Cruise Ship Tourism in Akaroa by Lincoln University - Christchurch

PREPARED FOR: CHRISTCHURCH & CANTERBURY TOURISM

Cruise Ship Tourism in Akaroa Visitor experiences and expenditure,

and business stakeholder perceptions

Prepared by Lincoln University May 2013

i

Acknowledgments

The Visitor Survey was undertaken by Monique Smith as a Summer Student Research Project within

the Department of Social Science, Parks, Recreation, Tourism and Sport at Lincoln University. This

Summer Student project was funded by Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism.

Monique was responsible for the majority of the data collection, the preliminary analysis and the

first draft of the report. We are grateful for her contribution to this project. We also wish thank Dr

Joanna Fountain and Dr Emma Stewart for their supervision of the student project and their input

into this final report.

The final analysis, including coding of the open-ended data and the preparation of these results for

the final draft of the report was undertaken by Michael Shone.

The Business Stakeholder interviews were conducted, analysed and written up by Jude Wilson. The

final draft of this report was written by Michael Shone and Jude Wilson.

We wish to thank all those who gave their time to be surveyed and interviewed for this project.

Photograph 1: (Cover) Cruise ship in Akaroa Harbour (Emma Stewart)

ii

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................................................................... I

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................ II

LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................................................III

LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................................................................III

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... V

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.1.1 Cruise tourism in New Zealand ............................................................................................................. 2

1.1.2 Cruise tourism in Akaroa ....................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 VISITOR SURVEY ......................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................................ 4

2.1.1 Questionnaire Design ............................................................................................................................ 6

2.1.2 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 7

2.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................... 7

2.1.1 Sample characteristics .......................................................................................................................... 7

2.2.2 Decision-making for organised tours .................................................................................................... 9

2.2.3 Destinations visited ............................................................................................................................. 11

2.2.4 Most enjoyed aspects of destinations visited...................................................................................... 13

2.2.5 Least enjoyed aspects of destinations visited ..................................................................................... 15

2.2.6 Visitor spending during their Akaroa port visit ................................................................................... 17

2.2.7 Responses to destination specific statements ..................................................................................... 25

2.2.8 Visitor satisfaction .............................................................................................................................. 29

2.2.9 Attractions and activities for Akaroa port visits in the future ............................................................. 32

2.3 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................. 35

3.0 BUSINESS STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ..................................................................................................... 36

3.1 METHOD ....................................................................................................................................................... 36

3.2 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 37

3.2.1 Perceptions of the cruise ship visitor market ...................................................................................... 37

3.2.2 Economic engagement with the cruise ship visitor market................................................................. 38

3.2.3 Visitor spending................................................................................................................................... 39

3.2.4 Business challenges ............................................................................................................................. 41

3.2.5 Hosting the cruise ships ...................................................................................................................... 43

3.2.6 Cruise ships in context ......................................................................................................................... 46

3.2.7 The visitor experience ......................................................................................................................... 47

3.3 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................. 49

4.0 CONCLUDING COMMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 51

4.1 VISITOR SPENDING ........................................................................................................................................... 51

4.2 VISITOR EXPERIENCE ......................................................................................................................................... 52

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 54

APPENDICES................................................................................................................................................... 55

iii

APPENDIX ONE: VISITOR SURVEY - QUESTIONNAIRE..................................................................................................... 55

APPENDIX TWO: LIST OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS (GUIDE ONLY) ................................................................. 60

List of Tables

FIGURE 1: AGE GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS (N=430) ........................................................................................................... 8

FIGURE 2: NUMBER OF PREVIOUS CRUISES FOR RESPONDENTS (N=301) ................................................................................. 9

FIGURE 3: DECISION-MAKING ABOUT ACTIVITIES (N=428) ................................................................................................. 10

FIGURE 4: TOTAL SPENDING FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=433) ....................................................... 18

FIGURE 5: SPENDING ON TOURS FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) .................................................. 19

FIGURE 6: SPENDING ON TRANSPORTATION FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) ................................... 20

FIGURE 7: SPENDING ON RESTAURANT MEALS FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) ................................ 22

FIGURE 8: SPENDING ON OTHER FOOD AND REFRESHMENT FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) ............... 22

FIGURE 9: SPENDING ON SHOPPING AND SOUVENIRS FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) ....................... 23

FIGURE 10: SPENDING ON ‘OTHER’ UNSPECIFIED ITEMS/ACTIVITIES FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) .... 24

FIGURE 11: STATEMENTS DESCRIBING AKAROA (DATA REPORTED AS A PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS) ...................................... 25

FIGURE 12: STATEMENTS DESCRIBING CHRISTCHURCH (DATA REPORTED AS A PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS) ............................. 28

FIGURE 13: SATISFACTION WITH OVERALL AKAROA PORT VISIT (N=413) .............................................................................. 30

FIGURE 14: LIKELIHOOD OF RETURNING TO AKAROA ON A CRUISE (N=418) .......................................................................... 30

FIGURE 15: LIKELIHOOD OF VISITING AKAROA IN THE FUTURE (N=418)................................................................................ 31

FIGURE 16: LIKELIHOOD OF VISITING CHRISTCHURCH IN THE FUTURE (N=417) ...................................................................... 31

FIGURE 17: LIKELIHOOD OF RECOMMENDING ‘THIS REGION’ TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS (N=414) ................................................ 32

FIGURE 18: RATING THE APPEAL OF ACTIVITIES FOR FUTURE PORT VISITS (N=313) ................................................................. 33

List of Figures

FIGURE 1: AGE GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS (N=430) ........................................................................................................... 8

FIGURE 2: NUMBER OF PREVIOUS CRUISES FOR RESPONDENTS (N=301) ................................................................................. 9

FIGURE 3: DECISION-MAKING ABOUT ACTIVITIES (N=428) ................................................................................................. 10

FIGURE 4: TOTAL SPENDING FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=433) ....................................................... 18

FIGURE 5: SPENDING ON TOURS FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) .................................................. 19

FIGURE 6: SPENDING ON TRANSPORTATION FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) ................................... 20

FIGURE 7: SPENDING ON RESTAURANT MEALS FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) ................................ 22

FIGURE 8: SPENDING ON OTHER FOOD AND REFRESHMENT FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) ............... 22

FIGURE 9: SPENDING ON SHOPPING AND SOUVENIRS FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) ....................... 23

FIGURE 10: SPENDING ON ‘OTHER’ UNSPECIFIED ITEMS/ACTIVITIES FOR DESTINATION LOCATIONS BY SPENDING BANDS (N=431) .... 24

FIGURE 11: STATEMENTS DESCRIBING AKAROA (DATA REPORTED AS A PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS) ...................................... 25

FIGURE 12: STATEMENTS DESCRIBING CHRISTCHURCH (DATA REPORTED AS A PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS) ............................. 28

FIGURE 13: SATISFACTION WITH OVERALL AKAROA PORT VISIT (N=413) .............................................................................. 30

FIGURE 14: LIKELIHOOD OF RETURNING TO AKAROA ON A CRUISE (N=418) .......................................................................... 30

FIGURE 15: LIKELIHOOD OF VISITING AKAROA IN THE FUTURE (N=418)................................................................................ 31

FIGURE 16: LIKELIHOOD OF VISITING CHRISTCHURCH IN THE FUTURE (N=417) ...................................................................... 31

FIGURE 17: LIKELIHOOD OF RECOMMENDING ‘THIS REGION’ TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS (N=414) ................................................ 32

FIGURE 18: RATING THE APPEAL OF ACTIVITIES FOR FUTURE PORT VISITS (N=313) ................................................................. 33

iv

List of Photographs

PHOTOGRAPH 1: (COVER) CRUISE SHIP IN AKAROA HARBOUR (EMMA STEWART) ..................................................................... I

PHOTOGRAPH 2: PASSENGERS DISEMBARKING AKAROA WHARF (JUDE WILSON) ..................................................................... IV

PHOTOGRAPH 3: PRINCESS CRUISES WELCOME AREA, AKAROA WHARF (EMMA STEWART) ........................................................ 4

PHOTOGRAPH 4: DIAMOND PRINCESS IN AKAROA HARBOUR (EMMA STEWART) ..................................................................... 4

PHOTOGRAPH 5: RADIANCE OF THE SEAS TENDER APPROACHING AKAROA WHARF (JUDE WILSON) ............................................. 4

PHOTOGRAPH 6: TOURS AND TRANSPORTATION AKAROA WHARF (JUDE WILSON) ................................................................. 19

PHOTOGRAPH 7: BUSES LINED UP TO TAKE TOURS TO CHRISTCHURCH (JUDE WILSON) ............................................................ 19

PHOTOGRAPH 8: INDEPENDENT OPERATORS, AKAROA WHARF (JUDE WILSON) ...................................................................... 39

PHOTOGRAPH 9: AKAROA FOOD OUTLET ADVERTISING CRUISE SHIPS SPECIAL (JUDE WILSON) ................................................... 39

PHOTOGRAPH 10: TEMPORARY INFORMATION CENTRE, AKAROA WHARF (JUDE WILSON) ....................................................... 40

PHOTOGRAPH 11: TOUR BUSES AKAROA (JUDE WILSON) .................................................................................................. 40

PHOTOGRAPH 12: THE MAORI GREETING (EMMA STEWART) ............................................................................................. 48

PHOTOGRAPH 13: ENJOYING AKAROA’S CHARMS (JUDE WILSON) ...................................................................................... 48

PHOTOGRAPH 14: WELCOME TO AKAROA (JUDE WILSON)................................................................................................ 49

PHOTOGRAPH 15: PHOTOGRAPHING ONE’S OWN SHIP (JUDE WILSON) ................................................................................ 49

PHOTOGRAPH 16: WALKING INTO AKAROA TOWNSHIP (JUDE WILSON) .............................................................................. 49

PHOTOGRAPH 17: VISITING THE LOCAL CHURCH, AKAROA (JUDE WILSON) ........................................................................... 49

Photograph 2: Passengers disembarking Akaroa wharf (Jude Wilson)

v

Executive Summary Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism (CCT) commissioned this research to assess the impact of

cruise ship tourists on the Canterbury economy. As a result of damage to Lyttelton Port suffered

during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes, the vast majority of cruise ships arrivals in

Canterbury have been relocated to Akaroa Harbour. During the 2012/2013 cruise ship season 86

ships carrying 143,925 passengers were scheduled to visit Akaroa. This level of cruise ship arrivals in

Akaroa represents a significant increase on previous years.

The research, undertaken in both Christchurch and Akaroa, was in two parts: a visitor survey of 433

cruise ship passengers conducted during the cruise ship season; and a set of business stakeholder

interviews undertaken at the conclusion of the cruise ship season.

Visitor survey

Survey respondents were primarily from Australia (70%) and the USA (15.6%); more than

half were aged over 60 years; over half were travelling with a partner or spouse; and, almost

70 per cent had been on at least one cruise previously.

Of the 433 visitors surveyed, 50 per cent stayed in Akaroa Township, 39 per cent visited

Christchurch.

Just under half of all respondents (47.7%) went on an organised tour during their visit

Respondents reported participating in a wide range of activities:

o The three most popular activities in Akaroa were: walking around (88.2% of

respondents), eating and drinking (59.2%) and shopping (56.7%).

o The four most popular activities in Christchurch were visiting specific sites: Botanic

Gardens (56.7% of respondents), Re: START Container Mall (56.9%), earthquake-

related sites (55.7%), Canterbury Museum (55.1%).

Reasons for not visiting Christchurch included: having been before (24.6%), not wishing to

see the earthquake damage (20.9%) and wishing to do activities in Akaroa (17.1%); 7.1 per

cent of respondents were not aware of the opportunity to visit Christchurch.

The most enjoyed aspects of Akaroa visits were the scenery (reported by 42.2% of

respondents), the pretty town (34.5%), the relaxed village atmosphere (19.9%) and the

friendly people (15.6%).

The most enjoyed aspects of Christchurch visits were seeing earthquake/recovery sites

(26.5% of respondents), the scenery (18.4%) and having a good tour experience (18%).

In Akaroa 74.4 per cent of respondents reported there was nothing they least liked about

their visit (the corresponding figure for Christchurch visits was 63%). The weather

encountered featured in both locations as a least liked aspect of visits.

The average (mean) spend of all respondents was $129.26; those who stayed in Akaroa

reported an average spend of $117.90 and those who visited locations outside Akaroa

reported an average spend of $141.55.

o Those who stayed in Akaroa spent more on restaurant meals and other food, and on

shopping and souvenirs.

o Those who went to Christchurch spent more on tours.

When asked to rate destination attributes of Akaroa there was strong agreement that

Akaroa has a beautiful natural landscape, is a friendly town and safe destination. There was

vi

slightly weaker agreement with statements describing its interesting heritage buildings,

French flavour and availability of a range of things to see and do.

Strong agreement was reported in respect of Christchurch being a friendly city, having

beautiful natural landscapes, interesting heritage buildings and being a safe city. There was

slightly less agreement with there being a lot of things to see and do and it being a lively city.

The majority of respondents disagreed with the statements that Christchurch and Akaroa

were expensive destinations (54.2% and 56.3%, respectively).

Altogether 64 per cent of respondents were highly satisfied with their port visit, 58.9 per

cent reported that they were likely to return on a cruise to Akaroa, 67 per cent reported that

they would return to Akaroa and 69.3 per cent that they would return to Christchurch.

Altogether, 90.3 per cent of respondents reported that they would recommend the region

to family and friends.

The most appealing activities for future visits (selected from a provided list) were

experiencing local food and wine (84.5% of respondents), visiting a museum (66.9%)

experiencing Maori culture (63.3%) and attending a performing arts event (52.7%). Going on

a winery tour, visiting and art gallery and farm tours were rated unappealing by more than

half of respondents.

Business stakeholder interviews

The business stakeholders interviewed (14 Akaroa-based, 7 Christchurch-based) were

primarily those who catered to independent visitors (i.e., not with wholesalers or inbound

operators) and represented a range of business types.

Respondents almost universally agreed that it was highly unpredictable which shipping lines,

particular cruises or types of passengers brought the most economic benefits.

Economic engagement with the cruise ship market varied according to particular business’

type, size and previous engagement with the cruise ship market.

While cruise ship visitor spending was primarily on smaller (low value) items and only

contributed between five and 30 per cent of annual turnover, this spending was enough to

support extra employment and engendered considerable business confidence which had

been badly shaken by the global recession and the impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes.

For local companies who do not have arrangements in place with wholesalers or inbound

operators there are considerable business challenges associated with accessing the cruise

ship visitor market. The hosting of cruise ships in Akaroa (rather than Lyttelton) introduced a

number of logistical challenges.

There was a considerable reluctance to institute long-term changes as a result of uncertainty

around the longevity of Akaroa port visits and the relatively small contribution to overall

business income by the cruise ship market.

Suggestions for new product development included more local (i.e., Banks Peninsula) tours,

engagement with local Maori culture and greater involvement of the local population in the

delivery of tourism products.

Respondents reported positive feedback from visitors associated with the uniqueness of

both Akaroa (e.g., its charm, scenic beauty and village atmosphere) and Christchurch (e.g.,

based on the earthquake and recovery experience).

1

1.0 Introduction

As a consequence of earthquake damage and on-going repairs to the Port of Lyttelton, the town of

Akaroa experienced a dramatic increase in the number of cruise ships visits during the 2011-2013

seasons. In response to this situation, Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism (CCT) has commissioned

a research project assessing the impact of cruise ship tourists on the Akaroa, Christchurch and

Canterbury economy. The project brief outlines the requirement for:

Part A: A report on a visitor survey of cruise ship tourists visiting the port of Akaroa over the

2012/2013 cruise season;

Part B: A report based on interviews with key business stakeholders assessing the economic impact

of cruise ship tourists on their business.

The overall aim of Part A was to examine the perceptions, experiences and economic impact of

cruise ship passengers in Akaroa, Christchurch and Canterbury; with the specific objectives of:

Exploring the characteristics of cruise ship passengers visiting Akaroa and their patterns of

behaviour in port;

Documenting passenger perceptions of Christchurch and Akaroa post-earthquake as well as

exploring visitors’ experiences of Christchurch and Akaroa;

Recording cruise ship passenger expenditure in Akaroa and Christchurch; and

Assessing cruise ship passengers satisfaction and examining the likelihood of passengers

making a return visit to the region.

Linked to Part A was a secondary project that assessed, from the perspective of Akaroa and

Christchurch business stakeholders, the economic impact of increased cruise ship activity in Akaroa.

The stakeholders involved in the research were determined in conjunction with CCT. The specific

objectives of the business stakeholder research were:

Elicit a supply-side view of the economic impacts of cruise ship tourism.

Understand the hosting experiences of a variety of business stakeholders in Akaroa and

Christchurch with respect to the cruise ship visitor market.

As such, this report is divided into four sections:

Section 1 provides contextual material relating to the growth in cruise ship activity in New

Zealand and specifically in Akaroa;

Section 2 outlines the methods used and presents the research results of Part A (the visitor

survey);

Section 3 outlines the methods used and presents the results from Part B (the business

stakeholder interviews); and

Section 4 presents concluding comments in respect of both sets of research findings.

2

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Cruise tourism in New Zealand

The cruise ship tourism industry has exhibited strong growth in New Zealand over the past 15 years.

For example, in the 1996/97 season a total of 27 cruises brought 19,400 passengers to New Zealand.

By the 2011/12 season, this figure had increased to 121 cruises carrying 173,819 passengers (Market

Economics Limited, 2012: ii). This represents an increase of over this 15 year period of 809 per cent

on the 1996/97 figure (see Table 1). This growth trend has become particularly pronounced since the

2009/10 cruise season, when 109,951 passengers visited New Zealand. Growth in visitation over the

two subsequent seasons (i.e., up to, and including, the 2011/12 season) indicates a growth rate of

58.1 per cent on the 2009/10 season (Tourism New Zealand, 2012). This growth is reflective of a

global trend, which has seen the cruise sector grow to more than 20.6m passengers in 2011, up

more than 106 per cent since 2000 (Market Economics Limited, 2012: 1).

It is expected that this growth in the cruise sector is likely to continue, with larger ships visiting and

passenger numbers continuing to increase. Specifically, forecasts for the recently completed

2012/13 anticipated that 130 cruise ship voyages would bring a total of 205,730 passengers to New

Zealand. In addition to these passengers, these ships were expected to also carry a total of 93,000

crew (Market Economics Limited, 2012: 23). This view of the sector appears to be shared by Tourism

New Zealand (2013), which notes on its ‘Cruise Sector’ web page that cruise tourism is the fastest-

growing of New Zealand's tourism sectors and has considerable potential for future growth.

Table 1: Number of cruises and passengers in New Zealand (1996/97 - 2012/13)

New Zealand’s Cruise Summary

Year Number of

Voyages % Change

No. Of Passengers

% Change

1996/97 27 - 19,400 -

2008/09 96

-2.0 118, 976

+2.4

2009/10 81

-15.6 109, 951

-7.6

2010/11 93

14.8 136,168

+23.8

2011/12 120

29.0 173,819

+27.7

2012/13 (forecast) 130

8.3 205,730

+18.4

(Source: Tourism New Zealand, 2012)

In addition to the growth in cruise arrivals to New Zealand, there are also considerable economic

benefits associated with the sector. According to Market Economics Limited (2012: ii-iii), cruise ship

passengers generated $411.8m in direct spending during the 2010/11 season. This was anticipated

to increase to $474.5m in 2011/12 (+15.2%). The direct spend generated during the 2010/11 season

generated $718.6m in total gross output, in turn contributing to $288.9m to New Zealand’s GDP (in

the form of value added) for that period. In addition, the cruise industry sustained, either directly or

indirectly, a total of 4,961 ‘employment count’ (as opposed to FTE) jobs. Each passenger whom

3

travels on a cruise ship to New Zealand is estimated to generate almost $1,700 in value added for

the economy. In terms of passenger nationality, data obtained by Tourism New Zealand (2012) for

the 2011/12 cruise season indicate that 54.8 per cent of cruise passengers to New Zealand are from

Australia, 14.8 per cent are from USA, 10.7 per cent are from New Zealand (i.e., domestic visitors),

and 7.3 per cent are from UK.

1.1.2 Cruise tourism in Akaroa

As noted in Section 1.0 of this report, over the past two seasons the level of cruise tourism in Akaroa

has rapidly increased as a result of the damage to Lyttelton Port from the Christchurch earthquake in

February 2011. Lyttelton was one of the major ports of calls for the South Island before the

earthquake. As a consequence of the earthquake damage to Lyttelton, 29 of the 64 vessels

scheduled to berth at the port during the 2011/12 cruise ship season were transferred to Akaroa

Harbour for their port visit (Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre, 2011). This immediate response

of rescheduling cruise ship arrivals from Lyttelton to Akaroa has subsequently been increased

significantly. The following data help to illustrate this growth trend (see Table 2).

In the 2009/10 cruise season, Akaroa had 8,754 cruise ship passenger arrivals. In the 2010/11

season, this figure had increased to 21,067 passenger arrivals (+140.7% on the previous season). By

2011/12, this figure had grown to 125,667 passenger arrivals (+496.5% on the previous season) (Tan

& Summers, 2012). At the time of writing, official cruise passenger data was yet to be released for

the 2012/13 cruise season. However, 86 cruise ship arrivals were scheduled for Akaroa in this

season, and forecasts suggest that passenger arrivals would be 143,935 (+14.5% of the previous

season).

Table 2: Total number of passenger arrivals and percentage change in Akaroa 2008-2013

Total passenger arrivals Akaroa 2008-2013

Year Total Passenger Arrivals % Change

2008/2009 4,882 -

2009/2010 8,754

+79.3

2010/2011 21,067

+140.7

2011/2012 125,667

+496.5

2012/2013 (forecast) 143,925

+14.5

During the 2011/2012 season the Canterbury region received a significant boost from the cruise

industry with $30.2 million worth of value added to the economy (Market Economics Limited, 2012).

In Canterbury 558 direct/ indirect FTE jobs were supported by the industry. The three dominant

nationalities to arrive in Akaroa during the 2011/2012 season were: Australia (64.3%), USA (16.6%),

and UK (5.5%) (Tan & Summers, 2012). The dominance of Australians amongst cruise passengers to

Akaroa marks a shift from cruise ship visitors prior to the Canterbury earthquakes (2008/2009) when

American passengers (48.4%) dominated arrivals (Tan & Summers, 2012).

4

2.0 Visitor Survey

2.1 Methods Part A of this research was conducted using a surveyor-completed questionnaire with cruise ship

passengers in Akaroa and Christchurch. A convenience sampling method was employed whereby

cruise ship passengers aged 18 and over were approached and asked to participate in the research.

In Akaroa, surveyors were stationed at the main wharf (at the southern end of the township) where

passengers boarded the ships’ tenders to return to the cruise ships. In Christchurch, surveyors were

stationed outside the Canterbury Museum near the bus stops used by the cruise ship transfer and

tour companies. A convenience sampling procedure was utilised, whereby every third person

queuing for the tenders (in Akaroa) and the tour buses (In Christchurch) was approached and asked

to participate in the survey.

Photograph 3: Princess Cruises welcome area,

Akaroa wharf (Emma Stewart)

Photograph 4: Diamond Princess in Akaroa

Harbour (Emma Stewart)

Photograph 5: Radiance of the Seas tender approaching Akaroa wharf (Jude Wilson)

A total of 433 surveys were undertaken with cruise ship passengers over a twelve-week period from

25 November 2012 to 17 February 2013. Of these surveys, 289 were completed in Akaroa, and 144

were completed in Christchurch. In order to gain a diverse sample, and to ascertain if there were any

differences in the perceptions, experiences and expenditure of cruise ship passengers from different

vessels, data collection days were chosen to ensure passengers from a range of ships were sampled

5

in the research. The cruise ships from which passengers were surveyed and the date, location, and

number of surveys collected on each data collection day are outlined in Table 3.

Table 3: Passenger survey: summary of collection characteristics (n=430)

Passengers travelling on the Princess Cruises ships dominate the survey sample (63.2%, n=272).

Table 4 shows the percentage of survey respondents and the percentage of total cruise passenger

arrivals during all survey days, by individual cruise ship. Altogether, passengers from Princess Cruises

were slightly over-represented in the sample (60.3% of the total arrivals); there was also slight over

representation of passengers from the Radiance of the Seas, Crystal Symphony and the Seabourn

Odyssey. Passengers from the Celebrity Solstice were slightly under-represented.

Date Survey Location Ship(s) Ship Company Number of Surveys

25/11/2012 Akaroa Sea Princess Dawn Princess

Princess Cruises Princess Cruises

14 11

11/12/2012 Christchurch Sea Princess Princess Cruises 15

16/12/2012 Christchurch Celebrity Solstice Celebrity Cruises 10

20/12/2012 Akaroa Dawn Princess Princess Cruises 23

21/12/2012 Akaroa Sea Princess Princess Cruises 42

22/12/2012 Akaroa Sun Princess Princess Cruises 21

23/12/2012 Christchurch Diamond Princess Princess Cruises 9

5/1/2013 Akaroa Dawn Princess Princess Cruises 25

7/1/2013 Akaroa Sun Princess Princess Cruises 20

8/1/2013 Akaroa Celebrity Solstice Celebrity Cruises 31

18/1/2013 Akaroa Oosterdam Dawn Princess

Holland American Line Princess Cruises

9 21

26/1/2013 Akaroa Crystal Symphony Crystal Cruises 16

27/1/2013 Akaroa Radiance of the Seas Royal Caribbean 27

28/1/2013 Akaroa Silver Whisper Seabourn Odyssey Dawn Princess

Silversea Cruises Seabourn Cruises Princess Cruises

3 9

14

28/1/2013 Christchurch Dawn Princess Princess Cruises 10


31/1/2013 Christchurch Celebrity Solstice Celebrity Cruises 14

3/2/2013 Christchurch Pacific Pearl P&O 14

8/2/2013 Christchurch Carnival Spirit Carnival Cruises 15

13/2/2013 Christchurch Sea Princess Princess Cruises 19

15/2/2013 Christchurch Oosterdam Holland American Line 10


6

Table 4: Survey respondents by cruise ship (n=430)

Ship Percentage of survey

respondents

Percentage of total cruise ship passenger arrivals during all survey

days

Dawn Princess 24.2 18.9

Sea Princess 20.9 14.8

Celebrity Solstice 12.8 16.3

Sun Princess 9.5 11.3

Diamond Princess 8.6 15.2

Radiance of the Seas 6.3 4.0

Oosterdam 4.4 7.3

Crystal Symphony 3.7 1.8

Carnival Spirit 3.5 5.1

Pacific Pearl 3.3 3.5

Seabourn Odyssey 2.1 0.9

Silver Whisper 0.7 0.9

The survey consisted of a four-page questionnaire (refer to Appendix One for the full questionnaire).

On average the survey took approximately ten minutes to complete, with some taking as long as 20

minutes. A high response rate was achieved with nine out of ten passengers approached agreeing to

participate. Lack of time (in Akaroa many passengers were in a hurry to catch their tender, in

Christchurch to board their bus), or the weather conditions were the main reasons given for refusal.

2.1.1 Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire was designed to provide an overview of the broader perceptions, experiences and

economic impact of cruise ship passengers in Akaroa, Christchurch and Canterbury.

To assess cruise ship visitors’ perceptions of Akaroa, Christchurch and Canterbury, Likert scale

questions were used. With Likert scales, respondents indicate their attitudes by checking how

strongly they agree or disagree with statements, ranging from very positive to very negative

attitudes (Zikmund, Ward, Lowe & Winzar, 2007). A range of statements which might be used to

describe Christchurch and Akaroa and were presented to respondents who rated them on a five

point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). Show cards were used to

assist the respondents with the Likert scale questions.

To examine the experiences of cruise ship passengers in Akaroa, Christchurch and Canterbury areas

respondents were asked to report verbally to surveyors where they had visited and what activities

they had participated in during their port visit. They were also asked what they had most and least

liked about their visit.

To assess the economic impact of cruise ship passengers, respondents were asked how much they

had spent during their visit in Akaroa, Christchurch and Canterbury. Six categories of expenditure

used: Tour(s); Restaurant meals; Other food, refreshments; Shopping (e.g., souvenirs, gifts);

Transportation (excluding Tours); and, Other.

7

A series of open-ended and closed questions were designed to explore the types of activities

passengers engage in and their satisfaction with their port visit. Data on respondents’ demographic

characteristics, travel party and past experiences with cruise ship travel were collected to gain an

insight into their personal profiles and test for any relationships with perceptions, experience or

expenditure patterns.

2.1.2 Data Analysis

SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software package was used to analyse the data.

Responses to the open-ended questions were coded and entered into SPSS. All data were analysed

using descriptive statistical techniques. Data were analysed by visit location, spend category and

activity type.

2.2 Results and Discussion

2.1.1 Sample characteristics

Sixteen nationalities were represented in the survey sample (see Table 5). The majority of

respondents were from Australia (70.4%, n=302), the United States of America (15.6%, n=67), the

United Kingdom (4.7%, n=20), and Canada (3.5%, n=15). There is clearly a high representation of

Australian respondents in this survey, in terms of the proportionality of nationalities represented in

the sample. A likely cause of this bias is the sampling methodology. For example, a high proportion

of survey days coincided with cruise ships from the Princess Cruise Line in port. The Princess Line

Cruises depart from Australia ports; the stakeholder interview data also confirmed that these ships

carry a significant number of Australian passengers.

Table 5: Nationality of survey respondents (n=433)

Nationality of respondents Percentage Frequency

Australia 70.4 302

USA 15.6 67

UK 4.7 20

Canada 3.5 15

New Zealand 1.9 8

Italy 0.9 4

Vietnam 0.9 4

Austria 0.2 1

Macedonia 0.2 1

Philippines 0.2 1

China 0.2 1

Papua New Guinea 0.2 1

Malaysia 0.2 1

Germany 0.2 1

Singapore 0.2 1

South Africa 0.2 1

8

The survey sample is more heavily weighted toward female respondents (56.5%, n=243) than male

respondents (43.5%, n=187). It is unclear what impact, if any, this gender imbalance has on the

research findings. More than one-half of all respondents were over years 60 of age (see Figure 1).

The most commonly identified age groups are ‘60–69 years’ (35.3%, n=152), and ‘over 70 years’

(25.1%, n=108). There were very few respondents below the age of 40 years (8.3%, n=36).

Figure 1: Age groups of respondents (n=430)

Respondents were asked to provide an indication of their travel party. A majority of respondents

were travelling with a partner or spouse (52.2%, n=224) or ‘family’ (22.9%, n=99). A further 14.2 per

cent (n=61) were travelling with ‘family and friends’, and 8.4 per cent (n=36) were travelling with

‘friends’. Only 2.1 per cent (n=9) of respondents indicated they were travelling alone.

Respondents were also asked to provide information about their previous cruise ship experience. Of

the 433 respondents, a significant proportion had been on a cruise before (69.3%, n=298) when

compared with those whom had not (30.7%, n=132). Those respondents whom had been on a cruise

before were then asked to indicate how many cruises in total they had been on (see Figure 2 below).

The answers provided ranged from ‘once’ to ‘more than 20’. A total of 19.9 per cent (n=60) had been

on a cruise twice before, 35.9 per cent (n=108) had been on ‘three to five’ cruises, and 23.6 per cent

(n=71) had been on ‘six to ten’ cruises before.

4 16 16

59

75

152

108

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

18-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 Over 70

Nu

mb

er

of

resp

on

de

nts

Age group

Age group of respondents

9

Figure 2: Number of previous cruises for respondents (n=301)

Respondents were also asked whether or not they had been to Akaroa or Christchurch before this

trip. For the majority of respondents this was their first visit to Akaroa and Christchurch (65.8%,

n=283). Less than one per cent of respondents (0.9%, n=4) had been only to Akaroa previously, while

18.1 per cent (n=78) had been only to Christchurch previously. In addition to this, a number of

respondents indicated they had previously visited both Akaroa and Christchurch (15.1%, n=65).

2.2.2 Decision-making for organised tours

Respondents were asked about how and where they made their decisions about which activities

they would undertake during their shore visit. There were four options provided to respondents (see

Figure 3). A majority of respondents (51.9%, n=222) indicated that they made their decision about

activities ‘once they arrived in Akaroa Township’. One-hundred and nine respondents (25.5%)

decided on their activities ‘while on board’, while a further 77 respondents (18%) ‘researched and/or

booked activities before leaving home’. Twenty respondents (4.7%) used ‘a combination’ of these

options to make their decisions about activities to undertake while in port. It is worth noting that it is

likely that the activities they chose had some bearing on when and where they made their decision.

For example, it is likely that respondents who went on the Tranz Alpine train journey to Arthur’s Pass

would have needed to have made their decision about the activity prior to arriving in Akaroa.

Analysis was also undertaken to determine if there were differences in response between those

whom stayed in Akaroa during their port visit and those whom travelled to locations outside of

Akaroa. There is a significant difference between those whom stayed in Akaroa and those whom left

in respect to when they researched, booked, and decided upon their activities for the day. Those

whom stayed in Akaroa, for example, were more than twice as likely to have made activities

decisions once they arrived in Akaroa Township. The reverse was the case for those whom left

Akaroa, with twice as many making their decisions either before leaving home or on board the ship

(i.e., before coming ashore in Akaroa).

22

60

108

71

23 17

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Once Twice 3-5 6-10 11-20 More than20

Nu

mb

er

of

resp

on

de

nts

Number of cruises

How many cruises have you been on?

10

Figure 3: Decision-making about activities (n=428)

Respondents were asked whether or not they had been on an organised tour during their port visit.

This includes tours both within and beyond Akaroa. Responses were relatively even, with 47.7 per

cent (n=205) indicating that they had been on an organised tour, while the remainder replied that

they had not (52.3%, n=225). Of those respondents whom had been on an organised tour, a variety

of tours were identified (see Table 6). The activity or tour most commonly identified by respondents

was ‘Christchurch On Your Own’ (27.9%, n=55). This is a tour operated by Princess Line Cruises and,

as such, its popularity is likely to be influenced by the high proportion of the sample travelling on

Princess Line ships. The number of respondents who indicated undertaking this activity was more

than twice the number for the next most commonly identified activity: ‘Red Zone Bus Tour’ (11.2%,

n=22). A number of other activities, including ‘Wildlife Harbour Cruise’ and ‘Christchurch and

Countryside Farm Tour’, were also popular with respondents. No specific assessment was made

about quality of experience regarding any of these activities.

Table 6: Organised tours undertaken by respondents (n=197)

Tour Percentage Frequency

Christchurch On Your Own 27.9 55

Red Zone Bus Tour 11.2 22

Wildlife Harbour Cruise 9.6 19

Christchurch and Countryside Farm Tour 9.1 18

Double Decker Bus Tour 5.6 11

Historic Akaroa Walk 4.6 9

Local Akaroa Bays Sightseeing Tour 4.1 8

Vintage Car Tour 4.1 8

Mandalay Farm and Banks Peninsula 3.6 7

Christchurch and Antarctic Centre 3.6 7

18%

25.5% 51.9%

4.7%

How did you choose your activity?

Research and/or bookactivities at home

Decide on activities whileonboard

Make decision aboutactivities once they are inAkaroa

Use a combination tomake decision aboutactivities

11

2.2.3 Destinations visited

Respondents were asked a range of questions about the places they visited and activities they

engaged in during their stay. The first question asked if respondents had left Akaroa Township

during their port visit, and if so to identify the locations they had visited. Of the 422 respondents

whom answered this question, 50 per cent (n=211) stayed in Akaroa during their port visit. A further

39 per cent of respondents (n=167) visited Christchurch, eight per cent (n=35) visited locations on

Banks Peninsula (e.g., the Hilltop Hotel, Barry’s Bay), and two per cent visited locations further afield

in Canterbury (e.g., Arthur’s Pass, Waimakariri River, Woodend). It is important to note that this

finding is necessarily influenced by the methodology utilised in this research project. Specifically, of

the 433 surveys collected in this study, a total of 144 were collected in Christchurch. As such, it is not

possible to infer from this finding that 50 per cent of all cruise ship visitors to Akaroa remain in

Akaroa Township. Rather, the only conclusion that the research methodology supports on this point

is that 50 per cent of respondents in this research sample remained in Akaroa Township during their

port visit. Notwithstanding this methodological constraint, it is still possible to analyse the data to

reveal a range of visitor characteristics and patterns.

The respondents whom remained in Akaroa Township during their port visit undertook a range of

activities (see Table 7). The most commonly identified activity undertaken by these respondents was

‘walking around Akaroa’ (88.2%, n=186). The next most commonly identified activities in Akaroa

were ‘eating and drinking’ (59.2%, n=125), and ‘shopping’ (56.9%, n=120). An additional two

activities were identified by respondents to a lesser degree. These were ‘general sightseeing (27%,

n=57), and ‘guided tours’ (20.4%, n=43). Within these two activity categories, respondents identified

specific tours and sightseeing activities. For general sightseeing, respondents mentioned ‘visiting the

Akaroa lighthouse’ (6.6%, n=14), ‘looking at houses and gardens’ (6.6%, n=14), and ‘visiting the

Giant’s House’ (5.2%, n=11). For guided tours, respondents mentioned ‘walking tours’ (3.3%, n=7),

‘vintage car tours’ (3.3%, n=7), and ‘wildlife tours’ (2.8%, n=6).

Table 7: Activities undertaken by respondents in Akaroa (n=211)

Activity Percentage Frequency

Walking around Akaroa 88.2 186

Eating and drinking 59.2 125

Shopping 56.9 120

General sightseeing 27.0 57

Guided tour 20.4 43

(Multiple response question)

Respondents whom travelled to Christchurch during their port visit undertook a broader range of

activities (see Table 8). This is likely to be a function, at least in part, of the larger number of

activities available in Christchurch for visitors. Of the activities most commonly identified by

respondents, five in particular stood out: the ‘Botanic Gardens’ (56.9%, n=95), ‘Re: START Container

Mall’ (56.9%, n=95), ‘earthquake-related sites’ (55.7%, n=93), and the ‘Canterbury Museum’ (55.1%,

n=92), as well as ‘walking around the city’ (47.9%, n=80). Additional activities such as ‘eating and

drinking’ (36.6%, n=61) were also identified by respondents whom visited in Christchurch.

12

Table 8: Activities undertaken by respondents in Christchurch (n=167)


Botanic Gardens 56.9 95

ReSTART Container Mall 56.9 95

Visiting earthquake sites (including Cathedral) 55.7 93

Canterbury Museum 55.1 92

Walking around Christchurch 47.9 80

Eating and drinking 36.6 61

Shopping 17.4 29

Going on a tour (unspecified) 13.1 22

Antarctic Centre 4.2 7


A total of 35 respondents indicated that they visited locations on Banks Peninsula other than Akaroa

Township during their port visit (see Table 9). Approximately one-half of these respondents (51.4%,

n=18) stated that they had been on ‘a farm visit in Banks Peninsula’ during their port visit. A further

37.1 per cent (n=13) had visited ‘the Hilltop Tavern’, which overlooks Akaroa Harbour and affords a

scenic view of the surrounding countryside. Other activities identified by these respondents included

visiting ‘the Barry’s Bay Cheese Factory’ (14.3%, n=5), and visiting an ‘unspecified look-out over

Akaroa’ (14.3%, n=5). It is possible that this unspecified look-out might be the Hilltop Tavern,

however the data does not allow for a definitive answer on this point.

Table 9: Activities undertaken by respondents in Banks Peninsula (n=35)


Farm visit 51.4 18

Hilltop 37.1 13

Cheese factory 14.3 5

Look out (Akaroa) 14.3 5


Nine respondents indicated that they had travelled to locations in Canterbury hinterland and alpine

regions during their port visit (see Table 10). It is important to note that the relatively small number

of respondents in this cohort makes it difficult to extend the findings of activities undertaken to

generalities. Nonetheless, it is useful to know what types of activities these respondents participated

in during their Canterbury visit. As such, the most commonly identified activity was ‘jet boating on

the Waimakariri River’ (55.6%, n=5), going on a ‘train journey to Arthur’s Pass’ (55.6%, n=5), and

‘taking a helicopter flight/tour to various areas within the Canterbury region’ (33.3%, n=3).

Table 10: Activities undertaken by respondents in Canterbury (n=9)


Jet boat 55.6 5

Train (Arthur’s Pass) 55.6 5

Helicopter 33.3 3


13

As a corollary to the destinations visited during the port visit question, respondents whom stayed in

Akaroa were asked ‘why did you choose not to visit Christchurch today?’ (see Table 11). This

question was asked in order to gain a better understanding of the range of reasons, motivations and

issues which may preclude cruise ship passengers from travelling on to more distant locations during

their visit. The most commonly identified reason for not travelling on to Christchurch related to the

distance (and time required) from Christchurch from Akaroa (42.6%, n=90). The issue of travel time

and distance from Akaroa to Christchurch, and the associated characteristics of the ride (e.g.,

uncomfortable bus journey), is noted later in this results section, particularly as it relates to aspects

least enjoyed by respondents visiting Christchurch. Given that most cruise ship passengers are in

port for one day only, it is reasonable to suggest there may be a distance decay component relating

to the propensity of cruise ship passengers to visit particular locations during their stay.

Other reasons for respondents not visiting Christchurch included: ‘I have been to Christchurch

before’ (24.6%, n=52), ‘the earthquake damage put me off visiting Christchurch’ (20.9%, n=44), and ‘I

am doing other activities in Akaroa already’ (17.1%, n=36). In addition to these reasons, a number of

respondents indicated that they wanted to use the Akaroa port visit to rest and relax (8.5%, n=18).

This suggests that there is likely to be a proportion of cruise ship passengers whom do not wish to

have their port visit dominated by organised tours and activities.

It is also of interest to note that a small number of respondents stated that they were not aware of

opportunity to visit Christchurch during their port visit (7.1%, n=15). This finding may suggest the

need for destination managers to improve conduits of information for cruise ship passengers.

Table 11: Reasons given for not travelling to Christchurch during the port visit (n=211)

Item Percentage Frequency

Too far to travel/not enough time 42.6 90

Been there before 24.6 52

Earthquake damage put me off going (sad) 20.9 44

Doing other things in Akaroa/Banks Peninsula/Canterbury 17.1 36

Resting/relaxing in Akaroa 8.5 18

Didn’t know about tours to Christchurch 7.1 15

Too difficult (disabilities/large groups/elderly) 5.2 11

Organised tours to Christchurch too expensive 4.7 10

Too late off the ship to catch the bus/shuttle 3.8 8

No reason 3.8 8

Other 5.7 12

‘Other’ includes: didn’t want to go, no rental cars available


2.2.4 Most enjoyed aspects of destinations visited

Respondents were then asked what they enjoyed most about the destinations they visited during

their port visit. This question was asked in order to gain a clearer understanding about the range of

factors which are likely to impact positively on the destination experience of cruise ship passengers.

The findings for this section are categorised according to the two main destinations visited by

respondents: Akaroa and Christchurch.

14

Akaroa

A range of items were identified by respondents regarding what they most enjoyed about their visit

to Akaroa Township (see Table 12). The two most commonly identified items, by some considerable

margin, were the ‘scenery’ (42.2%, n=89) and Akaroa being a ‘pretty town to visit’ (34.6%, n=73).

These two items were further complemented by the third most commonly identified item: the

relaxed village atmosphere of Akaroa (19.9%, n=42). Taken together, these three items suggest that

the scenic location of Akaroa, combined with the attractive townscape and relaxed pace of the

village, provide cruise ship tourists with an agreeable destination setting from which to embark upon

any number of activities. Additional items of significance identified included: ‘friendly people’

(15.6%, n=33), the ‘weather’ (15.1%, n=32), and ‘a good range of activities and attractions’ (14.7%,

n=31).

Table 12: Most enjoyed aspects of Akaroa Township visit (n=211)


Scenery 42.2 89

A pretty town 33.6 73

Relaxed village atmosphere 19.9 42

Friendly people 15.6 33

Weather (good) 15.2 32

Activities/attractions 14.7 31

Shopping/restaurants/cafes 11.0 23

Sightseeing/wandering around the town 7.1 15

Everything 3.3 7

Other 7.6 16

‘Other’ includes: French ‘flavour’, ‘nothing’.


Christchurch

As was the case for Akaroa, respondents also identified a range of items they most enjoyed about

their visit to Christchurch (see Table 13). When compared with the items identified for Akaroa, there

appears to be a more even spread of responses over a broader range of items. The most commonly

identified item by respondents regarding Christchurch was ‘visiting earthquake sites/recovery’

(26.5%, n=56). This was followed by ‘scenery’ (18.4%, n=39), although it must be noted that many

respondents whom identified this item spoke of the scenery in reference to the journey from Akaroa

to Christchurch (and return). As such, respondents appear to consider the scenery observed during

their journey to and from Christchurch as being a prominent, rather than incidental, component of

their city visit.

Another item which was identified commonly by respondents as being most enjoyable about their

Christchurch visit was ‘having a good tour experience’ (18.0%, n=38). These tour experiences

included interactive farm tours, as well as more general sightseeing coach tours around the city and

its hinterlands, including Lyttelton Harbour. As a corollary to this item, a number of respondents

(5.2%, n=11) also identified ‘having a high quality commentary’ during such tours as being an

enjoyable part of their visitor experience in Christchurch. When taken together, this finding suggests

that organised tours, and the associated components of that particular tourism product (e.g.,

15

interpretation/information/commentary), form an important factor in the evaluation process of

cruise ship tourists. In addition to these items, other items commonly identified by respondents

included: ‘Christchurch is a pretty city’ (11.8%, n=25), visiting the Botanic Gardens (11.8%, n=25) and

the ‘weather’ (10.0%, n=21).

Table 13: Most enjoyed aspects of Christchurch visit (n=211)


Visiting earthquake sites/seeing the ‘recovery’ 26.5 56

Scenery (including the journey from Akaroa) 18.4 39

A good tour experience 18.0 38

A pretty city 11.8 25

Botanic Gardens 11.8 25

Weather (good) 10.0 21

Canterbury Museum 9.0 19

Friendly people 7.1 15

Visiting the Re: Start Container Mall 5.7 12

Commentary during tour/activity 5.2 11

Everything 5.2 11

Sightseeing/wandering around the city 4.7 10

Other 5.7 12

‘Other’ includes: Visiting friends and family, reminiscing (returning ‘home’), city heritage


2.2.5 Least enjoyed aspects of destinations visited

The survey asked respondents to identify the things they liked least about the destinations they

visited during their port visit. This question was asked in order to gain an understanding of the things

which were likely to have detracted from the overall destination experience of these visitors. In

doing so, it may be possible to identify areas of potential ‘weakness’ or visitor dissatisfaction. As was

the case with the previous section, the findings for this section are categorised according to the two

main destinations visited by respondents: Akaroa and Christchurch.

Akaroa

In response to this survey item, an overwhelming majority of respondents (74.4%, n=157) stated

that there was ‘nothing’ they enjoyed least about their Akaroa Township visit (see Table 14). This is

an important finding for destination managers in Akaroa, as it suggests that most respondents were

unable to identify any specific aspect of their visit which was displeasing to them. Of the other items

identified by respondents as being least enjoyable, the [bad/windy] weather appeared to be the

most prominent (10.0%, n=21). This item is clearly outside of the control of destination managers in

Akaroa. However it does suggest that visitor experiences in Akaroa might be vulnerable, at least to

some degree, to the vagaries of inclement weather. This is especially so, given the characteristics of

many Akaroa-based visitor activities and attractions (e.g., harbour/wildlife cruises, walking around

the town, general sightseeing). It is interesting to note that ‘[good] weather’ was identified above as

being something a number of respondents enjoyed most about their visit to Akaroa. A number of

other items were also identified by respondents, albeit at a very low level of response.

16

Table 14: Least enjoyed aspects of Akaroa visit (n=211)


Nothing 74.4 157

Weather (bad) 10.0 21

Too crowded 2.8 6

Expensive 1.9 4

Not being able to do planned activities in Akaroa 1.9 4

Closed shops/banks 1.4 3

Poor service in shops 1.4 3

Other 6.2 13

‘Other’ includes: no rental cars in Akaroa, unattractive beach, not enough things to do and see


Christchurch

The question of ‘what did you enjoy least about your visit?’ was also asked to respondents whom

travelled to Christchurch during their port visit (see Table 15). As was the case with responses for

Akaroa, the most commonly identified item was ‘nothing’ (63.0%, n=133). That is to say, 63 per cent

of respondents stated that there was ‘nothing’ they enjoyed least about their visit to Christchurch.

This item was the most prominent of all items mentioned by respondents by some considerable

margin. As such, this finding indicates that cruise ship passengers whom participated in this survey

appear to be largely satisfied with their Christchurch (and, for that matter, Akaroa) destination

experience.

The next most commonly identified items enjoyed least by respondents were: ‘not being able to

spend more time in Christchurch’ (7.6%, n=16), and an ‘uncomfortable and/long bus ride from

Akaroa to Christchurch’ (7.6%, n=16). Taken together, these two items are indicative of the relatively

distant geographic position of Christchurch from Akaroa. Although the 90 minute bus journey may

not appear at first glance to be particularly onerous journey, the time constraints associated with

day-trip visits for cruise ship passengers berthed in Akaroa Harbour are significant. As such, a three-

hour return bus journey to Christchurch, on particularly winding and sometimes narrow roads,

represents an unpleasant experience for some respondents.

A number of respondents also identified the ‘[bad] weather’ and ‘visiting earthquake sites (sad)’ as

being aspects they enjoyed least about their visit to Christchurch (each 6.6%, n=14). As was noted

above for Akaroa, the ‘[good] weather’ was an aspect identified by a number of respondents as

being what they enjoyed most about their visit to Christchurch.

Table 15: Least enjoyed aspects of Christchurch visit (n=211)


Nothing 63.0 133

Not able to spend enough time in Christchurch 7.6 16

Uncomfortable/long bus ride from Akaroa 7.6 16

Weather (bad) 6.6 14

Visiting earthquake sights (sad) 6.6 14

Not enough things to see and do in Christchurch 4.3 9

Other 3.3 7

‘Other’ includes: expensive, hazardous roads, too much walking. (Multiple response question)

17

2.2.6 Visitor spending during their Akaroa port visit

This section reports on the spending data obtained from all respondents in the survey. It is

important to note that this includes those respondents whom spent ‘nothing’ (i.e., $0) during their

port visit, as well as those whom spent ‘something’ (i.e., >$0). As such, average (mean) spending

data are provided for all respondents (in total and by location), as well as for those respondents

whom spent something (in total and by location) during their port visit.

Total spending

Overall, the total average (mean) spend of all respondents during their Akaroa port visit was $129.26

(n=430). For respondents whom stayed in Akaroa during their port visit, this average (mean) spend

figure was $117.90 (n=208). For visitors whom travelled to locations outside of Akaroa (i.e., Banks

Peninsula, Christchurch, and Canterbury), the average (mean) spend per respondent was $141.55

(n=209). The difference in the spend value between these two figures is likely to be a function of the

transportation component associated with travelling to and/or activities undertaken in locations

outside of Akaroa Township.

Total spend figures were then collapsed into spending bands in order to provide a clearer

understanding of how the spend value is distributed across the entire range of visitor spending. This

information is provided by destination: Akaroa, Christchurch, Banks Peninsula, and Canterbury (see

Figure 4). These findings indicate that the further that respondents travel outside of Akaroa

Township, the more likely their spending ‘profile’ is likely to shift towards higher spending bands. For

example, 38.4 per cent (n=81) of respondents whom stayed in Akaroa spend $50 or less during their

port visit. For Banks Peninsula respondents this figure was 25.7 per cent (n=9), Christchurch

respondents this figure was 2.4 per cent (n=4), and for Canterbury respondents this figure was 11.1

per cent (n=1).

These data were analysed further in order to gauge the proportion of respondents whom actually

spent money during their Akaroa port visit. Of those respondents whom remained in Akaroa

Township, 92.7 per cent (n=196) spent some money during their port visit (as opposed to ‘nothing’).

For those respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa Township, this figure was 93.2 per

cent (n=205). It is important to note that there are some challenges associated with asking spending-

related questions of respondents. For example, those respondents whom travelled to locations

outside of Akaroa Township would obviously have spent some money during their visit, even if it was

limited only to transportation and /or tours. However, they may have made their purchases on

board the ship and as such had not considered this to fall within the ‘spend during their visit’

parameter. This is one of the frailties associated with asking spending-related questions of

respondents.

Of all respondents whom actually spent some money during their port visit, their average (mean)

spend was $145.69 (n=205). For those ‘spending’ respondents whom stayed in Akaroa, their average

(mean) spend was $127.06 (n=193). The average (mean) spend of ‘spending’ respondents whom

visited locations outside of Akaroa was $145.69 (n=205).

As shown in Figure 4, the data indicates a degree of divergence in spending patterns between

respondents based on the location visited. For example, ignoring those respondents whom spent

nothing, the most commonly identified spending band for respondents whom stayed in Akaroa is $0-

$50 (n=66). For respondents whom visited Christchurch, the most commonly identified spending

18

band is $51-$100 (n=74). For Banks Peninsula, this band is also $51-$100 (n=13). For respondents

whom visited locations in the wider Canterbury region, the most commonly identified spending band

is ‘over $300’ (n=3).

Figure 4: Total spending for destination locations by spending bands (n=433)

Spending by category

As noted at the beginning of this section, the spending behaviour of respondents can be broken

down according to a number of specific categories. These data will now be presented separately.

Tours

The average (mean) spent on tours per respondent was $47.12 (n=431). For respondents whom

stayed in Akaroa, this figure was $31.78 (n=209). For respondents whom travelled to locations

outside of Akaroa, this figure was $62.42 (n=209). Total spend figures were then collapsed into

spending bands in order to provide a clearer understanding of how the spend value is distributed

across the entire range of visitor spending (see Figure 5). These data indicate that those respondents

whom stayed in Akaroa and/or visited locations on Banks Peninsula have a higher incidence of ‘no

spending’ (i.e., $0) on tours during their port visit. This also appears to be the case for respondents

whom went on tours on Banks Peninsula, and as such seems counter-intuitive given the range of

Banks Peninsula tours identified in the survey. It may be that respondents who had pre-booked

tours did not include the cost of these in the spending they reported.


spent money on tours during their Akaroa port visit. Of those respondents whom remained in

Akaroa Township, 36.0 per cent (n=76) spent some money on tours during their port visit. For those

respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa Township, this figure was 59.7 per cent

(n=126).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Re

spo

nd

en

ts (

%)

Spending band ($)

Total spending (by location)

Akaroa (n=211)

Christchurch (n=167)

Banks Peninsula (n=35)

Canterbury (n=9)

19

Of all respondents whom actually spent some money on tours during their port visit, their average

(mean) spend was $99.06 (n=205). For those ‘spending’ respondents whom stayed in Akaroa, their

average (mean) spend was $89.74 (n=74). The average (mean) spend of ‘spending’ respondents

whom visited locations outside of Akaroa was $104.42 (n=126).

As shown in Figure 5, the data indicates a degree of divergence in spending patterns between


nothing, the most commonly identified spending band (tours) for respondents whom stayed in

Akaroa is $51-$100 (n=36). For respondents whom visited Christchurch, the most commonly

identified spending band is $51-$100 (n=67). For Banks Peninsula, this band is also $51-$100 (n=5).

For respondents whom visited locations in the wider Canterbury region, the most commonly

identified spending band is ‘over $300’ (n=3).

Figure 5: Spending on tours for destination locations by spending bands (n=431)

Photograph 6: Tours and transportation Akaroa

wharf (Jude Wilson)

Photograph 7: Buses lined up to take tours to Christchurch (Jude Wilson)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Re

spo

nd

en

ts (

%)

Spending band ($)

Spending on tours (by location)

Akaroa (n=211)



Canterbury (n=9)

20

Transportation

Respondents were asked to indicate how much money they spent on ‘transportation’ during their

port visit. The average (mean) spent on transportation per respondent was $10.57 (n=431). For

respondents whom stayed in Akaroa, this figure was $2.37 (n=211). For respondents whom travelled

to locations outside of Akaroa, this figure was $18.61 (n=211). Total spend figures were then

collapsed into spending bands in order to provide a clearer understanding of how the spend value is

distributed across the entire range of visitor spending (see Figure 6).


spent money on transportation during their Akaroa port visit. Of those respondents whom remained

in Akaroa Township, 4.3 per cent (n=9) spent some money on transportation during their port visit.

For those respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa Township, this figure was 33.6 per

cent (n=71).

Of all respondents whom actually spent some money on transportation during their port visit, their

average (mean) spend was $56.26 (n=81). For those ‘spending’ respondents whom stayed in Akaroa,

their average (mean) spend was $70.86 (n=7). The average (mean) spend of ‘spending’ respondents

whom visited locations outside of Akaroa was $55.30 (n=71).

As shown in Figure 6, the data indicates a degree of synergy in spending patterns between


nothing, the most commonly identified spending band (transportation) for respondents whom

stayed in Akaroa is $51-$100 (n=6). For respondents whom visited Christchurch, the most commonly

identified spending band is $1-$50 (n=44). For Banks Peninsula, this band is also $1-$50 (n=2). All

respondents whom visited locations in the wider Canterbury region reported spending nothing (i.e.,

$0) on transportation. This suggests that the transactions related to transportation during their port

visit were made on board the ship via an onshore booking agent.

Figure 6: Spending on transportation for destination locations by spending bands (n=431)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Re

spo

nd

en

ts (

%)

Spending band ($)

Spending on transport (by location)

Akaroa (n=211)



Canterbury (n=9)

21

Restaurant meals

Respondents were asked to indicate how much money they spent on ‘restaurant meals’ during their

port visit. The average (mean) spent on restaurant meals per respondent was $11.34 (n=431). For

respondents whom stayed in Akaroa, this figure was $13.90 (n=211). For respondents whom

travelled to locations outside of Akaroa, this figure was $8.94 (n=211). Total spend figures were then

collapsed into spending bands in order to provide a clearer understanding of how the spend value is

distributed across the entire range of visitor spending (see Figure 7).


spent money on restaurant meals during their Akaroa port visit. Of those respondents whom

remained in Akaroa Township, 27.5 per cent (n=58) spent some money on restaurant meals during

their port visit. For those respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa Township, this

figure was 29.4 per cent (n=62).

Of all respondents whom actually spent some money on restaurant meals during their port visit,

their average (mean) spend was $40.40 (n=121). For those ‘spending’ respondents whom stayed in

Akaroa, their average (mean) spend was $51.89 (n=56). The average (mean) spend of ‘spending’

respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa was $30.44 (n=62).



nothing, the most commonly identified spending band (restaurant meals) for respondents for all

locations (i.e., Akaroa, Christchurch, Bank Peninsula and Canterbury) is $1-$50.

Other food and refreshments

Respondents were asked to indicate how much money they spent on ‘other food and refreshments’

during their port visit. The average (mean) spent on other food and refreshments per respondent

was $11.13 (n=431). For respondents whom stayed in Akaroa, this figure was $12.20 (n=209). For

respondents whom travelled to locations outside of Akaroa, this figure was $10.31 (n=211). Total

spend figures were then collapsed into spending bands in order to provide a clearer understanding

of how the spend value is distributed across the entire range of visitor spending (see Figure 8).


spent money on other food and refreshments during their Akaroa port visit. Of those respondents

whom remained in Akaroa Township, 64.9 per cent (n=137) spent some money on other food and

refreshments during their port visit. For those respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa

Township, this figure was 62.6 per cent (n=132).

Of all respondents whom actually spent some money on food and other refreshments during their

port visit, their average (mean) spend was $17.50 (n=274). For those ‘spending’ respondents whom

stayed in Akaroa, their average (mean) spend was $18.88 (n=135). The average (mean) spend of

‘spending’ respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa was $16.48 (n=132).

22



nothing, the most commonly identified spending band (food and other refreshments) for

respondents for all locations (i.e., Akaroa, Christchurch, Bank Peninsula and Canterbury) is $1-$50.

Figure 7: Spending on restaurant meals for destination locations by spending bands (n=431)

Figure 8: Spending on other food and refreshment for destination locations by spending bands (n=431)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Re

spo

nd

en

ts (

%)

Spending band ($)

Spending on restaurant meals (by location)

Akaroa (n=211)



Canterbury (n=9)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Re

spo

nd

en

ts (

%)

Spending band ($)

Spending on food and other refreshments (by location)

Akaroa (n=211)



Canterbury (n=9)

23

Shopping and souvenirs

Respondents were asked to indicate how much money they spent on ‘shopping and souvenirs’

during their port visit. The average (mean) spent on shopping and souvenirs per respondent was

$47.38 (n=431). For respondents whom stayed in Akaroa, this figure was $54.74 (n=209). For

respondents whom travelled to locations outside of Akaroa, this figure was $41 (n=211). Total spend

figures were then collapsed into spending bands in order to provide a clearer understanding of how

the spend value is distributed across the entire range of visitor spending (see Figure 9).


spent money on shopping and souvenirs during their Akaroa port visit. Of those respondents whom

remained in Akaroa Township, 60.2 per cent (n=127) spent some money on shopping and souvenirs

during their port visit. For those respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa Township,

this figure was 51.2 per cent (n=108).

Of all respondents whom actually spent some money on shopping and souvenirs during their port

visit, their average (mean) spend was $86.90 (n=235). For those ‘spending’ respondents whom

stayed in Akaroa, their average (mean) spend was $92.27 (n=124). The average (mean) spend of

‘spending’ respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa was $80.10 (n=108).



nothing, the most commonly identified spending band (shopping and souvenirs) for respondents for

all locations (i.e., Akaroa, Christchurch, Bank Peninsula and Canterbury) is $1-$50.

Figure 9: Spending on shopping and souvenirs for destination locations by spending bands (n=431)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Re

spo

nd

en

ts (

%)

Spending band ($)

Spending on shopping and souvenirs (by location)

Akaroa (n=211)



Canterbury (n=9)

24

‘Other’ spending

Respondents were also provided an opportunity to indicate how much money they spent on ‘other’

unspecified items and/or activities during their port visit. The average (mean) spent on other

items/activities per respondent was $7.58 (n=431). For respondents whom stayed in Akaroa, this

figure was $10.06 (n=209). For respondents whom travelled to locations outside of Akaroa, this

figure was $5.20 (n=211). Total spend figures were then collapsed into spending bands in order to

provide a clearer understanding of how the spend value is distributed across the entire range of

visitor spending (see Figure 10).


spent money on ‘other’ during their Akaroa port visit. Of those respondents whom remained in

Akaroa Township, 15.6 per cent (n=33) spent some money on ‘other’ during their port visit. For

those respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa Township, this figure was 9.5 per cent

(n=20).

Of all respondents whom actually spent some money on ‘other’ unspecified items during their port

visit, their average (mean) spend was $60.46 (n=54). For those ‘spending’ respondents whom stayed

in Akaroa, their average (mean) spend was $65.72 (n=32). The average (mean) spend of ‘spending’

respondents whom visited locations outside of Akaroa was $54.85 (n=20).



nothing, the most commonly identified spending band (‘other’) for respondents for all locations (i.e.,

Akaroa, Christchurch, Bank Peninsula and Canterbury) is $1-$50.

Figure 10: Spending on ‘other’ unspecified items/activities for destination locations by spending bands (n=431)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Re

spo

nd

en

ts (

%)

Spending band ($)

Spending on 'other' (by location)

Akaroa (n=211)



Canterbury (n=9)

25

Taken together, the above findings suggest that visitor spending behaviour and patterns might be

influenced to some degree by the types of locations visited during the cruise ship port visit.

Specifically, respondents whom stayed in Akaroa spent considerably less money on tours and

transportation than those whom visited locations outside of the township. Conversely, respondents

whom stayed in Akaroa appear to have spent at greater levels on categories such as restaurant

meals, other food and refreshments, and shopping and souvenirs.

2.2.7 Responses to destination specific statements

Respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they disagreed or agreed with a range of

statements about Akaroa, and also about Christchurch; for each location seven statements were

provided. The list of statements offered for Akaroa and Christchurch are largely similar, with only

two variations between the two lists in order to accommodate for the unique characteristics of

Akaroa Township. These data provide some insight into how respondents regarded Akaroa and

Christchurch as visitor destinations. The statements, and the responses to each, are presented

separately for Akaroa and Christchurch.

Akaroa statements

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with a range of statements describing

the characteristics of Akaroa (see Figure 11). Overall, the findings suggest that Akaroa is regarded

favourably by respondents in this survey. Respondents agreed that ‘Akaroa has a beautiful natural

landscape’ (100%, n=247), that ‘Akaroa is a friendly town’ (98.4%, n=242), and that ‘Akaroa is a safe

destination’ (97.1%, n=239). There was also strong agreement with ‘Akaroa has interesting heritage

buildings’ (84.9%, n=202), ‘Akaroa has a French flavour’ (67.5%, n=164), and ‘Akaroa has a range of

things to see and do’ (65.2%, n=161). There was strong disagreement to the statement ‘Akaroa is an

expensive destination’ (56.3%, n=135).

Figure 11: Statements describing Akaroa (data reported as a percentage of respondents)

0.8

13.6 18.1

37

30.5

Stronglydisagree

Disagree Neither Agree Strongly agree

Akaroa has a French flavour (n=243)

26

1.6

13.8 19.4

49.8

15.4

Strongly disgree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly agree

Akaroa has a wide range of things to see and do (n=247)

8.8

47.5

22.1 17.5

4.2

Stronglydisagree


Akaroa is an expensive destination (n=240)

0 2.9

12.2

52.1

32.8

Stronglydisagree


Akaroa has interesting heritage buildings (n=238)

0 0 0 8.5

91.5

Stronglydisagree


Akaroa has a beautiful natural landscape (n=247)

27

Christchurch

Respondents were also asked to indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed with a range of

statements about Christchurch. As was the case with the Akaroa, these statements were designed to

provide some insight into how respondents regarded Christchurch as a visitor destination (see Figure

12).

The results indicate that respondents view Christchurch city in a favourable light. Overall, the

responses to all of the statements about Christchurch appear to reflect a high level of satisfaction

with the destination characteristics identified in each. Respondents agreed that ‘Christchurch is a

friendly city’ (96%, n=168), that ‘Christchurch has a beautiful natural landscape’ (93.1%, n=163), that

‘Christchurch has interesting heritage buildings’ (92.6%, n=162), and that ‘Christchurch is a safe city’

(89.1%, n=155). In addition, respondents also agreed that ‘Christchurch has a lot of things to see and

do’ (75.7%, n=125), and that ‘Christchurch is a lively place’ (64.7%, n=112). Respondents strongly

disagreed with the statement that ‘Christchurch is an expensive place to visit’ (54.2%, n=84).

0 0.8 2

39.4

57.7

Stronglydisagree


Akaroa is a safe destination (n=246)

0 0.4 1.2

16.7

81.7

Stronglydisagree


Akaroa is a friendly town (n=246)

28

Figure 12: Statements describing Christchurch (data reported as a percentage of respondents)

5.2 10.4

19.7

49.1

15.6

Stronglydisagree


Christchurch is a lively place (n=173)

1.2 6.5

16.6

56.2

19.5

Stronglydisagree


Christchurch has a lot to see and do (n=169)

8.4

45.8

19.4 20

6.5

Stronglydisagree


Christchurch is an expensive destination (n=155)

1.1 1.1 5.1

48 44.6

Stronglydisagree


Christchurch has interesting heritage buildings (n=175)

29

2.2.8 Visitor satisfaction

Respondents were asked a range of questions relating to their level of satisfaction with their port

visit to Akaroa. Included in this were questions about overall satisfaction, their likelihood to return to

Akaroa, and their likelihood to recommend Akaroa as a destination to family and friends.

In total, a large proportion of respondents were extremely satisfied with their Akaroa port visit (64%,

n=264). A further 29 per cent of respondents (n=117) were quite satisfied. Only 1.2 per cent of

respondents (n=6) reported being dissatisfied and/or extremely dissatisfied with their Akaroa port

visit (see Figure 13).

0.6 1.1 5.1

37.7

55.4

Stronglydisagree


Christchurch has beautiful natural landscapes (n=175)

0 2.3 8.6

54.6

34.5

Stronglydisagree


Christchurch is a safe destination (n=174)

0 0.6 3.4

33.1

62.9

Stronglydisagree


Christchurch is a friendly city (n=175)

30

Figure 13: Satisfaction with overall Akaroa port visit (n=413)

Respondents were asked to indicate their likelihood to return to Akaroa on a cruise (see Figure 14).

Overall, the majority of respondents indicate that they are likely to return to Akaroa on a cruise

(58.9%, n=246), with almost twice as many reporting they were ‘absolutely certain’ to do so. Almost

one-quarter of respondents (31.6%, n=132) stated that they would not return to Akaroa on a cruise.

Figure 14: Likelihood of returning to Akaroa on a cruise (n=418)

Respondents were then asked to indicate the likelihood that they would visit Akaroa and

Christchurch again in the future (see Figures 15 and 16). As was the case above, the majority of

64%

29%

6%

1% 0.2%

How satisfied are you with your Akaroa port visit?

Extremely satisfied

Quite satisfied

Neither

Dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

38.3

20.6

9.6 8.9

22.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Absolutelycertain to do

this

Likely to dothis

Not sure Unlikly to dothis

Definitelywon't do this

Re

spo

nd

en

ts (

%)

Are you likely to return to Akaroa on a cruise?

31

respondents (67%, n=280) indicated that they are likely to return to Akaroa in the future. Almost

one-quarter of respondents (24.6%, n=102) stated that they would not visit Akaroa again in the

future. In the case of Christchurch, a majority of respondents indicated that they would be likely to

visit Christchurch again in the future (69.3%, n=289). A considerably smaller number of respondents

indicated that they would be unlikely to visit Christchurch again in the future (20.6%, n=86).

Figure 15: Likelihood of visiting Akaroa in the future (n=418)

Figure 16: Likelihood of visiting Christchurch in the future (n=417)

As a corollary to these questions, respondents were also asked about their likelihood to recommend

‘this region’ (i.e., Akaroa, Banks Peninsula, Christchurch, and Canterbury) to family and friends (see

Figure 17). This question was asked in order to gain a better understanding of respondents’ overall

41.9

25.1

8.4 9.6 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


this

Likely to dothis



Re

spo

nd

en

ts (

%)

Are you likely to visit Akaroa in the future?

42.7

26.6

10.1 7.2 13.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


this

Likely to dothis



Re

spo

nd

en

ts (

%)

How likely are you to visit Christchurch in the future?

32

evaluation of ‘the region’ as a quality visitor destination. A significant majority of respondents

indicated that they were ‘absolutely certain’ to recommend the region to family and friends (90.3%,

n=374), and a further seven per cent were ‘likely to do this’ (n= 29). Of the 414 valid responses

obtained for this question, less than one per cent of respondents (n=4) stated that they would not

recommend the region to family and friends. This high level of recommendation helps to verify the

findings above relating to overall satisfaction with the Akaroa port visit. Taken together, these

findings suggests that Akaroa and the wider Christchurch and Canterbury region is regarded by

respondents as being an enjoyable and attractive cruise ship destination.

Figure 17: Likelihood of recommending ‘this region’ to family and friends (n=414)

2.2.9 Attractions and activities for Akaroa port visits in the future

The final section of the survey asked respondents to indicate the activities and attractions they

thought would be appealing for future Akaroa port visits. Respondents were provided a list of seven

activities and attractions, and were then asked to rate the level of appeal each held for them (see

Figure 18). Of the options provided, ‘experiencing local food and wine’ was considered appealing to

84.5 per cent of respondents (n=263). This was followed by ‘visiting a museum’ (66.9%, n=214),

‘experiencing Maori culture (63.3%, n=210), and ‘attending a performing arts event’ (52.7%, n=166).

Three of the options provided to respondents were considered, at least in a relative sense,

unappealing. For example, ‘going on a winery tour’ was considered appealing to 48.6 per cent of

respondents (n=152). Other relatively ‘unappealing’ activities include: ‘visiting an art gallery’ (46.4%,

n=145), and ‘going on a farm tour’ (30.4%, n=96).

90.3

7 1.7 0.7 0.2

0102030405060708090

100


this

Likely to dothis



Re

spo

nd

en

ts (

%)

How likely are you to recommend this region to family and friends?

33

Figure 18: Rating the appeal of activities for future port visits (n=313)

44.6

15.2

9.8

17.7

12.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Not at allappealing

Quiteunappealing

Neither Quiteappealing

Veryappealing

Re

spo

nd

en

ts (

%)

How appealing is going on a farm tour?

11.8 8.6

16.3

37.7

25.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not at allappealing

Quiteunappealing


Veryappealing

Re

spo

nd

en

ts (

%)

How appealing is experiencing local Maori culture?

6.1 8.6

18.5

42.7

24.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Not at allappealing

Quiteunappealing


Veryappealing

Re

spo

nd

en

ts (

%)

How appealing is visiting a museum?

34

8.6

18.4 20.3

36.5

16.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Not at allappealing

Quiteunappealing


Veryappealing

Re

spo

nd

en

ts (

%)

How appealing is attending a performing arts event?

21.1 19.5

10.9

25.6 23

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not at allappealing

Quiteunappealing


Veryappealing

Re

spo

nd

en

ts (

%)

How appealing is going on a winery tour?

3.2 5.5 6.8

34.7

49.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

Not at allappealing

Quiteunappealing


Veryappealing

Re

spo

nd

ents

(%

)

How appealing is experiencing local food and wine?

35

2.3 Conclusion The visitor survey reported in this section has presented data relating to visitation patterns,

spending and experiences of a sample of cruise ship passengers to Akaroa over the 2012–2013

cruise ship season. Overall, the respondents included in this sample appear to be satisfied with their

Akaroa port visit experience. This experience includes not only Akaroa Township, but also extends

into the wider Christchurch and Canterbury destination catchment area. For the purpose of clarity,

data have been presented both in aggregate for all respondents, as well as by location visited during

their port visit. This is in order to get a better sense of the specific visitation and spending

characteristics of a range of respondent ‘types’ within the survey sample.

In terms of visitor spending, although the data presented in this section is not representative of all

cruise ship passengers to Akaroa, it nonetheless provides an indication of the possible level of

spending (and categories of spend) which might be expected during the Akaroa port visit. The

average total spend of all respondents during their Akaroa port visit was $129.26, of which various

amounts were apportioned to specific spending categories, such as tours, transportation, restaurant

meals, food and other refreshments, shopping and souvenirs, and ‘other’ spending. The level of

spending, both overall and by category, appears to be influenced in part by the locations visited and

activities undertaken by respondents during their port visit. For example, respondents whom

remained in Akaroa Township appear to spend more on ‘shopping and souvenirs’ than those

respondents whom visited locations outside of the township.

Respondents appear to have a favourable impression of Akaroa and the wider Christchurch and

Canterbury region. Respondents reported a high level of satisfaction with their overall port visit, and

reported an intention to return to Akaroa and Christchurch at a later date. In addition, respondents

also reported a high likelihood of recommending the region to family and friends. Taken together,

this suggests that the Akaroa port visit is regarded by respondents in this survey as an interesting

and enjoyable cruise ship destination worthy of recommendation to others.

The following section will discuss a series of interviews undertaken with selected business operators

in Akaroa and Christchurch.

36

3.0 Business Stakeholder Interviews

In order to obtain a more comprehensive picture of the value of the cruise ship market, the visitor

experience and spending data collected via the visitor surveys were supported by a series of

interviews with business stakeholders in both Akaroa and Christchurch.

3.1 Method

A total of 21 interviews were undertaken at the end of the cruise ship season (April to early-May

2013). Interviewees were selected to represent the variety of business types represented by the

spend categories used in the visitor survey and included:

Businesses operating transport services, tour operators and tourism activity providers;

Retailers of both tourism-specific and more general goods; and,

Food and drink outlets.

The businesses selected catered primarily to independent cruise ship passengers (FIT). Some

interviewees, however, had business interests which represented multiple categories. Table 16

shows the number of interviewees representing each business category. Fourteen interviews were

with Akaroa-based businesses and seven with Christchurch-based businesses. The higher number of

Akaroa businesses interviewed reflects the focus in these interviews on the economic impacts of

independent visitors (i.e., ones who either organise a tour once ashore, or do not take a tour of any

type) with the expectation that Akaroa businesses have more engagement with these types of

visitors.

Table 16: Type of business involvement of interview sample (n=21)

Type of business Akaroa Christchurch

Transport services - 1

Tour operator 6 2

Activity provider 2 2

Retail - tourism/giftware 5 1

Retail - general 4 1

Food & drink outlets 4 1

The majority of interviews were conducted in respondents’ work places and took between 30 and 90

minutes (the longest were subject to customer interruptions).

The same interview script (see Appendix Two) was used in all interviews, albeit with some minor

variations to allow for variations in the relevance of particular questions to each of business types

described above. As a result of these variations, the interview data were analysed thematically

(rather than by responses to individual questions) and the results are presented accordingly. It must

be noted that the stakeholder interviews were with a selection of business only and, as such, the

findings are not necessarily representative of all businesses.

37

3.2 Results

The results are reported in seven parts:

1. Perceptions of the cruise ship visitor market

2. Economic engagement with the cruise ship visitor market

3. Visitor spending

4. Business challenges

5. Experiences of hosting cruise ships in Akaroa

6. Cruise ships in context

7. The visitor experience

An integrated discussion of these results with the visitor survey findings is presented in Section 4 of

this report.

3.2.1 Perceptions of the cruise ship visitor market

The respondents almost universally agreed that it was highly unpredictable which shipping lines,

particular cruises, or types of passengers brought the most economic benefits:

“Every boat is different, every market is different - the same boat can come in and be quite

different - a few are a bit more exclusive - like the Radiance of the Seas and the Celebrity

Solstice - you do get to know them through the season”.

A range of interrelated factors and visit characteristics were perceived by respondents to have some

impact on economic benefits generated:

1. The nationality or age of visitors

a. European or North American visitors were perceived to be a much higher spending

market than Australians.

b. Within the Australian market, visitors from Melbourne (“more sophisticated”) or

Perth (“wealthier”) were preferred over those from Brisbane (a greater number of

retired or elderly people and a more “price-driven” market).

c. Some nationalities are more time-consuming to deal with.

d. American visitors prefer “the hand-held experience.”

e. Younger visitors are “more intrepid”.

2. Cruise lines

a. May vary in the respect of the wealth and spending capacity of passengers - some

ships “more exclusive”.

b. Some cruise lines carry a predominance of certain nationalities - e.g., Princess Lines

carries more Australians (who were perceived to be lower spenders).

3. Characteristics of a particular cruise

a. Longer cruises were generally thought to be less beneficial as people had already

paid a lot for their cruise and were perceived to be unwilling to spend more.

b. Timing of cruise - e.g., early or late in the cruise ship season, with some respondents

reporting that early season cruises were better for spending.

38

c. Direction of the cruise (related in part to its timing) - which port of call Akaroa was,

again with mixed views - some respondents thought that being one of the first ports

of call was better, while others thought that being one of the last ports of call was

preferable.

d. Where the passengers had been prior to their Akaroa visit influences their itinerary

and product choices (e.g., “if they are coming from Dunedin they have done

wildlife”).

e. Size of the ship - smaller ships not noticed so much.

f. Particular passenger cohorts - e.g., “the gay cruise” with its younger, wealthier

demographic with more disposable income was reported as being very good by the

majority of Akaroa respondents.

While all of the above factors were noted as being of some import, the consensus was that it was

impossible to predict how beneficial any particular ship might be and there was no expectation of a

‘good ship’ being repeatedly beneficial; rather it was individual cohorts of passengers that made the

most difference. As one respondent noted “every ship has its own mood”. Cruise ship passengers

are, however, perceived to be becoming more diverse as cruising increases in popularity.

Overall, despite being perceived as ‘low spenders’ Australians were well-liked as they offered

opportunities for banter and a familiarity and ease of service that did not occur in interactions with

visitors of other nationalities. Visitors from the USA presented challenges around their lack of

understanding of New Zealand products (e.g., they take longer to serve) and expectations of being

able to spend US dollars on shore. North American visitors were, however, perceived to be a high

spending market segment. Several comments were made about cruise ship visitors finding New

Zealand expensive as a result of uncertainty about the ‘normal’ price of New Zealand goods; this was

particularly a problem if Akaroa was one of their first ports of call in New Zealand. Australian visitors

were perceived to be more accepting of New Zealand prices.

There was some discussion in interviews around issues associated with having more than one ship in

port on any given day; most respondents were of the opinion that it was not the number of ships,

but the number of passengers that made the most difference (i.e., four ships might bring fewer

passengers than two ships). Of most importance, in respect of potentially increasing the economic

benefits for every business, was having a critical mass of people in port.

3.2.2 Economic engagement with the cruise ship visitor market

A variety of factors impacted on individual businesses’ level of economic engagement with, and

reliance on, the cruise ship visitor market. These included the type of business they represented,

their location (i.e., in either Christchurch or Akaroa at the broader scale, and location within Akaroa

at the more immediate scale), the size of their business (both physical capacity and product range)

and their previous engagement with the cruise ship visitor market.

The businesses interviewed fall on a continuum, with those who were primarily tourism focused at

one extreme, and those who primarily cater to the local population at the other. The reality for most

respondents, however, was that their business catered to both visitors and locals in varying degrees.

Further, at the tourism end of the continuum, some businesses focused only on the cruise ship

39

market, while others catered to multiple visitor segments. Many tour, transport and activity

businesses also cater to the local population to some degree. Likewise, retail businesses varied

between those catering to a primarily the international tourist market (e.g., souvenir shops); those

who attracted both international and domestic visitors (e.g., gift shops, art galleries); and those who

retailed everyday goods and services (e.g., general stores, pharmacies) to the local population, but

who also make some sales of these ‘ordinary goods’ to the various visitor markets.

Photograph 8: Independent operators, Akaroa

wharf (Jude Wilson)

Photograph 9: Akaroa food outlet advertising cruise ships special (Jude Wilson)

3.2.3 Visitor spending

Specific questions about visitor spending generated considerable discussion around visitors’

behaviour patterns during shore visits - in shops they tended to browse and, even if they did spend

money, it was usually on smaller items and incidentals rather than “big ticket items”. Weather-

related sales - jackets and umbrellas on poor weather days, sun glasses, sunhats and sunscreen

popular on sunny days - were common; retailers were also surprised at the number of toiletries and

medications they sold to cruise ship passengers. Many of these products were available for sale on

board the ships, but were much more expensive. Food and drink outlets reported sales across a wide

range of menu and price options, although some products appealed to particular market segments

(e.g., the Akaroa fish and chip shop reported strong sales to the otherwise low-spending Australian

market).

Some activity and tour operators had opened retail outlets within their business to capture more of

this visitor spend, and a few pre-existing retail businesses reported changing or expanding their

product lines to better suit the demands of the cruise ship market. Many were reluctant to

significantly change their product lines however, perceiving that this could compromise their appeal

to their primary markets (which, as they pointed out, still generated the majority of their turnover).

Some noted that it was not always easy to identify cruise ship visitors as a distinct market segment.

This was particularly the case in some retail businesses; passengers visiting attractions

independently in Christchurch were also difficult to identify as a distinct market segment.

40

Most respondents reported minimal economic value from crew members. Some thought they had

done more business with crew in the first season. Few offered crew discounts, but they did offer

tour escorts free admission to attractions and on tours. Many considered discounting to be unfair on

those who had paid the full price. The only respondents to specifically report significant amount of

engagement with crew was an ethnic Akaroa food outlet which attracted many of the Southeast

Asian crew members; while they did not offer discounts they did provide special menu items and

“dishes that are ‘Thai’ hot”. Some businesses had benefited from the presence in Akaroa of the

various tour companies (e.g., drivers) servicing the cruise ships.

While general retailers and food and drink outlets all reported economic benefits from the cruise

ship market, in most cases these only contributed between five and 30 per cent of their overall

takings. None of those interviewed perceived there to be any significant displacement of other

visitor markets on cruise ship days, although some noted that local residents had adapted their

shopping times to avoid the most crowded times on cruise ship days. While the cruise ship season

was longer than the traditional summer tourist season, most of the Akaroa retail and food outlet

respondents noted that they still made more money over the peak domestic holiday season (i.e., the

three weeks immediately after Christmas).

There were considerable on-going challenges associated with the changed Christchurch business

environment as a result of the earthquake. For many, the reality was that any Christchurch baseline

was gone, along with any real value in comparing current economic performance with pre-

earthquake circumstances. The loss of the hotel-based visitor market, for example, was significant in

respect of one Christchurch tour operator; while they perceived the cruise ship market to be their

‘saviour’, their business survival was totally dependent on the cruise ships continuing to visit the

Canterbury region. This had necessitated the development of new products specifically to cater to

the Akaroa port call.

Photograph 10: Temporary information centre, Akaroa wharf (Jude Wilson)

Photograph 11: Tour buses Akaroa (Jude Wilson)

Several Christchurch respondents thought that the spending capacity of Christchurch visitors was

impacted by having to pay the cost of transportation from Akaroa on top of any other spending. The

Canterbury Museum, for example, reported fewer donations, compared with when they hosted

41

cruise ship visitors from Lyttelton. As might be expected, Christchurch received considerably more

cruise ship visitors through Lyttelton although the exact impact of the relocation to Akaroa was

difficult to measure as so much had changed in Christchurch as a result of the earthquake. The city

shopping tours available pre-earthquake, for example, were no longer possible. One Christchurch

retailer also noted that the GST-free sales and delivery shipside they offered cruise ship visitors

arriving in Lyttelton was also no longer viable with Akaroa as the port. Business practices such as this

had also made it easier track sales and thus identify the economic value of the cruise ship market

segment. There were also perceived to have been some changes in the nature of the cruise ship

visitors’ purchases, with fewer visitors buying clothing and apparel and more interest in (cheaper)

souvenir items. However other factors such as the high New Zealand dollar, and the fact that

cruising is becoming cheaper and attracting a more diverse market, may be driving these changes.

Although a number of tour operators also noted popularity of the cheaper tours they offered, the

appeal of these tours was primarily because they were shorter and could be more easily managed

within the perceived time constraints of passengers’ shore visits. Those operators dealing directly

with inbound wholesalers were able to run much longer (and often more profitable) tours; knowing

how many customers to expect also made business planning easier. Independent tour operators

reported that they were, however, getting increasing numbers of pre-bookings.

The economic benefits for Akaroa tour operators were enhanced by their relatively small size and

the flexibility of their product delivery to the cruise ship market. Those running shorter Banks

Peninsula tours, for example, commented that passengers taking their tours “don’t have to sacrifice

[spending time in] Akaroa”. For Christchurch operators catering to the Akaroa cruise ships market

necessitated a more significant financial commitment, but had significant economic value; one

Christchurch operator, for example, noted that although “cruise ship visitors only constituted 20 per

cent of our gross turnover, the yield from that part of the business was 80 per cent, whereas the

other 80 per cent of their business only yielded 30-40 per cent”.

The ability of Akaroa to host cruise ships enabled many Akaroa business to survive in the longer term

- most conversations around economic value was couched in 12-month business terms, with the

cruise ship market described by some as simply being the “the icing on the cake” or “the cream on

the top, rather than something you rely on”. This ‘icing’ did however provide considerable business

confidence which was manifest in the development of new tour products, expansion of retail

product lines and in continuing viable business operations per se.

3.2.4 Business challenges

While Akaroa hosted cruise ships pre-earthquake these had primarily been smaller ships, making

only occasional port calls. The two post-earthquake summer seasons had brought huge increases in

the number of cruise ship visits and passenger numbers disembarking in Akaroa. Some respondents

noted a change in how well they were able to cater to this new visitor segment in the second season,

compared with the first. This was attributed to having a better understanding of the cruise ship

market and thus being able to cater to its needs more successfully. Importantly, for most

respondents this generated greater economic benefits in the second season. These changes did not

come without some considerable business challenges however.

42

As a result of the move to Akaroa, the cruise ship companies had to “get up to speed quickly” in

order to ensure the provision of suitable tours and activities through their wholesalers and on-board

sales, from which they make a good deal of their profit. In most cases it was simply a matter of

making some logistical adjustments to pre-existing tours and shore visit packages. There was also

the opportunity to develop new Akaroa-based products. Whilst by the second season passengers

were perceived to be much better informed as to what tours and activities were available (in both

Akaroa and Christchurch), most of this information was thought to be gleaned from word of mouth,

particularly that generated by online blogs such as Cruise Critic (http://www.cruisecritic.com/)

posted by other passengers.

There was a widespread perception that the cruise ship companies were giving their passengers

incorrect information and that visitors are not fully aware of what is available to them on an Akaroa

port visit. Some ships are thought to give passengers incorrect information (e.g., “that what there is

to do in Akaroa will only take 40 minutes” or that “nothing will be open in Akaroa”). There is also a

widely held perception that the shipping companies actively discourage passengers from exploring

independent options. Also, one respondent was of the opinion that the cruise ship companies had

“looked at what local tours were operating and copied some of them”.

Many of the interview respondents were new to the cruise ship market and although these business

operators had ‘learned’ the unpredictability of the cruise ship market from the first season of Akaroa

port calls, they reported a variety of on-going issues around accessing this market.

Accessing the independent cruise ship visitor market presents considerable challenges for business

stakeholders in both Akaroa and Christchurch although, as noted above, there had been some

changes in these over time. While by no means applicable to all the businesses interviewed, most of

the following were noted more than once:

Business stakeholders in Akaroa perceive there to be significant issues around the logistics of

passenger disembarkation for those wishing to visit independently. Passengers can be

nervous about managing their shore days and activities - this includes concern about

committing to tours when they are unsure about when they can disembark and concerns

about not getting back to ship on time.

While organised tours (i.e., those arranged through wholesalers or inbound operators) are

usually given disembarkation priority, timely disembarkation was also noted as a problem on

those occasions when fewer tenders are being used.

While most businesses had adjusted their own tour schedules to accommodate the cruise

ship disembarkation schedules there were on-going challenges associated with visitors who

were late disembarking - some tours are constrained with regard to how long they are able

to delay departure.

There was some perception in Akaroa that shops at the northern end of the township (i.e.,

furthest away from the wharf) did not attract as many visitors as those located closest to the

wharf, although the provision of the free shuttle had alleviated this issue to some extent.

The organisation and systems on the wharf in Akaroa for the independent operators was

considered to be better in the second season.

http://www.cruisecritic.com/

43

Some Akaroa operators found that they could improve their business chances “on the

ground” by having tools (e.g., photographs) that showed potential customers what they

might see on a particular tour.

In Christchurch businesses have more “lead in time”, with tour and activity businesses

knowing in advance how many people are “coming over the hill”.

Christchurch respondents also noted a number of issues arising from port arrivals in Akaroa, rather

than Lyttelton:

For tour operators, there is considerable “dead running time” which increases business costs

and, while this can be built into pricing, it reduces profit margins as often the best-selling

tours are at cheaper end with lower profit margins.

The long drive from Akaroa, and the nature of that drive, are perceived to put people off

visiting Christchurch.

Traffic issues in Christchurch more generally - which post-earthquake Christchurch people

are used to and (largely) understanding of - are also perceived to impact negatively on the

visitor experience.

The Christchurch visit time is considerably shortened (compared with when ships docked in

Lyttelton) and this impacts significantly on the time visitors have available for tourist

attractions and activities.

The logistics of staffing on the wharf in Akaroa are challenging for operators based in

Christchurch. As one respondent noted: “It is hard to plan for what you need over there as it

[how busy you are] depends on the weather and the tenders - like how many are operating

and what time the people get off the cruise ships”.

Some changes in servicing cruise visits were reported, with Christchurch companies leaving

buses in Akaroa overnight on consecutive cruise ship days or having staff stay over - this last

option was also noted in respect of generating business for Akaroa accommodation

providers.

Overall, despite it becoming a much easier operation by the end of this second season getting the

“message to cruise ship passengers on what they are able to do on shore” remained the biggest issue

for many businesses. Cruise blogs were seen to be important and influential - and becoming more so

- and it was perceived to have taken a season for Akaroa to be “talked about” and for individual

business names to become known. This word of mouth is particularly important in respect of

activities and tours, which were considered to be most successful when able to be planned - by both

the passengers and businesses hosting them - in advance of disembarkation.

3.2.5 Hosting the cruise ships

All respondents were familiar with the cruise ship schedules and found it helpful that these were

available well in advance of the season. This facilitated some degree of forward planning to enable

businesses to successfully host high numbers of visitors on particular days. For businesses catering

primarily to independent visitors, however, there is still uncertainty around how many of these

passengers they might be expected to accommodate as “we don’t know what the shipping company

has on-sold”.

44

Although the cruise ship visitor market has brought more customers, it did not necessitate any

significant business changes for the majority of respondents. Many retail and food outlets, however,

made some changes in their product lines, opening times and staff numbers. Most of the tour and

activity operators interviewed had introduced product changes during the first Akaroa cruise ship

season; in this second season they merely ‘tweaked’ their business in respect of marketing and

booking systems and sometimes made some minor changes to product delivery.

Overall, however, changes to product lines were limited and stocking for the cruise ship visitor

market was focused on making sure businesses had plenty of stock on hand. Most noted that this

was something they always did (i.e., regardless of the cruise ships visiting) over the busy summer

months anyway. A number of the Akaroa businesses commented on the fact that as a “service town”

business they were used to carrying a wide range of products and being flexible in their product

delivery.

Regardless of a number of respondents making changes their product lines, most were reluctant to

commit to selling the “cheap souvenirs” they perceived as appealing to the cruise ship visitor market.

This reluctance was primarily based on concern about changing their own business core, and many

commented that they were “in business for 12 months of the year and have a quite different market

for most of that time”; one respondent noted that the “cruise ship market is not big enough to

change for”. There were also commonly expressed concerns about “keeping the Akaroa proposition

looking different to other destinations and ports in New Zealand”.

Catering to the cruise ship market necessitated the employment of extra staff by many businesses. A

number of respondents noted that they were flexible enough to be able to pull in extra staff at short

notice; larger and more diverse businesses had staff from other branches or divisions of their

business they could draw on; in Akaroa many businesses had a pool of available local residents

(often retired people) they could engage when necessary. This was of particular benefit in dealing

with the uncertainly around exactly how busy a particular cruise ship day might be. For others

“getting the staffing right was a challenge, particularly as it is a cost we have to wear on days that

we don’t make much money”. For some Akaroa businesses staffing was an issue (and had been for

many years).

For small businesses, the cruise ship market had wrought a “significant change [in that we] have now

been able employ people - for a small business that makes it a viable business”. Others commented

on the benefits to the wider Akaroa community of increasing employment in the town. For many,

the introduction of the cruise ships engendered the confidence to expand and change their

businesses. Others talked about being able to “afford” to employ staff.

Many changes were simply a magnification of what they would do in business anyway - monitor

change and try and be prepared - the cruise ships just made that “a bit more of an imperative”. As

one respondent noted we are “always looking to improve the business - it is not just for the cruise

ship visitor market”. Often relatively simple solutions were very effective, such as one of the food

outlets offering a ‘package meal’ to cruise ships visitors which saved their staff from having to spend

valuable time explaining individual menu items, and presented their customers with an easier

decision.

45

The cruise ship market is notable for presenting a bulk of customers in a short period of time. For

Akaroa more generally the cruise ship visitor market presents in a “nicely concentrated visitation

pattern which leaves little lasting imprint on the town and we don’t have to put up with the visitors

overnight”. As another respondent noted, this “was less intrusive on the community”. Another

positive was that these visitors do not exacerbate the parking issues associated with other types of

visitors to Akaroa.

Some Akaroa businesses reported making some minor changes to their opening times on cruise

ships days: earlier opening times were instituted to accommodate Christchurch operators and staff

and, to a lesser degree, passengers disembarking earlier; some businesses stayed open later in the

day if cruise ship visitors were still around. There was also sometimes an opportunity for sales to

those passengers returning from tours to destinations outside Akaroa. Opening hours in

Christchurch were not an issue as the additional time taken to travel from Akaroa to Christchurch

meant that visitor time there was much shorter and more concentrated.

For businesses offering tour and attraction products, it was perceived to be easier from both the

passenger and business perspectives to have advance bookings in place; as noted above, however,

these were not always that easy to generate. Increasing internet bookings and having a targeted

cruise ship web presence made good business sense in this respect. There were still issues with

passengers’ uncertainty and stress around their ability to disembark quickly; offering refunds helped

alleviate this. As noted, a number of businesses had altered their tour times to allow for later

embarkation, after getting some practical experience of these issues in the first Akaroa season.

While many of the activity and tour businesses had experience catering to international tourist

market they admitted to making some minor changes to their products at the beginning of the cruise

ship season; these included streamlining departures and offering more passive tours.

The move to Akaroa also necessitated the development of tour and activity products which allowed

for the extra distance that needed to be travelled from the port to the city. Cruise ship passengers

were not always aware that they had actually arrived in a different place; as one Christchurch

retailer noted “many visitors tell us that that they couldn’t believe how far the port was from the

city”. At the Antarctic Centre - which receives many pre-arranged wholesaler tour groups they had

introduced a pre-packaged lunch available for visitors on their arrival - a move which appeased the

often hungry visitors after the long drive and took the pressure off their own café at a busy time of

the day.

A number of respondents commented that they had not considered making any significant changes

in their business because of uncertainty over the longevity of Akaroa as the Canterbury cruise port.

One respondent also noted that we “have to be careful we don’t lose sight of what it [making cruise

ship related changes] could do for traditional tourism in Akaroa - those people are staying and

spending more and we could lose them”. A number of respondents had, however, considered future

changes they might make to their business. These included:

Looking for bigger premises or making their frontage more appealing.

Increasing advertising and targeting the cruise ship market more specifically, although for

retailers it was perceived to be a challenge to raise awareness of particular premises through

advertising: “[I] don’t know how we as retailers convey to people what we are doing - so that

they go looking for a particular shop”.

46

Increasing capacity through the purchase of more vehicles or equipment.

Introducing “add-ons to our current offering”.

3.2.6 Cruise ships in context

For many Akaroa businesses it was somewhat ironic that the relocation of the cruise ships to Akaroa,

as a result of the earthquake, enabled the recovery of business also lost as a consequence of the

earthquake. The downturn in international visitors to Akaroa was generally attributed to an overall

visitor downturn as a result of the global recession, and more specifically fewer visitors to

Christchurch (post-earthquake) and thence to Akaroa; the downturn in the domestic market was

blamed firstly on the earthquake impacts on the local Christchurch and Canterbury market, and to a

lesser extent on the impacts of the recession on that local market. The earthquake-related reduction

in visitors to Christchurch was also a contributing factor to business uncertainty and to business

changes.

A range of earthquake products (i.e., they developed as a result of the earthquakes) have become a

fundamental part of the Christchurch ‘visit’ proposition and now form the basis of many tour and

attraction products. The Re: START Container Mall has also been of interest to visitors as both a

shopping opportunity and an ‘attraction’ in its own right. For those retailers for whom the opening

of the Re: START allowed for some continuation of their pre-earthquake business, however, the

operational logistics and the physical context of their post-earthquake surroundings has had a

profound impact on their economic circumstances and capacity to host large number of visitors.

In both Akaroa and Christchurch the (small) physical size of many retail and hospitality premises was

noted in respect of their ability to accommodate large numbers of visitors. On the whole, most

respondents were happy with the current visitor patterns whereby the numbers making a shore visit

were split between Christchurch and Akaroa. The weather was believed to be a factor influencing

how many stayed on the ship whilst in port and, of those who went ashore, it was generally thought

that more visitors go to Christchurch (rather than staying in Akaroa) in bad weather. Also, for

retailers “a beautiful sunny day is not a good selling day”.

The interview data suggest that the value of the cruise ship market needs to be understood in a

broader context than simply measures of the economic contribution made during the cruise ship

season. Importantly, for almost all respondents the cruise ships have been a very timely and

welcome boost after several seasons where they were really feeling the effects of the global

downturn and the impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes. In light of this it is difficult to calculate

their exact economic value as, for many, the cruise ships have (only) just brought them back up to

where they were (financially) pre-downturn and pre-earthquake. Others were of the opinion that

the business was “not quite back to normal yet”. For many, the overall feeling was that “at the

moment the cruise ship market is very important” and “without the cruise ships we would have been

dead in the water”.

47

3.2.7 The visitor experience

Most thought that Akaroa had coped well with the influx of cruise ship visitors during the summer.

There was some discussion around the residents’ publically expressed dissatisfaction with cruise ship

visitors which had surfaced towards the end of the cruise ship season and the ability of Akaroa

Township to successfully host cruise ships; the provision of adequate toilet facilities was mentioned

most often as an issue in this regard. There were also perceptions that passengers had experienced,

and been dissatisfied with, crowding in some of the smaller Akaroa retail premises; it was also

reported that visitors often selected particular food outlets on the basis of their shorter waiting

times.

Many thought that the increasingly “positive feedback about Akaroa and its charms” would ensure

that Akaroa would maintain some prominence as a Canterbury cruise ship port, even if Lyttelton

Port was to reopen to cruise ships. However, there was some concern around too much

development and the “need to take care not to ruin it”; ruining it was seen as a loss of its

‘uniqueness’ and was reiterated in the number of interviews in which respondents noted how much

visitors enjoyed the town’s “small size and personal nature”. A number of Akaroa tour operators

commented how much their visitors enjoyed the experience of meeting “ordinary people and

experiencing ordinary life” on tours of Banks Peninsula. Most were of the opinion that Akaroa

currently offers the right mix of products for cruise ship visitors, and that any future development or

expansion would need to be considered carefully; as one respondent noted “[I] don’t think we want

to look like a town that is geared up to just fleece the tourists”. Another respondent commented that

it was “important not to offer too much of the same thing”.

The greatest opportunities for product development were thought to be in the retail sector, either

through the expansion of current premises and product lines, or as an addition to activity and tour

products. There was widespread recognition that in order to introduce new products one needs to

know what visitors want. Many respondents involved in retail or food businesses noted that “half

the time they wouldn’t actually know if their customers were from the cruise ships or not”; in

contrast, those involved in tours and attractions more often noted that cruise ship visitors “are

different to more traditional international tourists we were used to”. As noted, some respondents

reported that they had adapted their products to suit the older, and more sedentary, cruise ship

visitors.

Although most respondents thought that existing businesses in Akaroa adequately cover cruise ship

visitor needs, there was perceived to be scope to improve the visitor experience through the

introduction of new products and improved services and facilities. These included a range of specific

products (which would generate income), the identification of facilities and attractions for visitors

that might be introduced (not necessarily generating income) and general facilities and services that

need attention:

New products:

Rental cars - although the additional cost of supplying these to an Akaroa market was

problematic.

More local tours (i.e., around Banks Peninsula) - “people do not realise how much Banks

Peninsula has to offer and it is not being fully exploited as a visitor attraction”.

Tours to the local marae.

48

A drop-on drop-off tourist vehicle (e.g., a small motorised train was suggested by several

respondents) which would be more permanent and sophisticated than the free shuttle

provided during the last season, and could also generate income.

Reopening the Akaroa Museum (closed because of earthquake damage) was missed by

many.

More nature-based products e.g., native bush tours with biologists.

Facilities and attractions for visitors:

More things for kids to do.

More street-side food vendors.

More Maori cultural attractions, although a greeting was tried (and failed?) early in the

cruise ship season.

Street entertainment on cruise ship days - e.g., buskers or entertainment suitable for

children.

Opening another café down the other end (north) and a bakery (a ‘real’ French bakery).

Sheltered walkway on the wharf.

Find ways in which visitors can better experience the history of Akaroa.

A better welcome on the wharf.

Locally run things that would directly benefit more people in the local community.

Tours of local gardens was suggested as an example of showcasing “stuff that is already here

[as well as] involving people [in Akaroa] who might be negative [about cruise ship visitors] ”.

A dedicated webpage on the CCT website for passenger use.

Banks Peninsula could be designated a UNESCO Geopark .

General facilities and services:

Fix the existing toilets and/or build more toilets.

More areas for people to sit in the shade.

Signage around Akaroa Township could be improved.

Cleaning the streets more often.

Photograph 12: The Maori greeting (Emma

Stewart)

Photograph 13: Enjoying Akaroa’s charms (Jude Wilson)

49

Photograph 14: Welcome to Akaroa (Jude

Wilson)

Photograph 15: Photographing one’s own ship (Jude Wilson)

Photograph 16: Walking into Akaroa Township

(Jude Wilson)

Photograph 17: Visiting the local church, Akaroa (Jude Wilson)

3.3 Conclusion It is difficult to gauge exactly the economic value of cruise ship visitors as there are many other

factors which affect this. For most businesses, the cruise ship visitor market has been a crucial factor

enabling them to stay in business and yet does not constitute a large portion of their annual

turnover. The ability of Canterbury region to host cruise ships post-earthquake has generated

employment in both Akaroa and Christchurch during what have been some very difficult years.

Post-earthquake, Christchurch and Akaroa have differed in respect of their cruise ship visitor hosting

experiences and yet they are also not independent of each other. To understand the value of the

cruise ship market you have to look at the big picture: as many Akaroa respondents noted “if Akaroa

hadn’t taken [the] cruise ships the whole of the region would have lost them”. The earthquake, which

has been both the cause and effect in respect of Akaroa hosting cruise ships, is far from being ‘the

elephant in the room’. Many visitors to Christchurch were empathetic, reported to wishing to spend

money during their visit to help the people of Canterbury and many attractions are earthquake-

focused. Akaroa business also felt like this - illustrating their connection to the Christchurch city and

to the wider Canterbury region and wanting to facilitate cruise ships tourism as a means to help the

rest.

50

Even if people are not spending money they were seen as beneficial for Akaroa, as one respondent

noted:

“But while people are [just] walking around they are taking away an experience, telling other

people - [that is] the best marketing you can get, better than a TV advertisement”.

Many of the Akaroa business stakeholders have already encountered cruise ship visitors returning to

Akaroa for longer stays. There is also hope that, eventually, the global economy will improve and

traditional visitor markets will return.

51

4.0 Concluding comments

This section presents some concluding comments with respect to the research objectives of both the

Visitor Survey (Section 2) and the Stakeholder Interviews (Section 3). The visitor survey focused on

passenger characteristics (including their activity patterns and expenditure) and their shore

experiences and perceptions of Akaroa, Christchurch and Canterbury. While the stakeholder

interviews primarily examined the economic impact of increased cruise ship activity in Akaroa, these

interviews also collected data on business stakeholders’ perspectives on visitor characteristics,

behaviour and shore visit experiences. These research objectives are addressed below.

4.1 Visitor spending Both the survey results and the interview data suggest that a large proportion of visitors spend is on

small retail items and food and drink. While there are still significant sales of tour and activity

products the levels at which these are purchased are affected by a variety of passenger/cruise

characteristics and logistics associated with the Akaroa port visit. The added cost of transport to

Christchurch, for example, reduces visitors spend on other products. Potentially, however, there is

more impact on the local economy in Akaroa as these visitors represent a much larger proportion of

the customer/client base for businesses, than is the case in Christchurch. The ability of Canterbury

region to continue to host - whether through the Port of Lyttelton or Akaroa - what is one of the few

growth segments of the visitor market is significant.

Traditional economic modelling suggests that smaller destinations are less able to capitalise upon

the economic spend of visitors than larger more self-sufficient destinations in respect of their ability

to supply goods and services from within. The nature of product delivery and service in Akaroa,

however, is such that this leakage does not appear to be any more significant for the visitor market

than is the case for that community in a general sense. This is supported by the number of Akaroa

business stakeholders who reported making few if any changes in respect of product lines and

delivery to cater to the cruise ships market. Where the greatest leakage occurs is undoubtedly in the

provision or supply of tours, especially those which may be sourced from Christchurch or arranged

directly via wholesalers and inbound operators - the number of visitors surveyed, for example,

whom did not report spending on tours despite reporting that they had gone on a tour contributed

to visitors spend being significantly unreported in the survey.

The survey data also indicates that within the visitor spending category, a large proportion of

respondents reported spending nothing (i.e., $O) during their port visits. This is perhaps indicative of

the all-inclusive pre-packaged nature of cruise ship travel, insofar as it is possible for almost all

passengers spending to be included in their fare. Any additional spending by passengers in port

might be regarded as a duplication of spend and spending patterns were found in the surveys (and

supported by interview data) to be relatively unpredictable and in some cases counter-intuitive. This

presents considerable challenges in respect of business development. For businesses to expand they

need to know they have a market; this is difficult with the cruise ship sector as it presents an atypical

visit pattern and spend profile. There is also some uncertainty around how long Akaroa will continue

to host the Canterbury cruise ship visits at this level. This made it difficult for business to plan

52

strategically around the cruise ship visitor market. Other factors, however, which also impacted on

strategic planning, or lack thereof, included limited capacity (both physical and organisational), lack

of interest, and lack of significance of the cruise ships market (i.e., that it only constitutes a small

part of their total business).

Further, it must be noted that economic benefits extend beyond simple (direct) visitor spend.

Specifically, cruise ship visits to Akaroa appear to have contributed to – and in some cases, ensured –

many business’ survival through some very difficult years and in some instances have instilled a

degree of confidence to expand and develop new business initiatives. They have also generated

employment.in this respect cruise ships tourism has performed as a complementary component or

subsector of the visitor market and has filled a gap created by the events surrounding the

Christchurch and Canterbury earthquakes and the on-going global economic recession and its impact

on visitor numbers in New Zealand.

Another economic benefit that should not be overlooked is the value of return visitation and word of

mouth recommendations. The visitor survey data indicated strong intention to return and high

likelihood of recommending Akaroa and Christchurch/Canterbury visited to family and friends. More

than half of the interview respondents, for example, reported encountering visitors who had first

visited on a cruising holiday during the two cruise ship seasons in which Akaroa has hosted the

majority of Canterbury port visits.

4.2 Visitor experience Data from the visitor survey indicate that there are very high levels of satisfaction with Akaroa port

visits. This is supported by the positive feedback reported by interview respondents. Both sets of

data suggest that Akaroa is popular and enjoyed for its laid-back charm and for its attractions

showcasing local lifestyle and experienced through tours or independent sightseeing in the

township. Akaroa currently offers a relaxed and relatively passive experience well-suited to older

visitors. Demand for this may change in the future as the cruise ship visitor market becomes more

diverse. While the current visit profile does not generate high spend on tourism-specific products

(i.e. attractions and tours) it appears that this may be improved through better facilitation of the

cruise ship visitor experience.

Getting information to people is key in this regard; that is, understanding what it is cruise ship

passengers want to do on their port visits and then being in a position to offer those things. This

involves developing more efficient ways of informing visitors of what options are available in port

and making it easy for them to arrange participation (i.e., visitors need to know what there is

available, they need to have time to book and participate in activities with minimal stress). This

includes counteracting incorrect information so visitors don’t miss out and also making it easier for

them to physically access products.

The respondents in the survey provided an indication of the types of activities likely to appeal to

them in future visits. These included (and in many cases paralleled the suggestion made by the

business stakeholders for product development): experiencing local food and wine (which could be

introduced via local tours); visiting a museum (whose closure was noted as an issue for visitors); and,

experiencing Maori culture. Comments were also recorded in the survey relating to most enjoyed

53

and least enjoyed aspects of their visits. Taken together this provides a degree of customer feedback

regarding the areas of the Akaroa destination product which might be improved for future visitors.

While from a business perspective these might not lead directly to product development or

economic benefit they nonetheless highlight a number of broader destination issues that may need

to be addressed in order to improve the overall visitor experience.

From a business perspective, improvement in the avenues of communication with cruise ship

passengers whilst on-board (i.e., before they disembark in Akaroa) is likely to enhance opportunities

to lever greater economic benefit from cruise arrivals in Akaroa Harbour. While the businesses

interviewed noted that they had learned to accommodate the uncertainties around disembarkation

times through flexibility of product delivery they also noted the importance of having advance

bookings. This can - and is likely to - be improved as internet blogs and cruise ships specific chat sites

become more widely consulted by passengers.

From a destination perspective, however, it is perhaps beneficial to have some products or activities

that are not already completely booked out for those passengers who do just want to wander, but

whom might be attracted by something they see or encounter in passing. These casual and

‘opportune’ visitors need products that are of short duration, unique and easily understood in

respect of what they entail or offer.

It is also important to remember that these cruise visitors are typically on an itinerary in which

multiple ports are visited during their journey. As such, they are able to select from a wide (and

often similar) range of activities and attractions across multiple destinations. To attract these

visitors, and to increase the economic yield from them, it seems important to focus on destination

differentiation rather than focusing on the cruise ship visitor market as a single category of visitors.

In respect of the appeal of the wider Canterbury cruise ship port visit, both Akaroa and Christchurch

individually offer unique products and experiences. It would seem prudent to further develop and

promote these unique (or destination-centric) Akaroa and Christchurch products and experiences. It

would also be beneficial to extend this gaze outward to activities and attractions in the wider

Canterbury hinterlands. This would help to further differentiate the Akaroa port visit from other

destinations in cruise passenger itineraries.

As a final point, these research data suggest several characteristics of the cruise ship experience that

should be considered when examining this visitor market. The visitor survey, for example, recorded

the cruise ships on which respondents were travelling, and collected some basic demographic data

on the visitors themselves. The business stakeholder interviews uncovered a wide array of

perceptions around the behaviour and economic impacts of different visitor types and the factors

that influence the economic benefits these visitors generate. The collection of these types of data

perhaps needs to be more carefully thought out, and more detailed. It would, for example, be useful

to collect data regarding, the sequencing of port visits for cruise passengers, where the Akaroa port

visit is placed within this sequence, and the types of activities undertaken by passengers at ports

already visited. This type of information would be very useful for businesses engaging with, and

hosting, cruise ships in any port.

54

References

Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre (2001). Cruise ships diverted to Akaroa (Wednesday 28

September 2011). Retrieved on 13 May 2013 from

http://www.lytteltonharbour.info/community-information/community-news/127-cruise-

ships-diverted-to-akaroa

Market Economics Limited (2012). Economic Impact Assessment of the New Zealand Cruise Sector:

Final Report. Report prepared for Cruise New Zealand by Market Economics Limited. New

Zealand: Cruise New Zealand.

Tan, R. & Summers, D. (2012). Untitled cruise ship presentation. New Zealand: Cruise New Zealand

and IDNZ Destination Management.

Tourism New Zealand (2013). Sector marketing – cruise sector. Retrieved on 13 May 2013 from

http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/sector-marketing/cruise/

Tourism New Zealand (2012). New Zealand Cruise Summary June 2012. Retrieved on 13 May 2013 from http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/media/885712/new_zealand_cruise_summary__june_2012.pdf

Zikmund, W. G., Ward, S., Lowe, B., & Winzar, H. (2007). Marketing Research. Melbourne: Thomson.

http://www.lytteltonharbour.info/community-information/community-news/127-cruise-ships-diverted-to-akaroa

http://www.lytteltonharbour.info/community-information/community-news/127-cruise-ships-diverted-to-akaroa

http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/sector-marketing/cruise/

http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/media/885712/new_zealand_cruise_summary__june_2012.pdf

http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/media/885712/new_zealand_cruise_summary__june_2012.pdf

55

Appendices

Appendix One: Visitor Survey - Questionnaire

AKAROA CRUISE PASSENGER SURVEY Location __________________Date_________

1. Which ship are you travelling on? ___________________

2. Is this the first time you have been on a cruise?

IF no: how many cruises have you been on? ________

3. Have you been to Christchurch or Akaroa before?

Yes, Christchurch 1 Yes, Christchurch and Akaroa 3

Yes, Akaroa 2 No 4

4 How did you choose what activities you would do on your shore visit today?

Research and/or book activities

before leaving home

1 Make your decision once you

arrived in Akaroa township

3

Decide on the activities while

onboard your ship

2 A combination of these

4

5a. Have you been on an organised tour today?

5b. If yes: what tour did you go on? _______________________

6. Did you leave Akaroa township today?

7. Can you to tell me all the destinations you visited today, and the activities you

participated in at each destination, including Akaroa. Include both activities you paid for and

those that were free

Destination Activity

Yes No

Yes No Go to Q.6

Yes No Go to Q.11

56

8. What did you enjoy most about your visit to [insert where visited] today?

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

9. What did you least enjoy about your visit to [insert where visited]?

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

If respondent visited CHRISTCHURCH city ask:

10. I’m going to read out a list of statements that might be used to describe Christchurch city. Using the following showcard, I’d like you to tell me how much you agree or disagree with each statement, on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is strongly agree and 5 is strongly disagree [SHOWCARD 1]

Stro

ngl

y

agre

e

Nei

ther

Stro

ngl

y

dis

agre

e

N/A

Christchurch is a lively place 1 2 3 4 5 0

Christchurch has a lots to see and do 1 2 3 4 5 0

Christchurch is an expensive destination 1 2 3 4 5 0

Christchurch has interesting heritage buildings 1 2 3 4 5 0

Christchurch has beautiful natural landscapes 1 2 3 4 5 0

Christchurch is a safe destination 1 2 3 4 5 0

Christchurch is a friendly city 1 2 3 4 5 0

CHECK Q.7. If respondent has not reported any activity in Akaroa, Go to Q 16, otherwise go to Q.15

For respondents who stayed in Akaroa:

11. Why did you choose not to visit Christchurch today?

57

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

12. Can you please tell me all the activities in you participated in Akaroa today? This includes

both activities you paid for and those that were free of charge.

Activity Activity

13 What did you enjoy most about your visit to Akaroa?

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

14. What did you least enjoy about your visit to Akaroa?

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

15 I’m going to read out a list of statements that might be used to describe Akaroa. Using the following showcard, I’d like you to tell me how much you agree or disagree with each statement, on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is strongly agree and 5 is strongly disagree [SHOWCARD 1]

Stro

ngl

y

agre

e

Nei

ther

Stro

ngl

y

dis

agre

e

N/A

Akaroa has lots of things to see and do 1 2 3 4 5 0

Akaroa is an expensive destination 1 2 3 4 5 0

Akaroa has interesting heritage buildings 1 2 3 4 5 0

Akaroa has a French flavour 1 2 3 4 5 0

Akaroa is a safe destination 1 2 3 4 5 0

Akaroa has beautiful natural landscapes 1 2 3 4 5 0

Akaroa is a friendly town 1 2 3 4 5 0

58

All respondents:

16. I’d like you to think about what you spent today in all the places you visited. Looking at

[SHOWCARD 2], can you please estimate how much you spent, in NZ$, in each of the following

categories:

$ $

Tour(s) Shopping(souvenirs, gifts etc)

Restaurant meals Transportation (ex. tours)

Other food, refreshments Other:

17. Taking everything into account, how satisfied would you say you are with this port visit to

Akaroa, on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is extremely satisfied and 5 is very dissatisfied? [SHOWCARD

3] ___

If 4 or 5 ask: Why do you say that?

__________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

18. On a scale of 1 to 5, from absolutely certain to definitely won’t do this [SHOWCARD 4],

how likely would you be to do the following, based on your experience on this visit

Visit here again on a future cruise Recommend friends and family to visit

Akaroa

Visit Akaroa in the future Recommend friends and family to visit CHCH

Visit CHCH on holiday in the future

19. For respondents rating likelihood of future visit for holiday/cruise in Akaroa/Christchurch in future 1-2 ask: I’m going to read out a list of activities you might do while on a future visit to this region. Using the following showcard, I’d like you to tell me how appealing each of these activities would be to you, on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is very appealing and 5 not at all appealing [SHOWCARD 5]

Ver

y

app

ealin

g

Nei

ther

No

t at

all

app

ealin

g

N/A

Going on a farm tour 1 2 3 4 5 0

Experiencing Maori culture 1 2 3 4 5 0

Visiting a museum 1 2 3 4 5 0

Attending a performing arts event 1 2 3 4 5 0

Going on a winery tour 1 2 3 4 5 0

Visiting an art gallery 1 2 3 4 5 0

Experiencing local food and wine 1 2 3 4 5 0

59

Finally, a couple of questions to help us analyse our results.

20. What is your nationality ? (one only: select primary nationality) _______________________

21. Who are you travelling with on this cruise? (one only)

Travelling alone 1 Family 4 Other, Specify: 7

Partner/spouse 2 Family &friends 5

Friends 3 special interest group 6

22 What is the highest level of education you have achieved? [SHOWCARD 6]

No formal qual. 1 Trade qualification 3 Higher degree 5

High school qual. 2 Degree 4 Other tertiary, Specify: 6

23. Which age group do you belong to? [SHOWCARD 7]

24. Don’t ask: record correct response

That is the end of the survey, I would like to thank you very much for your participation, it has been a great

help. If you have any questions about this research or the findings, you are welcome to contact Dr Joanna

Fountain at Lincoln University, on 3253 838.

18-19 1 30-39 3 50-59 5 Over 70 7

20-29 2 40-49 4 60-69 6

Male 1 Female 2

60

Appendix Two: List of Stakeholder Interview Questions (Guide only)

Involvement/reliance on cruise ship tourism

Does your business cater to/service cruise ship visitors?

Are these visitors from every ship that comes into port, or only certain ones?

Is there a particular segment of visitors (e.g., age, nationality) that you deal with?

Do you provide services to passengers that are pre-booked (i.e., before cruise ship comes

into port)?

Do you sell ‘on the ground’ in Akaroa?

Do you ‘on-sell’ to other businesses?

[Christchurch] do you have many pre-bookings from cruise ships?

Have you found that some ships/companies/cruises are better than others for your business?

Has your business changed as a result of cruise ships visiting Akaroa?

Can you put a % figure on:

How much of your business is from cruise ships (passengers/clients; $$)

Has there been an increase in this over time?

Have you done any specific business analysis (for your business) around the cruise ship market?

Have you put any thought into increasing the economic benefits you get from cruise passengers?

Do you think catering to the cruise ship market has displaced other customer segments?

Do you cater to any crew from the cruise ships?

Do you offer discounts to crew as a marketing strategy?

Crew come to ports more than once over a season and can be good word of mouth ambassadors.

Have you put any thought into this (as an opportunity for your business)?

Hosting cruise ships

Have you experienced any particular challenges dealing with the cruise ship market?

There were some days this season when there was more than one ship visiting Akaroa

Did this cause any issues (e.g., capacity) for you?

Were there any other issues (resulting from cruise ship visitors) this season for you?

Was there anything you did in your business that worked particularly well?

Was there anything you did that did not work well?

61

Did you make any changes in your business (e.g., operational, management or staffing practices)

because you know it is a cruise ship day?

Did you make some of these changes during the season (i.e., once you had some experience of

visitors patterns of behaviour)?

Did you do any business planning (staffing, products, opening hours, logistics, booking systems)

around the cruise ship schedules?

Would you plan for next season differently?

What would you change (in your business)?

Overall, do you think cruise ship tourism has been positive or negative economically for Akaroa?

Have you put any thought into what the visitors’ experience of Akaroa (or Christchurch) is like?

Do you think visitors are satisfied with their visits?

Do you survey your passengers at the end of their experience to ascertain if your product is

meeting (and exceeding) expectations?

Do you think any changes are necessary to facilitate cruise ship tourism to Akaroa more generally

(i.e., not just for your business)

Do you perceive there to be any potential to make changes to better extract value from cruise ships?

(e.g., to get more money from this segment of the visitors market)

Akaroa businesses

Have you made any longer term changes to your business as a result of Akaroa hosting the majority

of the region’s cruise ships?

What are the implications for your business if the majority of the ships return to Lyttelton?

Did your business cater to the domestic Christchurch market pre-earthquake, and has this changed?

Loss of that domestic market as a result of earthquakes

Displacement by cruise ship visitors

Do you believe there is displacement of other international visitors (i.e., not cruise ships ones)?

Over the last season, how well do you think Akaroa businesses catered to cruise ship tourists?

Are there competing tourism products working in the same segment? (i.e., sightseeing tours)

Do you see opportunities for other products that could benefit FIT passengers from cruise ships?

If so, what would the products be?

Do you know what proportion of cruise ship visitors leave Akaroa for the day?

62

Christchurch businesses

What % of your business came from the cruise ship market pre-earthquake?

Has the relocation of cruise ships visits to Akaroa had an impact on your business?

If so, what was the greatest change to your business?

Drop in passengers

Drop in revenue from cruise passengers

Has this changed the length of visit time in Christchurch leading to, e.g.:

Do you think your business is missing out on visitors (compared to when ships docked in Lyttelton)?

In your opinion, what proportion of cruise ship visitors do you think come to Christchurch since the

ships started to go to Akaroa post-EQ?

Would your business benefit more/or less from cruise ship tourism if cruise ships returned to

Lyttelton?

Documents

Cruise Ship Tourism in Akaroa by Lincoln University - Christchurch