Impact assessment, environmental and social impact assessment in - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Ray Salter TRCtourism

Impact assessment, environmental and social impact assessment in relation to visitor numbers in Iceland

Tourism Capacity & Sustainability Project

14 December 2018

• TRC Tourism – Australia, New Zealand

and many countries in the Pacific and Asia

• Previously General Manger, Ministry of

Tourism in New Zealand

• Have worked on similar

growth/infrastructure issues in NZ

Ray Salter

• What has been happening in the world?
• Why Nýja Sjáland?
• What are some of the tourism issues in Nýja Sjáland
• Some of the responses to these issues
• The importance of this project to sustainability and tourism

This Presentation

Tourism Trends

• Early 2000’s
• Environment issues became important
• 2008-2014
• Global Financial Crisis in many countries
• Survival first and then growing tourism the priority
• 2014- to now
• Cost of travel has fallen significantly
• Rise of China and improving economies
• Environmental concerns back
• Broad sustainability back on the tourism agenda
• What number and sort of visitor do we want?

New Zealand and Iceland: Similarities

• Our attractions are very similar:
• Nature
• Landscapes
• Adventure activities
• Drivers of growth
• Aviation growth and cost of travel lower
• “cool destination”
• Economic growth in source countries
• Result
• New Zealand 7%CAGR
• Iceland 25% CAGR (until this year 10%)

New Zealand and Iceland: Differences

• 4.5 Million people vs 350,000 people
• 27 Million sheep vs 800,000 sheep
• 268,000 Km2 vs 103,000 Km2
• 3.8M international visitors vs 2.2M
• Domestic Tourism 60% vs 10%
• 5% of GDP vs 8% of GDP
• Australia “short haul” 30%
• Rest of the World “long haul” 12 hour flight

New Zealand and Iceland: Common Issues

For NZ: Strong Support for the benefits of

• tourism. In particular, economic benefits

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Percent of responses 2017 (mean = -0.39)

For Iceland: Few members of my community benefit economically from tourism.

New Zealand and Iceland: Common Issues

• Community concern about the number of

visitors – attitude surveys

• Concern about the environmental effects of

visitors in key locations

• Still some regions wanting more visitors
• The “social licence to operate” of tourism is

being questioned

But attitudes do change

• Concern about pressure of visitors in New Zealand being too much is stabilising

Common Assumptions

• That while the current rates of growth are

unsustainable over the long term, global growth is expected to continue

• That there is a mismatch between the visitor

growth and the infrastructure to provide for these visitors

• The revenue from the additional visitors is

not going to develop the required infrastructure

• That the destination needs to maintain the

quality of the experience

Current Issues

• Pressure on National Parks
• Concern about authenticity of the product and experiences
• Concern about too rapid growth and the global growth

situation – is it sustainable?

• Concern about the quantity and quality of infrastructure to

support the number of visitors, especially in small communities

• Big lag in private investment to meet visitor demand –

especially hotels and then the risk of a boom bust cycle

• Government slow to act on public infrastructure

Policy responses

• A new Government Strategy that emphases
• sustainability
• spread of benefits
• quality of growth and profitability (value over volume)
• Changed government priorities – stronger emphasis on

infrastructure provision to meet future demand ahead

• f the demand
• Strengthen education on tourism and for employment

in tourism -

• Better data - especially regional information and how

visitors move around the country and also domestic tourism information

Funding responses

• A new tax on international visitors at the border
• 250Isk per visitor
• Mechanism is an electronic travel approval
• 50% to tourism infrastructure
• 50% to nature sites
• Provincial Growth Fund
• 85B Isk per year investment
• Significant proportion going to tourism
• Regional investment, not cities
• Differential pricing
• Foreigners pay 2x what locals pay
• Annual fee for locals = 2x what a foreigner does for one

visit

Information responses

• Tiaki Promise – a steal of the Icelandic

Pledge

• New Apps/information for visitors
• Focus international marketing on the

regions

• No marketing of NZ as a summer

destination

• Focus on source markets that deliver
• ff season visitors

This Project

• A first at a National scale
• The first to actually gather data
• It integrates economic, social and environmental

measures

• It will provide a framework to consider “what if

questions”

• It will gather the most important information to make

infrastructure investment decisions

• It will link to international information
• It will not provide all the answers but it will assist

Wider Bay of Plenty Prioritization Matrix for Tourism Infrastructure Actions

Digital Capability and

Connectivity

Tourism Product

Development Public Sector National Responsibility . Private Sector Responsibility. Mixed responsibility Public Sector Local Government Responsibility.

Public

Transport Roading Connectivity

Air

Connectivity

Three Waters

Infrastructure

Effort

High Low Low High

Impact

Intra regional

roading

Improvements

Visitor

Accommodation

Improvements

Skills and

Training

Public Land

Recreation/Conservation

Upgrade

The size of the bubbles represents the relative costs of the actions on a regional basis Aviation

Infrastructure

D.4.3 – Economic Benefits

Few members of my community benefit economically from tourism.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Strongly dasagree Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree Percent of responses 2017 (mean = -0.08)