CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 4
4.6 ECOTOURISM MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
98
The least resources which were also identifies by the respondents [39% to 49%]
as supplied in the study area included: whale and crocodile watching spots;
water tours / boat ridding facilities; arts and craft stalls; cultural village;
accommodation and eating facilities.
The main reasons for perceiving these facilities as supplied were that they were highly visible and preferred facilities by most stakeholders. Most of the facilities identified also catered for families at the Town of St Lucia and Surroundings. On the basis of the discussion above, relating to the supply of facilities and activities in the study area, it may be concluded that Hypothesis 2, which states: That the coastal tourism resources in the study area are not adequately supplied, should be supported, because the majority of stakeholders have indicated that they perceived a substantial number of ecotourism resources or facilities in the study area.
4.6 ECOTOURISM MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
99
attractions (DEAT, 2006b); as well as job creation, and poverty alleviation (Yawitch, et al, 2003; Ashley & Roe, 2002).
4.6.1 Awareness of Existing Ecotourism Management Practices
In order to establish of existing ecotourism management practices or strategies in the study area, respondents were asked to respond to the question: “Are you aware of any existing ecotourism management or development strategies that are in place in the St Lucia area?” As shown in Figure 4.3 the majority of stakeholders [43%] responded in the negative, indicating that they were not aware of existing ecotourism management strategies. About 39 percent responded in the positive, with 18 percent showing that they are not sure.
FIGURE 4.3 EXISTING ECOTOURISM MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN THE STUDY AREA
Ecotourism management or development strategies are important in the development and promotion of the tourism industry and related benefits. Some of the reasons put forward for the lack of awareness of management practices included the following: lack of information about ecotourism in general; lack of transparency about local tourism programmes; dominance of White people in
39%
43%
18% Yes
No Not Sure
100
the tourism industry; as well as that tourist respondents argued that they were outsiders and were not aware of decisions taken about the ecotorism resources in the study area.
From the analysis described above, it may be concluded that Hypothesis 3 which states: That the level of tourism management and development strategies that is employed or utilised in the study area, is not up to the required standard, is not supported and therefore should be rejected. The basis for this finding is that approximately 61 percent of the respondents either responded with a „no‟
[43%] and were „not sure‟ [18%].
4.6.2 Strategies Operating to Enhance Ecotourism Management
Notwithstanding the existence of the ecotourism management strategies, some of these practices are either not known or understood by some tourism stakeholders. These ecotourism management practices remain obscure if they are not used to respond to local community needs. It is for these reasons therefore, that the respondents (tourists, officials, service providers and the community) were requested to furnish their perceived views on ecotourism management practices and development needs which they consider appropriate for the St Lucia Town and Surroundings.
In this regard, Figure 4.4 depicts the responses obtained from various stakeholders attempting to reveal the ecotourism management or development strategies, which are important in the development and promotion of the tourism industry. The stakeholders perceptions were based on preselected practices or strategies such as the following: small business opportunities; development of game facilities; infrastructural development; skills development; job creation;
101
building of schools; conservation of nature; community levies; protection of wildlife; land restitution; land and resource acquisition, visitor management, establishment of accommodation facilities, safety and security of tourists, and arts and craft making. The responses of the subjects, comprising the tourists, officials, service providers and communities are reflected in Figure 4.4. For the analysis of these practices only those most preferred and popular with the stakeholders were selected. These are: land and resource acquisition, small business opportunities, infrastructural development, skills development; job creation and employment. In addition, the tourists category was not included in the analysis, since tourist had previously indicated that they were outsiders and unfamiliar with making of policies and their implementation in the study area.
FIGURE 4.4: PERCEIVED BENEFICIAL STATE OF ECOTOURISM DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Officials Service Providers Community
Percentage
Land &
Resource Acquisition Business Opportunities Infrastructure Development Skills Development Job Creation
&
Employment [n = 135. Some of the subjects gave more than one response for each statement]
As indicated in Figure 4.4, the majority of officials [70%] felt that infrastructural development was a priority ecotourism management practice or
102
strategy followed. Next to that, the officials [65%] preferred land and resource acquisition as important. Relating to the service providers, the majority of them [65%] saw business opportunities as a priority area of development, whereas about 58 percent considered skills development as a priority developmental strategy. Possible reasons for this outcome are that officials seem to be supporting government policy in their responses. The service providers think there is room for improvement because the state is directing the Black economic empowerment policies and some skills development initiatives.
What was interesting is that the majority of the local community saw job creation and employment initiatives [64%] and the skills development initiative [53%] as priority ecotourism management practice or strategy followed.
Conversely, the local communities [26%] were not happy with the strategy as it relates to infrastructural development in the study area, mainly because the there are other matters of priority requiring ecotourism management strategies.
In view of these analyses and outcomes, the majority of stakeholders attested to the necessity of certain priority ecotourism management strategy in the study area. In this regard, it is reasonable to conclude that Hypothesis 3, which states:
That the level of tourism management and development strategies that is employed or utilised in the study area, is not up to the required standard, should be supported. Apparently there are too many ecotourism management strategies in the study area that need to be attended to. The authorities, for example, are struggling with matters relating to: conservation of nature and community involvement; community levies; protection of wildlife; land restitution; building of schools; and upgrading safety and security of tourists. Finally, it should be stressed that ecotourism management practices emphasise the management of all
103
resources in such a way that natural, economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support systems (WTO, 2004).