Thesis (Ph.D)--Murdoch University, 2007. / Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Creative Technologies and Media. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 403-450).

Thesis (MPhil) -- AUT University, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references. Also held in print (123 leaves ; 30 cm.) in the Archive at the City Campus (T 338.4791 MAR)

No description available.

No description available.

Communal land values can, on the one hand, be an integral part of the socio-cultural experience which tourists seek and enjoy while visiting Fiji. Partly inherited from the land, such values are still vital as basis of survival in rural Fiji. They are passive so they do not command a price and therefore largely considered free however, indigenous Fijian landowners tend to perceive that such values are an inseparable part of their land and may often expect that these ought to be paid for when land is taken up for development such as in tourism. This dilemma within the tourism system could underpin land conflicts between traditional landowners and tourism entrepreneurs. As tourists ultimately bear costs, the problem can be partially addressed by focusing on their willingness to pay for communal use of land. This research assesses the backpackers� willingness to pay (WTP) for communal values of land in Fiji, including their opinions, feelings, attitudes and perceptions. It uses a social, psychological-economic theoretical framework which postulates firstly, that backpackers will pay in order to maximise satisfaction and, that utilities from passive values can be derived and measured. Secondly, as backpackers search for authenticity, adventure and meeting local people they would tend to be self actualised and therefore willing to pay. A contingent valuation study was undertaken in Fiji from February to June 2003 with a relatively high participation and response rate. Semi-structured interviews were conducted from February to March, 2005 to elicit backpackers� knowledge, feelings, perceptions and attitudes regarding their willingness to pay for the communal use of land. A great majority of respondents were willing to pay. CV respondents were willing to pay an average of F$6.50 for the communal value of land but the younger, highly educated and long haulers would pay less. Though a high proportion of respondents were willing to pay because they valued the communal use of land, for the majority the main reason was financial. Interviewees were willing to pay for economic, psychological and egocentric reasons. The latter two were particularly based on their motivational satisfaction and understanding of the traditional land-based survival skills. Respondents� perceptions of communal values of land, incomes and psychological attitude were also major factors underlying why they were not willing to pay. In light of the study�s findings, it was suggested that the backpacker concept may need to be re-examined as they tended not to be necessarily as budget-minded and exploitative as generally depicted to be. Similarly, they tended to be self-actualising and also espousing motivations similar to those of mass tourists. It was also proposed that WTP can provide a basis for economically analysing the use of passive values of environmental tourism resources, such as land, which can facilitate the industry�s ability in decision making, and management. As an incentive, WTP for communal values of land can be crucial in enhancing and sustaining tourism in a land-scarce economy such as Fiji. In the interim, WTP for communal land use could also provide informed decisions to address current issues such as the Customary Fisheries Bill. Indeed, this pioneering study examines the very issues of passive values for traditionally owned resources which can be applied more broadly; not only in Fiji, but also in other parts of the Pacific.

Communal land values can, on the one hand, be an integral part of the socio-cultural experience which tourists seek and enjoy while visiting Fiji. Partly inherited from the land, such values are still vital as basis of survival in rural Fiji. They are passive so they do not command a price and therefore largely considered free however, indigenous Fijian landowners tend to perceive that such values are an inseparable part of their land and may often expect that these ought to be paid for when land is taken up for development such as in tourism. This dilemma within the tourism system could underpin land conflicts between traditional landowners and tourism entrepreneurs. As tourists ultimately bear costs, the problem can be partially addressed by focusing on their willingness to pay for communal use of land. This research assesses the backpackers� willingness to pay (WTP) for communal values of land in Fiji, including their opinions, feelings, attitudes and perceptions. It uses a social, psychological-economic theoretical framework which postulates firstly, that backpackers will pay in order to maximise satisfaction and, that utilities from passive values can be derived and measured. Secondly, as backpackers search for authenticity, adventure and meeting local people they would tend to be self actualised and therefore willing to pay. A contingent valuation study was undertaken in Fiji from February to June 2003 with a relatively high participation and response rate. Semi-structured interviews were conducted from February to March, 2005 to elicit backpackers� knowledge, feelings, perceptions and attitudes regarding their willingness to pay for the communal use of land. A great majority of respondents were willing to pay. CV respondents were willing to pay an average of F$6.50 for the communal value of land but the younger, highly educated and long haulers would pay less. Though a high proportion of respondents were willing to pay because they valued the communal use of land, for the majority the main reason was financial. Interviewees were willing to pay for economic, psychological and egocentric reasons. The latter two were particularly based on their motivational satisfaction and understanding of the traditional land-based survival skills. Respondents� perceptions of communal values of land, incomes and psychological attitude were also major factors underlying why they were not willing to pay. In light of the study�s findings, it was suggested that the backpacker concept may need to be re-examined as they tended not to be necessarily as budget-minded and exploitative as generally depicted to be. Similarly, they tended to be self-actualising and also espousing motivations similar to those of mass tourists. It was also proposed that WTP can provide a basis for economically analysing the use of passive values of environmental tourism resources, such as land, which can facilitate the industry�s ability in decision making, and management. As an incentive, WTP for communal values of land can be crucial in enhancing and sustaining tourism in a land-scarce economy such as Fiji. In the interim, WTP for communal land use could also provide informed decisions to address current issues such as the Customary Fisheries Bill. Indeed, this pioneering study examines the very issues of passive values for traditionally owned resources which can be applied more broadly; not only in Fiji, but also in other parts of the Pacific.

Thesis (M.S.)--Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1994. / Vita. Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 75-78). Also available via the Internet.

Thesis (M.S.)--Humboldt State University, 2006. / In pocket: Wilderness food storage survey, Yosemite National Park, 2005 ([10] p. ; 22 cm.). Includes bibliographical references (leaves 54-60). Also available via Humboldt Digital Scholar.

No description available.

Alors que le tourisme urbain est aujourd'hui est un phénomène dont les dynamiques sont largement étudiées et que ses flux sont considérables dans certaines destinations, on sait paradoxalement assez peu de choses sur ce que font précisément les touristes dans les métropoles. Même dans une ville mondialement médiatisée comme Paris, les pratiques urbaines et les combinaisons d'activités des touristes dans le temps et l'espace sont peu connues. Cette recherche, qui se base sur une méthodologie qualitative d'entretiens semi-directifs avec des touristes étrangers, est conduite en deux temps. Le premier temps pose le projet de voyage qui guide les touristes comme cadre d'analyse de leurs pratiques urbaines. Deux types de projets touristiques sont analysés, différenciés selon les relations qu'ils entretiennent avec les pratiques dominantes et les médiations de la sphère du tourisme dans la métropole parisienne (le tourisme autonome et économe du backpacking versus le tourisme encadré et organisé d'un tour-opérateur). Le second temps confronte cette analyse à la force de l'empirie. Trois enseignements généraux sont tirés : d'abord, les configurations de voyage a priori différentes résistent mal aux polarisations symboliques et spatiales de l'espace parisien ; ensuite, la durée et/ou le nombre de voyage participent à spécialiser les pratiques de la ville ; enfin, c'est le rôle des mobilités « adhérentes » et des espaces publics comme opérateurs d'urbanité et agents actifs de la découverte du territoire visité / Although the dynamics of the urban tourism phenomenon are widely studied and tourism flows toward certain destinations are considerable, we paradoxically know rather little about what precisely tourists do in cities. Even in a city like Paris which receives much media coverage worldwide, tourists' urban practices and the ways in which they combine activities in time and space are not well known. This research is based on qualitative methods employing semi-structured interviews with foreign tourists, and was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, tourists' travel plans are used as an analytical framework for urban practices. We distinguish between two types of touristic plans according to the relationships they maintain with the tourism sector's dominant practices and mediators, as well as those of the Paris metropolis itself. Specifically, autonomous and thrifty backpacking practices are contrasted with organized tourism managed by tour-operators. In a second phase, this analysis is confronted with more rigorous empiricism. First we demonstrate that these supposedly different travel configurations cannot resist the symbolic and spatial polarization Paris itself. Next, we stress the importance of the duration and/or number of trips in the specialization of urban practices. Finally, we highlight the active role of pedestrian mobility and of public space in the discovery of the city