PREPARED FOR: CHRISTCHURCH & CANTERBURY TOURISM
Cruise Ship Tourism in Akaroa Visitor experiences and expenditure, and business stakeholder perceptions
Prepared by Lincoln University May 2013
Acknowledgments The Visitor Survey was undertaken by Monique Smith as a Summer Student Research Project within the Department of Social Science, Parks, Recreation, Tourism and Sport at Lincoln University. This Summer Student project was funded by Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism. Monique was responsible for the majority of the data collection, the preliminary analysis and the first draft of the report. We are grateful for her contribution to this project. We also wish thank Dr Joanna Fountain and Dr Emma Stewart for their supervision of the student project and their input into this final report. The final analysis, including coding of the open-ended data and the preparation of these results for the final draft of the report was undertaken by Michael Shone. The Business Stakeholder interviews were conducted, analysed and written up by Jude Wilson. The final draft of this report was written by Michael Shone and Jude Wilson. We wish to thank all those who gave their time to be surveyed and interviewed for this project.
Photograph 1: (Cover) Cruise ship in Akaroa Harbour (Emma Stewart)
i
Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................................................I TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................................II LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................................................III LIST OF FIGURES..............................................................................................................................................III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... V 1.0
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1.1 Cruise tourism in New Zealand ............................................................................................................. 2 1.1.2 Cruise tourism in Akaroa ....................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 VISITOR SURVEY ......................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 2.1.1 Questionnaire Design ............................................................................................................................ 6 2.1.2 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 7 2.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 Sample characteristics .......................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Decision-making for organised tours .................................................................................................... 9 2.2.3 Destinations visited ............................................................................................................................. 11 2.2.4 Most enjoyed aspects of destinations visited...................................................................................... 13 2.2.5 Least enjoyed aspects of destinations visited ..................................................................................... 15 2.2.6 Visitor spending during their Akaroa port visit ................................................................................... 17 2.2.7 Responses to destination specific statements..................................................................................... 25 2.2.8 Visitor satisfaction .............................................................................................................................. 29 2.2.9 Attractions and activities for Akaroa port visits in the future ............................................................. 32 2.3 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................. 35 3.0 BUSINESS STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ..................................................................................................... 36 3.1 METHOD ....................................................................................................................................................... 36 3.2 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 37 3.2.1 Perceptions of the cruise ship visitor market ...................................................................................... 37 3.2.2 Economic engagement with the cruise ship visitor market................................................................. 38 3.2.3 Visitor spending................................................................................................................................... 39 3.2.4 Business challenges ............................................................................................................................. 41 3.2.5 Hosting the cruise ships ...................................................................................................................... 43 3.2.6 Cruise ships in context ......................................................................................................................... 46 3.2.7 The visitor experience ......................................................................................................................... 47 3.3 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................. 49 4.0 CONCLUDING COMMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 51 4.1 VISITOR SPENDING ........................................................................................................................................... 51 4.2 VISITOR EXPERIENCE ......................................................................................................................................... 52 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................... 54 APPENDICES................................................................................................................................................... 55
ii
APPENDIX ONE: VISITOR SURVEY - QUESTIONNAIRE..................................................................................................... 55 APPENDIX TWO: LIST OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS (GUIDE ONLY) ................................................................. 60
List of Tables FIGURE 1: AGE GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS (N=430) ........................................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 2: NUMBER OF PREVIOUS CRUISES FOR RESPONDENTS (N=301) ................................................................................. 9 FIGURE 3: DECISION-MAKING ABOUT ACTIVITIES (N=428) ................................................................................................. 10 FIGURE 4: TOTAL SPENDING FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=433) ....................................................... 18 FIGURE 5: SPENDING ON TOURS FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) .................................................. 19 FIGURE 6: SPENDING ON TRANSPORTATION FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) ................................... 20 FIGURE 7: SPENDING ON RESTAURANT MEALS FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) ................................ 22 FIGURE 8: SPENDING ON OTHER FOOD AND REFRESHMENT FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) ............... 22 FIGURE 9: SPENDING ON SHOPPING AND SOUVENIRS FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) ....................... 23 FIGURE 10: SPENDING ON ‘OTHER’ UNSPECIFIED ITEMS/ACTIVITIES FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) .... 24 FIGURE 11: STATEMENTS DESCRIBING AKAROA (DATA REPORTED AS A PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS) ...................................... 25 FIGURE 12: STATEMENTS DESCRIBING CHRISTCHURCH (DATA REPORTED AS A PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS)............................. 28 FIGURE 13: SATISFACTION WITH OVERALL AKAROA PORT VISIT (N=413) .............................................................................. 30 FIGURE 14: LIKELIHOOD OF RETURNING TO AKAROA ON A CRUISE (N=418) .......................................................................... 30 FIGURE 15: LIKELIHOOD OF VISITING AKAROA IN THE FUTURE (N=418)................................................................................ 31 FIGURE 16: LIKELIHOOD OF VISITING CHRISTCHURCH IN THE FUTURE (N=417) ...................................................................... 31 FIGURE 17: LIKELIHOOD OF RECOMMENDING ‘THIS REGION’ TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS (N=414) ................................................ 32 FIGURE 18: RATING THE APPEAL OF ACTIVITIES FOR FUTURE PORT VISITS (N=313) ................................................................. 33
List of Figures FIGURE 1: AGE GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS (N=430) ........................................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 2: NUMBER OF PREVIOUS CRUISES FOR RESPONDENTS (N=301) ................................................................................. 9 FIGURE 3: DECISION-MAKING ABOUT ACTIVITIES (N=428) ................................................................................................. 10 FIGURE 4: TOTAL SPENDING FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=433) ....................................................... 18 FIGURE 5: SPENDING ON TOURS FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) .................................................. 19 FIGURE 6: SPENDING ON TRANSPORTATION FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) ................................... 20 FIGURE 7: SPENDING ON RESTAURANT MEALS FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) ................................ 22 FIGURE 8: SPENDING ON OTHER FOOD AND REFRESHMENT FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) ............... 22 FIGURE 9: SPENDING ON SHOPPING AND SOUVENIRS FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) ....................... 23 FIGURE 10: SPENDING ON ‘OTHER’ UNSPECIFIED ITEMS/ACTIVITIES FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) .... 24 FIGURE 11: STATEMENTS DESCRIBING AKAROA (DATA REPORTED AS A PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS) ...................................... 25 FIGURE 12: STATEMENTS DESCRIBING CHRISTCHURCH (DATA REPORTED AS A PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS)............................. 28 FIGURE 13: SATISFACTION WITH OVERALL AKAROA PORT VISIT (N=413) .............................................................................. 30 FIGURE 14: LIKELIHOOD OF RETURNING TO AKAROA ON A CRUISE (N=418) .......................................................................... 30 FIGURE 15: LIKELIHOOD OF VISITING AKAROA IN THE FUTURE (N=418)................................................................................ 31 FIGURE 16: LIKELIHOOD OF VISITING CHRISTCHURCH IN THE FUTURE (N=417) ...................................................................... 31 FIGURE 17: LIKELIHOOD OF RECOMMENDING ‘THIS REGION’ TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS (N=414) ................................................ 32 FIGURE 18: RATING THE APPEAL OF ACTIVITIES FOR FUTURE PORT VISITS (N=313) ................................................................. 33
iii
List of Photographs PHOTOGRAPH 1: (COVER) CRUISE SHIP IN AKAROA HARBOUR (EMMA STEWART) ..................................................................... I PHOTOGRAPH 2: PASSENGERS DISEMBARKING AKAROA WHARF (JUDE WILSON) ..................................................................... IV PHOTOGRAPH 3: PRINCESS CRUISES WELCOME AREA, AKAROA WHARF (EMMA STEWART) ........................................................ 4 PHOTOGRAPH 4: DIAMOND PRINCESS IN AKAROA HARBOUR (EMMA STEWART) ..................................................................... 4 PHOTOGRAPH 5: RADIANCE OF THE SEAS TENDER APPROACHING AKAROA WHARF (JUDE WILSON) ............................................. 4 PHOTOGRAPH 6: TOURS AND TRANSPORTATION AKAROA WHARF (JUDE WILSON) ................................................................. 19 PHOTOGRAPH 7: BUSES LINED UP TO TAKE TOURS TO CHRISTCHURCH (JUDE WILSON) ............................................................ 19 PHOTOGRAPH 8: INDEPENDENT OPERATORS, AKAROA WHARF (JUDE WILSON)...................................................................... 39 PHOTOGRAPH 9: AKAROA FOOD OUTLET ADVERTISING CRUISE SHIPS SPECIAL (JUDE WILSON)................................................... 39 PHOTOGRAPH 10: TEMPORARY INFORMATION CENTRE, AKAROA WHARF (JUDE WILSON) ....................................................... 40 PHOTOGRAPH 11: TOUR BUSES AKAROA (JUDE WILSON) .................................................................................................. 40 PHOTOGRAPH 12: THE MAORI GREETING (EMMA STEWART)............................................................................................. 48 PHOTOGRAPH 13: ENJOYING AKAROA’S CHARMS (JUDE WILSON) ...................................................................................... 48 PHOTOGRAPH 14: WELCOME TO AKAROA (JUDE WILSON)................................................................................................ 49 PHOTOGRAPH 15: PHOTOGRAPHING ONE’S OWN SHIP (JUDE WILSON)................................................................................ 49 PHOTOGRAPH 16: WALKING INTO AKAROA TOWNSHIP (JUDE WILSON) .............................................................................. 49 PHOTOGRAPH 17: VISITING THE LOCAL CHURCH, AKAROA (JUDE WILSON) ........................................................................... 49
Photograph 2: Passengers disembarking Akaroa wharf (Jude Wilson)
iv
Executive Summary Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism (CCT) commissioned this research to assess the impact of cruise ship tourists on the Canterbury economy. As a result of damage to Lyttelton Port suffered during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes, the vast majority of cruise ships arrivals in Canterbury have been relocated to Akaroa Harbour. During the 2012/2013 cruise ship season 86 ships carrying 143,925 passengers were scheduled to visit Akaroa. This level of cruise ship arrivals in Akaroa represents a significant increase on previous years. The research, undertaken in both Christchurch and Akaroa, was in two parts: a visitor survey of 433 cruise ship passengers conducted during the cruise ship season; and a set of business stakeholder interviews undertaken at the conclusion of the cruise ship season. Visitor survey
Survey respondents were primarily from Australia (70%) and the USA (15.6%); more than half were aged over 60 years; over half were travelling with a partner or spouse; and, almost 70 per cent had been on at least one cruise previously. Of the 433 visitors surveyed, 50 per cent stayed in Akaroa Township, 39 per cent visited Christchurch. Just under half of all respondents (47.7%) went on an organised tour during their visit Respondents reported participating in a wide range of activities: o The three most popular activities in Akaroa were: walking around (88.2% of respondents), eating and drinking (59.2%) and shopping (56.7%). o The four most popular activities in Christchurch were visiting specific sites: Botanic Gardens (56.7% of respondents), Re: START Container Mall (56.9%), earthquakerelated sites (55.7%), Canterbury Museum (55.1%). Reasons for not visiting Christchurch included: having been before (24.6%), not wishing to see the earthquake damage (20.9%) and wishing to do activities in Akaroa (17.1%); 7.1 per cent of respondents were not aware of the opportunity to visit Christchurch. The most enjoyed aspects of Akaroa visits were the scenery (reported by 42.2% of respondents), the pretty town (34.5%), the relaxed village atmosphere (19.9%) and the friendly people (15.6%). The most enjoyed aspects of Christchurch visits were seeing earthquake/recovery sites (26.5% of respondents), the scenery (18.4%) and having a good tour experience (18%). In Akaroa 74.4 per cent of respondents reported there was nothing they least liked about their visit (the corresponding figure for Christchurch visits was 63%). The weather encountered featured in both locations as a least liked aspect of visits. The average (mean) spend of all respondents was $129.26; those who stayed in Akaroa reported an average spend of $117.90 and those who visited locations outside Akaroa reported an average spend of $141.55. o Those who stayed in Akaroa spent more on restaurant meals and other food, and on shopping and souvenirs. o Those who went to Christchurch spent more on tours. When asked to rate destination attributes of Akaroa there was strong agreement that Akaroa has a beautiful natural landscape, is a friendly town and safe destination. There was v
slightly weaker agreement with statements describing its interesting heritage buildings, French flavour and availability of a range of things to see and do. Strong agreement was reported in respect of Christchurch being a friendly city, having beautiful natural landscapes, interesting heritage buildings and being a safe city. There was slightly less agreement with there being a lot of things to see and do and it being a lively city. The majority of respondents disagreed with the statements that Christchurch and Akaroa were expensive destinations (54.2% and 56.3%, respectively). Altogether 64 per cent of respondents were highly satisfied with their port visit, 58.9 per cent reported that they were likely to return on a cruise to Akaroa, 67 per cent reported that they would return to Akaroa and 69.3 per cent that they would return to Christchurch. Altogether, 90.3 per cent of respondents reported that they would recommend the region to family and friends. The most appealing activities for future visits (selected from a provided list) were experiencing local food and wine (84.5% of respondents), visiting a museum (66.9%) experiencing Maori culture (63.3%) and attending a performing arts event (52.7%). Going on a winery tour, visiting and art gallery and farm tours were rated unappealing by more than half of respondents.
Business stakeholder interviews
The business stakeholders interviewed (14 Akaroa-based, 7 Christchurch-based) were primarily those who catered to independent visitors (i.e., not with wholesalers or inbound operators) and represented a range of business types. Respondents almost universally agreed that it was highly unpredictable which shipping lines, particular cruises or types of passengers brought the most economic benefits. Economic engagement with the cruise ship market varied according to particular business’ type, size and previous engagement with the cruise ship market. While cruise ship visitor spending was primarily on smaller (low value) items and only contributed between five and 30 per cent of annual turnover, this spending was enough to support extra employment and engendered considerable business confidence which had been badly shaken by the global recession and the impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes. For local companies who do not have arrangements in place with wholesalers or inbound operators there are considerable business challenges associated with accessing the cruise ship visitor market. The hosting of cruise ships in Akaroa (rather than Lyttelton) introduced a number of logistical challenges. There was a considerable reluctance to institute long-term changes as a result of uncertainty around the longevity of Akaroa port visits and the relatively small contribution to overall business income by the cruise ship market. Suggestions for new product development included more local (i.e., Banks Peninsula) tours, engagement with local Maori culture and greater involvement of the local population in the delivery of tourism products. Respondents reported positive feedback from visitors associated with the uniqueness of both Akaroa (e.g., its charm, scenic beauty and village atmosphere) and Christchurch (e.g., based on the earthquake and recovery experience). vi
1.0 Introduction As a consequence of earthquake damage and on-going repairs to the Port of Lyttelton, the town of Akaroa experienced a dramatic increase in the number of cruise ships visits during the 2011-2013 seasons. In response to this situation, Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism (CCT) has commissioned a research project assessing the impact of cruise ship tourists on the Akaroa, Christchurch and Canterbury economy. The project brief outlines the requirement for: Part A: A report on a visitor survey of cruise ship tourists visiting the port of Akaroa over the 2012/2013 cruise season; Part B: A report based on interviews with key business stakeholders assessing the economic impact of cruise ship tourists on their business. The overall aim of Part A was to examine the perceptions, experiences and economic impact of cruise ship passengers in Akaroa, Christchurch and Canterbury; with the specific objectives of:
Exploring the characteristics of cruise ship passengers visiting Akaroa and their patterns of behaviour in port; Documenting passenger perceptions of Christchurch and Akaroa post-earthquake as well as exploring visitors’ experiences of Christchurch and Akaroa; Recording cruise ship passenger expenditure in Akaroa and Christchurch; and Assessing cruise ship passengers satisfaction and examining the likelihood of passengers making a return visit to the region.
Linked to Part A was a secondary project that assessed, from the perspective of Akaroa and Christchurch business stakeholders, the economic impact of increased cruise ship activity in Akaroa. The stakeholders involved in the research were determined in conjunction with CCT. The specific objectives of the business stakeholder research were:
Elicit a supply-side view of the economic impacts of cruise ship tourism. Understand the hosting experiences of a variety of business stakeholders in Akaroa and Christchurch with respect to the cruise ship visitor market.
As such, this report is divided into four sections:
Section 1 provides contextual material relating to the growth in cruise ship activity in New Zealand and specifically in Akaroa; Section 2 outlines the methods used and presents the research results of Part A (the visitor survey); Section 3 outlines the methods used and presents the results from Part B (the business stakeholder interviews); and Section 4 presents concluding comments in respect of both sets of research findings. 1
1.1 Background 1.1.1 Cruise tourism in New Zealand The cruise ship tourism industry has exhibited strong growth in New Zealand over the past 15 years. For example, in the 1996/97 season a total of 27 cruises brought 19,400 passengers to New Zealand. By the 2011/12 season, this figure had increased to 121 cruises carrying 173,819 passengers (Market Economics Limited, 2012: ii). This represents an increase of over this 15 year period of 809 per cent on the 1996/97 figure (see Table 1). This growth trend has become particularly pronounced since the 2009/10 cruise season, when 109,951 passengers visited New Zealand. Growth in visitation over the two subsequent seasons (i.e., up to, and including, the 2011/12 season) indicates a growth rate of 58.1 per cent on the 2009/10 season (Tourism New Zealand, 2012). This growth is reflective of a global trend, which has seen the cruise sector grow to more than 20.6m passengers in 2011, up more than 106 per cent since 2000 (Market Economics Limited, 2012: 1). It is expected that this growth in the cruise sector is likely to continue, with larger ships visiting and passenger numbers continuing to increase. Specifically, forecasts for the recently completed 2012/13 anticipated that 130 cruise ship voyages would bring a total of 205,730 passengers to New Zealand. In addition to these passengers, these ships were expected to also carry a total of 93,000 crew (Market Economics Limited, 2012: 23). This view of the sector appears to be shared by Tourism New Zealand (2013), which notes on its ‘Cruise Sector’ web page that cruise tourism is the fastestgrowing of New Zealand's tourism sectors and has considerable potential for future growth.
Table 1: Number of cruises and passengers in New Zealand (1996/97 - 2012/13)
Year 1996/97 2008/09
New Zealand’s Cruise Summary Number of % Change Voyages 27 -2.0 96
2009/10
81
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 (forecast)
93 120 130
-15.6 14.8 29.0 8.3
No. Of Passengers 19,400 118, 976 109, 951 136,168 173,819 205,730
% Change +2.4 -7.6 +23.8 +27.7 +18.4
(Source: Tourism New Zealand, 2012) In addition to the growth in cruise arrivals to New Zealand, there are also considerable economic benefits associated with the sector. According to Market Economics Limited (2012: ii-iii), cruise ship passengers generated $411.8m in direct spending during the 2010/11 season. This was anticipated to increase to $474.5m in 2011/12 (+15.2%). The direct spend generated during the 2010/11 season generated $718.6m in total gross output, in turn contributing to $288.9m to New Zealand’s GDP (in the form of value added) for that period. In addition, the cruise industry sustained, either directly or indirectly, a total of 4,961 ‘employment count’ (as opposed to FTE) jobs. Each passenger whom 2
travels on a cruise ship to New Zealand is estimated to generate almost $1,700 in value added for the economy. In terms of passenger nationality, data obtained by Tourism New Zealand (2012) for the 2011/12 cruise season indicate that 54.8 per cent of cruise passengers to New Zealand are from Australia, 14.8 per cent are from USA, 10.7 per cent are from New Zealand (i.e., domestic visitors), and 7.3 per cent are from UK. 1.1.2 Cruise tourism in Akaroa As noted in Section 1.0 of this report, over the past two seasons the level of cruise tourism in Akaroa has rapidly increased as a result of the damage to Lyttelton Port from the Christchurch earthquake in February 2011. Lyttelton was one of the major ports of calls for the South Island before the earthquake. As a consequence of the earthquake damage to Lyttelton, 29 of the 64 vessels scheduled to berth at the port during the 2011/12 cruise ship season were transferred to Akaroa Harbour for their port visit (Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre, 2011). This immediate response of rescheduling cruise ship arrivals from Lyttelton to Akaroa has subsequently been increased significantly. The following data help to illustrate this growth trend (see Table 2). In the 2009/10 cruise season, Akaroa had 8,754 cruise ship passenger arrivals. In the 2010/11 season, this figure had increased to 21,067 passenger arrivals (+140.7% on the previous season). By 2011/12, this figure had grown to 125,667 passenger arrivals (+496.5% on the previous season) (Tan & Summers, 2012). At the time of writing, official cruise passenger data was yet to be released for the 2012/13 cruise season. However, 86 cruise ship arrivals were scheduled for Akaroa in this season, and forecasts suggest that passenger arrivals would be 143,935 (+14.5% of the previous season). Table 2: Total number of passenger arrivals and percentage change in Akaroa 2008-2013 Year 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 (forecast)
Total passenger arrivals Akaroa 2008-2013 Total Passenger Arrivals 4,882 8,754 21,067 125,667 143,925
% Change +79.3 +140.7 +496.5 +14.5
During the 2011/2012 season the Canterbury region received a significant boost from the cruise industry with $30.2 million worth of value added to the economy (Market Economics Limited, 2012). In Canterbury 558 direct/ indirect FTE jobs were supported by the industry. The three dominant nationalities to arrive in Akaroa during the 2011/2012 season were: Australia (64.3%), USA (16.6%), and UK (5.5%) (Tan & Summers, 2012). The dominance of Australians amongst cruise passengers to Akaroa marks a shift from cruise ship visitors prior to the Canterbury earthquakes (2008/2009) when American passengers (48.4%) dominated arrivals (Tan & Summers, 2012).
3
2.0 Visitor Survey 2.1 Methods Part A of this research was conducted using a surveyor-completed questionnaire with cruise ship passengers in Akaroa and Christchurch. A convenience sampling method was employed whereby cruise ship passengers aged 18 and over were approached and asked to participate in the research. In Akaroa, surveyors were stationed at the main wharf (at the southern end of the township) where passengers boarded the ships’ tenders to return to the cruise ships. In Christchurch, surveyors were stationed outside the Canterbury Museum near the bus stops used by the cruise ship transfer and tour companies. A convenience sampling procedure was utilised, whereby every third person queuing for the tenders (in Akaroa) and the tour buses (In Christchurch) was approached and asked to participate in the survey.
Photograph 3: Princess Cruises welcome area, Akaroa wharf (Emma Stewart)
Photograph 4: Diamond Princess in Akaroa Harbour (Emma Stewart)
Photograph 5: Radiance of the Seas tender approaching Akaroa wharf (Jude Wilson)
A total of 433 surveys were undertaken with cruise ship passengers over a twelve-week period from 25 November 2012 to 17 February 2013. Of these surveys, 289 were completed in Akaroa, and 144 were completed in Christchurch. In order to gain a diverse sample, and to ascertain if there were any differences in the perceptions, experiences and expenditure of cruise ship passengers from different vessels, data collection days were chosen to ensure passengers from a range of ships were sampled 4
in the research. The cruise ships from which passengers were surveyed and the date, location, and number of surveys collected on each data collection day are outlined in Table 3.
Table 3: Passenger survey: summary of collection characteristics (n=430) Date
Survey Location
Ship(s)
Ship Company
25/11/2012
Akaroa
11/12/2012 16/12/2012 20/12/2012 21/12/2012 22/12/2012 23/12/2012 5/1/2013 7/1/2013 8/1/2013 18/1/2013
Christchurch Christchurch Akaroa Akaroa Akaroa Christchurch Akaroa Akaroa Akaroa Akaroa
26/1/2013 27/1/2013 28/1/2013
Akaroa Akaroa Akaroa
28/1/2013 30/1/2013 31/1/2013 3/2/2013 8/2/2013 13/2/2013 15/2/2013 17/2/2013
Christchurch Christchurch Christchurch Christchurch Christchurch Christchurch Christchurch Christchurch
Sea Princess Dawn Princess Sea Princess Celebrity Solstice Dawn Princess Sea Princess Sun Princess Diamond Princess Dawn Princess Sun Princess Celebrity Solstice Oosterdam Dawn Princess Crystal Symphony Radiance of the Seas Silver Whisper Seabourn Odyssey Dawn Princess Dawn Princess Diamond Princess Celebrity Solstice Pacific Pearl Carnival Spirit Sea Princess Oosterdam Diamond Princess
Princess Cruises Princess Cruises Princess Cruises Celebrity Cruises Princess Cruises Princess Cruises Princess Cruises Princess Cruises Princess Cruises Princess Cruises Celebrity Cruises Holland American Line Princess Cruises Crystal Cruises Royal Caribbean Silversea Cruises Seabourn Cruises Princess Cruises Princess Cruises Princess Cruises Celebrity Cruises P&O Carnival Cruises Princess Cruises Holland American Line Princess Cruises
Number of Surveys 14 11 15 10 23 42 21 9 25 20 31 9 21 16 27 3 9 14 10 16 14 14 15 19 10 12
Passengers travelling on the Princess Cruises ships dominate the survey sample (63.2%, n=272). Table 4 shows the percentage of survey respondents and the percentage of total cruise passenger arrivals during all survey days, by individual cruise ship. Altogether, passengers from Princess Cruises were slightly over-represented in the sample (60.3% of the total arrivals); there was also slight over representation of passengers from the Radiance of the Seas, Crystal Symphony and the Seabourn Odyssey. Passengers from the Celebrity Solstice were slightly under-represented.
5
Table 4: Survey respondents by cruise ship (n=430) Ship
Dawn Princess Sea Princess Celebrity Solstice Sun Princess Diamond Princess Radiance of the Seas Oosterdam Crystal Symphony Carnival Spirit Pacific Pearl Seabourn Odyssey Silver Whisper
Percentage of survey respondents 24.2 20.9 12.8 9.5 8.6 6.3 4.4 3.7 3.5 3.3 2.1 0.7
Percentage of total cruise ship passenger arrivals during all survey days 18.9 14.8 16.3 11.3 15.2 4.0 7.3 1.8 5.1 3.5 0.9 0.9
The survey consisted of a four-page questionnaire (refer to Appendix One for the full questionnaire). On average the survey took approximately ten minutes to complete, with some taking as long as 20 minutes. A high response rate was achieved with nine out of ten passengers approached agreeing to participate. Lack of time (in Akaroa many passengers were in a hurry to catch their tender, in Christchurch to board their bus), or the weather conditions were the main reasons given for refusal.
2.1.1 Questionnaire Design The questionnaire was designed to provide an overview of the broader perceptions, experiences and economic impact of cruise ship passengers in Akaroa, Christchurch and Canterbury. To assess cruise ship visitors’ perceptions of Akaroa, Christchurch and Canterbury, Likert scale questions were used. With Likert scales, respondents indicate their attitudes by checking how strongly they agree or disagree with statements, ranging from very positive to very negative attitudes (Zikmund, Ward, Lowe & Winzar, 2007). A range of statements which might be used to describe Christchurch and Akaroa and were presented to respondents who rated them on a five point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). Show cards were used to assist the respondents with the Likert scale questions. To examine the experiences of cruise ship passengers in Akaroa, Christchurch and Canterbury areas respondents were asked to report verbally to surveyors where they had visited and what activities they had participated in during their port visit. They were also asked what they had most and least liked about their visit. To assess the economic impact of cruise ship passengers, respondents were asked how much they had spent during their visit in Akaroa, Christchurch and Canterbury. Six categories of expenditure used: Tour(s); Restaurant meals; Other food, refreshments; Shopping (e.g., souvenirs, gifts); Transportation (excluding Tours); and, Other.
6
A series of open-ended and closed questions were designed to explore the types of activities passengers engage in and their satisfaction with their port visit. Data on respondents’ demographic characteristics, travel party and past experiences with cruise ship travel were collected to gain an insight into their personal profiles and test for any relationships with perceptions, experience or expenditure patterns.
2.1.2 Data Analysis SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software package was used to analyse the data. Responses to the open-ended questions were coded and entered into SPSS. All data were analysed using descriptive statistical techniques. Data were analysed by visit location, spend category and activity type.
2.2 Results and Discussion 2.1.1 Sample characteristics Sixteen nationalities were represented in the survey sample (see Table 5). The majority of respondents were from Australia (70.4%, n=302), the United States of America (15.6%, n=67), the United Kingdom (4.7%, n=20), and Canada (3.5%, n=15). There is clearly a high representation of Australian respondents in this survey, in terms of the proportionality of nationalities represented in the sample. A likely cause of this bias is the sampling methodology. For example, a high proportion of survey days coincided with cruise ships from the Princess Cruise Line in port. The Princess Line Cruises depart from Australia ports; the stakeholder interview data also confirmed that these ships carry a significant number of Australian passengers. Table 5: Nationality of survey respondents (n=433) Nationality of respondents Australia USA UK Canada New Zealand Italy Vietnam Austria Macedonia Philippines China Papua New Guinea Malaysia Germany Singapore South Africa
Percentage 70.4 15.6 4.7 3.5 1.9 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Frequency 302 67 20 15 8 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7
The survey sample is more heavily weighted toward female respondents (56.5%, n=243) than male respondents (43.5%, n=187). It is unclear what impact, if any, this gender imbalance has on the research findings. More than one-half of all respondents were over years 60 of age (see Figure 1). The most commonly identified age groups are ‘60–69 years’ (35.3%, n=152), and ‘over 70 years’ (25.1%, n=108). There were very few respondents below the age of 40 years (8.3%, n=36). Figure 1: Age groups of respondents (n=430) Age group of respondents 152
Number of respondents
160 140 120
108
100 75
80
59
60 40 20
16
16
20-29
30-39
4
0 18-19
40-49
50-59
60-69
Over 70
Age group
Respondents were asked to provide an indication of their travel party. A majority of respondents were travelling with a partner or spouse (52.2%, n=224) or ‘family’ (22.9%, n=99). A further 14.2 per cent (n=61) were travelling with ‘family and friends’, and 8.4 per cent (n=36) were travelling with ‘friends’. Only 2.1 per cent (n=9) of respondents indicated they were travelling alone. Respondents were also asked to provide information about their previous cruise ship experience. Of the 433 respondents, a significant proportion had been on a cruise before (69.3%, n=298) when compared with those whom had not (30.7%, n=132). Those respondents whom had been on a cruise before were then asked to indicate how many cruises in total they had been on (see Figure 2 below). The answers provided ranged from ‘once’ to ‘more than 20’. A total of 19.9 per cent (n=60) had been on a cruise twice before, 35.9 per cent (n=108) had been on ‘three to five’ cruises, and 23.6 per cent (n=71) had been on ‘six to ten’ cruises before.
8
Figure 2: Number of previous cruises for respondents (n=301) How many cruises have you been on? Number of respondents
120
108
100 71
80
60
60 40
23
22
20
17
0 Once
Twice
3-5
6-10
11-20
More than 20
Number of cruises
Respondents were also asked whether or not they had been to Akaroa or Christchurch before this trip. For the majority of respondents this was their first visit to Akaroa and Christchurch (65.8%, n=283). Less than one per cent of respondents (0.9%, n=4) had been only to Akaroa previously, while 18.1 per cent (n=78) had been only to Christchurch previously. In addition to this, a number of respondents indicated they had previously visited both Akaroa and Christchurch (15.1%, n=65).
2.2.2 Decision-making for organised tours Respondents were asked about how and where they made their decisions about which activities they would undertake during their shore visit. There were four options provided to respondents (see Figure 3). A majority of respondents (51.9%, n=222) indicated that they made their decision about activities ‘once they arrived in Akaroa Township’. One-hundred and nine respondents (25.5%) decided on their activities ‘while on board’, while a further 77 respondents (18%) ‘researched and/or booked activities before leaving home’. Twenty respondents (4.7%) used ‘a combination’ of these options to make their decisions about activities to undertake while in port. It is worth noting that it is likely that the activities they chose had some bearing on when and where they made their decision. For example, it is likely that respondents who went on the Tranz Alpine train journey to Arthur’s Pass would have needed to have made their decision about the activity prior to arriving in Akaroa. Analysis was also undertaken to determine if there were differences in response between those whom stayed in Akaroa during their port visit and those whom travelled to locations outside of Akaroa. There is a significant difference between those whom stayed in Akaroa and those whom left in respect to when they researched, booked, and decided upon their activities for the day. Those whom stayed in Akaroa, for example, were more than twice as likely to have made activities decisions once they arrived in Akaroa Township. The reverse was the case for those whom left Akaroa, with twice as many making their decisions either before leaving home or on board the ship (i.e., before coming ashore in Akaroa).
9
Figure 3: Decision-making about activities (n=428) How did you choose your activity? 4.7% 18%
Research and/or book activities at home Decide on activities while onboard
51.9%
25.5%
Make decision about activities once they are in Akaroa Use a combination to make decision about activities
Respondents were asked whether or not they had been on an organised tour during their port visit. This includes tours both within and beyond Akaroa. Responses were relatively even, with 47.7 per cent (n=205) indicating that they had been on an organised tour, while the remainder replied that they had not (52.3%, n=225). Of those respondents whom had been on an organised tour, a variety of tours were identified (see Table 6). The activity or tour most commonly identified by respondents was ‘Christchurch On Your Own’ (27.9%, n=55). This is a tour operated by Princess Line Cruises and, as such, its popularity is likely to be influenced by the high proportion of the sample travelling on Princess Line ships. The number of respondents who indicated undertaking this activity was more than twice the number for the next most commonly identified activity: ‘Red Zone Bus Tour’ (11.2%, n=22). A number of other activities, including ‘Wildlife Harbour Cruise’ and ‘Christchurch and Countryside Farm Tour’, were also popular with respondents. No specific assessment was made about quality of experience regarding any of these activities.
Table 6: Organised tours undertaken by respondents (n=197) Tour Christchurch On Your Own Red Zone Bus Tour Wildlife Harbour Cruise Christchurch and Countryside Farm Tour Double Decker Bus Tour Historic Akaroa Walk Local Akaroa Bays Sightseeing Tour Vintage Car Tour Mandalay Farm and Banks Peninsula Christchurch and Antarctic Centre
Percentage 27.9 11.2 9.6 9.1 5.6 4.6 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6
Frequency 55 22 19 18 11 9 8 8 7 7
10
2.2.3 Destinations visited Respondents were asked a range of questions about the places they visited and activities they engaged in during their stay. The first question asked if respondents had left Akaroa Township during their port visit, and if so to identify the locations they had visited. Of the 422 respondents whom answered this question, 50 per cent (n=211) stayed in Akaroa during their port visit. A further 39 per cent of respondents (n=167) visited Christchurch, eight per cent (n=35) visited locations on Banks Peninsula (e.g., the Hilltop Hotel, Barry’s Bay), and two per cent visited locations further afield in Canterbury (e.g., Arthur’s Pass, Waimakariri River, Woodend). It is important to note that this finding is necessarily influenced by the methodology utilised in this research project. Specifically, of the 433 surveys collected in this study, a total of 144 were collected in Christchurch. As such, it is not possible to infer from this finding that 50 per cent of all cruise ship visitors to Akaroa remain in Akaroa Township. Rather, the only conclusion that the research methodology supports on this point is that 50 per cent of respondents in this research sample remained in Akaroa Township during their port visit. Notwithstanding this methodological constraint, it is still possible to analyse the data to reveal a range of visitor characteristics and patterns. The respondents whom remained in Akaroa Township during their port visit undertook a range of activities (see Table 7). The most commonly identified activity undertaken by these respondents was ‘walking around Akaroa’ (88.2%, n=186). The next most commonly identified activities in Akaroa were ‘eating and drinking’ (59.2%, n=125), and ‘shopping’ (56.9%, n=120). An additional two activities were identified by respondents to a lesser degree. These were ‘general sightseeing (27%, n=57), and ‘guided tours’ (20.4%, n=43). Within these two activity categories, respondents identified specific tours and sightseeing activities. For general sightseeing, respondents mentioned ‘visiting the Akaroa lighthouse’ (6.6%, n=14), ‘looking at houses and gardens’ (6.6%, n=14), and ‘visiting the Giant’s House’ (5.2%, n=11). For guided tours, respondents mentioned ‘walking tours’ (3.3%, n=7), ‘vintage car tours’ (3.3%, n=7), and ‘wildlife tours’ (2.8%, n=6).
Table 7: Activities undertaken by respondents in Akaroa (n=211) Activity Walking around Akaroa Eating and drinking Shopping General sightseeing Guided tour (Multiple response question)
Percentage 88.2 59.2 56.9 27.0 20.4
Frequency 186 125 120 57 43
Respondents whom travelled to Christchurch during their port visit undertook a broader range of activities (see Table 8). This is likely to be a function, at least in part, of the larger number of activities available in Christchurch for visitors. Of the activities most commonly identified by respondents, five in particular stood out: the ‘Botanic Gardens’ (56.9%, n=95), ‘Re: START Container Mall’ (56.9%, n=95), ‘earthquake-related sites’ (55.7%, n=93), and the ‘Canterbury Museum’ (55.1%, n=92), as well as ‘walking around the city’ (47.9%, n=80). Additional activities such as ‘eating and drinking’ (36.6%, n=61) were also identified by respondents whom visited in Christchurch.
11
Table 8: Activities undertaken by respondents in Christchurch (n=167) Activity Botanic Gardens ReSTART Container Mall Visiting earthquake sites (including Cathedral) Canterbury Museum Walking around Christchurch Eating and drinking Shopping Going on a tour (unspecified) Antarctic Centre (Multiple response question)
Percentage 56.9 56.9 55.7 55.1 47.9 36.6 17.4 13.1 4.2
Frequency 95 95 93 92 80 61 29 22 7
A total of 35 respondents indicated that they visited locations on Banks Peninsula other than Akaroa Township during their port visit (see Table 9). Approximately one-half of these respondents (51.4%, n=18) stated that they had been on ‘a farm visit in Banks Peninsula’ during their port visit. A further 37.1 per cent (n=13) had visited ‘the Hilltop Tavern’, which overlooks Akaroa Harbour and affords a scenic view of the surrounding countryside. Other activities identified by these respondents included visiting ‘the Barry’s Bay Cheese Factory’ (14.3%, n=5), and visiting an ‘unspecified look-out over Akaroa’ (14.3%, n=5). It is possible that this unspecified look-out might be the Hilltop Tavern, however the data does not allow for a definitive answer on this point.
Table 9: Activities undertaken by respondents in Banks Peninsula (n=35) Activity Farm visit Hilltop Cheese factory Look out (Akaroa) (Multiple response question)
Percentage 51.4 37.1 14.3 14.3
Frequency 18 13 5 5
Nine respondents indicated that they had travelled to locations in Canterbury hinterland and alpine regions during their port visit (see Table 10). It is important to note that the relatively small number of respondents in this cohort makes it difficult to extend the findings of activities undertaken to generalities. Nonetheless, it is useful to know what types of activities these respondents participated in during their Canterbury visit. As such, the most commonly identified activity was ‘jet boating on the Waimakariri River’ (55.6%, n=5), going on a ‘train journey to Arthur’s Pass’ (55.6%, n=5), and ‘taking a helicopter flight/tour to various areas within the Canterbury region’ (33.3%, n=3). Table 10: Activities undertaken by respondents in Canterbury (n=9) Activity Jet boat Train (Arthur’s Pass) Helicopter (Multiple response question)
Percentage 55.6 55.6 33.3
Frequency 5 5 3
12
As a corollary to the destinations visited during the port visit question, respondents whom stayed in Akaroa were asked ‘why did you choose not to visit Christchurch today?’ (see Table 11). This question was asked in order to gain a better understanding of the range of reasons, motivations and issues which may preclude cruise ship passengers from travelling on to more distant locations during their visit. The most commonly identified reason for not travelling on to Christchurch related to the distance (and time required) from Christchurch from Akaroa (42.6%, n=90). The issue of travel time and distance from Akaroa to Christchurch, and the associated characteristics of the ride (e.g., uncomfortable bus journey), is noted later in this results section, particularly as it relates to aspects least enjoyed by respondents visiting Christchurch. Given that most cruise ship passengers are in port for one day only, it is reasonable to suggest there may be a distance decay component relating to the propensity of cruise ship passengers to visit particular locations during their stay. Other reasons for respondents not visiting Christchurch included: ‘I have been to Christchurch before’ (24.6%, n=52), ‘the earthquake damage put me off visiting Christchurch’ (20.9%, n=44), and ‘I am doing other activities in Akaroa already’ (17.1%, n=36). In addition to these reasons, a number of respondents indicated that they wanted to use the Akaroa port visit to rest and relax (8.5%, n=18). This suggests that there is likely to be a proportion of cruise ship passengers whom do not wish to have their port visit dominated by organised tours and activities. It is also of interest to note that a small number of respondents stated that they were not aware of opportunity to visit Christchurch during their port visit (7.1%, n=15). This finding may suggest the need for destination managers to improve conduits of information for cruise ship passengers. Table 11: Reasons given for not travelling to Christchurch during the port visit (n=211) Item Too far to travel/not enough time Been there before Earthquake damage put me off going (sad) Doing other things in Akaroa/Banks Peninsula/Canterbury Resting/relaxing in Akaroa Didn’t know about tours to Christchurch Too difficult (disabilities/large groups/elderly) Organised tours to Christchurch too expensive Too late off the ship to catch the bus/shuttle No reason Other ‘Other’ includes: didn’t want to go, no rental cars available (Multiple response question)
Percentage 42.6 24.6 20.9 17.1 8.5 7.1 5.2 4.7 3.8 3.8 5.7
Frequency 90 52 44 36 18 15 11 10 8 8 12
2.2.4 Most enjoyed aspects of destinations visited Respondents were then asked what they enjoyed most about the destinations they visited during their port visit. This question was asked in order to gain a clearer understanding about the range of factors which are likely to impact positively on the destination experience of cruise ship passengers. The findings for this section are categorised according to the two main destinations visited by respondents: Akaroa and Christchurch. 13
Akaroa A range of items were identified by respondents regarding what they most enjoyed about their visit to Akaroa Township (see Table 12). The two most commonly identified items, by some considerable margin, were the ‘scenery’ (42.2%, n=89) and Akaroa being a ‘pretty town to visit’ (34.6%, n=73). These two items were further complemented by the third most commonly identified item: the relaxed village atmosphere of Akaroa (19.9%, n=42). Taken together, these three items suggest that the scenic location of Akaroa, combined with the attractive townscape and relaxed pace of the village, provide cruise ship tourists with an agreeable destination setting from which to embark upon any number of activities. Additional items of significance identified included: ‘friendly people’ (15.6%, n=33), the ‘weather’ (15.1%, n=32), and ‘a good range of activities and attractions’ (14.7%, n=31). Table 12: Most enjoyed aspects of Akaroa Township visit (n=211) Item Scenery A pretty town Relaxed village atmosphere Friendly people Weather (good) Activities/attractions Shopping/restaurants/cafes Sightseeing/wandering around the town Everything Other ‘Other’ includes: French ‘flavour’, ‘nothing’. (Multiple response question)
Percentage 42.2 33.6 19.9 15.6 15.2 14.7 11.0 7.1 3.3 7.6
Frequency 89 73 42 33 32 31 23 15 7 16
Christchurch As was the case for Akaroa, respondents also identified a range of items they most enjoyed about their visit to Christchurch (see Table 13). When compared with the items identified for Akaroa, there appears to be a more even spread of responses over a broader range of items. The most commonly identified item by respondents regarding Christchurch was ‘visiting earthquake sites/recovery’ (26.5%, n=56). This was followed by ‘scenery’ (18.4%, n=39), although it must be noted that many respondents whom identified this item spoke of the scenery in reference to the journey from Akaroa to Christchurch (and return). As such, respondents appear to consider the scenery observed during their journey to and from Christchurch as being a prominent, rather than incidental, component of their city visit. Another item which was identified commonly by respondents as being most enjoyable about their Christchurch visit was ‘having a good tour experience’ (18.0%, n=38). These tour experiences included interactive farm tours, as well as more general sightseeing coach tours around the city and its hinterlands, including Lyttelton Harbour. As a corollary to this item, a number of respondents (5.2%, n=11) also identified ‘having a high quality commentary’ during such tours as being an enjoyable part of their visitor experience in Christchurch. When taken together, this finding suggests that organised tours, and the associated components of that particular tourism product (e.g., 14
interpretation/information/commentary), form an important factor in the evaluation process of cruise ship tourists. In addition to these items, other items commonly identified by respondents included: ‘Christchurch is a pretty city’ (11.8%, n=25), visiting the Botanic Gardens (11.8%, n=25) and the ‘weather’ (10.0%, n=21). Table 13: Most enjoyed aspects of Christchurch visit (n=211) Item Percentage Frequency Visiting earthquake sites/seeing the ‘recovery’ 26.5 56 Scenery (including the journey from Akaroa) 18.4 39 A good tour experience 18.0 38 A pretty city 11.8 25 Botanic Gardens 11.8 25 Weather (good) 10.0 21 Canterbury Museum 9.0 19 Friendly people 7.1 15 Visiting the Re: Start Container Mall 5.7 12 Commentary during tour/activity 5.2 11 Everything 5.2 11 Sightseeing/wandering around the city 4.7 10 Other 5.7 12 ‘Other’ includes: Visiting friends and family, reminiscing (returning ‘home’), city heritage (Multiple response question)
2.2.5 Least enjoyed aspects of destinations visited The survey asked respondents to identify the things they liked least about the destinations they visited during their port visit. This question was asked in order to gain an understanding of the things which were likely to have detracted from the overall destination experience of these visitors. In doing so, it may be possible to identify areas of potential ‘weakness’ or visitor dissatisfaction. As was the case with the previous section, the findings for this section are categorised according to the two main destinations visited by respondents: Akaroa and Christchurch. Akaroa In response to this survey item, an overwhelming majority of respondents (74.4%, n=157) stated that there was ‘nothing’ they enjoyed least about their Akaroa Township visit (see Table 14). This is an important finding for destination managers in Akaroa, as it suggests that most respondents were unable to identify any specific aspect of their visit which was displeasing to them. Of the other items identified by respondents as being least enjoyable, the [bad/windy] weather appeared to be the most prominent (10.0%, n=21). This item is clearly outside of the control of destination managers in Akaroa. However it does suggest that visitor experiences in Akaroa might be vulnerable, at least to some degree, to the vagaries of inclement weather. This is especially so, given the characteristics of many Akaroa-based visitor activities and attractions (e.g., harbour/wildlife cruises, walking around the town, general sightseeing). It is interesting to note that ‘[good] weather’ was identified above as being something a number of respondents enjoyed most about their visit to Akaroa. A number of other items were also identified by respondents, albeit at a very low level of response.
15
Table 14: Least enjoyed aspects of Akaroa visit (n=211) Item Percentage Frequency Nothing 74.4 157 Weather (bad) 10.0 21 Too crowded 2.8 6 Expensive 1.9 4 Not being able to do planned activities in Akaroa 1.9 4 Closed shops/banks 1.4 3 Poor service in shops 1.4 3 Other 6.2 13 ‘Other’ includes: no rental cars in Akaroa, unattractive beach, not enough things to do and see (Multiple response question) Christchurch The question of ‘what did you enjoy least about your visit?’ was also asked to respondents whom travelled to Christchurch during their port visit (see Table 15). As was the case with responses for Akaroa, the most commonly identified item was ‘nothing’ (63.0%, n=133). That is to say, 63 per cent of respondents stated that there was ‘nothing’ they enjoyed least about their visit to Christchurch. This item was the most prominent of all items mentioned by respondents by some considerable margin. As such, this finding indicates that cruise ship passengers whom participated in this survey appear to be largely satisfied with their Christchurch (and, for that matter, Akaroa) destination experience. The next most commonly identified items enjoyed least by respondents were: ‘not being able to spend more time in Christchurch’ (7.6%, n=16), and an ‘uncomfortable and/long bus ride from Akaroa to Christchurch’ (7.6%, n=16). Taken together, these two items are indicative of the relatively distant geographic position of Christchurch from Akaroa. Although the 90 minute bus journey may not appear at first glance to be particularly onerous journey, the time constraints associated with day-trip visits for cruise ship passengers berthed in Akaroa Harbour are significant. As such, a threehour return bus journey to Christchurch, on particularly winding and sometimes narrow roads, represents an unpleasant experience for some respondents. A number of respondents also identified the ‘[bad] weather’ and ‘visiting earthquake sites (sad)’ as being aspects they enjoyed least about their visit to Christchurch (each 6.6%, n=14). As was noted above for Akaroa, the ‘[good] weather’ was an aspect identified by a number of respondents as being what they enjoyed most about their visit to Christchurch. Table 15: Least enjoyed aspects of Christchurch visit (n=211) Item Percentage Frequency Nothing 63.0 133 Not able to spend enough time in Christchurch 7.6 16 Uncomfortable/long bus ride from Akaroa 7.6 16 Weather (bad) 6.6 14 Visiting earthquake sights (sad) 6.6 14 Not enough things to see and do in Christchurch 4.3 9 Other 3.3 7 ‘Other’ includes: expensive, hazardous roads, too much walking. (Multiple response question) 16
2.2.6 Visitor spending during their Akaroa port visit This section reports on the spending data obtained from all respondents in the survey. It is important to note that this includes those respondents whom spent ‘nothing’ (i.e., $0) during their port visit, as well as those whom spent ‘something’ (i.e., >$0). As such, average (mean) spending data are provided for all respondents (in total and by location), as well as for those respondents whom spent something (in total and by location) during their port visit. Total spending Overall, the total average (mean) spend of all respondents during their Akaroa port visit was $129.26 (n=430). For respondents whom stayed in Akaroa during their port visit, this average (mean) spend figure was $117.90 (n=208). For visitors whom travelled to locations outside of Akaroa (i.e., Banks Peninsula, Christchurch, and Canterbury), the average (mean) spend per respondent was $141.55 (n=209). The difference in the spend value between these two figures is likely to be a function of the transportation component associated with travelling to and/or activities undertaken in locations outside of Akaroa Township. Total spend figures were then collapsed into spending bands in order to provide a clearer understanding of how the spend value is distributed across the entire range of visitor spending. This information is provided by destination: Akaroa, Christchurch, Banks Peninsula, and Canterbury (see Figure 4). These findings indicate that the further that respondents travel outside of Akaroa Township, the more likely their spending ‘profile’ is likely to shift towards higher spending bands. For example, 38.4 per cent (n=81) of respondents whom stayed in Akaroa spend $50 or less during their port visit. For Banks Peninsula respondents this figure was 25.7 per cent (n=9), Christchurch respondents this figure was 2.4 per cent (n=4), and for Canterbury respondents this figure was 11.1 per cent (n=1). These data were analysed further in order to gauge the proportion of respondents whom actually spent money during their Akaroa port visit. Of those respondents whom remained in Akaroa Township, 92.7 per cent (n=196) spent some money during their port visit (as opposed to ‘nothing’). For those respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa Township, this figure was 93.2 per cent (n=205). It is important to note that there are some challenges associated with asking spendingrelated questions of respondents. For example, those respondents whom travelled to locations outside of Akaroa Township would obviously have spent some money during their visit, even if it was limited only to transportation and /or tours. However, they may have made their purchases on board the ship and as such had not considered this to fall within the ‘spend during their visit’ parameter. This is one of the frailties associated with asking spending-related questions of respondents. Of all respondents whom actually spent some money during their port visit, their average (mean) spend was $145.69 (n=205). For those ‘spending’ respondents whom stayed in Akaroa, their average (mean) spend was $127.06 (n=193). The average (mean) spend of ‘spending’ respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa was $145.69 (n=205). As shown in Figure 4, the data indicates a degree of divergence in spending patterns between respondents based on the location visited. For example, ignoring those respondents whom spent nothing, the most commonly identified spending band for respondents whom stayed in Akaroa is $0$50 (n=66). For respondents whom visited Christchurch, the most commonly identified spending 17
band is $51-$100 (n=74). For Banks Peninsula, this band is also $51-$100 (n=13). For respondents whom visited locations in the wider Canterbury region, the most commonly identified spending band is ‘over $300’ (n=3). Figure 4: Total spending for destination locations by spending bands (n=433)
Respondents (%)
Total spending (by location) 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Akaroa (n=211) Christchurch (n=167) Banks Peninsula (n=35) Canterbury (n=9)
Spending band ($)
Spending by category As noted at the beginning of this section, the spending behaviour of respondents can be broken down according to a number of specific categories. These data will now be presented separately. Tours The average (mean) spent on tours per respondent was $47.12 (n=431). For respondents whom stayed in Akaroa, this figure was $31.78 (n=209). For respondents whom travelled to locations outside of Akaroa, this figure was $62.42 (n=209). Total spend figures were then collapsed into spending bands in order to provide a clearer understanding of how the spend value is distributed across the entire range of visitor spending (see Figure 5). These data indicate that those respondents whom stayed in Akaroa and/or visited locations on Banks Peninsula have a higher incidence of ‘no spending’ (i.e., $0) on tours during their port visit. This also appears to be the case for respondents whom went on tours on Banks Peninsula, and as such seems counter-intuitive given the range of Banks Peninsula tours identified in the survey. It may be that respondents who had pre-booked tours did not include the cost of these in the spending they reported. These data were analysed further in order to gauge the proportion of respondents whom actually spent money on tours during their Akaroa port visit. Of those respondents whom remained in Akaroa Township, 36.0 per cent (n=76) spent some money on tours during their port visit. For those respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa Township, this figure was 59.7 per cent (n=126).
18
Of all respondents whom actually spent some money on tours during their port visit, their average (mean) spend was $99.06 (n=205). For those ‘spending’ respondents whom stayed in Akaroa, their average (mean) spend was $89.74 (n=74). The average (mean) spend of ‘spending’ respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa was $104.42 (n=126). As shown in Figure 5, the data indicates a degree of divergence in spending patterns between respondents based on the location visited. For example, ignoring those respondents whom spent nothing, the most commonly identified spending band (tours) for respondents whom stayed in Akaroa is $51-$100 (n=36). For respondents whom visited Christchurch, the most commonly identified spending band is $51-$100 (n=67). For Banks Peninsula, this band is also $51-$100 (n=5). For respondents whom visited locations in the wider Canterbury region, the most commonly identified spending band is ‘over $300’ (n=3). Figure 5: Spending on tours for destination locations by spending bands (n=431) Spending on tours (by location) 70
Respondents (%)
60 50 40 Akaroa (n=211)
30
Christchurch (n=167)
20
Banks Peninsula (n=35)
10
Canterbury (n=9)
0
Spending band ($)
Photograph 6: Tours and transportation Akaroa wharf (Jude Wilson)
Photograph 7: Buses lined up to take tours to Christchurch (Jude Wilson)
19
Transportation Respondents were asked to indicate how much money they spent on ‘transportation’ during their port visit. The average (mean) spent on transportation per respondent was $10.57 (n=431). For respondents whom stayed in Akaroa, this figure was $2.37 (n=211). For respondents whom travelled to locations outside of Akaroa, this figure was $18.61 (n=211). Total spend figures were then collapsed into spending bands in order to provide a clearer understanding of how the spend value is distributed across the entire range of visitor spending (see Figure 6). These data were analysed further in order to gauge the proportion of respondents whom actually spent money on transportation during their Akaroa port visit. Of those respondents whom remained in Akaroa Township, 4.3 per cent (n=9) spent some money on transportation during their port visit. For those respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa Township, this figure was 33.6 per cent (n=71). Of all respondents whom actually spent some money on transportation during their port visit, their average (mean) spend was $56.26 (n=81). For those ‘spending’ respondents whom stayed in Akaroa, their average (mean) spend was $70.86 (n=7). The average (mean) spend of ‘spending’ respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa was $55.30 (n=71). As shown in Figure 6, the data indicates a degree of synergy in spending patterns between respondents based on the location visited. For example, ignoring those respondents whom spent nothing, the most commonly identified spending band (transportation) for respondents whom stayed in Akaroa is $51-$100 (n=6). For respondents whom visited Christchurch, the most commonly identified spending band is $1-$50 (n=44). For Banks Peninsula, this band is also $1-$50 (n=2). All respondents whom visited locations in the wider Canterbury region reported spending nothing (i.e., $0) on transportation. This suggests that the transactions related to transportation during their port visit were made on board the ship via an onshore booking agent. Figure 6: Spending on transportation for destination locations by spending bands (n=431)
Respondents (%)
Spending on transport (by location) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Akaroa (n=211) Christchurch (n=167) Banks Peninsula (n=35) Canterbury (n=9)
Spending band ($)
20
Restaurant meals Respondents were asked to indicate how much money they spent on ‘restaurant meals’ during their port visit. The average (mean) spent on restaurant meals per respondent was $11.34 (n=431). For respondents whom stayed in Akaroa, this figure was $13.90 (n=211). For respondents whom travelled to locations outside of Akaroa, this figure was $8.94 (n=211). Total spend figures were then collapsed into spending bands in order to provide a clearer understanding of how the spend value is distributed across the entire range of visitor spending (see Figure 7). These data were analysed further in order to gauge the proportion of respondents whom actually spent money on restaurant meals during their Akaroa port visit. Of those respondents whom remained in Akaroa Township, 27.5 per cent (n=58) spent some money on restaurant meals during their port visit. For those respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa Township, this figure was 29.4 per cent (n=62). Of all respondents whom actually spent some money on restaurant meals during their port visit, their average (mean) spend was $40.40 (n=121). For those ‘spending’ respondents whom stayed in Akaroa, their average (mean) spend was $51.89 (n=56). The average (mean) spend of ‘spending’ respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa was $30.44 (n=62). As shown in Figure 7, the data indicates a degree of synergy in spending patterns between respondents based on the location visited. For example, ignoring those respondents whom spent nothing, the most commonly identified spending band (restaurant meals) for respondents for all locations (i.e., Akaroa, Christchurch, Bank Peninsula and Canterbury) is $1-$50.
Other food and refreshments Respondents were asked to indicate how much money they spent on ‘other food and refreshments’ during their port visit. The average (mean) spent on other food and refreshments per respondent was $11.13 (n=431). For respondents whom stayed in Akaroa, this figure was $12.20 (n=209). For respondents whom travelled to locations outside of Akaroa, this figure was $10.31 (n=211). Total spend figures were then collapsed into spending bands in order to provide a clearer understanding of how the spend value is distributed across the entire range of visitor spending (see Figure 8). These data were analysed further in order to gauge the proportion of respondents whom actually spent money on other food and refreshments during their Akaroa port visit. Of those respondents whom remained in Akaroa Township, 64.9 per cent (n=137) spent some money on other food and refreshments during their port visit. For those respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa Township, this figure was 62.6 per cent (n=132). Of all respondents whom actually spent some money on food and other refreshments during their port visit, their average (mean) spend was $17.50 (n=274). For those ‘spending’ respondents whom stayed in Akaroa, their average (mean) spend was $18.88 (n=135). The average (mean) spend of ‘spending’ respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa was $16.48 (n=132).
21
As shown in Figure 8, the data indicates a degree of synergy in spending patterns between respondents based on the location visited. For example, ignoring those respondents whom spent nothing, the most commonly identified spending band (food and other refreshments) for respondents for all locations (i.e., Akaroa, Christchurch, Bank Peninsula and Canterbury) is $1-$50.
Figure 7: Spending on restaurant meals for destination locations by spending bands (n=431) Spending on restaurant meals (by location) 80
Respondents (%)
70 60 50 40
Akaroa (n=211)
30
Christchurch (n=167)
20
Banks Peninsula (n=35)
10
Canterbury (n=9)
0
Spending band ($)
Figure 8: Spending on other food and refreshment for destination locations by spending bands (n=431) Spending on food and other refreshments (by location) 80
Respondents (%)
70 60 50 40
Akaroa (n=211)
30
Christchurch (n=167)
20
Banks Peninsula (n=35)
10
Canterbury (n=9)
0
Spending band ($)
22
Shopping and souvenirs Respondents were asked to indicate how much money they spent on ‘shopping and souvenirs’ during their port visit. The average (mean) spent on shopping and souvenirs per respondent was $47.38 (n=431). For respondents whom stayed in Akaroa, this figure was $54.74 (n=209). For respondents whom travelled to locations outside of Akaroa, this figure was $41 (n=211). Total spend figures were then collapsed into spending bands in order to provide a clearer understanding of how the spend value is distributed across the entire range of visitor spending (see Figure 9). These data were analysed further in order to gauge the proportion of respondents whom actually spent money on shopping and souvenirs during their Akaroa port visit. Of those respondents whom remained in Akaroa Township, 60.2 per cent (n=127) spent some money on shopping and souvenirs during their port visit. For those respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa Township, this figure was 51.2 per cent (n=108). Of all respondents whom actually spent some money on shopping and souvenirs during their port visit, their average (mean) spend was $86.90 (n=235). For those ‘spending’ respondents whom stayed in Akaroa, their average (mean) spend was $92.27 (n=124). The average (mean) spend of ‘spending’ respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa was $80.10 (n=108). As shown in Figure 9, the data indicates a degree of synergy in spending patterns between respondents based on the location visited. For example, ignoring those respondents whom spent nothing, the most commonly identified spending band (shopping and souvenirs) for respondents for all locations (i.e., Akaroa, Christchurch, Bank Peninsula and Canterbury) is $1-$50.
Figure 9: Spending on shopping and souvenirs for destination locations by spending bands (n=431) Spending on shopping and souvenirs (by location) 60
Respondents (%)
50 40 30
Akaroa (n=211)
20
Christchurch (n=167)
10
Banks Peninsula (n=35) Canterbury (n=9)
0
Spending band ($)
23
‘Other’ spending Respondents were also provided an opportunity to indicate how much money they spent on ‘other’ unspecified items and/or activities during their port visit. The average (mean) spent on other items/activities per respondent was $7.58 (n=431). For respondents whom stayed in Akaroa, this figure was $10.06 (n=209). For respondents whom travelled to locations outside of Akaroa, this figure was $5.20 (n=211). Total spend figures were then collapsed into spending bands in order to provide a clearer understanding of how the spend value is distributed across the entire range of visitor spending (see Figure 10). These data were analysed further in order to gauge the proportion of respondents whom actually spent money on ‘other’ during their Akaroa port visit. Of those respondents whom remained in Akaroa Township, 15.6 per cent (n=33) spent some money on ‘other’ during their port visit. For those respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa Township, this figure was 9.5 per cent (n=20). Of all respondents whom actually spent some money on ‘other’ unspecified items during their port visit, their average (mean) spend was $60.46 (n=54). For those ‘spending’ respondents whom stayed in Akaroa, their average (mean) spend was $65.72 (n=32). The average (mean) spend of ‘spending’ respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa was $54.85 (n=20). As shown in Figure 10, the data indicates a degree of synergy in spending patterns between respondents based on the location visited. For example, ignoring those respondents whom spent nothing, the most commonly identified spending band (‘other’) for respondents for all locations (i.e., Akaroa, Christchurch, Bank Peninsula and Canterbury) is $1-$50.
Figure 10: Spending on ‘other’ unspecified items/activities for destination locations by spending bands (n=431)
Respondents (%)
Spending on 'other' (by location) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Akaroa (n=211) Christchurch (n=167) Banks Peninsula (n=35) Canterbury (n=9)
Spending band ($)
24
Taken together, the above findings suggest that visitor spending behaviour and patterns might be influenced to some degree by the types of locations visited during the cruise ship port visit. Specifically, respondents whom stayed in Akaroa spent considerably less money on tours and transportation than those whom visited locations outside of the township. Conversely, respondents whom stayed in Akaroa appear to have spent at greater levels on categories such as restaurant meals, other food and refreshments, and shopping and souvenirs.
2.2.7 Responses to destination specific statements Respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they disagreed or agreed with a range of statements about Akaroa, and also about Christchurch; for each location seven statements were provided. The list of statements offered for Akaroa and Christchurch are largely similar, with only two variations between the two lists in order to accommodate for the unique characteristics of Akaroa Township. These data provide some insight into how respondents regarded Akaroa and Christchurch as visitor destinations. The statements, and the responses to each, are presented separately for Akaroa and Christchurch. Akaroa statements Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with a range of statements describing the characteristics of Akaroa (see Figure 11). Overall, the findings suggest that Akaroa is regarded favourably by respondents in this survey. Respondents agreed that ‘Akaroa has a beautiful natural landscape’ (100%, n=247), that ‘Akaroa is a friendly town’ (98.4%, n=242), and that ‘Akaroa is a safe destination’ (97.1%, n=239). There was also strong agreement with ‘Akaroa has interesting heritage buildings’ (84.9%, n=202), ‘Akaroa has a French flavour’ (67.5%, n=164), and ‘Akaroa has a range of things to see and do’ (65.2%, n=161). There was strong disagreement to the statement ‘Akaroa is an expensive destination’ (56.3%, n=135).
Figure 11: Statements describing Akaroa (data reported as a percentage of respondents) Akaroa has a French flavour (n=243) 37 30.5 18.1 13.6 0.8 Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Strongly agree
25
Akaroa has a wide range of things to see and do (n=247) 49.8
19.4
15.4
13.8 1.6 Strongly disgree
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Strongly agree
Akaroa is an expensive destination (n=240) 47.5
22.1
17.5
8.8
Strongly disagree
4.2 Disagree
Neither
Agree
Strongly agree
Akaroa has interesting heritage buildings (n=238) 52.1 32.8 12.2 0
2.9
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Strongly agree
Akaroa has a beautiful natural landscape (n=247) 91.5
0
0
0
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither
8.5 Agree
Strongly agree
26
Akaroa is a safe destination (n=246) 57.7 39.4
0
0.8
2
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Strongly agree
Akaroa is a friendly town (n=246) 81.7
16.7 0
0.4
1.2
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Strongly agree
Christchurch Respondents were also asked to indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed with a range of statements about Christchurch. As was the case with the Akaroa, these statements were designed to provide some insight into how respondents regarded Christchurch as a visitor destination (see Figure 12). The results indicate that respondents view Christchurch city in a favourable light. Overall, the responses to all of the statements about Christchurch appear to reflect a high level of satisfaction with the destination characteristics identified in each. Respondents agreed that ‘Christchurch is a friendly city’ (96%, n=168), that ‘Christchurch has a beautiful natural landscape’ (93.1%, n=163), that ‘Christchurch has interesting heritage buildings’ (92.6%, n=162), and that ‘Christchurch is a safe city’ (89.1%, n=155). In addition, respondents also agreed that ‘Christchurch has a lot of things to see and do’ (75.7%, n=125), and that ‘Christchurch is a lively place’ (64.7%, n=112). Respondents strongly disagreed with the statement that ‘Christchurch is an expensive place to visit’ (54.2%, n=84).
27
Figure 12: Statements describing Christchurch (data reported as a percentage of respondents) Christchurch is a lively place (n=173) 49.1
19.7
15.6
10.4
5.2 Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Strongly agree
Christchurch has a lot to see and do (n=169) 56.2
19.5
16.6 6.5
1.2 Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Strongly agree
Christchurch is an expensive destination (n=155) 45.8
19.4
20
8.4
6.5
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Strongly agree
Christchurch has interesting heritage buildings (n=175)
1.1
1.1
5.1
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither
48
44.6
Agree
Strongly agree
28
Christchurch has beautiful natural landscapes (n=175) 55.4 37.7
0.6
1.1
5.1
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Strongly agree
Christchurch is a safe destination (n=174) 54.6 34.5
0
2.3
Strongly disagree
Disagree
8.6 Neither
Agree
Strongly agree
Christchurch is a friendly city (n=175) 62.9 33.1 0
0.6
3.4
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Strongly agree
2.2.8 Visitor satisfaction Respondents were asked a range of questions relating to their level of satisfaction with their port visit to Akaroa. Included in this were questions about overall satisfaction, their likelihood to return to Akaroa, and their likelihood to recommend Akaroa as a destination to family and friends. In total, a large proportion of respondents were extremely satisfied with their Akaroa port visit (64%, n=264). A further 29 per cent of respondents (n=117) were quite satisfied. Only 1.2 per cent of respondents (n=6) reported being dissatisfied and/or extremely dissatisfied with their Akaroa port visit (see Figure 13).
29
Figure 13: Satisfaction with overall Akaroa port visit (n=413) How satisfied are you with your Akaroa port visit? 1% 6%
0.2%
29%
Extremely satisfied Quite satisfied Neither Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 64%
Respondents were asked to indicate their likelihood to return to Akaroa on a cruise (see Figure 14). Overall, the majority of respondents indicate that they are likely to return to Akaroa on a cruise (58.9%, n=246), with almost twice as many reporting they were ‘absolutely certain’ to do so. Almost one-quarter of respondents (31.6%, n=132) stated that they would not return to Akaroa on a cruise.
Figure 14: Likelihood of returning to Akaroa on a cruise (n=418)
Respondents (%)
Are you likely to return to Akaroa on a cruise? 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
38.3 22.7
20.6 9.6
Absolutely certain to do this
Likely to do this
Not sure
8.9
Unlikly to do Definitely this won't do this
Respondents were then asked to indicate the likelihood that they would visit Akaroa and Christchurch again in the future (see Figures 15 and 16). As was the case above, the majority of 30
respondents (67%, n=280) indicated that they are likely to return to Akaroa in the future. Almost one-quarter of respondents (24.6%, n=102) stated that they would not visit Akaroa again in the future. In the case of Christchurch, a majority of respondents indicated that they would be likely to visit Christchurch again in the future (69.3%, n=289). A considerably smaller number of respondents indicated that they would be unlikely to visit Christchurch again in the future (20.6%, n=86).
Figure 15: Likelihood of visiting Akaroa in the future (n=418)
Respondents (%)
Are you likely to visit Akaroa in the future? 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
41.9 25.1 8.4 Absolutely certain to do this
Likely to do this
Not sure
9.6
15
Unlikly to do Definitely this won't do this
Figure 16: Likelihood of visiting Christchurch in the future (n=417)
Respondents (%)
How likely are you to visit Christchurch in the future? 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
42.7 26.6 10.1
Absolutely certain to do this
Likely to do this
Not sure
7.2
13.4
Unlikly to do Definitely this won't do this
As a corollary to these questions, respondents were also asked about their likelihood to recommend ‘this region’ (i.e., Akaroa, Banks Peninsula, Christchurch, and Canterbury) to family and friends (see Figure 17). This question was asked in order to gain a better understanding of respondents’ overall 31
evaluation of ‘the region’ as a quality visitor destination. A significant majority of respondents indicated that they were ‘absolutely certain’ to recommend the region to family and friends (90.3%, n=374), and a further seven per cent were ‘likely to do this’ (n= 29). Of the 414 valid responses obtained for this question, less than one per cent of respondents (n=4) stated that they would not recommend the region to family and friends. This high level of recommendation helps to verify the findings above relating to overall satisfaction with the Akaroa port visit. Taken together, these findings suggests that Akaroa and the wider Christchurch and Canterbury region is regarded by respondents as being an enjoyable and attractive cruise ship destination. Figure 17: Likelihood of recommending ‘this region’ to family and friends (n=414)
Respondents (%)
How likely are you to recommend this region to family and friends? 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
90.3
7 Absolutely certain to do this
Likely to do this
1.7 Not sure
0.7
0.2
Unlikly to do Definitely this won't do this
2.2.9 Attractions and activities for Akaroa port visits in the future The final section of the survey asked respondents to indicate the activities and attractions they thought would be appealing for future Akaroa port visits. Respondents were provided a list of seven activities and attractions, and were then asked to rate the level of appeal each held for them (see Figure 18). Of the options provided, ‘experiencing local food and wine’ was considered appealing to 84.5 per cent of respondents (n=263). This was followed by ‘visiting a museum’ (66.9%, n=214), ‘experiencing Maori culture (63.3%, n=210), and ‘attending a performing arts event’ (52.7%, n=166). Three of the options provided to respondents were considered, at least in a relative sense, unappealing. For example, ‘going on a winery tour’ was considered appealing to 48.6 per cent of respondents (n=152). Other relatively ‘unappealing’ activities include: ‘visiting an art gallery’ (46.4%, n=145), and ‘going on a farm tour’ (30.4%, n=96).
32
Figure 18: Rating the appeal of activities for future port visits (n=313)
Respondents (%)
How appealing is going on a farm tour? 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
44.6
17.7
15.2
12.7
9.8
Not at all appealing
Quite unappealing
Neither
Quite appealing
Very appealing
How appealing is experiencing local Maori culture? 37.7
40
Respondents (%)
35 30
25.6
25 20 15
16.3 11.8 8.6
10 5 0 Not at all appealing
Quite unappealing
Neither
Quite appealing
Very appealing
Respondents (%)
How appealing is visiting a museum? 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
42.7
24.2 18.5
6.1
Not at all appealing
8.6
Quite unappealing
Neither
Quite appealing
Very appealing
33
Respondents (%)
How appealing is attending a performing arts event? 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
36.5
18.4
20.3 16.2
8.6
Not at all appealing
Quite unappealing
Neither
Quite appealing
Very appealing
How appealing is going on a winery tour? 40
Respondents (%)
35 30 25
25.6 21.1
20
23
19.5
15
10.9
10 5 0 Not at all appealing
Quite unappealing
Neither
Quite appealing
How appealing is experiencing local food and wine?
Respondents (%)
50 40
Very appealing
49.8
34.7
30 20 10
3.2
5.5
6.8
Quite unappealing
Neither
0 Not at all appealing
Quite appealing
Very appealing
34
2.3 Conclusion The visitor survey reported in this section has presented data relating to visitation patterns, spending and experiences of a sample of cruise ship passengers to Akaroa over the 2012–2013 cruise ship season. Overall, the respondents included in this sample appear to be satisfied with their Akaroa port visit experience. This experience includes not only Akaroa Township, but also extends into the wider Christchurch and Canterbury destination catchment area. For the purpose of clarity, data have been presented both in aggregate for all respondents, as well as by location visited during their port visit. This is in order to get a better sense of the specific visitation and spending characteristics of a range of respondent ‘types’ within the survey sample. In terms of visitor spending, although the data presented in this section is not representative of all cruise ship passengers to Akaroa, it nonetheless provides an indication of the possible level of spending (and categories of spend) which might be expected during the Akaroa port visit. The average total spend of all respondents during their Akaroa port visit was $129.26, of which various amounts were apportioned to specific spending categories, such as tours, transportation, restaurant meals, food and other refreshments, shopping and souvenirs, and ‘other’ spending. The level of spending, both overall and by category, appears to be influenced in part by the locations visited and activities undertaken by respondents during their port visit. For example, respondents whom remained in Akaroa Township appear to spend more on ‘shopping and souvenirs’ than those respondents whom visited locations outside of the township. Respondents appear to have a favourable impression of Akaroa and the wider Christchurch and Canterbury region. Respondents reported a high level of satisfaction with their overall port visit, and reported an intention to return to Akaroa and Christchurch at a later date. In addition, respondents also reported a high likelihood of recommending the region to family and friends. Taken together, this suggests that the Akaroa port visit is regarded by respondents in this survey as an interesting and enjoyable cruise ship destination worthy of recommendation to others. The following section will discuss a series of interviews undertaken with selected business operators in Akaroa and Christchurch.
35
3.0 Business Stakeholder Interviews In order to obtain a more comprehensive picture of the value of the cruise ship market, the visitor experience and spending data collected via the visitor surveys were supported by a series of interviews with business stakeholders in both Akaroa and Christchurch.
3.1 Method A total of 21 interviews were undertaken at the end of the cruise ship season (April to early-May 2013). Interviewees were selected to represent the variety of business types represented by the spend categories used in the visitor survey and included:
Businesses operating transport services, tour operators and tourism activity providers; Retailers of both tourism-specific and more general goods; and, Food and drink outlets.
The businesses selected catered primarily to independent cruise ship passengers (FIT). Some interviewees, however, had business interests which represented multiple categories. Table 16 shows the number of interviewees representing each business category. Fourteen interviews were with Akaroa-based businesses and seven with Christchurch-based businesses. The higher number of Akaroa businesses interviewed reflects the focus in these interviews on the economic impacts of independent visitors (i.e., ones who either organise a tour once ashore, or do not take a tour of any type) with the expectation that Akaroa businesses have more engagement with these types of visitors. Table 16: Type of business involvement of interview sample (n=21) Type of business Transport services Tour operator Activity provider Retail - tourism/giftware Retail - general Food & drink outlets
Akaroa 6 2 5 4 4
Christchurch 1 2 2 1 1 1
The majority of interviews were conducted in respondents’ work places and took between 30 and 90 minutes (the longest were subject to customer interruptions). The same interview script (see Appendix Two) was used in all interviews, albeit with some minor variations to allow for variations in the relevance of particular questions to each of business types described above. As a result of these variations, the interview data were analysed thematically (rather than by responses to individual questions) and the results are presented accordingly. It must be noted that the stakeholder interviews were with a selection of business only and, as such, the findings are not necessarily representative of all businesses.
36
3.2 Results The results are reported in seven parts: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Perceptions of the cruise ship visitor market Economic engagement with the cruise ship visitor market Visitor spending Business challenges Experiences of hosting cruise ships in Akaroa Cruise ships in context The visitor experience
An integrated discussion of these results with the visitor survey findings is presented in Section 4 of this report.
3.2.1 Perceptions of the cruise ship visitor market The respondents almost universally agreed that it was highly unpredictable which shipping lines, particular cruises, or types of passengers brought the most economic benefits: “Every boat is different, every market is different - the same boat can come in and be quite different - a few are a bit more exclusive - like the Radiance of the Seas and the Celebrity Solstice - you do get to know them through the season”. A range of interrelated factors and visit characteristics were perceived by respondents to have some impact on economic benefits generated: 1. The nationality or age of visitors a. European or North American visitors were perceived to be a much higher spending market than Australians. b. Within the Australian market, visitors from Melbourne (“more sophisticated”) or Perth (“wealthier”) were preferred over those from Brisbane (a greater number of retired or elderly people and a more “price-driven” market). c. Some nationalities are more time-consuming to deal with. d. American visitors prefer “the hand-held experience.” e. Younger visitors are “more intrepid”. 2. Cruise lines a. May vary in the respect of the wealth and spending capacity of passengers - some ships “more exclusive”. b. Some cruise lines carry a predominance of certain nationalities - e.g., Princess Lines carries more Australians (who were perceived to be lower spenders). 3. Characteristics of a particular cruise a. Longer cruises were generally thought to be less beneficial as people had already paid a lot for their cruise and were perceived to be unwilling to spend more. b. Timing of cruise - e.g., early or late in the cruise ship season, with some respondents reporting that early season cruises were better for spending.
37
c. Direction of the cruise (related in part to its timing) - which port of call Akaroa was, again with mixed views - some respondents thought that being one of the first ports of call was better, while others thought that being one of the last ports of call was preferable. d. Where the passengers had been prior to their Akaroa visit influences their itinerary and product choices (e.g., “if they are coming from Dunedin they have done wildlife”). e. Size of the ship - smaller ships not noticed so much. f. Particular passenger cohorts - e.g., “the gay cruise” with its younger, wealthier demographic with more disposable income was reported as being very good by the majority of Akaroa respondents. While all of the above factors were noted as being of some import, the consensus was that it was impossible to predict how beneficial any particular ship might be and there was no expectation of a ‘good ship’ being repeatedly beneficial; rather it was individual cohorts of passengers that made the most difference. As one respondent noted “every ship has its own mood”. Cruise ship passengers are, however, perceived to be becoming more diverse as cruising increases in popularity. Overall, despite being perceived as ‘low spenders’ Australians were well-liked as they offered opportunities for banter and a familiarity and ease of service that did not occur in interactions with visitors of other nationalities. Visitors from the USA presented challenges around their lack of understanding of New Zealand products (e.g., they take longer to serve) and expectations of being able to spend US dollars on shore. North American visitors were, however, perceived to be a high spending market segment. Several comments were made about cruise ship visitors finding New Zealand expensive as a result of uncertainty about the ‘normal’ price of New Zealand goods; this was particularly a problem if Akaroa was one of their first ports of call in New Zealand. Australian visitors were perceived to be more accepting of New Zealand prices. There was some discussion in interviews around issues associated with having more than one ship in port on any given day; most respondents were of the opinion that it was not the number of ships, but the number of passengers that made the most difference (i.e., four ships might bring fewer passengers than two ships). Of most importance, in respect of potentially increasing the economic benefits for every business, was having a critical mass of people in port.
3.2.2 Economic engagement with the cruise ship visitor market A variety of factors impacted on individual businesses’ level of economic engagement with, and reliance on, the cruise ship visitor market. These included the type of business they represented, their location (i.e., in either Christchurch or Akaroa at the broader scale, and location within Akaroa at the more immediate scale), the size of their business (both physical capacity and product range) and their previous engagement with the cruise ship visitor market. The businesses interviewed fall on a continuum, with those who were primarily tourism focused at one extreme, and those who primarily cater to the local population at the other. The reality for most respondents, however, was that their business catered to both visitors and locals in varying degrees. Further, at the tourism end of the continuum, some businesses focused only on the cruise ship 38
market, while others catered to multiple visitor segments. Many tour, transport and activity businesses also cater to the local population to some degree. Likewise, retail businesses varied between those catering to a primarily the international tourist market (e.g., souvenir shops); those who attracted both international and domestic visitors (e.g., gift shops, art galleries); and those who retailed everyday goods and services (e.g., general stores, pharmacies) to the local population, but who also make some sales of these ‘ordinary goods’ to the various visitor markets.
Photograph 8: Independent operators, Akaroa wharf (Jude Wilson)
Photograph 9: Akaroa food outlet advertising cruise ships special (Jude Wilson)
3.2.3 Visitor spending Specific questions about visitor spending generated considerable discussion around visitors’ behaviour patterns during shore visits - in shops they tended to browse and, even if they did spend money, it was usually on smaller items and incidentals rather than “big ticket items”. Weatherrelated sales - jackets and umbrellas on poor weather days, sun glasses, sunhats and sunscreen popular on sunny days - were common; retailers were also surprised at the number of toiletries and medications they sold to cruise ship passengers. Many of these products were available for sale on board the ships, but were much more expensive. Food and drink outlets reported sales across a wide range of menu and price options, although some products appealed to particular market segments (e.g., the Akaroa fish and chip shop reported strong sales to the otherwise low-spending Australian market). Some activity and tour operators had opened retail outlets within their business to capture more of this visitor spend, and a few pre-existing retail businesses reported changing or expanding their product lines to better suit the demands of the cruise ship market. Many were reluctant to significantly change their product lines however, perceiving that this could compromise their appeal to their primary markets (which, as they pointed out, still generated the majority of their turnover). Some noted that it was not always easy to identify cruise ship visitors as a distinct market segment. This was particularly the case in some retail businesses; passengers visiting attractions independently in Christchurch were also difficult to identify as a distinct market segment. 39
Most respondents reported minimal economic value from crew members. Some thought they had done more business with crew in the first season. Few offered crew discounts, but they did offer tour escorts free admission to attractions and on tours. Many considered discounting to be unfair on those who had paid the full price. The only respondents to specifically report significant amount of engagement with crew was an ethnic Akaroa food outlet which attracted many of the Southeast Asian crew members; while they did not offer discounts they did provide special menu items and “dishes that are ‘Thai’ hot”. Some businesses had benefited from the presence in Akaroa of the various tour companies (e.g., drivers) servicing the cruise ships. While general retailers and food and drink outlets all reported economic benefits from the cruise ship market, in most cases these only contributed between five and 30 per cent of their overall takings. None of those interviewed perceived there to be any significant displacement of other visitor markets on cruise ship days, although some noted that local residents had adapted their shopping times to avoid the most crowded times on cruise ship days. While the cruise ship season was longer than the traditional summer tourist season, most of the Akaroa retail and food outlet respondents noted that they still made more money over the peak domestic holiday season (i.e., the three weeks immediately after Christmas). There were considerable on-going challenges associated with the changed Christchurch business environment as a result of the earthquake. For many, the reality was that any Christchurch baseline was gone, along with any real value in comparing current economic performance with preearthquake circumstances. The loss of the hotel-based visitor market, for example, was significant in respect of one Christchurch tour operator; while they perceived the cruise ship market to be their ‘saviour’, their business survival was totally dependent on the cruise ships continuing to visit the Canterbury region. This had necessitated the development of new products specifically to cater to the Akaroa port call.
Photograph 10: Temporary information centre, Akaroa wharf (Jude Wilson)
Photograph 11: Tour buses Akaroa (Jude Wilson)
Several Christchurch respondents thought that the spending capacity of Christchurch visitors was impacted by having to pay the cost of transportation from Akaroa on top of any other spending. The Canterbury Museum, for example, reported fewer donations, compared with when they hosted 40
cruise ship visitors from Lyttelton. As might be expected, Christchurch received considerably more cruise ship visitors through Lyttelton although the exact impact of the relocation to Akaroa was difficult to measure as so much had changed in Christchurch as a result of the earthquake. The city shopping tours available pre-earthquake, for example, were no longer possible. One Christchurch retailer also noted that the GST-free sales and delivery shipside they offered cruise ship visitors arriving in Lyttelton was also no longer viable with Akaroa as the port. Business practices such as this had also made it easier track sales and thus identify the economic value of the cruise ship market segment. There were also perceived to have been some changes in the nature of the cruise ship visitors’ purchases, with fewer visitors buying clothing and apparel and more interest in (cheaper) souvenir items. However other factors such as the high New Zealand dollar, and the fact that cruising is becoming cheaper and attracting a more diverse market, may be driving these changes. Although a number of tour operators also noted popularity of the cheaper tours they offered, the appeal of these tours was primarily because they were shorter and could be more easily managed within the perceived time constraints of passengers’ shore visits. Those operators dealing directly with inbound wholesalers were able to run much longer (and often more profitable) tours; knowing how many customers to expect also made business planning easier. Independent tour operators reported that they were, however, getting increasing numbers of pre-bookings. The economic benefits for Akaroa tour operators were enhanced by their relatively small size and the flexibility of their product delivery to the cruise ship market. Those running shorter Banks Peninsula tours, for example, commented that passengers taking their tours “don’t have to sacrifice [spending time in] Akaroa”. For Christchurch operators catering to the Akaroa cruise ships market necessitated a more significant financial commitment, but had significant economic value; one Christchurch operator, for example, noted that although “cruise ship visitors only constituted 20 per cent of our gross turnover, the yield from that part of the business was 80 per cent, whereas the other 80 per cent of their business only yielded 30-40 per cent”. The ability of Akaroa to host cruise ships enabled many Akaroa business to survive in the longer term - most conversations around economic value was couched in 12-month business terms, with the cruise ship market described by some as simply being the “the icing on the cake” or “the cream on the top, rather than something you rely on”. This ‘icing’ did however provide considerable business confidence which was manifest in the development of new tour products, expansion of retail product lines and in continuing viable business operations per se.
3.2.4 Business challenges While Akaroa hosted cruise ships pre-earthquake these had primarily been smaller ships, making only occasional port calls. The two post-earthquake summer seasons had brought huge increases in the number of cruise ship visits and passenger numbers disembarking in Akaroa. Some respondents noted a change in how well they were able to cater to this new visitor segment in the second season, compared with the first. This was attributed to having a better understanding of the cruise ship market and thus being able to cater to its needs more successfully. Importantly, for most respondents this generated greater economic benefits in the second season. These changes did not come without some considerable business challenges however.
41
As a result of the move to Akaroa, the cruise ship companies had to “get up to speed quickly” in order to ensure the provision of suitable tours and activities through their wholesalers and on-board sales, from which they make a good deal of their profit. In most cases it was simply a matter of making some logistical adjustments to pre-existing tours and shore visit packages. There was also the opportunity to develop new Akaroa-based products. Whilst by the second season passengers were perceived to be much better informed as to what tours and activities were available (in both Akaroa and Christchurch), most of this information was thought to be gleaned from word of mouth, particularly that generated by online blogs such as Cruise Critic (http://www.cruisecritic.com/) posted by other passengers. There was a widespread perception that the cruise ship companies were giving their passengers incorrect information and that visitors are not fully aware of what is available to them on an Akaroa port visit. Some ships are thought to give passengers incorrect information (e.g., “that what there is to do in Akaroa will only take 40 minutes” or that “nothing will be open in Akaroa”). There is also a widely held perception that the shipping companies actively discourage passengers from exploring independent options. Also, one respondent was of the opinion that the cruise ship companies had “looked at what local tours were operating and copied some of them”. Many of the interview respondents were new to the cruise ship market and although these business operators had ‘learned’ the unpredictability of the cruise ship market from the first season of Akaroa port calls, they reported a variety of on-going issues around accessing this market. Accessing the independent cruise ship visitor market presents considerable challenges for business stakeholders in both Akaroa and Christchurch although, as noted above, there had been some changes in these over time. While by no means applicable to all the businesses interviewed, most of the following were noted more than once:
Business stakeholders in Akaroa perceive there to be significant issues around the logistics of passenger disembarkation for those wishing to visit independently. Passengers can be nervous about managing their shore days and activities - this includes concern about committing to tours when they are unsure about when they can disembark and concerns about not getting back to ship on time. While organised tours (i.e., those arranged through wholesalers or inbound operators) are usually given disembarkation priority, timely disembarkation was also noted as a problem on those occasions when fewer tenders are being used. While most businesses had adjusted their own tour schedules to accommodate the cruise ship disembarkation schedules there were on-going challenges associated with visitors who were late disembarking - some tours are constrained with regard to how long they are able to delay departure. There was some perception in Akaroa that shops at the northern end of the township (i.e., furthest away from the wharf) did not attract as many visitors as those located closest to the wharf, although the provision of the free shuttle had alleviated this issue to some extent. The organisation and systems on the wharf in Akaroa for the independent operators was considered to be better in the second season.
42
Some Akaroa operators found that they could improve their business chances “on the ground” by having tools (e.g., photographs) that showed potential customers what they might see on a particular tour. In Christchurch businesses have more “lead in time”, with tour and activity businesses knowing in advance how many people are “coming over the hill”.
Christchurch respondents also noted a number of issues arising from port arrivals in Akaroa, rather than Lyttelton:
For tour operators, there is considerable “dead running time” which increases business costs and, while this can be built into pricing, it reduces profit margins as often the best-selling tours are at cheaper end with lower profit margins. The long drive from Akaroa, and the nature of that drive, are perceived to put people off visiting Christchurch. Traffic issues in Christchurch more generally - which post-earthquake Christchurch people are used to and (largely) understanding of - are also perceived to impact negatively on the visitor experience. The Christchurch visit time is considerably shortened (compared with when ships docked in Lyttelton) and this impacts significantly on the time visitors have available for tourist attractions and activities. The logistics of staffing on the wharf in Akaroa are challenging for operators based in Christchurch. As one respondent noted: “It is hard to plan for what you need over there as it [how busy you are] depends on the weather and the tenders - like how many are operating and what time the people get off the cruise ships”. Some changes in servicing cruise visits were reported, with Christchurch companies leaving buses in Akaroa overnight on consecutive cruise ship days or having staff stay over - this last option was also noted in respect of generating business for Akaroa accommodation providers.
Overall, despite it becoming a much easier operation by the end of this second season getting the “message to cruise ship passengers on what they are able to do on shore” remained the biggest issue for many businesses. Cruise blogs were seen to be important and influential - and becoming more so - and it was perceived to have taken a season for Akaroa to be “talked about” and for individual business names to become known. This word of mouth is particularly important in respect of activities and tours, which were considered to be most successful when able to be planned - by both the passengers and businesses hosting them - in advance of disembarkation. 3.2.5 Hosting the cruise ships All respondents were familiar with the cruise ship schedules and found it helpful that these were available well in advance of the season. This facilitated some degree of forward planning to enable businesses to successfully host high numbers of visitors on particular days. For businesses catering primarily to independent visitors, however, there is still uncertainty around how many of these passengers they might be expected to accommodate as “we don’t know what the shipping company has on-sold”.
43
Although the cruise ship visitor market has brought more customers, it did not necessitate any significant business changes for the majority of respondents. Many retail and food outlets, however, made some changes in their product lines, opening times and staff numbers. Most of the tour and activity operators interviewed had introduced product changes during the first Akaroa cruise ship season; in this second season they merely ‘tweaked’ their business in respect of marketing and booking systems and sometimes made some minor changes to product delivery. Overall, however, changes to product lines were limited and stocking for the cruise ship visitor market was focused on making sure businesses had plenty of stock on hand. Most noted that this was something they always did (i.e., regardless of the cruise ships visiting) over the busy summer months anyway. A number of the Akaroa businesses commented on the fact that as a “service town” business they were used to carrying a wide range of products and being flexible in their product delivery. Regardless of a number of respondents making changes their product lines, most were reluctant to commit to selling the “cheap souvenirs” they perceived as appealing to the cruise ship visitor market. This reluctance was primarily based on concern about changing their own business core, and many commented that they were “in business for 12 months of the year and have a quite different market for most of that time”; one respondent noted that the “cruise ship market is not big enough to change for”. There were also commonly expressed concerns about “keeping the Akaroa proposition looking different to other destinations and ports in New Zealand”. Catering to the cruise ship market necessitated the employment of extra staff by many businesses. A number of respondents noted that they were flexible enough to be able to pull in extra staff at short notice; larger and more diverse businesses had staff from other branches or divisions of their business they could draw on; in Akaroa many businesses had a pool of available local residents (often retired people) they could engage when necessary. This was of particular benefit in dealing with the uncertainly around exactly how busy a particular cruise ship day might be. For others “getting the staffing right was a challenge, particularly as it is a cost we have to wear on days that we don’t make much money”. For some Akaroa businesses staffing was an issue (and had been for many years). For small businesses, the cruise ship market had wrought a “significant change [in that we] have now been able employ people - for a small business that makes it a viable business”. Others commented on the benefits to the wider Akaroa community of increasing employment in the town. For many, the introduction of the cruise ships engendered the confidence to expand and change their businesses. Others talked about being able to “afford” to employ staff. Many changes were simply a magnification of what they would do in business anyway - monitor change and try and be prepared - the cruise ships just made that “a bit more of an imperative”. As one respondent noted we are “always looking to improve the business - it is not just for the cruise ship visitor market”. Often relatively simple solutions were very effective, such as one of the food outlets offering a ‘package meal’ to cruise ships visitors which saved their staff from having to spend valuable time explaining individual menu items, and presented their customers with an easier decision.
44
The cruise ship market is notable for presenting a bulk of customers in a short period of time. For Akaroa more generally the cruise ship visitor market presents in a “nicely concentrated visitation pattern which leaves little lasting imprint on the town and we don’t have to put up with the visitors overnight”. As another respondent noted, this “was less intrusive on the community”. Another positive was that these visitors do not exacerbate the parking issues associated with other types of visitors to Akaroa. Some Akaroa businesses reported making some minor changes to their opening times on cruise ships days: earlier opening times were instituted to accommodate Christchurch operators and staff and, to a lesser degree, passengers disembarking earlier; some businesses stayed open later in the day if cruise ship visitors were still around. There was also sometimes an opportunity for sales to those passengers returning from tours to destinations outside Akaroa. Opening hours in Christchurch were not an issue as the additional time taken to travel from Akaroa to Christchurch meant that visitor time there was much shorter and more concentrated. For businesses offering tour and attraction products, it was perceived to be easier from both the passenger and business perspectives to have advance bookings in place; as noted above, however, these were not always that easy to generate. Increasing internet bookings and having a targeted cruise ship web presence made good business sense in this respect. There were still issues with passengers’ uncertainty and stress around their ability to disembark quickly; offering refunds helped alleviate this. As noted, a number of businesses had altered their tour times to allow for later embarkation, after getting some practical experience of these issues in the first Akaroa season. While many of the activity and tour businesses had experience catering to international tourist market they admitted to making some minor changes to their products at the beginning of the cruise ship season; these included streamlining departures and offering more passive tours. The move to Akaroa also necessitated the development of tour and activity products which allowed for the extra distance that needed to be travelled from the port to the city. Cruise ship passengers were not always aware that they had actually arrived in a different place; as one Christchurch retailer noted “many visitors tell us that that they couldn’t believe how far the port was from the city”. At the Antarctic Centre - which receives many pre-arranged wholesaler tour groups they had introduced a pre-packaged lunch available for visitors on their arrival - a move which appeased the often hungry visitors after the long drive and took the pressure off their own café at a busy time of the day. A number of respondents commented that they had not considered making any significant changes in their business because of uncertainty over the longevity of Akaroa as the Canterbury cruise port. One respondent also noted that we “have to be careful we don’t lose sight of what it [making cruise ship related changes] could do for traditional tourism in Akaroa - those people are staying and spending more and we could lose them”. A number of respondents had, however, considered future changes they might make to their business. These included:
Looking for bigger premises or making their frontage more appealing. Increasing advertising and targeting the cruise ship market more specifically, although for retailers it was perceived to be a challenge to raise awareness of particular premises through advertising: “[I] don’t know how we as retailers convey to people what we are doing - so that they go looking for a particular shop”. 45
Increasing capacity through the purchase of more vehicles or equipment. Introducing “add-ons to our current offering”.
3.2.6 Cruise ships in context For many Akaroa businesses it was somewhat ironic that the relocation of the cruise ships to Akaroa, as a result of the earthquake, enabled the recovery of business also lost as a consequence of the earthquake. The downturn in international visitors to Akaroa was generally attributed to an overall visitor downturn as a result of the global recession, and more specifically fewer visitors to Christchurch (post-earthquake) and thence to Akaroa; the downturn in the domestic market was blamed firstly on the earthquake impacts on the local Christchurch and Canterbury market, and to a lesser extent on the impacts of the recession on that local market. The earthquake-related reduction in visitors to Christchurch was also a contributing factor to business uncertainty and to business changes. A range of earthquake products (i.e., they developed as a result of the earthquakes) have become a fundamental part of the Christchurch ‘visit’ proposition and now form the basis of many tour and attraction products. The Re: START Container Mall has also been of interest to visitors as both a shopping opportunity and an ‘attraction’ in its own right. For those retailers for whom the opening of the Re: START allowed for some continuation of their pre-earthquake business, however, the operational logistics and the physical context of their post-earthquake surroundings has had a profound impact on their economic circumstances and capacity to host large number of visitors. In both Akaroa and Christchurch the (small) physical size of many retail and hospitality premises was noted in respect of their ability to accommodate large numbers of visitors. On the whole, most respondents were happy with the current visitor patterns whereby the numbers making a shore visit were split between Christchurch and Akaroa. The weather was believed to be a factor influencing how many stayed on the ship whilst in port and, of those who went ashore, it was generally thought that more visitors go to Christchurch (rather than staying in Akaroa) in bad weather. Also, for retailers “a beautiful sunny day is not a good selling day”. The interview data suggest that the value of the cruise ship market needs to be understood in a broader context than simply measures of the economic contribution made during the cruise ship season. Importantly, for almost all respondents the cruise ships have been a very timely and welcome boost after several seasons where they were really feeling the effects of the global downturn and the impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes. In light of this it is difficult to calculate their exact economic value as, for many, the cruise ships have (only) just brought them back up to where they were (financially) pre-downturn and pre-earthquake. Others were of the opinion that the business was “not quite back to normal yet”. For many, the overall feeling was that “at the moment the cruise ship market is very important” and “without the cruise ships we would have been dead in the water”.
46
3.2.7 The visitor experience Most thought that Akaroa had coped well with the influx of cruise ship visitors during the summer. There was some discussion around the residents’ publically expressed dissatisfaction with cruise ship visitors which had surfaced towards the end of the cruise ship season and the ability of Akaroa Township to successfully host cruise ships; the provision of adequate toilet facilities was mentioned most often as an issue in this regard. There were also perceptions that passengers had experienced, and been dissatisfied with, crowding in some of the smaller Akaroa retail premises; it was also reported that visitors often selected particular food outlets on the basis of their shorter waiting times. Many thought that the increasingly “positive feedback about Akaroa and its charms” would ensure that Akaroa would maintain some prominence as a Canterbury cruise ship port, even if Lyttelton Port was to reopen to cruise ships. However, there was some concern around too much development and the “need to take care not to ruin it”; ruining it was seen as a loss of its ‘uniqueness’ and was reiterated in the number of interviews in which respondents noted how much visitors enjoyed the town’s “small size and personal nature”. A number of Akaroa tour operators commented how much their visitors enjoyed the experience of meeting “ordinary people and experiencing ordinary life” on tours of Banks Peninsula. Most were of the opinion that Akaroa currently offers the right mix of products for cruise ship visitors, and that any future development or expansion would need to be considered carefully; as one respondent noted “[I] don’t think we want to look like a town that is geared up to just fleece the tourists”. Another respondent commented that it was “important not to offer too much of the same thing”. The greatest opportunities for product development were thought to be in the retail sector, either through the expansion of current premises and product lines, or as an addition to activity and tour products. There was widespread recognition that in order to introduce new products one needs to know what visitors want. Many respondents involved in retail or food businesses noted that “half the time they wouldn’t actually know if their customers were from the cruise ships or not”; in contrast, those involved in tours and attractions more often noted that cruise ship visitors “are different to more traditional international tourists we were used to”. As noted, some respondents reported that they had adapted their products to suit the older, and more sedentary, cruise ship visitors. Although most respondents thought that existing businesses in Akaroa adequately cover cruise ship visitor needs, there was perceived to be scope to improve the visitor experience through the introduction of new products and improved services and facilities. These included a range of specific products (which would generate income), the identification of facilities and attractions for visitors that might be introduced (not necessarily generating income) and general facilities and services that need attention: New products:
Rental cars - although the additional cost of supplying these to an Akaroa market was problematic. More local tours (i.e., around Banks Peninsula) - “people do not realise how much Banks Peninsula has to offer and it is not being fully exploited as a visitor attraction”. Tours to the local marae. 47
A drop-on drop-off tourist vehicle (e.g., a small motorised train was suggested by several respondents) which would be more permanent and sophisticated than the free shuttle provided during the last season, and could also generate income. Reopening the Akaroa Museum (closed because of earthquake damage) was missed by many. More nature-based products e.g., native bush tours with biologists.
Facilities and attractions for visitors:
More things for kids to do. More street-side food vendors. More Maori cultural attractions, although a greeting was tried (and failed?) early in the cruise ship season. Street entertainment on cruise ship days - e.g., buskers or entertainment suitable for children. Opening another café down the other end (north) and a bakery (a ‘real’ French bakery). Sheltered walkway on the wharf. Find ways in which visitors can better experience the history of Akaroa. A better welcome on the wharf. Locally run things that would directly benefit more people in the local community. Tours of local gardens was suggested as an example of showcasing “stuff that is already here [as well as] involving people [in Akaroa] who might be negative [about cruise ship visitors] ”. A dedicated webpage on the CCT website for passenger use. Banks Peninsula could be designated a UNESCO Geopark .
General facilities and services:
Fix the existing toilets and/or build more toilets. More areas for people to sit in the shade. Signage around Akaroa Township could be improved. Cleaning the streets more often.
Photograph 12: The Maori greeting (Emma Stewart)
Photograph 13: Enjoying Akaroa’s charms (Jude Wilson)
48
Photograph 14: Welcome to Akaroa (Jude Wilson)
Photograph 15: Photographing one’s own ship (Jude Wilson)
Photograph 16: Walking into Akaroa Township (Jude Wilson)
Photograph 17: Visiting the local church, Akaroa (Jude Wilson)
3.3 Conclusion It is difficult to gauge exactly the economic value of cruise ship visitors as there are many other factors which affect this. For most businesses, the cruise ship visitor market has been a crucial factor enabling them to stay in business and yet does not constitute a large portion of their annual turnover. The ability of Canterbury region to host cruise ships post-earthquake has generated employment in both Akaroa and Christchurch during what have been some very difficult years. Post-earthquake, Christchurch and Akaroa have differed in respect of their cruise ship visitor hosting experiences and yet they are also not independent of each other. To understand the value of the cruise ship market you have to look at the big picture: as many Akaroa respondents noted “if Akaroa hadn’t taken [the] cruise ships the whole of the region would have lost them”. The earthquake, which has been both the cause and effect in respect of Akaroa hosting cruise ships, is far from being ‘the elephant in the room’. Many visitors to Christchurch were empathetic, reported to wishing to spend money during their visit to help the people of Canterbury and many attractions are earthquakefocused. Akaroa business also felt like this - illustrating their connection to the Christchurch city and to the wider Canterbury region and wanting to facilitate cruise ships tourism as a means to help the rest.
49
Even if people are not spending money they were seen as beneficial for Akaroa, as one respondent noted: “But while people are [just] walking around they are taking away an experience, telling other people - [that is] the best marketing you can get, better than a TV advertisement”. Many of the Akaroa business stakeholders have already encountered cruise ship visitors returning to Akaroa for longer stays. There is also hope that, eventually, the global economy will improve and traditional visitor markets will return.
50
4.0 Concluding comments This section presents some concluding comments with respect to the research objectives of both the Visitor Survey (Section 2) and the Stakeholder Interviews (Section 3). The visitor survey focused on passenger characteristics (including their activity patterns and expenditure) and their shore experiences and perceptions of Akaroa, Christchurch and Canterbury. While the stakeholder interviews primarily examined the economic impact of increased cruise ship activity in Akaroa, these interviews also collected data on business stakeholders’ perspectives on visitor characteristics, behaviour and shore visit experiences. These research objectives are addressed below.
4.1 Visitor spending Both the survey results and the interview data suggest that a large proportion of visitors spend is on small retail items and food and drink. While there are still significant sales of tour and activity products the levels at which these are purchased are affected by a variety of passenger/cruise characteristics and logistics associated with the Akaroa port visit. The added cost of transport to Christchurch, for example, reduces visitors spend on other products. Potentially, however, there is more impact on the local economy in Akaroa as these visitors represent a much larger proportion of the customer/client base for businesses, than is the case in Christchurch. The ability of Canterbury region to continue to host - whether through the Port of Lyttelton or Akaroa - what is one of the few growth segments of the visitor market is significant. Traditional economic modelling suggests that smaller destinations are less able to capitalise upon the economic spend of visitors than larger more self-sufficient destinations in respect of their ability to supply goods and services from within. The nature of product delivery and service in Akaroa, however, is such that this leakage does not appear to be any more significant for the visitor market than is the case for that community in a general sense. This is supported by the number of Akaroa business stakeholders who reported making few if any changes in respect of product lines and delivery to cater to the cruise ships market. Where the greatest leakage occurs is undoubtedly in the provision or supply of tours, especially those which may be sourced from Christchurch or arranged directly via wholesalers and inbound operators - the number of visitors surveyed, for example, whom did not report spending on tours despite reporting that they had gone on a tour contributed to visitors spend being significantly unreported in the survey. The survey data also indicates that within the visitor spending category, a large proportion of respondents reported spending nothing (i.e., $O) during their port visits. This is perhaps indicative of the all-inclusive pre-packaged nature of cruise ship travel, insofar as it is possible for almost all passengers spending to be included in their fare. Any additional spending by passengers in port might be regarded as a duplication of spend and spending patterns were found in the surveys (and supported by interview data) to be relatively unpredictable and in some cases counter-intuitive. This presents considerable challenges in respect of business development. For businesses to expand they need to know they have a market; this is difficult with the cruise ship sector as it presents an atypical visit pattern and spend profile. There is also some uncertainty around how long Akaroa will continue to host the Canterbury cruise ship visits at this level. This made it difficult for business to plan 51
strategically around the cruise ship visitor market. Other factors, however, which also impacted on strategic planning, or lack thereof, included limited capacity (both physical and organisational), lack of interest, and lack of significance of the cruise ships market (i.e., that it only constitutes a small part of their total business). Further, it must be noted that economic benefits extend beyond simple (direct) visitor spend. Specifically, cruise ship visits to Akaroa appear to have contributed to – and in some cases, ensured – many business’ survival through some very difficult years and in some instances have instilled a degree of confidence to expand and develop new business initiatives. They have also generated employment.in this respect cruise ships tourism has performed as a complementary component or subsector of the visitor market and has filled a gap created by the events surrounding the Christchurch and Canterbury earthquakes and the on-going global economic recession and its impact on visitor numbers in New Zealand. Another economic benefit that should not be overlooked is the value of return visitation and word of mouth recommendations. The visitor survey data indicated strong intention to return and high likelihood of recommending Akaroa and Christchurch/Canterbury visited to family and friends. More than half of the interview respondents, for example, reported encountering visitors who had first visited on a cruising holiday during the two cruise ship seasons in which Akaroa has hosted the majority of Canterbury port visits.
4.2 Visitor experience Data from the visitor survey indicate that there are very high levels of satisfaction with Akaroa port visits. This is supported by the positive feedback reported by interview respondents. Both sets of data suggest that Akaroa is popular and enjoyed for its laid-back charm and for its attractions showcasing local lifestyle and experienced through tours or independent sightseeing in the township. Akaroa currently offers a relaxed and relatively passive experience well-suited to older visitors. Demand for this may change in the future as the cruise ship visitor market becomes more diverse. While the current visit profile does not generate high spend on tourism-specific products (i.e. attractions and tours) it appears that this may be improved through better facilitation of the cruise ship visitor experience. Getting information to people is key in this regard; that is, understanding what it is cruise ship passengers want to do on their port visits and then being in a position to offer those things. This involves developing more efficient ways of informing visitors of what options are available in port and making it easy for them to arrange participation (i.e., visitors need to know what there is available, they need to have time to book and participate in activities with minimal stress). This includes counteracting incorrect information so visitors don’t miss out and also making it easier for them to physically access products. The respondents in the survey provided an indication of the types of activities likely to appeal to them in future visits. These included (and in many cases paralleled the suggestion made by the business stakeholders for product development): experiencing local food and wine (which could be introduced via local tours); visiting a museum (whose closure was noted as an issue for visitors); and, experiencing Maori culture. Comments were also recorded in the survey relating to most enjoyed 52
and least enjoyed aspects of their visits. Taken together this provides a degree of customer feedback regarding the areas of the Akaroa destination product which might be improved for future visitors. While from a business perspective these might not lead directly to product development or economic benefit they nonetheless highlight a number of broader destination issues that may need to be addressed in order to improve the overall visitor experience. From a business perspective, improvement in the avenues of communication with cruise ship passengers whilst on-board (i.e., before they disembark in Akaroa) is likely to enhance opportunities to lever greater economic benefit from cruise arrivals in Akaroa Harbour. While the businesses interviewed noted that they had learned to accommodate the uncertainties around disembarkation times through flexibility of product delivery they also noted the importance of having advance bookings. This can - and is likely to - be improved as internet blogs and cruise ships specific chat sites become more widely consulted by passengers. From a destination perspective, however, it is perhaps beneficial to have some products or activities that are not already completely booked out for those passengers who do just want to wander, but whom might be attracted by something they see or encounter in passing. These casual and ‘opportune’ visitors need products that are of short duration, unique and easily understood in respect of what they entail or offer. It is also important to remember that these cruise visitors are typically on an itinerary in which multiple ports are visited during their journey. As such, they are able to select from a wide (and often similar) range of activities and attractions across multiple destinations. To attract these visitors, and to increase the economic yield from them, it seems important to focus on destination differentiation rather than focusing on the cruise ship visitor market as a single category of visitors. In respect of the appeal of the wider Canterbury cruise ship port visit, both Akaroa and Christchurch individually offer unique products and experiences. It would seem prudent to further develop and promote these unique (or destination-centric) Akaroa and Christchurch products and experiences. It would also be beneficial to extend this gaze outward to activities and attractions in the wider Canterbury hinterlands. This would help to further differentiate the Akaroa port visit from other destinations in cruise passenger itineraries. As a final point, these research data suggest several characteristics of the cruise ship experience that should be considered when examining this visitor market. The visitor survey, for example, recorded the cruise ships on which respondents were travelling, and collected some basic demographic data on the visitors themselves. The business stakeholder interviews uncovered a wide array of perceptions around the behaviour and economic impacts of different visitor types and the factors that influence the economic benefits these visitors generate. The collection of these types of data perhaps needs to be more carefully thought out, and more detailed. It would, for example, be useful to collect data regarding, the sequencing of port visits for cruise passengers, where the Akaroa port visit is placed within this sequence, and the types of activities undertaken by passengers at ports already visited. This type of information would be very useful for businesses engaging with, and hosting, cruise ships in any port.
53
References Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre (2001). Cruise ships diverted to Akaroa (Wednesday 28 September 2011). Retrieved on 13 May 2013 from http://www.lytteltonharbour.info/community-information/community-news/127-cruiseships-diverted-to-akaroa
Market Economics Limited (2012). Economic Impact Assessment of the New Zealand Cruise Sector: Final Report. Report prepared for Cruise New Zealand by Market Economics Limited. New Zealand: Cruise New Zealand.
Tan, R. & Summers, D. (2012). Untitled cruise ship presentation. New Zealand: Cruise New Zealand and IDNZ Destination Management.
Tourism New Zealand (2013). Sector marketing – cruise sector. Retrieved on 13 May 2013 from http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/sector-marketing/cruise/
Tourism New Zealand (2012). New Zealand Cruise Summary June 2012. Retrieved on 13 May 2013 from http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/media/885712/new_zealand_cruise_summary__june _2012.pdf
Zikmund, W. G., Ward, S., Lowe, B., & Winzar, H. (2007). Marketing Research. Melbourne: Thomson.
54
Appendices Appendix One: Visitor Survey - Questionnaire Location __________________Date_________
AKAROA CRUISE PASSENGER SURVEY
1.
Which ship are you travelling on? ___________________
2.
Is this the first time you have been on a cruise?
Yes
No
IF no: how many cruises have you been on? ________
3.
4
Have you been to Christchurch or Akaroa before? Yes, Christchurch
1
Yes, Christchurch and Akaroa
3
Yes, Akaroa
2
No
4
How did you choose what activities you would do on your shore visit today? Research and/or book activities before leaving home
1
Make your decision once you arrived in Akaroa township
3
Decide on the activities while onboard your ship
2
A combination of these
4
Yes 5a.
Have you been on an organised tour today?
5b.
If yes: what tour did you go on? _______________________
6.
Did you leave Akaroa township today?
Yes
No Go to Q.6
No Go to Q.11
7. Can you to tell me all the destinations you visited today, and the activities you participated in at each destination, including Akaroa. Include both activities you paid for and those that were free Destination
Activity
55
8.
What did you enjoy most about your visit to [insert where visited] today?
__________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 9.
What did you least enjoy about your visit to [insert where visited]?
__________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ If respondent visited CHRISTCHURCH city ask:
N/A
Neither
Strongly disagree
I’m going to read out a list of statements that might be used to describe Christchurch city. Using the following showcard, I’d like you to tell me how much you agree or disagree with each statement, on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is strongly agree and 5 is strongly disagree [SHOWCARD 1] Strongly agree
10.
Christchurch is a lively place
1
2
3
4
5
0
Christchurch has a lots to see and do
1
2
3
4
5
0
Christchurch is an expensive destination
1
2
3
4
5
0
Christchurch has interesting heritage buildings
1
2
3
4
5
0
Christchurch has beautiful natural landscapes
1
2
3
4
5
0
Christchurch is a safe destination
1
2
3
4
5
0
Christchurch is a friendly city
1
2
3
4
5
0
CHECK Q.7. If respondent has not reported any activity in Akaroa, Go to Q 16, otherwise go to Q.15 For respondents who stayed in Akaroa: 11.
Why did you choose not to visit Christchurch today?
56
__________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 12. Can you please tell me all the activities in you participated in Akaroa today? This includes both activities you paid for and those that were free of charge.
Activity
13
Activity
What did you enjoy most about your visit to Akaroa?
__________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 14.
What did you least enjoy about your visit to Akaroa?
__________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________
N/A
Neither
Strongly disagree
I’m going to read out a list of statements that might be used to describe Akaroa. Using the following showcard, I’d like you to tell me how much you agree or disagree with each statement, on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is strongly agree and 5 is strongly disagree [SHOWCARD 1] Strongly agree
15
Akaroa has lots of things to see and do
1
2
3
4
5
0
Akaroa is an expensive destination
1
2
3
4
5
0
Akaroa has interesting heritage buildings
1
2
3
4
5
0
Akaroa has a French flavour
1
2
3
4
5
0
Akaroa is a safe destination
1
2
3
4
5
0
Akaroa has beautiful natural landscapes
1
2
3
4
5
0
Akaroa is a friendly town
1
2
3
4
5
0
57
All respondents: 16. I’d like you to think about what you spent today in all the places you visited. Looking at [SHOWCARD 2], can you please estimate how much you spent, in NZ$, in each of the following categories: $
$
Tour(s)
Shopping(souvenirs, gifts etc)
Restaurant meals
Transportation (ex. tours)
Other food, refreshments
Other:
17. Taking everything into account, how satisfied would you say you are with this port visit to Akaroa, on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is extremely satisfied and 5 is very dissatisfied? [SHOWCARD 3] ___ If 4 or 5 ask: Why do you say that? __________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ 18. On a scale of 1 to 5, from absolutely certain to definitely won’t do this [SHOWCARD 4], how likely would you be to do the following, based on your experience on this visit Visit here again on a future cruise
Recommend friends and family to visit Akaroa
Visit Akaroa in the future
Recommend friends and family to visit CHCH
Visit CHCH on holiday in the future
Going on a farm tour
1
2
3
4
5
0
Experiencing Maori culture
1
2
3
4
5
0
Visiting a museum
1
2
3
4
5
0
Attending a performing arts event
1
2
3
4
5
0
Going on a winery tour
1
2
3
4
5
0
Visiting an art gallery
1
2
3
4
5
0
Experiencing local food and wine
1
2
3
4
5
0
N/A
Not at all appealing
Neither
Very appealing
19. For respondents rating likelihood of future visit for holiday/cruise in Akaroa/Christchurch in future 1-2 ask: I’m going to read out a list of activities you might do while on a future visit to this region. Using the following showcard, I’d like you to tell me how appealing each of these activities would be to you, on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is very appealing and 5 not at all appealing [SHOWCARD 5]
58
Finally, a couple of questions to help us analyse our results. 20.
What is your nationality ? (one only: select primary nationality) _______________________
21.
Who are you travelling with on this cruise? (one only)
Travelling alone
1
Family
4
Partner/spouse
2
Family &friends
5
Friends
3
special interest group
6
22
Other, Specify:
7
What is the highest level of education you have achieved? [SHOWCARD 6]
No formal qual.
1
Trade qualification
3
Higher degree
5
High school qual.
2
Degree
4
Other tertiary, Specify:
6
23.
Which age group do you belong to? [SHOWCARD 7]
18-19
1
30-39
3
50-59
5
20-29
2
40-49
4
60-69
6
24.
Don’t ask: record correct response Male
Over 70
1
7
Female 2
That is the end of the survey, I would like to thank you very much for your participation, it has been a great help. If you have any questions about this research or the findings, you are welcome to contact Dr Joanna Fountain at Lincoln University, on 3253 838.
59
Appendix Two: List of Stakeholder Interview Questions (Guide only) Involvement/reliance on cruise ship tourism Does your business cater to/service cruise ship visitors?
Are these visitors from every ship that comes into port, or only certain ones? Is there a particular segment of visitors (e.g., age, nationality) that you deal with? Do you provide services to passengers that are pre-booked (i.e., before cruise ship comes into port)? Do you sell ‘on the ground’ in Akaroa? Do you ‘on-sell’ to other businesses? [Christchurch] do you have many pre-bookings from cruise ships?
Have you found that some ships/companies/cruises are better than others for your business? Has your business changed as a result of cruise ships visiting Akaroa? Can you put a % figure on:
How much of your business is from cruise ships (passengers/clients; $$) Has there been an increase in this over time?
Have you done any specific business analysis (for your business) around the cruise ship market? Have you put any thought into increasing the economic benefits you get from cruise passengers? Do you think catering to the cruise ship market has displaced other customer segments? Do you cater to any crew from the cruise ships? Do you offer discounts to crew as a marketing strategy? Crew come to ports more than once over a season and can be good word of mouth ambassadors. Have you put any thought into this (as an opportunity for your business)?
Hosting cruise ships Have you experienced any particular challenges dealing with the cruise ship market? There were some days this season when there was more than one ship visiting Akaroa
Did this cause any issues (e.g., capacity) for you?
Were there any other issues (resulting from cruise ship visitors) this season for you?
Was there anything you did in your business that worked particularly well? Was there anything you did that did not work well? 60
Did you make any changes in your business (e.g., operational, management or staffing practices) because you know it is a cruise ship day? Did you make some of these changes during the season (i.e., once you had some experience of visitors patterns of behaviour)? Did you do any business planning (staffing, products, opening hours, logistics, booking systems) around the cruise ship schedules? Would you plan for next season differently?
What would you change (in your business)?
Overall, do you think cruise ship tourism has been positive or negative economically for Akaroa? Have you put any thought into what the visitors’ experience of Akaroa (or Christchurch) is like?
Do you think visitors are satisfied with their visits? Do you survey your passengers at the end of their experience to ascertain if your product is meeting (and exceeding) expectations?
Do you think any changes are necessary to facilitate cruise ship tourism to Akaroa more generally (i.e., not just for your business) Do you perceive there to be any potential to make changes to better extract value from cruise ships? (e.g., to get more money from this segment of the visitors market)
Akaroa businesses Have you made any longer term changes to your business as a result of Akaroa hosting the majority of the region’s cruise ships? What are the implications for your business if the majority of the ships return to Lyttelton? Did your business cater to the domestic Christchurch market pre-earthquake, and has this changed?
Loss of that domestic market as a result of earthquakes Displacement by cruise ship visitors
Do you believe there is displacement of other international visitors (i.e., not cruise ships ones)? Over the last season, how well do you think Akaroa businesses catered to cruise ship tourists? Are there competing tourism products working in the same segment? (i.e., sightseeing tours) Do you see opportunities for other products that could benefit FIT passengers from cruise ships?
If so, what would the products be?
Do you know what proportion of cruise ship visitors leave Akaroa for the day? 61
Christchurch businesses What % of your business came from the cruise ship market pre-earthquake? Has the relocation of cruise ships visits to Akaroa had an impact on your business? If so, what was the greatest change to your business?
Drop in passengers Drop in revenue from cruise passengers
Has this changed the length of visit time in Christchurch leading to, e.g.: Do you think your business is missing out on visitors (compared to when ships docked in Lyttelton)? In your opinion, what proportion of cruise ship visitors do you think come to Christchurch since the ships started to go to Akaroa post-EQ? Would your business benefit more/or less from cruise ship tourism if cruise ships returned to Lyttelton?
62
