This section discusses the sampling technique and thesis sample in order to start addressing the second research objective (i.e. to test the identified key elements of a V/R framework in the context of the Vanuatu dive tourism system). As with many other aspects of research, decisions are not made in isolation (Flick, 2002). The study presented in this thesis is designed to achieve an in-depth understanding of the vulnerability and resilience of dive tourism in Vanuatu in order to test the key elements of a V/R assessment (i.e. second research objective). The choice to apply a convenience sampling technique reflected the research objectives and the level of generalisability strived for (Flick, 2002). The following presents a discussion of the sampling techniques applied in this study followed by an overview of the complete study sample, covering both field visits.
There are two approaches to data sampling: 1) sampling structure is defined in advance; or 2) sampling structure is gradually developed, as it is shaped by the phases of selection, collection and interpretation (Flick, 2002). This study applied the second sampling structure, as a clear understanding of the dive tourism system was not available prior to the study.
In line with this second sampling structure, the respondents were selected using a convenience sampling technique, which is defined as “A non-probability sampling strategy that uses the most conveniently accessible people to participate in the study” (Gray, 2004, p. 396). Although convenience sampling was applied, I approached people in the field that I believed would be able to give me rich information that would allow me to test the key elements of a V/R assessment using the case study of Luganville’s dive tourism system. Nevertheless, the availability of the identified respondents shaped my actual sample (Gray, 2004; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998).
A limitation to this type of sampling, however, is that it does not allow for generalisability (Patton, 2002). I therefore cannot state with confidence that a finding in my study is general to dive tourism in Vanuatu or to dive tourism systems in other parts of the Pacific. Nevertheless, this generalisability was never an objective of this research. Instead, this research aimed to test the key elements of a V/R assessment in order to develop an appropriate V/R framework for tourism. This can then be tested later in
107 other contexts (e.g. other dive tourism systems in Vanuatu or elsewhere, cultural tourism systems, community-based tourism systems, etc.).
Prior to any contact being made with participants of this study, Victoria University’s Ethics Committee granted research ethics approval (i.e. HRETH 09/30 and HRETH 10/68) to conduct focus groups and semi-structured interviews for this research. The Government of Vanuatu also provided support for this research project (see Appendix 12.2 for a letter of support).
Figure 3-3 below provides an overview of the full data sample and the interviewees that were of key importance to the dive tourism system in Vanuatu and, more specifically, in Luganville. Descriptions of the sample size for the individual data collection field visits only provide information on representative groups and the number of interviews in each. This is intentional to de-identify specific organisations or business interviewees. It is noted that the interviews mentioned in Figure 3-3 were not all covered in the individual field visit samples (i.e. not all respondents were interviewed during both field visits), but is an overall sample of the entire study presented in this thesis. The data acquisition was undertaken during two field visits.
The first field visit to Vanuatu set out to explore Luganville’s dive tourism system and identify the policies that were pertinent to climate change adaptation. During the first field visit, a total of 27 interviews were held with industry experts, key players of the tourism industry and government officials.
The second field visit aimed to assess the vulnerability and resilience of the dive tourism system and covered the shocks and stressors that had impacted the system in the past, an understanding of how climatic stimuli would impact these and an assessment of sensitivity and adaptive capacity factors. During the second field visit, a total of 29 interviews were held including 14 with government, 11 with the tourism industry, and four with NGOs and donors. Furthermore, three group discussions were held. The group discussions covered: one with dive operators (expatriate); one with tour operators (Ni- Vanuatu), and one with a local community (Ni-Vanuatu).
108
109 A combination of analysis of the data from both field visits allowed for appropriate recommendations to be made (these are discussed in Chapter 7) in order to meet step six of the second research objective (see Table 1-1).
To ensure the confidentiality of respondents, a further break down of the sample has not been provided. Table 3-4 highlights the number of semi-structured interviews undertaken from each of the interview groups. As the aim of the first field visit related to the tourism sector and public policy and the aim of the second field visit on the tourism sector’s vulnerability and resilience to change, the interviews concentrated on industry and government representatives.
TABLE 3-4: INTERVIEW SAMPLE FOR FIELD VISITS 1 AND 2
Interview groups Number of interviews Field Visit 1 Field Visit 2
Public sector (incl. national, regional and local government bodies and educational providers)
8 14
Private sector 14 11
Donor and development agency 1 2
Non-governmental organisations 4 2
TOTAL 27 29