Two studies were undertaken on 10 New Zealand towns to measure aspects of residents perceptions of tourism. The first study was carried out in May/June 1996 (Lawson et al. 1998), the second was included as part of a study into the travel tourism behavior of New Zealanders in March/April 1997. Twelve items were repeated and questionnaires sent to the original respondents in order to make a longitudinal comparison of results, which provided some notable insights about the importance of understanding the timing of survey administration. The political environment and other general events should be taken into account when interpreting the results, as these can trigger a halo effect, which is the way in which a persons perception of an issue is affected by issues that they are familiar with, rather than all of the available facts (Belch, G., and M. Belch 1993 Introduction to Advertising and Promotion. Homewood IL: Irwin.Belch and Belch 1993). In this case responses to statements about tourism seem to be framed in relation to general current events.

From the two studies there were 645 respondents who replied to both surveys. Paired t-tests were used to compare the means between the two surveys; the Bonferroni method of multiple comparison was employed which controls for Type I error by adjusting the significance level by the number of comparisons to be made. Four of the twelve questions yielded significantly different results between 1996 and 1997 (Table 1). While the 1997 survey respondents were generally neutral or disagreed with the statement that central government needs to have more control over tourism in New Zealand, the 1996 respondents were more inclined to agree with the statement. It is believed that this result can in part be explained by the fact that the initial survey was administered only four months prior to a general government election and the need for additional control was much detailed by some of the political parties. Another issue that was discussed passionately by both residents and politicians was that of foreign investment. There was also serious debate about the link between overseas visitors and immigration to New Zealand; it was felt that tourism was responsible for rising immigration levels. After the general election, these were no longer matters of current debate.

The town of Kaikoura was the only one to change their view on preferred contact with overseas tourists. In the 1996 questionnaire, the residents of Kaikoura stated that they enjoyed having contact with their overseas visitors; however, one year later their preference was for less contact with these visitors. This finding may be explained by the timing of survey administration. Initially, the survey was delivered to residents in early winter, during the quiet season, whereas the second survey arrived just at the end of summer, the peak season. A local industry expert commented that by the end of summer many people are sick of the sight of tourists and thus unlikely to respond positively to this question. However, in winter they are starting to run low on income and are looking forward to the next tourism season. This change of attitude by residents, depending on the season, has been documented elsewhere (e.g., Liu and Var 1986).

Another town that had significantly different opinions, also due to seasonality, was Taupo whose residents were less agreeable to the statement tourism has improved the quality of service in shops, restaurants and hotels. This change in view could be attributed to the fact that in the summer these amenities would be more crowded. Crowding causes delays and other inconveniences and hence dissatisfaction with services given. Another statement where significant differences were recorded may also be related to the issue of seasonality. This was the perception that tourism is responsible for the provision of better recreational opportunities for residents. Residents, again from Kaikoura, registered a significant difference in opinion. It is believed that recreational opportunities are regarded less favourably during winter than they are at the end of summer, when more activity is occurring due to the presence of many tourists.

Auckland residents also perceived that, because of tourism, they had better recreational opportunities. When responding to the initial survey, Auckland residents were neutral towards the idea that tourism was responsible for better recreational opportunities. However, the newly built sky tower completed in 1997 was a first for New Zealand and it received a great deal of publicity. The casino and restaurant were officially opened about the time the second survey was mailed and thus there was a high level of awareness among residents about the new building and the proposed benefits that it would bring to the city.

In conclusion, it is believed that this brief comparison illustrates the importance of longitudinal, empirical research. Currently, only two data points are available for a limited number of questions on this subject, from surveys undertaken 11 months apart. However, they do illustrate that it is vital for researchers and managers of destinations to understand the context within which residents form their opinions on issues relating to tourism. Decisions based on ad hoc survey results and made without an understanding of external factors might not be optimal for the community. Research results should not be explained in isolation from general events occurring in society. These events will often form a point of reference for understanding why residents hold the opinions they do, as they appear to have a halo effect on residents perceptions of tourism.