Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom

South Africa 2520

Tel: (018) 299-1111/2222

Web: http://www.nwu.ac.za

Mr. N. Zengeni
TREES (Tourism, Research in Economic Environs and Society)
North-West University: Potchefstroom Campus
Private Bag X6001
Internal box 204
Potchefstroom
2520
E-mail: nzengeni@yahoo.com
Tel: +263 -4-210079
Mobile: +263-772-449961
Skype: nelsonzengeni.1
July 2016
The Examiner
Republic of South Africa
Dear Sir/Madam
24748528 – N. Zengeni
Title of Manuscript: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF SELECTED
GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON THE DESTINATION COMPETITIVENESS OF
ZIMBABWE
Thank you very much for the meaningful advice and comments regarding my Thesis. I am of the
view that your input added value to the research and the comments are valid. Based on the latter,
I have made extensive improvements as indicated below. Hope you find it in order. All the
technical and content changes were accepted. I appreciate your most valid analysis and every
effort has been made to improve the quality of the Thesis. The nature and extent of revisions are
indicated by the following summary:
EXAMINER’S COMMENT: SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH AND TITLE OF THE
STUDY
Tourism growth in Zimbabwe has seen many challenges over the last few years. What
used to be prosperous tourism destination now struggle to increase the number of visitors to
this country. It is clear that something needs to be done to improve this situation. Thus
research focusing on competitiveness can highlight the most important issues in improving
their level of attractiveness - and serve as a starting point to build their credibility as a
tourism destination again. The theme is thus worthy of research and the title represent the
content of the thesis. The problem statement is clear, especially the need for this study to be
conducted in a developing country such as Zimbabwe.

It is recommended that the contributions of the study is excluded from chapter 1 and only
discussed in the last chapter. Various technical mistakes were made in chapter one and this
should be addressed according to the hard copy.

Author’s Response
 Chapter 1 was rewritten and the technical mistakes were addressed.
 More space was added between paragraphs and headings.
 More detail was added to the background and the problem statement was enhanced to
reflect the real problem of poor destination competitiveness of Zimbabwe.
 The contributions of the study section was removed from Chapter 1 and only discussed in
the last Chapter.

EXAMINER’S COMMENT: LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapters 2 and 3 are devoted to the review of secondary information. In chapter two
attention is given to the analysis of tourism policies/regulations and destination
competitiveness. The focus is on a review of tourism policy and destination competitiveness
with reference to theories, concepts, roles and relationships. What is missing in this
chapter is a more in-depth discussion on the link between tourism policies and destination
competitiveness and previous research done on this. Reference is made to this in chapter 2
but it is too little to gain a deeper understanding of the effect thereof. Overall the chapter
was well written and clear in argument.

Chapter 3 focuses on selected policies and their impacts on destination competitiveness in

Zimbabwe. Before discussing the various policies it is important to contextualize these.
How did the candidate select these policies? Why were they important in relation to
destination competitiveness? A number of pages is spend on visas and FDI as opposed to the
other policies - specific reasons for that? The section on lessons from other countries is
interesting and provides a broader perspective on these issues. More focus on similar
countries will add value to this section. The candidate critiques some of the previous
research which show his ability to identify gaps and problems. The lack of a number of
references used in the text is problematic and needs attention.

Author’s Response
 Section 2.6.2 was added to discuss in detail the link between tourism policies and
destination competitiveness. Focus was on studies carried out by Kim and Dwyer (2003)
on the impact of government policies on tourist flows between Korea and Australia. The
 analysis was also focused on a study done by Maharaj and Balkaran (2014), entitled: A
comparative analysis of the South African and Global Tourism Competitiveness models
with the aim of enhancing a sustainable model for South Africa. Findings in these studies
indicated a positive co-relation between government policies and destination
competitiveness.
 Section 2.6.2 also served to indicate previous studies done on this subject.
 A justification was added to the introduction of Chapter 3 (page 66) to explain why the
specific policies were chosen for analysis.
 Section 3.6.1 was added, which reviewed the Seychelles’ competitiveness. The
Seychelles was specifically added to this review because its policy framework is not very
competitive, but the overall rankings of the country is relatively good, leading the
researcher to ask why Zimbabwe is ranked so poorly, with an almost similar policy
environment?
 The sources for this review are the WEF reports. The WEF reports are the only scholarly
and scientific comparison of countries’ destination competitiveness.
EXAMINER’S COMMENT: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Chapter four deals with the research design and methodology. The candidate provided an
overview of which methods are available for research as well as discussed the specific
methods chosen for this study. In terms of the layout of the questionnaire (p116) it is
needed to add the sources used to develop the questionnaire. The population was identified
and a representative sample has been chosen. However the statement made on p 123 "'field
assistants just dropped the questionnaires at random at various institutions" question the
validity and representativeness of the data - this needs attention. The combination of
'dropping the questionnaires' and distributing these at the World Travel Africa Fair should
also be properly explained. How many questionnaires were gathered in each case and what
was the distribution between the various categories of institutions? Review the sampling
section.
In terms of the data analyses the candidate should motivate why certain methods were
chosen and not just what the method entails. Please review content validity in terms of
friends and the researcher's wife reviewing the questionnaire. Content requires experts for
review. Overall the chapter gave a good view of how the research was conducted.

Author’s Response
 Sources used to develop the questionnaire were added (p127 – Section 4.6.2.1)
 Data collection procedures were corrected to reflect the exact procedures followed in data
collection (p135 – Section 4.8). Statements which had something to do with
Sanganai/Hlanganani Travel Expo, and about “just dropping questionnaires at random”
as well as getting expert and non-expert opinion on content from students and “my wife”
were removed.
  Sampling section (Section 4.7) was amended to include purposive sampling in order to
get expert opinion from knowledgeable people in tourism policy and destination
marketing.
 The question on how many questionnaires were gathered is addressed in Chapter 5 on the
response rate and bio-data sections. Distribution of respondents according to sector
represented is indicated on page 149 (Section 5.4.3).
EXAMINER’S COMMENT: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The presentation of the findings is captured in chapter five. The researcher should ensure that
strategies were explored and discussed as indicated towards the end of the introduction
section as I miss that in the discussions.
It is recommended that:
 The candidate indicate the distribution of the questionnaires, in terms of category
representation, as part of the discussion on response rate (p132).
 Reference to figure 5.2 is wrong - delete this as 5.2 refers to age and not gender.
 Do not use 'we' in text.
 The fact that 20% of the respondents were academics, researchers and students
might influence their responses and this needs clarification.
 'Positive skewness' at the top of page 139 should be 'kurtosis'.
 In the discussions of the results I believe it is important to (where possible) provide
explanations for the results as part of the discussion.
 Improve the tables for the factor analysis by adding the names of the factors, the
CA's for the factors and the mean values. This can provide more information for
discussion about the factors. - This is needed for all the factor analyses conducted in
the study.
 "Policy making process" - was in the questionnaire but not in the factor
analyses - please clarify (p143).
 On page 144 reference is made to '……are having the most negative impact on ...' -
however the question did not quantify a positive or negative angle? - Please review
this paragraph and the next one.
 On page 148 the items as part of the factors shown in text differ from the table -
please correct these.
 I feel that it is important to add more references to the discussion of the findings.
 Hypotheses were tested - it is important to show in literature the relevance of these
hypotheses.
 On page 167 reference is made to 'the help' - what does this mean?
 The use and discussions on the factors should be improved.
 On page 170 'Introduce and enforce environmental laws' has a higher mean and
 should also be discussed.
 Correct the KMO in the discussion - 0.684.
 Delete the heading "Correlation Analysis" and add a more descriptive heading -
what do you want to achieve with the analyses might be a better heading. On this
section it is important to indicate where these variables come from - which are
these?

In general the discussions are good and more depth can be added with improved literature and
stating the purpose of these analyses.

Author’s Response
 The student did not indicate the number of questionnaires administered in each category
because there was no predetermined sample size for each cluster. This study did not use
cluster sampling where a predetermined sample size is used for each cluster. Random
sampling was used to choose the organisations from which purposive sampling was then
applied to choose the actual respondents. The sampling procedure was maintained
following the precedence set by studies carried out by Ndlovu (2009) entitled: Branding
as a strategic tool to reposition a destination: A survey of key tourism stakeholders in
Zimbabwe (Refer to Ndlovu, 2009:256 – Table 7.1); and Zikmund (2003) entitled: An
assessment of the Internet’s potential in enhancing consumer relationships. These
researchers randomly sampled institutions and organisations before drawing respondents
from the institutions/organisations. In administering the questionnaire, the student also
relied on availability of knowledgeable respondents on the subject matter. Therefore,
many questionnaires were administered to academics mostly because of ease access and
knowledge.
 Reference to Figure 5.2 on page 146 was changed to refer to age distribution of
respondents. Reference to Figure 5.2 on page 145 as referring to a Binomial Test on Sex
Distribution was deleted.
 I do not seem to find anywhere were “We” was used in this Chapter. However, every
effort has been made to avoid the use of ‘first person singular/plural’.

 The inclusion of academics in this study is in order. Academic opinion is highly valued in
any survey of any nature. To show that academics are not biased, this study showed that
amongst the tourism stakeholders in Zimbabwe, the academic sector is the least
 important. Had the academics been biased, they could have simply rated themselves as
the most important stakeholders in Zimbabwean tourism.
 The comment 'Positive skewness' at the top of page 139 should be 'kurtosis' was dealt
with as follows:
o “From the analysis, the most significant policy that was identified by the
respondents as having the greatest impact on destination competitiveness were the
Environmental Protection Policies whose mean rating was the highest, being
4.10, and as also evidenced by the leptokutic nature of the distribution with a high
positive skewness statistic of 0.970 along with a high negative skewness of -
1.191”
WAS REPLACED WITH:
o “From the analysis, the most significant policy that was identified by the
respondents as having the greatest impact on destination competitiveness were the
Environmental Protection Policies whose mean rating was the highest, being
4.10, and as also evidenced by the leptokutic nature of the distribution with a high
positive kurtosis statistic of 0.970 along with a high negative skewness of -1.191
(Now on page 150).
 Discussions, where possible, were improved throughout Chapter 5, focusing on how past
studies relate with the current findings.
 All the tables for the factor analysis w e r e i m p r o v e d by adding the names of
the factors, the CA's for the factors and the mean values.
 "Policy making process" - was in the questionnaire but not in the factor
analyses (p143). This is so because the factor analysis was on the actual policies NOT
the process. In analysing the impacts, the researcher sought to establish the policies that
were having the most important impacts (now on page 156). The analysis for the policy
making process is on Section 5.8.
 The reference on former page 144 (now on page 156) to '……are having the most
negative impact on ...' – was replaced with ‘………..are the policies which need
urgent attention in addressing the destination competitiveness of Zimbabwe’.
 The differences in items on former page 148 as part of the factors shown in text and
in Table 5.12 were corrected by deleting ‘a not so transparent policy making
process’ from Factor 1 (Now on page 161).
 More references were added to the discussion of the findings where possible. The
discussion for the factor on analysis on page 161 in particular was extended to include the
findings in the African Development Bank’s Africa Visa Openness Report (2016).
Findings from IATA (2014) and WEF (2013) were also discussed in line with the
benefits of improved air connectivity in Africa.
 On former page 167 reference is made to 'the help' - what does this mean? This was a
typing error. ‘The’ was deleted and replaced with ‘To’ (check now on Page
181).Factors were used and discussed further (Pages 183 – 184).
 On f o r m e r page 170 'Introduce and enforce environmental laws' w a s
highlighted as it had a mean of 4.27 (now Page 184). Discussion
 for the strategy was done on page 190. ‘Introduce and enforce
environmental laws’ had been left out in the discussion because
it was the only factor with a negative kurtosis statistic of -.069
but with a mean statistic of 4.27.
 The KMO in the discussion on Page 174 (now page 187) was corrected from 0.694 to
0.684.
 The heading "Correlation Analysis" ( f o r m e r p a g e 1 7 8 ) w a s d e l e t e d
and replaced with “Test of Multicollinearity” (now page
192).

EXAMINER’S COMMENT – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The conclusions and recommendations are made in chapter 6. More important I feel that the
researcher is very modest in writing the contribution of this research - the candidate needs
to be more specific and review what was said in chapter 1 about the contributions. The
development of the framework can be better discussed as part of the contributions. If you
develop a framework like this it is important to focus not only on the 'what' but also on the
'how'. The candidate should go a step further, for example, he suggests key and
secondary stakeholders should be consulted at all levels of policy formulation as that is
where the challenges lie. We all know that this should be done but how? This argument is the
same for the other parts of the framework. In this way the framework will mean much more
than it currently does.

Although the summary of the findings is a good read it is repetitive from chapter 5 - the
candidate should go beyond a summary. The conclusions were well written -
congratulations on that!

Author’s Response
 The contributions of the study were discussed in Chapter 6 only. More specificity was
brought into the discussion by stating that the contribution of the study was:
o Body of knowledge – the major contribution of study was highlighting the extent
to which tourism-related government policies contribute to the destination
competitiveness of Zimbabwe (p180 – 190).
o Practical contribution – the study contributed by advocating mostly the need for
government to promulgate tourism friendly legislation in all spheres of
government (p190 – 191)
o Methodological contribution – the study contributed by mixing quantitative and
qualitative techniques in data collection and sampling (p191).
 Components of the framework were all reviewed by adding “implementation strategy”
for each section. Insights from literature and newspaper articles were also used to
measure the levels to which the framework can be adopted to achieve destination
competitiveness (p199 – 203).
 I am not clear on the concern about the summary of findings. However, I feel that the
summary chapter should summarise the study from Chapters 1 – 4. Summary of findings
 can have an own section which summarises Chapter 5. I therefore agree that the summary
of findings is repetitive of Chapter 5, but very short and brief. The examiner is not clear
here whether the Summary of Findings Section should be removed.

EXAMINER’S COMMENT: TECHNICAL PRESENTATION

The overall technical quality of the thesis is good and the technical mistakes can be
corrected according to the hard copy. I am however concerned about the use of references.
Various sources in chapters 1, 2 and 3 (in excess of 50) have not been referenced in the
list of references. Please ensure proper reference to the following sources which were used
but not properly referenced: Determinants of tourism destination competitiveness: a
theoretical model and empirical evidence; towards a model to enhance destination
competitiveness: a Southern African perspective (Heath, E). Attention should be given to
the referencing of secondary sources. I checked the references up to page 39 but the whole
document should be reviewed.

Figures and Tables:

Information lacking in Figure 1.3
Improve Table 2.2 - wrong referencing
After updating all the references in text and reference list the technical editing should be
given attention.

Author’s Response
 Referencing was synchronised as much as possible.
 790 name-date citations were identified in the text but 543 citations had no matching
reference.
 199 references were listed in the reference list but 117 were NOT USED in-text.
 The new reference list is attached in the thesis.
 A detailed references report is provided for in a different report

I hope that you find the changes in order and the work on this Thesis gives it the merit to pass.

Thank you in advance

N. Zengeni
24748528