Talk:Tourism in New Zealand

Travel piece on New Zealand

Check this out An American's perspective on New Zealand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.199.214 (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

New sources to benefit the article

Biggest Weaknesses: The biggest weaknesses of this article are three main points: more information, more sources, and up to date information that relates with the time of now rather than any info that was from five or so years back. Some things that this article lack drastically is the effect of recent global activities and also the drastic change in the amount of income people are making so in general tourist levels are down. As a country's perspective I am sure that New Zealand likes this article for the most part because it is pretty positive overall. Finally, the article in general is quite short and could really use a makeover, but that involves more sources and more up to date information.

First source to add: The very first source that I would like to explain is written by a staff writer on The Press (Christchurch, New Zealand), the article is titled "Environment 'deteriorating'" this is an absolutely perfect article that should be included in the environmental impacts section through the article on the main page. Reason behind that is, being able to add of course more up to date information is key, but more so that section is small in stature and really could use quite the amping of it. This article is really explains how in the past years and if nothing is done then the environment along with its biodiversity will lessen to the point that who really will travel across the globe to see absolutely nothing. Freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems are all losing their biodiversity. Now the key point is how is this article going to be helpful to a tourism article, well without the biodiversity then when people are said to travel to go see the animals/wildlife of New Zealand what is there to see at that point, quite frankly there won't be anything so the tourism in succession will deteriorate. It is a simple equation, the loss of biodiversity means a loss in tourism as a whole. As stated in the article The Press said, "It leaves no doubt that the country needs to act urgently or risk becoming a case study for some of the highest rates of biodiversity loss in recent times" (The Press 2012). The article is extremely helpful and could be a very essential resource in making this article a much better specimen.

Second source to add: For the second source that could be reliable is talking about a complementary aspect of tourism and that is the instability of oil travel. This article is titled "Stricken cargo ship breaks up off New Zealand" and it was written by a staff writer from The Nation. What the point is that you have tourists that come over on boats, planes, what ever sort of transportation, but you are causing a sort of pollution to get there. For this article it relays the fact that the oil being brought over for the residents and the tourists has the ability to spill, which in turn is a very drastic environmental impact (That is what section this should be placed in the environmental impact section of the article). The key point to this article of course is talking about the spill in general, but the background message of the threat to the environment with an oil spill quite like that. Environmental impacts/situations like an oil spill are not common, but the occurrence of one is very important to note on how the environment was affected by it and how it was dealt with. An example of how bad it was for the New Zealand environment says, "about 350 tons of oil and was washed on to once-prestine beaches, killing at least 1,300 birds.." (The Nation 2012). Showing the power of a disaster gives the tourists a reality to what they could possibly be contributing too and that can affect it in the long run. Also, if a pristine reef is covered in oil, who is going to want to go snorkeling there?

Third source to add: For my final source I want to add it depicts the problem that New Zealand can not focus on only economy or environment, but should be put together. The articles title is "Juggling environment and economy a difficult act to pull off" by The Press. This article is extremely relevant to the topic and was very interesting to read in general. The summary of this article basically states one key concept that it is hard to balance both the efforts to keep the economy safe and protect the environment at the same time. In the article it states, "We believe there is a high value for New Zealand in its environment as a tourism earner" (The Press 2012). Overall this article should force the actual Wiki article to create a whole new section and that should be the "Economic versus environmental" that way they could explain how hard of a conflict this really is. Now the question, what is put first? The answer is stated at the end of the article in a very smart sentence it states, "Neither the economy nor the environment should dominate. Our society is based on economic development built on environmental protection" (The Press 2012). That final statement wraps it all up, of course New Zealand needs to worry about its environment, but at the same time they thrive off of it economically and need it to be a big part. Finally, the environment goes with the economy if its good they both are good, if one declines its because of the change of one or the other will shortly follow to decrease.

• Key note none of the sources located below had a byline/author.

APA Bibliography:

1. Environment 'deteriorating'. (2012, May 28). The Press (Christchurch, New Zealand).

2. Juggling environment and economy a difficult act to pull off. (2012,June 23). The Press (Christchurch, New Zealand).

3. Stricken cargo ship breaks up off New Zealand. (2012, January 9). The Nation.

Blaine212 (talk) 06:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

==Tourist activities==

Added the following sections under tourist activities

• Adventure activities,
• Nature and Eco tourism,
• Museums,
• Entertainment

Rim sim (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tourism in New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110823134909/http://ocv.onlinedatacentre.com/mot/OAPAnalysis.html?c=IVS%20-%20Key%20Places%20-%20Table.cub to http://ocv.onlinedatacentre.com/mot/OAPAnalysis.html?c=IVS%20-%20Key%20Places%20-%20Table.cub

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)