Kwanini Carrying Capacity Assessment Study

Kwanini
Carrying Capacity Assessment

June -‐ September 2014
Investors

Government Guests
Kwanini

People Workforce

Prepared for
Ministry of Information, Culture, Tourism and Sports
Hon. Said Ali Mbarouk
By
Denise Bretlaender
&
Pavol Toth

Table of Contents

KWANINI CARRYING CAPACITY ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................. 1
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM ....................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM .................................................................................................. 4
3. CARRYING CAPACITY EXERCISE ........................................................................................................................ 5
4. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................................. 8
5. ANALYSES ...................................................................................................................................................... 10

5. 1 CURRENT STATE OF TOURISM ............................................................................................................................. 11
5.2 ZONING ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
6. CASE STUDY .................................................................................................................................................. 15
6.1 CASE STUDY 1: SEYCHELLES ................................................................................................................................ 15

6.2 CASE STUDY 2: MAURITIUS ................................................................................................................................ 19
6.3 CASE STUDY 3: MALDIVES ................................................................................................................................. 20
7. INDICATOR ANALYSES ................................................................................................................................... 22
8. SURVEYS ....................................................................................................................................................... 24
8.1 VISITOR EXIT SURVEY ........................................................................................................................................ 24

8.2 HOTEL MANAGEMENT SURVEY ............................................................................................................................ 28
8.3 HOTEL STAFF SURVEY ........................................................................................................................................ 30
8.4 LOCAL COMMUNITY LEADER SURVEY .................................................................................................................... 32
9. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................................. 35
10. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 37
11. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 38
APPENDIX I: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 44

1.1. JAFARI’S FOUR PLATFORMS ........................................................................................................................... 44
1.2. MICRO-‐ AND MACRO-‐ LEVEL MANAGEMENT TOOL DESCRIPTION .......................................................................... 44

2
1. Introduction
Pemba’s attractiveness as a tourism location is mainly due to its natural resources such as world-‐
class diving and beautiful beaches. The tourism industry on the island has an interest in developing
a sustainable and economically profitable business without damaging neither the environment nor
the local population.
Based on the structured interviews with stakeholders, an indicator analyses, three case studies,
literature review and four surveys as well as the framework developed by Kurhade (2013) a
tourism strategy for Pemba was recommended in this paper and presented to the Ministry for
Information, Culture, Tourism and Sports of the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar.
The variety of characteristics that should be managed sustainably makes it difficult to choose one
specific form of protection. Management must take into consideration the traditional way of life of
its indigenous citizens, the wildlife, the recreational areas (e.g. coral reefs as dive sites) and different
forms of landscape. All these aspects must be considered when developing a strategy on how to
handle future tourism on Pemba without sacrificing the island’s character through overcrowding.
This paper commences with a literature review concerning Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment
(TCCA), which includes changes in expert mindset and limitations of TCCAs.
2. Literature Review
Tourism constitutes a valuable source of revenue especially for resource-‐poor countries (Brown et
al., 1997). However, there exists a crucial trade-‐off between generated benefits and economic costs
in the tourism sector (Brown et al., 1997).
2.1 Sustainable Tourism

This paper will use MacIntosh and Goeldner’s (1986) definition of tourism as a foundation. They
define tourism as “the sum of the phenomena and relationships arising from the interaction of
tourists, business suppliers, host governments and host communities in the process of attracting
and hosting these tourists and other visitors” (p.18). Mathieson and Walls established the most
commonly used definition in 1982. According to the authors, tourism is explained as a “temporary
movement of people to destinations outside their normal places of work and residence, the
activities undertaken during their stay in those destinations, and the facilities created to cater to
their needs” (p. 29). This paper uses the first definition as it includes the importance of
relationships between different stakeholders. Moreover, it also allows for different non-‐locals being
present on Pemba (i.e. visitors and tourists). More importantly it includes marketing activities,
which have a tremendous impact concerning destination decision-‐making process and expectation
management.
3
The discussion of different tourism definitions is important as it showcases that experts and
academic literature have not come to a consensus on the extent tourism has in the context of the
community.
Many models have been published in regards to the evolution of tourism. Jafari’s (2001) influential
platform stage model identified a gradual change from tourism as a platform for advocacy (1950’s-‐
1960’s) to cautionary (1970’s) to ada ptancy and finally knowledge-‐based (1990’s).1 This model was
expanded upon to include the ethics and finally sustainability stage (McBeth, 2005). He defines the
latter as a limited growth concept based on political considerations. Pemba Island is an African
tourism destination and as of 2013 relatively unknown as a travel location. As such it has not
experienced the different mentalities of tourists and leapfrogged all this stages. As such the only
negative association the local population has is the example of Unguja. The lack of the first four
stages in Pemba’s development as a tourist location increases measurement difficulties but also
explains the current pristine stages of the natural landscape. The government has the unique
opportunity to leapfrog certain tourism management stages and develop a sustainable tourism
environment that aims to avoid the negative impacts, that have occurred in other locations due to
mass market tourism (especially on Unguja).
Saarinen (2006) states three alternative perspectives on how to view sustainability limits. The first
perspective is resource based and founded upon a positivist ecological point-‐of-‐view. According to
this tradition limits to growth are imposed to protect the resources in the holiday location. The
second perspective is activity based and defines limits as flexible and adaptive to new situations.
Butler’s (2006) tourism area life cycle is deeply interwoven with this line of argumentation.
According to Butler’s theory once a tourism area enters the stagnation stage the management can
use activities such as marketing to revive growth and avoid the normally occurring decline stage
due saturation. This developmental approach has strong support amongst international
organizations, including World Tourism Organization. The last perspective is based on the
stakeholder community empowerment. If local communities contribute through information or
knowledge sharing relationships are build. On the basis of these valuable social networks limits can
be negotiated and often upwardly adjusted. Thus, this theory sees growth boundaries as
management concepts to be handled. The discussion of different perspectives highlight that limit
setting is not a static activity and can be approached differently and with different degrees of
stakeholder participation.
2.2 Management Tools for Sustainable Tourism

Tools that can be utilized in sustainable tourism activities are manifold and can be separated into
micro-‐ and macro management level tools. Management tools on the micro-‐level include, but are not
limited to: area protection, visitor management techniques (e.g. zoning, honeypots, visitor
dispersion, channeled visitor flow, restricted entry, vehicle restriction), differential pricing

1
See Apendix 1.1 for a deeper explanation of Jafari’s four platforms.
4
strategies, usage of sustainability indicators and finally carrying capacity assessment. Industry
regulation, environmental foot-‐printing, auditing and indicators, Codes of Conduct and eco-‐labels
(including certification schemes) count as macro-‐level management tools2 (Mowforth &
Munt,1997).
The carrying capacity study results can be used to commence with other tools as well. As described
above it could lead to important industry regulations (including government legislation,
professional association and voluntary self-‐regulation).Moreover as the Carrying Capacity is based
on dialogue and research it can also give insights into various topics that are currently to costly or
complicated such as extensive environmental foot-‐printing. It can also show the importance of
increased governmental participation or need for lack thereof. As such carrying capacity is at the
center of many management tools, which indicates this study is a necessary foundation to base
other management tools upon or which to not use.
3. Carrying Capacity Exercise

Managers in the tourism sector need to know how much tourism a certain location can sustain
without jeopardizing the long-‐term quality. A Carrying Capacity Exercise (CCE), also known a
Carrying Capacity Study, Carrying Capacity Assessment or Carrying Capacity Calculations, is used to
balance maintenance of the physical environment and the quality of how the visitor experienced
their chosen vacation (O'Reilly, 1986). This chapter will give explain CCEs and examine the benefits
and criticism associated with the usage of this tool.
Three different ways of thinking must be differentiated when talking about Tourism Carrying
Capacity (TCC) the most general description of CCE in the tourism sector (a description of different
forms of TCC will follow later in this subsection) and was first developed in the 1960s. The first
school of thought defines tourism capacity by how much tourists can be accommodates before
negative impacts start to become observable. The second school of thought however defined
capacity as reached when the tourists themselves see the negative impacts and start to withdraw
from an area as it no longer satisfies their requirements. Subsequently they will seek alternative
destinations. (O'Reilly, 1986) A different approach is to disregard absolute numbers and measure
maximum growth rates, however as growth does not define an upper limit, either the company
must do that or use continuous revaluation to ensure overcapacity is not reached accidentally (De
Kadt, 1976).
This paper ascribes to the first observation based on two considerations. Firstly, according to Plog’s
“Psychographic Positions of Destinations” model (1974) the homogenous treatment of tourists is
not realistic. According to him tourists must be separated into psycho-‐centric and allo-‐centric
groups. The first group consists of non-‐adventurous travelers and the latter is their opposite and

2
For a description of the different tools please see Appendix 1.2.
5
characterized by curiosity and adventurousness. Tourism carrying capacity (TCC) assumed that all
tourists leave a location after the same amount of time which is not a real-‐life observation. Plog
argues that allo-‐centric travelers grow impatient with commercialization much quicker than
psycho-‐centric and will leave a destination sooner to seek more authentic sites. This further implies
that locations that are avoided by allo-‐centric persons might still be visited by less-‐adventurous
people and as such TCC should not be defined as capacity is reached when tourists leave the
destination of their own free will. Secondly, the first school of thought is more conservative to
maintain the quality of the current island.
There are six different forms of CCE, which differ in the underlying measurement: Physical,
ecological, economic, social and environmental carrying capacity (see Graphic 1 below). The seventh
form of CCE concerns itself with the limits of acceptable change. (Mowforth & Munt,1997)
Physical Carrying • Capacity is reached when the exisQng historical sites and/or the infrastructue can no longer
Capacity support the tourist number.
Ecological • Capacity is reached naQve wildlife populaQon is endangered due to tourist aciQviQes.
Carrying Capacity
Economic Carrying • Capacity is reached when beneficial local acQviQes can no longer be carried out as these are
Capacity squeezed out by tourist funcQons.
Social carrying • Capacity is reached when the tourists can no longer tolerate the behavior of other tourists or
capacity when the indigenous populaQon can no longer tolerate tourists.
Perceptual • Capacity is reached when tourists no longer enjoy themselves due to obervable damage caused
carrying capacity by previous visitors.
Environmental • Capacity is reached when environmental problems start to occur due to the tourist interacQon
carrying capacity with the environment.

Graph 1: 6 Key Types of TCC based on Mowforth & Munt (1997) and O'Reilly (1986).
However, the different carrying capacities can be further broken down. Capacity levels are subject
to two factor groups: tourist attributes and destination (including area and population) attributes.
The first group includes socioeconomic, ethnical and behavioral characteristics. The second group is
wider and includes natural environment, features and processes, economic structure and
development, social structure and organization, political organization and level of tourist
development. It is important to note that tourist development could be positive in one factor while
impacting another one negatively. Moreover, each factor has a maximum capacity in itself and
prioritizing and defining individual tolerance limits can be helpful in finding a balance between
trade-‐offs later in the process. (Mathieson and Wall,1982)
Historical data on vacation locations has shown that most crises caused by destruction or
deterioration has only occurred once the maximum capacity has been exceeded. Thus, proper
6
capacity management can be used as crisis prevention and could lead to cost savings measures in
the long-‐term perspective. A TCC study can give a range of expected visitors and with this number a
cost-‐benefit analyses could be executed before opening tourism related projects. Thus potential
projects with financial or natural losses could be avoided before they occur. (O’Reilley, 1986)
Most importantly sustaining quality in the long-‐run for specific categories is a crucial benefit.
Ensuring optimized planning for all stakeholders on the island is necessary so they can use
resources responsibly and avoid investing into projects that are harmful for the future. Furthermore
carrying capacity exercises can be supplemented with pricing differentiation techniques as
described in Chapter 3. This would allow management to find the optimal price point that various
tourists segments are willing to pay and thus allow for profit optimization.
One key reason why TCC tools are not as commonly used are measurement and quantifying issues.
These can have three causes. Firstly, different societies accept different visitor levels as
overcapacity. Secondly, some developments make a higher visitor density necessary. Thirdly,
management greatly affects physical and environmental carrying capacities. (O’Reilley, 1986) This
makes it difficult name an exact number of desired tourists. Furthermore, companies have struggled
to identify how to measure tourist numbers in an optimal manner.
Capacity mismanagement is especially common in developing countries as these often rely on the
mass tourism sector as one key revenue source. The short-‐term perspective is often deemed more
relevant than overcapacity consideration on future income. (O’Reilley, 1986) These two statements
combined with the above benefit description shows that capacity management should be a part of
the management tool kit in regards to sustainable tourism Pemba and Zanzibar in general.
One main criticism was the measurement issues. In order to gain an understanding of which visitor
density ratio for physical carrying capacity is classified as overcrowded (for the entire island and
specifically for the resort) expectations of target audiences need to be analyzed. Based on this
specific numbers a tourist number per square mile in that region or the entire island could be taken
as a baseline for monitoring capacity. Another measurement could be the number of tourists per
100 local people in that region. A combination of both factors might further optimize the number for
specific carrying capacities.(O’Reilley, 1986)
The six main carrying capacities in Graphic 1 should all be included in the TCC estimation as they
showcase different aspects of resort vacations. However, the Tourism Ministry has to determine
priorities because the maximum capacities will not be identical in each capacity and choosing the
lowest number overall can also lead to exempting possible visitors that would enjoy their vacations.
Another way to use low capacity numbers in one category is as a critical threshold. For example
physical carrying capacity includes aspects such as waste removal infrastructure, which is not a
static number but could be improved to allow for more visitors. More importantly the biggest issue
will be combing the interest of the island as a whole with the interests of the individual
7
stakeholders. As priorities will not be identical a discussion point (such as the annual Kwanini
conference) and equal commitment is crucial.
TCC’s underlying statement of tourism’s inability to continuously grow without harming the
domestic system is logical (Coccossis & Mexa, 2004). Thus, knowing the limitations can help to
recognize maturity levels in locations and management can react accordingly instead of investing
money and other valuable resources into an expansion attempt that will do more harm than good.
To conclude doing an EEC at the relative beginning of tourism development has the benefit of
avoiding quality damages before they occur. Especially in the context of the current mindset
towards sustainable ecotourism Pemba is in a situation where it would be very beneficial to define
aims and limitations from the start and develop a holistic strategy for the entire island with the
inclusion of all stakeholders. Thus this study aims at doing exactly that.
4. Methodology
Based on the literature review, (see Chapter 2), this Tourism Carrying Capacity Study (TCCS) was
based on qualitative and quantitative data research. The focus was not to determine a specific
number as various authors have noted that this is not feasible in a changing regulatory environment
(see Chapter 2), but instead to define a tourism strategy and an reevaluation of the determined goal
number of 2300 and 2605 beds in the National Land Use Plan and the Tourism Master Plan
respectively. This TCSS is designed to answer three guiding questions, that were modified from
Sharma’s carrying capacity research in 1995 :
• Given the strategy for a positive contribution to the people of Pemba through tourism how
can opportunities be maximized and harm to the culture and uniqueness of Pemba Island be
prevented?
• How can every stakeholder be involved in the tourism planning process?
• Which local institutions should be created or their jurisdiction modified to enable an holistic
tourism approach that monitors and manages the local economy efficiently and responsibly
as well as the environmental development through a set of core evaluation criterias and
mandates that evaluates projects and investments in the tourism industry of Pemba.
A framework of nine steps was developed based on Kurhade (2013) in order to answer the three
guiding questions. The following steps were identified as crucial for a holistic TCCS:
1. Current tourism sector’s characteristics analyses

2. Tourism zones identification and analyses of development
3. Indicator implications definition
4. Separation into status, driving force and response to analyze trends and exploitation
potentials
5. Threats, conflicts and issue analyses based on indicators
8
6. Component assessment and identification of bottlenecks and constrains
7. Alternative tourism development options elaboration
8. Optimal recommended tourism strategy for Pemba development
9. Total tourism carrying capacity implementation recommendations
A list of indicators was designed to measure the current state of Pemba island, three impact areas
were identified based on the literature review: Socio-‐demographic, political-‐economic and physical-‐
ecological impacts. The next step included breaking down these three main areas of interest into
smaller topics and then to an indicator level. The indicators were selected based on mutual
exclusivity but collective exhaustively. Moreover the indicators were divided into Status, Driving-‐
Force and Response, which gives a clearer overview of the future development in the three main
areas. Status indicators reflect the current condition of the system (e.g. size of forest), while Driving-‐
Force indicators show the pressure that is places on the resource in question (e.g. deforestation
rate). Finally Response indicators take into consideration counter-‐measures against these driving
forces that may limit exposure and damage (e.g. size of protected areas). Practical examples of this
type of indicator assessment can be found in Chapter 7.
During the data gathering process it was found challenging to obtain data for all four administrative
districts (Wete, MIcheweni, Chake Chake and Mkoani) on Pemba island. As such three solutions
were implemented to avoid gaps in the sustainability indicators.
1. Usage of proxy indicators. If data could not be obtained for a specific indicator it was decided
to utilize available data that could be used as a comparative indicator with similar quality.
2. Island or two district data. Although data was not available for every of the four districts, in
most cases statistical information could be found regarding North and South Pemba or
Pemba as a whole. As such the scores should be considered to have a lower confidence
interval but still reflect the situation on Pemba.
3. Vocal scale. In rare cases when neither data for the entire island nor the two broader regions
(North and South Pemba) could be obtained the reliability of the qualitative data from
structured interviews was analyzed. Based on that indicators were given a score between
zero and one in 0.2 intervals and were used for educated judgment based on expert
knowledge. Thus the following five vocal scores were agreed upon: very bad (0 – 0.2), bad
(0.21-‐0.4), average (0.41 – 0.6), good (0.61 – 0.8) and very good (0.81 – 1).
Based on the data for the different district a target value was set as well as maximums and
minimums, which were then used to normalize the data for every district and calculate a score from
a scale of zero to one (with the same breakdown as in the precedent paragraph). This normalization
procedure was adopted from the Fuzzy Approach Calculation Method. Finally the different
indicators, sub-‐themes, themes and areas were given weights to reflect the importance of various
significant indicators and lower the statistical impact of indicators that were not drivers of
sustainability to a strong degree. This process also helped to limit the impacts caused by proxy
9
indicators that may have been not as mutually exclusive but still collectively exhaustive. This
technique led to an overall sustainability score and thus a measurement of the current sustainability
of the island. The current sustainability of Pemba needed to be measured to facility a deeper
understanding of current resource use in various themes and areas and to base a tourism strategy
on the correct baseline and to give guidance and monitoring baselines for future governance and
research.
Due to the various impacts different tourism strategies may have on the above three main
categories and the island as a whole a case study analyzes was initiated. The focus lied on African
island tourism destinations that managed or attempted to create a holistic approach to
development. After an initial research into different African tourist destination three target cases
were identified: the Maldives, the Seychelles and Mauritius. Especially, the socio-‐demographic
impacts were researched in these case studies in order to get a precise idea of social change due to
tourism and how it can be guided to avoid most common negative effects and optimize positive
drivers.
During the course of this study four types of surveys were conducted; hotel management, hotel staff,
local community leaders and visitor exit survey. The hotel management and hotel staff survey were
conducted in all tourism establishments on Pemba. While In local communities the Shehias (the
local community leaders) in every district of the island were approached to conduct the survey. For
four consecutive days survey was conducted in Pemba Airport with every tourist leaving Pemba
Island. All surveys were created in English, hotel staff survey and local community surveys were
later translated in to Swahili, since majority of respondents did not speak English.
In all surveys both qualitative and quantitative approach was used. Some questions were part of
more than one survey. As example, question where changes in last three years in different aspects of
environment are questioned can serve. On scale of five (from much worse to much better, no change
being in middle) both hotel management and staff as well as in local community leaders answer
how do they perceive changes and what they consider to be reason for these changes. These types of
questions provide insights in to deeper understanding how tourism impacts the island.
Based on the structured interviews with stakeholders, the indicators, the case studies, literature
review and surveys and the framework developed by Kurhade (2013) a tourism strategy for Pemba
was developed and recommendations for urgent critical issues were given.
5. Analyses
The methodology description in the former chapter has given a background to this study and will be
elaborated upon and explained throughout the analyses to give the reader a clearer understanding
of the study. This chapter is divided into nine subchapters as to follow the framework set by
Kurhade (2013).
10
5. 1 Current state of Tourism
The analyses of the current tourism’s characteristics was taken from information supplied from the
Commission of tourism, literature reviews and the visitors exit survey. There were nine overall
characteristics of tourists that were deemed most important by the literature: type of tourists,
seasonality, excursion concentration, concentration of tourists across space, average length of stay,
activities exercised, socio-‐economic characteristics, tourist behavior and degree of tourist
infrastructure use.
Pemba island has a multifaceted landscape, which includes forests, swamps, mangroves, beaches,
lagoons and a pristine marine eco-‐system, including coral reefs. It is a fertile island with farming
being a major source of income for the local population. Mosques and tombs, often reclaimed by
nature, are a testament to the Omani Sultan of Muscat who seized Pemba and ruled it from his main
court on Unguja in the 17th century.
A historical tourist arrival review has shown that the current tourism policy on Pemba is a cause of
concern not only in terms of tourist arrivals
but moreover on average bed occupancy.
The most apparent fluctuations are due to the

seasonal changes mainly based around school
holidays in Europe and North America.
However, there was a significant dip in visitor
numbers in 2012 for which reasons could not
yet be identified. Although the numbers
recovered in 2013 they show a need for a
Figure 1: Tourist arrivals
coherent strategy across the island to take
advantage of seasonality and to generate a consistent and sustainable growth for future years.
As of winter 2014, 18 hotels were operating on

Pemba with a room capacity of 220 and 398
total beds. Although the average room
occupancy has risen during the peak season of
2013 when compared to 2011, the average
occupancy did not manage to rise higher than
34%. As such the current rooms and hotels are
not fully utilized and show potential for higher
visitor numbers without new hotel facilities.
Furthermore, based on the hotel management
survey there is full occupancy in the high end
Figure 2: Bed occupancy facilities and thus conclusions about the
11
successful tourism strategies on Pemba become apparent.
The four key segments of tourism on Pemba

Currently tourism on Pemba is based on four segments: Beach, culture, sea-‐safaris and nature.
Especially, the beach segment is pursued by the hotel facilities that cater mainly to international
vacation tourists. However, the tourism policy on Pemba is not structured cohesively towards these
segments but through analyses they do become apparent. The following subchapter describes the
positive and negative impacts of each segment and the threats and opportunities that these
segments can bring to the people of Pemba.
Beach: The environment of Pemba is perfectly situated to cater to beach visitors due to the pristine,
sandy white beaches that are relatively secluded and isolated from each other and as such give an
impression of isolation and peacefulness for tourists. This segment is especially favored by
honeymooners and by safari visitors that want to relax after their adventure on the Tanzanian
mainland. Furthermore, the clear turquoise waters, coral reefs, sand banks and small islands are the
perfect background for tourists looking for a beach vacation. The traditional use of Dhows gives
another unique dimension to the holidays. Furthermore, due to the relative small tourism on Pemba
there is no hassle from beachboys.
However threats to these segments is the weather especially during Monsoon season. Moreover,
seaweed farming can destroy the visual sereneness of the beaches as well as development close to
shore land. Beach erosion that is currently apparent also on Pemba can further lead to a
deterioration of the attractiveness of the beaches. This is further driven by overdevelopment of
beach areas. Other factors that can make beaches less attractive to tourists are overfishing,
inadequate safety, litter on beach and surrounding areas as well as dangerous animals, which are
not common on Pemba. However, there are jellyfish that could prevent tourists from swimming and
thus enjoying their beach holiday. There are many competitors around the world that cater to the
same segment and as such beach preservation must be a bigger focus of the efforts made by the
public and private sector.
Culture: Pemba’s history as a spice island with various clove manufacturing facilities and spice
products is the basis for the cultural visitor segment. Moreover, the fish and village markets give the
cultural integration another dimension for tourists. Cultural possibilities also include local school
trips, local products (soaps, honey, baskets and spices). The most important aspect for this segment,
however, is the open, engaging and alive Swahili culture on Pemba. Especially, the friendliness and
open interaction between locals and tourists makes the vacation more unique for visitors looking
for a cultural experience. Although the historical ruins and the museum are not yet a big attraction
they have initial attraction for tourists.
However, there is a strong deterioration of historical sites and many are reclaimed by nature. The
sites are also insufficient in their current status as they are badly accessible or not marketed
strongly or are too small to justify a trip. Littering and lack of signposting and information points
12
further lessen the enjoyment potential. There is a decline in safety that comes with mass tourism as
tourists explore more areas by themselves and without guidance as well as search adventure by
exploring unsafe areas.
Sea Safaris: Sea-‐Safaris are another major attraction for tourists especially due to the available and
diverse wildlife such as whale sharks, dolphins and rays. The high water visibility heightens the
chances of animal viewings for in and out of water activities. Pemba is also recognized as one of the
world’s best dive spots. There are a variety of sports that attract tourists such as snorkeling, diving,
swimming and fishing. Dolphin and whale watching are a common activity offered by most hotels
located close to the beaches. The protected coral reefs on the western site of the island also add to
the regeneration of the reefs and a future healthy sea environment. As with the beach segments
tourists in this segment are attracted by the traditional usage of Dhows.
The unpredictability of wildlife viewing is the biggest limitation in this segment. Increased tourism
can also lead to a possible crowding of dive sites, which decreases the enjoyment of tourists.
Furthermore, because the protection of reef and shore areas does not extend to the entire island it
cannot be guaranteed that all sites can be used for the water activities in the future. Another
drawback due to the protected areas is that tourists may not be able to engage in shore fishing and
may find this disappointing.
Nature: Pemba has much to offer for the type of tourists looking for nature and environmental
attractions. The most common attractions are unique animal species on Pemba, such as the Pemba
Flying Fox. Especially, birdwatchers can be attracted through the unique bird species living on
Pemba. There are many available guided tours with low environmental and cultural impact for
tourists interested in learning about and exploring the nature on Pemba. This segment is especially
important as a source of sustainable revenue for parks such as the Ngezi Forest. This park practices
a profitable strategy of price discrimination in order to profit from tourists while allowing cheap
access for locals. The current protection of flora and fauna also makes efforts to guarantee future
enjoyment for visitors of this segment. Due to the difficult accessibility most tourists are guided and
as such have a higher educational experience and lower the impact through bad behavior.
Limitations on this segment are the few choices of natural sites with the exception of beaches that
are scattered around the island.
5.2 Zoning
The literature shows three different approaches to determining zones; these can be allocated based
on main environmental issues, resource use conflict or protection / conservation needs (Sharma
1995). The National Land use plan and Tourism Master Plan have specified 6 and 7 tourism zones
respectively as such the analyses of current tourists was focused on these zones. Moreover Pemba’s
administration is divided into four regions: Micheweni and Wete in North Pemba as well as Mkoani
and Chake-‐Chake in South Pemba. Thus these four districts have been the base for the indicator
13
analyses but due to information limitations proxies for North and South Pemba as well as the entire
island have been used in extreme cases.
Although the NLUP and the tourism zoning plan have given clear guidance as to specific zones that
should be dedicated to tourism development they have not been followed. As of 2014 tourism
establishments are scattered and only one hotel has been developed in the correct tourism zone.
Figure 3 gives an overview of the different zones and the bed allocations as well as the evolution of
the planes.
Tourism Zoning Plan National Land Use Plan Current State

(1993) (1995)
Verani 590 beds Verani 590 beds
Vumawimbi 300 beds Vumawimbi 300 beds
Ufukweni 170 beds Mivumoni 170 beds
Mtangani 90 beds Mtangani 90 beds
Kwakaimu 250 beds Kwakaimu 250 beds
Wambaa 900 beds Wambaa 905 beds Wambaa 36 beds
Tundaua 300 beds
Others 370 beds
6 zones 2300 7 zones 2605 beds 406 beds
Figure 3: Planned Tourism Zones

Both tourism plans give ideas for specific zones based on their environmental characteristics and to
avoid overcrowding. In itself the plans do make a very good and conscious effort to minimize
negative impacts and include buffer zones to local communities in order to avoid too much negative
exposure to tourism culture for the local population. As such the zoning if followed correctly would
do much for a positive future of Pemba.
14
6. Case Study
As the indicators only give a partial insight into the social component and due to the difficulty of
measuring change in culture per tourist a case study analyses was administered to benchmark
developments across different locations that were deemed similar.
Tourism development in Small Island Developing States (SIDS) has become a prominent issue in the
academic research and as thus has established situational unique developments, issues and
opportunities. Although Pemba is not a separate nation its characteristics and the jurisdiction of the
Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar do make the comparison feasible. The most prominent
characteristics of SIDS are their limited, small size, their seclusion, unique flora and fauna,
unhurried pace of life, distinctive culture as well as relatively untouched environment (Baum, 1997;
Lockhart, 1997). Their target visitors are people in search for locations “off-‐the-‐beaten-‐track” and
distinct exotic appeal (Zubair et al., 2010). However, according to UNEP (1994) there are various
significant issues and disadvantages to tourism on SIDS: exploitation and early depletion of
extremely finite natural resources, high risk of natural disasters, trade dependency, high population
density, drinking water scarceness as well as expensive administration and infrastructure,
especially in regards to transportation and communication. The below analyses of indicators (see
Chapter 7) has shown the same trends towards Pemba facing these problems already in 2014 and a
continued acceleration speed which would be further hastened, albeit in different degrees, by more
tourist arrivals.
Due to the early tourism development stage on Pemba homogenous case studies were early
maturity years in the Seychelles, Maldives and Mauritius. An advantage with these locations is that
they have since then (rapidly) developed tourism and as such can give examples for possible
impacts and problem-‐solving strategies based on different government policies and tourism
strategies.
6.1 Case Study 1: Seychelles

The Republic of Seychelles is a small country located 1,500 km east of Zanzibar. As of June 2014 the
island has 91,359 inhabitants (National Bureau of Statistics, 2014) mostly descendants of French
settlers, African plantation workers, British sailors and traders from India, China and Middle East,
giving rise to a multiethnic society. Most of the population is concentrated on three islands, which
also host most economic activities: Mahe (over 80% of the population), Praslin and La Digue. The
main language is Créole with English and French being the other two official languages. (United
Nations Development Program, 2010). Most Seychellois are Christians; 76.2% are Roman Catholic,
10.6% are Protestant and 2.4% are of other Christian denominations (National Bureau of Statistics,
2010)
15
Historical Context
French colonists first settled the uninhabited islands in 1770, which came with their slaves from
Mauritius. However, the Seychelles was ceded to Britain in 1813. Originally the islands grew mainly
sugar cane and cotton, but grew into an economy dominated by coconut palm and cinnamon.
Creole culture is the product of a legacy of French, English, and non-‐European traditions introduced
by various settlers but some aspect of it evolved with set of values different from those of the
European-‐oriented elite. These include tendency towards consensual unions, believes in efficiency
of “gris-‐gris” (the local system of magical practices), easygoing attitude towards work and sexual
relationships and tolerance of other aspects of local lifestyle such as heavy drinking and petty
larceny. Another aspect was status differentiation based on color, where “dark” was the mark of
social inferiority and low status.
Beginning of tourism on Seychelles

The island’s economy is dominated by agriculture and once booming population began to stagnate.
This situation prompted British Government to introduce tourism into the Seychelles and justified
its decision to opt for tourism development on the grounds that an important objective is to enable
the Government of Seychelles to balance its budget again…the ultimate purpose… is to advance the
welfare development was an employment boom in the construction industry triggered by airport
construction started in 1969. This was followed by rapid development of tourism facilities, a marine
port and road infrastructure. In the beginning, there was an abundance of cheap, unskilled local
labor. However local employees for more skilled positions like tradesman and artisan were scarce
and thus the Seychelles experienced a significant inflow of expatriates. Later on, constantly growing
demand for labor in construction sector, that was offering considerably higher wages than other
sectors created problems for other, more traditional industries. People from remote islands moved
to the main islands where opportunities in construction sectors were offered as well as traditional
industries like agriculture had problem to find workers for wages they could afford to offer.
Growing business opportunities attracted not only skilled workforce from abroad to the
construction sector but also entrepreneurs who started local agencies and services. This boom
where during four years capacities of tourism facilities grew by 86% on average not only created
huge shock in employment structure where thousands of people left traditional agriculture sector
and found better paid positions in construction and hospitality sector but also rapidly boosted
imports of consumption goods in to the economy. After the initial construction boom slowed, many
males were working in this sector could not find jobs with similar compensation. The positions in
hospitality sector required different set of skills and on many of them women were preferred.
(Wilson, D., 1967)
Consequences of rapid tourism development

This rapid development of tourism had many positive but also negative consequences.
Positives were mainly of economic character.
16
• Unemployment on the islands has decreased since many young people found employment in
tourism or construction sector, which offered high wages compared to what was the
standard before.
• The booming economy diversified into previously unknown industries and provided
opportunities for social advancement for all social levels. E.g. productions of handcrafts,
brewery which was opened to substitute imported beer.
• Tourism promoted financing and conservation of natural areas as well as traditions like
music, dances and production of traditional souvenirs.
• Prospect of establishing Seychelles as a financial center.
Negative consequences of rapid tourism development were mainly of economic and sociocultural
character.
• The economical were:

o Soaring land prices caused by land speculations because people were buying land in
order to resell it later to tourism developers.
o Rapid inflation and sudden shortages of staple commodities, because island was not
ready for sudden increase in demand.
o Growth of imports to satisfy the demand from construction and hospitality sectors
limited local production, which could not compete with foreign imports.
o Huge inflow of expats, who took better-‐paid jobs and opened businesses, limited the
employment of local people on more prestigious positions.
o Ownership of most of the major businesses by non-‐nationals who came to the country
and used their know-‐how.
• The sociocultural impacts were:
o Changes in consumption patterns caused by sudden availability of imported goods
that were attractive to the younger population, which faced increase of income from
new industries and followed example of foreigners coming to country created
disruptions in traditional way of life.
o Traditional industries such as agriculture were neglected and not considered
unattractive by younger generations.
o Increased criminality aimed at expats who had higher incomes and owned majority of
businesses.
o Increase in prostitution, local girls was interested in foreign man who could afford to
buy them things and pay for their company.
o In hospitality majority of jobs was for woman not man, creating social problems in
families where in traditional way of life woman were not provider for the families.
Suddenly girls working in tourism sector earned more than their boyfriends or
fathers.
17
o Man previously working in booming construction sector, were not able to find
employment offering comparable salary, which left them depressed and promoted
alcoholism or found way of living where they were selling different, often illegal items
on the beach to tourist who wanted to have fun.
(Wilson 1967; Campling & Rosalie 2006; Connell 1991; Dogan 1989)
Current state of Seychelles

Currently Seychelles are one of the most developed African economies. After rapid growth of
tourism in 1970s when tourists arrivals were annually growing on average 72%, tourists arrivals
was growing on average at 4%. In 2001 – 2010 Seychelles pursued goal of promoting eco-‐tourism,
smaller scale development and growth of 2%-‐7% in tourist arrivals (Rosalie, M., 2002).
Currently, the main contributors to GDP are tourism (25%) and tuna fishing & processing (5%).
Country imports 90% of its population and tourism consumption (CIA Factbook).
Over the years, the government of Seychelles was making sure that everybody benefits from
tourism development. Country was heavily investing in to the infrastructure. Indicators like
population having piped water, electricity supply or flushed toilets have been gradually increasing
over the years as well as quality of health sector and education (Campling, L., Rosalie, M., 2006).
Structure of the populations has also rapidly changed. In order to protect environment, In 1999
Seychelles introduced a US$ 90 tax on travelers entering the Seychelles. Revenue is used to preserve
the environment and improve tourism facilities (UNEP).
Forty years of development under influence of tourism have changed the culture of the country. In
1998 survey was conducted on social impacts of tourism. Majority of respondents (58%) consider
tourism to have impact on culture. On question whether tourism has impact on moral values, 24%
of respondents consider it to have little impact, 22% to have some impact and 14% to have
considerable impact. In terms of who benefits from the tourism, majority of respondents consider
that most of the people (31%) or everyone (53%)(awareness program from 1993 which goal was to
increase awareness of importance of tourism can be considered success)(Rosalie, M., 2002).
Considering that in beginning of tourism there was almost no prostitution on the island, and in 1998
45% of the respondents replied that tourism might have increased prostitution we can see that over
the years there was some impact on culture or moral values.
18
6.2 Case Study 2: Mauritius
Republic of Mauritius is small country located 2000 km east of Zanzibar. Island has more the 1.2
million inhabitants The main language English even though most of the population speaks Créole
and French are also official languages. Most Seychellois are Hindu (48%) followed by Christians
33% and Islam 17%.
Economy before tourism development

Up until late 1960s Mauritius was sugar cane dominated economy. From 1950 to 1970, on average,
sugar cane was responsible for 35% of GDP, 97% of exports and 50% of employment. With
stagnating economy, population growing at 3% per year the country had bleak prospects for growth
of economy and employment. It was recommended that the manufacturing was promoted, however
the small scale of domestic market, lack of financial institutions and technological knowhow
presented a challenge to large scale manufacturing venture. The government initiated some new
industrial activities through a series of incentives, but the growth and employment generated by
such strategy was insufficient. (Durbarry 2002). After the political independence in 1968, the new
Mauritian government was determined to bring country to prosperity. It abandoned the failed
import substitution strategy, and in 1970 introduced two changes to the economy.
• Export Processing Zone – this zone was primarily set up to absorb high levels of
unemployment. It focused on labor intensive productions like textiles
• Tourism development
Tourism on Mauritius

Tourism on Mauritius was developing quite
rapidly, during first three years the room capacity Employment on
grew from 486 in 1970 to 1881 in 1976. The
tourist arrivals which were only around only
Mauri[us Services (except
hospitality
around 27,000 in 1970, exceeded 110,000 in 1980, 5% 4% Government
reached 650,000 by 2000, to current levels where 8%
Manufacturing
almost one million people came to Mauritius in 32%
2013. Hospitality
24%
The Mauritius government was from beginning ConstrucQon
27%
trying to focus on sustainable development and its
Agriculture
impact on people therefore during 80s they were
discussing setting the ceiling on 350,000 tourist
arrivals by the year 2000 in an attempt to maintain a proper balance between the local population
and tourists. (Debbage 1990) However, this level of tourist arrivals was exceeded already by year
1993. Tourism which was from the beginning trying to be developed in a sustainable way is now full
blown mass tourism where there is almost one tourist arrival per capita.
19
Current Mauritius
This case shows that even with huge number of tourists arrivals country cannot be sorely
dependent on tourism. Other significant parts of the economy are manufacturing and financial
services. Services (74%) and industry (22%) are the main contributor to GDP and only 4% is
received from the agriculture sector. sector. (CIA Factbook 2014).
The employment on Mauritius is diversified. As can be seen on figure XY, most of the employment
comes from services. Even with current level of tourism only 8% of people work directly in
accommodation or food services.
If case of Mauritius is compared with Seychelles where the tourism was developed with slower rate,
more sustainably; it is interesting to see how many tourists come per one person working in
hospitality sector.
In 2014 in Seychelles, 8,830 people worked in in Figure 4: Employment on Mauritius
accommodation and food service activities
reached 230272 (Seychelles Statistical Office 2014). This is 26 tourist arrivals per one job in
accommodation and food services.
Compared to Mauritius, where in 2013 in accommodation and food services worked 24,710 people
(Mauritius Statistical office) and tourism arrivals reached 993,106 (Mauritius statistical Office). In
Mauritius the number of tourists coming to country divided by number of employees is
considerably higher, more than 40 tourists arrivals per one job.
6.3 Case Study 3: Maldives

The Republic of Maldives is a small country located southwest of India and consists of 1,190 coral
islands. In 2012 approximately 393,500 inhabitants lived on the 194 inhabited islands of which
35% of the population is located in the capital Island Mahe. Moreover, less than 1,000 people lived
on 68% of the island. (Shakeela, Ruhanen & Breakey, 2011)
Historical Background
The Maldives has always been an independent political entity with the exception of a 15 year
Portuguese occupation from 1558 to 1573. In 1887, the Maldives became a protectorate of the
British government, during which the Maldives maintained all internal control and decision making
while the British government was responsible for defense and foreign relations. After 1965 the
sovereignty of Maldives was recognized and it was no longer a British protectorate
(Sathiendrakumar & Tisdell, 1989).
Tourism development
Tourism in Maldives started in the 1970s. In 1972, two resorts with a total capacity of 280 beds
were opened and 1000 international tourists arrived. By 1982 the bed capacity had risen to 4,000
with 74,411 tourists arrivals. Over the next ten year the bed capacity more than doubled to 8,487
20
and tourism arrivals increased to 236,000. Up until 2005, before the tsunami stuck the Maldives,
tourism arrivals on Maldives were growing on average by 17% annually to 620,000 in 2004.
All these developments were under “one island one resort” policy introduced in 1980s. The goal of
this policy was to limit the socio-‐cultural impact on the people of Maldives, so resort developments
were only allowed on uninhabited islands. All resorts were self-‐contained with their own
generators, telecommunication systems, water desalination plants, sewage treatment systems and
other essential requirements (Shakeela, A., Ruhanen, L,. Breakey, N., 2011). This type of
development was able to reduce some of the sociocultural aspects seen elsewhere. For example,
prostitution did not occur and demonstration effects of tourism consumption patterns were very
limited (Sathiendrakumar, R., Tisdell, C., 1989). Up until 1978 all resorts were government-‐owned,
but from 1978 onwards development of private commercial enterprises started providing working
and equity capital for tourism. Although, local investors frequently solicited foreign investment,
profit remittances by foreign investors were uncontrolled (Sathiendrakumar, R., Tisdell, C., 1989).
In 2000 resorts were owned mostly owned by locals, with 58.6% of the capacity operated by local
companies and 30.9% by foreign and 10.5% by joint venture. (Shakeela, A., Ruhanen, L,. Breakey, N.,
2011)
These types of developments limited not only the socio-‐cultural impacts but also the benefits from
tourism development for local people. It is estimated that approximately 53% of the tourism
workforce is comprised of expatriates due to the lack of skilled and educated local people. In 2006
study results indicated that managerial positions were in 59% cases filled by expatriates and just
over half of the supervisory level positions were also staffed by expatriates (MTCA, 2008). The
functional or front-‐line positions were only in 57% staffed by local employees. In addition to this,
there are major income disparities between local and expatriate employees’ income levels. On
managerial and administrative positions expatriate employees receive US$1,400 while local
employees only earn US$800. Similarly clinic/health center positions of a resort where expatriate
receives salary US$700 while local employee receives only US$200 (Shakeela, Ruhanen & Breakey
2011). Employing expats not only increases income disparity but also limits the trickle down effect
into local communities as neither knowledge nor experience is gained. The income is not spend in
the local economy and tourism multiplication effect is due to these leakages not reaching levels it
would otherwise be able to reach.
The Maldives after 2008.

Tourism is the main economic activity for the Maldives. It contributes to 29% of GDP and generates
70% of foreign exchange. Therefore, the government is highly dependent on tourism income and
the sector as a whole. This dependency was probably motivation for introducing changes in 2008
when the new tourism master plan came into law. The main change was that now law allows hotels
and guest houses to be established on all inhabited islands. Parts of the changes were announced
public tendering for lease and resort development of eight uninhabited islands. This is rapid
development, in 2009 there was 97 resorts registered with below 21,000 beds and in 2010 there
21
were already 72 new resorts being developed with bed capacity of nearly 11,000 beds. (Shakeela,
Ruhanen & Breakey 2011). What will be the sociocultural impact is hard to estimate now, but as
could be seen on case of Seychelles, rapid development brings lots of negatives. Economic impact
will be significant, however in order to maximize it there is need to be sure that local people will
benefit from this employment opportunities more that it was the case.
7. Indicator analyses
For the indicator analyses the three main categories of socio-‐demographic, political-‐economic and
physical-‐ecological were further divided into themes, subthemes and finally indicators. The
respective subsections were given weights based on a regression analysis of sensitive factors. Due
to the limitation of data availability the initial draft of indicators was modified throughout the data
gathering process to measure similar impacts. Appendix 2 can be consulted for further details on
the indicators in each section and the respective scores for each of the four categories.
The analyses of the indicators has shown that the four regions scores are above average but not
significantly. As such the sustainability on Pemba is, as of 2014, not sufficient. Especially, Mkoani
and Wete scored lower than the Chake Chake and Micheweni. During the course of this study,
various initiatives were mentioned during the interviews which shows that the current
sustainability level could be improved due to the efforts made by the private and the public sector.
In order to allow for a comprehensive study the focus of explanations will be on the critical
indicators that could be identified and their impact on the native population and how they may
change due to increased and more developed tourism.
Based on the list of indicators and their scoring system the following shortcomings were identified:
waste disposal, water supply and reach of electricity net. All of these had a score between 0 and 0.4,
which substituted the rage of very bad (0-‐0.2) to bad (0.21-‐0.4).
Waste disposal: Currently the waste disposal on Pemba is decentralized and handled by the
municipalities. However, due to wide distribution of responsibilities and very little cooperation
between single municipalities it is not efficient and was mentioned repeatedly during various
surveys as a main issue. Around the world waste disposal is managed on a bigger more centralized
scale, which allows for economies of scale and scope in order to negate environmental impacts and
lower costs. As this is not the case on Pemba municipalities seem currently not able to keep up with
the generated waste (be it liquid or solid). Burning garbage is one of the most common forms of
waste management across all four districts. Due to the type of trash (e.g. plastic) air pollution will
become an issue that is difficult to reverse. Moreover, the lack of a sanitation system multiplies the
environmental pollution generated by the population, which is already apparent but not considered
a dramatic issue due to the size of the population. If tourism increases however, it will become an
urgent issue that the current system will not be able to handle. Another issue associated with waste
disposal is monitoring, as hotel facilities and municipalities are required to minimize impacts i.e.
22
through incinerators. However, as the procedures are not monitored by the government and
incentives are not put upon responsible processes the results are a slow progress towards being
sustainable.
Water supply: The lack of clean drinking water, especially during dry season, is another main issue.
According to the gathered data there is a significant overconsumption of water which the island
cannot handle. The estimated shortages are six million liters per year in North Pemba and seven
million liters in South Pemba. This is based on a water supply of 17 million liters and 21 million
liters in North and South Pemba respectively. This issue is the most crucial to handle before more
tourism can be developed as tourists have a higher consumption of water.
Electricity: The evaluation of the electricity grid is two fold. On the one hand the capacity and its
level of usage was considered and on the other hand the reach of the electricity grid. Considering
the former at the current stage only 45.5% of the current capacity of 20MV is used during peak
times. On average 35% is used. The biggest consumers are high-‐end hotels with an average need of
0.1% of total capacity, which states that hotel development is not limited through the maximum
capacity. Current jumps in the electricity voltage increase with distance to the center as such cause
significant inconvience. However, the current reach of the electricity grid covers 74% of Pemba with
no specific plans to extend the cable network. Especially, in regards to the dedicated tourism zones
this is not sufficient, as it does not cover those areas. Thus, hotel development is limited through the
reach and quality but not capacity of the electricity grid.
Structured interviews were conducted with a variety of government officials from different offices
and departments. Based on these interviews and the previous forms of data gathering additional
crucial indicators were identified.
Land plot availability: According to information from ZIPA land plots are being dedicated to tourism
that lies outside the dedicated tourism zones. Moreover, there is no incentive to start construction
as soon as the permission is granted. This has lead to many land plots being bought and reserved for
tourism establishments that are now used for land speculation. As such the reviewing process and
again monitoring fails to ensure sustainable development and even hinders the availability of land
for sustainable investors as the best spots are taken by speculators.
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA): Although a EIA is required for each hotel on Pemba there
is a lack of monitoring the efforts being done by the management to conform with the surveys. As
such especially environmental impacts are higher than expected by ZIPA.
Management of tourism facilities: The maximum bed occupancy of 35% has shown that better
management of all tourism establishments on Pemba Island can lead to more potential tourists
without putting an additional strain on the environment through construction of new resorts and
hotels. Concerning managerial recommendations for tourism facilities five actions are crucial in
23
increasing standards of living for local communities through nature based tourism according to Job
and Paesler ( 2013, p.18):
• “Focus on a close relationship with the local population and participatory development of
management options
• Install fair institutional arrangements
• Facilitate the opportunities of nature-‐based tourism with essential training in business skills,
guiding and production of local goods and handicraft
• Encourage community members to avoid a total dependence on nature-‐based tourism by
maintaining a subsistence economy for times of crisis
• Communicate that locally embedded tourism development takes time and is unlikely to
improve local economy immediately”

Use of natural resources: Although neither exact size of current forests on Pemba were not available
from the Forestry Department nor the deforestation rate were available, interviews with
government officials and other indicators show the following:
• High demand for traditional fuels from the population put stress on natural resources (esp.
forests) on Pemba
• Only limited preserved areas have been allocated (Ngezi Forest)
• Special areas for lime and rock mining have been identified that currently exceed local
demand and thus could be used for building hotels with traditional materials
• Wood imports are necessary but expensive and try to be limited through governmental tree
schools and community forests
As such supplying the tourism industry in a sustainable manner with local building materials is
only sustainable in a small and slow manner.
8. Surveys
As described in the methodology part four surveys were conducted during the course of the
Kwanini Carrying Capacity Study. This chapter describes the layout of each survey and how they
were carried out. Then a brief description of the findings follows, beginning with a demographic
profile and continued with brief outlines of each section’s answers. Each survey description
concludes with an analysis of the findings and how they are relevant to the Kwanini Carrying
Capacity Study.
8.1 Visitor exit survey

The aim of the visitors exit survey is to better understand what type of tourists visit Pemba, their
motivation or purpose of the visit, their behavior during their stay on the island and how and their
most and least enjoyed factors. The Pemba visitor survey consists of 26 questions and were aimed
to gather qualitative and quantitative data in the following five sections:
24
• Section A, where information about the trip are asked;
• Section B, where perception of crowding and importance of local aspect is explored;
• Section C, where favorite activities, likes and dislikes as well as satisfaction levels and
expectations are surveyed;
• Section D is demographic information
• Final section the respondent could add comment or suggestion to the survey.
The target group was defined as all tourists leaving Pemba Island during the survey period (August,
13th to 16th 2014). The surveys were conducted in the departure lounge of the airport in
cooperation with the Zanzibar Airport Authority (ZAA). Ultimately, 104 tourists departed at Pemba
airport during these four days of surveying and 93 were willing to answer the questionnaire, which
leads to an overall response rate of 89%.
Sample profile
The respondents profile indicated that the sample was slightly biased towards females (60%). The
most common countries of residence were Italy (34%), France (21%) and the UK (17%). This
composition of the sample is similar compared to official visitor arrivals data for previous years.
The share of Italians in sample is slightly higher and responses from US/Canada or Scandinavia are
slightly lower than compared previous years. The majority of international visitors (55%) who
responded to the survey are between 25 and 44 years old.
The main reason visitors came to Pemba for was relaxation (43%). Followed by diving (20%),
culture (16%) and honeymoon (11%). The main reasons for choosing Pemba as a holiday
destination were peacefulness (27%), beach (26%), coral reef (15%) uniqueness (11%) and
weather (11%).
Visitors learned about Pemba as a holiday spot through travel agent (42%), internet sites (21%),
word of mouth (15%), Tripadvisor (9%) and social media (5%). Of the surveyed visitors, 63%
booked their trip to Pemba through a travel agency, while more than a quarter of respondents
booked their trip directly with the resort (26%). More than a half of respondents booked their trip
less than a month (31%) or one to three months (20%) before the trip. One third of visitors book
their trip four to six months in advance (33%). For the large majority (82%) of visitors visiting
Pemba was incorporated into their travel itinerary to different places, such as Zanzibar (41%),
Selous safari (18%), Serengeti safari (8%), Tanzania national parks (7%), or Mafia, Safari or
Ngorongoro crater with 5% each.
The majority of visitors (88%) stayed between two to seven nights in Pemba, with an average nights
spend of 4.7. Of the questioned people, 43% spend on their trip on Pemba less than a 1100 USD. 20
% of people spend more than a 4001 USD on the trip. Most surveyed visitors came to Pemba Island
for the first time (97%).
25
Activities
Snorkeling is among the favorite activates on Pemba, with 18% of the visitors enjoying the activity.
Other popular activities enjoyed by visitors were diving (10%), village visit (9%), closely followed
by beach (8%), relaxing (8%) and Ngezi forest visit (7%). Of the surveyed visitors, 19% appreciated
the most the local people and their hospitality, the conditions for snorkeling and diving (15%),
peacefulness of the Pemba Island, hotel where they stayed (12%) or unspoiled nature (11%)
To the question, what do they like the least about the Pemba, 43% of respondents replied nothing.
11% did not like the beach, which they considered limited or busy, equally 8% did not like the
airport & flights or limited shopping on Pemba.
Perceptions and Satisfaction levels

Majority of visitors didn’t feel crowded in hotel and its facilities. Highest perceptions of crowding
were on excursions (12% high and 4% very high) and beach (6% high and 9% very high). 78%
considered value for money for hotel accommodation to me medium or above. The highest level of
satisfaction was with excursions, where 88% of respondents consider value for money medium or
higher. The majority of visitors responded that their level of satisfaction with all aspect of the hotel
were either high (average 28%) or very high (average 34%).
Visitors were mostly happy with service quality of hotel transfers. Their level of satisfaction was
high (average 35%) or very high (average 26%) Level of satisfaction with airport facilities was
considerably lower compared to hotel or hotel transfer levels. On average, just 20% of people
considered level of satisfaction to be high and 7% considered it to be very high.
Expectations
An overwhelming majority of international visitors (95%) stated that the holiday met (61%) or
exceeded (34%) their expectations. The rest felt that the holiday did not meet their expectations.
Those visitors came from Zanzibar for culture (75%) or relaxation (25%) and booked their trip
through travel agent (75%). Their main concerns were that on Pemba are limited shopping
opportunities, lack of information and info points and expectations which were set by travel agent
described different picture of Pemba. Majority of the surveyed visitors want to return to Pemba
(60%).
Analysis of Tourism segments

The visitors’ data was segmented into three categories. The visitors who stayed in hotels where they
spend less than 100 USD per night, the visitors who stayed in hotels and spend more than 100 USD
but less than 200 USD per night and visitors who spend more than 200 per night.
Tourists who spend below $100 USD per/ night

Sample of this segment of visitors consisted of 32 people. Their main reasons for travel were
relaxation (41%) and culture (41%). Majority of them was below 44 years, (25-‐34 years (50%) 35-‐
44 years (25%)). Their average length of stay was 2.7 days. For majority of them did not spend their
26
entire vacation on Pemba (78%) most frequent other stop on the trip was Zanzibar (79%). They
chose Pemba for its beaches (36%), peacefulness (25%) or weather (11%). Their main activities
were snorkeling (24%), visit of Ngezi forest (21%), beach (15%) and trip to Northern Pemba (7%)
or Misali Island (7%). What they liked the most about the Pemba island was beach (35%),
hospitality of local people (20%), forest (17%) and peacefulness (7%). That they did not like about
Pemba was limited shopping (13%), limited hotels and restaurants (13%) and limited or busy
beaches (10%).
Tourists who spend between $100 USD and $200 USD/night

Sample of this segment of visitors was of 10 people. Their main reasons for visit were diving (40%)
or relaxation (30%). Majority of them was below 44 years old, (18-‐24 years (20%) 25-‐34 years
(20%), 35-‐44 years (30%)). Average length of stay of this segment of visitors was 4.7 days. All of
them did not spend their entire vacation on Pemba and most frequent stops on their trip were
Zanzibar (40%) or safari (40%). They chose Pemba for its peacefulness (25%), beaches (25%) or
coral reef (20%). Their main activities were snorkeling (21%), kayaking (14%), beach (10%), diving
(10%) and local food (10%). What they liked the most about Pemba was locals and their hospitality
(16%), peacefulness (16%), beauty of ocean for diving and snorkeling (16%) and unspoiled nature
(10%). That they liked the least about Pemba was poverty (20%) criminality (20%), lack of
souvenirs (10%) and behavior of other tourists (10%).
Tourists who spend above $200 USD/night

Sample of this segment of tourists was of 47 people. Their main reason for visit was relaxation
(49%), diving (28%) and honeymoon (21%). The biggest age groups in this segments were 25 to 34
years (32%) and 45 to 64 (47%). Average length of stat of visitors from this segment was 6.3 days.
Majority of them did not spend their entire trip on Pemba. Their other stops were Selous (27%),
Zanzibar (23%), Serengeti (15%) and Ngorogoro (10%). They chose Pemba for its peacefulness
(26%), beach (17%), coral reefs (16%) and uniqueness (13%). The main activities were snorkeling
(33%), diving (15%), trip to Ngezi forest (13%), and relaxing (11%). That they liked the most about
Pemba was the beauty of ocean for diving and snorkeling (19%), local people and their hospitality
(17%), hotel where they stayed (17%) unspoiled nature (16%) and peacefulness of Pemba (13%).
What they liked the least about Pemba was limited or busy beach (12%), airport and local flights
(12%), hotel where they stayed (8%) and Muslim culture (8%).
In conclusion, tourists who spend less than 100 USD per night tend to come for few days of their trip
to Zanzibar. They come to Pemba to get to know the culture, stay in urban areas where these hotels
are located. They are budget conscious; shop in local shops and interact with locals on their own.
However, tourists who spend more than 100 USD per night tend to come for longer period of time
as part of their trip usually to the mainland. They are not so concerned about money, choose more
expensive activities like diving and appreciate what Pemba has to offer.
27
8.2 Hotel management survey
The goal of this survey is to better understand how different hotels work, what are their challenges,
and who do they employ. A survey consisting of both qualitative and quantitative questions was
designed to collect the needed information. The hotel management survey consists of 53 questions
divided into the following nine sections:
• Hotel vision (where the profile of facility was specified;

• Guests, where quantitative and qualitative data was collected to profile the type and quantity
of quests;
• Employees, where demography as well as employees training and challenges when hiring
employees were collected;
• Tourism development, where perceptions in changes in environment and areas on which
areas should improve to realize better tourism potential are asked;
• Local supplies, where sourcing of supplies and challenges connected to that are asked,
• Resources, where data about equipment as well as consumption of resources is collected;
• Transport, where type of transport hotels provide to guests is specified;
• Cooperation, where cooperation between the facility and other tourism facilities,
government agencies and local communities is surveyed and
• Final sections, where the respondent could add comment or suggestion to the survey.
The target population for this study was defined as hotel of all operating tourism facilities on
Pemba Island. The official list of facilities was provided by Commission of Tourism, and
crosschecked with list of facilities paying taxes or hotel levy payment provided by Zanzibar Revenue
Board. After further research, 17 operating hotel facilities were identified on the island. A cover
letter and the survey were delivered to all facilities.
Surveys were returned by 12 hotels; two (100%) of high class facility type returned filled survey,
two (100%) of middle class facilities type responded and eight (66%) of the basic class facility type
returned the survey. Overall the response rate was 65%, which is an adequate response rate for this
study, given that the target population had time constrains due to peak season when data was
collected. However, as most of the surveys were only partially filled out and the low number of
hotels on Pemba the results may indicate trends but are not sufficient proof for concrete
conclusions.
One of the most positive results from the hotel management survey is that most hotels do have a
strategy in place for their business. However, the visions are not all in line with the current tourism
plan. As such this shows a need for a realignment of interests between all tourism establishments.
The following visions are currently implemented on Pemba:
• Improve tourism business in Zanzibar, especially Pemba Island, the untouched natural
ecological environment
28
• To be the best resort of its kind in East Africa. To keep an African feel and the village
community in tact. To look after the environment, health and education of our local
community. To help the community to be "self sufficient”
• To be the best bed and breakfast hotel
• We aim to educate and accommodate our guests celebrating Pemba Island
• To develop income as an investment economy. To derive general employment for residents
to generate good income workers and to improve standard of hotel facilities in the country.
• At the end we will close
• To expand the project
• Economic development of the country
• To be the hotel that everyone liked to work and come for holiday or business
• To increase facilities. To attract the number of guests.
• To be the premier destination for tourists seeking a beach in an establishment focused on the
island community, environment and company governance in a sustainable manner. Refer to
the values of resort investors.
Concerning the level of luxury the distribution was as follows: Very low (0%), low (17%),
average (58%), high (8%) and very high (17%). Surprisingly both hotel establishments that
responded with having a low level of luxury also stated that they are not trying to increase their
luxury level. This indicates that there needs to be another focus on communicated the tourism
strategy so that all hotel’s interests are in line and strive towards high-‐end tourism. Moreover,
almost 42% of all hotels are planning to increase their bed number in the next two years.
3 out of 12 hotels responded that their main target visitors are businessmen and as such do not
strive towards international tourism guidelines. As this constitutes a considerable amount of
current hotels future tourism strategies must also include hotels that cater to local guests or
businessmen as previous tourism plans have not taken this segment into account.
All of the high-‐end tourism establishments are in need for local skilled labor in all departments.
Furthermore, 58% of hotels answered that they cannot find local skilled labor. The most
common missing skills that are required by the tourism industry are: trained kitchen staff,
English knowledge, hotel management experience as well as basic knowledge and skills.
Concerning the involvement with local communities 50% stated their interaction was very high
compared to high (40%) and average (10%). Named positive impacts were creating demand for
local products especially fish as well as employment opportunities, schools and clean water.
The most pressing issues that need to be addressed according to the hotel managements are
waste collection and management followed by protection and conservation of plants and
animals and improvement of electricity grid.
29
8.3 Hotel staff survey
The aim of the hotel staff survey is to understand hotel employees’ living standards as well as their
background and attitude towards tourism. The survey consists of 28 qualitative and quantitative
questions, which were distributed across five sections: employment history, culture, perception
(cultural and environmental), demographic information and additional comments.
The survey’s target population was defined as all hotel employees of facilities operating on Pemba
Island in order to ensure that all establishments would be represented even in case of lower
response rates. This was especially important as certain facilities employed a minimum of two
people. Each of the 17 facilities was contacted to identify their employee number, which amounted
to a total of 299 Moreover, to facilitate a higher response rate and ease the understanding the
survey was translated into Swahili and distributed. 14 tourism facilities returned 135 staff surveys,
which were then translated back into English. This leads to a total response rate of 45%, which
given the time and mobility constraints was deemed appropriate. Especially the diversity of hotels
and departments who returned the surveys give a solid basis for this chapter.
Sample profile
The respondent’s profile indicated mostly male (73%) work in hotels. The age demographic was
clustered mainly around 18 to 34 years old (54%). Furthermore while 43% completed secondary
school an additional 36% of hotel work force stated primary school as their achieved level of
education. About 80% of the workforce is from Zanzibar with a slight majority of Pemba locals
(57% of total). The residence of hotel staff is distributed across all four districts: Chake Chake
(29%), Wete (9%), Mkoani (29%) and Micheweni (32%).
Section A: Employment history

About 60% of respondents started working in the tourism sector during the last four years. The
majority of respondents did not have any previous hotel work experience (77%) and mainly
received training in a hotel (41%), no training (11%) or taught themselves (7%). The three most
common jobs for men are housekeeping, waiter and security while women are mainly employed in
housekeeping, kitchen and as a waitress. In regards to income spending it has leakages back into the
local community as most is spend on food (33%), sent to family (17%) and clothing (12%).Most
employees (77%) are happy working in a hotel (77%) due to salary (41%) and a work respectful
environment (17%). About 21% dislike their work with crucial reasons being bad working
environment, loss of culture and delay in salary payments.
Motivations for working in a hotel range from salary (31%) over employment opportunity (29%) to
enjoyment of tourism related work (9%). Alternatives to working in a hotel are mainly farmers
(30%), businessman (27%), fisherman (7%) or anything legal (7%).
Section B: Culture

More than a half of respondents consider their level of interaction to be average (53%), more then a
quarter consider their level of interaction high (23%) and very high (7%) and only the minority
30
(15%) of respondents consider it to be low or very low. The majority of respondents believe that
they taught guests local culture, traditions or language (62%) or good behavior (13%). When
answering the question what did you learned from guests, most frequent answers were guests’
language (54%) or generosity (6%).
Working in the hotel industry has changed the life of approximately 66%. Reasons for change
included salary / income (38%) and adaptation to guests’ culture (15%). It has not changed the life
of 32% mainly due to low salary (36%) or because respondents are consciously separating personal
from work (24%).
Section C: Perception

The vast majority considers tourism for Pemba to be good (92%) with main benefits being
considered more employment (47%), development (15%) and foreign money (10%). Of the people
that consider tourism as a negative impact 44 % name loss of Pemba culture as the main
contributor. If there should be more hotels, the most frequent replies were that there will be more
employment (28%), Pemba will change (24%), loss of Pemba culture (12%) and development (8%).
Most of the respondents like about Pemba its peace and politeness (39%), nature (14%) and
tourism (11%). Crime and violence (15%), nothing (9%) and homosexuals (8%) were named as the
worst thing about Pemba. Responses on question “How do you think the following things have
chang
ed in
Price of food the
Price of electricity last
Much worse
Price of water three
CorrupQon Worse years?
Crime ” are
Number of fish Same
showe
Coral reef health
Beèr d on
DeforestaQon
Figure
Noise Much beèr
Traffic
5.
Lièring Not stated

Air polluQon
Water polluQon
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 5: Perception of Change in Issues
31
Standard of Living
Majority of people walk to work (49%) or use Daladala (17%). Most of people have water from
Zawa (72%) and electricity form ZECO (45%), while 53% have no electricity in their homes. On the
question what do you do with your garbage, most of the respondents replied that they burn their
garbage (53%), bring it to landfill (22%) or bury it (13%).
8.4 Local community leader survey

A survey consisting of qualitative and quantitative questions was designed to collect the required
data from local community leaders. This questionnaire contains 29 questions and is divided into
four sections. These are employment, culture and perception, demographic data and additional
comments.
The target population for this study was defined as local communities’ leaders (Sheha) in all local
communities (Shehia) of Pemba Island. The official list of Shehias was provided by OCGS Pemba and
consists of 121 Shehias. With help of Commission of Tourism and Tourism District Committees a
cover letter and the surveys were delivered to all Shehia of Pemba island. Surveys were distributed
in districts in following counts: Chake Chake 29 surveys, Micheweni 27 surveys, Mkoani 33 surveys,
Wete 32 surveys.
In total 53 (partially) completed responses were collected: 29 responses from Chake Chake (100%),
24 responses from Micheweni (89%), 0 from Mkoani, and 0 from Wete. The overall response rate
was 44%. Data collection from Wete and Mkoani was unsuccessful due to time and mobility
constraints of the target respondents. The response rate was very high in both collected regions and
as both administrative regions of Pemba were represented (North and South Pemba) it was decided
to declare the sample valuable for insights into the local community leader mindsets. Moreover, the
responses did not differ significantly although Chake Chake and Micheweni showed variations in the
indicator analyses. As such although the response rate is not as high as expected the local
community leader’s survey continues to give an insight into the mindset, standard of living and
attitude towards tourism of local communities.
Tourism exposure and interaction

92% of local community leaders would accept work in the tourism industry. Out of the positive
respondents 26% would engage in trade while 23% would like to act as guides and 7% are
interested in welcoming tourists personally to Pemba. Reasons for decline of tourism work were
age, loss of culture and the perception of the tourism industry as “ugly”.
98% of respondents answered that their community would be willing to trade with hotels. While
the remaining 2% stated they would not want to trade because tourism is putting income into
foreign markets and back into the local communities. Out of the 98% of communities willing to
trade the most named items were: traditional handcrafts, e.g. baskets, mats (41%), vegetables and
fruits (13%), fish and seafood (13%) and furniture (7%).
32
One of the most significant questions in this survey was the perception of tourism in the local
communities. 85% of respondents answered that tourism is good for Pemba. Only one respondent
who answered “No” gave an explanation, which was the tourism is not good for Pemba, because the
current tourism state is not good. Out of the explanations why tourism is good for Pemba was
employment (40%), foreign money for development (31%) and promotion of Tanzania or Zanzibar
(6%).
When asked if one of their family members work in the tourism industry 68% answered no, while
28% said yes. Furthermore, in regards to tourism exposure 40% of respondents said they have not
seen any tourists in the last month and 21% stated they have seen more than 30 tourists in the last
month. Between 1 and 10 tourists were seen by 19%, 11 to 20 tourists by 6% and 14% saw 21 to 30
tourists last month.
Employment was also the most given answer (13%) to the question of what would happen if there
are more hotels on Pemba. Responses were spread out across various topics but loss of culture
(9%), more income (7%) and less poverty (8%) were also common answers.
62% of respondents stated that they would like to have a hotel in their Shehia, while only 15% were
against it. The reasons for wanting a hotel in close proximity were local employment (28%) as well
as income and development (4%). Negative answers focused on loss of culture (9%) as well as the
village being too small (2%) for tourism. However, this question was not answered by 40% and as
such may not give a full account of the reasons for (not) wanting a hotel in the area of the local
community.
Best and worst of Pemba

Respondents stated that the best things to see on Pemba are the environment and wildlife (36%),
peace and politeness (26%) and Pemba culture (21%). Another common mention by 6% was the
museum and historical sites as the best thing to see on Pemba for tourists. On the other hand 56% of
respondents stated they would not like tourists to see crimes and conflict. Followed by loss of
culture (9%), environmental pollution (6%) and prostitution (4%).
When asked what community leaders liked the most about Pemba 60% answered peace and
politeness followed by small scale tourism (8%) and farming (4%). The question what was
perceived as the least liked on Pemba 41% of community leaders did not answer. However, 19%
stated that there was not enough tourism on Pemba. Followed by 9% that answered politics. In
contrast to the 19% answer of not enough tourism 8% stated that they liked the least about Pemba
that there are too many tourists. Lack of peace was answered by 6% of survey respondents.
Resource usage and demand

As water was one of the crucial indicators identified by the indicator analyses questions about
water were asked to confirm literature findings. First, respondents were asked to rate the water
quality on a scale of very low to very high. Answers ranged across all five segments with the
33
following distribution: very low (23%), low (17%), average (43%), high (9%) and very high (2%).
85% of local community receive their water directly from ZAWA. Lastly, it was asked whether a
water problem exists in the community and if yes which one. 55% stated lack of water and 4%
contaminated water as issues and no water problem was answered by 32%.
Electricity was another critical issue and thus the reach of the electricity grid and the connectivity of
communities were inquired. 58% of community leaders have electricity in their home and all
Shehas that have electricity in their home receive it from ZECO.
Concerning waste management the survey indicates that the burning of garbage is the primary way
to deal with waste disposal by 45% of communities. Other means are to bury it and in 17% of
surveys a landfill was mentioned as a burying ground. Only 2% of communities stated that the
municipality is actively managing the garbage disposal.
Issues in the community

Unemployment was mentioned by 38% of respondents as the primary cause for poverty in the
community. Other answers included poor farming equipment (15%), low education level (11%) and
weak economic base due to lack of capital (9%). In addition to the primary cause for poverty
community leaders were asked what the biggest issue in their community is. Answers were very
similar to the questions concerning cause of poverty, which indicates the significance of poverty for
many communities and their connectedness across community issues. Lack of employment
opportunities was the most common answer (32%), followed by poor farming and fishing
equipment (23%), lack of clean water (13%) and poor means of transport (11%).
Concerning combating these issues and to raise the standard of living in the Shehias the most
mentioned factors were employment (28%), modern farming equipment (16%), livestock (8%),
fishing tools (7%) and investments (7%).
Demographic data
75% of respondents were male, 17% female and 8% declined to answer this question. For age
groups between 50-‐59 was the most common (34%), followed by 60-‐69 (245) and 40-‐49 years
(21%).
Concerning education levels, 47% finished primary school, while 42 % finished secondary school.
When segmented into male education the number of men who “only” finished primary schooling is
slightly higher with 62%. This is in contrasts to the female survey respondents who all finished
secondary school.
34
9. Discussion
During the course of the study certain issues repeatedly showed up throughout the various
analyses. Although the issues are current and urgent there are various ways of managerial and
governmental intervention to minimize the impacts:
Water supply: According to estimates three tourists consumer the same amount of water needed to
cultivate a rice field for a year. This statistic shows the high water demand for tourists that could be
used in different areas to combat important issues such as hunger and poverty. Tourism is an
important source of income for many citizens if the tourism industry on Pemba is based on
sustainable and local labor. In order to overcome the issue of water shortages alternative sources to
groundwater need to be used. Feasible ideas include desalination plants as well as rainwater
harvesting. Concerning rainwater harvesting the advantages are manifold. On Pemba rainfall
accumulates to approximately 1.5km3 per annum but current harvesting is used for only 1% of
rainfall. The rest of the rainfall acts as follows: run-‐off accounts for 24%, 7% seeps into
groundwater and 40% for evapotranspiration. Three primary ways can be utilized to take
advantage of rainwater. These are enhancing groundwater, capturing runoff and collecting rainfall
in-‐site.
Monitoring: Monitoring and incentivizing sustainable self-‐governance policies should be a focus for
the future implementation of governmental strategies, which are not only limited on tourism plans.
As monitoring is costly and takes up crucial resources, especially time, money and labor, this
process step has been neglected throughout the past years. During the data gathering process it has
become apparent that the current status of many aspects was unknown to responsible persons and
official documentation or estimates were hard to find. Monitoring is a crucial step of every strategy
and as such there needs to be a focus on finding sustainable investors that do not require as much
monitoring and policies that incentivize good governance behavior. Thus monitoring is another
aspects that could be better utilized in a high-‐end tourism environment. As mentioned in the As
mentioned in the Zanzibar Tourism Master Plan monitoring and measuring the economic impact of
tourists is not possible due to
• Tax revenue is collected under a hotel levy and VAT depending on the size of hotel
• Lack of transparency it is hard to follow tourist’s spending (especially for potential
investors)
• Other direct and indirect sources of foreign money cannot be tracked
As such a tourism umbrella account might be a feasible solution for the future as this has been a
successful concept throughout worldwide tourism destinations. As this umbrella accounts tracks all
tourism spending it would take time to set up but would streamline future monitoring and planning
activities.
35
Brand positioning: As stated above in the current tourism segmentation, the potential for Pemba to
position itself apart from Zanzibar as an high-‐end tourism segmentation is very high. Due to its
relative short tourism period tourists’ opinion and perceptions can still be formed and influenced,
now easier than later after Pemba becomes more established. Especially, in the beach segment there
is a potential to establish Pemba in a unique and exclusive spot apart from other destinations in
order to not get lost in the clutter but become recognizable. In order to define a good branding it is
crucial to define the core characteristics and competitive identity of Pemba. S
Especially small business control and profit from strong destination branding as they lack the
incentive to promote their own reputation (also apparent in the management survey) and thus their
strong dependence on destination branding. However, small business can control the brand
significantly through their visitor’s experience. Thus, they need to be willing and able to promote
businesses that contribute to and represent the brand positively. So it is crucial that destination
brand is strong, recognizable and unique.
Infrastructure: According to the hotel management survey and the staff survey transportation is an
issue on Pemba. Although the road conditions are rated as average the network of transportation is
lacking. As such the current state could not handle a steep increase in tourism numbers. At the
current stage there still needs to be potholes filled, maintenance and grading. However, mass
tourism would also need wider roads and a proper bus network up to international standards to
satisfy the demands of tourists. Moreover, the increase in traffic would also lead to the need of
better road signage and traffic lights. Moreover based on the visitor survey there is a need to
upgrade airport facilities for more comfort, information and signage as well as snack points in order
to round off the visits.
Drivers of positive change: Especially the common tourist area, the protected Ngezi forest has made
smart changes that not only preserve the environment but also impact social and economic factors
positively. Firstly, only allowing guided tours allows tourist education while at the same time having
a reason to charge fees and avoid tourist environmental impact through wrongful behavior in the
forest. Secondly, price discrimination policies enable local communities to use the forest while at
the same time charging reasonable but higher fees for non-‐locals and foreigner.
Total employment: Based on the hotel management survey possible employment opportunities were
identified. According to the survey analyses high-‐end facilities on Pemba employ on average 5.01
staff members per room, while low-‐end establishments employ 0.67 staff member per room (with
the minimum ratio being 0.22). Thus high-‐end facilities employ on average eight times as many
employees as low-‐end are the better option in terms of creating the maximum numbers
employment opportunities per tourists.
Tourism as local employment opportunity: Across all surveys the hope for local employment
opportunities in the tourism industry has been voiced. However, based on the hotel management
survey there are many difficulties in finding local skilled labor. As such although there is a
36
connection between the local communities and the hotels the link cannot be fully utilized due to this
lack of tourism-‐related skills in the local population. As such before more hotels are established
there need to be clear guidelines on how to raise the skill level before hotels start to use foreign
workers. As employment played such a big role in the local communities surveys it can be concluded
that acceptance of tourism on Pemba will depend on how much local workforce is employed directly
and indirectly in the hotels. This issue has also been addressed in the Zanzibar Tourism Master Plan,
which suggests a two-‐sided approach to receive optimal and efficient training results. This approach
consists of formal training at a hospitality learning center as well as on-‐site practical training.
Especially, English language training and high job specific skill sets to guarantee service appropriate
for high-‐yield tourists should be the cornerstones of this education.
10. Recommendations for further research

Due to the size of the project and its time and resource constraints there are various topics that can
be added to further research to increase the tourism value on Pemba. This chapter gives a brief
overview of potential points of interest for stakeholder analysis and further proceedings in the
tourism industry.
This study has given insights into various topics that will influence the tourism sector on Pemba.
However, a focus was places on comprehensiveness and thus detailed analysis and reviews by
experts in a certain field will give more depths and precision to the discussed topics. As such it is
recommended to consult experts when making
Land speculation and land allocation: This study clearly states that approved investments are not
being undertaken but seem to be a chance for land speculation. As such the incentives need to be
revised and possible policies established to ensure that responsible investors are being approved
for land leases that are interested in the development and not only monetary gains based on land
speculation.
Tourism profile: Although this study has defined a optimal tourism profile for Pemba there is a need
to involve all stakeholders in a discussion to specify the perfect guest for the decided tourism policy.
This study facilitates the starting point but further work is to be done.
The brand “Pemba”: Once more this paper states inputs and ideas for the development for marketing
of the destination brand Pemba. Further discussions about implementation and most efficient usage
through selected media channels should be considered by future experts to establish an effective
and cost-‐efficient marketing strategy.
Incentive and monitoring strategy: An increase in tourism will lead to the need for more monitoring
and incentives for the observation of regulations by investors and hotel management in all fields.
Otherwise, the current situation points towards unplanned development that disregards current
available directives and puts a high strain on the environment and thus the future profitability of
37
Pemba. Especially, ZIPA needs to have clear guidelines as to which investments should be approved
and exact deadlines for the development to avoid the above mentioned land speculation. Detailed
revisions of monitoring and incentive / deterrent policies for investors need to be discussed by
appropriate institutions.
11. Conclusion
Establishing a sustainable tourism development strategy for Pemba Island is going to include the
cooperation of five crucial stakeholders: Pemba people, government, workforce, investors (and
hotel management) as well as guests. The role of stakeholders is to work together to create an
environment that adds value to the people, nature and culture of Pemba. Through this stakeholder
network a mutually beneficent experience for all can be created. Moreover, through a network of
these stakeholders a responsible environment should and can be created that can make the
monitoring of the tourism industry on Pemba less resource intensive and thus easier to implement
sustainable policies and efficient stakeholder communication. Moreover, importance should be
placed on creating a collective belief in the future tourism plan to ensure acknowledgement and
focus.
The quantitative and qualitative analyses as shown the following criteria to be the biggest issues on
Pemba: Waste disposal, water supply, infrastructure, local skill level, electricity grid reach as well as
governmental monitoring and plan implementations. Low-‐end tourism due to its higher visitor
number and shorter length of stay will put more pressure on the above factors and will require
significant and large scale improvements. While high-‐end tourism does also require investments but
can be developed gradually and on a more limited scale.
Based on this study the recommendation is for a high-‐yield, low volume tourism strategy as this
does not require as high initial investments and prevents resource exploitation and preserves
nature and culture. Moreover, the leakages can be smaller than for low-‐end tourism while more
benefits trickle down to local citizens such as employment rates and indirect tourism income
opportunities. This will lead to benefits for the local community, tourism staff, government,
investors and guests alike if an appropriate speed of development (9-‐10%) is implemented.
Tourism will always influence and alter the lives of local citizens to some degree. However, the
tourism strategy will have a significant influence on the type and severity of change. The proposed
high-‐end tourism allows tourism to be development in a controlled and sustainable manner.
However, the government must incentivize the right development for Pemba and ensure that all
(tourism related) policies are developed with a focus on ultimate outcomes and how it will
contribute to tourism and Pemba as a whole. The proposed high-‐end tourism strategy in this paper
will give Pemba a chance to embrace the positives parts of tourism and to limit the negative ones.

38
References:
Baum, T. (1997). The fascination of islands: a tourism perspective. In D. G. Lockhart, & D.Drakakis-‐
Smith. (Eds.), Island tourism – Trends and prospects (pp. 21–35). London: Pinter.
Bimonte, S., & Punzo, L. F. (2007). The evolutionary game between tourist and resident populations
and Tourist Carrying Capacity. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 3(1), 73-‐87.
Brown, K., Turner, R. K., Hameed, H., & Bateman, I. (1997). Environmental carrying capacity and
tourism development in the Maldives and Nepal. Environmental Conservation, 24(4), 316-‐325.
Buckley, R. (2002). Surf tourism and sustainable development in Indo-‐Pacific Islands. I. The industry
and the islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(5), 405-‐424.
Butler, R. W. (2010). Carrying capacity in tourism: paradox and hypocrisy?.Edited by Douglas G.
Pearce and Richard W. Butler, 53.

Butler, R. (2006). The tourism area life cycle (Vol. 1). Channel View Publications.
Campling, L., & Rosalie, M. (2006). Sustaining social development in a small island developing state?
The case of Seychelles. Sustainable Development,14(2), 115-‐125.
CIA Factbook (2014). Mauritius, viewed 27th August 2014 from

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-‐world-‐factbook/geos/se.html
CIA Factbook (2014). Seychelles, viewed 25th August 2014 from

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-‐world-‐factbook/geos/se.html
Clivaz, C., Hausser, Y., & Michelet, J. (2004). Tourism monitoring system based on the concept of
carrying capacity–The case of the regional natural park Pfyn-‐Finges (Switzerland). In Policies,
methods and tools for visitor management: proceedings of the Second International Conference on
Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas, June 16-‐20, 2004,
Rovaniemi, Finland (p. 235). Finnish Forest Research Institute.
Coccossis, H., Mexa, A., Collovini, A., Parpairis, A., & Konstandoglou, M. (2001). Defining, measuring
and evaluating carrying capacity in European tourism destinations. Environmental Planning
Laboratory, Athens.
Coccossis, H., & Mexa, A. (2004). The challenge of tourism carrying capacity assessment: Theory and
practice. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..
Connell, J. (1991). Island microstates: the mirage of development.
Cynarski, W. J., & Obodynski, K. (2004). Tourism in Humanistic Perspective–Scientific

Conference. Tourism Today Tourism Today.
De Kadt, E. (1976). Tourism: Passport to Development?, Oxford Press, New York, 17
39
Debbage, K. G. (1991). Population and sustainable development in Mauritius. Annals of Tourism
Research, 18(2), 340-‐342.
Dodds, R., & Butler, R. (2009). Barriers to implementing sustainable tourism policy in mass tourism
destinations.
Doǧan, H. Z. (1989). Forms of adjustment: Sociocultural impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism

Research, 16(2), 216-‐236.
Durbarry, R. (2004). Tourism and economic growth: the case of Mauritius.Tourism Economics, 10(4),
389-‐401.
Durbarry, R. (2002). The economic contribution of tourism in Mauritius. Annals of Tourism

Research, 29(3), 862-‐865.
Hallo, J. C., & Manning, R. E. (2010). Analysis of the social carrying capacity of a national park scenic
road. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation,4(2), 75-‐94.
Jafari, J., (2001). Research and Scholarship: The Basis of Tourism Education. The Journal of Tourism
Studies, 1 (2001), pp. 33–41
Job, H., & Paesler, F. (2013). Links between nature-‐based tourism, protected areas, poverty
alleviation and crises—The example of Wasini Island (Kenya).Journal of Outdoor Recreation and
Tourism, 1, 18-‐28.
Kurhade, S. (2013). Methodological Framework for Evaluation of Tourism Carrying Capacity of Eco
Sensitive Region. In International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and
Technology (Vol. 2, Issue 3, pp. 781-‐785).

Lime, D. W., & Stankey, G. H. (1971). Carrying capacity: maintaining outdoor recreation quality.
In Recreation Symposium Proceedings (Vol. 12, No. 14, pp. 122-‐134). US Northeastern Forest
Experiment Station.

Lockhart, D. G. (1997). Islands and tourism: an overview. In D. G. Lockhart, & D.Drakakis-‐Smith.
(Eds.), Island tourism – trends and prospects (pp. 3–21). London: Pinter.
MacBeth, J., (2005). Towards an Ethics Platform for Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 32, pp.
962–965
McIntosh, R.W. & Goeldner, C.R., (1986).Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies (4th ed.) Wiley,
New York (1986)
Manning, R., Wang, B., Valliere, W., Lawson, S., & Newman, P. (2002). Research to estimate and
manage carrying capacity of a tourist attraction: a study of Alcatraz Island. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 10(5), 388-‐404.

40
Mathieson, A., & Wall, G., (1982). Tourism, economic, physical and social impacts. Longman.
Mowforth, M. & Munt, I., (1997). Tourism and Sustainability. London: Routledge
MTCA. 2008, Human Resource Situation in the Tourism Sector of Maldives as at end 2006. Malé:
Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation.
National Bureau of Statistics, 2010, Population and Housing Census 2010 – Supplement Statistical
Tables, Victoria
National Bureau of Statistics, 2014, Statistical Bulletin 2014/2, Victoria
Northcote, J., & Macbeth, J. (2006). Conceptualizing yield: sustainable tourism management. Annals
of Tourism Research, 33(1), 199-‐220.

Okech, R. N. (2004). The Role of Tour Operators in Sustainable Ecotourism: Lessons from
Kenya. Tourism Today Tourism Today.

O'Reilly, A. M. (1986). Tourism carrying capacity: concept and issues. Tourism management, 7(4),
254-‐258.
PAP/RAC (Priority Actions Programme Regional Activity Centre). (2003) Guide to Good Practice in
Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment, Split-‐
Papayannis, T. (2004). Tourism carrying capacity in areas of ecological importance. The Challenge of
Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment, Ashgate, Aldershot, England.
Pazienza, P. (2004). A Multidimensional Tourism Carrying Capacity Model: An Empirical Approach.
Plog, S. C., (1974): Why Destination Areas Rise and Fall in Popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly 14, no. 4, 55-‐58;
Rees, W. E. (1996). Revisiting carrying capacity: area-‐based indicators of sustainability. Population
and environment, 17(3), 195-‐215.
Rosalie, M. (2002). Tourism and social development in Seychelles.Development Bulletin, (60), 95-‐98.
Saarinen, J., (2006). Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 33
(4), pp. 1121–1140
Santonocito, S. D. (2009). Sustainable Tourism and Carrying Capacity in the Mediterranean Area
Focus on Sicily. In 3rd IRT International Scientific Conference (Vol. 1).
Saethorsdottir, A. D. (2004). Adapting to change: Maintaining a wilderness experience in a popular
tourist destination. Tourism Today Tourism Today.
41
Sathiendrakumar, R., & Tisdell, C. (1989). Tourism and the economic development of the
Maldives. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(2), 254-‐269.
Shakeela, A., Ruhanen, L., & Breakey, N. (2011). The Local Gaze: Social Inhibitors to Engagement in
the Maldivian Tourism Industry.
Sharma, P. (1995). A framework for tourism carrying capacity analysis.Discussion Paper Series-‐
Mountain Enterprises and Infrastructure, ICIMOD, (95/1).
Shaw, G., & Williams, A. M. (2010). Tourism SMEs: changing research agendas and missed
opportunities. Tourism research: A, 20(20), 80-‐93.
Sleeman, R. (2009). Akaroa tourism carrying capacity. Lincoln University. Faculty of Environment,
Society and Design..
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). (2014). Tourism and Environmental

Conservation,
http://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/Business/SectoralActivities/Tourism/FactsandFiguresab
outTourism/ImpactsofTourism/EnvironmentalImpacts/TourismandEnvironmentalConservation/t
abid/78779/Default.aspx, viewed 26th August 2014
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). (1994). Programme of action for the sustainable
development of small island developing states. http://islands.unep.ch/dsidspoa.htm, viewed
08.09.2014
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (2010). Assessment of Development Results:

Seychelles, New York
Vistad, O. I. (2003). Experience and management of recreational impact on the ground–a study
among visitors and managers. Journal for Nature Conservation,11(4), 363-‐369.
Wagar, J. A. (1964). The carrying capacity of wild lands for recreation. Forest
Science, 10(Supplement 7), a0001.
Wilson, D. (1967). The impact of tourism in the Seychelles, United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization/ International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Zacarias, D. A., Williams, A. T., & Newton, A. (2011). Recreation carrying capacity estimations to
support beach management at Praia de Faro, Portugal.Applied Geography, 31(3), 1075-‐1081.
Zubair, S., Bowen, D., & Elwin, J. (2011). Not quite paradise: Inadequacies of environmental impact
assessment in the Maldives. Tourism Management,32(2), 225-‐234.
42

43
Appendix 1:
Appendix I: Literature Review
1.1.Jafari’s Four Platforms
Due to space limitations the main text body only included a brief description of Jafari’s paper (2001). The following
description of his four stages gives a deeper understanding of the evolution of American tourism characteristics.
1. Advocacy platform: This platform describes the characteristics of tourism during two decades starting in
1950s. Tourism is considered an ideal activity with few negative impacts for tourist destinations. The
government were tasked with actively promoting tourism.
2. Cautionary platform: Most common form of Tourism in the 1970s. It was proposed that tourism would
eventually result in negative impacts for tourism destinations unless it was carefully planned and
regulated.
3. Adaptancy platform: During the 1980’s mass tourism was less promoted than alternative tourism, which
included: home stays, cultural villages and volunteer tourism.
4. Knowledge-‐based platform: Tourism in the 1990’s was characterized by planning for tourism activities
and destination which attempted to scientifically determine impacts and capacities for tourism
destinations.
1.2.Micro-‐ and Macro-‐ level Management Tool Description
This chapter explains the most important micro and macro management tools currently available in the tourism
industry. This subchapter aims to give a background information to understand the management challenges better
but was to specific to be included in the main body.
1. Micro-‐level management tools:

• Area protection: Includes the classification of protected locations. This is done into specific categories,
such as National Park, Wildlife reserves, Biosphere reserves, Country Parks, Areas of outstanding beauty
(AONBs) or Sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs). According to this classifications there a protection
requirements that must be uphold when managing this sites. The issue with these protections is that it is
very common activity that requires resources (especially money) and tends to neglect local community
needs and can even sabotage their sources of revenue, because it applies to all not just tourists.
• Visitor management techniques:
o Honeypots: Honeypots are especially popular tourists destination. Identifying these or branding
unpopular sites as such can lead to a rise in visitors and also price flexibility.
o Zoning: Different areas are given specific levels of protections which allows to split an integrated
system into different parts and protect each one optimally.
o Visitor dispersion: Spreading the amount of visitors per square mile can lead to a different
perception.
44
o Vehicle restriction: Restricting the use of (petrol operating) vehicles can be advantageous in
preserving the environment.
• Use of pricing differentiation: Profit optimization due to various price points that allow management to
come as close to the price a certain tourist segment is willing to pay.
• Usage of sustainability indicators: This includes monitoring the use of resources, including waste,
pollution, local production, rate of violence or oppression and degree of diversity.
2. Macro-‐level management tools:
• Industry regulation: This included government legislation (national as well as local), professional
association regulation (a closed group, which members are required to adhere to certain rules),
international agreements as well as voluntary self-‐regulation.
• Environmental foot-‐printing (also known as environmental impact assessment): This includes researching
natural resources in the area and their usage requirements. Issues and conflicts that arise due to
environmental resource scarcity are identified.
• Auditing and indicators: Environmental auditing includes inventorying resources in a given location.
• Codes of Conduct: This codes can apply to tourists, a certain establishment, governments, local
communities, tour operators or the entire industry.
• Eco-‐labels and certification schemes: There are various NGOs and companies that are promoting a label
that is associated with Eco friendliness or fair trade. This subcategory is especially difficult as the reliability
of different labels differs significantly.

45
Appendix 2: Indicator analyses
Table 1 Equity indicators

Table 2 Health indicators

Table 3 Education indicators

Table 4 Housing, security and population indicators
46
Table 5 Air quality and land indicators

Table 6 Oceans, sea and coastal area and biodiversity indicators

Table 7 Consumption patterns and institutional capacity indicators
47
Table 8 Total sustainability scores

48

49
Exhibit 1: Visitor Exit Survey
PEMBA&VISITOR&SURVEY&2014&
&
This& survey& is& conducted& as& part& of& the& Tourism& Ministry’s& Carrying& Capacity& Study& that& currently&
assesses&the&tourism&industry&on&Pemba&to&develop&a&precise&strategy&for&future&development.&&
This&survey&is&for&classification&and&statistical&purposes&only.&&
!
Section A
!
!
1.!How!many!times!have!you!visited!Pemba?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!First!time! ! ☐
!2!–!4!times! ! ☐
!4A6!times! ☐!More!than!6!times!
!
2.!With!whom!did!you!travel?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Alone!! ! ! ☐!Partner! ! ! ☐!Business!associate!
☐!Friends!! ! ! ☐!Family! ! ! ☐!Special!interest!group!
!
! 2.1!How!many!people,!including!yourself,!were!in!your!travel!party?!
____!Adults! ! ____!Children!under!18!
!
3.!Where!were!you!staying!during!your!stay!on!Pemba?!(Name!of!the!accommodation)!
____________________!
!
4.!How!many!nights!did!you!stay!on!Pemba?!
_____!nights!
!
5.!Where!did!you!learn!about!Pemba!as!a!potential!travel!location?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Travel!agent! ! ☐!Word!of!mouth! ☐!TV!! ! ☐!Magazines!
☐!Holiday!Fair! ! ☐!Tripadvisor!! ! ☐!Social!Media! !
☐!Other!internet,!site:!________________!! ! ☐!Other,!specify:!________________!
!
6.!What!was!the!primary!reason!for!your!visit?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Honeymoon! ! ☐!Diving! ! ! ☐!Culture! ! ☐!Business!
☐!Health!&Wellness!! ☐!Relaxation!! ! ☐!Other:!____________________!
!
7.!Why!did!you!choose!Pemba!as!your!holiday!destination?!(Please!check!(✔)!all!that!apply)!
☐!Coral!reefs! ☐!Beach! ! ! ☐!Weather!! ☐!Uniqueness!!
☐!Local!culture! ! ☐!Peacefulness!! ! ☐!Reputation! ☐!Other:!____________________!
!
8.!How!did!you!perceive!the!amount!of!choices!you!had!for!accommodation!on!Pemba?!
!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Too!low!!! ! !Low!! ☐
! ☐
!Medium! ! !High!! ☐ ! ☐!Too!high!
!
9.!How!did!you!organize!your!vacation?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Direct!booking!with!the!resort!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!☐!Travel!agency!! ! ! ☐Other:!____________________!
!
50
10.!How!many!months!in!advance!did!you!book!your!holiday?!!
(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Less!than!1!month! ! ☐!1!–!3!months!! ! ☐!4!–!6!months!!
☐!7!A!9!months!! ! ☐!10!–!12!months! ! ☐!More!than!1!year!
!
11.!Which!other!holiday!destinations!did!you!take!into!consideration?!(Please!list)!
1.!___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
2.!___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
3.!___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
4.!___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
5.!___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
!
11.1!What!made!you!choose!Pemba!over!the!destinations!in!question!11?!
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
Section B
!
!
12.!How!crowded!did!you!feel!in!the!following!locations,!i.e.!what!was!the!level!of!disturbance!you!felt!by!the!!
number!of!visitors!you!encountered!during!your!stay?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box!per!line)!
! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!!Very!low! !!!!Low!!!!!!!!!Medium!!!!!!!!High!!!!!!!!!!!!Very!high!
12.1!Beach! ! ! ! ☐! ☐ ☐
!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! ☐
!! ! !!!!!! ☐!
! 12.2!Hotel!public!areas!! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!
! 12.3!Excursions! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
12.4!Hotel!rooms! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
12.5!Airport! ! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
12.6!Transfer!to!hotel! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
13.!When!evaluating!a!hotel!how!important!are!the!following!things!to!you?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box!per!line)!
! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!!Very!low! !!!!Low!!!!!!!!!Medium!!!!!!!!High!!!!!!!!!!!!Very!high!
13.1!Local!building!materials! ! ☐! ☐ ☐
!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! ☐
!! ! !!!!!! ☐
13.2!Local!staff!employed! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
13.3!Usage!of!native!plants!! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
Section C
!
!
14.!What!did!you!like!the!most!about!your!visit!to!Pemba?!
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
!
15.!What!did!you!like!the!least!about!your!visit!to!Pemba?!
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
51
16.!Please!list!the!activities!that!you!did!on!Pemba!in!order!of!enjoyment!level!with!most!liked!at!the!top.!
! 1.!_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
! 2.!_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
! 3.!_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
! 4.!_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
! 5.!_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
!
17.!Did!you!spend!your!entire!vacation!on!Pemba?!!
☐!Yes!! ! ☐!No!
17.1!If!no:!Please!state!other!places!visited!on!your!trip!
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
!
18.!Please!rate!your!satisfaction!level!for!the!following!services.!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box!per!line)!
!
18.1!Airport! ! ! !!!!!!!Very!low! !!!!Low!!!!!!!!Medium!!!!!!!!High! !!!!!!Very!high!
18.1.1!Security!! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!
! ! 18.1.2!Information/!Signage!! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!
! ! 18.1.3!Comfort!! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
! ! 18.1.4!Cafés!/!Snack!points! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
18.2!Hotel!Transfer! ! !!!!!!!Very!low! !!!!Low!!!!!!!!Medium!!!!!!!High! !!!!!!Very!high!
! 18.2.1!Ease!of!booking!! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
18.2.2!Waiting!time! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!
! 18.2.3!Quality! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!
! 18.2.4!Comfort!! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
18.2.5!Safety!/!Security! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
!
18.3!Place!of!stay! ! !!!!!!!Very!low! !!!!Low!!!!!!!!Medium!!!!!!!!High! !!!!!!Very!high!
18.3.1!Accommodation! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!
! ! 18.3.2!Food! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!
! ! 18.3.3!Beverages! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
18.3.4!Beach! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
18.3.5!Wellness/!spa! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
18.3.6!Staff!friendliness! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!
18.3.7!Cleanliness! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!
18.3.8!Excursions! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
18.3.9!Pemba!culture! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
18.3.10!Environment! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
18.3.11!Safety!/!Security! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!
!
52
19.!Please!rank!value!for!money!for!the!following!aspects.!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box!per!line)!
! ! ! !!!!!!!Very!low! !!!!Low!!!!!!!Medium!!!!!!!!!High! !!!!!!Very!high!
19.1!Flights! ! ! ! ☐! ☐ ☐
!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! ☐
!! ! !!!!!! ☐!
19.2!Transfer! ! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐!
19.3!Accommodation! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
19.4!Excursions! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
19.5!Food/!Beverages! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
19.6!Shopping! ! ! ! ☐! !!!!!!☐! !!!!!!!!!!!☐!!!!!!!! !!☐! !!!!!! ☐
20.!How!did!your!holiday!compare!to!your!expectations?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Below!expectations!!! ☐!Met!expectations! ! ☐!Exceeded!expectations!
!
21.!Do!you!intend!to!visit!Pemba!again?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Yes!! ! ☐!No!
Section D
! !
!
22.!What!is!your!country!of!residence?!
____________________!
!
23.!What!is!your!age?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Under!18!years!! ☐!18!–!24!years!! ! ☐!25!A!34!years!! ! ☐!35!–!44!years!!
☐!45!–!54!years!!!!! ☐!55!A!64!years!! ! ☐!65!years!and!older!
!
24.!What!is!your!gender?!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Female!! ! ☐!Male!
!
25.!How!much!total!US$!have!you!spent!per!person!on!your!trip!to!Pemba?!Please!exclude!flight!costs!except!
local!flights.!(Please!check!(✔)!one!box)!
☐!Under!1100!! ! ☐!1101!A!2000!! ! ☐!2001!A!3000!! ! ☐!3001!A!4000!!
☐!4001!A!5000! ! ☐!Over!5001!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
26.!Please!add!any!additional!comments!or!suggestions!that!you!may!have!in!the!space!below.!
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!
!
Please!add!your!email!address!if!you!would!like!to!receive!updates!on!what!is!happening!in!Pemba’s!future.!We!!
promise!not!to!spam!you!but!only!let!you!know!about!relevant!information.!
Email:!______________________________________________________!
&
Thank&you&for&taking&the&time&to&complete&our&questionnaire.&Please&be&assured&that&your&comments&and&
contribution&will&be&heard&and&have&an&impact&on&Pemba’s&future.&
53
Exhibit 2 Hotel Staff Survey
Hotel&Staff&Survey&
Carrying&Capacity&Assessment&
&
This survey is for classification and statistical purposes only. We want to assure you that all
responses are voluntary and will be confidential. Responses will not be identified by individuals but
will be compiled together and analyzed as a group.
Section&A:&Employment&history&
&
1.&When&did&you&start&working&for&the&hotel?&
________________________&
&
2.&What&was&your&motivation&for&working&at&the&hotel?&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
&
3.&Which&department&do&you&work&in?&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
&
4.&Did&you&have&any&previous&experience&at&working&in&the&tourism&industry?&
(Please&check&(✔)&one&box)&
☐ Yes ☐ No
4.1. If yes, what experience?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
&
4.2. If no, what training did you receive?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
&
5.&Are&you&happy&working&in&a&hotel?&(Please&check&(✔)&one&box)&
☐ Yes No ☐
5.1.&Please&explain.&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
&
6.&What&would&you&do&if&you&were&not&working&in&a&hotel?&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
&
Section&B:&Culture&
&
7.&How&would&you&rate&your&level&of&interaction&with&tourists?&(Please&check&(✔)&one&box)&
☐&Very&low&& ☐&Low&& ☐&Medium& ☐&High&& & ☐&Very&high&
& 54
&
8.&What&did&you&teach&the&guests?&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
&
9.&What&did&you&learn&from&guests?&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
&
10.&Do&you&think&working&in&a&hotel&changed&how&you&live&your&life?&
☐ Yes ☐ No
10.1.&Please&explain&why&or&why&not.&
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
&
11.&How&do&you&go&to&work?&(Please&check&(✔)&all&that&apply)&
☐&Car&& & ☐&Daladala&& & ☐&Bicycle&&& ☐&Motorbike&&
☐&Walk& & ☐&Live&on&hotel&site& ☐&Other:&____________________&
&
12.&Do&you&have&electricity&in&your&house?&If&yes,&from&which&source?&
&
&ZECO &Solar&panels &Generators

&No&electricity &Others,&specify______________
&
13.&Do&you&get&water&from&ZAWA?&
☐ Yes ☐ No
&
14.&What&do&you&do&with&your&garbage?&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section&C:&Perception&
15.&Do&you&think&tourism&is&good&for&Pemba?&(Please&check&( )&one&box)&
Yes No
15.1. Please explain

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
&
16.&How&do&you&think&Pemba&would&change&if&there&would&be&more&hotels?&&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
55
&
17.&What&is&your&opinion&on&the&amount&of&traffic&in&your&area?&
☐&Very&low&& ☐&Low&& ☐&Medium& ☐
&High&& & ☐&
Very&high&
&
18.&How&do&you&think&the&following&things&have&changed&in&the&last&three&years?&Also&please&list&
your&explanation&for&the&change.&
&
& Much& A&lot&
Worse& Same& Better& Reason&
worse& better&
18.1.&Water&pollution& ___________________"
18.2.&Air&pollution& ___________________"
18.3.&Littering& ___________________"
18.4.&Traffic& ___________________"
18.5.&Noise& ___________________"
18.6.&Deforestation& ___________________"
18.7.&Coral&reef&health& ___________________"
18.8.&Number&of&fish& ___________________"
18.9.&Corruption& ___________________"
18.10.&Crime& ___________________"
18.11.&Price&of&food& ___________________"
18.12.&Price&of&water& ___________________"
18.13.&Price&of&electricity& ___________________"
&
19.&What&do&you&like&the&most&about&Pemba?&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
&
20.&What&do&you&like&the&least&about&Pemba?&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
Section&D:&Demographic&information&
21. What is your age?&

____________
22. What is your gender? (Please&check&(✔)&one&box)

☐ Female ☐ Male
23. Where are you from?&(Please&check&(✔)&one&box)
☐ Pemba ☐ Unguja ☐ Mainland Tanzania

56
☐ Neighboring countries ☐ Other country
24. Where do you live? (Please&check&(✔)&one&box)
☐&Chake]Chake&& ☐&Micheweni& & ☐&Mkoani&& & ☐&Wete&&
&
25.&How&many&people&live&in&your&house,&including&yourself?&
____&Adults& & ____&Children&under&15&
26. What is your level of education?

☐&Primary&School&& & ☐&Secondary&School& & ☐&High&School& & &
☐&University&& & & ☐ None&
&
27.&Which&languages&do&you&write&and&read&well?&
☐&English&& ☐&Swahili&& ☐&None ☐&Others,&specify______________&
28. What percentage of your salary do you spend on the following?
28.1. Transport? ____________%

28.2. Electricity?&& ____________%&
28.3.&Water?& & ____________%
28.4. Food? ____________%&
28.5.&Sent&to&family?& ____________%&
28.5.&Clothing?& ____________%
28.6. Savings? ____________%
28.7. Others: ____________%,&please&specify:&___________________________
Section&E:&Additional&comments&
29. Please add any additional comments or suggestions that you may have in the space below:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________&
&
&
Thank"you"for"taking"the"time"to"complete"our"questionnaire.""Your"input"is"crucial"to"the"
Carrying"Capacity"Study"and"the"Commission"for"Tourism"and"we"value"and"thank"you"for"
your"comments"and"contribution."
57
Exhibit 3 Hotel Management Survey
Hotel Management Survey

Carrying Capacity Study
Section A: Vision
!
1. What is the vision or strategy for your hotel?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
2. What are the main criteria that you use to market your facility?
1. _______________________________________________________________________________
2. _______________________________________________________________________________
3. _______________________________________________________________________________
3. Who is the owner of the facility? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Foreign investor ☐ Local investor ☐ Mixture of both
3.1. Do you feel that this type of ownership is an advantage or disadvantage? Please explain.
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
4. When did the hotel start operations?

________
5. What is the level of luxury in your hotel? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Very low ☐ Low ☐ Average ☐ High ☐ Very high
6. Do you strive towards increasing this level? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No
6.1. If yes: Which luxury standard would you like your hotel to have?
___________________________________________________________________________________
7. What is the size of the property?
7.1. Total area ____ km2

7.2. Beach area ____ km2
7.3. Size of main area ____ km2
7.4. Average size of rooms ____ m2
8. Do you make economic contribution for conservation? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No
8.1. If yes: Which specific cause do you contribute to?

___________________________________________________________________________________
58
!
8.2. If no: Do you have specific plans to do so in the next two years? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No
Section B: Guests
!
9. How many rooms does your hotel facility have?
______ rooms
10. How many beds does your hotel facility have?

______ beds
11. Do you have specific plans to increase the number of beds? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No
11.1. If yes: What would be the maximum number of beds?
______ beds
12. How many guests have you had in previous years?
Total number of guests Total number of bed nights

12.1. In 2011: ______________________guests _______________bed nights
13. What are the differences during high and low season in average occupancy, group size and length of stay
during the last year?
High season Low season
(July 13 through February 14) (March 14 through June 14)
13.1. Average occupancy ______ % ______ %
13.2. Average length of stay ______ nights ______ nights
13.3. Average group size ______ people ______ people
14. What would be the optimal length of stay per guest for you?
______ nights
15. What do you feel is the most common reason for your guests to visit Pemba? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Honeymoon ☐ Diving ☐ Culture ☐ Business
☐ Health &Wellness ☐ Relaxation ☐ Other: ____________________
16. What are the five most common activities or excursions that guests do?
1. _______________________________________________________________________________
2. _______________________________________________________________________________
3. _______________________________________________________________________________
4. _______________________________________________________________________________
5. _______________________________________________________________________________

!
59

17. How crowded do you think guests feel in the following locations, i.e. what was the level of disturbance
they felt by the number of visitors they encountered during their stay?
(Please check (✔) one box per line)
Very low Low Average High Very high
17.1. Beach ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
17.2. Hotel public areas ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
17.3. Excursions ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
17.4. Hotel rooms ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
17.5. Airport ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
17.6. Transfer to hotel ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Section C: Employment
!
18. Where are your female and male staff from?
Female Male
18.1. Pemba ____ persons ____ persons
18.2. Unguja ____ persons ____ persons
18.3. Mainland Tanzania ____ persons ____ persons
18.4. Neighboring countries ____ persons ____ persons
18.5. Other countries ____ persons ____ persons
19. What level of importance do you assign to hiring local labor? (Please check (✔) one box)
20. How much effort is required for you to find local skilled labor? (Please check (✔) one box)
21. What level of importance do you place on the following areas? (Please check (✔) one box)
21.1. Local staff satisfaction ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
21.2. Local staff training ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
21.3. Local staff career advancement ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
21.4. Staff environmental education ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
22. In which departments do you have the biggest problem finding a qualified local workforce? What skills
or training are they missing?
Department Missing skills or training
1.______________________________ ____________________________________________________
2.______________________________ ____________________________________________________
3.______________________________ ____________________________________________________
4.______________________________ ____________________________________________________
5.______________________________ ____________________________________________________
60
!
Section D: Tourism development
!
23. How do you think the following things have changed in the last three years?
(Please check (✔) one box per line and name the primary reason for the change)
Much A lot
Worse Same Better Reason
worse better
23.1. Water pollution ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.2. Air pollution ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.3. Littering ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.4. Traffic ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.5. Noise ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.6. Deforestation ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.7. Coral reef health ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.8. Number of fish ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.9. Corruption ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.10. Crime ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.11. Price of food ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.12. Price of water ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
23.13. Price of electricity ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ _________________________
24. What are important activities to be undertaken in order to realize better tourism potential?
(Please check (✔) the three most critical)
☐ Use natural resources and biodiversity for tourism
☐ Increase environmental protection
☐ Promote regionally labeled food and beverages
☐ Promote organic food production to attract tourists and raise trade of food
☐ Increase collaboration in managing assets of Pemba Island
☐ Joint tourism signage in the entire island
☐ Joint institution, website and other promotion material to increase attention on tourism possibilities
☐ Increase the quality of hospitality services
☐ Increase the quantity of hospitality services
☐ Increase accessibility to Pemba including public transport possibilities to better connect different
parts of the region
☐ Others: _________________________________________________________
61
!
Section E: Local supplies
!
25. Where do you buy your food items?
(Please check (✔) one box and list in order, starting with most frequently bought)
Product Local Import If imported why?
1. Meat ☐ ☐ ________________________________
2. Diary ☐ ☐ ________________________________
3. Vegetables ☐ ☐ ________________________________
4. Fruits ☐ ☐ ________________________________
5. Drinking water ☐ ☐ ________________________________
6. Soft drinks ☐ ☐ ________________________________
7. Alcohol ☐ ☐ ________________________________
8. Other 1______________________ ☐ ☐ ________________________________
9. Other 2______________________ ☐ ☐ ________________________________
10. Other 3______________________ ☐ ☐ ________________________________
26. What level of importance do you assign to local building materials? (Please check (✔) one box)
26.1. What are the benefits from using local materials for you?
___________________________________________________________________________________
26.2. What would have to happen for you to use more local building materials?
___________________________________________________________________________________
27. What level of importance do you assign to the use of indigenous plants? (Please check (✔) one box)
27.1. What are the benefits for you?
_________________________________________________________________________________
27.2. What would have to happen for you to use more indigenous plants?
_________________________________________________________________________________
62
!
Section F: Resources
!
28. How many boats do you have and what is their function and engine capacity?
Boattype Function Engine capacity

1. ____________________ ____________________ _____________
2. ____________________ ____________________ _____________
3. ____________________ ____________________ _____________
4. ____________________ ____________________ _____________
5. ____________________ ____________________ _____________
29. On average how much diesel or petrol do you use per month for boats?
High season Low season
29.1. Diesel ______ liters ______ liters
29.2. Petrol ______ liters ______ liters
30. Where do you get your diesel or petrol supplies?

_______________________________________________________________________________________
31. On average how much water do you use per month?

_________________________
32. Where do you get your water supply? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Mains ☐ Boreholes ☐ Ocean
☐ Desalination plant ☐ Other, specify: _____________________________________
33. How would you rate the water quality? (Please check (✔) one box)
34. Do you invest in water recycling? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No
34.1. If yes: What type of water recycling do you use?
___________________________________________________________________________________
☐ Yes ☐ No
35. Do you invest in rainwater harvesting? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No
☐ Yes ☐ No

63
!
36. What sewage disposal system do you have at your facility?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
37. Do you separate your garbage? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No
38. How would you rate the pollution from solid waste at your facility? (Please check (✔) one box)
38.1. Please explain what waste disposal system you have at your facility.
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
39. On average how much electricity do you use per month?

_________________________ KWh
40. How many generators do you have?

_________________________
40.1. If one or more: What is its size and purpose?

__________________________________________________________________________________
41. What are the five things you spend the most electricity on?
1. _______________________________________________________________________________
2. _______________________________________________________________________________
3. _______________________________________________________________________________
4. _______________________________________________________________________________
5. _______________________________________________________________________________
42. Do you use renewable energy sources? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No
42.1. If yes: Please list which energy sources you use and their purpose?
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
42.2. If yes: From where did you get the technology?
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
☐ Yes ☐ No
Section G: Transport
!
43. Do you have a service that transports guests to/ from your hotel? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No

!
64
43.1. If yes: Do you have your own vehicles for this service? (Please check (✔) one box)
☐ Yes ☐ No
43.2. What are the pickup points and how long is the trip to your hotel?
43.2.1. Airport: ______ minutes

43.2.2. Ferry Port: ______ minutes
43.2.3. Other: ______ minutes from ________________________
43.3. How would you rate the comfort of the transfer for the guests? (Please check (✔) one box)
44. Could you please describe your impression of the road conditions, i.e. which particular roads require
maintenance?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Section H: Cooperation
!
45. How would you rank your relationship with the following? (Please check (✔) one box per line)

45.1. Other hotels/ guest houses ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
45.2. Commission for Tourism ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
45.3. Other government agencies ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
45.4. Local communities ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
46. What kind of relationship between hotels/ guesthouses would be the most beneficial?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
47. What are the biggest challenges you have when dealing with government agencies?
(Please list the biggest issue first)
1. _______________________________________________________________________________
2. _______________________________________________________________________________
3. _______________________________________________________________________________
48. What would you see as a perfect relationship between your establishment and the government?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________

!
65
49. What advantages/ disadvantages has your business brought local communities in your area?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
50. How do you think local authorities perceive your business?

_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
51. Please evaluate the urgency of areas that should be improved to raise the potential of natural resources for
local development?
(Please check (✔) one box per line)
51.1. Waste collection and management ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
51.2. Sewage treatment ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
51.3. Protection and conservation of
plants and animals ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
51.4. Road infrastructure ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
51.5. Eco-inspection and other forms of
law enforcement ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
51.6. Electricity grid ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
51.7. Local community interaction ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
51.8. Other,
specify:______________________ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
52. Do you have any improvement ideas for the following areas?
Improvement idea Low
52.1. Waste collection and management _________________________________________ ☐
52.2. Sewage treatment _________________________________________ ☐
52.3. Protection and conservation of plants/animals _________________________________________ ☐
52.4. Road infrastructure _________________________________________ ☐
52.5. Eco inspection or law enforcement _________________________________________ ☐
52.6. Electricity grid _________________________________________ ☐
52.7. Local community interaction _________________________________________ ☐
52.8. Other, specify:______________________ _________________________________________ ☐
Section I: Additional comments

!
53. Please add any additional comments or suggestions that you may have in the space below.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for taking the time to complete our questionnaire. Your input is crucial for this study and
important to the Commission of Tourism. Please be assured that we value your contribution.
!

66
Exhibit 4 Local Community Leader Survey
Local&Community&Survey&
Carrying&Capacity&Assessment&
&
This survey is for classification and statistical purposes only. We want to assure you that all
responses are voluntary and will be confidential. Responses will not be identified by
individuals but will be compiled together and analyzed as a group.
Section&A:&Employment&&
&
1.&What&is&your&job?&
_______________________________________________________________________________________&
_______________________________________________________________________________________&
&
2.&Would&you&accept&a&job&in&the&tourism&sector?&(Please&check&( )&one&box)&
☐ Yes ☐ No
& 2.1&If&no:&Please&explain&why&not:&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
&
& 2.2&If&yes:&Which&work&would&you&like&to&do&and&why?&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
&
2.3&Do&people&in&your&immediate&family&work&in&tourism?&&
(Please&check&( )&one&box)&
&Yes&& &No&
&
&2.4.1&If&yes:&in&which&sector?&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
&
3.&Would&you&be&willing&to&sell&to&tourists?&(Please&check&( )&one&box)&
☐ Yes ☐ No
& 3.1&If&no:&Please&explain&why&not.&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
&
& 3.2&If&yes:&Which&items&would&you&like&to&sell&and&why?&

_________________________________________________________________________________________&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
67
4.&What&do&you&think&would&be&the&best&thing&for&tourists&to&see&on&Pemba?&
& 3.2&If&yes:&Which&items&would&you&like&to&sell&and&why?&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
4.&What&do&you&think&would&be&the&best&thing&for&tourists&to&see&on&Pemba?&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
&
5.&What&do&you&think&would&be&the&worst&thing&for&tourists&to&see&on&Pemba?&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
_________________________________________________________________________________________&
Section&B:&Culture&and&Perception&
&
6.&Would&you&like&to&have&a&hotel&in&your&Shehia?&
Yes No Maybe Hotel already exists
6.1 Please explain

________________________________________________________________________________&
________________________________________________________________________________&
&
7.&How&many&tourists&did&you&see&during&the&last&month?&
&
__________&
&
8.&Do&you&think&tourism&is&good&for&Pemba?&(Please&check&( )&one&box)&
Yes No
7.1 Please explain
________________________________________________________________________________&
________________________________________________________________________________&
&
9.&How&do&you&think&Pemba&would&change&if&there&would&be&more&hotels?&&
&
_______________________________________________________________________________________&
_______________________________________________________________________________________&
&
10.&Do&you&have&the&following&in&your&Shehia?&
& Yes& No&

10.1&Shop&
☐& ☐&
10.2&Drugstore&
☐& ☐&
10.3&Madrassa&
☐& ☐&

10.4&&Food&stores&
☐& ☐&

10.5&Gas&station&
☐& 68 ☐&
10.6&Nursery&school&
☐& ☐&
10.7&Restaurant&
☐& ☐&
10.8&Mosque&
☐& ☐&
10.9&Primary&school&
☐& ☐&
10.10&Post&office&
☐& ☐&
10.11&Church&
☐& ☐&
10.12&Government&office&
☐& ☐&
10.13&Hotel&
☐& ☐&
10.14&Temple&
☐ ☐
10.15&Recreational&facilities&
☐ ☐
10.16&Bank&
☐ ☐
10.17&Fishing&dock&
☐ ☐
10.18&Health&Center&
☐ ☐
&
11.&What&is&your&opinion&on&the&amount&of&traffic&in&your&area?&&
(Please&check&( )&one&box)&
☐&very&low&& ☐&low&& ☐&medium& ☐&high&& & ☐&very&high&

&
12.&What&do&you&do&with&your&garbage?&
_______________________________________________________________________________________&
_______________________________________________________________________________________&
&
13.&Do&you&have&electricity&in&your&house?&If&yes,&from&which&source?&
☐ Yes ☐ No
13.1&&If&yes,&from&where&do&you&get&your&electricity?&
☐&ZECO ☐&Solar&panels ☐&Generators
☐&No&electricity ☐&Others,&specify______________
&
14.&Do&you&get&water&from&ZAWA?&(Please&check&( )&one&box)&
☐ Yes ☐ No
&
69
&
15.&How&would&you&describe&the&drinking&water&quality?&
☐&very&low&& ☐&low&& ☐&medium& ☐&high&& & ☐&very&high&
&
16.&What&kind&of&water&do&you&have&in&your&village?&
☐&None&& & & & ☐&Lack&of&water&& &
☐&Contaminated&water& ☐&Others,&specify______________&
&
17.&What&is&the&primary&cause&for&poverty&in&your&village?&
☐&Poor&fishing&gear&&& ☐&Unemployment&
☐&Low&level&of&education& ☐&Weak&economic&base&(due&to&lack&of&capital)&
☐&Low&prices&& & ☐&Poor&farming&equipment&
☐&Vermin&infestations& ☐&Limited&economic&generating&opportunities&
☐&Lack&of&technical&support&☐&Limited&market&for&local&products&
☐&Others,&specify______________&
&
18.&Which&three&things&would&make&your&quality&of&life&better?&
1._________________________________________________________&
2._________________________________________________________&
3._________________________________________________________&
&
19.&What&is&the&biggest&issue&in&your&village?&
☐&Lack&of&clean&water& & & ☐&Poor&means&of&transport&
☐&Poor&farming&/&fishing&gear& & ☐&Lack&of&skills/low&education&
☐&Marketing&constraint& & & ☐&Limited&access&to&social&services&
☐&Lack&of&employment&opportunities& ☐&Limited&economic&generating&opportunities&
☐&Lack&of&electricity&& & & ☐&Others,&specify______________&
&
20.&How&do&you&think&the&following&things&have&changed&due&to&tourism&in&the&last&three&
years?&
& Much& A&lot&
Worse& Same& Better& Reason&
worse& better&
20.1&Water&pollution& ___________________"
20.2&Air&pollution& ___________________"
20.3&Littering& ___________________"
20.4&Traffic& 70 ___________________"
20.5&Noise& ___________________"
20.6&Deforestation& ___________________"
20.7&Coral&reef&health& ___________________"
20.8&Number&of&fish& ___________________"
20.9&Corruption& ___________________"
20.10&Crime& ___________________"
20.11&Price&of&food& ___________________"
20.12&Price&of&water& ___________________"
20.13&Price&of&electricity&
___________________"
&
21.&What&do&you&like&the&most&about&Pemba?&
_______________________________________________________________________________________&
_______________________________________________________________________________________&
&
22.&What&do&you&like&the&least&about&Pemba?&
_______________________________________________________________________________________&
_______________________________________________________________________________________&
&
&
Section&C:&Demographic&information&
23.&Which&Shehia&do&you&represent?&
"
____________
"
24. What is your age?
&
____________
25. What is your gender? (Please&check&(✔)&one&box)

☐ Female ☐ Male
26. Where do you live? (Please&check&(✔)&one&box)
☐&ChakeChake&&& ☐&Micheweni& & ☐&Mkoani&& & ☐&Wete&&
&
27.&How&many&people&live&in&your&house,&including&yourself?&
&
____&Adults& & ____&Children&under&15&
71
28. What is your level of education? (Please&check&(✔)&one&box)
☐&Primary&School&& & ☐&Secondary&School& & ☐&High&School& & &
☐&University&& & & ☐&None&
Section&D:&Additional&comments&
29. Please add any additional comments or suggestions that you may have in the space below:
& _______________________________________________________________________________________&
& _______________________________________________________________________________________&
& _______________________________________________________________________________________&
& _______________________________________________________________________________________&
&
Thank"you"for"taking"the"time"to"complete"our"questionnaire.""Your"input"is""
important"to"us"and"we"value"your"comments"and"contribution."
"
"

"
72

Kwanini Carrying Capacity Assessment Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kwanini Carrying Capacity Assessment Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kwanini

Carrying Capacity Assessment

Ministry of Information, Culture, Tourism and Sports

Hon. Said Ali Mbarouk

Table of Contents

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................................................... 3

3. CARRYING CAPACITY EXERCISE ........................................................................................................................ 5

5. ANALYSES ...................................................................................................................................................... 10

6. CASE STUDY .................................................................................................................................................. 15

6.1 CASE STUDY 1: SEYCHELLES ................................................................................................................................ 15

7. INDICATOR ANALYSES ................................................................................................................................... 22

8. SURVEYS ....................................................................................................................................................... 24

8.1 VISITOR EXIT SURVEY ........................................................................................................................................ 24

9. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................................. 35

10. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 37

11. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 38

APPENDIX I: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 44

2.1 Sustainable Tourism

2.2 Management Tools for Sustainable Tourism

3. Carrying Capacity Exercise

1. Current tourism sector’s characteristics analyses

The most apparent fluctuations are due to the

As of winter 2014, 18 hotels were operating on

The four key segments of tourism on Pemba

Tourism Zoning Plan National Land Use Plan Current State

Verani 590 beds Verani 590 beds

Vumawimbi 300 beds Vumawimbi 300 beds

Ufukweni 170 beds Mivumoni 170 beds

Mtangani 90 beds Mtangani 90 beds

Kwakaimu 250 beds Kwakaimu 250 beds

Wambaa 900 beds Wambaa 905 beds Wambaa 36 beds

Tundaua 300 beds

Others 370 beds

6 zones 2300 7 zones 2605 beds 406 beds

Figure 3: Planned Tourism Zones

6.1 Case Study 1: Seychelles

Beginning of tourism on Seychelles

Consequences of rapid tourism development

Positives were mainly of economic character.

• The economical were:

Current state of Seychelles

Economy before tourism development

Tourism on Mauritius

6.3 Case Study 3: Maldives

The Maldives after 2008.

8.1 Visitor exit survey

Perceptions and Satisfaction levels

Analysis of Tourism segments

Tourists who spend below $100 USD per/ night

Tourists who spend between $100 USD and $200 USD/night

Tourists who spend above $200 USD/night

• Hotel vision (where the profile of facility was specified;

Section A: Employment history

Section B: Culture

Section C: Perception

8.4 Local community leader survey

Tourism exposure and interaction

Best and worst of Pemba

Resource usage and demand

Issues in the community

10. Recommendations for further research

CIA Factbook (2014). Mauritius, viewed 27th August 2014 from

CIA Factbook (2014). Seychelles, viewed 25th August 2014 from

Connell, J. (1991). Island microstates: the mirage of development.

1.2.Micro-‐ and Macro-‐ level Management Tool Description

1. Micro-‐level management tools:

8. Other 1 ☐ ☐ __________

9. Other 2 ☐ ☐ __________

10. Other 3 ☐ ☐ __________