1 / 13

PART 1: SURVEY OF TAI TOKERAU RESIDENTS ON TOURISM ISSUES

OBJECTIVES OF THE SURVEY. Part of original FRST Objective 2" : Understanding social and cultural impactsUnderstanding how impacts affect sustainabilityResident receptivity" assess community willingness to participate in tourismProvide feedback to communities on 1

yael
Download Presentation

PART 1: SURVEY OF TAI TOKERAU RESIDENTS ON TOURISM ISSUES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. PART 1: SURVEY OF TAI TOKERAU RESIDENTS ON TOURISM ISSUES Charles Johnston, Auckland University of Technology Based on reports written by Charles Johnston (North Hokianga 1997) Debbie Singh (South Hokianga 1998; Bay of Islands 1999) Matthew Noonan (Muriwhenua 1999)Based on reports written by Charles Johnston (North Hokianga 1997) Debbie Singh (South Hokianga 1998; Bay of Islands 1999) Matthew Noonan (Muriwhenua 1999)

    2. OBJECTIVES OF THE SURVEY Part of original FRST “Objective 2” : Understanding social and cultural impacts Understanding how impacts affect sustainability “Resident receptivity” – assess community willingness to participate in tourism Provide feedback to communities on 1 & 2

    3. SURVEY LOCATIONS North Hokianga South Hokianga Bay of Islands Muriwhenua

    4. METHODS and LIMITATIONS Methods: North Hokianga: census of Maori households Other regions: stratified random sample Achieved 90-95% response rates Total sample size: about 1150 Limitations: Year-to-year changes occurred Evolution of FRST and survey objectives Change in surveyors and report writers

    5. SURVEY COMPONENTS Demographics: General: gender, age, Employment: current status, area of main work experience, previous experience in management/tourism Residence: locality length of residence Tourism Preferences Who should “own” the businesses? Who should benefit from Maori tourism? Sustainability: Environment Culture Society Tourist related: Numbers visiting Age Length of Stay Time of year, week Time spent with Maori

    6. SURVEY COMPONENTS - 2 Preferences for development options (about 20 listed) “Would ___ be good for the community?” Examples: Horse trekking Listening to Maori stories Mass tourism (busloads) Exploring local roads Perceptions of impacts from Maori-owned/controlled tourism (20-25 listed) “Would ___ happen?” Economic example: “Provide lots of jobs?” Environmental eg: “Community appearance improved?” Cultural example: “Culture revitalised?” Social example: “Tourists would boss us around?”

    7. SURVEY COMPONENTS - 3 Aspects of tourism sustainability: : “What is the most important aspect?”: Profits?; Preserving Maori culture? Rank nine factors (1st to 3rd in importance) Importance of tourism development options: Examples does not destroy the environment benefits future generations Eleven possible options, rate each as: “not important”, “medium” “very important”

    8. RESULTS: GENERAL Demographics: Generally “normal” Not enough “young” respondents (< 30 years) Work experience A labour pool of unemployed exists Adequate percentages had previous or current Tourism/hospitality experience Management experience Desire for involvement generally high

    9. RESULTS: GENERAL Conformity in responses between areas but not necessarily within them. Tourism planning must be tailored to individual communities. Overall: Receptivity was high: respondents wanted tourism Naivete: good impacts will occur; bad won’t Awareness of the “tourist dilemma” is high

    10. RESULTS: AGREEMENT BETWEEN AREAS Tourism Preferences: Ownership of businesses: Pakeha, Maori, Mixed Result: Maori (55%), over mixed (45%) Tourist related: almost “come one, come all” Preferred presence: all week, year-round Numbers = “some” (49%) or “many” (46%) Conclusion: Communities weren’t “euphoric”, but “enthusiastic” about tourism development

    11. RESULTS: HIGH TOURISM RECEPTIVITY Preferences for development options: “Would ___ be good for the community?” North and South Hokianga: 19 of 20 choices receive > 66% approval Bay of Islands and Muriwhenua BOI: “develop” = plurality for 19/21 options Muriwhenua: “develop” = plurality for 21/21 options Conclusion: Majorities = receptive: happy with tourists doing touristy things in their communities

    12. RESULTS: NAIVETE REGARDING IMPACTS Asked “yes” “no” questions as to perception that impact would occur if Maori-owned tourism were established Results, of 21 comparable ?s Positive would occur or negative wouldn’t = 15 93%: shops and facilities would increase 11%: we will lose our identity Negative would occur = 4 80%: traffic and noise will increase No clear majority = 2 43%: crime will increase Conclusion: “Monitoring” of development should be part of the planning process.

    13. RESULTS: AWARENESS OF “TOURIST DILEMMA” Open-ended questions: benefits vs things to be avoided Sustainability factors: rankings from all communities Conclusion: Jobs and money are important but cultural and environmental sustainability should not be sacrificed

    14. FEEDBACK TO COMMUNITIES Methods Community hui Interim reports sent to individuals for critique Benefits to research team Allowed us to gauge community response “Naysayers” silenced by evidence of majority opinion Benefits to communities Informed about “receptivity” Understood majority stances “Knowledge” brought back, not stolen

More Related