TOURISM ON ARUBA
The roots of the tourism industry in Aruba can be traced back to the late 1940s with the creation of the Aruba Tourism Commission (ATC). The goal of the ATC was to explore the possibility of developing tourism on Aruba to enhance the economy. In the early 1950s, the government established the government-controlled Aruba Tourism Bureau (today known as the Aruba Tourism Authority).
The first 100-room hotel was built in 1959 and thereafter the number of rooms grew steadily. In 1985, the oil refinery on Aruba closed; and at that time, it was the main driver for the economy of Aruba. It was then that the Aruban government realized the relevance of tourism and further developed this industry to be able to absorb the negative effects on the economy of the closing of the oil refinery.
When in operation, the oil refinery was responsible for about 25% of the gross domestic product (GDP) for Aruba, directly and indirectly employed 30% - 40% of the population (Ridderstaat, 2007) and was responsible for 40%
of Aruba’s tax income. Given the impact that the refinery’s closing had on the Aruban community, the government had to act quickly. The most viable way to increase income was to expand the tourism industry (Ridderstaat, 2007). It was at that point that Aruba began to experience a high increase in the number of hotels, restaurants and other commercial buildings. The number of hotel rooms increased dramatically throughout the years, from 2,078 in 1986 to 7,092 in 2011.
The number of stay-over visitors grew from 181,211 in 1986 to 871,316 in 2011. The cruise tourism grew from 73,338 in 1986 to 599,893 in 2011. Tourism receipts increased from Afl. 283.0 million in 1986 to Afl. 2,413.5 million in 2011.
The main market segment for Aruba is U.S. Americans.
The total market share has stabilized at nearly 60% in recent years. However, this market share has decreased from its highest point of nearly 73.6% of total arrivals in 1986 to around 63.5% in 2000. One reason for this decrease has been the promotional efforts aimed at diversifying the market. For the past 25 years, the U.S. market has demonstrated to be incredibly stable, with steady growth and a strong response from the northeastern corridor. The expansion of tourism in Aruba is believed to reflect a more sustainable pace of the level of economic growth in the USA, world-wide recognition of Aruba’s safety, social and political stability, beautiful beaches and consistently pleasant climate.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND PAST STUDIES Social Behavior Exchange Theory
This paper will be based on past research done by John Williams and Rob Lawson (2001) to help determine the perceptions of the Aruban community towards tourism. This will be done in combination with George C. Homans’ Social Behavior Exchange Theory. This theory suggests that people will enter into an exchange if they feel they can make some gain out of it. The perception of the impact of tourism will be the determining factor. The way people are impacted by tourism
UAUCUStudent Research Exchange Collected Papers 2018
64 is affected by the exchange they believe they are making (ex.
sacrificing nature areas to create space for development, cost:
nature reward: personal gain for business opportunity).
It was hypothesized that positive attitudes toward tourism would be predicted by employment in industry, country of residence, and positive perceptions of tourism impacts. It was further hypothesized that more frequent and satisfying intercultural contact, lower perceptions of threat, more positive stereotypes and less intergroup anxiety would predict positive attitudes.
Host – guest relationship
Pizam et al. (2000), in a study regarding tourism in Israel, found that the social relationship between hosts (locals/
communities in a destination) and tourists could affect tourists’ feelings, satisfaction and attitudes towards the destination. The study revealed that the higher the level of the social relationship between hosts and tourists, the more favorable were the tourists’ feelings towards their hosts, and the more positive was the change in attitudes towards hosts and the destination. It also reported that the higher the level of social relationship between hosts and tourists, the higher was the satisfaction of these tourists with their stay and experience. From the findings, it was revealed that a destination with residents who demonstrate apathy towards tourists will most likely not encourage repeat visitation.
Putting it together
When considering social exchange theory and the social relationship between tourists and host communities, a link between them can be observed. The hosts’ perception towards tourism impacts their level of approval for this activity, and their level of approval impacts their relationship with tourists. Additionally, the level of relationship impacts the perception of tourists towards destinations, which in turn impacts their willingness to return.
This can also be seen in the research done by Bimonte &
Punzo (2016). In their study they suggest that interactions and experiences influences attitudes and opinions. This causes structural changes in individual preferences that affect residents’
perceptions of tourism and tourists’ willingness to pay.
METHODOLOGY
This research will focus on the perceived economic impact of tourism on Aruba. The research consisted of a survey consisting of twenty-six (26) questions. The questions were a combination of specific open and closed questions to narrow down areas of inquiry and simultaneously provide the survey participants the opportunity to elaborate on their perspectives.
The survey questions were modeled on a previous survey conducted by Jon Williams and Rob Lawson (2001), who aimed to determine opinions of residents in selected towns in New Zealand in regards to the economic, social and environmental impact of tourism. Seeing that the present paper focuses on the economic impact, only those questions related to this area were used. (A copy of the survey can be found in the appendix) INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
The first four (4) questions of the survey are mainly for demographic purposes. Participants were asked to identify their gender, age group, district of residency and lastly the degree to which their employment is related to the tourism industry.
It is important to note that the way in which the age groups were separated is based on life stages which are believed to impact the consumption patterns of consumers and will ultimately influence how certain economic impacts are perceived. The age groups were separated as follows:
• 18 – 30: This group consists mostly of students and recent graduates from higher education, or are currently entering the workforce, who usually have fewer than 2 or no children, and are either single or are
in a relationship. The focus for this age group is mainly enjoying the free time they have before they enter other stages in life with more responsibilities.
• 31 – 45: At this age most people start to settle down, get married, form a family and buy a house. Their focus shifts and they become more family-oriented.
• 46 – 60: At this age many have grown-up children who have already or are in the process of moving out of their parents’ home. Some of these people have become grandparents. People of this age group start focusing and preparing for retirement.
• 61+: By the time people reach this age group, they are usually retired or do not have many years left to retire.
Most people are grandparents by this point. Debts are almost if not already paid off. They have more free time.
Their focus shifts to enjoying their retirement years.
The following table shows the questions and answer options for the questions regarding gender, district and relation of employment to the tourism industry.
The question regarding to which degree the participant has employment related to the tourism industry can be clarified as follow:
• Not related: has no contact with tourist, employment and/
or business not dependent on tourism industry at all.
• Somewhat related: little contact with tourists;
employment and/or business moderately dependent
on tourism but can still survive without tourism.
Usually offers assistance to the industry when needed.
• Highly related: contact with tourists almost daily, employment and/or business completely dependent on tourism.
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
The remainder of the survey consisted of various sentences for which the participants were asked to indicate to what level they agree or disagree with each statement. The options were: completely agree, somewhat agree, neutral, somewhat disagree and completely disagree. These were closed questions. In addition, the survey had some open questions as follow-up to a number of closed questions, so that participants could elaborate on their choice of answer for a given statement. Below is the list of statements included in the survey, and their corresponding open questions. (Note: items 1-4 were the independent variables) 5. I am in favor for the tourism industry in Aruba 6. Tourism is good for the Aruban economy
7. Please shortly describe your choice for questions 6 8. I would like to see an increase in the number of tourists
on Aruba
9. Please shortly describe your choice for question 8 10. Tourism has improved the quality of service in shops,
restaurants and hotels
11. Shopping in Aruba (such as choice of shops and longer opening hours) is better because of tourism
12. Please shortly describe your choice for question 11 13. Aruba would be a dull place if tourists did not visit 14. Most people on Aruba are better off because of tourism 15. Please shortly describe your choice for question 14 16. Pay and working conditions in the tourism industry are
generally very good
17. Please shortly describe your choice for question 16 18. The tourism industry on Aruba generates many well-
paying jobs
UAUCUStudent Research Exchange Collected Papers 2018
66 19. Please shortly describe your choice for question 18 20. The benefits from tourism are distributed fairly
throughout our community
21. Please shortly describe your choice for question 20 22. I have more money to spend as a result of tourism on Aruba
23. Tourism makes prices rise, so locals can no longer afford to enjoy amenities in certain areas of Aruba 24. Please shortly describe your choice for question 23 25. Tourism has increased the cost of living in Aruba 26. Please shortly describe your choice for question 25 DEMOGRAPHICS
The total number of respondents was 162. In regard to demographics, the survey yielded the following the results:
Next, the variables relation to the tourism industry and district were examined, yielding the following discoveries:
• Not related: Noord had 18% of these respondents, Oranjestad had 33%, Paradera and Santa Cruz had 15% each, Savaneta had 6% and San Nicolas had 13%.
• Somewhat related: From these respondents Noord had 23%, Oranjestad had 27%, Paradera had 20%, Santa Cruz had only 4%, Savaneta 15% and San Nicolas had 19%.
• Highly related: For this Noord had 23%, Oranjestad had 25%, Paradera 11%, Santa Cruz and Savaneta had 13% each and San Nicolas had 15%.
From this data, it seems that the residence of most participants whose employment is related to the tourism industry are precisely the ones where the concentration of tourism activities is the highest, which are Noord and Oranjestad. It is notable that the more inland the participants, the lower the relation of employment to the tourism industry. Additionally, going from west (which includes the outermost districts, Noord and Oranjestad) towards east, more inland and then to the eastern outermost districts (Savaneta and San Nicolas), it can be seen that the relation of employment to the tourism industry declines and then rises again (see table 1).
UAUCUStudent Research Exchange Collected Papers 2018
68 An analysis of the gender and age group variables in regard to relation of employment to the tourism industry, led to the following discoveries:
GENDER AND RELATION TO INDUSTRY:
When comparing gender and relation to the tourism industry it was revealed that for the category of ‘not related’, 41% of the male participants identified their employment as not related to the tourism industry as was the case for 59% for female participants. For the category of ‘somewhat related’, 54% of male participants identified their employment to be
‘somewhat related’ to the tourism industry as was the case for 46% for female participants. Lastly, for the category of
‘highly related’, 49% of male participants identified their employment to be ‘highly related’ to the tourism industry;
the same was true for 51% of female participants.
From these results, it seems that there is no specific gender that has a significant dominance in the tourism industry, as the percentages of both genders are close to each other.
AGE GROUPS AND RELATION TO INDUSTRY:
When considering the participants’ age groups and their relation to the tourism industry, the following was revealed:
From these results, it seems that, in regards to their relation to the tourism industry, the 46 – 60 age group is dominant (with the exception of the ‘somewhat related’ category, where it is tied with the 31 – 45 age group). This may due to the fact that currently in Aruba, this is currently the largest age (CBS, Census 2010). This may also explain why this age group is more dominant in the other categories as well.
However, it must be noted that according to the last census in 2010, the next biggest age group on Aruba were those the
age of 19, who are currently part of the 18 – 30 age group, considering the time that passed since that census. As mentioned before, this group consists of mostly students, recent graduates and/or newcomers to the workforce, which may explain why this age group does not yet display dominance in the industry.