NZ Tourism Research Institute

TOURISM IN GOLDEN BAY Economic Impacts & Resource Use Issues

- Preliminary Report -

June 2000

Victoria University Auckland University of Wellington of Technology INTRODUCTION

Golden Bay's tourism industry faces a number of pressing issues. Intensifying competition, and evolving consumer preferences are forcing the industry to look critically at its past performance and to pinpoint future development options. There is also a growing realisation, that industry growth must occur within acceptable limits with regard to its impacts on local culture and the natural and human-made environment.

A major challenge facing the region is how to fine tune tourism product development and marketing strategies to meet the changing needs of the consumer, while at the same time creating a sustainable industry - one which will maximise economic benefits while reducing socio-environmental costs. It is also vital to achieve some form of balance between potentially conflicting uses of common pool resources. This has been a particularly important issue in recent times with some conflicts beginning to merge between tourism and aquacultural uses of Golden Bay’s waters.

The aim of this research is to develop a data-base that can assist in maximising the performance of tourism as a means of achieving sustainable community development in Golden Bay. Our long-term goal is to provide the ground work for the development of a 'decision support system' that can assist community, industry and government stakeholders in planning and developing future tourism initiatives in Golden Bay.

This report presents some of the initial findings of the research. We focus on the following: 1. An overview of current tourist demand and impacts in Golden Bay 2. Attitudes of visitors to the future development of Golden Bay 3. Community attitudes towards tourism and future economic development in the Bay 4. Local business attitudes towards tourism, and future development including aquaculture In future reports we will broaden our analysis and incorporate data from our geographic information systems (GIS) based analysis. We will focus on themes relating to the creation of greater economic linkages at the local level, the reduction of socio-cultural disruption and attempts to reduce conflicts between various resource users and the tourism industry. The report was compiled by Jarrod Coburn, Callum McLean, Stephen Riley, Frank McShane, Irena Ateljevic and Simon Milne METHODOLOGY

1. Visitors – Demographics Flows and Focus Groups A total of 254 survey instruments were completed by visitors to Golden Bay (representing 407 adults and a total number of visitors [including children] of 660). Surveys were conducted daily between 10.00AM and 5.00PM during January and February 2000. Visitors were surveyed in Takaka, Pohara, and each centre from Onekaka north. The response rate was over 80% and approximately 95% of completed surveys were of useable quality.

Focus group research was conducted during January, 2000, in the Golden Bay area. A market segmentation, identified in earlier TRI research served as a broad frame to organise focus groups. Seven groups with an average of six to seven respondents were organised at the site of the visitors' accommodation. Three focus groups were held at backpackers; two with travellers' staying at bed and breakfast accommodation and two with domestic visitors at camping grounds.

2. Community The community survey was conducted in Golden Bay, specifically the area from Onekaka north. The bulk of the surveys were conducted between mid-December 1999 and mid- January 2000. Research was conducted on weekdays, weekends between the hours 9:00AM and 5:00PM, and on some evenings.

3. Business Interviews were conducted with a total of 54 tourism-related businesses in the Golden Bay and the Nelson area. The interviews were conducted with 20 accommodation operators, 10 tour operations/attractions, 8 cafes/bars, 10 arts and crafts businesses and 6 transport businesses in the area. The research was conducted during January and February 2000, and took place on the business premises. A semi-structured interview approach was taken rather than a survey. Interviews tended to last between one and two hours. VISITOR CHARACTERISTICS AND IMPACTS

Three data sets are referred to in this section: 1. total adult visitors N=407 2. total number of visitors (including dependants) N=660 3. total visits to individual locations undertaken by the 660 visitors (N=2025)

While dependants within a surveyed group are not represented in the demographic data (N=407), they are included in the visitor flow/spend section (N=660). The visitation figure (N=2025) is the total number of visitors who went to a specific area. The figure was calculated by taking the number of visits to an individual area by a group and then multiplying the figure by the number of people in that group.

Demographics

Figure 1: Group makeup N=407 45.0% 41.5% 40.0% 35.9% 35.0%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0% 13.8% 15.0%

10.0% 8.1%

5.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% Couple Family Friends Alone Other Business

• Couples (42%) and families (36%) make up the bulk of Golden Bay visitors • Those travelling with friends represent the next-highest grouping (14%) • The gender split is slightly skewed toward females (52%) Chart 4: VisitorFigure demographics: 2: Age N=407 Age N=407

30.0% 28.0%

25.0% 24.3%

20.0% 19.2%

15.0%

11.3%

10.0% 8.4% 7.1%

5.0% 1.5%

0.0% N/S 75+ 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74

• The majority of Golden Bay visitors (52%) are aged between 35 and 54 • 55-64 year olds account for 19% of visitation • Visitors aged less than 35 years make up only 8% of the sample

Figure 3: Family status N=407 40.0% 36.3% 35.0%

30.0%

25.0% 21.9% 20.0% 18.2% 17.4% 15.0%

10.0%

5.0% 2.7% 2.0% 1.5% 0.0% n/s Other Single Empty Couple nesters Couple children w/children Couple no Sgl w/children • The most common family status of GB visitors is couple with children (36%) • Singles make up 22% of the sample, while ‘empty nesters’ (18%) and couples without children (17%) are also significant groups • Single parents make up only 2% of the sample Chart 6: VisitorFigure demographics: 4: Education Education N=407 N=407

35.0% 30.7% 30.0%

25.0% 21.6% 20.0% 19.2%

15.0% 13.0% 13.0%

10.0%

5.0% 1.0% 1.5% 0.0% N/S Other Course High school Other non- tertiary qual. Postgraduate Polytech/Tech Undergraduate • Most visitors to Golden Bay are educated to undergraduate level (31%) • A further 22% have a non-university tertiary qualification (polytechnic, etc.) • Those who have no tertiary education account for 32% of visitors • 69% of visitors surveyed have access to the Internet

Chart Figure8: Visitor 5: Individualdemographics: income Income N=407 N=407

25.0% 23.1% 21.4%

20.0%

15.0% 13.3%

10.0% 8.4% 8.6% 8.6%

6.1% 5.0% 4.4% 2.7% 1.7% 1.7%

0.0% N/S -$10K $250K+ $10-20K $20-30K $30-40K $40-50K $50-70K $70-100K $100-150K $150-250K

• Just under half of visitors to Golden Bay earn between $50-100K per year (46%) • Relatively few visitors earn less than $40,000 per annum (28%) • The single largest income bracket is $70-100K (23%) Figure 6: Occupation N=407 35.0% 32.4%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0% 13.6% 12.0%

10.0% 7.9% 6.6% 6.1% 5.4% 5.2% 5.0% 3.4% 2.9% 2.5% 2.0%

0.0% Other Retail Retired Service Clerical Student Production Agri/for/fish Homemaker Unemployed Admin/mgmt Prof/technical • Most visitors to GB are employed in professional or technical occupations • The next-highest classes are Admin/management (14%) and Retired (12%) • Just 2% of visitors to Golden Bay are unemployed

Figure 7: Activities undertaken by visitors (incl. children) N=660 700 654

600

500

400

300 219 200 137 120 100 63 20 18 9 6 2 0 Kayak Scuba Fishing Boating Sightsee Waterski Shopping Swimming Arts/crafts Other Marine • The most common activity undertaken is sightseeing. In other words, the visitors sampled undertook 654 discrete sightseeing episodes • Swimming is the next-highest rated activity (219) • Shopping (137) is also a popular activity (this excludes arts and crafts) • There were 120 visits to arts and crafts establishments WHERE VISITORS COME FROM

FigureChart 8: Where10: Visitor visitors flows come to GB: from: Breakdown Domestic of and origin International (all) N=2015 N=660

25.0%

20.0% 20.0% 17.0%

15.0% 12.9% 11.5%

9.6% 10.0% 9.4% 7.8%

5.6% 5.0% 3.1% 3.1%

0.0% Nelson Australia Other NZ Auckland Other int. UK & Eire UK Wellington Nth America Christchurch Cont. Europe Cont. • Domestic tourism accounts for 67% of Golden Bay visitors with South island markets being most important • Continental Europe and the UK/Ireland account for 21% of visitors • Few Australians (3%) visit the area

Chart 11:Figure Visitor 9: flows Where to GB:visitors Breakdown come from: of origin Domestic (domestic) N=660 N=2015

25.0%

20.0% 20.0%

15.0% 12.9%

9.6% 10.0% 7.8%

5.0% 3.6% 2.2% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.3% 1.1% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% BoP Otago Nelson Dunedin Waikato Hamilton Auckland Wanganui Manawatu Wairarapa Wellington Canterbury West Coast Marlborough Christchurch Hawkes Bay

• Domestic tourists visiting Golden Bay come mostly from the South Island • Christchurch (20% of total visitors) is the largest source of domestic visitors for Golden Bay • Nelson provides 13% of the area’s visitors • Wellington and Auckland are the most important North Island markets Chart 13:Figure Visitor 10: flows Where to visitorsGB: Breakdown come from: of originInternational (international)(domestic)(international) N=660 N=2015 N=2015 N=2015

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

11.5%

10.0% 9.4%

5.6% 5.0% 3.1% 1.8% 1.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% Israel Japam Australia Sri Lanka Zimbabwe UK & Eire UK Nth America Cont. Europe

• Continental Europe accounts for 12% of all visitors to Golden Bay • The next-highest international source is the UK and Ireland (9%) • Australia (3%) and Japan (2%) are relatively small markets

WHERE VISITORS GO TO

The average visitor length of stay in Golden Bay is 4.9 days.

Figure 11: Visitor flow in GB: Mode of transportation N=660

70.0% 66.2%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

18.2% 20.0%

6.1% 10.0% 4.4% 2.9% 2.0% 0.2% 0.0% Own vehicle Rental Hitch-hike Pub. Own boat Charter boat n/s vehic le transport

• Two thirds of visitors to Golden Bay travel in their own vehicle • The next most significant mode of travel is in rental vehicles (18%) Figure 12: Visitor flow in Golden ChartBay: X Domestic and International N=2025 300 287 275 260 250 239 225 195 200 175 151 150

125 104 104 100 85 85

75 58 56 45 44 43 40 36 36 50 34 28 26 21 25 13 13 9 8 4 1 0 Takaka Pohar a Bainham Onekaka Rockville Puponga Parapara Totaranui Tarakohe Pakaw au Lighthouse Rangihatea Hill Knuckle Milnethorpe Mangarakau Collingw ood Devil's Boots Devil's Paton's Roc k Kaituna Track Heaphy Track Heaphy Kaihoka Lakes Kaihoka Cape Farew ell Wharaiki Beach Wharaiki Aorere Goldfield Aorere Te Anaroa Caves Abel Park Tasman Waikoropupu Springs Waikoropupu • Takaka (287) is the area most frequented by Golden Bay visitors • Collingwood (260) and Puponga (239) are also popular visitation spots • 195 visits to Waikoropupu Springs were recorded in this survey

ChartFigure 20: Visitor 13: Visitor flows flowin GB: in GoldenDomestic Bay: N=2015 Domestic

19 5 200 19 1 180

160 15 0

140 12 7

120 10 5 100 80 74 76

60 53 51 36 31 29 40 26 25 27 25 26 24 24 21 16 11 9 20 5 331 0 Pohara Takaka Rockville Bainham Puponga Onekaka Parapara Totaranui Pakawau Tarakohe Milnthorpe Lighthouse Knuckle Hill Knuckle Collingwood Mangarakau Rangihaeata Devil's Boots Patons Rock Heaphy Track Kaituna Track Cape Farewell Kaihoka Lakes Te Anaroa Cave Aorere Goldfield Aorere Wharariki Beach Abel Tasman Park Tasman Abel Waikoropupu Springs

• Most domestic visits are to Takaka (195) and Collingwood (191) • Waikoropupu Springs generated 127 domestic visits Chart 14: Visitor flow in Golden Bay: International

200

180

160

140

120

100 92 89

80 69 68

60 46 32 34 40 30 28 30 22 20 16 20 13 11 12 11 10 10 445 2 0 2 1 0 0 Pohara Takaka Onekaka Rockville Puponga Bainham Pakawau Parapara Tarakohe Totaranui Milnthorpe Lighthouse Knuckle Hill Knuckle Mangarakau Collingwood Patons Rock Rangihaeata Boots Devil's Heaphy Track Heaphy Track Kaituna Cape Farewell Cape Kaihoka Lakes Kaihoka Te Anaroa Cave Anaroa Te Aorere Goldfield Wharariki Beach Wharariki Abel TasmanAbel Park Waikoropupu Springs Waikoropupu

• International visitors visit mostly Takaka (92) and Puponga (89) • Collingwood (69) and Waikoropupu Springs (68) are also popular • Overall visitation patterns are relatively similar for domestic and international visitors

A graphical representation of where individual visits occur is presented in the following map and table. This is possible to represent because as visitors were surveyed, they were asked to indicate on a map which places they had visited, what they had spent in different destinations, and where they had stayed overnight. MAP 1: Individual Visits in Golden Bay N=2025

Wharariki Beach

KEY: -50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201-250 251-300

Location No. visits Location No. visits Location No. visits Abel Tasman Park 56 Knuckle Hill 13 Puponga 239 Aorere Goldfield 1 Lighthouse 45 Rangihaeata 26 Bainham 21 Mangarakau 28 Rockville 34 Cape Farewell 85 Milnthorpe 44 Takaka 287 Collingwood 260 Onekaka 36 Tarakohe 58 Devil's Boots 13 Pakawau 151 Te Anaroa Cave 4 Heaphy Track 9 Parapara 85 Totaranui 43 Kaihoka Lakes 40 Patons Rock 36 Waikoropupu Springs 195 Kaituna Track 8 Pohara 104 Wharariki Beach 104 WHAT VISITORS SPEND

• A total of $80,182.20 was spent in Golden Bay by the visitors surveyed.

Figure 15: Visitor spend in Golden Bay: All sectors N=2025 $43,884.50 $21,284.00 $6,000.00 $5,599.70

$5,000.00 $4,440.00 $4,319.00

$4,000.00

$3,000.00

$2,000.00

$1,000.00 $355.00 $220.00 $80.00 $- Fish F&B Swim Accom. Kayaking Shopping Arts/crafts Sightseeing • Accommodation ($44K) and food/beverage ($21K) were the highest spend categories • Shopping accounted for a total spend of $6K

Figure 16: Total spend per sector: Accommodation N=660 $25,000.00 $22,837.00

$20,000.00

$15,000.00

$10,000.00 $9,265.50

$6,399.00

$5,000.00 $2,225.00 $2,048.00 $1,170.00

$- B&B Farm Private Mot/hot B/packer Cmp/caravan • Camping, and camper-vans are the most common form of accommodation used ($23K) • Bed & Breakfasts ($9K) are the next most significant grouping Figure 17: Numbers of visitors staying in accommodation N=660 160 140 (55%) 140

120

100

80

60

40 34(13%) 24(9%) 23(9%) 23(9%) 20 12(5%)

0 Farm Private Mot/hot B/packer Bed&bfst Cmp/crvn • Over half of visitors to Golden Bay either camp or stay in caravans/campervans • 13% stay in backpacker hostels • An equal amount (9%) stay in motels or hotels, B&Bs or private houses • Farmstays make up the remaining 5%

Figure 18: Average spend per sector: F&B, Activities and Accom. N=660

$70.00 $66.58

$60.00

$50.00

$40.00 $32.25 $30.00

$20.00

$8.48 $10.00 $6.73 $6.54 $0.99 $- F&B Other Accom. Shopping Arts/crafts Sightseeing • On average each visitor spends $121.57 during their visit to Golden Bay • The average spend by each visitor on accommodation is $66.58 • Visitors spend on average $32.25 on food and beverage • The spatial distribution of tourist spending (total and average per visit) is presented in the following maps MAP 2: Total Visitor Expenditure in Golden Bay N=660

KEY: -$50 $51-500 $501-1000 $1001-5000 $5001-10000 $10001-15000 $15000+

Location Tot. spend % Location Tot. spend % Abel Tasman Park$ 42.00 0.04% Pakawau$ 14,026.50 14.56% Aorere Goldfield$ 1.00 0.00% Parapara$ 6,166.00 6.40% Bainham$ 77.00 0.08% Patons Rock$ 3,348.00 3.47% Cape Farewell$ 63.00 0.07% Pohara$ 11,725.00 12.17% Collingwood$ 22,108.90 22.94% Puponga$ 7,657.00 7.95% Devil's Boots$ 8.00 0.01% Rangihaeata$ 1,917.00 1.99% Heaphy Track$ 10.00 0.01% Rockville$ 64.00 0.07% Kaihoka Lakes$ 34.00 0.04% Takaka$ 20,186.00 20.95% Kaituna Track$ 4.00 0.00% Tarakohe$ 2,296.00 2.38% Knuckle Hill$ 7.00 0.01% Te Anaroa Cave$ 4.00 0.00% Lighthouse$ 23.00 0.02% Totaranui$ 628.00 0.65% Mangarakau$ 151.00 0.16% Waikoropupu Springs$ 124.00 0.13% Milnthorpe$ 1,718.00 1.78% Wharariki Beach$ - 0.00% Onekaka$ 3,973.50 4.12% MAP 3: Average Spend in each Golden Bay Location Visited N=660

KEY: -50¢ 51¢-$1 $1-5 $5-10

$10-20 $20-50 $50-100 $100+

Location Spend/pax Location Spend/pax Location Spend/pax Abel Tasman Park $ 0.75 Knuckle Hill $ 0.54 Puponga $ 32.04 Aorere Goldfield $ 1.00 Lighthouse $ 0.51 Rangihaeata $ 73.73 Bainham $ 3.67 Mangarakau $ 5.39 Rockville $ 1.88 Cape Farewell $ 0.74 Milnthorpe $ 39.05 Takaka $ 70.33 Collingwood $ 85.03 Onekaka $ 110.38 Tarakohe $ 39.59 Devil's Boots $ 0.62 Pakawau $ 92.89 Te Anaroa Cave $ 1.00 Heaphy Track $ 1.11 Parapara $ 72.54 Totaranui $ 14.60 Kaihoka Lakes $ 0.85 Patons Rock $ 93.00 Waikoropupu Springs $ 0.64 Kaituna Track $ 0.50 Pohara $ 112.74 Wharariki Beach $ - Note: These figures are calculated by dividing each area’s total spend by the number of people who visited that area. FOCUS GROUPS

Three major market segments have been identified in previous TRI research in the Nelson region: 'total immersers' (international, traditionally experienced backpackers); 'semi- bubble travellers' (relaxed professionals and/or the retired couples that can be domestic or international in origin); and 'traditional domestic campers’ (usually families with children). Discussions were organised around three major themes: visitors’ travel mode and their motivations; the visitors’ perceptions and experiences of the Golden Bay area; their attitudes towards natural environment and mussel farm development. Discussions about aquaculture in the Bay were supplemented by the showing of visual images and representations of both current and projected activity.

Background of the visitors (i) 'Total Immersers' (international, traditionally experienced backpackers) These travellers are generally well-travelled and experienced and regard themselves as ‘real travellers’ as distinct from ‘tourists’. They cover a wide range of age groups and mostly come from Europe (most notably Germany, UK, Switzerland, Netherlands), Australia and the USA.

Respondents generally expressed pessimism about the economics and lifestyle of the West, feeling the pressure of globalisation and a loss of control over their lives. Restructuring, competition, environmental degradation, big profits, greed, stress and consumerism are the words that were commonly mentioned. The majority of respondents feel overwhelmed by ‘corporate’ culture and use travel as a form of nostalgia, seeking traditional lifestyles, the human touch and ‘direct contact with nature’.

‘I have been living in the big city for a long time…for me it’s quite important to get away from people and New Zealand is good for that…I think most people who come here enjoy that side…it’s so easy to find solitude if you want…’ .

Most people are long-term travellers, trying to ‘step out’ of the visitors' perspective to learn more about local culture, to feel ‘integrated’. As one respondent who worked on a farm explained:’...you experience life of the family and Kiwi people living together…you don’t feel like a visitor, you feel like someone who lives here…and that feels so good, really good…’. These travellers commonly seek to avoid the beaten track and, in terms of transport commonly use public transport (train, bus), hitch-hike, cycle or have a private vehicle bought for travel purposes. In general, trekking, animal watching, swimming and leisure reading are the main activities.

'Semi-Bubble Travellers' (Relaxation Seeking Professionals and Senior Couples) This visitor market covers two major groups: younger/middle age professional couples or individuals who travel to/around New Zealand purely to relax ‘to get away from urbanised, stressful city life’; and senior retired couples with high levels of disposable income. This segment includes both domestic and international visitors. These visitors tend to prefer to travel in rental cars and to stay in luxurious, ‘boutique’ bed and breakfast establishments.

Every break for travel is perceived as an opportunity to relax and escape pressures. They search for cultural experiences, quiet environments, arts and crafts, vineyards, cafés and ‘boutique’ accommodation. Travel represents an important part of their lifestyle. Food, wine, and eating out are an important part of the travel experience; having dinner with hosts and other guests is seen as a good opportunity for interesting conversation and insight into local issues.

The New Zealanders in the group were often regular campers in the area in the past, and are now returning to enjoy a different form of experience. As one respondent explained: 'It's nice to come back where you have so many memories but now being able to relax completely without children'.

'Regular Visitors/Traditional Campers/Holidaymakers' These visitors generally have a long tradition of coming to the Golden Bay area for their annual summer holiday and often Easter holiday. They are mostly families with children and generally stay in camping grounds. This group like coming to Golden Bay as it is a 'perfect escape place' that has not changed dramatically over the years: as one respondent noted 'just simple, good old New Zealand'.

Given the physical separation of Takaka hill it is considered as a good 'family hideaway' from busy, crowded and over-commercialised spots like Kaiteriteri. Many respondents noted that there are also not many temptations to spend money – an advantage for family groups. Golden Bay is still considered to be untouched “you can leave your house and car unlocked, and still meet real country people”.

EXPERIENCE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GOLDEN BAY

'Total Immersers' The majority did not have a clear image of Golden Bay before they arrived apart from expectations based on the facts that the area has a single, no-exit road and offers the promise of remoteness and a ‘special feel’. As one respondent noted:

‘as soon as I saw the map of New Zealand I circled the area as a must place to visit…hill, no-exit road...just perfect…’.

All participants agreed it was the epitome of how they imagined New Zealand, as one person stated: ‘quiet, rural lifestyle with organic farming and fruit/vege gardens’. Everyone praised the ‘amazing’ combination of factors to be found in the area: nice climate, beaches, lovely people and good backpackers, arts and crafts etc. The whole group agreed that they would recommend Golden Bay to their friends back home.

The small-scale nature of tourism development, the ability to find absolute solitude, unique locations such as Farewell Spit, and wildlife all gave a ‘special’ feel of the area. People also commented on the friendliness of people and the interesting contrast between rural farmers and ‘alternative hippies’.

The majority are delighted to see so many ‘environmentally friendly’ establishments with compost toilets, organic produce, and recycling practices. However, the group expressed fear of further tourist development. Everyone wants ‘the place to stay as it is at the moment’ and wonder if that is possible.

Respondents generally feel that the appeal of the Golden Bay lies in the feel of being untouched, undeveloped, ' a real New Zealand as I imagined it would be', as one respondent explained. 'Semi-Bubble Travellers' & Regular Visitors For both domestic and foreign visitors the whole area is symbolised by clean environment and a sense of New Zealand the way it was (or should be). As one participant noted:

‘an archetype of traditional, real New Zealand and Collingwood is a sweet little place’.

New Zealanders who used to camp in the area recalled the ‘good old days’ when you could pick up scallops by handful in the Bay (mostly impossible today). However, they also noticed a lot of positive changes over time especially with respect to Takaka: 'now it's very comfortable, a nice place in general'. Despite fear of further larger-scale tourist developments, respondents agreed that there is still a good balance between development and lifestyle.

'For us, the area is still fairly laid back, it is still very friendly here and people are not just eager to grab money from you and that is why we keep coming back here, it has been an escape place for us… it is still real New Zealand'.

ISSUES RELATING TO AQUACULTURE

Total Immersers Given the motivations of these visitors, and especially their desire to experience unspoiled and undeveloped New Zealand, most expressed serious concerns over the possibility of expanding aquaculture in the Bay. For many, mussel farms are a sign of industrialisation and commercialisation and there is a feeling they would affect the essence of the place. The majority feel that the visual impact of mussel farms would be detrimental to their holiday experience. Everyone asked if it would be possible to locate the farms further away so that are not so visible from the coast.

The majority have seen mussel farms in the Marlborough Sounds. Everyone felt that they would have a completely different impact on Golden Bay, as one respondent expressed:

‘it is one big integrated Bay…the Sounds are different, there are so many little Bays, you can get away from them (the mussel farms) while here where the beaches are wide open those farms would be too visible’. Visually, respondents perceived the farms as very ugly and were surprised at the possibility of increased aquaculture in the Bay, as one respondent explained: ‘it would be an eyesore'.

Respondents were curious about the scale of mussel farm developments and asked 'who will benefit from it?'’. They raised issues of ownership, management and economic benefits for the local community. Being aware that they are outsiders who come to enjoy the Bay, they did not feel comfortable with the fact that their opinions might conflict with the well-being and wishes of locals, as one respondent explained:

'me personally I wouldn't like to see that happen [no expansion of aquaculture] but that has to be a local-decision and I don't know what the economics of mussel farms are. It's just very easy for people who come from overseas where they have got quite good disposable income to say we want everything to stay the same …it's actually local people who have to decide'.

'Semi-Bubble Travellers' The respondents expressed surprise about the possibility of increased mussel farm development. The majority of participants have seen one or two existing mussel farms in the Bay and did not want greater numbers to be visible from the coast. Everyone wondered if there could be a balance struck with farms being developed further from the seashore.

International visitors expressed their surprise about the issue in general, as one respondent from the USA remarked: 'for us in the US, New Zealand presents a model of enlightened ecological sensitivity and resource management, why would they do this…’.

Generally, everyone agreed that mussel farms would visually capture their eyes and that the feel of a pristine, untouched place would be lost:

‘I automatically imagine harvesting and big boats and machines, which would create the feel of industrialisation …. That is persistent feature of my everyday life … I go travelling to get away from it ’. Another respondent stated that ‘seeing the plastic, black buoys would take attention from the beauty of the water, hills, beach, air and colours…’.

Respondents also raised the issue of boating and other water-based activities being affected by further aquaculture developments. On the other hand, another respondent noted that conservation should be based on the 'wise use of resources, not just simply preservation and I think limited commercialisation would be acceptable'. He stressed that decisions related to resource allocations should be a compromise between geographic, economic and social impacts, focusing on the question of economic benefits to the local area. He noted:

'You should not simply be saying - no mussel farms at all, it should be a balance', recognising the importance of wider regulatory structures'.

'Regular Visitors/Traditional Campers/Holidaymakers' Respondents primarily stressed the visual impacts that they felt would destroy the 'feel of the place'. Fears of disturbing the unique experience of the Bay were strongly expressed, as one respondent explained:

'the other night we went out after the rain, there was a lovely rainbow in the sky and it was all purple, and pink and special and having those stupid, black things in the middle of the Bay with boat lights would spoil the whole thing…'.

Another respondent agreed by saying: 'the view of the bay from Pakawau is so peaceful and harmonised..in the night you only see the light from lighthouse, that is what makes Golden Bay special'.

Generally, respondents were not completely against mussel farm development, but felt that development should occur in such a way that visual impacts are minimised. THE COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE

While the questions asked in the community survey covered an array of issues, this report focuses on two key areas: demographic characteristics and attitudes toward resource use.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS • The ratio of females to males among the surveyed group is approximately 60:40

Figure 19: Area of residence N=177

18% 16% 16% 14% 14% 13% 12% 11% 10% 10% 8% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% Other Kaituna Tukurua Rockville Onekaka Bainham Puponga Pakawau Milnthorp Parapara Totara Ave Totara Collingwood Mangarakau

• A wide area was canvassed for this survey, mostly north of Collingwood. • 43% of participants are from Collingwood, Pakawau or Parapara

Figure 20: Ethnicity N=177

Not stated 2% NZ European Maori Other Other 8% Not stated

Maori NZ European 2% 88%

• The majority of community members surveyed are New Zealand European (88%) • 2% of the sample is Maori Figure 21: Age N=177 30% 27%

25% 23%

20% 20%

15%

10% 10% 9% 6% 5% 4% 2% 0% 0% n/s -15 75+ 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74

• Almost 70% of respondents fall between the ages of 35 and 64 • The largest group is 35-44 years (47%) • People under 15 years were not asked to participate in the survey

Figure 22: Residence N=177 n/s Non-resident 1% 10%

Resident Non-resident n/s

Resident 89%

• 89% of respondents described themselves as permanent residents • 10% identified themselves as ‘non-residents’. These are primarily bach owners who regularly come to the area in the summer Figure 23: No. of years resident in Golden Bay N=177 25%

20% 20% 18%

15% 15% 14% 13% 11% 10%

5% 5% 5%

0% n/s < 5 50+ 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-30 30-50

• Nearly 40% of respondents have lived (or owned baches) in the greater Collingwood area for less than ten years • 20% had been in the area for more than 30 years

Figure 24: Place of birth N=177

n/s Collingwood area 5% 11% Overseas 16% Takaka area 8% Collingwood area Takaka area Nelson region Nelson region South Island other 13% NewNorth Zealand Island other Overseas n/s New NorthZealand Island other 24%24%

South Island other 23%

• About a third of those surveyed were born within the Nelson region • 23% of those surveyed were born elsewhere in the South Island • People born overseas account for 16% of the sample Figure 25: Education N=177 60% 50% 50%

40%

30% 19% 20% 12% 9% 10% 7% 1% 2% 0% n/s PhD Other Bachelor Post Grad. High school Diploma/cert

• Half of those surveyed are educated no further than high school level • 20% have graduated from university with a degree

Figure 26: Occupation N=177

Other Full time 8% 34%

Full time Part time Retired Seasonal FT 21% Seasonal PT Student Unemployed Retired Other

Unemployed 6% Part time 24% Student 3% Seasonal PT Seasonal FT 2% 2%

• Just over a third of those interviewed work full-time • 24% of the sample work part-time • 30% of the people surveyed are retired, studying, or unemployed Figure 27: Individual Income N=177 30%

25% 24% 21% 20%

15% 14% 11%

10% 8% 8%

5% 4% 5% 3% 2% 0% n/s -$10K $150K+ $10-20K $20-30K $30-40K $40-50K $50-70K $70-100K $100-150K

• 57% of the community members surveyed earn under $30,000 • The most represented income group is $10-20K (24%)

ATTITUDES TOWARD RESOURCE USE Community members were asked a series of questions relating to about how they feel about the commercial use of Golden Bay’s resources.

Table 1: Most appropriate use of Golden Bay’s resources N=177 Response No. of respondents Tourism 45 Farming 38 “The status quo” 27 Aquaculture 26 Recreation 21 "A balance of industries" 17 Conservation 11 Other 2 n/s 25

• We asked respondents to state their preferred resource development option. Most stated tourism, followed by farming (some gave more than one option)

• A significant number also mentioned that no further development was needed, while others stated that aquaculture was an important option Table 2: Community attitudes toward localised resource uses Resource Use Average score Conservation 4.39 Tourism 4.21 Commercial Shellfish Farming 2.85 Key: 1=Strongly Disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neutral 4=Agree 5=Strongly agree

• Community members were also asked to rank from 1-5 the resource use that they most preferred for the particular region where they lived and undertook recreational and leisure activities (including local coastal and water resources)

• On a five-point scale, conservation and tourism were ranked highly, commercial shellfish farming ranked relatively low

• Figure 28: Attitudes to tourism and commercial shellfish farming N=177

90 80 70 1 60 2 50 3 4 40 5 30 20 10 0 1 2 Tourism 3 4 5 Commercial 1 2 shellfish 3 4 farming 5 Tourism Commercial Commercial shellfishshellfish fishingfarming

Key: 1=Strongly Disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neutral 4=Agree 5=Strongly agree

• Tourism consistently ranked at the high end of the five-point scale • Most people support tourism as a resource use in Golden Bay • Commercial shellfish farming has a high ‘strongly disagree’ reaction, indicating that support for this resource use is relatively low Table 3: Attitudes of the community members toward resource use issues & processes N=177

Attitude Yes No n/s

Aware of conflict over the use of resources in the Bay 89% 11% Has discussed these issues with other individuals 81% 19% Belongs to groups which discuss or lobby on these issues 30% 70% Has attended formal meetings regarding resource use in the Bay 42% 57% 1% Has been to an environmental mediation session 18% 82% Has attended an environmental court hearing 13% 87% Has applied, at some time, for a resource consent 45% 54% 1% Has made a submission on the Resource Management Act 51% 49% Believes there are areas of the Bay that should be set aside for conservation purposes 53% 45% 2% Would like to see changes in the way the natural resources of the Bay are managed 55% 33% 12% Have had enough input into decisions relating to resource use in the Bay 55% 40% 5% Uses the Internet to get info about environmental court hearings and proceedings 4% 93% 3% Uses the Internet to get info about other issues 22% 76% 2%

Overall, those surveyed appear to be aware of environmental resource conflicts, to be willing to discuss them and, in many cases, to become involved in formal planning processes. Some of the key findings to emerge from this section of the research are:

• 30% of people belong to an environmental lobby group of some kind • Over 40% of people have attended a formal resource use meeting • Only 18% of respondents have attended an environmental mediation session • 13% of community respondents have attended an environmental court hearing • 45% of respondents have applied for a resource consent • Half of respondents had made a submission on the RMA • 55% want changes in how the natural resources of the Bay are managed • Few use the internet to monitor resource-use issues (4%) • 21% of interviewees have access to the internet Table 4: Perceived effects of changes in natural resource use Response No. of respondents Negligible to no impact 28 Degradation of the aesthetics of the bay 28 Pollution 18 Reduced accessibility of areas 14 Depletion of marine fauna 11 Noise 11 Bad effect on tourism 4 Other 14

Finally we asked community members whether they felt resource development (of all kinds, including tourism) had created any perceived impacts on the region:

• 28 people who responded to this question felt they had not seen any discernible impacts. At the same time, however, a further 28 felt there had been a negative impact on the aesthetics of the Bay • Pollution, reduced accessibility of areas to the public, depletion of marine fauna and noise were other factors that people mentioned THE BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE

BUSINESSES INTERVIEWED AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS Interviews were conducted with 20 accommodation operators, 10 tour operations/attractions, 8 cafes/bars, 10 arts and crafts businesses and 6 transport businesses in the area.

Businesses indicated they employed on average 3.3 peak season workers per business. In the off-peak season there is an average of 1.3 workers per business.

Table 5: Annual turnover N=21 Turnover No. of businesses Under $30,000 8 $30,000 to $50,000 2 $50,000 to $100,000 2 $100,000 to $500,000 7 $500,000 to $1 million 1 Not Stated 1 • Seven businesses of the 21 businesses that indicated their annual turnover, generated between $100,000 and $500,000 • 12 of the businesses turned over less than $100,000

Figure 29: Origin of GB business people N=38

Golden Bay 10% Overseas 28%

Golden Bay NZ (exclGB) Overseas

NZ (exclGB) 62% • Most business operators (62%) originate from other parts of New Zealand • A small number of operators (10%) originate from Golden Bay • 28% of respondents come from overseas FigureFigure 30: 32: Reason Reason for for movingmoving intoto current current business business N=38 N-38 Other 11%

Diversity 7% Lifestyle 37% Lifestyle Opportunity Diversity Other

Opportunity 45%

• A ‘good business opportunity’ is the main reason people set up business in Golden Bay (45%) • Lifestyle is also a primary factor for a considerable number (37%) of businesses

• Many feel that Golden Bay is not a place where you get rich quick. As one business owner noted:

"The prime reason we are here in business is for the lifestyle. We didn't come here to make money. I don't think anyone is coming here to make money. The only way you can support yourself is to make enough so as to get by over winter." GOVERNMENT

Figure 31: Business attitudes toward government organisations N=38 20 18 18

16

14

12 11 Pos 10 9 8 Nuet 8 6 Neg 6

4 3 2 2 1 0 0 Tasman District Council Regional tourism Dept. of Conservation organisations

• Most businesses have had positive dealings with the Tasman District Council

• TDC was commonly described as cooperative, supportive and friendly

• There are mixed feelings among businesses about the support they receive from the regional tourism organisation

• The majority of those with a negative attitude towards the RTO commented on the problems associated with their geographic distance from Latitude Nelson

• The need for closer communication between Latitude Nelson and the arts and crafts sector was identified as an important issue

• Tourism-related businesses generally held negative feelings towards DoC. Several people felt there was too much regulation and that this stifled small business development THE ROLE OF TOURISM RELATED BUSINESS IN THE LOCAL ECONOMY

• There appears to be good integration both between tourism businesses themselves and with other sectors

• Operators often mentioned their use of local trades-people and where possible employed people who lived locally rather than outside of the community

• Business operators make on average 47% of their consumables payments to the Nelson area

• On average 50% of banking and other service costs are made to the Golden Bay area

• An average of 83.13% of wage and salary payments were made within Golden Bay

Table 6: Average costs (Payments to Golden Bay and Nelson) N=21 Cost category Golden Bay % Nelson % Consumables 38.8 47.36 Banking and other services 49.94 28.56 Advertising and Promotion 31.08 35.28 Wages and Salary 83.13 nil

NOTE: Figures do not add to 100%, the remaining portion are costs paid outside the Nelson and Golden Bay area

• There is clearly a commitment to buy supplies locally whenever possible. As one respondent noted:

"We try to purchase items as locally as possible. We started by going to wholesale places in Nelson. It is more expensive to buy locally, but we feel it is important to support local businesses."

• Arts and crafts businesses indicated that most of their supplies came from the Nelson area MARKETS

• On average the businesses interviewed derived an estimated 44% of their business from international visitors. The domestic market accounted for 56%

• The Golden Bay area is seen to attract the family market, described by a respondent as “a family place with nice beaches”. Businesses suggest that the area attracts a very loyal visitor market. "It is interesting that a lot of those who were once kids are now coming back with their families."

• A range of comments were made by business operators regarding the way they would describe Golden Bay to a visitor who had not been to the area. The following is a sample of some of these comments:

There is so much variety of landscapes. Lovely safe beaches. There are no big towns. Every quarter of an hour you drive in Golden Bay it changes. It is just as idyllic, just as beautiful.

Golden Bay is beautiful, a great environment; it’s got arts and crafts; it is an ideal destination.

Scenic, unspoiled, pristine, and an excellent variety of natural phenomena like caves, beaches, forests, rivers, alpine area and the West Coast area.

What New Zealand was like 20 years ago. It is pretty diverse, diverse people live here from the traditional people to the alternatives. RESOURCES AND CONFLICT

• 75% of the businesses interviewed felt that there was little or no tourism-related conflict at the community level. In general they felt there was a balance between community quality of life and tourism development.

• It was noted by some respondents that many established locals (who have been in the area all their lives) tend to have a problem with tourist operations in the area. It was suggested by one business owner that:

"there is a fair bit of animosity from the local community with regard to tourism operations. It would be fair to say that many locals don't like tourism: mainly those that have been here a long time."

• The majority of businesses (75%) have had experience in making resource consent applications

• Concern was raised by a number of businesses about resource consent procedures. Businesses tended to find the procedures difficult and time-consuming: respondents noted the very protracted and drawn out process

• Businesses were asked to comment on what type of future development of Golden Bay’s resource base was most appropriate

• Eleven businesses indicated that tourism should be the major form of development in the area

• There is a strong sense of a need to strive for a balanced approach to development in the Golden Bay area. As one respondent suggested:

"I would not like to see Golden Bay turn into another Queenstown. I would not like to see high rise developments. The sort of thing we've done here is low key, environmentally sound, high value tourism." Figure 32: Which types of resource development should occur? N=38

35%

30% 29%

25%

20%

15% 13% 13%

11% 11% 10% 8% 8%

5% 5% 3%

0% Art Land Other Water Tourism Status quo Agriculture Mussel farms Mussel Infrastructure

• Mussel farming (13%) is seen by tourism-related businesses to be the second most important type of development for the area. Tourism operators see the need to take a balanced approach to this type of development

• Mention is also made of concern of the possibility of putting a road through to the West Coast. One operator arguing this would cause a large influx of tourists and ruin the natural environment of Golden Bay

• Some operators mention the need to increase organic farming in the area. One operator saw the Golden Bay area as a potential ecological museum which could be run by DoC • Tourism-related businesses are generally concerned about the issues surrounding an increase in mussel farming and aquaculture in the area. They feel there needs to be a balance between potential aquaculture developments and the needs of the tourism sector

• Several of those interviewed commented on the fact that closer links need to be forged between the two industries. One business respondent commented:

“There is potential for Marine farming links with tourism. There is a mussel farm in Wainui Bay – this creates an amount of curiosity and interest with tourists. With scallops, there is a potential to catch scallops and eat them on board a boat.”

• Some of the comments made by tourism operators included:

“Mussel farming will affect tourism. It will spoil the area, with all the buoys. If they bring it inshore, it will be a disaster”

“People come here for the pristine nature of the Bay. If they come here not knowing about this (Mussel farming), they are horrified that somebody could ruin it by inshore aquaculture.”

“It is a pity that certain sectors want to treat Golden Bay like an industrial fishing site. The noise from the diesel engines, the debris from the mussel farms. I think it would have an impact on tourism.”

“If they bring Mussel farming inshore it will be a disaster. I don’t think it will help the local economy either.”

• The following G.I.S. layers provide further insight into tourism business attitudes towards both aqua- and agriculture. The discrete comments provided on the maps represent the feelings of individual businesses, and highlight the range of attitudes that exist. Future reports will focus in more detail on these G.I.S. layers.

CONCLUSIONS

• Visitors to Golden Bay are generally from upper-income brackets, are well-educated, and come from a variety of domestic and international market areas

• Whether they be international or domestic, young or old, family group or single, the appeal of Golden Bay seems to be consistent. People are attracted by a sense of isolation, the region’s pristine environment, its cultural resources, and its unique ‘way of life’

• Visitors bring substantial economic benefits to the region in terms of income and employment generation

• Visitors from all backgrounds expressed concerns about the possible impact that increased aquaculture development would have on the enjoyment of Golden Bay’s tourist resource-base

• The typical visitor to Golden Bay is increasingly aware of the environment and their relationship to it. They view beaches as a key element of the holiday experience and as such may well be negatively impacted by future aquaculture development

• It is clear that visitors are willing to accept further aquaculture development if it is carefully planned, is supported locally, and has limited intrusion upon touristic experiences including sightseeing. In some cases there appears to be potential to more closely link the tourism and aquaculture sectors

• Community members surveyed by the TRI generally support current levels of tourism development in Golden Bay. Future development of small-scale and appropriate tourism is also supported. The industry is viewed as a vital source of income and employment • Community attitudes toward aquaculture appear to be more ambivalent and again depend on the extent and nature of developments. There was also concern expressed about the potential impact of aquaculture on tourism.

• The tourism-related businesses surveyed feel positive about the current direction of Golden Bay tourism development. They again stress the need for controlled and appropriate levels of development

• Tourism-related businesses expressed considerable concern about the potential negative impacts of existing and increased aquaculture developments on the future of tourism development in the region. There was particular concern about the impact such developments would have on both domestic and international visitors who are seeking a pristine environmental experience

• Nevertheless, there is clearly an understanding that tourism must co-exist with other resource uses. It is interesting to note that several of the business owners interviewed hoped for an improvement in the linkages and understanding that exist between the tourism and aquaculture sectors

• This report represents an initial statement on a series of complex and important issues for Golden Bay’s future economic development. Future reports will use G.I.S. and other techniques to delve into these issues in greater depth