102
and Pub licity Department THE SCCIO-QJL'IUAAL IMPACI'S OF mJRISM A Review of Literature, Policy and Research Implications for New Zealand
~~l~st and Publicity Department
THE SCCIO-QJL'IUAAL IMPACI'S OF mJRISM A Review of Literature, Policy and Research
Implications for New Zealand
ISSN 0112-9740
NZTP SOCIAL RESFARE.Cl-1 SERI~ 1988/1
THE SOCIO-QJLWRAL IMPACIS OF lfOORISM A Review of Literature, Policy and Research
Implications for New Zealand
Research Section
Prepared by David G Sirmons of Lincoln College for the New Zealand Tourist & Publicity.Department
New Zealand Tourist & Publicity Deparbnent PO Box 95 Wellington NEW ZEALAND
July 1986
SR/1988/1
ISBN: PRICE:
0-478-02008-2 FREE OF OiARGE
WP POL3835
Pref ace
Chapter
1.
1.1
1.2
1. 3
1. 4
1.5
2.
2.1
-2. 2 .
2.3
2.4
3.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3. 7
-3.8
3.9
CONTENTS
'IOWA.RDS A DEFINITICN OF TOURISM
Tourism and its resource systems
'Iburism - service industries and a cultural product ...
A New Zealand Example
The New Zealand Tourism Product
Visitor perception Intended Activities
·rnfonnation Sources
Who is Responsible? .•.
A CHANGING TOURISM PRODOCT
Visitor Tastes ...
Host Perceptions
Physical Developnent
Surrmary
THE SOCIAL IMPACTS OF TOURISM
Definitions
Difficulties in Understanding Past Studies
The Nature of Tourist - Host Encounters ...
Specific Factors that Contribute to Socio-Cul tural Im:pacts
(a) Behaviour ... (b) Policy and Planning (c) Structural ...
The Demonstration Effect
'Iburism as a Scapegoat
Positive Effects 'Ibo
The Potential for Socio-cultural Impacts in New Zealand
'Iburism Styles and Impacts
3
5
6
7
9
9 9
10
12
14
17
20
22
23
25
25
26
29
31
• ... 32 32 33
34
34
36
36
41
Chapter
-~
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4. 7
4.8
4.9
5.
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5. 7
6.
6.1
6.2
REFERENCES
APPENDICIES
- 2 -
CULTURE AND TOURISM
Culture and the Tourism Product
''Natural" vs cultural Resources
The Maori Role in 'Iburism
Maori Self Image
A "hidden" culture
Need for Direction
Quality for the Masses
A Wider Cultural Identity
Sane Conclusions
MEASURING AND PLANNING FOR SOCIAL IMPACTS
Social Impact Assessment
What and How to Measure
The Need for Planning
A Strategic Approach to 'Iburism Planning
Is there a Tourism Capacity?
The Recreation Opportunity Spectrt.nn
Applications to 'Iburism
RECCMMENDATICNS
Recomrendations
Concluding Camnent
43
44
44
46
48
48
49
50
51
51
54
55
59
62
63
65
66
67
69
69
72
PREFACE
This paper has !Jeen commissione(] l.Jy the New Zealarn.1 Tourist
and Publicity Departme11t. Its ol.>Jectlves are. to pre:3e11t a dis
cussion paper on l:he socio-cultural impacts o[ tourism a!l<1
requirements for their monitoring anc.1 planning.·
To achieve Lhese ol.Jjeclives has required a wider review titan
simply summarisin<~ New Zealand a11tJ overseas studies and reports.
Firstly, lourJ::;m .1.~-; cJefi11eu and ils role i11 c.levelopment
discussed. Much of lllis first section focusses on tourism as a
• pr o au c t ' an a a n i 11 cJ 11 ::.d: r y . Th i s a J s cuss i on i s s up po r le u by a
number of sub-themes; why tourist's visit New Zt!aland, who 'owns'
the tourism product, alllJ how does lids p.roduct evolve over time.
The sec o n d ma j u r f o cu :3 i s o n fa c lo r s th a t co 11 ti: i but e t o
socio-cultural impacts. A central theme here is that impact
·studies merely assist us in deter:minin·~ how well we ar:e rneetin<:J
oUJ: objectives. It is also argued that because the tourism
product changes over time and is specific to different destina
tion areas, we will need l:o uevelop our own systems of planning
and monitoring that suit our own unique position ancl culture.
The studies revieweJ ore draw11 toyel:her i11 Chapters 5 anJ 6
to create a monitorinq and research frarnewor:k for social impact
assessment in New Zedla11c1' !:> lour ism development.
1
l\.CKNOWLEDGEHENTS
This research paper was runded by New Zealand Tourist and
Publicity Department. Considerable co11tributions i11 searching
background 111aterial. .:rnd reviewing di.a[L::; were also maue by NZTP
staff, particularly staff of the research and policy sections of
NZTP head office Welli11qlo11.
Special rneution must be maue of the contribution of Dr Pat
Devlin of Lincoln Colle9e who attended the Manaakitanga Hui in
Rotorua and subsequently wrote Chapter '1 'Culture and Tourism'.
Dr Devlin also made extensive reviews o[ early drafts of all
chapters of this .report.
A number of collL!<.i<Jues also made reviews of a working draft
of this paper. Their comments have significantly shaped this
final copy. They are Dr Nick Taylor, Mr Colin Goodrich, Dr Doug
Pearce (Canterbury University), Dr Rodger Gabb (Lincoln College),
Mr Lester Clark (Wellington) and Hrs Therese Garrett
(Christchurch).
To all the abovl~ I extend my sincere thanks.
David Simmons
Parks ano Recreation
Lincoln Colle<Je
July 1986
2
CHAPTER l
TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF TOURISM
A number of attempts have been made t.o define tourism and
its role in a counlry's or region's development. GeI1erally
tourism's potential is seen in terms of its economic
contribution. Tourism has often been described as a.n "invisible
export'' bringing fresh rnuney into a country or re9ion. This
money stimulates fur.l:her spenuing in the community both as
tourists themselves an<J the tourist industry 'purchase local goods
and services. Local worke.u; in the tourism industry gene.rate ad
ditional economic tuurnver as they in turn spend their wages and
salaries.
Ecunomic models uf luurl::>m point out U1at compared wilh
other industries tourism in New Zealand is well placed, to gener
ate down-stream effetts.
Because tourism is a service indust.1:y it is also par
ticularly effective at creating employment. In New Zealand it
has been a:rgueJ lhc.tL ever.y 12 inLernational tourists c.1:eate one
job for one year, somewhere in the economy.
T o u r i s m ' s t h i :t c1 rnd j u r e c o n om i c c o t 1 L r Urn t i o n i s t o l> e f o u n c1
in the distribution of its economic effects. While uther i11-
dustries tend to d.1:aw resources to large centres, tourism, be
cause of the dit;i;>ersed nature of its attractions and resources
tends to distribuLe income more widely, often to poorly developeu
regions.
Tourism is, however, structurally di££ererit from any other
traditional forms of developinent such as agriculture or
J
man u fa c tu r i n g . The s e i !l L1 us L r l es e x I:' or t the i r pr o d u ct s t o t he i r:
consumers. On Liie conlrary, for tourism, tourists (the
consumers) travel to local sites to experience the "product", at
the places where it is produced. A plan for tourism deve 1opme11 t
must accept as one of. its starting points the need to balance the
.wide economic impacts against the signlficant opportunities for
social and environmental impacts brought about by the physical
presence of tourists themselves.
Whlle early att:e1upts to Lh~fine Lo11.r:ls1n have ueen based on
economic consicJeratiuns (Macintosli 1977:ix), growin1:3 concern
about tourism's wider e[fects have ::;een an increasing number of
economists (BrycJen 1973, Bu.rkart arnl Mc<llik 1981, Arche.r 1976)
beginning to questio11 the 'Llisbenefits' 0£ tourism. At the same·
time social scientlsl.s particularly sociology (Cohen 1974,·
MacCannel 1976) anthropolo9y (Smith 1977) and leisure theory
(Jafari 1977 ancJ Leipe.r 1985) have begun to study tourism.
Similar conce.rns led tile World Bank and UNESCO to ::;vonsur a major
seminar: on tourism in 1976. The edited highlights of this semi-
nar (de Kadt, 1979a) signify a renewed interest in defining and
managing the social, cultural ancJ environmental consequences of
tourism.
In an histo.rical cunLext tourism must be seen as a very
recent phenomenon. Indeed its real <:1.rowth in New Zealand
from the late 1950's and the introclllction of jet
grows
airline
services. Concern for: social and cultural impacts is even more
recent as differe11L Jestinations h~ve .repurLecl on their ex
periences of tourism development. It is necessary that New
Zealand learns from these experiences and develops mechanisms to
plan for such consequences here.
Tourism and its resource 8ystems
Alongside a ln:oac11~r UJH-1erstarnJi11y or tourism's effects has
been a focus on the resources and sy::.:1terns that sustaln lt.
2.
3.
J.afarl has written that:
" Tour i s m i ~ ll 1 e !:') l: u ll y o [ ma ri a way [ r o 111 It i s usu a 1 ha b i tat , o f
the industry which responds Lo his needs, and the impacts
l:haL both he ,"JJHl Ull~ incl11r,;try h<1ve on lhe ho:.:;L socio
cultural, economic anu physical environments" (1977:8)
and identified Lile followin':I co11tributi11y areas:
Study of Man the Traveller: I 11c 1 ur1ed lte re would be f ac Lor s
be 1 i eve d t o u e ma J u r. Ll e t e r rn i n a 11 t s o f tr ave 1 ,
and available leisure time.
such as income
The Tr ave 1 I n d us t .r y : tour ism <Joods and services - including
accommodation,
and the like.
'incidental'·
transportation, travel agencies, attractions
Leiper (1979) would also include a group of
l n du::> tr i e :3 th rJ s e who s er v e the pub 11 c a t
large, for example relail shops and pu!Jlic services.
The Settillg:
environment.
the socio-cullural fabr:ic and physical
TIH!Se are the rnany [actors that contribute to
a destinatior1 1 s local atmosphere - friendly people, customs,
atmosphere.
The OECD (Travi5 1980) groups these as three critical sets
of resources, each with their management requirements.
(a) Natural Resources: the 111diulc~na11ce of a high quality
air, land cUHJ wal:1::r, alony wilh a favourable climate.
(b) Man-Made Resources: the pr.ol:eclion and integrity of the
'built heritdqe' - historic cities, towns, buildings
and landscape.
(c) The Cultural Resuurces: Lhe protection and enhancement
of the idenlity, associations, values, artistic and
cultural character, activities and herila<Je.
These 'free lnliere11L' resource::> do not belong Lo any one ln
dusli:y (.1,>er ::;e) I.Jul are " the prime movei:s in di:awing
to u r l s ts t o a 1] e s t i 11 a t i on " ( J a fa l'. i an u R i t ch i e 1 9 8 1 : 1 7 ) .
The fact that UH~se .l'.esources ar.e see11 Lo be 'free' or com-
man property belonging to all, provides one of the major
challenges for tour i~;m planning.
4. 'The Encounter: Hust-quest relationship. It is noted that
this area of study involves not 011ly tourists (guests) and
residents (hosts) !Jut involves other relationships including
economic and polilical <.limer1sior1s. Clearly this theme is
central to any discussion on social or cultui:al impacts.
1.2 Tourism - Service Illl1usl:ries and a Cultural Product
In reviewi11y the co11tribution of these resuu.t:ces tu tou:rism
one can no'te, firstly, touList reso1uces are frequently not the
i:esources of the industry alone. Even specific tourist
facilities are dependent for thei:r success on the wider social
and natural environments in which they operate.
For these :resources planning and manoyemenl: functions dre
usually the responsibility of Central an~ Local Government. Of-
ten they receive litlle by way of industry a::;si!:>Ld1H.:e. Clearly
6
a close partnershibJ between public and private sectors is essen
tial for wise tourism development.
Sec<JtHJly, it ls 11oteu that touris111 resources are by their
nature geographically. dif:fuse. Thus impacts are spread more lha!l
for other development alternatives. Certain parts of a country
may be more generously endowed with 'tourism' resources and as a
result by pa.r:ticula.tly at.Li.active lo Llie irnJuslry. However,
while there may be ouvious advanta9es [or economic distribution
i n ' t a k i n y s I! e 11 d i n y l. u LI I l~ r e y i o n s ' L Ii e s e a r e a s Illa y n o l Ii a v e t Ii e
infrastructure or community resources Lo support growth in
tourist demand.
Finally, tourism r:esources cot1stitule a wide mix u£ natural
and socio-cultural te::.HJUll~,~~;. While ~30111e of l:hese are relatively
obvious, e.g. rnounLain scenery, beaches, wildlife, others are
perhaps not so obvious - cultural events, the 'way of li[e' of
the people, an<l politlce1l and ecouomic stability.
The OECD 'Group u[ Experts on Environment and Tourism'
(1980) remind us that environmental changes are characteristi
cally of a long-term nature (while tlte market usually has a rela
tively short term view) a11tl that the market place cannul measure
the multitude of components that contribute to environmental
quality. "It is the responsibility of governments al the a1:>-
propriate levels, local, national and international, to ensure
that the environment is maintained in a condition which cor-
responds to the needs of the tourists, the local inhabitants and
to national objectives" (OECD 1980:8).
1.3 A New ZealanJ Ex91t1ple
Examples of how we need to focus our planning bot:h on in
dustry and tourst experience (1:>roduct:) re1Julrernents are easy to
7
generate.
sealing
Take,
roads
for exa.rnple, the question of: road sealing. Does
to llldke occess easier actually improve the
tourist's experie11ce? Presumably for re11tal vehicle companies
unsealed roads are a sour.ce of f:ruslraLion, as they directly in
crease maintenance a11<l cleaning cosls. On the contrary sume
tour i s ts may a c t u a lJ y c; Ii o o 5 e u n s ea l e cJ .t o ad~ pr i ma r 11 y be ca use o £
the quality of Lhe exp~~rience it llld'.f lead to. Sealin9 sume roads
may therefore sirnpJ_y lead l:ourists to choose alternative unsealed
roads as they seek a sl111llar quality of experie11ce.
In this situation we have serious info.rmatio11 gaps in New
Zealand. We simply do not know how hirers of rental vehicles fr1
general (and campervans in pa.rticulur) use Lite tuu.rism "p.roducl".
Where do they go, stop, walk, shop, park ... ? What is the nature
of their tourist experience? Such inio.rmalion is seen as essen
tial especially when Lids sector is growin9 so .Cast.
We need to ask ourselves why do visitors come to New Zealand
rather· than other destinations? What really is the product we
ar:e packaging, promoting and selling? lrnd £inally, what factors
will bring detrimental changes to this product.
I n t er. ms of L Ii<-! 4 t If-~~.; L j o 11 w Ii a t l s l he Luu r is t pro u u c::: t? - one
is always reticent to of fer simple statements to answer complex
issues. The following quute, however, p.r:ovides a useful summary:
"In essence it is the very life and fabric of a country
which for.ms its tourist resources".
(Mawhinney/Bagnall, ECE Study 1975:164)
8
1.4 The New Zealand Tourism Pr:oducL
Considerable support for the above notion oI a culturally
based tour ism product ls found ln research 111Lo tour l::.ts' ex
pe.r iences in New Zeulam].
A. Visitor Percewti.t.>11
Henshall i=t al ( 1981) illustrate visi lors' perceptions of
New Zealand by way oI a pilot "before" and "after" stutly o[
visitors and note that visitor impressions are raised for:
* the r e 1 a x i n <J pact~ u ( l i e
·k t lie uncrowded cu u 11 try
* friendly people
* safe country
* unpolluted lanuscdpe
while increased negative images were reported for a number of
servicing functions
nature of shopping.
including entertainment, and lhe expensive
Intended Activities
While it is not clear what faclors are important in converl
lng intentions into behaviour, visitor preferences for activity
are nonetheless important. Henshall (1982) cites a pilot study
of domestic and overseas visitors'
holiday.
9
intentions for their next
Visit a National Park Visit a Museum Go Tramping Visit Arts and Cra(t Ce11tres Visit New Zealand family jn
their home Visit Botanical Gardens
Domestic ~; Yes
71 56 52 47
44 44
Overseas 'l> Yes
70 69 25 67
65 68
Pllmmer (1985) has recently commented on the continued growth of
an 'inner directed' tonr ist segment -· tl1ose who seek authentic
qualitative (as opposed Lo quantitative) experiences. This is
evidenced by the growth of the FIT (Free Independent Traveller}
segment in New Zealand.
Information Sour.ces
Studies of international visitors to New Zealana identify
"word of mouth" as the most important source of
fluencing a decision to visit (e.g. NZTP 1976,
information in-
1982). Henshall
These et al (1981) cited Lim's (1981) more detailed breakdown.
studies may be summarised as:
* 70 per cent
* 17 per cent
* 6-10 pe:r: ceut
Personal communication
Comprising 25-45 per cent of people who
had visited New Zealand
20-40 per cent people living in New
Zealand, business contacts, New Zealanders
travelling abroad.
Advertisi119 materials
Studies and reading
10
The nature .of thL:; in£onnalim1 ~;ystem ha:=; t1 number of
implications.
Firstly, the aLLlLudes of those people who have returned
home after touring this cou11try, and of New Zealanders overseas,
are of pararnounl irnporl;;-_rnce. IIensliall et al conclu<.le Lhat the
media message should not contradict th1:.~ personally conveyed view,
as the media message Jws d very much lower credibility than face
to face communication (1.981:?.9).
A second implication is that the level of agreement. between
visitor's expectations and what acLually happens (or: is perceived
to happen) is central Lo their salisfuclion. For tourism, if
what people hear and read of New Zealand does not match up with
what they experience, a :::;atisfaction 't:Jdl>' appears. Tltis 'dis'
satisfaction will eventually be passed on to potential new
visitors. Mathews (1977) has detailed the disastrous con
sequences this has had for: the Carribean.
As a very simple elaboration of lhls argument if visitors
coming to New Zealand were to perceive tltat public attitudes (and
behaviour) towar:u them were different from their: expectations
(e.g. locals were perceived as less friendly, more
apathetic ... ), tourists might become less satisfied with their
visit. This in turn would be passed on to prospective tourists,
in the longer term affecting industry growth. Because of a time
lag in tourist decision making people who had saved, made plans
and bookings might still visit hence exacerbating the development
of negative attitudes in the short term. The development of such
attitudes may be modifled by opting for certain styles o[ tou:r:ism
ahead of other styles. Getz (1983) has found that the industry . response of increasing promotional activity to counteract a
decline in visitatio11 . . . "Could actually result in exacerbation
11
of the problems which lead Lo visilor dissatisfaction" l_J.249.
Thus He11Jl1<Jll el al (1981) 110Lc:
"seekiny co111Jru.e11ce he!:ween oversea~; visitors' expectations
and New Zeal<:11Hh~rs own desires governing the acceptability
of tourist e11cou11Lers is a cr.ucidl issue Lo be decided by
nat.ional debate" (IJ.i).
Ll1erefore ·
"What the New Zealander wanls is surely al leasl as impoz:
Lant as what overseas tourists wa11L". (p.36).
1.5 Who is Responsiule?
The type of social impacts we may expect as a result of
tourism growth will be different in nature from those arising
from the gi:owth of other industries. The major social impact is
not a result of the production t.ii:ocess but as a consequence of
the fact that the consumer is brought to the product. We are
thus presented with a whole range of l?':!ople lo people impacts.·
The tourism product is essentially l:he country itselI, the
landscape, the cities, the weather and of course, the people and
their culture. Everybody must: therefore accept sorne respon
sibility toward generating satisfying tourist experiences. A
priority lies in generating a clear public uriderstanuing of the
importance of tour ism to New Zealand. The tour ism industry has,
in fact, very little direct control over lhe most important in
formation source - word of mouth.
Those involve<] in the tourist industry have aduitional
responsibilities. Firslly, tourism must be planned and developed
12
CHAPTER 2
l\ Clll\NGING TOURISM PRODUCT
The previous section has described tourism as a unique in
dustry in that it transports its consumers into the product. The
tourism product has been described as the country itself - its
natural and social resources - the land and the people.
A second consequence·of this process ls that the tourism
product ls always changing and evolving. This happens as we be
come more familiar in dealing with our guests and visitors more
aware of what we have to offer.
Although the general process of how a tourist destination
evolves is still poorly understood a number of factors and stages
of development ar~ recognised (Wall 1982). These include chang
ing preferences and needs of visitors, changing attitudes among
host populations, the change (or even disappearance) of the
original natural and cultural attractions and changes in physical
layout. These themes are briefly reviewed in this section.
Although some consistency is seen in the evolution of
tourist destinations it is emphasised by virtually all writers
that not all areas ex~erlence the described stages as clearly as
others. Specific destinations are influenced by accessibility,
Government policies, planning processes, rate and scale of
development, as well as the characteristics of their natural and
social resources systems. Because few writers have considered an
integrated model of tourism development and much of the research
reported here is very recent, little attention has yet been given r
14
to the most beneficial stage of development or of how to assess
or modify various stages.
Butler (1980) has attempted to provide an integrated model
depicting the evolution of a tourist area. It seeks to draw
together a number of the above themes and is based on the
product-cycle concept. This cycle follows the premise of product
sales proceeding slowly at first, then experiencing a rapid rate
of growth, stability and slow decline. In other words an S
shaped (asymmetric) curve (Figure 3) is followed.
A TOURISM AREA CYCLE OF EVOLUTION
R~juvipn.11iu11/ J\
,,/' _,..ll
CiUJICAL RANGE Of ElEMEHIS Of Cll'AClll
r--~-sc ... gnacion ~..:::----
Con1oli<l;1cion \ ""-::::.----- C r------- -------\"- ...... ---
o~dinr \ .......
lnvolvr111t·111
F1cuRr. I. Hypolhctical cvulu1iu11 of a louri'I area.
i~ff"'·""" .'~,.,_lf;:..\ . I~~..... '-::}
\ '-o \. \E
In Butler's terms a resort area passes through a sequence of
changes which he has termed:
1. Exploration
Evidenced by small numbers of "exploration oriented"
visitors, little infrastructure development, and limited
change to the physical or social environments.
15
2. Involvement
3 .
Increasing nu~bers of visitor facilities. Some locals begin
to cater specifically for tourisls.
Development
The evolution of a well defined tourist market area. With
associated growth in visitor numbers comes larger and more
elaborate facilities. Butler notes " as this stage
progresses local involvement and control of development will
decline rapidly (1980:8).
The following two stages suggest that the type of tourist
attracted changes as a wider market is drawn.
4. Consolidation
The rate of increase in visitor numbers begins to decline,
although absolute numbers continue to increase. Few new ad
ditions are made to the infrastructure. Butler reports that
the number of visitors and the facilities provided for them
" can be expected to arouse some opposition and discon
tent among permanent residents" (1980:8) particularly
those not directly involved in the tourism industry.
5. Stagnation Phase
This stage is associated
economic problems. As
with
the
environmental, social and
number of visitors decline,
surplus capacity is available and the resort slowly loses
its fashionable status.
6 . Dec 1 i n e IR e ·j u v e n ta t i on
After stagnation a destination may decline further or in
novations may be sought. Key factors suggested here are the
adequacy o[ the protection of resources, the ability to re
place absolete plant, and/or develop secondary attractions.
16
Butler's [l111JJ11r~1:; ;_u:e si.rnllar l.;I) those ci.l:ed elsewhere in
this paper; " a c I v11 1 lJ ,~. n r ;1 I: t; I !.: 11c1 e .i ~: r 0 '.! 11 i r e cl o 11 l: Ii c: par t o f.
tho s e who a r i:' r er; p u t 1:; i l.i l r~ [ o r p J. a n n i. 1 JI J , cl e v ri 1 op i. 11 g .-:i n d rna 11 a g i n <J
tourist: ar.c-~as. To1iri~;I. ;1l.!.r.~1cl:.ionr; ;u·~ 11nL i11f:J11jl:e ;111<] l:ime1f!:";!>
but should be vieweil ;11111 r: i n i l: e .'..1 :3 p o s s i b l y n o n --
renewable r.esources. Tl1c·y c:c11lld then Ii'~ n1orc carefully protected
and preserved" (J.930:11).
Hnl:J.(~l'. 's H1cHlr~l :;11 1.J•.ir~:;l::~ t:nnl:i 11111..•u:.: c:Ji;111<J<~s i 11 al] com~1011~nl~>
o f t he t o u r i s t :::; y:.> l e m . T Ii e :-; e ·" r e v i. :-; i l o i: l: a s t e s , p e r c e p t i o n s o .E
the hos t in g pop u l ;1 l i. o !l ; ! 11 <l c: It <1 WJ <~ ~5 t o I II r:~ phys i ca 1. ::; c t l: i 11 g .
2.1 Visitor Tastes
Cycles of development have been <li:.·sc:riued as they apply to
the tastes and perceptions of visitors.
Smith (1977) in ln!;r.o<]uclng hr~1 ~.d.uclies on tile c:rntlnopolor:1y
o f t our l s m, c 1 as s i_ f i e 1.1 !: o 1.11: l :3 l: ~3 ,J c 1..: n u li 119 t n l he i r adapt a t l on s l: u
local no:rms (custom~;). l\t• t:ou:rism changes in scale, nurnbP.rs in-
crease and the t:ype 0£ tourist att:J:.:wl:ecJ becomes less auaptabl(~
and therefore more 'obvious' l:o loc;ll residents (TabJe 1).
17
Table 1
Freguence of types of tn1uisl:s c:1no l.:li0Lt.:.--2dapl:r:il:ions. to local norm::;
Tourist types
Explorer
Elite
Off-beat
Unusual
Incipient mass
Mass
Charter
NumlY~rs o[ t:o111: l.sts
Very J imi l:ed
Rarely seen
U11co111rno11 bu l: seP.n
OL'CilS i Olli1 J.
Steady f J.ow
Conli11uo11s flow
Massive arrivals
1\rlaptal:ion::; to local norms
i\ccepls fully
l\1Japts £ul ly
Allapts well
r,(];1 p Ls s omewila t:
SP.eks Western amenities
Expects Western amenities
D•~m.:i.nds Western amenities
Source: Smith, V (1977), Fi9ure 1, p.9
Her classification of tourist types was built on the earlier
work of Cohen (1972) who had used factors such as the degree of
institutionalisation (industry support) developed for travellers
to construct a four ~:;l:ep evolutionar.y scheme.
tourism interest: 111 ;i <lesl.ination evolves from drifters to ex--
plorers to individual rn;J~>s tn organis1=d mass as the
g a ins in sop h is t l c i:l l: j o 11 •
industry
p J. O<J (1973) i'll~in li;irl prevlou~jly <lcvelope<l <J psychological
basis (motivational 11i:>L>O::.d.tir.in) for an~d.ysi.nq cl10.119es ln tourist
type. His su9geslion w;1'.; Lhc:1t: r:escnb; rJl:tr.ac:t visil:ors 011 a con
tinuum from alloc1.~11l:r.i_1::·; l:n udd c1~11trics l:o psycltoce11t:rics.
'Allocentr. ics' meeting people from
other cultures and ac:tivit:ies while 'psychocentrics' prefer
familiar destJn;il:jon~·. ;11irl ~-.rl:t:i.ngs ;n1<l Ji;1ve low .1c:l:ivity Jevels.
UJ
Whatever the terminology the suggestion of these models is
one of an evolution in which increasing visitor numbers, bring
with them changes in orientation such as decreasing willingness
to adapt to local custom. Thus visitors become more obvious to
locals for reasons otJier than increases in numbers alone.
In more recent work Cohen has focussed both on different
models or styles of tourist behaviou:i: (Cohen 1974) and the manner
in which they perceive the host's presentation. of their product.
This model (Cohen 1979) is organised according to two variables.
Firstly, the tourist's impression of the scene or event as 'real
,or staged' and secondly the nature of the scene from the host's
perspective: real or staged. This 2 x 2 classification gives
rise to four possible tourist-environment experiences:
* authentic: events that are recognised and correctly
perceived by tourists as authentic.
*-staged authenticity: tourist questioning of
authenticity when, in fact, it is real.
* denial of authenticity: tourist failure to
recognise a contrived space.
* contrived: tourist recognition of the created,
manufactured environment: (Cohen 1979: 27-28).
In only two of these outcomes (authentic and contrived) are
the expectations met for both hosts and guests. Under the pres
sure of time all options, but particularly staged or denial of
authenticity, present many opportunities for misunderstanding be
tween the parties.
19
When these scenarios are set against a further over-riding
dimension - tourists' desire for, or indifference to authenticity
further insights into tourist satisfaction and impacts are
gained.
However, the important point of this section is that tourism
development is not a linear process. The implied suggestion of
Cohen's latest work is that tourist destinati"ons attract certain
styles of tourists according to the type of en~ironments created.
Thus to some extent they may give shape to their own destiny.
2.2 Host Perceptions
Similar studies to those discussed above have been made of
changes in host populations' perceptions of tour is ts. Two
frameworks have emerged which appear to be widely applicable to
social impact research.
Doxey (1976) has suggested a framework according to varying
degrees of resident irritation. He argues that the level of ir-
ritation arising from contacts between the hosts and tourists
will be determined by the mutual compatibility of each, with the
assumption that with seemingly compatible groups, sheer numbers
may ultimately generate tensions. Destination areas will there
fore successively pass through five stages of irritation.
* Euphoria
* Apathy
- hosts enthusiastic and thrilled by
tourist development
- tourists seen as a source of profit,
individuality is lost
20
* Annoyance residents voice misgivings about the
tourist industry while policy makers
see solutions in increasing infrastructure.
* Antagonism - irritations become transferred to tourists
* The final
level
.through speech and behaviour:.
- residents learn to live wLth the fact
their lifestyles and environment are
irreversibly changed.
While Doxey argues that resident response predictably
changes through time, the value system of the destination is at
the base of his framework. Thus any attempts to measure social
impacts must firstly be community based.
In contrast with Doxey's work, which describes the dominant,
prevailing attitude at a community level Butler (1974) [drawing
on Bjorklund and Philbricks (1972) work on cultural interactionJ;
attempts to clarify differing attitudes among individuals. He
suggests residents might be classified on the basis of their at
titudes and behaviour, according to their disposition for, or:
against, further tourism development.
(Arrows lndicala posslblily of chnnoe) Ac live Passive
., 2: ·;;;
FAVOURABLE: FAVOURABLE: 0 n. Aggressive Slight acceptance of
promotion and support and support for of tourist activity tourist activity
5 0 > "' .i::.
"' _CJ
Oi ,/' "O
~ <
UNFAVOURABLE: UNFAVOURABLE: ., Aggressive Silent acceptance 2: opposition to bul opposition to jQ tourist activity tourist activity
"' .. z
Fig. 9 llo<t at1i1udi11al/bd1avioural re•pnmr.> lo touri.r activity (Sauret: After fljorkhind and Philbrick 1972: B. Found in Butler 1974: 12)
}). I
Butler's framework has the advantage that. it recognises that
different attitudes may be held toward tourism development,
within the same commu1ii ty, at one time. This suggestion has
found support in more recent research work (Brougham and Butler:
1981). Pizam (1978).and Thomason et nl (1979) developed attitude
indices on a range of issues relating to tour:ism development, and
recorded a more favourable assessment from entrepreneurs con
nected with tourist activity compared with resident reactions.
Reactions, it seems are also likely to vary according to the na
ture of the issue. If community attitudes are widely differerit
they are likely to lead to tensions and political pressures be
tween different resident groups, although it ls suggested by
Mathieson and Wall (1982:139) that the majority of the population
will accept or react passively to tourism.
Thus Butler's dynamic interplay of attitude and behaviour,
combined with Doxey's more general community analysis, reinforce
the suggestions in this paper of the need to provide a community
communication system which-facilitates planning for and monitor-
ing of tourism induced social change. It also raises the notion
of a need for community education and training for understanding
the processes of tourism development as well as for practical
skills in meeting tourist requirements.
2.3 Physical Development
Yet another cycle identified by tourist researchers
describes changes in landscape eleme11ts, and resort areas. Here
the concern is with the sequence by which a wilderness or low in
tensity tourism region is used increasingly intensively until the
landscape is modified so much that essentially it becomes a built
environment with urban characteristics. Pearce, D (198l:Chapters . 1 and 2) highlights three major factors that contribute to such
development:
22
* rate of tourism d~velopment
* power bases, e.g. external vs internal sources of
finance. Integrated (single agent) vs catylytic
development.
* trade-off effects on community life styl~.
2.4 Summary
The emerging concept of a cycle of tourism development has
as yet only sparse supporting research (Wall 1982). Nonetheless,
it offers the real advantage of providing a framework which in
tegrates a number of separate, yet inter-related, areas of
concern. rt also accommodates changing perceptions, attitudes
and values, throughout a period of tourism development.
In seeking to answer the question what importance do these
studies have for the development of tourism in New Zealand? a
number of themes emerge:
1. There are factors inherent in tourism development that
naturally lead the industry to increase in size and there
fore impact. In all studies reported there seems to be an
inevitable evolution toward large scale, institutionalised
(mass) tour ism. These changes it seems are more probable in
a system without external controls.
2. As a consequence of the above we can note:
(a) The type of tourist attracted to New Zealand is likely
to change over time. A recent example of this is the
rapid growth of tlte FIT Seyment.
23
(b) Local resident - (host) reactions are likely to be
modified or hardened over Lime.
3. The health and success of tourism development will ul
t l ma t e 1 y de p e n d !Hl t: he i n t e gr i t y o f the n at u r a 1 and s o c i a 1
sys terns that s us ta in it. Tourism development does have
limits, ultimately imposed by the social system in which it
operates. Even with the most efficient of tourist in
dustries subtle changes in the product particularly
tourism's acceptance by local residents, will ultimately
shape its success.
Attention needs to be focussed on determining longer term sus
tainable rates of growth, and levels of development appropriate
for New Zealand's tourism future. An i1nportant step in this work
lies in developing Henshall's (1982) call for an integrated so
cial model of tourism development. We need to address ourselves
more attentively to questions of the style, and levels of
tourists New Zealanders are prepared to "host" in their country
and communities
24
CHAPTER 3
THE SOCIAL IMPACTS OF TOURISM
This chapter focusses more directly on social impacts and
their contributing factors. Although t:he recent past has seen an
increasing number of resident surveys and other social impacts
studies, on first glance their results seem confusing and at
times contradictory. Mathieson and Wall (1982:157) note that
many studies have a poorly developed conceptual basis and tend to
emphasise only negative social effects. Others are too broad in
their application or tend to become readily embroiled in emotive
debate concerning the nature of tourism development, rather than
providing insights that might usefully direct research or plan
ning mechanisms.
To focus this study on a research framework appropriate to
New Zealand a more detailed analysis is required. Three back
ground factors are offered i11 an attempt to assess the contribu
tions of previous studies. The special nature of the 'tourist
encounter' is then considered along with an analysis of the major
factors believed to generate negative socio-cultural impacts.
The potential for socio-cultural impacts in New Zealand is
then discussed. It is noted that we will need to develop our own
research and monitoring programme to suit our unique culture and
geographical position. A research and monitoring framework is
therefore the focus of the final chapter.
3.1 Definitions
Social impacts are people impacts. The literature which ex
amines the socio-cultural impacts of tourism has usually been
25
directed separately towaid either social or cultural impacts.
Using these terms loosely, social studies usually consider inter
personal and community social structures and functions; for
example, education, recr.eation, welfar.e. Cultural stuuies con
sider wider aspects. of both material and non-material forms of
culture and processes of cultural change. Examples here include
language, art, and architecture. There is, however, no clear:
distinction between social and cultural phenomena but the above
dichotomy is useful in categorising studies and impacts.
3.2 Difficulties in Understanding Past Studies
A considerable number of overseas and N~w Zealand research
papers on tourism's social impacts have been reviewed as a con
tribution to this paper. At first glance these studies seem to
offer directly conflicting or confusing results. The previous
section has also sug9ested that changes occurring at the same
time as tourism development may be only partially related to
tourism, yet much of the blame for negative social changes can be
laid at tourism's door. Particular examples here include in
creases in congestion or crimes such as burglary and
prostitution.
In attempting to make some sense of these past studies three
important background factors are offered.
1. Most are "one-off", problem-oriented studies. Research
tends to be undertaken once significant tourism development
has occurred and often in response to immediate problems. A
New Zealand example of this trend is the present Queenstown
study. There are, for example, virtually no longitudinal,
'before and after' studies. For the New Zealand situation a
research framework is recommended to prevent this
difficulty.
26
2. Many studies are specific to both the community and culture
ln which 1:hey occur. As a clirect result of this trend,
specific results and intepretation will, in all probability,
be unable to be transferred to other situations. However,
the research indices developed to interpret results may of
fer useful insights.
3. The studies often occur in locations at vastly different
stages of tourism development, or in communities fulfilling
different roles in tourism (stop over, gateway, resort
destination~ etc.).
An understanding of tourism impact8 firstly required an ap
propriate research fra1nework for analysis and a general under
standing of tourism development.
The following example demonstrates how social impacts might
vary between communities in New Zealand. The generation of addi
tional employment is seen as one of the direct benefits 6f
tourism developments (NZTC 1984). Where and how that employment
ls generated, or whether it draws workers from other sectors is
also important.
In New Zealand for example, Queenstown currently has full
employment. Additional employment generation requires the at
traction of new workers to the area or the commuting of workers
from surrounding areas. This raises the questions of staff
housing, employment of 'non-locals' or expatriates and changes in
community structure (e.g. influx of young singles).
Conversely tourism
might create part-time
growth in Rotorua, a larger community,
employment, particularly for married
women. This would almost certainly be to the benefit of family
27
incomes. However, j t may also have a series of debatable
consequences, such as changed levels of 'supervision' of school
children after school, or. at holiday l:lmes.
What may be goocl in Rotorua may not be b1~neflcial in
of tourism in Queens town. What ls rnor e, cont l nued growth
Rotorua, may in part require growth in Queenstown as many
tourists.visit both communities. There are no simple answers to
the issues raised by this simple example but what ls clear is
that they need to be <Hldr. essed at bo t:li a na ti ona 1 tourism po 1 icy
and at a local community level.
We must develop our
monitoring devices to
own planning strategies and longer term
suit our unique culture and geograph~cal
situation. This does not suggest that overseas or past studies
are inappropriate. Their contribution is essential to under
standing of the processes of tourism development and in develop
ing methods and indices for research.
Among the case studies presented to the UNESCO/World Dank
Seminar (de Kadt:l979a) two examples In particular highlight how
the interests of local communities can be well safeguarded and
promoted to providj a well integrated tourism product.1 While
such outcomes do not appear easy to achieve major common factors
are:
* a broad based public participation in tourism planning
s.c.s \;CJ 1 These are Senegal (·S:a-3:+g-o 1979) and Bermuda (Manning 1979).
28
J'• ~ , ••• ;.,,.,_-._·.-..:..:-...... ·-<-·:··-· .... ·,·.·--·"·-· -- -·- - -
* a gradual developmei1t of tourism to accommodate local
·investment and changes in life style
* active participation by all levels of Government, par
ticularly local authorities in the protection of local
interests and resources.
(de Kadt 1979b:42)
The preceding chapter has down attention to the unique
"people to people" nal:u:r:e of tour ism as consumers themselves a:re
brought in to the tourism product. To provide more specific in
sight into potential tourism impacts in New Zealand and to give
direction to a suitable research framework additional aspects of
the host-guest (tourist) relationship are explored next. Follow
in9 this a listing ls made of specific factors believed to con-·
tribute to negative socio-cultural impacts.
3.3 The Nature of Tourist-Host Encounters
UNESCO suggests tourist encounters are unique and are
governed b¥ five major features (1976:82££).
1. The Relationship is Transitory
The temporary nature of the relationship is different for
each participating group. Tourists may consider the meeting
fascinating and unique. Hosts may view it merely as one in
a long chain of superficial encounters.
2. Time Constraints
Tourists often desire
short period of time.
to see as much as possible within a
As a result they may be more willing
29
to spend money the.n under more routine circumstances. Hence
the tourist might be easily irritated by even slight delays.
Hosts may compensale by condensing or modifying experiences.
MacCannell (1976) has called this latter aspect "staged
authenticity" and notes such arrangements increase oppor
tunities for misunderstanding or conflict.
3. Space Constrain ts
over time, facilities and services frequently become con
centrated into a small number of complexes. Often this
trend is aided by planning mechanisms ~nd supported by tour
operators (Mathieson and Wall 1982:136). Contact between
the majority of tourists and the host population becomes un
der further pressure to become less frequent and more
superficial.
4. Inequality in Relationships
There is a tendency for host-guest relationships to be
unequal and unbalanced in character. This may exist both in
terms of material wellbeing and satisfaction. Guests tend to
appear relaxed and free spending. Hosts may compensate for
their sense of relative inferiority by a variety of ways
which exploit tourist's apparent wealth.
5. Lack of Spontaneity
Tourism brings certain traditional and informal human rela
tions into the area of economic activity. What was once
spontaneous hospitality becomes a commercial transaction.
Thus the convenience and safety of planned events becomes
traded for less frequent and spontaneous host contact.
30
De Kadt (1979a) has noted that the most [reguent host guest
encounters are by way of purchases. While face to face exchai1ge
of ideas or lnfor.rnation ls less common, lt ls likely to be the
most significant in supporting the claim that tourism increases
inter na ti ona 1 unuersJ;and l ng. Net lek oven ( 19 79: 13 8) supports this
view by suggesting that for many tourists intercultural encoun
ters are less frequent than imagineu. Furthermore, he suggests
intense _encounters are less desired by tourists than is often
suggested.
3.4 Specific Factors that Contribute to Socio-Cultural Impacts
Few studies have attempted to categorise the major struc
tural factors that contribute to the development of social
impacts. Mathieson and Wall (1982) write of variable 'critical
points of tolerance' above which costs begln to exceed benefits.
Mi t ch e 11 ( 19 8 4 ) i n s u mrna r is i n g Amer i can 1 i t er at u re des c r i bes f u u r
"potentially dangerous" and three auditional factors that "lwve
the potential to cause harmful impacts" (p.14). Such effects are
inevitably intangible and therefore cannot be weighted one
against the other. In fact they may often be inter-dependent. A
review of overseas literature suggests a number of key factors,
however, no previous previous attempts have been made to group
them as follows. These works are summarised below under three
themes; behavioural, policy and planning, and structural.
31
A. Behavioural
1. Cultural. (arn1 Economic) Distance Between Tourists and
Hos ts
The greater the divergence of characteristics (race,
nationality, appearance, affluence) between the interacting
groups the greater the potential for social impacts.
2. Contrasts in Life Styles
This refers to both value orientations (e.g. to work or
leisure, or sex roles) and other behavioural aspects.
3. Numbers of Tourists
Large volumes of. tourists, especially in large groups can
antagonize local inhabitants. Residents frequently resent
having to
problem.
likely to
share facilities and often mention congestion as a
This factor also suggests small communities are
be most affected. Lundberg (1974:85) has
developed a "tourism intensity indicator" to measure ratios
of visitors to residents.
B. Policy and Planning
1. Rate of Development
"When tourism is introduced gradually the waves of im
pact are usually small". (Mathieson and Wall 1982:141).
Virtually all writers present a strong case for gradual
tourism development. This allows infrastructure to develop
and communities to adapt.
32
2. Control and/or Policy Formulation
The more plannln<.J policy and control uecisions are vested ln
local groups the lower the probability of fundamental
disagreements. Likewise enterprises controlled from beyond
the local region tend to create dissension and opposition.
3. Comprehensiveness of Planning
Planning that is broad-based, participatory, involves Local
Authorities and considers the values of local cultures will
tend to be more compatible and create less antagonism.
4. Ownership, Profits and Employment
A tourist industry will be appreciated and viewed as posi
tive if profits are reinvested in the local industry, ancil
lary facilities and infrastructures. The same may also be
said for employing local people at all levels of industry.
C. Structural
1. Level of Economic Development of Tourist Locations
Regions or locations with high levels of economic develop
ment have greater ability to provide for tourist
requirements, retain the tourist dollar and generate
regional flow-on economic benefits.
2. Political stability and Safety
This ls reflected in both tourism investment and tourists'
perceptions of their personal safety. This factor could be
quite slgnif icant for New Zealand tourism.
33
3. The Physical Capacity to Ab:3orb Tourism
This factor.is a function of the size of a tourist destina~
tion and its geo9r.aphy.
3.5 The Demonstration Effect
Taken together the above factors underpin what has l.Jeen
referred to by many as "the demonstration effect". Simply
stated, apparent differences in host-guest perceptions, in the
longer term, can lead to changes in locals' aspirations and
lifestyle. The adoption of raised economic expectations or of
changing behaviours particularly in consumption and dress by host
populations as they have increasing exposure to tourists have
been frequently noted.2
There has however, been some questioning of the usefulness
of such a broad definition. Bryden (1973:96) has called it a
"vague unsatisfactory concept' and suggested that on its own it
does not explain who is demonstrating what to whom, why, to what
extent, or at what speed it is occurring. He has also questioned
the notion of a "single direction" demonstration - from tourists
to hosts and not vice versa.
3.6 Tourism as a Scapegoat
A further concern expressed by a number O·f authors is that
tourism can become a 'scapegoat' for other social change(s).
2 For recent reviews see Mathieson and Wall 1982:143-147,
Pearce D (1981:52-53, de Kadt 1979:64-66.
34
Tourists and the tourist industry are more visible and identifi
able than other agents, or processes, of social change. Touri$m
can therefore inherit: blame for ch<:rnges of which it was only one
part, or which ha.ve been occurring at a slower rate, over a
longe_r period of time. Because of these parallel influences
there ls great difficulty in separating out the impact of other
external_ factors, for example the cJemonslration effects of mass
media (especially television and films), returned migrant
workers, immigration, expatriate military or incJustrial bases,
and the like.
There are a number of situations that could potentially lead
to the development of similar attitudes here. For example in
creasing concern has been expressed, particularly in recent
times, over the status and integration of Maori and Pakeha ln New
Zealand. These issues presumably pre-date to the Treaty of·
- Waitangl. Changes in tourism development which are not sensitive
to the s e mat t er s , i ri e i the r the i r pr e s en t day or h i st or i ca 1
context, could easily see tourism become a new focus for these
issues. Such tensions could inevitably be damaging to the
tourism industry (Winiata 1985). The authors of this report see
this issue as central to the soclo·-cultural impacts of tourism
and have included a separate comment as Chapter 4.
other examP,les where tourism could become labelled as the
scapegoat for change could include 'user payment' for once 'free'
recreation facilities, inflation, congestion and environmental
change.
135
3.7 Positive Effects Too!
While virtually all of the literature on the socio-cultm:al
impacts of tourism have focussed on its negative impacts, tourism
does have positive impacts too.
Arts, craft, local and regional identity, history,
architecture, cuisine, can all be enhanced and developed in
response to tourist interest. As simple examples of this four
new craft shops have opened between Christchurch and Akaroa in
the last two years. Likewise for those who have chosen to become
involved, many New Zealanders express very high levels of satis
faction with 'home hosting' arrangements (NTA 1983).
For tourists in particular one also expects
benefits. Asid~ from anecdotes, very little has been
However, benefits might arise from:
* relaxation, recuperation, new recreations
* a change of environment
* social contact and widening of horizons
positive
written.
(After Figuerola (1972) citea in Pearce D (1981:51)
Some of these benefits may not be apparent while tourists
are in destination areas, but accrue also the planning
(anticipation) and recollection stages of their travel.
3.8 The Potential for Socio-Cultural Impacts in New Zealand
This analysis of both background and speclf ic factors con
tributing to socio-cultural impacts suggests that New Zealand m;;i.y . av o id ma n y o f the s e r i o us n e g a t i v e s o c i a 1 cons e q u e n c e s o f
tourism. Such a view is supported by Garland's (1984) study of
36
three New Zealand tourist destinations.
At present, there appears to ~e great similarity between our
visitors and ourselves. The fact that we are. moving toward a
highly socially integxated tourism development may mean, however,
that areas of discrepancy may be more subtle and far reaching, if
and when they occur.
here:
Two factors in particular warrant comment
1. The rapid and continued growth of the Japanese and other
Asian markets relative to the total market. The fact that
these groups intuit1vely exhibit the greatest "cultural
distance" from ourselves suggest that they will be most
testing of our maturity.
2 . Que s t i on s o f the r a t e o f gr ow th , a n d the 1 e v e 1 s a n d for ms o f
foreign investment, will require constant attention. While
foreign capital may often be required for large
developments, local investment, including incentives to New
Zealand developments, must warrant consideration, if they
contribute to minimizing negative social impacts.
The recognition of tourism's potential as an agent for so
cial change has led a number of agencies concerned with tourism
development (e.g. Pata 1983:80) (UNESCO Policy recommendations
(de Kadt) 1979:340)) (EIU 1982:197) to point to the need for
an on-going social impact assessment
processes.
to assist planning
New Zealand is fortunate that individuals (Cant 1978, 1980,
Pearce 1980, Garland 1984) as well as national associations rep
resenting tourism interests (NTA (Survey Research International) . 19 8 3, Hens ha 11 et a 1, 19 8 2) have
studies on social impact issues.
37
undertaken or comrnissione~
This paper strongly endorses
work of this nature such as the 1985 social impact study in
Queenstown. Time will prove these to be most valuable baseline
studies, offering important early insights into New Zealand's
tourism development.
Garland (1984) for example drew on overseas work to provide.
a comprehensive stucJy of three North Islanu locations (Rotorua;
Tauranga-Mt Maunganui; Paihia, Kerikeri, Russell in the Bay of
Islands). His distillation of indices, and their close parallel
to Cant and Pearce's (1981) work in Queenstown provides key in
sights for future social impact monitoring in the New Zealand
context.
Garland firstly notes that many of the serious problems ex
pe_rienced in island communities of the Pacific and Carribean are
not likely to be significant problems here. He points to the
high incidence of overseas travel by New Zealanders (72 per cent)
and high level of involvement with tourists (NTA 1983). For
Maori,· he cites the recognised significance of tourism in
generally nurturing and conserving certain cultural activities.
These he suggests will nullify potentially serious demonstration
effects.
After statistical analysis of 29 social indices (Appendix 1)
describing perceptions of tourism by host populations, five major
factors were presented by Garland. These are:
1. Provision of certain community facilities
(positive response)
These include sporting, cultural and recreational
facilities, the range of shops, quality of restaurants,
preservation of historic buildings and civic pride.
38
2; Economic circumstances (positive response)
Three variables particularly support this factor: oppor-
tunities for jobs,
of residents.
lower numbers of unemployed, and incomes
3. Impacts on Certain groups in the community
(m_ixed response)
Includes the br.inging up of children, people with young
fa mi 1 i es , o 1 de r: r e s id e n ts . P r es u ma b 1 y these are o f t e n d i s -
advantaged by inflationary pressures (item 4).
4. Price increases (negative response)
This fact includes variables associated with housiong and
land costs, purchased and rented, and with the prices of
goods and services.
5. Social effects (negative response)
Includes increases in crime, litter, noise and traffic
congestion. Some respondents were shown to modify their
behaviour, e.g. modifying eating out, shopping trip patterns
etc. during peaks of tourism.
(Garland 1984: 57 and 117).
Garland cautions that his study has focussed on host-guest
relationships and that other factors, such as environmental
concerns, may be equally as important as those listed above.
For New Zealanders much contact with tourists is also likely
to be in various outdoor recreation settings (e.g. fishing
39
rivers, ski-fields, waiking tracks).
ticipatory nature of the activities, such
opportunity fo.r social exchange of a
Because of the par
settings provide arn~le
different kind to that
described above. Tourism planners need to develop strong links
to land management agencies such as the Department of Lands and
Survey, New Zealand Forest Service and recreation advisors such
as the Council and Ministry of Recreation and Sport.
A general conclusion of New Zealand studies is that tourism
and tourists currently have a high level of acceptance in New
Zealand.
However, in spite of differences in study objectives, scale,
location or methods one recurring theme is presented. Simply put
it is not so much the fact that tour. ism in gxowing, or that it
currently has very high acceptance L>y New Zealanders, but rather
the issues of community participation and involvement that will
determine its success. This message receives support from all
major New Zealand community studies. Some examples follow:
Mings 1980:20
''For only through identifying and redressing their (resident
populations') objections, will the public continue to be
supportive of tourism".
Pearce and Cant 1981:28 II a general feeling among residents that henceforth
Queenstown should develop,
a community".
not only as a resort but also as
Unfortunately neither overseas nor New Zealand studies take
the next step, they do not suggest how this might be done.
'1 0
3.9 Tourism Styles and fmpact
The preceding analysis clea:rly suggests that different
styles of tourism are likely to qenerate different sets of
impacts. For example the package coach tour provides 1'.elatively
little. opportunity for host-visitor contact unless some of the
participants are from the host country. They tend to stay as a
group travelling, sightseeing and eating together. The fact that
they are largely insulated from the host community minimises the
opportunity for positive person to pe:rson contacts. However,
larger groups are more visible and identifiable as "tourists".
Therefore if they cause congestion at a 1'.estaurant, a queue at a
Post Office, or "take over" an his tor i.c house, overseas tourism
will be the culprit.
Tour groups however, normally keep to the well worn tourism
routes. Not too many New Zealanders would. feel involved and
these tourists are unlikely to interfere greatly with the
everyday life of most New Zealanuers - except perhaps when New
Zealanders wish to take their holidays.
However, the pattern of tourism is becoming more
complicated. Increasingly tourists are wi~hlng to package
together some, if not all, of their trip. These free and inde
pendent travellers wish to sample a broader spectrum of New
Zealand landscapes and lifestyles. A consequence is more oppor
tunities for visitors and hosts to interact. These tourists may
become much more dependent on the assistance of the local
population, and in fact, may seek this as part of their unique
experience. The previous review cautions that such exchanqes can
soon become tiresome, especially if language barriers complicate
the process of communication. The "saturation" level for such ' tourists may also be relatively low should they become competi-
tion at the local picnic spot, or the town's favourite fishing
41
pool. Alternatively wher:e commun interest is apparent the en-
counter may be rewarding to both host and guest alike.
What this chapter suygests is that a style and indeed a
level of tourism which does not have the support of the local
population is not sustainable. A central issue concerns the
process by which the public of New Zealand can understand tourism
developme~t and contribute fully to its success.
42
CHAPTER 4
CULTURE AND TOURISM
(Dr Pat Devlin - Lincoln College)
Introduction
"Recognition of culture as an essential yet delicate com
ponent of tourism attractiveness has resulted in a perceived
need to merge social and economic objectives/constraints in
the formulation of tourism development policies" (Ritchie
and Zins: 1978, 254).
The role of culture as described above raises two issues.
The first, is the "delicate" nature of tourism's cultural
component. Partly tl1is reflects the concern that cultures else
where have been manipulated or exploited solely as tools for
tourism development. While this must be a concern, it may be
also suggested for New Zealand that we are yet in the early
stages of distinguishing between ,those aspects of our New Zealand
culture that are resilient to tourism's impact and those which
must be cautiously rationed, or even "off-limits".
The second issue is one of objectives in conflict. Any
merging of "social and economic objectives/constraints" is un
likely to take place if tl1ose who hold the economic objectives
are not also in some part linked with the social fabric and con
text which is providing the cultural attraction. Those who have
control over tourism's administration and infrastructure need to
be part of the answer to these questions.
There ls ample evidence of goodwill to this, but no clear
pathways to an easy achievement of either the conceptual
43
framework or the practic~l approaches which will enable action.
This section of lhe review therefore sets out to contribute
to a conceptual framework by describing a relationship between
"culture" in New ZeaL:lnd as somethln9 uniquely Maori, and a cul
ture which must also be shared. It considers the ways in which
Maori operators and academics see themselves, and their views of
themselves, vis a vis tourism.
The enthusiasm of Maori tourism representatives to play a
significant and substantial part in all facets of tourism
-development is clear. Less clear, and of concern to the writer,
ls the extent to which this ls shared throughout Maoridom. This
and other questions relating to actively shared components of
culture are in urgent need of research attention.
4.1 Culture and the Tourism Product
The culture of this country, its people,· its architecture,
its music, its food, its present as well as its past - these are
the truly unique features of New Zealand which the tourist does
not find elsewhere. It is similarities with their own culture
which enable the tourist to feel a comfortable empathy with New
. Zealanders; it is the differences from their own cultures which
confront and excite tourists, contributing novelty and meaning to
their visit. It is the combination of these which give the
tourist a lasting impression of our country and which challenge
the notion of New Zealand only as a destination of outstanding
natural resources.
4.2 "Natural" versus cultural resources
In an
cultural.
important sense, all
The mountains, plains,
44
so-called
rivers and
"resources" are
seas, their as-
sociated spectacular features and the plants and animals which
live there are beautiful, spectacular or important because people
say this is so.
However, such perceptions are not universal; they are riot
the same for all cultures. Visitors from Japan for example may
see landscapes and items of culture quite differently from we New
Zealanders. Even visitors from countries with "Western" cultures
looking at New Zealand will have different sets of perceptions.
Finally, but ~f great importance, there ls a considerable diver
sity within New Zealand itself and this is particularly true of
Maori and Pakeha where there are cultural differences in belief
and value systems. But it is also true of other dichotomies.
Urban and rural perceptions often differ in subtle ways. So too
do views held by the inhabitants of regions. Hence the South
Island's 'West Coasters' see their natural resources and their
history somewhat differently from the views of their Canterbury
neighbours. For various reasons then, those who provide the ac
tivities and destinations for tourists have the massive challenge
of finding a thoroughly acceptable common pos·ition from which a
view of our combined cultures can be presented. Pakeha New
Zealanders in particular must develop a sensitivity and empathy
for the Maori "view of the world". As an illustration, take the
case of two cars driving past Tongarlro National Park in the
Central North Island.
The Pakeha driver of one car may see a wisp of volcanic
smoke in a landscape as being of geological intrigue and wonder
ful recreational opportunities. The Maori driver may see the
smouldering sacred fires lit by Gods to warm Ngatoroirangl; the
mountains are "ancestors" and the landscape is a story board of
tribal history and lore.
45
The example sug9ests a fundamental cultural dichotomy. Sen
sitive presentation of New Zealand's landscapes and other natural
resources should reflect an apprecial:lon of the value systems -as
soc 1 ate d w 1 th the rn . s c l e n U f 1 c and ~H~ !..S the I; l c f ea tu res sh o u l d be
enriched by the cull:Ltr.:.il 111ec.rni11gs which Inhere in our lundscapes.
Clearly this will require a major effort in all quarters.
It requires both learners and teachers and a ·willingness by the
Maori to share a part of som~thing which to them is precious.
Wlthin the total New Zealand experience there are aspects which
properly, can only be imparted in Maori. However, there are
.abundant additional opportunities for sensitve and informed
Pakeha to enrich visitors' experience of the Maori dimension.
4.3 The Maori Role in Tourism
As the September (1985) Manaakitanga (hospitality) Hui held
at Rotorua it was abundantly clear that Maori interest in, and
enthusiasm for tourism is high; their need for concern to be a
part of its growth is seen not as an option but as an imperative.
The business interests represented ranged from financing to en
tertainment and from insurance to activity tourism. But, while
enthusiasm was abundant the pervasive concern seemed to be tha.t
the Maori slice of tourism cake was small relative to their im
portance to the industry.
The llonourable Kora Wetere in opening the Hui made several
points which were frequently reiterated over the period of the
conference. The first of these was that the Maori people have
been in the Manaakltanga or hospitality business for over a cen
tury and many earn their living in the large field of tourism,
travel and recreation. Second, he acknowledged that ''· .. while
New Zealand had outstanding scenery, the only completely unique
part of New Zealand ls the Maori people and their culture".
46
Several of the Honourable Minister's points concerned Maori lands
and the need for these to be developed for and by Maori and to
get a good return from their resources. Finally, he pointed OU t
that "strengthening and defendlng M<1 or i culture ls the vital
spark ln all Maori development, a ntl lts linka9e wlth tourism ls
·obvious". This view that tourism has a strengthening role, anu
has in fact been instrumental in keeping aspects of Maori arts
and crafts thriving has been testified by Te Awekotuku (1981).
She explains, "I then concluded that there was indeed substance
to my people's loud and frequent claim that tourism has not hurt
Te Arawa; in many instances, it has helped us" (1981:1).
On the negative side however, ls the suspicion that constant
exposure to tourism has counter-productive side effects. Te
Awekotuku (1981:140) in her description of two Kainga in Rotorua
notes: " especially those (residents) who experience tourist
contact continually, live suspended in a state of seeming
sch l zophre n le amb l valence. As tour ls t tra ff le l ucreases tour ls ts
become· more difficult to avoid; the dimension of privacy in
either Kainga dlmlnlshes." One can only conclude that evidence
for or against this ambivalence may be situationally specific.
Development of operations in which visitor/host contact is
considerable, must be carried out cautiously and thoughtfully.
Maori involvement in tourism has also been reviewed by
Garland (1984). His analysis appears to concentrate on current
attitudes and practices in the Central and Northern North Island.
There ls a clear intention to extend beyond the traditional Maori
entertainment role lr1 tourism by expanding the use of their lands
as well as artistic and other activity skills. Specific mention
of Maori International as a company which promotes the involve
ment of Maori people in the ownership and management of various . tourist operations, both in New Zealand and abroad, exemplifies
this desire to diversify. The leadership role of the New Zealand
47
Maori Arts and Crafts Council is ciLeu as an example of National
level involvement while individual Maori entrepreneurs run
s u c c e s s f u 1 s ma 1 1 b u s i ll e s s i n t h e s e N o r. I: Ii I s 1 a m] 1 o ca 1 i t i e s •
4.4 Maori Self-image
The development of stereotypes through tourism promotion is
a consequence of the industry which is currently of concern to
the Maori. Winiata (1985:5) poinl:s out the importance of Taha
Maori (the Maori dimension) to the self-image Maori hold. It is
" wider than a bikini clad pakeha lass propped up with ~
carving, or a group of performers in native dress; but does in
clude the words spoken on a coach by a coach driver as well as
the normal promotional avenues". The Maori "... no longer wlsh
to be labelled with the projected image of the friendly dusky
skinned polynesian in the grass skirt".
The recent overseas success of Te Maori Ekepihana - the art
treasures of the Maori World - highlights the current desire by
the Maori for a recognition of a proud heritage and cultural
excellence. While their further involvement in tourism will no
doubt be diverse, the importance associated with self-image is a
message of importance to the industry as a whole, and to New
Zealand as an entity.
4.5 A "hidden" culture
Previous chapters of this review have described the outcomes
of host/guest encounters and the evolution of these through time.
The question of the ways in which this effect might differen
tially act on Maori culture has been partly answered by Te
Awekotuku (1981) when she discussed the ambivalence of her people . to tourism's affect on their privacy. Elsewhere (1981:146-147)
she describes the "hld<1en" culture, those aspects of Maori life
48
and ceremony which others do not see. Yrd: (lf: the same time, a
key thrust of the Maori approach to tourism - their interpersonal
role may further Ulll1ermine tld~;. Henare Slrongman (1985)
described tourism as a "people to people relationship". To her,
"Americans (her adopted country) are wonderful people (who) leave
New Zealand with their suitcases bulging. But is that the most
important thing they leave with? No, it is what is in their
hearts - it is aroha! The unsaleable is AROHA".
The close, intensely personal experience Strongman provides
may be difficult to duplicate except on a relatively small scale.
The use of the Marae to give visitors an jnsight lo Maori cult:ure
would seem to require considerable visitor pre1:>aration if they
are to benefit other than superficially from their visit. One
might question how or if these intense participatory cultural ex
periences are moving a little too close to the "hidden culture"
noted above? However, if this type of activity is the pinnacle
of the Maori cultural experience (and is rationed accordingly),
it wo~ld play a key role in a continuum of opportunities for dis
criminating visitors. This decision can only be made by those
closely involved and should be made cautiously, slowly and after
thorough consultation.
4.6 Need for direction
Points highlighted at the Manaakitanga conference also in
cluded the need to develop Maori resources for more training of
young Maori; the strength and resilience of Maori culture; t:he
importance of people (aroha); abhorence of cheap, distasteful
(and often imported) souvenirs; and the need for a central body
through which Maori opinion, guidance and initiative can be
brought together to promote Maori tourism. To this end a task r
force was set up to prepare the way for establishing a Maori
Tourism Association which would facililate that forceful yet sen-
49
sitive development·of the skills anu :resources of the Maori.
4.7 Quality for the Masses
The challenge . to t:he tourist industry as a whole is to
recog~1ise that "quality" ls not the experience "itself", but is a
measure of the level of satisfaction of the participant with the
exp er i enc e . The r e i s a c 1 ear message i n th is . A cont in u um of
experience from a "mass" end which caters for thousands, through
to the "rationed" enu which caters for a few, is not a range of
quality. It is purely a range of experiences and those who
provide them must ensure that quality for the participant is
available throughout. This places the responsibility squarely on
the providers. A diagramatlc example of involvement with equal
q:uality throughout ls shown below.
A Continuum of Cultural Experience Opportunities
Purchasing a souvenir
? attend a concert
? visit Art Centre/ walk Whakarewarewa
? Live on a Marae
-------------(decreaing) INVOLVEMENT (increasing)---------------
The complicating influence of the "experience" of those
providing opportunities for tourists is discussed in the final
chapter of this review but ls so important it warrants furthe:i::
mention. As "experienced" New Zealanders the value we place on
activities and settings tends to mirror our own backgrounds.
A cultural example of this is cJisplayecJ in the continuum
above. For: the first-time visitor: an exhilarating Maori concert
will be a highlight. Few will need a Marae experience to provide
their "quality". We should carefully appraise the extent to
which we are viewing 'others as extensions of ourselves, instead
of "providing a range of quality options from which they can
choose. If the emphasis for provision of quality concentrates on
the "mass" end of the continuum, then this will be most
50
appropriate.
itself.
The ollier end, by definition, can look after
4.8 A Wider Cultural Identity
While this section has virtually concentrated entirely on
Maori aspects of culture, it ls the writer's belief that more
than one_ form of cultural renaissance is occurring in New
Zealand. It has been stated (Plimmer; 1985, 10) that for:
tourists from several cuur1tries New Zealand ls seen as a beauti~
ful place but with nothing culturally tu offer; hence it is
tempting to highlight the special identity of the Maori. But
perhaps many New Zealanders are sufficiently removed from thei:i:
forefathers points of origin to feel strongly that they are New
Zealanders. They know where their roots are. An emerging
nationalistic strength may provide more widespread opportunities
for a ''New Zealand life-style" to stand alongside those unique
features of our culture which only the Maori dimension can
provide, and in so-doing, add to our incomparable landscapes as
an integrated range of opportunities for tourists.
4.9 Some conclusions
This contri.bution has covered a number of issues that seem
important to this observer. While the concepts of culture and
tourism connote Maori aspects in particular, it is essential that
all who are i11volved in the provision of tourist experiences be
suitably informed and sensitive to both the Maori dimension and
the Pakeha dimension. Each will have its opportunity for
eminence but few would argue the pre-eminence of those unique
qualities which are clearly Maori.
At the same time the industry must heed the advice of con
temporary critics such as Mahuta and Nottingham (1985:6-7). "It
51
is Maaori culture. and"Maaori values they (the tourist) want to
find out about, not the spurious pseudo-Polynesians they are
dished up in too many other tourist locations " Mahuta and
Nottingham provide insigt1tful analysis of many of the issues sub
sequently addressed by the Manaakitanga Hui (1985). In common
with others, both writers and speakers, they seek the sale of a
quality cultural product which does not bring with it an attri
tion of intrinsic cultural values. Indeed, they look for a
strengthened culture through proliferation of cultural skill
tralning. The problem of "pseudo-Polynesians - in many oth1~r
tourist locations" is surely one which can be overcome through
displacement or :replacement as the inllustry becomes mo:r:e fully
aware of the concern which the Maori people have for the ways in
which their culture is presented.
The establishment of a "task force" to advise on the Maori
role in tourism is a useful first step. I believe
further than that, and three points stand out.
it must go
Certainly its
first responsibility will be to ensure for its people a just and
rightful place within the industry. Second, and of equal
importance, is the critical need for the experiences provided to
flt comfortably within a range which can be culturally
sustaining, as well as sustained by the culture. Third is the
need to explore ways in which Pakehas in tourism can share,
enrich, and come to better understand each others cultural
inheritance. In these w.J.ys, not only the tourist will benefit.
The issues raised in this section of the review paper must
be read within its overall context. It is therefore stressed
that while its treatment ls separated, its implications are not.
Haphazard developme11ts of tourism involving Maori, are still hap
hazard tourism. Social impacts from tourism are still impacts
and notwithstanding the inherent resistance of Rotorua Maori to
these, other parts of the country may not have this resllllence.
52
Finally, developments which have. lrreversible impact on ecologi·
cally sensitive areas are equally irreversible. Indeed, impair
ment of land resources may take on additional spiritual, as well
as ecological significance.
rhe task force must therefore deal with the spectrum of con
cerns currently presented to the industry as a whole.
Its challenge is to make the most of what it has, while at
the same time it forges mutually better cultural understandings
and synthesis for all New Zealanders, as well ~s the tourist
community.
"Ko te pae tata, whakamaua kia tino;
Ko te pae tawhiti, whaia kia tat~.
Hold fast to the close horizons (or to what you have; chase
after and bring closer distant.: horizons". (Nikora: 1984).
53
CHAPTER 5
MEASURING AND PLANNING FOR SOCIAL IMPACTS
Introduction
The initial chapters of this review had as their. objective
to describe the importance and nature of social and cultural
impacts. Attention was firstly focussed on the tourism
product/experience and the resource systems that underpin it. It
was concluded that the health and success of tourism development
will ultimately depend on tile integrity of the natural and social
resource systems that sustain it. All members of society have a
responsibility for this, however, the tourism industry because of
its particular use of these resources the tour.ism industry has a
special responsibility.
The tourism product was described as one which evolves over
time. Differing patterns of evolution were noted for a number of
aspects of the tourism system - visitors (guests) local residenls
(hosts) and destination areas. Because the tourism product
focusses on us as New Zealanders, and because tourism is u
'people to people' industry, tourism ls therefore an agent of so
cial and cultural change.
Most of these changes will be seen as part of the general
picture of constant change which we experience today. The fact
that the impacts of tourism are similar to many other changes oc
curring in our society suggests that tourism planning needs to
first and foremost be well integrated into existing planning
processes . .
54
This final chapter· presents two themes. The first concerns
the development of a framework both of communication and for re
search to monitor impacts and fine tune our planning. The second
concerns the need for, and major issue~ in tourism planning.
These two themes are. interrelated in as inuch as measures of im
pact of best are measures of evaluation - of how well objectives
are being achieved. Without clear directions outlining the na-
ture of New Zealand's involvement in tourism,
very soon becomes relatively meaningless.
impact assessment
5.1 Social Impact Assessment
In New Zealand, as in other Western Nations, Social Impact
Assessment (SIA) is gaining in importance and scope of applica
tion (Taylor and Sharp 1983). Following their experiences with
using SIA in major projects in New Zealand (e.g. Marsden Point
Refinery, Taranaki Energy Projects) the Minist~y of Works and
Development has recently published a description to guide future ·,
applications (MWD n/d, c1985). This is summarised bri~fly below.
The approach advocated is based on an "integrated community
development" which creates a series of horizontal and verti~al
communications comprising central government, regional
government, and regional steering and technical advisory forums,
working alongside developers. The principal aim is to enhance
communication through consultation.
The roles of these participating groups are:
Central Government. Central Government has the role of co-
ordination of the interests as expressed in its various
departments. It is suggested that this is an on-going need. It
55
...
should foster direct ·communication and infor.mation between
regional and central government.
DPyAlnper. The developer, whether government or a private
developer, has a plvltol role in the SIA process. They hold key
1 n f or ma t i on about p 1 an n e d pr o j e ct s w h i ch needs to be made av a i 1. -·
able to regional and central governmental planners and local
people.
Regional Steering Gro11ps. These groups are set up under a
Regional or United Council. They should illclude local Members of
Parliament, local and regional authority councillors, Crown rep
resentatives and development interests. Major functions as
listed are:
* to initiate Lechnical advisory SJr.oups
* to articulate appropriate regional development needs
* to influence the manner in which development proceeds
to meet regional or local needs
* to recommend allocation of development levies.
Technical Advisory Groups. These are the "work horses" of SIA.
It is suggested they comprise staff from all levels of government
(central, regional, local) with developers (the tourism industry)
and community groups.
Runyan and Wu (1979) have addressed the specific question of
'assessing tourism's more complex consequences' . They too ad vu
ca te a wide community involvement in tourism planning. They go
further than the approach advocated by MWD and suggest a two
stage approach to impact assessment. The local planning
aut~ority, with developers or consultants, forecasts relatively
specific or quantifiable physical, economic or other changes.
These are then pu l tu l11e comrnun l ty wh 1 ch has three roles:.
56
(a) evaluating and criticising the set of impact foreca~:;ts
prel:'ared by lhe professionals.
(b) expandin9 .on these impact forecasts both for themselves
and for others who may be affected.
(c) making judgements on the set of identified impacts.
These anthors
nif icantly increase
note that although resident input can sig
the time and effort required to complete . a
project the pay off for impact information is increased
reliability and usefulness.
However, tourism development poses speci<il challenges jn
fitting into SIA processes. Three issues are listed below.
1.
2.
Tourism development is on-going. It tends to evolve slowly
and is made up of a number of smaller developments which may
in the short term go unnoticed by local residents.
There is most often no
developer.
single readily identifiable
These above two problems can be addressed by establishing
(Regional) Tourism Advisory Groups (TAGs) on a semi-permanent,
formalised basis. Recent experiences in Canterbury have seen the
establishment of an advisory committee ·by the Canterbury
Promotion Council and the Canterbury United Council.
The structure and function of this forum ls recommended as
the basis for TAGs . central government
(Recommendation 1).
in other
liaison
regions (Recommendation 2). A
group is also recommended
57
Scope for the inclusion of SIA is made in the Town and
Country Planning .l\ct (1979) which could include tourism
deve 1 opme n ts. Reg i ona 1 groups as out 11 ned above can, for
example, be for med as advisory groups (under s 8 of l:he Town a nu
Country Planning Act (1977)) or, as ln the Canterbury situation,
act more independently, but supported by funding initiated by the
United Council.
3. Funding: Major industry developments
the developer to pay a levy (0.5
(over $50m) require
per cent) to the ap-
pr op r i at e Re g i on a 1 or Un i Le a Co u 11 c .l 1. Wh i 1 e ma j or tour i s m
developments (e.9. large first class hotels) would attract
such a levy, tourism developmellt,
not attract such levies.
for the most part, would
This second challenge is more serious. In the final
analysis, because of the nature of the tourism product, its many
interfaces with local life style and culture, the author is led
to conclude with others (UNESCO, OECD, EIU) that this funding
responsibility ultimately rests with government agencies.
For the central government liaison group (recommendation 1)
this funding responsibility presumably rests with the NZTP. For
regional TAGs (recommendation 2) funding would seem to initially
rest with regional or United Councils.
The Canterbury experience suggests that this need not be
expensive. All industry representatives currently give freely o[
their time and funding was co-ordinated by the United Council tu
provide a research/marketing officer arid secretarial assistance,
which amounted to $65,000 in the first year.
58
Likewise, it is ar~ued that these proposals do not establish
a series of new bodies or further 1:>l<:111ui11g cJeluys for uevelopers.
Rather they serve vrlmarlly to bring ·"l 1111111ber of c1isparate 111ter
ests Logether into a single forum, to facilitc1te l>elter, more
efficient, planning ..
5.2 What ano How to Measure
Social Impact Assessment is firstly a communicating and
planning framework. In underlining the importance of regional
tourism forums this report takes the same view as that implied in
SIA; that ls, community members are the best judges of changes
which are affecting them. Many of tourism's effects are not
direct, but rather induced or indirect. One of SIAs strengths
lies in its ability to utilise resources and data that already
exist (secondary sources). Nonetheless while such approaches n~y
be appropriate to 'one off' developments there is a need for a
wider data base to integrate development at a national level.
Cohen has argued that for tourism development "the many dif
ferent empirical problems ca11 only be tackled by utilising a wide
range of concepts and research instruments'' (1979b:32).
He therefore advocates research that is:
* aware of the passage of time - aside from such an awareness
there is also a need for longitudinal studies (e.g. dif
ferent stages of tourism development.
* aware of specific circumstances (e.g. community context)
* capable of· generalisation (at least research designs and
variables should be comparable)
59
* participatory - touf ism processes should be studied from
'within' as well as from 'outside' the groups involved.
Pizam (1983) anJ Duffield and Walker (1984) show how dif
ferent types of research might fit different data requirements.
Under objective measures Pizam lists:
1. Before-after studies
2. Ex-post-facto - matching communities
- statistical inferences
3. Case studies
4. Field exper iment:s
and for subjective measures
1. Resident's surveys
2. Impact assessment by experts
- delphi
- delbecq
Impacts (physical and biological, economic and social) aLc
seen by Duffield and Walker (1984) to arise from three contribut
ing groups of people.
* tourists (staying visitors)
* day visitors from outside the region
* residents
Key indices for social impacts are:
* infrastructure changes
* social attitudes
* changes in la11cl use (rural to urban)
60
* use of service facilities
* structural changes in population composition
* behavioural effects, e.g. crime
Again this information is sce11 a!;; an integral part of an
overall planning process (Appendix 2).
Although the type of impact assessment advocated in this
report ls seen as an on-going process the earlier impact grid ap
proach u.s advocated by Plzam (1984) ls also useful in highllght:
lng the broad range of issues that might not be assessed ln
tourism development. On one axis he has placed 11 social and 10
cultural impacts indicators. On the other are up to 45 elements
of tourism development. These include a wide range of
accommodation, transport, recreational and infrastructure ele
ments as well as scope for assessing ~ifferent aspects of tourist
behaviour (Appendix 3).
In New Zealand we already have an lncreasing number of
studies, usually community surveys, that are clearly part of so
cial impact assessment techniques. These include such studies:
Cant and Pearce
Garland
Mings
- Queenstown
- Central and Northern North Island
Communities
- Public opinion
What the earlier literature review clearly cautions is that
it ls very easy to become trapped into one-off problem-oriented
studies that contribute little to an overall understanding of
tourism or little in assisting other communities in predicting or
measuring changes. Two key principles stand out from Chapter 3's •
discussion of the factors that influence negative socio-cultural
impacts. These are:
61
(i) impacts will vary according to community size.
(ii) impacts will vary according to the stag~ of tourism develop
ment.
A research framework based on these two over-riding factors
is included as a recommendation (No. 3) in the next chapter.
Prior to_ this, however, some comment is macJe on the need for and
scope of tourism planning.
5.3 The Need for Planning
"To maximise the probability 0£ success requires the pre
diction of impacts .... A good strategy therefore, incor
porates a process whereby impacts will be evaluated and
predicted, and action taken when thresholds are approached.
If obstacles cannot be over.come some control (such as
limits) must be imposed".
Getz 1983:253
This quotation raises two issues. Because social impact
assessments ultimately require judgement decisions a clear
tourism policy, with the ability to monitor char1ging goals and
objectives, is essential in their assessment. It will be argued
that planning needs to occur at all levels, national through to
local.
A second issue raised in the above quotation concerns the
question of limits.
This section therefore also examines the nolion of a tourism
capacity and questions the nature of quality in tourism . experiences.
62
5.4 A Strategic Approach to Tourism Planning
Getz (1983) and Murphy (1983) l>oth present a strong case for
·a strategic (systems) approach to tourism planning. As such
their suggestions . differ. suostantially from comprehensive
(master) tourism planning protjrammes as advocated by Gunn (1979).
A systems appr:oc:ich is seen as an on-going process. rt ac-
knowledges changing public attitudes, and keeps abreast of chang
ing stages and rates of growth by constructing and constantly aJ
justing a model of tourism development. A capacity is seen as
part of this dynamic process "aimed at overcoming barriers where
possible, but one in which it is possible to exert controls
when necessary to.satisfy objectives'' (Getz 1983:252).
Two inter-related activities are proposed. First general
research aimed at understanding the "tourism system", how it.
works, its problems and goals. The "application and evaluation
of controls exerted on the system (i.e. specific policies, plans
and developments) to achieve goals" is then required (Getz
1983:253).
General system~ research includes: describing and modelling
the tourism system and its environment and forecasting and choos
ing alternative futures. These two steps are integrated. As
better knowledge becomes available through the evaluation of past
experiences, the model (understanding of the tourism system) must
continue to be improved.
The planning and evaluation of sp~cific proposals involves
six steps.
1. Evaluation of planned developments.
63
2. Establishing a priotity for goals and objectives.
3. Selecting a strategy. This sl:ep requires that likely im·
pacts are predicted and evaluate<] and plans then adapted
as appropriate ..
4. Initiating incremental development. The value of moving
s 1 ow _l y i s th a t g i v e n these many u n c e r ta i n t i es , ca u t i o us
development is one device to help minimise risks.
5.
De Kadt (1979b) also advocates for a gradual development, to
allow locals Lime to adjust to, and become involved in
tourism, thereby minimising potential shifts in attitude.
Review and Evaluation. This information must link back to
the overall model so the accuracy of future assessments and
decisions is improved.
6. Decisions. Finally, reviews must lead to decisions regard
ing controls on the system. As suggested earlier these may
operate, in a number of ways; access, host's attitude, ad
vertising or promotion, or guest attitude. Unless a plan
ning process specifies how evaluations ~ne to be used it ls
possible that important implications will be overlooked.
Murphy on the other hand argues for an ecological approach
to defining tourism goals, whereby the industry assumes a
"stewardship" role [or landsc<ipe, amenities and community assets.
He argues that because tourism is 11ow interwoven into the social,
economic and environmental aspects of all communities it "can be
integrated into the general planning procedures" (1983:193).
64
5.5 Is there a Tourism Capacity?.
A numher of pJanning texts still refer to tourism
capacities. More recent work, such as those described above have
moved slgnificantl~ away from such ideas toward a more interac
tive planning model. This move ls also occurring at a time when
the notion of carrying capacity is being dropped from recreation
plann i n<;J_· Reasons for this de par tur e stern from the i nab 11 i ty to
fully operatlonallse capacity measures within either of these two
contributing ~ystems socio-psychological or bio-physlcal.
Chapter 2 has argued that both visitor and host perceptions
(the soclo-psycholo9ical capacity) are likely to change over
time. These factors along with an infrastructure combining a
variety of public and private facilities suggest a commonly held
perception of crowding our point of capacity is highly unlikely.
It can also be argued that biophysical limits may not exist
in definite terms. In some situations limit$ on physical
resources can be overcome. A ready example h~re is the construc
tion of well defined tracks and boardwalks and adequate parking
areas in National Parks to lessen impact and allow for greater
visitation.
Finally such measures are meaningless without a prior
specification of goals. A piece of land designated as a reserve
may be expected to support a relatively small number of visitors.
The same land developed as a theme park may accommodate
thousands. Capacities are therefore better seen as control
mechanisms, or threshold, rather than absolute measures. In this
light impact assessments are then seen as evaluations of how ef
fectively goals can or are being achieved rather than the ab-. solute measure some would purport them to be.
65
5.6 The Recreation Oppbrtunity Spectrum
The above ld<~Cl~> have been bro11ght l:oget:her under UH~ heading
of the 'Recreation Opportunity Spectrum' or ROS for short (ClJJk and Starkey 1979) .. l\n upplication and brief discussion of the
same principles are spelt out in the previous chapter on Culture
.and Tourism.
An individual recreation setting is the combination of the
following factors:
physical - especially access
[walking unsealed road sealed road
helicopter]
biological - 'naturalness' of settings
[unmodified man maue]
managerial - acceptability of impacts and regulations
[no amenities, few regulations
social
.. many amenities and regulations]
- amount and type of social interactiion
[no interparty contact
extensive interparty contact]
For each of these factors a range of criteria are developed
that allow the distinctior1 between one opportunity and another.
While these criteria are judgemental, their value is seen in
stating explicitly the criteria on whicl1 decisions are based.
one feature of resource management that ls made clear by the
ROS, is that remote experiences are of special significance. It
ls easier to move towarcl more developed situations than to move
66
back along the spectru~ to re-establish 'remote' situations.
With the adoption of the ROS recreation planners have realised no
one area nee<.1 to he 'all things to all people'.
The "experience." of the providers is however a major com
plicating factor. If we are (or have been competent trampers or
mountaineers then wilderness-type experiences or an ascent of Mt
Cook may_be our idea of "quality". The obverse of this - to see
wilderness from a chartered flight, or to see Mt Cook from the
Hermitage - is for us potentially low quality. Not so for our
visitors. For those who lack the skills to climb Mt Cook or for
whom this view is "a first", the experience may be a highlight.
If it is accompanied by sensitive interpretation and the oppor
tunity for the visitor to extend and enrich his one-of[
e~perience, then it will truly be quality.
5.7 Applications to Tourism
While the ROS has not yet been applied to the study of the
tourist industry some potential clearly exists.
As an elaboration of the above ideas it is easy to develop a
picture of a high qualily recreation experience. For one tourist
it might be a limited visit on a package tour, for another a
longer, less formalised trip in a camper van. For yet another it
might be a 'hitch-hiking' holiday to the remoter parts of the
country. Furthermore, these seemill<jly unrelated experiences
ml g ht a 11 a pp 1 y to the same person , the i r a i f £ere n c e be i n g the i r
changing experience, familiarity with the destination area, or
the social group with which they choose to travel.
Specific applications of the ROS to tourism might be in as-•
sisting in the development of regional tourism plans, or in
67
reviewing the range of accommodation, attractions, activities or
transport opportunities.
This final section has presented two alternative rnocJels for
tourism planning. The difference between these models lies only
in the level of application. They come together in highlighting
the need for an on-going planning process. Both adopt a broad
view of the industry that places lhe tourism 'product' within an
integrated system. Both emphasise the need to develop a tourism
policy and monitor cl1a111:3lng goals ancl objectives. Social impacts
assessments are seen as part of this process, rather than ends in
themselves. Strong links with community members likely to be af
fected by developments coupled with early and ongoing communica
tion are seen as the mechanisms to ensure that negative impacts
are minimised and positive benefits work for both the community
and tourism alike.
68
CHAPTER 6
RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Recommendations
The first two recommendations are concerned with
communication, involvement and planning devices. They arise
primarily fr:om the previous discussion on SIA and measurement
techniques (Chapter 5). Many of the resources and skills
required for social impact assessment already exist. These
recommendations do not seek to esta!Jlish a series of new bodies
or further planning delays for developers. Rather l:hey serve to
pool resources and co-ordinate action with the objective of
facilitating more efficient planning and the minimising of un
desirable effects.
Recommendation 1
The establishment of a Social Impact Liaison Group to iden
tify major social impacts of tourism development, advise on mat
ters of national tourism planning and policy and offer guidance
to the regional forums.
This group should be able to initiate and monitor research
and report to the NZTP and NZTC. Ideally it should build on the
existing work an<l relationships !Jetween the NZTIF Research
Authority, Tourism Council and Research Division of NZTP.
Likewise the Social Policy section of MWD has increasing exper-
tise in this area. This group is seen as a parallel of the
Tourism Liaison Group. A list of potential contributors and . functions is included as Appendix 4.
69
Recommendation 2
The establishment of regional Tourism Advisory Groups (TAGs)
to assist regional, local and central goverrnnent in planning for
tourism.
Such groups are already being established in a number of
regions.. The structure of the Canterbury Tourism Advisory Com
mittee provides a substantial starting point. This recommenda
tion simply serves to underline the importance of these groups
and advocate for their establishment in all regions affecteu by
tourism development. Clearly monitoring social impacts and com
munity participation in tourism are an additional role to be
grappled with in each region. In keeping with SIA recommenda
tions these groups would need to develop strong community links.
For example mechanisms of involving community workers and inter
est groups need to be considered. Appendix 5 details the struc
ture and functions of the Canterbury group and suggests possible
additions to answer these concerns. The Canterbury Regional
Liaison Officers of the NZTP were central to the establishment of
this forum and their role is strongly endorsed.
The final two recommendations are concerned with building up
a research data base on tourism impacts. A framework is proposed
(Appendix 6) to avoid the 'shot gun' of problem-oriented studies
evidenced in other tourism destinations.
This framework is based on two key prl11c:lples outlined ln
the literature review.
(1) Impacts will vary according to community size
(ii) Impacts will vary according to stage of tourism
development.
70
Ii .i ~-; 1. 1)r .i.c~ l cul tur.31) nnd
l:ourlst:s (dc)me:-.;l:lc, .inl:1'1:11."lti.,,11al). Tl :-;1~1v1~s l.u !Jull<.1 011 slt:u<J-
l.ions whe1:e r.esr~ar('h 11;1~; c.~ll c::H1y hr·i:·n 1.111<Jert:ake11.
Recommendation 3
Under the auspices o[ the Social Imi_i<.tcl: I.i;:iiso11 Group or
policy and research sccti.on~; o.f. NZTr ~l t:our:lsrn res1~arch monitor
.in13 bas(~ be clevf~lop1:·cl 1:11 i11c11Hle i'I r0119P. of <:01mnu1ill.h'r; likely to
be affected by tour.L;m. IniLi.::ll.ly tllr~se !dwulll incl.1.111e thP. com-
1mrnltles llstf~rl jn ilPLl(~J111lx fi (J?r.0:i11·,:: :Ju~>!~f; P<:-iildi'l, Ru~;:-H~ll,
Waitangi, Queensl:n\v11, RnLnr1.1.J, Cltr i.:.;l .. c:lt11r.c:li).
It js ack11owl1'1l 1J••1J t.J1o1L for: 11Hny of l.h<!~;r~ ~>omc resr~c1:r.:c:h al-
ready exists.
Cent :r: a 1 co -·or cl i n ;:1 t i o 11 o f t: h i s work i s re q u i :r: e d to :
*ensure that: .:i broarJ i:ange of CP1tH111111i.LiP.:-; a1t!l ::;lage:-3 of
tourism d(~vcl11L11Hr~11I: itr(' sl:u(lit'(l
* that data g:]l:hr:l:t='rl is ;:ibl.e \:1) 1"~ cni::-:::; ·r.:11mp.-_ned
•J: t:n provi1lr• :111 •lll•_J<iill'J r1·~;1:;irr·:Ji r1111r:l.i11n l:o link 11ir:c~cl:l.y.
to tourism policy.
l'i. co lflbl re J 1C!11 ~.~ i v r: r c~ v le w ;in 1 J hi L1 l j o ij r .. \ p I 1 y of 1;0111 l~.:;m irnpacl
studies in New Zr~;.il.1111] p.'Jrlicul.:irl.r in Lhc .:ibuvc cDmmunities be
compiled.
l'i. 11urnlH~r of ~~l.111l:iJ·s hc-1-...,,: L11~e11 u11cl1~rL.1b~n 011 1-01.n:isL c]('Slina
lions in New 7.cnl;i111l, 11111r·Ji hy 1.rni1;(~r:;il·y ~;f:1.11li>nt::; .:i111J st."Jff.
Tld~; W<)U]d ~:;r.~1:!: l:o lii•_ili:li•.Jlil. llldjr1r 1 ·1.11111111111il:y i::'.;111·'.; .111<1 pr:ovir:.h·
71
insight::> into the kf:~y i11(l.i.ces anu aL1p:roprial:e metlJCHls on which l.o
base the wider monitoring programme cl1~~>c:ri1ied above.
6. 2 r.oni:;ltJ,djng r:nrurn~.n .. t
This paper presents a number of issues which have not
received much attention in the past. Some within and without the
1 n dust r y may s t i 11 con~; i de :r th a t i. t i s n o t: <lll <n ea o £ ma j or
concern.
the case.
A number of issues presented suggest t!tat this is not
New Zealand is stlll in tlle infancy of its tourism
development. A.!3 tourisrn g1:ows it will inevit.Jbly lwpact on New·
Zealu.nd society - on .i.i:s people, l he .l r 1 l £es t: y 1 es a 11 r] a t l i l u des .
The degree of accP.ptanr.:r.~ of touris111 hy host co111111unil.:i.e::; will
determlne the success or. failure o[ Lhe New Zealu11d ho~;pitality
industry. A style, antJ indeed a level of tourism that does not
have the suppor.t of l:hP. population .1~; not su:::;tainal.>le.
Connnunily values 111u~;t br~ nllowr~c1 Lu influence the nature anc1
type of tourism deve1c)peu i11 this country. Likewise differences
in community aspirations must be resolverJ at a community level.
Early and ongoing cornrnunicatlon are ~3r:>f'n as tllP meclwrd.Bms to en
s u r e t ha t n e g a t i v e i. 111 pa c t s a r e m i 11 l rn i ~:; e cl a n cl l h e md 11 y po s i l i v e
benefits that flow f:rc)fn f:ourism developrn<~nt wo:rk for both the
community and tom: ism ,;.:ilikc.
72
i\1.TE!ID r X J
SOCT J\T, Tllli I Ci'\'f'r1ll.~~ OF 'J'(l!IE l ~:~II J l·JJ:'i\CT
New Zealand Host:s ancl Guests ( Ga t l d 11 <J l 9 8 4 : 5 S f: [ )
Scale ··5 l:o +5 (ll point:)
1. Strong poslti~e ef[ect
Op[•ntti11dLI.•.•:_; f<H 111"~'1.in·.i i1ilJ'l.f:';.:l l11•J 1.11~uvl1! ';:'..(, Q 11 ,:1 1 i t: y n f r (' ~;t. ;_11 tr ; • n l. ~ ~ 2 . 7. Range of shops 7. .1 Fe•.::ll11gs o.f civ.i1: ur.id1-~ 7..J.
2. General positive Prf.~'cl.
Cultural £a6ililies Var i e t y o E t:! n Le r t.:1 i. n 111e n t: Sport:ln9 faciJ.11:.ic:s Maori culture Residents' i11co111e::; Recreational facilitie~:; Preservation of historic: buildings General standr.ncl of: living Oppo.rtunltiet.; f«ir :ioll~:;
3 . Mi n i ma 1 e f f e c I:
C Ii d 11 ':Jr~ 5 i ll 'vh..l y () f J t f C
D r J II g i. 11 'J 11 f:l C' 11 i l rl I ,., 11
FiJ111J JleG wl 1.11 y111111•J 1·J1l l·h•·ll Qu;:i.lity or 1t1e1Jic.:_il :_-;er:v.lces Number of 1.111orr1pJ 1:>y·~rl Concern fot n1.01l~·:·rinl g:1.i.11
o l 1J (' r r e ~; j d r-~ 11 I: : '
4. Miltlly di:'tti.ll!"lil . .il
pt i r. F~ ::; (l f ~; c I: I i ( "1 ;-:
p t: 0 s t i t IJ t i 0 11 Cos l:s of Jw11~; i 11q
5. Most harmful.
Prjces of <Jund:-: ;111.J f';t~r-.;ir·r.=-s
Noise The [ l: a11Cl htr r <J J. .. ~ r y Litter ('0:31:S nf .r1.··11l.'l.l }1 1.•11'..:111•_1
l.111[,01\1()1.lJ:,'llil•· I ('.If I i1: ('<H1'111 .. i1>11::
1 . 9 1. 9 l. 6 1.5 l. 5 1.4 l. 3 1.1 l.l
n.G (). r;. (} . ·1 0.4 () . 3 0.3
· n. 2
.. 0. 8 ·-0. ':) ·-0. 9
.. ] . 1 . l.. 2
1 . ~.i ... l. 7
J • fl
l\ppen<lix 11
'1=21
'!'0!JR IS~! DE'/ELOP:·!:::!G" !:LS:·!S:TS
z IC
...,.~ c e:J < "_i c.i ·.:: c ~
1= 45
Eote!.
l--.:.V~a~c~~~:~i,;o~n.:.....:h~o~~~ .. =~=s~i=c~~~~~2~e~:~s.:.-. __ ~-~ --lc--l--+-+--+-~-+--+---+--~--+--1~f--+--T--+-----+~--l~-1----11--;__~_.1._~~ ~o.!oyces' accc::-... '":1odnt ion,
8S:iO<: .. SVCS.
Gardens ?estaur~~ts, b~rs
~ ~ ~ater sucoly ~ :: ~.!ec~ric.!ty su-:?niy ~ ~ se~a~~ 1isuosa~ ~ .2 Cc::-r.-:J...'1ica.tio?:s r.et·wcrk
3e?.=h installa:!ons ~ I a1te~atior.s,l!3.!:~ fill,e~:.
: :arine. I j I SE: J0lf course i --.!.---~ !:::: s·.ri :.::-..:.:. ~.-:- po0::. I EU i...:::~~c=c=r~t=s~f~i~e~l~.~d=s-,-:-e_n_n_:_s-.-e-,--~-~-. ~--+--+---1--+-.;--;1--;.__~1--.J-_,_~l..-,._~,_..__.--''---l--~-L.-~~--.i.~--.1.-"---r---i
~ c~;,~~~~;/t~::~~~on:tc.) J I l I ·'· = i'-'~f!i i st.:~::----·-··--·--·- -··· - -·- -- ·- -·- ... L .... , .. 11 ···I- !I. '1·.l,.. J, .. l, ---1· ---l, .... ll ____ L __ ~ .. :.: ~ )·1~~ .. -:·:--,_.,·~ ~-=-::..-;!· r [ __
i....::.:;~·?=0=d__;_t~c~a=r~~~i~r.~>~:~·~e~t~"~·~·-'--~t----).-r--1---t--i--i..-,~--i'--J1---:---~'--~=:1=:__.i__.i'---+-l-~l--.:.1~-i.--'---'-·-~I.~ \'i==ei:.ai:.:or.(::::;.:s,'::::.-;;:~:s.e:: 1 I I I 1 :
i-..:.;:..=...=..::.;;..:...::...::.;..:..,..:;_:_-'-"--=-=-:..:.:...::.-'--~~•-~+-7--+--t--t--t--:---;--t--r--~r-'-+-+--.;....-"-~+--;.~..;..---l_.l~-·1 -·-i:o!"al .. shells., ":.;.:;tle s!:i::~l .! 1
Fe~thers, sk!~, bones, I j teet~(b0.:?.r,s:;c.:-~,·-·:rn.1e) ,
!fanu:!'actured (r:etal, ' I -olast.ics&s:rnt.~e:ic Prods) I I
Ar~ (uaintin.:-:: .. et.:: .. } I l Collectors it<?::::s of I I I I c:1ltu::-~J&!J:is:::-:c 'tP..luo.>\
S~xu~l - "Cr:)S:.i:·_."":,~nn -~ectr=;"i t:.es ______ -
·..1e.te:-s0Qrts l~· .. ·i:-_'"'."Jr.~, s:-.::r ke,in~. scuc::.. sur!~n=~
~ - .
Si€htseein~ (~~!7i~€, bus tour, b!~~n~l
("" i ... ;.\t "":nr.ij nr. c··· ......... 1 1 r>•.-·; ... _ ,,o~~,.;;~~ -( v~.11~~.; ,~t;i ;.·~ .. .
ce!"t:o!!!onies, ~~....:1c·~, f~··l:'"". ! Cruis~ or tou~, ~o~t·, t~~
r\P.e!· E.J..thcr.!r.r:,
col l~:.:_~_i_n_r. ____________ ·--·-.. Fi~!: iro .. -
{-' ~
r I
I I I I I I I
I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I I l i 1 ! I ! I I I I i ! J
Add all values for each row ci.nd divide by 21 or add each column and .divide by 45. Pizam, A. (1983:40).
A
B
I~ppendix 3
Figure '1 -' . Scherm for Detennintng Tourism Jmpacts
Objectives
ASSESSMENT or. CURRENT DEMAND
I TOURISTS I 15TAYING Vl~ITORS) l
I VAY VJSITUPS rllOIC OITT SI DE TH£ 9lJB-RrG!OH
I R&SIDl:HTS
ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE DEMAND
I l
I I
;~~=!i~~ VIS!TOP.S,. r-----,
DAY VISITORS fRO" OUTSIDf. TllC SUR-Rl:GJON
Rf.SI CENTS -
Information Required
l. Vol'-- of f lov1 lnto area 2. 6ea90nal v•rl•tJon• ln tM•• flow• l. Volu.•1 of ,..,..,. within •r•• C. htt•rna ot flowt vlthln u•• S. Drltl"' erd ch•thutJona er tovrt•t• 6.. 8oclo-H•orw:.Jc proUl•• l. ""l'poH Of Vldt 8 0 1.AYf'l I Of Hthfaction 9. t•JMn<Htur•
10, Acccm.odatJ.0111 uud ltourhta ~) lJ. rraqu•ncy or •l•ll
1. 5~10-.eon011lc pror U•• J. Daily lehura •ctivtty p.1tt1rna
l. Dally non-hhur• •t"tlvlty ~tterna 4. l.lp-orcUture on hl.vre 5. lAveh of Htl•hC'tlon 6. Volu.e of llowa within uea
.l. S••.onal varl•tlon• In fl,,.w• 9, P•ll•rn• of Uow• vJthin •t••
1, PrO,•Clttd f"OPuletlon char11Q••t ll'r1udlnq • roneld•r•llon of •UC'h l•ctor• •" lnco.e, v•hJcJ• ow'""'"" •hip, •tc. 1 out•lde th• reqlon, but vlthln Jt• c•tctu..rnt ar••
2. f"r<')~l•d c-o-untcat: ton chanqe• "Ith.In •nd our eJd• th• •r•a
), ho)echd chanq .. • In •urply vJthln and out •l1h tta• •r••
•· bpechd ch•nq•• In hal ld•y hablt• of I•) U.l. r••ldente and lb) for•'qn vhltar1
I. Lat..nt d-and
Research Methods
I l I
I
I l
f l
TrafUr ''°"' lurv•y ar)l'f 'rlafttc "'• l•nr1•1
Cordon 51.1r,,..y1
Ko.e tntervlew liiurny
Local T'r•n•porlAUon tltudy
O.•'li StU'\y end 0.94nd ror•C"••t
l'WMlll"'l
I
I
I I
From:
c
D
ASSESSMENT OF THE SUPPLY OF LEISUIE FACILITIES AND RESC>UiCES
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT
TOURISTS ISTAYllOG VISITORS!
DAY VIS !TORS fll''" (1llflill1C ThY. Gllft• ~1.c; ION
llr.8 I DENTS
Duffield, B. and Walker, s.
1. I nv•ntory of ••n-.-.de r••ourc•• and hclllth•
l. ln\f•ntory of neturel r••Ource• J. Ttw •ltl•llnq anct pot•nt l•l cap.-clty
ot th41•• r•11<>urc"'• anil hcllltl••
PHYSICAL AHO 'ECOLOGICAL
J. 0.•tructlr>n or Modlflcatlon or llabtrat
). O•utrtK"tton ot Ml)dlflc.:•tlon ot l.andu·•l-4 llncludtnq Vl•ual l•p.CtaJ
l. O.Uructlon or Dhturb-ance ol
a) P'Jora and TaYna bl Geol<>qy ct aoll
~ .. Pol lutlon Qccurr tn9 (Alr, Wat•r, Nol••• e.9.L1ttertnq
ICCf ....... IC
l. Dlr•ct and lndlr•ct £1\Ca.e fto. tourtar•
:z. Loc•l authority l'PV•nue fro• touclal•
) • r., .. , of tour I at. to local •uthorlty ln 111"1•• of ••IYIC•a ., .. , 1 .. 1111u1• tac~•• u I••
4. Ol u·1·1 •nil I n'1l rrr.1 .._ploymenl 1uu .. tn ... 1 by 1nurl111•
S,. r:.,nlrlbutlon ut lourlat• to rr.uno.lc vJeblllly nf
1 .. 1 P'lv•••lr '""""""'d l•••"u• l•cllltl••· end lhl puhllcly nwrw-11 l"'la111• l•clllll•• and fH1hl I<.• ••rYIC'r•
:111J1"IA1.
I. lnfr.-•tt'Hf'fuf'"l c-h .. 11q••
l. ~nrt•I Atr lt11tl"•
1. Ch"'"'-1"• In 1 .. m1 u•• lrur•I lo 11f'h•nl
4:, u- ur S•rvtc,. f•t·I 111 l•• 'ii. :a ru1.·1 ,,,. .. 1 t·tMn'J"" In
1••1 .. 11,.c Inn 1·0•1•u•ll Ion
''• h.,h,.vleou,.,.I "' lrt:l ••"•'f• c:rl-
1984:484.
Appendix
r l
I I.
De•k Study end rte Id &vr"W•Y
0.s'a 5tuty
rl~ld 91uv•Y and Hunltnrlnq
Cordon Suf'YllllY of
i:xpudltut• retter,,•
1111•1h••• Sur-y •NI Loe.al AulMrlly li:ludy
r.r.ofV>tllc ltu··,....... end r..pln~nl ....,It lpl t•f
,... .. , .. ,
Dfo•ll llt• .. ty
'""'- '"''"'""'"""'
°""'Ila •.t .... .,. ,,, ~-.1.11 .. 1 .... 1
:il.111 .. 11 ...
l
I
APPENDIX 4
Social and Cultural Liaison Group
Recommendation 1: .The establishment of a social impact liaison
group .to identify major social impacts of tourism development,
advise on matters of national tourism planning and policy and of
fer guidance to regional forums.
Potential contributors
* NZTP
* NZTC
* Ministry of Works (Social Policy Section)
* Department of I11ternal Affairs/Ministry of Recreation
and Sport
* New Zealand Police
* New Zealand Maori Tourism Cour1cil/DepurtnH!nl o[ Maori
antl Island Affairs
* Department of Social Welfare
* Housing Commission
* Labour Department
* Tourism Reseachers
Functions
(i) To liaise and advise on matters of social and cultural
impact of tourism development
( i i ) To advise on matters of policy
(iii) To develop research priorities
(iv) To co-ordinate and advise researchers to areas of need
76
(v) To initiate and sponsor research
(vi) To provide information to and within regional Tourism
Advisory Groups.
77
APPENDIX 5
Re q i o 11 al Tour i s rn Adv i. ~:;or y Gr o ups
Recommendation 2: The establishment of regio11al tourism advisory
groups to assist u~9jo11al local and canl:ral govP.rrune11t in plan
ning for tourism.
Example: CanLr.:!tl>ury Tourl~j)rt ALlvl:c1ory Committee
Functions
The Canterbury Pro1110Lior1 Counc.i l w.111 service the commi tlee
th~ough the Executive Officer, and minutes will be taken by their
committee secretary.
The committee will receive items for consideration from any
quarter anu·will be charged with discussing and deciding the ap
propriate action within the following objectives:
1. To co-ordinate the views of Canterbury's tourism interests
2. To communicate beLw€~en Cant:erbui:y's tourism interests
3. To liaise and maintain contact with Local Authorities,
Government Ministers and Government Departments
4. To co-ordinate the input into preparation aml revision of
regional policies for tourism and to leau discussion
5. To consider tourism development needs and opportunities for
Canterbury
78
6 . To encourage fin.:..tncial
development
investrne11l in Canterbury tourism
7. To encourage hl•jlier standard::> a11d value for money tour ism
facilities in Canterbury
8. To comment on p];:lnning issue~; relevant to Cante:r:bury's
tou:r:lsm inte:r:est.
9. To effect: i:l (J1·e;1t:er. awar.c11e::;~; ;111<1 ;1pprt!cjation of the
benefits of tourism
10. To advise the executive of the Cantc:r:bu:r:y P:r:omotion Council
on any tourism matters discussed and make recommendations
for any further: action.
Position
The committee will rank as the senior forum for tourism dis
cuss ion and comment within and on behalf of the Canterbury United
Council region.
The committee will 1.ak0. a po~_;ition ~;omPwherc between lhe
Canterbury United Council wilh its broad planning functions and
desire for advice and comment on tourism matters, and the Canter
bury Promotion Council with its wider geographic area and more
specific p:r:omotional and membership functions.
79
Mode 1 f or Reg i o n a 1 ·To u r. i s m Adv i s or y Gr o u p s (Based on Canterbury Tourism Advisory Committee)
Executive Sector
Accommodation and Catering
Travel Agents/ Tour Operators
·Transport
Retail
Promotion
Regional MP
Advisory - Education
Supporting Members
MANZ Hl\NZ CCA YHA Accommodation Council
- Catering Institute - Res U:rn rant Assoc 1<11: i on
ITOC T.l\ANZ l\.AC NZIT
Airlines Bus and Coach l\ssocl<.:J.tion Taxis Rental Vehicle Association
Retail Federation Souvenirs Regional Arts Council Customs
Promotion Council Executive ) Marketing ) Standing Committees Facilities) Home Hospitality
Regional MPs
DFC Locol Universities/Polytechnics l\TITB JJCITB NZTP
a o
Planning
Outdoor Recreation
Natural Resource Management
Facilities/Heritage
United Cuu11L' i 1 MWD Loe a 1 Bod l e!3
Public Utilities
Outdoor Recreation Information Centre Ski fields Attraction Milnagers
NZ Fore!d: S<~rvicc
Department o[ L."lnds anJ Survey
Attractions - public recreation facility Town Hall
Historl.cal places Convention Centres
NECESSARY .ADDITIONS TO ACCOJ1110D.ATE
MONITORING OF SOCIAL Il1PACTS ) Department uf Social Welfare
Ministry of Recreation and Sport
Social Services Rep. Community Services (L.A.)
New Zealand Police
~abour Department
Maori and Other Local 'Tri~ul' affiliations
Polynesian Interests Cultural facilities (e.g. Marae)
Dept of Maori and Island Affairs
81
Aonendix 6
Recommended Communities for Focussing Social Research
Place Size Function(s)/bases
Christchurch 289,959 Gateway Rotorua 48,314 Resort, Cultural Queenstown 3,367 Resort
Paihia 1,740 Resort, summer Russell 932 Resort, historical Waitangi 248 Resort, cultural, historical
Franz Josef 407 Regional gateway, natural
Appendix h.
Community Size
Tourism Function
Gateway
Resorts (i) Full year
{ii) Summer
{iii) Winter
Regional Stopover
.is'i se, I t:-tv ~n lo<-'«' ~ CC1t' !'ea ~itJ ~tee
G) , :u
.. ~ JI. I I
• • .J if
I'
i ~ '~8 •
I /7
;·Is 8 1.1.. ~·
,ttl ,t; 0 0
i // 19
JI;\. p
\_!__)tr ~ " //,
• If
,. .. CJ :8 ~5
L~--- , ________ _ ________ _____.:i_____ __________ _______jr __ . _________ ,_______ t
KEY:
1 e_ A 101PL-J
KEY --1. Ohakune 178 2. Waitomo 234 3 . Milford 257 4. Waitangi 284 5. Franz Josef 407 6. Fox 538 7 . Mt Cook 610 8 . Akaroa 694 9. Westport 870
10. Russell 932 11. Methven 950 12. Wanaka 1,155 13. Kerikeri 1,317 14. Paihia 1,740 15. Whitianga 1,960.-.,__ Zto;o _.... .. 16. Picton 3,220 17. Queenstown 3,367 18. Greymouth 11,604 19. Tau po 15,356 20. Tauranga 37,099 21. Nelson 43,121 22. Rotorua 48,314 23. Dunedin 107,445 24. ·Christchurch 289,959 25. Wellington 321,004 26. Auckland 769,558
Source: NZ Department of Statistics NZ Census of Populations and Dwellings (1981) Vol. 1. Part B. Location and Increase in Population Tables 5, 7, 11.
Factor II Resource Base
· Comrnuni ty Size
Natural
Cultural
Factor III
International
Domestic.
tl,5{; ~ 1~ 5l,-cc i '· -------~------'--
• :J.. .J
(~Or 'VL1
f:\, ~)
I 1~• §' vi~
Market Orientation
I , • ·Q 5 7
I c:J?;~
/c 0-Ct, ~eco /[){) lfev
8 .I
GD w ~ ..
I ;9 tc 21
REFERENCES
Archer, B. M. (1976) Demand Forecasting in Tourism. University of Wales press, BGngor.
Brougham, J. & Butler, R. (1981) 'A segrnent:ation analysis of resident attituae~.> lo !:he social impact of tourism'. Annals of Tourism Research 8(4):569-590.
Bryden, J. (1973) Tourism Development: a case study of the Commonwealth Carribean. Cambridge U.P., New York.
Burkhart, A. s. & Medlik, S. (1981) (2nd ed.) Tourism, Past, pr es e n t a n a f 1.1 t u r e . He i n e ma n n . L on d on .
Butler, R. (1974) 'Social Implications of Tourjsm Development'. Annals of Tourism Research 2:100-111.
Butler, R. (1980) 'The Concept of Evolution: implications for Canadian Geographer 24(1) :5-12.
a Tourist management
Area of
Cycle of resources'.
cant, R. (1980) · 'The impact of tourism on the host community -the Queenstown example'. In Tourism in the South Pacific. Pearce, D. (ed) NZ MAB Report No. 6, Department of Geography, University of Canterbury.
Cant,. R. (1981) The Development and Queenstown. NZ/MAB Report No. 7. University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
Impact Dept
of Tourism in of Geography,
Clark, R. N. & Stankey, G. M. (1979) The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: a framework for planninq management and research. USDA Fore~3t Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment SlaLlon. General Technic<'ll Report PNW - 98 (Dec.).
Cohen, E. (1972) 'Towards a Sociology of International Tourism'. Social Research 39:164-82.
Cohen, E. (1974) 'Who is a tourist? A conceptual clarification'. Sociological Review 22:527-53.
Cohen, E. (1979) 'A phenomenology of tourist experiences'. Sociology 13 (2):179-201.
Cohen, E. (1979b) 'Rethinking the Sociology of Tour.ism'. Annals of Tourism Research 6(1) 18-35.
de Kadt, E. (1979a) Tourism: Passport to Developw~nl:. A joint World Bank-UNESCO Study, Oxford University Press, New York.
de Kadt, E. (1979b) Social Planning for Tourism in the Develop-
86
ing Countries'. Airnals of To11rism Research (6)1:36-18.
Department of Statistics (1981) Dwellings~ Vol. PLirt 3. Population.
NZ Census o[ Location
Population anu Illcrease
and in
Doxey, G. (1976) 'A c~usation theory of visitor-resident irritants: metlto(lology and research inferences'. Proc. of the Trrivel Re-;earch Assn 6th Annual Conference, SLind Diego, California: J.95-198.
Duffielcl,
ECE (1975)
B. & Walker. (19134) . 77'<. 11-~{t•".'>.<...1:---7{.\/ ~/ /~:.-11,.~-i l~1~1r I
1rv IJ"1:j1_~< _l_i ... ~!.L .. '.!i __ F.,,':.!. ;·1..~:.'..~~!.'.'::·_t~.L 1··1·-yc:.1 .'.!!!:·,~_,_:_··~:./ . edi ;:J.-!.s(ri;..' i l't""'"c . .,1 /o'f••/. _1) /(<·'id.rl /.J1 Cc. 1~·.nlreu\I
fi.:.11t1, . ..{ . ), , . . . • I r..i . /C::, .<. ..... ) ·/ I t-..tli.( J l·--1 ,,.., ' ... ' . •. ·i }Jc~--,. /f:.-1" iv>·t<I-• l c.'° ~ __ ......... --· ............... ____ ,___
... •:..-. ,.\.,,, , .. ,~ t .1.-... ,_..... 4-----·----~·- -- ·····-~--·- -(!~·: ___ Q=~~~;1-y_!_;,_~--:···-··-·--;.~c,,1.. ,., .. ._ i t•'-l :~,, .\ ~, ~ ~ -~·;t { '<r't)c' • .
.., ;-.,· t' , . : . , c/ ' ~ u·H (". ,; •'-'- ,;r.-( . lY.t b;··t VY11 I I<" ( l{t-'-J' e !; /C. "u() <.k I 14 71-·•---·«t'-<·'-"-> • ... 7~ 1 .•. . ' I
llil,t fo:( l.: /1c n.\ 4 t •. J ircrA. 1<ry1_..
EIU (Economist Intelligence Unit) (1982) International Tonrism to 1990. EIU Special Serles No. 4. (Edwards, A., Clevedon, R.). Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, Mass.
Garland, R. (1984) NZ Hosts and Gue:3!:s. Massey University, New Zealand.
Getz, D. (1983) 'Capacity to AbsCJrb Tourisrn -· concepts and im-plications for strategic planning'. Annals of Tourism Research 10(2) :239-263.
Gunn, C. (1979) Touri.srn Planning. Crane Russak, New York.
Henshall, B. & Mzn:sl1, N. (1981) A Social Values Markeling Model of Tourism and New Zealand: A Strategic Analysis. Working Paper NTA 81/3. The Department of Management Studies, University of Auckland, Auckland.
Henshall, B. et al (1982) Tonrism .in New Zcala11d - A Strategic Analysis. Final Report No. 8. The Department of Management Studies, University of Auckland, Auckland.
IUOTO (1963) The United Nation's Conference on International Travel and Tour ism. IUOTO/UN Geneva.
Jafari, J. (1977) Editor's Page. Annals of Tourism Research Vol. 5 (Special Issue) 6-11.
Jafari, J. & Ritchie, Tourism Education'.
J.R.B. (1981) 'Toward a Fr.Jmework for Annals of Tour.ism Research 8 ( 1): 13-34.
87
Leiper, N. (1979) 'The ·Framework of Tourism'. Annals of Tourism Research 6(4) :390-107.
Leiper, N. (1985) 'Tourism rirHl Lei:.;ure: the sig11ificarice of tourism in the 11:!.l::;ure spectr.um'. Les C~1lt.i.en; uu Tourlsme No. 44. Centre des Hautes Etudies, Touristique. Universite de Droit, D'economie et des Sciences. Aix-en-p.rovence.
Lundberg, D. (1974) Tl1A Tourist Business. Cahners, Boston.
MacCannell, Class.
D. (1976) The Tourst - A new theory of tile Leisure Schoken, New York.
McHarg, I. (1971) Deslgn with Nature. Double1lay, Natura 1 History Press, United Kingdom.
Macintosh, R. practices,
w. (1977) philosophies.
(2nd ed.) Colornbus.
Tourism: principles, Grid.
Mahuta, R. T. and Nottlngham, I. (1985) A paper presented to Framework of Wairakei. June 1985.
'Culture and Tourism'. Tourism Course. THC
Manning, (1979) 'Tourism and Bermuda's Black Clubs: Cl case of cultural revitalisation'. Ch. 11 in Tourism: passport to development? de Kadt (ed), Oxforu University Press, New York.
Mathews, H. (1977) cial analysis.
International Tourism - a political and soSchenkman Pub. Co. Cambr. Mass.
Mathieson, 'A. & Wall, G. (1982) Tourism: economic, physical and social impacts. Longman, Essex, United Kin13dom.
Math i cs on, A. ( 19 11 r:; ) ' Soc .l i11 Im.pact: s of Ton r. ism: <'l slate of the art'. Les Cah iers du tour isme No. 44. Centre de Hautes Etudies touristiques. Universite de Droit, d'Economie et des Sciences, Aix-en-Provance, France.
Mings, R. C. (1980) 'll. review of the vublic support. for international tour ism in New Zealand'. NZ Geoqrapher 36 ( 1): 20-29.
Ministry of Works and Development N/d (cJ.985) Social Impact Assessmenl: in N1~w Zealand - a practical a·pproach. Town and Country Plannir1q Di:recto:rate, M.W.D., Welli!lgton.
. I I ,. l ( l l ·. (: .. "j1 !.'..•y,. "''!() 1-v\ (._ I I I -- ,.. t I . I t -t c '"'" , .. ( - ',_ 1·:1 ' L -~ Mitchell, s--.;:; (19134) /l.•.:11~·:~\.- k.<.{<1~n ... ....._ · · \ I.~ {)e-t~n<' .ve , Geo-journal Vol. q., N.~.(1 1 5-·- S r r
88
Murphy, P. (1983) 'Tnui:i~>m ;:is a Community Innurd:r.y -- an ecologi-cal model of l:r.1ui:is1n clevelopment'. _,Journal of Tourism Management (4) :.lU0-193.
Nettekoven, L. (1979) 'rti:·chanlsms nf Inter.:cultural Interactions'. de Kad t ( ecJ) .
Ch. 9 in Tour ism: p;,ssport to Development? Oxford University Press, New York.
Nikora, Tamaroa R. presented to Z\ugust 1984. 1985).
(1981) 'Maori Values <.rnu Park Values'. Paper People and P.'1rks Seminar; Lincoln College. (Published by Department o[ Lc.rn<b and Survey,
NTA (National Travel l\;,::>oc.l;it:ion) (1983) Knowl1?dqe ;rn<l l\wareness of Tourism Amonqst New Zealanders. (By Survey Research -Research International Ltd), Auckland.
NZ Tourist and Publicity (1976) Australian Holiday/Vacation Visitors to New Zealand: October 1975 March 1976. N.Z.T.P. Wellington.
NZ Tourist and Publicity (1982) Travel Study". Vol. 1,
"NZ International Ren Series No. 11.
Visitors NZTP,
Wellington.
(1984) New ZRill;:ind Tourism: NZ To11rlsrn Council Policies. (March).
Ne w Z ea 1 a n cl Tour i s I: a 11 d P u. b 1 i c i t y , Issues and Wellington
OECD (1974) 'Tourism policy and international trends in OECD Member Countries'. OECD Paris.
OECD (1980) The Impact of Tourism on the Environment. General Report, OECD, Paris.
PATA (1983) Report: Wo:r.kshop on Measuring the Impact of Tourism. PATA Research Authority, Hong Kong, August 1983.
Pearce, D. (1980) Tourism in the South Pacific. UNESCO Tourism Workshop, Rarotonga, June 10-13 Biosphere Report No. 6. Dept of Geography, Canterbury, New Zealand.
Proceeds of 19 8 0. Man in University of
Pearce, D. (1981) Tourism Development. Topics in Applied Geography, Longman, Essex, United Kingdom.
Plzam, A. (197fl) 'Tourism's impacts: the social cosls to the destination as perceived by its residents'. Journal of Travel Research 16 (4) :8-12.
Pizam, A. (1983) 'Lecture 4: Soc.i.al and Cull:ural Costs and Benefits' in. PATA Research Authority - Report - Workshop on Measuring l:hc Tmpnr.I: of Tourism. !long Kong, Au9ust 1983. PATA San Francisco, California.
p 1 i mme r , N . ( 19 1J 5 ) ' Tr en cl s i n Wo r. 1 <] Tour ism ' . Paper pres en tea to Framework of Tourism Course, Wairakei, June.
Plimmer, N. (1985b) Manaakitanga Hui. Keynote speaker. Rotorua. September 25-27.
Plog, s. - (1973) 'Why destinations rise and fall ln popularity'. CornelL Hotel Restaurant Administration Quarterly, November: 13-16.
Ritchie, J. Brent, and Zins, Michael (1978) 'Culture as deter-minant of the attractiveness o[ a tourism region'. Annals o f Tour i s m Re s ea r ch . 157." 2 ) .' ,). ~,; J ·- J. l ?-·
Runyan, D., Wu, c. (1979) 'As:3e~_;:.;Jng tourism's more complex consequences'. Annals of Tourism Research 6(4):448-463.
Sai·+g-o, C. (1979) 'Touri!_;m for Discovery: Villages, Lower Cassamance, Senegal. passport to development? de Kadt (ed), Press, New York.
A project in Four Ch. 18 in Tourism:
Oxford University
Sm i th , . V . ( 1 9 7 7 ) . Ho ~;t: s <i nc1 Gue s ts : t: he a 11 I: hr op o J. o g y o f t our i s m . University of Philadelphia Press, Penn.
Strongman, Henare presentation.
(19R5) ManaakH:a11ga Hui. Rotorua. September 25-27.
Panel discussion
Taylor, N. & Sharp, R. ( 19 8 3) _S_o_c..~· i_;._.J~l~i_m~r:~Jr""":H'""'":""'"t~s__.("-' ["'""· __._m=a'--J._· o"-'r"'"-=r_..e_... s"-0"""1=1=r"""c~e development projects concerns for research anLl planning. Centre for Resource Management, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.
Te Awekntuku, N. (1981) The Sociocultural Impact of tourism on the Te Araw.:i people of Rotorua. University of Waikato, New Zealand. Unpublished PhD. Thesis.
Tho mas on , P . , Cr om p t on , J . &. Kern p , D . ( 1 9 7 9 ) ' A S tu d y o f the At -titudes of Impacted Groups within a Host Community Toward Prolonged Stay Tourist Visitors'. Jnl of Travel Research, 17 3:2-6.
Trav,.is, A. (1980) 'The Need for Policy Action'. Ch. 4 in The Impact of Tourism on the Environment. OECD, Paris.
90
Travis, ·A. (1982) 't·fan;10in•J the envlr.onmental and cultural im-pacts _of Lour ism ;_u1rJ leisure development'. Journ.::il of Tour ism Mandqeml:!rtl: J ( 4) 256-262.
tnmsco (1976) 'The Effect3 of Tourlsrn 011 :Joclo-cultur.al values'. Annals of Tourism Research 5(2) :74-lOS.
Wall, G. (1982) 'Cycle!':~ anc.1 C.::ipacity: incipient: tl1P.or.y or con-ceptual contradiction'. Jo111:n;:i.l of Tourism Management 1982 (September) 188-192.
Wetere, Koro (1985) Manaakitanga Hui. Opening CJddress. Rotorua September 25-27.
Win i a t a , P . ( l 9 8 '.) ) ' Ur CJ e n t He e fl au s try Feder at ion News 1 et I: er . Wn.
Wlnlata, P. (1985) 'Talia Maori'. Zealand Institub'! of Travel.
91
for r.Ji;inge'. N7. Tourism Inll..llljllst/September 1985. NZTF,
Paper presented l;o the New
APPENDIX 1 NEW ZEALAND TOURIST AND PUBLICITY DEPAR'IMENT
General Manager PO Box 95 WELLINGTON 256 Lambton Quay Phone 728 860
· · Telex 3491
- W N Plimner
NZTP Off ices in New Zealand
Regional Manager: AUO<LAND - 99 Queen Street PO Box 428 Ph(09) 798-180
Fax (09) 797-866 Telex NZ2472 ROTORUA - 67 Fenton Street Private.Bag Ph(073) 85-179
Fax (073) 86-044 'J:'.elex NZ22[}2 WELLIN:;'ION - 25-27 Mercer Street . · PO Box 11-394 Ph(04) 739-269
Fax (04) 711-952 Telex NZ3482 0-IRISTOIUROI - 65 cathedral Square PO Box 2105. Ph(03) 794-900
Fax (03) 794-975 Telex NZ4457 DUNEDIN - 131 Princes Street PO Box 72 Ph(024) 740-344
Fax (024) 741-930 ; Telex NZ5664 QUEENS~ - 49 Shotover Street PO Box 253 Ph(0294) 28238
Fax (0294) 28-114 Telex NZ5678
NZTP Off ices Overseas
NEW YORK - Suite 530, 630 Fifth Ave N.Y. 10111 Phone (212) 586-0060, Telex No 23-261100, Fax (212) 247-0732 .
LOS ANGELES - Suite 1530, 10960 Wilshire Bvd C.A. 90024 Phone (213) 4778241, Telex No 23-215336, Fax (213) 473-5621
SAN FRANCISCO - Citycorp Centre, Suite 810, One Sansone Street, CA 94104, Phone (415) 788-7404, Telex No 23-278371, Fax (415) 788-1086
VANCOUVER - Suite 1260, 701 West Georgia Street B.C. V7Y1B6 Phone (604) 6842117, Telex No 210-455186, Fax (604) 684-1265
LONOON - New Zealand House, Haymarket, SWlY 4'IQ Phone (1) 9308422, Telex No 51-24368, Fax (1) 839-4580
FRANKFURT - Kaiseroofstrasse 7, 6000 Frankfurt am Main Phone (69) 288189, Telex No 41-4189331, Fax (69) 281-482
TOKYO - Toh:> Twin Tower Building, 2F, 1-5-2 Yuraka-coo, Chiyoda-ku, Prone (3) 5089981, Telex No 72-32427, Fax (3) 501-2326
OSAKA
SYDNEY
MELBOURNE
BRISBANE
PERTH
ADELAIDE
Sil\GAPORE
HONG KONG
ARGENTINA
- NZ CoJ;1SUlate-General, Daiwa Bank Sanba Building 9F 4-21 M:i.namisernba 4-Clxme, Minami ku, Osaka 542 Phone (06) 243-2756, Fax (6) 243-3271, Telex No. 3-63034
- 1st Floor, Network House, 84 Pitt Street, N.S.W. 2000, Phone (2) .221-7372, Telex No 71-20781, Fax (2) 235-0737
- 270 Flinders Street, VIC 3000, Phone (3)6505133, Telex No 71-34955, Fax (3) 650-5168
- Watkins Place, 288 Edward Street, QLD 4000 Phone (7) 2213722, Telex No 71-4180-3, Fax (7) 229-7495
- 16 St George's Terrace, WA 6000, Phone (9) 325-7055, Telex No 71-93700, Fax (9) 325-2820
- 26 Flinders Street,. Adelaide 5000 Phone (8) 2310700, Telex No 71-186264, Fax (8) 231-1931 . . . ; , .
- 13 Nassim Road, Si.ajapore 1025~ Ph:>ne·'.2359966, Telex No 87-21244, Fax 733-9924
- 3414 Connaught Centre, Connaught Road, Hong Kong, Phone (5) 255-044, Fax (5) 845-2915, Telex 80~-73932
- Raul C Roca, Marcelo T Alvear 590, 10th Floor, Buenos Aires, Phone (1) 664-143, .Telex No 33-22680, Fax (1) lll-219A
APPENDIX II Library Free List - Reference Copies
Kerikeri Public Library Whangarei 11 11
Auckland 11 11
Manukau II II
Hamilton II II
Cambridge II II
Tauranga II II
Gisborne II II
Rotorua II II
New Plyrrouth11 II
Taupo II II
Hastings II' II
Napier II II
Wanganui II II
Palmerston North II II
Masterton II II
Wellington. II II
Nelson Public Library Blenheim II II
Orristchurch 11 II
Ashburton II II
Timaru II " Oamaru II " Greyrrouth II " Alexandra II " Cronwell II " Queenstavn II " Dunedin II " Invercargill 11 "
NZTP Head Off ice Library
Auckland Technical Institute Library Manukau Polytechnic Library Waiariki Cormunity Colledge Library, Rotorua Central Institute of Technology Library, Heretaunga, Upper Hutt Manawatu Polytechnic Library Technical Corresi;:ondence Institute Library, Lower Hutt Nelson Polytechnic Library Orristchurch Polytechnic Library otago Polytechnic Library
All University Libraries (7)
Tourist Industry Federation Library - Wellington National Library of New Zealand, Wellington Exchange & Gift Di vision (A & B), Library of Congress, Washington OC Overseas English Section, British Library, England Preliminary Precessing, National Library of Australia
·APPENDIX 3 - OIIDER FORM To Research Section New Zealand Tourist & Publici;t:Y Department Head Office PO Box 95 Wellington NEW ZEALAND
Please send me the following titles:
Title Cost
1. . ................................................... $ ..•.......
2. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i·· ••••••••••••••• • $ •
3. . $.
4. . ................................................... $ ••••
5. . ................................................... $ ......... .
6. . $.
7. .$.
8. . . $.
9. . . $.
10. • • t. ............................................ .$ .
11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,• ........... . .. $ .
12. .$.
13. . . $.
14. . . $.
15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ .
Total Cost $ ••••••••••
ENSURE GIEQUE IS ENCLOSED
Send to - Name
Address
