Tourist

EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 7 ( 2 00 8 ) 4 2 0 –4 29

a v a i l a b l e a t w w w. s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m

w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e c o l e c o n

ANALYSIS

Using the concept of yield to assess the sustainability of different tourist types
S. Becken⁎, D. Simmons
Environment, Society and Design Division, P.O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand

A R T I C LE I N FO Article history: Received 4 November 2007 Received in revised form 7 November 2007 Accepted 18 December 2007 Available online 30 January 2008 Keywords: Yield Tourist types Sustainability assessment Indicators

AB S T R A C T Sustainability assessments have become important tools for decision makers. This research assesses the sustainability of different types of tourists in New Zealand by using the concept of yield and by developing yield indicators in the areas of financial, public sector and sustainable yield. The concept and indicators have been developed in cooperation with the New Zealand tourism sector and therefore provide a sector-driven approach to implement a sustainability assessment. The analysis shows that there are numerous ‘trade-offs’ between indicators when attempting to define the ‘ideal visitor type’. Coach tourists, for example, are the largest spenders and generate the greatest Value Added in tourism on a per-day basis, but they contribute less to the financial sustainability of tourism when the costs of capital are accounted for. Coach tourists are highly concentrated in a few key destinations and at the same time produce substantial amounts of CO2 emissions due to their air travel component. In contrast, backpacker and camping tourists provide greater financial yield and are more dispersed, but they are also the greatest user of publicly provided tourist attractions and therefore come at a higher cost to government than other tourist types. Camping tourists are also contributing considerably to CO2 emissions. The yield analysis proposed in this paper could be a valuable tool for complex policy decision making and identifying strategies that lead to high-yield tourism. © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

In response to a growing call for sustainable development, the scientific community has developed a broad range of tools to assess sustainability. These include indicators and indices (Böhringer and Jochem, 2007), product-related assessments and integrated assessments (Ness et al., 2007). Sustainability assessment provides “decision makers with an evaluation of global to local integrated nature-society systems in short and long term perspectives in order to assist them to determine which actions should or should not be taken in an attempt to make society sustainable” (Ness et al., 2007: 499).

Examples of different kinds of sustainability assessments can also be found in tourism. Gössling et al. (2002), for example, calculated the Ecological Footprint (EF) (Wackernagel et al., 1999) associated with tourism to the Seychelles and concluded that in the light of the large footprint associated with long-distance air travel, destinations should seek to attract tourists from close source markets. A similar result was found by Peeters and Schouten (2006) for tourism to Amsterdam. More recently, Patterson et al. (2007) used the EF concept to compare the impact of tourists with that of locals in a province in Italy. Another concept that seeks to integrate more than one sustainability dimension is that of “eco-efficiency”.

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: [phone]; fax: [phone]. E-mail addresses: [e-mail] (S. Becken), [e-mail] (D. Simmons). 0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.025

EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 7 ( 2 0 08 ) 42 0 –4 29

421

Eco-efficiency is a ratio of useful outputs to inputs (Jollands et al., 2004) and has been defined as “simply creating more value with fewer resources” (Metti, 1999). In a tourism context, the concept has been applied to compare different tourism destinations based on carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions in relation to revenues earned (Gössling et al., 2005, Patterson and McDonald, 2004). Such research implies that tourists ' emissions should be seen in relation to the economic benefit created. The balance between economic and natural or social components was described earlier by Pearce (1994: 3), who noted that “ …both the output of the economy needs to be sustained and the underlying resource base that gives rise to that output”. This statement recognises that there are two aspects of sustainability, namely an economic and a natural/social component. For the output of the economy to be sustained it must generate sufficient income to meet all costs of production and make investment such that at least a constant stock of capital is maintained. The capital stock can include built, human and social capital. Meeting the second aspect of sustainability requires that natural capital stocks are at least maintained (Costanza and Daly, 1992; Costanza et al., 1997). It seems that sustainability is often examined purely for an academic purpose to further the debate on sustainable development, as is the case for the above mentioned research on ecoefficiency of tourism. Similarly, there are also a number of examples where sustainability is assessed by an external body, maybe for political reasons or planning purposes. For example, the United Nations compares the sustainability of different countries using the Human Development Index (UNDP, 2006), while the WWF South Pacific assessed tourism in Fiji through a Strategic Impact Assessment (Levett and McNally, 2003). Elsewhere, there are sustainability assessments that are closely linked to the interests or needs of a particular decision maker. These are often very product-focused, for example in the case of life-cycle assessments (Braungart et al., 2007) or they target businesses (i.e. corporate level). Examples of the latter include Environmental Management Systems, Triple Bottom Line reporting or Green Accounting. Tourism does not seem to fit well with the scopes of existing sustainability assessments, as it consists of a complex mix of private and public sectors, and the tourists themselves. This research will use and further develop the concept of ‘Yield’ and derive indicators for assessing the overall benefit and sustainability that different kinds of tourist provide to a destination. Yield indicators are derived and estimated for five different tourist types in New Zealand. It is then argued that these yield indicators provide a sector-driven approach to make sustainability assessment relevant for tourism decision makers and to inform the sector 's future pathways of investment, policy and management.

vals or tourist expenditure (Lee and Tylor, 2005). Yield is also used in the context of ‘yield management’, as for example employed by airlines or hotels to manage their pricing strategies (Wang and Wang, 2007). More recently, however, yield has been used to describe some measure of net benefit of tourism activity (Dwyer and Forsyth, 1997; Dwyer et al., 2006). In more concrete terms, yield has been interpreted as the net gain for the host society, taking into account the costs of providing public sector infrastructure and other non-market costs, such as the use of environmental services in tourism production and consumption (Reynolds and Braithwaite, 1997; Northcote and Macbeth, 2006). Such a view of yield is closely related to the concepts of triple bottom line or sustainability. This research will first investigate the financial yield of tourism firms as a measure of yield relevant to the private sector. Financial yield calculations focus on an individual entity (or a particular sector such as hotels) and do not take into account wider effects on the national economy, society or the environment. It is important to recognise, however, that each entity relies on the provision of congestible and public goods, some of which are priced (through Government organisations) and others are not. In those cases where there are weak or zero property rights for the inputs or services, there is often zero charge for their use. This is the case for greenhouse gas emissions, unless they are internalised through a range of possible market instruments. The measurement of yield across several additional dimensions allows a destination to assess the overall benefit of tourism, or the benefit associated with distinct segments, of tourism, such as different tourist types. To operationalise the yield concept, it is first necessary to reach agreement on what aspects of yield should be included, i.e. should yield focus on financial measures, or also include aspects of public sector or sustainable yield? For each dimension, there are a number of yield indicators that can be employed. Details on the yield indicators used in this study are provided in the next section on methods.

3.

Methods

2.

The concept of yield

Yield can mean different things depending on the context and the degree of resolution that is required. In some cases, measurement is easy but in others it is extremely complex and reliability is difficult to achieve. Many tourism stakeholders, for example, see tourism largely as an economic activity that can bring economic growth and “yield” to a destination. The measures used to assess this are often related to visitor arri-

In consultation with tourism stakeholders in New Zealand, this research conceptualised three broad categories: financial, public sector and sustainable yield (TRREC, 2005, 2006). Each of these categories will be assessed with specifically designed yield indicators. Financial yield relates to the commercial performance of tourism firms and is measured through ‘Value Added’ and ‘Economic Value Added’. Public sector yield is approximated by the propensity of a tourist to visit publicly funded attractions at a national and a local level. Sustainable yield is assessed via the regional dispersal of tourists and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions generated by tourist types as a result of their travel. Data for the empirical analysis of yield stem from the International Visitor Survey and a Yield Tourist Survey.

3.1. 3.1.1.

Yield indicators Financial yield

The usual starting point for measurements of business performance are statements of financial performance and

422

EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 7 ( 2 00 8 ) 4 2 0 –4 29

financial position that are constructed in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices. More specifically, in this research, financial yield was measured using Value Added (VA) and Economic Value Added (EVA™, EVA hereafter) (Stewart, 1991). Value Added is commonly reported in Tourism Satellite Accounts, where total income (which is equivalent to tourist expenditure, except that Goods and Services Tax is excluded) is broken down into intermediate input from other industries and value added by the tourism industry (Becken and Butcher, 2004; Spurr et al., 2005; Statistics New Zealand, 2006). The economic concept of EVA is based on work by Stewart (1991), who addressed the question of measurement of financial yield on the basis of free cash flow rather than dividend or earnings-based performance. This approach introduced both economic and business concepts and attempted to reduce all commercial performance to a single measure called Economic Value Added or, as it is now commonly referred to, EVA. Stewart 's approach simply subtracted from the economic operating surplus (i.e. Net Operating Profit After Taxes or NOPAT) the costs of the capital employed. If the difference was positive, the business enjoyed a positive financial yield (EVA). If there is a negative financial yield then the converse applied, the market value of the firm would decline and in the long term it would not be sustainable. The costs of capital are measured as the weighted average cost of capital (equity plus debt), which is now commonly known as WACC (Fig. 1). The WACC in this research was established on the basis of the average yield in the New Zealand economy of 5.7% after-tax over the analysis period 1999–2003 (Moriarty, 2006). This means that if a business achieves a return on assets of less than 5.7% its EVA would be negative. For the purpose of this research, financial yields have been derived for 22 tourism industries in New Zealand for the period 1999–2003 (Moriarty, 2006). Enterprises were categorised using Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification ANZSIC. The VA and EVA for the tourism relevant industries are shown in Table 1. It can be seen that, for example, for every dollar spent on short distance bus transport, the VA is 50 cents and the EVA is 3 cents. A positive EVA implies that enterprises generate cash in excess of the 5.7% opportunity cost of their assets and are economically sustainable in the long run. Negative EVA reflects a trading shortfall in recovering the opportunity cost of assets and suggests that enterprises will struggle to maintain product quality and may be financially unsustainable in the medium term. The tourist expenditure data from two case study surveys (see below) were subsequently linked to the ANZSIC codes in Table 1 to allow calculations of VA and EVA generated per day for each tourist type. Several assumptions had to be made to be able to allocate tourist spending behaviour to an ANSZIC code. For example, all shopping had to be aggregated into the category of “retail not elsewhere specified” because no finer

Table 1 – Value added and economic value added per dollar spent, 1999–2003 ANZSIC
G511010 G5125xx G521000 G525900 G532100 H571010 H571020 H571030 H571040 H571050 H571090 H572000 H573000 I612100 I612200 I612300 I664100 L774100 P921000 P922000 P923x00 P93xxxx

Activity
Supermarkets Takeaway food Department stores Retailing nec Automotive fuel retailing Hotels (accommodation) Motels and motor inns Hosted accommodation Backpacker and youth hostels Caravan parks and camping grounds Accommodation not elsewhere specified Pubs/taverns and bars Cafes and restaurants Long distance bus and rail transport Short distance bus transport (inc. Tramway) Taxi and other road passenger transport Travel agency services Motor vehicle hiring Libraries Museums Zoos, botanic gardens, recreational parks and gardens Racing, gaming, gambling, sports and all other recreation service

VA ($)
$0.11 $0.20 $0.19 $0.17 $0.09 $0.35 $0.30 $0.29 $0.36 $0.33 $0.39 $0.27 $0.32 $0.30 $0.50

EVA ($)
$0.01 $0.01 $0.02 $0.01 $0.00 −$0.03 −$0.03 −$0.15 $0.01 −$0.08 −$0.05 $0.01 $0.01 −$0.04 $0.03

$0.39 $0.02 $0.43 $0.01 $0.29 $0.05 $0.44 −$0.07 $0.25 −$0.81 $0.47 −$0.09 $0.31 $0.08

detail on the form of retail expenditure was available from the survey. Souvenir shopping has been identified as a separate category and was matched with the code of ‘department stores’. Spending in an information centre was included in recreational spending, as typically tourists would book tours and attractions. It is acknowledged that some tourists also book transport and accommodation in the visitor centre.

3.1.2.

Public sector and sustainable yield

Fig. 1 – Financial yield measures used in this study.

Aside from the obvious commercial transactions within the private sector, there are a number of costs that are generated by each tourist, for example the use of the road network, environmental management, and marketing. In principle all of the inputs, facilities and services of which tourism makes use can be priced, and in practice a high percentage of them are already priced either in markets or where there are charges associated with their use. However, there are some obvious services in New Zealand that do not have user charges. Civic facilities including urban parks, regional and national parks and reserves, art galleries, museums, car parks, and public toilets are some obvious examples where there are typically zero charges to users. In some cases, it can be argued that costs related to tourism are marginal, as facilities exist regardless of tourism (for example certain museums). In most cases in New Zealand, however, tourists represent significant users of public facilities and the use of average cost per user is more appropriate (for more detail see Cullen et al., 2005). Another group of services are based on the use of natural capital. These services have recently been the subject of some research that has attempted to quantify their importance to the global economy (Costanza et al., 1997). Often, these services are

EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 7 ( 2 0 08 ) 42 0 –4 29

423

associated with costs to other entities or to society, so-called external costs. Examples of external costs include emissions from business activities into waterways and airways. The analysis of public sector services in this research focuses on those activities for which differences in levels of use can be clearly distinguished between tourist types. At a national level, these differences include visits to natural areas and museums, art galleries and historic attractions. At a local level, the differences included public sector activities are the Art Gallery, the Botanic Gardens, public buses, the Canterbury Museum, the Cathedral and the information centre (i-site) for the Christchurch case and the Rotorua Museum of Art and History and i-site for Rotorua. Finally, sustainable yield was assessed in two ways: regional dispersion and CO2 emissions from transport. Regional dispersion was measured by the degree to which different tourist types visit the Top 10 mostly visited destinations in New Zealand as a proportion of all places visited. Dispersion was seen as an indicator for the potential of regional economic development and benefit to host communities. CO2 emissions were chosen to demonstrate a second dimension of sustainable yield, because tourism stakeholders were very interested in this indicator and also because it is comparatively straightforward to derive. Emissions are calculated via distance travelled by each tourist type, which can be easily converted into CO2 emissions via mode-specific emission factors. Travel distance is derived from the travel sectors reported in the IVS.

3.2.

Data on tourist behaviour

The IVS is undertaken as an exit survey on an ongoing basis by the New Zealand Ministry of Tourism. The 2005 sample comprises 5342 visitors who were surveyed face-to-face by multilingual interviewers. The IVS provides information on each tourist and their trip, including a detailed itinerary with transport and accommodation choices. Using the transport and accommodation data, it was possible to describe distinctive tourist types based on Becken and Gnoth (2004). For the purpose of this study, five tourist types have been defined: coach tourists, free independent travellers (FIT), backpackers, camping tourists and home visitors (Table 2). For 16% of tourists in the sample it was not possible to identify a type, and these cases were taken out of the database.

To gather detailed data on tourist spending and activities, a survey was administered in two case study areas, Christchurch and Rotorua (Becken et al., 2007). Christchurch hosts 2.6 million international and 2.4 million domestic tourists, and is likely to represent a wide range of visitor types and a diverse range of activity patterns. Rotorua is a major tourist resort town in the North Island with high visitation by both international (894,000) and domestic (709,000) tourists (Ministry of Tourism, 2006). The principle tool of the tourist survey was a questionnaire administered during three different time periods, including holiday periods (Christmas and Easter) and the shoulder season. Survey locations within each case study area were selected purposefully to provide a great diversity of respondents. Surveyors were instructed to randomly select potential respondents by approaching each Nth person to pass a chosen landmark. In Christchurch, the survey generated 1028 responses. This included 145 domestic tourists. In Rotorua, 452 surveys were completed. As in the Christchurch sample, domestic visitors (102) were under-represented compared with their share of visitor nights. During the survey, researchers identified a problem with obtaining responses from individuals of Asian origin, and as a result these are under-represented. The under-sampling of certain tourists is not problematic as such, as the focus is on travel type rather than nationality, however, it could be an issue if specific nationalities generate a variety of sub-types. Tourists were interviewed about both their activities and expenditure over the preceding 24 h or from the point in time when they arrived in Christchurch or Rotorua, whichever was the shorter time. Tourist types were derived based on the rules proposed by Becken and Gnoth (2004) and as applied to the IVS data (Table 2). Each respondent was allocated to a type. Eleven cases remained unidentified. In comparison with the IVS, the two case studies under-represent coach tourists and home visitors. There are also differences between the two case study areas.

4.
4.1.

Results
Description of tourist types

In the IVS database, 74% of coach tourists are from Asian countries, most notably from Japan (19.1%) and China (15.7%).

Table 2 – Deriving tourist types from the IVS and the Yield Tourist Survey Tourist type Key characteristics IVS
Coach tourist Transport = tour coach Accommodation = hotel Package tour = yes Transport = rental car Package tour = no Accommodation = hotel, motel, BandB, or apartment Accommodation = Backpacker hostel Package tour = no Accommodation = Camping Transport = campervan, rental car Accommodation = private accommodation Transport = private car, bus 902

Sample size Christchurch Rotorua
99 45

Proportion IVS
17%

Christchurch Rotorua
10% 10%

FIT

1019

396

211

19%

39%

47%

Backpacker Camping tourist Home visitor Total

615 220 1733

287 71 164

94 44 57

12% 4% 32% 100%

28% 7% 16% 100%

21% 10% 13% 100%

424

EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 7 ( 2 00 8 ) 4 2 0 –4 29

Table 3 – Average expenditure per day by tourist type in Christchurch and Rotorua for relevant ANZSIC industries (NZ$) Tourist type Coach ($) CH
Supermarket Other retail Department stores Automotive fuel Hotels Motels Hosted accommodation Backpacker hostels Caravan parks camping Accommodation nec Pubs/taverns/bars Takeaway food Cafes and restaurants Museums Zoos, botanic gardens, recreational parks Racing, gaming, gambling, sports, other recreation Long distance bus and rail Short distance bus Taxi and other road passenger transport Motor vehicle hiring 9.30 23.90 0.40 80.00

FIT ($) CH
30.80 12.30 8.00 31.24 24.38 6.54

Backpacker ($) CH
30.30 10.80 1.10

Camping ($) CH
30.30 9.60 8.50 14.87 2.80 2.66 9.12 1.30 2.80 10.60 0.10 1.50 9.50 2.20 2.40 16.89

Home visitor ($) CH
33.90 8.30 13.40

RO
1.23 2.88 7.31 2.93 80.00

RO
4.81 6.89 1.94 4.20 39.20 51.48 46.21 5.18 24.34 0.70 0.68 3.86 0.07 45.17 4.87 0.32 21.97

RO
19.26 10.17 1.75 2.80

RO
18.80 4.80 – 3.75 14.87

RO
9.19 12.17 10.09 4.05

11.32 25.00 25.42 25.90 0.75 2.45 1.39 0.09 30.81 0.33 2.90 3.10 10.30 0.00 2.00 6.00 0.70 1.10 3.43

11.32

2.60 2.20 28.00 0.10 0.50 10.50 11.87 2.30 2.70

0.73 1.33 8.07 0.20 65.72 63.50 0.50

3.02 2.70 2.50 22.50 0.10 1.20 11.50 2.20 3.40 7.95

4.40 3.20 14.60 0.10 1.20 10.70 0.50 2.40 1.65

1.93 1.79 1.87 0.06 48.06 11.66 0.24 6.01

1.16 1.68 1.90 0.08 35.18

53.98

10.93

Free independent travelers are most likely to come from Australia, the USA and England (21.3%, 22.1% and 13.5%, respectively). The most important country of origin within the backpacker type is England, which generated over 18% of this group. Camping tourists typically come from England (21.4%), Australia (11.4%), the USA (10.9%), and Germany (10.0%). Home visitors are most often from Australia (19.7%) and England (12.9%). The representation of countries of origin within the different tourist types is broadly similar in the Christchurch and Rotorua Yield Tourist Survey, except for coach tourists. In these samples coach tourists were largely from Australia and North America, while Asian visitors were underrepresented. This is potentially problematic as earlier analysis showed that coach tourists differ significantly on key variables for different countries of origin (Becken, 2005). The five tourist types are characterised by different lengths of stay in New Zealand. The median length of stay is 6 days for coach tourists, 12 days for FITs, 25 days for backpackers, 22 days for campers and 15 days for home visitors. Longer stays provide the potential for greater financial and yield (if tourists spend in high yielding sectors), and also for sustainable yield when negative impacts on communities and the environment are minimized. The IVS data shows that total spending for the trip to New Zealand does not differ significantly between the tourist types. However, in response to the different lengths of stay, the spending per visitor day in New Zealand differs significantly, with coach tourists being the highest spenders and home visitors and backpackers spending least per day.

with their largest expenditure items being recreational activities and retail. Differences between the tourist types are particularly evident in the transport and accommodation sectors, but can also be found in industries such as ‘supermarkets’, where backpackers and camping tourists spend substantially more than the other tourist types. The spending patterns are consistent between the two case study areas (Table 3). The overall pattern of VA by type is similar to that of expenditure (see Fig. 2 in comparison with Table 3). The coach tourists and FITs contribute most VA, whereas the home visitors generate least. The ranking of tourist types changes substantially when EVA (the residual income after accounting for the (average economy) costs of capital at 5.7%) is considered. Here, backpackers stand out as high-yielding in Rotorua and they also generate a positive EVA in Christchurch (Fig. 3). The positive EVA associated with backpacker and camping tourists is

4.2.

Financial yield

Detailed information on daily spending in different sectors was available through the case studies of Christchurch and Rotorua. Overall, the coach tourists are the largest spenders, mainly due to their spending of $80 on average for hotel accommodation. Not surprisingly, home visitors spend least,

Fig. 2 – Value added per day for the different tourist types in Rotorua and Christchurch.

EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 7 ( 2 0 08 ) 42 0 –4 29

425

Table 5 – Costs to the Council associated with public sector attractions in Christchurch and likelihood of visitation per tourist (within 24 h) for each tourist type Cost Coach per tourist visit a (%) ($)
Art gallery Botanic garden Bus (public) Canterbury Museum Cathedral i-site Cost generated per tourist and day ($) a FIT (%)

Back- Camper Home packer (%) visitor (%) (%)
8 18 22 8 9 14 $2.24 7 16 23 7 10 10 $2.02 5 16 33 4 3 6 $1.70

11.15 3.43 1.08 6.07 0.36 − 0.21 −

7 30 57 12 16 11 $3.19

4 19 31 4 9 11 $1.68

Fig. 3 – Economic Value Added generated by tourist types in Rotorua and Christchurch.

consistent across the two case study areas. The reason for this is that backpackers spend their money in industries that are characterised by higher-than-average financial yield, for example youth hostels, recreational activities, pubs and taverns and the retail sector. Similarly, camping tourists spend a substantial amount on rental vehicles, which in turn delivers comparatively high yield through this sector. The outcome is more mixed for coach tourists and home visitors, who generate positive EVA in Rotorua and negative EVA in Christchurch. Much of coach tourists ' spending in Christchurch is on hotels and coaches, both of which achieve negative EVA (see Table 2). In Rotorua, however, coach tourists spend on average $66 on commercial recreational activities, which influences their EVA positively. This compares with net daily spending on recreational activities of only $10.50 in Christchurch.

Data available from Cullen et al., 2005.

4.3.

Public sector yield

Economic yield analysis moves the focus away from strictly commercial to publicly provided activities and services. The use of ‘public good’ attractions is assessed through the likelihood of visitation to each of the activities/attractions shown in Table 4.

Table 4 – Likelihood of participating in selected activities/ attractions during their whole trip for each tourist type Coach FIT Backpacker Camper Home tourist visitor
Nature Activities a (likelihood measured in %) National parks 22 21 46 Trekking/ 28 71 193 bushwalking Glacier walk 11 16 39 Mountain biking 0 2 5 Cultural attractions (likelihood measured in %) Museums/art 33 47 91 galleries Historic 33 21 25 buildings/sites Maori attractions 33 17 23 a 42 209 42 10

5 29 2 1

65 32 21

21 5 6

Trekking often occurs in National Parks; similarly the Glaciers are located in Westland National Park, i.e. the percentages are double counting.

Visits to National Parks, trekking, and glacier walks are closely linked to the Department of Conservation and therefore likely to incur some costs. Mountain biking was identified as an activity that requires significant input of public resources (track maintenance). Backpacker and camping tourists are most likely to make use of publicly provided attractions. On average, every camping and backpacker tourist is likely to go bushwalking about twice (likelihood of 209% and 193% per trip to New Zealand respectively). Backpackers are also the most frequent visitors of museums and art galleries. Coach tourists make less use of the public attractions; however they are most likely to participate in Maori-related activities such as cultural performances or a visit to a marae. These are likely to be linked to a commercial operation; however, they were included in this analysis as they are likely to provide economic benefit to Maori in the form of employment. Home visitors generate the least cost due to low visitation to the selected attractions. Visitation to Christchurch 's attractions collected in the yield tourist survey is used as an example to illustrate the net cost to councils associated with different tourist types. Based on the likelihood of visitation within 1 day (e.g. 30% of coach tourists visit the Botanic Gardens) and the average cost per visit, the costs of public sector services have been calculated for each tourist type (Table 5). Coach tourists have the highest levels of visitation of attractions such as the Botanic Gardens and Canterbury Museum. They therefore generate the highest local government cost in Christchurch of $3.19 per day. Backpackers were also frequent visitors to the free attractions and generate average local public sector direct costs of $2.24 per day. FITs imposed the least public sector costs due to low visitation to these key attractions. On a daily basis, home visitors use public attractions less than the other visitor types; probably because they have more time to do so during their longer stays. In Rotorua, there are only two major publicly funded attractions, the Rotorua Musem and the information centre. Other tourist attractions in Rotorua are of a commercial nature

426

EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 7 ( 2 00 8 ) 4 2 0 –4 29

and their yield is captured in the financial yield analysis. The per visit net cost of the Rotorua Museum to the Council was estimated to be $13.13 (Rotorua District Council, 2005: 93). The likelihood of visitation per day to the Rotorua Museum by tourist type did not differ among visitor types (ANOVA: F = 0.241, df = 447, 4, p = 0.915) and for this reason no further assessment of museum yield by tourist type was undertaken. Visitation to the Rotorua information centre (i-Site) results in a net cost to the council of $0.21 per visitor (Cullen et al., 2005). In conjunction with data on tourist types ' likelihood of visitation derived from the Yield Tourist Survey, it is estimated that the average cost to the council through their i-site is negligible for coach tourists, 4 cents for FITs, 9 cents for backpackers and 5 cents for each camping tourists and home visitors.

Table 7 – Carbon dioxide emissions for transport within New Zealand by tourist type Total CO2 CO2 CO2 from from from air road other (kg) $/trip a (kg) (kg) modes CO2 ($25/t) (kg) b
Coach FIT Backpacker Camping tourist Home visitors a Notes on emissions per passengerkilometer c
Coach travel: 69.2 gCO2/pkm Rental car: 62.7 gCO2/pkm Rental car: 62.7 gCO2/pkm Campervan: 68.4 gCO2/pkm Rental car: 62.7 gCO2/pkm

101 45 53 33 43

117 125 173 225 60

11 7 23 9 4

229 177 249 267 106

$5.70 $4.42 $6.22 $6.67 $2.65

4.4.

Sustainable yield

The degree to which tourists disperse is an important basis for regional development which as recently been assessed as a net benefit for communities (Shone et al., 2005). Coach tourists are most likely to visit the Top 10 most popular destinations, especially Auckland (about twice per tourist), Christchurch, Queenstown and Rotorua, and as a result they show the most concentrated pattern amongst all types (Table 6). In contrast, camping tourists show a more even spread of visitation across the Top 10 destinations (similar to FITs). For camping tourists, only 43% of all visited destinations are within the Top 10 for camping tourists. The other tourist types are relatively similar with slightly over half of the destinations visited being within the Top 10 (60% for home visitors, 55% for backpackers and 52% for FITs). While extensive travel and dispersion into less visited areas can be seen as beneficial for development, it comes at an environmental cost, measured here through CO2 emissions. Coach tourists are by far the largest user of air transport (533 km per tourist trip); whereas camping tourists dominate road travel (3293 km per tourist). Home visitors travel the least distance, 1199 km in total. The camping tourist produces most CO2 emissions during their stay in New Zealand, followed by the backpacker and coach tourist (Table 7). However, these values need to be put into some sort of context to indicate whether they are likely to be significant in terms of their external costs. It can be seen that in a typical Table 6 – Likelihood of visitation to Top 10 most visited destinations in New Zealand by tourist type Top 10 most visited places
Auckland Christchurch Queenstown Wellington Rotorua Taupo Dunedin Milford Sound Nelson Te Anau

Air travel emission factor: 188.9 gCO2/pkm. The emission factors for the Inter-islander ferry were used as a surrogate for “other” modes: 165.1 g CO2/pkm. c Emission factors from Becken (2002). b visit to New Zealand, and even at a cost of NZ$25/tonne of CO2, which is considerably higher than is usually used for policy analysis, tourist 's CO2 costs vary between $2.65 to $6.67 per trip (for the transport component).

5.

Discussion

Coach tourist (%)
210 122 102 22 75 17 18 45 5 24

FIT Backpacker Camper Home (%) (%) (%) visitor (%)
166 127 75 59 54 36 28 22 26 33 204 154 94 84 63 56 45 32 60 36 166 165 96 76 73 57 48 45 51 60 174 59 19 50 22 15 11 4 12 4

The comparison of tourist types in New Zealand based on a broad range of yield indicators paints a complex picture of ‘trade-offs’ in an attempt to define the ‘ideal visitor type’ (Table 8). Whilst coach tourists and FITs are the largest spenders and generate the greatest Value Added in tourism, they contribute less to the financial sustainability of tourism when the costs of capital are accounted for (i.e. EVA). This is largely because of their spending in the accommodation sector which has been associated with lower-than-average financial yield. In contrast, backpacker and camping tourists spend their tourist dollars in those industries that provide greater financial yield. However, it is the backpackers and camping tourists that seem to make the greatest use of publicly provided tourist attractions, at least at a national level. The Department of Conservation spends a net $79 million dollars per annum to provide visitor services (e.g. huts, signage) (Cullen et al., 2005) and it seems that camping tourists in particular are the greatest beneficiaries of this type of public provision. More detailed analysis could be useful to investigate how the costs are spread between different types of visitor facilities, for example ‘front-country’ (more likely to be used by coach tourists) and ‘backcountry’ (tracks, huts etc.). The local level analysis of Christchurch showed that coach tourists posed the greatest direct cost to Councils, followed by backpackers. This could be specific to Christchurch and further analysis in other areas would be required to verify this pattern. The two sustainable yield indicators generally run counter to each other. On the one hand, the dispersed travel pattern of

EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 7 ( 2 0 08 ) 42 0 –4 29

427

Table 8 – Qualitative ranking of tourist types for the yield indicators (1 = best; 5 = worst) Indicators
Value Added Economic Value Added Economic Public sector cost (national) Public sector cost (local) Sustainable Regional dispersion a Carbon dioxide emissions a a Coach tourist
1 5 2 5 5 3

FIT
2 4 3 2 2 2

Backpacker
4 1 4 4 3 4

Camper
3 2 5 3 1 5

Home visitor
5 3 1 1 4 1

Comment
Driven largely by volume of expenditure Depends on location for some types Based on IVS visits to natural attractions, hiking and visits to museums/historic sites Based on Christchurch and Rotorua visitation of public attractions Based on visitation to Top 10 destinations Based on travel distance by different modes

Financial

In the case of regional dispersion, 1 refers to most and 5 refers to least dispersed, i.e. most concentrated.

camping tourists provides the greatest potential for regional development initiatives, but they are also the largest producer of CO2 emissions. Coach tourists are highly concentrated in a few key destinations and at the same time produce substantial amounts of CO2 emissions due to their air travel component. This travel behaviour is likely to be linked to coach tourists’ short length of stay. The indicators selected for this research reflect a number of policy goals that can be attached to tourism. Tourism is a foreign exchange earner; thus the more tourists spend the more positive the impact on the balance of trade. This is an important consideration for some parts of Central Government, such as Treasury. Alongside this, minimising offshore leakages and maximising Value Added is a common policy objective. The net profitability (i.e. EVA) of businesses is a key financial indicator for investors. Tourism stimulates regional development, first by the number of jobs created in remote areas, but also by the infrastructure investments made by national and local governments to improve accessibility and on-site services, which assists existing local businesses to become more competitive. At the same time, tourism contributes to environmental impacts (especially through transport), measured here in the form of CO2 emissions. It can be debated to what extend the benefit of development outweighs the environmental costs of climate change. This dilemma applies to remote areas within a country as well as to global travel to developing countries (UNWTO, 2007). Tourists also contribute to other environmental impacts that were not measured in this study. Future research could include more indicators, for example in relation to resource consumption or ecosystem impacts. There is a large body of research on tourism impacts, for example in the area of economic impact assessments on local or national economies, both directly and indirectly (e.g. using multiplier analysis) (Pearce, 1981). Very rarely, however, has the impact been assessed from the consumer perspective, i.e. the tourist. This research highlights the importance of tourists as vectors of both benefits and costs; such a perspective provides new insights into the sustainability of tourism. Different segmentations are possible (see Dwyer et al., 2006), for example tourist types could be based on country of origin, travel purpose, or as undertaken in this study on travel behaviour. Travel behaviour is particularly useful as it relates directly to

impacts and also provides a well defined target for management, marketing and policy initiatives. This research also showed how difficult it is to identify an “optimal” tourist type. This is compounded by the fact that some indicators in this analysis are measures on a “per day” basis (e.g. EVA or visit to local attractions), while others are measured on a “per trip” basis. If, for example, CO2 emissions were measured as an intensity (per day), the coach tourist would be by far the most carbon intensive traveller and camping tourists would have a comparatively low carbon impact, due to their long stay. This research refrained from monetising indicators and aggregating them into one single index, as this is prone to over-simplification and misleading results. The overall assessment of tourist types depends rather on a decision maker 's preference rating and on the overall policy directions. The tourism industry may put more emphasis on financial indicators whereas Government departments may place higher weighting on environmental or social indicators. Moreover, rather than identifying one preferred type the policy approach could be to develop targeted initiatives (including charges) to improve the yield – financial, economic and social – for each tourist type. This initial analysis provides a useful basis for such measures and could, for example, become an integral part in multi-criteria decision aiding (Kain and Söderberg, 2008).

6.

Conclusion

This research used the concept of yield to develop a set of indicators for measuring yield of different tourist types in New Zealand. The yield indicators can be interpreted as a sectorspecific approach to sustainability assessment. During our research, we found that tourism stakeholders were very amenable to the concept of ‘yield’ as it relates closely to known concepts and practices in the business world. At the same time, the input of stakeholders, such as the Ministry of Tourism, the Tourism Industry Association and Tourism New Zealand, helped the research team to identify those perspectives of yield that are important to the sector and that have not necessarily been included in existing sustainability assessments. Examples are the use of EVA (even for small businesses) and the analysis of how tourists draw on public sector services.

428

EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 7 ( 2 00 8 ) 4 2 0 –4 29

There is, however, a risk that a sector-driven yield approach may diverge from the core principles of sustainability and result in a compromised “cost-benefit” approach. This is highlighted in a statement recently released in the Draft Tourism Strategy (informed by this research) that “the best kind of tourism for New Zealand is sustainable tourism, that is, tourism that delivers maximum benefit – economic, social, cultural and environmental – with as few unwanted effects as possible” (Ministry of Tourism, 2007: 18). This is in stark contrast to Butler 's (1993) definition of sustainable tourism as “tourism which is developed and maintained in an area (community, environment) in such a manner, and at such a scale, that it remains viable over an indefinite period and does not degrade or alter the environment (human and physical) in which it exists to such a degree that it prohibits the successful development and well being of other activities and processes.”

Acknowledgement
We wish to acknowledge the funding provided through the Ministry of Tourism and their Strategy Implementation Fund, as well as funding provided by the Tourism Industry Association and their members. We would also like to thank Geoff Butcher and Chrisana Archer for their input into this research.

REFERENCES
Becken, S., 2002. Energy use in the New Zealand tourism sector. PhD thesis, Lincoln University, New Zealand. Becken, S., 2005. Towards sustainable tourism transport – an analysis of coach tourism in New Zealand. Tourism Geographies 7 (1), 1–20. Becken, S., Butcher, G., 2004. Economic yield associated with different types of tourists – a pilot analysis. Proceedings of CAUTHE 2004, pp. 73–78. 10–13 February, 2004, Brisbane, Australia. Becken, S., Gnoth, J., 2004. Tourist consumption systems among overseas visitors: reporting on American, German, and Australian visitors to New Zealand. Tourism Management 25, 375–385. Becken, S., Lennox, J., Fitt, H., Butcher, G., 2007. Yield Associated with Different Tourist Types. Lincoln University, Lincoln. Final Report. Böhringer, C., Jochem, P., 2007. Measuring the immeasurable – a survey of sustainability indices. Ecological Economics 63, 1–8. Braungart, M., McDonough, W., Bollinger, A., 2007. Cradle-to-cradle design: creating healthy emissions – a strategy for eco-effective product and system design. Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (13–14), 1337–1348. Butler, R., 1993. Tourism – an evolutionary perspective. In: Nelson, J.G., Butler, R., Wall, G. (Eds.), Tourism and sustainable development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada. Costanza, R., Daly, H.E., 1992. Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation Biology 6 (1), 37–46. Costanza, R., D, 'Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburge, K., Neem, S., O, 'Neil, R., Parelo, J., Raskin, R., Sutton, P., Van den Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world 's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–259. Cullen, R., Becken, S., Butcher, G., Lennox, J., Marquardt, M., Simmons, D., Taylor, N., 2005. Public Sector Benefits and Costs

of Tourism. Tourism Recreation Research and Education Centre. Yield Report 1/2005. Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., 1997. Measuring the benefits and yield from foreign tourism. International Journal of Social Economics 24 (1/2/3), 223–236. Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., Fredline, L., Jago, L., Deery, M., Lundie, S., 2006. Concepts of tourism yield and their measurement. Gold Coast: Sustainable Tourism CRCAvailable at (01/11/07) http:// www.crctourism.com.au/CRCBookshop/page.aspx? page_id=2&productID=4782006. Gössling, S., Borgström Hansson, C., Hörstmeier, O., Saggel, S., 2002. Ecological footprint analysis as a tool to assess tourism sustainability. Ecological Economics 43 (2–3), 199–211. Gössling, S., Peeters, P., Ceron, J.P., Dubois, G., Patterson, T., Richardson, R., 2005. The eco-efficiency of tourism. Ecological Economics 54 (4), 417–434. Kain, J., Söderberg, H., 2008. Management of complex knowledge in planning for sustainable development: the use of multi-criteria decision aids. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (1), 7–21. Jollands, N., Lermit, J., Patterson, M., 2004. Aggregate eco-efficiency indices for New Zealand—a principal components analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 73 (4), 293–305. Lee, C., Tylor, R., 2005. Critical reflections on the economic impact assessment of a mega-event: the case of 2002 FIFA World Cup. Tourism Management 26, 595–603. Levett, R., McNally, R., 2003. A strategic environmental assessment of Fiji 's tourism development plan. Advisory group version. A study undertaken for the World Wildlife Fund, Fiji. Metti, G., 1999. Global environmental factors and eco-efficiency. Beverage World 82–83. Ministry of Tourism, 2006. International Visitor Survey. Wellington, Available at http://www.tourismresearch.govt.nz. Ministry of Tourism, 2007. New Zealand Tourism Strategy 2015, Available at http://www.nztourismstrategy.com. Moriarty, J.P., 2006. A value I/O matrix for tourism expenditure, November 2006Available at (10/02/07) http://www.moriarty. biz2006. Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., Olsson, L., 2007. Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics 60, 498–508. Northcote, J., Macbeth, J., 2006. Conceptualizing yield. Sustainable Tourism Management. Annals of Tourism Research 33 (1), 199–220. Patterson, M.G., McDonald, G., 2004. How green and clean is New Zealand Tourism? Lifecycle and Future Environmental Impacts. Landcare Research, Lincoln. Patterson, T., Niccolucci, V., Bastianoni, S., 2007. Beyond “more is better”: Ecological footprint accounting for tourism and consumption in Val di Merse, Italy. Ecological Economics 62 (3–4), 747–756. Pearce, D., 1981. Tourism Development. Longman, New York. Pearce, D.W., 1994. Blueprint 3: Measuring Sustainable Development. Earthscan, London. Peeters, P., Schouten, F., 2006. Reducing the ecological footprint of inbound tourism and transport to Amsterdam. In: Becken, S., Lane, B. (Eds.), Tourism and Transport – the Sustainability Dilemma. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 14 (20), pp. 157–171. Special Issue. Reynolds, P.C., Braithwaite, R.W., 1997. Whose yield is it anyway? Compromise options for sustainable boat tour ventures. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 9 (2), 70–74. Rotorua District Council, 2005. Annual Report. Rotorua, Available at http://www.rdc.govt.nz/About+Our+Council/Publications/ Annual+Reports.htm. Shone, M., Horn, C., Moran, D., Simmons, D., 2005. Adapting to tourism: community responses to tourism in five New Zealand tourism destinations. In: Simmons, D., Fairwearther, J. (Eds.),

EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 7 ( 2 0 08 ) 42 0 –4 29

429

The host guest encounter in New Zealand: foundations for adaptive planning and management. EOS Ecology, Christchurch. Spurr, R., Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., Van Ho, T., 2005. Measuring Tourism Productivity and Economic Yield Using TSAs and CGE Models. WTO conference. Statistics New Zealand, 2006. Tourism Satellite Account. Wellington. Stewart III, G.B., 1991. The quest for value. Harper Business, New York. TRREC, 2005. Dimensions and measurements of tourism yield. Yield Report 1. Lincoln UniversityAvailable at (14/05/07) http://www. lincoln.ac.nz/story_images/1423_1423_dimensions__s9799. pdf2005. TRREC, 2006. Enhancing financial and economic yield in tourism: sector performance and business benchmarks report. Analysing New Zealand 's Tourism Satellites Accounts for Measures of Sector Performance and Business Benchmarks

Available at (14/05/07) http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/story_images/ 2246_Benchmark_s6169.pdf2006. UNDP, 2006. Human development report 2006. Beyond scarcity: power, poverty and the global water crisis. http://hdr.undp.org/ hdr2006/2006. Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Bello, P., Callejas Linares, A., López Falfán, I.S., Méndez García, J., Suárez Guerrero, A.I., Suárez Guerrero, M., 1999. National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics 29 (3), 375–390. Wang, X., Wang, F., 2007. Dynamic network yield management. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 41 (4), 410–425. United Nations World Tourism Organisation, 2007. Davos declaration: climate change and tourism – responding to global challenges. Press ReleaseAvailable at (20/11/07) http://www.unwto.org/media/ news/en/press_det.php?id=1411&idioma=E2007.

References: Becken, S., 2002. Energy use in the New Zealand tourism sector. PhD thesis, Lincoln University, New Zealand. Becken, S., 2005. Towards sustainable tourism transport – an analysis of coach tourism in New Zealand. Tourism Geographies 7 (1), 1–20. Becken, S., Butcher, G., 2004. Economic yield associated with different types of tourists – a pilot analysis. Proceedings of CAUTHE 2004, pp. 73–78. 10–13 February, 2004, Brisbane, Australia. Becken, S., Gnoth, J., 2004. Tourist consumption systems among overseas visitors: reporting on American, German, and Australian visitors to New Zealand. Tourism Management 25, 375–385. Becken, S., Lennox, J., Fitt, H., Butcher, G., 2007. Yield Associated with Different Tourist Types. Lincoln University, Lincoln. Final Report. Böhringer, C., Jochem, P., 2007. Measuring the immeasurable – a survey of sustainability indices. Ecological Economics 63, 1–8. Braungart, M., McDonough, W., Bollinger, A., 2007. Cradle-to-cradle design: creating healthy emissions – a strategy for eco-effective product and system design. Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (13–14), 1337–1348. Butler, R., 1993. Tourism – an evolutionary perspective. In: Nelson, J.G., Butler, R., Wall, G. (Eds.), Tourism and sustainable development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada. Costanza, R., Daly, H.E., 1992. Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation Biology 6 (1), 37–46. Costanza, R., D, 'Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburge, K., Neem, S., O, 'Neil, R., Parelo, J., Raskin, R., Sutton, P., Van den Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world 's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–259. Cullen, R., Becken, S., Butcher, G., Lennox, J., Marquardt, M., Simmons, D., Taylor, N., 2005. Public Sector Benefits and Costs of Tourism. Tourism Recreation Research and Education Centre. Yield Report 1/2005. Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., 1997. Measuring the benefits and yield from foreign tourism. International Journal of Social Economics 24 (1/2/3), 223–236. Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., Fredline, L., Jago, L., Deery, M., Lundie, S., 2006. Concepts of tourism yield and their measurement. Gold Coast: Sustainable Tourism CRCAvailable at (01/11/07) http:// www.crctourism.com.au/CRCBookshop/page.aspx? page_id=2&productID=4782006. Gössling, S., Borgström Hansson, C., Hörstmeier, O., Saggel, S., 2002. Ecological footprint analysis as a tool to assess tourism sustainability. Ecological Economics 43 (2–3), 199–211. Gössling, S., Peeters, P., Ceron, J.P., Dubois, G., Patterson, T., Richardson, R., 2005. The eco-efficiency of tourism. Ecological Economics 54 (4), 417–434. Kain, J., Söderberg, H., 2008. Management of complex knowledge in planning for sustainable development: the use of multi-criteria decision aids. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (1), 7–21. Jollands, N., Lermit, J., Patterson, M., 2004. Aggregate eco-efficiency indices for New Zealand—a principal components analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 73 (4), 293–305. Lee, C., Tylor, R., 2005. Critical reflections on the economic impact assessment of a mega-event: the case of 2002 FIFA World Cup. Tourism Management 26, 595–603. Levett, R., McNally, R., 2003. A strategic environmental assessment of Fiji 's tourism development plan. Advisory group version. A study undertaken for the World Wildlife Fund, Fiji. Metti, G., 1999. Global environmental factors and eco-efficiency. Beverage World 82–83. Ministry of Tourism, 2006. International Visitor Survey. Wellington, Available at http://www.tourismresearch.govt.nz. Ministry of Tourism, 2007. New Zealand Tourism Strategy 2015, Available at http://www.nztourismstrategy.com. Moriarty, J.P., 2006. A value I/O matrix for tourism expenditure, November 2006Available at (10/02/07) http://www.moriarty. biz2006. Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., Olsson, L., 2007. Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics 60, 498–508. Northcote, J., Macbeth, J., 2006. Conceptualizing yield. Sustainable Tourism Management. Annals of Tourism Research 33 (1), 199–220. Patterson, M.G., McDonald, G., 2004. How green and clean is New Zealand Tourism? Lifecycle and Future Environmental Impacts. Landcare Research, Lincoln. Patterson, T., Niccolucci, V., Bastianoni, S., 2007. Beyond “more is better”: Ecological footprint accounting for tourism and consumption in Val di Merse, Italy. Ecological Economics 62 (3–4), 747–756. Pearce, D., 1981. Tourism Development. Longman, New York. Pearce, D.W., 1994. Blueprint 3: Measuring Sustainable Development. Earthscan, London. Peeters, P., Schouten, F., 2006. Reducing the ecological footprint of inbound tourism and transport to Amsterdam. In: Becken, S., Lane, B. (Eds.), Tourism and Transport – the Sustainability Dilemma. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 14 (20), pp. 157–171. Special Issue. Reynolds, P.C., Braithwaite, R.W., 1997. Whose yield is it anyway? Compromise options for sustainable boat tour ventures. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 9 (2), 70–74. Rotorua District Council, 2005. Annual Report. Rotorua, Available at http://www.rdc.govt.nz/About+Our+Council/Publications/ Annual+Reports.htm. Shone, M., Horn, C., Moran, D., Simmons, D., 2005. Adapting to tourism: community responses to tourism in five New Zealand tourism destinations. In: Simmons, D., Fairwearther, J. (Eds.), EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 7 ( 2 0 08 ) 42 0 –4 29 429 The host guest encounter in New Zealand: foundations for adaptive planning and management. EOS Ecology, Christchurch. Spurr, R., Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., Van Ho, T., 2005. Measuring Tourism Productivity and Economic Yield Using TSAs and CGE Models. WTO conference. Statistics New Zealand, 2006. Tourism Satellite Account. Wellington. Stewart III, G.B., 1991. The quest for value. Harper Business, New York. TRREC, 2005. Dimensions and measurements of tourism yield. Yield Report 1. Lincoln UniversityAvailable at (14/05/07) http://www. lincoln.ac.nz/story_images/1423_1423_dimensions__s9799. pdf2005. TRREC, 2006. Enhancing financial and economic yield in tourism: sector performance and business benchmarks report. Analysing New Zealand 's Tourism Satellites Accounts for Measures of Sector Performance and Business Benchmarks Available at (14/05/07) http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/story_images/ 2246_Benchmark_s6169.pdf2006. UNDP, 2006. Human development report 2006. Beyond scarcity: power, poverty and the global water crisis. http://hdr.undp.org/ hdr2006/2006. Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Bello, P., Callejas Linares, A., López Falfán, I.S., Méndez García, J., Suárez Guerrero, A.I., Suárez Guerrero, M., 1999. National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics 29 (3), 375–390. Wang, X., Wang, F., 2007. Dynamic network yield management. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 41 (4), 410–425. United Nations World Tourism Organisation, 2007. Davos declaration: climate change and tourism – responding to global challenges. Press ReleaseAvailable at (20/11/07) http://www.unwto.org/media/ news/en/press_det.php?id=1411&idioma=E2007.