A structured survey was conducted that involved both the demand and supply sides.
On the supply side, a two pronged approach was followed. The one leg involved discussions with some of the main stakeholders in the local tourism industry, whereas the second leg involved a survey at specific tourism establishments that included B&B’s, hotels and self-catering facilities. Annexure’s 1 and 2 provide a list of the institutions contacted and the particular establishments surveyed in the Koeberg and Pelindaba study areas.
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document. -12 presents perspective on the various tourism institutions contacted and interviewed. Annexure 3 provides the questionnaire used in the survey of the tourism establishments.
The demand side involved a survey amongst the tourists that visited the two study areas. Annexure 4 presents the questionnaire used in the tourist survey.
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.‑12: Tourism institutions contacted and interviewed
22.214.171.124 The supply side
The questionnaire (Refer to Annexure 3) comprised of three sections, of which the first gave a general perspective on the establishments in terms of the size (capacity), the origin of the visitors and the degree of seasonal fluctuation. The second section concentrated on the perceptions of the owner regarding nuclear technology and the degree to which the existing nuclear plants may have had an impact on the attractiveness of the two areas from a tourism perspective. The third section focussed specifically on the proposed PBMR project to determine if the owner was aware of it or not, and his / her perception on the possible impact it may have on the local tourism industry.
The questionnaire (Refer to Annexure 4) established the profile of the tourist, as well as the knowledge and perception of the tourist on nuclear energy. Secondly, the questionnaire established an indication of whether the presence of a nuclear plant will effect his / her (tourist) decision to visit the area.
26.3. MAIN FINDINGS
The purpose with this section is to provide a broad perspective of the results of the survey.
26.3.2 SURVEY RESULTS
126.96.36.199 CAPE TOWN: Tourist survey
a) Summary of survey results
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 26-47 presents a summary of the results of the survey.
Table 26‑47: Summary of findings – tourist survey (Koeberg)
Question 1: Where are you visiting from?
Question 2: How long is your stay?
Question 3: What is the purpose of your visit?
Question 4: Where are you currently residing?
Question 5: Have you visited here before?
Question 6: What is the most appealing characteristic of this area?
Question 7: What are your perceptions on nuclear technology?
Question 8: Are you aware of the proposed PBMR development?
Question 9: If yes, did it in any way effect your decision to visit the area?
Question 10: Now that you are aware of the PBMR development, would you again visit the area?
Question 11: What element of the proposed development will have the most significant impact on local tourism?
b) Interpretation of survey results
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.
The presence of a nuclear plant does not have a significant impact on the decision of tourists to visit Cape Town.
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).
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:
Ü c.6) Possible implications for the tourism industry
The majority (75%) are of the opinion that the existence of Koeberg does not have a negative effect on the local 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 26-48 presents a summary of the findings.
Table 26‑48: Summary of findings – tourism establishment survey (Koeberg)
Question 1: How long have you managed the facility?
Question 2: How many people can you accommodate?
Question 3: What is the ratio between domestic and foreign visitors p.a?
Question 4: What is the profile of your visitors p/a?
Question 5: Is your business strongly seasonally linked?
Question 6: What time of the year is your peak season?
Question 7: Did your business exist before Koeberg?
Question 8: What is your perceptions on nuclear technology with regard to safety and its impact on the environment?
Question 9: Do you think Koeberg had a negative effect on the local tourism industry?
Question 10: What are the general perceptions of tourist regarding nuclear technology and Koeberg plant?
Question 11: Do you think Koeberg plant had an effect on tourists’ decision to visit the area?
Question 12: What element of the plant has the most significant negative impact on the local tourism industry?
Question 13: Has Koeberg had any positive effect on the local tourism industry?
Question 14: Are you aware of the proposed PBMR?
Question 15: How did you obtain information about it?
Question 16: Do you think the establishment of the PBMR will have a negative effect on the local tourism industry?
d) Interpretation of 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 he 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.
The development of the PBMR can be beneficial to the local tourism industry as some of the people that will be employed at the plant will stay at local establishments.