i

OPERATIONALISING TOURISM CARRYING CAPACITY

ASSESSMENT IN FIJI: A CASE STUDY OF TWO RESORTS AND

THREE VILLAGES IN KADAVU

by

Marika Kuilamu

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the

requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Copyright © 2012 by Marika Kuilamu

School of Tourism and Hospitality Management

Faculty of Business and Economics

The University of the South Pacific

June, 2012

ii

Declaration

Statement by Author

I, Marika Kuilamu, declare that this thesis is my own original work and that, to the best

of my knowledge, it contains no material previously published, or substantially

overlapping with material submitted for the award of any other degree at any

institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the text.

Signature………………………………… Date……………………………………..

Name………………………………………………………..………………………….. Student ID No………………………………………………………………………….. Statement by Supervisor

The research in this thesis was performed under my supervision and to my knowledge

is the sole work of Mr. Marika Kuilamu

Signature…………………………………………. Date……………………………

Name………………………………………………………………………………….

Designation……………………………………………………………………………

iii

Dedication

To my Heavenly Father

for his wisdom, guidance and strength.

I dedicate this thesis back to him.

and

To my faithful wife Ruth, and my sons, John and Joshua

Thank you for your support and prayers

iv

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements are due to a number of people who have enabled me to complete

my thesis.

First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my Heavenly Father for giving me the

strength and grace. This is a testimony to his faithfulness. He taught me in my

moments of doubt to trust him and be strong.

To my principal supervisor, Professor David Harrison, thank you very much for your

patience and guidance, for giving me direction in the writing of this thesis. A big

vinaka vakalevu to Professor William Aalbersberg [Associate supervisor], for believing

in me.

To Eliki Masa, thank you for your kind help and assistance.

To my wife Ruth, and my two boys, John and Joshua, thank you for your support and

prayers.

To all my work colleagues at the School of Tourism and Hospitality Management,

thank you for all the support and words of encouragement.

v

Abstract In order to achieve sustainable tourism development, key stakeholders must understand

the concept of carrying capacity and ensure that tourism resources in destinations are

used within their acceptable limits. One way of achieving this is through the use of

sustainability indicators. Indicators are used as tools to monitor tourism development

and provide decision makers with key information relating to the management of

tourism resources within a destination. How can sustainability indicators be used to

determine if destinations have reached their carrying capacity? What indicators can be

used to identify sustainable development? In what ways can strategies be developed to

integrate the outcomes of sustainability monitoring so that development is more

sustainable?

This research examines the impact of tourism on the island of Kadavu. In particular, it

looks at the economic, socio-cultural, and environmental practices currently prevailing

in three villages and two resorts; the current perceptions of tourism prevailing in the

communities being studied and how they are impacted by tourism and the current

perceptions of tourists about Kadavu as a tourist destination.

The research reveals that the three local communities are supportive of tourism.

Tourism is seen as a provider of employment and a generator of income; it has

improved their standard of living and has allowed them to see the value of their God-

given resources. Many would like to see more tourists visiting the island.

Tourists like Kadavu as a destination and feel that more tourists can visit the island

without affecting the tourist experience. Tourists believe Kadavu should be kept in its

present state and many indicated that they would return if they are given the

opportunity.

Resort and community practices reveal that they are below the carrying capacity level.

However, awareness, capacity building and mentoring needs to be conducted.

Environmentally friendly infrastructure needs to be put in place and daily practices

need to be monitored so that problems are identified early and addressed so that

tourism benefits are maximised and negative impacts are minimised.

Overall, this study contributes to a greater understanding of sustainable tourism on

small islands and how sustainability indicators can be used to operationalise tourism

carrying capacity assessment in emerging small island destinations.

vi

Table of Contents Declaration .......................................................................................................................................... ii Dedication ........................................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iv Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. v List of Tables ..................................................................................................... viii List of Figures .......................................................................................................x List of Acronyms ................................................................................................. xi Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Overview of study ........................................................................................2 1.2 Organisation of thesis ..................................................................................5 Chapter 2 Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Development................................................................................................7 2.2 Sustainable Development .............................................................................8 2.3 Tourism Development................................................................................ 10 2.3.1 Tourism as a system .................................................................................. 16 2.4 Tourism in developing countries ................................................................ 18 2.5 Community participation and attitudes ....................................................... 20 2.5.1 Doxey’s Irritation Index............................................................................. 22 2.5.2 Butler’s Tourist Area Life Cycle. ............................................................... 22 2.5.3 Social exchange theory .............................................................................. 23 2.5.4 Indigenous Tourism ................................................................................... 24 2.6 Sustainable Tourism Development ............................................................. 25 2.6.1 Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria .......................................................... 27 2.6.2 Sustainability Approaches ......................................................................... 28 2.6.3 Protected Area Visitor Impact Management (PAVIM) ............................... 29 2.6.4 Tourism Optimization Management Model [TOMM] ................................ 30 2.6.5 Visitor Experience Resource Protection (VERP)........................................ 31 2.6.6 Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment [TCCA] ....................................... 31 2.6.7 Tourism carrying capacity as a planning tool ............................................. 34 2.6.8 Major parameters for TCCA ...................................................................... 35 2.6.9 Studies of TCCA ....................................................................................... 36 2.6.10 Criticism of carrying capacity ............................................................... 38 2.6.11 Limits of Acceptable Change [LAC] ..................................................... 38 2.7 Types of tourist destinations....................................................................... 40 Chapter 3 Tourism Development in the South Pacific ................................................. 42 3.1 Tourism in the South Pacific ...................................................................... 42 3.2 Tourism development in Fiji ...................................................................... 46 3.3 Fiji Tourism Development Plan 2007–2016 ............................................... 51 3.4 Tourism in Fiji today ................................................................................. 52 3.4.1 Impacts of Tourism in Fiji ......................................................................... 53 3.4.2 The Environment Management Act ........................................................... 55 3.4.3 Environmentally Sustainable Small Hotels and Resorts ............................. 57 3.4.4 Licensing of Properties .............................................................................. 57 3.4.5 Review of Ecotourism Projects in Fiji ........................................................ 57 3.4.6 Green Fiji Tourism Accreditation .............................................................. 58 3.4.7 Tourist Carrying Capacity Assessment at the Coral Coast .......................... 59 3.5 Summary ................................................................................................... 64 Chapter 4 Methods ........................................................................................................................ 65

vii

4.1 The study area ............................................................................................ 65 4.2 Introduction to methods ............................................................................. 71 4.3 Research Objectives ................................................................................... 72 4.4 Social Research.......................................................................................... 73 4.5 Research Paradigms ................................................................................... 73 4.6 Research Design ........................................................................................ 77 4.7 The Case Study .......................................................................................... 77 4.8 The Research Methods ............................................................................... 78 4.9 The Sampling Design ................................................................................. 85 4.10 Data Collection, Recording and Analysis ................................................... 88 4.11 Limitations and Ethical Considerations ...................................................... 88 4.12 Summary ................................................................................................... 89 Chapter 5 Findings ........................................................................................................................ 91 5.1 Socio–demographic Indicators ................................................................... 92 5.1.1 Community Perceptions of Tourism .......................................................... 92 5.1.2 Tourists’ Perceptions of Kadavu .............................................................. 111 5.2 Physical – Environmental Indicators ........................................................ 119 5.2.1. Current practices in the three villages ...................................................... 119 5.2.2 Current Practices at the Papageno and Dive Kadavu Resorts .................... 128 5.3 Political–Economic Indicators.................................................................. 132 5.3.1 Economic Activities ................................................................................ 134 5.4 Summary ................................................................................................. 135 Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................ 137 6.1 Objectives of the Research ....................................................................... 138 6.2 Summary of the method used ................................................................... 138 6.3 Summary of findings................................................................................ 139 6.3.1 The concept and process of tourism carrying capacity assessment............ 139 6.3.2 Tools currently used to assess the sustainability of tourism activities ....... 140 6.3.3 Sustainability indicators for the resorts, three villages and tourists ........... 140 6.3.4 Community perceptions of tourism .......................................................... 141 6.3.5 Tourist perceptions .................................................................................. 143 6.3.6 Physical–Environmental .......................................................................... 144 6.4 Contribution to literature ........................................................................................... 150 6.5 Recommendations for Future Research .................................................... 152 6.5.1 Social– Demographic .............................................................................. 152 6.5.2 Environmental–Physical .......................................................................... 153 6.5.3 Economic–Political.................................................................................. 154 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 156 Appendices ..................................................................................................................................... 175 Appendix 1: Community Perceptions and Practices Questionnaire ................. 175 Appendix 2: Questionnaire for Turaga ni Koro .............................................. 177 Appendix 3: Questionnaire for the Resort Operator ........................................ 179 Appendix 4: Tourist Satisfaction – Questionnaire .......................................... 183 Appendix 5: List of Licensed Hotels in Fiji - 2010 ........................................ 185 Appendix 6: Waterborne and Skin Diseases 2009 – 2011 ............................... 193 Appendix 7: Tourism Arrivals and Earnings by Province 2000 - 2008 ............... 194

viii

List of Tables

Table

Page

2.1 Types of Carrying Capacity………………………………..……….. 32 3.1 Tourist arrivals and foreign earnings 2005 – 2009……………….… 52 3.2 Top Six Industries For the Fiji Economy…………………………… 53 3.3 Shortfalls of Fiji’s Ecotourism Projects…………………………….. 58 3.4 Physical – Environmental Indicators……………………………….. 61 3.5 Socio Demographic Indicators…………………………………..….. 62 3.6 Political/Economic Indicators……………………………………..... 62 4.1 A summary of the research methods used………………………….. 72 4.2 Socio-Demographic Indicators for Kadavu……………………..…. 81 4.3 Physical - Environmental Indicators for Kadavu…………………… 81 4.4 Political/Economic Indicator for Kadavu………………..…………. 82 4.5 Statistical summary of the three villages and the respondents……. 87 5.1 Tourism (is) will be good for my community…………………….. 93 5.2 I (will) personally benefit from tourism…………………………… 93 5.3 Tourism (will) create(s) jobs for local residents……………………. 93 5.4 Tourism (will) employ(s) local youths…………………………… 93 5.5 Tourism raises prices of goods……………………………………. 96 5.6 Tourism causes a rise in crime rates……………………………… 96 5.7 Tourism harms the environment………………………………….. 96 5.8 Tourism disrupts village activities………………………………… 96 5.9 Tourism stops locals from accessing the beach…………………… 96 5.10 Tourism uses local resources needed by local residents……………. 97 5.11 Local residents can still have easy access to areas that tourists use. 97 5.12 Items and their costs in Suva and Kadavu………………………… 99 5.13 The community can still have control over tourism……………… 103 5.14 Money spent by tourists will remain in my community……………. 103 5.15 Social benefits that tourism brings to your community………….…. 104 5.16 Social costs resulting from tourism……………………………….. 105 5.17 Cultural benefits that tourism brings to your community…………. 106 5.18 Cultural costs resulting from tourism…………………………….. 107 5.19 Problems faced by the community………………………………..… 108 5.20 Plan to start tourism in Daku village……………………………… 109 5.21 Activities and Expectations…………………………………….… 112 5.22 Perceptions of tourists regarding Kadavu as a tourist destination… 113 5.23 Percentage of households that rely on subsistence farming and

fishing 122

5.24 Percentage of households where income from tourism would be important.

123

5.25 Sources of energy used in the village………………………..…… 123 5.26 Conservation Initiatives…………………………………………… 124 5.27 Types of waste and methods of disposal………………………….. 125 5.28 Environmental benefits to your community……………………… 125 5.29 Environmental costs resulting from tourism…………..……….….. 126 5.30 Current Practices at the two resorts…………………………….…. 128 5.31 Resorts in Kadavu and type of ownership…………………………

132

ix

Table Page

5.32 Economic benefits that tourism brings to your community……….... 1335.33 Economic costs resulting from tourism…………………………… 1335.34 Daku village: Economic Activities…………………………..….. 1345.35 Naivakarauniniu village: Economic Activities…………………. 1345.36 Navuatu village: Economic Activities……………………..………. 135

x

List of Figures

Figures

Page

2.1 Actual and Forecasted International visitor Arrivals: 1950 –2020….. 12 2.2 Schematic Diagram illustrating LAC, VIM and VERP Planning and

Management Framework…………………………………………..

30 3.1 Map of the Fiji Islands…………………………………………….. 47 3.2 Map of Yasawa Islands……………………………………………. 55 4.1 Islands of Kadavu…………………………………………………. 65 4.2 Location of Tourist Resorts in Kadavu……………………………. 66 5.1 Regions where tourists came from………………………………… 111 5.2 Reasons for visiting Kadavu………………………………………. 111 5.3 Age group of Tourists involved in the survey…………………….. 112 5.4 I enjoyed my experience in Kadavu……………………………….. 112 5.5 I found the resort to be clean………………………………………. 114 5.6 Kadavu provided a good variety of experience……………………. 114 5.7 There are too many tourists in the village…………………………… 114 5.8 I had a good experience involving the local culture………………… 115 5.9 The beaches in Kadavu are clean……………………………………. 115 5.10 The water provided in the resort was clean…………………………. 115 5.11 Quality souvenirs were available……………………………………. 115 5.12 I had many opportunities to enjoy the local cuisine………………… 116 5.13 The quality of food was good………………………………………. 116 5.14 The level of service provided was high…………………………….. 116 5.15 Service staff were competent……………………………………….. 116 5.16 I was bothered by the noise………………………………………….. 116 5.17 I was bothered by the garbage in the public places………………… 116 5.18 The reef and the sea in Kadavu seemed healthy……………………. 117 5.19 Kadavu has an interesting and varied natural resources…………… 117 5.20 It was easy to get to Kadavu……………………………………….. 117 5.21 Boat transport from airport to the resort was comfortable and on

time 117

5.22 I felt safe and secure during my visit………………………………. 118 5.23 I feel I received good value for my money……………………….... 118 5.24 I would recommend Kadavu to my friends………………………….. 118 5.25 Tourist numbers in Kadavu are too high and affects the quality of

tourism……………………………………………………………..

118 5.26 Kadavu can accommodate more tourists and remain an attractive

destination………………………………………………………….

119 5.27 Organic farm and piggery at Papageno Resort……………………. 130

xi

List of Acronyms DoT – Department of Tourism

DoE – Department of Environment

ECOT – Ecumenical Coalition on Tourism

FLMMA – Fiji Locally Managed Marine Area

FTDP – Fiji Tourism Development Plan

GSTC – Global Sustainable Tourism Council

HLB – Hotel Licensing Board

IAS – Institute of Applied Science

ICAM – Integrated Coastal Area Management

ICM – Integrated Coastal Management

IVS – International Visitor Survey

IUCN – International Union for Conservation Network

KYMST – Kadavu Yaubula Management Support Team

LAC – Limit of Acceptable Change

LPG – Liquefied Petroleum Gas

MPA – Marine Protected Area

PAP/RAC – Priority Action Programme Regional Activity Centre

PAVIM – Protected Area Visitor Impact Management

SARS – Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

SEA – Strategic Environmental Assessment

SIDS – Small Island Developing States

SPTO – South Pacific Tourism Organisation

STDC – Sustainable Tourism Development Consortium

TCCA – Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment

TOMM – Tourism Optimization Management Model

UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme

UNWTO – United Nations World Tourism Organisation

VERP – Visitor Experience and Resource Protection

VIM – Visitor Impact Management

WTO – World Tourism Organisation

WWF-SPP – World Wide Fund for Nature-South Pacific Program

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

The contribution of tourism towards development in the last few decades has been

significant and is well acknowledged (Sharpley, 2002).

Internationally, tourism represents an important source of foreign exchange earnings

and contributes significantly to national balance of payments. A report published by

the Pacific Conference of Churches and Ecumenical Coalition on Tourism highlights

tourism’s significant economic contribution towards Small Island Developing States

[SIDS]. It acknowledges tourism as a principal economic activity that creates

employment and provides expanded economic activities for small islands

(Ecumenical Coalition on Tourism [ECOT], 2005, p.3). Tourism however, also

brings to these islands risks such as the loss of irreplaceable land and marine

resources, pollution, destruction to the cultural environment and ecological

imbalance. These small islands face several economic challenges and vulnerabilities

arising from the following features: (1) their small land areas limiting production

capabilities; (2) their dependence on a narrow range of exports; (3) their great

dependence on imported raw materials; and (4) their geographical isolation resulting

in high transport costs (ECOT, 2005, p3). Tourism can also threaten small

economies through over-development, pollution and impacts of climate change. In

particular, cyclones which are common for Pacific island countries, can greatly affect

supplies and infrastructure that tourism depends on. Even though tourism is often

seen as a viable option to broaden the economic base for many of these island

nations, the negative ramifications cannot be ignored, as it is frequently argued that

many countries have witnessed erosion of socio-cultural values, degradation of their

natural and physical environment, and the necessity to shoulder other economic

burdens resulting from tourism development. Water, noise and air pollution, waste

disposal problems, and disruption of natural areas are some of the negative

environmental problems associated with tourism. Also, the social problems linked to

2

tourism include overcrowding by tourists and subsequent resentment and hostility

towards them, as well as deterioration of archaeological sites and ‘demonstration

effect’ of residents copying behaviour of tourists (WTO, 1994, p.36).

Nevertheless, many destinations around the world have demonstrated that developing

tourism through proper planning has brought benefits without major problems and

has enabled destinations to maintain their market share (WTO, 1994, p.3). It is

therefore crucial that any form of tourism development must be properly planned,

managed and controlled.

Individual operators, organisations, local communities, countries, regions and even

the United Nations are initiating moves to ensure that developments are properly

planned, managed, and controlled to ensure minimum damage to our societies and

environment. As one of the biggest industries in the world, the tourism industry

should see that tourism business operators, local communities, tourists and other key

stakeholders operate within the framework of sustainability principles. One approach

that has gained recognition and has been implemented in a number of countries to

manage tourism is the use of indicators, which are criteria that show the present state

or condition of features that you are trying to measure. Indicators are normally

selected and used from time to time to measure changes that are considered important

for the development and management of tourism in an area or destination.

1.1 Overview of study

In this research, several sustainability indicators are selected and tested to try and

determine the current tourism carrying capacity level of a small island destination.

While similar research has been carried out in a number of developed countries

(WTO, 2004; Twining-Ward & Butler, 2002; Ministry of Tourism (Malta), 2001),

Samoa is the only country in the South Pacific to have developed and for a while

attempted to implement sustainable tourism indicators to bring about a more

sustainable approach towards tourism development (Miller &Twining-Ward, 2005,

p.233). According to the World Tourism Organisation (2004), the East Asia and

Pacific region will be an important growth area in the next decade because of the

strong economic growth in China. Tourists will also be looking for new destinations

and will want something different or new. The World Tourism Organisation has also

3

forecasted a 6.5% annual growth rate in visitor numbers for the region. This

predicted growth calls for proper tourism planning and monitoring, especially for our

small islands developing nations in the South Pacific, their communities and tourists

alike. For many South Pacific island countries, indigenous people have strong

cultural links with their natural environment. Loss of land and natural resources for

indigenous communities could mean loss of part of their culture and identity.

Sustainable development therefore should not be viewed as an alternative approach

but as the only desirable way forward for vulnerable developing island countries.

Sustainable development is needed because many businesses fail to plan and take

into consideration negative consequences that could arise from development. Since

tourism uses a lot of natural and cultural resources, the need to promote sustainable

tourism development is vital. Striking a balance between development and

conservation has to be a key priority for any form or type of development. Despite

WTO’s global commitment through the formulation of global environmental policies

and the formulation of an action plan for tourism development, many developing

countries still face the challenge of balancing economic interests with sustainable use

of their limited resources and environment (Berno & Bricker, 2001).

Since tourism plays a vital role at national, regional and local levels of small island

economies, ongoing assessments of the meaning and implementation of sustainable

tourism development are vital (Hunter, 1995). Such assessments will ensure that

benefits and opportunities achieved from tourism are maintained while changes that

remove opportunities and threaten quality of life are minimised. For the Pacific in

particular, poorly planned tourism projects on sand cays have resulted in clearing of

vegetation exposing the islands to coastal erosion; excessive use of groundwater

causing salt water intrusion, and sewage outflow resulting in algal growth (Hall,

1996, p.140). Socially, the impacts of tourism include increased crime, displacement

of residents by new development and conflicts in values and culture (Ahnn, Lee &

Shafer, 2002). While a lot has been researched on tourism impacts, work on trying to

measure and mitigate these impacts has been minimal. Four decades ago, Mathieson

& Wall (1982), noted that there were no universally agreed procedures for measuring

a broad range of types of impacts. Measuring impacts is important in

4

operationalising sustainable tourism development, continues to be reviewed and

improved and is an ongoing process.

Sustainable tourism, which is discussed in the next chapter, can be achieved if

stakeholders identify key ecological, economic, infrastructural, cultural, and social

indicators; carry out assessments, and make meaningful management decisions to

address issues for the destination. Negative signals can be identified and addressed

while other key indicators are continually monitored to ensure the sustainable use of

all resources and tourists get quality experience.

Sustainable tourism development has been widely acknowledged by many as a good

concept but putting the idea into practice has continually drawn attention from

scholars in various fields, including tourism (Hunter, 1995, Harrison, 1996; Farrell &

Twining-Ward 2003). To address this, a number of sustainability tools or approaches

have been introduced to measure and monitor tourism activities and allow for

management to make appropriate decisions to ensure sustainability. Sustainability

tools can be described as approaches or methods that can be used to assess various

aspects of development. Key aspects that could be assessed include: ecological,

socio-cultural, infrastructural, psychological, and management capacity. Some of the

management tools that have been developed and used in the past include: Visitor

Impact Management [VIM], Visitor Experience and Resource Protection [VERP],

Tourism Optimization Management Model [TOMM], Limits of Acceptable Change

[LAC] and Carrying Capacity Assessment [CCA]. These tools will be explained in

detail towards the end of this chapter.

All the above approaches have their own strengths and challenges but the Carrying

Capacity Assessment approach has been chosen as the focus of this study to assess

the current level of tourism on the island of Kadavu, an emerging tourist destination.

Carrying Capacity Assessment has also been used to assess the impacts of tourism

development in the Mediterranean region, including the island of Malta, the Fuka-

Matrouh area in Egypt and Rhodes Island in Greece (PAP/RAC, 1997; PAP/RAC,

1999; Ministry of Tourism (Malta), 2001).

Conducting a full carrying capacity study for a destination is an extensive and

expensive exercise which needs full cooperation from all stakeholders. The broad

5

aim of this study is to provide a preliminary assessment of the current carrying

capacity of tourism in the island of Kadavu. The study will involve an investigation

on the concept and process of carrying capacity. Selected sustainability indicators

will be tested on three village communities, two resorts and on tourists visiting the

island. Key priority issues will be highlighted with appropriate recommendations on

the way forward for Kadavu.

This research has been approached as a case study focusing on two resorts and three

villages which come under two districts in the province of Kadavu.

1.2 Organisation of thesis

This thesis is divided into six chapters. Chapter one gives an introduction to tourism

development, its potential impacts, the need for a sustainable approach and the

objectives of the study.

Chapter 2 contains a review of literature, especially of previous research, research

methods, policies and practices relevant to this research. ‘Development’ is defined

and its impacts reviewed and then the concept of sustainable development is

introduced. After this, tourism development and its impacts are discussed and

several sustainability tools are described and assessed. Later in the chapter, the

concept of tourism carrying capacity is introduced as the sustainability tool which is

used for this research. Strengths and weaknesses of the concept are also presented.

Chapter 3 provides a review of tourism in development in the South Pacific and in

Fiji. A brief review of Fiji’s tourism is presented together with its policy directions

and sustainable development initiatives.

Chapter 4 begins with an overview of the study area. It then presents and justifies

methodologies selected for this research. The design of cohort, the analysis process,

ethical issues and the limitations encountered while carrying out the research are then

described and discussed.

Chapter 5 presents the results and the findings are interpreted and related to past

research and the literature review in chapter 2.

6

The last chapter, Chapter 6, summarizes the whole thesis by restating the objectives,

outlining the different methods employed, highlighting weaknesses in methods used;

highlighting the main findings and how it contributes to the wider body of tourism

knowledge and ends with policy implications and future research opportunities.

7

Chapter 2

Literature Review

2.1 Development

Development has brought about economic, socio-cultural and environmental changes

for many countries and indicators have been used to measure these changes. In

economic terms, gross domestic product [GDP] is used as an indicator for

development because it measures the market value of all goods and services

purchased locally for final use during a given period. Other economic criteria

include: level of unemployment, level of inflation, level of external debts relative to

GDP, per capita industrial productivity and existence of informal sector. A problem

with using GDP as noted by Weaver (1998) is that affluent countries may rate poorly

on some of the defined criteria but are not considered less developed in those

particular indicators. For example, a country may still be considered developed even

though they may have high inflation with a significant level of unemployed people.

Socio-cultural criteria are equally important when assessing development. Common

indicators include: high life expectancy, high adult literacy, adequate levels of caloric

and nutrient intake, high quality housing, widespread availability of clean water and

low infant mortality rates (Weaver, 1998, p.39).

The relationship between development and the environment is also well documented

and, arguably, the most pristine environments are in untouched areas where there is

least development. Four decades ago, Meadows, Meadows, Randers and Behrens

(1970) released a book titled Limits to growth highlighting the earth’s inability to

support the current rates of economic and population growth beyond the year 2100.

These issues raised serious concerns and called for a re-look at the development path

taken by many countries. As stated by Farrell and Twining-Ward, (2004) some

researchers were led to believe that man’s relationship with the environment had

reached a crucial stage where the rate at which the earth’s resources are being used is

greater than the earth’s ability to replenish them. An evaluation of the relationship

8

between development, the environment, the people and resource use had to be made

to verify the reality of this concern. Many countries had to re-examine their

development priorities, which paved way for countries at the urging of the United

Nations, to make commitments towards sustainable development.

2.2 Sustainable Development

The concept of sustainability which grew to prominence in the 1970s originated from

the ideology of environmentalism. Environmentalists advocated conservation,

preservation and improvement of the environment and their concerns over long-term

consequences of our resource-use led to the publication of the World Conservation

Strategy (IUCN, 1980). Re-conceptualising the notion of development, it proposed a

strategy to ensure that essential ecological processes are maintained, diversity is

preserved and resources are sustainably utilized. This new thinking led to the

emergence of the sustainable development concept.

In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED),

presented a report titled Our Common Future. The report which is commonly

referred to as the Brundtland Report, defines sustainable development as ‘a process

that meets the needs of the present generation without endangering the ability of

future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987, p.43).

The report highlights inter-generational equity, wherein future generations should be

able to enjoy what we currently enjoy; intra-generational equity, wherein social

justice and economic well-being are encouraged to all members of the community;

collective community decision-making rather than imposition of decisions by outside

forces; inclusion of environmental protection as an integral part of economic

development; and adoption of a precautionary approach, especially where impacts

are unknown; renewable resources are used sustainably with clear standards put in

place with proper monitoring and enforcement (McKercher, 2003, p3).

The report popularised the sustainable development concept. One result was that

various international organisations, including the International Union for

Conservation of Nature (IUCN), took up a range of useful initiatives. The IUCN

(1991 p.9-11) proposes a number of principles that it believes can bring about a

9

sustainable society, to take no more from the earth than nature can replenish and

work within nature’s limits. The principles promote the following:

i. respect and care for all people and other forms of life

ii. development through better education and a healthy life

iii. conservation through sustainable use of renewable resources

iv. reduction in the use of non-renewable resources

v. keeping within the earth’s carrying capacity

vi. change of attitudes and practices that support sustainable living

vii. enabling communities to care for their own environments;

viii. a framework for integrating development and conservation, and

ix. creating a global alliance where countries help each other even though the

levels of development are unequal (IUCN, 1991, p.8-12).

The understanding of sustainable development deepened as a result of growth in

nature conservation, the expansion of science and technology and the increasingly

global significance of environmental problems (Harrison, 1996, p.70). This focused

the attention of major stakeholders on the importance of the sustainable use of the

world’s finite resources.

In 1999, the international community endorsed the review of the Brundtland report

because economic, socio-cultural and environmental problems were becoming more

widespread for many countries (Hardy, Beeton & Pearson, 2002).

Despite significant efforts by many in trying to push for sustainable development, the

concept has been criticized by some researchers and practitioners as one sided,

skewed towards environmental components [physical and natural resources] with

little emphasis on the social and cultural aspects (Berry & Ladkin, 1997;

Swarbrooke, 1999).

Apart from sustainable development, tourism more recently has continued to take on

such global-scale development challenges as poverty reduction and gender equality.

In 2005, the United Nations World Tourism Organisation noted the role tourism can

play in the achievement of a number of Millennium Development Goals namely;

poverty alleviation, sustainable use of the environment and employment creation for

women, indigenous communities and youths. It also acknowledges the fact that

tourism cannot achieve these goals on its own but it has the potential to work in

10

partnership with member countries and key stakeholders to be part of the answer to

poverty reduction, promotion of gender equality and empowerment of previously

neglected communities (UNWTO, 2006).

2.3 Tourism Development

Weaver and Lawton, (2002) linked the historical development of tourism to early

civilization in Mesopotamia (the land between rivers close to modern day Iraq), also

known as the ‘cradle of civilization’. Factors that contributed to civilization

included: availability of permanent water supply, rich soil for agriculture, warm

climate and ideal location to trade with Asia, Africa and Europe. Also critical, of

course, was the food security assured by the domestication of plants, especially of

grains, which could be stored for a year or more after harvest. Discretionary time

and income enabled the wealthy to engage in leisure and tourism related activities.

Civilization spread to Egypt, then to Greece which attracted visitors through national

festivals such as the Olympic Games. People travelled for various reasons including

adventure, religious purposes, wars, and trade, as noted by Dickman (1989), some of

these movements were risky and time consuming.

The Roman Empire had seaside resorts catering for the elite who wanted to get away

from their busy life and crowded environment. Higher income earners built

residences by the sea to escape the summer smell and heat. Urban leisure elites built

second homes in rural areas and regularly travelled to these places. The expansion of

the Roman Empire led to the construction of more roads and sea ports, which further

enhanced leisure travel. Change in perceptions and attitudes towards health saw the

middle classes travelling to seaside resorts for health reasons and as a result, many

became popular destinations, especially for the wealthy (Dickman, 1989).

The phenomenon of the ‘Grand Tour’, which started in Europe in the seventeenth

century, allowed aristocrats to gain social, cultural and educational experience and

became popular in the 1800s. Young wealthy men from Britain, France, Germany

and Russia would travel to visit particular places at certain times of the year. The

length of the tour was about three years when it started but it was condensed to six

months in the nineteenth century.

11

The industrial revolution beginning in the late 1700s brought significant economic

and social changes to Europe. People moved from rural occupations to paid

industrial employment. Development in the transport sector also made travel easier,

safer and more affordable. Railways and roads became popular means of movement.

According to Harrison (2001, p.2), it was the railways that ushered mass tourism to

Europe and enabled those that benefited from the industrial revolution to move out of

the crowded cities. Despite concerns regarding the safety of railroads, the railway

was a popular and inexpensive mode of transport that had a significant impact on the

development of leisure travel.

In 1841, Thomas Cook, the founder of Thomas Cook & Sons, organized the first ever

charter train, which carried 570 passengers from Leicester to Loughborough

(Dickman, 1989). Standardized, timely and high volume tour packages brought

about the industrialization of the tourism sector. According to Weaver and Lawton

(2002), Thomas Cook was the first to take advantage of communication and transport

innovations to put together packages and create demand in an unprecedented pool of

potential travellers. Extensive development of usable roads and the later popularity

of motor cars also enabled families to plan their own travel and take short trips as and

when required. All these factors fostered the desire of the wealthy to use their free

time to escape from cities and travel to places to rest and relax.

Major growth that took place in the 20th century, enabling tourism to develop, is

attributed to a number of factors. First is the establishment of set working days and

holidays. This enabled people to accumulate leave days and apply for leave with full

pay when needed. Secondly, apart from increased savings, an increase in

discretionary income enabled people to go for holidays and spend money on travel.

Thirdly, increases in levels of education and awareness through forms of mass

communications and technology made the world more accessible and travel more

interesting and fourthly, increased mobility has meant cheaper and better means of

transportation (Dickman 1989 p12).

After World War II there was rapid growth in tourism and travel in most developed

Western countries. Weaver and Lawton, (2002) termed this period, the era of

modern mass tourism. During this period, the use of jet engines opened up the airline

business hence the mass tourism we see today. This mode of transportation

12

revolutionized travel as bigger planes were able to carry more passengers, fly further,

and provide comfort and speed. Mass tourism enabled many who were well-off to

travel and discover new destinations. Packaged holidays and home-centred forms of

leisure were introduced to meet the changing nature of tourist travel (Page &

Connell, 2006).

International tourism has grown considerably over the last sixty years, from a mere

twenty-five million international visitors in 1950 to 703 million in 2002 (UNWTO,

2009). The World Tourism Organisation had forecast that by 2010, international

travel would reach the one billion mark, but this did not eventuate due to a number of

factors including the global economic crisis, which particularly affected Europe and

the United States of America. Figure 2.1 shows the actual and forecast international

visitor arrivals from 1950 to 2020.

Figure 2.1: Actual and Forecast International visitor Arrivals: 1950 –2020

Source : World Tourism Organisation, 2009. According to UNWTO, (2009) Europe is the most popular region as a destination

and also as a tourist generating region. In terms of international tourism receipts,

seven of the top ten countries are in Europe. North America receives the highest

revenue from tourism per country. In 2010, leisure, recreation and holidays

accounted for 51% of all international tourist arrivals (UNWTO Tourism Highlights,

2011, p3).

The United Nations World Tourism Organisation - 2010 Tourism Highlights

continues to forecast growth of the tourism sector despite the recent economic

meltdown that affected most regions around the world. While East Asia and the

Pacific are forecast to grow by 5% above the world average of 4.1%, Europe is

expected to remain the top destination and generating region (UNWTO, 2011).

13

Europe will maintain the highest share of the world arrivals even though there would

have been a decline in terms of market share. Long-haul travel will grow and this

will benefit destinations like the South Pacific that are geographically far away.

The economic benefits gained from tourism are seen by many developing countries

as a prime reason for them to become involved in tourism. The reasons are many and

the ability for tourism to offset a country’s balance of payment is probably the

number one reason why governments support and encourage tourism development

(Oppermann & Chon, 1997, p98). Tourism uses a lot of resources and has

continually featured in the debate regarding sustainable development. Although

tourism is considered less harmful than most other industries, it does contribute to the

increase in air, water and land pollution. For instance, airlines that transport millions

of tourists to various destinations worldwide emit considerable amount of carbon

dioxide gas, which pollutes the atmosphere and contributes to global warming.

Concentrated areas of tourism can create water and land pollution if they do not

dispose their wastes properly. According to Priority Actions Program/Regional

Activity Center, tourism’s infrastructural systems are subjected to enormous pressure

during peak periods, often resulting in harmful impacts affecting social and cultural

relationships (PAP/RAC, 1997, p.3). The understanding of tourism as a system

emphasizes the interdependency of various components or businesses working

together to achieve common goals.

Although tourism is viewed as an agent for economic development and an

employment creator, Oppermann and Chon (1997) also reaffirm that tourism has

been criticized as evil and destructive. Tourism, however, is still chosen by many

developing countries because it generates foreign exchange which offsets trade

deficits generated by high importation of goods; it generates revenue for government

through income taxes from tourism employees and operators, airport taxes, sales and

bed tax; it generates employment, assists in the development of infrastructure and

develops local skills. At the community level, tourism provides income for families

and individuals. According to Oppermann and Chon (1997), tourism can bring about

development of regions that are away from metropolitan areas. This can also reduce

urban migration and crimes associated with urban drift. Through cultural dances and

14

ceremonies, traditional practices are revived. Locals are able to keep their art and

craftwork alive by producing and selling their products to tourists.

Tourism on the other hand has disadvantages. First is the seasonality factor. The

seasonality may result from a number of factors. It can be related to a tourist’s

country of origin, for example when families with children tend to travel during

school holidays. Second, it can be due to the climate of the host destination.

Oppermann and Chon (1997, p.113) note that in countries with monsoon rains,

tourists avoid travelling there during the rainy season. In these areas, businesses are

closed for a few months until the rainy season is over. The Pacific Islands are in a

way fortunate because they get their tourists from different parts of the world. High

seasonality means a significant percentage of employees will have seasonal jobs.

Tourism induced inflation affects land prices and tourism related goods. The

increase in the price of goods and services in tourism areas is affecting local residents

who are burdened with rising costs. Some locals may choose to leave and settle in

areas that are cheaper and more affordable.

In developing countries, a considerable portion of tourist spending is lost from the

economy through importation of tourist goods, profit transfer, expatriate earnings;

goods and services are imported when host destinations cannot provide the quality

and consistently supply goods required by the hotels.

Lifestyles displayed by tourists and copied by locals can be seen as positive if such

behaviours inspire locals to work hard and achieve things they lack. More

commonly, locals try to imitate tourists’ lifestyle and end up committing crimes

because they are not able to get what they are after (Mathieson and Wall, 1982).

Repeated performances of dances and ceremonial rituals to tourists can reduce or

remove traditional significance. Locals may see such performances only as a money-

making activity rather than something which is of value to them. Rituals are

modified to meet tourist needs. For example, in Fiji, the ‘vilavilairevo’ [fire

walking] ceremony had to be shortened to accommodate the short time tourists have

(Stymeist 1996).

15

The environment does not only include water, land, air and vegetation, but also

involves people, the social, cultural and political conditions that affect their lives

(O’Grady, 1990). In many places tourism development has resulted in a degraded

environment. High intensity usage and demand of physical and natural resources has

transformed landscapes and attracted a lot of public attention in developed countries.

According to Oppermann and Chon, (1997), environmental effects of tourism in

developing countries are among the least documented. Key problems include:

i. change in vegetation cover through clearance of land to accommodate

tourist facilities and trampling of vegetation

ii. increase in pollution which results from discharge of sewage and spillage

of oil. Air pollution emitted from vehicles used by tourists

iii. increase in erosion resulting from water based activities. Damage to river

banks, increased risk of landslides

iv. depletion of ground and surface water supplies, depletion of mineral

resources for building materials

v. change in visual impact because of new facilities, litter, sewage and algal

blooms [adapted from Hunter and Green, (1995) in Oppermann and Chon,

(1997)].

Holden (2000), in his book, Environment and Tourism, presents similar problems

previously raised by Mathieson and Wall (1982), Oppermann and Chon (1997) and

the need for sound planning and management of tourism. He proposes a number of

recommendations. First, destinations should have effective legislation to protect

their environment. Secondly, destinations should implement an environmental

management system where businesses can continuously improve their current

environmental performance. Continuous monitoring of impacts and change with

regular feedback for timely decisions are important for the successful implementation

of the environmental management system. Thirdly, destinations should adopt a

voluntary code of conduct to influence attitudes and modify behaviour of all resource

users and fourthly, for all stakeholders to play their roles actively and work together

in the planning and management of their environment (Holden, 2000, p 126).

The positive effects of tourism are often accompanied by less favourable impacts like

leakages, inflation and greater dependency. The complexity of tourism products

16

suggests that tourism sustainability cannot be determined by independently assessing

single components [linear]. Linear relationships occur where two components are

proportional to each other; doubling one causes the other to double as well. Tourism

is complex and has to be assessed taking into consideration all elements or

components that make up the system and how a change by a component is received

and managed by other components. The basic understanding of tourism, with its

different levels of interaction and the dynamics of nonlinear complex systems is

essential in achieving sustainability. According to Baggio (2008), complex systems

show nonlinearity of the interactions among the components, which means it is

almost impossible to derive an equation to predict the behavior of a dynamic system

such as tourism if one of the components change.

McKercher (1999) employed a ‘complexity approach’ to highlight the complex

nature and instability of the tourism industry. Tourism sustainability can be achieved

if it is accepted and addressed as a system where all stakeholders work hand in hand

both to deliver the experience tourists expect and to keep residents happy. Given the

complex nature of the tourism industry, can it be developed in a sustainable way?

2.3.1 Tourism as a system

When compared to other disciplines, tourism is a relatively new area of study that is

argued by academics as a subject that is conceptually weak (Page & Connell 2006,

p.7). Different disciplines still view tourism from their own standpoint even though

tourism cuts across many sectors and this shows weaknesses in the study of tourism.

Tribe (1997) published the ‘indiscipline of tourism’ and provided a comprehensive

review of the epistemology of tourism, proposing a model for its understanding. He

made reference to Leiper’s theory of tourism as a discipline and highlighted its flaws.

This triggered a debate between Tribe and Leiper on the

disciplinary/multidisciplinary nature of tourism studies. The debate provided an

opportunity for tourism researchers to gain a better understanding of tourism theories

and concepts (Tribe, 2000; Leiper, 2000).

For the past decades, tourism has been assessed as a system. As defined by

Bertalanffy a system is ‘a set of elements standing in interrelation among themselves

and with the environment’ (in Mill & Morrison, 1998, p3). It consists of a number of

17

interrelated parts, which continually work together over time to achieve a common

purpose. Tourism can be characterized as a system comprising many different

components, including activities, transport linkages, infrastructure, attractions and

people all of which work together to make up the ‘tourism product’. Why should

tourism be studied as a system? Systems thinking encourage cause and effect and

inter-relationships of components to be considered when trying to understand how

tourism operates. Mill and Morrison (1998) compared the tourism system to a

spider’s web; touch one part and it will be felt by all other parts. It shows the

intricate relationships of individual components in the effective operation of the

tourism system. Because of this interdependency, it is crucial to study tourism as a

system. The malfunction or problems faced by one player are felt by other players

who are part of the system. Players have to react or respond when there is a

disruption in the system. Tourism is constantly changing and is becoming more

complex as new products are developed, new destinations are being discovered, new

tourists emerging and the global impact of climate change is becoming more

apparent.

Systems thinking theorists have struggled to identify a mechanism that can link cause

and effect of changes in a complex system like tourism.

Farrell and Twining-Ward (2004, p274) argue that tourism is so complex that

researchers should keep abreast of changes taking place in key areas (ecosystem

ecology, ecological economics and global change science) in order for tourism to

move effectively towards sustainability. Destinations have complex systems which

are inter-related and likely to be non-linear (Baggio, 2008). It is argued that despite

the moves by some researchers to explore new avenues of research, the reductionist

ideas that management actions can be accurately controlled and predicted, continues

to filter through contemporary tools such as carrying capacity and environmental

impact assessment. It suggests that such management systems can lose resilience and

collapse if changes are not integrated into the system.

18

2.4 Tourism in developing countries

Liu and Wall (2004, p.159) describe ‘developing countries’ as nations that have the

following attributes:

i. a large proportion of the population engaged in the agricultural sector

ii. tourism developed through a ‘top-down approach’

iii. a significant role for government organisations in decision making

iv. dominance of large firms and foreign capital

v. marginalisation of local people as decision makers.

These attributes make meaningful engagement in tourism a challenging task for

indigenous communities. Since many indigenous populations in developing

countries lack resources, business and marketing skills and have very little say in

management decisions, they are under-represented in tourism development and

planning (Liu & Wall, 2004). Many governments and destinations place greater

emphasis on economic benefits [of tourism] with little attention to social and

environmental costs associated with tourism development. Tourism impacts need to

be monitored continuously to avoid adverse effects and maximise its benefits

(Faulkner & Tideswell, 1997).

For many years, tourism has been regarded as an economic solution for developing

countries (Oppermann & Chon 1997, p1). Developing countries, however, face

many obstacles in the development process. Development is an ambiguous term that

has different meanings to different people but there is general consensus that the term

refers to ‘progression toward some kind of desirable outcome’ (Weaver, 1998, p36).

What constitutes development? Webster’s online dictionary states that to ‘develop’

is to expand by a process of growth or to move from an original position to one with

an opportunity of being more effective and successful. People consent to

development because they want to enjoy long, healthy and fulfiling lives and, at a

personal level, it aims to improve the quality of individuals. It is a process of

building one’s self confidence and realizing his/her full potential to achieve a fulfiled

life’ (IUCN, 1991).

According to Harrison (2001), discussion on development has been on-going since

the end of World War II, with its importance continually changing in the last 50

19

years. While development in the past has been directly linked to economic growth, it

is no longer viewed in the same way today. In some instances the two have been

seen to be contradicting each other. Sharpley and Telfer, (2002) believe that

development theory and tourism have evolved along similar paths since World War

II.

Scheyvens (2002) argues that in the period 1950s–1970s, development debates were

dominated by approaches held by modernization theory. This theory is based on the

assumption that the success of developed countries can also be achieved by Third

World countries if they follow a similar process of development. The theory

supports the belief that for development to happen, capital, technology and

knowledge have to be received from western countries to kick start development.

Tourism in the 1960s was seen as a tool for economic development that can help

diversify economies, especially for countries that depend only on a few primary

products. The belief was that tourism increased foreign exchange, increased

employment and that tourist expenditure generated large multiplier effects,

stimulating local economies (Sharpley & Telfer, 2002, p72). By the 1970s, tourism

was a major economic sector in a number of Third World countries. In the late

eighties, though, a number of questions were raised regarding the modernization

approach towards tourism. Crime, prostitution among local populations and drug

abuse were some of the perceived social and cultural problems (Harrison, 1992)

thought to be associated with tourism. Pressure on fragile ecosystems resulting from

rapid tourism development and the issue of waste disposal were also environmental

concerns linked to tourism development (Scheyvens, 2002 p.49). As a result,

modernization theory came under much criticism during and after the 1970s. This

saw the re-emergence of the dependency theory.

Dependency is a state where less developed countries become dependent on

wealthier nations to provide financial and technological resources for their

development. Dependency theory was accepted as newly independent countries tried

to promote self-sufficiency and self-reliance through state-led tourism development.

This form of development, however, has been criticized for allegedly reinforcing or

even creating global inequalities (Scheyvens, 2002). Challenges faced through the

dependency approach led to the emergence of neo-liberal thinking, which promotes

the removal of trade barriers and encourages free market competition.

20

According to Scheyvens (2002, p.49), neoliberal thinking focuses on market-led

growth, liberalization and the encouragement of foreign investment. The neo-liberal

approach was supported by international aid agencies, which provided financial

assistance to develop tourism and tourism infrastructure. This approach, however,

placed little emphasis on the importance of self-sufficiency and self-determination,

which are critical for developing third world countries. It was also claimed that

governments only encouraged more visitors to increase foreign exchange and

neglected poverty alleviation, cross-cultural awareness and holistic development.

While the neo-liberal model offered opportunities for both local and foreign

operators to engage in tourism enterprises, those from the West had many

competitive advantages over operators in the Third-world countries and these

include: control of international movements, capital resources, extensive knowledge,

expertise and marketing connections (Scheyvens, 2002).

Even though modernization, dependency and neo-liberal theories focused on

economic growth, an alternative development theory was driven through the concept

of sustainability. Alternative development ideology surfaced because researchers

were looking for alternative means to ensure the survival of mankind. This new

approach supported small-scale development, high involvement of locals, low

resource use and high emphasis on environmental protection (Sharpley & Telfer,

2002). Twenty five years ago, the alternative development scheme has been widely

accepted as a sustainable development approach and is part of the widely

acknowledged sustainable development tourism paradigm.

Sharpley and Telfer (2002) noted that the positive and negative attributes of tourism

development are shared between the four development paradigms and their

influences are not mutually exclusive. For instance, the dependency development

may, for small islands, be a more sustainable option than self-reliance.

2.5 Community participation and attitudes

In developing economies, tourism has often been advocated as a tool to promote

economic development. Tourism is said to achieve this through creation of

employment, generation of income, improvement in standard of living and

generation of foreign currencies, amongst other benefits. The experiences of tourism

in destinations, however, are not the same because these destinations have varying

21

abilities to attract tourists and meet their needs. With the increased intensity of

tourist activity in many established destinations across the world, many local

communities have experienced impacts as a result of this growth. Although many of

the impacts on the host communities are positive, negative impacts can become

serious if decision makers are ignorant of their potential to harm the environment,

communities and ultimately the economy. As highlighted by Allen et al. (1988, p16)

many local governments try to gain optimum economic benefits (from tourism) with

little or no consideration of the social and environmental costs associated with

tourism expansion. Over the last forty years, local communities in Third World

countries reap few benefits from tourism because they have little control over how

tourism has to be developed (Mowforth & Munt, 1998). They do not have financial

resources that external investors enjoy and their views are seldom considered. To

increase the benefits, communities should be encouraged to actively engage and

participate in the planning and management of tourism operations. The complex

nature of the tourism industry calls for greater collaboration and cohesiveness

amongst all stakeholders. Decisions made should be agreed by the majority when

dealing with problems that may arise in the planning and operation stages of tourism

development (Jamal and Getz, 1995). As suggested by Wilson et al.(2001, p.136),

tourism can be successful in communities if:

i there is good leadership in the community. Leaders can make a difference in

the way they address problems and motivate followers

ii there is support and participation of local government. Local governments

are particularly important in the development of public infrastructure such as

roads, water and sewerage and health facilities

iii there is widespread community support for tourism. A positive attitude and

support for tourism are key to success in tourism.

Research and publications on community-based tourism have continued to grow in

the past decades, focusing on issues like community perceptions, participation,

democratic decision making, threats and opportunities (Besculides, Lee, &

McMormick, 2002; Tosun, 2002; Weaver, 2010; Farrelly, 2011; Scheyvens &

Russell, 2011; Salazar, 2012). A number of models have been developed to assist in

22

understanding the impacts of tourism and the way tourism is perceived by residents.

Doxey’s Irridex model (1975), Butler’s Tourist Area Life Cycle (1980), and social

exchange theory are arguably the most commonly cited literatures when trying to

explain tourist–host relationships and impacts.

2.5.1 Doxey’s Irritation Index.

Doxey’s model attempts to describe residents’ reaction as tourist numbers increase

over time in a destination. Doxey categorizes these changes in four levels: Euphoria,

Apathy, Annoyance and Antagonism. The first stage (Euphoria) is the initial phase

of tourism development, where visitors are small in number and are openly

welcomed by local residents. At this stage, there is little planning with no control

mechanism in place. In the second stage (Apathy), tourists are taken for granted and

become mere targets for profit-making. Contacts between residents and visitors

become more distant and formal. Planning at this stage focuses mainly on marketing.

The third stage (Annoyance) is when residents start to get annoyed because there are

too many tourists visiting the destination, especially in the peak period. Locals begin

to have doubt about tourism while planners try to address emerging problems by

increasing infrastructure instead of limiting growth. The fourth stage (Antagonism)

is where residents openly express their frustration and dislike of tourists. This is

done either verbally or even physically. Promotion is increased to address the

deteriorating image of the destination. Residents see outsiders as the cause of all

problems (Doxey, 1975, p.195). The model offers insight into attitudes that might be

expected from local residents as their community engages and progresses with

tourism development.

2.5.2 Butler’s Tourist Area Life Cycle.

Butler’s model (1980) proposes that a tourism destination develops in six main

stages. These are: exploration, involvement, development, consolidation, stagnation

followed by a stage of decline. The ‘exploration’ stage is where a destination is

newly discovered and visitors are seen as explorers rather than tourists. Only a small

number are visiting the area. At the ‘involvement’ stage, more outsiders are visiting

the area and services are introduced to address the needs of travellers. The

‘development’ stage sees an increase in development of physical infrastructure,

23

products and services. A lot of marketing is done to attract more tourists and

institutions are formalized to support the development of the sector. At the

‘consolidation’ stage, visitor numbers are still increasing but at a declining rate. At

‘stagnation’ stage, the destination is no longer popular. Properties are in need of

renovation or are put up to be sold to new buyers. Re-visioning and diversification

of products is crucial at this stage to keep the destination attractive. Peak tourist

volume has been reached. The ‘decline’ stage is where visitor numbers drop as new

destinations are discovered. The final stage is also determined by the way local

communities were impacted during the development stage (Butler, 1980).

Both models (Doxey’s irritation index and Butler’s Tourist area life cycle) provide

insights on changes that can take place in destinations engaging in tourism. Changes

are not only in terms of infrastructure, but also on residents’ perception on tourism.

2.5.3 Social exchange theory

Residents’ attitudes towards tourism can be better understood when analysed using

‘social exchange theory’. Social exchange theory (SET) is concerned with

understanding the exchange of resources between parties in an interaction situation

where the objects offered for exchange have value, are measurable, and there is mutual

dispensation of rewards and costs between actors (Ap, 1992). The theory suggests that

residents will be willing to enter into an exchange with tourists if they can derive some

benefits without unacceptable costs. Ap also believes the theory is arguably the best-

known interaction-based theory relevant to tourism. SET assumes that individuals or

groups in social relations seek mutual benefits when there is an exchange of

resources. Haralambopoulos and Pizam, (1996) in their study on perceived impacts

of tourism in Samos found that on a personal level, those employed and receiving

direct benefits from the industry have more positive attitudes towards tourists and

tourism development. The theory suggests that residents are likely to support

tourism as long as the perceived benefits outweigh the perceived costs when

exchange takes place between residents and tourism (Huttasin, 2008). The work

carried out by Huttasin in the ‘One Tambon One Product’ (OTOP) tourism village in

Thailand show positive views from residents towards tourism because tourism is

perceived as an income generator, employment provider, creator of jobs for women,

attracts investments and increases village pride for the community. Similar results

24

were obtained by Andereck and Vogt, (2000). They tested the effect of residents’

attitudes towards tourism and tourism development on seven communities that

represent rural, small urban and Native American reservation destinations.

Doxey’s irritation index and Butler’s tourism area life cycle models were explored to

understand residents’ perceptions of tourism and use it to assess the stages likely in

Kadavu, in terms of tourism development. The social exchange theory as proposed

by Ap was investigated to gain insight into why local residents behave positively or

negatively towards tourists.

2.5.4 Indigenous Tourism

Even though tourism has often been promoted as a vehicle for economic

development, inappropriate forms of development have also brought about a number

of adverse social and environmental impacts (Oppermann & Chon, 1997; Douglas &

Douglas, 1996; Sofield, 1990; Tsusaka, nd). Cultural systems in many indigenous

societies play a major part in how development programmes and projects can be

planned and implemented. For instance, land ownership and traditional leadership

systems in the South Pacific encourage self-reliance, which is a barrier to market

oriented systems. Indigenous in this context means native to a particular place.

‘Indigenous people’ is a commonly used term referring to ‘those who are original in

their habitats, who maintain a strong sense of identity with their lands and cultures’

(Jafari, 2000, p303). Butler and Hinch (1996) define indigenous people as:

races of people who are endemic or native to a destination

region. As such, this group may represent either the majority

or a minority group in the destination. The term is inclusive

and global in its application. (1996, p.9)

According to Weaver (2010) much research on indigenous tourism has been carried

out and published in the last forty years. With reference to published work on

indigenous tourism in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US, Weaver proposed

a six-stage model to explain the evolution of the relationship of tourism and

indigenous peoples. As noted by Weaver, (2010, p.56) the model, which is based on

research done in four developed nations, may not be able to reveal the full six-stage

progression when applied to developing countries such as Fiji. The model does,

25

however, offer a useful framework for academic research to broaden research and

development in tourism and practical guidance.

Sharpley and Telfer (2002) argue that socio-cultural change comes not only from

tourism but also as a result of globalization forces and international media. Although

tourism is usually promoted as a tool for economic development in developing

countries, the socio-cultural changes that take place in the host communities are not

always considered positive. As long ago as 1979, De Kadt noted that countries that

are small and underdeveloped in terms of infrastructure and skills training are likely

to experience greater negative socio-cultural effects than larger and more developed

countries.

Community perceptions of tourism will be investigated in this research to understand

the socio-cultural issues faced by the indigenous communities and how tourism can

be managed to ensure that the sector’s economic, socio-cultural and environmental

benefits are maximised and associated costs minimised.

2.6 Sustainable Tourism Development Tourism development has had significant impacts on many destinations’

environment, culture and lifestyle. The impact of tourism has led to development of

alternative approaches generally known as sustainable tourism. Not only has

sustainable tourism created greater awareness of tourism impacts, it has also

encouraged local community involvement in conservation initiatives, generated

direct and indirect local employment, and brought about better strategies to identify

limits of acceptable change and carrying capacities (Page & Connell 2006, p394).

Tourism activities ranging from transporting tourists, feeding, activities,

entertainment and accommodating guests have had impacts which are complex and

varied. In some places tourism has revived local economies while in others it has

destroyed them; some have experienced cultural revival while in others it has

destroyed customs and traditions (Coccossis, 1996 p.1).

The recognition and importance of sustainable tourism has continued to grow and

this can be attributed to consumers becoming more experienced, development of new

green programmes by the travel industry and commitment by governments in

creating new policies to support sustainable practices. A good number of people do

26

not know what ‘sustainable tourism’ means and how can it be measured and

implemented. The understanding of the concept and how it can be put to practice are

key ingredients to achieving sustainable tourism development.

The concept of sustainable tourism was promoted as a means to bring about a

balance between economic, social and environmental goals (Coccossis, 1996). The

notion, with emphasis on conservation, has been popularized through an increase in

environmental awareness, green consciousness and the concern regarding detrimental

impacts of unplanned tourism development (Berry & Ladkin, 1997). According to

UNWTO (1996), ‘sustainable tourism’ is development that meets the needs of

present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the

future. As debate on sustainable tourism grew, Hunter (1997) attempted to reconnect

the concept of sustainable tourism with sustainable development and suggested a

range of sustainability positions that is acceptable to everyone. Hunter recommended

strong and weak sustainability positions as viewpoints held by different stakeholders.

Very weak sustainability positions are taken by those who support a free market

economy, exploitation of resources and ignore the intergenerational equity principle.

By contrast, those who advocate very strong sustainability support the preservation

of resources but take a position alleged to be anti-economic, as it denies the poor the

opportunity of meeting their basic needs through economic growth. Butler (1999)

reviewed the beginnings of sustainable tourism, and agreed that there was confusion

and misinterpretation of the concept, suggesting the need to differentiate sustainable

tourism from development of tourism using principles of sustainable development.

The paper also argued the need to apply the concept of sustainable tourism, not only

to the physical environment, but also to the human environment. Butler highlighted

as a major challenge, the inability to find a definition of sustainable tourism that is

satisfactory and acceptable to all tourism stakeholders. Sustainable tourism

development guidelines and management principles should be applicable to all forms

of tourism in all types of destinations (UNEP & WTO, 2005). New forms of

environmentally friendly and culturally sensitive tourism products have also emerged

to take advantage of the changing nature and preferences of travellers. Many

countries have since accepted the principles underpinning sustainable development

and incorporated these values into their tourism development plans, policy statements

and guidelines.

27

Sharpley (2002) argues that tourism literature has consistently failed to relate the

concept of sustainable tourism development to the theory of sustainable

development. He views sustainable tourism development as inward and product

centred instead of holistic and impartial. As a result, significant differences exist

between the concepts of sustainable tourism and sustainable development. As a

result of such gaps and challenges, Sharpley concludes by stating that ‘true’

sustainable tourism development cannot be achieved.

2.6.1 Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria

The Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) was established to promote

sustainable tourism practices around the world. In 2008, the Rainforest Alliance,

United Nations Foundation, United Nations Environment Programme and United

Nations World Tourism Organisation joined forces to launch the Global Sustainable

Tourism Criteria to promote the knowledge, understanding and adoption of

sustainable tourism practices. The four organisations are part of the twenty-seven

organisations working towards the adoption of universal sustainable tourism

principles. The criteria are used to try to ensure the protection and sustainable use of

the world’s natural, and cultural resources and should be the minimum requirement

that any tourism venture should aspire to reach (http://new.gstcouncil.org/page/learn-

about-the-gstc accessed on 18 December, 2008). The criteria will allow businesses

to choose appropriate programmes/guidelines that will allow them to become

sustainable and fulfil these criteria, assist travel agencies in choosing suppliers and

sustainable tourism programmes, help consumers identify sound sustainable tourism

programmes and businesses, ensure that broad guidelines set by the criteria are in

line with voluntary and certification programmes; and serve as a guide for education

and training bodies such as universities and hotel schools.

The GSTC criteria attempts to bring about a common understanding of sustainable

tourism and is the minimum that any tourism business should aspire to reach. Four

main themes are addressed and they include: effective sustainability planning;

maximizing social and economic benefits for the local community; enhancing

cultural heritage and reducing negative environmental impacts. The criteria only

highlight what should be done, not how it should be done. GSTC intends to make

this initiative a standard practice in all forms of tourism. The challenge, though, is

28

how to determine the extent of appropriate non-damaging development of the wider

socio-cultural and physical environment. One way to do this is to look at various

sustainability approaches that have been tried out in the past.

2.6.2 Sustainability Approaches

In 1995, the World Tourism Organisation (WTO) introduced a set of core indicators

for sustainable tourism in an effort to operationalise sustainable tourism

development. Indicators as defined by the World Tourism Organisation are:

information sets which are selected to measure changes that are of

importance for tourism development and management. (2004, p8)

Indicators measure impacts caused by tourism. These indicators are important for

policy makers, planners, operators and other stakeholders in ensuring that tourism

development is carried out within the economic, socio-cultural and environmental

carrying capacity.

A number of frameworks have been proposed and tested in an effort to operationalise

the sustainability concept. As described by Farrell and Marion, frameworks

provide a formal process for specifying clear management objectives

that define the desired resource and social condition and selecting

appropriate indicators and standards that reflect those objectives.

(2002, p34)

The success of any framework will depend on how well it is monitored. Monitoring

programmes allows one to periodically compare actual [resource and social]

conditions and [standards and numeric] indicators that have been set. A number of

approaches that have been used to monitor visitor impacts and experience include:

Protected Area Visitor Impact Management (PAVIM), Visitor Experience and

Resource Protection (VERP), Tourism Optimization Management Model (TOMM),

Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) and Carrying Capacity Assessment (Coccossis

& Mexa, 2004 p.44). These approaches have their own strengths and weaknesses

and have continued to evolve and improve to address new issues. An understanding

of these different approaches and how they can be improved is necessary in

understanding sustainable tourism development.

29

2.6.3 Protected Area Visitor Impact Management (PAVIM)

The PAVIM framework was developed by the U.S National Park and Conservation

Association to manage tourists visiting protected areas. To minimise environmental

impacts and maintain tourist satisfaction, PAVIM follows a process of identifying

indicators and preferred standards and expecting managers to work towards

achieving the desired conditions. The PAVIM approach minimises visitor impacts as

it could be costly to restore and rehabilitate protected areas. Visitor impact problems

as highlighted by Farrell and Marion (2002, p32) require management attention

because impacts can compromise the original intention of protecting such areas,

many impacts occur rapidly at initial stages or low levels of use and impacts can lead

to other undesirable consequences such as decline in visitor numbers. Visitor Impact

Management is used widely in the management of protected areas especially in North

America, Australia and New Zealand. Figure 2.2 shows steps used in the planning

and management of protected areas used in PAVIM, LAC and VERP frameworks,

giving a schematic diagram showing LAC, VIM and VERP planning and

management frameworks. Public involvement and participation is an important

aspect of successfully planning and managing the visitors, the resources, the

communities and other important stakeholders.

30

Figure 2.2: Schematic Diagram illustrating LAC, VIM and VERP Planning and Management Frameworks

[Adapted from Farrell and Marion, 2002, p.35]

2.6.4 Tourism Optimization Management Model [TOMM]

The Tourism Optimization Management Model (TOMM) concept, which was

developed and used for Kangaroo Island in Australia, employs a much broader

approach than just the environment. TOMM monitors tourism growth by setting up

economic, socio-cultural, environmental and marketing indicators and checks them

against unwanted or unexpected changes. Instead of setting limits on resource use,

TOMM targets the optimal and most sustainable results for tourism and the

community, and monitors conditions to bring about the desired result (Jack, nd). The

management also has a system in place that monitors and alerts stakeholders on

indicators that are not performing within their expected range. Results on the

implementation of TOMM have been very encouraging and key agencies have rallied

their support through their commitment to funding TOMM to ensure continuous

P u b l i c

P a r t i c i p a t i o n

Select & Implement Management

Standards Exceeded Standards not Exceeded

Evaluate & Identify

Compare conditions to Standards

Monitor Conditions

Specify standards for Indicators

Inventory Resource & Social Conditions

Select Indicators of Resource & Social Conditions

Define and Describe Opportunity Classes

Identify Area Impact Issues and Concerns

31

implementation of the programme. In general there has been an increase in readiness

of players within the industry to assist in promoting the TOMM concept.

2.6.5 Visitor Experience Resource Protection (VERP)

In 1992, the National Park Services developed the VERP framework to address

carrying capacity issues associated with the quality of visitor experiences, since it

was required by law that all park units have a general management plan (Hof &

Lime, 1997, p29). The handbook for planners proposes a nine-step framework which

starts from the formation of an interdisciplinary project team, statements of park

purposes, analysis of visitor experience, selection of indicators, to monitoring and

management actions in areas that need attention. The VERP framework was

developed as part of the general management process of parks in the US, to improve

weaknesses and challenges found in the carrying capacity framework.

2.6.6 Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment [TCCA]

The understanding of tourism carrying capacity as a management tool has been

evolving over the past decades, from conceptual to straightforward physical and

ecological parameters through to the more complex socio-demographic and socio-

cultural characteristics which are not easy to measure (PAP/RAC 1997).

Perceptions, expectations and the tourist experience are socio-cultural parameters

that need to be assessed and managed. The quality of experience can drop when

visitors do not get what they had hoped to get or do. This happens when there are too

many visitors or users of tourist resources, less space or more congestion of areas.

Determining the carrying capacity of tourism resources is very important because any

use beyond their thresholds can result in negative implications which could be

detrimental to the destination. Page and Connell (2006 p.400), suggested four main

areas under which carrying capacity can be investigated (table 2.1).

32

Table 2.1: Types of Carrying Capacity

Type Measure Physical A measure of the number of tourists that may be

accommodated on a site Perceptual A measure of the number of people that may be

accommodated on a site before the visitor experience is damaged

Economic A measure of the number of people that may be welcomed to a location before the economy of the area is adversely affected

Ecological A measure of the number of people that may be accommodated on a site before damage occurs to the environment

Source: (Page & Connell, 2006, p.400)

Mathieson and Wall define carrying capacity as:

the maximum number of people who can use a site without

an unacceptable alteration in the physical environment and

without an unacceptable decline in the quality of the

experience gained by visitors. (1982, p21)

The World Tourism Organisation gives a more inclusive definition of carrying

capacity, stating it as:

the maximum number of people that may visit a tourist

destination at the same time without causing destruction to

the physical, economic and socio-cultural environment and

an unacceptable decrease in the quality of visitor

satisfaction. (WTO, 2004, p309)

A long standing challenge of the carrying capacity assessment concept has been to

determine the maximum number of people who could use a recreational area without

destroying its essential qualities (Sanette, Ferreira & Harmse, 1999, p.327). The

following issues about carrying capacity were highlighted by Swarbrooke (1999,

p262):

i. some types of carrying capacity [perceptual and social] are very subjective

ii. measuring techniques are crude, not taking into account key factors such as

- the type of destination and nature of environment and local community

- the type of tourism and market segments it attracts

33

iii. carrying capacity does not address the complexity of the issues of

acceptable/unacceptable situations

iv. it does not take into account the cost of reducing capacity, such as job and income

losses.

While considerable efforts have been made to implement carrying capacity as a tool

for operationalising sustainable tourism, some academics and practitioners have

labelled the concept as vague and difficult to measure (Johnson & Thomas, 1996;

McCool & Lime, 2002). In addition, carrying capacity is viewed as focusing more

on the impact of people’s activities on the physical environment with little attention

to social issues. Research conducted by Simon, Narangajavana & Marques (2004,

p277) on Hengistbury Head also highlighted a number of weaknesses expressed by

Swarbrooke (1999) including:

- Agreeing on an acceptable definition. A definition that is universally

accepted and understood by everyone is vital if the implementation of the

concept is to be successful. Without this, it would be difficult to promote

carrying capacity assessment as a tool for operationalising sustainability.

Also, researchers and practitioners may be reluctant to adopt the approach as

TCCA could mean different things to different people.

- Some measurements are very subjective [depend on individual value

judgments]. What is acceptable and appreciated by one group of tourists may

be unacceptable to another group.

- Predicting impacts is difficult because thresholds change with time and they

can be altered by management action. Thresholds can also be reduced by

uncontrolled growth and unregulated over-use of resources.

Instead of asking how many people an area can sustain [carrying capacity approach];

one should be asking which social and biophysical conditions are desired or preferred

for a destination [limits of acceptable change approach]. Although a useful concept,

carrying capacity has a number of challenges when it comes to putting it into

practice.

34

2.6.7 Tourism carrying capacity as a planning tool

Outdoor recreation managers adopted the carrying capacity concept in the 1960s to

determine the maximum number of people who could use a recreational area without

destroying its essential qualities (Wager 1964, p.1 cited in Sanette, Ferreira &

Harmse, 1999, p.327). The same period saw the commencement of extensive

research on the subject of carrying capacity. The 1970s witnessed the shift from a

search for precise limits to recognition of a number of alternative capacity levels,

some based on human preference. The 1980s saw researchers move from searching

for precise numbers towards management policies that meet visitor expectations

rather than focus on determining limits to use (Sanette, Ferreira & Harmse, 1999,

p.327). In tourism planning, carrying capacity is commonly understood as ‘the

maximum acceptable level of tourism development in an area’ (Mexa & Coccossis,

2004, p40). As highlighted by Swarbrooke (1999), one has to bear in mind that

capacity levels can be influenced by the characteristics of tourists, the destination

area and its people. For example, the level of host irritation caused by the presence

of tourists can be intensified by long periods of stay, a sudden influx of visitors to a

concentrated spot, continued demonstration of superiority of visitors and deprivation

of resource use. Feeding and mating habits of animals can be affected by increased

number of visitors or by allowing visitors to get too close to these animals.

Measuring tourism carrying capacity is not about arriving at a ‘magic number’, as

proposed by Mathieson & Wall (1982). Although the concept has been criticized as

unworkable, researchers and organisations who support the carrying capacity concept

have continued to enhance the understanding of carrying capacity assessment and

how it can be meaningfully applied to different destinations. With support from

WTO and the European Commission, a more acceptable and workable definition has

emerged, in which the Carrying Capacity Assessment establishes an upper and lower

limit of carrying capacity to ensure that development takes place within the

determined parameters. Working within these limits allows tourism to optimize the

use of natural and cultural resources to increase visitor numbers, gain profit and

preserve these resources for future generations. It sets ‘limits to growth’ and

involves the assessment of the environmental, social and economic limits. Carrying

capacity assessment is important for tourism planning and management. It is a

35

workable tool because it clearly sets out defined parameters [upper and lower levels]

within which development is to be carried out. What are the major parameters for

tourism carrying capacity assessment?

2.6.8 Major parameters for TCCA

The Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment carried out in the Mediterranean areas

by Priority Actions Programme Regional Activity Centre (PAP/RAC) and European

Commission used three major parameters:

i. the physical and environmental

ii. the socio–demographic

iii. the political–economic.

The physical–ecological component includes all natural environments (such as

ecosystems, length of coastline, climate, geomorphology, water resources, water

quality, flora and fauna) that are fixed components (ecological capacity) and

infrastructure systems (water supply, sewage treatment, solid waste disposal,

electricity, transportation, public services) which are flexible components as their

capacity can rise through investment and regulatory measures. Examples of

thresholds include acceptable level of water pollution, acceptable level of

degradation of coastal resources and intensity of use of facilities.

The socio–demographic component includes local communities, tourist populations

and their interrelationships. Demographics (population, educational and health

services, tourist numbers, tourist markets) are easy to calculate whereas the social

component is more difficult to measure. Social aspects include availability of skilled

personnel, sense of identity of local community and tourist experiences. Thresholds

are difficult to evaluate as they are based largely on value judgments and include the

level of tourism that will be accepted by local communities and the level of tourism

without acceptable decline in visitor experience. Social carrying capacity refers to the

levels of tolerance of the host population and the level of satisfaction visitors have in

the area.

The political–economic component refers to the impacts of tourism on local

economic structure, for instance the number employed in different economic

activities and distribution. It also relates to economic measures employed to stimulate

tourism development such as investment (Trumbic, 2005).

36

It is suggested that TCCA should not be rigid but flexible enough so that it can be

reviewed, adapted and improved as new information becomes available and new

issues emerge (Twining-Ward & Butler, 2002). Indicators can be identified and

measured under each parameter. Indicators provide only a snap-shot at a particular

time in a particular place and cannot substitute for detailed scientific study of

destination processes. TCCA therefore is a management tool that can be used to

guide the sustainable use of tourism resources without decreasing visitor satisfaction

and destroying the socio-cultural environment of the host communities.

In 1997, PAP/RAC also developed a set of guidelines to assess tourism carrying

capacity in the Mediterranean Coastal Areas including Malta and Egypt. The core

objective of this guideline was to provide a framework that will contribute to the

understanding of the carrying capacity concept, its analysis and application within

integrated management of coastal areas (PAP/RAC, 1997). In conducting carrying

capacity assessments, it is important to identify the level at which tourism can be

maximised by both the host and the visitor without affecting the integrity of the

destination. PAP/RAC’s framework was a modified version of the framework

developed by the National Park Services. It suggested nine steps that could be taken

when preparing Carrying Capacity Assessments. It includes: setting up an inventory

and mapping out the target area, involving the community in the initial stages of

planning, evaluating tourism resources and demand, identifying development

alternatives and selecting the most desirable option, defining carrying capacity based

on analysis done, integrating carrying capacity assessment into integrated coastal

area management, and implementing the plan (PAP/RAC, 1997, p. vii).

2.6.9 Studies of TCCA

It must be noted that there is limited experience on the implementation and

measurement of carrying capacity assessment despite the vast amount of literature

available on the subject (European Commission, 2002). However, it has not stopped

organisations such as PAP/RAC and researchers from conducting assessments, as it

is an important component in tourism planning and management. Studies have been

carried out for Malta, areas of Egypt, Vis in Croatia, and Rhodes Island in Greece.

To gain a better understanding about TCCA and its requirements a brief look into

studies conducted for Malta and Fuka-Matrouh area in Egypt is suggested.

37

Malta (Min of Tourism, Malta 2001).

Malta is a country that is highly developed and urbanized. Its economic development

is heavily dependent on tourism, which contributes around 24% to the Gross National

Product. A unique country with a land area of 316 km², Malta hosted 1.2 million

visitors in 2000. In the late 1990s the Ministry of Tourism commissioned a study to

establish a TCCA for the country to define a tourism development scenario deemed

most appropriate.

The main objective of the TCCA study was to direct the management of tourism

activity within a sustainable framework and to ensure that all tourism activity and

development was set within a sustainable setting. The following steps were taken in

carrying out the exercise.

The first task was to determine the physical/ecological, socio-cultural and economic-

political parameters of the studied area. This included the review of tourism

statistics, visitors’ survey, socio–cultural impact surveys, and state of the

environment report. An assessment of implications of data collection followed. The

three main components were then assessed. The physical–ecological environment

looked at concentration of attractions, level of urbanization, environmental

deterioration, infrastructure pressure; the economic–political environment assessed

the dependency of economy on tourism, and seasonality; and the socio–cultural

component looked at the socially acceptable levels of tourism, impact on cultural

identity and satisfaction levels.

From the analysis, four tourism development options were then proposed:

i. free development

ii. intensive tourism with some control

iii. limited development (alternative tourism)

iv. sustainable tourism development.

The ‘sustainable tourism development’ option was chosen and indicators were

selected to monitor development. Some of the key indicators included: increased

foreign earnings from tourism, increased per capita expenditure, use of resources,

impacts on infrastructure and visitor satisfaction. For Malta, the main determinant of

the capacity assessment was the market. Tourism carrying capacity was expressed in

38

terms of bed stock and a 65% occupancy rate was deemed necessary for the

accommodation sector to be viable (Ministry of Tourism, 2001).

Fuka-Matrouh area – Egypt (PAP/RAC 1999)

The TCCA study for the Fuka-Matrouh coastal zone was part of the PAP/RAC’s

priority action for the Mediterranean Region and was conducted in the mid-nineties

on a 70 km long coastal area. The selected area was in its initial phase of tourism

development. A process similar to the one used in Malta was followed.

Both studies were successfully carried out and similar approaches can be applied to

other destinations.

2.6.10 Criticism of carrying capacity

Lindberg, McCool and Stankey (1996) identify a number of challenges relating to

carrying capacity: (i) effective implementation is difficult because definitions are not

clear; (ii) carrying capacity is seen as imprecise and as a concept too limited to the

physical sciences; (iii) a focus on carrying capacity gathers information on use levels

or numbers of visitors but reveals nothing on what management is required. Limiting

use or controlling numbers are meaningless if done without management objectives.

Applications of the TCCA concept vary in its interpretation. On the one hand,

conservationists use TCCA to obtain the maximum appropriate number of users and

limit the amount and type of development permitted (Saveriades, 2000). Other users

on the other hand see TCCA not as a scientific formula but as a flexible management

tool to guide tourism development in an area (Trumbic, 2005). It is a tool for

implementing sustainable tourism where quantification should be made whenever

possible. TCCA can also be used to establish thresholds beyond which negative and

undesirable impacts can occur to hosts, visitors and destinations.

2.6.11 Limits of Acceptable Change [LAC]

The limit of acceptable change [LAC] is a more recent management tool

incorporating a more holistic approach towards visitor management and resource

conservation. The LAC framework was initially developed by the United States

Forest Service researchers to address visitor management issues and was a product of

the spreading recognition that carrying capacity failed in achieving its objectives

39

(McCool, 1996, p2). It was designed to manage increasing levels of recreational use

and associated environmental consequences (Farrell and Marion, 2002). McCool

(1996) argues that, even though the carrying capacity concept was useful in

discussing visitor impacts based on biological models of the capability of resources

to sustain a given number of animals over a given period of time, it did not work in

settings managed for human benefits, especially recreational areas. LAC deals with

recreational carrying capacity; that is, how much use can or should an area be

allowed to tolerate. The framework sets measureable standards with a process that

decides the social and environmental conditions that are acceptable, management

actions to achieve such conditions and a programme of monitoring and evaluation of

management effectiveness. In this approach, the desired conditions are first defined

and management sets up strategies to maintain these conditions. The two main

challenges in the LAC process are the selection of standards and getting stakeholder

support. This is crucial as agreement on indicators is vital for the successful

implementation and monitoring of the whole LAC process. The main advantage of

LAC over Carrying Capacity Assessment is that LAC does not target use limits;

instead, it utilizes resources in accordance to the conditions that have been decided

(Ahnn, Lee & Shafer, 2002, p.1).

Tourism carrying capacity is the approach chosen for this research even though the

limit of acceptable change clearly highlights its shortfalls. Tourism carrying capacity

assessment has been used in a number of destinations, and on a smaller scale can be

used to assess the level of tourism in Kadavu. TCCA may not be the best available

option but the amount of literature available resulted in choosing TCCA instead of

limit of acceptable change.

The Protected Area Visitor Impact Management [PAVIM], Visitor Experience and

Resource Protection [VERP], Tourism Optimization Management Model [TOMM],

Limits of Acceptable Change [LAC] and Carrying Capacity Assessment are tools

that aim to address the question of carrying capacity, appropriate visitor use and

biophysical impacts caused by recreational use (Hof & Lime, 1997, p29). While

every framework has its own steps and general procedures, all address both

environmental and social conditions.

40

2.7 Types of tourist destinations

Although mass coastal tourism has been the predominant type of tourism, other

forms of tourism related to culture, business, education, health and religion have

surfaced making the demand increasingly specialized. Mexa and Collovini, (2004,

p247-8) affirmed that tourism development takes place in various places.

i. Coastal areas: Coastal areas are normally considered as the most valuable

parts of many countries from both ecological and socio-economic

perspectives. Many human activities such as agriculture, fishing,

aquaculture, mining and trade including tourism are developed along the

coastlines and they compete with each other for land, space and other coastal

resources. Carrying capacity issues for such areas will revolve around

tourist density, tourist infrastructure, the use of beaches, congestion of

facilities and sea pollution.

ii. Islands: Small islands are particularly vulnerable to the negative impacts of

intensive tourism development. Island tourism is more of small to medium

scale accommodation often around rural communities. Waste management,

water availability and usage, energy availability and usage, economy of the

island and how tourism is associated to society are some of the carrying

capacity considerations.

iii. Protected Areas: The interest in protected areas has continued to draw much

attention due to the increasing awareness and importance of our

environment. Recreational activities such as bird watching can be said to

have developed in protected areas like wetlands. Carrying capacity issues

for such areas will be on the number of tourists and the quality of visitor

experience.

iv. Rural Areas: Rural tourism is an expanding form of tourism which utilizes

local resources, promotes the consumption of local products and encourages

the participation of guests in local activities. An increasing concentration of

tourists does affect visitor flow and is an issue for rural destinations. Also,

impacts on the local society, culture and impacts on the rural economy are

issues that should be considered in the carrying capacity exercise.

41

v. Mountain Resorts: Tourism especially in European countries has been

promoted to combat economic decline and to reduce loss of population in

mountain areas (Mexa & Collovini, 2004). Activities in these areas include

nature and adventure tourism (hiking, trekking, mountain climbing). Issues

that will be considered here include overcrowding of facilities, minor change

in climate, in-roads leading to natural areas, and weathering of soil.

vi. Heritage sites and cities: Culture, history and religion constitute significant

elements of tourism. Overcrowding of facilities, traffic management, waste

management and land-use change are capacity issues that need to be

considered (European Commission 2002, p8).

Carrying capacity issues for island destinations that are highlighted by Mexa and

Collovini (2004) will be tested in this research. These include: waste management,

water availability, energy availability, economy of the island, community and tourist

perceptions.

42

Chapter 3

Tourism Development in the South Pacific

3.1 Tourism in the South Pacific

Twenty-five years ago, Britton had stated that South Pacific islands did not have the

capacity to meet many requirements of the tourist industry from their own resources,

even though tourism was one of the main sectors responsible for the economic

development in the region. This situation made the tourism industry highly

vulnerable to external commercial forces that act to limit the contribution of tourism

to development (Britton, 1987).

Though small on a global scale, tourism in the South Pacific is important in the local

economies, much of the populations relying on the economic activities that tourism

generates. Tourism is significant because it generates employment, contributes to

foreign exchange earnings and Gross Domestic Product (Rao, 2004; Harrison &

Prasad (forthcoming).

Milne (1992) conducted a study on ‘tourism and development on five South Pacific

microstates’, namely Cook Islands, Vanuatu, Tonga, Kiribati and Niue. The findings

note that while these nations differ considerably in terms of size, population and

relative distance from source markets, they also share common characteristics. All

are disadvantaged economically because of their size; internal markets are too small

to address importation of goods, high shipping costs and remoteness, limited range of

primary commodity exports, limited skill base and underemployment. Above all,

using a term derived from Bertram and Watters (1985), all were seen to exhibit key

features of MIRAB economic structures. That is, these nations are characterized by

outward migration (MI), a dependence on high levels of remittances (R) and

overseas aid (A) payments to cover trade deficits, and a reliance on bureaucracy (B)

for job creation (Milne, 1992, p 195). The performance of tourism during Milne’s

period of study (1983–1989) has been mixed. While tourism is always an important

43

development option for Pacific island microstates, exogenous factors have to some

extent hindered the development of this sector. First, over-reliance on single markets

often creates a dependence on individual air links. Relying on a single air link makes

the industry vulnerable to economic fluctuations in these countries. Secondly,

tourism in the South Pacific is vulnerable to natural disasters because most of the

tourist facilities are located along the coasts that suffer the brunt of high winds and

seas. Agricultural produce is also affected by natural disasters. Thirdly, locals find it

difficult to gain an ownership stake in the industry since package tourism depends on

close linkages between airlines, travel wholesalers and accommodation networks,

and those best able to link into the complex tourism system are overseas controlled

operations.

A study commissioned by Pro€Invest in 2005 on the tourism sector in the South

Pacific reported that the tyranny of distance, coupled with limited international air

access, and insufficient marketing funds, continues to stifle tourism growth in the

region. While larger island states invested heavily in infrastructure and actively

marketed their destinations, smaller islands were unable to do so at a significant scale

(SPTO, 2005, p.4). For the South Pacific to be competitive, accessibility and market

awareness has to be improved and larger and improved tourism infrastructure

developed.

Sofield (2003, p119) also raised a number of development challenges faced by

micro-states. First, the resources available in these islands are limited due to their

sizes. For example, Nauru was once famous for its phosphate deposits. Phosphate

was the main export product and provided most of the revenue for this small nation.

Now the island is left with no other resources as the mining of phosphate destroyed

80% of their land.

Secondly, the western approach to resource management may not always be

applicable to the islands’ fragile environment. A study by Kuilamu on land use

practices in Fiji (1995) revealed that while some traditional farming and fishing

practices pose no threat to the environment, others can have adverse impacts. These

negative practices could hinder or impede the sustainable use of the resources.

44

Thirdly, South Pacific tourist destinations, among the most remote in the world in

terms of distance and cost, are but small economies that make owning and operating

a national airline very difficult. As a result, these island destinations depend on

foreign airlines for the promotion and accessibility of their tourist facilities. The

survival of the tourist industry in these nations depends mainly on foreign air

carriers. These nations become vulnerable to corporate and government pressures of

foreign countries. Due to changes in travel tastes, foreign airlines have the money

and marketing power to promote countries of their own liking, which can work

against small island states.

Another major challenge is the difficulty in establishing themselves as a recognized

tourist destination. This is due to their market size and that they are peripheral to the

international economy. As suggested by Britton (1987), these small island states

should engage in mass marketing if they are to become part and parcel of

international tourism. In order for this to happen, foreign companies have to sell the

destinations in the tourist-generating countries. Unfortunately, Sofield (2003)

believes, big travel industries see other developed countries as more important

destinations to market than our small island nations. Recently, Harrison and Prasad

(forthcoming) also observed that the challenges with tourism in the Pacific islands

have not changed much. Instead of depending on Australia and New Zealand, they

should try to attract travellers from other regions such as India and China. The other

problems that have constrained tourism development include: limited natural

resources, communal ownership of land, poor accessibility and reliance on restricted

international carriers. These problems have continued to hinder development in the

South Pacific region.

In 2005, Simon Milne prepared a report on the Economic Impact of Tourism in South

Pacific Tourism Organisation (SPTO) member countries. The study assessed the

direct economic impact of tourism on the national economies of the SPTO member

countries: the Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia, Kiribati, Niue, New Caledonia,

Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Tonga and Vanuatu. The

report states that in 2004, an estimated $US365 million was spent by the tourism

industry on local wages and salaries. For every $US1 million of visitor expenditure,

$660,000 of local wages/salary and other purchases are made from local economies.

45

While the report provides some insights on the role tourism plays for SPTO member

countries, it also highlights weaknesses or challenges that need to be examined.

These challenges include: the need for robust and accessible tourism impact

information, better data on employment and tourism sector linkages, and consistency

on how information is gathered or analysed. A standardised system for collecting

data is therefore necessary if the region is to plan for tourism in a sustainable and

yield driven manner.

From a product lifecycle perspective, tourism in the South Pacific is moving from the

start phase to the growth phase. The outlook for tourism for the region is favourable

since respective governments are providing incentives that encourage both the

private sector and foreign investors to invest in tourism.

In assessing the impacts of tourism in the Pacific islands, Minerbi (1992) notes that

different forms of tourism projects generate different types of stresses, which

produce distinct effects because of the unique island locations, settings, situations

and people affected. While certain tourism impacts are predictable, Minerbi (1992,

p.2) believes that their effects on these islands differ as a function of:

i. the number of tourists ii. the size and scale of development

iii. the concentration versus dispersal of tourist plants and operation iv. the land ownership and leasehold pattern

v. the differing ethnicity, customs, morals, and religion of the local versus the tourist population

vi. the degree of sovereignty of the host population vii. foreign versus local investment and control of tourism

viii. the type of island setting and ecology. Tourism also alters how communities control critical resources as different groups

gain or lose ownership, access and use rights. One of the socio-political impacts

highlighted by Minerbi (1992, p.17) is the loss of local control. Tourist projects first

bring foreign corporate control of hotels and gradually assume foreign control of the

economy and political influence in central and local government. The consequence

is that administrative decisions are made in favour of foreign corporations,

legislations passed against established customs and practices eroding traditional use

of resources. Tourism development also increases the general cost of living, which

46

includes cost of food, services, land, housing, taxes and services well above what

locals can afford. Tourism therefore should be carefully planned and monitored to

ensure that its benefits and the distribution of these benefits accrue to all

stakeholders.

Historically, foreign enterprises dominated island tourism, with limited local

participation and control (Wilkinson, 1989; Milne 1992; Rao, 2002; Harrison &

Prasad, forthcoming). While most of the challenges encountered by island nations

are natural in globalization and development, the last thirty years have seen a new

challenge in terms of political instability and its implications for growth and

development.

Rao (2002, p.403) notes that:

political instability in one island nation can have ripple effects

across the region due to the island states’ close physical

proximity, regional groupings and linkages through

transportation.

Countries which have gone through political unrest include New Caledonia, Papua

New Guinea, Fiji, Solomon Islands and more recently, Tonga.

3.2 Tourism development in Fiji

The Republic of the Fiji Islands is made up of 322 islands of which one-third are

inhabited (figure 3.1). With a total land area of 18,333 square kilometer, Fiji has a

population of 837,271 people (Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics, 2007). With regard

to land, indigenous Fijians own 87.9% while 3.9% is state land. Freehold land makes

up 7.9% with the island of Rotuma owning the remaining 0.3%.

Situated in the South West Pacific, Fiji’s development as a tourist destination can be

traced back in the late 1800s as a significant refuelling stop for sea transport between

North America, Australia and New Zealand (Ministry of Tourism, 2005).

Steamships used Suva as a port of call, creating a demand for accommodation,

dining, entertainment and other services. The demand led to the publication of the

first travel guide in 1893 (Rao, 2002, p406). In 1923, the Suva Tourist Board was

established and later became known as the Fiji Publicity Board and Tourism Bureau.

The name again changed to Fiji Visitors Bureau to market Fiji as a tropical

47

Source:http://www.4hotels.com/maps/Fiji-

Figure 3.1: Map of the Fiji Islands

destination with an exotic culture. A major thrust for tourism came after World War

II, when Nadi airport, constructed for military purposes, opened Fiji to Australia and

New Zealand as a holiday destination.

Fiji’s colonial administrators were not convinced of tourism’s significance [viability

and profitability] and provided no direct assistance, leaving the industry to develop

on its own. Hoteliers had to bear the cost of development as well as marketing Fiji as

a destination. Government has since provided support through the funding of the Fiji

Visitors Bureau [FVB] and the provision of incentive packages for tourism

development (Government of Fiji, 2002). Fiji Visitors Bureau changed its name in

2008 to a more user friendly ‘Tourism Fiji’ to reflect their role as the marketing arm

of government and making information more accessible to the many potential visitors

who are searching for holiday destinations. Tourism Fiji has been able to develop

Fiji as a destination through assistance from government. Their marketing budget

has increased significantly from F$11m in 2003 to F$23.5m for the last three years.

Over the last fifty-five years, Fiji has continually recognized and supported the

development of tourism. In Fiji’s Development Plan 1966–1970 (p.9), tourism was

noted as a key sector, a source of income and employment for Fiji.

Fiji’s Sixth Development Plan 1971–1975 acknowledged tourism’s accelerated

growth in world travel, from 1960 to 1969. Visitor arrivals in Fiji during that period

grew from 14,722 in 1961, to 85, 163 in 1969 (Fiji’s Sixth Development Plan, 1970).

It represented more than 500% growth for that nine year period. The plan looked at

how tourism benefits could be maximized while minimizing social and

environmental implications.

48

One of the earliest comprehensive documents prepared for Fiji tourism development

was written in 1973 by Belt Collins and Associates. The UN-funded project viewed

tourism development as a key contributor to Fiji’s future economy. In preparing the

document, a holistic [economic, social and physical] approach was used where

conservation and modern development had to be balanced (Belt & Associates, 1973,

p3). The report highlights Fiji’s environment as clean and government’s recognition

of tourism as a tool for cross-cultural exchange. Fiji is seen as a safe and convenient

place to visit (p.57) and land is a major consideration for tourism development

(p.65). Another objective of developing a plan was to spread the benefits of tourism

as widely as possible. For the island of Kadavu, an airport was recommended given

its remote location (Belt Collins, 1973).

Fiji’s Seventh Development Plan 1976–1980 again highlighted Fiji’s continued

benefit from tourism. The rapid growth experienced in the late sixties did not

continue into the early seventies. The downturn allowed Fiji to review and assess

tourism’s potential as a contributor to economic activities and social well-being.

Fiji’s Eighth Development Plan 1981-1985 maintains tourism’s importance in Fiji’s

economy. It also raised questions about tourism and its role in the development of

Fiji. It asked whether tourism was inherently an unstable industry, and whether

transport costs to geographically distant countries could affect visitor numbers and

ultimately the industry. The plan, however, acknowledged the probable future

growth in demand for tourism, and aimed to encourage and facilitate tourism

development which is in line with national development objectives.

Britton’s (1987) analyses on tourism development in Fiji focused on the growth of

tourism in a neo-colonial economy dominated by foreign influence and profit seeking

interests.

49

Britton writes:

The distribution of the benefits of tourism is determined by the

organisation and structure of the industry. This structure

reflecting the capitalist and often the monopolistic nature of

enterprises…directly shapes the industry’s internal and

external linkages and determines the role the tourism market

and tourist destinations play within the international system.

These in turn decide the regional, sectorial and class

distribution of benefits derived from tourism. (Britton, 1987,

p.2)

Britton further claims that tourism in Fiji did not grow from tourist demands within

the economy, nor from metropolitan visitors wanting to visit Fiji. Rather, tourism

developed from investment and marketing initiatives provided by metropolitan

transport companies, which enabled tourist flows, and placed Fiji as a potential

tourist destination.

Fiji developed a Tourism Master Plan in 1989. The plan aimed to achieve amongst

other things, a sustained growth in total visitor expenditure, appropriate levels of

local participation, equitable distribution of benefits, cultural harmony between hosts

and visitors, and appropriate environmental management (Tourism Master Plan (Part

C), 1989, p1).

The coups of 1987 and 2000, amongst other factors such as economic downturn and

increase in world fuel prices, affected visitor confidence and ability to travel

especially to Fiji (Rao, 2002). Tourism, however, has continued to be supported and

encouraged in Fiji because of its potential for foreign exchange earnings, its

multiplier effects and its ability to support growth in other sectors (Harrison &

Prasad, forthcoming).

The Fiji Tourism Development Plan (1998–2005) had similar goals and aspirations

as previous plans. In 2003, World Wide Fund for Nature–South Pacific Programme

(WWF-SPP) and the Asian Development Bank signed an agreement to conduct a

'Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of Fiji's Tourism Development Plan.

The report highlights among other things, the vulnerability of the environment in the

50

face of tourism development. Pressure on coral reefs in some areas has been

reaching critical levels, which could lead to irreversible damage.

The report recommended sustainable options for dealing with key issues, which

included the following:

First, Fiji should give priority to the sustainable use of its resources. The country is

highly vulnerable to environmental threats even though much of the policies,

legislation and regulations are already in place. The Environment Management Act

should be fully implemented and enforced so that resources are managed and

protected.

Secondly, Fiji should develop tourism within its environmental carrying capacity, as

irreversible damage can happen if large-scale development continues to be

encouraged and this can tip the balance. Some hotels [e.g. Shangri-La Fijian Resort]

have introduced best practice through an artificial wetland to capture nutrients and

have implemented environmentally friendly waste treatment systems.

Thirdly, the pace and scale of tourism development should be according to the

resources we have and the constraints we currently face. The report favours small

scale development because it is more aligned to the resources Fiji possesses.

Lastly, leakage should be reduced and the socio-economic benefits derived from

tourism should be diversified. To achieve this, government should support and

encourage small, community-based tourism. This will ensure that the economic

benefits remain locally and are evenly spread across the country.

The two main conclusions derived from the SEA study fully supported what has been

highlighted through studies in Malta and Cyprus regarding tourism carrying capacity

and how sustainable tourism development can be achieved. First, future tourism

development needs to be cautiously planned and managed. It should maximise the

benefits and protect its advantages, avoid any action that could be detrimental to the

environment and create further social tension. Secondly, Fiji needs to implement its

regulatory and institutional processes in full for tourism expansion to be sustainable

(Levett & McNally, 2003). Even Mosley and Aalbersberg, (2004) confirmed some

of the concerns of the SEA report and revealed that places like the Coral Coast and

51

Mamanucas had exceeded their carrying capacity as negative environmental and

social problems were evident in some areas.

3.3 Fiji Tourism Development Plan 2007–2016

The Fiji Tourism Development Plan 2007–2016 (FTDP) was endorsed by

government in 2007 and has since then been the official document guiding the

development of the tourism sector in Fiji. The formulation of the plan was a joint

exercise between the Sustainable Development Consortium and the University of the

South Pacific and was funded by the Ministry of Tourism. As tourism grows, Fiji

faces a number of critical challenges: to balance the supply of accommodation with

international air capacity, to balance domestic transport links with preferred

development of the outer island areas and to balance growth in room stock and

airline capacity with growth in attractions. Three development options were

suggested to steer Fiji’s tourism sector; low growth scenario [annual growth rate of

4%], managed growth scenario [annual growth rate of 9%] and aggressive growth

scenario [annual growth rate of 12%]. The managed growth scenario was adopted

and it targets 1.1 million visitor arrivals with 16,000 rooms by 2016. The FTDP

(p.123) proposes the determination of tourism carrying capacity in all potential

development areas to sustainably control the development of tourism. To achieve

this, the plan recommends that all tourism stakeholders should work together and use

resources within their acceptable limits (STDC, 2007, p28, p123). The FTDP

emphasizes the importance of sustainable development and implementation of key

initiatives recommended in the Strategic Environmental Assessment (in 2003), the

enforcement of the Environment Management Act (in 2005) and the enforcement of

sustainable development guidelines for approvals of new tourism businesses.

Regional Prosperity was one of the key areas highlighted in this plan. Tourism was

to create benefits without being overwhelmed with socio-cultural and environmental

impacts. Development had to be planned and managed sustainably to provide

prosperity and at the same time allow locals to decide what is acceptable and what is

not. Kadavu is one of the regions that can be developed for diving, ecotourism and

sport fishing.

52

3.4 Tourism in Fiji today

Tourism is one of Fiji’s leading economic sectors. In 1989, the tourism sector

became Fiji’s main foreign exchange earner, surpassing sugar. In 2005, a total of

544,500 tourists visited our shores, contributed $812.7 million dollars in foreign

earnings and provided employment to more than 21,000 people (Department of

Tourism, 2010). Tourism contributes significantly to Fiji’s economy through

generation of employment, and offsets the balance of payment problem, bringing in

foreign currency and creating demand to other related sectors. Table 3.1 shows what

tourism has been contributing to Fiji’s economy in terms of earnings from 2005 to

2009. Harrison and Pratt (2010) estimated that tourist arrivals to Fiji could have

reached more than 800,000 in 2008 if the country had not gone through the series of

coups.

Table 3.1: Tourist arrivals and foreign earnings 2005 – 2009

Year Tourist Arrivals

(N)

Tourism Earnings

(FJD)

2005 549,911 812.7 million

2006 548,589 822.5 million

2007 539,881 784.1 million

2008 585,031 853.8 million

2009 542,186 816.9 million Source: Fiji Department of Tourism.

The six major sectors that drive Fiji’s economy are tourism, sugar, garments, gold,

timber and fish. Table 3.2 shows that tourism is by far the sector that contributes the

most to Fiji’s economy (Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics, 2010). For example, in

2005, tourism contributed 812.7 million while the other five sectors (combined)

contributed 531.3 million dollars. Tourism remains Fiji’s biggest foreign exchange

earner and is likely to be in this position for the next decade.

53

Table 3.2: Top Six Industries for the Fiji Economy Tourism Sugar Garments Gold Timber Fish F($)m F($)m F($)m F($)m F($)m F($)m F($)m 2005 812.7 223.6 120.4 59.3 45.1 82.9 2006 822.5 215.1 94.9 43.1 37.6 97.9 2007 784.2 185.0 97.1 2.6 47.7 101.3 2008 853.8 248.2 100.1 26.7 59.3 134.2 2009 816.9 187.1 83.9 41 36.7 156.7 Source: Bureau of Statistics. Key Stats June 2010 – [Major Domestic Exports].

3.4.1 Impacts of Tourism in Fiji

A number of studies have been conducted in various parts of Fiji which look at the

impacts of tourism on the economy, natural environment, culture and the way of life

for the local communities (Samy, 1980; King & Weaver, 1993; King, Pizam &

Milman, 1993; Vanualailai, 2005). For instance, Samy in 1980 conducted a study on

employment patterns in a multi-million dollar resort hotel in Fiji. His findings

revealed that in these types of hotels, expatriates and local Europeans held top

management positions while locals were mainly in the service and unskilled roles.

With regard to job satisfaction and security, those in senior positions were found to

be more satisfied with their work, salary and housing than those with lower salaries.

Samy also made reference to similar types of exclusive resort development in the

Caribbean creating similar types of resentment and discrimination amongst local

industry workers.

King and Weaver (1993) studied Fiji tourism industry attitudes towards the

environment and they identified a strong recognition by the tourism industry

operators on the links between the natural environment and tourism. Their findings

revealed a strong relationship between the visitor experience provided by the

business and the quality of the natural environment in the immediate area. Their

recommendations highlighted the need to improve environmental management

practices, which include creation of new marine and national parks, an increase in

local participation and strict adherence to environmental standards.

Similarly, King, Pizam and Milman (1993) conducted a study on the perception of

residents in Nadi towards the impacts of tourism. The study reveals that residents

[most were dependent on the industry for their livelihood] support tourism and

favour its expansion. Also, residents of communities that depend on tourism are well

54

aware of the economic benefits and social costs of tourism. Interestingly, the study

also reveals that even though the Nadi residents are aware of the negative

consequences of tourism, they still support further tourism development. The

tourism industry has also been criticized because the benefits tourism brings to the

local people are not really all they claim to be. Studies conducted by Samy (1980),

King and Weaver (1993) and King, Pizam and Milman (1993) focused mainly on the

main island of Viti Levu.

Positive contributions by tourism often brings with it negative trends in coastal

resources. Studies by Mosley and Aalbersberg (2004) have shown significant

changes in the environment in tourism areas around Fiji. Their work in the

Mamanucas and on the Coral Coast reveals changes in water quality, pollution and

reef degradation resulting from tourism activities in the area.

In 2004 the Ministry of Tourism commissioned a study on the economic,

environmental and socio-cultural impact of tourism in the Yasawa islands. The

Yasawa group has been one of Fiji’s main tourism regions and most of its

communities rely heavily on tourism for their livelihood. The impacts of tourism on

smaller island destinations are more interesting because certain issues affect

development and long-term sustainability of the industry. Such factors include water

availability, waste management, accessibility to beaches and competition for use of

limited resources. The Yasawa group of islands is a popular destination for

backpackers. The large volume of tourists visiting Yasawa islands, shows negative

impacts resulting from poor environmental practices, change in lifestyle of villagers,

and overcrowding (Vanualailai, 2005).

The report by Vanualailai shows that for the last eight years, government has

invested a lot of money to assist locals in starting and managing their own

businesses. The islands, however, have also had their share of problems associated

with tourism development.

Even though tourism thrives in the Yasawa islands, only a small percentage of locals

are directly engaged through part ownership, full ownership of business or

employment in resorts. This happens despite tourism businesses operating within

their community boundaries.

55

Figure 3.2 Map of Yasawa Islands

Source: http://mappery.com/Viti-Levu-Fiji-Tourist-Map

There have been incidents of overcrowding and in some instances tourists have been

turned away due to unavailability of rooms. This stems from poor planning.

There has also been a rapid increase in the level of untreated sewage being

discharged directly into the sea by small resorts. Buildings have been erected

without proper approval from relevant authorities. Some are not following proper

government requirements and are building too close to the beach.

Lack of privacy and reduced community

involvement in village work were social issues that

were revealed in this research. Others were

conflicts [amongst each other and also with resort

owners] resulting from lack of consultation and

unequal distribution of benefits to community

members; and increases in consumption of alcohol,

cigarettes and kava (Vanualailai 2005).

The report highlights key issues emerging from tourism activities and how they need

to be addressed by government and other stakeholders (Vanualailai 2005).

The Yasawa group falls under the category of ‘small islands’. It is a destination that

has economic, socio-cultural and environmental issues that can affect future tourism

growth. The impacts of tourism in the Yasawa group are obvious and there are

lessons that Kadavu and other emerging destinations can learn from as they embrace

tourism as a development tool.

3.4.2 The Environment Management Act

Fiji’s parliament endorsed the Environment Management Bill which became the

Environment Management Act in March, 2005. The purpose of the Act is to apply

the principles of sustainable use and development of natural resources in Fiji.

56

That is, the use and utilization of natural and physical resources must recognize and

have regard to:

i. the preservation of coastal environment, lakes and rivers

ii. the protection of outstanding natural landscapes and natural resources

iii. the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and fauna

iv. the relationship of indigenous Fijians with their ancestral lands,

waters, sites, and sacred areas

v. the protection of human life and health. (Part 1, section 3)

The Act has significant components that are important to the management of natural

and physical resources, as follows:

i. respective government ministries to create their own environmental

management units to formulate policies that are in line with the act

(Part 2, Section 13)

ii. a natural resource inventory and resource management plan for

resources under its jurisdiction (Part 2, Section 13)

iii. the establishment of a National Council for Sustainable Development

to coordinate policy development and delivery, develop

environmental strategy, prioritize programmes and procedures, and

advise on institutional structure (Part 2, Section 8)

iv. commercial or industry facilities to adopt the Code of Environmental

Practice and submit environmental audits to demonstrate compliance

to environmental inspectors (Part 2, Section 19)

v. an Environmental Register to be established which would allow

people to access any document in the register (Part 2, Section 17)

vi. coastal resource management to be featured in documents such as the

National State of the Environment, the National Environment Strategy

and a Natural Resource Management Plan.

This was a big step as it gave the Department of Environment authority to approve or

reject development proposals, inspect, monitor development and prosecute or impose

fines if requirements are not followed. For tourism, the Act complemented

recommendations from the mid-term review of the Tourism Master Plan 1998–2005

57

(see page 46–47). The use of carrying capacity assessment as a tool to determine the

acceptable level of development in tourism development areas has been growing but

its implementation has been slow for Fiji.

3.4.3 Environmentally Sustainable Small Hotels and Resorts

In an attempt to make small hotels and resorts environmentally sustainable, four

institutions namely: the University of the South Pacific’s Institute of Applied

Science, the School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Resort Support and

Environmental Consultants, and the Ministry of Tourism, published a booklet titled

‘Making Small Hotels and Resorts Environmentally Sustainable: A simple checklist

for Fiji Operators’. The booklet provides simple ideas local operators can use when

setting up small hotels or resorts. The guide highlights eight issues and provides

suggestions on construction and building design, ways of saving energy, ways of

saving water, management of waste, management of gardens and landscapes, ways of

reducing pollution, and community support. The guide has been used by the

Department of Tourism to train interested locals and backpacker operators around

Fiji on how they can manage their operations sustainably.

3.4.4 Licensing of Properties

Another way of achieving sustainable tourism development is to ensure that all

businesses are operating and meeting minimum legal requirements. Individual

properties are inspected annually and should meet the minimum requirements before

a renewal is granted. The 2010 Hotel Licensing Board list of licensed hotels reveal

that there are currently 351 accommodation properties in Fiji (see Appendix 5).

These properties provide a total of 22,022 beds (HLB listing, 2010).

3.4.5 Review of Ecotourism Projects in Fiji

The Yasawa group is the region that benefitted the most from assistance given by

government through the ‘ecotourism project’ that started in 2002. Altogether, a total

of 140 projects was assisted by the Ministry of Tourism during the period 2002–2005

(Verebalavu & Kuridrani, 2006). Although the project was able to improve

economic and social well-being of local communities that were assisted, a number of

shortfalls were identified when a review was carried out in 2006 [see Table 3.3].

58

Table 3.3: Shortfalls of Fiji’s Ecotourism Projects

a. Uneven distribution of financial assistance to tourism regions around Fiji

Yasawa, by region, received the most assistance and generated more economic benefits to its local communities than other regions.

ii. Lack of monitoring system the Ministry of Tourism was unable to monitor and evaluate financial assistance rendered, which resulted in non-accountability from business owners and misuse of assistance.

iii. Lack of provision of other forms of assistance

the project should have ensured that recipients undergo proper training on basic business management skills.

The review showed that some businesses started but quickly died off because the

owners lacked marketing and business skills. The Yasawa impact study and the

review of the Ecotourism project both highlight issues and problems that local

communities and destinations encounter when engaged in tourism businesses.

3.4.6 Green Fiji Tourism Accreditation

In 2003, Cabinet endorsed the use of the Green Globe 21 accreditation scheme, a

well-established international certification programme, to achieve sustainable

tourism and travel in Fiji. The programme is based on the Agenda 21 Principles for

Sustainable Development endorsed at the United Nations Rio De Janeiro Earth

Summit. The aim was to provide a programme that is more affordable, will improve

the socio-cultural sustainability of businesses, cater for the different segments of the

industry and provide direct economic and monetary benefits for all participants.

Green Globe 21 has been superseded by Evaluate Communicate Evolve global

consulting (ECЗ), an international tourism and environmental management and

advisory group which works closely with industry partners and communities to plan,

develop and achieve business and marketing objectives. ECЗ specializes in:

i. Tourism strategy development and implementation

ii. Destination planning and development

iii. Tourism policy planning and delivery

iv. Product development and marketing

v. Sustainable business development

vi. Community capacity building and

vii. Project management.

59

ECЗ has been able to provide the industry with scientific and technological

opportunities to address business and sustainability challenges.

Several issues that had to be addressed are identified.

First, institutional arrangements: The institution that implements the programme

should be independent. Stakeholders have to agree to ensure that the programme

succeeds.

Secondly, financial and human implications: The sustainability of the programme

depends on having capable human resources to manage and finance to pay personnel

and operation costs. It was envisaged that after three years of government assistance,

the programme would be able to finance its own operations.

Thirdly, incentive: Consultations with industry stakeholders revealed that more

would participate if they were given incentives such as tax rebate, marketing

assistance by Tourism Fiji and recognition and rewarding of top performers in the

Fiji Excellence Award event.

Green Fiji aims to change the way tourism operators run their businesses so that they

become more profitable and more sustainable. Meeting international standards on

environmental performances will surely put Fiji as a destination to be visited. As

reflected in Fiji’s Tourism Development Plan 2007–2016 (p.119), “Fiji can be the

first tourism destination in the South Pacific to provide internationally recognized,

locally managed environmental tourism certification”. This will also give Fiji a

strong marketing edge over other Pacific destinations. This programme will greatly

assist small to medium accommodation enterprises and backpackers and encourage

environmental sustainability within the local tourism industry.

3.4.7 Tourist Carrying Capacity Assessment at the Coral Coast

Tourism activities in Fiji are centred mainly on the western coast of Viti Levu and

offshore islands, with over 70% of all visitors staying in the Mamanuca islands and

the Nadi–Coral Coast corridor (IVS Report, 2005). The main reasons for this trend

are the high level of infrastructure, which includes accommodation, good roads and

beach access and proximity to airports. International marketing by the larger hotel

chains and tour companies have also contributed to building greater awareness and

demand for these areas.

60

In 2005, the Ministry of Tourism and the Institute of Applied Science of USP

engaged a volunteer under the Australian Youth Ambassador Development

programme to conduct the first carrying capacity assessment along part of the Coral

Coast region in the province of Nadroga. The Integrated Coastal Management (ICM)

project, which has been monitoring some activities along the Coral Coast, reported

significant damage caused to the area through a range of activities including tourism

(Mosley & Aalbersberg, 2004). The objective of the exercise was to:

i. identify the social, environmental and economic indicators on the natural

surroundings, local population and the visitor experience of a mature tourist

destination

ii. identify priority issues from the results collated

iii. review government’s planning and monitoring procedures for tourism

development in the study area

iv. identify recommendations to address the issues and implement whole of

government planning procedures to guide future tourism development

v. use the results of this pilot survey to spearhead similar assessments on

tourism regions around Fiji (Patterson & Hughes, 2006, p.2).

In December 2006, the Fiji Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) committee

prepared a list of indicators to be used for the tourism carrying capacity study along

the Coral Coast. As mentioned earlier, the concept of carrying capacity has been

widely discussed in the past but has been tested in only a few destinations. Indicators

relevant to Fiji were adopted from similar work carried out in the Mediterranean

region and from the World Tourism Organisation indicator list. Indicators were

identified and chosen under three main parameters:

i. the socio–demographic,

ii. the physical and environmental

iii. the political–economic components.

The socio–demographic parameter includes local communities, tourists and their

relationships. It takes into consideration the population, health services, tourist

numbers, sense of identity of the local communities and tourist experiences.

Thresholds for social indicators are more difficult to evaluate because they are based

mainly on value judgments. The physical and environmental parameter includes

such fixed components as water resources, water quality, flora and fauna. The

61

flexible components, whose capacity can rise through investment and regulatory

measures, include water quality, water supply, solid waste disposal, electricity,

transportation and public services. The economic parameter looks at the number of

people employed in tourism-related activities and how tourism has stimulated

development in the region. Tables 3.4 to 3.6 give the indicators tested for in the

Coral Coast study. Table 3.4: Physical – Environmental Indicators

Issue Indicators Source of data Existing Facilities Number of accommodation providers

Number of beds Tour companies, Dive companies

MOT Hotel Survey DoT DoT

Water availability and conservation

Water use (overall and per tourist/day) Number of water shortages % or number businesses practising water conservation (reuse, reduce)

USP

Drinking water quality % tourism establishments with water treated to potable standards % local population with access to treated water Frequency of visitors reporting water-borne illnesses

USP Provincial office USP

Sewage treatment Only able to survey 15/25 hotels

% of sewage in area receiving treatment (primary, secondary) and calculate separately for tourism % tourist establishments with adequate treatment Number of hotels who use Septic tank Treatment plant Municipal sewer

USP USP USP

Solid waste Methods of solid waste disposal Number tourism establishments involved in recycling (plastic bottles, cans) Number of villages who recycle solid waste (plastic bottles, cans) % area covered by collection services

Hotel Survey Waste Recycle Waste Recycle Waste Recycle

Coastal Water quality Level of contamination (faecal coliforms, nutrients, turbidity) Frequency of algae blooms

USP USP

Climate Change/Environmental vulnerability

Frequency of extreme climatic events Value of damage annually

USP USP

Protecting Critical Ecosystems

Number of protected/conservation areas or area Health of key indicator species/populations % reef in degraded condition (biological surveys)

USP USP USP

Tourism contribution to conservation % businesses contributing to conservation Hotel Survey

Environmental management systems

% companies with a policy on environmental issues or number with staff designated for environment issues Staff trained on environment/sustainability issues

Hotel Survey Hotel Survey

62

Table 3.5: Socio-Demographic Indicators

Issue Indicator(s) Source of Data Local Population (villages) Total Number Namatakula - Malevu Provincial Council

Tourist Population in 2005 By percentage IVS

Tourist Density Visitor numbers (year 2005) Peak Seasons

IVS

Local satisfaction with tourism Level of local satisfaction with tourism Social Survey

Community benefits associated with tourism Fundraising efforts for community service

% villages indicating tourism improved social services and infrastructure number of community development programmes in place from tourism (i.e. Korolevu Health Centre, schools etc.)

Social Survey Social survey Hotel Survey

Impact on community life/ Changes to lifestyle

Ratio of tourists to locals (average and peak) % changed to more western culture of dress, diet etc. % informing tourists about local protocol number of conflicts within local communities related to tourism

Social Survey Social Survey Social Survey Social Survey

Social responsibility % businesses with policies aimed at social issues with local communities (e.g. employment, support for development etc.)

Table 3.6: Political-Economic Indicators

Issue Indicator(s) Source of Data Tourist Expenditure/ Revenue

Spending per tourist Occupancy rates Average length of Stay

IVS IVS

Economic dependence Contribution to GNP/GDP Employment Total number locals employed

% employed in tourism % jobs full-time or permanent

Hotel Survey

Tourism seasonality Tourism arrivals by month Occupancy rate by month

IVS

Investment % locally owned tourism businesses Min of Tourism Revenue Number informal activities benefiting from

tourism (e.g. handicrafts, sale of agricultural products, tours etc.) Average expenditure per/person Total tourism revenues for area (growth rate) or annual profit from tourism businesses

IVS Hotel Survey

Existence Local/Regional Planning & Development Control

Existence of land use/development/tourism planning process % facilities have had impact assessments conducted % regularly inspected by local authorities

Planning authorities DoE DoE

Abbreviations # IVS – International Visitors Survey 2005 # USP – University of the South Pacific #DoE – Department of Environment # DoT – Department of Tourism #IAS – Institute of Applied Science

63

One of the findings highlighted in this exercise, for example, was on the management

of waste and pollution. Hotels have often been blamed in the past for disposing of

solid waste and sewage waste into the ocean, contributing to the deterioration of

water quality in the area. It was also found that only six of the fourteen

establishments in the area recycle their solid wastes and only two hotels had waste

water treatment facilities installed. The study also raised the issue of water

availability for the many people that are now living along the Coral Coast area. New

developments in the area including Maui Bay Estate, Sovi Bay and the Natadola

Marine Resort has added further pressure on the already limited water supply. Three

locally owned resorts use water supplied by the water authority, two hotels use

nearby creeks while one uses a borehole.

Overall, the report contends that the Coral Coast has not reached its carrying capacity

even though the ‘liquid waste’ indicator may have shown negative results. Improved

treatment systems can certainly bring the ‘liquid waste’ indicator back to the ‘okay’

region. Recommendations from the report include the upgrade of all solid waste

management procedures, the promotion of environmentally friendly practices to their

guests and the use of existing recycling services to sustain tourism in the area.

Similar indicators will be used for this research in Kadavu and lessons learnt from a

mature destination like the Coral Coast will be used to ensure that tourism

development in Kadavu is sustainable and that policies are put in place at an early

stage to ensure that environment and resources are protected, local communities are

happy and tourists are satisfied. For Kadavu, the carrying capacity study will focus

on a small part of the island and will include three villages and two resorts. The

island is one of the least developed provinces in Fiji.

64

3.5 Summary

This chapter gives a brief outline of the development of tourism from the ‘middle

age’ to the modern era and the growth in global tourism after the Second World War.

As noted by UNWTO tourism forecasts, Europe remains the top generating and

destination region and despite the strong growth from the Asian market it is likely to

remain as the leading region for the next decade. Tourism in developing countries

has to be understood as Fiji is part of the developing nations and understanding the

development paradigms (Scheyvens, 2002; Sharpley & Telfer, 2002) is vital to

understanding the development of tourism in the South Pacific.

Fiji’s tourism sector was viewed by Belt Collins (1973) as a key contributor to Fiji’s

economy and tourism is still Fiji’s top foreign exchange earner. Key policies that

have helped the industry to where it is today include: the mid-term review of the

Tourism Master Plan 1998–2005, the enactment of The Environment Management

Act, the formulation of the Fiji Tourism Development Plan 2007–2016, the Hotel

Licensing Board, the Review of Ecotourism Projects, the Green Fiji Sustainable

Tourism Accreditation Programme and the Carrying Capacity assessment at the

Coral Coast.

Kadavu, as stated in this chapter, is one of the least developed provinces in Fiji.

Their main mode of transportation within the island and to Suva is by boat. For

tourists the main mode of transportation is by air. Tourism is still in its embryonic

stage and it is one of the reasons why it was chosen for this study.

The next chapter will first describe the study area before selected methodological

approaches and strategies are presented and defended.

65

source: nztourmaps.com/fiji_map_kadavu.htm

Chapter 4

Methods 4.1 The study area The areas in which this study took place are shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Islands of Kadavu

Kadavu, the fourth largest island in the Fiji group, is located 100km south of Viti

Levu. The 93 kilometre long island varies in width from 365 meters to 13

kilometres. Kadavu is typically rugged with mountainous topography. Transport

infrastructure is sub-standard. The single road serves only one quarter of the island

population so the main form of transport within Kadavu is by boat. Air transport, is

currently provided by one flight from Nadi and one from Suva daily, explaining the

low number of tourists visiting the island every year. Most islanders travel to Viti

Levu by boat because air travel is quite expensive. According to the 2007 population

census, a total of 10,167 people reside on the island, of whom 5347 are male

(Government of Fiji, 2008). A huge percentage of the rainforest cover is still intact,

and Kadavu is one of the least developed islands in Fiji. Tourists are attracted

because it has beautiful environment and rugged landscapes, it has great diving,

fishing and snorkelling hotspots. The island has rare endemic bird species,

wonderful treks and waterfalls, great activities such as game fishing, bird-watching,

and trekking and very close to the Great Astrolabe Reef.

Daku

Naivakaraunini

PapagenoEcoResort

Navuatu

Matana Resort [Dive Kadavu]

66

Figure 4.2: Location of Tourist Resorts in Kadavu Source of Map: Fiji Resorts.com

Kadavu has been involved in tourism for the last 27 years but mainly on a small

scale. Figures provided by the Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics show visitor arrivals

to Kadavu had grown steadily from 664 in 2000 to 1,320 in 2008 (Appendix 7). In

the same period tourism earnings for the island grew from $1M dollars in 2000 to

$2.4 in 2009. In 2006, eleven properties were operating on the island. At the time of

the research (2009), 10 properties were operating, of which eight are foreign owned

and two locally owned (STDC, 2007-2016). According to the 2009 International

Visitors Survey Report, 0.0027% of the 542186 tourists that came to Fiji visited

Kadavu. This is equivalent to 1464 tourists visiting Kadavu in 2009. The ratio of

locals to tourists at that time was 7:1 (7 locals to 1 tourist). Kadavu has a total of 10

tourism properties scattered throughout the island and provides 161 beds (see Figure

4.2 and appendix 5). Papageno resort (25 beds) and Dive Kadavu resort (20 beds)

make up 28% of the total beds available in Kadavu. In 2008 the two resorts received

36% of the total visitors to Kadavu. The main mode of transport to Kadavu is

through the daily flights from Nadi and Nausori.

For the last 15 years, people living within the Great Astrolabe Reef and the island of

Ono in Kadavu, have received assistance from government, World Wide Fund for

Nature (WWF), the University of the South Pacific and other non-governmental

Nagigia Island Resort Matava – The Astrolabe Hideaway

Matana Resort (Dive Kadavu)

Papageno Eco Resort

Waisalima Beach Resort

Tiliva Resort

Biana Accommodation

Muaivadra Beach Resort

Koro Makawa Resort

Mai Dive Ltd

67

organisations on environmental awareness, research and marine conservation

initiatives (Kadavu Yaubula Management Support Team Report (KYMST), 2005).

In addition, the Fiji Locally Managed Marine Area (FLMMA) network has also

helped the island by training community members in monitoring survey skills to

enable them to manage their marine resources effectively. According to the Kadavu

Yaubula Management Support Team Report (KYMST), the initiative to manage their

resources came as important stakeholders began to be aware of the declining state of

their traditional fishing grounds (iqoliqoli), the increase in tourism activities in these

areas and the government proposal for the return of fishing grounds to indigenous

resource owners. With assistance from government, the Institute of Applied Science

at USP, and the Provincial Office, the island established the KYMST. The main role

of the KYMST team is to assist villages in the management of their marine resources,

mainly by establishing and managing sites deemed important for conservation.

Members of the KYMST team are trained and empowered to conduct field

assessments and environmental awareness training, share their experiences, conduct

monitoring surveys and provide general support to interested communities. Daku,

Naivakarauniniu and Navuatu are three of the many villages that have since

established their marine protected areas (MPA). They now see the value of their

environment and the importance of protecting it to ensure sustainable livelihood for

the present and future generations. In 2007, the Kadavu Provincial Council endorsed

its Strategic Development Plan, which highlighted seven focal areas. These include:

1) food security; 2) maintenance of large numbers of tropical fruits and birds; 3)

healthy/green forests; 4) undisturbed catchment areas and sustainable water sources;

5) attraction of more tourists to Kadavu; 6) improved household income level, and 7)

improved parental ability to support tertiary education from Kadavu without

migrating to Suva. Attracting more tourists is an integral part of the Kadavu vision

for the future.

The establishment of the marine protected area for Naivakarauniniu village was

strongly supported by Papageno resort. An $18,000.00 boat was purchased to assist

the village in looking after the reserved area. Government donated one-third of the

sum while Papageno resort and Naivakarauniniu village shared the balance. Tourists

pay a fee to dive or snorkel in these areas and part of this money goes to the village

68

development fund. The villagers are also grateful that tourists can enjoy their

resources and provide additional income for their communities.

Despite the potential available to develop tourism, Kadavu has been constrained by

the limited number of flights, poor infrastructure, and lack of government support in

terms of finance and capacity building. The Fiji Tourism Development Plan,

however, is supporting ecotourism as a segment to boost development in Kadavu.

Ecotourism is seen as a form of tourism that seeks to protect the environment,

improve community well-being and preserve the cultural integrity of the i-Taukei

(indigenous) communities. The Fiji Tourism Development Action Plan is proposing

low density and smaller resorts [maximum 25 rooms and 50 beds] for each bay or

village, the conduct of detailed assessment for all proposals (Fiji Tourism

Development Action Plan 2007–2009). Three villages and two resorts have been

chosen as cases to study for the research reported here. The villages are: Daku,

Naivakarauniniu and Navuatu.

a. Daku is a very small village with 62 people dwelling in 16 homes. The village

has a chief and a village headman, who is in charge of day to day activities and

village governance and is the village representative to the island’s district

meetings. Most families farm and fish for their daily sustenance. The main

source of income for the village is selling ‘yaqona’ [Piper methysticum], taro

and fish. Formerly largely ceremonial, yaqona is now a social drink that is

prepared from making an infusion from the pounded root or stem of the dried

plant and is consumed during work, meetings or after a demanding day.

Occasionally, tourists from nearby resorts may request to visit the village.

When visitors come, they usually present their ‘sevusevu’ (traditional welcome

ceremony) which is performed as a traditional welcome to the visitors. After

the ceremony, tourists are allowed to move around the village or visit the

marine protected area. The village is planning to start a small community

tourism venture in the near future. Their proposed product is a unique cultural

experience in which visitors will be given a traditional welcome upon arrival,

be entertained by traditional Fijian dances, hosted to a traditional ‘Fijian’ lunch

and then visit the marine protected area before they return to their resorts. The

69

fee tourists pay will be deposited into a village account and managed by a

village committee.

b. Naivakarauniniu village sits on the opposite end of Daku Bay facing Daku

village. The number of people staying in the village at the time of the survey

was 98. The village also has a marine protected area, which is a popular

snorkelling and diving site for tourists who come to the Papageno resort. The

creation of the marine protected area came as a result of a partnership

initiative between a number of organisations, the village and Papageno

Resort. Through training and awareness programmes, the villagers and the

resort agreed to set up a marine protected area, which has a sunken ship and is

home to many marine species in the area. To protect their resources, the

village has a code of conduct that they expect visitors to follow. This village

is about 20 minutes’ walk from Papageno Eco-Resort, which is on 400 acres

of freehold land. Half of those that work in this resort are from

Naivakarauniniu village.

c. Navuatu village owns the land on which Matana Resort sits. An imaginary

boundary separates the village and the resort, which is also known as Dive

Kadavu. A total of 99 people were living in the village when the survey was

conducted. The resort has been in operation for more than twenty years and

has kept a good relationship with the landowners. Twice a year, the resort

gives lease money, which is distributed to members of the land owning unit.

All employees are from Navuatu and nearby villages. Apart from rental

money and employment, the resort also provides educational assistance in the

form of scholarships, purchase of books and refurbishing of classrooms.

Papageno Resort. Papageno resort sits on a 400-acre freehold spread on the northern

side of Kadavu and is owned by Anneliese Schimmelpfennig. It is a four to five star

dive resort that puts a lot of emphasis on the protection and conservation of the

environment. The room types include: a dormitory for guests that are budget

conscious, single rooms, double and family units. An average of 20 tourists stays at

the resort per month and most stay for 3-5 days. This is equivalent to an average of 5

tourists per week or 240 tourists per year. In its twenty plus years of operation, the

resort has employed many from Naivakarauniniu and other neighbouring villages,

training them in service and monitoring skills, assisting in the protection of the

70

reserved area and teaching them on how to do organic gardening. The resort worked

closely with neighbouring villages, particularly Naivakarauniniu, in the

establishment of their marine protected area. The initiative has brought a lot of

benefits, not only for the neighbouring villages but for the whole island of Kadavu.

The resort donates $5 to Naivakarauniniu, for every guest that goes and dives in the

reserved area. Marine conservation will result in healthier reefs, which will re-

populate depleting fish stock in the area and be a great attraction for tourists who

love a clean and beautiful marine environment.

Dive Kadavu Resort, is also known as the Matana Beach Resort, is a popular dive

resort in Kadavu that has been operating for 22 years. It has 10 bures (cabins) that

can accommodate a maximum of 24 guests at any one time. In 2008, an average of

24 tourists came to this resort every month with majority staying for 5 to 7 days.

This means an average of 288 tourists stayed at the resort that year. The resort is

right next to Navuatu village and they have had a good relationship since the

establishment of the resort. There are twenty people employed in the resort and all

are from Drue and Navuatu villages. The 2–3 star dive resort offers a number of

activities for tourists and they include: diving, swimming, snorkelling, kayaking,

forest walk, bird watching and cultural experience. It is conveniently located and is

only 15 minutes away from Vunisea airport. Dive Kadavu is said to be the first

resort in Fiji to use dive boat moorings. Although visitor numbers to the resort are

relatively small, the resort and villagers are very much aware of the value of the

environment for tourism and for the community’s well-being. By invitation from the

village elders, tourists can visit the village. On Sundays, tourists are welcome to

attend church services. A forest lying directly behind the resort has walking tracks

and breathtaking hilltop views.

One of the challenges to achieving sustainable tourism is determining the acceptable

limits or thresholds for the use of tourism resources. Agreeing on a set of indicators

to guide all stakeholders on optimizing the use of tourism resources is a step towards

achieving sustainable tourism development and continuous benefits for the present

and future generations.

71

In assessing the theory and process of carrying capacity assessment and work done in

various destinations, the research for Kadavu was designed to be similar to what was

done at the Coral Coast in Nadroga.

4.2 Introduction to methods

Selecting the right method for collecting data is important in any form of research as

different strategies require different research methods. The aim of this chapter is to

provide an overview of the research methods and research design selected to

determine the current tourism carrying capacity in Kadavu, an emerging tourist

destination.

In exploring the phenomenon of carrying capacity assessment and sustainable

tourism paradigms, the dissertation will examine a number of sustainability

frameworks and seek to establish indications on the sustainability of tourism in the

area chosen for this study.

To achieve this, the study will investigate:

i. the current level of community satisfaction with tourism

ii. the level of tourist satisfaction with the destination and the quality of

service

iii. the use and management of natural resources in the resorts and

villages selected for this research.

A brief description of different research paradigms will be presented, highlighting

qualitative and quantitative methodologies that have been used in this research. The

different types of research methods used will then be presented, including an

overview of the use of a ‘case study’ as a research approach and the design used to

collect the required information. Following the analysis of primary data collected

through a survey conducted with village households, resort managers and village

spokesmen, and self-administered questionnaires from tourists, the dissertation will

evaluate the current state of tourism in Kadavu and discuss how tourism can be

managed to ensure its sustainability. Recommendations will be proposed and

defended through empirical evidence. Lastly, the types of limitation encountered and

ethical issues that had to be considered will be presented. Throughout the research

period, attention was given to the validity, reliability and credibility of methods used

and data collected to give confidence to the research results.

72

4.3 Research Objectives

The objectives of this research are:

i. to test selected sustainability indicators on two resorts, three villages and

tourists visiting the island of Kadavu

ii. to determine the current perceptions of tourism prevailing in the

communities being studied

iii. to determine the practices [economic, socio-cultural, and environmental]

currently prevailing in these communities and how they are likely to be

affected by tourism

iv. to determine the practices [economic, socio-cultural, and environmental]

currently employed by the two resorts studied

v. to determine the current perceptions of tourists regarding Kadavu as a

tourist destination

vi. to identify the social, environmental and economic indicators on the

natural surroundings, local population and the tourist experience to see if

the carrying capacity has been reached

vii. to identify priority issues from the analyzed results.

Table 4.1: A summary of the research methods used Objectives Research Methods

To investigate the concept and process of tourism carrying capacity assessment

Secondary literature search in the library and world wide web.

To review various tools currently used to assess the sustainability of tourism activities

Secondary literature search in books, journals, reports, conference proceedings, in the library and internet.

To test a number of sustainability indicators on two resorts, three villages and tourists visiting the island of Kadavu to see if the carrying capacity has been reached.

Pre-tested, semi-structured questionnaires for respondents from villages, resorts and village spokesmen. Secondary literature search through publications of government and other institutions. Observations. Self-administered questionnaires for tourists.

To identify the social, environmental and economic indicators on the natural surroundings, local population and the tourist experience.

Analysis of the empirical data against literature, public documents.

To identify priority issues from the analysed results

Analysis of empirical data against literature, public documents.

73

4.4 Social Research

In social research, approaches are selected if they fit the specific aspects of the

investigation and are able to address specific kinds of problems. Social researchers

face a number of options and alternatives and need to make strategic decisions about

which approach to choose. According to Denscombe (2003, p3) ‘every choice brings

with it a set of theories about the social world it is trying to investigate’. Therefore

one has to live with the choices he/she makes as it will have its advantages and

disadvantages.

All research processes are guided by rules and principles for making confident

statements. In order to achieve valid results, knowledge of the research process is

essential. The rules and principles used today are the result of different paradigms

developed through the years by various researchers and institutions.

4.5 Research Paradigms

A paradigm is the prevailing view of things or viewpoints that provide a way of

looking at life and are grounded by sets of assumptions about the nature of reality

(Babbie, 2004). Paradigms are deeply embedded in the socialization of advocates

and practitioners and they tell us what is significant, fair and realistic. Denzin and

Lincoln (2000) traced the six phases of qualitative research history that help explain

the varying origins of what constitutes qualitative research:

Phase 1. Traditional period of colonial research (up to World War II) was

influenced by positivism. Positivists assert that reality is objectively

given and it can be described by measurable properties, which are

independent of the observers and their instruments. Positivists strove

for objectivity in their fieldwork and reports.

Phase 2. The ‘modern phase’ (to the 1970s) saw qualitative researchers

emphasizing methodological rigour and procedural formalism. These

researchers reacted against positivism’s emergent emphasis on

interpretivism.

Phase 3. The ‘blurred genres phase’ (1970–1986) saw the emergence of a

number of alternative approaches. This created competition and

confusion. Alternative approaches that surfaced during this period

74

included: structuralism, phenomenology, ethnomethodology, critical

theory, neo-positivism, neo-Marxism, post-structuralism, naturalism,

constructionism and deconstructionism.

Phase 4. The period ‘crisis of representation’ focused on issues of reflexivity,

privilege, race, gender and socio-economic class – which undermined

traditional notions of validity and neutrality.

Phase 5. The ‘fifth moment’ is about recent history, where qualitative writing is

put under the microscope. During this period, more activists sought

legitimacy using qualitative/interpretive writing to advance

democratic racial justice.

Phase 6. The sixth phase is called ‘post-experimental’. Here the boundaries of

qualitative inquiry are expanded to include creative nonfiction,

autobiographical ethnography, poetic representations, and multimedia

presentations (based on Patton, 2002, p.79).

This research emphasizes the importance of accuracy and consistency of methods

used. In so doing, it follows a traditional approach which attempts to present

objective data which have been collected accurately and consistently over a period in

the field.

Qualitative methodology

Qualitative studies vary by type, purpose, and quality. According to Silverman

(1993), different individuals see, conceive and understand things differently based on

their view and belief about life.

Qualitative research deals with individuals’ descriptive reports of

individuals’ perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, views, and feelings, the

meanings and interpretations given to events and things, as well as their

behavior. (Hakim, 1987, p.34)

Qualitative methods are best used when researchers are investigating issues which

require depth in insight and understanding, particularly when dealing with descriptive

concepts. Qualitative research exhibits:

o a preference for naturally occurring data and field research, i.e. non-

experimental

75

o a preference for meaning rather than behaviour, and for an individual’s own

interpretation of events

o the rejection of natural science as a model

o a preference for inductive, hypothesis-generating research, which requires

strong theory if generalizations are to be made

o a need for reflexivity in which the researcher is aware of him/herself in

juxtaposition to the subject of enquiry, implying a continual interrogation of

self and subject (Robinson, 1998, p. 409).

Patton (2002, p.4) points out three ways that qualitative methods employ to collect

data:

i. in-depth, open ended interviews which consist of direct quotes from

people about their feelings, opinions, experiences and knowledge

ii. direct observation, which covers detailed account of what people do,

their conduct, and actions which also includes how they organize

themselves

iii. written documents, which involves analyses of various forms of

records [conference proceedings, reports, correspondence, official

publications, personal diaries] including open-ended written responses

to questionnaires and surveys.

Some social science researchers (Patton, 1990; Robinson, 1998) believe that

qualitative and quantitative approaches can be combined and, according to Jennings

(2001, p133), ‘mixing methods enables deficiencies of both qualitative and

quantitative methodologies to be overcome’. The argument as to whether or not they

can be combined lies with the different philosophical views each paradigm holds, and

the apparent compatibility of the research methods.

Quantitative methodology.

Quantitative researchers in general use ‘scientific’ methods, which abide by the

following steps: formulation of ideas and assumptions; development of instruments

and methods for measurement; experimental control of variables; gathering of

empirical data; modelling and analysis of data and evaluation of results (Patton,

2002, p14). In other words, one has to classify features, count them, and construct

76

statistical models in an attempt to explain what is observed. According to Silverman

(2001), quantitative methods use standardized criteria where all answers [different

views and experiences of people] can fit into the categories to which numbers are

assigned. A quantitative approach may seem more efficient as the researcher is able

to test hypotheses. On the other hand, it may lack contextual details that are captured

through qualitative methods (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

A combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches was employed in this

empirical study since they complement each other in bringing about reliable and

valid data. This mixed-method approach is also called ‘methodological triangulation’

(Patton, 2002, p.247).

Triangulation

Methodological triangulation is commonly used by researchers because no single

method can adequately address all the problems one is trying to solve. Since each

method reveals different aspects of empirical reality, multiple methods of

observations must be employed (Denzin, 1978. p28). While triangulation is regularly

promoted by those who have strong views about using appropriate methodologies, a

study’s limited time and budget can affect the amount of triangulation that is

practical (Patton, 2002, p247). Since different methods bring out different aspects of

experiential reality, multiple methods bring out more holistic results. In other words

one can be more confident with a result if different methods lead to the same result.

Denzin (1978) put forward four forms of triangulation:

1. Data triangulation: different sampling strategies are used to collect data from

different people at different times in different social situations.

2. Investigator triangulation: more than one researcher is used to collect and interpret

data.

3. Theoretical triangulation: a number of theoretical positions are explored in

interpreting data.

4. Methodological triangulation: uses of a number of methods to study a single

problem (in Patton, 2002, p.247).

In using triangulation, a researcher is viewing issues in a variety of ways.

Triangulation increases a researcher’s confidence because relying mainly on a single

77

set of data, source or method can undermine the validity and reliability of his/her

findings. This research uses methodological triangulation where a number of

methods are employed to study and solve a problem.

Every researcher should be free to use the best methodologies available since

everyone has to be open to what the world is offering. It is therefore possible to

combine approaches and do so creatively. Triangulation is ideal but can be costly.

In this study, a combination of in-depth interviews, focus groups, and observation

was used.

4.6 Research Design

According to Patton (2002), the ‘purpose’ is the controlling factor in research.

Decisions made about design, measurement, analyses and reporting all flow from

purpose. Bouma and Ling (2004) believe that choosing a research design is one of

the most important and challenging parts of doing empirical research. According to

Punch (2000, p.52), design sits between the research questions and the data,

illustrating how the research question will be connected to the data. Each type of

research design seeks to address a different type of problem. The design involves

four main ideas: strategy, conceptual framework, who or what will be studied and the

tools and procedures to be used to collect and analyze empirical findings. This

dissertation uses a case study approach and employs a number of methods

[interviews, survey and observation] to obtain the data required from the three

villages, two resorts and key departments.

4.7 The Case Study

Case study research is but one of several ways of doing social science research.

Generally, case studies are the preferred strategy when ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions

are being posed; when the investigator has little control over events, and when the

focus is on an existing or current phenomenon.

A case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a

contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context,

especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and

context are not clearly evident. (Yin, 1994, p. 13)

78

According to Hakim (2000) a case study can provide a detailed ‘portrait’ of a

particular social phenomenon. Case studies take as their subjects one or more

selected examples of a social entity. The subjects could be communities, social

groups, organisations, families, work teams, events or life histories – and they are

studied through various data collection techniques. The use of a number of data

collection techniques and methods gives a holistic study.

When a significant amount of work has been done on a particular topic, case studies

can focus on particular aspects or issues to refine knowledge about that particular

area. They can be used to provide in-depth and accurate description of processes

taking place within particular types of case that are highlighted in surveys and can be

used to substantiate causal processes thought to lie beneath observed patterns.

As highlighted by Hakim (2000), descriptive case studies can be exploratory if

relatively little research has been done on the topic previously or they may be

descriptions of social patterns that are thought to be representative or normal.

This case study has taken as its subjects the organisation (two resorts), the

community (three villages), and the social group (tourists), all of whom have been

studied using a combination of data collection techniques. These subjects have been

used as sources of data that can provide information on the issues regarding tourism

carrying capacity in the study area.

4.8 The Research Methods

The handling of data involves a number of steps and they include: interview strategy,

transcribing procedure, coding methodology and data analysis procedure. These are:

1) a literature survey; 2) collection of data from key people and organisations; 3)

interviews with villagers using semi-structured questionnaires; 4) interviews with

village headmen [turaga ni koro] and village elders using a semi-structured

questionnaire; 5) interviews with resort managers of the Papageno Resort and Dive

Kadavu Resort using a semi-structured questionnaire; and 6) tourist survey using

self-administered questionnaires.

In the first week of July 2009, the Provincial Administrator for Kadavu, Mr. Eliki

Masa, was contacted and informed of the planned visit to carry out the survey in

79

Kadavu. Eliki’s role as the government’s representative to Kadavu and his

knowledge about the island helped greatly in the initial arrangement. After briefing

Eliki on the aims and objectives of this research, how it would be conducted [a case

study of two resorts, three villages and tourists], the duration of stay and the need for

easy transportation, he was able to recommend the most appropriate area in which to

conduct this study. The chosen location was the most suitable as the resorts and

villages were close to each other and close to Vunisea, the government station where

the airstrip is located. As stated earlier, the three villages chosen for the study [Daku,

Naivakarauniniu and Navuatu] had different degrees of involvement with tourism.

Daku has had no formal engagement in tourism and is in the planning stage of

venturing into a small community tourism business. Naivakarauniniu, the village

closest to Papageno resort, has benefitted through employment and other forms of

assistance for more than 20 years. Navuatu is the village that derives the most

benefit from Dive Kadavu resort because the land owning unit receives lease money

regularly and members of all households have employment opportunities and they

have had a satisfactory relationship for many years. This was seen as a good area of

study because it allows one to compare community perceptions with the different

types of benefits communities are receiving from tourism.

After agreeing to the study location and the three villages, Eliki made contact with

the three village headmen and informed them of my visit. Contacts were also made

via telephone and e-mail with the two resorts, informing them of the proposed dates

for conducting the survey.

a. Literature Survey

A literature survey of the concept and process of tourism carrying capacity

assessment was carried out. This survey looked at how this concept began,

developed and how it has evolved into what it is today. The library provided most of

the information through the use of academic journals, technical reports, government

publications, books, and through internet sources. A number of sustainability tools

including Visitor Impact Management [VIM], Visitor Experience and Resource

Protection [VERP], Tourism Optimization Management Model [TOMM] and Limits

of Acceptable Change [LAC] were also reviewed and to highlight how the carrying

capacity concept has led to the development of new management frameworks and

80

how it has continually been refined and improved to address tourism development

and other emerging issues.

b. Selection of Indicators Selecting key indicators to assess the sustainability of tourism activities on the two

resorts and the three villages was an important step in this research process.

Sustainability indicators were selected from a list used by the Priority Action

Programme for similar work carried out in the Mediterranean region, the UNWTO

indicator list and from those used for the Coral Coast research. Time and financial

constraints restricted the choice and number of indicators that were used for this

exercise. Only indicators considered important for small islands and emerging

destinations were chosen and tested in this research. For each parameter, a number

of indicators was chosen and assessed to determine the current status. From the

combined qualitative and quantitative data, a general conclusion was drawn on

whether the carrying capacity for this particular parameter has been reached or not.

Socio-demographic indicators tested included: the total population of people living in

Kadavu, the number of tourists that visited Kadavu in 2009, the total number of

people living in the three villages surveyed, community satisfaction about tourism,

and tourist satisfaction about Kadavu as a destination.

Physical–Environmental indicators included an inventory of accommodation

providers on the island and, in particular, the area being studied, the number of beds

available on the island, water availability, water quality and conservation initiatives,

solid waste management and conservation initiatives.

Political–Economic indicators included tourist expenditure, number of locals

employed in the tourism industry, percentage of tourism business owned by locals

and existence of local and regional plans.

Other secondary data were collected from the Department of Tourism, Vunisea

Hospital, Kadavu Provincial office and the Institute of Applied Science, USP.

Sustainability Indicators for this research in Kadavu are given in Tables 4.2 to 4.4.

Table 4.2: Socio-Demographic Indicators for Kadavu study sites

81

Issue Indicators Source of data Local Population (villages)

Total Number of people in Daku, Naivakarauniniu and Navuatu.

Village survey

Tourist Population in 2009

Tourist numbers in Kadavu as a percentage of the whole tourist population visiting Fiji

IVS

Tourist Density Visitor numbers (year 2009) IVS

Tourist satisfaction Tourist satisfaction with Kadavu as a destination

Tourist survey

Local satisfaction with tourism Level of local satisfaction with tourism Social Survey

Community benefits associated with tourism Fundraising efforts for community service

% villages indicating tourism improved social services and infrastructure Community development programmes in place from tourism (i.e. Vunisea Hospital, schools etc.)

Social Survey Hotel Survey

Impact on community life/Changes to lifestyle

Ratio of tourists to locals (average and peak) Number of conflicts within local communities related to tourism

Social Survey Social Survey

Table 4.3: Physical–Environmental Indicators for Kadavu study sites Issue Indicator Source of data Existing Facilities [Papageno and Dive Kadavu resorts]

Number of accommodation providers Number of beds Number of Tour companies, Number of Dive companies

Survey Hotel Survey DoT DoT

Water availability and conservation

Water use (overall and per tourist/day) Number of water shortages % or number of business practicing water conservation (reuse, reduce)

Hotel survey Village and resort survey Resort survey

Drinking water quality % tourism establishments with water treated to potable standards % local pop. with access to treated water Frequency of villagers reporting water-borne illnesses

Resort survey Provincial office/village Survey

Sewage treatment Villages have pit toilets and septic tanks

% of sewage in area receiving treatment (primary, secondary) and calculate separately for tourism % tourist establishments with adequate treatment Number of hotels who use septic tank Treatment plant

Survey Survey Survey

Solid waste Methods of solid waste disposal Number tourism establishments involved in recycling (plastic bottles, cans) Number of villages who recycle solid

Hotel Survey Waste Recycle Waste Recycle

82

Issue Indicator Source of data waste (plastic bottles, cans) % area covered by collection services

Protecting Critical Ecosystems

Number of protected/conservation areas or area

USP/survey

Tourism contribution to conservation

% businesses contributing to conservation

Hotel Survey

Environmental management systems

Staff trained on environment and sustainability issues

Hotel Survey

Energy Sources used in villages Sources used in resorts

Village survey Resort survey

Table 4.4: Political–Economic Indicators for Kadavu study sites

Issue Indicator Source of data Tourist Expenditure/ Revenue

Total Spent in Fiji by tourists Room Density Average length of Stay Length of Stay

IVS IVS IVS Hotel Survey

Employment Total number locals employed at the resort. % jobs fulltime or permanent

Hotel Survey Hotel survey

Investment % locally owned tourism businesses DoT Existence Local/Regional Planning & Development Control

Existence of land use/development/tourism planning process % regularly inspected by local authorities

Planning authorities DoT

c. Interviews and Questionnaires

The interview and questionnaire were the main instruments used for collecting data

in this survey. In general, interviews are carried out to find out from the subject

things we cannot directly observe. Here, the researcher asks questions and receives

answers from those being interviewed. The interview strategy allows one to peek

into another person’s way of seeing and interpreting things, since we cannot observe

feelings, thoughts and intentions and we cannot observe behaviour that has taken

place in the past. Also, we cannot observe how people have organized the world and

the meanings they attach to what goes on in the world. Interviews can be structured,

semi-structured or unstructured. In this survey, semi-structured interviews and

questionnaires (self-administered and interviewer-administered) were used to obtain

qualitative data and quantitative data [refer to appendices 1–4].

i. Semi-structured interviews

In deciding upon the interview format, it was decided that a structured approach

would be too rigid and would prevent the researcher from interacting with the

83

interviewees. While a structured interview has precise, restricted set questions, a

semi-structured interview is flexible allowing the interviewer to ask follow-up,

spontaneous questions. The interviewer in this case generally has a framework of

themes to work by. Likewise, the unstructured approach was not encouraged

because it was too loose.

For the three villages, a semi-structured questionnaire was administered to those who

were part of the survey. To be able to compare tourism perceptions in the three

villages, questions were asked based on their experience with tourism. Daku village

has had no formal tourism engagement in the past, so statements given required

respondents to indicate what they thought tourism would bring to their community.

Using a Likert scale of 1–5, respondents were asked to indicate their level of

agreement/disagreement on a number of statements given. An example of a

statement put to respondents in Daku village was; ‘Tourism will be good for my

community’. For Naivakarauniniu and Navuatu, the villagers have been involved in

tourism for more than twenty years. The statement given to respondents from these

two villages was; ‘Tourism is good for my community’.

Interviews using a questionnaire were conducted with the three village headmen and

the managers of the two resorts. For the village headman, questions were asked

regarding water availability and water conservation, waste management, energy

usage and conservation, tourism as a source of income for the family and impacts of

tourism on the environment, village economy, and socio-cultural way of life [see

appendix1].

Interview sessions with the three village headmen were all conducted around a bowl

of grog with other village elders. A semi-structured questionnaire [see appendix 2]

was used to guide the interview session. Grog (kava) sessions, a social drink that

villagers partake in after a busy day at sea, plantation or doing village obligations,

provided a relaxing atmosphere for respondents to contribute freely to questions that

were raised. This approach enabled the researcher to solicit ideas from others and

capture more information, which may have been overlooked by the village headman.

To verify information, government representatives and other institutions on the island

were consulted to provide relevant information.

84

The scope of the interview was determined by themes that had to be investigated.

These included: conservation and management of water in the village, management

of waste, forms of energy used, sources of income and views about tourism.

Questions were asked in Fijian language as most were more comfortable to converse

in their mother tongue. This approach was used to obtain accurate answers.

Information collected was then translated to English for analysis.

Personal observation was also used by the researcher to gather data and other

information and verify answers given by interviewees.

A similar approach was used when resort managers were interviewed. A semi-

structured interview using a questionnaire was used to gather the required

information. Questions were asked on the use and management of water in the

resort, management of waste, management of energy and initiatives used by resorts

to help nearby villages and the district [see Appendix 3].

ii. Self-Administered Questionnaire

One objective of this study was to find out the level of tourist satisfaction and

competencies of resort staff. To obtain such information, visitors were interviewed

either at their place of accommodation or at Vunisea Airport. The quantitative

personal intercept survey captured such information as length of stay, party size, age,

activities participated in, satisfaction with visit, quality of food and service,

cleanliness of the environment, as well as capturing attitudes towards the

environment. Tourists were asked to answer a combination of closed and open-

ended questions [see Appendix 4]. The questionnaire was pre-tested before copies

were printed and taken for distribution.

Self-administered questionnaires have some weaknesses. First, it was difficult to

control and monitor the return of completed questionnaires. To address this problem,

volunteers were assigned to take the questionnaires to tourists, inquire if they were

willing to participate in the survey, fill in the questionnaire, wait and collect forms

from the tourists once they have been filled. Secondly, some tourists filled out the

questionnaire but failed to return them to the assigned place. This resulted in a low

number of questionnaires received in the first month. To get an acceptable number

85

of respondents, questionnaires were made available to tourists for a period of five

months (July–November). Questionnaires were also made available at Vunisea

Airport as most tourists return to the main island by air. At the end of November, a

total of 144 filled questionnaires was sent to Suva for analysis. Of the 144

questionnaires that were received, 14 respondents answered only the first page and

left the second blank. This is another challenge in using self-administered

questionnaires; the researcher is not present to clarify questions to the respondents or

remind them that there are two pages of questions to be answered.

iii. Interview Administered Questionnaire

In this survey, an interview guide approach (the interviewer has questions/issues to

be explored and guides the conversation within the subject areas) was combined with

a standardized approach (specified questions are carefully worded before the

interview). As highlighted by Patton (2002, p.248), combining these strategies gives

the researcher room to probe and know when it is appropriate to explore certain

subjects at greater depth. Mixing methods enables the deficiency of both qualitative

and quantitative methodologies to be minimised. Questionnaires were administered

to members of households that participated in the survey. On average, each

interview took about 30 minutes to complete. Questions were printed beforehand

and were generally asked in the same order to all interviewees.

d. Observation

Observation in this study was used to support data collected during interviews with

the villagers, village spokesmen and resort managers. General observations were

made on the resorts and the community’s daily activities, for example, how they use

and conserve water, how they manage their waste, and the type of energy they use.

Observations were made in the three villages and at the resorts after conducting

interviews.

4.9 The Sampling Design

Choosing the best sampling method is important for any type of research as this

would provide results that are credible and representative of the population that is

being investigated.

86

a. How subjects were chosen

Subjects for this study were selected from Daku, Naivakarauniniu and Navuatu

village. The three villages were chosen as case studies for this research because they

were close to the two resorts and villagers worked in the resorts. Since the three

villages were small, it was decided that all households would be visited and

requested to take part in the survey. However, Table 4.5 shows that not all

households took part in the survey. Some homes were empty as families were in

Suva to attend to family matters. The cohort chosen comprised heads of households

from the three villages. In the absence of the head of the household, the second most

knowledgeable person present was asked to be interviewed.

The three villages, (Daku, Naivakarauniniu and Navuatu), (see Figure 3.1) were also

chosen because they had different levels of involvement as far as tourism is

concerned. Daku, a small village with 15 households is planning to start a small

community owned tourism venture. Two villagers from Daku are currently

employed at the Papageno resort. Naivakarauniniu is the village closest to Papageno

resort and half of the workers in the resort are from the village. For more than

twenty years, Naivakarauniniu villagers have benefitted from the resort through

employment, financial assistance towards village projects and assistance through

provision of educational materials for the primary school. Navuatu villagers have

also been engaged in tourism for the last twenty or so years. Table 4.5: Statistical summary of the three villages and the respondents

Daku village

Naivakarauniniu village

Navuatu village

Number Number Number Village Population 62 98 99 Number of households in the village

15 17 24

Number of households involved in the survey

15 15 13

No. % No. % No. % Sex of respondents [male] 13 86.7% 7 46.7% 8 61.5%

[female] 2 13.3% 8 53.3% 5 38.5% Age of respondents

10-19 years old 1 6.7% 0 0% 2 15.4% 20-29 years old 4 26.7% 3 20% 3 23.1% 30-39 years old 3 20% 1 6.7% 4 30.8% 40-49 years old 0 0% 4 26.7% 1 7.7% 50-59 years old 3 20% 3 20% 1 7.7%

60 years and above 4 26.7% 4 26.7% 2 15.4% Total number of participants 15 100% 15 100% 13 100%

87

b. Sampling method

Two general styles to sampling are used in social science research. These are

random and non-random sampling. For random sampling, all candidates (persons,

households) in the population have the same opportunity of being included in the

sample. With non-random sampling, candidates are selected on the basis of their

availability for example; because they are available or because they are most

knowledgeable or because of the researcher’s personal judgment that they are

representative. One of the main drawbacks to the non-random approach is that an

unknown portion of the population is excluded.

c. How subjects were selected

A non-random purposive method was used to collect data from the three villages and

tourists. Heads of households were chosen because they make decisions in the

family and know what goes on in their respective families. Due to the limited time

we had on the island and village obligations beyond the researcher’s control,

interviews were carried out only with heads of households that were present and

available during our visit.

It was impossible to survey all the resorts and villages in Kadavu because they are

scattered all over the island and hiring local boats are quite expensive. The main

limiting factor for this research was the budget and time. A decision on the most

appropriate area of study was made after considering the cost and the available

budget. Of the 10 resorts operating in Kadavu, Dive Kadavu Resort and Papageno

Eco-Resort were chosen as the two study sites because they are on the same side of

the island; they are close to the three villages, and both have been operating

successfully for over twenty years. Logistically, this was viable given the limited

budget. Also, both resorts have enjoyed good relationships with the locals in the past

and both were willing to take part in the survey.

Individual households were visited in the three villages and the head of each

household was interviewed. In the absence of the head of the household, the next

most knowledgeable person in the household was interviewed.

88

4.10 Data Collection, Recording and Analysis Data were recorded using pen and paper. For interviews, spaces were provided on

questionnaires to allow respondents to write answers and comments. All

questionnaires were collected, sorted and given a numeric code. Variables that were

not in numeric forms were assigned codes and clustered together using various

themes. This allowed raw data to be simplified into a scheme that can be classified

and analyzed (Patton, 2002, p463). Statistical Package for Social Science [SPSS

v16.0] was employed for statistical analysis. Frequency, percentage, mean and

standard deviation were used for the analysis of personal data, resource use, resort

activities, management initiatives, tourist activities and perceptions of residents and

tourists.

4.11 Limitations and Ethical Considerations

While different methods work better through different approaches, all methods have

their advantages and disadvantages. For this study, the following limitations and

challenges were encountered:

1. Of the 144 tourists that participated in the self-administered interview, 14 filled

in page one and left out page two. This could have been avoided had someone

been available to check that questionnaires were completed.

2. In translating questions and answers to and from English and Fijian, one of the

challenges faced was finding the right words or phrase to keep the answers in the

right context and perspective. Another challenge was encountered during the

interview with the villagers. Clarifying questions in Fijian so that respondents

understand and give the right response was a challenge. Answers from

respondents were given in Fijian before they were translated into English.

3. A few people I wanted to interview were not available as they had other

commitments to attend to that day. Due to time constraints, other members of

the household present were requested to participate in the interview.

4. Researchers should be honest during the collection, analysis and dissemination

of their findings. The rights and dignity of those involved in the research should

be respected at all times (Denscombe, 2003). For every household visited, we

89

had to make sure they understood why we were conducting the survey. When we

entered one of the villages, we were taken to a house to present our ‘sevusevu’

[presentation of Yaqona or Kava], a Fijian custom usually performed by visitors

when they come to a village. The head of the family to whom we were

presenting the ‘sevusevu’ started asking a number of questions. He wanted to

know where we were from and the purpose of our visit. It was after we clarified

our purpose of visit that he apologized and said that he was ready to take part in

the survey. He mentioned that many people in the past have visited their village

to conduct various kinds of research. He said:

“they say nice things about the island and the village to win

our hearts. They gather information, stay in the village for

weeks, eat and socialize, collect what they want and then

disappear. We feel we lose more because they spend very

little while in the village.”

This experience raises an important ethical issue about the rights and dignity of

those we interview. Interviewees were assured that information collected will be

treated with confidentiality and that a copy of the summary of the findings can

be made available to the communities upon request.

4.12 Summary

After carefully assessing the various approaches available for this research, the

triangulation method [combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches] was

chosen and used for this study as it was the most appropriate and one that would give

the most reliable results. The use of triangulation was restricted due to the limited

budget and the time frame in which the survey had to be conducted.

Data from the three communities were collected using interviews (semi-structured),

questionnaire surveys (administered through interview) and observation. Non-

random purposive sampling was used for communities and tourists while depth

interviews were used for village spokespersons and resort operators.

90

Data were analysed using a numeric coding system, with percentage analysis for

quantitative data and descriptive analysis for qualitative data.

Research ethics considered in this research include:

Consent was sought from all that participated in the survey. All participants

voluntarily agreed to participate knowing that their identity will be kept anonymous

and the information that they give will be treated as confidential.

91

Chapter 5

Findings

The previous chapter outlines and explains how this research was conducted. It

includes a description of the types of research paradigms, an overview of qualitative

and quantitative methodologies and the use of triangulation to collect accurate and

reliable data. Also, the villages and resorts selected were briefly described together

with the degree of involvement they have had with tourism. Limitations to this

research were also highlighted.

This chapter presents the findings and analysis of this research.

To understand the current level of tourism experienced in this destination, a number

of key areas are highlighted. These are:

1. the current perceptions of tourism prevailing in the communities being

studied

2. the current perceptions of tourists regarding Kadavu as a tourist

destination

3. the practices [economic, socio-cultural, and environmental] that currently

prevail in these communities and how they are likely to be impacted by

tourism

4. the practices [economic, socio-cultural, and environmental] that are

currently employed by the two resorts studied

In the previous chapter, indicators were selected under the three parameters stated

below:

i. socio–demographic

ii. physical and environmental

iii. political–economic components.

Results from this research will be presented in the above sequence.

92

5.1 Socio–demographic Indicators

The socio-demographic parameter takes into consideration the local population, the

tourist population, the tourist density, tourist satisfaction, local satisfaction, benefits

communities accrue from tourism and conflicts arising from tourism.

At the time of the survey, a total of 259 people were living in Daku, Naivakarauniniu

and Navuatu villages. The population census conducted in 2007 revealed that there

were 10,167 people living in Kadavu at that time. Therefore, the population of the

study area is about 0.025% of the island’s total population.

5.1.1 Community Perceptions of Tourism

Forty-three villager respondents, in the three villages were surveyed on their current

perceptions and attitudes about the impacts of tourism on their personal, household

and village lives. Naivakarauniniu and Navuatu villages have been involved with

tourism for more than twenty years. About half of those employed at Papageno

Resort are from Naivakarauniniu village. The rest are from nearby villages. The

interview with subjects from these two villages was to gauge their perceptions about

tourism impacts on individual, family and village lives. Questions for respondents in

Daku village were administered to seek the impacts currently perceived of tourism on

individuals, households and the village. Daku village is in the planning phase of

setting up a small community tourism venture.

Questions asked included attitudes of villages towards tourism, possible costs of

tourism, impact and community control over tourism. Using a Likert scale of 1

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), respondents were asked to tick the box that

best reflects their view or position.

93

5.1.1.1 Attitudes of villages towards tourism

Table 5.1: Tourism (is) will be good for my community

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu Frequency [f] and percentage [%] f % f % f % Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 Neutral 5 33 3 20 1 8 Agree 9 60 9 60 7 54 strongly agree 1 7 3 20 5 39

Table 5.2: I (will) personally benefit from tourism

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu

Frequency [f] and percentage [%] f % f % f % Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 Disagree 0 0 4 27 1 8 Neutral 3 20 3 20 2 15 Agree 11 73 5 33 6 46 Strongly agree 1 7 3 20 4 31

Table 5.3: Tourism (will) create(s) jobs for local residents

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu Frequency [f] and percentage [%] f % f % f % Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 Neutral 2 13 1 7 0 0 Agree 12 80 8 53 8 62 Strongly agree 1 7 6 40 5 38

Table 5.4: Tourism (will) employ(s) local youths

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu

Frequency [f] and percentage [%] f % f % f % Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 Disagree 1 7 0 0 0 0 Neutral 2 13 3 20 0 0 Agree 12 80 8 53 11 85 Strongly agree 0 0 4 27 2 15

To determine the current attitudes of villagers towards tourism, four questions were

asked about communal and individual benefits [see Tables 5.1–5.4]. The questions

dealt with benefits derived by the community, benefits at the personal level, jobs

created for local residents and employment for local youths.

94

On the question of tourism benefiting the community, Navuatu showed the highest

rate of support (see Table 5.1). Strong or relatively strong support was observed in

Navuatu followed by Naivakarauniniu. For those that supported the statement, they

stated that tourism has improved their standard of living and has generated income

for individual members that work in the resort and as a community. As one

respondent remarked:

Our children are employed at the resort and they support our family.

The resort assists us when we do fundraising for our village and they

also support our primary school by providing reading books and at

times in the upgrade of our school buildings.

Relatively strong support is also shown in Daku though 33% were unsure enough to

tick ‘neutral’. Daku village has had no formal engagement in tourism when

compared to Navuatu and Naivakarauniniu which probably explains the significant

percentage of respondents ticking ‘neutral’.

On a personal level, Navuatu again showed strong or relatively strong support that

they personally benefit from tourism. Naivakarauniniu also show strong or relatively

strong agreement that they had benefited personally from tourism, but at a lower

percentage when compared to Navuatu (table 5.2). Respondents personally benefit

through provision of employment. While these two villages show positive

perception towards tourism, a small percentage indicated that they do not benefit

from tourism on a personal level. However, there is high anticipation and support

from Daku (80%) that they will personally benefit from tourism. In summary, there

is general consensus that they benefit from tourism to a certain degree on a personal

level.

It has been argued that tourism provides employment opportunities and slows

migration of unemployed youths in economically marginal areas (Haralambopoulos

and Pizam, 1996). A question was asked on whether tourism creates jobs for local

residents. Again, all respondents from Navuatu and a majority from Naivakarauniniu

show strong or relatively strong support for this idea. Daku respondents also show

relatively strong support that tourism will create jobs for local residents (table 5.3).

In terms of employment of local youths, all from Navuatu show strong or relative

agreement that tourism provides employment for local youths (table 5.4). Relatively

95

strong support was shown by Naivakarauniniu and Daku while some were unsure

and ticked neutral.

From the above questions, Navuatu shows the most positive response towards

tourism as a deliverer of benefits. Apart from being employed by the resort, villagers

benefit through lease money and other contributions provided by the resort.

Naivakarauniniu also showed strong or relatively strong support but not as strong as

when compared to Navuatu. Support from Daku village is also positive but the

weakest when compared to the other two villages. Daku also had the highest

percentage of respondents that chose cautious neutrality on some of the questions.

This reflects their lack of exposure to tourism and thus choosing to remain neutral on

questions they were not really sure about. As highlighted earlier, Daku is in the

planning stage of setting up a community owned tourism venture.

5.1.1.2 Possible costs resulting from tourism

Tourism is widely acknowledged as an industry that has the potential to improve

quality of life, providing employment opportunities, generating tax revenues and

creating opportunities for new businesses (Sadler & Archer, 1975; Milne, 1992).

However, concerns have also been raised regarding the negative impacts tourism has

on destinations, host communities and on quality of life. These can be in the form of

increased crime, increased cost of living, changes in hosts’ way of life and in extreme

cases, friction between tourists and residents (Andereck, Valentine, Knopf & Vogt,

2005). Seven questions on costs resulting from tourism were asked. These included

questions regarding the relationship between tourism and price of goods, possible

increase in crime rates, the harmful impact of tourism on the environment, disruption

of village activities, access to the beach, access to areas used by tourists and the use

of valued resources. Tables 5.5 to 5.11 displays the results obtained from

respondents.

96

Table 5.5: Tourism raises prices of goods

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu

Frequency [f] and percentage [%] f % f % f % Strongly disagree 1 7 2 13 0 0 Disagree 2 13 5 33 5 39 Neutral 3 20 0 0 2 15 Agree 9 60 8 54 6 46 Strongly agree 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 5.6 : Tourism causes a rise in crime rates

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu Frequency [f] and percentage [%] f % f % f % Strongly disagree 1 7 6 40 0 0 Disagree 6 40 1 7 5 38 Neutral 1 7 5 33 1 8 Agree 6 40 2 13 7 54 Strongly agree 1 7 1 7 0 0

Table 5.7: Tourism harms the environment

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu

Frequency [f] and percentage [%] f % f % f % Strongly disagree 1 7 0 0 0 0 Disagree 6 40 4 27 5 38 Neutral 0 0 4 27 1 8 Agree 7 47 3 20 7 54 Strongly agree 1 7 3 20 0 0

Table 5.8: Tourism disrupts village activities

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu

Frequency [f] and percentage [%] f % f % f % Strongly disagree 0 0 1 7 0 0 Disagree 7 47 5 33 10 76 Neutral 1 6 3 20 1 8 Agree 7 47 4 27 1 8 Strongly agree 0 0 2 13 1 8

Table 5.9: Tourism stops locals from accessing the beach

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu

Frequency [f] and percentage [%] f % f % f % Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 Disagree 6 40 9 60 10 77 Neutral 0 0 0 0 0 0 Agree 4 27 5 33 2 15 Strongly agree 5 33 1 7 1 8

97

Table 5.10: Tourism uses local resources needed by local residents

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu

Frequency [f] and percentage [%] f % f % f % Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 Disagree 7 46 9 60 7 54 Neutral 0 0 1 7 1 8 Agree 4 27 5 33 4 30 Strongly agree 4 27 0 0 1 8

Table 5.11: Local residents can still have easy access to areas that tourists use

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu

Frequency [f] and percentage [%] f % f % f % Strongly disagree 4 27 4 27 0 0 Disagree 6 40 6 40 2 15 Neutral 0 0 0 0 1 8 Agree 5 33 5 33 10 77 Strongly agree 0 0 0 0 0 0

Questioned on the influence of tourism on the priced goods, a mixed result of

approval and disapproval is seen (table 5.5). Relatively strong support was shown by

more than half of the respondents from all villages. Interestingly, there was also

relatively strong disapproval from Naivakarauniniu (33%) and Navuatu, (15%) but

the numbers were small. For Daku, more than half supported the statement that

tourism raises the price of goods while one-fifth (20%) neither agreed nor disagreed.

This 20% that indicated neutral could imply their lack of experience in tourism.

An illustrative case

One of the factors causing high prices of goods in Kadavu is the cost of

transportation from Suva to Vunisea and around the island of Kadavu. This was an

issue frequently raised by respondents during the survey. Due to the continued rise

in the cost of fuel, the price of all goods in Kadavu has also increased.

98

A shop operator from Vunisea had this to say:

The cost of bringing goods from Suva to the villages is quite

expensive. We have to mark-up our prices to cover the

transport cost and make a little profit. Shops that are far away

from Vunisea charge higher prices to cover the cost of hiring

boats to transport goods to their villages.

Currently, the road serves only a quarter of the island’s population while the rest use

boats as the means of moving from one place to another. Because of this,

transportation within the island is quite expensive and this is further exacerbated by

the high cost of fuel and lack of regular boat services to facilitate the movement of

people within the island. On numerous occasions, locals have had to ‘hire’ boats to

make special trips. A respondent from Naivakarauniniu said:

We pay $20.00 per head to travel from our village to Vunisea. It is

expensive, but we can’t do much. When people get sick we try to

treat them using traditional medicine because travelling is too

expensive.

The high cost of transportation has had a direct impact on the prices of goods on the

island. One shopkeeper interviewed felt emphatically that the challenge relating to

transport is the main cause of increased prices of goods in Kadavu.

If transport cost is cheap, then it would be cheaper to bring goods

from Suva to Kadavu. If the island has good, regular and reliable

transport services, then the prices of carting these goods will also be

cheap. We buy ‘LPG’ at $44 dollars/cylinder from our suppliers in

Suva. We buy bulk and we are charged for the space in the boat.

We then sell them at $58.00/cylinder here in Vunisea. We also have

to return empty cylinders to Suva and we are charged for the space

again. The increase in price in my view is not because of tourism but

because of increase in fuel prices which increases the cost of

transportation. If you go around the island, the prices are more or

less the same.

99

A number of items were chosen and their costs were obtained for comparison. Table

5.12 shows that these goods are more expensive in Kadavu than in Suva and prices

increase further as you move away from Vunisea.

Table 5.12: Comparison of Suva and Kadavu prices on selected items in November 2011

Item Suva Vunisea Naivakarauniniu Daku Sugar/kg $1.90 $2.30 $2.50 $2.95 Flour/kg $1.43 $1.60 $2.20 $1.95 Kerosene/L $1.93 $1.99 $2.00 $2.50 20kg Fiji Gas $44 $58 - -

The examples in table 5.12 show the relationship between transportation and prices

of goods. Although tourism has been in existence for the past twenty years in the

two larger communities, no direct relationships between tourism and prices of goods

was obtained. However, the case study points to the problems of transportation and

how it has affected the price of goods sold on the island.

Reactions were also mixed when respondents were asked whether tourism caused an

increase in crime rates (table 5.6). Results show that more than half of the

respondents from Navuatu agree that tourism causes increase in crime rates.

However, this was not the case for Naivakarauniniu and Daku, as close to 50% from

both villages disagreed with the statement. Listening to comments made by the three

village headmen, the village elders, and from his own personal observation, the

researcher assumed that the village rules and regulations are strictly observed in all

villages. One of the elders from Naivakarauniniu remarked:

All villagers are expected to uphold the village law and if one

disobeys then they have to appear in the village meeting and answer

to the village elders. Changes are also taking place and new

lifestyles are creeping into our village. Here, alcohols are not

allowed to be consumed in the village, but we have had cases where

drinks were brought in and consumed in the village premises. This

was reported to the village headman and village meetings were

convened to discuss and address the issue.

100

Villagers in Naivakarauniniu have also been accused of taking things from Papageno

resort but the village elders strongly deny this. One of the elders commented:

Our people who work in the resort have been told that some from

our village remove things belonging to the tourists. They accuse

us but they do not have evidence to support their claim. We have

always taken the initiative to approach the management of the

resort to clear our name and resolve serious issues which we

believe can spoil future employment opportunities for our youths.

Tourism in the past has contributed to positive and negative impacts on local

communities and their environment. Respondents were given the statement: ‘tourism

harms the environment’ and were asked to rate the statement (table 5.7). While more

than half from Navuatu supported the statement, more than one-third disagreed and

felt that tourism does not harm the environment. 40% from Naivakarauniniu also

supported or strongly supported the statement, one quarter were neutral while one-

quarter disagreed with the statement. More than half from Daku showed strong or

relatively strong support while less than half disagreed that tourism harms the

environment. The combined results from the three villages reveal that 49% agree,

39% disagree and 12% indicated neutral to the statement that tourism harms the

environment. This shows that the villagers have different opinions about the impact

of tourism on the environment. While there was mixed results on views regarding

tourism impacting the environment, my observation about the villages revealed that

two of the villages had very clean surroundings, including the beach. The third

village was not very clean, the village lawn was overgrown, and plastic bottles were

seen floating on the sea near the beachfront. However, I had been told that there is a

clean-up day. A clean environment is important for attracting tourists to a

destination. When a destination starts to neglect the upkeep of its environment,

tourists will lose interest and look for other destinations that are cleaner and more

attractive.

Strong disapproval was shown by the Navuatu cohort (77%) that tourism disrupts

village activities (table 5.8). In other words, respondents from Navuatu feel that

tourism does not disrupt village activities.

101

As stated by one respondent:

tourists don’t come to the village whenever they want. If a group

wants to visit we are informed in advance. They simply walk around

the village with a guide. We don’t entertain or provide ceremonies

for them.

This was also confirmed by one of the managers of the Dive Kadavu resort, who said

that tourists occasionally visit the village. In addition, the community does not see

anything wrong with tourism as it does not affect their normal way of life. A

different result is shown in Naivakarauniniu. Here, 40% agree that tourism disrupts

village activities while forty per cent say it does not. The rest (20%) were neutral.

One respondent said:

Tourists only come to the village on Sundays for church services.

They want to experience how we worship. After the church service,

they go back to the resort. Their form of contribution to the village

is through the offering they give in church. Tourists don’t visit on

any other day. I don’t think they disrupt our village activities

because everyone is expected to attend church on Sunday.

The same is also observed for Daku, where 47% of the respondents say that tourism

disrupts village activities while another 47% say it does not. Navuatu again show the

greatest support towards tourism, while Naivakarauniniu and Daku had mixed

reactions from respondents. This is an indication of the validity of social exchange

theory, which suggests that villages that receive more benefits tend to show greater

support for tourism.

When questioned on tourism stopping locals from accessing the beach (table 5.9),

Navuatu had the highest percentage of respondents (77%) who strongly disagreed

with the statement. This was followed by Naivakarauniniu with 60%. For Daku

village, where tourism is still at the planning stage, the result observed was different;

60% supported the statement that tourism might stop locals from accessing their

beach. While at the Papageno and Dive Kadavu resorts, the researcher witnessed

102

locals crossing the beachfront to get to their plantations or to fetch firewood. For

Navuatu, the villagers regularly cross the beachfront of the resort to get to their farms

but they do not use the beachfront to play or swim. They have their swimming area

at the other end of the village.

More than half of the respondents from Navuatu and Naivakarauniniu disagree that

tourism uses valuable resources needed by the local residents (table 5.10). A

significant percentage from Naivakarauniniu also showed relatively strong support

for the statement. From interviews with the village headmen, it was noted that these

villages do not provide entertainment or activities that require the use of their natural

or cultural resources. It was noted that one of the resources used by tourists was their

marine protected area. The use of this resource benefits the communities because

tourists pay a fee to snorkel or dive in these areas. More than half (53%) of the

respondents from Daku supported the statement while the rest (47%) disagreed that

tourism uses resources needed by local residents. In general, the two villages with

tourism experience had favourable views towards tourism regarding the use of their

resources. This result again highlights the validity of social exchange theory.

Relatively strong support was observed from respondents in Navuatu (77%) and

Naivakarauniniu (33%) that locals had easy access to areas used by tourists (table

5.11). Respondents from Navuatu agree that tourism does not deprive them of access

to areas used by tourists. During our stay at Dive Kadavu, the researcher witnessed

locals crossing the beachfront of the resort to get to their plantations. The villagers

know that the resort is a private property so they don’t come into the premises unless

they are workers at the resort. Two-thirds (67%) of respondents from

Naivakarauniniu showed strong disagreement about locals having easy access to

areas used by tourists. The situation in Naivakarauniniu is different, first, because

the village is not close to the resort as in Navuatu. Secondly, Papageno resort sits on

a freehold property where the management may have placed restrictions on people

crossing their beachfront. In Daku, strong or relatively strong disagreement was

shown by 67% of the respondents while 33% were relatively supportive of the

statement.

103

5.1.1.3 Community control over tourism

It is important that communities have a sense of ownership and responsibility

regarding tourism in their area. Creating awareness, engaging and empowering the

whole community can bring about sustainable tourism that everyone desires. Two

statements were given to assess perceptions on community control over tourism.

Table 5.13: The community can still have control over tourism

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu

Frequency [f] and percentage [%] f % F % f % Strongly disagree 0 0 1 7 0 0 Disagree 1 7 4 27 4 31 Neutral 1 7 0 0 2 15 Agree 11 73 10 66 7 54 Strongly agree 2 13 0 0 0 0

Table 5.14: Money spent by tourists will remain in my community

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu

Frequency [f] and percentage [%] f % f % f % Strongly disagree 0 0 2 13 0 0 Disagree 3 20 0 0 2 15 Neutral 1 7 3 20 0 0 Agree 11 73 9 60 10 77 Strongly agree 0 0 1 7 1 8

When questioned about community control over tourism (table 5.13), 54% from

Navuatu and 67% from Naivakarauniniu showed relatively strong support of the

statement. About one-third of respondents from the same two villages did not agree

that the community can still have control over tourism. Strong support (13%) and

relatively strong support (73%) was also observed for Daku, where respondents

agreed that they can have control over tourism.

Respondents were asked to rate the statement ‘money spent by tourists will remain in

my community’ (table 5.14). Relatively strong support was observed from Daku

(73%), Navuatu (85%) and Naivakarauniniu (67%) cohorts. A relatively small

number from the three villages disagreed.

104

In general, all three villages responded positively towards tourism by agreeing that

money spent by tourists remained in their communities and they could still have

control over tourism.

5.1.1.4 Social Costs and Benefits of Tourism

Mathieson and Wall (1983), argue that tourism development comes with different

benefits and costs, and such differences are due to variations in the economic

structures of destination areas and their locations. Respondents from

Naivakarauniniu and Navuatu were asked to share their experiences on the benefits

of tourism over the past years. Daku villagers on the other hand were asked to state

the likely impacts tourism might have on their community if they were to start

engaging in tourism. This was an open question, allowing respondents the

opportunity to give more than one answer. Answers were then grouped or themed

and are shown in table 5.15.

What social benefits has tourism brought to your community? Table 5.15 Social benefits that tourism brings to your community

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu

Frequency [f] and percentage [%] f % f % f % Improve standard of living 1 7 5 33 7 54 Greater social exchange 1 7 3 20 4 31 Change of dress code 2 13 1 7 1 8 Change in diet 1 7 0 0 0 0 Greater respect shown to village elders

0 0 0 0 1 8

Only five respondents from Daku answered this question and identified likely social

benefits of tourism. The other ten left this question blank, possibly because they

have had no experience with tourism. ‘Improved standard of living’ was the most

common social benefit highlighted by respondents from Naivakarauniniu and

Navuatu.

One respondent commented:

tourism creates wealth and enables the community to contribute

financially towards village projects.

105

Another remarked:

Tourism has improved our standard of living and we are able to

send our children to school, pay for their books and even send

them to Vunisea or Suva for their secondary education.

Greater social exchange was the second most common answer, which is to be

expected of communities that come into contact with tourists on a regular basis. One

respondent stated:

We are able to talk and mingle with tourists. We learn about their

way of life and they learn about ours. We exchange ideas.

Tourism is seen here as a way of broadening the views of community members

through social exchange. Other impacts that were considered as benefits by the three

communities include: change of dress codes, change in diet and greater respect

shown to village elders.

What are the social costs of tourism to your community?

Table 5.16: Social costs resulting from tourism Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu

Frequency [f] and percentage [%] f % F % f % Unwarranted dress codes 6 40 9 60 5 39 Abuse of alcohol in the village 2 13 5 33 2 15 Loss of respect for village elders 3 20 2 4 31 Extra-marital affairs & domestic violence 4 27 3 20 6 46 No social cost 0 0 1 7 6 46

Five social costs were highlighted in this question (table 5.16). The problem that was

raised by most respondents was the unacceptable dress codes in the village.

Respondents were complaining about youths wearing clothes that are not acceptable

in the village. These include girls wearing shorts and mini-skirts, and boys wearing

hats in the village.

Other problems that were raised include: abuse of alcohol in the village, loss of

respect for village elders, extra marital affairs and domestic violence (table 5.16).

These social problems are similar to the findings by Vanualailai (2005) on tourism

impacts in the Yasawa islands. One respondent said:

106

Tourism has brought family problems. Husbands and wives

quarrel and argue because the husband is spending less time at

home or he is dishonest of his whereabouts. Families also fight

because of rumours spreading around the village about spouses

having extra marital affairs.

And another respondent noted:

….conflicts arise when money is involved. Youths get their pay,

buy alcohol, drink and make excessive noise in the village. When

confronted, they say it’s their money and they do the same thing

over and over again.

A few respondents however stated that there were no social costs related to tourism.

Table 5.17: Cultural benefits that tourism brings to your community Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu

Frequency [f] and percentage [%] f % f % f % Ensures the practice of culture 4 27 6 40 5 38 Revives and protects cultural practices

6 40 5 33 11 85

Learn and share new culture 1 7 3 20 0 0

Respondents in all villages agree that tourism brings cultural benefits to their

communities (table 5.17). The most common benefit given by respondents is tourism

revives and protects cultural practices. One villager from Navuatu commented:

….tourism is giving us the opportunity to practise our dances,

hospitality and share our history with our visitors. Our children

learn by listening to our elders share their knowledge and this is

how traditional knowledge is passed.

Another stated:

Tourism has enabled us to revive some of the old dances, songs

and chants that our elders used to perform. It encourages the

practice of cultural items like meke [Fijian dance] and traditional

ceremonies like sevusevu [welcome ceremony]. Young boys are

able to watch and practise these ceremonies and be corrected by

elders in a setting that is conducive to learning.

107

All villagers concur to this and say that tourism ensures the practice of culture

through entertainment and traditional presentations. Tourism also provides an

opportunity for locals to learn new cultures and share their culture. Tourism is

embraced in these three communities because of the cultural benefits it is considered

to bring.

Table 5.18: Cultural costs resulting from tourism

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu

Frequency [f] and percentage [%] f % f % f % No cultural cost 3 20 8 53 6 46 Loss of cultural values 5 33 2 13 3 23 Alters traditional way of life 1 7 0 0 2 15

Only two cultural costs were raised, that is, the loss of cultural values and changes in

traditional way of life (table 5.18). For example, one respondent stated:

The respect for elders is slowly fading away. Young people are

talking back and are challenging decisions made in village

meetings. They are getting regular income from the resort and

they think they know better.

Interestingly, seventeen respondents (40%) across all villages say that there are no

cultural costs relating to tourism. This is possibly because, as noted, tourists and

villagers do not interact on a daily basis. They only visit Naivakarauniniu village on

Sundays for church services and Navuatu when tourists want to tour the village.

5.1.1.5 Challenges faced by Naivakarauniniu and Navuatu

Naivakarauniniu and Navuatu villages have been exposed to tourism for more than

twenty years but their involvement and benefits differ to some degree. Each resort

employs 20 people from neighbouring villages. Half of those employed at the

Papageno Resort are from the closest village, Naivakarauniniu, while the rest are

from nearby villages. Most of those employed at Dive Kadavu resort are from

Navuatu village. Respondents from both villages were asked to indicate if they had

had problems relating to tourism in the past. Some 64% of respondents indicated

‘yes’ that they have encountered problems relating to tourism while 36% responded

with a ‘no’. Problems faced over the years by the two villages are listed in Table

5.19.

108

Table 5.19: Problems faced by the community

a. Recruitment of employees b. Management of money on the use of Customary Fishing Ground c. Accusations of stealing from tourists d. Tourists asked to leave village for not observing protocols e. Discrimination by management (denial of transportation) f. Dispute regarding lease agreement g. Dispute regarding the use of funds from the hotel h Dispute on the use of fuel given by the hotel

a. The village headman and village elders from Naivakarauniniu raised concerns

about the selection process used by the Papageno resort management to hire

its workers. They felt that the managers running the resort are not aware of

an understanding made between the resort owner and the village, and are

recruiting workers from other villages. According to the elders, the owner

had agreed that first preference would be given to Naivakarauniniu because

they are closest to the resort. When probed further, it was revealed that this

was a verbal understanding and nothing formal was signed. The village

elders, however, feel that the resort should honour the agreement and treat

them fairly to ensure a good relationship is maintained. No problem as such

exists in Navuatu because conditions of employment are clearly stipulated in

the lease agreement. Navuatu village has maintained a good working

relationship with the management of Dive Kadavu resort.

b. The issue of the use of village money gained from the use of customary

fishing grounds. Respondents were concerned about the misuse of money

meant for village development and protection of their marine resources.

Questions were asked by villagers in village meetings on how village funds

have been used. These issues were resolved through consultation and

traditional means.

c. Naivakarauniniu villagers were once accused by the resort of stealing from

tourists. The resort, however, had no evidence to prove that they were right.

This initially created resentment amongst villagers, but the elders took the

initiative to visit the resort and resolved the matter in the traditional manner

by seeking forgiveness and reconciliation.

109

d. Villagers from Naivakarauniniu on one occasion asked tourists to leave

because tourists had entered the village without the knowledge and consent of

the village headman. This incident brought tension and concern to the

village. To address this, the village elders again took the initiative to present

yaqona and ask for forgiveness from the tourists and the resort manager.

e. The issue regarding discrimination of workers in Naivakarauniniu started

when the resort manager of Papageno Eco-resort allowed for workers from

other villages to be transported back to their homes after work but not for

workers from Naivakarauniniu. This was seen as a very unfair treatment as

other workers have to pass through Naivakarauniniu on their way to their

villages. This is still an on-going issue and the village elders are awaiting the

opportunity to meet the owner of the resort to discuss a possible solution.

f. Dispute regarding lease agreement. Questions have been raised by a number

of respondents from Navuatu regarding the duration of the lease and the

benefits villagers derive from the resort. Some have even sought a review of

lease payments asking for increase in other benefits.

g. The use of money given by the resorts. Respondents are highlighting the

importance of accountability and good management. Respondents feel that

the sustainability of tourism will depend on everyone doing their part, leaders

leading by example in terms of accountability and good management.

h. Navuatu villagers raised the use of fuel given by the resort. The fuel given by

the resort was meant to benefit the whole village. Villagers have seen that at

times, village fuel has been used by a few for family commitments. This has

been addressed in village meetings.

5.1.1.6 Daku village – Planning Ahead Table 5.20. Plan to start a tourism business in Daku village Yes No Does the village have any plan to start a community tourism venture in the village?

100% 0%

Do you agree with the idea? 80% 20%

110

Daku is planning to establish a community tourism venture in the village (table 5.20);

80% of the Daku respondents support the idea while 20% disagree with the plan.

Respondents were asked to state their views about tourism’s possible impacts if it is

introduced formally in their village. Various answers were given. One respondent

said:

It will change our lifestyle, affect how we relate to each other and

it will reduce access to traditional fishing areas.

Another highlighted how tourism will impact on their daily activities and the

environment, stating:

Time will be consumed in tourism activities; a lot of waste will be

produced and it will be bad for our environment.

Another respondent was more optimistic.

Tourism will be a source of income for villagers. Tourism will

bring community development, create employment and provide a

resource for the village.

In general, the three study communities have a very positive view about tourism.

However, a small portion of those interviewed felt that tourism can or would bring

about changes that are negative or detrimental to their communities and environment.

Despite these few challenges, all villages have a relatively positive perception of

tourism. It creates employment, improves the standard of living, helps protect

culture and environment, and still allows communities a high degree of control over

it.

111

48%

38%

9%

5%

Figure 5.2 Reasons for visiting Kadavu

Holiday Diving Honeymoon other

17%

43%

2%

24%

14%

Figure 5.1 Regions where tourists came from

Europe Americas

Asia Region Australia & New Zealand

no response

5.1.2 Tourists’ Perceptions of Kadavu

From July to November 2009, a

total of 144 completed, self-

administered questionnaires was

collected at Vunisea airport,

Papageno resort and Dive Kadavu

resort. The purpose of the survey

was to determine how tourists

currently perceive Kadavu as a

tourist destination.

For those that took part in the survey, 75.7% were visiting Kadavu for the first time.

The length of stay ranged from 2 to 14 days, and 63.2% stayed between four to nine

days. As many as 84% said they were interested in visiting Kadavu again and 62.5%

mentioned that they would prefer

to stay between 5 and 15 days in

Kadavu. These figures show

clearly that for most of these first-

time visitors, Kadavu was a good

experience and revisiting was a

desirable option.

Of those that took part in the

survey, 43% were from America; 23.6% from Australia and New Zealand, 16.7%

from Europe and 2% from the Asia region (figure 5.1), though 14% of respondents

left this question blank.

Reasons for visiting Kadavu:

Just under half, (48%) of these visitors were in Kadavu to spend their ‘holidays’. The

second most popular reason for visiting Kadavu was ‘diving’ (38%) while 9% were

there for their honeymoon. Only 5% were in Kadavu for other reasons like fishing,

visiting friends and snorkelling (figure 5.2).

In relation to activities that tourists participated in, the following results were noted:

64% said they walked on natural trails, while 63% said they visited a village.

112

2%

18%

79%

1%

Figure 5.4 I enjoyed my experience in Kadavu

Disagree Agree Strongly Agree blank

5%

14%

26% 25%

22%

6%

2%

Figure 5.3 Age group of Tourists involved in the survey

less than 20 years old 20 to 29 years old

30 to 39 years old 40 to 49 years old

50 to 59 years old 60 to 69 years old

70 years old or more

visiting a beach was the most common activity (82%), followed by diving (70.8%).

snorkelling (59.4%) and attend a cultural performance (59%) were other activities

guests participated in.

Well over two-thirds said that the activities offered had met their expectations. More

than three-quarters of the respondents were satisfied with the walk on natural trails

and the visit to the village saying their expectations had been met (table 5.21). Table 5.21: Activities and Expectations

Activity Activity met their expectations

Walk on natural trails 78%

Visit a village 75.3%

Visit a beach 68.6%

Diving 69.5%

Snorkeling 68.4%

More than half (52%) of

respondents came to Kadavu with a

partner. The rest either came on

their own (11%), or as a group of

three or more (27%); 11% of

respondents left this question

blank.

More than half (51%) of the

respondents are aged between 30

and 49, 22% aged between 50 and 59

and 14% aged between 20 and 29

(figure 5.3).

An important component in

determining the current tourism

carrying capacity level is on tourists’

perception about the destination, its

resources, and the level and quality of

service provided. Tourist satisfaction is crucial in whether tourists return,

recommend the destination to others or advise others to stay away. Satisfaction is

113

attained when tourist expectations are exceeded; there is value for money for what

they are paying; the place is clean, safe and secure; the people are very friendly and

there are quality attractions and activities at the destination (WTO, 2004).

In general, respondents conveyed a positive perception of Kadavu as a tourist

destination; its surroundings, tourism products, services and the local people (table

5.22).

Table 5.22: Perceptions of tourists regarding Kadavu as a tourist destination

Perceptions Mean SD 1. I enjoyed my experience in ‘Kadavu’ 4.76 0.567 2. Signage made my travel easy to Kadavu 4.10 1.029 3. I found the resort to be clean 4.69 0.519 4. I found the villages to be clean 4.30 1.038 5. The villages were accessible 4.34 0.917 6. Kadavu provided a good variety of experiences 4.47 0.757 7. There are too many tourists in the village 2.29 1.638 8. I had a good experience involving the local culture 4.58 0.824 9. The beaches were clean 4.50 0.739 10. The water provided in the resort was clean 4.69 0.571 11. There was enough water supply in the resort 4.76 0.648 12. Unique souvenirs and crafts were available 3.27 1.350 13. Quality souvenirs were available 3.68 5.306 14. I had many opportunities to enjoy the local cuisine 4.37 0.859 15. The quality of food was good 4.66 0.640 16. The quality of accommodation was good 4.60 0.721 17. The level of service provided was high 4.71 0.575 18. Service staff were competent and helpful 4.74 0.515 19. I was bothered by the lack of lighting 2.23 1.471 20. I was bothered by the noise 1.87 1.253 21. I was bothered by the garbage in the public areas 2.33 1.448 22. The state of the natural environment was good 4.46 0.852 23. The reef and the sea in Kadavu seemed healthy 4.66 0.628 24. This place has interesting and varied natural resources 4.58 0.621 25. It was easy to get to Kadavu for my visit 4.04 1.037 26. Comfortable boat transport from the airport to the resort 4.00 1.058 27. The boat transport provided locally was on time 4.44 1.058 28. I felt safe and secure during my visit 4.75 0.466 29. I feel I received good value for money 4.61 0.638 30. I would recommend Kadavu to my friends 4.71 0.646 31. Tourist numbers in Kadavu are too high, affecting experience 2.01 1.206 32. Kadavu can receive more tourist and still be attractive 3.15 1.130 Note: 1= Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree

114

1% 1%

8%

33% 56%

1%

Figure 5.6 Kadavu provided a good variety of experience.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

blank

45%

26%

11% 1%

9% 8%

Figure 5.7 There are too many tourists in the village

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

blank

2%

29%

68%

1%

Figure 5.5 I found the resort to be clean

Neutral Agree Strongly Agree blank

The results that follow show feedback provided by tourists based on the

questionnaire given to them. The average mean shown in table 5.22, shows a

positive picture about Kadavu as a tourist destination.

Figure 5.4 reveals that 97% of the

tourists enjoyed their experience in

Kadavu. As an emerging destination,

good clear signage is needed to assist

tourists in finding their way to Kadavu.

When asked whether there was good

clear signage to make their travel easier

to Kadavu, 59% agreed that there was

clear signage; 3% disagreed while

18% neither agreed nor disagreed

with the statement.

Resort and village cleanliness are

important elements tourists use to

assess a destination. A very high

percentage of visitors (97%), agreed

that resorts are clean (figure 5.5).

A destination can attract more

tourists if there are things tourists

can do while on holiday. As many

as 89% of respondents agreed that

Kadavu provided a good variety of

experience while 8% neither

agreed nor disagreed with the

statement (figure 5.6). Again,

tourists were relatively satisfied

because of the variety of things they were able to do while in Kadavu.

Respondents were asked whether or not there were too many tourists in the village.

Less than three-quarters (70.8%), of respondents disagreed that there were too many

115

1% 1% 6% 26%

61%

5%

Figure 5. 8 I had a good experience involving the local culture

Strongly disagree Disagree

Neutral Agree

Strongly Agree blank

2% 8%

29% 60%

1%

Figure 5.9 The beaches in Kadavu are clean

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree blank

1% 1%

28%

68%

2%

Figure 5.10 The water provided in the resort was clean

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

blank

12% 13%

31% 26%

15% 3%

Figure 5.11 Quality souvenirs were available

Strongly disagreeDisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly Agree

tourists in the village (figure 5.7). Some 10.4% neither agreed nor disagreed with the

statement.

From those respondents, 87% agreed they had a good experience involving the local

culture; 6% neither agreed nor

disagreed, and 5% did not provide an

answer (figure 5.8).

The cleanliness of the natural

environment, which includes the sea,

reefs, beaches and mountains, attracts

tourists to destinations. As many as

89% agreed that Kadavu had clean

beaches (figure 5.9).

A very high percentage (95.9%) agreed

that water provided in the resort was

clean (figure 5.10). This is good since

clean water is essential for a

destination.

On souvenirs, some 40.3% agreed that

the quality souvenirs available was good

(figure 5.11). A significant portion,

(30.6%) neither agreed nor disagreed with

the statement while one-quarter (25.7%) of

respondents were dissatisfied the quality

of souvenirs available. The average

mean for availability of quality

souvenirs was lower than the mean of

most of the indicators that were tested.

Kadavu women can be shown how to increase their income by improving the quality

and variety of souvenirs they make.

116

3% 14%

30% 50%

3%

Figure 5.12 I had many opportunities to enjoy the local

cuisine

Disagree Neutral

Agree Strongly Agree

blank

2%

24%

73%

1%

Figure 5.15 Service staff were competent

Neutral Agree Strongly Agree blank

2% 2%

24%

71%

1%

Figure 5.13 The quality of food was good

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree blank

53% 28%

5% 5% 8%1%

Figure 5.16 I was bothered by the noise

Strongly disagree Disagree

Neutral Agree

Strongly Agree blank

1% 4% 18%

77%

Figure 5.14 The level of service provided was high

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

40%

24% 13%

9%

13% 1%

Figure 5.17 I was bothered by the garbage in the public places

Strongly disagree Disagree

Neutral Agree

Strongly Agree blank

On local cuisine, 80% agreed that they had many opportunities to enjoy the local

cuisine (figure 5.12). The quality of food was also highly rated with 95% agreeing

that food quality was good (figure 5.13).

Service quality and satisfaction always go hand in hand. On the level of service

(figure 5.14), 95% of respondents agreed that the level of service provided was high.

A very high percentage, (97%) of respondents agreed that service staff were

competent (figure 5.15).

As many as 84% disagreed that they were bothered by the noise (figure 5.16). This

means the tourists were satisfied with the noise level at the destination.

Similarly, 63.9% disagreed that they were bothered by the garbage in public places

(figure 5.17). A significant portion of respondents (22%), said that they were

117

3% 6% 15%

36%

39% 1%

Figure 5.20 It was easy to get to Kadavu

Strongly disagree Disagree

Neutral Agree

Strongly Agree blank

0% 2% 13%

42% 43%

Figure 5.18 The reef and sea in Kadavu seemed healthy

Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly Agree blank

1% 12% 14%

32%

40% 1%

Figure 5.21 The boat transport was comfortable and on time

Strongly disagree Disagree

Neutral Agree

Strongly Agree blank

6%

31% 63%

1%

Figure 5.19 Kadavu has interesting and varied natural resources

Neutral Agree Strongly Agree blank

bothered by the garbage in public places, although Kadavu can be viewed as a

relatively clean destination. Cleanliness is an important factor that can either attract

or draw tourists away from a destination. A tourist wrote:

‘I was only sad to see trash washed up on the beaches. It’s the

same at home, and I wish people would take better care of our

environment. You have a beautiful island. Thank you for sharing

it with us.’

The sea and reef in Kadavu were considered healthy by 95% of the respondents

(figure 5.18), and 93% agreed that Kadavu had interesting and varied natural

resources (figure 5.19). There was a general consensus that the sea and reef in

Kadavu are clean and this was also observed during the trip to the island.

Accessibility is always a key factor for any destination. 75% of respondents stated

that it was easy getting to the island (figure 5.20).

118

27%

72%

1%

Figure 5.22 I felt safe and secure during my visit

Agree Strongly Agree blank

2% 4%

26%

68%

Figure 5.23 I feel i received good value for my money

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

0% 2% 12%

42%

44%

Figure 5.24 I would recommend Kadavu to my friends

Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly Agree blank

43%

33%

10%

7% 6% 1%

Figure 5.25 Tourist numbers in Kadavu are too high and affects the quality of

tourism

Strongly disagree Disagree

Neutral Agree

Strongly Agree blank

Accessibility and mobility are key links to the success of any tourist destination.

Some 72% of tourists that participated in the survey said the boat transport from the

airport to the resort was comfortable and the boat was on time (figure 5.21).

Tourists want to reach their destination in the shortest possible time and spend as

much time as possible at the destination. Timely and comfortable transportation are

important for overall tourist satisfaction about a destination.

Almost all (99%) that participated in the survey said they felt safe and secure during

their visit to Kadavu (figure 5.22), while 95% agreed that they received good value

for their money (figure 5.23). As many as 92% said they would recommend Kadavu

to their friends (figure 5.24). The high percentage of those that would recommend

Kadavu to their friends shows their level of satisfaction about the destination.

Respondents were asked if tourist numbers in Kadavu were too high and whether it

affects the quality of the tourism experience (figure 5.25). More than three-quarters

(76%) of respondents disagreed that there were too many tourists in Kadavu.

Respondents felt that Kadavu could accommodate more tourists without affecting the

quality of experience in the destination (figure 5.26). Indeed, 40% of the respondents

119

10%

15%

35%

29%

11%

Figure 5. 26 Kadavu can accommodate more tourists and remain an attractive destination

Stronglydisagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

agreed that Kadavu can accommodate many more tourists and remain an attractive

destination; 25% however, disagreed with the statement, and 35% were neutral,

neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the statement.

In general, respondents had a

very positive perception of

Kadavu and this is reflected in

the high average mean shown in

Table 5.22. Many agreed with

the statements given regarding

the place, resources, activities

and the people. Tourists

enjoyed their experience in Kadavu and found the resorts and villages clean. Many

agreed that Kadavu provided a good variety of experiences, and had a sufficient

supply of good, clean water. They also believed that the state of the natural

environment is good, they received good value for money and would return if given

the opportunity to do so. In addition, they did not believe there were too many

tourists on the island, and would recommend Kadavu to their friends.

5.2 Physical – Environmental Indicators

5.2.1. Current practices in the three villages

The purpose of investigating these activities in the villages is to try to find out

whether tourism is affecting their daily practices and the use of their time and

resources. In tourism destinations, the proper management of scarce natural and

cultural resources is important for the satisfaction of tourists, and the well-being of

host communities. Specifically, the management of water, energy and waste is

important as the influx of tourists can put pressure on these resources. More water

will be used and more waste will be produced as more tourists visit an area, and

failure to monitor or manage can result in unhappy guests and disgruntled host

communities (WTO, 2004).

To understand the current level of tourism experienced in the destination, it was

necessary to find out the daily practices of individuals and households occurring in

120

the villages. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to collect data from the

headmen and village elders. The interview was to ascertain the daily practices

currently prevailing in the village, the use and management of their resources. Key

areas examined included: water availability and conservation, water quality,

waterborne illnesses, subsistence farming and fishing, income derived from tourism,

sources of energy used in the village, conservation initiatives, types of wastes and

methods of disposal and contribution to village projects.

5.2.1.1 Water availability and usage

Water is a critical resource for any society or community. Studies have shown that

consumption of water per capita by tourists is twice or three times more than that of

residents of destinations (WTO, 2004, p165). Development can be constrained in

areas that experience water shortages so the need to manage supply and demand for

water is an important indicator for tourist destinations.

Water for the three villages is sourced from nearby springs and is directed through

pipes and distributed to all households. In Daku, the village headman monitors the

water levels in the village tanks and also conducts random checks on pipes for leaks.

There is no monitoring on the use of water per household or per person. Also, water

usage in Naivakarauniniu and Navuatu is not monitored. Water is fed directly from

the spring to taps around the two villages. None of the water used in any of the

villages is treated.

The survey found no incidence of water shortage in any of the villages studied.

Currently, water is in abundance, but water supply could become an issue if village

population or the tourist population visiting these villages increase, or prolonged

droughts arise from climate change.

5.2.1.2 Water conservation

Conservation is an opportunity to relieve pressure on water supply and an

opportunity to show commitment to best practice and sustainable tourism (WTO,

2004). Water conservation can save money and it can promote an environmentally

friendly image of the destination or community. The interview with the village

121

headmen and village elders revealed that water is readily available and is in

abundance in all the three villages. As one village headman remarked:

‘Water is in abundance and is available all the time in our village.

That is why we have not been monitoring our use of water.

Villagers do not pay for water but they help in financing the

purchase of pipes and in its installation. After natural disasters, the

men in the village always help out in clearing fallen trees and

repair damaged pipes.’

Although none of the villages has ever experienced water shortage in the past, all

occasionally collect rainwater. For Daku village, water from the spring is collected

in tanks and then channelled to individual homes. The other two villages obtain

water from the spring straight into the tap. Demand for water in villages can increase

if tourist activities require the use of water. Water supply and usage can become an

issue if tourist numbers to these villages increase, as the current infrastructure may

not be able to support the demand, especially when tourists are in the village

engaging themselves in water based activities.

5.2.1.3 Waterborne illnesses Tourists are risk averse and will avoid destinations that are reputed to be unhealthy.

Elsewhere, poor drinking water quality has resulted in many tourists getting intestinal

diseases (WTO, 2004, p169). Village headmen were asked if the village had had

reported cases of waterborne illnesses. According to the District Officer, Vunisea

Hospital is the only place on the island where you can obtain treated water. All

village headmen mentioned there had been no reported case of water-borne illnesses

in their respective villages. One said;

…people get sick in this village and they are taken to Vunisea

hospital if it is serious. None of these sicknesses, as far as we

know, are related to the water that we drink in the village.

However, a Peace Corps volunteer at the Vunisea hospital reported that there have

been cases of water-related illnesses. The report obtained from Vunisea Hospital

122

(Appendix 6) also shows that from 2009 to 2011, the three villages have had reported

cases of waterborne and skin diseases. Skin diseases such as fungal skin infection,

scabies, abscess [a collection of pus formed by the tissue, usually caused by bacteria

or parasites] and impetigo [bacterial skin infection common in pre-school children]

are water related diseases. This shows that people contract bacterial infections from

the water they are using but villagers may not be aware of this. To maintain a good

image as a safe destination these villages and resorts need to improve on the safety

and quality of the water they are consuming together with what is provided for

tourists.

5.2.1.4 Subsistence farming and fishing

Tourism is the principal source of foreign exchange and a main source of

employment for many small island nations (WTO, 2004 p253). Their size, and often

small indigenous populations, makes them vulnerable to the impacts of tourism,

particularly if it is large scale. In Kadavu, most people are subsistence farmers and

fishermen. That is, they plant crops and catch just enough fish for their families,

leaving no surplus that could be sold. Data collected show the highest percentage of

households relying on subsistence farming and fishing are from Daku (70%),

followed by Naivakarauniniu (50%), then Navuatu (15%). These figures could

change if tourism were to increase, more locals were to be employed in the resorts,

and more were to sell handicrafts and souvenirs to tourists.

Table 5.23: Percentage of households that rely on subsistence farming and fishing.

Village Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu Approximate percentage 70 50 15

Only two people in Daku are employed at the Papageno Eco-resort. By contrast,

approximately 50% of households in Naivakarauniniu village have at least one

member employed at the eco-resort. Navuatu village has a contractual agreement

with the owner of the Dive Kadavu resort. The understanding is that all households

can have a member employed in the resort and since the resort can employ only 20

people, employment opportunity is on a rotational basis to accommodate all

households.

123

5.2.1.5 Income from tourism

Table 5.24: Percentage of households where income from tourism would be important

Village Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu Approximate percentage 20 60 100

Table 5.24 show 20% of households in Daku village, 60% in Naivakarauniniu and all

households in Navuatu see income derived from tourism as important. For Navuatu,

at least one member of every household is employed at the Dive Kadavu resort.

However, it is noteworthy, that no household in any of the villages relied on tourism

as their primary source of income.

5.2.1.6 Sources of energy that is used in the village

From interviews, it was noted that all villages use electricity for lighting (table 5.24).

Daku and Naivakarauniniu villages have generators that provide power but are

operate only from 6:00 pm to 10:00 pm. Occasionally, families may request

extended hours and pay for fuel to facilitate their activities. Dive Kadavu Resort

supplies Navuatu village with electricity, which is turned off at 10 pm.

All villages use diesel/super and premix for their outboard engines, brush-cutters and

generators (table 5.24). Firewood is the most common source of fuel for cooking,

while kerosene and gas are used in some households and as a backup during wet

weather, when villagers are not able to fetch dry wood.

Table 5.25: Sources of energy used in the village

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu Electricity yes Yes yes Diesel/super/premix yes Yes yes Gas yes Yes yes Firewood yes Yes yes Kerosene yes Yes yes Solar no No no

Apart from solar, energy sources listed in Table 5.25 are readily available in Kadavu.

However, the prices are high because of high landed and transportation cost (from

Suva and around the island). Firewood is the only source of energy that is free and

readily used by all households.

124

5.2.1.7 Conservation initiatives currently implemented in the village

Table 5.26: Conservation Initiatives

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu Marine Protected Area yes yes yes Recycling yes no yes Tree planting yes no no Ban on the use of poison Derris elliptica ‘Duva’ to kill fish.

yes yes no

Tourism can be a threat to conservation, especially if the proposed area is of

importance to biodiversity conservation. However, it can also provide economic

incentives through initiatives such as visiting and using Marine Protected Areas

(WTO, 2004). Results of the survey show that all three villages are engaged in

conservation initiatives. All villages have Marine Protected Areas to assist in the

protection and conservation of their marine resources. Daku and Navuatu villages

recycle items such as plastic bottles to minimise wastage.

Daku has had many awareness training workshops on conservation and sustainable

management of their marine resources. It has also been involved in other sustainable

livelihood initiatives such as the tree planting project, where fruit trees are planted

outside village boundaries for village use and consumption, and in the dangers of

using Derris elliptica (commonly known in Fiji as duva) which is banned in Daku

and Naivakarauniniu villages. This non-discriminatory method of catching fish is

unsustainable because it kills fish of all sizes.

5.2.1.8 Types of wastes and methods of disposal

The types of waste produced in the village and how they are disposed of were also

investigated. Kitchen waste and left over food are given to the pigs (table 5.27).

Septic tanks and pit toilets are the two common ways of collecting waste from toilets.

Nearby pits are dug to capture excess water from toilets. Empty glass bottles are

used by villagers in Daku to store coconut oil and are buried if they are broken. With

regard to plastic bottles, unused bottles are either put in the village dump, burnt or

buried. Empty tins are also put in the dump or buried. Grass and leaves collected

from village lawn are either burnt or collected and composted.

125

Table 5.27: Types of waste and methods of disposal

5.2.1.9 Contribution to village projects

Annually, the three villages organize their own fundraising activities to assist in the

development of their village, provincial levy, primary school and the general upkeep

of their community hall and church. For Daku village, members donate money or

contribute their time and skills towards the project; for example, villagers volunteer

their time to assist in the building of the community hall. For Naivakarauniniu, those

who work in the resort deduct part of their wages directly into the project pool. For

Navuatu, each household is expected to give a certain amount of money towards the

project.

What environmental benefits has tourism brought to your community?

Table 5.28:Environmental benefits to your community

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu

Frequency [f] and percentage [%] f % f % f % Protection and conservation of environment

4 27 7 47 10 77

Tourism adds value to the environment 6 40 3 20 0 0 Greater awareness 1 7 0 0 1 8 Revives traditional practices 1 7 0 0 0 0

If a site is attractive because of its rich biological or cultural values, it will attract

people and make the location popular. Due to the influx of visitors, the area is likely

to be degraded, diminishing the quality of the experience (Hillery et al, 2001).

Conservation and wise use of environmental and cultural resources are means to

sustainable tourism development. Protection and conservation of the environment

was the most common environmental benefit given by respondents. Villagers see the

value of their environment and are taking steps to protect and conserve their

resources. All villages have their own marine protected areas and tourists pay to dive

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu Kitchen waste Piggery Piggery, compost Piggery Toilet waste Septic tank Septic tank, pit Septic tank Bottles Used to store oil,

buried if broken Bury Bury

Plastics Village dump Burn and bury Burnt Tins Village dump Bury Bury Grass/Leaves Burnt Compost, burnt Burnt

126

or snorkel in these reserved areas. The most successful marine protected area in the

study area is in Daku village. At the moment, guests from Papageno eco-resort pay

F$10.00 to dive at the Daku MPA to see giant clams and other marine species. Two-

fifth (40%) from Daku and one-fifth (20%) from Naivakarauniniu say that tourism

adds value to the environment (table 5.28). Daku is already seeing the value of their

marine environment as they are starting to receive guests. Additional benefits given

include the revival of traditional practices and greater awareness of the environment.

What are the environmental costs of tourism to your community?

Table 5.29: Environmental costs resulting from tourism

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu

Frequency [f] and percentage [%] f % f % f % No environmental costs 4 27 13 87 13 100 Environmental degradation 3 20 1 7 0 0 Loss of marine life 3 20 0 0 0 0 Denial of access to certain areas 2 13 0 0 0 0

When asked about environmental costs, all (100%) respondents from Navuatu, 86%

from Naivakarauniniu and 27% from Daku say that there are no environmental costs

related to tourism (table 5.29). This again shows the positive view locals hold

regarding tourism. They simply do not see anything bad about tourism as far as the

environment is concerned. However, Daku highlighted three other problems:

environmental degradation, loss of marine life, and denial of access to certain areas.

One respondent said:

..tourists pick and take things [shells] from the environment and

never put them back.

Another commented:

Tourism restricts and even denies resource owners from getting to

certain areas. There is also a risk of our environment being

exploited, where tourists take things and sell it.

An observation that can be gathered from the cost and benefit questions is that there

were more benefits and fewer costs raised by respondents from Naivakarauniniu and

Navuatu. These two villages have been exposed to tourism for more than twenty

127

years and the findings reflect their perceptions towards tourism. Tourism is

developing in the island but at a small scale.

In all villages, water is in abundance and usage is not monitored. Given the current

level of tourism in the area, water supply is not an issue. This is supported by the

fact that none of the villages had ever experienced water shortages. An indispensable

resource, water needs to be used wisely, monitored and conserved as it is

fundamental to human survival. In planning for tourism, the capacity of current

water sources must be determined to ensure destinations are not developed beyond

their acceptable limits.

For a small island destination, the management of solid and liquid waste should be a

priority as problems can arise when there is a sudden increase in visitor arrivals.

Increase in visitor arrivals will mean increase in use of resources and increase in

production of waste. Given the size of the resorts and the number of visitors coming

to Kadavu, it can be assumed that the management of waste is below the carrying

capacity level and is sustainable. This would seem to be the current perception of

residents in all villages. To maintain this level as a precautionary measure, villages

should invest in environmentally friendly treatment facilities to minimise impacts

that can destroy the environment.

128

5.2.2 Current Practices at the Papageno and Dive Kadavu Resorts

The result of interviews carried out between the researcher and the resort operators

concerning current practices at the two resorts are tabulated below.

Table 5.30: Current Practices at the two resorts

Questions Name of Resort Q Papageno Resort Dive Kadavu 1 Estimated percentage of food items

supplied from within Kadavu

- Fish 100% 100% - Vegetables 100% Depends on availability

of local supply - Root crops 100% Depends on availability

of local supply - Beef Supplied from Suva Supplied from Suva

2 What on average is the cost of spending a night in your resort?

US$200 US$175.00 single

3 Have you experienced any water shortage in the past?

No No

Where does the resort get its water from?

Spring Spring

Do you monitor your water use? Yes Yes Do you try to conserve water? No No If not, why not? Water is in abundance Water is in abundance Is the water treated in your resort? No No

4 Do you re-use grey water [water from kitchen, bathroom etc]

No No

5 If it’s not re-used where does it go to?

Drain Septic tank

6 Has there been any instance of tourists reporting waterborne illnesses?

No No

7 Are wastes from toilets treated before being discharged?

No Yes

8 Are you monitoring the use of the following fuel/energy source?

- Fiji gas Yes Yes - Diesel Yes Yes - Super Yes Yes - Firewood No No - Kerosene Yes Don’t use - Solar No No

9 Approximate consumption rate - Fiji gas 4 cylinder/year Could not provide data - Diesel 44gal/3 months “ - Super 44gal/month “ - Firewood none “ - Kerosene 44gal/two years “ - Solar N/A N/A

10 How do you dispose the following wastes?

- Cans Put in pit and bury Bury - Plastics Burn Bury - Bottles Returned to Suva Given to villagers to

129

Questions Name of Resort Q Papageno Resort Dive Kadavu

store oil - Left over food Given to pigs Given to pigs

11 Is there a collection service provided for disposal of wastes?

No No

12 Does your resort participate in conservation initiatives such as waste reduction, recycling, composting, M.P.A.s etc?

Yes Recycling, composting and

MPA

Yes Recycling and MPA

13 Do you contribute cash or other benefits to land owners?

Yes Yes

14 If yes, how do you assist them? Through cash donations to the primary school, hospital

Through provision of scholarships, free electricity to Navuatu village

15 The main form of transportation for tourists from Viti Levu to Kadavu

Air Air

16 Are you satisfied with the transport service from Viti Levu to Kadavu?

Quite Satisfied Quite Satisfied

17 How do tourists travel from Vunisea airport to your resort?

Resort Boat Resort Boat

18 Are you satisfied with the current transport system within Kadavu?

Quite Satisfied Quite Satisfied

19 In future, would you prefer tourists to get to your resort by boat or by road?

By boat By boat

20 What methods does your resort use to market itself?

Word of mouth, TV, Web, Print advertisement

Word of mouth, Web, Print advertisement

21 Which marketing approach has been most successful in gaining visitors

Word of mouth Word of mouth

Papageno Eco-Resort is a small 4–5 star eco-resort and is owned by an American

businesswoman. The resort has been operating for more than 20 years. Dive Kadavu

resort is also a foreign owned 2–3 star dive resort and has also been in business for

the last 22 years. Each resort employs a total of 20 people and all employees are

from Kadavu. According to the resort managers, the average length of stay for

tourists in 2008 was 3–5 days for Papageno Eco-Resort and 5–7 days for Dive

Kadavu resort.

130

Figure 5.27: Organic farm (left) and piggery (right) at Papageno Resort

5.2.2.1 Food supply

Papageno Resort gets

most of its supplies

of vegetables, root

crops, and meat from

their farms, poultry

farm and piggery (table 5.30). Fish and other root crops are sourced from within the

island, but beef is bought from Suva. At Dive Kadavu, fish is also sourced locally

but vegetables and root crops are either bought from local farmers or sourced from

Suva. Both resorts provide fresh and high quality food to visitors because the

numbers are small and food is readily available from the farm, Vunisea or Suva.

5.2.2.2 Water source, availability, quality and conservation

Both resorts obtain water from nearby springs. Water is channelled through an Ultra

Violet [UV] purifier before it is distributed for use. Neither resort has experienced

any water shortages in the past nor has there been any case of tourists reporting

waterborne illnesses. Engineers do monitor water levels but there are no water

conservation measures implemented in either of these resorts.

5.2.2.3 Sources of energy

Significant amounts of energy are consumed by the tourism sector in their buildings

and through their transport mediums. Reducing energy consumption will reduce

operational costs of business and benefit the environment as fewer natural resources

are used. Both resorts monitor the use of liquid petroleum gas, diesel, unleaded fuel

and kerosene. Papageno Resort uses gas in their kitchen and their cylinder is refilled

four times a year. They also use about 44 gallons of diesel every three months, 44

gallons of unleaded fuel per month, and 4 gallons of kerosene per month for activities

like transporting tourists and lighting. Dive Kadavu could not provide information

regarding the use of energy sources. Solar power is used as an alternative source of

energy for hot water systems in both resorts.

131

5.2.2.4 Waste

The management of waste is a key concern for tourism. The industry has frequently

been harmed by contamination of its key resources – beaches, lakes, rivers. Pollution

from resorts can degrade the destination, and may also contribute to disease and

damage to wildlife and natural resources. Currently there is no service for collection

of solid waste from the two resorts. Empty cans and plastics are buried, while empty

bottles are either shipped to Suva or given to villagers for storage of coconut oil.

Raw sewage goes into septic tanks and is regularly monitored by engineers.

5.2.2.5 Conservation initiatives

Both resorts have worked together with the local communities to set up Marine

Protected Areas (MPA). Tourists pay a fee to visit and snorkel in the MPA. This

money is used for managing the protected area, and part of it goes to the village fund.

5.2.2.6 Assistance to communities

Landowners benefit significantly from assistance in cash and kind given by the

resorts. Papageno Eco-Resort assists the surrounding communities through donation

of cash to their primary school and the island hospital. Dive Kadavu Resort assists

the communities through provision of scholarships and free electricity to Navuatu

village. As seen here, both resorts support the education of young children on the

island.

5.2.2.7 Transport services

The main mode of transport for tourists from Viti Levu to Kadavu is by air. From

Vunisea, the tourists are taken to their respective resorts using resort boats. From the

interview, resort managers are quite satisfied with the current mode of transport and

would prefer transporting tourists in future by boat than by road.

132

5.3 Political–Economic Indicators

Table 5.31: Resorts in Kadavu and type of ownership Name of Resort Ownership

1 Tiliva Resort Local 2 Koro Makawa Resort Foreign 3 Mai Dive Resort Local 4 Muaivadra Beach Resort Foreign 5 Waisalima Beach Resort Foreign 6 Matava Resort Foreign 7 Nagigia Island Resort Local 8 Biana Accommodation Local 9 Dive Kadavu Resort Foreign

10 Papageno Eco-resort Foreign

In 2010, ten licensed resorts and accommodation businesses were operating in

Kadavu (HLB, 2010). Figures provided by the Hotel and Licensing Board shows

that a total of 161 beds are provided by the ten resorts listed in Table 5.31 (see also

appendix 5). Forty-five beds (28%) are provided by Papageno and Dive Kadavu

resorts, the resorts studied. Both resorts are foreign owned and have been operating

for more than twenty years. Papageno is a 4–5 five star eco resort while Dive

Kadavu (also known as Matana Resort) is a 2–3 star dive resort. Each resort recruits

workers from nearby villages and both employ a total of forty locals. In 2009, forty

per cent of resorts in Kadavu were owned and operated by locals. Recently, two

resorts [locally owned] closed down. Today, 25% of the resorts in Kadavu are

locally owned. According to the 2009 IVS report, tourists that went to Kadavu spent

two million dollars staying on the island for an average of 10.1 days. Dividing it

equally amongst the resorts in terms of bed numbers, $562,299.08 or 28% of 2

million dollars came to Papageno and Dive Kadavu resorts. Part of this money is

used as salaries for those employed at the resorts. This money enables families to

send their children to school, purchase food items from local shops, improve their

standard of living and travel to Vunisea or Suva. Local farmers and fishermen sell

their produce to the resorts as and when the need arises. The selling of produce by

locals, however, is small and infrequent because the visitor numbers are small, which

translates to low demand from the resorts.

133

Economic benefits of tourism to the communities: Table 5.32: Economic benefits that tourism brings to your community

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu

Frequency [f] and percentage [%] f % f % f % Creates employment 15 100 14 93 13 100 Infrastructure development 1 7 0 0 0 0 Source of income 8 53 6 40 9 69 Community development 2 13 3 20 2 15 Creates business opportunities 0 0 1 7 0 0

All respondents from the villages stated that tourism creates employment (table

5.32). Employment is mentioned as the most common economic benefit derived

from tourism. At the time of the survey, the resort manager confirmed that fifty per

cent of workers at the Papageno resort were from Naivakarauniniu. The other fifty

per cent are brought from other nearby villages. For Navuatu, there is a contractual

agreement between the owners of Dive Kadavu and the land owners. In terms of

employment, the first preference is given to the people of Navuatu. Mr. Asaeli, the

head of the land owning unit and a director for the resort, confirmed that the majority

of the workers were from his village of Navuatu. Tourism as a ‘source of income’

was the second most popular answer. Infrastructure development, community

development and opportunities to create business were the other benefits that were

given by respondents.

The economic costs of tourism to the communities:

Table 5.33: Economic costs resulting from tourism

Daku Naivakarauniniu Navuatu

Frequency [f] and percentage [%] f % f % f % No economic cost 8 53 12 80 7 54 Corruption : mismanagement of village funds

3 20 1 7 1 8

Inability to save 0 0 2 13 1 8

Host communities always hope that they receive fair returns for their involvement in

tourism. If the exchange is perceived as fair, residents are likely to have positive

attitudes towards tourism (Ap, 1992). Fourth-fifth (80%) of respondents from

Naivakarauniniu and 53% from Daku and Navuatu villages said that there are no

economic costs of tourism to their communities (table 5.33). However, a few

respondents mentioned that tourism had affected their close-knit community.

134

Mismanagement of village funds and their inability to save were two issues that were

highlighted by the respondents. One said:

…the mismanagement of money meant for community

development has brought elements of distrust amongst village

members. At times, the committee uses the money for other

village obligations and not for the village project.

Another commented:

We are benefiting from tourism but our economic status is the

same as other villages that have no tourism. We still eat the same

type of food and have the same accessories at home because we do

not know how to save and look after our money.

Although a significant percentage of respondents are saying that there are no

economic costs of tourism, concerns regarding mismanagement of funds and their

inability to save are issues that should be monitored as it can affect the sustainability

of village projects and cause village disputes.

5.3.1 Economic Activities

Five economic activities were given and respondents were asked to rank them in

order of importance as a source of income for their households [see Tables 5.34 –

5.36]. The numbers under the ranks give the number of households that tick that

particular economic activity. Table 5.34 Daku village: Economic Activities

Rank 1

Rank 2

Rank 3

Rank 4

Rank 5

1 Subsistence farming and fishing 5 3 5 1 1 2 Dalo [taro] for sale 2 7 5 1 0 3 Yaqona for sale 8 3 2 1 1 4 Fish sale 3 1 2 8 1 5 Tourism 0 0 0 3 12

Table 5.35 Naivakarauniniu village: Economic Activities Rank

1 Rank

2 Rank

3 Rank

4 Rank

5 1 Subsistence farming and fishing 2 2 4 4 3 2 Dalo [taro] for sale 0 2 6 4 3 3 Yaqona for sale 6 3 3 1 2 4 Fish for sale 2 4 1 6 2 5 Tourism 5 4 1 0 5

135

Table 5.36 Navuatu village: Economic Activities

Rank 1

Rank 2

Rank 3

Rank 4

Rank 5

1 Subsistence farming and fishing 1 0 5 4 3 2 Dalo [taro] for sale 1 5 2 5 0 3 Yaqona for sale 7 3 2 0 1 4 Fish for sale 2 4 3 0 4 5 Tourism 2 1 1 4 5

The significance of tourism is evident in Naivakarauniniu, where five respondents

ranked tourism as their number one source of income. It is obvious also that planting

yaqona for sale is still the main source of income for the three villages.

The political-economic impact of tourism in Kadavu and the study area in particular

may be small when considering the visitor numbers, and the revenue generated from

tourism. It is, however, significant when considering the island’s population and its

impact on their livelihood. Although yaqona remains the number one source of

income for many in the three villages, the importance of tourism to some households

cannot be ignored. Tourism, in this research has been acknowledged as a provider of

employment, has helped in improvement of infrastructure (schools, community halls,

church) and as a source of income. While many support tourism and its

development, a few have highlighted mismanagement of village funds and inability

to save as problems arising from it. The problems can definitely be addressed and

the benefits can be further enhanced. From the result the economic benefits

outweigh the economic costs.

5.4 Summary

The following is a summary of the findings of this research. In general, all villages

have relatively positive perceptions about tourism. They view tourism as good for

their communities; tourism benefits them at personal level and it creates jobs for

local residents and for youths. Support for tourism was greatest in Navuatu, followed

by Naivakarauniniu and then Daku. The findings also reveal that Navuatu receives

the greatest benefits from tourism while Naivakarauniniu raised the biggest number

of tourism related problems faced by the community. Results also show that the

perceived economic, socio-cultural and environmental benefits of tourism are greater

than the perceived costs.

136

Perceptions of tourists about Kadavu as a tourist destination were very positive. For

example, they were very satisfied with the cleanliness of the environment, variety of

activities available, cleanliness of the resort, competency of staff, friendliness of staff

and locals and local cuisine. Many indicated that they would recommend Kadavu to

their friends and would visit the island again if the opportunity arises.

Current practices [use and management of water, energy, waste] in villages and

resorts are viewed as sustainable at the current level of tourism. Conservation

initiatives such as setting up of marine protected areas, recycling and tree planting

are practised in all villages. There is also a good working relationship between

villagers in Navuatu and Dive Kadavu. Relationships between Papageno resort and

Naivakarauniniu villagers have been good even though they have had problems in

the past. Both resorts have been operating on the island for the last twenty years.

137

Chapter 6

Conclusions and Recommendations

The previous chapter presented the findings of this research. The purpose of this

chapter is threefold:

i to provide a summary of the findings presented in the previous

chapter

ii. to draw conclusions from the findings

iii. to propose recommendations for future research.

In order for tourism to be sustainable in Fiji, a tourism carrying capacity assessment

should be carried out in all identified tourism potential areas. This will reaffirm

Fiji’s commitment to the sustainable use of its natural and cultural resources as

reflected in Fiji’s Tourism Development Plan 2007–2016 (p.123).

138

6.1 Objectives of the Research

This research was carried out:

i. to test selected sustainability indicators on two resorts, three villages and

tourists visiting the island of Kadavu

ii. to determine the current perceptions of tourism prevailing in the

communities being studied

iii. to determine the practices [economic, socio-cultural, and environmental]

currently prevailing in these communities and how they are likely to be

impacted by tourism

iv. to determine the practices [economic, socio-cultural, and environmental]

currently employed by the two resorts that were studied

v. to determine the current perceptions of tourists regarding Kadavu as a

tourist destination

vi. to identify priority issues from the analyzed results.

6.2 Summary of the method used

A combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches was used in this empirical

study. This was necessary as no single method could adequately address what was

being investigated. A combination of approaches therefore serves to address the

various investigations of this study, and ensures credibility and reliability of the data

collected. As different methods produce different experiential reality, the use of

multiple methods presents a more detailed and complete overall picture.

The ‘case study’ approach was used and interviews, survey and observation were

employed to obtain the required data. The case study approach was seen as the most

appropriate methodology to use because funds are limited, time is restricted and

transport within Kadavu is quite costly. Indicators for the three parameters were

selected from various sources including the World Tourism Organisation listing, and

the work done along Fiji’s Coral Coast. A total of forty-three subjects from the three

villages took part using semi-structured questionnaires in the community survey. To

determine the current practices prevailing in the villages; village headmen and village

elders were interviewed using semi-structured questionnaires. Similarly, resort

practices were investigated by interviewing the resort managers using semi-

139

structured questionnaires. Finally, tourists were surveyed using self-administered

questionnaires to determine their perceptions regarding Kadavu as a tourist

destination. Data were then sorted and analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Package for

Social Sciences).

6.3 Summary of findings

6.3.1 The concept and process of tourism carrying capacity assessment

The first objective of this research was to investigate the concept and process of

tourism carrying capacity assessment. This was carried out through a secondary

literature search using the university library, books, journals, internet, conference

proceedings, government reports and development plans. The literature review

chapter defines and discusses the process of tourism carrying capacity assessment.

In summary, the concept of carrying capacity was first used in pastoral agriculture

where it was observed that a grazing area can support a certain number of cattle for

an indefinite period of time provided the supporting systems are functioning well

(WTO, 2004, p309). Problems arise when the threshold is exceeded as supporting

systems are damaged, affecting the well-being of the livestock. The carrying

capacity concept is about the sustainable use of resources. It is more complex when

applied to tourism because the environmental and socio-economic factors become

part of what is being considered at tourist destinations, and many of these factors

depend on perceptions of host communities and tourists. This was always

problematic for this concept.

Implementing tourism carrying capacity assessment was also a challenging issue

because the definition was not clear and it was difficult to measure (Johnson &

Thomas, 1996; McCool and Lime, 2002). After a lot of consultation and debate on

the issue, a more acceptable approach was proposed by the World Tourism

Organisation and the European Commission, which set an upper and lower limit of

carrying capacity to ensure that development takes place within the established

limits. This worked to some extent because it did away with the ‘maximum number’

issue and allowed for a more flexible approach to development. This also

encouraged other researchers and practitioners to develop and try out other tools and

frameworks to be able to manage and monitor development.

140

As more people understood the carrying capacity concept, a number of approaches

were developed to help understand the human/biosphere relationships taking place in

tourism. The review of the carrying capacity assessment made it possible for me to

evaluate the historical background of this concept and its role in the development of

other tools that are being used today. This research used several indicators to

determine the current level of tourism in an emerging small island destination and

has used information gathered to make appropriate recommendations for small

islands and emerging tourist destinations.

6.3.2 Tools currently used to assess the sustainability of tourism activities

The second objective of this research was to review the tools that are currently being

used to assess the sustainability of tourism activities. The challenges and debates

over the definition and operationalisation of the carrying capacity assessment concept

led to the development of several new approaches. These include: Protected Area

Visitor Impact Management (PAVIM), Visitor Experience and Resource Protection

(VERP), Tourism Optimization Management Model (TOMM) and Limits of

Acceptable Change (LAC). As supported by Coccossis and Mexa (2004), all these

approaches have their own strengths and weaknesses. These approaches identify key

areas of interest and develop strategies to monitor and manage changes taking place

in these key areas. The main drawback, however, is their inability to measure

changes taking place in complex systems such as tourism. The use of sustainability

indicators to measure changes is a more recent approach that gained popularity after

the 1992 summit in Rio.

6.3.3 Sustainability indicators for the resorts, three villages and tourists

Since the 1992 Rio conference, academics and planners in many countries across the

globe have been working on developing indicators to suit their development needs

(WTO, 2004). Today, the making and using of indicators are now seen as

fundamental to destination planning and management. A number of indicators were

chosen to test the three local communities’ current perception of tourism. These

included water availability and water conservation, drinking water quality, waste

management, energy management, employment and economic benefits. The level of

community satisfaction was also an important indicator used in this research.

141

Changes in level of satisfaction can be an early warning of potential incidents or

hostility. Management and planners can use such information to rectify problems

before they become serious.

6.3.4 Community perceptions of tourism

Communities all over the world are hosts for international and domestic tourists and

can benefit through provision of employment, economic activity and social services

(WTO 2004). The same communities can be negatively affected due to damage to

local resources and cultural values. Many communities think that tourism brings

negative impacts on their community and culture. Local satisfaction with tourism is

therefore essential for sustainability. The findings in this study indicate that the level

of community satisfaction is highest in Navuatu village, followed by

Naivakarauniniu then Daku village. The trend is understandable since Navuatu reaps

the most benefits from being engaged in tourism. In Navuatu, all households have at

least one member employed by the resort, the community receives lease money twice

a year, and locals still have access to areas used by tourists. Research carried out by

King et al. (1993) support these findings where Fijian residents in a popular tourism

area who rely on tourism for employment strongly supported tourism and its

expansion. Although these Fijian residents acknowledged some negative impacts,

they held a generally positive view of tourism.

They are conscious of the positive economic, socio-cultural and environmental

impacts of tourism on their quality of life. Economically, tourism is seen as a means

to generate income and provide job opportunities. Socio-culturally, tourism is seen

as ‘good for the community’ because it revives cultural practices, improves standard

of living, improves understanding of different cultures and protects culture. Tourism

has also brought greater awareness and appreciation of the environment and is

reflected in the respondents’ support for tourism as a tool for conservation of the

environment. These results agree with findings from previous studies (Archer &

Fletcher, 1996; Besculides, Lee & McComick, 2002; Huttasin, 2008) and it also

confirms Butler’s theory (Butler, 1980) on the life cycle of a destination, that tourism

is welcomed when a destination is at its initial stage of development. From the

findings, Kadavu can be categorized as an emerging destination in the ‘involvement’

stage of Butler’s destination life cycle. According to Butler (1980, p7), this is the

142

stage where basic facilities are provided and are primarily for tourists; contact

between visitors and locals remain high and resorts are marketing their products and

destination. In addition, Doxey’s irridex (1975), which assesses hosts’ level of

irritation, shows that Kadavu may be in the ‘euphoria’ stage. The euphoria stage is

Doxey’s first level, where the number of tourists coming to the destination is small,

there is little tourist infrastructure, and visitors and investors are welcomed by the

hosts. From the literature reviewed and the findings, Kadavu can be categorized as a

destination in its early stage of tourism development.

When we compare the three villages, Navuatu shows the highest level of satisfaction

with regard to tourism. Its people show the strongest support for tourism. For

example, they register the highest approval in the following areas: that tourism

benefits them as a community and as individuals; tourism creates jobs for local

residents and local youths and locals can still access areas used by tourists. Studies

relating to social exchange theory have shown that residents who perceive greater

economic benefits tend to have more positive perceptions of impact than others

(Andereck et al. 2005). This can also be said for Navuatu village. They are more

supportive of tourism because of the economic, socio-cultural and environmental

benefits they get from it. As revealed in the findings, the majority of those employed

at the Dive Kadavu resort are from Navuatu village. Tourism has also provided

families with income, enabling them to send their children to school. The village

also receives lease money and scholarships annually from the resort, as well as

financial assistance to support village projects.

Environmentally, the use of the village marine protected area has created greater

awareness of its value and importance. Dive instructors who take tourists to dive in

these areas are educating guests on the importance of protecting the marine

environment for their livelihood and for generations that will follow.

Although it was not investigated in this study, the level of community dissatisfaction

is an area that can also be monitored as tourism grows in Kadavu. Monitoring the

number of complaints by residents will indicate whether there is increasing

dissatisfaction, in which case, the situation needs urgent addressing. Simple counts

of number of complaints to the village headman or in village meetings would be

useful and where there is a surge in numbers complaining about a specific issue, this

143

could be a warning of an emerging problem. For example, complaints about tourists

coming into the village uninvited can be a sign of tourists breaking village protocols

or of a weakening of village governance.

The negative impacts of tourism are starting to show in the two villages that have

been involved in tourism for the last twenty years. Some feel that tourism has caused

a rise in prices of goods; it has increased crime rates, it has stopped locals from

accessing areas used by tourists, and tourists are using valuable resources meant for

locals. Others have thought otherwise saying, for example, the increase in cost of

fuel has triggered the increase in the costs of transportation that has affected the

overall price of goods on the island. In general, the local communities have a

positive view about tourism. So far, an average of 20 and 24 tourists visit Papageno

and Dive Kadavu respectively per month. This is equivalent to 6 tourists per week

per resort. There are no evidence so far of any major detrimental impacts of tourism

on the two villages. Arguably, the preferred carrying capacity for the case study

villages would be an average of 10 to 12 tourists per week in each village. However,

this figure has not yet been reached and further studies are required as tourist

numbers increase. Meanwhile, the two villages should strengthen village policies to

ensure daily practices are not affected by tourist activities held in the village,

resources are used sustainably and the whole villagers benefit from tourism.

6.3.5 Tourist perceptions

Tourist satisfaction will determine whether a tourist will return, recommend the

destination to his friends or discourage others from going there. A number of factors

will affect tourist satisfaction (e.g. cleanliness of accommodation, safety of food and

water, friendliness of people). For tourists to be satisfied their expectations must be

met or exceeded; their experience should be worth the price they are paying; the

place should be clean, safe and secure; the people should be very friendly with high

quality attractions and activities (WTO, 2004). This research attempted to gauge the

level of satisfaction by asking respondents to rate their level of agreement or

disagreement on the following statements.

i. I enjoyed my experience in Kadavu ii. Kadavu provided a good variety of experiences

iii. I feel I received good value for money iv. I would recommend Kadavu to my friends.

144

The research revealed high levels of satisfaction amongst tourists about Kadavu as a

destination. More than eighty per cent said they were interested in visiting the island

again. According to Haber and Lerner (1998, p198), satisfaction can result in return

visitors, recommendation of the destination to others and increased customer loyalty,

which can eventually lead to higher profitability.

Many of the tourists who visited Kadavu came as holiday-makers and to dive, and

most were satisfied with the activities they participated in. Using tourist perception

as an indicator for the socio-demographic parameter, the high level of satisfaction

shows a positive image about the destination. Tourists appreciated the clean

environment, the culture, the friendliness of the people and the quality of food and

service. They also agreed that Kadavu can accommodate more tourists and still be an

attractive destination.

6.3.6 Physical–Environmental

6.3.6.1 Community practices

For small island nations, water supply, accessibility, waste management, energy and

access to natural resources are key issues that are of importance. The findings reveal

that water is in abundance in the area that was studied. Households in all three

villages do not monitor the use of water, while some would also collect rainwater as

and when needed. However, studies have shown that many small islands have

constrained water supply (WTO, 2004, p.253) and this is evident here in Fiji,

especially in the Yasawa islands (Vanualailai, 2005). Dry islands rely on the

freshwater lens, which can be easily contaminated or depleted. If the dry season

coincides with the peak tourism season then the high demand for water could restrict

tourist activities in these islands. While water availability is currently not an issue

for the area studied, increases in tourism activities could put pressure on water

sources, which could create problems if it is not monitored and managed at a

sustainable level.

Small islands can also be adversely affected by contamination from sewage or waste.

Usually, if the island is small, solid waste is shipped away for disposal (WTO, 2004,

p254). For the three villages and the two resorts, wastes produced are not shipped to

the main land. Instead, they are disposed of in different ways. They are burnt,

145

buried, put in a pit or given as food to pigs. The level of tourism activity in the area

studied is still small and the level of its impact on the environment is negligible. The

destination can avoid unwanted impacts if proper planning and implementation of

sustainable practices are carried out. Proper management of waste will be needed if

village population continues to increase or if more visitors start visiting these villages

on a regular basis for cultural experience.

Most islands rely on importation of fossil fuels for their fuel requirements. All three

villages buy petrol, diesel, premix and kerosene for their generators, boat engines and

brush cutters. The cost of fuel on the island is high and this can be attributed firstly,

to the high cost of transporting materials from Suva to Kadavu, and secondly, the

global increase in prices of oil and fuel. The level of use could further increase if

more tourists start visiting the area as more fuel would be needed for catering

purposes, lighting, transporting guests and locals, cleaning the village surroundings

and for village generators. The use of biodiesel from coconuts, which are abundant

in Kadavu, could ease this problem.

As stated in Chapter 5, many small islands have tourism as their main source of

foreign exchange. This was not investigated in this study, but tables 5.34 to 5.36

show ‘selling of yaqona’ as the main economic activity for the three villages.

Tourism growth in the area can result in villagers leaving their agricultural lifestyle

seeking employment in tourist areas. This transition can affect their lifestyle as less

time will be spent with their families and in the farm. As seen in the study conducted

in the Yasawa islands (Vanualailai, 2005), the change in lifestyle can cause increased

instances of diabetes and other lifestyle diseases. Other social problems like family

disputes and extra-marital affairs, which were reported in Yasawa, can creep into

Kadavu if villagers are not educated, village governance is not strengthened and

tourism activities in villages are not managed properly. Tourism, however,

contributes significantly to the economic well-being of the two villages engaged in

tourism as it provides employment and is a source of income for villagers that work

in the resorts.

Interestingly, villages are also engaged in conservation initiatives such as composting

and recycling of waste products. Leaves and grass cuttings are put in compost, bins

or on flower beds while empty bottles are re-used for storing coconut oil. The three

146

villages also have their own marine protected areas. Tourists from Papageno resort

visit Daku to see giant clams and other marine life in the protected area. Daku is also

engaged in a tree planting project in which the village is planting fruit and native

trees around the village boundary for village consumption. Daku and

Naivakarauniniu have placed a ban on the use of Derris elliptica to gather fish.

These initiatives will certainly assist the community in sustaining and protecting the

use of their resources.

Although tourism is just in its early stage in Kadavu, conservation initiatives will

greatly enhance the sustainability of tourism development in the island. Villagers

know and appreciate the value of their environment and are keen to work in

partnership with resort owners, government officials and other key partners to ensure

that resources are protected, communities benefit, operators do well in their business

and tourists are satisfied. From the current indicators highlighted above [water use,

quality and availability, waste and energy management and conservation initiatives],

it can be argued that these indicators are positive or below the carrying capacity

level. As shown in the previous chapter, water is in abundance, clean and readily

available, no water shortage has ever been experienced in the area, the rate of

waterborne illnesses is negligible, wastes are currently managed at a sustainable level

and various conservation initiatives are being implemented in the three villages.

If the number of tourists visiting Kadavu starts increasing, then the way resources are

currently being used needs to be reviewed. This is because an increase in visitor

numbers will mean an increase in the use of resources such as water, fuel and food.

Waste will also increase and Kadavu will need to consider other means of disposing

of its waste. It should consider transporting waste to the main land, setting up

environmentally friendly technologies to treat wastes so that what is released is of

minimal damage to the environment.

6.3.6.2 Resort practices

Papageno and Dive Kadavu are two resorts that have contributed a great deal to the

economic and social development of the local communities in their twenty plus years

of existence in Kadavu. In terms of employment, forty people, all of whom are from

Kadavu, are working in the two resorts. Villages and communities close to the

resorts have benefited through employment, provision of educational materials for

147

primary schools, provision of medical supplies for the island hospital, use of marine

protected area for tourist use and financial assistance in village projects.

The findings reveal that Papageno is self-reliant in terms of vegetables, root crops,

fish, poultry and pork as all these items are supplied locally. The four hundred acre

freehold land has enabled the resort to venture into organic farming and has supplied

the resort on a sustainable level. In contrast, Dive Kadavu sits on a smaller parcel of

land that has very little space for farming. It therefore relies significantly on what is

available at the Vunisea market. At present, both resorts are able to fill their supply

of vegetables, root crops and other food items because tourist numbers are small and

supplies are readily available on the island and in Suva. As more tourists visit Fiji

and spill over to the islands, the demand for quality and a consistent supply of fresh

goods may become an issue for the island. Currently, there are weekly trips to Suva

from both resorts to purchase items needed by guests.

Water is a critical resource for everyone, whether you are residing in the village or

staying at the resort. Also, according to WTO, tourists use more water than residents

(WTO, 2004, p.165). The research reveals that the two resorts have abundant water

supply and both have had no water shortage in the past. Water shortage, however,

can become a constraint to development; it can put a limit on tourist activities and

can become a contentious issue with local residents on how water is allocated. One

way of addressing water shortage is through conservation. Conservation can reduce

water usage and alleviate demand. The two resorts monitor water usage and have

storage tanks but they do not have conservation policies in place because to them,

water is in abundance. As experienced in the Yasawa group, water availability can

be problematic, especially during long periods of drought. When resorts experience

water shortage, water is carted from Lautoka and resorts have to bear the cost in their

quest to keep their guests happy. This is an added cost and resorts in Kadavu should

put policies in place to ensure they do not face the same problem in future. This

includes identifying potential water sources that resorts can use if the current source

dries out, implementing mechanisms where water use in the resort is reduced,

educating locals and tourists on the importance of water conservation and investing

in new technology that can conserve water and reduce wastage. As an indicator, it

can be said that water availability and usage is positive or below the carrying

148

capacity level. If Kadavu is promoted as an ecotourism destination, greater

interaction between tourists and locals will be expected as culture and environment

are important components of this form of tourism. The use of water is also expected

to increase and this can put pressure on these limited resources. As tourist numbers

increase, the monitoring of water use is important to ensure sustainable supply.

Both resorts rely on imported fuels for the operations of their resorts. All fuels

[diesel, kerosene, super and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)] are brought either from

Vunisea or through Suva directly. Results show that Papageno resort consumes a

significant amount of energy per year. Reducing the amount consumed will

definitely impact on the operational cost and reduce associated carbon gas emissions.

It is heartening to see that both resorts are investing in alternative energy sources

[notably solar]. This will reduce consumption of imported fuels, which will result in

a cleaner and safer environment. Natural ventilation and making the most of daylight

should also be encouraged to reduce energy usage. Unused lights should be turned

off and solar power should be used for lights and hot water.

Waste management is critical because it affects the environment and the image of the

destination. Waste is thrown away if there is a collection system or buried if none is

available. In other places, wastes can be left where they are created and someone is

paid to remove them (WTO, 2004, p173). There is no waste collection service in

Kadavu so resorts either; bury; burn, compost or give left-over food to pigs.

Currently, the level of tourism activity in the area is small and the impact of waste-

water on the environment is negligible even though none of the resorts have good

waste treatment facilities. This is different when compared to the findings on work

carried out along the Coral Coast by Mosley and Aalbersberg (2004). Even though

the Coral Coast is a mature destination, there are lessons that can be learnt. The

problem of liquid waste polluting the shores and reefs in the area is enhanced not

only by hotels’ waste discharge, but also by the lack of proper waste treatment

systems in nearby villages that are close to the sea. Pig pens that are close to

waterways also contribute significantly to the high level of nutrients washed into the

sea. The three villages and the two resorts in Kadavu do not have proper waste

treatment facilities and they could be exposed to similar problems in future if policies

and best practices are not put in place to ensure that waste discharged has minimal

negative impacts for the environment. Where waste management is concerned,

149

resorts and even destinations should quantify their waste volumes and identify

sources and destinations so management strategies can be monitored. Even though it

was not done in this research, resorts need to measure their wastes in order to manage

it. A waste audit measures the amount of waste there is in total; the different types of

waste and quantity; where the waste was generated and where it ends up [composting

area, landfill, incinerator] (WTO, 2004, p.174). In island destinations, where waste

management can be a major issue, resorts can seek alternative means of reducing

quantities of materials consumed rather than the option of re-using or recycling. At

present, it can be argued that waste management on the island as an indicator is still

positive or below the carrying capacity level. However, proper systems need to be

put in place and proper procedures followed so that negative impacts are minimised.

Since tourism is about the enjoyment of the natural and cultural environment, it can

be a motivating factor for the protection of such resources. Tourism can play an

important role in raising awareness, educating consumers and providing economic

incentives to protect important habitats that might otherwise be converted to less

environmentally friendly land uses. Papageno and Dive Kadavu have both worked

closely with their neighbouring communities in the establishment and management

of their marine protected areas. As mentioned in chapter 5, Papageno resort assisted

Naivakarauniniu in the purchase of their patrol boat and in awareness and skills

training to help in the monitoring of the reserved area. This partnership is a win–win

situation where the resort benefits through activities in the area where guests can

participate in and villages benefit from fees that are paid by guests who use their

protected areas. The protection and conservation of natural and cultural resources is

a plus to the environment that tourists come to see and use, the communities that own

and depend on it, the operators that do business from it and tourists who get

satisfaction from using it. Both resorts have the space to expand and build more

rooms but extensions should only be made after thorough consultation with

government ministries [to verify water capacities, waste management systems that

need to be put in place and other environmental and social issues]. Both resorts have

sufficient water supplies and are managing their wastes sustainably. With an average

of 20 visitors per month in each of the case study resorts, no negative impacts of

tourism are evident in the surrounding environment or the neighbouring

communities. Debatably, the recommended carrying capacity for the two resorts is

150

30 visitors per month. Currently, there are no signs of detrimental impacts of tourism

on the two resorts. The recommended number of 30 visitors per month has not yet

been reached but further studies are required as tourist numbers increase The

Tourism Development Plan: 2007-2016 recommends a maximum of 25 rooms for

any resort built in Kadavu. It is suggested that proper research be carried out before

implementing the recommendation. The two case study resorts however should set

clear policies and guidelines on water conservation and management, waste

management and support environmental best practices that will ensure the protection

and sustainable use of resources as they engage in tourism.

6.4 Contribution to literature

This study has contributed to the discipline of sustainable tourism development by

operationalising tourism carrying capacity assessment on an emerging small island

destination in Fiji. The study demonstrates that indicators critical for small-island

destinations can be identified; assessed with recommendations put forward to policy

makers and stakeholders, to enable resource users, owners, planners and managers to

manage tourism resources sustainably. In the Fiji Tourism Development Plan 2007–

2016, government had identified regions that have to be developed to bring about

regional prosperity (p79). The areas include Rotuma, Yasawa, Mamanucas, Nadi

corridor, Coral Coast, Beqa/Pacific Harbour, Suva, Tailevu, Suncoast, Taveuni,

Kadavu, Lomaiviti and Lau islands. Similar studies should be conducted for all these

regions. Different indicators may be selected for different regions as each may have

different physical, social and economic environments. Determining the tourism

carrying capacity of a destination using sustainability indicators is an approach that

can be adapted to suit any small island destination. Sustainability indicators used in

this study can also be used in other tourism development areas around the South

Pacific.

The findings also reveal that Kadavu is in its early stage of development as a tourist

destination. Public infrastructure [wharf, airport, roads] is quite basic and has

contributed to the slow development in the island. Kadavu can receive more tourists

given the current room inventory, but the limited number of flights per day continues

to restrict visitor numbers to the island.

151

Figures from UNWTO Tourism Highlights, (2010) show that from 1985 to 2010, Fiji

has been receiving the biggest number of international visitor arrivals to the South

Pacific island countries (UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 2010). As a leading tourist

destination in the region, it is important that Fiji also take a lead role in promoting

and implementing sustainable tourism practices and programmes. Research such as

this will go a long way in equipping and preparing tourism stakeholders in the

sustainable management of tourism resources. Small island countries should know

their resources and their vulnerabilities, and monitor tourism development using key

indicators that are critical for the destination.

The study reaffirms that Kadavu is in its early stage of tourism development. Using

Doxey’s irritation index (1975), the positive perception shown in general by all

villages towards tourism indicates that Kadavu is in the first or ‘euphoria’ stage,

where visitors are openly welcomed by local residents. Communities are confident

that they can still have control over tourism. Visitor numbers at this stage are small

and the destination has little planning with no control mechanisms in place. Tourists

that were part of the survey also agreed that Kadavu can accommodate more tourists

(figure 5.26) without affecting the quality of the destination.

The analysis of community perception of tourism in this study validates social

exchange theory. As noted by Ap (1992), in social relations, individuals or groups

will seek mutual benefits when there is an exchange of resources. Results show that

Navuatu respondents were most supportive of tourism, followed by Naivakarauniniu,

then by Daku village. In terms of employment and other benefits accruing from

tourism, Navuatu received the most, followed by Naivakarauniniu and Daku village.

This result is in line with the study carried out by Haralambopoulos and Pizam

(1996) on perceived impacts of tourism in Samos. Those that received direct benefits

from the exchange tend to have more positive attitudes towards tourists and tourism

development. Navuatu and Naivakarauniniu showed more support towards tourism

when compared to Daku village. The reasons are obvious; both villages have

members that are employed at the resort. Daku has had little experience with tourism

and is in the planning phase of starting a small tourism venture. As Daku people

embark on their new business, perceptions of residents are expected to change. More

will support tourism as they receive direct and indirect benefits from this business.

Navuatu and Naivakarauniniu have had formal experience in tourism for the last 20

152

years. Villagers have been employed and assisted financially and in kind by the

resort, thus the positive perception from village members is not surprising.

Mexa and Collovini (2004) listed waste management, water availability and usage,

energy availability and usage and economy of the island as carrying capacity

considerations for islands. These were the key indicators that were tested in Kadavu.

Currently, water is in abundance in Kadavu but in so far as it is an emerging

destination, water should be carefully monitored, conserved and controlled. The

report by Vanualailai (2005) reveals that water availability is a problem in the

Yasawa islands. In order for Kadavu to remain an attractive destination, water must

be used in a sustainable manner. The findings affirm critical issues raised by Mexa

and Collovini (2004).

6.5 Recommendations for Future Research

The research has brought about a better understanding and greater appreciation of the

importance of culture, the environment and the intricate relationship they hold with

tourism. For small island destinations with small indigenous populations, tourism

has to be planned and managed sustainably to ensure maximization of benefits and

minimization of negative consequences. The importance of knowing the key

resources and managing them well is a key objective of this research. At the

conclusion of this research, the following recommendations are proposed.

6.5.1 Social– Demographic

1. Communities should be actively engaged in the planning and management of

tourism, especially in small islands. They should assist in setting guidelines

and conditions under which tourism should operate in their community. They

should also decide on what is negotiable and what is not in terms of what

should be displayed and what should be protected. If tourism continues to

grow without much control from the communities, locals may start reacting

differently towards tourists. Tourists may be perceived as putting pressure on

local resources, displacing locals from their traditional places or activities and

causing alterations in traditional lifestyle. In extreme cases, locals can show

hostility towards tourists, blaming them for all the problems.

153

2. Village councils, tourism operators and government officials should engage

in regular consultations to address any negative issue and ensure that local

communities understand and benefit from tourism.

3. Villages planning to engage in tourism business should strengthen village

governance so that the overall standard of health and sanitation is improved.

This will also lift the satisfaction of tourists since most of them are risk

averse. Tourists may avoid destinations that they think are of high risk.

Risks are greatly reduced where accommodation, hygiene, sanitation, medical

care and water quality are of a high standard.

4. Educational programmes in the area of catering, hotel management, food and

beverages and resource conservation should be provided with assistance from

resort operators and government to build capacity amongst locals. This will

ensure the maintenance of the quality of service, and products, an attractive

environment and satisfied customers. If this is achieved, Kadavu will remain

an attractive destination.

6.5.2 Environmental–Physical

1. Tourism carrying capacity assessment needs to be carried out on all resorts

and nearby communities in Kadavu. Small island destinations face issues that

are similar to those found in coastal zones and in small communities (WTO,

2004 p.253) but the issues often loom larger or more serious on small islands.

Since islands are often ecologically, culturally and economically isolated, the

natural and cultural resources can be unique, limited and also vulnerable to

some extent. The unique features of islands often attract tourists to visit and

experience these characteristics which are important assets for tourism. Small

islands can be vulnerable to the impacts of tourism because of their size and

often the small indigenous population. This is more so if the development is

large scale. Determining tourism carrying capacity is vital for Kadavu and

doing this at the early stage of tourism development is even better because it

will ensure that tourism is planned, developed and controlled right from the

beginning. Many destinations calculate tourism carrying capacity at the

mature stage of tourism development, which in my view may be a bit too late.

The study also provides baseline information about the destination. This

information can be used in future to compare new against existing data, to see

154

what is changing and allow resorts, communities and key stakeholders to

make appropriate decisions on the best way forward for the management of

the environment and cultural resources on which tourism relies so much.

2. All accommodation providers on the island need to upgrade their waste

management processes. This can be achieved through composting and

promotion of environmentally friendly practices such as tree, mangrove and

coral planting. Recycling, reducing and re-using waste leads to less negative

impacts on the environment. Visitors expect to be in clean and beautiful

surroundings. The checklist on good practices published by the Fiji

Integrated Coastal Management Project in 2003 can be used as a guide for

current and new tourism operators.

3. It is necessary to provide awareness training to existing and potential tourism

operators on best practice. This will ensure that they promote Kadavu as an

ecotourism destination.

4. For every new development, a holistic review and planning approach should

be implemented. For each application, important government ministries

should assess the proposal and see that requirements are adhered to at all

levels.

5. Any future tourism development should be approved only if there is adequate

supply of water, power supply and other infrastructure.

6.5.3 Economic–Political

1. A recommendation for government would be to implement key policies

highlighted in the current Tourism Development Plan 2007–2016 and the

Action Plan. Strategies for Kadavu should involve conservation experts who

can formulate site management approaches and also identify areas that can be

declared as ‘Protected Sites’. Due to the island’s smallness, development of

any resort should be limited to a maximum of 25 rooms. All new properties

must be water sufficient and should have sustainable waste water and solid

waste disposal solutions. Implementing such strategies will ensure protection

of the environment and sustainability in the growth of tourism on the island.

These should be part of the environmental impact assessment.

2. It is also recommended that Government improves the transport infrastructure

in Kadavu. Movement of tourists, locals and supply of goods and resources

155

to and from Kadavu will depend very much on accessibility and type of

infrastructure available at the destination. Tourism growth in Kadavu is

constrained by available flights to the island. However, if more schedules can

be facilitated to meet new demands, then there is potential for growth.

Transport around the coasts of the island could be improved if a fast ferry

operates to carry people to Vunisea to be in time for the daily flights. This

concept is similar to what is currently being used in the Yasawa Islands by

Awesome Adventures Fiji. A lot of tourists now travel to the Yasawas

because of improved access and aggressive marketing done by Awesome

Adventures in Australia. With proper infrastructure, aggressive marketing

and good linkages to and within Kadavu, there is definite potential for

growth. Within Kadavu, extension of road may have social and economic

benefits to the locals but it can also threaten the unique character of the

island.

3. Another recommendation for government would be to assist in marketing

Kadavu as a tourist destination. Using Butler’s Tourism Area Life Cycle

model, Kadavu is entering the involvement stage where certain facilities are

being developed exclusively for tourists. Although Kadavu is growing slowly

as a destination, government could do more to market it. Marketing,

however, will only be meaningful if all other destination components

[accommodation, amenities, attractions, activities, access] are addressed.

4. For Kadavu to benefit fully from tourism, government should provide

incentives and encourage locally owned and managed tourism businesses.

Businesses of small to medium size can be managed by locals if they are

trained and mentored. Leakages will also be reduced as profits remain in the

country and locals can improve their standard of living.

5. Lastly, the recommendations proposed are suggestions for government to

consider when planning to develop other small island destinations in Fiji.

The islands may have unique products and features but the strategies needed

to ensure sustainable tourism development can be applied to any destination.

156

Bibliography

Ahnn, B. Y., Lee. B. & Shafer, C.S. (2002). Operationalizing sustainability in

regional tourism planning: an application of the limits of acceptable change

framework. Tourism Management, 23, pp. 1–15.

Allen, L., Long, R., Perdue, R.R. and Kieselbach, S. (1988). The impact of tourism

development on residents’ perceptions of community life. Journal of Travel

Research, 27, pp. 16–21.

Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C, and Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents’

Perceptions of Community Tourism Impacts. Annals of Tourism Research,

32(4), pp. 1056–1076.

Andereck, K. L. & Vogt, C. A. (2000). The Relationship between Residents’

Attitudes toward Tourism and Tourism Development Options. Journal of

Travel Research, 39(1), pp. 27–36.

Ap, J. (1992). Residents' perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism

Research, 19(4), pp. 665–690.

Archer, B. & Fletcher, J. (1996). The Economic Impact of Tourism in the Seychelles.

Annals of Tourism Research, 23(1), pp. 32–47.

Babbie, E. (2004). The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, Wadsworth.

Baggio, R. (2008). Symptoms of complexity in a tourism system. Tourism Analysis,

13(1), 1–20.

Belt, C & Associates.(1973). Tourism Development Programme for Fiji. Tourism

Project Department, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development,

Washington.

157

Berno, T. & Bricker, K. (2001). Sustainable Tourism Development: The long road

from Theory to Practice. International Journal of Economic Development.

3(3) pp. 1–18.

Berry, S. & Ladkin, A. (1997). Sustainable Tourism: a regional perspective. Tourism

Management, 18(7) pp.433–440.

Bertram, G. & Watters, R.F. (1985). The MIRAB Economy in South Pacific

Microstates, Pacific Viewpoint, 26 (3), pp. 497–519.

Besculides, A., Lee, M.E., & McMormick, P.J. (2002). Residents’ Perceptions of the

Cultural Benefits of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), pp. 303–

319.

Bouma, D.H., & Ling, R. (2004). The Research Process. New York, Oxford

University Press,.

Briguglio, L. (1996). Sustainable tourism in islands and small states: Issues and

policies. International Conference on Sustainable Tourism in Islands and

Small States (1993: Malta) London, England.

Britton, S. G. (1983). Tourism and Underdevelopment in Fiji. Canberra, Australian

National University.

Britton, S. (1987). Tourism in Pacific Island States: Constraints and Opportunities, in

Britton, S & Clarke, W. C. (eds), Ambiguous Alternatives: Tourism in Small

Developing Countries, U.S.P.

Bryman, A. Triangulation. Retrieved February 4, 2010, from

http://www.referenceworld.com/sage/socialscience/triangulation.pdf

158

Butler, R. W. (1980). The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution:

Implications for Management of Resources. Canadian Geographer. xxiv, pp.

5–12.

Butler, R. W. & Hinch, T. (1996). Indigenous tourism: a common ground for

discussion, in Butler, R. W. & Hinch, T (eds), Tourism and Indigenous

Peoples. London, International Thomson Business Press.

Butler, R.W. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A state of the art review. Tourism

Geographies. 1(1), pp. 7–25.

Center for Sustainable Systems. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from

http://css.snre.umich.edu/makeframe.php?content=1_8_approach

Coccossis, H. (1996). Tourism and Sustainability: Perspectives and Implications, in

Priestley, G.K., Edwards, J.A. and Coccossis, H. (eds), Sustainable Tourism?

European Experiences, Wallingford, Oxford shire.

Coccossis, H. and Mexa, A. (2004). Tourism Carrying Capacity: Methodological

Considerations, in Coccossis, H. & Mexa, A. (eds), The Challenge of Tourism

Carrying Capacity Assessment: Theory and Practice, Burlington, Ashgate.

Cohen, E. (1978). The Impact of Tourism on the Physical Environment. Annals of

Tourism Research, April/June, pp. 215–237.

Cole, D. N. and McCool, S. F. (1997). Limits of Acceptable Change and Related

Planning Processes: Presented at a Workshop on Limits of Acceptable

Change and related planning processes: progress and future directions;

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station.

de Kadt, E. (1979). Tourism – Passport to Development? New York: Oxford

University Press.

159

Denscombe, M. (2003). The Good Research Guide for small-scale research projects.

Philadelphia, Open University Press.

Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). Handbook of Qualitative Research. London,

SAGE.

Dickman, S. (1989). Tourism: An Introductory Text. Victoria, Edward Arnold Pty

Ltd.

Doorne, S. (2004). Community Integrated Tourism Development in the South Pacific.

A Technical Report Retrieved December 12, 2008, from

http://www.usp.ac.fj/jica/ict_research/documents/pdf_files/report_gis.pdf

Douglas, N. & Douglas, N. (1996). Social and cultural impact of tourism in the South

Pacific. In Hall, C.M. and Page, S.J. (Eds).Tourism in the Pacific – Issues and

Cases. London, International Thomson Business Press.

Doxey, G. V. (1975). A Causation Theory of Visitor–Resident Irritants:

Methodology and Research Inferences. Proceedings of the Travel Research

Association, 6th Annual Conference, San Diego, California, USA, pp. 195–

198.

ECOT (Ecumenical Coalition on Tourism), (2005). Small Islands and Sustainable

Tourism. A dossier on Small islands and Tourism. The Case of the Pacific.

Jointly published by the Pacific Conference of Churches and Ecumenical

Coalition on Tourism.

Environment Management Act. (2005). Act No. 1 of 2005. Suva: Government of

Fiji Islands.

EC (European Commission). (2002). Defining, measuring and evaluating carrying

capacity in European Tourism Destinations. Athens.

160

Farrell, T. A. & Marion, J. L. (2002). The Protected Area Visitor Impact

Management [PAVIM] Framework: A simplified process for Making

Management Decisions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10 (1), pp. 31–51.

Farrell B. and Twining-Ward, L. (2004). Reconceptualising Tourism. Annals of

Tourism Research, 31 (2), pp. 274–295.

Farrelly, T. A. (2011). Indigenous and democratic decision-making: issues from

community-based ecotourism in the Bouma National Heritage Park, Fiji.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(7), pp. 817–835.

Faulkner, B. & Tideswell, C. (1997). A Framework for Monitoring Community

Impacts of Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(1), pp. 3–28.

Filho, W.L. (1996). Putting Principles into Practices: Sustainable Tourism in Small

Island States. In B. Archer, L. Briguglio, J. Jafari & G. Wall (Eds.),

Sustainable tourism in small islands and states, vol 1, Theoretical issues, pp.

69–89, London, Mansell.

Garrod, B. & Fyall, A. (1998). Beyond the Rhetoric of Sustainable Tourism?

Tourism Management, 19(3), pp.199–212.

Glesne, C. & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction.

White Plains, New York: Longman.

Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria. (nd) Retrieved December 18, 2008, from

www.sustainabletourismcriteria.org/

Government of Fiji. (1966). Fiji Development Plan [1966–1970]. Central Planning

Office, Suva.

Government of Fiji. (1970). Fiji’s Sixth Development Plan [1971–1975]. Central

Planning Office, Suva.

161

Government of Fiji. (1980). Fiji’s Eighth Development Plan [1981–1985]. Central

Planning Office, Suva.

Government of Fiji. (1989). Fiji Islands Tourism Master Plan. Volume 1 – Strategies,

Government of Fiji, Suva.

Government of Fiji (2002). Strategic Development Plan 2003-2005, Government of

Fiji, Suva.

Government of Fiji (2005). Ministry of Tourism - Information Booklet. Government

of Fiji, Suva.

Government of Fiji.(2008). Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics. Census 2007 Retrieved

October 23, 2008, from

http://www.statsfiji.gov.fj/Census2007/census07_index.htm

Haber, S. & Lerner, M. (1998). Correlates of Tourist Satisfaction. Research Notes.

Annals of Tourism Research, 25(4), pp. 197–201.

Hakim, C. (1987). Research Design: Successful designs for social and economic

research. Routledge, New York.

Hall, C.M. (1994). Tourism in the Pacific Rim: Development, Impacts and Markets,

Longman Cheshire, South Melbourne.

Hall, C.M. & Page, S.J. (1996). Tourism in the Pacific: Issues and Cases. Thomson,

London.

Haralambopoulos, N. & Pizam, A. (1996). Perceived Impacts of Tourism: The Case

of Samos. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3), pp. 503–526.

162

Hardy, A., Beeton, R.J.S. & Pearson, L. (2002). Sustainable Tourism: An overview

of the Concept and its Position in Relation to Conceptualization of Tourism.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(6), pp. 475–496.

Harrison, D. (1992). Tourism and the Less Developed Countries. London: Belhaven.

Harrison, D. (1996). Sustainability and Tourism: Reflections from a muddy pool. In

B. Archer, L. Briguglio, J. Jafari & G. Wall (Eds.), Sustainable tourism in

small islands and states, vol. 1, Theoretical issues, pp. 69–89, London,

Mansell.

Harrison, D. (1997). Globalization and tourism: some themes from Fiji, in

Oppermann, M., (ed), Pacific Rim Tourism, Wallingford, CABI International.

Harrison, D. (2001). Less Developed Countries and Tourism: The Overall Pattern. In

Harrison, D (ed), Tourism and the less developed world: issues and case

studies, New York, CABI Publishing.

Harrison, D. (2004). Less Developed Countries and Tourism: the overall pattern, in

Harrison, D. (ed), Tourism and the less developed world: issues and case

studies, Wallingford, CABI International.

Harrison, D. (2004). Tourism in the Pacific. The Journal of Pacific Studies, 26

(1&2), p.1–28.

Harrison, D. & Pratt, S. (2010). Political change and tourism: coups in Fiji. In Butler,

R. and Suntikil, W. (eds). Tourism and Political Change, Oxford:

Goodfellow, pp. 160–174.

Harrison, D. & Prasad, B. (forthcoming). The Contribution of Tourism to the

Development of Fiji Islands and other Pacific Island Countries. In Tisdell, C.

(ed). A Handbook of Tourism Economics, World Scientific Publishing

Company.

163

Hillery, M., Nancarrow, B., Griffin, G. & Syme, G. (2001). Tourist Perception of

Environmental Impact, Annals of Tourism Research, 28(4), pp. 853–867.

Hof, M., & Lime, D.W. (1997). Visitor Experience and Resource Protection

Framework in the National Park System: rationale, current status, and future

direction. In McCool, S. F.; & Cole, D. N., Proceedings – Limits of

Acceptable Change and related planning processes; progress and future

directions; from a workshop held at the University of Montana’s Lubrecht

Experimental Forest.Gen. Tec. Rep. INT-GTR-371. Ogden, UT: U.S: pp. 29–

36.

Holden, A. (2000). Environment and Tourism. New York, Routledge.

Hotel and Licensing Board (HLB). (2010). List of Licensed Hotels in Fiji.

Hunter, C. J. (1995). On the Need to Re-Conceptualize Sustainable Tourism

Development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 3(3), pp.155–165.

Hunter, C. J. (1997). Sustainable Tourism as an Adaptive Paradigm. Annals of

Tourism Research, 24(4), pp. 850–867.

Huttasin, N. (2008). Perceived Social Impacts of Tourism by Residents in the OTOP

Tourism Village, Thailand. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 13(2),

pp. 175-191.

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). (1980). World Conservation

Strategy. Gland, Switzerland.

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). (1991). Caring for the

Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living. Gland, Switzerland.

IVS (International Visitor Survey Report). (2005). Ministry of Tourism, Suva.

164

Jack, L. (nd). Development and application of the Kangaroo Island TOMM (Tourism

Optimization Management Model). Complete Marketing Solutions, Tourism

Consultants.

Jafari, J. (2000). Indigenous Tourism. In Encyclopedia of Tourism, (pp.303–304). London, Routledge.

Jamal, T.B. & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism

Planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), pp. 186–204.

Johnson, P. & Thomas, B. (1996). Tourism capacity: a critique. In Briguglio, L. (ed.),

Sustainable Tourism in Islands and Small States: Issues and Policies, pp.

118–136.

KYMST (Kadavu Yaubula Management Support Team), (2005). A Report on the

Effectiveness and Site Suitability of 5 Tabu Areas (MPAs) in Kadavu.

Vunisea, Kadavu.

Kerstetter, D. & Bricker, K. (2009). Exploring Fiji’s sense of place after exposure to

tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(6), pp. 691–708.

King, B. & Weaver, S. (1993). The Impact of the Environment on the Fiji Tourism

Industry: A Study of Industry Attitudes. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,

1(2): pp. 97–111.

King, B. Pizam, A. & Milman, A. (1993). Social Impacts of Tourism: Host

Perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research. vol. 20, pp. 650–665.

Ko, J.T.G. (2001). Assessing progress of tourism sustainability. Annals of Tourism

Research. 28 (3), pp. 817–820.

Kuentzel, W.F. & Heberlein, T.A. (2003). More Visitors, Less Crowding: Change

and Stability of Norms over Time at the Apostle Islands. Journal of Leisure

165

Research, 35(4), pp. 349–371. Retrieved August 11, 2008, from

ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 596762371).

Kuilamu, M. (1995). Village-based Ecotourism ventures in Fiji. Unpublished Honors

thesis, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.

Leiper, N. (2000). An Emerging Discipline. Annals of Tourism Research. 27(3), pp.

905–809.

Lindberg, K., McCool, S.F., and Stankey, G. H. 1996. Rethinking carrying capacity.

Annals of Tourism 24: 461–464.

Levett, R. & McNally, R. (2003). A strategic environmental assessment of Fiji’s

Tourism Development Plan. WWF. Suva.

Liu, A. and Wall, G. (2004). Planning tourism employment: a developing country

perspective. Tourism Management, 27, pp. 159–170.

Livesey, C. (nd) “A” Level Sociology: Theory and Methods. Retrieved December 9,

2009, from: http://www.sociology.org.uk/methrvt.pdf

Mathieson, A & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: economic, physical and social impacts.

London, Longman.

McCool, S.F. (1996). Limits of Acceptable Change: A Framework for Managing

National Protected Areas: Experiences from the United States. Paper

presented at Workshop on Impact Management in Marine Parks. August 13-

14th, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

McCool, S. F & Lime, D.W. (2002). Tourism carrying capacity: tempting fantasy or

useful reality. Journal of Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 9, pp. 372–388.

166

McKercher, B. (1999). A chaos approach to tourism. Tourism Management,20, pp.

425–434.

McKercher, B. (2003). Sustainable Tourism Development – Guiding Principles for

Planning Development. Paper presented at the National Seminar on

Sustainable Tourism Development. Bishkek, Retrieved January 21, 2009,

from

http://www.devstud.org.uk/studygroups/tourism/resources/mckercher.pdf

Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. & Behrens, W. W. (1970). The Limits

to growth. New York, Universe Books.

Mexa, A. & Collovini, A. (2004). Managing the Impacts of Tourism in European

Destinations, in Coccossis, H & Mexa, A, in Coccossis, H & Mexa, A. (eds),

The Challenge of Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment: Theory and

Practice, Burlington, Ashgate.

Miles & Huberman (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Retrieved January28, 2010,

from

http://www.wilderdom.com/research/QualitativeVersusQuantitativeResearch.

html

Mill, R. C. & Morrison, A. M. (1998). The Tourism System. Iowa, Kendall.

Miller, G. & Twining-Ward, L. (2005). Monitoring for a Sustainable Tourism

Transition: The Challenge of Developing and Using Indicators. Wallingford,

UK.

Milne, S. (1992). Tourism and Development in South Pacific Microstates. Annals of

Tourism Research, 19, pp. 191–212.

Minerbi, L. (1992). Impacts of Tourism Development in Pacific Islands. A paper for

Greenpeace Pacific Campaign. Hawaii.

167

Ministry of Tourism. (2001). Carrying capacity assessment for tourism in the

Maltese Islands. Ministry of Tourism, Malta.

Mosley, L. & Aalbersberg, W. (2004). Nutrient levels and macro-algal outbreaks in

Fiji’s coastal water. IAS Technical Report.

Mosley, L. & Aalbersberg, W. (2004). Nutrient levels in sea and river water along

the Coral Coast. Institute of Applied Science, University of the South Pacific,

Suva.

Mowforth, M. & Munt, I. (1998). Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the

Third World. London, Routledge.

Moyle, B., Croy, G. & Weiler, B. (2010). Tourism Interaction on islands: the

community and visitor social exchange. International Journal of Tourism and

Hospitality Research. 4(2), pp. 96–107.

Murphy, P. E. in Theobald, W (ed.) (1994). Global Tourism: the next decade.

Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann,.

Nunkoo, R. & Gursoy, D. (2012). Residents’ Support for Tourism: An Identity

Perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), pp. 243–268.

O’Grady, A. (1990). Tourism and the Environment. The challenge of Tourism.

Ecumenical Coalition on Third World Tourism, Bangkok, pp. 31–41.

Oppermann, M. & Chon, K. S. (1997). Tourism in Developing Countries. London,

International Thomson Business Press.

Page, S. J. & Connell, J. (2006). Tourism: A Modern Synthesis. Second Edition,

London, Thomson Learning.

168

PAP/RAC (1997). Guidelines for Carrying Capacity Assessment for Tourism in

Mediterranean coastal areas. Priority Actions Programme. Regional Activity

Centre (PAP/RAC), Split.

PAP/RAC (1999). Coastal Area Management Programme Fuka-Matrouh: Carrying

Capacity Assessment for Tourism Development, Priority Action Programme

Regional Activity Centre (PAP/RAC), Split.

Patterson, S. & Hughes, B. (2006). Carrying Capacity for Tourism Development in

Fiji. Institute of Applied Science, Suva.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 2nd Edition.

London, Sage Publication.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods.3rd Edition,

London, Sage Publication:.

Punch, K. F. (2000). Developing Effective Research Proposals. London, Sage

Publication

Rao, M. (2002). Challenges and issues for tourism in the South Pacific island states:

the case of Fiji Islands. Tourism Economics, 8(4), pp. 401–429.

Robinson, G. (1998). Methods and Techniques in Human Geography, West Sussex,

John Wiley & Sons.

Ryan, C. & Cooper, C. (2004). Resident’s perceptions of tourism development: the

case of Raglan, New Zealand. Tourism Review International, 8(1), pp. 1–15,

Retrieved 5th January from

http://www.raglan.co.nz/tourism/research/related.html.

Saarinen, J. (2006). Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism

Research, 33 (4), pp. 1121–1140.

169

Sadler, P. G. & Archer, B. H. (1975). The Economic Impact of Tourism in

Developing Countries. Annals of Tourism Research, 3 (1) pp. 15–32.

Salazar, N. B. (2012). Community-based cultural tourism: issues, threats and

opportunities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(1), pp. 9–22.

Samy, J. (1980). ‘Crumbs from the Table? The Workers Share in Tourism’ in

Crocombe, R. Pacific Tourism as Islanders see it. Institute of Pacific Studies,

U.S.P.

Sanette, L.A., Ferreira, A., & Harmse, C. (1999). The social carrying capacity of

Kruger National Park, South Africa: Policy and practice. Tourism

Geographies, 1(3), pp. 325–342.

Saveriades, A. (2000). Establishing the social carrying capacity for tourist resorts of

the east coast of Cyprus. Tourism Management, 21 (2): pp.147–156.

Scheyvens, R. (2002). Aspects of Modernization Theory. Tourism for Development:

Empowering Communities. Essex: Prentice Hall.

Scheyvens, R., & Russell, M. (2011). Tourism and poverty alleviation in Fiji:

comparing the impacts of small and large-scale tourism enterprises. Journal

of Sustainable Tourism, pp. 1–20. DOI: 1080/09669582.2011.629049

Sharpley, R. (2002). Tourism: A Vehicle for Development? in Sharpley, R & Telfer,

D. (eds), Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues (pp. 11–34)

Clevedon Hall,: Channel view Publications.

Sharpley, R. & Telfer, D. (2000). Tourism and Sustainable Development: Exploring

the Theoretical Divide. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(1), pp. 1–19.

Sheddighi, H. R., Nuttall, M. M., & Theocharous, A. L. (2001). Does cultural

background of tourists influence the destination choice? An empirical study

170

with special reference to political instability. Tourism Management, 22,

p.181–191.

Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting Qualitative Data. London, Sage Publications Ltd.

Simon, F. J. G., Narangajavana, Y., & Marques, D. P. (2004). Carrying Capacity in

the tourism industry: a case study of Hengistbury Head. Tourism

Management, 25, pp.275–283.

Singh, J. (2006). Study Guide to Accompany the Research Process. New York,

Oxford University Press.

Sofield, T. H. B. (1990). The impact of tourism development on traditional socio-

cultural values in the South Pacific: conflict, coexistence and symbiosis.

Proceedings of the International Congress on Marine and Coastal Tourism,

East West Centre, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Sofield, T. H. B. (2003). Empowerment for Sustainable Tourism Development.

Amsterdam, Pergamon.

SPTO (South Pacific Tourism Organisation). (2005). Tourism Sector Study in the

South Pacific. Retrieved 6th January, 2011, from http://www.south-

pacific.travel/spto/export/sites/spto/tourism_resources/market_research/touris

m_surveys/summaries/index.html

SPTO (South Pacific Tourism Organisation). (2005). The Economic Impact of

Tourism in SPTO Member Countries. Retrieved 6th January, 2011, from

http://www.south-

pacific.travel/spto/export/sites/spto/tourism_resources/market_research/touris

m_surveys/summaries/index.html

Stymeist, D. H. (1996). Transformation of Vilavilairevo in Tourism. Annals of

Tourism Research, 23, pp. 1–18.

171

STDC (Sustainable Tourism Development Consortium). (2007). Fiji Tourism

Development Action Plan. Government of Fiji, Suva.

STDC (Sustainable Tourism Development Consortium). (2007). Fiji Tourism

Development Plan: 2007–2016. Government of Fiji, Suva.

Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable Tourism Management. Wallingford, CAB

International.

Telfer, D. J., & Sharpley, R. (2008). Introduction: Tourism in Developing Countries.

Tourism and Development in the Developing World. Clevedon, Channel

View. pp. 6–29.

Tosun, C. (2002). Host Perceptions of Impacts: A comparative Tourism Study.

Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (1), pp. 231–253.

Tribe, J. (1997). The Indiscipline of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research. 24(3), pp.

809–813.

Tribe, J. (2000). Indisciplined and Unsubstantiated. Annals of Tourism Research.

24(3), pp. 638–657.

Trumbic, I. (2005). Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment in the Mediterranean

Coastal Tourist Destinations. Paper presented at the 14th Biennial Coastal

Zone Conference, New Orleans.

Tsusaka, A. (nd). South Pacific developing countries: development issues and

challenges. Asian Development Bank Review, Manila.

Twining-Ward, L., & Butler, R. W. (2002). Implementing STD on a Small Island:

Development and Use of Sustainable Tourism Development Indicators in

Samoa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10 (5), pp. 363–387.

172

Twining-Ward, L. (2002). Indicator Handbook: A guide to the development and use

of Samoa’s sustainable tourism indicators. SPREP and NZAID, Samoa.

United Nations Environment Programmeme & World Tourism Organization (2005).

Making Tourism More Sustainable: A guide for Policy Makers.Madrid,

Spain.

United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1976). The Effects

of Tourism on Socio-Cultural Values. Annals of Tourism Research vol. 4 (2),

pp. 74–105.

UNWTO (1996). What tourism managers need to know: A practical guide to the

development and use of indicators of sustainable tourism. Madrid, Spain.

UNWTO (2006). UNWTO’s declaration on tourism and the millennium goals:

Harnessing Tourism for the Millennium Development Goals. Madrid

Retrieved 6 June 2012 from http://www.unwto.org/sdt/fields/en/pdf/decla-ny-

mdg-en.pdf

UNWTO (2009). World Tourism Barometer Retrieved 10 November 2010 from

http://unwto.org/facts/eng/pdf/barometer/UNWTO_Barom09_2_en_excerpt.p

df

UNWTO. Tourism 2020 Vision. Retrieved June 29, 2010, from

http://www.unwto.org/facts/eng/barometer.htm

UNWTO. World Tourism Highlights. 2011 Edition. Retrieved 13th January 2012,

from http://mkt.unwto.org/en/content/tourism-highlights

UNWTO. World Tourism Highlights. 2010 Edition. Retrieved 13th January 2012,

from http://mkt.unwto.org/en/content/tourism-highlights

173

Vanualailai, P. (2005). The Socio-cultural, environmental and economic impact study

of tourism in the Yasawa Islands. Suva, Fiji.

Verebalavu, J., & Kuridrani, L. (2006). Evaluation reports of Ecotourism Projects in

Fiji for Ministry of Tourism. Suva. Unpublished Report.

Weaver, D. (1998). Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. New York, CAB

International.

Weaver, D. B. & Lawton, L.J. (2001). Resident Perceptions in the Urban-Rural

Fringe. Annals of Tourism Research, 28 (2), pp. 439–458.

Weaver, D. & Lawton, L. (2002). Tourism Management. Brisbane, John Wiley &

Sons.

Weaver, D. (2010). Indigenous tourism stages and their implications for

sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(1), pp. 43–60.

Webster, M. Dictionary. Retrieved February 25, 2010, from http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/develop

Wilkinson, P. F. (1989). Strategies for tourism in Island Microstates. Annals of

Tourism Research, vol.16, p.153–177.

Williams, J., & Lawson, R. (2001). Community Issues and Resident Opinions of

Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), pp. 269–290.

Wilson, S., Fesenmaier, D.R., Fesenmaier, J. & Van Es, J.C. (2001). Factors for

Success in Rural Tourism Development. Journal of Travel Research, 40, pp.

132–138.

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our

Common Future. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

174

WTO (World Tourism Organization). (1994). National and Regional Tourism

Planning:methodologies and case studies. London, Routledge.

WTO (World Tourism Organization). (2004). Indicators of Sustainable Development

for Tourism Destinations: A Guidebook, World Tourism Organisation,

Madrid, Spain.

WTO (World Tourism Organization). International Tourist arrivals by country of

destination retrieved February 1st 2012 from

http://www.unwto.org/facts/eng/ITA&TR.htm

www.nztourmaps.com/fiji_map_kadavu.htm

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd Edition.

California, Sage Publications.

175

Appendices

Appendix 1: Community Perceptions and Practices Questionnaire

Question 1. Strongly Disagree

2. Disagree

3. Neutral

4. Agree

5. Strongly Agree

A. Tourism will be good for my community

B. I personally will benefit from the tourism industry

C. Tourism in my community can have the following effects: � Create jobs for local residents � Employ local youth � Raise prices for goods � Helps the community obtain

services � Cause rise in crime rates � Harm the environment � Disrupt village activities � Stop locals from beach access � Use natural resources needed

by the local residents � The community can still have

control over tourism � The money spent by tourists

will remain in my community � Local residents will still have

easy access to the areas which tourists use

____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____

____

____

____

____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____

____

____

____

____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____

____

____

____

____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____

____

____

____

_____ ____ ____

_____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____

____

___

____

D. What is your view about tourism if your village gets involved in it? [Please tick the box]

very bad bad no change good very good

E. Explain: __________________________________________________________________

F. In future, would you want more or less tourists in your Kadavu? Circle the number. Much Less: ____ Less: ____ Same:____ More: ____ Much More: ____ 1 2 3 4 5 G. Please consider the following economic activities and indicate their importance to

your household with [1] being the most important and [5] the least important:

Subsistence farming and fishing

Yaqona planting

Dalo for sale

Fish for sale

Tourism [please explain]

G. In your view, what benefits does tourism bring to your community?

1 3 42 5

176

Economic_________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

Social____________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

Cultural:__________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

Environmental:_____________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

H. What costs are involved?

Economic:________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Social___________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Cultural__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Environmental:____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

I. Does the village have any plan on allowing tourism into your community? Yes:_No:__ J. Do you agree with the idea?

______________________________________________________________

K. If no, why?

_________________________________________________________________ L. If yes, why?

_________________________________________________________________

Thank you very much for taking your precious time to fill this questionnaire.

177

Appendix 2: Questionnaire for Turaga ni Koro Name of Village: Name:____________________________ Tikina:________________ Number of villagers:____ Number of Households:____ 1. Do you monitor your water usage in your village? Yes: No 2. If yes, what is the average liter used per day?

_______________________________________________________________ 3. Are you using water conservation initiatives? If so, what measures are used?

[water tank, rain collection ](e.g. reuse, reduce, recycle, regular maintenance of taps etc) _______________________________________________________________

4. Is the water in your village treated? Yes or No. ____________ 5. If yes, what method is used for treating water?

________________________________________________________________ 6. How is your grey water [bathroom, kitchen] treated and disposed of? [septic

tank, drain, garden, sea] ________________________________________________________________

7. Has your village faced water shortage in the past? Yes:_____ No:_____. 8. If yes, for how long?

_______________________________________________________________

9. What was the cause? _______________________________________________________________

10. Has there been any reported case of villagers getting water-borne illnesses? Yes:___ No:___

11. If yes, approximately how many per year?

________________________________________________________________ 12. What forms of energy are used in the village? [Fiji gas, diesel, kerosene, fire

wood] ________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

13. Are these energy sources readily available and affordable?

________________________________________________________________ 14. How is solid waste disposed of (i.e. cans, bottles, batteries, plastics, rubbish)?

Toilet:_________________________

Kitchen waste___________________

178

Plastic/cans:_______________________.

Bottles___________________________

Grass/leaves_________________[septic, burnt, buried, compost, piggery]

15. Is there a collection service used? [Yes or No] 16. How much waste is produced per month? (estimate by weight, space, or # of

bags)

________________________________________________________________ 17. Does your village participate in conservation measures (waste reduction,

recycling,tabu, etc.)? ________________________________________________________________

18. What is the main source of income for the villagers? [Fishing, Yaqona, dalo]

________________________________________________________________ 19. How do villagers contribute to village projects such as community hall,

school buildings, healthcentre? [money, time, labor etc] ________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

20. What is you view about introducing tourism into your village? ________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________ 21. Do you think tourism is good or will it disrupt community life, use up your

resources, and bring about negative impacts? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________ 22. How will the tourism venture help your village?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your time.

179

Appendix 3: Questionnaire for the Resort Operator Please read and answer the following questions. 1. Resort Ownership [please tick the correct answer]

Local Kadavu,

Local Fijian,

International,

Other [explain] __________________________________________________ 2. Please indicate the type of tourism business you have:

Premier resort {4-5 star},

2-3 star resort,

backpacker,

homestay,

other[explain]___________________________________________________ 3. How long has your business been running? ____________________

4. Please fill in the table where appropriate.

Room type Tick [ √ ]

Total no. of beds

Total no. of rooms

Cost per person/unit

Dormitory Single Double Family

5. How many international tourists came to your resort last year?___________

6. What is the total number of people employed in your resort?____________

7. How many of these workers are from A: Kadavu ______;

B: Other parts of Fiji:_________

8. What was the average length of stay oftourists in 2008? Please tick!

[1-2days]__ [ 3-5 days]__ [5-7days]___ [7-10 days]___ [>10 days]___

Other explain]_________________________________________________

9. What approximate percentage of the following food items are provided or supplied within Kadavu?

Fish:______ vegetables:_______ root crops:_______ beef:______

180

10. What on average is the cost per day to tourists on the following:

meals, _______

room, ________

activities _______

packages [please

explain]_______________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________ 11. Do you experience water shortage at times? Yes:_____ ; No:_____

12. If Yes, What is the average number of days of water shortage per year?

________________________________________________________________

13. Where does the resort get its water from? [Please tick]

spring, bore hole,

rain water collection other [explain] __________________________________________________________

14. Do you monitor your water usage? Yes:_____; No:_____

15. If yes. What methods are used?________________________________________________

16. Roughly, what is the average litre used per tourist per day? _______________________________________________________________

17. Do you try to conserve water? Yes:_____ No:______

18. If yes, what measures of water conservation are you using? [water tank, rain collection ]

________________________________________________________________ 19. If no, why not?

_______________________________________________________________ 20. Is the water used in your resort treated? Yes:_____ No: _____

21. If yes, what form of treatment do you use?

________________________________________________________________ 22. Do you re-use water from the kitchen, bathroom, washroom [grey water]?

Yes:_____ No:_____ 23a. If No, where do you dispose it to?[Please tick the most appropriate answer]

septic tank drain, garden, sea, other [please explain]_______________________________________________

181

23b.If yes, where is it used?_____________________________________________ 24. If treated, what percentage of landowners has access to this treated water?

____________________________________________________________

25. Has there been any instance of tourists reporting water-borne illnesses? Yes:____; No.___

26. If yes, approximately how many last year? ________________________________________________________________

27. Do you treat wastes from toilets before they are discharged? Yes_____; No_____

28. If yes, what system are you using?

________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

29. Are you monitoring your use of energy? [Please fill the spaces below].

Fuel Type Yes/No Approximate Rate per month Fiji gas,

Fuel, diesel,

premix

Firewood

Other:______________________

30. How do you dispose the following?

Cans:________________________Bottles:_____________________________

Plastic:______________________Food left over:________________________ 31. Is there a collection service used for disposal of wastes? Yes:___ No: ___

32. If yes, how many times is this done per year?____________________________ 33. In relation to question 30, how much are produced per month? (estimate by

weight, space, or # of bags) Cans:__________________________Bottles:_____________________

Plastic:_____________________ Food left over: _______________

34. Does your resort participate in conservation measures (waste reduction, recycling, composting, marine protected areas)? Yes:_____ No:_____

35. If yes, what are they? _______________________________________________________________

36. Do you contribute cash or other benefits to the land owners? Yes:___ No: ___

37. If Yes, how? (volunteer activities, monetary contributions to schools or other services, improved infrastructure, improved social services, trust fund, etc)?

182

38. What is the estimated dollar value of your contribution per year? What are the main forms of transportation from Viti Levu to Kadavu?

_________________________________________________________________

39. How satisfied are you with the transport service from Viti Levu to your resort? [tick the appropriate box]

40. How do tourists travel from Vunisea to your resort?

________________________________________________________________ 41. How satisfied are you with the current transport system within Kadavu? [tick the

box below]

42. In future, would you prefer your tourists to come from Vunisea to your resort by

road or by

boat?____________________________________________________

43. What marketing methods does your resort utilize? [Please tick]

Word of mouth,

Television,

Web based,

Print advertising)?

Other

[explain]______________________________________________________

44. Which marketing forms has been most successful in gaining visitors

__________________________________________________________________

Your valuable time is very much appreciated

Very Dissatisfied

Quite dissatisfied

In Between Quite Satisfied Very satisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Quite dissatisfied

In Between Quite Satisfied Very satisfied

183

Appendix 4: Tourist Satisfaction – Questionnaire My name is Marika Kuilamu and I am conducting my Masters Research to ascertain the level of tourist satisfaction in Kadavu. Your answers will be anonymous but your contribution will greatly assist me in successfully carrying out this survey. 1. Please respond to the following questions by ticking the appropriate box in the spaces provided:

Question

1. Strongly Disagree

2. Disagree

3. Neutral

4. Agree

5. Strongly

Agree I enjoyed my experience in ‘Kadavu’ Good/clear signage made my travel easy within Kadavu

I found the resort to be clean I found the villages to be clean The villages were accessible Kadavu provided a good variety of experiences

There are too many tourists in the villages I had a good experience involving the local culture

The beaches were clean The water provided in the resort was clean There was enough water supply in the resort Unique souvenirs and crafts were available Quality souvenirs were available I had many opportunities to enjoy the local cuisine

The quality of food was good The quality of accommodation was good The level of service provided was high Service staff were competent Service staff were helpful I was bothered by the lack of lighting I was bothered by the noise I was bothered by the garbage in the public areas

The state of the natural environment [land] seemed good

The reef and the sea in Kadavu seemed healthy

This place has an interesting and varied natural resources

It was easy to get to Kadavu The boat transport from airport to the resort was comfortable

The boat transport provided locally was on time

I felt safe and secure during my visit I feel I received good value for money I would recommend Kadavu to my friends Tourist numbers in Kadavu are too high and affect the quality of the tourism experience

Kadavu can accommodate many more tourists and remain an attractive destination

184

2. Reasons for visiting Kadavu? Tick the box (es) most appropriate to you.

Holiday: Diving: Honeymoon

Other [please explain] _________________________________

3. Is this your first visit? Yes____ No.____

4. If no, how many times have you been here before? __________

5. Please tick the activities you participated in and indicate whether they met your

expectation

Activity Yes No If Yes, did it meet your

expectation?

a Walk on natural trails

b Visit a village

c Visit a beach

d Go Diving

e Go snorkeling

f Attend a cultural

performance

6. Which activity did you participate most in?

__________________________________________________________________

7. Would you be interested in visiting Kadavu again? Yes:_____ No:_____

8a. If yes, what activities would you like todo again?

_______________________________________________________________

8b. If No, why not?____________________________________________________

9. List activities you had expected to find in Kadavu which were

missing?___________________________________________________________

10. If you were to visit Kadavu again, how long would you want to stay? 2-5 days 5-10 days 10-15 days 15-20 days

other___________________

11. What could be done to improve your vacation next time in Kadavu?_________________________________________________________ 12. Please provide me with a few details on yourself in the section below? Nationality:_________________________ Age: _____ Length of Stay in Kadavu:_________________ Number in party: __ Home city/Country:__________________. Occupation:____________________

Thank you very much. Your time and assistance is very much appreciated.

185

Appendix 5: List of Licensed Hotels in Fiji - 2010

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

Appendix 6: Waterborne and Skin Diseases 2009 – 2011 Waterborne and Skin Diseases in Daku, Navuatu and

Naivakarauniniu that were presented to Vunisea Rural Hospital (2009 – 2011).

Navuatu Male Female 2009 2010 2011 Waterborne diseases: 4 6 4 3 3 a. Fungal skin

infections 4 2 1 2 3

b. Scabies 2 1 2 - 3 c. Abscess 9 5 4 6 4 d. Impetigo 1 - - - 1

Daku Male Female 2009 2010 2011 Waterborne diseases: 2 - 2 - - a. Fungal skin

infections 2 2 2 1 1

b. Scabies 1 - 1 - - c. Abscess - - - - - d. Impetigo - - - - -

Naivakarauniniu Male Female 2009 2010 2011 Waterborne diseases: 2 1 - 2 1 a. Fungal skin

infections 1 2 1 2 -

b. Scabies - - - - - c. Abscess - - - - - d. Impetigo - - - - -

194

Appe

ndix

7: T

ouri

sm A

rriv

als

and

Earn

ings

by

Prov

ince

200

0 - 2

008

V

ISIT

OR

AR

RIV

ALS

Z

ON

E/A

REA

O

F S

TAY

2

00

0

20

01

2

00

2

20

03

2

00

4

20

05

2

00

6

20

07

20

08

Ba

167,

711

198,

475

226,

902

245,

689

287,

478

310,

902

312,

865

307,

899

333,

648

Cak

audr

ove

6,69

6 7,

924

9,05

9 9,

809

11,4

78

12,4

13

12,4

91

12,2

93

13,3

21

Kad

avu

664

785

898

972

1,13

7 1,

230

1,23

8 1,

218

1,32

0 Lo

mai

viti

1,38

0 1,

633

1,86

7 2,

022

2,36

6 2,

559

2,57

5 2,

534

2,74

6 N

adro

ga

73,3

89

86,8

51

99,2

90

107,

511

125,

798

136,

048

136,

907

134,

734

146,

001

Ra

2,40

6 2,

848

3,25

5 3,

525

4,12

5 4,

461

4,48

9 4,

418

4,78

7 Rew

a 33

,728

39

,915

45

,632

49

,411

57

,815

62

,526

62

,920

61

,922

67

,100

Ser

ua

2,27

4 2,

692

3,07

7 3,

332

3,89

9 4,

216

4,24

3 4,

176

4,52

5 N

ot s

peci

fied

508

601

687

744

871

941

947

932

1,01

0 N

ot p

aid

acco

mm

odat

ion

5,31

4 6,

288

7,18

9 7,

784

9,10

8 9,

850

9,91

2 9,

755

10,5

71

Tota

l 2

94

,07

0

34

8,0

14

3

97

,85

9

43

0,8

00

5

04

,07

5

54

5,1

48

5

48

,58

9

53

9,8

81

5

85

,03

1

TO

UR

ISM

EA

RN

ING

S

So

urc

e: F

iji

Isla

nd

s B

ure

au o

f S

tati

stic

s

No

te

� 20

08 T

otal

Fig

ures

for

Arr

ival

s an

d Ea

rnin

gs a

re p

rovi

sion

al fig

ures

pro

vide

d by

the

Bur

eau

of S

tatist

ics,

all

othe

r to

tals

are

rev

ised

. � C

alcu

lation

s fo

r 20

00 –

200

8 ar

e ba

sed

on 2

003

figur

es w

hich

are

pro

vide

d in

the

IVS 2

003

Rep

ort.

The

ass

umpt

ion

bein

g th

at t

he

sam

e pr

opor

tion

of vi

sito

rs v

isite

d ea

ch p

rovi

nce

and

prop

ortion

ally

spe

nt t

he s

ame

amou

nt a

s in

200

3.

Z

ON

E/A

REA

O

F S

TAY

20

00

2

00

1

20

02

2

00

3

20

04

2

00

5

20

06

2

00

7

20

08

$

F (M

) $

F (M

) $

F (M

) $

F (M

) $

F (M

) $

F (M

) $

F (M

) $

F (M

) $

F (M

)

Ba

234.

6 27

4.2

332.

4 38

1.6

428.

7 48

0.3

486.

1 46

3.5

527.

4 Cak

audr

ove

13.6

15

.9

19.3

22

.1

24.9

27

.9

28.2

26

.9

30.6

Kad

avu

1.0

1.2

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.2

2.1

2.4

Lom

aivi

ti 2.

7 3.

2 3.

9 4.

4 5.

0 5.

6 5.

6 5.

4 6.

1 N

adro

ga

100.

7 11

7.6

142.

6 16

3.7

183.

9 20

6.1

208.

6 19

8.9

226.

3 Ra

2.2

2.5

3.1

3.5

4.0

4.4

4.5

4.3

4.9

Rew

a 34

.9

40.8

49

.4

56.7

63

.7

71.4

72

.3

68.9

78

.4

Ser

ua

5.1

6.0

7.2

8.3

9.3

10.4

10

.6

10.1

11

.4

Not

spe

cifie

d 0.

2 0.

2 0.

3 0.

3 0.

4 0.

4 0.

4 0.

4 0.

5 N

ot p

aid

acco

mm

odat

ion

2.0

2.3

2.8

3.2

3.6

4.0

4.0

3.9

4.4

Tota

l 3

97

.0

46

3.9

5

62

.5

64

5.7

7

25

.3

81

2.7

8

22

.5

78

4.2

8

92

.3