Download original attachment
(PDF file)
This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Official Information request 'Tourism Impact'.
Email thread between Stats NZ and MfE, ending 31 May 2017
From:
To:
; 
Withheld under Cc:
section 9(2)(a) Subject:
RE: FOR YOUR INFO: tourism preferences measure assessment template
Date:
Wednesday, 31 May 2017 10:54:07 a.m.
Attachments:
image001.png
Withheld under Hi 
section 9(2)(a)
Withheld under As discussed, I think it would be a good idea if the team had a chat with 
 from DoC on
section 9(2)(a) tourism data. Her email is:
Withheld under '
' 
@doc.govt.nz
section 9(2)(a)
Have a read too of paper 3n Tourism Statistics discussed at the UN Statistical Commission this
1982
year:  
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/48th-session/documents/
Act 
The bottom line is that there is widespread interest in measuring the impacts and pressures from
tourism on the environment, but the questions that we are trying to answer are not yet defined
and therefore there is no established methodology. Hence, all there is comes under body of
evidence. There is no indicator because there are no agreed statistics or methods.
Regards
Information 
From: 
 
Sent: Wednesday, 31 May 2017 10:01 AM
Withheld under To: 
@mfe.govt.nz>; 
@stats.govt.nz>
section 9(2)(a)
Official 
Cc: 
@mfe.govt.nz>
Subject: RE: FOR YOUR INFO: tourism preferences measure assessment template
the 
Withheld under Hi 
section 9(2)(a)
Some comments below.
under 
Adam, the DOC survey of New Zealanders doesn’t sound like a goer?  See thread
below.
There must be some DOC admin data on visits to national parks, use of DOC huts etc. 
But DOC publicly uses the IVS to output international visitors to great walks, and its
survey of New Zealanders to output domestic visitors to great walks.
Released 
As an alternative to the IVS, so far we have:
-          Actual annual international visitor counts, by length of stay, and port/airport of
arrival – International Travel and Migration
-          Guest nights and length of stay by region and RTO (I think this is both domestic
and international visitors, but not sure) – Accommodation survey
The pressure topic we are trying to measure is ‘Resource use and management and
other human activities – the pressure placed on land by rural and urban land use and
management and the extraction and use of minerals and other resources.’ YUK
Cheers
Withheld under
section 9(2)(a)
From: 
@mfe.govt.nz] 
Sent: Wednesday, 31 May 2017 9:00 AM
Withheld under To: 
@stats.govt.nz>; 
section 9(2)(a) <
@mfe.govt.nz>
Subject: RE: FOR YOUR INFO: tourism preferences measure assessment template
Withheld under Hi 
,
section 9(2)(a)
Thanks heaps for your feedback – I think this one really needs some more thought to be
developed into an indicator. I’d be keen to have a chat with you next time you’re at MfE.1982
Some of my answers are below in red.
Act 
From: 
@stats.govt.nz] 
Sent: Tuesday, 30 May 2017 5:59 p.m.
Withheld under
section 9(2)(a) To: 
; 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: FOR YOUR INFO: tourism preferences measure assessment template
Information 
Withheld under Thanks 
section 9(2)(a)
My gut is that the pressure template won’t pass in its current state.  As currently
construed, it seems an indirect measure of a (somewhat gnarly) topic, and therefore of
the pressure being placed on the land.    As I looked more into this, though, I could see
Official 
why you decided to frame the measure around the IVS.  Yip if it’s an indirect measure
can we even use it?  I think there is indirect in the sense of being a solid measure of
the 
part of a topic only, and indirect in the sense of being at best a proxy measure of a
concept within the topic. For EA 2015, the topics were tighter so we did have a lot of
indirect measures in the first sense.    I think this one is indirect in the second sense.
under 
For visitor counts, how about using the actual visitor arrival data instead?  We have this
data from Stats NZ's International Travel and Migration dataset, derived from
information contained in electronic records supplied by the New Zealand Customs
Service, as well as from arrival and departure cards completed by passengers.  This
would work better for a map and be far more accurate.  It outputs visitor numbers and
change in visitor numbers, as well as some characteristics of those visitors, e.g. length
of stay, and the NZ port/airport where they arrived. I didn’t consider this because it didn’t
Released 
look at the regions visited and the activities they participated in (which is what I thought
we wanted from this indicator). I’m not sure how we could do a map unless we just
showed the arrivals into the international airports.   Yes, I get it.  It’s the ‘activities they
participated in’ which is stretching things a bit, especially given the IVS is a sample
survey.  We are having to infer quite a lot about the pressure being placed on land on
the activities a sample of people are self-reporting .  This is where the accommodation
survey may come in useful as an alternative to the IVS– it shows regions where people
are staying.  Although I would need to check in what sense this is a survey/ what the
sample frame is, and of course it would be solidly talking around the pressure .
For more location  specific data we may have to resort to the IVS.  I see DOC uses the
IVS to output visitor numbers to its Great Walks, which is in its favour, but the IVS
response rate could be a con (do you know what this is, I couldn’t find it in my
searches).The sample is 8,900 which I assumed was the response rate, but would need
to check.  Response rate is what proportion of the 8900 sample actually completed the
survey.  Stats surveys normally have 85% plus response rate (partly because our
surveys are compulsory).  If considerably less than this responded to the survey, these
people will have particular characteristics and not be representative of the population.  I
noted the methodological info went into a bit of detail about the two-pronged weighting
that had to be applied, so it’s a bit of an issue.   Time series seems problematic given all
the design changes over the years. Agreed
We would want to include in the measure domestic visitors as well, perhaps from DOC’s
annual survey of New Zealanders.    The domestic visitor survey finished in 2012 so I
didn’t include it. The DOC annual survey of NZ’ers is more about their use and 1982
enjoyment of/attitudes toward PCL – is this how we want to frame this indicator? The
sample size for 2016 was only 4,131.  Their methodology is different before 2013 as
Act 
well. They do break it down to specific recreation areas visited (e.g. Tongariro,
Cathedral Cove etc).   Ok.   But we do need total visitors in this indicator, right?
 I wondered whether any information from the Accommodation Survey could shed
insight into travel plans I guess we still need to figure out what we are trying to tell.. the
pressure on infrastructure?  Not infrastructure no.  The pressure has to be on the land
itself, as per the PSI framework (or how we are using it).  But tourism infrastructure in
itself is a pressure on the land environment…   
Information 
FYI: I’ve double checked my initial concerns with Adam, who says relating the IVS to
environmental domains is difficult, but he will look more closely into this tomorrow.
Thanks 
, could you also see what his thoughts are on the DOC survey of
NZ’ers as well?  I’ll copy him into this email.
Official 
Cheers
Withheld under
the 
section 9(2)(a)
From: 
@mfe.govt.nz] 
Sent: Tuesday, 30 May 2017 2:28 PM
under 
Withheld under To: 
@mfe.govt.nz>
section 9(2)(a) Cc: 
@stats.govt.nz>; Wes Patrick
<
@mfe.govt.nz>
Subject: FOR YOUR INFO: tourism preferences measure assessment template
Hi all
Released 
Withheld under As per advice from 
 I’ve divided the indicators into two separate ones
section 9(2)(a)
· Pressure which includes the areas visited and the activities international visitors
participated in (e.g. going to national parks)
· Impact which is the economic benefits and includes the expenditure
Happy to hear your thoughts and figure out what the ‘story’ is.
Withheld under @
: Data is available to download now if you want to update your tracker.
section 9(2)(a)
Withheld under
 – let’s discuss at the next team meeting if it’s possible to get a regional breakdown of
section 9(2)(a) the expenditure from the database (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?
DataSetCode=TABLECODE7574#)
Cheers
Withheld under
section 9(2)(a)
From: 
 
Sent: Tuesday, 30 May 2017 10:52 a.m.
Withheld under
section 9(2)(a) To: 
Cc: 
Subject: FOR YOUR REVIEW: tourism preferences measure assessment template
Withheld under Hi 
1982
section 9(2)(a)
Here’s what I want to discuss this afternoon:
Act 
Measure assessment template - travel patterns of international visitors.docx 
http://tepuna.mfe.govt.nz/otcs/cs.dll/properties/8840184
· I suggest we change the name from tourism preferences to something else –
perhaps travel patterns of international visitors or something similar.
Information 
· I need help figuring out which topic this goes under, the travel patterns stuff (areas
visited and activities participated in) seems to be a pressure, but if we include
economic expenditure information then it seems to be moving into the impact
category.
Official 
· The activities participated in also included visits to national parks – yay!
the 
Withheld under
: I’ve attached this in case you have any input. It looks like it’s been assessed as a
section 9(2)(a) Tier1 statistic already by StatsNZ, so hopefully QA will be pretty smooth.
under 
Cheers
Withheld under
section 9(2)(a)
, Environmental Reporting
Withheld under Ministry for the Environment – Manatu Mo Te Taiao
section 9(2)(a) Mobile: 
   Email:
@mfe.govt.nz Website: www.mfe.govt.nz 
Released 
No.3 The Terrace, PO Box 10362, Wellington 6143
View the latest Environmental Reporting releases at: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/more/environmental-
reporting
MfE_logo
 
 
*********************************************************************************************
 
Please Note: The information contained in this e-mail message and any attached files may be confid*ential information,
1982
and may also be the subject of legal professional privilege. It is not necessarily the official view of the Ministry for the
Environment. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this e-mail is unauthorised. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and delete the original. Thank you.
Act 
 
*********************************************************************************************
 
 
 
Information 
Official 
the 
under 
Released