Proposed pebble bed modular reactor

Main Findings

• 
  INTRODUCTION
  

Survey Results

• 
  CAPE TOWN: Tourist survey
  

a.1) Origin

The tourism industry is very seasonal, with the peak season being from January to March. The majority of the tourists during this peak period is from overseas, mainly Europe (55%).

a.2) Duration of stay

86% of the tourists indicated that they are staying for 3 days and longer, with only 14% staying for less than 3 days.

a.3) Purpose of visit

68% of the tourists are here for holiday, 11% for business and 21% for other reasons (presumably visiting friends and relatives).

a.4) Frequency of visits

Most of the tourists have visited Cape Town before (59%).

a.5) Most appealing characteristic

The majority of the tourists (41%) consider the natural views and scenic beauty as being most appealing character of Cape Town, followed by the local culture (28%), climate (17%) and nature (14%).

a.6) Perception on nuclear technology

The majority (55%) has a negative perception about nuclear technology, with only 21% viewing it in a positive light, and 21% being indifferent.

a.7) Awareness of the PBMR project

Only 31% of the tourists were aware of the PBMR project.

a.8) Effect on decision

All (100%) of those who are aware of the PBMR, indicated that it had no effect on their decision to visit Cape Town.

a.9) Impact on decision to visit again

By far the majority (93%) indicated that they would visit Cape Town again, even after they have become aware of the PBMR project. Only 7% indicated that there is a possibility that they may not visit Cape Town again.

a.10) Most significant implication of the development

44% indicated that they would consider the danger of radiation as presenting the most significant implication, followed by the visual disturbance of the building (30%) and the possible impact on ecology (19%).

Table 18 presents a summary of the results of the survey.

Although most respondents had negative perceptions on nuclear technology and the Koeberg plant (those who were informed about it), it had no effect on their decision to visit Cape Town. 59% of the respondents had visited Cape Town before and 93% indicated that they would visit Cape Town again, even after being informed about Koeberg and the proposed PBMR. The most common reason given was that many of the respondents were from countries that have nuclear power plants, such as Germany and the United States. As such, they are familiar with and used to living with nuclear technology and do not consider it as a significant, direct danger.

• 
  CAPE TOWN: Tourist establishment survey
  

c.1) Ratio between domestic and overseas tourists

About 60% of clientele are from overseas. This relative high ratio can be ascribed to the fact that the survey was done in March, which falls in the peak season. Surveys done by the Western Cape Tourism Board also found that the majority of tourists during the summer months are from overseas. During the winter months, the situation is reversed with the majority of the tourists then being local (Western Cape) and from other provinces in South Africa. On average, the survey indicated that the majority of the visitors were from overseas. In the case of Pelindaba, it is the other way around (refer paragraph g.1).

c.2) Profile of visitors

27% of the tourists are businessmen, 28% are families and 12% are retired couples.

c.3) Seasonal fluctuation of business

The majority of the establishments (93%) indicated that their businesses were not strongly seasonal. This could be attributed to the fact that foreign tourists occupy the establishment during the summer, with domestic tourists visiting the area during winter. In addition to the domestic tourists, it was indicated that people employed at the plant accounted for a percentage of occupation during the winter, particularly at those establishments located near the plant. These two factors even out significant fluctuations.

c.4) Age of establishment

Only 7% of the establishments existed before the construction of Koeberg. As such, it is difficult to ascertain from this source if the development of Koeberg had a notable effect on the local tourism industry.

c.5) Perception of nuclear technology

46% is positive about nuclear technology, with only 30% being negative and 24% being indifferent. The main reasons why the owners are positive include:

• 
  They trust the professionals at Koeberg
  
• 
  It is a cheap and clean energy source
  
• 
  c.6) Possible implications for the tourism industry
  

c.7) Possible perceptions of tourists towards nuclear technology and Koeberg

Only 13% are of the opinion that tourists have a negative perception of nuclear technology and the Koeberg plant, while 7% are of the opinion that tourists have a positive perception. 43% are of the opinion that tourists are indifferent.

c.8) Effect of Koeberg on decisions to visit the area

Only 7% are of the opinion that the existence of Koeberg has an effect on the decisions of tourists to visit the area, whereas 66% are of the opinion that Koeberg has no effect.

c.9) Effect of Koeberg on the local tourism industry

20% are of the opinion that Koeberg had a positive effect on the local tourism industry, 27% indicated that it has a negative effect and 53% are not sure. The main reason for the positive effect can be attributed to the fact that a percentage of their clientele comprises of people who are employed at Koeberg. However, referring to the paragraph c.4 above, it has to be taken into account that only 7% of establishments existed before the development of Koeberg. As such, the findings of this particular question has to be interpreted with care.

c.10) Awareness of PBMR

51% of the operators are aware of the PBMR project, of which 64% has learnt about it through the printed media.

c.11) Opinion on impact of the PBMR project in the local tourism industry.

Nearly half (59%) of operators are of the opinion that the PBMR project will not have a negative effect on the local tourism industry, with 32% being unsure. Only 9% are of the opinion that the project will have a negative effect.

Table 19 presents a summary of the findings.

Nearly half (46%) of the owners have a positive perception on nuclear technology, 24% are indifferent and 30% have negative perceptions. Most of those who have a positive perception state that they trust the professionals working at Koeberg. Some respondents are also of the opinion that technological advancement is inevitable, and that nuclear technology is cleaner and cheaper than other alternatives.

75% of the respondents agreed that the Koeberg power plant has had no negative impact on the local tourism industry. In fact, 20% felt that the plant had a positive impact on the local tourism industry because of the spin-offs that it caused and the contribution this had made to the local economy.

66% of respondents were of the opinion that Koeberg had not affected the tourists' decision to visit Cape Town, while 7% felt that it did.

• 
  PELINDABA: Tourist survey
  

e.2) Origin

By far the majority (63%) of the tourists come from Europe. This high percentage can be ascribed to the fact that the survey was conducted in March, which falls in the peak season. The situation is reversed during the winter months, when the majority of tourists are domestic. On average, the survey has indicated that the majority of the visitors are from South Africa, which is the opposite for Cape Town, where the majority of visitors are from overseas.

e.2) Duration of stay

57% stay for 3 days and longer, 26% for 3 days and 18% for less than 3 days.

e.3) Purpose of visit

The majority (74%) are on holiday, and 17% are businessmen.

e.4) Frequency of visits

57% have indicated that it is the first time that they have visited the area.

e.5) Most appealing characteristic

36% finds nature to be the most appealing character of the area, followed by the climate (27%) and then the views (23%).

e.7) Perception on nuclear technology

Nearly half (50%) have negative perceptions about nuclear power, 32% are indifferent and 18% positive.

e.8) Awareness of the PBMR project

By far the majority (91%) are not aware of the project.

e.9) Effect on decision

Of those that did know, the majority (91%) said that it did not influence their decision to visit the area.

e.10) Impact on decision to visit again

By far the majority (70%) said that it would have no effect on their decision to visit the area again.

e.11) Most significant implication of the development

40% felt that the most significant impact on the local tourism industry is the visual impact of the plant, followed by the danger of radiation (35%).

Table 20 presents a summary of the findings.

Although half (50%) of the tourists have negative perceptions about nuclear technology, the majority (70%) would again visit the area even if the PBMR project is implemented.

• 
  PELINDABA: Tourism Supply
  

g.1) Ratio between domestic and overseas tourists

The majority (65%) of the tourists are from South Africa.

g.2) Profile of visitors

A large percentage (46%) of the tourists are retired people, 13% are businessmen and 13% families.

g.3) Seasonal fluctuation of business

81% indicated that the tourism industry is not strongly seasonally orientated, with the peak season being September to March. However, similar to Cape Town, there is a change in the origin profile of the tourists with the majority in the peak season being from overseas, with the profile being reversed in the winter months.

On average, it would appear that the tourism establishments receive more domestic tourists than overseas tourists (refer paragraph g1 above).

g.4) Age of establishment

The majority (76%) of the establishments were developed after Pelindaba was built.

g.5) Perception of nuclear technology

The majority (60%) has a negative perception about nuclear technology, 15% are indifferent and 25% positive.

g.6) Possible implications for the tourism industry

The respondents were nearly split on the question of whether the Pelindaba plant has had an effect on the local tourism industry. 35% were of the opinion that it had no effect, 30% were of the opinion that it's had a negative effect, and 35% were not sure.

g.7) Possible perceptions of tourists towards nuclear technology and Pelindaba

Half (50%) of respondents were of the opinion that tourists have a negative perception about nuclear technology.

g.8) Effect of Pelindaba on decisions to visit the area

Nearly half (45%) of respondents were of the opinion that the existence of the Pelindaba plant had no effect on the decision of tourists to visit the area, 15% percent said that it has and 35% were not sure.

g.9) Effect of Pelindaba on the local tourism industry

30% of the respondents were of the opinion that the plant has had a negative effect on the local tourism industry, 35% were not sure, whereas only 19% were of the opinion that it had a positive effect.

g.10) Awareness of PBMR

By far the majority (71%) were aware of the PBMR project, of which 69% learnt about it through the printed media.

g.11) Opinion of PBMR impact on the local tourism industry.

38% of the respondents were of the opinion that the project will have a negative effect, 14% did not think that it would, whereas 48% were not sure.

Table 21 presents a summary of the findings.

Table 21: Summary of findings – tourism establishment survey (Pelindaba)

Similar to the reaction in Koeberg, nearly half (48%) of the operators have a negative perception about nuclear technology. However, nearly half of the operators (43%) were also of the opinion that the existence of Pelindaba had no effect on the decision of tourists to visit the area. 38% were of the opinion that the PBMR project will have a negative effect on the local tourism industry, whereas nearly half of the respondents (48%) were not sure.