How many travelers can Pemba Island caryy. How will we handle waste disposal, water shortage and electricity needs as the amount of tourist to the island grow?

1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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