Hotel development and tourism impacts in Mauritius: Hoteliers' perspectives on sustainable tourism

Abstract

Sustainable tourism development is crucial to small island developing states, given that tourism is often the main pillar of their economy. Stakeholders therefore need to embrace principles of environmental, economic and social sustainability for continued success. This study assessed hoteliers' perceptions of the tourism impacts of hotel development. Existing attitudinal scales on tourism impacts were applied to the Mauritian context and measured among top and middle management of hotels. The findings, based on 90 questionnaires, indicated 11 underlying dimensions. Hoteliers on average agreed that hotel development should contribute to environmental sustainability, and have positive economic, social and cultural impacts. They were not entirely convinced that there were negative cultural and economic impacts, and they disagreed that there were negative social impacts. The paper suggests implications for tourism policy, hotel development and management of tourism impacts.

Keywords:

• sustainable tourism
• tourism impacts
• hotels
• SUS-TAS scale
• Mauritius

1. Introduction

A considerable amount of research has been done on sustainable tourism development in developed countries (e.g. Bianchi, 2004; Choi & Sirakaya, 2005), but less on such development in island destinations (Briguglio & Briguglio, 1996; Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003; Scheyvens & Momsen, 2008). Similarly, local residents' perceptions of tourism development impacts have been examined (Ryan et al., 1998; Sharpley, 2000; Gursoy et al., 2002; Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003; Dyer et al., 2007), but less attention has been paid to the perceptions of tourism industry stakeholders. This study aims to fill some of the gaps in both areas of the literature.

When looking at small island developing states (SIDS), researchers have been concerned mostly with susceptibility to environmental problems and the heavy economic reliance on the tourism sector (Croes, 2006; Giannoni & Maupertus, 2007; Scheyvens & Momsen, 2008). Island destinations are characterised by small size and population, remote location, limited resource base, lack of revenue for imports, high transport costs, lack of local markets and lack of infrastructure (Wilkinson, 1989). However, they are often endowed with a pristine environment, unique ecosystems and cultural features that naturally differentiate them from other tourism destinations (Lockhart, 1997; Giannoni & Maupertus, 2007). Environmental management must therefore be an integral component of their tourism development. Yet for many SIDS environmental degradation caused by tourism activities is commonplace since they cannot substitute this form of economic activity with other more environmentally friendly activities without much economic hardship (Briguglio & Briguglio, 1996).

The role of tourism for the growth of SIDS has been viewed with scepticism, with some authors recommending that the only kind of tourism acceptable to small islands is the sustainable paradigm which limits the development of traditional large-scale tourism and contributes to broader socioeconomic upliftment for local communities (Wilkinson, 1989). This approach to development can be seen in the United Nations (UN) plan of action for the sustainable development of SIDS, known as the ‘Mauritius Strategy 05’, which recommends, among other things, managing the environment, monitoring tourism impacts and implementing guidelines for managing biodiversity. Consequently, island tourism planners have been diversifying away from the sun-and-sand model of development, which is typical of mass tourism, into special activity holidays and business travel characterised by higher spending patterns and niche segments of the market (Lockhart, 1997; Kokkranikal et al., 2003).

Yet there is an element of doubt about whether these small island states can have self-determined sustainable futures and follow the UN plan (Scheyvens & Momsen, 2008). Existing research demonstrates that tourism development is not devoid of negative environmental, economic, cultural and social impacts for island destinations (Archer, 1985; Freitag, 1994; Briguglio & Briguglio, 1996; Kokkranikal et al., 2003; Dodds, 2007). Recognising and understanding these impacts is therefore the first step for island destinations wishing to embrace principles of sustainable tourism development.

The current research used the island of Mauritius, which offers the resort-based experience, as a case study for understanding tourism development and impacts. Since hotels are the primary form of tourism development in Mauritius, the study examined tourism industry stakeholders' perceptions of hotel development and its environmental, social, cultural and economic impacts. The aim was to broaden the literature on stakeholders' perceptions of the impacts of hotel development for an island destination that has received scant attention in the tourism literature, and to help formulate appropriate tourism policy and destination planning strategies. The following section contextualises the findings.

2. Tourism development in Mauritius

The World Bank has cited Mauritius as an example for southern Africa of an economy that has achieved notable success in its economic development (World Bank, 1992; Hwedi, 2001). This success is inextricably linked to tourism development, given the longstanding position of the island as the destination of choice for European visitors (Prayag, 2009; Prayag & Ryan, 2010). The success of Mauritius's tourism industry on a regional scale may be gauged by the fact that it makes the highest gross domestic product contribution (30 per cent) and receives the second highest yearly total budget allocation (16.1 per cent) of countries in southern Africa (Fair Trade in Tourism South Africa [FTTSA], 2009). The tourism receipts for 2009 have been estimated at $1.18 billion as compared to $1.36 billion1 for 2008. Tourist arrivals reached 930 456 in 2008. A hundred registered hotels were in operation as of September 2009, with a total room capacity of 11 102 and 22 530 beds. The average room occupancy rate for the first 9 months of 2009 was 58 per cent and the bed occupancy rate averaged 52 per cent. The total number of people employed in the tourism industry as of March 2009 was 22 922 (Bank of Mauritius, 2009). The importance of tourism for Mauritius and its competitiveness as a regional player make it an interesting case study of tourism development and the challenges facing the hotel industry.

The basic tourism product of Mauritius is the beach holiday with its associated facilities and activities (Archer, 1985). Since the start of the tourism industry in the 1950s, Mauritius has focused on enclave tourism. This – the principal development model used by tourism planners – has been shown elsewhere in the world to promote few economic or cultural linkages at local and regional levels (Britton, 1982; Wilkinson, 1989; Freitag, 1994; Kokkranikal et al., 2003). Described as the ‘the concentration camps of leisure with their fences and armed guards’, luxury hotels have been criticised for hiring few local workers and contributing far too little to improve infrastructure in local communities (Cohen, 1984; Reid, 1992). However, despite the limitations of this model for promoting secondary development (Freitag, 1994), Mauritius has over the years benefited from an increasing number of visitors and foreign revenue. The enclave model also offers the advantage of restricting the number of visitors and their activities to specific areas, away from local people, thus at least limiting the negative impacts of tourism (Kokkranikal et al., 2003). While this model persists in Mauritius, its form has changed due to the government's National Tourism Development Plan (NTDP) in 2000, which reinforced the island's previous and current position as a high-quality and upmarket tourist destination (Deloitte & Touche, 2002). The change was because of government concern about the impacts of tourism on the fragile island ecosystems.

Prior to the NTDP, tourism development in Mauritius happened on an ad hoc basis with no formal long-term planning for the destination. There were no formal legal regulations to be followed by businesses operating within the tourism sector other than the national tourism policy. The NTDP was followed in 2006 by the Tourism Authority Act, which was further amended in 2008 to make better provisions for regulating the operation of tourist enterprises and pleasure craft (boats used for fishing, water sports, etc.), and in particular to enable the tourism authority to issue provisional closing orders, provisional pleasure craft licences and enforcement notices. As far as hotel development projects were concerned, the Act urged hotel developers to install eco-friendly and energy saving practices such as desalination plants and recycling plants.

Since 2000 there has been no other national tourism planning document for the island. However, in 2008 the government revised the Hotel Development Strategy (HDS), requiring hoteliers among others to strictly follow the recommendations of the Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) for coastal development. The document offers guidelines on land management, architectural design and eco-friendly practices and stipulates that ‘investment strategy will be geared towards foreign direct investment in the hotel sector’. It further states that ‘[m]ore discernment will be exercised in our choice of foreign investors to ensure a diversified mix of capital mobilisation’ (Ministry of Tourism, Leisure & External Communications [MoTLEC], 2008:1). Hotel developers can buy either freehold land from private parties or leasehold land from the government. Leases are normally granted for a period of 20 years initially, with option to renew for four consecutive periods of 10 years each. The approved lessee is also required to contribute an amount of approximately US$825 000 to the Tourism Fund before signing the lease (Board of Investment, 2009). This scheme limits the potential for land grabbing, which is also limited by the Non-Citizens (Property Restriction) Act.

The HDS also emphasises the environmental management practices required of hoteliers. Yet the reality on the Mauritian scene does not necessarily reflect the guiding principles of this document. Recent hotel development projects at Bel Ombre for example, have dredged the lagoon, constructed jetties and limited local community involvement in this development. Hotel development around the coastal areas has also been blamed for its contribution to bleaching and degradation of coral reefs, which are an essential feature of the natural environment of the island (Global Reef Alliance, 2005). There is therefore a need to understand hoteliers' perceptions of sustainable tourism development and the impacts of hotel development so that the gap between tourism policy and actual practices can be reduced.

3. Sustainable tourism development

The United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) states that sustainable tourism development should ‘meet the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the future’. It should lead to ‘the management of all resources in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support systems’ (UNWTO, 1998:102). Therefore, tourism sustainability ‘can be viewed as a set of principles, political prescriptions and management methods that establish a path to develop tourism in conjunction with the protection of the environmental, cultural and infrastructural resources of tourist destinations for the future’ (Lane, 1994).

Over the years, the concept of sustainable tourism has come to mean many things to many people (McKercher, 1993; Garrod & Fyall, 1998). Hunter (1997, 2002) argues that sustainable tourism is an adaptable paradigm allowing for different development pathways and requires adaptation to the specific local conditions and needs. Local people should be given the responsibility for defining their own needs and planning their own course to sustainability. This local context definition of sustainable tourism leads to a development continuum ranging from very strong to very weak sustainable development. Sharpley (2002) suggests that sustainable tourism must not be a means to compete for resources to sustain tourism but rather it must seek the most appropriate and efficient ways to share resources within an overall development goal. In this way, a holistic approach is taken to tourism development and, through dynamic tourism policies, positive impacts are increased while negative ones are mitigated. In fact, for SIDS, sustainable tourism development should contribute to poverty reduction, income redistribution, betterment of the status of women and children, local mediation, conflict resolution and peace building (United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 1994).

It is not surprising, therefore, that most researchers and stakeholders agree that tourism must become more sustainable if the industry is to flourish and benefit both locals and tourists (Dodds, 2007). Tourism needs to protect the very resources upon which it depends and tourism policy is a way to attain this (Sharpley, 2000; Bianchi, 2004; Dodds, 2007). While many destinations and governments subscribe to this notion of sustainability, it is rare to find examples of successful implementation by all or any levels of government. It is also difficult to see how frameworks proposed by the World Tourism Organisation Code of Ethics, Agenda 21 in Rio and Rio 10+ in Johannesburg, can be implemented at a practical local level (Dodds, 2007). For SIDS, the recommendations of the ‘Mauritius Strategy 05’ and Local Agenda 21 (LA21) on management of biodiversity, community involvement in planning decisions and participatory decision-making, attempt to address all three facets of sustainability (social, environmental and economic) to provide a holistic path to sustainable development. In reality, tourism policy makers still view sustainability as overwhelmingly concerned with the designation and protection of the physical environment (Dodds, 2007; Giannoni & Maupertus, 2007). This can also be seen in Mauritius where, for example, the National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment report of 2005 emphasised that tourism development was putting pressure on scarce land in the coastal zone and on the fragile ecology of lagoons (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Ministry of Environment, & National Development Unit [MoFED, MoF & NDU], 2005). In response, tourism policy has placed greater emphasis on the PPG for coastal development, while social concerns have been of lesser interest to the government.

4. Tourism impacts

Many islands experience high tourism densities in relation to their population and land area (Archer, 1985; Briguglio & Briguglio, 1996). Tourism impacts therefore have to be managed, and the concept of carrying capacity is critical. Over the years, Mauritius has revised its carrying capacity in a quest to sustain and even increase growth in tourist numbers and tourism receipts, and the government has recently revised its target growth of tourists to 2 million by the year 2015. To achieve this objective, an annual growth rate of at least 10 per cent will be necessary. Clearly such an approach is contradictory to principles of sustainable tourism development. SIDS reach their original threshold level of visitors very quickly, but as they increase tourist numbers the natural ecosystem suffers irreversible damage (Briguglio & Briguglio, 1996). Lack of experience and expertise in tourism development often makes it difficult for island communities to absorb and manage the inevitable impacts of tourism (Kokkranikal et al., 2003).

4.1 Environmental impacts

While tourism is less environmentally destructive than other forms of development on tropical islands, many types of negative environmental impact may be related to tourism development (Wilkinson, 1989). Some of the most commonly identified are coral change, beach sand loss and contamination of coastal waters (Wilkinson, 1989). Some that are related to hotels in particular are increased demand for building sites, increased waste production (e.g. sewage pollution), more speedboats on the lagoons, and air-conditioning units and water treatment plants (Briguglio & Briguglio, 1996; and see Dyer et al., 2007, and Wilkinson, 1989, for a more comprehensive review). Environmental impact management requires measures to reduce damage caused by tourism, improve resources already in use, and limit the use of resources not yet linked to the tourism sector (Rodriguez et al., 2008). In Mauritius, the Environment Protection Act came into force in September 2002 to consolidate and reinforce the institutional and legal framework for the protection of environmental assets. As a result, hotel developers are now required to submit Environmental Impact Assessment results with their application for hotel development.

4.2 Economic impacts

It is generally accepted that tourism provides considerable economic benefits, such as employment for locals, investment opportunities, tax revenues for government and development of small and medium enterprises for countries, regions and communities (Ryan et al., 1998; Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Dyer et al., 2007), but among its notable negative economic impacts are dependence on foreign capital, inflation and a low education trap for locals (Giannoni & Maupertus, 2007). Yet, more important than the economic benefits is the spread of the benefits to local communities (Scheyvens, 2001). Tourism development, including hotel development in Mauritius, has been criticised mainly for its ‘leakages’, such as repatriation of profits earned by foreign investors and amortisation of foreign debt incurred in tourist development. In reaction to this, the new HDS stipulates that hotel developers will need to have a local partner for their proposed development and that the government will give opportunities to international hotel brand names that are currently missing from the local market so that the country can benefit from their marketing, managerial and financial skills as equity partners (MoTLEC, 2008:1). Tourism authorities in Mauritius also continue to promote growth-centred policies based on new tourism product development, such as the Integrated Resort Scheme, marinas and golf courses, so that tourism can remain a strong pillar of the economy. However, the focus on tourist numbers and receipts seems to contradict the more pressing aspects of preventing ecological degradation and the broader social dimensions of sustainability (Barke & Towner, 2003).

4.3 Social and cultural impacts

The direct and indirect economic benefits of tourism may have many positive social and cultural impacts, including employment, improved standards of living and health, and educational opportunities, promotion of arts and crafts, and environmental awareness in local communities (Wilkinson, 1989; Briguglio & Briguglio, 1996; Dyer et al., 2007). However, there is an underlying social and cultural erosion that happens over time with the appearance of traffic congestion, noise pollution, crime and loss of cultural identity (Wilkinson, 1989; Ryan et al., 1998; Dyer et al., 2007). Consequently, the ‘Mauritius Strategy 05’ recommends greater local community involvement and participation in tourism planning and development. This increased concern for social sustainability, i.e. the ability of a community to absorb visitors for either long or short periods of time without being influenced negatively by people different from themselves (Weaver & Lawton, 2002), is becoming an increasingly important driver of tourism development (Sharpley, 2002). Full community participation is said to occur when communities supply the majority of goods and services to tourists, have considerable input into planning decisions and collectively manage common resources (Timothy, 1998; Tosun, 2000). Also vital to local communities is responsible behaviour on the part of the visitor and the prevention of any form of distortion of the local culture (Graburn, 1983).

In Mauritius, the Tourism Fund Act of 2006 is a first step towards social sustainability, where government now requires hotel developers to contribute to a tourism fund to enable infrastructural development in those local communities that will be affected by such development. Hoteliers are also implementing Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives such as building schools, sponsoring employees' children for tertiary education, embellishing the environment and promoting local arts and crafts so that local communities will continue to support hotel development (Beachcomber, 2009). However, these initiatives are private sector driven and not the norm. Tourism policy has been better at managing environmental impacts than it has at encouraging the identification and management of social and cultural impacts. For example, the new HDS offers no guidelines on the social responsibility of hotels, which in the long term may have detrimental effects on local communities.

5. Methodology: Questionnaire design, sampling and data collection

A questionnaire was designed to measure hoteliers' attitudes towards sustainable tourism development and tourism impacts. Choi & Sirakaya (2005) argue that tools developed solely to measure perceptions of impacts of tourism are insufficient, given that they reflect the dominant social paradigm of the 1970s. Consequently, they developed and tested both an innovative framework and a new measurement tool that reflects the shift towards sustainability. This tool, known as SUS-TAS, consists of 44 items measuring seven dimensions: social costs, environmental sustainability, long-term planning, economic benefits, ensuring visitor satisfaction, community-based tourism, and maximising community participation. Given that the tool was designed to measure residents' attitudes in the USA, it was necessary to adapt it for the Mauritian context and hoteliers.

The 44 items from the SUS-TAS scale and 26 items from Dyer et al.'s (2007) scale of social, economic and cultural impacts of tourism were reviewed by the authors to identify common dimensions. For example, the SUS-TAS measure of economic benefits was similar to that of Dyer et al. This process led to 40 items being retained in the final questionnaire. From the original SUS-TAS scale, 17 items were retained, representing dimensions of environmental sustainability (nine items), long-term planning and visitor satisfaction (three items) and community-based tourism and maximising community participation (five items). The remaining 23 items represented dimensions such as positive social impacts (five items), negative social impacts (four items), positive economic impacts (five items), negative economic impacts (three items), positive cultural impacts (three items) and negative cultural impacts (three items). The wording of items was altered to measure impacts of hotel development instead of tourism development. A seven-point Likert scale anchored on 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree was used for rating. Hotel characteristics such as number of rooms, number of years in operation and number of employees, as well as demographic characteristics of respondents such as age, occupation, gender and educational level, were also measured. The questionnaire was reviewed by two academics and pre-tested on five hoteliers.

The target population for this study was defined as hoteliers involved in decision-making; that is, top and middle management. These are individuals most likely to influence a hotel's orientation towards sustainable practices. The official list of hotels supplied by the Ministry of Tourism, Leisure and External Communications was used as the sampling frame. In 2009 this list comprised 105 hotels, of which 102 were operational. A covering letter and the questionnaire were delivered to all hotels for a member of top management (e.g. CEOs, resident manager, financial controller) or middle management (e.g. marketing manager, guest relations manager, room division manager) to complete. Questionnaires were returned by 90 hotels, one per hotel, which was considered an adequate response rate for an exploratory study, given that the target population had significant time and mobility constraints.

6. Findings and discussion

6.1 Sample profile

The respondents' profile indicated that the sample was biased towards males (of the 90 hotel managers, only five were women). Their average age was 45 years. In terms of educational background, approximately 42 per cent of respondents had only the school certificate, while 17 per cent had the high school certificate, 7 per cent a diploma and 33 per cent a university degree. The sample had more respondents from middle (approximately 72 per cent) than top management (28 per cent). On average, the hotels had been in operation for 22 years, had 153 guest rooms and employed 236 staff.

6.2 Factor analysis

The 40 items were factor analysed using a principal component method with Varimax rotation to assess their psychometric properties. Prior to this, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sample adequacy and Bartlett's test of sphericity were computed to determine whether the sample size was suitable for undertaking factor analysis. The KMO statistic achieved a value of 0.741, considered ‘good’ (Kaiser, 1974), and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was statistically significant (p < 0.01), thereby confirming the suitability of the data for factorisation. Factors with eigenvalues greater than one and factor loadings of 0.4 and above were chosen for interpretation. The principal component method revealed a structure of 11 components, explaining 75.9 per cent of total variance.

The results (Table 1) indicated that the seven items loading on the first factor were impacts the hoteliers perceived as socially and culturally positive (except for the item ‘proper hotel development requires that wildlife and natural habitat be protected at all times’, which was an environmental impact), so this factor was labelled ‘Positive social & cultural impacts’. Factor two was labelled ‘Negative cultural & economic impacts’, and factor three ‘Negative social impacts’. The fourth factor was labelled ‘Community centred economic benefits’, since items loading on this factor reflected the positive benefits that accrue to local communities if, for example, hoteliers obtain good and services and hire employees from the local community. Factor five was labelled ‘Positive & negative environmental impacts’, covering items such as the need to protect the community's environment and natural resources and control hotel development to limit environmental degradation. Factor six indicated the role that government and hoteliers should play in protecting the natural environment (e.g. teamwork to enhance the environmental quality of the destination, regulatory standards to control hotel development) and was labelled ‘Government's environment management’. Factor seven, labelled ‘Positive Economic Impacts’, indicated that hoteliers should embrace the community's values and that hotel development should have positive economic impacts such as investment in the area, job creation and more opportunities for local businesses to develop. Factors eight and nine were labelled ‘Long-term planning’ and ‘Community development & involvement’, respectively. Factor 10 was labelled ‘Amenities development & quality tourism experiences’, and factor 11 ‘Local prices & tax revenues’. Cronbach's alpha values were used to assess factor reliability (Kaiser, 1974). Of the 11 factors, only eight met the minimum requirement of 0.7 for reliability. These factors conform broadly to the literature, albeit with different item loadings (Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Dyer et al., 2007).

Table 1: Factor analysis of management's perceptions of the impacts of hotel development (n = 90)

Tourism impacts	Item loading	Eigenvalue	Percentage of variance explained	Cronbach's alpha	Mean scores
F1: Positive social & cultural impacts		4.773	11.932	0.841	5.70
Hotel development should encourage government to improve roads and other public facilities to maintain a high standard for tourism	0.809				5.86
Hotel development should encourage local communities to develop a variety of cultural activities	0.756				5.71
Hotel development should encourage a closer cultural exchange between tourists and local communities	0.660				5.41
Hotel development should encourage local communities to strengthen their cultural identity	0.654				5.57
Hotel development should provide incentive for local communities to conserve natural resources	0.565				5.74
Hotel development should provide incentive for locals to preserve their local culture	0.564				5.64
Proper hotel development requires that wild life and natural habitat be protected at all times	0.486				6.02
F2: Negative cultural & economic impacts		3.533	8.832	0.874	3.44
Hotel development may change the culture of some communities	0.830				3.37
Hotel development may negatively affect local communities' way of life	0.780				3.11
Hotel development may put more pressure on local services such as public utilities and roads	0.758				4.08
Hotel development makes beaches unpleasantly overcrowded for local residents	0.706				3.21
F3: Negative social impacts		3.140	7.849	0.935	2.71
Hotel development is likely to increase crime rate in a local area	0.879				2.75
Hotel development is likely to result in traffic congestion in a local area	0.838				2.88
Hotel development is likely to lead to more vandalism in an area	0.816				2.66
Hotel development is likely to result in more noise and pollution in an area	0.592				2.54
F4: Community centred economic benefits		3.116	7.790	0.809	5.23
Hotels should be required to obtain half their goods and services from within the local community	0.863				4.93
Hotels should hire at least half their employees within the local community	0.840				5.16
Hotels must contribute to community improvement funds	0.577				5.61
Hotel development should provide more income for local population and local communities	0.563				5.21
F5: Positive & negative environmental impacts		3.011	7.529	0.794	5.86
Government should further encourage hotel developers to protect community environment and natural resources	0.798				6.09
Government should control tourism development, including hotel development, to limit environmental degradation	0.785				5.89
Hotel development should be in harmony with natural and cultural environment	0.656				6.16
Construction of hotel and other tourist facilities may destroy the natural environment	0.551				5.29
F6: Government's environment management		2.924	7.310	0.787	6.16
Government and hoteliers should encourage a more integrative approach to environmental quality enhancement of the destination	0.840				6.22
Government and hoteliers should further strengthen efforts for environmental conservation	0.760				6.27
More stringent regulatory environmental standards are needed to reduce negative impacts of hotel development	0.745				6.22
Government should ensure that positive environmental ethics should be practised by all tourism stakeholders	0.516				5.91
F7: Positive economic impacts		2.818	7.045	0.851	5.63
Hoteliers must embrace the values of community residents	0.692				5.75
Hotel development should create more business for local people and small/medium-sized businesses	0.644				5.66
Hotel development should attract more investment for local communities	0.644				5.31
Hotel development should create more jobs for local population and local communities	0.639				5.80
F8: Long-term planning		2.037	5.093	0.843	6.35
I think we need to take a long-term view when planning destination tourism development	0.894				6.24
I believe that successful management of tourism growth requires advanced planning strategy	0.877				6.45
F9: Community development & involvement		1.787	4.467	0.596	5.41
It is not appropriate when tourism development, e.g. hotel development decisions, does not involve everyone in the community	0.827				5.22
For successful tourism development, including hotels, full community participation and involvement is required	0.696				5.61
F10: Amenities development & quality tourism experiences		1.749	4.373	.275	5.92
Hotel development should provide incentive for government and local communities to restore historical buildings	0.721				5.64
Hotel development should encourage development of more recreational facilities for local residents and visitors	0.448				5.98
The tourism industry, particularly hotels, must ensure future good quality tourism experiences	–0.444				6.13
F11: Local prices & tax revenue		1.503	3.758	.438	4.93
Hotel development may increase the price of goods and services in an area	0.873				5.27
Hotel development should create additional tax revenues from tourists for local government	0.541				4.58

6.3 Factor and item scores

Composite scores for factors and mean scores for items were computed to understand the hoteliers' rating patterns for each factor and item. The composite scores for factors (Table 1) revealed that on average hoteliers agreed that hotel development contributes to positive social and cultural benefits for local communities (M = 5.70) but disagreed that it can also have negative social impacts (M = 2.71). Their opinions were more neutral when it came to the negative cultural and economic impacts (M = 3.44). On average they agreed that hotel development should contribute to community-centred benefits (M = 5.23). Interestingly, they also agreed on average that it has both positive and negative environmental impacts (M = 5.86) and that management of such impacts is part of government's role of environmental management (M = 6.16). They also agreed that hotel development should have positive economic impacts (M = 5.63) and that community development and involvement (M = 5.41) were important. However, the mean factor scores indicate that hoteliers on average had a higher agreement level about the social and cultural benefits of hotel development than about its economic benefits. They tended to agree that government should contribute to environmental management and adopt a long-term planning approach to tourism development.

Table 1 shows that the item ‘I believe that successful management of tourism growth requires advanced planning strategy’ had the highest mean score (M = 6.45), while the item ‘Hotel development is likely to result in more noise and pollution in an area’ had the lowest (M = 2.54). Hoteliers agreed that ‘Hotel development may increase the price of goods and services in an area’ (M = 5.27), while having neutral opinions about the proposition that ‘Hotel development may put more pressure on local services such as public utilities and roads’ (M = 4.08).

7. Conclusion and implications

This study aimed to identify tourism stakeholders' perceptions of sustainable tourism development and the impacts of hotel development. The findings indicated that hoteliers acknowledge that hotel development can have negative environmental impacts, but they also believe that government and the private sector should share the role of managing such impacts. To promote environmental sustainability in the hotel industry may therefore require more public–private sector partnerships, initiatives and sharing of best practices among hotel companies. The government's emphasis on Environmental Impact Assessment for proposed hotel development and the new HDS that recommends that hoteliers adhere strictly to PPG guidelines may have contributed to hoteliers' increased concern for the environment. The findings show high levels of agreement with statements such as ‘Government and hoteliers should encourage a more integrative approach to environmental quality management’ and ‘Government and hoteliers should further strengthen efforts for environmental conservation’. Hence, self-regulation alone is not always sufficient for adequate environmental protection. A shared role between members of the private sector, with some form of government intervention and direct control, tends to be the most appropriate solution for environmental protection (Briguglio & Briguglio, 1996).

This is where tourism policy can be an effective integrative tool. Such policy should not only guide conservation and protection of the environment but also regulate land use for hotel development. For Mauritius, currently the HDS offers only broad guidelines for land use and may need to be integrated with other existing laws for land use. Environmental sustainability requires a holistic approach where, for example, land use, environmental management and broader tourism development strategies are integrated (Sharpley, 2002). Along with tourism policy, self-regulation by hoteliers should be further encouraged and rewarded, as a means of reducing the environmental impacts of tourism. Some hotels, for example, have already adopted energy and water conservation measures, such as laundering linen only at visitors' request. Others, such as Le Touessrok and Le Prince Maurice, have been awarded ISO9000 and Green Globe certification, which may explain why high levels of agreement were obtained from hoteliers about the positive environmental impacts of hotel development.

Interestingly, hoteliers disagreed that hotel development can have negative social impacts. This is not surprising given that hoteliers justify their existence through the positive economic benefits of tourism on the island that can be seen in the form of job creation and infrastructure development for the local population. The current HDS and NTDP do not place much emphasis on local participation and community involvement in the hotel development strategy for Mauritius. This goes against the ‘Mauritius Strategy 05’, which clearly suggests that SIDS should increase local community involvement and participation in decision-making. The existence of this gap is not uncommon. Other researchers (e.g. Sharpley 2000; Bianchi, 2004) have reported difficulties in local implementation of principles of sustainable tourism and observed that policy-makers still view sustainability as overwhelmingly concerned with the designation and protection of the physical environment (Dodds, 2007). So far, the most popular approach for mitigating existing negative social impacts of tourism in Mauritius has been the adoption of Corporate Social Responsibility by hoteliers (Beachcomber, 2009). This is an important first step towards social sustainability but may also be viewed as a narrow interpretation of the concept (Hunter, 1997). Therefore, the current tourism policy may be inadequate and should offer guidance to hoteliers not only on how to engage residents in participatory decision-making, but also on how to provide them with a stronger financial stake in the industry. In other SIDS, this has been accomplished by tax on sewage emissions, and incentives such as encouraging hoteliers to buy locally (Briguglio & Briguglio, 1996; McElroy, 2003). Social impact assessment is also becoming a popular tool for measuring social impacts on local communities due to tourism development (Walker et al., 2000).

Hoteliers have more neutral perceptions of the negative economic impacts of hotel development. This can be explained by the fact that tourism has contributed significantly to the economic development of Mauritius. Hoteliers are therefore more inclined to perceive positive than negative economic impacts. As for their neutral perceptions of negative cultural impacts, this should be considered along with the disagreement levels expressed for negative social impacts. The literature suggests that social and cultural impacts are not easily assessed by residents (Dyer et al., 2007), but in this study hoteliers' perceptions were assessed. The sample profile indicated that respondents were mostly middle management hoteliers (mostly local residents) who may not necessarily perceive hotel development as negatively influencing their own culture, given that they are employees of the hospitality sector. However, hotel developers should not assume that sustainable tourism development will automatically be fostered by improving the environment or product quality or by keeping alive old traditions and cultural expressions of local communities (Yunis, 2000). Specifically, negative cultural impacts may only appear over time and should be measured as part of a holistic approach to sustainable tourism.

To conclude, while hoteliers perceive the impacts of hotel development to be mostly positive for Mauritius, achieving sustainability will require a more holistic and integrated approach to tourism development, with management of economic, cultural and social impacts. This will require tourism authorities' and hoteliers' collaboration, a long-term view of tourism planning and hotel development plans, monitoring of visitor levels with respect to carrying capacity, and market-based incentives so that the negative environmental and social impacts of hotel development can be mitigated. At least three major policy directions can be offered based on the findings: (i) further collaboration between government and hoteliers for environmental damage control and environmental protection; (ii) managing visitor densities and determining destination carrying capacity so that social impacts of tourism can be managed; and (iii) an understanding that economic tradeoffs have to be made for environmental and social sustainability of the destination.

This research was subject to several limitations such as small sample size, limited time, low budget, and more middle than top management employees completed the questionnaire, and a qualitative phase might have enabled a better adaptation of the scale used. However, the use of existing scales did not detract from the identification of hoteliers' perceptions of sustainable tourism development. It would therefore be useful to extend this research to other countries in southern Africa and identify whether perceptions differ between, for example, stakeholders' in city hotels, resort hotels and other forms of accommodation such as guest houses and backpackers. Further application of the SUS-TAS scale in other countries would also confirm its reliability and validity as a measurement tool for understanding sustainable tourism development.

Notes

¹This was the estimate at the time of writing. Full figures for 2009 were not available at the time of going to press, but it seems that receipts were falling due to the global financial crisis.