)* 1.3 2.6 17.5 36.4 42.2 4.16
assist in management of solutions (n=154)* 0.6 4.5 11.0 52.6 1.2 4.09
help promote cultural appreciation and understanding (n=154)* 1.3 5.8 14.9 40.9 37.0 4.06
help improve the quality of community life (n=154)* 1.3 5.8 21.4 42.9 28.6 3.92
help diversify local and regional economies (n=153)* 1.3 9.2 22.9 36.6 30.1 3.85
would benefit from a written code of environmental conduct (n=152)* 4.6 11.2 2.2 33.6 18.4 3.50
would benefit from a written code of social conduct (n=154)* 6.5 11.0 35.1 33.8 13.6 3.37
should have a business plan that includes environmental auditing (n=154)* 8.4 16.2 29.2 32.5 13.6 3.27
should have a business plan that includes social auditing (n=154)� 8.4 18.2 36.4 29.9 7.1 3.09
assist in funding the solutions (n=155)� 7.7 30.3 29.7 27.1 5.2 2.92

Notes: One-Sample T-Test (test value = 3): * = agree to some degree (p<0.05) and � = neither disagree nor agree (p>0.05).

General Attitudes Towards Sustainability Issues

Table 4 (below) shows a list of bipolar statements that assess general attitudes towards sustainable tourism development. Responses were also taken to agreement to both or neither of the statements.

Respondents principally felt that:

Table 4: General Attitudes to Sustainability Issues

Statement A A % Both% B % Statement B
         
Tourism is inherently sustainable. 5.8 2.6 91.6 Tourism must be carefully managed in order for it to be sustainable.
Short to medium term sustainability of tourism is the priority. 7.1 5.8 87.1 Long term sustainability of tourism is the priority.
Sustainable tourism development should encourage the spread of tourists throughout the country. 80.0 2.6 13.5 Sustainable tourism development should encourage the concentration of tourist activity only in selected areas of the country.
Sustainable tourism development is primarily a global responsibility. 17.5 12.3 70.1 Sustainable tourism development is primarily a local responsibility.
Ecotourism is a more sustainable form of tourism. 24.5 4.5 69.4 Ecotourism is no more sustainable than other forms of tourism.
Administration of sustainability legislation should be the responsibility of local and regional government. 56.7 12.0 28.7 Administration of sustainability legislation should be the responsibility of central government.
Education of tourism staff is important in the implementation of sustainable tourism practices. 53.2 37.7 9.1 Education of tourists is important in the implementation of sustainable tourism practices.
Legislation is the best method of instituting sustainable tourism development. 37.5 9.2 52.0 Voluntary guidelines are the best method of instituting sustainable tourism development.
The tourism industry has the greatest role to play in implementing sustainable tourism development policy. 27.6 21.2 51.3 The government has the greatest role to play in implementing sustainable tourism development policy.
Sustainable tourism development is useful as a marketing tool. 50.7 16.7 31.3 Marketing is a useful tool for sustainable tourism development.
The well-being of the local community through sustainable tourism development is the priority. 23.4 25.6 50.6 Protection of the local environment through sustainable tourism development is the priority.
Small & medium-sized tourism enterprises adhere to the principles of sustainable tourism development. 45.8 23.9 9.2 Large multi-national tourism enterprises adhere to the principles of sustainable tourism development.
It should primarily be the responsibility of the government to fund sustainability initiatives. 38.4 21.9 38.4 It should primarily be the responsibility of the tourism industry to fund sustainability initiatives.

The Tourism Industry and Sustainability

A series of 7 statements (Table 5 below) were used, not only to gather opinions of how the tourism and sustainability were related, but to also confirm some of the earlier opinions given on aspects of sustainability (where 1 is strongly disagree, 3 is neither and 5 strongly agree).

Respondents agree that:

However, in both cases, support was not strong with only around 11% strongly agreeing with the statements.

Respondents disagree that:

This, despite the fact that more than half (51%) had suggested that the government have the greatest role to play in the implementation of STD strategies (general attitudes towards sustainability issues).

Table 5: Tourism Industry and Sustainability

    Strongly disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree Mean Score
Tourism is more sustainable than other industries (n=154)* 2.6 13.6 29.9 42.2 11.7 3.47
Tourism needs greater industry control (n=156)* 5.1 13.5 24.4 45.5 11.5 3.45
Tourism in the most developed locations is unsustainable (n=154) 13.6 52.6 24.0 7.8 1.9 2.82
Tourists should be dispersed to rural locations (n=156) 8.3 35.3 28.2 22.4 5.8 2.82
The number of tourists visiting New Zealand locations should be limited (n=156) 31.4 34.6 14.1 14.7 5.1 2.28
Tourism needs greater Government control (n=156) 25.6 41.0 18.6 12.2 2.6 2.25
Tourists should be concentrated in urbanised locations (n=155) 20.0 58.1 16.1 22.4 5.8 2.08

Notes: One-Sample T-Test (test value = 3): * = agree to some degree (p<0.05) and � = disagree to some degree (p<0.05)

Issue 3:

On the one hand, respondents want the government to take greater responsibility for STD strategies and on the other they do not the government to have any more control over the industry.

What, then, should be government's role in STD strategies?

And how might this be mismatch of attitude be reconciled?

Attitudinal Focus

Table 6 (below) illustrates that environmental issues dominate in attitudes towards sustainable tourism (where 1 is not at all important, 3 neither unimportant nor important and 5 important). However, with the exception of Maori consultation (mean score 3.38), all issues rated highly (i.e. mean score above 4). Four of five highest ranked statements related to environmental concerns, while the other (ranked second) related to tourist satisfaction. Business issues were ranked as three of last six issues, despite the fact that, when asked what the main issues facing their business were (see Table 1 above), business issues were mentioned most. Host community related issues were also ranked in the last six (although still high). A number of respondents (21%) stated that consultation with Maori was unimportant or not at all important.

Table 6: Attitudinal Focus Toward Sustainable Tourism

  Not at all Impt Un-Impt Neither Impt Very Impt Mean Score
The protection of wildlife breeding colonies Environmental - - 1.3 23.7 75.0 4.74
The quality of the visitor experience - - 1.3 28.4 70.3 4.69

The protection of high scenic value Environmental

-

-

1.3

28.8

69.7

4.68

The reduction of damage to the physical environment Environ-mental - 2.6 3.2 25.8 68.4 4.60

The protection of areas of high habitat value Environ-mental

-

1.9

4.5

31.2

62.3

4.54

The reduction of disturbance of the attraction Tourist/ Business - 1.3 4.6 48.4 45.8 4.39
The positive interaction between tourists and locals Host - .6 7.1 46.8 45.5 4.37
The profitability of the tourism industry Business 1.3 3.8 1.9 51.9 41.0 4.28
The involvement of the host community in tourism decision-making Host 1.3 2.6 0.4 53.9 31.8 4.12
Organised regional plans for tourism. Business 1.3 3.2 14.1 50.6 30.8 4.06
Consultation between industry and Maori. Host 10.3 10.3 28.2 34.0 17.3 3.38

Issue 4:

Tourism businesses appear to be giving environmental issues preference.

How, then, can businesses be encouraged to give equal consideration to host community issues?

And

More particularly, Maori issues?

Places Adversely Affected by Visitor Pressures

A total of 114 (n=255) different locations were identified as currently adversely affected by visitor pressure or likely to become sensitive to pressures in the future. Places identified ranged in scale from national parks and urban areas generally, to specific attractions or walkways.

The top five (most frequently mentioned) places currently affected were:

When responses were grouped, resort towns (34%) and national parks (or parts of national parks) (24%) were mentioned most (see Table 7).

Table 7: Top Five Places Under Visitor Pressures

Rank Present (N=253)* Future (N=204)*

1

Resort Towns(34.0%)

National Parks (and parts of)(24.0%)

2

National Parks (and parts of)(24.1%)

Resort Towns(18.1%)

3

Attractions(9.1%)

Rural Areas/Regional Towns(17.6%)

4

Rural Areas/Regional Towns(8.7%)

Marine/Coastal/Waterways(12.3%)

5

Infrastructure(6.7%)

Natural Areas(10.3%)

Note: *n > sample size (N=156) as respondents were able to list up to three places.

When questioned how these places were sensitive to pressures 168 responses were collected.

The top five (most frequently mentioned) pressures were:

The top five ways recommended to minimise these pressures were:

The number of responses to the question of potential future pressure was relatively low, with just over half of the respondents (51%: n=80/156) providing answers to this question.

The top five (most frequently mentioned) places to be potentially affected were:

When responses were grouped, national parks (or parts of national parks) (24%) and resort towns (18%) were mentioned most (see Table 7 above).

When questioned what the likely pressures these places would be sensitive to 112 responses were collected.

The top five (most frequently mentioned) possible pressures were:

Almost half (45.6%) of the respondents (n=79) suggested that the pressures would be felt within 1-5 years, while a further 34.2% suggested that they would be felt within 6-10 years. Almost all respondents (96.2%) suggested that these pressures would be felt within 20 years.

Comments made to support the time scale of possible pressures 33 responses were made. Responses differed from the pressure are happening now (18%), over provision of Department of Conservation (DoC) concessions (6%), the pressure will occur until major policies or legislation changes them (6%), to being depends on tourism growth (6%).

The top five ways recommended to intervene to minimised these pressures were:

Issue 5:

Resort areas and national parks are under pressure from tourist numbers.

Is there a need to manage these pressures?

And

If so, how might these be managed?

^ Top of page

5. Appraisal of Existing Management Strategies and Agencies

Importance of Types of Strategies

In this section the application and appropriateness of a range of STD strategies is examined. Strategies were selected to provide a range of governmental, both central and local (e.g. Tourism Policy Group policy, Resource Management Act (RMA) and District Plans), and strategies put forward by national and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (e.g. NZTIA codes of practice, the PATA Green Leaf program, the WTTC Green Globe program and the UNEP Agenda 21). All are recognised as strategies that are appropriate for all levels of tourism organisation. The list of strategies is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather, it provides examples on a continuum from local (e.g. District Plans and By-Laws) through to global (e.g. Green Globe and Agenda 21) and statutory (e.g. RMA and District Plans) through to voluntary (e.g. Green Leaf, Green Globe and Agenda 21). The ranking of strategies by respondents follows (where 1 is irrelevant, 3 is relatively important and 5 is the top priority).

Ranking of importance of strategies

Usage, Effectiveness, Practicality and Cost of Specific Strategies

Statutory sustainability measures rated as being both effective and practical. The Resource Management Act and District Plans rated as effective and practical to some degree, but were both considered to be costly. Local By-Laws and Regional Policy Statements also rated as effective and practical but were seen as neither costly nor inexpensive. The above strategies/policies were also those most often referred too.

A large percentage of respondents indicated that they did not know much about four of the policies/strategies (3 of which are voluntary codes of practice). Around half of the respondents indicated that they did not know much about Tourism Policy Group policy effectiveness, practicality and cost, with around 70% stating the same for Green Leaf, Green Globe and Agenda 21, and the NZTIA codes of practice (30%). This is also reflected in the large percentage stating that they were unfamiliar with these policies (around 60% and 80%). As a result it is inappropriate to make inferences relating to the effectiveness, practicality and cost ratings for these particular policies/strategies.

Table 8: Appraisal of Existing Sustainable Strategies and Agencies

  Referred to Effectiveness Practicality Cost
Strategy Mean score Don't Know Mean score Don't Know Mean score Don't Know Mean score Don't Know
Resource Management Act 3.19 n/a 3.72 8.7% 3.25 10.3% 3.91 25.2%
District Plan 3.18 n/a 3.57 14.2% 3.38 14.2% 3.35 25.2%
Local By-Laws 2.99 n/a 3.52 14.1% 3.34 13.5% 3.22 27.7%
Regional Policy Statements 2.76 n/a 3.31 19.7% 3.30 23.2% 3.22 36.8%
NZTIA codes of practice 2.49 n/a 3.01 30.6% 3.44 34.8% 2.45 47.7%
Tourism Policy Group policy 1.93 n/a 2.90 44.1% 3.16 45.8% 2.81 61.3%
Agenda 21 1.38 n/a 2.36 68.8% 2.50 69.7% 2.41 76.8%

Green Leaf (PATA)

1.36

n/a

2.23

67.4%

2.58

69.7%

2.48

76.8%

Green Globe (WTTC) 1.34 n/a 2.18 68.8% 2.53 69.7% 2.52 76.8%

Notes:

Mean score 'Don't know' has been removed. 'Don't know' is the percentage of respondents and therefore n may vary (as some respondents did not answer this question).

Effectiveness: 1 = completely ineffective, 2 = relatively ineffective, 3 = neither, 4 = moderately effective,

5 = very effective.

Practicality: 1 = completely impractical, 2 = relatively impractical, 3 = neither, 4 moderately practical,

5 = very practical.

Cost: 1 = very inexpensive, 2 = inexpensive, 3 about the right cost, 4 = moderately costly, 5 = very costly.

Bold denotes values significantly above the theoretical neutral value of 3 (i.e. p<0.05 One-Sample T-Test test value = 3)

Issue 6:

While statutory strategies for sustainable development are considered to be effective and practical, voluntary measures are not often referred to.

Given that respondents indicated a preference for voluntary measures, how can awareness and use of voluntary strategies be increased?

Who should be Responsible and their Effectiveness at Developing and Implementing Strategies?

Respondents suggested that their own business, local and national regulatory authorities and New Zealand tourism organisations should take a significant amount of responsibility (i.e. mean score between 3.5 and 4.5) for sustainable tourism development and rated these as being effective at both developing and implementing sustainable tourism strategies (refer Table 9). Regional Promotional Organisations (RPOs) and international tourism and environmental agencies were perceived to have some responsibility (i.e. mean score between 2.5 and 3.5), however, around one in four respondents stated that they did not know to what level international tourism and environmental agencies should be responsible. Around half of the respondents also indicated that they did not know how effective international tourism and environmental agencies were at developing and implementing strategies (those that did know rated them as slightly ineffective) and respondents suggested that RPOs were neither effective nor ineffective. It should be noted that around one third of the respondents also did not know to what level the Tourism Policy Group should be responsible

Table 9: Who should be Responsible and their Effectiveness at Development and Implementation

  Responsibility Development Implementation
Strategy Mean score Don't Know Mean score Don't Know Mean score Don't Know

Department of Conservation

3.96

1.9%

3.72

4.5%

3.70

7.7%

Ministry for the Environment 3.88 2.6% 3.59 9.7% 3.54 14.8%
District/City Council 3.83 0.6% 3.33 5.2% 3.28 7.1%

Own business/organisation

3.82

0.6%

3.78

2.6%

3.98

3.9%

Regional Council 3.81 0.6% 3.25 3.9% 3.25 6.5%

Tourism Policy Group

3.76

19.4%

3.31

30.3%

3.34

31.0%

NZTIA 3.72 1.9% 3.42 12.3% 3.38 15.5%
NZTB 3.57 1.9% 3.32 10.3% 3.22 11.6%

RTO

3.53

9.7%

3.20

9.0%

3.22

5.2%

RPO 3.47 2.6% 3.01 9.0% 2.97 11.0%
WTO 2.86 23.2% 2.58 40.6% 2.47 47.7%
PATA 2.65 26.5% 2.46 48.4% 2.29 51.0%
WTTC 2.60 24.5% 2.49 47.7% 2.34 50.3%
UNEP 2.53 25.2% 2.49 49.7% 2.30 51.0%

Notes:

Mean score 'Don't know' has been removed. 'Don't know' is the percentage of respondents and therefore n may vary (as some respondents did not answer this question).

Responsibility: 1 = No responsibility, 2 = Little responsibility, 3 = Some responsibility, 4 = Significant responsibility, 5 = Total responsibility.

Development and Implementation: completely ineffective, 2 = ineffective, 3 = neither, 4 = moderately effective, 5 = very effective.

Bold denotes values significantly above the theoretical neutral value of 3 (i.e. p<0.05 One-Sample T-Test test value = 3). T-Tests were not completed for 'responsibility' as the Likert scale did not produce a neutral value.

Issue 7:

It appears that there is little knowledge of the activities of the Tourism Policy Group and international tourism and environmental agencies with regard to sustainable tourism development.

How might this lack of knowledge be overcome?

^ Top of page

6. Funding Solutions

When asked 'who should pay' for solving sustainable tourism development problems responses were given as a percentage allocation to the funding sources of central government, local government, regional government, New Zealand tourism industry, your business and the tourist. Responses supplied were individualised generating no clear consensus for interpretation. However, on a modeitudinal basis (based on the most common response), there was an apparent distinction between suggested funding sources for most of the problem categories. It must be noted that as there was a high variation between responses, and as such this does not create a harmonised result. Table 10 (below) shows the most common percentage values allocated to sources for funding of tourism development problems. Due to figures being modeitudinal responses, the totals of the categories do not add up to 100%. Overall, 'your business' received the least allocation of costs (14% of total allocated costs), whereas the New Zealand Tourism industry received the greatest (19%). Central, local and regional governments were allocated 52% of the costs, compared to the industry and businesses (33%) and the tourist (15%). These results, as mentioned above, are only indicative and can not be used to insinuate results.

Significant allocations:

Central Government

New Zealand Tourism Industry

Table 10: Cost Allocation for Solving Tourism Development Problems

Development Problems Central Government Local Government Regional Government NZ Tourism Industry Your Business The Tourist Totals
Destruction of natural ecosystems by tourism development 9 25 25 10 10 17(a) 96

Overcrowding at tourist hotspots

9

25

20(a)

25(a)

17

17

113

Waste disposal difficulties from peak tourist season 9 25 25 17 25 17 118
Transient nature of tourist centre populations 9 25 25 25 17 25(a) 126
Declining tourist satisfaction 9 17 17 50 17 17 127
The continued sustainability of the tourism industry 50 17 17 17 17 17 135
The deterioration of cultural and natural heritage sites 50 25 25 25 17 25 167
Totals 145
(16.4%) 		159
(18.0%) 		154
(17.5%) 		169
(19.2%) 		120
(13.6%) 		135
(15.3%) 		882

Note: (a) multiple modes exists; smallest value shown.

The second question of this section provided responses for most appropriate method of funding, again low levels of consensus transpired.

Ranked order of Problem by Funding Solutions

Users pays

Voluntary measures by industry

Fines for non-compliance

Compulsory taxes

Table 11: Funding Solutions for Sustainability Issues

Issue Voluntary Industry Compulsory taxes Fines on non-compliance User Pays Tourist Taxes
Declining tourist satisfaction 43.6% 12.3% 14.5% 16.2% 13.2%
The continued sustainability of the tourism industry 28.7% 20.7% 16.9% 22.6% 11.1%
Transient nature of tourist centre populations 23.5% 15.2% 12.7% 36.8% 11.8%

Overcrowding at tourist 'hotspots'

21.9%

15.2%

15.6%

35.0%

12.2%

The deterioration of cultural and natural heritage sites 18.8% 14.5% 26.1% 28.3% 12.3%
Destruction of natural ecosystems by tourism development 14.3% 17.9% 30.4% 26.8% 10.7%
Waste disposal difficulties from peak tourist season (sewage, rubbish, etc) 9.4% 26.8% 22.3% 28.3% 13.2%

Note: Respondents were able to recommend more than one solution and the percentage given above is the percentage of all responses for each category. 8:

Issue 8:

Government funding is desired, but individual businesses do not want taxes for STD issues nor do they wish to pay themselves. Similarly they do not want more government control.

How can the businesses reduce their funding and the impact of external funding of these STD issues without losing control of the industry?

University of Otago Department of Tourism