Download - Carrying Capacity Study Pemba Island
Kwanini Carrying Capacity Assessment June -‐ September 2014
Prepared for
Ministry of Information, Culture, Tourism and Sports
Hon. Said Ali Mbarouk
By
Denise Bretlaender
&
Pavol Toth
Investors
Government
Guests
Workforce
People
Kwanini
2
Table of Contents KWANINI CARRYING CAPACITY ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................. 1
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM ....................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM .................................................................................................. 4
3. CARRYING CAPACITY EXERCISE ........................................................................................................................ 5
4. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................................. 8
5. ANALYSES ...................................................................................................................................................... 10
5. 1 CURRENT STATE OF TOURISM ............................................................................................................................. 11 5.2 ZONING ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
6. CASE STUDY .................................................................................................................................................. 15
6.1 CASE STUDY 1: SEYCHELLES ................................................................................................................................ 15 6.2 CASE STUDY 2: MAURITIUS ................................................................................................................................ 19 6.3 CASE STUDY 3: MALDIVES ................................................................................................................................. 20
7. INDICATOR ANALYSES ................................................................................................................................... 22
8. SURVEYS ....................................................................................................................................................... 24
8.1 VISITOR EXIT SURVEY ........................................................................................................................................ 24 8.2 HOTEL MANAGEMENT SURVEY ............................................................................................................................ 28 8.3 HOTEL STAFF SURVEY ........................................................................................................................................ 30 8.4 LOCAL COMMUNITY LEADER SURVEY .................................................................................................................... 32
9. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................................. 35
10. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 37
11. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 38
APPENDIX I: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 44
1.1. JAFARI’S FOUR PLATFORMS ........................................................................................................................... 44 1.2. MICRO-‐ AND MACRO-‐ LEVEL MANAGEMENT TOOL DESCRIPTION .......................................................................... 44
3
1. Introduction Pemba’s attractiveness as a tourism location is mainly due to its natural resources such as world-‐class diving and beautiful beaches. The tourism industry on the island has an interest in developing a sustainable and economically profitable business without damaging neither the environment nor the local population.
Based on the structured interviews with stakeholders, an indicator analyses, three case studies, literature review and four surveys as well as the framework developed by Kurhade (2013) a tourism strategy for Pemba was recommended in this paper and presented to the Ministry for Information, Culture, Tourism and Sports of the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar.
The variety of characteristics that should be managed sustainably makes it difficult to choose one specific form of protection. Management must take into consideration the traditional way of life of its indigenous citizens, the wildlife, the recreational areas (e.g. coral reefs as dive sites) and different forms of landscape. All these aspects must be considered when developing a strategy on how to handle future tourism on Pemba without sacrificing the island’s character through overcrowding.
This paper commences with a literature review concerning Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment (TCCA), which includes changes in expert mindset and limitations of TCCAs.
2. Literature Review Tourism constitutes a valuable source of revenue especially for resource-‐poor countries (Brown et al., 1997). However, there exists a crucial trade-‐off between generated benefits and economic costs in the tourism sector (Brown et al., 1997).
2.1 Sustainable Tourism This paper will use MacIntosh and Goeldner’s (1986) definition of tourism as a foundation. They define tourism as “the sum of the phenomena and relationships arising from the interaction of tourists, business suppliers, host governments and host communities in the process of attracting and hosting these tourists and other visitors” (p.18). Mathieson and Walls established the most commonly used definition in 1982. According to the authors, tourism is explained as a “temporary movement of people to destinations outside their normal places of work and residence, the activities undertaken during their stay in those destinations, and the facilities created to cater to their needs” (p. 29). This paper uses the first definition as it includes the importance of relationships between different stakeholders. Moreover, it also allows for different non-‐locals being present on Pemba (i.e. visitors and tourists). More importantly it includes marketing activities, which have a tremendous impact concerning destination decision-‐making process and expectation management.
4
The discussion of different tourism definitions is important as it showcases that experts and academic literature have not come to a consensus on the extent tourism has in the context of the community.
Many models have been published in regards to the evolution of tourism. Jafari’s (2001) influential platform stage model identified a gradual change from tourism as a platform for advocacy (1950’s-‐1960’s) to cautionary (1970’s) to ada ptancy and finally knowledge-‐based (1990’s).1 This model was expanded upon to include the ethics and finally sustainability stage (McBeth, 2005). He defines the latter as a limited growth concept based on political considerations. Pemba Island is an African tourism destination and as of 2013 relatively unknown as a travel location. As such it has not experienced the different mentalities of tourists and leapfrogged all this stages. As such the only negative association the local population has is the example of Unguja. The lack of the first four stages in Pemba’s development as a tourist location increases measurement difficulties but also explains the current pristine stages of the natural landscape. The government has the unique opportunity to leapfrog certain tourism management stages and develop a sustainable tourism environment that aims to avoid the negative impacts, that have occurred in other locations due to mass market tourism (especially on Unguja).
Saarinen (2006) states three alternative perspectives on how to view sustainability limits. The first perspective is resource based and founded upon a positivist ecological point-‐of-‐view. According to this tradition limits to growth are imposed to protect the resources in the holiday location. The second perspective is activity based and defines limits as flexible and adaptive to new situations. Butler’s (2006) tourism area life cycle is deeply interwoven with this line of argumentation. According to Butler’s theory once a tourism area enters the stagnation stage the management can use activities such as marketing to revive growth and avoid the normally occurring decline stage due saturation. This developmental approach has strong support amongst international organizations, including World Tourism Organization. The last perspective is based on the stakeholder community empowerment. If local communities contribute through information or knowledge sharing relationships are build. On the basis of these valuable social networks limits can be negotiated and often upwardly adjusted. Thus, this theory sees growth boundaries as management concepts to be handled. The discussion of different perspectives highlight that limit setting is not a static activity and can be approached differently and with different degrees of stakeholder participation.
2.2 Management Tools for Sustainable Tourism Tools that can be utilized in sustainable tourism activities are manifold and can be separated into micro-‐ and macro management level tools. Management tools on the micro-‐level include, but are not limited to: area protection, visitor management techniques (e.g. zoning, honeypots, visitor dispersion, channeled visitor flow, restricted entry, vehicle restriction), differential pricing
1 See Apendix 1.1 for a deeper explanation of Jafari’s four platforms.
5
strategies, usage of sustainability indicators and finally carrying capacity assessment. Industry regulation, environmental foot-‐printing, auditing and indicators, Codes of Conduct and eco-‐labels (including certification schemes) count as macro-‐level management tools2 (Mowforth & Munt,1997).
The carrying capacity study results can be used to commence with other tools as well. As described above it could lead to important industry regulations (including government legislation, professional association and voluntary self-‐regulation).Moreover as the Carrying Capacity is based on dialogue and research it can also give insights into various topics that are currently to costly or complicated such as extensive environmental foot-‐printing. It can also show the importance of increased governmental participation or need for lack thereof. As such carrying capacity is at the center of many management tools, which indicates this study is a necessary foundation to base other management tools upon or which to not use.
3. Carrying Capacity Exercise Managers in the tourism sector need to know how much tourism a certain location can sustain without jeopardizing the long-‐term quality. A Carrying Capacity Exercise (CCE), also known a Carrying Capacity Study, Carrying Capacity Assessment or Carrying Capacity Calculations, is used to balance maintenance of the physical environment and the quality of how the visitor experienced their chosen vacation (O'Reilly, 1986). This chapter will give explain CCEs and examine the benefits and criticism associated with the usage of this tool.
Three different ways of thinking must be differentiated when talking about Tourism Carrying Capacity (TCC) the most general description of CCE in the tourism sector (a description of different forms of TCC will follow later in this subsection) and was first developed in the 1960s. The first school of thought defines tourism capacity by how much tourists can be accommodates before negative impacts start to become observable. The second school of thought however defined capacity as reached when the tourists themselves see the negative impacts and start to withdraw from an area as it no longer satisfies their requirements. Subsequently they will seek alternative destinations. (O'Reilly, 1986) A different approach is to disregard absolute numbers and measure maximum growth rates, however as growth does not define an upper limit, either the company must do that or use continuous revaluation to ensure overcapacity is not reached accidentally (De Kadt, 1976).
This paper ascribes to the first observation based on two considerations. Firstly, according to Plog’s “Psychographic Positions of Destinations” model (1974) the homogenous treatment of tourists is not realistic. According to him tourists must be separated into psycho-‐centric and allo-‐centric groups. The first group consists of non-‐adventurous travelers and the latter is their opposite and
2 For a description of the different tools please see Appendix 1.2.
6
characterized by curiosity and adventurousness. Tourism carrying capacity (TCC) assumed that all tourists leave a location after the same amount of time which is not a real-‐life observation. Plog argues that allo-‐centric travelers grow impatient with commercialization much quicker than psycho-‐centric and will leave a destination sooner to seek more authentic sites. This further implies that locations that are avoided by allo-‐centric persons might still be visited by less-‐adventurous people and as such TCC should not be defined as capacity is reached when tourists leave the destination of their own free will. Secondly, the first school of thought is more conservative to maintain the quality of the current island.
There are six different forms of CCE, which differ in the underlying measurement: Physical, ecological, economic, social and environmental carrying capacity (see Graphic 1 below). The seventh form of CCE concerns itself with the limits of acceptable change. (Mowforth & Munt,1997)
Graph 1: 6 Key Types of TCC based on Mowforth & Munt (1997) and O'Reilly (1986).
However, the different carrying capacities can be further broken down. Capacity levels are subject to two factor groups: tourist attributes and destination (including area and population) attributes. The first group includes socioeconomic, ethnical and behavioral characteristics. The second group is wider and includes natural environment, features and processes, economic structure and development, social structure and organization, political organization and level of tourist development. It is important to note that tourist development could be positive in one factor while impacting another one negatively. Moreover, each factor has a maximum capacity in itself and prioritizing and defining individual tolerance limits can be helpful in finding a balance between trade-‐offs later in the process. (Mathieson and Wall,1982)
Historical data on vacation locations has shown that most crises caused by destruction or deterioration has only occurred once the maximum capacity has been exceeded. Thus, proper
• Capacity is reached when the exisQng historical sites and/or the infrastructue can no longer support the tourist number.
Physical Carrying Capacity
• Capacity is reached naQve wildlife populaQon is endangered due to tourist aciQviQes. Ecological Carrying Capacity
• Capacity is reached when beneficial local acQviQes can no longer be carried out as these are squeezed out by tourist funcQons.
Economic Carrying Capacity
• Capacity is reached when the tourists can no longer tolerate the behavior of other tourists or when the indigenous populaQon can no longer tolerate tourists.
Social carrying capacity
• Capacity is reached when tourists no longer enjoy themselves due to obervable damage caused by previous visitors.
Perceptual carrying capacity
• Capacity is reached when environmental problems start to occur due to the tourist interacQon with the environment.
Environmental carrying capacity
7
capacity management can be used as crisis prevention and could lead to cost savings measures in the long-‐term perspective. A TCC study can give a range of expected visitors and with this number a cost-‐benefit analyses could be executed before opening tourism related projects. Thus potential projects with financial or natural losses could be avoided before they occur. (O’Reilley, 1986)
Most importantly sustaining quality in the long-‐run for specific categories is a crucial benefit. Ensuring optimized planning for all stakeholders on the island is necessary so they can use resources responsibly and avoid investing into projects that are harmful for the future. Furthermore carrying capacity exercises can be supplemented with pricing differentiation techniques as described in Chapter 3. This would allow management to find the optimal price point that various tourists segments are willing to pay and thus allow for profit optimization.
One key reason why TCC tools are not as commonly used are measurement and quantifying issues. These can have three causes. Firstly, different societies accept different visitor levels as overcapacity. Secondly, some developments make a higher visitor density necessary. Thirdly, management greatly affects physical and environmental carrying capacities. (O’Reilley, 1986) This makes it difficult name an exact number of desired tourists. Furthermore, companies have struggled to identify how to measure tourist numbers in an optimal manner.
Capacity mismanagement is especially common in developing countries as these often rely on the mass tourism sector as one key revenue source. The short-‐term perspective is often deemed more relevant than overcapacity consideration on future income. (O’Reilley, 1986) These two statements combined with the above benefit description shows that capacity management should be a part of the management tool kit in regards to sustainable tourism Pemba and Zanzibar in general.
One main criticism was the measurement issues. In order to gain an understanding of which visitor density ratio for physical carrying capacity is classified as overcrowded (for the entire island and specifically for the resort) expectations of target audiences need to be analyzed. Based on this specific numbers a tourist number per square mile in that region or the entire island could be taken as a baseline for monitoring capacity. Another measurement could be the number of tourists per 100 local people in that region. A combination of both factors might further optimize the number for specific carrying capacities.(O’Reilley, 1986)
The six main carrying capacities in Graphic 1 should all be included in the TCC estimation as they showcase different aspects of resort vacations. However, the Tourism Ministry has to determine priorities because the maximum capacities will not be identical in each capacity and choosing the lowest number overall can also lead to exempting possible visitors that would enjoy their vacations. Another way to use low capacity numbers in one category is as a critical threshold. For example physical carrying capacity includes aspects such as waste removal infrastructure, which is not a static number but could be improved to allow for more visitors. More importantly the biggest issue will be combing the interest of the island as a whole with the interests of the individual
8
stakeholders. As priorities will not be identical a discussion point (such as the annual Kwanini conference) and equal commitment is crucial.
TCC’s underlying statement of tourism’s inability to continuously grow without harming the domestic system is logical (Coccossis & Mexa, 2004). Thus, knowing the limitations can help to recognize maturity levels in locations and management can react accordingly instead of investing money and other valuable resources into an expansion attempt that will do more harm than good. To conclude doing an EEC at the relative beginning of tourism development has the benefit of avoiding quality damages before they occur. Especially in the context of the current mindset towards sustainable ecotourism Pemba is in a situation where it would be very beneficial to define aims and limitations from the start and develop a holistic strategy for the entire island with the inclusion of all stakeholders. Thus this study aims at doing exactly that.
4. Methodology Based on the literature review, (see Chapter 2), this Tourism Carrying Capacity Study (TCCS) was based on qualitative and quantitative data research. The focus was not to determine a specific number as various authors have noted that this is not feasible in a changing regulatory environment (see Chapter 2), but instead to define a tourism strategy and an reevaluation of the determined goal number of 2300 and 2605 beds in the National Land Use Plan and the Tourism Master Plan respectively. This TCSS is designed to answer three guiding questions, that were modified from Sharma’s carrying capacity research in 1995 :
• Given the strategy for a positive contribution to the people of Pemba through tourism how can opportunities be maximized and harm to the culture and uniqueness of Pemba Island be prevented?
• How can every stakeholder be involved in the tourism planning process? • Which local institutions should be created or their jurisdiction modified to enable an holistic
tourism approach that monitors and manages the local economy efficiently and responsibly as well as the environmental development through a set of core evaluation criterias and mandates that evaluates projects and investments in the tourism industry of Pemba.
A framework of nine steps was developed based on Kurhade (2013) in order to answer the three guiding questions. The following steps were identified as crucial for a holistic TCCS:
1. Current tourism sector’s characteristics analyses 2. Tourism zones identification and analyses of development 3. Indicator implications definition 4. Separation into status, driving force and response to analyze trends and exploitation
potentials 5. Threats, conflicts and issue analyses based on indicators
9
6. Component assessment and identification of bottlenecks and constrains 7. Alternative tourism development options elaboration 8. Optimal recommended tourism strategy for Pemba development 9. Total tourism carrying capacity implementation recommendations
A list of indicators was designed to measure the current state of Pemba island, three impact areas were identified based on the literature review: Socio-‐demographic, political-‐economic and physical-‐ecological impacts. The next step included breaking down these three main areas of interest into smaller topics and then to an indicator level. The indicators were selected based on mutual exclusivity but collective exhaustively. Moreover the indicators were divided into Status, Driving-‐Force and Response, which gives a clearer overview of the future development in the three main areas. Status indicators reflect the current condition of the system (e.g. size of forest), while Driving-‐Force indicators show the pressure that is places on the resource in question (e.g. deforestation rate). Finally Response indicators take into consideration counter-‐measures against these driving forces that may limit exposure and damage (e.g. size of protected areas). Practical examples of this type of indicator assessment can be found in Chapter 7.
During the data gathering process it was found challenging to obtain data for all four administrative districts (Wete, MIcheweni, Chake Chake and Mkoani) on Pemba island. As such three solutions were implemented to avoid gaps in the sustainability indicators.
1. Usage of proxy indicators. If data could not be obtained for a specific indicator it was decided to utilize available data that could be used as a comparative indicator with similar quality.
2. Island or two district data. Although data was not available for every of the four districts, in most cases statistical information could be found regarding North and South Pemba or Pemba as a whole. As such the scores should be considered to have a lower confidence interval but still reflect the situation on Pemba.
3. Vocal scale. In rare cases when neither data for the entire island nor the two broader regions (North and South Pemba) could be obtained the reliability of the qualitative data from structured interviews was analyzed. Based on that indicators were given a score between zero and one in 0.2 intervals and were used for educated judgment based on expert knowledge. Thus the following five vocal scores were agreed upon: very bad (0 – 0.2), bad (0.21-‐0.4), average (0.41 – 0.6), good (0.61 – 0.8) and very good (0.81 – 1).
Based on the data for the different district a target value was set as well as maximums and minimums, which were then used to normalize the data for every district and calculate a score from a scale of zero to one (with the same breakdown as in the precedent paragraph). This normalization procedure was adopted from the Fuzzy Approach Calculation Method. Finally the different indicators, sub-‐themes, themes and areas were given weights to reflect the importance of various significant indicators and lower the statistical impact of indicators that were not drivers of sustainability to a strong degree. This process also helped to limit the impacts caused by proxy
10
indicators that may have been not as mutually exclusive but still collectively exhaustive. This technique led to an overall sustainability score and thus a measurement of the current sustainability of the island. The current sustainability of Pemba needed to be measured to facility a deeper understanding of current resource use in various themes and areas and to base a tourism strategy on the correct baseline and to give guidance and monitoring baselines for future governance and research.
Due to the various impacts different tourism strategies may have on the above three main categories and the island as a whole a case study analyzes was initiated. The focus lied on African island tourism destinations that managed or attempted to create a holistic approach to development. After an initial research into different African tourist destination three target cases were identified: the Maldives, the Seychelles and Mauritius. Especially, the socio-‐demographic impacts were researched in these case studies in order to get a precise idea of social change due to tourism and how it can be guided to avoid most common negative effects and optimize positive drivers.
During the course of this study four types of surveys were conducted; hotel management, hotel staff, local community leaders and visitor exit survey. The hotel management and hotel staff survey were conducted in all tourism establishments on Pemba. While In local communities the Shehias (the local community leaders) in every district of the island were approached to conduct the survey. For four consecutive days survey was conducted in Pemba Airport with every tourist leaving Pemba Island. All surveys were created in English, hotel staff survey and local community surveys were later translated in to Swahili, since majority of respondents did not speak English.
In all surveys both qualitative and quantitative approach was used. Some questions were part of more than one survey. As example, question where changes in last three years in different aspects of environment are questioned can serve. On scale of five (from much worse to much better, no change being in middle) both hotel management and staff as well as in local community leaders answer how do they perceive changes and what they consider to be reason for these changes. These types of questions provide insights in to deeper understanding how tourism impacts the island.
Based on the structured interviews with stakeholders, the indicators, the case studies, literature review and surveys and the framework developed by Kurhade (2013) a tourism strategy for Pemba was developed and recommendations for urgent critical issues were given.
5. Analyses The methodology description in the former chapter has given a background to this study and will be elaborated upon and explained throughout the analyses to give the reader a clearer understanding of the study. This chapter is divided into nine subchapters as to follow the framework set by Kurhade (2013).
11
5. 1 Current state of Tourism The analyses of the current tourism’s characteristics was taken from information supplied from the Commission of tourism, literature reviews and the visitors exit survey. There were nine overall characteristics of tourists that were deemed most important by the literature: type of tourists, seasonality, excursion concentration, concentration of tourists across space, average length of stay, activities exercised, socio-‐economic characteristics, tourist behavior and degree of tourist infrastructure use.
Pemba island has a multifaceted landscape, which includes forests, swamps, mangroves, beaches, lagoons and a pristine marine eco-‐system, including coral reefs. It is a fertile island with farming being a major source of income for the local population. Mosques and tombs, often reclaimed by nature, are a testament to the Omani Sultan of Muscat who seized Pemba and ruled it from his main court on Unguja in the 17th century.
A historical tourist arrival review has shown that the current tourism policy on Pemba is a cause of concern not only in terms of tourist arrivals but moreover on average bed occupancy.
The most apparent fluctuations are due to the seasonal changes mainly based around school holidays in Europe and North America. However, there was a significant dip in visitor numbers in 2012 for which reasons could not yet be identified. Although the numbers recovered in 2013 they show a need for a
coherent strategy across the island to take advantage of seasonality and to generate a consistent and sustainable growth for future years.
As of winter 2014, 18 hotels were operating on Pemba with a room capacity of 220 and 398 total beds. Although the average room occupancy has risen during the peak season of 2013 when compared to 2011, the average occupancy did not manage to rise higher than 34%. As such the current rooms and hotels are not fully utilized and show potential for higher visitor numbers without new hotel facilities. Furthermore, based on the hotel management survey there is full occupancy in the high end facilities and thus conclusions about the
Figure 1: Tourist arrivals
Figure 2: Bed occupancy
12
successful tourism strategies on Pemba become apparent.
The four key segments of tourism on Pemba Currently tourism on Pemba is based on four segments: Beach, culture, sea-‐safaris and nature. Especially, the beach segment is pursued by the hotel facilities that cater mainly to international vacation tourists. However, the tourism policy on Pemba is not structured cohesively towards these segments but through analyses they do become apparent. The following subchapter describes the positive and negative impacts of each segment and the threats and opportunities that these segments can bring to the people of Pemba.
Beach: The environment of Pemba is perfectly situated to cater to beach visitors due to the pristine, sandy white beaches that are relatively secluded and isolated from each other and as such give an impression of isolation and peacefulness for tourists. This segment is especially favored by honeymooners and by safari visitors that want to relax after their adventure on the Tanzanian mainland. Furthermore, the clear turquoise waters, coral reefs, sand banks and small islands are the perfect background for tourists looking for a beach vacation. The traditional use of Dhows gives another unique dimension to the holidays. Furthermore, due to the relative small tourism on Pemba there is no hassle from beachboys.
However threats to these segments is the weather especially during Monsoon season. Moreover, seaweed farming can destroy the visual sereneness of the beaches as well as development close to shore land. Beach erosion that is currently apparent also on Pemba can further lead to a deterioration of the attractiveness of the beaches. This is further driven by overdevelopment of beach areas. Other factors that can make beaches less attractive to tourists are overfishing, inadequate safety, litter on beach and surrounding areas as well as dangerous animals, which are not common on Pemba. However, there are jellyfish that could prevent tourists from swimming and thus enjoying their beach holiday. There are many competitors around the world that cater to the same segment and as such beach preservation must be a bigger focus of the efforts made by the public and private sector.
Culture: Pemba’s history as a spice island with various clove manufacturing facilities and spice products is the basis for the cultural visitor segment. Moreover, the fish and village markets give the cultural integration another dimension for tourists. Cultural possibilities also include local school trips, local products (soaps, honey, baskets and spices). The most important aspect for this segment, however, is the open, engaging and alive Swahili culture on Pemba. Especially, the friendliness and open interaction between locals and tourists makes the vacation more unique for visitors looking for a cultural experience. Although the historical ruins and the museum are not yet a big attraction they have initial attraction for tourists.
However, there is a strong deterioration of historical sites and many are reclaimed by nature. The sites are also insufficient in their current status as they are badly accessible or not marketed strongly or are too small to justify a trip. Littering and lack of signposting and information points
13
further lessen the enjoyment potential. There is a decline in safety that comes with mass tourism as tourists explore more areas by themselves and without guidance as well as search adventure by exploring unsafe areas.
Sea Safaris: Sea-‐Safaris are another major attraction for tourists especially due to the available and diverse wildlife such as whale sharks, dolphins and rays. The high water visibility heightens the chances of animal viewings for in and out of water activities. Pemba is also recognized as one of the world’s best dive spots. There are a variety of sports that attract tourists such as snorkeling, diving, swimming and fishing. Dolphin and whale watching are a common activity offered by most hotels located close to the beaches. The protected coral reefs on the western site of the island also add to the regeneration of the reefs and a future healthy sea environment. As with the beach segments tourists in this segment are attracted by the traditional usage of Dhows.
The unpredictability of wildlife viewing is the biggest limitation in this segment. Increased tourism can also lead to a possible crowding of dive sites, which decreases the enjoyment of tourists. Furthermore, because the protection of reef and shore areas does not extend to the entire island it cannot be guaranteed that all sites can be used for the water activities in the future. Another drawback due to the protected areas is that tourists may not be able to engage in shore fishing and may find this disappointing.
Nature: Pemba has much to offer for the type of tourists looking for nature and environmental attractions. The most common attractions are unique animal species on Pemba, such as the Pemba Flying Fox. Especially, birdwatchers can be attracted through the unique bird species living on Pemba. There are many available guided tours with low environmental and cultural impact for tourists interested in learning about and exploring the nature on Pemba. This segment is especially important as a source of sustainable revenue for parks such as the Ngezi Forest. This park practices a profitable strategy of price discrimination in order to profit from tourists while allowing cheap access for locals. The current protection of flora and fauna also makes efforts to guarantee future enjoyment for visitors of this segment. Due to the difficult accessibility most tourists are guided and as such have a higher educational experience and lower the impact through bad behavior.
Limitations on this segment are the few choices of natural sites with the exception of beaches that are scattered around the island.
5.2 Zoning The literature shows three different approaches to determining zones; these can be allocated based on main environmental issues, resource use conflict or protection / conservation needs (Sharma 1995). The National Land use plan and Tourism Master Plan have specified 6 and 7 tourism zones respectively as such the analyses of current tourists was focused on these zones. Moreover Pemba’s administration is divided into four regions: Micheweni and Wete in North Pemba as well as Mkoani and Chake-‐Chake in South Pemba. Thus these four districts have been the base for the indicator
14
analyses but due to information limitations proxies for North and South Pemba as well as the entire island have been used in extreme cases.
Although the NLUP and the tourism zoning plan have given clear guidance as to specific zones that should be dedicated to tourism development they have not been followed. As of 2014 tourism establishments are scattered and only one hotel has been developed in the correct tourism zone. Figure 3 gives an overview of the different zones and the bed allocations as well as the evolution of the planes.
Tourism Zoning Plan (1993)
National Land Use Plan (1995)
Current State
Verani 590 beds Verani 590 beds
Vumawimbi 300 beds Vumawimbi 300 beds
Ufukweni 170 beds Mivumoni 170 beds
Mtangani 90 beds Mtangani 90 beds
Kwakaimu 250 beds Kwakaimu 250 beds
Wambaa 900 beds Wambaa 905 beds Wambaa 36 beds
Tundaua 300 beds
Others 370 beds
6 zones 2300 7 zones 2605 beds 406 beds
Figure 3: Planned Tourism Zones
Both tourism plans give ideas for specific zones based on their environmental characteristics and to avoid overcrowding. In itself the plans do make a very good and conscious effort to minimize negative impacts and include buffer zones to local communities in order to avoid too much negative exposure to tourism culture for the local population. As such the zoning if followed correctly would do much for a positive future of Pemba.
15
6. Case Study As the indicators only give a partial insight into the social component and due to the difficulty of measuring change in culture per tourist a case study analyses was administered to benchmark developments across different locations that were deemed similar.
Tourism development in Small Island Developing States (SIDS) has become a prominent issue in the academic research and as thus has established situational unique developments, issues and opportunities. Although Pemba is not a separate nation its characteristics and the jurisdiction of the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar do make the comparison feasible. The most prominent characteristics of SIDS are their limited, small size, their seclusion, unique flora and fauna, unhurried pace of life, distinctive culture as well as relatively untouched environment (Baum, 1997; Lockhart, 1997). Their target visitors are people in search for locations “off-‐the-‐beaten-‐track” and distinct exotic appeal (Zubair et al., 2010). However, according to UNEP (1994) there are various significant issues and disadvantages to tourism on SIDS: exploitation and early depletion of extremely finite natural resources, high risk of natural disasters, trade dependency, high population density, drinking water scarceness as well as expensive administration and infrastructure, especially in regards to transportation and communication. The below analyses of indicators (see Chapter 7) has shown the same trends towards Pemba facing these problems already in 2014 and a continued acceleration speed which would be further hastened, albeit in different degrees, by more tourist arrivals.
Due to the early tourism development stage on Pemba homogenous case studies were early maturity years in the Seychelles, Maldives and Mauritius. An advantage with these locations is that they have since then (rapidly) developed tourism and as such can give examples for possible impacts and problem-‐solving strategies based on different government policies and tourism strategies.
6.1 Case Study 1: Seychelles The Republic of Seychelles is a small country located 1,500 km east of Zanzibar. As of June 2014 the island has 91,359 inhabitants (National Bureau of Statistics, 2014) mostly descendants of French settlers, African plantation workers, British sailors and traders from India, China and Middle East, giving rise to a multiethnic society. Most of the population is concentrated on three islands, which also host most economic activities: Mahe (over 80% of the population), Praslin and La Digue. The main language is Créole with English and French being the other two official languages. (United Nations Development Program, 2010). Most Seychellois are Christians; 76.2% are Roman Catholic, 10.6% are Protestant and 2.4% are of other Christian denominations (National Bureau of Statistics, 2010)
16
Historical Context French colonists first settled the uninhabited islands in 1770, which came with their slaves from Mauritius. However, the Seychelles was ceded to Britain in 1813. Originally the islands grew mainly sugar cane and cotton, but grew into an economy dominated by coconut palm and cinnamon.
Creole culture is the product of a legacy of French, English, and non-‐European traditions introduced by various settlers but some aspect of it evolved with set of values different from those of the European-‐oriented elite. These include tendency towards consensual unions, believes in efficiency of “gris-‐gris” (the local system of magical practices), easygoing attitude towards work and sexual relationships and tolerance of other aspects of local lifestyle such as heavy drinking and petty larceny. Another aspect was status differentiation based on color, where “dark” was the mark of social inferiority and low status.
Beginning of tourism on Seychelles The island’s economy is dominated by agriculture and once booming population began to stagnate. This situation prompted British Government to introduce tourism into the Seychelles and justified its decision to opt for tourism development on the grounds that an important objective is to enable the Government of Seychelles to balance its budget again…the ultimate purpose… is to advance the welfare development was an employment boom in the construction industry triggered by airport construction started in 1969. This was followed by rapid development of tourism facilities, a marine port and road infrastructure. In the beginning, there was an abundance of cheap, unskilled local labor. However local employees for more skilled positions like tradesman and artisan were scarce and thus the Seychelles experienced a significant inflow of expatriates. Later on, constantly growing demand for labor in construction sector, that was offering considerably higher wages than other sectors created problems for other, more traditional industries. People from remote islands moved to the main islands where opportunities in construction sectors were offered as well as traditional industries like agriculture had problem to find workers for wages they could afford to offer. Growing business opportunities attracted not only skilled workforce from abroad to the construction sector but also entrepreneurs who started local agencies and services. This boom where during four years capacities of tourism facilities grew by 86% on average not only created huge shock in employment structure where thousands of people left traditional agriculture sector and found better paid positions in construction and hospitality sector but also rapidly boosted imports of consumption goods in to the economy. After the initial construction boom slowed, many males were working in this sector could not find jobs with similar compensation. The positions in hospitality sector required different set of skills and on many of them women were preferred. (Wilson, D., 1967)
Consequences of rapid tourism development This rapid development of tourism had many positive but also negative consequences.
Positives were mainly of economic character.
17
• Unemployment on the islands has decreased since many young people found employment in tourism or construction sector, which offered high wages compared to what was the standard before.
• The booming economy diversified into previously unknown industries and provided opportunities for social advancement for all social levels. E.g. productions of handcrafts, brewery which was opened to substitute imported beer.
• Tourism promoted financing and conservation of natural areas as well as traditions like music, dances and production of traditional souvenirs.
• Prospect of establishing Seychelles as a financial center.
Negative consequences of rapid tourism development were mainly of economic and sociocultural character.
• The economical were: o Soaring land prices caused by land speculations because people were buying land in
order to resell it later to tourism developers. o Rapid inflation and sudden shortages of staple commodities, because island was not
ready for sudden increase in demand. o Growth of imports to satisfy the demand from construction and hospitality sectors
limited local production, which could not compete with foreign imports. o Huge inflow of expats, who took better-‐paid jobs and opened businesses, limited the
employment of local people on more prestigious positions. o Ownership of most of the major businesses by non-‐nationals who came to the country
and used their know-‐how. • The sociocultural impacts were:
o Changes in consumption patterns caused by sudden availability of imported goods that were attractive to the younger population, which faced increase of income from new industries and followed example of foreigners coming to country created disruptions in traditional way of life.
o Traditional industries such as agriculture were neglected and not considered unattractive by younger generations.
o Increased criminality aimed at expats who had higher incomes and owned majority of businesses.
o Increase in prostitution, local girls was interested in foreign man who could afford to buy them things and pay for their company.
o In hospitality majority of jobs was for woman not man, creating social problems in families where in traditional way of life woman were not provider for the families. Suddenly girls working in tourism sector earned more than their boyfriends or fathers.
18
o Man previously working in booming construction sector, were not able to find employment offering comparable salary, which left them depressed and promoted alcoholism or found way of living where they were selling different, often illegal items on the beach to tourist who wanted to have fun. (Wilson 1967; Campling & Rosalie 2006; Connell 1991; Dogan 1989)
Current state of Seychelles Currently Seychelles are one of the most developed African economies. After rapid growth of tourism in 1970s when tourists arrivals were annually growing on average 72%, tourists arrivals was growing on average at 4%. In 2001 – 2010 Seychelles pursued goal of promoting eco-‐tourism, smaller scale development and growth of 2%-‐7% in tourist arrivals (Rosalie, M., 2002).
Currently, the main contributors to GDP are tourism (25%) and tuna fishing & processing (5%). Country imports 90% of its population and tourism consumption (CIA Factbook).
Over the years, the government of Seychelles was making sure that everybody benefits from tourism development. Country was heavily investing in to the infrastructure. Indicators like population having piped water, electricity supply or flushed toilets have been gradually increasing over the years as well as quality of health sector and education (Campling, L., Rosalie, M., 2006). Structure of the populations has also rapidly changed. In order to protect environment, In 1999 Seychelles introduced a US$ 90 tax on travelers entering the Seychelles. Revenue is used to preserve the environment and improve tourism facilities (UNEP).
Forty years of development under influence of tourism have changed the culture of the country. In 1998 survey was conducted on social impacts of tourism. Majority of respondents (58%) consider tourism to have impact on culture. On question whether tourism has impact on moral values, 24% of respondents consider it to have little impact, 22% to have some impact and 14% to have considerable impact. In terms of who benefits from the tourism, majority of respondents consider that most of the people (31%) or everyone (53%)(awareness program from 1993 which goal was to increase awareness of importance of tourism can be considered success)(Rosalie, M., 2002). Considering that in beginning of tourism there was almost no prostitution on the island, and in 1998 45% of the respondents replied that tourism might have increased prostitution we can see that over the years there was some impact on culture or moral values.
19
6.2 Case Study 2: Mauritius
Republic of Mauritius is small country located 2000 km east of Zanzibar. Island has more the 1.2 million inhabitants The main language English even though most of the population speaks Créole and French are also official languages. Most Seychellois are Hindu (48%) followed by Christians 33% and Islam 17%.
Economy before tourism development Up until late 1960s Mauritius was sugar cane dominated economy. From 1950 to 1970, on average, sugar cane was responsible for 35% of GDP, 97% of exports and 50% of employment. With stagnating economy, population growing at 3% per year the country had bleak prospects for growth of economy and employment. It was recommended that the manufacturing was promoted, however the small scale of domestic market, lack of financial institutions and technological knowhow presented a challenge to large scale manufacturing venture. The government initiated some new industrial activities through a series of incentives, but the growth and employment generated by such strategy was insufficient. (Durbarry 2002). After the political independence in 1968, the new Mauritian government was determined to bring country to prosperity. It abandoned the failed import substitution strategy, and in 1970 introduced two changes to the economy.
• Export Processing Zone – this zone was primarily set up to absorb high levels of unemployment. It focused on labor intensive productions like textiles
• Tourism development
Tourism on Mauritius Tourism on Mauritius was developing quite rapidly, during first three years the room capacity grew from 486 in 1970 to 1881 in 1976. The tourist arrivals which were only around only around 27,000 in 1970, exceeded 110,000 in 1980, reached 650,000 by 2000, to current levels where almost one million people came to Mauritius in 2013.
The Mauritius government was from beginning trying to focus on sustainable development and its impact on people therefore during 80s they were discussing setting the ceiling on 350,000 tourist arrivals by the year 2000 in an attempt to maintain a proper balance between the local population and tourists. (Debbage 1990) However, this level of tourist arrivals was exceeded already by year 1993. Tourism which was from the beginning trying to be developed in a sustainable way is now full blown mass tourism where there is almost one tourist arrival per capita.
32%
27%
24%
8% 5% 4%
Employment on Mauri[us Services (except
hospitality Government
Manufacturing
Hospitality
ConstrucQon
Agriculture
20
Current Mauritius This case shows that even with huge number of tourists arrivals country cannot be sorely dependent on tourism. Other significant parts of the economy are manufacturing and financial services. Services (74%) and industry (22%) are the main contributor to GDP and only 4% is received from the agriculture sector. sector. (CIA Factbook 2014).
The employment on Mauritius is diversified. As can be seen on figure XY, most of the employment comes from services. Even with current level of tourism only 8% of people work directly in accommodation or food services.
If case of Mauritius is compared with Seychelles where the tourism was developed with slower rate, more sustainably; it is interesting to see how many tourists come per one person working in hospitality sector.
In 2014 in Seychelles, 8,830 people worked in in accommodation and food service activities reached 230272 (Seychelles Statistical Office 2014). This is 26 tourist arrivals per one job in accommodation and food services.
Compared to Mauritius, where in 2013 in accommodation and food services worked 24,710 people (Mauritius Statistical office) and tourism arrivals reached 993,106 (Mauritius statistical Office). In Mauritius the number of tourists coming to country divided by number of employees is considerably higher, more than 40 tourists arrivals per one job.
6.3 Case Study 3: Maldives The Republic of Maldives is a small country located southwest of India and consists of 1,190 coral islands. In 2012 approximately 393,500 inhabitants lived on the 194 inhabited islands of which 35% of the population is located in the capital Island Mahe. Moreover, less than 1,000 people lived on 68% of the island. (Shakeela, Ruhanen & Breakey, 2011)
Historical Background The Maldives has always been an independent political entity with the exception of a 15 year Portuguese occupation from 1558 to 1573. In 1887, the Maldives became a protectorate of the British government, during which the Maldives maintained all internal control and decision making while the British government was responsible for defense and foreign relations. After 1965 the sovereignty of Maldives was recognized and it was no longer a British protectorate (Sathiendrakumar & Tisdell, 1989).
Tourism development Tourism in Maldives started in the 1970s. In 1972, two resorts with a total capacity of 280 beds were opened and 1000 international tourists arrived. By 1982 the bed capacity had risen to 4,000 with 74,411 tourists arrivals. Over the next ten year the bed capacity more than doubled to 8,487
Figure 4: Employment on Mauritius
21
and tourism arrivals increased to 236,000. Up until 2005, before the tsunami stuck the Maldives, tourism arrivals on Maldives were growing on average by 17% annually to 620,000 in 2004.
All these developments were under “one island one resort” policy introduced in 1980s. The goal of this policy was to limit the socio-‐cultural impact on the people of Maldives, so resort developments were only allowed on uninhabited islands. All resorts were self-‐contained with their own generators, telecommunication systems, water desalination plants, sewage treatment systems and other essential requirements (Shakeela, A., Ruhanen, L,. Breakey, N., 2011). This type of development was able to reduce some of the sociocultural aspects seen elsewhere. For example, prostitution did not occur and demonstration effects of tourism consumption patterns were very limited (Sathiendrakumar, R., Tisdell, C., 1989). Up until 1978 all resorts were government-‐owned, but from 1978 onwards development of private commercial enterprises started providing working and equity capital for tourism. Although, local investors frequently solicited foreign investment, profit remittances by foreign investors were uncontrolled (Sathiendrakumar, R., Tisdell, C., 1989). In 2000 resorts were owned mostly owned by locals, with 58.6% of the capacity operated by local companies and 30.9% by foreign and 10.5% by joint venture. (Shakeela, A., Ruhanen, L,. Breakey, N., 2011)
These types of developments limited not only the socio-‐cultural impacts but also the benefits from tourism development for local people. It is estimated that approximately 53% of the tourism workforce is comprised of expatriates due to the lack of skilled and educated local people. In 2006 study results indicated that managerial positions were in 59% cases filled by expatriates and just over half of the supervisory level positions were also staffed by expatriates (MTCA, 2008). The functional or front-‐line positions were only in 57% staffed by local employees. In addition to this, there are major income disparities between local and expatriate employees’ income levels. On managerial and administrative positions expatriate employees receive US$1,400 while local employees only earn US$800. Similarly clinic/health center positions of a resort where expatriate receives salary US$700 while local employee receives only US$200 (Shakeela, Ruhanen & Breakey 2011). Employing expats not only increases income disparity but also limits the trickle down effect into local communities as neither knowledge nor experience is gained. The income is not spend in the local economy and tourism multiplication effect is due to these leakages not reaching levels it would otherwise be able to reach.
The Maldives after 2008. Tourism is the main economic activity for the Maldives. It contributes to 29% of GDP and generates 70% of foreign exchange. Therefore, the government is highly dependent on tourism income and the sector as a whole. This dependency was probably motivation for introducing changes in 2008 when the new tourism master plan came into law. The main change was that now law allows hotels and guest houses to be established on all inhabited islands. Parts of the changes were announced public tendering for lease and resort development of eight uninhabited islands. This is rapid development, in 2009 there was 97 resorts registered with below 21,000 beds and in 2010 there
22
were already 72 new resorts being developed with bed capacity of nearly 11,000 beds. (Shakeela, Ruhanen & Breakey 2011). What will be the sociocultural impact is hard to estimate now, but as could be seen on case of Seychelles, rapid development brings lots of negatives. Economic impact will be significant, however in order to maximize it there is need to be sure that local people will benefit from this employment opportunities more that it was the case.
7. Indicator analyses For the indicator analyses the three main categories of socio-‐demographic, political-‐economic and physical-‐ecological were further divided into themes, subthemes and finally indicators. The respective subsections were given weights based on a regression analysis of sensitive factors. Due to the limitation of data availability the initial draft of indicators was modified throughout the data gathering process to measure similar impacts. Appendix 2 can be consulted for further details on the indicators in each section and the respective scores for each of the four categories.
The analyses of the indicators has shown that the four regions scores are above average but not significantly. As such the sustainability on Pemba is, as of 2014, not sufficient. Especially, Mkoani and Wete scored lower than the Chake Chake and Micheweni. During the course of this study, various initiatives were mentioned during the interviews which shows that the current sustainability level could be improved due to the efforts made by the private and the public sector. In order to allow for a comprehensive study the focus of explanations will be on the critical indicators that could be identified and their impact on the native population and how they may change due to increased and more developed tourism.
Based on the list of indicators and their scoring system the following shortcomings were identified: waste disposal, water supply and reach of electricity net. All of these had a score between 0 and 0.4, which substituted the rage of very bad (0-‐0.2) to bad (0.21-‐0.4).
Waste disposal: Currently the waste disposal on Pemba is decentralized and handled by the municipalities. However, due to wide distribution of responsibilities and very little cooperation between single municipalities it is not efficient and was mentioned repeatedly during various surveys as a main issue. Around the world waste disposal is managed on a bigger more centralized scale, which allows for economies of scale and scope in order to negate environmental impacts and lower costs. As this is not the case on Pemba municipalities seem currently not able to keep up with the generated waste (be it liquid or solid). Burning garbage is one of the most common forms of waste management across all four districts. Due to the type of trash (e.g. plastic) air pollution will become an issue that is difficult to reverse. Moreover, the lack of a sanitation system multiplies the environmental pollution generated by the population, which is already apparent but not considered a dramatic issue due to the size of the population. If tourism increases however, it will become an urgent issue that the current system will not be able to handle. Another issue associated with waste disposal is monitoring, as hotel facilities and municipalities are required to minimize impacts i.e.
23
through incinerators. However, as the procedures are not monitored by the government and incentives are not put upon responsible processes the results are a slow progress towards being sustainable.
Water supply: The lack of clean drinking water, especially during dry season, is another main issue. According to the gathered data there is a significant overconsumption of water which the island cannot handle. The estimated shortages are six million liters per year in North Pemba and seven million liters in South Pemba. This is based on a water supply of 17 million liters and 21 million liters in North and South Pemba respectively. This issue is the most crucial to handle before more tourism can be developed as tourists have a higher consumption of water.
Electricity: The evaluation of the electricity grid is two fold. On the one hand the capacity and its level of usage was considered and on the other hand the reach of the electricity grid. Considering the former at the current stage only 45.5% of the current capacity of 20MV is used during peak times. On average 35% is used. The biggest consumers are high-‐end hotels with an average need of 0.1% of total capacity, which states that hotel development is not limited through the maximum capacity. Current jumps in the electricity voltage increase with distance to the center as such cause significant inconvience. However, the current reach of the electricity grid covers 74% of Pemba with no specific plans to extend the cable network. Especially, in regards to the dedicated tourism zones this is not sufficient, as it does not cover those areas. Thus, hotel development is limited through the reach and quality but not capacity of the electricity grid.
Structured interviews were conducted with a variety of government officials from different offices and departments. Based on these interviews and the previous forms of data gathering additional crucial indicators were identified.
Land plot availability: According to information from ZIPA land plots are being dedicated to tourism that lies outside the dedicated tourism zones. Moreover, there is no incentive to start construction as soon as the permission is granted. This has lead to many land plots being bought and reserved for tourism establishments that are now used for land speculation. As such the reviewing process and again monitoring fails to ensure sustainable development and even hinders the availability of land for sustainable investors as the best spots are taken by speculators.
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA): Although a EIA is required for each hotel on Pemba there is a lack of monitoring the efforts being done by the management to conform with the surveys. As such especially environmental impacts are higher than expected by ZIPA.
Management of tourism facilities: The maximum bed occupancy of 35% has shown that better management of all tourism establishments on Pemba Island can lead to more potential tourists without putting an additional strain on the environment through construction of new resorts and hotels. Concerning managerial recommendations for tourism facilities five actions are crucial in
24
increasing standards of living for local communities through nature based tourism according to Job and Paesler ( 2013, p.18):
• “Focus on a close relationship with the local population and participatory development of management options
• Install fair institutional arrangements • Facilitate the opportunities of nature-‐based tourism with essential training in business skills,
guiding and production of local goods and handicraft • Encourage community members to avoid a total dependence on nature-‐based tourism by
maintaining a subsistence economy for times of crisis • Communicate that locally embedded tourism development takes time and is unlikely to
improve local economy immediately”
Use of natural resources: Although neither exact size of current forests on Pemba were not available from the Forestry Department nor the deforestation rate were available, interviews with government officials and other indicators show the following:
• High demand for traditional fuels from the population put stress on natural resources (esp. forests) on Pemba
• Only limited preserved areas have been allocated (Ngezi Forest) • Special areas for lime and rock mining have been identified that currently exceed local
demand and thus could be used for building hotels with traditional materials • Wood imports are necessary but expensive and try to be limited through governmental tree
schools and community forests
As such supplying the tourism industry in a sustainable manner with local building materials is only sustainable in a small and slow manner.
8. Surveys As described in the methodology part four surveys were conducted during the course of the Kwanini Carrying Capacity Study. This chapter describes the layout of each survey and how they were carried out. Then a brief description of the findings follows, beginning with a demographic profile and continued with brief outlines of each section’s answers. Each survey description concludes with an analysis of the findings and how they are relevant to the Kwanini Carrying Capacity Study.
8.1 Visitor exit survey The aim of the visitors exit survey is to better understand what type of tourists visit Pemba, their motivation or purpose of the visit, their behavior during their stay on the island and how and their most and least enjoyed factors. The Pemba visitor survey consists of 26 questions and were aimed to gather qualitative and quantitative data in the following five sections:
25
• Section A, where information about the trip are asked; • Section B, where perception of crowding and importance of local aspect is explored; • Section C, where favorite activities, likes and dislikes as well as satisfaction levels and
expectations are surveyed; • Section D is demographic information • Final section the respondent could add comment or suggestion to the survey.
The target group was defined as all tourists leaving Pemba Island during the survey period (August, 13th to 16th 2014). The surveys were conducted in the departure lounge of the airport in cooperation with the Zanzibar Airport Authority (ZAA). Ultimately, 104 tourists departed at Pemba airport during these four days of surveying and 93 were willing to answer the questionnaire, which leads to an overall response rate of 89%.
Sample profile The respondents profile indicated that the sample was slightly biased towards females (60%). The most common countries of residence were Italy (34%), France (21%) and the UK (17%). This composition of the sample is similar compared to official visitor arrivals data for previous years. The share of Italians in sample is slightly higher and responses from US/Canada or Scandinavia are slightly lower than compared previous years. The majority of international visitors (55%) who responded to the survey are between 25 and 44 years old.
The main reason visitors came to Pemba for was relaxation (43%). Followed by diving (20%), culture (16%) and honeymoon (11%). The main reasons for choosing Pemba as a holiday destination were peacefulness (27%), beach (26%), coral reef (15%) uniqueness (11%) and weather (11%).
Visitors learned about Pemba as a holiday spot through travel agent (42%), internet sites (21%), word of mouth (15%), Tripadvisor (9%) and social media (5%). Of the surveyed visitors, 63% booked their trip to Pemba through a travel agency, while more than a quarter of respondents booked their trip directly with the resort (26%). More than a half of respondents booked their trip less than a month (31%) or one to three months (20%) before the trip. One third of visitors book their trip four to six months in advance (33%). For the large majority (82%) of visitors visiting Pemba was incorporated into their travel itinerary to different places, such as Zanzibar (41%), Selous safari (18%), Serengeti safari (8%), Tanzania national parks (7%), or Mafia, Safari or Ngorongoro crater with 5% each.
The majority of visitors (88%) stayed between two to seven nights in Pemba, with an average nights spend of 4.7. Of the questioned people, 43% spend on their trip on Pemba less than a 1100 USD. 20 % of people spend more than a 4001 USD on the trip. Most surveyed visitors came to Pemba Island for the first time (97%).
26
Activities Snorkeling is among the favorite activates on Pemba, with 18% of the visitors enjoying the activity. Other popular activities enjoyed by visitors were diving (10%), village visit (9%), closely followed by beach (8%), relaxing (8%) and Ngezi forest visit (7%). Of the surveyed visitors, 19% appreciated the most the local people and their hospitality, the conditions for snorkeling and diving (15%), peacefulness of the Pemba Island, hotel where they stayed (12%) or unspoiled nature (11%)
To the question, what do they like the least about the Pemba, 43% of respondents replied nothing. 11% did not like the beach, which they considered limited or busy, equally 8% did not like the airport & flights or limited shopping on Pemba.
Perceptions and Satisfaction levels Majority of visitors didn’t feel crowded in hotel and its facilities. Highest perceptions of crowding were on excursions (12% high and 4% very high) and beach (6% high and 9% very high). 78% considered value for money for hotel accommodation to me medium or above. The highest level of satisfaction was with excursions, where 88% of respondents consider value for money medium or higher. The majority of visitors responded that their level of satisfaction with all aspect of the hotel were either high (average 28%) or very high (average 34%).
Visitors were mostly happy with service quality of hotel transfers. Their level of satisfaction was high (average 35%) or very high (average 26%) Level of satisfaction with airport facilities was considerably lower compared to hotel or hotel transfer levels. On average, just 20% of people considered level of satisfaction to be high and 7% considered it to be very high.
Expectations An overwhelming majority of international visitors (95%) stated that the holiday met (61%) or exceeded (34%) their expectations. The rest felt that the holiday did not meet their expectations. Those visitors came from Zanzibar for culture (75%) or relaxation (25%) and booked their trip through travel agent (75%). Their main concerns were that on Pemba are limited shopping opportunities, lack of information and info points and expectations which were set by travel agent described different picture of Pemba. Majority of the surveyed visitors want to return to Pemba (60%).
Analysis of Tourism segments The visitors’ data was segmented into three categories. The visitors who stayed in hotels where they spend less than 100 USD per night, the visitors who stayed in hotels and spend more than 100 USD but less than 200 USD per night and visitors who spend more than 200 per night.
Tourists who spend below $100 USD per/ night Sample of this segment of visitors consisted of 32 people. Their main reasons for travel were relaxation (41%) and culture (41%). Majority of them was below 44 years, (25-‐34 years (50%) 35-‐44 years (25%)). Their average length of stay was 2.7 days. For majority of them did not spend their
27
entire vacation on Pemba (78%) most frequent other stop on the trip was Zanzibar (79%). They chose Pemba for its beaches (36%), peacefulness (25%) or weather (11%). Their main activities were snorkeling (24%), visit of Ngezi forest (21%), beach (15%) and trip to Northern Pemba (7%) or Misali Island (7%). What they liked the most about the Pemba island was beach (35%), hospitality of local people (20%), forest (17%) and peacefulness (7%). That they did not like about Pemba was limited shopping (13%), limited hotels and restaurants (13%) and limited or busy beaches (10%).
Tourists who spend between $100 USD and $200 USD/night Sample of this segment of visitors was of 10 people. Their main reasons for visit were diving (40%) or relaxation (30%). Majority of them was below 44 years old, (18-‐24 years (20%) 25-‐34 years (20%), 35-‐44 years (30%)). Average length of stay of this segment of visitors was 4.7 days. All of them did not spend their entire vacation on Pemba and most frequent stops on their trip were Zanzibar (40%) or safari (40%). They chose Pemba for its peacefulness (25%), beaches (25%) or coral reef (20%). Their main activities were snorkeling (21%), kayaking (14%), beach (10%), diving (10%) and local food (10%). What they liked the most about Pemba was locals and their hospitality (16%), peacefulness (16%), beauty of ocean for diving and snorkeling (16%) and unspoiled nature (10%). That they liked the least about Pemba was poverty (20%) criminality (20%), lack of souvenirs (10%) and behavior of other tourists (10%).
Tourists who spend above $200 USD/night Sample of this segment of tourists was of 47 people. Their main reason for visit was relaxation (49%), diving (28%) and honeymoon (21%). The biggest age groups in this segments were 25 to 34 years (32%) and 45 to 64 (47%). Average length of stat of visitors from this segment was 6.3 days. Majority of them did not spend their entire trip on Pemba. Their other stops were Selous (27%), Zanzibar (23%), Serengeti (15%) and Ngorogoro (10%). They chose Pemba for its peacefulness (26%), beach (17%), coral reefs (16%) and uniqueness (13%). The main activities were snorkeling (33%), diving (15%), trip to Ngezi forest (13%), and relaxing (11%). That they liked the most about Pemba was the beauty of ocean for diving and snorkeling (19%), local people and their hospitality (17%), hotel where they stayed (17%) unspoiled nature (16%) and peacefulness of Pemba (13%). What they liked the least about Pemba was limited or busy beach (12%), airport and local flights (12%), hotel where they stayed (8%) and Muslim culture (8%).
In conclusion, tourists who spend less than 100 USD per night tend to come for few days of their trip to Zanzibar. They come to Pemba to get to know the culture, stay in urban areas where these hotels are located. They are budget conscious; shop in local shops and interact with locals on their own.
However, tourists who spend more than 100 USD per night tend to come for longer period of time as part of their trip usually to the mainland. They are not so concerned about money, choose more expensive activities like diving and appreciate what Pemba has to offer.
28
8.2 Hotel management survey The goal of this survey is to better understand how different hotels work, what are their challenges, and who do they employ. A survey consisting of both qualitative and quantitative questions was designed to collect the needed information. The hotel management survey consists of 53 questions divided into the following nine sections:
• Hotel vision (where the profile of facility was specified; • Guests, where quantitative and qualitative data was collected to profile the type and quantity
of quests; • Employees, where demography as well as employees training and challenges when hiring
employees were collected; • Tourism development, where perceptions in changes in environment and areas on which
areas should improve to realize better tourism potential are asked; • Local supplies, where sourcing of supplies and challenges connected to that are asked, • Resources, where data about equipment as well as consumption of resources is collected; • Transport, where type of transport hotels provide to guests is specified; • Cooperation, where cooperation between the facility and other tourism facilities,
government agencies and local communities is surveyed and • Final sections, where the respondent could add comment or suggestion to the survey.
The target population for this study was defined as hotel of all operating tourism facilities on Pemba Island. The official list of facilities was provided by Commission of Tourism, and crosschecked with list of facilities paying taxes or hotel levy payment provided by Zanzibar Revenue Board. After further research, 17 operating hotel facilities were identified on the island. A cover letter and the survey were delivered to all facilities.
Surveys were returned by 12 hotels; two (100%) of high class facility type returned filled survey, two (100%) of middle class facilities type responded and eight (66%) of the basic class facility type returned the survey. Overall the response rate was 65%, which is an adequate response rate for this study, given that the target population had time constrains due to peak season when data was collected. However, as most of the surveys were only partially filled out and the low number of hotels on Pemba the results may indicate trends but are not sufficient proof for concrete conclusions.
One of the most positive results from the hotel management survey is that most hotels do have a strategy in place for their business. However, the visions are not all in line with the current tourism plan. As such this shows a need for a realignment of interests between all tourism establishments. The following visions are currently implemented on Pemba:
• Improve tourism business in Zanzibar, especially Pemba Island, the untouched natural ecological environment
29
• To be the best resort of its kind in East Africa. To keep an African feel and the village community in tact. To look after the environment, health and education of our local community. To help the community to be "self sufficient”
• To be the best bed and breakfast hotel • We aim to educate and accommodate our guests celebrating Pemba Island • To develop income as an investment economy. To derive general employment for residents
to generate good income workers and to improve standard of hotel facilities in the country. • At the end we will close • To expand the project • Economic development of the country • To be the hotel that everyone liked to work and come for holiday or business • To increase facilities. To attract the number of guests. • To be the premier destination for tourists seeking a beach in an establishment focused on the
island community, environment and company governance in a sustainable manner. Refer to the values of resort investors.
Concerning the level of luxury the distribution was as follows: Very low (0%), low (17%), average (58%), high (8%) and very high (17%). Surprisingly both hotel establishments that responded with having a low level of luxury also stated that they are not trying to increase their luxury level. This indicates that there needs to be another focus on communicated the tourism strategy so that all hotel’s interests are in line and strive towards high-‐end tourism. Moreover, almost 42% of all hotels are planning to increase their bed number in the next two years.
3 out of 12 hotels responded that their main target visitors are businessmen and as such do not strive towards international tourism guidelines. As this constitutes a considerable amount of current hotels future tourism strategies must also include hotels that cater to local guests or businessmen as previous tourism plans have not taken this segment into account.
All of the high-‐end tourism establishments are in need for local skilled labor in all departments. Furthermore, 58% of hotels answered that they cannot find local skilled labor. The most common missing skills that are required by the tourism industry are: trained kitchen staff, English knowledge, hotel management experience as well as basic knowledge and skills.
Concerning the involvement with local communities 50% stated their interaction was very high compared to high (40%) and average (10%). Named positive impacts were creating demand for local products especially fish as well as employment opportunities, schools and clean water.
The most pressing issues that need to be addressed according to the hotel managements are waste collection and management followed by protection and conservation of plants and animals and improvement of electricity grid.
30
8.3 Hotel staff survey The aim of the hotel staff survey is to understand hotel employees’ living standards as well as their background and attitude towards tourism. The survey consists of 28 qualitative and quantitative questions, which were distributed across five sections: employment history, culture, perception (cultural and environmental), demographic information and additional comments.
The survey’s target population was defined as all hotel employees of facilities operating on Pemba Island in order to ensure that all establishments would be represented even in case of lower response rates. This was especially important as certain facilities employed a minimum of two people. Each of the 17 facilities was contacted to identify their employee number, which amounted to a total of 299 Moreover, to facilitate a higher response rate and ease the understanding the survey was translated into Swahili and distributed. 14 tourism facilities returned 135 staff surveys, which were then translated back into English. This leads to a total response rate of 45%, which given the time and mobility constraints was deemed appropriate. Especially the diversity of hotels and departments who returned the surveys give a solid basis for this chapter.
Sample profile The respondent’s profile indicated mostly male (73%) work in hotels. The age demographic was clustered mainly around 18 to 34 years old (54%). Furthermore while 43% completed secondary school an additional 36% of hotel work force stated primary school as their achieved level of education. About 80% of the workforce is from Zanzibar with a slight majority of Pemba locals (57% of total). The residence of hotel staff is distributed across all four districts: Chake Chake (29%), Wete (9%), Mkoani (29%) and Micheweni (32%).
Section A: Employment history About 60% of respondents started working in the tourism sector during the last four years. The majority of respondents did not have any previous hotel work experience (77%) and mainly received training in a hotel (41%), no training (11%) or taught themselves (7%). The three most common jobs for men are housekeeping, waiter and security while women are mainly employed in housekeeping, kitchen and as a waitress. In regards to income spending it has leakages back into the local community as most is spend on food (33%), sent to family (17%) and clothing (12%).Most employees (77%) are happy working in a hotel (77%) due to salary (41%) and a work respectful environment (17%). About 21% dislike their work with crucial reasons being bad working environment, loss of culture and delay in salary payments.
Motivations for working in a hotel range from salary (31%) over employment opportunity (29%) to enjoyment of tourism related work (9%). Alternatives to working in a hotel are mainly farmers (30%), businessman (27%), fisherman (7%) or anything legal (7%).
Section B: Culture More than a half of respondents consider their level of interaction to be average (53%), more then a quarter consider their level of interaction high (23%) and very high (7%) and only the minority
31
(15%) of respondents consider it to be low or very low. The majority of respondents believe that they taught guests local culture, traditions or language (62%) or good behavior (13%). When answering the question what did you learned from guests, most frequent answers were guests’ language (54%) or generosity (6%).
Working in the hotel industry has changed the life of approximately 66%. Reasons for change included salary / income (38%) and adaptation to guests’ culture (15%). It has not changed the life of 32% mainly due to low salary (36%) or because respondents are consciously separating personal from work (24%).
Section C: Perception The vast majority considers tourism for Pemba to be good (92%) with main benefits being considered more employment (47%), development (15%) and foreign money (10%). Of the people that consider tourism as a negative impact 44 % name loss of Pemba culture as the main contributor. If there should be more hotels, the most frequent replies were that there will be more employment (28%), Pemba will change (24%), loss of Pemba culture (12%) and development (8%).
Most of the respondents like about Pemba its peace and politeness (39%), nature (14%) and tourism (11%). Crime and violence (15%), nothing (9%) and homosexuals (8%) were named as the worst thing about Pemba. Responses on question “How do you think the following things have
changed in
the last
three years?” are showed on Figure 5.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Water polluQon Air polluQon
Li`ering Traffic Noise
DeforestaQon Coral reef health Number of fish
Crime CorrupQon
Price of water Price of electricity
Price of food
Much worse
Worse
Same
Be`er
Much be`er
Not stated
Figure 5: Perception of Change in Issues
32
Standard of Living Majority of people walk to work (49%) or use Daladala (17%). Most of people have water from Zawa (72%) and electricity form ZECO (45%), while 53% have no electricity in their homes. On the question what do you do with your garbage, most of the respondents replied that they burn their garbage (53%), bring it to landfill (22%) or bury it (13%).
8.4 Local community leader survey A survey consisting of qualitative and quantitative questions was designed to collect the required data from local community leaders. This questionnaire contains 29 questions and is divided into four sections. These are employment, culture and perception, demographic data and additional comments.
The target population for this study was defined as local communities’ leaders (Sheha) in all local communities (Shehia) of Pemba Island. The official list of Shehias was provided by OCGS Pemba and consists of 121 Shehias. With help of Commission of Tourism and Tourism District Committees a cover letter and the surveys were delivered to all Shehia of Pemba island. Surveys were distributed in districts in following counts: Chake Chake 29 surveys, Micheweni 27 surveys, Mkoani 33 surveys, Wete 32 surveys.
In total 53 (partially) completed responses were collected: 29 responses from Chake Chake (100%), 24 responses from Micheweni (89%), 0 from Mkoani, and 0 from Wete. The overall response rate was 44%. Data collection from Wete and Mkoani was unsuccessful due to time and mobility constraints of the target respondents. The response rate was very high in both collected regions and as both administrative regions of Pemba were represented (North and South Pemba) it was decided to declare the sample valuable for insights into the local community leader mindsets. Moreover, the responses did not differ significantly although Chake Chake and Micheweni showed variations in the indicator analyses. As such although the response rate is not as high as expected the local community leader’s survey continues to give an insight into the mindset, standard of living and attitude towards tourism of local communities.
Tourism exposure and interaction 92% of local community leaders would accept work in the tourism industry. Out of the positive respondents 26% would engage in trade while 23% would like to act as guides and 7% are interested in welcoming tourists personally to Pemba. Reasons for decline of tourism work were age, loss of culture and the perception of the tourism industry as “ugly”.
98% of respondents answered that their community would be willing to trade with hotels. While the remaining 2% stated they would not want to trade because tourism is putting income into foreign markets and back into the local communities. Out of the 98% of communities willing to trade the most named items were: traditional handcrafts, e.g. baskets, mats (41%), vegetables and fruits (13%), fish and seafood (13%) and furniture (7%).
33
One of the most significant questions in this survey was the perception of tourism in the local communities. 85% of respondents answered that tourism is good for Pemba. Only one respondent who answered “No” gave an explanation, which was the tourism is not good for Pemba, because the current tourism state is not good. Out of the explanations why tourism is good for Pemba was employment (40%), foreign money for development (31%) and promotion of Tanzania or Zanzibar (6%).
When asked if one of their family members work in the tourism industry 68% answered no, while 28% said yes. Furthermore, in regards to tourism exposure 40% of respondents said they have not seen any tourists in the last month and 21% stated they have seen more than 30 tourists in the last month. Between 1 and 10 tourists were seen by 19%, 11 to 20 tourists by 6% and 14% saw 21 to 30 tourists last month.
Employment was also the most given answer (13%) to the question of what would happen if there are more hotels on Pemba. Responses were spread out across various topics but loss of culture (9%), more income (7%) and less poverty (8%) were also common answers.
62% of respondents stated that they would like to have a hotel in their Shehia, while only 15% were against it. The reasons for wanting a hotel in close proximity were local employment (28%) as well as income and development (4%). Negative answers focused on loss of culture (9%) as well as the village being too small (2%) for tourism. However, this question was not answered by 40% and as such may not give a full account of the reasons for (not) wanting a hotel in the area of the local community.
Best and worst of Pemba Respondents stated that the best things to see on Pemba are the environment and wildlife (36%), peace and politeness (26%) and Pemba culture (21%). Another common mention by 6% was the museum and historical sites as the best thing to see on Pemba for tourists. On the other hand 56% of respondents stated they would not like tourists to see crimes and conflict. Followed by loss of culture (9%), environmental pollution (6%) and prostitution (4%).
When asked what community leaders liked the most about Pemba 60% answered peace and politeness followed by small scale tourism (8%) and farming (4%). The question what was perceived as the least liked on Pemba 41% of community leaders did not answer. However, 19% stated that there was not enough tourism on Pemba. Followed by 9% that answered politics. In contrast to the 19% answer of not enough tourism 8% stated that they liked the least about Pemba that there are too many tourists. Lack of peace was answered by 6% of survey respondents.
Resource usage and demand As water was one of the crucial indicators identified by the indicator analyses questions about water were asked to confirm literature findings. First, respondents were asked to rate the water quality on a scale of very low to very high. Answers ranged across all five segments with the
34
following distribution: very low (23%), low (17%), average (43%), high (9%) and very high (2%). 85% of local community receive their water directly from ZAWA. Lastly, it was asked whether a water problem exists in the community and if yes which one. 55% stated lack of water and 4% contaminated water as issues and no water problem was answered by 32%.
Electricity was another critical issue and thus the reach of the electricity grid and the connectivity of communities were inquired. 58% of community leaders have electricity in their home and all Shehas that have electricity in their home receive it from ZECO.
Concerning waste management the survey indicates that the burning of garbage is the primary way to deal with waste disposal by 45% of communities. Other means are to bury it and in 17% of surveys a landfill was mentioned as a burying ground. Only 2% of communities stated that the municipality is actively managing the garbage disposal.
Issues in the community Unemployment was mentioned by 38% of respondents as the primary cause for poverty in the community. Other answers included poor farming equipment (15%), low education level (11%) and weak economic base due to lack of capital (9%). In addition to the primary cause for poverty community leaders were asked what the biggest issue in their community is. Answers were very similar to the questions concerning cause of poverty, which indicates the significance of poverty for many communities and their connectedness across community issues. Lack of employment opportunities was the most common answer (32%), followed by poor farming and fishing equipment (23%), lack of clean water (13%) and poor means of transport (11%).
Concerning combating these issues and to raise the standard of living in the Shehias the most mentioned factors were employment (28%), modern farming equipment (16%), livestock (8%), fishing tools (7%) and investments (7%).
Demographic data 75% of respondents were male, 17% female and 8% declined to answer this question. For age groups between 50-‐59 was the most common (34%), followed by 60-‐69 (245) and 40-‐49 years (21%).
Concerning education levels, 47% finished primary school, while 42 % finished secondary school. When segmented into male education the number of men who “only” finished primary schooling is slightly higher with 62%. This is in contrasts to the female survey respondents who all finished secondary school.
35
9. Discussion During the course of the study certain issues repeatedly showed up throughout the various analyses. Although the issues are current and urgent there are various ways of managerial and governmental intervention to minimize the impacts:
Water supply: According to estimates three tourists consumer the same amount of water needed to cultivate a rice field for a year. This statistic shows the high water demand for tourists that could be used in different areas to combat important issues such as hunger and poverty. Tourism is an important source of income for many citizens if the tourism industry on Pemba is based on sustainable and local labor. In order to overcome the issue of water shortages alternative sources to groundwater need to be used. Feasible ideas include desalination plants as well as rainwater harvesting. Concerning rainwater harvesting the advantages are manifold. On Pemba rainfall accumulates to approximately 1.5km3 per annum but current harvesting is used for only 1% of rainfall. The rest of the rainfall acts as follows: run-‐off accounts for 24%, 7% seeps into groundwater and 40% for evapotranspiration. Three primary ways can be utilized to take advantage of rainwater. These are enhancing groundwater, capturing runoff and collecting rainfall in-‐site.
Monitoring: Monitoring and incentivizing sustainable self-‐governance policies should be a focus for the future implementation of governmental strategies, which are not only limited on tourism plans. As monitoring is costly and takes up crucial resources, especially time, money and labor, this process step has been neglected throughout the past years. During the data gathering process it has become apparent that the current status of many aspects was unknown to responsible persons and official documentation or estimates were hard to find. Monitoring is a crucial step of every strategy and as such there needs to be a focus on finding sustainable investors that do not require as much monitoring and policies that incentivize good governance behavior. Thus monitoring is another aspects that could be better utilized in a high-‐end tourism environment. As mentioned in the As mentioned in the Zanzibar Tourism Master Plan monitoring and measuring the economic impact of tourists is not possible due to
• Tax revenue is collected under a hotel levy and VAT depending on the size of hotel • Lack of transparency it is hard to follow tourist’s spending (especially for potential
investors) • Other direct and indirect sources of foreign money cannot be tracked
As such a tourism umbrella account might be a feasible solution for the future as this has been a successful concept throughout worldwide tourism destinations. As this umbrella accounts tracks all tourism spending it would take time to set up but would streamline future monitoring and planning activities.
36
Brand positioning: As stated above in the current tourism segmentation, the potential for Pemba to position itself apart from Zanzibar as an high-‐end tourism segmentation is very high. Due to its relative short tourism period tourists’ opinion and perceptions can still be formed and influenced, now easier than later after Pemba becomes more established. Especially, in the beach segment there is a potential to establish Pemba in a unique and exclusive spot apart from other destinations in order to not get lost in the clutter but become recognizable. In order to define a good branding it is crucial to define the core characteristics and competitive identity of Pemba. S
Especially small business control and profit from strong destination branding as they lack the incentive to promote their own reputation (also apparent in the management survey) and thus their strong dependence on destination branding. However, small business can control the brand significantly through their visitor’s experience. Thus, they need to be willing and able to promote businesses that contribute to and represent the brand positively. So it is crucial that destination brand is strong, recognizable and unique.
Infrastructure: According to the hotel management survey and the staff survey transportation is an issue on Pemba. Although the road conditions are rated as average the network of transportation is lacking. As such the current state could not handle a steep increase in tourism numbers. At the current stage there still needs to be potholes filled, maintenance and grading. However, mass tourism would also need wider roads and a proper bus network up to international standards to satisfy the demands of tourists. Moreover, the increase in traffic would also lead to the need of better road signage and traffic lights. Moreover based on the visitor survey there is a need to upgrade airport facilities for more comfort, information and signage as well as snack points in order to round off the visits.
Drivers of positive change: Especially the common tourist area, the protected Ngezi forest has made smart changes that not only preserve the environment but also impact social and economic factors positively. Firstly, only allowing guided tours allows tourist education while at the same time having a reason to charge fees and avoid tourist environmental impact through wrongful behavior in the forest. Secondly, price discrimination policies enable local communities to use the forest while at the same time charging reasonable but higher fees for non-‐locals and foreigner.
Total employment: Based on the hotel management survey possible employment opportunities were identified. According to the survey analyses high-‐end facilities on Pemba employ on average 5.01 staff members per room, while low-‐end establishments employ 0.67 staff member per room (with the minimum ratio being 0.22). Thus high-‐end facilities employ on average eight times as many employees as low-‐end are the better option in terms of creating the maximum numbers employment opportunities per tourists.
Tourism as local employment opportunity: Across all surveys the hope for local employment opportunities in the tourism industry has been voiced. However, based on the hotel management survey there are many difficulties in finding local skilled labor. As such although there is a
37
connection between the local communities and the hotels the link cannot be fully utilized due to this lack of tourism-‐related skills in the local population. As such before more hotels are established there need to be clear guidelines on how to raise the skill level before hotels start to use foreign workers. As employment played such a big role in the local communities surveys it can be concluded that acceptance of tourism on Pemba will depend on how much local workforce is employed directly and indirectly in the hotels. This issue has also been addressed in the Zanzibar Tourism Master Plan, which suggests a two-‐sided approach to receive optimal and efficient training results. This approach consists of formal training at a hospitality learning center as well as on-‐site practical training. Especially, English language training and high job specific skill sets to guarantee service appropriate for high-‐yield tourists should be the cornerstones of this education.
10. Recommendations for further research Due to the size of the project and its time and resource constraints there are various topics that can be added to further research to increase the tourism value on Pemba. This chapter gives a brief overview of potential points of interest for stakeholder analysis and further proceedings in the tourism industry.
This study has given insights into various topics that will influence the tourism sector on Pemba. However, a focus was places on comprehensiveness and thus detailed analysis and reviews by experts in a certain field will give more depths and precision to the discussed topics. As such it is recommended to consult experts when making
Land speculation and land allocation: This study clearly states that approved investments are not being undertaken but seem to be a chance for land speculation. As such the incentives need to be revised and possible policies established to ensure that responsible investors are being approved for land leases that are interested in the development and not only monetary gains based on land speculation.
Tourism profile: Although this study has defined a optimal tourism profile for Pemba there is a need to involve all stakeholders in a discussion to specify the perfect guest for the decided tourism policy. This study facilitates the starting point but further work is to be done.
The brand “Pemba”: Once more this paper states inputs and ideas for the development for marketing of the destination brand Pemba. Further discussions about implementation and most efficient usage through selected media channels should be considered by future experts to establish an effective and cost-‐efficient marketing strategy.
Incentive and monitoring strategy: An increase in tourism will lead to the need for more monitoring and incentives for the observation of regulations by investors and hotel management in all fields. Otherwise, the current situation points towards unplanned development that disregards current available directives and puts a high strain on the environment and thus the future profitability of
38
Pemba. Especially, ZIPA needs to have clear guidelines as to which investments should be approved and exact deadlines for the development to avoid the above mentioned land speculation. Detailed revisions of monitoring and incentive / deterrent policies for investors need to be discussed by appropriate institutions.
11. Conclusion Establishing a sustainable tourism development strategy for Pemba Island is going to include the cooperation of five crucial stakeholders: Pemba people, government, workforce, investors (and hotel management) as well as guests. The role of stakeholders is to work together to create an environment that adds value to the people, nature and culture of Pemba. Through this stakeholder network a mutually beneficent experience for all can be created. Moreover, through a network of these stakeholders a responsible environment should and can be created that can make the monitoring of the tourism industry on Pemba less resource intensive and thus easier to implement sustainable policies and efficient stakeholder communication. Moreover, importance should be placed on creating a collective belief in the future tourism plan to ensure acknowledgement and focus.
The quantitative and qualitative analyses as shown the following criteria to be the biggest issues on Pemba: Waste disposal, water supply, infrastructure, local skill level, electricity grid reach as well as governmental monitoring and plan implementations. Low-‐end tourism due to its higher visitor number and shorter length of stay will put more pressure on the above factors and will require significant and large scale improvements. While high-‐end tourism does also require investments but can be developed gradually and on a more limited scale.
Based on this study the recommendation is for a high-‐yield, low volume tourism strategy as this does not require as high initial investments and prevents resource exploitation and preserves nature and culture. Moreover, the leakages can be smaller than for low-‐end tourism while more benefits trickle down to local citizens such as employment rates and indirect tourism income opportunities. This will lead to benefits for the local community, tourism staff, government, investors and guests alike if an appropriate speed of development (9-‐10%) is implemented.
Tourism will always influence and alter the lives of local citizens to some degree. However, the tourism strategy will have a significant influence on the type and severity of change. The proposed high-‐end tourism allows tourism to be development in a controlled and sustainable manner. However, the government must incentivize the right development for Pemba and ensure that all (tourism related) policies are developed with a focus on ultimate outcomes and how it will contribute to tourism and Pemba as a whole. The proposed high-‐end tourism strategy in this paper will give Pemba a chance to embrace the positives parts of tourism and to limit the negative ones.
39
References:
Baum, T. (1997). The fascination of islands: a tourism perspective. In D. G. Lockhart, & D.Drakakis-‐Smith. (Eds.), Island tourism – Trends and prospects (pp. 21–35). London: Pinter.
Bimonte, S., & Punzo, L. F. (2007). The evolutionary game between tourist and resident populations and Tourist Carrying Capacity. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 3(1), 73-‐87.
Brown, K., Turner, R. K., Hameed, H., & Bateman, I. (1997). Environmental carrying capacity and tourism development in the Maldives and Nepal. Environmental Conservation, 24(4), 316-‐325.
Buckley, R. (2002). Surf tourism and sustainable development in Indo-‐Pacific Islands. I. The industry and the islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(5), 405-‐424.
Butler, R. W. (2010). Carrying capacity in tourism: paradox and hypocrisy?.Edited by Douglas G. Pearce and Richard W. Butler, 53. Butler, R. (2006). The tourism area life cycle (Vol. 1). Channel View Publications.
Campling, L., & Rosalie, M. (2006). Sustaining social development in a small island developing state? The case of Seychelles. Sustainable Development,14(2), 115-‐125.
CIA Factbook (2014). Mauritius, viewed 27th August 2014 from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-‐world-‐factbook/geos/se.html
CIA Factbook (2014). Seychelles, viewed 25th August 2014 from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-‐world-‐factbook/geos/se.html
Clivaz, C., Hausser, Y., & Michelet, J. (2004). Tourism monitoring system based on the concept of carrying capacity–The case of the regional natural park Pfyn-‐Finges (Switzerland). In Policies, methods and tools for visitor management: proceedings of the Second International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas, June 16-‐20, 2004, Rovaniemi, Finland (p. 235). Finnish Forest Research Institute.
Coccossis, H., Mexa, A., Collovini, A., Parpairis, A., & Konstandoglou, M. (2001). Defining, measuring and evaluating carrying capacity in European tourism destinations. Environmental Planning Laboratory, Athens.
Coccossis, H., & Mexa, A. (2004). The challenge of tourism carrying capacity assessment: Theory and practice. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..
Connell, J. (1991). Island microstates: the mirage of development.
Cynarski, W. J., & Obodynski, K. (2004). Tourism in Humanistic Perspective–Scientific Conference. Tourism Today Tourism Today.
De Kadt, E. (1976). Tourism: Passport to Development?, Oxford Press, New York, 17
40
Debbage, K. G. (1991). Population and sustainable development in Mauritius. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(2), 340-‐342.
Dodds, R., & Butler, R. (2009). Barriers to implementing sustainable tourism policy in mass tourism destinations.
Doǧan, H. Z. (1989). Forms of adjustment: Sociocultural impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(2), 216-‐236.
Durbarry, R. (2004). Tourism and economic growth: the case of Mauritius.Tourism Economics, 10(4), 389-‐401.
Durbarry, R. (2002). The economic contribution of tourism in Mauritius. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 862-‐865.
Hallo, J. C., & Manning, R. E. (2010). Analysis of the social carrying capacity of a national park scenic road. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation,4(2), 75-‐94.
Jafari, J., (2001). Research and Scholarship: The Basis of Tourism Education. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 1 (2001), pp. 33–41
Job, H., & Paesler, F. (2013). Links between nature-‐based tourism, protected areas, poverty alleviation and crises—The example of Wasini Island (Kenya).Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 1, 18-‐28.
Kurhade, S. (2013). Methodological Framework for Evaluation of Tourism Carrying Capacity of Eco Sensitive Region. In International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology (Vol. 2, Issue 3, pp. 781-‐785). Lime, D. W., & Stankey, G. H. (1971). Carrying capacity: maintaining outdoor recreation quality. In Recreation Symposium Proceedings (Vol. 12, No. 14, pp. 122-‐134). US Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. Lockhart, D. G. (1997). Islands and tourism: an overview. In D. G. Lockhart, & D.Drakakis-‐Smith. (Eds.), Island tourism – trends and prospects (pp. 3–21). London: Pinter.
MacBeth, J., (2005). Towards an Ethics Platform for Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 32, pp. 962–965
McIntosh, R.W. & Goeldner, C.R., (1986).Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies (4th ed.) Wiley, New York (1986)
Manning, R., Wang, B., Valliere, W., Lawson, S., & Newman, P. (2002). Research to estimate and manage carrying capacity of a tourist attraction: a study of Alcatraz Island. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(5), 388-‐404.
41
Mathieson, A., & Wall, G., (1982). Tourism, economic, physical and social impacts. Longman.
Mowforth, M. & Munt, I., (1997). Tourism and Sustainability. London: Routledge
MTCA. 2008, Human Resource Situation in the Tourism Sector of Maldives as at end 2006. Malé: Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation.
National Bureau of Statistics, 2010, Population and Housing Census 2010 – Supplement Statistical Tables, Victoria
National Bureau of Statistics, 2014, Statistical Bulletin 2014/2, Victoria
Northcote, J., & Macbeth, J. (2006). Conceptualizing yield: sustainable tourism management. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 199-‐220. Okech, R. N. (2004). The Role of Tour Operators in Sustainable Ecotourism: Lessons from Kenya. Tourism Today Tourism Today. O'Reilly, A. M. (1986). Tourism carrying capacity: concept and issues. Tourism management, 7(4), 254-‐258.
PAP/RAC (Priority Actions Programme Regional Activity Centre). (2003) Guide to Good Practice in Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment, Split-‐
Papayannis, T. (2004). Tourism carrying capacity in areas of ecological importance. The Challenge of Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment, Ashgate, Aldershot, England.
Pazienza, P. (2004). A Multidimensional Tourism Carrying Capacity Model: An Empirical Approach.
Plog, S. C., (1974): Why Destination Areas Rise and Fall in Popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 14, no. 4, 55-‐58;
Rees, W. E. (1996). Revisiting carrying capacity: area-‐based indicators of sustainability. Population and environment, 17(3), 195-‐215.
Rosalie, M. (2002). Tourism and social development in Seychelles.Development Bulletin, (60), 95-‐98.
Saarinen, J., (2006). Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 33 (4), pp. 1121–1140
Santonocito, S. D. (2009). Sustainable Tourism and Carrying Capacity in the Mediterranean Area Focus on Sicily. In 3rd IRT International Scientific Conference (Vol. 1).
Saethorsdottir, A. D. (2004). Adapting to change: Maintaining a wilderness experience in a popular tourist destination. Tourism Today Tourism Today.
42
Sathiendrakumar, R., & Tisdell, C. (1989). Tourism and the economic development of the Maldives. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(2), 254-‐269.
Shakeela, A., Ruhanen, L., & Breakey, N. (2011). The Local Gaze: Social Inhibitors to Engagement in the Maldivian Tourism Industry.
Sharma, P. (1995). A framework for tourism carrying capacity analysis.Discussion Paper Series-‐Mountain Enterprises and Infrastructure, ICIMOD, (95/1).
Shaw, G., & Williams, A. M. (2010). Tourism SMEs: changing research agendas and missed opportunities. Tourism research: A, 20(20), 80-‐93.
Sleeman, R. (2009). Akaroa tourism carrying capacity. Lincoln University. Faculty of Environment, Society and Design..
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). (2014). Tourism and Environmental Conservation, http://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/Business/SectoralActivities/Tourism/FactsandFiguresaboutTourism/ImpactsofTourism/EnvironmentalImpacts/TourismandEnvironmentalConservation/tabid/78779/Default.aspx, viewed 26th August 2014
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). (1994). Programme of action for the sustainable development of small island developing states. http://islands.unep.ch/dsidspoa.htm, viewed 08.09.2014
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (2010). Assessment of Development Results: Seychelles, New York
Vistad, O. I. (2003). Experience and management of recreational impact on the ground–a study among visitors and managers. Journal for Nature Conservation,11(4), 363-‐369.
Wagar, J. A. (1964). The carrying capacity of wild lands for recreation. Forest Science, 10(Supplement 7), a0001.
Wilson, D. (1967). The impact of tourism in the Seychelles, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization/ International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Zacarias, D. A., Williams, A. T., & Newton, A. (2011). Recreation carrying capacity estimations to support beach management at Praia de Faro, Portugal.Applied Geography, 31(3), 1075-‐1081.
Zubair, S., Bowen, D., & Elwin, J. (2011). Not quite paradise: Inadequacies of environmental impact assessment in the Maldives. Tourism Management,32(2), 225-‐234.
43
44
Appendix 1:
Appendix I: Literature Review
1.1. Jafari’s Four Platforms
Due to space limitations the main text body only included a brief description of Jafari’s paper (2001). The following description of his four stages gives a deeper understanding of the evolution of American tourism characteristics.
1. Advocacy platform: This platform describes the characteristics of tourism during two decades starting in 1950s. Tourism is considered an ideal activity with few negative impacts for tourist destinations. The government were tasked with actively promoting tourism.
2. Cautionary platform: Most common form of Tourism in the 1970s. It was proposed that tourism would eventually result in negative impacts for tourism destinations unless it was carefully planned and regulated.
3. Adaptancy platform: During the 1980’s mass tourism was less promoted than alternative tourism, which included: home stays, cultural villages and volunteer tourism.
4. Knowledge-‐based platform: Tourism in the 1990’s was characterized by planning for tourism activities and destination which attempted to scientifically determine impacts and capacities for tourism destinations.
1.2. Micro-‐ and Macro-‐ level Management Tool Description
This chapter explains the most important micro and macro management tools currently available in the tourism industry. This subchapter aims to give a background information to understand the management challenges better but was to specific to be included in the main body.
1. Micro-‐level management tools: • Area protection: Includes the classification of protected locations. This is done into specific categories,
such as National Park, Wildlife reserves, Biosphere reserves, Country Parks, Areas of outstanding beauty (AONBs) or Sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs). According to this classifications there a protection requirements that must be uphold when managing this sites. The issue with these protections is that it is very common activity that requires resources (especially money) and tends to neglect local community needs and can even sabotage their sources of revenue, because it applies to all not just tourists.
• Visitor management techniques: o Honeypots: Honeypots are especially popular tourists destination. Identifying these or branding
unpopular sites as such can lead to a rise in visitors and also price flexibility. o Zoning: Different areas are given specific levels of protections which allows to split an integrated
system into different parts and protect each one optimally. o Visitor dispersion: Spreading the amount of visitors per square mile can lead to a different
perception.
45
o Vehicle restriction: Restricting the use of (petrol operating) vehicles can be advantageous in preserving the environment.
• Use of pricing differentiation: Profit optimization due to various price points that allow management to come as close to the price a certain tourist segment is willing to pay.
• Usage of sustainability indicators: This includes monitoring the use of resources, including waste, pollution, local production, rate of violence or oppression and degree of diversity.
2. Macro-‐level management tools: • Industry regulation: This included government legislation (national as well as local), professional
association regulation (a closed group, which members are required to adhere to certain rules), international agreements as well as voluntary self-‐regulation.
• Environmental foot-‐printing (also known as environmental impact assessment): This includes researching natural resources in the area and their usage requirements. Issues and conflicts that arise due to environmental resource scarcity are identified.
• Auditing and indicators: Environmental auditing includes inventorying resources in a given location. • Codes of Conduct: This codes can apply to tourists, a certain establishment, governments, local
communities, tour operators or the entire industry. • Eco-‐labels and certification schemes: There are various NGOs and companies that are promoting a label
that is associated with Eco friendliness or fair trade. This subcategory is especially difficult as the reliability of different labels differs significantly.
46
Appendix 2: Indicator analyses
Table 1 Equity indicators
Table 2 Health indicators
Table 3 Education indicators
Table 4 Housing, security and population indicators
47
Table 5 Air quality and land indicators
Table 6 Oceans, sea and coastal area and biodiversity indicators
Table 7 Consumption patterns and institutional capacity indicators
48
Table 8 Total sustainability scores
49
50
Exhibit 1: Visitor Exit Survey
PEMBA&VISITOR&SURVEY&2014&&This& survey& is& conducted& as& part& of& the& Tourism& Ministry’s& Carrying& Capacity& Study& that& currently&assesses&the&tourism&industry&on&Pemba&to&develop&a&precise&strategy&for&future&development.&&This&survey&is&for&classification&and&statistical&purposes&only.&&!
!1.!How!many!times!have!you!visited!Pemba?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!First!time! ! ☐!2!–!4!times! ! ☐!4A6!times! ☐!More!than!6!times!!2.!With!whom!did!you!travel?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Alone!! ! ! ☐!Partner! ! ! ☐!Business!associate!☐!Friends!! ! ! ☐!Family! ! ! ☐!Special!interest!group!!! 2.1!How!many!people,!including!yourself,!were!in!your!travel!party?!
____!Adults! ! ____!Children!under!18!!3.!Where!were!you!staying!during!your!stay!on!Pemba?!(Name!of!the!accommodation)!
____________________!!4.!How!many!nights!did!you!stay!on!Pemba?!
_____!nights!!5.!Where!did!you!learn!about!Pemba!as!a!potential!travel!location?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Travel!agent! ! ☐!Word!of!mouth! ☐!TV!! ! ☐!Magazines!☐!Holiday!Fair! ! ☐!Tripadvisor!! ! ☐!Social!Media! !
☐!Other!internet,!site:!________________!! ! ☐!Other,!specify:!________________!!6.!What!was!the!primary!reason!for!your!visit?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Honeymoon! ! ☐!Diving! ! ! ☐!Culture! ! ☐!Business!☐!Health!&Wellness!! ☐!Relaxation!! ! ☐!Other:!____________________!!7.!Why!did!you!choose!Pemba!as!your!holiday!destination?!(Please!check!(✔)!all!that!apply)!
☐!Coral!reefs! ☐!Beach! ! ! ☐!Weather!! ☐!Uniqueness!!☐!Local!culture! ! ☐!Peacefulness!! ! ☐!Reputation! ☐!Other:!____________________!!8.!How!did!you!perceive!the!amount!of!choices!you!had!for!accommodation!on!Pemba?!!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Too!low!!! ! ☐!Low!! ! ☐!Medium! ! ☐!High!! ! ☐!Too!high!!9.!How!did!you!organize!your!vacation?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Direct!booking!with!the!resort!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!☐!Travel!agency!! ! ! ☐Other:!____________________!!
Section A !
51
10.!How!many!months!in!advance!did!you!book!your!holiday?!!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Less!than!1!month! ! ☐!1!–!3!months!! ! ☐!4!–!6!months!!☐!7!A!9!months!! ! ☐!10!–!12!months! ! ☐!More!than!1!year!!11.!Which!other!holiday!destinations!did!you!take!into!consideration?!(Please!list)!1.!___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!2.!___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!3.!___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!4.!___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!5.!___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!!
11.1!What!made!you!choose!Pemba!over!the!destinations!in!question!11?!______________________________________________________________________________________________________________!______________________________________________________________________________________________________________!______________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
!12.!How!crowded!did!you!feel!in!the!following!locations,!i.e.!what!was!the!level!of!disturbance!you!felt!by!the!!number!of!visitors!you!encountered!during!your!stay?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box!per!line)!! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!!Very!low! !!!!Low!!!!!!!!!Medium!!!!!!!!High!!!!!!!!!!!!Very!high!
12.1!Beach! ! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!! 12.2!Hotel!public!areas!! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!! 12.3!Excursions! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
12.4!Hotel!rooms! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
12.5!Airport! ! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
12.6!Transfer!to!hotel! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
13.!When!evaluating!a!hotel!how!important!are!the!following!things!to!you?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box!per!line)!! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!!Very!low! !!!!Low!!!!!!!!!Medium!!!!!!!!High!!!!!!!!!!!!Very!high!
13.1!Local!building!materials! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
13.2!Local!staff!employed! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
13.3!Usage!of!native!plants!! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
!14.!What!did!you!like!the!most!about!your!visit!to!Pemba?!______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!!15.!What!did!you!like!the!least!about!your!visit!to!Pemba?!______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
Section B !
Section C !
52
16.!Please!list!the!activities!that!you!did!on!Pemba!in!order!of!enjoyment!level!with!most!liked!at!the!top.!! 1.!_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________!! 2.!_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________!! 3.!_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________!! 4.!_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________!! 5.!_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________!!
17.!Did!you!spend!your!entire!vacation!on!Pemba?!!
☐!Yes!! ! ☐!No!17.1!If!no:!Please!state!other!places!visited!on!your!trip!
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!!18.!Please!rate!your!satisfaction!level!for!the!following!services.!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box!per!line)!!
18.1!Airport! ! ! !!!!!!!Very!low! !!!!Low!!!!!!!!Medium!!!!!!!!High! !!!!!!Very!high!
18.1.1!Security!! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!! ! 18.1.2!Information/!Signage!! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!! ! 18.1.3!Comfort!! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
! ! 18.1.4!Cafés!/!Snack!points! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
18.2!Hotel!Transfer! ! !!!!!!!Very!low! !!!!Low!!!!!!!!Medium!!!!!!!High! !!!!!!Very!high!
! 18.2.1!Ease!of!booking!! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
18.2.2!Waiting!time! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!! 18.2.3!Quality! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!! 18.2.4!Comfort!! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
18.2.5!Safety!/!Security! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐ !
18.3!Place!of!stay! ! !!!!!!!Very!low! !!!!Low!!!!!!!!Medium!!!!!!!!High! !!!!!!Very!high!
18.3.1!Accommodation! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!! ! 18.3.2!Food! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!! ! 18.3.3!Beverages! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
18.3.4!Beach! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
18.3.5!Wellness/!spa! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
18.3.6!Staff!friendliness! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!18.3.7!Cleanliness! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!18.3.8!Excursions! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
18.3.9!Pemba!culture! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
18.3.10!Environment! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
18.3.11!Safety!/!Security! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!!
53
19.!Please!rank!value!for!money!for!the!following!aspects.!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box!per!line)!! ! ! !!!!!!!Very!low! !!!!Low!!!!!!!Medium!!!!!!!!!High! !!!!!!Very!high!
19.1!Flights! ! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!19.2!Transfer! ! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!19.3!Accommodation! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
19.4!Excursions! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
19.5!Food/!Beverages! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
19.6!Shopping! ! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
20.!How!did!your!holiday!compare!to!your!expectations?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Below!expectations!!! ☐!Met!expectations! ! ☐!Exceeded!expectations!!21.!Do!you!intend!to!visit!Pemba!again?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Yes!! ! ☐!No!
!!22.!What!is!your!country!of!residence?!
____________________!!23.!What!is!your!age?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Under!18!years!! ☐!18!–!24!years!! ! ☐!25!A!34!years!! ! ☐!35!–!44!years!!☐!45!–!54!years!!!!! ☐!55!A!64!years!! ! ☐!65!years!and!older!!24.!What!is!your!gender?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Female!! ! ☐!Male!!25.!How!much!total!US$!have!you!spent!per!person!on!your!trip!to!Pemba?!Please!exclude!flight!costs!except!local!flights.!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Under!1100!! ! ☐!1101!A!2000!! ! ☐!2001!A!3000!! ! ☐!3001!A!4000!!☐!4001!A!5000! ! ☐!Over!5001!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!26.!Please!add!any!additional!comments!or!suggestions!that!you!may!have!in!the!space!below.!
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!!Please!add!your!email!address!if!you!would!like!to!receive!updates!on!what!is!happening!in!Pemba’s!future.!We!!promise!not!to!spam!you!but!only!let!you!know!about!relevant!information.!
Email:!______________________________________________________!&Thank&you&for&taking&the&time&to&complete&our&questionnaire.&Please&be&assured&that&your&comments&and&contribution&will&be&heard&and&have&an&impact&on&Pemba’s&future.&
Section D !
54
Hotel&Staff&Survey&Carrying&Capacity&Assessment&
&This survey is for classification and statistical purposes only. We want to assure you that all responses are voluntary and will be confidential. Responses will not be identified by individuals but will be compiled together and analyzed as a group.
&1.&When&did&you&start&working&for&the&hotel?&________________________&&2.&What&was&your&motivation&for&working&at&the&hotel?&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&&3.&Which&department&do&you&work&in?&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&&4.&Did&you&have&any&previous&experience&at&working&in&the&tourism&industry?&(Please&check&(✔)&one&box)&
☐ Yes ☐ No
4.1. If yes, what experience? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________&_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________&&4.2. If no, what training did you receive? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________&_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
&5.&Are&you&happy&working&in&a&hotel?&(Please&check&(✔)&one&box)&
☐ Yes ☐ No 5.1.&Please&explain.&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&&6.&What&would&you&do&if&you&were¬&working&in&a&hotel?&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&&
&7.&How&would&you&rate&your&level&of&interaction&with&tourists?&(Please&check&(✔)&one&box)&
☐&Very&low&& ☐&Low&& ☐&Medium& ☐&High&& & ☐&Very&high&&
Section&A:&Employment&history&
Section&B:&Culture&
Exhibit 2 Hotel Staff Survey
55
&8.&What&did&you&teach&the&guests?&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&&9.&What&did&you&learn&from&guests?&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&&10.&Do&you&think&working&in&a&hotel&changed&how&you&live&your&life?&
☐ Yes ☐ No 10.1.&Please&explain&why&or&why¬.&_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________&_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________&_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
&11.&How&do&you&go&to&work?&(Please&check&(✔)&all&that&apply)&
☐&Car&& & ☐&Daladala&& & ☐&Bicycle&&& ☐&Motorbike&&☐&Walk& & ☐&Live&on&hotel&site& ☐&Other:&____________________&&12.&Do&you&have&electricity&in&your&house?&If&yes,&from&which&source?&&
�&ZECO �&Solar&panels �&Generators �&No&electricity �&Others,&specify______________ &13.&Do&you&get&water&from&ZAWA?&
☐ Yes ☐ No &14.&What&do&you&do&with&your&garbage?&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
15.&Do&you&think&tourism&is&good&for&Pemba?&(Please&check&(�)&one&box)& � Yes � No
15.1. Please explain _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________&_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________&&
16.&How&do&you&think&Pemba&would&change&if&there&would&be&more&hotels?&&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
Section&C:&Perception&
56
&17.&What&is&your&opinion&on&the&amount&of&traffic&in&your&area?&
☐&Very&low&& ☐&Low&& ☐&Medium& ☐&High&& & ☐&Very&high&&18.&How&do&you&think&the&following&things&have&changed&in&the&last&three&years?&Also&please&list&your&explanation&for&the&change.&&
& Much&worse& Worse& Same& Better& A&lot&
better& Reason&
18.1.&Water&pollution& � � � � � ___________________"18.2.&Air&pollution& � � � � � ___________________"18.3.&Littering& � � � � � ___________________"18.4.&Traffic& � � � � � ___________________"18.5.&Noise& � � � � � ___________________"18.6.&Deforestation& � � � � � ___________________"18.7.&Coral&reef&health& � � � � � ___________________"18.8.&Number&of&fish& � � � � � ___________________"18.9.&Corruption& � � � � � ___________________"18.10.&Crime& � � � � � ___________________"18.11.&Price&of&food& � � � � � ___________________"18.12.&Price&of&water& � � � � � ___________________"
18.13.&Price&of&electricity& � � � � � ___________________"&19.&What&do&you&like&the&most&about&Pemba?&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&&20.&What&do&you&like&the&least&about&Pemba?&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
21. What is your age?&____________ 22. What is your gender? (Please&check&(✔)&one&box)
☐ Female ☐ Male 23. Where are you from?&(Please&check&(✔)&one&box)
☐ Pemba ☐ Unguja ☐ Mainland Tanzania
Section&D:&Demographic&information&
57
☐ Neighboring countries ☐ Other country 24. Where do you live? (Please&check&(✔)&one&box)
☐&Chake]Chake&& ☐&Micheweni& & ☐&Mkoani&& & ☐&Wete&&&25.&How&many&people&live&in&your&house,&including&yourself?&
____&Adults& & ____&Children&under&15& 26. What is your level of education?
☐&Primary&School&& & ☐&Secondary&School& & ☐&High&School& & &
☐&University&& & & ☐ None&&27.&Which&languages&do&you&write&and&read&well?&
☐&English&& ☐&Swahili& & ☐&None ☐&Others,&specify______________& 28. What percentage of your salary do you spend on the following?
28.1. Transport? ____________%
28.2. Electricity?&& ____________%&
28.3.&Water?& & ____________%
28.4. Food? ____________%&
28.5.&Sent&to&family?& ____________%&
28.5.&Clothing?& ____________%
28.6. Savings? ____________%
28.7. Others: ____________%,&please&specify:&___________________________
29. Please add any additional comments or suggestions that you may have in the space below: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&&&Thank"you"for"taking"the"time"to"complete"our"questionnaire.""Your"input"is"crucial"to"the"Carrying"Capacity"Study"and"the"Commission"for"Tourism"and"we"value"and"thank"you"for"your"comments"and"contribution."
Section&E:&Additional&comments&
58
!
Hotel Management Survey Carrying Capacity Study
1. What is the vision or strategy for your hotel? _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 2. What are the main criteria that you use to market your facility?
1. _______________________________________________________________________________ 2. _______________________________________________________________________________ 3. _______________________________________________________________________________
3. Who is the owner of the facility? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Foreign investor ☐ Local investor ☐ Mixture of both 3.1. Do you feel that this type of ownership is an advantage or disadvantage? Please explain.
_________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________
4. When did the hotel start operations? ________ 5. What is the level of luxury in your hotel? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Very low ☐ Low ☐ Average ☐ High ☐ Very high 6. Do you strive towards increasing this level? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No 6.1. If yes: Which luxury standard would you like your hotel to have?
___________________________________________________________________________________
7. What is the size of the property?
7.1. Total area ____ km2 7.2. Beach area ____ km2
7.3. Size of main area ____ km2
7.4. Average size of rooms ____ m2
8. Do you make economic contribution for conservation? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No
8.1. If yes: Which specific cause do you contribute to? ___________________________________________________________________________________
Section A: Vision !
Exhibit 3 Hotel Management Survey
59
!
8.2. If no: Do you have specific plans to do so in the next two years? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No
9. How many rooms does your hotel facility have? ______ rooms 10. How many beds does your hotel facility have? ______ beds 11. Do you have specific plans to increase the number of beds? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No 11.1. If yes: What would be the maximum number of beds? ______ beds 12. How many guests have you had in previous years?
Total number of guests Total number of bed nights 12.1. In 2011: ______________________guests _______________bed nights 12.2. In 2012: ______________________guests _______________bed nights 12.3. In 2013: ______________________guests _______________bed nights
13. What are the differences during high and low season in average occupancy, group size and length of stay during the last year?
High season (July 13 through February 14)
Low season (March 14 through June 14)
13.1. Average occupancy ______ % ______ % 13.2. Average length of stay ______ nights ______ nights 13.3. Average group size ______ people ______ people
14. What would be the optimal length of stay per guest for you?
______ nights 15. What do you feel is the most common reason for your guests to visit Pemba? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Honeymoon ☐ Diving ☐ Culture ☐ Business
☐ Health &Wellness ☐ Relaxation ☐ Other: ____________________ 16. What are the five most common activities or excursions that guests do?
1. _______________________________________________________________________________ 2. _______________________________________________________________________________ 3. _______________________________________________________________________________ 4. _______________________________________________________________________________ 5. _______________________________________________________________________________
Section B: Guests !
60
!
17. How crowded do you think guests feel in the following locations, i.e. what was the level of disturbance they felt by the number of visitors they encountered during their stay? (Please check (✔) one box per line) Very low Low Average High Very high
17.1. Beach ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
17.2. Hotel public areas ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
17.3. Excursions ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
17.4. Hotel rooms ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
17.5. Airport ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
17.6. Transfer to hotel ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
18. Where are your female and male staff from?
Female Male 18.1. Pemba ____ persons ____ persons 18.2. Unguja ____ persons ____ persons 18.3. Mainland Tanzania ____ persons ____ persons 18.4. Neighboring countries ____ persons ____ persons 18.5. Other countries ____ persons ____ persons
19. What level of importance do you assign to hiring local labor? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Very low ☐ Low ☐ Average ☐ High ☐ Very high 20. How much effort is required for you to find local skilled labor? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Very low ☐ Low ☐ Average ☐ High ☐ Very high 21. What level of importance do you place on the following areas? (Please check (✔) one box)
Very low Low Average High Very high 21.1. Local staff satisfaction ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
21.2. Local staff training ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
21.3. Local staff career advancement ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
21.4. Staff environmental education ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 22. In which departments do you have the biggest problem finding a qualified local workforce? What skills
or training are they missing? Department Missing skills or training 1.______________________________ ____________________________________________________ 2.______________________________ ____________________________________________________ 3.______________________________ ____________________________________________________ 4.______________________________ ____________________________________________________ 5.______________________________ ____________________________________________________
Section C: Employment !
61
!
23. How do you think the following things have changed in the last three years? (Please check (✔) one box per line and name the primary reason for the change)
Much worse Worse Same Better A lot
better Reason
23.1. Water pollution ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.2. Air pollution ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.3. Littering ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.4. Traffic ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.5. Noise ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.6. Deforestation ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.7. Coral reef health ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.8. Number of fish ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.9. Corruption ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.10. Crime ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.11. Price of food ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.12. Price of water ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.13. Price of electricity ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
24. What are important activities to be undertaken in order to realize better tourism potential? (Please check (✔) the three most critical)
☐ Use natural resources and biodiversity for tourism
☐ Increase environmental protection
☐ Promote regionally labeled food and beverages
☐ Promote organic food production to attract tourists and raise trade of food
☐ Increase collaboration in managing assets of Pemba Island
☐ Joint tourism signage in the entire island
☐ Joint institution, website and other promotion material to increase attention on tourism possibilities
☐ Increase the quality of hospitality services
☐ Increase the quantity of hospitality services
☐ Increase accessibility to Pemba including public transport possibilities to better connect different parts of the region
☐ Others: _________________________________________________________
Section D: Tourism development !
62
!
25. Where do you buy your food items? (Please check (✔) one box and list in order, starting with most frequently bought)
Product Local Import If imported why?
1. Meat ☐ ☐ ________________________________
2. Diary ☐ ☐ ________________________________
3. Vegetables ☐ ☐ ________________________________
4. Fruits ☐ ☐ ________________________________
5. Drinking water ☐ ☐ ________________________________
6. Soft drinks ☐ ☐ ________________________________
7. Alcohol ☐ ☐ ________________________________
8. Other 1______________________ ☐ ☐ ________________________________
9. Other 2______________________ ☐ ☐ ________________________________
10. Other 3______________________ ☐ ☐ ________________________________ 26. What level of importance do you assign to local building materials? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Very low ☐ Low ☐ Average ☐ High ☐ Very high 26.1. What are the benefits from using local materials for you?
___________________________________________________________________________________
26.2. What would have to happen for you to use more local building materials? ___________________________________________________________________________________
27. What level of importance do you assign to the use of indigenous plants? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Very low ☐ Low ☐ Average ☐ High ☐ Very high 27.1. What are the benefits for you? _________________________________________________________________________________
27.2. What would have to happen for you to use more indigenous plants? _________________________________________________________________________________
Section E: Local supplies !
63
!
28. How many boats do you have and what is their function and engine capacity?
Boattype Function Engine capacity 1. ____________________ ____________________ _____________ 2. ____________________ ____________________ _____________ 3. ____________________ ____________________ _____________ 4. ____________________ ____________________ _____________ 5. ____________________ ____________________ _____________
29. On average how much diesel or petrol do you use per month for boats?
High season Low season 29.1. Diesel ______ liters ______ liters 29.2. Petrol ______ liters ______ liters
30. Where do you get your diesel or petrol supplies? _______________________________________________________________________________________ 31. On average how much water do you use per month? _________________________ 32. Where do you get your water supply? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Mains ☐ Boreholes ☐ Ocean
☐ Desalination plant ☐ Other, specify: _____________________________________ 33. How would you rate the water quality? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Very low ☐ Low ☐ Average ☐ High ☐ Very high 34. Do you invest in water recycling? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No
34.1. If yes: What type of water recycling do you use? ___________________________________________________________________________________
34.2. If no: Do you have specific plans to do so in the next two years? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No 35. Do you invest in rainwater harvesting? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No
35.1. If no: Do you have specific plans to do so in the next two years? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No
Section F: Resources !
64
!
36. What sewage disposal system do you have at your facility? _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 37. Do you separate your garbage? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No 38. How would you rate the pollution from solid waste at your facility? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Very low ☐ Low ☐ Average ☐ High ☐ Very high 38.1. Please explain what waste disposal system you have at your facility. ___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________ 39. On average how much electricity do you use per month? _________________________ KWh 40. How many generators do you have? _________________________ 40.1. If one or more: What is its size and purpose? __________________________________________________________________________________ 41. What are the five things you spend the most electricity on?
1. _______________________________________________________________________________ 2. _______________________________________________________________________________ 3. _______________________________________________________________________________ 4. _______________________________________________________________________________ 5. _______________________________________________________________________________
42. Do you use renewable energy sources? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No 42.1. If yes: Please list which energy sources you use and their purpose? ___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________ 42.2. If yes: From where did you get the technology? ___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________ 42.3. If no: Do you have specific plans to do so in the next two years? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No
43. Do you have a service that transports guests to/ from your hotel? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No
Section G: Transport !
65
!
43.1. If yes: Do you have your own vehicles for this service? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No 43.2. What are the pickup points and how long is the trip to your hotel? 43.2.1. Airport: ______ minutes 43.2.2. Ferry Port: ______ minutes 43.2.3. Other: ______ minutes from ________________________
43.3. How would you rate the comfort of the transfer for the guests? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Very low ☐ Low ☐ Average ☐ High ☐ Very high 44. Could you please describe your impression of the road conditions, i.e. which particular roads require maintenance? _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________
45. How would you rank your relationship with the following? (Please check (✔) one box per line)
Very low Low Average High Very high 45.1. Other hotels/ guest houses ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
45.2. Commission for Tourism ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
45.3. Other government agencies ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
45.4. Local communities ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 46. What kind of relationship between hotels/ guesthouses would be the most beneficial? _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 47. What are the biggest challenges you have when dealing with government agencies?
(Please list the biggest issue first) 1. _______________________________________________________________________________ 2. _______________________________________________________________________________ 3. _______________________________________________________________________________
48. What would you see as a perfect relationship between your establishment and the government? _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________
Section H: Cooperation !
66
!
49. What advantages/ disadvantages has your business brought local communities in your area? _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 50. How do you think local authorities perceive your business? _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 51. Please evaluate the urgency of areas that should be improved to raise the potential of natural resources for local development? (Please check (✔) one box per line)
Very low Low Average High Very high 51.1. Waste collection and management ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
51.2. Sewage treatment ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 51.3. Protection and conservation of plants and animals ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
51.4. Road infrastructure ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 51.5. Eco-inspection and other forms of law enforcement ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
51.6. Electricity grid ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
51.7. Local community interaction ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 51.8. Other, specify:______________________ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
52. Do you have any improvement ideas for the following areas?
Improvement idea Low
52.1. Waste collection and management _________________________________________ ☐ 52.2. Sewage treatment _________________________________________ ☐ 52.3. Protection and conservation of plants/animals _________________________________________ ☐ 52.4. Road infrastructure _________________________________________ ☐ 52.5. Eco inspection or law enforcement _________________________________________ ☐ 52.6. Electricity grid _________________________________________ ☐ 52.7. Local community interaction _________________________________________ ☐ 52.8. Other, specify:______________________ _________________________________________ ☐
53. Please add any additional comments or suggestions that you may have in the space below. _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ Thank you for taking the time to complete our questionnaire. Your input is crucial for this study and important to the Commission of Tourism. Please be assured that we value your contribution.
Section I: Additional comments !
67
Local&Community&Survey&Carrying&Capacity&Assessment&
&This survey is for classification and statistical purposes only. We want to assure you that all responses are voluntary and will be confidential. Responses will not be identified by individuals but will be compiled together and analyzed as a group.
&1.&What&is&your&job?&_______________________________________________________________________________________&_______________________________________________________________________________________&&2.&Would&you&accept&a&job&in&the&tourism§or?&(Please&check&(�)&one&box)&
☐ Yes ☐ No & 2.1&If&no:&Please&explain&why¬:&_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&&
& 2.2&If&yes:&Which&work&would&you&like&to&do&and&why?&_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&&
2.3&Do&people&in&your&immediate&family&work&in&tourism?&&(Please&check&(�)&one&box)&
�&Yes&&�&No&&
&2.4.1&If&yes:&in&which§or?&_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&&3.&Would&you&be&willing&to&sell&to&tourists?&(Please&check&(�)&one&box)&
☐ Yes ☐ No & 3.1&If&no:&Please&explain&why¬.&_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&&
& 3.2&If&yes:&Which&items&would&you&like&to&sell&and&why?&_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&4.&What&do&you&think&would&be&the&best&thing&for&tourists&to&see&on&Pemba?&
Section&A:&Employment&&
Exhibit 4 Local Community Leader Survey
68
_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&&5.&What&do&you&think&would&be&the&worst&thing&for&tourists&to&see&on&Pemba?&_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&
&6.&Would&you&like&to&have&a&hotel&in&your&Shehia?& � Yes � No � Maybe � Hotel already exists
6.1 Please explain ________________________________________________________________________________& ________________________________________________________________________________&
&7.&How&many&tourists&did&you&see&during&the&last&month?&&__________&&8.&Do&you&think&tourism&is&good&for&Pemba?&(Please&check&(�)&one&box)& � Yes � No
7.1 Please explain ________________________________________________________________________________& ________________________________________________________________________________&
&9.&How&do&you&think&Pemba&would&change&if&there&would&be&more&hotels?&&&_______________________________________________________________________________________&_______________________________________________________________________________________&&10.&Do&you&have&the&following&in&your&Shehia?&
& Yes& No&10.1&Shop& ☐& ☐&10.2&Drugstore& ☐& ☐&10.3&Madrassa& ☐& ☐&10.4&&Food&stores& ☐& ☐&10.5&Gas&station& ☐& ☐&
Section&B:&Culture&and&Perception&
Local&Community&Survey&Carrying&Capacity&Assessment&
&This survey is for classification and statistical purposes only. We want to assure you that all responses are voluntary and will be confidential. Responses will not be identified by individuals but will be compiled together and analyzed as a group.
&1.&What&is&your&job?&_______________________________________________________________________________________&_______________________________________________________________________________________&&2.&Would&you&accept&a&job&in&the&tourism§or?&(Please&check&(�)&one&box)&
☐ Yes ☐ No & 2.1&If&no:&Please&explain&why¬:&_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&&
& 2.2&If&yes:&Which&work&would&you&like&to&do&and&why?&_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&&
2.3&Do&people&in&your&immediate&family&work&in&tourism?&&(Please&check&(�)&one&box)&
�&Yes&&�&No&&
&2.4.1&If&yes:&in&which§or?&_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&&3.&Would&you&be&willing&to&sell&to&tourists?&(Please&check&(�)&one&box)&
☐ Yes ☐ No & 3.1&If&no:&Please&explain&why¬.&_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&&
& 3.2&If&yes:&Which&items&would&you&like&to&sell&and&why?&_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&_________________________________________________________________________________________&4.&What&do&you&think&would&be&the&best&thing&for&tourists&to&see&on&Pemba?&
Section&A:&Employment&&
69
10.6&Nursery&school& ☐& ☐&10.7&Restaurant& ☐& ☐&10.8&Mosque& ☐& ☐&10.9&Primary&school& ☐& ☐&10.10&Post&office& ☐& ☐&10.11&Church& ☐& ☐&10.12&Government&office& ☐& ☐&10.13&Hotel& ☐& ☐&10.14&Temple& ☐ ☐ 10.15&Recreational&facilities& ☐ ☐ 10.16&Bank& ☐ ☐ 10.17&Fishing&dock& ☐ ☐ 10.18&Health&Center& ☐ ☐ &11.&What&is&your&opinion&on&the&amount&of&traffic&in&your&area?&&(Please&check&(�)&one&box)&
☐&very&low&& ☐&low&& ☐&medium& ☐&high&& & ☐&very&high&&12.&What&do&you&do&with&your&garbage?&_______________________________________________________________________________________&_______________________________________________________________________________________&&13.&Do&you&have&electricity&in&your&house?&If&yes,&from&which&source?&☐ Yes ☐ No
13.1&&If&yes,&from&where&do&you&get&your&electricity?&☐&ZECO ☐&Solar&panels ☐&Generators ☐&No&electricity ☐&Others,&specify______________ &14.&Do&you&get&water&from&ZAWA?&(Please&check&(�)&one&box)&
☐ Yes ☐ No &&
70
15.&How&would&you&describe&the&drinking&water&quality?&
☐&very&low&& ☐&low&& ☐&medium& ☐&high&& & ☐&very&high&&16.&What&kind&of&water&do&you&have&in&your&village?&
☐&None&& & & & ☐&Lack&of&water&& &
☐&Contaminated&water& ☐&Others,&specify______________&&17.&What&is&the&primary&cause&for&poverty&in&your&village?&
☐&Poor&fishing&gear&&& ☐&Unemployment&☐&Low&level&of&education& ☐&Weak&economic&base&(due&to&lack&of&capital)&☐&Low&prices&& & ☐&Poor&farming&equipment&☐&Vermin&infestations& ☐&Limited&economic&generating&opportunities&☐&Lack&of&technical&support&☐&Limited&market&for&local&products&☐&Others,&specify______________&&18.&Which&three&things&would&make&your&quality&of&life&better?&1._________________________________________________________&2._________________________________________________________&3._________________________________________________________&&19.&What&is&the&biggest&issue&in&your&village?&
☐&Lack&of&clean&water& & & ☐&Poor&means&of&transport&☐&Poor&farming&/&fishing&gear& & ☐&Lack&of&skills/low&education&☐&Marketing&constraint& & & ☐&Limited&access&to&social&services&☐&Lack&of&employment&opportunities& ☐&Limited&economic&generating&opportunities&☐&Lack&of&electricity&& & & ☐&Others,&specify______________&&20.&How&do&you&think&the&following&things&have&changed&due&to&tourism&in&the&last&three&years?&
& Much&worse& Worse& Same& Better& A&lot&
better& Reason&
20.1&Water&pollution& � � � � � ___________________"20.2&Air&pollution& � � � � � ___________________"20.3&Littering& � � � � � ___________________"20.4&Traffic& � � � � � ___________________"
71
20.5&Noise& � � � � � ___________________"20.6&Deforestation& �� � � � � ___________________"20.7&Coral&reef&health& � � � � � ___________________"20.8&Number&of&fish& � � � � � ___________________"20.9&Corruption& � � � � � ___________________"20.10&Crime& � � � � � ___________________"20.11&Price&of&food& � � � � � ___________________"20.12&Price&of&water& � � � � � ___________________"20.13&Price&of&electricity& � � � � � ___________________"&21.&What&do&you&like&the&most&about&Pemba?&_______________________________________________________________________________________&_______________________________________________________________________________________&&22.&What&do&you&like&the&least&about&Pemba?&_______________________________________________________________________________________&_______________________________________________________________________________________&&&
23.&Which&Shehia&do&you&represent?&"____________ "24. What is your age? &____________ 25. What is your gender? (Please&check&(✔)&one&box) ☐ Female ☐ Male 26. Where do you live? (Please&check&(✔)&one&box) ☐&ChakeChake&&& ☐&Micheweni& & ☐&Mkoani&& & ☐&Wete&&&27.&How&many&people&live&in&your&house,&including&yourself?&&____&Adults& & ____&Children&under&15&
Section&C:&Demographic&information&
72
28. What is your level of education? (Please&check&(✔)&one&box) ☐&Primary&School&& & ☐&Secondary&School& & ☐&High&School& & &☐&University&& & & ☐&None&
29. Please add any additional comments or suggestions that you may have in the space below:
& _______________________________________________________________________________________&& _______________________________________________________________________________________&& _______________________________________________________________________________________&& _______________________________________________________________________________________&
&Thank"you"for"taking"the"time"to"complete"our"questionnaire.""Your"input"is""important"to"us"and"we"value"your"comments"and"contribution.""""
Section&D:&Additional&comments&