“WE NOH WAA NO CRUISE SHIP EENA WE WAATA”
Or do we?
An analysis of perceptions
of the potential social-environmental impacts of future cruise tourism in Southern Belize
Master Thesis – Research Master International Development Studies Graduate School of Social Sciences (GSSS), University of Amsterdam (UvA) Sarah Aly
Contact: sarah.aly@hotmail.com
Title page
Photos from left to right:
1. Resident of Placencia Village cleaning fish (photo courtesy of Sarah Aly). 2. Cruise ship at sea, stock image from www.everystockphoto.com.
3. Marine ecosystem near Harvest Caye (photo courtesy of Annelise Hagan).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... 4
LIST OF FIGURES, IMAGES, TABLES AND MAPS ... 5
ABSTRACT ... 6
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ... 7
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ... 9
1.1. Relevance & Importance ... 10
1.2. Thesis structure ... 12
CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 13
2.1. Social-ecological system thinking ... 13
2.2. Social-ecological system thinking and community involvement ... 16
2.3. Social-ecological system thinking: interactive governance and scale ... 17
2.4. Perceptions and attitudes in tourism ... 18
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 22
3.1. Conceptual Framework ... 22
3.2. Research Questions ... 24
3.3. Operationalization ... 24
3.4. Ontological and epistemological position ... 25
3.5. Research design and methods ... 25
3.6. Research Methods ... 27
3.6.A. Qualitative methods ... 27
3.6.B. Quantitative methods ... 29
3.7. Limitations and ethical challenges ... 29
CHAPTER 4. HISTORICAL AND CONTEXTUAL SETTING ... 31
4.1. Belize & (Cruise-)tourism ... 31
4.2. Tourism development in Belize ... 33
4.3. The rise of cruise tourism ... 35
4.4. Case study: cruise tourism in Southern Belize ... 36
4.4.A. Research site ... 38
CHAPTER 5. THE SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM ... 42
5.1. The Ecological System ... 43
5.1.A. Harvest Caye & Placencia Lagoon ... 43
5.1.B. Surrounding SES: terrestrial and marine ecosystems and tourism sites ... 44
5.1.C. Environmental system: resource system and resource units ... 44
5.3.A. State ... 49
5.3.B. Market ... 50
5.3.C. Civil Society ... 50
CHAPTER 6. CLAIMS ON THE SES ... 51
6.1. Norwegian Cruise Line’s physical and economic claims ... 51
6.2. Norwegian Cruise Line’s tours in Southern Belize ... 52
6.3. Claims by other stakeholders... 54
CHAPTER 7. (POTENTIAL) IMPACTS CRUISE TOURISM ... 55
7.1. Fort Street Tourism Village – Cruise tourism in Belize City ... 55
7.2. Potential impacts of cruise tourism, Harvest Caye ... 58
7.2.A. Economic impacts ... 58
7.2.A.1. Economic head tax revenues ... 62
7.2.B. Social impacts ... 62
7.2.C. Environmental impacts ... 64
CHAPTER 8. GOVERNANCE & COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ... 67
8.1. Interactive governance and regulating anticipated impacts ... 67
8.2. Community involvement and opposition ... 70
8.3. The EIA and BTIA’s lawsuit ... 72
CHAPTER 9. PERCEPTIONS IN STATISTICS ... 74
9.1. Questionnaire set-up and demographical results ... 74
9.2. Total sample results ... 74
9.3. Perceptions in Placencia Village and Independence ... 77
9.4. Belizeans and expats: contrasting perceptions? ... 78
9.5. Community attachment, social exchange and the Irridex ... 79
CHAPTER 10. CONCLUSIONS ... 83
10.1. Purpose of the study and theoretical tools ... 83
10.2. Findings of the study ... 83
10.3. Practical and theoretical importance of findings ... 85
REFERENCES ... 87
APPENDIX ... 95
ANNEX I. LIST OF INTERVIEWEES (ANONYMIZED) ... 95
ANNEX II. INTINERARIES HARVEST CAYE CRUISES ... 97
ANNEX III. OVERVIEW NCL EXPEDITIONS HARVEST CAYE ... 99
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BTB Belize Tourism Board
BTIA Belize Tourism Industry Association
CBT Community Based Tourism (Theory)
CCRN Community Conservation Research Network
CTO Caribbean Tourism Organisation
DoE Department of the Environment
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
FoE Friends of the Earth
FSTV Fort Street Tourism Village
FSTZ Fort Street Tourism Zone
GIS Geographical Information System
GOB Government of Belize
GNI Gross National Income
MoTCAC Ministry of Tourism, Civil Aviation & Culture
NEAC National Environmental Appraisal Committee
NCL Norwegian Cruise Line
NSTMP National Sustainable Tourism Master Plan
PTGC Placencia Tour Guide Cooperative
PUP People’s United Party
SEA Southern Environmental Association
SES Social-Ecological System
UDP United Democratic Party
LIST OF FIGURES, IMAGES, TABLES AND MAPS
1 FiguresFigure 1. Ostrom's SES framework 15
Figure 2. Interactive governance 18
Figure 3. Conceptual framework SES 22
Figure 4. Conceptual framework - perceptions of impacts 23
Figure 5. The Interdisciplinary Research Process 26
Figure 6. Stakeholder list (incomplete) 27
Figure 7. Social-Ecological System 42
Figure 8. Surrounding SES 43
Figure 9. Tourism Expenditure Overnight- & Cruise Industry (% share) 60
Images
Image 1. Construction at Harvest Caye, January 2016 37
Image 2 & 3. Project proposal Harvest Caye 39
Image 4. Local fishermen cleaning catch of the day, Placencia Village 46
Image 5. Boat traffic around FSTV 57
Image 6. Local resident's comment on NCL salaries, posted on social media 59
Image 7.Rocks dumped on corals near Harvest Caye 64
Image 8. Placencia Village Council meeting, basketball court Placencia Village 68
Image 9. Protest sign painted by kids of Placencia Village 71
Tables
Table 1. General information Belize 32
Table 2. Overview of SES users 48
Table 3. Perceptions of cruise tourism in SES (amounts and relative %) 75
Table 4. Average perceptions residents SES towards the benefits of cruise tourism 77
Table 5. Perceptions on ecosystem and benefits cruise tourism to community (% of total) 80
Maps
Map 1. General Topography Belize 8
Map 2. The Research Site (featuring Placencia Peninsula, Independence, Harvest Caye) 38
ABSTRACT
Belize, a small country in Central America, is an increasingly popular destination for overnight- and cruise tourists. In November 2016, Norwegian Cruise Line will introduce cruise tourism to Southern Belize by opening their next cruise port at Harvest Caye. The purpose of this study is to gather a collection of perceptions of the future (impacts of) cruise tourism in Southern Belize. This research is built on a bipartite theoretical foundation: I. Social-ecological system thinking was employed to identify the most prominent social and environmental features of the research area. II. Existing theories on tourism perceptions (e.g. community attachment theory and social exchange theory) were reviewed and applied to the case of Southern Belize. A mixed methods research design was employed in order to integrate qualitative and quantitative data. In total, 47 interviews were conducted with state-, market- and civil society-actors and 79 surveys were filled in by community members. Data revealed a strong interconnectedness between the natural wealth of Belize and its social sectors. Various stakeholders expect different levels of positive and negative impacts to be caused by cruise tourism in the economic, social and environmental sphere. For example, environmentally, the manatee population is expected to decline around the Placencia Lagoon due to projected increase in boat traffic. Economically, the project is expected to create hundreds of jobs, offering year round salaries. Residents appear to base their perceptions on a trade-off of negative and positive impacts. Not all agree on what constitutes as justifiable negative impacts; yet, i.e. 31% of respondents that are concerned about the impact of future cruise tourism on the local ecosystems, still believe it will overall be beneficial to their community. Residents who support the project are willing to ‘exchange’ negative impacts for economic benefits. Community attachment theory could not be confirmed from the research sample. Perceptions differ between residents of Independence and Placencia Village; the first group appears more optimistic on the benefits cruise tourism will bring. Additionally, expats of the research sample are less positive towards cruise tourism than Belizeans. This study reveals the versatility of SES thinking and how theories of other fields can be linked to it in order to comprehensively study a topic within an SES. Research on tourism perceptions is important in planning and managing the sustainable development of cruise tourism, particularly in countries like Belize where tourism is embedded in natural environments.
Key words: cruise tourism ⦁ social-ecological system thinking ⦁ tourism perceptions ⦁
community attachment theory ⦁ social exchange theory ⦁ Irridex ⦁ interactive governance ⦁ community involvement ⦁ Belize
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost I wish to thank the University of Amsterdam, for giving me the opportunity to go through the educational experience of setting up a research project, doing fieldwork abroad and writing up a thesis. Next, I wish to express gratitude to my academic supervisor in Amsterdam, dr. Maarten Bavinck, for supporting my decision to set up my own project and for providing feedback during the thesis writing process. I am equally thankful for the help of dr. Annelise Hagan for being my supervisor and friend while I was in Belize. She made this whole endeavour possible by being one of the very few people to reply to my e-mails when I was setting up this project. Thank you both for your assistance.
Next, and equally important, I wish to express my sincerest thanks to all respondents of this study. Thanks also, to the Southern Environmental Association for giving me the opportunity to experience their work out at the Caribbean Sea. Living in Placencia Village for nearly half a year has been a valuable experience to me, both academically and personally, and Placencia Village has earned a special place in my heart. I have never met a more welcoming group of people. Thank you to those who made me feel at home. In exchange, I sincerely hope this report is of interest to you, the reader.
Finally, I must express my gratitude to my fellow Placencia-researcher and friend Christine Prouty, for keeping my spirits up and for continuous support throughout the whole process. Similarly, sincere thanks to my fellow students and (“rein”)dear friends, for continuously encouraging me and for providing comic relief during those many hours spent in the university library.
Thank you all very much, Sarah Aly
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
“Mother Nature’s Best Kept Secret” and “the Jewel” are some phrases that respondents for this research have used to describe the country of Belize. These synonyms are used for good reasons: Belize offers a wide variety of unique tourism attractions such as Mayan ruins and the Belize Barrier Reef, the largest barrier reef in the Western Hemisphere. Rather than the stereotypical ‘sun, sea and sand’ image of most Caribbean countries, Belize is marketed with the tagline of ‘reefs, ruins and rainforests’ (ietravel, 2016; gonomad, 2016). Today, tourism is the largest economic exchange product of the country (CIA, 2016) and accounts for over 28% of total employment (Beltraide, 2016). In addition to Belize’s well-established overnight tourism industry that has historically been steered towards eco-tourism, cruise tourism was introduced to the country in 1991. Currently three cruise lines dock at the Belize City port with 957,975 cruise passengers arriving to the country in 2015 (BTB, 2016). This number is more than double Belize’s population (~ 370,000 (World Bank, 2016)). The cruise tourism industry in Belize City has partially solved a chronic unemployment problem, yet in exchange it had many unanticipated and detrimental side effects. The loss of authenticity in the arts & crafts sector and rise in crime and sex tourism are some examples. A few of these issues have been addressed, yet stakeholders in the cruise industry in Belize are still confronted with many challenges today, such as the on-going competition between tour guides working in the cruise port (Fort Street Tourism Village) and those outside.
By the end of this year (2016), the country can expect up to 400,000 annual cruise visitors more. In August 2013, the American cruise line company Norwegian Cruise Line (NCL) announced the purchase of 75 acres in Southern Belize to develop a new cruise-line port. Harvest Caye, consisting of two adjoining islands, is the assigned location for this development. Similar to events in Belize City, multiple cruise destinations in other nations have witnessed the disparate social and environmental impacts this type of large-scale tourism projects can cause (Manning, 2006). In countries with small populations, such as Belize, impacts of cruise tourism may be felt more acutely compared to nations with a larger population (Lester & Weeden, 2004). Not surprisingly, communities in Southern Belize are wondering what the future will hold now that cruise tourism, or mass tourism, will be introduced to an area where small-scale, eco-tourism is currently the dominant type.
NCL has claimed that the project will be environmentally sound and that up to a 1000
Belizeans will be employed (Cruise Critic, 2013). Whether NCL will fulfil these promises has been one of the main debates in nearby communities. Belize is well known for its abundant nature and any disturbances to the natural environment can therefore lead to great losses. Yet, is this natural wealth equally valued by all stakeholders? Similarly, stakeholders also expect a variety of equally problematic social impacts. Both the social and environmental realms strongly interrelate and this is the larger theme of this thesis. Overall, many conflicting perceptions exist which complicates the management of what is to come.
The purpose of this study is to find an answer to the following question:
How do surrounding communities perceive the future impacts of NCL’s developments at Harvest Caye and what is their role in governing the social-ecological system (SES)?
Placencia Village, Independence and their adjacent ecosystems are the main locations of this research. In addition, comparisons with the cruise industry in Belize City will be made. The inauguration of NCL’s new cruise port has been delayed twice thus far: from October 2015 to February 2016, to the current opening date of November 2016. As the cruise port and its implications are still a matter of the future, the ability to perform factual research is limited and perceptions are thus key to this research. In order to answer the research question, this research has a foundation in social-ecological systems (SES) thinking. In order to probe tourism perceptions, the research makes use of a collection of theories on this topic. The following section describes the relevance of these theories in more detail. A mixed-methods research design was employed to gather data and provide a means to integrate qualitative and quantitative data.
1.1. Relevance & Importance
“The lack of research on tourism as embedded in particular social as well as environmental settings is particularly problematic given the increasing emphasis of politicians and development planners around the world on tourism as a means of economic development, and on development based on the problematic model of Western modernization”
– Belsky, 2004: 274.
In terms of employment and revenues, tourism is increasingly expanding in the Caribbean, which also makes it the most tourism dependent region in the world (Jayawardena, 2002: 88). The natural environment is the main lure for cruise visitors in Caribbean countries (CGCED, 2001). Particularly, Belize can be considered both part of Central America and the Caribbean, increasing its versatility for expanding tourism markets.
Globally, tourism has been recognized as a means of economic growth, nevertheless
there is a growing awareness that tourism is not always beneficial for the communities hosting these visitors. The tourism sector in the Caribbean is faced with many challenges including environmental sustainability, crime and tourist harassment. All over the Caribbean, a lack of local community involvement and limited benefits for the local people has dominated the tourism sector. Yet, in order to ensure sustainability, community involvement is thought to be vital. Tourism training and education by the public and private sector have been very limited (Jayawardena, 2002: 89). Previous cases of cruise-ship development have demonstrated some prevalent conflicts (Manning, 2006). For example, generally governments perceive cruise ports as a potential source of national income. This notion is reinforced by the cruise industry that often claims cruise passengers’ average expenditure will be 100 US$ per call. As a result, investments are made in facilities and infrastructure to support cruise tourism. Yet, research had indicated that average expenditure by cruise passengers tends to be lower than promised, leaving many actors disappointed (Klein, 2009).
Such clashes in expectations and reality are problematic as they continuously occur (Klein, 2009: 1). As not all stakeholders perceive cruise tourism to be a positive force for development for the region of Southern Belize, knowledge on the reasons behind such differences in perceptions is a fundamental element in effective and sustainable management of the future cruise tourism industry.
A lack of a common language and a universal framework has historically been an issue for those who seek to engage between natural and social sciences. SES thinking implies that human and natural elements of a system interact directly – this complex relationship is often overlooked in research (Ban et al. 2013: 194-196). This study is built on the assumption that Belize relies heavily upon its natural environment for attracting visitors. By applying a SES lens in this research, the complete system will be taken into consideration, thereby providing an example of how SES thinking can be applied to case-study research. The first part of this report will apply Ostrom’s version of the SES framework in order to provide a description of the relevant elements of the SES, including the governance system and investigation of community involvement. In general, the cruise industry has been an under-researched topic (Brida et al. 2011). Additionally, according to Lester & Weeden (2004), with a few exceptions, the majority of research devoted to the cruise industry has predominantly focused on economics. Effective management of the natural environment is equally important for the Caribbean cruise industry and therefore the natural elements should receive equal attention as economic elements.
Once the most prominent elements of SES thinking are introduced, the second part of the theoretical framework will continue with a discussion of existing theories on tourism perceptions. These theories have a longer history than those of SES thinking and will be tested for this specific case, in order to confirm or deny the assumptions underlying the theories in the context of cruise tourism in Southern Belize. Tourism perceptions theories are additionally included to explain potential impacts of cruise tourism in Southern Belize and what these imply for the local SES – thus connecting the two different types of theories of SES thinking and perception theories. Research on residents’ perceptions towards tourism has generally focused on areas in Europe and North America (Harrill, 2004: 252). This research will theoretically be valuable by including a region that is usually been overlooked. As the Caribbean and Belize are increasingly popular tourism destinations, the research field of tourism perceptions needs to be expanded and include these nations that are largely dependent on securing healthy tourism industries. Additionally, balancing the conflicting concepts of development and sustainability is of great importance to sustain future tourism development in countries such as Belize. Tourism perceptions by host community residents are believed to be of great importance for planning
issues and securing sustainable development (Monterrubio, 2007). Finally, this research
provides an example of how SES thinking can be expanded by tying in with theories of other
1.2. Thesis structure
Now that the research has been introduced, and its theoretical and practical relevance has been described, the rest of the thesis is structured as follows:
Chapter 2 Description of the theoretical foundation for the research. Social-ecological system thinking and related concepts such as governance and community involvement are introduced. Additionally, theories on tourism
perceptions, such as community attachment theory are discussed.
Chapter 3 Methodology; it describes the conceptual framework and research questions; the operationalization of some main concepts, my epistemological stance, the research design, limitations of the study and (ethical) challenges faced in the field.
Chapter 4 Historical and contextual information about (tourism in) Belize and the research area are presented, setting the scene for the following four chapters dedicated to data analyses.
Chapter 5 - 9 present data analyses and findings of this study:
Chapter 5 Describes the most prominent features of the social-ecological system that this research focuses on.
Chapter 6 Presents a collection of information about the claims relevant
stakeholders will put on the SES and whether and how these claims overlap. Chapter 7 Explores the potential social-environmental impacts that the future cruise
industry in Southern Belize may cause on the SES.
Chapter 8 Describes the governance system by looking into the regulation of the potential impacts of the previous chapter and by investigating community
involvement.
Chapter 9 Provides numerical information on perceptions based on statistical analyses, linking back to the theories on tourism perceptions introduced in Chapter 2. Chapter 10 Conclusion: provides an answer to the question this research is built on by
CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Over time, humans have used and abused ecosystems in various ways and under changing conditions. Historically, the general trend has been to ‘domesticate’ resources and to simplify landscapes in order to expand production and reduce uncertainties (Folke et al. 2005: 442). Human activities today are strongly interconnected at different scales due to globalization. Additionally, societal development and the capacity of the environment have been weakened over time. Changes in ecosystems and societies can be incremental, characterized by periods of gradual change; or abrupt, when the future of the system’s dynamic is uncertain (Folke et al. 2005: 442, 443). In many cases conservation plans are not (properly) implemented, because social processes that influence such practices are not considered. Social-ecological system thinking can provide a thorough understanding of human-environment interactions and more effective integration of social considerations in conservation decisions (Ban et al. 2013: 194). The following section explores the concept of social-ecological systems (SES) and the added value of interdisciplinary research that this approach is based on. Next, the importance of interactive and multi-level governance for social-ecological system thinking addressed. Social-ecological system thinking will be used as a descriptive tool in this study, in order to provide a complete understanding of the SES that this research focuses on.
The second part of this theoretical framework elaborates on theories on perceptions and
attitudes on tourism, which have gained academic attention during the last few decades. A high number of works exist on the topic of tourism perceptions. Here, some of the most significant theoretical contributions are explained, e.g. social exchange theory and the ‘Irridex’. The majority of research on tourism impacts has been conducted through the assessments of residents’ perceptions; determining perceptions on tourism activity is important to assess host communities’ quality of life and to set regulations to reduce frictions between residents and tourists (Monterrubio, 2007: 36).
2.1. Social-ecological system thinking
Scholars have used various concepts to describe the interplay between the natural and the social realm: social-environmental systems, ecosocial systems, socioecological systems (Folke et al. 2005: 443) and human-environment systems (Liu et al. 2007, 1513). This wide diversity of concepts can complicate research on this topic. The Community Conservation Research Network (CCRN) attempts to gather and structure the theories on social-ecological system thinking. Overall, the CCRN aims to examine:
“the scope for improved environmental stewardship and sustainable resource management through local-level and community-based initiatives, and through multi-level environmental governance” (CCRN, 2015).
Here, the term ‘social-ecological system’ (SES) refers to any ecological system that is intricately linked or affected by one or more social system(s); it refers to
“the subset of social systems in which some of the interdependent relationships among humans are mediated through interactions with biophysical and non-human biological units” (Anderies et al., 2004: 18)
In various ways humans ‘interact’ with the natural components of a system. Even though human-nature interactions have been studied rather well, there is a lack of understanding of the complexity of coupled systems (Liu et al. 2007: 513). In conservation and natural resource-planning, attempts have been made to include social elements, but only to a limited extent. For example, the approaches to determine which social factors matter most have not been consistent: this complicates effective interpretations. Also, there is a lack of knowledge on how to move from recognition of the need to address social issues to actually incorporating these in planning and regulations (Ban et al. 2013: 196). By studying six social-environmental systems on five different continents, Liu et al. (2007) concluded that the high complexity of the various cases calls for a more comprehensive approach to fully encompass the interactions within social-ecological systems. Similar realizations have gradually led to the rising importance of interdisciplinary sciences that aim to bridge the gaps between social and environmental research. One of the main premises of social-ecological system thinking is the idea that integrating social considerations in conservation or ‘natural’ protection is a necessary element for increasing the likelihood of long-term goals to be met (Ban et al. 2013: 195).
In order to describe and organize findings Elinor Ostrom (2007) has developed a
framework that can be applied to any social-ecological system. She describes the importance of the framework as follows:
“without a framework to organize relevant variables identified in theories and empirical research, isolated knowledge acquired from studies of diverse resource systems in different countries by biophysical and social scientists is not likely to cumulate” (Ostrom, 2007: 420).
Resources are embedded in complex social-ecological systems, which consist of multiple subsystems and internal variables that operate at different levels (Ostrom, 2007: 419). According to Ostrom’s framework, see Figure 1, each social-ecological system consists of the following elements: i. a resource system (forest/coast) ii. resource units (trees/fish) iii. users (loggers/fishers) and iv. a governance system (rules and organizations that govern the respective system). These four parts interact with each other, as well as with the larger social, economic and political elements and the state of other specific ecosystems (Ban et al. 2013: 197). In order to understand a complex whole, all the specific variables and how these are related need to be understood. The system needs to be dissected from its complexity, in order to fully encompass or effectively change it (Ostrom, 2007: 420). As variables in SESs are often interacting non-linearly, data analyses of the SES interactions can be very challenging (Ostrom 2007: 421).
A framework, such as the one presented by Ostrom, provides a common language to compare situations; it identifies potentially influential attributes of a system and organizes these in order to advance systematic investigation (Epstein et al. 2013: 434). Models and theories are inherently different from frameworks: the first look into answering questions about processes that produce outcomes under certain specific conditions, the latter focus on questions “about a larger universe of mechanisms that lead to outcomes under more variable conditions” (Epstein et al. 2013: 434). SES thinking has been developed in line with variations of the institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework that emphasizes collective action at the local level. The SES framework can be applied to a large variety of issues related to the management of a social-ecological system. Although most SES research focuses on the extraction of common pool resources, it has also to a limited extent been applied to tourism cases, in which the natural resources are used for recreational purposes (Blanco, 2011). Epstein et al. (2013) argue that previous applications of the SES framework have shown the multiplicity of methods and epistemologies that can fit the framework. Nevertheless, although presented as an interdisciplinary framework, it often fails to account for biophysical attributes. In previous studies, not more than one third of the studied attributes were biophysical; the majority of studies utilizing a SES framework solely manage to effectively identify social and institutional drivers (Epstein et al. 2013: 432).
Figure 1. Ostrom's SES framework (Ostrom, 2007)
2.2. Social-ecological system thinking and community involvement
In line with Ostrom’s thinking on collective action, one of the main tenets of social-ecological thinking is the emphasis on community involvement or co-management. When plans and regulations are tailored to the preferences and behaviours of the majority of the stakeholders, the plans will improve and compliance with any prompted recommendations will increase (Ban et al. 2013: 195). Adaptive co-management or community involvement is aimed at establishing functional feedback loops between the social and ecological systems (Olsson et al. 2004). Allowing community involvement in regulations over social-ecological systems will make the process more realistic and inclusive (Ban et al. 2013: 195), because including “non-scientific”-knowledge allows for inclusion of ethical and social values that would otherwise been ignored. These arguments underlying the importance of citizen involvement are generally accepted, yet disagreements remain on how and in what form this should take place (Stringer et al. 2006: 39). Notions on what constitutes as proper or efficient involvement vary between different stakeholders and therefore the strategies to involve certain groups vary as well. Community participation can take place in different stages, from goal setting to monitoring (Stringer et al. 2006: 39). Next to the belief that community involvement will result in better management plans, a normative argument that draws on democracy is often applied; namely, that people should all have the right to participate in management processes (Elster 1998, in Stringer et al. 2006). Even though participatory approaches appear to promote such democratic values in social-ecological management, often unequal power relations persist and management remains autocratic. The flexible and contested nature of the concept of participation limits its usefulness as it fails to illustrate what kind of participation can be valuable in what contextual setting or in what phase.
The notion that community involvement will improve overall management outcomes is shared by non-SES thinkers. A variety of theories address the implications of the role of communities in sustainable planning, whether that is in ecosystem management or e.g. tourism development (or even a combination of both) and many have been criticized. The Community Based Tourism (CBT) theory is an example of a community-approach specifically aimed to improve community involvement in tourism development; it states that community involvement is the foundation to a more sustainable tourism industry (Brida et al., 2011). According to Blackstock (2005: 41), CBT is “naïve and unrealistic” for three reasons. First, the primary goal of the CBT approach is to sustain the tourism industry, by including local residents. Nevertheless, other community theories more centred on social justice might question the desirability or benefits of tourism in the first place. CBT looks into including local people in order to sustain tourism in the long run – economic profitability of the tourism sector is its main tenet. The second issue focuses on the difficulty to define the term ‘community’. In many cases, CBT fails to address the contested nature of this concept, which can indirectly lead to falsely labelling a community as homogenous. Simplifying the community as one, can lead to the misconception that all in the community think the same, whereas in most cases only a few hold a position of power and dominate the ‘community view’ (Blackstock, 2005: 42). Thirdly, next to internal structures within the community, external barriers to participation are equally important. From a capitalist viewpoint, not involving the community could be the cheaper option and such forces
This type of criticism towards CBT reveals the naivety surrounding theories implying that community involvement in decision-making is in all cases for the better. The complex entities surrounding and influencing the possibilities for communities to be involved need to be studied carefully before making any claims about the added value of community participation in decision-making.
2.3. Social-ecological system thinking: interactive governance and scale
Another key concept of social-ecological system thinking is governance, in particular multi-level and interactive governance. Governance is a contested concept of which no universal definition exists; overall it refers to the various processes that are being undertaken to guide a society towards a certain state. Torfing (2012: 14) for example, defines governance as: “processes which steer society and the economy which involve several actors, according to common goals and producing public value”. Different kinds of governance are e.g. hierarchical governance, interactive governance, self-governance and multi-level governance. In this research, focus will be on interactive governance and multi-level governance, as explained in the following
paragraph.
As confidence in governments has in many settings decreased, the importance of the concept of governance has grown (Torfing et al. 2012: 14). Interactive governance emphasizes not only the role of the state, but also that of the market and civil society. Actors within any society can thus be divided in these three categories. This type of interactive governance fits social-ecological system thinking best, since it is derived from the assumption that a combination of efforts govern each society and that the interactions between these various actors are a key characteristic for governance. Governing interactions are in this conception defined as
“exchanges between actors that contribute to the tackling of societal problems and
opportunities” (Kooiman & Bavinck 2013: 11). Additionally, interactive governance is often characterized as multi-level governance, since it tends to focus on multiple scales and on how authorities can overlap at local and global scales (Kooiman et al. 2008: 2).
The main entities from a governance perspective are the system-to-be-governed, the governing system and the governance interactions (see Figure 2). The system-to-be-governed consists of a specific natural and social system; the governing system refers to the mechanisms and processes in place for guidance and steering the system-to-be-governed; and the governing interactions are the mutually influencing relations between the various actors in the system (Kooiman & Bavinck, 2013). These three realms determine the capacity for governance, or the governability of the system. Generally, governability of a system will expected to be low for resource systems that are highly complex, dynamic and affect multiple scales (Chuenpagdee et al. 2008: 1). The interactive governance perspective has often been applied to aquaculture and coastal zones, since these systems are often faced with overexploitation and inefficient use of resources; assessing governability through a governance perspective allows for insights in factors that enhance or limit governance that can improve governance arrangements in the end. Inclusiveness and transparency of the governance processes are additional elements that are important to consider when assessing governance (Chuenpagdee et al. 2008: 2).
Figure 2. Interactive governance (adapted from Kooiman & Bavinck 2013)
For this research, the frameworks by Ostrom (figure 1) on social-ecological systems and the one on interactive governance by Kooiman & Bavinck (figure 2) will be combined by labelling the governance system as an interactive one; and by categorizing the ‘users’ into the categories of state, market and civil society. The conceptual framework is presented in Chapter 3.
2.4. Perceptions and attitudes in tourism
Globally, many societies and communities are restructuring their industries and are economically becoming more dependent on tourism; meaning many areas are faced with tourism’s impacts for the first time (Harrill, 2004: 251). Over the years, there has been a growing recognition of the gap in coordination and cohesion in the fragmented tourism industry. A challenging task that in many cases could improve coordination is to stimulate cooperation between the governmental, private and civil society sector. A key element to such mechanisms and processes of cooperation are local communities’ attitudes and perceptions towards tourism; which has been a lasting topic to tourism studies (Brida et al. 2011: 183). Nevertheless, longitudinal studies on this topic are rare (Getz, 1994: 247). Many planners study people’s perceptions towards tourism in order to stimulate local support for specific or alternative tourism projects (Harrill, 2004: 251). Or as Ap puts it,
“the principal reason for this attention is that the perceptions and attitudes of residents toward the impacts of tourism are likely to be an important planning and policy consideration for the successful development, marketing and operation of
Tourism is overall known to be pervasive: the composition of tourism influences not only the physical, but to an equal extent the social landscape (community’s employment, social structures and social land use). Most research on residents’ attitudes towards tourism for tourism planning has been conducted in Europe and North America (Harrill, 2004: 252). Also, only a small percentage of total research on this topic was done prior to the specific tourism development. Most research is done in places where the tourism industry is already well established and research at expectations, hopes and attitudes prior to the establishment would be a valuable addition to this field (Mason & Cheyne, 2000: 394) – underlying the importance of this research.
According to Harrill (2004), the following are the most studied factors that influence the attitudes towards tourism development:
1. Socioeconomic factors; such as income, age, gender, ethnicity etc.
2. Spatial factors; these factors are addressed more extensively in the following section, as
it is part of the community attachment theory.
3. Economic dependency; this implies that the more a person or collective community is
depending on tourism, the more positive the attitude towards tourism developments will be.
4. Resident and community typologies, which is when researchers group residents
together who exhibit similar attitudes. An example of this is Doxey’s (1975) ‘Irridex’, which will be set out in the next section.
5. Theoretical perspectives; when hypotheses are tested and put together in formal
theories, such as social exchange theory (Harrill, 2004: 256-258).
Ap (1990: 614) compared several studies on local people’s attitudes towards tourism and concluded that research on this topic generally lacks guiding theoretical frameworks. The studies often miss an a priori set of definitions of key concepts and conceptual frameworks due to their atheoretical foundation. Harrill (2004: 259) contributes this missing theoretical basis to the fact that tourism and leisure research tend to be an applied field, without a genuine theoretical body. Most theories that are associated with tourism research are derived from more mature social sciences with a longer history, such as sociology or psychology.
In earlier years, theories such as play theory, dependency theory and conflict theory have unsuccessfully tried to grasp and explain the complex phenomenon of residents’ perceptions on tourism (Ap, 1992: 667). Three examples of social theories that have been applied more successfully to research on tourism perceptions or attitudes are social exchange theory (Harrill 2004: 259; Brida 2011; Ap 1992; Getz 1994), community attachment theory (Harrill, 2004; Ritzer, 1996) and growth machine theory (Madrigal, 1994).
Social exchange theory involves the exchange of resources, which can be material, social or psychological in nature, between individuals and groups (Harrill 2004: 260). It has been applied in researching various daily contexts (Ap, 1992: 668). In tourism, certain exchanges always occur as generally the motives to attract tourism are based on the economic or social conditions of an area. Tourist-host relationships tend to be unequal by nature, since in the majority of cases one takes advantage of the other. Sustainable tourism projects seek to balance costs and benefits for both local residents and tourism actors. Social exchange theory implies that the host community evaluates ‘new’ tourism along the lines of social exchange: expected costs and benefits are evaluated and compared to the services that the community will have to supply. This means that communities will embark on tourism development to fulfil economic, social and psychological needs. When tourism is forced upon a community by another actor, both a negative and positive disposition towards tourism can be the result. This disposition towards tourism will be negative if the unequal relationship leads to an imbalance of benefits. Nevertheless, initial opposition can transform into a positive disposition when benefits from the tourism development still outweigh the costs (Ap, 1992: 669). Perdue et al. (1990: 587) have used the same theory to conclude that people who benefit from tourism perceive less social and environmental impacts than those who do not benefit. Unlike many other theories, social exchange theory has led to interesting insights since it manages to account for both negative and positive, individual and collective perceptions (Ap, 1992: 667).
Community attachment theory states that sentiments of attachment will determine one’s support or lack thereof for tourism development. The basic assumption underlying this theory is that the more attached a resident is to his or her community, the less positive their sentiments towards new or increasing tourism activities will be (Harrill, 2004: 259). In previous research, a variety of variables (mainly socioeconomic ones) have been used as indicators for community attachment. Attachment increases with duration of residency, family ties and social advancement (Harrill, 2004: 259). Many studies have shown that the longer a resident has been living in a particular community, the more negative he/she will be towards tourism development. Nevertheless, newer residents might also be negative towards new tourism development (Mason & Cheyne, 2000: 394). Ritzer (1996) claims that community attachment weakens when population (density) increases. In line with these statements, when community members feel their identity to be threatened, they will take on negative, or even actively hostile attitudes towards the tourism industry. In their study of Montana, McCool & Martin (1994), confirmed the community attachment theory and also found that those who are more attached, are generally more informed and therefore more concerned about potential impacts.
A popular third theory used in tourism perceptions research is growth machine theory, which is particularly useful when looking into differences in attitudes between residents and elite. It builds on the assumption that tourism development is led and controlled by powerful urban interests, rather than individual community members (Harrill, 2004: 261). The competition over future land use is the political and economic essence of that place. Madrigal explains the core of the theory as follows:
“the political organization of many communities is often dominated by individuals benefiting either directly from a specific development alternative (property owners, investors, speculators) or indirectly as a result of overall growth (realtors, bankers, owners of industries servicing the direct beneficiaries) ” (Madrigal 1994, 87).
Smaller communities within each community compete for land-use potential. Local community members who share perceptions on this can be regarded to be part of the same nested community. The attitude of the government can also be studied through this theory, as it emphasizes how the government influences the local “business climate” and the requirement for any new (tourism) company to enter a locality. Local communities’ perceptions might be shaped according to the actions by the government (Madrigal 1994: 88).
Finally, a large quantity of researchers has more extensively looked into specific elements and how these contribute to communities’ perceptions, some of which have been gathered into well-established theories. For example, Perdue et al. (1990: 587) reveal what they call the “doomsday phenomena”: when the local communities, especially in rural settings, perceive the future economy to be deteriorating, support for tourism development tends to be high. In contrast, communities that are positive towards their economic future, are less likely to support new tourism development. Getz (1994: 249) briefly discusses how the proximity to a specific tourism development can, according to many other writers, influence attitudes. Nevertheless, evidences of this relation are very mixed, as different studies have revealed negative and positive relations. No universal conclusion can thus be drawn in such cases; yet applying this hypothesis in different contexts can provide additional insights. Next, Doxey (1975) developed the ‘Irridex’, an irritation index which includes four stages (euphoria, apathy, annoyance and antagonism) linked to an increasing number of tourists. The Irridex reveals how a community can feel a sense of euphoria when tourism first starts to flourish, but as tourism numbers increase, so does the hostility towards these tourists and eventually the community ends up in a stage of antagonism (Mason & Cheyne, 2000: 392). This index suggests changes in attitudes over time and would particularly be interesting to adopt in longitudinal studies. Since this study is neither longitudinal, nor focused on an urban area (growth machine theory), social exchange theory and community attachment theory will serve as the foundation for the following analytical chapters on residents’ perceptions of cruise-tourism. The Irridex will also be analysed briefly to describe in what stage of the Irridex the communities currently are.
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter on research methodology presents the conceptual schemes that were derived from the theories as introduced in Chapter 2. This conceptual framework is closely related to the research questions, which are discussed next. A short section on operationalization provides a more detailed description of the main concepts in this research. The epistemological methods that were applied are explained – a distinction between qualitative and quantitative methods is made. This chapter ends with a short discussion on limitations, challenges and ethical difficulties that surfaced while in the field.
3.1. Conceptual Framework
In terms of concepts and theories, the research can be split into two parts and both parts are built on conceptual schemes that slightly overlap. The first part is based on the merging of Ostrom’s SES framework and the concept of interactive governance, as set out in Chapter 2. This conceptual framework provides a tool to explore all elements of the social-ecological system. This analytical part will thus be of exploratory and descriptive nature; its goal is to collect information on the social-ecological system. The concept of interactive governance is integrated under the ‘users’ section: users are split into the categories of state, market and civil society. Figure 3 shows a depiction of this conceptual framework. Different from Ostrom’s original framework, the outcomes and interactions with related ecosystems are left out in this case simply because the extent and time-frame of this research did not allow for the inclusion of related ecosystems – solely a very general description of ecosystems nearby is added.
The second part of the research is focused on residents’ perceptions. Again, the SES is taken as the basis; Norwegian Cruise Line is in this scheme regarded as an external, new actor who puts claims on both the environmental and social side of the SES around Harvest Caye. Note that when speaking of socio-environmental impacts, ‘socio’ refers to both the cultural and economic realm. The studied perceptions are perceptions on the intrusion of NCL and on the potential impacts it can have on local people’s lives. The concept of perceptions is closely tied to the theories of community attachment and social exchange as described in the theoretical framework. Again, social, economic and political settings are influential to the management of the SES and thus also to the residents’ perceptions. Note that the conceptualization in both Figure 3 and Figure 4 present a simplified depiction of reality; although more entities can be added, these schemes form the foundation of this research.
3.2. Research Questions
The main question to be answered in this study is:
How do surrounding communities perceive the future impacts of NCL’s developments at Harvest Caye and what is their role in governing the SES?
Subsequently, this research question is divided in the following five sub-questions. These questions focus on the implications that need to be analysed in order to answer the central question. Each analysis chapter will answer one of these sub-questions.
I. What is the current social-ecological system around Harvest Caye, Belize?
II. What are the claims of NCL and of other stakeholders on the SES around Harvest Caye?
III. What are the present and potential future socio-economic and environmental
impacts of NCL’s tourism development at Harvest Caye?
IV. How is the local government regulating the impacts of NCL’s tourism development
on the SES around Harvest Caye and how are local communities involved in this?
V. How do local residents perceive the coming of cruise tourism to Southern Belize?
3.3. Operationalization
The theories underlying this research contain a few central concepts that require definition in order to limit confusion, especially since most of these concepts are of a contested nature. Some of these concepts have partially been explained in the theoretical framework; the following definitions are the ones that will be used throughout this report.
Social-ecological system: linking together the ‘human system’ (e.g. communities, society,
economy) and the ‘natural system’ (e.g. ecosystems) in a two-way feedback relationship (CCRN, 2015).
(Interactive) Governance is “the whole of interactions taken to solve societal problems and
create societal opportunities, including the formulation and application of principles guiding those interactions and care for institutions to enable them” (Kooiman & Bavinck 2013: 11). The concept of community is approached geographically in this research. When speaking of the ‘Independence community’ – this refers to all those who live within the village boundaries of Independence. Similarly for the ‘Placencia community’ – all those living in Placencia Village are considered part of the village; both Belizeans and expatriates. These geographical boundaries are depicted in the following chapter on the contextual setting of this research.
The terms perceptions and attitude are often used as synonyms; however, these concepts differ significantly in meaning. Perceptions refer to the meaning that is attributed to an object or phenomena; attitudes represent a person’s “enduring predisposition or action tendencies to some object” (Ap 1992: 671). In tourism research, use of the term perception is more common and appropriate, because even residents who do not have knowledge or dispositions about tourism impacts, can still attribute a certain meaning to it (Ap 1992: 671).
3.4. Ontological and epistemological position
Bryman (2008: 27) describes how comparing the epistemology of social sciences versus that of natural sciences has often been an issue. In my opinion, positivism of the natural sciences does not fit social sciences similarly. Positivism will play a small role in writing up results of this study, as it aims to not solely include the social, but also (to a much smaller extent) the natural system that this thesis topic targets. However, the main epistemological foundation of this research is critical realism. Easton (2010: 119) claims that critical realism is the best fit for case-study research; in line with that, Bryman (2008: 29) mentioned how the context is the crucial element for observations. It is based on the belief that a “scientist’ conceptualization is simply a way of knowing that reality” (Bryman, 2008: 29), meaning it identifies the existence of a ‘real world’. In addition to critical realism I also identify myself with a more transformative paradigm. This paradigm believes that mixed methods research can be the basis for social change. It also emphasizes the need to include local communities in research methods (Mertens 2007: 212). The latter section of this chapter briefly addresses the challenge of adopting this transformative paradigm. Ontologically, constructivism is underlying this research: the results presented here are a specific version of a reality (Bryman, 2008: 33); according to my perception, true objectivity does not exist in social sciences.
3.5. Research design and methods
This research has gone through an iterative process; an iterative process implies that: “research questions may be changed over time based on material collected and that research strategies, data collection and analysis methods and tactics should fit the (changing) research questions and process phases” (Kerssens-van Drongelen 2001: 503).
By procedural repetition of certain steps of the research process results closer to the desired outcome can be collected (Repko 2008: 139). As mentioned previously, the transformative research design allows for the inclusion of local voices in research methodology. An ethical responsibility to include the rights of local communities is thus recognized. Nevertheless, the extent of the transformative paradigm is limited; an additional pragmatist approach is taken on, which also approves the use of pluralistic approaches (Creswell 2013: 11).
Both qualitative and quantitative methods are applied, thus creating a mixed methods
research approach. The distinction between these two is often simplified and marked as qualitative methods focusing on words, while quantitative methods focus on numbers. More specifically, qualitative research is aimed at exploring and understanding how individuals and groups perceive and/or deal with a certain social problem. Quantitative methods, on the other hand, are used to examine relationships between certain variables to test objective theories or hypotheses. Mixed methods research integrates both in order to provide a more complete understanding of the specific case (Creswell 2013: 4). As a research design, a convergent parallel mixed methods design is applied, which implies that qualitative and quantitative methods will be merged to provide a comprehensive analysis. Additionally, this design allows for the different types of data to be collected simultaneously (Creswell 2013: 15).
Furthermore, to a limited extent this research can be seen as interdisciplinary. Interdisciplinary studies are
“a process of answering a question, solving a problem, or addressing a topic that is too broad or complex to be dealt with adequately by a single discipline or profession […] and draws on disciplinary perspectives and integrates their insights through construction of a more comprehensive perspective”(Repko 2008: 11).
Interdisciplinary learning recognizes the need to move beyond a single discipline in order to comprehensively address any real-world research problems (Repko 2008: 3). Interdisciplinarians believe that disciplinary experts are prone to tunnel vision, which limits their ability to fully examine important issues. Creative breakthroughs in addressing complex problems also tend to occur when various disciplinary perspectives are merged (Repko 2008: 30).
Overall, four categories of disciplines can be distinguished: i. the natural sciences (biology, chemistry etc.); ii. the social sciences (anthropology, political science etc.); iii. the humanities (art, history, religious studies.); iv. the applied professions (business, criminal justice etc.) (Repko 2008: 4). This research focuses on the first two disciplinary categories of natural and social sciences. As my knowledge of natural sciences is limited, only secondary data of these disciplines is used. Primary social science data was collected autonomously. Integrating the data from various disciplines involves the identification of all relevant disciplinary insights into a certain problem; finding out how these conflict; and what insights can be reconciled.
Social science research includes a very broad range of methods and approaches that originate from different research disciplines (Ritchie et al. 2003: 3). The following part describes the various qualitative and the quantitative methods that this research made use of.
1.
Insights into the
problem or
question
2.
Integration of
insights
3.
Interdisciplinary
understanding
3.6. Research Methods
3.6.A. Qualitative methods
Several semi-structured interviews were conducted with a variety of stakeholders and this method can be categorized as one of the main methods for this study. Depending on the specific stakeholder a simple paper-based interview guide was produced prior to each interview; in this guide the general topics and some specific questions were set out to structure the interview. Duration of the interviews varied from twenty-five minutes to 2.5 hours. The semi-structured interviews contained open-ended questions and therefore allowed for discussions to arise (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2008). In such a way, the interviewee was free to bring up (new) topics that are of importance to him or her. Originally, I intended to record all formal semi-structured interviews done for this research, because conducting an interview while simultaneously writing down notes can result in poor notes due to a lack of focus. Beneficial to this type of interview is how questions can be prepared ahead of time, while at the same time enough freedom remains to alter the interview structure while conducting the actual interview. Apart from formal interviews, informal and unplanned interviews have been of great value as well. Through informal conversations an understanding of the setting, context and of certain stakeholders was collected and often these led to more formal, in-depth interviews.
Prior to going to the field a preliminary list of stakeholders that would ideally all be included in the research was identified. The stakeholders were categorized by the three stakeholder groups of interactive governance (state, civil society and market). While in the field, this list was adapted according to what would be realistic. Although not all stakeholders on this list agreed to be interviewed, a variety of stakeholders for each category was approached (see Figure 6 for some examples per category). The Placencia and Independence communities were the units of analysis; additionally a few interviews were conducted with additional stakeholders in Belize City. An anonymized list of all the interviewees can be found in Annex I.
Stakeholders
State▪ National Environmental Appraisal Committee (NEAC) ▪ Village councils
▪ Belize Tourism Board (BTB)
Civil Society
NGOs
▪ Southern Environmental Association ▪ Tourism Industry Association
Local communities
▪ Residents of Placencia Village
▪ Residents of Independence & Mango Creek
Researchers
▪ Social science researchers (antropology) ▪ Natural science researchers (marine ecology)
Market
▪ Norwegian Cruise Line
Local tourism companies
▪ Placencia Tour Guide Cooperative ▪ Dive shops
Secondly, a brief self-completion questionnaire was prepared in the field and filled in by 79 respondents. Following the semi-structured interviews, the questionnaires are the second main method. The terms ‘questionnaire’ and ‘survey’ are used interchangeably here. The most prominent form of questionnaires is the one sent by post or mail. However, the type of questionnaire used in this research can be called a ‘supervised self-completion questionnaire’ (Bryman, 2008: 233) as I personally handed the questionnaires out and remained present around the respondent until he or she had finished. The questions of the survey were based on information obtained during the first set of semi-structured interviews. The questionnaires were kept simple, in order to allow a wide variety of stakeholders to participate and to reduce ‘respondent fatigue’ (Bryman, 2008: 233). This was achieved by limiting the amount of open questions, limiting the amount of questions in total and by designing the questionnaire in a way that would be easy to follow. One of the reasons to use questionnaires next to interviews was one of time management, as questionnaires are generally quicker to administer (Bryman, 2008: 233). In most cases (though not all, as discussed in section 3.6 on challenges) respondents needed a few minutes to complete the survey. An advantage of this method is the lower likeliness of respondents to exhibit social desirability bias, as the interviewer was in most cases not directly involved and the surveys were anonymous.
Additionally, participatory observations were conducted as a third qualitative
method. For participatory observations the researcher joins a certain group as a participatory member to gain a “first-hand perspective of the group and their activities” (Ross 2014). The researcher is simultaneously an objective observer and a subjective participant. This approach allows one to experience events like the respondents and at the same time as an “outsider” as the researcher can discover elements that the respondents might take for granted. Such findings are not likely to come up during regular interviews. Additionally, partaking in daily activities appeared to positively influence the relationship between the researcher and the respondent; which allowed e.g. for more in-depth interviews at a later stage. On the downside, participatory observations can be very time consuming, it can potentially influence other participants’ behaviour and it can lead to bias (Ross 2014). Observations were conducted during the full timeframe of the fieldwork.
Next, document and literature reviews are the fourth qualitative method for this
research. Documents such as the Environmental Impact Assessment of this specific case provided valuable information on the case (being aware of the controversies around this document) and critically analysing it proved to provide additional perspectives on the issue. Document and literature reviews also provided information and data that I could not collect myself; for example to get a proper understanding of the ecological system. I was only able to collect data on the environmental impacts of the developments on a general level; yet, for micro-level data I had to consult other researchers, documents and literature. In addition, much information had to be derived from local news, as the development of the cruise port is still on-going.
Finally, visual methods play a supportive role in this research. Although not a main method for this research, adding imagery contributes to sketching an understanding of the context and certain events related to the research.
