A number of key issues raised in tliis study merit further examination since
parks and reserves located on native land are likely to play an increasingly
central role in bringing about sustainable tourism development.
It is encouraging that most native landowners are both aware of the importance
of conservation and agree with the principles upon which it is based. The fact
that respondents recognise the complementarity of tourism and conservation is
also encouraging. There are a number of factors responsible for this high level
of understanding of the concept of conservation and its complementarity with
tourism. It does however appear that the work being carried out by the
government body set up specifically to advise the native landowners on matters
relating to parks and reserves in spreading the gospel of the importance of
conservation in relation to tourism is a contributing factor to the level of
understanding expressed.
If the realisation of short term financial benefits was the only motivating factor
in having parks and reserves, then one would expect people in Quadrant 4, (ie,
those with high attitude and high involvement in tourism) not to limit the
number of tourists going to parks and reserves at any particular time. There are
several reasons why the native landowners may limit the number of tourist
visitations to the parks and reserves at any particular time, including the lack of
tour guides, the need to closely monitor tourist acivities the need to conserve
emphasis being placed on the environment by respondents and the need for
conservation. There is a strong case to be made that the majority of the native
landowners of parks and reserves who are operating well in the business see the
long term benefits of controlling the number of tourists.
In the case of the Taveuni Forest Reserve there should be some form of control
devised to administer the number of tourists and the activities that they
undertake. It would defeat the purpose for which the Reserve was proclaimed if
things were to be as they are currently operating.
As noted in Table 17, more than half of the total respondents (62.5%),
expressed dissatisfaction with the returns being generated by the parks and
reserves. All respondents in Quadrants 1 and 2, 55.6% of respondents in
Quadrant 3 and 31.2% of respondents in Quadrant 4 were of the view that
income generated in parks and reserves were inadequate. It is noted that the
bulk of respodents in Quadrants 1 and 3 are from Sovi Basin and the Taveuni
Forest Reserve. While the native landowners of the Sovi Basin are not deriving
any financial benefits from the proposed park and reserve, native landowners of
the Taveuni Forest Reserve who do derive benefits from government in the
form of annual payments indicated to the author that these payments were
inadequate. Respondents from Quadrant 2, (ie those from Colo i Suva Forest
Park) who are recipients of an annual rental from government also expressed
dissatisfaction. As indicated, 31.2% of respondents in Quadrant 4 did not
consider the returns they were deriving from the operafion of parks and reserves
as adequate while the majority, 78.8% indicated to the author that they were
satisfied with the returns they were getting from the operation of parks and
reserves. It is the author's view that it may be worthwhile investigating why
31.2% of respondents in Quadrant 4 who were suppossed to be operating well indicated they were receiving an insufficient return.
The view that tourism activity which is managed on a communal basis can help
reinforce the vanua structure is upheld to some extent by the results of the survey as shown in Table 18. Quadrant 4 (ie those with high attitude and high
involvement in tourism) were particularly supportive of the link. In apparent
contradiction to this was one of the earliest and most high profile projects
designed and run on a communal basis through the vanua (Bouma Forest Park). The relevant vanua has severed its links with the native landowners on matters relating to the park and the native landowners disassociate themselves from the
vanua.
As previously stated, the concepts of vanua and the land tenure system are closely linked. Nevertheless those who have not appeared to benefit from
tourism sometimes blame the land tenure system as having hindered the
operation of parks and reserves. Given that the beneficiaries of tourism regard
the land tenure system as having been of assistance to them, it is suggested that
the link between vanua and land tenure be further investigated. The results of the present research are inconclusive on the matter.
The preceding discussion has focused on the overall survey findings. We now
examine each of the two-dimensional four-celled matrices in more detail with a
view to addressing the specific needs of each park and reserve. This is
considered necessary since resources are limited and each area needs to
prioritise its allocation of resources.
It is in the author's view that areas located in Quadrant 1 (ie those having low
attitude and low involvement in tourism) should not be developed for tourism.
It has been noted that most respondents from Taveuni Forest Park and a
significant number from Sovi Basin fall into this category. Both of these areas