Geobotanical Institute

Sustainable Tourism Development on La Digue Island, Republic of Seychelles

Transdisciplinary methods for sustainable solutions in a tropical paradise

Saskia Günther

Master Thesis

Tutors: Prof. Dr. Roland R.W. Scholz, Pius Krütli & Christoph Küffer

March 2004

Saskia Günther: Sustainable Tourism Development on La Digue Island, Republic of Seychelles Master Thesis at the Geobotanical Institute and the professorship for Natural and Social Sciences Interface (UNS) of the ETH Zürich. Also published as UNS Nr. 11/04. Anschrift: Saskia Günther, Dohlenweg 30, 8050 Zürich saskia14@hotmail.com Geobotanical Institute UNS seed sustainability Zürichbergstrasse 38 Haldenbachstr. 44 Bluntschlisteig 1 ETH Zentrum ETH-Zentrum HAD Postfach 624 CH-8044 Zürich CH-8092 Zürich CH-8027 Zürich www.geobot.ethz.ch www.uns.ethz.ch www.seed-sustainability.ch

1

Abstract Possible trade-offs between pretensions of the tourism sector on tropical islands and societal requirements of sustainable development are examined for the case of the Seychelles’ island La Digue within this master thesis. Tourism is the main economic factor on the Seychelles, thanks to a unique marine and terrestrial ecosystem. Its tourism marketing is based on an exclusive, unspoiled, three to five star destination. However, even if the Seychelles government recognized the risk of destruction of the ecosystem since already 1980, there is still no sign regarding a stop in tourist infrastructure construction. This study uses La Digue Island as a case study to assess the ecological, economical and social dimensions of sustainability of possible future tourism development states, with a focus on the impacts of tourist infrastructure development. An emphasis of this study lies in the involvement of the knowledge of a broad range of stakeholders, especially tourists and local stakeholders. A combination of transdisciplinary methods is applied in order to generate and assess different consistent scenarios representing a possible tourism development of La Digue for the year 2013 (+/- 3 years). A formative scenario analysis is carried out in this study. Relevant impact factors are first identified with corresponding characteristic levels through expert interviews, working groups and literature review. The characteristic levels of the impact factors are then combined to give four different consistent scenarios of a possible tourism development on La Digue Island. The evaluation of these scenarios is done using the Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT). Data-based and stakeholder-based evaluation point out differences between the scenarios in respect to their contribution to a sustainable development of tourism on La Digue Island, by means of sustainability criteria and attributes, which are weighted and aggregated together in an overall utility. The four scenarios are labelled as: 1. Free Development, is representing a continuous development of tourism infrastructures, 2. Authentic Creole Style is reflecting the promotion of the traditional features of La Digue Island, 3. Nature Preservation is focussing on the preservation of the natural environment and 4. Five-Star-Eco-Tourism follows the trends of the Seychelles and specialises on the high-price segment. The results of both the data-based and the stakeholder based MAUT, are that scenario 3 shows the best overall utility and is followed by scenario 2. Scenario 4 is ranked third and scenario 1 shows the lowest utility. This ranking is found to be independent on the normalisation procedure of the attribute values. The results of the stakeholder based evaluation add up significantly differences in the evaluation of scenario 1: the stakeholder group «local community» gives to this scenario a significantly higher utility than the stakeholder group «tourists». The three ecological criteria are weighted the highest by the two stakeholder groups. It is an outcome of this study that the construction of tourism accommodations would have enormous direct and indirect effects on both the natural environment and the society. The scenarios 2 and 3 reveal the highest potentials to achieve an economic success, while preserving both the society and the natural environment. These two scenarios could then be merged together for the final tourism strategy. This latter would then focus on nature preservation and the promotion of a wide variety of low impact traditional and nature orientated activities. The transdisciplinary methods used in this study are appropriate to achieve system knowledge and to generate understanding of the dynamics between the main impact factors related to a complex system as tourism development on La Digue.

2

Acknowledgement Numerous persons supported me with the realisation of my study. Only due to their assistance, their remarks, references, explanations, recommendations and their participation, I could successfully accomplish my study and write this master thesis. Special thanks are entitled to my tutors, Mr. Professor Dr. Roland W. Scholz (UNS), Pius Krütli (UNS) and Christoph Küffer (Geobotanical Institute and seed sustainability), which made with their constructive ideas, thoughts, pieces of advice and with their specialized knowledge the realisation of my thesis possible. In the Seychelles I would like to thank the Principal Secretary Mr. Belle and the Director General Mr. Nalletamby of the Ministry of Tourism and Transport, which made my stay in the Seychelles possible. A special thank to Mrs. Frauke Fleischer-Dogley and the employees of the Ministry of Tourism and Transport, who helped me with advice, information and the organisation of the meetings and workshops. A further thank for the active involvement of the employees of the Ministry of Tourism, who made the participative process of this study possible. Because this work would not be realised without financial support, further thanks go to Mr. Kurz Zürcher, the SHTTC, the Ministry of Tourism and Transport and Mr. R.W. Scholz (UNS) and Mrs. R.M. Widmer (Umwelthygiene) from the ETH Zürich. Likewise I would like to thank each person participating to this study, assisting me with the graphical design of the scenarios, investing time to search out information and particularly encouraging me till the end of the study. For the latter, special thanks go to Mr. Francis Cœur de Lion, Mrs. Yvette Cafrine, Serge Gagou for the nice pictures of the Seychelles he gave me and of course my friends. Thank you very much!

3

A mon père, J.J. Günther

4

Table of content Abstract...................................................................................................................................1 Acknowledgement..................................................................................................................2 List of abbreviations ..............................................................................................................7 A. Introduction.....................................................................................................................8

A1 Background.............................................................................................................8 A2 Objective .................................................................................................................9 A3 Structure of the study ..........................................................................................11

B. The Seychelles islands ................................................................................................12 B1 General information..............................................................................................12 B2 Tourism in the Seychelles ...................................................................................16

B2.1 International situation..........................................................................................16 B2.2 Tourism as a main economic factor....................................................................17 B2.3 Project area ........................................................................................................19

B2.3.1 General Information ....................................................................................19 B2.3.2 Natural environment....................................................................................23 B2.3.3 Tourism on La Digue Island ........................................................................24

C. Methods.........................................................................................................................26 C1 Proceeding ............................................................................................................26 C2 Scenario analysis .................................................................................................27

C2.1 The methodology in brief ....................................................................................27 C2.2 The nine steps of the formative scenario analysis..............................................28

C2.2.1 Goal definition .............................................................................................29 C2.2.2 System Characteristics ...............................................................................29 C2.2.3 Impact factors .............................................................................................29 C2.2.4 Impact matrix ..............................................................................................30 C2.2.5 Evaluation ...................................................................................................30 C2.2.6 Characteristic levels of the impact factors ..................................................32 C2.2.7 Consistency analysis ..................................................................................32 C2.2.8 Scenario Construction.................................................................................33 Workshop: valuation of the impact factors and the scenarios ....................................33 C2.2.9 Scenario assessment..................................................................................34

C3 Scenario evaluation (MAUT) ................................................................................34 C3.1 The methodology in brief ....................................................................................35 C3.2 Criteria and attributes .........................................................................................36 C3.3 Data based evaluation (MAUT I) ........................................................................37 C3.4 Stakeholder-based evaluation (MAUT II)............................................................38

D. Results...........................................................................................................................40 D1 Scenario analysis .................................................................................................40

D1.1 Goal definition.....................................................................................................40 D1.2 System characteristics........................................................................................41

D1.2.1 SWOT .........................................................................................................41 D1.2.2 Economic characterisation..........................................................................43 D1.2.3 Ecological characterisation .........................................................................44 D1.2.4 Social characterisation................................................................................49 D1.2.5 Infrastructural facilities ................................................................................50

5

D1.3 Acquisition of impact factors ...............................................................................52 D1.4 Impact matrix ......................................................................................................52 D1.5 Reduction of impact factors (Evaluation of the impact matrix)............................54 D1.6 Consistency analysis ..........................................................................................58 D1.7 Scenario construction .........................................................................................61

D1.7.1 Scenario 1: Free Development ...................................................................64 D1.7.2 Scenario 2: Authentic Creole Style .............................................................66 D1.7.3 Scenario 3: Nature Conservation................................................................68 D1.7.4 Scenario 4: Five-Star Eco-Tourism.............................................................70

D2 Scenario evaluation (MAUT) ................................................................................72 D2.1 Evaluation criteria and attributes ........................................................................72

D2.1.1 Ecological criteria........................................................................................73 D2.1.2 Economic criteria ........................................................................................74 D2.1.3 Social criteria ..............................................................................................75

D2.2 MAUT I: Data based evaluation..........................................................................76 D2.2.1 Quantification ..............................................................................................76 D2.2.2 Normalisation ..............................................................................................78 D2.2.3 Weighting the criteria ..................................................................................78 D2.2.4 Aggregation.................................................................................................79

D2.3 MAUT II: Stakeholder supported evaluation .......................................................80 D2.3.1 Intuitive evaluation ......................................................................................80 D2.3.2 Weighting the criteria ..................................................................................82 D2.3.3 Criteria supported evaluation ......................................................................84

D2.4 Comparison MAUT I and MAUT II ......................................................................87 E. Discussion ....................................................................................................................89

E1 Discussion on the results ....................................................................................89 E1.1 Scenario analysis................................................................................................89 E1.2 Scenario evaluation (MAUT)...............................................................................90

E2 Discussion on the methodology .........................................................................95 E2.1 Scenario analysis................................................................................................95 E2.2 MAUT..................................................................................................................97 E2.3 Transdisciplinarity ...............................................................................................99 E2.4 Concluding comment on the methodology .........................................................99

E3 Conclusions ..........................................................................................................99 F. Reference ....................................................................................................................103

F1 Literature .............................................................................................................103 F2 Internet references .............................................................................................108 F3 List of Figures.....................................................................................................109 F4 List of Tables ......................................................................................................110

G. Appendix .....................................................................................................................112 G1 The Seychelles....................................................................................................112

G1.1 Examples of Conventions signed by the Seychelles’ government ...................112 G1.2 Relevant legal acts for the tourism development on La Digue .........................112

G2 Scenario Analysis...............................................................................................112 G2.1 Impact factors ...................................................................................................112 G2.2 Visualisation of the impact Matrix .....................................................................114 G2.3 Visualisation of the system grid ........................................................................114 G2.4 SWOT analysis for the tourism in the Seychelles.............................................115 G2.5 Formative Scenario Analysis ............................................................................116

6

G2.6 Scenarios in detail ............................................................................................116 G3 List of criteria proposed to the working group................................................128 G4 MAUT I: quantification of the criteria................................................................128

G4.1 Ecological criteria..............................................................................................128 G4.1.1 Criteria resource use, indicator Water consumption [m3/year] .................128 G4.1.2 Criteria Land use of the coastal Plateau area, indicator area that is built up with infrastructures / total coastal Plateau area........................................................133 G4.1.3 Criteria protection of endangered animal species, indicator size and number of key ecosystems that contribute to the survival of endangered animal species ....135

G4.2 Economic criteria ..............................................................................................137 G4.2.1 Criteria economic wealth, indicator tourist expenditures per Diem and per year 137 Total: SR530....................................................................................................138 G4.2.2 Criteria employment situation, indicator: number of jobs generated by tourism sector ...........................................................................................................144 G4.2.3 Criteria regional economic flow, indicator: ratio of local products used in the alimentation / total products used.............................................................................145

G4.3 Social criteria ....................................................................................................147 G4.3.1 Criteria overcrowding, indicator number of tourists / 100 m accessible beach 147 G4.3.2 Criteria social conflicts, indicator ratio of imported labour forces on La Digue 148 G4.3.3 Criteria traditional and nature orientated activities, indicator number of traditional and nature orientated activities ................................................................150

G4.4 Self computed utility values ..............................................................................151 G5 Questionnaire for stakeholder supported evaluation .....................................153 G6 Contact list ..........................................................................................................159 G7 Participants of the scenario workshop.............................................................163 G8 Power point presentations for the scenario workshop...................................164

7

List of abbreviations ANOVA Analysis of Variance

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ETH Swiss federal Institute of Technology

EU European Union

GIS Geographic Information System

GDP Gross Development Product

HES Human Environment Systems

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources or World Conservation Union

LDDB La Digue Development Board

LUP Land Use Plan

MAUT Multi Attribute Utility Theory

MIC-MAC Matrice d’Impact Croisés – Multiplication Appliquée à un Classement (engl. Cross impact matrix – multiplication applied to classification)

MLUH Ministry of Land Use and Habitat

MIDS Management and Information Divisions System

MoE Ministry of Environment

MTT Ministry of Tourism and Transport

PSM Process structure model

PUC Public Utility Corporation

SIDS Small Island Development States

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Science

STMA Seychelles Tourism Marketing Authority

SWAC Solid Waste Cleaning Agency

SWOT Strength-Weaknesses-Opportunity-Threat analysis

TCC Tourism Carrying Capacity

UNDP United Nation Development Programme

UNS Professorship for Natural and Social Science Interface

WTO World Tourism Organisation

WTTC World Travel and Tourism Council

WWF World Wildlife Fund

8

A. Introduction

A1 Background „Warm weather, spectacular scenery, secluded beaches, accessible wildlife, cultural attractions, a wide range of quality accommodations and good value for money: just some ingredient that make a successful tourism destination“(Poon, 1998). Tourists on tropical islands expect exotic, fascinating landscapes, exclusivity, comfort and easygoing luxury. Within the Brundtland Report, the societal purpose of a sustainable development is defined as a “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987). The three fundamental components of sustainable development are the conservation of the environment, the stability of the economy, and societal fairness. The key motivation for choosing this master thesis was to look closer at possible solutions for the trade-off between pretensions of the tourism sector on tropical islands and societal requirements of sustainable development. Sustainable tourism development is defined by the Word Tourism Organisation (WTO), as a development that “meets the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunity for the future. It is envisaged as leading to management of all resources in such a way that economic, social, and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, and biological diversity, and life support systems” (World Tourism Organisation (WTO), 2003). Based on the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 12 guiding principles of sustainable tourism are set in the Agenda 21 for the travel and tourism industry (United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2002). In the tourism context, sustainable tourism is often associated with nature orientated tourism or eco-tourism (Eagles et al., 2002) and has become central in the debate on environmentally integrated tourism development (Gössling et al., 2002). Nature tourism involves travel to relatively undisturbed areas to experience nature and includes activities, like hunting, motor biking or white water rafting that are not imperatively sustainable. In contrary, eco-tourism is understood as a sustainable version of nature tourism (Wood, 2002). Eco-tourism, as defined by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) is “environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural feature-both past and present) that promotes conservation, has low visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local population” (Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1996). However, until now there is no consistent and recognised definition of nature-, eco- and sustainable tourism world wide, but at least in theory the conservation of the ecosystem is for the eco-tourism of particular importance (Hunter, 2002). The growing awareness on the social and environmental concern regarding the effects of tourism has brought 2002 to become the international year of Eco-tourism (World Tourism Organisation (WTO), 2003). Since the beginning of the 1970s (Honey, 1999), nature based tourism is a rapidly growing sector in the tourism industry and is estimated to constitute to about 15% of all tourism (Adams, 1995). Furthermore, compared to the annual growth rate of about 4% for tourism overall, nature tourism is increasing at an annual rate between 10% and 30% (Reingold, 1993). The fact that the environment becomes more and more a basic product of the tourism industry has brought the Seychelles to build its marketing upon the image of an exclusive eco-destination. The Seychelles Republic, renown as a high value tourist

9

destination, tries as far as possible to integrate environmental conservation and development to minimise the negative impacts of tourism on the environment. The extension of environmental conservation towards sustainable development is set in the new Environment Management Plan of the Seychelles 2000-2010 (Ministry of Environment and Transport (MET), 1999). Tourism is the most important and an indispensable economy factor of the Seychelles. This, added to the growing competition of tropical island destinations leads to the question in which framework tourism in the Seychelles can be encouraged without exceeding the carrying capacity of the area. Environmental carrying capacity represents a threshold level of human activity (Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1996). Tourism carrying capacity (TCC) is a specific type of environmental capacity and was first related to the level of tourism activity that an area can accommodate before an unacceptable decline in ecological values occurs (Papageorgiou & Brotherton, 1999). This one-dimensional perception on TCC was often criticised, as it conducts to a “number” that cannot be appreciated as exact. This concept was enlarged to a multi-dimensional perspective, combining environmental, physical and perceptual aspects. The WTO defines TCC as “the maximum number of people that may visit a tourist destination at the same time, without causing destruction of the physical, economical and socio-cultural environment and an unacceptable decrease in the quality of visitors’ satisfaction” (World Tourism Organisation (WTO), 2003). Three dimensions, namely the physical-ecological, the socio-demographic and the political-economic, are included in carrying capacity considerations. The assessment and the implementation of these considerations should be regarded within a broader context and must be a part of a planning process for tourism development (Coccossis et al., 2002). One main weakness on the TCC or even the limits of acceptable chance (LAC) concept, is that it focuses on local changes, ignoring the global consequences, related to travel, like climate change (Gössling et al., 2002). Because of the possible trade-off between nature preservation and tourism activities, it is of huge importance to find out how tourism activities can be positioned in the Seychelles to allow a long-term economic stability while regarding to nature conservation and TCC issues.

A2 Objective La Digue, the third most developed island of the Seychelles is chosen for this study as an example to assess the sustainability of possible future tourism development. In 1980, the Seychelles’ government already set up limits of the number of beds in the Seychelles. This limit was set, because of the risk of the destruction of the ecosystem and of foreign infiltration. The upper limit of the number of tourists visiting the Seychelles was set to 100’000 in 1980. For La Digue island the authorities set a limit of 150 beds(Wolf, 1983). Today the number of beds on La Digue reached 414 beds, which is more than the double of the upper limit set in the 1980s. Because there is no clear sign of a limit value in the construction of tourist infrastructures, the question can be raised whether or not the load limits of the tourism is a sufficient approach for reaching the goal of sustainable development. Within the context of the efforts taken by the Seychelles Government to preserve the natural environment, the Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT) developed a vision for the period 2001-2010. The main idea is to develop tourism to the highest standards, while benefiting the Seychellois people and protecting the environment (Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT), 2000). One goal of the Vision 21 action programme for

10

tourism development, is to ensure that tourism development does not exceed the carrying capacity of different locations (Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT), 2000). The aim of this study is to find out, how the possible future development of tourist infrastructures, tourist products, services on la Digue Island and their respective impacts on the coastal ecosystem such as the biodiversity, the traditional way of life, the tranquillity of the island, the economic wealth and the landscape aesthetics, is evaluated by tourists and the community. In this context different scenarios of possible tourism development are worked out within a transdisciplinary process on the Seychelles. There, academic and practical knowledge are brought together (Scholz & Tietje, 2002). Through the elaboration of possible scenarios of La Digue’s development and the evaluation of these scenarios by stakeholders, the economic, social and ecological capacity of tourism on the Seychelles is estimated. Within similar projects, participation of the main stakeholder groups is often neglected. It is a further objective of this study to integrate a broad range of stakeholders that are involved in tourism business as well as in concerned fields. Therefore, a focus of this study lies on transdisciplinary case study methods. More than 150 persons participated in the research project of this master thesis, focussing on the participation of local stakeholders and foreign tourists. The expansion of the bed capacities in the Seychelles to increase tourist arrivals from 125’000-130’000 to 170’000-260’000 in 2010 is another objective of the Vision 21 action programme. The trade-offs between tourism activities and societal requirements for sustainable development call this objective into question. With consideration to this trade-off and because one main objective of this study concerns the impacts that tourist infrastructures generate, the following hypothesis will be investigated: Hypothesis H1: The development goal of tourist infrastructures set in by the Seychelles government to increase distinctly annual tourist arrivals (i.e. up to 30-40%) is not sustainable (Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT), 2000). The Seychelles’ tourism marketing strategy builds upon an unspoiled, remote and unique marine and terrestrial nature. It is thus to assume that tourists choose the Seychelles as their holiday destination on a high degree because of the pristine nature. This and the great importance of the tourism industry for the Seychelles’ economy lead to the second hypothesis, which will be investigated: Hypothesis H2: For a sustainable tourism development in the Seychelles, the ecological dimension plays a superior role compared to the economic and the social dimensions. Because a special emphasis of this study lies in the participation of the local community and the tourists, the two following sub-hypothesises will lead to the investigation of the hypothesis H2:

• Hypothesis H2.a: Tourists evaluate the ecological criteria and the overcrowding far more important than the economic and other social criteria. This hypothesis is based on the importance of the nature for the tourists and on the idea that tourists are not really personally concerned in economic and social factors.

• Hypothesis H2.b: For the local community social and economic criteria are of equal importance as ecological criteria. The importance of social and economic criteria for inhabitants is generally highlighted in life quality surveys.

11

• Hypothesis H2.c: The ecological elements are strongly influenced by and strongly influence social and economic system elements. The ecological system elements are crucial for understanding and steering the system to a sustainable development on La Digue. Because of the focus of this study to understand the relation between tourism activities, especially the development of tourism infrastructures, and ecological dimension, this third sub-hypothesis will be investigated.

A3 Structure of the study Different aspects are presented in this study “Sustainable Tourism development on La Digue Island, Republic of Seychelles”, which can be implicated with the trade-offs between nature preservation and tourism activities. These aspects are relevant to reach the objectives of the study (see A2) and are presented below as different chapters: Chapter B: This chapter gives the reader an overview of the situation in the Seychelles (B1). This is important to put the project in a broader context. The international tourism situation, with a special emphasis on tourism in small islands, is indicated in B2. In the same sub-chapter, the tourism situation in the Seychelles and more specifically the situation in the project area, La Digue Island, are elucidated. Chapter C: The methods used in this study are presented. In C1, a rough overview on the methodological proceeding of this study is presented. There the inclusion of different stakeholders throughout the study is illustrated. The two principal methods of this study are presented in chapter C2 and C3: Scenario analysis and the Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT). Within these two sub-chapters, both the methods and its application within the study are explained. Chapter D: The results of the scenario analysis (D1) and of the MAUT (D2) are presented and bring forward the relations between tourism and the natural environment. The scenario analysis includes the results from the goal formation, the analysis of the system characteristics up to the construction of four different scenarios. The criteria and indicators that were chosen to evaluate the sustainability of the four scenarios, the data based and the stakeholder based evaluation of the scenarios are presented in D2. Chapter E: This chapter discusses both the appropriateness of the applied methodology (E1) and the results (E2) and points out possible conclusions and recommendations with regards to the implementation of a strategy. Chapter G: The appendix includes different aspects that enable the reader to get a deeper understanding of certain issues (G1: The Seychelles, G2: Scenario analysis, G3: Criteria proposed to the working group, G4: MAUT) or aspects that were denoted in this study but not presented (G5: Questionnaire for stakeholder based evaluation, G6: Contact list, G7: List of the participants of the workshop, G8: Power Point presentation of the workshop).

12

B. The Seychelles islands In order to get a better understanding of the basic conditions of the study, the following sections will give an overview of the situation in the Seychelles Republic. Thereafter, the international tourism situation and more specifically, the tourism situation in the Seychelles will be delineated. Last, but not least, an introductory overview on La Digue Island, will be given.

B1 General information If not otherwise stated, the information given in this section are based on (Stoddart, 1984).

Location and emergence Some 115 islands and atolls belong to the Republic of Seychelles, which are located in the western Indian Ocean, north-east from Madagascar (see Figure B 1), between 4° and 10° south and 46° and 56° east. The islands cover an area of 455 km2 and are extended over an area of 400’000km2. They are divided into “inner” and “outer” islands and many of them are still uninhabited. The division into two island groups is related to the geological structure of the islands. Except of Bird Island and Île Denis, the inner islands have a granite structure, while the outer islands, for example the Aldabra-group, the Amirantes and the Farquhar-group, are coralline islands. The great interest of the Seychelles lies in the fact that the granitic islands are the only isolated islands in the world, which do not have a volcanic or coralline origin, but which are built on continental rocks. The rocks of the inner islands are estimated to be about 650 million years old and the islands were formed from the break-up of the Gondwanda some 130 million years ago and adopted their definitive position some 47 million years ago. The granitic islands have ancestral links both to India and Madagascar. The granitic islands consist of 41 islands. Mahé, Praslin and La Digue belong to the inner islands and build the central of the archipelago. Mahé with a land area of 154km2 is the main island of the Seychelles. The Capital of the Seychelles is Victoria.

Figure B 1: Map of the Seychelles island, including the inner islands.

Climate Not far from the equator, the Seychelles have a tropical marine climate. The mean annual temperature is 26.6° (+/- 3.6°) and the humidity varies from 75%-80% throughout the

13

year. The mean rainfall is strongly influenced by the altitude. At port Victoria the mean rainfall is 2378mm. Some important climatic differences exist during the year, particularly regarding the amount of rainfall and the monsoon wind shifts. A distinction between summer, winter and transition month is done:

• Summer (December to March): Northwest monsoon induces a wetter season with warmer temperatures.

• Winter (May to October): Southwest monsoon induces a dryer season and lower temperatures.

• Transition periods (April and November): comprise together with the Northwest monsoon the rainy period.

History The history of the Seychelles is a history of dependences and men-made interventions. It is assumed that Arab traders knew the Seychelles since the tenth century. Earliest accounts of the history of the Seychelles date from 1609, where an expedition of the Indian East Company visited the granitic islands. Only 133 years later, in 1742, a French exploration mission commanded by Lazare Picault visited Mahé again. A few years later, the French took possession of the islands. The first settlements in the 1770s are bounded with the begin of cultivation and thereby with the clearing of forests and the introduction of species. The reported plantations are coffee, tobacco and cotton. Different spices, like cloves, cinnamon and vanilla were also cultivated. The discovering of the “Coco de Mer” palm (Lodoicea madivica) and the giant tortoises increased the attraction to exploit the natural resources of the Seychelles. Huge exports of giant tortoise, marine turtles and coco de mer lead to the extinction of giant tortoises and to the enormous reduction of the two other species (Sauer, 1967). The settlement of the Seychelles by the French introduced the division into two classes, namely a white master class and a black servant one, originally from Africa. In the year 1785, it was reported 11 whites with 232 slaves. Thus, slaves made up between 85% and 90% of the population. In 1814, the Seychelles were being taken over by the British and in 1835 they abolished slavery. This was a turning point in the history of the Seychelles. Because a lot of people returned to their country of origin, the population size decreased and the old plantation system stopped. Instead, coconut plantations were promoted and other crops, like vanilla, cinnamon and patchouli extended. This induced a further deforestation. At the end of the 19th century, Catholic churches and one school were established. At this time about 20’000 people were living in the Seychelles. The beginning of the 20th century marks a new step in the Seychelles’ history. The Seychelles broke away from the Mauritius colony and became an own crown colony under British rules in 1903. The beginning of the 20th century marks also the extension of cinnamon plantations, which became the main export crop after copra. Since the 1950s, a reforestation is introduced under a Commonwealth Development and Welfare scheme. In 1970 a government was established, responsible for internal matters. One year later, the international airport was opened inducing the burst of the tourism industry. In 1974, after the elections, James Mancham became Prime Minister and on 29th of June 1976, the independence of the Seychelles Republic was proclaimed. The constitution was that of a republic, with a President (J. Mancham) and a prime minister (France Albert René). In 1977, the prime minister seized the power by organising a coup d’Etat and created a socialist state with a one party system. Parliamentary democracy was re-established in 1993. In March 1998 and in August 2001, President France-Albert René was re-elected.

14

Politics A British colony until 1976, the Seychelles became a one party state between 1977 and 1991, with a socialistic orientation. In 1993, after the return to a parliamentary democracy, the Seychelles People’s Progressive Front (SPPF) of President René won the Parliament’s elections. With the reintroduction of a democratic multi-party system, the opposition parties held only 4 of 34 seats (Seychelles National Party 3, Democratic Party 1) and the control over the economy and the press by the party still mattered. In the parliament elections of 2002, the SPPF won 23 of the 34 seats. Further more, the presidential elections took place two years ahead, in 2001. President René was re-elected with 55% of the votes and the opposition leader of the Seychelles National Party (SNP), Wavel Ramkalawan, got 45% of the votes. The freedom of the press is guaranteed. Within the government strategy, particular attention is given to human rights, equality between man and woman and environmental protection. The latter is also a priority area for co-operation with other countries. Within this context, the Seychelles signed different international environmental conventions (for examples see appendix G1.1). Population Inhabitants of the Seychelles are the “Seychellois”. The Seychellois are mostly creoles, having their roots in French and African people (Därr, 1984). Most of the inhabitants are Roman Catholic and speak a creole language, a language that is very close to French. The Creole language has been developed during the slavery, where people with different linguistic origins tried to find a way to communicate between each other. Other ethnic groups, namely the Chinese and the Indians, came on the island about 100 years ago. Whereas the Indian did not mixed with other ethnic groups, the Chinese people intermixed with the Seychellois. A great cultural homogeneity can thus be observed in the Seychelles society. The official languages in the Seychelles are Creole, English and French. The mid-year population size in 2001 was 81’202 inhabitants, with 39’973 males and 41’229 females (Management and Information Systems Division (MISD), 2003a). 98% of the population is living on the three main islands: 88% on Mahé, about 8% on Praslin and about 2.6% on La Digue. The median age of the population is 26.9 years (Switzerland: 40.2 years). 28% of the population belongs to the age group of 0-14 years. Since the 1960s, the population has doubled and it is projected, that the population will exceed 100’000 inhabitants in 2015. The growth rate of the population highly decreased in the last 50 years. Presently, the growth rate is 0.49%. Economy The information given in this section are taken from the statistical abstract of the Seychelles. Since the completion of the airport in 1971 and the independence in 1976, the per capita income has grown to about seven times the near-subsistence level that existed before (Commercial Data International (CDI), 2000). Growth had been led by the tourism sector and more recently by tuna fishing. The tourism sector employs 18% of the total workforce and provides more than 70% of hard currency earnings. In 2002, the Gross Development Product (GDP) was estimated to be about US$ 690 million, compared to US$ 640 million in 2000 (Management and Information Systems Division (MISD), 2002a). With a population of 81’131 individuals (2000 census), this represents a GDP per capita of US$ 79001. In terms of global ranking, this places the Seychelles to rank 160 out of 182 countries in term of GDP and to rank 36 in term of

1 Calculating with the exchange rate of the 7th March 7, 2004, where 1 US$ = 5.18 SR, the GDP per capita represents SR40’922.

15

GDP per capita. The economic performance of the Seychelles is ranked by the UNDP as “high human development”. In comparison, Switzerland is ranked 17 in term of GDP with US$ 268’041 billion and 10 in term of GDP per capita with US$ 28’100. Regarding the GDP by kind of economic activity (see Figure B 2), it can be observed that the primary sector (agriculture & Fisheries) contributes to 3% of the GDP, the secondary sector (manufacturing and construction) to 25% of the GDP and the tertiary sector (services) to 72% of the GDP. The tourism sector, which belongs to the tertiary sector, contributes to 18% of the GDP.

Figure B 2: Gross Domestic Product by sector of activity (Adapted from Management and Information Systems Division (MISD), 2003a).

Primary sector: agriculture and fishing: The primary sector employs about 6.6% of the workforce. The tuna fishing is the most flourishing industry. It contributes to 85% of the exports and is the second major source of foreign exchange earnings. The largest agricultural exports are fish, cinnamon, coconut and beverages and tobacco. Over the last four years, the country has produced 100% of eggs, 95% of poultry meat, 70% of pork and 20% of beef consumed locally. It is further estimated that 60% of fruit and vegetable consumption was produced locally (Commercial Data International (CDI), 1998). Secondary sector: Manufacturing and Construction: The secondary sector employs 19.7% of the workforce. Manufacturing is the largest industrial sector and includes fishing, processing of coconuts and vanilla, coconut fiber, boat building, printing, furniture and beverages. The three other industrial sectors are constructions, mining and energy. Mining production consists mostly of clay, sand, coral and stone (Commercial Data International (CDI), 2000). Tertiary sector: services: The service sector employs about 73.7% of the workforces. The main sections in this sector are trade and transport, tourism, government and finance & services. The tourism sector employs 18% of the workforce (Management and Information Systems Division (MISD), 2003a). Since 1997, there is a decrease in the governmental budget deficit (deficit of 453 millions Rupees in 1997 compared to 341 million Rupees in 2001). On the other hand, the deficit of the balance of trade is continuously growing. In 1997, the balance of trade (exports revenues minus imports expenditures) was minus 955 million Rupees. In 2001, the latter was minus 1165 million Rupees.

Gross Domestic Product at Current Market Prices, 2000

18%

25%

3% 6% 13%

25%

10%

Tourim related Trade and Transport Agric. & FisheriesOther Government Manuf. & Constrct.Finance & Services

16

The main import partners in 2001 were USA (26.2%), France (9.8%), South Africa (6.8%), Spain (6.6%), Italy (6.4%), UK (6.1%) and Singapore (5.8%). The main export partners in 2001 were UK (57.1%), France (38.3%), Italy (23.2%) and Germany (9.3%). Even with the growing income of the tourism industry, the increased deficit in the balance of trade consequently increased the deficit in the balance of payment (which includes goods, services, income and transfers) from minus 332 million Rupees in 1997 to minus 812 million Rupees in 2001. The increase in the deficit of the balance of payment is also due to a considerable increase in the amount of money that is quitting the country because of foreign employment (minus 0.7 million Rupees in 1997 and minus 67.2 million Rupees in 2001).

B2 Tourism in the Seychelles

B2.1 International situation General Situation The travel and tourism industry is firmly established as one of the world’s largest industry (World Tourism Organisation (WTO), 2003). Globally, the industry has been expanding at an average annual rate in international tourist arrivals of 5.2% between 1985 and 1999 (Hunter, 2002). Tourism is widely regarded as the fastest growing economic sector in terms of foreign exchange earnings and employment. By the 1990s, the tourism sector generated about 11% of the global Gross Development Product (GDP) and 10% of jobs globally (Honey, 1999), making the tourism sector the world number one employer. In 2000, there were about 698 million international tourist arrivals generating US$ 476 billion in receipt and is setting the stage for 200 million jobs (Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT), 2000). According to WTO tourist arrivals will reach one billion by 2010 and 1.6 billion by 2020 (see Figure B 3), corresponding to annual growth rate of 4.1% respectively 6.7% and the tourism sector is expected to contribute to 12% of the global GDP.

Figure B 3: Growth of international tourist arrivals from 1950 until 2002 and the forecast until 2020 (World Tourism Organisation (WTO), 2003).

17

Furthermore, the future trends should be characterised by a higher growth than the average in tourist arrivals in Asia/Oceania, America and Africa. Other trends are a growing diversification of tourism, an increased interest in activity holidays and an increased interest in travelling to natural and undisturbed areas (Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1996). Small Island Development States (SIDS): Small Island Development States (SIDS), like the Seychelles are fragile ecosystems, which often are dependent from tourism. Typical characteristics of SIDS are their geographical isolation, their small physical size, the ecological uniqueness, the limited natural resources, the susceptibility to climate change and sea-level rise, their high import content and small economies with limited diversification possibilities (Ghina, 2003). As tourism is a booming sector with a considerable capacity to have impacts on fragile natural areas, SIDS must face both an opportunity and a challenge: the opportunity to increase foreign exchange earnings and to generate employment and the challenge to preserve the ecosystem which supports the socio-economic life in small islands (World Tourism Organisation (WTO), 2003). Because of the ecological fragility and the economic vulnerability of SIDS, it is of huge importance for them to pursue sustainable development options. In order to support sustainable development of SIDS, specific actions and measures were set in 1994 in the Barbados Programme of Action (BPoA). On the 30th of August 2004, an international meeting in Mauritius for the 10 years review of the BPoA is planned (Small Island Developing States Network, 2004).

B2.2 Tourism as a main economic factor Seychelles’ tourism industry: If not otherwise stated, the information given in this section are taken from the Vision 21. The Seychelles underlie the basic conditions to develop the tourism industry: small islands, year-round exposed to warm temperatures, no vaccination required, stunning beaches and a unique and fascinating nature (see appendix G2.4). Tourism began with the rise of civil aviation in the 1960s and emerged in the 1980s as the most important economic sector. The number of visitors passed from about 3’000 in the late 1960s to more than 70’000 in the late 1970s and stabilised at about 125’000-130’000 since the middle of the 1990s. The year 1996 marks a peak with 130’955 arrivals. Afterwards, the visitor arrivals declined to 124’865 in 1999 and reached a second peak in 2002 with 132’246 arrivals. In 2003, the Seychelles experienced again a decline (-7%). Looking at the global trends in the last 10 years and at the Seychelles performance, an inconsistency can be observed. Compared to other island destinations, for example La Réunion and Mauritius, only the Seychelles’ Republic did not reach an increase in tourist arrivals (see Figure B 4). With a new governmental campaign and a marketing strategy (Seychelles Nation, 2000a), the Seychelles authorities aim to diversify markets, to upgrade hotels and guesthouses with the goal to convert the Seychelles to a three to five star destination (Seychelles Nation, 2000b), and to increase tourist arrivals to about 200’000 visitors per year in 2010 (Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT), 2000). An explicit sign of the new policy of the Seychelles to force high-level tourism are luxurious five star establishment projects, like the Lemuria hotel on Praslin opened in 2001 and the North Island Resort, opened in 2003. Currently, a hotel project on Aldabra (World Heritage site) is under consideration.

18

Figure B 4: comparison of the tourist arrivals between 1995 and 2001 on three different islands: La Réunion, Mauritius and the Seychelles (Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT), 2004).

Contribution of tourism to the economy: In terms of foreign exchange earnings and of employment, the Seychelles depend on a high grade on Tourism (see chapter B0). According to the Management Information Systems Division (MIDS), tourism receipts increased from SR330.9 million in 1980, to SR645.5 million in 1990 and declined to SR 600 million in 2000 (see Table B 1). The high dependency of the Seychelles on the tourism industry can be assed by beholding tourism receipt as percentage of exports. There is an estimation that the tourism income in the Seychelles is greater than 193.8% of the value of exports (Gössling, 1999). Table B 1: Basic data of the tourism industry in the Seychelles in the last 7 years. As comparison there are also data, as far as available, from 1990.

With the new tourism strategy, the Seychelles authorities developed a vision for the years 2000-2010. The aim of this vision is to expand capacity and to increase yields. There are currently about 5’000 beds available. 2’062 beds have already been approved and 1’568 beds are further in project (Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT), 2000). Apart from large hotels, tourist infrastructures include small hotels and guesthouses as well as self-catering guesthouses. The average expenditure per diem per visitor fluctuated considerably in the last 10 years. In 2002 tourism yield was SR531 per day. The objective of the new tourism strategy is to increase the yield to SR770 by 2005 and to SR825 by 2010 (Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT), 2000). A further objective is to increase

Arrival of non-resident tourists

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year

Num

ber o

f tou

rists

Mauritius

Reunion

Seychelles

Year

Number of visitor arrivals

Purpose of visit (holiday) in % of arrivals

Average length of stay

Average of beds available

Bed occupancy rate (%)

Tourism expenditures in Million Ruppee

Average expenditure per diem per visitor (Rupees)

1990 103'770 89.6 10.1 / 67 645.5 6161996 130'955 85.1 9.7 4490 57 524.5 4131997 130'070 85.2 10.3 4600 65 612.5 4571998 128'258 86.2 10.5 4730 53 583.8 4341999 124'865 88.4 10.4 4780 53 596.2 4602000 130'046 90.5 10.4 5000 52 600.0 4452001 129'762 89.5 10.4 4940 51 648.8 4802002 132'246 88.5 10.1 4780 51 706.4 531

19

the bed-occupancy rate from 51% to at least 65%, thus to the rate of the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s. Tourism and the natural environment: Because of the natural environment, which is frequently the primary attraction for tourists, the success of the tourism is depending on the quality of the environment (United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 1998). The natural environment of the Seychelles is characterised by a high biodiversity. There are over 70 endemic plant species and about 80 endemic animal species (Duncombe, 1996). The biodiversity of small islands is highly vulnerable to changes. Consequently, the Seychelles Republic is investing in environmental conservation. The first conservation measure was adopted in 1874, when the first reserve was created (Fond Ferninand La Morne, Praslin). Currently, about 47% of the terrestrial surface is protected for environmental purposes (Ministry of Environment and Transport (MET), 1999). In 1990, with the initiation of the first Environment Management Plan of Seychelles, the Seychelles officially smoothed the way towards a sustainable development. However, the efforts set on conservation issues are based on a trade-off: The natural environment of the Seychelles largely contributes to attract wealthy tourists. The tourism development is linked to an increase in foreign exchange earnings and to employment generation, but also to an increase in constructions, imports, resource consumption and waste generation.

B2.3 Project area

B2.3.1 General Information Location and Topography The project area, La Digue Island, is the fourth largest island of the Seychelles and is situated at about 50 km on the northeast side of Mahé, close to Praslin, Marianne Félicité and the Sister Islands. The area of La Digue is 981 hectares, with a maximal length of 5km and a maximal width of 3.5 km. The island is mountainous and flat land is rare. The highest point on La Digue, situated at the east of the island, lies at 333 metres and is called “Nid d’Aigle” (Figure B 5). Another hill on the southwest reaches 150 metres, while the coastal plateau corresponds to areas below 10 metres above sea level. The flat land areas represent less than 15% of the total island area and thus the topography of the island is a major constraint for the economic development (Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT), 2000). As a consequence, most activities take place on the plateau area, in the coastal zone (Lundin & Lindén, 1995).

20

Figure B 5 History and land use La Digue takes its name from one of the French vessels that were sent in 1768 to explore the granitic islands (As pure as it gets, 2004). After the slavery period, it seems that the island was divided into four parts, each part being attributed to one person. Today, the situation is different: The southwest part of the Island (Union Estate) and some areas on the western Plateau are governmental properties, while the other territories are private ones. The earlier history of La Digue is comparable to that of the Seychelles (see chapter B1), and therefore the following section introduces only the development concerning the topic of the study of the last 30 years. In the 1970s, agriculture was playing an important role on the island (Ministry of Land Use and Habitat (MLUH), 1999). At different places on the coastal plateau there was patchouli, vanilla, copra, coconut and cinnamon plantations. Also the fishing industry played a great economic role. At this time, more than 70% of the income was generated by agriculture and fishing and many products were exported. Another industry that was also flourishing was the boat construction. Tourism started at that time and the first hotel (The La Digue Island Lodge) has been built in 1970.

The 1980s were characterized by the reduction of agriculture and fishery. Patchouli and cinnamon productions were stopped, while vanilla and coconut plantations were reduced. At this time, the roads were still not asphalted (Wolf, 1983) and just ten cars were used either for agriculture, fishery or for the boat construction industry. According to the 1987 census, 40% of the total population (1926 inhabitants) were involved in agriculture and

Figure B5: Representation of La Digue Island. On the left side, the actual state with the main infrastructures and development areas is illustrated. The large hotel corresponds to the La Digue Island Lodge. The two stars represent the two hills. Other aspects are given in the legend. On the right side the topographic structure on La Digue Island is shown.

La Passe Jetty

Anse Réunion

Union Estate

Nid d’Aigle Plateau area

21

fishery, making this sector still the first one on the island. In 1987, when the Land Use Plan of La Digue was being prepared, 339 hectares of land were labelled as having good agricultural potentials, while 110 ha were cultivated (Ministry of Land Use and Habitat (MLUH), 1999). However, there was no more than one large hotel and two guesthouses on the entire island. The end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s reflect a rapid expansion of the tourism industry and a further reduction of agriculture and fishing. The boat construction industry also loosed importance. Between 1987 and 1997, 20 new hotels and guesthouses have been built on the island (Ministry of Land Use and Habitat (MLUH), 1999), and the tourism industry became by far the most important one on the island. New roads were constructed and surfaced and the number of motor vehicles increased to 40. According to the 1997 census (Management and Information Systems Division (MISD), 1997), from a total population of 1998 persons, only 13.8% were involved in agricultural and fishing activities. The area used for agricultural purposes dropped down to 5.2 hectares in favor of houses, hotels and other constructions. Currently about 45% of the plateau area is occupied (see Figure B 5). Population In 2002, a census counted 2099 people (Management and Information Systems Division (MISD), 2002a) on La Digue. This corresponds to 2.6% of the total population of the Seychelles. From 1997 to 2002, the population has increased by 101 persons giving a population growth rate of 20.2 person/year which is much higher than the one observed between 1987 and 1997 (7.2 person/year) (Management and Information Systems Division (MISD), 1997) (see Figure B 6). In 1997, 46% of the population were over 30 years old while they were 51% in 2002. The increase of the population’s growth rate on La Digue is a consequence of the development and the modernisation of the island. One interpretation is that most of the people, who did leave La Digue for Praslin or Mahé, came back afterwards. The increase of the population size in the last five years is also reflected by the number of houses built in this period. Between 1997 and 2002, 114 additional houses were built compared to 46 additional houses between 1987 and 1997.

Figure B 6: Population growth rate between 1987 and 2001. Between 1987 and 1997, the population growth rate was of 0.36%/year. Since 1997, the growth rate is of 1.01%/year.

Population growth on La Digue

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

2050

2100

2150

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001 years

Popu

latio

n si

ze

Populationgrowth onLa Digue

22

According to the population census of 1996 (Environment - Recources - Oceans (ENVI-R-O), 1996), La Digue has, with 1.9 persons per hectares, the highest population density after Mahé (4 persons per ha). Most of the population is living on the coastal plateau. The spread of nuclear families and the government policy to provide every Seychellois family a house is related to a continual rise in human settlement. On La Digue Island, it is estimated that about 2/3 of the population is concentrated in an area of about 38 hectares. This corresponds to the areas of “La Passe” and “Anse Réunion”, on the western side of the island (see figure B5). In these areas, the population density reached therefore 35 persons per hectare. Comparable with the Seychelles, the repartition of genders is almost equal. According the 2002 census, the gender repartition on La Digue was 51% female and 49% male. From the total population, 26.2% is under 15 years old. Children are going to the primary and the secondary school until the age of 16. Further education possibilities do not exist and young people have to move to Praslin or Mahé. For the tourism industry on La Digue, this lack of further education is reflected in the working forces, which could not get a professional education. Politics & Regulations General structure: As mentioned in chapter B1, the capital Victoria is situated on Mahé, the main island of the Seychelles. Therefore, the decision making process for islands, like La Digue, is not taking place on the concerned island, but on Mahé. This leads to potential conflicts and to a lack of co-operation between the authorities and the island’s population. This problem, due to the “physical” separation of the competent authorities concerning planning decisions, led four years ago to the creation of the “La Digue Development Board (LDDB)”. The LDDB is a semi-autonomous authority, which plans the future development of the island. One of the goals is that the LDDB becomes an independent authority, making its own decisions concerning the future development of La Digue Island. The governmental authorities on Mahé would then become consultative authorities. The LDDB is divided in three sub-committees, namely:

• Architecture and Construction

• Tourism and Transport

• Environment As the LDDB is a very young authority, the decision-making process is still mainly carried out in Mahé. Yet, the LDDB is working in collaboration with the Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT) and the Ministry of Land Use and Habitat (MLUH) on a policy concerning the strategy of the future development of the island. Besides the LDDB, there is also a district administration on La Digue, which plays the role of an interface between the needs of the local community and the authorities on Mahé. Planning process: Regarding the tourism development on La Digue, for each tourist infrastructures project the enquiry first goes to the MTT, at the section for Tourism Planning and Development. The project is first evaluated on a set of criteria and sent afterwards to other ministries. At this stage of the project evaluation, the LDDB can also make some comments, give its agreement or refusal. Finally the project evaluation goes at the government, to the Cabinet of Ministries. This cabinet evaluates the project with the comments of the different authorities and makes the final decision.

23

Beside the geographical separation of decisions and implementation of a project, there is also a certain disparity within the island, as some persons obtain more easily an agreement on their requested projects than others. Despite this, there is willingness on Mahé to diminish these disparities and to include in a better manner, the wishes of the local population into the planning procedure (see also participation, D1.2.4). Law enforcement: A key issue regarding the implementation of decisions taken on Mahé concerns the enforcement of laws. Legislation is still the primary instrument used to implement environmental decisions in the Seychelles (Ministry of Environment and Transport (MET), 1999). There are different regulations of environmental concerns that are only little enforced, e.g. sand extraction, cutting of protected tree species, hunting protected animals for eating, etc. (for examples of relevant laws, see appendix G1). This is probably due to a lack of environmental awareness and also to the above mentioned separation of decision-making processes. Besides regulations that are anchored in laws, the Land Use Plan (LUP), which is elaborated by the MLUH, is also of importance. Since the last two years, the MLUH is developing a land use plan for La Digue, in which a precise zoning of the land use is proposed. This plan is still under development. The LUP is not bounded to the law and thus serves as a kind of guiding instrument for the planning of the future development on La Digue. In the past, this plan was not strictly followed. This becomes obvious while regarding the differences of the area planned for agricultural land use within the LUP of 1988 (339 ha) and the actual existing agricultural area (40.4 ha are planned in the new LUP and 5.2 ha are currently used for agrarian purposes) (see also above, history and land use).

B2.3.2 Natural environment General Information The natural environment of La Digue Island is characterized by a multifaceted landscape. The mosaic structure of the environment is influenced by substrate heterogeneity, like hills and wetlands causing vegetation patchiness and by human activity, like cutting woodlots and building roads (Forman, 1995). Different habitat types can be found from the sea level up to the hills. These are the beach and dune vegetation, with coconut palms and other trees, the glacis or rocky areas that offer a range of microhabitats with endemic species and the lowland forest, with native tree species like Takamaka and Badamier. The latter is found on the Plateau area of La Digue (see Figure B 3). The Plateau area is further characterized by an extensive area of swamps and lagoons and by human settlement. Over 50 metres above sea level, almost no constructions anymore are encountered. Only bush vegetation and a large mixed forest area with Albizia as dominating tree specie are observed. Threat to the natural environment Since the beginning of the anthropogenic development in the late 18th century, irreversible impacts are already observed. For example, 54% of the flora on La Digue is now composed of exotic plants (Stoddart, 1984) due simply to the introduction of exotics plants for agrarian purposes, mainly during the colonization period.. These plants have a great invasion potential and pose thus a threat to the endemic species. Furthermore, wetlands, which are frequently found on the back of the plateau, have been partly drained for cultivation. These wetlands play a great role in the hydrology of the coastal zone (see D1.2.3). Anyhow, one of the largest remaining marshes in the Seychelles, with 18 hectares, is found on La Digue today.

24

The coastal zone, defined through the interface between land and sea, is the first place that attracts tourists. Modifications of the coastline, for example through the construction of breakwaters by hoteliers, are an important risk factor for beach erosion. On La Digue, 26% of the beaches are considered as critically endangered (Cazet-Duvat & Robert, 2001). The degradation of beaches has already causes the lost of 40% of the egg-lying sites for the Hawksbill turtle between 1984 and 2000. Protective measures Even though 47% of the total land area of the Seychelles is under environmental protection, it is less than 1% on La Digue. Only the Veuve Special Reserve (Biodiversity and Conservation Act, 1969, Order S/I 8/1991), an area of 8.3 hectares, stands under protection status. The main conservation value of this area is the mature coastal woodland, with Takamaka and Badamier trees, which are playing a great role as a habitat for the Paradise Flycatcher bird (Tersiphone Corvina) (Currie, David, 2002). The Paradise Flycatcher (Vev in Creole) is an endemic bird of the Seychelles, which is globally considered as critically endangered. Currently, La Digue is the only island in the Seychelles, where this bird can still be found. Because of the Paradise Flycatcher and also the Seychelles Swiflet (Collocalia Elephra), La Digue is recognized as an Important Bird Area (IBA). Moreover, there is also one marine area that stands under environmental protection (Fisheries Act, 1987 CAP 82), namely the shell reserve that extends from the northwest to the northeast of the island (see Figure B 3).

B2.3.3 Tourism on La Digue Island Marketing of La Digue Stars of the Bacardi ads, the incomparable beaches of La Digue with reddish granite rocks are one of the main reasons for tourists to visit La Digue (see chapter D1.2). Travel agencies are furthermore promoting La Digue, as one of the only island of the Seychelles, where the roots of the traditional way of life can be enjoyed. The island is thus well known for its calm and relaxed atmosphere, where the main transport mode is the ox-cart and the bicycle. Tourism development on La Digue Since the end of the 1980s, 20 new hotels and guesthouses have been built on La Digue. The road network was extended and more than the half of the road have been surfaced. The number of motor vehicles has increased to 49 vehicles, and many tourists are renting a vehicle to visit the whole island in one day. The frequent connections by boat between Praslin and La Digue have further the consequence that tourists can visit La Digue in a day trip but in average, stay for only 2-3 days. As a comparison, tourists were spending weeks on La Digue when tourism just began in the Seychelles. The increase in visitor arrivals and the related development of tourism and tourism services, has induced a more modern lifestyle, as observed in Mahé. Traditional activities are now neglected and the community wishes the same comfort as on Mahé. It is an output of interviews, that the community becomes more and more attached to tourism as it offers the possibility to get “quick money”. The rapid extension of tourism and the simultaneous reduction of the traditional features of La Digue pose the question whether or not the tourism on La Digue can keep its image in the long term, while continuing developing.

25

Objectives of the governmental authorities As the point of this study is to find out, what are the economic, ecological and social impacts of possible future tourism development (see chapter A2), it is of interest to look at the objectives of different governmental authorities involved in tourism planning (see Table B 2). These objectives, sometimes contradictory, were taken into account within this study, while choosing relevant factors that have an impact on the future tourism development and while generating scenarios (see chapter D1). Table B 2: Tourism development objectives of different authorities of the Seychelles

Objectives Authorities - Expand the bed capacity. An increase of 30-40% is considered.

- Ensure that the carrying capacity of La Digue is not exceeded (Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT), 2000)

Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT)

- Ensure that the proposed Land Use Plan is implemented. The MLUH proposed to keep key areas (from the east to the south west of La Digue) without any constructions (Ministry of Land Use and Habitat (MLUH), 2003)

Ministry of Land Use and Habitat (MLUH)

- Develop an “eco-” orientated tourism on La Digue (Rath (2003), personal communication)

Ministry of Environment (MoE)

-Give the natural environment and the traditional way of life priority over development (La Digue Development Board (LDDB), 1999)

La Digue Development Board (LDDB)

26

C. Methods In this study an emphasis is done on the inclusion of transdisciplinary methods. The main idea of a transdisciplinary study is to go beyond science and to include the knowledge, the interests and the values of stakeholders (Scholz et al., 2002). Academic and practical knowledge are thus brought together. In this study different participative processes were used to ensure that the opinion of stakeholders are included throughout the work. These processes and the two main methods are presented below.

C1 Proceeding The following Table C1 gives an overview on the methodological proceeding of this study. Phases two and three present the main part of the study, namely the scenario analysis (phase 2) and the MAUT (phase 3). The methodological proceeding of these phases is described in the two following sections (C2 and C3). Because a special emphasis of this study was on the participation of stakeholders, different activities were conducted during the entire study to inform stakeholders on the state of the project and to ensure the inclusion of their knowledge. These activities are presented at the bottom of the table. Table C1:Methodological proceeding of the four phases of the study. At the bottom of the table the different activities that were accomplished in order to integrate stakeholders, who exert an influence on the tourism development are listed. The dashed line ahead of the arrow below the table represents the work that was done before the beginning of the six months study.

1 Preparatory

work

2 Scenario analysis

System knowledge

3 Scenario

evaluation (MAUT)

4 Interpretation

& Report

Met

hodo

logi

cal p

roce

dure

Definition of the objective of the study Working out the concept of the study Literature research

System characteristics: Acquisition of information of the project area Definition of impact factors Literature research

Scenario evaluation:Semi-formative and formative scenario analysis Consistency analysis: Verification of the consistency of the generated scenarios Scenario construction

Determination of sustainability criteria and attributes Data based evaluation Stakeholder based evaluation

Discussion of the results Data analysis and writing up the report.

27

1 Preparatory

work

2 Scenario analysis

System knowledge

3 Scenario

evaluation (MAUT)

4 Interpretation

& Report Tr

ansd

isci

plin

ary

elem

ents

First contacts with MTT Presentation of the concept of the study Article in a local newspaper

Business trip with Swiss tour operators Expert interviews Questionnaire to tour operators Article in a local newspaper

Expert interviews Presentation of the study in a workshop Working groups Scenario Workshop with 40 participants Article in national newspaper Transmission of the study in the TV news

Expert interviews Interviews of tourists and the local population

Presentation of the study and discussion on the results (after the study).

C2 Scenario analysis One important goal of the development of possible future development states is to find out, what impeding growth are related to tourism development on La Digue Island, according to the most relevant social, economic and ecological factors. In order to present different possibilities of La Digue’s tourism development, scenarios are constructed to reflect the future development of the island under certain frameworks. These scenarios should provide to decision-makers a scientific groundwork for the further planning of the tourist activities.

C2.1 The methodology in brief The scenario analysis is an instrument of planning, which allows getting inside of a case and highlighting possible future states of the case. Within a case, a problem is analysed with certain methodological approaches and in a defined geographical and time context. The scenario technique was developed in the middle of the sixties by Kahn and Wiener, who defined a scenario as “a hypothetical sequence of events constructed for the purpose of focussing attention on causal processes and decision points” (Kahn, 1967, p.6). Today it is used successfully in strategic business planning, in technology assessment and sciences. “Scenarios labour with today’s issues but look at them from the viewpoint of different possible futures. This adds new important knowledge that can be used in the definition of objectives, strategies and operational plans” (Network, 2003). The scenario analysis is an approach that is usually performed in a team. The starting point of each scenario is the actual state of the case. Depending on the development of the case’s environment, different images for the future can be described. Therefore “a scenario describes a hypothetical future state of a system and provides information on its development up to this state” (Scholz & Tietje, 2002). The construction of future states is done in two steps:

Time period: six months

28

• First, the decomposition of the case to identify relevant impact factors will reduce the complexity of the considered case.

• Second, in the synthesis step, the impact factors are combined to different consistent possible future states. These scenarios should cover the various development paths exemplary (Missler-Behr, 1993).

Even if there is no recognised methodical procedure for carrying out a scenario analysis, there is a general agreement on the basic phases that have to be included in this analysis. According to Missler-Behr (Missler-Behr, 1993), the rough classification of the three basic phases is the following: Phase 1: Analysis The object of investigation is delimitated and defined. The description of the system properties allows assembling basic information, which are needed to characterise the initial situation. Another important aspect is the identification and structuring of the most important impact factors. Phase 2: Projections It is the quantitative and calculative part of the scenario analysis. It initiates the synthesis process. Development, description and interpretation of the system models are the main elements of phase 2. Phase 3: Synthesis The Synthesis consists of the final formulation and selection of the scenarios. Furthermore, the interpretation of the implications of the scenarios is made. According to Scholz et al. (Scholz & Tietje, 2002), these phases can be split into different steps that are worked out sequentially in the formative or systematic scenario analysis (Figure C 1). In the next section, the nine steps performed in this study are presented.

C2.2 The nine steps of the formative scenario analysis The nine steps of the scenario analysis presented below enable to conduct a systematic scenario analysis. This has been done as much as possible but, due to a lack of material in the study area, it should be noted that the strict formal way could not be followed at every points of the work. However, the systematic way of analysis was integrated as a feedback loop to verify the accuracy of the procedure.

29

Figure C 1:The nine steps of the formative scenario analysis Adapted from (Scholz & Tietje, 2002)

C2.2.1 Goal definition First, the objectives of performing the scenario analysis must be defined. The geographical, the time and the content boundary of the study as well as the target groups of the analysis have to be determined. This is important to direct the investigation of the study.

C2.2.2 System Characteristics The analysis of the system characteristics enables to determine important structures and dynamics of the research area. This step helps to determine the relevant components regarding a sustainable tourism development. Through literature research, expert interviews and questionnaires to tour operators, the basic information that enable to establish the current state of the tourism development in the Seychelles generally and on La Digue specifically, were assembled. These information enabled further the author the performance of the Strengths-Weaknesses-Options-Threats (SWOT) analysis, which constitutes one main outcome and is the basis for the determination of the impact factors. Further more, the determination of the current state is done through the characterisation of the economic, ecological, social and infrastructural situation on La Digue.

C2.2.3 Impact factors The aim of this step is to identify the most important impact factors, that describe the current state of the investigated case and its dynamics, and that influence the future development of the research area. In this study, this is done by using a top-down procedure, where domains of impact are first determined and potential impact factors for each domain are then listed (Scholz & Tietje, 2002). The determination of factors that have a direct impact on the system was accomplished by using mind mapping, brainstorming, literature review and expert interviews. Moreover, these methods were used to choose a set of impact factors, which influences the sustainable tourism development on La Digue Island, and which is related to thresholds. This means that the set of impact factors should cover a large range of sustainability issues while their number should be as small as possible. Normally the set should not exceed 20 factors (Scholz & Tietje, 2002). In this study, the following procedure was used to reduce the initial number of impact factors to a set of fifteen factors:

• Five domains of impacts, namely the economy, the ecology, the society, the politic and the infrastructures were determined. The choice of impact factors was conducted to ensure that these five domains were represented. Due to the large

1. Goal Definition 2. System characteristics 3. Impact factors

4. Impact Matrix

9. Scenario assessment

5. Evaluation

1. Goal Definition

6. Characteristic levels of the impact factors

7. Consistency analysis

8. Scenario construction

30

number of these factors, a selection was first carried out by the author to keep the most appropriate ones. Then, factors that implicitly include comparable aspects were joined. This enabled to reduce the impact factors to a set of 29 factors (see Table G 1).

• The organization of two working groups, one with environmental experts and another with experts of the tourism industry (see appendix G6 for participants) allowed to choose the 15 factors that were considered as the most relevant. Because of the complexity of the environmental system of a small island like La Digue, the working group with experts working at the Ministry of Environment (MoE) focused on ecological factors. Through a discussion process, the four most relevant factors were determined (see chapter D1.3). Within the second working group, with experts working at the Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT), all factors were discussed. The 29 impact factors were presented and the participants were first asked if something was missing and if the set of impact factors was relevant for the problem. Each person was then asked to rate the factors with regards to the main goal of the study and in accordance to a rating system (from 1 = factor has a very high importance to 5 = factor has a very low importance). Factors that were rated differently by some participants were discussed in a second round.

• Within the working groups (see appendix G6) it has been decided that if an impact factor could not be sufficiently described in an accurate manner, because of a lack of information, the latter would also be eliminated. This concerned above all economic factors.

C2.2.4 Impact matrix The impact matrix enables to determine the both-sided impacts of the factors. Thereby, only direct impacts are considered. The set of impact factors is listed within a two-dimensional table, whereby the interactions between the factors (row on column) are assessed, using a three level rating:

• 0 = No direct impact

• 1 = Low direct impact

• 2 = Strong direct impact

(For an example of the visualization of such a matrix see appendix Table G 2) Once the impact matrix is fulfilled, the activity and the passivity of the impact factors can be calculated in order to find out the factors that have the most influence on other ones i.e. the key factors for the development. The sum of the rows corresponds to the activity, that means the degree by which a factor has influence on other factors, and the sum of the columns corresponds to the passivity of the impact factors, that means the degree by which a factor is influenced by other factors. In this study the fulfilment of the impact matrix was done in a participative process. Using the results of the working groups and the expert interviews, the author fulfilled the matrix. Afterwards each interaction of two factors was discussed with the core team (see appendix G6). This enabled to confirm or even change the proposed impacts between the factors.

C2.2.5 Evaluation The evaluation of the impact matrix, the system grid, the system graph and the MIC-MAC analysis enable a better understanding of the interactions between the impact factors and

31

X2 X1

X3 X4

a further reduction of the impact factors (see below). This plays a role for the formulation of the scenarios. Furthermore, through the system grid and graph, the impact matrix can directly be visualized. System grid The system grid enables the visualization of the activity, the passivity, the ambivalent or buffer behaviour of the impact factors. It is a two-dimensional system of co-ordinates, where the x-axis represents the passivity and the y-axis the activity (see appendix Figure G 1). The mean of the total activity and passivity divides the grid into four domains:

• Active factors are represented at the top of the grid on the left side. These are factors with a strong influence on other factors, but which are barely influenced by other elements.

• Passive factors are on the bottom of the grid on the right side. These are factors, which are strongly influenced by other factors but which do not directly influence other elements.

• Ambivalent factors are found at the top of the grid on the right side. These are factors that strongly influence other factors and vive versa.

• Buffer factors are on the bottom of the grid on the left side and are factors that influence barely other factors and vice versa.

System graph Within the system graph the interactions between the factors are visualized. The influences that factors have on other ones are represented with arrows, with the orientation of the arrows giving the impact direction. MIC-MAC analysis The MIC-MAC analysis allows determining the indirect impacts of the impact factors (see Figure C 2). Factors that present a high indirect value are factors that exert a strong influence by the means of other factors. This enables to find out if some factors were over or under estimated, and if some factors can be eliminated. Using a specific software (Tietje, 2002), the indirect impacts are generated by multiplying the impact matrix with itself until the ranking order of the sum of the rows and columns become stable. By comparing the ranking of direct and indirect impacts, factors with a high indirect value are highlighted.

Figure C 2: Indirect impacts of the impact factors. Even if there is no direct impact between X3 and X4, X3 influence indirectly X4 through the direct impact on X2 and the impact of X2 on X1, which both influence directly X4 (Missler-Behr, 1993). Reduction of the impact factors In the study, the evaluation of the impact matrix and the visualisation of this matrix within a system grid and graph were first carried out without the support of the MIC-MAC analysis, the specialised software being not available at that time. The further reduction of the impact factors was based on the following arguments (Wiek, Arnim, 2002):

32

• Factors with a poor activity and passivity score can be eliminated

• Factors with comparable activity and passivity can be merged in one factor

• The selected impact factors should be essential to reach the objective of the scenario analysis (see chapter D1.1). This enables to keep buffer factors.

Out of this process, the 15 elements were reduced to 12. It has to be noted that the MIC-MAC analysis has still been carried out at the end of the study and verifies the results of this step. System graph for the reduced set of impact factors After the reduction procedure, the remaining factors and their respective impacts can again be visualised within a system graph. This graph represents the model of the system “Sustainable Tourism on La Digue Island”.

C2.2.6 Characteristic levels of the impact factors The generation of different scenarios is done through the combination of characteristic levels of the impact factors, which describes a possible development or state of the system. The characteristic levels are established differently, depending if qualitative or quantitative data are determined. The spatial and time dimensions of the scenarios are included in the determination of the characteristic levels of the impact factors. Generally, two quite antagonist levels of the impact factors are defined (Wiek, Arnim, 2002). In addition, one of the two levels is reflecting mostly the actual state. The restriction on two characteristic levels is done to reduce the complexity of the generation of possible future development states. In the presented analysis, two characteristic levels were defined for 11 of the 12 considered impact factors and three levels were defined for 1 impact factor. These levels represent quite antagonistic future trends, whereby one level covers the present state and the other one the possible future development of one factor. If possible, these levels were determined quantitatively. Literature review and expert interviews enabled the assessment of these levels for the actual state and later on for the generated scenarios (see C2.2.8).

C2.2.7 Consistency analysis Not all combinations of characteristic levels of the impact factors are possible. The consistency analysis is the step, were inconsistent combinations of levels will be identified. The evaluation of the logical consistency of the scenarios is initiated with the consistency matrix, which includes characteristic levels of the impact factors (Scholz & Tietje, 2002). Comparable to the impact matrix, within the consistency matrix the correlation of each pair of levels is rated using a four level rating (Wiek, Arnim, 2002):

• -1 = inconsistent, the two levels cannot occur simultaneously

• 0 = coexistent, the two level occur independently from each other

• 1 = promoting, at least one level has positive effects on the other

• 2 = prerequisite, the two levels can only occur simultaneously For the calculation of the consistency values, that means to find out which combination of characteristic levels (= scenarios) are the best, the computer program “KD-Consistency analysis” is used. As mentioned above, because the different computer programs were not available in the study area, the generation of scenarios was conducted in a semi-formative way. Thereby, the consistency analysis was carried out in two steps. First, the consistency matrix was

33

designed with the aim to ensure that the generated scenarios do not include any inconsistency. In this step, the consistency of the proposed scenarios was also verified through the knowledge of experts and through a scenario workshop (see C2.2.8). In a second step, the calculation of the consistency values was performed to ensure that the chosen scenarios fulfil the following principles:

• The scenarios should exhibit high consistency values

• The scenario should normally not include any inconsistency

• The scenarios should be as varied as possible and cover the different possible development paths

C2.2.8 Scenario Construction In order to represent the different development possibilities exemplary, either a data-driven, bottom-up or a concept-driven, top-down strategy can be chosen (Scholz & Tietje, 2002). In this study, a top-down procedure was chosen, where the scenarios were generated intuitively. In this procedure, the construction of scenarios needs a deep understanding of the case and thus depends on the previous knowledge of the person generating the scenarios. In this procedure, as well as in the data based procedure, different combinations of impact factor levels may be constructed regarding the goal definition (see step 1). This enabled to select four different scenarios, representing a possible future state of the tourism on La Digue. At the end of the study, the data-driven scenario construction, which is the result of the formative consistency analysis, was accomplished. This enabled to find out if the generated scenarios have high consistency values, if they may include some inconsistencies that were not found in the semi-formative evaluation procedure and if crucial scenario were overlooked. Workshop: valuation of the impact factors and the scenarios Generally, the aim of a scenario workshop is to encourage the cooperation and planning between different groups of stakeholder concerning a local, collective issue (Tannert et al., 2002). Therefore, the scenario workshop is especially appropriate if visions, needs and planning strategies have to be discussed between concerned and interested stakeholders. The organisation of a workshop enables to integrate the different perceptions of the stakeholder into the construction of the scenarios. The scenario workshop was organized by following the goal of increasing the consistency of the formulated scenarios. Stakeholders, who are concerned by the future tourism development on La Digue Island, were invited at this one-day workshop. The main objectives of this workshop were:

• To involve stakeholders in the development of the case

• To encourage the dialogue between stakeholders with different points of view

• To discuss the relevance of the 12 chosen impact factors and the relevance of the both-sided impacts between these factors

• To get a constructive critic concerning the consistency of the proposed scenarios

(See appendix G6, power point presentation of the scenario workshop)

34

40 people working in different fields, like hoteliers, taxi-drivers, tour operators, people from ministries, etc. participated at this workshop (see appendix G7). For such a small island as La Digue, high participation rate was reached, probably due to previous articles published in the national paper or by the conducted expert interviews.

In the first part of the workshop, the impact factors were presented and the relevance of the chosen

impact factors to describe the problem as well as the interactions between these factors were discussed (morning). In the second part, the different scenarios were presented (afternoon) and the consistency of these latter discussed. The opportunity was given to the stakeholders to integrate their own “expert” point of view regarding the future tourism development. In that respect, four small working groups worked independently for 40 minutes to present briefly their own vision of the tourism development on La Digue in order to develop a constructive discussion on the scenarios. The outcome of this workshop was the final formulation and selection of the four scenarios.

C2.2.9 Scenario assessment This assessment is based on a criteria set. In addition, interpretations of the different scenario implications are made, so that important measures can be conceived if necessary. The construction of measures is not an obligatory part but is important for the implementation of the outcomes (Missler-Behr, 1993). The scenario assessment was conducted by applying the method of the Multi-Attribute-Utility-Theory (MAUT, see chapter C3). After the study, a second workshop will be organised. The aim of it will be to present the results of the study and also to encourage the discussion between stakeholders, concerning the resulted trade-offs of the MAUT. In addition, probabilities and challenges of the scenarios will be discussed and possible measures for the implementation of the “best” scenario may be decided.

C3 Scenario evaluation (MAUT) The evaluation of the four scenarios is done using the Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) (Scholz & Tietje, 2002). This method enables to find out differences between the scenarios in respect to their contribution to a sustainable development of tourism on La Digue Island, by means of sustainability criteria, which are aggregated together in an overall utility. This can be done in two different ways:

35

• Databased evaluation of the scenarios (MAUT I) (see chapter C3.3). The

overall utility is measured by the quantification of defined sustainability criteria.

• Assessment of the preferences of different Stakeholders, concerning the future development of La Digue Island (MAUT II) (see chapter C3.4). The overall utility is measured by the desirability of the developed scenarios for two stakeholder groups, namely the tourists and the local community.

C3.1 The methodology in brief MAUT is based on the utility theory and has frequently been used in economics as a tool for decision support. Multi-attribute utility models, like MAUT, stand for a family of methods to analyse issues and perform an evaluation process (Scholz & Tietje, 2002). Hubert described the Multi-attribute Utility models, as “designed to obtain the utility of items or alternatives that have more than one valued property and therefore must be evaluated on more than one criterion” (Huber, 1974, p.1393). MAUT is thus a useful method to measure the utility of a set of scenarios that are decomposed into a number of criteria in order to determine the best suited scenario. In other words, multi-attributive decisions occur when different scenarios, which are related to a sufficient set of criteria and indicators, are rated differently. Through a synthesis process, the utility value of each criterion is aggregated to determine the overall utility of a scenario (see Figure C 3). In the last years the method gained importance in decision support applications, especially when processes of decision imply different points of view. For example, MAUT is applied in the Case studies, which are performed every year at the Natural and Social Science Interface of the Swiss federal Institute of technology (ETH-UNS) (ETH-UNSFallstudie, 2003).

Figure C 3:Visualisation of the procedure of the evaluation (Wöhrnschimmel et al., 2002). The figure is divided into two parts: On the left side the procedure of the MAUTI (see C3.3) and on the right side this of the MAUT II (see C3.4) is represented. The points that are different between

MAU

T I

Definition of the goal to apply MAUT

Choice and description of criteria

Criteria- supported

Evaluation of the scenarios

Analysis and interpretation of the results

Quantification with attributes

Normalisation (utility functions)

Weighting

Aggregation

Intuitive evaluation of the scenarios

with stakeholders

MAU

T II

36

MAUT I and MAUT II are represented in grey. In brief, five points characterise the MAUT (Scholz & Tietje, 2002) (see Figure C 3):

• Criteria (c): The main objective of the study is divided into ecological, economic and social evaluation criteria. The choice of criteria is carried out at the beginning of the MAUT and is explained in section C3.2.

• Attributes (a): The quantification of all criteria permits a data supported evaluation of the scenarios (MAUT I, see section C3.2). The criteria are associated with attributes, which are applied to the scenarios.

• Utility function (u): The utility of a scenario with respect to a criterion is measured through utility functions. For each criterion, a utility function, which is normalised in the interval [0,1] is determined (see section C3.3). For the stakeholder-based evaluation (MAUT II, see section C3.4), the utility of a scenario is measured intuitively and criteria based.

• Weights (w): the criteria are weighted by both the evaluators and the stakeholders in order to determine their relative importance (see C3.3.and C3.4). The weighting allows highlighting the importance of the attributes.

• Aggregation of the results (U(Si)): The results of the assessed utilities of the scenarios and of the weights of the attributes are aggregated, in order to determine the overall utility of each scenario.

The utility U of a Scenario S can be formally written as follow: m

U(Si) = ∑ wj uj (cj (Si)) j=1

Where: w = (w1,….,wm) the set of weights u = (u1,…,um) the set of utility functions c = (c1,…,cm) the set of criteria with attributes S = (S1,…, Sn) the set of scenarios

C3.2 Criteria and attributes In order to find the best scenario out of the four, i.e. the most sustainable, different criteria are chosen. These are the basis of the multi-criteria evaluation. They reflect important aspects of the system characteristics and should be measurable with attributes. Moreover, the set of the chosen criteria must be simple while covering a maximum range of sustainability aspects. Thus, every set of criteria is a compromise between completeness and applicability. In this master thesis, criteria should allow the evaluation of concrete aspects of tourism development with regard to carrying capacity issues while keeping in mind the goal of a sustainable development. The derivation of 40 criteria and attributes was based on the system analysis, on the acquired knowledge and on literature data, related to sustainable tourism and tourism carrying capacity. This set has first been reduced by the author to a set of 22 criteria, (see appendix G3) the reduction procedure being based on both expert interviews (see contact list G6) and on the following arguments (Wiek, A. et al., in prep):

• Relevance: The choice of different criteria and indicators has to reflect the

overall goal of the project (see chapter A2). The chosen criteria are relevant for the evaluation of the sustainability of tourism developments.

37

• Completeness: The three sustainability dimensions included in the project must be covered by the criteria. For this reason the criteria are separated in ecological, economic and social domains. The set of chosen criteria is complete. No relevant aspect is missing.

• Measurability: Each criterion must be measurable with an attribute in order to draw its utility function. This is important to ensure that it can be decided whether or not a scenario is related to a high utility in the future.

• Sensitivity: The criteria should allow evaluating each scenario against each other. That is the case when the scenarios are evaluated differently by each criterion. The scenarios differ regarding the chosen criteria.

A working group has then been organised (see contact list G6, working group 1). From the resulting discussion, nine relevant criteria out of the 22, three in each sustainable dimension, have been chosen, in respect to the four above listed arguments. Because there was no time available to discuss the relevancy of the attributes, the chosen list of criteria and attributes has been sent to the participants of the working group and to different experts so that they can give an electronically feedback.

C3.3 Data based evaluation (MAUT I) Quantification: The set of the nine criteria and attributes is the basis of the data based evaluation. The actual state and the four scenarios have to be quantified according to the nine criteria, i.e. it has to be decided what the value of each attribute is in the case of the different scenarios. The data-supported evaluation is represented within the scenario-versus-attribute matrix (see chapter D2.2). Starting from the quantification of the actual state, which was then used as the reference value, the four scenarios were evaluated in strong cooperation with experts. However, an exact quantification was only possible in rare cases. Nine bilateral interviews were performed as well as 10 written or telephone enquiry (see contact list, G6). Thus, the values are based mainly on estimations from the literature or from expert interviews. Normalisation: The normalisation enables the assignment of the sustainability valuation for the quantified attribute values of the nine criteria. Furthermore, it allows to compare the different criteria of the four scenarios and to aggregate them to an overall utility. An important consideration is that an absolute sustainable or non-sustainable scenario does not exist. Because of the normalisation, only relative comparisons can be made, and the scenario that ends up as the most sustainable is pointed out. For the purpose of the normalisation, a utility function for each criterion was defined. This enabled to convert the quantitative evaluations of the criteria into utility values without unit. In this study all utility functions are linear functions, where for an ascending function, the most negative value of an attribute is quoted with 0 and the most positive with 1. The further values are in-between and are converted linearly. This procedure implies that the value of an attribute that presents the highest utility will be between 0 and 1 (Scholz & Tietje, 2002). It should be noted that utility functions might have a more complex behaviour than a linear one (e.g. logarithmic, exponential, etc.). However, because of the time frame of this study and of the accuracy of the quantified attribute values, linear functions were considered here as appropriate.

38

Weighting: Since not all criteria have the same importance, a sustainable tourism development is ensured by weighting each criteria with the swing weight method, whereby numbers between 0 and 100 are assigned to each attribute (Scholz & Tietje, 2002). Within the swing weight method, the value 100 is given to the attribute considered as the most important. The other attributes are rated in comparison with the most important. Attributes with the same importance get also 100 and the others less. In order to ensure that the weighting does not rest upon an individual opinion, a group of fifteen people, working in different field, were asked to weight the criteria (see appendix G6). This group was considered as representative to assess the importance of the different criteria and the mean value was calculated (see Table D 10). Aggregation: The different values are aggregated to assess the overall utility of each scenario (U(Ai)). This is done through the multiplication of the utility values with the respective criteria weights following by adding the obtained values.

C3.4 Stakeholder-based evaluation (MAUT II) The goal of the MAUT II is both to find out how the scenarios fit with the preferences of stakeholders, and to point out the main differences that may exist between these scenarios. In the mean time, the transparent and comprehensible evaluation process of stakeholders is made for the further planning of La Digue’s development. In this study, the stakeholder evaluation was conducted with the interview of both tourists and the local community. The choice of the tourists and the local community for the evaluation of the scenarios is based on the following reasons:

• The inclusion of the tourists in the planning of the tourism development on La Digue enables a successful adjustment of the offer on the actual demand.

• The inclusion of the local community increases the probability of agreement towards future planning measures.

• The inclusion of the preferences of both the tourists and the local community enables to make a qualitative extrapolation on the social carrying capacity, as it includes the tolerance of the community to absorb tourism and the experience of the tourists (Saveriades, 2000).

The stakeholder based evaluation was carried out in the frame of 6 days interviews on La Digue in the mid of December 2003. Two evaluation procedures were used for the interviews (see Figure C 3). In the first place, there is an intuitive evaluation, where the stakeholders are asked to give their opinion concerning the desirability of the four scenarios. In the second place, there is a criteria based evaluation, where the stakeholders assess the importance of the nine criteria for each scenario. The illustrations of the four scenarios were an important basis for the stakeholder based evaluation. During these six days, the number of persons of the two stakeholder groups that have been interviewed was made roughly the same while trying to get a representative point of view of these two groups. In that respect, regarding the local community, persons working either in tourism or in other fields have been interviewed. Concerning the tourists, it was tried to interview tourists that choose different accommodations facilities (hotels, guesthouses and self-catering) as well as day tourists. Whenever possible, people from different age range for both stakeholder groups were chosen. The interviews took place mainly on the western coast of La Digue, where the local community is

39

working and where tourists are staying. 41 people, namely 20 tourists and 21 inhabitants of La Digue, were interviewed. Each interview took between 30 and 45 minutes. The goals of the study and of the interviews were first briefly presented. Then, the four scenarios were presented. First, for the intuitive evaluation, the four scenarios were ranked from one to four. The stakeholders were also asked to assess the utility of the four scenarios by giving a value between 0 and 100. The difference between the criteria based evaluation (MAUT II) and the data based evaluation (MAUT I) is that in the former case, no value is given to the criteria. However, depending on the scenario description the stakeholders were asked to give to each criterion a utility value between 0 and 100. As for MAUT I, the stakeholders also weighted the nine criteria with the possibility to deselect inappropriate criteria or to add some missing criteria. This gave the possibility to the interviewed person to give its opinion on important criteria. Finally, the stakeholders were asked to fulfil a short questionnaire in order to get some personal information (see appendix G5). The results of the stakeholder-based evaluation were then analysed with the SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Science) statistic programme. This programme allows summarising data (e.g. means and standard deviations), to make pairwise comparisons, to determine whether there are significant differences between groups (e.g. t-test, analysis of variance) and to examine relationships among variables (e.g. correlation, multiple regression). Differences between the two evaluation procedures could then be pointed out.

40

D. Results

D1 Scenario analysis In the following chapter, the different steps of the scenario analysis, as described in the following chapter, the different steps of the scenario analysis, as described in chapter C2, are presented. The results of this analysis are based on the information and the gained system knowledge of the previous work. This preparatory work conduced to the overall understanding of the tourism situation in the Seychelles (see chapters B1 & B2). More specifically, the first working phase enabled to get inside the project area and to work out relevant information, which are the basis for the development of scenarios (see section B2.3). The aim of the scenario analysis is to identify relevant social, economic and ecological impact factors to describe the dynamics between them and to develop possible, consistent future states of the tourism on La Digue. The scenario analysis has been conducted in a chronological procedure, except for steps five to seven, where the systematic way of analysis was accomplished at the end of the project, as a verification tool of the previous obtained results.

D1.1 Goal definition System boundary The goal of the scenario analysis is to build different consistent scenarios representing possible tourism development on La Digue Island for the forthcoming 10 years (+/- 3 years). The scenarios are thus approximately generated for the year 2013. The main focus of the development of quantitative scenarios is concerning the economic, social and ecological impacts that the development of tourist infrastructures is generating. This enables to assess where an increase or a decrease in a benefit will result. Moreover, it provides to decision-makers a scientific groundwork, which can be used today for the further planning of the tourist activities. These decision-makers can be divided in three groups:

• Local authorities

• Decision makers working in the tourism sector

• Local population As the tourism development is influenced by many stakeholders (see Figure D 1) involved in the tourism industry the point of view of all of them has to be integrated in the scenario analysis. Last but not least, the scenario analysis is the basis for the assessment of the constructed scenarios, where trade-offs as well as the preferences of the tourists and of the local community concerning the future tourism development are identified (see chapter D2).

41

Figure D 1: Stakeholders, who exert influence on the sustainable tourism development on La Digue Island. The stakeholders are divided in internal and external stakeholders, depending if they exert their function inside or outside the system boundary.

D1.2 System characteristics This chapter enables the characterisation of the actual tourism situation. First the results of the SWOT (Strength-Weakness-Opportunity-Threat) analysis are presented. The three following sections outline the main economic, ecological and social aspects concerned by the tourism development. The last section deals with tourism infrastructures and tourism related products and services.

D1.2.1 SWOT A SWOT analysis on La Digue Island as a tourism destination was conducted at the beginning of the study (see Table D 1). As indicated by its initials, such analysis defines the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of this project. In addition, it helps to emphasize the important impact factors for the planning of the tourism development on La Digue Island. The SWOT analysis was based on:

• The SWOT Analysis that was first conducted for the Seychelles generally (see appendix Table G 3)

• Expert interviews

• Questionnaire to tour operators

Sustainable tourism

development

Internal Stakeholders (exert their function in the system boundary) La Digue development board (LDDB) Diving schools and other tourist attractions Employees in tourism transport (bicycle rentals, taxi driver, etc.) Owners of craft and souvenir shops Hotelier and guesthouse managers Local community

External Stakeholders (exert their function outside the island) Government represented by different ministries, mainly MTT, MoE, MLUH NGOs Tourism Marketing Authority (STMA) Tour operators Tourists Competitors

42

The main strengths that are recognised are the calm, relaxed and casual atmosphere, the traditional way of life and the low rate of motor vehicles on the island, compared to Mahé and Praslin. These strengths, together with the visual beauty of the coastal landscape with the famous granite rocks, were also the most stated by the tourists. The Creole architecture, the possibility to develop nature trails and to diversify traditional activities are the main opportunities, as there are already present on the island. The low value for money, the lack of tourism facilities and attractions resulting in the fact that many tourists are visiting La Digue for one day only, are the most important weaknesses stated by tour operators. The main threats that were recognised are the coastal erosion and the risk of a further modernisation of the island. The outcomes of this analysis are used in the following sections, while analysing the economic, ecological and social characteristics and the infrastructural facilities.

Table D 1: Strengths-Weakness-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis of the tourism on La Digue Island

Strengths

• Calm, relaxed, casual atmosphere • Traditional way of life • Friendly people • Few cars compared to Mahé and

Praslin • 97% of population and workers are

Seychellois • Well adapted for families • Easy access with boat • Only island to see the endemic

bird “Paradise Flycatcher” • Visual beauty of the coastal

landscape with granite rocks, which represent the Seychelles like tourists think it is

• High bed-occupancy rate compared to Mahé

Weakness

• Well known as day-trip destination • Cruise ship bring “mass tourists” that are

not profitable • Guided lines for sustainable development

that anybody can understand and follow are missing

• TO’s are organizing trucks for tourists • Shortage of specialist TO’s • No educational possibilities after

secondary school. Most of those who go to Mahé for further studies do not come back

• Low participation rate of the population for decisions

• Low environmental awareness • Shortage of tourism facilities and

attractions • No specific Marketing strategy for La

Digue Opportunities

• Nature trails already exist in the

inner island. These could be developed

• Creole architectural style of construction

• Use existing plantations for diversification of activities (craft and natural products)

• Potential to market boat trips to other close islands and boat-taxi

• “Home stays” to give tourists the opportunity to “live” the local culture

• Diversity of habitats can be used to offer attractions to tourists

Threats

• Local community wants a modern way of life

• Coastal erosion • Small area of the island is protected • New licenses for further cars are given • Paradise Flycatcher is a very sensitive bird• Shortage of natural water reserves • Capacity of the landfill • Risk of groundwater pollution • Local community becomes less attached

to traditional activities like agriculture and fishing

• Huge import rate • Lack of law enforcement

43

D1.2.2 Economic characterisation In this section, important economic issues regarding the tourism on La Digue Island are presented. Central are, the contribution of tourism to the economic wealth of the island, the trends in the bed-occupancy rate and in visitor arrivals of La Digue, the employment situation in tourism and the trends in the export and import of goods. Tourism market General information Tourism is the most important industry on La Digue, in terms of both generation of foreign exchanges and generation of employment. The added value of this economic sector, mostly calculated with the GDP, cannot be given for La Digue specifically but only for the Seychelles in general (see chapter B2.2). This is due to a lack of specific data for La Digue. However, it came out from different interviews with people working on La Digue, that the contribution of tourism to the GDP of La Digue is much higher than generally in the Seychelles, as other sectors are mainly insignificant. This can be seen by comparing the contribution of the total income of the employees in tourism and in agriculture and fishing:

• The contribution of the total income generated by the employment in agriculture and fishing is between SR200’000-250’000 per year (2002).

• The contribution of the income generated by the employment in the tourism sector is between SR11’500’000-12’000’000 per year (based on data of 1997 and approximated for 2002).

The comparison of the incomes generated by the employment in these two sectors shows that the income from the tourism sector is between 45-60 times higher than the one from agriculture and fishing. Bed-occupancy and visitor arrivals In the last years the bed-occupancy of La Digue continuously increased. The average bed-occupancy rate of the last four years is about 54.5% (Management and Information Systems Division (MISD), 2003a) In September 2003, the bed-occupancy rate for Hotels and self-catering guesthouses on La Digue was 60%. Praslin, Mahé and other islands recorded respectively 56%, 43% and 26% bed occupancy (Management and Information Systems Division (MISD), 2003b). On La Digue there are 414 licensed beds (see D1.2.5). Using the bed-occupancy rate of 54.5%, this implies an average of 226 tourists a day or about 27’500 overnight tourists a year, spending 3 nights on the island (2003, personal communications from hoteliers and local tour operators). It is assumed that there are 100 further beds on La Digue without a proper licence, but still offering accommodation Adding these 100 beds with the same bed occupancy rate, the number of overnight tourists spending in average 3 nights on La Digue would then reach 34’000 per year. Furthermore, according to hoteliers and governmental employees, the official bed-occupancy rate is probably underestimated. Indeed, due to the bed-occupancy tax that hotels and guesthouses have to pay, it is supposed that not all stays are reported. It has been suggested that the actual average rate might be between 60% and 70%. With a bed-occupancy rate of 65% the number of overnight tourists per year would then increase to 40’650, including the unlicensed accommodations. The great connections to La Digue have highly increased the number of day-tourists visiting La Digue in the last years. The number of day-tourists is evaluated by the STMA (Seychelles Tourism Marketing Authority) (Morel, 2003, personal communication) to about 150 per day or 54’700 per year. The total number of tourists visiting La Digue is thus 88’700 or 95’400 yearly with a bed-occupancy rate of 54.5% or 65 %respectively. In this study the official rate of 54.5% is used, because the calculated total tourist arrivals on La Digue with this rate is compatible with the results of a tourist

44

survey carried out by the MIDS in 2002. The results of this survey show that about 62% (or 82’000 tourists) of the tourists that were visiting the Seychelles, were spending at least one day on La Digue (Management and Information Systems Division (MISD), 2002b). Employment The significant increase of the tourism industry on La Digue has contributed to create a lot of jobs. Because of the lack of more recent data, the working population of La Digue in 1997 is chosen to describe the actual state of the employment situation. In 1997, from a total of 936 labour forces, 14.6% were employed in social services, about 13.6% in industry, 7.8% in the private sector, 13% in other services and 13.5% in agriculture and fishing (this makes about 126 employees, compared to 16 farmers and 49 registered fishers today (Bonne, 2003, personal communication). 37.5% of the labour forces were working directly in the tourism sector (Management and Information Systems Division (MISD), 1997). This census includes 237 people working in hotels and guesthouses, 28 working in restaurants and bars, 53 working in tourism related transport and communication and 34 working in other tourism services. Compared to the employment situation in the Seychelles, where the tourism sector accounts for about 18% of total employment (Archer & Fletcher, 1996) (see also (Management and Information Systems Division (MISD), 2003a), it can be noted that the tourism on La Digue has a higher relevancy than generally observed in the Seychelles. Regarding the economic development and the population growth of the last 15 years on La Digue, a movement of labour forces from agriculture and fishing to the tourism sector is observed. In such cases, it is generally observed that an increase of labour forces in tourism is related to an import of labour forces from overseas. This can give rise to social conflicts. However, on La Digue specifically, the import of foreign labour does not play an important role yet, as they represent only 3% of the total labour forces in tourism. Exports/Imports Due to the huge decrease in agriculture and fishing, no products are anymore exported and the island is indeed more dependent on imports. Regarding the domestic market on La Digue, the island can provide itself with fish, coconuts and also leaves for the roots of houses. However, the very low agricultural land use implies that most products are imported from Mahé and overseas.

D1.2.3 Ecological characterisation The last few years are characterized by an important development of infrastructures on the western side of the plateau area, with more modern architectural design. This has a great influence on the coastal ecosystem, on both biodiversity and aesthetic value of the landscape. Moreover, changes in lifestyle, a growing affluence and an increase in the number of visitors have meant the procurement of greater demand on water, land and electricity and an increase in the volume of solid waste. The actual situation of the mentioned issues is illustrated below. Coastal erosion Because of their high socio-economic value, the sandy coasts are considered as one of the most threatened environmental element in the Seychelles. Naturally narrow, the beaches can disappear in few erosive crises. On La Digue, the total coastline has lengths of 15km, 7km are rocky and 8km are sandy coast. Coastal erosion has natural and anthropogenic causes, although the anthropogenic causes have the higher impact. Coastal erosion affects 80% of the granitic islands and on La Digue, 26% of the sandy coast is considered as critically endangered. The main relevant anthropogenic causes of erosion for La Digue, are the following (Cazet-Duvat & Robert, 2001):

45

• Sand extraction: Removing sand for constructions increases the deficit of sediments. In 1991 a regulation was introduced to forbid sand extraction. On La Digue, there is a sand quarry at L’Union, which was in use until 2003. People are still using the quarry to remove sand for construction. Sand extraction was also conducted at Anse Sévère, Anse Réunion and La Passe

• Construction of breakwaters and piers: At La Passe, where the Jetty was constructed, the beaches are already critically eroded, as the construction has hampered the natural process of sand flow.

• Destruction of the coastal vegetation, for example through stamping on it, which makes the remaining vegetation more vulnerable to abrasion by wind.

• Construction of sea-walls that hinders the dissipation of wave energy and thereby reinforces their erosion capacity. This occurs at Anse Réunion.

Biodiversity The Seychelles Republic was the second country in the world that signed the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1993 (Lundin & Lindén, 1995). According to this convention, biodiversity means “the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems (Convention on Biological Diversity, 1993)”. In this study, the focus is on endemic animal species that are found on the coastal area. Endemic species are “species native to and restricted to a particular geographical region (European Environment Agency (EEA), 2000)”, in our case the Seychelles. These species are of great importance for the global biodiversity. The four most important species are described below. Endemic plant species are less relevant on La Digue than on other islands of the Seychelles, because they make only 6.5% of the whole flora. They were thus not considered on this study. • Paradise Flycatcher (Tersiphone corvina): The Paradise Flycatcher is listed as

critically endangered and is the second rarest endemic land bird of the Seychelles, after the Magpie Robin (Copsychus sechellarum). Today there are between 104-139 confirmed pairs (Currie, David, 2002). The main threat for this bird is the loss of the natural coastal plateau woodland with the native Takamaka (Calophyllum inophyllum) and Badamier (Terminalia catappa) tree species. Particularly the coastal woodland with native tree species is utilised by the bird during nesting and foraging (Currie, David, 2002). Between 1978 and 1992, the natural coastal woodland on the Plateau of La Digue has decreased by more than 25% and still continues to decrease. This is mainly due to indiscriminate tree felling (Neufeld, 1992) for constructions. Since 1995 the Takamaka wilt disease has been recorded on La Digue (Currie, Dave et al., 2003). The disease, which is due to a fungi, is a further threat for the Paradise Flycatcher, as it reduces the habitat of the bird. The importance of wetland areas on prey availability and foraging was questioned in the latest surveys. From: http://www.justbirds.it/home.htm

Conservation measures were implemented in the last 15 years. These were the creation of an 8.3 hectares reserve in 1991 (regulated under the Biodiversity and Conservation Act), controls on the felling of Takamaka and Badamier trees (regulated under the Breadfruit and other Trees Act), the banning of catapults and public education. The measures were followed by a further purchase of land between 1999-

46

2001 (ca. 11 ha). The conservation measures enabled to increase the population from 60-70 individuals in 1988 to 150-200 individuals in 1997 and to 208-278 individuals today. Although the Flycatcher population increased in the last years, the western plateau (220 hectares), where the majority of the territories of the bird occur, is continually under threat from anthropogenic development and from the Takamaka wilt disease. A further decrease or fragmentation in the plateau woodland could have significant detrimental effects on the Paradise Flycatcher population.

• Seychelles Swiflet (Aerodramus elaphrus): The Seychelles Swiflet is an endemic bird living in coastal rocky areas, depending on caves. There are about 43 birds on La Digue. The Seychelles Swiflet is very sensitive bird to noise. Currently the Seychelles Swiflet is considered as a vulnerable species. The introduction of invasive animal species such as rats, cats and exotic birds, and the visit of their habitat by tourists are stress factors for this bird.

• Terrapins or Freshwater Turtles (Pelomedusidae): There are three different Terrapin species on La Digue: Pelusius sub niger, Pelusius castanoides and Pelusius seychellensis. However, the last one has not been seen for a long time on the island. La Digue, has one of the biggest Terrapin reserve, which is designated by Seychellois as being the main home of “Tortues-soupapes” (Stoddart, 1984). The habitat of the terrapins is the wetland area with the marshes. La Digue has one of the largest remaining marshes area (some 18 hectares) together with Praslin. Marshes are very sensitive zones because of their role in the habitat of the terrapins, but also because they play a great role in the hydrology of the coastal area. Namely, marshes are a buffer zone between land and sea, as they act as “de-polluters” of organic materials. Threats for the terrapins are infrastructure development on marshes and exotic species like the water lettuces needing space and oxygen, which reduces the habitat requirements of the terrapins.

• Marine Turtles: Since the colonisation by the

French in the late 18th century, the Seychelles become famous for its marine turtles. The two main turtles that are found in the Seychelles are the Green Turtles (Chelona mydas) and the Hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbicata). Exploitation and habitat destruction resulted in a drastic decline of these species. Both are considered as critically endangered, as Green Turtle nesting has virtually ceased in the granitic islands and the number of Hawksbill Turtles has been reduced by at least 90% in the past 100 years (Shah et al., 1997). These two species are still nesting on La Digue, but as mentioned in section B2.3.3, coastal erosion caused the lost of 40% of egg-lying sites for the Hawksbill Turtle between 1984 and 2000. The main nesting sites are on the south-east part of the island. Beside the habitat destruction of the turtles, a main threat is the poaching of the turtles that happens regularly on La Digue, as the turtle’s meat is a traditional food. The various legal restrictions on turtle hunting (regulated in the Wild Animals and Birds Protection Act) are thus only sparsely enforced.

• Coral reefs: Considering the marine biodiversity, the coral reefs play a great role, as

they influence the amount of marine related renewable resources and provide the habitat for many species. The coral reefs influence positively the sand production and act as natural breakwaters, because they reduce the power of the waves. In 1998, the El Niño phenomenon caused the death of 80-90% of the corals on the reefs. On certain marine areas near La Digue (at Île Coco and Marianne Island) a recovering

47

potential of the coral reefs exists. It is thus important to protect and manage these areas and to ensure that stress factors, like over fishing, sea water pollution, damages from divers or anchor damages do not occur.

Characteristic landscape Areas of outstanding beauty brand the natural identity of La Digue in the eyes of the tourists. The aesthetics of a landscape is in the majority of cases the most important offering in the tourism sector (Müller & Flügel, 1999). On La Digue, it is above all the coastal landscape with the reddish granite rocks and the multifaceted landscape with marshes, low-land forest, the mountain, etc. that belong to the aesthetic value attracting tourists. A special status was planned in application of the Biodiversity and Conservation Act, but until now no area of this kind is protected in the Seychelles. Areas on La Digue that were characterised as of outstanding beauty are (Duncombe, 1996): South coast from Anse Source d’Argent to Grand Anse, Petite Anse and mountain area , West coast from Pointe Turcy to Anse Patate, Pointe Cap Barbi, Rochers de La Passe. The small size of La Digue enables to see this multifaceted landscape by foot. This is an opportunity that should be used for tourism. On another side, the development of tourism infrastructures is an important threat for the attraction that the coastal area exerts, as it risks to conduct to a decrease of the tourist frequenting. Freshwater On a global scale, experts agree that one of the main limiting factor for the future generation is the availability of freshwater sources. “As demand for water by all users grows, groundwater is being depleted, other water ecosystems are becoming polluted and degraded, and developing new sources of water is getting more costly” (Rosegrand, M.W. et al., 2002). This is particularly valid for small islands. The growing awareness of the importance to deal with this issue led the United Nation General Assembly to declare 2003 the International Year of Freshwater (Gleick, 2003). On La Digue, there are two water catchments areas of about 0.5 km2. The water supply consists of a single treatment station, receiving water from three streams: the Magaw, the Maurice Payet and St. Ange River. These rivers virtually dry up during the dry season and raw water supply has to be supplemented by a pumped borehole supply. The treatment of drinking water consists of a sedimentation tank. The safe yield of the system is about 334kl/day, which is below the present demand (at source) of about 540kl/day (Public Utility Corporation (PUC), 2002). However during the rainy season, the total production can reach 750kl/day. Presently about 90% of the population is supplied with treated water. In dry periods, the PUC has to restrict the water supply because of shortages. No additional borehole can be drilled, because of the possibility of salinity intrusion into the fresh water aquifer. This lack of treated water supply with river water and groundwater was the main reason to build a desalination plant in 2003. With the new desalination plant the PUC aims to ensure the supply of treated water throughout the whole year. The desalination plant is not yet in use, but it will have a capacity of 300kl/day. Potential negative impacts from the desalination plant that should be regarded, are (Ladouce, 2001):

• Higher maintenance costs. Compared to the costs of about SR7/1000l of treated water from groundwater and river water, the costs of treated water from the desalination plant are expected to rise to about 10-12SR/1000l.

• Rise in local salinity at the point of discharge, which could disrupt the biological functioning of marine ecosystem.

• Risk of contamination with the chemicals to be used on the desalination process.

• Contributes to increased green house gas emissions, as the desalination requires imported fuels.

48

• Noise disturbances.

• Visual impact of the plant. Regarding the quality of the water, water from catchments areas has the best quality as it passes through a natural filter process before arriving at the treatment station. The groundwater quality can also be assessed as good as the total dissolved solids are upon the limits recommended by the WHO guidelines (Environment - Recources - Oceans (ENVI-R-O), 1996). Nevertheless risks of groundwater pollution because of septic tanks, the petrol station and piggy farms exist and should be taken into account for future planning. Groundwater pollution decreases the quality of the drinking water and thus increases the risk of water related diseases. Further more the discharge of polluted water in the sea affects the marine biodiversity, e.g. coral reefs and fishes. The risk of groundwater pollution from septic tanks is related to the design of the tanks and to the density of these on a certain area. A central sewage treatment plant might be constructed at La Passe. The feasibility study of this plant is started but not accomplished yet. The construction of this plant would considerably reduce the risk of groundwater pollution. Waste On La Digue, the solid waste was generally disposed on a dumpsite. In 1997, a landfill financed by the EU, was constructed on the area of l’Union Estate. The capacity of the landfill was planned for 10 years but already fulfilled after five years. The capacity of the landfill was extended, but will be full again in a few years. Currently there are about five to six tons of waste that are daily transported to the landfill, almost two times more than 3 years ago. The increase in the volume of solid waste is an important issue on La Digue, as it threats economic activities such as fisheries and tourism. The main problems related to solid waste disposal are:

• Lack of land to dispose the waste on the island

• Lack of covering material

• Lack of regular collection

• Risk of groundwater contamination and eutrophication of marshes, because of heavy metals or persistent organic pollutants in the landfill

• Stress for the marine biodiversity, because of possible water pollution

• Visual impact

• Open burning that is still practiced by the inhabitants. The fumes from burning could contain metals and PVC that are carcinogen.

A further increase of the tourism development would stress the question on solution for the management of solid waste. Proposals that were already done are:

• Compaction and transportation of the waste to Praslin or Mahé

• Installation of an incinerator

• Construction of another landfill Because of a lack of available data, the issue of solid waste was not further considered in this master thesis. Parallel to this master thesis, a study was conducted by an English consultancy firm (Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick, UK) for the solid waste master plan of the Seychelles. The results of this study will be published at the beginning of 2004 and will show important issues of the solid waste management on La Digue.

49

D1.2.4 Social characterisation Besides economic and ecological factors, social factors belong also to the sustainable tourism development on La Digue. Social factors reflect the identification of the community with the island and the satisfaction of the community. These are aspects, which are in general very difficult to measure, because they are related to personal perceptions. Regarding tourism development on La Digue island, it is of interest to consider the importance of the local culture and tradition, the impact that tourism has on the community and on the development, the environmental awareness of the local community as well as the participation of the community in the decision making process. The educational possibilities for the community are also an important aspect, which is overviewed in section B2.3.1. Importance of culture and tradition Typical element of the culture and tradition on La Digue are: the Creole architectural style of the old wood houses, the traditional dances such as the Saga, and the Creole food, which is based on sea fish, chicken and pork. Marine turtles are considered as typical traditional food. Besides, there are also the handicrafts, like woodcarving, crafts or oil from coconut, etc. Further more, La Digue is traditionally characterised by its tranquillity and by the transport mode, where the main way to travel on the island is on bicycle, by ox-cart or on foot. One important apprehension is that tourism destroys the cultural identity of the community and induces an acculturation. This could constitute a disturbing factor of the equilibrium of the development in the community. Like in many tourism orientated countries, and above all in young countries like the Seychelles, the local community tend to be influenced by the culture of the tourists (Eagles et al., 2002). This results in a loss of tradition. Compared to 10-15 years ago, where there were a lot of handicrafts and ox-carts on the island, La Digue started already to adapt to the modern western-way of life that can be observed on Mahé. This is reflected in a loss of traditional dances, of traditional activities like fishing, agriculture and handicrafts. It is above all the young generation, which tends to neglect the tradition and the local culture, by following more modern lifestyles. Environmental awareness For most of its history, the economy on La Digue was based on natural resources, like turtles, seabird eggs, shells, guano, fish, timber, crops and spices. This has also resulted in resource depletion and in habitat damage. Even if most of these activities are regulated today, the awareness of the limit of natural resources and of the importance of environmental protection is still quite low within the population. In fact, many laws are not enforced enough. For example, protected trees are felt for construction and protected animal species, like turtles, terrapins and Moorhens are poached for food (see also B2.3.1). On another side, efforts are made to increase the environmental awareness of the population, like it was done to protect the Paradise Flycatcher. Environmental education takes currently place at school, with activities proposed by the Wild Life Club and the U-first Club. One activity proposed is the organisation of an Eco-School competition. Tourism, even if not always beneficial for the environment, has also the consequence that a lot of local people realise the importance of the environmental preservation in order to succeed in the tourism sector. Participation Currently, the active participation of the local population in sustainable tourism projects is not promoted. In theory the population can participate at most of the local meetings that are organised on the island. The problem is that in the past, these meetings were always strongly dominated by the government. Inhabitants, who did not support the government, were excluded from these meetings. Today, even if the government tries to change this

50

tendency, it still happens that most of the inhabitants do not attend to organised meetings. The community mainly has the impression that even if they give their opinion, the government in Mahé will make the decision without their agreement. This is a point that came out from the workshop. Another aspect that hinders the active participation of the community is related to the small size of the island. All the people know each other, and La Digue can thus be seen as a big family, where a few people make the decisions.

D1.2.5 Infrastructural facilities Tourism infrastructures and tourism related products and services, like tourism attractions and activities, have a great influence on the future development and on the increase in tourism arrivals on the island. The situation regarding tourist accommodation possibilities, road and transport network and tourism products and services will thus be illustrated below. Hotels and guesthouses The MTT splits the tourist accommodation possibilities into three categories:

• Large hotels, with more than 25 rooms

• Small hotels and guesthouses with less than 25 rooms

• Self-catering guesthouses with less than 10 rooms On La Digue there is only one large hotel, which has 60 rooms. There are 14 small hotels and guesthouses, which have mostly less than 10 rooms and 8 self-catering guesthouses. Two more guesthouses are currently built, so that there will be a total of 25 hotels and guesthouses in 2004. The hotels and guesthouses are concentrated on the area of La Passe and Anse Réunion, except for two small hotels in the northwest of La Digue, at Anse Sévère and Anse Patate and for one self-catering in the southwest at L’Union Estate. Compared to the beginning of the 1980s, where there were 68 beds on La Digue and where an upper limit of 150 beds was set up, there are currently altogether 207 rooms or 414 beds distributed on an area of about 10.4 hectares (Ministry of Land Use and Habitat (MLUH), 2003). The average total area required per bed is therefore about 250 m2. In addition to the 414 beds, there are about 50 more rooms or 100 beds that are proposed to tourists without having a licence2. This increases the actual number of beds on La Digue to about 514 beds. As some of these unlicensed beds are included in accommodation facilities that have a licence, the calculated average area needed per bed is expected to be lower than 250m2. Referring to that and to the data collected by Gössling (2002) an average of 200m2 per bed is assumed (Gössling et al., 2002). Road network The total length of the road network is 20 km, with the main and the secondary roads having a length of 12 and 7 km respectively. The remaining km is considered as feeder road. 11km have been surfaced with paved bricks. The main road along the West Coast has a length of 1km. It is along there that the urban nucleus of La Digue may be observed. The remaining main arterials are used for communication with the southeast of the island, going through natural forested areas on one part towards Grand Anse. A second road runs from the northwest coast to the limits of the east coast at Anse Fourmis. There is no road from Anse Fourmi to Grand Anse, and from Grand Anse to Anse Source d’Argent. Some places are thus only reachable on foot.

2 Result of the workshop scheduled the 6th of November 2003 on La Digue

51

Transport network There are different possibilities to reach La Digue. Most of the visitors take the boat from Praslin or Mahé. There are six boat connections from Praslin to La Digue every day. Only 1% of the arrivals are reaching the island by helicopter. The main transport mode on the island is bicycle and ox-cart riding, or on foot. There has been a huge increase in the number of hireable bicycles, which passed from 239 in 1991 to 1039 in 2003 (Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT), 2003). Five licences are given for ox-cart services with twelve ox-carts. This silent means of locomotion is a strength of La Digue, underlined by the low number of motor vehicles (see Table D 1). Nevertheless, the number of motor vehicles has significantly increased since the 1980s. At this time there were about 10 vehicles on the island. Today, 45 motor vehicles are driving around and four more are already approved. Motorised vehicles for tourists use are:

• 3 taxis (a license to a fourth one is already given)

• 4 trucks (a license to one more is already given)

• 1 minibus for the large hotel (the importation of two more minibuses received approval)

Most of the motor vehicles (75%) are thus used for other purposes than tourism, namely for commercial purposes and for services, like telecommunication, PUC, SWAC, hospital, etc. Some researches are carried out currently to test the feasibility of the introduction of hybrid vehicles, working with an internal combustion engine / photovoltaic system, on the island (André, P., 2003, personal communication). Tourism products and services Products and services are defined as all facilities, activities and attractions that are proposed to tourists. These are for example, restaurants facilities, organised excursions and shops that are found on the island. One result of the SWOT analysis for La Digue is that there is a shortage of tourist attractions. Most of the services offered to tourists are only given in the frame of an organised group excursion. The following products and services are proposed to tourists today:

• 8 different restaurants. In fact, from these 8 restaurants, 5 belong to hotels. Tourists, who do not stay in these hotels, often have to inform the hotel in advance that they would like to eat there.

• 17 bicycle hire shops proposing altogether 1039 bicycles.

• 5 licensed people are proposing ox-cart riding

• 6 souvenir shops, 2 art galleries and 4 craft shops

• 1 diving centre, belonging to the La Digue Lodge hotel

• 1 centre proposing horse riding. This is situated at L’Union Estate and is often closed

• 16 boat operators proposing excursions, fishing and snorkelling. Here again a lot are directly working with hotels or tour operators.

• Since June 2003, there is one club, the Safari Club that proposes excursions and guided tours on the island. This club proposes also excursion and activities outside the island. As it is still a quite new activity, the club is currently above all

52

working with tour operators organising group excursions. In a few hotels on La Digue a brochure is proposed to tourists, where all activities of this club are listed.

D1.3 Acquisition of impact factors The acquisition and the definition of a sufficient set of impact factors is the next step of the scenario analysis. The participative procedure followed in this study to reduce the initial set of impact factors to a set of 15 factors is described in chapter C2.2.3 and illustrated in Figure D2. The 15 impact factors and their respective definition are represented in Table D 2.

Figure D2: Participative process for the acquisition and reduction of impact factors. Number 1 corresponds to the first reduction conducted by the author. Number 2 stands for the second reductions process, which is based on two working groups. In this reduction process the opinion of stakeholders played an important role and one main outcome of the working group conducted with stakeholders of the MTT is that most of the political impact factors were eliminated. It was decided that even if these factors have a strong influence on the system, it was more interesting for the study to focus on factors within the system boundary. The last reduction to a final set of 12 factors (number 3) is a result of the evaluation of the impact factors (see section D1.5).

D1.4 Impact matrix In the impact matrix, the 15 impact factors are applied against each other and the interactions between the factors are assessed by using a three level rating with 0 (no direct impact) 1 (low direct impact) and 2 (strong direct impact) (see C2.2.4). Table D 3 represents the direct impacts of the 15 factors, whereby the sum of the rows corresponds to the activity and the sum of the column to the passivity of an impact factor.

Definitive set of 12 factors

Listing of 40-50 impact factors

related to tourism

development and belonging to the selected domains

of impact. Methods:

Brainstorming, mind-mapping,

literature review and

expert interview

Selection of 29

impact factors

2 working groups

Selection of 15 impact

factors

Formative evaluation

1

2

3

53

Table D 2: Definition of the 15 selected impact factors. The impact factors belong to five domain of impact, namely ecology, economy, society, politic and infrastructures.

DOMAIN IMPACT FACTOR DEFINITION Landscape aesthetics

Natural areas, which present characteristics with an aesthetic value

Coastal erosion Decrease of the coastal area’s width, above all of the beaches, because of natural and/or anthropogenic factors that activate erosion processes

Biodiversity Diversity of rare & native plant & animal species in La Digue. Examples of important elements are the Paradise Flycatcher bird for the terrestrial biodiversity and the turtles and the coral reefs for the marine biodiversity Ec

olog

y

Freshwater supply Capacity of the water catchments areas and of groundwater for the supply of drinking water and quality of drinking water. This factor includes important aspects like the risk of groundwater pollution and the need of a supplementary water source like desalinated sea water

Local culture and tradition

Importance of traditional activities, like fishing, handicrafts, traditional dances and music, cookery, architectural style and ox-cart riding on the island.

Population density The number of people per square kilometre and the distribution of the population around the island. The element population density also includes the rate of Diguois compared to the total population.

Participation Populations’ grade of participation in planning, developing and running of sustainable tourism projects

Soci

ety

Environmental awareness

Awareness of the local people referring to the ecosystem of La Digue and its economic base. Enforcement of environmental education

Economic contribution

Contribution of tourism to the local economic wealth. The contribution is measured by the number of labour forces in the tourism sector of La Digue and expressed through the total income.

Labour forces Employment within the tourism industry

Econ

omy

Protected area Management

Activities of the responsible authorities in order to manage protected areas. Existence of resources to enforce management guidelines

Polit

ic Enforcement of laws

and regulations Reinforcement of laws and existence of resources (trained staff and funds) to enforce environmental and development planning laws

Transport network Means of transport on the island and length of roads. Importance of non-motorised and motorised vehicles on the island. The transport network is composed of cars/taxis, trucks, helicopter, boats, bicycle, horse and ox-cart

Accommodations Tourist infrastructures that offer an accommodation possibility. A difference based on the number of rooms is made between large hotels, small hotels and self-catering

Infr

astr

uctu

res

Tourism products and services

Range of attractions, activities and facilities that are proposed to tourists on the island. Examples for tourism products and services are unspoiled beaches, natural areas, handicrafts shops and art galleries, cultural events, restaurants and snacks, activities, like snorkelling, diving, fishing, nature trail-tours, excursions to other islands, boat tours, etc. The quality of the service also belongs to the services

54

Table D 3: Impact matrix of the direct impacts between the different factors. The rating ´0=no direct impact´, ´1= low direct impact´ or ´2=strong direct impact´ was applied, whereby the assessment occurred in each case from row to column. The total sum of the rows and of the columns displays respectively the activity and the passivity of the impact factors.

D1.5 Reduction of impact factors (Evaluation of the impact matrix) System grid In order to reduce the impact factors, the last one were represented within a system grid (see Figure D 3). This grid represents the activity and the passivity of the impact factors and it can be determined if these latter are active, passive, ambivalent or buffer factors. The results of this grid show that five factors, namely “protected area management”, “participation”, “environmental awareness”, “laws and regulations” and “transport network” have a high activity. The population density is also a quite active factor. These factors influence other factors in a large extent and are influenced by other factors in a minor degree. Consequently, changes in the tourism development can be achieved by varying these factors. One factor, namely the accommodations, shows a strong ambivalence. This factor is thus influenced by other factors and influences other factors in a great extend. The two other ambivalent factors that are the “economic contribution” and the “tourism products and services” show a strong passivity with however an activity that is slightly above the mean. The impact of these factors is difficult to predict. The social impact factor “local culture and tradition”, the economic factor “labour forces” and the four ecological factors are either passive or buffer factors. These latter are those factors that are less important and can be eliminated, while reducing furthermore the set of impact factors, as these whether influence other factors in a great extend nor are influenced by other factors.

Land

scap

e ae

sthe

tics

Biod

iver

sity

Coa

stal

ero

sion

Fres

hwat

er s

uppl

y

Econ

omic

con

tribu

tion

Prot

ecte

d Ar

ea M

anag

emen

t

Labo

ur fo

rces

Loca

l cul

ture

and

trad

ition

Par

ticip

atio

n

Popu

latio

n de

nsity

Envi

ronm

enta

l aw

aren

ess

Law

s

Acc

omod

atio

n

Tour

ism

pro

duct

s an

d se

rvic

es

Tran

spor

t net

wor

k

Act

ivity

Landscape aesthetics 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 9Biodiversity 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 8Coastal erosion 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 10Freshwater supply 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 6Economic contribution 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 12Protected Area Management 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 1 15Labour forces 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 11Local culture and tradition 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 8Participation 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 1 15Population density 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 12Environmental awareness 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 14Laws 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 13Accomodation 2 1 2 2 2 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 2 2 19Tourism products and services 1 1 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 12Transport network 2 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 1 14Passivity 17 15 12 10 18 11 7 12 6 11 6 9 14 19 11 178

Direct Impact

of

on

55

Figure D 3: System grid for the impact factors. The mean activity respectively passivity (11.87) divides the area of the grid into four quadrants. The quadrant on the left side at the top contains active factors. The quadrant at the bottom on the right side represents passive factors. At the top on the right side are the ambivalent, or critical factors and at the bottom on the left side the buffer factors are represented. The latter have a low impact and are also little influenced. System graph The information out of the impact matrix can likewise be visualised within a system graph, whereby the influence that factors have on others are represented with arrows. As mentioned in section C2.2.5, the visualisation of the impact matrix and the following reduction of impact factors were first conducted without any computer program support. The system graph is represented below, after the reduction of the set of impact factors. Reduction of the impact factors Out of the impact matrix, the system grid and the system graph, three impact factors were eliminated, namely:

• “Labour forces” was eliminated, because it was implicitly included in other factors and because it is a buffer factor.

• “Management of protected areas” is a factor that was merged with the factor “Laws and regulations”, as both factors show the same tendency to influence and to be influenced by other factors.

• “Participation” was likewise merged with the factor “Environmental awareness”. Both factors show the same tendency to influence and to be influence by other factors.

The two buffer factors “Local culture and tradition” and “Freshwater supply” were kept, as it was considered that these two factors are essential for the objective of the analysis. After this reduction process, the definition of the 12 remained impact factors was adapted to the changes and a new impact matrix, system grid and system graph (see below) was generated. In Table D 4, the two impact factors that were redefined are described.

1 Landscape aesthetics2 Biodiversity3 Coastal erosion4 Water Catchment supply5 Economic growth6 Protected Area Management7 Labour forces8 Local culture and tradition9 Participation

10 Population density11 Environmental awareness12 Laws13 Accomodation14 Tourism products and services15 Transport network

System grid of direct impacts

0

5

10

15

20

0 5 10 15 20Passivity

Act

ivity

Impactfactors8

7

9

11 12

13

615

3

42

5 14

1

10

Active Ambivalent

Buffer Passive

56

Table D 4: Definition of the two modified impact factors IMPACT FACTOR DEFINITION

Enforcement of laws and regulations

Reinforcement of laws and existence of resources (trained staff and funds) to enforce both environmental and development planning laws and management guidelines

Environmental awareness

Awareness of the local people referring to the ecosystem of La Digue and its economic base. Enforcement of environmental education and participation in planning, developing and running of sustainable tourism projects

MIC-MAC analysis As mentioned in section C2.2.5, the MIC-MAC analysis, which allows finding out if some factors were over or under estimated, was carried out at the end of the study, as a verification tool. The result can be visualised in Figure D 4. Two factor, namely the population density and the tourism products and services are clearly overestimated. This means that within the assessment of direct impacts they were ranked as more active than they are indirectly. In addition, the factors economic contribution, local culture and tradition, transport network and accommodations were a bit overestimated. The coastal erosion was clearly underestimated and the factor participation was also slightly underestimated. These last two factors have indirect impacts on other factors and therefore they affect additionally the system. The factor labour force, which was eliminated because of its low activity and passivity, is ranked indirectly equally than directly. This enables to assume that this factor could be eliminated.

Figure D 4: Ranking of the activity of the 15 impact factors. The x-axis represents the ranking of the direct impacts and the y-axis represents the ranking of the indirect impacts.

System graph for the reduced set of impact factors The system graph with the 12 chosen factors is presented in Figure D5. In order to reduce the complexity of this model, only the strong interactions are represented. It can be observed that three factors, namely accommodations, environmental awareness and laws and regulations (which is outside the system boundary) present a high activity value. The impact factor accommodations is the nucleus of the system, as it is the factor with the highest activity value. The economic contribution, the population density and the transport network present also a relevant activity. The remaining six factors all present a

1 Landscape aesthetics2 Biodiversity3 Coastal erosion4 Water Catchment supply5 Economic growth6 Protected Area Management7 Labour forces8 Local culture and tradition9 Participation

10 Population density11 Environmental awareness12 Laws13 Accomodation14 Tourism products and services15 Transport network

Activity: Direct vs. indirect rankings

02468

10121416

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Direct rankings

Indi

rect

rank

ings

5

1014

12

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

15

overestimated impact factors

underestimated impact factors

57

low activity. In the system graph, it becomes apparent that the four ecological factors are influenced by other factors while influencing the other factors in a minor extent. Furthermore, apart from the factor water supply, which presents a low passivity (and is thus considered as buffer factor, see system grid above), the three other ecological factors have a high passivity value. The intensity of the influence that anthropogenic impact factors have on ecological impact factors is further illustrated in Figure D 5. For a better visual understanding, the ecological factors are aggregated into a Nature Sub-system. In this figure only the strong direct impacts of the three most active impact factors and the direct impacts between the anthropogenic factors and the nature sub-system are represented. The impacts of the nature sub-system on the other factors are represented in dotted line. Further more, the thickness of the arrows represent the strength of the impact. Regarding now in a closer manner the interactions between the nature sub-system and the other factors, it is obvious that all impact factors, apart from the economic contribution, which present a high activity value, have a strong direct influence on the nature-sub-system. On the other hand, the nature sub-system influence in a minor degree the factors population density, laws and regulations and tourism products and services and on a higher degree the economic contribution.

Figure D5: System graph of the 12 impact factors. The interactions between the impact factors are represented with arrows, and only the strong impacts (2) are illustrated. The darker a box is the more active an impact factor is. The numbers above or below the boxes stand for the activity (left) respectively the passivity (right) of the impact factors.

Environmental awareness

Laws and regulations

Economic contribution

Water supply

Landscape aesthetics

Biodiversity

Coastal erosion

Accommodation

Culture and tradition

Tourism products

and services

Transport network

Population density

Increase of the activity of the impact factors

8 8

4

Nature Sub-system

System boundary: La Digue Island

8

12 6

10

810

10

4 10

6 6 8

8

4

4

614

44

8 2

58

Figure D 6: Interactions between anthropogenic impact factors and ecological impacts factors. The latter are, for a better visualization, aggregated into a Nature sub-system. In this figure only the strong direct impacts (2) of the three most active impact factors (environmental awareness, laws and regulations and accommodations) and the strong direct impacts between the anthropogenic factors and the nature sub-system a represented. Thus strong direct impacts between anthropogenic factors are not presented. The impacts of the nature sub-system on the other factors are represented in dotted line. Furthermore, the thickness of the arrows represents the strength of the impact. The thickness of the arrow represents the strength of the influence on the sub-system (there are three different grade of thickness, representing one, two or three impacts). Like in figure D4, the darkness of a box represents its activity within the system.

D1.6 Consistency analysis In this section, the results of the steps six and seven, as described in chapter C2.2 are presented (see Figure C 1). As mentioned, the scenario construction (see D1.7) is accomplished through the combination of characteristic levels of the impact factors. The determined levels for the 12 impact factors are represented in Table D6. One level covers the present state and the other one a possible development state of the factor. In the subsequent step, the impact factors with their respective characteristic levels are applied against each other in the consistency matrix (Table D 5). At each interaction it is estimated if the pair of levels of two impact factors require each other (2), promote each other (1), are coexistent (0) or if they are inconsistent (-1) (see also C1.7). The selection of the four scenarios was generated (see next section below) intuitively on the base of the different previous steps of the scenario analysis and on the base of expert interviews. Using the developed consistency matrix, it was attempted to move apart any possible inconsistency. The consistency of the four scenarios was further more reviewed within a workshop with stakeholders working in the tourism industry. The formative procedure to construct scenarios was used afterwards to verify in a systematic way the consistency of the four scenarios. The results of the formative consistency analysis using the computer programme “KD-Consistency analysis” are the following:

Tourism products

and services

Culture and tradition

Environmental awareness

Economic contribution

Transport network

Population density

Accommodation

Nature Sub-

system

Laws and regulations

System boundary: La Digue Island

Increase of the activity of the impact factors

59

• The four generated scenarios present very high consistency values. The four scenarios have high multiplicative and additive consistency values and no inconsistence.

• One scenario, namely scenario Nature preservation (see section D1.7), is the scenario with the highest consistency value. Another scenario (free development) presents the second highest consistency.

• Two of the four generated scenarios are similar (Authentic Creole Style and Five Star Eco-Tourism). It appears that these two scenarios differentiate from each other at only two points. This has the consequence that from the formative perspective to construct scenarios, they could not represent two different future development states, except one key factor differentiates these two scenarios. The formative analysis demonstrates that the dissimilitude of the description of the two scenarios lies on information that are not included in the characteristic levels, namely the hotel and guesthouse categories.

• The formative scenario analysis enabled to find a fifth scenario, which present a high consistent value with only one inconsistency. This scenario is in many points different from the other four scenarios. This scenario is briefly presented in the discussion (see chapter E1).

Table D 5: Consistency matrix of the 12 selected impact factors. The rating ´-1=inconsistent´, ´0= coexistent´, ´1= promoting´ or ´2=requirement´ was applied, whereby the assessment occurred in each case from row to column.

Levels a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b c a b a ba) preservedb) overbuita) cst or increase 1 -1b) decrease 0 1a) <30% endangered 1 -1 1 0b) >30% endangered -1 1 0 1a) >80% supplied 0 0 0 0 0 0b) <80% supplied 0 0 0 0 0 0a) contribution cst/decrease 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0b) contribution increase 0 1 0 1 0 1 -1 1a) promoted 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0b) not promoted 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1a) constant 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 -1 1 0b) increase 0 2 0 1 0 0 -1 1 -1 2 0 1a) high awareness 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0b) low awareness 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0a) reinforced and enforced 2 -1 2 -1 2 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -1b) not reinforced/enforced 0 1 -1 1 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1a) constant or decrease 1 -1 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 -1 1 0 1 0b) low increase 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0c) increase -1 1 0 0 0 1 -1 1 -1 2 0 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1a) wide variety 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 -1 1 2b) low variety 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -1 -1a) constant or decrease 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 -1 0 0 1 1 -1 1 0b) increase -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 0 0 0 1 -1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Landsc

ape a

est

hetic

Bio

div

ers

ity

Coast

al e

rosi

on

Cle

an w

ate

r su

pply

Eco

nom

ic c

ontr

ibutio

Loca

l cultu

re a

nd

traditi

on

Popula

tion d

ensi

ty

Envi

ronm

enta

l aw

are

ness

Law

s

Touri

mus

pro

duct

s and s

erv

ices

Tra

nsp

ort netw

ork

Acc

om

odatio

n

Biodiversity

Landscape aesthetics

Coastal erosion

Clean water supply

Economic contribution

Local culture and tradition

Population density

Environmental awareness

Laws

Transport network

Tourimus products and services

Accomodation

IMPACT FACTORS

60

Table D 6: Selected characteristic levels for the 12 impact factors. IMPACT FACTOR LEVELS Landscape aesthetics

a) Natural areas with an aesthetic value are preserved. b) Natural areas with an aesthetic value are overbuild.

Coastal erosion a) Less than 30% of the total coastal area is critically endangered by erosion. b) More than 30% of the total coastal area is critically endangered by coastal erosion.

Biodiversity a) The diversity of rare and native plant & animal species on La Digue keeps the current ratio or is increased. b) There is a decrease is the diversity of rare and native plant and animal species on La Digue.

Freshwater supply a) The water supply guarantees 80% or more of the demand for drinking water. b) The water supply is under 80% of the demand of drinking water on the island. Water must be made available by barrages or desalination.

Local culture and tradition

a) Traditional activities are promoted. c) Traditional activities are not promoted. There is a loss of most traditional activities and the modern European life style is predominant.

Population density a) The number of people per square kilometre stays about constant. 2/3 of the population is living around La Passe and Anse Réunion. b) Increase of the population. Housing extensions towards the hill and other regions of the island.

Environmental awareness

a) High awareness of the local population of the importance of environmental preservation. Enforcement of environmental education and involvement of the population in planning, developing and running sustainable tourism projects. b) Low awareness of the local population of the importance of environmental preservation. Neither an enforcement of environmental education takes place, nor the participation of the local population in sustainable tourism projects.

Economic contribution

a) Contribution of the income generated by the employment in the tourism sector stays constant or decreases. b) Contribution of the income generated by the employment in the tourism sector increases.

Enforcement of laws and regulations

a) Existing environmental and development planning laws are reinforced and resources to enforce these as well as resources to include guidelines and strategies to preserve and finance natural areas are available. b) No reinforcement of laws and regulations. Only a few resources to enforce the laws are available. Decrease of natural areas.

Transport network a) Number of motor vehicles keeps the current range or decreases. The length of the roads system stays constant. The principal means of transport is bicycle. b) Number of motor-vehicles increases as well as the length of the roads.

Accommodations a) Number of hotels and self-catering guesthouses stays constant or decreases. b) Number of large hotels stays constant and the number of small hotels and self-catering guesthouses increases a bit. c) Increase in the number of tourist accommodations (hotels and self-catering guesthouses).

Tourism products and services

a) There exist a wide variety of attractions and activities for the tourists. b) Only a few attractions and activities are proposed to tourists.

61

D1.7 Scenario construction As a result of the previous steps of the scenario analysis, four scenarios, which describe a possible tourism development on La Digue Island in the forthcoming 10 years, were constructed (see C1.8). The construction of the four scenarios is based on the system knowledge acquired, and the description of the scenarios is first represented in the formative way to construct the scenarios. That means that each scenario is described through the combinations of the impact factors and their respective characteristic levels. An overview of the combination of the characteristic levels for the actual state and the four scenarios in given in Table D 7. Whenever possible, quantitative values to the characteristic levels of each scenario have been attributed. Furthermore, some factors, which do not belong to the selected set of impact factors and their respective characteristic levels, are also included in this table. These factors derive from the impact factors and are highlighted to increase the understanding of the differences between the four scenarios. In Appendix G1.4, the complete description of the four scenarios with their characteristic levels is presented. The description of the actual situation is not provided in appendix G1.4, as the latter is derived from the introduction and the description of the system characteristics. Based on the information contained in Table D 7, the four scenarios are described and illustrated in the subsequent section.

62

Table D 7: Overview on the four scenarios, Free Development, Authentic Creole Style, Nature Preservation and Five-Star Eco-Tourism. The characteristic levels of the impact factors respectively their quantifications are represented within a grey background. The supplementary factors should give useful information to understand better the differences between the four scenarios.

Important aspects Actual situation Scenario 1: Free Development

Scenario 2: Authentic Creole Style

Scenario 3: Nature Preservation

Scenario 4: Five-Star-Eco-Tourism

Accommodation 23 hotels and guesthouses 414 beds

High increase: 19 new small hotels and one large hotel 900 beds

Low Increase: 5 new guesthouses 574 beds

25 hotels and guesthouses 420 beds

Low increase: 4 luxurious hotels 500 beds

Land use for hotels and guesthouses

10.4 hectares 29.4ha 11.4 hectares 10.4 hectare 33.4 hectare

Tourist arrivals 34’000 overnight tourists and 55’000 day tourists. Total = 89’000

72’000 overnight tourists and 73’00 day tourists Total = 145’000

47’000 overnight tourists and 55’000 day tourists Total = 102’000

35’000 overnight tourists and 73’000 day tourists Total = 108’000

40’000 overnight tourist and 37’000 day tourists Total = 77’000

Tourism products & Services

Low variety 8 restaurants and 12 shops 1 diving centre 1 horse riding centre 1 centre organising excursions

Wide variety 18 restaurants 1 discotheque 20 shops 6 centres proposing diving, water sports, excursions, etc.

Wide variety 13 restaurants 25 shops Creole village Cultural events Traditional handicrafts 4 centres proposing diving, snorkelling, excursions, eco-trails, etc.

Low variety 9 restaurants 15 shops 1 diving centre 1 horse riding centre 3 centres proposing nature attractions like eco-trails

Wide Variety 18 restaurants 16 shops 5 centres proposing diving, fishing, snorkelling, excursions, eco-trail tours, etc.

Transport 45 motor vehicles. 20km road

70 motor vehicles Road extension

< 40 motor vehicles 20km road

15-20 motor vehicles 20km road

<40 motor vehicles Road extension >Helicopter arrival

Economic contribution Contribution by employment in 1997 = SR11’000’000

Contribution by employment in 2013 = SR27’000’000

Contribution by employment in 2013 = SR18’000’000

Contribution by employment in 2013 = SR14’000000 15$ fees per tourist

Contribution by employment in 2013 = SR22’000’000

Labour forces in tourism 37.5% working in tourism sector 352 labour forces

50% working in tourism sector Immigration of labour forces 816 labour forces

50% working in tourism sector Low immigration rate 567 labour forces

40% working in tourism sector No immigration 431 labour forces

50% working in tourism sector High immigration rate in short term 669 labour forces

Enforcement of laws & regulations

Weak enforcement of laws and regulations

Weak enforcement of laws and regulations

Enforcement of laws and regulations

Enforcement of laws and regulations

Enforcement of laws and regulations

63

Environmental awareness

Low awareness Low awareness High awareness High awareness High awareness

Population density 1.9 persons per hectare. 2/3 concentrated on 38ha =>35 persons per ha

2.6 persons per hectare. Dispersion of housing

2.3 persons per hectare 2/3 concentrated on 47ha

2.2 persons per hectare 2/3 concentrated on 44ha

2.5 persons per hectare 2/3 concentrated on 49ha

Population size 2099 2600 2300 2240 2500 Number of houses 621 767 698 659 724 Land use for housing constructions

140.8 hectare Total built up area is about 300 ha

15 additional hectares for private houses

7.6 additional hectares for private houses

3.8 additional hectares for private houses

10.3 additional hectares for private houses

Culture & Tradition Not promoted. Modern lifestyle very important

Not promoted. Modern lifestyle predominant

Strongly promoted Promoted Not promoted. Modern lifestyle predominant

Water supply 90% supply guaranteed <80% supply guaranteed. Desalination of sea water becomes compulsory

<80% supply guaranteed. A certain part must be made available by desalination

>80% supply guaranteed

<80% supply guaranteed Desalination of sea water becomes compulsory

Sewage Some pollution of groundwater because of sewage

Possible increase in groundwater pollution

Concentration on Plateau increases risk of groundwater pollution

Well designed septic tanks or central sewage treatment plant decreases pollution

No contamination of groundwater expected from new 5*-hotels

Rare and native animal species

Main species: Paradise Flycatcher, Seychelles Swiflet, Terrapins, marine turtles, coral reefs

Decrease in diversity and/or population of rare an native plant and animal species

Diversity and/or population of rare and native plant and animal species keeps the current ratio

Diversity and/or population of rare and native plant and animal species Increases

Diversity and/or population of rare and native plant and animal species keeps the current ratio or increases

Coastal erosion 26% of beaches critically endangered by erosion

>30% of the total coastal area critically endangered by erosion

<30% of the total coastal area critically endangered by erosion

<30% of the total coastal area critically endangered by erosion

<30% of the total coastal area critically endangered by erosion

Landscape aesthetics Anse Source d’Argent to Grand Anse, Petite Anse and mountain area, Pointe Turcy to Anse Patate, Pointe Cap Barbi, Rochers de La Passe Great heterogeneity of the landscape

Natural areas with an aesthetic value are overbuilt. Low heterogeneity of the landscape

Natural areas with an aesthetic value are preserved. Great heterogeneity of the landscape

Natural areas with an aesthetic value are preserved Great heterogeneity of the landscape

Natural areas with an aesthetic value are preserved Great heterogeneity of the landscape Unspoiled visual perception of the coastal areas decrease

64

D1.7.1 Scenario 1: Free Development As Mahé and Praslin, La Digue continues to be developed. Comparable to the development of the past 10-15 years, the forthcoming 10-15 years are characterised by an intensive development of tourist infrastructures. 19 new small hotels and guesthouses and 1 large hotel are build all around the coast. In addition, the demand for other tourist facilities, like souvenir shops, restaurants, night clubs, diving centres and water sport centres or other clubs proposing activities increases and opens new investment options for locals. Traditional activities become rare. Accordingly to the increase of infrastructures new roads are built and the transport by car increases. The number of tourist arrivals reaches 145’000 in 2013 and the contribution of the income generated by the employment in the tourism sector increases by 140%. There are more job opportunities in the tourism sector, which will also demand the import of a great number of labour forces. The enforcement of laws is weak and so is the environmental awareness of the population. The landscape is more and more stamped with constructions and beach erosion increases. The fragmentation of the ecosystem results in a decrease in the diversity of rare and native plant and animal species. The lack of treated water from natural water sources to supply the demand has the consequence that the demand must be fulfilled through desalination of seawater. The illustration of this scenario is represented in Figure D 7.

65

Figure D 7: Illustration of scenario 1: ´Free development´

66

D1.7.2 Scenario 2: Authentic Creole Style La Digue focuses on the main features of the Creole culture, differentiating itself from Mahé and Praslin. The tourism development is characterized by the promotion of the authenticity of the Creole culture, while preserving the natural strengths of the island. 5 new guesthouses are constructed in the Creole architectural style and local people offer accommodations in their houses. In addition, the amount of tourist facilities, like shops, restaurants, centers proposing diving, snorkeling, excursions to other islands and eco-trails within the island increases. A small Creole village is established, where traditional activities, local art and handicrafts, like woodcrafts, woodcarving or perfume from vanilla or cinnamon are offered to tourists. No more roads are built and the transport by car decreases slightly. The number of tourist arrivals reaches 102’000 in 2013 and the contribution of the income generated by the employment in the tourism sector increases by 60%. A higher proportion of the population are involved in the tourism industry and only slight labour forces are imported. Environmental laws are enforced and a management of natural areas is available. Further more there is a high environmental awareness within the population. The concentration of the tourism development on the western coast does not increase, beach erosion and the management of key natural areas is strengthened. As a result, the number of rare and native plant and animal species stays constant. The promotion of the traditional architectural style positively affects the landscape view on the Plateau area. The illustration of this scenario is represented in Figure D 8.

67

Figure D 8: Illustration of Scenario 2: ´Authentic Creole Style´

68

D1.7.3 Scenario 3: Nature Conservation Comparable to Bird Island, situated on the north of Mahé, La Digue becomes specialised in nature conservation. Highest priority is given to the natural ecosystem of La Digue and no more hotels and guesthouses are built. This development does not support a great diversification and extension of marine or other tourist activities, but offers of a wide range of nature-orientated activities. Different eco-trail tours within the inner-island are developed for tourists by private clubs or clubs owned by NGOs. No more roads are built and the transport by car decreases to the rate of the 80s. The traditional way of living is actively promoted and naturally encourage by the stop of the development and the reduction of the motor vehicles. The number of tourist arrivals reaches 108’000 in 2013 and the contribution of the income generated by the employment in the tourism sector increases by 25%, since the majority of the tourists come to visit the natural area for one day. Because the conservation and management of the natural areas of the island are related to costs, tourists visiting the natural area of La Digue pay a fee of 15$. Environmental laws are enforced and reinforced and environmental awareness of the population strongly increases. As 60% of the total area stands under protection, this positively affects the natural beauty of the coastal areas and the multifaceted landscape on La Digue. The reintroduction of native and endemic species increases the heterogeneity of the landscape. The great efforts put on conservation and management of the biodiversity of the island enable to increase the diversity of rare and native plant as well as animal species. The illustration of this scenario is represented in Figure D 9.

69

Figure D 9: Illustration of scenario 3: ´Nature Preservation´

70

D1.7.4 Scenario 4: Five-Star Eco-Tourism La Digue follows the present trend of the smaller islands of Seychelles and specializes on the high-price segment. Like North Island, the focus on La Digue is given to eco-tourism “de luxe” and 3-4 luxurious facilities with an average of 10 bungalows per establishment are built at exclusive places, like Anse Fourmi, Anse Coco and Anse Source d’Argent. Tourist facilities offer to tourists a wide range of attractions with highest comfort while being strongly nature orientated. “Nature walks” on eco-trails with private guides are organized as well as diving courses, snorkeling, fishing and excursions on other islands as well as educational activities like talks on different environmental themes. The amount of exclusive souvenir and craft shops and restaurants increases also. The actual road network is extended in order to reach all accommodation facilities but the transport by car decreases a bit. Arrivals by helicopter increase also. The number of tourist arrivals reaches 77’000 in 2013 and the contribution of the income generated by the employment in the tourism sector increases by 95%. In the short term the import of labour forces from Mauritius is necessary. The environmental awareness of the population is increased. The management of coastal areas and the enforcement of laws are strengthened. This includes measures preventing further erosion of the coastal areas. The reintroduction of native and endemic species increases the heterogeneity of the landscape and the diversity of rare and endemic plant as well as animal species. The illustration of this scenario is represented in Figure D 10.

71

Figure D 10: Illustration of scenario 4: ´Five-Star-Eco-Tourism´

72

D2 Scenario evaluation (MAUT) The assessment of the four generated scenarios representing a possible tourism development on La Digue Island is done with the Multi-attribute Utility Theory in order to find out the desirability regarding the occurrence of these four scenarios. For this assessment, nine sustainability criteria were worked out as described in chapter C3.2. These criteria, the data based evaluation and the stakeholder-based evaluation of the four scenarios are presented in this chapter.

D2.1 Evaluation criteria and attributes Nine criteria have been chosen (see chapter C3.2). Each criteria was made measurable by an attribute and the resulting set was chosen to evaluate the sustainable tourism development of the four scenarios (see Table D 8). However, it should be remembered that some relevant criteria had to be put aside for different reasons: because of a lack of data for the quantification of the criteria (e.g. solid waste, beach erosion and stability of the economy), because they are implicitly included in other criteria (e.g. intensity of tourism flows), or because the evaluation of the criteria is highly dependent on external factors that are not directly included in the study (e.g. education, participation of the population in the decision making process). Table D 8: List of the nine chosen criteria and their corresponding attribute for the evaluation of the tourism development on La Digue. There are three criteria in each sustainability dimension and each criteria is made measurable through an attribute

Sustainability dimension

Criteria Attributes

1. Resources use Total water consumption per day/total capacity of the safe yield of the natural water reserves per day. [m3per day/m3 per day]

2. Land use of the coastal plateau

Area of the Plateau that is built up with infrastructure /total area of the Plateau [ha/ha]

Ecology

3. Protection of endangered animal species

Areas of key ecosystems that contribute to the survival of endangered animal species [category from –2 to +2]

4. Economic wealth Yearly tourists’ expenditures [SR/year] 5. Employment situation in tourism

Number of jobs generated by tourism [#] Economy

6. Regional economic flow

Ratio of local products used in restaurants/total products used [%]

7. Overcrowding Number of tourists per 100 metres of (accessible) beach [#/100 m]

8. Social conflicts Ratio of migrant workers in tourism compared to the total number of workers in tourism [% Foreign workers / total workers in tourism]

Society

9. Traditional and nature orientated activities

Number and type of traditional and nature orientated activities [category from 1 to 5]

Each criteria and its corresponding attribute are shortly described below. The interested reader will find more precise description in appendix G4.

73

D2.1.1 Ecological criteria Resource use (1) Evaluation criteria: Consumption of resources in the different tourists accommodations and generally on the island. Attribute: Quantity of water consumed for commercial purposes, like tourism accommodation, domestic and governmental purposes. The measurement is done by calculating the total water consumption per day/total capacity of the safe yield of the natural water reserves per day. Unit: [m3per day/m3 per day]. Explanatory statement: Freshwater resources are characteristic limited resources of small islands, like La Digue, which often face severe constraints in terms of both the quality and the quantity of freshwater (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2003) (see chapter D1.2). The use of this attribute to measure the water consumption enables to point out how much more freshwater is needed compared both to the safe yield of the natural water reserves and to the maximum production capacity of the water treatment plant on La Digue. Thus, depending on the necessary amount of water predicted within the scenarios, the resulting volume that will have to be supplied with the desalination plant can then be known. As desalination of sea water is “extremely costly, requires dependence on imported fuels and contributes to increased green house gas (GHG) emissions” (Ghina, 2003), an important use of desalinated water is a major limit to sustainable development. Furthermore, the water consumption gives insights on the wastewater and on the resulting risk of groundwater pollution i.e. on the risk of a decrease of the freshwater quality. Land use of the coastal plateau (2) Evaluation criteria The area of the coastal Plateau used for tourist infrastructures and other constructions is taken into account. The Plateau area corresponds to the area situated below 10 metres height. Attribute: Estimation of the built up area for tourist and other infrastructures on the coastal Plateau / total area of the coastal Plateau. Unit: [ha/ha] Explanatory statement: The choice to concentrate on the land use of the plateau area and not on the whole area of the island is related to the fact that tourism development takes place almost only on the coastal band3 and on La Digue also a slight land inside, on the Plateau area. Furthermore, at the present time, 80% of the constructions are situated in an area of 220 hectares on the western Plateau. The continuous development of tourist infrastructures implies an important ecological pressure. Indeed, areas that are used for tourist infrastructures are not anymore ecologically accessible. Constructions decrease also the unspoiled visual perception of the landscape. Depending on the built up area of the different scenarios, both a loss of biodiversity and a decrease of the visual beauty of the landscape can be predicted. Consequently, the land use can be seen as an important limiting factor of a sustainable tourism development. Protection of endangered animal species (3) Evaluation criteria: Protection of endangered animal species, native and endemic, where La Digue contributes significantly to their survival. Attribute: the size and the number of key ecosystems that contribute to the survival of endangered animal species. Key ecosystems are: wetlands, the Plateau woodland, the beaches, the forest, the shell reserve, glacis, rocky areas and the mountain woodland. The ranking is done by comparing the scenarios with the actual situation. Two experts carried out this assessment.

3 The coastal band is defined as the land situated in the inside first 100 metres from the high tide sea level (Duncombe, 1996).

74

Unit: (No unit) - Categories are quoted linearly from –2 to +2 (corresponding respectively to a strong decrease and a strong increase in the size and number of key ecosystem). Explanatory statement: The focus is done on native and endemic animal species, as they highly contribute to the biodiversity of the Seychelles. The choice to measure this criterion through key ecosystems is based on the fact that the number of endangered animal species on La Digue is highly correlated to the number and size of key ecosystems.

D2.1.2 Economic criteria Economic wealth (4) Evaluation criteria: contribution of tourism to the welfare of La Digue. The benefits from tourism contribute significantly to the capacity of the population to fulfil its needs. Attribute: Yearly tourists’ expenditures. The yearly tourists’ expenditures have a great influence on the income of La Digue. The average tourist expenditures per day for the Seychelles are used as a basis value. An extrapolation is done for La Digue with several assumptions, supported by expert interview, for the four scenarios. Unit: Seychelles Rupees (SR) per year [SR/year] Explanatory statement: Tourism plays a main role in the income generation of La Digue, as it is the only economic sector that generates foreign exchanges. It is thus an important economic parameter. Because of the lack of available statistical data for La Digue, assumptions were made that allow a comparison of the different scenarios, but they do not reflect the real income (income that stays on the island) generated by the tourism industry. Employment situation in tourism (5) Evaluation criteria: tourism as an important sector regarding the generation of labour forces. Attribute: Number of jobs generated by the tourism industry. Unit: Number of jobs on the island. Explanatory statement: The maintenance and the generation of labour forces in tourism is an important attribute, as it allows getting insights of the economic situation in tourism. The generation of new jobs is related to a wealthy economy and to the satisfaction of employees, who have more work possibilities. Depending on the future tourism development, the importance of this sector concerning the generation of labour forces for the population will vary. Regional economic flow (6) Evaluation criteria: Ratio of local products that are used in food and beverages served in restaurants. Attribute: The measurement is done by a qualitative assessment of the ratio of local products in food and beverages compared to the total products used. This enables to represent the tendency of the different scenarios, regarding the amount of local products that are boosted. Unit: Percentage [%] Explanatory statement: The focus on alimentation is based on the fact that for the local economy it is above all agricultural and fishery products that play a great role. Further more, the fraction of local products that are served in the meals at restaurants enables to evaluate the local effect of tourism earnings and to make an extrapolation on the imports that are done within the different tourism establishments. Through this criterion the loss of potential economic benefits from tourism, due to increased imports of goods and services can be discussed.

75

D2.1.3 Social criteria Overcrowding (7) Evaluation criteria: tourist flows on the island, as perceived by the tourists themselves. The destination attracts and satisfies tourists with regard to tourist flows. Attribute: Number of tourists per 100 metres of (accessible) beach. Unit: [Number of tourists / 100 m] Explanatory statement: This criteria is a typical criteria to measure the carrying capacity of a site, as the quality of the visitor experience is strongly dependent on the number of tourists that are at the same time one the same place. The focus on the beach area is done with the assumption that about 80% of tourists visiting La Digue spend at least some hours on the beach. Because it is assumed that the threshold regarding an acceptable level of tourists on the island is lower for tourists than for the local community, this indicator intentionally focuses on the tourists and not on the tourism pressure on the local community. The number of tourists not only gives information on the social sustainability, but also on the ecological sustainability. Indeed, the more tourists present at a place, the more negative impacts will act on fragile ecosystems. Social conflicts (8) Evaluation criteria: Conflicts than can appear between different culture and/or in the employment situation, e.g. cultural differences between Seychellois and migrant workers. Attributes: Ratio of migrant workers employed in the tourism sector compared to the total number of labour forces in tourism. Unit: [% foreign workers / total workers in tourism] Explanatory statement: The tendency to import labour forces in the Seychelles became more important in the last few years, due principally to the five-star-establishments where a high quality service is needed. This attribute enables to extrapolate both on the ratio of cultural differences on the island and on the importance to enhance educational possibilities for the community. Depending on the kind of tourist establishment, this ratio will vary. Traditional and nature orientated activities (9) Evaluation criteria: Products derived from traditional activities or products that include nature aspects, which are offered to tourists. These products are related to traditional activities and are: Creole architecture, agriculture, fishing, handicrafts, products derived from plantations, cookery, festivals or nature orientated activities, like bio-productions and nature-trails. Attribute: Qualitative assessment of the number of traditional and nature orientated activities. This assessment was carried out with one expert. Unit: (No Unit) Categories are linearly estimated from 1 to 5 corresponding respectively to a very low and very high number of traditional activities. Explanatory statement: La Digue is the last island in the Seychelles were traditional activities can still be found. Furthermore, the image of the island is stamped with the traditional way of life. This came out from tourist interviews, where 40% of the interviewed tourists gave the traditional way of life as an argument to visit La Digue. The reason to choose tourist products and not directly traditional and nature orientated activities of the community relies on the following assumption: traditional and nature orientated activities will only be promoted if people can profit from them. For example, if agriculture has a use so that farmers profit indirectly from tourism (like a guided visit to show to tourist how farmers worked in the traditional way), then this activity can coexist with the development. This criterion enables to extrapolate on the importance of the modern lifestyle as seen in Mahé. For the assessment of this criterion, the following assumption is made: the more the Creole culture is promoted, the more the tourist will be attracted by the island.

76

D2.2 MAUT I: Data based evaluation The data supported evaluation presents the contribution of the four scenarios to a sustainable tourism development and identifies threshold that would be exceeded. The procedure of the data supported evaluation is explained in chapter C3.3. MAUT I enables to confirm the results of the stakeholder-based evaluation with tangible data.

D2.2.1 Quantification The quantification of the criteria is represented in a scenario-versus-attribute matrix (see Table D9). In this table, the effect of the different criteria on the sustainability of the scenarios is quantified. The complete list of estimations with the explanation of the assumptions on which the calculations are based, are given in appendix G3. Table D9:Scenario-versus-attribute-matrix: quantified evaluation criteria and utility values for the four scenarios. The evaluation is based on oral, written and telephone enquiries. The key arguments for the criteria measurement are given in note form. For the conversion on utility values a linear utility function was used, where the lowest utility value is quoted 0 and the highest 1. The further values are in-between. Free

development Authentic Creole Style

Nature preservation

Five-star-eco-tourism

Source

1. Resource use

Water demand of 960m3/day

Water demand of 800 m3/day

Water demand of 740 m3/day

Water demand of 980 m3/day

Key argument Duplication of accommodation capacities

Low increase in tourist accommodations and houses

Very low increase in tourist accommodations and houses

Duplication of consumption in tourist accommodations

Utility value 0 0.71 1 0

Data from PUC & Mr. D.Labodo & Mr. Montano

2. Land use 187 hectares that are built up

149 hectares that are built up

142 hectares that are built up

179 hectares that are built up

Key argument Triplication of land use for tourist accommodation

Low increase of land use for infrastructures

No increase of land use for tourist accommodations

Triplication of land use for tourist accommodation

Utility value 0 0.87 1 0.13

MLUH, Yvette Cafrine & Francis Coeur de Lion

3. Protection of endangered species

Strong decrease of key ecosystems

Slight decrease of key ecosystems

Strong increase of key ecosystems

Slight increase of ecosystems

Key argument Triplication of anthropogenic land use of the coastal plateau

Construction of infrastructures mainly on the coastal plateau

Reintroduction of native and endemic species

A certain ratio of the revenues of luxury hotels are used for nature conservation

Utility value 0 0.25 1 0.75

Selbi Remi (MoE) & Nirmal Shah

4. Economic wealth

SR400’000’000 per year

SR230’000’000 per year

SR220’000’000 per year

SR300’000’000 per year

Key argument Duplication of the number of tourist arrivals

Low increase in number of tourist arrivals & decrease of price in guesthouses

Low increase in number of tourist arrivals & entrance fee in nature area

Increase in the price of tourist accommodation and facilities

Utility value 1 0.06 0 0.44

Mrs. C. Abel

77

5. Employment situation in tourism

816 labour forces

567 labour forces 431 labour forces

669 labour forces

Key argument Duplication of tourist accommodation and products and services

Duplication of tourism products and services

Very low increase of tourism products and services

Duplication of tourism products and services and increase of labour forces in luxury hotels

Utility value 1 0.35 0 0.62

MIDS, 1997 census

6. Regional economic flow

A low ratio of local products (about 10%)

A very high ratio of local products (about 50%)

A high ratio of local products (about 30%)

A very low ratio of local products (about 5%)

Key argument Higher demand and decrease in local productivity

Promotion of local industries. Use of local products is optimised

Promotion of local industry

Contracts of luxury hotels are with foreign suppliers

Utility value 0.11 1 0.56 0

Written/ Telephone interview with hotel managers

7. Overcrowding

4 tourists per 100 metres beach

2.5 tourists per 100 metres beach

2.2 tourists per 100 metres beach

2.1 tourists per 100 metres beach

Key argument Duplication of tourist arrivals

Low increase in tourist arrivals & increase of tourism products and services

Low increase in tourist arrivals & tourist are visiting the nature area

Decrease in tourist arrivals

Utility value 0 0.79 0.95 1

Mrs, L. Charlie & Tourist interviews

8. Social conflicts

15% of foreign labour forces

4% of foreign labour forces

3% of foreign labour forces

23% of foreign labour forces

Key argument High increase of labour force generation

Low increase of labour force generation

Increase of labour forces related to population growth

Ratio of foreign workers in luxury hotels reaches 70%

Utility value 0.40 0.95 1 0

Written/ Telephone interviews with hotel managers

9. Traditional activities

A very few traditional activities

A high number of traditional activities

An average number of traditional activities

A very few traditional activities

Key argument Great development and modernisation

Strong promotion of traditional activities

Promotion of traditional activities

Modernisation

Utility value 0 1 0.67 0.33

Mr. Leon Radegonde

Total 2.73 5.98 6.29 3.27

Three important points derive from this scenario-versus-attribute matrix:

• Differences between the scenarios regarding the ecological sustainability are mainly influenced by the proportion of constructions on the island, and related to that, by the size of the population

• The economic dimension depends strongly on the development of tourism infrastructures with the associated increase of jobs, on tourist arrivals, and also on the promotion of the local industry, especially the agriculture and fishing industry.

• Both the number of tourists visiting the island and the number of foreign workers on the island mainly influences the social dimension.

78

D2.2.2 Normalisation As mentioned earlier, the estimated values must be normalised in order to compare the different criteria and to assign the sustainability valuation to the attribute values. Using a linear utility function, the values are comprised between 0 and 1. Two examples of utility functions that are used in this study are shown in Figure D 11.

Figure D 11: Examples of two linear utility functions used within this study. On the left side, an ascending function is represented, where the utility values 0 and 1 correspond to the lowest and highest attribute value respectively. Opposite quotation occur in the case of a decreasing function (right side).

Beside this general method of normalisation, another way was used for the normalisation, differing by the x-axes of the utility functions. In the latter, the highest and the lowest utility were not quoted with 1 and 0 respectively, but the best value that the attributes could have was given the utility 1 and the worse the utility 0. For example, for the criteria overcrowding, the highest and the lowest utility values reflects the cases where the destination attracts and satisfies respectively more than 50% and less than 50% of the tourists. That means that for some criteria, the utility 1 or 0 does not exist at all for the four proposed scenarios.

D2.2.3 Weighting the criteria To assess the importance of the different criteria in the contribution of a sustainable tourism development, where the ecological, economic and social load limits are not exceeded, the nine criteria have been weighted by 15 experts The mean values are given in Table D 10. They show that the highest importance is given to the criteria of land use and the lowest to the criteria of regional economic flow. Table D 10:Weighting of the criteria by a group of 15 experts working on different fields.

Sustainability dimension

Criteria Weights (mean value)

1. Resource use 0.12 2. Land use 0.14

Ecological sustainability

3. Protection of endangered animal species 0.10 4. Economic wealth 0.11 5. Employment situation 0.11

Economic sustainability

6. Regional economic flow 0.09 7. Overcrowding 0.11 8. Social conflicts 0.11

Social sustainability

9. Traditional and nature orientated activities 0.11

1

Utility

0 Number of labour forces 431 816

1

Utility

0Number of tourists/100m beach

2.1 4

79

D2.2.4 Aggregation From both the normalisation and the weighting of the nine criteria, the overall utility of the data based evaluation of the scenarios is calculated. The latter is represented in Figure D 12. It can be seen that the scenario “Nature preservation” and “Authentic Creole style” present the highest overall utility (0.70 and 0.68 respectively). With an overall utility of 0.37, the scenario “Five-star-eco-tourism” is ranked third. The “Free development” scenario obtains the lowest value (0.27).

Figure D 12: Overall utility of the four scenarios split in the three sustainability dimensions. The normalized utility values are comprised between 0 and 1.Scenarios 1: Free development, 2: Authentic Creole style, 3: Nature preservation and 4: Five-star-eco-tourism. The evaluation of the overall utility is data based.

Regarding the results more precisely, it is interesting to observe that the scenarios that have the highest overall utility do not necessarily have the highest utility in each sustainability dimension. Regarding the ecological dimension, here scenario 3 (“Nature preservation”) has clearly the highest utility, followed by scenario 2 (authentic Creole style). For the social criteria, these two scenarios are also the best. However, concerning the economic sustainability, scenario 1 (free development) is the best, followed by scenario 2 (“Authentic Creole style”) and 4 (five-star-eco-tourism). Scenario 3 is rated as the lowest in this dimension. As explained in section D2.2.2 of this chapter, the normalisation step of the MAUT I has been carried out in another way than the general method of linear extrapolation. The conversion in utility values was done through different assumptions (see appendix G4.4). This allows also looking at the sensitivity of the criteria on the normalisation procedure. In Figure D 13, the evaluation of the four scenarios derived with the second normalisation approach, is shown. It can be observed that the overall utility of the four scenarios keeps the same order and the tendencies of the three sustainability dimensions remain comparable with the ones presented in Figure D 13. However, the overall utility of scenarios 2 (“Authentic Creole style”) and 3 (“Nature preservation”) are slightly lower than with the general standardization method. It can also be seen that, regarding the economic sustainability, scenario 3 has still the lowest utility but it is in that case almost comparable to this of scenario 2 (“Authentic Creole style”) and 4 (“Five-star-eco-tourism”) (see discussion, chapter E1).

Data based evaluation of the scenarios spit into the three sustainability dimensions

0.00

0.230.36

0.090.23

0.14

0.05

0.13

0.04

0.300.29

0.15

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

1 2 3 4Scenarios

Utli

ty v

alue

(wei

ghte

d)

SocietyEconomyEcology

80

Figure D 13: Overall utility of the four scenarios split in the three sustainability dimensions. The utility values are normalised between 0 and 1, whereby for each scenario the attribute values are not obligatory numeralised with 0 or 1 but the best and worse value that the attribute could have are numeralised with 1 respectively. 0 (see appendix G0). Scenarios: 1 (Free development), 2 (Authentic Creole style), 3 (Nature preservation) and 4 (Five-star-eco-tourism). The overall utility within the three sustainability dimensions differs from the one represented in Figure D 12.

D2.3 MAUT II: Stakeholder supported evaluation This section presents the results of the evaluation of the scenarios by both the tourists and the local community of La Digue Island. The proceeding of the stakeholder-based evaluation is described in chapter C3.4. From the 41 people interviewed, the frequency between the two stakeholder groups and between genders is almost equal. The mean age is 35 years and 75% of the persons were between 25 and 45 years old. The evaluation of one interviewed person, belonging to the local community group was not included in the analysis, as it is assumed that this person could not read.

D2.3.1 Intuitive evaluation The stakeholder groups were asked to evaluate the scenarios on their desirability. As basis for this evaluation illustrations of the four scenarios (see chapter D1.7) and a short oral explanation were used. The results of this evaluation for the four scenarios are presented in Figure D 14. This figure covers at the same time the ranking attributed to the four scenarios.

Data based evaluation of the scenarios split into the three sustainability dimensions(relative measures)

0.000.16

0.270.10

0.24

0.190.12

0.150.04

0.25 0.24

0.11

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.70

1 2 3 4

Scenarios

Util

ity v

alue

s (w

eigh

ted)

SocietyEconomyEcology

81

Figure D 14:Intuitive scenario evaluation of the two stakeholder groups. Both the ranking of the four scenarios and the utility values attributed to the scenarios are represented. Scenarios: 1 (Free development), 2 (Authentic Creole style), 3 (Nature preservation) and 4 (Five-star-eco-tourism).

By analysing the results of the intuitive evaluation of the four scenarios by the tourists and the local community (see Figure D 14), the following aspects become apparent:

• The evaluated four scenarios are significantly different (analysis of variance with repeat of the measuring, p<0.014). Pairwise comparisons with the Bonferroni adjustment demonstrate also significant differences (the Bonferroni adjustment is an adjustment of the significance level for multiple comparisons). It becomes apparent that the two stakeholder groups rate the scenarios authentic Creole style and Nature preservation as the most attractive ones.

• The intuitive evaluation of the scenarios differentiates significantly between the two stakeholder groups. The results of the ANOVA tests show that there is a significant difference between the two groups in the evaluation of the Free development scenario (p<0.05). The local community evaluates this scenario as more attractive than the tourists.

• There is a significant interaction effect between stakeholder groups and measurement at the evaluation of the four scenarios. That means that the stakeholders differentiate themselves in their preferences concerning the future tourism development on La Digue Island. Namely, the tourists assess the free development scenario as less attractive and the nature preservation scenario as more attractive than the local community.

4 We differentiate between p<0.01 (highly significant), p<0.05 (significant) and p<0.1 (significant tendency)

Intuitive scenario evaluation

36.67 3737.38

7577.1486

12.5

75.75

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4Scenarios

Util

ity v

alue

s LocalCommunityTourists

82

D2.3.2 Weighting the criteria The analysis of the weighting of the criteria by the two stakeholder groups point out the following results:

• The criteria have been weighted differently (analysis of variance with repeat of the measuring, p<0.05) i.e. not all criteria are evaluated as equally important. Pairwise comparisons with the Bonferroni adjustment show that the three ecological criteria, namely consumption of resources, land use and protection of endangered animal species, are given a higher importance compared to the economic and the social criteria (see Table D 11).

Table D 11:Average weights of the nine criteria given by the two stakeholder groups. The three ecological criteria are higher weighted than the economic and social criteria.

Sustainability dimension

Criteria Weights (mean value)

1.Consumption of resources 0.13 2. Land use 0.12

Ecological sustainability

3. Protection of endangered animal species 0.13 4. Economic wealth 0.11 5.Employment situation in tourism 0.11

Economic sustainability

6. Regional economic flow 0.10 7. Overcrowding 0.11 8. Social conflicts 0.09

Social sustainability

9. Traditional and nature orientated activities 0.11

• Between the stakeholder groups there is a significant difference in the weighting of the criteria employment situation (ANOVA test, p<0.05). The local community assesses this criterion as more important than the tourists (see Figure D 15). The generation of labour forces in the tourism sector is estimated by the local community as equally important than the protection of endangered animal species, the economic wealth and the traditional and nature orientated activities. Furthermore, a tendential significant deviance in the weighting of the criteria protection of endangered animal species, regional economic flow and overcrowding can be observed (ANOVA test, p< 0.1). The tourists assess the criteria protection of endangered animal species and overcrowding higher and the criterion regional economic flow tendencially lower than the local community. Regarding the weighting of the criteria, there is no significant interaction effect between stakeholder groups and measurement.

83

Figure D 15: Differences between tourists and the local community in the weighting of the nine sustainability criteria: 1. Consumption of resources, 2. Land use, 3. Protection of endangered animal species, 4. Economic wealth, 5. Employment situation in tourism, 6. Regional economic flow, 7. Overcrowding, 8. Social conflicts, 9. Traditional and nature orientated activities For a better visual understanding the criteria are linked together in the figures, even if there is no interaction between the nine criteria.

After the weighting of the criteria, the possibility was given to the stakeholder to deselect some of the proposed criteria that were not assessed as appropriate for the evaluation of the sustainable tourism development and to add some further criteria that were seen as missing. The social conflicts criterion was the only criteria deselected by six interviewed persons belonging to the two stakeholder groups. However, the following criteria were proposed (see Table D 12): Table D 12: Criteria that were further more proposed by the two stakeholder groups

Criteria Number of times proposed

Stakeholder group

Price/costs of tourism 5 times Tourists Transport/traffic 5 times Tourists (2) and local

community (3) Distribution of the income from tourism 3 times Tourists (2) and local

community (3) Education 2 times Local community Security 2 times Local community Participation of the local community in decision making process

1 time Local community

Marine protection 1 time Tourists Marketing of tourism on La Digue 1 time Tourists Wellness of tourists 1 time Tourists Drug and alcohol 1 time Local community

Weighting of the nine criteria by the two stakeholder groups

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Sustinability criteria

Wei

ghtin

g

LocalsTourists

Ecology Economy Society

84

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Criteria

Util

ity v

alue

Tourists

Localcommunity

D2.3.3 Criteria supported evaluation In the criteria based evaluation, the stakeholders were asked to assess the utility of the nine criteria for the four scenarios. Comparable to the intuitive scenario evaluation, the scenarios are differently evaluated (analysis of variance with repeat of the measuring, p<0.01) and the scenarios authentic Creole style and nature preservation are again the most attractive for both stakeholder groups (see Figure D16), as demonstrated by the Pairwise comparisons (ANOVA test, p< 0.01). Furthermore, both stakeholder groups rate the free development scenario as the worst one (ANOVA test, p<0.01).

Figure D16: Criteria based evaluation of the four scenarios by the two stakeholder groups. Scenario: 1 (Free development), 2 (Authentic Creole style), 3 (Nature preservation) and 4 (Five-star-eco-tourism).

Regarding differences in the criteria supported evaluation of the four scenarios, the two stakeholder groups distinguish themselves in the utility they attribute to the four scenarios. The results of the ANOVA test indicate that the tourists and the local community significantly diverge in the evaluation of the free development scenario (p<0.05). The local community gives to this scenario a higher utility than the tourists. Figure D 17 demonstrates that is above all the criteria 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9, namely consumption of resources, land use, protection of endangered animal species, overcrowding and traditional and nature orientated activities that are better rated by the local community.

Criteria based scenario evaluation

54.00

65.9060.42

46.9553.58

69.15

33.52

80.13

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4Scenarios

Util

ity v

alue

s

localcommunitytourists

85

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Criteria

Util

ity v

alue

Tourists

Localcommunity

Figure D 17: Criteria supported evaluation of scenario 1 by the two stakeholder groups. Criteria: 1. Consumption of resources, 2. Land use, 3. Protection of endangered animal species, 4. Economic wealth, 5. Employment situation in tourism, 6. Regional economic flow, 7. Overcrowding, 8. Social conflicts, 9. Traditional and nature orientated activities

A tendential significant distinction between the two stakeholder groups in the evaluation of the scenario authentic Creole style and nature preservation can be noticed (p<0.1). The tourists give more importance to these two scenarios. This is confirmed in the multivariate test, where a significant interaction effect between stakeholder groups and measurement at the evaluation of the scenarios “Free development”, “Authentic Creole style” and “Nature preservation” is noticed. Another interesting point within the criteria based scenario evaluation, concerns allocation of the performance of the four scenarios in the ecological, economic and social dimension (see Figure 18). Considering the average evaluation of the two stakeholder groups in the three sustainability dimensions, it is interesting to observe that the scenario “Nature preservation” is evaluated as having the best environmental performance, followed by the scenario “Authentic Creole style”. The two scenarios, namely “Free development” and “Five-star-eco-tourism” perform much worse in regards to the ecological criteria. Also for the social criteria, the scenarios 2 and 3 are better evaluated than scenarios one and four. The opposite assessment is done by the stakeholders, concerning the economic sustainability. Here scenario 1 and 4 (free development and five-star-eco-tourism) are evaluated as the best ones and scenario 3 is assessed as the worst.

86

Scenario evaluation split in the three sustainability dimensions

8.80

23.7032.56

15.33

21.36

19.86

15.90

21.48

10.70

21.6622.62

16.66

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

1 2 3 4

Scenarios

Util

ity v

alue

SocietyEconomyEcology

Figure D 18:Scenario evaluation by the stakeholders split in the ecological, economic and social dimension. Scenarios: 1 (Free development), 2 (Authentic Creole style), 3 (Nature preservation) and 4 (Five-star-eco-tourism). Scenario free development shows a very low ecological and social sustainability but a high economic sustainability. Scenario nature preservation shows a high ecological and social sustainability, but in return a quite low economic sustainability.

Finally, with regards to the average evaluation of the attractiveness of the four scenarios by both stakeholder groups, it is of interest to compare the intuitive evaluation with the data supported one (see Figure D 19). The two scenarios, namely “Free development” and “Five-star-eco-tourism” are rated much higher in the criteria supported evaluation. There is a significant difference between these two scenarios regarding the intuitive and the criteria based valuation methods (variance with repeat of the measuring, p<0.01). Even if the ranking of the four scenarios is not influenced in the criteria based evaluation, the differences in the evaluation of the attractiveness of the four scenarios is much more important in the intuitive evaluation.

Figure D 19:Comparison of the intuitive and criteria based evaluation of the four scenarios by the two stakeholder groups. Scenarios: 1 (Free development), 2 (Authentic Creole style), 3 (Nature preservation) and 4 (Five-star-eco-tourism).

Comparison of the intuitiv and the criteria based scenario evaluation

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1 2 3 4Scenarios

Sta

ndar

dise

d ut

ility

val

ue IntuitiveevaluationCriteria basedevaluation

87

D2.4 Comparison MAUT I and MAUT II The results of the data based scenario evaluation (MAUT I) and the stakeholder based scenario evaluation (MAUT II) point out that the ranking of the four scenarios remains the same for the different evaluation methods (see Figure D 20). The scenario “Nature preservation” performs the best, followed by scenario 2, “Authentic Creole style”. The scenarios five-star-eco-tourism and free development perform clearly lower. It can be observed that the intuitive evaluation by stakeholders is closer to the data based evaluation than the criteria based evaluation. This difference is above all explicit for the scenarios free development and five-star-eco-tourism, where the criteria based evaluation by stakeholders is much higher than their intuitive evaluation or than the data based evaluation. While regarding the importance given to the three sustainability dimensions for the criteria based and the data based evaluation, the following aspects become apparent (see Figure D 21):

• For the free development scenario (S1), both the tourists and the local community evaluate the ecological and the social sustainability better. As already mentioned, the locals give this scenario a significant higher utility than the tourists.

• For the authentic style scenario (S2), both the tourists and the locals assess better economic repercussions than the first data based evaluation (utility values between 0 and 1 with the best scenario getting 1 and the worst 0). Compared to the second data based evaluation (utility values based on assumptions) the difference with the economic criteria is already lower. It seems also that the two stakeholder groups rate the ecological criteria higher than within the data based evaluation.

• Regarding the results of the evaluation of the nature preservation scenario (S3), it stands out that even if the overall utility of the stakeholder based evaluation is comparable to the data based evaluation, both stakeholder groups rate the economic criteria much higher. Here also it is interesting to see that this difference in the evaluation becomes lower, while comparing with the second data based evaluation.

• For the five-star-eco-tourism development (S4), the stakeholders evaluate better the three sustainability dimensions.

88

Figure D 20:Comparison of the intuitive scenario evaluation by stakeholder, the criteria based scenario evaluation by stakeholder and the data based scenario evaluation. Scenarios: 1 (Free development), 2 (Authentic Creole style), 3 (Nature preservation) and 4 (Five-star-eco-tourism). Differences between the criteria based evaluation by stakeholder and the data based evaluation appear above all for the scenarios 1 (Free development) and 4 (Five-star-eco-tourism).

Figure D 21:Qualitative comparison of the data based and the criteria based scenario evaluation. The two ways to make the data based evaluation, as explained in D0 are represented on the left side and on the right side, the data based evaluation of the two stakeholder groups is represented. Even if a statistical comparison cannot be done, the differences in the evaluations of the three first scenarios are visible.

Data based scenario evaluation split into the three sustainability dimensions

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

S1 S1 S2 S2 S3 S3 S4 S4

Databased1

Databased2

Data based1

Databaed2

Databased1

Databased2

Databased1

Databased2

Util

ty v

alue

s

Society

Economy

Ecology

Scenario evaluation of the two stakeholder groups split into the three sustainability

dimensions

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

S1 S1 S2 S2 S3 S3 S4 S4

TouristsLocalsTouristsLocalsTouristsLocalsTouristsLocals

Util

ity v

alue

s

SocietyEconomyEcology

Comparison of the three scenario evaluation methods

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1 2 3 4Scenarios

Util

ity v

alue

s (s

tand

ardi

sed

on 1

)

IntuitivestakeholderCriteria basedstakeholdersData based

89

E. Discussion The following chapter aims to argue the work done within this study. It is not the intention to discuss each aspect of this study in details. Only the relevant aspects for the comprehension of the results or the perspectives for the follow up of this study are taken into consideration. The aspects that are discussed in the following three sections are:

• The results of the scenario analysis (see chapter D2) and of the MAUT (see chapter D3) (E2).

• The appropriateness of the applied methods to understand the dynamics of the system for the sustainable tourism development on La Digue Island and to derivate strategies, which enable to agree on possible actions (E1).

• The conclusion that can be drawn from the results and the recommendations for a strategy implementation (E3).

E1 Discussion on the results In the next two sections the results of both the scenario analysis and the MAUT will be discussed. Under consideration of the carrying capacity concept, the focus will lie on the interpretation of the MAUT results.

E1.1 Scenario analysis System characteristics and impact factors The data obtained from the analysis of the present state of La Digue confirm the enormous influence of tourism on the quality of life, on the economy and on the environment. This tourism monoculture generates a growing dependency on imports, which in turn influences the self-sufficiency of the economy. If tourism is not associated with local economic activities, this might result in turns in some loss of socio-cultural identity, in a decrease of traditional activities and consequently, in a loss of economic benefits (Job, 1996) (see also Coccossis et al., 2002). From the SWOT analysis (see Table D 1) aspects such as the calm and relaxed atmosphere, the traditional way of life and the low number of motorised vehicles, are those strengths that should be given priority. From discussions with tourists, visiting La Digue 15-20 years ago, it came out that they are quite disappointed by the considerable changes that occurred yet and they do not desire to spend holidays on La Digue anymore. However, these aspects that are seen as strengths today, can also be in many cases the threats. One explicit example is the number of motor vehicles, which is a limiting factor for the sustainable and successful tourism development. In addition, the SWOT analysis shows that they are opportunities for the tourism industry to diversify products and services on La Digue. Aspects influenced from outside the system boundary, mainly by the government, appear to be the weaknesses. These latter should be turned into challenges. The reduction of the system complexity conducted to the elimination of some impact factors, which should be reviewed depending on the implemented tourism strategy:

90

• The consumption of energy or the generation of waste: Similar studies on small island point out that these two factors are highly influenced by the manner of the tourism development.

• The cost-benefit relationship: prices of accommodation, facilities and the performance of the latter were already recognised as a weakness in 1983 (Wolf, 1983). Today it is one of the main threat for the competitiveness of the Seychelles compared to other tourism island destinations, like La Réunion, Mauritius or Thailand.

• Political impact factors: all presented scenarios require political decisions, such as law enforcement, land use planning or education.

Evaluation and scenario construction The high influence that the natural environment exerts on the economic wealth was predictable. As a general trend, with the worldwide growing importance of nature based tourism (see chapter A), negative impacts on the ecology affect later on the economic wealth. Thus, it is not surprising to find from the evaluation that the accommodation is a key factor determining the system dynamics (see Figure D5). Indeed, an increase in accommodation will strongly influence the conservation of the ecosystem. The number of accommodations on the island being ruled with laws and regulations, the political willingness plays a key role for the conservation of the natural resources. The results of the formative consistency verification demonstrate that two scenarios, the Authentic Creole Style and the Five-Star-Eco-Tourism, can almost be considered equally. The apparent dissimilitude of the two scenarios lies on a key factor, namely the hotel categories, which is not included in the characteristic levels. This points out the importance of the inclusion of the hotel categories within the description of the characteristic levels in order that they would be valuated as different in the formative analysis. Within this scenario, the development of tourist infrastructures slightly increases and neither the population density nor the economic contribution from tourism increases. Furthermore, traditional activities are promoted, but the natural environment is not preserved. However, one inconsistency is observed: there is an increase in the number of tourist accommodations while the economic contribution from tourism stays identical or slightly decreases. This finding points out the fact that it exists other possible development states, which are not described in this study. It would be therefore interesting to evaluate this scenario (e.g. with the MAUT proceeding) and to find out how it would be rated compared to the other four scenarios. Intuitively, it can be assumed that the ecological sustainability of this scenario would not be highly valuated.

E1.2 Scenario evaluation (MAUT) MAUT I The results of the data based evaluation show a clear tendency for scenario 2 (Authentic Creole Style) and scenario 3 (Nature Preservation), independently of the normalisation procedure of the attribute values. These two scenarios would allow economic prosperity while at the same time preserving the natural environment and the society (see chapter D1.7). Scenario 1 (Free development): Scenario 1 is characterised by an increase of 46% in the number of tourist accommodations and tourism products and services. The huge development of tourist infrastructures is linked to a high increase of jobs in the tourism

91

sector. Regarding the population development of the last ten years on La Digue (see section B2.3), it becomes obvious that an import of labour forces will be required. At first sight, this scenario prevails strongly the economical dimension. However, negative impacts on the natural environment and on the society can be predicted: Compared to the size of the island and the one of the plateau area, only a small area would remain untouched, which implies a decrease in the global biodiversity and in the intrinsic beauty of the landscape. The consumption of resources (water, energy) and the generation of sewage and solid waste would increase strongly and could have serious effects on the ecology. Through the increase in tourist arrivals, of the population size and the import of foreign labour forces, it can be assumed that the acculturation process would play a significant role, forwarding the loss of the Creole culture. Tradition could probably only be maintained artificially Thus, it looks like if a strong dilemma exists between the socio-ecological and the economical dimensions. However, the latter will in turns also be affected with the following aspects: Sustainable tourism surveys show that intensive tourism development decreases the former local economy. This suggests that other economic sectors on La Digue would profit less from this tourism development. Increasing tourist arrivals above a certain level will imply a change in the customer segment. A selective tourism politic will not be practiced anymore but a mass-tourism politic. This would again impact the price. An important finding of the analysis of the dynamics of the system is that the nature system influences the economic wealth of La Digue. This is not surprising, as the natural environment is a main attraction for tourists. Therefore, even if on a short to medium term, this scenario has positive economic impacts, there is a high risk that the destruction of the ecosystem decreases the positive effects on the economic wealth on the long term. Scenario2 (Authentic Creole Style): Scenario 2 is valuated as the second best, with utility values of each sustainable dimension that are higher than the average. The resulted values of the economic sustainability show a high utility for the local economy but a low utility for the economic wealth. The utility calculated for the criteria ‘regional economic flow’ is due to the high expected ratio of local products served in restaurants. Thereby, other economic sectors would be conducive. One possible assumption is that the self-sufficiency of the economy on La Digue would be positively influenced and that more money would be kept in the Seychelles. Thus, the promotion of traditional activities in this scenario could have an economic utility for the local population higher than in scenario 1. Innovative ideas that would be profitable for the local population are encouraged. An example of such vision is the development of an “open air museum”. The “open air museum” follows the idea that traditional aspects, like the boat building industry, agriculture or old Creole houses, could be used for tourism purposes. The tourists would visit the island on foot or by bicycle while seeing and learning about traditional activities, whereby the population would still live and profit from them. It would be interesting to conduct an economic account, to calculate the economical utility for the island and to find out if the assumptions stated above would be verified. This would let know whether or not the lack of economical data can explain the low value of the estimated economical wealth of this scenario. Very interesting is the high expected social utility. Traditional activities would be promoted by the tourism strategy, reinforcing the cultural identity and thus diminishing the risk of an acculturation. An interrogation point has to be set at the resulting ecological sustainability. A result of studies is, that with higher income the resource consumption and the waste generation increases (Gössling, 1999). This is contradictory to protection aims. Moreover, traditionally, on La Digue a lot of activities were not sustainable. Logging for handicrafts, poaching turtles for food are aspects that could be inhibited through environmental awareness. An important aspect to discuss is that since the beginning of the population development, the latter occurs on the plateau area. It is there too, where the most valuable biodiversity can be found. The biodiversity could even be endangered by a

92

moderate development. In this study no threshold were set. A precise zone plan, the compliance of laws and regulations and the encouragement of the participation of the population in decisions are certainly conditions to achieve the estimated ecological utility. The interrogation on the ecological sustainability is also reflected by the fact that, depending on the normalisation procedure, the ecological utility is lower. Scenario 3 (Nature preservation): From the perspective of the overall utility, the third scenario focussing on environmental preservation is evaluated as the most sustainable. In addition, it is the scenario with the best ecological performance. The social dimension is also greatly valuated. It can be assumed that a limitation of growth would considerably decrease the risk of an acculturation process from tourism. From the results of the data based evaluation, the economic utility poses the long-term sustainability of this scenario into question. A very low economic utility results from the assessment of the economic wealth and the employment situation. A possible interpretation of the employment situation is that even if only a few workplaces would be generated compared to the other scenarios, these workplaces added to a population growth rate comparable to the period of 1987-1997 would be sufficient. The utility of this criterion would then be higher. This can be observed within the second normalisation approach (see appendix G4.4). A very low economic utility has also to do with the costs related to environmental protection and management. Once again, the limited availability of economic data results in some uncertainty. The economic utility of this scenario should thus be regarded critically before thinking about excluding it from planning. This is further true since the normalisation procedure influences its value. A cost-benefit analysis, including the internalisation of external costs, would enable to increase the credibility of the results. The internalisation of external cost is associated with the polluters pays principle and denote the financial compensation of the costs that are not accounted within the market (Frey, 1993). Scenario 4 (Five-star-eco-tourism): The results of scenario 4 are somehow unexpected. Even if this scenario includes the idea of promoting environmental conservation, the ecological performance is low. This is due to the considerable land and resource use that is needed to satisfy the needs of high-price-segment tourists. Namely, the land use that has to be taken into account per bed is 2500m2 (compared to 200m2 in luxury guesthouses) and the water consumption is six times higher than in guesthouses. Because of the low availability of freshwater on La Digue, this is something that should be included into planning considerations to a high extent. It came out from expert interviews, that in theory, the conservation of the biodiversity would be improved if high value hotels have the combination of luxury with “eco-friendliness” as a selling argument. Practically, this has to be questioned. Because La Digue is not a private property (like Fregate or North), one five-star hotel manager will certainly not have the willingness to finance the environmental conservation if others would at the same time profit from it. Thus, a benefit for the protection of the biodiversity is only possible if a licence for a construction is given by the authorities under the condition that a certain percentage of the revenues would be used to finance the environmental protection and management. The economical performance is also lower than what it was envisaged. Different studies demonstrate that the income generated in high-value destinations are lower than in ‘backpacker’ destinations (Gössling et al., 2002), (Wunder, 2000). One possible interpretation is based on the fact that luxurious hotels use only a minor amount of local products in the cookery and that these hotels have a high proportion of imports to satisfy the demand. Therefore, the local economy is not encouraged and an important proportion of the generated income leaves the country again. Regarding the social sustainability it is interesting to see that only the criteria overcrowding has a high utility value. The utility for tourists is good, but regarding the indicator valuation, the one for the community is little. It is the scenario where the most important amount of foreign labour forces is expected. This could create a social

93

imbalance, as possibly some of the locals would not get a job. One reason for the important ratio of foreign labour in five-star establishment is the lack of professional staff in the Seychelles. The negative impact on the social sustainability could thus be reduced by taking the challenge to increase and improve education in the tourism sector. MAUT II Scenarios The data from the stakeholder-based evaluation show the differences between the two stakeholder groups for both the intuitive and the criteria based evaluation. The local community evaluates the Free development scenario better and Nature Preservation scenario worse than the tourists. This finding was not surprising as a general trend. The results of the interviews conducted at the beginning of the study suggest that a certain proportion of the local community is interested on a further development of the island. An outcome of the criteria based evaluation is that the local community attach more importance in the ecological and the social criteria than the tourists (see Figure D 17). The environmental awareness of the population is only slightly promoted. For instance, the results suggest that the population is not familiar with the concept of sustainable development. This stakeholder group could therefore possibly understand the criteria based evaluation worse. The fact that the tourists assess the scenario Nature Preservation better than the local community is also not surprising. Tourism surveys generally find that the ‘unspoiled’ natural environment of tropical island is a main attraction for tourists. In the Seychelles, the marketing strategy is based on the assumption that tourists aspire for natural and pristine areas. However, the difference of the aspirations of the two stakeholder groups point out the possible trade-off regarding the future tourism development on La Digue. This founding allows retaining the sub-hypothesis H2a formulated in chapter C3.4. An important outcome of the stakeholder-based evaluation is without doubt that both the tourists and the local community agree upon a desirable development (Scenario Authentic Creole Style & Nature Preservation). Moreover, the two stakeholder groups agree upon the development state that they assess as not desirable (Scenario Free development & Five-Star-Eco-Tourism). This shows that a planning taking into account the main characteristics of the two desired development will benefit both the tourists and the local community and thereby the tourism industry. Weighting The data on the weighting show how different stakeholder groups value the relative importance of the different criteria. The stakeholder group of the tourists gives the highest importance to the two criteria ‘protection of endangered species’ and ‘overcrowding’. For instance the results of the interviews with tourists suggest that 65% of the tourists would not choose La Digue as their holiday destination anymore, if the density along the beach is higher than one tourist every 30 metres (see appendix G4.3.1). The high importance of ecological criteria and the criterion ‘overcrowding’ for the tourists indicates the high sensibility of the market value of La Digue as a tourist destination regarding the further development of tourist infrastructures. For the planning of the tourism development strategy, this finding could be seen as a threshold. The sub-hypothesis H2b, formulated in chapter C3.4 can be retained. The stakeholder group of the local community give to the three ecological criteria a high importance, similarly to the tourist. However, the criteria ‘employment situation’ and ‘economic wealth’ are for the local community of equal importance than the ecological criteria. This finding is not surprising, as the security of a job and the disposal of enough money to appease someone’s requirements are generally of higher importance for the inhabitants of a location. This finding allows retaining the sub-hypothesis H2c formulated in chapter C3.4.

94

Because the two stakeholder groups give to the ecological criteria a high importance, it can be assumed that the ecological sustainability plays a superior role for the tourism development. It is further interesting to discuss the criteria that were added from the two stakeholder groups (see chapter D2.3.2). For the tourists, the cost of tourist facilities is an important aspect to look at while developing. This argument is not surprising, as the lack of value for money is considered as the main weakness of the Seychelles’ tourism. With the growing competitiveness of tropical island destinations, this issue should be investigated to ensure that the price remains a limiting factor for mass tourism but not for the targeted customers. The local community suggested as well the education and the security. Because the basic education is on a good stand, it could be concluded that the population desires further training possibilities after primary and secondary school. An important finding is the overlap between the two stakeholder groups, who suggest that the traffic/transport on the island is an important aspect to behold. This shows that the limitation of the number of motorised vehicles on La Digue will both benefit the local community and the tourists. The tourism industry would thereby profit by setting a threshold value on the number of vehicles. Comparison intuitive-criteria-data-based evaluation The data of the intuitive and the criteria based evaluation show that the two stakeholder groups assess the scenarios 1 (Free development) and 4 (Five-Star-Eco-Tourism) much better by the criteria based evaluation than by the intuitive evaluation. This difference is a highly surprising finding that it is difficult to interpret. However, the results suggest that the two stakeholder groups perceive scenario 1 and 4 as not desirable. Intuitively, the two stakeholder groups have a fixed idea on the implications of these two scenarios and do not desire these two future development states to occur. Further, a motive for rating these two scenarios worse in the intuitive evaluation could be due to the explanations given during the interviews. When it is to assess the utility of the scenarios with different criteria, the two stakeholder groups address the scenarios a high economic utility and for some aspects even a medium or high ecological and social sustainability. Within the criteria based evaluation, the stakeholders are less influenced by their personal perception of the future development state. The extent to which the personal perception of the four scenarios is responsible for the differences in the evaluation is difficult to ascertain. The data of the criteria based and the data base evaluation show both that within the criteria based evaluation the scenario 1 and 4 are better evaluated. The results denote that the difficulty to get precise data for La Digue Island due to the poor official statistical database calls the accuracy of the data based evaluation into question. Further, the normalisation with linear utility functions between the interval [0;1] result therein, that scenario Free Development has a utility of zero. This has an influence on the aggregated valuation. It is further a result that the concept of sustainable development is somehow complex for certain persons, especially for the local community. Persons, who are unsure on a certain point, have the tendency to valuate the criteria close to the average for each scenario. A deviation of the results between criteria based and data based evaluation could be interpreted with this second argument. Sustainability Dimensions The data of the criteria based evaluation show that the two stakeholder groups assess the economic performance of scenarios 2, Authentic Creole Style and 3, Nature preservation, manifestly better than within the data based evaluation. The results indicate that the stakeholders assess the economic criteria ‘employment situation’ and ‘economic wealth’ close to the average for these two scenarios. The employment situation on La Digue is quite well, as most of the working population is

95

getting a job. In addition, La Digue is characterised by a low growth rate. It can be assumed that these two future development states offer sufficient working potential for the future population and thereby, the population do not estimate the employment situation worse. The superior importance of the ecological sustainability for the two stakeholder groups is a reason for them to assess the benefits of environmental conservation higher than the costs related to it. By including the benefits of environmental conservation in the criteria based evaluation, the better valuation of the criteria ‘economic wealth’ in scenario 3 can be explained. The above argumentation would be greatly assisted by conducting a cost-benefit analysis. Because of the broad interpretation possibilities of this result, and the fact that the data based analysis of the economic dimension is related to uncertainties, the idea comes up again that this area need to be deeper investigated.

E2 Discussion on the methodology The two methods used in this study are characterised by the fact that they combine a scientific analytic and an intuitive approach. The main strength of both methods is the inter- and transdisciplinary acquisition of system knowledge. The application of these two methods in this study is however bounded to some difficulties. The main problems are enumerated below.

E2.1 Scenario analysis System Boundary The geographic boundary limits the system to La Digue Island. This implies that impacts related to the tourism development on La Digue, but which occur outside the system boundary are not taken into account. An example of such impacts is the environmental impacts resulting from long-distance travelling. An ecological footprint analysis revealed that 97% of the energy footprint to a destination like the Seychelles, results from air travel to and from the destination (Gössling et al., 2002). The choice of the geographic boundary is related to the main objective of this study, which concentrates on the sustainability of the local tourism development. This choice enables to reduce the complexity of the theme from the beginning on. Anyway, while analysing the results, it is important to keep in mind that such a reduction neglects other aspects, which might in turns influence the system as well. Database The analysis of the system characteristics enables to behold the system under different perspectives. The prime goal is not to get a complete and precise image of the system. More important for the description of the system characteristics is to get a sufficient understanding of the system that allows to acquire the relevant description elements. The challenge that had to be overcome in this study is the lack of documents describing the situation on La Digue Island. To describe the current state three approaches were chosen:

• Some information from literature concerning the Seychelles in general was extrapolated to La Digue. This includes the risk that aspects that are not relevant are taken into account or at the inverse, that relevant aspects are missing. The limited availability of economic data for La Digue results in uncertainties in the description of the actual state.

96

• Involvement of interviewed experts. This implies the risk that the description of the current state reflects personal opinion. The risk was reduced either by asking the Core Team of the study (see contact list, G6) to give a feedback on the description of important aspects concerning the tourism situation on La Digue or by interviewing more than one expert.

• SWOT analysis. This analysis was a good way to find out how the tourism on La Digue is seen by external stakeholders (see section D1.2.1) today, and which opportunities and threats they see for the future.

Because of the important inclusion of many stakeholders since the beginning of the study and the possibility to get fairly accurate data from literature on key aspects, the database can be appreciated as sufficient to describe the actual state of the tourism situation on La Digue Island. Impact factors The choice of a set of impact factors is a difficult step in the scenario analysis. The organisation of two working groups (see contact list, G4) with the aim to reduce the number of impact factors to a workable set brought forward differences of opinion between stakeholders specialised in various areas of expertise. For example experts working in the environmental field assessed the biodiversity as a main ecological factor for La Digue Island, while experts working in the tourism field assessed the same factor of low importance. Therefore, it was a delicate thing to trade off the different point of views. In addition, due to the limited time frame of the study, it was very difficult to go back on impact factors that were excluded from the analysis (iterative process). However, considering the credible scenarios that were generated with these factors, it can be assumed that the chosen set of impact factors is still adequate. The procedure of the determination of adequate characteristic levels for the impact factors is highly dependent on the factors’ definition and on the team. Moreover, the restriction of only two levels implies that some conditions cannot be examined. In this study, only the author accomplished the scenario analysis. Thus, the described characteristic levels have to be supported by literature review and expert interviews. The difficulty of the choice of characteristic levels came out in the results, when it was found that the author included in the intuitive scenario selection characteristic levels that did not occurred in the formative analysis. Another problem concerns the measurability of the characteristic levels. Here again the lack of specific information concerning La Digue Island was partly a barrier. Especially data for economic aspects, which are in many studies the factors with the largest available data, were almost inexistent for La Digue. Matrices (Impact matrix and consistency matrix) Two main difficulties were encountered to efficiently fill up the matrices, so that they reproduce the reality. On one side, the lack of information did not allow to fully understanding the complexity of every impact factor and the correspondent interlinks between all the factors such as the direct, indirect and synergic effects. On the other side, the fact that the author had to fulfil the matrices independently, call the credibility of the results in question. The procedure is thus dependent on the person or the team who evaluates and on the person’s previous knowledge, i.e. the choice of a team of expert is the best. In addition, the incorporation of expert enquiry and the involvement of the core team of the study to discuss the most important factors of the matrices ensures that the both-sided interlinks of the matrices do not rely on the opinion of one person. Scenario construction The evaluation and the scenario construction was clearly the most challenging part of the scenario analysis. The scenarios should be concordant with the methodological

97

pretensions, even though there was no possibility to conduct the formative scenario analysis with the assistance of computer added assessment tools. The scenario selection was generated in parallel with the accomplishment of the formative evaluation. Because the intuitive scenario generation played a considerable role, there is a risk that the choice of the scenarios was subjective, i.e. not in accordance with a strict formative process. This risk was confirmed at the end of the study, when both the consistency of the scenarios and the scenarios with the highest consistency values was formally verified (see chapters D1.6 and E2). The difficulty of the intuitive scenario formulation was to describe the latter in such a form that the denotation of the combination of characteristic levels was kept. A pre-requisite to ensure that the generated scenarios are in accordance with the verification of the consistency is a very good understanding of the system dynamics. The importance of the scenarios for the further work was the reason to include ones more the opinions of stakeholders. The organisation of a workshop on La Digue Island was an opportunity to include the opinions of internal stakeholders (see appendix G7) into the scenario process. Because of the limited time available of this workshop and the unequal background knowledge of the participants, it was not possible to verify the consistency of the scenarios in respect of the characteristic levels. It was also not possible to verify under which general framework the scenarios are realisable. Despite the problems encountered during the scenario evaluation and construction, it can be affirmed that the different obstacles were greatly overcome. Four different scenarios were generated and even if two of these scenarios are from a formative perspective almost equal, the apparent analogy can be explained (see chapter D1.6). In any case, for the following scenario evaluation, the four generated scenarios have been highly useful.

E2.2 MAUT Criteria and attributes A set of criteria and attributes was required, in order to valuate the ecological, economic and social dimension of sustainability adequately, while being sufficiently sensitive to display differences between the scenarios. In addition, the set should allow extrapolating on carrying capacity issues. The choice of this relevant set was challenging. Firstly, there exist no standard criteria to evaluate the sustainability of tourism development on small islands. Secondly, the consideration of criteria and attributes started already during the scenario construction. It was therefore difficult to make a clear separation between impact factors that enable to characterise a state and criteria that enable to valuate a state. Finally, the choice of the criteria was dependent on the possibility to get a reliable data set and the exclusion of certain criteria could influence the gained results of the scenario evaluation on a certain extent. Anyhow, even if the set of criteria and attributes contains certain subjective elements, it is appropriate to valuate and above all to compare the four scenarios. MAUT I The limited available data for La Digue Island implies that the quantification of criteria was very difficult. As a consequence, the attributes had to be adapted according to the data availability and assumptions had to be made. To increase the credibility and the quality of the results, two expert interviews were conducted whenever possible. Because of the impossibility to get absolute values of the sustainability of the scenarios, only relative rating could be accomplished. One weak point of the normalisation approach is, that it is not clear how much the linear extrapolation of the utility functions reflects the reality. Moreover a criterion with a utility 0 may still have a utility, which is however hampered by this normalisation procedure. One solution to improve the normalisation process is to compare the quantified criteria with the best practice example to be found

98

worldwide. This enables a comparison with the best solution under today’s conditions. The normalisation process could further be improved by using non-linear utility functions that might better reflect changes. However, the use of more complex utility functions requires more data input and makes only sense if the data quality is equally improved. A sensitive analysis would have definitely increased the quality of the results of the data based evaluation but the time frame of this study did not allowed to make such an analysis. However, by using two different linear utility functions, a step in this direction was done and has demonstrated that the rating of the four scenarios remains the same, even if the valuation of the three sustainability dimensions changes. MAUT II The stakeholder evaluation is the methodological part, where probably the most difficulties occurred. First, the time available to carry out all the interviews was too short. One week was planned for the interviews and it appeared to be challenging to find enough people, because of the bad weather conditions during this period. The goal to interview 40 people was reached, but with hindsight, it is thought that the quality of the results would have been better by at least doubling the number of interviews. This latter was assessed as insufficient to make a statistical evaluation within the two stakeholder groups. In this study, a statement between the different tourist segments or between age groups or working situation cannot be made. Whereas, the valuation of the two stakeholder groups can be analysed. In addition, the time of the interviews was definitely too long. Even if the tourists and the local community were motivated to participate to the study, it appeared that they had trouble to concentrate 40 to 50 minutes. One aspect that appears to be both an advantage and a problem, was that only the author conducted the interviews. Each scenario was explained through a proceeding that was decided in advance, but the risk remained that the stakeholders were unconsciously influenced. Furthermore, because of a language constraint some stakeholders could unfortunately not be interviewed. People from the local community, who are working in certain fields, like agriculture or fishing, often do not speak English or French but solely Creole. In order to include all kind of worker in the study, a traducer was planned. Unfortunately it did not work out. One important barrier regarding the stakeholder-based evaluation is the complexity of the evaluation process. It came out that above all the local community, who is not familiar with the concept of sustainable development, had trouble with the criteria based evaluation. Thus, the author had to give further explanations to some of the interviewed persons and could them again influence them. This signifies that if the responses of a few people are not truthfully, the mean of the whole group is influenced. Uncertainty concerning the quality of the responses of the criteria based evaluation should thus be taken into account and the results should only be considered as information on the direction that the tourism development should take. One improvement proposal is to make shorter interviews with stakeholders like the community and the tourists, where only the intuitive evaluation and eventually the weighting of the criteria would be conducted. The criteria based evaluation could exclusively be carried out by experts. The visual presentation of the four scenarios was highly appreciated by the stakeholders and was of a great help for the understanding of the four scenarios. Despite the different difficulties, it came out that all interviewed people assessed the amount and the diversity of the chosen criteria as comprehensive enough. Moreover, even if the results should be regarded critically, the stakeholder based evaluation enables to make distinguished interpretations.

99

E2.3 Transdisciplinarity Bringing together the scientific and the knowledge of more than 150 stakeholders from the beginning of the study up to the elaboration of solutions is a key point of this study. Expert knowledge conduces the quality and the robustness of the results but is also related to some barriers. Within interviews, experts were above all questioned on assumptions in order to validate the findings of the author. At this point, the difficulty to find the person with specialised knowledge in the examined research area, aroused. In addition, it cannot be excluded that an expert interview reflects a personal opinion. The inclusion of a second opinion is thus a good way to increase the quality of the results and was almost always done. The organisation of working groups or workshops is another way to include the opinion of stakeholders into the study. In the Seychelles, people are until now not used to these kind of participative process and the expectations of the outcome must therefore be adapted. Anyhow, it is of great importance to identify the problems, the needs and the wishes of different stakeholders. The great involvement of the participants at the workshop proves the utility of these methods. The organisation of working groups or workshops demonstrates the willingness to change the situation. The mutual learning is a key aspect of working groups and workshops. The different stakeholders get the opportunity to understand other point of views. Furthermore, these kind of participative processes allow getting the confidence of stakeholders, who are afterwards interested to give a personal interview. One problem that occurred was, that the stakeholders from La Digue Island were not included in the study from the beginning. Afterwards it was more difficult to gain their involvement. This was reflected in the database acquisition, because it was more difficult to get the sought data. Altogether it can be affirmed that the participative processes used in this study are an efficient way to get information, to link the latter with the academic know-how and to close knowledge gaps under a short time frame.

E2.4 Concluding comment on the methodology In spite of a limited time frame for this master thesis, it was managed to understand the complexity of the system and to describe it. Reliable scenarios have been generated and a comprehensive set of criteria and attributes were defined to evaluate the scenarios regarding their sustainability. The great cooperation of stakeholders from different domains enabled to ensure that the study was highlighted from diverse sights.

E3 Conclusions La Digue remains the only inhabited island of the Seychelles, which enjoys the reputation of keeping the roots of the traditional way of life. The calm atmosphere that reigns on the island, the fact that the bicycle and the traditional ox-cart are the dominant means of transportation and the image of a pristine landscape came out from interviews to be the main strengths for which La Digue is appreciated. The visual beauty of the natural environment is of utmost importance for tourists. However, the results show the high sensibility of the ecosystem to anthropogenic changes. This illustrates the difficult trade-offs in combining economic goals, related to an increase in tourist arrivals and an extension of tourist infrastructures, without compromising the natural environment, the local community and whilst maintaining a high quality of visitors’ experience.

100

One main goal of this study was to understand the impacts that the development of tourist infrastructures generate in the economic, ecological and social dimensions. For that purpose, both working groups and interviews with a broad range of stakeholders, involved in the tourism business as well as in concerned fields, have been regularly done. The analysis of the system dynamics allowed to ascertain the strong influence that the impact factor ‘accommodation’ has on the conservation of the ecosystem. Solely the political willingness to manage the system La Digue, has in return an influence on the tourist infrastructure development. The high passivity of ecological impact factors denote that they are strongly influenced by but do not strongly influence the system. As a first result of the combination of the characteristic levels of the impact factors, four different scenarios have been obtained: 1. Free Development, 2. Authentic Creole Style, 3. Nature Preservation and 4. Five-Star-Eco-Tourism. A set of nine important criteria, three in each dimension, have first been identified and then quantified through their corresponding attributes within the scenario evaluation (MAUT). It is generally not possible to get a maximal utility in each sustainability dimension. An increase in a benefit of one domain results in a decrease in a benefit in another domain. It is clear that the ecological dimension is seen as the most important for the case of La Digue Island. The overlap of the weighting of the ecological criteria by the two stakeholder groups shows that an improvement in ecological terms will benefit both the local community and the tourists, i.e. the tourism industry. As the marketing strategy of the Seychelles build upon an unspoiled area, it is analogously that tourists strive for lonely places. Also the importance of economic criteria for the local community is self-explanatory. The results of this transdisciplinary study provide a possibility to deduce which domain has a utility of high denotation, and thus in which direction a development should be aspired. From the scenario evaluation, it is clear that the extensive construction of tourism accommodations has an enormous direct and indirect effect on the natural environment and on the society, i.e. decrease of the visual beauty, decrease of the biodiversity, increase of resources, import of foreign labour. Thus, the ecological and social dimension would be directly affected. From interviews, it is also obvious that some of these effects will touch at the tourists’ wishes, which in turns will affect the economical dimension. Therefore, the scenario Free Development, is absolutely not sustainable. Three aspects have to be taken into consideration with respect to the efforts of the Seychelles authorities to attract high-value tourists and with respect to the scenario Five-Star-Eco-Tourism: In different previous studies it came out that despite higher tourist spending in exclusive and pristine destinations like the Seychelles, the resource consumption of high value tourists are considerably higher, and revenues generated locally in such destinations is found to be lower than in ‘backpacker’ destinations. This is due to requirements of luxury tourists, who depend more on a great amount of space, on facilities that require an enormous resource use and on imports from outside. A second aspect is the finding that destinations, such as Bird Island, that market an environmentally centred product exclusive of high luxury, have bed-occupancy rates, which greatly exceed the national average of the Seychelles. Furthermore, compared to Mahé, where the bed-occupancy rate tends to decrease, on La Digue it tends to increase. The long term profitability of the current tourism forms on Bird and La Digue could possibly be uprated compared to luxury tourism. A last aspect that should not be underestimated is that the creation of an “eco-deluxe” tourism on La Digue, which cannot be compared to lonely and private owned islands like North and Fregate, implies the accomplishment of many conditions. In addition, it is perceived by many interviewed stakeholders, that the promotion of luxury tourism would destroy the spirit of the island.

101

The results of this study demonstrate clearly in which direction the tourism strategy could be directed to generate benefits. The scenarios Authentic Creole Style and Nature Conservation reveal the most interesting potentials to achieve an economic success while preserving both the society and the natural environment. The stakeholder evaluation intensifies the idea that the future tourism planning should head for this direction. Because the overall utility of the two scenarios is comparable, they could be merged together for the future -sustainable- tourism strategy. The primary focus would concern nature preservation, whereby the categorisation of different areas for protection purposes should be determined. For example, areas of outstanding beauty should be delimited and protected, as it is planned within the Biodiversity and Conservation Act. A further point of both ecological and societal importance, concerns the low development of tourist accommodations and the reduction of motorised vehicles on the island. The promotion of a wide variety of low impact traditional and nature orientated activities is certainly one key link between tourism and nature protection. On one hand, such activities would generate money for nature protection through entrance fees, donations and selling of souvenirs in a craft village. On the other hand, they would diversify the offer of tourist activities, thus possibly extend the stay of many tourists for the benefit of hotels, guesthouses and restaurants. The next steps… Strategy implementation and participation: As one of the next steps the local stakeholders should be confronted with the findings of this study. Therefore, a workshop and follow up studies are already planned by the Ministry of Tourism and Transport. The outcome of this workshop should be the participative decision of a strategy and of the framework conditions necessary for the implementation of the strategy. The involvement of a maximum range of stakeholders concerning a further tourism development, as conducted in this study, affords that they feel “ownership” of the planning process. This is a key point for the successful planning and implementation of a strategy (Eagles et al., 2002). It is thus of superior importance to guarantee that the implementation of a strategy for the future tourism development on La Digue Island takes place within a participative process from the start. Furthermore the cooperation between the public and the private sector should be actively promoted. This societal aspect could be promoted by the governmental authorities. Regulations: From the system analysis, it ensues that the enforcement and the reinforcement of the laws should be discussed in order to find solutions that guarantee the compliance of them. The collaboration between the authorities of Mahé and of La Digue could handle this issue. One suggestion concerns the enforcement of a land use and a zoning plan for La Digue Island. One possible approach is the method of mediated Area Development Negotiation (Scholz & Tietje, 2002), really adapted for complex case studies with an important number of involved interests. Promotion of local structures: The promotion of small scale development guarantees maximal local participation, contributes to the local economy and reduces the leakage rate. This should be brought forward by the promotion of the private sector.

102

A sustainable development of the tourism sector depends on the environmental awareness of the population. The provision of local training and skills upgrading is an aspect that should be guaranteed. The education of people of the local community should be promoted, so that they understand the concept of sustainable development and feel themselves involved in the process. But also the tourists should be educated about the environmental impacts that they are generating and how they can contribute to reduce them. This aspect involves both governmental authorities and the private sector. Implementation of investigations: There is a lack of accurate economic data within this study. The performance of an economic account, by using for example a cost-benefit analysis, would allow finding out, which are the main economic strengths and weaknesses of the selected planning strategy and how the economic sustainability of the strategy can be optimised without decreasing the ecological and social sustainability. This is something that could be conducted in further transdisciplinary studies. Once the strategy of the future tourism development is agreed, a marketing strategy for La Digue Island should be developed, for example within one of the follow up studies. This helps to publicise the new tourism strategy to the appropriate customers. Encouragement of environmental compatibility: One main implication of the results is that the conservation of the biodiversity should be ensured. Strategies to conserve energy, water and other resources and to reduce waste and the risk of pollution by sewage should be worked out as well. The prioritisation of the ecological sustainability could be ensured by the implementation of management guidelines. This could be conducted in collaboration between governmental authorities, organisations and the private sector. Last, but not least, because the goal of the Seychelles’ authorities is to market the Seychelles as a Eco-Tourism destination, the implementation of eco-tourism standards, like the implementation of a certification system, or the activation of incentives for tourist accommodations that fulfil the standards of ‘ecolodges’ could be discussed in-depth. Within this study a transdisciplinary approach towards a successful future tourism development on La Digue Island is provided. This approach takes into account the (societal) goal of ecologic, economic and social sustainability, the concept of carrying capacity and above all the importance of the point of view of the primary concerned persons, namely the local community and the tourists. Now, with learning’s out of this study, the time has come to ‘walk the talk’ towards a successful strategy implementation.

103

F. Reference

F1 Literature

Adams, J. (1995). Ecotourism: conservation tool or threat? (Conservation Issue 2/3): World Wildlife Fund.

Ananda, J., & Herath, G. (2003). The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. Forest Policy and Economics, 5, 13-26.

Archer, B. & Fletcher, J. (1996). The economic impact of the tourism in the Seychelles. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(1), 32-47.

Belz, F.-M. (2001). Nachhaltiges Ökomarketing. Thexis, 2, 24-28.

Björk, P. (1999). Ecotourism from a conceptual perspective, an extended definition of a unique tourism form. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2, 189-202.

Brown, M. T., & Ulgiati, S. (2001). Emergy Measures of Carrying Capacity to Evaluate Economic Investments. Population an Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 22(5), 471-501.

Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our Common Future. International: World Commission of Environment and Development (The Brundtland Commission).

Carey, D. I. (1993). Development based on carrying capacity - a strategy for environmental protection. Global Environmental Change, 3(2), 140-148.

Cazet-Duvat, V., & Robert, R. (2001). Atlas de l'environnement côtier des îles granitiques de l'archipel des Seychelles. Saint-Denis, La Réunion: Université de La Réunion.

Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1996). Tourism, ecotourism, and protected areas. Gland, Switzerland: The World Conservation Union (IUNC).

Coccossis, H., Mexa, A., & Collovini, A. (2002). Defining, Measuring and evaluating Carrying Capacity in European Tourism Destinations (No. B4.3040/2000/294577/MAR/D2). Athen, Greece: University of the Aegean.

Commercial Data International (CDI). (2000). Country Review: Seychelles 1998/1999. Houston, Texas, USA: Commercial Data International (CDI).

Currie, D. (2002). Ecolocical requirements of the Seychelles Black Paradise Flycatcher - Consequences for Conservation and Management (Vol. 1). Mahé, Republic of Seychelles: Nature Seychelles.

Currie, D., Hill, M., Millet, J., et al. (2003). Conservation Options for the Critically Endangered Seychelles Black Paradise-Flycatcher Terpsiphone Corvina. Bird Conservation International, 13, 97-114.

Da Silva, C. P. (2002). Beach Carrying Capacity Assessment: How important is it? Journal of Coastal Research(Special Issue 36), 191-197.

Därr, W. (1984). "Richtig Reisen" - Seychellen. Köln, Deutschland: DuMont Buchverlag.

Denman, R. (2001). Guidelines for community-based ecotourism development. Ledbury, UK: World Wildlife Fund Interantional Publication.

Diamantis, D. (2000). Ecotourism and Sustainability in Mediterranean Islands. Thunderbird International Business Rewiew, 42(2), 427-443.

104

Duncombe, M. (1996). Atlas des zones d'environnement sensible des Seychelles (Vol. 1). Victoria, Republic of Seychelles: Gouvernement des Seychelles.

Duncombe, M. (1996). Atlas des zones d'environnement sensible des Seychelles (Vol. 2). Victoria, Republic of Seychelles: Gouvernement des Seychelles.

Eagles, P. F., McCool, S. F., & Haynes, C. (2002). Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas - Guidlines for Planning and Management. Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK: Worl Conservation Union (IUNC).

Ellenberg, L., Scholz, M., & Beier, B. (1997). Ökotourismus: Reisen zwischen Ökonomie und Ökologie. Heidelberg & Berlin, Deutschland, Oxford, UK: Spektrum, Akademischer Verlag.

Environment - Recources - Oceans (ENVI-R-O). (1996). La Digue Landfill Study - Environmental Impact Assessment. Mahe, Republic of Seychelles: Environment - Recources - Oceans (ENVI-R-O).

Forman, R. T. T. (1995). Land Mosaics - The ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge, UK: University Press.

Frey, R. L. (1993). Wirtschaft, Staat und Wohlfahrt. Eine Einführung in die Nationalökonomie (8. ed.). Basel und Frankfurt am Main: Helbing & Lichtnehahn.

Garrigós Simón, F. J., Narangajavana, Y., & Palacios Marqués, D. (2003). Carrying capacity in the tourism industry: a case study of Hengistbury Head. Tourism Management, 25(2), 275-283.

Ghina, F. (2003). Sustainable development in small island developing states. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 5, 139-165.

Gleick, P. H. (2003). Global Freshwater Resources: Soft-Path Solutions for the 21st Century. Science, 302, 1524-1528.

Gössling, S. (1999). Ecotourism: a means to safeguard biodiversity and ecosystem functions? Ecological Economics, 29, 303-320.

Gössling, S., Hansson, C. B., Hörstmeier, O., & Saggel, S. (2002). Ecological footprint analysis as a tool to assess tourism sustainability. Ecological Economics, 43, 199-211.

Güsewell, S., & Dürrenberger, G. (1996). Komplementarität von Laiensicht und Expertensicht in der Landschaftsbewertung. GAIA 5, 1, 23-34.

Holl, K. D., & Howarth, R. B. (2000). Paying for Restoration. Restoration Ecology, 8(3), 260-267.

Honey, M. (1999). Ecotourism and sustainable development: who owns paradise? Washington DC, USA: Island Press.

Hunter, C. (2002). Sustainable Tourism and the Touristic Ecological Footprint. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 4, 7-20.

Institut français de l'environnement (IFEN). (2000). Indicators for an environmental diagnosis of tourism in France. Orléans, France: Institut français de l'environnement (IFEN).

Job, H. (1996). Modell zur evaluation der Nachhaltigkeit im Tourismus. In Erdkunde (Vol. 50, pp. 112-132).

Kahn, H. & Wiener, A. J. (1967). The year 2000. London: Macmillan.

Krütli, P., & Frey, S. (2000). Morne Seychellois National Park - Eco-Tourism & Biodiversity. Master Thesis in Environmental Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich.

105

La Digue Development Board (LDDB). (1999). Policy Paper for La Digue Island (1st Draft). Unpublished manuscript, La Digue, Republic of Seychelles: La Digue Development Board (LDDB).

Ladouce, L. (2001). Project for enhancing fresh water supplies in the Seychelles by desalination of sea water using reverse osmosis. Victoria, Republic of Seychelles: Public Utilities Cooperation (PUC).

Lindberg, K., & McCool, S. F. (1998). A critique of environmental carrying capacity as a means of managing the effects of tourism development. Environmental Conservation, 25(4), 291-292.

Lowseck, D. J. (1997). The Seychelles tourism master plan - Planning and development 1998-2007. Mahé, Republic of Seychelles: Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation.

Lundin, C. G., & Lindén, O. (1995). Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Seychelles. Sida: World Bank.

Management and Information Systems Division (MISD). (1997). Population Census. Victoria, Republic of Seychelles: Management and Information Systems Division (MISD).

Management and Information Systems Division (MISD). (1999). Statistical Abstract 1998. Victoria, Republic of Seychelles: Management and Information Systems Division (MISD).

Management and Information Systems Division (MISD). (2002). Population Census (first results). (Personal Communication: M. J. Mellie), Victoria, Republic of Seychelles: Management and Information Systems Division (MISD).

Management and Information Systems Division (MISD). (2002). Visitor Survey. Victoria, Republic of Seychelles: Management and Information Systems Division (MISD).

Management and Information Systems Division (MISD). (2003). Statistical Abstract 2002. Victoria, Republic of Seychelles: Management and Information Systems Division (MISD).

Management and Information Systems Division (MISD). (2003). Statistical Bulletin (No. 10). Victoria, Republic of Seychelles: Management and Information Systems Division (MISD).

Manning, R. E., & Lawson, S. R. (2002). Carrying Capacity as "Informed Judgment": The Values of Science and the Science of Values. Environmental Sciences, 30(2), 157-168.

Mercado, L., & Lassoie, J. P. (2002). Assessing tourist's preferences for recreational and environmental management programs central to the sustainable development of a tourism area in the Dominican Republic. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 4, 253-287.

Micock, B. (1998). The Seychelles tourism master plan - Land use planning. Mahé, Republic of Seychelles: Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation.

Ministry of Environment and Transport (MET). (1999). Environmental Management Plan of the Seychelles 2000-2010. Mahé, Republic of Seychelles: Government of Seychelles.

Ministry of Land Use and Habitat (MLUH). (1999). Review of the existing La Use Plan. Victoria, Republic of Seychelles: Ministry of Land Use and Habitat (MLUH).

Ministry of Land Use and Habitat (MLUH). (2003). Zone description of La Digue. (Personal Communication: Y. Cafrine), Victoria, Republic of Seychelles: Ministry of Land Use and Habitat (MLUH).

Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT). (2003). Transport Statistics. (Personal Communication: P. André), Victoria, Republic of Seychelles.

106

Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT). (2004). Arrivals of non-resident tourists in Indian Ocean islands. (Personal Communication: F. Dogley Fleischer), Victoria, Republic of Seychelles.

Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT). (2000). VISION 21. Mahé, Republic of Seychelles: Government of Seychelles.

Missler-Behr, M. (1993). Methoden der Szenarioanalyse. Wiesbaden, Deutschland: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag.

Montano, M. K. T. (1998). Praslin & La Digue solid waste disposal - Summary report. Victoria, Republic of Seychelles: Ministry of Environment (MoE).

Müller, H., & Flügel, M. (1999). Tourismus und Ökologie: Wechselwirkungen und Handlungsfelder. Bern, Schweiz: Forschungsinstitut für Freizeit und Tourismus (FIF) der Universität Bern.

Neufeld, D. (1992). Survey of Habitats on La Digue. INFORM Series. Reports from the Conservation and National Parks Service, Division of Enviroment, Seychelles.

Papageorgiou, K., & Brotherton, I. (1999). A management planning framework based on ecological, perceptual and economic carrying capacity: The case study of Vikos-Aoos National Park, Greece. Journal of Environmental Management, 56, 271-284.

Poon, A. (1998). Local involvement in tourism. The Courier, 171, 83.

Priskin, J. (2003). Tourist Perceptions of Degradation Caused by Costal Nature-Based Recreation. Environmental Sciences, 32(2), 189-204.

Public Utility Corporation (PUC). (2002). Datas on water demand and supply. (Personal Communication: D. Labodo), Victoria, Republic of Seychelles: Public Utility Corporation (PUC).

Reingold, L. (1993). Identifying the Elusive Ecotourist. In Going Green, a supplement to Tour and Travel News, October 25th, 1993 (pp. 36-39).

Salvat, B. (1998). Tourism and coral reefs. Tourism Focus, 11, 45-48.

Sauer, J. D. (1967). Plants and man on the Seychelles coast. A study in historical biogeography. Madison, London: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Saveriades, A. (2000). Establishing the social tourism carrying capacity for the tourist resorts of the east coast of the Republic of Cyprus. Tourism Management, 21, 147-156.

Scholz, R. W., & Binder, C. R. (2003). The Paradigm of Human-Environment Systems. Unpublished manuscript, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich.

Scholz, R. W., Stauffacher, M., Bösch, S., & Krütli, P. (Eds.). (2003). Appenzell Ausserrhoden: Umwelt - Wirtschaft - Region. ETH-UNS Fallstudie 2002. Zürich, Schweiz: Rüegger.

Scholz, R. W., Stauffacher, M., Bösch, S., & Wiek, A. (Eds.). (2002). Landschaftsnutzung für die Zukunft - Der Fall Appenzell Ausserrhoden, ETH-UNS Fallstudie 2001. Zürich, Schweiz: Rüegger.

Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded Case Study Methods - Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Knowledge. London, UK, New Delhi, India: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.

Seychelles Nation. (November 11th, 2000). "As pure as it gets" - a marketing message and promise that should rally every Seychellois. p. 8.

Seychelles Nation. (October 28th, 2000). The dawn of a new generation of hotels in the Seychelles. p. 3.

107

Seychelles Nation. (November 13th, 2000). Five small establishments affiliated to Discovery. p. 3.

Seychelles Nation. (November 5th, 2003). Workshop to discuss future developments for La Digue. pp. 1-2.

Shah, N. J., Payet, R., & Henri, K. (1997). National Biodiversity Assessment and Action Plan. Mahé, Republic of Seychelles: Government of Seychelles.

Shah, N. J., Payet, R., & Henri, K. (1997). Seychelles Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Mahé, Republic of Seychelles: Government of Seychelles.

Stoddart, D. R. (1984). Biogeography and Ecology of the Seychelles Islands. Boston, Lancaster: DR W. Junk Publishers.

Tannert, C., Wiedemann, P., Hirschfeld, R., & Schicktanz, S. (2002). "Gene, Geld und Gelehrte" - Ergebnisse des Szenario-Workshops zum Verhältnis von Wirtschaft und Biomedizin. Berlin, Deutschland: AG Bioethik und Wissenschaftskommunikation.

Tarp, P., & Helles, F. (1995). Multi-Criteria Decision-Making in Forest Management Planning - An Overview. Journal of Forest Economics, 1(3), 273-306.

Vand der Meulen, F., & Udo de Haes, H. A. (1996). Nature conservation and integrated coastal zone management in Europe: present and future. Landscape and Urban Planning, 34, 401-410.

Wiek, A. (2002). Formative Szenarioanalyse zu den Enwicklungsmöglichkeiten des ländlichen Gebietes Centovalli - Verbano - Locarnese (2. ed.). Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, Zürich.

Wiek, A., Scholz, R. W., Lang, D., et al. (in prep). Integrative Regional Transitions-Management - A Handbook. Natural and Social Science Interface, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich.

Wild, C., & Clauss, S. (2001). The case study of Utila Island - Master thesis in landscape ecology. Technical University, Munich, Germany.

Wöhrnschimmel, H., Logue, J., & Lang, D. (2002). Holzwirtschaft im Appenzellerland. In R. W. Scholz, Stauffacher, M., Bösch, S., Krütli, P. (Ed.), Appenzell Ausserrhoden: Umwelt - Wirtschaft - Region. ETH-UNS Fallstudie 2002 (pp. 115-116). Zürich, Schweiz: Rüegger.

Wolf, H. D. (1983). Tourismus und Verkehr auf den Seychellen. Frankfurt/Main, Deutschland: Institut für Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeographie der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität.

Wood, M. E. (2002). Ecotourism: Principles, Practices & Policies for Sustainability. Paris, France: United Nations Publication.

World Tourism Organisation (WTO). (1992). Guidelines: Development of National Parks and Protected Areas for Tourism. Madrid, Spain: World Tourism Organization (WTO).

World Tourism Organization (WTO). (2002). World Ecotourism Summit - Final Report. Madrid, Spain: World Tourism Organization (WTO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Wunder, S. (2000). Ecotourism and economic incentives - an empirical approach. Ecological Economics, 32, 465-479.

108

F2 Internet references As pure as it gets. (2004). Seychelles - As pure as it gets. from http://www.aspureasitgets.com

Berno, T. & Bricker, K. (2001). Sustainable Tourism Development: The long Road from Theory to Practice. from http://www.spaef.com/IJED_PUB/3_3_berno.html

Cazes-Duvat, V. (2001). Methodologies for carring capacity in small island states / Indian Ocean. from http://www.csiwisepractices.org/?read=380

Convention on Biological Diversity. (1993). Article 2 - Use of Terms. from http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp

Daily, G. C. & Ehrlich, P. R. (1992). Polpulation, Sustainability, and Earth's Carrying Capacity: A framework for estiamting population sizes and lifestyles that could be sustained without undermining future generations. from http://www.dieoff.org//page112.htm

Dogsé, P. (2001). Tourism Carrying Capacity - A Useful Concept? , from http://www.gencat.net/mediamb/encore/saeregio.doc

Eberlee, J. (2001). Managing Tourism within a Sustainable Carrying Capacity. from http://www.idrc.ca/reports/prn_report.cfm?article_num=252

ETH-UNSFallstudie. (2003). ETH-UNS Fallstudie. from http://www.fallstudie.ethz.ch/fs/fs_allg.html

European Environment Agency (EEA). (2000). Information for improving Europe's environment. from http://glossary.eea.eu.int/EEAGlossary/E/endemic_species

Hawaii Government. (2002). Planning for Sustainable Tourism in Hawaii. from http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/sustainable/sustain.html

Insula. (1995). Sustainable Tourism - Concepts. from http://www.insula.org/tourism/

Jamaica Sustainable Development Network. (1997). Sustainable Tourism. from http://www.jsdnp.org.jm/susTourism.htm

Network. (2003). Scenarios. Scenario development as a learning process. from http://www.nextwork.se/index2.htm

Rao, N. & Suresh, K. T. (1997). Eco Tourism and Sustainable Development. from http://www.globales-lernen.de/Schwerpunkte/Reisen/sustain.htm

Shah, N. J. (2001). Bikinis, Birds and Biodiversity: Tourism and Conservation on Cousin Island, Seychelles. from http://egis.cefe.crns-mop.fr/Tourism_Frontpages/shahart.htm

Small Island Developing States Network. (2004). Small Island Developing States (SIDS). from http://www.sidsnet.org/index.html

Srinivas, H. (2003). Defining Eco-Tourism. from http://www.gdrc.org/uem/eco-tour/etour-dfine.html

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2003). Sustainable living in small island developing states: Freshwater resources and waste management. from http://portal.unesco.org/en/

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (1998). Small Island Environmental Management: Tourism Impacts. from http://islands.unep.ch/siem.htm

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2002). Agenda 21 for the Travel & Tourism Industry. from http://www.wttc.org/promote/agenda21.htm

109

Universität Karlsruhe. (2003). Szenarioanalyse. from http://marketing.wiwi.uni-karlsruhe.de/kaiman/kaiman/scenario/index.xml

World Conservation Union (IUNC). (2003). The IUNC red list of treatened species. from http://www.redlist.org

World Conservation Union (IUNC). (2004). Tourism, Cultural Diversity and Sustainable Development. from http://www.iunc.org

World Tourism Organisation (WTO). (2003). World Tourism Organization - Sustainable Tourism. from http://www.world-tourism.org

F3 List of Figures

All pictures are from Serge Gagou and Saskia Günther

Figure B1: Map of the Seychelles island, including the inner islands 12

Figure B2: Gross Domestic Product by sector of activity 15

Figure B3: Growth of international tourist arrivals from 1950 until 2002 and the forecast until 2020 16

Figure B4: Comparison of tourist arrivals between 1995 and 2001 in three different islands: La Réunion, Mauritius and the Seychelles 18

Figure B5: Representation of La Digue Island 20

Figure B6: Population growth rate between 1987 and 2001 21

Figure C1: The nine steps of the formative scenario analysis 30

Figure C2: Indirect impacts of the impact factors 32

Figure C3: Visualisation of the procedure of the evaluation 36

Figure D1: Stakeholders, who exert influence on the sustainable tourism development on La Digue Island 41

Figure D2: Participative process for the acquisition and reduction of impact factors 52

Figure D3: System Grid of the impact factors 55

Figure D4: Ranking of the activity of the 15 impact factors 57

Figure D5: System graph of the 12 impact factors 58

Figure D6: Interactions between anthropogenic impact factors and ecological impact factors 59

Figure D7: Illustration of scenario 1: Free Development 65

Figure D8: Illustration of scenario 2: Authentic Creole Style 67

Figure D9: Illustration of scenario 3: Nature Preservation 69

Figure D10: Illustration of scenario 4: Five-Star-Eco-Tourism 71

Figure D11: Examples of two linear utility functions used within this study 78

Figure D12: Overall utility of the four scenarios split in the three sustainability dimensions 79

110

Figure D13: Overall utility of the four scenarios split in the three sustainability dimensions 80

Figure D14: Intuitive scenario evaluation of the two stakeholder groups. 81

Figure D15: Differences between tourists and the local community in the weighting of the nine sustainability criteria 83

Figure D16: Criteria based evaluation of the four scenarios by the two stakeholder groups 84

Figure D17: Criteria based evaluation of scenario 1 by the two stakeholder groups 85

Figure D18: Scenario evaluation by the stakeholders split in the ecological, economic and social dimension 86

Figure D19: Comparison of the intuitive and criteria based evaluation of the four scenarios by the two stakeholder groups 86

Figure D20: Comparison of the intuitive evaluation by stakeholders, the criteria based scenario evaluation by the stakeholders and the data based evaluation 88

Figure D21: Qualitative comparison of the data based and the criteria based scenario evaluation 88

Figure G1: Schematic representation of the system grid of the direcit impacts between impact factors 114

Figure G2: Built up area of the coastal plateau on La Digue Island. The coastal plateau is defined as the area under 20 metres height, which correspond in the figure to the area that is not in blue 134

F4 List of Tables Table B1: Basic data of the tourism industry in the Seychelles in the last 7 years 18

Table B2: Tourism development objectives of different authorities of the Seychelles 25

Table C1: Methodological proceeding of the four phases of the study 26

Table D1: Strengths-Weakness-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis of the tourism on La Digue Island 42

Table D2: Definition of the 15 selected impact factors 53

Table D3: Impact matrix of the direct impacts between the different factors 54

Table D4: Definition of the two modified impact factors 56

Table D5: Consistency matrix of the 12 selected impact factors 59

Table D6: Selected characteristic levels for the 12 impact factors 60

Table D7: Overview on the four scenarios 62

Table D8: List of the nine chosen criteria and their corresponding attributes for the evaluation of the tourism development on La Digue 72

Table D9: Scenario-versus-attribute-matrix 76

Table D10: Weighting of the criteria by a group of 15 experts working on different fields 78

Table D11: Average weights of the nine criteria given by the two stakeholder groups 82

Table D12: Criteria that were further more proposed by the two stakeholder groups 83

111

Table G1: Definition of the 29 impact factors that were presented to the participants of the working groups for a further reduction 112

Table G2: Schematic illustration of the impact matrix 114

Table G3: Strengths-Weakness-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis of the tourism in the Seychelles 115

Table G4: The 12 impact factors and the respective characteristic levels of scenario 5 116

Table G5: List of the 22 criteria proposed to the working group 128

Table G6: Indicator water consumption per day / capacity of the safe yield 129

Table G7: Area that is built up with infrastructure and relation to the total area of the coastal plateau for the different scenarios 133

Table G8: Size and number of key ecosystems that contribute to the survival of endangered animal species for the actual situation and the four scenarios 136

Table G9:Tourist expenditures per Diem and per year 137

Table G10:Employment situation for the actual situation and the different scenarios 144

Table G11: Ratio of local products in the alimentation for the actual situation and the four scenarios 145

Table G12: Number of tourists per 100m accessible beach for the actual situation and the four scenarios. 147

Table G13: Ratio of migrant workers today and for the four scenarios 148

Table G14: Quantified evaluation criteria and utility values for the four scenarios 151

112

G. Appendix

G1 The Seychelles

G1.1 Examples of Conventions signed by the Seychelles’ government

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild fauna and Flora (CITES), 1977..

Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1980

Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Eastern African Region, 1985.

Convention on Biological Diversity, 1993 (The Seychelles Republic was the second country to sign this Convention).

Convention on Climate Change – Kyoto Protocol, 1997 (signed but not ratified).

G1.2 Relevant legal acts for the tourism development on La Digue Town and Country and Planning Act, 1972 (CAP 237). This act contains all regulations regarding planning processes.

Environment Protection Act, 1994 (CAP 71). This is important, as it includes the regulation of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that have to be done.

National Parks and Nature Conservancy Act, 1969 (CAP 141) (also know as Biodiversity and Conservation Act). This act defines the statue of nature reserve, as the “La Digue Veuve Special Reserve”, Order S/I 8/1991.

Breadfruit and Other Trees Act, 1917 (CAP 18). In this act the protection of different tree species, like the Takamaka and the Badmamier (see Chapter D1.2) is regulated.

Fisheries Act 1987 (CAP 82). This is of relevance for La Digue, as the protection of the Shell Reserve lies under this act.

PUC Act, 1986 (CAP 196), which includes water supply regulations Removal of Sand and Gravel Act, 1982 (CAP 203).

Wild Animals and Birds Protection Act, 1961 (CAP 247). The protection of birds and turtles is included in this act.

G2 Scenario Analysis

G2.1 Impact factors Table G 1: Definition of the 29 impact factors that were presented to the participants of the working groups for a further reduction. Ecology Landscape aesthetics Natural areas, which present physical or natural characteristics with an aesthetic value that merits to be preserved Coastal erosion Decrease of the coastal area’s width, above

Economy Diversity Variability of economic activities contributing to the GDP. Stability Level of self-sufficiency of the economy. An important aspect is the level of public costs and

113

all of the beaches, because of natural and/or anthropogenic factors that activate erosion processes Terrestrial and marine biodiversity Diversity of rare & native plant & animal species in La Digue. Important element of the terrestrial biodiversity is the Paradise Flycatcher bird and for the marine biodiversity the turtles and the coral reefs Habitat diversity Diversity and mosaic of the ecosystem Waste Management Capacity of the landfill to assimilate the generated waste. Management of the solid waste to decrease a risk of pollution Freshwater supply Capacity of the water catchments areas and quality of drinking water. This factor includes important aspects like pollution and desalination of sea water Society Local culture and tradition Importance of traditional activities, like fishing, handicrafts, traditional dances, cookery, architectural style and ox-cart riding on the island. Tolerance to tourists Tolerance of the local community to the number of tourists regarding aspects of tourist flows and overcrowding. Participation Populations’ grade of participation in planning, developing and running of sustainable tourism projects. Education Level of educational possibilities referring the tourism business for the population after the secondary school. Population density The number of people per square kilometre. The element population density also includes the rate of Diguois compared to the total population. Environmental awareness Perception of the local community of the environmental problems and extend of environmental education. Safety & Health Level of health care and of safety on La Digue

expenses for infrastructure development compared to the revenues from tourism. Labour situation Employment within the tourism industry. Economic growth/Income Value of the tourist expenditures that contribute to the economic wealth of La Digue. Regional Marketing Marketing strategy of La Digue Island. The special features of the island are marked additionally to the marketing of the STMA. Protected area Management Activities of the responsible authorities in order to manage protected areas. Existence of resources to enforce management guidelinesDiversity Infrastructures Road and Eco-trail network Length and number of roads and eco-trails. Transport network Transport mode on the island. Importance of non-motorised and of motorised vehicles on the island. The transport network is composed of cars/taxis, trucks, helicopter, boats, bicycle, horse and ox-cart. Hotels and guesthouses Tourist infrastructures that offer an accommodation possibility. A difference based on the number of rooms is made between big hotels, small hotels and guesthouses. Tourism product and services Range of attractions, activities and facilities that are proposed to tourists on the island. Examples for tourism products and services are unspoiled beaches, natural areas, handicrafts shops and art galleries, cultural events, restaurants and snacks, activities, like snorkelling, diving, fishing, nature trail-tours, excursions to other islands, boat tours, etc. The quality of the service also belongs to the services Politics International agreements International guidelines referring to the preservation of biodiversity. NGOs Non-governmental-organisations with specific knowledge, which influence the political formation of opinion and decision. Existence and inclusion of NGOs in the decision-making process. Regional Policy Political responsibility of the island as a result of the collaboration between the different political instances, the state management based on democratic rules and on the self-determination of the population. Land use plan Enforcement of the proposed land use plan. Existence of resources (trained staff and funds) to

114

manage the different zones of use. Political stability Balance of power within the parliament. Management based on democratic rules Laws Reinforcement of laws and existence of resources (trained staff and funds) to enforce environmental and development planning laws.

G2.2 Visualisation of the impact Matrix Table G 2: Schematic illustration of the impact matrix (Scholz & Tietje, 2002 ). The direct impact level of each row factor on column factor is assessed by using a three level rating, with 0 = no impact, 1 = low impact and 2 = strong impact. The sum of the rows respectively the columns is a measure for the activity respectively the passivity of each impact factor.

Impact factors

Impa

ct

fact

or 1

Impa

ct

fact

or 2

Impa

ct

fact

or 3

Impa

ct

fact

or 4

…..

Impa

ct

fact

or n

Act

ivity

Impact factor 1 1 0 0 2 5 + n Impact factor 2 2 0 2 2 4 + n Impact factor 3 0 2 1 1 4 + n Impact factor 4 1 2 1 2 6 + n …..

Impa

ct

fact

ors

Impact factor n 1 0 1 0 2 + n Passivity 4 + n 5 + n 2 + n 3 + n 7 + n 21 + n

G2.3 Visualisation of the system grid

Figure G 1:Schematic representation of the system grid of the direct impacts between impact factor (Scholz & Tietje, 2002). The mean of the total activity and passivity divide the grid into four domains. The points symbolize the activity and passivity values of the different factors.

Buffer factors

Passive factors

Ambivalent factors

Active factors

Mean activity

Mean passivity

115

G2.4 SWOT analysis for the tourism in the Seychelles

The following Strengths-Weakness-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis of the tourism in the Seychelles was conducted before the specific one for La Digue Island (Table G ). It poses a great basis, while analyzing the tourism sector on La Digue and as this analysis concerns the Seychelles in general, most points are also valuable for La Digue Island. The most important strengths that came out from different surveys conducted in the Seychelles5, where tourists and tour operators were interviewed, are the harmony, the loneliness and the peacefulness that can be found in the Seychelles, the stunning beaches and the sea, the climate, the exclusivity and the unspoiled nature. The main weaknesses are definitely the lack of value for money and the low service level in tourist facilities. These weaknesses have already been recognized in 1983 (Wolf, 1983). Regarding competitive destination, these weaknesses are today a main treat for the success of the tourism industry in the Seychelles.

Table G 3: Strengths-Weakness-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis of the tourism in the Seychelles.

Strengths • Only oceanic granitic island archipelago in

the world • Uniqueness of nature (endemism of flora

and fauna, giant tortoise) • Marine biodiversity • 2 World Heritage Sites • Cultural Mixture (Creoles) • Direct flights from Europe • Peaceful and harmonious • High safety factor • No vaccination required • Clear, turquoise and warm water • Stunning beaches • Year round destination • Weather and Climate • Mountain and mist forest • Image of an exclusive tropical destination

in tourists’ origin countries

Weakness • Service level • Lack of well educated work forces

in business • Shortage of tourism facilities i.e.

shopping, crafts • Image as expensive tourism

destination • Inadequate quality level in some

facilities • Availability of goods and services • Lack of cooperation between

public and private and with NGOs • Limited air accessibility for other

potential demand countries than in Europe

• Shortage of energy and of naturally occurring resources

• Strong regulation of the economic structure

Opportunities • Increased consumer awareness • Interesting Cultural and historic sites • Attractive tax opportunities and other

incentives for developers (off shore banking/trade)

• Distribution of product ranges in appropriate tour operator catalogues

• Introduction of new tour operators as potential come on line

• Upgraded, affordable 3-4* hotels • Possibilities for development of “niche

markets”, like eco-tourism • Expansion and development of

educational possibilities in tourism • Implementation of the EMPS 2000-2010

Threats • Aggressively marketed

competitors, less expensive destinations such as Dominican Republic, Mauritius, Maldives

• Lack of value for money compared to competitor destinations

• Inconsistency of fiscal policy regarding taxes on tourism

• Beach touts, black economy • Further decrease of the level of

tourism infrastructures • Huge amount of exotic plants

5 Wolf, H.D. (1983), Questionnaire to tour operators, 2003

116

G2.5 Formative Scenario Analysis The table below present the main characteristics of the fifth scenario that was found during the formative consistency analysis. Table G 4: The 12 impact factors and the respective characteristic levels of scenario 5. This scenario was found within the formative consistency analysis.

IMPACT FACTOR CHARACTERISTIC LEVEL Landscape aesthetics Natural areas with an aesthetic value are overbuilt Coastal erosion >30% of the coastal area is eroded Biodiversity Decrease in the diversity of rare and native species Freshwater Supply The freshwater supply guarantees >80% of the demand Culture and Tradition Traditional activities are promoted Population density The population density stays about constant Environmental awareness There is a low awareness of the population of the

importance of the environmental preservation Economic contribution The contribution of the income generated by the employment

on the tourism sector stays constant or decreases Laws and regulations No reinforcement of environmental laws and regulations Accommodations There is a low increase in the number of hotels and

guesthouses on La Digue Tourism products and services

There is a wide variety of attractions and activities for tourists

Transport network The number of motor vehicles keeps the current range or decreases

G2.6 Scenarios in detail

Scenario 1: Free development This scenario reflects the case of a continuous development of tourism infrastructures, products and services in the forthcoming 10-15 years. It is expected that the number of over-night tourists increases as well as the number of day tourists. Accommodations: Increase in the number of tourist accommodations. 19 new small hotels and guesthouses and one large hotel are built around the coast, from Anse Source d’Argent to Anse Caiman. With an average of 10 rooms per hotel/guesthouse, this results in the creation of 200 new rooms or 400 beds. With an average of 200m2, comparable to the actual situation and also comparable to the average area used per bed in luxury guesthouses (Gössling et al., 2002), this results in the need of 8 more hectares for the construction of accommodations. As the projected tourism development for the Seychelles takes into account a bed-occupancy rate of 65% (Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT), 2000), the calculation of the number of tourists for 2013 will take this rate into account. The further great development of accommodations of this scenario result in a total number exceeding 900 beds, from which 100 would still exist without a proper licence. Assuming that the average length of stay of the tourists stays constant the number of overnight tourists per year would reach about 72’300. Because of the large offer of different tourist activities, it could be assumed that the average length of a stay on La Digue increases. This would decrease the number of overnight tourists per year. This scenario also acts on the assumption that the number of day-tourists will increase. As the projected tourist arrivals in the Seychelles increases by 30% in the next 10 years (Ministry of Tourism and

117

Transport (MTT), 2000), the same increase is assumed regarding the number of day tourists on La Digue. Thus, 200 day-tourists will visit La Digue in 2013 or 73’000 day-tourists per year. The total number of tourists visiting La Digue each year in 2013 will be over 145’000 tourists. Compared to the projected tourism development, where about 170’000 tourists are expected to visit the Seychelles in ten years, 85% of all tourists would then visit La Digue during their trip. One more aspect that has to be taken into account in this scenario is a possible increase in local tourist arrivals. Assumptions on the number of local tourists would be based on surveys. As the framework of this project does not allow making this kind of surveys, these tourists are not taken into account in the evaluation. As for the hotels and guesthouses the development of constructions in the plateau area of La Digue increases resulting in the creation of a central village around La Passe and of more houses on the hill. Tourism products & services: Further restaurants, snack-shops and bars are opened. Compared to the actual situation it is assumed that the amount of those facilities increase to 18. There is a great extension of different tourism activities, like organised excursions on other islands, snorkelling, diving, fishing and water sports. For this extension of activities it is assumed that 14 new boats, 2 more diving centres and 2 more clubs proposing attractions and activities to tourists will be needed. Excursions in the island stays like today above all concentrated in the Veuve Reserve. A discotheque in the central village offers to local people and to tourists a night attraction. Different events are also organised to attract more tourists. The number of souvenir, art and craft shops increases to 20 shops. Transport: Arrival on the island is above all made by boat and like today about 1% by helicopter. With the extension of the tourist infrastructures the amount of vehicles on the island increases to about 70 vehicles, from which at least 20 are used to transport tourists. The transport by bicycle increases to about 30 renters and ox-cart services disappear. The actual road network increases on the east coast and on the Plateau. On the east coast, the actual road is extended to Anse Caiman and some of the actual sand roads are surfaced with paving bricks. On the south the road is extended from Grand Anse to Anse Coco. Enforcement of laws and regulations: Comparable to the current situation the reinforcement and the enforcement of laws is weak. There are still many laws, policies and regulations that are not followed by the local population. The Land Use plan stays a consultative paper and almost no resources exist to enforce and manage on a legal basis the plan. Almost all land available stands under construction. Agricultural land use decrease further more. The natural forest area also decreases. Only the Veuve Reserve and the shell Reserve stand under protection. Economic contribution: Contribution of the income generated by the employment in the tourism sector increases. With an average of 1.2 persons per room working in small hotels and guesthouses6, 240 further persons will be employed in hotels and guesthouses. From the 10 new restaurants and bars, it is assumed that about 3 won’t belong to hotels and guesthouses creating 42 further jobs. With the assumption that the discotheque employs about the same number of people than a restaurant, 14 more jobs are offered. In the field of tourism related transports, there are about 2 persons employed per taxi, 2 per truck, 4 per bicycle rental and 3 per boat7. Thus, in the field of tourism related transport about 118 further jobs will be created. In other tourism services, like different shops, clubs offering attractions, etc. it is assumed that there are 3 employees

6 Result of interviews with hoteliers. 7 From interview with Monica Figaro and Mr. Mills

118

per shop and 4 per club8 resulting in the creation of about 50 further jobs. Calculating with the gross average monthly earning of 1997, the income generated by the new jobs created in this scenario is about SR1’350’000 a month or SR16’200’000 per year. Thus the contribution of the income generated by the employment in the tourism sector would rise with a ratio of 1.4 compared to the income calculated for 1997. Environmental awareness: The awareness of the local people referring to the ecosystem of La Digue, as the economic base of the island stays low. There is no extension of environmental education and the participation of the local population in sustainable tourism projects happens sparely. Population Density: Increase of the living population on La Digue. With a growth rate of 1.01% the population size of La Digue would rise to 2343 people in 2013. The population density would reach 2.3 persons per ha. Assuming that like in 1997 47% of the population is working and that 37.5% of the working population works in the tourism sector, 413 people would work in the tourism sector. From these 413 people 61 would occupy new vacancies. As 464 additional jobs in the tourism sector are generated in this scenario, 403 further vacancies would be available. One possible consequence would be that 403 labour forces would be imported from Mahé or other countries, increasing the living population to 2807 people. In this case a minimum of 205 houses would further more be constructed (calculated with the current average of 3.4 people per house). With an average of 1000m2 land per house, 20ha would be needed for the construction of those new houses. Another consequence could be that the ratio of people working in the tourism industry increases, so that more that 37.5% of the working population would work in the tourism sector. Assuming that 50% of the working population of La Digue would be active in the tourism sector, this would still imply an importation of 265 labour forces. There is a housing movement towards the hill and other regions of the island. Assuming that 2/3 of the population lives concentrated on the area of La Passe and La Réunion, the size of the area will increase to at least 55ha. Culture & Tradition: The strong growth rate in the population, the migration of people from Mahé or other countries and the strong increase of tourists visiting La Digue increase the influence of other cultures on the island, results in a loss of most traditional activities. The modern life style becomes predominant. Water supply: With the strong increase of infrastructures it is assumed that the water supply will be fewer than 80% of the demand of drinking water on the island. An important ratio of the water supply must be made available through desalination. The strong increase in the demand of clean water implies a strong increase of sewage. The possible pollution of groundwater, because of the increased amount and density of septic tanks could reduce the quality of drinking water or the amount of good quality water that is supplied. Biodiversity: There is a decrease is the diversity of rare and native plant and animal species on La Digue. The timeframe of this project, the difficulty to quantify the effects of human development on the biodiversity and the natural threats for the different species makes it very difficult to evaluate the decrease if rare and native plant and animal species on La Digue. It is assumed that a free development could generate the following consequences: The strong increase in infrastructure development causes a further decrease of the coastal plateau woodland. Comparable to the last 20 years, where the size of the plateau woodland decreased by 25% (Neufeld, 1992), in 2013 (+/- 3 years) there is a further decrease of 25% of the plateau woodland, reducing considerably the amount of

8 From interview with Monica Figaro and Mr. Mills

119

Takamaka trees and Badamier. A possible further extension of the Takamaka disease that is currently spreading on La Digue would endorse the reduction of Takamaka trees. This could seriously endanger the survival of the Paradise Flycatcher and a possible disappearance of this endemic bird should be taken into account while planning. The anthropogenic development would certainly increase the noise on the island. As noise is already an important threat for the Seychelles Swiflet, a free development should take into consideration the possible extinction of this specie. The intensive development of constructions could have a negative impact on the Terrapins, as wetland areas could be overbuilt. The actual policy does not allow any construction on the marshes, which are the habitat of the terrapins. It is assumed that in future most of the marshes still exist ensuring enough living space for the two most common Terrapin species on La Digue (Pelusius sub niger and Pelusius castanoides). The development of tourist infrastructures along the coast could reduce the nesting site areas of the marine turtles. Further more because of the lack of law enforcement, the poaching of turtles would still been practiced. The main effects would be a decrease in the marine turtles population and a decrease of turtles to be seen around the island. As the main threat for the coral reefs is a natural one it can be assumed that without management efforts to ensure the coral reef population to be maintained, still 90% of the population would be die. Further more the increase of marine activities, like diving and water sports could additionally cause negative effects. Coastal erosion: More than 30% of the total coastal area is critically endangered by coastal erosion. This assumption is based on the fact that an extension of the tourism infrastructures around the coast and a low enforcement of regulations increases the risk of further sand extraction and destruction of the coastal vegetation. Further more the current erosion problems occurring at the area of La Passe could endanger the coastal vegetation and areas, which are aside La Passe. The erosion could consequently reduce the width of the beaches, so that during the high tide people would not be able to lie on the beach. Landscape aesthetics: The extension of tourist infrastructures and housing on the island decreases considerably the natural areas. This reduces the multifaceted landscape of the Plateau area of La Digue. For example visitors arriving by boat are confronted with a landscape stamped by constructions. The different tourists infrastructures built around the coast also decrease the amount of areas without any construction. This reduces the natural beauty of the coastal area on La Digue. Scenario 2: Authentic Creole style Within this scenario, the tourism situation on La Digue focuses on traditional and natural strengths of the island. Regarding the number of days that tourists spend on La Digue, it is expected that the number of over-night tourists’ increases and the number of day-tourists stay constant. The ratio of over-night tourists to day tourists is about 1:1. Accommodation: Number of large hotels stays constant. Number of small hotels and self-catering guesthouses stay constant or increase a bit. Only 5 new small guesthouses with an average of 5 rooms per guesthouse are further constructed in the Plateau area of La Digue and eventually on the area of Anse Gaulette. Owners of typical Creole houses also offer accommodation possibilities to tourists. Thus about 80 new rooms or 160 beds are available. Assuming that for this scenario the average size required per bed is equivalent to the actual situation of 200m2, 1 hectare would further more be overbuilt for the construction of the 5 guesthouses. As mentioned above, the 55 rooms, which will further be available for tourists, are in houses that already exist. One possibility would be that the half of these rooms would belong to the current unlicensed accommodations, which would then get a licence. On the other side new accommodations would get a licence

120

through the allocation of appropriate rooms in houses of local people. Thus in 10 years there would be about 35 hotels and guesthouses on La Digue (25 that already exist, 5 that are further more built, 5 private houses converted in guesthouses and the other rooms would be rooms that already exist without proper licence). All tourist infrastructures are built or renovate in order to be conforming to the Creole architectural style. The total number of beds in tourist accommodations will be about 600. With a constant average length of stay and a bed-occupancy rate of 65% (Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT), 2000), the number of overnight tourists per year would reach about 47’500. Because of the wide range of attraction and activities proposed to tourists, the length of stay would probably increase. With a comparable number of day tourists in ten years than today, the total number of tourists visiting La Digue each year would reach about 102’000 in 2013. Tourism products and services: A wide range of attractions is offered to tourists. Through the extension of nature trails, different tours inside the island are proposed to tourists. Traditional activities are promoted and local art as well as handicrafts like woodcrafts, woodcarving, perfume from local vanilla or cinnamon are proposed to tourists. The number of souvenir, art and craft shops increases to 25 shops. Further more cultural events are organised 2-3 times a year. For example an art festival could be organised with national and international well-known painters invited to present their works. A small Creole village is developed at Union estate or near Chateau St. Cloud. Typical island activities, like snorkelling, fishing and diving are also extended. Excursions to other islands are organised. For the different activities it is assumed that 8 new boats, 1 more diving centres and 1 additional club proposing attractions and activities to tourists will be opened. The amount of restaurants, snack shop, etc will rise to about 13. Transport: Arrival on the island is above all made by boat and like today about 1% by helicopter. The primary transport mode on the island is bicycle and in 2013 about 22 shops will propose bicycle rental. Ox-cart services will increase and be promoted as a traditional way to ride on the island. Motor vehicles are reduced to the minimum necessary. A maximum of 40 vehicles are allowed on the island. Some of the commercial pick-up and vehicles used for the different services are reduced to the minimum necessary. Further more the replacement of some vehicles by hybrid vehicles working with a photovoltaic system is put in place. Truck- and taxi-services stay constant and boat-taxi-services increase. There is no extension of the actual road network. Enforcement of laws and regulations: Existing environmental and development planning laws are reinforced and resources to enforce these as well as to include guidelines and strategies to preserve and finance natural areas are available. Protected areas and natural areas with eco-trails are actively managed to preserve the habitat diversity of the island. The Land Use Plan is applied and the different zones of use are managed on a legal basis. The natural forest area stay constant and agricultural land use increases a bit. Different natural areas stand under protection, as for example the Veuve Reserve, the shell Reserve, coastal areas that are protected for landscape aesthetic reasons or for sensibility to erosion, different habitats, etc. Economic contribution: Contribution of the income generated by the employment in the tourism sector increases. With an average of 1.2 persons per room working in small hotels and guesthouses9, 96 persons would further work in hotels and guesthouses. From the 5 new restaurants and bars, it is assumed that 2 won’t belong to hotels and guesthouses creating 28 further jobs. In the field of tourism related transport about 44 supplement jobs would be created10. In other tourism services, about 47 new jobs will be

9 Result of interviews with hoteliers. 10 Based on the assumptions given at scenario 1

121

created. Calculating with the gross average monthly earning of 1997, the income generated by the new jobs created in this scenario is about SR 604’000 a month or SR 7’300’000 per year. Thus the contribution of the income generated by the employment in the tourism sector would rise with a ratio of 0.6 compared to the income calculated for 1997. Environmental awareness: High awareness of the local population of the importance of environmental preservation. Extension of environmental education in school and involvement of the population in planning, developing and running sustainable tourism projects. Population Density: Increase of the living population on La Digue. With a growth rate of 1.01% the population size of La Digue would rise to 2343 people in 2013. The population density would reach 2.3 persons per ha. Assuming that 50% of the working population would be active in the tourism sector, 15 labour forces would be imported from Mahé or other countries, increasing the living population to 2358 people. The number of houses, that would further more be constructed will be 77, for which 7.6 ha would be needed. There is a housing movement towards the hill and an extension of construction on the Plateau area. Assuming that 2/3 of the population lives concentrated on the area of La Passe and La Réunion, the size of the area will increase to at least 47ha. Culture & Tradition: Traditional activities are promoted. The renovation and construction of houses that conform to the traditional architectural style, the organisation of events, the promotion of handicrafts and the creation of a Creole village show to the tourists the most typical Creole features. A lot of different products, that existed before, like woodcrafts, goods from vanilla, coconut or cinnamon, etc a proposed to tourists. Further more traditional dishes and beverages can be tasted in most guesthouses and restaurants. As a consequence, regional products are boosted. The fact that many rooms, that are proposed to tourists belongs to local people, the “Creole style” can be better lived by the tourists. Even the contacts between tourists and locals will be easier encouraged in these kinds of facilities. The importance of keeping its own culture is accepted by the community. Efforts are done to encourage young people keeping the Creole traditions. Water supply: The water supply is under 80% of the demand of drinking water on the island. This is due to the growth in the population and in tourist arrivals. A certain part of the water supply must be made available by desalination. The further concentration of most of the population on the plateau area increases the risk of groundwater pollution because of the septic tanks. Without a proper management of the construction of a central sewage treatment plant for the plateau area, the pollution of groundwater could decrease the quality of drinking water. Biodiversity: The diversity of rare and native plant & animal species on La Digue stays at the current ratio. It is assumed that this development could generate the following consequences: It can be expected that the infrastructure development decreases further more the coastal plateau woodland. This decrease should be kept very low and managed to ensure no negative effects on the Paradise Flycatcher regarding the amount of Takamaka and Badamier that it needs as habitat. Thus it should be ensured that to further fragmentation of the habitat takes place, as it is one important treat for the development of species. As a possible further extension of the Takamaka disease could change the landscape character of the Plateau area, reduce the habitat of the Flycatcher and open place for invasion (Currie, Dave et al., 2003), this issue must be well managed. Because the proposed development takes place above all on the Plateau area, the northeast coast and the lower hill area, this development should not threat the Seychelles

122

Swiflet. The conservation of this species must be ensured by a proper management of the key areas that it needs as habitat. As no constructions are allowed on the marshes areas, no anthropogenic threat should endangered the Terrapin species. The development of tourist infrastructures on the west coast and the northeast coast of La Digue could reduce the nesting site of marine turtles in these areas. The nesting sites on the southeast coast should still exist. The increased environmental awareness of the population and the better enforcement of the laws reduce poaching on turtles. As turtle food is a traditional meet, this kind of development cannot imply a complete stop of poaching activities. A management program to maintain and enable the coral population to recover is put in place. Because of the high dependence of natural treats an evaluation of the recovery potential is not possible. Coastal erosion: Less than 30% of the total coastal area is critically endangered by erosion. The centralisation of the constructions, the better management of coastal areas and the increased law enforcement would imply no further erosion of the coastal areas than these that already exist on the west coast at the area of La Passe. Landscape aesthetics: Natural areas with an aesthetic value are preserved. The coastal areas of the south from Anse Source d’Argent to Grand Anse and Petite Anse and Mountain are protected and given a special status as proposed by the Biodiversity and Conservation Act. The development of infrastructures on the lower hill area implies that visitors arriving by boat are confronted with a landscape stamped by constructions. The preservation and promotion of the traditional architectural style can positively affect the landscape view on the Plateau area and contribute to the multifaceted landscape on La Digue. The preservation of marshes, lowland forest, coastal areas and wildlife areas also contribute to the multifaceted landscape that attracts tourists. Scenario 3: Conservative development The natural ecosystem of La Digue is given the highest priority. Regarding the number of days that tourists spend on La Digue, it is expected that the number of over-night tourists stay constant and the number of day tourists increases. The ratio of over-night tourists to day tourists is about 1:2. Accommodations: No further hotels and guesthouses are constructed in La Digue. It is assumed that the number of rooms increases to 220, by giving a licence to some of the actual places that do not have a proper licence for their rooms. Actual hotels and guesthouses are renovated in order to conform to the Creole architectural style as well as to environmental guidelines. The size of the area needed for tourist accommodations stays at the current level of 10.4 ha and the area required per bed is assumed to stay at above 200m2. With a constant average length of stay and a bed-occupancy rate of 65% (Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT), 2000), the number of overnight tourists per year would reach about 35’000 persons. A part from the nature-orientated activities, the range of different attractions does not increase. An increase in the average length of stay is thus not expected. The extension of nature orientated activities for tourists increases the number of day tourists to about 200, as certain tourists come, like in the Vallee the Mai, especially to visit the natural parks of La Digue. The total number of tourists visiting La Digue each year would reach about 108’000 in 2013. Tourism products and services: A wide range of natural-orientated activities is proposed to tourists, like different eco-trail tours within the inner-island and around the island. Marine activities, like snorkelling and diving are not extended. Fishing does not belong to the core activities proposed to tourists. Thus, the number of boats and diving centres is

123

assumed to stay constant and the 2 more clubs proposing nature attractions are established. These clubs could belong to private people or to NGOs. The number of art, craft and souvenir shops does not exceed 15 shops, which can be found around the jetty and at L’Union Estate. One more restaurant is opened near the entrance of the nature area. Transport: Arrivals on the island are comparable to the actual situation. Transport for tourists on the island is strictly restricted to bicycle and ox-cart. The number of shops that propose bicycle rental increase to 25 in 2013 and ox-cart services also increases so that visitors, who do not want to use bicycles, get another transport option. The number of motor vehicles is decreased to 15-20. These are above all vehicles for construction, agriculture and public services like for the police and the hospital. 3-4-transport camion and mini-buses bring the baggage of the tourists to the guesthouses. This scenario also takes into account the replacement of some vehicles by hybrid vehicles working with a photovoltaic system. There is no extension of the actual road network. On the contrary, some of the surfaced roads become again unsurfaced. Enforcement of laws and regulations: Existing environmental and development planning laws are reinforced and resources to enforce these as well as to include guidelines and strategies to preserve and finance natural areas are available. Protected areas and natural areas with eco-trails are actively managed to preserve the habitat diversity of the island. Further more the introduction of endemic species is endorsed. The Land Use Plan is reviewed and the different zones of use are managed on a legal basis. The natural forest area stay constant and agricultural land use increases a bit. 60% of the total area stands under protection. This includes the natural forest, the Veuve Reserve and an extension of the Veuve Reserve, the shell reserve, the marshes, Belle Vue and the coastal zone from Anse Gaulette to Anse Source d’Argent. The protection of natural areas is financed by tourist-fees, which visit the natural area of La Digue. Economic Contribution: Contribution of the income generated by the employment in the tourism sector stays about constant. The addition of fees that will be generated through the visit of natural protected areas by tourists will increase the economic contribution. With the given average of 1.2 persons working per room in small hotels and guesthouses11, 16 supplement labour forces are integrated in the calculation of the economic contribution of income generated by employment. These labour forces come from the 13 rooms that receive a licence. The supplement restaurant will generate 14 further jobs and in the field of tourism related transport about 8 jobs will be dismantled and 32 created. In other tourism services, about 17 jobs are generated in shops and clubs and 8 more for the management of the natural area of La Digue. Calculating with the gross average monthly earning of 1997, the income generated by the new jobs created in this scenario is about SR 234’000 a month or SR 2’800’000 per year. Thus the contribution of the income generated by the employment in the tourism sector would rise with a ratio of 0.2 compared to the income calculated for 1997. It is assumed that 80% of the tourists coming to La Digue are visiting the natural area. For this visit each tourist pay a fee of 15$12. Thus about $1’300’000 or SR7’100’000 could further more be generated increasing the calculated income to SR9’900’000. Environmental awareness: High awareness of the local population of the importance of environmental preservation. Extension of environmental education in school and involvement of the population in planning, developing and running sustainable tourism projects.

11 Result of interviews with hoteliers. 12 These assumptions are based on the data of the Valle de Mai

124

Population Density: The number of people per square kilometre stays about constant. It is assumed that the focus on conservation reduces again the growth rate in 2013 to the ratio of 0.4% as in 1997. The growth rate is assumed to decrease by 0.1% from 2004. Thus the population would rise to 2240 people by 2013. The population density would reach 2.2 persons per hectare. With the assumption that there are no migrant workers, 41% of the working population would be active in the tourism sector. The increase of the living population implies the construction of 38 houses, for which 3.8ha would be needed. These supplement houses will be constructed on the Plateau area and above all on the hill, and 2/3 of the population will live around La Passe and La Réunion concentrated on at least 44ha. Culture & Tradition: Traditional activities are promoted. Traditional features that are promoted are above all the Creole architecture, local products, traditional dishes and beverages and traditional dances. The typical way of living is also encouraged by stopping development and reducing the number of motor vehicles. Water supply: The water supply guarantees 80% or more of the demand for drinking water. Because of the low increase of the population and the implementation of environmental guidelines in tourist accommodations, the demand of treated water will not increase a lot. Thus, a part from dry period most of the treated water is supplied though the catchments areas and groundwater. The desalination plant would be used to ensure 100% supply along the year. The quality of the groundwater could be increased by ensuring well-designed septic tanks or by constructing a central sewage treatment plant at the La Passe area. Biodiversity: The diversity of rare and native plant & animal species on La Digue stays at the current ratio or is increased. It is assumed that this development could generate the following consequences: As, a part from the construction of houses, the development of infrastructures is stopped, the coastal plateau woodland is expected to stay at the current size. The management of the low land forest and the introduction of supplement native and endemic species in the forest may slow the spread of the Takamaka disease and ensure a further extension of the population size of the Paradise Flycatcher. The great efforts put on the conservation of the natural biodiversity of La Digue ensure to the Seychelles Swiflet the habitat it needs for its propagation. The conservation and the introduction of endemic wetland plant species ensure good living conditions for the Terrapins. The complete stop of the development of infrastructures on the coastal area guarantee the actual nesting sites of marine turtles to be kept. The increased environmental awareness of the population and the better enforcement of the laws reduce considerably poaching on turtles. A management program to maintain and enable the coral population to recover is put in place. Because of the high dependence of natural treats an evaluation of the recovery potential is not possible. Coastal erosion: Less than 30% of the total coastal area is critically endangered by erosion. The centralisation of the constructions, the better management of coastal areas and the increased law enforcement would imply no further erosion of the coastal areas than these that already exist on the west coast at the area of La Passe. Further more actions could be put in place in order to reduce anthropogenic erosion processes. For example the jetty could be redesigned to ensure natural sand flows on both sides of the jetty. Landscape aesthetics: Natural areas with an aesthetic value are preserved. As 60% of the total area stands under protection, this positively affects the natural beauty of the

125

coastal areas and the multifaceted landscape on La Digue. The introduction of native and endemic species increases the heterogeneity of the landscape. The renovation of the houses positively affects the landscape view on the Plateau area and the small housing extension on the hill should not have important impacts on the natural landscape view that tourists see while arriving by boat. Scenario 4: Five-Star-Eco-Tourism La Digue follows the actual trend of the Seychelles and specialises on the high-price segment. Regarding the number of days that tourists spend on La Digue, it is expected that that the number of over-night tourists stays constant or decreases a bit and the number of day tourists decreases. The ratio of over-night tourists to day tourists is about 1:1. Accommodations: 4 luxurious hotels with an average of 10 bungalows per accommodation are built at exclusive places, like Anse Gaulette, Anse Fourmi, Anse Coco and Anse Source d’Argent. Actual hotel and guesthouses are renovated in order to conform with the Creole architectural style and to high-price segment criteria. As a consequence, some small guesthouses close and in others the number of rooms decreases in order to offer a higher comfort to the guests. The number of hotel and guesthouses increase to about 25 and the number of rooms increases to about 250 (or 500 beds). For the luxurious bungalows the average area needed per bed is about 2000m2 (Gössling et al., 2002) and for the renovated hotels and guesthouses an average of 250-300m2 is taken into account. This average takes the assumption that most of the area required per bed in the hotels and guesthouses conforms to the size needed for 3-4*-hotels and self-catering apartments (Gössling et al., 2002). For the luxurious bungalows about 16ha would further more be overbuilt and 2 more hectares could be overbuilt for the renovation and enlargement of the existing hotels and guesthouses. Environmental guidelines are endorsed in each accommodation. With a constant average length of stay and a bed-occupancy rate of 65% (Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT), 2000) for the hotels and guesthouses and a rate of 75%13 for the luxurious hotels, the number of overnight tourists per year would reach about 40’500. Here accommodations without a licence are not taken into account. It can be assumed that some of them would still exist. Because of the wide range of attraction and activities proposed to tourists, the length of stay would probably increase. It is assumed that the number of day tourists decreases by about 25%. The total number of tourists visiting La Digue each year would reach about 77’000 in 2013. Tourism products and services: Tourist facilities offer to tourists the highest comfort while being strongly nature orientated. “Nature walks” on eco-trails with private guides are organised as well as diving courses, snorkelling and fishing. Excursions to near islands are proposed to tourists. For the different activities it is assumed that 2 more diving centres, 10 more boats and 1 more club proposing attractions and activities to tourists will be established. The number of Art, craft and souvenir shops increases to about 16 shops and are situated around the jetty and in the luxurious hotels. About 10 further restaurants and bars are opened. Transport: Arrival on the island is above 90% by boat and 10% by helicopter. The primary transport mode on the island is bicycle and in 2013 about 20 shops will propose bicycle rental. Ox-cart services will be promoted as a traditional way to ride on the island. Motor vehicles are reduced to the minimum necessary. A maximum of 40 vehicles are allowed on the island. Some of the commercial pick-up and vehicles used for the different services are reduced to the minimum necessary. The number of taxis and minibuses

13 From Vision 21(Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT), (2000)) and expert interview with Serge Robert, manager of the 5* Reserve Hotel

126

belonging to hotels increases to about 15. Further more the replacement of vehicles by hybrid vehicles working with a photovoltaic system is put in place so that at least all taxis and minibuses uses this hybrid system. Ox-cart, truck- taxi- and boat-taxi-services are proposed to tourists. The actual road network is extended in order to reach all accommodation facilities. Enforcement of laws and regulations: Existing environmental and development planning laws are reinforced and resources to enforce these as well as to include guidelines and strategies to preserve and finance natural areas are available. Protected areas and natural areas with eco-trails are actively managed to preserve the habitat diversity of the island. Further more the introduction of endemic species is endorsed. The Land Use Plan is reviewed and the different zones of use are managed on a legal basis. The luxurious hotels constructed are well planned to ensure no important destruction of the ecosystem. The natural forest area stay constant and agricultural land use increases a bit. Different natural areas stand under protection, as for example the Veuve Reserve, the shell Reserve, coastal areas that are protected for landscape aesthetic reasons or for sensibility to erosion, different habitats, etc. Economic Contribution: Contribution of the income generated by the employment in the tourism sector increases. With an average of 1.5 people per room working in the renovated hotels and guesthouses and 3.5 persons in the luxurious hotels14, 207 people would further work in hotels and guesthouses. From the 10 new restaurants and bars, it is assumed that 2 won’t belong to hotels and guesthouses, creating thus 28 further jobs. In the field of tourism related transport about 58 jobs would be creating15 and in other tourism services 24 jobs. Calculating with the gross average monthly earning of 1997, the income generated by the new jobs created in this scenario is about SR886’000 a month or SR 10’600’000 per year. The contribution of the income generated by the employment in the tourism sector would rise with a ratio of 0.9 compared to the income calculated for 1997. Environmental awareness: High awareness of the local population of the importance of environmental preservation. Extension of environmental education in school and involvement of the population in planning, developing and running sustainable tourism projects. Population Density: Increase of the living population on La Digue. With a growth rate of 1.01% the population size of La Digue would rise to 2343 people in 2013. The population density would reach 2.3 persons per ha. Assuming that 50% of the working population would be active in the tourism sector, 118 labour forces would be imported from Mahé or other countries, increasing the living population to 2461 people. The number of houses that would further more be constructed will be 103 and 10.3 ha would be needed. There is a housing movement towards the hill and an extension of construction on the Plateau area. Assuming that 2/3 of the population lives concentrated on the area of La Passe and La Réunion, the size of the area will increase to at least 49ha. It is assumed that the luxurious hotels construct complexes for their labour forces, so that these workers would live near the hotels. Culture & Tradition: Loss of most traditional activities. The construction of luxurious hotels implies the importation of labour forces from Mauritius or other countries well know for their good service staff. The migration of people with a different culture and the movement of the tourism on La Digue to a high quality island result in the decrease of

14 Result of interviews with hoteliers 15 Based on the assumptions given at scenario 1

127

most traditional activities. The modern life style, as currently observed in Mahé, becomes predominant. Water supply: The water supply is under 80% of the demand of drinking water on the island. This is due to the construction of luxurious hotels that use between 1000-1500l/bed*day to ensure to the guests high quality service. Even with the introduction of environmental guidelines in the accommodations the water available from catchments areas and the groundwater does not enable to supply the demand. Water must be made available by desalination. It can be assumed that luxurious hotels on the east cost build their own desalination plant16. Because environmental standards are integrated in the management of the different luxurious hotels, it is assumed that the last ones build their own sewage treatment plant, decreasing the risk of contamination of groundwater in these regions of the island. A possible pollution of groundwater, because of the increased amount of septic tank must however be taken into account in the west part of the island, where the population is living. This could reduce the quality of the drinking water. Biodiversity: The diversity of rare and native plant & animal species on La Digue stays at the current ratio or is increased. It is assumed that this development could generate the following consequences: As, as part from the construction of houses, the development of infrastructures is stopped on the area of the plateau woodland, this area is expected to stay about at the current size. The management of the low land forest and the introduction of supplement native and endemic species in the forest may slow the spread of the Takamaka disease and ensure a further extension of the population size of the Paradise Flycatcher. The efforts put on the conservation of the natural biodiversity of La Digue ensure to the Seychelles Swiflet the habitat it needs for its propagation. The constructions are designed in order not to destroy key ecosystems. It is thus assumed that even the construction of the luxurious hotels on the southeast coast does not have important impacts on the wetland areas. Thus, no anthropogenic threat should endangered the Terrapin species. The proper design of the accommodations built on the east and south coast of the island and the great information given to tourists on the behaviour they must have with marine turtles during the nesting period does not treat the nesting sites of the turtles. The increased environmental awareness of the population and the better enforcement of the laws reduce considerably poaching on turtles. A management program to maintain and enable the coral population to recover is put in place. Because of the high dependence of natural treats an evaluation of the recovery potential is not possible. Coastal erosion: Less than 30% of the total coastal area is critically endangered by coastal erosion. The proper management of coastal areas and the increased enforcement of laws imply that even if constructions on the coastal band are allowed, measures are taken to ensure no additional erosion of the coastal areas. Further more actions could be put in place in order to reduce anthropogenic erosion processes. For example the jetty could be redesigned to ensure natural sand flows on both sides of the jetty. Landscape aesthetics: Natural areas with an aesthetic value are preserved. As different areas stand under protection, this positively affects the natural beauty of the coastal areas and the multifaceted landscape on La Digue. The introduction of native and endemic species increases the heterogeneity of the landscape. The preservation of marshes, lowland forest, coastal areas and wildlife areas also contribute to the multifaceted landscape that attracts tourists. The renovation of the houses positively

16 From interview with Mr. Montano

128

affects the landscape view on the Plateau area and small housing extension on the hill should not have important impacts on the natural landscape view that tourists see while arriving by boat. The luxurious “5*-eco-accommodations” are designed to fit into the landscape. It must be taken into account that even if these accommodations are well designed, the natural beauty and the unspoiled visual perception of the coastal areas where these hotels are built will considerably decrease.

G3 List of criteria proposed to the working group Table G 5: List of the criteria proposed to the working group. A set of 22 criteria divided in the three sustainability dimensions was proposed to the working group.

Sustainability Dimension Criteria Resource Use Land/Surface Use Waste Species richness - biodiversity

Endangered animal species Conservation of the coastal areas (or beach degradation)

Visual beauty of the landscape Heterogeneity of the landscape (mosaic)

Ecological Sustainability

Protection of natural areas Economic wealth Employment situation in tourism Regional economic circular flow Stability in the local economy

Economic sustainability

Investment in sustainable tourism projects Overcrowding Intensity of tourism flows Tranquillity of the island Population density Conservation of traditional activities Proposal of recreational activities Education

Social Sustainability

Participation of the local population in the decision making process

G4 MAUT I: quantification of the criteria

G4.1 Ecological criteria

G4.1.1 Criteria resource use, indicator Water consumption [m3/year] The measurement of the criteria resource use is done by the calculation of the total water consumption per day / capacity of the safe yield of the natural water reserves per day. The data used for this calculation are the following:

a) Safe yield = 334 m3/day (data get from PUC)

b) Current water production = 692 m3/day (data from PUC)

129

c) Currently the water demand is divided into the following categories (data get from PUC): - Commercial (including hotels, shops, markets, bank, etc) 22% - Domestic (private) 70% - Government 8%

These categories are valid for Mahé Island and should be comparable for Praslin and La Digue Island17.

d) The daily water requirements that are used in the Seychelles in order to make evaluations on future water demands are (data get from PUC): - 5 Star hotels: 1000l/bed - 3 Star hotels: 500l/bed - Guesthouses: 252l/bed - Domestic: 140l/head

The result of water consumption per day in relation to the safe yield of the natural water reserves can be seen in the following table for the different scenarios and the actual situation:

Table G 6: Indicator water consumption per day / capacity of the safe yield Water consumption per

day [m3] Water consumption per day / safe yield [m3/m3]

Percent

Actual situation

692 2.1 100

Scenario 1 960 2.9 138 Scenario 2 800 2.4 114 Scenario 3 740 2.2 105 Scenario 4 980 2.9 138

0) Assessment of the water consumption for the actual situation:

(a) From the 414 beds available today in the hotels and guesthouses it is assumed that 156 beds belong to the 3*-hotel category. Using the data giving in d) that means that the water demand of the hotels and guesthouses on La Digue would be about 142m3/day. Assuming that 22% of the total water demand corresponds to the commercial demand, the commercial water requirement would be of about 152m3/day, so that about 10kl/day would be needed for other purposes than for the hotels and guesthouses.

(b) Calculating with the design data of 140l/head and with the current population size of 2099 people, the water demand would be 294m3/day. Assuming that 70% of the total water demand corresponds to the domestic demand, the real demand is thus 484m3/day. This corresponds to an increase of 60% compared with the calculated 294m3/day. This important increase can be due to higher water consumption per head than assessed and also due to some private people paying a domestic consumption but using water for commercial purposes. Another reason for this important difference in the assessment of the domestic water demand is the fact that the 140l/head used for the calculation do not include the loss of water of the pipe system. This water loss accounts for 22%18. The integration of the water loss would decrease the difference between the calculated water demand and the real demand. Further more it the proportion of water demand in the domestic category may be smaller on La Digue than the 70% given by the standard data.

17 From Interview with D.Labodo, PUC 18 From PUC

130

(c) As it is assumed that the water demand of the government makes 8% of the total demand, this one can be assessed as being 55m3/day.

(d) The total water production is 692m3/day.

Calculation of the relation of the total water consumption per day / capacity of the safe yield of the natural water reserves = 2.1

(e) Today the amount of sewage can be assessed to 623m3/day (this of the hotels

and guesthouses to 127m3/day). The assessment of the proportion of wastewater base on the standard approximation that about 90% of the water consumption is wasted19. Currently about 98% of the population uses septic tanks with soak away pits. This system causes different problems, because of the high level of the groundwater on La Digue. When the groundwater level rises to the level of the septic tanks, the sewage cannot anymore be properly filtered. This implies a risk of groundwater pollution that reduces the quality of drinking water. The current risk of groundwater pollution is assessed as small. Another sewage filtering system, the drain field system, is virtually non-existent on La Digue today. With this system the risk of groundwater pollution would be lower, as it is a horizontal filter system and not, like the soak away system a vertical system.

1) Assessment of the water consumption for the first scenario (Free

development): (a) In this scenario 20 new hotels and guesthouses are built. It is assumed that one

new large hotel and 19 new small hotels and guesthouses will be constructed. This corresponds about to the current situation. Thus, for this scenario, a doubling of the water consumption is assumed. The water consumption for hotels and guesthouses would be 280m3/day. Including the water demand for other commercial purposes, about 300m3/day will be required for the commercial demand.

(b) In scenario 1 it is assumed that at least 2600 people will live on La Digue in 2013. Calculating with the design data of 140l/head, the water demand would reach 364m3/day. It is assumed that the same difference between the calculated and the real demand will occur in future than today. Thus the real demand would be about 580m3/day.

(c) With an increase in the water demand of the government of 40-50%, this one would reach about 80m3/day.

(d) The total water production of scenario 1 is about: 960m3/day (+/- 10%). This means that the water demand would be almost three times higher than the safe yield of the natural water reserves. The total demand of this scenario would further more be 1.3 times higher than the maximum production capacity of the water treatment plant. This implies that even in wet season an important ratio of the water production must be make available through desalination of seawater. Compared with the safe yield, more than 600m3/day should be desalinated. That means also the construction of a second desalination plant on La Digue, as the constructed desalination plant have a maximum production capacity of 600m3/day.

Calculation of the relation of the total water consumption per day / capacity of the

safe yield of the natural water reserves = 2.9

19 From PUC

131

(e) The amount of sewage in this scenario can be assessed to 864m3/day (this of the hotels and guesthouses to 252m3/day). In this scenario it is assumed that, like today, 98% of the constructions uses septic tanks with soak away pits. Compared to the actual situation there is a very high risk of the groundwater pollution in scenario 1.

2) Assessment of the water consumption for the second scenario (Authentic

Creole Style): (a) In this scenario 5 new guesthouses are constructed with an average of 5 rooms,

and 55 further rooms available in existing guesthouses that get a license or in houses, where rooms would be make available for tourists. For the 160 new beds, the demand of treated water would be about 40m3/day. The total water demand of the 35 hotels and guesthouses on La Digue would be about 180m3/day and the total water demand for commercial purposes over 200m3/day.

(b) In scenario 2 it is assumed that about 2300 people will live on La Digue in 2013. Calculating with the design data of 140l/head, the water demand would reach 322m3/day. It is assumed that the same difference between the calculated and the real demand will occur in future than today. Thus the real demand would be about 515m3/day.

(c) With an increase in the water demand of the government of 40-50%, this one would reach about 80m3/day.

(d) The total water demand of scenario 2 is about: 800m3/day (+/- 10%). This means that the water demand would be about 2.3 times higher than the safe yield of the natural water reserves. The total demand of this scenario would be 1.1 times higher than the maximum production capacity of the water treatment plant. In wet season a shortfall of 50m3/day would still exist so that the desalination plant would be used throughout the year. Compared with the safe yield, about 470m3/day would be desalinated. As the production capacity of the desalination plant that can be extended to 600m3/day, even in dry season the constructed desalination plant should meet the needs of the population. Calculation of the relation of the total water consumption per day / capacity of the safe yield of the natural water reserves = 2.4

(e) The amount of sewage in this scenario can be assessed to 720m3/day (this if the hotels and guesthouses of 162kl/day). The further concentration of most of the population on the plateau area increases the risk of groundwater pollution because of the septic tanks. Without a proper management of the construction of a central sewage treatment plant for the plateau area, the pollution of groundwater could decrease the quality of drinking water. Regarding the risk of groundwater pollution in this scenario compared to the actual situation, this one is assessed as a medium risk.

3) Assessment of the water consumption for the third scenario (Conservative

Development): (a) In this scenario no further hotels and guesthouses are constructed on the island

but 26 beds in guesthouses would further more be available. These 26 further beds would need about 7m3/day, so that the water consumption of hotels and guesthouses would rise to about 150m3/day. Including the water demand for other commercial purposes, this one would rise to about 160m3/day.

(b) In scenario 3 it is assumed that about 2240 people would live on La Digue. Calculating with the design data of 140l/head, the water demand would reach

132

314m3/day. It is assumed that the same difference between the calculated and the real demand will occur in future than today. Thus the real demand would be about 500m3/day.

(c) With an increase in the water demand of the government of 40-50%, this one would reach about 80m3/day.

(d) The total water production of scenario 3 is about: 740m3/day (+/-10%). IN this case the water demand would be about 2.2 times higher than the safe yield of the natural water reserves. Here the total water demand does not exceed the maximum production capacity of the water treatment plant, so that in wet season most of the water can be made available through the natural water reserves. Compared with the safe yield, about 400m3/day would be desalinated. This means that the current production capacity of 300m3/day of the desalination plant must be extended. Calculation of the relation of the total water consumption per day / capacity of the safe yield of the natural water reserves = 2.2

(e) The amount of sewage in this scenario can be assessed to 666m3/day (this if the hotels and guesthouses of 135kl/day). In this scenario it is assumed that the construction of the septic tanks will be design in order to minimise groundwater pollution. This includes the most appropriate filtering system, like the drain field system, and the write size of the septic tank. A centralised sewage treatment plant at La Passe can also be taken into account. The risk of groundwater pollution is assessed as small.

4) Assessment of the water consumption for the fourth scenario (five-star-eco-

tourism): (a) In this scenario 4 new 5*-establishment with an average of 10 bungalows per

hotel are constructed on La Digue. Assuming for 1/3 of the bungalows 2 beds and for 2/3 4 beds and a water consumption of 1500l/per20, the water consumption of these establishments would be 150m3/day. In this scenario a renovation and enlargement of the existing establishments is further assumed. In comparison to today, where about 38% of the beds are considered as belonging to 3*-establishments, in this scenario at least 50% of the beds will belong to 3*-establishments. Thus the water consumption of the existing establishments will rise to about 160m3/day. . The water consumption for hotels and guesthouses would be 310m3/day. Including the water demand for other commercial purposes, about 340m3/day will be required for the commercial demand.

(b) In scenario 4 it is assumed that at least 2500 people will live on La Digue in 2013. Calculating with the design data of 140l/head, the water demand would reach 350m3/day. It is assumed that the same difference between the calculated and the real demand will occur in future than today. Thus the real demand would be about 560m3/day.

(c) With an increase in the water demand of the government of 40-50%, this one would reach about 80m3/day.

(d) The total water production of scenario 4 is about: 980m3/day (+/- 10%). This means that the water demand would be three times higher than the safe yield of the natural water reserves. The total demand of this scenario would further more be 1.3 times higher than the maximum production capacity of the water treatment

20 This consumption is above the water consumption of the design data, as it is known from different 5*-establishments, like North island resort, that the consumption is higher then foreseen.

133

plant. This implies that even in wet season an important ratio of the water production must be make available through desalination of seawater. Compared with the safe yield, more than 650m3/day should be desalinated. That means also the construction of a second desalination plant on La Digue, as the constructed desalination plant have a maximum production capacity of 600m3/day. Another aspect that should be taken into account is that the luxurious establishments build their own desalination plant.

Calculation of the relation of the total water consumption per day / capacity of the

safe yield of the natural water reserves = 2.9 (e) The amount of sewage in this scenario can be assessed to 900m3/day (this of the

hotels and guesthouses to 306m3/day). Because environmental standards are integrated in the management of the different luxurious hotels, it is assumed that the last ones build their own sewage treatment plant, decreasing the risk of contamination of groundwater in these regions of the island. A possible pollution of groundwater, because of the increased amount of septic tank must however be taken into account in the west part of the island, where the population is living. Thus the risk of groundwater pollution is assessed as a high risk.

G4.1.2 Criteria Land use of the coastal Plateau area, indicator area that is built up with infrastructures / total coastal Plateau area

The Plateau area is defined as the area bellow 10 metres height. The size of this area is 303 hectares21. The size of the western plateau area is 220 hectares (Currie, David, 2002). About 80% of the constructions are on this area. The choice to concentrate on the plateau area and not on the whole area of the island is related to the fact that tourism development takes place almost only on the coastal band22 and on La Digue also land inside on the Plateau area. The measurement of the land use is done through the evaluation of the built up area on the coastal Plateau in relation to the total area of the coastal Plateau. Table G 7:Area that is built up with infrastructures and relation to the total area of the coastal plateau for the different scenarios Built up area (ha) Built up area/total area (ha) Percent Actual situation 136 0.45 100 Scenario 1 187 0.62 138 Scenario 2 149 0.49 109 Scenario 3 142 0.47 104 Scenario 4 179 0.59 132

0) The actual land use of the plateau area is composed as follows:

Built up area: 136 hectares23 (45%)

Woodland: 70 hectares (23%) (Currie, David, 2002)

Marshes area: 23 hectares24 (8%)

Beaches area: 24 hectares (8%) (Duncombe, 1996)

21 From GIS (Francis Coeur de Lion) and LUHM (yvette Cafrine) 22 The coastal band is defined as the 100 first metres land inside from the high tide sea level. (From Atlas des zones sensibles des Seychelles). 23 From GIS 24 From GIS

134

Other habitats25: 50 hectares (16%)

Built up area / total area = 136 / 303 = 0.45 The built up area is represented in Figure G 2.

Figure G 2: Built up area of the coastal plateau on La Digue Island. The costal plateau is defined as the area under 20 metres height, which correspond in the figure to the area that is not in blue

1. Land use of the coastal Plateau area for scenario 1:

• Built up area for hotels and guesthouses: ca. 19 hectares • Built up area for houses: ca. 12 hectares • Land use for roads: ca. 5 hectares26 • Land use for other purposes (shops, agricultures, etc): ca. 15 hectares27

Area needed for further constructions: 51 hectares Built up area / total area = 187 / 303 = 0.62

2. Land use of the coastal Plateau area for scenario 2:

• Built up area for hotels and guesthouses: ca. 1 hectare 25 Other habitats include rocky areas and also further woodland area, for which there is no available data 26 With the assumption that 3.5km roads will be constructed and that a width of 15metres is used. 27 It is assumed that comparable to the land use for houses, for the land use for other purposes an increase of 25% is expected. Because of this more qualitative way to assess the land use for other purposes, it is important to include an uncertainty of +/- 10%

135

• Built up area for houses: ca. 6 hectares • Land use for other purposes (shops, agricultures, etc): ca. 6 hectares28

Area needed for further constructions: 13 hectares Built up area / total area = 149 / 303 = 0.49

3. Land use of the coastal Plateau area for scenario 3:

• Built up area for hotels and guesthouses: 0 hectare • Built up area for houses: ca. 3 hectares • Land use for other purposes (shops, agricultures, etc): ca. 3 hectares29

Area needed for further constructions: 6 hectares Built up area / total area = 142 / 303 = 0.47

4. Land use of the coastal Plateau area for scenario 4:

• Built up area for hotels and guesthouses: 23 hectare30 • Built up area for houses: ca. 8 hectares • Land use for roads: ca. 3 hectares • Land use for other purposes (shops, agricultures, etc): ca. 9 hectares31

Area needed for further constructions: 43 hectares Built up are / total area = 179/303 = 0.59

G4.1.3 Criteria protection of endangered animal species, indicator size and number of key ecosystems that contribute to the survival of endangered animal species

This criterion is defined as the native and endemic animal species, where La Digue contributes significantly to their survival. The focus is done on these species, as they highly contribute to the biodiversity of the Seychelles. The measurement of the protection of endangered animal species is done by a qualitative assessment of the increase or decrease in the size and number of key ecosystems that contribute to the survival of endangered animal species. For this assessment, key ecosystems that must be taken into account are defined and the size of these ecosystems is evaluated for the actual situation. The ranking of the different scenarios is done by comparing the scenarios with the actual situation32. Thus, no changes with the actual situation is given the ranking 0, a slight increase +1 a strong increase +2. In the same way a slight decrease -1 and a strong decrease –2. The assumption is done that a linear extrapolation between key ecosystems and endangered animal species is coherent33.

28 It is assumed that comparable to the land use for houses, for the land use for other purposes an increase of 10% is expected. Because of this more qualitative way to assess the land use for other purposes, it is important to include an uncertainty of +/- 10% 29 It is assumed that comparable to the land use for houses, for the land use for other purposes an increase of 5% is expected. Because of this more qualitative way to assess the land use for other purposes, it is important to include an uncertainty of +/- 10% 30 With the assumption that 1/3 of the 5-star-bungalows have 4 beds and 2/3 have 2 beds (from interview with tour operator) 31 It is assumed that comparable to the land use for houses, for the land use for other purposes an increase of 15% is expected. Because of this more qualitative way to assess the land use for other purposes, it is important to include an uncertainty of +/- 10% 32 Ranking done with expert interviews (Selbi Remi & Nirmal Shah) 33 From interview with Selbi Remi, MoE

136

Table 3: Size and number of key ecosystems that contribute to the survival of endangered animal species for the actual situation and the four scenarios. Table G8: Size and number of key ecosystems that contribute to the survival of endangered animal species for the actual situation and the four scenarios. Size and number of key ecosystems Actual situation 7 key ecosystems on an area of 315 hectares Scenario 1 -2 Scenario 2 -1 Scenario 3 +2 Scenario 4 +1

0) Key ecosystems that must be taken into account on La Digue: • Plateau woodland (69 hectares (Currie, David, 2002)). In Currie et al they found out

that the western Plateau woodland decreased from 55ha to 41ha between 1978 and 1992.

• Marshes (22.8 hectares) • Beaches (ca. 24 hectares) • Forest. A certain area of the forest can be considered as a key ecosystem. This area

is assessed to 40ha34. The forest is an important area for the Seychelles Kestrel (Falco craea, Catiti) that could be reintroduced on La Digue, as they use Albizia. This Bird existed before and disappeared from the island. It is also an important area for the seabirds. An important problem for the reintroduction of endemic and native birds on La Digue is the important amount of rats and cats on the island.

• The shell reserve and the marine area of La Digue. This area is about 158.5 hectares • Glacis, rocky areas. These areas are less competitive for exotics and thus endemic

plant species can be found there. • Mountain woodland, defined as the area, where native and endemic plant species

would occupy more than 60-70% of the area. This kind of ecosystem does not exist today on La Digue, as exotics propagated very well on the island. But with a proper management and the reintroduction of native and endemic species this kind of ecosystem could be found in future on La Digue. This would have a positive impact on different species, above all on the Paradise Flycatcher, if Takamaka and Badamier trees are reintroduced.

1) Assessment of the size and number of key ecosystem for scenario 1: The change in the size and number of key ecosystems for scenario 1 is assessed as a strong decrease (-2). It is above all the Plateau woodland that will be damaged. For an extrapolation on the animal species that means that the Flycatcher (Vev) will be the first species affected with this development. A decrease in the population of the Cave Swiflet will probably come in a second step, as the bird will probably not be disturbed by the constructions. The marsh animals must also be taken into account, as because of the development much more groundwater pollution could appear, having negative impacts on the wetlands. Further more small disturbances on the beach will negatively impact the marine turtles coming nesting.

2) Assessment of the size and number of key ecosystem for scenario 2: The changes in the size and number of key ecosystems for scenario 2 is assessed as a slight decrease (-1), which could might be acceptable. This depends on the location of the infrastructures and the importance of the enforcement of the laws and the environmental education. Another aspect that could influence the result of this evaluation is the kind of traditional activities that will be found on the island. An example for that is

34 From expert interview with Selbi Remi

137

the use of wood for woodcarving. To ensure no more decrease in the plateau woodland, woodcarving should be made by planting a “forest of sustainable wood”, where trees would be planted for handicraft purposes. The most important area that will be affected will be the Plateau woodland, because of house constructions. Here again the Paradise Flycatcher will be the first specie that will be affected. The Plateau constructions and the related increase in sewage and in agriculture will definitely also increase pollution of the marshes. This will again have a negative impact on the animal species living in these areas, like the Terrapins.

3) Assessment of the size and number of key ecosystem for scenario 3: The change in the size and number of key ecosystems for scenario 3 is assessed as a strong increase (+2). An increase is above all expected in term of plant species, because of the planned reintroduction of native and endemic plant species. In this case, the defined mountain woodland with endemic and native species making >60-70% would benefit greatly. Here a low increase in the population of the Paradise Flycatcher can be assumed.

4) Assessment of the size and number of key ecosystem for scenario 4: The change in the size and number of key ecosystems for scenario 4 is assessed as a slight increase (+1). This would only be the case if the hotel management would be very great and if granting for the construction of 5-star-establishments is only given with the guarantee that a certain amount of the revenue is used for nature conservation. If these assumptions are not met, the constructed five-star-establishments could exert more pressure on the ecosystem and the changes in the size and number of key ecosystems and therefore of endangered animal species could decrease.

G4.2 Economic criteria

G4.2.1 Criteria economic wealth, indicator tourist expenditures per Diem and per year

The result of the average tourist expenditures per diem and per year can be seen on the following table. Further more the increase or decrease of expenditures compared to the actual situation is given in percentage. The daily tourist expenditures are based on several assumptions. The assumptions are more precisely explained below. Table G 9:Tourist expenditures per Diem and per year Tourist expenditures per diem (SR) Yearly tourist expenditures

(Mio SR) Percent

Overnight tourists

Percent Day tourists

Percent

Actual situation

1430 100 960 100 200 100

Scenario 1 1520 106 1040 108 400 200 Scenario 2 1230 86 990 103 230 115 Scenario 3 1430 100 970 101 220 110 Scenario 4 2200 154 980 102 300 150

In 2002, the tourist expenditures per diem in the Seychelles were SR530. From the statistical abstract it is known that 58% of all tourist expenditures are from hotel receipts and about 35% from other local cash expenditures. The other 7% are from pre-payments and other expenditures (Management and Information Systems Division (MISD), 2003a). With these information it is possible to calculate the different expenditures of the tourists. These are the following:

138

Hotel receipt per diem: SR308

Local cash expenditures: SR182

Restaurants: SR59

Car hire: SR21

Taxis and buses: SR11

Excursions: SR53

Handicrafts: SR22

Other shopping: SR5

Unallocated: SR11

Pre-payments and others: SR40

Total: SR530 It is assumed that on La Digue the daily expenditures by tourists are comparable to the calculated daily expenditures for the Seychelles. As there is no car hire on La Digue, the calculated SR21 per diem are not included in the calculation of the tourist expenditures per diem on La Digue. Thus, the expenditures per diem are about SR510. Calculating the income from tourist visiting La Digue, this one is about SR136 million per year, which makes about 20% of the income generated by tourism in the Seychelles. In order to be able to make assumptions for the different scenarios, the average expenditures per diem are first calculated for the actual situation. These calculations are based on different assumptions, on data get on place and on expert interviews. The goal of these calculations is to find out, which is the percentage of the expenditures going to the central bank as foreign exchange. In a second step it is possible to make an extrapolation for the different scenarios and to calculate the yearly expenditures of the tourists. 0) Tourist expenditures per diem for the actual situation: a) Overnight tourists

Hotel: ca. SR600/day

Local cash: ca. SR500/day

Restaurants: SR300/day35

Bicycle hire: SR32/day36

Taxis and ox-cart: SR34/day37

Excursions: SR33/day38

Handicrafts: SR42/day39 35 Based on the prices, that can be found on La Digue. It is assumed that for lunch tourist spend in average SR100 and for dinner SR200. 36 Based on the assumption, that 90% of the overnight-tourists rent a bicycle during their stay. The price of a bicycle hire for several days is 35SR. 37 Based on the assumption, that 90% of the overnight-tourists take a taxi or an ox-cart for the transfer from the jetty to the hotel (SR80/3*0.9) and that 10% rent an ox-cart for a half a day during their stay (SR300/3*0.1). 38 Based on the assumption, that the average cost of an excursion is SR400, and that about 25% of the overnight tourists make an excursion during their stay.

139

Others: SR50/day40

Travel to La Digue: SR22641

Pre-payments and others: SR8042 Sub-total: ca. SR1430/day b) Day-tourists

Local cash: ca. SR280/day

Restaurants: SR50/day43

Bicycle hire: SR33/day44

Taxi and Ox-cart: SR105/day45

Handicrafts: SR63/day46

Others: SR30/day47

Travel to La Digue: ca. SR68048

Sub-total: ca. SR960/day With regard to the calculations done for the overnight tourists it comes out that 1/3 of the daily expenditures are captured as foreign exchange by the central bank. Different arguments can explain this result:

• The central bank captures only the money spend by the tourists in foreign exchange. Seychelles Rupees are often not captured as tourist’s expenditures.

• A certain percentage of tourists make change on the black market, so that this part is not captured by the central bank.

• Because of the difficulties of the community to get foreign exchange, a certain percentage of the expenditures of the tourists are not declared to the central bank.

39 Based on the assumption that the average cost of a handicraft is about SR250 and that about 50% of the tourists buy a handicraft during their stay 40 Other expenditures include other shopping like art and unallocated expenditures. The average cost of a painting is SR1000 and it is assumed that 10% of the tourists buy a painting during their stay. It is further more assumed that other expenditures from about SR20/day are done by the tourists. 41 Based on the assumption that 60% of tourists reach La Digue by taking the airplane to Praslin and then the boat to La Digue, 29% of tourists reach La Digue by taking twice the boat (Mahé-Praslin and Praslin-La Digue), 10% of tourists reach La Digue by taking the Cargo Ship and 1% reachs La Digue by taking the helicopter. (0.6*800 + 0.29*600 + 0.1*150 + 0.01*920 = 680/3 = 226) 42 Based on the assumption that comparable to the calculated expenditures of the statistical abstract, 7% of all expenditures are for pre-payments and other expenditures. 43 Based on the assumption, that for lunch tourist spent about 100SR and that 50% of the tourists bring their lunch on the island. 44 Based on the assumption, that about 65% of day tourists rent a bicycle for the day. The price of the bicycle rental is SR50 45 Based on the assumption that 35% rent an ox-cart or a taxi for a half a day (SR300 * 0.35) 46 Based on the assumption that the average cost of a handicraft is about SR250 and that about 25% of the tourists buy a handicraft 47 Other expenditures include other shopping like art and unallocated expenditures. The average cost of a painting is SR1000 and it is assumed that 10% of the tourists buy a painting during their stay. Further more expenditure is negligible. 48 Same assumption than note 8. The result of SR680/day must be taken with carefulness as most of the tourists that visit La Digue for one day stay on Praslin and do not make the trip from Mahe only for one day.

140

• Last but not least, a great percentage of the whole Budget of the tourists is already spent in advance. From this amount only a minor fraction is returned to the country, as it concerns above all payments to international companies that abstract as much as possible the profits (Wolf, 1983).

Further more, it comes out that the expenditures of day tourists on the island are 4 times lower than those from overnight tourists. Calculating the yearly expenditures of the tourists, it comes out that overnight tourists expend about SR146 million and day tourist about SR52 million. Thus tourists spend currently about SR200million per year to visit La Digue. 0) Tourist expenditures per diem for scenario 1: (a) Overnight-tourists

Hotel: ca. SR600/day (assuming no changes with the current situation)

Local cash ca. SR 600/day

Restaurants: SR300/day (assuming no changes with the current situation)

Bicycle hire: SR32/day (assuming no changes with the current situation)

Taxis and ox-cart: SR54/day49

Excursions: SR50/day50

Handicrafts: SR50/day51

Others: SR100/day52

Pre-payments and others: SR9053

Travel to La Digue: SR226 (assuming no changes with the current situation) Sub-total: ca. SR1520/day (b) Day tourists

Local cash ca. SR 350/day

Restaurants: SR50/day (See note 10)

Bicycle hire: SR25/day54

Taxi and Ox-cart: SR150/day55

49 Based on the assumption, that like today 90% of the tourist uses taxi/truck for the transfer to the hotel and that 30% of the tourists rent a taxi for a half a day during their stay. This assumption is based on the fact that the increase in the road network and in motor vehicles on the island will consequently increase the number of tourists taking motor vehicles to travel round the island. 50 Based on the assumption, that the average cost of an excursion would decrease to about SR300 and that the increase of possibilities for the tourists will increase to 50% the number of tourists making an excursion during their stay on La Digue. 51 Based on the assumption that the average cost of a handicraft will decrease to about SR200 and that about 75% of the tourists will buy as handicraft during their stay 52 With the extension of the attraction proposed to the tourists it is assumed that other expenditures will doubled. These include other shopping like art but also expenditures for water sports, discotheques, etc. 53 Same assumption than above (note 8) 54 Based on the assumption, that 50% of the tourists rent a bicycle for the day. 55 Based on the assumption, that 50% of the day-tourists rent an ox-cart or a taxi for a half a day (SR300 * 0.5)

141

Handicrafts: SR100/day56

Others: SR30/day57

Travel to La Digue: SR680 (see note 15) Sub-total: ca. SR1040/day Calculating the yearly expenditures of the tourists, it comes out that overnight tourists expend about SR330 million and day tourist about SR76 million. Thus tourist would spend about SR400million per year to visit La Digue in 2013, which is twice time more than today. 1. Tourist expenditures per diem for scenario 2:

a) Overnight-tourists

Hotel: ca. SR450/day58

Local cash: ca.SR510 /day

Restaurants: SR225/day59

Bicycle hire: SR32/day (assuming no changes with the current situation)

Taxis and ox-cart: SR34/day60

Excursions: SR50/day61

Handicrafts: SR50/day62

Others: SR100/day63

Pre-payments and others: SR7064

Travel to La Digue: SR226 (assuming no changes with the current situation) Sub-Total: ca. SR1230 b) Day-tourists

Local cash: ca. SR310/day

Restaurants: SR40/day65

56 Based on the assumption that the average cost of a handicraft will decrease to about SR200 and that about 50% of the tourists will buy as handicraft 57 It is assumed that day-tourist will not make more other expenditures than currently. 58 Based on the assumption that the average cost of a stay will decrease by 25% with an increase in small guesthouses and rooms available in houses of local people 59 Assuming a 25% decrease in the expenditures for restaurants. This assumption is based on the fact that the average cost of food in small guesthouses in lower. 60 Based on the assumption, that like today 90% of the tourist uses taxi/truck for the transfer to the hotel and that 30% of the tourists rent an ox-cart for a half a day during their stay. 61 Based on the assumption, that the average cost of an excursion would decrease to about SR300 and that the increase of possibilities for the tourists will increase to 50% the number of tourists making an excursion during their stay on La Digue. 62 Based on the assumption that the average cost of a handicraft will decrease to about SR200 and that about 75% of the tourists will buy as handicraft during their stay 63 With the extension of the attraction proposed to the tourists it is assumed that other expenditures will doubled. These include other shopping like art but also expenditures for water sports, discotheques, etc. 64 Same assumption than above (note 9)

142

Bicycle hire: SR33/day (see note 11)

Taxi and Ox-cart: SR105/day (see note 12)

Handicrafts: SR100/day (see note 23)

Others: SR30/day (see note 24)

Travel to La Digue: ca. SR680 (see note 15) Sub-total: ca. SR990/day Calculating the yearly expenditures of the tourists, it comes out that overnight tourists expend about SR175 million and day tourist about SR54 million. Thus tourist would spend about SR230million per year to visit La Digue in 2013. 2. Tourist expenditures per diem for scenario 3: a) Overnight-tourists

Hotel: ca. SR600/day (assuming no changes with the current situation)

Local cash: ca. SR520/day

Restaurants: SR300/day (assuming no changes with the current situation)

Bicycle hire: SR32/day (assuming no changes with the current situation)

Taxis and ox-cart: SR34/day (assuming no changes with the current situation)

Excursions: SR33/day (assuming no changes with the current situation)

Handicrafts: SR42/day (assuming no changes with the current situation)

Entrance Fee in nature area: SR2466

Others: SR50/day (assuming no changes with the current situation)

Pre-payments and others: SR8067

Travel to La Digue: SR SR226 (assuming no changes with the current situation) Sub-Total: ca. SR1430/day b) Day-tourists

Local cash: ca. SR290/day

Restaurants: SR50/day (assuming no changes with the current situation)

Bicycle hire: SR40/day68

Taxi and Ox-cart: SR60/day69

Handicrafts: SR63/day (assuming no changes with the current situation)

Entrance Fee in nature area: SR4570

65 Based on the assumption, that for lunch tourist spent about 80SR and that 50% of the tourists bring their lunch on the island. 66 Assuming an entrance fee of SR90 and that 80% of all overnight tourists visit the nature area. This assumption is based on the data from the Vallee de Mai. 67 Same assumption than above (note 9) 68 Based on the assumption, that about 80% of day tourists rent a bicycle for the day. The price of the bicycle rental is SR50 69 Based on the assumption that 20% rent an ox-cart for a half a day (SR300 * 0.2)

143

Others: SR30/day (assuming no changes with the current situation)

Travel to La Digue: ca. SR SR680 (see note 15) Sub-total: ca. SR970/day Calculating the yearly expenditures of the tourists, it comes out that overnight tourists expend about SR150 million and day tourist about SR71 million. Thus tourist would spend about SR220million per year to visit La Digue in 2013. 1 Tourist expenditures per diem for scenario 4: (a) Overnight-tourists

Hotel: ca. SR1000/day71

Local cash: ca. SR 820/day

Restaurants: SR540/day72

Bicycle hire: SR36/day73

Taxis and ox-cart: SR54/day74

Excursions: SR67/day75

Handicrafts: SR52/day76

Others: SR100/day77

Pre-payments and others: SR14078

Travel to La Digue: ca. SR24379

70 Assuming an entrance fee of SR90 and that 50% of all day tourists visit the nature area. 71 Based on the assumption that the average expenditures of the guesthouses on the west coat are comparable to the current situation and that the expenditures of the 5*-accommodations are about SR3000. The average expenditure of SR1000 is made by extrapolating on the number of rooms available on the island. 72 Based on the following assumption : today the average daily expenditures in « high yield » is about SR2’750. By making an extrapolation for the expenditures in restaurants (2750 * 0.11 * 5) the average expenditures per diem can be calculated for tourists in the five star establishments. Assuming a comparable daily expenditure in restaurants than today for the other tourists the average daily expenditures in restaurants can be calculated. 73 Based on the assumption that 90% of the overnight-tourists rent a bicycle during their stay. The price of a bicycle hire for several days increases to SR40/day. 74 Based on the assumption that like today 90% of the tourist uses taxi/truck for the transfer to the hotel and that 30% of the tourists rent a taxi or an ox-cart for a half a day during their stay. This assumption is based on the idea that more tourist visiting La Digue would be interested by the comfort that taxis and ox-carts offer for an island tour. 75 Based on the assumption that the average cost of an excursion would stay at the current level of SR400 and that the increase of possibilities for the tourists will increase to 50% the number of tourists making an excursion during their stay on La Digue. 76 Assuming that tourists belonging to the high price segment buy exclusive handicrafts, the average cost of a handicraft would increase by about 25%. It is further assumed that comparable to about 50% of the tourists buy a handicraft during their stay. 77 Other expenditures include other shopping like art and unallocated expenditures. The average cost of a painting is SR1000 and it is assumed that 20% of the tourists buy a painting during their stay. It is further more assumed that with new attractions other expenditures from about SR30/day are make by the tourists. 78 Same assumption than above (note 9) 79 Based on the assumption that 60% of tourists reach La Digue by taking the airplane to Praslin and then the boat to La Digue, 25% of tourists reach La Digue by taking twice the boat (Mahé-Praslin and

144

Sub-Total: ca. SR2200 (b) Day-tourists

Local cash: ca. SR300/day

Restaurants: SR50/day (assuming no changes with the current situation)

Bicycle hire: SR39/day80

Taxi and Ox-cart: SR105/day (assuming no changes with the current situation)

Handicrafts: SR78/day81

Others: SR30/day82

Travel to La Digue: ca. SR680 (see note 15) Sub-total: ca. SR980/day Calculating the yearly expenditures of the tourists, it comes out that overnight tourists expend about SR267 million and day tourist about SR36 million. Thus tourist would spend about SR300million per year to visit La Digue in 2013.

G4.2.2 Criteria employment situation, indicator: number of jobs generated by tourism sector

This criterion describes the importance of the tourism sector regarding the employment situation. The measurement is done through the number of labour forces generated by tourism in the different scenarios. Table G 20:Employment situation for the actual situation and the different scenarios Number of labour

forces in tourism Percent

Actual situation 352 100 Scenario 1 816 232 Scenario 2 567 161 Scenario 3 431 122 Scenario 4 669 190

0 Employment for the actual situation83:

In 1997, from a total of 936 labour forces, 37.5% or 352 labour forces were working directly in the tourism sector. This includes 237 people working in hotels and guesthouses, 28 working in restaurants and bars, 53 working in tourism related transport and communication and 34 working in other tourism services. From the labour forces working in tourism, about 3% are imported labour forces from other countries (Management and Information Systems Division (MISD), 2002a).

Praslin-La Digue), 5% of tourists reach La Digue by taking the Cargo Ship and 10% reach La Digue by taking the helicopter. (0.6*800 + 0.25*600 + 0.05*150 + 0.1*920 = 730/3 = 243) 80 Based on the assumption that about 65% of day tourists rent a bicycle for the day. The price of the bicycle rental is SR60 81 Based on the assumption that the average cost of a handicraft is increased by 25% and that about 25% of the day-tourists buy a handicraft during their stay 82 It is assumed that day-tourist will not make more other expenditures than currently. 83 The assessment of the actual situation is done with data of 1997 (From MIDS)

145

1 Employment for scenario 1:

In the first scenario it is assumed that in 2013 50% of the working population will be active in the tourism industry. The scenario forecast the generation of 464 further labour forces in the tourism industry. In order to get labour for the generated jobs, it will be necessary to import 265 labour forces. The total number of labour forces in scenario 1 is 816. 2 Employment for scenario 2:

In the second scenario the assumption that 50% of the working population will be active in the tourism industry in 2013 is also done. Compared to the actual situation, 215 new jobs are generated in this scenario. The generation of new jobs implies the importation of 15 labour forces from Mahé or other countries. The total number of labour forces in scenario 2 is 567. 3 Employment for scenario 3:

In the third scenario it is assumed that 40% of the population will be active in the tourism sector. In this scenario no importation of labour forces is necessary. 79 new jobs are generated and the total number of labour forces in the tourism industry reaches 341. 4 Employment for scenario 4:

The fourth scenario forecast the generation of 317 new jobs. With the assumption that in this scenario 50% of the working population will be active in the tourism industry, it will be necessary to import 118 labour forces. The total number of labour forces in scenario 4 is 669.

G4.2.3 Criteria regional economic flow, indicator: ratio of local products used in the alimentation / total products used

This criterion is defined as the part of local products used in the alimentation on restaurants. The focus on alimentation is based on the fact that for the local economy it is above all agricultural and fishery products that play a great role. The measurement is done by a qualitative evaluation of the ratio of local products in food and beverages compared to the total products used. An exact evaluation proved to be difficult due to the poor database and the difficulty to get data from the tourist industry. The data must thus be regarded with precaution as they represent only the tendency of the different scenarios. This criterion was anyway kept, as it enables to evaluate the local effect of tourism earnings and to make an extrapolation on the imports that are done within the different tourism establishments. Through this criterion the loss of potential economic benefits from tourism, due to increased imports of goods and services can be discussed. Table G 11: Ratio of local products in the alimentation for the actual situation and the four scenarios Ratio of local products (%) Percent Actual situation 15 100 Scenario 1 10 67 Scenario 2 50 333 Scenario 3 30 200 Scenario 4 5 33

The main local products are fish, chicken, some vegetables and fruits. Regarding the beverages, water, soda drinks and beer are produced in Mahé. All other products are

146

imported. For the approximations of the ratio of local products in food and beverages following data were used:

• On La Digue Island, only two establishments agreed to give information concerning the percentage of local products used in the restaurants. One of these two establishments uses about 10% local products and the other one about 23%84.

• On Bird, an island that is environmental friendly orientated, 50% local products are used in the alimentation85.

0. Ratio of local products used in the alimentation for the actual situation

For the actual situation the ratio of local products used in food and beverages of the different tourist establishments is assessed as the average of the data received from the two establishments on La Digue. Thus, about 15% of products that are served in restaurants are local products. With regard to the relative small importance of fishing and agriculture in the Seychelles a ratio of 15% is already quite significant. 1. Ratio of local products used in the alimentation for scenario 1

The important tourist development expected in scenario 1 is related to a higher demand and to a decrease in local productivity. Further more the adjustment of residents to the tourists’ lifestyles implies a more modern style of life and of eating. Because of the different reasons given above it is expected that a lower ratio of the alimentation served in tourist establishments will be completed by local products. In the next 10 years a 50% decrease is expected, so that there will be about 10% of local products for scenario 1. 2. Ratio of local products used in the alimentation for scenario 2

Compared to the estimated 15% local products used in the alimentation of tourist establishments for the actual situation, it is expected that in scenario 2 the ratio of local products used in tourist establishments can be optimised. It is assumed that the data received from Bird Island correspond to the highest percentage of local products that is possible to use. The ratio of 50% is thus given to scenario 2, where the traditional features play the greatest role. 3. Ratio of local products used in the alimentation for scenario 3

As for scenario 2, for scenario 3, which is nature orientated, it is expected that the ratio of local products used in tourist establishments will increase. Compared to the scenario 2, where the best case is expected to be reached and to the actual situation, it is assumed that in scenario 3 about 30% of local products will be used. 4. Ratio of local products used in the alimentation for scenario 4

Scenario 4 represents the most extreme case, regarding the ratio of local products used in tourist establishments. Even with missing data from five-star-establishments, which would allow making an extrapolation for La Digue, it is assumed that most of the high price establishments have special contracts with foreign suppliers to ensure that the demand can be fulfilled around the year. This assumption is due to a certain uncertainty in the rent in the Seychelles. Thus a ratio of 5% is evaluated for scenario

84 From interview with managers of Patatran village and La Digue Island Lodge 85 From interview with Manager of Bird Island (George Norah)

147

G4.3 Social criteria

G4.3.1 Criteria overcrowding, indicator number of tourists / 100 m accessible beach

This criterion is defined as the tourists flow on the island, as perceived by the tourists themselves. The measurement is done by the number of tourists per 100 metres of accessible beach. The focus on the beach area is done with the assumption that about 80% of tourists visiting La Digue spend at least some hours on the beach. From the interviews carried out with 20 tourists on La Digue it comes out that 65% of the tourists whish to have a distance with the next tourist on the beach of over 100 metres. 10% of the tourists whish this distance to be between 50 and 100 metres, 15% between 20 and 50 metres and 10 percent between 5 and 20 metres. These results show that about 75% of the tourists wish a distance of over 50 metres to the next tourist, while being on the beach. The tourists were also questioned on the distance to the next tourist on the beach, from which they would not be attracted to visit La Digue anymore. 15% of the tourists would not come anymore to La Digue if they would be more than one tourist every 50-100 metres and 50% if they would be more than one tourist every 20-50 metres. 15% of the questioned tourist would further be attracted by La Digue if they would be one tourist every 5-20 metres and 20% if they would be one tourist every 1-5 metres. These results show that about 65% of the tourists would not be attracted by La Digue anymore if they would be more than one tourist every 30 metres on the beach. Table G 12: Number of tourists per 100m accessible beach for the actual situation and the four scenarios. The percentages show the differences of the four scenarios compared to the actual situation. Number of tourists per 100m beach Percent Actual situation 2.5 100 Scenario 1 4 160 Scenario 2 2.5 100 Scenario 3 2.2 88 Scenario 4 2.1 84

0 The actual number of tourists per 100m accessible beach is the following: On La Digue there are 8000 metres accessible beach (Duncombe, 1996). There are about 89’000 tourists visiting La Digue yearly, and thus 244 tourists per day on La Digue. Assuming that 80% of the tourists spend a few hours on the beach, there is about 1 tourist every 40m or about 2.5 tourists per 100 metres accessible beach. Of course this reflects the case that 80% of the tourists going to the beach are at about the same time on the beach. Another factor that should be regarded is that most tourists can be found on the famous Anse Source d’Argent beach. 1. The number of tourists per 100m accessible beach in scenario 1 is the following: In the first scenario 145’000 tourists are expected to visit La Digue in 2013. In scenario 1 the development goes towards a tourism that is still highly focussed on beach-tourism. Thus from the about 400 tourists that will be daily on La Digue it is assumed that 80% will spend a few hours on the beach. In scenario 1 there will thus be 1 tourist every 25 metres or 4 tourists per 100 metres accessible beach. 2. The number of tourists per 100m accessible beach in scenario 2 is the following: In the second scenario 102’000 tourists are expected to visit La Digue in 2013. In this scenario it is assumed that about 70% of the tourists will spend a few hours on the beach. This assumption relies on the fact that the promotion of traditional activities will give to tourists the desire to spend time visiting the inland of the island. Thus, from the

148

280 tourists that will be daily on La Digue, there will be about 1 tourist every 40 metres or about 2.5 tourists per 100 metres accessible beach. 3. The number of tourists per 100m accessible beach in scenario 3 is the following:

In the third scenario it is forecast that about 108’000 tourists will visit La Digue in 2013. The promotion of a natural park to visit on La Digue will influence day tourists, as a certain percentage of those will come to La Digue to visit the natural area. The nature-orientated activities that would be found on La Digue enable to assume that 60% of the tourists will spend a few hours on the beach. Thus, from about 300 tourists per day, there will be about one tourist every 45 metres or 2.2 tourists per 100 metres accessible beach. 4. The number of tourists per 100m accessible beach in scenario 4 is the following:

In scenario 4 77’000 tourists are expected to visit La Digue in 2013. Comparable to scenario 1, it is assumed that comparable to the actual situation beach tourism will play an important role on the island. Thus, 80% of the tourists are expected to spend a few hours on the beach. From the 210 tourists that will be daily on La Digue, there will be about one tourist every 48 metres or 2.1 tourists per 100 metres accessible beach.

G4.3.2 Criteria social conflicts, indicator ratio of imported labour forces on La Digue

The aim of this criterion is to include in the evaluation process conflicts that can appear for example in the employment situation. The tendency to import labour forces became more important in the last years in the Seychelles, above all in 5-star-establishments, where the need to ensure a high quality service cannot be neglected. The main reason to employ migrant workers is the following:

• They have a better education • They are less paid for the same job than Seychellois • They get limited contract. Because of that they are motivated to do a good job

to get the contract renewed. For the Seychellois this is not valid. Because of the strong protection of workers in the Act of labour, it is very difficult to dismiss them.

Further more, the population size of La Digue implies that depending on the development strategy it will become necessary to import more migrant workers. The measurement of this criterion is on this account done with the ratio of imported labour forces in tourism for each scenario. This ratio is extrapolated from the evaluated employment situation in the four scenarios and compared with the data of migrant workers from different establishments. The focus on imported labour force is done as it enables to extrapolate on the ratio of cultural differences on the island and on the importance to enhance educational possibilities for the community. Table G 13: Ratio of migrant workers today and for the four scenarios Ratio of foreign labour forces

(%) Percent

Actual situation 3 100 Scenario 1 15 500 Scenario 2 4 133 Scenario 3 3 100 Scenario 4 23 767

149

0 Ratio of migrant workers for the actual situation

Currently there are about 10 migrant workers on La Digue, which work above all in the large hotel. That means that from the labour forces working in tourism, about 3% are imported labour forces from other countries. 1 Ratio of migrant workers for scenario 1

In scenario 1, the infrastructure development implies the generation of 464 further labour forces and the importation of 265 labour forces. This would imply that over 30% of the working forces would be imported. As from a legal point of view, hotels are not allowed to employ more than 25% immigrants and that small establishments mostly do not employ more than 5-15% immigrants86, it should be assumed than at least the half of the labour forces would come from Mahé. Thus, the ratio of foreign labour forces would be about 15%. This important increase in foreign labour forces will influence the social life and the culture on La Digue. 2 Ratio of migrant workers for scenario 2

The second scenario forecast the generation of 215 new jobs and the importation of 15 labour forces. This implies an increase of imported labour forces in 2013 to 4%. 3 Ratio of migrant workers for scenario 3

In this scenario no importation of migrant workers is necessary. Assuming that comparable to today still 10 migrant labour forces would be employed in the large hotel, the ratio of important labour would stay at 3%. 4 Ratio of migrant workers for scenario 4

5 Regarding the employment situation in the fourth scenario, it will be necessary to import 118 labour forces. This means that about 17% of the working forces in the tourism sector would be imported. As mentioned above, from a legal point of view, hotels are not allowed to employ more than 25% immigrants. In five-star-establishments the ratio of migrant workers increases up to 70%87, because some further licences to employ migrant workers are given from the government, if the hotels have good reasons to employ immigrants. With the assumption that the new 5-star-establishment imports about 70% foreign labour, about 23% foreign workers would be employed. Foreign workers, employed above all in five-star-establishments could greatly influence the culture on La Digue. Further more the important ratio in the employment of foreign labour in five-star-establishments could influence the remaining hotels and guesthouses to import more labour forces.

For each scenario, but above all for the first and the fourth one, the ratio of foreign labour forces will highly depend on the quality of the working force to be find in the Seychelles. The educational possibilities and the quality of the education in the tourism sector will strongly influence the need to import foreign labour. As already assessed by different studies carried out at the Ministry of Tourism and transport, the enhancement of the quality of the service on tourism will have an important influence on the number of tourists that will visit the Seychelles.

86 From interview with different hotels 87 From Interview with 5*-establishments

150

G4.3.3 Criteria traditional and nature orientated activities, indicator number of traditional and nature orientated activities

While regarding the criterion traditional activities, it was discussed that it make sense to have a list of activities and products that would be seen as important for La Digue, while considering traditional and nature orientated products. The different scenarios could be compared and evaluated, based on this list. A list of 9 activities or products was compiled. These one are the following:

• Traditional Creole architecture. The old wood houses with wood furniture are typical for the Seychelles and can still be found on La Digue. These kinds of houses should be maintained and promoted. One idea is to allow visitors to come and see these houses, while asking the visitors to pay a fee to help the owners of the houses to maintain them.

• Products from previous plantations. Different products from vanilla, coconut and cinnamon that were produced in the colonial time are actively promoted to show tourist what was done before.

• Crafts: Crafts from local fibres from coconut and wood played a great role on La Digue in the past. Today, craft products play a less important role in the tourist industry. It was discussed that these product as well as new craft products, like eco-friendly products (craft made from recycled materials, recycled metal, empty beer cans, etc.) could re-launch the craft industry in tourism. It is important to ensure that craft do not destroy at the same time the natural environment, as before people served themselves from the environment as an infinite good. Thus, craft from wood material should not have a negative impact on the survival of key trees, like Takamaka.

• Food – authentic Creole food. It is seen as important for the local population and for the tourism industry to promote the local food. The “fast food” plays more and more an important role on the island. The maintenance of traditional alimentation will also influence the need to import food. For the tourism it is important to ensure that each establishment proposes to their guest a typical alimentation, as it influences the impression the tourists will have of the island.

• Agriculture, fishing. Traditional activities, like agriculture and fishing loose their attractiveness, as people are influenced by tourism as a quick and easy way to win money. Traditional activities can be used by the local population to maintain the root of their culture, while at the same time using tourism as a way to earn money from these activities. Biological agriculture could be promoted and the production way could be shown to the tourist. The same for fishing. Fishing in pirogues could be promoted as a tourist activity.

• Festivals. The promotion of different festivals, like art festival, Creole festival, agriculture and fishing festival could reinforce the efforts made in keeping the roots of the Creole culture on the island. Activities that could be organised in a festival are some pirogue regatta, palls climbing, games of popular nature, etc.

• Nature trails. The natural environment of La Digue Island is unique in the fact that it is very heterogeneous in a limited space. Thus, it is possible to show to the local people as well as to the tourist in a one-day walk the main habitats of the ecosystem of the granitic islands. The natural environment belongs to the culture of the Seychellois and the awareness of the importance of this environment for the population and for the tourism should be put in front of the discussion.

In a second step the number of traditional activities in the 4 scenarios have to be

evaluated with a rate from 1 to 5 (1 = Very few number of traditional activities, 2 =

151

A few number of traditional activities, 3 = A medium number of traditional activities, 4 = a high number of traditional activities and 5 = a very high number of traditional activities). First the actual situation has to be rated. Then the four scenarios should be evaluated using the proposed scale.

Evaluation of the actual situation and the scenarios:

• Actual situation: evaluation = 2 • Scenario 1: evaluation = 1 • Scenario 2: evaluation = 4 • Scenario 3: evaluation = 3 • Scenario 4: evaluation = 2

G4.4 Self computed utility values In this section the conversion into utility values was done through different assumptions (see table G14). These utility values are used as comparison, as this way to calculate utility values includes already different weightings. That means, if for one criterion the utility one is given and for another one the highest utility is 0.5, the first one is weighted two times higher. Because of this reason, the choice was made not to utilize this way of conversion for the main evaluation part. Table G 14: Quantified evaluation criteria and utility values for the four scenarios. The evaluation bases on oral, written and telephone enquiry. For the conversion on utility values the lowest utility is numeralised with 0 and the highest with 1. The further values are in-between. These utility values are independent of the scenarios and are based on assumptions. Free

development Authentic Creole Style

Conservative development

Five-star-eco-tourism

Source

1. Resource use Water demand of 960m3/day

Water demand of 800 m3/day

Water demand of 740 m3/day

Water demand of 980 m3/day

Utility value 0 0.26 0.37 0

Data from PUC & Mr. D.Labodo & Mr. Montano

2. Land use 187 hectares that are built up

149 hectares that are built up

142 hectares that are built up

179 hectares that are built up

Utility value 0 0.77 0.88 0.18

MLUH, Yvette Cafrine & Francis Coeur de Lion

3. Protection of endangered species

Strong decrease of key ecosystems

Slight decrease of key ecosystems

Strong increase of key ecosystems

Slight increase of ecosystems

Utility value 0 0.25 1 0.75

Selbi Remi (MoE) & Nirmal Shah

4. Economic wealth

SR400’000’000 per year

SR230’000’000 per year

SR220’000’000 per year

SR300’000’000 per year

Utility value 1.0 0.15 0.1 0.5

Mrs. C. Abel

5. Employment situation in tourism

816 labour forces

567 labour forces

431 labour forces

669 labour forces

Utility value 1.0 0.70 0.52 0.82

MIDS, 1997 census

6. Regional economic flow

A low ratio of local products (about 10%)

A very high ratio of local products (about 50%)

A high ratio of local products (about 30%)

A very low ratio of local products (about 5%)

Utility value 0.2 1 0.6 0.1

Written/ Telephone interview with hotel managers

7. Overcrowding 4 tourists per 100 metres beach

2.5 tourists per 100 metres beach

2.2 tourists per 100 metres beach

2.1 tourists per 100 metres beach

Utility value 0 0.55 0.65 0.70

Mrs. L. Charlie & Tourist interviews

152

8. Social conflicts

15% of foreign labour forces

4% of foreign labour forces

3% of foreign labour forces

23% of foreign labour forces

Utility value 0.4 0.95 1 0

Written/ Telephone interview with hotel managers

9. Traditional activities

A very few traditional activities

A high number of traditional activities

An average number of traditional activities

A few traditional activities

Utility value 0 0.75 0.5 0.25

Mr. Leon Radegonde

Total 2.6 5.38 5.62 3.3

The assumptions that were done to convert the estimated values in utility values are the following:

• Water consumption: The highest utility is given to the situation, where the water demand on La Digue would correspond to the safe yield of the natural water reserves (334m3/day). The lowest utility is given to the situation, where more than 600m3/day needs to be desalinated, as this would imply the construction of a second desalination plant.

• Land use: Assuming that no relevant changes can be made in the land use of the coastal plateau compared to the actual situation, the last one is given the highest utility. The lowest utility is given to the situation, where more than 60% of the coastal plateau area would be built up. This would mean that a part of the woodland, the marshes or the beaches would be built up. In the calculations, scenario 1 gets a utility of 0.

• Protection of endangered animal species: as the measurement of the corresponding attribute was done qualitatively, the same utility values are given than in D2.2.1.

• Economic wealth: For these criteria, the utility 1 is attributed to the best case scenario and the utility 0 to the actual situation. That means that it is assumed that a scenario that enables to increase the income in comparison to today, should get a certain utility.

• Employment situation: The utility 1 is here also given to the scenario, where the most jobs are generated. The utility 0 to the situation, where no jobs would exist in the tourism industry, as it is assumed that all other situation have a certain utility.

• Regional economic flow: The highest utility is given to the situation, where 50% of the products served in restaurants are local ones. It is assumed that because of the size of the island and the availability of local food and beverages, it would be very difficult to use more than the half of local products in the alimentation. This is further more the case of Bird Island, which is highly environmental orientated. The lowest utility is given to the situation, where no more local products would be used in the alimentation.

• Overcrowding: The utility values are derived from tourist interviews. Regarding the preferences of the tourists on the beach, the maximum utility reflects the case the destination attracts and satisfies more then 50% of the tourists and the minimum utility reflects the case the destination attracts and satisfies less then 50% of the tourists (see also appendix 0).

• Social conflicts: The highest utility is given to the actual situation, as there is no visible influence from the few foreign labours working on La Digue. The lowest utility is given to scenario 4, because from all people that would be imported, some local ones would not get a job.

• Traditional activities: The highest utility is given to the situation, where there would be a very high number of traditional activities. The utility value 0 is given to the situation, where there are a very few traditional activities.

153

G5 Questionnaire for stakeholder supported evaluation

Stakeholder

1 Local community 2 Tourist

Number of interview (start by 1,2,.. for the tourists and a,b,…for the community):

Date:

Total time needed for the evaluation:

Intuitive Evaluation

Ranking of the scenarios

S 1: Free development Rank: ___

S 2: Authentic Creole Style Rank: ___

S 3: Conservative Development

Rank: ___

S 4: 5*-Eco-tourism Rank: ___

Utility from 0 to 100 (0 = small, 100 = very high)

S 1: Free development Value: ___

S 2: Authentic Creole Style Value: ___

S 3: Conservative Development

Value: ___

S 4: 5*-Eco-tourism Value: ___

Utility from 0 to 100 of actual situation:

Actual situation Value:____ Values of the criteria

Values from 0 to 100 (0 = lowest, 100 = highest) Crit. 1 Crit. 2 Crit. 3 Crit. 4 Crit. 5 Crit. 6 Crit. 7 Crit. 8 Crit. 9

154

Scen.1 Scen.2 Scen.3 Scen.4

Weight

Value per criteria from 0 to 100 (0 = less important, 100 = most important)

C 1: Resource use Value:___ C 6: Regional flow Value: ___ C 2: Land use Value:___ C 7: Overcrowding Value: ___

C 3: Endangered species

Value:___ C 8: Traditional activities

Value: ___

C4: Economic wealth Value ___ C9: Social conflicts Value: ___ C5: Employment Value:___

Deselected Criteria

Which of the chosen criteria are from your point of view appropriate or inappropriate for the evaluation? 1 = appropriate 2 = inappropriate

C 1: Resource use Value:___

C 6: Regional flow Value: ___

C 2: Land use Value:___

C 7: Overcrowding Value: ___

C3: Endangered species Value:___

C 8: Traditional activities Value: ___

C4: Economic wealth Value:___

C 9: Social conflicts Value: ___

C5: Employment Value:___

Added Criteria

Are there from your point of view additional criteria that are missing? If yes, could you please specify which criteria you would add and rank them from the most important to the less important. __________________________ __________________________ __________________________

155

Personal questions for tourists

Gender

1 male 2 female ______ Age

In year ______ Country of origin

Which is your country of origin ______ Reason for visiting La Digue

Could you please indicate for which reason you are visiting La Digue? 1 Coastal landscape aesthetics 2 Traditional way of life 3 Granite Rocks 4 Only island to see the endemic bird “Paradise Flycatcher” 5 Almost no cars 6 Small hotels and guesthouses 7 See, sand & sun 8 Calm, relaxed, casual atmosphere 9 Luxurious 10Diving, snorkeling 11 Other reasons ____________________________________ Length of stay

Could you please indicate how long you are staying on La Digue? 1 One day 2 Two-three days 3 More than three days Could you please indicate for how long you are staying in the Seychelles? ___________ Accommodation

In which kind of accommodation are you staying on La Digue? 1:Self-catering 2: small hotel/ guesthouse 3: 3*-hotel 4: large hotel (La Digue Island Lodge) In which kind of accommodation are you staying on the other islands (like Mahe and Praslin)? 1: Self-catering 2: guesthouse 3: 2-3*-hotel 4: 4-5*-hotel

156

Preference on the beach

What is the length of the area you wish between you and the next tourist when you are going to the beach on La Digue?

0-5 meters 5-20 meters 20-50 meters 50-100 meters More than 100 meters

No response

From which tourist density on the beach, you would not anymore be interested to come to La Digue? (Please indicate your answer in number of meters between you and the next tourist) ___________________________ Interest

Are you interested in sustainable tourism development?

Very strongly interested Strongly interested Rather interested Undecided Rather not interested Not interested Not at all interested

No response

Importance

Do you assess this study as meaningful?

Very meaningful Meaningful Rather meaningful Undecided Rather not meaningful Not meaningful Not at all meaningful

No answer

157

Information

From your point of view, is the information you get for this questionnaire sufficient?

Very sufficient Sufficient Rather sufficient Undecided Rather not sufficient Not sufficient Not at all sufficient

Other comments

158

Personal questions for the local population

Gender

1 male 2 female ______ Age

In year ______ Profession

Please indicate your area of economic activity: 1 Tourism related (please specify) _______________________ 2 Non tourism related (please specify) _______________________ Interest

Are you interested sustainable tourism development?

Very strongly interested Strongly interested Rather interested Undecided Rather not interested Not interested Not at all interested

No response

Importance

Do you assess this issue as meaningful?

Very meaningful Meaningful Rather meaningful Undecided Rather not meaningful Not meaningful Not at all meaningful

No answer

159

Information

From your point of view, is the information you get for this questionnaire sufficient?

Very sufficient Sufficient Rather sufficient Undecided Rather not sufficient Not sufficient Not at all sufficient

Other comments

G6 Contact list Ministry of Tourism and Transport (MTT) Phone +248 611100 Name Function Contact Contact

type Mr. Eddie Belle Principal Secretary ps@tourism.sc E.I, WG2Mr. Michel Nalletamby

Director General dgt@tourism.sc C.T.

Frauke Fleischer Dogley

Director Tourism planning and development

FFDogley@tourism.sc C.T.

Ralph Hissen Assistant Director Tourism Planning

rhissen@tourism.sc C.T.

Patrick Charlette Assistant Director Tourism Planning

pcharlette@tourism.sc C.T.

Selwyn Manes Senior Project Officer SBristol@tourism.sc

C.T.

Sabrina Camille Secretary FF Dogley SCamille@tourism.sc Jenifer Sinon Liaison Officer WG1 Dominique Verdugo

Technical advisor DVerdugo@tourism.sc WG1&2, WS, CW

Leo Alexandre IT officer lalexander@tourism.sc

Philomena Hollanda

Quality and Standard Officer phollanda@tourism.sc WG2, CW

Michel Jean Mellie MIDS M_mellie1@hotmail.com E.I. Lydia Charlie Director Adventure and

Special Interest Section Lydia@tourism.sc WG1 &2,

WS, E.I

160

Cecile Denousse Head of the Incentive Unit cdenousse@tourism.sc WG1&2 Selma Mangan Assistant Director Product

Enhancement and Liaison Unit

smangan@tourism.sc

WG1&2, CW

Wilna Richmond PR wrichmond@tourism.sc WS Wendy Didon Director of the SHTTC wdidon@tourism.sc CW,

WG2 Patrick Andre Transport Unit pegandre@hotmail.com E.I, CW

Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MoE) Phone 248 224644 Name Function Contact Contact

type James Chang Tave

Senior Project Officer EIA eapc@seychelles.net WG2

Joseph Rath Director of Environmental Impact Assessment

j.rath@env.gov.sc E.I

Joseph Francois Responsible for Focal Point Praslin

Tel: +248232984 chm@seychelles.net

E.I, WS

Joseph Faure Technician Advisor PS j.faure@env.gov.sc CW Jackson Paul Louis

Responsible for Forestry section

+248573285 forestry@seychelles.net

E.I

Selbi Remi Director for Conservation chm@seychelles.net E.I Pierre Vos Forestry section Left Seychelles E.I Anthony Louange Officer Marine Unit gefmarin@seychelles.net E.I Alain de Comarmond

Officer Marine Unit a.deco@pps.gov.sc E.I

Rodney Quatre Officer Marine Unit r.quatre@pps.gov.sc E.I Jude Bijoux Ag. Manager SCMRT j.bijoux@pps.gov.sc E.I Flavien Joubert Director Pollution Control f.joubert@env.gov.sc E.I Jude Florentine DG PC & EI j.florentine@env.gov.sc E.I Gina Bonne Director of Agriculture

Planning + 248 32 24 11 statmamr@seychelles.net

E.I

Ministry of Land Use and Habitat phone +248 284444 Name Function Contact Contact

type Mr. Terry Bisconet Director General for land

use and territories tbisconnet@mluh.gov.sc E.I, CW

Mrs. Yvette Cafrine

Assistant Director land use and territories

ycafrine@yahoo.com E.I, WG2

Mr. Francis Coeur de Lion

Director of GIS fcoeurdelion@mluh.gov.sc E.I., CW

Ministry of Employment and Social Affairs Name Function Contact Contact

type Mr. Michel Rosalie Director General Social

Development +248 32 23 21 popunit@seychelles.net

E.I

La Digue Development Board (LDDB) Name Function Contact Contact

type Mr. Hensley Chairman of LDDB +248 234397 E.I, WS

161

Constance ladigue@seychelles.net Mrs Monica Figaro Member of the La Digue

Board and Manager of the Safari club

E.I, WS

La Digue District Administration Name Function Contact Contact

type Mrs Rannie Jeanne District Administrator +248 23 42 44 E.I, WS

Central Bank of Seychelles Name Function Contact Contact

type Miss Caroline Abel Director of research and

statistics cbsres@seychelles.sc +248 38 20 00

E.I

Nature Seychelles Name Function Contact Contact

type Mr. Shah, Nirmal Jivan

Chief Executive Officer +248 225097 wildlife@email.sc

E.I

Rachel Bristol Science Co-ordinator +248 22 55 36 nature@seychelles.net

E.I

Hoteliers Name Function Contact Contact

type Gerard Lablache

Manager of the Patatran Village, La Digue

+248 51 42 33 patatran@seychelles.net

E.I, WS

Vilvina Jesinghaus

Calou guesthouse, La Digue

+248 23 40 83 calou@seychelles.net

E.I. WS

Marie Celine Durup

Paradise Flycatcher +248 234423 mcdurup@seychelles.net

E.I

Mr. Carl Mills Chateau St-Cloud +248 234346 stcloud@seychelles.net

E.I, WS

Mr. Marston Ste Ange

Chez Marston +248 234023 mars@seychelles.net

E.I

Mr. Bernard de Robillard

Hotel Ocean +248 234180 locean@seychelles.net

E.I

Simon Sabadin La Digue Island Lodge

+248 292 525 lilodge@seychelles.net

E.I, WS

Serge Robert Manager of La Reserve, Praslin

+248232211 lrmk@seychelles.net

E.I.

George Norah Manager of Bird Island Lodge

+248323322 thelodge@birdislandseychelles.com

E.I.

Ms. Corinne Harrison

North Island Resort +248293100 info@north-island.com

E.I

Mr. Jock Henwood

Cousine Island Resort

+248 321107 cousine@seychelles.net

E.I

Ash Behari Manager of the Coco de Mer Hotel

+248 233900 cocodeme@seychelles.net

E.I

162

Public Utility Corporation (PUC) Name Function Contact Contact

type Bernard Eugenie Distribution engineer for

Water +248 67 80 00 beugenie@puc.sc

E.I

Dawson Labodo Principal engineer for Planning

+248 67800 dlabodo@puc.sc

E.I

SWAC Name Function Contact Contact

type Barry Antat Senior Inspector (SWAC) +248 51 56 05 E.I

STMA Name Function Contact Contact

type Dania Morel PR/Information Officer +248234393

info@seychelles.net E.I, WS

Others Name Function Contact Contact

type Michel Madeleine Teacher, La Digue School +248234058 E.I Mr. Marlon K.T. Montano

waste and water engineer, private consultant

+248 57 34 98 montano@seychelles.net

E.I, CW

Leon Radegonde Artist +248241166 E.I Michel Sicre office national des forêts,

cellule ecotourisme, La Réunion

michel.sicre@ons.fr

E.I

Tour operators Name Function Contact Contact

type Heidi Madeleine Mason’s travel,

Seychelles hmadeleine@masonstravel.com +248322642

E.I

Mr. Parera TSS +248322414 E.I Mrs. Corinne Creole Hollidays corinne@creolehollidays.sc E.I Mr. Kurt Zürcher Let’s go Tour kzuercher@letsgo.ch

+4152 624 10 77 E.I Sponsor

H. Werli Soleytours info@soley.ch E.I Richard Gubler Kuoni richard.gubler@kuoni.ch E.I Hofmann Priska Kuoni, Indian Ocean priska.hofmann@kuoni.ch E.I Dipl. geogr. Christian Brogli

Hotelplan, Section Environment & Ecology

christian.brogli@hotelplan.ch E.I

ETH Zürich Name Function Contact Contact type Prof. Dr. R.W.Scholz

Head of the institute for human environmental systems

scholz@env.ethz.ch Head of the master thesis

Mr. Krütli Pius Scientific worker at UNS kruetli@env.ethz.ch Tutor Mr. Küffer Christoph

PhD Student, Geobotanical Institute, official Partner in the

kueffer@env.ethz.ch Tutor

163

Seychelles. Seed sustainability project coordinator

Mr. Stauffacher, Michael

Lecturer in empirical sociology

stauffacher@env.ethz.ch Expert

E.I Expert Interview WG1 Working Group 1 WG2 Working Group 2 WS Workshop CW Weighting of the criteria C.T. Core Team, these people were continuously informed on the proceeding and

were actively involved in each working phase. These people also attended the two working groups, the workshop and participate to the weighting of the criteria.

G7 Participants of the scenario workshop Title FirstName LastName JobTitle Company Mr. Michel Nalletamby Director General MTT Ms. Frauke Fleischer

Dogley Director Tourism planning and development

MTT

Mr. Ralph Hissen Assistant Director Tourism Planning

MTT

Mr. Patrick Charlette Assistant Director Tourism Planning

MTT

Mr. Selwyn Manes Senior Project Officer MTT Ms. Dominique Verdugo Technical advisor MTT Ms. Lydia Charlie Director Adventure and Special

Interest Section MTT

Ms. Wilna Richmond PR MTT Miss Yvette Cafrine Planning Section MLUH Mr. Hensley Constance Chairman of LDDB La Digue Ms Rannie Jeanne District Administrator La Digue Mr. Tony Arissol Health Centre La Digue Ms. Jennita Bonaparte Paradise Fly Hotel La Digue Mr. Simon Sabadin La Digue Island Lodge La Digue Ms. Dania Morel STMA Office La Digue Ms. Elodie Jeannevol Pension Michel Guesthouse La Digue Ms. Raymonde Adrienne Citronnel Guesthouse La Digue Ms. Savienne Buz Wetland Unit La Digue Ms. Laurencine Bibi Vanilla Guesthouse La Digue Mr. Christopher Poris Creole Holidays La Digue

Office Ms. Johanne Ah-Kon L'Union Estate La Digue Mr. Perin Pierre Anse Reunion La Digue Ms. Anielle Fanchette Anse Reunion La Digue Mr. Joseph François Environment Office MoE Mr. Mark Dewea Environment Office MoE Mr. Dereck Niole Environment Office MoE

164

Title FirstName LastName JobTitle Company Ms. Sylvana Ernesta Bernique Guesthouse La Digue Mrs. Wilvina Jesinghaus Calou Guesthouse La Digue Ms. Monica Figaro Safari Club La Digue Ms. Mary Henry Fleur de Lys La Digue Mrs. Yvonne Choppy Guesthouse La Digue Mr. Dominic Camille Camille Distribution La Digue Mr. Gerald Lablache Patatran Guesthouse La Digue Mr. Carl Mills Chateau St. Cloud La Digue Mr. Charles Louis Rising Sun Guesthouse La Digue Mr. Elias Radegonde Taxi Driver La Digue Dr. P. Murugaiyan Senior Project Officer Policy

Planning Services

Mr. Augustin Choppy Bycicle rental La Digue

G8 Power point presentations for the scenario workshop

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Presentation of the project:Sustainable tourism development –

carrying capacity- on La Digue Island, Republic of Seychelles

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Content of the presentation

• Introduction (personal background, main characteristics of small islands like La Digue, Definitions)

• Presentation of the project (goal, methodsand proceedings, expected results)

• Presentation of the goal and theaccomplishment of the workshop

• Presentation of the impact factors

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Personal Background:

- Environmental Sciences at the SwissFederal school of Technology (ETH)

-Main specialisation: Anthroposphere, Environmental Marketing

- interdisciplinary natural and social science education

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Physical characterizations of a small island like La Digue

(a) small & isolated from the continent(b) limited resources available(c) exiguity of the territory(d) high sensibility of ecosystem to changes

Uncontrolled tourism development ⇒ irreversible impacts on the ecosystem

Importance of ensuring a sustainable tourismdevelopment while taking the carrying capacity ofthe island in account.

165

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Definitions:

• Sustainable development« development that meets the needs of present withoutcompromising the ability of future generations to meettheir own needs » (UNCED, Rio 1992)

• Sustainable tourism development« Sustainable tourism development meets the needs ofthe present tourists and host region while protecting andenhancing opportunities for the future. It is envisaged as leading to management of all resources in such a way thateconomic and, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilledwhile maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecologicalprocesses, biological diversity, and life support » (WTO)

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Definitions:

• Tourism Carrying Capacity« the maximum number of people that may visit a touristdestination at the same time, without causing destruction of the physical, economic and socio-cultural environmentand an unacceptable decrease in the quality of visitors’satisfaction » (WTO)

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Objective of the master thesis:

The overall goal of the master thesis is to find out how the possible future development of tourist infrastructures and tourist products and services on la Digue Island and its respective impacts on the coastal ecosystem, the biodiversity, the traditional way of life, the tranquillity of the island, the economic wealth and the landscape aesthetics are evaluated by tourists and the community.

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Methods and Proceeding:

• Expert interviews. The accurate knowledge of experts allows to get specific information on the actual situation on the Seychelles, and especially on La Digue

• Literature review. Concepts of sustainable tourism and existing evaluation criteria for tourism projects are based on literatureand internet review

• Scenario analysis/Scenario Workshop. This method is used and adapted to the research in order to present possible future states of La Digue Island

• Multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT). This method helps to valuate the preferences of different stakeholder groups.

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Scenario-analysis

• Development of quantitative Scenariosthat focus on the ecological, economicand social impacts that tourismdevelopment generates

• Assess trade-offs• Provides to decision-makers a scientific

groundwork for the further planning of the tourist activities

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Scenario-analysis

• Determine the most relevant economic, ecological and social factors

• Determine the interactions between these factors

• Determine the characteristic levels of each factor (antagonist, present state)

• Integrate the point of view of all stakeholders involved in the tourism industry => WORKSHOP

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Scenario-analysis

ManagementStrategy

Tourists

Tourism Marketing Authority

Tour Operators

Politic

NGOs

Ministry of Tourism and transport

Ministry of Environment

Ministry of Land Use and Habitat

Other Ministries

International trends/ competitors

La Digue Development Fund

Hotels and guesthouses

Local Community

Craft, art and souvenir shop

Facilities offering attraction to tourists (diving, fishing, excursions)

administrationdistrict

EnvironmentCoastal ecosystemLandscape aestheticsBiodiversity

EconomyEconomic growthStability

Local communityculture and traditioninvolvement in tourism development

Sustainable tourism development on La

Digue

La Digue Island

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT).

• Quantification of the scenarios through Indicators

• evaluate the attractiveness of the set of developed scenarios

• valuation of the involved trade-offs by different stakeholders groups

⇒ Carrying Capacity

166

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Expected results:• Different scenarios, which reflect a possible future tourism

development on La Digue Island.• Quantification of scenarios with criteria and indicators with

respect to infrastructure, economy, landscape aesthetics and local culture

• Increase of the transparency concerning the decisions that are involved in the strategic planning

• View of different stakeholder-groups concerning the perceived most relevant social, economic and ecological factors that have to be taken into account in order that the Seychelles keep theirattractiveness in future. For that the carrying capacity frame of tourist use will be fathomed.

• The ultimate objective is to work towards a tourism development in the Seychelles, where social, economic and ecological benefits and costs are optimal for all involved stakeholders.

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Goal of the Workshop

• Get a common understanding of the case• Encourage dialog between stakeholders• Get a constructive critic concerning the

consistency of the proposed scenarios• Integrate the point of view of stakeholders

involved in the tourism industry into thescenario construction

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Time schedule of the today’sWorkshop

• Morning: Presentation of the 12 chosenimpact factors and discussion on therelevance of the proposed impact factors andon the interactions between these factors

• Afternoon: Presentation of the developedscenarios, working groups and discussion on the consistency of the proposed sccenarios.

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Presentation of the 12 selected impact factors:

Ecology:•Landscape aesthaetics•Coastal erosion•Biodiversity•Clean water supply

Economy:•Economic contribution

Society:•Local culture andtradition•Population density•Environmental awareness

Politics:•Enforcement of lawsand regulations

Infrastructures:•Accomodations•Tourism products andservices•Transport Network

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Ecology: landscape aesthetics• Definition: Natural areas, which present characteristics with an

aesthetic value• Characteristic Levels:

(a) Natural areas with an aesthetic value are preserved(b) Natural areas with an aesthetic value are overbuild

• Strong direct impacts:

Landscape aesthetics

Biodiversity Economic contribution

Coastalerosion

Hotels andguesthouses

Enforcement of lawsand regulations

Population density

Transport network

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Ecology: coastal erosion• Definition: Decrease of the coastal area’s width, above all of the

beaches, because of natural and/or anthropogenic factors that activate erosion processes

• Characteristic Levels:(a) Less than 30% of the total coastal area is critically endangered by erosion(b) More than 30% of the total coastal area is critically endangered by coastal erosion

• Strong direct impacts:

Coastal erosion

Landscapeaesthetics

Environmental awareness

Environmental awareness

Hotels andguesthouses

Enforcement of lawsand regulations

Population density

Transport network

Hotels andguesthouses

Enforcement of lawsand regulations

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Ecology: biodiversity• Definition: Diversity of rare & native plant & animal species in La

Digue.• Characteristic Levels:

(a) The diversity of rare and native plant & animal species on La Digue keeps the current ratio or is increased(b) There is a decrease in the diversity of rare and native plant and animal species on La Digue

• Strong direct impacts:

Biodiversity

Tourism productsand services

Landscapeaesthetics

Environmental awareness

Enforcement of lawsand regulations

Population density

Enforcement of lawsand regulations

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Ecology: clean water supply• Definition: Capacity of the water catchment areas and of

groundwater for the supply of drinking water and quality of drinking water.

• Characteristic Levels:(a) The water supply guarantees 80% or more of the demand for drinking water(b) The water supply is under 80% of the demand of drinking water on the island.

• Strong direct impacts:

Clean water supply

Economiccontribution

Population density

Environmental awareness

Hotels andguesthouses

Enforcement of lawsand regulations

Population density

167

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Society: Local culture and tradition• Definition: Importance of traditional activities, like fishing,

handicrafts, traditional dances and music, cookery, architectural style and ox-cart riding on the island

• Characteristic Levels:(a) Traditional activities are promoted(b) Loss of most traditional activities. The modern European life style is predominant.

• Strong direct impacts:

Local culture & tradition

Economiccontribution

Tourism productsand services

Tourism productsand services

Economiccontribution

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Society: Population density• Definition: the number of people per square kilometre and the

distribution of the population around the island. • Characteristic Levels:

(a) The number of people per square kilometre stays about constant. 2/3 of the population is living around La Passe and La Réunion.(b) Increase of the population. Housing extensions towards the hill and other regions of the island

• Strong direct impacts:

Population density

Clean watersupply

Transport network

Transport network

Coastalerosion

Hotels andguesthouses

Landscapeaesthetics

Biodiversity Clean watersupply

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Society: Environmental awareness• Definition: Awareness of the local people referring to the

ecosystem of La Digue and its economic base. Enforcement of environmental education and participation in planning, developing and running of sustainable tourism projects

• Characteristic Levels:(a) High awareness of the local population of the importance of environmental preservation. (b) Low awareness of the local population of the importance of environmental preservation.

• Strong direct impacts:

Environmental awareness

Enforcement of laws and regulations

Tourismproducts

and servicesBiodiversityCoastal

erosionEnforcement of laws

and regulationsClean water

supply

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Economy: Economic contribution• Definition: Contribution of tourism to the local economic wealth.

The contribution is measured by the number of labour forces in the tourism sector of La Digue and expressed through the total income.

• Characteristic Levels:(a) Contribution remains constant or decreases. (b) Contribution increases.

• Strong direct impacts:

Economic contribution

Tourism productsand services

Local culture and tradition

Transport network

Tourismproducts

and services

Hotels andguesthouses

Landscapeaesthetics

Local culture and tradition

Clean watersupply

Transport network

Population density

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Politics: Enforcement of laws and regulations• Definition: Reinforcement of laws and existence of resources

(trained staff and funds) to enforce environmental and development planning laws and of management guidelines

• Characteristic Levels:(a) Existing environmental and development planning laws are reinforced and resources to enforce these as well as resources to include guidelines and strategies to preserve and finance natural areas are available.(b) No reinforcement of laws and regulations .

• Strong direct impacts:

Enforcement of laws & regulations

Tourismproducts

and servicesBiodiversityCoastal

erosionLandscapeaesthetics

Clean watersupply

Biodiversity Environmental awarenessCoastal erosion

Hotels andguesthouses

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Infrastructures: Accommodations• Definition: Tourist infrastructures that offer an accommodation

possibility. A difference based on the number of rooms is made between large hotels, small hotels and self-catering

• Characteristic Levels:(a) Number stay at the current level.(b) Low increase in the number of accommodations(c) Increase in the number of accommodations

• Strong direct impacts:

Accomodations

Tourismproducts

and services

Coastalerosion

Landscapeaesthetics

Clean watersupply

Enforcement of lawsand regulations

Transport networkCoastal erosion

Population density

Economiccontribution

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Infrastructures: Tourism products and services• Definition: Range of attractions, activities and facilities that are

proposed to tourists on the island• Characteristic Levels:

(a) wide variety of attractions and activities for the tourists(b) Only a few attractions and activities are proposed to tourists

• Strong direct impacts:

Products and services

Hotels andguesthouses

Biodiversity Local culture & tradition

Economic contribution Local culture and tradition

Environmental awareness

Economiccontribution

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Infrastructures: Transport Network• Definition: Means of transport on the island and length of roads.

Importance of non-motorised and of motorised vehicles on the island.

• Characteristic Levels:(a) Number of motor-vehicles keeps the current range or decrease. The length of the roads system stays constant(b) Number of motor-vehicles increases as well as the length of the roads.

• Strong direct impacts:

Transport Network

Hotels andguesthouses

Population density

Economiccontribution

Population density

Economiccontribution

Landscapeaesthetics

Coastalerosion

Hotels andguesthouses

168

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Strong interactions between the impact factors

Hotels andguesthouses

Enforcementof laws andregulations

Tourism productsand services

Clean watersupply

Landscapeaesthetics

Coastalerosion

Biodiversity

Economiccontribution

Environmental awareness

Culture andtradition

Population density

Transport network

Master Thesis in environmental sciences by Saskia Günther, 6th of November 2003

Ministry of Tourism and Transport

Strong interactions between the impact factors

Scenarios representing a possible future tourismdevelopment state of La Digue