What should we make of the fact that the large-scale “intrusive” tourism we had in 2019 — and feared had returned in summer 2021 — was in many ways what we desired 20 years ago, in 2001?

The Hawaii Tourism Authority’s resident survey of 2001 showed that most people not only wanted more vacation rentals and tourists in communities and wilderness areas, but also thought visitors respected local people and (cautiously) supported growth.

Not everything was different back then — e.g., 82% agreed that “My island’s economy is too dependent on tourism.” But in other ways, what a change 20 years has made!

Resident opinion on tourism wasn’t always sought by industry or government leaders. The first and still largest state-sponsored survey was in 1988. I got to design and analyze that one (blame me for items like, “This island is run for tourists at the expense of local people”). Along with Market Trends Pacific, I also was responsible for the initial HTA surveys from 1999 to 2007.

The 2001 survey was taken just before 9/11 and got little attention then, but it’s an interesting benchmark, with results such as:

>> We should encourage visitors to spend more time and money throughout the island, not just in so-called “tourist areas” (combined “strongly” and “somewhat” agree of 87%).

>> We should encourage more visitor activity in wilderness areas (53% agree).

>> I generally feel having vacation rentals in my community is not a problem (70% agree).

>> Visitors usually treat local people with respect and equality (70% agree).

Back then, we wanted limits more on hotels and physical development, not tourists. About 70% agreed they wanted no more hotels (“even if more visitors come”), but only 27% thought “There are too many tourists on this island now.”

We had a few other questions about resident-visitor interactions, but stopped asking them after 2001 because they just didn’t seem to be issues. Maybe it’s time to ask again.

Other old findings may be worth revisiting. We tend to think tourism attitudes should link with perceived personal economic benefits, but the old surveys found little of that.

Rather, we found visitor industry workers had much the same beliefs about tourism as anyone else. We also learned residents did think tourism helps the economy, but they were more bothered then by problems they thought (correctly or not) tourism made worse: traffic, crime, housing costs.

Recent HTA surveys haven’t asked much about growth, which was once a big focus. In 2001, only 7% would halt tourism growth despite economic consequences. About 34% supported growth unless some other major industry emerged. And 45% supported “short-term” growth but thought long-term limits might be needed “even if we can’t find other major industries that will work here.”

By 2021, a survey I did with the University of Hawaii Public Policy Center found 52% wanted limits now (“if possible”).

Just 27% felt the visitor count should grow with demand.

So, should we discount resident attitudes because they can change or, arguably, be ill-informed?

That hardly seems wise for an industry based in part on the “aloha spirit” — and it’s been good to see the HTA working with counties on action plans to address impacts, not just conducting “educational” PR campaigns.

It’s also good to remember that earlier, better coordinated government efforts to manage tourism in communities or wilderness areas might have made for more successful dispersed tourism.

Still, we should be careful about knee-jerk responses to current passions, and have full public discussions about long-term consequences.

And we should be careful what we wish for in surveys — not only might we get it, we might eventually forget it was what we once wanted.