E XPERIMENTOS

An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the gender-related statements relating to: the product offering and infrastructure; the local attitudes and behaviour; the natural/human-made attractions; the tourist services and events; the tourist attractions and services; and the tourist infrastructure. The results show that there was no significant difference in the scores for product offering and infrastructure for the men (M = 1.83, SD = 0.73) and for the women (M = 1.70, SD = 0.64); t (105) = 1.010, ρ = 0.315; in the scores for local attitudes and behaviour for the men (M = 2.61, SD = 0.64) and for the women (M = 2.65, SD = 0.61); t (105) = -0.326, ρ = 0.745; in the scores for tourist attractions and services for the men (M = 1.94, SD = 0.46) and for the women (M = 2.07, SD = 0.48); t (105) = -1.413, ρ = 0.161; in the scores for tourist infrastructure for the men (M = 1.25, SD = 0.36) and for the women (M = 1.25, SD = 0.43); t (105) = -0.047, ρ = 0.963; in the scores for natural/human-made attractions for the men (M = 4.85, SD = 0.44) and for the women (M = 4.82, SD = 0.41); t (104) = 0.404, ρ = 0.687; in the scores for tourist services and events for the men (M = 4.85, SD = 0.56) and for the women (M

= 4.85, SD = 0.28); t (104) = 0.065, ρ = 0.948, as is shown in Table 5.28. Thus, both the men and the women can be seen to have rated the statements similarly.

5.3.16.2 Age

A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the age-related impact of statements relating to product offering and infrastructure; local attitudes and behaviour; natural/human-made attractions; tourist services and events; tourist attractions and services; and tourist infrastructure. The subjects were divided into five groups according to their age (Group 1: 18 to 24; Group 2: 25 to 34 years; Group 3: 35 to 54; Group 4: 55 to 64; Group 5: 65 to 74). The test revealed no significant difference in the scores for the age groups concerned, in terms of the following values for product offering and infrastructure: F (4, 81) = 0.4, ρ = 0.81, and for tourist attractions and services: F (4, 29) = 2.7, ρ = 0.319. However there was a statistically significant difference in the age-related scores for local attitudes and behaviour: F (4, 62) = 6.7, ρ = 0.000; for the tourist infrastructure: F (4, 29) = 2.7, ρ = 0.009;

for the natural/human-made attractions: F (4, 29) = 3.0, ρ = 0.023; and for tourist services and events: F (4, 29) = 5.7, ρ = 0.000, as shown in Table 5.28. Post-hoc comparison using the Sheffe test indicated that the mean score on local attitudes and behaviour for Group 1 (M = 1.85, SD

= 0.66) was significantly different to those from groups 2 (M = 2.63, SD = 0.71), 3 (M = 2.66, SD = 0.60), 4 (M = 2.87, SD = 0.29), and 5 (M = 2.75, SD = 0.51). The mean score on tourist services and events for Group 1 (M = 4.43, SD = 0.22) was significantly different to those from groups 3 (M = 4.89, SD = 0.24), 4 (M = 4.98, SD = 0.07), and 5 (M = 5.00, SD = 0.00).

Elsewhere, in terms of the local attitudes and behaviour, the respondents from the younger group rated the statements more negatively than did the respondents from the older age groups.

In terms of the tourist services and events, the respondents from the 18 to 24-years-old group rated the statements more positively than did the respondents from the older age groups.

5.3.16.3 Level of education

A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the education-related impact of statements relating to product offering and infrastructure; local attitudes and behaviour; natural/human-made attractions; tourist services and events; tourist attractions and services; and tourist infrastructure. The highest qualification of the tourists was divided into three groups (Group 1: Diploma completed, or less; Group 2: Undergraduate degree completed;

Group 3: Postgraduate degree completed). The ANOVA test revealed no statistically significant difference in the scores for the highest qualification groups for the product offering and

infrastructure: F (2, 55) = 0.6, ρ = 0.540; for the tourist attractions and services: F (2, 62) = 2.2, ρ = 0.12; and for the tourist infrastructure: F (2, 29) = 1.9, ρ = 0.155. However, there was a statistically significant difference in the scores for the highest level of education groups for the local attitudes and behaviour: F (2, 44) = 7.3, ρ = 0.001; for the natural/human-made attractions:

F (2, 44) = 4.1, ρ = 0.019; for the tourist services and events: F (2, 73) = 4.9, ρ = 0.010; and for the tourist infrastructure: F (2, 29) = 3.3, ρ = 0.039, as is shown in Table 5.28 below. The post-hoc comparison using the Sheffe test indicated that the mean score for the local attitudes and behaviour for Group 1 (M = 2.29, SD = 0.78) was significantly different to that from Group 2 (M = 2.50, SD = 0.72), 3 (M = 2.82, SD = 0.38). The mean score for the natural/human-made attractions for Group 1 (M = 4.58, SD = 0.50) was significantly different to those from groups 2 (M = 4.88, SD = 0.29) and 3 (M = 4.89, SD = 0.43), with the mean score for tourist services and events for Group 1 (M = 4.57, SD = 0.33) also being significantly different to that from Group 3 (M = 4.90, SD = 0.49). Group 2 (M = 4.91, SD = 0.22) did not significantly differ from Group 1 or 3, and the tourist attractions and services and the tourist infrastructure groups did not significantly differ from each other. Thus, in relation to the local attitudes and behaviour, the respondents whose highest level of education was a diploma or less rated the statements more negatively than did the respondents holding either an undergraduate, or a postgraduate, degree. In relation to the natural/human-made attractions and the tourist services and events, the respondents whose highest level of education was a diploma or less rated the statements more positively than did the respondents holding either an undergraduate, or a postgraduate, degree.

5.3.16.4 Socio-economic status

In terms of the tourists’ socio-economic status, a one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of statements relating to the product offering and infrastructure; the local attitudes and behaviour; the natural/human-made attractions; the tourist services and events; the tourist attractions and services; and the tourist infrastructure. The socio-economic status of tourists was divided into three groups (Group 1: Poor to average; Group 2:

Above-average; Group 3: Affluent). As shown in Table 5.28 below, no statistically significant age-related difference was observed in the scores for the product offering and infrastructure: F (2, 66) = 2.1, ρ = 0.126; for the local attitudes and behaviour: F (2, 58) = 0.5, ρ = 0.603; for the tourist attractions and services: F (2, 51) = 0.2, ρ = 0.802; for the tourist infrastructure: F (2, 58) = 0.9, ρ = 0.406; for the natural/human-made attractions: F (2, 52) = 1.2, ρ = 0.310; and for the tourist services and events: F (2, 89) = 2.7, ρ = 0.075. The post-hoc comparison using the Sheffe test indicated that the mean score for the tourist services and events was not, statistically

speaking, significantly different for groups 1 (M = 4.77, SD = 0.52), 2 (M = 4.95, SD = 0.16), and 3 (M = 4.97, SD = 0.11). In relation to the tourist services and events, the respondents rated the statements more positively in Group 1 than they did in groups 2 and 3.

Table 5.28: Test for differences between groups: gender-related differences

Demographic Male and female perceptions

25–34

5.4 Views of the key informants

In addition to the findings obtained from the tourists and the residents, in-depth interviews were conducted with the key stakeholders. The key informants interviewed included tourism businesses, non-governmental organisations related to tourism, and Zimbabwean tourism authorities. The interviews were semi-structured, guided by a structured questionnaire (see Appendices D and E). The purpose of interviewing the key informants was to obtain the perspective of stakeholder groups possessing first-hand information with regards to Zimbabwean tourism offerings. The views are discussed in the following subsections.