Residents' Perceptions of the Impacts of Tourism in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe

o Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

o NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

o ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

How to cite this thesis

Surname, Initial(s). (2012) Title of the thesis or dissertation. PhD. (Chemistry)/ M.Sc. (Physics)/ M.A. (Philosophy)/M.Com. (Finance) etc. [Unpublished]: University of Johannesburg. Retrieved from: https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Index?site_name=Research%20Output (Accessed: Date).

Residents’ perceptions of the impacts of tourism in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe

Sakhile Sibonginkosi Moyo

School of Tourism and Hospitality, Faculty of Management, University of Johannesburg

Supervisor: Professor Tembi Tichaawa

A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Management, University of Johannesburg, in fulfilment for the requirement of the degree of Master in Tourism and Hospitality

Submitted: September 2016

i PLAGIARISM DECLARATION

I declare that this dissertation thesis is my own original work, conducted under the supervision of Prof. Tembi Maloney Tichaawa. It is submitted for the degree of Master of Arts in the Faculty of Management at the University of Johannesburg. This work has not been submitted as part of a degree at another institution but it has informed the production of two journal articles written by the same author.

 I know that plagiarism is wrong. Plagiarism is to use another’s work and to pretend that it is one’s own.  I have used the Harvard Method convention for citation and referencing. Each contribution to, and quotation in, this essay/assignment from the work(s) of other people has been attributed, and has been cited and referenced.  This essay/assignment is my own work and has not been partially or wholly copied from another.  I have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to copy my work with the intention of passing it off as his or her own work.  I acknowledge that copying someone else’s assignment or essay, or part of it, is wrong, and declare that this is my own work.

Signature:

ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank the following individuals who facilitated my completion of the study:  My supervisor, Prof. Tembi Maloney Tichaawa, for his encouragement, support, assistance and motivation. No words can express my deeply felt gratitude for all that he has done for me.  My family, Mr T.V. and Dr N. Moyo (my parents), Mthabisi (my brother), Thandekile (my sister) and Oteng Ncube (my cousin) for their support, encouragement, financial assistance, and for the administering of the questionnaires. Most importantly, I want to thank them for being my joint pillar of strength.  Mr P. Senderayi and Mr Siyabulela Nyikana, for their input, assistance and encouragement.  My friends, Siphosenkosi I. Mlala and Talent M. Mudimba, and especially Roselyn S. Magagula and Mzomuhle I. Sibanda, for being there for me when I thought that I could not carry on any longer, as well as whenever I especially needed them to be around.  The University of Johannesburg for its funding.  Above all, the Lord Almighty, for His mercy.

iii DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Tapu Vincent and Ngoni Moyo. Thank you for always believing in me, for your patience while I pursued my studies, and for all your support and unwavering, unconditional love. I would not have made it in life without you. May God bless you abundantly.

iv ABSTRACT

Increasingly, tourism has been recognised as playing a substantial role in several developing economies, including that of Zimbabwe, despite the political instability that has been experienced by the country in recent times. The purpose of this research was to examine the perceptions of residents towards the impacts of tourism development in Bulawayo. The resident perceptions towards tourism impact were measured by means of a 5-point Likert-type scale comprised of 38 variable items that were classified into 8 constructs (positive economic impacts; negative economic impacts; positive sociocultural impacts; negative sociocultural impacts; positive environmental impacts; negative environmental impacts; evaluation of tourism impacts; and general impacts). A questionnaire survey was used to target n = 384 residents with the aid of trained fieldworkers, using a stratified random sampling technique. The data were analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. Overall, in terms of profile, the study found a higher proportion of women than men, within the age range of 18 to 85 years old. Most had lived for between 10 to 40 years in Bulawayo. They were mostly married and, besides English, were found to speak both Ndebele and Shona, being indigenous languages of the country. The study revealed that the respondents were engaged in low-income jobs, despite the majority of them being relatively well-educated. Very few of them work in the tourism sector and are involved in the planning/decision-making in tourism in their area. Consequently, their understanding of what tourism constitutes, and their knowledge of the subject, can be described as fair. Overall, their perceptions were found to be positive, although a few areas of concern did emerge. Administration of the statistical test for difference, in terms of the demographic variables and the perception items, revealed significant statistical differences and similarities. The study makes a significant contribution towards existing scholarship analysing resident perceptions of tourism in the Zimbabwean context.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration ii Acknowledgements iii Dedication iv Abstract v Table of content vi List of figures x List of tables xi List of acronyms xiii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM STATEMENT 1.1 Preamble ...... 1 1.2 Clarification of basic terms and concepts ...... 3 1.3 Problem statement ...... 5 1.4 Research objectives ...... 5 1.5 Significance of the study ...... 6 1.6 Dissertation outline ...... 7 1.7 Summary ...... 7

CHAPTER TWO: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Introduction ...... 8 2.2 The social exchange theory (SET) ...... 8 2.3 Sustainable tourism development (STD) ...... 12 2.4 Summary ...... 15

CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW 3.1 Introduction ...... 17 3.2 Tourism in Zimbabwe ...... 17 3.3 Residents’ perceptions of, and attitudes towards, tourism development ...... 20 3.3.1 Demographics versus perceptions ...... 23 3.4 Community participation in tourism development ...... 23 3.5 Residents’ involvement in tourism development ...... 26 3.6 Challenges for community participation in tourism development in developing countries ...... 28 3.7 Tourism as a tool for development, with a special focus on the developing countries ...... 29 3.8 Impacts of tourism in context ...... 30 3.8.1 Economic impacts of tourism ...... 30 3.8.2 Sociocultural impacts of tourism ...... 38

vi 3.8.3 Environmental impacts of tourism ...... 42 3.9 Ways of minimising negative impacts and of maximising positive impacts ...... 46 3.10 The role of stakeholders in tourism development ...... 47 3.11 Planning and policy development ...... 51 3.12 Barriers and challenges contributing to the limitation of tourism development ...... 52 3.13 Summary ...... 55

CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4.1 Introduction ...... 56 4.2 Research questions ...... 56 4.3 Background to the use of the case study area ...... 57 4.4 Research design ...... 58 4.4.1 Survey population ...... 61 4.4.2 Sampling procedure ...... 61 4.5 Validity and reliability ...... 64 4.5.1 Validity ...... 64 4.5.2 Reliability ...... 65 4.6 Ethical considerations ...... 66 4.7 Methods and tools for collecting data ...... 66 4.7.1 Secondary data ...... 66 4.7.2 Primary data ...... 67 4.7.3 Questionnaire survey ...... 67 4.8 The pilot survey...... 69 4.9 Methods of data analysis ...... 70 4.10 Summary ...... 71

CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.1 Introduction ...... 72 5.2 Demographic profile of the respondents ...... 72 5.2.1 Age of the respondents ...... 72 5.2.2 Gender of the respondents ...... 73 5.2.3 Respondents’ highest level of education attained ...... 73 5.2.4 Respondents’ employment status ...... 74 5.2.5 Respondents’ duration of stay in Bulawayo ...... 75 5.2.6 Respondents’ ethnic group ...... 75

vii 5.2.7 Respondents’ marital status ...... 76 5.2.8 Respondents’ personal benefits from tourism development ...... 76 5.2.9 Respondents’ monthly household income ...... 77 5.3 Understanding of, and involvement in, tourism ...... 78 5.3.1 Understanding of the nature of tourism ...... 78 5.3.2 Respondents’ level of knowledge of the tourism industry ...... 79 5.4 Respondents’ level of influence in tourism development...... 81 5.5 Respondents’ involvement in tourism ...... 82 5.6 Perceptions of tourism impacts in Bulawayo ...... 83 5.6.1 Perceptions of positive economic impacts ...... 83 5.6.2 Perceptions of negative economic impacts ...... 87 5.6.3 Perceptions of positive sociocultural impacts ...... 88 5.6.4 Perceptions of negative sociocultural impacts ...... 91 5.6.5 Perceptions of positive environmental impacts ...... 94 5.6.6 Perceptions of negative environmental impacts ...... 96 5.7 Overall evaluation of tourism impacts ...... 98 5.8 Perceptions of the impact of the Cecil John Rhodes memorial ...... 99 5.9 Who benefits more from tourism in the local community? ...... 100 5.10 Validity and reliability analysis...... 101 5.10.1 Validity analysis ...... 101 5.10.1.1 Positive economic impacts ...... 101 5.10.1.2 Negative economic impacts ...... 102 5.10.1.3 Positive sociocultural impacts ...... 102 5.10.1.4 Negative sociocultural impacts ...... 103 5.10.1.5 Positive environmental impacts ...... 103 5.10.1.6 Negative environmental impacts ...... 104 5.10.1.7 Evaluation of tourism impacts ...... 105 5.10.2 Reliability analysis ...... 105 5.11 Group comparisons...... 106 5.11.1 Gender ...... 106 5.11.2 Work industry ...... 107 5.11.3 Involvement in tourism ...... 108 5.11.4 Perceived tourism impacts and age ...... 109 5.11.5 Perceived tourism impacts and education level ...... 110 5.11.6 Perceived tourism impacts and length of stay in Bulawayo ...... 112

viii 5.11.7 Perceived tourism impacts and household income ...... 112 5.12 General key informant views ...... 113 5.13 Chapter summary ...... 115

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Introduction ...... 116 6.2 Summary of key findings ...... 116 6.2.1 Summary of the profiles of residents in Bulawayo ...... 116 6.3 Conclusion based on study objectives ...... 116 6.4 Recommendations ...... 121 6.4.1 To the government and the public sector ...... 121 6.4.2 To the private sector ...... 125 6.4.3 To the community ...... 125 6.5 Limitations of the study ...... 126 6.6 Future direction ...... 126 6.7 Concluding remarks ...... 127 REFERENCES ...... 128

APPENDICES ...... 155

Appendix A: Resident survey questionnaire ...... 155 Appendix B: Key informant schedule ...... 159 Appendix C: Table 5.39 Differences in age groups in terms of ANOVA ...... 160 Appendix D: Table 5.41 Differences in length of stay of groups by means of ANOVA ...... 162 Appendix E: Table 5.42 Differences in percieved tourism impacts between household income………164

ix LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: A model of the social exchange process 11 Figure 2.2: The three cornerstones of sustainable tourism development 14 Figure 3.1: Summary of Zimbabwean tourist products 18 Figure 3.2: Doxey’s irridex model 20 Figure 3.3: The role of the local government in tourism development 49 Figure 3.4: Connections between the barriers to effective development 52 Figure 4.1: Map of Zimbabwe, showing the geographic location of Bulawayo 58 Figure 4.2: Map of Bulawayo, Showing the four stratums based on fieldwork 63

x LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.1: Age of the respondents ...... 73 Table 5.2: Gender of the respondents ...... 73 Table 5.3: Highest level of education attained by the respondents ...... 74 Table 5.4: Respondents’ employment status ...... 74 Table 5.5: Respondents’ length of stay in Bulawayo ...... 75 Table 5.6: Respondents’ ethnic group ...... 76 Table 5.7: Respondents’ marital status ...... 76 Table 5.8: Respondents’ personal benefits from tourism development ...... 77 Table 5.9: Respondents’ monthly income ...... 78 Table 5.10: Respondents’ level of knowledge of the tourism industry ...... 81 Table 5.11: Respondents’ level of influence in tourism development ...... 82 Table 5.12: Respondents’ involvement in tourism ...... 82 Table 5.13: Positive economic impacts ...... 85 Table 5.14: Negative economic impacts ...... 87 Table 5.15: Positive sociocultural impacts ...... 89 Table 5.16: Negative sociocultural impacts ...... 91 Table 5.17: Positive environmental impacts ...... 94 Table 5.18: Negative environmental impacts ...... 96 Table 5.19: Evaluation of tourism impacts ...... 99 Table 5.20: Perceptions of the impact of the Cecil John Rhodes memorial (n = 307, in %) ...... 99 Table 5.21: Who benefits more from tourism in the local community ...... 100 Table 5.22: The KMO Measure of, and Bartlett's Test for, positive economic impacts ...... 101 Table 5.23: An explanation of total variance ...... 101 Table 5.24: The KMO Measure of, and Bartlett's Test for, negative economic impacts ...... 102 Table 5.25: An expanation of total variance ...... 102 Table 5.26: The KMO Measure of, and Bartlett's Test for, positive sociocultural impacts ...... 102 Table 5.27: An explanation of total variance ...... 103 Table 5.28: The KMO Measure of, and Bartlett's Test for, negative sociocultural impacts ...... 103 Table 5.29: An explanation of total variance ...... 103 Table 5.30: The KMO Measure of, and Bartlett's Test for, positive environmental impacts ...... 104 Table 5.31: An explanation of total variance ...... 104 Table 5.32: The KMO Measure of, and Bartlett's Test for, negative environmental impact ...... 104 Table 5.33: An explanation of total variance ...... 105 xi Table 5.34: The KMO Measure of, and Bartlett's Test for, the evaluation of impacts ...... 105 Table 5.35: Reliability analysis ...... 105 Table 5.36: Independent sample t-test in terms of gender ...... 107 Table 5.37: Mann–Whitney U Test tourism-related versus non-tourism-related ...... 108 Table 5.38: Mann–Whitney U Test tourism-related versus non-tourism-related...... 109 Table 5.39: Differences in age groups in terms of ANOVA ...... 160 Table 5.40: Differences in age groups in terms of ANOVA ...... 111 Table 5.41: Differences in length of stay of groups in terms of ANOVA ...... 162 Table 5.42: Differences in perceived tourism impacts between household incomes ...... 164

xii LIST OF ACRONYMS

Abbreviations Definition/Explanation

AFCON Africa Cup of Nations BPA Bulawayo Publicity Association CAMPFIRE Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources CBNRM Community-based natural resources management CBT Community-based tourism CCB Community capacity GDP buildingGross domestic product GEAR Growth, Employment and Distribution ISS Institute for Security Studies IYASA Inkululeko Yabatsha School of Arts KMO Kaiser–Meyer–Oklin LED Local economic development NDT National Department of Tourism NGO Non-governmental organisation PPT Pro-poor tourism SET Social exchange theory SME Small and medium-sized enterprise SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences STD Sustainable tourism development STEP Sustainable Tourism Enterprise Promotion SWOT Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threat UN United Nations UNEP UN Environment Programme UNESCO UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNWTO United Nations World Tourism Organisation USD$ United States Dollars VAT Value-added tax WCED World Commission on Environment and Development WHS World Heritage Site WTO World Tourism Organisation WTTC World Travel and Tourism Council ZTA Zimbabwe Tourism Authority

xiii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM STATEMENT

1.1 Preamble The World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) (2013) mentions that tourism is one of the largest industries in the world, and one that is used by most countries to promote socio-economic development. Furthermore, the United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) (2013) states that, in 2012, tourism contributed roughly 10% to the global gross domestic product (GDP), supporting the fact that the economic relevance of tourism is noteworthy. Furthermore, Schwab, Snabe, Eide, Blanke, Moavenzadeh and Drzeniek-Hanouz (2015) note that the travel and tourism sector still accounts for a large part of the global economy, contributing approximately 9% of the global GDP, or US$ 7 trillion, and of employment per year. In addition, recent data published by the WTTC (2015) suggest that the industry is forecasted to grow 4% annually, which is faster than other sectors, including financial services, transport and manufacturing.

According to Mitchell and Ashley (2010), numerous scholars have highlighted that promoting tourism, especially in the marginal areas, serves as a key strategy that might result in community development, poverty reduction and the uplifting of the economy. Such assertion implies that tourism can be seen as a developmental tool for destinations that pursue it. To further explain this phenomenon, Hudson (2012) argues that, because of the many benefits that it offers to the host community, which might include such economic effects as the generating of foreign exchange, the creating of employment and the stimulation of local economies, tourism inevitably assists in advancing the developmental agenda for governments. Hence, according to Jenkins (2007), many countries, both in the developed and developing contexts, have recognised the advantages that tourism can hold out for their development efforts. Dieke (2008) underscores that the advantages are encapsulated in six areas: foreign exchange earnings; contribution to government revenues; the creation of employment opportunities; income generation; the stimulation of inward investment; and regional development. Conversely, McGregor (2012) and Janusz and Bajdor (2013) suggest that, even though tourism has proved to be a panacea for the development of most communities, it comes with various negative impacts that can destroy the host community’s well-being, as well as the natural and built environments. Therefore, any development that is associated with tourism for any given destination can be said to accrue both positive and negative impacts that might be experienced by the host community residents concerned. It is for such a reason that Tichaawa and Mhlanga (2015a/b) postulate the need to involve residents at all levels of planning as being a prerequisite for development.

Chen (2001) acknowledges that having an in-depth knowledge of residents’ attitudes, perceptions and expectations from tourism impacts and from the development of tourism is important to enable the recognition of real concerns and issues relating to the proper implementation of policies and actions, and also to increase the amount of support that is gleaned for the tourism industry. To further emphasise the role of local residents, Long and Kayat (2011:124) state:

The tourism industry relies heavily upon the local residents’ goodwill, participation and support, and therefore it should be developed according to the local residents need and desires. Since the positive attitude of residents is essential for visitor satisfaction and repeat visitation, determining local residents perception of tourism development and its impacts is critical in the future success of destination.

Furthermore, Zamani-Farahani and Musa (2012) highlight that the tourism industry relies on the local community’s hospitality, explaining that, if a host community is happy, it creates a positive image of the destination, which in turn generates positive word of mouth. Ambroz (2008) notes that the ambit of tourism can expand when host residents have a positive attitude towards it, and when they feel and see that they have a role in the process of the tourism development taking place in their communities. For Cañizares, Tabales and Garcia (2014), the attitudes and perceptions of host communities or residents are of special interest when investigating and managing the economic, sociocultural and environmental aspects of tourism development in a given area.

In the available scholarship on tourism, the number of studies on the perceptions of residents has increased, together with the number of research tools involved (Kuvan & Akan, 2005). Most such studies use both quantitative and qualitative methodologies, in terms of which questionnaires with either/both closed- and open-ended questions are asked (Almeida-García, Peláez-Fernández, Balbuena-Vázquez, & Cortés-Macias, 2015) alongside studies using interview schedules. As is the case with the methodological approaches concerned, different theoretical frameworks have also been used to determine residents’ perceptions. Such frameworks include the popular and widely used social exchange theory (SET) (Látková & Vogt, 2012; Li & Wan, 2013; Wang & Pfister, 2008), Durkheim’s ‘emotional solidarity’ framework (Li & Wan, 2013), Doxey’s (1975) irridex model and Butler’s (1980) model (Cooper, Fletcher, Fyall, Gilbert & Wanhill, 2005; Ivanovic, Khunou, Reynish, Pawson, Tseane & Wassung, 2009).

Zimbabwe is blessed with a multitude of diverse tourism-based products that have given rise to such popular tourist destinations as, but which are not limited to, the famous Victoria Falls, Kariba Dam, the Gonarezhou National Park, the Matobo Hills National Parks, the Chinhoyi Caves and the Great Zimbabwe (Chiutsi, Mukoroverwa, Katigambe & Mudzengi, 2011; Zunza, 2014). The Zimbabwe 2 economy is mostly dependant on the tourism industry, which is one of the four major sectors of the country’s economy, along with the agriculture, mining and manufacturing sectors and the sector is seen as a significant contributor to the GDP, to employment, investment and export earnings (Chibaya, 2013).The tourism sector has been noted as being a key contributor to the country’s economic growth, with it being identified as an important pillar towards the transformation of the Zimbabwean economy (Medium Term Plan (MTP), 2011–2015). Most Southern African countries, including Zimbabwe, have committed to using tourism as a tool for poverty reduction and for improving the lives of those living in disadvantaged communities (Mudzengi & Chiutsi 2014). The result is that the country is a signatory to the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Tourism Protocol of 1978, which emphasises tourism as a means of improving the livelihoods of members of marginalised communities.

Unfortunately, Zimbabwe experienced political instability and economic decline between the years 2000 and 2008 (Nyaruwata, Mhizha & Mandebvu, 2013). The country’s image has been tarnished since the days when it was regarded as the ‘breadbasket’ of Southern Africa, due to various socio-economic and political negative events that have resulted in the country being labelled unsafe for tourists (Mutanga, Vengesayi, Gandiwa & Muboko, 2015). Among other plans that have been embarked upon to rekindle the country’s tourism sector, Chigora and Zvavahera (2015) suggest that Zimbabwe requires a new tourism destination brand, which is a key element to enhancing sustainable tourism development (STD), and which is currently, the most viable option for Zimbabwe’s growth (Ndlovu & Heath, 2013). The current study focuses on analysing residents’ perceptions of tourism in Zimbabwe’s second largest city, Bulawayo.

1.2 Clarification of basic terms and concepts Tourism Tourism, being a multifaceted activity that affects many lives and many different economic activities, is not easy to define, and it can only be understood in terms of adopting a multidisciplinary approach (Candela & Figini, 2012; Moscardo, 2008). A simple, but perhaps all-encompassing, definition of tourism is that of the World Tourism Organisation (WTO) (2003:1), which states that tourism is defined as the activities of travellers taking a trip to a main destination outside their usual environment for less than a year, for any main purpose (whether business, leisure, or other personal purposes) other than to be employed by a resident entity in the country or place visited. In addition, Eslami, Farahani and Asadi (2013) define tourism as a social, cultural and economic phenomenon that sees the movement of people to countries or places outside their usual environment, for different types of purpose.

According to Dwyer, Forsyth and Dwyer (2010), tourism involves tourists travelling outside their place of domicile for less than a year, and for various reasons besides being employed by a resident entity at the 3 destination concerned. Goeldner, Ritchie and McIntosch (2009) describe tourism as a sector that allows the interaction of host communities, tourists, business suppliers and local governments that are in the practice of attracting and hosting tourists. While defining the concept of tourism might be problematic, the definitions presented from various sources indicate an agreement on such characteristics as travel, length of stay, spending and the resultant interactions.

Residents According to Bayat and Ismail (2008), a resident is a person who has lived in the country for most of the past 12 months, or for a shorter period if he or she intends to return within 12 months to live there. Riley (2012) suggests that there is no one encompassing definition of residents, but most existing definitions seem to refer to people, and are related to area, social interaction and common ties. Kim, Urysal and Sirgy (2013) assert that the term has a strong relationship with such physical and social elements as ethnicity and location. For the purpose of the current study, residents are considered as those who live in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.

Perceptions Wood (2006) explains that perceptions are a dynamic process of selecting, organising and interpreting people, objects, events, situations and activities. Furthermore, George (2010) asserts that perception is the process of organising and interpreting information inputs by individuals in their efforts to create a meaningful view of the world. McDonald (2012:3) adds that perception is the information that is acquired from the procedure of coming to know, or from becoming aware of something.

Tourism development According to Lomine and Edmunds (2007), tourism development is broadly defined as being the process whereby a location develops its facilities and infrastructure so as to attract tourists, and so as to cater for their needs. Bayat and Ismail (2008) concur with the aforementioned authors’ view when they state that tourism development is the long-term process of preparing for the arrival of tourists, and that it entails planning, building and managing attractions, transportation, accommodation, services and facilities that serve them. For Cooper et al. (2005), such a type of development might be equated to a form of real estate development, in that, while seeking to improve the sense of well-being of the participants therein, it also adds to existing pressures on the use of land, without breaking down the constraining factors that are associated with growth, and with the saturation of growth. Aref (2011) asserts that tourism development affects the local residents’ standard of living, with such stakeholders as destination managers coming to take care of their communities’ concerns and perceptions, so as to ensure the sustainability of the industry. Tourism development is set on enabling global travel, which the

4 key stakeholders achieve by means of supporting the activity in different ways (Eshliki & Kaboudi, 2012). 1.3 Problem statement In the available literature that has focused on analysing the phenomenon of tourism, Getz and Timur (2012) underscore that, when developing any tourism strategies and policies, destination authorities and marketing organisations must consider the views of numerous stakeholders, including the residents of the area. Elsewhere in the literature, such scholars as Aref, Redzuan, Gill and Aref (2010) and Jakpar, Johari, Myint and Rani (2011) explain that the locals are one of the most important components of community development, and that they have a role to play in development. Besides, as Sebele (2010) cautions, community participation is often regarded as being one of the most fundamental tools, if tourism is to make a substantial contribution to the national development of a country. In recent times, an increasing number of studies have been conducted as part of the effort to identify the key factors influencing residents’ perceptions of, and attitudes towards, tourism (see Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Li & Wan, 2013). However, since no two destinations are the same, and tourism impacts may vary, or differ, across geographical area, analysis that focuses on comprehending such impacts from the resident perspective remains difficult. Focusing on different areas, therefore, remains critical in assessing the overall impact that is linked to development efforts. According to Nunkoo and Gursoy (2012), numerous studies that have been undertaken into residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts and development have mostly focused on the Global North, being largely limited to case studies in the developed world, and more exclusively on centres of rural tourism or leisure. Furthermore, while such studies do exist in the developing context (including that of Africa), analysis that has holistically focused on impacts (social, economic and environmental) remains limited. Furthermore, existing studies tend to focus on communities in rural or coastal settings, with urban centres largely being under-researched. Hence, the current study argues that the perceptions of residents in urban Bulawayo, Zimbabwe is not known and well documented.

1.4 Research objectives The overall aim of the current study was to determine the residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts in Bulawayo. The specific objectives are:  to ascertain the level of awareness and knowledge about the concept of tourism in Bulawayo;  to determine whether, and how, the residents are involved in tourism in Bulawayo;  to examine the initiatives being undertaken by the relevant authorities to support the local communities in facilitating the maximisation of tourism opportunities in Bulawayo;  to explore the residents’ perceptions of the impacts associated with tourism in Bulawayo; and

 to forward the recommendations based on the key findings of the study to relevant authorities concerned with the planning and implementation of policy and strategic frameworks aimed at developing tourism in Bulawayo, as well as in Zimbabwe in general. 1.5 Significance of the study As mentioned earlier, tourism has been recognised as an important facet that propels economic development for the host communities. The growth and development of tourism has been attributed to an increase in the amount of awareness of the need to protect and conserve resources in the present and for the future (Keyser, 2009). Countries in the developing context, specifically those in Africa, are generally blessed with natural resources that are suitable for the development of tourism (Dieke, 2009). The understanding of the role that tourism plays within host communities should be explicitly clear and concise. This can only be factually stated with the support of research endeavours. While empirically based research has been conducted on the phenomenon of tourism in the Zimbabwean context, most have focused on different forms of tourism, such as wildlife tourism (Gandiwa, 2011; Manwa, 2003), conservation and sustainability imperatives (Lindsey, Romanach, Tambling, Chartier & Groom, 2011; Muzvidziwa, 2013), and been handled from a local involvement perspective (Scheyvens, 2003). In contrast, other studies have analysed particular aspects of ecotourism (see Buckley, Pickering & Weaver, 2003; Hughes, 2002; Marunda & Chaneta, 2014; Nzengy’a, 2004; Tichaawa & Mhlanga, 2015a).

As the above-mentioned studies on Zimbabwe have shown, analysis that has focused holistically on residents’ perceptions and on the associated impacts of tourism development, and on how/whether their voices are incorporated into policy-related debates that are linked to present-day tourism development in Zimbabwe are limited. Therefore, this research, in part, aims to close such a gap, and presents a fresh perspective from a southern African perspective, in terms of which resident perception studies have largely been done in a rather distorted manner, and also from a rural pro-poor perspective. The study provides a holistic picture that incorporates urban views (in this case, those emanating from Bulawayo).

The researcher, therefore, envisages that the findings from the research endeavour should contribute to the body of knowledge that focuses on residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts in Zimbabwe. Luyet, Schlaepfer, Parlange and Buttler (2012) provide a useful argument in this respect, advocating that the involvement of a comprehensive range of stakeholders in all stages of tourism development is crucial for the sustainable development of a destination. Therefore, undertaking research that unpacks the perceptions of the residents is important for the development of the host areas. The findings of the

6 present study could, therefore, prove useful in the rethinking of tourism policy development and strategy implementation (which is currently underway) in Zimbabwe.

Furthermore, the study findings and recommendations could assist in determining and advocating for policy issues relating to tourism planning, and to the development of the local and the national government, towards the revival of the Zimbabwean economy, which has experienced a decline in recent years. With a view to making a meaningful contribution towards the current revival efforts, local tourism planners should be able to use the findings and the recommendations presented by this research endeavour to reflect on the mistakes of the past, and to equip themselves to make improved planning decisions in the future, and to embark on additional research in this direction.

1.6 Dissertation outline The research is divided into six chapters. The first chapter initiates the proposed study by providing an introduction to, and a description of, the background of the study. It clarifies the basic terms and concepts that are used, the problem statement, the aims and objectives, and the study significance. Chapter Two develops and proposes a theoretical and conceptual framework for investigating residents’ perceptions of tourism. The conceptual framework includes consideration of the SET and of STD.

Chapter Three presents the literature review. The theoretical contributions relate mainly to tourism development issues that are linked to tourism development consequences and the community from a triple bottom-line perspective. Chapter Four explains the adopted research methodology in terms of the processes and procedures that were used to collect the required data. The chapter explains the study design, the survey instruments, the sample size, and the methods used to collect the data, and which have been employed for the purpose of analysis.

Chapter Five is devoted to presenting a discussion of the findings obtained from the primary data, in relation to the literature review, and the key objectives of the study. The final chapter (Chapter Six) presents a summary of the study by means of drawing on conclusions and proposing recommendations for policy change and/or future research direction, based on both the problems and the successes identified, emanating from the results obtained in relation to the residents’ perceptions of the impacts of tourism in Bulawayo.

1.7 Summary The aim of the current chapter (Chapter One) was to instigate the research study. The chapter provided a detailed background to the study research problem, as well as the clarification of basic terms used. The objectives of the study were outlined, and the chapter further shed light on the actual purpose of the study. The chapter also justified why the study was conducted, and what the researcher hoped to 7 achieve thereby. An outline of the current study was also included in the chapter. The next chapter (Chapter Two), develops and presents the conceptual framework of the current study.

CHAPTER TWO CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Introduction According to the UNWTO (2013), the tourism sector is regarded as an industry that plays an important role as a local economic development (LED) tool in the context of developing destinations like Zimbabwe. From the earliest contributions of tourism planners, the concept of stakeholders and their attitudes and perceptions has become ever more vital to those who are concerned with the field of tourism (Currie, Seaton & Wesley, 2009; Hall, 2007; Mowforth & Munt, 2003; Murphy, 1985), because the organisational structure of a destination is perceived as being a network of interdependent and multiple stakeholders, on which the quality of the experience and the hospitality that is offered by the destination depends (Hawkins & Bohdanowicz, 2011; March & Wilkinson, 2009; Waligo, Clarke & Hawkins, 2013). Tiyce and Dimmock (2000) mention that, while community attitudes can vary greatly from one destination to another, community attitudes are established not only in the light of the nature of the local community, and in view of the type of interaction that occurs between the host and visitor, but also in relation to the tolerance threshold of the residents.

As defined by Maree and Van der Westhuizen (2009), a conceptual framework serves as a map, for it acts as a guided model of what the research project incorporates. Jabareen (2009) contends that a conceptual framework structures a study, with it serving as a guiding model that explains what the research project is about. Maxwell (2013) describes the framework in question as an analytical tool with many variations and contexts, which summarises and integrates concepts, while providing an in-depth explanation based on causal linkages. The current study makes use of a multidimensional, theoretical and conceptual framework, incorporating the SET and the concepts of sustainable tourism and sustainable development leading to STD. The SET is discussed first, as it provides a strong argument in relation to the approach and raison d’être for the analysis of residents and tourism development.

2.2 The social exchange theory (SET) The SET has been tested and confirmed as being a strong and reliable theory in various studies in tourism literature, with it having gained popularity among authors and academics as a way of measuring residents’ perceptions. The SET was pioneered by Long, Perdue and Allen (1987) as having the potential to explain residents’ perceptions of impacts associated with tourism development (Lee, 2013; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011). The SET is mainly used to assess the support of residents for tourism development at a given destination or in a given community or communities (Lee, 2013). Within such a

9 context, and for the purpose of this study, the SET was adopted as a useful concept on which to ground the study.

The SET assumes that potential beneficial outcomes will create positive attitudes towards tourism (Teye, Sönmez & Sirakaya, 2002). According to Pham and Kayat (2011), if the residents of a host community perceive that the total impacts of tourism are negative, their level of support for it is likely to be weak, which in turn, will not be beneficial for the development of the destination in the long run. Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2011) emphasise that residents are willing to enter into an exchange with the industry if they believe that the gains that will be achieved thereby will be higher than the costs involved. Hritz and Ross (2010) and Brida, Riaño and Aguirre (2011) state that the SET stipulates that social interaction is based on the exchange of goods or activities between the different actors and resources, and that satisfaction with an exchange relationship in tourism is obtained from the evaluation of costs and benefits of the activity, with residents also supporting appropriate development projects. According to Kim, Gursoy and Lee (2006), local residents are likely to form their perceptions based on the expected value of an exchange before the actual exchange occurs.

The SET suggests that individuals of a host community are likely to support a development plan if they believe that the costs thereof will not exceed the related benefits, and if they perceive that tourism will be personally valuable (Látková & Vogt, 2012). In addition, Renda, Mendes and Oom do Valle (2014) explain that the SET recognises that people tend to evaluate the costs and benefits of establishing trade relations with others, and that this fact is important to the residents’/tourists’ relationship. The theory suggests that residents are involved in a number of exchanges in relation to tourism, and that the end result of the exchanges is likely to determine their levels of satisfaction with the process (Karadakis & Kaplanidou, 2012).

Ap (1992) further explains that there are four stages involved in the SET, which are: the initiation of an exchange; the exchange formation; the exchange transaction evaluation; and the evaluation of exchange consequences. According to Cave, Moyle, Croy and Weiler (2010), studies using the SET in a tourism context concentrate on two stages within Ap’s (1992) model (discussed later), highlighting that the studies using SET have focused on the community perceptions of the consequences (which are referred to as impacts on communities through tourism) of the exchange, which is the final stage of the exchange process. The other stage is the first stage, the initiation of exchange, which involves assessing the community support for further tourism development through the identification of particular needs that communities desire to satisfy (Cave et al., 2010; Kayat, 2002).

In order for the residents of a community to decide on whether to become reliant on the benefits and costs of tourism, they first weigh the economic, social, cultural, and environmental concerns involved (Gursoy, Chi & Dyer, 2010). In addition, Harrill (2004) asserts that the SET is founded on the assumption that tourism development will be supported when the benefits, such as those relating to the economy, outweigh the costs of sharing the local environmental and social resources with tourists. Host communities may believe that they are subjugated, thinking that they are on the losing end of the exchange (Hritz & Ross, 2010). Coulson, MacLaren, McKenzie and O’Gorman (2014) state that, if an actor feels that the outcomes of the exchange are negative or unbalanced, and that the transactions of resources are not pleasing, the actor has the choice to pull out from future exchanges.

According to Waitt (2003), positive or negative assessments are theorised in terms of the presence or absence of certain ‘antecedent conditions’, which as illustrated in Figure 2.1 below include: rationality; satisficing benefits; reciprocity; and the justice principle. Ap (1992) suggests that rationality is seen as the residents’ behaviour with relation to reward-seeking; satisficing benefits advocate that the residents might accept negative impacts only when they feel that the positive impacts will outweigh the negative impacts on their community; reciprocity entails that, if the resources that are exchanged between the residents and the event are roughly equivalent, then the impacts and the effects will be perceived as positive by both parties; and the justice principle suggests that all exchanges should be reasonable to both parties, making sure that, in return for the residents’ support and contribution, they will receive fair returns. This is to say that, when the relationship between the quest actors and residents is consistent, the exchange relation is described as balanced. Dinaburgskaya and Ekner (2010:7) explain that:

The model suggests that the social exchange transactions between actors are evaluated in terms of actions and outcomes, where actions refer to actors’ behavior such as hospitality, friendliness toward tourists and guests, courtesy and outcomes are the actors’ feelings as a result of the involvement in an exchange relationship.

EXCHANGE RELATIONSHIP NEEDS & Social ANTECEDENTS So Social FORM OF SATISFACTION exchange Rationality Ex exchange EXCHANGE Motives initiation For Information RELATIONSHIP Translation Satisficing Balanced

Benefits Unbalanced

Reciprocity

EXC Justice principle

EXHANGE RELATIONSHIP

Antecedent conditions not met for a social exchange relationship to become established.

RESULTS OF Positive evaluations of the Exchange EXCHANGE NO SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP results arising from the EXCHANGE evaluations Actions social exchange may Negative reinforce the desire for Evaluation future participation in the relationship. Outcomes

FUTURE Positive SOCIAL evaluation EXCHANGE

Figure 2.1: A model of the social exchange process Source: Ap (1992:670).

According to Dinaburgskaya and Ekner (2010), Ap’s (1992:669) social exchange process model assumes that:

a) “Social relations involve an exchange of resources among social actors”.

b) “Social actors seek mutual benefit from the exchange relationship”.

c) “The primary motive for initiating exchange is from the residents´ perspective to improve the community’s social and economic well-being”.

d) “Residents’ perceptions and attitudes are predictors of their behavior toward tourism”.

The current study seeks to determine the residents’ perceptions towards the impacts of tourism in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. The study employed the SET to help understand residents’ views and feelings towards tourism development in their area. Tourism development and its impacts have gained much attention, especially with its relation to improving or threatening the host community’s quality of life. Consequently, the need for the sustainable development of tourism for the benefit of the local citizens is critical. The next section below presents a discussion on the theory of STD.

2.3 Sustainable tourism development (STD) Sustainable development Ciegis, Ramanauskiene and Martinkus (2009) explain the theory of sustainable development as being complex and unclear, leading to various definitions that try to explain the term. Hajdul (2010) ascertains that the notion of sustainable development arose in the mid-1980s as an attempt to bond the breach between environmental concerns and the ecological effects of human activities. According to Saarinen (2014), the concept of sustainable development has, over the years, been the source of continuous debate. Such debates, as Chiu (2012) observes, are mainly linked to the several meanings that are assigned the concept in different disciplines.

Elliott (2013) asserts a belief that sustainable development is the idea of maintaining development over time and conservation for future generations. Uniyal and Sharma (2013) state that sustainable development entails development of tourism that is ecologically supportable in the long run. Saadatian, Chin Haw, Mat and Sopian (2012) are of the same view, noting that sustainable development takes account of economic integrity, ecological integrity, and social welfare, which are tied to the triple bottom- line theory.

According to the United Nations conference on the environment (Agenda 21) (1992), there has been a sizable increase in such social problems as poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, as well as the deterioration of the ecosystems on which people depend for their well-being. As such, a new global partnership was agreed upon so as to deal with the ensuing challenges, and so that sustainable development should become a priority item on the agenda of the international community. Barkemeyer, Holt, Preuss and Tsang (2014) explain that the concept of sustainability gained a sound reputation after the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) publication report, “Our Common Future”, which was released by the Brundtland report. The WCED report highlights that SD is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Therefore, sustainable development is about improving the lives of all people in a way that will still be relevant for future generations (Mearns, 2012).

Sustainable tourism According to Dabphet (2007), the term ‘sustainable tourism’ became much more commonly used from about the early 1990s, along with an array of related terms, including ‘natural tourism’ (Durst & Ingram, 1988), ‘responsible tourism’ (Feruzi, 2012; Goodwin & Font, 2012; Saarinen, 2014; South Africa. DEAT, 2002; Wheeller, 1991; WTO, 1989), ‘green tourism’ (Bramwell, 1991), ‘eco-tourism’ (Butters, 2011; Ikonen, 2012; Kipper, 2013; Marunda & Chaneta, 2014), and ‘alternative tourism’ (Butler, 1999; Clarke, 1997). Sustainable tourism is deliberately planned to benefit the local residents, to respect the local

13 culture, to conserve the natural resources, to direct more of the profits than usual to the local community, and to educate both tourists and local residents about the importance of conservation. Saarinen (2014) contends that, since the 1990s, the concept of sustainable tourism has captivated both academics and various tourism stakeholders.

The World Conservation Union (1996) highlights that sustainable tourism involves travel that is responsible and visits to various natural destinations, while promoting conservation and encouraging the active socio-economic involvement of the local community. In addition, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP, 2011) defines sustainable tourism as being tourism that takes full consideration of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of various stakeholders such as visitors, the industry, the environment, and the host community.

Janusz and Bajdor (2013) contend that sustainable tourism is based on the same pillars as is sustainable development, and the two have a somewhat related meaning, only differing in sustainable tourism specifically looking at the tourism industry. The UNWTO (2009) affirms that the development of sustainable tourism is successfully achieved when all relevant stakeholders are involved, so as to ensure wide participation and consensus-building. To achieve the above, a continuous process should be adopted. The increasing popularity of the concept derives from the widely held view that there is a need to alter current forms of consumption that perceive existing resources as being inﬁnite (Akama & Kieti, 2007). Therefore, any form of development including that which is associated with tourism, at any given destination should be sustainable.

Sustainable tourism development Hall and Page (2012) argues that STD is not just an academic concept, but that it has become widely adopted in terms of policy terminology by governments on all scales, including by industry organisations, individual firms, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), in the form of policies and statements. Ghodeswar (2008) explains that sustainability incorporates additional comprehensive issues that are its three cornerstones: economic viability; social equity; and environmental protection. In addition, according to Duffy (2011), STD, in future, will have not only to be both ecologically durable and economically executable, but it should also be socially and ethically fair to the communities concerned. The UNWTO (2004) further states that STD guidelines and management practices are applicable to all forms of tourism. The organisation explains that sustainability principles encompass the environmental, the economic, and the sociocultural aspects of tourism development, with a suitable balance having to be established between the three dimensions concerned, so as to guarantee long-term sustainability (UNWTO, 2004). Expressed simply, STD can be defined as "tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry,

14 and the environment and host communities" (UNWTO, 2009:14). Liu (2013) underscores the fact that tourism development is a means of achieving sustainable development that fosters significant economic, environmental, and sociocultural opportunities for many local communities, especially in developing countries like Zimbabwe.

The time factor is illuminated by Duffy (2002), who argues that sustainable tourism is often referred to as a form of tourism that is economically viable, but which does not destroy the resources on which the future of tourism depends, notably the physical environment and the social fabric of the host community involved. Cooper et al. (2005) define STD as meeting the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations. Of the same view, the UNWTO (2004) defines STD as meeting the needs of present tourists and host regions, while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the future. It recognises the need for fairness between local individuals and groups, and between hosts and guests (Mbaiwa, 2005). Keyser (2009) echoes the view by stating that, to achieve STD, there should be a balance between economic efficiency, social justice, and environmental integrity, as is shown in Figure 2.2 below.

Figure 2.2: The three cornerstones of sustainable tourism development Source: Keyser (2009).

According to Figure 2.2 above, the main aim of social justice includes maximising the positive social impacts, while minimising the negative social impacts, of tourism. It also focuses on cultural exchange between the hosts and tourists, and on protecting the cultural heritage of the destination. In contrast,

15 environmental integrity entails the conservation of both the natural and manmade environment, with it seeking to ensure that tourism development does not deface the environment and that it promotes conservation and preservation for future generations. Economic efficiency focuses on preventing leakage, which is to ensure that economic gains from tourism stay within the community, and that they contribute towards the development of the destination concerned (Grevsjo & Noorzaei, 2014; UNWTO, 2010).

Goeldner et al. (2009) explain that sustainable cooperation practices in the tourism sector can be conveniently divided into environmental, societal, and organisational categories, allowing for the possibility of overlaps. STD is envisaged as leading to the management of all resources in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled, while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity, and life support systems. Therefore, the concept of STD was adopted in the current study, due to its advocacy of a form of tourism development that considers maximising the present benefits for communities and the conservation and preservation of resources for the future.

2.4 Summary Sebele (2010) postulates that STD and its impacts on host destinations has been widely researched, due to it having been identified as a way of improving the quality of life of residents. STD enhances economic growth, improves the infrastructure, and opens up opportunities for the future, through the coexistence of tourism development and the maintenance of environmental quality. The participation of the local residents in tourism assists in preserving the area concerned as a tourist attraction, and it can also mitigate negative social effects (Jaafar, Ismail & Rasoolimanesh, 2015). The SET facilitates assessing the residents’ support for tourism development, and if the residents perceive that they will benefit from tourism without the incurring of undue costs, they are likely to support it (Lee, 2013). This is important for STD, as the adoption of such an approach helps to determine the course of the development that takes place in an area. According to Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2011), the local residents’ needs and views should be engaged in the development process, so as to enable the achievement of the long-term success of tourism development at their destination. If tourism development is understood from the host community’s perspective, the success and sustainability of tourist destinations is encouraged. As such, the multiple theories that are discussed above are deemed relevant to exploring the views of local residents in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe on the impacts of tourism in their locality.

This chapter aimed at providing a conceptual framework for the current study. The chapter discussed a brief introduction, the SET, and the concepts of sustainable tourism, sustainable development, and

STD. The multiple concepts (especially SET and STD) discussed will provide a solid basis for determining the resident perceptions of the impacts of tourism in Bulawayo and their discussion will help generate recommendations that could be useful for long-term policy development and planning. The next chapter (Chapter Three) presents a discussion of the associated literature that is conducted in such as a way as to contextualise the study still further.

CHAPTER THREE LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 Introduction It is a well-known fact that tourism can bear both the positive and negative impacts of development (Spenceley & Meyer, 2012). In the same context, Moscardo (2008) further points out that, where all stakeholders are involved, tourism tends to foster a range of social, economic, and environmental benefits. Cooper et al. (2005) state that tourism in local communities is perceived as being a multidimensional phenomenon that encompasses economic, sociocultural and environmental forces. However, an evaluation of tourism impacts on local communities is important in order to maintain the sustainability, and the long-term success, of the tourism industry (Leask, 2010). It has emerged in recent times that tourism affects the lives of locals, leading to a number of studies having tried to assess their attitudes (Andereck, Valentine, Knopf & Vogt, 2005). According to Prayag, Hosany, Nunkoo and Alders (2013), taking residents’ perceptions into consideration assists in reducing the negative impacts of tourism and increases the benefits of tourism development for host destinations, which also leads to additional support for development by the residents. In addition, Stylidis, Biran, Sit and Szivas (2014) assert that the most important consideration for attaining successful and STD is how to work towards understanding local community perceptions, as this is seen as being a vital component in the process of planning and policy development.

This chapter of the study presents the literature review. In relation to the current study, the literature review will look at the overview of tourism, tourism in Zimbabwe, the residents’ perceptions of, and attitudes towards, tourism development, involvement and planning in tourism development, the impacts of tourism, and the importance of the study. To set the tone for the study, an overview of tourism in Zimbabwe, which was the study area, is presented.

3.2 Tourism in Zimbabwe According to Gratwicke and Stapelkamp (2006), Zimbabwe is a country that is largely defined by its wildlife, arguably to a greater extent than in any other nation on earth. Muchapondwa and Pimhidzai (2011) and Nyahunzvi (2012) suggest that the country boasts of several tourist attractions, such as: the Victoria Falls, which are one of the Seven Wonders of the World; Hwange National Park, which is a UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Site (WHS); the Mana Pools; the Matobo Hills, which is another WHS; and the Eastern Highlands. Most tourists, according to Gandiwa (2011), have been drawn to the country for its herds of game, its impressive safaris, and for the charismatic representatives of the animal kingdom. 18

Figure 3.1: Summary of Zimbabwean tourist products Source: Sanderson, Nyamadzawo, Nyarawuta and Moyo (2013).

Even though Zimbabwe boasts of all the above attractions, Mkono (2010) asserts that, in the decade since the start of the new millennium, the political and economic antics of Zimbabwean officials have attracted extensive negative media attention. Karambakuwa, Shonhiwa, Murombo, Mauchi, Gopo, Denhere, Tafirei, Chingarande and Mudavanhu (2011) claim that, at one point, tourism in Zimbabwe was seen as one of the fastest growing sectors in the country, making it the third in line in foreign exchange earnings after gold and tobacco. Buzinde, Kalavar and Melubo (2014) support the aforementioned assertion by stating that, during the period 1980 to 2000, tourism experienced a boom, with the highest growth rate of 35% being recorded in 1995, which might be seen in the light of the country hosting the All Africa Games in that year.

Furthermore, data provided by the Zimbabwe Tourism Authority (ZTA) (2013) indicate that the industry had witnessed a growth from 20% to 40% since the late 1980s. However, it was reported that, in contrast to the 1.4 million tourists who visited Zimbabwe in 1999, less than a quarter of the number visited the country in the year 2000, showing a dramatic 75% decline in tourism within the space of a single year (Mutana, Chipfuva & Muchenje, 2013), due to such factors as the political upheaval experienced, resulting in numerous difficulties. The difficulties included the withdrawal of international airlines from Zimbabwe, and difficulty in accessing funding from multilateral and bilateral institutions, leading to a shortage of funds with which to revive, and to refurbish, national facilities, including those that were needed for tourism to thrive. Berger (2007), Mkono (2011) and Nyaruwata et al. (2013) concluded that the aforementioned situation resulted in many job losses, and in a stagnant tourism sector. Mkono (2010) holds the view that the stagnation of the tourism sector meant that tourism industry businesses recorded their lowest demand statistics in decades, with those tourists who had

19 previously frequented the country preferring to visit other destinations, such as the neighbouring Zambia, which is not as developed as Zimbabwe, but which is considered to be more peaceful.

After the land reforms had taken place, the Zimbabwean government initiated a ‘Look East’ policy, hoping to increase tourism activity. However, the policy yielded few, if any, dividends, as the country remained underachieving (Buzinde et al., 2014; Nyahunzvi, 2012). Williams (2009:63) holds the view that, despite the political turmoil undergone in Zimbabwe, the country’s tourism is recovering: “Since 2008, arrivals have increased gradually, but the destination is still struggling to restore itself to its former glory as a competitive force in Southern Africa.” An increased number of foreigners is starting to visit the country, owing to the inauguration of the Global Accord government in 2009, which has, since then, shown stability and unity, with a growth of 2.3 million foreign tourist arrivals in 2010, meaning that there was an increase of 15% in the number of such arrivals from the previous year (i.e. 2009). The above growth witnessed tourism contributing 47% more to the Zimbabwean revenue in 2010 than it did in the previous year (Eastern & Southern Safaris, 2011). According to the ZTA (2013), tourism earns Zimbabwe around US$770.3 million in foreign currency a year, accounting for approximately 10.6% of the country’s GDP.

Dodds (2012) states that, with many communities now being dependant on tourism for their economic livelihood, long-term sustainability through a local, multi-stakeholder process is becoming key to profitable destination management. Comment and Masuku (2013) and the ZTA (2014) note that a tourism policy is currently being formulated that will act as a guideline for the tourism sector in Zimbabwe. With a new policy focus, according to the eNCA (2014), Zimbabwe’s tourism minister Walter Mzembi announced plans to increase the European market from 13% to 31% of the country’s tourism industry market. The proposed strategies included rebranding the country’s tourism brand to ‘Zimbabwe – a world of wonders’ and adopting community-based initiatives. Other future plans for Zimbabwe tourism growth include bidding to host the 2034 FIFA football World Cup (Thonycroft & Laing, 2014).

In addition, the Ministry of Tourism and Hospitality (2015) asserts that the country is taking steps to introduce a Tourism Satellite Account, which will be used to measure tourism performance and its contribution to the country’s economy. The instrument is forecast to help curb leakages, and to help both the government and the private sector to craft tourism policies and strategies for tourism development and related improvements. Furthermore, Mzembi (2015) notes that a Visitor Exit Survey was launched in July 2015 to obtain information on visitor characteristics that will assist in developing effective marketing strategies and that will promote business decision-making by tourism operators, as well as policy formulation and tourism development planning by the government. With the current study

20 considering the residents’ perceptions of the impacts of tourism, the next subsection looks at residents’ perceptions of, and attitudes towards, tourism development.

3.3 Residents’ perceptions of, and attitudes towards, tourism development Zamani-Farahani and Musa (2012) suggest that the tourism industry widely relies on the local community’s hospitality. Hence, Prayag et al. (2013) contend that appreciating the resident’s perceptions can assist in policymaking by serving to minimise the potential negative impacts of tourism development, and to maximise the benefits leading to community development and increased support for tourism. Ritchie and Inkari (2006), in Brida et al. (2011), state that the perceptions and attitudes of the residents towards the impact of any proposed model of tourism development should be considered in the planning studies of tourism policies.

Figure 3.2: Doxey’s irridex model Source: Ivanovic et al. (2009).

Keyser (2002) asserts that the interaction of people of different cultures and lifestyles inevitably introduces change, which, in turn, affects the perceptions, and the attitudes, of the participants in such a situation. She alludes to the reaction of local people towards tourism development, citing Doxey’s irridex model (see Figure 3.2 above). Cooper et al. (2005) concur with Keyser’s views in arguing that, when attempting to measure the level of irritation that is generated by tourist–host contact, Doxey’s (1975) model is most helpful in providing an explanation for the levels encountered.

According to Ivanovic et al. (2009), the irridex model explains how residents’ attitudes pass through various stages: euphoria; apathy; annoyance/irritation; and antagonism. The authors suggest that the model indicates that residents’ attitudes are initially favourable, but become negative after reaching a threshold. In addition, Cooper et al. (2005) assert that the index explains how, at first, the relationship between tourist and host is usually pleasant, with the host accepting the amount of development that is 21 taking place. With continued contact, however, the relationship declines, leading to apathy and irritation, and, ultimately, antagonism. During the final stage of the process, the importance of the ‘development’ has been forgotten, and it is no longer seen as being special (Ivanovic et al., 2009). Burns and Robinson (2006) explain that, to date, in order to understand the relationship between host and tourists toward tourism development in societies, many authors have tried to come up with models to illustrate the relationship concerned. They argue that the irridex model has proven to be the most significant of the models considered to date.

Various studies have been conducted that highlight the residents’ perceptions of tourism development. Jitpakdee and Thapa (2012) mention that Thai residents perceive tourism as an economic booster, bringing in such highly regarded benefits as increased employment opportunities and tourism-increased shopping opportunities, recreation opportunities, and revenue for the local government. A study conducted by Long and Kayat (2011) suggests that residents in the Cuc Phuong National Park strongly support tourism development. The residents concerned confidently believe that, as a community, they should be personally involved in the future tourism development of tourism in their area, and they are outstandingly welcoming to tourists, as they have seen the positive impacts of tourism. On the contrary, the residents of Kure Mountains National Park (KMNP), in Turkey, perceived that tourist arrivals had not increased local revenues, raised their standard of living, or caused an increase in local employment in KMNP (Turker & Ozturk, 2013).

In Lorde, Grenidge and Devonish’s (2011) study, the residents of Barbados perceived that event tourism led to tourism development in their area, in the form of economic and cultural positive benefits. Such benefits included attracting additional investment to the community, providing increased business for local people and small business, encouraging the development of a variety of cultural activities by the local residents, and the attainment of an improved understanding of other cultures and societies. Sharma and Dyer’s (2012) reported Australian residents’ perceptions of tourism’s role in boosting job opportunities, as providing an incentive for the conservation of natural resources, and in promoting the cultural exchange between tourists and residents, with the perceptions concerned remaining positive for 2008 to 2009. Furthermore, another study conducted by Zamani-Farahani and Musa (2012) showed neutral perceptions by residents on the effects of tourism development. Concerns that were raised included those pertaining to such social issues as crime, drug addiction, vandalism, and alcohol consumption. Nevertheless, the same respondents showed positive perceptions of how tourism had improved their lives through the creation of job and recreational opportunities, the maintenance of public facilities, cultural preservation, and local infrastructure development.

Chen’s (2011) results in Macao showed that over 70% of the residents thought that the annual tourism events held in Macao brought more positive than negative impacts to the city. In contrast, Latkova and Vogt (2012) report that the majority of residents in three distinct rural county-level study areas in the United States of America perceived very few benefits from current tourism industry in their community, with major concerns surrounding traffic problems, low-paying tourism-related jobs, an increased amount of litter, and an increase in the cost of living in their areas.

According to Jakpar et al. (2011), it is clear that successful tourism planning requires both the involvement and the participation of the local residents. The local community is the main stakeholder in tourism development, with their attitudes potentially directly affecting the development of the tourism industry (Ling et al., 2011). There is a need to conduct research on resident perceptions, so as to establish the impacts of tourism in the host area, and residents’ attitudes should be considered, as they are the ones to be directly affected by tourism development (Li & Wan, 2013). Lee (2013) emphasises that resident perceptions are crucial, because their views on tourism development have a considerable impact on the sustainability of the tourism development of a host community. The involvement of the residents of a host community is important towards tourism development, because their participation aids in conserving their area, and assists in overcoming its negative social effects (Jaafar, Ismail & Rasoolimanes, 2015). Hence, the following subsections elaborate on the importance of residents’ involvement and participation in tourism.

In a study conducted in Bigodi village, Uganda, Lepp (2007) found that most residents had a positive attitude towards tourism, as most of them felt that it came with both direct and indirect benefits. Residents stated that, even though they did not work in tourism, or did not personally benefit from it, they felt that the development happening in the community was indirectly linked to them. Most of the respondents were happy with the school that was built in their area as a result of the financial gains that they had made from tourism (Lepp, 2007). Mbaiwa and Stronza (2011) reveal that residents’ perceptions towards tourism tend to change from negative to positive when they perceive that they are benefitting from it. For instance, the residents of the Okavango Delta, Botswana support tourism in their area as they feel that tourists who come there introduce such economic benefits as income, rural development, and employment opportunities. Tourism, to the local Botswanan residents, is seen as a way of improving their sense of their well-being as a community (Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2011).

In the Zimbabwe context, there seems to be limited literature available on residents’ perceptions, especially in major towns like Bulawayo. As part of the objectives for the current study, the residents’ perceptions towards the impacts associated with tourism in Bulawayo are examined.

3.3.1 Demographics versus perceptions Huh and Vogt (2008) propose that age contributes to the change in the attitudes of residents over time. In a study conducted by Almeida-García, Peláez-Fernández, Balbuena-Vázquez and Cortés-Macias (2016) in Benalmádena, Spain, the older residents had a more positive attitude towards tourism with regard to the local environment, and a more negative attitude in relation to its economic impact, with the younger residents considering tourism to have a more positive impact on the local economy. Married respondents reported having more positive attitudes towards tourism with regard to the local environment than did the single respondents. More educated residents had a positive attitude towards tourism with regards to local culture and the economy in Benalmádena, Spain than did less educated ones. Those who had lived in the area for more than 10 years had a negative attitude towards tourism.

In a study conducted by Dinaburgskaya and Ekner (2010), it was concluded that female residents of the city that they investigated were relatively negative towards assessing the environmental consequences of the Way Out West festival in Slottsskogen, Sweden than were the male residents. Little difference was found between the perceptions of people with a higher education (university level) and the perceptions of those who had only attended high school. The residents assessed community benefits more positively than did those who had come from other municipalities to attend the festival. The results showed that the visitors and non-visitors at the festival with a lower annual income had more comments about the festival than did people with a higher annual income. Both parties evaluated the festival itself positively. In a study conducted by Makidi (2010), it was revealed that the respondents with a formal education were more positive about tourism in their area than were the relatively uneducated.

According to Lankford and Howard (1994), the residents who are born in an area and those who have lived there for a long time differ in their outlook on local tourism development, with the latter tending to have a negative attitude towards tourism development, and not supporting it fully. Andereck et al. (2005) state that, theoretically, as there might be no relationship between the period of stay of the residents and their accumulation of benefits or costs from tourism, it cannot be used as a measure of the residents’ perceptions of development.

3.4 Community participation in tourism development Participation is the involvement of all local people and other stakeholders in the formation of programmes or policies that would assist to change their communities (Phiri, 2009). Croke, Grossman, Larreguy and Marshall (2014) stress the importance of participation, as it serves to encourage the accountability of governments, as well as enabling the locals to be involved in the planning and

24 implementation of projects in their areas. Rogoff (2011) is of the view that participation in communities should take the form of social interaction that benefits the whole community, rather than just a few individuals. According to Michael (2009), community participation is vital in tourism management, as it empowers local members to be involved and to participate in planning, as well as in the whole tourism development process. Community participation in decision-making encourages people to have confidence in the tourism industry, which stimulates planning and, service delivery, as well as bringing the people together to share common goals (Muganda, Sirima & Ezra, 2013). Aref (2011:20) explains that a sense of community and participation are the main factors that can affect all processes of tourism development. Community participation is often regarded as being one of the most fundamental tools, if tourism is to make a substantial contribution to the national development of a country (Sebele, 2010).

Furthermore, Yu, Chancellor and Cole (2011) add that the participation of locals at a destination in tourism development is important for successful tourism planning, and stress that they should be enlightened about the expected impacts from such development. Host community perceptions and attitudes can positively or negatively affect the tourism development process (Stronza & Gordillo, 2008). Contemporary tourism planning recognises that an integrated and sustainable development approach includes the participation of local communities and residents. Bramwell and Lane (2003) explain that participation in tourism planning for development by many stakeholders can help to promote sustainable development by means of increasing the extent of efficiency, equity, and harmony practised. Maneenetr, Naipinit and Tran (2014) explain that community members should be willing to participate in tourism development for it to be sustainable, and for them to gain benefits from it, while sharing their ideas and knowledge. By contributing their thoughts together about an issue, according to Ritchie and Inkari (2006), residents have the opportunity to see whether their resources are used in an appropriate manner or not. Jackson (2010) is of the view that, with no community participation, a sense of community tourism development cannot be achieved, or if it is achieved, it could only result in enclave development.

Tosun (2006) asserts that there are three typologies of participation. Firstly, spontaneous participation is when the community has full control and authority. Secondly, induced participation is when a community, despite being given a voice, through being granted an opportunity to hear and to be heard, has no responsibility for, or participation in tourism development as such. Consequently, they have no power to ensure that their views are taken into consideration. The approach concerned is often referred to as being of a top-down nature. Thirdly and lastly, coercive participation is where the community is not fully involved in decision-making, but some of the decisions are made to appease the community members by just meeting a few basic needs, so as to avoid sociopolitical risks for tourism development.

In addition to the above-mentioned typologies of participation, Leksakundilok (2006) asserts that there are seven more typologies that exist, listing and explaining them as the following forms:  Manipulation occurs where only the government and elite people make decisions and benefit from tourism;  Informing occurs where the people are informed of the projects that have been decided on for tourism development, but their concerns are not considered.  Consultation occurs when the community members are consulted, and some of their ideas are considered for tourism development in their area, for example they are involved in meetings about the project and in related surveys. Buckley (2012) mentions that participation by means of consultation is an influential way of involving the local communities in the process of tourism development, which serves to reduce the amount of resentment and community opposition during tourism development that might have prevailed if they had not been consulted (Mutana et al., 2013).  Interaction occurs when community members have a fair amount of involvement. In terms of the type of participation concerned, community organisations are the leaders of the tourism development projects and mastermind the process, but have limited support from the government.  Partnership occurs when there is some sort of partnership between the developers and the community members. The government involves the community by letting them negotiate with external developers, and they have some degree of influence in the tourism development process.  Empowerment occurs when the community has full complete control over the tourism development process, and the locals benefit fully from tourism development.  Self-mobilisation occurs where the locals themselves develop tourism, and where they are in direct contact with the tourists. Although possibly receiving help from the NGOs, they are in full control of decision-making regarding the tourism development process in their area.

Collomb (2009) declares that community participation is considered as giving the locals a voice in issues that affect their lives, such as tourism development, thereby fostering their self-control, self- confidence, and self-awareness. Community participation is a right, as it involves interdisciplinary methodologies that seek out several different perceptions, which make use of systematic, structured learning processes (Muchapondwa & Pimhidzai, 2011).

3.5 Residents’ involvement in tourism development Community involvement has been deemed to be a vital part of tourism development (Moscardo, 2008). During the tourism-related development of any given community, it is important that the locals should be encouraged to become involved in the process (Richards & Hall, 2000). Such encouragement of involvement is desirable in the light of participation by the local community tending to shape the natural landscapes that the tourists consume (Richard & Hall, 2002). Aref et al. (2010) avow that the locals are one of the most important components of community development, and that they have a key role to play in the matter of development. Community participation is often regarded as being one of the most fundamental tools, if tourism is to make a substantial contribution to the national development of a country (Sebele, 2010).

The local communities are the focal point of tourism development, as they tend to provide such major services at a destination as accommodation, catering, information, transport, and other services (Aref & Gill, 2010). Akama (2011) asserts that the host community should take control of decision-making and be the ones to determine how resources are to be used in their community, which should serve to encourage them to maintain the structures and practices. The involvement of the local community in tourism can encourage the formulation of suitable decision-making and heighten the involvement of locals in the conservation and protection of the environment (Richard & Hall, 2002). In addition, local communities should be involved in all steps of the management of tourism development in their area towards achieving STD (Asian Productivity Organisation (APO), 2004).

According to Swarbrooke (1999), the most important component of tourism development and policy is the involvement and protection of the local people. The author further notes that, as part of the foundation for sustainable tourism, the host community should be actively involved in tourism planning. Amuquandoh (2010) asserts that the main idea of STD is for the locals to be involved and to be the main drivers of managing tourism development in their area, so that their needs are satisfied, meaning that the local communities are expected to organise themselves to undertake the planning and managing of development. The involvement of the host community should be supported, because such involvement is expected to aid with the formulation of appropriate decisions, and generates an increase in the amount of local motivation, while assisting with environmental conservation and protection measures that are likely to reap benefits that exceed their input (Viljoen & Tlabela, 2007).

The role of the host community in tourism development is vital, and such development of a destination should be planned according to the locals’ needs, by means of involving the local community in tourism development (Yu et al., 2011). Furthermore, Yu et al. (2011) state that the participation of locals at a destination in tourism development is important for successful tourism planning, and that they should be 27 enlightened about the expected impacts of such development. Keyser (2009) is inclined to the idea that host community participation enables the locals to make well-informed decisions about the kind of tourism development that is going to take place in their area; this is because host community participation shapes the overall landscape of tourism at a destination. In addition, Moscardo (2011) asserts that the tourism development of a destination depends on the degree of hospitality expresses by the locals towards the tourists; hence, it is vital to consider the latter’s needs and wants. Host community perceptions and attitudes can positively or negatively affect the tourism development process (Stronza & Gordillo, 2008). Successful tourism development depends on the community-level capacity for innovation and leadership, which are important variables for the creation and implementation of new ideas as part of the sustainable development process (Kim, 2013).

Such authors as Ashely and Mitchell (2009) and Moscardo (2008) suggest adopting initiatives like pro- poor tourism (PPT) and community-based tourism (CBT) to encourage local community members to increase their participation in tourism development activities. Such participation should be encouraged in the light of tourism being a diverse industry, which increases the scope for wide-ranging participation, including for participation by the informal sector. Roy, Roy and Saha (2010) claim that PPT encourages poor people to participate more effectively in their developmental processes. PPT is an innovative idea in the tourism sector, with it being used to strengthen the economic well-being of communities, due to its emphasis on work participation by the relatively poor. Early experience with such tourism shows that PPT strategies appear able to ‘tilt’ the industry, at the margin, to expand opportunities for the poor, with potentially wide application across the industry (Spenceley & Meyer, 2012). Coimbra (2012) identifies the benefits that arise from PPT, including such direct involvement as the ownership of a small to medium-sized enterprise (SME), and direct selling to tourists or locals.

Various researchers, such as Wearing and McDonald (2002), assert that, in CBT, the visitor should not be the sole priority, and that the involvement, the perceptions and the decision-making of all stakeholders is required when planning for tourism development. Mbaiwa (2004) explains that CBT involves the formation of community-based organisations and cooperatives. The most widely accepted definition of CBT states that a high degree of control, and a significant proportion of the benefits, must be in the hands of those in the destination communities (Jones, 2005). CBT development seeks to strengthen the institutions that are designed to enhance local participation, and to promote the economic, social and cultural well-being of the popular majority (Goodwin & Santilli, 2009). Nelson (2004) explains how, in looking at such villages as Sinya and Ololosokwan, tourism in Tanzania has helped community development through such initiatives as CBT. The author states that, due to CBT,

28 village revenues increased rapidly during the years from 1999 to 2004, leading to numerous socio- economic benefits.

As has been emphasised above, resident involvement is vital in the tourism development process. Various literatures in different geographical areas have researched the involvement of local residents in tourism development. The current study seeks to determine the level of involvement of the residents of Bulawayo in tourism.

3.6 Challenges for community participation in tourism development in developing countries Muganda (2009) mentions that various researchers, in looking at community participation, have identified a number of challenges that prevent effective community participation in the tourism industry. Such challenges include the communities’ limited enthusiasm regarding the industry, the lack of coordination between the involved parties, and the supply of too little information to the local people. The majority of people in developing countries struggle to satisfy their basic needs, with the mere effort to survive taking up all their time, therefore issues of community participation are a luxury that they cannot afford.

Sebele’s (2010) Bulawayo-based study revealed that, community members were not involved in decision-making, the reason being that, even though the offices were open to everyone, they were located so far away from the community members that they were relatively inaccessible. Most locals were poor and they could not consequently afford to visit them. Dogra and Gupta (2012) summarise a few challenges to participation, in their findings from a study that they conducted in Tanzania. They list the challenges as follows: the professionals concerned overlooking the locals’ suggestions; the lack of an appropriate legal system to encourage local community participation; the high cost of community participation, tied to the lack of finances; and the limited capacity of the poor.

Tawonezvi, Mirimi and Kabote (2014) assert that, despite stakeholders within the tourism industry tending to undertake a variety of significant roles in advancing tourism development for a country, in Zimbabwe, quite a few challenges have hampered community involvement and participation in tourism development, due to the current situation in the country. The Sustainable Tourism Enterprise Promotion (STEP) for local communities (2012) report reveals that numerous tourist centres have sprouted in post- independent Zimbabwe, with such centres being spread throughout the various provinces across the country, for example, the Binga Craft Centre (Matabeleland), the Serengeti Eco-tourism Project (Manicaland), The Last Destination Cultural Centre (Mashonaland), and the Masendu Cultural Village (Matabeleland), to mention but a few. Despite the associated quantitative growth, the evidence reveals

29 that, generally, these newly established tourist centres are economically dormant and that the locals see no need to participate, as they see few if any benefits from the tourism projects involved (STEP, 2012). Numerous other challenges, including the lack of meaningful capital injection and marketing, low levels of visitor patronage, a dilapidated infrastructure, and political tensions, to mention but a few, have had a negative effect on the potential of the above-mentioned centres for STD, which all in all has had a severe negative impact on the locals’ willingness to participate in tourism ventures (STEP, 2012).

According to Nandi (2013), in other areas such as in the community of Jaldapara (which is situated in the Eastern Himalayas), community participation has been difficult for the locals as there has been a lack of collective sense of ownership, as well as inadequate employment creation, and dependence on external funding. The locals expressed their apprehension that the tourism projects in their area had deprived them of their land, with their livestock having inadequate grazing land, and restricted access to wild fruit, which some of them used to sell. The locals in the area therefore, were found not to embrace participating in and supporting tourism in their area. Towner (2016) explains that some of the challenges to local participation as found in a case study done in the Mentawai Islands involved excessive foreign ownership of the local resources, and a lack of local government support. In this regard, the locals perceived that, to increase participation, education and training was vital.

3.7 Tourism as a tool for development, with a special focus on the developing countries Jackson (2010) claims that tourism is often used as a national development tool, and that it usually has both positive and negative impacts on the host communities and their well-being. According to Godfrey and Clarke (2000), tourism development is an ongoing process. As such, it is no economic panacea, and it is best suited as a supplemental aid to a local community, by means of which the latter can achieve overall development. Mowforth and Munt (2003) are of the notion that underdeveloped countries depend on, and promote, tourism as a way of generating foreign exchange, of increasing employment opportunities, of attracting development capital, and of enhancing economic independence. Samimi, Sadeghi and Sadeghi (2011) assert that tourism is seen as a tool for development, as it has contributed to building of the infrastructure, stimulating private investment, and attracting international tourists to create jobs for the locals. Furthermore, the idea of tourism as being ‘manna from heaven’ seems to have gained some support, because tourism is seen to be a highly visible activity (Dieke, 2003). Jenkins (2007) is of the notion that many countries, both developed and developing, have recognised the advantages that tourism can hold out for their development efforts. Dieke (2008) mentions that the advantages are encapsulated in six areas: foreign exchange earnings; contribution to government revenues; the creation of employment opportunities; income generation; the stimulation of inward investment; and regional development.

Godfrey and Clarke (2000) suggest that tourism, as a growth industry, offers communities of all shapes and sizes a unique development opportunity. Buckley (2012) is of the notion that, among other things, tourism is a huge contributor to social development, as it emancipates women, promoting unity and providing health among a few other basic needs. In South Africa, the DEAT (1996) advocates for the promotion of tourism, because it offers multiple opportunities for the involvement of the local communities, especially those from the previously neglected groups, such as women and black people, in tourism. An example of how tourism has been used as a tool for development is that of the case of Kenya (Akama & Kieti, 2007). Mulili and Wong (2011) report that Mombasa and the adjacent townships in Kenya’s coastal region acknowledge the role played by tourism as being one of the options for securing sustainable local community development. Mombasa is a leading tourist destination in Eastern Africa, with the highest concentration of tourism and hospitality facilities and infrastructure in the area.

Collomb (2009) reminds us that, unfortunately tourism development also comes with negative impacts and for the community to accept development in their area, they have to be able to appreciate the benefits that tourism is capable of providing to them. As the above studies have shown, residents display varying perceptions with regards to the associated impacts of or the consequences that are brought about by any form of tourism development. Therefore, the continuous analysis of their perceptions cannot be overemphasised since perceptions change over time. The need for the local residents to be aware of the impacts of tourism development in their area is why it forms the focus in the next subsection.

3.8 Impacts of tourism in context According to Chandralal (2010), many studies have been done pertaining to tourism impacts, with most focusing on the environmental and economic perspectives as well as most recently, from a social viewpoint. Where there are tourism activities, there tend to be social, cultural, environmental, and economic impacts that affect the local communities (Beeton, 2006). According to Lundberg (2011), for decades now, due to mass tourism, the impacts of tourism have become widely notable at most host destinations. The impacts concerned are economic, sociocultural and environmental, and they tend to interfere with the quality of life of local residents in the host communities.

3.8.1 Economic impacts of tourism Cooper et al. (2005) state that tourism is a major force in the world economy, with it being seen as an activity of worldwide significance. Looking at 42 African countries between the years 1995 to 2004, Fayissa, Nsiah and Tadasse (2008) are of the notion that, for African countries to boost their economies, they should focus on intensifying their tourism industries. The authors note that an increase

31 in the spending of tourists immediately increases the GDP of the sub-Saharan countries concerned. The same is noted in Southern European countries (in terms of Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain), as it is observed that tourism activities tend to lead to an improvement in the quality of life of the citizens, as a 1% rise in international tourism revenues is said to bring an increase of generally 0.026 p.p. in per capita income to such countries (Proenca & Soukiazis, 2008). Economic growth is seen as the foundation of development within the leading institutional pro-poor development paradigm (Gossling, Hall, Peeters & Scott, 2010), with tourism playing a pivotal role in significantly contributing to national growth. The following subsection details some of the economic impacts involved with tourism.

Positive economic impacts Job creation According to the WTO (2010), the contribution of tourism to global economic activity was predictable at 5%, whereas approximately 7% of overall jobs worldwide, be they direct or indirect, are in the tourism industry. Skanavis and Sakellari (2011) are of the view that the nature, the value, and the extent of international tourism have modified considerably in recent years, owing to its ability to generate substantial economic benefits, such as employment. Tourism has become one of the most important sources of employment in many rural and peripheral regions worldwide (UNWTO, 2007). According to Erlank (2005), tourism has the potential to create jobs, which is one of its most prominent economic benefits, emanating from the labour-intensive nature of the industry, comparative to other industries. Okech (2010) notes that people serve in various subsectors of the industry, for example tour guiding, travel, and transport, to mention but a few. Asmamaw and Verma (2013) explain that the job opportunities created through tourism are a means of gaining direct income from employment, entrance fees, camping fees, parking fees, driving fees, and other charges that are levied on visitors, with such income helping in the development of the host communities. Swarbrooke (1999) states that tourism has become one of the world’s most important sources of employment with most new tourism jobs and businesses created in developing countries or destination areas helping to equalise the economic opportunities available, and of helping to keep rural residents from moving to overcrowded cities. Keyser (2002) cites that tourism is likely to generate jobs for all level of workers, be they skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, as the tourism trade is largely a service industry that is known to be labour-intensive.

Nyaruwata et al. (2013) claim that tourism also creates indirect employment in industries that are not directly associated with the sector, such as construction, banking, design, and transport, which provide significant support services to the industry. Keyser (2009) and Ivanovic et al., (2009) state that tourism generally creates three types of employment: direct; indirect; and induced. Direct employment refers to people directly working in the tourism business, and it can directly influence the tourist experience.

Indirect employment refers to businesses that provide employment in companies that support the tourism industry, and that supply goods or services to the businesses that work directly with the tourists. Induced employment is employment that is created due to an increase in tourism at a destination, thus expanding associated areas, such as retail and schools. The WTTC (2010) explains that the tourism industry includes sectors that are directly (in the form of providing accommodation, transport / car hire, attractions, and much other tourism-related business) and indirectly (in the form of manufacturing and agriculture) involved in tourism. The wider tourism economy indicates the strong economic flow that emanates from the outcomes of tourism and that spreads right across the economy.

According to Kandari and Chandra (2004), the tourism industry generates employment opportunities, and boosts the productive labour force more than most sectors do. According to the UNWTO (2005), tourism is the fastest growth industry, with its leadership position accounting for a major contribution to the global GDP. Tourism is mainly noted for its major and extensively spread input to the employment opportunities generated. Mbaiwa (2002) reveals that the primary concern with tourism in the Okavango (in Botswana) is its potential to create employment for the people of the Ngamiland District. The high employment rate existing in the area is influenced by the degree of linkages between tourism and other sectors of the economy (Mbaiwa, 2002). The author further suggests that, in 2001, 1658 people were employed in a total of 50 tourist camps and lodges in the area. In Maun, at the time, about 727 people were employed in 35 tourism-related, including wholesale and retail, businesses. In relation to Zimbabwe travel and tourism, according to the WTTC (2015), created 181 000 jobs directly in 2014 (3.1% of total employment), inclusive of employment in hotels, travel agents, airlines, and other various forms of transportation services (excluding commuter services). By 2025, the sector is envisaged as being responsible for approximately 207 000 jobs directly, which amounts to an increase of 1.1% per annum over the ten years following on the current study.

Multiplier effect Mutana et al. (2013) are of the view that, at the local level, the income that comes from tourism is often important to the economic well-being of an area, and that it is increased by the multiplier effect. Ivanovic et al. (2009) contend that the multiplier effect is a means of deciding whether the additional expenditure in an economy that comes about as the result of tourism is the result of the initial spending by tourists. Determining the effect enables calculation of the expenses that tourism businesses incur. Due to the multiplier effect, the housing, motor and food industries also grow, as those who work in the tourism industry consume such products after being paid. Mensah (2012) states that the multiplier effect assists in promoting local businesses and residents, as the local circulation of money avoids all spin-offs of leakages that are associated with poor host communities. Bukenya (2012) explains this concept by

33 stating that the amount of money that is spent by tourists on accommodation, restaurants, entertainment, and transportation, does not stagnate, but that it provides income to hotel staff, taxi operators, shopkeepers, and suppliers of goods and services. Part of the income is spent on such individuals’ daily requirements. In addition, the money that is accumulated from tourism circulates through numerous segments of the economy, by means of the multiplier process (Bukenya, 2012).

Cooper et al. (2005) elucidate that there are different types of multiplier effects in regular operation, with each type having its own precise application. They consist of the following:  Transaction (or sales) multiplier: This multiplier quantifies the amount of additional business revenue that is produced in an economy as a result of an increase in tourist expenditure.  Output multiplier: This multiplier is the same to the transaction multiplier, as it measures the amount of additional output generated in an economy that occurs as the result of an increase in tourist expenditure. The difference between the two is that the output multiplier is concerned with changes in the actual levels of production, and not with the volume and value of sales.  Income multiplier: The income multiplier measures the additional income (that takes the form of salaries, rent and interest) created in the economy, as the outcome of an increase in tourist expenditure.  Employment multiplier: This multiplier is evaluated either in terms of the total amount of employment that is generated by an additional unit of tourist expenditure, or in terms of the ratio of the total amount of employment that is generated by this same expenditure in terms of direct employment alone.  Government revenue multiplier: This kind of multiplier measures the impact on government revenue that is incurred from all sources that are associated with an increase in tourist expenditure. The multiplier may be articulated in gross terms, being the gross increase in government revenue that occurs as a result of an increase in tourist spending.

Foreign exchange earnings and foreign investment Tohidy (2011) explains that tourism has always been seen as a most important economic contributor to many destinations worldwide, because it adds value in the form of foreign exchange. Croes and Vanegas (2008) state that tourism is the only major sector in which developing countries are able to maintain trade surpluses and positive balance of payments. Skanavis and Sakellari (2011) are of the same view that tourism results in tourists bringing foreign currency into a country, and that it is imperative for the maintenance of the balance of payments.

Foreign exchange is an important economic benefit, because the money that is spent in the country improves the economy of the country concerned (Ivanovic et al., 2009). Brida et al. (2011) stress that many countries are turning to tourism as a way of accumulating foreign currency earnings, and, often, the money that is obtained therefrom is channelled towards improving education, health, and social facilities for the communities involved. According to Erlank (2005), foreign exchange earnings based on tourism are earned through the sale of goods and services. In addition, a study by Seetanah (2011) found that tourism is associated with investment, as the more tourist visits that occur, the more private investors feel the need to inject money in the development of tourism, which in turn contributes to the economies of the destinations concerned.

Infrastructural development Drakopoulou (2011) states that a major economic impact that is associated with tourism is infrastructural development. Mbaiwa (2002) is of the notion that one of the areas in which tourism can influence the domestic economy is through the development of the infrastructure in destination areas. Ashely and Mitchell (2009) insist that tourism development can assist with the infrastructure and human resources development, as well as increase the amount of taxes to fund the investments. Christie and Crompton (2001) assert that the lack of an adequate supportive physical and institutional infrastructure to promote tourism in Africa has been identified as being one of the major problems with which the continent has to deal. The infrastructure at a destination is an essential component for tourism development, because it serves to fast-track the creation of new attractions, and the growth of existing ones (Khadaroo & Seetanah, 2007). However, for most African countries, the lack of such has been one of the major challenges that has hindered the growth of tourism on a national scale. Dieke (2008) explains that the infrastructure in most African states has acted as a major challenge in terms of developmental efforts, including that which is expended on tourism. The challenge is due to a lack of infrastructure making certain spots well-nigh inaccessible to a tourist, such as when the road network systems concerned are inadequate (George, 2008).

Tourism has been noted for encouraging the restoration and the renovation of buildings and sites, in terms of which their original uses are not necessarily maintained, as some of the buildings are refurbished to accommodate new, tourism-related uses (Cooper et al., 2005). Keyser (2002) explains that tourism has the ability to encourage the regeneration of buildings, districts and towns, with the primary purpose being not to utilise the sites as tourist attractions, but rather to preserve them, based on their cultural significance. Mustafa and Tayeh (2011) assert that tourism can motivate new and expanded community facilities and infrastructure projects, such as the improvement of retail, restaurant and entertainment options, as well as transport services and education. Looking at the case study

35 entitled “Efficacy of tourism as a tool for local community development”, tourism can be seen to lead to infrastructural development, as tourism facilities and the improvement of infrastructure has brought considerable benefits to Mombasa Town, which has led to the town receiving about 6% of international tourists per annum (Akama, 2000).

Tourism’s contribution to the GDP and to government taxes The WTTC (2010) reveals that, in Africa, the travel and tourism industry represents 13.4% of the GDP. Okech (2010) claims that tourism generates government revenues through various taxes, including accommodation taxes, the value-added tax (VAT) that is charged on goods bought in the local market, and the training levies that hotel guests are obliged to pay. Bukenya (2012) states that tourism contributes greatly to government revenue through the payment of licence fees, customs and excise duty, VATs on tourism services, landing fees, passenger service charges, and entry fees to game parks, as well as the income tax that is levied on employees in the tourism industry. In South Africa, the National Department of Tourism (NDT) (2011) confirms that the tourism industry is continuing to develop, and that it accounts for 7.4% of South Africa’s GDP.

Tourism development has also been noted as being a factor in the economic performance of island destinations (Seetanah, 2011). To benefit substantially from it, the author asserts that governments should make sure that there are policies in place that incorporate sustainable tourism strategies that are likely to contribute towards the economic development of the destinations in the long run. Akinboade and Braimoh (2010) cite that international tourism has contributed massively to the economic development of many countries, especially in Africa. Such development is gained through visitor spending, foreign exchange earnings, tax revenue, job creation, and the balance of payments. The study further cites South Africa as having massively gained from tourism, with the authors explaining that tourism in the country contributes extensively to its GDP.

The development of local small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) Thomas, Shaw and Page (2011) point out that one of the most noticeable developments in tourism policy globally has been the growth of interest in small to medium-sized businesses, as policymakers see such businesses as being the economic lifeblood of the sector and, simultaneously but ironically, as the slowcoach that hampers innovation and growth. According to Ahmad, Yusoff, Noor and Ramin (2012), small to medium-sized businesses in many economies have been demonstrated to be engines for economic growth, particularly in the case of developing economies (Ponelis & Britz, 2010). Globally, SMEs are being recognised for their fundamental task in advancing economic growth and equitable sustainable development (Jongwe, 2012). Urban cultural tourism is commonly believed to contribute to

36 local economic regeneration and prosperity (Smith, 2004), because it encourages the opening of small and medium-sized family enterprises, as well as helping to maintain, or to revive, local traditional jobs (MacDonald & Jolliffe, 2003).

According to Rogerson (2005), the SME operations that are involved in the tourism industry include travel retailers, car hire, accommodation hoteliers, and restaurants. Kipper (2013) emphasises that tourism advances the well-being of local community members, supports small and medium-sized tourism enterprises, involves responsible action on the part of tourists and the tourism industry, and encourages local participation and ownership. Furthermore, the UNWTO (2005) asserts that tourism advances the formation of small and micro-entrepreneurs, with the SMEs concerned being seen as agents for economic growth worldwide. Arthur (2012) clarifies that the SME sector in many African countries has undergone widespread transformation and substantial growth in the amount of support garnered for it. The transformation can be explained in terms of the rethinking of the approach to development that has taken place, according to which the private sector is believed to hold the key to socio-economic development, especially in Africa.

Negative economic impacts Seasonality and menial jobs According to Godfrey and Clarke (2000), tourism jobs, which are often low-paid and part-time, tend to fall primarily within the service support sector. In the presence of tourism, the balance of local shops might shift away from selling convenience and everyday consumer goods to selling antiques and gifts, with some becoming teashops. An increase in tourist activity can also lead to local congestion, litter, and wear and tear on the local resources and infrastructure. Although tourism is undoubtedly important at a national level, particularly in terms of foreign exchange and international trade, its impact on individual communities can be, and often is, quite different (Godfrey & Clarke, 2000). Lundtorp (2001) argues that most tourism jobs are low-paid and, often, seasonal. Many destinations suffer from seasonality, leaving the employees involved without work for part of each year, and left to suffer from unemployment (Jang, 2004). Cuccia and Rizzo (2011) explain that seasonality depends on the characteristics of both tourism demand and tourism destinations, in terms of the location and the services supplied.

Furthermore, Mwangi (2005) argues that jobs in the tourism industry are both menial and demeaning, with most of the workers in tourism being underpaid and having to struggle to survive. This, the author argues, is attributed to their limited skills and access to resources, which prevent most locals from becoming ‘top dogs’ in the industry. Cuccia and Rizzo (2011) argue that most tourism jobs are low-paid and, often, seasonal, leaving the employees involved without work for some part of each year, and they

37 are, consequently, left suffering from unemployment. Most destinations face such challenges as having to cope with the seasonal nature of the tourism industry, particularly in the case of those countries that are in the developing world, which tend to have to depend upon their natural resource base as a tourist drawcard (Erlank, 2005).

Leakage of revenue According to Vinodan and Manalel (2011), the leakage of revenue has become a major problem for host destinations. Such leakage appears in two forms, cross-border leakage and intra-regional leakage. Garrigós-Simón, Galden-Salvador and Gil Pechuán (2013) state that, often, the money that is spent by tourists at host destinations is sent back to the country of origin, with only a small amount being left to improve the host destination. External agencies sometimes come into relatively undeveloped areas under the appearance of being there to develop the destination communities through the opening of new tourism businesses. However, such businesses then use their own labour, stating that the locals lack sufficient knowledge and skills to operate their machinery, or to use their information technology. Ultimately, any profits that are made are then sent back to the businesses’ country of origin, instead of being used to develop the developing countries’ communities (Godfrey & Clarke, 2000). Ivanovic et al. (2009) are of the view that foreign investment by outside businesspeople ends in them taking the money or earnings back to their own country, which then cripples the host country’s economy, as jobs are lost and some businesses have to close as revenue is leaked from the country. In other instances, many tourists are reluctant to try out local products, preferring goods from their home countries, which leads to additional leakage from the destinations concerned (Keyser, 2000).

Price increases Ounmany (2014) asserts that tourism drives up living costs in the local areas, with him citing the situation in Laos where restaurants that are operated by foreigners charge for goods that are considered free in the area (such as green tea). Villagers in the same area (Laos) also charge more for their services and goods, especially when too many visitors come there, than they usually otherwise would. Brown (2000) identifies that the pricing system is a serious issue, which has seriously affected the motivating of travel to many African destinations. A huge difference has been identified in terms of the pricing standards of goods and products in different places, with it generally being acknowledged that prices tend to be highest for tourists in tourism-focused regions

3.8.2 Sociocultural impacts of tourism

Positive sociocultural impacts

Instilling of a sense of local pride Mckercher and Ho (2012) aver that the interest in experiencing, and in learning about, different cultures has grown and become prevalent among tourists today. Lubbe (2003) postulates that tourism enhances local community identity and esteem, as it provides the opportunity for gaining an enhanced understanding, and for communication to take place between people of diverse backgrounds. Cooper et al. (2005) claim that tourism can inspire a sense of pride in the heritage that is associated with destinations. Sometimes, the locals forget the value of their surrounding assets, and only when such objects are seen afresh by tourists do the locals come to value their own culture. Inskeep (1991) provides an example of the above, explaining that, in multicultural countries, regional tourism can help to maintain the identity of cultural groups that otherwise might be overlooked by the country’s dominant culture.

Buckley (2012) accounts for the ‘feel-good effect’ that is felt by host residents when their areas are visited by tourists. The effect implies that tourism development, including subsectors like events tourism, plays a crucial part in instilling a sense of pride among host communities. Ertuna and Kirbas (2012) propose that modern, sensitive host communities tend to appreciate tourism development efforts that serve to increase the number of community facilities that are available, to the extent that the local residents are likely to drop any kind of resistance that might, otherwise, have arisen, due to tourism development. Ferhan and Ebru (2010) highlight that cultural tourism has, increasingly, become a reasonable tool for the conserving of community heritage, as well as a new source of pride. Given this, tourism has contributed greatly to the revitalising of culture in societies, making a substantial contribution to its development (Murphy, 2013). It is even possible that cultural tourism has allowed particular cultures to thrive in instances where it might otherwise have faded into non-existence (Richards, 2007).

Skills and knowledge development In spite of the abundance of labour on the African continent, the issue of skills and knowledge development has proven to be a major challenge for the sector (Okech, 2010). Skills development, as cited by George (2008), is a major factor that has affected the growth of the tourism sector, mainly due to the fact that skills development, especially in the tourism sector, is closely linked with service excellence and customer satisfaction. In the case of the Wonchi Area in Ethiopia, the respondents acknowledged that tourism activities in the area had improved the livelihoods of, and the cultural exchange among the tourists and the locals, as well as having increased the extent of knowledge of other cultures (Ogato, Abdise, Gammie & Abede, 2014). Dieke (2001) asserts that there is a need for

39 the improvement of human resources in Africa, which is likely to contribute to the improvement of service excellence and enhancing skills in the local workforce as well.

Participation of the local communities and the improvement of living standards Mbaiwa (2004), who examined the sociocultural impacts of tourism development in the Okavango Delta (Botswana), found that, among the positive sociocultural impacts of tourism, is the participation of the local communities in CBT and natural resource management. If the locals participate in tourism development, they develop a sense of ownership and they might conserve the resources that are available at their destinations (Sebele, 2010). Botswana adopted the community-based natural resources management (CBNRM) strategy as a way of giving community members a chance to participate in tourism. Through the initiative, it has been found that, not only do community members benefit directly from tourism, but that it also serves to support their sustainability, resulting in increased economic benefits from the industry (Stone & Stone, 2011).

Encouragement of the interaction and exchange of culture between locals and tourists McIntosh & Zahra (2007) explains that tourism facilitates the interaction between communities and visitors, and that, due to the interaction, people come to learn about other people’s traditions, and even to confront themselves with new perspectives regarding life and society. Murphy (2013) acknowledges tourism as a mode of overcoming stereotypes, and of merging societies into various like-minded groups. According to Buzinde et al. (2014), the Maasai people, who are seen as the most ancient communities in the world, have been known to have a positive attitude towards foreigners, with the former welcoming the latter, and being willing to showcase and teach the visitors about their culture. Some societies feel proud of their culture when tourists take an interest in it and because of the instilling of the sense of pride, the cultures in question become eager to share knowledge of their traditions and norms, as well as regarding their practices, while simultaneously also enabling them to learn how others differ from them (Murphy, 2013).

In the Embera communities in Panama, the hosts show tourists their way of life and traditions through music and dance and material aspects that represent their culture. Such a display of their culture to tourists enables the latter to have a visual experience that facilitates their consumption of, and their learning about, the cultures of the Embera communities (Theodossopoulos, 2012).

Negative sociocultural impacts Decline in morality Ogechi and Onyinkasola (2012) acknowledge that some forms of tourism such as cultural tourism can

40 change a society’s values, beliefs and cultural practices. For example, the local people might change their way of life (in the forms of their dressing, recreational activities and eating habits) in efforts to try to adapt to what they have seen among the tourists. Such changes can cause acculturation in the host communities, leading to the decay of the local culture. Brunt and Courtney (2010) are of the view that visitor behaviour can have a detrimental effect on the quality of life of the host community, through, for example, the contribution that is made by visitors to overcrowding, congestion, drug use, prostitution, and increased crime levels. Interaction with tourists can also lead to an erosion of traditional cultures and values (Chandralal, 2010). Another problem is the decline in morality in societies that are exposed to the different values of tourists and, in some cases, to irresponsible tourist behaviour that can lead to such moral and societal challenges as crime, prostitution, gambling, unhealthy eating and drinking, and drug abuse (Ivanovic et al., 2009).

The inability to change culture Mbaiwa (2004) mention that, ironically, in some cases, the major problem facing communities is the inability to change culturally. The use of certain images of the local people and of their culture to promote regions can result in the residents being trapped in certain lifestyles, no matter how anachronistic they might be, in order to meet tourist expectations (Moscardo, 2008).

Interference with the local value systems and religions Font and Cochrane (2005) state that tourism can begin to alter local value systems and behaviour, thus leading to a loss of indigenous identity. Moscardo (2006) explains that the patterns of employment that are associated with tourism also tend to have negative impacts on destination cultures. In some cases, the peak season coincides with critical times for other traditional practices, especially agriculture, creating a shortfall in the resources that are required to sustain other activities, and a subsequent decline in the inherent quality of traditional practices.

In terms of the island of Mykonos, Vounatsou, Laloumis and Pappas (2005) note that the locals were found to acknowledge and welcome tourism. However, tourism had been seen to disrupt the locals’ way of life, as the foreigners had purchased land and homes on the island, as well as having disturbed the traditional ways of how local acted in relation to home ownership. Furthermore, there had been an increase in the amount of alcoholism, xenophobia and crime in the area, leading to widespread change in the community. In addition, Mohul (2009) asserts that tourism tends to change local value systems, be they individual beliefs, family relationships, or collective lifestyles, as it tends to increase the levels of social tension and cultural breakdown.

The commodification of culture Holden (2005) maintains that negative cultural impacts include the need to change cultural practices for the sake of presentation and sales, with the intention of satisfying tourist interests. In such a case, the negative impacts that are reported relate to changes in the culture that are out of the residents’ control. Cooper (2003) points out that cultural modification is the process of reducing one’s culture to the status of yet another product with a price tag. The author further explains that commodification wears away at the worth, dignity, value, and sanctity of particular cultures. An example includes the practice of performing sacred dances and rituals for tourists for financial return.

The imitation of tourist behaviour / acculturation Reisinger (2009) posits that host destinations that support tourism development tend to borrow elements from tourists’ cultures in order that they might abide by the standards of the others’ culture. As a result, the original culture of the host societies weakens, and the culture of the tourist societies strengthens. Furthermore, Font and Cochrane (2005) state that, when the host community copies tourist behaviour, their doing so alters the local value systems and behaviour, leading to a loss of indigenous identity. While presenting a culture to the tourists might help preserve it, doing so can also dilute or even destroy it (Besculides, Lee & McCormick, 2002; Brunt & Courtney, 2010).

The standardisation of culture Hannan and Knox (2005) state that tourism might lead to the standardisation of culture. Such standardisation can come about because, when tourists travel, they look for familiar facilities in a different environment from their own. The result is that the host community sometimes feels pressured into attempting to satisfy tourists’ desires through creating facilities with which the tourists are familiar (Bunten, 2008). Goeldner, Ritchie and McIntosh (2003) argue that, by standardising all elements of a culture, the local culture can become diminished. They further explain that tourists, during their stay, might demand facilities and environments that are similar to the ones that they have back home. The introduction of the facilities in the host environment might, in turn, mean that traditions, customs, and cultural practices that are different from those of the local environment are introduced. Devolution might also occur, with cultural loss occurring as a result of the borrowing whereby a new culture is introduced or there is an exchange of cultures.

The staged authenticity of traditions Chhabra, Healy and Sills (2003) assert that much of today’s heritage tourism product depends on the staging or recreation of ethnic or cultural traditions. Theobald (2013) claims that local culture and customs might be broken with so as to please the visitor, sometimes at the cost of local pride and

42 dignity. Cohen (1988:373) explains that commoditisation destroys the authenticity of cultural expression, which eventually results in the emergence of a surrogate ’staged authenticity’.

3.8.3 Environmental impacts of tourism According to Witt and Loots (2010), the relationship between tourism and the environment is complex, with maintenance of the quality of the environment, both natural and manmade being vital to tourism. Matheson and Hall (1982) identify three relationships that exist between tourism and the environment. Firstly, tourism and environment conservation exist in a situation where both camps promote their respective positions, remain isolated, and establish minimal contact with each other. The dependency of tourism on the environment implies that it cannot stand separate from it, with tourism, therefore, inevitably affecting the environment. Secondly, tourism and the environment have a symbiotic relationship, which is a mutually supportive relationship in which each benefits from the other. Thirdly, despite the relationship that exists between tourism and the environment, there is conflict between the two. Tourism induces detrimental effects on the environment, degrading its resource base, so that, ultimately, the environment destroys itself. Therefore, there is a need for the conservation and preservation of the environment for it to remain sustainable. The next subsection explains some of the positive and negative impacts of tourism on the environment.

Positive environmental impacts The conservation and preservation of nature Tourism promotes the conservation and the preservation of nature and wildlife (Dressler & Brüscher, 2008). An example of conservation is seen in the formation of transfrontier parks. Child (2009) asserts that such parks serve to encourage the removal of fences between adjacent international parks, which helps in the defragmentation of wildlife habitats, which have long been recognised as being subject to biodiversity loss. In contrast, transfrontier parks not only allow for wildlife migration to take place, but also encourage tourism, economic development, and the presence of goodwill between neighbouring countries, as well as facilitating the travel of indigenous inhabitants of the area. Dixit and Narula (2010) summarise some of the impacts of tourism as improved appreciation of natural environments towards protecting and conserving them, and the educating of both visitors and tourists about conserving the natural environment, along with the potential of tourism to motivate the designation of additional natural areas for purposes of conservation and protection. Tourism also aids in the conservation of privately and communally owned lands, which is important in building up resilience to climate change. Tourism provides a reason for preserving the natural scenery and manufactured historic sites, traditional towns and neighbourhoods, villages, lighthouses, harbours, and fishing piers (Aref, Redzuan & Gill, 2009).

Tourism can contribute directly to the conservation of sensitive areas and habitat, as the revenue from park entrance fees and similar sources can be allocated specifically to pay for the protection and management of environmentally sensitive areas (The International Ecotourism Society [TIES], 2016). In a study conducted by Myer, Muller, Woltering, Arnegger and Job (2010), it was found that tourism, in the form of the visiting of national parks, has an economic impact. Such parks as the Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer (Germany) generated over EUR500 million through visitor-related revenue in 2009. As explained in the study, some of the parks earned an income from overnight visitors and day tourists who came and spent money there. The same study found that use of the term ‘national park’, on its own, contributed to attracting tourists, with the money obtained assisting in developing the parks. Furthermore, even though the parks were found to be the primary attraction at most destinations, the laissez-faire approach that was adopted by the stakeholders concerned reduced the number of economic benefits that might otherwise have been more if they had played an active role in their development.

Environmental and ecosystem protection (ecotourism) Tourism, in the form of ecotourism, has been a way of reducing negative environmental impacts and of protecting the environment and the ecosystem. Björk (2007) highlights that the concept of ecotourism started emerging in the 1960s, largely materialising in the 1990s when there was a need for alternative forms of tourism with more positive outcomes than those provided by mass tourism (Weaver, 2008). Due to the increasing trends in environmental concerns, ecotourism became the fastest growing sector to try and decrease negative environmental impacts (Paco, Alves & Nunes, 2012). Ecotourism has gained major attention within the tourism industry and literature (Weaver & Lawton, 2007). Coria and Calfucura (2011) assert that ecotourism is being adopted in many developing countries that are home to the world’s rare and threatened species, and there is the hope of developing economies in a sustainable way. The form of tourism in question is known to stimulate the economic development and the social well-being of people, while simultaneously preserving the natural environment and cultural heritage through awareness creation (Manu, Kuuder & Wuleka, 2012). In addition, TIES (2016) contends that ecotourism is responsible for tourism in natural areas, with it conserving the environment and ecosystems, and also improving the well-being of the host community.

According to Ly and Bauer (2014), ecotourism generates both economic returns and job opportunities for the host communities, while still protecting the environments and the cultures concerned. In addition, Bohensky, Butler and Mitchell (2010) state that ecotourism is responsible travel to natural areas, which involves conserving the environment, improving the well-being of the local people, and the sharing of the culture of the host communities involved. Ecotourism differs from other segments of the tourism

44 industry, in the light of it being defined by its sustainable development outcomes, which include conserving natural areas, educating visitors about sustainability, and benefiting the host communities concerned (Sezgin & Gumus 2016).

Negative environmental impacts In the available literature, Gaymans (2010) argues that tourism can have negative effects on the environment, citing the example of Jamaica, where most tourism activities, like downhill bicycle tours, take precedence over community involvement in tourism, resulting in little information being broadcast about the surrounding natural environment. Adetola and Adediran (2014) posit that negative attitudes tend to be less prominent in most communities where ecotourism is practised. However, where tourist activities overshadow the appreciation of the environment, such as in the Olumirin Waterfalls, Nigeria, they tend to give rise to such problems as pollution, overcrowding, and cultural diffusion. In a study conducted by Mohammadi, Khalifah and Hosseini (2010a), other negative impacts of tourism that were found in Kermanshah (Iran) included the crowding of public places, traffic congestion, and noise and air pollution. Cooper (2003) holds the view that environmental impacts may change the whole character of an area, which affects its visual impact and its effects on the landscape. The author further argues that negative impacts from tourism tend to occur when the level of visitor use is greater than is the environment's ability to cope with such use within the acceptable limits of change.

The damage to, and disturbance of, biodiversity Such tourism activities as hunting tend directly to impact on the environment and wildlife; they destroy habitats, and they negatively affect the population of wildlife, including birds (Deng & Ding, Cheng & Chou 2016). Gladstone, Curley and Shokri (2013) point out that tourist activity in a golf course habitat causes damage which includes: the breakage of corals by divers and snorkelers; the trampling of intertidal areas; anchor damage to corals; and littering (both land and water). Furthermore, Pickering and Hill (2007) explain that the collection of flora and fauna, the chopping down of trees, the disposal of waste, and the impact of both vehicles and pedestrians can cause the destruction of vegetation, which is one of the serious environmental impacts involved. Erlank (2005) talks of the destruction of wildlife that arises as a result of the planned destruction of animals through fishing, hunting, the imbalance of wildlife breeding and feeding patterns, and the disturbance of normal animal relationships.

Zhang and Yu (2006) assert that tourist disturbance of animal life and habitats through such activities as hunting disturbs the native animal ecosystems by means of reducing numbers, animal food supplies, animal breeding, and feeding and rest opportunities. Furthermore, Sharma, Dyer, Carter and Gursoy (2008) explain that tourism causes enormous stress on the natural environment, because as tourist

45 numbers rise, so too does the need for such tourist infrastructure as lodges, motels, conference centres and hotels. The increase in tourism can cause infrastructure damage, urban expansion, and environmental degradation.

Pollution (water, air, land, and visual) Cooper (2003) argues that tourism can cause the same forms of pollution as does any other industry: air emissions; noise; solid waste and littering; the release of sewage, oil and chemicals; and architectural/visual pollution. Hicks (2003) postulates that the construction of such tourist facilities as recreation centres and hotels often leads to increased sewerage pollution, with polluted water not only being a risk to humans, but also to the flora and fauna. Changes in salinity and siltation can have wide- ranging impacts on coastal environments, with sewage pollution threatening the health of both humans and animals (Holden, 2016). According to Zhong, Deng, Song and Ding (2011), such water-based tourist activities as swimming, boat cruises and surfing tend to impact negatively on the water environment. Tourists can be reckless, tending to pollute the water. In addition, such establishments as hotels and restaurants that cater for tourists also often cause water pollution by dumping their sewage and oil into the water, thereby compromising the latter’s quality.

Noise pollution from aeroplanes, cars, and buses, as well as from such recreational vehicles as snowmobiles and jet skis, is an ever-growing problem of modern life. In addition to causing annoyance, stress, and even hearing loss for humans, noise pollution can cause distress to wildlife, especially in sensitive areas (Cooper, 2003).

The development of such tourism facilities as accommodation, water supplies, restaurants, and recreation facilities can involve sand mining, beach and sand dune erosion, soil erosion, and extensive paving. In addition, road and airport construction can lead to land degradation and to the loss of wildlife habitats, as well as to the deterioration of scenery (Holden, 2016).

Congestion and overcrowding A study conducted by Riganti and Nijkamp (2008) explains that most mature tourist destinations become congested during the peak seasons, mainly because they attract large numbers of tourists to their areas. The researchers concerned give an example of the city centre of Amsterdam, where congestion often causes such negative impacts as polluting, damage of the environment, and straining of the local infrastructure. All this has caused a reduction in visitors spending money in the area, because they are not comfortable staying there for any sizable length of time. Cros (2008) explains that, even though WHSs are often sources of economic development, because they attract many people to them, encouraging relatively long stays and repeat visits. However, without proper management and

46 plans to mitigate the negative impacts concerned, tourism can be a cause of congestion in destinations, leading to poor experiences for tourists and to the degradation of their WHS status.

In the available literature, there are both signs of both positive and negative impacts affecting host communities at various host destinations. In the Zimbabwean context, there seems to only a limited amount of literature available on the understanding of tourism development and its impacts, especially in relation to the major towns and cities (i.e. the urban areas) in Zimbabwe, and how such impacts are perceived. Therefore, the current study sought to close the gap concerned by means of analysing the residents’ perceptions of the impacts of tourism on Bulawayo.

3.9 Ways of minimising negative impacts and of maximising positive impacts Castellani, Sala and Pitea (2007) assert that carrying capacity refers to the necessity of measure, which is to say that there is a maximum acceptable level to impact on the environment and the ability of revival to prior condition. According to the World Tourism Organization (1999), tourism carrying capacity is the limit on the number of people who can be at any location at a given time, so that the local environmental, physical, economic, and sociocultural characteristics are not compromised, but also not compromising the tourist experience. In addition to Jovicic and Dragin (2008), carrying capacity represents a component of the planning of spatial development in tourism, with it working in line with sustainable tourism. Carrying capacity is seen as being similar to a management theory that echoes the objectives of managers and users to satisfy both tourists and residents (Jurado, Tejada, García, González, Macías, Peña, Gutiérrez, Fernández, Gallego, García & Gutiérrez, 2012).

Zoning, which is a management strategy that is used to minimise the negative impacts of tourism, is done through subdividing a managed area into two or more subareas, defining the classes of activities involved, and specifying which activities are permitted and prohibited in each zone (Roman, Dearden & Rollins, 2007). Hull, Xu, Liu, Zhou, Viña, Zhang, Tuanmu, Huang, Linderman, Chen and Huang (2011) highlight the fact that, in an increasingly human-dominated world, zoning designations assist in reducing the number of potential sources of conflict among the users of limited resources, by providing the guidelines for multiple use of shared space. Zoning is seen as a cornerstone of marine park management, reducing the number of conflicting uses, and deciding on the appropriateness of diverse activities (Geneletti & van Duren, 2008). However, zoning has been criticised for being practised on paper alone, with little, if any, meaning with respect to realised activities (Sabatini, Verdiell, Iglesias & Vidal, 2007).

In addition, responsible tourism has been used to minimise the negative impacts of the industry. Responsible tourism has been officially adopted by many important tourism destinations, and it is being 47 pushed by states and city governments on normative grounds (Farmaki, Constanti, Yiasemi & Karis, 2014). Sala (2010) explains that responsible tourism includes policies that focus on protecting the local community from any kind of harm. According to Frey and George (2010), such tourism looks at developing a competitive advantage, in the form of monitoring the impacts of tourism development, by means of ensuring that positive contributions are made to the conservation of the natural and cultural heritage. The advantage can also be gained by promoting community involvement, by ensuring that economic benefits are gained by the host communities, thus providing enjoyable experiences for tourists through the establishment of meaningful connections with the locals, and by means of promoting the sustainable use of environmental and cultural resources.

Goodwin and Font (2012) are of the view that responsible tourism maximises economic, social and environmental benefits, while minimising costs for host destinations. Chen (2011) affirms that the concept of responsible tourism is the way to sustainable tourism, which means that, for sustainable tourism to occur, responsible tourism has first to take place. Vasudevan (2008) states that responsible tourism is tourism development that inflicts the least harm possible on the environment, with its successful pursuance providing benefits for both communities and tourists in the long run. Fadini (2013) is of the view that the concept of responsible tourism is often disapproved of, as its adherents are found to adopt the same ethical stance as do those supporting the principle of sustainable tourism, which relates to the triple bottom line.

3.10 The role of stakeholders in tourism development Tourism is a fragmented industry, forcing together diverse players. Therefore, partnership is both an obvious and a necessary way of working, combining expertise, perspectives and priorities across the public, private and voluntary sectors (Ivanovic et al., 2009). Local authorities are crucial to bringing together and directing the partnerships concerned. Although partnerships vary in terms of composition, size and targets, they should, nevertheless, share a common goal. The South African DEAT (1996) report on tourism, in terms of the GEAR (Growth, Employment and Distribution) programme, specifies that tourism should conform to the following expectations:

 It should be government-led, meaning that the government has the responsibility to lead the tourism development strategy that is in place on a national and provincial scale. Thus, in the present case, the local authorities should take on the role of leadership.  It should be private sector-driven, meaning that the government sector should drive development. This should be in line with the government’s drive towards black economic empowerment in South Africa.

 It should be community-based, meaning that development at the local level should serve to empower the local communities.

Godfrey and Clark (2000) assume that the best destination development plans are those that are created jointly by non-profit organisations, the local government, and the private sector. The following subsection discusses the different roles played by the various stakeholders that are involved in tourism development.

The role of the public sector Page and Connell (2006) assert that the public sector, although being hard to define, characteristically incorporates both government and government-based organisations. The public sector’s role includes helping in policy formulation, shaping practice, and delivering services. Generally, Page and Connell (2006) explain that the role of the public sector in tourism is identified in many ways, but that it also varies, based on its importance, according to where the tourism is developed, for example, whether it occurs on the international, the national, the provincial, or the local level scale.

Amuquandoh (2010) and Boniface and Cooper (2012) avow that the role of the public sector is usually limited to providing the infrastructure that includes roads, signage and parking areas, as well as such utilities as game reserves/parks. According to Hall (2005), the government has seven functions in tourism development: coordination; planning; legislation and regulation; entrepreneurship; stimulation; social tourism; and the protection of public interest. According to Binns and Neil (2003), the key role of the local government is involved with improving LED, which seeks to encourage economic growth and to diversify the local economic base into the sectors of communities undergoing economic change. Keyser (2009:209) alleges that the public sector is a national body organisation of the government, which facilitates: policymaking, legislation and planning; growth; coordination; marketing; regulation; and the monitoring of tourism development.

Hall, Pender and Sharpley (2005) claim that the local government is the most significant authority throughout the tourism development process and the formation of policies, while also regulating the level of growth that happens at their host destinations. In the past, governments were usually concerned with only the economic issues related to tourism development, but currently, they endeavour to ensure that there is a balance between economic priorities, the environment, and the local society, if they are to gain political support for tourism development (Bramwell, 2011). For most governments in most host destinations, their main responsibility, in terms of tourism development, is to promote tourism and to strive to increase tourist arrival numbers, which is featured as their major concern in tourism-related policies (Akama, 2000). To Nunkoo, Stephen and Smith (2013), the government is the chief actor in the 49 process of tourism development, adopting a dominant role, and controlling the tourism industry through formal ministries, other institutions, legislation, and various programmes and funding initiatives (Elliot, 1997).

According to the South African Tourism Planning Toolkit for Local Government (2009), the role of the local government in tourism is demonstrated in Figure 3.3 below.

Figure 3.3 The role of the local government in tourism development Source: South African Tourism Planning Toolkit for Local Government (2009).

The role of the private sector The private sector is largely oriented towards generating revenue and profit from the selling of tourism products and services (Spencely, 2003). The sector also promotes the involvement of local communities in tourism, by means of establishing partnership tourism ventures with communities (South Africa. DEAT, 1996). Horner and Swarbrooke (2004) are of the view that the private sector has initiatives that respect voluntary action in relation to such sustainable tourism issues as reducing the prevailing levels of energy consumption. Such efforts are promoted by the International Hotels Environmental Initiative, and it is therefore seen as appropriate that the private sectors should be a key player in tourism development.

Harrison and Schipani (2007) explain that businesses can benefit from creating closer links with communities than they customarily had in the past, and also from practising social responsibility. Simultaneously, communities can reap the benefits from taking advantage of employment opportunities that are made available by such businesses, whether as suppliers of goods to them, or in terms of satisfying their other needs. Ashley and Ntshona (2003) explain that, in simple terms, the role of the private sector is primarily seen as being that of the main supplier of resources. According to Ashley and Wolmer (2003), the private sector should play a leading role in development, specifically through the investing in development projects. An example of this kind of approach is cited in the policies of both South Africa and Mozambique.

The role of the community According to Getz (2010), the role and level of involvement of the host community in development has the possibility of establishing the level of impact on the host destination concerned. Mensah (2012) states that host communities are able to play a vital role in tourism development. Local residents should play a key role in tourism development, becoming involved in all levels of the tourism development process (UN, 2013). Community involvement is an instrument for active community participation in terms of working in partnership, decision-making, planning, policy formulation, and the representation of the community, so that the benefits to be gleaned from tourism also reach community members (Samimi et al., 2011). One of the ways in which the community can be involved in tourism development, as identified by Collomb (2009), is through taking advantage of employment opportunities in the tourism industry. Akama (2011) notes that local groups must be in command of making decisions that shape the form taken by tourism development. In addition, the locals should be able to have a say in how the local resources are to be used, which will give them a stake in maintaining the structures, or practices, involved.

3.11 Planning and policy development A key issue in which local authorities should engage is planning for tourism resources to be embedded in their area (Godfrey & Clark, 2000). Tourism planning is defined by Ivanovic (2008) as organising the future so as to achieve certain objectives, while optimising and balancing the triple bottom line. Doing so should incorporate the economic, sociocultural and environmental aspects of a particular tourism resource, with the triple bottom line dealing with ensuring the promotion of principles of economic efficiency, social justice and environmental integrity. Connell, Page and Bentley (2009) mention that communities, regions and countries can benefit substantially from the proper planning of tourism on an ongoing scale. Mason (2010) is of the opinion that the best planned tourism development is likely to take place at the most successful tourist destinations, in terms of implementing initiatives and strategies

51 for achieving high tourist satisfaction levels. Such development promises to bring about substantial benefits, with minimal disruption to the local economy, environment, and society.

Contemporary tourism planning recognises that an integrated and sustainable development approach includes the participation of local communities and residents. According to Inskeep (1991), tourism planning is vital, as it provides a common vision and direction for, and commitment to, tourism. Bramwell and Lane (2003) explain that participation in tourism planning for development by many stakeholders can help to promote sustainable development by increasing the extent of efficiency, equity, and harmony practised. Furthermore, Williams (2009) explains that, in the absence of the effective planning of tourism, there are evident risks that any tourism development will become unregulated, formless, or haphazard. Tourism is also, then, likely to be inefficient, and to lead directly to a range of negative economic, social, and environmental impacts (Mason, 2010). Therefore, the planning process is a means by which tourism benefits can be maximised, and the negative impacts minimised, in the host communities (Hall, 2005). Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2010) state that tourism planners must recognise that there are limits to the amount of acceptable change in a community, which must be reflected in the goals and objectives of the plan itself. Such a reflection should help to mitigate the negative impacts of tourism, while maximising its potential to improve the community’s quality of life.

Furthermore, the local authorities should engage in the formulation of policies that will act as guidelines of their actions undertaken in pursuit of their goals. A policy is defined as a position, strategy, action, or product that is adopted by the government, and which arises from contests between different ideas, values and interests (Lawrence & Dredge, 2007). According to Scott (2011), tourism policy is an important area for study, because of its practical and theoretical importance. Goeldner et al. (2003) are of the same school of thought, explaining that a tourism policy is a set of regulations, rules, guidelines, directives that are aimed at the development and promotion of objectives and strategies that provide a framework within which the collective and individual decisions taken directly affect the long-term tourism development of, and the daily activities at, a destination.

3.12 Barriers and challenges contributing to the limitation of tourism development

Figure 3.4 above is a conceptual framework for the understanding of the barriers that can create negative outcomes for tourism development. As can be seen in the figure, the effect of the barriers is cumulative, with the more grassroots issues contributing directly to the negative outcomes (Moscardo, 2008).

Negative outcome of tourism development

Limited community involvement in tourism development

No planning for tourism or coordination of stakeholders

Domination by external No local tourism agents leaders

Limited amount of tourism knowledge and experience

Figure 3.4: Connections between the barriers to effective development Source: Moscardo (2008).

As shown in the flow chart, limited tourism knowledge and experience can lead to eternal agents controlling tourism at a destination, because the locals, who could be the leaders of tourism development taking place in their area, lack knowledge and experience. In relation to the above, tourism development takes place in the absence of planning, so that it is done haphazardly and formlessly. The lack of planning is due to the development being in the hands of those who do not care about the sustainability of the destination, as they do not belong to the area. The result is that the community

53 members do not have a chance to become involved in the development of their area, as the external agents push them away and do as they please, which ultimately leads to negative outcomes of tourism development at a destination. In addition to the barriers shown in the flow chart, other challenges are identified that are discussed below.

Lack of skills development In spite of the abundance of labour on the African continent, the issue of skills development and tourism has proven to be a major challenge to the sector (Okech, 2010). The identification of the factor as being a major factor that has affected the growth of the sector has mainly been due to the fact that skills development, especially in the tourism sector, is closely linked with service excellence and customer satisfaction (George, 2008). Dieke (2001) highlights that there is a need for the development of human resources in Africa, which is likely, in turn, to see an improvement in the delivery of quality services for tourists while, in contrast, also enhancing the skills of the local workforce. The difficulty in delivering quality services has partly arisen from the inadequacy of skills that are available in Africa, despite service excellence being vital to the growth of the tourism and hospitality industry (Dieke, 2001). Rogerson and Visser (2006) suggest that tourism has not been a major subject in most institutions of higher learning in most African countries, with just a few schools and universities educating citizens on the tourism industry. Such a lack of tourism-directed education and training has, in turn, led to the weakening of service standards (NEPAD, 2004). George (2008) maintains that service excellence is a basic facet of the tourism service, with it being a determinant of repeat visits. It is important for destinations to concentrate on improving service excellence, as potential visitors can easily be discouraged by poor service (Fayissa et al., 2008).

Lack of empirical research Christie and Crompton (2001) are of the notion that the lack of appropriate empirical studies on tourism in Africa is what contributes to inadequate policy guidance in the industry. Bianchi (2002) asserts that, in Africa, tourism continues to be relatively neglected in terms of the wider development studies literature, despite its undoubted significance as an element of international trade. Limited empirical studies exist on issues concerning the nature of tourism on the African continent (Rogerson & Vissier, 2011).

The pricing system Another challenge that has been identified by various scholars is that of the pricing system, which has seriously affected the motivating of travel to many African destinations (Ashley & Jonathan, 2009; Brown, 2000). Brown (2000) also suggests that the issue of inconsistency of prices is a common phenomenon within global economies. However, what makes the case of Africa a subject of key

54 concern is the difference in price margins, with prices tending to be relatively high in most tourism- dominated regions (Sindiga, 1999). Leiper (2004) argues that the high prices in such regions might discourage a tourist from spending much, for fear of being duped, or when in doubt regarding the quality of the goods available. International tourists are especially challenged in this respect, because they might not be familiar with how things are priced at the destinations that they visit, resulting in them either underspending (for fear of scams and/or due to scepticism regarding the quality of the products sold), or not travelling to the destination at all. The impact of the above is inevitably felt by the destination economy (Leiper, 2004).

Poverty and crime Dieke (2008) and Okech (2010) explain that African nations are plagued by a number of socio-economic problems resulting in the poverty of many of the citizens, who, in most African countries, live under the total consumption poverty line (TCPL), which results in dishonest behaviour that affects the tourism industry negatively. According to Gono (2010), criminal activity in most African states has been on the rise in recent times, with corruption being one of the most common criminal phenomena. Martin and Tsangarides (2007) argue that corruption is evident in many African destinations, especially in major cities, where the local police services have been reported to be exploiting tourists for their own financial gain.

According to Okech (2010), poverty is a huge problem in Africa. Numerous countries on the African continent suffer from poverty and a poor quality of life, with most Africans being deprived of the satisfaction of their basic needs, including education, health facilities, and electricity (Conrady, Buck & Viehl, 2010), which has extensively hampered tourism growth. Poverty in Africa has also led to some of its citizens engaging in such unscrupulous behaviour as crime, prostitution, fraud, and theft (Okech, 2010).

Political instability and issues of safety and security If tourists are concerned about their security, they are likely to change their perceptions of a given destination (Douglas & Mills, 2006). Tourism is a volatile industry, and in cases of political disruption, health hazards and natural disasters, tourists tend to feel unsafe about visiting the destinations affected, making them opt to visit alternative destinations, until such disasters can be seen as past history (Timothy, 2006). For example, Zimbabwe is listed among the countries that are seen as unsafe destinations, due to the political instability and crime that are thought to prevail in the country (Maroleng, 2011). Being so listed immediately tarnishes the country’s image abroad, serving as a discouragement to tourists to visit the destination concerned. Saarinen, Becker, Manwa and Wilson (2009) state that tourism and politics have been substantially and explicitly related to each other in Southern Africa for 55 many years. The interrelationship has occurred as a result of the effect that the government and its actions have had on the image of countries in the region, the extent to which tourism has been used as a means of economic growth and social development, and the way in which tourism is enmeshed within the broader political structure and processes. For example, Libya is cited as being a country that missed the opportunity to host the 2013 Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON), which otherwise might have boosted tourist numbers in the country, because of the civil war taking place at the time.

What tourists think about a certain destination is vital in terms of influencing its tourism growth. Due to the chaotic political situation existing in Zimbabwe, as well as due to the ill treatment of tourists and the committing of violence during the elections, many tourists have come to disregard the country as a tourist destination (Mbaiwa, 2008). As various tourism studies have highlighted, safety and security are major issues that influence tourist decisions in terms of the choosing of a destination (Manwa, 2007). Political instabilities (Dieke, 1995) have resulted in insecurity issues for travellers who wish to visit Africa. Biwas (2004) highlights that Zimbabwe experienced a massive drop of 30% in visitor numbers between 2002 and 2003, and, at the time of the writing of the current dissertation, is still continuing to lose tourists because of its political instability (Saha, Yap & Saha, 2015).

3.13 Summary Chapter Three has focused on the literature that is largely associated with the concepts of tourism and tourism development. The perceptions and attitudes of residents were explored, as well as were the concepts of community participation and involvement. Furthermore, a description of tourism in Zimbabwe was provided, together with a discussion of the impacts of tourism, of the barriers to effective tourism development, and of the challenges facing tourism development. A brief review of the roles of stakeholders in the tourism industry was provided, followed by a discussion on planning and policy. Group demographics were examined in relation to perceptions, with it being explained how such demographics as age, income and gender can affect the way of thinking of those from different destinations. The next chapter highlights the methodology used in the research.

CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1 Introduction Veal (2006) states that research is based on logic and reason, as well as on the systematic examination of evidence. The author further notes that a study must be able to be replicated by anyone, with similar conclusions being drawn as in the original study. In some ways, research can be seen as a process of expanding the boundaries of our ignorance. Kumar (2008) notes that research is defined as an intensive and purposeful search for an understanding of social and physical phenomena. Almeida-García et al. (2015) explain that resident perceptions of tourism have widened to various destinations across many countries. Likewise, a lack of attention to the studies in such destinations as developing countries and urban settings, where tourism is the economic base of the residents, has been identified (Sharpley, 2014). As mentioned previously in Chapter One, the current study focused on resident perceptions in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.

In the present chapter, the methods used to investigate the research problem are explained. The following aspects of the research methodology are defined and discussed: the research approach; the population demographics; the mixed method approach; the research design; the sample; the sampling design and procedures; the data collection instruments; the questionnaire survey; the pilot study; the data analysis methods; the challenges encountered during data collection; and the ethical considerations. The following subsection lists the research questions that guided the current study.

4.2 Research questions Based on the study objectives and the relevant literature reviewed, the following research questions were developed to guide the study:  How is the concept of tourism understood in the context of residents living in Bulawayo?  In what ways are the residents involved in tourism in Bulawayo?  What initiatives are being undertaken by the authorities to support the local communities in maximising tourism opportunities?  What are the residents’ perceptions of the socio-economic and environmental impacts that are associated with tourism in Bulawayo?

4.3 Background to the use of the case study area The case study area from which the primary data were collected for the study was Bulawayo, which is Zimbabwe's second largest city, and which is geographically located in the south-west area of the country. According to Bulawayo 1872.com (2016), the city is home to a heterogeneous community, with the surrounding area having been populated since prehistoric times. In the contemporary era, Bulawayo is seen as having developed from being a town into an international destination, with a rich cultural history. The Bulawayo Publicity Association (BPA, 2013:1) highlights that, “certainly one cannot say that they have experienced the full range of Zimbabwe's diversity, if they have not been to this bustling city in the southern western part of the country of Zimbabwe”.

Bulawayo, which is one of the country's most attractive cities, is a major transport hub for Southern Africa. From a tourism perspective, Bulawayo is also known to be the cultural hub of Zimbabwe (Nsingo & Chiutsi, 2013), being comprised of a variety of tourism attractions, three-quarters of which are cultural in nature, including the National Art Gallery, the Museum of Natural History, the Mzilikazi Art and Craft Centre, the Amakhosi Cultural Centre, the Chipangali Wildlife Orphanage and Research Centre, and the Matobo National Park (a UNESCO WHS), to mention but a few. In addition, Cavendish (2004) suggests that Bulawayo is the home of art and culture in Zimbabwe, with several different tribes being represented within the city’s confines, including the Ndebele, the Xhosa, and the Kalanga. The BPA (2013) mentions that the majority of people in Bulawayo speak Ndebele, with other commonly spoken languages including English, Khalanga, Sotho, and Shona. Bulawayo is traditionally the home of the Ndebele people, who were called maTebele, meaning ‘refugees’ or ‘runaways’ (Katunga, 2014). Currently, despite the Ndebele monarchy not being as active as it once used to be, the Ndebele people still hold strong to their values and culture. Very few are still involved in traditional ancestral worship, as Christianity now seems to be the prevailing form of worship (Cavendish, 2004).

The BPA (2013) explains that the multicultural city of Bulawayo has given birth to several such internationally known performing arts groups as the Inkululeko Yabatsha School of Arts (IYASA) and the Zambezi Express. The city has also had the privilege of hosting a few arts festivals, fairs and events annually or throughout the year, including the ever-admired Intwasa Arts Festival, the Imbube Festival, the Zimbabwe International Trade Fair, and the A’sambeni Africa Business Tourism Expo. Furthermore, Bulawayo is surrounded by World Heritage sights, as well as by interesting wildlife sanctuaries that best reflect the culture of the entire country, including the Matobo Hills National Park, the Chipangali Wildlife Orphanage, the Mguza Nature Reserve, the Mazwi Game Reserve, the Khami Ruins, and the Tshabalala Sanctuary (Bulawayo 1872.com, 2013).

Figure 4.1: Map of Zimbabwe, showing the geographic location of Bulawayo Source: Google Maps.

4.4 Research design Veal (2006) asserts that a research design is a clearly planned procedure for carrying out the research that is summarised in the aims, or the hypotheses, of a study. The design should include all of the main features of the anticipated research, and it should be capable of being understood by another researcher who is familiar with the subject area and methodology to be applied. Elsewhere, Bless, Higson-Smith and Kagee (2006) argue that a research design can be best understood as the planning of any scientific research, from the first to the last step. In this sense, it is a programme for guiding the researcher in collecting, analysing, and interpreting observed facts. Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2012) posit that the design includes the general plan of how to set about answering predefined research questions. The design, according to Aveyard (2011), aims to control factors that might otherwise interfere with the validity of the findings. Hence, Fouche and De Vos (2002:137) summarise that a research design is “the plan or blueprint according to which data are collected to investigate the

59 research hypothesis or the question in the most economical manner”. The inference is that the plan or blueprint is the specification of the operations to be performed so as to investigate the research question in the most effective and efficient way possible (Tshuma, 2009).

Wisker (2000:76) explains what a research design is by explaining the purpose that it serves in a research endeavour when he contends: The most important issue to remember when developing your research methodology and deciding on the research methods is to ensure that these can really help you ask your research question. Research designs differ because of the ways we see the world, and the appropriateness of certain methods to help us ask questions and get us somewhere near something like an answer.

This is to say, a researcher’s choice of research design is influenced by the researcher’s unique orientation, or theoretical framework.

In any given study, Creswell (2009) notes that the selection of a research design is based on the nature of the research problem, the issue being addressed, the researcher’s personal experiences, and the audience of the study. According to Creswell (2010), there are three main types of research designs, namely qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods that are commonly used. Creswell (2003) states that, often, the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research designs is framed in terms of the use of words (qualitative) rather than numbers (quantitative), or in terms of the use of closed-ended questions (in the case of a quantitative hypothesis), rather than open-ended questions (in the form of qualitative interview questions).

Creswell (2009) is of the notion that a quantitative approach is one in which the investigator primarily uses postpositive claims for developing knowledge that takes the form of: cause-and-effect thinking; reduction to specific variables, hypotheses and questions; the use of measurement and observation; and the testing of theories. The approach employs such strategies of inquiry as experiments and surveys, with data being collected through the use of predetermined instruments that yield statistical data. George (2008) and Maxwell (2013) further state that quantitative research is described as research that is based mainly on the collection and analysis of statistical data, with limited data being obtained on a large number of respondents. Quantitative research design questionnaires have the advantage that they are precoded, which makes it relatively easy for the researcher to input data, thus saving both time and money (Simmon, 2008). Delport (2005) suggests that close-ended questions present respondents with ideas of which they might otherwise not have thought.

In contrast, the qualitative research approach requires the gaining of understanding of the social world

60 in which we live, and the explaining of why processes take the shape that they do, by means of answering questions about ‘how’ and ‘why’ (Bahora, Sterk & Elifson, 2009). Veal (2006:40) explains that qualitative research is, in general, not concerned with numbers. It involves a great deal of information about a small number of people, rather than a limited amount of information about a large number of people. Qualitative research captures expressive information on such issues as feelings, needs, perceptions, values, and motivations that inspire individual behaviours (Burns & Burns, 2008:84).

Qualitative research design questionnaires provide respondents with an open space in which to write whatever answer they think is appropriate to the question, using their own words (Delport, 2005). Kumar (2008) states that open-ended questions are specifically worded, but that the respondent is free to respond to the questions in their own words, unlike in the case of close-ended questions, which, in contrast, tend to bring the free flow of conversation to a stop. Examples of the latter are questions that focus on eliciting a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. Conversely, qualitative data consist of either written or spoken words, and they do not normally include any numerical measurements, observation studies, or interviews (Khanzode, 2007). In the world of tourism, qualitative research can help in the analysis and understanding of topics that are hard to quantify, such as tourists’ experiences and attitudes, the image of a destination, or of a particular tourism product, the sociocultural impacts of tourism, or the reason behind various tourism trends (George, 2008). Qualitative research design questionnaires provide respondents with an open space in which to write whatever answer they think is appropriate to the question (Delport, 2005). Such designs focus on how individuals and groups view and understand the world, and how they construct meaning out of their experiences.

The research design that was adopted for the current study involved a case study blueprint that incorporated the qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. According to Lisle (2011:95), “when mixing both quantitative and qualitative research, the researcher gains in breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration, while offsetting the weaknesses inherent to using each approach by itself”. The method of using more than one method to investigate a research question, in order to enhance confidence in the ensuing findings, is known as triangulation (Bryman, 2006; Mertens & Hesse- Biber, 2012; Olsen, 2004). Triangulation allows one to identify aspects of a phenomenon accurately by means of approaching it from different vantage points, using a variety of methods and techniques (Lisle, 2011). In both qualitative and quantitative research designs, Babbie, Mouton, Vorster and Prozesky (2001) avow that there are several disadvantages, including distortion and deception, in terms of which the researcher involved might choose to omit materials deliberately. Again, the researcher might hold certain prejudices and assumptions that might affect the structure of the questioning, the selection of material, and so on. Babbie et al. (2001) observe that, in both qualitative and quantitative research designs, the research might suffer from bias. People might lie, cheat, present a false front, or try to 61 impress the researcher in some way. The researcher might also bring bias into the situation by virtue of his or her age, class, gender, and general background.

The mixed research approach requires that the qualitative and quantitative data collected for the study be mixed, or combined, at some stage in the research process. As Ivankova, Creswell and Stick (2006) put it, the term ‘mixing’ means that the findings are integrated at numerous points in the study. Echoing the idea of the two approaches supplementing each other, Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004:15) contend that “the goal of mixed methods research is not to replace either of these approaches but rather to draw from the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of both in single research and across studies”. Therefore, the two approaches supplement and complement each other when they are mixed within a single study.

4.4.1 Survey population According to Gravetter and Forzano (2006), the term ‘population’ is also used synonymously with the term ‘sampling frame’, which refers to a list of all of the members of a population. The term ‘population’ does not necessarily import to a number of people, but it is a collective term that is used to describe the total quantity of cases of the type that are the subject of the study. “The cases can consist of objects, people or even events” (Walliman, 2001:232). Therefore, the term ‘population’ refers to all the members of a given group about whom the study wants to draw conclusions (Babbie & Mouton, 2005).

The population of the current study was comprised of residents of Bulawayo. In addition to the residents, key informant interviews were conducted with resource persons to complement the main data.

4.4.2 Sampling procedure Sample selection Benedetti, Bee, Espa and Piersimonn (2010) define sample selection as the procedure that is used to select the frame samples that are described for the equal and the unequal probability of selection methods. According to Fontaine and Haaz (2006), a sample enables the researcher to draw valid inferences, based on a small proportion of the selected population’s variables. Moyo (2010) cautions that the sample has to be representative, as, if the sample is too small, it compromises the generalisability of the findings and, if it is too large, it ceases to be practicable in terms of time, cost and effort, among other factors. The present study adopted two main types of sampling techniques. A stratified random sampling method was used to collect data from the residents, whereas a purposive sampling technique was used to identify the key informants as discussed later in the chapter.

Residents The stratified random method is one in which the population is divided into different, clearly recognisable subpopulations, or strata (Kothari, 2008). For each stratum, a sample is then drawn to improve the reliability of the results of the research (Brynard & Hanekom, 2006). Brynard and Hanekom (2006) further explain randomness in sampling, stating that it is when each element has the same chance of being selected for the sample. In addition, Pellissier (2007) defines a stratified random sampling approach as an approach that randomly selects elements, after stratifying the population according to some characteristic. Such a sample tends to be more representative of the population across the subgroups involved than a simple random sample would be (Latham, 2007). Therefore, in the present study, subgroups were identified within the population, and the participants were randomly selected, so as to give the subgroups a fair chance to participate in the study.

Veal (2006) asserts that there is a popular misconception that the size of a sample should be decided on the basis of its relationship to the size of the population. The size of a sample is even more important than is the size of the population, which applies in all cases, except for when the population is small. Brynard and Hanekom (2006) claim that no fixed rules govern the determination of sample sizes, as there are only guidelines that suggest what the representative percentage of the population to be studied should be. According to Hulley, Cummings, Browner, Grady and Newman (2007), the goal of sample size planning entails estimating a suitable number of subjects for the application of a given study design.

According to Howard (2013), as researchers usually cannot make direct observations of every individual in the population that they are studying, they tend to collect data from a subset of individuals (i.e. a sample), and to use those observations to make conclusions about the entire population. In the current study, the sample size was decided upon based on a table that was devised for determining how large a randomly chosen sample from a given finite population of n cases should be, such that the sample proportion ρ would fall within .05 of the population proportion, meaning ρ with a 95% level of confidence (Isaac & Michael, 1981). According to The Economist (2015), the population of Bulawayo is approximately 703 000. Based on Isaac and Michael’s (1981) table, a sample of 384 respondents (residents of Bulawayo) was drawn. The survey (Appendix A) was administered by trained fieldworkers on a face-to-face basis, using the stratified random sampling technique previously discussed. Only one adult (18 years old or above) respondent per household was selected to take part in the study. Bulawayo was geographically divided into four different stratums (A, B, C and D) as illustrated by Figure 4.2 below. The sample size n=384 was then equally split among the four stratums. Consequently, 96 respondents per strata were randomly selected to take part in the study.

Figure 4.2: Map of Bulawayo, showing the four stratums upon which fieldwork was based Source: modified from OpenStreetMap by author

Key informants Key informants are specific individuals who are used to supply, or to inform, a study that is based on their position, or on their relevant experience, in a particular field (Trochim, 2006). The purposive sampling technique was employed to target the key informants in the current study. Welman and Kruger (2001) postulate that, in purposive sampling, the researcher samples with a purpose in mind, targeting one or more specific predefined groups. In the present research, the specific informants that were targeted, with an eye to using survey appendix B to supplement the quantitative data, included the following:  A local representative of the ZTA was approached to take part in the study. This representative was chosen on the basis that the ZTA is mandated to provide information, including an events calendar and directory, on the country and its local attractions. The ZTA is the custodian of tourism development policy. The authority assists in the development and management of policy programmes and strategies that enhance the sustainable development and growth of the

tourism and hospitality industry in Zimbabwe.  Tour operators are important, because they package tours to the parks, as well as supplying information on the park’s impact on the different communities. Consequently, one tour operator (a Halsaf Pty Ltd tour operator) in Bulawayo was considered for inclusion in the study.  Two representatives from accommodation establishments (with one representing hotels, and the other lodges). The accommodation sector is deemed important for the tourism sector, as it forms one of the fundamentals of the tourism industry, seeing that tourists require a place to stay while travelling. Therefore, obtaining the insight from such representatives was key to a study of this nature.  A representative from a travel agency was included in the study. Travel agencies play a key role as intermediaries in the tourism sector, and many tourists use them to book and plan their trips.  Tourism schools and institutions are the producers of tourism personnel that are fed into the tourism industry. Accordingly, a representative from an institute of higher learning providing Tourism as a course was included in the study.

4.5 Validity and reliability Handley (2010) is of the notion that planning a research project, or interpreting the findings of someone else’s work, and determining the impact of the results, is dependent upon two concepts: validity and reliability. Essentially, validity relates to whether a project actually measures what it is intended to measure. According to Riordan (2005), reliability refers to the accuracy, the consistency, the precision, and the stability of the measurement, or the data collection. In addition, Burns and Burns (2008) state that reliability refers to the consistency, and to the stability, of findings that enable them to be replicated.

4.5.1 Validity Qualitative researchers generally use the term ‘validity’ to refer to the correctness, or credibility, of a description, conclusion, explanation, interpretation, or other sort of account (Maxwell, 2005). Thus, credibility, which is also known as ‘trustworthiness’ (Denzin & Lincolin, 2000:230) refers to that which can be seen and believed. Silverman (2010) is correct to assert that the term ‘validity’ has always been attached, and limited, to the qualitative research tradition. Veal (2006) states that validity is the extent to which the data collected truly reflects the phenomenon being studied by the researcher. According to Kothari (2008) and Babbie and Mouton (2001), validity refers to the extent to which a test measures what it is meant to measure, with the former being the most critical criterion. In addition, validity is the extent to which differences are found with a measuring instrument that reflects true differences among those being tested.

Two types of validity methods were used in the current study, namely content validity, and criterion validity. The two types of validity are discussed below:  Content validity: Two questionnaires were drafted under the supervision of the researcher’s supervisor, so as to ensure their relevance to the research questions, and to the objectives, of the study.  Criterion validity: Hung and Petrick (2010) mention that criterion validity is achieved when a researcher compares his/her instruments with another instrument, and finds that the two compare favourably. For this study, the questionnaire was designed by consulting previous works of various academics who had previously focused on almost similar topics. For instance, the questionnaires were based on the research done by Turker and Ozturk (2013), Pham and Kayat (2011), Zamani-Farahani and Musa (2012), and Sharma and Dyer (2012). Such questionnaires were, however, remodelled specifically to suit the local Zimbabwean context.

In the current study, the following measures were taken to ensure the validity of the research undertaken:  The questionnaire was checked and edited by a professional language editor prior to the data collection.  A questionnaire was drafted under the supervision and guidance of the researcher’s supervisor, so as to ensure its relevance to the research questions and the objectives of the study.

4.5.2 Reliability Reliability, in contrast, refers to the extent to which research findings would be the same if the research were to be repeated at a later date, or with a different sample of subjects (Veal, 2006). In addition, Burns and Burns (2008) state that reliability refers to the uniformity and stability of findings, which enable replication of the findings. Reliability, in contrast, has to do with the accuracy and with the precision of a measurement procedure. A measuring instrument is reliable if it provides consistent results. A reliable measuring instrument does not contribute to the validity of a study, with a reliable instrument not necessarily being a measuring instrument (Kothari, 2008). Accordingly, reliability is not as valuable as is validity, but it is easier to assess reliability than it is to assess validity. Furthermore, Shutterworth (2008) avers that reliability is defined as the extent to which a questionnaire, a test, an observation, or a measurement procedure produces the same results on repeated trials. In short, reliability refers to the stability, or the consistency, of scores over time, or across raters. Therefore, reliability, which is also known as confirmability, is a technique that is used to show the extent to which the results can be confirmed, or corroborated, by others (Saunders et al., 2012:430). In the current study, the following measures were taken to ensure reliability:

 The questionnaire was self-administered by the researcher, so as to ensure that clarity was provided in respect of the questions asked of the respondents.  A pilot survey was conducted to test the questionnaire, prior to the actual data collection. In this way, the errors and the problems relating to the questionnaire were rectified prior to the collection of the required data.  The fieldworkers concerned were offered training in how to administer the questionnaires.  The questionnaire was designed, based on the research questions asked in the study.  The researcher consulted a qualified statistician regarding the questionnaire design and the data analysis.

4.6 Ethical considerations The researcher made it clear to the participants that they should feel free to opt out of the study, if, at any point, they felt uncomfortable about continuing to answer the survey. Also, it was highlighted to the participants that their responses were confidential, and that they would only be used for academic purposes. In this study, the names of the participating individuals did not appear on the data collection instruments. In addition, the participants’ right to non-participation in the study was respected. There was no coercion of participants; rather, participation was through informed consent, and the participants were free to withdraw from the study at any stage of the data collection.

Furthermore, the researcher was honest and professional enough to reveal to the residents that the study was an academic assignment for the researcher. This meant that, apart from the recommendations that would be proffered at the end of the study (which might have a long-range influence on policy), they were unlikely to derive any short-term benefits from participating therein.

4.7 Methods and tools for collecting data Both primary and secondary data gathering collection methods were used in the current study, as are described below.

4.7.1 Secondary data According to Silverman (2010), secondary data are information that is collected from existing sources, including from other studies. Pellissier (2007) states that secondary data are data that have already been collected, although not necessarily for the current purpose. Secondary sources are consulted before any research design is considered, as they tend to shed light on the research topic, on relevant methodologies, and on existing knowledge in the field (Burns & Burns, 2008). Such sources contain previously published information about a specific topic (Kurtz, Mackenzie & Snow, 2009).

The secondary data for the current study were sourced from relevant sources, including books covering the information related to tourism, tourism development and resident perceptions. Other sources that were considered in developing the theoretical and conceptual framework and literature review included newspapers, academic journal articles, books, policy documents, magazines, government gazettes, monographs, and reports on the above topics, as well as relevant theses and Internet sources.

4.7.2 Primary data Burns and Burns (2008) and Kumar (2008) assert that primary data are normally regarded as being data that are collected by the original researcher, who uses them for an investigation. Veal (2006) states that, in the case of primary data, the researcher concerned is the primary, or the first, user of the data. Pellissier (2007) notes that primary data are collected entirely by the researcher, for use in the project currently being researched. Kurtz et al. (2009) claim that primary data are data that are collected for the first time in the study at hand. Kumar (2008) states that primary data are based on the measurement of the quantity, or the amount, that is applicable to quantifiable phenomena, whereas qualitative research is concerned with qualitative phenomena, involving quality or kind. Qualitative research aims at discovering the underlying motives, and the desires, of participants, using in-depth interviews for the purpose. In the current study, a questionnaire was used as the primary source of data collection.

The primary data for the research were collected by means of administering a semi-structured questionnaire (see Appendix A) to the residents concerned, and a key informant survey (see Appendix B).

4.7.3 Questionnaire survey According to Brace (2008), it is clear to anyone undertaking data collection by means of a questionnaire survey that the questionnaire is an important element in the success of such collection. The author further states that the term ‘questionnaire’ is used to refer to both those questionnaires that are intended for self-completion by the survey participants, and to survey instruments that are intended to be administered by an interviewer, in either a face-to-face, or telephonic, interview Burns and Burns (2008) argue that questionnaire surveys are the most commonly used method in research and data collection. They further state that such surveys provide accurate information that can be used in making effective decisions. Veal (2006) suggests that the questionnaire-based method is the most commonly used instrument in any research that is conducted for purposes of data collection. A questionnaire is defined by Gratton and Jones (2010) as being a standardised set of questions that is used to learn about a subject. In the current study, both structured and unstructured questionnaires were used to collect the

68 required data.

Structured (closed) questionnaires require the respondents to choose among alternative responses, which is a relatively direct method of operation. Also, the data can be relatively easily analysed and classified, although the disadvantage of using such a method is that the number of possible responses is limited (Clark, Riley, Wilkie & Wood, 1998). Structured questions have the advantage that they are precoded, which facilitates inputting of the data, thus saving both time and money (Simmon, 2008). Delport (2005) suggests that structured questions present respondents with ideas of which they might otherwise not have thought. Structured questions tend to bring the conversation to a stop, with, for example, only ‘yes’ or ‘no’ responses being required.

In an unstructured (open) questionnaire, the questions are written down, or are asked in sequence. Sometimes, issues that are not relevant to the research are allowed to dominate the questioning. However, the researcher must have some level of competency in order to ensure that the questions are not irrelevant (Cohen & Marion, 2005). Unstructured questions provide the respondents with an open space in which to write down whatever answer they think is appropriate to the question, using their own words (Delport, 2005). Kumar (2008) states that unstructured questions are specifically worded, but that the respondents are free to respond to the questions in their own words, unlike in the case of the use of structured questions. In terms of both questionnaire formats, the researcher is allowed, or is able, with caution, to ask follow-up questions that seek greater clarity, or more detailed explanation, than was obtained from the original question.

The residents’ survey (see Appendix A), in the case of the current study, consisted of fifty-nine (59) questions, which were organised into four (4) different sections, as is detailed below:  In the first section, the main variables interrogated were related to the demographic profile of the respondents involved, including age, length of residency, gender, highest education level attained, employment status, ethnicity, marital status, and monthly household income.  Section two was organised to determine the residents’ understanding of, and participation in, tourism activities. The questions asked related to their level of knowledge of the tourism industry, the level of the influence that they had in tourism development, and the type of tourism activities in which they were involved.  The third section included the residents’ perceptions of the impacts of tourism, in relation to both the positive and negative economic, sociocultural and environmental impacts of tourism.  The last (fourth) section was aimed at determining who benefited from tourism in terms of the residents’ local community, and to what degree. 69

A five-point Likert-type scale (agree, strongly agree, neutral, disagree, strongly agree) was used to measure the respondents’ perceptions on the statements related to the economic, sociocultural and environmental impacts of tourism in their communities in Section Three of the survey. The resident survey was largely quantitative, including several close-ended questions.

In addition to the main survey, an interview schedule (see Appendix B), incorporating two sections, was used to target additional information from the key informants and the resource persons previously identified. The first section was directed at determining the demographic profile of the respondents. In the second section, the key informants’ survey contained additional general questions regarding contextual information on what their organisations had done to encourage tourism in the local communities, what challenges they had encountered, what their organisations should do to encourage residents’ involvement in tourism, who should have been ensuring that the benefits reached the community members, and how the distribution of benefits should be achieved, as well as what initiatives should be taken to mitigate the barriers to effective tourism. The survey consisted of only open-ended questions, so as to allow for the obtaining of a relatively in-depth narrative.

4.8 The pilot survey As “[i]t is very rare to get questions right the first time” (Centre for Distance Education, 1995:30), both the questionnaire and the key informant schedule were pilot tested. Before the actual data collection was conducted, the questionnaires were tested to guarantee the validity of the study. Strydom (2001) highlights that it is vital that questionnaires should be carefully pilot tested before being used in the main analysis. Lancaster, Dodd and Williamson (2004) define a pilot study as a small experiment that is designed to test the logistics of a study, and to collect information before conducting the actual study itself. Neuman and Krueger (2003) explain that using a pilot survey ensures the reliability and validity of a study. Shutterworth (2008) notes that some of the advantages of using a pilot study include the ability to recognise errors, which can then be attended to before time, money and resources are wasted on a final study. In the light of the above advice, the researcher conducted a pilot survey. Ten questionnaires were administered to ten residents conveniently. The survey assisted to ensure the validity of the study, and to identify any flaws therein.

For the current study, pilot testing the questionnaire and the interview schedules helped the researcher: (i) to identify problems and sources of confusion (Walliman, 2001); (ii) to check whether the questions were clear, and whether the different respondents would be likely to interpret them in the same way; (iii) to clarify the wording of the question items; (iv) to assess the sequencing/flow of questions and the

70 content validity of the questions; (v) to decide which questions were to be removed completely, and which ones were to be rephrased; (vi) to assess the clarity of instructions in the questionnaires and interview schedules; (vii) to determine the amount of time required for completing the questionnaire and for administering the interview schedules; and (viii) to identify other field-related logistical problems that were likely to be encountered. In addition, the pilot study also helped to assess the feasibility of administering the instruments to the participants in the study (Opie, 2004).

4.9 Methods of data analysis The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), software version 23, was used to analyse the quantitative data obtained. The software generated tables and graphs, including bar charts illustrating the inferential and descriptive statistics. An initial descriptive analysis was performed to obtain an overall picture of the variables of the sample. The constructs were tested for normality, because the distribution of the data determines the type of tests that should be used for the analysis. The distribution assisted in determining whether parametric or non-parametric tests were to be used.

The independent sample t-test and the Mann–Whitney tests were used to test for differences in the 8 constructs (positive economic impacts; negative economic impacts; positive sociocultural impacts; negative sociocultural impacts; positive environmental impacts; negative environmental impacts; the evaluation of tourism impacts; and general impacts) between the two genders. The selection of the test used was based on the sample sizes of the groups concerned, and on the distribution of the constructs. When the parametric and the non-parametric test (the independent sample t-test) were found to yield different results, the non-parametric test results (Mann-Whitney test) were reported where the group sizes were not balanced, making a non-parametric test relatively appropriate.

The one-way between-group analysis of variance tests was used to test for differences in the 8 constructs (positive economic impacts; negative economic impacts; positive sociocultural impacts; negative sociocultural impacts; positive environmental impacts; negative environmental impacts; evaluation of tourism impacts; and general impacts) between the different age groups of the respondents, and the duration that they had lived in the area.

The qualitative data, which were analysed thematically, were based on the constant comparative methodology employed.

4.10 Summary Chapter Four considered the research methodology used in the current study. The chapter included research questions that were devised to guide the study. In addition, the background of the study, and the methods of data collection, as well as of the data analysis, were included. A total of 384 respondents were surveyed for the study at the end of a four-week data collection period that took place in December 2015, representing a 100% success rate. The next chapter (Chapter Five) presents a discussion of the findings that were generated from the surveys, with a view to determining the predefined research objectives.

CHAPTER FIVE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Introduction The emphasis of the current study was on the resident perceptions of the impacts of tourism in Bulawayo. The impacts of tourism on the local communities have implications for both the local residents and the environment, hence the need for close researched into the sustainability of host communities.

The preceding chapter (Chapter Four) outlined the research methods that were used in the current research study, so as to determine the resident perceptions of the impacts of tourism. Such methods included the use of self-administered questionnaires (see Appendix A and B). The current chapter sets out the findings and discussion pertaining to the responses that were received from the resident survey (n = 384) and the key informant interviews. The current chapter is divided into two sections. The first section details a descriptive analysis of the results, while the second section presents group comparisons obtained by means of using t-tests, validity, and reliability analysis. In the following section, the characteristics of the sample are described and analysed.

5.2 Demographic profile of the respondents This subsection of the chapter presents the results that were obtained in relation to the demographic profile of the respondents. The main variables measured included age, gender, level of education, employment status, length of stay, ethnic group, marital status, personal benefits gained from tourism development, and the respondents’ monthly income.

5.2.1 Age of the respondents Table 5.1 below shows that the most prominent age group was the 45 to 54 years age category, which was constituted of 26.7% of the respondents, whereas those who fell in the age group 25 to 34 years comprised 23.5% of the total. Furthermore, those who were between 35 and 44 years old made up 22.8%, followed by the 15.3% who fell between the ages of 18 and 24. A smaller percentage of 10.0% comprised the age group of those between 55 and 64 years old, with a lower percentage of 1.0% consisting of respondents aged between 65 and 74 years old. An even lower percentage of 0.7 % was recorded for respondents 85 years old or older, as is shown in Figure 5.1 below. Although the majority fell in the group between 45 and 54 years of age, when looking at the age group between 18 and 44 years (61.6%) combined, the results show that the younger people formed the larger group of participants, compared to the 38.4% of individuals 45 years and older, combined. Overall, the findings

73 reveal that most of the respondents fell in the older age category of between 25 and 54 years old. The ages of the participants ranged between 18 and 85 years old.

Table 5.1: Age of the respondents (n = 384, in %) Age group Total, in % 18–24 15.3 25–34 23.5 35–44 22.8 45–54 26.7 55–64 10.0 65–74 1.0 85> 0.7

5.2.2 Gender of the respondents In terms of gender, Table 5.2 reveals a sample that was heavily biased, with a 70.4% female representation, compared to 29.6% male representation. Because the survey targeted one individual per household, the discrepancy in the results could be explained by the fact that women tend to spend more time at home, and could have been more readily available to complete the survey. Moreover, according to ZimStats’s (2012) census, there are more women than men in Bulawayo. In a study conducted by Tichaawa and Mhlanga (2015b) on tourism and resident perceptions in Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, more women than men took part in the study.

Table 5.2: Gender of the respondents (n = 384, in %) Gender Total, in % Female 70.4 Male 29.6

5.2.3 Respondents’ highest level of education attained The respondents were asked to indicate their highest education level completed. The results obtained are shown in Table 5.3. The outcome showed that the majority (33.6%) of the respondents had a college qualification, whereas 20.5% were busy with their postgraduate degree. Of the respondents, undergraduates made up 16.3% of the total, whereas the respondents who had completed their secondary level (O’ level) comprised 8.8% of the total, with the same percentage (8.8%) being respondents who had completed high school level (A’ level). Those who had completed primary school level made up 7.2% of the total. Those who said they were degree holders made up 2.7% of the total, while postgraduates made up only 0.7% overall. In addition, 0.7% were degree holders, with the same percentage (0.7%) having no formal education. The results show that the respondents in the study could be described as being fairly well educated, overall. This finding of the study is important, as it might suggest that the residents of Bulawayo are able to understand and evaluate the impacts of tourism in their community.

Table 5.3: Highest level of education attained by the respondents (n = 384, in %) Age group Total, in % I completed primary school. 7.2 I completed secondary schooling. 8.8 I completed high school. 8.8 I am busy with my undergraduate degree. 16.3 I am busy with my postgraduate degree. 20.5 I am a college graduate. 33.6 I have no formal education. 0.7 I am a degree holder. 2.7 I am busy with my diploma. 0.7 I have completed my postgraduate degree. 0.7

5.2.4 Respondents’ employment status Table 5.4 represents the results that were obtained when the respondents were asked to indicate their employment status. In response, 61.9% of the respondents indicated that they worked full-time. The percentage of unemployed (students) was 22.1%, which was followed by 6.2% of the respondents, who stated that they were part-time employees, and 4.9%, who stated that they were labourers, or unskilled workers. In addition, the remaining 2.6% of the respondents stated that they were unemployed (having been unable to find work), Of the remainder, 1% were either retired or business persons. Very few (0.3%) of the respondents indicated being housewives. Most of the respondents indicated that they worked, either on a full-time or part-time basis, or were labourers/unskilled or business people. In sum, the study found that 70.0% of the respondents were engaged in some form of economic activity. This finding is interesting, given that the Zimbabwean economy has been widely acknowledged as having been in decline for the last decade, mainly due to the prevailing political instability and international sanctions. However, engaging in forms of economic activity might not necessarily translate into being well paid. Table 5.4: Respondents’ employment status (n = 384, in %) Status Total, in % Full-time 61.9 Unemployed (student) 22.1 Unemployed (housewife) 0.3 Retired 1.0 Part-time 6.2 Unemployed (unable to find work) 2.6 Labourer/Unskilled 4.9 Business person 1.0

Even though the respondents said that they were engaged in a range of activities, the tourism sector in Bulawayo was found to contribute few of such economic activities, considering that of the total number of respondents (n = 384), the majority (92.3%) indicated that their activities were not related to tourism, while a few (7.7%) were engaged in a tourism-related job. The literature review undertaken for this study recognises job creation as being one gain that is linked to tourism development. The findings in this

75 regard might suggest that the tourism efforts in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe might not, as of yet, have made a meaningful contribution to job creation.

5.2.5 Respondents’ duration of stay in Bulawayo Table 5.5 shows the result when the respondents were asked to indicate how long they had been living in Bulawayo. According to the table, many of the respondents indicated that they had resided in Bulawayo for between 10 and 19 years (25.8%), closely followed by those who had lived there for under 10 years (25.5%). Furthermore, some respondents (24.8%) had lived in the area for 20 to 29 years, for 30 to 39 years (14.1%), or for 40 years or more (9.8%). The findings clearly show that the majority of respondents had lived in Bulawayo for well over a decade. The finding is consistent with the census data according to Zimstats (2012), who found that 89% of Bulawayo’s population have been residing in Bulawayo for a very long time, while 10.0% of the population were from other Zimbabwean provinces, and only 1.0% were from other countries, being either temporarily living in the city, or having lived there for a short period. With most respondents having lived for a fairly lengthy period in Bulawayo, it could be assumed that such residents would have had enough time and experience to form a solid perception of the impact of tourism development within their community.

Table 5.5: Respondents’ length of stay in Bulawayo (n = 384, in %) Length of stay Total, in % Less than 10 years 25.5 10–19 years 25.8 20–29 years 24.8 30–39 14.1 40 years and older 9.8

5.2.6 Respondents’ ethnic group The respondents were requested to indicate to which Zimbabwean ethnic group they belonged. The ethnic group responses were grouped into seven (7) different categories, as can be seen in Table 5.6 below. The distribution of the respondents’ ethnicity was as follows: Ndebele (53.4%); Shona (33.9%); Kalanga (6.8%); Sotho (2%); other (1.6%); Tonga (1.3%); and Venda (1.0%), as seen in Table 5.6. The rest of the respondents indicated belonging to other ethnic groups (with them mainly being from Shangaan and Nigerian descent). The results mirror those of Msindo (2007) and ZTA (2016), who observe that the majority of the population of Bulawayo belongs to the Ndebele ethnic group. Shona and Ndebele indigenes dominated the total sample in the current study. According to the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) (2016), the two ethnic groups in question are recognised as being the most dominant ethnic groups in Zimbabwe, combined.

Table 5.6: Respondents’ ethnic group (n = 384, in %) Ethnic group Total, in % Ndebele 53.4 Shona 33.9 Kalanga 6.8 Venda 1.0 Tonga 1.3 Sotho 2.0 Other 1.6

5.2.7 Respondents’ marital status Table 5.7 below indicates the marital status of the respondents. The data show that most (60.9%) of the respondents indicated that they were married, followed by those who are single (never married) (30.3%). A few were widowed (5.9%), or divorced (2.9%). Interestingly, the results are somewhat consistent when they are read in line with age and employment status (see Table 5.1 and 5.4). However, ZimStat’s (2012) measurement of this variable revealed that 40.0% of the population of Bulawayo had never married, 48.0% were married, while 5% were either divorced or separated (ZimStat, 2012).

Table 5.7: Respondents’ marital status (n = 384, in %) Marital status Total, in % Married 60.9 Single 30.3 Widowed 5.9 Divorced 2.9

5.2.8 Respondents’ personal benefits from tourism development In the current study, the respondents were asked to indicate, along a line of given options (none, a little, some, and a lot), how they had personally benefited from tourism development (economically, socially and culturally) in Bulawayo, as can be seen in Table 5.8 below. Some of the respondents indicated that they had not benefited economically (59.9%), socially (24.4%), or culturally (33.7%), while some had benefited ‘a little’ economically (27%), socially (33.6%), and culturally (30.1%). A few respondents had benefited somewhat economically (8.8%), socially (16.3%), and culturally (14.0%), while some respondents had benefited ‘a lot’ economically (4.3%), socially (25.7%), and culturally (22.2%) from tourism development in their area. Overall, many respondents were concerned about the lack of economic benefits that had accrued to them from tourism, but they were enthusiastic about the social and cultural benefits that they had derived from the industry. Very few of the respondents (7.7%, see Table 5.4 above) indicated being engaged in the tourism sector economically. Such a finding could have affected the responses that were received in this regard. However, the positive responses that were received in the above connection are also indicative of tourism’s ability to leverage social and cultural opportunities to the entire community where it is developed.

Liu (2013) proclaims that tourism development is a means of achieving sustainable development that fosters significant economic, environmental, and sociocultural opportunities for many local communities. Okech (2010) suggests that tourism development has, over time, been used as a way of improving the quality of life of locals at tourist destinations, in terms of three groups of impacts, based on the triple bottom line, which are economic, environmental and social in nature (Rogerson & Visser, 2011). In relation to the social benefits of tourism development, Murphy (2013) explains that community members have a chance, thereby, to overcome stereotyping, to facilitate understanding among peoples, and to learn about the visitors’ culture. Mustafa and Tayeh (2011) explain that, through tourism development, locals can also benefit economically from such benefits as new, improved facilities and infrastructure, entertainment options and transport, thus elevating the quality of life for the local residents.

Getz (2010) is of the view that tourism development can be used as a way of forcing the government to take responsibility for, and to develop the environment, in such a way that the locals can benefit from it. The UNWTO (2010) explains that tourism has been seen as a way of helping locals at host destinations through providing jobs and opportunities that only tourism could provide, as well as related skills development. This ultimately means that tourism contributes to the strengthening of the social capital of the less fortunate. In addition, Tassiopoulous (2008) states that tourism allows for the creation of small tourism enterprise, and that such enterprise tends to generate many benefits for community members, such as employing even those community members with no skills. Stronza and Gordillo (2008) are of the view that the local residents should be aware of the positive impacts of tourism development in their area for them to benefit therefrom, which could also be a way of generating the community support of tourism development.

Table 5.8: Respondents’ personal benefits from tourism development (n = 384, in %) None A little Some A lot Economically 59.9 27.0 8.8 4.3 Socially 24.4 33.6 16.3 25.7 Culturally 33.7 30.1 14.0 22.2

5.2.9 Respondents’ monthly household income To further determine the demographic profiles of the sample population, the respondents were requested to indicate their household income per month, which was expressed in United States Dollars (USD$), which is the currency that is currently used by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, since the demise of the Zimbabwean Dollar. Table 5.9 below paints a picture of a sample that earned a generally low income, considering that over half of the respondents (53.6%) indicated that they earned between $101 and $500 per month, followed by those who earned less than $100 (25.4%) per month. A number (15.4%) of the respondents reported earning between $501 and $1500 per month. Very few were seen

78 to be in the higher income bracket, with only 2.9% reporting earning between $1501 and $2500, and 2.6% between $2501 and $3500 per month. No respondent was found to earn between $4501 and $5500, or above $6501 per month. ZimStat (2016) noted that, because of the economic meltdown in the country, Zimbabweans survived mostly from vending, and fell within the ambit of the informal sector, with more than 80.0% working in the informal sector, and with 72.0% of the population living below the TCPL, which could explain the low levels of income of the respondents.

Table 5.9: Respondents’ monthly income (n = 384, in %) Monthly income (USD) Total, in % <100 25.5 101–500 53.6 501–1500 15.4 1501–2500 2.9 2501–3500 2.6 3501–4500 0 4501–5500 0 5501–6500 0 6501> 0

5.3 Understanding of, and involvement in, tourism Before analysing the perceptions of residents associated with the impacts of tourism in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe, this section of the results focuses on providing an overall view of the understanding and involvement of the residents in tourism, which was in part, one of the study objectives. The UNWTO (2007) elucidates that tourism has implications for the economy, in terms of both the natural and the built environment, for the local population and for the tourists. Accordingly, it is important for all stakeholders, but especially the residents, to understand tourism and its implications for the enhanced development of the industry. Okech (2006) highlights the concern about the lack of knowledge among the local community members, stating that such a shortcoming usually limits their participation in planning and decision-making in terms of tourism development. In addition, Moscardo (2006) is of the view that the lack of tourism knowledge hinders the community members from becoming the leaders of tourism projects in their community and of effective planning in relation to tourism development. The limitation has been used as an excuse by many governments in developing countries to exclude the community members from participating in such development.

5.3.1 Understanding of the nature of tourism In an open-ended question, the respondents and the key informants were asked what their understanding of tourism was. Many of the respondents indicated having a limited level of understanding of the issue. While a few of the respondents recognised tourism as a sector that provides job opportunities for communities, and that contributes to the economy, the vast majority of the responses received were linked to the aspect of travel. Many of the respondents associated tourism with

79 travelling for various reasons. One key informant from ZTA was found to be knowledgeable about the aspect of travel when he explained that: tourism involves travelling away from home to different geographical places, which can either be domestic or international travel. When travelling, it should be for a reasonable period of time or temporarily. The reasons for travelling could either be for pleasure or business.

The definitions mentioned by the respondents are consistent with the literature by various authors who have tried to define tourism. Such authors as Mathew and Kumar (2014) claim that tourism is a process that involves activities and outcomes that result from the interactions among various stakeholders, such as tourists, tourism suppliers, host destination governments, host communities, and environments that are involved in the attracting and hosting of visitors. According to the South African DEAT (1996), tourism involves travelling for a multitude of purposes, and staying away from home for one night or more.

Other respondents emphasised the aspect of travel when they observed that the travel aspect, which was for ‘leisure’ or ‘fun’, might include ‘visiting places of interest for purposes of sightseeing’, ‘flora and fauna’, and ‘learning new cultures’. Furthermore, the respondents also mentioned that tourism can involve travelling for health purposes, in terms of which the tourists travel either to be treated of ailments, or to treat, or to learn how to treat people with ailments. Furthermore, it was indicated that travelling could be for the purpose of education, as people travel to learn about different things of interest, such as culture, history and nature.

In addition, tourism, according to the respondents, is a service industry that provides such accommodation as hotels, safari lodges, and bed and breakfasts for tourists who visit Zimbabwe. In addition, the respondents indicated that tourism is an industry peopled by agents who organise tours for people who want to travel.

5.3.2 Respondents’ level of knowledge of the tourism industry The respondents were also asked of their views with regards to their knowledge of tourism in Bulawayo. The evaluation approach that was used, as is shown below in Table 5.10, ranged from ‘not at all’, ‘a little bit’, ‘a moderate amount’, to ‘a lot / a great deal’.

When they were asked whether they knew about tourism development in their community, it was alarming to find that most of the respondents (34.2%) indicated having only a little knowledge of the tourism industry, followed by those who stated that they had no knowledge of it at all (23.5%), as is shown in Table 5.10 below. The residents with a limited, or no, knowledge of tourism development came to a combined percentage of 57.7% of the total number of respondents. When such a percentage is 80 examined from the perspective of the tourism development intentions of the government, the finding can be considered to be of great concern, as the literature strongly advocates community involvement in tourism development initiatives. When such residents are unaware of tourism development initiatives in their communities, their meaningful contribution to planning and decision-making is likely to be minimal, or non-existent. Moreover, having limited or no knowledge of tourism development implies that, even if there were such projects being undertaken in the area, the residents were unaware of what needed to be done in order to capitalise on the tourism potential of the area. Besides those with a moderate amount of knowledge of the tourism industry (28.0%), a few (14.3%) stated that they had a lot (i.e. a great deal) of knowledge about the tourism industry.

The respondents were further questioned about whether they came into contact with tourists in their community. In this instance, as could have been expected based on the above findings, the results showed that most of the respondents (33.2%) had never come into contact with tourists, followed by those who had had a little contact with them (27.7%). Of the remaining respondents, 24.8% had had a moderate amount of contact with tourists, with only 14.3% having had a lot (i.e. a great deal) of contact with tourists. Often, involvement in tourism development, especially in the developing nations, is reserved for a select few individuals, and the lack of interest on the part of residents is cited as the cause for their lack of involvement by those who move in government circles. The findings, to a certain degree, reveal the above-mentioned trend, as only a few residents had contact with tourists, while the rest of the respondents, due to their limited knowledge and lack of involvement, had no contact with them.

The respondents were next asked to indicate whether they understood the role played by the government in their community. The results show that the majority (30.9%) of the respondents did not understand the government’s role at all, whereas some of the respondents had a little understanding of its role (29.6%). Of the respondents, 22.5% indicated that they had a moderate amount of understanding of the state’s position, whereas the others (17.0%) had a lot (i.e. a great deal) of understanding of the role of the government in tourism. Overall, the data show that the respondents in the current study knew a fair extent about tourism development within their community, and that such respondents had come into contact with tourists in the area. It is plausible that the respondents were aware of the role that the local tourism authority in Bulawayo should have assumed as far as development was concerned.

Table 5.10: Respondents’ level of knowledge of the tourism industry (n = 384, in %) Not at all A little bit A A lot (a moderate great amount deal) I know about tourism development in my community. 23.5 34.2 28.0 14.3 I have come into contact with tourists in my 33.2 27.7 24.8 14.3 community. I understand the role of the local government in 22.5 29.6 30.9 17.0 tourism.

5.4 Respondents’ level of influence in tourism development Determining the level of influence that the community has on tourism development in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe was considered to be important. As Godfrey and Clarke (2000) put it, the residents at a host destination are meant to take full responsibility for the development that takes place within their community, as so doing enables them to have some influence on tourism developments that take place within their residential area. According to Leiper (2004), the residents should be actively involved, and that should have substantial influence over what kind of tourism development happens in their communities, so as to be able to benefit from effectively planned and productive tourism development. Yu et al. (2011) assert that, when the residents of a destination have an influence on tourism development, it contributes to successful touring planning.

The respondents were asked to indicate their level of influence on tourism development along a line of given options, as can be seen in Table 5.11 below. When confronted with the statement “I have some influence over tourism planning and development”, the results show that the majority of the respondents (72.0%) indicated that they had no influence at all. The rest of the respondents indicated that they had a little influence (15.6%), with only 7.5% stating that they had a moderate amount of influence over tourism planning and development. A few of the respondents (4.9%) had a lot (i.e. a great deal) of influence over tourism planning and development. The findings in this regard show that the majority of the community had no influence over tourism planning at the time of the study. Although the planning prerequisite for tourism development is not that all members of the community be involved, good practice has underscored the need for community involvement at all levels of tourism development, if such development is to be successful, and if the local community members wish to benefit from, and support it. According to Page and Connel (2009), community members must be included in any form of planning for tourism.

Interestingly, the statement that “I have the opportunity to participate in tourism planning and development” elicited agreement from the majority (73.0%) of the respondents, whereas 14.3% had only a little chance to participate in such planning and development. Of the remaining respondents, 7.5% had

82 a moderate amount, and 7.5% indicated that they had a lot (i.e. a great deal), of opportunity to participate in tourism planning and development. Perhaps the tourism authorities in Bulawayo have made a concerted effort to publicise the idea of community participation in tourism development efforts.

Table 5.11: Respondents’ level of influence in tourism development (n = 384, in %) Not at all A little bit A A lot (a moderate great amount deal) I have some influence over tourism planning and 72.0 15.6 7.5 4.9 development. I have the opportunity to participate in tourism planning 73.0 14.3 7.5 5.2 and development.

5.5 Respondents’ involvement in tourism According to Mensah (2012), destination host communities and the residents of the areas concerned, tend to play an important part in tourism and its development. Without the participation of the residents, holistic community tourism development cannot be realised, or the tourism development that does take place can result in such consequences as enclave development (Jackson, 2010). Akama (2011) asserts that the residents of host destinations must be those who are in control of local decision-making and those who decide on how resources are to be used. Such involvement should give them a stake in the maintaining of requisite structures, or practices. The level of community involvement has the potential to determine the level of impact on the destination concerned (Getz, 2010).

As a consequence of the above, the next question was asked to determine the extent to which the local community was involved in tourism. According to the results presented in Table 5.12, the majority (84.6%) of the respondents stated that they were not involved in tourism. In contrast, the smallest percentage of respondents (15.4%) indicated that they were involved in tourism as is shown in Table 5.12 below. The results are consistent when they are read in line with those that were obtained in terms of the influences on tourism development, as discussed above. However, according to the Sanderson et al. (2013), the reasons that hinder Zimbabweans from being involved in tourism include the lack of awareness of the tourism industry and holiday opportunities, the lack of a culture of taking holidays, the poor road infrastructure and signage, the lack of coordination between such stakeholders as the ZTA and the private sector, and the high prices that are charged in terms of entrance and activity fees, even for domestic visitors.

Table 5.12: Respondents’ involvement in tourism (n = 384, in %) Response Total in % No 84.6 Yes 15.4

In a follow-up question to the respondents who indicated being involved in tourism (15.4%), most stated that they worked in a tourism-related job, or that they had visited tourist destinations / travelled with other family members. Alternatively, they either owned a tourism establishment, or had studied / were currently studying tourism in some form.

5.6 Perceptions of tourism impacts in Bulawayo Jackson (2008) emphasises that tourism has both positive and negative impacts on the local residents. Marzuki (2008) is of the view that, for successful tourism planning to take place, it is important for host residents to understand the nature of tourism impacts. Having such an understanding is vital, because it encourages the more sustainable, and long-term, success of the tourism industry and its development (Aref, 2010). The next section of the questionnaire was aimed at determining the residents’ perceptions of the impacts of tourism. A five-point Likert-type scale (SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; SA = Strongly Agree; A = Agree; NS = Not Sure) was designed to measure the positive and negative impact statements. For the current research, the responses were grouped into three levels: Strongly Agree and Agree responses were merged into Agree; whereas the Strongly Disagree and Disagree responses were combined into Disagree; and Not Sure was kept as a separate category to facilitate the reporting. The section was split up into three (3) different sections pertaining to the impacts, consisting of: positive and negative economic impacts; positive and negative sociocultural impacts; and positive and negative environmental impacts.

Studying residents’ understanding and perceptions of tourism is important, as doing so clarifies the views of those who might otherwise not be heard (Curto, 2006). When the residents understand tourism. and are able to assess its impacts in communities, it facilitates the maintenance of sustainability and the long-term success of the tourism industry (Diedrich & Garcia-Buades, 2009). Johnson and Wilson (2000) are of the view that, because most community members do not understand tourism and its impacts, external personnel who have an extensive knowledge of the tourism industry tend to dominate the tourism development process, hence there is an urgent need for community capacity building (CCB). Success depends on the community level capacity for innovation and leadership, which are important variables for the creation and implementation of new ideas as part of the sustainable development process (Kyoung Bae, 2013).

5.6.1 Perceptions of positive economic impacts Eight variable statements were used to measure the positive economic impacts that were associated with tourism development in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe, as can be seen in Table 5.13 below. The respondents were asked to state whether they agreed with the statement that “tourism creates

84 employment opportunities for the local community members in my area”. The results obtained, which are reflected in Table 5.13 below, indicate that the majority of the respondents (66.8%) accepted the statement. In contrast, some of the respondents were sceptical about the statement, whereas others were not sure (12.4%) about it, and a few (20.8%) denied it. According to Okech (2010), tourism, which is primarily designed to provide jobs at host destinations, is seen as a poverty alleviation tool by way of the employment opportunities that it provides. Due to the jobs that tourism creates, the government tends to support tourism development. In the current study, the results show that the respondents were optimistic about tourism having created work in their community, despite the aforementioned results showing that very few (7.7%) of the respondents indicated being employed in the sector. The positive responses received in the given context could be explained by the fact that the tourism sector and job creation have become inextricably linked and well publicised in terms of the economic growth agenda for many countries. The message in this respect might have been well received by the community.

When the respondents were asked whether or not they agreed with the statement that “tourism contributes to the personal income of the local residents”, many of them (61.2%) agreed with it. Further, the results show that 15.3% of the respondents were not sure of the statement, whereas 23.5% disagreed with it (see Table 5.13 below). Tourism is commonly believed to contribute to local economic regeneration and prosperity (Smith, 2004), because it encourages the opening of small and medium- sized family enterprises, with it also helping to maintain, or to revive, local traditional jobs contributing to the personal income or to the financial benefits for the local residents (MacDonald & Jolliffe, 2003). Asmamaw and Verma (2013) explain that the financial benefits that are derived from job opportunities that are created as a means of direct income and from entrance, camping, parking and driving fees, as well as from other charges levied on visitors, can help in developing host communities.

With regards as to whether “tourism brings about foreign earnings and regional development in my community”, Table 5.13 shows that the majority of the respondents (79.8%) agreed with the statement. In contrast, 7.8% of the respondents were neutral on the statement, whereas 12.4% disagreed with it. The findings represent that the residents of Bulawayo were confident about tourism’s ability to bring in foreign exchange to their area. Such findings are consistent with Jreat’s (2004) claim that an important positive economic impact of tourism is its capacity to earn foreign exchange for the host country, with the local residents seeing tourism as a way of bringing in foreign exchange, and achieving other economic objectives, such as employment creation and foreign exchange earnings, and improving the quality of life of the residents (Ramseook-Munhurrun & Naidoo, 2011).

Table 5.13: Perceptions of positive economic impacts Statements Total (n = 384, in %) SD D A SA NS Tourism creates employment opportunities for the local community 10.1 10.7 40.4 26.4 12.4 members in my area. Tourism contributes to the personal income of the local residents. 9.8 13.7 41.7 19.5 15.3 Tourism brings about foreign earnings and regional development in my 7.5 4.9 41.4 38.4 7.8 community. Tourism encourages investment in infrastructural development in my 9.1 6.2 39.4 34.5 10.8 community. Tourism increases the amount of money that is available for local 10.4 12.4 42.0 19.2 16.0 development in my community. Tourism increases the development of the local small, medium and micro- 7.5 10.4 41.4 24.4 16.3 sized enterprises (SMMEs) in my community. Tourism increases the number of markets for local products and services 7.2 9.4 44.3 28.3 10.8 in my community. Tourism increases the funds that are available to support the conservation 6.8 7.8 44.0 23.5 17.9 of natural resources, the ecological environment, and the development of sustainable livelihood strategies in my community.

The respondents were further required to indicate whether or not they agreed with the statement that “tourism encourages investment in infrastructural development in my community”. The outcome, as is shown in Table 5.13 above, indicates that the majority (73.9%) of the respondents agreed with the view, although 10.8% remained neutral on it, and a small percentage of 15.3% disagreed with it. Ashley and Mitchell (2009) affirm that tourism growth can facilitate infrastructural development, and that it improves the infrastructure at many destinations, by contributing to the improving of roads, airports and telecommunications at the host destination (ZTA, 2009). Perhaps the few tourism infrastructures that are mainly linked to current and planned future hotel development might have affected the residents’ thinking in this regard. Bulawayo, in common with a large part of Zimbabwe, is confronted with a limited infrastructure that is required for the boosting of tourism. Most importantly, the poor road and transport infrastructure have been recognised as a major challenge to tourism development.

Another statement was made with the intention of finding out whether “tourism increases the amount of money that is available for local development in my community”, with which the majority (61.2%) of the respondents agreed. Of the respondents, 22.8% disagreed with the statement, and a mere 16.0% of them were not sure about it, as is shown in Table 5.13 above. Brida et al. (2011) assert that tourism in an area increases its domestic income. The foreign currency that tourists bring into an area is used to develop the local businesses, infrastructure, and the overall host area. Cultural tourism businesses and centres are very common in Bulawayo, with, for example, the Amakhosi cultural centre being located in a part of the city from which some of the respondents came, so that those concerned had been able to see for themselves how such centres, which are built for tourism, bring about investment in local development.

In the following statement, the respondents were asked to react to the statement that “tourism increases the development of the local small, medium and micro-sized enterprises (SMMEs) in my community”. The results received are presented in Table 5.13 below. The majority of the respondents (65.8%) agreed with the statement, followed by a noteworthy percentage of the respondents (17.9%) who disagreed with it, compared with the slightly smaller percentage (16.3%) who said that they were not sure about the statement. The findings reinforce the notion that tourism is widely regarded as a sector that creates plenty of business opportunities for the local communities to capitalise on. Such opportunities include small accommodation establishments for the tourists, arts and crafts sales, and eateries that are aimed at catering for tourists’ needs. Sala (2010) argues that tourism increases the amount of domestic income that is earned by SMMEs at the host destination, such as motels, lodges, guest houses, and bed and breakfasts that provide accommodation at the destinations. The respondents’ thinking might be influenced by the fact that they see many people publicly selling arts and crafts, including sculptures, on the streets, and that they have first-hand experience of seeing tourists buying from local vendors.

In a statement that was closely related to the one discussed above, the respondents were next asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statement that “tourism increases the number of markets for local products and services in my community”. The results, as can be seen in Table 5.13 above, show that an overwhelming majority of the respondents (72.6%) agreed with the statement. The findings suggest that the respondents see tourism as an important tool that can be use to boost the local economy, in terms of bringing about opportunities for sales of local products. as well as in terms of bringing much needed services to the community that might lead to improved service delivery. Often, the presence of tourists can trigger a response from the local government that is aimed at improving such facilities as roads and signage. Some of the respondents (16.6%) disagreed with the statement, with a few of the respondents (10.8%) being unsure of what they felt about the statement. Tourism provides economic advantages to a country and communities, which can be in the form of entrepreneurship, whereby the residents are encouraged to evolve businesses that could be beneficial to them financially, such as arts and crafts that they themselves create (Upchurch & Teivane, 2000).

In relation to the statement that “tourism increases the funds that are available to support the conservation of natural resources, the ecological environment, and the development of sustainable livelihood strategies in my community”. Table 5.13 above reveals the responses that were obtained in this respect. A significant percentage (67.5%) of the respondents agreed with the statement, while, simultaneously, 17.9% of them stated that they were unsure about the statement. However, the remaining 14.6% disagreed with it. Through entrance fees and the payments that are made to

87 undertake tourist activities, funds are gained that are used to enable the conservation and the preservation of natural areas, and also to enable sustainable measures to be kept up for many years in the communities concerned (Newsome & Hassell, 2014). Buckley (2011) states that, in developing nations, tourism can contribute to conservation by providing political and ﬁnancial support for public protected area agencies.

5.6.2 Perceptions of negative economic impacts As can be seen in Table 5.14 below, four variable statements were used to determine the negative economic impacts that were associated with tourism development in Bulawayo at the time of the current study. Table 5.14: Perceptions of negative economic impacts Statements Total (n = 384, in %) SD D A SA NS Tourism income generated in the community goes to outside 6.8 16.0 25.7 13.7 37.8 organisations and individuals. Tourism increases the cost of living, such as increasing the prices of local 9.1 14.0 39.7 20.5 16.7 products and imported necessities in my community. Tourism causes seasonality of income or employment, thus destabilising 8.8 15.0 30.9 16.6 28.7 the local economy in my community. Real estate prices in the community have increased because of tourism in 12.7 17.6 25.7 14.3 29.7 my community.

As was discussed in the literature review, one negative consequence that tends to be associated with tourism development pertains to potential leakage. According to Table 5.14, the respondents in the present study were rather circumspect in their responses when they were asked to respond to the statement “tourism income generated in the community goes to outside organisations and individuals”. The percentages of those who agreed with the statement (39.4%). and those who were not sure about it (37.8%), were closely similar. However, some of the respondents (22.8%) disagreed with it, perhaps because they felt that, while some form of leakage might have been occurring, it was not that significant. Besides such a reason, a few of the respondents were found to be working in the tourism industry, as has previously been stated. According to Mutana et al. (2013), most destinations lose money to the countries from which the tourism companies originate, with such companies tending to divert their profits away from the host destinations, and to decrease the amount of tourism development in the area. Godfrey and Clarke (2000) explain that external agencies tend also to use their own labour, stating that the locals lack sufficient knowledge and skills to operate their machinery, or to use their information technology. Ultimately, any profits that are made are then sent back to the businesses’ country of origin, instead of being used to develop the developing countries’ communities.

Table 5.14 above also shows that, with regards to whether “tourism increases the cost of living, such as increasing the prices of local products and imported necessities in my community”, the majority (60.2%) 88 of the respondents agreed with the statement, while 23.1% disagreed with it, whereas a fraction (16.7%) of the respondents were unsure about the statement. Although nuances of disagreement could be observed in the results obtained in this regard, such responses were consistent with Brida et al.’s (2011) assertion that, when there is growth in the tourist numbers in an area, it could possibly result in an increase in the prices of goods and services, which would tend to disadvantage the host communities, as they might not then be able to afford to satisfy some of their basic needs. Thus, the perceptions of Bulawayo residents in this respect are not surprising. Any planned tourism development effort in the country should, therefore, consider the views of the residents in this regard. It is important for the relevant stakeholders involved in such development to consider appropriate pricing for the residents.

In another statement, the respondents were asked to respond to a statement pertaining to whether or not “tourism causes seasonality of income or employment, thus destabilising the local economy in my community”. The result, as shown in Table 5.14, reflects that the majority (47.5%) of the respondents agreed with the statement, whereas some respondents (28.7%) said that they were not sure about it, while the remaining percentage (23.8%) disagreed with it. Seasonality is recognised as being a very distinctive feature of tourism, which tends mostly to affect the supply-side of tourism, with most jobs being temporary. Some people working in the tourism industry have, at certain times of the year, no income, due to the seasonality of the work involved (Kolomiets, 2010). Lundtorp (2001) argues that most tourism jobs are low-paid and, often, seasonal. Many destinations suffer from seasonality, leaving the employees so affected without work for a part of each year, hence suffering from underemployment (Jang, 2004). The present study has shown that the seasonal nature of tourism remains a concern for residents, in terms of their jobs and income. The need for destination managers continuously to seek out alternative ways of minimising seasonality is important for creating and preserving tourism jobs and income for the local citizens.

When the respondents were asked whether or not they agreed that “real estate prices in the community have increased because of tourism in my community”, the majority of the respondents (40.0%) agreed with the statement (see Table 5.14 above). However, the results showed further that 30.3% of the respondents disagreed with the statement, whereas 29.7% of them were not sure about it. Upchurch and Teivane (2000) explain that, although tourism has positive impacts, it also brings about negative impacts on communities, including an increase in the price of goods and services, and a rise in property values, which tend to disadvantage the residents of a community.

5.6.3 Perceptions of positive sociocultural impacts In terms of measuring the positive socio-economic effects of tourism development in Bulawayo, five statements were put forward to the respondents, as can be seen in Table 5.15 below. According to the 89 table, the statement examining whether “tourism promotes the renewal of cultural pride in my community” elicited agreement from the majority (67.0%) of the respondents, whereas 21.9% disagreed with it. Furthermore, a few of the respondents (11.1%) disagreed with the statement. The findings seem to support Jurowski (2007), who postulated the idea that the outsiders who come to a tourist destination to appreciate the local customs and the environment, and to share in the life of the community, can cause the local people to revalue their own traditions. Cooper et al. (2005) opine that such revaluation might be influenced by the fact that the local people observe the tourists appreciating their culture, which might encourage the former to feel proud of it. Table 5.15: Perceptions of positive sociocultural impacts Statements Total (n = 384, in %) SD D A SA NS Tourism promotes the renewal of cultural pride in my community. 9.2 12.7 44.8 22.2 11.1 Tourism leads to improved standards of living in my community. 10.4 12.4 46.9 20.2 10.1 Tourism stimulates training and skills development for members within 4.9 13.7 42.0 27.4 12.0 my community. Tourism encourages a wide variety of cultural activities in my 4.6 11.4 45.6 28.7 9.7 community. Tourism helps keep culture alive and helps maintain the ethnic identity 8.5 11.7 40.1 26.4 13.3 of the local residents in my community.

Lubbe (2003) explains that the diversification of culture benefits the local people who are involved in various ways in presenting their culture to tourists. For example, the former might begin to enjoy an increased income and standard of living, and the provision of a new infrastructure. As is shown in Table 5.15 above, the respondents were also presented with the statement “tourism leads to improved standards of living in my community”, with which the majority (67.1%) of the respondents agreed. Once more, the findings show that the residents of Bulawayo were optimistic regarding the benefits that they could receive from tourism, especially in terms of the improvement of standards of living. Such optimism could be based on the perceived opportunities of employment that tourism can present to a community. Disappointingly, the results reflect that 22.8% of the respondents disagreed with the statement, whereas 10.1% were not sure about it. The respondents might have based their opinion on their lack of awareness about, and involvement in, tourism as being a key reason for not seeing the impact that tourism could have had on their living standards.

The respondents were further required to state to which degree, if any, they believed that “tourism stimulates training and skills development for members within my community”. While the majority of the respondents (69.4%) agreed with the statement, it was concerning that a notable percentage (18.6%) of the residents of Bulawayo either disagreed with it, or were unsure about it. Such a finding further brings into question the efforts of the local tourism officials in ensuring sufficient representation of the community on planning and key decision-making platforms regarding the tourism development initiatives

90 of Bulawayo. Having such representations would likely lead to a more visible impact of tourism on the residents, especially regarding the issue of skills development. Furthermore, 12.0% of the respondents registered their lack of certainty about the statement, as is illustrated in Table 5.15 above. Bushell and Eagles (2007) explain that tourism plays a role in facilitating community development through business mentoring, and through the creation of educational opportunities that contribute to the local communities by increasing their skill and knowledge, as well as that of the local residents, in addition to improving the community’s economic standing. However, Dieke (2001) explains that the difficulty in delivering quality services has partly arisen from the inadequacy of skills that are available in Africa, despite service excellence being vital to the growth of the tourism and hospitality industry.

When the respondents were asked to indicate whether they believed that “tourism encourages a wide variety of cultural activities in my community”, as can be seen in the results that are shown in Table 5.15 above, the majority (74.3%) agreed with the statement, whereas 16% disagreed with it, and 9.7% were unsure of it. Again, while the fact that the majority of the respondents agreed with the statement is noted as being a positive result, it is concerning that a combined 16.0% of the respondents were thinking the contrary. Especially concerning is the fact that culture, particularly in developing countries, is seen as a major attraction, and as a source of tourism interest for the tourists. Richards (2001) is of the view that culture is a main ‘pull factor’ that influences visitors’ initial decision to travel to destinations in different parts of the world. Most regions globally, such as North America and Europe, have adopted such an approach, because it has become an important part of tourism development (Richards, 2001). Hughes and Allen (2005) assert that tourism influences culture. The fact that those who engage in cultural travel have become an expression of tourism in recent times has clearly made tourism a vital part of cultural studies. Given the above, tourism can be seen to have contributed greatly to the revitalising of culture in societies, making a substantial contribution to its development (Murphy, 2013). Cultural tourism can, in addition to being used as a way of marketing tourism destinations, also help to attract new investors, and to improve the economy (Hunyadi, Inkei & Szabo, 2006). The wide variety of cultural activities that are evident in Bulawayo, such as the Museum, the Matopo Hills, the Amakhosi Arts culture, the art gallery, and the arts and crafts curio shops that can be seen all around the city, has encouraged the branding of Bulawayo as a vibrant cultural destination.

According to Page and Connell (2009), the relationship between culture and tourism is that of mutuality. The respondents were asked to react to the statement that “tourism helps keep culture alive and helps maintain the ethnic identity of local residents in my community”. Table 5.15 above indicates that the majority (66.5%) of the respondents agreed with the statement. In contrast, a few of the respondents (20.2%) disagreed with the statement, with a relatively small 7.3% not being sure about the statement. Bulawayo identifies itself as a cultural destination, and, because the tourists show an interest in their 91 culture, the locals feel the need to showcase it to the tourists through dance, drama, and novel writing, which helps to keep the Ndebele culture alive.

5.6.4 Perceptions of negative sociocultural impacts The 8 variable statements that were used to measure the negative sociocultural impacts of tourism in Bulawayo are shown in Table 5.16 below. Table 5.16: perceptions of negative sociocultural impacts Statements Total (n = 384, in %) SD D A SA NS Tourism interferes with the local value systems and religions in my 11.1 23.1 33.6 13.7 18.5 community. Tourism promotes the commodification (commercialisation) of the local 6.5 14.3 42.0 11.4 25.8 culture in my community. Tourism encourages the staged authenticity (falsifying) of the local 6.2 21.5 39.1 9.8 23.4 culture in my community. Tourism promotes the standardisation of goods and services in my 6.5 20.5 43.3 10.7 18.9 community. Tourism encourages the imitation of tourist behaviour and lifestyle in 7.5 17.6 39.4 23.1 12.4 my community. Tourism causes traffic congestion in my community. 19.5 34.9 22.8 11.4 11.4 Tourism causes an increase in crime levels (theft, muggings, gambling, 14.7 29.6 25.1 14.7 15.9 smuggling, etc.) in my community. Tourism contributes to the decline in morality in my community. 16.6 21.8 30.6 15.0 16.0

The results of the findings, which are presented in Table 5.16 above, also show that, when the respondents were asked to react to the statement “tourism interferes with the local value systems and religions in my community”, the majority of the respondents (47.3%) agreed with the statement, whereas 34.2% disagreed with it, and 18.5% were unsure about it. Ertuna and Kirbas (2012) highlight that, as time passes, the traditions in African cultures will be wiped out, and future generations will not even know of their own culture and their traditional roots. In addition, Murphy (2013) explains that, in modern times, most people, but especially including African youth, have adopted Western culture, imitating the behaviour of foreigners, whom they see as being more sophisticated than African people.

According to Wang (2008), cultural heritage has become a product for consumption, or a place for selling, with the process involved having come to be known as commodification. The respondents were, accordingly, asked to indicate whether or not “tourism promotes the commodification (commercialisation) of the local culture in my community”. The results, which are indicated in Table 5.16 above, show that the majority (53.4%) of the respondents agreed with the statement, whereas 25.8% of them were not sure about it, and 20.8% disagreed with it. In Bulawayo, the commodification of culture is highly evident, as most residents use it as a way of procuring money from tourism, so as to be able to make a living. The way of thinking identified has increased, as the economy of Zimbabwe is not doing well, hence most residents feel that they can cash in on the fact that Bulawayo is a common cultural destination, and many see it as an opportunity to use their culture as a way of making money. An 92 example is such cultural exploitation is that of the Njelele Shrine, which is a sacred place to which traditional healers go to consult with the spirits, but which is now also used as a tourist attraction to attract more tourists to visit the Matopo Hills than used to do so.

In another statement, the respondents were asked to state their level of agreement with the statement “cultural tourism encourages the staged authenticity (falsifying) of local culture in my community”. The majority of the respondents (48.9%) agreed with the statement, whereas 27.7% disagreed with it, and 23.4% of the respondents were unsure about it, as is shown in Table 5.16 above. Theobald (2013) suggests that local culture and customs may be exploited to satisfy the visitor, sometimes at the expense of a sense of local pride and dignity. The respondents’ thinking might be influenced by the fact that there are places in Bulawayo where people stage components of their cultural business. An example of the above is nyangas coming to showcase their talents for tourists on Fridays at the Amakhosi centre.

The respondents were further asked to react to the statement that “tourism promotes the standardisation of goods and services in my community”. Table 5.16 above illustrates that the majority (54.0%) of the respondents agreed with the statement, while 27.0% of the respondents agreed with it, and 18.9% were unsure about it. The results obtained were nuanced, but echo the view that destinations risk standardisation, in the process of satisfying tourists’ desires for familiar facilities. Tourists are known often to look for recognisable facilities in an unfamiliar environment (Theodossopoulos, 2010). Although most foreign companies have abstained from investing in Zimbabwe, because of the country’s indigenisation policy, there are still restaurant franchises in Bulawayo that serve foreign dishes to which tourists can relate. Such businesses include restaurants like Steers, Nandos, Food Lovers’ Market, and the Big Value Pie food establishment, which serves Indian cuisine. When tourists visit Bulawayo, they are not obliged to eat the traditional dishes that tend to be the norm with a majority of the restaurants in Bulawayo.

In response to the statement that “tourism encourages the imitation of tourist behaviour and lifestyle in the community”, as can be seen in Table 5.16 above, the majority (62.5%) of the respondents agreed with it, whereas 25.1% disagreed with it, and 12.4% remained unsure about it. The results obtained suggest that, while presenting a culture to tourists might help to preserve the culture involved, it can also dilute, or even destroy, it. Apostolopoulos, Leivadi and Yiannakis (2013) explain that interaction with tourists can also lead to the erosion of traditional cultures and values. In a country like Zimbabwe, where many have come to leave their families behind, going off in search of greener pastures, often the children are left to take of themselves, with no elderly guidance. Such neglect results in the youngsters engaging in behaviour and lifestyles that are seen as untraditional by some communities like those in

Bulawayo. The adoption of new ways of behaviour and lifestyles by the young is sometimes blamed on their interaction with tourists who are from different backgrounds and lifestyles to the customary ones that used to be instilled in the upcoming generation.

The results of the findings, which are presented in Table 5.16 above, indicate that the majority of the respondents (54.4%) disagreed with the notion that “tourism causes traffic congestion in my community”, while 34.2% agreed with the statement, and a mere 11.4% were unsure regarding it. The results contradict Mason’s (2012) finding that tourism can contribute to congestion in terms of the overcrowding of people, as well as in the form of traffic congestion and damage to important sites. The results might either mean that there was not much tourist inflow in the area, or that the relevant stakeholders managed the tourist inflow well, so as to avoid overcrowding and congestion. Bulawayo and the entire country of Zinbabwe has, over the years, been seen as an unsafe destination, which has led to many tourists staying away from the destination. The result might be that there is low tourist traffic in the area, so that most residents have not had to deal with the problem of traffic congestion. In contrast, some respondents live in tourism communities, where congestion might be a problem, which must have influenced their opinions.

The respondents were further asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statement that “tourism causes an increase in crime levels in my community”. Table 5.16 above shows that the majority (44.3%) of the respondents disagreed with the statement, whereas 39.8% of them agreed with it, and 15.9% were unsure about it. The results that were obtained in the current study do not agree with those that have previously been obtained in regard to crime and tourism in the African context. Many such studies argue that increased tourism activity gives rise to a corresponding increase in crime. For example, Keyser (2002) maintains that host members perceive tourists as wealthy, soft targets, who are usually in a relaxed mood when visiting destinations, which tends to make them less security-conscious than they might otherwise be. Consequently, some residents try to take advantage of the situation by engaging in such acts of crime as pickpocketing, rape, murder, and hijacking (Donaldson & Ferreira, 2007). Clearly, most of the respondents in the current study thought otherwise. Perhaps the results were influenced by the small amount of tourist visitation occurring in their area. The Zimbabwean economy has seen an uneven distribution of tourists in the country, owing to the political tension and upheaval of recent years. The prevailing conditions have meant that tourists (international) have mostly tended to visit only such areas as Victoria Falls (Tichaawa & Mhlanga, 2015b), which are considered to be away from the heart of the Zimbabwean political problem. However, the many respondents who expressed their concerns about crime should not be overlooked.

The respondents were further asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statement that “tourism contributes to the decline in morality in my community”. Of the respondents, 45.6% agreed with the statement, whereas 38.4% disagreed with it, and 16% of them were unsure about the statement, as can be seen in Table 5.16 above. According to Moscardo (2008), tourism at most destinations contributes to a decline in the morality of the local inhabitants. Interaction with tourists can also lead to an erosion of traditional cultures and values (Chandralal, 2010). Those who agreed with the statement might have been influenced by the growing trend of perceiving tourism as an activity that brings about such negative sociocultural impacts as crime, prostitution and drug use. Moreover, in many African countries, there are strong values and morals that, in recent times, have started to be lost, such as the respect that should be afforded to elders, and such behaviour as public displays of affection. Such practices seem, to at least a certain extent, to be less common then before, with the change in behaviour concerned having been blamed on tourism by many living in the countries concerned.

5.6.5 Perceptions of positive environmental impacts In terms of the current tourism developmental efforts, the focus on environmental impacts has received increased attention, given the global challenge of having to combat climate change. Tourism can be used as an effective vehicle for enhancing the environment. To this end, five statements were used to determine the positive effects involved, as perceived by the residents in Bulawayo (see Table 5.17). Table 5.17: Perceptions of positive environmental impacts Statements Total (n = 384, in %) SD D A SA NS Tourism incentivises the restoration of heritage in my community. 4.9 11.1 41.4 25.1 17.5 Public places are maintained at a better standard of hygiene because of 8.1 6.5 50.5 27.0 7.9 the tourism that is practised in my community. Tourism contributes to the preservation of the natural environment and to 5.5 6.2 45.0 33.9 9.4 the protection of wildlife within my community. Tourism contributes towards the management of protected areas. 5.2 5.5 40.1 36.5 12.7 Tourism ensures the protection of the environment and the ecosystem. 4.6 4.6 44.2 32.6 14.0

Furthermore, the respondents were asked to indicate whether “tourism incentivises the restoration of heritage in my community”. The results in Table 5.17 above disclose that the majority (66.5%) of the respondents agreed with the statement, whereas 16.0% disagreed with it, and 17.5% remained unsure about it. Cochrane and Tapper (2006) emphasise that tourism offers financial benefits in respect of WHSs, as well as in respect of protected areas. The funds from tourism help in conserving and restoring the important sites, as well as in raising the profile of the sites, and in attracting an increased amount of support from the government. In terms of Bulawayo’s attractions, the entrance fees that are usually charged the visitors are higher for tourists than they are for the residents. The fees help to bring in much-needed funds that are required for maintaining the attractions and their associated heritage. For example, to enter the Natural History Museum of Zimbabwe that is located in Bulawayo, tourists pay a fee of US$10, with the money paid going to the maintenance of the attraction. 95

Next, the respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statement that “public places are maintained at a better standard of hygiene because of the tourism that is practised in my community”. As seen in Table 5.17 above, the majority (77.5%) of the respondents agreed with the statement, whereas 14.6% of them disagreed with it, with 7.9% not being sure about it. For tourists to have a pleasant stay at a host destination, it is emphasised that the destination should be kept clean and hygienic, with no visual pollution. Bulawayo is considered to be a clean city, and the respondents’ thinking might relate the prevailing standards to the tourism activities that take place in their communities. All over Bulawayo, there are garbage bins with logos that read “keep Bulawayo clean”, encouraging residents to put their litter in the bins, and not to litter. Street cleaners and refuse collectors are also employed by the municipality, encouraging the maintenance of a clean city and environment for the benefit of both citizens and tourists.

Tourism promotes the conservation and the preservation of nature and wildlife (Dressler & Brüscher, 2008). Child (2009) asserts that the conservation of wildlife can take place transfrontier, which helps in the defragmentation of wildlife habitats, which have long been recognised as being subject to biodiversity loss. Furthermore, a statement was set to investigate whether “tourism contributes to the preservation of the natural environment and to the protection of wildlife within my community”, with which a significant majority of 78.9% of the respondents agreed, and 11.7% disagreed. However, 9.4% of the respondents remained unsure regarding the statement, which is illustrated in Table 5.17 above. In Bulawayo, conservation parks are used to attract tourists, who help to conserve the local flora and fauna. Examples of such conservation parks include the Matobo National Park, which is a UNESCO WHS, and the Chipangali Wildlife Orphanage, where rescued animals and birds are rehabilitated.

The respondents were also asked whether they believed that “tourism contributes towards the management of protected areas”. As is shown in Table 5.17 above, the majority (76.6%) of the respondents agreed with the statement. Furthermore, the results reflect that 12.7% were unsure about the statement, whereas a relatively small 10.7% disagreed with it. The findings are in line with the writings of Buckley (2012), who asserts that, in developing nations, tourism can contribute to conservation by providing political and financial support for the management of public protected areas.

Another statement was made with the intention of finding out whether “tourism ensures the protection of the environment and the ecosystem”, with which the majority (76.8%) of the respondents agreed, whereas 14% were not sure about it, and the remaining 9.2% disagreed with it. The results are shown in Table 5.17 above. Although the respondents seem to agree with tourism being a way of conserving the environment and the wildlife, in Zimbabwe most wildlife tourism operations stopped being viable over the past few years, because of inadequacies in the system of land conservation, and a decline in the

96 number of visiting tourists, which meant that there is little or no money available for conserving and preserving the environment and wildlife in the country (Eagles, McCool & Haynes, 2002).

5.6.6 Perceptions of negative environmental impacts The literature review that was undertaken in the current study showed that tourism development can bring with it negative consequences that might be harmful for destinations. Table 5.18 below shows the five statements that were used to determine the respondents’ perceptions of the negative environmental impacts of tourism. Table 5.18: perceptions of negative environmental impacts Statements Total (n = 384, in %) SD D A SA NS Tourism contributes to the damaging of important sites in my 23.5 30 19.9 8.1 18.5 community. Tourism contributes to overcrowding and congestion in my 24.4 33.6 21.8 11.4 8.8 community. Tourism increases the levels of pollution (air, water, noise and 19.2 36.2 25.7 12.4 6.5 visual) in my community. Tourism adds to the pressure of limited water and energy supply in 14.0 34.9 26.0 16.6 8.5 my community. Tourism destroys the natural environment in my community. 21.8 42.0 14.0 11.7 10.5

Table 5.18 below illustrates that 53.5% of the respondents disagreed with the statement that “tourism contributes to the damaging of important sites in my community”. Of the respondents, 28.0% agreed with the statement, whereas 18.5% were unsure of it. According to Eagles, McCool and Haynes (2002), there is a need for visitor impact management as the number of tourists increases, and as they tend to increase their visits to the major tourism destinations that are vulnerable and that are exposed to unsustainable development. The results obtained in the current study highlight the need for responsible stakeholders to devise ways of mitigating such negative impacts. Ecotourism is one way that could be adopted, in terms of which the tourists could also be educated on how to contribute to the conservation of important sites in the area.

In another statement, the participants were asked to specify their level of agreement with the statement that “tourism contributes to overcrowding and congestion in my community”. The majority (58.0%) of the respondents disagreed with the statement, whereas 33.2% agreed with it, and a few (8.8%) were not sure about it, as can be seen in Table 5.18 above. Neuts, Nijkamp and Van Leeuwen (2012) are of the view that most busy tourist destinations, such as Amsterdam, attract many visitors who come to stay either overnight or long-term. Due to the many tourism events and functions that take place in such cities, the tourists tend to interfere with the local community space, leaving both the locals and the tourists concerned feeling that the destinations involved have become unpleasantly congested. The results of the current study show that, despite the extensive amount of literature that exists on the negative environmental impacts of tourism on destinations, tourism in Bulawayo has only done minimal 97 damage to the environment so far, as was indicated by the large percentage of respondents who seemed to disagree with the negative statements about the area.

The results of the findings that are presented in Table 5.18 above indicate that the majority (55.4%) of the respondents disagreed with the view that “tourism increases the levels of pollution in my community”, while 38.1% of the respondents agreed with it, and 6.5% were unsure about it. According to Keyser (2009) and Buckley (2012), tourism leads to various forms of pollution, such as water, air, noise, and visual and land pollution, which has not only led to the destruction of aquatic life, but which has also made the land, as a whole, look dirty and unappealing. Such pollution has tended to result from the irresponsibility of the African communities concerned, in terms of the way in which they utilise such resources as land and water (Keyser, 2009). Many Bulawayo residents rejected the idea of tourism being linked to pollution in the community, perhaps in response to the few developmental efforts taking place in terms of tourism, generally. However, the study also shows evidence of concern, albeit to a relatively minor extent, regarding the issue.

The respondents were further asked to specify their level of agreement with the statement that “tourism adds to the pressure of limited water and energy supply in my community”. Of the respondents, 48.9% disagreed with the statement, whereas 42.6% agreed with it. Uncertainty was expressed in relation to the statement by 8.5% of the respondents, as can be seen in Table 5.18 below. Tourism development can put pressure on natural resources when it increases the consumption in areas where resources are already scarce, with the tourism industry tending to overuse water resources through its utilisation of facilities like hotels, swimming pools and golf courses. Such utilisation causes shortages of water supplies and generates a great deal of waste water, forcing the locals to compete for the use of critical resources (Our Planet, 1999). In Bulawayo and Zimbabwe as a whole, there has been a shortage of both water and energy supply, which could be the reason for a large percentage of the respondents agreeing with the statement made in this respect. In contrast, the government has been working with neighbouring countries in trying to fix the water and energy supply, and there have been major improvements made in this arena, hence the majority of the respondents disagreed with the statement made in this respect.

Table 5.18 above depicts the fact that the majority (63.8%) of the respondents disagreed that “tourism destroys the natural environment in my community’’, whereas 25.7% disagreed with the statement, and 10.5% were unsure about it. The results are consistent with those of many other tourism-related studies. Pickering and Hill (2007) explain that the collection of flora and fauna, the chopping down of trees, the disposal of waste, and the impact of both vehicles and pedestrians can cause the destruction of vegetation, which is one of the serious environmental impacts of tourism. Furthermore, Erlank (2005)

98 talks of the destruction of wildlife that arises as a result of the planned destruction of animals through fishing, hunting, the imbalance of wildlife breeding and feeding patterns, and the disturbance of the natural ecosystem. The results show that, despite the extensive amount of literature that exists on the negative environmental impacts of tourism on destinations, tourism in Bulawayo had only done minimal damage to the environment, as was indicated by the large percentage of respondents who seemed to disagree with the statement made in this respect.

5.7 Overall evaluation of tourism impacts Table 5.19 below summarises the evaluation of tourism impacts, as viewed by the residents of Bulawayo. In the first statement, the respondents were asked to respond to the statement that “I believe that the benefits of tourism exceed the costs to the people living in my community”, with which 53.1% agreed. The percentage was followed by 24.1% of the respondents who disagreed with the statement, and then by the 19.2% who were not sure about the statement. The results are consistent with those shown in the above sections. The residents of Bulawayo clearly have more positive perceptions than negative ones about tourism impacts in their communities. The finding gives a sense of hope that the residents of Bulawayo might be willing to support additional tourism development projects planned in their communities, as they might feel that tourism comes with benefits, and they might believe that it would be good for their communities.

In the next statement, respondents were asked whether they thought that tourism development in the area produced more negative than positive impacts in their community, with which the majority of the respondents (53.4%) disagreed and 26.3% agreed, and about which 20.3% were unsure. The results are consistent with those that were obtained in response to the preceding statement, as they clarify that the residents’ perceptions of the impacts of tourism in their communities were more positive than they were negative.

When they were asked whether they believed that tourism impacts were overrated, the majority (41.1%) of the respondents agreed with the statement, while 31.7% disagreed with it. A smaller percentage of the respondents (27.2%) were not sure about the statement. Although the residents expressed a feeling that there were more positive than negative impacts of tourism in their community, the majority might have felt that the tourism impacts were overrated, as such overrating is usual in most host destinations where residents feel that the government tends to overstate the benefits of tourism, especially the economic ones. The local governments tend to deny the existence of negative impacts, and they tend to overemphasise the benefits that are related to tourism development projects. Such an overemphasis is

99 due to the officials concerned believing that, if they reveal the negative impacts, they will be likely to lose the support of the residents.

Table 5.19: Evaluation of tourism impacts Statements Total (n = 384, in %) SD D A SA NS I believe that the benefits of tourism exceed the costs to the people 7.2 16.9 33.9 19.2 22.8 living in my community. I think tourism development in the area produces more negative 18.9 34.5 19.5 6.8 20.3 impacts than positive impacts in my community. I believe that tourism impacts on my community are overrated. 8.5 23.2 29.7 11.4 27.2

5.8 Perceptions of the impact of the Cecil John Rhodes memorial The importance of historical monuments and memorials in post-colonial Africa has been important in terms of present-day tourism development, as they tend to contribute to the tourism product offering, despite them equally being a subject of debate in the political arena. In recent times, the argument for the removal of such colonial heritage products has received increased attention. For example, student protests at the University of Cape Town, South Africa saw the removal of the Cecil John Rhodes statue from their campus. Rhodes was the prime minister of the Cape Colony from 1890 to 1896. On his death in 1902, he was buried at the Matobo Hills National Park (a WHS) in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe, with his grave coming to be a prominent tourism hotspot in the area. When the respondents were asked whether “the location of Cecil John Rhodes’ grave attracts tourists to Bulawayo” (see Table 5.20), 82.1% of the respondents agreed with the statement, whereas 9.5% were unsure about it. The findings show that the residents strongly perceived the monument as a contributing product offering in terms of tourism. Furthermore, the respondents were firmly of the view that such a monument should not be removed from the area, considering that the vast majority (80.4%) disagreed with the statement that “I think that Cecil John Rhodes’ grave should be removed from Bulawayo”. A few of the respondents (12.4%) were not sure about the statement, whereas the remaining few (7.2%) agreed with it.

The responses that were received to the two statements concerned might imply that the residents of Bulawayo view the Cecil John Rhodes grave as a treasured monument that attracts tourist to the area, regarding it as contributing to the local economy, and holding that, as such, it should not be removed from its present location.

Table 5.20: Perceptions of the impact of the Cecil John Rhodes memorial (n = 384, in %) Statements Total, in % SD D A SA NS The location of Cecil John Rhodes’ grave attracts tourists to 4.2 4.2 45.0 37.1 9.5 Bulawayo. I think that Cecil John Rhodes’ grave should be removed from 44.6 35.8 3.3 3.9 12.4 Bulawayo.

100

5.9 Who benefits more from tourism in the local community? Okech (2010) explains that the value of tourism has always been recognised in Africa, but that relatively few efforts seem to have been made to trickle the benefits down to benefit the local communities, especially in the marginal areas. According to Donohoe (2010), tourism can be a source of conflict of interest among the relevant stakeholders (consisting of the local communities, the external actors, and the community members), with provincial guides often being accused of fraud, with them using the profits gleaned from the industry for personal gain instead of for the benefit of the general community. Cultural conflicts also tend to occur between the hosts and the visitors, with such conflicts also occurring among the community members themselves, mostly in relation to the unequal distribution of benefits and tasks.

The respondents were next asked who they thought benefited most from tourism in their local community. Most of the respondents (56.4%) indicated that they thought that those who worked in the tourism industry (e.g. the tourism authorities, and the tour operators and guides) benefited the most from tourism, followed by those who thought that it was government officials concerned (26.6%). The rest of the respondents (17.0%), as is shown in Table 5.21 below, indicated that it was the whole community who benefited most from tourism. The results are consistent with Ogechi and Oyinkansola’s (2012) assertions that, even though tourism provides employment opportunities for the poor, thereby improving their quality of life, there is still evidence that tourism development, especially in the developing countries, is still solely managed by the governments and the external companies concerned, largely benefiting them, and leaving the local residents in low-paid positions. In addition, Mensah (2012) emphasises that the local residents are almost always excluded from the decision- making, planning and policymaking that takes place in connection with development.

Table 5.21: Who benefits more from tourism in the local community (n = 384, in %) Statements Total, in % The whole community 17.0 Tourism authorities, local tour operators, locals working at tourism establishments, tour guides. 56.4 Government officials 26.6

Having presented the descriptive analysis of the results in terms of percentages, the next section of the results presents the analysis in terms of measures of validity and reliability, as well as in terms of the test for comparisons.

101

5.10 Validity and reliability analysis 5.10.1 Validity analysis In the current study, the assessment of the validity of the measuring instrument was achieved by means of factor analysis. The 40 items of the 8 perceived tourism impact dimensions were factor analysed to test for construct validity. The test for construct validity is used to determine the degree to which a measure confirms a linkage of associated hypotheses that are generated on the basis of the theoretical rationale concerned.

5.10.1.1 Positive economic impacts The 8 items of the positive economic impacts scale (see Table 5.13) were subjected to principal axis factoring analysis (PFA). Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of 0.3 and above. Table 5.22 shows that the Kaiser–Meyer–Oklin (KMO) value was 0.887, exceeding the recommended value of 0.6, and that the Bartlett’s test result was significant, therefore the undertaking of factor analysis was found to be appropriate.

Table 5.22: The KMO Measure of, and Bartlett's Test for, positive economic impacts Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .887 Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 1120.804 Sphericity df 28 Sig. .000

According to Table 5.23, the PFA revealed a presence of 1 component with an eigenvalue exceeding 1, explaining 62.439% of the variance that occurred. An inspection of the screen plot revealed a clear break after the first component.

Table 5.23: An explanation of total variance Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums% of of Squared Loadings Factor Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total Variance Cumulative % 1 4.995 62.439 62.439 4.574 57.180 57.180 2 .723 9.043 71.481 3 .692 8.650 80.132 4 .439 5.487 85.618 5 .395 4.942 90.560 6 .326 4.079 94.639 7 .249 3.109 97.748 8 .180 2.252 100.000

102

5.10.1.2 Negative economic impacts The 4 items on the negative economic impacts scale (see Table 5.14) were also subjected to PFA. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of 0.3 and above. Table 5.24 shows that the KMO value was 0.791, thus exceeding the recommended value of 0.6; and that the Bartlett’s test result was significant, therefore the undertaking of factor analysis was appropriate. Table 5.24: The KMO Measure of, and Bartlett's Test for, negative economic impacts Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .791 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 232.394 Df 6 Sig. .000

PFA revealed the presence of 1 component with an eigenvalue exceeding 1, explaining 66.780% of the variance that occurred. An inspection of the screen plot revealed a clear break after the first component.

Table 5.25: An explanation of total variance Factor Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative % Variance % Variance 1 2.671 66.780 66.780 2.249 56.219 56.219 2 .531 13.263 80.043 3 .498 12.440 92.483 4 .301 7.517 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

5.10.1.3 Positive sociocultural impacts As Table 5.26 shows, the 5 items on the positive sociocultural impacts scale (see Table 5.15) were subjected to PFA. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of 0.3 and above. Table 5.26 shows that the KMO value was 0.867, exceeding the recommended value of 0.6, and that the Bartlett’s test result was significant, therefore the undertaking of factor analysis was appropriate.

Table 5.26: The KMO Measure of, and Bartlett's Test for, positive sociocultural impacts Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .867 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 673.433 Df 10 Sig. .000 In Table 5.27, the PFA revealed a presence of 1 component with an eigenvalue exceeding 1, explaining 70.154% of the variance that occurred. An inspection of the screen plot revealed a clear break after the first component.

103

Table 5.27: An explanation of total variance Factor Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative % Variance % Variance 1 3.508 70.154 70.154 3.142 62.832 62.832 2 .489 9.776 79.930 3 .416 8.317 88.247 4 .339 6.783 95.029 5 .249 4.971 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

5.10.1.4 Negative sociocultural impacts The 8 items on the negative sociocultural impacts scale (see Table 5.16) were subjected to PFA, as Table 5.28 shows. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of 0.3 and above. Table 5.28 shows that the KMO value was 0.855, exceeding the recommended value of 0.6, and that the Bartlett’s test result was significant, therefore the undertaking of factor analysis was appropriate.

Table 5.28: The KMO Measure of, and Bartlett's Test for, negative sociocultural impacts Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .855 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 862.521 Df 28 Sig. .000 In Table 5.29, the PFA can be seen to have revealed a presence of 1 component with an eigenvalue exceeding 1, explaining 57.186% of the variance that occurred. An inspection of the screen plot revealed a clear break after the first component.

Table 5.29: An explanation of total variance Factor Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative % Variance % Variance 1 4.575 57.186 57.186 4.095 51.191 51.191 2 1.019 12.732 69.918 3 .654 8.178 78.096 4 .509 6.357 84.453 5 .387 4.840 89.293 6 .352 4.401 93.694 7 .312 3.903 97.597 8 .192 2.403 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

5.10.1.5 Positive environmental impacts According to Table 5.30, the 5 variable items on the positive environmental impacts scale (see Table 5.17) were subjected to PFA. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of 0.3 and above. The results show that the KMO value was 0.860, exceeding the 104 recommended value of 0.6, and that the Bartlett’s test result was significant, therefore the undertaking of factor analysis was appropriate.

Table 5.30: The KMO Measure of, and Bartlett's Test for, positive environmental impacts Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .860 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 842.859 Df 10 Sig. .000

The PFA revealed a presence of 1 component with an eigenvalue exceeding 1 (see Table 5.31), explaining 74.057% of the variance that occurred. An inspection of the screen plot revealed a clear break after the first component.

Table 5.31: An explanation of total variance Factor Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative % Variance % Variance 1 3.703 74.057 74.057 3.403 68.051 68.051 2 .563 11.256 85.313 3 .356 7.116 92.429 4 .210 4.208 96.637 5 .168 3.363 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

5.10.1.6 Negative environmental impacts The 5 variable items on the negative environmental impacts scale (see Table 5.18) were subjected to PFA, according to Table 5.32. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of 0.3 and above. Table 5.32 shows that the KMO value was 0.814, exceeding the recommended value of 0.6, and that the Bartlett’s test was significant, therefore the undertaking of factor analysis was found to be appropriate.

Table 5.32: The KMO Measure of, and Bartlett's Test for, negative environmental impact Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .814 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 894.403 df 10 Sig. .000

PFA revealed the presence of 1 component with an eigenvalue exceeding 1, explaining 75.423% of the variance that occurred. An inspection of the screen plot revealed a clear break after the first component (see Table 5.33).

105

Table 5.33: An explanation of total variance Factor Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative % Variance % Variance 1 3.771 75.423 75.423 3.469 69.373 69.373 2 .507 10.143 85.566 3 .340 6.802 92.368 4 .235 4.696 97.064 5 .147 2.936 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

5.10.1.7 Evaluation of tourism impacts The 3 items on the evaluation of tourism impacts scale (see Table 5.19) were subjected to PFA. Table 5.34 shows that the KMO value was 0.522, below the recommended value of 0.6, and that the Bartlett’s test was significant, therefore the undertaking of factor analysis was not appropriate.

Table 5.34: The KMO Measure of, and Bartlett's Test for, the evaluation of impacts Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .522 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 73.695 df 3 Sig. .000

5.10.2 Reliability analysis Reliability is mainly concerned with a scale’s internal consistency, which is to say whether the items concerned all measure the same underlying construct (Pallent, 2007). One of the most commonly used indicators of internal consistency is the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The response scale used was ordinal, with the categories used being Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Agree (3), Strongly Agree (4), and Not Sure (5).

Table 5.35 summarises the findings that were made in terms of the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.

Table 5.35: Reliability analysis Item Cronbach’s Alpha Number of items Positive economic impacts 0.939 8 Negative economic impacts 0.866 4 Positive sociocultural impacts 0.908 5 Negative sociocultural impacts 0.919 8 Positive environmental impacts 0.916 5 Negative environmental impacts 0.921 5 Evaluation of tourism impacts 0.701 2 General impacts 0.517 2

According to the Table above, 7 of the items showed a high score in terms of measurement reliability, measuring above the recommended level of 0.7. The lowest score which was 0.517 on item reliability, while the rest ranged between 0.866 and 0.939. While the Cronbach’s alpha for general impacts was 106 below the recommended value of 0.7, the value of the inter-item correlation mean was 0.348, which was in the recommended range of 0.2 to 0.4, which is considered to be reliable (see Pallent, 2007).

5.11 Group comparisons Group comparisons were conducted to investigate whether there were any differences in the perceived opinions of the 8 scales in terms of the demographic information given by the respondents. The selection of statistical tests used was based on the preliminary tests that were conducted for the distribution of the sample and group sizes.

5.11.1 Gender This section presents the test for differences in perceived tourism impacts between male and female respondents in Bulawayo, by means of using the independent sample t-test. The results, as can be seen in Table 5.35 below, show that no significant differences were found in terms of the following: positive economic impacts (men (M = 3.111, SD = 0.643) and women (M = 2.967, SD = 0.713), t(294) = 1.636, ρ = 0.103); negative economic impacts (men (M = 2.730, SD = 0.596) and women (M = 2.737, SD = 0.752), t(281) = -0.071, ρ = 0.943); negative sociocultural impacts (men (M = 2.555, SD = 0.626) and women (M = 2.664, SD = 0.708), t(294) = -1.251, ρ = 0.212); negative environmental impacts (men (M = 3.099, SD = 0.823) and women (M = 2.320, SD = 0.862), t(295) = -0.091, ρ = 0.927); the evaluation of tourism impacts (men (M = 2.403, SD = 0.929) and women (M = 2.374, SD = 0.828), t(267) = 0.256, ρ = 0.798); and the general impacts (men (M = 3.4, SD = 0.614) and women (M = 3.268, SD = 0.654), t(291) = 1.616, ρ = 0.107). However, significant differences were found in terms of positive sociocultural impacts (men (M = 3.167, SD = 0.596) and women (M = 2.887, SD = 0.752), t(297) = 3.145, ρ = 0.002) and the administration of a Mann–Whitney U Test revealed a significant difference in the positive environmental impacts for men (M = 3.261) and women (M = 3.099), U = 7681.5, z = -2.056, ρ = 0.040.

107

Table 5.36: Independent sample t-test in terms of gender t-test for Equality of Means Gender Mean t Df ρ-value Mean Std Error Difference Difference Positive economic Male 3.1112 1.636 294 .103 .14365 .08783 impacts Female 2.9676

Negative economic Male 2.7302 -.071 281 .943 -.00728 .10199 impacts Female 2.7374

Positive sociocultural Male 3.1676 3.145 297 .002 .28032 .08912 impacts Female 2.8873

Negative sociocultural Male 2.5559 -1.251 294 .212 -.10856 .08681 impacts Female 2.6644

Negative Male 2.3106 -.091 295 .927 -.00981 .10746 environmental impacts Female 2.3204

Evaluation of tourism Male 2.4038 .256 267 .798 .02950 .11543 impacts Female 2.3743

General Male 3.4000 1.616 291 .107 .13153

Female 3.2685 .08140

Mean Mann- Z p-value Whitney U Positive environmental Male 3.2619 7681.500 -2.056 .040 impacts Female 3.0996

5.11.2 Work industry This section presents the findings that were obtained in response to the conducting of the test for differences in perceived tourism impacts between the tourism-related and the non-tourism-related employment industry of the respondents, emanating from the use of the Mann–Whitney U Test, as Table 5.37 depicts. According to the results, the test (i.e. the Mann–Whitney U Test) revealed a significant difference in the negative sociocultural impacts (tourism-related (M = 2.949) and non-tourism- related (M = 2,588) employees, U = 1177.5, z = -2.035, ρ = 0.041) and for the positive environmental impacts (tourism-related (M = 3,470) and non-tourism-related (M = 3.147) employees, U = 1147, z = - 2.083, ρ = 0.037). 108

However, no significant differences were observed in terms of six different impact types, including positive economic impacts (tourism-related (M = 3.149) and non-tourism-related (M = 3.029) employees, U = 1442, z = -0.983, ρ = 0.325); negative economic impacts (tourism-related (M = 2.901) and non- tourism-related (M = 2.765) employees, U = 1406.5, z = -0.534, ρ = 0.592); positive sociocultural impacts (tourism-related (M = 3.370) and non-tourism-related (M = 2.993 ) employees, U = 1234.5, z = - 1.844, ρ = 0.065); negative environmental impacts (tourism-related (M = 2.423) and non-tourism-related (M = 2.347) employees, U = 1594, z = -0.265, ρ = 0.790); the evaluation of tourism impacts (tourism- related (M = 2.437) and non-tourism-related (M = 2.411) employees, U = 1379, z = -0,101, ρ = 0.919); and the general impacts (tourism-related (M = 3.147) and non-tourism-related (M = 3.292) employees, U = 1439, z = -0.935, ρ = 0.349).

Table 5.37: Mann–Whitney U Test tourism-related versus non-tourism-related Mean Mann- Z ρ-value Whitney U Positive economic Tourism-related 3.1494 1442.000 -.983 .325 impacts Non-tourism-related 3.0298 Negative economic Tourism-related 2.9010 1406.500 -.535 .593 impacts Non-tourism-related 2.7657 Positive Tourism-related 3.3706 1234.500 -1.844 .065 sociocultural Non-tourism-related 3.3702 impacts Negative Tourism-related 2.9494 1177.500 -2.036 .042 sociocultural Non-tourism-related 2.5887 impacts Positive Tourism-related 3.4706 1147.000 -2.084 .037 environmental Non-tourism-related 3.1474 impacts Negative Tourism-related 2.4235 1594.000 -.266 .790 environmental Non-tourism-related 2.3475 impacts Evaluation of Tourism-related 2.4375 1379.000 -.101 .919 tourism impacts Non-tourism-related 2.4114 General Tourism-related 3.1471 1439.000 -.936 .349 Non-tourism-related 3.2923

5.11.3 Involvement in tourism This section presents the findings that were made in relation to the test for differences in perceived tourism impacts between respondents working in the tourism industry and those who did not. Table 5.38 represents the results that were obtained using the A Mann–Whitney U Test. The above-mentioned table shows that no significant difference was found in terms of: negative economic impacts (Yes (M = 2.726) and No (M = 2.738) employees, U = 5378.5, z = -0.285, ρ = 0.775); positive sociocultural impacts (Yes (M = 3.128) and No (M = 2.940) employees, U = 5062.5, z = -1,559, ρ = 0.119); negative environmental impacts (Yes (M = 2.343) and No (M = 2.312) employees, U = 5783, z = -0.129, ρ = 0.897); the evaluation of tourism impacts (Yes (M = 2.595) and No (M = 2.336) employees, U = 4043, z 109

= -1.553, ρ = 0.120); and general impacts (Yes (M = 3.388) and No (M = 3.291) employees, U = 5224.5, z = -0.666, ρ = 0,505).

Conversely, the findings also showed that significant differences were found in terms of: positive economic impacts (Yes (M = 3.232) and No (M = 2.966) employees, U = 4686.5, z = -1.965, ρ = 0.049); negative sociocultural impacts (Yes (M = 2.745) and No (M = 2.609) employees, U = 5375.5, z = -0.846, ρ = 0.397); and positive environmental impacts (Yes (M = 3.189) and No (M = 3.138) employees, U = 5375.5, z = -0.526, ρ = 0.599).

Table 5.38: Mann–Whitney U Test tourism-related versus non-tourism-related Mean Mann- Z ρ-value Whitney U Positive economic Yes 3.2328 4686.500 -1.966 .049 impacts No 2.9669 Negative economic Yes 2.7270 5378.500 -.286 .775 impacts No 2.7387 Positive sociocultural Yes 3.1284 5062.500 -1.559 .119 impacts No 3.1284 Negative Yes 3.1284 5375.500 -0.847 .397 sociocultural impacts No 2.6092 Positive Yes 3.1893 5289.000 -0.526 .599 environmental No 3.1383 impacts Negative Yes 2.3440 5783.000 -.129 .897 environmental No 2.3120 impacts Evaluation of tourism Yes 2.5952 5783.000 -1.554 .120 impacts No 2.3363

5.11.4 Perceived tourism impacts and age This section presents the findings that were made in response to the test for differences in perceived tourism impacts between the different age groups of the respondents. The one-way between-group analysis of variance (see Appendix C Table 5.39) was conducted to explore the impact of age on the different types of impacts experienced. The respondents were divided into five groups (Group 1: 18–24 years old, Group 2: 25–34 years old, Group 3: 35–44 years old, Group 4: 45–54 years old, Group 5: 55 years old and older). No significant difference was found at the ρ<0.05 level opinion levels for the five age groups mentioned and for all the impact types involved, namely positive economic impacts (F(4.291) = 1.893, ρ = 0.112); negative economic impacts (F(4.278) = 0.939, ρ = 0.442); positive sociocultural impacts (F(4.294) = 1.639, ρ = 0.164); negative sociocultural impacts (F(4.291) = 0.863, ρ = 0.487); positive environmental impacts (F(4.288) = 2.022, ρ = 0.091); negative environmental impacts (S(4,262,182) = 1.51, ρ = 0.197); the evaluation of tourism impacts ((4 231 171) = 0.507, ρ = 0.731); and the general impacts (F(4.288) = 1.514, ρ = 0.198).

110

5.11.5 Perceived tourism impacts and education level In this section of the results, the results that were obtained for tests for differences in the perceived tourism impacts between different education level groups of the respondents are presented (see Table 5.40). The one-way between-group analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of the level of education and the perceptions of all impact types. The respondents were divided into four groups (Group 1: None or completed primary school; Group 2: Completed secondary or high school; Group 3: College graduate or busy with undergraduate degree; Group 4: Busy with postgraduate degree). In terms of positive economic impacts, a significant difference was discerned at the ρ<0.05 level opinion levels for the four different education levels (F(3.280) = 2.759, ρ = 0.043). Post-hoc comparisons using the Hochberg test indicated that the mean scores for Group 2(M = 2.820) were significantly different to those of Group 4(M = 3.178). Furthermore, the negative economic impacts also indicated a significant difference at the ρ<0.05 level opinion levels for the four different education levels (F(3.267) = 6.750, ρ<0.000). Post-hoc comparisons using the Hochberg test indicated that the mean scores for Group 3(M = 2.569) were significantly different to those from groups 1(M = 3.102) and 4(M = 3.021).

The remaining impact type and educational level groups of respondents yielded no significant difference at the ρ<0.05 level opinion levels for the four different education levels, namely positive sociocultural impacts (F(3.284) = 1.718, ρ = 0.164); negative sociocultural impacts (F(3.280) = 1.830, ρ = 0.142); positive environmental impacts (F(3.277) = 0.458, ρ = 0.712); negative environmental impacts (F(3.281) = 1.546, ρ = 0.203); the evaluation of tourism impacts (F(3.254) = 0.190, ρ = 0.903); and the general impacts (F(3.276) = 0.626, ρ = 0.599).

111

Table 5.40: Differences in age groups in terms of ANOVA Descriptive N Mean Std ANOVA Deviation F ρ-value Positive economic impacts None, or completed primary school 22 3.1214 .48299 2.7586 0.0426 Completed secondary, or high, school 51 2.8204 .70010 College graduate, or busy with undergraduate 151 2.9935 .74138 degree Busy with postgraduate degree 60 3.1789 .56337 Total 284 3.0115 .68923 Negative economic impacts None, or completed primary school 22 3.1023 .64751 6.7501 0.0002 Completed secondary, or high, school 48 2.6510 .83114 College graduate or busy with undergraduate 142 2.5698 .78045 degree Busy with postgraduate degree 59 3.0212 .73003 Total 271 2.7257 .79362 Positive sociocultural impacts None, or completed primary school 23 3.2370 .50973 1.7175 0.1635 Completed secondary, or high, school 53 2.8780 .64786 College graduate, or busy with undergraduate 151 2.9224 .77819 degree Busy with postgraduate degree 61 3.0350 .69535 Total 288 2.9632 .72309 Negative sociocultural impacts None, or completed primary school 22 2.8834 .61401 1.8299 0.1419 Completed secondary, or high, school 52 2.6927 .72691 College graduate, or busy with undergraduate 149 2.5600 .68422 degree Busy with postgraduate degree 61 2.6979 .69199 Total 284 2.6390 .69192 Positive environmental impacts None, or completed primary school 22 3.2795 .41538 0.4576 0.7121 Completed secondary, or high, school 52 3.1904 .71499 College graduate or busy with undergraduate 148 3.1238 .72267 degree Busy with postgraduate degree 59 3.1051 .69373 Total 281 3.1444 .69448 Negative environmental impacts None, or completed primary school 23 2.5319 .69059 1.5464 0.2027 Completed secondary, or high, school 53 2.3377 .82835 College graduate, or busy with undergraduate 149 2.2113 .82722 degree Busy with postgraduate degree 60 2.4142 .92251 Total 285 2.3034 .84111 Evaluation of tourism impacts None, or completed primary school 19 2.3158 .65001 0.1895 0.9035 Completed secondary, or high, school 45 2.4111 .97869 College graduate or busy with undergraduate 139 2.3489 .86948 degree Busy with postgraduate degree 55 2.4364 .82245 Total 258 2.3760 .86216 General None, or completed primary school 21 3.4048 .53896 0.6259 0.5988 Completed secondary, or high, school 53 3.3585 .70967 College graduate, or busy with undergraduate 147 3.2891 .61912 degree Busy with postgraduate degree 59 3.2203 .71481 Total 280 3.2964 .65143

112

5.11.6 Perceived tourism impacts and length of stay in Bulawayo This section describes the results that were obtained for the test for differences in perceived tourism impacts between lengths of stay of residents (see Appendix D Table 5.41). The one-way between-group analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of the respondents’ duration of stay. The respondents were divided into five groups (Group 1: Less than 10 years; Group 2: 10-19 years; Group 3: 20-29 years; Group 4: 30-39 years; Group 5: 40 years or more). The test for positive economic impacts showed that there was a significant difference at the ρ<0.05 level opinion levels for the five different duration periods (F(4.290) = 4.917, ρ = 0.001). Post-hoc comparisons using the Hochberg test indicated that the mean scores for Group 1(M = 2.789) were significantly different to those that were obtained for groups 4(M = 3.245) and 5(M = 3.271).

Likewise, positive sociocultural impacts showed that there was a significant difference at the ρ<0.05 level opinion levels for the five duration periods (F(4.293) = 2.988, ρ = 0.019). Post-hoc comparisons using the Hochberg test indicated that the mean score for Group 5(M = 3.331) was significantly different to those that were obtained for groups 1(M = 2.886) and 2(M = 2.885). Furthermore, positive environmental impacts showed that there was a significant difference at the ρ<0.05 level opinion levels for the five duration periods (F(4.287) = 6.452, ρ = 0.000). Post-hoc comparisons using the Hochberg test indicated that the mean scores for Group 1(M = 2.930) were significantly different from those that were obtained for groups 4(M = 3.45) and 5(M = 3.493). The test also indicated that the mean scores for Group 3(M = 3.073) were significantly different from those that were obtained for groups 4(M = 3.45) and 5(M = 3.493).

For the rest of the impact types and the length of stay, no significant difference ρ<0.05 were found between opinion levels for the five duration periods i.e. negative economic impacts (F(4.277) = 0.439, ρ = 0.780); negative sociocultural impacts (F(4.290) = 1.671, ρ = 0.157); negative environmental impacts (F(4.291) = 1.116, ρ = 0.349); evaluation of tourism impacts (F(4.263) = 2.199, ρ = 0.069) and general impacts (F(4.287) = 0.816, ρ = 0.516).

5.11.7 Perceived tourism impacts and household income Table 5.42 (Appendix E) shows the results of the Kruskal–Wallis Test that was performed to determine the differences between perceived impacts of tourism and the respondent’s household income groups (Group 1: 0–100 USD; Group 2: 101–500 USD; Group 3: 501–1500 USD; Group 4: 1501 USD and above). The test revealed no statistically significant differences in the opinion levels of positive economic impacts across the four income levels (X2(3) = 2.349, ρ = 0.503); of positive sociocultural impacts across the four income levels (X2(3) = 1.074, ρ = 0.783); of positive environmental impacts

113 across the four income levels (X2(3) = 2.057, ρ = 0.561); of negative environmental impacts across the four income levels (X2(3) = 0.540, ρ = 0.910); and of the evaluation of tourism impacts across the four income levels (X2(3) = 1.666, ρ = 0.644).

A statistically significant difference in opinion levels on the general impacts across the four income levels (Group 1: 0–100 USD; Group 2: 101–500 USD; Group 3: 501–1500 USD; Group 4: 1501 USD and above), X2(3) = 8.877, ρ = 0.031. Post-hoc comparisons using the Mann–Whitney test indicated that the mean scores for Group 1(M = 3.486) were significantly different from those for Group 2(M = 3.258).

5.12 General key informant views On initiatives undertaken by organisations in Bulawayo to promote tourism The key informants were asked to explain what initiatives they had undertaken to promote tourism in Bulawayo. A ZTA respondent stated that they had been conducting research in partnership with other stakeholders to identify and enable a pilot project that would be used to sell the idea of CBT, in addition to which they had also demarcated tourism development zones to promote the growth of tourism. Furthermore, some of the respondents indicated that they promoted domestic tourism through the introduction of the ;stay now, pay later’ policy, in terms of which Zimbabwean citizens were allowed to use accommodation facilities without paying upfront, but instead utilising a payment plan that entailed paying for the accommodation at a later date. A respondent from a travel agency stated that, to promote tourism in Bulawayo, they have run awareness campaigns, including road shows, in communities in Bulawayo, so that people are aware of tourism in their areas, and also of their own traditions and local cuisine. Additionally, the respondents indicated that they marketed tourism attractions and destinations in Bulawayo when they marketed their companies. Such marketing used appropriate tools, like poster adverts, online promotions, and pamphlets. A key informant from one of the hotels in Bulawayo declared that they promoted tourism through skills development, as tourism is a labour-intensive service sector.

On challenges faced by tourism organisations in Bulawayo The respondents were asked what challenges they had encountered in relation to tourism. The respondents expressed that lack of funding had seen a deterioration of the infrastructure in particular road networks, thus making some places inaccessible. According to one of the respondents, there was a lack of proper funding for product improvement and technological advancement, which frustrated their efforts. The ZTA respondent expressed a belief that the economic downturn had resulted in a decrease in the amount of disposable income available, making it difficult for locals to travel and support local tourism. The respondents said that the fact that corporates were also facing financial constraints had put a limit on the realisation of their corporate social responsibilities towards the local communities. In 114 addition, the respondents listed high operational costs and taxes, security challenges, and safety and political challenges, as some of the barriers that they had encountered in trying to promote tourism and maintain their businesses.

The respondent from a tour operator in Bulawayo stated that the challenges encountered included low volumes of visitors coming to Bulawayo, which impacted on business growth and profits, as well as on tourism development in Bulawayo as a whole. Additional challenges, according to the respondents, included that the city also faced much competition from other areas, such as Harare and Victoria Falls, which were seen as better destination options in Zimbabwe, as they were seen to have more or better attractions than did Bulawayo. Most visitors seemed to prefer going to those destinations than visiting Bulawayo. In addition, a respondent explained that, with the economy not doing well and with the market shrinkage, there were more employees than they required, and no money with which to pay them.

The respondents also mentioned the lack of research and development as part of the challenges that they faced as businesses, and in promoting Bulawayo as a destination of choice. Furthermore, they explained that Zimbabweans had not yet adopted the tourism products on offer, as they believed that the products were meant for foreigners, or for the rich, despite tourism businesses having made them affordable for all, including the average citizens. The respondents suggested that the community members should own the tourism products in their areas in order to preclude such ownership issues as poaching, and so as to shrink the amount of land degradation taking place. The government should ensure that the locals are empowered through encouraging their participation in resource, including land, ownership and in funding projects, such as the CAMPFIRE (Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources) project, which could be re-initiated so as to ensure that the local communities benefit from tourism activities in their area.

On the role played by organisations in encouraging residents to participate in tourism-related activities The ZTA respondent accepted that an active and pivotal role had to be taken in educating the residents about tourism and its benefits. The ZTA was already conducting school awareness programmes to educate children about tourism, as they strongly believed in the policy of ‘catching them young’. Furthermore, the respondents indicated that they could educate the locals about STD and about such environmental preservation measures as how to avoid veldt fires. The ZTA respondent also mentioned that, as an authority, they needed to encourage the operators to devise special rates that were tailor- made for the locals, making them affordable and attractive to the residents, as they believed that

115 domestic tourism was the key to boosting tourism in Bulawayo, and in Zimbabwe as a whole. As a way to advocate for cultural diversity, the respondents believed that the locals should be encouraged to participate at all levels of tourism development, such as in planning, policy and strategy development and implementation. Such participation should instil a sense of national and cultural pride, and it should also help to preserve the rich culture and history that were seen as a primary attraction for Bulawayo as a destination.

The respondents from the travel agency expressed a belief that, if the organisations were to incentivise the community through giving them a stake in tourism by way of making them shareholders, they might encourage the latter to participate more in tourism development than they do at present, and doing so might also inculcate a sense of ownership of the tourist products in Bulawayo. The respondents mentioned that, as a form of participation, tourism organisations could employ the residents of Bulawayo, instead of utilising people from outside the area. They said that communities could also be employed in all tourism activities, no matter whether such employment utilises skilled or unskilled labour. If possible, especially in the prime tourist areas, funds should be set aside to educate and train the locals with the required skills to enable them to avoid being a source of unskilled and therefore low- paid labour.

5.13 Chapter summary The current chapter presented the data collected and further analysed the results of the study. The residents’ views differed from one another, with the various demographic groups perceiving the impacts of tourism differently, even though they lived in the same geographical area. The chapter revealed how different demographic characteristics, such as gender, age, education level, length of stay, and household income, could affect the residents’ perceptions. Most of the respondents expressed a belief that the impacts of tourism were more positive than they were negative, with relation to all of the impacts felt in their area. The views of some of the key informants in Bulawayo were also discussed in the chapter, with most of them highlighting the initiatives that they had carried out to promote tourism in Zimbabwe, what challenges they had encountered, and what role they envisaged as playing, as tourism organisations, to encourage the residents to participate in tourism activities in Bulawayo. The views of the key informants were included to complement the residents’ views, so as to avoid bias in the research. The next, and final, chapter looks at the conclusions and recommendations for stakeholders involved in the development of tourism in Bulawayo.

116

CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Introduction The previous chapter, Chapter Five, was dedicated to presenting and discussing the findings of the study in relation to the residents’ perceptions of tourism in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. This chapter provides a summary of the study, in terms of the conclusions drawn, based on the predefined objectives that were stated in Chapter One. In addition to making appropriate recommendations for future research in the area, the current chapter also presents the study limitations, and proposes areas for future research endeavours.

6.2 Summary of key findings In the current section, the results of the research are synthesised and presented on the basis of the predefined study objectives that were previously set out in the first chapter of the dissertation. The study found similarities and differences in the responses that were received from the residents in terms of their perceptions of tourism impacts in Bulawayo.

6.2.1 Summary of the profiles of residents in Bulawayo Overall, participants in the current study were mainly women, within the age range of 18 to 85 years old. Most of the respondents had lived for between 10 and 40 years in Bulawayo. They were mostly married, and besides English, spoke the indigenous languages, Ndebele and Shona. The study revealed that, overall, the respondents were engaged in low-income jobs, despite the majority of them being relatively well-educated. Very few of them worked in the tourism sector. Consequently, their understanding of what tourism constituted, and their knowledge of the subject, could be described as fair.

6.3 Conclusion based on study objectives Objective one (to ascertain the level of awareness and knowledge about the concept of tourism in Bulawayo)

In achieving the first objective, the current study found that the respondents generally displayed a good level of understanding of the concept of tourism. Such understanding could, at least in part, be explained by the fact that the majority of the respondents were fairly well educated, giving them a reasonable chance of knowing about, and being aware of, the nature of tourism. The high level of understanding of tourism was quite impressive, however, when it was seen in terms of the different types of responses that were given by the respondents regarding the concept of tourism.

117

Although some of the respondents had a great deal, or a moderate amount, of knowledge of the concept of tourism, what was of concern was the fact that most of the respondents were just aware of the concept, but either had no knowledge of, or were just not sure about, what tourism entailed, so that they tended not to be able to define it. In addition, another concern was the fact that some respondents had never come into contact with tourists, and they totally failed to grasp the role of the local government in tourism. Such a finding is particularly disturbing in that the government has sought to prioritise tourism development as a key sector in the economic development strategy of the country. Existing scholarship has underscored the fact that participation and community support only happen when the community members have as high a level of understanding as do the other stakeholders involved. If the former’s knowledge of tourism is scant, a risk is posed of there being no participation or support from the local members (Aref, Redzuan & Gill, 2009a/b). Morscado (2008) emphasises the need for CCB, especially in communities where tourism development is new to the host destination. The concept of CCB is explained in length in the recommendations given later on in the current chapter, as such capacity is crucial if suitable opportunities and benefits are to be sought by residents in terms of tourism.

Objective two (to determine whether, and how, the residents are involved in tourism in Bulawayo)

In achieving the second objective, firstly, the results show that only a very small percentage of the respondents were involved in the field of tourism. The finding in this respect was disconcerting, because tourism is meant to benefit the local residents, and a major economic benefit of tourism that has been identified, and that has been widely discussed in the relevant literature, is the fact that tourism is a labour-intensive industry, providing the local residents with jobs, and hence improving their quality of life. In Bulawayo, only a few of the respondents reported that they were, in fact, employed in the field of tourism.

Secondly, when the respondents were asked about their level of influence in tourism development, the results were disappointing, as over three-quarters of the respondents indicated that they either had no, or very little, influence over tourism planning and development. Only a few had an opportunity to participate in tourism planning and development. The results that were obtained in this regard are concerning, and they illuminate a tourism policy and strategy implementation gap that must be closed in terms of the future involvement of the tourism authorities in the area. Whether lack of involvement can be blamed on the lack of interest of the community, or on failings in the implementation of government policy, there is an urgent need continuously to seek out ways of ensuring that the community members

118 are involved in tourism at all levels. A concerted effort entailing the undertaking of sensitisation exercises and education on tourism, among other endeavours, could assist in this regard.

Thirdly, the study found that very few of the residents in Bulawayo were involved in tourism in a number of different ways. Prominently, many such residents were either directly or indirectly employed in paid jobs generated by the tourism sector. Some owned a tourism establishment or business(es) in the area, while others viewed their involvement as being tourists themselves, since they regularly travelled and visited attractions in other parts of the province and country.

In sum, the absence in Bulawayo of meaningful community involvement, such as in planning, in policy formulation, and in the development process of tourism in the area, raises critical questions about the long-term sustainability of the industry in Bulawayo and Zimbabwe, generally.

The limited involvement of the residents, if it is not rectified as a matter of urgency, might lead to a low level of local support from them in terms of their willingness to contribute to tourism development in their communities in future. The SET, as has been explained in terms of the conceptual framework (see Chapter Two), dictates that, for the residents to support any form of tourism development in their area, they must accrue some benefit therefrom. Also, when the residents are engaged and involved in all stages of tourism development, they are bound to support it, as they then come to feel part of it, and to feel a sense of ownership towards it. The involvement of residents in such development, and their accrual of benefits therefrom their results in them giving it support, and overall, and most importantly, it should lead to greater STD in the area than might otherwise have occurred. Thus, the conceptual framework that was adopted in the current study has been particularly useful in terms of its developmental insights.

Objective three (to examine the initiatives being undertaken by the relevant authorities to support the local communities’ maximisation of tourism opportunities in Bulawayo)

In achieving this objective, interviews were conducted with key informant organisations in Bulawayo, as was detailed in Chapter Four on the methodology employed in the study. The organisation representatives who were interviewed discussed some of the initiatives in which they claimed to be involved, including educating students and the community about tourism, giving them incentives, encouraging the development of domestic tourism, and conducting site tours to encourage the heightening of levels of awareness among the locals regarding the tourism industry, to mention but a few. Although the organisations in question showed great interest in coming up with such initiatives to support the local communities in maximising tourism opportunities in Bulawayo, the extent of the success that had been achieved in implementing such initiatives is unknown, and exceeds the scope of 119 the current research. Furthermore, what was not forthcoming from the key informants, especially from the one from the ZTA, was the success rate achieved by the CAMPFIRE programme, which attempts to gain rural community support for tourism, and to change the perceptions of the local residents in such areas to a positive awareness of the benefits that can be brought about by the industry. The government created the programme for residents living in and around tourism destinations, with the intention of benefiting the locals through eliciting their participation in the sustainable use of wildlife resources (Chibaya, 2013). Bulawayo-based organisations also need to apply the concept to try and help the local residents to benefit from such a programme. For example, those living around such wildlife areas as the Matopo National Park, the Tshabala Sanctuary, and the Chipangali Orphanage Park should be able to benefit from the parks that are situated in their area of residence. Such benefits could take the form of employment and opportunities for them to sell their handcrafted arts and craft and other souvenirs to tourists.

Objective four (to explore the residents’ perceptions of the impacts associated with tourism in Bulawayo)

This objective focused on the triple bottom line approach to understanding the nature of tourism impacts (economic, sociocultural and environmental). The respondents seemed to believe that, economically, tourism was more beneficial for, than it was risky to, the residents of Bulawayo. Among the benefits mentioned, the residents noted that tourism brought about such positive impacts as job creation, foreign exchange earnings, investment in the infrastructure, and an increase in funding for the conservation and preservation of natural resources and the ecological environment. The most positive benefit that tourism brings about, in terms of regional development, is an increase in the markets for local products and services, with tourism encouraging investment in the infrastructural development in Bulawayo. In contrast, the major negative economic impacts of concern in Bulawayo seem to be that tourism increases the cost of living, such as raising the prices of local products and imported necessities, and causes seasonality of income, causing instability in the local economy. The finding that was made in this respect supports the existing literature on the main negative economic impacts of tourism, especially for developing nations, in terms of the seasonal nature of tourism and the tendency of tourism activity to inflate the cost of living and the cost of goods and services in the local areas, leaving the host community disadvantaged.

With regards to the sociocultural impacts of tourism, the respondents seemed to reflect that there were more positive benefits than negative ones. However, they indicated that such negative impacts as the standardisation of goods and services, the commodification of the local culture, and the levels of imitation of tourist behaviour and lifestyle were very high in the community. Again, such a phenomenon 120 is widely acknowledged in the existing literature that deals with the negative impacts of tourism on the host communities.

Furthermore, looking at the environmental impacts of tourism, the respondents indicated that there were more positive impacts than negative ones in Bulawayo. The major positive impacts cited were that public places were maintained at a better standard of hygiene, and that tourism was contributing to the preservation of the natural environment and to the protection of wildlife, as well as to the management of protected areas, by means of helping to ensure environmental and ecosystem protection. The most concerning negative impact identified was that tourism was seen to add pressure to the limited water and energy supply. The finding that was made in this respect might have been influenced by the fact that Bulawayo, and Zimbabwe as a whole, had encountered a shortage of water and electricity for the previous few years. Accordingly, the respondents might have felt that tourism activity worsened the shortage.

Statistical testing and group comparisons in terms of the demographic characteristics (age, gender, employment, involvement in tourism, education, income, and length of stay in Bulawayo) of the residents, and the attitude towards tourism impact types across 8 constructs (positive economic impacts; negative economic impacts; positive sociocultural impacts; negative sociocultural impacts; positive environmental impacts; negative environmental impacts; evaluation of tourism impacts; and general impacts) revealed no significant differences (ρ<0.05) in terms of many of the responses received.

However, significant differences (ρ>0.05) were observed in the following: gender and positive sociocultural and environmental impact; work (tourism vs non-tourism); and positive environmental / negative sociocultural impact; involvement and positive economic/environmental impact / negative sociocultural impact; education and positive/negative economic impact; length of stay in Bulawayo; and positive economic/sociocultural impact; household income; and general impact. Furthermore, analysis in terms of the age groups revealed significant differences across all 8 constructs.

Overall, the residents of Bulawayo had more positive perceptions of the impacts of tourism on their communities. This was a good start for STD, as it could mean that the residents were supportive of tourism development in their community. It is important for the local government to take into consideration the views of the residents in an urban setting like Bulawayo, so that the development that occurs is more sustainable than it might otherwise be.

121

Objective five (to forward recommendations based on the key findings of the study to relevant authorities concerned with the planning and implementation of policy and strategic frameworks aimed at developing tourism in Bulawayo and Zimbabwe in general)

The final objective was to forward the recommendations based on the key findings of the study to the relevant authorities concerned with the planning and implementation of policy. In addition, the study aimed at formulating recommendations that could assist in the creation of strategic frameworks aimed at developing tourism in Bulawayo, and in Zimbabwe in general. In this regard, and on the basis of the results that were gathered and analysed, the researcher provides the recommendations in the following subsections to the respective stakeholders in tourism.

6.4 Recommendations 6.4.1 To the government and the public sector The government, as the major stakeholder in tourism, should be actively involved in the tourism sector (Goeldner et al., 2009). In playing an active role in Bulawayo, they should make sure that they formulate policies and promotion strategies that will assist in developing tourism in the area.

Firstly, for tourism to gain more momentum in Bulawayo, the government should include a cross section of community members more than they are being included at the moment, in all stages of tourism development. As was shown in the results of the preceding chapter, the respondents indicated that they had little or no opportunity to participate in tourism development. As has been pointed out in the literature by various scholars, the destination residents should be given an opportunity to participate in, or to be involved with, all processes of tourism development, such as in tourism planning and development (Michael, 2009; Sebele, 2010; Phiri, 2009; Amuquandoh, 2010). The government has a duty to ensure that the residents are involved in tourism in one or other capacity i.e through consultation in tourism planning.

As another way of including the residents, the government could make sure that they employ the locals, rather than outsiders, in the tourism projects and jobs that are available. Where outsiders are employed, such employment should be arranged on a contractual basis, with a medium-term plan and mandate in place to groom the locals for the positions involved, as a way of ensuring capacity building and sustainable development. The government should also encourage the companies that invest in tourism development, or that start tourism projects in Bulawayo, to limit the outsourcing of labour as much as possible by employing people from the destination, as doing so would help to improve the quality of life of the residents, as well as help to curb the problem of leakage. This, in turn, should lead to the

122 bettering of relations between the investors and the communities around which they operate, thus increasing the possibility of the long-term sustainability of the projects concerned.

Another cause for concern that requires attention from the government is the fact that most of the respondents thought that the benefits from tourism went to the government and to officials in the tourism industry. The government has the responsibility to ensure that the benefits from tourism development trickle down to the community members. Special care should be taken, especially in regard to the economic benefits given to the local residents, as the results indicated that few had benefited economically from tourism development in Bulawayo. The bestowing of economic benefits would encourage the community members to participate more in tourism development than they did at the time of the current study, as numerous studies have emphasised that the more that residents feel included in, the more they tend to want to contribute towards, tourism development.

Subsequently, the government should double their efforts in ensuring that there are tourism awareness programmes in place such as public lectures on tourism. This should be done to increase the understanding of tourism, or to build up community capacity among residents, as a few indicated they had no idea, or they were not sure, of what tourism is. Increasing their awareness levels would help the residents to understand the importance of tourism development in their community, and what sort of impacts it brings with it, which would help them to make informed decisions about it. In addition to awareness issues, the government should also educate people on such environmental issues as the importance of the environment, how to conserve and preserve the environment, and which green initiatives people could adopt. As a way of taking the initiative, the local government could start by initiating simple waste management systems, such as providing more waste bins in public areas, so that Bulawayo is kept clean, and so that people do not litter because of the lack of refuse bins in which to dispose of their discards.

Interestingly, the lack of marketing of tourism in Bulawayo has been cited as being a barrier to successful tourism development. The government should engage in more extensive marketing initiatives than at present if tourism is to be successful in Bulawayo. The respondents indicated that they had not come into contact with tourists, which could indicate that there was a low traffic of tourists in the area because of a lack of marketing of Bulawayo as a destination, despite the city being perceived as having a rich culture and heritage. The matter requires attention from the government if Bulawayo is to cash in on tourism. Such strategies as encouraging domestic tourism should be adopted, especially keeping in mind that Zimbabwe has a relatively poor standing abroad, so that it is relatively difficult to attract visitors from outside the country.

123

Moreover, the government should also work on defining stakeholder roles in tourism, making sure that everyone understands their duty and that of the other stakeholders. The ZTA was not clear on who was responsible for leadership in the tourism arena, despite all others seeming to think that it was the ZTA’s responsibility. The sound definition of roles should help to ensure that everyone knows what they are expected to do, which would result in transparency and in the upliftment of all concerned. The government should lead the associated endeavour to ensure that all stakeholders are involved in, at the very least, some aspect of tourism.

As shown in the results, tourism in development in Bulawayo also comes with negative impacts. It is the role of the government to find ways to curb or reduce such impacts, and to encourage the community members, especially the poor. Such initiatives could include PPT, CBT, domestic tourism, responsible tourism, and the enforcing of such laws as those pertaining to carrying capacity, where applicable. Such initiatives as PPT and CBT lay their emphasis on the residents, encouraging local participation and involvement in tourism development. Furthermore, such participation might also encourage awareness among the residents, which, in turn, could promote the sustainable development of tourism in Bulawayo. Such concepts mean that the underprivileged should be able to access tourism resources and markets, and that the benefits to accrue from tourism can be enjoyed by all. More importantly, this would accelerate CCB, which would help to ensure that community members are knowledgeable about tourism, thereby helping them to be more entrepreneurial than they were found to be at the time of the current study.

In addition, the owners and managers of hotel accommodation were found to be of the view that their rooms were affordable for everyone. However, not all of the respondents were of the belief that the accommodation concerned was affordable, especially for the domestic tourists. The public sector should, therefore, strive to devise ways of ensuring that the accommodation that is on offer is affordable for domestic tourists. For example, special rates could be set at a cheaper, tailor-made price for only the domestic travellers.

Moreover, the government should work towards promoting public–private corporations in developing tourism Cooperative work among the various stakeholders is urgently required so as to grow the tourism potential, in terms of enhancing the Bulawayo economy. As the public and private sectors work together, more ideas will come to be explored than were explored in the past. Tourism development will also be facilitated, as most challenges will be addressed as each sector brings light to bear on the different resources that are available to them, and which possibly the other sectors lack. Dieke (2008) suggests that, if such challenges as infrastructural development are to be resolved, the government and the private sector at the various destinations in Africa should work together and invest time and effort on

124 fixing the problems involved. A destination like Bulawayo should also consider investing in its tourism infrastructure as a way of improving tourism in the region, with such endeavour being the mandate of the government in collaboration with the private sector. Consequently, much attention has to be given to improving the infrastructure in Bulawayo. Infrastructure is a vital component of tourism, and the key informant interviews were characterised by the sharing of a common concern regarding the dilapidated infrastructure that existed in Bulawayo at the time of the study. The government should, consequently, make an effort to improve the infrastructure such as roads and airports, so as to make Bulawayo more accessible as a destination. As some key respondents indicated that the accommodation that was available was not of a high standard, with most accommodation being only 3-star, places of accommodation should be upgraded. Three-star accommodation is insufficient for tourists, as some require 5-star accommodation, as they are accustomed to such comfort. Those tourist destinations that invest in their infrastructure tend to flourish.

As a way of boosting tourism knowledge and growth in Bulawayo, and in Zimbabwe as a whole, the government and the public sector could introduce tourism education and training at high school level, as has been done in neighbouring South Africa. The citizens would then be equipped with a better understanding of tourism from a younger age than they had at the time of the study, which could have a positive impact on the improving of skills development towards the obtaining of customer satisfaction and service excellence, which are prerequisites for the tourism industry. In addition, the above could result in extensive research in tourism for Bulawayo, resulting in an improved understanding of tourism products, and of which ones, in particular, to capitalise on, so as to gain additional benefits for the destination and the community, as Rogerson and Visser (2006) suggest for the improvement of tourism destinations.

Another way in which the government could come to play a more active role in tourism than at present would be if the government could engage in identifying new tourism typologies that could boost the image of Bulawayo, as a way of bringing in more tourists. Hosting a major sporting event will be important in this regard. In line with the same school of thought, the government should pay more attention than at present to the concept of regionalism among the SADC countries, with Zimbabwe combining its attractions with those of its neighbouring countries, and marketing them as a whole. Doing so could help to divert the tourists from looking at Zimbabwe in terms of its tarnished image alone, and it should serve to encourage them to visit the country during their visits to other southern African countries.

Of strategic importance is the fact that Zimbabwe has so far been operating without a comprehensive tourism policy. Formulating such a (as is currently being done) policy would provide guidelines as to

125 how to shape the tourism industry in Bulawayo, and in Zimbabwe as a whole. In addition, the policy, if comprehensive and flexible, could further promote local community involvement, stakeholder collaboration, initiatives for boosting tourism development, and increased investment, especially in terms of the infrastructure. The policy could also include a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis of the tourism industry in Bulawayo, and throughout Zimbabwe. Such an analysis would help the country, and all tourism destinations like Bulawayo, to have a starting point from which to capitalise on the available strengths and opportunities, and from which to work on mitigating the weaknesses, threats and challenges that have long prevailed at African destinations, as was shown in the literature review.

6.4.2 To the private sector In many countries the world over, such as South Africa, the tourism industry is highly dominated by the private sector. Additionally, the sector is widely acknowledged to be the biggest economic driver of the industry. As such, they should increase their efforts of further investment in the study area, as there is an abundance of tourism potential therein, while ensuring that they strengthen the relations with the host community of Bulawayo. This should be done in an attempt to aim at the sustainable development of tourism, and at ensuring that the benefits of tourism are distributed to the people.

The private sector, in collaboration with other stakeholders, should devise ways of promoting tourism development in Bulawayo. Some initiatives might involve employing people from Bulawayo to work for them, by marketing tourism in the city in collaboration with the marketing of their companies, and engaging in awareness campaigns to educate the community members of the vibrant tourism sector in the city. The education should include suggesting to the local residents how they can become involved involved in the sector, and how they can contribute towards improving the infrastructure, the limitation of which seems to have been a major barrier to tourism development so far.

6.4.3 To the community Many of the key informants were concerned that the community members did not show an interest in involving themselves in the tourism development projects in Bulawayo. The community members should increasingly engage themselves in tourism, familiarising themselves with tourism products that are available in their community. If the residents were involved in tourism, they could air their concerns about the impacts of the industry, and they could also contribute their ideas that might otherwise have been overlooked by the other stakeholders. In addition, involving them could facilitate their gain from tourism development, which would help to ensure that they feel part of the process. As explained by Moscardo (2006), most African communities have not yet understood the importance of tourism, nor do they see themselves as tourists, as they think that only people from other parts of the world are meant

126 to travel. In this regard, the study recommends that the community of Bulawayo take ownership of the tourism industry in their locality, by participating in the development initiatives that are in place, and by ensuring that any concerns that they have regarding such endeavours are voiced through the proper channels. 6.5 Limitations of the study The current study was limited to the views of some of the residents of Bulawayo and to just a few key informants, with not all of the residents of Bulawayo being interviewed. Although the sample size was met, caution should be observed when generalising the study findings considering that, the views were mainly linked to the residents in urban Bulawayo. The voices of residents in the rural parts of the province has not been heard. Such voices may echo a different tune in terms of the results.

6.6 Future direction The present study has assessed the perceptions of the residents on the impacts of tourism in Bulawayo. Based on the study findings and on the remarks made by the participants, several studies could be conducted that would complement the study, and which would add to empirical evidence that is required to inform the development of a sustainable approach to tourism development in Zimbabwe generally. Of urgent concern is determining the factors that inhibit the involvement of local residents in tourism. Such a study must analyse the effectiveness of tourism policy and the adopted strategies that have been designed for the development of the sector.

In addition, studies could look at examining community involvement and participation in tourism development in Bulawayo, which would enable a deepening of the current understanding of whether the community members are involved in tourism development, and how they can participate in, or be involved from, a more qualitative methodological paradigm. Doing so would be particularly useful, as such studies could yield a rich form of data in terms of which relevant themes and focus areas could emerge in detail.

Furthermore, research could be directed at investigating the perceptions of such other stakeholder groups as tourists, and the public and private sectors that are involved in, and that also have an influence on, tourism development. Research like this could help in widening the perspective on tourism development and its impacts in Bulawayo, without suffering from the bias of just the host community’s view. Additionally, further research endeavours could look at how demographic profiles can influence perceptions, such as in terms of the different age groups, income brackets, education levels, and gender of the respondents. Such research could help to determine what really influences the different perspectives of the people from the same community or geographical area, who might otherwise be expected to share the same views. 127

Analysing the impact of resident perceptions is important. Longitudinal studies that focus on such perceptions in the context of Bulawayo and Zimbabwe generally are important, given the fact that tourism has been recognised as being an important sector that can assist in reigniting an ailing economy. Such longitudinal studies could facilitate the monitoring and tracking of changes in perceptions over time. Besides the above, although the sample size in the study was representative, sampling the same survey with the residents in other parts of Bulawayo and Zimbabwe might yield different results.

6.7 Concluding remarks The current study has analysed residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts in Bulawayo, in an attempt to contribute to the body of knowledge concerning the perceptions of residents from a Zimbabwean context. Considering the lack of empirical research focusing on the analysis of such perceptions in Zimbabwe, the study findings make an important contribution towards closing the existing gap. The residents were found to have awareness of both positive and negative impacts that are associated with tourism development in Bulawayo. The study reinforces the importance of the ST, and the principles of STD, as appropriate in analysing the impacts of tourism from a community perspective.

Importantly, and in the face of the development of a new tourism policy that will drive the economy as the ZTA envisages, the study is timely. The research that was undertaken in this regard made clear that there is a need for more awareness campaigns to be undertaken so as to increase the understanding of the tourism industry which ultimately should lead to the deepening of support of tourism development in Bulawayo. Residents of Bulawayo should be included to an increasing extent in the tourism development process, as doing so could increase their levels of awareness and in due course, perhaps increase the amount of resident support. Furthermore, the ZTA with help from other stakeholders, should make sure that the benefits from tourism should reach the community members concerned, as it has been noted that only a few currently benefit from tourism, and that it is mostly only those who are engaged in tourism who gain from such benefits. Any new policy must therefore accommodate the aspects described above.

128

REFERENCES

Abel, S., Nyamadzawo, J., Nyaruwata, S. & Moyo C. (2013) USAID Strategic Economic Research And Analysis – Zimbabwe (Sera) Program Positioning The Zimbabwe Tourism Sector For Growth: Issues And Challenges. USAID. 1, 1-26.

Adetola, B. O. & Adediran, O. R. (2014). Attitudes of local residents towards sustainable ecotourism development in Olumirin Waterfall Southwestern Nigeria. Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies and Management, 7(5):561-571.

Ahmad, A. R., Yusoff, W. F. W., Noor, H. M. & Ramin, A. K. (2012). Preliminary study of rural entrepreneurship development program in Malaysia. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship, 2(1):1-8.

Akama, J. (2011). Efficacy of tourism as a tool for local community development: A case study of Mombasa, Kenya. Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1):1-16.

Akama, J. S. (2000). The efficacy of tourism as a tool for economic development in Kenya. Development Policy Management in Sub-Saharan Africa, 7(1):13-18.

Akama, J. S. & Kieti, D. M. (2007). Tourism and socio-economic development in developing countries: A case study of Mombasa Resort in Kenya. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(6):735- 748.

Akinboade, O. A. & Braimoh, L. A. (2010). International tourism and economic development in South Africa: A Granger causality test. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12(2):149-163.

Almeida-García, F., Peláez-Fernández, M. Á., Balbuena-Vázquez, A. & Cortés-Macias, R Almeida, F., Balbuena, A. & Cortes, R. (2015). Residents' attitudes towards the impacts of tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 13(1):33-40.

Almeida-García, F., Peláez-Fernández, M. Á., Balbuena-Vázquez, A. & Cortés-Macias, R. (2016). Residents’ perceptions of tourism development in Benalmádena (Spain). Tourism Management, 54:259-274.

Ambroz, M. (2008). Attitudes of local residents towards the development of tourism in Slovenia: The case of the Primorska, Dolenjska, Gorenjska and Ljubljana regions. Anthropological Notebooks, 14(1):63-79.

Amuquandoh, F. E. (2010). Residents’ perceptions of the environmental impacts of tourism in the Lake Bosomtwe Basin, Ghana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(2):223-238.

Andereck, K. & Nyaupane, G. (2011). Exploring the nature of tourism and quality of life perceptions among residents. Journal of Travel Research, 50(3):248-260.

Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C. & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(8):1056- 1076.

Ap, J. (1992). Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(1):665- 690.

129

Apostolopoulos, Y., Leivadi, S. & Yiannakis, A. (Editors). (2013). The sociology of tourism: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Beijing: Routledge.

Aref, A. (2011). Rural cooperatives for poverty alleviation in Iran. Life Science Journal, 8(2):38-41.

Aref, F. & Gill, S. S. (2010). Community capacity building in tourism development in local communities. Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(1):81.

Aref, F., Redzuan, M. R., Gill, S. S. & Aref, A. (2010). Community capacity building in tourism development in local communities. Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(1):81.

Aref, F., Redzuan, M. R. & Gill, S. S. (2009a). Community perceptions toward economic and environmental impacts of tourism on local communities. Asian Social Science, 5(7):130.

Aref, F., Redzuan, M. R. & Gill, S. S. (2009b). Community skill & knowledge for tourism development. European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(4):665-671.

Arthur, P. (2012). Rethinking development in Africa through small and medium-scale enterprises (SMEs) in Hanson, K.T., Kararach, G. & Shaw, T.M. (eds) (2012) Rethinking development challenges for public policy: insights from contemporary Africa. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ashley, C. & Jonathan, M. (2009). Can tourism accelerate pro-poor growth in Africa? London: Overseas Development Institute Opinions No. 60. Available from: www.odi.org.uk/publications/opinions. [23 July 2015].

Ashley, C. & Mitchell, J. (2009). Can tourism accelerate pro-poor growth in Africa? Chicago: Routledge.

Ashley, C., & Ntshona, Z. M. (2003). Transforming Roles but not Reality?: Private Sector and Community Involvement in Tourism and Forestry Development on the Wild Coast. Sustainable Livelihoods in Southern Africa Programme, University of Sussex.

Ashley, C., & Wolmer, W. (2003). Transforming or tinkering?: new forms of engagement between communities and the private sector in tourism and forestry in southern Africa. Sustainable Livelihoods in Southern Africa Programme, University of Sussex.

Asian Productivity Organisation (APO). (2004). Role of local communities and institutions in integrated rural development. Report of the APO Seminar on the Role of Local Communities and Institutions in Integrated Rural Development.

Asker, A., Boronyak, L., Carrard, C. & Paddon, M. (2010). Effective community based tourism: A best practice manual. Sydney: University of Technology.

Asmamaw, D. & Verma, A. (2013). Local attitudes towards environmental conservation and ecotourism around Bale Mountains National park, Ethiopia. Scholarly Journal of Agricultural Science, 3(11):506-514.

Aveyard, K. (2011). What the country tells us: The place of the 'rural' in contemporary studies of cinema. Media International Australia, Incorporating Culture & Policy, 2011(139):124-132.

Babbie, E. & Mouton, J. (2001). The practice of social research. Cape Town: Oxford University Press Southern Africa.

130

Babbie, E., & Mouton, J. (2005). Qualitative studies. The practice of social research, 269-311.

Babbie, E., Mouton, J., Vorster, P. & Prozesky, S. (2001). The practice of social research. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.

Bahora, M., Sterk, C. E. & Elifson, K. W. (2009). Understanding recreational ecstasy use in the United States: A qualitative inquiry. International Journal of Drug Policy, 20(1):62-69.

Barkemeyer, R., Holt, D., Preuss, L. & Tsang, S. (2014). What happened to the ‘development’ in sustainable development? Business guidelines two decades after Brundtland. Sustainable Development, 22(1):15-32.

Bayat, M. S. & Ismail, R. (2008). Tourism dictionary. Cape Town: Formeset Printers.

Beeton, S. (2006). Community development through tourism. Collingwood: Landlink Press.

Benedetti, R., Bee, M., Espa, G. & Piersimonn, F. (2010). Agricultural survey methods. London: Wiley.

Berger, G. (2007). New media and press freedom in the developing world. Background paper prepared for conference: New Media: The Press Freedom Dimension. Challenges and Opportunities of New Media for Press Freedom. Paris, 12(1):15-16.

Besculides, A., Lee, M. E. & McCormick, P. J. (2002). Residents' perceptions of the cultural benefits of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2):303-319.

Bianchi, R. V. (2002). Towards a new political economy of global tourism. Tourism and development: Concepts and issues, 265-99.

Binns, T. & Nel, E. (2003). The village in game park: Local response to the demise of coal mining in KwaZulu-Natal, SA. Economic Geography, 79(1):41-66.

Biswas, A. (2004). New Partnership for Africa’s Development: Forum for Growth and Unity. Economic and Political Weekly, 793-796.

Björk, P. (2007). Definition paradoxes: From concept to definition. (Critical issues in ecotourism: Understanding a complex tourism phenomenon.) Oxford: Elsevier. 23-45.

Bless, C., Higson-Smith, C. & Kagee, A. (2006). Fundamentals of social research methods: An African perspective. New York: Juta.

Boeiji, H. (2010). Analysis in qualitative research. London: SAGE.

Bohensky, E. L., Butler, J. R. A., & Mitchell, D. (2010). Scenarios for knowledge integration: Exploring ecotourism futures in Milne Bay, Papua New Guinea. Journal of Marine Biology, 2011:1- 12.

Boniface, B. B. & Cooper, C. R. (2012). Worldwide destinations: The geography of travel and tourism. London: Routledge.

Brace, I. (2008). Questionnaire design: How to plan, structure and write survey material for effective market research. 2nd edition. London: Kogan Page.

131

Bramwell, B. & Lane, B. (Editors). (2003). Tourism collaboration and partnerships: Politics, practice and sustainability. London: Channel View.

Bramwell, B. (1991). Tourism environments and management. Tourism Management, 12(4):363- 364.

Bramwell, B. (2011). Governance, the state and sustainable tourism: A political economy approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4/5):459-477.

Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?. Qualitative research, 6(1), 97-113.

Brida, J. G., Riaño, E. & Aguirre, S. Z. (2011). Residents’ attitudes and perceptions towards cruise tourism development: A case study of Cartagena de Indias (Colombia). Tourism and Hospitality Research, 11(3):181-196.

Brown, J. D. (2000). Using surveys in language programs. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brunt, N. & Courtney. B. (2010). Residents’ perceptions of the impacts of tourism in the Turkish resort town, Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3): 493–515.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. 4th edition. The nature and processes of social research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brynard, P.A. & Hanekom, S.X. (2006). Introduction to research in management-related fields. 2nd edition. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Buckley, R. (2011). Tourism and environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36(1):397-416.

Buckley, R. (2012). Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2):528-546.

Buckley, R., Pickering, C. & Weaver, D. B. (2003). Nature-based tourism, environment and land management. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

Bukenya, J. O. (2012). Application of GIS in ecotourism development decisions: Evidence from the Pearl of Africa.Research paper, 30(3):299-301.

Bulawayo Provincial Profile. (2011). Parliament Research Department. Available from: http://www.parlzim.gov.zw/component/k2/download/1257. [4 June 2015].

Bulawayo Publicity Association. (2013). KoBulawayo. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/Bulawayo. [4 June 2015].

Bulawayo1872.Com. (2013). EzikaMatshobana guides. Available from: http://www.bulawayo1872.com. [4 June 2015].

Bulawayo1872.Com. (2016). EzikaMatshobana guides. Available from: http://www.bulawayo1872.com. [11 January 2016].

Bunten, A. C. (2008). Sharing culture or selling out? Developing the commodified persona in the

132 heritage industry. American Ethnologist, 35(3):380-395.

Burns, P. & Robinson, M. (Editors). (2006).Tourism and social identities: Global frameworks and local realities. Elsevier Advances in Tourism series. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Burns, R. A. & Burns, R. B. (2008). Business research methods and statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE.

Bushell, R. & Eagles, P. F. (Editors). (2007). Benefits beyond boundaries: Tourism and protected areas. The Vth IUCN World Parks Congress. Cambridge, MA: CABI.

Butler, R. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24:5-12.

Butler, R. W. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A state‐of‐the‐art review. Tourism Geographies, 1(1):7- 25.

Butters, K. (2011). Ecotourism in Zimbabwe. Available from: mynatour.org/destination/ecotourism-zimbabwe. [20 June 2015].

Buzinde, C. N., Kalavar, J. M. & Melubo, K. (2014). Tourism and community well-being: The case of the Maasai in Tanzania. Annals of Tourism Research, 44:20-23.

Candela, G. & Figini, P. (2012). The economics of tourism destinations. In The Economics of Tourism Destinations: 73-130. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

Cañizares, S. M. S., Tabales, J. M. N. & García, F. J. F. (2014). Local residents’ attitudes towards the impact of tourism development in Cape Verde. Tourism & Management Studies, 10(1):87-96.

Castellani, V., Sala, S. & Pitea., D. (2007). A new method for tourism carrying capacity assessment. Ecosystems and Sustainable Development VI. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 106:363-377.

Cave, J., Moyle, B., Croy, G. & Weiler, B. (2010). Tourism interaction on islands: The community and visitor social exchange. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(2):96- 107.

Cavendish, M. (2004). Bulawayo the city of Kings. Available from: www.zimbabwe.places.co.za/bulawayo.html.com. [13 February 2016].

Centre for Distance Education. (1995). Research guidelines. Harare: The Centre.

Chhabra, D., Healy, R., & Sills, E. (2003). Staged authenticity and heritage tourism. Annals of tourism research, 30(3), 702-719.

Chandralal, K. P. L. (2010). Impacts of tourism and community attitude towards tourism: A case study in Sri Lanka. South Asian Journal of Tourism and Heritage, 3(2):41-49.

Chen, J. S. (2001). Assessing and visualizing tourism impacts from urban residents’ perspectives. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 25(3):235-250.

Chen, S. C. (2011). Residents’ perceptions of the impact of major annual tourism events in Macao:

133

Cluster analysis. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 12:106-128.

Chibaya, T. (2013). From ‘Zimbabwe Africa’s Paradise to Zimbabwe a world of wonders’: Benefits and challenges of rebranding Zimbabwe as a tourist destination. Developing Country Studies, 3(5):84-91.

Chigora, F. & Zvavahera, P. (2015). International host communities: A positioning platform for Zimbabwe tourism brand. Business and Management Horizons, 3(2):70.

Child, B. (2009). Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation: Parks and game ranches to transfrontier conservation areas. New York: Earthscan.

Chiu, R. L. H. (2012). Sustainability. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.

Chiutsi, S., Mukoroverwa, M., Karigambe, P. & Mudzengi, B. K. (2011). The theory and practice of ecotourism in Southern Africa. Journal of Hospitality Management and Tourism, 2(2):14-21.

Christie, I. T. & Crompton, D. E. (2001). Tourism in Africa and Region. Working paper 12. Available from: http://www.worldbank.org/afr/findings/English/find250.htm. [5 June 2016]

Ciegis, R., Ramanauskiene, J. & Martinkus, B. (2009). The concept of sustainable development and its use for sustainability scenarios. The Economic Conditions of Enterprise Functioning, 2:28-37.

Clark, M., Riley, M., Wilkie, E. & Wood, R. C. (1998). Researching and writing dissertations in hospitality and tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Management Series. London: International Thomson Business Press.

Clarke, J. (1997). A framework of approaches to sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(3):224-233.

Cochrane, J. & Tapper, R. (2006). Tourism’s contribution to World Heritage Site management. In Managing world heritage sites: 97-109. Edited by Leask, A. & Fyall, A. Abindon: Taylor & Francis.

Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of tourism research, 15(3), 371-386.

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. ve Morrison, K.(2005). Research methods in education.

Coimbra, L. (2012).Tourism, diasporas and space. London: Psychology Press.

Collomb, J. J. (2009). Linking tourism, human wellbeing and conservation in the Caprivi Strip (Namibia) (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Florida, Gainesville.

Comment, C. & Masuku, I. (2013). Let's now have a Tourism Master Plan - The Zimbabwe Independent. Available from: https://www.theindependent.co.zw/2013/09/06/lets-now-have-a- tourism-master-plan. [Accessed 3 April 2016].

Connell, J., Page, S. J. & Bentley, T. (2009). Towards sustainable tourism planning in New Zealand: Monitoring local government planning under the Resource Management Act. Tourism Management, 30(6):867-877.

Conrady, R., Buck, M. & Viehl, P. (2010). Trends and issues in global tourism. Berlin: Sprinter.

134

Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Fyall, A., Gilbert, D. & Wanhill, S. (2005). 3rd edition. Tourism: Principles and practice. Edinburgh: Pearson Education.

Coria, J. & Calfucura, E. (2012). Ecotourism and the development of indigenous communities: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Ecological Economics, 73:47-55.

Coulson, A. B., MacLaren, A. C., McKenzie, S. & O'Gorman, K. D. (2014). Hospitality codes and social exchange theory: The Pashtunwali and tourism in Afghanistan. Tourism Management, 45:134-141.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Creswell, J. W. (2010). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. London: SAGE.

Croes, R. & Vanegas, M. (2008). Cointegration and causality between tourism and poverty reduction. Journal of Travel Research, (47):94-103.

Croke, K., Grossman, G., Larreguy, H. A. & Marshall, J. (2014). The effect of education on political participation in electoral authoritarian regimes: Evidence from Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe Education Paper, 8:1-59.

Cros, H. D. (2008). Too much of a good thing? Visitor congestion management issues for popular world heritage tourist attractions. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 2(3):225-238.

Cuccia, T. & Rizzo, I. (2011). Tourism seasonality in cultural destinations: Empirical evidence from Sicily. Tourism Management, 32(3):589-595.

Cummings, S. R., Browner, W. S., Grady, D. G., & Newman, T. B. (2007). Designing questionnaires and interviews. Designing clinical research, 241-255.

Currie, R. R., Seaton, S. & Wesley, F. (2009). Determining stakeholders for feasibility analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(1):41-63.

Curto, J. (2006). Resident perceptions of tourism in a rapidly growing mountain tourism destination. (Master’s thesis). Dept. of Applied Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.

Dabphet, S. (2007). The growth of sustainable ecotourism: The case of Thailand. Shah Alam: Universiti Teknologi MARA.

Delport, C. S. L. (2005). Research at grassroots: For the social sciences and human service professions. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Deng, X., Ding, X., Cheng, C., & Chou, H. M. (2016). Feeling Happy and Sad at the Same Time? Subcultural Differences in Experiencing Mixed Emotions between Han Chinese and Mongolian Chinese. Frontiers in psychology, 7.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Qualitative research, 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

135

Diedrich, A. & Garcia-Buades. (2009). Local perception of tourism as indicators of destination decline, Annals of Tourism Research, 36(1):41-63.

Dieke, P. U. (1995). Tourism and structural adjustment programmes in the African economy. Tourism Economics, 1(1), 71-93.

Dieke, P. U. C. (2001). Tourism and Africa’s long-term development dynamics. In The political economy of tourism development in Africa. Edited by Dieke, P.U.C. Elmsford, NY: Cognizant.

Dieke, P. U. (2003). Tourism in Africa's economic development: Policy implications. Management Decision, 41(3):287-295.

Dieke, P. U. (2008). Introduction: Tourism development in Africa: challenges and opportunities. Tourism Review International, 12(3-4):3-4.

Dieke, P. U. C. (2009). Africa in the global tourism economy: Trends, patterns, issues, and future perspectives. Harvard College Economics Review, 3(2):9-15.

Dinaburgskaya, K. & Ekner, P. (2010). Social impacts of the Way Out West Festival on the residents of the City of Göteborg. (Unpublished MA thesis). School of Business Economics and Law, University of Goteborg, Goteborg.

Deng, J. & Ding, P. (2011). Research on environmental impacts of tourism in China: Progress and prospect. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(11):2972-2983.

Dixit, S. K. & Narula, V. K. (2010). Ecotourism in Madhav National Park: Visitors’ perspectives on environmental impacts. South Asian Journal of Tourism and Heritage, 3(2):109-115.

Dodds, R. (2012). Sustainable tourism: A hope or necessity? The case of Tofino, British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Sustainable Development, 5(5):54.

Dogra, R. & Gupta, A. (2012). Barriers to community participation in tourism development: Empirical evidence from a rural destination. Jammu: University of Jammu.

Donaldson, R. & Ferreira, S. (2007). Crime, perceptions and touristic decision making: Some empirical evidence and prospects for the 2010 World Cup. Politikon, 34(3):353-371.

Donohoe, H. M. (2010). A Delphi toolkit for ecotourism research. Journal of Ecotourism, 10(1):1-20.

Douglas, A. C., & Mills, J. E. (2006). Logging brand personality online: website content analysis of Middle Eastern and North African destinations. In Information and communication technologies in tourism 2006 (pp. 345-345). Springer Vienna.

Doxey, G. V. (1975). A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: Methodology and research inference. The Travel Research Association Conference. San Diego, CA, USA.

Drakopoulou, A. (2011). Tourism certification and community-based ecotourism as tools for promoting sustainability in the Greek tourism sector – the example of Zagori (Doctoral thesis). Lund University, Lund.

136

Dressler, W. & Büscher, B. (2008). Market triumphalism and the CBNRM ‘crises’ at the South African section of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park. Geoforum, 39(1):452-465.

Duffy, R. (2002). A trip too far: Ecotourism, politics and exploitation. London: Earthscan.

Duffy, S. J. (2011). Environmental chemistry: a global perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Durst, P. & Ingram, C. (1988). Nature-orientated tourism promotion by developing countries. Tourism Management, 26(1):39-43.

Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P. & Dwyer, W. (2010). Tourism economics and policy (Vol. 3). Bristol: Channel View.

Eagles, P. F. J., McCool, S. F. & Haynes, C. F. (2002). Sustainable tourism in protected areas: Guidelines for planning and management. Gland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

Elliott, J. (1997). Tourism: Politics and public sector management. Hove: Psychology Press.

Elliott. J. A. (2013). An introduction to sustainable development. 4th edition. Routledge Perspectives on Development. New York: Routledge. eNCA. (2014). Zimbabwe plans to cash in on tourism. Available from: http://www.enca.com/africa/Zimbabwe. [16 June 2016].

Erlank, K. (Editor). (2005). Tourism, culture and regeneration. Wallingford: CABI.

Ertuna, B. & Kirbas, G. (2012). Local community involvement in rural tourism development: The case of Kastamonu, Turkey. Journal of Cultural Sciences, 10(2):17-24.

Eshliki, S. A. & Kaboudi, M. (2012). Perception of community in tourism impacts and their participation in tourism planning: Ramsar, Iran. Journal of Asian Behavioural Studies, 5(2):51-64.

Eslami, S., Farahani, A. & Asadi, H. (2013). The effects of development of sport tourism on the employment: A review of related research. International Journal of Sport Studies, 3(1):105-110.

Eastern and Southern safaris. Safaris in Zimbabwe for 2015 | Expert Africa. Available from: https://www.expertafrica.com/zimbabwe. [Accessed 23 April 2016].

Fadini, S. (2013). The responsible tourism: A good way to empower communities. The Italian situation. Available from: http://cts.som.surrey.ac.uk/publication/the-responsible-tourism-a-good-way- to-empower-communities-the-italian-situation/wppa_open/. [9 February 2016].

Farmaki, A., Constanti, P., Yiasemi, I. & Karis, P. (2014). Responsible tourism in Cyprus: The rhetoric and the reality. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 6(1):10-26.

Fayissa, B., Nsiah, C. & Tadasse, B. (2008). Impact of tourism on economic growth and development in Africa. Tourism Economics, 14(4):807-818.

Ferhan, G. & Ebru, K. (2010). Culture, tourism and regeneration process in Istanbul. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality, 4(3):252-265.

137

Feruzi, J. K. (2012). An evaluation of responsible tourism practices in the Tanzanian tourism industry (MTech thesis).Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town.

Font, X. & Cochrane, J. (2005). Management guide for responsible tour operations. London: UNEP/Earthprint.

Fontaine, K. R. & Haaz, S. (2006). Risk factors for lack of recent exercise in adults with self- reported, professionally diagnosed arthritis. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 12(2):66-69.

Fouche, C.B. & De Vos, A.S (2002). Framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11:255-274.

Frey, N. & George, R. (2010). Responsible tourism management: The missing link between business owners’ attitudes and behaviour in the Cape Town tourism industry. Tourism Management, (31):621- 628.

Gandiwa, E. (2011). Preliminary assessment of illegal hunting by communities adjacent to the northern Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe. Tropical Conservation Science, 4(4):445-467.

García, F. A., Vázquez, A. B. & Macías, R. C. (2015). Resident's attitudes towards the impacts of tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 13:33-40.

Garrigós Simón, F. J., Galdon-Salvador, J. L. & Gil-Pechuán, I. (2015). The economic sustainability of tourism growth leakage calculation. Tourism Economics, 21(4):721-739.

Geneletti, D. & Van Duren, I. (2008). Protected area zoning for conservation and use: A combination of spatial multicriteria and multiobjective evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85(2):97-110.

George, R. (2008). Marketing tourism in South Africa. 3rd ed. Cape Town: Oxford University.

George, R. (2010). Visitor perceptions of crime-safety and attitudes towards risk: The case of Table Mountain National Park, Cape Town. Tourism Management, 31(6):806-815.

Getz, D. & Timur, S. (2012). Stakeholder involvement in sustainable tourism: Balancing the voices. Global Tourism, 230.

Getz, D. (2010). The nature and scope of festival studies. International Journal of Event Management Research, 5(1):1-29.

Ghodeswar, B. M. (2008). Building brand identity in competitive markets: A conceptual model. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17(1):4-12.

Gladstone, W., Curley, B. & Shokri, M. R. (2013). Environmental impacts of tourism in the Gulf and the Red Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 72(2):375-388.

Godfrey, K. & Clarke, J. (2000). The tourism development handbook. A practical approach to planning and marketing. London: Continuum.

Goeldner, C. R., Ritchie, J. R. B. & McIntosh, R. W. (2003). Tourism: Principles, practices and philosophies. New York: Wiley.

Goeldner, C. R. & Ritchie, J. B. (2007). Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies. New York:

138

Wiley.

Goeldner, C. R., Ritchie, J. B. & Mclntosh, R. (2009). Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies. New York: Wiley.

Gono, G. (2010). Economics and the African continent in practice: A case study of Zimbabwe. Journal of Economics and Other Developmental Kits in Africa, 2(20):102-123.

Goodwin, H. & Font, X. (Editors). (2012). Progress in Responsible Tourism, 2(1), December. Oxford: Goodfellow. Available from: http://www.goodfellowpublishers.com/free_files/file12ProgressVol2(1).pdf. [4 April 2016].

Goodwin, H. & Santilli, R. (2009). Community-based tourism: A success? ICRT Occasional Paper 11. London. Available from: http://www.andamandiscoveries.com/press/ press-harold-goodwin.pdf. [24 June 2016].

Goodwin, H. (2011). Taking responsibility for tourism. Oxford: Goodfellow.

Gössling, S., Hall, C. M., Peeters, P. & Scott, D. (2010). The future of tourism: Can tourism growth and climate policy be reconciled? A mitigation perspective. Tourism Recreation Research, 35(2): 119-130.

Gratton, C. & Jones, I. (2010). Research methods and sports studies. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.

Gratwicke, B. & Stapelkamp, B. (2006). Wildlife conservation and environmental management in an outpost of tyranny. Zim Conservation Opinion, 3:1-39.

Gravetter, F. J. & Forzano, L. A. (2009). Research methods for behavioural sciences. 3rd edition. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.

Grevsjö, S. & Noorzaei, M. (2014). Sustainable tourism development in Gjirokastra: A current situation analysis (Bachelor thesis). Programme for Sustainable Development of Tourism. Available from: http://www.diva-portal.se/smash/get/diva2:742424/FULLTEXT01.pdf. [20 May 2016].

Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G. & Dyer, P. (2010). Locals’ attitudes toward mass and alternative tourism: The case of Sunshine Coast, Australia. Journal of Travel Research, 49:381-394.

Hajdul, M. (2010). Model of coordination of transport process according to the concept of sustainable development. Available from: http://www.logistics.pl/logistics/pliki/hajdul.pdf. [15 March 2016].

Hall, D. (2002). Brand development, tourism and national identity: The re-imaging of former Yugoslavia. Journal of Brand Management, 9(4):323-334.

Hall, C. M. (2005a). The role of government in the management of tourism: The public sector and tourism policies. The management of tourism: 217-230. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Hall, C. M. (2005b). Reconsidering the geography of tourism and contemporary mobility. Geographical Research, 43(2):125-139.

Hall, C. M. (2007). Pro-poor tourism: Do tourism exchanges benefit primarily the countries of the

139 south? Current Issues in Tourism, 10(2):111-118.

Hall, C. M. (2010). Changing paradigms and global change: From sustainable to steady-state tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 35(2):131-143.

Hall, C. M., Pender, L. & Sharpley, R. (2005). The role of government in the management of tourism: The public sector and tourism policies. The Management of Tourism, 217-231.

Hall, C.M. & Page, S. (2012). Tourism in south and southeast Asia. Routledge. London.

Handley, C. (2010). Validity and reliability in research. Baltimore, MD: Transport Resource Centre.

Hannam, K., & Knox, D. (2005). Discourse analysis in tourism research a critical perspective. Tourism Recreation Research, 30(2), 23-30.

Hannam, K. & Knox, D. (2010). Understanding tourism: A critical introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Harrill, R. (2004). Resident’s attitudes toward tourism development: A literature review with implications for tourism planning, Journal of Planning Literature, 18(3):251-266.

Harrison, D., & Schipani, S. (2007). Lao tourism and poverty alleviation: Community-based tourism and the private sector. Current issues in tourism, 10(2-3), 194-230.

Hawkins, R. & Bohdanowicz, P. (2011). Responsible hospitality: Theory and practice. Oxford: Goodfellow.

Hicks, D. (2003). Thirty years of global education: A reminder of key principles and precedents. Educational Review, 55(3):265-275.

Holden, J. (2005). Valuing culture in the South East. London: Demos.

Holden, A. (2016). Environment and tourism. Routledge.

Horner, S. & Swarbrooke, J. 2004. International cases in tourism management. New York: Routledge.

Howard, D. (2013). Encyclopaedia of research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Hritz, N. & Ross, C. (2010). The perceived impacts of sport tourism: An urban host community perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 24(1):119-138.

Hudson, S. (2012). Sport and adventure tourism. New York: Routledge.

Hughes, H. & Allen, D. (2005). Cultural tourism in Central and Eastern Europe: The views of ‘induced image formation agents’. Tourism Management, 26(2):173-183.

Hughes, H. L. (2002). Culture and tourism: A framework for further analysis. Managing Leisure, 7(3):164-175.

Huh, C. & Vogt, C. A. (2008). Changes in residents' attitudes toward tourism over time: A cohort

140 analytical approach. Journal of Travel Research, 46(4):446-455.

Hull, V., Xu, W., Liu, W., Zhou, S., Viña, A., Zhang, J., Tuanmu, M. N., Huang, J., Linderman, M., Chen, X. & Huang, Y. (2011). Evaluating the efficacy of zoning designations for protected area management. Biological Conservation, 144(12):3028-3037.

Hulley, S. B., Cummings, S. R., Browner, W. S., Grady, D. G. & Newman, T. B. (2007). Designing clinical research. 3rd edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Hung, K. & Petrick, J. F. (2010). Developing a measurement scale for constraints to cruising. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1):206-228.

Hunyadi, Z., Inkei, P. & Szabo, J. Z. (2006). Festival world summary report. Budapest: KulturPont Iroda.

Ikonen, H. (2012). Perceptions of ecotourism in Finland. Available from: http://wordpress.reilumatkailu.fi/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Hanna_Ikonen.pdf. [13 August 2016].

Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning: An integrated and sustainable development approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Isaac, S. & Michael, W. B. (1981). Handbook in research and evaluation. San Diego, CA: Edit.

Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W. & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1):3-20.

Ivanovic, M. (2008). Cultural tourism. Juta and Company Ltd.

Ivanovic, M., Khunou, P. S., Reynish, R., Pawson, L., Tseane, M. & Wassung. N. (2009). Tourism development: Fresh perspectives. Cape Town: Pearson Education.

Jaafar, M., Ismail, S. & Rasoolimanesh, S. M. (2015). Perceived social effects of tourism development: A case study of Kinabalu National Park. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 10(2):5.

Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4):49-62.

Jackson, L. A. (2010). Residents’ perceptions of the impacts of special event tourism. Journal of Place Management and Development, 3(8):240-255.

Jakpar, L. P. L. S., Johari, A., Myint, K. T. & Rani, N. S. A. (2011). An evaluation on the attitudes of residents in Georgetown towards the impacts of tourism development. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(1):264-277.

Jang, U. (Editor) (2004). Encyclopedia of tourism. London: Routledge.

Janusz, G. & Bajdor, P. (2013). Towards to sustainable tourism – framework, activities and dimensions. Procedia Economics and Finance, 6:523-529.

Jenkins, C. L. (2007). Tourism policy formulation in the Southern African region. In Educational

141

research: qualitative, qualitative and mixed approaches. Edited by Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. 4th edition. London: SAGE. 34(3): 23-35.

Jitpakdee, R. & Thapa, G. B. (2012). Sustainability analysis of ecotourism on Yao Noi island, Thailand. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 17(3):301-325.

Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2008).(Eds). Educational research: Qualitative, qualitative and mixed approaches. 4th edition. London: SAGE.

Johnson, H. & Wilson, G. (2000). Biting the bullet: Civil society, social learning and the transformation of local governance. World Development, 28(11):1891-1906.

Johnson, R. B. & Onwuegbuzle, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7):14-26.

Jones, S. (2005). Community-based ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2):303-324.

Jongwe, A. (2012). Strengthening capacity of SMEs in Zimbabwe. The Sunday Mail, 2, June 13.

Jovicic, D. & Dragin, A. (2008). The assessment of carrying capacity – a crucial tool for managing tourism effects in tourist destinations. Assessment, 12(1):4-11.

Jreat, M. (2004). Tourism in Himachal Pradesh. New Delhi: Indus.

Jurado, E. N., Tejada, M. T., García, F. A., González, J. C., Macías, R. C., Peña, J. D., Gutiérrez, F. F., Fernández, G. G., Gallego, M. L., García, G. M. & Gutiérrez, O. M. (2012). Carrying capacity assessment for tourist destinations. Methodology for the creation of synthetic indicators applied in a coastal area. Tourism Management, 33(6):1337-1346.

Jurowski, C. A. (2007). Tourism and intercultural exchange. London: SAGE.

Kandari, O. P. & Chandra, A. (2004). Tourism, biodiversity and sustainable development: Market research in travel and tourism (Vol. 2). Delhi: Gyan Publishing House.

Karadakis, K. & Kaplanidou, K. (2012). Legacy perceptions among host and non-host Olympic Games residents: A longitudinal study of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games. European Sport Management Quarterly, 12(3):243-264.

Karambakuwa, R. T., Shonhiwa, T., Murombo, L., Mauchi, F. N., Gopo, N. R., Denhere, W., Tafirei, F., Chingarande, A. & Mudavanhu, V. (2011). The impact of Zimbabwe Tourism Authority initiatives on tourist arrivals in Zimbabwe (2008–2009). Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 13(6):68-77.

Katunga, R. (2014). Bulawayo a sleeping tourism giant. Available from: www.sundaynews.co.zw/Bulawayo-a-Sleeping-giant/. [21 May 2016].

Kayat, K. (2002). Power, social exchanges and tourism in Langkawi: Rethinking resident perceptions. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4(3):171-191.

Keyser, H. (2002). Tourism development. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.

Keyser, H. (2009). Developing tourism in South Africa: Towards competitive destinations. 2nd ed. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.

142

Khadaroo, J. & Seetanah, B. (2007). Transport infrastructure and tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(4):1021-1032.

Khanzode, V. V. (2007). Research methodology: Techniques and trends. New Delhi: APH.

Kim, H.J., Gursoy, D. & Lee, S.B. (2006). The impact of the 2002 World Cup on South Korea: comparisons of pre-and post-games. Tourism Management, 27(1):86-96.

Kim, K., Uysal, M. & Sirgy, M. J. (2013). How does tourism in a community impact the quality of life of community residents? Tourism Management, 36:527-540.

Kim, K. B. (2013). The perceived role of key stakeholders' involvement in sustainable tourism development (Doctoral thesis). University of Nottingham, Nottingham.

Kipper, T. (2013). Role of ecotourısm in sustaınable development. Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/advances-in-landscape-architecture/role-of- ecotourism- 5kuinsustainable-development. [23 May 2016].

Kolomiets, A. (2011). Seasonality in tourism employment: Case: Grecotel Kos Imperial Thalasso (Bachelor thesis). Saimaa University of Applied Sciences, Tourism and Hospitality, Imatra.

Kothari, C. R. (2008). Research methodology: Methods and techniques. 2nd ed. New Delhi: New Age International.

Kumar, C. R. (2008). Research methodology. New Delhi: APH.

Kurtz, D. L., Mackenzie, H. F. & Snow, K. (2009). Contemporary marketing. 2nd ed. Scarborough: Nelson Education.

Kuvan, Y. & Akan, P. (2005). Residents' attitudes toward general and forest-related impacts of tourism: The case of Belek, Antalya. Tourism Management, 26(5):691-706.

Kuwaza, K. (2016). Government wage bill sabotages economic recovery. Zimbabwe Independent. Available from: www.theindependent.co.zw. [16 June 2016].

Lancaster, G. A., Dodd, S. & Williamson, P. R. (2004). Design and analysis of pilot studies: Recommendations for good practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Research, 10(2):307-312.

Lankford, S. V., & Howard, D. R. (1994). Developing a tourism impact attitude scale. Annals of tourism research, 21(1), 121-139.

Latham, B. (2007). Quantitative research methods. Journal of the Statistical Association, 5(7):763-774.

Látková, P. & Vogt, C. A. (2012). Residents’ attitudes toward existing and future tourism development in rural communities. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1):50-67.

Lawrence, M. & Dredge, D. (2007). Tourism planning and policy processes. In D. Dredge & J. Jenkins. (Eds.). Tourism planning and policy. 191-224. Milton: John Wiley.

Leask, A. (2010). Progress in visitor attraction research: Towards more effective management. Tourism Management, 31(2):155-166.

143

Lee, T. H. (2013). Influence analysis of community resident support for sustainable tourism development. Tourism Management, 34:37-46.

Leiper, N. (2004). Tourism Management. (Vol. 455). Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education Australia.

Le-Klähn, D. T. & Edwards, D. (2014). Conference report: The Best Education Network Think Tank XIII: Engaging Communities in Sustainable Tourism Development. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 14(1):1-5.

Leksakundilok, A. (2006). Community participation in ecotourism development in Thailand (Doctoral thesis). School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, Sydney. Available from: https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/668/2/adt-NU20050909.15473601front.pdf

Lepp, A. (2007). Residents’ attitudes towards tourism in Bigodi village, Uganda. Tourism Management, 28(3): 876-885.

Li, X. & Wan, Y. K. P. (2013). Residents' attitudes toward tourism development in Macao: A path model. Tourism Analysis, 18(4):443-455.

Lindsey, P.A., Romanach, S.S., Tambling, C.J., Chartier, K. & Groom, R. (2011). Ecological and financial impacts of illegal bushmeat trade in Zimbabwe. Oryx, 45(1):96-111.

Lisle, J. (2011). The benefits and challenges of mixing methods and methodologies: Lessons learnt from implementing qualitatively led mixed methods research designs in Trinidad and Tobago. Caribbean Curriculum, 18:87-120.

Liu, K. (2013). Happiness and tourism. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(15):67.

Lomine, L. & Edmunds, J. (2007). Key concepts in tourism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Long, P. H. & Kayat, K. (2011). Residents' perceptions of tourism impact and their support for tourism. European Journal of Tourism Research, 4(2):123-146.

Lorde, T., Greenidge, D. & Devonish, D. (2011). Local residents’ perceptions of the impacts of the ICC Cricket World Cup 2007 on Barbados: Comparisons of pre-and post-games. Tourism Management, 32(2):349-356.

Lubbe, B. (2003). Tourism management in Southern Africa. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.

Lundberg, E. (2011). Evaluation of tourism impacts: A sustainable development perspective (Doctoral dissertation). Företagsekonomiska institutionen, Handelshögskolan vid Göteborgs universitet, Göteborg.

Lundtorp, S. (2001). Measuring tourism seasonality. Seasonality in Tourism, 3(3):23-50.

Luyet, V., Schlaepfer, R., Parlange, M. B. & Buttler, A. (2012). A framework to implement stakeholder participation in environmental projects. Journal of Environmental Management, 111:213-219.

Ly, T. P., & Bauer, T. (2016). Ecotourism in mainland Southeast Asia: Theory and practice. Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, 1(1), 61-80.

144

MacDonald, R. & Joliffe, L. (2003). Cultural rural tourism: Evidence from Canada. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(2):307-322.

Makindi, S. M. (2010). Communities’ perceptions and assessment of biodiversity conservation strategies: The case of protected areas in Kenya (Doctoral thesis). School of Environmental Sciences, University of Kwazulu-Natal, Durban.

Malaysia. (2001). Rural tourism master plan. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Culture, Arts and Tourism.

Maneenetr, T., Naipinit, A. & Tran, T. H. (2014). Guidelines to development wellness tourism in Roi- Kaen-San-Sin Cluster, Thailand. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(23):214.

Manu, I. K. & Kuuder, C. J. W (2012). Community-based ecotourism and livelihood enhancement in Sirigu, Ghana. International Journal of Humanities Social Science 2(18):97-108.

Manwa, H. (2003). Wildlife-based tourism, ecology and sustainability: A tug-of-war among competing interests in Zimbabwe. Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(2):45-54.

March, R. & Wilkinson, I. (2009). Conceptual tools for evaluating tourism partnerships. Tourism Management, 30(3):455-462.

Maree, K. & Van der Westhuizen, C. (2009). Head start in designing research proposals in the social sciences. Cape Town: Juta.

Maroleng, C. (2011). Africa: Interview With US Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton. EB/OL]. Available from: http://ayyaantuu. com/world/africa-interview-with-u-ssectetary-of-state-hilary-rodham- clinton. [Accessed on 11 January 2016].

Martin, J. K. & Tsangarides, C. G. (2007). Trade reform in the CEMAC: Developments and opportunities. Washington, D.C.: IMF.

Marunda, E. & Chaneta, I. (2014). Tourism and hospitality curriculum at primary school level in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Management, IT and Engineering, 4(5):200.

Marzuki, A. (2008). Decision making and community participation: A case study of the tourism industry in Lang-kawi. Tourism, 56(3):227-241.

Mason, P. (2012). Tourism impacts, planning and management. London: Routledge.

Matheson, T. S., & Hall, R. (1982). Inpatient treatment of prolapsing piles: Cryosurgery versus Milligan– Morgan haemorrhoidectomy. British Journal of Surgery, 69(3), 157-159.

Mathew, P. & Kumar, R. (2014). Responsible tourism: A grass root level empowerment mechanism: Case study from Kerala. Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, 7(1):53-73.

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Quantitative research design: An interactive approach. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Mayer, M., Mueller, M., Woltering, M., Arnegger, J. & Job, H. (2010). The economic impact of tourism in six German national parks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(2):73-82.

145

Mbaiwa, J. E. (2005). The problems and prospects of sustainable tourism development in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(3):203-227.

Mbaiwa, J. E. (2008). Tourism development, rural livelihoods, and conservation in the Okavango Delta, Botswana (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University).

Mbaiwa, J. E. & Stronza, A. L. (2011). Changes in resident attitudes towards tourism development and conservation in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(8): 1950- 1959.

Mbaiwa, J. E. (2002). The socio-economic and environmental impacts of tourism development in the Okavango Delta, Botswana: A baseline study. Maun: Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Centre, University of Botswana.

Mbaiwa, J. E. (2004). The socio-economic benefits and challenges of a community-based safari hunting tourism in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of Tourism Studies, 15(2):37.

McDonald, M. S. (2012). Perception: A concept analysis. International Journal of Nursing Knowledge, 23(1):2-9.

McGregor, A. (2012). Wellbeing, development and social change in Thailand. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 26(2):12-15.

McKercher, B. & Ho, P. (2012). Cultural tourism and the enhancement of quality-of-life. In Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research: 341-357. Springer Netherlands: Ministry of Tourism and Hospitality (2015).

McIntosh, A. J., & Zahra, A. (2007). A cultural encounter through volunteer tourism: Towards the ideals of sustainable tourism?. Journal of sustainable tourism, 15(5), 541-556.

Mearns, K. (2012). Community-based tourism and peace parks: Benefits to local communities through conservation in Southern Africa. Acta Academica, 44(2):70-87.

Mensah, C. (2012). Residents’ perception of socio-economic impacts of tourism in TafiAtome, Ghana. Asian Social Science, 8(15):274.

Mertens, D. M. & Hesse-Biber, S. (2012). Triangulation and mixed methods research provocative positions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2):75-79.

Michael, M. (2009). Community involvement and participation in tourism development in Tanzania: A case study of local communities in Barabarani village, MTO WA MBU, Arusha-Tanzania (Master’s dissertation). Tourism Management, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington.

Mishra, P. K., Rout, H. B. & Mohapatra, S. S. (2011). Causality between tourism and economic growth: Empirical evidence from India. European Journal of Social Sciences, 18(4):518-527.

Mitchell, J. & Ashley, C. (2010). Tourism and poverty reduction: Pathways to prosperity tourism, environment and development. London: Earthscan.

146

Ministry of tourism and Hospitality. 2015. Tourism and Hospitality Industry minister Walter Mzembi Archives . Available from: https://www.southerneye.co.zw/.../tourism-and-hospitality-industry [22 April 2016].

Mkono, M. (2010). The future of tourism in Zimbabwe: Towards sustainability? Tourism Analysis, 15(3):387-391.

Mkono, M. (2011). A netnographic examination of constructive authenticity in Victoria Falls tourist (restaurant) experiences. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2012):387-394.

Mohammadi, M., Khalifah, Z. & Hosseini, H. (2010b). Local people perceptions toward social, economic and environmental impacts of tourism in Kermanshah (Iran). Asian Social Science, 6(11): 220.

Mohul, E. (2009). Impacts of Educational Tourism on the Residents of Famagusta (Doctoral dissertation, Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU)).

Moore, D. L. & Tarnai, J. (2002). Evaluating nonresponse error in mail surveys. Survey nonresponse:197-211. Edited by Groves, R.M., Dillman, D.A., Eltinge, J.L. & Little, R.J.A. New York: Wiley.

Moscardo, G. (2006). Backpackers and other younger travelers to the Great Barrier Reef: an exploration of changes in characteristics and behaviours over time. Tourism Recreation Research, 31 (3):29-37.

Moscardo, G. (2008). Building community capacity for tourism development. Wallingford: CABI.

Moscardo, G. (2011). Exploring social representations of tourism planning: Issues for governance. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4-5), 423-436.

Mowforth, M. & Munt, I. (2003). Tourism and sustainability: Development, globalisation and new tourism in the third world. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis US.

Msindo, E. (2007). Ethnicity and nationalism in urban colonial Zimbabwe: Bulawayo, 1950 to 1963. Journal of African History, 48(02):267-290.

Muchapondwa, E. & Pimhidzai, O. (2011). Modelling international tourism demand for Zimbabwe. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(2):71.

Mudzengi, B.K. & Chiutsi, S. (2014). Socio-political and macro-economic factors influencing ecotourism competitiveness in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Development and Sustainability, 3(2):306-314.

Muganda, M. (2009). Community involvement and participation in tourism development in Tanzania: A case study of local communities in Barabarani village, MTO WA MBU, Arusha-Tanzania (thesis). Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington.

Muganda, M., Sirima, A. & Ezra, P. M. (2013). The role of local communities in tourism development: Grassroots perspectives from Tanzania. Journal of Human Ecology, 41(1):53-66.

Mulili, B. M. & Wong, P. (2011). Corporate governance practices in developing countries: The case for Kenya. International Journal of Business Administration, 2(1). Available from: http://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/ijba/article/view/37/42. [14 February 2016].

147

Murphy, P. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. New York: Routledge.

Murphy, P. E. (2013). Tourism: A community approach. London: Routledge.

Mustafa, M.H. & Tayeh, S. N. A. 2011. The impacts of tourism development on the archaeological site of Petra and local communities in surrounding villages. Asian Social Science, 7(8):88.

Mutana, S., Chipfuva, T. & Muchenje, B. (2013). Is tourism in Zimbabwe developing with the poor in mind? Assessing the pro-poor. Involvement of tourism operators located near rural areas in Zimbabwe. Asian Social Science, 9(5):154.

Mutana, S. & Zinyemba, A. Z. (2013). Rebranding the Zimbabwe tourism product: A case study for innovative packaging. International Journal of Advanced Research in Tourism, 1(12):1-36.

Mutanga, C. N., Vengesayi, S., Gandiwa, E. & Muboko, N. (2015). Community perceptions of wildlife conservation and tourism: A case study of communities adjacent to four protected areas in Zimbabwe. Tropical Conservation Science, 8(2):564-582.

Muzvidziwa, V. N. (2013). Eco-tourism, conservancies and sustainable development: The case of Zimbabwe. Journal of Human Ecology, 43(1):41-50.

Mwangi, D. W. (2005). A case study analysis on the social impact of the ecotourism project in Selenkei Ranch, Amboseli, Kenya (Doctoral dissertation). Faculty of Arts, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

Mayer, M., Mueller, M., Woltering, M., Arnegger, J., & Job, H. (2010). The economic impact of tourism in six German national parks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(2), 73-82.

Mzembi. W. (2015). Hon. Minister Mzembi re-enacted as UNWTO CAF Chairman. Available from: www.Zimbabwetourism.net/index.pp/. [27 January 2016].

Nandi, D. Challenges & prospects for community participation in community based tourism (CBT) in Jaldapara National Park, Jalpaiguri. (WB). Trends and Challenges in Global Business Management, 156-161. Available from: http://www.conference.bonfring.org/papers/sngce_placitum2013/gm06.pdf. [16 June 2016].

Ndlovu, J. & Heath, E. (2013). Re-branding of Zimbabwe to enhance sustainable tourism development: Panacea or villain. African Journal of Business Management, 7(12):947.

Nelson, F. (2004). The evolution and impacts of community-based ecotourism in northern Tanzania (No. 131). London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

Neuman, L. & Krueger, L. W. (2003). Social work research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Pearson Education.

Neuts, B., Nijkamp, P. & Van Leeuwen, E. (2012). Crowding externalities from tourist use of urban space. Tourism Economics, 18(3):649-670.

Newsome, D. & Hassell, S. (2014). Tourism and conservation in Madagascar: The importance of Andasibe National Park. Koedoe, 56(2):1-8.

Nsingo, D. & Chiutsi, N. (2013). Kaseke blasts Bulawayo businesses. Available

148 from: www.sundaynews.co.zw/index.com. [13 September 2015].

Nunkoo, R. & Gursoy, D. (2012). Residents’ support for tourism: An identity perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1):243-268.

Nunkoo, R. & Ramkissoon, H. (2010). Small island urban tourism: A residents' perspective. Current Issues in Tourism, 13(1):37-60.

Nunkoo, R. & Ramkissoon, H. (2011). Developing a community support model for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3):964-988.

Nunkoo, R. & Smith, S. L. (2013). Political economy of tourism: Trust in government actors, political support, and their determinants. Tourism Management, 36:120-132.

Nyahunzvi, D. K. (2012). Beyond the rhetoric: Chinotimba residents’ perceptions of the legacy of the 2010 FIFA World Cup. RASAALA: Recreation and Society in Africa, Asia and Latin America, 3(2):1-16.

Nyaruwata, S., Mhizha, A. & Mandebvu, G. (2013). Impact of political instability on tourism development: A comparative analysis of Mauritius and Zimbabwe since independence. Journal of Tourism and Peace Research, 3(2):43-56.

Nyaruwata, S. & Nyaruwata, L. T. (2013). Gender equity and executive management in tourism: Challenges in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region. African Journal of Business Management, 7(21):2059-2070.

Nzengy'a, D. M. (2004). Temporal trends in ecotourism in the eastern highlands of Zimbabwe. Journal of Ecotourism, 3(2):129-146.

Ogato, G. S., Abdise, F., Gammie, T. & Abebe, W. (2014). Promoting rural local development: The case of Wonchi Ecotourism Society, West Shoa Zone, Ethiopia. Prime Journal of Social Science, 3(4):662- 673.

Ogechi, E. B. & Oyinkansola, O. C. (2012). Social impact of tourism development on host communities of Osun Oshogbo Sacred Grove. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(6):30-35.

Okech, R. (2006). The role of local communities in the management of cultural landscapes. Paper presented at the ATLAS Africa 2006 Conference, Mombasa, Kenya.

Okech, R. N. (2010). Tourism development in Africa: Focus on poverty alleviation. Journal of Tourism and Peace Research, 1(1):1-7.

Olsen, W. K. (2004). Triangulation in social research: Qualitative and quantitative can really be mixed. In Developments in sociology. Edited by Holborn, M. Ormskirk: Causeway Press.

Opie, C. (Ed). (2004). Doing educational research: A guide to first time researchers. London: SAGE.

Ounmany, K. (2014). Community-based ecotourism in Laos: Benefits and burdens sharing among stakeholders (Doctoral thesis). Humboldt-Universitätzu Berlin, Berlin.

Paço, A., Alves, H. & Nunes, C. (2012). Ecotourism from both hotels and tourists' perspective. Economics & Sociology, 5(2):132-142.

149

Page, S. & Connell, J. (2006). Tourism: A modern synthesis. Andover: Cengage Learning EMEA.

Page, S. J. & Connell, J. (2009). Tourism: A modern synthesis. 3rd edition. Andover: Cengage Learning EMEA.

Pellissier, R. (2007). Business research made easy. Cape Town: Juta.

Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T. & Allen, L. (1987). Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3):420-429.

Pham, L. H. & Kayat, K. (2011). Residents’ perceptions of tourism impact and their support for tourism development: The case study of Cuc Phuong National Park, NinhBinh province, Vietnam. European Journal of Tourism Research, 4(2):123-146.

Phiri, M. (2009). Evaluation of the performance of Joint Forest Management (JFM) Programme: Case of Dambwa Forest Reserve in Livingstone District, Zambia. (Doctoral thesis). University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch.

Pickering, C. M. & Hill, W. (2007). Impacts of recreation and tourism on plants in protected areas in Australia. CRC for Sustainable Tourism, 32:303-324.

Ponelis, S. R. & Britz, J. J. (2011). An explanatory study of business intelligence in knowledge-based South African SMEs. GlobDev 2011 Pre-AMCIS Workshop: ICT in Global Development.

Prayag, G., Hosany, S., Nunkoo, R. & Alders, T. (2013). London residents' support for the 2012 Olympic Games: The mediating effect of overall attitude. Tourism Management, 36:629-640.

Proença, S. & Soukiazis, E. (2008). Tourism as an economic growth factor: A case study for Southern European countries. Tourism Economics, 14(4):791-806.

Ramseook-Munhurrun, P. & Naidoo, P. (2011). Customers' perspectives of service quality in internet banking. Services Marketing Quarterly, 32(4):247-264.

Reisinger, Y. (2009). International tourism: Cultures and behaviour. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann/Elsevier.

Renda, A. I., Mendes, J. & Oom do Valle, P. (2014). The destination is where I live! Residents’ perception of tourism impacts. Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, 2(1):72-88.

Richard, G. & Hall, D. (2002). Tourism and sustainable community development. London: Routledge.

Richards, G. 2001. Cultural attractions and European tourism. Wallingford: CABI.

Richards, G. & Hall, D. (2000). The community: A sustainable concept in tourism development. Tourism and Sustainable Community Development, 7(1).

Richards, G. (2007). Cultural tourism: Global and local perspectives. Oxford: Psychology Press.

Riganti, P. & Nijkamp, P. (2008). Congestion in popular tourist areas: A multi-attribute experimental choice analysis of willingness-to-wait in Amsterdam. Tourism Economics, 14(1):25-44.

Riley, J. (2012). Business strategy. Mumbai: Sapphire Education.

150

Riordan, J. (2005). Breastfeeding and human lactation. 3rd edition. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett.

Ritchie, B. W. & Inkari, M. (2006). Host community attitudes toward tourism and cultural tourism development: The case of the Lewes District, Southern England. International Journal of Tourism Research, 8(1):27-44.

Rogerson, C. M & Vissier, G. (2011). Researching the South African tourism and development nexus. GeoJournal, 60:201-215.

Rogerson, C. M. & Visser, G. (2006). International tourist flows and urban tourism in South Africa. Urban Forum, 17(2):199-213.

Rogerson, C. M. (2005). Unpacking tourism SMMEs in South Africa: Structure, support needs and policy response. Development Southern Africa, 22(5):623-642.

Rogoff, B. (2011). Developing destinies: A Mayan midwife and town. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.

Roman, G. S., Dearden, P. & Rollins, R. (2007). Application of zoning and “limits of acceptable change” to manage snorkelling tourism. Environmental Management, 39(6):819-830.

Roy, P. B., Roy, T. B. & Saha, S. (2010). Pro-poor tourism as an approach towards community development: A case study. South Asian Journal of Tourism and Heritage, 3(2):90-98.

Saadatian, O., Chin Haw, L., Mat, S. B. & Sopian, K. (2012). Perspective of sustainable development in Malaysia. International Journal of Energy and Environment, 2(6):260-267.

Saarinen, J. (2014). Critical sustainability: Setting the limits to growth and responsibility in tourism. Sustainability, 6:1-17.

Saarinen, J., Becker, F., Manwa, H., & Wilson, D. (2009). Introduction: call for sustainability. Sustainable tourism in Southern Africa: local communities and natural resources in transition, 3-19.

Sabatini, M., Verdiell, A., Iglesias, R. M. R. & Vidal, M. (2007). A quantitative method for zoning of protected areas and its spatial ecological implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 83(2): 198-206.

Saha, S., & Yap, G. (2015). How does political instability influence the effect of tourism demand on economic growth?

Sala, V. C. S. (2010). Sustainable performance index for tourism policy development. Tourism Management, 31:871-880.

Samimi, A. J., Sadeghi, S. & Sadeghi, S. (2011). Tourism and economic growth in developing countries: P-VAR approach. Journal of Scientific Research, 10(1):28-32.

Sanderson, A., Nyamadzawo, J., Nyarawuta, S. & Moyo, C. (2013). Positioning the Zimbabwe tourism sector for growth: Issues and challenges. USAID, 1-41.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business students. Harlow: Pearson Education.

151

Scheyvens, R. (2003). Local involvement in managing 12 Tourism. Tourism in destination communities. Palmerston North: CABI.

Schwab, K., Snabe, .H., Eide, E.B., Blanke, J., Moavenzadeh, J., Drzeniek- Hanouz. (2015). The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2015. World Economic Forum. Available from: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/TT15/WEF_Global_Travel&Tourism_Report_2015. pdf. [13 May 2016].

Scott, D. (2011). Why sustainable tourism must address climate change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(1):17-34.

Sebele, L. S. (2010). Community-based tourism ventures, benefits and challenges: Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust, Central District, Botswana. Tourism Management, 31(1):128-140.

Seetanah, B. (2011). Assessing the dynamic economic impact of tourism for island economies. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(1):291-308.

Sezgin, M., & Gumus, M. (2016). The Evaluation of Beysehir Lake National Park (Konya-Turkey) in the Framework Ecotourism. Forest, 14, 16-8.

Sharma, B. & Dyer, P. (2009). An investigation of differences in residents’ perceptions on the Sunshine Coast: Tourism impacts and demographic variables. Tourism Geographies, 11(2):187-213.

Sharma, B. & Dyer, P. (2012). A longitudinal study of the residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts using data from the sunshine coast Australia. PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 10(2):37-46.

Sharma, B., Dyer, P., Carter, J. & Gursoy, D. (2008). Exploring residents' perceptions of the social impacts of tourism on the Sunshine Coast, Australia. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 9(3):288-311.

Sharpley, R. (2014). Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tourism Management, 42:37-49.

Shutterworth, M. (2008). Step of the scientific methods. Available from: http://www.experimentalresources.com. [26 September 2015].

Silverman, D. (Editor). (2010). Qualitative research. London: SAGE.

Simmon, R. (2008). Questionnaires: Researching social life. London: SAGE.

Sinclair-Maragh, G. & Gursoy, D. (2015). Imperialism and tourism: The case of developing island countries. Annals of Tourism Research, 50:143-158.

Sindiga, I. (1999). Alternative tourism and sustainable development in Kenya. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(2):108-127.

Skanavis, C. & Sakellari, M. (2011). International tourism, domestic tourism and environmental change: Environmental education can find the balance. Tourismos: An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, 6(1):233-249.

152

Smith, M. (2004). A sample/population size activity: Is it the sample size or the sample as a fraction of the population that matters? Journal of Statistics Education, 12(2). Available from: http://www.amsat.org/publications/jse/v12n2/smith.html. [27 May 2016].

South Africa. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). (1996). White Paper on the development and promotion of tourism in South Africa. Pretoria: Government Printer.

South Africa. Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism (DEAT). (2002). Responsible tourism handbook. Available from: http:// www.environment.gov.za.

Spenceley, A. & Seif, J. (2003). Strategies, impacts and costs of pro-poor tourism approaches in South Africa. PPT Working Paper Series No. 11. Department for International Development: United Kingdom.

Spenceley, A. & Meyer, D. (2012). Tourism and poverty reduction: Theory and practice in less economically developed countries. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(3):297-317.

Stone, L. S. & Stone, T. M. (2011). Community-based tourism enterprises: Challenges and prospects for community participation; Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust, Botswana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(1):97-114.

Stronza, A. & Gordillo, J. (2008). Community views of ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2): 448-468.

Strydom, H. (2001). The pilot study. In Research at grass roots: A primer for the caring professions. Edited by De Vos, A.S. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Stylidis, D., Biran, A., Sit, J. & Szivas, E. M. (2014). Residents' support for tourism development: The role of residents' place image and perceived tourism impacts. Tourism Management, 45:260-274.

Sustainable Tourism Enterprise Promotion. (2012). STEP Zimbabwe. Available from: www.stepzim.org.zw/. [16 October 2015].

Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable tourism management. Cabi.

Tassiopoulos, D. (2008). Tourism ventures: An entrepreneurial and management approach. Cape Town: Juta.

Tawonezvi, C., Mirimi, K. & Kabote, F. (2014). Collaboration and stakeholder involvement for tourism development in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences, 3(1):1-9.

Telfer, D. J. & Sharpley, R. (2015). Tourism and development in the developing world. Routledge.

Teye, V., Sönmez, S. & Sirakaya, E. (2002). Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 29:668-688.

The economist (2015) Zimbabwe's economy: Nothing for money | The Economist. Available from: www.economist.com/...economics/21643205-introduction-new-coins-triggers-debate. [2 May 2016].

Timothy, D., & Olsen, D. (Eds.). (2006). Tourism, religion and spiritual journeys (Vol. 4). Routledge.

153

The International Ecotourism Society. 2016. What is Ecotourism? Available from: https://www.ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism. [16 June 2016].

The World Conservation Union (IUCN). (1996). 1996 IUCN red list of threatened animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Theobald, W. F. (2013). Global tourism. London: Routledge.

Theodossopoulos, D. (2010). Tourists and indigenous culture as resources: Lessons from Embera Cultural Tourism in Panama. In Tourism, power and culture: Anthropological insights: 15-33. Clevedon: Channel View.

Thomas, R., Shaw, G. & Page, S. J. (2011). Understanding small firms in tourism: A perspective on research trends and challenges. Tourism Management, 32(5):963-976.

Thornycraft, P. & Laing, A. (2014). Zimbabwe’s Tourism Minister reveals ambitious plan to host Fifa World Cup in 2034. Available from: www.telegraph.co.uk-Africa.and Indian Ocean- Zimbabwe. [23 April 2016].

Tichaawa, T. & Mhlanga, O. (2015a). Community perceptions of a community-based tourism project: A case study of the CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe. African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance, Supplement 1 (December):55-67.

Tichaawa, T. M. & Mhlanga, M. O. (2015b). Residents’ perceptions towards the impacts of tourism development: The case of Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 4(1):1-15.

Tiyce, M. & Dimmock, K. (2000). Nimbin Mardis Grass festival: The impacts. In Proceedings of Events Beyond 2000. Setting the Agenda: Conference on Event Evaluation, Research and Education, Sydney, NSW: 222-230. Edited by Allen, J., Harris, R., Jago, L.K. & Veal, A.J. Sydney: Australian Centre for Event Management, School of Leisure, Sport and Tourism, University of Technology.

Tohidy, F. (2011). Economic impacts of tourism industry. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(8):206-215.

Tosun, C. (2006). Expected nature of community participation in tourism development. Tourism Management, 27:493-504.

Towner, N. (2016). Community participation and emerging surfing tourism destinations: a case study of the Mentawai Islands. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 20(1):1-19.

Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Research methods knowledge base. 2nd edition. New York: Cengage.

Tshuma, R. (2009). Quality assurance in teaching practice: Investigating the ‘fitness-for-purpose’ and ‘fitness-of-purpose’ in Zimbabwe’s 5-2 model of teacher education (Doctoral thesis). University of Fort Hare, Alice.

Türker, A. P. D. N. & Öztürk, A. P. D. S. (2013). Perceptions of residents towards the impacts of tourism in the Küre Mountains National Park, Turkey. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(2):45-56.

United Nations. (UN). Conference on Environment and Development. (1992). Agenda 21: the United

154

Nations programme of action from Rio. Available from: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/ agenda21/index.shtml. [15 June 2016].

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2013). Global Environment Outlook 2000 (Vol. 1). Routledge.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2011). Towards a green economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication. Available from: http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy.

United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO). (2013). Global tourism statistics. Available from: http://sdt.unwto.org/en/content/about-us-5

United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2004). Tourism and poverty alleviation recommendations for action. Madrid: UNWTO.

United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2005). Historical perspective of world tourism. Accessed from: http://unwto.org/facts/eng/historical.htm. [12 August 2016].

United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2007). Tourism highlights. Madrid: World Tourism Organisation. Available from: http://www.world-tourism Org/facts/menu.html. [13 May 2016].

United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2009). Historical perspective of world tourism. Available from: http://unwto.org/facts/eng/historical.htm. [13 May 2016].

United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2010). UNWTO annual report: A year of recovery. Madrid: UNWTO.

Uniyal, M. & Sharma, S. (2013). Sustainability in tourism development: Issue and challenges ahead. International Research Journal of Business and Management, 5:34-47.

Vasudevan, S. (2008). The role of internal stakeholders in destination branding: Observations from Kerala Tourism. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 4(4):331-335.

Upchurch, R. & Teivane, U. (2000). Resident perceptions of tourism development in Riga, Latvia. Tourism Management, 21(5):499–507.

Veal, A. J. (2006). Research methodology for leisure and tourism: A practical guide. 3rd edition. Sydney: Pearson Educational.

Viljoen, J. & Tlabela, K. (2007). Rural tourism development in South Africa: Trends and challenges. Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council.

Vinodan, A. & Manalel, J. A. M. E. S. (2011). Local economic benefits of ecotourism: A case study on Parambikulan Tiger Reserve in Kerala, India. South Asian Journal of Tourism and Heritage, 4(2):93-109.

Vounatsou, M., Laloumis, D. & Pappas, N. (2005). Social impacts of tourism: Perceptions of Mykonos City residents. Journal of Travel Research, 36(2):3-11.

Waitt, G. (2003). Social impact of the Sydney Olympics. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1):194-215.

Waligo, V. M., Clarke, J. & Hawkins, R. (2013). Implementing sustainable tourism: A multi-stakeholder involvement management framework. Tourism Management, 31(3):345-356.

155

Walliman, N. (2001). Your research project: A step-by-step guide for the first-time researcher. London: SAGE.

Wang, Y. & Pfister, R. E. (2008). Residents' attitudes toward tourism and perceived personal benefits in a rural community. Journal of Travel Research, 47(1):84-93.

Wang, Y. (2008). Tradition, memory and the culture of place: Continuity and change in the Ancient City of Pingyao, China. Shanghai: ProQuest.

Warriner, G. K. & Miller, S. (2002). Evaluating socio-economic status (SES) bias in survey nonresponse. Journal of Official Statistics, 18(1):1.

Wearing, S. & McDonald, M. (2002). The development of community-based tourism: Re-thinking the relationship between tour operators and development agents as intermediaries in rural and isolated area communities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(3):191-206.

Weaver, D. B. (2008). Ecotourism. Available from: http://au.wiley.com/WileyCDA/. [15 November 2015].

Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. J. (2007). Twenty years on: The state of contemporary ecotourism research. Tourism Management, 28(5), 1168-1179.

Welman, J. C. & Kruger, S. J. (2001). Research methodology. 2nd edition. Cape Town: Oxford University Press Southern Africa.

Wheeller, B. (1991). Tourism's troubled times: Responsible tourism is not the answer. Tourism Management, 12(2):91-96.

Williams, S. (2009). Tourism geography: A new synthesis. London: Routledge.

Wilson, G., & Johnson, H. (2000). Biting the bullet: civil society, social learning and the transformation of local governance. World Development. 28 (11), 1891-1906.

Wisker, G. (2000). Post-Colonial and African-American women’s writing: A critical introduction. New York; St. Martin’s Press.

Witt, H. & Loots. L. (2010). Flying the mythical flag of a green and inclusive 2010 FIFA World Cup in KwaZulu-Natal. Agenda, 24(85):125-145.

Wood, E. H. (2006). Measuring the social impacts of local authority events: A pilot study for a civic pride scale. International Journal of Non-profit Volunteering, 11:169-179.

World Tourism Organisation (WTO). (2003). Malta tourism digest: Definition of tourism. Available from: http://www.mta.com.mt/uploads/1675/WTOdefinitionoftourism.pdf. [12 April 2016].

World Tourism Organization (WTO). (1989). Current Travel and Tourism Indicators. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.

World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC). (2013). The economic impact of travel & tourism. Available from: http://sdt.wttc.org/en/content/about-us-5. [24 June 2016].

World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC). (2010). Travel and tourism economic impact: South Africa. London: WTTC.

World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC). (2015). the economic impact of travel & tourism. Available from: http://sdt.wttc.org/en/content/about-us-5. [16 June 2016].

156

Yu, C. P. S., Chancellor, H. C. & Cole, S. T. (2009). Measuring residents' attitudes toward sustainable tourism: A re-examination of the sustainable tourism attitude scale. Journal of Travel Research, 54:744- 757.

Zamani-Farahani, H. & Musa, G. (2012). The relationship between Islamic religiosity and residents’ perceptions of socio-cultural impacts of tourism in Iran: Case studies of Sare’in and Masooleh. Tourism Management, 33(4):802-814.

Zhang, Z. P. & Yu, Y. W. (2006). Progresses of aeroanion in tourism environments [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Forestry College, 1, 1-23.

Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation (Zim Asset). Towards an empowered society and a growing economy, October 2013 – December 2018. Available from: archive.kubatana.net/html/archive/econ/131031zimasset.asp. [28 April 2016].

Zimbabwe statistics (ZIMSTATS) (2012). Census 2012. National Report. Zimbabwe Medium Term Plan 2011-2015. (2011). Ministry of Economic Planning and Investment Promotion. Printflow Pvt Ltd: Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency (ZimStats). (2014). Census 2012, Provincial report Bulawayo: Zimbabwe population census. Harare: The Agency.

Zimbabwe Tourism Authority. ZTA (2009). Is it time to travel to Zimbabwe (Conde Nast Traveller). Available from: www.cntraveller.com/news/2009/may/zimbabwe.com. [23 September 2016].

Zimbabwe Tourism Authority. ZTA (2013). Tourism trends and statistics. Available from: www.zimbabwetourism.net/directory/directory/index.php/tourismtrends.com. [24 June 2016].

Zimbabwe Tourism Authority. ZTA (2014). Wild Zambezi. Available from: www.wildZambezi.com/directory/84/Zimbabwe-tourism-authority. [23 September 2016].

Zimbabwe Tourism Authority. ZTA (2016). Zimbabwe a world of wonders. Available from: www.zimbabwetourism.net/. [23 September 2016].

Zunza, E. (2014). Local level benefits of CBNRM: The case of Mahenye Ward CAMPFIRE, Zimbabwe (Master’s dissertation). Centre of Applied Social Sciences, University of Zimbabwe.

157

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT

SCHOOL OF TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY (STH)

RESIDENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

The results from this questionnaire will form part of the data that are required for the researcher obtaining a Master’s Degree at the STH, University of Johannesburg. The research is aimed at measuring the residents’ perceptions regarding the impacts of tourism in Bulawayo. You are kindly requested to participate in the study. The information provided will be treated as strictly confidential, and your personal details will remain strictly protected. The data will be used for academic purposes only. Q. AREA: ______No………..

Please indicate your answer using a tick.

1. Demographic profile

1.1 What is your age? 18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65–74 75–84 85 years or older

1.2 What is your gender? Male Female

1.3 What is your highest education level attained? I completed primary school. I completed secondary school. I completed high school. I am busy with my undergraduate I am busy with my postgraduate I am a college graduate. degree. degree. I have no formal education.

1.4 What is your employment status? Full-time Part-time Unemployed (student) Unemployed (unable to find employment ) Unemployed (housewife) Labourer/Unskilled Retired Business person Other (please specify)

1.4.1 If employed, is your job: Tourism-related? Non-tourism-related?

1.5 How long have you resided in the area? Less than 10 years 10–19 years 20–29 years 30–39 years

158

40 years or more

1.6 To which ethnic group do you belong? Ndebele Shona Kalanga Venda Tonga Sotho Other (please specify)

1.7 What is your marital status? Single (never married) Married Divorced Widowed

1.8 How much have you personally benefited from tourism development? Economically? None A little Some A lot Socially? None A little Some A lot Culturally? None A little Some A lot

1.9 What is your monthly household income in United States Dollars (US$)? 0–100 101–500 501–1500 1501–2500 2501–3500 3501–4500 4501–5500 5501–6500 6501 or above

2. Understanding of, and involvement in, tourism

2.1 What is your understanding of the nature of tourism?

1 = Not at all 2 = A little bit 3 = A moderate amount 4 = A lot (a great deal) 2.2 Level of knowledge of the tourism industry I know about tourism development in my community. 1 2 3 4 I have come into contact with tourists in my community. 1 2 3 4 I understand the role of the local government in tourism. 1 2 3 4 2.3 Level of influence in tourism development I have some influence over tourism planning and development. 1 2 3 4

159

I have the opportunity to participate in tourism planning and development. 1 2 3 4

2.4 Are you involved in tourism in any way? Yes No

2.4.1 If yes, please explain your involvement

3. Perceived tourism impacts Please indicate (using a tick) your level of agreement with the following statements. 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree 5 = Not sure Positive economic impacts Tourism creates employment opportunities for the local community members in my area. 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism contributes to the personal income of the local residents. 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism brings about foreign exchange earnings and regional development in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism encourages investment in infrastructural development in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism increases the amount of money that is available for local development in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism increases the development of the local small, medium and micro-sized enterprises (SMMEs) 1 2 3 4 5 in my community. Tourism increases the number of markets for local products and services in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism increases the funds that are available to support the conservation of natural resources, the 1 2 3 4 5 ecological environment, and the development of sustainable livelihood strategies in my community. Negative economic impacts Tourism income generated in the community goes to outside organisations and individuals. 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism increases the cost of living, such as increasing the prices of local products and imported 1 2 3 4 5 necessities in my community. Tourism causes seasonality of income or employment, thus destabilising the local economy in my 1 2 3 4 5 community. Real estate prices in the community have increased because of tourism in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree 5 = Not sure Positive sociocultural impacts Tourism promotes the renewal of cultural pride in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism leads to improved standards of living in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism stimulates training and skills development for members within my community. 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism encourages a wide variety of cultural activities in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism helps keep culture alive and helps maintain the ethnic identity of the local residents in my 1 2 3 4 5 community. Negative sociocultural impacts Tourism interferes with the local value systems and religions in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism promotes the commodification (commercialisation) of the local culture in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism encourages the staged authenticity (falsifying) of the local culture in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism promotes the standardisation of goods and services in my community. 1 2 3 4 5

160

Tourism encourages the imitation of tourist behaviour and lifestyle in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism causes traffic congestion in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism causes an increase in crime levels (theft, muggings, gambling, smuggling, etc.) in my 1 2 3 4 5 community. Tourism contributes to the decline in morality in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 Positive environmental impacts Tourism incentivises the restoration of heritage in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 Public places are maintained at a better standard of hygiene because of the tourism that is practised 1 2 3 4 5 in my community. Tourism contributes to the preservation of the natural environment and to the protection of wildlife 1 2 3 4 5 within my community. Tourism contributes towards the management of protected areas. 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism ensures the protection of the environment and the ecosystem. 1 2 3 4 5 Negative environmental impacts Tourism contributes to the damaging of important sites in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism contributes to overcrowding and congestion in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism increases the levels of pollution (air, water, noise, and visual) in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism adds to the pressure of limited water and energy supply in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism destroys the natural environment in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 Evaluation of tourism impacts I believe that the benefits of tourism exceed the costs to the people living in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 I think tourism development in the area produces more negative impacts than positive impacts in my 1 2 3 4 5 community. I believe that tourism impacts on my community are overrated. 1 2 3 4 5 General 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree 5 = Not sure The location of Cecil John Rhodes’ grave attracts tourists to Bulawayo. 1 2 3 4 5 I think that Cecil John Rhodes’ grave should be removed from Bulawayo. 1 2 3 4 5

4. Who do you think benefits more from tourism in your local community? (Please tick only one option.) The whole community Locals working at tourism establishments Tourism authorities Provincial tour guides Local tour operators (e.g. DFK Tours, Beks Safaris, Bushdrifters cc) Government officials

Thank you for your participation in the study.

161

APPENDIX B

FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT

SCHOOL OF TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY (STH)

KEY INFORMANT SCHEDULE

1. What is your understanding of tourism?

2. What has your organisation done to promote tourism in the local communities?

3. What challenges have you encountered in this regard to date?

4. What role do you think your organisation should play in encouraging residents to participate in tourism- related activities?

162

APPENDIX C

Table 5.39: Differences in age groups in terms of ANOVA

Descriptive N Mean Std ANOVA Deviation F ρ- value Positive economic impacts 18–24 43 2.7774 .76999 1.8927 0.1117 25–34 67 2.9731 .67027 35–44 70 3.0278 .65967 45–54 81 3.0968 .68374 55 years or 35 3.1366 .70395 older Total 296 3.0108 .69487 Negative economic impacts 18–24 40 2.5667 .77973 0.9388 0.4418 25–34 64 2.7279 .80648 35–44 68 2.8493 .72766 45–54 78 2.7628 .81252 55 years or 33 2.6540 .77787 older Total 283 2.7353 .78248 Positive sociocultural impacts 18–24 44 2.7398 .76675 1.6392 0.1644 25–34 69 2.9964 .69140 35–44 70 2.9517 .67094 45–54 80 3.0471 .74653 55 years or 36 3.0866 .71846 older Total 299 2.9726 .71959 Negative sociocultural impacts 18–24 42 2.4908 .68437 0.8627 0.4867 25–34 71 2.7314 .64117 35–44 70 2.6402 .64618 45–54 77 2.6313 .73444 55 years or 36 2.5843 .74078 older Total 296 2.6318 .68548 Positive environmental impacts 18–24 44 2.9545 .78023 2.0217 0.0915 25–34 67 3.0729 .78250 35–44 69 3.1630 .63476 45–54 78 3.2248 .61442 55 years or 35 3.3371 .55775 older Total 293 3.1484 .68592 Negative environmental impacts 18–24 44 2.1114 .84941 1.4567 0.2155 25–34 70 2.4302 .88485 35–44 69 2.2114 .67171 45–54 78 2.3994 .98550 55 years or 36 2.3755 .73644 163

older Total 297 2.3174 .84963

Evaluation of tourism impacts 18–24 39 2.3077 .83992 0.4882 0.7444 25–34 63 2.4127 .98595 35–44 64 2.4609 .70319 45–54 73 2.2945 .91604 55 years or 30 2.4667 .76489 older Total 269 2.3829 .85750 General 18–24 44 3.2614 .72728 1.5142 0.1981 25–34 70 3.4000 .66811 35–44 65 3.2000 .62375 45–54 80 3.3938 .63492 55 years or 34 3.1912 .50774 older Total 293 3.3089 .64452

164

APPENDIX D

Table 5.41: Differences in length of stay of groups by means of ANOVA Std ANOVA N Mean Deviation F ρ-value Positive economic impacts Less than 10 years 72 2.7891 .66541

10–19 years 78 3.0746 .75011

20–29 years 73 2.9061 .69376 4.9170 0.0008 30–39 years 43 3.2453 .60963

40 years or more 29 3.2712 .51577 Total 295 3.0074 .69365 Negative economic impacts Less than 10 years 70 2.7048 .69933

10–19 years 73 2.7352 .79293

20–29 years 69 2.6618 .81736 0.4393 0.7802 30–39 years 43 2.8217 .88651

40 years or more 27 2.8457 .73004 Total 282 2.7335 .78327 Positive sociocultural impacts Less than 10 years 75 2.8869 .68837

10–19 years 78 2.8850 .76084

20–29 years 72 2.9204 .75341 2.9882 0.0193 30–39 years 43 3.1128 .64281

40 years or more 30 3.3311 .61351 Total 298 2.9718 .72068 Negative sociocultural impacts Less than 10 years 76 2.5534 .59629

10–19 years 76 2.5687 .67785

20–29 years 72 2.6005 .69822 1.6707 0.1568 30–39 years 42 2.8278 .77793

40 years or more 29 2.7834 .72718 Total 295 2.6305 .68631 Positive environmental impacts Less than 10 years 72 2.9306 .73631

10–19 years 76 3.1143 .67087

20–29 years 72 3.0734 .68763 6.4516 0.0001 30–39 years 42 3.4500 .57297

40 years or more 30 3.4933 .46899 Total 292 3.1461 .68604 Negative environmental impacts Less than 10 years 75 2.3142 .92608

10–19 years 76 2.2456 .78179

20–29 years 73 2.2272 .77434 1.1159 0.3491 30–39 years 43 2.4198 .89317

40 years or more 29 2.5655 .92593 Total 296 2.3151 .85014 Evaluation of tourism impacts Less than 10 years 65 2.2923 .75979 2.1988 0.0695

165

10–19 years 69 2.2899 .80168 20–29 years 66 2.3030 .89391

30–39 years 40 2.6750 .88831 40 years or more 28 2.6071 1.00330 Total 268 2.3843 .85878 General Less than 10 years 74 3.2297 .69336 10–19 years 73 3.3219 .57355

20–29 years 74 3.3176 .68032 0.8163 0.5156 30–39 years 42 3.2976 .65388

40 years or more 29 3.4828 .58984 Total 292 3.3099 .64537

166

APPENDIX E

Table 5.42: Differences in perceived tourism impacts between household incomes Descriptive N Mean Std. ANOVA Deviatio n F ρ-value Positive economic impacts 0–100 71 2.8977 .75540 0.8490 0.4681

101–500 161 3.0522 .66930 501–1500 46 3.0439 .75033 1501 and above 17 3.0165 .51137 Total 295 3.0117 .69588

Negative economic impacts 0–100 66 2.6364 .74759 0.4632 0.7082

101–500 154 2.7527 .78350 501–1500 46 2.7591 .81786 1501 and above 16 2.8281 .81050 Total 282 2.7308 .78022

Positive sociocultural impacts 0–100 74 2.9241 .71707 0.3312 0.8028

101–500 161 3.0056 .74625 501–1500 46 2.9355 .68114 1501 and above 17 3.0520 .52364 Total 298 2.9772 .71637

Negative sociocultural impacts 0–100 72 2.6727 .69839 0.3863 0.7629

101–500 161 2.6393 .68957 501–1500 46 2.5590 .69060 1501 and above 16 2.5269 .58540 Total 295 2.6288 .68477

Positive environmental impacts 0–100 71 3.0502 .76033 0.9008 0.4412

101–500 160 3.2047 .63638 501–1500 46 3.1054 .73651 1501 and above 15 3.1400 .69877 Total 292 3.1482 .68710

Negative environmental impacts 0–100 74 2.3347 .87964 0.3462 0.7919

101–500 159 2.2840 .83831 501–1500 47 2.4074 .89394 1501 and above 16 2.2125 .65511 Total 296 2.3124 .84667

Evaluation of tourism impacts 0–100 65 2.2769 .85710 0.4773 0.6983

101–500 142 2.4049 .85869 501–1500 45 2.4556 .85826 1501 and above 16 2.3438 .87023 Total 268 2.3787 .85637

General 0–100 73 3.4863 .58317 2.4645 0.0626

101–500 155 3.2581 .60666 501–1500 47 3.2340 .72119 1501 and above 17 3.3235 .78941 Total 292 3.3151 .63682

167

168