Home | Supporters | References | Green Globe | Related Research

Residents’ perceptions of Tourism Development — the case of Raglan, New Zealand Chris Ryan, The University of Waikato Management School, Hamilton.

This study reports findings from a survey of residents of Raglan, a small but growing seaside resort in New Zealand. Raglan has international fame among the surfing community for its left hand consistent wave break an in the last decade has seen significant population and tourism growth. All but 24 households were sent a questionnaire and 171 were returned. Using cluster analysis it was found that about 31 percent were pro-tourism, 43 percent were indifferent and the remainder expressed reservations about tourism development. The findings echo much that has been stated in the literature, and one group in particular that expressed opposition to tourism development was those who had been resident in Raglan for 11 to 20 years. Generally people recognise the economic advantages but expressed concerns about traffic and the cost of infrastructure upgrading.

Resident perceptions, New Zealand, Tourism Development

Chris Ryan, The University of Waikato Management School, Hamilton.

Cherie Cooper, Horwath Asia Pacific, Auckland

The research was commissioned by Tourism Raglan. The purpose of the research was to identify the attitudes being shown by residents of Raglan towards current levels of tourism in Raglan and to ascertain their feelings about future development.

Tourism has emerged as a major growth industry in many national economies, and New Zealand is no exception. This means that an increasing proportion of the world’s population is dependent upon the continuing growth of tourism (Faulkner and Tideswell, 1997) for employment and income. As a consequence of this growth, many local communities have to cope with the increased intensity of tourism and its impacts, both positive and negative. In New Zealand tourism is the country’s largest single source of foreign exchange earnings, bringing in over $5 billion in the year ending June, 2001 (www.tourisminfo.govt.nz).

There are many different types of tourism and consequently a wide variety of tourists and reasons for travel. One thing for certain is that a significant proportion of tourism involves some degree of resident-visitor interaction. Interaction can bring about both positive and negative impacts, which might affect the social sustainability of tourism in a particular destination. The challenge therefore is to maintain the long-term sustainability of the tourism industry and subsequently derive the economic benefits. Resident irritability undoubtedly challenges long-term sustainability and thus, mitigates economic success (Lawson, Williams, Young and Cossens, 1998).

Raglan (Whainagaroa) is a small seaside village located 48 kilometres from Hamilton’s city centre. It is situated on the West Coast of the North Island and is renowned for its superb surfing conditions. It is perceived as a ‘alternative’ destination with a variety of artistic and adventure activities. These latter activities range from horse trekking to caving, bush walking to jet boating (www.raglan.net.nz). It is, however, world famous among surfers as having one of the best and consistent ‘breaks’, and is indeed a venue on the professional surfing circuit. This helps to sustain a certain type of visitor, primarily young males who have adopted a surfing lifestyle, and thus backpacking lodges are an important component of the Raglan accommodation industry. "Raglan is relished within the international surfing community for its soul appeal and eco-friendly attitude" (www.raglansurfingschool.co.nz). The town is set amongst one of the most varied of New Zealand’s west coast landscapes, which provide an outstanding backdrop for many activities, most of which are just a short distance from the Raglan town centre. It therefore attracts a large number of people, both day visitors and longer stay visitors for its natural setting, and a number of tourism operators capitalise upon this with land and water based tours. Raglan is becoming increasingly well-known for its café scene, which includes live music and its original arts and crafts people and markets. Its Jazz Festival is attracting international attention among Jazz aficionados.

However, the community has a small resident population of about 3,200 residents and, according to Census data, 1,024 households. However, during the summer months (December through March) the population ‘explodes’ to around 10,000 as Raglan for the reasons given above. Tourism is growing at a fast rate within the town and surrounding areas and this is posing some planning issues with regards to community attitudes towards tourism development. A number of these views were incorporated in the Community Plan, Raglan Naturally and this paper seeks to complement that plan by a) further identifying and perhaps reinforcing knowledge about what is thought to be important to the residents of Raglan about tourism development, and b) offering some insights into how to plan and manage the growth of tourism.

The recently completed community plan outlines guidelines for development in and around Raglan. The Raglan Community Board appointed 13 community representatives to work with Waikato district Council staff to develop the community plan. The project team defined the development issues within Raglan, looked at the manner in which Raglan residents wished development to occur, and identified local priorities. Those ideas were then compiled into the draft community plan, for input, discussion, debate and refinement from the wider Raglan community over December 2000 to February 2001. After which, opinion was gathered through open forums and a formal submission process (Raglan Naturally, 2001). The plan was adopted by the Raglan Community Board in September 2001.

Waikato District Council corporate planner Jane Hambly said the initiative for the plan was initiated by concerns about requests for more land to be set aside for commercial development (Hamilton Press, Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2001). Mrs Hambly was further reported as stating that what made the Raglan plan stand out was its emphasis not only on what the people wanted, but what they did not want. "It is the first plan to go down that path". She went on to state "It gives good parameters and a range of options the community can follow. Raglan needs to develop, but it is important to preserve its character as a seaside village". The plan includes guidelines for tourism development based on primary research on resident attitudes to growth.

The research was informed by both the plan, the comments made by officers of Tourism Raglan in wishing to retain the characteristics of Raglan, and a search of the literature as to what, in other parts of the world, had been many of the issues that had arisen in resident-visitor interactions and the impacts tourism development had had upon community development. This section will discuss a number of important theories that relate to community attitudes towards tourism development with particular reference to communities akin to Raglan. Such research helps to establish a context and better understand the results that emerged from the questionnaire. Some of this research has emanated from New Zealand studies.

A comprehensive study comparing residents’ attitudes towards tourism in 10 New Zealand destinations was conducted by Lawson, Williams, Young and Cossens, (1998). The ten destinations (Whangarei, Auckland, Rotorua, Taupo, Napier, Blenheim, Kaikoura, Hokitika, Christchurch andQueenstown) were chosen to provide a representation of places with different roles and levels of involvement with the tourism industry. The following factors were found to influence resident attitudes at an individual level:

Guest/host ratio

The lower the guest-host ratio the more the social impacts of tourism will be diluted.

Perceived cultural or psychic distance between host and guest

The greater the cultural differences between residents and visitors, the larger were the social impacts

Host’s control over decision-makin

Levels of support for tourism decreases as resident control over development decreases

Stage of lifecycle (see Butler’s Destination Lifecycle Model)

Tourism impacts increase over time and support from residents may decline over time

Degree of seasonality

Generally it was noted that social impacts increase as seasonality increases but there was the caveat that residents are able to adopt effective coping strategies for short periods

Type of tourism encountered within the community

The type of tourism (e.g. packaged coach tours as against independent travellers) affects the degree of interaction between host and guest, and seems to have complex effects on residents due to other factors such as guest/host ratios and cultural differences.

In a study of the Rangitikei Ryan, Scotland and Montgomery (1998) found that a number of other issues seemed to affect resident perceptions. These included the amount of time a person had been resident in the region, whether they were employed in the tourism industry and how much they know about tourism. Nonetheless they concluded that there appeared to be high levels of altruism being expressed about tourism, that is it was seen as a benefit to the region because of the thought that it created jobs for other people, even if respondents were unable to identify any personal benefit. However, the authors of this study warn that as development continues and thereby more directly affects people, such altruism may become subject to more questioning.

Many of these ideas can be linked to the idea of the destination lifecycle proposed by Butler (1988) and expectations about varying carrying capacities. Generally the results from the study of ten New Zealand destinations conformed to these expectations. Contrasts between Queenstown, Hokitika and Kaikoura emphasised how residents may become more critical of tourism over time. The results from Auckland, Christchurch and Rotorua showed how larger cities with developed infrastructure and wide economic bases are more moderate in their views of tourism and are neither critical nor enthusiastic about tourism. Another factor noted across the whole sample was the belief that tourism is a ‘good thing’ for New Zealand in terms of economic rewards. However, residents are less inclined to admit that tourism has been a real benefit to them personally (Lawson et al, 1998).

Butler’s Destination Lifecycle Model illustrates the various stages a destination travels through, depending on the number of tourists it attracts over time. It is often stated that at the consolidation stage a number of undesirable social impacts emerge including crime, resident irritation with tourism and over-crowding. The lifecycle shows that if a destination, such as Raglan attracts more and more tourists over time and has no planning or controls, the destination will move through each stage until it eventually declines because of a degradation of the resort and its assets. At this stage it is often noted that tourism has essentially become the killer (or victim) of tourism in its own right.

Table 1 Doxey’s Irritation Index (Source: Doxey 1975)

Associated with Butler’s life cycle theory is Doxey’s Irritation Index which describes resident-visitor interactions and relationships. It has four steps, from Euphoria to Antagonism, where the host irritation increases through the stages 1-4 (1=low irritation, 4=high irritation). One limitation of this framework, and in fact Butler’s also, is the assumption that homogeneity characterises a community. The model assumes that it is the whole community that becomes hostile to tourism, but often communities are heterogeneous and different sections of the community have different reactions. For example, entrepreneurs are likely to welcome any growth in tourism, as might any unemployed people. However, the model does postulate that the more common an identity is felt by a community, the more likely it is able to make a constructive response about what levels and types of tourism it wishes to host. Canadian studies have shown that this is important (e.g. Getz and Jamal, 1997). It can be concluded that the Doxey Irritation Index is simplistic but it does indicate a telling factor in tourism development, and that is unbridled development will create such social change that at least some residents will develop attitudes antagonistic to tourism and tourists.

As noted, one of the factors that can be important is the length of residency in a community and level and type of employment. Mason and Cheyne (2000) conducted a study of resident attitudes to tourism development in the rural New Zealand setting of the Pohangina Valley, Manawatu. They found that direct economic dependence on the tourism industry was the "single most important factor affecting views". Further, Mason and Cheyne (2000) found that some residents were willing to accept more tourist arrivals, possibly due to the lack of alternatives to tourism. Capenerhurst (1994), as cited by Mason and Cheyne (2000), suggested many studies have highlighted the fears of community members towards tourism development. He argues that it is a romantic notion about community and environment that has emphasised community fears over ‘losing control" of their environment. Nonetheless Capenerhurst (1994) went on to say "if community members feel their identity to be threatened by this industry they will develop attitudes which are at best unfavourable". Further studies showed that those community members with a stronger than average attachment to their community had stronger views about tourism development, both positive and negative. They also found that those community members who had been living in a community for longer periods of time were more negative towards tourism development. This suggests that those those Raglan residents who have resided in Raglan for long periods of time will have a stronger attachment towards their community and see negative impacts more vividly. Further, they will have experienced the change overtime and can compare what the Raglan town-ship is now to what it used to be. Newcomers would not be as informed and therefore may have less strong views towards tourism development. In addition, Capenerhurst (1994) argues that smaller destinations are likely to react more strongly to development as it will be a lot more visible.

This review of the literature therefore identified a number of variables that had to be considered in the research design. These included:

The perceived level of tourism development

1.Residents of places with a longer history of tourism development are more aware of both the positive and negative impacts of tourism (Liu et al (1987).

2. There is a curvilinear relationship between perceptions of negative impacts and development of tourism, though not as strong as a relationship between perceptions of negative impacts and population growth (Allen et al 1998). In short, tourism may be ‘blamed’ for some aspects that perhaps should be more correctly attributed to population growth.

Economic Dependency on Tourism (from the perspective of those who have been or currently are employed in the tourism industry)

1.There is a positive relationship between employment in, and support for tourism (Glasson, 1994).

2Those who were more dependent on tourism were more positive about tourism

(Lankford and Howard, 1994).

3.Personal benefits of tourism were the best predictors of perceptions of positive impacts (Prentice, 1993).

Respondent Demographics

1.Older residents were less positive about tourism (Brougham and Butler, 1981).

Community Attachment

1.People who had lived longer in a community were more positive about some types of tourists (Brougham and Butler, 1981).

2.A greater attachment to a community was associated with higher ratings of both positive and negative impacts of tourism (McCool and Martin, 1994).

In addition to the academic literature another important document that had to be considered was the community plan "Raglan Naturally". The publication of the Raglan Community plan brought together a vision for Raglan encompassing all areas of the community, including the key areas of focus, buildings, community well-being, education, employment, industry and importantly tourism and promotion, to name a few. This community plan, made available in September 2001, represented a common direction - the collective views and aspirations of a diverse community. The basis of the community plan for Raglan is "to generate opportunities for local employment, new business and planned growth while protecting and enhancing Raglan’s unique character and diversity". The Community plan states it is a framework that can be used to guide decision-making for local planning purposes.

With reference to tourism the Community Plan emphasises the promotion of an image that Raglan’s own people want of their town. The community has stated it does not want:

1)Commercialisation of the environment-losing our town to the visitors

2)Damage or destruction of natural resources and ecosystems by facilities or activities for tourism

3)Unplanned activities which exploit people or the environment

The questionnaire for this study reflected the purpose of the research and the past research findings that are summarised above. It was divided into 4 sections, namely:

1. What Raglan residents like/do not like about tourism in Raglan (open-ended response generated).
2. Levels of agreement with statements about tourism development, based on a 5-point Likert type scale with a non-response option as recommended by Ryan and Garland (1999). The subject matter of these statements were derived from the literature and past research.
3. What Raglan residents believe are the positive and negative aspects that could result from tourism in Raglan over the next three-five years (from an open-ended response item).
4. Demographic data (gender, age, dependent children, marital status, employment, cultural group, household income).

The available literature pointed to a number of areas about which respondents could be questioned. They include, shopping hours, tourism planning authorities, the local economy/employment, attractions/activities, tourist characteristics, tourist/resident facilities e.g. parking, quality of life, positive/negative aspects of tourism and the distribution of benefits etc. The survey distributed to residents added to this list a number of items that the Raglan community indicated it did not want, including items about parking problems, traffic congestion, general overcrowding, pressure on existing facilities and the natural environment, and increases in crime, rates and prices. Indeed, it is of interest to note the close correlation between items identified by the Raglan Community in its Community Plan with items identified as being important from other research.

Some items were similar in nature; the purpose of this was to ‘test’ the respondents for accuracy, that is. by asking the respondents the same question in a different way we could determine whether respondents answered the questions consistently. The disadvantage of such a design is that it produces a lengthy questionnaire, which may have discouraged some residents from participating.

As part of the research design respondents were given the opportunity to include their name and address if they wanted to add any extra detail through an interview. After completing an analysis of the questionnaire these people were telephoned and their responses are used below to illustrate some of the feelings and themes expressed in the research.

Sample Characteristics

The Raglan Post Office distributed 1000 questionnaires, comprising the delivery of questionnaires to all but 24 of the outlying households in Raglan. From these, 171 completed questionnaires were returned, giving a response rate of 17.1 percent. Of the 171 respondents, approximately 38.8 percent were male, and 60.6 percent female. Of these about 66 percent were between the ages of 26-55, 32 percent over 56 years and the remainder under 26 years. Of the sample, 39.3 percent had children living with them, 60.7 percent did not. Just over a third (37.2 percent) were of single status, 62.8 percent were in a de-facto relationship or married. Of the sample, 20.8 percent had, or currently work in the tourism industry, 79.2 percent of the sample, do not and had never worked in the tourism industry. About one-third (38 percent )of the sample had an average household income of between $0 and $30,000, 38 percent had an average household income of between $30,001 and $60,000 and 24 percent of the sample had an average household income of over $60,001. Of the total sample, Maori accounted for 9.4 percent. (For all frequencies, see Appendix 2)

The number of years the respondents have been residing in Raglan is shown in table 1.

A key feature in any research based upon questionnaires is to what degree is a sample adequate and the data reliable. Various measures exist. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy produced a result of 0.86, which is deemed to be a ‘meritorious’ statistic. (See Appendix 2). The response rate also means that the results attain the normal criteria of being accurate at the 95 percent confidence level with an error rate of plus or minus 3 percent.

The use of Strict Scale Reliability Analysis produced an estimated reliability scale of 0.5897. Ideally this result should be in excess of 0.6 and this statistic prompted a closer examination of the results. Two factors seem to have mitigated this result; first, there was a high level of non response on some of the items relating to local authority policy and second, the results were highly skewed due to differing opinions, this in turn affected variance. The first result is not unique to Raglan because Ryan, Scotland and Montgomery found the same results arising in the case of the Rangitkei. It is thought that this occurs because respondents take advantage of the non-response option and indicate their lack of awareness of local authority policies. This is deemed to be a better response than the selection of a mid-point on a Likert type scale and it indicates some need for a better dissemination of information about authority policies. Given the community involvement in the development of the Community Plan this result was unexpected.

The main part of the questionnaire asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement with a series of statements about tourism in Raglan. The scale used was one where 0 equalled ‘not applicable/don’t know/have no opinion’, 1 was ‘Strongly disagree’ and 5 was ‘Strongly agree’.

The results are shown in Table 2. The items are shown in descending order of agreement and not in the order used on the questionnaire. The mean score shows the average scored on that item, the standard deviation is a measure of dispersion around that mean and the last column shows the number who actually completed the question. With reference to the standard deviation, the smaller is the number the more homogeneous are the results, and the larger the number the greater is the variation in responses.

The tourism industry is good for the local 4.15 0.93170

Economy

Tourists create traffic and parking problems 4.14 0.94 171

Tourism gives you the opportunity to meet people 3.92 0.88168

from other countries

The tourists that come to your region are usually very 3.90 0.71 164

Friendly

I have no objection to visitors who spend less than 3.89 0.93 166

one day in the area

Tourism has created jobs in your area 3.88 1.02164

Tourism encourages a wide variety of cultural 3.81 1.05168

and other activities by the local population

(crafts, pottery, music, festivals etc)

The main problem with the region is that there are not 3.73 1.07 163

enough facilities to cope with the number of tourists

The region has a number of good quality restaurants 3.71 1.05 169

because of tourism

There will be problems of traffic congestion and 3.65 1.15167

accidents if more tourists come to this region

The money spent locally to attract more tourists is 3.58 1.08165

a good investment

There are already some things I do not do in the area at 3.57 1.26165

certain times because of the tourists

I think that attracting more tourists to the region 3.56 1.26168

Is a good idea

The region has a wide selection of tourist attractions 3.47 1.06165

The tourism planning authorities pay 3.45 1.17141

little attention to the views of local residents

when making decisions about the future of the area

Local residents are the people who mainly suffer from 3.42 1.22161

living in a tourist area

Tourism in the region might lead to more petty crime 3.33 1.18166

The tourism industry provides many jobs in the region 3.28 1.12160

I feel the regions tourism planning authorities 3.27 1.19164

should encourage further tourism developments

in the area

The development of tourism facilities and attractions 3.23 1.21166

is a threat to the local environment

I feel that tourism is growing too fast for the area to 3.21 1.20164

cope with it

I believe the tourism industry can improve the quality 3.19 1.30164

of life in the region

The region tourism planners should invest more public 3.18 1.29164

money in developing tourism attractions

Shopping hours in your area should 3.04 1.29 165

be extended to cater better for tourists

The benefits of tourism get distributed widely 2.92 1.23 165

through the community

The region would be a dull place if it were not for 2.86 1.40 166

the attempts to attract tourists

I feel that the region tourism planning authorities should 2.86 1.33 162

consider plans to restrict the growth of tourism

The tourists I have seen in this region generally have 2.77 1.18 160

little consideration for the local population

The tourism /planning authorities do an excellent 2.61 0.94 148

job in balancing the needs of local residents with

the desire to increase tourism

I feel the regions tourism planning authorities do an 2.53 0.92 144

excellent job in making the right decisions about the

area I live

Tourism means that the area is losing a number of 2.45 1.04 164

shops that served the interests of local people

The area would be better off if tourists did not come 2.20 1.11 161

In looking at the top 10 items it is evident that the respondents feel that tourism brings substantial returns to Raglan. The economic benefits in terms of jobs and the local economy are ranked highly and it is seen that tourism has brought a range of crafts outlets and cafes and restaurants. The main costs are seen as issues of congestion in traffic as these are ranked in second and tenth place. There are some signs of residents moderating their behaviour in that the item ‘There are already some things I do not do in the area at certain times’ because of tourists is ranked at 12 out of the 32 items, which is certainly high enough to signal possible future concern. That item might be said to be of only moderate concern because the very lowest scoring item is ‘The area would be better off if tourists did not come’ attracts a score of only 2.20. Most of the items calling for planning restrictions on tourism occupy the second half of the table and indeed the item ‘The money spent locally to attract more tourists is a good investment’ obtains sufficient support at a mean of 3.58 to place it in the top one-third of the table. The tourists themselves are also well regarded being seen as friendly (3.90) with no objection being shown to day visitors (3.89). While it is evident that Raglan residents are comparatively satisfied with the current levels of tourism there are some warning signs that further growth might not be appreciated. The item ‘the benefits of tourism get distributed widely throughout the community’ attracts only a moderate score of 2.92 and the notion that ‘the region’s tourism planners should invest more public money in developing tourism attractions’ can only be said to have lukewarm support at 3.18 (although the standard deviation implies some variation of opinion on this item). Finally, respondents were asked to rank on an overall scale of 11 points whether an increase in tourism would be seen as beneficial to Raglan, with 11 representing the highest level of support for tourism development. The score was 7.57 with a standard deviation of 3.10. This represents a specific skew in favour of increasing tourism, albeit at levels that imply that some have some hesitation about such a path, while others would definitely like to see more development. It should be noted that the item that tourism was negatively impacted on the environment had a ‘moderate’ score of 3.23.

A traditional means of trying to tease out the levels of support within a community, and how many are pro-development or hesitate about development is to use a statistical technique called ‘cluster analysis’. This attempts to create clusters of respondents based on their answers to the questions. Using this approach indicated a ‘solution’ of three clusters, namely:

1.Approximately 31 percent of sample is pro tourism (with caution)

2.Approximately 27 percent of sample is against tourism

3.Approximately 43 percent of sample is neither for, nor against tourism

(See Appendix 2 for Cluster Analysis Tables)

Each of these clusters were then examined to see if any specific socio-demographic variables could be found that would characterize each grouping.

In examining specific socio-demographic variables a number of trends emerged. First, it was found that neither gender nor age were discriminating variables. However, a significant variable was the duration of residence in Raglan. For example it was found that it was those respondents who had lived in Raglan for between 11 to 20 years who most disagreed with the statement ﾒI believe the tourism industry can improve the quality of life in the regionﾓ. The mean score of these respondents was 2.66, whereas the overall mean score was 3.19 (where 1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree). According to Faulkner and Tideswell (1997) the effect of a resident’s period of resident on their attitudes towards tourism appears to depend on the history of the destination and the stage of tourism development. Faulkner and Tideswell (1997) have found newcomers to a place to be both more and less favourably disposed to tourism depending on their situation. For example, if they have migrated to a place for employment relating to tourism they appear to be more favourably disposed. Conversely, if they have migrated to a place for a secluded lifestyle, they appear to be less favourably disposed towards tourism development.

Faulkner and Tideswell (1997) have also found long-term residents to be both more and less favourably disposed to tourism development, depending on the history of the destination. For example, long-term residents in established destinations become accustomed to tourism over an extended period. Conversely, those long-term residents in emerging destinations are less favourably disposed to the changes accumulating form tourism development. These findings could be an explanation for moderately long-term residents in Raglan (emerging destination) being less favourable towards tourism development. Because Raglan is a fairly new destination in terms of tourism growth, it can be argued that those who have lived over ten years in Raglan make comparisons with the town before its current expansion and often view these current developments as being negative in nature. However the same explanation does not suffice for those who have lived in the town for over 20 years. No evidence exist for why these residents should be more tolerant of change, although it is suggested that because New Zealand society has changed so much over that period, any changes in Raglan are seen as simply a reflection of those changes.

Again, those living in Raglan between 11-20 years produced the lowest mean score when rating the overall development of tourism in Raglan. The mean score of these respondents was 6.35, whereas the overall mean score was 7.57 (where 1= an increase in tourism would be bad for Raglan, 11=an increase in tourism would be good for Raglan).

This group of respondents (those who have lived in Raglan between 11-20 years) produced significant results on four other dimensions. These dimensions are as follows (where 1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree):

1."I think that attracting more tourists to the region is a good idea"

Mean score: 3.04 (lowest), mean score of all other respondents: 3.56

2."I have no objection to visitors who spend less that one day in the area"

Mean score: 3.61 (lowest), mean score of all other respondents: 3.89

3."I feel that the region tourism planning authorities should consider plans to restrict the growth of tourism"

Mean score: 3.41 (highest), mean score of all other respondents: 2.86

4."I feel that tourism is growing too fast for the area to cope with it"

Mean score: 3.64 (highest), mean score of all other respondents: 2.21

(See Appendix 2)

In section one of the questionnaire respondents were asked to think about Raglan as a place to live generally. Firstly respondents were asked to state what they like about Raglan. By utilising the common word variable in Microsoft Word and SPSS, we were able to determine the most common themes to emerge from the responses. The results yielded five main themes. These themes are:

1.Sense of community/small town feel - as a retired women resident reiterated, "We are a caring lot in Raglan - very sociable, we don’t have to belong to a church to be cared for" (Phone Interview, May 15^th, 2002).

2.The beach and natural environment

3.The people (relaxed, warm and friendly)

4.The climate

5.Slow pace, relaxed lifestyle - a retired women resident stated: "Visitors have commented to me about the pace of Raglan, and this is why they come back, they enjoy the peace and quiet. Several people have also commented on how lovely Raglan is, how there is something for everybody" (Phone Interview, May15^th, 2002). Another resident said that although Raglan needs to grow and promote its tourism attractions, a lot of people like to go to Raglan and just do their own thing.

Respondents were then asked what they don’t like about Raglan. The results yielded four main themes. These themes are:

1.The lack of parking/traffic congestion in summer

2.Rates are too high

3.Food prices are too high

4.Lack of activities and good quality shops - as a women resident in Raglan stated: "We don’t have a focus in Raglan; there is no central meeting place. When people arrive in the town they don’t go "wow" and this is because we don’t have a theme. Business men and tourism groups don’t get together to discuss plans for the town, there is no "united" feel between different groups in Raglan. We should promote our craftspeople and musicians; we need to plan events to bring the crowds in e.g. the Marlborough Wine and Food Festival" (Phone Interview, June 12^th, 2002). Another Raglan resident (business man) said: "Expansion is always at the expense of something else e.g. the environment and local Maori. Planners have never consulted once with the people of sacred sites. They have never once asked local Tangata Whenua about their tourism ventures or their view points. Tangata Whenua have intellectual property rights and they should be consulted" (Phone Interview, May 15^th, 2002).

In section three of the survey respondents were asked to list the positive things they believe would result from tourism in raglan in the next three to five years. The results yielded four main themes. These themes are:

1.An increase in employment opportunities for locals

2.Growth in local businesses - as a Raglan Community Board member stated: "It’s a two-edged sword. On the one hand it’s good for businesses and improves the taxman’s income, but on the other hand it inconveniences residents e.g. parking becomes a struggle. We must strike a balance but this is very difficult" (Phone Interview, May 15^th, 2002).

3.Influx of capital to upgrade the town and facilities such as footpaths

4.Development of new attractions including shops, restaurants and activities

A retired Raglan resident said: "It doesn’t concern me, though it is great to see lots of extra people, it’s good for business. It doesn’t create any problems and it’s great for the community" (Phone Interview, June 12^th, 2002). Another resident commented: "Tourism should be a positive thing, but I am not sure that it always will be. I’m a bit "on the fence" about tourism in Raglan, but it is not going to go backwards. I was brought up in Raglan and have since returned so I’ve seen a lot of changes, more people, different lifestyle, but this is not necessarily a bad thing unless tourist businesses take over from service businesses such as butcheries. Tourism is positive but we must take caution. Raglan has such natural beauty that I don’t want to see get spoilt, but I don’t think this will happen unless we see the introduction of high-rise buildings. I don’t want to see raglan become like "the Mount" (Phone Interview, June 12^th, 2002).

Research conducted by Garland (1984), cited by Mason and Cheyne(2000) analysed the attitudes of New Zealand residents towards tourists in three areas: Rotorua, Tauranga and the Bay of Islands. The residents saw job creation, better incomes, increased civic pride, and support of heritage preservation, increased facility provision, and the opportunity to meet new, interesting people as the positive impacts resulting from tourism. These positive impacts are similar to those derived from the Raglan Community Impacts study.

Respondents were also asked to list the negative things they believe would result from tourism in raglan in the next three to five years. The results yielded five main themes. These themes are:

1.Increase in parking problems, traffic congestion and general overcrowding

2.Pressure on existing facilities e.g. sewage, water, harbour access

3.Pressure on the natural environment e.g. more litter and pollution - as a Raglan Board Community Member stated: we need to keep the impact (of Tourism) as low as possible e.g. ecotourism, tourism on the harbour, rather than high-impact commercial tourism. Wouldn’t like to see it become like Queenstown" (Phone Interview, May 15^th, 2002).

Another Raglan resident who is retired said: "tourism is very good for Raglan, it is good for residents to see the town grow, but it can be a nuisance. Raglan has a lot going for it, as long as they (tourism planners) keep it simple - don’t get too smart" (Phone Interview, May 15^th, 2002).

4.Increase in crime

5.Increase in rates and prices

Garland (1984) in his research on three New Zealand areas found the residents also noted negative impacts: congestion, price increases, more noise, litter pollution, increased crime, and the introduction to a more rapid way of life. These negative impacts are much the same as those resulting from the Raglan Community Impacts study.

International tourism is reported to directly support over 100,000 jobs, and in a small country like New Zealand (population approximately 3.5 million), tourism has become an important and influential factor in many lives (Lawson, Williams, Young, Cossens, 1998). The above results show an optimistic future for all stakeholders in the Raglan Community. It seems the majority of the local population is positive about tourism development, provided certain controls are in place to mitigate any adverse affects, be it personal or environmental. The feedback from the questionnaires suggests that the local community is adamant about being involved in the tourism planning process. This could be seen with the development of the Raglan Community Plan, Raglan Naturally, where members of the community could have their say with regards to what they wanted to see result from a growth in tourism, and indeed what they did not want to see result from a growth in tourism. It is positive to see the community working together on such issues, and it needs to continue to do so in the future.

Dominant themes emerged from the data analysis, showing council the need to focus on areas such as sewage upgrades, parking facilities and harbour access. These areas need to be improved not only for the locals but also to cater for the influx of tourists over the summer months. It would appear that there is a perception that these facilities are just not able to cope with current much less future numbers. It seems the community is happy for tourism to progress, as long as certain facilities are improved and controls are established to monitor the impacts. Basically, the community wants an increase of the "right type" of tourism, where the negative impacts are kept at a minimum. This may involve the promotion of ecotourism, that is tourism which keeps environmental impacts as low as possible, while educating tourists about the fragile ecosystems they are visiting. The registration of Raglan in world-wide eco-tour directories is a priority for Raglan tourism planners, as stated in "Raglan Naturally". The community wants to be able to have their say with regards to planning for tourism, in order for their needs to be met and for their "slower paced" lifestyle to be maintained. It seems that facilities within Raglan are a concern for many residents. Parking and traffic congestion problems are top of the list, also of concern are the high rates, food prices, harbour access and the lack of shopping and activities. Residents are concerned that parking, traffic congestion, food prices and rates will all be adversely affected with the introduction of more tourists.

For a destination such as Raglan to grow tourism in a sustainable manner, controls must be secure in place. This includes management and planning regimes that are sensitive to social and community impacts, whilst incorporating effective strategies to reap the rewards, and in the same way minimise the negative impacts. Community attitudes towards tourism development are very complex in nature, and so acting upon these varied community views is not a simple task for tourism planners (Mason and Cheyne, 2000). The results have showed that the majority of Raglan residents are positive about the impacts of tourism in their community. This result might be said to reinforce the positive work conducted by the Community Board and local authorities and sets the basis for future tourism planning in Raglan. There are some feelings of caution within the community. The community wants to see the development of tourism as long as it is of a sustainable nature. The Raglan community is very protective of its environment hence; it does not want to see the type of development that has taken place in Mount Maunganui. So long as the community is represented throughout the planning process, enabling residents to express their views, then tourism within Raglan will see positive growth.

The issue is in what ways can tourism development occur? The clear conclusions from the research are that:

1. the community is in favour of tourism development subject to the caveat that:
1. it continues to be small scale;
2. consistent with what is seen as the Raglan life-style of a relaxed pace and as an ‘alternative’ community;
3. it does not develop into a high rise, high density form of tourism.
2. there is a cautious satisfaction about current policies but an awareness that such policies must be perpetuated.

However, it is obviously going to be very difficult to retain and in the longer term restrain growth without some proactive controls. The District Plan must clearly annunciate the desire for small scale development in order to ensure that any future planning application under the Resource Management Act is consistent with this want. There perhaps has to be consideration given to strict planning limitations being imposed at this stage — for example that beach front and cliff top buildings should be restricted in height and in purpose. In short, the Community has clearly identified a direction both in this survey and in Raglan Naturally and hence the next stage is to identify means by which such desires can be achieved.

It is suggested that Raglan considers a path that has been identified by Kaikoura. Kaikoura will be the pilot community in New Zealand to gain certification as a community under the global sustainability programme, Green Globe 21. Green Globe 21 aims to deliver ten environmental outcomes, including:

To contribute to conservation and protection of the eco-system

To be based on sustainable patterns of consumption

To make development decisions with the support of local communities and the recognition of local customs and culture

To create employment for women and indigenous peoples

To respect international laws protecting the environment

(Brunet, Bauer and De Lacy, 2000).

These outcomes are based on continuous improvement, international benchmarking and third party certification. It is suggested that these aims are consistent with the wishes of the Raglan Community and that, based on the assumption that Green Globe certification will be meaningful in an international tourism market and be a signifier for the type of tourists Raglan would wish to attract, then it might be worth considering the concept of Raglan as North Island’s first Green Globe Community.

www.raglan.net.nz

www.raglansurfingschool.co.nz

www.nztb.co.nz

Brunet, S., Bauer, T. and De Lacy, T. 2000, Green Globe 21: Certifying Sustainable Tourism in Heritage Cities in Asia/Pacific. Presentation to UNESCO, ‘Culture, Heritage and Tourism Conference’ Bhaktapur, Nepal, April.

Faulkner, B. & Tideswell, C. (1997). A Framework for Monitoring Community Impacts of Tourism, Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 5(1), 3-27.

Lawson, R.W., Williams, J., Young, T. & Cossens, J. (1998). A Comparison of residents Attitudes Towards Tourism in 10 New Zealand Destinations, Tourism Management. 19(3), 247-256.

Raglan Community plan (2001): "Raglan Naturally".

Richards, G. & Hall, D. (2000). Tourism and Sustainable Community Development. Routledge, London.

Laws, E. (1995). Tourist Destination Management-Issues Analysis and Policies. Routledge, London.

Pearce, P., Moscardo, G. & Ross, G. (1996). Tourism Community Relationships. Pergamon, London.

Ryan, C., A.Scotland and D.Montgomery, 1998, Resident attitudes to tourism development — a comparative study between the Rangitikei, New Zealand and Bakewell, United Kingdom Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(2)115-130.

Smith, V. (1989). Hosts and Guests-The Anthropology of Tourism, 2^nd Edition. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Hamilton Press, Wednesday, October 17^th, 2001.

Phone Interviews- Raglan Residents (15^th of May and 12^th June, 2002).

Home | Supporters | References | Green Globe | Related Research